Do you know that Singapore is one of the ASEAN states which had “reaffirmed” their “adherence” to
the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration?
Specifically, there are two clauses which state that:
22. Every person has the right to freedom of thought, conscience
and religion. All forms of intolerance, discrimination and
incitement of hatred based on religion and beliefs shall be
eliminated.
23. Every person has the right to freedom of opinion and
expression, including freedom to hold opinions without interference
and to seek, receive and impart information, whether orally, in
writing or through any other medium of that person’s choice.
On Tuesday, the Media Development Authority (MDA) had introduced
licensing requirements which “makes it clear that online news sites
are expected to comply within 24 hours to MDA’s directions to remove content that is found to be in
breach of content standards.”
Singaporeans Do Not Have the Right to Freedom (sorry for
pointing out the obvious)
So, even as all Singaporeans should rightfully have the “freedom
of thought”, it seems that the MDA might have
deemed it fit that they could unilaterally decide on what content
“is found to be in breach of content standards”? And then, if
indeed, according to the Censorship Review Committee 2010 Report,
that the “MDA does not have the domain expertise to make certain
decisions, particularly those involving national security, and that
it is acting in such situations on the advice or instruction of
another agency”, then which agency, or agencies, would be truly
behind MDA’s decisions? Freedom of
thought?
Also, MDA had stated that, “online news
sites are required to put up a performance bond like all other
individually-licensed broadcasters, and the sum of $50,000 is
consistent with that required of niche TV broadcasters.”
The Online Citizen had said that, “In the event that the new
licensing rules are extended to TOC, we will
have to reassess the viability of continuing the website in light
of the significant financial and legal liability the new rules
impose.” TR Emeritus had also said that there is now the “resulting
uncertainty over the future of TR Emeritus”.
The $50,000 performance bond would thus compromised on
Singaporeans’ “right to freedom of opinion and expression”. On top
of that, Today had also reported that, “Under the regime, operators
of news sites which defy the authorities’ order to apply for a
licence could face a fine of up to S$200,000 or a maximum jail term
of three years or both.”
MDA’s very act can be interpreted as an
act of “interference” which prevents Singaporeans from being able
to “seek, receive and impart information” and it certainly looks
like Singaporeans’ “choice” of their “right” to information would
be severely curtailed.
The Human Rights Declaration was adopted by Singapore on 18
November 2012. Within half a year, Singapore has put paid to the
declaration and has rendered it useless.
The United Nations had raised concerns about the declaration and
had said that, “We strongly encourage the inclusion of language
which makes explicit that the restrictions must be provided by law
and conform to the strict tests of necessity and proportionality,
and that these restrictions may not put in jeopardy the right
itself or apply to rights that are non-derogable under
international law.” According to the Coalition of Singapore
NGOS, “Singapore does not have a National
Human Rights Institution,” so what then is there to hold Singapore
accountable to the declaration, or even to basic human rights
incursions in Singapore?
The Human Rights Watch was even more hard-hitting and said that,
“This Declaration should never be the basis to excuse the failure
of a state to meet its international human rights obligations.”
Unfortunately, even with the declaration “reaffirmed” for its
“adherence”, it has become a lame duck declaration, as The Jakarta
Post had rightfully called it.
Without any National Human Rights Institution or penalty for not
observing the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration,
which in itself is a laughing stock, there is nothing to hold
Singapore accountable to contravening the declaration, and thus the
current intrusion of the rights of Singaporeans through
MDA’s introduction of the licensing
requirement.
Singaporeans Were Not Consulted on Licensing Requirement
Today had reported that, “The new rules were crafted in
consultation with the industry players.” Were these “industry
players” members of the Internet and Media Advisory Committee
(INMAC)? You can see the members at this link here. Mr Ravi
Philemon had also pointed out that these members were “behind the
Media Convergence Review Report, who may have inadvertently nudged
MDA towards this new licensing framework for
online news sites.”
According to the Censorship Review Committee 2010 Report,
“Quantitative and qualitative surveys have been undertaken by the
regulator to guide its decisions on policy reviews and content
guidelines.” Yet, if indeed, a “tripartite relationship of trust
between the industry, community and the regulator” should be built
to be consulted on these surveys, where is the “community” in this
picture?
None of the online websites were aware, or even consulted on
this “licensing framework”. It seems that only the Internet and
Media Advisory Committee, which involved only “industry” players
were consulted, or actually, had been the ones which had
recommended the licensing.
Perhaps Communications and Information Minister Yaacob Ibrahim
summed it up most nicely when he had said that, “We realised we
need to do something to the framework because it’s not fair to our
mainstream media.”
And why would it be unfair to the mainstream media? To that, Mr
Ravi Philemon might have the answer, when he said that, “It
certainly looks like there’s political motivation behind this new
licensing framework, and the motivation seem to be to rein-in
Yahoo! Singapore.” To be clear, Yahoo! Singapore would only be the
beginning.
The National Solidarity Party (NSP) had also opined that, “One
wonders if this rule will also be extended to articles critical of
government policy, articles tagged with reader comments that are
critical of the government and articles that generally express
opinions contrary to prevailing political wisdom.”
MDA’s Licensing Requirement Is Detrimental
to Singapore’s Long Term Future
More importantly, what is the impact of the introduction of this
licensing requirement?
The Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) succinctly pointed out
that, “On the economic front, Singapore has come to a stage where
we can, and must, have a more open society. This will help to
encourage critical thinking which will, in turn, encourage an
innovative culture to take root. This process is essential for the
sustainability of our economic development. Unfortunately, the
latest move to tighten online media will do the opposite, that is,
the measure will have the tendency to breed more fear and
conformist behaviour. This will put Singapore at a further
disadvantage when it comes to our competitiveness on the global
stage.”
The NSP further elaborated that, “Taken
together, the NSP believes that the spirit
and the conditions of the new regulation will have a regressive
effect on the development of the local media industry and the
quality of journalism at large in our country. While the Government
has made much of its intention to be more open and engaged with the
citizenry, by this latest move, we cannot help but be left with the
feeling that it has merely been paying lip service to the notion of
a National Conversation.”
And if it is not already obvious, the SDP
went on to sound the death knell by saying that, “At the same time,
the Government should realise that efforts to rein in the Internet
will not succeed. The introduction of this policy will simply make
Singaporeans more determined to use the new media as a news source
as well as to push for greater media freedom.”
This was echoed by The Era which said that, “the clampdown would
“force” us to conduct discourses in other ways”, where Singaporeans
”should ask for more boycott of the mainstream media, actively
encouraging more people to question what they read and hear in
there” and “more actively boycott PAP and
PAP-affiliated activities while participating
more in Opposition ones”.
Attend the Protest to Stand Up For Your Rights
“A group of community of websites in Singapore that provide
sociopolitical news and analysis to Singaporeans”, including The
Heart Truths, released a media statement to “call on the Ministry
of Communications and Information to withdraw the licensing regime”
and for “our elected representatives to oppose the licensing
regime.” We are “planning to organise an actual protest, which will
take place in the next week or so. (as reported by Yahoo!
Singapore)”
The government’s control and regulation of the Internet can have
a potentially very dire impact on Singapore and our long term
survival. To progress into the knowledge economy, we would require
Singaporeans who are able to receive a wealth of diverse
information, so that we would be able to learn to be critically
informed and thoughtful in our analyses. This licensing requirement
has the potential to severely curb Singapore’s intellectual growth
and development.
We need to take a strong stand against such misdemeanor by the
government. Singaporeans, we need to stand up for one another and
protect our country and our home.
We need to take a strong stand and protect our country from such
scrooge.
More information will be released in the next few days.
Roy
