Singapore - Straits Times Decreasing Traffic

Found On Singapore Election
When The Straits Times started charging for access all those years ago it was the wrong move. Why pay to access the reporting of a mass media outlet that is ranked either 147th or 154th in the world depending on your ranking source. The paper is losing revenue as are so many other newspapers around the world. The 20 - 30 generation are going online to get news that matters to them. Not news filtered by a process of 'self-censorship' or by a regime that demands control over all that is written.

Simply no longer charging visitors to view your advertisements and state-controlled press releases is not going to turn the fortunes of the ST around over night. Trying to isolate yourself from the global market of media and cultural production by charging your readers and hoping that they show loyalty to you was mis-guided. But until the Straits Times journalists are able to compete on the global playing-field without the dead-weight of self-censorship and state control - all the technology in the world will not alter the image of the Straits Times as a state owned and controlled propaganda outlet.

FROM Tuesday, visitors to The Straits Times' (ST) website will not have to pay to read the latest breaking news from Singapore and the world.

They can also post their views - in real time - on the reports they read.

One other major change: The site will drop its 12-year-old name, The Straits Times Interactive, or STI, and go with the cleaner 'straitstimes.com'.

Since becoming a subscription site in 2005, it has been offering only a small buffet of material for free:

1. ST's online forum letters;
2. Multimedia features, such as video news reports and podcasts;
3. A restricted selection of 20 reports from the print edition.

All other content, including breaking news and material picked up from the print edition of the newspaper itself, has been available only to subscribers in the past two years.

Explaining the move to open up more free-access content, ST editor Han Fook Kwang said: 'There's a great deal more we can do in the website to leverage on the award-winning talent in The Straits Times newsroom of writers, photographers, artists and designers. I think we've a good product and we want to make it available to more people in cyberspace, and to use the technology available on the web to make it an even better product.'
Here is the real reason ....

to comment

Singapore's media ranked 154th

In advance of World Press Freedom Day, on May 3rd, Freedom House has released several critical tools to highlight data from its annual survey of global press freedom, and to help explain the newest findings in their historical context. The current edition of the survey, Freedom of the Press 2007, points to improvements in several countries such as Italy, Nepal, Colombia, and Haiti; however, it shows mixed trends in Africa, as well as a continuation of a longer-term pattern of decline in press freedom in Asia, Latin America, and the former Soviet Union.

Freedom House
04 May 07http://freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=362


Singapore
Status: Not Free
Legal Environment: 24
Political Environment: 24
Economic Environment: 21
Total Score: 69

Media freedom in Singapore is constrained to such a degree that the vast majority of journalists practice self-censorship rather than risk being charged with defamation or breaking the country’s criminal laws on permissible speech.

The Singapore constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression in Article 14, but it also permits restrictions on these rights. Media freedom in Singapore is constrained by the Newspapers and Printing Presses Act, the Defamation Act, and the Internal Security Act, all of which allow authorities to restrict the circulation of news deemed to incite violence, arouse racial or religious tensions, interfere in domestic politics, or threaten public order, national interest or national security.

The government proposed a series of amendments to the Penal Code in 2006 that would cover offenses committed via electronic media. The draft amendments would not only provide jail terms or fines for defamation, “statements that would cause public mischief,” and the “wounding” of racial or religious feeling, they would also make it a crime for anyone outside the country to abet an offense committed inside the country, thereby allowing the authorities to prosecute internet users living abroad. Singaporean students studying overseas are the presumed targets of this amendment.

The Singapore government is quick to sue critics under harsh criminal defamation laws. In May 2006, for example, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his father, First Minister Kee Kuan Yew, filed criminal charges against the publishers of opposition newspaper The New Democrat, which is published several times a year by a committee of the Singapore Democratic Party.

The lawsuit started with an unsigned story that described as “secretive and non-accountable” the ruling party’s handling of a corruption scandal at the National Kidney Foundation.

Foreign media in Singapore are also subject to restrictive laws. In August, after the Far Eastern Economic Review published an interview with opposition party leader Chee Soon Juan, FEER and four other foreign publications were advised that they needed to post bonds and appoint legal representatives in order to continue to operate in Singapore. When FEER did not comply, its circulation permit was revoked, thereby effectively banning the publication. Meanwhile, on September 14, the Prime Minister and his father filed defamation suits against FEER over the article.

Nearly all print and broadcast media outlets, internet service providers, and cable television services are either owned or controlled by the state, or by companies with close ties to the ruling party. Annual licensing requirements for all media outlets, including political and religious web sites, have been used to inhibit criticism of the government.

Approximately two thirds of the population had access to the internet in 2006. Nonetheless, the government restricts internet access and Singapore has zero-tolerance for bloggers who challenge the government in any way. Prior to the May 6 Parliamentary elections, the Communications and Arts Minister warned bloggers and website managers that they do not have the right to back a particular candidate’s program or to express opinions on political issues. These same rules were applied to other new media, including podcasting and videocasting.

On April 26, the opposition Singapore Democratic Party was ordered to withdraw a podcast from its website. In June, popular blogger Lee Kin Mun (aka “Mr Brown”) was informed by state-owned Today newspaper that his weekly column, which had satirized the high cost of living, would be suspended. On November 6, a judge ordered Yap Keng Ho, a member of the opposition, to remove from his blog a video of himself speaking in public during the general elections.

