Reading the various discussions by bloggers on self-regulation following Dharmendra Yadev’s suggestion, I think it is safe to say that most bloggers are not for the idea.

The arguments against have self-regulation mainly revolves around the fact that we have a repressed mainstream media and that blogs are godsend to Singaporeans because we finally have the avenue to freely express what we want to say without being censored.

I do agree with the view that blogs are somewhat of a godsend to Singaporeans. Looking at our MSM closely, we find nothing that is published in our MSM coming anywhere close to blogosphere in terms of a critical perspective of what happens in Singapore. Indeed, blogosphere adds the much needed diversity to public debate in Singapore.

What I do not understand, nor agree with, is the knee-jerk reaction to the idea of self-regulation. Perhaps we Singaporeans are so sick and tired of having laws governing everything from what you can say to what you can do in the bedroom that when someone floats the idea of self-regulation on the supposedly only “free” space we have, the instinctive response is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I think the whole purpose behind the idea of self-regulation has been grossly misunderstood and misinterpreted by many Singapore bloggers. The main idea is not to restrict self-expression, but rather, the aim is to lay down simple guidelines for a nice discussion. It’s not about self-regulation of content; it’s about self-regulation of the way the content is expressed.

As a simple example, let’s imagine that you are in a public library. All is quiet until someone’s cellphone rings loudy. The person picks up the call and starts to chat equally loudly. You don’t think that the behaviour is appropriate in the library so you decide to go up to the person and tell the person to keep him volume down. Which of the two responses below would you use to communicate your thoughts?

1. “Diam la you bloody cheebye! You think this library opened by your Ah Gong one izzit? Kanina you want to talk loudly on your phone go outside to talk lar! This is a motherfucking library, goddammit!”

2. “Could you kindly lower your voice or go out of the library to continue your conversation? It’s quite distracting that you are talking so loudly. Thank you.”

Both responses are trying to achieve the same end using vastly different means. I think most people would probably pick the second response. Changing the context, let’s assume the country is not Singapore but USA where the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech. Do you think that the typical American would respond in a fashion similar to response 1 since there is freedom of speech? I think not.

Let’s not have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea of self-regulation. Perhaps the idea of regulation has become somewhat of a dirty word. Nonetheless, regulation should not be conflated with censorship. The two are not the same. Censorship can be achieved with regulation, but that is not the issue here when discussing self-regulation in blogosphere. The issue is to lay down in black and white some basic conventions to adhere to for civil discourse. Some may argue that such conventions are common sense and an exercise in putting these conventions down in black and white is merely a waste of time.

However, is “common sense” really that common? And, what exactly is common sense?

Note:

My stand on having a blogger association has been revised. It would be nice to have one, but I no longer think that it is necessary. What has not changed is my stand on a code of conduct, as explained by the writing of this entry. I add further that I support the formation of a comprehensive repository of blogging information specific to Singapore for the benefit of newbie bloggers, as well as bloggers who are unfamiliar with netiquette and the law of the Singapore land.