Talk used to be cheap but not anymore. It will cost you $50,000, no less, to express your point of view on the Internet. Even if you had a great idea, or a better way of doing things or a feedback to the government, the Internet is not the place to raise it.
MDA announced a new Internet regulation to rein-in free speech on the Inte
rnet. The new regulation apparently applies to all socio-political “news” sites. However, there seems to be a lot of ambiguity over what that means and how it will affect websites like TRE and TOC. According to the latest MDA press statement, “the content guidelines apply to all content on the news sites, including readers’ comments on the news sites.”
Leading bloggers in Singapore are up in arms over the new Internet regulation. They are concerned as voluntary based organizations and free news site, they will not be able to operate in such an oppressive environment and to raise the $50k performance bond would be too onerous.
There also seems to be a wider concern that this is used as an effective tool to stifle dissent and to clip the wings of opposition political parties on the rise. Both NSP and SDP have made their press statements expressing their concerns and regret.
According to media observers, the PAP hardliners have won over those who have championed for a more open and consultative society.
Nevertheless, the latest move did not come without warning. Kishore Mahbubani, the current Dean of NUS’ LKY School of Public Policy recently said: “I am extremely worried about the cynicism that the Singaporean blogosphere is developing towards these public institutions. Over time this cynicism could act like an acid that erodes the valuable social trust accumulated.”
On the contrary, a leading blogger in Singapore Alex Au argues in his blog that the best way to counter cynicism and irresponsible speech is for the community to build immunity. He says, “The best defence a community has against irresponsible speech is to firstly acquire an immunity to it and secondly for many individuals to feel empowered to speak up against it. Government playing nanny again is the surest way to thwart this maturing process. A government that puts on iron gloves disempowers citizens from doing their bit.”
Just as we were discussing this, one political observer said that this may have wider ramifications for Singapore in the global setting. A quick research on the Internet shows otherwise.
Global crackdown on dissent
It seems Singapore is not alone in curtailing free speech. Apparently, some member countries in the United Nations have been lobbying for stricter control of the Internet with the UN’s International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Some 42 countries filter and censor content out of the 72 studied by the Open Net Initiative. This doesn’t even count serial offenders such as North Korea, China and Cuba. Over the past two years, Freedom House says governments around the world have enacted 19 new laws threatening online free expression: “Accustomed to media control, these governments fear losing it to the open internet. They worry about the spread of unwanted ideas. They are angry that people might use the internet to criticize their governments.”
Like Singapore, several authoritarian regimes reportedly propose to ban anonymity from the web, making it easier to find and arrest dissidents. In Singapore, we have several incidents of bloggers and opposition politicians who have either paid damages or have been intimidated with a defamatory suit.
It is also quite likely that the responsibilities of the private sector system that manages domain names and internet addresses may be transferred to the government.
Other measures may include the internet content provider, small or large, to pay new tolls in order to reach people across borders, meaning to say sites like TRE and TRS that have servers hosted in foreign countries may have to pay toll to reach our readers in Singapore.
Oppression is counter-productive
Contrary to the views of our leaders, freedom of speech has a stabilizing effect on our society. According to Thomas I. Emerson, freedom of speech helps to provide a balance between stability and change. It acts as a “safety valve” to let off steam when people might otherwise be bent on revolution. He argues that “The principle of open discussion is a method of achieving a more adaptable and at the same time more stable community, of maintaining the precarious balance between healthy cleavage and necessary consensus.” Emerson furthermore maintains that “Opposition serves a vital social function in offsetting or ameliorating (the) normal process of bureaucratic decay.”
Perhaps it is the bureaucratic decay that we should worry about for it is the same decay that is standing in the way of progress. Our ruling elite think that they can stop regression through oppression; that they can stop bureaucratic decay through regulation.
Putting a price tag so that we can speak cheapens, not us, but the very bureaucrats who have committed this travesty. Our words are worth their weight in gold for our feedback is pensive.
The crackdown has just started and this government, the very guardian of our democracy, is using the power that we have bestowed unto them to regulate and put an end to free speech on the Internet. They are supposedly our spokespersons – they speak, they act and they execute – just to persist for their own political ends.
The new-found freedom as we know it, that we are so fond of; that gave us hopes of a better tomorrow; that rekindled our spirit of nationalism expires on the 1st of June.
