Why the new MDA online licensing framework is censorship

I've been using the Internet for a very long time -- since 1995 or so. I remember the days of pine, lynx and tin; irc, talk and finger. I remember soc.culture.singapore and soc.culture.singapore.moderated. I remember seeing the very first Singapore National Education post from mrbrown, back when podcasts haven't been invited and he was probably wearing pants everyday instead of shorts.

And yes, I also remember when the Singapore Broadcasting Authority (MDA's predecessor) first introduced the Class Licence scheme in 1996, and the firestorm of anger within the (very much smaller) internet community then.

To SBA/MDA's credit, it has indeed, for the most part, administered the Class Licence scheme with a "light touch" in the 17 years since. So when various ministers say that the MDA would continue its "light touch" regime, I actually think that will be true on a day-to-day basis -- for the most part.

But that is not the whole picture. And sadly, so far no government official or representative (except perhaps for MP Baey Yam Keng) has seen it fit to squarely and directly confront the issues raised by bloggers, and as the Talking Point programme has shown, by regular Singaporeans as well.

The one glaring exception to SBA/MDA's "light touch" regime provides a cautionary tale on what happens when a regulator has broad discretion in a regulatory environment with ambiguously-worded legislation.

Sintercom (which stood for Singapore Internet Community) was the very first, and in its time the leading, socio-political website in Singapore. In 2001, just before the General Election that year, the SBA made a ham-fisted attempt at getting Sintercom to register as a political website. It did register, but eventually decided to shut down soon after. I can still remember the consternation in the community when that happened. From what I can recall, the summary at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sintercom seems pretty accurate.

_______

The new licensing framework for online news sites does not establish regulatory parity between the Internet on the one hand and print and TV on the other; the decentralised and democratising nature of the Internet, as compared to the resource-heavy nature of print and TV, makes that simply impossible.

But the new framework does establish regulatory parity between the 10 websites targeted by MDA, and the print and TV outlets already regulated by MDA. It does so, by subjecting the targeted websites to the same sort of opaque licensing regime as print and TV outlets are subject to, which ultimately tends to encourage self-censorship and threatens media independence.

(Those who would claim that the mainstream media is free and independent in Singapore, would do well to read "OB Markers: My Straits Times Story" by former SPH editor-in-chief Cheong Yip Seng, and then take a look at the Newspapers and Printing Press Act.)

The new framework allows the MDA to take the targeted websites out of the existing Class Licence framework, and issue them with individual licences under Section 8 of the Broadcasting Act. Section 8(2) states:

"Every broadcasting licence, other than a class licence, granted by the Authority shall be in such form and for such period and may contain such terms and conditions as the Authority may determine."

Basically, the MDA can decide what the terms of the individual licences are, and presumably can also decide that the terms are confidential, such that the public will never actually know what the licences say. After all, does anyone know what is in SPH's or Mediacorp's licences?

Today, the MDA has decided that the targeted websites must take down content in 24 hours and put up a $50,000 performance bond -- conditions which do not appear in any published legislation, but only in the Government's press statements.

Tomorrow, the MDA can change the licensing terms to say that the websites must also proactively screen content and obtain MDA approval for editorial appointments -- and we may never know. I'm not saying that the MDA will do this, but Singaporeans need to know that they can.

And for the record, Singaporeans do not know what other terms, if any, exist in the individual licences issued by the MDA to the targeted websites.

Laws exist as much to empower governments to do good, as to protect citizens from their governments.  Unfortunately, most Singapore legislation focuses on the former and completely disregards the latter. This MDA regulation is just the latest example of that, and the way it was introduced is just a very stark reminder of how imbalanced our legislative system is, that something with such potentially broad impact can be made into binding law with no discussion at all.

_______

Let's go back to the various assurances proffered by the Government, in the days since it announced the new regulations. For me, they have all been meaningless chaff, smoke and mirrors that seek to distract from the central truth: that the MDA has established a framework whereby it can now easily take a website out of the Class Licence scheme, and impose whatever terms it wants on that website. All of this can be done, without any shred of transparency or accountability. Even if the same content standards apply for both the Class Licence and individual licences, the levers through which the MDA can exert power and influence are radically different.

I drew two main conclusions from all the empty statements from the Government:

• The Government has issued many, many clarifications. It has had many, many opportunities to clarify whether non-commercial websites like The Online Citizen fall within this new licensing framework, which it has spurned. I can only conclude that commerciality or otherwise is not relevant to this. Acting Minister Tan Chuan-Jin seems to have confirmed as much on Talking Point, where he seems to say that blogs (non-commercial) can be subject to individual licensing if  it "reports news", which is really a meaningless and arbitrary distinction in today's world. 

• The Government has thrown up strawman after strawman in trying to justify the new framework. The references to racist comments, need to ensure that sites co-operate in taking down content, etc. all become meaningless, when you consider that:

1. apparently all of the 20-something take-down requests issued by the MDA in the past 17 years have been successful.
2. of these requests, only 1 was not for sex-related advertisements, and that was a takedown request issued to YouTube over the "Innocence of Muslims" video -- and YouTube is not on the list of targeted websites. Let me repeat that: the MDA does not see fit to individually license the one website that has actually received a takedown notice over potentially inflammatory content in the past 17 years.

The new framework is ostensibly to ensure fair and accurate news reporting, and yet the Government throws up justifications that have nothing to do with news reporting at all. Indeed, the Government has not cited one single example of unfair or inaccurate news reporting. And, as either Bertha Henson or Arun Mahizhnan pointed out on Talking Point, inaccurate news reporting is best combated by clarifications and rights of reply -- not outright removal of content.

So the objective of this new licensing framework must be something else altogether. The obvious suspect is censorship, or rather the power to censor, over independent media outlets like Yahoo! and The Online Citizen. (See also my interview in the Straits Times last Saturday June 1.)

The Government has had ample opportunity to make its case for why that is not so. It has failed abjectly in every single attempt.

I am overseas and will not be able to join the #freemyinternet protest on Saturday June 8. I will however blackout this blog on Thursday June 6, in solidarity with my fellow bloggers in Singapore. I have also signed the petition calling for the withdrawal of the new licensing framework.

