We also have an article by Romen Bose on the subject. It should serve as a good guide to understanding the context of this discussion.

I will assume that everyone here speaks in their personal capacity unless explicitly stated otherwise. I hope this will make it more informal as well as constructive without people having to worry that they have no authority to represent their place of work. Everything said here will be archived in a web site, unless the speaker requests otherwise. To participate, simply reply to a post and it should automatically be sent to the distribution list which is at [email protected].

Koh Thong Wei from Oxford University will be your host as well as webmaster.

Let's start the ball rolling!

Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 03:37:33 +0800 From: [email protected] (Jek Kian Jin)

Chong Kee, Marvin and I are NOT from PI - we're from Information Frontiers and Sembawang Media respectively. PI is a separate ISP company. Although SM has a stake in PI, we are not PI, and we cannot claim to speak for it. In fact, ISPs should remain neutral in this dialogue because they only offer a service, and do not attach any value judgements on the content or use of the service.

In fact, we would prefer it if we both represent ourselves, as we may not always speak for the companies we are employed by.

BTW, you should include in your list Jimmy Yap, journalist from the Straits Times, [email protected]

Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 16:14:15 +-800 From: Stephanie Sim

Jek it is interesting that you should say that ISPs have no opinions on the matter. Only the other day when i was asked what people thought about the regulations (the day after it was announced) by minister and I told him I don't know what people thought but that as far as I saw it, it was unenforceable and thus an instrument of repression (because laws which cannot be enforced fairly are by enforced arbitrarily, subjectively and therefore selectively and can be repressive), a member of sba told me that they had spoken to the service providers who were very happy and comfortable with the regulations. This made minister very happy -- I don't know why since sba or service providers can hardly constitute everyone.

But that aside, I think that the regulations are too subjective as it stands (what does person of standing mean?) and as I see it and as I said, cannot be enforced fairly due to the nature of the net (its sheer size). Sure we can have laws, but let's make them reasonable. Already the netter who I've spoken to talk about the absurdity of the government's stance and how it has come to appear as a laughing stock in the internet. It would seem to people that one year after the launch of infomap the government is no closer to understanding the creature called the net.

So, because it cannot be enforced, it therefore becomes an instrument of repression, being carried out as and when the government sees fit along lines which cannot be dictated. Instead of looking towards education to inculcate human virtues such as independent thought, analysis or offering alternatives they decide to repress the net. They have repressed printed and video pornography for as long as we can remember -- and yet have their attitudes towards women changed? (just two days ago lee hsien loong tells the house that the man is the head of the household, ie this is a patriarchal society.) has the demand for pornography lessened? I don't think so. The number of men I have had come up to me at internet demos to ask me to show them porno sites rate more than a few. Do they not understand that in this context alone a policy like censorship has failed when it is not accompanied by education? That is educating people into seeing why violence is not a solution (note that violence towards women -- molest and rape -- has gone up in the past year), that pornography is demeaning in the context of our society because it degrades another human being -- if they are worried about political broadcasts, what is there to fear if the people are mature enough to make their choices and if the government does its job. The people are not stupid you know -- they will know a good horse when they see one.

Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 09:36:02 +-800 From: KOH Su Haw

Dear Stephanie,

Amongst the many points you made in your post, I would like to deal with only the following :

> ... I think that the regulations are too subjective as it stands
> (what does person of standing mean?) and as I see it and as I said, cannot
> be enforced fairly due to the nature of the net (its sheer size). Sure we
> can have laws, but let's make them reasonable. Already the netter who I've
> spoken to talk about the absurdity of the government's stance and how it has
> come to appear as a laughing stock in the internet. It would seem to people
> that one year after the launch of infomap the government is no closer to
> understanding the creature called the net. ...

Perhaps we should be clear about what the Govt is trying to "enforce". As far as I can see, the Govt has no intention of acting on the millions of Internet users worldwide, nor does it even contemplate exerting any perceived authority over the countless www content providers.

The focus appear to be much more manageable : the local ISPs (namely SingNet, PacNet and Cyberway) and the local www content providers. Furthermore, it has simplified sba's task to allow individual content providers to be "deemed registered", saving the paperwork for the thousands of individual web authors and requiring redtape for only the selected few identified in its appendices : the ten or so religious and political organisations which have web presence.

Thus, IMHO, we should not use a broad brush and treat the massive Internet as one humongous unmanageable entity, but rather, we should deal with the precision instrument that the sba actually is. Furthermore, I would venture to state my opinion that with a sharp focus of dealing with only a few people/organisations, the sba can be much more effective than initially thought.

Granted that there will still be many parts of the Internet that will slip through the proposed legislation, but the overall impact of what the Govt considers undesirable will be very much reduced. Take for example the s.c.s. discussions. That is one forum which cannot, IMO, be 'controlled' and will evade the sba. But then, how effective is the s.c.s. ? Many get turned off by the level of noise in that forum.

In conclusion, I urge everyone not to underestimate the careful thought that went behind BG George Yeo's policy statement. The Govt is certainly aware of the fact that they cannot regulate the whole Internet, but they have identified certain key nodes which they have tasked sba to monitor and 'regulate'.

The key question then, IMHO, is what the sba should be regulating on and to what extent.

Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 18:16:35 +-800 From: Stephanie Sim

>regulating on and to what extent.

Of course this is the issue. This has always been the issue -- but I think that we have sort of jumped too far ahead (I was guilty of this as well) and backtrack a little. The question of course being must we even regulate our little corner of the net, why should we do it and is it productive doing so?

Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 17:29:31 +-800 From: Tan Chong Kee

>In fact, we would prefer it if we both represent ourselves, as we may not
>always speak for the companies we are employed by.

Absolutely, that's what this list is for. I did say so in the intro, but I guess I should make it clearer. The point of this list is not for anyone to represent any official position. My personal hope is that it will help us all to better able to understand the diverse issues of Internet regulation. Through such exchanges, we might even find that it is possible to build a relationship of mutual cooperation between the regulators, service providers and users.

Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 18:43:54 +-800 From: Tan Chong Kee

>It is important to differentiate between infrastructure and content
>providers. Infrastructure providers are licensed by TAS and content
>providers by SBA. This is in theory, but in principle the lines are not so
>finely drawn.

It seems to me that at the moment, the sba proposal does not recognise such a line. As far as I can tell, the only way foreign web with content directed to Singaporean audience can be made to register is by threats of being blocked (the same mechanism as the gazetting of print media). The government will have to ask all the ISPs to carry out this blocking in unison. If that is the case, ISPs are no longer simply neutral infrastructure. They will have to actively edit/censor the content they provide and the government will in large part determine their editing policy. In contrast, Telecoms cannot screen and block calls based on content.

If we want to preserve the principle of differentiation between infrastructure and content providers, we will have to be careful when we write the law so that such a principle will not become compromised.

On the other hand, if we want to follow the US example and withdraw common carrier status from ISPs, the price to pay might well be ISP neutrality.

Yes, let's backtrack a step or two.

We can tackle the issues from a couple of angles. From my point of view, the questions that I have are those pertaining to pornography and political broadcast as separate issues (both were mentioned in the SBA press release) then finally the enforceability of the proposed regulations.

Firstly, pornography.

The most basic question is, why is our country repressing pornography? I think we need to bear this in mind since the underlying premise will govern the way in which the authorities will want to deal with pornography on the Net and what "problems" it thinks it is solving in doing so. (ability to is another matter altogether)

I believe the reason for making pornography illegal was never driven by MacDworkinite-like because-it's-anti-women rhetoric, instead it was driven by because-it-will-corrupt-society's-morals type of arguments. So the measurement of the success of current real world regulations against pornography must then be how good is Singapore society's morals today? A very difficult variable to measure as I am sure you will agree.

In trying to introduce these regulations to the Internet, I think we somehow get the wrong idea that the Internet is an unmanageable free for all that does not resemble the real world that we reside in. Not entirely true, it could just be a lot more honest - for the moment.

Our society may have banned pornography but citizens can still get hold of banned publications, tapes and what have yous if they wanted to. Current censorship in the much easier to deal with physical world is also imperfect, I come across sleazy Chinese "entertainment" mags in the shops that I find far more offensive than any centrefold from Playboy (offensive being the other argument agst porn besides the "morally corrupt" one) . The question of how to define anythg as pornographic aside, I just like to point out that I think our society deals with pornography in a curiously hypocritical way, openly proud of our efforts at combating pornography but secretly passing along to frens any tapes we come across.

Will any attempt to regulate access to pornography on the Net suffer the same fate? I very much think so. Are we trying to come up with regulations on pornography on the Internet just for the sake of making it consistent with current regulation over traditional media or are we really trying to tackle the "problem" of pornography?

It seems to me to be the former, make an official harsh stand never mind it will be in effect, ineffective.

Where pornography is considered a "problem" then I agree with Stephanie that the cure must surely be the much harder and less exact science of education, not regulation.

Another point which I think may relate more to pornography than political broadcast is that the main beneficiary of these proposed regulations are supposed to be our children. If it is our children that we are concerned about then I think the responsibility for them (the children) rest with their parents, not the SBA. All the more since surfing the Net for children is likely to be a home activity (or a school one) for most of them.

I have frens who install control software at home coz they have young children who surfs the Net. Ineffective as they realised it is, they use it as an easy cure. Because in these environments, the adults function as the children's guardians. It is up to them to decide in the environment they provide, what is acceptable, what is not and because they are responsible for the kids, it is really up to them to make the decisions.

I think children will derive much more benefit out of having Internet access when the adults around them proactively engages the new medium with them.

Don't use regulation like a blunt instrument when it should be each parent exercising their individual choice and making decisions abt their own children.

Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 20:52:44 +-800 From: Wynthia

>It is important to differentiate between infrastructure and content
>providers. Infrastructure providers are licensed by TAS and content
>providers by SBA. This is in theory, but in principle the lines are not so
>finely drawn.

The question is, should that line be clearly drawn? I would say yes and any attempt to blur those lines or force the ISPs to be responsible for content is wrong.

Like Jek said, ISPs are licensed by TAS to provide the infrastructure for Internet access. But if the proposed regulations by SBA were passed into law, content developers will be licensed by SBA. SBA will issue a class licence for all content developers and then charge the ISPs with the task of regulating the content developers' content. What is the relationship between SBA, the content developers which SBA licensed and the Internet service providers?

ISPs do not edit web content even though they may block out websites. I dont think ISPs are well-positioned to be tasked with the responsibility of deciding what content is objectionable or not.

Surely since SBA licensed the content developers, it should be up to SBA to enforce its licensing policies, just as TAS enforces its policies directly on the ISPs. The important diff is of coz TAS need only hound after three licensees while SBA has a potentially limitless pool from which to monitor. Even so, the sheer difficulty of enforcing SBA's licensing policies dont necessarily make it the ISPs' responsibility.

This is equivalent to MITA holding the publisher responsible for what is she is licensed to publish but not the paper company that manufactures paper or the company that supplied the ink. The association is too remote.

If the question is whether we want to end the ISPs' current remote relationship with web content development then I would again say we should not. ISP neutrality will allow the ISPs to concentrate on what they do best ie building up Internet infrastructure and promoting access. Content is the other half of the Internet equation and that is handled and promoted by content developers themselves. It will be inefficient for ISPs to try to control content as well. Overall, such a move will retard the growth of the Internet in Singapore and backfire the original aims of the authorities.

Imagine if the orgns which lay the roads and sell you the cars should have to be responsible for what sticker you put on your car window cos another motorist passing by can see it. The roads will not be laid as fast, the rate at which cars are sold will be slower, all becoz these orgns have to expend not an insignificant part of their resources tracking what stickers are on which car window after it has been sold. If individuals are excused then just think of those cars with Q plates.

How likely will a scenario arise where to save themselves the trouble, these orgns may decide not to sell cars to entities that they think is going to require more monitoring? Who are they to decide who should own a car and who should not? They have only been licensed to sell cars nothing more and certainly not to selectively bestow cars the way they see fit.

