By Howard Lee

If Minister for Communication and Information Yaccob Ibrahim has hoped to assure the public and Parliamentarians yesterday that the revised licensing Broadcasting Act was justified and equitable, he did a mighty dismal job.

In a debate that spanned the greater part of an hour, which saw no less than eight Members of Parliament from all three represented parties raising questions and concerns flagged by industry and advocacy group #FreeMyInternet alike, Yaccob has maintained that the regulation was necessary, without elaborating on why it is so.

Old wine, new skins?

Yes, he cited three trends for why the Media Development Authority has decided to go ahead with this regulation – digital convergence, changing readership habits, and an uncertain future Internet landscape – but if he had any suitable examples to substantiate these reasons with, MPs and the public are left mostly in the dark.

The Minister is not wrong. We are indeed seeing a convergence of media, where more of what we see in print is heading online. It is also clear that newspaper readership is declining, with more readers shifting to multiple online sources for their news. And to say that the future Internet landscape is uncertain is not even a crystal ball moment – any secondary school student who has paid attention in class would be able to make that claim.

But if that were the case, why use laws meant for traditional media to regulate online media? The Minister has said in Parliament that the definition of “news” in the amended Broadcasting Act was borrowed from the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act. So MDA has effectively hacked together bits and pieces of ‘old’ media regulation to try and regulate ‘new’ media? Minimally, would not a complete revision of both Acts, taking into account the new media landscape, be more meaningful?

The Minister has also maintained that the regulation should not affect the operation of the regulated sites, since the amendments are just two ‘tweaks’ to an Act they should already be familiar with. Perhaps for the likes of Singapore Press Holding and Mediacorp, the amendments are nothing more than an extension of current practices, the $50,000 bond nothing more than a snort, and the 24-hour take-down notice a walk-in-the-park for their army of staffers.

But to brush off the amendments as ‘tweaks’ is to effectively see online media through the same lens as traditional media. For an online entity, particularly those that thrive on agility and adaptability, all done on a shoe-string budget, should we even expect them to level-up financially and bureaucratically? Since the Minister has no clear intention of excluding these little players, have they been consulted?

And it is not just the little players who are concerned. Even the big boys are concerned enough to raise the amendments as an issue that affects innovation, as exemplified by the open letter from the Asian Internet Coalition to the Minister, who could not explain why the letter came to be, since AIC has apparently been consulted on the amendments. Perhaps there is really something about the online world that the Minister has yet to learn about. Why then even make this half-baked attempt to regulate something that you do not understand?

Questionable definition of ‘content standards’

But the debate in Parliament gets more ambiguous. Yaccob has indicated on at least three occasions during Parliament that the requirements specific to individual licensees of the Broadcasting Act – the imposition of the 24-hour take down notice and the $50,000 bond – was designed to hold the ten current licensees to higher content standards and responsibility.

NCMP Gerald Giam requested for clarification on this: Is the current class license not working adequately such that the individual license is needed? To which the Minister continued to insist that the media environment has changed. But the question remains mostly unanswered: How would the two ‘tweaks’ to the Broadcasting Act then help as an effective deterrent to poor content standards?

Interestingly, Giam’s other questions on the take-down notices issued by MDA and Yaccob’s reply shed more light on how ineffective the individual licensing could be. Of the 24 take-down notices the MDA has issued so far, none were directed at the ten sites currently regulated under the amended Act. All have complied with the take-down request, even without the two ‘tweaks’ having been implemented.

Conversely, there are at least two cases among the ten regulated sites that risked causing widespread social unrest and panic, a fear that the Minister has claimed to be a primary concern that motivated the amendments. These were the publishing of what amounted to a straw poll by the Straits Times on the Punggol East by-election, and the fabricated story by STOMP on subway trains moving with doors open. MDA did not issue any take-down notices or even publish stern warnings for these two cases of falsehoods. Why then would we believe that MDA might be more inclined to do so under the individual licensing scheme?

Assurance not found in letter of the law

Perhaps what is more worrying is what was not clearly articulated in Parliament. The Minister continued to insist on the government’s light touch approach to the Internet, that bloggers can continue doing what they do, without fear of the regulation being used to quash voices critical of the government. NCMP Lina Chiam then raised an interesting challenge: For the Minister to issue exclusion orders for sites like TOC and TR Emeritus to be exempted from the individual licensing scheme.

The Minister did not accept, nor respond directly. In fact, all he did was a double take, by suggesting that websites could be regulated “should they morph into online news sites”.

The question that arises is how this “morphing” should be interpreted. If TOC, for instances, continues business-as-usual and should one day receive a demand from MDA to receive an individual license, would the burden of proof be on MDA to show how TOC has morphed into a news site? How much time, if any, would website owners be given to respond to the demand or appeal against it? Would they be able to publish and debate on these explanations openly? All this is sorely missing in the letter of the law, and the Minister has done little to clarify or assure.

