1. The Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society
(AIMS) released its public consultation paper last Friday, 29 August 2008.
2. In April, a group of 13 bloggers submitted proposals for the
deregulation of the Internet to the Minister for Information,
Communication and the Arts. It can be found at http://www.yawningbread.org/ybsamplerfiles/bloggerssub.pdf.
AIMS has put on the table some good, forward-looking options that move in
the directions proposed by us. AIMS' analysis of the state of the
technology and its impact on the relevance of the existing regulatory
assumptions were particularly lucid.
3. However, the consultation paper is silent on two aspects which
we consider fundamental, and which we had discussed at length in our April
proposals:
(a) Principles. There is a lack of principled recognition of
the value of the free flow of information as a critical enabling feature
of a mature and robust democratic process. The paper advises against the
government regulating what is "unregulable" given the
borderless nature of the Internet (paragraphs 1.09 and 1.10). This is
merely a concession to a practical impossibility, not an articulation of
the value of free expression. Articulating so would serve well as a
guide for future amendments to legislation.
(b) Process. There was no discussion on the process of
regulation. There seems to have been an assumption that the various
overlapping mechanisms – of bureaucratic regulation by the Media
Development Authority, the Board of Film Censors, and occasionally
through prosecution – would continue, with proposals for even more
panels, such as one for assessing political films (paragraph 4.57 of
AIMS' paper). In contrast, in our April submission, we had called for a
pruning of the processes, with particular emphasis on removing
administrative discretion, including the power to impose fines. We had
found the reliance on administrative discretion in the existing
regulatory system unsatisfactory. We argued that if truly needed, rules
should be written as law and violation of such laws be a matter for
prosecution in an open court. Transparency of process is important and
in this regard, we hope that AIMS will address this issue when they
finalise their report.
4. In the areas where AIMS has put forward proposals, we note
that it has taken a somewhat cautious and conservative approach. Here are
5 areas in which we have specific feedback:
(a) Films Act Section 33. Section 33 of the Films Act should be
repealed immediately and unconditionally. AIMS' consultation paper
suggested repealing it in phases. This is unnecessarily conservative.
The paper outlined 3 ways forward (paragraph 2.31). The first –
classification of political films – is absurd because voters are at
least 21 years old anyway, and such a proposal calls for even more
bureaucracy. In any case, as AIMS' paper pointed out, the technology is
already such that if anyone wishes to circumvent the rules by putting it
up on the Internet, there is no practical way to stop him. The second
– notification and right of reply – is also meaningless in practical
terms. The third – blackout during parliamentary elections – is the
most realistic of the three. Yet it still has definitional problems.
What is a "party political film"? How new is "new"?
The basic problem is AIMS' uncritical adoption of the idea that
"misleading" films may cause havoc (paragraph 2.35) and that
there is a way for gatekeepers to determine the "truth". Yet,
politically slanted videos are an integral part of the democratic
process and exposure to such material helps the electorate to exercise
and strengthen their faculties of political discernment.
Furthermore, as the paper pointed out, "the incumbent political
party may be said to have prior knowledge of when a General Election
would be called, and may release party political films just before
elections are called" (paragraph 4.73). Thus, a blackout period,
far from assuring neutrality, in effect introduces a bias.
Given these problems, we call for an unconditional repeal of Section
33 of the Films Act, with at most the stipulation that all election
advertising that promotes or opposes a candidate should include the name
and address of persons sponsoring such advertisements, as in the case of
Australia and Canada (paragraphs 4.38 and 4.40).
(b) Films Act Section 35. Section 35 of the Films Act should
also be repealed. This section empowers the Minister to ban any film at
his discretion. For example, Martyn See's video documentary Zahari's 17
years (mentioned in paragraph 4.45) was not banned under Section 33, but
under Section 35, yet AIMS' consultation paper does not propose the
repeal of Section 35.
(c) Parliamentary Elections Act and Regulations. We agree with
the suggestion to broaden the positive list for election advertising
(paragraph 4.79) with respect to Internet activities of political
parties and candidates during an election. However, it is worth asking
if, with the broadening, it is even necessary anymore to have a positive
list. We think it better if it is removed altogether.
Malaysia had a general election in March 2008 without regulations
circumscribing election advertising on the Internet, and by all accounts
from the people (apart from the government that saw losses) nobody
thinks the election was less democratic for it.
