The following is a transcript of an email interview between myself and an honours year NUS student majoring in communications and new media, who is working on a thesis on “new media and the politics of Singapore”.
Section A: Personal sentiments
1. What motivates you to write about political issues online? Do you self-censor your comments before publishing them? Do you have any personal guidelines or boundaries of what you perceive one can blog?
I care very much about the state of affairs in Singapore because I am a citizen. It is only natural that citizens of a democratic nation take the initiative to observe and criticize what the government is doing. I mean criticize not in the purely pejorative sense, but mean
it in the sense of critical thinking. What policies have been proposed or have come into effect? What are the foreseeable outcomes, intentioned or otherwise?
Not being part of the civil service or any political party should not stop citizens from taking an active interest in how their country is being run. We pay taxes so that our government has money to function.Why shouldn’t we be interested in whether our money is well spent? In this sense of ‘caveat emptor’, an active interest is the only responsible attitude that can be taken by the responsible benefactor of government services. Apathetic citizens can only choose to accept whatever is handed down to them.
Sometimes I feel strongly about a particular topic. Blogging helps me give my thoughts expression. Writing helps me organize my thoughts. It also sometimes help me vent my frustration about certain issues.
When I write something about Singapore that might be sensitive or controversial, I am interested in making a reasonable attempt to not overstep the boundaries proscribed by law. Doing something illegal means accepting the consequences of prosecution and liability. I am not prepared to accept those consequences.
Also blogs and forums are public arenas unless encrypted or restricted in circulation. It is easy to think personal thoughts in private that are not always appropriate to air in public. To these extents I do censor my comments. But if you mean censorship in the sense of deliberately avoiding the controversial and/or not holding attitudes contrary to the government’s official stand, then I most certainly don’t make it a point to agree or disagree. I merely follow the facts to their logical conclusions.
In short, if it’s not illegal (to the best of my knowledge), and it’s not too personal, and I feel that the facts support my stand, then anything is fair game.
2. Do you perceive there to be a presence of invisible surveillance forces which may lurk among the internet in Singapore’s context? In what forms do you think they manifest in?
I don’t perceive, I know. I have plenty of evidence to show that I get all sorts of visitors from government computers. Barring the occasional bored civil servant surfing blogs while taking a break, I can’t think of any other reason apart from deliberate surveillance why
these government IP address keep showing up in my server logs. Granted that I won’t be able to identify 100% of them, but I am absolutely aware that they are there. I know I am being monitored.
Let’s say there really are people in the government monitoring blogs. Then if they are anywhere close to being professional researchers, they most likely have archived copies of what they read so that they have a permanent record of conversations online, even if the original sources are later taken down. And as you are probably aware from the Feb 3 article in the Straits Times, as well as contemporary reports from other news agencies, the PAP has already admitted that they are anonymously rebutting comments that they feel are unjustified, and feedback what they have read to a committee specially tasked to monitor online media.
3. Do you think it’s the government’s legislation such as thebroadcasting act and sedition act against bloggers may perhaps perpetuate a sense of coercion, resulting in chilling effects?
As far as I know, the Broadcasting Act and Sedition Act were notspecifically targeted at bloggers. There have been documented examples of the Sedition Act being used to convict bloggers. But that’s not thesame as implying, as you have, that these laws are specifically aimed at bloggers. They are not. But bloggers, just like anyone else, are answerable to the law.
As I have explained above, the Internet is not a lawless space. People may clamor for their rights to free expression, but these people often forget that the right to free speech does not excuse them from any retribution. One may choose to use the right to free speech to do something illegal. One then has the responsibility to answer to the consequences of doing do.
4. What roles in society do you perceive yourself to be playing when articulating “sensitive” issues online? Pushing for an agenda? Playing the role of the active citizen? For instance: playing the role of a citizen, imposing checks on the government, air alternative views which might not be censured by the state?
I don’t think myself as playing any specific role. If I had to pick one, it is one of playing the part of concerned citizen. Qui custodiet ipsos custodes? Who watches the watchmen? In a democratic nation, this role falls on the common citizen.
Do common citizens then push any specific agenda? Of course they do. According to Jeffersonian ideals, each democratic citizen should be disinterested, in the sense of not placing one’s personal gain over the welfare of society in general. But citizens are also human, and it is naïve to not expect that each citizen also wants the best for himself or herself.
To this extent I push my own agenda of trying to keep the state honest and answerable to citizens such as myself. If I don’t see how government policies improve the lives of citizens such as myself, I feel the need say so, and why I think that way. It is an invitation to my readers to evaluate my stance on various issues, so that there can be meaningful discussions of pertinent topics.
5. What do you think constitute the notion of “active citizenry”? Do you think thus that there is a tension within the state as they advocate for active citizenry yet place restrictions on expression?
I am not aware of any consensus as to what the term means. To me, an ‘active citzenry’ consists of citizens whom are interested in what’s going on around them. They need not participate actively in politics by joining political parties, but they would definitely form anddebate opinions on various current affairs and political issues.
