The Real Singapores owners charged

with sedition

The
duo behind The Real Singapore, Ms Ai Takagi (right) and Mr Yang Kaiheng (second from left), arriving at
Court on April 14, 2015. Pic: Goh Chiew Tong.

By Carlton Tan Apr 15, 2015

The couple behind one of Singapores most popular alternative news websites, The
Real Singapore (TRS), was charged in court yesterday (April 14) with seven counts of
sedition. The prosecution alleges that the duo published content that has the tendency
to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different groups of people in
Singapore, namely, between ethnic Indians in Singapore and Philippine nationals in
Singapore.
Under the Sedition Act, Singaporean Yang Kaiheng, 26, and Australian Ai Takagi, 22,

can be fined up to S$5,000 (US$3,670) and jailed up to three years for each charge. If
convicted on all seven charges, they may face up to $35,000 in fines and 21 years
imprisonment.
Of the seven allegedly seditious articles, four were letters from the public and were not
necessarily the views of the editors. Nonetheless, the Government is attempting to hold
the two owners of TRS responsible for publishing the articles. The outcome of this case
will also have wider implications for media establishments and journalists.
If a precedent is set where editors may face criminal charges for the views published on
their website, even if they subsequently run a correction, this will have a chilling effect
on free speech on all media outlets and journalists. Any media outlet which publishes
letters from readers will have to make sure they do not fall foul of Singapores loosely
interpreted Sedition Act and other vague laws. Journalists who quote their sources
may subsequently also be held liable for the views of their sources.
One of the allegedly seditious articles is identical to an email published on STOMP, the
government-linked Singapore Press Holdings online tabloid. It is unclear whether the
Attorney-Generals Chambers intends to press charges against the editors of STOMP
as well for publishing statements that have a seditious tendency.

Screengrab of identical, allegedly seditious, statements on STOMP. Pic: TRS.

Netizens have criticised this move as an attempt to stifle free speech and suppress
political dissent. Although the infringing articles were not explicitly political, they
expressed anti-foreigner views that have become more widespread in Singapore in
recent years.
The Real Singapore is also a hotbed for anti-PAP views. In March 2015, it received
anestimated 2.6 million visits, roughly 84,000 visits a day. The duos arrest in
February seems to have had an insignificant effect on TRS readership. Till today, TRS
continues to publish almost as many articles a day as it did before.

Similar Webs estimate of The Real Singapores monthly visits from October 2014 to March 2015. Pic: SimilarWeb.

Double standards
Netizens have noted the double standard in the Governments enforcement of the
Sedition Act. Referring to a case in 2011 where a Young Peoples Action Party (YP)
member Jason Neo implied that a bus full of Malay schoolchildren were terrorist
trainees, Chakravarty Nesh asked: How about Jason Neos outright seditious remark
against the Muslim community?
Referring to a recent case where Member of Parliament (MP) Lam Pin Min
suggested that alcohol intoxication had caused the Thaipusam procession to turn
rowdy, NorHelmi Maryuti asked: What about Lam Pah (sic) Mp who posted a
seditious post about Indians and Alcohol???? still no action?
The Singapore Governments selective use of the Sedition Act is nothing new. In a
letter to several ministers, Andrew Loh highlighted several articles in the Governmentlinked media which also promotes racism and xenophobia in their reports. He
pointed out how The New Paper carried a story on its front page with the headline
White with rage, a pun on the Caucasian cyclists race which suggested that his race
had something to do with his dangerous behaviour on the road (see below).

Headline on the front page of The New Paper: White with rage. Pic: Andrew Loh.

Loh also pointed out how the Straits Times published a report in 2012 which singled
out the Malay community in its report on drug abuse in Singapore. It ran the article
with the headline, 48% of drug offenders held last year were Malay, and a picture of
Muslim men in traditional attire, as if to suggest that race and religion were connected
to their drug use (see below).

Photo of Muslim men dressed in traditional attire accompanying article on drug offenders, in the Straits Times. Pic: Andrew
Loh.

