Connect with us

Current Affairs

Declare members' monthly income or no newspaper permit: Registrar to NSP

Published

10 years ago

on

ns001
By Andrew Loh
The National Solidarity Party (NSP) has appealed to the president over the refusal by the Media Development’s Authority (MDA) to renew its printing permit for its party newspaper, the North Star, which it had applied for in 13 June 2014.
The main point of dispute is the submission of the monthly salary or income of each member of the NSP Central Executive Committee (CEC) to the Registrar of Newspaper (RON).
Also, the authorities is requiring the members to provide their “disposable capital (value of movable and immovable property owned)”.
The CEC members are objecting to the requirements on grounds that they intrude into their personal privacy and personal confidentiality.
While previous CECs have complied, the NSP says that the “CEC line-up is not static and is subject to change”.
It added that “it is the prerogative of the individual to determine what information he/she is prepared to disclose to the third party at a given point in time.”
“Thus, the fact that past CEC members were willing to and did divulge such financial information to RON in the past, cannot bind the present CEC members to do the same now or in the future,” the party says.
The RON says that without the information, it is declining to process the NSP’s application for permit renewal.
In its letter to the president, NSP secretary general Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss, said, “The RON is refusing to consider, let alone grant, our application, unless certain individuals, because they hold office as our CEC members, divulge to RON financial information which is personal and private to such individuals, but which is otherwise not essential or relevant to a proper consideration by RON of our application.”
On 4 August, the MDA explained why the information was required.
“The information is required for verification purposes and to ensure that newspaper permits are granted to applicants who are persons of substance and are capable of taking responsibility for what they publish in their newspapers,” the MDA’s Senior Customer Service Officer, Cindy Neo, said in her letter to the NSP.
In its response to the NSP on 3 October, Ms Nancy Seah, the Deputy Registrar of Newspapers, cited the authority on which the information was being requested: “We would like to draw your attention to the policy consideration that were stated by the then-Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Ong Pang Boon, in Parliament on 16 Nov 1960.”
Mr Ong, as cited by Ms Seah, had said:

“The bona fides, competency, sense of responsibility and financial position of each applicant for a permit are also taken into consideration.”

“Until we have received the requested information,” Ms Seah said, “we will not be able to process your permit renewal application.”
However, Ms Chong-Aruldoss pointed out several flaws in Ms Seah’s response.
She pointed out that Ms Seah had wrongly referred to the venue of Mr Ong’s speech as being “in Parliament”.
“Parliament did not exist until Singapore became independent on 9 August 1965,” Ms Chong-Aruldoss said. “In 1960, Singapore was governed by the Legislative Assembly, which was the venue where Mr Ong spoke.”
Second, Ms Chong-Aruldoss said Ms Seah had quoted Mr Ong’s remarks out of context.
“As Mr Ong stated, he was referring to the policy followed under the Printing Presses Ordinance,” she explained, “a statute which was passed on 27 October 1919 by the colonial Government and which has since long been repealed.”
The NSP’s application, instead, is made under the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act which, Ms Chong-Aruldoss pointed out, was enacted on 1 January 1975, and falls under the purview of the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI).

Yaacob Ibrahim

Yaacob Ibrahim

The MCI is headed by Dr Yaacob Ibrahim.
“Mr Ong’s statements to the defunct Legislative Assembly on 16 November 1960, is irrelevant as he was referring to the policy for an obsolete statute, and not the NPPA,” the NSP says.
Essentially, the NSP is of the view that while the minister may have the discretion under the NPPA to decide whether to grant such an application, such decisions must be made with cognisance of other constitutional provisions, including that of free speech under Article 14(2)(a) of the Constitution.
“There is nothing in the Constitution or in the NPPA which says that freedom of speech is conditional upon MCI being satisfied of the applicants’ financial capability,” the NSP appeal letter to the president says.
“The administration of the NPPA must be subservient to the tenets of the Constitution,” it added.
Would the RON, the NSP asks, refuse to grant the permit if its CEC compromises largely of individuals who earn small or no monthly incomes?
The NSP says, “If RON insists on knowing how much the CEC members earn each month, it also begs the question of how much the CEC member has to earn in order to satisfy the RON that the financial capability criterion has been met.”
“The MCI should know that it is unconstitutional for a person’s right to speak to be made conditional upon that person satisfying a financial criterion,” the opposition party says.
“To require CEC members to disclose to RON their personal assets is intrusive, objectional and oppressive.”
Yet, the RON’s requirements are arbitrary, the NSP says.
It cited how the RON had required the information for disposable income, but that it however “did not object to or make any mention of the fact that some CEC members also left the box blank for ‘disposable capital’.”
Instead, the RON seems more interested that the CEC members provided information on their monthly income.
The RON had also required the CEC members to furnish it with their passports numbers.
But after the NSP pointed out that its members were all Singaporeans who had provided the authorities with their NRIC numbers, and that they were also registered under the political party which itself comes under the Societies Act and the Political Donations Act, the RON’s Ms Seah said:
“On the basis that all the applicants have duly provided their NRIC numbers, we are prepared to waive the requirement for the provision of their passport numbers.”
The NSP says, “An individual’s monthly income/salary is a private and confidential matter. Any request to an individual to disclose his income is an intrusion of his privacy which should never be arbitrarily insisted. A proper balance has to be struck between a public authority’s need for necessary information to enable the proper exercise of ministerial discretion and the need to respect a citizen’s right to privacy.”
The NSP letter concluded:

