Mrs Seow Peck Leng - Spirit of Mountbatten

In 1959, the people of Mountbatten voted in a female opposition candidate. She successfully campaigned for change on a nationwide level and the result was the passing of the landmark Women’s Charter in 1961. Mountbatten voted and Singapore evolved.

The odds were stacked heavily against Seow Peck Leng. She took part in the 1959 General Election as an opposition candidate and faced four other opponents, including a PAP candidate. She emerged victorious.

Her underdog status did not end after elections. When Seow Peck Leng entered parliament, she was an opposition MP facing an overwhelming PAP majority. Furthermore, she was the only female opposition MP in a male-dominated Legislative Assembly during her term. Undeterred, Seow Peck Leng embarked on a nation-changing cause for women and again emerged victorious.

Seow Peck Leng dared to dream big. She envisioned a Singapore where women and men stood on equal footing. A future in which polygamy was abolished and wages were paid equally. Mountbatten believed in her ambitious vision and voted to allow her to represent the community. In return, Seow Peck Leng gave Mountbatten a noble cause to fight for and a new identity.

Mountbatten hitched its fortunes to Seow Peck Leng and she became the spirit of the community - a fiery, passionate, noble leader representing her community on a national stage. Both Mountbatten and Seow Peck Leng became synonymous in the fight for gender equality across Singaporean society.

Seow Peck Leng was more than a mere politician and Mountbatten saw that in her. She tackled a large problem in society and dared to envision a better Singapore. Mountbatten endorsed her and in doing so, backed her vision. Mountbatten voted for Seow Peck Leng to the Legislative Assembly and Singapore experienced genuine legislative progress.

Despite being an opposition Assemblyman, she successfully reached across the aisle and worked with the PAP to achieve a goal of national importance. She reminded the PAP of their pledge in their manifesto, and worked with them on constructive legislation. She could have spent her term opposing the PAP; but instead, she worked with them, and together they produced ground-breaking legislation that took provided national leadership and took into account the needs of all Singaporeans.

Mountbatten’s people were passionate, and voted in a passionate social activist. They were ambitious, and voted in an ambitious leader. They were courageous, and voted in a courageous woman. A marriage of such a community and a strong leader had a tremendous impact on Singapore society.

I believe that the story of Seow Peck Leng shows what a leader of a relatively small SMC can do for people all over the nation when given the opportunity. Seow Peck Leng gave Mountbatten a glimpse of an alternative Singaporean narrative in which both genders were equal in and out of the workplace. When Mountbatten endorsed her and gave her the platform as a Member of Parliament, she immediately set out to achieve a nationwide goal. Her parliamentary term brought about the passing of the Women's Charter, which paved the way for ground-breaking change in Singapore.

Seow Peck Leng was an inaugural member of Singapore Women's Hall of Fame.  As Singapore turns 50, it’s a good time for us to remember the contributions of a pioneer Singaporean and Honourable Member of Parliament for Mountbatten.

Seow Peck Leng has passed on, but her spirit remains in Mountbatten. She rose dauntless to meet the challenges of her day, vindicating her voters for having chosen her over others to be their voice in parliament.  

Today in Singapore, the tried and tested solutions are either becoming less and less effective, or not effective anymore.  As we grapple with the many national issues which hog our conversations, we will do well to recall the trailblazing, feisty spirit of Seow Peck Leong.  In those days, the people of Mountbatten boldly elected a bold lady, and the nation took a big step forward. 

Shall we repeat history?

Keep Dakota Crescent – a vital link to our past

Situated in Mountbatten SMC lies a cluster of unassuming old buildings known as Dakota Crescent. 

Named after the Douglas CD-3 Dakota aeroplanes that used to land at Kallang Airport, Singapore's first civilian airport, Dakota Crescent was built in 1959 by the Singapore Improvement Trust, the predecessor of HDB.  

For more than 50 years, Dakota Crescent has been providing homes to many pioneer generation Singaporeans.