Can that happen?

Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 21:09:29 +-800 From: Wynthia

Oops, Made a blunder in the first post there.

Under the proposed changes to the regulatory structure, ISPs will come under SBA for being "broadcasters". So question I posted earlier abt the relationship between SBA, the content providers and the ISPs would not be relevant assuming the framework is so restructured.

Another that comes to mind though is are the ISPs "broadcasters" or are they just the conduit a la telephone services?

Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 13:01:00 +-800 From: Gerard M. C. Lim

I believe the govt's stand is that the Web/Internet is a broadcast medium. The use of this media, either in a private or official capacity, allows one to effectively broadcast to millions. As such, it would be a logical step to bring this broadcast medium in line with all others that exist and reach Singapore. Legislation of Internet usage and services cannot be seen as some radical move by the govt, given the clear logic and precedence of broadcast legislation in Singapore.

If the key issue, as far as the govt is concerned, is accountability, then fine (no pun). Afterall, one can get away with murder on the Internet. As such, accountability (ISPs, site hosts, etc) does provide some measure of protection for society and individuals.

The big concern then is, of course, where do we draw the line between what is permissible and what is not. The rules must be made very clear, if not, then legislation can turn into repression and political abuse. Censorship must also be rationalised as much as possible, for at the end of the day, all censorship is subjective.

Thus, for my perspective, Internet accountability is good, as long as the guidelines are clear, fair and in the spirit of responsibility. Censorship is more tricky. Once again, only the govt can finally call the shots on this. However, once censorship or legislation goes overboard (eg. blocking access to sites commenting on Singapore politics), there must be a natural response from internet community. What good this will do, is another matter altogether.

Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 07:56:08 +-800 From: Tan Chong Kee

>Censorship
>is more tricky. Once again, only the govt can finally call the shots on
>this.

A possible solution to this censorship problem is for the government to help with the existing system of user self regulation. It can establish a watch dog body consisting of ISP, law, administrator and user reps that does not actively censor but instead, investigate complaints from users of Internet abuses and recommend appropriate action. That way, the government need not tread in the muddy water of trying to censor content while Singaporeans need not fall back into the habit of abdicating all responsibilities to the government.

Such a form of regulation might well be more effective since it spreads the work load to all users. It could also be more acceptable to users since it can be regarded as helping with their effort to regulate the net rather than the present proposal which is regarded by many as an outside imposition.

Naturally, many details such as how to appoint, how to prevent abuse etc need to be worked out, but what do people think of this in principle?

Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 20:41:53 +-800 From: Chang Li Lin

>A possible solution to this censorship problem is for the government to
>help with the existing system of user self regulation. It can establish
>a watch dog body consisting of ISP, law, administrator and user reps that
>does not actively censor but instead, investigate complaints from users
>of Internet abuses and recommend appropriate action. That way, the
>government need not tread in the muddy water of trying to censor content while
>Singaporeans need not fall back into the habit of abdicating all
>responsibilities to the government.

Such a form of regulation might well be more effective since it spreads the work load to all users. It could also be more acceptable to users since it can be regarded as helping with their effort to regulate the net rather than the present proposal which is regarded by many as an outside imposition.

Naturally, many details such as how to appoint, how to prevent abuse etc need to be worked out, but what do people think of this in principle?

I agree with CK. As Wyn mentioned in her post, we cannot wait for the government to do everything when it pertains to what the parents have to decide for themselves. What standards will the watchdog body be following, so as to ascertain whether the "compliant" is "real". I know there are a lot a details to be fleshed out in this proposal, but I was wondering is it possible / necessary that the ombudsman put together some code of conduct or recommended best practice kind of deal, some form of guidelines for relevant bodies.

Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 12:39:54 +-800 From: KOH Su Haw

I refer to the various posts by Gerard, CK, Li Lin and Wynthia on the subject of defining what content should be regulated on the Internet. In particular, I draw reference to the following short quotes :

"where do we draw the line between what is permissible and what is not" - Gerard.

"A possible solution to this censorship problem is for the government to help with the existing system of user self regulation" - CK.

"is it possible / necessary that the ombudsman put together some code of conduct or recommended best practice kind of deal, some form of guidelines for relevant bodies" - Li Lin

And the answer, IMHO, is best summed up in Wynthia's following words : "The point then must surely be simply that laws apply. Period."

The line to be drawn between what should and should not be allowed must be the same as the existing laws, legislation and regulations that govern the IRL. Any attempt to apply a different standard should be directed at the actual laws IRL, not those which just directs Govt agencies, such as the sba, to oversee the implementation of laws in different media, such as the internet.

Laws IRL such as Defamation, Sedition, MRH, etc should apply likewise to the Internet. As such, broadcasting regulations and standards of decency etc should also apply to the Internet.

On the converse, I would also venture that there should not be legislation to apply a standard on the Internet any different from that which applies IRL. Standards of decency, defamation, sedition etc should be the same, in whichever medium they are conveyed. The Internet is just another medium of communication, nothing more and nothing less.

> When i think of the objective as being accountable to the law (correct me if
> I am wrong in this assumption), then I can only conclude that the ISPs play
> a role more similar to the telecoms service operator that allows you to
> communicate to others electronically where the services they provide are the
> conduit for broadcasting/communication rather than the owner or editor of
> the broadcast.

While I agree with that ISPs cannot be held to the standard of accountability as that of the owner/editor of the broadcast, their role is also not simply a conduit. I think the ISPs is more akin to a printer which has no control over the content of what is printed but is still able to stop the printing of anything that is clearly illegal. Just as a printer would not print and distribute pornographic publications, the ISPs have chosen not to carry certain usenet newsgroups. Although the ISPs control is not fool-proof, they still retain some control in instances which are clear-cut in nature.

> Let us also be mindful of how fast the Internet changes. In a couple of
> months, we can reasonably expect the notion of what constitutes "web
> content" to be challenged as IRC services and Usenet-like Forums begin to be
> integrated into the Web as well. Further, if any communication of
> information is driven by programs that use a Web page itself as a medium,
> then would such information constitute web content?
>
> I am very concerned of over-legislating the Internet when such legislation
> are not even deem necessary IRL and having legislation that cannot keep up
> with the fast pace of technological change.

I suppose that is where the sba comes in. Because of the revolutionary nature of the Internet, it becomes imperative for the Govt to assign an agency such as the sba the full-time task of monitoring advances on the Internet and propose guidelines on how to enforce RL laws on the Internet.

> For me, legislation regarding the Internet is not that radical but
> attempting to license content is.

I am not sure as to the import of the above statement. The policy statement clearly states that the sba is there to license the content-providers, just as publishers, printers and broadcasters are currently licensed. Nowhere is there any mention of specific licensing of content.

Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 22:31:46 +-800 From: Tan Chade Meng

The policy statement betrays a profound lack of understanding of communications in general and the Internet in particular. Take for example the minister's explanation that he is targeting only webpages "of a broadcast nature" and NOT webpages "for [individual] communications purposes".

Anybody with the most basic knowledge of the web would know that ALL webpages are "of a broadcast nature". A website on the net is accessible by anybody on the net. If 11 million users choose to access a page, it is "broadcast" to 11 million people. How do you distinguish between a webpage "of a broadcast nature" and one that is not? Basically, you can't. If you do try to make the distinction, it must certainly be totally arbitrary, subjective and meaningless.

(There are those who argue that webpages are not "broadcast medium", but more like items in a bookstore, since the user has a total choice of what she wants to access. If this argument holds, then it must again apply to ALL webpages. ALL webpages must then not be "of a broadcast nature". Here again, it is meaningless to try to say some webpages are "of a broadcast nature" and others are not.)

The policy-makers' ignorance is also betrayed in trying to distinguish whether a website is "local" or "foreign". Every first-time web user knows that accessing pages on foreign sites is as easy as accessing them on a local site (except a little slower). This makes it meaningless to distinguish between "local" and "foreign" sites. Every net-surfer takes this fact for granted. It requires a profound magnitude of ignorance to ignore this fact.

Official Ignorance is really just a minor concern. A major concern, as Steph rightly pointed out, is that the policy statement, when it becomes law, gives the authorities a blank cheque for abuse and harassment.

The policy statement requires all local sites "carrying religious and political content" to be "licensed". It requires "foreign electronic newspapers with Singapore subscribers" to "register". It also puts a limit on who can run the sites ("people of standing", whatever that means) and there must be an "editorial board". The government would also "like to know the people" running the webpages. The authorities would also wish to screen out "objectionable materials".

The problem is that the grey areas are large enough for whole planets to sit on.

What constitutes sites "of a broadcast nature"? Since there is absolute no way this can be objectively determined, does this give the Bureaucrats And Politicians In Power (BAPIPs) the power of subjective and arbitrary control? If so, how does the law ensure that BAPIPs would not use this power for the benefit of their own egos and political agendas? Can this subjective power be used for harassment?

If we say we are only going to control "local" sources (that is, if the local/foreign distinction was meaningful in the 1st place), what constitutes a "local" or "foreign" source? If we say that all webpages residing in S'pore are "local" and the rest are not, what if I relocate my website to an US-based server? Is my site now "local" or "foreign"? If we then define "local source" as sites carrying information coming from persons physically residing in Singapore, then if "Wired!" carries quotations from George Yeo or LKY, does it make "Wired!" a "local source"? When I give authors of overseas webpages permission to use my pixmaps and quote my poems, does that make their pages a "local source"? Is SEF, with editors both within and without Singapore, "local"? Is it possible for BAPIPs to play with this grey area to screen out information not necessarily flattering of them?

What constitutes "religious" and "political" material? If, in my website, I describe how happy I am after I found Christ/Buddha, does that constitute "religious" material? If I explain WHY I'm happy after I found Christ/Buddha by explaining how the teachings changed my life, is that "religious" material? If I say I found happiness after I stopped believing in Christ/Buddha, is that "religious" material? If in every webpage, I end with the words, "May all be well and happy" (the standard Buddhist greeting) or "God Bless", is that "religious"? If, in my website, I make an off-hand remark that the govt is not doing enough to improve public tpt / help the poor / curb housing hyper-inflation, is that "political"? If I openly agree/disagree with specific govt policies in my webpage, is that "political"? If I put up my thesis of a comparative study of democracy and monarchy, or my thesis explaining what constitutes "good government" (with a small section comparing S'pore govt to my model), is that political? If I discuss the economic situation in Singapore, is that "political"? Worse still, if I write a poem expressing a belief that our Creator intended us to have liberty, is that "political"? Or "religious"? Or both?

One problem is that almost any topic under the sun that has to do with humans can arguably be "political" or "religious". If the above are considered "political" and "religious", when are they "of a broadcast nature" and when are they not? When are they "local" or "foreign"?

More fundamentally, isn't it a basic right for a person to be able to access any information concerning any religious or political thoughts and believes? Who are BAPIPs to decide what we should or should not read?

How do you determine whether a "foreign electronic newspaper" (assuming "foreign" is meaningful in the first place) has "Singapore subscribers"? If a "foreign newspaper" gives free access, like the Straits Times on-line, does that automatically mean that it automatically has "Singapore subscribers" and therefore need to "register"? Can this clause be used to censor "foreign" sites if they disagree with our BAPIPs?

What constitutes "person of standing"? Can an engineer write about his religious experiences as a Buddhist? Surely he's just an engineer, not a monk. Does he then lack "standing" in the religious community? Can Catherine Lim maintain a political website? Well, she's not a politician. Does it mean that she does not have "standing" in the political community? Can SEF editors continue to be SEF editors, since none of them are professional politicians?

Why should we need "Editorial Boards" for religious and political content? (assuming that we were able to clearly define "religious" and "political" content in the first place) Can't individuals talk about religious experiences or political views? Does it now mean, for example, that every article appearing in SEF must be approved by ALL SEF editors before they can appear on the SEF site?

