Mendaki has spent a record of nearly S$80 million in 2014, revealed Minister-In-Charge of Muslim Affairs Yaacob Ibrahim who is also chairman of Mendaki’s Board of Directors, revealed in an annual general meeting on Saturday (Jun 13).
The fund was to support the community’s development through education.
The Malay self-help group Mendaki also revealed that its total expenditure also increased by 11 per cent over the previous year.
S$32 million was spent on the Tertiary Tuition Fee Subsidy (TFS) to more than 4,100 needy students.
The number of subsidies handed out continued to rise since its revision in 2012 and in 2014, the numbers jumped by 113 per cent.
S$7.7 million was given out as loans to approximately 3,700 recipients under the Student Loan Scheme and S$39 million was used to finance Mendaki’s various activities and programmes to benefit some 75,000 people from the Malay-Muslim community.
The annual general meeting also saw the election of seven new board directors, who will serve the 2015-2017 term.
“These are the achievements that we are proud of and so for this year, we’d like to build upon those foundations and see what more can we do,” said Dr Yaacob. “One of the areas that we are looking into is how to ensure that all our departments support the educational outcome. Secondly, what are the value-added services that we can add on.”
“We are now looking into mentoring as one of the possible steps that we can do within MTS (Mendaki Tuition Scheme).”
Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs Yaacob Ibrahim has said Muslim youths in Singapore are contributing constructively to society and that the two self-radicalised individuals are isolated cases.
Dr Yaacob was responding to reporters on Saturday (May 30) on what can be done to further reach out to Muslim youths following the latest detention of a self-radicalised Singaporean teenager. Another has been arrested for further investigations.
Dr Yaacob joined 180 Muslim students along the Wakaf Heritage Trail, which is located around the Kampong Glam area. The trail was held by the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore, or MUIS.
Wakaf in Singapore is an Islamic charitable endowment, typically in the form of property, which is dedicated by a philanthropist for religious or charitable purposes.
The trail is aimed at getting students to appreciate the contributions of Muslim philanthropists and the significant assets they have left behind.
Wakaf Heritage Markers will be developed and mounted on the various wakaf properties to educate the public on these sites.
MUIS will also be working with National Heritage Board to share information online on the Wakaf Heritage Trail to allow the broader public to understand the heritage behind these places as well.
A group photo of the participants in the Wakaf Heritage Trail before flag-off. (Photo: CNA/Chan Luo Er)
CONTRIBUTING TO CONSTRUCTIVE ACTIVITIES
Dr Yaacob said the trail is an important exercise to remind youths of the origin and purpose of Islam. He said: “While we celebrate our heritage, while we celebrate our assets and our legacy, the message is this is what you can do as a Muslim to continue that legacy here in Singapore because at the end of the day, that is what Islam is all about.”
“A lot of Muslim groups are actually contributing to constructive activities, helping the poor, helping our flood victims in Malaysia, bringing food to the poor and the needy. By and large, the Malay Muslim youths are on the right track but you have these isolated individuals that we need to try to bring them to the mainstream.”
Dr Yaacob added that the community should continue to lead their lives while remaining vigilant. “If supposing there are some changes in your child, you must understand why those changes are taking place. I think that is normal,” he said.
“If tomorrow your child shows some rebellious behaviour you would want to know what is happening. If tomorrow he becomes slightly more religious, you would want to know what is going on. So I think that sense of vigilance is needed by parents, by friends, by school administrators.”
PLATFORM FOR YOUTHS
Speaking on the sidelines of the launch of The Salvation Army’s Family Hub, Speaker of Parliament Halimah Yacob said that youths need a platform where they feel comfortable asking questions over content they have accessed over the internet, especially with ISIS being active on the internet.
“They (ISIS) have been putting up on the internet a lot of content, which are very very persuasive, very seductive and so we need to have a counter-narrative that these ideologies are wrong and that our young should be aware that they are being targeted,” she said.
Second Minister for Home Affairs S Iswaran, who was at the 14th International Tamil Internet Conference at SIM University, said that recent experience reinforces the point that the terror threat is everywhere due to the prevalence of the internet and that self-radicalisation is a challenge that Singapore has to face as a nation.
“The actions are of particular individuals who are susceptible to wrong teachings and wrong ideals but the consequences of those actions which are wrongful will have adverse effects on all of us as a society, regardless of the communities we belong to, regardless of our religious background,” said Mr Iswaran.
“We should not think of this as in some way stereotyping some community; it is a general challenge that we all face.”
Mr Iswaran added that the nature of the threat requires everyone in the community to be vigilant and step forward to take appropriate action when they see something that is of concern.
Minister for Communications and Information Dr Yaacob Ibrahim said the Media Development Authority (MDA) did the right thing when it shut down The Real Singapore (TRS) website.
