EMAIL INTERVIEW WITH DR LEE BOON YANG, MINISTER FOR INFORMATION, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE ARTS

Issues on the use of podcast and other Internet platforms during the general elections have been in the limelight even in Parliament. Dr Lee Boon Yang, Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts, outlines the policy on use of these platforms during the election. The following is a transcript of the interview with The Straits Times.

These were the response given by Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts to queries from the media on elections advertising on the internet and the use of podcast and videocast for such election advertising. The Minister's response was published by the ST on Sat 15 Apr 2006.

Q&A ON ELECTION ADVERTISING ON THE INTERNET

1    One argument the Government has made is that politics is a serious business and should not descend into entertainment. Can you elaborate?

We encourage the free flow of information and exchange of views within our political system. However, for political debates and discourse to be constructive and taken seriously, people have to take responsibility for what they say and should not remain anonymous. Facts must be ascertainable and arguments examined.  Voters can then consider the issues calmly and rationally with a view to the impact on their future, and not get carried away by emotions in the heat of the moment.  This is the basis on which we run elections and politics in Singapore, and this is how we have crafted our rules.

For example, there is full freedom to write or publish anything you like and to voice out your beliefs and convictions at election rallies, subject to defamation, sedition and other laws of the land.  But political campaigning should not be turned into info-tainment, where the line between fact and fiction gets blurred, and people get worked up emotionally without understanding the substantive issues.  This is why we do not allow music and entertainment at election rallies, unlike the practice in other countries. 

For the same reason, we have not allowed party political films and videos.  The impact of watching a video is very different from reading something in cold print.  Political videos may be presented as objective documentaries, but are in fact slanted propaganda to draw attention and score political points.  For example, the film Fahrenheit 9/11 was released as a documentary but its selective use of images and out-of-context quotations were designed to shock the audience and make President Bush look bad.  Such videos cannot be easily countered with rationale written arguments.  They evoke visceral emotions, and are not conducive to a calm and dispassionate treatment of politics. 

2    How about information obtained through the internet? Why is streaming of explicit political content through podcasts / videocasts not allowed but posting of party manifesto and texts of rally speeches allowed for political parties? What is the concern or worry?

The internet is a new medium, but the key issues are the same, and so we apply the same principles to address them.  This is why we allow texts, party manifestos, candidates’ write-ups and photos to be posted on the internet, in the same way that they are allowed in the print media.  Podcasts and videocasts, on the other hand, have a greater impact because of the nature of the medium. They have the greater power to influence. Hence, we do not allow podcasts and videocasts for election advertising, just as we do not allow party political films and videos.

The internet has its own unique characteristics which require special attention.  The internet is ubiquitous, fast and anonymous. Once a false story or rumour is started on the internet, it is almost impossible to put it right.  Despite its usefulness, the internet is chaotic and disorganised, with many half-truths and untruths masquerading as fact. 

This is not theoretical; it has already occurred.  Shortly after we announced Zaqy Mohamad in the line-up of new PAP candidates, there were netters who said that he was a nephew of Speaker of Parliament Mr Abdullah Tarmugi, and this spread quickly on the internet.  In fact, this is completely untrue, but how do we now rebut it on the internet, and get all the blogs, bulletin boards and chatrooms to put out corrections to set this right? In this case, it is not an important issue, but if it involves emotive issues of race, language or religion, then it can easily destabilise our society.  So we must be very careful and set rules so that individuals take responsibility for their actions.

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 Media Development Authority (MDA).  This promotes accountability and also ensures personal responsibility for comments made on the internet. 

Other countries are also grappling with similar issues.  In the last US Presidential elections, for example, there were vitriolic internet campaigns against the two candidates, John Kerry and George Bush.  One group tried to discredit Kerry’s war record, while another accused Bush of dodging the Vietnam War draft.  But those who propagated the personal attacks through their websites were never asked to account for what they said.   By registering political sites, we can avoid a similar situation from happening in Singapore.   In this way, we uphold the seriousness and integrity of our electoral process.

3    Can we really have effective controls over the internet?

I agree that the controls are not water-tight.   The virtual nature of the internet and its global scale makes regulation difficult.  But rules do have some effect. They set a certain standard and help maintain order and accountability in the way political issues are discussed over the internet. There will always be grey areas but these rules will help define unacceptable practices.

4    Will there be new laws to keep up with changing technologies? What would these changes be? Is the ""positive list'' the definitive list on what is allowed for political parties, candidates, and election agents? Or will it be expanded? Will there be additions for the coming GE?

