Singapore: New Media, Politics & the Law

"GIVE ME FREEDOM OR ... I'LL TAKE IT ANYWAY"

2008-02-16T12:23:00.001+08:00

Freedom of expression, although recognised as a right in Singapore’s Constitution, has never really been held in high regard here. It is treated as a highly conditional right, which in effect means that it is not a right at all, but a kind of privilege or favour extended by the state to certain types of communication that meets whatever standards it chooses to impose. In Singapore, unlike liberal societies, there is certainly no wish to provide “freedom for the thought we hate” (to borrow the title of a new book on the First Amendment by Anthony Lewis).

The shenanigans of cyberspace have only served to harden conservative values. The alleyways of the internet reveal the vile, vulgar and venomous instincts that lie within human beings. Is any more proof required that a peaceful, harmonious society cannot afford to let these passions loose? Here, however, I would like to offer a counter-intuitive view: socially irresponsible expression on the internet is precisely what should nudge Singapore towards a rights-based perspective on free speech. There are three main points in this argument.

First, the internet means that the practical policy choice is no longer between freedom and non-freedom. The government has made it clear that censorship is no longer an option. Therefore the real choice is between freedom taken and freedom given. At present, Singapore falls squarely in the former category. Singaporeans know that the space they enjoy was not provided by socially recognised rights. Instead, they have simply seized the freedom provided by technologies that they acquire.

Second, freedoms seized in this manner are not burdened by any sense of social responsibility. Singaporeans exercising their freedom on the internet can tell themselves that it is their own individual cleverness that earned them this freedom. They bought their computers, subscribed for the internet, downloaded the programs and mustered the gumption.

It could be argued that the government contributed the infrastructure for internet access and the high quality education that makes Singaporeans so clever. However, the government has repeatedly said that such investments are primarily for economic development. It considers a more vocal population to be an unintended negative consequence of Singapore’s development. Therefore, members of such a population cannot be blamed for seeing their expression as private accomplishments, achieved in spite of their society, not because of it.

In contrast – this is the third point – societies with a deep tradition of free speech constantly remind their members that this individual human right is secured for its value to society. It is said, for example, that free speech has to be protected because “civilized society is a working system of ideas”. In the political culture of liberal societies, the moral basis of free speech is a profoundly social one. This is why, in the field of journalism, it is the free societies that have generated the most meaningful professional codes of ethics. Today, when journalists and journalism students in unfree societies need guidance on thorny ethical issues concerning, say, respect for privacy or dealing with children, they turn to literature developed by professional associations and news organizations operating in free societies. Their own industry is ethically untrained because they traditionally outsource moral judgments to the government.

Government dogma has divorced Singapore from a rich international current of discussion about free speech, its role in society and its limits. Singapore positions itself as an exceptional case that can learn nothing from this wider debate, yet none of Singapore’s concerns – about racial harmony, for example – are unique to Singapore, and all feature in the on-going global discussion. In the rhetoric that passes for debate in Singapore, the choices are polarised as “individual versus collective” or “freedom versus responsibility”, implying that free speech is inherently selfish and irresponsible. The danger now is that this may become a self-fulfilling prophecy. By failing to enshrine free speech has a fundamentally social good, young Singaporeans are growing up seizing that freedom on their own terms, impervious to being lectured about their social obligations.

ELECTION REGULATIONS vs SOCIAL NETWORKING

2007-09-12T07:48:00.000+08:00

Social networking platforms such as Facebook and MySpace are emerging as the next big thing on the internet. They are already used extensively by politicians elsewhere. Candidates in Singapore would presumably be allowed to use these to put up information about themselves and their positions, as such use would fall within the "positive list" of permitted uses of websites under the Parliamentary Elections (Election Advertising) Regulations (PER).

More intriguing is whether social networking platforms would get around the PER's current restrictions on using e-mail to spread campaign messages. The regulations allow parties to mail to their own mailing lists, but parties can't encourage chain letters: an e-mail is not supposed to invite readers to pass it on to all their friends. This prohibition limits the powerful viral potential of e-mail communication.

The interesting thing about Facebook and the like is that the viral quality is built in. These platforms introduce you to friends of friends in a way that doesn't seem to be captured by the PER, which was formulated back in 2001. Furthermore, what is technically being passed around is not a campaign message but the electronic version of a business card, which again falls outside the scope of the PER. However this particular type of business card can of course be linked to substantive content, including campaign ads.

Of course, everyone, including the regulators, knew that the 2001 regulations would rendered redundant by evolving technologies. Social networking services are just one more step towards the inevitable. The question now is whether the government will try to cover social networking in the next round of regulatory innovation, or if it will retreat.

10 YEARS OF "LIGHT TOUCH" INTERNET REGULATION

2007-08-31T10:55:00.000+08:00

A close look at 10 years of internet content regulation shows that the authorities have generally kept their promise of applying the law with a “light touch”. Also as promised, the light touch policy has not meant a totally hands-off approach. The government has occasionally felt compelled to use strong measures where subtler controls may have sufficed in the pre-internet age. This suggests that the entry of new kinds of insurgents into Singapore's media space is straining the government's calibrated approach to coercion. Read the full report here.

LI HONGYI AND THE BLOGGERS

2007-07-13T22:18:00.000+08:00

The Li Hongyi controversy is another case of Net-induced disclosure of government information. Pre-internet, such an incident would have been confined to coffeeshop talk; mainstream media may have been pressured to suppress it. Nowadays, it’s much harder for the authorities to sidestep the gossip; the pressure is on them to engage it openly. However, it would be a mistake for bloggers to get carried away by a misplaced sense of power. Post-internet, Singapore still has the SAF Act and the Official Secrets Act, under which the circulation of Li’s email could quite possibly constitute an offence. Full posting at JOURNALISM.SG - click the title above to go there.

NEW WEBSITE DEVOTED TO JOURNALISM ISSUES

2007-07-06T11:45:00.000+08:00

JOURNALISM.SG is my new website dedicated to press issues in Singapore. Do visit.

AN INSIDER'S VIEW OF ONLINE REGULATION

2007-06-20T23:19:00.000+08:00

At the New Media @ Arts House forum today, Charles Lim of the Law Reform and Revision Division, Attorney General's Chambers, shared certain guiding principles that he believes to be important in internet regulation.

1. The practicability/workability of laws. However, even if it is not practicable to enforce a law, it may have symbolic value to signal society's disapproval, or what the Europeans call "signposting".

2. Regulation should not stifle innovation. Hence, Singapore's "light touch" approach.

3. Protection of intermediaries. If content merely passes through them, they need not be considered content providers, and they can therefore be insulated from certain legal risks like being sued for defamation.

4. Risk-based and principle-based approaches. Instead of heavy handed prohibitions, attention can focus on sites that are the pose the greatest risk to society. A principle-based approach would set out certain broad-brush principles (such as honesty); the regulator would need to cite these principles to justify its interventions transparently (presumably allowing them to challenged in court).

LEE KUAN YEW'S TUPPENCE WORTH

2007-05-09T23:56:00.000+08:00

At a Young PAP dialogue*, Lee Kuan Yew expressed his skepticism about censorship.

He recounted his input to the Cabinet discussion on the Crazy Horse topless revue: "I said, Look, once upon a time, Singaporeans watched peep shows. You know, you pay 10 cents and you turn an old film in a box at Chinese wayangs. Today, they are going to Paris, they go to the Folies Bergere. I mean it doesn’t make sense any more. I said, ‘Let it go’. So they said, ‘No, we must stop this, stop that’. I said, ‘You either go with the world and be part of the world, or you will find that we become a quaint, a quixotic, esoteric appendage of the world’.”

On the balance that Government has to strike: "We have to decide on behalf of society what is the long-term effect of this, and if you prohibit it, will it work? And if it doesn’t work and it is flouted, does it do harm? Which is better – to let it run freely or say, ‘No, have it surreptitiously flouted at the margins’? You’ve got to weigh the two odds."

Later in the dialogue, he said that internet censorship is impractical: "We have created a society which is totally educated. You are all able to go on the Internet. So all this censorship and so on makes no sense to me. You are on the Internet 24 hours, broadband. We’re going to have Wi-Fi throughout the whole city. We cannot stop this. If we stop this, we stop the progress. We are marginalised.”

My take on these comments:

Mr Lee's words were quite remarkable, suggesting that the days of censorship are over. However, one shouldn't overstate their significance. We shouldn't look at what he said as a statement of immediate media policy, but rather as a broad, long-term principle. Anyone who takes his comment too literally would no doubt be struck by the contradiction between words and actions. Within a few weeks of his speech, we saw the government ban Martyn See's film on Said Zahari. There was no evidence there of the kind of thinking Mr Lee was advocating.

So, it is more realistic to consider Mr Lee's words as referring to a long-term trajectory. In the short term, the government can be expected to continue applying censorship powers in old fashioned ways. This gradual and controlled pace of liberalisation, with occasional reversals, will continue to be the pattern, because in Singapore it's the government that sets the agenda. It's unlike other countries where people can, for example, invoke strong constitutional guarantees to achieve quantum leaps in freedom of communication.

Even in the long term, though, it is not the case that a censorship-free system is either possible or desirable. Any society will still want to be able to protect its interests in certain broadly agreed areas. Whether it's tobacco advertising, hate speech or child pornography, there may continue to be a strong justification for censorship. In some areas, I would favour more, not less, censorship. For example, Singapore protects children against advertisers less than some developed countries. And our radio deejays on some stations sometimes cross the bounds of what others would consider good taste.

