~ By Shermon Ong ~

Recently, there has been much debate over the Code of Conduct (COC) proposed by the government, ostensibly something that will informally regulate the conduct of online discourse, especially political discourse. Socio-political sites and bloggers will be expected to adhere to this COC and weed out any behaviour contrary to this COC. Predictably, and rightly so, there has been a huge uproar online over this proposal as various sites, bloggers, forums and netizens view this as but another tool wielded by the government to clamp down on political discourse, especially those that are critical of their policies. This proposed COC, however, misses the underlying issue that the government should resolve – that of distrust between the citizens and the government.

The distrust was not built up over the period of days, weeks, months or even years. Rather, it was a series of actions spanning back decades that destroyed the trust that citizens had in the government, especially when it came to political discourse. Over the course of the years, citizens have seen some opposition political figures being sued for defamation over discourse that is political in nature. These defamation suits were mostly found for the claimants, who were mostly members or ex-members of the ruling party. The substance of these decisions is not the focus of this article. Rather, even if we allow the fact that some, if not all, of these suits are justified, to the average citizen, these suits are perceived to be tools used by the government to clamp down on the political discourse. To them, they will ask, “How can I trust that the government will not sue me for defamation if I make political statements?” Other than defamation suits, citizens will always perceive the threat of the Internal Security Act (ISA) hanging over them, especially with the 1987 Marxist conspiracy arrests still relatively fresh in their minds. This series of actions has, as Mr Siew Kum Hong rightly pointed out, contributed to a repressed political climate in Singapore, especially when it came to political discourse.

This situation experienced a paradigm shift when the advent of the Internet and social media allowed the common citizen to express his/her views on the Internet freely, especially under the cloak of anonymity. Socio-political blogs and sites sprung up to give their views of various governmental policies with the space that was previously not afforded under the mainstream media. Forums were abuzz with comments from netizens over issues. More importantly, the vast majority of these views were anti-government. The government did not know how to react initially to this new phenomenon. Suddenly, they faced a torrent of criticisms that were always simmering underneath the surface but were released with the advent of the Internet.

The distrust was set in further when The Online Citizen was gazetted by the government (effectively perceived as an attempt to neuter the site), threatening of legal action against the only editor of Temasek Review Emeritus who was brave enough to step forward, labelling the cyberspace as a ‘cowboy town’ etc. Now with this proposed COC, is it any wonder that it is perceived as a further clamp down on space for political discourse in Singapore by citizens?

Regulation to address distrust?

What the government has failed to realise is that the torrent of anti-government voices online is due to distrust and no amount of regulations is going to solve that. In fact, such regulations are blunt tools that will not only fail to solve the underlying issue of distrust but also serve to deepen the distrust, worsening the situation. It is not disputed that the government or members of the government has the right to enforce its legal rights via defamation suits, regulations or even the power to use the ISA. However, the fact that they can use a tool does not mean that they should use it. After all, when solving a problem, one has to look at nature of the problem and its underlying issues before utilising the most appropriate tool and such tools are definitely not appropriate for solving distrust. Also, one can only wonder how regulations can be enforced effectively against online entities that are amorphous and possess the cloak of anonymity or even extra-jurisdictional powers which will render such regulations toothless?

Another effect of the COC is that those who will most likely be compelled to adhere to it are the prominent socio-political sites and bloggers who have bravely stepped out and identified themselves. These sites and bloggers are precisely the ones who offer a more balanced view as compared to others who may be less prominent but anonymous. If the government has always been encouraging of “constructive criticisms”, then they should allow these sites and bloggers to continue functioning without undue interference, be it COC or other regulations. In the online world, being tacked with a “Government-approved” stamp is most certainly a death-knell for any site or blog. By making them adhere to the proposed COC, one can only wonder how long more will these sites and blogs remain prominent and who will take their place. Is the COC going to be an overly strong weed-killer that kills not only the weeds but good plants as well? There is no guarantee that those who rise to fill the void won’t be even more extreme.

Lastly, the COC is an example of the distrust the government has towards the netizens. It is a worry that the netizens won’t be able to self-regulate and a paternalistic approach is needed. However, in the recent racist comment case by a Singaporean girl, the netizens’ response has been one of criticism. Also, it is not uncommon to find on some socio-political sites moderate voices that decry certain extreme and unjustified views. Granted, these voices may be in the minority but this shows that netizens are able to discern what kind of discourse that transgresses the baseline, such as racial or religious views. Even in a cowboy town, there are informal codes of honour and the sheriffs of yesteryears regulate with a light touch, knowing that such informal codes help to ensure some form of consistency in behaviour.

Distrust is not something that can and should be solved with extra regulations or legal tools. The latest proposed COC is an example of a government that fails to recognise the underlying issue of distrust. Distrust can only be dispelled with its converse – trust. That takes years to build up through words backed up by solid action on the part of the government. The government would do well to adopt a softer PR-centric approach instead of resorting to blunt tools that do not solve distrust. In the Shared Values White Paper released in 1991, the government talked about the “concept of government by honourable men (君子)… who have the trust and respect of the population, fits us better than the Western idea that a government… should always be treated with suspicion unless proven otherwise.” Perhaps, it is high time for the trust to be reciprocal and two-way, that the government trusts and respects its citizens and should not always treat them with suspicion unless proven otherwise.