Again, a matter of trust

If nothing else, the Parliament session on the MDA regulation left Singapore with a lot more queries to be answered and ambiguity to be resolved. The Minister’s overarching response, however, seems to be, “trust the government to do the right thing”.

My apologies, Minister, but trust is to be earned through actions, not to be requested for through words. And offering a limp defence to your policy is not going to help either.

As it currently stands, the amendments to the Broadcasting Act has drawn the ire of a broad swath of society – bloggers, activists, industry, Parliamentarians, and all the 74% who have indicated on CNA’s Talking Point show that they believe the regulation would affect content quality online.

Clearly, the government has lost the people’s trust on this matter. The way to regain trust is not to side-step questions, draw ambiguous assumptions about something you do not fully understand, and then pretend that it is done to maintain ‘content standards’ that has little basis of proof of effectiveness.

The way to regain trust is to give unequivocal assurance that the government does not intend to oppress freedom of information; be clear in policy; and consult broadly, openly and honestly with those who have every chance to be affected by it.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

面包物语收购福将食阁 竞消委:可能涉侵犯《竞争法》

我国餐饮上市企业面包物语集团(BreadTalk Group )日前宣布,旗下子公司Topwin投资控股收购福将食阁管理公司(Food Junction Management,简称FJM)。对此,竞争与消费者协会(Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore,简称竞消委)称涉嫌侵犯《竞争法》,征求公众相关反馈意见。 9月2日,面包物语宣布其子公司Topwin投资控股,欲以8000万新元收购FJM。而竞消委则认为,此举可能导致国内市场竞争力大幅减低,或涉侵犯《竞争法》。 《竞争法》禁止因公司合并而导致市场竞争力大幅减低;竞消委则针对涉嫌不公平交易的零售商进行监督,被赋予调查及执法权力。…

英相“放任式防疫”反其道而行? 英国民众吓到不敢出门

武汉冠状病毒(COVID-19)疫情肆虐全球,各国对于抗疫过程也绷紧神经,丝毫不敢松懈,采取颜值控管出入境、限制边境、甚至封国封城防疫,然而在英国却选择另类的防疫方式,一开始开启“放任式防疫”,即只有症状严重者才需要做筛检,不再计算感染人数,也不禁止大型集会活动,随即引起各界批评。 直到两天前(16日),英国首相鲍里斯·约翰逊才肯呼吁当地民众,减少非必要外出和与人接触;昨天宣布英国需像“战时政府”一样应对疫情,以及公布经济纾困计划。 目前英国已知确诊病例超过1960例,死亡人数60人。而当局以武汉冠病死亡率仅1巴仙为由,使用的“群体免疫”策略也引来医学界炮轰,但相信此举有助缓解因果医疗系统压力。 然而,在这样“放任式的防疫”下,有居住在英国的网友观察发现,这样的方式可能对英国民众反而凑效。 网友表示,他是从台湾搬到英国,所以也在观察两国的防疫设施,他发现两国的防疫措施上采取截然不同的方式。 对于台湾而言,在疫情开始时便积极准备,步步紧盯,对于每一例都紧密追踪,所以在过去两个与内,其防疫控管做得滴水不漏。 英国不停课、各行业照常营运、不检测 反观英国,在过去几周内确诊病例突然激增,却开始选择不作为的形式来选择防疫,即不取消任何聚会活动、不停课停班、各行各业照常营运、不做检测停止计算感染人数、生病自己在家休息不要到医院也不用通报的方式。 此言一出,也引发了英国陷入大恐慌,也掀起当地的抢购潮。 虽然招来很多的斥责但网友却表示,对于“耳朵一向很硬”,嘴里不停说该来的就会来、keep calm &…

Cyclist and lorry driver in the viral Pasir Ris road rage incident both charged in court but netizens feel the fault is mainly on the cyclist

A lorry driver and cyclist who were involved in an altercation on…

真身或假冒? 他信现身乌节路购冰淇淋

惊传被逐出国的泰国前首相他信出现在我国,现身乌节路街买冰淇淋消暑? 署名Kwan的网友于昨日在脸书群组All Singapore Stuff中,上载了一张与疑似前泰国首相他信的合照。 他表示在乌节路街边的冰淇淋摊位旁边,发现正在购买冰淇淋脆饼,疑似他信的任务,因此和他合照。 这图片传出至今已吸引了超过450人做出反应,60人留言,大部分的人们都表示那是真人,因为泰国大使馆就在附近,而且他信的Instagram也有注明。也有网民表示,曾经在当地见过他,并且认为他自从被逐出国后,已经到访过逾30个国家了。 根据他信女儿的社交媒体Instagram账户中,就最近上传的照片来看,相信他和家人都在我国旅游。 所上传的照片中有他信的家人和其妹妹英叻,到商城逛街、手挽手拍照、吃螃蟹等照片。   View this post…