Netizens told to put their money where their mouth is
Singapore's new internet rules
LIGHT TOUCH WITH A HARD KNOCK
Singapore is a strange country, politically speaking that is. The signals it sends out one day can send you the wrong way the very next 
day if you follow them blindly.
Like this one: Just one day after a smiling Prime Minister, Mr Lee Hsien Loong, had tea and a tete-a-tete with 15 guests from the online world, a government press release announced rules to license news websites.
As the rules began to sink in, the light touch the authorities had kept insisting on that it will use in its internet policy began to morph into a sinister hard knock that can be used if these websites step out of line.
Although opacity was written over most of the rules, three areas were clear enough to have a chilling effect on netizens and opposition politicians.
Such websites will have to apply for individual licences if they have more than one news story on Singapore per week and attract more than 50,000 unique visitors from Singapore per month — all this over a period of two months.
There is also a Sing$50,000 performance bond they have to put up with the government.
Questions there were many: What is a news story? Who decides what is one? Aren’t there enough laws to deal with outlets that cross the strictures on areas like race, language and religion?
And finally, what is the real intent of this new licensing regime?
The government’s explanation is that the rules are intended to put the websites on some kind of an equal footing with the mainstream media, which has been governed by licensing rules soon after the ruling People’s Action Party established its grip on politics in Singapore in the 1970s.
But many see other motives. One, the coming general election — which must be held by 2016. The 2011 election and the two by-elections after that were game changers for a political oasis called Singapore.
In 2011, PAP’s popular vote hit a historic low of 60.1 per cent and three ministers in a Group Representation Constituency were booted out. In the two by-elections after that, a sitting Opposition MP’s sacking because of an extra-marital affair had no real effect on the standing of the Workers’ Party and its girl next door candidate who handsomely defeated a high-flying surgeon representing the PAP.
The latter result caused such a stir that even the Opposition party had to temper voters’ expectations when it said it was not ready to run the country.
Despite a think tank and other establishment figures trying to douse the enthusiasm and jubilance of an internet world’s reporting of the election and by-elections, there was no doubt that it played a major role in the embarrassment for the ruling party.
The mainstream press tried to keep pace with its election coverage, but the political genie was already out of the bottle.
Two, uncertainty. The real sting in the new rules is the sword that hangs over those running the websites. The announcement names 10 websites that qualify to be licensed — the nine websites of the two mainstream media powerhouses and that of yahoo.
The others have not been touched, yet. But the announcement made it clear that it was not ruling out other popular socio-political sites if they meet licensing criteria. That is government speak for those who misbehave.
The net result is likely to be an online world that is likely to second guess the government and maybe even err on the side of caution when it comes to putting out its content.
Three, money power. Putting up a Sing$50,000 deposit is a huge undertaking for many of these websites as they are run on a voluntary basis with concerned citizens coming together for a cause and a passion.
One has already reacted by saying it might have no choice but close down if it is licensed. Others are already talking about going underground or putting up servers in places untraceable and unreachable.
Four, mainstream media’s plight. Readership and advertising decline is beginning to take hold as Singaporeans, especially the young, are dumping print and advertisers are asking serious questions about the high cost of advertising in mainstream papers,
It was a political master stroke by Mr Lee Kuan Yew to give both print and TV a monopoly, with The Straits Times riding a profit wave for the last 40 years. That was one way to buy the print giant’s loyalty.
The gravy train is now under threat with the Singapore Press Holdings’ latest quarterly results showing a double whammy: readership revenue of its papers, including The Straits Times, declining by Sing$2.4 million and advertising dollars going down by Sing$13.9 million.
For the government, this is a big worry because it does not have another strong platform to get across its messages.
But what should really worry many Singaporeans is how the rules were introduced with no debate in Parliament, no discussion outside of it and no regard for public sentiment.
This especially after the Prime Minister kickstarted a Singapore Conversation soon after the GE 2011 seeking views from all sections of society on the nation they want to build. Yes, Singapore is a strange country.
Separation of powers and roles lead to better governance
There is a moral outrage over how the AIMS-FMSS deals were concluded. The jury is still out and one should not trivialize what has transpired so far. The larger socio-economic implications of these transactions are basically anti-competitive in nature; it may also be perceived to be politically partial and ultimately, it is the man on the street that loses most.
