MDA Licensing Outcry – is it an overreaction?

The ‘blogging community’ is up in arms over MDA’s new licensing framework for online news sites. I use air quotes to describe this community as they are more often than not squabbling with each other over copyright infringements and popularity battles. Perhaps ‘the blogging extended family’ is more appropriate. Every large family has a couple of recalcitrant troublemakers that you try hard to disassociate from, but are unable to avoid come CNY and other major gatherings.

With only ten sites listed under this new scheme, nine of which are part of the mainstream media, you might be mistaken into believing that independent bloggers and netters are suddenly throwing their support behind a group collectively, and colourfully, dubbed ‘the 154^th media’.

For the context of this battle between bloggers and government regulating authorities, you will need to look back about five years for the last major discussion on Internet Freedom.

How many of us remember Aims?

No, not Action Information Management Systems (AIM), but the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (Aims). Aims was set up in 2007 to advise the Government how social, ethical, legal and regulatory impact of new media should be managed in line with the growth of the media.

Protecting Content Providers from Defamation Lawsuits

A key recommendation that was raised and accepted by Government was that online intermediaries to be given some protection from defamation lawsuits.

This sought to achieve the dual objectives of stopping lawsuits against content hosts who had not put up the allegedly defamatory material, and overzealous censorship by content companies worried about such prosecution. Back then, nominated MP and general counsel of Yahoo! Southeast Asia it is “generally a good thing forall parties involved to have their rights and obligations clearlyspelt out”.

Where are we now?

Things have changed, but not entirely as expected. It seems that in order to protect the content provider from defamatory lawsuits, a simplified 24-hr take down notice, tied to a $50,000 performance bond and other fines, have been introduced.

Perhaps looking back at his past participation in the debate over Aims, Siew Kum Hong, now a former NMP and former corporate Lawyer for Yahoo! Southeast Asia, contends that “the Singapore government has been looking for a way to give itself the power to censor the internet, in the same way that it has the power to censor offline media.”

He also goes as far to suggest that “this regulatory action is aimeddirectly at Yahoo!, with the goal of ensuring that the government hasdirect or indirect control or influence over all major online newsoutlets in Singapore.”

But he is not the only one singling out Yahoo! Singapore as the MDA’s prime target.

"Itcertainly looks like there's political motivation behind this newlicensing framework, and the motivation seems to be to rein in Yahoo!Singapore," wrote NSP’s Ravi Philemon and former editor of The Online Citizen.

“Of course, many of us are aware of the often critical views expressed on Yahoo.  (In particular, posts by Andrew Loh on YahooNews could be quite irksome to the powers that be.)”, wrote legal blogger Subra of article14.blogspot.com.

Moving beyond Yahoo! Singapore, many netters have joined in the chorus of seeking assurances that these new rules will cover only commercially-operated sites and not individual bloggers. Many attempts have already been made to allay these fears. The latest on this respect is found here: http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/new-regime-will-not-limit-public-discourse-yaacob

But as Andrew loh of PublicHouse and weekly contributor to Yahoo Singapore says “Some of us bloggers have stood up and are standing against the new regulations because we know that contrary to what the government has said so far, the new licensing regime is and will be used to snuff out alternative viewpoints and information which the State disapprove of.”

#FreeMyInternet

Several sociopolitical websites and bloggers will hold a protest both online and offline this week against the new licensing scheme that came into effect yesterday. 

The group of netizens - which calls itself Free My Internet - circulated a statement online yesterday calling for people to join them at a rally at Speakers' Corner this Saturday, as well as for netizens to shut down their blogs and websites for 24 hours this Thursday.

The statement had 34 signatories, including the editors of sites such as The Online Citizen, TR Emeritus and Public House; prominent bloggers and Mr Gilbert Goh, the man who organised the recent protests at Hong Lim Park against the White Paper on Population.

        ST Article 

The way that the regulations are crafted will easily extend to cover websites and blogs during elections.

SDP Statement

“It is puzzling that at a time when it should be promoting more open and frank discussion about national issues, the Government has instead seen fit to increase regulation on a media landscape that is already tightly controlled,” said the NSP’s Secretary-General Hazel Poa in the statement.

NSP Statement 

“This latest move from the Government has raised many questions and concerns. When Parliament next sits, you can expect WP MPs to be asking the Minister for Information and Communications many of these questions, and pressing him for a response.”

WP Statement 

If one wishes to be pedantic, you could easily dismiss the above as overreactions as a result of misinterpretations. After all, the new rules do not apply to socio-political blogs and political websites. So why are these disparate groups kicking about a fuss over a legislation that in essence does not concern them?

Furthermore, the internet is too large to be limited to mainstream media portals and this handful of bloggers and politicians.  For example, there are many internet forums that house a whole array of unfettered discourse. The beast that is the WWW cannot be regulated. It can however be self-regulated, to an extent.

I cannot speak for everyone so I will just end with my own interpretation. In a nutshell, the anger is as much in reaction to how the rules emerged, as to the nitty gritty of the rules themselves.

With all the recent talk about the Our Singapore Conversation, a public consultation would have probably made this issue more palatable. We have had recent public consultations for tax code reforms, tobacco control, personal data protection bills, lemon law …etc, so this is not some radical idea. How about a parliamentary debate and vote? Some might call it a wayang exercise but it forces the crafters of such legislation to defend their position and not hide behind other ministers.

