- Joined
- Apr 18, 2011
- Messages
- 10,723
- Points
- 0
[h=5]Chen Show Mao[/h]
OTHER THINGS in Parliament last week.
Workers' Party MPs raised questions about the new licensing requirements for web sites carrying Singapore news programmes.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/the-...tions-for-8-july-2013-sitting/535367273179277
Amendments to the Broadcasting (Class LIcence) Notification were announced at the end of May, generating interest and concerns in their wake. The amendments were made by publication in the Government Gazette -- which did not need to be debated and voted on in Parliament.
My questions included:
*To ask the Minister for Communications and Information whether the broad definition of websites that require individual licensing under the new licensing framework by the MDA will introduce uncertainty that may adversely affect (i) the development of healthy and vibrant online discourse about matters of public interest; (ii) the promotion of a more active and engaged citizenry; (iii) the promotion of local content; and (iv) the provision of on-line news reports and commentary on which the business and investor communities in a financial centre depend; and, if so, how does the Ministry plan to counter such effects.
**To ask the Minister for Communications and Information (a) what is MDA's rationale for excluding the 10 news websites from the Internet Class Licence Scheme and requiring them to be individually licensed and to post a $50,000 performance bond; (b) how have existing laws and regulations proven inadequate in regulating these 10 news websites; and (c) whether MDA has plans to require other websites that provide Singapore news programmes to be individually licensed.
These issues were raised in Parliament because people are concerned. Many of us see the value of a vibrant, healthy online space where information and diverse views can be shared. Nobody is arguing that laws and regulations do not apply to new media -- the Media Literacy Council’s website states so clearly. http://www.medialiteracycouncil.sg/media-and-internet/Pages/understanding-the-law.aspx Our existing laws already apply to the Internet to regulate the consequences of speech -- including those relating to racial and religious harmony; incitement to violence; distribution of obscene materials, etc. What additional protections will the new regulations afford Singaporeans? On the other hand, what about the concern that the new regulations could have a chilling effect on healthy online discussions about issues that affect us, be they social, political or otherwise?
I do not believe we can dismiss these concerns as being, in the Minister’s words, “far-fetched” or “unfounded”. The drafting of the amended regulations is so wide as to allow the MDA much discretion to decide which sites the new regulations will in fact apply to. For example, the definition of “Singapore news programme” is so broad that it appears to catch most of the sites I can think of (including this FB page): “any programme containing any news, intelligence, report of occurrence, or any matter of public interest, about any social, economic, political, cultural, artistic, sporting, scientific or any other aspect of Singapore in any language...” So, whether your site is required to be individually licensed under the new regulations does not depend so much on what you do (since whatever you do seems likely to fall within the broad definition of the new regulations) as on whether the MDA in fact designates yours as a site that requires such licensing. The MDA has so far designated ten sites, and others that arguably fit the description have not been designated by the MDA -- will they be so designated tomorrow? It is not so much what the words of the new regulations say on their face, it is what MDA in fact chooses to do, that will give the words practical meaning. Could this discretionary power on the part of the government inhibit speech?
The Minister said in Parliament that “bloggers, Internet commentators and niche sites” will not be caught by the new individual licensing regulations (and that he thereby did not “expect the new framework to have any effect on the degree of expression that currently exists in the online space”). It would have been more reassuring to see this clarification written into the new regulations themselves.
I hope that in our age, where technology makes it possible for divergent views -- our many hard truths -- to be shared by us more readily, we will treat with great care our new tools that enable Singaporeans to be more engaged and active citizens.
