Yawning Bread. 5 February 2009

Shield us good, mock us bad, says Lui

    

  

 
He didn't say it that way, but that was basically what Lui Tuck Yew meant. Here is the Straits Times report:

5 February 2009
The Straits Times

Online attacks: Minister rues lack of self-policing 
Opportunity lost for online community to regulate itself, says Lui 

By Zakir Hussain, Political Correspondent

When MP Seng Han Thong was set on fire by a Yio Chu Kang resident last month, he drew many online attacks that were vicious.

Some were 'downright outrageous', said Senior Minister of State (Information, Communications and the Arts) Lui Tuck Yew in Parliament yesterday.

He was referring to postings that included statements saying Mr Seng deserved to be assaulted and a list of 10 things he should 'be thankful for' in spite of being attacked.

But instead of silencing these attackers, the online community largely bit their tongue.

The tepid response of netizens to the nasty comments disappointed Rear-Admiral (NS) Lui, who said it was 'quite apparent the Internet is not an effective self-regulated regime as some may have touted it to be'.

RADM Lui was replying to Ms Penny Low (Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC), who had asked for his views on netizens' response to the physical attack on Mr Seng, MP for Yio Chu Kang.

He said: 'I do not think the community itself has done enough to rebut some of these unhelpful comments delivered by fellow netizens.

'It is a squandered opportunity for a higher degree of self-regulation.It would have been an example of the genesis, of the first steps, towards a more responsible, greater, self-regulatory regime.

'But many of those responses were not rebutted or answered, and I think it is not healthy for some of this to remain on the Net unchallenged, unquestioned and unanswered.'

RADM Lui also urged netizens to do more to define acceptable online conduct.

Ms Low noted that netizens had voted quite unjustly in an online poll.

The poll posted on wayangparty.com had asked who deserved more sympathy: Mr Seng or his attacker Ong Kah Chua. The ex-cabby received 200 votes and Mr Seng, 56.

RADM Lui noted that there were some comments sympathetic to Mr Seng.

But, he added: 'The vast majority were unhelpful, a significant number were unkind, a small number were downright outrageous.

'It was disappointing.'

Madam Cynthia Phua (Aljunied GRC) related how sometimes, positive comments her friends wanted to make on some political sites were rejected, and asked how such sites could be open to all.

Said RADM Lui: 'I don't think we want to establish a regime where we regulate and direct the proprietors of the sites to take measures where they have to accept all comments.'

Ms Low had earlier asked him whether local netizens were mature enough to enter a self-regulated online regime and how such a regime could be developed.

RADM Lui said his ministry had not done any studies to assess their maturity level, and added: 'It would be quite apparent the Internet is not an effective self-regulated regime as some may have touted it to be.'

Rumours and lies were prevalent online, as were flaming and cyber bullying, thus netizens had a critical role to play, he said.

'Individual bloggers ought to be responsible and accountable in their postings. Website proprietors and the online contributors must be responsible and prompt in moderating the sites to ensure credibility, objectivity and balance in the content posted,' he said.

'Netizens can and should do more to establish and enforce the norms of acceptable online behaviour.'

 

Background

Seng Han Thong, a long-time People's Action Party Member of Parliament, was set on fire by a disgruntled constituent, Ong Kah Chua, on 11 January 2009. 

Ong has been charged in court but the case has been held back pending a report from the Institute of Mental Health. 

Seng suffered 14 percent burns and had to undergo skin grafts. He is currently recovering.

 
Notice the word "enforce". Is that what Lui wanted moderators to do in this case? 

Lui's perception may be coloured by this own vulnerabilities as a PAP man himself. Firstly, I don't think there were many blogs that wrote "vicious" things about Seng post attack. I may be wrong since the story didn't interest me enough to want to follow it, but most of the unkind words were on online forums, often in the form of one-liners. Yet, on the same forums were comments that pointed out that such sentiments were unfair. Perhaps the latter were outnumbered -– I don't know if anyone made a count, or even if a count would be meaningful.

To give readers a flavour of what went on, I'll take the example of a Youtube video made purportedly by a certain Wendy Neo that lauded the attacker as a "national hero". A link to it was put on Hardwarezone's forum on 14 Jan 2009, at 9:38 pm. 

The video was a little thin on substance but it seemed to make the point that the door to constitutional change is closed, following Lee Kuan Yew's comment: "Please do not assume that you can change government. Young people do not understand this. Without the elected president and there is a freak result, within two or three years, the army would have to come in and stop it." That being the case, violent revolution is justifiable, and Ong's attack understandable. Or at least that's how I read the video's message.

Hardwarezone's MacGuffin said on 14 Jan 2009, 09:55 pm: "... her opinion is unjustifably [sic] skewed." 

Eleven minutes later, the same forum's Fox1 wrote: "Can you imagine if the person burnt is your father? Who shall gloat then?" (14 Jan 2009, 10:06 pm).

One minute after that, Radish said: "seng han thong is not a gd person. v proud not v helpful dont really understd how ppl feel at the bottom level but he dont deserve to be firebombed. violence is not the way to resolve things!!!!"

There were unsympathetic views. For example, Shidenx at 10:15 pm the same night said: "since when elites know how peasants feel? He condescended and offended people. Action and reaction."

When Hardwarezone's The Davis posted (14 Jan 2009, 10:32 pm) that "heard from news he is suffering in pain now", Lucifer at 10:33 pm said, "Really??? That's nice to hear."

What did online speech show in this case? That there are a number of vocal Singaporeans who dislike the PAP so much that they find glee in the fact that someone, even a mentally disturbed person, would physically attack a PAP man. But there were also people quick to point out that such means do not deserve support.

What level of moderation did Lui expect? Should the unsympathetic comments be deleted? Should these persons be barred? Is that what he meant by "enforced"?

I don't think Lui understands what are the justifiable limits to free speech. Saying things hurtful to people in power is not a reason for censorship. Nor is expressing childish sentiments.

The justifiable limits are when speech is used to mobilise people to cause hurt, e.g. on racial grounds. In fact, quite often, even this kind of mobilisation is tolerated, for example when Christian fundamentalists mobilise over the internet to deny equal rights to gay people or when Muslim fundamentalists advocate medieval restrictions on women. Another justifiable limit would be when there is invasion of privacy, e.g. distributing illicitly obtained videos of someone having sex. This too has defences, such as when a sex video is intended to expose as a lie a public personality's claim of sexual morality. Such an exposé serves a public purpose.

The way Lui has put it is quite different. He seems to be saying that since moderators did not enforce a situation where only one view could a expressed -– a view that would deplore the actions of the attacker and sympathise with Seng -– the "Internet is not an effective self-regulated regime as some may have touted it to be."

Did moderators fail in their jobs when they chose not to shield PAP members from unkind remarks? The junior minister is using a very self-serving test to make his judgement.

© Yawning Bread 

 

I was intrigued by Cynthia Phua's tale that "sometimes, positive comments her friends wanted to make on some political sites were rejected, and asked how such sites could be open to all." 

Which sites she was referring to, I don't know, but I hereby invite Cynthia Phua to pen an article for Yawning Bread on this or any other topic of political interest to her – she can even ask one of her friends to ghost-write it for her – and I will put it up on Yawning Bread. It will of course be subject to normal editorial standards of this site, which are quite liberal; and naturally, it will be open to comments too.

 

Footnotes

None

Addenda

None