Critically Examine Self-censorship via a Comparison of the Production of New and Traditional Media in Singapore October 29, 2008
Posted by Alvin in Uncategorized.trackback
Critically Examine Self-censorship via a Comparison of the Production of New and Traditional Media in Singapore
INTRODUCTION
Singapore is known as much for its efficiency and cleanliness as for its government’s tight rein on the media. Since gaining independence in 1965, local authorities have kept close watch and control on developments in the local media arena. A major avenue is through its strict censorship laws, which serve to maintain the delicate balance of racial harmony and to protect national security. Most traditional media content producers choose to adopt the practice of self-censorship rather than risk running afoul of the law. Nevertheless, the proliferation of the internet has somewhat changed the status quo. As censorship issues play an important factor in participatory culture (as it can potentially limit the exchange of information and “marketplace of ideas”), this essay aims to examine the practice of self-censorship via a comparison of the production of new and traditional media in Singapore.
SCOPE & DEFINITION
Censorship, in the Singapore context, is often acquainted with politics. While this is true to a certain extent (probably due to the international media’s preference to focus on them), there are certainly more to censorship than politics – such as the portrayal of violence, drugs or “immoral” behaviour in the media. Nevertheless, the most contentious or debatable incidents usually converge on the political arena. On the other hand, while the design of self-censorship laws in Singapore has been alleged to serve the interests of the ruling party, this essay shall not extend to discussions of that nature.
Newspapers / publications, music, cartoons and television programmes are some forms of “traditional media” that will be discussed in this essay while websites, blogs and social networking sites will be classified as “new media”.
TRADITIONAL MEDIA
Traditional Media in General
Most traditional media (such as newspapers, television and magazines) content in Singapore is delivered to the masses through the productions of two agencies – the Singapore Press Holdings and Media Corporation of Singapore – both of which the Singapore government has specific interests in. The Ministry of Information, Communication and the Arts (MICA) oversees all media content available in Singapore (and to a certain extent the Internet) through stipulated laws[1] and guidelines:
[MICA’s] policies are guided by societal norms and values, as well as Singapore’s multi-racial background and emphasis on nation-building. Our policies…serve to maintain racial and religious harmony, protect our children and the young against harmful content, and safeguard national interests (MICA, 2008).
MICA also encourages industry self-regulation and admits that publications are ‘largely industry self-regulated [and] local publications are not pre-vetted to encourage creativity and a flourishing of local works’ (MICA, 2007).
Indeed, no specific “OB Markers” have been set by the authorities except for the guidelines by MICA. While the guidelines seem to provide freedom of expression and information to a certain extent, the quest to “safeguard national interest” and “maintain racial and religious harmony” provides potentially wide-ranging powers to authorities[2]. Therefore, media content producers in Singapore thread delicately on the fine lines of the stipulated guidelines. ‘The vast majority of journalists practice self-censorship rather than risk being charged with defamation [or under other criminal laws]’ (Think Centre, 2007). Nevertheless, there have been more occasions where the rules were breached and punitive action taken against media producers. These will be discussed further later.
Newspapers / Publications
The understanding of the practice of self-censorship in the Singapore newspaper industry begins with the knowledge of local legislation and policies. To begin, all newspapers in Singapore must be licensed and publishing permits can be revoked at any time. The rule also applies to any foreign media operating in Singapore. In addition, legislation such as “The Newspaper and Printing Presses Act” (TNPPA) of 1974 allows the government to determine the composition of a newspaper company’s board of directors. This is because, in Singapore, newspaper companies must be locally owned public companies. Their shares would be divided into “ordinary” and “management” shares. As the government can dictate who holds management shares, this ensures that newspaper boards comprise members who have little or no interest in upsetting the political status quo. This, in turn, almost guarantees that only “politically trustworthy” journalists are appointed to senior gatekeeping positions (George, 2002). With that, the foundations of self-censorship would have been laid for the newspaper industry.