Local residents and commentators have noted the estate’s highlights – ranging from its unique architecture, the iconic Dove Playground to its ties to Singapore’s aviation history.

Today, Dakota Crescent is slated for redevelopment.  The fate of the buildings which comprise the estate is uncertain. 

Certainly, Dakota Crescent must be conserved as a heritage for our future generation. We should not let it be demolished. 

Dakota Crescent is a key rung in the ladder of Singapore’s evolving social housing and community-building efforts. It was an experiment in public housing by the Lim Yew Hock Government (in office from 1956 to 1959) to address a housing crisis.  The estate is a physical reminder of a past struggle by the government to elevate its citizens from slums and squatter settlements into affordable public housing. 

Knowing our past challenges and how we overcame them are keys to build nationhood, enrich our identity as Singaporeans and inspire our way ahead.

It is important to make the effort to conserve Dakota Crescent because of its place in Singapore’s history of public housing and community building efforts.

Conserve Dakota Crescent for the Community

Singapore’s conservation efforts have often been found wanting – the Bukit Brown controversy is testament to that.  

Even when buildings are conserved, public icons have ended up becoming closed to the communities they once served. One prominent example is the Fullerton Building, which used to house the General Post Office from 1928 to 1996. The landmark building was the main communications hub in those days.  Businessmen and ordinary folk frequented its massive hall to mail out and pick up their letters.  However, after being gazetted as a conservation building in 1997, the Fullerton Building turned into 5-star luxury hotel.  Its purpose had turned from community to commercial.

Redevelopment is often necessary in Singapore but it would be a shame if after conservation, Dakota Crescent is reorganised into an up-market commercial purpose or private space that excludes ordinary Singaporeans.  Especially since Dakota Crescent was originally built to serve the community.

The redeveloped estate must allow the public access to walk around the estate and not be confined to view it from the outside. 

Future use of Dakota Crescent

The possibilities for redevelopment are many and they include arts/educational centres, and other social spaces for community use.

Dakota Crescent is situated around an MRT station, sports, recreational facilities, market and hawker centre, which makes it a natural centre for community to congregate. The locality has an established community of residents and amenity-suppliers who have been in the area for five decades.  A vibrant community of retirees, working adults and children offers opportunities to create symbiotic multi-functional facilities like childcare, elder care with retirees looking out for the young ones.

A hybrid development plan could be explored, allowing the developer the freedom to commercialise a certain portion of the area, while binding the developer to ensure that a certain portion of the area be allocated for community use. There could therefore be a win-win compromise between commercial and community purposes. 

Alternatively, an open competition to encourage ideas for the redevelopment of the estate could be a creative way to engage local voices and opinions. Singaporean architects, urban planners and other bright minds could enter the competition to discover creative ways to ensure that redevelopment does not compromise the preservation of history and heritage.

The Old National Theatre, Van Cleef Aquarium, Old National Library Building - they are gone.  Let’s ensure that Dakota Crescent remains, and not meet the same fate as those icons.   

If the estate is to be redeveloped, then let it be in a way that honours Dakota Crescent’s historical narrative of building the community.

Jeannette Chong- Aruldoss

Dakota Crescent resident, Mdm Kang. Aged 86, she has 10 children, 16 grandchildren and 3 great-grandchildren.

My condolences to PM Lee Hsien Loong

Dear Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong,

My humble condolences to you and your family for your personal loss.

Undoubtedly, Mr Lee Kuan Yew was a faithful husband to his wife and a devoted father to his children. By any measure, that alone would have been enough for any man to be well-respected and highly regarded for.

Yet, he is also the first of the founding fathers of our outstanding nation! As you have well said, " We won’t see another man like him".

As so, the passing of Mr Lee Kuan Yew is also a personal loss to Singaporeans like me, beneficiaries of the personal sacrifices made by - and audacious vision of - our founding fathers.

I salute Mr Lee Kuan Yew and join my fellow Singaporeans to mourn his passing.

- An ordinary but proud-to-be-called Singapore citizen.