Source
150
Cote d'Ivoire 68 NF
Malaysia 68 NF
Maldives 68 NF
United Arab Emirates 68 NF
154
Afghanistan 69 NF
Djibouti 69 NF
Gabon 69 NF
Singapore 69 NF
158 Iraq 70 NF
159 Bahrain 71 NF
Oman 71 NF
161 Chad 74 NF
Togo 74 NF
Venezuela 74 NF

to comment

Singapore - Government urged to lift ban on film about journalist imprisoned for 17 years

Reporters Without Borders today called on the Singaporean government to reverse its decision to ban director Martyn See’s documentary “Zahari’s 17 years,” about former journalist and dissident Said Zahari’s 17 years in detention for defending press freedom in Singapore.

“Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s government has used an archaic film law to impose another authoritarian measure violating press freedom,” Reporters Without Borders said. “The ban on See’s film must be lifted. This act of censorship is all the more inappropriate and ridiculous as his films are available on websites such as YouTube and GoogleVideo. We call for the liberalisation of the censorship and internal security laws that deprive Singaporeans of an environment favourable to free speech.”

Since 12 April, anyone suspected of possessing or disseminating a copy of “Zahari’s 17 years” can be sentenced to two yeas in prison and a heavy fine. See was forced to surrender all of his own copies of the documentary to the ministry of information, communication and arts on 11 April.

The film consists of a 49-minute interview with Said, the former editor of the newspaper Utusan Melayu, about the reasons he and several colleagues were arrested under a draconian internal security law in 1963, when the government was headed by the current prime minister’s father. Two years before his arrest, Said led a strike by the staff of Utusan Melayu in protest against the government’s takeover of the newspaper.

In a letter sent to See’s home on 10 April, the information ministry notified him that the documentary was being banned under article 35 (1) of the Film Act because the authorities would “not allow people who had posed a security threat to the country in the past to exploit the use of films to purvey a false and distorted portrayal of their past actions and detention by the government.” The documentary could “undermine public confidence in the government,” the letter added.

The documentary can be viewed at http://singabloodypore.rsfblog.org/archive/2007/04/12/singapore-zahari-s-17-years.html

You can keep up to date with Martyn See's situation by visiting his blog here.

to comment

No homosexual movie to be shown at Singapore film festival

From Pravda

Sex scenes showing the homosexual relationships between teacher and his 18-years-old student became the reason to remove movie from a local Singaporean film festival after government censors said sex scenes from the film had to be cut.

Organizers of the Singapore International Film Festival and producers of "Solos" said Monday the film would be withdrawn from public screening in line with the festival's policy of only showing uncensored films.

The festival opened April 18 and runs through April 30. "Solos" was originally scheduled to be screened on Wednesday.

The film received an R21 rating - which restricts it to audiences over age 21 - with three cuts from the Singapore Board of Film Censors, said Florence Ang, the film's producer.

The board said in a statement that the film contained "prolonged and explicit homosexual lovemaking scenes including scenes of oral sex and threesome sex" which had to be removed.

The cuts make up about five minutes of the 77-minute film, Ang said.

read on...

Danish animated film withdrawn from Singapore film festival

Princess trailer



Apr 16, 2007, 11:17 GMT

Singapore - The Danish animated film Princess has been withdrawn from the Singapore International Film Festival after censors ruled that it denigrated a religious symbol, a cross, organizers said Monday.

The production, the first animated feature from Danish director Anders Morgenthaler, focuses on a missionary priest who seeks to erase his dead sister's past as a porn star. It had been selected to open the prestigious Directors' Fortnight at the Cannes Film Festival last year.

The Board of Film Censors said it contained a scene in which 'a cross is displayed in an objectionable way' in the lower half of the body of a woman in a nun's habit.[00:50 secs. in trailer]

Board guidelines prohibit 'films with content denigrating a religion or a religious symbol.'

Solos, a Singapore production, was also found objectionable. The board said it contained 'prolonged and explicit homosexual lovemaking scenes, including scenes of oral sex and threesome sex.'

It was one of 11 films selected to participate in the competition for the festival's Silver Screen Award for best Asian feature.

Hundreds of films are scheduled to be shown during the festival starting this week. While firms are regularly shown in Singapore with cuts of scenes and language, the festival only shows uncut productions.

Princess

Due to his sister's death, the 32 year old August returns and consequently abandons his profession as a missionary priest. His beloved sister Christina, who went from greatness to decay as the famous porn-star The Princess, is dead after years of drug abuse. She leaves behind her 5-year old daughter Mia, whom August feels obliged to take care of. Weighed down by grief and guilt he decides to revenge the dead of Christina - and takes Mia on a mission to destroy all existing pornographic material featuring The Princess. The mission escalates into a brutal and violent rout, where August is desperately trying to protect the only precious thing in his life, Mia, why he is forced to make a fatal decision. Written by Martin Stoltenborg Christensen

to comment

Singapore bans film about ex-political detainee

Extract below from Pravda.

Filmmaker Martyn See, who was under investigation last year for a documentary about an opposition leader, said he was surprised by the ban. He said the film, produced at the end of 2005, had been approved twice last year with a PG rating. When it was not shown at the 2006 Singapore International Film Festival, as he expected, See applied for an exhibition license to screen it publicly.

