Singaporean government bureaucracy effectively closes news site | Hacker News Reader

Singaporean government bureaucracy effectively closes news site

poynter.org

45 pointsValentineC9 comments

I don't really understand the tone of this article. As anybody who has been in Singapore for more than a few months realizes, the regime here strictly controls the social and media environs. Surely the BN didn't think that they would be able to continue without adhering to Government Regulations?

Another part of the article I found odd was this sentence, "It was in this world that veteran Singaporean journalist Bertha Henson launched Breakfast Network, less than a year after leaving her high-level editor job at The Straits Times, Singapore’s leading daily newspaper. "

The Straits Times is outreach propaganda for the Singapore Government. It's a painfully structured document, that each day typically has one article about someone who broke the law, and how they got punished, another article about how wonderful singapore is in terms of Food/Shelter/Laws/etc... Typically another article about something bad that happened in another country that would never have happened in Singapore, and often an article promoting social harmony between the cultures/religions/races.

There are a few traditional "news" stories mixed in, but in general, the Straits Times is strict government propaganda - it would never be allowed to do real reporting that conflicted with the Powers that Be.

Why the "high-level editor" thought she could get away with "free press" in singapore, is beyond me.

Don't get me wrong - I love this country - it's warm, clean, safe, harmonious (recent Little India riot excepting) - but I am not confused as to where the lines are drawn as to what is allowed.

I'm guessing this is more about pointing at how those drawn lines are bad. Also, some people might not realize what kind of place Singapore is; this would be an education for them. It doesn't matter that this was predictable to someone who knows about Singapore.

Are you saying there should be no outrage over this because "they should've known better"? Let's not forget the website is a victim of an oppressive government, ultimately.

You're also implying, people shouldn't try to do "free press" in an oppressive country. By that logic, nobody should've thought freely in communist countries either. They would've just gotten themselves into trouble. And yet, that's exactly how a society evolves - by having more and more people try to think and talk freely, despite knowing the government won't like it.

Sorry - I did a poor job of communicating my critique here. What I really found surprising was the (apparent) naivety from the perspective of both writers. I've only been in Singapore for six month, but, from talking with my colleagues who have grown up here, there seems to be a universal understanding of what the policies and rules are, both written and unwritten.

I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't try to do "free press" in Singapore - but when they do it, realize that these are going to be the obstacles they will face, and go into it with their eyes wide open.

With that said, some topics, which could be written about in the united states, are off limits (in fact, illegal) in Singapore, but I don't think there was any difficulty understanding that on the part of the writers (in fact, one of them cited that the issue was not the content, but the process of opening up a new newspaper that had some bureaucracy involved)

"What I really found surprising was the (apparent) naivety from the perspective of both writers."

Singaporean here. I'm guessing that it's mostly a rhetorical device rather than genuine ignorance. Sometimes you want to go into an obstacle head on- like that guy who filmed himself riding his bicycle into things on the bike lane, or that guy who got himself arrested to prove a point.

"Dear Mr Cherian George,

1. We refer to your 10 December commentary, “Online freedom: time to revise the Singapore report card”.

2. The Breakfast Network was asked to register because it had ceased to be a personal blog or website, but had incorporated itself as the Breakfast Network Pte Ltd (BNPL). As a corporate entity, Breakfast Network Pte Ltd has a greater possibility of coming under foreign influence via foreign funding. This registration requirement is simply to ensure that Breakfast Network will not receive foreign funding.

3. You declare that The Breakfast Network shut down due to “red tape” and “unnecessarily onerous registration”. We would like to clarify that this is not so. The Breakfast Network shut down because its editor and owner chose not to register, as required by MDA. Ms Henson claimed the requirements were onerous, citing the need to register volunteer contributors to her site. MDA issued a statement on 13 Dec 2013, refuting her claim. At no point was Ms Henson told that contributors needed to also register. She was only told that editors, including pro bono editors, had to register. As for the reporting of sources of revenue, MDA informed Ms Henson that she could suggest alternative ways of providing the required information.

4. Secondly, nothing has changed for Internet Content Providers. They continue to operate and publish under the existing class licence framework which has been in place since 1996. Under this framework, certain groups such as political associations and political websites have always been required to register with the MDA. However, up until now, the registration requirement did not come with an undertaking not to receive foreign funds. This is because up until now, the political websites which had to register were also gazetted as political associations, which meant that they were already prohibited from receiving foreign funds under the Political Donations Act.

5. You also characterise the registration process as an exercise for the Breakfast Network to “persuade regulators they deserve the right to publish before they are allowed to do so”. This is an astounding description. The registration merely requires the provision of names of persons involved in the provision, management and/or operation of the Breakfast Network, and an undertaking by them not to receive foreign funding.

6. Our internet regulations have not changed. Neither has our long standing principle that politics should remain a matter for Singaporeans and Singapore only."

- http://blog.freedomfromthepress.info/2013/12/10/online-freed...

While the whole thing does seem somewhat heavy handed, it would seem like double checking what regulations your industry comes under would be something you'd want to do before registering a company for what was previously a hobby.

While countries like China (rightfully) get the bad rap for being a harsh place for journalists and independent media, Singapore tends to get away. Its media control laws are amongst the most rigorous and draconian among modern democracies, and naturally, its media the least critical of the state.

Unfortunately I don't think that's going to change, because its citizens (and the rest of the world) seem to have accepted that loss of press freedom is an acceptable price for economic prosperity and unbridled consumerism.

"Amongst modern democracies"? Singapore is not a democracy - it's a one-man/one-party system with racist undertones.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com