The following article is extracted from The Economist.
In a country where the government has a pretty tight control over the traditional media—newspapers and television—Singaporeans with an appetite for alternative views have long gravitated towards the internet. So the news last week that one of the main independent socio-political blog sites The Online Citizen (TOC), is being “gazetted” by the government has sent shockwaves through Singapore’s burgeoning, boisterous (and now rather fearful) online community.
Gazetting sounds quaint, but is anything but. It’s a means by which the government can demand that any organisation be reclassified as the government sees fit. TOC is a kind of journalistic platform; the powers-that-be now want to register the organisation as a political association. The site is to be designated as a political website. This means that TOC will fall under the rules that govern other (normal) political organisations—like parties.
Under the Political Donations Act, TOC will be subject to a cap of 5,000 Singapore dollars ($3,900) in accepting anonymous donations and banned outright from receiving funds from foreign donors. The government’s registry of political donations has already asked TOC to identify clearly all its owners, journalists and anyone else associated with the site. It was given two weeks to comply. And this is but one of the new rules to which the site will be subject.
No specific reasons have been given for why the government wants to take this action, and at this particular moment in time. All the government has said, through its registry of political donations, is that “As a website that provides coverage and analysis of political issues, TOC has the potential to influence the opinions of their readership and shape political outcomes in Singapore. It has been gazetted to ensure that it is not funded by foreign elements or sources.”
Every journalist, of course, wants to influence the opinions of his or her readers—that’s why we we’re all in this business. The same, of course, could be said of almost any media organisation. More to the point, media observers say, is that there is a general election expected in the next few months and the Peoples’ Action Party government wants to start exerting some control over the unruly, independent-minded blogosphere—lest it spill over into effective opposition. One expert on the media in Singapore told me that it was a “clear warning” to the rest of the country’s online critics. We are watching you closely, and can take action.
The last time a comparable website was gazetted it happened in almost identical circumstances. Sintercom was told to register as a political association in 2001, also just before an election. On that occasion, the founder of the site closed it down rather than comply with the government’s demands and what he called the “self-censorship” that was expected of him.
Some analysts argue that gazetting should not in fact make much practical difference to TOC’s day-to-day operations. Indeed, the government argues that it will be free to carry on with its “normal, lawful operations”. The aforementioned media expert, however, says that the action against TOC is intended to cause a chilling effect on its content and that of other websites as well. As a political association, TOC says it will have to comply carefully with the Broadcasting Act. It will have to mind more carefully what it says, and it may think twice before straying into controversial areas, such as homelessness and income inequality—ie, the sort of self-censorship that the founder of Sintercom was not prepared to tolerate.
TOC, for its part, has sent off a letter to the prime minister’s office asking for an explanation. The website argues that that whereas it might have been critical of government policies, it has never indulged in “partisan” politics. TOC also says that it is quite open and transparent enough already. It cheekily adds that the website merely tries to live up to the prime minister’s words: he has said that he wants Singaporeans to be more “unconventional” and “spontaneous”.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Singaporeans are tired of the PMO craps. Don’t worry, come election they will be fxxked dead, metaphorically speaking.
Unconventuinal and spontaneous only on
lavishing praises on his Party. Not on criticisms on his party’s conduct and behaviour.
I assume The Economist refers to the UK Economist.
If it does, I don’t see the article on website or in print edition. I am subscriber.
An update on newspaper apology?
They ignored you guys or rebutted?
The “white elephant” has taken action to show who is the boss around.
“all shall bow your heads to uncle KIM”
or was it uncle leenasty….
I am not sure how The Economist can come to conclude that the Singapore Online community is a ‘fearful’ one. From what I have read, here and elsewhere online, from Blogs to Facebook to Twitter, I do not think this is an accurate description of how the gazette order has created fear among the online community.
On the contrary, the online community has been awaken and is now closer than it ever was before. How else do you find almost everyone in blogosphere talking, and is still talking, about this – each with its own assessments and verdicts? I do not see or feel any trace of fear in any of the writings thus far.
Perhaps, a more apt description would be ‘uncertainty’. Indeed, there is uncertainty over the actual purpose of the PM (& PAP) in ordering the gazette. What will it lead to? That is the only ‘fear’ in the minds and hearts of blogocitizens – which is actually not fear at all.
We all know what the government can do if it wants to but if anyone had read Dotseng’s recent article aligning the situation here to what China is doing to control blogoland and the stupidity of such a cowardly act, you would understand the power of the Net.
