The American university professor predicted that the mass media will lose its status as the world’s primary information source, The Straits Times reported. Instead, people will demand customised content to suit their individual needs, he said.

“People will increasingly have the ability to choose news and information according to their individual interests,” he told 400 media professionals, lecturers and students at the Singapore Press Holdings’ Media in Transition Lecture Series.

Crosbie said that this new media world might develop as a result of today’s information overload. Tailoring news to each reader could help address the million-dollar question of how to continue making money from print media at a time when online news is flourishing and free, he said.

However, the professor added that print newspapers might have a better future in Asia, where circulation is increasing, as opposed to the US. As long as paper is used for money, paper will also be used for information, he said.

Click here for the full text of his talk.

In its seventh year, the Magnum Opus award recognises writers, editors, designers, and communication managers who excel in traditional and online media. The competition has been receiving hundreds of entries each year from all over the world, in more than 200 categories. The award is organised by Contentwise, a leading interactive publication covering best practices in media content production, and the acclaimed Missouri School of Journalism.

Petir received the bronze award in the best series of articles category, for the three part series titled ‘50 years of government’. The series was published to mark the Party’s golden anniversary governing Singapore, chronicling the Party’s achievements and challenges since it came to power in 1959. The magazine’s September/October issue titled ’50 years at the helm’ also received a honourable mention for best special topic issue.

The accolades can be seen as a major milestone for the magazine, whose first issue was published not long after the PAP was founded in 1954. Its first writers were the nation’s founding fathers themselves, with C V Devan Nair, Lee Kuan Yew and S Rajaratnam all frequent contributors to the magazine. In recent times, Cabinet ministers have taken turns to pen the magazine’s editorials, using it as an opportunity to outline policies and reach out to the Party’s members.

Petir’s success at the awards underscored the overall solid performance of Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) at the awards. Petir is published by Focus Publishing Ltd, a subsidiary of SPH. SPH magazines such as Pinnacle, Singapore Nautilus and MGZines also featured in this year’s awards.

Click here to read more about SPH's performance at the 2010 Magnum Opus Awards.

Click here to view the full list of the award's winners.

Chee, the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) secretary general, had written to the newspaper on two separate occasions. On 17 March, the newspaper published Chee’s response to Lianhe Zaobao journalist Yew Tun Lian’s claims that he had been evasive to questions about foreign funding in an interview. On 15 April, Chee responded to a forum letter that had condemned his confrontational style of politics.  On both occasions, shortened versions of his letters were published both in print and on the online forums. The original version of the letters have been posted on the SDP website.

In an email reply to Yap dated 5 May, Chee took issue with the fact that the title of his second letter had been changed to "PAP just as confrontational, replies Chee", which implied that he was indeed confrontational. In fact, newspapers rarely use the headlines suggested by writers and most readers know that headlines, together with picture selection and captions, are the work of sub-editors and not writers.

The SDP website shows that almost half of Chee's letter was deleted before publication. The original text was 635 words long. Forum page letters are generally less than 400 words long. The published version of Chee's letter was 348 words long.

Chee also questioned Yap's claims that The Straits Times' integrity had been damaged by the SDP's articles, citing how the Singapore media was already ranked lowly in international press freedom rankings.

The SDP website reported that Yap wanted Chee to retract his statements about the integrity of The Straits Times, and that the newspaper would withhold publishing his letters in the forum pages until he did so.

Click here to read SDP's report on the issue.

Click here to read Journalism.sg's coverage of Chee's interview with Lianhe Zaobao journalist Yew Tun Lian

He said it was time to "review any legislative restrictions… to allow Singaporeans to share their views on matters of ethnicity, to identify potential issues of discomfort and above all, work together to find solutions".

The Rapporteur submits an annual report to the UN. His press conference drew an immediate response from Singapore's Foreign Ministry: "The Singapore Government looks forward to reading Mr Muigai's final report. We have an open mind because the maintenance of racial harmony is of such vital importance to us that we are prepared to consider any practical suggestion that advances this goal and is workable in our unique circumstances"

On Muigai's comments about freedom of expression, MFA said:

"In the course of his press conference this afternoon Mr Muigai referred to restrictions in our laws such as the Penal Code and the Sedition Act and expressed the opinion that they may not as useful today as forty-five years ago. He called for greater openness in the public discussion of sensitive issues. Here we must emphatically disagree with Mr Muigai. Race, language and religion will always be sensitive issues in Singapore. This does not mean that they cannot be discussed, but a balance must always be struck between free expression and preservation of racial and religious harmony. This balance is only for the Singapore government to determine because only the Singapore government bears the responsibility should things go wrong. The UN bears no such responsibility and we see no reason to take risks for the sake of an abstract principle. We believe most Singaporeans agree with the government's approach."