"I don't know what changed. Maybe different people with different views watched it this time," See told The Associated Press. "I based my questions to Said on his first book [Dark clouds at dawn: A political memoir], which is sold in Singapore. So what is in the film is not something the government didn't know."

He said he had been ordered by the censorship board to surrender all copies of the film by Wednesday afternoon.

See said that Said is the only one of those detained in the 1960s under the Internal Security Act who is willing to speak publicly about his experience.

"I wanted to show another side of Singapore's history," See said of his reason for making the film.

Said Zahari's 17 Years Trailer

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Singapore is banning a film about a former political detainee held for 17 years without trial, the government said.

The film "Zahari's 17 Years" about former journalist Said Zahari -- arrested in 1963 for suspected subversive political activities, including communist sympathies -- will be banned because it is "against public interests," the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts said on Tuesday.

"The film gives a distorted and misleading portrayal of Said Zahari's arrest and detention under the Internal Security Act," the ministry said in a statement.

"Zahari's 17 Years" is directed by Singapore film director Martyn See, who had several run-ins with the Singapore police last year after he produced a documentary about opposition leader Chee Soon Juan in 2005.

Singapore, frequently criticized by human rights groups for its restrictions on the opposition and media, bans political films that contain "biased references to or comments on any political matter."

The Ministry said "Zahari's 17 Years" was an attempt by Zahari "to exculpate himself from his past involvement in communist united front activities against the interests of Singapore."

"The government will not allow people who had posed a security threat to the country in the past to exploit the use of films to purvey a false and distorted portrayal of their past actions and detention by the government," the ministry said, adding that this may "undermine public confidence in the government."

to comment

The Queer Sensibilities of Singapore's Wordscape

From Xenoboy in Singapore

The media is in overdrive. Spinning and spinning. Telling us the reasons why we have to pay 55% more to the Ministers and the top civil servants, of that stream known as the Administrative Service. No one expects an objection from the media. But not even a "concern" has been raised this time.

Instead, its a monopolistic narrative that calls upon the hallowed traditions of the Singapore Wordscape. The sense of crisis, of siege that will soon befall the Government if they are not paid more. That there will be a vacuum in Government. That the talent will leave or will not come. And without the talent, the Government suffers. And if the Government suffers, Singapore suffers. And if Singapore suffers, the Singaporeans suffer most of all.

This sense of impending doom, of competitiveness, that forces the Government to review salaries, forces them to accept the ignonimity of accepting 55% more money. It almost makes this salary review become noble. A form of noble-ness that is almost surreal. It is a review that becomes a ceremonial sacrifice by these talents to accept this necessary money. It is for the sake of Singapore that they make this sacrifice. Ultimately. It is for the good of Singapore. They take this 55% not because they need it, $290 is enough after all, but because the survival of Singapore needs them to accept this. So the narrative rolls across the Singapore Wordscape.

And the citizens look on, listening to and watching as this narrative embraces the Singapore Wordscape. Formulating their indignations, their counter-narratives, mostly in silence. Forming words, mostly in silence. Only in new media does dissonance surface. That this narrative, flattening the Singapore Wordscape with its moral loud-hailing, is perhaps only one side of the picture, one side of the fence, one level above in the hierarchy of political meanings in Singapore. But it is new media after all, where lies and truths are enmeshed in an adulterous embrace.

to continue reading

To Blog or Not to Blog in Singapore

By Alex Au at Asia Times Online

SINGAPORE - When Time magazine named "You" as its Person of the Year for 2006, the award was particularly apt in the case of Singapore.

Last year, Singapore's bloggers and Web-based writers signaled that they were a force to be reckoned with. And in a state where government control over the mainstream media has been a fact of life for more than four decades, Singapore's freewheeling blogosphere is set to have significant political and social ramifications.

In a poll conducted last year by the state-run Media Development Authority (MDA), it was found that half of all teens between the ages of 15 and 19 maintained a weblog. About 46% of the next age bracket of 20-to-24-year-olds did likewise. Many of Singapore's blogs are relatively innocuous diary-type spaces, including the popular Xiaxue (xiaxue.blogspot.com). But others, such as "Mr Wang Says So" (mrwangsaysso.blogspot.com) and independent filmmaker Martyn See's "No Political Films Please, We're Singaporeans" (www.singaporerebel.com), take on hard social and political issues.

It's still altogether unclear what direction the Internet revolution will take in Singapore. While there have been few moves toward legally protecting Internet-based writers, there haven't yet been any official signs of a comprehensive clampdown, despite an accelerating migration of readers from the traditional media to the digital medium. Freedom of expression over the Internet is being put to the test in neighboring Malaysia, where two bloggers are being sued for their postings by the politically influenced New Straits Times newspaper.

The Singaporean authorities have been stealthier in their tactics. Some of Singapore's veteran bloggers remain wary of the so-called Sintercom saga of 2001. In the months leading up to that year's general elections, the MDA insisted that the politically oriented Sintercom website register with it for "engaging in the propagation, promotion or discussion of political issues relating to Singapore".

Once registered, Sintercom editors could have conceivably been criminally liable for content posted on the site, should the government or senior politicians happen to have taken affront. Instead of complying with the heavy-handed order, and considering the country's long track record of politicians resorting to prohibitive criminal and costly civil lawsuits to stifle criticism, Sintercom instead opted to close itself down.

