Yio Chu Kang Member of Parliament Mr Seng Han Thong was allegedly set ablaze by a fellow resident last month. After the incident he drew many online attacks.Senior Minister of State (Information, Communications and the Arts) RADM (NS) Lui Tuck Yew spoke in Parliament on Wednesday February 4 2009. In the Strait Times article published on February 5 2009 entitled ‘Online attacks: Minister rues lack of self-policing’, he expressed disappointment towards the apathetic response of netizens and the unpleasant comments made.
“The vast majority were unhelpful, a significant number were unkind, a small number were downright outrageous. It was disappointing.”
RADM Lui cited examples of online statements saying Mr Seng deserved to be assaulted and a list of 10 things he should ‘be thankful for’ in spite of being attacked. A poll posted on wayangparty.com that was referred to be unjust had asked who deserved more sympathy: MP Mr Seng or his alleged attacker Mr Ong. Mr Ong had received 200 votes while Mr Seng 56. RADM Lui likewise noted there were some comments sympathetic to Mr Seng.
When asked by Ms Penny Lui (Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC), RADM Lui went on to voice his views on netizen’s response to the physical attack on Mr Seng.
“It is a squandered opportunity for a higher degree of self-regulation. It would have been an example of the genesis, of the first steps, towards a more responsible, greater, self-regulatory regime.”
“But many of those responses were not rebutted or answered, and I think it is not healthy for some of this to remain on the Net unchallenged, unquestioned and unanswered.”
“I do not think that the community itself has done enough to rebut some of these unhelpful comments delivered by fellow netizens.”
RADM Lui also urged netizens to do more to define acceptable online conduct and enforce such norms. He also commented that website proprietors must be more responsible and prompt in moderating the sites to ensure credibility, objectivity and balance in the content posted.
I do not condone any acts of violence nor appreciate the nasty postings that were targeted at Mr Seng. I am inclined to feel much sympathy towards Mr Seng for the grievous hurt he sustained. I feel that no matter how strong a case Mr Ong had, he should not have communicated his distress through violence.
However I do feel that the manner our entire blogosphere and netizens that were tainted by RADM Lui’s comments were rather unjustified. Firstly, one would be hard-pressed to deny that it is evident that there are online posts which have criticized both the attack and netizens who endorsed such brutality. It was probable that the general public and many of those sympathetic towards Mr Seng neither felt a need nor wanted to voice out their opinions online, resulting in a comparatively smaller number of sympathetic posts. Secondly, I believe that by not replying or rebutting the nasty comments does not equate to a lack in compassion among netizens. It is likewise unjust to create such a negative prototype of netizens. Furthermore, the quick claim of judgement that the internet is thus incapable of self-regulatory due to a particular incident is bewildering.
In Foundations of Communication (Unit 2), it is stated that we manage our perception through communication.
“Perception is the process of selecting, organising and interpreting information in order to give personal meaning to the communication we receive.”
-Seller & Beall
One’s perception is influence by our individual characteristics, the mass media, social networks and the environment. With regards to RADM Lui’s comments, I foremost believe that individual characteristics such as RADM Lui’s role as a Senior Minister of State (Information, Communications and the Arts) and previous appointment to a Rear-Admiral of the Navy influenced him significantly with the selection of information. This current and prior appointment possibly made him more critical and reactive than most of us when he came across the comments made by netizens. Moreover, there is a danger of omission and oversimplification in the selection process in such a delicate case like this as it is difficult to ascertain the collective views of netizens as a whole.
Likewise the organising of information can be influenced by structural elements. The roles we play, relationship between the people involved, and situational or social rules governing the situation are all part of structural elements that influence our organisation. In this case, RADM Lui’s evident role as a Senior Minister of State of (Information, Communications and the Arts) and his relationship to the victim as his fellow MP could have afforded such influences.
Subjectivity of interpretation is inescapable despite the commonalities. RADM Lui likened the online attacks to be a “squandered opportunity for a higher degree of self-regulation“, this possibly illustrates his interpretation of the situation. His interpretation of the issue was possibly not only influenced by his individual characteristics mentioned above but also by his perceptual set of the blogosphere and its netizens.
In our tendencies in perception, we have a tendency to favor dispositional attributes over situational ones, assuming that the cause for behavior is the person and not the situation. Attribution refers to the process of assigning cause to human behavior. I believe that, in this case, there was insufficient attribution placed on the situation and one could gain much insight if he examines the situation closely.
So what is your opinion on this matter? Your views are much appreciated.
8 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 9, 2009 at 4:58 pm
JoN
My sympathy goes out to MP Mr Seng and his family. Just to set the record straight, any form of attack is wrong, no violence should be tolerated anywhere.
Nevertheless, I believe that allowing free speech on the internet is critical to progress. Freedom of speech to say whatever’s on your mind at any time about anything or anyone. Though it can be abused, the web is the greatest opportunity for the dissemination of information that has ever existed. The government should not regulate the net.
February 9, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Ivan
There will always be flamers and nasty commets in the internet. This is not a new problem.
February 11, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Melvyn
Hmm a choice between freedom of speech and self-regulation, and the minister has voiced his choice of the latter. The minister’s remark will only add more fuel to the already rampant public opinion.
There will always be dissenting views is in the midst of the internet. Understanding this could help the government identify with the grounds and sentiments of his people better.
February 12, 2009 at 2:10 pm
DG
Well one should not always take the postings on the net too seriously. Most of them make no sense anyway. lol.
February 14, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Che
Agree with DG. Most of these comments are just made out of anger and havent been thot through. Cant believe people still want to poke fun at the MP after he was burnt so badly.
February 17, 2009 at 2:45 pm
YK
Your right to free speech may be limited, but your right to be ignored is sacrosanct.
People employed their freedom of online speech, for better or worse, and the response is… maybe it’s time to shut them up soon.
Regardless of whether the comments made were malicious, unwarranted, ungrateful; they do reflect genuine grouses – people don’t curse/taunt/mock public figures for the fun of it (at least, not entirely for the fun of it).
It may not been the most enjoyable experience to have people seizing on your latest misfortune or newspaper contribution (think French cuisine) as a way of venting their resentments and frustrations. But is sticking your fingers in your ear the best way to handle this?
March 30, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Abe
I believe that the government should have treated the comments made online constructively rather than be so quick to dismiss them. It would be wise to consider all the various remarks made despite whether the comments were positive or negative.
March 30, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Val
I am appalled by the minister’s threatening tone. I think he should not be so confrontational towards netizens. He should not generalize all the netizens as there two sides to the issue. Saying netizens were unhelpful or outrages could cause an online backlash.