The topic was on the effects of the new media on politics. He talked about the Internet and other kinds of technology being a source of change in the way politics is conducted (see the Channelnewsasia.com article) as well as how fast the information available on the internet spreads, how large the amount of user generated content is.
All was well during the speech itself, but it was when it came to the Q&A session that things got interesting. Benjamin Mak was the MC while Shanzhi, the head prefect, was helping out with the Q&A. (Dr Balakrishnan was amused at the way they called each other "Master Benjamin" and "Master Thia" in formality xD) Firstly, Nigel Fong came up and fired away 3 questions when Shanzhi said to limit the questions to just 1. Heck, that's fine lah.
Nigel's questions were interesting but I can't remember most of them. They were rather engaging though. At the end of his questions we applauded and cheered prompting this: (These may not be the exact words the people in question used)
Dr Balakrishnan: Whoa, is he a hero or what?After him, Jarret came and talked about freedom of speech, comparing Singapore with other countries in terms of free speech. Aargh, darn me, I can't remember exactly what Dr Balakrishnan said to that. But after that this was basically what took place: (These may not be the exact words the people in question used)
Shanzhi: Yea, of sorts
Dr Balakrishnan: So Jarret, if you were the minister for home affairs and were going to work right now, which legislation would you decide to change?That was kinda funny. But I agree with Jarret, though.
Jarret: [Evidently confused] I guess I would change the laws restricting the freedom of the press, sir.
Dr Balakrishnan: Exactly which law would you change, give me an example.
Jarret: I would change the laws regarding the restriction of reporting in newspapers.
What happened was that because of space constraints, sec 3s and 4s were in the hall where the talk was actually going on and us sec 1s were in the auditorium with the sec 2s. I think sec 3s and 4s could just walk to the microphone in the hall and ask their questions but if sec 1s and 2s wanted to ask, we had to go up to this lady. We had to tell her the question we wanted to ask and she would screen it for us, based on whether it's a repeat of an earlier, already asked question or other.
I really, really wanted to ask a question but the lady said my question wasn't specific. Sigh, should take pen and paper to next year's RI Lecture so that I can remember the good questions I think of. Sigh some more. Anyways, who was the lady who was screening the questions? I don't think it was a teacher because if she is doing such an important task, she must be a "senior" teacher of sorts, and I have never seen her in school before. I guess she is Dr Balakrishnan's secretary or something?
Anyway, the issues Dr Balakrishnan talked about were really interesting because I thought everything linked to freedom of speech, and so did many of the people who questioned him. Here are some quotes from news sources:
Dr Balakrishnan said:http://www.straitstimes.com/Free/Story/STIStory_254050.html
'There is no dirty little secret which the PAP is trying to hide from its people and that's why the Government is actually very comfortable with new media.'That's why we are investing hundreds of millions in infrastructure which will connect us to the Internet, that's why we invest so much money into making sure every student, every family has a computer that's connected to the Internet.'
Dr Balakrishnan in turn urged his audience to 'dare to be different' and publish critiques on the Web without fear of persecution.
To 16-year-old Jarrett Huang's reservations about the repercussions of publishing online, he said: 'This paranoia that there is a thought police and that there are things that you cannot say is (just) paranoia.'Lynn Kan, Business Times 3 Jul 08; http://wildsingaporenews.blogspot.com/2008/07/dr-balakrishnan-says-internet-will.html
However, should one's political expression be laced with 'falsehood, malice and the intention to inflame religious and racial tensions', there would be consequences in the public realm.
What I understood is that commenting on the government is fine, so long as it is what one believes in and one does not have any intention of - as he said - inflaming tensions. I think that this is great because with critisicm --> discussion --> improvement. Well that's my view anyway.
And BTW, Nigel Fong and Jarret were quoted in the Straits Times! On Thursday, 3rd July, Jarret had almost a whole article to himself!
http://www.straitstimes.com/Latest%2BNews/Singapore/STIStory_253969.htmlA good-humoured exchange about persecution drew the most laughs. Asked if he had been persecuted for publications or views he had put online, the youngster replied: 'I don't upload things on the Internet, sir.'
As for whether he ever felt persecuted for anything he said or wrote, he said: 'Not legally, sir.'
The teen added: 'The sense of persecution is not a reactive measure in my situation but rather it is a pre-emptive measure taken such that certain things which are deemed incorrect cannot be said in certain situations.'
It was then Dr Balakrishnan's turn to draw the laughs as he said: 'Let's translate that into normal English.'
Yes Jarret, speak not just in normal English, speak in English. And that leads me on to the really random stuff Jarret, Antariksh, Jun Yan and I were all doing in the library today. More of that later
Posts
Vivian: 'There is no dirty little secret which the PAP is trying to hide from its people and that's why the Government is actually very comfortable with new media.
'That's why we are investing hundreds of millions in infrastructure which will connect us to the Internet, that's why we invest so much money into making sure every student, every family has a computer that's connected to the Internet.'
I don't see how building up internet infrastructure answers the question whether PAP has any dirty secrets. The answer is irrelevant to the question. There is a logical failure here.