Lui Tuck Yew’s admonishment of netizens misses the forest, the trees, and even the overhead bridge

Written by Ng E-Jay
06 Feb 2009

There is a common saying, “don’t miss the forest for the trees”, which cautions us not to get so caught up in the details that we miss the more important message in the big picture.

Senior Minister of State (Information, Communications and the Arts) Lui Tuck Yew’s vociferous admonition of netizens over the Seng Han Thong saga in Parliament on Wednesday 04 Feb not only misses the forest, it is also misses the trees, and even the overhead bridge.

Rear-Admiral (NS) Lui Tuck Yew was referring to the numerous blog and forum postings made by netizens poking fun at the story of MP Seng Han Thong being set ablaze by an elderly Yio Chu Kang resident last month at a bursary and hong bao presentation ceremony. Mr Seng was admitted to the Singapore General Hospital with between 10 and 15 per cent burns and had to undergo two skin graft operations.

RADM Lui noted that while there were some comments sympathetic to Mr Seng, “the vast majority were unhelpful, a significant number were unkind, a small number were downright outrageous”. (Straits Times, “Online attacks: Minister rues lack of self-policing”, 05 Feb 2009)

RADM Lui singled out for special mention a posting made on the popular socio-political website wayangparty.com on a list of 10 things Mr Seng should “be thankful for” in spite of being attacked. The contents of that post were originally found in the Sammyboy forum.

RADM Lui also made special mention of a poll posted on wayangparty.com asking who deserved more sympathy: Mr Seng or his attacker Mr Ong Kah Chua. The ex-cabby received 200 votes and Mr Seng, 56. RADM Lui opined that “netizens had voted quite unjustly” in this poll.

RADM Lui said that the tepid response of netizens to the nasty comments and their failure to rebut some of the unhelpful comments showed that “the Internet is not an effective self-regulated regime as some may have touted it to be“.

He added: “It is a squandered opportunity for a higher degree of self-regulation. It would have been an example of the genesis, of the first steps, towards a more responsible, greater, self-regulatory regime.”

Firstly, I do not appreciate RADM Lui tainting the entire blogosphere and Internet community with a single brush.

For the record, I do NOT condone postings that poked fun at Mr Seng’s injuries. Just because I did not say anything about the incident (apart from reproducing mainstream media articles about the event without adding any of my views) or rebut the comments made by other netizens does not mean I approve of those comments. I did not offer my opinion simply because I was not interested in the issue. As a blogger, I cannot be expected to offer my views on every issue out there. The same goes for the rest of cyberspace participants.

I can also safely say that they were many netizens who took the effort to discredit postings poking fun at Mr Seng’s injuries, but I admit they were lost in the “noise”.

Secondly, and more interestingly, RADM Lui’s special mention of the posting on 10 things that Mr Seng should “be thankful for” shows that he either did not read that posting carefully, or he has completely missed the underlying message of that posting.

This posting was not mocking Mr Seng’s injuries or saying that he deserved what he got. Let me reproduce the original post here and I’ll let readers decide what the post was really about:

Top 10 things that Seng Han Tong must be thankful for.

10. Please be thankful that you are not beaten to death by four teenagers who accused you of staring.

9. Please be thankful that your assailant is not a suicide bomber and you are blown into pieces.

8. Please be thankful it is not your first time to be attacked, you should have mentally prepared to “close ranks and move on”, basically you choose to be a boot-licking minister “with your eyes open”.

7. Please be thankful that the Yio Chu Kang residents are not questioning where and how you “invest” the “excess” Town Council sinking funds and they are “thankful” to you for making profits for them for the past years.

6. Please be thankful the media will continue to white wash you until you came out squeaky clean and blame everything on the assailant.

5. Please be thankful that the government have 1 set of law specially erected to protect you so that your 70 year old assailant can go to jail until he dies. Normal civilians, kenna assaulted only justifies a civil suit. Offence of voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323 of the Penal Code is a non-seizeable offence.

4. Please be thankful that you are still alive and not brain-dead, and your organs are not harvested for some rich people.

3. Please be thankful that you still have your job despite your screw-ups and your residents resorted to beat you up and set fire on you.

2. Please be thankful your hospitalization bill is paid by the government and you are not being “mean tested”.

And number uno Seng Han Tong should be thankful for is:

1. Please be thankful while you are hospitalized, you are still getting 13,900 per month.

If RADM Lui had carefully read between the lines, he would have realized that the real intention of the post was to highlight the vast discrepancies between how ordinary Singaporeans are treated, and how public figures like MP Seng Han Thong are treated. Injustices and tragedies happen all the time to ordinary folk, but news about them is often shoveled under carpet. However when the same happens to public figures like MPs, the entire machinery of the Government steps in to highlight the event and encourage sympathy from Singaporeans.

The above posting also illustrates various Government policies that have caused dissatisfaction amongst common folk, as well as messages from the Government that have made citizens feel sidelined or alienated. Apparently there is one set of rules for elites in power, and another set of rules for ordinary Singaporeans.

