This all sounds well and good — until one assesses exactly what “traditional mainstream media newspapers and TV broadcasters” are in Singapore. We have only one such paper (not counting The New Paper, of course), The Straits Times. We have only one such broadcaster, Channel NewsAsia. There are no other publications or TV stations in the country to compete or compare with, or to level the playing field. Add to that the simple fact that websites are different from — and therefore run differently from — traditional media and one can easily see the fallacy in this line of logic.

At the same time, if online news sites were to be regulated the same way traditional media is regulated, where would that leave alternative news? Bearing in mind that Singapore ranks 149th out of 179 countries worldwide on Reporters Without Borders’ Press Freedom Index, which, as reported by the BBC, is “below even the likes of Zimbabwe and Afghanistan”, would this not defeat the very purpose of alternative news?

Rich vs. Poor

Another contentious aspect of the new licensing rule is the S$50,000 performance bond online news sites are required to pay. The MDA has stated: "The performance bond of S$50,000 is pegged to that put up by niche broadcasters today, and need not necessarily entail cash up front. Licensees can consider options such as banker’s guarantee or insurance. MDA will be happy to engage in further discussions with any licensee who may have concerns about meeting the licence obligations."

The MDA has, unfortunately, missed the point. The mode of payment is not the main concern. Unlike The Straits Times, most online news sites do not charge their readers registration or subscription fees. Even if such a site features paid advertisements, its revenue would be nowhere near that of SPH’s, as print advertisements are infinitely more costly and therefore more lucrative than online advertisements. Unless it belongs to a highly successful parent company that has other forms of revenue, an online news site is unlikely to be able to afford this performance bond, be it in cash, banker’s guarantee, or insurance.

And what of the 24-hour deadline for such sites to remove content the MDA deems inappropriate, lest they lose their performance bond? Consider the possibilities that could lead one to unintentionally flout the rules: what if a website’s server has crashed or is under maintenance for 24 hours or more? What if the owner and sole contributor of a news blog is out of the country for the week or recuperating in the hospital after major surgery? Will provisions be made then, or will they lose their hard-earned S$50,000 due to a technicality?

Sneak Attack

Remember the headline-making National Conversation? Apparently, the people’s cries had been heard. We wanted to be included in decisions that would affect the future of our country and our government was ready to hear us out. The stage was set, the ministers prepped and the audience in place. Questions were asked and answered on national TV. We were to believe that, despite evidence to the contrary, the government was now willing to consult the citizens and the opposition MPs in decisions regarding Singapore & her people.

Fast forward to June 2013 and, almost out of nowhere, our Internet is suddenly being regulated without our consent or prior knowledge. The only warning we had came in the form of a few vague, non-committal statements here and there about the possibility of rules being imposed, as well as a brief paragraph on the MDA’s official website about how it “adopts a balanced and light-touch approach” to Internet regulation.

In most developed countries, a bill has to be introduced in Parliament before any new law is passed. This is the case in Australia, the UK and the US, to name but a few examples. In fact, on the Singapore Parliament website itself, it is stated: “Before any law is passed, it is first introduced in Parliament as a draft called a ‘Bill’. All Bills must go through three readings in Parliament and receive the President's assent to become an Act of Parliament.”

Correct me if I’m wrong but does anyone remember any such action being taken before this new licensing rule was imposed? Were any surveys conducted to find out if the people of Singapore felt such a rule was necessary or beneficial? Were the moderators or owners of online news sites consulted about the performance bond before a five-figure sum was unceremoniously slapped on them?

One really wonders just how credible the government is, when, clearly lacking a well-rounded, balanced approach, it simply enacts new laws overnight.

Blinkers, Crop & Spurs

What is most troubling, however, is where the justification for the new licensing rule stems from. Mr. Ibrahim has made several statements to the press regarding the matter, all of which are at least mildly insulting to Singaporeans’ intelligence.

When interviewed by the BBC, he said, “As long as they (the public) go onto online news sites to read the news, I think it is important for us to make sure that they read ‘the right things’.”

First of all, a little elaboration on what Mr. Ibrahim perceives as “the right things” would be helpful. He has said there is no reason online news sites should not be subject to the same “regulatory framework” that affects the mainstream media. So can “the right things” be found in The Straits Times?

Secondly, this implies that readers of online news are incapable of discerning right from wrong and need to be told exactly what to read. It seems the role of website moderators to ensure that inflammatory contents and comments are removed, as well as the freedom to choose what one reads, is lost on the minister. It also diminishes us to mere puppets who need to be controlled, even when it comes to what we read.

Despite attempts to assure us that the new rule is not a “clamping down”, such a restriction can hardly be seen as anything else. After all, even readers are not spared. The MDA has stated that “…the content guidelines apply to all content on the news sites, including readers’ comments.”

What Now?

With this new licensing rule, content which is offensive to any race or religion, or which is seen as “seditious”, will be removed, and rightly so. But what about objectively written and reported content which happens to paint the government in a less than positive light? The appeal of alternative news is the fresh perspectives it often offers, apart from what is found in the mainstream media. But if such perspectives call into question the government, will the site moderator be made to remove the content within 24 hours, or will the government be mature enough to accept that differing views will always exist and that healthy debate is not a threat to society?

The swift enforcement of the rule casts much doubt over the latter scenario. As it is, NCMP Lina Chiam has filed a motion to debate the MDA licensing regime in Parliament, and major websites in Singapore will protest the new regime.

And yet, because this new rule affects not only moderators and contributors of online news sites but also their readers, all Singaporeans should fight to protect their rights and voice their opposition of the rule. It is most certainly not in the interest of the people to have what they read censored or controlled, especially when the primary purpose of online news sites is to provide alternatives to the mainstream media. Despite claims that the “framework is not an attempt to influence the editorial slant of news sites”, the only purpose such a rule would serve is exactly that.

We have no moral obligation to “read the right things”. We do, however, have a moral obligation to do the right thing for ourselves and our country.

The state of our press is a reflection of how far we have come. Sad to say, for years, it has continued to hover at the bottom of world rankings and this year, it even moved few rungs lower. On the Reporters Without Borders annual report 2013, Singapore’s Press Freedom ranking fell from 135th to 149th. The Freedom of Press Report by Freedom House ranked it at 153rd, down three rungs. What is the press trying to do by staying at the bottom of the class? It appears as if it is trying to mock the vision that the new Prime Minister had shared with the people in 2004.

If you are trying to look for diverse views, unconventional ideas, robust debates and alternative opinions, you are not likely to find them in our mainstream media.

A friend who had left Singapore before 2004 came back for a visit in 2011 during the height of the General Election. He thought Singapore had been transformed into a freer state. He observed that people were no longer afraid to stand for elections. They were not afraid to attend opposition rallies and have their photos posted on Facebook. The voters were openly saying they were going to vote for the opposition.

However, the credit for such a change in political climate cannot go to the PAP.

Singaporeans need to be thankful to the Internet.

In a short space of time, the Internet has suddenly provided Singaporeans with alternative views, different perspective and lots of information that were once shielded by the nanny state through a controlled media.

With the Internet, Singaporeans suddenly began to feel the high cost of living, realize the prices of houses are moving out of their reach, fear that they could not afford healthcare and get angry that they were being squeezed out of their jobs by cheap foreign labour, the poor were getting poorer and many did not even have livable wage.

Suddenly the astronomical wages of ministers became common knowledge.

“I had this feeling that something was wrong with this country but I thought I was wrong,” someone said just before the GE. “I dared not say anything because I thought I was the odd minority. But with the Internet, I suddenly realized I was not alone. There are so many people out there who share the same problems and beliefs. Then I felt brave enough to voice my opinion freely.”

As a result of the Internet, the PAP cannot continue, with the help of the state-controlled media, to appear indispensable and flawless. As a result of the Internet all the faults in government policies are straightaway exposed by the many experts who surf cyberspace. With the growing influence of the Internet as a source of information, opinion and news, there is no doubt it affects the credibility of the mainstream media.

Who would want to read sanctioned articles in the official media when bloggers give you alternative viewpoints everyday and posters give you  all kinds of opinion through social media every minute to reflect?

There is no question that the Internet has leveled the political playing field somewhat. From 2011, the PAP haas suddenly become less formidable and more vulnerable.

The signposts of citizens’ dissatisfaction are there for them to see. In the 2011 General Election, they lost a GRC for the first time and had their majority reduced significantly in almost all constituencies. Following that they lost the Hougang and the Punggol East by-elections, the latter considered a very safe seat for the PAP. Their preferred candidate also won the Presidential Election by a slim margin and garnered only slightly more than a third of the total votes.

