SINGAPORE: Do something the court of public opinion judges as reprehensible and you can count on being “CSI-ed”. It’s become par for the course if your actions are caught on camera and posted online.
The recent incident at a Caltex petrol station involving a BMW driver and an elderly pump attendant made it clear that this has become the standard trope.
The incident went viral over the weekend after a Facebook user posted an account of what happened at the Tampines Avenue 8 petrol station.
According to her, the driver of a BMW Series 5 vehicle had refused to pay S$135 for his petrol because he said he had only asked for S$10 worth.
The elderly pump attendant calmly informed the cashier to let the customer pay S$10 and he would personally absorb the rest of the cost, she said in her Facebook post.
Netizens incensed by the driver’s actions condemned him with many slamming him in the comments section of the post. Some even volunteered to pay the S$125 on behalf of the elderly pump attendant.
No doubt going by this account, the driver’s behaviour is condemnable and he should be taken to task.
But it didn’t stop there.
Netizens identified him and posted his personal details online.
Among other things, the company he works for, his LinkedIn profile, his mobile number, and usual parking spots were made public.
The driver has since filed a police report, citing worries for his safety.
“CSI” CAN GO WRONG
This is certainly not the first time we’ve seen such acts of online vigilantism in Singapore.
In 2014, an errant Sim Lim Square retailer’s personal details including his address were published online. This, after a video of a Vietnamese tourist begging the retailer for a refund after he was overcharged for a phone set the internet ablaze.
Just last year, a video of an altercation at a Toa Payoh hawker centre went viral.
In the 30-second video, a couple was seen arguing with an elderly man who asked to share a table with them. The man was seen shoving the older man.
Screen capture of an elderly man being shoved from behind by a younger man at a hawker centre in Toa Payoh. (Video: YouTube)
Four days later, the police arrested the couple for alleged public nuisance.
However, in the process of trying to find this couple, in the initial stages, netizens incorrectly identified two people.
The woman who was wrongly named online wrote on her Facebook page that it was an “emotional period and scary moment”.
This was CSI gone wrong.
IS THERE A BETTER WAY?
While many commend the work of online vigilantes, saying that such actions are the best way to ensure social justice and appropriate action is taken against perpetrators of questionable behaviour, experts have pointed out that we need to stop to consider the actions of the vigilantes themselves.
After the Toa Payoh incident, experts Channel NewsAsia spoke to warned against online vigilantism, advising people to hand such videos directly to the police instead of sharing them on social media.
In some cases, the issue may not even be a police case. In such instances, some have remarked it might be more productive to intervene directly, instead of only capturing the incident for public consumption online.
In the latest petrol station incident, would immediate social pressure on site have made the BMW driver rethink his decision to let the pump attendant bear the cost of their misunderstanding?
Thankfully, in this case Caltex Singapore assured netizens that the elderly attendant “did not bear any financial obligation” due to the incident.
If the company hadn’t done so, could netizens have petitioned it to?
Is there a better way to handle such issues?
VIGILANTES’ ACTIONS COULD BE ILLEGAL TOO
Whatever your stance on the issue, it would be wise to bear in mind that in our quest for social justice, by going to the extent of harassing the alleged perpetrators, we ourselves are committing a crime if we cross certain lines.
In fact, several lawyers have pointed out that the Prevention from Harassment Act could protect be used against vigilantes if their sense of social justice manifests itself in threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour or even communication.
Attempts at stalking the alleged wrongdoer would also constitute harassment.
Those who are incorrectly identified as wrongdoers by online vigilantes can also turn to defamation laws.
Aside from this, vigilantes should also consider that they may be working with incomplete information and may end up instigating attacks on innocent people.
This, in itself, should give us pause.
Experts have argued that while the free flow of information online has opened up the possibility of free expression and communication, it also has a dark side. The internet has obviously amplified the potency of gossip and public shaming.
Often, the response to an act of wrongdoing could be disproportionate.
If you have had a bad day at work and are rude to a sales assistant as a result, you perhaps deserve to be condemned for not considering others’ feelings, but do you deserve to be stalked or have your family or employer be dragged through the mud as well?
Do you deserve to possibly lose your job or have your career ruined because of one transgression?
This is just one example.
Obviously, in recent years, online vigilantes have highlighted more serious incidents requiring legal action, such as the case of the errant Sim Lim Square retailer.
Sim Lim Square. (File Photo: Calvin Oh)
NO NEED FOR AN ABUSIVE MOB
That Singaporeans have a robust sense of social justice is commendable, but mob justice can is certainly not justifiable.
The actions of the vigilantes probably are a result of noble intentions, and support from the public serves to endorse and fuel their vigilantism further.
But let’s remember that vigilantism often disregards rigorous investigation, due process and accountability.
READ: A commentary on even the worst criminals deserve fair legal representation.
Often, the accused in such cases become victims of bullying with possibly no opportunity to tell their side of the story and even if they do, their account ends up being repudiated by the online mob.
Advocates of online vigilantism often suggest it catalyses legal action against wrongdoers.
Would the police act so swiftly if the video of the incident had been given to them directly instead of being posted online first?
The police perhaps need to assure the public that they would treat video evidence reported directly to them with as much gravity as they would a viral video of the incident.
In the face of injustice, we need to consider if there is any justification for lowering ourselves to the level of an abusive and sometimes, unreasonable mob.
Bharati Jagdish is the host of Channel NewsAsia Digital News’ hard-hitting On The Record, a weekly interview with thought leaders across Singapore, and The Pulse, Channel NewsAsia’s weekly podcast that discusses the hottest issues of the week.
