New Licensing Framework for Online News Sites

Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) what are the urgent concerns in implementing the online news licensing scheme without public consultation or advance notice; (b) whether owners of the 10 news sites are consulted before the change and what are their concerns; (c) whether the licensing criteria will be refined to exclude non-commercial news sites and, if so, what are the plans to engage the online community; (d) whether an independent board will be set up to determine the future sites to be included, content to be taken down and appeals from licensees; and (e) whether media accreditation is a potential end-result in bringing about consistency across the mainstream and online media through this licensing scheme.

Mr Baey Yam Keng asked the Minister for Communications and Information in respect of the new regulation on licensing of online news websites (a) whether it is an automatic inclusion for news sites once they reach the thresholds of reporting frequency and, if not, how will the selection be made; (b) what are the reasons why sites which report on niche sectors – for example, property, education, parenting – and having significant online reach are not required to be licensed; and (c) whether there are organisations that are not able to afford the required performance bonds and, if so, what are the

Page: 69

alternatives offered and accepted.

Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) how will the new licensing regulations for online news websites affect blog sites that persistently report on Singapore news and exceed the readership threshold set by these regulations; and (b) how will these regulations be applied against the owners/administrators of stand-alone Facebook pages that persistently report on Singapore news and exceed the readership threshold of the regulations.

Mr Chen Show Mao asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) what is MDA's rationale for excluding the 10 news websites from the Internet Class Licence Scheme and requiring them to be individually licensed and to post a $50,000 performance bond; (b) how have existing laws and regulations proven inadequate in regulating these 10 news websites; and (c) whether MDA has plans to require other websites that provide Singapore news programmes to be individually licensed.

Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Communications and Information with regard to MDA's new regulations requiring certain news websites to be individually licensed in addition to posting a S$50,000 performance bond (a) whether MDA has deliberated on the efficacy of implementing guidelines originally established for the mainstream media to online news sources and, if so, what is the nature of these deliberations; (b) whether MDA has considered seeking feedback from stakeholders given the potentially widespread application of the new regulations and, if not, what are the reasons; (c) whether MDA will consider seeking feedback and consultation from the public before the future introduction of new laws or regulations that affect the local online community; and (d) whether there will be a public consultation exercise on the proposed amendments to the Broadcasting Act.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) how many times in the past has MDA directed Internet Content Providers to remove content from, or prohibit access to, websites because of objectionable material in violation of the Internet Code of Practice; (b) what are the content of these materials; and (c) whether the Internet Content Providers have complied with MDA's directive and, if not, what action has MDA taken against them for non-compliance.

Madam, Members have raised questions about various facets of MDA's new licensing framework for online news sites. I will answer them in terms of its rationale, what MDA introduced, its expected impact, and the notice period given for the change.

Madam, a "healthy" public discourse, in Mr Chen Show Mao's words, must be grounded in accurate facts. This is true whether the discourse takes place online, or in the physical world. Entities that publish the news have a duty to ensure that the news is accurately and fairly reported because they provide the basic elements of information upon which individuals make decisions or form judgements and opinions on any matter. Hence, traditional news providers in broadcast and print have always operated under individual licensing.

As the media landscape converges, news is published not only in print and broadcast, but also on the Internet. As online sites have become a more significant source of news, our regulatory framework has to evolve to keep pace with the changing landscape. The new licensing framework seeks to place online news sites and traditional news sites on a more consistent regulatory basis, while recognising that they are not identical.

Mr Pritam Singh asked whether MDA considered the efficacy of introducing rules that apply to traditional media, into the online space. I would like to stress that we have never taken the approach that the Internet space is to be unregulated. If online conduct leads to offences under the Penal Code or other laws of the land, the persons responsible are held accountable. As far as other content is concerned, we have regulated with a light-touch through the Class Licence Scheme, introduced in 1996. This has not changed, Madam. The new

Page: 71

licensing framework affects only 10 sites, and they are subject to a few more specific obligations under their licence, commensurate with their role as news providers.

In the new licensing framework, online news sites will be individually licensed if they (a) report an average of at least one article per week on Singapore's news and current affairs over a continuous period of two months; and (b) are visited by a monthly average of at least 50,000 unique IP addresses from Singapore over the same two months. Requiring these news sites to take up individual licences also places a stronger onus on the licensees operating these websites to be aware of their legal obligations, and to report incidents and occurrences responsibly.

The online news site licence will require licensees to adhere to a set of content standards which are no different from existing standards under the Internet Code of Practice and Class Licence. These content standards are meant to safeguard racial and religious harmony, public order, as well as good taste and decency. I wish to stress that nothing in the content standards prevents licensees from commenting on Government policies. Since the content standards have not changed, licensees will enjoy the same freedom of expression they have hitherto enjoyed under the Class Licence Scheme. Fears that the new licensing framework will stifle Internet freedom are unfounded. The vibrant online environment that critics purport to cherish emerged under the same set of content standards in the Class Licence Scheme.

