New media, same rules
- From: ** <**@.org>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 10:54:59 +0800
New media, same rules
An interview with Singapore's Minister for Information, Communications and the
Arts about the government's stance on blogs, podcasts and videocasts
Straits Times
Saturday, April 15, 2006
Interview by Sue-Ann Chia
In an e-mail interview with Sue-ann Chia, Minister for Information,
Communications and the Arts Lee Boon Yang gives an insight into the thinking
behind the PAP Government's stand on blogs, podcasts and videocasts which
contain election issues and what it regards as permissible and what is not. The
lack of accountability and the irrational emotions they can whip up is what
concerns the Government. But that does not mean it will not keep up with
technological change and learn from the experience of other countries.
One argument the Government has made is that politics is a serious business and
should not descend into entertainment. How so?
We encourage the free flow of information and exchange of views within our
political system. However, for political debates and discourse to be
constructive and taken seriously, people have to take responsibility for what
they say and should not remain anonymous. Facts must be ascertainable and
arguments examined.
Voters can then consider the issues calmly and rationally with a view to the
impact on their future, and not get carried away by emotions in the heat of the
moment. This is the basis on which we run elections and politics in Singapore,
and this is how we have crafted our rules.
For example, there is full freedom to write or publish anything you like and to
voice your beliefs and convictions at election rallies, subject to defamation,
sedition and other laws of the land. But political campaigning should not be
turned into info-tainment, where the line between fact and fiction gets blurred,
and people get worked up emotionally without understanding the substantive
issues. This is why we do not allow music and entertainment at election rallies,
unlike the practice in other countries.
For the same reason, we have not allowed party political films and videos. The
impact of watching a video is very different from reading something in cold
print. Political videos may be presented as objective documentaries, but are in
fact slanted propaganda to draw attention and score political points.
For example, the film Fahrenheit 9/11 was released as a documentary but its
selective use of images and out-of-context quotations were designed to shock the
audience and make President Bush look bad. Such videos cannot be easily
countered with rational written arguments. They evoke visceral emotions and are
not conducive to a calm and dispassionate treatment of politics.
Why is streaming of explicit political content through podcasts or videocasts
not allowed but posting of party manifesto and texts of rally speeches allowed
for political parties? What is the worry?
The Internet is a new medium, but the key issues are the same, and so we apply
the same principles to address them. This is why we allow texts, party
manifestos, candidates' write-ups and photos to be posted on the Internet in the
same way that they are allowed in the print media.
Podcasts and videocasts, on the other hand, have a greater impact because of the
nature of the medium. They have the greater power to influence. Hence, we do not
allow podcasts and videocasts for election advertising, just as we do not allow
party political films and videos.
The Internet has its own unique characteristics which require special attention.
The Internet is ubiquitous, fast and anonymous. Once a false story or rumour is
started on the Internet, it is almost impossible to put it right. Despite its
usefulness, the Internet is chaotic and disorganised, with many half-truths and
untruths masquerading as facts.
This is not theoretical; it has already occurred. Shortly after we announced
Zaqy Mohamad in the line-up of new PAP candidates, there were netters who said
that he was a nephew of Speaker of Parliament Abdullah Tarmugi, and this spread
quickly on the Internet.
In fact, this is completely untrue, but how do we now rebut it on the Internet,
and get all the blogs, bulletin boards and chatrooms to put out corrections to
set this right? In this case, it is not an important issue, but if it involves
emotive issues of race, language or religion, then it can easily destabilise our
society. So we must be very careful and set rules so that individuals take
responsibility for their actions.
To help bring some order to this chaotic environment, we have made it a
requirement for political parties and individuals who use websites to propagate
or promote political issues to register with the Media Development Authority
(MDA). This promotes accountability and also ensures personal responsibility for
comments made on the Internet.
Other countries are also grappling with similar issues. In the last US
presidential elections, for example, there were vitriolic Internet campaigns
against the two candidates, John Kerry and George Bush. One group tried to
discredit Kerry's war record, while another accused Bush of dodging the Vietnam
War draft. But those who propagated the personal attacks through their websites
were never asked to account for what they said.
By registering political sites, we can avoid a similar situation from happening
in Singapore. In this way, we uphold the seriousness and integrity of our
electoral process.
Can we really have effective controls over the Internet?
I agree that the controls are not water-tight. The virtual nature of the
Internet and its global scale make regulation difficult. But rules do have some
effect. They set a certain standard and help maintain order and accountability
in the way political issues are discussed over the Internet. There will always
be grey areas but these rules will help define unacceptable practices.
Will there be new laws to keep up with changing technologies? What would these
changes be?