A number of Malaysian candidates raised money through Internet
appeals. Allowing online fundraising is a point that we feel AIMS' paper
should have addressed even as it recommended that political parties
should be allowed to use social networks (Web 2.0) in their election
advertising.
(d) Class Licence Scheme. The consultation paper
"recommends the removal of the registration requirement for
individuals and bodies of persons who provide any programme, for the
propagation, promotion or discussion of political or religious issues
relating to Singapore through the Internet websites" (paragraph
4.81) as adequate legislation is in place to deal with potential threats
to our society. We support this proposal.
However, there is room to take AIMS' proposal further. The entire
Class Licensing Scheme should be dismantled. The Class Licensing Scheme
is distinct from the registration requirement, in that it treats all
Internet sites as automatically licensed even if owners are not called
on to register. As automatically licensed sites, the Media Development
Authority (MDA) treats them as coming within the scope of the Internet
Code of Practice, and sees itself as having the power to impose fines on
any website owner for violating its Code of Practice. It is this kind of
regulation through administrative discretion that we have argued
against, for it is characterised by an opacity of process, and the free
hand given by the MDA to itself to write and interpret the Code of
Practice. As the AIMS' paper says, there is already adequate legislation
in place, whether to deal with child pornography or racial and religious
hate-mongering, so there is no remaining rationale for resorting to an
automatic class licence scheme administered by the MDA. The continuance
of such a scheme, with its inherent lack of certainty in interpretation
and limited avenues for recourse promotes self-censorship, which is the
antithesis of the engagement and active participation that the
consultation paper calls for, where "processes are more
transparent, eliciting the trust of its citizens" (paragraph 3.41).
(e) Symbolic ban on 100 sites. We agree with the proposal to
abandon the symbolic ban (mostly for pornographic content) on 100
websites. The consultation paper had argued – and we agree with its
analysis – that "the existence of the ban may give parents a
false sense of security when the reality is that the 100 websites are
merely symbolic. Furthermore, the symbolic value of these 100 websites
diminishes with the continued proliferation of websites with undesirable
content, and the increasing use of alternative methodologies like
file-sharing networks" (paragraph 5.90).
5. Overall, we find AIMS' proposals progressive. In the areas
discussed above, we urge AIMS to incorporate our feedback when they
finalise their report, and we hope that the government adopts all the
proposals so presented.
* * * * *
At the press conference, the reporter from the
Straits Times asked a question along these lines: It is said that internet
speech in Singapore tend to consist of rumours and half-truths, and
bloggers tend to adopt a cynical, antagonistic stance. How would it be
possible for the government to engage under these conditions?
I gave him an answer which I myself didn't think
was well-articulated, and when I asked the reporters in the room if they
understood what I was trying to say, I think the reporter from Zaobao said
she didn't. Straits Times however said he did, and so I said I would trust
him to paraphrase what I had rambled on about in a more intelligible form.
How my words are going to appear tomorrow, I have
no idea, but for the benefit of readers, let me explain my answer again,
for his was a good question.
First of all, I am not convinced that this
characterisation of internet users in Singapore is fair. It is just as
possible that this description is being billboarded by the government as
an excuse for not engaging with bloggers and forummers.
Even if there is some truth to it, it is necessary
to ask why this situation has arisen, and one will be led to the
conclusion that this attitude of digital citizens is really a reaction to
the attitude of the government. The government has repeatedly flagged its
suspicion of internet users and for years has adopted a hostile attitude
to opinions it is uncomfortable with, both online and offline. Its history
of remaining aloof and dismissive of online opinions has quite naturally
spawned the very alienation and cynicism of which it today complains.
Can it now say, let's wait for bloggers and
forummers to cure themselves of these ills before we engage with them? No.
Simply because these ills will persist so long as the government maintains
its aloof, even hostile, attitude. It is sincere engagement that will
eventually convince people otherwise. The government has to engage -- now
-- even if, especially if, this characterisation of
Singaporean netizens is to any extent true.
Last Friday (29 August 2008), while I was out of Singapore, the Advisory
Council on the Impact of New Media on Society ("AIMS") issued a
consultation paper on the way forward in bringing Singapore's internet
regulatory framework up to date. It can be found 
