After months of discussion on the effect of the PEA on blogging -- initiated, I believe, by my first Blogging during elections article -- where exactly do we stand on this matter?

My reading now is that bloggers are free to carry as much political discussion and reporting as they wish, even overtly partisan content, so long as they avoid video [1].

The above statement will strike many as odd. Hadn't I argued in the first article that it was disallowed? Indeed, I had argued that a broad interpretation of the law would lead to that, for my chief point was that the law was too vague, thus creating a chilling effect on political debate.

But subsequently, statements by the government seem to indicate that the "worst case scenario" is ruled out. They will use a relatively narrow interpretation.

On 3 April 2006, Balaji Sadasivan, the Minister of State for Information, Communication and the Arts told Parliament that,

Private or individual bloggers can discuss politics. However, if they persistently propagate, promote or circulate political issues relating to Singapore, they are required to register with the MDA. During the election period, these registered persons will not be permitted to provide material online that constitutes election advertising.

-- MITA website ('MITA News') accessed
4 April 2006 (emphasis mine)

If you read very carefully what he said, you'd notice he highlighted the registration step. Although he didn't say so in Parliament, I have been informed by reporters who checked with the Ministry that the requirement to register is initiated by the Media Development Authority (MDA). If the MDA does not contact the website or webmaster, he can consider himself as not being required to register.

Balaji's boss, the Minister for Information, Communication and the Arts, Lee Boon Yang, likewise referred to the distinction between registered and unregistered sites,  in an email reply to the 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.

- Straits Times, 15 April 2006, 'New media, 
same rules' (emphasis mine)

This emphasis on registration is consistent with the PEA which itself says that the scope of the law only applies to those who have been required to register with the Media Development Authority.

If a webmaster or website is registered with the MDA, then under the provisions of the PEA and its subsidiary legislation [2],  that site should NOT carry "election advertising" during the "election period". It can still carry general news reports and general political discussion, even election-related ones, but not "election advertising". Balaji did make an effort (see above) to assure Singaporeans so.

At the same time, he made a little effort to explain how broadly or narrowly the government will define "election advertising", but beyond his use of the phrase "persistently propagate, promote or circulate political issues relating to Singapore", his attempt has not been helpful..

But if a website is not registered with the MDA, all this is moot [3]. The law, whatever the interpretation, does not apply to any site that is not registered. The ban does not apply there. It's very important to note this and not confuse it with registered websites -- which are very, very few.

Yes, I was concerned that prior to the writ of elections being issued, that the government would either slap a registration requirement on all and sundry sites, or treat all "automatically licensed" sites as registered, but evidently, this hasn't happened. Balaji's statement made it clear that "licensed" would not be equated with "registered". This is an encouraging example of the "light-touch regulation" that the MDA has long promised.

Lee Boon Yang's reply to the Straits Times is also noteworthy for his statement on emails and mobile phone sms. He said,

Straits Times: Can ... individuals send mass e-mail/SMS with pictures or videos of election rallies?

Lee Boon Yang: As for individual SMSes and e-mails, we consider these as private communication and they will remain the private domain of individuals. I agree that some people may hide behind this facade of private communication and use e-mails, or a chain-mail system to conduct election advertising. But they should bear in mind that other laws also apply to e-mail communication. These include libel. One should not hastily dash off e-mails 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.

-- Straits Times, 15 April 2006, 'New media, same rules'

* * * * *

Yet I'm seeing comments in various places that, oh, now that the election has been called, we must stop posting comments about politics. This kind of situation that is utterly typical of Singapore: the paranoia is bigger than the reality of controls.

This isn't helped by our mainstream media whose headlines reinforce the misconception. For example, on 20 April 2006, 'Today' newspaper had a prominent article titled "Net postings fall under the Elections Act", invoking the looming shadow of the law.

Its first sentence said, "From now on, the gloves have to stay on. For the bloggers, that is", suggesting that circumlocution is as far as bloggers can go. Directly political speech is banned.

Deeper into the article, it says, "What this means is that .... individuals not registered with the Media Development Authority (MDA) are not allowed to indulge in anything that can be construed as campaigning ­ until the elections are over."

This is plain wrong. Individuals not registered with the MDA are allowed, because they are NOT covered by the PEA. They are not under any restriction.

Alas, 'Today' has a much wider readership than Yawning Bread, and so the average reader would have seen this flashing red sign, fed his worst fears and wet his pants.

* * * * *

Experienced observers know that this is typical of how the Singapore government operates. It likes to have vague laws with wide scope that gets everybody worried about whether they are in contravention of the law whatever little thing they do.

Then it reserves to itself the right of interpretation of the vague language, but never actually declares what interpretation it will use. Once again, people are left in fearful uncertainty.

Finally, it will stress the restrictions and severe penalties. It keeps warning people about the law, but avoids telling them that maybe it doesn't apply anyway. They prefer the population to feel fear than confidence.

The result is that people will self-censor.

But when anyone asks the government why they have closed off political space, they will say, "But we haven't. We're not guilty."

"People are free to discuss politics on the internet, we haven't hauled anyone to court, we haven't banned any site. We've been very respectful of democracy."

"If most people choose not to say anything, it's not our fault."

© Yawning Bread