By Howard Lee

When news first broke about the protest against the move by the Media Development Authority to regulate online media through a $50,000 bond, 24-hour content take-down notice scheme, the anecdotal responses I received from family and friends was, surprisingly, not the usual aversion.

“Yeah, that regulation, it pretty much blankets everything, right?” “I don’t understand what they have been saying…” “Woah, MDA has a lot of explaining to do for this one!”

But explain they did not. In fact, all MDA did, in the many days of mucking around with trying to explain and assure Singaporeans on the policy, was repeatedly putting its foot in its mouth.

What was left in the wake of the announcement since 28 May has been confusion, opacity, and an emerging feeling that MDA really did not know, or did not bother to understand, the incredible complexity of the online world they were trying to regulate, and yet had the blatant audacity to push through with such a half-baked legislation, perhaps believing that we would be fools enough to open our mouths and let them shove it down our throats.

The first thing I have been taught about media policy in school was: Clarity above all else. Policy affect people, and policy makers need to be aware of who exactly would be affected, how they will be affected, and what benefits the policy would bring. Policy must never be ambiguous.

Yet, clarity was not in this policy. We got none of that from MDA, be it the initial announcement or the subsequent bombardment of statements that attempted to ‘clarify’ on the policy. Instead, we are still left with certain vagueness, particularly in the “who” component. Exactly what type of websites fall under the broad definition of “news websites”? In the letter of the new legislation, this is essentially every blog, site and forum that says anything, from a car crash to a Minister breaking wind in public.

What differentiates the 10 identified website from the other websites out there? Again, we have only seen evidence in the various statements that suggests MDA prefers to keep this loosely associated, rather than help us understand it clearly in terms that would have no room for ambiguity.

And then, the benefits of the policy. The stated intention was to bring parity to the online media space. But where exactly is the line of parity? That they do not post offensive content (never mind that even that is not clearly defined)? Are there not other laws to prevent this from happening, such as those regulating defamation, the Sedition Act, etc? Would a separate law against hate speech make more sense than this archaic nebula of a policy that casts a net over everyone without a clear idea of what it hopes to catch?

I have always had faith in our public service, to do the right thing, even the more careful thing, for the benefit of citizens. To me, this policy by MDA is a massive disappointment, because there appears to have been no thought given to its parameters and environment, no consultation put into the process, and an absolute disregard for the consequences of its words.

How then can our Ministers expect citizens to trust that the government is doing the right thing?

To this date, Minister for Communication and Information Yaccob Ibrahim has blamed the fallout on how to policy was announced, opining that public communication could have been better.

Minister, please stop passing the buck down to your communications team. This policy was a disaster even before any Singaporean laid eyes on it. No spin doctor could have made it better. It was bad public policy, and if you expect Singaporeans to be blind and naive enough to think it is alright, think again. Minister for Manpower Tan Chuan Jin spent half an hour on national television trying to explain away the mess, and all we saw was a steady climb of those who think the new regulation would limit online news content, from 50% to a landslide 72.7%. Is not the writing already on the wall?

But the truth is, all is not lost. No policy is cast in stone. The right and honourable thing for MDA to do now is to admit that it has taken citizens for granted, scrap the legislation, sit down in a real discussion with bloggers and citizens alike, and think about how to move Singapore’s media regulations forward, not further backwards.

It is time to take public policy out of the gutter of politics, and into the real world of everyday people. Singaporeans depend on that, and we need a clear signal before we can trust this government to do the right thing. Clearly, MDA’s latest blunder of a policy is not that signal.