Support for the prosecution

Despite this, some are happy to see that the Government is holding the duo behind
TRS responsible for what is posted on the site. A local blogger, who calls himself
Anyhow Hantam, has accused TRS of publishing articles, even if they are inaccurate,
just to boost readership by getting people to become fervently angry and bordering on
xenophobia even. Having worked with some of the editors before, Anyhow Hantam
suggests that TRS frequently fails to verify information before publishing and has, as a
result, opened itself up to allegations of inaccuracy and offensiveness.
One reader, Angie Lee, has also accused TRS of taking advantage of gullible readers to
generate more traffic to your website. She claims that TRS frequent posting of
seditious content reveals that its intentions are not as innocent as it claims.
Others feel betrayed that a website claiming to represent the views of Singaporeans is
actually being run by an Australian. Commenting on Facebook, Lukman Rahim asks:
Whats an Aussie meddling with our peoples affairs down here?
Clamping down on alternative media
Nonetheless, many netizens also see this as an attempt to clamp down on free speech

on the Internet. The Real Singapore sprung up in 2013 and quickly gained a strong
readership in two years by filling a vacuum that the mainstream medias selective
reporting could not fill.
The demand for news and opinion that was more critical of the Government grew
steadily as Internet usage increased and Singaporeans became more and more
frustrated with the Governments failure to provide for basic needs such as housing
and transportation.
2013 was also the year when anti-Government sentiment exploded after the
Government released the Population White Paper which proposed to increase
Singapores population to 6.9 million by 2030. Many Singaporeans opposed this
proposal, citing rising housing prices and growing problems with the transport
infrastructure. The Governments failure to engage in a dialogue with its citizens was
also considered a reneging of its promise to be more consultative after the 2011 general
elections.
In 2014, Singapores mainstream media was ranked No. 153 out of 180 countries under
the World Press Freedom Index. The index measures the populations belief in the
freedom and credibility of the media. The poor ranking suggests that Singaporeans
dont trust the mainstream media to provide them with a balanced perspective on
political news.
It is in this context of growing resentment towards the Government and distrust of the mainstream
media that TRS has managed to grow so rapidly. It is therefore likely that even if TRS was shut
down, it would simply be replaced by another website that might take an even more fervent antiGovernment or xenophobic stance. So far, the prosecution against the duo has barely made a dint in

TRSs readership. Support for the controversial socio-political website remains

forthcoming and may have even increased as readers view the use of the Sedition Act
as a heavy-handed measure.
Will TRS be shut down?
One netizen, Hamzah Osman, expressed the hope that the conviction of TRS editors
will be accompanied by a complete shutdown of the website.
It is unclear whether the website will be able to survive the conviction of the two
people who are thought to be responsible for managing the websites content and
finances.
So far, TRS has continued to publish a significant amount of content from various
contributors, relying on several other editors who remain anonymous.

Furthermore, Yang maintains that he is not involved in any editorial content,

finances, or any daily running of TRS, while one other person, a Malaysian who calls
herself Melanie Tan, has yet to be arrested as she is not in Singapore.
Nonetheless, the Government, with its virtually unchecked executive power, could
choose to gazette TRS and force its editors to register their real identities. TRS will
then also be unable to receive foreign funding and its editors will have to live under the
fear of Government reprisal.
Alternatively, it could force TRS to be licensed under a law that was introduced in 2013
by the Media Development Authority of Singapore (MDA) without public consultation.
Under the new licensing framework, websites which are subject to it will have to post a
$50,000 bond and must comply with any content takedown notice by MDA within 24
hours.
It is unclear why the Government chose to prosecute two individuals who they had a
hard time identifying and locating rather than legally require TRS to take down the
offending material using the licensing framework. Yang Kaiheng and Ai Takagi are
students at the University of Queensland in Australia. They were arrested in February
when they came to visit Yangs hospitalised grandmother after their identities had
been uncovered by officers from the Special Investigation Section at the Criminal
Investigation Department.
The media landscape
The model adopted by The Real Singapore represents a real challenge to the
Governments monopoly on information.
TRS does not rely on on-the-ground journalists like The Online Citizen. Instead, it
relies on a crowd-sourcing model. Its articles consist mainly of three kinds: rewritten
stories from the mainstream media, republished blog and Facebook posts that would
otherwise not be noticed, and letters sent in by readers.
Because of this model, TRS can be maintained at a low cost because it does not have to
pay for original reporting. At the same time, it offers Singaporeans a large enough
platform for reading anti-Government views and discussing them. TRS is essentially
Huffington Post for Singapore, except with an extremely loose editorial policy and very
low manpower costs.
TRS justifies its loose editorial policy by arguing that one-sided articles are balanced
out by other articles which take an opposing view. Its editors believe that there should
be almost no restrictions on the freedom of expression. They believe that people can
read for themselves and decide what to believe in, and that their website merely serves
as a platform for people to express their views and contest those they disagree with. It
is hoped that the truth will be found somewhere within that free exchange of ideas. If