There are only two additional requirements which will be imposed on licensees. Firstly, when directed by MDA, they have 24 hours to take down content which is in breach of the content standards. This is important, as news on these high-reach sites can go viral very quickly and have a detrimental impact on society if they undermine racial harmony or raise public order concerns.

Secondly, licensees have to provide a $50,000 performance bond. A similar requirement is imposed on other individual licensees, such as niche TV licences. This is to ensure that licensees exercise their best efforts to keep their websites free of prohibited content and when there is such content, to remove it expeditiously within the timeframe of 24 hours when directed by MDA. The performance bond need not be provided in cash to MDA, but can be in the form of a banker's guarantee, or insurance. None of the licensees of the 10 sites have raised any concerns with posting the performance bond.

Page: 72

Madam, we do not expect the new licensing framework to affect in any way the operations of the 10 online sites identified for individual licensing.

Several Members have asked about the scope of the licensing framework and the types of sites that will be covered.

In general, bloggers, Internet commentators and niche sites provide their personal perspective of issues, and do not regularly report on the news and current affairs of the day. As a result, they have not been determined to be reporting on Singapore news and current affairs, and so these websites do not fall within the scope of the licensing framework. However, should these websites morph into online sites reporting on Singapore news, MDA will have to separately assess if they meet the two criteria for licensing. For now, MDA is working with the organisations that own the 10 sites. MDA is not considering individually licensing any other sites at this point in time.

Some sites claim that if subject to individual licensing, they will not be able to furnish the $50,000 performance bond, or even a guarantee. I would like to make three points here, Madam. Firstly, the $50,000 performance bond was set in view of the financial means of the 10 identified online sites. Secondly, the MDA has already stated that if the performance bond is beyond the financial means of a future licensee, it is willing to consider the specific circumstances of that licensee and adjust the performance bond accordingly. The key is that the performance bond must provide a meaningful incentive to the licensee to make the best effort to comply with the licensing conditions. Thirdly, and in response to Mr Zaqy's question, it would not be a sound regulatory approach to exempt entities on the basis that they intend to operate non-commercially. Our rationale for this new licensing framework is based on the special responsibility that news providers hold. This responsibility is not diminished simply because the operators choose to operate on a non-profit or non-commercial basis, if they indeed set themselves out as providers of news content.

Another concern expressed by sites not identified for individual licensing is that it has a "chilling effect" on their activities. I think, Madam, this is far-fetched. In any case, I do not think they are so easily ‘chilled'. I have already explained that the MDA will set a reasonable performance bond commensurate with the financial position of a future licensee. The intention is not to prevent the site from operating under a licence. On the contrary, the intent is to allow a qualifying site to continue to operate, under an individual licence.

Page: 73

Members have asked about the manner in which the licensing framework was implemented and whether the potential licensees were engaged. The licensing framework is a refinement of the existing Class Licence Scheme which Internet content providers are already familiar with, and is not a major shift. The 10 potential licensees were informed of the new licensing framework before it was introduced, and MDA's engagement with them on the exact terms of the licence is on-going. The entire process of engagement, which started in May, is expected to take four to five months, after which the licence will actually take effect. This, Madam, should provide sufficient time for the industry to give its feedback on the detailed licence conditions.

The Government is committed to wider consultation on issues that affect the public. Over the past few months, Singaporeans have given their views on various Government policies as part of "Our Singapore Conversation". However, in this instance, the licensing framework only applies to a small number of news sites and does not affect the overwhelming majority of Internet content providers. Besides, content standards have remained unchanged and the licence will not impact the public in general. Therefore, when implementing the framework, we did not feel there was a need for wider public consultation before the licensing framework was announced. Nevertheless, Madam, we will continue to engage stakeholder groups on this issue to allay any concerns that they may have.

As to whether the framework would be extended to overseas-based websites, the issue will be studied further in tandem with planned amendments to the Broadcasting Act. The broad intent is to ensure that overseas broadcasters that are specifically targeting Singapore will be covered under our regulatory frameworks. This has become imperative with technological advances increasingly blurring the line between local and foreign broadcasters. However, we recognise that this is a complex issue and will therefore consult widely before tabling the amendments to the Broadcasting Act in Parliament sometime next year.

Madam, let me now deal with the remaining issues raised by Members.