• Read Today's report here.

Extract from Second Reading speech by Law Minister K Shanmugam on the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill, 27 April 2010.

Currently, after Nomination day, there will be a period of campaigning, followed immediately by Polling day when Singaporeans cast their vote. The Bill proposes to increase the minimum period between Nomination day and Polling day by one day, and to use that extra day as a Cooling Off day.

The reason for a Cooling Off day is clear. During an election campaign, various parties and their candidates will put forward their manifestos and ideas to the electorate. They will engage in debates across the island on national policies and local issues, and seek to appeal to people’s hearts and minds. There will be political messages during this period, at election rallies and door-to-door campaigning, on television and in print, from lorries driving around blaring political messages from loudspeakers, and in the future via the new media.

The Cooling Off day will give everyone some time after the excitement and emotion of campaigning, to reflect on the issues and the arguments made, analyse logically and rationally what is at stake, and then go to the polls the next day to cast their votes. This is important because in a General Election, each one of us will be making very significant decisions about our future and Singapore’s future.

Another reason for having a Cooling Off day is that, if emotions do run high between contesting groups of supporters during campaigning, the risk of disorder, on the eve of Polling day, and on Polling day itself will be reduced.

The concept of a Cooling off period for voters to reflect on issues is not novel. Sometimes referred to as ‘campaign silence’ or ‘election silence’, it exists in various forms in several other countries. In Australia, the law imposes a three-day blackout on election advertising via broadcast media (i.e. television and radio) before federal polls. In Indonesia, there is a three-day cooling off before legislative elections, and a two-day period before presidential elections. Polling in the Philippines, Italy, Russia and Mexico, among other countries, are also preceded by a period of cooling off.

Clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill amend the Act to increase the minimum period between Nomination day and Polling day by one extra day; this extra day being the Cooling Off day. The minimum period of campaigning will therefore not be affected in any way as a result of the introduction of the Cooling Off day.

Currently, the PEA prohibits the publication or display of election advertising on Polling day. There are a number of existing exceptions to this under the Act:

1) First, publication of news relating to the election in the newspapers, on radio and television may continue on Polling day;

2) Second, the continued lawful display or posting of banners and posters is allowed;

3) Third, Internet election advertising lawfully published before Polling day does not need to be taken down on Polling day;

4) Fourth, individual transmission of personal political views on the Internet, on a non-commercial basis, is permitted; and

5) Fifth, the distribution or promotion of a book for not less than commercial value is acceptable on Polling day if the publication had been planned regardless of whether there was to be an election.

Clause 29 of the Bill amends the Act to extend the existing prohibition of election advertising on Polling day, to Cooling Off day. The exceptions to the ban that I mentioned earlier will similarly be extended. There are two additional points that I will make.

The first is that instead of allowing only individual transmission of personal political views on the Internet (on a non-commercial basis), we have widened the exception to cover any form of telephonic or electronic transmission of personal political views by individuals, to other individuals (on a non-commercial basis). This is to take into account new forms of individual personal communication. This wider exception will apply both to Cooling Off day as well as Polling day.

The second point is that Party Political broadcasts on television, which have traditionally been aired on the eve of Polling day in previous General Elections, will be permitted on Cooling Off day. This exception will be prescribed.

The Bill also makes other amendments to give effect to the Cooling Off day. The Act currently prohibits any person from wearing, using, carrying or displaying political propaganda, such as flags, banners, badges and placards on Polling day. Candidates may, however, wear their party political badges. Clause 27 of the Bill extends the prohibition, and its exception, to the Cooling Off day.

Canvassing and door-to-door visits are banned on Polling day. Clause 34 extends that to the Cooling Off day.