So we should not think that no-censorship is some communication nirvana we should be heading for. We should be aiming instead for a regulatory regime that more accurately reflects the interests of society. In some areas we should be loosening up, in other areas there is a case for tightening.

* Reported in "Adjusting to the realities of a globalising world" by Peh Shing Huei,
The Straits Times, 23 April 2007, p. H5

ONE COUNTRY, TWO SYSTEMS: FOR HOW LONG?

2007-03-10T18:51:00.000+08:00

Notes on a book chapter I'm working on.

Up till now, mainstream media such as the national newspapers and broadcasters have been equated with a cluster of attributes: they are profit driven, resource rich, professionally run, mass oriented, large in readership and viewership, highly public, and regulated through discretionary licensing. Alternative media such as independent websites and blogs are associated with the converse cluster of attributes: they are not for profit, resource poor, run by amateurs and volunteers, niche oriented, limited in penetration, semi-public, and free of discretionary licensing requirements.

This neat dichotomy has allowed the government’s dual regulatory regime to operate relatively smoothly: regulators apply far stricter standards to mainstream than to alternative media. In theory, in an age of digital convergence, regulations that are not platform-neutral will be unsustainable as they will generate inconsistencies. In practice, however, convergence has not run its course in Singapore; the dichotomy between offline mainstream media and alternative online media persists.

The dichotomy is unlikely to persist indefinitely. It will be pressured by the following possible developments, which, while not guaranteed to occur, already show signs of surfacing:

In the mainstream sector

Erosion of journalistic standards within mainstream media, due to the growing dominance of entertainment values.
Under-investment in editorial departments by mainstream media, for cost-cutting motivated by short-term shareholder greed.
Greater focus on niche products targeted at demographics with advertiser interest, at the expense of serving the wider public interest.

In the alternative sector

Growing online participation of experts and specialists who are no less authoritative than full-time professional journalists.
Greater involvement of universities, think tanks, civic groups and foundations with the resources to support online ventures in the public interest.
Growing sophistication of peer-to-peer and collaborative projects allowing part-timers and amateurs to approximate (and even exceed) professional standards.
A growing culture of self-regulation and peer review/moderation among the most serious of alternative sites

These developments will challenge various aspects of Singapore’s media system. The following questions will surface:

1. If online media are maturing to become as influential as traditional media, why should the two sectors be subject to different levels of control? And if regulations are to be harmonised, should regulations for online media be tightened, or should regulations for traditional media be liberalised?

2. If mainstream media are growing increasingly commercial and abdicating their fiduciary responsibility to the public interest, why should they continue to be protected by regulatory barriers to entry? Shouldn’t publishing and broadcasting licenses be given out more liberally?

3. If online media show themselves to be capable of self-regulation, and the public shows that it is not prone to run amok when encountering inflammatory speech, should Singapore not review its paternalistic media management philosophy – for traditional as well as new media?

4. If traditional media are declining in their capacity to command the attention of the mass public, should the government not wean itself off its current attention-on-demand model and build its capacity to compete for attention?

These are years of profound change on Singapore’s media landscape. Stakeholders can help shape that change, in directions that serve the greater good.

The mainstream media. The journalistic profession, ensconced in mainstream news media organisations, needs to come to terms with the fact that it is not a closed shop. With the democratisation of influence, professional journalists must be able to articulate to themselves and to others what makes them worth paying attention to – and, more importantly, live up to their promises.

Alternative media. Proponents of an emerging new media order must go beyond predicting the future and start building it. If the new media are to be more than about merely the right to individual self-expression and are also to achieve a social purpose, they need to be more organised, reliable and accountable than they are at present.

Official newsmakers. Officials need to prepare for a new order in which influence is democratised. The new media, unlike the traditional media, will not give officials the final word simply because of their rank and status. Officials need to develop the skills to compete for influence on more equal terms, within a culture of transparency and discussion. This can contribute positively to a mature polity. On the other hand, a reactionary response will lead to a schizophrenic media world, with a cognitive dissonance between mainstream and alternative media content.

Regulators. Media regulators will need to separate the hitherto inseparable: the interests of the party versus the interests of the nation. Only then can a more rational and sustainable media regulatory regime be shaped. Aspects of the current controls, designed to serve narrow political interests more than the broad national interest, need to be modified.

The public. The public should demand greater accountability on the part of media, even as the government loosens its control. This can be effected through various non-government mechanisms and at different levels, to address ethical breaches and push for higher journalistic standards. With more accountability mechanisms in place and a stronger culture of consumer rights and self-help, the use of governmental power can be left as a last resort in solving problems with the media.

THE PROBLEM WITH MEDIA SCHIZOPHRENIA

2007-01-16T13:32:00.000+08:00

I was quoted in Today (last Friday) as saying that if the government insisted on a firewall between mainstream and alternative media, we would end up a schizophrenic nation, with the national press and the blogosphere offering us two entirely different worlds. The solution, I suggested, was to give the mainstream press more political space to reflect the perspectives one finds online.

Mr Wang was not convinced that schizophrenia is such a bad thing. He said: "So in the end, we all become highly specialised, highly niche consumers. Faced with a vast number of options, each of us makes our own unique set of choices. We go for exactly what we like. Each of us ends up reading different stuff, and some of us will read extremely different stuff from the rest of us. That's what Cherian calls schizophrenia. But is that really unhealthy? I. Am. Really. Not. Convinced."

Thanks for the opportunity to elaborate.

Of course, like Mr Wang, I want to pursue my own personal interests and develop my own unique identity. I associate that with a better quality of life. And the greater the political and economic space that Singaporeans have to make their own choices, the more we can consider Singapore a developed society and our "best home", to borrow the PAP line.

That's all well and good. But the issue is what happens if we focus entirely on our private interests and end up sharing no common spaces or common media experiences. This is a problem because geography still matters. We cannot escape inter-dependent relationships with people around us - including with people with very different interests from our own. We may wish to completely privatise our lives, but it would be a mistake to lose sight of this connection with the wider Public.

First, even if we try to mind our own business, other people's business can affect ours. You may be a contented birdwatcher, until urban development suddenly destroys the habitat that was once your favourite haunt. You may be running a religious school according to your own values, until a new education policy suddenly imposes new requirements on how you operate. (These are not made-up examples; they come from recent history.) There's little point protesting after the fact. To protect and further your private interests, you need to be plugged into the wider public conversation, have your say at the right time, and help others understand you better.

Second - and this is just the flip side of the first point - your private business can affect others'. Your consumption decisions are never purely private, but have social and environmental implications for people near and far. The way you put your private beliefs into practice also affects others, and can encroach on their space - as anyone who has been a victim of aggressive religious proselytising would attest to. In a crowded and diverse world, individuals have a duty to understand others' needs, interests and rights. Wealthier Singaporeans may be able to insulate their lives quite effectively from the rest of the public most of the time, but most cannot - which means that everyone, including the rich, owes it to the rest to take part in the wider conversation.

These are the reasons why we need bridges between the niche spaces where most of us enjoy spending our time, and the public space where we practice toleration, negotiation and compromise. If Singapore's media policy maintains a firewall between these two worlds, the public conversation will be like a stage-managed performance presenting an artificial consensus because other voices have been shut out. It will all seem calm and harmonious, but only because divisions in society have not been allowed to surface in the mass media.

THE MAINSTREAM-ALTERNATIVE DIVIDE

2007-01-12T08:42:00.000+08:00

An extract from my presentation at the IPS Year in Review Conference, 11 Jan 2007.

The mainstream media are being challenged on a number of fronts – revenue, readership and viewership, and influence. Blogs and other user-generated content are only part of that challenge, and indeed the mainstream media were in gradual decline long before blogging. The audience’s attention is dissipating across a wider diversity of media. At the same time, the advertising revenue that used to reward newspapers for their ability to congregate the masses now have alternative outlets such as outdoor platforms and events.

This decline needs to be put in perspective: newspapers are still the most profitable media businesses, and still occupy the commanding heights of the news business; it is just that its degree of dominance is on the decline. Mainstream media’s superior resources should mean that they will continue to be able to offer greater quantity and quality of content. However, as general interest media, the mainstream media cannot cater adequately to every specialised niche. It is impossible for the national media to serve all of the people all of the time. As Singapore society becomes increasingly complex and variegated, as sub-cultures proliferate, and as tastes become increasingly specialised, it is getting tougher for the national media to serve all of the people even some of the time. Mainstream media companies around the world are responding by spinning off more niche publications and supplements.

There are two problems with this approach. One is that not all readers are created equal in media companies’ eyes. If you have the disposable income to shop for luxury watches, designer clothes, spa vacations or cars, media companies will pander to you in order to deliver you to their advertisers. Singaporeans who are not PMEBs might as well be aliens from space as far as media executives are concerned.

Another problem with going niche is that it will shrink our common space. While we each want to nurture our own unique identities and pursue our own interests and lifestyles, society as a whole would be poorer if there were no common spaces left. If the national media appealed to all of the people none of the time, one would have to ask if there is anything Singaporean about Singapore any more. Therefore, the mainstream media need to balance the desire of an increasingly diverse audience for niche content with their role as a space for social conciliation and national discussion. This is easier said than done, but must remain a top priority.