73% of respondents to the Talking Point live poll think that the new licensing framework will limit online news content. If you do not want to see that happen, please sign the petition and join the protest at Hong Lim Park from 4-7pm on Saturday.

Free My Internet: or, I can choose what I read on the Internet, ok?

#FreeMyInternet – Movement against new licensing requirements for online media

The blogging community -- collectively called Free My Internet -- will be organising a protest and online blackout next week against the new licensing requirements imposed by the Media Development Authority, which requires "online news sites" to put up a "performance bond" of $50,000 and "comply within 24 hours to MDA's directions to remove content that is found to be in breach of content standards".

We encourage all Singaporeans who are concerned about our future and our ability to participate in everyday online activities and discussions, and to seek out alternative news and analysis,  to take a strong stand against the licensing regime which can impede on your independence.

We urge Singaporeans to turn up to send a clear message to our elected representatives to trust the Singaporeans who elected them.

Singaporeans can support us in three ways:

1)    Join us at the protest.
Date:            8 June 2013
Time:            4.00pm – 7.00pm
Venue:            Speakers Corner, Hong Lim Park

2)    If you are a blogger, join us in an online blackout by closing your blog for 24 hours, from Thursday 6 June, 0001 hrs to 6 June, 2359 hrs. You can choose to create your own blackout notice, or use www.freemyinternet.com we have created for your convenience. When you reopen your blog, write your account of the protest, about the new regulations and censorship, or anything related to media freedom in Singapore. Share your thoughts. Share your hope that the light that free speech provides will not go out on us.

3)    Sign our petition and read our FAQ at this link to call for the Ministry of Communications and Information to completely withdraw the licensing regime.

We invite media to cover the protest at Hong Lim Park. To indicate media attendance and other media queries, please contact Howard Lee at howard@theonlinecitizen.com.

Signed off as: Free My Internet

Leong Sze Hian – http://leongszehian.com/
Andrew Loh – http://andrewlohhp.wordpress.com/
Ravi Philemon – http://www.raviphilemon.net/
Kumaran Pillai – http://sgvoize.wordpress.com/
Terry Xu – http://theonlinecitizen.com/
Richard Wan – http://www.tremeritus.com/
Choo Zheng Xi – http://theonlinecitizen.com/
Rachel Zeng – http://rachelzeng.wordpress.com/
Roy Ngerng – http://thehearttruths.com/
Kirsten Han – http://spuddings.net/
Gilbert Goh – http://www.transitioning.org/
Lynn Lee – http://www.lianainfilms.com/
Biddy Low – http://publichouse.sg/
Martyn See – http://singaporerebel.blogspot.sg/
Howard Lee – http://theonlinecitizen.com/
Elaine Ee – http://publichouse.sg/
Joshua Chiang – http://facebook.com/joshuafly
Donaldson Tan – http://newasiarepublic.com
Stephanie Chok – http://littlemskaypoh.wordpress.com
Jolovan Wham – http://www.workfairsingapore.wordpress.com
Ng E-Jay – http://www.sgpolitics.net
Siew Kum Hong – http://siewkumhong.blogspot.sg/
Darryl Kang – http://blog.dk.sg
Daniel Yap – http://doulosyap.wordpress.com/
Jean Chong – http://www.sayoni.com
Benjamin Cheah – http://www.benjamincheah.wordpress.com/
Theodore Lee – http://www.mrbrown.com
Benjamin Lee – http://miyagi.sg
Illusio – http://akikonomu.blogspot.com
Lee Xian Jie – http://hachisu.com.sg
Damien Chng – http://secondchances.asia
Priscilla Chia – http://secondchances.asia

This was first published on mumbrella.asia.

Why Singapore’s crackdown on online news reporting is a mistake

My sense is that for a long time now, the Singapore government has been looking for a way to give itself the power to censor the internet, in the same way that it has the power to censor offline media.

It may choose to exercise that power sparingly; but the mere possibility of censorship creates a strong chilling effect.

This new regulation is a mistake, and reinforces the perception that Singapore is a repressive place — which is precisely the wrong message to be sending to a globalised and networked world, when you are trying to build an innovative and creative economy where freedom of thought is so essential.

This is a significant retreat from the “light touch” approach to internet censorship that the Singapore government has espoused since the late 1990s.

We have gone from being arguably the first country in the world to gazette a socio-political community blog as a “political association” (by this I mean The Online Citizen), to being probably the first democratic country in the world to require websites to post a significant monetary bond before they can continue publishing.

While the Media Development Authority has sought to frame it as establishing regulatory parity between online and offline news outlets, the details available to date show otherwise.

Most notably, the MDA now has the power to order online news sites to remove purportedly illegal content within 24 hours, failing which the site stands to lose its $50,000 bond.

But there is no equivalent to this for newspapers, for example; if the Straits Times publishes an article that is prohibited under MDA guidelines, the Straits Times is not obligated to recall all unsold copies within 24 hours.

More fundamentally, the power to compel content removal is simply the power to censor outright. If the intent was to ensure responsible or accurate reporting, then surely the MDA should have chosen to include the power to order the publication of an update or correction as well. But this does not seem to be the case, at least based on the MDA’s own announcement.

Now that the government has announced this, the damage has been done. But the MDA can still mitigate this by clearly affirming that this regulation will cover only commercially-operated sites, and not true citizen-operated sites like The Online Citizen and The Real Singapore. That will go a long way towards addressing the perception that this measure is solely intended to bring the internet to heel, so to speak.

Now, I can’t speak for what Yahoo! should or might do, as the license conditions have not been published. I am a little surprised that MDA chose to make the announcement without also publishing the license conditions — this creates uncertainty and lacks transparency.

It is however notable that of the 10 sites [which are: Asiaone.com, Businesstimes.com.sg, Channelnewsasia.com, Omy.sg, Sg.news.yahoo.com, Stomp.com.sg, Straitstimes.com, Tnp.sg, Todayonline.com and Zaobao.com], Yahoo! Singapore was the only site that is not operated by a government-controlled or -owned company (so Singapore Press Holdings and MediaCorp).

This will inevitably lead to speculation that this regulatory action is aimed directly at Yahoo!, with the goal of ensuring that the government has direct or indirect control or influence over all major online news outlets in Singapore.

