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.

MARUAH’s View of the Police Investigations into SFD Members’ Sale of Death Penalty Book

29 January 2011

MARUAH’s View of the Police Investigations into SFD Members’ Sale of Death Penalty Book

MARUAH notes the statement by NGO Singaporeans for Democracy (SFD) and various media reports about the recent initiation of police investigations into three SFD members over their alleged sale of copies of the book Once A Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock at a film screening held on 14 November 2010 at the Substation. The SFD members are being investigated under Section 502 of the Penal Code, for the knowing “sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter”.

Although the police commenced investigations against Mr Alan Shadrake, the author of the book, for criminal defamation in 2010, no formal charges have been instituted. It is thus troubling how an investigation can begin into the sale of printed substance containing defamatory matter if the book in question has not been found by a court of law to be defamatory. Indeed, charges have not even been brought.

MARUAH therefore calls upon the Singapore Police Force to explain why it is initiating these criminal investigations on the three SFD members in relation to the sale of the book, when the author himself has not been charged.

Furthermore, if the Government’s position is that the sale of the book would be unlawful, then the proper course of action is to ban the book outright, which is a transparent action that is accountable and subject to judicial review of the courts where appropriate, and also conforms with the rule of law.

MARUAH President Braema Mathi says: “These criminal investigations by the police carry a much heavier ‘footprint’ than contempt proceedings. In this case it is bewildering why the police are investigating sellers of the book when there is no criminal defamation charge against the author or contempt proceedings against the three members.

”MARUAH is opposed to investigations without any reasonable basis, as these will only serve to significantly chill public debate on the death penalty and detract from Singaporeans’ constitutional right to free expression. ”

Transcript of Dr Lim Hock Siew's speech

A text transcript is here, courtesy of some, er, livestock. And to be clear, and to again show the pointlessness of this entire exercise by the Government, the posting of this transcript does not violate the Acting Minister's order banning the film.

Why censorship is evil

When I signed the Arts Community Position Paper on Censorship and Regulation, one of the ArtsEngage folks emailed me asking if I could blog about it. I wanted to, but never quite got around to it. Until now.

The catalyst was the ban on Martyn See's film on Dr Lim Hock Siew. I won't go into the substantive content of the film, or the comments by Dr Lim -- that is for another day and another forum, and I will only say here that detaining someone for 19 years without trial is quite unacceptable, to say the least. But I will talk about censorship.

The point here is that this was a factual recording of a speech, nothing more nothing less. No deceptive editing, no emotive music, no crafty juxtaposition of images. So the usual arguments trotted out by the Government about the "special emotive power" of film do not apply.

If there was anything in this film that could possibly be the subject of a bandeserved to be banned, it would have to be the words used by Dr Lim. If his speech was somehow illegal or unlawful, then the authorities should go after him for having made that speech and used those words. Go to the source and address the root problem, so to speak. Instead, the Government has chosen to suppress the film, without prosecuting Dr Lim for the speech. If the speech itself was lawful, then how can the possession or distribution of the film be unlawful? Why should the film be banned? How can the recording of words be somehow more illegal than the words themselves? And if Dr Lim had acted unlawfully, so much so that the Government saw fit to take action and ban the film, then why are they not prosecuting him?

And so we get to the nub of the matter. Censorship by administrative fiat, as in this case, allows the censor to hide and suppress inconvenient or unfavourable facts, ideas and/or words, regardless of whether those facts, ideas and/or words are true, justified or lawful. It gives the censor a convenient tool that obviates any need to confront or address the facts, ideas and/or words in question. It denies one's right to speak words that are lawful. And the fact that all this can be done, in itself has a censoring effect.

That is the nature of censorship in Singapore. That is why I signed the ArtsEngage paper. That is why regulation and not censorship has to be the way.

And this case shows why the Internet is such a powerful tool against censorship. The Acting Minister's order was for Martyn to take down all copies of the film uploaded by him onto YouTube and his blog. Well, the video is already widely available elsewhere, presumably thanks to the efforts of others subsequent to the issuance of the order. Martyn can comply fully with the letter of the order, without affecting the availability of the film on the Internet.

