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

Opposition parties deliberate contesting in Bukit Batok by-election

The Bukit Batok Single Member Constituency (SMC) seat has been left vacant…

新中天津生态城10周年人口逾十万 仅达明年目标三分一

我国副总理张志贤在昨天结束为期六天访华行程,在接受媒体访问时,提及随着新中关系步入下一阶段,对接中国区域发展的合作,将成为两国关系发展更突出的要素。 他说新中关系在明年即将迎来30周年纪念,自1994年两国即开启政府间合作(G2G)的项目, 例如当年开启的苏州工业园也已迈入25周年。 他指出,中国正迈向区域集群发展,而新中两国目前的七项区域经贸合作理事会,和政府间合作项目虽起源于旧框架,但是对于契合中国新阶段的发展提供扎实基础。 张志贤提及的其中一项新中合作项目天津生态城,被视为新中合作的指标性项目。2007年,时任国务资政吴作栋和时任中国总理温家宝构思生态城,选定天津滨海新区为生态城所在地。 天津生态城是两国开展的第二个政府间合作项目,也是新中双边合作联合委员会(JCBC)推动的项目之一。张志贤是JCBC新方联合主席。 两国的目标是将生态城建设成人与人、人与自然、人与经济和谐,可持续发展并可复制的城市。 时任国家发展部暨贸工部长李奕贤,在2012年的第八届绿化建筑峰会上,曾放眼该生态城在2020年完全完成,规划人口35万。 他形容,新加坡乐意透过合作分享及学习绿化科技,新中天津生态城则是两国合作的典范。 天津生态城占地30平方公里,在去年迎来10周年纪念。当时《联合早报》一篇报导揭露,有10万人在生态城生活和工作,建成并售出三万套住宅。 然而,距离明年要达到35万人口目标,显然仍有巨大差距。 据了解,目前累计入驻生态城的企业达7700余家,其中智能科技企业占三分之一。…

CPF Transition Support for lower-income platform workers to cushion impact of increased CPF contribution

The Singapore government has announced a scheme, “Platform Worker CPF Transition Support,”…

Dr Lee Wei Ling pays tribute to late LKY and writes that her father would not want to be hero-worshippped

Dr Lee Wei Ling pays tribute to her father, late Founding Minister…