Bloggers to call for bold changes to new media regulation

I have been working with a group of fellow bloggers which will be submitting recommendations to the Minister for Information, Communication and the Arts within the next few days on the subject of Internet regulation. This open letter, which will be released to the public at the same time, will call for sweeping changes to bring Singapore in line with international norms and the reality of the new technology.

Its key proposals include:

1. All regulation of speech should be platform-neutral, given the steady convergence of various platforms as a result of the digital revolution. There should not be different rules for different media.

2. Platform-neutral regulations should be harmonised to be as minimal as the current freest platform, if not even freer.

3. What rules there need to be should be narrowly tailored and should serve clear social purposes.

4. Rules should take the form of unambiguous laws, and in extremis, violators prosecuted, rather than take the form of licensing, bureaucratic discretion and administrative penalties as currently is the case. The various licensing schemes and the Media Development Authority’s powers to fine and ban should be dismantled.

5. Shielding a government from criticism is not a legitimate social purpose. Restraining political content is unjustified in principle and unrealistic in practice, and the attempt to do so impairs Singapore’s maturity as a nation.

6. The group notes that there are plenty of laws that need to be amended or repealed to give effect to the recommendations, such as the Broadcasting Act, the Parliamentary Elections Act and the Films Act. As this may take time, the group proposes that in the interim, there could be an Internet Freedom Act that sets out clear guarantees for Internet freedom, over-riding the multiple (and sometimes conflicting) restrictions in all these other laws, regulations and codes of practice.

7. The group advocates a much bigger role for community moderation and in fact sees an ongoing trend wherein site owners themselves ensure a responsible use of their digital space. To further this process, the group suggests that an Internet Community Consultative Committee (IC3) be set up comprising one-third independent content providers, one-third persons familiar with rapidly evolving digital technologies, and one-third regular consumers of Internet content (i.e. regular surfers). They should not have any legal powers, but serve as a regular meeting point for citizens concerned with the free and responsible use of digital media.

8. Controversies relating to Internet speech should as far as possible be resolved via community moderation. Only when public safety is at serious risk should the law and prosecution be invoked.

The group of 15 persons was led by Choo Zheng Xi from The Online Citizen and Alex Au of Yawning Bread, and started work in December last year.

Author: Gerald Giam

Gerald Giam is the Member of Parliament for Aljunied GRC. He is a member of the Workers' Party of Singapore. The opinions expressed on this page are his alone.

5 thoughts on “Bloggers to call for bold changes to new media regulation”

  1. YES, YES! This is a timely ground-up initiative to prevent top down control of peoples’ voices in the new media. I think we’re a shocking contradiction in terms of being the most ‘globalised’, the most ‘connected’ nation and yet the most regulated/controlled in the media domain. I hope they listen to these recommendations seriously. Good work!

  2. Under your so-called rules, I’d be the first to be punished.

    I advocate halal pork, propagate anti religious propaganda, and worst of all, I am a liberal and a libertine.


  3. Gerald,

    A commendable effort! I think the greatest challenge for an Internet Policy based what I’ve learnt in my undergraduate ICT classes the is state of cyberanarchy. The Internet’s pervasiveness and power has never been able to been able to be regulated or controlled effectively by any state or government.

    It is the belief that it’s governance comes from an enlighten state of self interest of it’s participant that will regulate itself. I do find that argument slightly flawed, because with any group, group dynamics like group think eventually drowns weak voices. In fact, discourse is highly dependent on community of participants and often do no become free over time as it conforms to the idealogical construct of the group unless it’s participants can truly be non-partisan.

    At this juncture, I think the MDA policies are but symbolic controls that are only cornering dissenters who disrupt multi-racial and the multi-religious fabric of our society. Other rules are vague at best.

    Quite frankly, I haven’t got a solution to these hard problems but I’d love to talk about them more if you are interested.

  4. Responsible Liberty – I like your views! Yes we should discuss more. Can you email me at sgpatriot @

Comments are closed.