By Andrew Loh
“In January this year, following the horrific accident in Tampines that claimed the lives of the two young brothers, photographs showing the mangled state of their bodies were circulated rapidly on the Internet.
“The photographs made a spectacle out of a tragedy and robbed their family of the privacy and dignity that they deserved. This is only one incident.
“The recent sex-corruption cases have seen photographs of innocent women circulated on the Internet speculating whether they were involved.”
The above quote is taken from Member of Parliament Hri Kumar’s speech in Parliament. Kumar cited the two incidents to support his call for the government to “act against hateful conduct online.” In my view, Kumar's citation of the 2 incidents are rather one-sided and incomplete.
Kumar has apparently ignored certain facts about the two incidents, namely:
1. In the Tampines accident, as noted by researcher Carol Soon of the Institute of Policy Studies: "Soon after the photographs were posted, prominent bloggers and forum participants questioned the motives and the need for sharing such pictures. They called on the online community to show greater respect to the family of the boys who died."
2. In the second case Kumar cited, “photographs of innocent women” being circulated online is not peculiar to the Internet. In fact, the mainstream media had camped out and harassed the innocent women friends and colleagues of former Workers’ Party MP Yaw Shin Leong in 2012 – and had splashed their photos in their newspapers which reached millions of readers.
In almost every notable case where online posters have displayed distasteful or uncalled for behaviour, members of the online community have stepped up to condemn or speak out against such behaviour. And this applies even when it involves attacks on MPs of the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) such as Tin Pei Ling. [See here.]
Even when xenophobic views were expressed, the online community called these out and condemned them and the originator of such postings.
In contrast, no MPs have even chided the mainstream media when they fall short of basic standards of propriety or professionalism. [Here is a recent example, "STOMPED", where STOMP apparently stole a photo which did not belong to it.]
Yet, in recent times, the call for regulating the Internet and to rein in such behaviour has grown louder from the government and members of the ruling party, even as they ignore the fact that in that same period, the mainstream media and their affiliates have degenerated into and engaged in worse behaviour – faking a story about MRT doors, using a picture of Muslims in traditional attire taken on Hari Raya for a story on drug addiction, repeatedly sensationalising “news” about foreigners with bad behaviour, etc. Even members of the ruling party have engaged in racist postings and vile behaviour online which its MPs seem to have conveniently ignored. [See here for how SPH's STOMP stokes xenophobic feelings: "STOMP - a cesspool of disgrace to citizen journalism")
But to continue to point fingers at each other is an exercise in futility. Yet, to impose even more regulations would be missing the woods for the trees. The backlash will be that more online practitioners will be more willing to ignore what would be seen as unfair rules for the alternative media, compared to the rules for the mainstream media. An example of such an unfair and discriminatory legislation is allowing the (registered) mainstream media – which is government-controlled - to publish election reports on Cooling-off Day but banning everyone else, including the alternative media, from doing so. Such biased and self-serving legislations can only inspire even more sentiments against the government and the ruling party.
This desperate need of the government to change behaviour seems to be borne out of its desire for things to be neat, prim and proper, set in uniform boxes, stacked up and labelled conveniently, for easy identification and control. Such expectations are, however, the antithesis of what the Internet is all about – a space for the robust and untidy exchange of views, the contestation of opinions, a level field where no one is master or servant, where mere mortals mingle on the same plain as higher mortals. And yes, where emotions can run high and voices can be shrill and unreasonable.
And as in the “real” offline world, there will be those who flout what is “acceptable” societal norms and decorum online. Such things are to be expected – and should be left alone unless real harm is caused.
But let’s be honest with ourselves in the discussion and debate on public discourse, whether online or offline – be honest that the mainstream media need to be freed up, to face real competition in order for it to raise its falling standards, and not – as MP Baey recently did – bury our heads in the sand and praise it to the high heavens, even as it churns out slip-shod reports.
Our media freedom rating internationally has not consistently been in the doldrums for no reason.
And in that honesty in discourse, let us also acknowledge that the Internet – and netizens, commentators, and bloggers – have done good things as well, such as exposing wrongdoings, and raising awareness of various issues, issues which the mainstream media avoid or have avoided for the longest time.
The alternative media space is not squeaky clean (why should it be?). Neither is the mainstream media of the highest standards or quality. To pit one against the other, or to heap praises on one and demonise the other is not going to do anyone any good.
What we should be looking at and asking ourselves is how we can raise standards for both sides without resorting to the anachronistic idea of tightening the noose further through regulation or legislation.
Maybe then we will, in the words of Associate Professor Cherian George, “finally wake up to the idea that the Internet contains all the wonder and weirdness of the world, and we’ll stop reacting to the less pleasant stuff as if it is the end of human civilisation.”