MDA pulls plug on The Real Singapore blog: ‘Foreign editors were responsible for articles that sought to incite anti-foreigner sentiment’

Singapore’s media regulator has suspended the licence to operate of socio-political blog The Real Singapore for publishing “inflammatory” content that it considered posed a threat to public order and national harmony in a bid to boost traffic.

In a statement released by the Media Development Authority today, the watchdog claimed that the site’s “foreign editors” were responsible for several articles that “sought to incite anti-foreigner sentiments in Singapore.”

The site must be taken down by 8pm tonight or TRS’ administrators could be fined S$200,000 or face up to three years in jail, the Straits Times is reporting.

Update: 8.10pm. The website has gone offline.

The administrators have been given one week to turn over information about the website’s operations to the MDA, and to make a case for why their media licence should not be removed permanently.

The MDA said TRS had faked articles by falsely attributing them to members of the public, and inserted passages in articles that were either lifted from local news sources or sent in by contributors “so as to make the articles more inflammatory” to boost traffic and, in turn, ad revenue.

The watchdog noted that: “At least two out of TRS’s three known editors are believed to be foreigners – [Ai] Takagi is Australian, while another editor Melanie Tan is believed to be Malaysian.”

The other editor is 26-year-old Singaporean student Yang Kaiheng, but the MDA held the overseas editors responsible for the offending pieces.

“The MDA believes this editorial strategy of deceiving readers and doctoring articles was an attempt to increase traffic to TRS, and thus boost advertising revenue. In so doing, TRS, including its two foreign editors, were seeking to make profit at the expense of Singapore’s public interest and national harmony,” the regulator wrote.

The news was announced by Singapore’s Media Development Authority this afternoon (Sunday), a month after the site’s young founders, Yang and Takagi, were charged under Singapore’s Sedition Act and for failing to produce documents to a police officer.

The MDA’s statement in full:

The Media Authority of Singapore (“MDA”) has suspended the statutory class licence for Ai Takagi and Yang Kaiheng to operate the website www.therealsingapore.com (“TRS”)[1], and other related computer on-line services such as the TRS Facebook Page, Twitter Page and mobile applications. The MDA is satisfied that Takagi and Yang have contravened the Internet Code of Practice (ICOP). They have published prohibited material as defined by the Code to be objectionable on the grounds of public interest, public order and national harmony.

The MDA has noted that TRS has deliberately fabricated articles and falsely attributed them to innocent parties. TRS has also inserted falsehoods in articles that were either plagiarised from local news sources or sent in by contributors so as to make the articles more inflammatory. At least two out of TRS’s three known editors are believed to be foreigners – Takagi is Australian, while another editor Melanie Tan is believed to be Malaysian. The foreign editors were responsible for several articles that sought to incite anti-foreigner sentiments in Singapore.

The MDA believes this editorial strategy of deceiving readers and doctoring articles was an attempt to increase traffic to TRS, and thus boost advertising revenue. In so doing, TRS, including its two foreign editors, were seeking to make profit at the expense of Singapore’s public interest and national harmony.

Previously, Takagi and Yang were out of the jurisdiction of the Broadcasting Act as they were running their operations from outside Singapore. However, since December, the two of them have been running their operations from Singapore, bringing them within the jurisdiction of the Broadcasting Act.

Most recently, the MDA notes that Takagi and Yang have been charged with seven counts of publishing seditious articles on TRS and the TRS Facebook page. They have also been charged with refusing to comply with written orders to produce documents considered by the police investigator to be necessary for the investigation. They have also refused to disclose how much advertising revenue they have been collecting. Further, TRS has continued to publish material that contravenes the ICOP even after Takagi and Yang were charged.

The MDA has notified Takagi and Yang to immediately stop posting any more articles on TRS and related services; and within six hours disable access to their website and related computer on-line services. Thereafter, they are not to resume operations under any other name. They have also been given seven days to provide information relating to TRS’s operations and to make representations as to why their class licence should not be cancelled.

The MDA does not make clear which articles broke its code of practice, but among the most contentious in recent years was a post in July 2013 that falsely quoted a politician, and a post published just after the Little India riots in December 2013. It was headlined STOP HUMANIZING THE BANGLAS/ INDIAN FTS!. In an opinion piece, Mumbrella suggested that this was the sort of article the MDA should be using its tough laws on.

