STAR BLOGGERS

Internet censorship has been a worldwide debate for as long as one could remember. Ever since the world entered the digital era, government bodies have been setting up authorities to determine how much citizens should be viewing or how much information they should have access to.
Surely, we have people who believe in true freedom wanting access to anything and everything there is available because well, they simply believe in true freedom. But on the other hand, government authorities need to step in lest we take advantage of it or be taken advantage by it. So just how much information should we be limited to?

Take a look around, frauds and scams have existed ever since greed developed in humans and began finding ways to earn money without ever to work hard for it. With the evolution of the digital age, frauds and scams evolved together with them. Without the help of government authorities constantly working round the clock clicking on every webpage that they possibly can, many naïve and innocent victims would already have fall prey to such deceitful acts.

I, for one am surely glad that the Media Development Authority has given Singaporeans reasonable or rather, almost limitless access to information on the internet. Alright, basically I’m just thankful to them for not banning websites that I spend 80% of my virtual time on which includes Facebook, You-tube and Twitter unlike our Chinese counterparts up north. The three sites which I love using are just some of the many websites which China bans because they find the content offensive. As much as their citizens can complain, the government authorities had to do it in order to reduce further riots or complications within their country because such websites have an adverse and detrimental effect in spreading idealisms.

Just look at how easy information comes to us when we use search engines. Think of anything and I do mean anything that comes across your mind, type it in the search engines and you’ll get an almost instantaneous result. MDA leaves much of the responsibilities to us in making the right decisions on what we should or should not be posting on the internet. I suppose we know how to restrict ourselves from posting offensive stuffs from the lessons we learned from our fellow citizens who have been heavily fined or even exiled for voicing out their disdain virtually. In conclusion, I have no qualms against the level of internet censorship being enforced here in Singapore.

We have all experienced the “404 Error”, which leaves me wondering just how much of this so called “non-existent” pages are truly…. non-existent. Hmm…

Once again, I’m thankful that I still have access to Facebook, You-tube and Twitter. Life would become much bitter than it already can be if I can’t have access to them.

Sam Ang is a 25 year-old undergraduate and he loves to go on the Internet. Having a strong belief in his opinions, he is an advocate for issues that relates closely to his life.

Last Sunday (19/9/2010), the Straits Times Lifestyle published an opinion pieice by Mr. Andy Chen arguing that, as a father of two young girls, he will prefer the current censorship regime in Singapore be maintained as it is.

Evidently, Mr. Chen was responding to the recently released recommendations by the Censorship Review Committee (CRC). Specifically, judging from what Mr. Chen wrote, I suppose he was responding to the recommendation by the CRC that instead of maintaining a current symbolic ban on a hundred “objectionable” websites (to my knowledge, while it is not known exactly what websites on this banned list, most of them are said to be pornographic websites or websites which have religiously or racially sensitive content on them), the ban “should be replaced with a transparent, server level filtering service, combined with a simple and well-highlighted choice to opt in at the point of subscribing to or renewing the Internet service”.

As was argued by Mr. Chen, such a recommendation, if implemented, will make it more difficult for parents of young or teenage children to protect their children from accessing or being exposed to sexual content on the internet.

While I can empathise with Mr. Chen’s strong desire to protect his daughters from what he may see as objectionable sexual content on the internet, I however must respectfully disagree with his plea for censorship as a means to doing so.

Firstly, it will appear to me that Mr. Chen seem to largely focus only on how the current symbolic ban on a hundred objectionable websites may be scrapped and neglected to look at the other measures which the CRC has also recommended in lieu of such a ban.

As stated above, the CRC, besides recommending a greater implementation of public education measures, has also recommended that the existing ban be replaced by an internet filtering service. Hence, unlike those who advocate for an abstinence-only education, the CRC is not recommending Singapore depend only on public education to protect its young from objectionable content on the internet.

Also, it must be realised that the existing ban, as it is, can be easily circumvented and is thus hardly an effective measure to protect/prevent anyone from accessing or being exposed to sexual content on the internet. In fact, it was recently revealed to me (by a young lady friend of mine, no less!) how the ban can be easily circumvented and open some of the pornographic websites to access. Remember also that the ban is in effect only against a hundred objectionable websites; there are many more out there which are not banned.