A further challenge faced by mainstream media is their handicap in reflecting alternative views. This handicap is the result of two distinct attributes. The most obvious is the burden of operating under a government licence. The regulatory regime requires mainstream media not to try to set the political agenda, which in practice means that editors are expected to filter out or at least not over-amplify views that contradict government positions on key principles or policies. Alternative media on the internet are not subject to discretionary licensing and therefore enjoy much wider latitude in expressing contrary views.

In addition to political constraints in countries such as Singapore, the mainstream media around the world also operate with a technical disadvantage. Paradoxically, the professional operations and high production values associated with mainstream media seem to be creating a counter-demand for a more personal, supposedly authentic experience via “cottage-industry” media. This phenomenon is not unique to the news media industry: it seems to apply to most cultural and lifestyle products. Thus, we have beer drinkers who would shun Tiger and Heineken and opt for microbrews, despite the latter’s inconsistent quality; similarly, music lovers may scoff at assembly line boy bands, no matter how slick, and seek out underground, garage bands. This tendency may also explain the aforementioned appeal of You Tube despite the obviously superior standards of the TV industry. The imperfect but personally crafted and authentic is being embraced as an antidote to the impersonal and industrial, no matter how professional the latter.

Can Singapore’s mainstream media overcome this twin handicap of licensing and industrial standards? The dichotomous regulatory regime – with stricter supervision of mainstream media and more latitude for niche and/or alternative media – is likely to stay. Since think tanks are supposed to think the unthinkable, I would be shortchanging the IPS Year In Review forum if I failed to at least raise the question of reviewing the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act. It is noteworthy that in Malaysia, which has a comparable newspaper permit system, the Malaysian Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) has called for the following amendments: making permits permanent rather than requiring annual renewal; making the granting of permits automatic, subject to objections from security agencies; and requiring the government to publish reasons for permit rejection, which can then be challenged in court.

However, since Singapore is unlikely to engage in such discussions anytime in the near future, it may be more practical to consider less out-of-the-box options. Even if the letter of the law is not revised, the government needs to adapt to a changing environment and calibrate its controls accordingly. In supervising the mainstream media, regulators and internal gatekeepers need to beware of a widening gap between mainstream and alternative media. I hesitate to call it a credibility gap, because most people do believe that the mainstream media are by and large accurate and believable. For reasons I have touched on earlier, it should perhaps be called an authenticity gap – the mainstream media are seen as somehow failing to provide an authentic experience; to be presenting the news accurately, yes, but not for you and me – unlike a favourite blog.

Mainstream media can try to respond by providing more space for user-generated content and providing a sampling of that other world, which is precisely what The Straits Times is trying to do through STOMP and what Today tried to do by enlisting the blogger, Mr Brown, as a columnist. The failure of that experiment and its backfiring on Today’s reputation showed how dicey this challenge is. Although it is unclear whether the authorities wanted Today to terminate Mr Brown’s column, they obviously believed that the particular offending article should not have been published in that form. Mainstream media editors have thus been sternly reminded not to abdicate their responsibility, as gatekeepers of the formal public sphere, to filter the strident voices and other noise of the hoi polloi.

Yet, for the mainstream media’s own good as well as for Singapore’s, we should avoid erecting a firewall between mainstream and alternative media. We need ideas to flow between the two. Therefore, the national media should have the latitude to reflect the buzz of alternative spaces. But, after the government’s statements in 2006, can they? I do not pretend to be able to read the government’s mind, but I suspect that it would not be opposed to newspapers reporting or republishing online viewpoints as long as three criteria are met.

First, of course, the statements quoted must not cross any boundaries of law or good taste. Second, avant-garde or minority views should not be misrepresented as reflecting mainstream or majority views. Third, the mainstream media should be mindful of the power they possess to bequeath symbolic status on the people and perspectives they give space to, and should therefore be judicious in whether and how they do so. These may seem onerous rules, but they are not impossible, as existing journalistic conventions allow newspapers to have their cake and eat it too. The trick is to signal clearly to the reader what editing standards are being applied to an article. This is how established newspapers carry diverse content of various standards. For example, regular readers know that the views that The Straits Times regards as most authoritative are to be found in its own editorial and in columns such as “Thinking Aloud”. At the other extreme are its user-generated content pages – and even among these there is a clear hierarchy, with the “Forum” page at the top and other sections for reader contributions – including online views – given lower status. Similarly, clear signaling tells the reader that YouthInk is not to be treated as seriously as more grown up columns.

This is cheap speculation, and in hindsight, but Today’s mistake may have been to give Mr Brown’s column the same look and feel of its more elevated columns, thus apparently giving the editors’ stamp of approval to the arguments therein. Today’s relatively small staff of full-time writers creates a greater reliance on user-generated content, which is not distinguished particularly clearly from more authoritative viewpoints. To borrow the words of Singapore’s eloquent former information minister George Yeo, Today’s design was and continues to be a case of boh tua boh suay.

All in all, though, mainstream media editors can probably be trusted to preserve the distinction between formal and informal public spheres, and not to go overboard with user-generated content. After all, it would be self-defeating to do so, compromising their main competitive advantage in professionally produced content.

However, there is a real risk that certain other professional standards will be compromised due to the competitive pressure posed by alternative media. Digital delivery and fewer layers of checks sometimes enable alternative media to be the first with the news. Professional journalists know that they are supposed to “get it first but first get it right”. Unfortunately, once the alternative media release a piece of news, there is pressure on mainstream media to publish it on the grounds that it is already “out there”. There is plenty of evidence worldwide to suggest that this risk is already materialising, short-circuiting the standard, rigorous checks that journalists know they are supposed to exercise. Usually, newspapers will try to cover themselves with a fig leaf by saying that the unverified gossip that they are recirculating is newsworthy because it is creating a buzz and not because it is necessarily true – sometimes adding for good measure their disapproval of the very sources they are quoting. Singapore’s national newspaper is not immune to such tendencies: the front page of The Sunday Times was recently splashed with sexy photos of a model that, according to online speculation, was the Mongolian woman who had been murdered in Malaysia. It turned out that she was a Korean model unconnected with the sordid affair.

In appealing to the mainstream media not to imitate the alternative media in some respects, I do not want to give the impression that the national newspapers and broadcasters are always the paragons of virtue and guardians of high standards, while the alternative media are irresponsible and anti-national. On the contrary, with mainstream media becoming increasingly commercial in its impulses, the informal public sphere is seen as the more hospitable space for many Singaporeans who want to contribute to public life and culture regardless of profitability. Indeed, one could say that there is at least as much nation-building going on in the alternative media as there is in the national mainstream media. Of course, if you define nation-building in old-fashioned top-down terms – equating it merely with treating the nation’s leaders with deference and amplifying their messages – then the mainstream media have the edge. However, if we adopt the contemporary understanding of nation-building as a bottom-up process of active citizenship, a la Singapore 21 and Remaking Singapore, then the action is really in the alternative media. In an increasing number of sectors – heritage and history, the arts, natural history and the environment, local music and culture, even the National Service experience – the most passionate and knowledgeable efforts to connect Singaporeans with their nation are taking place in the informal public sphere.

Increasingly, the national media are adopting commercial marketability rather than nation-building as their touchstone. They are getting away with it partly because they are careful to continue playing their traditional top-down nation-building role and thus appease their political masters. They have also succeeded in convincing us that they are in a life-and-death struggle for survival and that they have no choice but to be more commercially-driven. They are businesses after all, it’s their money, and it’s their prerogative to make investment decisions. Leaving aside the fact that newspapers are still among the most profitable manufacturing industries around, there are two problems with this logic. First, in the Singapore context, media giants are protected by government licensing. As custodians of scarce, publicly granted publishing and broadcasting permits, they owe a fiduciary responsibility to the public that we should never let them forget. Second, if the news media choose to be ever more entertainment-driven, consumer-driven and accommodating to advertisers, then the traditional professional values of journalism as a public service will be increasingly marginalised. This is a worldwide trend, prompting the Economist last year to speculate that the mission of high-quality journalism will have to find a new home, migrating from newspapers to other types of organisation, such as NGOs and citizen groups.

LIGHT TOUCH?

2006-09-13T22:26:00.000+08:00

I've launched a new blog (linked above) that aims to provide a comprehensive database of Singapore government interventions in internet communication. The government introduced internet content regulations in 1996, assuring internet users that these would be implemented with a 'light touch'. Ten years on, it is useful to take stock of what the government’s position has meant in practice.

The immediate, practical benefit of this database is that it helps to shed light on Singapore’s regulatory terrain. Many internet users either ignore real political risks or exaggerate them. Both pitfalls are equally unhealthy for the development of an active and mature online community.

The database is a work in progress. I am making it public as a way to tap the inside knowledge of the online community. I welcome readers’ input, either to add to existing case files, or to share any personal experiences that may not have been reported in the mass media.

IS STOMP 'CITIZEN JOURNALISM'?

2006-07-08T12:41:00.000+08:00

The Straits Times today devotes several pages to the phenomenon of citizen journalism, and includes a big fat quote from yours truly. Not surprisingly, though, ST left out one additional point I made: that I do not consider STOMP to be citizen journalism. Here's what I wrote to the reporter:

"And to answer an unasked question, I don't consider STOMP to be citizen journalism, because it puts the public on tap, not on top. It merely introduces greater interactivity to traditional journalism. Citizen journalism in the proper sense does its own agenda-setting. Citizen journalists decide what questions need to be asked and what topics to pursue. They don't just answer questions decided by mainstream editors."

