Regulation of political commentary on the Internet in Singapore

Hi everyone,
This is the first blog post/essay I'm doing. It is actually rather relevant to me since future topics may involve politics and I definately don't want to be prosecuted under ISA. Anyway, here it is:

As most of us know, Singapore is not exactly a model for free speech. There are strict regulations of newspapers and television stations along with libel suits against critics. However, the Internet is a different story as it is such a vast medium. Thus, it is the regulation of political commentary on the Internet that is a big issue since some of these would come from bloggers who feel they are just expressing their opinions. I feel that these laws are overly restrictive and stifle the elections.

Most of the regulations about political commentary on the Internet are contained in the Parliamentary Elections Act (PEA). The other likely regulations would probably be defamation and any racially biased or revolutionary blogs. The gist of the PEA is that sites that consistently write political articles have to register with the Media Development Authority (MDA). These sites will be banned from conducting election advertising during an election. The problem with this is that election advertising, defined as promoting or improving the standing of a candidate or party, can include many things. For example, in describing a rally, saying something like “the crowd cheered enthusiastically”, while it may be an accurate description, can be considered as promoting a candidate. The statement that only sites that are registered have the above limitations is also vague. The blog Yawning Bread states my above view but a Today article states just the opposite. This uncertainty is coupled with very wide police powers such as the ability to intercept messages online, conduct pre-emptive arrests (arrested to prevent you from committing a crime) and detained without trial. The potential for police arrest, vague definition of the law, along with the government’s previous reputation for harsh actions (e.g. law suits against opposition politicians and the Wall Street Journal) would probably discourage most bloggers from writing political commentary during elections.

Of course, there are several sites that have political elements such as TalkingCock.com and mrbrown.com. Both of these poke fun at politics in Singapore including the PAP. TalkingCock also contains articles that refer to Lee Kuan Yew as “heartless” and stating that both North Korea and Singapore have a “Great leader” and “Dear leader”. While these can be classified as defamatory, the government has taken no action. Could this show the government is prepared to be more accommodating? Not really as you have to look at the context. TalkingCock has a very clear disclaimer that they have no political agenda. TalkingCock articles are satirical, very humorous and “make stuff up” (their articles are clearly fake such as an article about a highway built on reclaimed land to Pedra Branca). Thus, they are not taken seriously.

These censorship laws are based on the principle that the government has to maintain its authority and a unregulated system will lead to chaos. These laws were applicable in the past with violent race riots and Communist instigated strikes and fighting. However, Singapore society has stabalised and such concerns are no longer valid. Thus, could these regulations be put in place to ensure a continued PAP dominated government? This is definitely possible as the internet restrictions are tightened during elections. In addition, websites with political content that the government does not intervene in such as mrbrown.com and TalkingCock.com are not meant to be taken seriously and are not a threat to the PAP. This seems to indicate that the PAP wants to have as much pro-PAP coverage as possible (since the media is more biased towards the PAP) by eliminating a potential source of criticism. While the PAP may think that a government dominated by it is in the best interests of Singapore, this does not justify such restrictions. The PAP should promote its excellent track record in governing Singapore rather than leaving a dark track record of censorship to taint its election victories.