Local Publications
With the infrastructure in place, the practice of self-censorship is prevalent, particularly by the national newspaper – The Straits Times (TST). This is most obvious during elections, where large turnouts at opposition rallies are complemented by less-than-generous coverage of the opposition in the news media (Kuo et al., 1993). Also, some seemingly “unfair” practices are easily observable. This includes the practice of not using images or photographs to depict crowd sizes at political rallies. It is widely believed that if such photographs or images were used, they would show more people attending some opposition rallies as compared with ruling party rallies. While large turnouts may not necessarily translate into votes, the possibility that marginal voters may be swayed by images of their fellow citizens seemingly endorsing opposition candidates with their attendance at the rallies is certainly present. Having said that, this practice by TST was sidelined during the last general elections in 2006 – with a photograph of an opposition rally crowd for one of its articles. This deviation from the long-held unspoken rule was widely attributed to the work of independent bloggers (who had posted similar photographs online anyway) and served little to reduce the perceived biasness that audiences had of TST (Yawning Bread, 2006).
Even with the regime of self-censorship in place, there have been occasions of “slip-ups” among the local publications (though they were quickly “rectified”). On 30 June 2006, a columnist by the moniker “Mr Brown” wrote an article titled “TODAY: S’poreans Are Fed, Up With Progress!” for his weekly opinion column in the TODAY newspaper[3]. The article discussed concerns with regard to the rising income gap and cost of living in Singapore. Just three days later, MICA published a letter on the same newspaper in response to the article by “Mr Brown” calling the latter a ‘partisan player’ whose views ‘distort the truth’. It further reiterated that the role of journalists and newspapers in Singapore should not be to ‘champion issues, or campaign for or against the Government’ (Brown, 2006). Several days later, the column by “Mr Brown” was suspended, although he did maintain a personal blog until today. The saga claimed more victims, with fellow blogger “Mr Miyagi” resigning (from his column with the same newspaper) followed by the resignation of its chief executive and editor-in-chief Mano Sabnani, fueling ‘outrage in Internet chat rooms about the government’s heavy-handedness and apparent lack of transparency’ (Au, 2006).
Admittedly, the operating environment for the print media in Singapore can be described as “constricting” at times. Infrastructure, legislation and self-censorship issues have led some quarters to question TST’s credibility as a press entity. In fact, a member of parliament from the ruling party had written that TST’s major challenge was to improve its credibility with readers:
‘It is a fact that [TST] suffers from an image and credibility problem…[TST] also appears to be less well thought of than many regional newspapers. [TST’s] problem is that it is too often perceived simplistically as a mouthpiece of the Government’ (Shanmugam, 1995).
Foreign Publications
A section of the TNPPA explicitly prohibits foreign publications from interfering in the domestic politics of Singapore. (Seow, 1998) In line with that, any approved publication that refuses to give the Singapore government the unedited “right of reply” may be deemed to be “playing politics” and, as previously mentioned, can have its license revoked or a quota imposed on its circulation.
Although foreign publications such as The Asian Wall Street Journal (TAWSJ), Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER) and The Economist (TET) are not exempted from the relevant law and policies governing the press in Singapore, some of these foreign publications seem to have a slightly more difficult time in their practice of self-censorship as compared to their local counterparts. In fact, foreign publications such as TAWSJ and FEER have, in the past, “crossed the line” by carrying articles that the Singapore government considers slanderous or interfering with Singapore’s internal affairs. They have either had to face defamation suits or contend with restrictions placed on their circulations.
In 1987, TAWSJ had its circulation restricted from 5,000 to just 400 after it ‘published an article about Singapore’s plans for its stock market but refused to publish the entire text of a 1,500-word letter the Government wrote in response’ (Erlanger, 1990, p. A9). At that time, TAWSJ commented that it had been implicitly forced to practice self-censorship:
The Singaporean Government wants the foreign press “to practice self-censorship…facade of factual reporting will be allowed” but nothing to disturb what the Journal called “the political monopoly of the People’s Action Party or the pretense of democracy” (Erlanger, 1990, p. A9).