Many wondered whether 2006 would see a replay, or worse, of that experience, particularly considering the more recent proliferation of politically oriented websites and blogs. Last April, Lee Boon Yang, the minister for information, communication and the arts, fired a warning shot at all Singapore bloggers when he told the semi-official Straits Times: "To help bring some order to this chaotic environment, we have made it a requirement for political parties and individuals who use websites to propagate or promote political issues to register with the MDA."

to continue reading and comment

Singapore

SINGAPORE: Portrait book's nudity 'excessive'

Book featuring near-nude celebrity photpgraphs banned while Communication and the Arts Minister Lee Boon Yang says he will continue to revise censorship rules

Straits Times
Saturday, February 17, 2007

A photography book that featured near-nude images of celebrities was banned here because it exceeded the current content standards for publications.

Information, Communications and the Arts Minister Lee Boon Yang said the Public Consultative Panel, made up of members of the public, agreed that the book Superstars -- by Singapore photographer Leslie Kee -- should not be allowed to be sold here.

to continue reading...

Date Posted: 2/17/2007

Singapore

Journalism in Singapore

From Holland Village Voice

Losing Faith of the Printed Word

I just spent the past hour and a half watching a BBC documentary on Tehran, and somehow what struck me was the spirit of journalism, both of the BBC journalist and the journalists in Tehran. If Prof. Mahbubani said journalists have a tough job in Singapore, I suppose he was not speaking in relative terms to Iran. Yet the Iranian journalists seem to display tenacity and passion I don't sense from reading the Straits Times. But I'm making an unfair comparison because those Iranian journalists featured probably didn't work for the equivalent of the ST.

In the documentary Rageh Omaar said that despite being news-obsessed, Iranians were "losing faith of the printed word." They browse newspapers but don't buy them. They have the fourth largest blogging community in the world, and Iranians are increasingly turning to Satellite TV and the Internet.

Perhaps the reason why Holland Village Voice started out as a novel modeled after Kundera's is because I deeply feel and fear that media freedom in Singapore is an illusion. I felt compelled to speak in riddles, as Kundera did.

The documentary makes me feel we don't stand very far from where Iran is in terms of media freedom. We have to paraphrase issues in euphemistic ways, and that is if we're allowed to talk openly about them. Bloggers are ok, so long as they do not attract too much attention. An Iranian film had to be censored extensively before it could be screened locally, but went on to win at International Film Festivals - sounds familiar to Singapore?

Journalists, documentary makers, filmmakers, visual artists have a central part in our world, because they communicate to us and remind us what we should be doing to progress our world.

Watch the video documentary


to continue reading...

SDP calls on the PAP to identify itself on the Internet and challenges it to an online debate

05 Feb 07

Mr Ng Eng Hen
Minister for Manpower and
Chairman, PAP New Media Committee

Dear Sir,

It is with much pleasure that the Singapore Democrats learn of the PAP's admission that its members have been actively rebutting its critics, albeit anonymously, on the Internet.

We are disturbed, however, that you choose to do so using pseudonyms thus avoiding identifying yourselves as members of the ruling party.

This is odd given the Government's claims that its policies and the way it runs the country is well-supported by the people of Singapore. One would think that under such circumstances, you would want to proclaim your views like a shining beacon upon a (cyber) mountaintop.

Instead you choose to engage netizens under a cloak of anonymity which is, frankly, unbefitting of a ruling party that has been in power for close to half a century.

It also seems a trifle hypocritical given the fact that years ago, the Government insisted that writers to forum pages in the newspapers not conceal their identities and use their real names but now choose to hide behind nicknames when the shoe is on the other foot.

Worse, didn't Mrs K Bhavani from the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts, challenge Mr Lee Kin Mun over the Mr Brown affair last year to "come out from behind his pseudonym to defend his views openly"? You see, Mr Ng, here at the SDP we would like to think that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Perhaps, the PAP is afraid of being criticized by Singaporeans if it identifies itself to Internet users. In which case, we say: "Welcome to the democratic world of free speech!" This is where the ruled are not, and cannot be, bullied into silence and, worse, their silence is not distorted into support for the PAP and its policies.

Since you have been hanging around on the Internet, you must know that the Singapore Democrats have participated in online forums, in particular the Sammyboy Coffeeshop. A few of my colleagues and I have posted our views, answered questions, and, yes, responded to criticisms from our fellow Singaporeans in our real names and affiliations.

We did this because we believe that political parties aspiring to governing this country must subject themselves to questions and criticisms from the people. Debates must be conducted freely and openly, and the people given the means to question and challenge policies that affect them and their loved ones.

It is the only means where the rulers are held accountable and compelled to govern in the interest of the masses, not just the rich and powerful. It is the surest way that a thinking and mature society can be developed, one that will make our society more competitive and stable. It is, in short, the best thing that can happen for Singapore and its future.

In this regard, we, the Singapore Democrats, would like to engage you and your colleagues in the Government to a debate on the Internet. Since you are already in cyberspace, it wouldn't take too much to organise yourselves for an online debate.

The only reason that you would turn down this invitation, or simply ignore it, is that the Internet, which you don't control, is a medium that allows for genuine exchange of views while the mass media, which you do, censor your opponent's views.