What type of information will the authorities demand from a person "licensing" a website? Can this requirement be used as a tool for harassment? Is it possible that the CID calls you up in the middle of the night to tell you that since yesterday, your site was declared "political/religious" and you haven't "licensed" it, and they would like to have an "informal chat" with you? Or will BAPIPs harass owners of political/religious sites by forcing them to forfeit their rights of privacy?

What constitute "objectionable material"? If I have a "TCS hate page" that finds TCS objectionable, will the SBA find THAT objectionable? If I have a website dedicated to oral hygiene, showing ugly photos of what will happen to your teeth if your don't brush, is that "objectionable"? If my website contains jokes about Clinton or GCT, is that "objectionable"? If my website is dedicated to the promotion of responsible sexual behaviour with people sharing real life experiences, is it "objectionable"? Where should the line be drawn and why should BAPIPs alone be given the power to draw the line?

There are simply too many unanswerable questions, too much grey areas, too much room for abuse by the authorities. It is either that no proper thoughts have been put into this issue by policy makers or it has been carefully calculated to give BAPIPs another blank cheque for abuse while putting up an innocent front of "protecting the people".

Personally, I have total trust in the integrity of our leaders. I prefer to believe that it's not a conspiracy, but a simple case of profound ignorance and carelessness. The same profound carelessness we see in the recent "naked at home" and "nuisance calls" legislation.

With such carelessness and such huge potential for abuse, the policy statement was really anything BUT well thought out.

> The key question then, IMHO, is what the sba should be regulating on
> and to what extent.

I haven't even touched on the key question yet. The key question is WHETHER the new regulations were even necessary in the first place. I am of the opinion that these new regulations are not only carelessly thought out, they are unnecessary & harmful. I'm running out of air time (lunch hour is over). Maybe I'll say something abt it the next time.

Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 10:30:40 +-800 From: Alvin Jiang

>Anybody with the most basic knowledge of the web would know that
>ALL webpages are "of a broadcast nature". A website on the net
>
>(There are those who argue that webpages are not "broadcast medium",
>but more like items in a bookstore, since the user has a total
>choice of what she wants to access. If this argument holds, then
>it must again apply to ALL webpages. ALL webpages must then not
>be "of a broadcast nature". Here again, it is meaningless to try
>to say some webpages are "of a broadcast nature" and others are not.)

I would put web pages as neither, as they are not sent out over the network to everyone much like a television signal is, neither are they just sitting there waiting for someone to come in and browse, but they are sent only UPON REQUEST. Sure, the browser can choose what he wants to read, but the process of sending the pages across could be considered broadcasting... I agree though, that whatever they are, all web pages are the same, they are either all of one type of another, and I think that's the point here...

>If we say we are only going to control "local" sources (that is,
>if the local/foreign distinction was meaningful in the 1st place),
>what constitutes a "local" or "foreign" source? If we say that all
>webpages residing in S'pore are "local" and the rest are not, what if
>I relocate my website to an US-based server? Is my site now "local"
>or "foreign"? If we then define "local source" as sites carrying

[rest of paragraph snipped off]

Don't forget the problem of mirrors. If I mirror a foreign site by foreign editors with their opinions of governments and comparison including Singapore's (or, for that matter, a mirror of a church's/temple's pages) would my copy of the mirror be considered local? Would the original then = be also considered local because there is a copy in Singapore?

[on objectionable sexually explicit material] Supposing "local" was defined as any page physically residing in Singapore (or rather virtually, but as long as the original content is from a Singapore site), and the government decides all this would be subject to gov. censorship. What would happen then? Most likely people will just take their rubbish elsewhere, like to geocities / turnpike / US providers, anywhere foreign that they can show off these pictures. Maybe they can't put their names but so what? There would be even MORE of such content, widely advertised and put up by people who want to rebel against the regulations, and probably ignored by the government (because the content would be "foreign", and in any case without a name they can't do much). Moral education would be much better than simply banning the objectionable, and then having to close an eye to underhand passing of such material. Take for instance chewing gum. The government may have effectively reduced the amount of chewing gum found clogging the MRT doors (I don't know for sure if they did, but if they didn't they cant complain its still a problem because they already banned chewing gum and admitting it would be like admitting banning chewing gum was no use), but on my recent trip to Malaysia I found that the price of chewing gum just across the causeway was double that of further inside Malaysia. And who was buying it? Singaporeans, mostly those in their teens :(, 20s and 30s who wanted to openly oppose the ban or to show their defiance.

My point is, Is simply screening out objectionable material enough? Wouldn't this just create more negative response then actually do good? Will this create "ugly Singaporeans" who, under the eye of the law here behave themselves but go overseas and create a bad image for Singapore?

Another thing also on the issue of censorship. Would making ISPs ensure that subscribers do not abuse the Net eventually cause them to allow web/ftp access only through proxy hosts so they can keep tabs on users? (No, I'm not paranoid; Yes, its not an issue at the moment, but its still food for thought) As it has often been said, there is no foolproof way of controlling the net. So instead of trying to control content why not simply educate users on responsible use of the net and punish the few black sheep who openly slander/publish objectionable material/distribute copyright software?

Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 18:30:56 +-800 From: KOH Su Haw

> Anybody with the most basic knowledge of the web would know that
> ... it is meaningless to try
> to say some webpages are "of a broadcast nature" and others are not.)

Although I would agree that there are many web-pages which lie in a gray area, there are web-pages of a distinctively broadcast nature and there are other which are distinctively not.

For example, the YPAP and NSP web -pages fall into the first category with their aims of reaching out to the general public in Singapore while my personal homepage falls into the latter category of "for [individual] communications purposes" as only people who know me would take the trouble of having a look at my homepage at url: http:///www.singnet.com.sg/~kohsuhaw/

Sure, I hope all the internet users in the world will drop by my homepage and boost my ego, but realistically, I also know that it will not happen. Only friends and acquaintances will be bothered to pop in my web-pages and find out the birth weight of my two-month old baby girl.

As for the gray area in between, that is something which will be worked out as we go along. Like everything else in life, we have to draw lines, for example, between murder and manslaughter, between causing hurt and causing grievous hurt, etc.

Thus, to dismiss any attempt to make the distinction as "totally arbitrary, subjective and meaningless" betrays an irrational bias.

> ... This makes it meaningless to distinguish between
> "local" and "foreign" sites...

On the contrary. IRL, we know that newspapers and magazines go all over the world. In Singapore, we have access to most of the major publications of the world. However, as experience shows, I prefer to rely on local publications for information and news on the local scene, as opposed the world renown newspapers like IHT, NY Times, etc. I would also prefer reading Asiaweek and Far Eastern Economic Review on regional analyses than the more established TIME and Newsweek magazines.

So, in the Internet world, I would give more credibility to news reports and analyses enamating from web-sites 'on the scene' than those half a world away.

> ... the policy statement, when

I hate to tell you this, but when the population elects the PAP with more than 2/3 majority in Parliament at every GE, the PAP is given the same blank cheque to do practically anything it wants.

However, this policy statement does not do anything close to that for the very simple reason that it has no content, merely procedural points. The sba, although tasked to oversee the Internet is only to do so within the existing laws. It cannot declare anything illegal if such is not already illegal under normal non-Internet laws. It is by no means a blank cheque.

To help illustrate my point above, think of the sba like the police enforcing the penal code. Unless you have committed a crime, no policeman can arrest you. Similarly, the sba cannot prevent you from doing anything unless you have contravened a law of some sort.

> The policy statement requires all local sites "carrying religious and
> political content" to be "licensed". It requires "foreign
> electronic newspapers with Singapore subscribers" to "register".
> It also puts a limit on who can run the sites ("people of
> standing", whatever that means) and there must be an "editorial
> board". The government would also "like to know the people"
> running the webpages. The authorities would also
> wish to screen out "objectionable materials".

Correction : the requirement is for all religious and political organisations, not all local sites. The focus is on the publishers, not the actual content. As for the editorial board, this is a standard requirement for all publications when applying for a publishing permit with MITA. Why should the newspaper and magazine publishers be subject to one standard and web-publishers to another ?

You have also listed a whole lot of questions in the later part of your e-mail. As many of the questions are dependent on a whole host of assumptions which may or may not be shared by everyone in this discussion group, perhaps we should defer them and discuss one issue at a time.

Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 09:46:08 -0800 (PST) From: Wynthia Goh

>I believe the govt's stand is that the Web/Internet is a broadcast medium.

I think we can consider Internet services to be like Telecoms services or we can consider them to be like a broadcast medium. The Internet certainly shows characteristics of both and that is perhaps one of the dilemmas the authorities must face in trying to fit the Net into existing regulations. How to fit a square peg into a round hole?

Is the stand that the Internet is a broadcast medium an accurate one? Is that stand negotiable? Is there a better way to recognise the Internet both for its broadcasting nature as well as its telecoms characteristics. Will try to explain the importance of that (imptce of tt to me at least) in a minute.

Where the Internet is considered to be a broadcasting medium... I refer back to the SBA press statement, I quote

Content Providers of A Broadcast Nature All local content providers (except for individual users acting in their personal capacity) will be deemed to be licensed and required to abide by SBA's guidelines on objectionable content.

This concern with the broadcasting nature of the Internet seems to be confined to the Web at this instance and so I shall confined my mail to only the Web. If that is so, then I would like to point out that the term "content providers of a broadcast nature" is very odd. Since all web pages are accessible through the WWW and in that sense "broadcasting" then by extension, all web pages are of a broadcast nature irregardless of whether the pages are hosted under a personal or an orgn's web account.

I am certainly not suggesting that therefore all personal homepages should be licensed by SBA as well! (-8 Rather, I just thot to point out that it is inaccurate to consider only orgns as providing content of a broadcast nature. Individuals can broadcast just as effectively as both entities can make the same full use of the Internet as a broadcast medium.

The SBA's proposed regulations on licensing content are meant to bring home the fact that laws like the Penal Code, Defamation Act, Sedition Act and Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act apply to content published on the Net. Fair. But surely that really means it applies to one and all, from the individual to the orgn on the Net as it does in real life now.

If a person stands in the streets and make defamatory remarks against say one of our ministers, is that person liable under the Defamation Act? Would the person's liability under the law change whether he said it at a meeting in a closed room or on a web page? I am unfamiliar with the above mentioned Acts and would be glad if the legal eagles on this panel can kindly enlighten me.

While waiting for some light on that, I will venture further to just say this. If under all these scenarios, the person may still be liable for any potentially defamatory remarks he made, then if a person under the real life situations are not required to be licensed to speak then why does he need a license to do so on the Net?

I am not making any distinction between a "person" and an "orgn" on the Net here as I consider both entities as capable of broadcasting as I have mentioned above.

The point then must surely be simply that laws apply. Period. And if that Is the point then can that point be best served by introducing licensing on the Net? Why are orgns penalised to make a point meant for every web publisher individual or otherwise. IRL, pp are motivated by the respect for the law and the fear of the consequences of breaking the law, likewise that is what we can/should promote. I dont see how what can become what I would call showcase licensing of selected websites serve the objective of extending into cyberspace respect for our laws.

I agree that for the Internet to move into the mainstream and mature enough to instill confidence in it to handle commercial transactions and such, it needs to have the support of a legal framework and users need to be assured that they are as protected by law when they are on the Net. I consider such accountability good too but that responsibility (to the law of the land) should rest with the individual. Why should we treat activities on the Net any different from activities IRL?

When i think of the objective as being accountable to the law (correct me if I am wrong in this assumption), then I can only conclude that the ISPs play a role more similar to the telecoms service operator that allows you to communicate to others electronically where the services they provide are the conduit for broadcasting/communication rather than the owner or editor of the broadcast.

