~ By Ng E Jay ~

I simply don’t see the logic or the point of trying to develop an internet “Code of Conduct”. 

 
How is anyone going to enforce such a code of conduct given the free-wheeling nature of the internet that knows no geographical boundaries? How is any organization supposed to develop a code of conduct that will reflect the overall sentiment of netizens without incurring vast skepticism pertaining to their political neutrality or lack thereof? 
 
And what is the purpose of it all, when there are already adequate laws in place to deal with destructive behaviour like incitement to violence, sedition, sowing racial hatred, defamation, or spreading malicious rumours?
 
Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts, first mooted the idea of having an internet “Code of Conduct” on Monday 23 April when he spoke at a dialogue organised by the Singapore Press Club.
 
He said that one way of achieving what he terms a more “balanced” and “responsible” internet was for the online community to create and uphold a code of conduct.
 
Dr Yaacob said that “all of us have to decide how new media will help develop a good society and what values our young should grow up with“. (ST, “3 ways to get netizens to be responsible”, 24 April)
 
He also said that “there are people out there who want to make sure the internet doesn’t get killed by the downsides … and they are prepared to be part of the process“.
 
The internet “downsides”
 
Just what are the “downsides” that Dr Yaacob is referring to? The minister cited the recent examples of spreading rumours that children had been kidnapped, and that of the wrong boy being targeted by netizens for upsetting his neighbours with noisy drumming.
 
“Out of habit or even genuine concern, some may pass on the rumour without verifying, leading to unnecessary distress or panic. The bite-sized nature of such media also means that lines get taken out of context,” said Dr Yaacob. (TODAY, “Singaporeans must be aware of internet’s possible downsides: Yaacob”, 24 April)
 
And although not explicitly mentioned, Dr Yaacoh must also have in mind more serious forms of destructive behaviour, like making inflammatory comments concerning race, language or religion, or exhibiting extreme xenophobia towards either locals or foreigners, and so on.
 
However, there are already adequate laws in place to deal with such destructive behaviour, and in the past several years, there have been more than ample examples to show that law enforcement is both willing and able to crack down (whether justly or unjustly) on what it deems to be inflammatory speech that touch on race or religion.
 
In addition, members of the establishment have engaged lawyers to ask websites to take down what they deem as defamatory content, accompanied with the threat of lawsuits. 
 
In fact, there are concerns that current civil defamation laws are in serious need of an overhaul, as they lead to the wealthy elite being able to use their financial muscle to censor legitimate criticism. Developing a formal internet “Code of Conduct” will only make matters worse, as that will only give the elite more opportunities to clamp down on legitimate dissent.
 
And although laymen might not always have the financial means to address less serious cases of civil defamation, those cases involving criminal defamation are also covered by the penal code, and in such situations the public can address grievances by lodging police reports. Given historical precedence, I have no reason to doubt the willingness of law enforcement and the criminal justice system to deal with genuine cases of criminal defamation.
 
I believe that given the context of Dr Yaacob’s remarks, he was referring to less serious deviant behaviour such as deliberately or recklessly spreading misleading information, or displaying xenophobia that is (thankfully) not accompanied by threats of physical violence, such as China student’s Sun Xu remarks comparing Singapore citizens to certain breeds of canines.
 
But is there really a need to develop a formal code of conduct to cover such deviant behaviour? Sun Xu was disciplined by NUS after an outpouring of rage on the part of netizens. Even those people who were suspected to have deliberately spread false rumours about kidnappings have also been investigated by the police. 
 
When internet brickbat Gopalan Nair spread false online rumours (albeit in a tongue-in-cheek fashion) about the alleged demise of a certain prominent political leader in Singapore, he was taken to task very promptly by netizens, some of whom criticized him in the harshest of terms for a very bad sense of humour and lack of common decency (I was one of them).
 
More recently, when a young lady called National Servicemen weak after one serviceman had died in the line of duty, netizens also put her in her place and told her in no uncertain terms that such behaviour was not to be tolerated.
 
So as can be seen from these examples, netizens have already informally adopted certain unwritten rules and an intuitive understanding of what should constitute good and bad behaviour.
 
