Asking gahmen for permission

Some group of blogger, including our dear Cherian George, scott and justin (zhuang) has submitted a recommendation paper to MICA for the purpose of liberalising internet regulations in Singapore. Just as I don’t wanna ‘flood’ this place with a whole text of quoted words, click here for the full article on sgpolitics.net.

A summary of the paper:

The paper points out the various defects in current media laws and regulations governing internet content in Singapore, such as instituting vague restrictions which gives authorities too much leeway in interpretation of the law, conferring arbitrary power on the Media Development Authority (MDA) to penalize owners of websites that in its judgment have violated MDA’s own rules, and the regulation of political content which is unjustified in principle and unenforceable in practice.

In short, media and internet laws in Singapore are in need of urgent review. Laws will always be necessary, but the rule of law demands that the laws are clear, and that there are checks and balances to ensure that the laws are only used to address legitimate social needs. Too many of the existing regulations do not meet these benchmarks.

The paper proposes ways of addressing the defects in current laws and regulations with respect to 3 main areas: (a) political expression, (b) hate speech and (c) sex and violence.

These proposals are designed to be consistent with fundamental principles of free speech. In contrast, Singapore’s laws and regulations governing speech on the internet have grown ad hoc and topsy-turvy, involving way too much administrative discretion, leading to the current confused and over-regulated state of affairs which results in free speech being infringed upon.

And I realize how press secretaries in Singapore are incredibly power people. I have come across LKY’s personal press secretary not once, twice but i think at least a dozen time in his memoir (it’s amazing why he is not mentioned by name). This time round, Lee Boon Yang’s press secretary replied to Alex Au:

Dear Mr Au

My Minister would like to thank you and your blogger friends for the effort in putting up the proposals for Internet deregulation which you had emailed to him on 20 April 2008.

MICA is well aware of the fact that Internet and new media technology have evolved by leaps and bounds since we introduced our light-touch approach in 1996. Back then, MICA had recognised the potential growth and impact of the Internet, and the tremendous opportunities and benefits that it will bring to all of us. We were also wary of its negative aspects. Hence, our response to the Internet was to take a balanced light-touch approach. Our intent with this light-touch approach was to foster the growth of the Internet and to enable us to exploit its vast potential while safeguarding our society from its undesirable aspects. That 79% of our households subscribe to broadband and many Singaporeans especially the younger citizens own a blog or participate in some form of new media clearly show that the light-touch approach had not been without merit.

To keep up with the fast-evolving new media landscape, we have been reviewing our light-touch approach and are considering how we could take a lighter touch approach. We have appointed the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS) in April last year to study the new media and how best to refine our regulatory framework.

We will consider the views expressed in your proposal and other feedback in our review.

Yours sincerely

K.BHAVANI (Ms)
Press Secretary
to the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts

If you ask me, it can be summarized as this:

Dear Sir,

Noted.

Regards,
Press Sect to Lee Boon Yang

This is a computer-generated letter and no signature is required.

Alright, enough of laughs. Actually I managed to find somewhat a splitting viewpoints on this letter. There was this furore somewhere about this bunch of bloggers being ‘f**king nuts’, and to quote one of the comments on singabloodypore,

“If you have to ask government for freedom, then it is not freedom.”

Regulatory measures in Singapore seem to go in a back-and-forth cha-cha. They take two steps backwards, then another three steps forward. And this dance is almost manifested in a different way, albeit tackling the same issue. For example, the NPPA was targetted at controlling foreign press and their interference in domestic politics, but when publications manage to play around the rules (i.e. outsmart MICA) like how FEER did by changing its weekly format to a monthly format, MICA plays back by announcing that their status as a declared offshore paper required them to be subjected to the conditions plied to other offshore papers, and hence they are required to pay the security deposit and also appoint a local representative so they can be served lawyer’s letters easily.

Also, the ‘narrowly-tailored’ rules of NPPA w.r.t. foreign publications is coupled with a broad-ly defined defamation law in Singapore. That works amazingly for anyone suing newspapers and publications for libel.

Now internet regulation comes into play. The officials argue that strict regulation is required to uphold social harmony and peace, yada yada. And each time this topic arises in any context, we are always given the “Remember the ________ (insert any tensions/scares/threats/riots/fraud/cheats/anything that’s bad) incident that we had in the 19XX’s?”

