IN A country where the government has a pretty tight control over the traditional media—newspapers and television—Singaporeans with an appetite for alternative views have long gravitated towards the internet. So the news last week that one of the main independent socio-political blog sites, The Online Citizen (TOC), is being “gazetted” by the government has sent shockwaves through Singapore's burgeoning, boisterous (and now rather fearful) online community.

Gazetting sounds quaint, but is anything but. It's a means by which the government can demand that any organisation be reclassified as the government sees fit. TOC is a kind of journalistic platform; the powers-that-be now want to register the organisation as a political association. The site is to be designated as a political website. This means that TOC will fall under the rules that govern other (normal) political organisations—like parties.

Under the Political Donations Act, TOC will be subject to a cap of 5,000 Singapore dollars ($3,900) in accepting anonymous donations and banned outright from receiving funds from foreign donors. The government's registry of political donations has already asked TOC to identify clearly all its owners, journalists and anyone else associated with the site. It was given two weeks to comply. And this is but one of the new rules to which the site will be subject. No specific reasons have been given for why the government wants to take this action, and at this particular moment in time. All the government has said, through its registry of political donations, is that “As a website that provides coverage and analysis of political issues, TOC has the potential to influence the opinions of their readership and shape political outcomes in Singapore. It has been gazetted to ensure that it is not funded by foreign elements or sources.”

Every journalist, of course, wants to influence the opinions of his or her readers—that's why we're all in this business. The same, of course, could be said of almost any media organisation. More to the point, media observers say, is that there is a general election expected in the next few months and the Peoples' Action Party government wants to start exerting some control over the unruly, independent-minded blogosphere—lest it spill over into effective opposition. One expert on the media in Singapore told me that it was a “clear warning” to the rest of the country's online critics. We are watching you closely, and can take action.

The last time a comparable website was gazetted it happened in almost identical circumstances. Sintercom was told to register as a political association in 2001, also just before an election. On that occasion, the founder of the site closed it down rather than comply with the government's demands and what he called the “self-censorship” that was expected of him. Some analysts argue that gazetting should not in fact make much practical difference to TOC's day-to-day operations. Indeed, the government argues that it will be free to carry on with its “normal, lawful operations”. The aforementioned media expert, however, says that the action against TOC is intended to cause a chilling effect on its content and that of other websites as well. As a political association, TOC says it will have to comply carefully with the Broadcasting Act. It will have to mind more carefully what it says, and it may think twice before straying into controversial areas, such as homelessness and income inequality—ie, the sort of self-censorship that the founder of Sintercom was not prepared to tolerate.

TOC, for its part, has sent off a letter to the prime minister's office asking for an explanation. The website argues that whereas it might have been critical of government policies, it has never indulged in “partisan” politics. TOC also says that it is quite open and transparent enough already. It cheekily adds that the website merely tries to live up to the prime minister's words: he has said that he wants Singaporeans to be more “unconventional” and “spontaneous”.

Update: The Economist received a letter from Singapore's High commissioner in London about this post on January 21st.

Dear Sir,

Your 19 Jan article ("A chill in the blogosphere") wrongly portrays the Singapore Government's gazetting of The Online Citizen (TOC) as a political association to be an attempt to control and cow the online community.

The principle that Singapore politics is for Singaporeans only applies to all political participants. They must not be sponsored, financially or otherwise, by foreign interests. The Political Donations Act (PDA) was established to implement this principle. Many countries have similar laws concerning foreign funding of political and lobby groups.

The TOC provides coverage, commentary and analysis of political issues. But it is not just "a kind of journalistic platform". It has organised polls on political issues and a forum for politicians, and mounted online and offline campaigns to change legislation and Government policies. Whether TOC is partisan or non-partisan is irrelevant; it is indubitably a participant in local politics. Hence it was gazetted under the PDA to prevent foreign involvement in Singapore politics through the TOC. This will impede neither TOC's activities nor its freedom of expression.

Contrary to your article, the Government did not tell Sintercom to register as a political association. Sintercom was asked to register as an internet content provider, but refused. Being registered as a political association has not prevented other online entities, such as Singaporeans for Democracy, from continuing their operations unimpeded, because the requirements to be observed, as stated above, are reasonable. Indeed, TOC itself has expressed confidence that it could continue operating within the new parameters.

Yours faithfully,

Michael Eng Cheng Teo,

High Commissioner for the Republic of Singapore

Note: We have turned off comments for this article.