Last month in Parliament, on 26th of January, a
statement was made, of which I have mixed feelings regarding. MP of Marine Parade GRC,
Mr Seah Kian Peng, addressed an incident where an
argument between a civil servant and a constituent was caught on camera and went viral.
"I have noticed a recent rise of self-administered vigilante justice among members of the public. The weapon of choice - the handphone; judge and jury - the social media public. This has to change. On the flip side, I have also seen some very bad responses by civil servants, the very few which give the Government as a whole a bad name. This is not who we are. This is not what we dream of becoming."
- Mr Seah Kian Peng
I both agree and disagree with that statement. In order to clarify
why, let's first take a look at the phenomenon of
Handphone Vigilantism.
What is Vigilantism?
A
vigilante is generally
defined as "a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate)", or more broadly, "a self-appointed doer of justice".
Batman,
Spider-man, the
Punisher and other comic book heroes fit this profile to cartoonish extremes - they fight crime outside of the boundaries of the law.
What is Cyber Vigilantism?
Wikipedia defines it as "the phenomenon of vigilante acts taken through the Internet (the communication network or its service providers) or carried out using applications (World Wide Web, e-mail) that depend on the Internet".
The
Hacker Group Anonymous certainly qualifies, with its activism in counter-terrorism.
Perverted-Justice is a vigilante group that goes after pedophiles online.
Cyber Vigilantism in Singapore
On the other hand, here in sunny Singapore, this is what passes for cyber vigilantism - online lynch mobs.
Amy Cheong became famous in October 2012 due to a
racist rant on Facebook. The resulting uproar, which included death threats and other verbal abuse, resulted in her leaving the country.
An online group
SMRT Feedback pranked Jover Chew for his cheating cases in the Sim Lim Square saga, which I discussed
here last month, and worse - revealed his address and phone number.
Before the case above, Anton Casey's details were leaked by this very same group and he was
hounded out of Singapore by enraged netizens.
There are other cases, but to list them all would be excessive at this point.
Am I alone in thinking that Singaporeans come off as silly and pathetic in comparison with their counterparts in the USA? In the USA, vigilantes take down terrorists and pedophiles. In Singapore, we take down racist ranters, crass idiots and scam artists.
Handphone Vigilantism
Handphone Vigilantism is a subset of Cyber Vigilantism. Instead of a computer, the vigilante uses a mobile phone. From this tool, the would-be executor of justice takes photos or a video of the offender and uploads it on a Social Media platform such as
STOMP or
Facebook, where reactions range from moral outrage to an outright witch hunt.
A few years ago in 2012, news of a
spat between a young woman (known as "Huina") and an old lady on the MRT raged through the internet, due to this
video. Note that midway through the video, the old lady whips out her mobile phone and threatens to take a photo of the young woman and shame her online.
More recently, a
disagreement between a Ms Celine Chia and a Mr Syn Kok Meng made the news, again, in the MRT, when Mr Syn declined to give up his seat upon request by Ms Chia.
What do these incidents have in common? Other than the fact that these incidents (and Anton Casey's case) happened on the MRT, you mean? To be honest, I've never quite figured this out. What is it about train commuting that brings out our inner vigilante? More food for thought, for another day.
Anyway - in these cases, the handphone was used as a tool to shame people. In the first case, the old woman who took the seat threatened to take Huina's picture and use it to shame her in the papers. In the second, Celine Chia did just that, posting Syn's picture online, along with a dramatic and invective-filled, decidedly one-sided account as to what had transpired, in order to get people on her side to join in flaming Syn.
How is this different from sharing someone's post on Facebook and criticizing it?
This has been done on occasion, when
Xiaxue makes a blogpost, for example. Someone sees it, and shares it online, publicly disagreeing with that post. If it stops there, it's not cyber vigilantism.