Let us also be mindful of how fast the Internet changes. In a couple of months, we can reasonably expect the notion of what constitutes "web content" to be challenged as IRC services and Usenet-like Forums begin to be integrated into the Web as well. Further, if any communication of information is driven by programs that use a Web page itself as a medium, then would such information constitute web content?

I am very concerned of over-legislating the Internet when such legislation are not even deem necessary IRL and having legislation that cannot keep up with the fast pace of technological change.

For me, legislation regarding the Internet is not that radical but attempting to license content is.

One last thing. A person or a political party currently need not be licensed to speak or publish any remark, opinion and such but the invisible weight of the law nevertheless applies. Somethg they will know when they breached the law and is sued. Hence the task of being law-abiding rest on their shoulders and they have to make their own judgement on what is within the law and what is not. Essentially, everyone self-regulates their activities to keep within the law. Is that not a more practical, effective and fairer solution?

Date: Monday, March 18, 1996 10:34 PM From: Gerard M. C. Lim

Technically, there is no difference between a website set up for broadcasting (a la the YPAP's and NSP's) or "personal communication" (like Su Haw's announcing his bundle of joy). Access to all these sites is similar - anyone who cares to can. I would see websites as notes on a very large bulletin board - up there for the world to read, if they can find it amongst all the other note pads.

Whether the intention is broadcasting (YPAP to all) or narrowcasting (Su Haw to friends), the process is similar and share the possibility of a similar net result - been read by lots of people. (And with a distribution much faster than a book left on a shelf!) From my limited perspective, I would say that it is "content" that the government is ultimately going after. Whether or not the government has got its Cyber definitions or understanding right or not seems to be secondary.

It is clear that censorship (blocking site access) and legislation (registration and regulation) are sanctioned to achieve the purpose of preventing or pre-empting unwanted (by the BAPIPs) content from reaching Singaporeans. I cannot imagine the BAPIPs of Singapore being hung up on processes. It has always been the end result that matters. The control and command of our collective destiny. (Which is often seen as the responsibility of the legitimate government.)

Of course, to legislate individual users as publishers like organisations would effectively kill Singapore's presence on the Web. On the other hand, I dare say there may come a day when the government will clamp down on individual users for their content dissemination. I cannot imagine a continuous devolution of publishing and broadcasting power to the masses. Organisations are targeted first because they ARE organised and have more potential for mobilisation of thought and action. And organisations do have an aura of legitimacy and purpose.

The government, if gracious enough, can clearly define censorship guidelines so that grey areas are pre-empted or minimised. Even if we object to their definitions of the sacred and taboo, at least we know where we stand. Legislation on ISP and Website accountability should be similarly clear. The less sinister the takeout from official rules and regulations, the more easy will it be for Singaporeans to accept the inevitability of BAPIP control of our little corner of CyberWorld.

Date: Tue, 19 Mar 96 10:50:19 est From: Stephanie Sim

I agree with su yin on the points of porn not affecting those who don't chose to have it affect them. Those people who are affected by porn are those who choose to turn into porn. Occasionally children get into those sites -- when the hit rate comes down -- normally they are so oversubscribed that no one gets in -- and so what if they do anyway? Does deprivation consist of education? I also notice that singaporeans who go overseas where there is porn readily available go pretty nuts about it. They have not built up a revulsion about it but rather a fascination -- which is understandable. they are merely playing out a need to satiate their curiosity.

If we think that pornography is bad let's tell them WHY we think that its bad. Till today I have not heard a single coherent argument about why porn -- nevermind what is porn -- is banned.

Just for arguments sake -- let's say some people say it degrades women and we think that degrading women is bad. Very good. Then if we ban porn, we take care of this attitude. But do we? We ban pron and at the same time say that men are heads of households and that we live in a patriarchal society. And because there is no porn we don't have rape or molest in singapore. There is no wife-abuse, no child-abuse, men here don't visit brothels and men here don't secretly purchase porn tapes to circulate it at army and police camps. Of course not.

You see how futile this argument is? If porn is a problem, then we should educate people into why it is a problem. This may require the use of pornographic material.

Deprivation is not education -- how can we ever progress if we continue to keep our national psyche at this level of perpetual siege. And can we continue like this? We will constantly idle at a boiling point. Sure, we take care of the internet now, but what happens tomorrow when a new technology comes in and makes it possible for people to once again receive banned information. We need real discussions, not knee jerk reactions.

Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 21:56:05 +0800 From: Rajesh Sreenivasan

>No regulations? Some regulations, or as much regulation as is possible?
>This is the spectrum upon which discussion should be based.

I think that there are several other crucial issues as well. But first a point about focus.

Please note first of all that the regulations are not just going to disappear. So IMHO, forget about "no regulation whatsoever issues" as that is a non-starter. Discussions on the nobility of non-regulation (which I personally do not subscribe to) however virtuous (and they are) will not advance the productive level of discussion on this group.

I think such a realisation will set a more realistic scope for the discussion in this group. Face it - rules are here to stay, No one wants to say it but it has to be said. The questions is only what will be its scope and how should it be enforced.

BTW, I'm am not setting an agenda here. I realise no one in this group can do this, so please note this is all just my humble opinion :).

(BTW, to add to the list of countries with regulations for censoring the net....add South Korea - "Committee for Ethics and in Telecommunications" which has been up for about a year. This committee identifies sites with "objectionable material" and sends an updated list to the ISP's regularly to block such sites from public access. I will be getting more info. soon on the makeup of this committee and the means used by them to decide what is "objectionable". Will keep you guys posted. Initial feelers indicate that the powers are quite sparingly applied....a similar approach will be adopted in Singapore...I hope.)

Like it or not our govt. does not back-pedal . So personally I don't see the need to dwell on anti-regulation talk. There is no doubting the virtue of the arguments raised by many of you, but it has no place in practice. The net will be regulated. We should aim to make sure that the focus is right.

Having said this I hope the discussions in this group will focus on the more important issue of how the proposed laws should be enforced and on the following:-

(1) What would constitute "objectionable material"?
Lets have some OB markers from you guys.
(2) Who is to decide what is "objectionable material"?
In my earlier postings I have already stated the legal problems with having ISP's do this or even just being involved in the process.
(3) What would constitute "reasonable measures" to be taken by ISP???
Netnanny for all for free....setting up avenues for public to complain about "objectionable sites"....regulations on what can be put in a homepage.....(Just some of the issues raised by some , myself included. Personally I feel that the subordinate legislation to complement the new laws should have explicit rules which can be applied by all ISP's uniformly...(again thereby distancing ISp's from direct involvement). I expect this to be the approach.
(4) What is a "content provider" ?
All homepages ??? Just those sites with mass appeal...or aimed expressly at public consumption on the sensitive issues of politics, race and religion(which I feel is the right focus).
(5) In what ways can one become a "content provider" who pedals "objectionable material??
By putting such material on your page By adding links to your page to sites with such material.... Where to draw the line?

The above I feel are only SOME of the pertinent issues that the legislators in Singapore will have to come to grapple with shortly.

Whether or not there should be a law at all is not one of the considerations anymore. That has already been decided :(. BTW, I do realise tht many of the issues above have already been discussed, but I feel that perhaps with a concerted effort from all the different pple with different perspectives here..things would be a little clearer. Self-contradictory...you decide?

Date: Tue, 19 Mar 96 08:37:45 est From: Stephanie Sim

>The government, if gracious enough, can clearly define censorship
>guidelines so that grey areas are pre-empted or minimised

I think that it is not a question of graciousness which they must drawn up these guidelines -- its a question of fairness and integrity. Lines must be drawn up or else subjective rules will result in arbitrary decisions which as i have already said will become tools for repression and oppression.

And even as we speak, who really gets to read the Internet, who really cares? The majority of Singapore's population are not very interested in the net and can barely hold an English sentence together. The truly exploited and discriminated eg lower-income women, mothers, have no access to the net and even if they did what could they do about it. The only people who have been really interested in the net are Singaporean Upper/Middle-Class Males -- which is not a bad thing. But the overreaching powers of the net i think have been seriously overestimated.

Which in a way is a good thing, because we still have time to educate people into responsible behaviour, instead of just establishing a blunt cordon sanitare around the body and using the brute force law keep people in line. what kind of minds will we be building if this sort of mentality continues. And more than that, can our society exist like this for the rest of our natural history?

Date: Tue, 19 Mar 96 08:01:11 est From: Stephanie Sim

Personal vs Public Homepages
This supposed difference is superficial. Who looks at your page or should your page be deemed objectionable is determined by the content you put up -- not what you call it. What do you call links to Marxism and Anarchy on a personal homepage? The Internet differs greatly from traditional printed and broadcast material because previously it was illegal to distribute unlicensed material and therefore easier to control. It was also not as easy to send out anything you wanted eg which person in his/her right mind would stand on the street corner to distribute stuff about their baby's weight? In other words the dissemination of information -- nevermind what kind of information -- was more difficult. Enter the Internet -- cyberjunk all over the place.

There is therefore no such thing as personal vs public or broadcast vs narrowcast. The point which we are trying to make is not that lines can (note CAN, not MUST) be drawn but where it is drawn is subjective to the point of ludicrousness. Unless you subject it to a vote, there is no way we are going to get a fair means of banning webpages on the net.

>For example, the YPAP and NSP web-pages fall into the first category with

Question of semiotics and semantics. It's only because they tout themselves as first kind -- they are not easier to access than a page sitting on the same server -- they just call themselves that.

You say that lines can be drawn: Let's draw some lines then -- punishment: discipline or abuse? sexism: nature or nurture? pornography: art or exploitation? Yes we can say this is red and that is blue, but change the light and even that becomes confusing. Somethings in life are that simple, but not in this case. An even if you do start drawing lines there must be a fair way of doing so -- some people have even stopped questioning the rationale of line-drawing and accept it as given -- they now ask WHO decides what lines are drawn and WHEN. And if we cannot go one-step backwards, at least we can question this.

>So, in the Internet world, I would give more credibility to news reports and analyses
>enamating from web-sites 'on the scene' than those half a world away.

That is your opinion you are welcome to keep it. I for example only read IHT, The Guardian and Asia Times. I give none of them credibility but pick and choose, piece together information and believe what i want to believe in.

>I hate to tell you this, but when the population elects the PAP with more than 2/3
>majority in Parliament at every GE, the PAP is given the same blank cheque to do
>practically anything it wants.

Anyone who has seriously studied the mechanics of the elections will admit, even the most staunch PAP cadres -- that there is a serious biasesness towards the PAP in reporting the GEs. Can we consider what happens to informed decisions when people are faced with this profound disparity in reporting?

Carte blanche not only refers to the way PAP runs things, it also refers to the way no real opinions are allowed to surface, no real opposition is allowed to take place and therefore no real checks happen when the government makes a decision. They are allowed to get away with the silliest policies eg the failed (thank god) graduate mothers scheme, the two-child family scheme which is largely responsible for the labour shortage we are going to face in the next twenty years, the small families assistance scheme which blatantly practices eugenics, no equal pay for equal work for female civil servants -- these are some of the more obvious examples.

>local sites. the focus is on the publishers, not the actual content. As for the
>editorial board, this is a standard requirement for all publications when applying for
>a publishing permit with MITA. Why should the newspaper and magazine publishers be
>subject to one standard and web-publishers to another ?

I think i have argued this difference enough already.

The important thing is not just to see the similiarities on the surface -- or indeed differences -- and go about administering the same rules -- as if those rules were sensible enough in the first place. We must question everything -- and only when we have arrived and some conclusion can we make up our minds. And those questions must be based on what we want our world -- or our society to be.

