~ 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

社论:有10亿元预算 尚穆根需解释为何移民局仍人手不足?

昨日,内政部长尚穆根告诉我们,我国的移民与关卡局面对人手不足问题,在面对年末佳节期间,每天出入境关卡的客流量比平时增加10巴仙,而且还必须增加500余关卡人员加班。 但即便如此,兀兰和大士关卡堵塞和交通混乱的投诉仍不断增加。 尚穆根指出,移民局人手仍不足,因为关卡人员只能由新加坡人来担任。但他辩解,人手短缺并非只在移民局出现,许多部门也面临同样问题。 为了应对比平时更多的通关客流量,500多名关卡人员必须加班工作,在佳节期间,只有10巴仙的职员获准拿假。 针对一些柜台关闭的情况,尚穆根解释职员都是根据实际的需求进行部署,职员根本没有闲暇翘脚,他们可能被调派到人流量更高的岗位,长时间工作。 往好的方面想,显示移民局关卡人员为了确保通关国人和旅客的安全,已经连日不休坚守岗位工作。 我们敬重并感谢这些坚守岗位的关卡人员,为了旅客的安全,他们已尽最大的努力,甚至必须牺牲陪伴家人的时间,加班应付年末出入境人潮。 但是,如果我们知道2018年拨款到移民局的预算,高达10亿1416万2300元,还比2017财政年预算多出近两亿元,尚穆根必须向民众解释,何以无法解决移民局人手不足的问题? 预算比去年增加了,理应绩效表现该有所提升才对,反之,民众却要面对更堵塞的通关情况,有者还要等通关在车上忍尿超过八小时! 看来尚穆根有必要向民众交代,移民局如何使用今年度超过10亿元的预算?为何关卡人员人手仍不足?

独居老人在外漂泊三天终被寻获 义工组织冀给予更多关怀

新加坡人口趋向老龄化,独居老人的问题也随之浮出台面,他们在无依无靠的情况底下,很可能成为社会最为弱势群体;近日,义工组织“Mummy Yummy”则分享独居老人在外漂泊三天的故事,呼吁民众多关心独居老人问题。 义工组织“Mummy Yummy”于周日(27日)在脸书专页分享,近日在服务期间遇到一位85岁的独居老人“惹拉爷爷”,惹拉爷爷在组屋里独自生活,并且不与其他邻居打交道,他甚少出门,义工就为他准备三餐送上门。 但组织表示,尽管他足不出户,爷爷也相当警觉,例如他因为独自生活,若发生任何意外可能无法立即获救,因此他晚上睡觉也不会把门关起。因此该组织表示,当他们发现爷爷并没有把食物拿走时,他们已经有所警惕,在连续三天后,爷爷的食物依然无任何动静,他们便立刻向警方求助。 当警方赶到住处时发现爷爷并不在屋内,便允诺会找寻失踪的爷爷。组织在报警后六个小时后,终于警察寻获爷爷,并将他安全带回住处,爷爷还亲自拨通电话报平安。组织后来向爷爷了解事情经过,才得知失踪当晚,爷爷自个出门却没有带够钱坐巴士回家,加上无法走路回家以及手机没电,因此只能在外流浪。 爷爷表示他自己并没有向其他人求助,担心会被误以为是坏人而被抓走,因此才会在外流浪三天,最后才被警方发现。 送餐形同对老人的持续关注 该组织也倡议,协助送餐给独居老人虽然在外人眼里看来是相当麻烦的工作,但这一餐不仅仅是一餐,更是对独居老人的持续关注与人文关怀,尽管意外并不是经常发生,但却在关键时刻是起了很大的作用。 最后他们也感谢警方的办案效率以及协助把老人安全送回家。此文贴出也引来网民关注,目前已获得587赞与转载383次。 义工组织Mummy Yummy旨在向有困难的本地人发送素食食物,在志愿者的帮助下,将食物送到他们手中的本地义工团体。…

South Asian family who infected airport worker didn’t arrive from India; But did they come from India via Nepal?

In a Straits Times report about a joint statement from the Transport, Foreign…