Government tightens control over political websites

Even if you didn’t know that, by law, Singapore must hold its next general election by August next year, you might be able to sense that it was coming. The government is showing increasing sensitivity to political discussions. 
 

After years of neglect, the government asked Sintercom and Think Centre to register their websites with the Singapore Broadcasting Authority ("SBA"). This was a month or so after Think Centre was gazetted as a Political Association, which means it is now subject to more stringent rules, such as over fundraising.

On the face of it, requiring a website to be registered does not impose any major conditions. The regulatory regime appears to be lighthanded. The SBA’s Class Licence Scheme defines a category called "Internet Content Providers", and says,

"Internet Content Providers (ICPs) do not need to register with SBA unless their web pages are primarily set up to promote political or religious causes. Registration does not mean the promotion of political and religious causes is not allowed - it merely serves to emphasise the need for the content providers to be responsible in what they say."

Interestingly, the paragraph continues,

"For non-political and non-religious Content Providers, they are automatically licensed under the Class Licence Scheme and need to abide by SBA's Internet Code of Practice…."

Stop and digest it. What it’s saying is that non-political and non-religious Content Providers are subject to the SBA’s Code of Practice, because they are automatically licensed. Political and Religious Content Providers are (also) subject to the SBA’s Code of Practice, because they have to be registered (which I presume is synonymous with "licensed").

Since all sites are subject to SBA’s Code of Practice through automatic licensing or registration, what then is the purpose of requiring registration?

"5. An Internet Content Provider who is required to register … shall faithfully and truthfully furnish such information, and furnish such undertakings, as the Authority may require in connection with the provision of the Internet Content Provider's service."

There you have it. Registration means an open-ended commitment to provide information and undertakings to the authorities, not only at the time of registration, but as and when the SBA so requires them. Open-ended liability. Or else shutdown and penalties. 

The intent is that of intimidation, and the effect is to get webmasters to play very safe in moderating their website’s content. Self-censorship is the name of the game, so that the government can boast to the world that they do not censor speech in Singapore. When my enemies fall on their own swords, how can you accuse me of slaying them?

My friend Tan Chong Kee, who founded Sintercom, and has been running it virtually singlehandedly since, finally saw his idealism drained away. It’s just too much trouble navigating around invisible and moveable shoals. He decided to shut Sintercom down. He said he was tired. It is not unusual for someone running a project for years to feel the weight of the burden, but in Singapore, one tires more easily than need be the case, because the hurdles are put up so much higher. And who put the hurdles up? 
 

On Monday, 13 August, the government got Parliament to pass a law to regulate electoral politics in cyberspace. For a story that is really about restrictions on the internet, the Straits Times put it ever so positively:

Straits Times, 14 August 2001:

Parties can now take polls battle to cyberspace

POLITICAL parties can campaign on the Internet in the coming General Election, under certain rules to be spelt out by the Government.

Parliament yesterday passed an amendment to the Parliamentary Elections Act to allow parties to take the electoral battle into cyberspace.

But they will be bound by certain rules listing the features these sites may contain.

For party political websites, they will include the manifesto, party posters, candidate profiles, announcements of party events, positions on issues, moderated chats and discussion forums.

The full list will be released when finalised before the election, said Information and the Arts Minister Lee Yock Suan.

The rules will apply to political-party websites and non-party political websites.

But non-party political sites should not campaign for any party, he added. ... [report continues]

Frankly, it is a bad law. The law itself doesn’t specify what is permitted or not permitted. It merely gives carte blanche to the government to draw up a list, and of course the government can change the list as and when it pleases. The manner is more akin to dictators ruling by whim than what we normally understand as "rule of law".

Once again, my friend Russell Heng had reason to say, "The government appropriates all these powers to themselves and merely says, ‘trust us’."

After the positive spin in the headline, the Straits Times reported, in a secondary article, the negative reactions of other Members of Parliament.

Disagreeing were opposition MPs Low Thia Khiang (Hougang) and Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir), and Nominated MP Simon Tay.