Disclosure: I was the General Counsel of Yahoo! Southeast Asia up to October 2012, but I did not work on this matter at all. I wrote this in my personal capacity. Thanks to Robin Hicks from mumbrella.asia for some excellent editing.

National Day Rally 2008

I just attended the National Day Rally tonight. The English speech has been embargoed until it is telecast tomorrow night, so the media will only report on it on Tuesday. All this is of course for a good cause -- our first Olympic medals in 48 years. While the NDR is always politically significant, I would encourage in particular everyone with an interest in the Internet and freedom of expression to watch it tomorrow or read the reports on Wednesday. And that's all I can say for now.

Speech on the Spam Control Bill: 12 April 2007

This is my speech on the Spam Control Bill that passed today. Today's sitting has been a bit more mundane than the sturm und drang of the past 3 days, but I think the normal business of government such as this is also important.

Spam Control Bill

12 April 2007

Mr Speaker Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.

I contribute commentaries to the TODAY newspaper. In December 2003, I wrote a piece about spam. That was in the wake of the US passing its CAN-SPAM Act. Three and a half years later, I am speaking in Parliament on Singapore’s own Spam Control Bill. I have, in a way, come full circle.

So this bill is timely. In fact, it is perhaps a little late in the game. For instance, both the US and Australia passed spam legislation in 2003. The Info-communications Development Authority first conducted a public consultation on spam legislation in May 2004, and we have taken almost three years to reach the second reading of this Bill.

Be that as it may, it is better late than never.

Opt-in vs opt-out

Sir, the Spam Control Bill implements an opt-out model for unsolicited commercial electronic messages. The Minister has explained what that means. I would only add that I was previously in favour of an opt-in model, but I now favour an opt-out model.

It is a judgment call, as to which model is superior. But all things considered, I would agree that the opt-out model represents a more practical approach to the issue of spam, one that avoids unnecessarily onerous compliance obligations. And to those marketeers who would argue against even the compliance obligations for an opt-out model, I would say that they really should exit the business if their revenue cannot cover these added compliance costs.

Limitations on Bill

Sir, the Minister has rightly pointed out the limitations of the Bill, and what it will and will not accomplish. The Bill seeks to regulate spam. It does not seek to, and it will certainly not, solve the problem of spam or reduce the volume of spam. It legalizes unsolicited messages that comply with the prescribed requirements, and may well increase the volume of unsolicited messages received.

That seems to have been the experience in the US. Our opt-out model is very similar to the model in the US CAN-SPAM Act. According to a New York Times article in February 2005, the one year period since the CAN-SPAM Act went into effect actually saw spam e-mail going up, from 50 to 60 percent of all e-mails sent over the Internet before the law went into effect, to 80 percent after. A more recent New York Times article, in December 2006, reported that the volume of spam e-mail as a proportion of all e-mails sent had risen to more than 90%.

Furthermore, the proposed legislation will apply to all unsolicited messages with a Singapore connection. That includes messages sent from outside Singapore, to a recipient in Singapore. But enforcement against a spammer operating outside Singapore would be difficult.

Sir, the IDA survey in 2003 found that 77% of the total spam e-mail received came from overseas-based companies. This percentage is unlikely to be significantly affected by the Spam Control Bill.

Having said that, I still believe that the Bill will be helpful. There is a substantial amount of local unsolicited messages, especially sent to mobile phones, and the Bill will help to regulate them.

In fact, my own personal experience is that although local spam e-mail is low in volume, it actually takes up a disproportionate amount of time, compared to overseas spam, which is typically much easier to identify as spam. And mobile phone messages will always take up the time of the recipient, to open, scan and delete the message.

More importantly, passing anti-spam legislation will give Singapore the right to a seat at the table, in any eventual international effort to fight spam. And given the cross-border nature of this problem, international efforts is the only sort of effort that can effectively reduce spam and is probably inevitable in the long term.

Clarifications required

But Sir, the Bill is not perfect. I should disclose that I had co-authored a submission in response to the consultation paper in 2005 on an earlier draft version of the Bill. I had also, in my professional capacity as a private practitioner, advised clients on the first consultation exercise conducted by the IDA and AGC in 2004.

I will now address certain issues in connection with the Bill that remain under despite the two consultation exercises, that I hope the Minister can clarify.

Firstly, the status of communications sent pursuant to a pre-existing relationship remains unclear. Miss Penny Low has mentioned this, and I would like to add a few comments.

The Bill simply does not address this issue, despite it having been repeatedly raised by industry players in the public consultation exercises, including in the first consultation in 2004.

This is actually of great concern to most commercial enterprises, who would have to, or want to, send communications to their existing customers from time to time. But if this communication is not initiated by the customer, would it be considered an unsolicited message? It is unclear, and clarity on this would be helpful.

In fact, from my years of experience specialising in the area of Internet law, I would say that this is possibly the single-most important issue to the industry in connection with the Bill.

Indeed, given how this issue had been repeatedly raised by respondents to the public consultation exercises, it seems to me a little unsatisfactory of the IDA and AGC not to have addressed this issue earlier, whether in connection with the second consultation exercise in 2005 or in the Bill itself.

Secondly, the Bill relies exclusively on civil actions by persons who have suffered loss or damage directly or indirectly resulting from a contravention of its provisions. The Minister has explained why it does not provide for criminal sanctions, and has pointed out that the criminal offences in the US CAN-SPAM Act are aimed at fraudulent spasm. But there is a middle ground. I believe that the US CAN-SPAM Act also empowers the US regulator, the Federal Trade Commission, to commence civil enforcement actions against spammers.

Sir, spam is like a hydra. Cut off one head, and another two grow elsewhere. Shut down one spammer, and two more will spring up elsewhere.

Spam is also a problem that affects everyone. Its effects are diffuse, but it affects many. When added up, the negative effects become substantial. That is why the resources of private enterprise alone will not be sufficient to combat spam effectively.

The Spam Control Bill would have a lot more teeth, if it had included criminal sanctions for the more serious offences, such as where dictionary attacks or address harvesting software are used. Alternatively, the IDA could be empowered to commence civil enforcement actions against offenders, or even to impose civil penalties.