Thirdly, I find it odd for RADM Lui to claim that netizens have squandered “an opportunity for a higher degree of self-regulation”. If the Government was serious about promoting self-regulation in the Internet community, why did the Government reject AIMS’ proposal of setting up a youth panel to serve as a consultative body on new media and cyber safety matters, and why did AIMS pay scant attention to the Bloggers’ 13 proposal to set up an independent Internet Content Consultative Committee (IC3) that would issue recommendations whenever controversies arise regarding digital content, for example, offering its view when content providers are alleged to have behaved irresponsibly?

The Government’s policies thus far have not been aimed at promoting Internet self-regulation, but rather, fine-tuning existing laws that enable the authorities to address what they deem as inflammatory content on the Internet. The Government also retains the administrative discretion to decide what is good and bad on the Internet, but without giving netizens clear guidelines. Through the use of opaquely-worded rules and selective application of the law, the Government has not promoted self-regulation, but self-censorship.

RADM Lui also said: “Individual bloggers ought to be responsible and accountable in their postings. Website proprietors and the online contributors must be responsible and prompt in moderating the sites to ensure credibility, objectivity and balance in the content posted.”

I agree that bloggers and online commentators in forums should be responsible in their postings, whether they have revealed their identities or choose to be anonymous. The need for responsible speech applies equally in both the offline as well as the online world. Laws relating to defamation, sedition, and contempt of the judiciary apply equally to both spheres of discourse. (Whether PAP’s laws are fair and just and whether laws have been selectively used by the authorities to deny free speech and suppress political dissent is another matter.)

But how would website operators and forum hosts know when they should moderate or censor comments in general? This is a gray area. What may be deemed unacceptable to one party may be acceptable to another. In the interest of free speech, ultimate discretion must be given to forum hosts and website operators, as long as laws have not been broken.

The only clear guidelines dictating when forum hosts and other website operators should censors comments made by participants is when the content posted is clearly defamatory, is contemptuous of the judiciary, incites violence or racial hatred, or depicts nudity, especially of minors. Unfortunately, the mocking and personal attacks on Mr Seng Han Thong do not fall into any of these categories. On what basis then is RADM Lui claiming that censorship of such postings on Seng Han Thong is warranted?

If RADM Lui is merely voicing his own opinion, he should not pretend that his views must carry more weight than all others.

Madam Cynthia Phua (Aljunied GRC) related how sometimes, positive comments her friends wanted to make on some political sites were rejected, and asked how such sites could be open to all.

I am not sure about other prominent sites like the Online Citizen (which frequently discusses its censorship criteria), but as far as my own blog is concerned, I will allow any comment as long as it is not defamatory or in contempt of the judiciary. In fact, pro-establishment comments are especially welcome as they give me an opportunity to engage and possibly rebut those views.

When netizens hide behind a cloak of anonymity, they feel emboldened and free to speak their mind. If RADM Lui has found that netizens’ behaviour is generally uncouth, perhaps he should ask if our educational system has been effective in inculcating proper values to our youths.

More importantly, he should also step back, look at the bigger picture, and ask why despite all the efforts of the mainstream media to encourage sympathy towards Mr Seng, netizens have remained cold and dispassionate. Could it be that netizens’ apparent lack of manners towards Mr Seng is merely symptomatic of a deeper undercurrent of political dissatisfaction, and that the ruling elite should address this undercurrent rather than chasing the shadows?

Insidiously, after Lui Tuck Yew’s admonishment of netizens in Parliament, Lianhe Zaobao ran an article quoting Police inspector Huang Hong Guan during an interview as saying that “netizens who have hurled untrue accusations at others on the Internet had better consider twice if they think they can escape from the clutches of the law by hiding behind a cloak of anonymity“, and that “all slanderers and flame-baiters on the Internet will not be able to escape prosecution if the police found that laws are indeed broken“. (English translation of this Mandarin article is provided by the Wayang party website here.)

The Lianhe Zaobao article mentioned specifically that “reckless and baseless attacks from netizens and bloggers” have been made concerning the loss of sinking funds via failed investments in structured-linked products by PAP Town Councils, the fire attack on MP Seng Han Thong, and Permanent Secretary Tan Yong Soon’s 5 week holiday in Paris.

I feel that the Government is taking this way too far. The authorities need to distinguish between fair comment and slander, and not attempt to lump all criticism under one blanket. It is this opacity of where the authorities draw the line that instils fear in netizens and encourages self-censorship.

In fact, the use of the examples like the loss of sinking funds via failed investments by PAP Town Councils and Tan Yong Soon’s 5 week holiday in Paris shows that the Government has been politically damaged by its indiscretions, and is attempting to instil fear by insinuating that critical comments made with regards to these two issues can potentially be viewed as “reckless attacks”. This is sheer rubbish. The more they speak, they more they reveal their tail.

In my website Sgpolitics.net, I have revealed my full name and provided my photo for easy identification. I do so because I am prepared to stand by everything I say on this website, even in a Court of law.

Rather than merely deriding netizens for being reckless and insensitive, the Government should also make an effort to pay attention to responsible voices on the Internet that offer well thought-out views.

And when the Government implements suggestions or raise ideas that originate from netizens, bloggers and other parties, it should have the basic courtesy of acknowledging the source of those ideas.

For instance, PAP MPs should give proper credit to the Singapore Democratic Party for its suggestions on cutting ERP charges, reducing or eliminating GST, and giving out consumption coupons to assist needy households.

Courtesy, after all, should be a two-sided affair.