(As an aside, there may in fact be a procedural flaw in this exercise by MDA. They served on Martyn a letter from BFC and a press release from MICA, but it seems, at least from his blog, that the actual order by the Acting Minister was not served on him. This may be a procedural defect. How do we know whether or not an actual order has been signed, or that even if signed, it was without defect? A defect in the order can render it null and void -- ironically, a legal principle recognised by Dr Lim in the film when he recounted how the court once ordered his release because the detention order was signed by a civil servant instead of the Minister, as was required.)

Ultimately, this is again another exercise where Singapore is embarrassed (EDB and STB can do all the branding and marketing campaigns they want, but actions speak louder than words and incidents like this shout things out loud), with very little real effect. Well, I should correct myself -- maybe this incident has had a net positive effect. After all, the film is still available and has received a lot of free publicity, and the spotlight has been cast yet again on the dangers of censorship.

Guest piece on Blogtv.sg: Speaker's Corner CCTV cameras

This was published on Blogtv.sg earlier today. They asked if I was willing to write something on this, and I obliged. It was an easy decision -- the absurdity of the situation lends itself to criticism.

“It was quite ridiculous” – Ex NMP Siew Kum Hong Speaks About Speaker’s Corner CCTV Cameras

Posted at 9:44 am under Uncategorized

I came to know about the installation of CCTV cameras at Speaker’s Corner on Facebook, when I saw it in my newsfeed. My immediate thought was: “what the…!”

Singapore has always struggled with an image problem, in that it is seen as a very tightly controlled society, by both Singaporeans and foreigners. When Speaker’s Corner was first launched in 2000, that was seen as a step forward (albeit a baby step) in terms of expanding the space for public discourse in Singapore. And the Prime Minister’s announcement last year that the regulations governing Speaker’s Corner would be relaxed was also welcomed by most as another baby step forward.

So the installation of CCTV cameras would seem to be a significant step backwards. The practical effect is that they may well deter people from speaking or demonstrating at Speaker’s Corner, or to even show up to attend events, for fear of being captured and somehow “marked”.

It does not help that the explanations proffered by the police to date have been unconvincing, to say the least. In response to queries from TODAY and The Online Citizen, the police stated that “CCTVs are used to complement Police presence on the ground and to project a greater sense of security. … As part of an on-going initiative to enhance security in the neighbourhoods, Police have been extending CCTV coverage to other parts of the island. Hong Lim Park is one such area. These CCTVs do not record audio inputs and are installed for safety and security.”

This response begs further questions, all unanswered. Why was Speaker’s Corner selected for the CCTV installation? And why now? After all, it is usually quiet, if not deserted. Have there been any incidents of crime to warrant a “projection” of a greater sense of security? Does not the police post adjacent to Speaker’s Corner already project a strong sense of security? In what way is that inadequate?

When TODAY asked me to comment on this development, I told them that frankly, it was “quite ridiculous”. And I stand by that. We hold Speaker’s Corner up as a sign of how Singapore has opened up, to show that there is room for free speech and a place for demonstrations and protests in Singapore. The Prime Minister even said last year, “So I think there is no need for the police to get involved. … The overall thrust of these changes is to liberalise our society, to widen the space for expression and participation. We encourage more citizens to engage in debate, to participate in building our shared future and we will progressively open up our system even more. …”

And then we go and install surveillance cameras. How do you reconcile that most striking symbol of a police state, with the goal of free speech and liberalisation?

My own suspicion is that the cameras were installed in advance of the upcoming APEC meeting in Singapore. During the IMF-World Bank meeting in Singapore in 2006, there was a public protest at Speaker’s Corner, as well as an attempt to march to the venue of the meeting. The film Speakers Cornered captured the events of that day. I can only surmise that the CCTV cameras are in anticipation of similar incidents. But at what cost to Singapore?

Siew Kum Hong is a former Nominated Member of Parliament (2007-2009), and currently an aspiring civil society activist. While in Parliament, he spoke on a number of issues including ministerial salaries and civil liberties, and he also submitted to Parliament a citizens’ petition bearing over 2000 signatures calling for the repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code in October 2007. He was also involved in the recent events at the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE).

Links for the day

A couple of quick links for the day:

• text of the valedictorian speech by Loo Zihan, which was covered by today's ST


• video of the valedictorian speech:


• moving tribute to Anthony Yeo (RIP)

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.

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?"