Both Mr Low and Mr Chiam said that the new rules on political campaigning on the Internet are to suppress the opposition, keeping it from spreading its messages through the new medium during the election.

Mr Low said: 'Why is it necessary to move this amendment Bill now?

'Because in the past, only the newspapers and television have the capability to transmit messages to the voters and all this media come under strict control of the Government.'

Mr Tay's reason for disagreeing was broader: Election rules should move towards a free and fair debate, and 'if anything, must err on the side of freedom in order to give people their say'.

He said that he would have preferred a short specific negative list, rather than a positive list with the features allowed on the Internet.

In another story the following day (15 August), the Straits Times quoted Chee Soon Juan, another opposition politician, as saying,

"It worries me that they are passing this law when they don't even have an idea of what they want to regulate. I think they want to see how effective and creative the opposition is in using the Internet, and then come up with laws to curtail that."

It will be no surprise if the list of permitted contents for political party websites is revealed only days before an election is called, compelling opposition parties to hurriedly amend their websites during the campaign itself. If previous elections are anything to go by, the campaigning period will be limited to just nine days. 
 

Worse may yet come. So far, the issue has been that of websites and the bulletin boards they host. What about email?

Ever since the SBA was set up, they have said that email is considered private communication, and outside their regulatory ambit. But now the government is concerned that mass-mailing and SMS messaging may mobilise voters in ways unhelpful to them. So another bit of wise forbearance is likely to be thrown out of the window too.

Straits Times, 15 August 2001 [excerpt from a longer story]:

Mr Lee [Yock Suan, Minister for Information and the Arts] had said in Parliament that while such e-mail messages would be allowed if the sender did not belong to a political party, there was a possibility that the messages may be sent by an individual on behalf of a political party. Or a non-political site might do this for the same reason.

This loophole which can enable some to bypass the rules is also being looked into.

We are sliding deeper and deeper into an abyss. What draconian checks are going to be needed to determine if an individual sending email messages is doing so on behalf of a political party? And if one cannot determine the sender’s intent precisely, what are we going to do? Make the presumption that if someone sends email in support of an opposition party, he must be doing so on its behalf unless proven otherwise? In other words, guilty until proven innocent?

Or, more likely, leave the regulations vague, so that people are too scared to tell their friends that they endorse such and such a party? 
 

The effect of all this is to divide our citizens into two categories: those licensed to make political speeches and send political messages, and everybody else who should only listen and not speak, lest they fall afoul of suitably vague rules. Once again, politics is reserved for politicians (which of course shall be of two kinds – those in the PAP and those who suffer the PAP).

The average citizen will get the message, loud clear, that he should not use electronic means to tell his friends his party preference; he must never endorse any candidate.

That’s very strange indeed. Look around in any fully functioning democracy, and you’d see newspaper editorials endorsing certain parties or candidates during election time. You’d see workers’ unions, environmentalists, or gay and lesbian organizations speaking up to support candidates whose platforms resonate with their aims.

Why is the same considered inimical to good politics in Singapore? Or is it just inimical to the PAP?
 

"Is it any wonder," asked my friend Russell rhetorically, "that Singtel meets so much opposition when it ventures into other markets?" 

Singtel is our main telephone company, majority-owned by the government, now trying to grow globally by making acquisitions abroad.

These actions by the PAP have consequences that go well beyond domestic politics. They reinforce a negative perception of the Singapore government worldwide. People are, rightfully, highly suspicious of our government-controlled companies entering their markets. How do we expect others to believe that our government will maintain a hands-off approach and let these companies get on with business, when they meddle with even basic freedoms in Singapore?

The government claims that only they can safeguard our economic future. Yet by their paranoia, they give Singapore a bad brand name that handicaps our companies (into which vast amounts of budget surpluses and forced savings have been pumped to build them up). Is this the best 'safeguarding' possible?

Come election time, some opposition parties will make this point. But you and I may not be able to endorse it, nor pass the message on.

© Yawning Bread 

Footnotes

None

Addenda

None