Is Self Regulation of the Singapore Blogosphere possible?

Important Note: Please read the clarification of my position in the second article on this issue, first posted Dec 20, 2006 (added Dec 28, 2006), before jumping to any conclusions.

Today, Dharmendra Yadav published an article entitled "Blogs should Self-Regulate". He emphasize the "need for bloggers to stand up, represent and self-regulate their own community more formally" and suggested the formation of a blogger association such that the body can help "to shield bloggers from intimidation and frivolous defamation lawsuits" and become a group to speak for the interests of the blogging community.

There are two questions which we should pose before the "House of Bloggers" be formed:

1. Is forming a formal association of bloggers necessary?
2. Are the Singapore blogosphere or even better, plogosphere ready to form such an association?

Let's address the first question in perspective. Lately, there has been a lot of introspection and reflection in the blogosphere (see also this post by fearfully opinionated). The main issues concern two issues which most serious bloggers need to contend with: (1) extremist views and comments in some blogs and they may hinge necessarily on issues which may render them in the Sedition Act or not, (2)  handling bloggers with emotive views who might not want to agree even the logic is spelt out coldly to them. Some bloggers lamented that other bloggers blog with their emotions rather than exercising logic and critical thinking when faced with a bread and butter issue which concerns them, for the example the 7% GST hike. Actually, there is nothing wrong in blogging with emotions. As a matter of fact, if we are not passionate about what we speak, we should not be blogging. However, the real issue which underlies our cultural weakness is that Singaporeans, like our establishment, are bullish in the face of criticism. Yet, we should be hopeful that the blogosphere has the potential to be a platform for civil and rational discourse.

Believe it or not, we are much more sensitive to criticism and when pegged with the Asian culture of hierarchy and bearing grudges after losing debate, you can imagine the consequences of a blogger getting fiery and making comments which he or she should not have. It happens from time to time for every blogger. So, in short, the answer for the first question is yes. If you need a better reason for doing that, you can move your clock back to the AcidFlask incident. That event could have been averted if the whole matter is settled out between both parties (with an association helping to mediate).

The real question is the second one. Are we ready to band ourselves into a loosely alliance where our views are so fragmented from each other? Oftentimes, a close friend of mine like to champion the internet as the only voice (similar to Kitana) we have to address social injustice and offers an avenue for whistleblowers. In fact, my friend took it further and believed that it might be the key to give opposition the space to broadcast their views. In every discussion, I often tell him that it is not likely to happen. First of all, very few people actually patronize blogs. Yes, this is the brutal truth because we have not reached the critical mass yet. If you actually work out how many people are politically desensitized, the numbers will go further down. Second, and I think that this is a better reason why I don't think that we are ready for this, is the diversity of views in the Singapore blogosphere. Everyone of us has a different take on different issues. As a matter of fact, group blogs and aggregators are already forming based on our interests to engage different subjects, for example, Singapore Angle. For that matter, most of us are already self-regulating among our own communities. The question for us to resolve is how we can integrate our current existing rules within our community for the big community. Can we take the big leap towards forming one association like the one Yadav suggested?

Let me play the devil's advocate and suggest two reasons why forming a big association can create a mess. In forming an association, the bloggers are signing themselves unofficially into a blogger registration act. In the case of just one blogger running amok arises, it might divide the bloggers and create the atmosphere that might tear the current fragmentation apart into a further rift. If you don't think that this can happen, check out the current craze in Marvel comics where the superheroes are engaged in a civil war because of a Superhero Registration Act.

The second reason is that bloggers operate on an informal basis and the formation of an association might not encourage the vibrant collaboration which is ongoing within the community. The real worry is that the association might generate unnecessary politics which might cause more problems than speaking for the bloggers itself. Regulation requires the creation of legislation to govern the bloggers in their etiquette and the way they operate. Most likely, we will see two camps of bloggers if this situation happens: one group as an establishment and the other (not anti-establishment) operate freely on their own. If the association is anti-establishment and not counter-establishment, the bloggers might find themselves in murky waters.

