The MDA has a new licensing framework for news websites in Singapore. It applies to sites that focus on reporting Singapore news. An individual publishing views on current affairs and trends on his/her personal website or blog does not amount to news reporting.
I don't understand why so many people are making a big hoohah about it. Ok, our rulers are a bit of control freaks. So? Just let them license it lah.
Most of the news websites are run by our regular print news companies anyway.. like SPH (and the print media are all regulated by our government). Do you really think that SPH online, or TODAY online... are so radically different from what is already in print? And thus.. oh no.. with the new licensing, they're going to change drastically? Come on...
Such licensing is to guard against news articles which incite racial or religious hatred; reports which mislead and cause mass panic. Which is good. I don't think it's a good thing for news websites to fabricate stuff just to sensationalize something and get more hits... do you? So, why are you so against the licensing?
If anything, I just find that it's a waste of time and effort on the government's part. Yes, they can regulate the handful of news websites in our country, but they don't own cyberspace. If someone wanted to go all wiki leaks on the Singapore government... they wouldn't do it through those news websites anyway.
Do you know how incredibly dumbass you sound when you cry FOUL!!!! And then when I ask you why you are upset, you say it's because of the censorship being against your freedom (of speech). Then when I ask if you know which sites, are affected.... you actually don't ( and didn't bother to find out). And even better.. when I list a few sites, and ask if you even go to these sites in the first place... YOU DON'T!
You got nothing better to be concerned about is it?
.JPG)
Come, lets take a lesson from my happy go lucky dog, Lola, just enjoying her Dingo Rawhide Chews.
.JPG)
I don't understand why so many people are making a big hoohah about it. Ok, our rulers are a bit of control freaks. So? Just let them license it lah.
Most of the news websites are run by our regular print news companies anyway.. like SPH (and the print media are all regulated by our government). Do you really think that SPH online, or TODAY online... are so radically different from what is already in print? And thus.. oh no.. with the new licensing, they're going to change drastically? Come on...
Such licensing is to guard against news articles which incite racial or religious hatred; reports which mislead and cause mass panic. Which is good. I don't think it's a good thing for news websites to fabricate stuff just to sensationalize something and get more hits... do you? So, why are you so against the licensing?
If anything, I just find that it's a waste of time and effort on the government's part. Yes, they can regulate the handful of news websites in our country, but they don't own cyberspace. If someone wanted to go all wiki leaks on the Singapore government... they wouldn't do it through those news websites anyway.
You got nothing better to be concerned about is it?
.JPG)
.JPG)
Lola says, "Huh? You upset for what?"
The list of ten sites is not exhaustive. The rules are ambiguous, allowing the govt to interpret it to include other sites in the future. It is the unlimitless potential of the application of the rules that is frightening.
ReplyDeleteFYI, yahoo.com.sg does not have a print equivalent, and it sometimes contains pro-opposition articles.
FYI, she said 'most' and not all news websites are run by print news.
DeleteAlso, the new license doesn't prohibit yahoo or any news website from running pro opposition articles.
Absolutely! It's the potential for carte blanche interpretation of deliberately ambiguous wording that I am against. It's also very telling that our communications and information minister told the BBC that the new licensing regime is here to "protect the ordinary Singaporean" and to ensure that they read "the right thing" on news sites (and blogs).
DeleteIt's more than that. I watched Now You Know on clicknetwork every week and now they can't air because... they can't afford the 50 grand for the license.
ReplyDeleteEven if they could afford the license they then have to comply with the regulations. Whilst, like you said, most of them are there to not provoke or incite racial or religious hatred, there is a pretty controversial one that inherently marginalizes the LGBT community (secion 2e of the code of practice).
So is this really for the better or just incredibly pedantic?
Totally agree with you Holly.
ReplyDeleteG - futile exercise
Those crying foul - trying to milk from a bad PR move by the G to its max.
Oh Holly Jean, didn't you know? We like to complain about everything, and the government always gives us reason to whether valid or not.
ReplyDeleteRight on! Just like the people who don't drive yet complained about the raising ERP prices, they need to understand how our country works and stop complaining!
ReplyDeleteWhile I do agree with you and I was initially really not bothered at all.
ReplyDeleteHowever, now it really does piss me off after I found out that the new licensing scheme includes a show on clicknetwork, which I LOVE to watch. It's called Now You Know.
That show is pretty much for entertainment and it sucks that it has to be regulated too.