there are factual inaccuracies, their solution is to publish corrections and updates, not take
down the offending article.

Because of this loose editorial policy, it has provided many Singaporeans with a
prominent platform to make their voices heard in a way that they never could, either
by writing in to the mainstream media or by speaking to their journalists. With its
reach, TRS offers Singaporeans a way to publicly challenge Government policy and
contest its hegemonic narrative.
In contrast, the mainstream media exercises a strict editorial policy when it comes to
news or opinions that are not politically favourable to the ruling party, but it imposes
almost no restrictions on its journalists when it comes to news that is damaging for the
political opposition. Take the blatantly inaccurate reporting on Workers Partys Low
Thia Khiangs tribute to Lee Kuan Yew, for instance, or one Straits Times
journalists decision to publish an inflammatory article because it was newsy, despite
knowing that the articles biased reporting would offend people who were mourning
Lee Kuan Yews passing. Most recently, it blatantly misrepresented Amos Yees
mothers statement to the police. And this is only the tip of the iceberg. Look further
into The New Paper and STOMP, and the picture gets even uglier.
Other alternatives like The Online Citizen (TOC) exercise a relatively more stringent
editorial policy than TRS but have not managed to gain the same level of viewership as
TRS because of the Governments attempts to suppress them.
TOC was gazetted in 2011, preventing it from receiving donations from foreign sources
and discouraging donations because it now cannot receive anonymous donations
above a total amount of $5,000. In February, the Singapore Government applied for a
court order to prevent TOC from reporting on the Ministry of Defencess alleged
copyright infringements. This had the effect of burdening TOC with the need to
provide a legal defence against the virtually unlimited resources of the AttorneyGenerals Chambers (AGC). Financial constraints have prevented TOC from hiring
enough journalists. It currently relies heavily on volunteer work and on the goodwill of
members of the public for donations.
Riding the tiger
Under Lee Hsien Loongs leadership, the Government has attempted to master what it
perceives to be an Internet beast. Unfortunately, because of its failure to understand
how the Internet works, it is unable to make either head or tail of it. To speak
metaphorically, the younger Lee has muzzled the tigers ass and leashed its eyebrow.
The effort is futile and perhaps even counterproductive.
Lee Kuan Yew supposedly rode the Communist tiger in his time. For Lee Hsien Loong
to succeed, he must stop trying to follow in his fathers footsteps. Just as the older Lee

could never really subdue the tiger, the younger Lee will never be able to master the
Internet. The Internet, like the older Lees tiger, is a conduit for the wishes of the
Singapore people. The people are not the Governments subjects. It is the Government
which is the peoples servant. Both Lees have got this wrong for a long time. Maybe
with TRS, the younger Lee will finally understand.
Follow me on Facebook or Twitter.
[Edit: A member of The Real Singapores editorial team has sought to clarify that the
person known as Melanie Tan doesnt actually exist. She claims that the evidence was
initially taken from the TRS exposed blog by The New Paper, but that it was always
flimsy to begin with. According to her, the photos on the blog are of three different
people, not the same person.]
Posted by Thavam