Photo courtesy of ~*Leah*~
During Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s announcement of his proposal to have one day of cooling-off before polling day, he expressed his expectations that websites, especially those who are run by known personalities, should adhere to the cooling-off rule in principle, if implemented.
However, what happens if it is the foreign media who wishes to put up photos, videos and opinions on the Singapore elections at their websites? A distinguished list of well-known foreign media entities such as The Economist, International Herald Tribune and the Far Eastern Economic Review have fallen foul of powerful personalities within our government.
To pre-empt this, a move can be made to prevent certain blacklisted foreign journalists from entering Singapore, but there are always those who can slip through the cracks and run around covering our elections. The interesting question is what would be the government’s response towards foreign media who cover our elections?
The gut feeling is that there is perhaps little the government can do about the situation, but if the foreign media entity has offices in Singapore, there is a probability that the latter may be susceptible to punitive action by the government if found violating certain set ‘guidelines’ with regards to publicizing on the elections.
Otherwise, there is little that the government can do about foreign media entities reporting, analyzing and writing opinion pieces but at the same time remain out of reach from the Singapore jurisdiction. While our mainstream media can be controlled by our government, out-of-reach foreign media cannot. Issuing a blanket ban on any foreign media wishing to express information, opinion and analysis on our elections may appear high-handed, and in addition, do not cast a positive light on our authorities within the international spotlight. We not see the Australian government attempting to prevent non-Australian news sites from expressing opinions on Australian politics during the cooling off period. Neither would we expect the Australian government to take to task non-Australian media entities who expressed views on Australian electoral politics during the period.
Foreign media with offices, assets and other forms of business interests within Singapore could potentially be affected by the rules bounding the cooling-off period. But those that remain out of reach have the freedom to express their views through any ostensible means on our elections.
The scenario is much more complex than the way you put it. Control is a lot more subtle – study the 1980s methods of dealing with them and you will see.
1. If the mainstream media is allowed to report on cooling off day, it is probable that the foreign press would fall under this category as they are similarly licensed under the NPPA.
2. The PAP’s has in the past not been too concerned about the foreign media unless they have a reasonable circulation in Singapore like IHT, FEER, AWSJ, Economist, Bloomberg and they report or comment on Singapore…
For those that circulate in Singapore, the controls are through the ongoing need for a licence under the NPPA, the need to put up a security bond and a local representative for legal documents to be served. This deals with the scenario that you have put up, and puts those who publish here within reach.
3. The foreign press is not typically controlled through “guidelines”. The methods of control are mainly through insisting on a full and unedited right of reply, and through financial means. They understand that companies are in the business of making money and the best way to deal with them is through the pocket, not hard repression. One way of dealing with this was to allow circulation but without advertisements.
Pingback: The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Daily SG: 8 Dec 2009
The track record for this is not good.
The govt had NEVER been on record to have initiated anything unless it is to its overwhelming advantage and more to the point to the opposition’s overwhelming DISadvantage.
I will not be surprised if it pulled off something extremely sensational or confidence-eroding about the opposition/opposition member/candidate or some security related issue on the eve of the cooling off day to throw the voters into a state of uncertainty and fear.
It would not be a surprise… as the PAP has a good track record of instilling fear in voters with the MSM propogating this and they now want to allow only the MSM to be able to report on the cooling off day?
Like LKY just said in his speech to the Japanese, “I’m an exception to the rule”, perhaps he mean above the rules. So the MSM will also be in this case the exception to the rule.