Yes, blogs should self-regulate. In my own opinion, the idea is interesting but the implementation of the idea will be tricky and virtually impossible. Maybe the first step is to have a bloggers' conference for the 2nd time and put such a motion to discussion.

Comments

[kwokheng]

'Professionalism in the SAF' is here. (Not the speech for the 41/00 Officer Cadet Course.)

[kwokheng]

Oops... sorry, the line about 'more credibility' and 'sweeping statements from Ministers that blogosphere is full of clever propaganda, inflammatory opinions, half-truths and untruths' was wrongly attributed to BL.

It should have been attributed to the commentator 'Gerald' (Dec 06, 2006 at 02:04 AM) in this particular thread.

Apologies,
kh

[kwokheng]

Note: These are interim considerations.

Actually certain threads in the situation is very analogous to Chris Anderson's 'The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More'.

All the 'prominent' bloggers of Singapore blogosphere have more or less responded to Dharmendra Yadav's piece in TODAY.

By 'prominent', I mean those who write with the intention of putting out their views into public space; those who put out an opinion in the manner of discussion, ie. where/when corrected, will stand corrected.

By 'prominent' as well, I refer to those who blog with some intention of shifting opinions of those like themselves: Singaporeans interested in connecting with other Singaporeans for issues beyond their personal spheres.

That is to say, 'prominent' in this context refers to those who blog about 'political/social/economic issues'.

From an outsider's point of view, what is not being discussed however is whether the 'blogging community' in Dharmendra Yadav's piece is not in fact something of a 'phantom public'.

Because while those who've written extensively and passionately about this issue may write with some form of moderation, taking care that their facts and sources are accurate, there are also those who don't.

The WSM affair is a very good case in point: WSM intended and saw her blog as a medium like the diaries of yesteryears, with the added benefit of being able to let her friends read it.

So there are bloggers who blog with the purpose of 'making public' ('publicity') and those who blog as an 'extension of the private self'.

This contrast is one reason why as BL suggests, a 'Code of Conduct' may not work.

Another problem, as has been raised before, is that instituting a Code as such would seem tantamount to having a re-enforcement of 'acceptable' opinions by a Big Brother figure.

But in reality, it is not a Code as such per se.

Self-regulation or better still, 'moderation' -- to borrow the term from BL -- is about protecting oneself.

This point runs in parallel to those who stop to consider whether Yadav's piece is to be read as a 'divide and conquer' from the MSM; whether it should be addressed and responded to as such, ie. how should bloggers react?

Assuming it is a 'divide and conquer' technique, then for the sole purpose of perhaps personal pride in what one could do in proffering an opinion and allowing discussion of it, one would perhaps prefer to make sure that one's information and sources are accurate and learn a bit about what constitutes 'fair comment'.

(Which is where the NTU thingie comes in: Those who blog ought to know: 1) the nature of the medium, 2) the consequences accrued from the nature of the medium, 3) what are the precautions one can take with regards to the rule of law in mediation with one's wish to blog.)

Yet assuming that it is not a 'divide and conquer' technique, would the 'prominent' bloggers as defined herein disagree with the need for them to base their posts and opinions on accurate information?

That blogosphere's pieces may by and large be metaphorically 'anti-MSM' is only in reaction to the fact that the MSM is state-owned.

I would like bloggers to continue to write and provide alternative points of view, to balance out against whatever bias, perceived or otherwise in the articles that pervade the MSM.

However, to borrow on what BL has noted: if bloggers who write to analyse and critique cannot profess to take value in taking informed and considered views, which clearly implies the need to write accurately and responsibly, then bloggers cannot expect that there will be 'more credibility to [this] "industry"' and will not 'prevent those sweeping statements from Ministers that blogosphere is full of clever propaganda, inflammatory opinions, half-truths and untruths.'

As for bloggers who do not write with the aim of publicity, they form the 'long tail' of Singapore society in terms of societal communication.

That is, they perform the role of 'exception reporting' (cf. DPM Lee, 'Professionalism in the SAF' as well as Chris Anderson's 'The Long Tail') and display trends and perceptions that can be subjected to further analysis by bloggers who aim at critique.

