Lord Puttnam

By Kirsten Han

In 2002, Lord David Puttnam – an established, well-respected film producer who has been behind hits such as Chariots of Fire – was part of a committee involved in the drafting of the Communications Bill, later passed as the 2003 Communications Act in the United Kingdom.

Back then the Internet was barely, if at all, considered. It was, as Lord Puttnam explained, shoved into the “too difficult” drawer.

11 years on, the Internet can no longer be ignored. Speaking before a small audience in SMU on Friday night, Lord Puttnam addressed the move in media consumption from television and print to digital devices.

With more and more people turning to the Internet and mobile devices for their news, considerations of media regulation have also had to move. Laws that apply to offline media should also apply to online media, Lord Puttnam argued, pointing out cases of defamation and hate speech online that have attracted the same legal repercussions as they would have had they been printed in a newspaper or broadcast on television.

Of plurality and parity

But there was also another point on which he put plenty of emphasis: the media’s “duty of care” to the social and democratic values of its country and its public. As journalists and content producers, the media has a duty to provide information that would allow citizens to participate in a democratic society.

The plurality of such media – offering different perspectives and takes on issues – is also important in fostering a well-informed citizenry. Plurality is key, he said, in preventing one particular group or media organisation from having too much influence on public opinion and discourse.

The plurality of media also prompts the issue of parity, particularly in terms of regulation and legal liability. Should online media be regulated the same way as mainstream media? And if so, how then can we regulate such a diverse and fluid environment?

Lord Puttnam speaks at SMU about New Media Regulation in the UK.
Lord Puttnam speaks at SMU about New Media Regulation in the UK.

The Internet has begun to establish its own integrity,” Lord Puttnam said when TOC put the question to him. He highlighted quality social networks such as Ted and Avaaz who he believes to be leading the way in ethical online activity, saying that such platforms show that the Internet is capable of seeking its own balance and integrity in a diverse space. “We’re going through a period of chaos,” he said, referring to the relative newness of online media.

Online users themselves can also be counted upon to regulate the Internet. “There are some egregious examples that we should all be jumping on, and not waiting for legislation,” he said.

Lord Puttnam was not against legislation, and acknowledged that it was necessary as a means for establishing parity between traditional and online media. He cited specific laws, such as those concerning defamation, harassment and hate speech, which in the UK apply to both traditional and online media.

The Singapore context

It is easy to understand the UK’s confusion and struggle with the acknowledgement and regulation of online media. Singapore, too, is faced with questions of how to manage the speed and volume of content posted on social media.

When it comes to the Internet, talk of professional standards and integrity can quickly seem meaningless. The Internet is different precisely because one does not have to be a ‘professional’ to get a chance to be published and have one’s voice heard. Any person with a connection and some basic know-how is able to set up a Facebook, Twitter or blog account, and begin engaging in debate and conversation with a potentially large audience.

In his examples of Ted and Avaaz, Lord Puttnam recommended for the Internet to seek its own balance. Such a view is somewhat at odds with that of Singapore’s situation, where the government has decided to use legislation and state regulation in an attempt to establish some form of control over online content and behaviour.

The licensing framework introduced in 2013 targeting news websites is one such example. Rather than wait for the Internet to “establish its own integrity”, the government has chosen to license popular news websites. Yet this move has failed to address the original question: How does one regulate such a diverse space, where anyone from anywhere could post anything at any time?

That is not to say that current legislation in Singapore does not already regulate online media. With the latest announcement made by the Law Minister, legislation such as defamation, harassment and hate speech already apply to both traditional and online media.

As such, there is already parity between the mainstream and online media in terms of the application of these laws; one could be sued for defamatory statements posted on a website just like one could be sued for defamatory statements printed in a newspaper. As such, the often-cited reason for the licensing framework – to establish parity between traditional and online media – can barely be substantiated, because these laws already apply to both.

Unfortunately, what 2013’s licensing framework has achieved is to place a burden upon fledging news websites, making it harder for them to carry out their work. Often, these websites are precisely the responsible, organised ones that we should be encouraging; the irresponsible rumourmongers and abusers tend to be anonymous and difficult to pin down.

As Singapore’s media regulations continue to impose onerous demands on websites, we find ourselves inadvertently destroying the very plurality of the media that Lord Puttnam highlighted as being crucial in the fostering of an engaged citizenry in a democratic society.