Which is what this group is doing and which is what is most important. I think that there is enough opinion in here for us to actually present a case to the government on the pros and cons of the regulation of the Internet if we want to do something about it instead of indulge in this intellectual masturbation.:-)

Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 17:21:21 +1100 (DST) From: Edmund Chia

> I'll like to say that your preference is just that. You may
>prefer to get local/regional information from local/regional sites but
>that in itself is not a reason for the govt. or any authority to make the
>distinction (between local/regional and foreign sites).
>Psychologically, one cannot help but infer that one site may be more
>accurate, or may need to be regulated based on their original or
>motivation. One should have complete freedom to choose the
>information one wants to get. The pornography channel maybe
>"broadcasting" 24 hours a day but I never tune in. It doesn't affect
>me. But whether by regulation or legislation, there will be some
>borderline cases that are affected, in this case, dissent can easily
>be silenced.

The fact that I do not subscribe to "white power" channels does not mean that I believe that they should be permitted in Singapore because I do not watch it anyway. The fact that I do not copy pirated software does not mean that I believe that service providers in Singapore should allow their facilities to host software for easy piracy. The fact that I do not libel others through the internet does not mean that I think it improper for regulations to prevent "Zoe is a slut" webpages with pictures from being broadcast through a Singaporean service provider. The fact that I am not a padeophile does not mean that I should remain apathetic to the fact that the net can and has been used for child sexual abuse. The fact that I then to check what I buy does not mean that I believe that false advertising should be permitted on Singaporean service providers.

Should these and other abuses of the net be regulated???? Should incitements to racial violence, provocative attacks on religion, advice on how to conduct terrorism, all of which many States have fought so hard to eliminate be legitimised, legalised, and propagated on the net??

The net is a new medium with great potential for communication - true. The net has not been regulated - false. System administrators in universities have always had regulations on what can be broadcast and how their facilities are used. Is it appropriate for netuse to be determined by aol/microsoft/compuserve/universities who may dictate the terms on the internet instead of duly elected governments?

No regulations? Some regulations, or as much regulation as is possible? This is the spectrum upon which discussion should be based.

Date: Wed, 20 Mar 96 08:27:19 est From: Stephanie Sim

>The fact that I do not subscribe to "white power" channels does not mean
>that I believe that they should be permitted in Singapore because I do not
>watch it anyway. The fact that I do not copy pirated software does not mean
>that I believe that service providers in Singapore should allow their
>facilities to host software for easy piracy...etc
>Should these and other abuses of the net be regulated???? Should incitements
>to racial violence, provocative attacks on religion, advice on how to
>conduct terrorism, all of which many States have fought so hard to
>eliminate be legitimised, legalised, and propagated on the net??

We are not arguing against these motherhood statements eg exploitation is bad, murder is evil, etc (although society would benefit from the deaths of a few people, i admit) :). The point is that as long as you dont educate people into understanding why these things are bad you will still be saddled with problems of the very same kind -- whether its through the net or word of mouth. How to build a bomb is found in any book -- in fact the materials are found in any secondary school lab. Genghis Khan had no access to alt.rec.mass.murder but he did pretty well anyway. And so did Hitler. the human mind is capable of finding ways to do very sick things without the assistance of technology. My point is that even if you do stop the internet, and not solve the root of the problem, you will still have these social ills. Have censorship, by all means, but make sure that you do something about the problem. Don't be hypocritical, suppressing the knowledge of bomb-making on one hand and glorifying violence on the other. Let people make up their minds -- it is only then does real education happen.

In a sense the internet has called our bluff. if we were successful in eliminating a problem, then it wouldn't keep on resurfacing over and over again. We should look at a thing holistically. Tackle the concern directly, instead of doing the bureaucratically convenient thing and repressing it, assuaging the conscience, looking good, but not solving the problem. Penalties without education will never solve anything.

Sorry, this is the last time im going to say this -- think that the people in this discussion group have had quite enough of this already.

So, should the internet be regulated? I would say no, because regulating it won't solve any concern the government purports to address. But if we had to go along with regulation i would say at least:

a) let it be fair -- with objective with categories which are transparent to all and reasonable penalties
b) have it implementable and carried out consistently
c) ensure that education to goes alongside the repression
d) build in a long-term plan with the ultimate goal to eventually allow free access to the net and publication on the web

Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 15:06:41 +1100 (DST) From: Edmund Chia

>we are not arguing against these motherhood statements eg exploitation is
>bad, murder
>is evil, etc (although society would benefit from the deaths of a few
>people, i admit)
>:). the point is that as long as you dont educate people into
>understanding why these
>things are bad you will still be saddled with problems of the very same
>kind -- whether
>its through the net or word of mouth.

Education is great but the point is education in itself may be inadequate. Most societies have educated their people on how wrong it is to exploit others, to kill, to steal, etc but people will for a variety of reasons continue to exploit, kill, and steal. So far we have been looking at this issue from the perspective of laws as an instrument of abuse/unfair censorship, etc - without considering the traditional role of laws as the basis of a civilised society and the traditional means of protection for individuals as well as the traditional expression of social values.

>in a sense the internet has called our bluff. if we were successful in
>eliminating a
>problem, then it wouldn't keep on resurfacing over and over again. we
>should look at a
>thing holistically. tackle the concern directly, instead of doing the
>bureaucratically
>convenient thing and repressing it, assuaging the conscience, looking
>good, but not
>solving the problem. penalties without education will never solve anything.

I agree but I do not see how we can address something holistically by legislating against it in 'real space' while ignoring its presence in cyberspace. In other words, how can we say racial vilification is wrong if done on TV or print media but okay if expressed on cyberspace - would that not be an incomplete attempt to address the issue of racism.

>so, should the internet be regulated? i would say no, because regulating
>it won't
>solve any concern the government purports to address.

That is certainly a view that some of the more liberal societies have subscribed to. In other words, robbers and murderers are really the victims of society and by punishing them we are not really addressing the underlying problem which can only be tackled through social change, etc. Singapore has not traditionally held this view. The attempt to educate is certainly taken seriously but the failure of education has never been accepted as an adequate excuse for wrong-doing.

Date: Wed, 20 Mar 96 09:19:51 est From: Stephanie Sim

>Face it - rules are here to stay, No one wants to
>say it but it has to be said. The questions is only what will be its scope
>and how should it be enforced.

Why are they here to stay? Are you of the opinion that they are for the good of the net? For the good of society? that it is a traditional evolution (where the law eventually catches up with technology)?

It is odd how singapore quotes other countries to boost its claims when convenient and when it isn't quite happily rubbishes it. To quote examples of others who have instituted repressive rules and regulations to justify a position does not constitute defending a point -- we return to the old adage -- two wrongs do not make a right. justification must rely on argument and logic, not examples.

>Like it or not our govt. does not back-pedal.

Yes they have -- and on the angry voices on women -- the graduate mother's scheme is a case in point. Do not underestimate the power of your own voice. If you want them to change something you have to shout loudly and coherently enough.

>Having said this I hope the discussions in this group will focus on the more
>important issue of how the proposed laws should be enforced and on the
>following:-

Laws come into play only if you know what direction you're heading. They don't show us directions -- they are placed there only AFTER the course has been plotted -- to keep us on course. They are the agents of social change (or ossification), not the agitators or principles -- ideals are, so more discussion must go into what we want to see society as.

We should not hurry into formulating laws without considering all possible options. I agree that I do dwell on the ideals -- or am idealistic. But if we do not know what the end goal is, how are we ever going to progress? If used without sufficient discussions on the larger picture, instead of charting directions, laws will be made to fire-fight -- resulting in a waste of time and money in the long run. More effort put into the initial stages of planning would be more rewarding.

Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 23:56:42 +0800 From: Rajesh Sreenivasan

>>Face it - rules are here to stay, No one wants to
>>say it but it has to be said. The questions is only what will be its scope
>>and how should it be enforced.
>
>why are they here to stay? are you of the opinion that they are for the
good of the
>net? for the good of society? that it is a traditional evolution (where
the law
>eventually catches up with technology)?

My view is very straight forward...that humans cannot exist in a civilised manner in any community be it actual or virtual unless subject to the law. I do not share in the view of the internet as a utopian state. There will always be people out there abusing the freedom, the laws should be aimed at these guys...hence the focus on proper enforcement. The law itself has to be all-encompassing or it might find itself crippled in its execution especially in the case of the net with its myriad possibilities. Again, the crucial issue will be in enforcement.

I am taking a much broader view of the need for legislation on the net quite apart from the singular point of censorship. Let me demonstrate my scope:-

Some of the areas in which I feel laws are necessary are:-

(a) Regulating commercial activities....such organisations/individuals have to be willing and able to be held accountable for their activities on the net.

(b) Defamation - The regulation in Singapore eg. the existing Defamation Act has to be altered to take into account the internet and on-line services in general...eg.. the approach taken recently in UK. The existing laws are not sufficient. There is a false impression that existing defamation laws will protect victims on the net. Well yes...only if you can afford a private prosecution (BTW, that has also failed..leading to pple having to take out civil suits for damages..even more expensive)...the authorities are still not quite willing to bite as far as the criminal law is concerned until liability of such posters of defamatory material made on the net/on-line services and the electronic media in general is expressly included in the Penal Code. Also ISP's need the defence of "innocent dissemination" updated in the Defamation Act to take into account the nature of the net. In particular, so long as the "reasonable measures" of the SBA have been adhered to ISP's should be spared liability.

(d) The status of ISP's - This is a very grey that requires clarification. Many know that the "common carrier" status given to eg. postal agencies should be applied to ISP's. We in Singapore are in a position to enshrine it in law. I want Singapore to be a pioneer in this field and not parroting other countries. The need for legal clarification on this point is undoubted. In Singapore's context in the light to shift responsibility too ISP's to control content, t becomes even more important (for the reasons stted in my earlier post) to make the liabilities of ISP's clear.

I admit that I should have made the point on the wide scope of my views on legislation clearer in my initial post...ie. that it is very much broader than just the issue of censorship which many have chosen to focus solely on. In fact, for the record, I find the justifications for censorship the weakest as far as the regulation of the net is concerned, hence my lack of focus on this issue....that's where you guys come in...for the freedom of expression.

The law should exist in as non-pervasive a manner as possible. But they must be in place to protect netters against those who wish to abuse the net be it for commercial gain or personal depravity.

I hope that we do not believe that the net will always be a utopian state as far as freedom of expression is concerned.....that there will be no malice in such expression and that victims of such malice do not deserve any means of redress. I say No way.

It is in this context as well that I state that laws are here to stay and are necessary.

The age of innocence is over. *sigh*

>it is odd how singapore quotes other countries to boost its claims when convenient and
>when it isn't quite happily rubbishes it. to quote examples of others who have
>instituted repressive rules and regulations to justify a position does not constitute
>defending a point -- we return to the old adage -- two wrongs do not make a right.
>justification must rely on argument and logic, not examples.

Agreed. By the way, my example on South Korea was meant as an illustration of how the laws are applied in other countries by way of comparison to Singapore's approach. I trust that such comparative studies of policies used by other countries on the net...both for and against regulation will have a place in this group.

My specialty is the law and my examples are on this aspect. I expect others to bring in realistic examples of how society can attempt educating the public as an alternative to legislation.. Put up your suggestions of realistic, implementable means of educating ...Lets consider these and discuss these in a comparative manner, they may jut work...it is in this spirit that I introduced the South Korean model. So please just don't slam my material as being "convenient justification". This is a perversion of my intentions. (And a very cheap shot!)

>>Like it or not our govt. does not back-pedal.
>yes they have -- and on the angry voices on women -- the graduate mother's scheme is a
>case point. do not underestimate the power of your own voice. if you want them to
>change something you have to shout loudly and coherently enough.

They have indeed in the rare cases..but such exceptions do not constitute the norm. You are unfortunately being carried away in your zeal to establish your point that your viewpoint has become jaundiced. In the case of the net, I feel (i.e. my voice, my point of view...that I choose to propound...getit....I don't underestimate the power of my own voice...I don't agree with your viewpoint and I don't want this change that you propose...I am shouting loudly on a completely different point here...HELLO...) that in the broader light, regulations are necessary. The key is in the responsible enforcement of these rules. I hope to post shortly on my views of what would constitute responsible enforcement.