“We are unable to understand why the minister needs to know the monthly income/salary of the CEC members and how this information would enable the minister to be better informed as to whether the NSP and its CEC members ‘are persons of substance and are capable of taking responsibility for what they publish in their newspapers.”
“Can the minister refuse NSP the permit on the basis that monthly income/salary of one or more CEC members are deemed too low or not high enough? – Surely not.
“Does the minister start his decision-making upon the assumption that NSP and its CEC members are not capable of taking responsibility for what they publish in their newspapers unless otherwise shown by the monthly income/salary of its CEC members? We believe not.”
“Freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental liberty to be denied to a citizen only when one of the grounds listed in Article 14(2)(a) applies.
“The Act and the Rules made under the Act has to be read and applied within the tenets of the Constitution.”

The NSP also noted that the authorities have taken 39 days before it replied to the NSP in its latest correspondence.
*NSP’s appeal letter to the president was personally delivered to the Istana by NSP’s secreatry general, Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss. See here.
Correction – Date of NSP’s application for renewal was 13 June 2014, and not July as earlier mentioned.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
8 Comments
Subscribe
Notify of
8 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Current Affairs

Farewell to Dr Lee Wei Ling: Rain marks solemn tribute, echoing her father’s funeral

Dr Lee Wei Ling’s funeral was conducted on 12 October 2024, in Singapore, with family members leading the procession in the rain. In a heartfelt eulogy, her brother, Lee Hsien Yang, remembered her dedication to medicine and family. Dr Lee had requested a simple ceremony, with her ashes to be scattered at sea.

Published

2 days ago

on

12 October 2024

By

Li Huanwu and Li Shaowu sending off their aunt, Dr Lee Wei Ling in the rain (Photo: Lianhe Zaobao/唐家鴻)

Dr Lee Wei Ling was farewelled on 12 October 2024, in a solemn funeral ceremony attended by close family members and friends.

The weather was marked by light rain, drawing comparisons to the conditions during her father, Lee Kuan Yew’s funeral in 2015.

Her nephews, Li Huanwu and Li Shaowu, led the procession, carrying Dr Lee’s portrait and walking side by side under the rain, symbolically reflecting the loss felt by her family.

In his emotional eulogy through a recorded video, her brother, Lee Hsien Yang, spoke of Dr Lee’s profound contributions to medicine and her unshakable devotion to family.

He described her as a remarkable individual whose life had left an indelible mark on those who knew her, as well as on Singapore’s medical community.

Expressing deep sorrow at her passing, Lee Hsien Yang reflected on their close bond and the immense loss he felt, having been unable to attend her final farewell.

He recalled his private goodbye to her in June 2022, a poignant moment that stayed with him during her last months.

Lee Hsien Yang also reiterated Dr Lee’s wish for a simple funeral, a reflection of her humility.

In accordance with her wishes, her body was cremated, and her ashes will be scattered at sea, symbolising her desire for a modest and unobtrusive departure from the world.

LHY acknowledged the efforts of his sons, Li Huanwu and Li Shaowu, for their role in managing their aunt’s care during his absence, thanking them for their dedication to her comfort in her final days.

During his eulogy for his sister, Lee Hsien Yang also conveyed a message from Dr Lee regarding the family’s long-standing issue surrounding their home at 38 Oxley Road.

Quoting from Dr Lee’s message, LHY said: “My father, Lee Kuan Yew, and my mother, Kwa Geok Choo’s, unwavering and deeply felt wish was for their house at 38 Oxley Road, Singapore 238629, to be demolished upon the last parent’s death.”

Dr Lee had been a vocal advocate for ensuring that this wish was honoured since Lee Kuan Yew’s death in 2015.

Dr Lee and LHY had strongly supported their father’s wishes, while their elder brother, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, took a different stance. This disagreement led to a public and highly publicised rift within the family.

In her final message, Dr Lee reiterated: “Lee Kuan Yew had directed each of his three children to ensure that their parents’ wish for demolition be fulfilled. He had also appealed directly to the people of Singapore. Please honour my father by honouring his wish for his home to be demolished.”

Dr Lee had maintained a private life, focusing on her medical career as a respected neurologist. She was known for her candid views, often unflinching in her advocacy for transparency and integrity.

Her professional accomplishments, combined with her strong commitment to her parents’ legacy, made her a significant figure in both Singapore’s medical community and public discourse.