Speaking on the sidelines of a community event on Sunday (May 10), Dr Yaacob added that the Singapore Government is not against the internet, but it is important to preserve racial and religious harmony.
Two of the website’s editors have been charged with publishing seditious articles on TRS and TRS Facebook page.
Dr Yaacob said: “Since 1996, we’ve only had 27 interventions. We have never shut down a site. We do this very, very carefully but once you cross the line, and in this case, they have, and we have enough evidence to show that all the materials are very egregious and can cause a lot of racial unhappiness, we have to move. I am confident that MDA has done the right thing.”
He added: “It is aboveboard, you can see all the evidence we have put forward in terms of the materials in which they have published.”
Forget the irony of the Media Development Authority asking The Real Singapore to cease and desist on World Press Freedom Day itself – and to be honest, someone at MDA must really have a hugely twisted sense of humour.
What is even more concerning is the fact that there are so-called analysts who are “media observers and academics” who believe that MDA’s move reflects a “light touch” towards content regulation.
The points made by these “experts” would sound reasonable on any given day – MDA’s action was justified and reasonable because TRS is really an “extreme case”. But when we take a closer look at what this “extreme case” is, the argument becomes problematic.
For a start, almost all of them cited the legal woes of TRS as a means of justifying MDA’s action. MDA has, of course, lately stressed that it “would still have initiated the suspension even if there were no sedition charges. MDA’s move is also not dependent on the outcome of the sedition charges. As such, the issue of sub judice does not arise.”
If so, why then would these experts point explicitly to TRS’s legal woes? The views held by these independent observers, evidently based on MDA’s media statement, suggests that MDA need not have the intention for sub judice – really, who would, given our punitive laws? It does not, however, reduce the risk of sub judice. Otherwise, can anyone else charged for contempt now say, “I would have posted those remarks independent of the outcome of the court case”? Go figure.
Disregarding the legal reasons – which to date has yet to be decided by the courts – we would also find problems with the other reasons cited for the suspension: Namely, TRS’s alleged “bad behaviour”.
Professor Ang Peng Hwa of the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information at Nanyang Technological University said that MDA’s decision “helped shed some light on how the Internet Code of Practice… can be used”. Prof Ang justified this by saying that TRS’s case “is not just any case that comes along, but one that has public sentiment against it and a court case”.
Presumably by “public sentiment”, Prof Ang would have an objective measurement, as a person of academic outlook would, and it might not be wrong to assume that he was referring to the petition for TRS to close down, which garnered about 1,300 signatures. If so, then a necessary comparison was the petition for STOMP to close down, which garnered 24,000 signatures.
When TOC raised queries to MDAabout what they intend to do with the STOMP petition, the reply was for us to identify for the agency where STOMP has done wrong and bring it up to them for evaluation.
“STOMP, like other class licensed and individually licensed sites, is required to comply with the Internet Code of Practice. If you have come across instances where STOMP is in breach of the Code, you are advised to bring these to our attention and MDA will investigate accordingly.”
However, MDA’s tone in relation to TRS was vastly different. In its media statement, the media regulator said that it was “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.”
How was MDA “satisfied” that TRS was in breach of the Code? Did someone come across instances where TRS breached the Code and submitted a report to MDA? If not, then how different was it from “public sentiment” against STOMP?
Between STOMP and TRS, how then has this case “shed light” on how MDA used the Internet Code of Practice? Has the light touch gone so light as to become invisible?
Then we have Singapore Management University law professor Eugene Tan, who opined that “this is the first time that MDA has resorted to suspension, but when you put it against the backdrop of TRS’ alleged egregious conduct, it becomes more of a question of when (to suspend), rather than whether.”
Earlier, when Breakfast Network decided to close down because it found MDA’s regulatory regime too onerous, media academic professor Cherian George had called it the end to the “light touch” policy. He opined that Breakfast Network tipped the scale because the “death by red tape” was unprecedented.
“Singapore’s vibrant ecosystem of socio-political blogs was spared the discretionary licensing regime that has blocked the development of alternative print and broadcast media. Blogs could be punished if what they published broke the law – but they were never expected to persuade regulators that they deserved the right to publish before they were allowed to do so.”
Ai Takagi and Yang Kaiheng with lawyer Choo Zheng Xi (image – CNA)
Indeed, bloggers can be punished if what the published broke the law, and TRS is facing the same now in a pending court case. But since when does it justify closing down an entire website, which is by all counts just as punitive, if not more so, than denying Breakfast Network the right to exist? How can the current order to close a website be a “lighter touch” than requesting its owners to take down objectionable content? To begin with, has MDA tried getting TRS to remove the pages it was “satisfied” contravened the Internet Code of Practice?
In that sense, the first time that MDA has “resorted to suspension” is not a light touch approach, as Prof Tan would have you believe. If anything, the touch just got heavier, simply because we have no reason to believe that MDA tried any other approach that would have been less heavy-handed.