>>Having said this I hope the discussions in this group will focus on the more
>>important issue of how the proposed laws should be enforced and on the
>>following:-
>
>laws come into play only if you know what direction you're heading. they don't show us
>directions -- they are placed there only AFTER the course has been plotted -- to keep >us on course. they are the agents of social change (or ossification), not the
>agitators or principles -- ideals are, so more discussion must go into what we want to
>see society as.

Agreed. However, I do feel that Such discussion on the intricacies of the law can be conducted concurrently with the discussions on the need for such laws. Surely you don't wish to have all the limelight for yourself :).

Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 17:22:20 +0000 (GMT) From: Thong Wei Koh

Dear Participants,

First, I would like to thank all of you for your enthusiastic inputs so far. The response has been tremendous and, frankly, the volume has been quite overwhelming.

I think that in order for this discussion to serve any purpose other than to be a sounding board, we have to seriously think about guiding the discussion into formulating a coherent response to the SBA's policy proposal and to present any suggestions that may come up.

I propose to structure the discussions a little more:

1. Let us go through some of the objections to the proposal to 'clean up' Singapore's cyber backyard. Let us try to agree at least on the basics: Is censorship necessary in this context? If so, what form should it take? Is it feasible? How explicit should the out-of-bound markers be? What are the possible consequences?

2. The proposed licensing of content developers. Is it a sensible way forward? Is there no other way? Why should there be an apriori selection of 'desirable' candidates to run websites? How should the web be 'policed'?

3. Can we come up with a counter-proposal?

I recognize that all of the above have been visited at one point or the other during the discussion. I suggest we refocus our attention on one issue at a time and come to a general agreement or consensus before going onto the next point. It is important that you, the participants, raise objections to any points raised in the following before we get distracted with other points in the discussion.

1. It is quite clear that the larger proportion of the posts object to the actual machinery of control as proposed by the SBA. Stephanie made the point that

'..as far as I saw it, it was unenforceable and thus an instrument of represession (because laws which cannot be enforced fairly are enforced arbitrarily, subjectively and therefore selectively and can be repressive)'. [Stephanie 16Mar]

while Su Haw said;

'The line to be drawn between what should and should not be allowed must be the same existing laws, legislation, and regulations that govern the IRL. .....Standards of defamation, sedition etc should be the same, in whichever medium they are conveyed. Internet is just another medium of communication, nothing more and nothing less.' [Su Haw 18Mar]

and Gerard observed that

'Legislation of Internet usage and services cannot be seen as some radical move by the govt, given the clear logic and precedence of broadcast legislation in Singapore.' [Gerard 17Mar]

I think there are several sub-issues here: It is true that the internet is yet another medium of communication and of course, it makes sense to demand a coherent approach as far as the law is concerned with respect to standards of defamation, sedition etc. However, it pays to pause for a while and ask ourselves why so much concern has been generated over this current proposal to enforce the same standard of control over a new medium. I venture some possible answers:
- The internet is perceived to be a new mode of communication that some (many) feel would be adversely affected by the imposition of legislation proposed.
- The reaction is a manifestation of a protest against the current method of control over the dissemination of information in the country.
The former would require us to provide a sufficient argument as to why indeed the internet should be an exception. Personally, I do not think that the contention is whether we expect that abusive materials should be allowed unchecked on the internet, but rather the actual machinery proposed to control such material. As far as I can gather, the objections in this context are directed towards the proposal that ISPs are to be responsible for regulating the content developers' content. Wynthia pointed out that

'ISPs do not edit web content even though they may block out websites. I don't think ISPs are well-positioned to be tasked with the responsibility of deciding what content is objectionable or not.' [Wynthia 16Mar]

This view is countered by Su Haw;

'While I agree that ISPs cannot be held to the standard of accountability as that of the owner/editor of the broadcast, their role is also not simply a conduit. I think ISPs is more akin to a printer which has no control over the content of what is printed but is still able to stop the printing of anything that is clearly illegal. Just as a printer would not print and distribute pornographic publications, the ISPs have chosen no to carry certain usenet newsgroups. Although the ISPs control is not fool-proof, they still retain some control in instances which are clear-cut in nature.' [Su Haw 18Mar]

I think this exchange illustrates the root cause for the difference in opinion. The very attraction of this new technology that we know as the internet is the empowerment of the individual to disseminate information to a very large audience without requiring one to go through the traditional middlemen (editors, producers etc) that controls the information flow through traditional channels. It could be argued that the success and the subsequent impetus that spurred the advance in communication technology are directly attributed to the spontaneity and the popularity of this new mode of communication. With this new technology, the analogy put forth by Su Haw would be slightly inaccurate as materials need no longer be submitted to the equivalent of 'printers' for them to be duplicated and distributed. If ISPs are required to police the content of content providers, it would require them to actively monitor them. This is a far more difficult job than to make an editorial decision or otherwise to agree or to reject publishing a book/magazine. Pressed by the authorities, it would seemed reasonable to assume that ISPs will eventually resort to some form of crude censorship or attempt to funnel information through some formal internal control. This will inevitably reduce the effect of the new technology to that of a electronic version of a medieval printing press. I submit that any attempt to impose guidelines and legislation based on experience in more conventional technology needs to be re-examined closely.

Coming back to the second possible answer, that: -The reaction is a manifestation of a protest against the current method of control over the dissemination of information in the country.

Wynthia pointed out:

'Are we trying to come up with regulations on pornography on the Internet just for the sake of making it consistent with current regulation over traditional media or are we really trying to tackle the problem of pornography?' [Wynthia 16Mar]

and Stephanie made out the case for emphasis on education:

'Instead of looking towards education to inculcate human virtues such as independent thought, analysis or offering alternatives, they decide to repress the net. They have repressed printed and video pornography for as long as we can remember - and yet have their attitudes towards women changed? ... has the demand for pornography lessened?' [Stephanie 16Mar]

Maybe the internet just happened to be a medium of communication that many have found to be an appropriate platform to challenge the traditional method of control over the dissemination of information. Let us look at this closer. Why should the internet be any different from conventional media?

At present, the government has always celebrated the fact that it seeks not to censor news articles from foreign publications outright, but to secure a 'right to reply'. It has demonstrated that it has the necessary will and conviction to punish publishers but it has also taken pains to allow the continual dissemination of information from these publishers in various forms (photocopied or editions without advertisement). It is curious that the government is happy to take an enlightened approach in this context and yet propose to impose a far more draconian method of control over a mode of communication that would allow the satisfaction of the government's 'right of reply' more readily. Perhaps the internet offers the very opportunity to demonstrate that Singaporeans are capable of handling themselves in a gentlemanly manner in a less structured environment.

There are of course more matters of concern with the issue of censorship. Feel free to criticize or to add on what I have written. It is meant to be a quick summary and a guide for the discussion. We'll move on to the next point when we're all happy about it.

Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 09:49:47 -0800 (PST) From: Tan Chong Kee

I refer to questions asked by Rajesh and Thong Wei.

> 1. Is censorship necessary in this context? If so, what form should it take?
> (1) What would constitute "objectionable material"?

Yes, I don't think we should give all speech equal status. Speech calculated to defame, incite, maliciously offend etc should be controlled. However, unlike print where such speech can never see the light of day in Singapore, web allows them to be put on the net. So the question is what to do after seeing these material. Laws to bring Internet speech in line with laws on defamation etc are necessary. However, I don't think there are many who want to see laws as draconian as the press and printing act imposed on the net.

'Political content' is a particularly salient point. No one knows where the 'OB' markers are. Unlike pornography or defamation, setting any OB markers on discussions about the well-being and future of our country is a very foolish thing. I also doubt that the PAP has succeeded in increasing their share of the vote by strongly reacting to contrary speculations on topics like ministerial competence. So we need to coherently argue for more space. What is different about Internet that we should have more space?

Hence, for me, a good way to make sure that laws are fair, non-repressive and transparent in execution is to set up a watch dog body where user reps are members. They can even just be the token member in a body of ten or twenty. The point of this is that the users now have eyes and ears in the process of regulation. The rep is elected by users and report to users on the watch dog body's work. I suspect the government will always want to be the WHO who gets to decide what constitute "objectionable material". This watch dog body can at least make this process more transparent and perhaps make it less likely that it becomes repressive. If they do become more gracious and allow citizens to also have a say, they this body can easily accommodate by taking in more users as members.

In short, set OB markers for pornography, defamation etc. These can be the same as what we have now. There should not be any extra markers for political speech. We should give a proposal where users are members of a watch dog body more careful consideration.

> 2. The proposed licensing of content developers. Is it a sensible way
> forward? Is there no other way? Why should there be an apriori
> selection of 'desirable' candidates to run websites? How should the
> web be 'policed'?
> (2) What would constitute "reasonable measures" to be taken by ISP???

I too strongly support giving ISP common carrier status. Licensing based on 'broadcast' nature of web will be devastating to Singapore in the IT race. By doing this, the government is encouraging parochialism. We will end up having web pages full of new babies' weight and what not. The general ability of Singaporean content producers will be the net's laughing stock. Take Sintercom for example, if I had to prove that I'm a person of 'standing' (and how might a student do that?) and assemble an editorial board (how many will now want to put their names down?) and wait for the bureaucratic machine to grind out a license, it will be so much time spent just to satisfy red tapes that it wouldn't even start. (I know Sintercom is not on the list, but how long can it remain a special case, is it a good thing that it remains a special case? Also, what about other new potential Sintercoms?) It is foolish to make laws to discourage serious content production and reward parochial ones.

In short, 'narrowcasting' and 'broadcasting' distinction is doable (heck, all distinctions are doable, the question is the cost) but will be detrimental to Singapore's chance in the IT race.

The web then should be policed not by bureaucrats or even the proposed watch dog body but by all users. They will submit their complains to the body who is empowered by law to take action. ISP are common carriers and shall not pro-actively do anything. It can, however, act on the advice of the watch dog body to block or remove content deemed objectionable. As users, bureaucrats etc can of course also complain to the watch dog body. Caveat: there should always be an avenue of appeal for such blocking/removal.

>(3) What is a "content provider" ?
> By adding links to your page to sites with such material....

All are content providers. If the links are deemed by the watch dog body as 'objectionable' then it can direct that ISPs block them. These links will then become dead for Singaporean users. There is then no need to make people remove the links, i.e., no need to censor web pages one by one.

> 3. Can we come up with a counter-proposal?

I just tried to come up with one. Lots of details need to be fleshed out, and lots of things still needs to be discussed. Please give it some thought.

Date: Thu, 21 Mar 96 08:38:41 est From: Stephanie Sim

>My view is very straight forward...that humans cannot exist in a civilised
>manner in any community be it actual or virtual unless subject to the law. I
>do not share in the view of the internet as a utopian state. There will
>always be people out there abusing the freedom, the laws should be aimed at
>these guys...hence the focus on proper enforcement. The law itself has to be
>all-encompassing or it might find itself crippled in its execution
>especially in the case of the net with its myriad possibilities. Again, the
>crucial issue will be in enforcement.

I agree. I do not disagree with you IF laws are to be enforced. Since everyone on this panel has such absolute faith in the law and the manner of its execution, and it would seem that majority rules here, of course I shall try and work within your framework. But I am also saying that we shouldn't just look at things within a limited field. Of course the net is not utopian -- nothing is. But what are regulations on it going to do? I shall receive racist literature from a url in another country, produced by another person anyway -- and it is up to me to process it in an which way i see fit. If you think that just merely limiting rules and regulations to singapore is going to stop the spread of racist literature or racist attitudes, perhaps it isn't I who am living in a utopian state.

But let's put this aside.

