The AIMS Paper

My general impression of the AIMS Paper is that it is a very comprehensive report on the existing status of internet activities and where to go from here. AIMS stands out as a fairly neutral body and its recommendations were free from the encumbrance that one would normally expect from a govt agency. The only area that it could not help to detach itself from is the need to control and manage political discussions of the people in general and the political parties in particular. The need to control and manage is entrenched in any govt in power. It is in their interest to ban or block any criticisms or comments that challenges their position and power. This assumption that it is normal for the govt to control and manage opposition and criticisms has moderated AIMS recommendation on Section 33 of the Films Act. Section 33 is simply a provision that favours the govt in power. Period. The other recommendations on the protection of minors, crimes, pornography, sedition etc should not see any objections and rightly so, and the Bloggers 13 have left them untouched. The recommendations to remove all the obstacles placed on netizens are welcomed. This can only come about with a positive assumption that netizens are responsible and decent people and can be trusted with the freedom of expression. Maybe AIMS should try to address the issue of a level playing field whereby the power to control and to dictate to the opposition be removed and all parties operate under the same set of rules. Would this be asking too much from the realities of politics? But liberalization of the internet must bring about a freer and fairer environment for all parties if criticisms and cynicisms are to be avoided. Transparency, fairness, soundness of policies will be demanded and anything less will only be ridiculed openly. It demands a higher level of sophistication and consistency in policy making. To liberalise involves big changes in many areas, including how the political games should be played and how the govt conducts itself and its relations with the people. AIMS has recognized that this is a process in its infancy and incremental changes is a better way to go, to learn and change along the way. The govt will have a tough time deciding on how much to let go on political activities, outside and during an election campaign period. A lot of resources and manpower will be needed to engage the netizens, including setting up of many support organizations. A lot of jobs will also be created, maybe even a ministry in charge of cyberspace and netizens be appointed. It is a new constituency. The boldest part of the recommendation is the recognition and acknowledgement that the internet is the future, uncontrollable and unstoppable. The govt is strongly encouraged to step bravely into the future, engage the people, be less uptight, and be less abrasive, be prepared to share the political space with the opposition and people who don't agree with them. This is a tall order. It is a great departure from the obsessive need to control, like pronouncing cycling in the park as dangerous to social security, even harassing young students, that makes the govt looks clumsy and ridiculous. The other positive assumption is that netizens are not the illiterate Ah Pek and Ah Ma, and many are thinking people that can see things as they really are and can contribute to the general goodness of country and society, that is, if they are embraced as part of the whole decision making process, even in a small way like e-engagement. AIMS has invited the govt to take a path into the future that is full of uncertainties but also full of promises and opportunities, to tranform our way of life and how we communicate, a freer and all inclusive society where the divisive line between the people and govt is blurred for the better of everyone. Will the govt bite?

YOG - Whole NATION must be involved

The CEO of the Singapore YOG committee, Goh Kee Nguan, is calling the whole Nation to be involved in the Youth Olympic Games. Wait a moment. If Singaporeans do not know what is a Singaporean, do they know what is the meaning of a Nation? Does the Nation includes citizens, PRs and all the foreign talents and workers working here? Who will be involved? If we are thinking of an all inclusive society, shall we include everyone here, citizens or non citizens, every residents? We have taken for granted the meaning of Singaporeans and it now loosely even include PRs and residents. Even Singaporeans do not know the meaning of being a Singaporean. I am sure the word 'Nation' will stump everyone here. We shall rise as a Nation. Sounds quite hollow and empty isn't it? Are we a nation? After 43 years of nation building...

As we grow older...

As the population grows older and less nimble with age, many things becomes frightening. The old, ing experience for them to walk alone in the presence of young and strong foreign workers and their wild stares. You do not know what is going on inside their heads. We are growing older for sure. And we have a few hundred strong and hungry young men in our midst. It is a great recipe for more tension and crimes if we are not careful. We must find a way to deal with this dilemma. We want them or need them, but we fear them. For they can create a lot of potential problems for us. Singaporeans must not be complacent in their thoughts. We are going to become a minority in a sea of foreigners and security and safety will become a bigger issue to face on a daily basis. It is not just 1000 foreign workers in Serangoon Garden. The clusters living next door or a few doors away, or in the nearby construction sites can be equally dangerous.

What's the fuss?

I did not really follow the on goings on what Aims were trying to do, to regulate the internet, when the govt is talking about liberalisation. What Aims is trying to do and what the govt is trying to do appear to be contradictory. One argument is that you need rules before you can run free. Quite true. But rules are aplenty and is all we got. We have rules and laws against sedition, scandals, libels, pornography, false or misleading information and also the mother of all laws, ISA. What more do we need? The only area that is really troubling the authority is political openess. How much can one say against a political party, in this case the ruling party. The simple line to be drawn, or has always been there, is truth and facts. If you are telling the truth, then why fear the truth, why ban the truth? Admittedly, two persons' truth may disagree, my truth against your tooth. Often such things will be a matter of interpretation or opinion. But the truth must be the truth and not the tooth. So what is the big fuss? We should know better. My position thus, is still the same. There are already enough rules and laws to regulate the internet. And everyone is responsible for his postings and can be hauled up by the law or another party to answer for his rambling. A little fine tuning of the current laws may be necessary to take into account this new technology, terminology and how it works. What the blogging community should worry about is how the laws are to be applied and whether they are fair and just. Then again, how to be fair and just when what is fair is in the eyes of the beholder or the one holding the big stick? Can the opposition party organise a cycling event? Oh yes. But would it get a permit to go ahead?

$126 mil to instal screen doors

SMRT will spend $126 mil to instal screen doors in its stations to prevent people falling onto the track accidentally or intentional. Another $29 to instal CCTV to monitor such incidents. Should these money be spent to prevent people from jumping on the track if they already planned to do so? If that is the case, HDB should instal grills on every floor of flats to prevent people from falling. For those who wanted to jump, such measures are a complete waste of money. Even the CCTV is only good to tell you what happened after they have jumped. For accidental falls, some minimal railings should do. If the MRT reasoning is valid, then screen doors must be erected to all the roads to prevent people from straying onto the roads. We even need to block out all the canals to prevent people from falling in.