TIME and Asiaweek magazines had also had run-ins with the Singapore government that same year for similar reasons. Both had their circulations trimmed, although they were later re-instated to varying degrees (Branegan, Whitaker, 1990, p. 91).
More recently, an incident by TAWSJ’s sister publication, FEER, illustrates that things have not changed much since then. In August 2006, FEER published an interview they had with a Singapore opposition party leader – Chee Soon Juan. Chee had claimed that leading members of the Singapore government had “skeletons in their closets”. Following the publication, FEER and four other foreign publications (namely Newsweek, Time, the Financial Times and the International Herald Tribune) were required by legislation to make a security deposit of S$200,000 and appoint a publisher’s representative in Singapore who could be sued. When FEER did not comply, its circulation permit was revoked – effectively banning the publication (Subrahmaniyan, 2008). FEER was later also sued over the article.
Other Publications
Other publications such as magazines published by schools and private companies’ internal newsletters (usually with a much lower circulation as compared with national newspapers) also actively adopt self-censorship practices.
On 11 September 2008, opposition party leader Chee Soon Juan (same person as mentioned in the libel case against FEER earlier) visited the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) in Singapore to interact with students. Student media groups such as the Nanyang Spectrum (NSM), the Nanyang Chronicle (NCE) as well as The Campus Observer (TCO) had representatives covering the event. However, both NSM and NCE encountered obvious obstacles in getting their articles published or aired:
After much negotiation between [Nanyang Chronicle’s] teacher-advisors and the university, NTU president Su Guaning gave the article the go-ahead. However, he changed his mind at the last minute, and the article was removed just one day before the newspaper’s publication on Monday (15th September). Many of the student editors at the Chronicle were clearly indignant when they learnt about this (Lee, 2008).
In explaining the university’s decisions, Associate Professor Benjamin Detenber, Chair of NTU’s Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information – which runs both NSM and NCE – said that ‘the story was killed because there was a feeling of concern over the use of student media to publicise and promote the unsolicited views of an uninvited person to the campus’ (Lee, 2008). Assistant chair of the school, Associate Professor Lee Chun Wah added:
[TCE] is a student newspaper but it does not have the right to demand what to publish. Ultimately the owner of the newspaper is the president of NTU. University is not an idealistic place. It’s an institution where we teach students in a practical manner.
While NCE (a print media) had its article axed, NSM (a television media) was able to get its coverage aired, albeit for only three days before being taken down. TCO (an online media), on the other hand, was the only media group that had an article on its website. It is notable that while all three are student media groups, NCE and NSM are supported and funded by NTU while TCO (from the National University of Singapore) is not officially affiliated with its university administration. Issues concerning NSM and TCO with regard to this incident will be discussed in further detail in the relevant sections of this essay.
Music
The local music industry in Singapore can be considered miniature when viewed in a global sense. Most music available in Singapore is imported from traditionally well-established sources such as the United Kingdom and United States, and increasingly from Australia and China, among others. Therefore, the practice of self-censorship in the local music industry does not occur at the point of media production, but rather during the importation, into Singapore, of such media content (i.e. the decision as to the genre of music to be made available to audiences).
In 1997, local authorities introduced a self-censorship scheme for the music industry. Previously, importers of music content had to submit albums to MICA for censor approval before making them available to audiences. Under the new scheme, categories of music such as classical, jazz, folk, opera and instrumental are now exempt from censor approval. Called the “Restricted Publications Scheme”, it also covers music content that contains potentially controversial or undesirable lyrics (such as swear words). A set of guidelines was also released by MICA to the importers to assist them in the self-censorship process. While importers welcomed the move, a spokesman from Universal Music (Singapore) expressed concern:
The main advantage is that we can release our stock faster…and we estimate that it would hasten our release schedule by about two days. But the self-censoring process is a potential drawback, because we haven’t done it before and we don’t know exactly what the parameters are (Cheah, 1997, p. 48).
Guidelines under the scheme also apply to music content generated locally in Singapore.