Mr Gerald Giam asked about past issuance of take-down notices by MDA. Since 1996, MDA has issued 24 take-down notices. One instance was for a religiously-offensive video, 21 were for pornographic content or advertisements soliciting sex or sex chats, and two were for inappropriate gambling-related content. MDA has not encountered any instance where a site-owner has refused to comply with a take-down notice. The track record has shown that, notwithstanding that the same contents standards have been in existence since

Page: 74

1996, MDA has not directed websites to take down content just because it is critical of the Government. There is therefore no cause for concern that the new online news licensing framework would reduce the vibrancy of online discourse or negatively impact the promotion of a more active and engaged citizenry.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad suggested setting up an independent body to review sites to be included in the licensing framework, content to be taken down, as well as hear appeals from licensees. MDA has convened panels drawn from members of the community, to help it provide input on community standards. However, Madam, it would be wrong in principle for MDA to abrogate its regulatory responsibility, and to pass decisions such as whether an entity should be licensed, to another body. There are already established processes for parties aggrieved by a regulatory decision under the Broadcasting Act to seek redress.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad also asked whether media accreditation is a potential end result of the licensing framework. Accreditation is accorded to news organisations that cover Government events and functions regularly to facilitate their work. Accreditation is not compulsory for news related organisations to engage in news gathering and many organisations do operate without seeing the need to apply for accreditation. The criteria considered before accreditation is conferred include the reach or distribution of the media organisation and its professional standing. Accrediting media organisations and licensing news sites are assessed and determined on very separate considerations.

Madam, in conclusion, I want to reiterate that the new licensing framework is designed to enable identified sites to move seamlessly from the existing class licence to hold an individual licence. The rationale for the change is based on the special responsibility that news providers have, because the news they produce is used by the public to come to informed decisions and opinions on matters of public interest. The licensing framework places traditional news providers and online news providers on a more consistent regulatory framework. We do not expect the new framework to have any effect on the degree of expression that currently exists in the online space. Since the introduction of the Class Licence framework in 1996, the MDA has shown itself to be balanced and restrained in the exercise of its powers to regulate online content. It has never used them to order the removal of content that is critical of Government policy or Government Ministers. Concerns that the Internet will be stifled are thus far-fetched and will prove to be unfounded in due course.

I thank the Member for the three questions. At the moment, as I mentioned in my reply, we do not have any other sites which we have deemed to be licensable because they have not crossed the two thresholds that we mentioned. As I said earlier, we will monitor, but the most important thing for us is that all the sites existing now in Singapore can continue to do what they are doing. They do not have to look behind their back whether MDA is looking over them. We will continue to monitor this situation. As and when the sites cross the two thresholds that we mentioned above, in terms of reach and in terms of the frequency of their articles, we will call them in for a discussion. At the moment, the only sites that we are deemed to be licensable are the 10 sites that I have mentioned publicly.

On the second point about the concerns by the "Free My Internet" group, they are not subjected to the ownership or management requirements under the Broadcasting Act – none whatsoever. All they have to do is to abide by two additional requirements which is the performance bond and the take-down 24-hour notice. Beyond that, the content standard remains exactly the same under the Class Licence scheme.

On the third point about AIC, like the Member, I am also puzzled as to why they issued their statement even though we had clarified. But I would like to assure the House and members of the public that we do not think, in any way, that this will affect the international reputation of Singapore because this has nothing to do with doing business in Singapore. It is about holding certain

Page: 76

websites to a higher level of responsibility.

If you operate as a news site, like any other news sites which are operating in Singapore, both in the traditional space and online space, we hold you to a higher degree of responsibility and therefore we need to license you, so that you know that whatever you do, you must do it well and do it accurately because you are reporting for the benefit of Singaporeans. So, we are a bit puzzled. We would like to assure the House that we do not think the concerns of AIC would affect our reputation as an international business hub for the Internet in any way.

Madam, I thank Mr Zaqy for the three questions. First, in terms of the definition, if you look through the licensing conditions, what we have done is just merely to take what is defined as a news site from other legislations like the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA) and ported it over. So, it is not a definition which is crafted purely for this licensing framework. It is already in existence. It is very difficult for any government to be able to predict every permutation possible as to whether or not you become a news site. That is why we have given ourselves two months to see whether there are some consistencies in terms of the way of reporting and then ensuring there is a reach because the reach will measure the influence

Page: 77

of the site.

By and large, we think that based on the definition that we have in place, it will give MDA some discretion to be very conservative rather than to rush in and license everyone, and to ensure that whether that site has become a news site, it is done so on a consistent basis and on the data that we have over a very long period of time.

The second question as to whether or not there is a difference. There is certainly a difference between the panel that we have that deals with the arts groups and what the Member is suggesting on the news sites. In the case of arts groups, we realise that there are matters that pertain to public interest and also public taste and whether or not we are moving far ahead of the curve or not. Therefore, in matters in which MDA cannot make a decision, it will call upon the body of wise men and women to help us and guide us to what is the necessary course of action given a piece of art work.

In this particular case, we think it is quite straight forward in terms of how we can monitor it because it is about news, it is about current affairs, whether you are reporting about the haze yesterday or today, and about what happens in Parliament, it is quite clear cut. What is different now, of course, is the degree by which that reporting takes place. We talked about the two months and of course about the reach that we mentioned earlier.