In addition, the ban or, broadly speaking, censorship is in effect against everyone; it does not discriminate between those who are still lacking in the necessary maturity to access or be exposed to sexual/pornographic content on the internet and those with the necessary maturity and who wish to seek sexual stimulation or satisfaction through accessing online sexual/pornographic content. Hence, while the ban or censorship may perhaps protect/prevent the young from accessing sexual/pornographic content on the internet, it, at the same time, also limits the freedom of mature adults who may wish to seek sexual stimulation or satisfaction in the virtual world. This non-discrimination is of course also in effect for other forms of content, besides sexual/pornographic content, which may be deemed “objectionable” by some.

Furthermore, as much as I can empathise with the strong desire in parents to protect their children from what they may deem as objectionable content, it is my opinion that attempts to insulate the young from supposedly objectionable content through censorship will perhaps render them ignorant about the existence of such content and thus making them even more susceptible to the influence of such content when (not if) they are exposed to such content. We need to realise that, try as we may to keep the young innocently ignorant, it is perhaps inevitable they will grow up and become exposed to potentially objectionable content; by then, innocent ignorance will quickly turn into dangerous ignorance.

On that note, I will like to recount to you all a story from the life of Gautama Buddha. As legend has it, it was prophesied not long after his birth that Prince Siddhartha (the future Gautama Buddha) will either become a great king or a great sage. Hence, perhaps in an attempt to insulate Prince Siddhartha from stuff that may provoke him to enter into a life of religious contemplation, Prince Siddhartha’s father went to great extents to ensure the prince will live a life of luxury and not be exposed to any signs of old age, sickness or death. However, in the end, Prince Siddhartha was nonetheless still exposed to manifestations of old age, sickness and death and this eventually led to him to leave behind his life of luxury to become a wandering ascetic.

Hence, if even a king cannot forever prevent his son from what the former deem as objectionable content, do we really think we can insulate the young of Singapore from supposedly objectionable content?

In the end, Mr. Chen, as well as the rest of us, need to see that censorship is not the way to go when it comes to protecting the young from potentially objectionable content.

P.S.

Anyway, as was reported in this news article, MICA is “unlikely to agree to all the recommendations made by the Censorship Review Committee”. Thus, it is possible that the recommendation to scrap the existing ban on objectionable websites will not be implemented and individuals, an example being Mr. Chen, worried about the possible consequences of scrapping the ban will find themselves worrying needlessly.

And interestingly enough, according to the news article, MICA will be taking only two weeks to examine and then respond to the recommendations that took the CRC one year to come up with. An interesting disparity, this is.

“LCC is a recent graduate from the National University of Singapore’s Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences”.

I first heard the term “Plasticine Generation” during a call from a friend on my way to school. In the conversation, I was asked about my opinions regarding this notion of young Singaporeans now being the “Plasticine Generation”. At that moment, despite trying really hard, my mind was a complete blank and I only managed to stammer a few words, before promising her that I will think about it and get back to her later in the day.

Now looking back at that phone call, I realize that I am indeed, one of them. I was in the midst of travelling to school, a mindless ritual which I do daily, during which my mind completely switches off. I am not excited about it, I am not thinking of what plans I will be having for the day, but I simply know it is something I have to do.

After that promise, I took some time to kick my mind back into shape and ponder over whether the majority of young Singaporeans are indeed, the “Plasticine Generation”. From what I have seen so far in myself and my peers, I have to agree that they are, and I feel that three factors in Singapore contribute to this phenomenon.

Firstly, there has always been this common notion that only professions such as engineers, doctors, lawyers or bankers are successful professions, and parents usually reinforce that since young. From my own experience in Engineering, many take it only because it is a “stable choice”. There is neither interest involved, nor is there any aversion to the course. They simply do not mind. This results in throngs of engineering students like me, who go to school simply to pass our modules, graduate, get that degree and find a job.  The graduates then go on to find a job which they simply do not mind; the salary is what matters most. So many of my peers, who are now working, lament about how each day they wait for work to end, how each week they wait for Friday to come, and how each month they wish for a public holiday. Those who are really living their dream jobs are rare and few between.

Being a final year student and graduating soon, you start seeing everyone plan for the purchase of cars and housing. The costs of housing and transport in Singapore are so prohibitive that you have no choice but to list making money the top priority in your choice of careers, if you ever want to even start considering starting a family. This priority then occludes any inkling of hope of ever pursuing a dream or any form of ambition. It seems that for many young Singaporeans, being able to pay for that house becomes the “false dream” which everyone works towards mindlessly.