The other ominous signs are the two rallies at Hong Lim Park in February and May this year when huge crowds turned out to protest against the White Paper on population. This is the first time Singaporeans turned up in such numbers to demonstrate against something.

Is the PAP worried? There are indications to show that they are not feeling secure.

Bloggers have been asked to take down their postings and apologise with the threat  defamation suits. An opposition politician, Vincent Wijeysingha, was sued for defamation and had to pay damages. A journalist, Lynn Lee, was interrogated for hours for making a video interviewing two SMRT drivers who had been involved in a strike. Recently a cartoonist, Leslie Chew, was arrested and is being investigated for sedition.

Nowadays there is also no attempt to be discrete about surveillance by our plainclothes police. Recently they went around openly filming people who had gathered in Hong Lim Park to show their support for the Malaysians who felt cheated by their own election results;

The most recent sign of an insecure PAP government is the latest legislation to license online news sites. The Media Development Authority has reassured Singaporeans that this is not meant to control the bloggers and the Internet.

What then is the intention? Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, Minister for Communications and  Information, revealed – perhaps inadvertently – the real purpose of the new rules in an interview with the BBC. The minister said:

“I think it is important for us to ensure that they (ordinary Singaporeans) read the RIGHT thing…”

In short, the aim is to control what Singaporeans should read. Ensure we read The RIGHT thing? Who does the minister think Singaporeans are? Kindergarten kids?  Surely Singaporeans are mature enough that there is no need for them to be taught how to suck eggs?

In the principle of Tao, it is said,

“The more restrictions and prohibitions in the empire; the deeper will the people sink into destitution.” (天下多忌讳，而民弥贫).

“The more overt the laws and decrees; the more prevalent will be the thieves and brigands.” (法令滋彰，盗贼多有)

The Internet acts as a good feedback channel for any government which  should, therefore, be like “the Sage [who] is without a fixed mind (prejudiced mind), and takes the opinions of the people as his own opinions (圣人无常心，以百姓心为心).”

By trying to ensure people read the right thing, the PAP government is just trying to go back to its old ways in a new world. It will just end up a futile exercise.

As young mass communications students and practitioners, this new framework concerns us as the wording of the amendment suggests that the State will have unmoderated power to muzzle not only journalists, but virtually everyone and anyone who uses the Internet. Even comments posted on websites are affected, since the MDA defines news as “news, intelligence, report of occurrence, or any other matter of public interest about any social, economic, political, cultural, artistic, sporting, scientific, or any other aspect of Singapore in any language – whether paid or free.”

This is particularly disconcerting, as the new amendments prognosticate a repressive media industry where future media practitioners will have to conform to the State’s agenda, as opposed to disseminating ethical, free, fair, and objective information.

Besides this, the regulations seem to blatantly infringe on the freedom of the press, the freedom of speech, and the freedom of expression – freedoms which define true journalistic ethics and standards.

These new regulations may also inadvertently hurt the media industry, which will result in the erosion of online discourse and analysis, causing a decreasing number of professionals entering the media industry.

We further feel that the amendments, as they stand, and the haste with which the amendments to the regulation were gazetted, display a discouraging lack of trust in citizens, and perpetuate the mentality of ‘you can speak your mind, but only if you have a license to do so’. This same lack of trust has also been extended to our audiences, as it is assumed that Singaporeans need the Government to discern between right and wrong; that Singaporeans lack the ability to think critically. This, we feel, has negative consequences on the youth of Singapore.

We read the reports on the Minister for Communications & Information’s press conference on 4 June 2013, but were not convinced by his assurances. Additionally, we find it contradictory that he has called us to trust the MDA, and yet hesitates to trust our ability to discern and analyse news content for ourselves.

We also watched Channel News Asia’s Talking Point on 4 June 2013, to see if Acting Minister Tan Chuan Jin would allay some of our concerns, but instead he reinforced the validity of our position by saying that if a blog aims to report news regularly, then it can be considered a news site.

These concerns obligate us, in our capacities as concerned young Singaporeans, to request that the Minister for Communications & Information rescind the gazetting requiring online news sites to be regulated; and if he would not, to engage us in a dialogue to explain why he cannot.

We hope that the Minister will respond positively to this invitation and address our concerns about the new licensing framework for online news sites, its impact/implications on current and future media practitioners, and reconsider the implementation of such a licensing regime.

--

Signatories:

Jewel Loveenia Philemon, 20

Singapore Citizen

Nithun Nandakumar, 22

Singapore Citizen

Zachary Soh Zhao En, 18

Singapore Citizen

Anirudh Krishnan, 21

Singapore Citizen

Ng Yi Shu, 20

Singapore Citizen

Ng Jia Ni, 15

Singapore Citizen

Jeremy Jeyanth Philemon, 18

Singapore Citizen

Seamus Low, 18

Singapore Citizen

Harshini Natasha James, 18

Singapore Citizen

Elisabelle Aruldoss, 20

Singapore Citizen

Melissa Miles Tsang, 20

Singapore Citizen

Bryan Cheang, 24

Singapore Citizen

Chia Eu Jinn, 18

Singapore Citizen

Hadi Abdul, 21

Singapore Citizen

Salima Nadira Mafoot Moss Simon, 23

Singapore Citizen

Ellery Aruldoss, 22

Singapore Citizen

Kevin Ng, 25

Singapore Citizen

Further, we believe that the introduction of the licensing regime has not gone through the proper and necessary consultation and had been introduced without clear guidance. In a typical public consultation exercise, a government agency will publish a draft regulation with detailed explanation and issue a press release to invite members of the public to send in feedback for consideration. We observe this is not the case for the licensing regime.

We call on the Ministry of Communications and Information to withdraw the licensing regime. We call upon our elected representatives to oppose the licensing regime.

It is in the interest of Singaporeans and the long-term future for Singapore that the licensing regime be withdrawn.

The new licensing regime has the very real potential to reduce the channels available to Singaporeans to receive news and analysis of the sociopolitical situation in Singapore and it is in the interest of all Singaporeans to guard against the erosion of news channels that Singaporeans should rightfully have access to.

These new regulations significantly impact Singaporeans’ constitutionally protected right to free speech, and they should not be introduced without the most rigorous public debate and discussion.

The new regulations, and the manner in which they have been imposed by regulatory fiat, are unacceptable in any developed democracy.

Leong Sze Hian - http://leongszehian.com/

Andrew Loh - http://publichouse.sg

Ravi Philemon - http://www.raviphilemon.net/

Kumaran Pillai - http://sgvoize.wordpress.com/

Terry Xu - http://theonlinecitizen.com/

Richard Wan - http://www.tremeritus.com/

Choo Zheng Xi - http://theonlinecitizen.com/

Howard Lee - http://theonlinecitizen.com/

Rachel Zeng - http://rachelzeng.wordpress.com/, http://singaporeantideathpenaltycampaign.wordpress.com/

Roy Ngerng - http://thehearttruths.com/

Kirsten Han - http://spuddings.net/

Gilbert Goh - http://www.transitioning.org/

Nizam Ismail - http://nizamosaurus.wordpress.com/

Lynn Lee - http://www.lianainfilms.com/

Biddy Low - http://publichouse.sg/

Alex Au - http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/

Martyn See - http://singaporerebel.blogspot.sg/

Howard Lee - http://theonlinecitizen.com/

Elaine Ee - http://publichouse.sg/

Lim Han Thon - http://publichouse.sg

Joshua Chiang

Donaldson Tan - http://newasiarepublic.com

Stephanie Chok - http://littlemskaypoh.wordpress.com

Jolovan Wham - http://www.workfairsingapore.wordpress.com

If you would like more information or for media enquires, please contact Howard Lee at howard@theonlinecitizen.com

Before all this, Singapore had a free, vibrant and fiery press.

Nanyang Siang Pau (1923-1983) was an outspoken Chinese newspaper. Utusan Melayu (1939-1958, when it moved to Kuala Lumpur), which Said Zahari was editor of when he was arrested, was an uncompromising Malay newspaper that dazzled with journalists, activists and intellectuals. These are just two examples of a number of newspapers that existed and expressed their views openly before they were snuffed out. The Straits Times, which today holds dubious regard as being the government’s mouthpiece, has been around since 1845 and obviously wasn’t always this way.

