Debated in Parliament on 8 Jul 2013.
Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn."
Question proposed.
Mdm Speaker, may I first thank the Minister for giving me the opportunity to raise the matter of the Media Development Authority (MDA's) Licensing Framework for News Websites in Singapore on the Motion for the Adjournment although most of the issues had been dealt with through many Parliamentary Questions (PQs) from Members.
On 28 May, MDA announced a new licensing regime for Singapore's news websites. These regulations require what are defined by MDA as online news sites of which are visited by at least 50,000 unique IP addresses from Singapore each month over a period of two months, to put up a performance bond of $50,000, and to comply within 24 hours to remove content if found to be in breach of content standards. These regulations were to take effect just four days later on 1 June. That provoked an uproar among bloggers and, indeed, many Singaporeans. A protest against MDA's regulations was staged at Hong Lim Park on 8 June by a coalition of bloggers called "Free My Internet".
For Singaporeans who run on small blogs or who post comments on sites, they were concerned how the regulations will affect them. More recently, five members of the Asia Internet Coalition – Facebook, Google, Ebay, Yahoo! and Salesforce – have called the new MDA rules "unwarranted and excessive". These are the world's major companies providing Internet-related services. This issue has now affected Singapore's business-friendly image and reputation as a media hub.
The Government is trying to assure Singaporeans that they are not out to clamp down on Internet freedom. The Acting Minister for Manpower, in speaking about these media regulations, said on television that Singaporeans can continue to air their views online. But what does that really mean? The
Page: 85
Minister for Manpower also said that the regulations "do not encompass blogs" but may, if "blogs evolve into news sites". The definition of news sites under the regulations, as they stand, are so arbitrary and can encompass any website posting at least one news-related article in a week. That is why Singaporeans continue to believe that the regulations have been crafted to censor blogs, especially those that discuss politics. Once the $50,000 performance bond is imposed on a community-run blog, they are effectively forced to shut down as such community-run blogs are unlikely to be able to afford to put down that amount of money, and for it to be subjected to the prerogative of MDA on points, such as the "24-hour take-down" rule.
This is not just about the better communication of the new MDA rules, as the Minister for Communications and Information put it. There are legal issues that have not been addressed. Most of all, this issue has not been even put before this House for scrutiny and debate until today – a full 38 days after the regulations had already taken effect.
I raise two points at this juncture. Firstly, press regulation is distinct from media regulation. Regulating the media at large will address fraudulent advertising, for instance. Media regulation is not routine. Regulating the press is quite different. For example, Singapore has a Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA). With the MDA regulations, the definition of a "news site" was suddenly widened on 28 May. Contrary to MDA's press statement, the new regulations do not merely have the effect of placing online news sites "on a more consistent regulatory framework with traditional news platforms". Rather, MDA regulations, as worded, can effectively encompass all online media. This is the case when MDA presents a definition of a "Singapore news programme" as "any programme containing any news, intelligence, report or occurrence, or any matter of public interest about any social, economic, political, cultural, artistic, sporting, scientific or any other aspects of Singapore in any language but does not include any programme produced by or on behalf of the Government." We find it hard to accept such a definition. This, basically, encompasses everything under the sun which one can blog about. What then is not considered news?
The Singapore Government's subsequent attempts to clarify the definitions here do not satisfy either, even if they refer instead to "computer online said services" and to "commercial news websites". One would find out that computer online services will literally refer to the provision of a service and, indeed, anything could be construed as a service provided online through a computer. It can even cover Internet search engine results. The net is cast so widely. What is a commercial news website? Yahoo! News Singapore does not
Page: 86
charge for access to its news articles, just like a community blog news. So, why is the MDA referring to Yahoo! as a "commercial news website"?
