Internet..
..And newspapers
By year-end, anyone wanting to operate one may have to get a licence – but it won’t under ‘censorship’ laws. By Seah Chiang Nee
Apr 7,2007

WITH online newspapers and broadcasting becoming a regular global feature, Singapore may soon have laws that could require anyone operating an Internet newspaper to have a licence.

It will, however, not be done under censorship laws, but to ensure fair market competition between the traditional print and broadcast industry and the new media.

The state regulator has proposed changes to the Media Market Conduct Code to ensure that market competition be fair.

The rationale is that it is unequal business for the print industry, which is tightly regulated, to compete against an unlicensed online newspaper that can operate with little control.

It will also cover state-controlled television, which is facing competition from Internet channels offered by telecom companies, including Singtel.

Regulating the media market has become more complex since the emergence of Internet broadband services and the convergence of telecoms and TV services.

The move would, in effect, extend state jurisdiction from the “old” established industry to the digital media.

It could deal a blow to any ambition to launch a web newspaper in Singapore without a licence, a slim possibility for any independent operator.

(In a parallel move, the government will set up a panel to define the new media’s long-term impact on Singaporeans, who are among the most Net-savvy people in the world).

The traditional media has long felt disadvantaged against the Internet, which operates freely, anonymously, and with a much less accountability.

“If an online newspaper is allowed to operate without licence, while our licence is renewable every year, fair market competition is not possible,” explained a print journalist. “It’s like fighting with one hand tied behind you”.

His argument, not without basis, is that newspapers are expensive investments involving high operating expenses while an online website costs very little to operate.

This unequal contest would result in declining newspaper sales – as is happening in the West – or its eventual demise over the long term, which is to nobody’s interests, he said.

The new rules will not cover weblogs or chat sites.

For years now, independent online newspapers have been a regular business feature in the West and parts of Asia (not many are profitable), complete with a full-time staff and advertising or sponsorship revenue.

With its present political environment, Singapore is obviously not ready for this. Neither will it likely free up its current controls on newspapers, print or online.

This despite the city’s cosmopolitan mix and the people’s high educational levels and knowledge.

By year-end, it is expected that three out of four Singaporeans will have cable Internet access. Some 50% of youths between 15-24 operate their own weblogs.

The Internet is not the only market threat to the print media. The bigger one is changed reading habits of Singaporean youths who are turning away from newspapers.

Some see the Singapore press as too pro-government.

It is not inconceivable for an online newspaper to emerge one day to reflect these changes. The proposed legal change is probably aimed at making it an unfeasible business proposition to do so.

As a worldwide trend, revenues from online advertisements are relatively low, but are rising at a faster rate than much of the conventional media.

At the moment despite all the froth, the print and broadcast media remain Singapore’s predominant suppliers of news, and will likely remain so for a long time.

However, a sizeable – but growing – minority is relying on the Web as an alternative source.

Worse, a growing number of youths are gathering as a sub-community in the blogosphere just talking to each other and paying scant attention to what the government (and the media) says.

Generally, the government’s attitude towards the Internet is to adopt tough laws but used sparingly, except during election campaigning and in extreme cases of race or religious hatred.

During the nine pre-polling days, no citizens’ website nor blog can talk politics unless it is registered as a political site.

Defamation threats also keep some serious bloggers in check, but the government has largely left the critical sites alone.

It is not a one-sided opportunity.

Many of the younger government leaders see the Internet’s plus side and want to use it to reach out and engage the disenchanted generation. The alternative of doing nothing, or adopting harsh punishment, is to lose this group by default.

Some baby steps have been taken. Foreign Minister George Yeo has begun blogging and so has a group of post-65 MPs. Party supporters have started visiting chat-rooms to counter anti-government views.

Will licensing stop an online newspaper here? Unlikely.

It can be operated from outside the country or as an attachment or supplement of a large foreign newspaper. No one has stopped foreign originated pornography, so how does licensing work?

But it will prevent advertising from taking off, if the government were to stop Singapore-based companies from advertising in it.

It’s a little like banning or restricting the circulation of “offending” foreign publications.

In the long term, however, the Internet will be beyond the ability of any modern, global state to control without invoking a political or economic price.

The Internet is likely to change politics (and the way politicians operate to win votes), rather than the other way around, i.e. politics changing the Internet.

The new generation of Singapore leaders evidently realises this and is trying to harness it for their benefit.

(This was published today in The Star, Malaysia)