by Howard Lee
Source: Studies In Global Media
In the administration of any nation, there is always a fine line between following the rules dogmatically to the book, and nitpicking on the details of the rules that borders on insanity.
This week, the Prime Minister’s Office and the Media Development Authority of Singapore could very well have crossed that line, when they demanded for The Online Citizen to be registered as a political association and as a political website under the Broadcasting Act, respectively.
Little wonder, then, that the online world is already aflame with chatter that casts unhealthy aspersions on these two agencies, raising suspicions that their actions are motivated by the impending general elections.
But looking beyond the expressed indignity of the situation, cold logical deduction does not seem to be able to justify the actions of PMO and MDA. Worse, the impact seems to extend beyond TOC and politics, throwing bad vibes into Singapore’s online media landscape that can only be summed up as “regressive”.
On what justification?
The key factor that both agencies called on to demand TOC’s registration to both standards hinges on one criteria: That TOC is a political entity by virtue of its main activities.
Neither PMO nor MDA has clarified on the specific examples of these activities that led to this conclusion on their parts. Followers of the emerging story are led to conclude on their own that these demands were based on:
- TOC organising the Face-to-Face Forum, and/or
- TOC covering politically sensitive issues in its reporting.
If this reaction by the authorities was based on the first, then it is a weak position indeed. The Face-to-Face Forum was a one-off event. Yes, we may lament about that particular fact, but for the moment, it will not turn regular and can hardly constitute TOC’s main activities. Furthermore, the event was not political in nature, in terms of alignment to a particular political party or cause. If anything, it was anti-political, because it opened up a panel of politicians to scrutiny by the event participants. In short, Face-to-Face placed the interests of citizens over politics. How this one event can constitute “activities that relate wholly or mainly to politics” is anyone’s guess.
The second justification is even more difficult to swallow. Least we be confused, there is a difference between party politics and the politics of life. If TOC is guilty of political association due to its articles, then it is its concern with the politics of life, the daily issues that matter to Singaporeans, that skews its reporting.
If TOC has indicated its interest to be the voice of non-mainstream politics, does that make it party-political? In reality, it is near impossible for a blog site to champion any particular party. On an open platform, everyone has an equal chance to give their opinions, and its most enduring quality is that the writer will never have the final say.
As such, I am left wondering about the rationale of PMO and MDA in making these decisions, let alone their intent. I am not inclined to believe that these actions are themselves politically motivated, as suggested by many online, but the only other deduction is that there are people at the helm calling these shots who are either really very anal vigilant about due process, or just plain stupid logically challenged. Without a clear and unquestionable justification from the responsible agencies, it is only fair that public speculation rules.
Impact analysis
But if TOC relents to the demands, what does it really mean?
Administratively, these requirements are an extra pain, implying the need to dedicate resources to maintain these two standards, even if they bear absolutely no relation to what TOC does, or risk running afoul for the law, and subsequently closure. There is also the issue of foreign donations, which alone is already quite a task to track in an online world. For example, does online payment for a Poli-Tee constitute a donation?
Should TOC subscribe themselves to these standards, by the rule of law, it would be classified as a political entity, together with all the perceived biases and agendas that are associated with political entities. But of course, what goes by law – and the rhetoric of political publicity that we can surely expect to come – need not necessarily resound with TOC’s many readers, nor the plain common sense of Singaporeans.
The true impact, unfortunately, is on our emerging online media landscape. Netizens will remember this against the backdrop of the supposedly “soft touch” approach professed by the authorities, and view these as unjust incursions into the online world. Trust has been undermined, purely by the virtue that such requirements have been imposed on TOC.
The gravity of the situation, should TOC relent, happens on two fronts. The first is the possible need for TOC to “tone down” its reporting for fear of a forced shutdown. Put simply, the authorities now have the option to bring the law to bear on TOC for even the slightest of infringements to the guidelines of the Broadcasting Act. In the words of MDA inToday on 12 Jan:
“Registration does not mean that the discussion of political topics is disallowed. Registration also does not entail more stringent conditions… Registration is to emphasise to Internet content providers to be responsible and accountable for what they say online.”
In other words, we’re not going to say you can’t be open in your writing about politics. Just make sure you keep a check on exactly how open you are.
The second front is already apparent in the concerns of other similar social-political blogs and forums – that they could be the next in line. To maintain their continued online freedom, ironically, such potential “political associations” would quite likely give up more freedom. In the words of James Gomez, we risk self-censorship – before being required to do so, and maybe without consciously doing so.
The overall effect could be a chilling of the online environment. Online media would be worse from it, as would critical thinking and public participation. In truth, blogs and forums have struggled hard in past years, and have gained some traction in defining themselves as credible sources of public discourse. Contrary to popular belief, it is precisely free and open discussion that builds credibility for online media, rather than attempts to adhere to some standards of reporting.
To allow that to slide back now is like a descent back into the early days of suspicion and ignorance.
So what now?
When I dropped a note to the editor asking if he needed help for this situation, his reply was, “the best help you can give is to keep the articles coming!”
I have written for TOC all this while primarily because I do not believe they align with any agenda other than the everyday Singaporean. It is this focus that I felt was lacking in traditional media, and an important value that will allow TOC to survive and thrive.
This value has drawn many readers, commentators and writers – you and me – to its pages. Hungry for alternative views, we return not to be part of any political association, but to be part of a free media environment that is not inhibited by self censorship, professional exclusivity of contribution, or stakeholder interests. TOC exists not just because of its writers, subjective as they may be, but also for the many voices who contribute comments and encourage the exchange of ideas.
All of us form this community of Singaporeans.
Whatever the outcome of this situation, the desire to speak up for everyday Singaporeans cannot waver. We need to continue our association with this community, not because it represents any political interests, but because it echoes our own wishes as citizens, online or otherwise.