Moreover, one of the criteria from inclusion in the new regulations does not seem to meet MDA's stated intent of merely placing online news sites on a more consistent regulatory framework with traditional news platform. Are there print newspapers that only publish one news article a week? So, why is it a stated requirement that online news sites, which report an average of at least one article per week, over a period of two months, on Singapore news, need to be individually licensed? Why not set a higher threshold that is more consistent with the volume of output typically expected from newspapers? I would imagine this number to be at least a few hundred articles per month. Otherwise, it looks like the regulations are pegging personal blogs, targeting personal blogs. Questions abound. Once a website is licensed, would it stay licensed for its entire life, whether or not the number of visitors is reduced later? That is why I submit to the Minister that these new regulations have the potential, legally, to extend control to all media rather than just placing online news sites on par with regulations on print newspapers, which was the stated intent.
Secondly, questions have also been raised about the curious line-up of 10 websites that fall under the new regulations. Nine of them are online outfits of Singapore's newspapers or media outlets that already fall into the Newspapers and Printing Presses Act or are under the ownership of Singapore Press Holdings or Mediacorp. Just one website is not – Yahoo! News Singapore.
Yahoo! has been licensed under the Broadcasting (Class Licence) Notification of 2001 since its inception. It is an automatic licensing framework. This particular regulatory framework for the Internet contains requirements for both Internet Service Providers and Internet Content Providers – only those Internet Content Providers which have connection with political parties and those dealing with the propagation, promotion and discussion of political or religious issues relating to Singapore, will require registration. Under the Class Licence Scheme, Internet Content Providers and Internet Service Providers are deemed automatically licensed, and have to observe and comply with the Class Licence Conditions and the Internet Code of Practice, which is issued by MDA.
So, if regulatory oversight for news sites like Yahoo already exists, why did MDA have to introduce new regulations? MDA had also gone on record to say that there will be no change in content standards, and the intention is not to clamp down on Internet freedom.
Page: 87
Yes, we know that there are two new requirements in the new regulations – the 24-hour take-down rule, and the $50,000 performance bond. Why is there the need for these sanctions? Is it because Yahoo! has not been complying with content standards?
As mentioned earlier, statements indicated that the new rules aim to place online news websites on a more consistent regulatory framework with traditional news platforms. The public interprets this to mean that the Government wants to control the Internet in the same way that it has been controlling newspapers in Singapore since 1974 under the NPPA, in which is one of the most sophisticatedly controlled media environments in the world.
So, what is the purpose behind MDA regulations? Is it really just to regulate the Yahoo! news site, along with sites of the mainstream media outlets, and to leave personal blogs and community blogs alone, even if they meet the criteria of having a viewership of 50,000 per month?
There are still many unanswered questions. The Minister clarified that the new regulations aim to cover only locally-based websites. But we wonder how he intends to define – hopefully with acceptance from the industry – a locally-based service? Would the MDA refer to the location of the server, the computer, the operations of the company, or the type of news?
In this connection, we also ask – why were the websites of CNN, BBC, Reuters and Bloomberg left out of the list? Certainly, we can argue that they qualify. They are surely computer online services and we can be quite sure that they are in the business of news. Some of these firms have offices in Singapore and have been providing news services from Singapore.
Otherwise, the regulations seem to be so arbitrarily drawn up. Its implementation would appear to be subjected to the whims and fancy of the MDA, without any provisions for legal oversight or redress.
The computer may not need to be physically based in Singapore. When we checked with an IT expert, a cloud computer powered by energy from Singapore would also be covered. Will MDA define for us the jurisdiction for cloud computing services? Allow me to give a simple example. How does MDA consider the case of a popular news site, operated by a Singaporean blogger, using a blogging platform powered through cloud computer systems? In this globalised and digitalised world, we are not sure if it makes sense to speak of a
Page: 88
"locally-based website" any longer.
Given that there are so many unanswered questions, some technical, others conceptual, should we not revamp and update the entire Broadcasting Act first? We believe that the Act has to be first updated to be relevant with the new Internet industry and new technology before we can start to discuss these new regulations. I understand the Minister has said that the Government may tackle amendments to the Broadcasting Act some time next year. So, why rush through these MDA regulations meanwhile? Would the legislation not then be untidy?