Cartoons
Political cartoonists working for national newspapers do not draw caricatures of local politicians as they know such works will not be accepted by editors. This applies also to drawings of current and ex-regional leaders such as ex-Indonesian President Suharto and ex-Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir (especially about their economic reforms) (Tiu, 2000, p. 78).
Political cartoonists in Singapore play a social engineering role, with people self-censoring themselves for the greater cause of social consensus. A “better to be safe than to be sorry” mentality persists among Singaporean editorial cartoonists. ‘While there is no official line on what can or cannot be drawn in an editorial cartoon, newspaper editors choose to play safe by indicating to their artists…that they would rather not have cartoons dealing with sensitive political issues of caricatures of local politicians’ (Tiu, 2000, p. 81). While this cannot be deemed as official censorship as cartoonists can still draw whatever they like – but the newspapers can refuse to print them – self-censorship is practiced by the cartoonists themselves as each cartoon rejected means wasted time and effort. This is even more valid for freelancers as it could possibly result in a smaller paycheck.
School / Education
Singapore’s efforts to establish itself as a regional education hub has paid dividends looking at the number of local and foreign schools set up in the country. This brings along different voices, opinions and ideas. In the same vein, the government has also encouraged its citizens to think creatively and out of the norm. However, fear still lingers among the academia, particularly among locals. Mr Kirpal Singh, a professor at the Singapore Management University, comments that ‘self-censorship has made people afraid’ (Overland, 2007).
Academics deemed to have ‘crossed their boundaries’ may likely face police investigations and even libel lawsuits. In a case in 2001, three lecturers who made a documentary on a political dissident had their offices raided by police and the film confiscated. They were threatened with legal action until they apologized. Another case involved an American professor, one Christopher Lingle, who had taught in Singapore in the 1990s. He had written an article for the International Herald Tribune criticizing “intolerant regimes” backed by “compliant judiciaries”. ‘Though the article never mentioned Singapore, authorities filed contempt charges against him and the newspaper’ (Overland, 2007). Mr Lingle fled the country (and was convicted in his absence) and the newspaper was fined.
Research that seemingly puts the government in a poor light has also landed academics in trouble. Two economists at NTU retracted and apologized for a report in 2003, which revealed (using official statistics) that most new jobs in Singapore went to foreigners, after it caused an uproar among citizens. While citizens generally trusted the article (therefore the uproar), the government had called the report “sensational” and “totally flawed”.
Linda M. Perry, an American who had formerly taught communications at the NUS for 2 years, said that high-profile cases had persuaded people to censor themselves:
Everyone is so terrified of crossing the line that most don’t even get close to it. “I can feel the fear in the room…You can cut it with a knife” (Overland, 2007).
Television
The medium of television, arguably one of the most influential communication platforms (even with the proliferation of the internet), has been kept close to the Singapore government’s chest. Local free-to-air television programmes are mostly produced or transmitted through the Media Corporation of Singapore (of which the government has strong influence over). Even programmes transmitted through ‘cable networks’ are closely monitored by the Media Development Authority of Singapore.
Starhub, a cable television network provider in Singapore, was fined S$10,000 this year for airing a commercial that depicted lesbian kissing scenes. The commercial, not produced by Starhub, was transmitted on Music Television’s (MTV) Mandarin-language channel which Starhub offered. It was decided by authorities that the clip had breached TV advertising guidelines (Associated Press, 2008). Evidently, programmes on local television are regulated through a combination of self-censorship and punitive action.
Television programmes broadcast to a limited audience are also subject to self-censorship. Earlier in this essay, it was mentioned that opposition leader Chee Soon Juan’s visit to the NTU had been covered by several student media groups but the eventual articles had difficult finding their way to audiences. The “Nanyang Spectrum”, a student-run news magazine programme in NTU had a representative present to interview the controversial politician when he visited. From the three “sound bites” that the representative had planned to use initially, two were removed on the advice of professors. Even so, further edits were made to the remaining one, until it was ‘neutral enough’ for broadcast. Despite this, ‘the episode was shown for less than three days before the university’s corporate communications department ordered the episode to be taken off-the-air for good’ (Lee, 2008).
