OB marker

{{Short description|Marker to denote what topics are permissible for public discussion}}

File:The East Asia Context George Yeo (8409679514).jpg who, in 1991, introduced the term]]

An OB marker, short for "out of bounds marker",{{Cite web |url=http://www.seapabkk.org/newdesign/fellowshipsdetail.php?No=1018 |title=SEAPA : Southeast Asian Press Alliance |access-date=1 February 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090203203437/http://www.seapabkk.org/newdesign/fellowshipsdetail.php?No=1018 |archive-date=3 February 2009 |url-status=dead }} is used in Singapore to denote what topics are permissible for public discussion. Discussion topics that go beyond the OB marker, are considered to be either societal, cultural or political taboos.{{Cite web|title=Limitations of Civil Freedoms in Singapore {{!}} InterNations GO!|url=https://www.internations.org/go/moving-to-singapore/living/limitations-of-civil-freedoms-in-singapore|access-date=2021-06-20|website=www.internations.org|archive-date=29 June 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210629022356/https://www.internations.org/go/moving-to-singapore/living/limitations-of-civil-freedoms-in-singapore|url-status=live}} The entire phrase "out of bounds marker", however, is rarely used within the political landscape.

Etymology

File:Big Hill Lake, Kansas - Fall 2015 - 151019 - Hole 7.jpg, the US. The term originated in such golf context.]]

The term is adopted from golf, where an out of bounds marker denotes the area beyond which playing is forbidden and not allowed. However, unlike golf, the OB markers of Singaporean political discourse are not visible. The term "OB markers" was first used in 1991 by the then-Minister for Information and the Arts George Yeo to describe the boundaries of acceptable political discourse.{{cite news | title = Remaking Singapore team wants people to speak up without fear | date = 13 June 2003 | url = http://www.contactsingapore.org.sg/nm/oversea_sg/news/ngeneral_br_13062003_2.htm | publisher = Channel NewsAsia | access-date = 13 May 2007 | archive-date = 9 April 2005 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20050409130835/http://www.contactsingapore.org.sg/nm/oversea_sg/news/ngeneral_br_13062003_2.htm | url-status = live }}

Considerations

An additional complication is introduced by the fact that OB markers may shift depending on the political climate, so a topic that was previously permissible may be banned in the future, and vice versa. In 1999, George Yeo said that it is difficult to define exactly what the OB markers are in advance.{{cite news | title = Minister Yeo on OB markers and Internet | date = 26 May 1999 | url = http://www.singapore-window.org/sw99/90526st.htm | work = The Straits Times | access-date = 13 May 2007 | archive-date = 14 February 2007 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070214021834/http://www.singapore-window.org/sw99/90526st.htm | url-status = live }} Straits Times editor-in-chief Cheong Yip Seng found OB markers "bewildering", stating that topics deemed off-limits during his tenure included stories about a stamp dealer, carpet auctions, monosodium glutamate, feng shui and unflattering pictures of politicians.{{cite web | title = OB Markers: My Straits Times Story by Cheong Yip Seng | website = Din Merican: the Malaysian DJ Blogger | date = 2017-02-17 | url = https://dinmerican.wordpress.com/2017/02/17/ob-markers-my-straits-times-story-by-cheong-yip-seng/ | access-date = 2024-11-19 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20170217025935/https://dinmerican.wordpress.com/2017/02/17/ob-markers-my-straits-times-story-by-cheong-yip-seng/ | archivedate = 2017-02-17 | url-status = live}}

In 2003, a Remaking Singapore sub-committee, chaired by Raymond Lim, described OB markers as "action and speech that engage directly in electioneering and party politics; that is, within the arena of the contest for political power".{{cite news | title = OB markers: We still need them? | author = Ng Boon Yian | publisher = Today | date = 16 June 2003 | url = http://www.singapore-window.org/sw03/030616to.htm | access-date = 13 May 2007 | archive-date = 27 January 2007 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070127050942/http://www.singapore-window.org/sw03/030616to.htm | url-status = live }}

Notable cases

There are several notable cases where the Singaporean government has flagged OB markers.

=Catherine Lim=

In 1994, author Catherine Lim published an essay The PAP and the people - A Great Affective Divide suggesting that the People's Action Party is not representative of the people. Then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong warned her to join a political party if she wanted to air political views in public, and stated that "demolishing the respect for and standing of the Prime Minister and his government by systematic contempt and denigration in the media"""PM tells Dr. Lim why he responded to commentary". In The Straits Times. 17/12/94." was out of bounds.