The Review package celebrates STOMP as if it is the cutting edge of citizen journalism in Singapore, and makes it seem as if those interviewed agree with this premiss. I hope the above quote clarifies that I don't. To me, it is not the source of facts or opinions that distinguishes citizen journalism from the mainstream - just because a story or picture comes from a reader does not make it a piece of citizen journalism. Instead, it boils down to who selects and decides what stories to pursue and publish. Editorial decision making is what separate journalism from gossip. STOMP, like the rest of ST, is edited by professional ST journalists, not ordinary citizens.

Citizen journalism has unrealised potential in Singapore. (See my earlier post below.) Most promising, I think, are the special interest areas or "beats" in which considerable expertise exists outside of the media. A taste of things to come is found in Mr Wang Says So, who uses his legal training to provide legal analysis that is often superior to ST's; Dawn Kua's blog on animal issues; and Chua Ai Lin's Singapore heritage mailing list. (Thanks to Sarah for pointing me to these. If you know of other "expert" Singaporean blogs in specialised areas, I would love to receive your recommendations.)

WHEN BLOGGERS ENTER MSM, PART 3

2006-07-08T11:37:00.000+08:00

In my previous post, I wondered what the government's statement on mrbrown's Today column would mean for the national newspapers' attempts to borrow the blogsphere's appeal. The government seems to be saying that alternative is alternative and mainstream is mainstream, and never the twain shall meet. If so, I am increasingly of the view that the biggest losers this past week are the mainstream mass media. The online protestations notwithstanding, there is no evidence (yet) that the government's statement represents a crackdown on blogs per se. Instead, it is a crackdown on mainstream editors who are trying to increase their newspapers' appeal by co-opting celebrity bloggers.

Newspaper editors know that their pages must reflect at least some of the buzz that's going on online. If they don't, they risk losing some readers entirely - readers who feel quite at home online, and for whom the online experience is part of daily reality. If newspapers don't respond to this, they will seem like an alien landscape to such readers. Even if they continue to read The Straits Times, Today and other papers, they will read them as foreign newspapers: informative, entertaining and educational as The New Straits Times or the New York Times are informative, entertaining and educational - but not as "their" newspapers.

Society will also lose if the Singapore mediascape has a great wall between mainstream and alternative. We need bridges between the two. The alternative media fulfil the roles of self-expression and identity formation for individuals and groups; the mainstream media help people figure out their common interests and shared problems as a Public. Both types of communication are important, but shouldn't take place in complete isolation.

Therefore, newspapers should continue to give some space to the kind of communication that takes place online. But, after the government's statement, can they? I think it is possible, using certain journalistic and design conventions. The trick is to signal clearly to the reader (and the government) what kind of editing standards are being applied to an article. Newspapers always apply multiple standards. For example, the Straits Times applies a higher standard to its op-ed Review pages than to its Forum or YouthInk pages. It is clear to readers that a piece published in Forum or YouthInk won't necessarily have the same authority or level of argument as a piece selected for Review. When ST carries a piece in Review, it is implicitly saying, "Here's an article that we the national newspaper think is important, well-argued, and contributes to policy and intellectual debate." On the other hand, when ST runs a piece in YouthInk, readers know that it is saying, "Here's a contribution that's interesting because it shows what young people are thinking, even if wouldn't pass muster for our more serious, grown-up pages." Similarly, I think it should be acceptable for national newspapers to carry articles like the one by mrbrown, if editors signal clearly the standards that are being applied. This is pure speculation, but I think Today's mistake was to give mrbrown's column the same "look and feel" of its more elevated columns, thus apparently giving the editors' stamp of approval to mrbrown's arguments. In the government's eyes, this would "confuse" the public, when the national newspapers are depended on to provide clarity and not contribute to the alleged confusion. Would the government have tolerated mrbrown's column if it was labeled "A partisan blogger's view"? I think it is possible, but we shall never know.

WHEN BLOGGERS ENTER MSM, PART 2

2006-07-06T14:45:00.000+08:00

"I have been informed that TODAY has suspended my column," writes mrbrown. Thus, Today appears to have acted on the government's statement on opinion columns in mainstream media (see earlier posting). We don't know if there was any explicit instruction from the government to discontinue his column, but Today editors probably felt they could not read the government's letter any other way. The government said that "it is not the role of journalists or newspapers in Singapore to champion issues, or campaign for or against the Government", and implied that mrbrown is a "partisan player in politics", "exploiting his access to the mass media to undermine the Government's standing with the electorate". Indeed, the main intended audience of the government's response to mrbrown's column may have been the editors of Mediacorp Press and SPH, who have been trying to increase their publications' cool quotient by co-opting aspects of online culture, including celebrity bloggers.

The 1990s had the Catherine Lim Affair. Will Singaporeans be talking about the mrbrown affair in the years to come? It is too early to tell what it spells for Singapore media and politics in the long term. One thing, though, is clear: the government is drawing a distinct line between alternative niche media and mainstream mass media. Mrbrown's offence was that his views were "widely circulated in a regular column in a serious newspaper". Presumably, his blog will continue to be tolerated. Indeed, 10 years after the government introduced the class licence and registration rules for the internet, it has yet to block or ban a single political website. (At a conference recently, I put the question to messrs brown and Miyagi: by and large, has the government kept its promise to regulate the internet with a "light touch"? Their answer, at the time: yes.)

While this regulatory distinction between mainstream and alternative media seems clearcut, there remain some question marks over the government's position. First, experts on media regulation usually say that rules should be platform-neutral. Otherwise, especially in an age of digital convergence, you may end up with an inconsistent policy, with the same content being banned on one medium but not on another. But perhaps the distinction being drawn in this case is not a technological one between print and online, but is based on relative reach and influence (like the way cinemas, subscription TV and free-to-air TV are subject to different censorship rules).

Second, what does this mean for newspapers' attempts to move with the times and borrow from online culture, including the Straits Times' much-hyped STOMP? The online activities of registered newspaper companies are accorded a special status: for example, they are considered "news" and thereby exempt from the rules against online electioneering. But, when free-wheeling bloggers and online discussants are co-opted by the likes of STOMP, should they be treated with a light touch a la the rest of cyberspace, or to the "higher standard" of mainstream media since they are circulated with the mainstream media's stamp?

Third, it is one thing to demolish an individual article and declare that it has crossed the OB markers, but it's another thing altogether to decide that the writer is himself permanently out of bounds, and that even his future, unpenned views cannot be published. That is what the suspension of mrbrown's column amounts to. If Today's decision reflects official policy, then it strikes me as a policy of going after the man, not the ball, and is a retrograde step in Singapore's political development.

WHEN BLOGGERS ENTER MSM

2006-07-04T09:19:00.000+08:00

Popular Singapore blogger mr brown has been rapped by the information ministry for a piece he wrote in Today as part of his regular column. The government's letter, published in Today on 3 July, establishes that criticism within the mainstream press will be held to a less tolerant standard than what appears online, presumably because the latter is not considered as public to the same degree. The reply is also interesting because it is probably the most detailed statement in recent years about out-of-bounds markers for commentators. The basic principle, though, is similar to what was enunciated in the Catherine Lim affair: the government will decide if you are a partisan player in politics and treat you accordingly.

Here's the relevant section from the government's reply (signed off by K Bhavani, press secretary to the minister):

"mr brown's views on all these issues distort the truth. They are polemics dressed up as analysis, blaming the Government for all that he is unhappy with. He offers no alternatives or solutions. His piece is calculated to encourage cynicism and despondency, which can only make things worse, not better, for those he professes to sympathise with.

mr brown is entitled to his views. But opinions which are widely circulated in a regular column in a serious newspaper should meet higher standards. Instead of a diatribe mr brown should offer constructive criticism and alternatives. And he should come out from behind his pseudonym to defend his views openly.

It is not the role of journalists or newspapers in Singapore to champion issues, or campaign for or against the Government. If a columnist presents himself as a non-political observer, while exploiting his access to the mass media to undermine the Government's standing with the electorate, then he is no longer a constructive critic, but a partisan player in politics."

WHAT NEXT FOR CITIZEN JOURNALISM?

2006-06-03T15:30:00.000+08:00

The Institute of Policy Studies has done the most thorough study so far of independent online reports on the Singapore Elections of 2006. The findings were publicised at a post-election forum on 2 June. The study confirmed the big upward spike in interest in internet coverage of the elections. However, the IPS survey also showed that the internet still could not compete with traditional media for influence, and that most of the online activity did not really amount to true “citizen journalism”: few practitioners were engaged in independent fact-finding, for example. The researchers’ definition of citizen journalism, which excluded commentary, may have been too narrow. However, it is clear that bloggers and other media activists have yet to exploit fully the potential of the internet for citizen journalism. This is partly (but not fully, as I’ll explain later) due to legal obstacles. Assuming both the opportunity and motivation for citizen journalism expands, what should net users do? This question was raised during the forum by ISEAS researcher and former journalist Russell Heng. Let me attempt an answer here.