NEW MEDIA
New Media in General
The proliferation of the internet has sparked a renewed interest in examining how the rapid expansion of information and communications technologies would influence the development of the “public sphere”. Poster (1998) contends that the Habermasian notion of public sphere – a homogeneous space of embodied subjects in symmetrical relations – may not apply to the internet. There were also those who predicted a decade ago that ‘it looks increasingly certain that politically guided media systems will lose their relevance in view of the diverse and quality information available as a result of continuous advances in the technology of information’ (Rampal, 1995, p. 161).
There is no doubt that the Singapore government had spearheaded the establishment of the infrastructure required for a digital age. In fact, since 2006, a plan to make Singapore into a “giant hotspot” (with free islandwide wireless internet access) has been progressively put in place. All a person would need is a laptop or mobile phone that can detect “wireless fidelity” (Loh, 2006). However, the same approach to dissent and self-censorship still applies in the virtual world (internet), albeit to a different degree and effectiveness.
While the internet is the only medium for which mass communicators do not need to obtain a government licence, Singapore-based websites which are deemed “political” or “religious” in orientation are required to register with the authorities. This is to ensure accountability for their online publications. Also, while the government has the legal and technical means to block any site it wishes (all incoming and outgoing internet data is routed through proxy servers), only several pornographic and religious-extremist sites have been blocked. Nevertheless, all relevant laws that apply to traditional media in the real world (such as libel and contempt of court) apply to the virtual world as well. Having said that, the absence of the need for licencing (and with it the utility to ensure self-censorship via its discretionary issuance) and location of some sites beyond the jurisdiction of Singapore laws has allowed significantly greater freedom of expression on the internet (George, 2006).
In 2006, the government passed a series of amendments to the Penal Code extending legislation to cover offenses committed via electronic media. The amendments not only provided for jail terms or fines for defamation, statements that would cause public mischief and the “wounding” of racial or religious feeling, it also became a crime for anyone outside the country to abet an offense committed inside the country. Notwithstanding that, the nature of the internet seemed to reflect that the revised legislation serves more to inculcate self-censorship (through the fear of prosecution) rather than enforcement itself. By and large, in the words of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, the internet ‘is something we can’t control now’ (Liu, 2001, p. 29).
Websites / Citizenry on the Internet
Singapore’s ongoing “cyberquest” of wiring up the nation has altered the landscape for social citizenry:
Singapore’s project of creating an “intelligent island” has…unintentionally laid the foundation for an infrastructure that allows for the development of a public sphere that has previously been, at best rudimentary, if not almost non-existent. The development of cyberspace in Singapore allows for a certain kind of engagement with state policies that was virtually impossible in a pre-Internet era (Ho et al., 2002, p. 133).
Strict censorship rules and the tight rein by the government on traditional media content have encouraged people with alternative viewpoints to seek non-traditional mediums such as the internet. The combination of convenience and privacy (to a certain extent) has resulted in the proliferation of a multitude of websites advocating a myriad of “interests” from political to sexual. These people have formed groups and set up independent websites such as ‘The Online Citizen’[4] to make their views known and preach their agendas which would otherwise have been censured in the traditional media.
The binds of self-censorship does not hold as tightly on the internet as it does in the real world. The Singapore government, “in its drive to develop a knowledge based economy, and more importantly an information society…has deliberately left cyberspace unregulated with the exception of the symbolic blocking of some more well known sexually oriented sites” (Ho et al., 2002, p. 142). This is evident from the fact that, among the student media groups that had coverage of opposition party leader Chee Soon Juan’s visit to NTU (mentioned earlier), only The Campus Observer (an independent online publication wholly run by students) had an article published on its website which had not been taken down.