Yes, no doubt we have to take into consideration incidents such as the Maria Hurtogh riots and whatever clashes of the races we had before, but these incidents should also be viewed in the context of time. Racial relations were rocky at best back then, and in contrast, we are far better off today even with the supposed ‘tension’ arising from 9/11. History should be taken into consideration when reviewing regulations, but it should be not a stumbling block and an excuse to stay on the safe side of caution (just because you cannot afford to lose face if something screws up some day.)

NPPA Ramblings.

Doing the research paper on NPPA is certainly quite depressing, especially when the facts seem to point towards the stifling of foreign press through shrewdly designed methods on local soil.

For example, here’s what I got from the FEER saga in 1986:

On Dec 17, 1987, American-owned Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER) published an article titled “New Lights on Detention”, chronicling the meeting between Lee Sr. and the Catholic archbishop of Singapore. The article was based on the statements of a renegade priest absent from the meeting, alleging Lee Sr. of several actions, including preventing the publication of several comments by the archbishop. The offending article concluded by saying that the arrests constituted an attack on the Catholic Church.

Lee Sr.’s press secretary queried about the journalistic reliability of the article, since the main source was from an individual absent from the meeting. The editor of FEER, Derek Davies, printed the full letter but did not give a reply. (Two publications, Time & Asiaweek were previously sanctioned under the NPPA for failure to publish the infamous press secretary’s letter in full.) The secretary wrote another letter, which was published again, this time with an editorial article asserting the reliability of the disputed article. Also, Davies added in that editorial that FEER has the legal rights to print a quoted source even without verification of the facts, as it is indemnified against factual errors made by the sources.

(Which I don’t think is true, because even in US you can be sued for defamation for reckless disregard of the truth. However, defamation laws in Singapore are far more vague and loosely defined, alike strict liability clauses in its execution.)

As a result, the government gazetted FEER on December 26, cutting its circulation from 9,000 to 500 copies. FEER responded by pulling out of Singapore three days later.

FEER later published another distinctly different account from the renegade priest of the meeting, to which Lee Sr. replied through his press secretary, asking which account was correct. FEER published an edited version of Lee Sr.’s reply this time round. The full reply was only published when the government bought an advertisement space in FEER and ran the full reply.

In addition, Lee Sr. sued FEER, its printers, distributors, editor Davies and the reporter, Michael Malik, for libel. The hearing before the High Court in Nov 1989 rejected the defendants’ argument of fair comment and their responsibility to provide information to the Singapore community on the relations between the state and the Catholic Church. Also, Davies refused to be cross-examined. Presiding judge L. P. Thean found the defendants guilty of libel and awarded damages of $230,000, subjected to a 6% interest per annum from December 1987. The defendants were ordered to pay all legal costs as well. Dow Jones group (owner of FEER) appealed against the judgment, and Lee Sr. cross-appealed for a higher award of damages.

After FEER pulled out, the Singapore government made an offer similar to the one made to AWSJ for free circulation absent advertisements to affected subscribers. (The offer was for FEER to circulate an advertisement-free version to subscribers in Singapore affected by the gazetting of FEER.) FEER has declined the offer as well.

Shortly after, Dow Jones chairman Peter Kann wrote a critique of the Thean judgment which was published in the Wall Street Journal, the AWSJ and FEER. The Attorney-General of Singapore charged Kann with willful contempt of the court, stating that Kann has undermined the authority of the Singapore judicial system, and “could excite in the minds of the people a general disaffection with all judicial decisions.”

In response, Lee Sr. filed libel suits in Singapore and Malaysia against Kann and the editors, publishers, printers and distributors of FEER and AWSJ in January 1990. Significantly, no suits were filed in the US or Hong Kong (which was a United Kingdom territory then) against the publications. Francis Seow commented in his book, ‘Media Enthralled’, that it was a calculated move by Lee Sr. by “choosing his battlegrounds with care.” Lee Sr. was awarded $9,000 in damages in Singapore. Dow Jones group did not appeal, and instead, issued a statement saying that the amount of damages awarded was too small to justify the costs in filing an appeal.

