Govt to continue light touch approach on Web
SINGAPORE - The Government's new licensing framework for news websites is not a "fundamental shift" in policy and is in line with its "light touch" approach to regulating the Internet, said Minister for Communications and Information Yaacob Ibrahim yesterday.
"Like our regulations in the physical world, our regulations for the online space are meant to ensure that people are responsible for their actions, which have real-world consequences," he said.
Speaking to reporters, Dr Yaacob addressed concerns raised by segments of the online community following the framework's announcement.
On May 28, the Media Development Authority (MDA) announced that news websites which report regularly on Singapore issues and have a significant reach will have to be individually licensed, similar to traditional media like newspapers and TV.
The ruling, which took effect last Saturday, will affect 10 news websites which meet the criteria. Under the ruling, the sites have to post a $50,000 performance bond, and are required to remove content which is in breach of standards within 24 hours, upon MDA's direction.
Dr Yaacob gave his assurance that, except for the 10 websites identified, other online sites, including blogs, will be able to operate the way they do currently.
He explained that all online sites are already class-licensed.
"So if you are a site giving your own commentary on an issue you are not comfortable with, (and if) you disagree with the Government, you can still continue because you are not a news site," Dr Yaacob said.
He also said that there is no subsequent tranche of sites that have been identified for future licensing.
Dr Yaacob said: "We want the online community to understand that this is not an attempt to clamp down on anybody.
"This is really to ensure that those who are in the business of reporting news do it responsibly."
Dr Yaacob yesterday answered queries from the media on the new licensing framework for news websites.
Below is an excerpt of some of his replies:
Is the introduction of the framework triggered by an online incident or targeted at any particular news site?
No, it is not triggered by any online incident or targeted at any website.
It is driven by technological changes leading to media convergence, and the fact that more and more Singaporeans access news and current affairs through the Internet.
If the aim was consistency between traditional and online news platforms, was the alternative considered - to deregulate mainstream media and do away with individual licensing?
The rationale for regulating and licensing the mainstream media in Singapore is to ensure that it reports responsibly, and does not carry content which offends good taste, decency or morality; undermines racial and religious harmony; or undermines national interest.
The "alternative" of deregulating the mainstream media is not much of a real alternative.
New Zealand, for example, has problems with its self-regulatory system (and this is for traditional media). The bottom line is that it now sees that even the media can operate contrarily to the public interest, and it needs a regulator to ensure that this does not happen.
The new licensing regime is seen by many as an attempt to limit public discourse online. What are your views?
I think the best way is for people to see, after the licences are issued, whether the activists are indeed limited in their public discourse.
I expect that the sites will continue to operate as before. In fact, I hope that the activists who are making this far-fetched claim will be honest enough to admit it when the time comes.
When has the Media Development Authority (MDA) directed websites to take down content?
MDA has been restrained in directing sites to take down content. Since the class-licence scheme came into effect in 1996, it has issued a take-down notice only once, last year, for religiously-offensive content (this was the Innocence Of Muslims video).
Another 23 other instances were for websites with other prohibited content, for example, pornographic content and advertisements soliciting sex or sex chats, most of which arose from public complaints.
There has not been an instance where MDA has directed sites to take down content that is critical of the Government or any minister.
A clear distinction should be made between instances where MDA directs the take down of content and instances where other authorities or individuals have done so.
Will the framework apply to blogs?
Personal blogs, by their nature, do not consistently provide "news, intelligence, report of occurrence, or any matter of public interest".
Hence, MDA has explained that personal blogs will not be affected, so long as they do not morph into news sites.
Given that the Internet is now very much a part of people's lives, why didn't the Government go through public consultation?
The change is not a fundamental shift in policy approach, which remains "light touch". It is a refinement of the Class Licensing scheme, which was itself introduced via subsidiary legislation in 1996.
There is no change in content standards.
Volunteer-run sites may not be able to afford the $50,000 performance bond. Will this mean they will be forced to shut down?
We have thus far not required a non-commercial site to be licensed.
If such a case arises...MDA will try to understand (the site's) operations to better assess if it is indeed the case that (it is) unable to raise the bond.
If there are strong justifications, we are prepared to see if we can exercise some flexibility.
There are all kinds of criticisms out there of the new licensing. How are you going to manage the "noise"?
While attention has focused on the vocal voices criticising the licensing framework for online news sites, let us not forget that there are quarters that are supportive of the move.
What we ask is that Singaporeans hear us out on the policy objectives and rationale.