And it is in our interest to ensure that fair and open debate continues in this community, to continue holding traditional media and our leaders accountable for any inability to represent us. Our participation should not change because of TOC’s gazetting. If anything, it should be stronger, because what is at stake the future of online media in Singapore – a media that we can finally call our own.
The writer is a corporate communication professional. He graduated 10 years ago, but has never stopped being a media student.
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
An open society needs an open flow of ideas. Period.
keep it up PAP duds, u r losing more votes.
PAP can’t handle th truth.
SPH should also be gazetted
Reporters like Chua mui hoong are a disgrace. Vote them out!
Once register under MDA, does it mean TOC will not allow to publish any article during the cooling off period during election?
I think I know why the Clown Prince was extremely pissed off.
Remember the vacant seat in the face to face meeting where the PAP either didn’t bother to show up or don’t have the guts to face the public because of its many recent blunders.
So he had to give TOC a tight slap and the only way he can do so was the gazzette.
Isn’t it a joke that that our PAP govt has to force people to become politicians when they don’t even have the least intention to contest in any of our General Election ?
How about gazetting pro-PAP websites too like PAP website, YPAP website, Town Council websites, SINDA, MENDAKI, CDAC websites, grassroots websites, GLC websites, TLC websites, STOMP, ST, CNA etc.
All these website should be gazetted for having political influence.
For goodness sakes, why do I get the idea that TOC think that they are not a political site? It is a political site, even if you think you’re not, the public thinks you are.
There aren’t even much factual news here. Most are opinionated commentary.
TOC should pay special attention to the quote you use above:
“Registration is to emphasise to Internet content providers to be responsible and accountable for what they say online.”
Occasionally, I still find writeup that’s not fully substantiated by facts. That’s a serious (legal) risk. The editorial team should always make sure that points made can be supported by facts.
justice for press……..
if TOC”s reporting standards fall after gazetting, EVERYONE KNOWS that’s because of the government.
however, if TOC manages to keep up its worthy track record and continues to challenge the government, OUR SUPPORT for TOC can only get STRONGER.
@Strong
No one can publish anything on cooling off day. It’s got nothing to do with MDA.
@Howard Lee
I think you mistook partisanship for being political. Face-to-face may not have been partisan but it was a political discussion. The reasons given for TOC’s gazetting are not that it’s activities are partisan, but that they are political.
I think you will find that most people readily define TOC’s stories – except that out-of-place stuff by Martha Lee on sex – to be political.
The rationale isn’t confusing. The timing and intent is.
@Ah Tiong
Websites like PAP and YPAP have stricter restrictions on them than TOC. The people who run them are registered under the societies act as a political party.
Newpaper sites are all licensed under MDA which, again, places tighter restrictions than the class license notification.
Dear Singapore Government,
You can try as hard a possible, but you cannot silent everyone in Singapore.
Unless
1. replace all current Singaporeans with your foreign “talents”
2. Put every single Singaporeans in jail.
3. Declare Singapore as a communist country.
Thank you
Your unhappy citizen.
shroom
>>”No one can publish anything on cooling off day”<>”I think you will find that most people readily define TOC’s stories…to be political”<>”The rationale isn’t confusing. The timing and intent is”<>”Websites like PAP and YPAP have stricter restrictions..”<<
What are the restrictions incl those placed for newspapers? Pls give one eg.
@CK I’m going to indulge your laziness.
Really, you can just go look this stuff up yourself.
Also, I’m really confused about what you chose to quote from me. The quote is about political party websites, yet the queiston is about newspapers.
Not sure what you want, so I’ll go with both.
the websites of a political party are bound by the rules governing that party. That means, not only msut it register and be subject to the same restrictions on political donations as any political association, it is also bound by the membership restrictions found in the Societies Act.
For instance, it cannot have foreign members. (TOC still can)
Also, as a vehicle of a political party, it is considered a relevant person under election advertising laws. (TOC is not)
This means it must adhere to Mica’s whitelist of the kind of activities that can be done during the election period. Only activities on the whitelist are permitted. Everything else is forbidden. (TOC does not need to adhere to this whitelist)
As for newspapers, please read the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act for registration requirements. I think you will find that they are much stricter than those found in the Political Donations Act or Class License Notification.
Newspapers are also generally prohibited to put up election advertising, except with the prior approval of the Returning Officer. (i.e. the RO may approve parties buying ads.) The paper is not allowed, on its own to say “we want you to vote for so and so”
This means, like everyone else, election advertising is prohibited on cooling off day. News reports on what took place the day before are permitted. I guess you could argue that this is open to abuse, but that’s not your question.
You wanted to know restrictions, there you go.
I smell fear in the PAP camp…..
**YouCannotSilenceTheTruth 17 January 2011
Dear Singapore Government,
You can try as hard a possible, but you cannot silent everyone in Singapore.
Unless
1. replace all current Singaporeans with your foreign “talents”
2. Put every single Singaporeans in jail.
3. Declare Singapore as a communist country.
Thank you
Your unhappy citizen.**
Well said. Maybe add one more.
4. Your pay is never justified.
“I am left wondering about the rationale of PMO and MDA in making these decisions”
Wonder no more, Howard, the PAP has to do this because the elections are near and they are trying to make life tough for TOC.
Unlike the PAP-controlled media in Singapore that exists to preserve the power of the PAP, the TOC gives the true unpoliticised news for Singaporeans.
An example of PAP apologist is shroom who tries his/her best to confuse the public with fallacious reasoning.
“No one can publish anything on cooling off day. It’s got nothing to do with MDA.” (shroom)
No one except the SPH newspapers under the guise of reports.
What if Temasek Review publishes or report something political on “cooling off day”? What can the PAP government do when the owners of TR is anonymous.