COMMENT: The net is closing in… on the Net

BY BERTHA HENSON

Bertha Henson was a journalist with the Singapore Press Holdings stable of newspapers for 26 years until May 2012. Her last designation was Associate Editor of The Straits Times. She is now Journalist-in-residence at Tembusu College, University Town in the National University of Singapore. She runs a media consultancy, Newsmakers, and helms a blog, Bertha Harian. She is a founder of online news/views site Breakfast Network, where this article was originally published. This post first appeared here.

COMMENT

“Satisfied people don’t have time to go onto the Internet. Unhappy people often go there. I’m not saying all opposing views are just grouses, but this is a worldwide phenomenon of the new media that we have to understand. If people conclude that the new media is reflective of the views of an entire country, we are in trouble.”
- Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong speaking in Mandarin in response to a question on how the G regards views online that it is disconnected from the ground… (translation provided by BT)

Here’s how to check if you are unhappy. This is a serious test. Pay attention.
You are unhappy and dissatisfied if…
a) You post selfies – even with people who don’t quite like you.
b) You talk about what you had for lunch, dinner, the whole menu – and post pictures.
c) You tell people what the outside of your hotel looks like, when we really want to see the inside.
d) You get excited about home invasions, from the rat, the snake and all manner of fowl.
e) You write occasional treatises on weighty issues – and wonder why most people don’t give two hoots about it.

Okay, I’ll stop here and stick to the online rules of engagement. I wish to add this disclaimer: I wasn’t grousing. I am just part of a worldwide phenomenon of the new media that we/you have to understand. My view is definitely not reflective of new media, nor even of the entire country. So no, I don’t think we are in trouble.

Then again, I gather that BT didn’t get its translation absolutely right:

新媒体在任何一个国家都有一个反执政者的趋势，anti-establishment，因为满足的人没时间上网，不高兴的人就经常上网发牢骚。所 以，我不是说所有的反对的意见是牢骚，不过一般来说，新媒体在全世界都有这个趋势。所以我们必须了解它们，要解读它有正确的解读。

So, it’s about how contented people don’t have time to get on the Net, unhappy people tend to get on the Net to grouse. Rather than that the people who are on the Net are unhappy people. Semantics? Pedantic? Bad phraseology?

It’s unfortunate that PM chose to answer questions off-the-cuff, because that zinger of line is what people will remember about his speech on online engagement. The same thing happened to Minister for Communications and Information Yaacob Ibrahim. People only remembered him talking about “reading the right stuff” during the debate on licensing of online news sites. Period. No caveats. No conditions. No elaboration.

PM should have stuck to the text of the speech.

It’s his first major speech on the media since his outing at the Harvard Club in 2004. It was a major speech in which he discussed expanding the space for civil society debate, and proposed five ways to promote civic participation in Singapore, namely: guidelines for public consultations on new policies or regulations, rigorous debate, emphasis on action, a constructive media and a leading Government role.

Re-reading the speech, this is what I love: “We value diversity. As we engage one other and wrestle with our problems, we will encounter different views, but far better for us to manage these honest differences than become an apathetic society with no views. People should debate issues with reason, passion and conviction, and not be passive bystanders in their own fate. Disagreement does not necessarily imply rebellion, and nor should unity of purpose and vision mean sameness in views and ideas.”

Note that this was 2004 when the Internet did not have much of a presence or an impact on society. Nor was there a furious need to get information out first to beat the rest to the punch. Nor was there a proliferation of anonymous views so widely disseminated – and so quickly. And when the word “hacking” usually accompanied dead bodies.

The closest that the PM, then DPM, came to discussing about opposing views then, was to say that the G cannot govern by polls or coffeeshop talk or wait for the last man to be persuaded to its point of view. And that the opposition politicians critical of politics must expect their views to be countered, rebutted and even demolished.

As for the rest of the people interested in taking part in the civil space…
“The Government’s approach sets the tone of the public debate. How it responds will depend on the spirit of the criticism. The Government will not view all critics as adversaries. If it is a sincere contribution to improve Government policies, but one which we do not agree with, then our response will be dispassionate and factual, pointing out where we think the criticism is mistaken but encouraging the critic to continue to stay engaged or even counter-argue,” Mr Lee said.

