publichouse.sg

By Elaine Ee

It wasn’t always this way. The media in Singapore wasn’t always state-controlled. We didn’t always have the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA). Our newspapers were not always run by a behemoth, monopolistic publisher whose key senior appointments are government-approved people and the biggest stakeholders are government-linked.

Our press once comprised a spectrum of independently run newspapers that presented different points of views and different communities—which stood up for what they believed in.

The NPPA, which requires publishers to obtain and renew licenses to publish and controls ownership of publishers, came into being in 1974. Singapore Press Holdings was established only 10 years later, in 1984.

While the press was already clamped down on before 1974—there was a massive crackdown in 1971 and several newspapers were forced to close or folded under duress; notable journalists were amongst those arrested and detained without trial in Operation Coldstore of 1963, including prominent Malay journalist Said Zahari who went on to spend 17 years in jail; and press licensing laws were inherited from the colonial era—the introduction of the NPPA, and the subsequent setting up of SPH to consolidate newspapers under central command, was a watershed in the government’s mission to tame the media and marked the end of an era.

The Media Development Authority had, on 28 May 2013, made a rather unexpected announcement of a new licensing regime for online news sites which requires websites that regularly report on local news, and have significant reach to “comply within 24 hours to MDA’s directions to remove content that is found to be in breach of content standards.”

The regime, which came into effect on the 1st June 2013, also expects news sites, which meet its criteria, to post performance bonds of SGD50, 000.

This news comes at a time where citizens are calling for reforms of already stifling legislations that inhibit press freedoms, and is seen as a regressive step that exhibits a willingness to curb the free-flow of information, in favour of Singapore’s archaic practices imposing controls on the estate of the media. The out of the blue nature of this regime also nullifies the idea of the national conversation initiative, introduced by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong last year.

By Dr Wong Wee Nam

On the 12th of August 2004, a young man confidently declared, “We will continue to expand the space which Singaporeans have to live, to laugh, to grow and to be ourselves. Our people should feel free to express diverse views, pursue unconventional ideas, or simply be different. We should have the confidence to engage in robust debate, so as to understand our problems, conceive fresh solutions, and open up new spaces.”

With these words, he was sworn in as Singapore’s third Prime Minister.

At that time, this speech did not immediately raise the hopes of those Singaporeans who were looking forward to living in a less stifling political atmosphere. Nevertheless these Singaporeans did not dismiss the declaration outright and preferred to wait and see.

The eight years that followed showed some progress. But the pace was so slow that even up till this day, the fear of the government is still there and not a lot of people have the confidence to engage in robust political debates.

By Cheryl Marie Tay

And so, as many of us had probably already expected, the MDA’s plan to “regulate” online news sites has come to pass. Today is the day, and it appears there’s not much we can do about it.

For all the talk of a “light touch”, as well as all the fuss over the much-hyped National Conversation, the nasty surprise sure hit many journalists like a ton of bricks. But why is there so much apprehension and disapproval from not just journalists and editors but also the rest of the general public?

Between the Lines

Let’s look at what the new licensing rule entails. Minister for Communications and Information, Yaacob Ibrahim, said: "Given the evolving landscape, it's important to give some form of parity between online news sites and traditional mainstream media newspapers and TV broadcasters."