In February 1991, Minister for Information Brig. Gen. George Yeo said in an interview that FEER and AWSJ were allowed to circulate freely in Singapore again if they held by the non-interference clause. Karen House, head of foreign publications of Dow Jones group, wrote that Dow Jones was willing to drop the appeal against the Thean judgment, to which Lee Sr. replied that he was willing to drop the cross appeal if Dow Jones bear all legal costs. Both parties dropped all legal cases against each other as part of a global settlement eventually, and some critics saw this as a victory for Lee Sr. for the prevail of his “hard-headed business considerations”.

FEER’s circulation was increased to 2,000 and 4,000 respectively in 1994 and 1995, although it still fell far short of pre-restriction figures.

In December 2004, FEER changed from a weekly to monthly publication, effectively rendering its status as an offshore newspaper under the NPPA invalid. This resulted in FEER being able to circumvent the requirements of the NPPA and circulate freely in Singapore.

At present, Lee Sr., his son, Lee Hsien Loong and immediate past prime minister Goh Chok Tong (now Senior Minister) is embroiled in another libel suit with FEER over a July 2006 article. The article charged that Singapore leaders use repressive methods to silence opposition leader Chee Soon Juan, secretary general of the Singapore Democratic Alliance.

This turn of events also prompted the revamp of the NPPA that required foreign publications to put up a security deposit and designate a local representative. FEER was subsequently banned once again for failure to comply.

It seem to me to be like this: As parents, you shield your own children by preventing adults outside of the family from commenting on your house rules within your house. And when they do so, you chide them, or chase them out of the house altogether. What happen? They end up bitching to other people about what’s going on in this household. It becomes a lose-lose situation.

Thin-skinned. Hypersensitive. Overprotective. These are just some of the few adjectives that foreign press, especially those that have been ‘persecuted’ as a result of NPPA, used on us.

And pursuing lawsuits on local soil, I find that a complete joke.

One day, when the parents pass on and the children grow up, the commentaries will come again. How are we going to deal with it?

Speakers Cornered

Speaker’s Cornered.

The first impression after watching that half-hour documentary on the three-day protest SDP held at Hong Lim Park made me felt like Singapore police officers seem to be under some silence clause in the duty of their work. Either that, or they are terribly camera shy.

Needless to say also, they make the force look like a complete bunch of fools, with respect to arrest clauses, restricting movements and using detention-like measures to make sure that the protest didn’t proceed as planned.

Amazingly this docu got passed by MDA with an NC-16 rating. According to the filmmaker Martyn See, the reasons behind the passing was: (1) the silliness of the banning, since the film would have been distributed online anyway, which would be beyond the jurisdiction of local laws to prevent; (2) simply because the film absent the mention of the Lees altogether.

To me I guess it’s just another reminder of how pathetic the state of local politics is in. There has been an entire barrage of online and printed discourse on the travesty of the Singapore political system since time immemorial, and it’s an open secret by now about how the dominant party in Singapore actually maintains its dominance. There is of course the blunt way of putting it - how the PAP oppresses the opposition - but of course, there’s the euphemistic way of phrasing things too. It’s a matter of perspectives and what political inclinations you have.

I find it a joke that we call ourselves a democratic country when we don’t get to elect our own head of the government, and only started voting for our chief of state, albeit ceremonial, 26 years after we became an independent democracy. Next, put together a set of electoral regulations under the power of the constitution, and only the dominant party and no one else can match, is merely hiding an authoritarian regime under the mask of a representative democracy.

No doubt there are idealogical issues with democracies, but is the Singaporean ‘democracy’ the best it can get in Asia? I don’t know. Why are we still making baby steps towards the liberalisation of power and decision making in Singapore, despite being criticized heavily by onlookers over big and small issues that inadvertently point towards the political machine in the past years? I don’t know.

No one.

No one ever tells me anything anymore. Am I like a forgotten coin, strewn in a corner? Perhaps. And maybe that’s the best place to be.

Okay. The reason for my rant was because there’s been someone who has been giving me short and curt answers each time I speak to her. I feel pretty offended by it, and yet I don’t want to confront it. Non-confrontation is a good way out unless it matters like hell to me.

I’m just peeved. Let me be.

What is love?

