maruah

Unpublished letter that was sent to Forum Page of The Straits Times

[spacer style=”1″ icon=”none”]

Dear Sir

MARUAH is deeply concerned at the closure of Breakfast Network’s website as a result of their decision not to submit the registration forms required by the Media Development Authority (MDA).

MDA had, in a statement to The Independent published on Dec 4 2013, responded to MARUAH’s earlier statement about MDA’s move to require Breakfast Network and The Independent to register, as well as the pending contempt of court charge against Mr Alex Au. In that response, MDA stated that foreign entities may not be allowed to control local media platforms; registration does not “seek to affect what The Independent and Breakfast Network can publish on their site”, similar to how MARUAH — who have also registered with MDA as a political website — has been able to freely comment on issues and policies; and registration does not prevent the two sites from receiving “bona fide commercial revenue, foreign advertisers included” and does not require the two sites to “provide detailed information of their subscriber base”.

The closure of Breakfast Network’s website demonstrates that regardless of MDA’s stated intent, the registration requirement has chilled and reduced the space for free expression in Singapore. As a regulator tasked with developing the media landscape in Singapore, MDA should consider the substantive impact of its decisions, not just its own subjective intent. Registration requirements can operate to censor free expression as effectively as, and more insidiously than, outright demands to remove content.

The forms published by Breakfast Network also show that MDA has asked them, if not The Independent, to identify every person who has provided funding to them, as well as every subscriber and advertiser who contributes 5% or more of their subscription or advertising revenue. As we stated previously, these requirements, in particular the former, are overly-intrusive and go far beyond what is necessary to satisfy the stated objective of preventing foreign influence over the media. Even the Political Donations Act, under which MARUAH has been gazetted as a political association and which also regulates political parties, does not require every person who has provided funding to be specifically identified.

Finally, MDA’s statement raises questions about its inconsistent application of policy on foreign entities in local media, given that Yahoo! Singapore, which is individually licensed by MDA, is a US-owned operation.

We again call on MDA to reverse its actions against Breakfast Network and The Independent. A thriving online media environment benefits Singapore and Singaporeans, and those actions are clearly regressive moves.

Braema Mathi (Ms)

President

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

A good start

Andrew Loh/ The setting up of a committee to review ministerial salaries…

比拉哈里暗讽李显扬未能把故居套利 遭李玮玲怒斥毫无根据

我国外交部前常任秘书比拉哈里,在选举冷静日当天(9日),发文质疑建国总理李光耀次子、前进党成员李显扬,攻击“特权”,但自身却从他口中特权受益。 不过比拉哈里的言论,在今日遭到李显扬姐姐李玮玲的驳斥。 比拉哈里的言论,也暗讽李显扬的作为,是否是因为不被允许把欧思礼路38号故居套现。比拉哈里还质问如果李显扬真的感到失望,为何还不负责任地到处找麻烦。 “至于你不参选的借口:新加坡不需要多一位李家人,是空洞的,如果你做的不是政治是什么?懦夫!” 此外,在留言区由网民问,究竟李显扬是被赠予还是买下欧思礼路故居,对此比拉哈里声称,李显龙继承了故居,但是当李显扬到处责难时,前者仅以1美元价格卖给了李显扬。 不过这显然不是事实,因为后来李显扬是以市价从哥哥手中买下38号故居,条件是再拿出屋价市值的50巴仙捐作慈善,李显扬也做到了。 在2017年7月,李玮玲曾提及哥哥曾献议以以1元把欧思礼过名给她,她便要求显扬一起参与这项交易。但显扬老早就计划当姐姐不续住时,就拆毁故居。 相信比拉哈里的说辞令身为姐姐的李玮玲大为光火,也毫不客气在脸书驳斥,比拉哈里的说法是没有根据的,也重申他以市价从李显龙手中买下。 “再者,李显扬买下时,知道爸爸授予我继续住在老家的权利。”李显扬买下故居时,也清楚知道2015年4月,市区重建局和文物局曾作明确声明: “基于该产业的历史意义,如决定要拆除故居,政府不会容许将之作有违其历史意义的重新发展,如商业或密集住宅开发。” “指显扬买下屋子来牟利,根本就是子虚乌有。” 据了解,也有民众针对比拉哈里的言论报警,质疑后者在选举冷静日涉嫌“在政党政治上影响民众”。

Indian nationals form largest number of imported cases into Singapore

It was earlier reported that India’s COVID-19 outbreak is now the world’s…

Female PM in S’pore? It’s a question of “mindset change” in society, says K Shanmugam

When asked whether Singapore is ready for a female prime minister, Law…