Town Councils were formed in 1989 to empower local elected representatives and residents to run their own estates. As a result, elected Members of Parliament are permitted to lead Town Councils and decide on local estate management matters. Emphasizing this point, Minister Khaw Boon Wan in his Parliamentary sitting on the 13th of May 2013 said, “As MPs, we are given a lot of latitude to run TCs. “
However, our point of contention is that MPs do not have a carte blanche on this matter. We still have rules, even it is not explicitly spelled out in the Town Council Act there are procedures that the MPs could have referred to under the Singapore Government Procurement Regime (SGPR) prescribed by the Ministry of Finance when awarding TC contracts.
Shifting political landscape
Our political landscape has changed; there is a greater awareness of politics and scepticism that those in power may not always get their house in order. There is greater awareness of politics, good governance and policies that provide opportunities for upward movement for the individual in the society.
What is troubling though are arguments put forth by the main stream media that politicizing town councils are perfectly fine as long as it is not broke. Proponents of this argument are missing the point altogether. We elect MPs to represent us in the highest legislative body in Singapore – the Parliament. Town councils are not only an unnecessary distraction and it conflates the role of decision making with managerial authority.
As we have probably come to see, in both cases, mixing the policy making body with the executive body may lead to poor governance. It appears that poor governance is legalized in our political system through legislation, and we see no point in crying foul when parties have been doing what is considered “proper” based on our outmoded laws.
Lapses in Governance
Mr Teo Ho Pin, the Organizing Secretary of the People’s Action Party made serious allegations of lapses in governance in the way AHTC (Aljunied-Hougang Town Council) contracts were awarded. Netizens were quick to point out that he is out to fix the opposition. Is that the case or is there any merit to what he said?
Using the SGPR as a yardstick, the FMSS procurement has failed to meet two basic criteria:
- The WP failed to call for an Open, Selective or Limited Tender for the AHTC contracts. The SGPR states that tendering processes are used for any value in excess of $70,000.
- The WP failed to pre-qualify FMSS as prescribed in Government Supplier Registration where the supplier’s capability and financial standing are evaluated.
Financial Standing of FMSS
FM Solutions & Services was incorporated four days after WP won the Aljunied constituency in May 2011 by WP supporters Mr Danny Loh and his wife Ms How Weng Fan.
Given that Mr Loh and Ms How are officers of AHTC, the key question is where did they find the money required as capital base i.e Net Tangible Asset of $1.5 in order to qualify for a project of this size?
The image below is a screen grab of the financial requirements for companies bidding for government projects under the guidelines for government supplier relations. Deriving from the chart below, FMSS needs to have a Paid up Capital of at least $1.5M and a revenue base of $10M to execute the projects by AHTC.
It is obvious that FMSS being a new outfit would not have met the financial criteria of projects tendered in the public or private sector space, let alone meet the minimum requirement of paid up capital.
This beckons the question of why the Workers’ Party selected FMSS and the basis for awarding such a large contract.
As Teo suggested in his Facebook post, this transaction raises “serious questions.” The fact is, in the absence of any selection criteria and a formal tendering process, WP is left exposed to allegations of impropriety and lapses in governance.
However, Ms Sylvia Lim of the Workers’ Party stands firm that the party leaders have done no wrong and has challenged the PAP to report this matter to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau. We’ll leave it to the relevant agencies to determine if there was any wrongdoing.
It is apt, perhaps, to remind one that the Service and Conservancy Fees are a form of taxation and therefore any disbursement of those funds ought to be subjected to the same rigour and scrutiny as we would with any other public sector projects. The question we’re raising is, and it applies to both AIMS and FMSS, why should there be an exception with town councils?
Maybe it’s time to revert our town councils as public institutions. Separation of powers is the key to good governance. One thing for sure, it will definitely prevent future occurrences of such lapses.
M’sian politician campaigning in S’pore – why only an “assessment” by S’pore police?
On 16 May, filmmaker Mr Martyn See filed a police report about the alleged electioneering activities of Malaysian politician, Mr Abdul Ghani Othman, on Singapore soil. Mr Ghani, who was the Menteri Besar (Chief Minister) of Johor, was reported to have crossed the Causeway on 2 May, during the height of the Malaysian General Election, to “canvass for votes” among Malaysians in Singapore.