________________

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

骑个人代步工具少年 涉撞倒6岁男童被捕

涉嫌撞倒6岁男童,17岁的个人代步工具男骑士被逮捕。 警方接获投报,事件于周日(12月29日)凌晨12时42分,在滨海湾金沙购物中心(The Shoppes)附近的海滨坊(Bayfront)道10号上发生。 警方披露,6岁男童在被送到竹脚妇孺医院时,已经恢复意识了。 17岁的男骑士是在鲁莽行动导致他人受伤的罪名下,被逮捕。警方调查尚在进行中。 个人代步工具撞倒行人事件不时发生,因少部分鲁莽使用者危及行人安全,已引起社会群体的重视和挞伐。 政府重视有关课题,并于本周三开始实施电板车禁止在行人道上行驶禁令,并设定只有年满16岁的人士可以使用代步工具,“生命可贵”,盼请各位骑士们做好准备,遵守禁令、也顾虑他人以及自身的人身安全。

去年出生率跌八年来最低点 政策、生活成本皆影响生育意愿

去年我国婴儿出生率降到八年来的最低点,加剧人口老化问题。 据移民及关卡局2018年出生死亡统计显示,去年共登记了3万9039名新生儿,比2017年减少了1.5巴仙。 该报告也指出去年的死亡人数增加了1.8巴仙,从2017年的2万零905人增加到2万1282人。 人口老龄化意味着自1998年死亡人数到达1万5657人后,死亡人数一直呈上升趋势。 我国的总生育率也从2017年的1.16,降到去年的1.14,远低于国际上认可的育龄妇女平均生2.1个孩子的生育率。 根据经济学人智库(EIU)发布的2019年全球生活成本指数,新加坡连续5年成为全球生活成本最高的城市,新加坡居民在租房购房、医药、汽车价格等方面的花销,平均比纽约居民高出约七巴仙。 总理办公室在2016年的婚姻和家庭育子普查,有61巴仙受访者提及,经济能力因素是导致他们不想要、或不想多生孩子的主要原因。然而,过去仍有行动党议员如宏茂桥集选区议员杰乐(Darryl David),在访谈时指“从未有人告诉他,因为生活成本太高而不想要生孩子。” 此前,也有网民形容生养孩子如同“马拉松赛”,要不要生孩子,是很私人的决定,但是决定过程也经过多方面的考量,包括:在高生活水平的新加坡,一个年轻家庭的开销;政府亲外来人才的政策,都可能影响孩子未来就业和前途是否稳定的机会成本。 政策、生活成本等因素影响生育意愿 新加坡国立大学社会学家陈恩赐副教授表示,出生率的下降趋势将普遍持续,这是一个值得关注的问题,因为要确保维持充足的经济活力,并支持老龄化人口,补充人口是必须的。 新加坡社会科学院社会学家康顺雄指出,出生率反映了当前的社会经济趋势,如更多的年轻人选择单身、晚婚和高龄产子等。…

Disciplinary action taken against officers for escape

Wong Kan Seng informs Parliament that eight officers have been disciplined for Mas Selamat’s escape.

犹如战场:香港中文大学爆发大规模冲突 多名学生受伤

香港示威活动不断升级,自上周五一名大学生周梓乐示威期间坠楼后身亡,示威者为悼念他,于11月11日发起“三罢行动”,最后还衍生出警民冲突,警方在清场过程中,更是开枪射伤两名示威者,其中一名示威者情况危及。 然而,示威活动并没有因此平息,反而加剧了冲突。 综合港媒消息指出,昨日(12日)各区爆发大规模示威行动,示威者堵路并焚烧示威者晚上多次堵路并焚烧离物,警方除了施放催泪弹驱散之外,亦出动炮车射水,有示威者投掷汽油弹。 入夜后,大批防暴警察闯入中文大学、城市大学、香港大学、理工大学等校园,其中以中大最为惨烈。 据《立场新闻》报道,防暴警察在闯入校园后,施放大量催泪弹与橡胶子弹,同时拘捕多名示威者,而学生则以投掷转头、汽油弹等激烈反抗。 《路透社》则形容,香港中文大学数百名示威者聚集在校园内,与防暴警察激烈抵抗,现场状况惨烈,犹如战场。 香港中文大学校长段崇智则曾在傍晚到场调停,学生要求警方撤出校园并释放被捕者,但由于防暴警察称校长无法控制身后学生,称并非谈判的时候,要求他立即离开,随后警方与学生再次爆发冲突,而段崇智则被催泪弹击中,也在催泪弹中离开现场。 暴力升级影响港民 由于示威活动的暴力情况升级,为避免再有人收到伤害,香港教育局宣布停课,并表示由于受到示威者的广泛破坏,亦有学校遭受不同程度的威胁,因此宣布暂时停课。 教育局强烈谴责此等故意危害学童安全、剥夺学生学习基本权利的行为。 香港新界交通金早上再次陷入严重瘫痪,东铁及荃湾线全线暂停,西铁线荃湾西至屯门亦无列车服务,巴士亦只能提供有限度服务。 许多市民已无法正常上班。…