This time, the tone of his speech on the media is quite different. In fact, it seems to reflect a G doing something it is very new at, which is coping with dissent. It must seem as quite a shock to the G that people here can be so, ah, vocal. So boh tua, boh suay. Writer Catherine Lim’s famous Great Affective Divide piece which earned some public rebuke more than 10 years ago is nothing compared to what people post online today. Yes, they might be in the minority and yes, there is the possibility that their views would prejudice the “satisfied” people who somehow stumble onto the Net despite their contentment. Other governments, however, used to a rowdier civil space both offline and online, would treat it as par for the course. Here the concern is that the G has yet to develop a thick enough hide to deflect arrows.

Anyone who has been monitoring G pronouncements can see how it is patching up some kind of Internet policy to deal with rowdier – and what it might deem unsavoury – online elements. For itself, there is the DRUM effect for distortions, rumours, untruth and misinformation which would undermine its authority and overwhelm its message. More recently it has turned its attention to the vulnerable online: victims of cyber-bullying and trolls who want some kind of redress.

In fact, REACH conducted a survey of 1,009 people aged above 15, unveiled at an IPS conference on harassment, which will no doubt be used as backup for anything that the G wants imposed online.

Here are the relevant numbers:
- 75 per cent of people surveyed agree that verbal abuse, repeatedly calling, following someone, spreading malicious comments or lies about someone, in person or online, should be considered as harassment.
- 71 per cent agree that laws which applied to physical harassment should be extended to online harassment
- 83 per cent agree that courts should be given the powers to order that online comments be taken down if they caused distress or alarm to others
- 82 per cent agree that online harassment is a serious issue
- 83 per cent support tougher measures to deal with online harassment
- 85 per cent agree that victims of online harassment should be able to seek help in the same way as victims of other types of harassment
- 82 per cent agree that everyone should have the legal right to require that online factual inaccuracies about them be corrected

So it seems the G has some ammunition to throw some kind of net over the online space. And it is being helped by some very stupid hackers whose actions will strengthen the G’s hand to deal a heavier touch.

All of a sudden, harassment is a hot topic. Of course, other types of harassment such as stalking and sexual harassment are thrown into the mix as well, but the target is no doubt, online. You might even think that the recent kerfuffle over licensing online news sites was an anomaly. Because the G really has plenty of other ways to set the rules of engagement online. The current Broadcasting Act, for example, allows for automatic class licensing. The Media Development Authority can also compel a site to “register” if it deems that it is in the business of providing through the Internet an on-line newspaper for a subscription fee “or other consideration”.

(I am declaring my interest here as editor and publisher of Breakfast Network.)

In fact, what will the new revised Broadcasting Act reveal? The G has been a little slow in signalling the start of public consultation, for what is envisaged to be a broad review of everything you read and watch and hear, whether from local and foreign sources.

Beyond that, what did the PM say that the denizen/netizen has to take note of?

TODAY went a bit more on the upside of online; while ST went strongly on the G action to require that those who want to give feedback to its REACH arm will have to log-in from the middle of next month. Mr Lee referred to how some sites such as TODAY’s, YouTube and The New York Times, requires readers to log-in with their Facebook accounts before posting comments. “This has worked well and raised the quality of discussion,” he said. Then others, like Popular Science, have banned it altogether, despite being from Western countries that place a premium on freedom of expression. The point being, that if even bastions of free speech put some fetters on expression, no one can say Singapore is being unique.

The question people will have, will be whether requiring names mean less feedback for the G in general, or more constructive feedback because people will have to think before they shoot as their names are on the line, so to speak. (The curious thing is, when the newspapers started requiring that writers put down their names if they wanted letters published, there was an uproar. Now nobody says anything about the Letters pages requiring real names of real people. But these days, we mask ourselves online… moving backwards 20 years.)

Breakfast Network will be opening up its comments section next year and we too will require FB log-ins. The reason: We’ve simply got to confess that there are plenty of trolls online and their presence do keep reasonable people away. Or rather, reasonable people will just watch the fireworks, marvel at the level of vulgarities and innovative swear words and steer clear of giving their own input. They remain spectators, not participants.

The PM said that “trolls deter serious readers from participating, and ruin the overall atmosphere in cyberspace”. That’s true, methinks. Of course, there would be no need for the PM to say anything like that if more people banded together against trolls to out-shout or drown them out. Or if the community somehow comes up with its own code of conduct which can be invoked as a form of social pressure. Can you imagine what will happen if the G decides to act on the survey results, which says the courts should step in to get sites to delete remarks that alarm or hurt someone?

We don’t need any more laws to govern our behaviour, if there were less misbehaviour to begin with. Perhaps the G should think a bit harder before laying down rules and guidelines. It has to acknowledge that it, too, is new in the game and might want to give time for the Net to develop its norms, before drawing the net too tightly over it.