The regulations also seem to have disregarded the key 2008 report of the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society, or AIMS, which was set up by the then Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts, Dr Lee Boon Yang. Among the report's many recommendations on liberalising the regulations of the Internet, it is said that "a relationship built on trust among all parties is more likely to last compared to one built on the list of do's and don'ts". Is the Minister planning to dismiss the findings of the AIMS' report?
Why was this not brought before Parliament, such as through a Ministerial Statement? Just because the MDA Act empowers MDA to regulate through subsidiary legislation does not mean that it should dispense with the usual consultative process with stakeholders. What is the rush here?
The MDA regulations were dropped like a bomb on 28 May. I decided to file an Adjournment Motion on 31 May but Parliament was to be in recess until July. Then, on 19 June, the hon Member for Chua Chu Kang filed the first Parliamentary Question (PQ) on the matter. Was the Government intending to address this matter only through PQs?
The MDA regulations are premature. They fail the test of legal rigour, not only because of its ambiguous wordings – the whole regulatory regime has too wide a scope for arbitrary execution. This relates to the overarching Broadcasting Act which is outdated, but has not been amended yet.
As such, the Singapore People's Party calls on the Government to withdraw the MDA regulations of 28 May.
In the event that the Government refuses to withdraw the MDA regulations, what sort of legal guarantee can the Minister offer to all bloggers that they
Page: 89
would not be targeted?
In that case, we call on the Minister to immediately issue exemption orders for community news blogs, like The Online Citizen and TR Emeritus, with his powers under section 60B of the Broadcasting Act. I single out these two websites only because I believe they have a readership of over 50,000, at least The Online Citizen has stated this publicly – but I also make this reference to any other news blog that may fall under the criteria of the MDA regulations.
The Minister signalled that Government news or commentary will not be targeted under the new licensing regime for Singapore news sites, as long as they are factual and not misleading, and said that such claims are "far-fetched".
These assurances are vague and do not constitute a legal guarantee. Bloggers speak of the MDA regulations as a proverbial Sword of Damocles. It is the fear I strike in you if I hang an axe over your neck, even though I promise you I will never kill you.
So, to remove any lingering doubt amongst the public and the business community, we challenge the Minister to issue these exemption orders to clarify things. Section 60B of the Broadcasting Act says that the Minister is given the power to exempt any person or class of persons from all or any of the provisions of this Act or any subsidiary legislation made, such as the MDA regulations.
In conclusion, we are reminded of what George Washington, the first President of the United States, said, "If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter".
With unclear regulations like the MDA's, the Government ought to clarify each and every point made above. At the moment, without the exemption orders I just mentioned, it would appear that the regulations can be applied in future on any of the most-visited blogs and websites in Singapore.
Singaporeans will be all the more impoverished if the free flow of information is curtailed with these MDA regulations, and by the trajectory set by them. One does not even need to believe in the constitutional right to free speech to realise how worrying the new MDA rules are, from the point of view of legal order, transparency in governance, and good business sense. With the freedom of expression suppressed, Singapore is not living up to its potential as a First World country.
Page: 90
Madam, I believe most of the Member's concerns have already been addressed in my earlier responses to Members' questions but I think they are worth repeating.
Madam, the main message I would like to reiterate is that the individual licensing of online news sites is meant to ensure a certain standard of responsibility among news providers. Members have asked about what the Government is doing to address rumours and misinformation circulating online. These concerns are premised on the need for accurate and timely information – something all of us expect not only of the Government, but also of news providers, both online and offline. This is why we have placed traditional news providers in broadcast and print on individual licences, and why we have now introduced individual licences for major online news sites. And for the Member's information, anybody applying for a licence for newspaper or magazine, he will be licensed irrespective of the frequency of circulation. So, it does not really matter whether they sell one magazine or 20,000 magazines.
Just as we have laws and regulations in the physical world to govern public order, deter violence and punish wrongdoing, we also need regulations for the online space for the same reasons. Despite what critics of the licensing scheme have said, I think most, if not all, of us would agree that it is not tenable to leave the Internet completely unregulated, where harm and hurt can be caused without constraints, and without the prospect of perpetrators being brought to justice.