But if the inability to suppress your opponent's right to speak and counter-argue is what prevents the PAP from debating the SDP online, then I must say that your effort to persuade netizens of your views, even if carried out anonymously, is doomed.

The SDP is happy to discuss the format and procedures by which such a debate takes place. In fact, we would propose an online, realtime video-conference debate where representatives of the PAP and the SDP engage each other, and invite Singaporeans to participate and judge the exchange.

We hope you will welcome this initiative and make your presence on the Internet less surreptitious. We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Chee Soon Juan
Secretary-General
Singapore Democratic Party

Singapore

FICTION • Singapour Expérience

Time to see if that French O'level was ever worth it. Or you could do what I normally do and go to Babel. The Babel translation starts,

In this news of policy-fiction, the essay writer Catherine Lim evokes the consequences of the democratic absence of debate in the country. A cynical portrait of a blocked company.

The reference to a 'blocked company' doesn't make any sense though...

Or you could just read the original English version here.
by Catherine Lim on Courrier International

Dans cette nouvelle de politique-fiction, l'essayiste Catherine Lim évoque les conséquences de l'absence de débat démocratique dans le pays. Un portrait cynique d'une société bloquée.

Lors de la quatrième réunion des ministres consacrée à Frankie Mah, un jeune activiste très problématique, le ministre Supremo demande : "Alors, quelles sont les nouvelles ?" Il obtient une avalanche de réponses : le jeune rebelle s'enhardit ; ses partisans sont toujours plus nombreux ; il attire un public sans précédent autour de la tribune du Speaker's Corner [place dans le quartier de Singapour où les citoyens peuvent, selon des règles très strictes, exprimer leur point de vue] ; sur une multitude de forums de discussion en ligne, les jeunes se demandent fiévreusement comment forcer le gouvernement à céder.

"Mais qu'est-ce que c'est ?" s'enquiert le ministre Supremo de sa voix douce et mélodieuse. Le ministre G.C. qui, depuis des années, n'est connu que sous ces initiales, répond avec colère : "La liberté ! Vous y croyez ? Les jeunes sont libérés de la pauvreté, de la misère, de la corruption, et ils veulent la liberté !"

Il émet encore un grognement de colère. Les autres ministres tentent de le calmer.
"Combien de temps allez-vous tolérer ces absurdités ?" demande-t-il. "Ecoutez, je me suis renseigné sur ce type. A 16 ans, il a triché à un examen. A 18 ans, il a engrossé sa petite amie. Pourquoi n'utilisons-nous pas ces informations…"

"Non !" oppose le ministre Supremo avec fermeté, avant de faire l'annonce la plus inattendue qui soit : "Je vais accorder à Frankie Mah tout ce qu'il veut. L'assemblée n'en croit pas ses oreilles. Le ministre G.C. tombe de sa chaise. "Oui", ajoute le ministre Supremo avec calme, "Frankie Mah va obtenir toute la liberté qu'il souhaite."

L'annonce laisse d'abord les Singapouriens muets de stupéfaction, puis c'est l'euphorie. Ça y est ! Ça y est ! Frankie Mah est un héros national.

Les jours suivants, les Singapouriens assistent à des choses qu'ils pensaient ne jamais voir : une foule immense, devant la prison de Changi, brandissant des pancartes contre les condamnations à mort massives ; un public furieux, frappant l'air du poing, réuni autour du Speaker's Corner pour s'opposer à diverses mesures du gouvernement ; un long cortège descendant la Orchard Road [l'artère principale de la cité-Etat] avec un portrait de Frankie Mah, au-dessus duquel on peut lire le mot "Révolution".

"Et vous n'allez rien faire ?" hurle le ministre G.C. "Hier, un manifestant a montré des obscénités tatouées sur ses fesses pour se moquer du gouvernement !"

Le ministre Supremo laisse échapper un petit rire et le rassure : "Ne vous inquiétez pas, tout ira bien." Puis il regarde à nouveau par la fenêtre la foule se rassembler sous un immense portrait de lui, affublé d'une moustache à la Hitler. Il écoute Frankie Mah crier dans un mégaphone :
"Hé, hé, hé, P - A - P
Notre parti à perpétuité
On est drôlement gâté !"

Les autres ministres se lancent des regards inquiets lorsque le ministre Supremo laisse échapper un nouveau rire.

Au cours de la troisième semaine, les choses changent soudainement. Une foule énorme, bruyante, se rassemble pour manifester non plus en faveur de Frankie Mah, mais contre lui. Les manifestants demandent au gouvernement de l'arrêter : il trouble la paix de la vie singapourienne.

La veille, une personne a été gravement blessée lors d'une échauffourée. Avant, une bagarre avait éclaté dans un centre commercial et des voyous en avaient profité pour se livrer à des pillages. Où qu'ils se retrouvent, ses partisans laissent des tas de détritus derrière eux. On n'avait jamais vu une chose pareille à Singapour.

Le ministre Supremo reçoit des délégations de Singapouriens l'empressant d'agir au plus vite. L'Association des parents et des enseignants s'inquiète de voir les étudiants manquer les cours à cause des manifestations. La Société de la morale déplore l'influence délétère que le comportement grossier et cruel des rebelles exerce sur la jeunesse. La Société de promotion du tourisme redoute que toute cette agitation ne fasse fuir les touristes.