This would lighten the burden on private industry. It would also have helped to ensure that in cases where the ISPs are unable or unwilling to take action for any reason, there remain other entities able to commence proceedings. The US example, where the FTC has commenced a substantial number of civil actions against spammers, shows that there is a significant role that regulatory and law enforcement agencies can play.

Sir, the third issue I would like to touch on is the exclusion of telemarketeers and junk faxes from regulation.

I think most people would agree with my view, that telemarketing calls are far more intrusive and annoying than spam e-mails and unsolicited mobile phone messages. And annoyance becomes actual cost when such calls are received on the mobile phone when one is overseas and roaming. As for junk faxes, they consume physical resources in the form of paper and, depending on the type of fax machine used, toner.

Australia has both a Spam Act and a Do Not Call Register Act, which was enacted last year and recently took effect. The DNCR Act creates a “do not call” register that the public can register with, and it is unlawful for telemarketeers to call the numbers on the register, although there are certain exemptions.

Both the US and the UK regulate telemarketing, junk faxes, and spam.

So why are we proposing to regulate spam e-mails and mobile phone messages, but not telemarketeers and junk faxes? I do not understand.

I accept that it is possible to make a reasonable distinction for spam e-mail, on the basis that it costs very little to send massive amounts of spam e-mail. Telemarketing and junk faxes cost money, which creates an inherent control on the amount of telemarketing and junk faxing done.

But what about mobile phone messages? That also costs money to send. So why regulate that, but not telemarketing and junk faxes? I do not think that any convincing justification for this distinction has been articulated, and I hope that the Minister can clarify this.

Fourthly, and finally, the Bill proposes a code of practice for Internet access service providers and telecommunications service providers. The Bill provides that they may, with the IDA’s approval, issue a code of practice on minimum standards of technical measures to effectively control unsolicited commercial electronic messages. And if they do issue such a code, they must comply.

However, the Bill does not prescribe any consequences for non-compliance. There is no requirement for all IASPs and telecommunications service providers to be involved in issuing the code, although all must comply. Having said that, I acknowledge that the IDA could require all of them to be involved before giving its approval.

Most importantly, the process involves only IASPs, telecommunications service providers, and the IDA. But what about other important stakeholders, such as consumers, commercial enterprises who do send out electronic communications, and direct marketing organisations? They should be involved, or at least given an opportunity to be involved, in the process as well.

Education

Sir, I have said that this Bill is a positive step. And I fully agree with the Minister, that the problem of e-mail spam and unsolicited mobile phone messages requires a holistic, multi-pronged solution. And even with the passage of the Bill, spam e-mail, especially from overseas, will remain a real problem.

In my view, of all these various prongs, education remains paramount. Indeed, education will probably become even more important, so as to prevent a false sense of safety amongst the public simply because there is legislation in place.

We need to continue efforts to educate the public on what to do when spam is encountered. There are some very commonsensical things that can be done. The advertisements for drugs, pornography, pirated software and the like are actually easy to identify and easy to deal with. Phishing e-mails and fraudulent scams remain real risks, although public awareness on these have improved in recent years.

Most importantly, e-mail users need to be taught how to differentiate between local unsolicited e-mails that comply, and non-compliant spam. It would be safe to send an unsubscribe request to the former, but certainly not the latter, as Madam Ho has explained. Users can save themselves a lot of grief, if only they were more informed, and applied some commonsensical measures.

Conclusion

Sir, this Bill is an important component of our efforts to fight spam. It may not be perfect. But it is a positive step forward, and brings Singapore’s regulatory environment in this area in line with other leading countries like the US, Australia and Europe. But this is not the finishing line, and all stakeholders must continue to play their parts in this fight.

Sir, with that, I support the Bill.

Singapore Social Media Directory (sgSocialMediaDir) Wiki

An interesting idea. Courtesy of Tomorrow.sg.

That blog spat: A*Star tells why it wanted to sue student

An article in today's Straits Times (available on Asiaone) on the AcidFlask incident, quoting my blog posting on it.

When the Sunday Times reporter first called on Wednesday, I was really busy with work. So I just referred her to my blog and told her she could quote anything she wanted from it, and could call me again if she needed anything else.

I was quite amused when she called again yesterday. She said she had gone through their internal database, and she just wanted to clarify with me how to describe me, because I have -- over the years, when being quoted in my professional capacity -- been described as both a "technology lawyer" and an "intellectual property lawyer". I told her "technology lawyer", and that's what she did.

The fact is, I'm both. And in today's digital world, you can't really be one and not the other. Well, you can, and I know plenty of lawyers who are, even if they claim otherwise. But I think that prevents them from being complete lawyers in either field, and that would stand in the way of giving comprehensive advice in many circumstances.

Anyway. Just a minor aside at the start of what will hopefully be a civilised day ("civilised" to me meaning no unreasonable demands!), despite it being the effective last day of the financial year. I've closed or am near to closing all of my deals, so I'm hoping to take it a little easier today.

Budget 2007 Debates: Ministry of Information, Communication and the Arts and Ministry of National Development, 3 March 2007

This was a Saturday sitting. Yes, Saturday.

I treasure my weekends -- I have never worked a 5.5-day week (barring NS and occasionally being the Saturday duty lawyer in my first employer, a local big law firm), and I'm pretty sure that I never will. So when I got the notice announcing that a Saturday sitting was being fixed, I was a little dismayed. But I still went, although I noticed that attendance seemed a little sparser than usual.

I had two cuts fixed for that day. The first was on Internet content regulation. I've never favoured the Internet Class Licence (available at the MDA website) -- it had always seemed to me to be a set of regulations that are just on the books but not enforced.

If you actually read it together with the Internet Code of Practice (which you have to), you can see that everything is worded so broadly that it covers a very broad range of Internet content (and probably everything on Sammyboy!!). Yet, it very, very rarely been enforced.

In fact, to the best of my knowledge, except for Sintercom, it has only ever been used or explicitly threatened against sexual sites (specifically, gay sites and child porn). And when the racist bloggers were prosecuted, they were charged under the Sedition Act. If that is the case, then why keep the Class Licence regime?

