RACHEL LEOW
Senior Editor (SLR)

WHEN MEMBER-OF-PARLIAMENT Mr. Seng Hang Thong was set on fire earlier this year, comments relating to the issue were sparked off in Internet chat rooms and forums.

But as soon as “unhelpful comments” were ablaze, Singapore’s Senior Minister of State for Information, Communications and the Arts Mr. Lui Tuck Yew immediately spoke out against the effectiveness of the self-regulatory regime preferred by the government in policing freedom of speech on the Internet.

Underlying the right to freedom of speech in any given forum is the inherent tension between an individual’s freedom of expression, and state aims of protecting social stability, peace and good order. The choice between a more liberal approach and a more community-centric one manifests itself in the extent to which the State controls the media through criminal law. Singapore has preferred a more communitarian approach especially in relation to traditional forms of media, where one’s words and actions are subject to fairly rigorous scrutiny. For example, newspapers fall under the Newspapers and Printing Presses Act where permits are required before a newspaper can be published under section 21.

However, the rise of new forms of media presents problems to the ability of the state to police one’s freedom of speech and expression. The borderless, global and participatory nature of the Internet makes it very difficult for the State to exert any reliable control over its content. Thus, Singapore has pragmatically opted for a relatively hands-free style of moderation with only the most offensive cases being prosecuted.

The Singapore government has shown a marked preference for self-regulation by the Internet community and for raising awareness amongst Internet users about online safety to the option of creating Internet-specific offences. The Media Development Authority of Singapore (“MDA”) has adopted a light-touch approach to the Internet. Internet Content Providers and Internet Service Providers are deemed automatically licensed, though they must comply with the Class Licence Conditions and Internet Code of Practice, which are promulgated under the Broadcasting Act. Under the Code of Practice, the MDA can impose sanctions for contravention, including fines.

But such leeway is strictly curtailed where netizens’ acts are deemed so detrimental to state goals that they cannot be ignored. Notably, this is evidenced in the prosecution of bloggers who posted racist remarks against the Muslim Malay community under the Sedition Act in PP v. Koh Song Huat Benjamin, [2005] SGDC 272. These examples show that so far, criminalization of Internet behaviour is possible within the existing legislative framework.

As new forms of media appear with technological advancement, the balancing exercise will need constant re-evaluation. It may also be necessary, in the near future, to loosen restraints on traditional media sources to avoid jarring incongruity with more flexible Internet laws.