That is, the 'prominent' bloggers play the part of mediation between the masses and the MSM (and therefore the greater part of society).

kh

[Bernard Leong]

Hi Dr Huang,

Thank you for visiting. I don't think that my position is contradictory. Perhaps, I should explain why I only support a code of conduct rather than enforcing it with legislation or forming a bloggers' association.

In the situation for the code of conduct, the choice for any blogger to abide is optional. Suppose we decide to have 1 rule: (1) no personal attacks and character assassinations, if u need an example, see the guy, chutzpah, in your blog making defamatory remarks, then it is up to who wants to abide the rule. If you don't like it, you can choose not to take it.

The last paragraph is to ask people that if some bloggers really want such regulation, they should organize a gathering and talk about it first. Honestly, I think that Yadav's proposal is a bad idea.

[Dr.Huang]

Hi Bernard,
Thanks for visiting my blog.
Your last para here is a bit confusing and gives the impression that you are pro-self regulation. (unlike what you said on my blog).
Perhaps it is just semantics and words getting meanings all entangled.
My feeling is that we should not prematurely do anything which might unwittingly lead to suppression of free speech.
Cheers

Dr.Huang

[Nameless The Heavenly Sword]

So who's going to come up with the guidelines? Who is to say what is right and what is wrong? Judgment belongs to GOD alone.

[Kevin]

What makes a blog?

Why the need to regulate it in the first place? Can't we leave it alone and not add more complexity to this world?

It is our perogative and our own responsibility to put what we feel into words. Will this cause a chasm from those who blog about serious matters and those who just blog about their own lives, which club they went on Saturday, what wine they bought for that BYO BBQ etc..

It is not good to draw a needless large net to cover us, when the definition of a blogger can never be settled.

If any aggregated action should be taken, it should be to speak as one voice that bloggers are individuals.

We have had a lot of control over every little thing. It is time to remove this urge to regulate or self- whatever.

[tsft]

It's not so much the self-regulation, is it? If you self-regulate you end up being something like our local media, what's the point of putting out opinions? You can't say what you want to.

Self-regulation means you miss out on opinions that would otherwise be enlightening and useful. That's not to say you're a coward if you're judicious with your words – there are valid reasons to be afraid.

Even if bloggers don't, the government most likely will. The government has never loosened up – we tend to forget what a genuinely liberalising effect the internet has – and in fact has only ever tighted restrictions, like the recent changes to the penal code.

What we should be asking ourselves is how, when the time comes, we can blog as privately and anonymously as possible. There already is a dearth of good, strong opinion in the local blogosphere and self-regulation will only make the problem worse.

[lunatic fringe]

The more fundamental question we have missed appears to be, WHY REGULATE the blogs in the first place?

This discussion takes the view that we should regulate and am reviewing how and if forming an association to self-regulate would work. The fact is that Singapore residents are already captured under Sedition Act so the Govt if it so chooses can already hammer bloggers for inciting racial hatred among other things.

As it is, the blogosphere is still not mainstream and possibly less than 10-20% of the population actually reads and is influenced by what they read in blogs.

So WHY REGULATE?

The market forces that our supposedly capitalistic society loves enforces the invisible hand. The gahmen enforces the visible hand.

So WHY REGULATE.

So intrinsically Singaporean, the desire to control and stifle.

Lunatic Fringe
"Living in a tragi-comedy that is 'Uniquely Singapore!'"

[Gerald]

I agree with you that forming a "formal association" of bloggers is a bit far fetched. But I think it would be helpful if we could have some sort of code of ethics that bloggers can choose to subscribe to. This code could be general...something like the religious harmony pledge that all the major religious organisations in Singapore have subscribed to.

Those bloggers who subscribe to the code could have a logo on their blogs. I think it will lend a bit more credibility to our "industry" and will prevent those sweeping statements from Ministers that blogosphere is full of clever propaganda, inflammatory opinions, half-truths and untruths.