The only reason I can think of is for it to operate as a threatened Sword of Damocles hanging over would-be transgressors, as it were. And that is nothing if not the "chilling effect" at work. I don't agree with that. And if "offline" laws like the Sedition Act and the soon-to-be-updated Penal Code cover online behaviour, then the argument for repealing the Class Licence becomes even stronger.

Unfortunately, I didn't time my speech properly, and in the end I got "guillotined" (i.e. cut off) by the Speaker before I could complete my speech. I think I managed to make the point in my clarification question, but I know I could've done better if I had paced myself better. I'm still a little disappointed with that.

I thought the Senior Minister of State's prepared response didn't really meet my speech head-on, unfortunately. He seemed to mischaracterise my speech as expressing concern about light-touch regulation -- no, it wasn't and I certainly do not advocate heavier regulation. Certainly, that is one of the dangers of relying on a prepared speech, and I think that was the point the Senior Minister made after the Budget debates.

But I thought his response to my clarification was very good, with a clear explanation of what a light-touch approach is all about. Having said that, I still disagree with him on the necessity of the Class Licence, and I still believe that its existence results in an unnecessary "chilling effect" as in the Sintercom case and that it should be repealed given the authorities' ability to avail themselves of other legislation.

The second question is about barrier-free access. Now, it is very well known that Opposition MPs do not get to use the Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) funds. They are entitled to apply, but their longstanding grouse is that they are not granted the funds. Instead, in Opposition wards, CIPC funds are normally granted to projects by Citizens' Consultative Committees, which are advised by the prospective PAP candidate for that Opposition ward (unlike in PAP wards, where the CCC adviser will be the elected MP).

I don't agree with that at all, just as I strongly disagree with the Government's policy of giving priority to PAP constituencies over Opposition wards when it comes to upgrading. So when the news reports came out that the Government had set aside funds for barrier-free access, but that they would be administered through the CIPC, I wanted to file a question about it.

A Straits Times article on 15 February 2007 ("Estates run by PAP to be barrier-free by 2011") stated that 95% of the cost would be covered by CIPC funds, with town councils having to bear the remaining 5%. Furthermore, as the Minister noted in his reply, the procedure is to make the application through the CCCs.

Now, the co-payment requirement and the application procedure clearly means that Opposition town councils and their CCCs (advised by a PAP member) will have to come to an agreement on the proposed project, before they can avail themselves of the CIPC funds. Who really thinks that this will happen?

The result is to deprive aged and disabled Singaporeans in Opposition wards of access to the CIPC funds. And that is simply wrong.

I don't think the Minister really answered the question or addressed the concerns about fairness and justice, and what the concept of "inclusiveness" should stand for. I think his answer speaks for itself. And that's all I'll say about it.

Towards the end of the debate on the Ministry of National Development, one of the other MPs Mr Seah Kian Peng asked about pet ownership and regulation of pet shops. I then decided to ask a clarification about the HDB's policy on cat ownership in HDB flats (it's banned).

This is a complicated issue. People know it's not allowed -- so those who do want to keep cats, will do so surreptitiously and allow cats to roam freely. Perhaps as a result of this loose sense of "ownership" over their cats, they frequently also do not sterilise or vaccinate their cats properly.

(Just as a point of comparison, my cats are not allowed outside at all, even though one of them regularly makes a dash for the door if he is nearby and it is open. The main reason is a fear that if they go off, they might not find their way back, or worse, they may be picked up by AVA and culled. I am told by the Cat Welfare Society that registering your cat does not prevent that, because AVA -- or their contractors -- will not check against registrations before culling.)

This results in ill-behaved cats making a lot of noise -- if you have ever heard a cat in heat, you will understand. The yowling is absolutely awful. There is a school of thought that legalising cat ownership in HDB flats will (a) reduce this problem, if owners are required to register and sterilise their cats, i.e. be responsible pet owners, and (b) be fair, since some breeds of dogs are allowed. But so far, the HDB has been very firm about retaining the policy, even though it is not consistently or strictly enforced.

Well, I don't think the Parliamentary Secretary's response really said all that much. But he makes a fair point, about the difficulty in reconciling conflicting interests. Having said that, this study by the Singapore Veterinary Association indirectly suggests that anti-cat sentiment may not be as strong as it might seem.

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE ARTS

Control and Regulation of New and Old Media

Mr Siew Kum Hong (Nominated Member): Mr Chairman, the Government has repeatedly stated that it regulates the Internet with a light touch. That is commendable and I think also a pragmatic recognition of the difficulties in regulating the on-line world. But what is a light touch? Can regulation truly be light touch if behind it is the threat of a criminal offence, punishable by a fine not exceeding $200,000, or jail of up to three years or both, with additional fines of $100,000 per day for committing offences?

Sir, that is exactly what our light touch regulation is. The Media Development Authority regulates the Internet through the Class Licence and a breach of the Class Licence will potentially attract the penalties that I have described.

Sir, the MDA's website describes the Class Licence as setting minimum standards for the responsible use of the Internet. I think it goes much further than that. Read in conjunction with the Internet Code of Practice, the Class Licence prohibits, and I quote, "material that is objectionable on the grounds of public interest, public morality, public order, public security, national harmony or is otherwise prohibited by applicable Singapore laws."

Sir, I would submit that this language is unnecessarily broad and that the Class Licence, in its present form, is no longer relevant or appropriate. When the Government wanted to take action against certain racist bloggers, it chose to charge them under the Sedition Act. That decision surprised many, including lawyers. I myself wondered why the racist bloggers were not charged for breaching the Class Licence. After all, they had posted objectionable online content that would have breached the Class Licence which was specifically created to regulate online content.

Sir, the Government can and will use traditional statutes like the Sedition Act to regulate the Internet and the Penal Code is being updated for the digital age. So I think that the time is right to review the Class Licence 10 years after it was issued, so as to limit the prohibitions to match its existing practice of enforcing the Class Licence against sexual contents. This will avoid ---

The Chairman: Your time is up, Mr Siew.