In an open, or at least less oppressive, pre-independence journalistic environment, the press was a centre of gravity for many of Singapore’s best thinkers and passionate activists, and was a key player in our quest for independence. It held its own and engaged its readers, and even as it did battle with the authorities, was autonomous enough to at least have room to fight. It contributed a great deal to quality ideas and discourse swirling around that fed society’s intellectual growth and political movements.

One of the arguments that the government has used to back its control of the media is that Singapore is not ‘mature’ enough to handle a free press. We are too young a nation, too delicate a society. We can’t risk the media rousing the people with stories and ideas which are different to what the government wants us to see and believe. So quieting the press, making it a compliant nation-building tool, is what our country needs for stability and security and is in our best interest.

But as history shows, for the most part of Singapore’s 194-year existence, we had a freer press and were not worse off for it. In fact, we thrived economically, grew as a multi-racial society, became a hugely prosperous settlement and in the end managed our greatest achievement—which was to become our own people and our own sovereign nation.

We did all that without state controlled media.

So when the Media Development Authority implements a Licensing Regime to bring local news websites under the same regulatory framework as print media, and empowers MDA to order a website to take down content within 24 hours, they are disrespecting many of our achievements, and distrusting the wisdom of the people.

Voices online are expressing their anger over this loudly and furiously, but it’s not just the online community that is against the state controlling the media. Traditional media journalists have long felt resentful of their editors who restrict what they can say—editors, approved by the authorities, who are in turn made to toe the line by the government.

In a now infamous Wikileaks cable from 2009 (09SINGAPORE61), entitled ‘Journalists Frustrated by Press Controls’, it says:

“Singapore journalists say they are increasingly frustrated with GOS-imposed [Government of Singapore] limits on their domestic reporting. Political leaders put pressure on The Straits Times staff to ensure that the paper’s domestic coverage follows the government line.”

And that “reporters have to be careful in their coverage of local news, as Singapore’s leaders will likely come down hard on anyone who reports negative stories about the government or its leadership.”

The cable continues:

“In the past, editors had to contend only with the opinions of former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew (now Minister Mentor) and former Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong (now Senior Minister). However, a younger generation of government ministers is now vying for future leadership positions and one way for them to burnish their credentials with the old guard is to show they can be tough with the media.”

The damning cable also says that young, aspiring journalists “think twice about building careers at home” because it’s too stifling, and view Singapore as a training ground for journalistic careers then established elsewhere.

[Read the full Wikileaks cable here.]

By introducing the Licensing Regime, MDA is spreading the frustration and the disappointment, and it is confirming to the public that the Singapore government is out of step with the zeitgeist that is increasingly felt here.

What we so clearly need is not more state regulation of the press or media but better journalistic standards so that we move closer to the ranks of the best news journalists in the world, and are no longer the ones that aspiring journalists flee or international journalists mock.

Singapore can handle a free press. We did handle a free press. We advanced greatly politically and as a society under a free press. It is not a threat to society. It may be a threat to the ruling party, but it is not a threat to society. In fact, it is a key part of a healthy, vibrant society.

----------------

The #FreeMyInternet movement will be holding a protest at Hong Lim Park on Saturday, 8 June 2013, to call on the authorities to rescind the latest MDA regulations on censorship.

Details are here.

The television footages captured his emotions vividly – a compassionate face expressing genuine concern. We could see an inspiring personality displaying the highest quality of leadership at the gravest moment of crisis, calming his people and exhorting them to be brave.

His is a leadership by example. This is a leader who shows that the people come first and his safety is of secondary importance. He is certainly not expecting monetary reward for his courage. Indeed, a truly Confucian leader: 民为贵 (The people are the most important in a country: Mencius)

“Your pain is our pain.” He declared to the victims.

Putting people first has been a recognized quality in leadership thousands of years ago. Chanakya or Kautilya, the famous strategic thinker from ancient India, wrote about servant leadership in his 4th century B.C. book Arthashastra:

“The king [leader] shall consider as good, not what pleases himself but what pleases his subjects [followers]”

Similarly, Jesus taught his disciples that:

“You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:42-45)

Confucius also taught servant leadership. He held up as his models two legendary Kings, Yao and Shun. These two kings were public-spirited and unselfish. The people came first. They believed that rulers exist to benefit people and to end misery in their subjects. This is why they believed rulers must be benevolent towards the people.

Throughout Chinese history, upright officials always used Yao and Shun as examples to advise an emperor on the right way to rule a country. One such official is Qu Yuan.

On 12th of June this year, we will be eating dumplings and celebrating the Dragon Boat Festival in honour of Qu Yuan. After more than 2000 years of eating dumplings and watching dragon boat races, many of us today have overlooked the reason why we are commemorating the death this great poet, thinker and politician.

Duan Wu Jie or the Dragon Boat Festival is not celebrated for over two thousand years just because some cranky poet had drowned himself in the Miluo River. It is to honour a leader who was upright, honest and always thinking about the sufferings of the people.

Qu Yuan’s life and beliefs show us the ideal qualities that a good leader should possess.

Thus, in his most famous poem, “Li Sao” (离骚), he wrote:

亦余心之所善兮，虽九死其犹未悔

Translated it means “I’ll stick to whatever I think is good and right and never repent even if I die for it many times”.

In spite of his own sufferings, he never lost his feeling for the common people. In the same poem, he wrote:

长太息以掩涕兮，哀民生之多艰

This means “I heave a deep sigh and shed tears, because I feel compassion for the miserable life the people are living”.

Reputation and Infamy

There is an old Chinese saying that goes like this: “When a leopard dies, it leaves behind the skin, but when a person dies, he or she leaves behind a name.”

In the novel The Romance of The Three Kingdoms, Wang Yun told Li Bu, ‘If you, the general, can help the Han Dynasty, you are a loyal minister and will leave a good name in history and in posterity (流芳百世).” To do otherwise (and support the tyrant Dong Zhuo), Wang Yun said, “You bequeath your stench that will last for tens of thousands of years.” (遗臭万年)

The idiom 流芳百世 (liu fang bai shi) means“leaving a good reputation for a hundred generations”. 遗臭万年 (yi chou wan nian) means “leaving a bad name for thousands of years”.

Everyone wants to leave behind a good name. This perhaps explains why some people, in the twilight of their lives, like to write biographies.

Unfortunately, writing biographies alone will not help burnish flaws.

Shakespeare has this to say: “The evil that men do lives after them, The good is oft interred with their bones.”

Good people are revered because of who they were and what they did and not what they wrote about themselves.

Qu Yuan, the poet, and Yao and Shun, the two legendary emperors, left behind good reputations because they were benevolent and concerned for the welfare of the people. They believed in the democratic rights of the common folk or what was then known as “the will of the people”. There good names live till today.

On the other hand, the names of tyrants, despots and traitors continue to stink.

The best example of a stinker is Qin Hui. Qin Hui was a Prime Minister in the Southern Song Dynasty. When General Yue Fei was winning battles against the Jin invaders and became a hero, Qin Hui, the mean fellow, resorted to false accusations and frame-ups to jail Yue Fei and finally got him executed.

When Emperor Xiao Zong later succeeded to the throne, he cleared Yue Fei of all the charges. A Tomb was built by the side of West Lake in Hangzhou to bury him and a Memorial Temple was erected for posterity to pay homage to this patriotic hero. In front of the tomb are four cast-iron figures, kneeling and bowing forever to Yue Fei. The figures represent Qin Hui, his wife and two subordinates.

Qin Hui and his wife are good examples of the “stench that will last for thousands of years”. Up to recent times, people still spat on the statues to vent their hatred and disgust for the couple. The bad smells and the ugly sights are so disgusting that the authorities have to put up a notice to ask visitors not to spit on them.

Following Yue Fei’s execution, a pastry vendor kneaded some dough into two human shapes, one representing Qin Hui and the other his wife, twisted them together and fried them. This symbolic food became a instant hit and even today, when we are eating the youtiao (油炸鬼-devil fried in oil) or the Chinese cruller, we do not realise we are chewing up Qin Hui and his wife.

Qu Yuan is, therefore, revered for being an upright politician with strong moral principles and an excellent poet and leader who loved both his country and his people dearly. It is not surprising that he is remembered to this day. In 1953, on the 2230th anniversary of his death, the World Peace Congress named him as one of the four famous cultural figures of the year.

Thus, while munching on our dumplings, we should reflect on this. Remember also that evil stinks forever when we eat Yew Char Kway.

What sort of comments would fall under the new rules? And what would happen to them? Who is to be held responsible for these comments?