Mais le ministre reste imperturbable. "J'attends", dit-il serein, avant d'ajouter énigmatiquement : "Ça va venir."

Et ça arrive assez vite, le 37e jour de l'Expérience. Une avalanche de lettres dans la presse et sur Internet accompagne la plus grande délégation jamais envoyée au gouvernement pour exprimer le problème le plus urgent de tous les Singapouriens : "La valeur de nos biens est en train de chuter !"

Le ministre Supremo se décide à agir. Le ministre G.C. jubile : "Jetez cette ordure en prison ! Condamnez-le ! Donnez-lui des coups de bâton !" Mais le ministre Supremo l'arrête : "Non. Je vais l'inviter à prendre le thé."

Frankie Mah paraît très nerveux lorsqu'il est introduit dans le bureau du ministre. Dès son entrée, il voit une immense affiche avec son portrait, et ces mots :
"Hé, hé, hé, Frank – Kie – Mah
Tu croyais gagner,
Tu t'es bien trompé !"

Le visage de Frankie devient livide comme celui d'un cadavre.

to continue reading

Singapore

Reporters Without Borders' 2007 Singapore Annual Report

An extract from the RSF 2007 Report (pdf)
Reporters sans frontières
01 Feb 07

Singapore - Annual report 2007

The government headed by Lee Hsien Loong, with his father Lee Kuan Yew behind the scenes, has been engaged in a fierce battle with several foreign publications and at the same time has cracked down on Singaporean bloggers and cyberdissidents.

While hosting a World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) meeting in October 2006, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong spoke out against the international media, which he said were trying to impose "their norms and their standards" on the country in relation to freedom of expression. The head of government justified control on the press in comments in July when he said that Asian countries who got "the best financial results were those whose media was less aggressive".

The opposition was given very little opportunity to get its message across during the legislative election campaign in May. The Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) was given two and a half minutes air time on TV channels while many pro-government media spread false information about opposition candidates. And the government used a number of ruses to silence critical voices. Before the campaign, they banned political podcasts which are increasingly popular in Singapore.

Under threat of a defamation suit brought by both father and son Lee, the printer of The New Democrat, the SDP newsletter, was forced in April to apologise and promise not to print it again. To intimidate him still further, local pro-government newspapers published rumours about his private life. Police summoned SDP secretary general Chee Soon Juan on several occasions for selling The New Democrat in the street.

After the ruling PAP comfortably won the election, one leader, Baey Yam Keng speaking in November called for more debate in the national media. "When I read commentaries in the press and those published on blogs, it seems to me as though they come from two different populations speaking about two different countries," he said. There was no reaction from the government.

The authorities tried to browbeat the foreign press into submission in 2006, in particular the Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER). After the paper carried an article about opposition leader Chee Soon Juan, which it called the "country's martyr" because of the numerous legal suits which he has had to face, the prime minister unleashed a series of retaliatory measures against the Hong Kong-based FEER. Lee Hsien Loong and his father brought a "defamation" case at the end of August against editor Hugo Restall and the magazine's publisher. They were also told to conform to section 23 of the law on newspapers and the written press which obliges foreign media to recruit a legal representative in the country and to pay a deposit of 200,000 Singapore dollars (100,000 euros).

Four other English-language newspapers the International Herald Tribune, Time, the Financial Times and Newsweek, all received instructions to comply with the same rules when their licence expired. The FEER decided not to give in and, on the contrary, its editor announced that he planned to fight the government in the courts. At the end of September the FEER was banned from circulating in Singapore.

The Singaporean press is relatively independent as far as regional and international news goes. But it clearly operates self-censorship on domestic politics. In July the weekly column of blogger Lee Kin Mun, alias "mr brown", in the daily Today was axed after a criticism of a member of the government. The blogger had received several warnings.

In 2006, the government struck hard at the Internet. Several legal cases were launched for posting news, podcasts or videos on the Web. SDP activist Yap Keng Ho was sentenced in November to a fine of 2,000 dollars for posting a video of an illegal gathering of his party on his blog. Since the blogger refused to pay the fine, it was commuted to a prison sentence and he was jailed the same day for a period of ten days.

Singapore

Singapore's Death Penalty and Blog Posts

Below is written by me for me. Comment if you like.

I am concerned with using technology or software to understand the discourse of the Singapore blogosphere.

I am very much aware of the limitations of using technorati to monitor topics online, and I am faced with the issue of which terms/words to search for, Singapore, Death Penalty, Singapore Death Penalty, can merely give an indication of the number of blog posts referring to the terms that I have decided to isolate. 'Penalty' could of course refer to football. There are other terms and words as well as events that may have increased the use of these terms by Singaporean bloggers but have nothing to do with the Singapore geographic context. One example is the recent Saddam hanging.

So what can I claim, I think I can claim that the graphs show 1,600 in December to just over 200 on Jan 29th posts on the global blogosphere mentioning the term death penalty, pro or against cannot be ascertained. While during the same period around 25 posts containing Singapore and the death penalty occurred. Again pro or against is not discernible. For the same 30 day period 1,200 to 1,600 posts contained 'Singapore' in the item. But am I able to assert that 1,200 blogger wrote about Singapore and 25 wrote about the death penalty, I think that is an inference too far, if simply based on using a technorati search engine.