In previous General Elections, permits for election rallies would not be granted on Polling day. Clause 35 of the Bill expressly prohibits the holding of any rallies on both the Polling day and Cooling off day. It also clarifies that, during an election period, rallies at Speakers’ Corner will be subject to the same permit regime as election rallies held at any other place in Singapore.

To summarise, with the exception of Party Political Broadcasts, which will still be permitted on the Cooling Off day, what is presently prohibited on Polling day will also be prohibited on Cooling Off day. And what is currently allowed on Polling day will also be allowed on the Cooling Off day.

Some people have questioned why Singapore needs a Cooling Off day, when Singaporeans are, by nature, rational. The argument they make is that Singaporeans are rational – so they do not need an additional day to think. There is a logical disconnect to this argument. Rational people do not suffer from being given an extra day to think and reflect on serious issues.

Sir, for us good governance is both fundamental and vital. We do not have the luxury of resources or strategic depth, or size. We cannot, like some other countries, endure a period of poor governance without suffering considerable damage. We survive and prosper as a city state, in an ever changing international political and economic environment, by having good governance. All that we have around us – our peace and security, our infrastructure, our world-class institutions, and our cosmopolitan skyline – could not have been achieved without good, strong and consistent governance, working in partnership with a hard-headed, rational and hardworking people.

We therefore have to take the electoral process very seriously because the direction that a government takes in its five year mandate, after an election, will have a disproportionately substantial impact on Singapore. We must therefore encourage everyone to vote rationally and logically. Our voters must be able to sift out misinformation and rhetoric. They must be able to distinguish policies and manifestos that sound good but are actually hollow, from those that are really in the best interests of Singapore. The integrity of the electoral process, which underlines the proposal for a Cooling Off day, is part and parcel of our political morality; a political morality which also includes principles such as the integrity of our public service and Government, meritocracy, as well as racial and religious harmony.

It is for these reasons that the Government has decided to introduce the Cooling Off day.

Liberalisation of Internet election advertising

The third set of key amendments in the Bill relate to refinement of Internet election advertising.

Under the existing law, only political parties, candidates and election agents are permitted, during an election period, to campaign on the Internet by putting up election advertising.

Specifically, under the PEA, a person (other than a political party, a candidate or his election agent) will be considered a ‘relevant person’ if:

1) he operates a website under the class licence scheme run by the Media Development Authority (MDA); and

2)    he is required under the class licence to register with MDA, on account that he engages in or provides any internet programme for the propagation, promotion or discussion of political issues relating to Singapore.

Under the Parliamentary Elections (Election Advertising) Regulations, a “relevant person” is not allowed to engage in any Internet election advertising during the election period.

Members may recall that in 2007, the Government had set up an Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society, or AIMS, to study the implications of new media on society and to recommend appropriate ways that the Government could address the impact.

On 9 January last year, MICA announced that the Government had accepted a number of recommendations that AIMS had made. MICA also announced that individuals would be allowed to participate in Internet election advertising during the election period.

Clause 29 of the Bill gives effect to that commitment, by removing references to “relevant persons” from the Act altogether. This means that the current blanket prohibition on individuals operating non-party political websites will be lifted. I hope netizens will act responsibly when running such sites.

While the rules on propagation of political views on Internet have been liberalised, nevertheless, foreign interference in our politics will remain prohibited. Clause 38 amends the Bill to make it an offence for any person, other than a Singaporean, to knowingly publish or display any election advertising during the election period. The prohibition applies in the real world as much as it does to the virtual world. This is partly a technical alignment, since the law already makes it an offence for foreigners to take part in election activities in Singapore.

In another significant move to liberalise Internet election advertising, MICA had also earlier announced that candidates, their political parties and election agents will be allowed to use new media as election advertising during the election period. This will be done by expanding the positive list under the Parliamentary Elections (Election Advertising) Regulations. More details on the expanded positive list will be announced by MICA in due course.

Its 22 April 2010 written submission to the Special Rapporteur Githu Muigai included this section on discussion on race relations:

"The PAP government constrains discussion of race issues by legislation. Instead it uses its access to media to run one sided information campaigns marketing Singapore as a model of racial harmony. In actual fact, the PAP government legislates prohibitions, such as the Sedition Act, against its citizens engaging in any public discourse of race and religion. For example even at Speaker`s Corner public discourse on race and religion are outlawed and "infringements" prosecuted. Additionally, it employs negative campaigning (via the media) against groups and individuals who highlight and raise race related issues. As a result, there is little critical debate and discussion on racism, inter-cultural tension and disaffection in Singapore. Some of this discussion is shifting onto the Internet however it is still not mainstreamed."

