By Choo Zheng Xi/Co-Founder, TOC

newzealand
Closeup shot of the newspapers – Andrew Low

This morning, my eyes nearly popped out of my skull when I read in the ST that Minister for Communications and Information (MCI) had compared the MDA Licensing Regime to recommendations made by a New Zealand (NZ) Law Commission Report on new media.

This is an embarrassing example for Dr Yaacob Ibrahim to use, and shows how desperate his Ministry is becoming to grasp at any fig leaf of legitimacy to justify their Licensing Regime.

In fact, Dr Yaacob’s example is so misguided and confused that one has to wonder whether or not he has actually read the report. New Zealanders would certainly be shocked to discover how he has interpreted the findings of the report.

The report referenced by Dr Yaacob to prove his misguided point is the NZ Law Commission’s Report titled “The News Media Meets ‘New Media’: Rights, Responsibilities and Regulation in the Digital Age”.

Dr Yaacob says of this report: “The bottom line is that (the New Zealanders) now see that even the media can operate contrary to the public interest, and they need a regulator to ensure that this does not happen…They have also recognised the need for any regulator to oversee both traditional and online media”.

Dr Yaacob has glossed over critical differences between the findings of the New Zealand law Commission Report and MCI’s Licensing Regime.

When these differences are examined up close, any sensible reader will realise that Dr Yaacob’s New Zealand example actually proves precisely why his Licensing Regime is not the way to go.

Did Dr Yaacob read the NZ Law Commission Report?

In summary, these are the critical differences in the NZ Law Commission Report which Dr Yaacob has ignored.

1)     The New Zealand report recommends a voluntary new media standards body for online news. This body is to be known as the News Media Standards Authority (NMSA). Participation in the NMSA is to be by way of  contract, and not compulsory.

The MDA Licensing Regime is going to be compulsory, with no opt out option, and includes a $50,000 “performance bond”;

2)     The NMSA is, in the words of the NZ Law Commission Report, supposed to be “genuinely independent of Government and the news media industry.

The chairperson is to be a retired judge or an experienced and well known public figure appointed by the Chief Ombudsman (a public official whose sole role is to be an independent check on the government).

A majority of the NMSA will be drawn from members of the public who are independent of the media industry with a minority drawn from former members of the media.

This is clearly different from Dr Yaacob’s Licensing Regime, which is to be regulated by MDA, which is a government agency;

3)     The consultative and open manner in which the New Zealand report was constructed, debated and adopted puts Dr Yaacob’s Ministry to shame.

In the first place, the NZ Law Commission set up to make the recommendations was independent, publicly funded commission staffed by serving Judges, former Judges, and eminent lawyers.

The NZ Law Commission consulted widely and solicited views and opinions from members of industry, the legal fraternity, bloggers, commercial news agencies, and the public at large before formulating their recommendations.

The recommendations were then forwarded to the Government in the form of a Ministerial Briefing Paper.

These recommendations were then tabled and then debated in Parliament.

Compare this to the situation in Singapore, where even Members of Parliament were not asked to scrutinize the Licensing Regime, and Cabinet Ministers are clearly unprepared to defend the indefensible Licensing Regime.

Time for Hong Lim

In the days to come, Dr Yaacob is likely going to have to walk his comments back because of his selective and misguided portrayal of the NZ Law Commission report.

To draw such a comparison is an insult to our friends from New Zealand, and to the intelligence of the ordinary Singaporean.

Dr Yaacob’s approach highlights precisely why Singaporeans need to turn up at Hong Lim Park this Saturday: to get a clear view of the facts about regulations that will affect your lives and the information you consume.

You May Also Like

轿车引擎内藏蟒蛇 停车场内上演“捉蛇记”

一辆白色车子内藏着蟒蛇,车主“急call”新加坡野生动物保育队,成功将数尺长的蟒蛇逮住。 脸书群组SG Road Vigilante-SGRV于周一(6月8日)分享了在停车场内的“捉蛇记”,两名野生动物保育队人员的勇敢表现赢得网民纷纷按赞。 据视频显示,两名穿着制服的人员在一辆车子前面查看,并拿着捕蛇夹,数次尝试将藏在汽车引擎部位的蟒蛇拉出。其中一人最终成功捉住了蟒蛇的尾部,将蛇身拉出后,再捉住其头部,然后慢慢引入黑色布袋中。虽然蟒蛇尝试挣扎,但是都徒劳无功,人员甚至拍拍蛇身,试图安抚。 网民对视频内英勇的工作人员们纷纷按赞,更指拍下视频的人们胆子真大,都很靠近蟒蛇。更有网民认为已经两个月没开车,怪不得蟒蛇藏在里面也不知道。不少网民也表示看了视频后,有股冲动想“买4D号码”, “可惜现在(店)不能开” 。

It might be time for Singapore Post to reassess their delivery and manpower system

One Singaporean, Andy Lau, had a bit of an awkward encounter with…

【选举】徐顺全将攻打武吉巴督单选区

民主党秘书长徐顺全,今日(21日)表态将在来临选举攻打武吉巴督单选区。 在今日走访武吉巴督购物中心时,徐顺全向媒体证实此事。 2016年,由于原议员王金发涉及婚外情而辞职,武吉巴督选区补选。徐顺全曾代表民主党上阵,对垒行动党候选人穆仁理,而后者以61.21巴仙多数票取胜。 目前武吉巴督有2万9389选民。 在今早徐顺全官方脸书专页发布的直播片段,也可见有党员穿着印有“徐顺全武吉巴督”字样的T恤。 同时民主党也向居民推广“四要一不”(Four Yes, One No)竞选宣言,同时强调新加坡人民在疫情下的需求必须获得照顾,以及全国面对的长期问题。 民主党四要指的是:暂停消费税、倡议裁员福利、退休者收入和以民为先。“一不”指的是该党拒绝放眼一千万人口的规划。

新加坡迈向近150万客工的历程

原文摘自:工人党前非选区议员余振忠 冠状病毒19病例暴增,使客工议题备受关注。本文的目是要探讨我国是如何造成这样的一个局面:大量的低薪工人生活在与新加坡人完全不同的世界中,尽管他们实实在在地生存在我们群体当中。客工大规模涌入背后的经济考量到底是什么? 官委议员特斯拉副教授最近在新加坡大学政策研究所的论坛上指出,新加坡对此客工的依赖,从1970年代占新加坡总劳动力的约7巴仙增加至今天的约38巴仙。目前,这些客工中有72.4巴仙持有工作准证(WP),而14巴仙持有特别准证(SP)。从数字上看,客工人数从五十多年前的6万人增长到如今惊人的147万。其中大部分约123万人持有WP和SP(资料来源:新加坡人力部和美国移民政策研究所)。 持有 WP 和 SP 的工人是我国劳动力 中工资较低的一群。目前他们的人数如此之多,以至于他们几乎出现在我们社会的每个空间。2008年,已故的李光耀先生表示,他认为他自己政党的 “拥有650万人口计划”不可行。 该计划主要是通过移民来推动经济增长。已故李先生说:“以我们拥有的土地来说,应该有一个最理想的人口数量,以保持生活空间的平衡与舒适感。” 除了分享我们的社会空间,大量低薪客工的存在也压低了新加坡技术水平较低的工人的工资。这进一步造成了受益于我国经济增长的一群人与另一群实际工资停滞或甚至在过去20年相比下减少的人之间很大的分歧。…