Regular

I have been more quiet of late, mainly because I’ve been heavily intrigued by the Government’s clear moves towards more significant regulation of political discussion in cyberspace. It certainly seems like a very worthy topic to debate, but I saw no reason to jump the gun and criticise before the relevant details are actually released.

Figuring it wouldn’t do any harm ruminate for a few days first (one requires something with which to occupy time whilst on public transport after all), I’ve been taking my time to conjure up some commentary that wouldn’t be unfair to the Government, whatever they have in mind.

To begin, I’d like to reiterate my long-standing position: any attempt by a state or government to engage in cyberspace is a waste of time, effort and money. Governments cannot do battle in the landscape of the Internet; it’ll be like pitting an ivory-tower academic against a demagogue. Government departments are staffed by public officers; bureaucrats whom are valued precisely for their ability to discharge their duties in executing national policy without consideration for their own passions and beliefs (not beyond basic civil rights anyway). Sure it’s public service, and one can’t do a good job without commitment to the national cause, but that doesn’t mean the individual staff member necessarily agrees with whatever is being done from moment to moment.

If there’s one guarantee of failure for anyone seeking to wield some influence in cyberspace, it’s lack of passion and belief. Anyone who is sufficiently passionate to carve out a corner for him/herself on the Internet probably shouldn’t be left to execute national policy anyway, for fear of dogmatic narrow-mindedness.

I maintain that if a government needs to contest the territory of cyberspace, it should be something done by the ruling party using party, and not state, mechanisms. Cadres stand a chance, salaried bureaucrats do not.

I’m getting distracted. The topic should be regulation, not contest.

The existing state of the Singaporean cyberspace is anarchy in the orthodox (rather than popular) sense of the word; that is to say, order and compliance is (almost) purely voluntary. Each site may have its own editorial and moderation guidelines, but their enforcement is largely limited to passive clean-up measures; offences are simply removed with no further punitive action taken against anyone. I suppose not even the state could persistently undertake punitive actions if it wished to. Offenders are thus mostly let off scot-free, which doesn’t bother most people since they can’t inflict lasting damage anyway.

The variance is moderation standards have resulted in a continuum, with the so-called ‘cowboy towns’ of the ‘lunatic fringe’ existing alongside the more sensible and level-headed. Here I have some sympathy for the Government (and by extension the PAP); their remarks had been badly misconstrued to be generalising all of Internet discourse to be made up of lunatic cowboys. I would say that the deliberate use of the word ‘fringe’ already implies that the Government is aware how poor a sweeping statement would had been. It is unfortunate that their meaning has been lost by broadstrokes from those far too sensitive and ready to see elements of Big Brother everywhere.

It is pointless (and I restrain myself from saying moronic) to repeat and demand the Government acknowledge that self-regulation exists on the Singaporean Internet; they already have, and you weren’t listening. Just because we have laws mandating jail terms for robbery doesn’t mean the Government thinks every citizen is a robber. Just because the majority of us have no intention to commit robbery doesn’t mean we should oppose legislation making robbery criminal.

My interpretation of the the Government’s statements thus far is fairly bland in comparison to the fireworks that have been going off in other places – the ‘lunatics’ are to be reined in, and the self-regulated ones can be left alone. All one has to do to arrive at this conclusion (rather than fixate on the paradigm of an iron-fisted Government trying to crush cyber-discourse entirely) is bear in mind that the Government has acknowledged a difference between the self-regulated anarchy and chaotic-fringe anarchy.

What’s left is for us to observe how they would define ‘fringe’ and ‘self-regulated.’ Of that no one can determine until the details of the legislation or regulation are made public. I have no intention to pre-judge before then.

I have however not answered the question of whether the Government’s apparent retreat from its ‘light touch’ attitude is justified. It is probably undisputed that the recent electoral events have spurred this action; as much as I have and continue to insist that the Internet has played a much smaller role than most netizens will prefer to believe, I have no doubt that the PAP will not want to play the odds.

That the PAP has much motivation to give itself some semblance of control is thus similarly undisputed. Our concern however, is not so much the motive of the PAP but whether there is objective justification for it nonetheless. That is to say, disregard the PAP’s own agenda be it benevolent or nefarious. After all, do we not simply accept their handouts every few years regardless of how we actually vote? To do otherwise would be spiteful.

None can deny that 2011 probably saw more political activity by citizens than any point since 1965. Very few would deny that the discourse took on ugly faces every now and then – chief amongst the culprits would of course be the now-thankfully-defunct TR (although there are rumbles of a comeback in mid-Nov). If there is to be regulation, it would be at such culprits that it is targeted, and in that light I would say it is understandable that the Government, that any government, would wish to pursue this course. Whether it is acceptable, again will depend the as-yet-unknown exact functional details.

I’m inclined to think it’s a bad idea. Nonetheless, I feel obliged to point out that it’s been seven or eight years since LHL took office and three since the key report by AIMS (Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society). I accept that there has been effort by the Government to maintain its ‘light touch.’ Unfortunately it hasn’t worked out well for them. They have held out in the belief that the Internet field will eventually assume some balanced equilibrium, that the level-headed will eventually squeeze out the demagogues. The reality of the 2011 elections have reflected otherwise (at least from their perspective).

It is a pity. I personally find that our Internet is finally on track to approach that balanced equilibrium. The frenzied pro-radical sentiment is fading gradually after the elections and I expect to fade even more so long as the WP can justify to citizens that a moderate low-key approach will work better than a radical shouty one. In short, any attempt at regulation would be coming at a most inopportune time. Perhaps MICA believes otherwise, or maybe they just ran out of patience. I empathise as a human even as I object as a commentator.

In any case, I look at this issue with a raised eyebrow and nothing else. I suppose I am immune to the fear, anxiety and insecurity so many netizens seem to feel. I wonder, how long will they continue to accuse the Government of refusing to accept and trust them as patriotic citizens, when the netizens themselves regard the Government with such trepidation? I have found LHL decidedly non-threatening and non-intimidating in all my time in cyberspace.

Piaroh-Cze:

He raises his hand and the woman beside me flinches as though slapped; I wave slowly and he waves back.