You May Also Like

【冠状病毒19】9月9日75例新增确诊,14例入境病例

根据卫生部文告,截至本月9中午12时,本地新增75例冠状病毒19确诊病例,其中多达14例入境病例,一例社区病例,为工作证持有者 本地累计确诊已增至5万7166例。 60例新增病例均为住在宿舍的客工,其中31例来自西雅卓源宿舍(Westlite Toh Guan),大部分原本就被隔离,其余则是经当局监控检测时发现的。 入境病例者在抵境后已遵守居家通知。当局将在今晚公布更多细节。    

PM: We spend less on healthcare than other countries but achieve better outcomes

PM Lee officially opened Sengkang Hospital two weeks ago on 23 Mar.…

Volocopter空中德士首轮试飞成功,预计最快两年内推出

德士服务在世界各地都是相当重要的交通服务,因此各国都曾提出空中德士的技术,希望能避开道路上交通拥挤的状况,但都流于空谈。如今该技术也逐步实现。德国公司Volocopter昨日在滨海湾一带顺利完成试飞,预计最快两年内在我国推出。 配合首次在新加坡举办的智能交通系统世界大会,该试飞行动在期间进行公开展示,以目前两人座位eVTOL型号“Volocpter2X”试飞,机上仅一位机师操作完成,没有乘客,以平均40米高度,在滨海湾一带飞行逾1.5公里,约三分钟左右。 在飞行之前,该飞机已经在德国进行了几个月的密集测试。随后,在Seletar机场按照新加坡民航局进行了严格的飞行测试程序,验证Volocopter 2X飞机在当地环境下的性能。 据了解,当前空中德士服务仍十分昂贵,待全面运作后,价格料会减少至约豪华德士的费用。此外,该公司也与英国SkyPort公司合作,打造空中德士机场。 该机场将以模块方式打造,让更多空中德士能够同时起降。Skyport透露,目前已找寻到一些合适的地点用于建设厅机场以及制定飞行路线。 创建于2011年的Volocopter拥有丰富的电动垂直起降飞行技术,该公司一直在探索空中电动出行服务,已经有许多空中电动出行服务试飞成功的经验。2017年,Volocopter曾与迪拜道路运输管理局合作,将两座空中德士试飞成功。2018年,Volocopter亦在芬兰赫尔辛基国际机场试飞成功。 今年9月,Volocopter更与浙江吉利控股集团成立合资公司,致力于将全球领先的城市空中出行解决方案引入中国,吉利将负责Volocopter产品在中国的生产和市场推广。

新马海空主权交锋引国际媒体关注 交通部今宣布扩大大士一带的港口海域界限

马新两国出现领空和领海权课题,闹得沸沸扬扬,也引起国际媒体关注。《日本经济新闻》撰稿人岩本健太郎,在一篇文章《新马为海空主权陷争议》中,形容马方有意收回南部国境的领空和海域权。而新加坡也向马来,针对各别领域课题提出抗议。 自1974年以来,柔佛近新加坡边境的制空权,交给新方管理。 马国交通部长陆兆福,在本周二表示,有意收回马国的制空权,因为该国多年来提升、并已有能力自理航空管理。 他表示有意和新加坡进一步洽谈收回领空权的细节,必要的话,也会请示国际民航组织(ICAO)。 陆兆福认为,新加坡要在实里达机场提升新仪表着陆程序和系统(ILS),可能导致柔佛巴西古当发展停滞,意味着该国必须遵照国际标准,任何建筑的结构或建设,包括高度都会受此限制,而且会冲击巴西古当港口船只的运行。 “我们并非反对实里达机场的发展,但是下降的途径不能越过巴西古当。”陆兆福这么表示。 新加坡交通部则在周二的文告表示,现有航运安排运作良好,任何的更动都会对许多相关机构带来影响。 与此同时,我国也对马国抛出海域界限问题,指出柔佛港口海域界限侵犯大士一带领海范围,而马国船只也多次侵入大士水域,违反国际法,而像新加坡提出强烈抗议。 而马国方面也在昨日,透过新加坡驻马最高专员署,向我国提呈两份抗议书。 坚称柔佛港口界限未侵新领海 抗议书分别针对新加坡于本月1日,发表在实里达机场执行仪表著陆系统,以及马新两国海域边界划界课题,包括新山港口划界等课题。 马国外交部也向新加坡政府抗议,新加坡民航局在没有获得该国政府同意下,擅自发表声明,公佈在实里达机场落实仪表著陆系统。…