1. More specialised analysis
It’s often assumed that only professional journalists in the mainstream media possess the resources and access for investigative journalism and in-depth analysis. It is true that paid reporters are probably the only ones that would bother to invest several days in studying some new topic that has suddenly become newsworthy. However, it also true that for any given topic, there are individual citizens out there with expertise and passion that exceeds that of the generalist reporter. Good citizen journalism will take advantage of citizen experts. Instead of relying on a handful of brand-name bloggers trying to be jacks of all trades, we should be networking and aggregating citizens with a special interest and expertise in their chosen area. The best way to do this is through the next step:

2. More links with civil society groups
The heroes of the 2006 blogging phenomenon were intrepid individuals and the occasional dynamic duo. These were inspiring, but, really, successful citizen journalism has to be more organised. This is the main reason why, despite Singapore being ahead in blogging, it is still behind Malaysia in online activism more generally. Malaysia’s online activism has deep offline roots in civil society. Singapore’s citizen journalism must move in this direction. There are already a few good examples, like Chua Ai Lin’s heritage mailing list, singaporeheritage@yahoogroups.com. These bring together citizens with a special interest and expertise, generating enormous social capital and mobilising potential.

3. Counter-hegemonic commentary
Singapore-style propaganda is not so much the propaganda of lies (saying the glass is full when it is empty, like North Korea would), but the propaganda of spin (convincing us that the glass is half-full when it is half-empty). The propaganda of spin is much harder to counter, as it is not just a matter of puncturing it with the “truth”. Instead, citizen journalists who want to challenge PAP dominance have the tougher task of contradicting assumptions that have been elevated to the status of “common sense”. For example, PAP dominance cannot really be challenged without first countering the ideology of “vulnerability”, into which most Singaporeans, including those who want an opposition, have bought. (Janadas Devan during the IPS forum gave another example: the PAP has monopolised the “definition of talent” , which is an even more powerful asset than the monopoly of talent.) Such citizen journalism is not simply a matter of fact-finding and reporting. Essays and commentaries are equally important (which is why these need to be included in the definition of citizen journalism).

4. More laughs
Talking Cock and the mrbrown show are humour sites and not what many would consider citizen journalism. However, they clearly have some political impact. I suppose they are especially poignant in Singapore because of the PAP’s reputation for being humourless and taking itself too seriously. However, I will leave it to others to give more in-depth analysis of the links between humour and radical politics, and will just point out here that citizen journalism in the Singapore context is bound to use more humour, given the success of this strategy in 2006.

LINKS
Information Minister Lee Boon Yang’s speech on 31 May, promising some easing up of online electioneering rules.
Yawning Bread’s report on the IPS forum of 2 June.
To find out more about cutting-edge citizen journalism online, start exploring Dan Gillmor’s work.

SINGAPORE ELECTIONS AND THE MAINSTREAM PRESS

2006-05-12T12:14:00.000+08:00

Do visit my other blog for this. Click on the title above.

SINGAPORE ELECTIONS COMMENTARY

2006-05-07T16:48:00.000+08:00

Click the above title to go to my "Air-Conditioned Nation" blog.

SINGAPORE ELECTIONS POST-MORTEM: THE BLOGSFEAR FACTOR

2006-05-07T15:15:00.000+08:00

Independent blogs appear to have survived the Singapore election campaign period unscathed. There have been no reports of blogs being asked by MDA to register as “political” sites, which would have had the effect of banning them from electioneering.

That bloggers’ worst fears didn’t materialise could well be due to their irrelevance in the larger scheme of things. As in GEs past, the main action was offline, at the rallies and mainstream media.

So, what difference did blogs make? There was little if anything that was “exclusive” to the blogs. Nothing approaching investigative journalism. Few (printable) perspectives that hadn’t already been given some airing elsewhere.

Probably the most widely circulated blog contributions were the pictures of the WP’s Hougang rally, showing an absolutely packed field. Humour was also popular: the Mr Brown Show's "persistently non-political podcast", in particular, was a delicious talking point.

POST-ELECTION UPDATE, 8 MAY 9.30PM

"James Gomez" is ranked as the #2 search term worldwide on Technorati.com.

IS THE GOVERNMENT EASING UP ON OLD MEDIA?

2006-04-30T13:55:00.000+08:00

The appetite for new media is partly a function of how well traditional media fulfill people’s needs. So, what can be said about the performance of the mainstream mass media in the Singapore elections?

I have heard and read many complaints, mostly to do with inadequate or skewed coverage of the opposition and overly flattering coverage of the PAP. Nothing new here. Or is there? My own impressionistic assessment is that there has been a subtle but significant easing up on the media, allowing journalists more room than in previous elections to do their job with some professionalism. Why do I say this? Here are some observations.

First, compared especially with GE 1988, the coverage has reflected more honestly the level of interest in the polls and in particular contests. In 1988-89, I did my undergraduate thesis on government-press relations, focusing on press coverage of that GE. The most remarkable feature of it was that the all the local media, clearly under instructions from the government, treated the polls as a non-issue, devoting just a few pages daily to the campaign. Eunos GRC, being contested by Francis Seow and the Workers’ Party, was the battle to watch, but coverage was minimal. Not quite a news blackout, but close to it. Eighteen years later, there is no evidence of such media (mis)management. The only complaint I’ve heard about the volume of election coverage is that there’s too much (“why go on and on about the elections when the outcome is predictable?”) which is a good problem to have compared with 1988. Furthermore, the hot seats, notably Aljunied GRC, have been explicitly recognised and covered as such, very different from Eunos 1988. If the PAP is concerned that all the talk of hot seats will over-excite the electorate, it is not showing it – it has refrained from fixing the coverage as crudely as it did in 1988.

Second, there is less use of the news media as a campaign vehicle to run down the Opposition. Of course, in any election, when a party chooses to make its opponents’ character and ability an election issue, the media will report it because it’s news. If such attacks are the most interesting (even if not necessarily the most important) developments of the day, they will receive the most coverage. (Therefore, there’s nothing particularly exceptional about, say, the space or prominence given to the James Gomez controversy. The ruling party’s top leaders chose to make it a major issue, and it is worth reporting as such. Readers can then decide whether to accept the PAP’s conclusions, or Mr Low Thia Khiang’s that the PAP is making a mountain out of a molehill. It is customary for newspaper editors everywhere to refrain from pre-judging.) Compared with past GEs, the big difference this time is that the ST has stopped there. In the past, it would have “added value”, to put it euphemistically: with columns and graphics to ram home, in a crudely caricatured way, the “lessons” that the PAP wanted the electorate to draw. For example, the ST of old might have accompanied the James Gomez news story with a half-page graphic on opposition deceptions and dishonesty by opposition candidates over the years. Fortunately, most of us have forgotten the amplificatory journalism that used to accompany past GEs.

Another story that caught my eye for personal reasons was the Insight feature on Potong Pasir and Hougang some weeks ago. In the run-up to the 1991 GE, when I was a reporter at ST, I was assigned to write a similar Insight feature on life in what was then the only opposition-held town council, Potong Pasir. The piece was spiked, one of only a couple of articles in my 10 years at the ST to have been killed by editors after completion. The article that came out this year was not very different in substance or in its bottom line. It has taken 15 years, but I guess that is the time scale over which change happens in Singapore.

Why might this change be happening?

First, the government probably appreciates that it cannot afford to intervene so much in the press that the press loses all credibility. It would have learnt from events across the Causeway, where the crudely propagandistic mainstream press lost up to one-third of its audience during the Reformasi period. Malaysians rejected the government-controlled media in favour of alternative media, mainly less-regulated, more critical sources on the internet. Thus, while the Singapore government maintains that it has the authority to set the agenda for the press, it also knows that it has to be quite selective and self-restrained in exercising its powers.

Second, the government is probably more self-confident than before. It knows that the mathematical result is secure. It can therefore focus on the quality of its victory. It may have learnt from recent elections, when its victories were tainted by the perception that it did not fight fair. (Note, for example, the Roundtable’s critical assessment of the PAP victory in GE 1997, by Simon Tay and Zulkifli Baharudin, soon after the polls.) I suspect PM Lee Hsien Loong is keen to minimise allegations of unfairness. Hence, perhaps, the stability in the electoral boundaries, and Temasek Polytechnic’s timely change of rules allowing WP chairman Sylvia Lim to keep her job. If this analysis is correct, it would make sense for the PAP not to open itself to the criticism that, under its management, the press is hopelessly one-sided.

Of course, there continues to be unhappiness about media coverage. The most commonly heard complaint has to do with the relative space given to the parties. If you think about it, though, this is really a complaint about the PAP’s near-monopoly of power rather than media coverage. Mainstream journalism takes the world as it is, not as what journalists think it ought to be. In the world as it is, the PAP is the dominant party, the party whose people and policies will have the greatest impact on the lives of Singaporeans into the foreseeable future. As such, it is the PAP that is the most “newsworthy”. When comparing with the press in liberal democracies, the coverage of, say, the opposition Democrats in the US or the opposition Tories in Britain is hardly the right benchmark. These are parties that have already and will be again parties of government. They are rightly given substantial space in election coverage in those countries. To compare apples and apples, we might want to look at coverage of Ralph Nader’s Green Party in the US or the Liberal Democrats in Britain. These secondary players are not given equal coverage by the American or British media, because, in the world as it is, they are not likely to challenge seriously the dominance of the major parties. Singapore opposition parties’ realistic prospects are probably somewhere between the Greens and the LibDems. It would not be unprofessional for editors to treat them accordingly in their coverage.

