Internet Regulation in Singapore, 'Opposition'-style

Internet Regulation in Singapore, 'Opposition'-style

There are two sources of Internet Regulation in singapore. One, is the governmental initiated one, and the other, the consequence of the stifling perspectival infrastructure of singapore, and which i would call, the 'Self-censorship' component of Internet Regulation. Contrary to what ‘oppositional’ minds might think, they are an unofficial and unwitting part of it themselves.

For instance, given the socio-monocultural milieu of singapore, it’s impact on the perspectival development of all of the people cannot be understated. For instance, about 6 or 7 years ago, there was a issue between myself and the so-called oppositional ‘Melanie Hewlitt’, editor, or should I say, ‘censor’, of SGreview. She had circulated an article about the charges imposed on locals who wanted to visit a future local casino. In this article, the writer stated that even Bangladeshi foreign workers, referred to by him as, ‘black banglah cleaners’, could visit the casino charge-free. No so-called oppositional voice seemed to have a problem with that. Neither did the writer who saw himself as part of the oppositional voice, or ‘Melanie Hewlitt’. I took the issue up with her and she basically stated that she didn’t find a problem with it. I then challenged her to circulate my article on subconscious racism, as illustrated, amongst others, by this example, and circulate it. She refused, stating, with exclamation marks, that, ‘this is not a newspaper!!!’. I subsequently ‘unsubscribed’ to her circulations as I found it quite difficult to subscribe to 2nd Class Citizenship status.

In another case, with the now defunct, SFD, or so-called ‘Singaporeans for Democracy’, whom were putting up Mandarin translations of their site, I asked why no translations were provided in Malay and Tamil. To this, I got the reply, ‘we can’t please everyone’. They might as well have said, ‘we only please the chinese because we are superior in numbers’. (those whom are appealed to by mere numbers would predictably not be appealed to by the relatively greater significance of IQ I suppose….illustrated by, amongst a whole slew of others, by Chinese characters preceding the languages of others in street signs. A Chinese acquaintance once asked my why a particular sign was only in English and Mandarin and did not include Malay or Tamil. I smiled and said, ‘because the Malays and Indians understand English.’ This is not an insult mind you. Rather, it is an inciter for critical introspection.)

Additionally, articles written by myself critiquing the government were quite often published on the SDP site back then – and I even received requests to publish some articles I was circulating – but never articles that I wrote that critiqued the SDP for the purpose of improving their perspectives on things. I found that whilst they do publish critiques of them, they seem to generally do so only when such critiques were not sensible. In that, they too could be alleged to be attempting to discredit the opposition to them by giving publicity to the most asinine or superficial of opinions, and which also serves to reinforce the notion of their perspectival superiority.

In another case where I had offered my design skills, amongst others, to a ‘Mr Yap’ who is quite the critic of the government, I asked him why the design for the SDP banner was only in Mandarin and English. I asked him if he thought this was representative of singaporeans. To this, he replied, along the lines of, ‘that is what they wanted, so that is what I’m giving them.’ I wondered, at the time, why he didn’t adopt a similar posture toward the current government and just do as he was told. Well, it seemed to be another case of, ‘if I’m not being victimsed, there are no victims’, syndrome. Quite the malady here I must say.

Now this does not include other situations that I had with Chee Soon Juan, Kevin (president of the SDP youth back then), and other oppositional voices, which I won’t go into here. All of these took place more than half-a-decade ago – except for the ‘Yap’ situation which was a couple of years ago. Well, due to such gross self-absorption amongst many of those playing at being ‘oppositional’ voices without considering the probability of their being a part of the problem as well, I biblically dusted the local grit of my cowboy boots and ventured into international affairs about 5-6 years ago. One of the reasons why I did that was also due to my realising at that time that people here were handling basic issues, or/and, doing it from a superficial vantage. I realised that the mind cannot be further advanced if one was to simply focus on such issues or was adamant about engaging in it superficially whilst discounting deeper thoughts on it simply because one did not have the intelligence to immediately understand it. I felt that the international arena held far more challenges given its verifiably vastly variable nature, and the myriad perspectives that would naturally issue forth from ‘foreign’ attempts to understand and address the problems that emerged therefrom. I was also of the opinion that the internationalised mind would produce far more solutions to the problems in any local milieu than nationalised ones, and the practice in empathy through attention to the interests of other nations and peoples would also hone my empathetic insights further than can be expected from the practice of an oxymoronic self-absorbed empathy that didn’t think an issue of that which did not impact on one’s interests, or which was not ‘trendy’.

Quite a few of these (local) people tend to harbor self-perceptions not dissimilar to those they oppose. They don’t like to be second-guessed and critiqued. They seem to want to be considered infallible whilst questioning the government’s claim to the selfsame infallibility. Hence, they too become a part of the ‘internet regulation’ they would like to claim they are averse to.