Be that as it may, what you the reader should be concerned about is how the new legislation affects you. Clearly, the target is not just the websites. It is also the wider audience who visit and participate in the discourse on these ‘news sites’.

And this is why you too should be disturbed at the wide berth the government has given itself with this new set of rulings.

Will websites be required to provide details of the reader who post what would be deemed inappropriate comments, or comments which the authorities find do not meet its “standards”?

But more than that, you should truly ponder on what these curbs mean to you.

The next time you want to post a comment about an issue which is close to your heart, would you? Or would you refrain from doing so? Will you pause because you want to think through your comments, or will you pause because you are afraid to post any comments at all?

And then ask yourself: why should you, as a citizen of this country, be subject to such state-imposed fear? Why should those who should be your servants in turn lord over your very right to speak up – a right which is guaranteed in our Constitution?

Ask yourself: why should a bunch of unelected bureaucrats in a statutory board have such immense power over you?

These new regulations from the MDA are insidious in their aim to curtail our rights to speak and speak freely which, ironically, was something Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong urged in his first National Rally speech back in August 2004 where he proclaimed:

“It's a signal – speak, speak your voice, be heard, take responsibility for your views and opinions.”

10 years on, where are we on this? The government, instead, has now chosen to curb discourse in the only alternative space which we Singaporeans have. And not only for those of us who blog and write and report on issues which we are all concerned about, but the government also wants to curb your right to participate in dialogue, discourse and expressing your views on these matters which concern you.

This insidious and abhorrent aim of the government is clear from the deliberately vague wording of its press release, and the broad powers that it has given itself.

In the final analysis, the question is this: do you want yourself and your children, the young ones whom we are responsible for and for whom we are supposed to build a better future for, to be subject to the irrational control of the government, and have fear instilled into their hearts and minds?

Some of us bloggers have stood up and are standing against the new regulations because we know that contrary to what the government has said so far, the new licensing regime is and will be used to snuff out alternative viewpoints and information which the State disapprove of.

If you care about how our minds should be free and our hearts should be courageous, then do support us as we fight to bring rationality to the matter, and to a government on the verge of running irrationally amok, dangerously bestowing itself with so much power that our very rights as citizens are at risk.

Article 14 (1) (a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore guarantees that “every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression”.

We must not let this right be so easily usurped by unelected bureaucrats, without any engagement, discussion, debate or dialogue. For if we do, then what is the value of our Constitution and what it guarantees us as citizens, especially if you cannot even post comments on websites?

Surely, it is not the intent of our Constitution to forbid this.

This all sounds well and good — until one assesses exactly what “traditional mainstream media newspapers and TV broadcasters” are in Singapore. We have only one such paper (not counting The New Paper, of course), The Straits Times. We have only one such broadcaster, Channel NewsAsia. There are no other publications or TV stations in the country to compete or compare with, or to level the playing field. Add to that the simple fact that websites are different from — and therefore run differently from — traditional media and one can easily see the fallacy in this line of logic.

At the same time, if online news sites were to be regulated the same way traditional media is regulated, where would that leave alternative news? Bearing in mind that Singapore ranks 149th out of 179 countries worldwide on Reporters Without Borders’ Press Freedom Index, which, as reported by the BBC, is “below even the likes of Zimbabwe and Afghanistan”, would this not defeat the very purpose of alternative news?

Rich vs. Poor

Another contentious aspect of the new licensing rule is the S$50,000 performance bond online news sites are required to pay. The MDA has stated: "The performance bond of S$50,000 is pegged to that put up by niche broadcasters today, and need not necessarily entail cash up front. Licensees can consider options such as banker’s guarantee or insurance. MDA will be happy to engage in further discussions with any licensee who may have concerns about meeting the licence obligations."

The MDA has, unfortunately, missed the point. The mode of payment is not the main concern. Unlike The Straits Times, most online news sites do not charge their readers registration or subscription fees. Even if such a site features paid advertisements, its revenue would be nowhere near that of SPH’s, as print advertisements are infinitely more costly and therefore more lucrative than online advertisements. Unless it belongs to a highly successful parent company that has other forms of revenue, an online news site is unlikely to be able to afford this performance bond, be it in cash, banker’s guarantee, or insurance.

And what of the 24-hour deadline for such sites to remove content the MDA deems inappropriate, lest they lose their performance bond? Consider the possibilities that could lead one to unintentionally flout the rules: what if a website’s server has crashed or is under maintenance for 24 hours or more? What if the owner and sole contributor of a news blog is out of the country for the week or recuperating in the hospital after major surgery? Will provisions be made then, or will they lose their hard-earned S$50,000 due to a technicality?

Sneak Attack

Remember the headline-making National Conversation? Apparently, the people’s cries had been heard. We wanted to be included in decisions that would affect the future of our country and our government was ready to hear us out. The stage was set, the ministers prepped and the audience in place. Questions were asked and answered on national TV. We were to believe that, despite evidence to the contrary, the government was now willing to consult the citizens and the opposition MPs in decisions regarding Singapore & her people.

Fast forward to June 2013 and, almost out of nowhere, our Internet is suddenly being regulated without our consent or prior knowledge. The only warning we had came in the form of a few vague, non-committal statements here and there about the possibility of rules being imposed, as well as a brief paragraph on the MDA’s official website about how it “adopts a balanced and light-touch approach” to Internet regulation.

In most developed countries, a bill has to be introduced in Parliament before any new law is passed. This is the case in Australia, the UK and the US, to name but a few examples. In fact, on the Singapore Parliament website itself, it is stated: “Before any law is passed, it is first introduced in Parliament as a draft called a ‘Bill’. All Bills must go through three readings in Parliament and receive the President's assent to become an Act of Parliament.”

Correct me if I’m wrong but does anyone remember any such action being taken before this new licensing rule was imposed? Were any surveys conducted to find out if the people of Singapore felt such a rule was necessary or beneficial? Were the moderators or owners of online news sites consulted about the performance bond before a five-figure sum was unceremoniously slapped on them?

One really wonders just how credible the government is, when, clearly lacking a well-rounded, balanced approach, it simply enacts new laws overnight.

Blinkers, Crop & Spurs

What is most troubling, however, is where the justification for the new licensing rule stems from. Mr. Ibrahim has made several statements to the press regarding the matter, all of which are at least mildly insulting to Singaporeans’ intelligence.

When interviewed by the BBC, he said, “As long as they (the public) go onto online news sites to read the news, I think it is important for us to make sure that they read ‘the right things’.”

First of all, a little elaboration on what Mr. Ibrahim perceives as “the right things” would be helpful. He has said there is no reason online news sites should not be subject to the same “regulatory framework” that affects the mainstream media. So can “the right things” be found in The Straits Times?

Secondly, this implies that readers of online news are incapable of discerning right from wrong and need to be told exactly what to read. It seems the role of website moderators to ensure that inflammatory contents and comments are removed, as well as the freedom to choose what one reads, is lost on the minister. It also diminishes us to mere puppets who need to be controlled, even when it comes to what we read.

Despite attempts to assure us that the new rule is not a “clamping down”, such a restriction can hardly be seen as anything else. After all, even readers are not spared. The MDA has stated that “…the content guidelines apply to all content on the news sites, including readers’ comments.”

What Now?

With this new licensing rule, content which is offensive to any race or religion, or which is seen as “seditious”, will be removed, and rightly so. But what about objectively written and reported content which happens to paint the government in a less than positive light? The appeal of alternative news is the fresh perspectives it often offers, apart from what is found in the mainstream media. But if such perspectives call into question the government, will the site moderator be made to remove the content within 24 hours, or will the government be mature enough to accept that differing views will always exist and that healthy debate is not a threat to society?

The swift enforcement of the rule casts much doubt over the latter scenario. As it is, NCMP Lina Chiam has filed a motion to debate the MDA licensing regime in Parliament, and major websites in Singapore will protest the new regime.

And yet, because this new rule affects not only moderators and contributors of online news sites but also their readers, all Singaporeans should fight to protect their rights and voice their opposition of the rule. It is most certainly not in the interest of the people to have what they read censored or controlled, especially when the primary purpose of online news sites is to provide alternatives to the mainstream media. Despite claims that the “framework is not an attempt to influence the editorial slant of news sites”, the only purpose such a rule would serve is exactly that.

We have no moral obligation to “read the right things”. We do, however, have a moral obligation to do the right thing for ourselves and our country.

Before all this, Singapore had a free, vibrant and fiery press.