The Senior Minister of State for Information, Communications and the Arts (Dr Balaji Sadasivan): Mr Chairman, Sir, you are TIME magazine’s person of the year for 2006. So are Miss Penny Low, Mr Siew Kum Hong and anyone who sits in front of a computer and interacts with it. TIME magazine’s selection of you as person of the year was meant to highlight the millions of individuals who, through their interaction in cyberspace, have created new channels and types of communication. Two hon. Members of Parliament have pointed out the problems related to the new media and I shall answer their cuts together. These are wild and exciting times in cyberspace.

Blogs, YouTube, MySpace, Secondlife and Wikipedia are impacting the lives of millions. Many among the younger generation socialise in cyberspace. Some have termed this revolution in cyberspace as Web2.0, likening it to an updated version of software. While this revolution has brought the wisdom of millions together to create Wikipedia, there is stuff in cyberspace that can make you fear for the future of the next generation. There is a large supply of obscenity and stupidity, dishonesty and danger. So how does my Ministry deal with this brave new world?

We have a three-pronged approach in managing the new media: (1) a light-touch regulatory framework; (2) industry self-regulation; and, (3) public education.

Let me start with light-touch regulatory framework. Internet content providers are regulated under the Media Development Authority’s Class Licence Scheme. There is an Internet Code of Practice, which stipulates the type of content prohibited in cyberspace. The Class Licence requires Internet content providers and service providers to take down or deny access to such harmful content. This light-touch regulatory approach has served us well in regulating online content, helping to facilitate the growth of the industry while allowing us to act if we find harmful content that threatens our social values, and racial and religious harmony.

Mr Siew asked whether we should review our light-touch regulatory framework. Last year, the National Internet Advisory Committee (NIAC), a people-private sector body set up to advise the MDA, reviewed the Class Licence Scheme. It found the light-touch scheme still relevant and appropriate in dealing with emerging media trends.

The Member was also concerned about the use of the Sedition Act recently. The Sedition Act reinforces MDA’s light-touch regulation on new media. The proposed expansion of the Penal Code to cover electronic transmissions now will provide an alternative to the Sedition Act for charging offenders purveying inflammatory content that stirs up public mischief.

Besides legislative action, another important limb in managing the new media is industry self-regulation. The MDA and NIAC work closely with the industry to promote industry self-regulation. For example, last year, the mobile service operators - MobileOne, SingTel and StarHub - developed and adopted a voluntary industry content code for mobile services which aims to protect users, especially the young, from undesirable and objectionable mobile content.

The third prong, public education, is vital. Public education is vital and I totally agree with Miss Penny Low on the importance of public education. ...

Clarification

Mr Siew Kum Hong: Sir, the Senior Minister of State has pointed out that the NIAC had endorsed the light-touch approach under the Class Licence. He has also mentioned that the Sedition Act supplements the regulations, and the Penal Code provides an alternative mechanism for enforcement. What this means is that a single action can technically contravene three different laws with very serious consequences for each contravention. There is overlapping liability under multiple statutes for one single action. That creates uncertainty and a potential chilling effect on Internet speech. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether this is healthy and leaves too much discretion to the authorities when taking enforcement action.

Dr Balaji Sadasivan: Sir, let me begin with the real world before I go into the cyber world. Even in the real world, there is much overlap between laws, and a particular wrongdoing can come under several sections of the Penal Code, and it is for the Attorney-General to study the various laws and decide which one is applicable in a particular case.

In cyberspace, the same is true. A law applies in cyberspace and so the same law and the same overlap that is found in the real world will be found in cyber space. The difference is that in cyberspace, it is a particular medium that is being used when compared to print, but the laws apply equally whether in cyberspace or in the real world. In cyberspace, what we do not do is that we do not go after every action that breaks the law, because it is impractical and impossible to police cyberspace. So, by and large, cyberspace is left alone and that is what we mean by regulating with a light touch. But where wrongdoing or bad action in cyberspace can have an impact on the real world, like the racist blogs, then we act.

MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Barrier-free Access

Mr Siew Kum Hong: Madam, the Government recently announced that it will make available $32 million over five years to implement barrier-free access in housing estates. These funds will be disbursed through the Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC). Based on media reports, Town Councils will be required to co-pay 5% of the cost of projects using these funds.

The use of the CIPC, coupled with the requirement for co-payment by Town Councils, effectively excludes the Opposition wards of Hougang and Potong Pasir from access to these funds. CIPC funds are channelled through the Citizens' Consultative Committees, but the advisers to the CCCs in those two wards are from the PAP and are not the elected MPs, which is the case in the PAP Government wards.

So I think that is very unlikely that the CCCs and Town Councils in Hougang and Potong Pasir will be able to come to an agreement on how to use such funds. This penalises the disabled and elderly folks in those estates. If we are serious about making society more friendly to the disabled and the elderly, then this method of disbursing the funds is unhelpful and unfair. In fact, it directly contradicts the vision of an inclusive society for Singapore, knowing that the use of the CIPC will almost inevitably exclude Hougang and Potong Pasir from access to these funds.

Madam, these funds are for barrier-free access. In an ageing society, that is increasingly a must-have and not a good-to-have, like upgrading. They should not be subject to political considerations such as whether the ward in question is an Opposition ward. I would suggest that a better way to distribute these funds is to make direct grants to the Town Councils for their use. After all, the Town Councils would know the best ways in which to apply these funds and what are the most pressing areas of need for barrier-free access. This would truly further our vision of an inclusive society.

Mr Mah Bow Tan: ... Let me now talk about barrier-free accessibility which Mr Siew Kum Hong mentioned. It is an important part of our programme to help the elderly to age in place to make sure that the environment is barrier free and more elderly friendly. My MOS has already updated Members about the progress of the LUP which is also part of the barrier-free accessibility programme, and we are also supporting the Town Councils. We will extend the barrier-free accessibility to all HDB precincts by 2011.