Is there a need then to try to formalize this into a “Code of Conduct”, when such a formality can easily lend itself to abuse, not to mention the vast amount of skepticism that would be directed at such an attempt from netizens who would very rightfully doubt the political neutrality of those in charge of creating this “Code of Conduct”?
 
“Constructive” websites
 
Dr Yaacob Ibrahim also proposed encouraging the setting up of websites that offer “serious viewpoints“, and “that can continue to offer constructive ideas and useful suggestions“.
 
This begs the question — who, if anyone, should decide what is “constructive” or “useful”? Surely not a committee comprising of bureaucrats who would inevitably look out for their own political interests. Surely not a group of internet vigilantes of questionable motives appointed by quasi-political grassroots to monitor online discourse like a pack of hounds ready to strike when their own values are under threat. 
 
Surely no single entity should decide, other than the collective wisdom of all internet participants, as has been the case thus far.
 
If the government is serious about encouraging bloggers to write constructively and maturely, they must take the first step by loosening up the political climate, and not wield the threat of lawsuits at the slightest provocation. They must show that they are not “deaf to criticism” as Lim Swee Say famously remarked to Low Thia Khiang, but are in fact appreciative of criticism.
 
When the authorities display sincerity and maturity in embracing opposing views, then netizens will be encouraged to respond constructively and maturely. Internet discourse will never mature under the oppressive thumb of an authoritarian regime. 
 
Conclusion – Don’t talk COC
 
A formal internet “Code of Conduct”, or COC for short, is not necessary in a cyber environment where netizens have already developed an informal, intuitive understanding of what should constitute good or bad behaviour, and when there are already adequate laws in place to deal with more serious destructive behaviour like inflammatory speech or incitement to violence. Laws that apply in the offline world already apply equally in the online world.
 
In addition, such a “Code of Conduct” will only give the wealthy elite yet another opportunity to try to censor legitimate criticism in addition to the use of lawsuits that obviously disadvantage those who do not have the same financial muscle.
 
There will also be great skepticism towards those in charge of developing such a formal code of conduct, regardless of who those people are. No entity or organization can ever be completely neutral. Even a working group supposedly comprised of netizens of all walks of life will be burdened with its fair share of skepticism. Remember what happened to the Association of Bloggers (ABS)? That did not survive one week!
 
There is no need for the government to try to develop an internet “Code of Conduct” to try to manage deviant behaviour, or worse, as yet another attempt to clamp down on dissent against government policies or the political system in Singapore. Such an attempt is not likely to gain much traction or be enforceable given the free-wheeling nature of the internet that is not constrained by geography.
 
Instead, there is a need for the government itself to loosen up and open up, to embrace new ideas rather than talk down to citizens. If the government wants netizens to behave constructively, it must first begin by playing fair itself.
 

 
This article first appeared on the author's website, sgpolitics.net
________________________
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

疫情下的选举?总理是这么说的

本月27日,总理在总统府接受《海峡时报》等本地主流媒体访问。对于如何决定选举的时机。对此总理表示,他不排除任何可能。   “我们不能排除任何的可能性,我们不知(冠状病毒19疫情发展)会怎样。如果我们像英国那样全面封锁,没有任何人能出走(出门),那么要组织任何事情包括选举都很不容易。”   但他指出如果经济大致上还能正常运作,大家还能办公、工作组织事情,即便不能大群体群聚,但还是能“把事情办得来”,仍可以采取适当措施,调整一般举行选举的方式。例如现在有互联网、公众媒体,传播信息便利,是可以做到的事。   他也提及例如以色列也在疫情下举行选举,至于美国部分州属也进行了总统初选,“这些是可以办到、解决的事。”   不过,新加坡前进党秘书长陈清木医生,在上周六也列出那些因为疫情而选择展延选举活动的国家。其中包括美国至少八个州属的总统初选活动都被展延;北马其顿、叙利亚、斯里兰卡、塞尔维亚、北塞浦路斯和玻利维亚等国都已展延全国大选。   【以色列月初选举 今累计确诊逾四千】…