So where is the fear? In fact, we are rather happy to have the PM show his hand just before the coming General Election. We wait with bated breath to see what he comes up with next. One thing is for sure, there is no fear looking at someone running around catching mosquitoes. In fact, if the online community is to come together as one, it will be the PM and his stooges who will shake and shit in their pants. They have a lot to be fearful for, that’s why the gazette order in the first place.
The rest is elementary. The Economist should stick to what it does best.
If I’m not mistaken, Sintercom was registered under MDA and never gazetted as a political association. I think the Economist got it wrong. Does anybody know?
I thought TOC has explained to the PMO that it is NOT funded by any foreign funds? If TOC has proof from accounts books, then perhaps it is good to show them? Writing & talking is no use. It is good to give them evidence, black and white proof but then again….. The thing is: IN Singapore, if the head says yes, the body cannot tell him to change his mind & say no. Perhaps it is something to do with the ‘losing face’ issue?
@Gemani: The fearful thing is not new. Many Singaporeans are generally fearful people. They are afraid to come out of the norm of society because they are fearful.. so they only know how to follow the norm & look only straight ahead. Many are those who does not want any trouble with the law and would turn and look the other way in order to come to a peaceful settlement with the law. When there is fear in the hearts of the people, those who are in control can control even more tightly.
Economist did not mention the people did not object . Most people do not object.
@ Desperate_for_anything?
Generally speaking, yes; the climate of fear do exists among the population.
However, we are talking about online citizens, about the courageous Netizens in Blogoland. I would like to believe that we are not as easily cowed as the general population. So, to paint us as a fearful community having chills down our spines because of the G order is adding to the wrong perception that the new generation of Singaporeans are as fearful as their parents were.
Nobody here knows the real motive behind the gazetting of TOC. Basically PAP govt wants to choke TOC of funding. The identity of all donors will have to be fully disclosed to the govt. You know what will happen then. PAP will use the entire govt machinery (eg. IRAS) to demolish the donors. It will also make life very difficult for TOC’s staffers and article contributors.
Very strange; the article looks like it has been removed from the Economist website.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/asiaview/2011/01/singapores_media
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:r3m5ce2Sy6MJ:www.economist.com/blogs/asiaview/2011/01/singapores_media+http://www.economist.com/blogs/asiaview/2011/01/singapores_media&cd=1&hl=zh-TW&ct=clnk&gl=hk
@gemani
The thing is: One only needs to put fear into the heart of even the netizens of any paticular websites in order to gain control of what is being written. Many online websites moderators are also doing this in a different way to their community. So to some/many people here now, it is a sign of: Be careful what you write here in TOC. Big bro is watching.
;-)
You may be right as to the younger people not being as fearful of the the G-order as their parents are but nevertheless, being careful is better than being careless & guess what, these folks will take it somewhere else…
So long as one are in the S-system and the S-net, one will be always trapped no matter where one wants to take it to… Maybe that is the message the G-order wants to send to TOC?
The said article on the economist apparently was posted on 19th Jan but taken down after that.
Former link was here
http://www.economist.com/blogs/asiaview/2011/01/singapores_media
any idea why it was taken down?
@ gemami
The new generation of Singaporeans are not really more or less fearful. Fear is a subjective quantifier.
They are, however, more distracted and more apathetic.
I think the metric for fearfulness that the Economist uses is more comprehensive than what we imagine. If there is a real lack of fear (aka confidence in not getting shut down) on the internet platform in SG, why won’t the TOC and TR be bankrolled from Singapore?
And please don’t mention the “general attitude” from select blogs. That is anecdotal and should not have overbearing credence on this discussion.
According to the PAP, the “general attitude” of their policies have always been positive, no?
TOC’s people are based in Singapore and has never received foreign funding. – ED
I would have called it the “ANGUISH OF BLOGOSPHERE” instead. No doubt the older generations were intimidated and “threatened” into fear by PAP almost all their life, I believed the younger generations with higher educations and netizens have uncovered many obvious lies beneath the LEEGIME, thus fear does not really exist. The only fear and anger basically lie in this one country two systems law which are applied selectively on the people. If the law is fair, nobody is afraid to stand up against the ruling party.
Rise up,S’pore. Be not afraid. When sons and daughters have visions, dictators and govts. will fall. A new world will be. pap has shackled you for too long.