While many Americans have been focused lately on online
censorship in China, few have noticed a similar practice in other
countries such as Singapore. That island state is a parliamentary
republic in theory, but has really been run by one dominant party
in its history of independence since 1965 (see a Singapore
historical timeline
here).
The mainstream media is strictly controlled by the government,
and one political party — the People’s Action Party (PAP) — has had
complete control of all centers of government. The country
infamously practices caning of citizens who break certain laws, and
executes drug smugglers. (Amnesty International
reports Singapore has the highest execution rate per capita in
the world.) And recently, its Minister of Communication and Arts,
Balaji Sadasiva, announced that blogs and
podcasts would be shut down if they ran overt political content
in the runup to the May 6 election.
Immediately, the move was denounced by the free expression
rights group Reporters Without Borders. “Once again the Singapore
authorities are showing their determination to prevent the holding
of a genuinely democratic debate on the Internet,” the group
said in a statement. And the Internet crackdown was aimed
squarely at two new media platforms — blogs and podcasts — that
have been embraced by opposition parties such as the Singapore
Democratic Party (SDP) to get around censorship in other media.
The Singaporean government has won over residents with a
powerful economic engine that rivals Western European powers. And
in recent years Singapore has relaxed its
ban on chewing gum — in order to win a free trade agreement
with the U.S — and it has allowed the showing of the
movie “Brokeback Mountain” despite laws against homosexuality. So
just how serious is this new regulation, and will political speech
by bloggers and podcasters be chilled now that elections have been
set for May 6?
One Singaporean blogger, Soci, who writes for the very political
group blog, Singabloodypore, was
defiant in a comment on a
related story
on ZDNet:
This blog — Singabloodypore — is not registered with the
Singaporean government, has never been asked to register, and if
invited to register would NOT register. I Soci also
intend to post material of an “explicitly political nature” during
the elections and will gladly show videocasting and podcasting of
election rallies, speeches etc. of opposition candidates.
And indeed they have been showcasing just that on the group
blog. But in many cases, these bloggers and the dozens of others
that write about Singapore are anonymous or operate from outside
the country. Chris Myrick, who pens the Asia Pundit blog, lived in
Singapore until February 2005. He was unsure how much the new
regulation would chill speech online.
“Most Singapore bloggers stay pretty much within limits - there
are only a small handful of political blogs and even those will
stay away from certain issues (nepotism) or the authors will remain
anonymous,” Myrick told me via email. “I have no doubt that the
Singapore government would prosecute an individual for breaking the
ban. It tends to be the methodology of the state to make an example
of people (i.e., the three bloggers who were last year
sentenced for sedition).”
I queried Singapore’s Ministry of Communication and the Arts
(MICA) to get more insight into the new rules for blogs and
podcasts and they directed me to a detailed
Q&A between government minister Lee Boon Yang
and the Straits Times. Here’s one telling exchange:
Q. Why is streaming of explicit political content
through podcasts or videocasts not allowed but posting of party
manifestos and texts of rally speeches allowed for political
parties? What is the worry?
Podcasts and videocasts…have a greater impact because of the
nature of the medium. They have the greater power to influence.
Hence, we do not allow podcasts and videocasts for election
advertising, just as we do not allow party political films and
videos. The Internet has its own unique characteristics which
require special attention. The Internet is ubiquitous, fast and
anonymous. Once a false story or rumour is started on the Internet,
it is almost impossible to put it right. Despite its usefulness,
the Internet is chaotic and disorganised, with many half-truths and
untruths masquerading as facts…
To help bring some order to this chaotic environment, we have
made it a requirement for political parties and individuals who use
websites to propagate or promote political issues to register with
the Media Development Authority (MDA). This promotes accountability
and also ensures personal responsibility for comments made on the
Internet.
Soci at Singabloodypore was quick to
read between the lines of this Q&A, analyzing
the underlying meaning of each passage. Soci’s take on the comment
above from the minister: “The Internet is a threat to our
domination of the national mind set.”
While the minister makes a strong case about the way
misinformation spreads online, there are more transparent ways of
countering that than blocking off speech completely. For instance,
the government could make its own case online, or try to open up a
debate with oppositional views.
Alex Au (pictured here), who blogs about gay rights in Singapore
at Yawning
Bread, told me that freedom of speech in Singapore exists to a
certain point.
“The freedom available to Singaporeans is quite wide,” Au told
me via email. “However, there is a climate of fear that the
government can clamp down anytime. There have actually been very
few instances of arbitrary clamping down, but the fear persists,
and thus a lot of people in Singapore, including bloggers,
self-censor to some extent. With the passage of time, there is
increasing confidence that freedom of speech on the Internet is
pretty wide. The more years that pass without incident, the more
confidence people gain.”
Au says that in the sedition cases last year, the language used
online by the three people who were prosecuted was “extremely
gross, full of expletives and deliberately provocative,” rather
than an intelligent discussion. So Au feels that the government was
drawing the line between measured discussion of issues and
inflammatory speech.
In the recent crackdown of blogs and podcasts, Au thinks the
government’s ban is very narrow in covering blogs that
“persistently promote a political line” — leaving broad political
discussions alone. I asked him if he thought the government might
act against bloggers in the next couple weeks.
“No I don’t,” he said. “I think the government may want to
create the impression that they will clamp down, in order to get
people to tremble in their socks and self-censor anything critical
that they may have to say about the government. But the government
probably knows that the Internet is not (yet) a mass medium that
can move large numbers of voters, so to really take action would be
overkill. In any case, the junior minister did say in Parliament
that politics can be discussed, just that unless one is identified
as a political party, one shouldn’t go around promoting any
particular party or candidate.”
As Singapore is a trade partner to the West, how the Western
media portrays the Singaporean government is important to them. So
that means that bloggers and journalists who bring attention to the
recent crackdown could help the PAP reconsider taking
action.
“Bringing the world’s attention to authoritarian instincts of
this government, making them a little of a pariah on account of
their policies, embarrasses them greatly,” Au said.
If you want to read more about the upcoming Singaporean
elections, you’ll want to check out these sites:
AsiaOne
election coverage
Official
Singapore Government Site on Elections
