Cyberspace code of conduct ‘within the realm of possibilities’: MLC chief

ALL content used in this not-for-profit blog remain the property of their respective owners.
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/code-conduct-within-realm-possibilities-mlc-chief-102358592.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

The chairman of the Media Literacy Council (MLC), Tan Cheng Han, says its members have not had any discussion on the merits or otherwise of a code of conduct (COC) for the Internet.

However, he says that such a code "is within the realm of possibilities" when asked if the MLC might eventually recommend such a code to the government.

Tan confirmed to this writer in an email interview that the Media Development Authority (MDA), which staffs the MLC's secretariat, has "listed the code as one of the issues relating to cyber wellness that [the] MLC may wish to look at."

"If the council decides to consider the issue of the code, I expect that [the] Government will wait for the council's recommendation before making any decision," Tan says.

However, in remarks to the press on 8 August, Tan was reported to have said that "such a code is not the main aim of the council" and that regulating the Internet is "not the solution" to the ills in cyberspace which the government is purportedly concerned about.

The possibility of a COC was first mooted by the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts (Mica) in November last year. The minister, Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, said that the creation of the COC is "supposed to be a bottom up process", with online practitioners spearheading the development of the code — and his ministry "facilitating" the process.

However, his call has raised concerns among Internet users and new media practitioners that the COC is aimed at curbing free speech online and political discourse in particular.

In remarks to the press, Tan said — with regards to free speech — that he believes "some limits are justifiable but the burden of proof is always on those who wish to place any limits on freedom of expression to establish that such limits are necessary."

The question of the role of the MLC has confused some, and appears to be unclear — is its role purely advisory or is it vested with powers or authority?

Tan, who had earlier said that the MLC is "a body independent of [the] government", says the council "must work closely with MDA, other arms of government and other stakeholders" in its public education and awareness role.

The perception that the MLC is just a vehicle for the government to control free speech will persist among online practitioners and this distrust of the MLC is perhaps the biggest challenge the council faces as it tries to get the buy-in from those whose online behaviour it seeks to influence, even if it is vicariously.