This of course raises the question of whether professional mainstream journalism’s news values, and even their holy grail of objectivity – taking the world as it is – are necessarily good things. Some would argue that there’s a need for journalists to take a stand for democracy, and even discriminate positively in favour of pro-democratic and progressive causes. This is not, however, a position that most professional journalists worldwide are comfortable with. This more activist, cause-driven approach is therefore left to radical alternative media operating on the margins. Thus, in the US, Ralph Nader relies mostly on alternative media, and not the mainstream press. In Singapore, similarly, the opposition will continue to need alternative media, even if the government eased up on political control of the mainstream press. Mainstream journalism is organically and structurally linked to the status quo, even in free societies.

BLOGGING AWAY

2006-04-29T10:18:00.000+08:00

Most blog fans will know Technorati as a popular search engine that looks for blogs on your chosen topic. Technorati is a global resource, but Singaporeans are among its biggest users. As a result, the term "Singapore election" is #4 on the Technorati list of the world's most popular searches right now ("American Idol" is #1). The term "Singapore" is #15.

What will the blog-hungry find? At least two blogs are already reporting and commenting on the hustings, undeterred by the rules on online electioneering that have kicked in:

SINGAPORE ELECTION

Firmly opposition-leaning. Includes streaming video from the Workers Party's debut rally at Aljunied.

SG ELECTION 06

Includes more personal and whimsical reports from the rallies.

Others that may cover the elections but are not yet active:

SINGAPORE POLITICS

Run by “Thrasymachus” self-described as a “True-Blue Singaporean”

SINGAPORE ELECTIONS

SG RALLY

Aggregates independent video and audio coverage “without commentary”.

As for political party sites, SDP's was asked to take down its video content, which the Election Department said violated elecion rules. The SDP has complied.

LESSONS FROM AN OLD MEDIA ENCOUNTER

2006-04-27T09:00:00.000+08:00

When government ministers appear in televised forums before the elections, it’s a reminder of one of the advantages that the incumbents have: as established newsmakers, they can command a hugely disproportionate share of news coverage. However, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew’s recent dialogue with a group of young Singaporeans also showed that such opportunities can backfire if not managed properly.

The dust has not yet fully settled, but it is already clear that the net effect of the programme has been negative for the PAP. That is not to say that most viewers believe Mr Lee “lost” the combative encounter. Rather, it’s simply to point out that, even if his critical interlocutors were speaking for a minority, the PAP would be better off today had the dialogue never taken place. The PAP's immediate battle is not for the majority, whose support is quite secure in the short term. It is courting the marginal voter: the one in 10 that makes the difference between a 60+ percentage vote share and a 70+ share. It is also that one in 10 swing voter who will decide, for example, whether Potong Pasir falls to the PAP, and the fate of other closely-fought seats. So, the correct tactical question to ask of the TV forum is, how did it affect the marginal voter. I don't think even MM's biggest fans would say that the programme helped win over that marginal voter. It is probably fair to say that the show pushed that marginal voter further away.

Some may argue that it has been an educational experience, illustrating a generational/cultural divide in society. However, we did not need the dialogue to tell us that. Singapore has all sorts of divisions, and it is arguable whether highlighting these divisions and making them salient is healthy for society at any time; and during in election period it certainly doesn’t help a ruling party that advertises itself as the national party of unity.

For the PAP, the irony is that the forum was probably unnecessary in the first place. It appeared to be a response to a perception of unhappiness or alienation among young voters. Sure, there are pockets of young people with critical views. However, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has done an astonishingly good job in appealing to the young since he came to office in 2004. He has hardly put a foot wrong, and indeed his speeches have succeeded in inspiring many. Instead of leaving well enough alone, the PAP felt the need to win every last argument and convert every last man (and, if unsuccessful, scolding him), and in the process losing some of the political capital that has been painstakingly accumulated.

Even if a dialogue was deemed necessary, it is arguable whether the minister mentor was the right person to field for such a task. The prime minister has shown himself a master of the dialogue format, has more recent practice in dealing with the young, and would probably have been far more effective at wooing the youthful marginal voter. PAP strategists could also have done a post-mortem of the series of TV dialogues that the newer ministers had with students a year or two ago. They would have probably found that ministers Khaw Boon Wan and Lim Swee Say, for example, are perfectly capable of connecting with young Singaporeans even as they make no apologies for the PAP’s hardball policies. Instead, not only has the PAP as a whole lost points, but, in addition, the stature of its most iconic leader has been compromised – all in all, an unnecessarily expenditure of political capital in an altogether ill-conceived mission.

The episode highlights possible weaknesses in the quality of the PAP’s media strategy and advice, which may dilute the inherent advantages it possesses in the media battleground. Unfortunately, instead of looking into the mirror and learning from its tactical errors, it may be easier in the short run for the PAP to blame others. Hence, the vocal young have already been criticised by the PAP, and, since the majority of participants in the forum were reporters, so have the media.

REGISTRATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY

2006-04-24T08:54:00.000+08:00

After weeks of discussion about new media, attention has shifted to traditional media, thanks to the defamation suit against Chee Soon Juan and the SDP. Since defamation applies equally to online communication, the suit is a warning to internet users as well.

One of the side shows in the case is of additional interest. One of the individuals named in the letter of demand, Arthero Lim, claims he had nothing to do with the allegedly defamatory content in the SDP newsletter since he had resigned from the party and its exco in January. However, lawyers speaking to The Straits Times (Monday 24 April) say he may still be accountable since his name is on the publishing permit, which expires only on 25 August. Lim had apparently written to the Registrar of Societies to remove himself from the party's exco, but had forgotten to write to the Registrar of Newspapers.

It remains to be seen whether the plaintiffs will drop his name from the suit. However, the case chillingly illustrates the effect of registration. The Media Development Authority can ask political (and religious) websites to register (to see the forms, visit mda.gov.sg, which unfortunately is unavailable as I'm writing this). Registration involves naming the individuals who are taking responsibility for the content and providing details such as their addresses and sources of income. It is touted as a "light touch" administrative requirement that can be fulfilled easily. It is distinct from discretionary licensing, in that MDA does not decide whether or not the site can continue operating. However, Arthero Lim's case shows how individuals who have nothing to do with a particular offending article can be sucked into a lawsuit or criminal prosecution. For existing political sites, as well as licensed newspapers, it would be prudent for individuals associated with them to check if they are named in the permits or registration forms, and to manage the risks accordingly.

POLITICAL MANAGEMENT OF BLOGS

2006-04-23T19:05:00.000+08:00

The legal position of blogs during the election period has been clarified, but intriguing questions remain about how these alternative media might behave, and what the government's response might be. There are certainly loopholes that enterprising media activists can exploit. First, they can use the web until they are asked to register as political sites. Second, they can restrict themselves to using email, which is outside the ambit of the registration requirement. Third, they can host their sites overseas. In the first two scenarios, they would still be subject to "post-publication" punishment if they fall foul of defamation or other laws. However, they are not subject to "prior restraint" (being shut up even before saying anything, which is what discretionary licensing and banning amounts to, and which is regarded in free speech discourse as the most illiberal form of control).

In one possible scenario, all but a small handful of internet users will be sufficiently spooked by the government warnings that they will self-censor. The confusion surrounding the rules makes this scenario more likely. The newspaper, Today, contributed to this confusion in an article on 21 April. Attempting to educate readers about the rules now that the election writ had been issued, Today declared: "From now on, the gloves have to stay on. For bloggers, that is." It added: "What this means is that all political parties and individuals not registered with the Media Development Authority are not allowed to indulge in anything that can be construed as campaigning - until the elections are over." This is completely wrong. Parties can in fact use the internet for campaigning; they just can't use some of its multimedia and interactive features. As for individuals, they are free to use the internet as long as they are not asked to register - precisely the opposite of what Today claimed.

A second scenario, at the other extreme, is that a large number of Singaporeans will exploit the existing loopholes, emboldened by their relatively unfettered use of the medium for the past several years. This will put the government in a dilemma. The fact is that the Singapore government, while infamous for its intolerance of dissent, has never been one to go after large numbers of ordinary citizens. Its actions have been mainly against professional politicians and the occasional individual who is deemed to be a political opponent. If the government now tries to prosecute 10, 20 individuals for breaching internet electioneering rules, it would be entering uncharted political territory. It will be extremely difficult to convince the majority of Singaporeans that such individuals really are a threat to stability, if the offenders are just ordinary Singaporeans and if their online comments are not particularly inflammatory. Trying to prosecute them would be a public relations fiasco.

One of the remaining grey areas is the status of sites that may try to provide independent news coverage of the elections, as opposed to highly-opinionated commentary. As noted in an earlier posting below, the letter of the law provides an exception to licensed news providers (newspapers and broadcasters), including their websites. Thus, anything that Straits Times Interactive carries - including podcasts, streaming video, editorials telling Singaporeans how to vote, etc - is exempt from the internet electioneering laws. Independent sites are not, even if their content is identical. However, a group of media activists that tries to provide independent news reports on their website could, if challenged, argue that they are keeping to the spirit of the election rules, in that they are dealing in news, not advertising. The government may still win the legal argument on technical grounds, but it would probably lose the moral argument: it is going to be hard to persuade public opinion that independent citizens who abide by the standards of professional journalism do not deserve the same treatment as the institutional media. That would be tantamount to saying that WHO speaks is more important than WHAT they say.