Nanyang Siang Pau (1923-1983) was an outspoken Chinese newspaper. Utusan Melayu (1939-1958, when it moved to Kuala Lumpur), which Said Zahari was editor of when he was arrested, was an uncompromising Malay newspaper that dazzled with journalists, activists and intellectuals. These are just two examples of a number of newspapers that existed and expressed their views openly before they were snuffed out. The Straits Times, which today holds dubious regard as being the government’s mouthpiece, has been around since 1845 and obviously wasn’t always this way.

In an open, or at least less oppressive, pre-independence journalistic environment, the press was a centre of gravity for many of Singapore’s best thinkers and passionate activists, and was a key player in our quest for independence. It held its own and engaged its readers, and even as it did battle with the authorities, was autonomous enough to at least have room to fight. It contributed a great deal to quality ideas and discourse swirling around that fed society’s intellectual growth and political movements.

One of the arguments that the government has used to back its control of the media is that Singapore is not ‘mature’ enough to handle a free press. We are too young a nation, too delicate a society. We can’t risk the media rousing the people with stories and ideas which are different to what the government wants us to see and believe. So quieting the press, making it a compliant nation-building tool, is what our country needs for stability and security and is in our best interest.

But as history shows, for the most part of Singapore’s 194-year existence, we had a freer press and were not worse off for it. In fact, we thrived economically, grew as a multi-racial society, became a hugely prosperous settlement and in the end managed our greatest achievement—which was to become our own people and our own sovereign nation.

We did all that without state controlled media.

So when the Media Development Authority implements a Licensing Regime to bring local news websites under the same regulatory framework as print media, and empowers MDA to order a website to take down content within 24 hours, they are disrespecting many of our achievements, and distrusting the wisdom of the people.

Voices online are expressing their anger over this loudly and furiously, but it’s not just the online community that is against the state controlling the media. Traditional media journalists have long felt resentful of their editors who restrict what they can say—editors, approved by the authorities, who are in turn made to toe the line by the government.

In a now infamous Wikileaks cable from 2009 (09SINGAPORE61), entitled ‘Journalists Frustrated by Press Controls’, it says:

“Singapore journalists say they are increasingly frustrated with GOS-imposed [Government of Singapore] limits on their domestic reporting. Political leaders put pressure on The Straits Times staff to ensure that the paper’s domestic coverage follows the government line.”

And that “reporters have to be careful in their coverage of local news, as Singapore’s leaders will likely come down hard on anyone who reports negative stories about the government or its leadership.”

The cable continues:

“In the past, editors had to contend only with the opinions of former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew (now Minister Mentor) and former Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong (now Senior Minister). However, a younger generation of government ministers is now vying for future leadership positions and one way for them to burnish their credentials with the old guard is to show they can be tough with the media.”

The damning cable also says that young, aspiring journalists “think twice about building careers at home” because it’s too stifling, and view Singapore as a training ground for journalistic careers then established elsewhere.

[Read the full Wikileaks cable here.]

By introducing the Licensing Regime, MDA is spreading the frustration and the disappointment, and it is confirming to the public that the Singapore government is out of step with the zeitgeist that is increasingly felt here.

What we so clearly need is not more state regulation of the press or media but better journalistic standards so that we move closer to the ranks of the best news journalists in the world, and are no longer the ones that aspiring journalists flee or international journalists mock.

Singapore can handle a free press. We did handle a free press. We advanced greatly politically and as a society under a free press. It is not a threat to society. It may be a threat to the ruling party, but it is not a threat to society. In fact, it is a key part of a healthy, vibrant society.

----------------

The #FreeMyInternet movement will be holding a protest at Hong Lim Park on Saturday, 8 June 2013, to call on the authorities to rescind the latest MDA regulations on censorship.

Details are here.

According to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) website, the Commissioner for Workplace Safety and Health has the authority to issue such an order. The website says:

“The Commissioner may also issue a Stop Work Order, which requires the specified work to cease until measures have been taken to ensure that the work can be carried out safely. An SWO is used in instances where severe lapses in safety and health conditions cause immediate danger to the persons at work. Failure to comply with either a Remedial Order or Stop Work Order is considered an offence.”

The MOM’s advisory for employers in dealing with haze conditions says:

“When the PSI levels exceed 300, risk assessments should be conducted to determine whether outdoor lifting operations involving tower and mobile cranes should cease due to the foreseeable risk of poor visibility, so as not to compromise safety of persons at work. Such work can only be carried out when appropriate precautions have been taken to reduce the risk.”

The National Environment Agency (NEA) has this advisory on its website:

"For PSI levels between 201-300, elderly and persons with existing heart or respiratory ailments/lung diseases should stay indoors and reduce physical exertion and outdoor activities. The general population should avoid vigorous outdoor activities.

"For PSI levels between 301-400, children, elderly and persons with existing heart of respiratory ailments/lung diseases should stay indoors and avoid outdoor activities. The general population should avoid unnecessary outdoor activities."

With the government saying that the current conditions may persist for "a few more weeks", members of the public have called on the authorities, particularly the Minister for Manpower, Tan Chuan Jin, to issue a Stop Work Order for all construction sites.

However, the ministry and the minister seem unmoved by these calls. Mr Tan posted on his Facebook page in response to the calls:

“I understand the desire for immediate answers. It is not the bureaucracy or the briefings that drive things. It's the substance of the next steps. These events are scheduled for when we anticipate some of the details would be ready, so that we can announce and explain and clarify accordingly.

“Our areas of concerns remain focused on those working outdoors, especially if under strenuous conditions and/or being outdoors on a prolonged basis. We also need to ascertain essential services and how best to provide these in a manner that is safe for our workers.”

This prompted even more response, which mostly criticised the minister for not caring about the health of the workers, and for not having adequate response plans in place.

The minister has since not responded to these criticisms.

It is understood that the MOM will issue an update today to employers about what to do.

Meanwhile, the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR), Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, said on the Talking Point programme on Thursday night that the government preferred a “customised” approach when he was asked about issuing a Stop-Work Order. A day earlier he told the media that such an order may be issued but that this “will depend on the severity of the haze conditions.”

According to the local press, the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) “has stopped all outfield training indefinitely and all soldiers on duty have been given protective N95 face masks. Ground commanders have been reminded "to keep a close watch" on soldiers, said a spokesman on the SAF Facebook page. Other organisations here, such as the Singapore Civil Defence Force, reduced physical and outdoor training when the index crossed 100.”

“An SMRT spokesman said bus captains have also been reminded to drive safely due to reduced visibility on the roads, and maintenance work on its tracks was suspended last night.”

In the meantime, construction workers continue their work outdoors, even as the hazy conditions persist for another day.

Here are some of the criticisms which members of the public have posted on the Minister for Manpower’s Facebook page. [Click here to view the page and comments in full.]

3.    We have seen improvements over the years, but compared to the developed countries, compared to the best practices, we are still behind. So back in 2005, we overhauled the workplace safety system. We introduced a new Workplace Safety and Health Act; we established the Workplace Safety and Health Council; we formed an International Advisory Panel to advise MOM; and we ratified the ILO Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention, and worked with ILO to share experiences with other countries.

4.    Since then, we have made encouraging progress. More companies and workers now appreciate the importance of workplace safety and health. And bizSAFE has helped 15,000 companies to improve their workplace safety and health practices. Our workplace fatality rate has halved – it was 4.0 per 100,000 employees back in 2005; today it has gone down to 2.1 per 100,000 employees.

5.    There is still room for improvement, because even at 2.1 per 100,000, it is higher than say, the UK which is 0.6, Germany which is 0.7 or Australia which is 1.9. And over the last three years, our fatality rates had not improved; we have levelled off, so we know that that is where we are; it is some comfort that 2.1 is an improvement, but it is disappointing that we are not continuing to make progress. And if you look more broadly, not at fatalities, but at workplace injuries and incidence of occupational diseases, instead of getting better, the numbers are getting worse. And many of these are preventable accidents and illnesses – falling from height; not using ear defenders, occupationally related deafness; lack of awareness of safety measures; falling through roofs, as Mr Lee Tzu Yang said just now – things which should never happen.

6.    Most of the incidents are in construction, manufacturing and marine sectors. Many of them involve foreign workers, partly because they speak different languages and they have different work practices in their home countries; that increases the risk of an accident. But whatever the factors underlying this, we owe it to them to keep them safe, and we value them the same as we value Singaporean workers. They came here to support their families back home, to work for a better tomorrow for themselves and their families, and it is a real tragedy when some accident befalls them. Another factor which maybe makes our problem harder is that there are many SMEs in these industries. They often lack the management capabilities or the resources to implement good workplace safety and health practices. And also, they have a high turnover of staff, which makes it harder to build a strong safety culture.

