Discuss contentious issues with less vitriol
There has been a disquieting level of vitriol in some online conversation in response to recent news reports on New Naratif's failed bid for registration ("Acra rebutts duo behind New Naratif website over foreign influence", April 12).
In our work promoting gender equality, the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) seeks to promote honest discussion of sensitive issues. In our view, society benefits from the airing and exploration of varied perspectives and experiences. The tone of public discussion should preserve space for all to participate constructively.
We were therefore disturbed to see some online discussions use highly inflammatory language about Ms Kirsten Han and Dr Thum Ping Tjin because of foreign funding received for the activities of New Naratif.
It is certainly legitimate to ask questions and express opinions about the funding and directions of media platforms and other matters of public interest.
However, some have applied extreme and vitriolic labels such as "enemy" and "traitor" to Ms Han and Dr Thum, and even called for them to be subject to detention without trial or capital punishment.
Such polarising language and calls for disproportionately punitive action will increase societal distrust, making it harder to reach mutual understanding.
The online vilification of individuals can have an impact on public safety. In 2015, teenager Amos Yee was slapped outside a courtroom by a member of public, following harsh personal attacks on him online. A driver at the centre of a recent incident at a petrol station has spoken of receiving many unsolicited nuisance communications and being afraid that people will turn up at his home.
Aware has also received harassment and threats, both online and offline, when we raise issues concerning gender equality. These have caused distress to our staff members and volunteers.
Nobody should experience such threats to personal safety. When they arise in response to political issues, moreover, they may deter nuanced discussions on complex matters of public interest, and prevent people from voicing disagreement in good faith.
We urge that everyone in society approaches contentious issues soberly and factually.
Demonising those with a different approach creates an intimidating environment that deters people from speaking up. This will ultimately harm our ability as a society to build consensus across differences, and make decisions on contentious matters together.