Posts that contain Singapore per day for the last 30 days.


Posts that contain Death Penalty per day for the last 30 days.


Posts that contain Singapore, Death Penalty per day for the last 30 days.


So are the Singapore aggregator blogs simply showing a 'truer' picture of the Singapore blogosphere's dscourse? Or are all Singapore bloggers uninterested in the death penalty. Recent posts have indicated that there are bloggers prepared to air their views on the death penalty both pro and against. Maybe posts about the death penalty are just in the minority and reflecting the local dis-interest or possibly global dis-interest.

These graphs are very limited in terms of looking at the linguistics and the social and political concerns of the bloggers but they do raise some interesting debates. For the same 30 day period 'The Straits Times' appeared in blog posts between 50 and 100 times (approx.). Possibly the writers are attacking and undermining reporters errors, maybe the are linking to snippets of articles or the forum pages. I have no idea.

Posts that contain Straits Times per day for the last 30 days.


The international press picked up on a story that they feel has a global relevance, global being the operative word.

What I am concerned with, as well as Tochi and Malachy's hanging, is what I experience on a daily basis of reading Singapore aggregators and Singapore blogs is that there is almost zero and I mean zero concern with issues on a global scale.

Is the Singapore blogosphere isolated from the wider global blogophere?

Related Links
Singapore Blogosphere - No Topic
Mapping the Blogosphere By Elia Diodati
Data Mining: Text Mining, Visualization and Social Media

Another way to search for trends is via blogpulse.

Singapore and Death Penalty is the just visible green line at the bottom

Singapore

Old rules apply in cyberspace

By Isabelle Chan, ZDNet Asia
Thursday , January 25 2007 06:28 PM

There is a clear legal line when it comes to blogging, and those that spread false information electronically may land themselves in legal hot water, lawyers say.

Commenting on the recent case where two Malaysian bloggers were sued for defamation by the New Straits Times, Singapore-based lawyer Vijai Parwani at Parwani & Co, said: "It must be remembered that defamation is a legitimate action in most Commonwealth jurisdictions. The only country which champions free speech over defamation is the United States, where the law requires proof of 'actual malice' in order to succeed where the party defamed is a public figure.

"So, it is not surprising that the action in Malaysia has taken its current course," Parwani added.

Be it publishing in a traditional medium like print, or the Internet, the same rules apply.

IT lawyer Bryan Tan at Keystone Law Corp said: "Blogging is just like publishing, and just because it feels like you are writing your diary does not mean it is like your diary. A blog is a publication open to the whole world."

Mark Lim, director of law firm Tay Peng Chin, also noted an area where there is still a lack of definition. "Jurisdictional issues are still evolving", he said, noting that Web sites cross geographical boundaries, but "the law is still unclear in this area" of cross-border legislation.

Another potential legal issue pertains to third-party comments on blogs. Parwani noted: "Some blogs allow a third party to post comments, and this is where it gets complicated. To what extent would the blogger be liable for the contents posted on the blog by a third party?"

According to lawyers, disclaimers only go so far.

Parwani explained: "Certainly a disclaimer clause would aid the blogger in a claim against defamation, but common sense dictates that a disclaimer clause surely cannot be the panacea for the blogger if he knows the contents posted on his blog are defamatory of someone, but chooses to do nothing about it."

He added: "I am not aware of any recent case where the courts have held that a disclaimer clause would absolve the blogger of all liability, and I dare venture to add that the courts would not allow a blogger to take absolute refuge behind the cloak of a disclaimer clause if the issue were to arise."

And what about media companies that host blogs written by third parties who are not full-time employees? Well, they can still be liable, said Tan.

"I think if it is non-staff, these companies can claim they are like network service providers who enjoy protection under section 10 of the Electronic Transactions Act," he explained. "But their liability starts once they have notice of these offensive postings."

He added: "Companies running blog sites should remove blogs when requested to do so either by the authorities or the courts."

Parwani said a dose of common sense and taking responsibility for their blogs will help bloggers go a long way in avoiding a potential defamation lawsuit.

"Even if the claim is thrown out by the court at the end of the day, you certainly do not want to go down the road of having to defend the matter and incurring unnecessary legal costs along the way," he added.

For those who want to stay on the right side of the law, Parwani advised: "Keep the blog about yourself and your thoughts without having to make specific references to any particular individual.

"If you have to make reference to someone, then ensure that it is the truth and nothing but the whole truth," he added.

to continue reading...

Singapore

London Calling

Our Correspondent - Asia Sentinel
22 January 2007
In a stern reversal on a controversial legal case, Singapore’s ruling family finds that its writ does not extend past its borders

With a British court’s vindication of a prominent English neurologist and expert on epilepsy, Singapore’s ruling Lee family has discovered that other countries don’t share the island republic’s – or the Lee family’s – idea of what is legal and proper.

In a written decision adjudicated in December and handed down on January 12, the British High Court effectively ended Singapore’s pursuit of Simon Shorvon, the former principal investigator of a medical research project in Singapore, after a protracted international dispute in which the Singapore Medical Council alleged Shorvon was guilty of professional misconduct. Shorvon is now a professor at the University College, London.