Blogs / Social Networks
In Singapore, blogs and social networks (such as Friendster, Myspace and Facebook) are also considered “safe havens” for people with alternative views. Besides the fact that most of these blogs and social networking sites have their servers placed overseas, the government seemed to have let them thrive (whether by choice of otherwise). The apparent lack of self-censorship by bloggers and “netizens” solicit the notion that information or news generated by such sites is more independent and accurate as compared to the national newspapers. ‘The popularity of some blogs can also be seen in this light: without trying to be authoritative, they succeed in seeming somehow more authentic than industrial-strength media’ (George, 2007, p.900). Besides, there have not been cases of individuals being targeted by authorities for consuming alternative political content. An example of a breakthrough in the practice of self-censorship (or rather the lack of it) was the use of blogs and social networking sites in the follow up to the censure of articles on Chee Soon Juan’s visit to NTU.
Despite NTU’s efforts to curb the attention and furor over the axing of several articles on the opposition leader’s visit, student media groups have taken to alternative means of expressing their dissatisfaction – one of which is the use of blogs and social networking sites. Following the incident, two students had draped a black banner, with the words “no media blackout”, across a wall in the School of Communication and Information (SCI) at NTU. A second banner, with a web address on it that pointed to a Facebook group protesting over the incident, was hung near the first banner. Although both banners were taken down very quickly by campus security, many students had logged onto the Facebook group website and were informed of an upcoming protest gathering that student media groups had planned. A protest gathering was eventually held at the Speakers’ Corner in Singapore with an attendance of about 70 people (Chong, 2008). Also, following the fracas, an independent online newspaper website, The Enquirer, was set up by students from NTU. Separately, ‘Mr Brown’, a columnist with the TODAY newspaper who had his section suspended for an article deemed offensive by the authorities, currently maintains a personal blog containing his views of issues concerning Singapore.
All these would not have been possible if the same level of self-censorship prevailed online as it is offline. Having said that, while the internet may not be a “minefield”, “booby-traps” still await to snarl the unsuspecting ones. In 2005, a Singapore student studying in the United States was told to retract a statement he made on his blog, that there was malfeasance in Singapore’s scholarship program, or face criminal defamation charges. Clearly, the buck stops with defamatory or libelous remarks. Further, in a recent dialogue session with a local Minister, a question regarding the official stand of the government towards bloggers was asked. The answer was, apparently, ‘find your own answers’ (Chung, 2008).
CONCLUSION
The Singapore government’s tight rein on the local media is well established. Strict censorship laws and the practice of self-censorship by the traditional media have served to maintain the delicate balance of racial harmony and, ultimately, protect national security. Most traditional media content producers choose to adopt the practice of ‘self-censorship’ rather than risk running afoul of the law. Nevertheless, the proliferation of the internet has indeed changed the landscape, allowing alternative views and ideas to be heard.
[1]Such as the Broadcasting Act, Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, Films Act and Undesirable Publications Act among others.
[2] Reporters without Borders, a non-profit organization championing press freedom, ranked Singapore 141st out of 169 surveyed countries in terms of freedom of the press in 2007. Afghanistan was ranked 142nd the same year.
[3] All local newspapers, with the exception of TODAY, are publications by the Singapore Press Holdings. TODAY is a publication by the Media Corporation of Singapore.
[4]The website can be accessed via http://www.theonlinezitizen.com
REFERENCES
Au, Alex (2006) ‘Mixing Welfare and Elitism in Singapore.’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/HK23Ae02.html (accessed 4 October 2008).
Branegan, J. and Whitaker, L. (1990) ‘Saying Goodbye to Mr Lee.’ TIME, 29 October 1990, 91.
Cheah, Philip (1997) ‘Singapore Debuts Self-Censorship Plan.’ Billboard, 13 December 1997, 48.
Chong, Zi Liang (2008) ‘Protest on Campus Censorship Continues.’ http://enquirer.sg/2008/10/03/protest-on-campus-censorship-continues/ (accessed 6 October 2008).
Chung, Rachel (2008) ‘How Much Does The Government Care?’ http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/10/how-much-does-the-government-care/ (accessed 18 October 2008).