TOWARDS ACCIDENT-FREE WORKPLACES

7.    Therefore, we must redouble our efforts, work harder. Five years ago, we set the goal of reducing fatality rates to 1.8 per 100,000 workers and the aim was to reach 1.8 by 2018. As I told you just now, we have made good progress – we have reached 2.1 per 100,000 workers. So we are not that far off the old target and I am quite confident that we can get there. We can reach the target and I think we should get there ahead of time. But having got there early, which we must do, I think we need to set ourselves a more ambitious goal: To match the standards of the developed countries. I encourage the Council to deliberate and to discuss what are sensible targets to set – ambitious but achievable, not just focused on fatalities but also on workplace injuries and occupational diseases – and define and work towards new goals. If we can reduce the risk of serious injuries, then we will also bring down fatality rates. And if we can reduce occupational diseases, then I think we can also improve the welfare of workers. A good safety culture will yield benefits on all fronts, and it depends on all three tripartite partners doing their part.

8.    Employers have to see safe and healthy workplaces as essential to their businesses. A safe workplace shows workers that you care about them, that they are not just digits, they are human beings and you value them and are concerned about them. They will be more productive and committed, and they will do a better job. They will be happier and you will be happier. I am glad that companies are beginning to understand this. Take for example LSK Engineering, which provides services like general building works, electrical engineering, facilities management. It actively promotes workplace safety, for example, through rigorous training, through the “Buddy System”, through a “No Finger Pointing Policy” to identify risk factors. Over the last two years, they have worked almost one million man-hours with zero reportable accidents. It won the bizSAFE Enterprise Exemplary Award for this year, so congratulations to LSK Engineering.

9.    Workers also play an important role, because they benefit from a safe workplace, but they also contribute to a safe workplace. The workers are the ones who are most familiar with work processes, who know where the danger spots are, who know how we can do things better and improve safety for all. I encourage all workers to be more proactive in this, and I encourage the unions to work with management and lead the workers in this effort.  Take NatSteel for example. Workers used to load pre-fabricated steel cages onto trailers.  Having loaded onto trailers, the cranes lift them up, the workers have to climb on top, onto the steel cages to manually remove the chain slings, risking falls and other injuries, besides not being very productive. Some of the workers – Mr Lim Kok Heng and four of his colleagues – developed a device to release the chains automatically, simple innovation which eliminated the risk of falling and improved productivity. Now they have implemented this device across the plant. There are many similar ideas waiting to be discovered in our construction, marine and manufacturing companies. I encourage workers to work at this, get them implemented, and reap the benefits of it.

10.    We as the Government, also as an employer and owner of projects, will take the lead in this effort. We are setting and enforcing the rules. We are raising safety standards in public construction and development projects. A large part of construction and development projects are government projects, so today, 37 government agencies will make a “Public Sector Commitment to Workplace Safety and Health”. They will emphasise workplace safety and health throughout the lifespan of their projects. Contractors for these projects will be required to have at least bizSAFE Level 3-equivalent recognition. The owners of the projects, the agencies, must appoint a management representative to oversee safety and health issues. I hope this will make a difference; I believe it will, and it will be able to raise overall safety standards in the whole industry. I encourage the private sector also to follow suit.

CONCLUSION

11.    So let us maintain the focus on improving workplace safety. Human beings matter to us. Human capital is our only resource. Never trade off workers’ safety for cost or for time. Because every life counts, and every worker matters.

12.    Thank you very much!

The AGC also addressed concerns that “journalistic activities” will be stifled as a result of this.

“The AGC’s determination that Ms Lee has committed contempt of court is not the judgement of the court,” it said. “Similarly, the issuance of a letter of warning does not represent the imposition of any punishment on Ms Lee. This can only be done by our courts.”

The AGC’s clarifications on the various issues, while welcome, are nonetheless not the main concerns of some members of the public.

The issues which the AGC has failed to address are:

1. Can the AGC pronounce or declare someone guilty of an offence without having that person charged for the offence, and for that person to be given the right to defend herself in a court of law?

2. Is it right, whether legally or morally, for the AGC to issue such a judgement to the media and publish it on its website, which then gets reported widely? Would this not be potentially damaging to the person involved, in terms of her reputation, for example? In effect, is this not subjecting her to public perception – coming as the judgement is from the august chambers of the Attorney General – that she is in fact guilty of an offence or a crime, even if she is not charged for it and found guilty by the courts?

3. Given that the AGC itself now says its “determination that Ms Lee has committed contempt of court is not the judgement of the court”, how is it then that the AGC finds it fit to pronounce her guilty and to have this propagated through the media and its website?

4. The AGC, in the Straits Times report mentioned above, does not explain the recourse someone such as Lee has, if she were to defend herself from the charges of the AGC contained in the warning letter. What recourse does any ordinary Singaporean have in such a situation?

5. Why were the drivers allowed to return to China if, as the AGC said, the allegations were serious ones?

Also, the AGC failed to explain how Lee had “crossed the line” while others who had also reported on the then ongoing trial had not. The AGC would only say, “Her actions had the possibility of influencing the decision and affecting fair trial.” How?

Some have also raised the question of why remarks by the Prime Minister and the Law Minister on separate occasions on two different ongoing court cases then – in 2010 and 2013 – do not constitute contempt of court. [See here.]

To the average layperson, it is indeed puzzling why a case such as Lee's is seen to be guilty of contempt of court (according to the AGC) while those of the Prime Minister and Law Minister are not.

It is also worth noting that the veracity of the two former SMRT drivers’ allegations has not been proved to be untrue by the courts as well. It is the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) which conducted an internal investigation into the allegations, found them to be untrue and declared them to be so; and that it was the MHA, together with the Manpower Ministry, which had - in April - issued "a strongly worded statement", "saying civil advocacy groups are exploiting the case 'for their own political purposes' in the 'guise of protecting vulnerable foreign workers'".

There were no independent investigations, or even a detailed explanation of why the MHA found their allegations untrue or unsubstantiated.

“[Just] because the MHA has said the two drivers’ allegations are baseless doesn’t mean people have to believe they are baseless,” writer and activist Alex Au wrote.

“Instead, all we have at the end of this shoddy process is a one-page statement denying that anything went wrong, yet containing within itself clues that both the process of investigation and its outcome statement were little more than a determined exercise in protesting innocence.

“I don’t believe it had been done right. And so long as I have no confidence in that investigation, I can only see it as a travesty of justice to accuse Lynn Lee of contempt of court.”

The way Lynn Lee is treated should concern Singaporeans – and the AGC has many questions to answer.

Otherwise, if the AGC alone can ascertain and then pronounce someone guilty unilaterally – without going through the courts – and to have such a unilateral and opaque judgement propagated through statements to the media and made available to the world on the Internet, then what is the recourse to the average citizen who might be so accused by the AGC?

Can the AGC be, in effect, the judge, jury and executioner, all in one?

Finally, it is worth noting that the AGC had been informed by Lee prior to her posting the videos online, as Lee says in her response to the AGC's warning letter:

"I think it is important to highlight that the AGC was informed about my interviews and about He and Liu’s allegations prior to the posting of my videos. I sent an email on the 27th of January explaining what I had been told and asking for comment. If publication of the clips amounted, in the AGC’s opinion, to sub judice contempt, they could have written then to tell me to refrain from making the material available to the general public. However, they never replied or acknowledged my email."

In August last year, the High Court dismissed Vellama's case. Justice Philip Pillai, who presided over the case, ruled then that “there is no requirement” in law for the prime minister to call elections to fill parliamentary vacancies, and thus that there was also no prescribed time period for such to be filled.

"Under the Constitution, to call or not to call an election to fill an elected Member vacancy is a decision to be made by the Prime Minister," Justice Pillai said. "Should the Prime Minister decide to call an election to fill an elected Member vacancy, he has a discretion as to when to call it."

In December, following the vacating of the Punggol East seat by the People's Action Party MP and Speaker of Parliament, Michael Palmer, PM Lee issued a statement which said, among other things:

"The Constitution does not require me to call a by-election within any fixed timeframe. I will carefully consider whether to call a by-election in Punggol East and, if so, when."

The Court of Appeal on Friday, however, has decided that the Prime Minister, in fact, must call a by-election in such situations. The apex court granted that the Prime Minister "is entitled to take into account all relevant circumstances" when deciding when such a by-election is to take place.