Can I ask some questions about laws now --

Say we regulate the net and penalise people who put up subversive literature -- of course we haven't decided what is subversive yet -- say, for the fun of it, a personal opinion piece about the complete waste of time which NS is to singapore which ends inciting people to not sign up for NS. Ok. if the content originator is unknown -- some anonymous singaporean staying here, who gives the info to a friend who lives in the uk who puts it up -- and the government isn't too happy with this, what happens then?

Surely this is just another opinion? People should be free to say what they want. The government can reply if it wants to. It can justify itself to the rest of the world, as it usually does. They could very well say that it would be banned -- the site inaccessible, till the person changes the url, of course. Or we could take the sucker to court -- but who. This is the real problem with the net isn't it? You can't just go over and nail the originator of the information because not would you know who the person is, but you don't have jurisdiction over another citizen of another country. So you don't have control over the individuals. You can make it more difficult for people to put up info in singapore, but it is not going to stop people who want to from putting up information elsewhere.

I firmly believe that we should leave ISPs out of this. It is like making singapore telecoms responsible for every conversation which takes place over the telephone -- and I maintain that the internet is more like a telephone exchange than a tv station. The changeability of a web site and its credibility have nothing to do with the ISP. Even if you laid out broad guidelines [and I'm not going to go for the "endangering of national interest" category -- as we have seen in the x-files anything endangers "national interest" :)] how are ISPs going to go over and over the millions of web pages they have every year? We license people? fine -- license them in singapore and if they change their web pages they have to notify pacific internet -- farewell to your dreams of becoming an information hub. Or we can have "special cases" that is trusted websites or proven websites (eg Straits Times) can change as much as they want to -- like theatreworks -- they no longer have to go through pelu to get approval for their scripts -- but who wants to see theatreworks anymore? And is this the sort of atmosphere you want in singapore. Change the picture on your website and tell the government about it.

We could have as chong kee suggested, a panel of people who would decide if a website is shut down. Perhaps this is most fair. But of course who makes up that panel, how often it sits and what it sits for is still in the hands of the government.

You asked me about proposals for teaching, educating people instead of repressing them. Let's take sexism as a case. If we all agree that sexism is a bad thing and we want to weed it out, it can be done through textbooks, library hour where positive stories about women are told and activities where girls and boys are given equal opportunities to prove themselves. They will be told that in somethings they can never be the same -- eg physical strength, the ability to carry a child -- but they will also be told that this does not mean that one is better than the other. Stories which glorify rape and violence (the ancient greek classics which built western civilisation are fraught with this -- witness zeus' rape of so many mortal women) will be shown for the destructive and demeaning acts they are. Laws will be used used to ensure that discrimination at work doesn't take place (eg gender specific ads), equal pay for equal work and that fathers as well as mothers get adequate parental leave. BUT the point is that we must agree that sexism is a bad thing and then move from there. But one year ago aware suggested that more gender sensitive textbooks be created where women and men are treated equally, where mother is not always in the kitchen and brother is playing with guns. Something very simple. It even found a sponsor to create a text book to this end. The government said that "natural" systems should not be disrupted and women and men have their place in time and society.

It is discouraging, but we shall continue to fight the good fight. The point is not that we win, that will be left for another generation, another time, but that we pass the flame on. It is the action which is all important -- the goal which may never be reached is the inspiration.

I'm sorry if I seem to have offended you in anyway, I didn't mean to make snide remarks or take cheap shots. i was just hoping that we would consider all possible alternative before we entered this option of regulation and law. Our society is over regulated as it is. I was merely asking us to consider what kind of society we wanted before we started pondering on the nitty-gritties. I think that we're all on the same side and there is no need to get upset about differences in opinions.

Date: Thu, 21 Mar 96 16:10:37 GMT From: Thong Wei Koh

> ... The "minimum" controls I believe include the followings :
> (1) Let everyone know that Internet should be treated like
> any other media type ;

I think some of the main contentions are that
1. the Internet affords a kind of flexibility that is alien to any other media types, and
2. maybe some (or many of us) are not happy with the treatment of conventional media types.

> (4) SBA will only regulate www and the only regulation is
> "tell us who is behind the www site" and "don't do what
> the TV and press cannot do".

That precisely is what I pointed out before. If we are to enforce regulations with the expectation that www sites should only be as 'powerful' or as effective as the TV or press, I think we are getting into a situation where we are denying ourselves the benefits of the new technology.

> (6) I think the govt will balance it well to ensure that no ISP
> or SBA officials would be overloaded by the "control" process.
> There would be no "content censorship" by the authorities.
> I think the new policy is meant to be a catalyst in creating a
> self-regulating environment where the internet community and
> SBA would advise the ISP and broadcasting sites whenever a wed
> site is considered deviating from the OB markers.
> Any site ignoring the "advices" would then be blocked out.

Ok, this becomes clearer. I still don't see how the SBA officials will not be overloaded by the control process - I suppose the proposed licensing scheme is one way of reducing their workload. This brings us back to the argument that this approach will impose a funneling effect that will reduce the effectiveness of the internet.

I suppose it may be too radical a step to expect the government to abdicate power of censorship to a kind of committee that ChongKee and many of us are supporting. Perhaps, it may be more realistic to work with the assumption that (as far as the near future is concerned) the SBA or any equivalent authority will have the final say.

What we can do is to appeal to the SBA to have a more transparent deliberation process, and perhaps propose to have a two tier system where there is a lower committee of citizens that advises and deals with more minor complaints in the form that Chongkee suggested.

I think it is better for us to have a bit of patience, and appeal to the good sense of the Singapore net users to demonstrate that it is possible to maintain a good standard of behaviour without requiring a heavy handed approach. The proposed lower committee will be instrument in the experiment to show that self-regulation works in Singapore.

Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 10:54:44 +0800 (SST) From: Tan Chade Meng

I support Chong Kee's proposal. It's reasonable, well thought-out, and it seems to satisfy the need for some form of regulation without the heavy-handed repressive formula favoured by BAPIPs and without stifling the energy and creativity so characteristic of the freedom that comes with the net.

I would suggest a few extensions to Chong Kee's proposal.

> Hence, for me, a good way to make sure that laws are fair, non-repressive
> and transparent in execution is to set up a watch dog body where user reps
> are members. They can even just be the token member in a body of ten or
> twenty....

I would suggest that we should have it the other way round, that most of the members are normal active net citizens while the authorities are represented by a few members with equal voting rights as everybody else.

The mechanics for selecting the members could be quite problematic, tough.

Perhaps another idea, given the way the net shrinks physical distances, would be to form a virtual "forum". For example, a site where all Singaporean net users can register themselves. They need only to give their real names, IC numbers, email accts etc to verify their real identities & prevent members from registering twice. Once their identities are manually verified, they are members of the forum until they decide to withdraw.

If and when a member finds a site she deems objectionable, she puts up a proposal to blacklist the site and state her argument on why it should go. There would be a period of 2 wks or so for discussions among all members, after which the forum will vote whether to ban the site. Each member would get one vote. Majority rules. Local ISPs shall blacklist sites on the advice of the forum.

Simple, fair and unrepressive. Democracy in action.

The mechanisms for democracy are available. It's there, it's easy, use it.

> In short, set OB markers for pornography, defamation etc. These can be the
> same as what we have now. There should not be any extra markers for
> political speech.

Agreed. I argue that the same should apply too to religious sites and all other sites. Sites ("political", "religious" or otherwise) can be similarly dealt with by the above Forum mechanism. Where a site breaks the law or seriously offends racial and religious sensitivities, the Forum may even vote to call for police action.

Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 12:41:58 -0600 From: SIU YUIN PANG

I think that the Internet as a new form of communication and disseminator of information raises further questions than just simply comparing them to traditional print/broadcast mediums. On the Internet, the amount/variety of information is vast. I think it's very important to be able to think for oneself, discern for oneself what is acceptable rather than for someone else to provide the yardstick.

Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 10:05:05 -0800 (PST) From: Wynthia

I came across this and I thought it may be relevant to our discussion.

------
In a US court case of Church of Scientology vs Netcom, CoS brought successful legal action agst Netcom for providing Internet access to a local BBS used by Erhlich, a former Scientologist turned detractor. CoS considers some of the material posted by the guy as copyrighted to the church and included Netcom as a defendent for copyright infringement.

The US Court dismissed Netcom's appeal saying there was "a genuine issue of fact regarding whether Netcom should have known that erhlich was infringing CoS's copyright after receiving a letter from plaintiffs, whether Netcom substantially participated in the infringement =, and whether Netcom has a valid fair use defense."

The US District judge also found Netcom not liable for direct copyright infringement, becoz the ISP did not stand to receive direct financial benefit from them. The court found that holding an access provider liable for an individual's actions "would... result in liability for every single Usenet server in the worldwide link of computers."

------

This court case seems to have presented a reasonable interpretation of how to manage ISP's responsibility over content. That a service provider does not have a duty to look for infringing material (replace this with objectionable content) but it does have a duty to (aid in) investigate once it is brought to its attention.

That sounds fair to me. What do the rest of you think?

Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 00:02:59 -0800 (PST) From: Tan Chong Kee

It seems we agree that trying to censor discussions, be them political or otherwise, is counter-productive and would prefer that regulation focus on generally agreed boundaries of defamation etc. We have also been trying to put together a mechanism which takes user self-regulation into account. Before we go on, I think we should find out in more details what SBA's position is. This is important so we won't be assuming things about the SBA which aren't true or argue against/for something which is not/already in their plan. We need to be clearer about for example, for example, the criteria used to determine:

1) if a site is 'political',
2) if a site needs to register (ie, what is considered 'broadcast' content)
3) the scope, ie only web site or will newsgroups, gopher, telnet, ftp, email etc also be regulated?

Also, I would like to know if SBA considered making use of existing users' self-regulation, if so what were the reasons it decided not to mention it in their press release.

Would Calvin, Stephanie or anyone in the know like to respond?

Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 10:45:21 +0800 From: Amy Leong

I read with interest many of the posts in this discussion group in general and would like to make a few general points. Thought I did have the benefits of meeting BG Yeo to discuss briefly the topic, I am only speaking here in my private capacity, .

... I think the govt saw the need to regulate the internet, just like many other countries, including USA and Germany, did. And BG Yeo was trying to do the minimum. I believed he has a tremendous "respect" for the Internet for he knows Internet will affect our society and life in a very very big way in future.

... The "minimum" controls I believe include the followings :

(1) Let everyone know that Internet should be treated like any other media type ;
(2) Since there can be misuses by the political and religious groups, licensing is applicable to them. The govt does not seems to be interested in the other groups ;
(3) The Govt is not interested in regulating the scs, e-mail and ftp types of communications ;
(4) SBA will only regulate www and the only regulation is "tell us who is behind the www site" and "don't do what the TV and press cannot do".
(5) Since there already exists a set of laws with regards to media publication and broadcasting, there is no need nor intention to have new laws. So the policy is primarily a procedural one. i.e. no new law is introduced.
(6) I think the govt will balance it well to ensure that no ISP or SBA officials would be overloaded by the "control" process. There would be no "content censorship" by the authorities. I think the new policy is meant to be a catalyst in creating a self-regulating environment where the internet community and SBA would advise the ISP and broadcasting sites whenever a wed site is considered deviating from the OB markers. Any site ignoring the "advices" would then be blocked out.
(7) Mita had considered feedback from many sources. Many of them are conservative ( remember those who forced the govt to bring the "R" rated movie down ? ).

Being a frequent traveler and not fond of media controls myself, I am personally convinced that there will be minimum control for Internet in Singapore so that Singapore will continue to be one of the "most internet" countries in this part of the world.

And I have to take issue with what Tan Chade Meng wrote : >The policy statement betrays a profound lack of understanding of
>......
>Anybody with the most basic knowledge of the web would know that
>ALL webpages are "of a broadcast nature". .... How do
>you distinguish between a webpage "of a broadcast nature" and one
>that is not? Basically, you can't. If you do try to make the
>distinction, it must certainly be totally arbitrary, subjective
>and meaningless.
>
>The policy-makers' ignorance is also betrayed in trying to
>distinguish whether a website is "local" or "foreign".
>little slower).... This makes it meaningless to distinguish between
>"local" and "foreign" sites. Every net-surfer takes this fact
>for granted. It requires a profound magnitude of ignorance to ignore
>this fact.

