MDA

By Robin Hicks

This commentary appeared in Mumbrella, an onlineĀ  magazine in Hong KongĀ 

The other day, I had the displeasure of reading aĀ  blog post that should cause offence to anyone with half a brain.

Now, Iā€™m all for freedom of speech, and one of theĀ  reasons Iā€™m based in Hong Kong and not in Singapore is because the press here isĀ  relatively free.

But how this post, which was published onĀ  theĀ news site The Real Singapore, is allowed to exist in the public domainĀ  in a country with fiercely strictĀ laws is a mystery to me.

The post, which goes by the extraordinary headline STOP HUMANIZING THEĀ  BANGLAS/ INDIAN FTs!, begins with the words:

Ok so at a very technical/ genetic level, they are humans. But I am notĀ  talking technically here. My point is they are not the ā€˜same kindā€™ of humans weĀ  are. They have different cultural and moral bearings and these differences needĀ  to be acknowledged so that we can decide how to deal with this group ofĀ  people.

The post makes for ugly reading. So to save you the trouble, it goes on toĀ  argue ā€“ in bewilderingly ignorant fashion ā€“ how Indians and Bangladeshis haveĀ  limited thinking ability, donā€™t value human life, are corrupt and mistreatĀ  women.

See also  TOC Ltd appeals to Minister Yaacob to stand down MDA's demand to return advertising funds

If there is an article that is likely to incite racial hatred, at a timeĀ  when racial tensions between locals and foreigners in Singapore are hardly rosy,Ā  just three days after the most violent riots in 40 years, it is this one.

Does this post not breach Singaporeā€™s Sedition Act?

I quote from Wikipedia:

Subsection 3 of the Act describes the types of publication that haveĀ  seditious tendency and these include publication that ā€promote feelings ofĀ  ill-will and hostility between different races or classesā€.

Singapore takes social cohesion and racial harmony in the country seriouslyĀ  because of its multi-cultural makeup.

About 40 per cent of the population are foreigners, the sixth-highestĀ  percentage in the world. In 2009, 74.2% of residents were of Chinese, 13.4% ofĀ  Malay, and 9.2% of Indian descent, while Eurasians and other groups formĀ  3.2%.

Also contributing to the nationā€™s sensitivity on racial harmony is itsĀ  history of racial riots in the 1960s. More recent events of racial violence inĀ  neighbouring Indonesia in the late 1990s and early 2000s also serve as remindersĀ  of potential inter-racial conflicts in the region.

See also  Public must kick ball into MDAā€™s court

Thankfully, in the comment thread beneath the piece, many posters give theĀ  author ā€“ who by the way does not give his/her real name ā€“ short thrift.

But many do not.

The issue here is that Singaporeā€™s media regulator, the Media DevelopmentĀ  Authority, has recently introduced a tough new licensing regime for online newsĀ  reporting, but no one is really clear what these rules are for, nor what theyĀ  mean.

I would humbly suggest, MDA, that if you have laws against such reporting,Ā  you actually do something about it.

Is this article not trampling all over Singaporeā€™s famous OB markers ā€“ andĀ at the worse time, possibly in the countryā€™s short history?

The disclaimer at the beginning of the post is a cowardly cop-out.

It reads:

TheRealSingapore.com is a platform for users to submit content and allĀ  content remains the property of the individual contributors. The views andĀ  opinions expressed by author(s) within the website are solely that of theĀ  contributors and in no way reflects the views of TheRealSingapore.com

See also  Monsoons Book Clubā€™s advertisement campaign is a legitimate commercial activity

It may well have been the property of the contributor when he or she wroteĀ  it. But it is yours now. Because you have published it on your website.

A follow-up post by the same author which has since been added to theĀ  original is equally vile and misguided.

This week the licensing regime claimed its latest victim – the BreakfastĀ  Network ā€“ which closed on Tuesday because it refused to sign MDA’s forms.

The Independent, which launched in August, was also leant on by theĀ  regulator — even before its launch. The MDA claimed that it is worried theĀ  foreigners are interested in funding the website. In its shareholders agreementĀ  signed in April,Ā The Independent has made it explicitly clearĀ that itĀ  won’t take foreign money. TheĀ site has goneĀ ahead to signĀ theĀ  forms.

MDA, perhaps, in this case, you should be leaning on The Real SingaporeĀ too?