Our position is dynamic as technology is advancing rapidly. We now have
broadband and 3G, and people are connected everywhere they go. As the situation
evolves, we will have to update our position accordingly. We are constantly
reviewing our rules, and by the next election, I am sure we will have them
updated to deal with a different environment.
But we will move cautiously, and learn from the experience of other countries.
As we feel our way forward, we will continue to take steps to enhance the
quality of political debate and preserve the choice that Singaporeans have when
it comes to elections.
The opposition parties have slammed the latest announcement disallowing
podcasting and videocasting. They said that it is meant to limit the audience
for their rallies and hence hamstring their chances of reaching out to more
voters. What's your response?
In fact, the restrictions on political films and videos pose more disadvantages
for the PAP than for the opposition. If the PAP were to make a political video,
it has the resources to do a first-class production. But we decided against
this, as it could demean the spirit of political debate and undermine the
longer-term interest of Singapore.
I am also surprised that the opposition parties feel that their plans have been
disrupted. This is not a ban that came out of the blue. All these parties had to
do was to check the positive list to see what is allowed and what is not
allowed. The regulations have been available since the last General Election in
2001. The opposition parties are free to approach MDA or Mica for clarification,
but have not done so.
(Note: The 'positive list' states what types of election advertising are allowed
for political parties, candidates and election agents.)
What if the blogger is anonymous or hosts his blog overseas? How do you get the
blogger to register? How will registration be enforced given the proliferation
of blogs? Who will monitor or police the blogs?
Underlying some of these questions is the issue of what happens when someone
tries to influence the political process by attempting to host websites
anonymously or from overseas locations. This is a possibility that cannot be
dismissed. MDA has oversight on these matters.
Where necessary, it will work in tandem with Mica and other relevant agencies.
But we have always adopted a light touch for the Internet. So I will not lose
much sleep over these scenarios. Internet users will just have to be more
careful about putting their faith in the content of overseas websites.
Singaporeans must also exercise judgment and avoid being taken in by those with
an axe to grind or who are out to promote a hidden agenda.
Can political parties mass e-mail/SMS to people? Are they, in these mass
e-mails/SMS, allowed to advertise themselves and put out their party manifesto
or send out their rally speeches? Can political parties and individuals send
mass e-mail/SMS with pictures or videos of election rallies?
Political parties are allowed to send e-mails during the election period. This
is on the positive list, but subject to certain restrictions. For example, they
should clearly provide information that would enable a recipient to unsubscribe
from the party's mailing list. In addition, parties are not allowed to solicit
for donations through e-mail or to request the recipient to forward the e-mail
to others.
As for individual SMSes and e-mails, we consider these as private communication
and they will remain the private domain of individuals. I agree that some people
may hide behind this facade of private communication and use e-mails, or a
chain-mail system to conduct election advertising. But they should bear in mind
that other laws also apply to e-mail communication. These include libel. One
should not hastily dash off e-mails in the heat of the moment and live to regret
a rash act later. So think first, and then write knowing fully the consequences
of such comments.
Can foreign based newspapers, especially online news sites, put up
podcasts/videocasts of an explicit political nature on their websites? Can local
newspapers and other mainstream media put up podcasts/vodcasts of election
rallies?
The Parliamentary Elections Act makes specific exemptions which allow the
publication of any news relating to an election in a newspaper in any medium or
in a radio or television broadcast. If they choose to, they will be allowed to
carry such materials in the form of videocasts and audiocasts on their websites.
Foreign news organisations will, of course, be allowed to report on the
election. But there is a big difference between reporting on local affairs and
interfering in them. We do not permit foreign news organisations operating in
Singapore to participate or interfere in domestic politics. Singapore politics
is for Singaporeans only. Should we find that a foreign newspaper or broadcaster
has been inaccurate in its reporting or presented unfounded reports, we expect
to be accorded the right of reply. I think this is a fair and reasonable thing
to ask for. We are simply asking for journalistic integrity.
If a newspaper, for example, has published an unjustified comment, the very
least that it should do is to let us present our side of the story and facts for
their readers to be the judge.
If they are not prepared to give us this right of reply, then the Newspaper
Printing and Publishing Act and the Broadcasting Act set out the sanctions which
we can impose on the foreign media including restrictions to their circulation.
We welcome foreign media to Singapore. I hope that they understand our position
on this matter and we can continue our amicable and mutually beneficial
relationship
Date Posted: 4/15/2006
.
- Prev by Date: SINGAPORE: New faces comment on podcasts and new blood
- Next by Date: SINGAPORE: Govt explains ban on political podcasts
- Previous by thread: SINGAPORE: New faces comment on podcasts and new blood
- Next by thread: SINGAPORE: Govt explains ban on political podcasts
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