“Welcome to the Istana!”

Disclaimer: This is just a pointless piece I wrote to entertain and console myself.  No socio-political commentary is being expressed.  Any semblance of socio-political opinion or innuendo detected is purely coincidental and imaginary.

"The Istana is the official residence of the President of the Republic of Singapore.  It occupies over 40 hectares of land along Orchard Road.  It is a precious and important part of Singapore's history and heritage, and has borne witness to Singapore's many historical milestones." [1]

Sometimes, you decide to visit the Istana for leisure, education or a sense of patriotism. Sometimes, you visit the Istana because you have to.

For instance, say you have a disagreement with a certain government official. The applicable statute may bind you to resolve your disagreement by lodging an Appeal to President of Singapore. [2]

On 20 October 2014, a group of Singapore citizens having some issues with a government official, tasked me to convey their letter of appeal to the elected President of Singapore. [3]

Generally, there are three ways to convey letters: (1) by email; (2) by post; or (3) by personal delivery.

Choosing the mode of delivery was a no-brainer.  I decided on Option 3 as it meant making a trip to the Istana, a place I have never visited but always wanted to.  Besides, it just didn’t sound right to email or post such an important document as a letter of appeal to the President.

A pre-emptory internet check confirmed the address of the Istana as "Orchard Road, Singapore 238823 (Near Dhoby Ghaut MRT Station)". [4]

And so, attiring myself in a long-sleeved blouse in my favourite colour and with the important missive in my hand, I rode the MRT to the Istana at Orchard Road on that sunny Monday afternoon. 

Upon arrival at the Istana gate at Orchard Road, I posed happily for a photo-opportunity selfie, before proceeding towards the policeman standing sentry at the Istana guard post. 

Picture 1: Posing for a selfie at the wrong entrance

Arriving at the Wrong Entrance

I had come to the wrong place, he informed me. "Documents are to be delivered to the Rear Entrance, located at Cavenagh Road", said the policeman who sounded nice.

"How far to walk there from here?" I asked. "20 to 30 minutes," said he. 

Feeling extremely sceptical and challenged to prove him wrong, I dispensed with a taxi, turned my heels and strutted towards the Rear Entrance at Cavenagh Road.

To the complete vindication of the nice-sounding policeman from the Orchard Road gate, I arrived at the Rear Entrance 25 minutes later, a little slimmer and my complexion several shades darker.

Having successfully arrived at the correct entrance for the Office of the President, I fished out my smartphone for a commemorative selfie, as all worthy Singaporeans would do on such an august occasion. 

Just then, I felt the perceptible sting of hard gaze from many human and electronic eyeballs falling on me. 

"No photos here!" growled an unhappy sounding policeman who stood astride the Rear Entrance.  He was clearly well-trained in the art of fixing his eyes for a cold stare, but perhaps less well-trained in the art of making conversation.   

A bevy of other policemen pacing behind watched me closely.  Conceding that I had nothing much to say in response to his 3-word sentence, I surrendered my quest for a selfie at the Rear Entrance.

In contrast to my joy at arriving at the President’s Office, the posse guarding the Rear Entrance did not seem pleased with my presence at all.

Picture 2: 

Leaving the Rear Entrance
after lodging the Appeal

I felt like the protagonist in a wuxia movie [5] trying to enter the gates of the Forbidden City.  Scenes from the period movie tickled me and I thought of entertaining my surly company by cracking a joke: “Bro, relak [6] la. I come as an Appellant, not as an Assassin!” 

Judging from the glares from the countenances of those well-trained people, I evaluated that they were either impervious to humour or lacked sense of the same. With deadly speed, I killed off my bad joke before it saw the light of day.   

I decided that it was best for me and for the happiness of the company I was in, that I quickly deliver my letter and quickly depart.  And which was exactly what I did.  I entered the Rear Entrance, did what I had come to do, and then exited the Rear Entrance gate to the freedom of the public space. 