In parallel with the legal response, the government is also engaged in rhetorical campaign against alternative media. Blogging (which is merely a technology for easily editing websites, and has been put to a wide variety of uses) is being routinely stereotyped as mere entertainment, in an attempt to delegitimise the form in the eyes of the majority of Singaporeans who may not be technologically literate enough to know better. Visual media are being described as more emotional. Print media, on the other hand, are being associated with more rational and responsible discourse. However, this does not mean that print is subject to more relaxed regulation: since colonial times, newspapers and magazines have been subject to discretionary licensing.

INDIVIDUALS ON THE INTERNET DURING ELECTIONS, PART 2

2006-04-23T18:29:00.000+08:00

After a couple of weeks of confusion, the Government has clarified some of the rules surrounding the use of the Internet during the elections. The clarifications were contained in a lengthy Straits Times interview with information minister Lee Boon Yang, published on April 15. As suspected (see previous post), the Government's earlier statement in Parliament included some positions that were not backed by existing laws and regulations.

The key clarifications concern the status of the bulk of internet users, including amateur bloggers. Contrary to the Government's earlier claims, the electioneering ban only kicks in if and when they are asked to register as "political" sites. Until they are asked to register, they are free to carry on as before (subject of course to other laws of the land, such as defamation and contempt of court, that apply equally outside or within the election period). Registration, by the way, is a relatively simple administrative matter of filling out a form declaring the identity of the individuals behind a site, its source of funding, and so on. It is touted as a way to emphasise the need for accountability in political expression.

The minister also acknowledged that certain types of internet use are outside the ambit of the internet electioneering regulations:

1. EMAIL NEWSLETTERS

As noted in my previous blog, the registration requirement at present only extends to websites. People exclusively using email clients (such as Outlook) presumably cannot be asked to register under the present rules. If they cannot be asked to register, they cannot be classified as "relevant persons" under the election rules, and therefore cannot be banned from internet electioneering. While the minister was not so explicit, he did concede that there was a loophole:

"As for individual SMSes and e-mails, we consider these as private communication and they will remain the private domain of individuals. I agree that some people may hide behind this façade of private communication and use e-mails, or a chain-mail system to conduct election advertising."

He added the usual warning: "But they should bear in mind that other laws also apply to e-mail communication. These include libel. One should not hastily dash off e-mails in the heat of the moment and live to regret a rash act later. So think first, and then write knowing fully the consequences of such comments."

The upshot of this is that there is no "prior restraint" in email communication, only the possibility of "post-publication" punishment.

2. OVERSEAS-HOSTED SITES

When asked how the Government would deal with anonymous blogs or those hosted overseas, the minister said that the Media Development Authority had "oversight on these matters". Note that he did not use the term "jurisdiction", suggesting an acknowledgement that the regulators can only watch and cannot act against an overseas-based site. The minister said that, in any case, the Government had "always adopted a light touch for the Internet". He added: "So I will not lose much sleep over these scenarios."

INDIVIDUALS ON THE INTERNET DURING ELECTIONS

2006-04-07T10:17:00.000+08:00

The laws and regulations pertaining to political parties and other websites declared as political are now more or less clear (see previous posts below). However, it is still hard to pin down the status of others using the internet - including individual bloggers who occasionally comment on politics, individuals circulating articles to large email lists, and groups that are more organised but haven't yet been asked to register as political sites. These people make up the bulk of political commentators and opinion-sharers nowadays.

The government, in Parliament (see full text below), said that "the streaming of explicit political content by individuals during the election period is prohibited under the Election Advertising Regulations" and added that there's a similar prohibition applying to the videocasting, or video streaming of explicitly political content. I have yet to find the relevant provisions in the existing laws and regulations. The government appears to be referring to the permitted forms of internet electioneering – the so-called "positive list" in the 2001 Regulations – which does not include audio/video streaming. However, this positive list applies only to parties and candidates. The Regulations are quite unambiguous about this. The positive list appears in a section titled "Division 1 - Candidates and Political Parties", and is introduced with the following preamble: "... only any of the following election advertising and no other may be published by any political party or any candidate or his election agent on what is commonly known as the Internet". There is nothing in the Regulations that states that the positive list applies to anyone other than parties, candidates and their agents.

Note that there is no positive list for registered non-party sites (the so-called "relevant persons" such as Think Centre) for the simple reason that they are completely prohibited from online electioneering. "Division 2 - Relevant persons" is just 4 lines long, banning them from all election advertising. So it is quite clear that any website that's been asked to register as a political site by MDA will certainly not be allowed to used streaming, or any other internet technology, to influence the elections.

However, that still leaves the larger body of groups and individuals who have not yet been asked to register. Until they are asked, can they use the full range of internet technologies freely (subject of course, to all the other laws, such as defamation, sedition and contempt of court)? The government says no, but I am still searching for the basis of that statement.

Another hazy area is mass email, either for email newsletters or petitions. Again, there is explicit mention of these technologies in the 2001 Regulations - but only in the part that deals with parties and candidates. (The rules are described in this blog, 2 posts ago.) However, again it is unclear how these rules could apply to anyone who is neither a party/candidate nor a "relevant person" (registered political group).

The issue of using email is made even more complicated by the fact that the MDA registration requirement is limited to websites, and not users of email. This is because, when the regulations were drawn up in 1996, the authorities were keen to show that they were only interested in "light touch" regulation; they explicitly stated that they were not about to regulate email, considering it to be private communication. At the time, email newsletters had not really taken off, and were hardly used for mass communication.

Hence, according to the Broadcasting (Class Licence) Notification of 1996: "An Internet Content Provider who is or is determined by the Authority to be a body of persons engaged in the propagation, promotion or discussion of political or religious issues relating to Singapore on the World Wide Web through the Internet, shall register with the Authority within 14 days after the commencement of its service, or within such longer time as the Authority may permit."

I am not a technology expert, but it seems that email does not necessarily use "the World Wide Web", and therefore does not come under the ambit of the regulation. Assuming that is the case, if a person never uses websites and exclusively uses email, the authorities cannot ask him to register, and cannot turn him into a "relevant person" for the purposes of the internet electioneering regulations.

On the whole, it looks like we will soon see changes in the laws and regulations to keep up with changing technologies and trends, and to close loopholes.

STREAMING AUDIO/VIDEO DURING ELECTIONS

2006-04-05T00:51:00.000+08:00

Below is the government's reply in Parliament (3 April 2006) regarding the use of podcasts and other new technologies during elections. The election advertising laws create three categories of people, each treated differently. (See the earlier post below for more details.) First: political parties, which can use some of the internet's features to campaign. Second: non-party sites that have been told to register as political sites; these are banned from internet campaigning (defined very broadly). Third: all other individuals and groups, whose status remains unclear despite the government's statements. It would seem that individuals are free to share their views about the elections, until they are identified as "political" and told to register under the Internet Code of Practice, which would turn them into "relevant persons" under the Parliamentary Elections Act and pushing them into the second category above. That's the thrust of paragraph 5 in the government's reply below. Less clear is paragraph 7: it's not apparent which legislation this restriction comes from.

QUESTION NO. *424 FOR ORAL ANSWER

Mr Low Thia Khiang: To ask the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts whether the Government intends to change the laws and regulations concerning the use of Internet and new technologies such as podcasts for campaigning during the General Election and, if so, what will be the main changes and when will such changes be made public.

Response from the Senior Minister of State for Information, Communications and the Arts Dr Balaji Sadasivan:

1. Currently, there are several pieces of legislation and guidelines which cover Internet campaigning issues or which touch on such matters. These include the Parliamentary Elections Act (PEA) and the Election Advertising Regulations under the PEA, and the Class Licence Scheme and the Internet Code of Practice administered by the Media Development Authority (MDA).

2. Political parties, candidates and election agents are permitted to use the Internet for election advertising based on a “positive list” of activities listed in the Election Advertising Regulations.

3. The “positive list” ensures the responsible use of the Internet during the elections. In a free-for-all Internet environment, where there are no rules, political debates could easily degenerate into an unhealthy, unreliable and dangerous discourse flush with rumours and distortions to mislead and confuse the public. The Government has always maintained that political debates should be premised on factual and objective presentation of issues and arguments. The regulations governing Internet campaigning have served well to safeguard the seriousness of the electoral process.

4. Political parties, candidates and their election agents will continue to be guided by the “positive list” in the Election Advertising Regulations in the coming general elections. Party political websites must be registered with the MDA. Failure to register is a breach of the class licence conditions.

5. Private or individual bloggers can discuss politics. However, if they persistently propagate, promote or circulate political issues relating to Singapore , they are required to register with the MDA. During the election period, these registered persons will not be permitted to provide material online that constitutes election advertising.

6. Mr Low has asked about podcasting. I take podcasting to mean the provision of an audio feed over the Internet to subscribers. As I have noted, during the election period, political parties, candidates and election agents must keep to permitted election advertising set out in the “positive list”. Podcasting does not fall within this list.

7. There are also some well-known local blogs run by private individuals who have ventured into podcasting. The content of some of these podcasts can be quite entertaining. However, the streaming of explicit political content by individuals during the election period is prohibited under the Election Advertising Regulations. A similar prohibition would apply to the videocasting, or video streaming of explicitly political content.

8. At this point, the Government has no intention to amend the legislation regulating Internet campaigning during an election. But the review of government regulations is a continual process so as to ensure that they are kept up-to-date. We recognise that in our society, people will have their diverse opinion and some will want to share their opinion. But people should not take refuge behind the anonymity of the Internet to manipulate public opinion. It is better and more responsible to engage in political debates in a factual and objective manner.