Rules have, therefore, been put in place to ensure certain standards of responsibility and behaviour on the Internet. And we do not believe that these rules will curtail or stifle the freedom of expression. These rules are not new – in fact, Internet content providers have come under the light-touch Class Licence Scheme since 1996. And since we have announced the law on 28 May, nothing has stopped the bloggers from commenting. The Class Licence Scheme and Internet Code of Practice ensure that content providers adhere to a set of content standards.
As I have already explained, none of these content standards prevent netizens from commenting on or even criticising Government policies which many of them did. Instead, the content standards are meant to safeguard racial and religious harmony, public order, as well as to uphold our community's standards of good taste and decency. This is borne out in the types of content
Page: 91
that MDA had – on 24 occasions since 1996 – deemed to be in breach of these content standards, and consequently directed Internet content providers to take them down. MDA has never once directed sites to take down content that is critical of the Government or Government policies, or for holding different viewpoints. And this will remain the case going forward.
As I have stated earlier, the online news sites licensing framework is not a departure from the light-touch regulatory approach that the Government has adopted for the Internet. The content standards applied to online news sites are no different from existing standards under the Class Licence and Internet Code of Practice. There is thus no cause for concern that the individual licensing of news sites will stifle Internet freedom. Neither is there cause to worry that this will hamper the development of the Internet ecosystem in Singapore, or create uncertainty for related businesses. After all, as I mentioned in my reply, the growth of the industry here has taken place while the Class Licence Scheme was in place since 1996.
There are only two additional requirements we have put in place for online news sites. These requirements are, again, not onerous, and they are commensurate with the important role that news providers play in our society. When irresponsible or inaccurate news reports that threaten public order or national harmony are carried on online news sites with a significant reach, their impact is much greater. The expeditious removal of content that is in breach of content standards is thus important. The performance bond, or even the overall law, is not meant to force sites to close down by causing them financial difficulties. MDA has already indicated and replied earlier that we are prepared to exercise flexibility where warranted, should a site have genuine difficulties putting up the bond.
Let me state upfront that we do not have any issues with the 10 websites that have been identified for licensing. The licensing framework has been put in place to set the right tone and bring greater regulatory parity across media platforms. It cannot be 100% consistency – it is not possible. I think it is better to set the tone before something happens, than to scramble only after a major incident had happened. We can ill-afford to wait until an explosive public order incident happens before we put a framework in place. That would not be the responsible thing to do on the part of the Government.
Now, let me turn to a key issue that has come up in discussions about the licensing framework, also raised by the Member – the question of why the public was not consulted before the framework was implemented. I would like to first clarify some of the underlying principles behind the Government's
Page: 92
approach towards public engagement and consultation. The Government is committed to reaching out to all segments of Singapore's society to better understand the people's perspectives and concerns, to share ideas and put our heads together to think of better ways to take Singapore forward. Although the public expects the Government to be consultative, it also expects the Government to discharge its responsibilities properly and not to be held hostage to special interest or lobby groups. Where there is a major policy shift, the Government will consult affected parties and, if need be, the matter will be brought before this House as a debate.
But turning back to the issue at hand, the introduction of a licensing framework for online news sites is not a major shift compared to our existing approach to Internet regulation, despite what the critics or the Member may say. There is no fundamental change in our regulatory approach, which remains light-touch, and it is, in substance, only a refinement of the existing Class Licence Scheme. There is no change in the content standards, and the operations of the sites are not affected by the change in their licensing status. They can continue to operate.
Furthermore, the licensing framework only applies to 10 sites, and the overwhelming majority of Internet Content Providers, including the bloggers that Mrs Chiam mentioned, will continue to remain under the Class Licence. They are still regulated. They are still subjected to the content standards. For the 10 sites, MDA had informed their operators about the licensing framework before it was publicly introduced. MDA's engagement with the operators on the exact terms of the licence is still ongoing, and so we have catered sufficient time for them to give their feedback on the detailed licence conditions.