“Oh mistress mine, where are you roaming? Oh stay and hear, your true love’s coming.”

Finished my 24 episodes of princess hours, finally. 24 hours of korean drama and a packet of tissue. The last eight episodes were especially tortuous, full of tears and emotional twists.

The premise of the show lies in forbidden love. Undeserved love covered under wraps, akin to using a lamp shield to cover an open flame. A tumultuous series of events unfolded in those last couple of episodes, resulting from foolishness, one-sided feelings, and a clear lack of undeclared affections.

I walked a new friend back to her room just now, and she gave me a nice hug. I needed one, I was thankful for it. As I was walking back, I was enjoying the light breeze that the night brought along. I slowed my pace, admiring the peaceful night sight laid before me. The green lawn in front of Moseley, the soft illumination of the buildings, and that fountain still gushing out faintly in the distance. I stopped for a moment, and I realized it’s going to be only four more weeks before I leave.

I wondered where I went wrong again, and then I realized that I was just letting my emotions get better of me again. I prayed a little prayer for a friend as I continued walking back to my room.

To be honest, I actually ran double-time through those eight episodes because it was just too painful to sit there and emo with the show. Emoing is like one of the last things I want to do nowadays. It’s too painful.

There’s this running theme song that I liked a lot. It’s more like the melody that caught me actually. And the translation didn’t do it much justice, I thought. But i’ll put it up anyway.

당신은… 나는 바보입니다 - Stay

난 바보였었죠 내가 바보였었죠
후회해도 늦었죠 알죠 돌이킬 순 없죠
그댈 볼 수 없어요 나도 알고 있어요
내가 정말 잘못했어요 정말 미안해요
그땐 얘기하지 못했죠 너무 어리석었죠
이제와서 이렇게 애태우며 난 용서를 빌어요

당신은 나는 바보입니다
자존심 때문에
미칠듯한 그리움에 망가지고 있죠
당신은 나는 바보입니다
아직 사랑하기에 하루 종일 펑펑 울고만 있죠
그대도 나도 모두 바보처럼

그러진 말아요 다시 생각해봐요
우리 어떻게 여기까지 힘들게 왔는데
다시 생각해봐요 후회하실꺼예요
내가 정말 잘못했어요 정말미안해요
그땐 얘기하지 못했죠 너무 어리석었죠
이제 와서 이렇게 애태우며 난 용서를 빌어요

당신은 나는 바보입니다
자존심 때문에
미칠듯한 그리움에 망가지고 있죠
당신은 나는 바보입니다
아직 사랑하기에 하루 종일 펑펑 울고만 있죠
그대도 나도 모두 바보처럼

그대 없인 나 한순간도 살 수 없어요
머릴 잘라도 술을 마셔도 눈물만 흐르죠

당신은 나는 바보입니다
자존심 때문에
미칠듯한 그리움에 망가지고 있죠
당신은 나는 바보입니다
아직 사랑하기에 하루 종일 펑펑 울고만 있죠
그대도 나도 모두 바보처럼

이제 더 이상 망가지지 마요…..

===========

I’m a Fool - Stay

I was a fool. I was a fool.
My regrets were too late too. I know that it can’t be turned back.
I know that I can’t see you too.
I was so wrong, I’m so sorry.
I didn’t get to say then, instead I was just being rotten.
So I’m here now pleading for forgiveness with worry

I’m a fool
Because of my pride I’m ruining myself with alcohol
and the bitter taste of cigarette smoke.
I cry my eyes out all day because I still love you
You and I, we both are like fools.

Don’t be like that, think about it.
Think about what it took us to get here
Think about it again, you’re going to regret it.
I was so wrong, I’m really sorry
I didn’t get a chance to say then, instead I was just being rotten.
So I’m here now pleading for forgiveness with worry

I’m a fool
Because of my pride I’m ruining myeslf with alcohol
and the bitter taste of cigarette smoke.
I cry my eyes out all day because I still love you
You and I, we both are like fools.

I can’t live a moment without you.
I still cry even no matter how I drink or if I cut my hair.

I’m a fool
Because of my pride I’m ruining myself with alcohol
and the bitter taste of cigarette smoke.
I cry my eyes out all day because I still love you
You and I, we both are like fools.

Don’t ruin yourself anymore…..