When I felt that there was a sufficient distance between me and the gaze of human and electronic eyeballs radiating from and around the Rear Entrance, I whipped out my smartphone for a parting shot of the Rear Entrance, before scuttling away.  

Picture 3: My parting shot of the Rear Entrance

4 Tips for Prospective Appellants to the President

Here below are 4 Tips which I have compiled for the benefit of those who may need to visit the Istana to convey appeals or letters to the President. 

Tip No. 1: 

You cannot deliver your letter of appeal to the President at the Orchard Road Istana gate. You must do so at the Rear Entrance located at Cavenagh Road.  This piece of information is not found at the website of the Istana which only states the Orchard Road address.  If you fail to read Tip No. 1, then Tip No. 2 will apply.

Tip No. 2: 

Depending on your state of physical fitness and/or your footwear, it may take up to 30 minutes to walk from the Orchard Road gate to the Rear Entrance gate, and the walking gradient is uphill.  You will repent if you had chosen your attire and footwear based on aesthetics rather than on practicality.

Tip No. 3:  

There are many cameras posted at and around the Rear Entrance that will capture your image. However, any regrets over attire choices based on aesthetics over practicality will be compensated by the fact that you will look good in the images captured of you by those cameras. 

Tip No. 4: 

At the Rear Entrance, you will be closely stared at by a humour-challenged group of non-conversationalists in blue uniforms, at least one of whom will tell you not to take any photos even though you are standing on public space outside the Rear Entrance - and none of whom will say to you: “Welcome to the Istana!”

---

[1] http://www.istana.gov.sg/content/istana/theistana.html

[2] Section 21(8) of the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, Cap. 206

[3] NSP Press Release dated 23 October 2014 at http://nsp.sg/2014/10/20/appeal-to-the-president-mci-refuses-to-process-renewal-of-newspaper-permit/

[4] http://www.istana.gov.sg/content/istana/contact.html

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_(2002_film)

[6] http://www.mysmu.edu/faculty/jacklee/singlish_R.htm

Inside, Outside, Upside Down!

The absence of an independent electoral commission is inconsistent with Singapore’s claim to be a democratic nation.

Norfolk, England

On 11 May 1963, an English gentleman by the name of Frank Adler, somehow managed to gain access into Markham Royal Air Force Station in the English county of Norfolk. While within the boundaries of the Station, he obstructed a member of Her Majesty's forces and was promptly arrested. 

According to the UK Official Secrets Act 1920, the Markham Royal Air Force Station was a prohibited place and it was an offence for anyone to obstruct a member of Her Majesty's forces while ‘in the vicinity of any prohibited place’. 

Thinking he was clever, Mr Adler argued before the Court that as he was actually in the prohibited place, he could not be said to be "in the vicinity" of the prohibited place. 

The learned judge was not going to let Mr Adler get away with such a ridiculous argument.  Mr Adler was found guilty of the offence. 

The judge explained that the words "in the vicinity of" should be interpreted to mean on or near the prohibited place.  If the Court was confined to only the literal meaning of the words, it would have produced absurdity - as someone obstructing a member of Her Majesty's forces near the Station would be committing an offence, whilst someone doing the same thing inside the Station would not.

Mr Adler's case[1] is well-known to law students as being a classic example of the courts applying what lawyers call the "Golden Rule" for statutory interpretation. Under the Golden Rule, where a literal interpretation of a wording gives an absurd result, which Parliament could not have intended, the judge can substitute a reasonable meaning in the light of the statute as a whole.   

Cheng San, Singapore

2 January 1997 was Polling Day in Singapore.  On that day, top PAP guns walked into and stood inside a Cheng San GRC polling station while people were lining up to cast their votes. They were Prime Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong, Deputy Prime Minister Dr Tony Tan and Deputy Prime Minister Brigadier-General (NS) Lee Hsien Loong, none of whom were candidates for Cheng San GRC.

