 Print Article
|
A prevailing view among the seven panellists was that the Government should not have a hand in it.
'There is merit in civil society doing it on its own...There's no need to depend on the Government to regulate social values,' said media academic Cherian George yesterday.
He was speaking at a forum on Internet regulatory reform, organised by the Nanyang Technological University's Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information.
He is part of the group of bloggers who submitted a proposal on Internet freedom to the Government in April.
They want, among other things, a guarantee of freedom to use the Internet to discuss political issues and promote political views.
Also, any regulation of online content should not be at the administrative discretion of officials, but through a court of law or preferably moderation by a consultative body of citizens, they said.
It should comprise independent content providers, people familiar with digital technologies and regular Internet users. It would give its views, say, when a blogger is seen to behave irresponsibly.
This issue attracted the most attention from the 30 or so people in the audience.
Among them was Mr Cheong Yip Seng, chairman of the government-appointed Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society.
He wanted to know who would form the committee and if members' views would carry enough weight.
Mr Arun Mahizhnan, deputy director of the Institute of Policy Studies, who is not part of the group of bloggers, believed civil society can do the job on its own.
Citing the Nature Society (Singapore) as a successful example that was not government-appointed, he said it has earned the moral authority to speak on environmental issues over time.
Law undergraduate Choo Zheng Xi, of The Online Citizen blog, felt that the consultative body might lose credibility if the Government was involved from the onset.
'It would be a major stumbling block going forward,' said Mr Choo, one of two leaders among the 13 bloggers.
But the other leader, Mr Alex Au, who writes the Yawning Bread blog, had a different take.
He reckoned that in Singapore, the Government - which tends to initiate things - could take the first step in appointing members to this consultative body.
Yesterday's forum also discussed the bloggers' proposal to scrap laws against offending racial and religious feelings, or promoting hatred against a racial or religious group.
They had argued that such acts would not immediately threaten the community, compared to acts that incite violence on racial and religious grounds.
But there was a dissenting voice among the bloggers. Graduate student Ng E-Jay, who blogs on
sgpolitics.net, is against repealing the laws.
He said: 'It's a bit too optimistic to think that such hate speech targeted at race and religion would spread slowly.'
Self-regulation
'There is merit in civil society doing it on its own...There's no need to depend on the Government to regulate social values.'
MEDIA ACADEMIC CHERIAN GEORGE
Interference
'It would be a major stumbling block going forward.'
LAW UNDERGRADUATE CHOO ZHENG XI, on why the Government should not be involved in the proposed body