With media plurality already an issue in a landscape where our newspapers, radio and television stations are largely operated by two big corporations, the Internet is the best place for Singaporeans to find a wider range of perspectives and views. The information provided can contribute to a more politically mature conversation on Singapore’s direction. We should be careful that this potential is not stamped out in efforts to make sure that everyone “reads the right thing”.

Top image from the Official Website of David Puttnam, insert image courtesy of the British High Commission Singapore.

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

Six things the government can reveal in the interest of protecting public trust but hasn't

If you’ve been following the case of the Singaporean single-mother who has…

新加坡外交部吁国人挪后往香港行程

新加坡外交部吁请国人,如非必要宜挪后前往香港行程。 该部在脸书发文指出,有鉴于香港自6月以来,大规模集会示威仍在持续,示威活动可在毫无预警之下发声,且有转变为暴力的可能。 该部称,在12日及13日在香港机场的集会,也导致许多航班被取消,游客滞留机场。 对于已人在香港的国人,外交部重申宜保持警惕,关注香港警察脸书专页并留意最新局势进展。 该部再次呼吁人在香港国人到该部官网登记,方便外交部在必要时与他们取得联系。 如需驻港领事馆或外交部协助,可联系: 新加坡驻香港总领事馆 电话: +852-2527-2212 或 +852-9466-1251 (下班时间之后)…

别让老人太劳累 司徒国辉冀反思人力政策

新加坡美食大使司徒国辉,呼吁应该重新思考人力政策,不应以缺乏年轻劳动力为由,就意味着可强迫老年人到餐饮业,从事辛苦的劳动工作。 司徒国辉于今日(29日)在脸书上转载他自身的部落格指出,直指人力政策应该重新思考定位,老年人应该享有更好的生活,不应将被年轻人忽视的工作,例如餐饮行业,强迫老人接手,他们值得更好的。 “仅仅因为年轻人没有将焦点放在这些工作上,也不意味着你必须强迫雇佣老年人劳动军团,请照顾好我们的老一辈。“ 文章内指出,他自2018年来,就一直在研究这种现象。他表示,小贩们一直为大多数新加坡人提供便利的服务,亦曾向联合国教科文组织申请将新加坡小贩文化列入“非物质文化遗产代表名录”,甚至在疫情期间,显得更是无比重要,可见小贩文化不可忽视。 然而,因人力政策的影响,小贩中心不得放弃雇佣客工担任小贩中心较为辛苦的工作。他认为,许多小贩都愿意以两千以上的薪水,聘请老人管理档口,但由于长时间的体力劳动,反而让他们身心俱疲。 他也举例,一名公民瑞芳为了能够协助父母,放弃了大学学位,回家继承虾面档口。每日都必须起早贪黑,从对虾子的处理到煮虾面,无一需要强而有力的体力活。为了能够全面照顾档口生意,其丈夫更是辞掉了工程师的工作照顾孩子。 瑞芳尽管曾以2千500元聘雇摊位助理,但仍因体力活太劳累而离开,甚至在去年待产期间,仍需要拜托家中俩老到档口中,并给付丰厚的金额。截至今日,她仍然无法聘雇到助理,只能恳求父母持续协助,每日和她一起辛劳工作。 “她曾以2千500元欲要聘雇助理,然而,他们都在一个月内离开,因为体力劳动的压力,最终她只能说服70岁的父母在他去年待产期间帮助他。当然,他会付给他们丰厚的奖金,截至目前,她仍然无法找到助理,而她的父母则持续协助她,每日都在辛苦劳动。” 这并非是瑞芳一人的故事,而是小贩中心内面临两难的情况:即在缺乏客工与不强迫老人加入劳动行列下,小贩中心又该如何持续运营? 对此,司徒国辉认为,应该需要聘雇年轻活力的本地员工,甚至是以市场价格聘请外国人,至于年长者则适任可居家工作的岗位。 文章最后,司徒国辉也敦促,应该考虑放弃配额制和税收,如有必要,可以合同或期限条件,即签约三年。 “我想说,若想要敞开大门,不仅仅是欢迎每月领1万5千以上的外国PMET,而这些基本服务业的蓝领阶层也应该适用。”