Internet forums
Digital rage
They're exerting powerful influence on Singapore politics but impact is retarded by widespread flaming, obscenity and personal abuses. By Seah Chiang Nee.
Jan 4, 2004

AN online chatter, obviously displeased by someone, exclaimed: "No need to strain the little grey matter you have. What a nincompoop!"

Another angry retort: "Use your brain instead of your (expletive) next time you want to post crap."

And: "Who is this sick dog licking PAP's (expletive)?"

They run down Chinese mainlanders, Bangladeshis and others of another race.

How about this: "Don't repeat my words. You are so boring and ugly since you're a (specific race)." Or "Bloody Chink and smell gooks."

These postings were picked up at random from Singapore's Internet chat sites - derogatory terms, personal insults and foul words used frequently by Singaporeans in the name of freedom of expression.

The use of capital letters, discouraged as digital shouting, is a common rude practice.
Being a small, highly educated city, Singapore today has the highest Internet penetration in Asia. Out of its 3.25 million population, 2.247 million have access to it (2001: 1.3m; 2002: 1.7m).

The result? The Internet has done much to change society - and politics.

It has enabled Singaporeans to tap into a worldwide data of knowledge and allowed them to post anything they like without taking responsibility for it.

Unlike previous generations, the current one can express their views uncensored.

This has compelled the government to lift censorship rules, loosen some control of the media, which in turn has emboldened the public to speak out louder against official wrongdoings, both real and imagined.

Singaporeans who consider the official media as government-controlled and excessively self-censoring prefer to use the Internet to air their thoughts.

It has also made Singapore a more diverse, divided country in which any subject can bring out two or more opposing viewpoints.

But despite Singapore's well-heeled education system, courtesy has been in short supply in many of the island's dozen chat sites that cater to current affairs discussions.

Collectively, the expanding Internet community is exerting a rising influence on politics in Singapore more than the government would admit, which is more good than bad.

Harms more than censorship

The lack of netiquette, however, is the Web's worst enemy, inflicting greater harm on itself than any censor can do. To some extent, it is retarding its own growth as a serious moulder of public opinion.

Had it not been for the widespread flaming, obscenity, immature gibberish talk and personal attacks from young surfers, the Web could have been a stronger catalyst for change than it is.

The cause for it may lie in several areas. Teenagers who are intolerant and self-centred, rather than mature surfers, dominate many of the exchanges. Many have not imbibed the culture of agreeable disagreement.

Said a college teacher: "Many of these kids are two different beings. When they talk, they are rational, commonsensical but once they get onto the Web and talk to faceless crowds without revealing their identities, they can spit poison."

Why is this so? Part of the fault lies in society itself.

For a long time, it has been tightly controlled, and then suddenly young people find they can actually say what they want 24 hours a day without taking responsibility for it. So, they let go.

Some simply let off steam rather than indulge in reasoned discussion. By doing so, they are keeping away more serious debaters.

One reason: Anonymity

Another reason is, of course, secrecy; rarely do people use their real names. It is, in fact, common for one person to hide behind several names to mislead others into thinking that many people share his views.

At any rate, no one knows what you look like and there's no face-to-face challenge to arguments.

If it had not been for these shortcomings, the Internet would have moved society a lot faster than it has, and become a more powerful tool for changing the face of politics.

And the government takes this excuse not to reply to criticisms on the Internet.

Today, the government treats Net criticism as non-existent. A complaining letter in the print media may bring out an official reply, while digital ones are ignored, however valid.
All is not lost. There are sites whose members are more mature; when they attack, they do so strongly, firmly but without personal invectives.

Many people regard digital rage as tantamount to road rage without the violence, but some disagree with its seriousness.

Singapore, they say, is not exceptional. "You see it everywhere. Check out the Yahoo sites and you'll see rude postings everywhere," said a young professional.

But as the Web matures, the civil societies are growing more aware of the importance of netiquette. Search engines are full of advice for surfers.

Without face-to-face contact, it can be easy to write angry or insulting responses to messages, known as "flaming".

One site explains with the following suggestion: "Write your message and save it in a folder until the next day (count to 10 and take a deep breath). Then edit and send."

It adds: "The Internet is very useful for many people, and more and more people are using it. It is therefore important that everyone follows netiquette and allow the Internet to become more effective."

The impact of the worldwide web on politics is, however, set to rise. It plays both sides.
One example, "sex scandal" opposition politician Steve Chia was known as "Mr Internet" for his extensive use of the Net to communicate with his supporters.

They fed him information and issues they wanted him to raise in Parliament, making him vastly popular among youths - until he was caught taking pictures of his maid, topless and in her panties, as well as himself in the nude.

What had helped him is now spreading public condemnation of his action, showing the Internet is a two-edged sword.

"It's quite easy to dismiss what is said online as anonymous ramblings but there are a few who make very good arguments. These are the opinions we should take note of," said Mike Yeo, 27, an active online participant.

Think-tack researcher Arun Mahizhnan said: "The Government cannot control the Internet in the way it has long controlled the mass media in Singapore. The Internet is a completely different animal and essentially outside its jurisdiction."

(This article was first published in The Sunday Star on Jan 4, 2004.)