The statement was also signed by Martyn See, Rachel Zeng and Seelan Palay.

• For SFD's full report, click here.

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

With more people having access to the Internet, it has become a convenient and popular platform for individuals to vent their religious hatred and abuse recklessly.

In particular, there is a dangerous tendency among some people to shrug off their social responsibilities when emboldened by the cloak of anonymity of the Internet. They make insensitive, and at times inflammatory and incendiary, postings that denigrate other races and religions. The speed and global reach of the new media technologies mean that such postings are rapidly and repeatedly propagated through multiple websites and social media networks like Facebook and YouTube. These days, public complaints against religiously offensive websites and net discussions are commonplace.

Sometimes, such cyber conflicts can spiral out of control, and spill over into the physical world. As we have seen earlier this year in the incidents of the offensive Facebook postings and Youtube clips, it can easily become another source of inter-religious friction and tension. This increasing potential for friction is compounded by growing religiosity amongst Singaporeans, and accompanying it, growing religious assertiveness.

What is of particular security concern is when religiosity manifests itself in a highly public and assertive manner in a multireligious setting like Singapore, with all our attendant sensitivities. One example is the increase in proselytisation activities. Although the right to propagate one’s faith is enshrined in our Constitution, it becomes problematic when followers become over-zealous and selfrighteous in their missionary activities, and carry them out in an aggressive and insensitive manner, disregarding the feelings of other religions. Unlike previously, devotees of the different faiths today appear to be less tolerant over perceived slights to their religion, and are more ready to retaliate.

The rise in religious assertiveness is also seen in religious groups becoming more vocal and articulate in making their views in public. Some public policies and issues will pose dilemmas for some faiths, and we can expect them to speak up. This development is not a security problem per se. However, there could be flash-points when groups go too far in advocating their cause and make unfounded allegations, whip up the emotions of their followers, or mobilise them. In doing so, they could heighten tensions between the religious community and the State.

Religious groups are also becoming more visible in the public sphere. Religious worship is no longer confined to traditional places of worship such as churches, mosques and temples. The success charismatic churches have had in organising mega-sermons outside purpose-built church buildings have inspired other religious groups to organise similar large-scale worship events at commercial venues such as shopping centres and exhibition halls. Recently, there has also been discussion about the involvement of religions in business. These trends are of concern to Singaporeans as they are seen to be a further encroachment of religion into the common space.

The solution is not to roll-back religion in our society. Singaporeans must be free to practise their faith. However, the Government must continue to ensure that we maintain a big enough neutral, common space in which our different communities can engage in public life and with one another free from religious considerations and sensitivities. We have to find the right balance; we cannot have unbridled freedom of religion, at the expense of nation building and social cohesion; to the extent that it foments divisiveness amongst our people. We will continue to refine our policies to ensure this.

Now and then, this delicate balance will be upset by ill-considered remarks and actions by some groups or individuals. ISD has the responsibility of helping the Government manage the resultant tensions and conflicts in a firm, fair and flexible way. There is no onesize solution. Different responses and measures will have to be deployed according to the circumstances. The bottom line we want to achieve is that we preserve for Singaporeans, for the long term, the social stability and harmony among races and religions that we have enjoyed in the last four decades.

• Full speech available at the Home Affairs Ministry website.

(In an exceptional 2002 case, involving Singaporean activist Zulfikar Mohamad Shariff of the radical Muslim website Fateha, the state waved criminal defamation as its preferred weapon instead of a civil suit.)

The New York Times company didn't check the track record before publishing a piece by Philip Bowring with the d-word. Its global edition, the International Herald Tribune, which is printed and circulated in Singapore, was promptly sued. It settled by issuing an apology and paying damages. That the NYT did not bother to contest suggests that the company – belatedly examining Singapore's consistent line on such allegations – decided that it had no defence that would stand up in a Singapore court.

