COMMENT: Curbing online debate serves no one
Andrew helms publichouse.sg as Editor-in-Chief. His writings have been reproduced in other publications, including the Australian Housing Journal in 2010. He was nominated by Yahoo Singapore as one of Singapore's most influential media persons in 2011. The views expressed here are his own.
A week after Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong spoke of “fighting back” against trolls online, the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) applied to the court to initiate actions against blogger Alex Au.
The AGC sought judicial permission to charge the 61-year-old blogger with contempt of court for two articles he wrote in October. Judge Belinda Ang granted leave to the AGC to take action on only one of the articles.
"In Singapore, we see much constructive engagement online, but also no lack of 'trolling',” Mr Lee said a week ago. “We must fight back against such 'trolling', and provide a safe and responsible online space, which promotes constructive participation."
While the AGC has not, as of today, initiated any action against Mr Au yet, the fact that it feels it needs to initiate legal proceedings against the blogger shows the People’s Action Party (PAP) Government’s old way of thinking has not changed.
Indeed, the Government would argue: why should it change, when it comes to protecting our public institutions?
Certainly, no one would argue that it’s wrong to level libellous attacks on another – except that when it comes to public institutions it can be argued they should adopt a wider threshold of criticism before they resort to the courts.
The AGC’s position in this case involving Mr Au seems to be premised on the fact that it had given Mr Au “a second chance” last year. In July 2012, Mr Au alleged that surgeon Woffles Wu was "treated favourably" in a traffic speeding offence incident. Mr Au subsequently apologised. That was that. Or so we thought.
More rules, legal action
Taking this latest AGC action into context with the rest of the Government’s recent moves over online expression, one is left with a sense of déjà vu – that the Government’s aim of bringing “parity” between the online media and mainstream media merely means installing greater control over the former.
And this is done through a three-prong approach: by introducing more regulation, such as the Internet rules in June this year, taking legal recourse and using mainstream media to discredit its critics.
And of course, we wait for the new laws on “online harassment” and the amendments to the Broadcasting Act which the Government says it will introduce next year. The operation of websites falls under this Act.
The bigger concern is how this will stunt the growth of an organic and alternative online scene. It can be argued there is no true online alternative to the mainstream media when it comes to news reporting – most of the websites are blog-like, or centre mostly on commentary and opinion pieces, even for new sites such as The Independent and Breakfast Network. These two sites, incidentally, have been asked by the MDA to register under its new regulations.
Both sides have not decided if they will.
The alternative media is facing new and old challenges not only in terms of funding and manpower, which have and will continue to be issues the alternative media will face, also now has to contend with new obstacles put in its way by the authorities.
Broader impact on society
But the way the PAP Government is going about restricting online expression goes beyond the mere curtailing of certain blogs. The larger question is what it will do to us as a society which says it embraces diversity, wants robust debates, and encourages alternative ideas.
In his 2004 inauguration speech, PM Lee urged Singaporeans to speak up.
“It’s a signal! Speak, speak your voice, be heard, take responsibility for your views and opinions,” he said.
It is perhaps the Government which should accept the differences in opinion its critics have, and allow robust debate to take place.
The AGC should engage with Mr Au on the merits of the content which Mr Au published, instead of taking the easy way out with the knuckleduster approach of yesteryear’s PAP Government.
Shutting down, and killing the potential for, debate is regrettable and serves no one – not even the Government, ultimately.
Related links:
COMMENT: MDA's actions again cloaked in opacity
Cyber-harassment in Singapore: Where to draw the line?