If the Government had tried to bring this blogging extended and dysfunctional family back to the table, it wouldn't be eating alone right now.

Freedom of Assembly in Singapore

This Saturday 28 Apr 2012, BERSIH SG 3.0 will gather opposite Sultanah Aminah Hospital in JB at 1.30pm since the permit for Hong Lim Park picnic was rejected. Hong Lim park is just like any other parks in our neighbourhood with a lost purpose. The Speakers’ Corner is will soon be converted into a playground or a row of BBQ pits. Come to think of it, wouldn’t it be more plausible for a bunch of Malaysians and Singaporeans to gather in a picnic setting at Hong Lim Park rather than knowingly allow them to march into JB in yellow tops? At least we know such an event is happening in designated location in Singapore which can be easily curtailed by the government if security is the main concern.

BERSIH, meaning ‘clean’ in Malay language, is a march for free and fair elections with a firm anti-corruption stance. It is a common knowledge that such events will not be celebrated and encouraged by the Singapore government no matter how ‘peaceful’ as it disturbs law and order. Despite the venue ban, thousands are expected to sit-in Dataran Merdeka Kuala Lumpur Duduk Bantah on 28 April 2012, a much anticipated event will take place concurrently worldwide including Singapore.

Many Singaporeans were alarmed and disturbed to see ‘outsiders’ conduct their peaceful assemblies and demonstrations in Singapore so as not to leave the impression Singapore supports foreign anti-government practices.  The incumbent has claimed to be a world-class government, so they must walk-the-talk and be receptive to peaceful assemblies and ‘picnics’. The society is made up of thinking generation who are not afraid to fight for their rights and freedom of expression. If you don’t play along with the game, the government will lose support from the masses just like what is happening now in UMNO, and a near-miss in the last GE2011. Malaysian government is trying to break away from rigidity as seen in their recent policy tweakings and gradual leniency in freedom of expression. Maybe Singapore should follow suit and take some lessons from BERSIH 2.0 and 3.0.

Lessons from Bersih 2.0

The enthusiasm was also felt here as Malaysians who live and work in Singapore have identified themselves as BERSIH 2.0 Singapore planned a picnic gathering at Hong Lim park on 9 Jul 2011, a mirrored event alongside other major countries worldwide. They called themselves “guests in Singapore and have no wish to do anything that is not within the confines of Singapore law”, turned up in yellow tops to show solidarity and lend their support to fellow friends in KL. There were no speeches and demonstrations. 

After a messy man-handling during BERSIH 2.0, Malaysian Home Affairs Minister, Datuk Hishammuddin recently released a statement indicating the Malaysian government is slowly embracing democracy and freedom of expression for BERSIH 3.0. Hishammuddin professed that peaceful public assemblies was not a security concern as long as demonstrators abide to the regulations. He also announced that there will be an increase  in police presence to administer the assembly. Malaysian government have learned well from their over-reaction during BERSIH 2.0 in KL. Despite many denials, the Malaysian government was directly responsible for the escalation and brought the Malaysians to this deadlock.  

Likewise, the Singapore government has taken the view that this freedom of assembly should be curtailed for the fear of disruption. The fact that we are still fearful of racial riots after 40 years clearly shows the backwardness of thinking and our inability to let go of the past. However, Singapore government has not close its door entirely to all peaceful assemblies. In the past, Free Burma Protest and PinkDot.sg have demonstrated that there is a possibility of public assembly and demonstration with strict adherence to regulations. 

More than 10,000 supporters for the Freedom to Love campaign turned up in pink tops at Pink Dot 2011 picnic and concert at Hong Lim Park on 18 June 2011.  It was a success whereby the public were invited to attend but non-Singaporeans and non-PRs are not allowed to be within the dot formation when the time comes. They were however, invited to watch the formation from a designated observation area. In another case, some 40 Burmese citizens gathered at Hong Lim Park to call for boycott of the elections in 30 Oct 2010 “No To Burma’s Sham Elections” organised by the Free Burma Campaign Singapore (FBCSG). 

Why Singapore should allow peaceful assemblies? 

The UN Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the general assembly in 1948 declares "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. This right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers". 


An assembly should be deemed peaceful if its organizers have professed peaceful intentions and the conduct of the assembly is non-violent from a number of individuals in a public place for a common expressive purpose. The term “peaceful” should be interpreted to include conduct that may annoy or give offence, and even conduct that temporarily hinders, impedes or obstructs the activities of third parties. People can gather peacefully for a cause.  Just like how the Christians attend church mass and Muslims congregate for prayers on Fridays. All these are peace assemblies with a purpose to render support for the respective inclination. The right to assemble peacefully, together with freedom of expression and freedom of association, rests at the core of any functioning democratic system. 

Let’s take a look at the GE2011 rallies. Thousands of Singaporeans flocked the designated public spaces. Those were large-scale public gatherings with no disruptions to the law and order. Everyone were there for a same purpose and show support for the respective parties. A series of peaceful assemblies with everyone in safe and sound. 

Despite PM Lee Hsien Loong's call to promote increased political awareness, in reality it is still moving vapidly and unyielding towards new challenges. An open and mature society should have an equally open and mature government.