Diagnosed in 2020 with progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), a rare neurodegenerative disorder, Dr Lee faced immense physical and emotional challenges in her final years.

The illness progressively affected her movement, speech, and ability to swallow.

Despite her health struggles, Dr Lee remained actively involved in public discussions, particularly on matters concerning her father’s legacy, until her condition worsened to the point where communication became difficult.

By March 2023, her brother LHY revealed that her condition had deteriorated significantly, and he feared he might not be able to see her again due to his own circumstances.

Even in her final months, Dr Lee maintained a close relationship with her immediate family, who cared for her during her illness.

Dr Lee’s funeral and cremation mark the end of a significant era for the Lee family and Singapore.

Her legacy as a dedicated neurologist and a firm advocate for her parents’ values will continue to resonate, even as the debates over the future of the Oxley Road property remain unresolved.

The rain that fell during her funeral, so reminiscent of her father’s final farewell, added a symbolic layer to this momentous chapter in Singapore’s history.

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

TJC issued 3rd POFMA order under Minister K Shanmugam for alleged falsehoods

The Transformative Justice Collective (TJC) was issued its third POFMA correction order on 5 October 2024 under the direction of Minister K Shanmugam for alleged falsehoods about death penalty processes. TJC has rejected the government’s claims, describing POFMA as a tool to suppress dissent.

Published

1 week ago

on

6 October 2024

By

The Transformative Justice Collective (TJC), an advocacy group opposed to the death penalty, was issued its third Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) correction direction on 5 October 2024.

The correction was ordered by Minister for Home Affairs and Law, K Shanmugam, following TJC’s publication of what the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) alleges to be false information regarding Singapore’s death row procedures and the prosecution of drug trafficking cases.

These statements were made on TJC’s website and across its social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and X (formerly Twitter).

In addition to TJC, civil activist Kokila Annamalai was also issued a correction direction by the minister over posts she made on Facebook and X between 4 and 5 October 2024.

According to MHA, these posts echoed similar views on the death penalty and the legal procedures for drug-related offences, and contained statements that the ministry claims are false concerning the treatment of death row prisoners and the state’s legal responsibilities in drug trafficking cases.

MHA stated that the posts suggested the government schedules and stays executions arbitrarily, without due regard to legal processes, and that the state does not bear the burden of proving drug trafficking charges.

However, these alleged falsehoods are contested by MHA, which maintains that the government strictly follows legal procedures, scheduling executions only after all legal avenues have been exhausted, and that the state always carries the burden of proof in such cases.

In its official release, MHA emphasised, “The prosecution always bears the legal burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and this applies to all criminal offences, including drug trafficking.”

It also pointed to an article on the government fact-checking site Factually to provide further clarification on the issues raised.

As a result of these allegations, both TJC and Annamalai are now required to post correction notices. TJC must display these corrections on its website and social media platforms, while Annamalai is required to carry similar notices on her Facebook and X posts.

TikTok has also been issued a targeted correction direction, requiring the platform to communicate the correction to all Singapore-based users who viewed the related TJC post.

In a statement following the issuance of the correction direction, TJC strongly rejected the government’s claims. The group criticised the POFMA law, calling it a “political weapon used to crush dissent,” and argued that the order was more about the exercise of state power than the pursuit of truth. “We have put up the Correction Directions not because we accept any of what the government asserts, but because of the grossly unjust terms of the POFMA law,” TJC stated.

TJC further argued that the government’s control over Singapore’s media landscape enables it to push pro-death penalty views without opposition. The group also stated that it would not engage in prolonged legal battles over the POFMA correction orders, opting to focus on its abolitionist work instead.

This marks the third time TJC has been subject to a POFMA correction direction in recent months.

The group was previously issued two orders in August 2024 for making similar statements concerning death row prisoners.

In its latest statement, MHA noted that despite being corrected previously, TJC had repeated what the ministry views as falsehoods.

MHA also criticised TJC for presenting the perspective of a convicted drug trafficker without acknowledging the harm caused to victims of drug abuse.

Annamalai, a prominent civil rights activist, is also known for her involvement in various social justice campaigns. She was charged in June 2024 for her participation in a pro-Palestinian procession near the Istana. Her posts, now subject to correction, contained information similar to those presented by TJC regarding death penalty procedures and drug-related cases.

POFMA, which was introduced in 2019, allows the government to issue correction directions when it deems falsehoods are being spread online.

Critics of the law argue that it can be used to suppress dissent, while the government asserts that it is a necessary tool for combating misinformation. The law has been frequently invoked against opposition politicians and activists.

As of October 2024, Minister K Shanmugam has issued 17 POFMA directions, more than any other minister. Shanmugam, who was instrumental in introducing POFMA, is followed by National Development Minister Desmond Lee, who has issued 10 POFMA directions.

Major media outlets, including The Straits Times, Channel News Asia, and Mothership, have covered the POFMA directions. However, as of the time of writing, none have included TJC’s response rejecting the government’s allegations.

Continue Reading

Trending