"However, while we accept that the Prime Minister should be accorded a measure of latitude in deciding when to call for election to fill a vacancy," the court's judgement said, "it does not follow from this flexibility that he would, therefore, be entitled to defer the calling of an election to fill a vacancy indefinitely, or to simply declare that he would not be advising the President to issue a writ of election."

The court emphasised that "a Member [of Parliament] represents and is the voice of his constituents."

"If a vacancy is left unfilled for an unnecessarily prolonged period that would raise a serious risk of disenfranchising the residents of that constituency," the apex court said.

While the court dismissed Vellama's case on a technicality - that she in fact did not suffer any damage since the Prime Minister had already announced that he would call a by-election in Hougang where she lives and where the parliamentary seat had been vacated, and thus her case was "premature" - it nonetheless agreed with the thrust in Vellama's application, namely that the Prime Minister does not have unfettered discretion in whether or not he should call a by-election.

The Prime Minister, the court ruled, must in fact call for an election when a parliamentary seat is vacated.

------------------

READ the full judgement here.

-------------------

The following is a media release from M Ravi, lawyer for Vellama:

Singapore Court of Appeal Rules that By-Elections are not Optional

Singapore, July 5, 2013

Today, the Court of Appeal ruled that the Constitution of Singapore “Does not give the Prime Minister an unfettered discretion in the calling of an election to fill a casual vacancy of an elected MP. He must do so within a reasonable time”. In so doing, the Court has overturned an earlier High Court position that the Prime Minister had the authority to decide when and if a by-election should be held in the event of a Parliamentary vacancy.

Hougang resident Madam Vellama D/O Muthu brought this issue to the Court on 2 March 2012 with the contention that the right to Parliamentary representation is fundamental to citizens of a representative democracy. Today Justices Chao Hick Tin, Andrew Phang Boon Leong and V K Rajah confirmed this position, ruling that, “If a vacancy is left unfilled for an unnecessarily prolonged period that would give rise to a serious risk of disenfranchising the residents of that constituency.”

Mr M Ravi, Mdm Vellama’s lawyer, adds, “This may be the first time the Singapore Court have acted to interpret the Constitution in a way that has circumscribed the Prime Minister’s executive authority. It is a great day for democracy in Singapore. A year ago, who would have imagined that one Hougang citizen could take on such a challenge, in the interest of all citizens, and that it would result in the highest court affirming that Singaporeans do have a right to representation in Parliament.”

However, other points raised by Mr Kam are less heartening. Mr Kam was quoted as saying: “We are at the stage where the 10 licensees have studied the conditions, and they are giving feedback (on) how can we improve the wording, make it clearer ... so that (the licensees) are as clear as possible what the obligation is."

We are perturbed as to why MDA and MCI are only consulting the 10 current licensees, when the Act could potentially be applied to other websites at MDA’s choosing. Can the government then confirm that those who are not consulted in the Broadcasting Act will be exempted from the regulation, as their inputs are not deemed relevant? Should MDA and MCI not consult more widely? Given the diversity of online media, #FreeMyInternet continues to recommend that MDA and MCI expand their consultation process to be more inclusive, as outlined in our policy brief.

We also noted Mr Kam’s clarification on Part X of the Broadcasting Act, which imposes ownership and management restrictions on online computer sites granted an individual licence, that “not every licensee that holds an individual license under the Broadcasting Act is subject to ownership restrictions” and “only two changes apply to the individual licensees – they need to take down the infringing content within 24-hours notification, and the performance bond required.”

While we appreciate Mr Kam's clarification about the limits of the new regulation, we have yet to see specific assurance from the government, to be made in Parliament, that Part X would not be invoked against websites licensed under the new regime, since the word of the Broadcasting Act clearly grants the government the right to do so, should it choose to.

It is clear from this forum that more consultation needs to be done and more clarity needs to be provided by MDA and MCI, before this regulation should have been passed. This can only be for the benefit of Internet content providers and readers alike.

Issued on behalf of the #FreeMyInternet group

On 1 August 2012, High Court Justice Philip Pillai found in his ruling on the issue that the Prime Minister of Singapore had not only the authority to determine when to hold a by-election in the event of a vacancy, but also whether there should be a by-election at all. However, Justice Pillai did recognize that Mdm Vellama had acted in the public interest and not her own when she brought her challenge to the Court. For the first time in Singapore, it was determined that costs would not be ordered against a litigant who was before the Court in a matter of public interest.

Friday's ruling

In today’s judgement, Justices Chao Hick Tin, Andrew Phang Boon Leong and V K Rajah determined that, founded on their analysis of events, Mdm Vellama should not have been granted leave to bring her challenge to the Court in the first place. The justices based this on the fact that the Hougang Parliamentary seat had only been vacant for two weeks when Mdm Vellama asked the High Court to make the declaration that the seat must be filled. Further, the Court determined that Mdm Vellama had no cause to be heard before the High Court originally because at the time her case was heard, the Prime Minister had already announced that a by-election would be held in Hougang.

However, the Court did write extensively on Madame Vellama’s question, and whether the Prime Minister had unfettered discretion to call a by-election or leave a vacancy unoccupied. Drawing on the history of the Constitution and Parliamentary debates dating back to 1963, the Court found that "The voters of a constituency are entitled to have a Member representing and speaking for them in Parliament." Further, the judgement read, "... it seems clear to us that the Constitution places a duty upon the Prime Minister to call a by-election".

In so writing, Justices Chao, Phang and Rajah confirmed the Hougang resident’s position, that Parliamentary by-elections are not merely optional and in that regard the lower Court was incorrect in coming “to the conclusion that the Prime Minister is thereby completely free to do as he pleases, even to the extent of delaying indefinitely the calling of a by-election or even declaring that he will not fill a casual vacancy.”

The Court determined that “if a vacancy is left unfilled for an unnecessarily prolonged period that would give rise to a serious risk of disenfranchising the residents of that constituency.” Therefore, the Prime Minister’s discretionary power is subject to legal limits and he has a duty to call for by-elections within a reasonable time subsequent to a vacancy.

Impact of the decision

Upon news of the Court of Appeal decision, Mr M Ravi, Mdm Vellama’s lawyer, stated, “This may be the first time the Singapore Courts have acted to interpret the Constitution in a way that has circumscribed the Prime Minister’s executive authority. It is a great day for democracy in Singapore. A year ago, who would have imagined that one Hougang citizen could take on such a challenge, in the interest of all citizens, and that it would result in the highest court affirming that Singaporeans do have a right to representation in Parliament.”

The excitement over today’s decision in Singapore has been a long-time coming.

In 1963, debating this very issue in the Legislative Assembly, Assemblyman Inche Ahmad Jabri Bin Mohammad Akib argued, "We have seen examples in Singapore, because of the absence of a particular clause which binds the Government; although we may try to put the blame on the previous Government, it is our responsibility today, when we discover the weaknesses, to rectify the errors. Should any vacancy occur in future, we do not wish to leave it to the whims and fancies of the Party in power… I consider this matter affects the destiny of the people of Singapore.”

Today’s ruling has finally set out to rectify those errors in the conduct of by-elections past and, in this new era of civil rights activism, it might well be a matter which affects the destiny of the people of Singapore.

Several in the group of friends then went to question Shanmugam on his Facebook page about his accusation of Ms Han, and confirming that what Ms Han had written in her blog post was correct and accurate.

The Law Minister did not and has not responded.

The “keyboard warriors” mentioned by Mr Tan in his posting apparently were those who were questioning the Law Minister.

What is interesting to note is that Mr Tan’s disparaging remarks were swiftly rejected by several commenters, and indeed Mr Tan was put in his place for his comments.

The first person to respond was Mr Timothy Tay, who said:

“It would be nice of the minister to kindly take note of the work done by others who take care of people on the fringes of society who are not mentioned or mentioned as much as needed, either by the media or by the government for reasons we do not know.”

He added:

“Even if the activists are engaging in issues in ways that you do not agree with, Mr. Minister, it would be respectful for you to recognise their efforts even if there's strong disagreement with the focus or the process. It's good to build people up, and not to break people down just because of such differences.”

Mr Joshua Chiang posted:

“Minister, and many of those 'keyboard warriors arguing about the midnight calls' are in fact doing the work.”

In fact, the several “keyboard warriors” who were questioning the Law Minister about the “midnight calls” had been “doing work” which indeed would “change lives”, as Mr Tan put it. These include work on various causes – from migrant workers’ rights and welfare, to the death penalty, from freedom of the press to human rights, and many others in-between.

