NewSintercom

WHEN Yio Chu Kang MP Seng Han Thong was set on fire by a resident last month, a significant number of netizens posted unkind comments.

These included a list of 10 things he ‘must be thankful for’ as well as remarks that he deserved what happened.

On Wednesday, Senior Minister of State for Information, Communications and the Arts Lui Tuck Yew said he did not think the Internet community did enough to rebut some of these comments.

‘It is a squandered opportunity for a higher degree of self-regulation,’ he told Parliament.

He made the remark with a tinge of disappointment as just a month ago, the Government had largely accepted a report by a government-appointed committee that said it was a good thing for the Internet community to exercise greater self-regulation.

The Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society, or Aims, issued its report last December.

Rear-Admiral (NS) Lui’s remark was in his reply to Ms Penny Low, Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC, who asked for his views on netizens’ response to the attack on Mr Seng. She noted that they had voted quite unjustly in an online poll.

The poll asked who deserved more sympathy: Mr Seng or his attacker Ong Kah Chua. The ex-cabby received 200 votes and Mr Seng, 56.

RADM Lui noted there were some comments sympathetic to Mr Seng. But the vast majority were “unhelpful, a significant number were unkind, a small number were downright outrageous.”

“It was disappointing, and my impression is that I do not think the community itself have done enough to rebut some of these unhelpful comments delivered by fellow netizens,” he added.

It is interesting to note a few points. What constitutes a “higher degree of self-regulation” and what constitutes “enough”? In many threads I’ve read regarding the issue in my bit to catch up with the local news, yes I’ve read comments both hurtful and helpful and more often than not those threads spiral into flame wars as forumers get into arguments; the sympathetic show concern and the hardliners disdain and hatred, both for MP Seng and his sympathisers.

For self-regulation to exist, one must regulate him or herself no? If not why call it self-regulation? If you expect a community to regulate, that’s policing. Isn’t that what Lui is asking for? Not everyone is participating in the cyberworld to play cyber-cop! Afterall, the Internet practises free speech and most netizens respect that.

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Noam Chomsky

When is it enough? Perhaps Lui would like to quantify this. Is Lui expecting the community to police their own? To what end? Cyber-vigilantism or as per net-speak, to CSI their own? The human race might be moving forward but why hasn’t traditional crimes like murder and rape and adultery gone out of style? Basic Human Instinct. Like it is now, agitators and instigators will forever exist. Therefore the stimga of the Internet community not demonstrating a “higher degree of self-regulation” will always exist, despite any efforts by the overall community. It’s like saying crimes like robbery and murder are the community’s fault for not displaying a “higher degree of self-regulation”.

This is a portent of more things to come. With a special on Internet Regulation appearing in Parliament as well as national TV (shout out to SG Enquirer, The Void Deck and The Online Citizen for their seconds of fame!) and newsprint, we might just see some earth-shaking things happen, for the worse.