Picked up on a rumour from newsintercom.org. At the moment it is merely a rumour... It was clearly a discussion and as far as I am aware no information, minutes or policies have been announced. So it was probably just a cosy chat. But why the silence? A lot of 'silence' around the sg blogosphere these days from the so called 'elite'.
Blogging and the Law
On 18th January 2006, the Institute of Policy Studies organised a closed-door discussion on the topic of Blogging and the Law.
This is according to local bloggers mrbrown and Mr Miyagi.
They didn't say much about what happened in this closed-door event except for some pictures. However the title of this closed-door event is interesting to say the least. Considering the venue, it's very likely that the powers-that-be are considering legislating blogging. It's pretty clear that this was mooted by the recent blogging/hate/Sedition Act cases.
In 2005 I wrote on this very specific issue. In it I proposed a self-policing or moderation policy as opposed to a throw-the-book approach that the PAP has adopted (clearly a political Send-A-Message).
However it would seem that the government is going to take this one step further by considering legislation on blogging, possibly also in view of GE2006.
To me, legislating blogging is missing the forest for the trees and reflective of the PAP's neanderthal style. It's analogous to flocking to a commotion in the street, seeing a loon hurling racial epitaphs at no one in particular, then getting offended and braying for a law to clamp down on talking in public!
While technology has changed, human nature hasn't. Social ills and bad behaviour remain constant. There are enough laws to come down hard on these things. Bad behaviour exists everywhere, virtually or otherwise. If you open the floodgates of law on blogging, where does it stop? Websites? Forums? Mailing lists? Usenet?
14 comments:
I was there. Being a closed-door session, we are obliged not to disclose details of any discussion, nor who else was present. I still don't know why such a meeting was arranged, but I didn't get the impression that it was meant as a step towards more legislation.
thanks yb.
You were there but not sure why you were there. Imagine all these bloggers present and yet so much 'self-censorship' from one room.
Obliged by whom or what agreement? Of course I know you can't say as you are obliged. Or is it a need to know basis?
Hmm the inner circle, those in the loop and those outside the loop.
One way to moderate dissent is is co-opt them.
So typically S'porean, everything hush hush...
This is why AOL's "the Internet is a good thing" campaign will never work in sg... hmmm.
blogging has been good for SPH's image: it can say "we dont have to cover all the points of view; they can have their own blogs"
I think the absence of hard information is causing some mis-assumptions.
As already publicised in NewSintercom, it was organised by IPS, which is a govt-funded think tank. It was never an open conference; it was by invitation.
Since the organiser had from the start said it was "closed door", if one accepts the invitation, one accepts those terms, and therefore one is obliged to abide by them.
Some participants may disagree that making it closed door was wise, but ultimately it's the organiser's call.
You said, "imagine all those bloggers present..." Well, I can't give numbers but I think there were fewer than fingers on one hand.
FYI...IPS IS NOT a govt-funded Thinktank..
It does recieve funds from the govt but gets most of its money from private and business sources, from MNCs etc...
In fact, IPS is Singapore's only more independent think tank beside SIIA.
For everyone's clarification...
Soci
I was invited too. I pulled out at the last minute due to work commitments.
Actually another reason I pulled out is that I didn't get a clear sense, from the email invitation and attached agenda, of what they were trying to achieve.
My overall feel is that some person or persons in the government has decided that it's time to get some real info about what this mysterious thing called blogging is all about, and IPS was tasked to do some official fact-finding.
Naturally the easiest way to find out about blogs is simply to poke around in the blogosphere yourself - but since this is the government, no lah, that won't do, must have closed-door discussion by IPS. :P
thanks Mr Wang.
I stand corrected. IPS is not entirely govt-funded. From its 2004 financial report, these are its sources of income (S$'000):
1,308 from govt
1,063 from "membership" - which I
think is corporate
membership
558 project fees
253 donations
47 others
3,229 TOTAL
Once again, IPS is not a govt thinktank told to do stuff by the govt.
Has anyone read the very good books and articles by its various academia? Please read them before you stab a friend at the back.
"told to do stuff by the govt"
- who said that?
"stab a friend at the back"
- who's doing that?
In this particular case, the IPS *was* doing stuff for the government.
That much I gathered from the email invitation I received. Which I imagine would have been the same invitation that Yawining Bread received.
The idea was that IPS would hold this closed-door discussion to meet with bloggers and based on what it learned from this discussion, to present "policy options" to the Singapore government on how to deal with this medium called blogging.
To boil it down, what it really means is that someone at IPS (I know exactly who - but I'm not sure whether it is appropriate to mention his name) is specifically tasked to write some paper to say in effect:
"Dear Singapore government,
I have done my research on blogging in Singapore. I did the following:
(1)
(2)
(3) [IPS closed-door discussion]
(4)
The main things I learned were:
(1)
(2)
(3)
The implications of what I learned are:
(1)
(2)
(3)
The possible policy options I see for the Singapore government on how to deal with bloggers are:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
In my opinion, the advantages and disadvantages of each policy option are as follows:
[ ]
Thus I recommend policy option no. [ ]."
I don't know why this should surprise you. The government consults the academia all the time. For example, the government regularly consults the relevant lecturers at NUS Law Faculty when the government is proposing to enact some new laws or amend some existing ones. I imagine that the government must also surely be regularly consulting the academia in other disciplines for other purposes.
It doesn't surprise me because it doesn't happen.
Okay, to let out the bare facts, many academia work in IPS because they do not wish to work in the government or were "purged" from the government or GLCs from their heterdox views. And any work for the govt (or the private sector) is often highly critical and independent.
IF you do not believe me is okay, but I just want you to know that there are many people in different arena working for change in Singapore in their own way, and not just the social activist, opposition supporters or bloggers like yourself. I have high respect for ppl daily challenging the boundaries they work with and retaining the high sense of idealism in their work. Being comfortable bloggers with nothing to lose like us is cool but for them they have a lot at stake (family, career, etc) and still doing it. So give them credit please....
Post a Comment