Lastly, it is the common practice of Singapore to have an “allowed” list, where all things else are prohibited. This is opposed to having a “banned” list, which is the case with many other places. With such a mindset when it comes to our policies, will any youths dare venture out of the norm to chase their dreams? Everyone grows up living within the box of acceptable standards, instead of merely steering away from unacceptable standards. This brings to mind the image of a mould producing perfect standard copies. Thus, what better material to use in a mould than plasticine?

Edward is a final year Engineering student, who is now facing the pressure of getting the highest paying job, to even be able to pay for housing in Singapore. Totally disinterested in Engineering, but is glad to have found an interest in Computing and currently pursuing a minor in Computer Science.

As a blogger who also works in a media company that organises bloggers’ events, here are some guidelines I personally hold for dealing with invites (you need not necessarily agree with me, that’s fine):

1. If you do not want to write about the product/event/service – do not accept the invite in the first place – the reason PR companies or product owners invite you is obviously to get publicity. If you do not want to feel obliged to write, do not RSVP. If you are not sure whether you will put up an entry but still want to go take a look, make that clear to the PR before meeting so as to manage expectations. Journalists work this way; bloggers should too if you want to be treated professionally.

2. If the invite did not state the number of pax, do not assume you can bring guests along. Check first. If you do bring guests, do not assume that your guests can be free loaders. This is to maintain professional integrity. The event is not your private party and please bear in mind there is cost involved for the organiser for every extra Tom, Dick or Harry you bring along.

3. Timeliness. If the invite is for today, do not assume it’s valid a few weeks or months later unless stated. The invite might have been for a one-time off event that was specially catered for a specified period. I also find it a good practice to finish up my blog entry ideally within three days of the invitation. I know bloggers are not journalists, but events have their timeliness factor too and the organisers also have their marketing/publicity objective to account for. Spare a thought for the hand that feeds you.

4. Humility and courtesy. This applies not just to bloggers, but anyone else.

5. There’s no such thing as a free lunch. Journalists get invited to events because they are expected to write about it. This applies to bloggers too. Pay it forward.

For organisers who want to invite bloggers to events, bear in mind that bloggers are not professional writers. I am not referring to the quality of work as some bloggers may even write better than mainstream journalists, but the fact that blogging is not a “profession” for most bloggers. There’s no governing body, no professional code of ethics or guidelines to follow (and it should remain that way as it is part of the beauty of blogging).

To be fair to the bloggers, they are not paid for the time and traveling costs invested to attend your event. Hence always anticipate a small percentage of “negative investment” whereby no blog entries are written after the event or negative coverage by a  few bloggers who attended the event. That’s social media for you. Just bear in mind who these bloggers are and you can consider striking them off your list for future invites. What goes round, comes round.

I think life is a whole lot less complicated when you always put yourself in the other party’s shoes and consider their views too.

As both sides of the story in the ladyironchef vs Private Affairs drama continue to unfold, I think that some lessons can be gleamed in the experience for bloggers and the locales they review alike.

Brad Lau, owner of the blog in question, responded to the accusations he rudely demanded free food from a restaurant because he was a food blogger on his website. It has sparked discussion among food bloggers all over the world as to just what courtesies a blogger should expect as a member of the media, and if a blogger is influential enough to deserve things like free meals at food places they are “reviewing.”

People are divided on the issue, and that’s apparent everywhere. After Lau defended himself, some bloggers apologized for criticizing him while others escalated their criticism. Some of the people who have read my thoughts on this site and others said I should apologize while others agree with what I said. The response everywhere seems to be half and half on the entire issue of whether or not Lau was out of line.

For my part, I have no intention to do so. In the words of a friend of mine who cooks and works in a restaurant, “If the (guy) comes into my place and eats, he better pay for it, I don’t care who he is.” In my mind it is impossible for a person to be neutral about their review at all when they are effectively being given a huge gift by the people they are supposed to be criticizing.

This incident has incited talk about whether or not a blog writer is a journalist by definition. Professors in my university have been discussing this for years, and ultimately the decision is that blogging is inherently journalism. It’s elitist to think one must have a degree or some kind of income for their writing to be a “journalist.” At the same time, bloggers are not held to the same accountability standard as journalists. They often volunteer their time, but they also are not being held to a standard of accuracy, nor are they necessarily publishing in an influential or well-read publication.