An ‘active citizenry’ holds the state answerable to the general public, even as the state maintains sovereign power over their lives. Defined this way, tension between citizens and the state are but a natural outcome of these conflicting social roles. However I don’t see the tension arising specifically from ‘restrictions on expression’. Even in the United States, a country famous for its constitutional rights to free speech, people can and go get sued for libel and slander, which are analogous to defamation in our legal system.
An ideal democratic government must necessarily still impose restrictions on expression. Otherwise by definition the government does not exist, and citizens live in a state of anarchy. Only as anarchists are citizens free to do whatever they want. The fact that governments exist only because it has some power to control what individual can and cannot do means that tension between citizens and the state must necessarily exist. In this context your question is not very interesting.
In the context of Singapore, the government has a long history of wanting to have one’s cake and eat it too. Depending on whether you choose to consider ’state’ and ‘government’ to be the same entity, the AcidFlask case is perhaps a good example of the ‘tension’ you allude to. MM Lee wants young people to speak up, but once you cross some line that the government makes up, you can be threatened with legal action.
This is of course far from being the only case: who can forget the long history of defamation lawsuits that have actually made it to court? Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, Francis Seow, Chee Soon Juan and Tang Liang Hong are all relevant names to remember. There is also a long history of legal action against foreign media that have published
undesirable material. The legal history surely must give even the most foolhardy Singaporean good reason to hesitate. Singaporeans are (in general) not stupid.
The real tension comes from the existence of ‘OB markers’, which the Singapore government has consistently refused to specify explicitly. Since it is practically impossible to write unambiguous laws, it is up to the judicial branch of the government to decide where the boundaries of these laws are. But this means that unless the government states clearly what is allowed and what isn’t, the only way to find out is to push the boundaries gradually until it crosses the threshold for the government to pursue legal action.
Without knowing a priori what is kosher and what is not, there are then only two logicalcourses of action. The first is to stay well within safe boundaries, even if it means not talking about potentially controversial topics. The second is to keep testing the waters and hope that one doesn’tstray into forbidden territory. Since it takes exceptional courage to choose the second course of action, the government should then not be surprised that the vast majority of Singaporeans choose the first.
Section B: New media tools
6. Do you feel that the anonymity afforded by new media has allowed more freedom to citizens to articulate their political views?
What anonymity?
The closest one can do to making use of new media anonymously is to host one’s blog on an anonymous server, accessing it only via encrypted and anonymized Internet traffic channels, and never, ever giving clues to one’s personal identity. If there is any Singapore blogger who fulfills these criteria, I am not aware of that person.
None of the Singapore bloggers (as far as I know) take such extreme measures. However there are several who are very careful to not reveal their true identities via their writing. We may know something about their writing style, and what they choose to reveal to us, but wedon’t know who these people are. We have no public resources to trace these people down unless they choose to let us do so. Whether or not that is true for concerned authorities such as the police is another matter altogether.
But perhaps this is irrelevant; your real question might be closer to ‘Do you feel that the perceived anonymity afforded by new media has allowed more freedom to citizens to articulate their political views?’
My answer to this question is a definite yes. Some of it may be simply naïveté, but people can (and sometimes do) adopt alternative personae online which may not reflect how they would behave in real life. Another part of it is simple security by obscurity: who knows what people can do with information that is available online simply by Googling your name. Some people may feel more comfortable expression their opinions online relative to talking offline, and there isnothing wrong with that. But again, one should always remember that free speech doesn’t mean absolution from responsible usage.
7. What is the rationale for bloggers posting with pseudonyms, unlike some other political webloggers who identify themselves? On the other hand, why do you identify yourself online? Do you think is there any difference between those who blog under a pseudonym and those who don’t when articulating socio-political issues?
As mentioned above, people sometimes adopt alternative personae online which may behave differently from how they may behave in real life. Taking on pseudonyms to me reflects the choice of constructing a new persona that is put on display for public scrutiny online. In this sense using pseudonyms it is not at unusual. After all, even offline, it is a well-documented psychological fact that people have personae that mask their true private feelings. And pennames have a long historical tradition. Even famous authors such as Lewis Carroll wrote under noms de plume.
I don’t use my real name purely as a matter of convenience. I feel that it helps people focus on what I say, rather than who I am. However I don’t use it to hide my identity, since that would ultimately be pointless.
8. Do you think the affordances of new media has ‘empowered’ or ‘disempowered’ you? How do you think new media has provided citizens a way to “counter-inverse” survey the institutional traditional surveyors- government? To what extent do you think citizens can make use of such empowerment? Are these powers real/ perceived/ simply an illusion?
I value how my own blog has become a visible platform for my opinions. It is a self-serving advertisement for my ideas, and it is great to have people leave comments and/or write posts on their own blogs in response to what I write. It becomes a community that doesn’t care much for geographic separation, but is connected by mutual interests. As a public arena it has attracted its own community of frequent visitors, with whom I almost always get something productive out of discussions with them.