Singapore’s media watchdog has been very active in its attempts to manage the local blogosphere in the two years since it introduced a licensing framework for websites with high traffic that report on Singapore.

Since May 2013, The Breakfast Network, a local news site founded by a former Straits Times journalist, has closed. The Independent, a site set up by the founder of TODAY newspaper in August 2013, was leant on to get a licence as soon as it launched, on the grounds that the MDA suspected The Independent had foreign backing.

The same reason was given to Mothership.sg, another Singapore news blog, that was instructed to get a licence under the Broadcasting Act in April last year, and The Opinion Collaborative, the publisher of The Online Citizen, which was told to do the same five months later.

Like The Independent, Mothership and TOC have denied ever having foreign ties.

Under the licensing framework, Singapore news sites with more than 50,000 unique visitors a month must remove any articles deemed insensitive within 24 hours. These sites also have to pay a “performance bond” of S$50,000.

MDA’s framework has met with resistance from press freedom groups in Singapore. In the month after it was announced, a campaign group was set up called FreeMyInternet – led by The Online Citizen.

TOC released the following statement today (Monday) in protest against the MDA’s move:

MDA to cease action immediately against TRS, clarify on censorship position: FreeMyInternet

Dear editors and friends of media,

The FreeMyInternet group expresses our complete and utter disappointment at the Media Development Authority’s (MDA) action in censoring The Real Singapore (TRS), call for this arbitrary and unsubstantiated action to be revoked immediately, and for MDA to come clean on its processes and standards as a regulatory body.

While not all of us might necessarily agree with TRS’s editorial direction or content, what TRS is alleged to have done is no reason for MDA to force a shutdown on the site. MDA’s actions exhibited two key problems: Disproportionate power vested in a statutory board, and unclear guidelines on actions to be taken against objectionable content.

The unfettered power given to MDA is disproportionate in that it gives a statutory board the the sole discretion to close down a website without due process, judiciary or otherwise. This is inconsistent with Singapore’s position as a state that is ruled by law, transparency and accountability.

Furthermore, MDA claimed TRS has “published prohibited material as defined by the Code to be objectionable on the grounds of public interest, public order and national harmony” and “responsible for several articles that sought to incite anti-foreigner sentiments in Singapore”. In relation to the current court case against TRS, this runs the risk of sub-judice. As a statutory board, MDA should have known better than to take actions that can potentially pre-judge the court case.

MDA has also clearly exhibited inconsistency in how it approaches “objectionable content”, be it online or in traditional media. MDA has claimed that “TRS has deliberately fabricated articles and falsely attributed them to innocent parties. TRS has also inserted falsehoods in articles that were either plagiarised from local news sources or sent in by contributors so as to make the articles more inflammatory.”

Objectionable, fabricated and plagiarised content is a regular practice in both mainstream and online media, and most certainly undesirable. But what gives MDA the right to stop the operation of a website on this basis? Websites managed by traditional news outlets have also been known to have fabricated content. Does MDA intend to take action against any website that plagiarises or fabricates content? What is MDA’s basis and standards for taking action, and what are the specific examples cited for TRS? Would it not be sufficient to request for the removal of specific articles rather than the termination of an entire website?

Without such clarity and accountability, we are left with no choice but to once again call doubt on MDA’s ability to be a fair and effective media regulator. The unsubstantiated and extraordinary actions taken by MDA against TRS cannot be seen as rules-based, transparent, and fair; only arbitrary and selective. As it is, we can only view MDA’s action against TRS as nothing short of a poorly-conceived and brutal attempt at censorship.

We also wish to highlight that MDA has chosen to take such action on 3 May, World Press Freedom Day. This is an affront to an international movement championed by the United Nations.

The FreeMyInternet group reaffirms our position that the right way to deal with any content deemed objectionable and offensive is with open discussion and reasoned debate. Such has also been the position championed by the Media Literacy Council. Shutting anyone down for disagreeable content, by anyone’s standard much less that of a regulator that has been inconsistent in its standards, is a trigger happy approach that reeks of blatant censorship and does not speak well of Singapore as a democratic country.