For the rest of the Internet community, this continues. We will monitor in terms of your content and reach and, as and when you meet two criteria in terms of reach and in terms of content – which are one article per week over a continuous period of two months – we will call you in and say that you have to be individually licensed. So, the bloggers can continue. As I mentioned earlier, they can continue with their comments, critical or otherwise of the Government, but as they morph to an online news site, as defined by the framework, they would have to be licensed. And, therefore, they should know how to operate.
Madam, the Government has already committed to public consultation on the amendments to the Broadcasting Act, which are likely to include significant policy changes. Given the evolutions in the media landscape, it is timely to review the provisions in the Act, particularly in light of the Media Convergence Review Panel's recommendations, which were submitted last year. And I look
Page: 93
forward to hearing the views from the industry and members of the public on the policy changes that will be proposed.
Madam, the Member has raised two other points which I would like to comment on. First, on the points raised by AIC, in my view, concerns that an individual licensing framework on online sites will hamper or stifle the development of the Internet community and business ecosystem are overly-stated.
Firstly, I have already said that the content standards are no more stringent than what the Internet Content Providers have to abide by the Class Licence and the Code of Practice. These standards are reasonable ones and they have not deterred the development of the industry thus far. So, the standards have not changed since 1996. The industry has developed. The framework is in place. The standards remain the same. How would the industry be affected?
Secondly, and, again, the point I have made before, the performance bond is not an indirect way of forcing sites to shut down, or the Sword of Damocles that Mrs Chiam mentioned. If a licensee has genuine difficulties putting up the bond, MDA is willing to consider the specific circumstances of that licensee and adjust the performance bond. The bottom line is that we do not expect the individual licence will result in changes to how online new sites operate, of the type of news content that you have produced under the Class Licence scheme. It is just that we want to hold these 10 sites to a higher degree of responsibility.
Mrs Chiam also raised a point that was raised by "Free My Internet" and also about AIMS. I do not agree with the Member's claim that the Government has simply disregarded the findings from AIMS, which, for Members' information, is called the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society. AIMS submitted its recommendations and the Government accepted 17 of the 26 recommendations after careful consideration.
For instance, we have improved e-engagement, extended the positive list for Internet election advertising, refined the party political films restrictions and dedicated resources to cyber wellness public education programmes. Where our views differ from those of the AIMS' members, we provided our reasons. The policy to license online news sites is not a departure from the Government's position, expressed in our response to AIMS' report in January 2009. The Government had decided then to retain the registration requirement for political websites. This is to maintain a higher level of responsibility and accountability of those behind such websites, which some members of the public have also
Page: 94
advocated. The same principles apply when introducing individual licences for online news sites. In fact, we would argue that an even higher level of responsibility and accountability should be expected of sites that provide news.
Madam, forgive me for looking back. There was another point that Mrs Chiam raised.
Minister, you may have to wind up your speech.
Yes, please give me one more minute. She made references to overseas sites which are operating in Singapore like BBC, CNN and New York Times and so on and so forth. We do not intend to license overseas sites which may report on Singapore news incidentally from time to time but which by the focus they give to Singapore news from other countries by the nature of their reporting, are clearly, not specifically targeting at Singaporeans. So, they happen to be operating in Singapore. Their raison d'etre is not to report on behalf of Singapore or on Singapore – but they just report news in general. Therefore, they will not be licensed.
Madam, let me conclude by affirming the important role of news providers even in the new media landscape. Amidst a deluge of information and an increasing variety of information sources, it has become even more important that news providers remain credible and trustworthy. The public relies on news content produced by these organisations, whether the newspapers, broadcasters or online news sites, to make informed decisions. It is because of the responsibility news providers have to our society that we have adopted an individual licensing framework for traditional news platforms. This is the reason for extending a similar framework to online news sites for greater consistency.
I am confident that, over time, Members will be convinced that this new licensing framework serves the interests of our society and will be implemented in a manner in keeping with the spirit of the light-touch approach and that the Government has not deviated from this broad stance. I urge Members to view this move to ensure greater parity across the various news platforms as a step in the right direction as it will set the right tone in a converging media landscape.
*Question put, and agreed to.*
*Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn."*
Adjourned accordingly at 5.35 pm.
Page: 95
PAPERCUTS