“I am appalled that Dato’ Ghani was allowed to import Malaysian politics into Singapore,” Mr See wrote in his police report, “and in the process promoted his political cause in the full presence of our media. I hereby file an official complaint against Dato’ Hajji Abdul Ghani Bin Othman for violation the Public Order Act. Members of the media who had knowingly contributed in the promotion of his cause should also be investigated.”
Mr See’s allegations seem to be supported by local media reports here in Singapore.
Channel Newsasia said:
“Meanwhile, outgoing Johor Chief Minister Abdul Ghani Othman on Thursday took his electoral fight to Singapore – by taking a bus down to meet factory workers in the Republic.”
The TODAY newspaper reported:
“Johor Mentri Besar Abdul Ghani Othman yesterday took his campaign across the Causeway when he made a surprise trip on board the Causeway Link public bus from Gelang Patah to Jurong East Bus Terminal.”
The Straits Times said:
“Mr Abdul Ghani took a bus on Thursday morning to Singapore to experience what it was like for Malaysians who travel daily to the city state, and to canvass for votes.”
The reports seem to be quite unequivocal in their assertions that Mr Ghani, accompanied by supporters, did indeed campaign in Singapore, which may have contravened Singapore’s Public Order Act (POA), mentioned by Mr See in his police statement.
However, the joint-statement by the Ministry for Home Affairs (MHA) and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs (MFA) on 17 May, dismissed Mr See’s report.
The two-paragraph statement by the ministries reads [emphasis added]:
“The Singapore Police Force confirms that a report has been lodged regarding Mr Ghani’s visit to Singapore on 2 May 2013. The Police’s assessment is that no offence is disclosed from this report. The acts referred to in the report such as arriving in Singapore, having breakfast or speaking to reporters do not constitute an offence. In the case of Mr Ghani, it would appear that there was no campaigning, although some members of his team were wearing campaign shirts.
“The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has registered with the Malaysian High Commission in Singapore that campaigning activities by foreigners are not allowed in Singapore. In particular, the wearing of campaign shirts by some of Mr Ghani’s team in Singapore during the Malaysian General Election period could be misconstrued and such cases should not recur.”
It is commendable that the authorities acted in such a swift fashion, issuing the statement just a day after Mr See made his police report.
However, there are a few points which bear questioning.
The ministries’ statement seems to be based entirely on an “assessment” of Mr See’s police statement, instead of an actual investigation into Mr Ghani’s activities during his visit here.
Why did the Police not conduct an investigation instead?
There does seem to be grounds to believe that Mr Ghani had indeed campaigned on Singapore soil. For example:
- At least 3 local media outlets here reported Mr Ghani’s intention to campaign in Singapore, and even report that he had indeed campaigned whilst here, as the Channel Newsasia report above shows.
- Mr Ghani was accompanied by supporters who were wearing “campaign shirts”, according to the MHA/MFA statement itself.
- The news had reported Malaysian opposition politician Mr Lim Kit Siang saying that “he might match his opponent’s footsteps by taking his campaign for the Gelang Patah seat to Singapore, home to thousands of Malaysian voters. “Since he has taken this path, I am considering it too,” he had told the media.
While there is no “smoking gun” to confirm that Mr Ghani had in fact campaigned in Singapore, the evidence would suggest that an investigation is warranted by the S’pore Police, instead of an “assessment” based on what Mr See had written in his police report.
It is puzzling how the ministries could thus conclude that “it would appear that there was no campaigning, although some members of his team were wearing campaign shirts.”
On the contrary, what would appear to have taken place is that Mr Ghani made plans to campaign in Singapore, and had made this known to the media and public, and in fact “took his electoral fight to Singapore – by taking a bus down to meet factory workers in the Republic”, accompanied by supporters wearing “campaign shirts”, and met with Malaysians working in Singapore to “canvass for votes”.
One would imagine that the media and reporters would also have video and audio recordings of Mr Ghani’s visit.
As such, the police should interview the news media outlets and the reporters involved who had reported that Mr Ghani had taken his electoral fight to Singapore.
Why the need to rush out a statement barely a day after the police report was filed by Mr See, and to dismiss the report with an “assessment” of the police statement instead of an actual investigation into the alleged illegal activity?
Perhaps the police should clarify.
Join us on The Independent Facebook page