3 ms·
Okay, this is kind of off-topic to the main gist of the article, but I'm a Singaporean living in Singapore, and I believe that the article is rather mischievous
by bryanchen 13y ago
Okay, this is kind of off-topic to the main gist of the article, but I'm a Singaporean living in Singapore, and I believe that the article is rather mischievous (or the author genuinely does not know/bother to know the facts).
First of all, there is no such thing as a requirement for a blogging licence. I can blog, my friends can blog - and we all don't have to get a blogging licence. It is irresponsible, given that the author claims to have "read an article", that he decided to summarise it in two words - a "blogging license". This shows that either he doesn't understand it, or he is deliberately trying to mislead people.
Next, I'm tired of people saying that free speech is limited in Singapore. It is not. There are rules in place to prevent over-zealous extremists (of any kind or nature). I urge anyone who feels otherwise to take a look at Singapore's short national history - about mass inter-racial riots that caused massive turmoil in the country. This is why the laws have been enacted. These laws simply say that we aren't allowed to publicly denounce another religion, or another race. And before you start jumping up and down saying "that's limiting my freedom to speak!", let me clarify. It's not what you think. It's not that I can't complain or even speak badly about someone else's race or religion in public. I can. But the moment I start shouting these insults, that's when the authorities would take action against me. It's only civilised, and the government has formalised this civility. On one hand, people ignorant to historical events in Singapore can simply surmise that they are tools by the government to inhibit freedom of speech. On the other hand, however, and this is what I personally feel, these laws exist to keep the peace. Think about it. Singapore is a small island filled with people of different races and religions. Yet we don't have religious wars and we certainly don't have racial riots.
And finally, the claim of, "I suspect at some point the Singapore intelligence agency may have hacked into my email while I was there (another IP was registering on my Gmail account). Also I believe I was interviewed by a Singaporean spy." I seriously doubt it. Do you really think that if a highly trained spy wanted to covertly interview you, a technical writer and web developer, that you would know? And if they did want you to know, you would have known that you're being interviewed. I doubt (and here I'm assuming) that spending hours reading conspiracy theories online would make one an expert in counter-intelligence. Again, like what I said, this ill-constructed idea that the author has is probably due to the lack of understanding of the so-called "blogging license". And again, I repeat: one DOES NOT require a licence to blog.
Over the last couple of years, I've seen an increase in the number of people (mostly foreigners) writing articles about Singapore, saying that citizens' liberties are curtailed and limited. Again, as a citizen, this isn't true. Just like how Americans value their "freedoms", sometimes till the point of absurdity (absurd at least to foreigners like myself, and with regards to "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"), we Singaporeans value the peace and harmony within our tiny island-state. We put this, sometimes, even above our own personal liberty - like the freedom to shout racist remarks in a coffeeshop. Is that wrong? Only someone who has seen the bloody effects of racial and religious unrest would be qualified to answer the question.
- CaptainZapp 13y agoFirst of all, there is no such thing as a requirement for a blogging licence. I can blog, my friends can blog - and we all don't have to get a blogging licence. It is irresponsible, given that the author claims to have "read an article", that he decided to summarise it in two words - a "blogging license". This shows that either he doesn't understand it, or he is deliberately trying to mislead people. While the term "Blogging License" may be be slightly hyperbole I feel that you just denying that such a thing exists is disingenuous, at best. Specifically since you then gloss over a real onerous requirement that each "news" website (whatever that is), which reaches more then 50k unique viewers per month over a two month period indeed is required to be licensed. So if you have a puny little blog with a couple dozen, or hundred readers then, yeah, you don't need a license. But if you run an even semi successful blog you damn well need to be licensed. In my view it's really self evident that such a law is rife for abuse if a site doesn't toe the governments line. I quote Human Rights Watch on the issue : On May 28, 2013, the Media Development Authority, which is controlled by the Ministry of Communications and Information and is responsible for regulation of Singapore’s media and publishing industry, announced that all “online news sites” that reach 50,000 unique viewers per month over a two-month period must secure a license to operate. The licensing regime took effect on June 1, and the Media Development Authority released a list of 10 websites that will initially be impacted, including AsiaOne.com, Business Times Singapore, and Yahoo! News Singapore. (http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/06/07/singapore-licensing-regime-chills-news-climate http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/06/07/singapore-licensing-regim...)
- bryanchen 13y agoMy point was that a license was not required to simply blog - which was what the article was insinuating. For the exact rules for licensing of news websites, go to http://www.mda.gov.sg/NewsAndEvents/PressRelease/2013/Pages/28052013.aspx http://www.mda.gov.sg/NewsAndEvents/PressRelease/2013/Pages/... I'm not saying I agree with it. But at the same time I think that as long as it is not abused (to be addressed below), it is intended to prevent the new class of "independent journalists" from writing baseless stories without getting their facts right. > In my view it's really self evident that such a law is rife for abuse if a site doesn't toe the governments line. Exactly. Contrary to what many may think, if or when the government does begin to abuse this right, I can assure you that we, the citizens, will be up in arms and take them to task.