And to cap it, we have this comment attributed to former NMP Calvin Cheng – “socio-political websites that operate within Singapore’s laws and social norms have nothing to fear”.
Unfortunately, Mr Cheng is gravely wrong, and the gravity would be worse if MDA has indeed censored TRS for flouting “social norms”. Efforts to repeal the death penalty, 377A or capital punishment are not “social norms” any way you look at it. Is Mr Cheng then suggesting that websites which champion these causes also go up for a review under the Code? What other “codes” would MDA tag onto the Broadcasting Act for its evaluation? Would it even tell us?
Personally, I’m not a fan of TRS. I find their content laughable at best, and downright unsavoury at worst. I’m definitely not agreeable to how they source for their content. But what bugs me more than a website like TRS, which I can always ignore, is MDA’s rationale and standards for the action it has taken against TRS, which I definitely cannot ignore.
To call it a “light touch” approach is to continue dabbling pointlessly in that tiring argument that the government will keep its hands off, until it has to. MDA has thus far not brought to the table clarity about when it has to step in, or on what basis it is stepping in.
And we are supposed to be assured that there is a “light touch” – TRS got shut down only because it did the bad stuff. If so, can MDA now step up and identify where exactly all this bad stuff is, and why it warrants closing down an entire website? Under what circumstances does a government agency have the right to make that judgement call?
MDA has been offered the opportunity to respond to this commentary.
In an unprecedented move on Sunday, the Media Development Authority (MDA) of Singapore ordered a website to shut itself down within six hours of the ultimatum being issued.
The MDA said, in a briefing to the mainstream media, that The Real Singapore (TRS) website had published content which it found “objectionable on the grounds of public interest, public order and national harmony.”
The government agency had thus revoked the statutory class license, an automatic license granted to all websites operating in Singapore, to TRS’ editors, namely Ai Takagi and Yang Kaiheng.
The revocation applies to all online platforms which are run by TRS, including its Facebook and Twitter accounts.
“The MDA is satisfied that Takagi and Yang have contravened the Internet Code of Practice (ICOP),” the MDA said in a press statement. “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 agency added that TRS had “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,” the MDA added, without specifying which articles it was referring to.
It also noted that “[at] least two out of TRS’s three known editors are believed to be foreigners.”
It said 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 said.
Apparently, part of the reasons for MDA actions was TRS’ “editorial strategy of deceiving readers and doctoring articles” which the MDA said “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.”
Explaining why the MDA had not taken action against the website earlier, the government watchdog said the editors were operating outside of Singapore’s jurisdiction then.
“However, since December, the two of them have been running their operations from Singapore, bringing them within the jurisdiction of the Broadcasting Act,” the MDA said.
The agency said it also noted that Takagi and Yang are being charged with seven counts of sedition for content they had published on their website; that 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; and that TRS has “continued to publish material that contravenes the ICOP even after Takagi and Yang were charged.”
The ICOP refers to the Internet Code of Practice.
Takagi and Yang are also 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,” added the MDA.
Non compliance with these could lead to further fines and jail time for the duo.
The two editors have also been given till 11 May to file arguments with the authorities on why their licence to operate the website should not be revoked.
If the authorities uphold the revocation of their licence after their appeal, Takagi and Yang will not be allowed to operate the website permanently.
MDA could also block access to the site.
However, the two editors could lodge an appeal with the Minister of Communications and Information, Yaacob Ibrahim, to continue to operate TRS.
It is unclear if the editors will file such an appeal.
MDA’s action against TRS is the latest in a series of cases involving bloggers and netizens whom the government has taken action against, the most recent of which were the cases of 16-year old Amos Yee, blogger Roy Ngerng, activist Alex Au and this website (The Online Citizen) for various (alleged) offences.
In 2013, following amendments to Internet regulations here, Dr Yaacob had assured the public that the MDA’s “licensing regime was still light touch regulation”.
The amendments were slammed by many, including activists, for curbing free speech in Singapore.
“We want the online community to understand that this is not an attempt to clamp down on anybody,” Dr Yaacob said then. “I think the best way is for people to see, after the licences are issued, whether the activists are indeed limited in their public discourse.
“I expect that the sites will continue to operate as before. In fact, I hope that the activists who are making this far-fetched claim will be honest enough to admit it when the time comes.”
In an interview with the BBC on the new regulations, Dr Yaacob said, “As long as they [the public] go onto online news sites to read the news, I think it is important for us to make sure that they read the right things.”
MDA’s actions against TRS have also raised questions about its wide-ranging powers.
Blogger Ravi Philemon said, “The real hard question should be not whether a certain website must be shut-down or not, but whether a statutory board should have so much power to arbitrarily act in the manner that they did.”