Ms Han herself has been an advocate, particularly, for the abolition of the death penalty in Singapore, and has done much work over the years on this.

And in that week prior to Mr Tan posting his comments, that group of “keyboard warriors” had been out and about distributing water and masks to foreign construction workers at various sites in Singapore as well. They were doing their part during the haze.

Mr Tan’s remarks were thus wholly inaccurate, misguided and ill-informed. The “keyboard warriors” in question have, in fact, been “doing work” which affect lives even before Mr Tan came on the scene.

He seemed to have realised his error after being corrected by Mr Tay.

“There are many who do the work, and I don't disrespect their efforts,” he replied to Mr Tay. “And even if there are differences, it doesn't negate their efforts nor [sic] contribution.”

The point I am trying to make here is that even ministers get it wrong, and when they do it is right and responsible that these be pointed out and if need be, ministers should also be put in their place.

On Saturday, the Prime Minister spoke of “the nasty side of politics”, and he made specific reference to online ciriticism of his government, its MPs and ministers.

The PM should also be aware that many a time these “nasty” comments or postings are made by those from his own side, or by what are obviously supporters of his party. While Minister Tan’s disparaging remarks are by no means vile as some others, still it showed that not everyone on the government’s side is faultless at all time.

"The uncertainty over how things can develop may deter people from entering politics and potential candidates may be concerned about the impact on their families,” PM Lee said on Saturday. "You can be criticised personally ... but what goes on on the Web, all sorts of nasty stuff ... it has a real impact on families."

It is absolutely true that such behaviour online can and do have “real impact on families” of those who would go into public service.

But let’s not be ignorant or kid ourselves that these “nasty stuff” only come from one side of the fence.

Presently, for example, there is a Facebook post on a Facebook page which is apparently pro-Government/pro-PAP, containing vile references to Mr Vincent Wijeysingha who disclosed last week that he was gay. The remarks by the page and the subsequent comments by seemingly pro-PAP supporters there are indeed “nasty stuff”.

It reminds one of another instance where Mr Wijeysingha was again the target, this time by a minister. [Read here: “Vivian slithers in the gutter, SDP on knife-edge, part 1”]

Do we forget how the pictures and personal details of some female friends of former Hougang MP Yaw Shin Leong were splashed across the pages of the mainstream newspapers after the affair Yaw was alleged to have had first surfaced? Do we forget the many insinuations made against these women? Do we forget how reporters hounded them even at their homes?

And then there are the numerous cases in the past of some truly appalling abuse by the same government – of incarcerating its opponents without trial for decades, for suing its political foes into bankruptcy and into forced exile, or installing legislations to further curtail criticisms of it, of using the mainstream media to distort and disparage and defame those who go against its dictates, and so on and so on.

It is a well-known litany of abuse. The PAP brand of politics indeed was thoroughly nasty.

Online criticisms of the government or the PAP pales in comparison. In fact, the two are universes apart.

Yet, the finger is squarely, as it always is, placed on the dissenters of the government.

It is always them at fault.

Our PAP politicians, present ones and potential ones, must be protected at all costs, and the carpet must be straightened and laid out before them, so that their feet do not touch the ground and be soiled, all impediments to their ascension to their thrones must be removed. And of course, they must be well renumerated, otherwise they will not find it worth their time to serve the public.

In short, while PAP/Government detractors are free to be mauled and destroyed, and destroyed mercilessly, your potential PAP candidate/MP/Minister however must:

- Not face too much political opposition, else the PM will have to spend time fixing the opposition.

PM Lee: "Suppose you had 10, 15, 20 opposition members in Parliament. Instead of spending my time thinking what is the right policy for Singapore, I'm going to spend all my time thinking what's the right way to fix them, to buy my supporters votes.." (May 2006)

- Not face too many obstacles and "as many impediments as possible" should be removed for them.

East Coast GRC MP Lee Yi Shyan, who left his job as chief executive officer of IE Singapore and is today Minister of State (Trade and Industry), concurred: “If the system can remove as many impediments as possible, then the political system will be able to get more people to join.” (June 2006)

- Be given assurance of winning 'at least' his first election.

Goh Chok Tong: "Without some assurance of a good chance of winning at least their first election, many able and successful young Singaporeans may not risk their careers to join politics." (June 2006)

- Not be paid too low or "suffer a drastic change in the standard of living."

Grace Fu: "I had some ground to believe that my family would not suffer a drastic change in the standard of living even though I experienced a drop in my income. So it is with this recent pay cut. If the balance is tilted further in the future, it will make it harder for any one considering political office." (January 2012)

- Not be "criticized personally", especially online.

PM Lee: "The uncertainty over how things can develop may deter people from entering politics and potential candidates may be concerned about the impact on their families."

"You can be criticised personally ... but what goes on on the Web, all sorts of nasty stuff ... it has a real impact on families." (July 2013)

----------------

In 2009, PAP MP Sam Tan accused Singaporeans of being too dependent on the government, and that Singaporeans were “mollycoddled”. He related how Singaporeans are helped by so many government assistance schemes during the recession, and how Singaporeans “have become somewhat accustomed to the largesse of an efficient MCYS whose many helping hands are indeed everywhere doing everything for us.”

“Mr Sam Tan, MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC, is worried that Singaporeans might have been so mollycoddled by the Government that they have become 'practised at the craft of recession cushioning', and so accustomed to the government largesse.” (Straits Times)

One can’t help but feel that Mr Sam Tan’s words, spoken in Parliament, would also apply to potential PAP MPs and ministers. From the words of ministers themselves in the past, as quoted above, it would seem that potential PAP candidates for elections want the path cleared entirely of every conceivable obstacle for them as well, before they would even consider public service.

Perhaps they – and the Prime Minister – should keep in mind Mr Sam Tan’s words of advice from 2009, issued in Parliament:

“Suppose you are the father of an eight-old-year boy who wants to learn how to cycle.  Do you line the streets with cushions so that he will not hurt himself if he loses his balance?  Do you brace his knees, and every conceivable part of his exposed body with padding?  You might, if you were an extremely protective father.  But the commonsensical approach would be to let the boy have a go at it himself, and take the knocks and spills as they come.  A boy who is mollycoddled is a very different person from one who is physically tough and to take spills without fear and whining.  The latter, I think, could be the approach that we take towards helping Singaporeans during tough times.”

The PAP should quit whining about every little criticism they receive, especially online, and get on with the job before them.

And Singaporeans should also seriously consider if they want leaders who will not enter the fray until and unless the obstacles before them are cleared – and cleared for them too.

In other words, do we want whiny, mollycoddled little emperors to be our public servants who expect red carpet treatment?

"I suspect we have started to believe our own propaganda. There is also a particular brand of Singapore elite arrogance creeping in. Some civil servants behave like they have a mandate from the emperor. We think we are little Lee Kuan Yews." – Ngiam Tong Dow, former head of Civil Service, 2010.

However, other points raised by Mr Kam are less heartening. Mr Kam was quoted as saying: “We are at the stage where the 10 licensees have studied the conditions, and they are giving feedback (on) how can we improve the wording, make it clearer ... so that (the licensees) are as clear as possible what the obligation is."

We are perturbed as to why MDA and MCI are only consulting the 10 current licensees, when the Act could potentially be applied to other websites at MDA’s choosing. Can the government then confirm that those who are not consulted in the Broadcasting Act will be exempted from the regulation, as their inputs are not deemed relevant? Should MDA and MCI not consult more widely? Given the diversity of online media, #FreeMyInternet continues to recommend that MDA and MCI expand their consultation process to be more inclusive, as outlined in our policy brief.

We also noted Mr Kam’s clarification on Part X of the Broadcasting Act, which imposes ownership and management restrictions on online computer sites granted an individual licence, that “not every licensee that holds an individual license under the Broadcasting Act is subject to ownership restrictions” and “only two changes apply to the individual licensees – they need to take down the infringing content within 24-hours notification, and the performance bond required.”

While we appreciate Mr Kam's clarification about the limits of the new regulation, we have yet to see specific assurance from the government, to be made in Parliament, that Part X would not be invoked against websites licensed under the new regime, since the word of the Broadcasting Act clearly grants the government the right to do so, should it choose to.

It is clear from this forum that more consultation needs to be done and more clarity needs to be provided by MDA and MCI, before this regulation should have been passed. This can only be for the benefit of Internet content providers and readers alike.

Issued on behalf of the #FreeMyInternet group