The charges were brought against Shorvon by Lee Wei Ling, a physician, who happens also to be the daughter of patriarch Lee Kuan Yew and the sister of Lee Hsien Loong, the current prime minister. Over the past two to three decades, the Lee family and other Singaporean officials have filed a plethora of writs and lawsuits on various charges of libel and other misconduct against almost anyone who has had the nerve to stand up against them – but almost always in Singapore courts, where they have a 100 percent winning record, particularly against journalists and opposition politicians.

to continue reading...

Singapore

Reconnecting with the Internet generation

Or not as the case may be.

Rather up beat article about how the blogosphere and the PAP are embracing each other, slowly.

The Singapore government is trying to replace the current bottom-up citizen generated discourse with a top-down consultation exercise. As more and more blogger posts continue to be shaped by the daily stories of the Straits Times, while aggregator blogs continue to ignore the very same issues that the Straits Times ignores, while the blogosphere tries to gain entry into the distorted world of the mainstream media and vis-a-versa.

The Peoples Action Party can rest easy.


INSIGHT DOWN SOUTH
By SEAH CHIANG NEE

The government is now taking tiny steps to win back a young, not-too-friendly Internet generation which it lost when it ignored them in the last general election.

LIKE one dipping his toes before stepping into a heated tub, the government has taken several tiny steps to engage a young, not-too-friendly Internet generation.

This appears to be a departure from its previous “ignore them” strategy that was shown during the last general election to be outdated and politically dangerous.

Months before the May election, it launched its own singaporegovt.blog to counter an opposition offensive that subsequently won a surprising 33% of the votes.

Secondly, a group of 12 new People’s Action Party (PAP) backbenchers, all born after Singapore’s independence in 1965, started their own online diary (http://www. p65.sg/) to bond with their peers.

It is a small, belated foray to wrestle back the blogosphere ground lost through long neglect.

Early this month, it moved a step further. A Cabinet minister met several young Singaporean bloggers for the first time in a TV discussion on blogging, something considered improbable a year ago.

The chat that Foreign Minister George Yeo had with some young critics was not confrontational by Internet standards but it represented a milestone of sorts.

“I must say that I felt younger after the session, provoking and being provoked. Without that altercation, there is no communication,” Yeo later blogged.

The PAP has always viewed the free-talking, critical Internet with suspicion and dislike. What was termed “the first Internet election” gave the party hierarchy a glimpse of the future.

The birth of the digital generation in Singapore has largely been the result of government policies, the first being the creation of a “smart” cable city and, second, pushing the use of computers in all schools.

On their part, Singaporeans, with the exception of the elderly, have enthusiastically embraced it. Today, 66% of the homes have access to the Internet.

A recent survey here has shown a blogosphere expanding faster than most people had thought.

Half of all Singaporean teens aged 15 to 19, and 46% of the 20- to 24-year-olds are on the Internet, blogging or podcasting.

This adds up to 120,000 young Singaporeans reading and writing on websites that, according to one PAP member of Parliament, are “80% anti-government”.

Among the 20 to 24 age group, some 46% do so, while only 18% of those aged 39 to 49 are bloggers, according to the official Media Development Authority of Singapore.

In fact, net usage is highest – 90% – among children between 10 and 15 years old, a consequence of the schools equipped with a computer for every two students.

All these figures are set to rise in the coming years as Internet literacy grows and costs come down.

To put things in perspective, not all surfers and bloggers talk politics, let alone oppose the government.

A majority in fact uses it for non-political activities, including school projects, social networking, games or exchanging music videos.

But the interest in current affairs is definitely growing. Its political reach has dramatically reduced the government’s almost-total control of the channels of information.

That Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has been loosening up on society is attributed in part to this phenomenon.

In last year’s National Day Rally speech, Lee spoke of the Internet benefits and problems, including spreading “half-truths and untruths” as well as “good views, also bad views, extremist views which will divide our society”.

Many global corporations and politicians were using blogs to communicate, he said, “so we have to update, to try these out and move with the times ? We can’t do (everything) the old way.”

He said Singapore’s laws would have to change, including those that ban political podcasts and videos during elections.

It has also led to calls by government backbenchers to loosen up on the mainstream media, saying that regulations are driving readers towards an uncontrolled digital media.

In line with global trends, more young Singaporeans have been abandoning the 162-year-old Straits Times and turning to the Internet.

(Since 1998, its daily circulation has fallen from 391,612 to 381,934 despite a population rise of a million people to 4.5 million and its near market monopoly.)

Readers who believe that Singapore’s mainstream media is an official mouthpiece have given up reading it and are opting instead to congregate in the blogosphere to get their news and opinions.

They have formed a virtual sub-community of disenchanted youths who talk among themselves, taking only a perfunctory interest in what the government says through the mainstream media.

This is also propelling younger PAP leaders to try and reconnect with them.

By ignoring and regarding them as threats, rather than engaging them, the government has lost this community by default.

So far, web opinions, however rational and well-written by professionals or businessmen, have no recognition. This includes those whose names and identities are known. In government eyes, they simply don’t exist.

Two years ago, I suggested that Lee Kuan Yew – who is active and with a sharp mind – start his own personal blog (with technical help, of course) to fulfil his wish to pass on values and advice to the young.

They may not agree to everything he has to say, but his vast experience will generally benefit all.

Will it happen? At 83 and still busy winging round the world on state matters, the chances are rather slim. But one never really knows!

Singapore