At that time, Cheng San GRC was being hotly contested by The Workers' Party. As to the extent to which citizens at Cheng San GRC polling station were influenced to change their votes upon seeing high-ranking PAP leaders congregating there, we will never know. 

PAP won Cheng San GRC by a narrow margin of 54.8% to 45.2%.

After the 1997 General Election, the Workers' Party lodged a complaint to the police that Mr Goh Chok Tong, Dr Tony Tan and Brigadier-General (NS) Lee Hsien Loong had been inside a Cheng San GRC polling station on Polling Day.  The Workers' Party cited two sections of the Parliamentary Elections Act:

Section 82(1)(d):

"No person shall wait outside any polling station on polling day, except for the purpose of gaining entry to the polling station to cast his vote".

Section 82(1)(e):

"No person shall loiter in any street or public place within a radius of 200 metres of any polling station on polling day."

However, the Attorney-General stated that the PAP leaders had not broken the law. 

Pointing to the use of the word “outside” in Section 82(1)(d), the Attorney-General explained[2]:

“Plainly, persons found waiting inside the polling stations do not come within the ambit of this section. …. Only those who wait outside the polling station commit an offence under this section unless they are waiting to enter the polling station to cast their votes.”

As for Section 82(1)(e), the Attorney-General pointed to the use of the word “within” and explained[3]:

“The relevant question is whether any person who is inside a polling station can be said to be "within a radius of 200 metres of any polling station". … Plainly, a person inside a polling station cannot be said to be within a radius of 200 metres of a polling station.”

All these explanations of the English prepositions “in”, “within”, “inside”, “outside” – is making my head go terbalik[4]!

 

I need to go back to reading nursery books to refresh my understanding of “inside” and “outside”. (By the way, a very good nursery book which explains the meanings of these words is the children’s classic "Inside, Outside, Upside Down" by Stan & Jan Berenstain. I used to read that book to my children when they were toddlers.)

If Singapore had an independent election commission overseeing the election procedures, the Workers’ Party would have been able to lodge their complaint to such a body, instead of lodging their complaint to the police as they did. 

Unfortunately, Singapore does not have an independent election commission.   

In 2011, UN member countries called on Singapore to establish bodies such as a human rights institution and an independent electoral commission. The Singapore Government rejected the UN calls, arguing that such bodies were not necessary. The Singapore Government said:

“Elections in Singapore have always been conducted fairly. The electoral system and its procedures are clearly spelt out in Singapore law which applies to all political participants, regardless of affiliation. The Singapore Elections Department, staffed by civil servants, adheres to the Parliamentary Elections Act and conducts elections in a fair and transparent manner. During the conduct of elections, there are equal opportunities for all political participants to observe and monitor voting operations. The result is an electoral system of integrity that has enjoyed high public trust and served Singapore well." [5]

The Singapore Government’s official explanation side-steps the actual problems of not having an independent electoral commission.

Notably, we have no safeguards against gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is when electoral boundaries are drawn so as to manipulate vote percentages to benefit the political interests of an incumbent government. Gerrymandering undermines the integrity of the electoral process.  Hence, it is crucial to have an independent body to oversee the process of boundary delimiting.

At every general election in Singapore, boundaries have been drawn and re-drawn; constituencies have come and gone.  The reasons for making those changes have never been satisfactorily explained to the public. 

The Elections Department being under the purview of the Prime Minister’s Office, it is a hopelessly constrained agency.  We need an independent electoral commission to safeguard the integrity of the process of choosing our national leaders, and more importantly, to give citizens confidence in the legitimacy and fairness of the result.

 

The lack of an independent electoral commission is a glaring gap in Singapore’s electoral system.  The Singapore Government’s official explanation for denying its citizens the benefit of an independent election commission, is inadequate and unconvincing. 

Up to now, the ruling party has had to continually fend off persistent criticisms that it has created an un-level political playing field in order to preserve its political incumbency. However, when the PAP-led Government sets up an independent electoral commission, I am sure that PAP critics will have a lot less to complain about. 

