The FreeMyInternet group expresses our grave concerns about the Media Development Authority’s (MDA) ability to serve as an effective regulator and developer of the Internet space in Singapore.

This inability has been amplified by recent incidents involving the registration of local news websites The Independent Singapore (TISG) and Breakfast Network (BN). In particular, we feel that MDA’s actions in these two cases are advised by little more than paranoia of “foreign funding”. Unfortunately, such actions can only dampen, rather than encourage, the growth of the online space.

In addition, MDA’s actions also belie a rather poor understanding of how the Internet works, and this is cause for concern for an agency that professes to be the regulator for the online media environment.

 

Foreign funding obsession

For both TISG and BN, MDA has exhibited excessive concerns about these sites being funded by foreign entities. Despite TISG and BN having indicated publicly that they do not intend to seek funding from foreign sources, MDA proceeded to use this as a point for insisting that the website owners register. This was made the most apparent in its latest statement regarding BN, where MDA has maintained, on three separate occasions within one statement that the registration was due to the possibility of foreign funding.

At no point in time did MDA furnish proof, beyond mere suspicion, that TISG and BN intend to seek foreign funding.

This blind and as yet unsubstantiated fear of foreign funding would be less onerous if not for its effect on causing unnecessary administrative difficulties to media owners. Both TISG and BN has made public that their interaction with MDA on their registration process was ambiguous and unnecessarily complex. Indeed, as human rights group Maruah has indicated:

“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 per cent 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.”

MDA’s obsession with seeing foreign funding without proof of its existence is unhealthy, as it automatically casts a suspicious glow on any home-grown website that seeks to find a footing in Singapore. In contrast, MDA has no such qualms when it sought to register Yahoo Singapore, which is an American-owned entity. This smacks of double standards, and a lack of clarity in what MDA hopes to achieve by registering websites.

 

Regulating what they do not understand

We also note MDA’s inability to grasp the realities of how online media functions. MDA’s latest insistence that BN shuts down its Facebook page and Twitter feed, simply because they are supposedly part of Breakfast Network Pte Ltd, and despite Ms Henson having wound up her company, is infuriating as it is perplexing. It suggests that MDA has no idea what social media is about.

A Facebook page or Twitter feed, in its simplest form, is owned and run by an individual, even if it has different administrators. Indeed, a number of our political leaders employ such a structure to manage their social media accounts, some with a reach far exceeding BN’s. Would MDA also require them to register a company for these social media channels and complete the registration process, or cease and desist immediately?

MDA’s requirement for websites to disclose all editors, pro-bono or otherwise, compounds their lack of understanding about how the online community works. In its infancy, a new site would rely on many contributors, including those serving editorial functions. It should be sufficient for the editor-in-chief to assume full responsibility for the work of these pro-bono helpers. MDA’s failure to understand such pro-bono arrangements suggests that they have merely transplanted the regulatory framework from mainstream media to online media, and conveniently ignored the unique workings of an online community that is based not on money terms, but on good will.

Therefore, by enforcing such onerous requirements, MDA has done little more than make things difficult for those seeking to share information online. To be more precise, only online entities that have or are willing to set aside resources to manage such administrative details would be able to survive the risk of complete closure.

 

Regulator a cause of concern

It is hence clear that MDA is unable to comprehend, much less regulate, the online sphere. Nevertheless, this is not the first instance of MDA’s lacks. From its preposition of an Internet Code of Conduct, to the revisions of the Broadcasting Act in June 2013, and now to the actual implementation of the amended regulations, MDA has exhibited uncertainty, opacity and lack of comprehension of what it hopes to regulate.

Already, its action has caused the closing of one website, which has thus far done nothing more than provide fair and responsible commentary and coverage of news in Singapore, without the slightest hint of foreign support.

This anti-development does not bode well for those who seek to make their livelihood through similar sites, when they can almost be assured that all they will face are ambiguous rules as stumbling blocks – a far cry from MDA’s stated role as a media developer.

Indeed, MDA’s actions against TISG and BN will only further exacerbate public suspicion about what it hopes to achieve with these regulations. The basis of the amended Broadcasting Act, as touted by MDA, was to bring online media on the same regulatory footing as mainstream media. However, we have already seen that in terms of resources, such onerous regulatory protocols actually work unfairly against online media. Would the public not think that MDA’s intention is to support mainstream media by implementing a regulatory framework that is biased against the resources available to online media owners?

Unless MDA is able to provide satisfactory answers to all the issues that these two recent episodes have generated, the future of Singapore’s online space remains in jeopardy from being regulated by those who do not appear to know what they are doing, and whose intentions remain unknown.

MDA’s run-in with TISG and BN is a dismal warning that the agency has much more to learn before it should even flex its regulatory arm with online media. Greater clarity is needed in the amended Broadcasting Act, the root cause of this latest mishap.