Our position is dynamic, as technology is advancing rapidly.  We now have broadband and 3G, and people are connected everywhere they go. As the situation evolves, we will have to update our position accordingly.  We are constantly reviewing our rules, and by the next election, I am sure we will have them updated to deal with a different environment.  But we will move cautiously, and learn from the experience of other countries.  As we feel our way forward, we will continue to take steps to enhance the quality of political debate, and preserve the choice that Singaporeans have when it comes to elections.

5    Don’t all these rules make it more difficult for the opposition parties?  Also, the opposition parties have slammed the latest announcement that podcasting/videocasting is not allowed. They said that it is to curb their audience for their rallies and hence hamstring their chances of reaching out to more voters.  What's your response?

In fact, the restrictions on political films and videos pose more disadvantages for the PAP than the opposition.   If the PAP were to make a political video, it has the resources to do a first-class production.  But we decided against this, as it could demean the spirit of political debate, and undermine the longer-term interest of Singapore.

I am also surprised that the opposition parties feel that their plans have been disrupted. This is not a ban that came out of the blue. All these parties had to do was to check the positive list to see what is allowed and what is not allowed. The Regulations had been available since the last General Elections in 2001. The opposition parties are free to approach MDA or MICA for clarification but did not do so.

6    What if the blogger is anonymous or hosts his blog overseas? How to get the blogger to register?

How do the authorities intend to enforce registration given the

proliferation of blogs? Who will monitor or police the blogs to see which ones need to register?

How does the Government intend to monitor websites/blogs which run foul of the law?

Which government agency is in charge of Internet electioneering rules and monitoring blogs? Is it MICA "New Media" division?

Underlying some of these questions is the issue of what happens when someone tries to influence the political process by attempting to host websites anonymously or from overseas locations.  This is a possibility that cannot be dismissed.  MDA has oversight on these matters.   Where necessary, they will work in tandem with MICA and other relevant agencies.  But we have always adopted a light touch for the internet.  So I will not lose much sleep over these scenarios.  Internet users will just have to be more careful about putting their faith in the content of overseas websites.  Singaporeans must also exercise judgement and avoid being taken in by those with an axe to grind or are out to promote a hidden agenda.

7    Can political parties mass email/SMS to people? Are they, in these

mass emails/SMS, allowed to advertise themselves and put out their party manifesto? Are they allowed to give opinions on prevailing policies and candidates?

Are political parties allowed to mass email/SMS speeches they may want to give during an election rally?

Can political parties and individuals send mass email/SMS with

pictures or videos of election rallies?

Can individuals mass email/SMS text with political content? What

constitutes political content? If no, why are they not allowed? Which part of the law says so, given that Internet rules don't appear to cover

emails?

Political parties are allowed to send emails during the election period - this is on the positive list, but subject to certain restrictions.  For example, they should clearly provide information that would enable a recipient to unsubscribe from the party’s mailing list.  In addition, parties are not allowed to solicit for donations through email or to request the recipient to forward the email to others. 

As for individual SMSes and emails, we consider these as private communications and they will remain the private domain of individuals.  I agree that some people may hide behind this façade of private communication and use emails, or a chain mail system to conduct election advertising.  But they should bear in mind that other laws also apply to email communications.  These include libel.  One should not hastily dash off emails in the heat of the moment and live to regret a rash act later.  So think first, and then write knowing fully the consequences of such comments.

8    Can foreign based newspapers, especially online news sites, put up podcasts/videocasts of an explicit political nature on their websites? If not, how are they to be dealt with?

Can local newspapers and other mainstream media, like CNA, put up

podcasts/vodcasts of election rallies?

Are foreigners, or foreign-based websites, allowed to put up podcasts

and videocasts of election rallies here? If no, will the Government

consider blocking these sites then?

The PEA makes specific exemptions which allow the publication of any news relating to an election in a newspaper in any medium or in a radio or television broadcast.  If they choose to, they will be allowed to carry such materials in the form of videocasts and audiocasts on their websites.

Foreign news organisations will, of course, be allowed to report on the election.  But there is a big difference between reporting on local affairs and interfering in them.  We do not permit foreign news organisations operating in Singapore to participate or interfere in domestic politics. Singapore politics is for Singaporeans only.

Should we find that a foreign newspaper or broadcaster has been inaccurate in its reporting or presented unfounded reports, we expect to be accorded the right of reply.  I think this is a fair and reasonable thing to ask for.  We are simply asking for journalistic integrity.  If a newspaper for example has published an unjustified comment, the very least that it should do is to let us present our side of the story and facts for their readers to be the judge. If they are not prepared to give us this right of reply, then the Newspaper Printing and Publishing Act and the Broadcasting Act set out the sanctions which we can impose on the foreign media including restrictions to their circulation.   

We welcome foreign media to Singapore. I hope that they understand our position on this matter and we can continue our amicable and mutually beneficial relationship.