But the time when it will be of greatest significance to the PAP, is on the day when the PAP becomes an opposition party. When that day comes, I have no doubt PAP would then be very glad for the existence of the independent election commission they had established while they had been the ruling party.  

By Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss

---

[1] Adler v George [1964] 2 QB 7

[2] http://www.singapore-window.org/ag0721.htm

[3] http://www.singapore-window.org/ag0721.htm

[4] Means “upside-down” in Bahasa Melayu

[5] (Para 96.25, Addendum to Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, 22 September 2011)

Truth or Dare? Run the Gauntlet, Torch the Ashes, Raise the Phoenix

The phoenix is a bird which rises from its own ashes to fly again stronger and fuller of life than before.

Singapore’s foremost political leader once famously stated [1]:

"What political party helps an opposition to come to power? Why should we not demolish them before they get started? Once they get started, it’s more difficult to demolish them.  If you are polite to me, I'm polite to you but I'll demolish your policy.   It is the job of every government to do that if you want to stay in power."    

The elder statesman has candidly explained that a ruling party which is in power would want to stay in power. One way to stay in power is to demolish opposition before they get started.  For once they get started it is more difficult to demolish them. 

Singapore’s ruling party has stayed in power for over 50 years.  So firm has the PAP's grip been that since the first post-independence general elections were held up to the 2011 general elections, there were never more than 4 elected Members of Parliament from the opposition.  Currently, there are just 7 out of 87.

With respect, I do not agree that it is laudable for a ruling party to seek the demolition of opposition parties.  When a political party wins the mandate to form the government, it takes on the responsibility of serving the nation. The ruling party must serve the nation in priority to its own interests. 

Is it in the interest of Singapore to have weak opposition political parties and feeble civil society organisations?  I do not think so.  Allowing circulation of differing ideas and opinions will build a more robust nation, one which would have the full complement of solutions for its problems.

Systems to guarantee plurality in politics are entrenched in many democratic nations.  For instance, in Germany, Sweden, Canada, Australia and other democracies, political parties are entitled to receive subsidies or cash grants from the government for their political activities. [2] Such government grants help to ensure the survival of political parties, their ability to play their part in the political process and the continuance of healthy competition for political office. 

Laws and regulation are necessary but must not curb healthy political competition.  Sad to say, we have many laws which have the adverse effect of stifling the activities and growth of opposition political parties and non-partisan civil society groups.  One of which is the Political Donations Act (Act) [3]. 

According to the Elections Department [4], the Act seeks to prevent foreigners from interfering in Singapore's domestic politics through funding of candidates and political associations.  

The Act imposes an onerous compliance regime on both the political association and its donors.  

A political association is defined to include not just political parties, but also non-partisan groups like The Online Citizen (a socio-political website) and MARUAH (a non-governmental organisation). 

An organisation which is deemed to be a political association can only receive donations from Permissible Donors.

A “Permissible Donor” is defined as a Singapore citizen not less than 21 years of age; or a Singapore-incorporated, Singapore-controlled company, the majority of whose directors and members are Singapore citizens and which carries on business wholly or mainly in Singapore.

Onus is on the political association to verify that the donor is a Permissible Donor before accepting the donation. 

Hence, in order to comply with the Act, the political association has to request the donor for his NRIC and to give his personal details. In the case of a corporate donor, the political association would need to inquire or do checks on the company’s business, directors and shareholders. All these inquiries are an intrusion on the donor’s privacy and discourage the donor from making the donation. 

Political associations can only accept less than $5,000 in anonymous donations per financial year.  Any anonymous donation which will bring the total of anonymous donations beyond $5,000 in that financial year, will have to be returned or surrendered to the Registrar of Political Donations (Registrar).

If the political association receives a single donation of an amount not less than $10,000, or multiple donations from the same donor the aggregate of which is not less than $10,000 in a financial year, it must submit a Donation Report to the Registrar giving the name, identity number and the address of the donor and the date, value and description of the donation.