Erlanger, Steven (1990) ‘Singaporean Cites Siren Song of TV.’ The New York Times, 16 October 1990, A9.
George, Cherian (2002) ‘Singapore: Media at the Mainstream and the Margins’ in Russell Heng (ed.), Media Fortunes, Changing Times: ASEAN States in Transition. Singapore: Institute of South East Asian Studies.
George, Cherian (2006) Contentious Journalism and the Internet: Towards Democratic Discourse in Malaysia and Singapore. Singapore: Singapore University Press.
George, Cherian (2007) ‘Credibility Deficits.’ Journalism Studies. 8(6), pp. 898-908, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616700701556856 (accessed 30 September 2008).
Ho, Baber and Khondker (2002) ‘Sites of Resistance: Alternative Websites and State-Society Relations.’ British Journal of Sociology. 53(1), pp. 127-148.
Kuo, Eddie C. Y., Holaday Duncan and Peck Eugenia (1993) Mirror on the Wall: Media in a Singapore Election. Singapore: Asian Mass Communication Research and Information Centre.
Lee, Terence (2008) ‘NTU Censors Campus News Coverage of Chee Soon Juan Visit.’ http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/09/ntu-censors-campus-news-coverage-of-chee-soon-juan-visit/ (accessed 4 October 2008).
Liu, Melinda (2001) ‘The Confucian Solution; Singapore Shows China How to Have The Web and Control It, Too.’ Newsweek, 2 April 2001, 29.
Loh, Christie (2006) ‘Free Islandwide Wifi.’ http://singaporewatch.org/2006/10/11/free-islandwide-wifi/ (accessed 5 October 2008).
Ministry of Information, Communication and the Arts (2004) Content Regulation. Singapore: Ministry of Information, Communication and the Arts. http://www.mica.gov.sg/mica_business/b_media.html (accessed 1 October 2008).
Ministry of Information, Communication and the Arts (2007) Publications/Audio Materials. Singapore: Ministry of Information, Communication and the Arts. http://www.mda.gov.sg/wms.www/devnpolicies.aspx?sid=92%20 (accessed 1 October 2008).
Mr Brown (2006) ‘Letter From MICA: Distorting the Truth, Mr Brown?’ http://www.mrbrown.com/blog/2006/07/letter_from_mic.html (accessed 4 October 2008).
Overland, Martha Ann (2007) ‘A Pandora’s Box in Singapore.’ Chronicle of Higher Education, 22 June 2007, A38-A41.
Poster, Mark (1998) Cyberdemocracy: The Internet and the Public Sphere. D. Holmes (ed.) London: Sage.
Rampal, Roy (1995) ‘Media Credibility: A Case Study of RTM2 and TCS5.’ Media Asia. 22(3), pp.155-162.
Shanmugam, K (1995) ‘A Paper Singapore Deserves? Not Always.’ The Straits Times, 15 July 1995, 5SS4, 6.
Subrahmaniyan, Nesa (2006) ‘Singapore Revokes Far Eastern Economic Review’s Sales Permit.’ http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=aj7wQfOFNZuY&refer=asia (accessed 2 October 2008).
The Associated Press (2008) ‘Singapore Fines Cable TV Operator For Showing Commercial With Lesbians Kissing.’ http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/04/09/asia/AS-GEN-Singapore-Kissing-Fine.php (accessed 5 October 2008).
Think Centre (2007) Singapore’s Media Drops From 146th to 154th. Singapore: Think Centre. http://www.thinkcentre.org/article.cfm?ArticleID=2859 (accessed 1 October 2008).
Tiu, Lim Cheng (2000) ‘Political Cartoons in Singapore: Misnomer or Redefinition Necessary.’ Journal of Popular Culture, 34(1), pp. 77-83.
Yawning Bread (2006) ‘Flat-footed and Worse.’ http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2006/yax-591.htm (accessed 1 October 2008).
Create a free edublog to get your own comment avatar (and more!)
Comments»
no comments yet - be the first?