44-yr-old Singaporean arrested and detained under ISA for terrorism-related activities

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has announced that a 44-year-old Singaporean…

政府投资公司对南韩恋爱主题酒店Yanolja融资

路透社昨日(11日)报导,新加坡政府投资公司(GIC)联同美国Booking控股,对南韩民宿预订和恋爱主题旅社连锁业者“Yanolja”,投资高达两亿美元。 在韩语,“Yanolja”的意思是“嘿,让我们玩吧”。 这项融资使得“Yanolja”的估值升至10亿美元。恋爱酒店可以廉价收费提供客户低至数小时的钟点住宿。然而,这类酒店过去为当地社会所诟病,被指助长婚外情、娼妓和隐藏针孔摄像头,一些酒店花俏的装饰和低暗灯光,也玷污了这类酒店的声誉。 Yanolja在2005年创立,创办人李秀珍,之前也是爱情酒店管家。他的搜索网站逐步转变成为爱情酒店经营者的广告平台。2004年南韩推行反卖淫法,他们不得不另开门路寻找流失的客户。 而如今的Yanolja总裁金志云(KimJong-yoon)则有意改变爱情酒店过去的负面形象,并瞄准寻找短租的经济型旅客或千禧夫妇客户群。 金志云表示:“我可以很骄傲地宣称我们为整个行业带来转型。”他说,“过去许多人对于住爱情酒店感到难为情,但如今我们已吸引了旅行客人,这是最大的转变。”他也渴望能把业务拓展至全球。 尽管去年收入翻了一番,但该公司仍然在合并报表基础上亏损。金志云表示,该公司的目标是在2022年之前,能公开发行IPO。 新加坡在2009年加紧对钟点旅店管制 反观在2009年9月,我国时任贸工部高级政务部长易华仁曾在新加坡国会指出,新加坡250家酒店近半都有提供钟点住宿预订,并宣布对这类提供钟点住宿的酒店加紧管制。 而酒店业者要申请营业执照,也会符合酒店牌照局规定的先决条件,包括如有意提供短时间住宿收费,就要解释原因。为了确保住客的安全和避免非法活动,酒店也必须采取预防措施,例如安装电眼和增派保安人员。 当时易华仁表示,酒店牌照局也会和相关单位监督在酒店业可能出现的妨碍社会风化行为。  

男子惊见坐轮椅送外卖 女送货员举止激励人心

一名男子透过GrabFood帮妻子订了一杯巧克力泡泡茶,但是等了外卖服务半小时,奶茶还没有送来。当他开始等到不耐烦时,一名坐在电动轮椅的女子、行动不便的女子,却带着他订购的巧克力泡泡茶出现。男子感到非常惭愧和不忍,事后更把此事件在社交网站上分享,网民纷纷表示,“她的不易,勉励了我们要感恩”。 Shahril Jantan昨日在脸书上贴文,分享了和他为妻子订泡泡茶的过程。文中他指出,订购的奶茶店在淡滨尼,到他位于勿洛蓄水池一带的住家单位,车程需要10到12分钟,脚车程需要15到20分钟,而使用电动踏板车也只需要12到15分钟。 泡泡茶迟迟不来 顾客不耐烦 他表示,当时等了半个小时,泡泡茶还没送到,就感到非常不耐烦了。 他当时用应用程序查看送货员的行程时,发现送货员的进程比想象中还慢。“我当时就想,送货员是不是走路过来的,还是他使用了其他的交通工具。” 过后他更发现,送货员竟然走错了停车场的入口,令他感到耐性到了极点。 Shahril Jantan表示,但是当他从窗口往楼下看时,看到了令他惊讶和羞愧的一幕,一名坐在电动轮椅的送货员来到他的楼下,正在缓慢地前进。 “我有预感,她就是我的送货员,我急了下楼去见她。我到楼下时,她已经到了电梯处,我的心感到非常沉重。” 他即刻趋前询问,是否就是从淡滨尼送饮料过来的送货员时,女子点点头,说是的。“我感到很心痛,有点情绪化,但是因为她在我身边,所以我尝试保持冷静。”…