In addition, a donor who has made multiple small donations with an aggregate value of $10,000 or more to the same political association in a calendar year, is himself also required to submit a Donation Report and a Declaration Form to the Registrar.  Failure to do so is an offence under the Act.

I am not clear how the requirement to report donations of $10,000 or more serves the stated aim of prohibiting foreign donations.  It is clear though, that such a requirement makes donors wary of making other than small donations. 

The Act is yet another hurdle for opposition parties, by making it difficult for them to raise funds for its activities. 

It is a ‘Hard Truth’ that money is necessary for democratic politics. Political parties need funds for their activities. Lack of funds inhibits the activity and growth of the political party.  

It is evident that the opposition cause has many supporters and well-wishers, and the numbers are growing. 

If only some of the many supporters would be convinced to brave the gauntlet of making political donations, I believe that it would spark such a huge game-change, that the phoenix will rise from its ashes.  

Then the promise we saw in the watershed general elections of 2011 will be allowed its fulfilment in 2016.  

References:

[1] "HARD TRUTHS TO KEEP SINGAPORE GOING" (2011) by Lee Kuan Yew, at page 82

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_subsidies ;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_funding

[3] Cap. 236, enacted on 15 February 2001

[4] http://www.eld.gov.sg/registry.html

About the Author

The author is the Secretary-General of the National Solidarity Party (NSP).  This article is written in her personal capacity. 

The author appeals to readers to consider making a donation to NSP.  Click on this link to find out how to donate to NSP: http://nsp.sg/donate/

My thoughts on the new MDA licensing regime

On 28 May 2013, the Media Development Authority (MDA) announced the introduction of a new licensing regime to take effect from 1 June 2013. Under this new regulation, "online news sites that report regularly on issues relating to Singapore and have significant reach among readers here" will require an individual licence from MDA.

This would apply to websites that "(i) report an average of at least one article per week on Singapore’s news and current affairs over a period of two months, and (ii) are visited by at least 50,000 unique IP addresses from Singapore each month over a period of two months". 

These websites would also have to put up a S$50,000 performance bond, and commit to removing any objectionable content within 24 hours.

MDA said that the new regime aims to place the internet platforms "on a more consistent regulatory framework with traditional news platforms which are already individually licensed". If consistency is desired, why not place the print media on par with the online media? 

Judging by the language of the new MDA rules, meritorious volunteer socio-political websites are caught. Such websites now are cast into a legal limbo, having to operate with the prospect of being required to be licensed hanging over their heads. If the MDA decides, they would be required to put up a $50K bond, which they cannot afford to. In contrast, MSM websites owned by profit-making, public-listed companies, would not have the same difficulties. 

It is discomforting that the Minister has the discretion, the limits of which is still unclear, to decide whether and when a website should be licensed. Freedom of speech is the bedrock of a democratic society, and as such it should be respected and carefully protected. We should never allow any fundamental constitutional liberty to be glibly trampled on.

Every Singaporean is a stakeholder in the well-being of our nation. Concerned citizens should be encouraged to play their part by expressing their views and offering their feedback. 

Enabling the expression of diverse views makes for good decision-making. To curtail and narrow variety of thought is to stifle growth and to limit solutions. 

Whatever may be the laudable premises on which the new licensing regime is said to serve, there will be a chilling effect on socio-political discourse. One hopes that the new regime is not a pretext by the incumbent to control dissenting or critical voices.  After all, it is easier to push ahead when there is lesser opposition.

Here is the link to find out the details of the protest to be held on 8 June 2013 at Hong Lim Park: http://www.facebook.com/events/185882738236629/

Here is the link to the online petition for the immediate withdrawal of the new licensing regime: http://www.petitions24.com/petition_for_the_immediate_withdrawal_of_the_licensing_regime

POSTSCRIPT: On 6 June 2013, this Blog joined more than 160 websites/blogs which blacked out their pages for 24 hrs in a mass online protest over MDA's new licensing regime.

Screen shot of this Blog when it was blacked out.