New MDA licensing rules: Finding a way forward

COMMENT

More than 2 weeks since the announcement of new Internet regulations, the public is still none the wiser.

Even foreigners and foreign organisations which might be affected by the new rules are still trying to understand the licensing regime. The government indicated that it will amend the Broadcasting Act to include foreign websites in the regulations next year.

The attempts at communicating and explaining the licensing framework are even more perplexing. The sequence of events since the announcements shows how ill-prepared the Ministry for Communications and Information (MCI) and the Media Development Authority (MDA) are in engaging the public.

From the inadequate explanation of the new regulations, to the rather unceremonious withdrawal of the MDA chief executive officer from a TV programme at the last minute to be replaced by Acting Manpower Minister Tan Chuan Jin to provide – unconvincingly - “a non-MCI perspective” on the matter; from the (Freudian) slip of the tongue by MCI Minister Yaacob Ibrahim in suggesting that the aim of the regulations was to “make sure” Singaporeans “read the right things” online, to the complete silence of virtually all People’s Action Party (PAP) Members of Parliament (MP), the handling of the whole saga is, to put it bluntly, shocking.

Here we are two weeks later, with the new rules in place, hanging like a Sword of Damocles above the head of every online user. Yes, every online user – for the regulations apply also to comments posted by visitors to websites, and not only to content generators themselves.

The words and phrases in the regulations are vague yet broad enough for the government – or the minister -- to exercise expansive discretionary powers, without much recourse for those affected. The ministers have taken pains to try to explain that the new framework affects only “news sites”. However, the definition of “news” in the new regulations is so wide that it effectively includes anything and everything that happens in Singapore, and thus any blog or website which reports on anything about Singapore can and may be regarded as a “news site” and come under the new rules.

Here is the definition of what constitutes “news”, published and included – interestingly - as a footnote in the original MDA press release on 28 May:

“A “Singapore news programme” is any programme (whether or not the programme is presenter-based and whether or not the programme is provided by a third party) containing any news, intelligence, report of occurrence, or any matter of public interest, about any social, economic, political, cultural, artistic, sporting, scientific or any other aspect of Singapore in any language (whether paid or free and whether at regular interval or otherwise) but does not include any programme produced by or on behalf of the Government.”

At the end of the day, the enforcement of the regulations boils down to the good graces of the minister for MCI.

“I expect the sites will continue to operate as before,” Minister Yaacob told the media. “In fact, I hope that the activists who are today making this far-fetched claim will be honest enough to admit it when the time comes.”

In effect, the minister is urging the public to wait and see – see that the “MDA will be 'judicious' with Internet regulation”, as reported.

Critics, however, argue – quite correctly – that a citizen’s right to free speech, guaranteed under Article 14 of the Singapore Constitution, should not depend on the goodwill or the good graces of a public servant, but on clearly-defined, rational laws which protect a citizen’s constitutional rights at the same time.

Some have charged that the manner in which the government introduced the regulations was also done in bad faith – it was pushed through, without any public consultation, within a matter of days even as many questions were being raised about the new licensing regime.

Further, no one from the MDA or the MCI has been willing to meet with members of the Internet community or members of the public to discuss the regulations after the announcement on 28 May. It leaves a very deep sense of distrust in the government.

What now?

The government has taken an extreme position in its broad sweep with the regulations; while the online community takes a position of deep distrust of the government’s reason for the regulations (to bring ‘parity’ between the mainstream and online news media).

While no one should expect either side to discard or U-turn on their position, there is nonetheless an opportunity for compromise – which will leave the door open to further dialogue in future, instead of the current state of mutual distrust.

This compromise is in the definition in the regulations with regards to “news sites”, which is the government’s stated concern.

One suggestion is that the regulations should only apply to commercial news sites, and not to non-profit blogs which may also report or write “new”. Such a rule would allow citizen journalists, or non-profit websites and blogs or bloggers, to continue to do what they are passionate about – to tell stories of people and places in Singapore. A S$50,000 “performance bond” would undoubtedly kill off these sites in an instant. This would be an utter shame as far as encouraging Singaporeans to follow their passion, as the government has often urged, not to mention that it will also deprive the public of alternative sources of information.

But more disconcerting than these, the legislation as it stands creates a climate of fear and self-censorship which the government has repeatedly said that's not what it's trying to do.

If, as the ministers say, the target is not the blogs, then there should be no reason why the regulations cannot be amended to reflect this more explicitly.

Related news:
COMMENT: What Singapore really needs
Singapore defends licensing rules
#freemy internet rally at Speaker's Corner