Twittering “Lee Kwan Yew” to test Singapore’s Internet freedom

Twitter / LeeKuanYew

Apple.com has FakeSteve to deal with, while Singapore has her own twittering “Lee Kwan Yew” on the loose!

Will this “Lee Kwan Yew” be able to entertain us with his satirical ways, or will he be subjected to some form of defamation suit (a first for twitter)?

Given that a high profile group of political bloggers has just submitted a 20 page “Proposal for Internet freedom in Singapore” (pdf) to the Minister for Information, Communication and the Arts, Dr Lee Boon Yang, perhaps our twittering Lee will be a fresh test of the civil liberties of our pending media landscape.

As a member of the group of 15 bloggers making these recommendations, Bernard Leong invites Singaporeans (especially bloggers) to provide feedback about the proposals. A summary of the key proposals is available right after the jump…


1. All regulation of speech should be platform-neutral, given the steady convergence of various platforms as a result of the digital revolution. There should not be different rules for different media.

2. Platform-neutral regulations should be harmonised to be as minimal as the current freest platform, if not even freer.

3. What rules there need to be should be narrowly tailored and should serve clear social purposes.

4. Rules should take the form of unambiguous laws, and in extremis, violators prosecuted, rather than take the form of licensing, bureaucratic discretion and administrative penalties as currently is the case. The various licensing schemes and the Media Development Authority’s powers to fine and ban should be dismantled.

5. Shielding a government from criticism is not a legitimate social purpose. Restraining political content is unjustified in principle and unrealistic in practice, and the attempt to do so impairs Singapore’s maturity as a nation.

6. The group notes that there are plenty of laws that need to be amended or repealed to give effect to the recommendations, such as the Broadcasting Act, the Parliamentary Elections Act and the Films Act. As this may take time, the group proposes that in the interim, there could be an Internet Freedom Act that sets out clear guarantees for Internet freedom, over-riding the multiple (and sometimes conflicting) restrictions in all these other laws, regulations and codes of practice.

7. The group advocates a much bigger role for community moderation and in fact sees an ongoing trend wherein site owners themselves ensure a responsible use of their digital space. To further this process, the group suggests that an Internet Community Consultative Committee (IC3) be set up comprising one-third independent content providers, one-third persons familiar with rapidly evolving digital technologies, and one-third regular consumers of Internet content (i.e. regular surfers). They should not have any legal powers, but serve as a regular meeting point for citizens concerned with the free and responsible use of digital media.

8. Controversies relating to Internet speech should as far as possible be resolved via community moderation. Only when public safety is at serious risk should the law and prosecution be invoked.