How do we fund it? We have a CIPC fund. The CIPC fund is meant to help or improve projects within the community. So we decided that we will expand the CIPC fund to also fund the construction of the barrier-free accessibility (BFA) items such as ramps, railings and so on. All Town Councils will be invited to draw up their BFA masterplans for their estates and apply for access to the CIPC fund. I just want to make it very clear at this point that we are not excluding any Town Council from applying for these funds. Everybody is welcome to apply for the funds and, in fact, we have written to every Town Council, including to Mr Low Thia Khiang, to apply for the CIPC funds in order to implement BFA. So I do not think there should be any problem in so doing. This is not subject to political consideration, it is just commonsense. Here you have a CIPC fund and you are using it to improve the neighbourhood and the precincts and there we have a need to improve barrier-free accessibility. Why do we not put the two together? So that is the reason why we have expanded CIPC to allow for BFA and the simple procedure is to apply for it through the CCC. Why the CCC? Because they are the ones who are most familiar with the neighbourhood. If all Town Councils do this, follow the procedure, draft their BFA masterplans and apply for access to the CIPC funds, I am sure that by our target date of 2011, all Town Councils will be redeveloped and all the BFA facilities will be put in place.

Clarification

Mr Siew Kum Hong : Madam, the Parliamentary Secretary has shared with us some of the policies on pet ownership. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the Ministry would review the existing ban on cats in HDB flats. I understand that, very often, HDB dwellers who do keep cats will let them roam around so that they can deny owning the cats when confronted. They also do not bother to sterilise the cats. This need for possible deniability leads them to be irresponsible pet owners. If cat ownership is permitted ---

The Chairman: A clarification, Mr Siew, not a speech.

Mr Siew Kum Hong: Yes, Madam. I would like to clarify with the Parliamentary Secretary whether he agrees that if pet ownership is permitted, subject to sterilisation and the need to keep the cats within the flats, then many problems attributed to stray cats will be resolved.

Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman: Madam, this issue of pet ownership, cats especially, in housing estates has been discussed several times. There are two groups effectively - one, the pet lovers who feel that it is okay for pets to be in housing estates. As long as they are sterilised, they will be able to manage and live among HDB dwellers. However, there is also the other group off HDB dwellers who are very particular about the nuisance created by pets of this kind.

The policy of HDB has been that we do not allow cats to be kept in HDB flats because cats are nomadic in nature and are difficult to be confined within the flat. They have also given rise to problems such as defecation, noise and shedding of fur, which will affect the living environment of our housing estates. Having said that, I think we continue to try to engage the pet lovers group to try to bring both parties together. I think what is important is a sense of appreciation of each other's side and to see if, at some point in time later, they will come to an agreed position.

As of now, I think we receive a significant number of complaints from HDB dwellers with regard to nuisance created by cats. Therefore, at this point in time, the position of the HDB remains the same - cats will not be allowed in HDB flats.

Clarification from A*Star over the AcidFlask incident

I saw this on Tomorrow: a clarification from A*Star over the AcidFlask incident. I found it a very interesting read, because it included snippets of the actual posting by AcidFlask that A*Star found objectionable.

Given that the AcidFlask incident is often cited as an instance of official intervention into or even quasi-censorship of the Internet, in particular in discussions on the dos-and-don'ts of blogging and the impact of defamation law on freedom of expression in Singapore, there has always been a gaping hole in all the discussions, in that the actual allegedly defamatory statements have never made it into the public domain. And now that they have, how many people really think that A*Star's action was unjustified?

Prior to this, the case had frequently, if not, always been positioned as A*Star using threats of a defamation lawsuit to crack down on criticisms of its scholarship policy. There have also been suggestions that it basically involved a poor student having to back down in the face of the full legal might of a heavyweight statutory board.

In light of the excerpts that are disclosed, I'm not quite sure that the above characterisations are entirely accurate or fair.

Those statements may well have appeared in the context of a posting discussing A*Star's scholarship policy as a whole. But they went way beyond fair criticism as such, and alleged outright corruption by A*Star in obtaining places for its scholars. This is a case where I can, and I think most unbiased and rational people would be able to, completely understand why A*Star threatened legal action. (Still, I'm not convinced that defamation is the best or most effective route to deal with Internet speech, but that's a whole other discussion.)

Having said that, I think there is a lesson to be drawn from this. When A*Star took action against AcidFlask, AcidFlask shut down his site and the statements became unavailable. So until this post by Aaron Ng, nobody actually knew (or at least, I've never seen or heard anyone who knew or claimed to know) what was said. Many people simply assumed that A*Star was responding to straightforward criticism of its scholarship policy in a heavy-handed fashion.

Now that I've read it, I don't think A*Star was heavy-handed at all. But I also think that A*Star may have erred by not disclosing these specific objectionable statements. [I wrote the following paragraphs before reading all the comments on Aaron Ng's blog -- a number of comments there make the same point in a less longwinded fashion.]

Defamation seeks to give redress to a plaintiff for the damage done to his/her/its reputation. But when it comes to matters of reputation, recourse to the law can only be just one part of the solution. There will always be non-legal PR consequences, and they need to be managed.

Let's be honest here -- even though A*Star was vindicated legally, its reputation did take a bit of a hit in the wake of this incident. I'm quite sure that any such damage would have been much reduced, if not eliminated, if the actual statements had been disclosed in the form that they have been on Aaron Ng's blog. Such a point by point rebuttal would have gone a long way in clarifying matters and preventing the damage to A*Star's reputation.

After all, those who visit Tomorrow and Aaron Ng's blog would have seen the clarification. What about all those who don't, and still labour under a misconception about the entire incident?

PS. The comments are worth a read, due to what appears to be Philip Yeo himself making repeated appearances.

PPS. There was a question in an early comment about the choice of jurisdiction for a lawsuit, i.e. if A*Star had sued, would it be in Singapore or the US? There is a well-known Australian case (Dow Jones v Gutnick), where an Australian plaintiff who felt defamed by an online article in Barrons (a Dow Jones publication) sued Dow Jones in Australia. The the High Court of Australia held that Gutnick was entitled to sue in Australia to protect his reputation. The same reasoning would apply here.

Freedom of Speech - How Far Can We Go?

A posting I came across, basically an attempt at an on-the-fly transcript of a recent forum organised by the NUS Democratic Socialist Club on the subject of "Freedom of Speech - How Far Can We Go?"

Written Answers To Questions For Oral Answer Not Answered By 3.00 PM: 15 February 2007

I mentioned earlier that if a MP files an OPQ for a sitting and it is not answered by the end of Question Time for that sitting, the MP can choose to postpone the OPQ to the next available sitting for oral answer. However, if the MP decides not to do so, the Minister's prepared written answer to the OPQ will be released and the OPQ will be deemed answered.