The other kind of allegation that consistently invites legal action has to do with the independence of the judiciary. Several foreign publications have seen criticism of the court backfire badly. The most notorious case concerned academic Christopher Lingle, whose 1994 article – also in the International Herald Tribune – did not even mention Singapore by name.

Singapore leaders allow themselves to be criticised as undemocratic or illiberal. Some even appear to wear such labels with pride, since they have little respect for Western-style liberal democracy. However, the latest case shows yet again that they will not countenance aspersions on their integrity. Anyone who questions the independence of the judiciary or the government's incorruptibility – especially its system of leadership succession – must be prepared to provide evidence or pay the price.

UPDATE, APRIL 2010:

In an interview with American broadcast journalist Charlie Rose, PM Lee Hsien Loong explained the government's sensitivity to allegations of nepotism. Here is the relevant section of the transcript, from the website of the Prime Minister's Office.

Q: “Your father is enormously respected around the globe, you know that and you are his son.  Your wife is important in Singapore as a business person, correct?”

Mr Lee:  “I am not sure you can call her a business person.  I think she is an employee.”

Q:  “She is known around the world as a business person, correct?”

Mr Lee:  “She is an employee, you can call her what you want.”

Q:  “You seem to be sensitive to the issue of what is called nepotism?”

Mr Lee:  “We are very sensitive.”

Q:  “Tell me about this sensitivity?”

Mr Lee:  “The whole of our system is founded on the basic concept of meritocracy.  You are where you are because you are the best man for the job and not because of your connections or your parents or your relatives.  If anybody doubts that I as Prime Minister am here not because I am the best man for the job but because my father fixed it or my wife runs Temasek because I put her there, not because she is the best woman for the job, then my entire credibility and moral authority is destroyed.  I am not fit to be where I am and it is a fundamental issue of fitness to govern.  First you must have the moral right, then you can make the right decisions.  It is a basic Confucian precept.”

Q:  “Only when you have the moral right?”

Mr Lee:  “Then can you govern and make the country right and in Singapore people expect that.  If there is any doubt that this is so and people believe that I am there because my father fixed it or the whole system really is just a make believe, then the system will come down.  It is not tenable.  If it is true, it better be proven and I better be kicked out.  If it is not true, it better also proven to be not true and the matter put to rest.”

Q:  “So if some journalist writes about nepotism and you think it is not true?”

Mr Lee:  “Then we sue him as we did recently.”

Q:  “And won. You sued the International Herald Tribune.”

Mr Lee:  “We raised the matter with the International Herald Tribune and they paid damages and apologized, they did not go to court.  They could have gone to court.’

Q:  "I would consider that wining if they paid damages and apologized."

Mr Lee:  "All right."

Q:  “But you thought what was written in the International Herald Tribune would somehow attack the moral fiber of your trust with the people you govern because?"

Mr Lee:  “Yes, of course, they compared me, they put us on the same list as Kim Jong Il.”

Q:  “Because he inherited his power from his father?”

Mr Lee:  “Yes, indeed and in a similar way.”

Q:  “You say we will not stand for that because it goes to the essence of our moral authority to govern?”

Mr Lee:  “In this case, in fact the same journalist and the same newspaper had made the same allegation and apologized and paid damages and promised never to do it again and they did it again.”

Q:  “They promised one time and they did it again and so you went back?  Are you anxious to send a signal that you don’t dare write about nepotism in Singapore because the Singaporeans will sue you?”

Mr Lee:  “No, the signal we want to send is if you want to make an allegation, make sure it is true and be prepared to prove it.  We were prepared when we sued them to go into court, give evidence, enter the witness box and be cross examined under oath and they can bring their lawyer and demolish us and prove that what they said is true.  What more can you ask?”

Q:  “Has anybody else written anything?”

Mr Lee:  “From time to time, including Bloomberg, they have apologized.”

Q:  “Bloomberg apologized, what did they say?”

Mr Lee:  “Something similar, I can not remember.”

Q:  “About nepotism and you went to them and they apologized.  They said we are sorry, we were wrong?”

Mr Lee:  “Yes.”

Q:  “Finally what is the legacy of our dad, somebody I admire as you know from many conversations he and I have had together?”

Mr Lee:  “He made a state where there was none, a country, a nation which would become a nation which nobody believed could succeed and he has made a system which can run without him and will endure beyond him.”

• For the full interview, visit the PMO website.