Mica responding

Mica has responded to the initiative by TOC and Yawning Bread and said it would take their proposals into consideration when regulations concerning cyberspace are being studied. What is interesting, and too good to be true, is the comment by Bhavani, press secretary to Boon Yang, that Mica is continuing with its lighter touch approach and may even go lighter. Wow! She said, 'Our intent... was to foster the growth of the Internet and to enable us to exploit its vast potential while safeguarding our society from its undesirable aspects.' Sounds promising, to foster the growth of Internet and to exploit its vast potential. But what is a bit dicey and may need to be looked at carefully is the meaning of 'undesirable aspects.' This is a motherhood phrase that can mean anything according to whoever is interpreting it. Just keep the finger crossed.


Anonymous said...

.. can mean anything according to whoever is interpreting it.

But since it is the government that is making the laws, it dhould follow that what will be used is their interpretation. Don't need to cross anything. :P

Matilah_Singapura said...

> 'Our intent... was to foster the growth of the Internet and to enable us to exploit its vast potential while safeguarding our society from its undesirable aspects.' <

More nonsense from a government fool.

There is no such thing as 'society' so how can one protect it?

All one has to do about 'undesirable aspects' is no not type in 'undesirable' url's, or click on any 'undesirable' links. And whether one does or doesn't, other people are going to put up whatever content they choose... no matter how offensive or controversial.

If the S'pore govt actually means to 'foster growth' on the net (and I doubt they are -- they want to control it as much as they can without looking like the 'bad guy') then they'd back away, and leave the net alone -- and confine any laws relating to the internet to things like theft (fraud) and property damage (cracking), busting paedophiles and similar crimes where individuals are actually physically harmed.

As far as speech and content go -- keep the fuck out and leave people the fuck ALONE!

Matilah_Singapura said...

P.S. MICA should be scuttled. Its building turned into cafe's restaurants, possibly lofts and office space by private developers, the services of the minister and all the staff terminated.

The State has no place in arts, information or human communication.

MICA, fuck off.

Anonymous said...

Keep our fingers crossed? From the position of 130th to 157th in press freedom speaks for itself loud and clear.

Why are Singaporeans still so gullible to always swallow hooks and baits all the time?

There is a Hokkien saying: "Dogs that once eat shits will always eat shits."

Can we seriously trust someone who creeps into your computer to snoop upon you all the time?

redbean said...

it is interesting how govts try to put their controls onto a certain space in nowhere. it is not even space but virtual space.

but they will wrangle their ways through eventually.

Matilah_Singapura said...

As my latest post on singabloodypore demonstrates, the main problem is that we don't have an independent judiciary.

Without the rule of law, freedom is impossible. The courts are the only line of defense protecting the people from unreasonable and excessive force from the government.

redbean said...

would there be a legal community of experts to stand up and tell the govt that some laws or aspects of laws passed are hogwash or overstepping and infringing the rights of the people?

does the legal community sees that they have such a responsibility and duty to the people other than just making money from legal tussles?

Matilah_Singapura said...

Firstly, I don't believe there is such a thing as "duty". You have an obligation only by contract, and the context and details are limited by contract. "duty" is a "political word" used to control people by telling them they have certain obligations which they never agreed to.

For e.g.: too many parents try to instill a "sense of duty" on their kids. The simple fact is that they are simply lousy parents and fucked-up human beings who cannot win their children's respect and esteem in any other way than unilateral edicts.

And the state behaves in exactly the same way. Especially a patriarchal state like Singapore.

Just to clarify: If someone joins the military voluntarily then he is bound by contract, and thus duty-bound to serve his country by defending it. If the person is FORCED to join the military, IMO he is not under any obligation whatsoever. This if a conscript goes AWOL, he is being perfectly moral, even though he will suffer greatly when he's caught.

Back to the judiciary...

Lee Kuan Yew is a lawyer. He knows how this works. So does Jayakumae, and Ho, and recently Shanmugam. If any lawyer in private practice were to stand up, he'll be shot down, discredited and possibly disbarred, perhaps even jailed.

No, the change has to come from the courts, especially the High Court; the magistrates and judges themselves. The judiciary is a branch of the state, not the entire legal profession.

No lawyer is 'duty bound' to put himself in harm's way, with ramifications which might affect his family and social relationships to effect change in a system much bigger than he could possibly be. If he does so out of his own volition, good for him. We can buy him a JW Blue Label next time we spot him at the SCC bar for his either insanity or bravery...both are excellent reasons to buy someone a hearty drink.

So, the question is, what are those High Court judges doing? And the CJ? How could they have let themselves be roped into a cosy relationship with the executive branch of the state? How are we supposed to have really impartial "blind" justice who bows to no political code or authority and performs strictly and unswervingly on PRINCIPLE. Not having an independent judiciary is a very bad thing. Very, very bad.

Who suffers the most? The weakest members of society do. You and I can hop on a plane and emigrate somewhere else, if we don't like what's going on. Many Singaporeans who are less empowered--financially and socially--don't have that option. If the law doesn't protect these people, and instead gives the govt power over these people, then the situation is frightening. I'm not talking about being protected against criminal activity--Singapore's no-nonsense law's are great, and I support the use of the rotan for violent crime and the death penalty for murder (not for drugs) as punishment.

What I am talking about is the role of the judiciary which ensures that the govt does not encroach on "We, The Citizens" liberty. (By "liberty" I mean freedom from unnecessary, unreasonable, and tyrannical government intervention into the lives of peaceful individuals).

I take an example from the recent review of the Penal Code: Homosexual activity is criminalised. They call it "acts of gross indecency". This has no place in a modern society. Did the courts strike this legislation down? NO. Why? I don't know.

Before there were kings and rulers, there were judges. These wise, usually old people, were revered and trusted by their communities to find the law whenever disputes in the community arose. The basic principle of justice is to FIND the law, not MAKE the law.

In modern Singapore however, the government makes the law...and the law finds victims.