I had 3 OPQs for today, but they were too far down the order to make it. So I decided to postpone 2 and proceed with the written answer to the 3rd, for 3 reasons.

Firstly, the OPQ was drafted in the form of queries for information, although I had intended to follow-up with supplemental questions.

Secondly, another MP had filed a very similar OPQ asking for very similar information, so I figured that I could simply ask supplemental questions when his OPQ came up for answer.

Thirdly, I have already filed 2 further OPQs, which were not fixed for answer (since I already had 3 OPQs fixed). So not postponing this OPQ would have allowed one of those 2 further OPQs to enter the queue.

But I must say I was quite disappointed when I saw the answer. I had asked 3 questions (a), (b), and (c), but question (c) was further divided into (i), (ii) and (iii). Unfortunately, the written answer did not address (c)(ii) or (c)(iii) -- it simply ignored them completely. Certainly the HDB would have the information to reply to (c)(iii), if not (c)(ii), although I would be very, very surprised if it did not have the information for (c)(ii).

I fully intend to follow-up when the other MP's OPQ comes up.

OPQ

HDB FLAT MORTGAGES

(Foreclosure by banks)

Mr Siew Kum Hong: To ask the Minister for National Development, for each year from 2003 to 2006 (a) how many new and resale HDB flats were purchased using bank loans; (b) how many HDB mortgages were foreclosed by banks; and (c) of these cases of foreclosure, (i) what was the average period for which the debtors were in default before foreclosure; (ii) what was the average quantum of the outstanding loan at the time of foreclosure; and (iii) what was the average original purchase price of the flat.

Mr Mah Bow Tan: From 2003 to 2006, there were about 89,000[1] HDB flats financed with bank loans.

As at 31 Dec 06, the banks completed the mortgagee sale for 895 cases. This works out to about 1% of the 89,000 HDB flats financed with bank loans.

We do not have information on the average period of default by borrowers before the banks foreclose on the loans. However, we understand that banks normally monitor closely Non-Performing Loans where no payment has been made for more than 90 days. They would offer to reschedule repayments or other assistance measures when borrowers are facing difficulty servicing their loan instalments.

[1] 78,000 new and resale flats were purchased with bank loans while the remaining 11,000 were ex-HDB loans refinanced with bank loans.

The Internet is an easy target

It is so easy -- and apparently, popular -- to blame the Internet for this and for that. But what many people forget, is that the Net is merely a means to an end. It only makes it easier for people to broadcast what they say and do -- in and of itself, it does not and will not cause or compel people to do what they do not want or are disinclined to do.

So in this case, should we be more concerned about the Net itself (which seems to me a simplistic kneejerk reaction), or should we be more concerned about the people involved and the society around them and why they are doing this?

---

Wanted: A Net that can catch its own bad hats

Tuesday • February 6, 2007

Sheralyn Tay sheralyn {[at]} mediacorp.com.sg

IT IS someone's idea of a joke, though most people who have come across the clip posted on YouTube do not find it funny.

Two young men, presumably Singaporean, walk into a halal coffeeshop and — in a variety of ways calculated to irritate the waiter — keep asking him to serve them pork.

The clip was removed last week, perhaps because it was deemed inappropriate, but by yesterday it had made a comeback.

The episode underscores how difficult it is to police the vast and unruly Internet. It also raises the issue: Who should do it? Various experts that this newspaper spoke to agreed on one thing: Regulating the Internet should not be left to the authorities. Preferably, the netizens themselves should keep cyberspace free of such provocation, they agreed.

"There are many civic-minded individuals who have voiced their objections and concerns after seeing the video," the Media Development Authority told Today. "In fact, the video has been flagged out as inappropriate content by YouTube's community of users. This is an encouraging development."

Observers said it was best when the service provider itself took action — with a little help from the community.

At Hardwarezone, the most popular online forum here, administrators rely on members to report "bad posts". According to product manager Lim Chuan Jer, the site has a group of moderators — appointed by administrators — who voluntarily keep an eye on forums.

"I believe this is the only way to go. Websites do not require licences. At the rate at which they are popping up around the world, it will be virtually impossible for any organisation or government to police every site," said Mr Lim.

The site gets about 10 "bad post" reports a day. Over the past two years, it has heard from the authorities about 20 times regarding more severe cases — the most recent being a bomb hoax posted on the site.

Some violations are clear-cut. But in a community as diverse as the Internet, one man's joke may be another man's hurt and it is not always easy for service providers to decide what is appropriate. Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong cautioned about community policing that crosses the line and becomes vigilante behaviour. "If someone has an agenda and goes around complaining, it's going to create a false or misleading picture of what's going on," he noted.

Mr Siew said that private service providers would have to decide what their comfort levels were. "Over time, they will develop a societal norm within the Internet," he said.

But can one rely on netizens to come up with the right responses?

As far as this particular video was concerned, MDA urged Internet users to continue registering their concerns with YouTube. "This will send a strong signal that most Singaporeans disapprove of such content," it said.

But a study showed that Singaporean youth would require some prodding before their spoke up on online issues.

Fei Yue Community Services surveyed 1,200 teenagers — aged between 13 and 15 — and found that most of them were indifferent to illegal websites or undesirable content.

If they come across any, most say they will not tell their parents or teachers about it as they do not want to answer uncomfortable questions on why they visit such sites.

Others, in a demonstration of twisted logic, thought that everything that they saw on the Internet was aboveboard. As one respondent wrote: "If it's on the Internet, it's not illegal ... because if it's illegal, it would have been taken off already."

Such attitudes show that Singaporean youth have a "long way to go" before they could be considered responsible netizens. Fei Yu hopes to educate both, teenagers and their parents on healthy online behaviour.

But Mr Siew pointed out that learning good behaviour wouldn't help if the source of the problem lay in the real world. Referring to the YouTube video, Mr Siew said that those who recorded it "obviously thought it was funny — whether it was online or not".

He added: "While the Internet makes it easier for certain traits to manifest themselves, those traits must exist in the first place. And the underlying problem (racism, ignorance, apathy) is still there."

Copyright MediaCorp Press Ltd. All rights reserved.