There has been a flurry of response on the web and comment in the blogosphere about Singapore’s ban on political commentary on blogs during the upcoming parliamentary elections:

“In a free-for-all Internet environment, where there are no rules, political debate could easily degenerate into an unhealthy, unreliable and dangerous discourse, flush with rumours and distortions to mislead and confuse the public.” — Singapore’s Senior Minister of State Balaji Sadasivan.

The rules, according to the Singapore government are this:

Private or individual bloggers can discuss politics. However, if they persistently propagate, promote or circulate political issues relating to Singapore, they are required to register with the Media Development Authority. During the election period, these registered persons will not be permitted to provide material online that constitutes election advertising.

Reporters without Borders condemned the rules, which have been in place since 2001.

Sadsivan expanded the restrictions to include podcasting and videocasting used for political advertising, during a parliamentary debate on 3 April.

At least one blog, Singabloodypore, has taken a firm stance against the ban:

“This blog is not registered with the Singaporean government, has never been asked to register, and if invited to register would NOT register. I, soci, also intend to post material of an “explicitly political nature” during the elections and will gladly show videocasting and podcasting of election rallies, speeches etc… of opposition candidates.”

Yawningbread, a blog written by a Singapore gay activist, has done an in-depth analysis of the ban. He found Sadsivan’s statements were not explicitly clear on what is not allowed, and asked “Is the government deliberately leaving the matter vague so that people will err on the side of safety and self-censor?”

Other bloggers have taken a more sarcastic approach to the topic. AsianPundit wrote:

“Before any ‘free speech’ advocates gets in a huff about this - AsiaPundit will note that private citizens will likely be allowed to make political speeches at Speakers’ Corner after registering with police. As such, this ban on political blogging is not a ban on free speech. It is merely a means to bridge the digital divide. Singapore’s technology savvy bloggers will now have to queue with their digitally disabled fellow citizens for a chance to talk at the Lion City’s only authorized free speech zone. The PAP are not oppressive, this is merely a means to bring all Singaporeans together.”

Jakartass provides an interesting Indonesian perspective, and the possible implications on free speech in his country.

Dancho Danchev provides useful list of links about censorship in Singapore.

Think Centre, a website that was forced to register, according to Reporters without Borders, reminds us that censorship is hardly limited to political issues. Last year, student bloggers who posted derogatory remarks about their teachers were punished with three days of suspension.

Tom Steinberg, director of mySociety, has been in touch again. This time he’s wanting to pick your brains. . .

Non-partisan charitable project mySociety.org has today launched its second ever call for proposals.

First conducted in 2003 mySociety’s original call resulted in the launch of several of the most popular democratic sites in the UK, such as the award winning WriteToThem.com , PledgeBank.com and HearFromYourMP.com .

mySociety is asking the public not only to submit ideas, but to help vet ideas left on the site at www.mysociety.org/proposals2006.

The eventual goal is to whittle the ideas down to just one winner, which mySociety will then build with the help of its core team and any willing volunteers. The deadline is 1st June 2006.

David Miliband, the MP who shook up Whitehall by starting a blog, has launched an online forum where the public can discuss the future of local government. localvisionforum.net is a part of the Department of Constitutional Affairs’ ‘Digital Dialogues’ pilot, and is moderated by the Hansard Society.

“The government wants the views expressed on the site to inform the local government White Paper it is expected to publish in the summer,” reported e-Gov Monitor.

That’s all well and good, but is would seem that only views of a certain calibre are welcome. A post from “The Moderator” advised participants on the best way to write a post and to include evidence to back up their claims:

Hello,

There are some very interesting posts coming through. The diversity of experiences is something I’m sure that the ODPM will find useful.

I wanted to ask that before making posts, participants carefully consider their arguments. Be mindful of backing claims up with evidence.

Keeping posts succinct is also advisable in terms of readability and the impact of your point. At the start of each post summarise your point, then expand on the detail, at the close, try to give a ‘lead on’ question to allow other participants to respond.

Ross Ferguson*
Hansard Society

And if that wasn’t bad enough, the unidentified “Consultation Team” for the forum makes such a thrashing comment in response to general debate regarding Local Strategic Partnerships, that I’m surprised it didn’t shut down debate entirely:

Your sweeping statement about LSPs does not do justice to them. Do you really think that having local service providers working in isolation and not joining up at all is a total waste of time and money? Let’s have more constructive contributions to the forum please.

The consultation team should be grateful that people are making comments at all. Strategic planning is hardly at the top of most internet users favourite discussion topics. Forum participants make comments because they feel they will be listened to. The comments from the moderator and the consultation team, while perhaps correct, do little to create an atmosphere of “we’re hear to listen to your views”.

In comparison, the EC’s Debate Europe forum is more a spirited site. EU citizens are going wild over it, making hundreds of comments. The moderator is posting helpful answers to questions.

* Editor’s note: Ross Ferguson is one of the wise and experienced members of this year’s New Media Awards judging panel. Wait ’til the other judges hear about this. . .

A roundup of government-related projects in the works:

• Police may be using GPS data to survey traffic accidents in order to speed up the time it takes to clear the roadway and ease traffic congestion, according to the Highways Agency. The Highways Agency is piloting the technology with Surrey and Warwickshire police forces for the next three months. The Highways Agency would provide the data to the police, which will be downloaded to the hand-held computers they already use.
• DEFRA is organising a voluntary reporting scheme which would pool industry knowledge about nanotechnology. This will help the government build “evidence on any potential risks posed by nanotechnologies, in order to move towards evidence-based appropriate controls,” according to their website. Currently, they are accepting input on how the scheme should work.
• An antisocial behaviour web-database is being piloted by the Charnwood Borough Council and the Leicestershire Police to share information between the many agencies involved in addressing the problem. The system, called Sentinel, was designed by Vantage Technologies, reports Public Technology.
• Citizens will be able to file cases to the European Court of Human Rights online by next year, reports Computing.
• In the US… Researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology are studying if RFID (radio frequency identification) can be used by fire fighters to navigate through a smoky room using RFID chips in the walls and hand held devices, reports NetworkWorld.

Perhaps there are a few New Media Award nominations in the group?