The difference is, the original poster's intention is to share an opinion on public domain. And if one wishes to share an opinion, he or she should be prepared that there will be people who will publicly disagree. It's hard to make an argument for an ill-considered post. This is the Internet, and in order for the post to appear, one has to
first type it. This requires a
premeditated effort. The argument "I got caught up in the emotion" doesn't cut it. You had time to think it through; you merely chose not to.
In Syn's case, he was
not looking to share his opinion - he was minding his own business and defending his consumer rights (albeit in a decidedly dickish manner) upon being bombarded with Chia's attempts to impose her moral standards on him, and didn't have time to consider his response. Chia, apparently fuelled by her righteous indignation, decided unilaterally to escalate it on Social Media.
How is this different from loan sharks publicizing details of those who owe them money?
It's not.
This is public shaming in a bid to put pressure on those unfortunate individuals. This constitutes harassment, and is against the law.
Some have expressed the opinion that if you behave badly in public, you
deserve to be shamed online for it. I call bullshit. Children, stop
reading so many comic books. It rots your brain. Being a vigilante only
looks cool in the cartoons. I'll probably be unpopular for saying this, but - Amy Cheong, Anton Casey, et al have some things in common with us - they have rights. Yes, even big-mouthed bigots and racist shrews have
rights. And by participating in the witch hunt, by even
encouraging it, you are
trampling on those rights.
My opinion
Many have described those two incidents as cases of "handphone vigilantism", some lauding it, some decrying it. I'd like to respectfully disagree.
Sure, it all looks similar and I can certainly see how people would get confused. But make no mistake - this was
not done out of any misguided sense of justice. The old lady didn't want to shame Huina because she felt Huina needed to show more respect to the elderly. She wanted to shame Huina because
Huina pissed her off. Not because Huina disrespected the elderly. Because Huina disrespected
her.
Likewise, Celine Chua's holier-than-thou act is just that - an act. A thin veneer of social-mindedness on top of a very simple agenda - Syn pissed her off, and he had to pay. It was
personal.
This is not vigilantism. Vigilantism on its own is repugnant enough, but this is worse. This is
a personal witch hunt disguised as vigilantism.
Back to Mr Seah Kian Peng's statement...
"This is not who we are. This is not what we dream of becoming."
Why I agree with Mr Seah
This ought
not to be the way.
If the person has committed a crime and you go vigilante on his ass,
you are guilty of a crime. If the person has done something that is perfectly legal but contradicts your morals... who are you and why should
your moral standards have any bearing on the situation? Who decides what society's moral standards are? I'll give you a clue - it won't be some jackass pursuing perceived justice with a mobile phone.
 |
| Fancy yourself one of these? |
Why I disagree
Unfortunately, this
is who we are. Singaporeans have grown into a timid, repressed lot who somehow come alive on the Internet due to the delusion of anonymity. We've come far as a Nation, but we, as a people, have not caught up with our blooming economy. In many ways, we're still the same
kampung villagers in
sarongs and stilt houses - only armed with mobile phones and the Internet instead of pitchforks and torches. And "handphone vigilantes" is
exactly what some of us seem to dream of becoming. Some of us aspire to be heroes. Not the kind who run into burning buildings to save lives, but the kind who lead or incite lynch mobs to take down those they deem undesirable. Social justice warriors.
Technology's misuse
As a practitioner of technology, as someone who makes his living via Internet technology, it disturbs me profoundly to see said technology being used for things like that. Now
that is disrespect. The mobile phone was not built in any one person's lifetime. It is an amalgamation of the evolved work of
Alexander Graham Bell and the logical wizardry of
Ada Lovelace.
The phone and the computer, combined in one. How many engineers and technicians have spent their lives slaving over these technologies, refining them, and assembling them into that wondrous little piece of plastic you hold in your hand today?
Web and mobile technology have made many great advances over the years, and is still in the process of breaking new and exciting ground. And all we want to do with it is publicly shame people who piss us off? That's like buying the latest, fastest computer on the market just to surf porn.
We stand on the cusp of greatness. Please,
please don't waste this on some petty garbage.
Just my train of thought,
T___T