We did not rush through this. I have to be honest to Members in the House. We looked at this for a very long time. The reason why we are doing this is because of three trends. It is basically technological changes. Convergence is upon us. We had a Committee last year; they have looked at it; they have come back with four key recommendations and it is blurring the line between what is online and what is physical. It is a new landscape that is evolving. And whether we like it or not, whoever reports news, whether you are in the physical world or in the online space, Singaporeans must expect that we hold them to a certain degree of responsibility because news is very important. To move on something about the online space, as we all know, we had to be very cautious; we had to study this very carefully. We had studied other jurisdictions and we realised that other jurisdictions are also looking at the same problem. I mentioned New Zealand in my reply to the media.

Why did I cite New Zealand? I know some people in the Internet community were not happy with the example I cited. They are also going through the same process of collapsing all of the legislation into one piece of legislation because

Page: 78

of convergence. They are having problems dealing with that. In UK, they are also doing the same thing.

So, first is technology, and the second thing is, eyeballs are shifting. More Singaporeans are now moving online to get the news. That is the truth; we cannot hide that. The mainstream media know that; it is something you cannot avoid. Young people turn on the Internet and go on the websites to read the news first. They then go to the mainstream newspapers later on to verify whatever the story may be. I think the truth of the matter is online sites are gaining popularity. If more Singaporeans are going to online sites to get their news, I think we need to do something about it, at least lay down a framework.

Thirdly, as I mentioned in my reply, we are only talking about 10 sites. But who can anticipate what would be the number of sites next year? So, rather than wait and react, the Ministry decided to put a framework in place. A framework which all of us can agree on is not much different from the existing framework which is a Class Licence. All we did was to take you out from the Class Licence to give you an individual licence, but we hold you to the same content standards.

In my reply, even for the 10 sites, we have not rushed in to license them. We are calling them in for discussions, to understand their concerns so that when we finally give them the licence, we also understand what exactly the implications are for some of these companies.

We have to evolve but we need to put the framework in place, learn as we go along. There may be a proliferation of sites in the future to come. For example, among the 10 sites, Yahoo does not have a physical presence altogether. It is an online news site. We just checked – there is an Australian site called The Global Mail. It is purely an online news site. So, it is coming and I see no reason why we think Singapore should be insulated from such a trend. The Ministry thought it is useful for us to have a framework in place to deal with this emerging trend, so that at least we have some framework in managing the emergence news sites, which we expect will be beyond the 10 sites that we have licensed.

For the last question, the answer is "no". We are moving ahead with the legislation. In terms of consultation, as I mentioned in my reply, this is not a major change. It is a tweaking of the Class Licence Scheme. And if the Internet community does not understand, I would be very worried. Look carefully – the content standards remain exactly the same. They still have the take-down requirement within the Class Licence Scheme.

Page: 82

Now, there is a stipulation of 24 hours. As I have replied to two other Members, we are flexible about that.

There is now a performance bond – again, as I have replied to other Members, we are flexible about that. Why? Because we must agree, news is important because it helps us to make informed decisions. If it is not done responsibly, it could have disastrous effects. We have to hold the online news sites to a slightly higher standard, higher responsibility compared to the Class Licence sites.

It is a tweaking of the Class Licence Scheme. It is not a major change; it does not need powers of Parliament; we are not amending the Broadcasting Act. We will do it next year if we have changes, as I mentioned in my reply. And there will definitely be consultations because that will be a major change, on how it is that we can license overseas sites which operate as online news sites. That is something which I think we need to consult because it is a complex issue and we will come back to Parliament for a thorough debate on whether or not we will have a framework to deal with overseas sites.

But we must agree that we have to hold them to the same responsibilities as we do for foreign newspapers which operate in Singapore. We do not allow them to meddle in local politics.

We have to recognise that the environment has changed. It is about news. If we expect high standards in the physical world of news reporting; why are we not expecting the same standards of those who are reporting news online? It must be.

Secondly, in no way does it interrupt innovation or cause businesses to have great uncertainty about what they are doing in Singapore. As I have mentioned in my reply, continue to do what you are doing now. As Acting Minister Tan Chuan-Jin said, keep calm, continue posting, nothing has changed. We will monitor the situation because we want to make sure that this framework is well understood and people know what we are talking about. At the end of the day, it is really to protect Singaporeans and Singaporean consumers who read news online.

It has been four to five months that we have now been in discussions with the 10 sites; it is also for us to understand the concerns of the industry. In fact, we consulted them before we implemented the new licensing framework and they had not raised any concerns. Now, with the implementation of the licence,

Page: 83

we want to understand even better and we have been meeting them and we will do so until we can understand all their concerns. But the basic framework of the licence will not change.