I am both a blogger and a student journalist, and I’ve found there is a huge difference in writing for the two media. The thoughts on this issue I liked the most came from this blogger. If blog writers want to be treated with respect, they must in turn keep in mind that they should hold themselves to a much higher standard than they may be used to. Journalistic publications worth their weight are vetted for accuracy, neutrality, and clarity by a number of people. A publication that lacks these things is just another soapbox.

Do you agree?

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise.

Contrast that with the Singaporean anxiety that the liberal immigration policy is resulting in more competition in schools, housing, jobs, runaway property prices, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more. This sense of being overwhelmed further impinges on the fear factor that the immigration policy will do more harm than good to Singapore and Singaporeans alike.

What is obvious is that Singapore, as an immigrant society and one still in need of immigration, is anxious about immigration. The “us” and “them” divide is evident. Furthermore, the challenge with getting citizens to embrace immigration is that not every citizen gains from it – at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be conveniently blamed for a local job lost, stagnant wages, the lack of success in securing one’s ideal home, and the view that Singaporeans are doing the bulk of the “heavy lifting” while the newcomers have it easy. So the societal ambivalence and angst is to be expected.

Given the penchant for pragmatism, Singaporeans can by and large accept the economic logic of an open-door immigration policy. But that rationalistic acceptance clearly has a much harder time being translated into an affective acceptance of the policy. As they say, the longest distance is between the head and the heart.

Indeed, and ironically, our growing sense of national identity has made us more protective of the home-front. We question and doubt the ability and willingness of new immigrants to integrate and nurture a sense of belonging and loyalty to Singapore.

In his National Day Rally speech last Sunday, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong reiterated the commitment to citizens first, reflected in a pecking order of citizens being treated better than PRs, and PRs than non-residents. He also urged Singaporeans to draw a distinction between transient workers and new immigrants. It is the latter group that has to be integrated substantially if they are to grow their roots here.

Prime Minister Lee unveiled a slew of measures and policy tweaks to emphasise that citizenship has its privileges. This included the National Service Recognition Award (NSRA) for national servicemen to “recognise (their) contributions and sacrifices”. In education, the government will ensure sufficient school and university places while also creating more educational opportunities and recognising different peaks of excellence. On transport, PM Lee pledged to deal with congestion on the MRT. On housing, PM Lee promised that more HDB flats would be built and that public housing choices for the “sandwiched class”—who were previously priced out of the private property market—would be widened. Anti-speculation property measures were also introduced to curb the over-exuberance in the property market. The premise of this commitment is to “always keep HDB flats within the reach of Singaporeans”.

Are these initiatives, pledges and commitments enough to assure Singaporeans that the current immigration regime will benefit them? Reactions are, not surprisingly, strong and varied. There are already criticisms that the NSRA amount is too small and almost demeaning. At the other extreme is the view that the NSRA “cheapens” citizenship and national service. Critics argue that the anti-speculation measures are probably too late since the property price froth is already well entrenched in both HDB and private property markets. I doubt we can please everyone, especially those who are vehemently opposed to the immigration policy.

PM Lee also highlighted the importance of personal ties and friendships in the process of integration. This is timely. Integration is not something that can be orchestrated by the state. While it can be encouraged and facilitated, integration is a two-way process, and must be organic and sincere.

How can we promote integration? As we seek to top up our population, we should never make Singaporeans feel that they are inferior or that they are being taken for granted. For a start, drop ‘foreign talent’. Used in official discourse to reinforce the message that newcomers add value to our society, this superlative buzzword is terribly marginalizing and patronizing. Indeed, many of the newcomers are very much like you and me. More significantly, it harks of a neo-colonial mindset that the locals are ‘not good enough’. But, mind you, we built this fine city, and made it an attractive place to live, work, study and play in. Perhaps the new Ministry-level Population and Talent Division in the Prime Minister’s Office should be renamed.

Secondly, anecdotal evidence suggest that we give out PR and citizenship rather liberally. Talent alone is not enough. Much as we need to right-size our population, it is crucial that those who seek the Singapore franchise understand our society, our foundational ethos, our shared values and heritage, and our limitations. They need to know what they are pledging allegiance to.

It will take a while before the details of the series of measures announced since Sunday will have a persuasive effect on Singaporeans vis-à-vis the immigration policy. However, if Singaporeans are not persuaded and do not accept the new immigrants, then we will have to search for alternatives to help us deal with the reality of a declining, ageing population.

The writer is assistant professor of law at the School of Law, Singapore Management University.

[3 September 2010]