Managing Cyberspace: State Regulation versus Self-Regulation

Introduction

The traditional media in Singapore has played a supportive role in nation building since post-independence, with the print and broadcast media deployed for the purpose of communicating state policies to the populace. The government’s control of the media was justified on the grounds of building social cohesion among its citizens from diverse ethnic, racial and religious backgrounds.¹ A myriad of laws was put in place to govern both print and broadcast media such as the Broadcasting Act, the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, Undesirable Publications Act and Public Entertainment and Meetings Act. The public service monopoly of broadcasting was intended to protect and promote national culture and identity² and the prohibition of private ownership of the mass media as well as satellite dishes (until the 1990s) helped the government to maintain both political and social stability, critical factors that are purported to have created Singapore’s economic success.

Within a short span of about forty years since its independence, Singapore’s growth achieved a phenomenal rate, averaging 8 per cent per annum, an outcome that has been attributed to the government’s sound economic planning and focused efforts to attract foreign investments in various industrial sectors³. The 1990s witnessed a shift in the policymakers’ priority as they embarked on transforming the island with a population of over four million into an information hub, one that trades in ideas rather than commodities. Visible success for initiatives such as the Singapore IT2000 Masterplan and Infocomm 21 Strategy was clearly evident from the sharp increase of Internet penetration and broadband among the populace. By 2009, Internet access and broadband access among households reached 81 per cent and 80 per cent respectively.⁴ In that same year, Singapore was ranked among the top five economies in Asia Pacific on the ICT Development Index.⁵

This chapter examines the development of the online space in Singapore, specifically the broadening of public discourse and civic engagement among citizens in recent years. While the online space has provided opportunities for marginalized voices and players to emerge, its dark side has reared up in the form of anti-social behaviour such as anti-foreigners and racist speech, trolling and witch-hunting. The latter has given rise to concerns among policymakers and the public on the polarizing effects of new media on society. However, given the emergence of pro-social speech that counters negative speech, self-regulation may be the more sustainable and effective way to regulating the online space as compared to legislative measures.

Circumvention of Media Regulation

The government’s control of content when it comes to mainstream media ensures that “content stays within the unwritten parameters of political acceptability”.⁶ Discourse that pervades mainstream media has traditionally adhered to out-of-bounds (OB) markers such as limits to speech on race and religion. When it came to the online space, the government adopts the same philosophy. The vulnerability of the state — given its geographical location, diverse ethnic and social makeup — is the reason given by the government to curtail the expression of political opinions on the Internet. Under the Media Development Authority (MDA), the regulation of the Internet is purported to be essential, not to stop religious and political bodies from setting up websites, but to promote accountability among users by holding content providers accountable for the web content that they put up.

The Singapore Constitution guarantees freedom of speech but with caveats. Sacrosanct principles that govern public discourse include respecting the judiciary, and maintaining racial and religious harmony. A person who promotes feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore can be convicted under the Sedition Act, and be fined up to S$5,000 (US$3,670) or jailed up to three years, or both.⁷ In 2007, amendments were made to the Penal Code to allow greater prosecutorial discretion, and Section 298A⁸ was incorporated to cover online transmissions. Besides these two laws, the 1997 Internet Code of Practice was implemented with the aim of promoting accountability and social responsibility among individuals when...