The permanent secretary for the Ministry of Communications, Aubeck Kam, said that the MDA is working with the 10 news sites recently made to require a license to improve the wording of the new regulations.
However, the key purpose of the regulations are not going to be changed, he said.
Yesterday, Mr Kam had attended a forum about the new regulations and had been asked over 20 questions in 2 hours at the event organised by the Singapore Computer Society.
He clarified that some of the key areas that are being reviewed include the responsibility of the news sites over third-party content on their websites. However, he declined to give further details on whether other sections of the regulation would be changed.
It is expected that an agreement will be drafted and prepared for signing by the licensees in about a month. The aim is to make it "as clear as possible what the obligation is.”
Some of the other concerns raised by various online parties include the 24-hour deadline for compliance to any takedown notice, but it seems that the only clarification given was that the time started when a formal take-down notice has been given.
Some of the big names who have raised concerns over the new regulations include the Asia Internet Coalition (AIC) with companies such as Facebook, Google, eBay, Yahoo! and SalesForce inside. The AIC Spokesman John Ure questioned Mr Kam as to whether the rules were really necessary as there are already existing laws to tackle restricted content such as racial hate and pornography.
In response to these concerns, Mr Kam reiterated that content online should also “reflect the ethos and values of society”
While there are clearly some arguments to be made to support the new rules, such as those cited by Mr Kam, others feel that even with better definitions and a clearer picture of online news sites' obligations, the allowing of these regulations is still a precedent of curbing free speech.
If the new regulations are passed and it is accepted that the targeted content is 'unsuitable' it will slowly become a norm and MDA could move the standards again when they next wanted.
The threats of defamation lawsuits have worked so far to prevent the spread of false and accusatory remarks online, so why are the laws still needed?
To argue that the rules are in place to protect the public is an insult to the education system and the people. It implies that the average consumer of online content does not know how to differentiate between truth, lies, hate speech and legitimate criticism.
The internet fills a niche. Where there are gaps in traditional reporting, there will be someone there to fill them. The most effective way to chip away at the power of the online news sites is to report in a more balanced way.