I’m not sure what you mean, but I definitely feel that blogs offer an alternative vehicle for opinions that are not covered in the mainstream media. Is the empowerment of blogs real? I assume that it must be so, since I have readers other from myself. Without my blog I most certainly would not have readers. To answer further would stray into the realm of epistemology and solipsism.
Section C: Censorship policies
9. Do you think that there is an existence of any real or perceived fear among society when people voice their political views which might be in opposition to those by the state?
How does one distinguish between real fear and perceived fear?
See (5).
10. Do you think censorship policies are restricting and limiting civic expression online? Do you think by censoring broadcasting media(MSM) and thus the deliberation of political issues be limited solely to the online arena a healthy phenomenon?
Yes, by tautology. See (5).
Again, it depends on what you mean by ‘political issue’ and ‘censorship’. To the extent that the mainstream media do not present multiple opinions on political issues, the discussion of these issues online is not intrinsically a bad thing. After all, some discussion, limited as it might be, is infinitely better than not having any at all.
As to whether this is ‘healthy’ or not, the only meaningful comparison has to be made with the recent past. I am actually quite pleased to see that blogs have markedly increased in popularity these days. There are many new blogs that tackle Singapore issues relative to even just six months ago. Having more blogs is a reliable sign of an increasing diversity of opinions, which is essential for the proper functioning of a body politic.
Do I feel that the mainstream media doesn’t cover political issues enough? Definitely. Is that intrinsically unhealthy? Probably. It alienates people who for one reason or another are unable to participate in the discussion online, such as those who are illiterate or do not have ready access to the Internet. But is progress being made? Certainly online there has been. To me it shows that if the mainstream media doesn’t want to play ball, and there is pent-up demand in the population for places to debate such issues, then alternative media will become attractive for such purposes. The evidence suggests that such is the state of affairs right now.
11. What do you perceive of the Internet censorship policies enacted by the government? What do you perceive of its “light touch approach”? To what extent do you think that the light touch approach is actually a tool by the state to legitimize its control over civic expression?
The Singapore government’s Internet censorship policies are merely a natural extension of its existing censorship policies dealing with more conventional media. To this effect its censorship policies are nothing particularly remarkable. However, the government is only just beginning to appreciate how the decentralized nature of the online media makes it incredibly difficult to regulate in the usual fashion. To some extent the government has given up, since laws requiring bloggers and website owners to register their websites with the Media Development Authority have not been enforced in any notable example since the closure of Sintercom. See also (13).
The government’s “light touch approach” is a misnomer. Wielding threats of legal action à la AcidFlask and the harsh response by K. Bhavani to mrbrown’s “Singaporeans are fed; up with progress!” column really doesn’t come across as adopting a “light touch”. The government’s patronizing attitude toward perceived infractions and the perception of whipping out the big guns and trump cards whenever they feel like it certainly doesn’t help.
12. Do u see any tension between such cries for freedom of expression and that of the government? Do you think such collective cries for freedom of expression would provide weight upon the government to relax their censorship policies?
Again, this is a tautology. See (5) and (1).
No. Despite the abysmal ratings awarded by media watchdogs such as Reporters Sans Frontières, the government has shown itself to be indifferent to the demands of reduced censorship. The government has maintained that censorship is essential to preserve the fragile balance of our multiracial society. The veracity of this statement cannot be demonstrated without trying it out. However the government probably feels that the price of such a social experiment is too high to even consider the possibility. It is a shame, though, since I believe that even if most Singaporeans will not accept a sudden lack of censorship, there is a pent-up demand for an incremental abolition of censorship.
With the official attitude of pragmatism, the government is likely to maintain status quo until it is decided that doing so means that the nation is passing up too many opportunities for economic development. There is at least one documented example of censorship resulting in lost opportunities, which is the decision made by Warwick University to not open a campus in Singapore. It appears that the lack of academic freedom of expression was one of the big issues considered by the university Senate in making that decision.
13. In April 2006, before the General Elections, the Parliamentary Elections Act (PEA) explicitly spelt out that new internet tools such as podcasting and video streaming would not be allowed during the elections. It also added that individual bloggers have to register with the Media Development Authority if they persistently promote political views. To what extent do you think that the (PEA) will be effective in thwarting content on elections? To what extent, do you think citizens would thus “tame” their comments online?
Why do you ask this question in the past tense? There has been only one documented effect of the PEA’s statutes on the 2006 elections, namely that the Singapore Democratic Party had to suspend its ‘podcasts’ which had been available for download their website. Technically speaking, it wasn’t even a podcast to begin with, since it lacked any subscription mechanism (e.g. RSS feeds) other than visiting the website manually to check for new episodes.
The new statutes in the PEA had discouraged me from writing anything about the 2006 elections. However you know as well as I do (I presume, since this is simply a matter of public record) that coverage of the 2006 Singapore elections by other bloggers have been comprehensive and heated, and appear for all practical purposes to have been unfettered by such legislation.
To this extent the new PEA has shown itself to be a toothless piece of legislation. Maybe I’m just being naïve, but I don’t see it affecting online discourse until the police start arresting people for being in violation of it.
blog
Dr Dee
annakat
-ben