Another component of oppositional internet regulation arises, again, as a result of the intellectually stifling climate in singapore. It generally leads people to pay attention to their own interests, or appreciate phenomena from a superficial point of view. They, however, given the lack of international empathetic exposure, would not generally know the difference between superficial appreciation and an insightful one. They are, however, quite knowledgeable about local affairs and technical details. But when it comes to dissecting and appreciating the fundamentals that comprise the foundation upon which arises the superstructure which they are most knowledgeable about and fond of critiquing, most well-known voices fail miserably. As it is true that the standards by which we value ourselves will serve as the standard by which we judge others, this amounts to the discounting of anything but the relatively superficial. Not only are articles that seek to philosophically dissect and subject to inquisition the fundamentals of the foundation of singaporean society ignored, but given the trend and numerousness of those appreciating the obvious amongst the ‘oppositional’ sphere, new entrants would also take their cue from them. Thus they are replicated, and as a result, have their sense of ‘oppositional’ self-efficacy bolstered, again, by mere numbers.

Additionally, local ‘oppositional’ voices also tend to laud credentials over content. Thus, it is not surprising that, amongst others, Dr Catherine Lim, Dr Chee Soon Juan, or the double-honours Kenneth Jeyaratnam, etc, have their thoughts appreciated and discussed most widely even though the inclination to think that they are insightful can only be forwarded by the perspectivally underdeveloped. Personally, I find the thoughts of the aforementioned former two to be superficial and without any insights that I find truly enlightening or worth discussing. I once wondered years ago why the government created a fuss over their statements, i.e. Catherine’s article on popular disaffection which basically stated what many people already knew. I realised then that the reason could only be due to their prominence and credentials, which simultaneously served as the reason for oppositional interest as well. And it was this that inspired governmental ire. Not the content, but the attention given to the content on the basis of their credentials.

On a related note, I recall Kevin, the then president of the SDP youth, looking askance at myself whenever I referred to Dr Chee Soon Juan as simply ‘Chee Soon Juan’ or 'Chee'. Quite amusing indeed as it indicated that oppositional self-confidence is sometimes based on the credentials of their own icons as opposed to their own individual intelligence. I also recall him remarking to the vice president of the SDP youth, Brian, 'he (meaning myself) does not look like SDP.' Overhearing this remark, I asked him why he said that,. He replied, 'the way you dress.' (I was wearing jeans and a black turtle neck as opposed to a well-pressed shirt.) Quite amusing. It seems that visual and impressive certification seems to be the means via which quality is appreciated by quite a few oppositional voices here. So it seems that we have a battle here between the 'white shirts'(existing government) and the 'well-pressed ones'. For myself, it has always been 'the issue' and the points raised that determined whom you are and not the inverse. The purpose here is not to disparage but to enlighten.

As a result, the importance of irrelevantly ornamented icons. Hence, to discuss their thoughts would serve to further laud the icons upon which their own self-confidence might be founded. They do not realise that it is exactly this that compromises the spectral development of popular intelligence and sets it on the developmental trajectories of their icons and little besides. I thought, 'don’t they realise that this is the essence of the problem they seek to counter?' But, I suppose, this is quite inevitable. Those whom are reared within an environment that celebrity-worships, will, when they get oppositional, tend to seek refuge in the shadows of their own ‘celebrities’ as well. And those who refuse to reorientate their kow-tows from propositional icons to oppositional ones, are banished to languish in the shadow of oblivion. I am not deterred though. The truth can only be out there if someone puts it out there despite all propositional and oppositional proscriptions.

In Sum

The above are some of that which comprises ‘internet regulation’ in singapore. But they whom have yet to realise that one cannot insightfully address a problem till they realise that their own perspectives are, in significant part, fathered by it, and then seek to do something about it through critical introspection and the practice of global empathy, will unwittingly be a part of the self-censorship component of ‘internet regulation’. I would say that one's perspectival aptitude, borne of being reared and interned within any socio-cultural milieu will necessarily give rise to variable types and degrees of sub-conscious self-censorship (of self and others). As I've been inclined to say, for quite some years now, it's easier to suggest a solution than to not be a part of the problem. Assiduous efforts must be made on both these fronts lest one becomes a part of a movement against a phenomenon that will paradoxically use the selfsame movement to bolster itself.

As i've also been saying for quite some years now, the existence of evil requires and subsists on the symbiotic collusion of those perceived to be good. If not, evil cannot logically exist. The devil reigns via paradoxes, and it is there that i've sought and appreciated his methods for over two decades. It takes a great amount of self-critical humility and overcoming the human propensity to go past thought onto action before we can began to exorcise ourselves of the spirit of the demons that we do battle. If not, the battle is lost way before it begins. And victory will only serve to cause a mutation of the evils we think we have overcome. What purpose innoculation, if the needle is not first cleansed? Consider.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28174.1