As such, the FreeMyInternet group calls for the cessation of all regulatory activities related to the Broadcasting Act, until a proper and adequate revision of the Act itself has been conducted. MDA owes this to all Singaporeans who seek fairness and clarity from those who seek to govern the information they obtain online.

 

About #FreeMyInternet

The #FreeMyInternet movement was founded by a collective of bloggers who are against the licensing requirements imposed by the Singapore government on 1 June 2013, which requires online news sites to put up a performance bond of S$50,000 and comply within 24 hours to remove content that is found to be in breach of content standards. The group believes this to be an attempt at censorship and an infringement on the rights of Singaporeans to access information online and calls for a withdrawal of this licensing regime.

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

集中资源 重整运营措施 思捷将关闭亚洲65店铺

服饰品牌思捷环球(Esprit)宣布,该公司将会终止在中国大陆的业务,同时将关闭56间设立于亚洲的零售店铺,包括在新加坡、马来西亚、台湾、香港和澳门的分店。 据香港经济日报指出,思捷环球将关闭店铺是为重组举措的一部分,旨在集中资源并重整运营措施,以便有效、且高效率地应对冠状病毒全球肆虐所带来的挑战。 即将面临关闭命运的56间店铺,截止3月底的九个月内,所带来的收入有约2.67亿元,不到总收入的4巴仙,因此预计会在本财政年度前,即六月月杪前关闭。 该集团建议在关闭店铺后,将专注于欧洲的核心市场,并继续中国的合资公司业务以及亚洲的批发业务和许可权业务。 随着店铺关闭、资产和存货减值、员工遣散费等一次性特殊成本,思捷环球预计将耗费1.5亿元至2亿元。 该集团也公布了截止3月底的财年第三季颖运输局,上季收入跌了23.7亿元,即25巴仙,而首三季收入则跌了81.3亿元,即18巴仙。 文告中指出,重组期间,集团董事会执行主席和集团行政总裁停止收取薪酬,其他管理层则减薪,包括行政管理员减薪35巴仙、高级副总裁和副总裁减25巴仙、非执行董事或独立非执行董事则减两成的董事袍金。 该集团目前也正在为即将关闭以及无法达到预计成果的店铺寻找各项措施,包括使用政府的援助措施,以便减少租金等消费。

监狱署称潘尼尔不曾写信 马国律师怒驳说谎

监狱署在本月23日发文告指出,近日有马来西亚媒体刊载,以目前仍在我国服刑的马国死囚潘尼尔(Pannir Selvam)之名发表的文章,惟当局确认并非后者所写。 监狱署指出,潘尼尔告知该署,他本人并没有发表该文章。“有关文章以潘尼尔知名,由他人(以第一人称)撰写,这似乎是经过策划的活动,以向新加坡政府施压。” 事缘马国英语媒体《马来邮报》(Malay Mail),在本月19日刊载一篇文章,由“潘尼尔”分享他在新加坡监狱的经历,题为:《来自新加坡死囚狱中的信函》(Notes from inside death row in Singapore)。 该文章在开端提及:“我在2017年5月2日被判死刑。法官说即便我只是运送(毒品)者,但基于副公共检察官(DPP)不肯发出“合作证书”(certificate…

【武汉冠状病毒】马国政府禁止口罩出口

邻国马来西亚的武汉冠状病毒确诊病例已累计55例,为了确保当地有足够的口罩使用,马国卫生总监拿督诺希山宣布将禁止当地口罩出境。 综合马国媒体报道,日前该国政府还暂无意禁止厂商出口口罩,惟将商议提高口罩产量,以应付国人的需求。 但随着疫情的蔓延,马来西亚卫生部表示如今已进入第二波冠状病毒疫情,因此新冠肺炎疫情委员会议决,将口罩宪报颁布为2020年统制品(禁止出口)条例名单。 诺希山说,这是为了确保口罩足以应付本地的需求量。 随着中国境外的疫情愈发严重,各国也提出各项口罩措施。 台湾已与1月24日宣布管制2类型口罩出口一个月,亦是率先提出禁止口罩出口的地区;而泰国则于2月4日统一采取因应措施,尽可能减少医用口罩出口,并将口罩和洗手液等列为“管制商品以防止国内供应短缺”。 法国于3月3日签署政令,在未来几个月征用所有防护性口罩的库存与生产;俄罗斯与德国则紧随其后,3月4日起禁止口罩、呼吸器和防护服等医疗用品出口;韩国在爆发疫情后,于3月6日全面禁止口罩及口罩关键原料出口,禁令有限至6月30日。 而我国对于口罩措施,则选择采取“积极步骤“,加强供应链的伸缩性,同时也呼吁国人勤洗手、监测体温,以及不碰触自己的脸颊,但也未采取限制口罩出境。截至今日,口罩仍处于供不应求的状态。 目前我国确诊病例已累计117人。

New Electoral Boundaries – No Advantage for PAP?

The following letter was sent to The Straits Times but not published.…