=2005 White Elephant incidents=

File:NE15 Buangkok Platform B 20200830 112649.jpg where, in 2005, the "White Elephant" incident took place]]

The lack of clear definition of OB marker resulted in mixed responses by the police and the government during the "White Elephant" incidents at Buangkok MRT station in 2005. An undisclosed person posted a series of cut-outs of elephants to criticise the delayed opening of the mass transit station. This led to a police investigation. Although the person was later let off with a stern warning,{{cite news | title = Residents bring up 'white elephant' Buangkok MRT during minister's visit | publisher = Channel NewsAsia | url = http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/165384/1/.html | date = 28 August 2005 | access-date = 12 May 2007 | archive-date = 2 May 2013 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20130502054602/http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/165384/1/.html | url-status = dead }} Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng commented that "we cannot apply the law to some and turn a blind eye to others. If we do, then the law becomes the real white elephant."{{Cite news |last=Teo Hwee Nak |date=1 October 2005 |title=Some things are non-negotiable |work=Today |url=https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/today20051001-1.2.2 |access-date=18 May 2023 |archive-date=23 April 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230423141321/https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/today20051001-1.2.2 |url-status=live }}

Later, a group of students from Raffles Girls' School were preparing to sell T-shirts bearing the phrase "Save the White Elephants" to raise fund for a charity. This prompted a warning from the police,{{cite news | title = Teens' white elephant T-shirt venture gets police attention | work = Today | date = 14 January 2006 | url = http://www.todayonline.com/articles/95206.asp | url-status = dead | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20060116035840/http://www.todayonline.com/articles/95206.asp | archive-date = 16 January 2006 | df = dmy-all }} but later Wong admitted that the police had over-reacted.{{cite news | title = Police overreacted to white elephant T-shirt incident: DPM Wong | work = Channel NewsAsia | date = 21 January 2006 | url = http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/189327/1/.html | url-status = dead | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070930235446/http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/189327/1/.html | archive-date = 30 September 2007 | df = dmy-all }}

=mrbrown=

In 2006, blogger mrbrown wrote the article "S'poreans are fed, up with progress!", for his weekly opinion column in Today concerning the rising costs of living in Singapore. The Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts labelled him a "partisan player" whose views "distort the truth",{{cite news | title = Letter from MICA: Distorting the truth, mr brown? | date = 3 July 2006 | publisher = Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts | url = http://www.mrbrown.com/blog/2006/07/letter_from_mic.html | access-date = 16 October 2006 | archive-date = 15 November 2006 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20061115172510/http://www.mrbrown.com/blog/2006/07/letter_from_mic.html | url-status = live }} and his column was suspended by the paper.

Criticism

James Gomez, a Singaporean political science academic and member of the Singapore Democratic Party, has described OB markers as "unconstitutional: by subscribing to the idea of OB markers, people abandon their constitutional rights or risk having such rights abused." He described adherence to OB markers as a form of self-censorship.{{cite book

| last = Gomez

| first = James

| year = 2000

| title = Self-Censorship: Singapore's Shame

| publisher = Think Centre

| location = Singapore

| isbn = 981-04-1739-X

}} The Southeast Asian Press Alliance has described the OB marker system as "a suffocating environment where the limits of one's freedom to express is defined by citizens themselves."

=Race and religion=

Under the Singapore Sedition Act, topics known to be permanently out of bounds are comments that might produce ill-will and hostility between different races and religious groups. This applies to the Internet as well, where 3 people were arrested and charged under the Sedition Act for posting racist comments on the Internet, and two subsequently sentenced to imprisonment in September 2005.[https://2001-2009.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61626.htm "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2005"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230112030254/https://2001-2009.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61626.htm |date=12 January 2023 }}, The United States Department of State. Retrieved 20 March 2006.

At Singapore's Speakers' Corner, the rules state that:

{{Quote|The speech should not be religious in nature, and should not have the potential to cause feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different racial or religious groups."[http://www2.mha.gov.sg/mha/detailed.jsp?artid=416&type=4&root=0&parent=0&cat=0&mode=arc Reply to Questions in Parliament on Speakers' Corner,25 April 2000] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061115224421/http://www2.mha.gov.sg/mha/detailed.jsp?artid=416&type=4&root=0&parent=0&cat=0&mode=arc |date=15 November 2006 }}". Ministry of Home Affairs (press release), 25 April 2000.}}

=Homosexuality=

Homosexuality has long been a taboo subject in Singapore. For example, in 2005, an overseas-located gay website was banned by the Media Development Authority.{{cite news |title = MDA bans gay website and fines another one |work = The Straits Times |date = 28 October 2005 |url = http://yawningbread.org/arch_2005/yax-504.htm |author = Chua Hian Hou |format = reprinted, with commentary |access-date = 17 October 2006 |archive-date = 27 September 2006 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20060927150640/http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2005/yax-504.htm |url-status = live }} However, in 2007, the proposal to repeal sections 377 and 377A of the Penal Code received a very public airing. This led to a local journalist, Sumiko Tan, suggesting that the OB markers have been redefined.{{cite news | title = The gay debate; For moderates like me, the vitriolic exchanges made me wonder: Why can't we just live and let live? | work = The Straits Times | author = Sumiko Tan | author-link = Sumiko Tan | date = 4 November 2007}} Section 377 was eventually repealed in 2023.