ELECTION COVERAGE & COMMENTARY

2005-10-03T13:01:00.000+08:00

In 2001, new regulations under the Parliamentary Elections Act allowed the use of the internet for promoting political parties or candidates, by the parties or candidates themselves. Parties/candidates can use the internet as a publicity vehicle during the election period, but cannot exploit the technology’s powerful mobilisational capabilities. For example, they cannot push out online petitions. They are also limited to a “positive list” of acceptable practices, which has not been updated to include newer technologies. As a result, audio/video-streaming is banned.

Non-party websites that have been deemed to be "political" in nature (eg Thinkcentre.org) are banned from carrying election publicity.

The Parliamentary Elections Act (PEA) regulates publicity during elections (from the day the elections are announced through a “writ” until the close of polls). The law pertains mainly to election advertising, but “election advertising” is defined broadly enough to include “material that can reasonably be regarded as intended… to… enhance the standing of… political parties, candidates or groups of candidates”, whether or not their names are mentioned. Furthermore, such material can be treated as election advertising even if it is “intended to achieve any other purpose as well”. This suggests that election commentary could come under the PEA.

News is exempted from the PEA. The news exception applies to publication “in a newspaper in any medium or in a radio or television broadcast”. The phrase “newspaper in any medium” presumably includes online newspapers. Does this mean that a citizen-journalist could start a news blog about the elections without worrying about the PEA? Not necessarily. Although “newspapers” are not defined within the Act, Singapore law does define newspapers within the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act. Reading the NPPA together with the PEA, we can assume that the PEA is referring to licensed newspapers. Since standalone websites do not have newspaper permits, they might not qualify for the PEA’s news exception. The upshot of this is that the election coverage of Straits Times Interactive would be considered news, but that of Little Speck or Think Centre might not. Similarly, streaming video or podcasts on a Mediacorp site (licensed under the Broadcasting Act) would be exempted from the PEA as news, but similar content on an independent website would not.

Also exempted from the PEA is the “transmission by an individual to another individual, on a non-commercial basis on what is commonly known as the Internet, of his own political views”. In other words, one-to-one communication will not be treated as election advertising. However, emailing a group of people would come under the PEA if it “can reasonably be regarded as intended… to… enhance the standing of… political parties, candidates or groups of candidates”. (Does this only apply to “relevant persons” or to all individuals? – to check)

What then does the PEA require? Election advertising must carry the names and addresses of the printers and publishers. Advertising is banned on polling day, although pre-existing posters and web material need not be taken down. The PEA also bans the publication of any election survey – including those covering voting intentions or election issues – during the election period, until the moment that polls close. Also banned during that time is the publication of exit polls and forecasts. This ban applies to all persons, including the news media.

In 2001, the Government instituted new regulations under the PEA governing the internet: the Parliamentary Elections (Election Advertising) Regulations (PER).

Candidates and parties are allowed to use the internet for election advertising. Photos and manifestoes, membership recruitment messages, and announcements of meetings on the web or through email are all explicitly permitted in a so-called “positive list” in the PER. Chat rooms are also allowed.

Emailed advertising must comply with certain conditions. First, the email must include a clear method for the recipient to get in touch with the sender and to remove himself from the email list. The sender must comply with such a request. Second, the email must not contain any statement requesting (even implicitly) that the recipient forward it to others or to republish it. Although it is not an offence for the recipient voluntarily to forward an email or web link, note that (unless you are a candidate or party) only individual-to-individual email is permitted. An individual who receives a campaign message from a party and then forwards it to a group list would be in violation of the PEA. In effect, these rules limit the “viral” effect of the internet, slowing down the spread of campaign messages. Parties that have built up large mailings list would therefore have an advantage over those that count on recipients to forward their messages.

Parties/candidates are permitted to run online discussion forums during elections, but must appoint a moderator who is answerable to the authorities. The moderator must remove “without delay” any postings as directed by the authorities. The moderator must also keep a record of all messages submitted.

Other than parties and candidates, the PER also covers what the Act calls "relevant persons" - defined as individuals or groups (other than parties/candidates) deemed by the Media Development Authority to be providing "political" content. This relates to the MDA's powers under internet class licensing system. Since the mid-1990s, the internet regulators have had the authority to ask "political" and "religious" sites to register themselves. This does not amount to requiring clearance/permission for publication. It is instead an accountability mechanism. Registration requires furnishing the government with details about the individuals behind a political/religious site. Think Centre's website is registered as a political site. Sintercom was asked to register before the 2001 elections, but chose to close down and relocate overseas instead.

Under the PER, "relevant persons" (to sum up: non-party sites that MDA has declared as political sites) are banned from engaging in election advertising.

As at March 2006, the number of "political" sites is small. The question is whether MDA will require more sites to register ahead of the 2006 GE, turning them into "relevant persons" under the PER and banning them from election commentary.

What about blogs? So far, no blog has been declared a political site, but since blogs are nothing more than easily-editable websites, there doesn't appear to be any legal reason why a local blog could not be required to register as a political site.

Many Singaporeans feel that there's a need for a truly independent source of news and commentary during elections. Logistically, it would not be difficult to put together a team of citizen journalists and volunteer editors to cover election rallies and put out detailed reports and commentaries via emailed newsletters and a website. South Korea's Ohmynews has shown the power of such citizen journalism. In Singapore, it may be hard to sustain such an effort on a permanent basis, but there would probably be enough energy and interest during election time to get such a project going.

Under the PER, the legality of such an initiative would depend on whether the MDA considers it a "political" site. If so, it would not qualify to use the internet as parties/candidates, nor would it necessarily qualify for the PER exemption that licensed news providers enjoy.

MOVING IMAGES

2005-09-15T11:15:00.000+08:00

Parliament amended the Films Act to declare moving pictures to be an illegal medium for furthering any political objective. The Government’s justification for such a sweeping move was basically that video is an irrational and emotional medium, and should not be exploited for political competition. The additional impact is to control a medium that has become increasingly accessible to small producers, in terms of technology and cost.

The Act bans anyone from importing, making, reproducing, exhibiting, or possessing for the purpose of distributing, a “party political film”. If found guilty, the offender can be fined up to $100,000 or imprisoned up to two years.

If you think there’s a loophole in the “party political” label, think again. The law defines this genre to cover not only “an advertisement made by or on behalf of any political party in Singapore” but even any film “made by any person and directed towards any political end in Singapore”. A film is deemed "directed towards a political end" if it includes "any matter which is intended or likely to affect voting in any election or national referendum in Singapore" or "either partisan or biased references to or comments on any political matter".

Although the old-fashioned term “film” is used, the Act defines this medium broadly, to include not just celluloid, but also digital material that can be displayed “as wholly or partly visual moving pictures”. This seems to cover CD-ROMs with some video content, streaming video on the internet, and so on.

So, at its broadest, the Act bans anyone from having anything to do with showing any moving images intended to further any political cause.

The only apparent wiggle-room is in the intentions of the offenders. A person is said to commit an offence if he distributes or shows a film “knowing or having reasonable cause to believe” that the film is party-political.

Therefore, it looks as if the Act is not meant to catch the filmmaker who makes a political film by accident (which could happen if a film’s message is exploited for political ends after it is made – for example, Jack Neo’s “The Best Bet” could be screened to serve an anti-casino platform during an election, even if such use wasn’t Neo’s original intent; in such a scenario, Neo would probably be safe). In addition, distributors oblivious to the content of a film could plead ignorance.

It should also be pointed out that the Act does not appear to make it an offence to watch a party political film. Possession of any film without a valid certificate is a crime. However, since the Singapore authorities' broad approach to censorship is to tackle producers and distributors, rather than go after individual consumers, it may be safe to assume that the state will not prosecute individuals who possess a political film for personal consumption.

In a letter to the media in May 2005, the information ministry (MICA) clarified how it would interpret the Act’s provisions. MICA said that “it is not true that all films with political themes will be disallowed”.

“The ban here is only on films which deal with political issues in a partisan manner, such as a film aimed at furthering the cause of a political party or influencing the outcome of an election, or which presents a one-sided view of political issues of the day. Unbiased reporting of political issues on film would not be unlawful,” MICA’s letter said.

MICA also restated the official rationale for the ban: “ ‘Party political films' are disallowed because they are an undesirable medium for political debate in Singapore. They can present political issues in a sensational manner, evoking emotional rather than rational reactions, without affording the opportunity for a meaningful rebuttal or explanation to audience and viewers.”

In principle, the legislation applies equally to the ruling party and to the Opposition. However, it disadvantages the Opposition disproportionately, for two reasons.

First, with government-supervised mainstream media already biased towards the ruling party, the Opposition is more dependent than the PAP on alternative channels such as video (and the internet). Second, the PAP’s ideological dominance is such that much of its platform now sounds like “common sense” rather than patently “political”. Third, the Act does not apply to "any film sponsored by the Government". Being the government of the day allows it to couch its messages as ostensibly apolitical “national education”. Thus, while a video biography of JB Jeyaretnam would probably fall foul of the Films Act as furthering a “political end”, a video biography of Lee Kuan Yew would be regarded by regulators as part of the Singapore story; and if that documentary were sponsored by MDA, it would be automatically exempt from the Films Act.

[Thanks to Mr Wang Says So for correcting some of the details in an earlier version of this post.]