Singapore Seeks Even More Control Over Online Media

An anonymous reader writes "Currently ranked 149th globally in terms of press freedom, alongside Iraq and Myanmar, the Singapore government has chosen to further tighten its grip on the media instead of letting up. The Media Development Authority (MDA) announced yesterday that 'online news sites' reporting regularly on issues relating to Singapore and have significant reach among readers here will require an individual license from the MDA. Under the regime, website operators have to comply within 24 hours with any directives from the MDA to take down content that breaches standards. These sites also have to put up a 'performance bond' of S$50,000. The Government also plans to amend the Broadcasting Act next year, to ensure that websites which are hosted overseas but report on Singapore news are brought under the licensing framework as well."

Re:Overseas laws

[tlhIngan]

Usually when a country expects other countries to obey their laws, things don't work out quite so well.

Except well, Singapore has a great firewall as well, and all media is censored prior to sale. If you note, it's any site with a large number of Singaporean readers. Which means if you don't comply, they will simply cut you off at the gateway. If you have any media assets locally, they can be seized. Or if you publish anything, expect Customs ot sieze them as well.

If you're a big publisher, this is quite problematic, especially if you have related media assets like DVDs and such.

And nevermind that Singapore is a huge port into Asia and often a stopover or destination.

Re:Overseas laws

[nbauman]

The Wall Street Journal had a run-in with Singapore which was very amusing to those who think that the WSJ editorial page was written by pompous right-wing assholes.

The WSJ editorial page had long praised Singapore as a model free-market state, which showed that you didn't need socialism to get a developed economy.

Then they printed an op-ed essay in one of their editions by an opposition politician. Lee's government used to deal with its legislative opponents by suing them for libel. The Singapore courts always ruled that they had committed libel, and awarded Lee huge damages which drove the opposition politician into bankruptcy. Under Singapore law, you can't serve in the legislature if you're bankrupt. So they had to leave the legislature. Cute, huh?

So Lee sued the WSJ, which had an Asian edition with a large circulation in Singapore, for libel. Lee won. The WSJ had to pay damages, and even worse, they weren't allowed to sell their newspaper in Singapore until they published a groveling apology.

What a dilemma! Stick to your principles of free speech, and lose millions of dollars of sales in one of the fastest-growing asian markets? Or cave in, abandon your principles, and throw the political dissidents to the wolves?

The WSJ printed an editorial trying to educate Lee and the Singaporian people (and businessmen) of the virtues of American-style free speech. The Singaporian people didn't pay much attention. After all, this was a matter of money (and power).

So finally the WSJ caved in, paid up, and printed a groveling, Soviet-style recantation.

I was in Singapore about a year later. You can find the New York Times everywhere. I asked for a copy of the WSJ. Everybody was "sold out". I finally found a copy in a bookstore on the fifth floor of a monster shopping mall at the end of an out-of-the way corner.

The Singaporean people were very nice. All the teenagers walk around with science textbooks. The restaurants have signs that say, "No studying." They're neat and well-dressed like Moonies, only smarter.

Lee was interviewed on Terry Gross and he defended his human rights violations. He said when he came in, they were living in poverty. They didn't have toilets. Now it's a modern developed state with an economy like Western Europe. I guess people are entitled to choose a dictator. I guess the Cuban people are entitled to say the same thing about Fidel Castro.

Re:Overseas laws

[Decker-Mage]

Actually, the world needs Singapore vastly more than Singapore needs the world. I've been there a half-dozen times so far and it is a bit oppressive if misbehaving is part of your makeup. Amazingly polite, amazingly modern, and amazingly clean. I'm a libertarian and opposed by principle to such laws but the people of Singapore get to decide that question. You can't stop a few million people in such a small area from successfully revolting. They sure as Hell don't have to let anyone or anything in, or most importantly through, if that's they have a problem with it, whatever it is. We nearly had one of our people executed (caught smuggling heroin in the frame of his bicycle). Fortunately for him, we were able to pay a fine and hand him over to US justice. He thought he was smarter than they were. Wrong guess, minus five. I hope his time in federal prison was far more enjoyable that a bullet to the head. And I can understand the Singapore side on this.

In terms of political-economic power, Singapore absolutely controls the major trading route from the Indian Ocean to the Asian-Pacific rim. Yes, you can go around it but you'll be in even more pirate infested waters, dealing with the odd reef and oceanic sandbars, etc. You'll also forgo refueling in Singapore if needed. And protection. We don't break out the .50 cal. machine guns for entertainment (although it's a trip to actually practice with one) as soon as we hit the Celebes Sea. So, when push comes to shove, even the US Navy is going to think twice about playing in the littoral waters should Singapore express dissatisfaction with some kind of embargo. Frankly, targeting anything there, even with brilliant weapons, is going to be Hell.

So, what are you going to do to Singapore? Squawk, that's about your only option. And I don't think you get much support (actually lot's of opposition) from the major trading partners dependent (Japan, China) on the flow of trade there. Historically, the US likes freedom of the seas (Mission #1 of the US Navy) far more than other nice-to-haves. I can't see that changing. Sorry.