The introduction of the MDA’s new licensing framework was mired in controversy and met with vociferous opposition from the online community and civil society groups. Under the updated regulatory framework, news sites that report regularly on Singapore and have significant traffic from locals will have to apply for a license in which they have to put up a $50,000 performance bond and take down content deemed objectionable by the MDA within 24 hours.
Various government spokespersons have taken pains to stress that it is not an attempt to clamp down on the freedom of expression, reiterating the importance of having a public space online where people can openly air their views, critical or not, about the government. The ostensible justification given for these new regulations is to ensure factual accuracy and responsible journalism, and by doing so, achieving parity between traditional print media and online news sites. Further clarifications given by the MDA that socio-political blogs would not be affected by the new regulations, and assurances that The Online Citizen (a prominent political website known for its socio-political commentaries that has submitted evidence of its meeting the MDA’s licensing criteria) will not come under the new regulations at present, did little to assuage the grievances of the online community. This may be attributed in part to the fact that these caveats do not make themselves manifest in the actual wording of the legislation, leaving the applicability of the regulations largely to the discretion of the MDA, who it should be said, has indeed lived up to its promise to be judicious in its approach since the initial introduction of the class licensing scheme in 1996—thus far it has only clamped down on sites with content which is pornographic in nature, related to prostitution, or offensive to religious sensibilities.
Nevertheless, given the existence of the Sedition Act and the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act which already arms the government with sweeping authority to act swiftly and decisively against acts, speeches and publications which are racially and religiously inflammatory or “excite disaffection against the government”, one might be led to wonder what potentially volatile acts the new regulations are meant to deal with, which had hitherto not been possible under existing laws.
Some commentators have pointed out that the achievement of parity with the mainstream print media swings both ways, and that the regulations for the print media could be lessened to put it on an ‘equal’ footing with the online news sites. In many of these critical commentaries of the new regulatory framework, a common underlying assumption can be perceived—namely, that it is naturally in the incumbent party’s best interests to maintain a regime in which, if not overtly coercive towards a free press, then at least facilitative of an atmosphere of uncertainty which may incline people towards self-censorship. I argue that this pro tanto truism, while applicable in other authoritarian or illiberal democratic countries, is not true for Singapore.
Aside from racially or religiously oriented content restrictions, which are not in contention for the vast majority of Singaporeans, allowing journalists to write freely and accurately about socio-political issues, government policies, and political players, regardless of whether it casts them in a favourable light or not, will ultimately not diminish the authority of the government and on the contrary, would buttress it. The ruling party has long prided itself on delivering good governance and indeed, has a proven track record in providing economic growth, stability, and peace, with a relatively corruption-free administration. It is therefore precisely the government which has the most to lose by curbing freedom of expression in the mainstream media.
A more liberalised mainstream media would be able to dispel the perception that it serves as a mere mouthpiece for the government, a perception which is increasingly prevalent amongst disenchanted members of the public, some of whom have, perhaps unfairly, taken to calling the main English language broadsheet a “PAP newsletter”. It would also become much harder for critics to cast aspersions on the positive publicity that the government garners in the mainstream media for its policies and programmes, since a mainstream media without external restrictions would be at liberty to provide reporting which is reflective of the ground sentiments of the relevant parties involved. Enabling critical and constructive commentaries on complex socio-political issues would also present different and fresh perspectives on possible shortcomings and highlight areas of improvement, which also has the effect of stemming the radicalisation of political views brought on by the alternative media; if a more balanced, even-keeled discourse is to be had in the mainstream media, citizens will feel less compelled to turn to online media to seek alternative narratives which may be factually misinformed. Furthermore, the mainstream media is in a much stronger position, in terms of access to information, and financial and human resources, than the online media to correct rumours and misconceptions, and will not have to resort to the needless speculation that arises due to the paucity of available information.
Concerns over certain elements in the press having vested interests in particular issues can be counterbalanced by two factors—a self-regulating press with a strict adherence to a journalistic code of ethics and conduct, and the maturity of the readership. It is in the institution’s rational self-interests to maintain a consistently high standard of journalistic reporting and factual accuracy, both moral and commercial. If it consistently fails to produce a nuanced and balanced perspective on current affairs, not only does it risk tarnishing its journalistic integrity, but it also risks an erosion of credibility and in the long run, losing public confidence and its readership. Additionally, in contrast to the past, the local population is increasingly well-educated, media-literate, and have greater exposure to different cultures and ideologies. This makes them well placed to discern whether the writers are being disingenuous and deliberately misleading, and acts as a safety barrier from them slavishly imitating ideological trends.
Lastly, I don’t think that having a free press is diametrically opposed to the Confucian value of showing deference to authority when one examines the socio-historical and philosophical context in which these values are embedded in. In the Analects, much is made of the common people showing deference and obedience to their leaders, who are all 君子 (junzi) – literally translated as gentlemen, but when philosophically translated can be taken to mean exemplary moral agents. Due to the socio-historical circumstances of the time, the common people were primarily concerned with maintaining their livelihood, leaving matters of governance and socio-political issues to the landed gentry, who had the time and resources to engage in these activities. It would therefore have been impractical and exceedingly ill-advised for all the laws and policies of the ruling classes to be subjected to public scrutiny by these commoners, on account of their dearth of knowledge, education, and resources. This can hardly be said to be the same for a meritocratic country in which social mobility in all echelons of society is in principle at least, possible.
Moreover, it may be instructive to consider the writings of Xunzi, a prominent Chinese philosopher in the Confucian tradition, on one of the cardinal virtues—filial piety. (In Confucian texts, the ruler-subject relationship is often characterised as a parent-child relationship.) For Xunzi, filial piety is not demonstrated though blind obedience to one’s parents to the exclusion of all other considerations. Rather, it is being “careful about the cases in which one obeys another” that is considered genuine filial piety. It can be inferred that being “careful” requires an examination of whether an action that appears prima facie filial does not in actuality undermine the very justification for according filial piety the status of a moral virtue in the first place. In the same way, true deference for authority can only be grounded when there is free and open discourse on socio-political issues and affairs of state. This, I feel, is best achieved when there is press freedom.