Who needs filtering? Defamation in Singapore James Gomez

The Big Picture Efforts at political filtering exist even before new media. Used a mixture of laws and sanction to effect “filtering”. Same methods are still used in the new technology environment. Over the years this has led to an emergence of “culture” – self-censorship. We need bear in mind culture in the midst of technology. Infrastructure of technical control is there for new technology but not used, but can be used. As it is the case in some countries. We talk about technical solutions – but also need a political solutions. Hence we need a combination of both.

Rationale for political filtering in Spore To prevent robust criticism of the ruling regime and its policies in a manner that might challenge its political dominance Deny, negate or limit coverage of the opposition. First step was to eliminate or control platforms that might facilitate the dissemination of such criticisms Second step to actually stop the articulators at the source

Defamation and the media The use of defamation has been widely used in the suppression of independent media (local) – up to the late 70s/80s. Such defamation suits were then extended to the foreign media from the 80s onwards. Most of the defamation were civil suits, aimed at financially damaging media companies. The content in many cases where criticism of the PAP, Lee Kuan Yew discussed in the context of reporting the opposition in S’pore.

Defamation and Opposition Politicians Aimed largely at opposition politicians largely in the context of election rallies Cannot claim political privilege/fair comment during political campaigning JBJ, Tang Liang Hong, Chee Soon Juan (aimed at bankruptcy) Contempt of Court - fine and jail terms Internal Security Act-detention without trial Singapore courts/judiciary role is seen as not independent in such political cases.

Defamation and Civil Society (New Media) Registration of political “sites” – (political parties and political associations [gazetted]) comprehensive registration form Fateha.com, Zulfikar Mohd Shariff, Use of criminal defamation SFD (0verseas), Robert Ho, Mental Health Unpublished instances settled privately

New Media and Elections Online Election Reportage (Forums) 1997 no election advertisement allowed 2001 some election advertisement allowed  Political NGOs not allowed to advertise 2006 further streamlining targeting bloggers Overseas reportage still unregulated

Bloggers Civil Defamation – Student Bond Breakers Sedition Act – Anti-Muslim Comments Student commentary – policed by Ministry of Education staff Political Films Act – Singapore Rebel (MS), Hosts Election Act  discuss politics in a consistent way  no podcasting  No vodcasting  No rally photos

Impact on politics (offline and online) Reduction in robust criticisms Robust criticism elicits strong reprisals Changing the nature of political expression in Singapore  Moderate political expression (to operate within harsh laws)  Civil disobedience (to challenge bad laws)

Moving ahead – leveraging on external networks Connecting local activists to regional and international networks (embassy, academic) Providing external platforms for Singapore alternative news to be published Filling or supplementing the civil society gap in the interim Application of defamation laws in other jurisdictions often take cues from Singapore Need to have a focused regional defamation law conference and follow up advocacy action – a political accompaniment to the technical approach of by-passing filtering