Gazetting group blogs as political associations is oppressive

 

Yesterday morning, The Online Citizen website announced that it had received an email sent by the Registry of Political Donations, under the PMO, stating that the Prime Minister intended to gazette it as a political association for the purposes of the Political Donations Act.

Then, in a late afternoon development, the Media Development Authority (MDA) informed TOC editors Choo Zheng Xi and Joshua Chiang that TOC has to be registered with the MDA “under condition 4 of the Schedule to the Broadcasting (Class License) Notification”, as MDA had deemed it to be a website that “providing a programme for the promotion or discussion of political issues relating to Singapore”.

My contention is that gazetting groups blogs such as TOC as political associations and requiring political bloggers to register with MDA would paradoxically lead to less transparency and less accountability over time, in contradiction with the stated purposes of the authorities.

As a gazetted political association, TOC would be barred from receiving funds from foreign donors, letting foreigners take part in its events, operating as a political party, and being affiliated to any local or foreign political party.

In my assessment, the majority of the above requirements should not affect TOC in any way, except possibly for:

not allowing foreigners to participate in events.

This is a gray area that afford the authorities too much administrative discretion and create a climate of uncertainty.

For example, while foreigners would still most likely be allowed to attend events organized by TOC at Speaker’s Corner or at indoor venues, they would presumably not be allowed to address the audience. Would they still be allowed to ask questions or carry placards? Would they still be allowed to wear a common attire?

There are no clear cut answers, and this is the evil of administrative discretion that makes being gazetted as a political association insidious.

The stated intent of being gazetted as a political association is to promote accountability and ensure no foreign funds are procured. In itself, this intent is noble, but unfortunately, the government has turned existing legislation into a double-edged sword that cuts also on the side of oppression.

Under the Political Donations Act, TOC would have to open its finances to scrutiny and report donations in excess of $5,000. While this is unlikely to impact TOC financially, TOC would face the same obstacles to fund raising as do current opposition parties. Ask any opposition party and they would readily testify that the Political Donations Act as it is currently structured makes it harder to raise funds through legal avenues. While foreign funding should logically be disallowed, there is a need to revamp the Political Donations Act so that it does not make it unfairly difficult for political entities to procure much-needed funds.

Being asked by the MDA to register under the Broadcasting (Class License) scheme is by itself no more than a cosmetic procedure that does not in any way change TOC’s current legal liability should it run afoul of the law in any way, such as by making defamatory remarks.

TOC’s owners and website administrators would have to reveal their full identities and details to MDA, but this should pose no problem as all of them are already prepared to identify themselves online.

However, this might have a disquieting effect on other political bloggers who do not wish to reveal so much to the authorities. There would be now be a greater incentive for bloggers to remain anonymous in order to avoid being asked by MDA to register under the Broadcasting (Class License) scheme. Paradoxically, this would lead to even less accountability and transparency from the blogosphere as a whole, contrary to what the authorities say they want to have.

Taking a step back, one can see that current legislation creates a climate of fear and allows the government to maintain control of sources of free speech and expression. There is a need to overhaul current legislation as well as restore democratic principles to our institutions.

The government’s approach thus far has been to use seemingly innocuous legislation to stifle constitutionally-legitimate avenues of speech and expression, while maintaining the semblance, but not the substance, of liberalization.

On the surface, gazetting group blogs and requiring registration with MDA seems justified, until one digs deeper and uncovers loopholes and layers of unjustified administrative discretion that serves the ruling party’s interest rather than the interests of citizens.

View the original article here