.... There is no need to shoot someone down in this way. Especially when you don't really know the actual definition of those terms. Under that policy maker, whom Tan considered ignorance, Singapore has become one of the most internet-intensive countries. He has been advised by the capable internet experts within the govt. IMHO, your points on "broadcast", "foreign" and "local" are just semantics. Let's get down to the real issues, whatever they are called.

>
>Official Ignorance is really just a minor concern. A major concern,
>as Steph rightly pointed out, is that the policy statement, when
>it becomes law, gives the authorities a blank cheque for abuse
>and harassment.

.... I think we feel better if we don't always suspect the govt has a blank chq out there to fix her citizens.

>The policy statement requires all local sites "carrying religious and
>political content" to be "licensed". It requires "foreign
>electronic newspapers with Singapore subscribers" to "register".

... Personally, I find this nothing new as this is no diff from what a newspaper is already facing.

>It also puts a limit on who can run the sites ("people of
>standing", whatever that means)

.... For a political and religious site. This is acceptable.

> The authorities would also wish to screen out "objectionable materials".

.... I think this is diff from saying "objectionable materials would not be allowed". Tan had put it in a diff way. This is not true !

>..... does this give
>the Bureaucrats And Politicians In Power (BAPIPs) the power of
>subjective and arbitrary control? If so, how does the law ensure
>that BAPIPs would not use this power for the benefit of their own
>egos and political agendas? Can this subjective power be used for
>harassment?

.... You just have to accept the fact that Singapore Govt has among the best reputation in the world in the administration of justice.

>What constitutes "religious" and "political" material?
>.....
>More fundamentally, isn't it a basic right for a person to be able
>to access any information concerning any religious or political
>thoughts and believes? Who are BAPIPs to decide what we should or
>should not read?

.... You are not talking about internet now. The same questions can be asked in other context. There is no diff between Internet and other media as far as the questions go. Basically, the people, by casting their votes, empower the BAPIPs the decide what to teach in schools, what not to sell in bookshops ( no books on how to commit suicide ...) and what we should not read in public ( no nude posters in the streets ...)

>Why should we need "Editorial Boards" for religious and
>political content?
>Does it now mean, for example, that every article
>appearing in SEF must be approved by ALL SEF editors before they
>can appear on the SEF site?

... I think it is just a declaration of who is behind the site. To take responsibility in the event of the site demaging some one else. ( Heard about the David Tan's case ? )

>What type of information will the authorities demand from a
>person "licensing" a website? Can this requirement be
>used as a tool for harassment? Is it possible that the CID
>calls you up in the middle of the night ..

.... How little faith in you have in the govt !

>Personally, I have total trust in the integrity of our leaders.

.... Oh ! looks like I was wrong.

Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 19:24:16 +0800 From: Amy Leong

>.... we have to seriously think about guiding the discussion
>into formulating a coherent response to the SBA's policy proposal and
>to present any suggestions that may come up.
>
> I propose to structure the discussions a little more:
> Is censorship necessary in this context?
> If so, what form should it take?

First of all, let us agree to see the policy announced as follows :
There is no plan by the Govt to regulate SCS, FTP, E-mails The Govt is only interested in regulating certain web sites.

I strongly object to any form of censorship in the net. In saying this, I take "censorship" to mean pre-publication screening. The task is just impossible. But some form of regulations is required.

> How explicit should the out-of-bound markers be?

I believe there is already OB markers under the existing laws adopted by the film censor board. Since there is no need nor reasons to adopt a diff standard, we can assume that that set of OB markers will apply. The question is : what are they ?

> What are the possible consequences?

The should be two consequences :
a. If defamation is involved, let the existing laws handle it;
b. If only OB markers are crossed, there should only be warnings and reminders. For serious case, the ISP can be told to block a site. e.g. If a site put of a doctored nude picture of a TCS actress, no further warning is needed.

> 2. The proposed licensing of content developers. Is it a sensible way
> forward? Is there no other way? Why should there be an apriori
> selection of 'desirable' candidates to run websites? How should the
> web be 'policed'?

I believe the govt want a form of self policing. SBA will certainly announce their definition of "content Provider" ... so just wait. The 'desirable' candidate should be a simple "declare who you are" and are automatically deemed 'desirable' unless SBA objects to it with x days.

> 3. Can we come up with a counter-proposal?

Yes, and perhaps don't do it in the form of "counter" proposal. why not do it before they announce it ?

>Personally, I do not think that the
>contention is whether we expect that abusive materials should be allowed
>unchecked on the internet, but rather the actual machinery proposed to
>control such material. As far as I can gather, the objections in this
>context are directed towards the proposal that ISPs are to be responsible
>for regulating the content developers' content.
>Wynthia pointed out that
> 'ISPs do not edit web content even though they may block out websites.
> I don't think ISPs are well-positioned to be tasked with the
> responsibility of deciding what content is objectionable or not.'
> [Wynthia 16Mar]
>If ISPs are required to police the content of content providers, it would
>require them to actively monitor them. This is a far more difficult job

I would like to believe that this is the most misunderstood part of the policy. Just like the toilet flushing laws. The law as understood is not capable of 100% implementation but every body is talking about a 100% implementation. IMHO, Like the toilet flush requirement, I think the govt is trying to do a symbolic job in defining what is acceptable norm for netters to behave. ISP will be required to do a best-effort job, or event reasonable effort might suffice. The govt seems to want to let the net community develop a self regulating culture. And if that works, the govt would be happy to leave it that way and concentrate on watching the sensitive areas of religious preaching and political campaigning. If this is the case, I don't I have any noise to make.

BG Yeo does not have any intention to regulate the scs just now. But if the scs gets more nasty and more and more libelous posts are flying around ... noone can be certain he would not change his mind.

>Pressed by the authorities, it would seemed
>reasonable to assume that ISPs will eventually resort to some form of crude
>censorship or attempt to funnel information through some formal internal
>control.

Even the stage performers are selectively given the privileges of exemption from pre-approval by the censor board. I don't see why this concept cannot be adopted for www. i.e. the attitude of assumed clean unless found otherwise.

> At present, the government has always celebrated the fact that it seeks
>not to censor news articles from foreign publications outright, but to
>secure a 'right to reply'....... It
>is curious that the government is happy to take an enlightened approach
>in this context and yet propose to impose a far more draconian method of
>control over a mode of communication that would allow the satisfaction
>of the government's 'right of reply' more readily.

I don't understand the above statement. What "draconian" method is that ? As far as I know, there is no new law proposed yet. All that is announced is that Internet will be treated like CNN or TCS. If we look at the way CNN is being broadcast, I think we will have a better idea what form of control we can expect.

Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 16:42:14 +0000 (GMT) From: Thong Wei Koh

This is a response to Amy's post on the Thu 21 Mar. Sorry about the delay.

Allow me to go through some of the main points in that post: 1. The government is trying to foster a self-regulating environment where 'the internet community and SBA would advise the ISP and broadcasting sites whenever a web site is deviating from the OB markers.'. And that the new policy is meant to be a catalyst to that effect.

- I think the intention is a good one but there are still some nagging concerns: Who sets the OB markers? What happens when OB markers are crossed? We assume that we are not talking about clear cut cases such as defamation, pornography etc which may be handled by existing legal structures. I think what we are interested in is a clear cut declaration of these OB markers. I admit that it is difficult to do this. Indeed, we should expect these standards to change as our society evolve. I am not doubting the integrity and the competence of the current government. But I think we are far too reliant on the government to tell us what we can or cannot say. Restraint and responsibility must of course balance demands for freedom of expression - no one is disputing this. There must be some realistic form of control and regulation, but my question is, who is the best person to 'hold the gun'?

As far as politically sensitive materials are concerned, as a matter of principle, I think it is quite unfair to leave the judgement of the suitability of such materials to politicians or indeed civil servants. I admit that there are sensitive issues occasionally that would affect the interest of the state - these should be handled as exceptions rather than reasons for governmental control.

In my opinion, we should stop closing our minds to the possibilities of the internet. The internet is a form of communication, but it is DIFFERENT from the TV or the press. It allows the individual to propagate ideas across vast distances quickly at very little cost to himself and bypassing the traditional middlemen; producers and editors. We should ask ourselves if the current regulations placed on traditional media is dictated by the inherent nature of these mediums first before rushing to replicate the same for the internet. This leads me to the second point:

2. The intent of the new policy is to 'tell us who is behind the www site and don't do what the TV and press cannot do.'

- As I have mentioned before, the internet is the best medium to support the government's 'right of reply'. Publishers on the net should be able to print letters from any concerned party at little or no cost on the net almost immediately. If this is so, why bother to set OB markers? Why don't we formally institute the 'right of reply' as a foundation of internet policies? I am sure that this path will encourage more discussions and society will be the better for it. I am sure it should be quite easy to create exceptions whereby, say, sensitive materials that might endanger the state's security could be handled differently. I don't think it is very difficult to describe what this category means, and it is certainly easier than to try to declare what the OB markers (as currently understood) are.

Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 22:59:06 +0800 From: Rajesh Sreenivasan

Here's some interesting news for all who may be interested in the case so far against the faltering CDA:- (BTW, I know its not exactly breaking news but I had a few requests...:).

By the way hearing began on 21 March and adjourned on 22 March 1996. It will resume on 1 April 1996 ..how appropriate..:)

Will keep you guys posted..hopefullly next time I'll be able to make my own summary with enough material...the focus is still introductory at this stage and the parties have yet to get to the meat....I'll skip the First Amendment bits as they do not relate to our context.

- taken from claris newsgroups under the guise of fair use :). _________________________________________________________________________

PHILADELPHIA (Reuter) - A federal trial in a pathbreaking lawsuit over free speech on computer networks opened Thursday with a glimpse of the Internet of the future and the challenges faced by governments in controlling it.

``I believe that the Internet of the future will be a combination of a promise (of) tremendous reachability and availability of knowledge ... and a perceived threat to the ability to control what the citizenry get,'' said Scott Bradner, a Harvard University computer consultant and senior official on several Internet administrative bodies.

``I personally would rather focus on the promise,'' added Bradner, the opening witness for the plaintiffs in a lawsuit seeking to block the Communications Decency Act, a new federal law that prohibits distribution to minors of ``indecent'' or ''patently offensive'' material over computer networks such as the global Internet or commercial on-line services.

Opponents of the law say it is unconstitutional and unenforceable, while the government and its supporters say the law merely asks computer networks to do what is reasonable to prevent children from being exposed to improper material.

The case is the first major legal test of the application to computer networks of free speech protections under the First Amendment to the Constitution. It is destined eventually to go to the Supreme Court under fast-track provisions written into the bill.

April 26 is the last of six days of scheduled testimony here with a decision expected sometime after that.

``It's going (to the Supreme Court),'' said Stefan Presser, Philadelphia legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which sued the U.S. Justice Department Feb. 8. ''The question is, who brings it up? If we lose, we go, if they lose, they go,'' he said.

In his testimony, submitted to the court in advance, Bradner said it was not technologically possible for providers of access or content to the Internet to prevent minors from obtaining indecent materials on it.

``The senders ... have no ability to ensure that their messages are only available to adults,'' he said. ``It is also not possible for an Internet service provider ... to screen out all or even most content that could be deemed 'indecent' or 'patently offensive.'''

Under cross-examination by Justice Department attorney Jason Baron, Bradner spent much of the time giving basic instruction on the Internet to the panel of judges headed by Dolores Sloviter, chief judge of the Third District U.S. Court of Appeals.

He told the court the Internet, which connects millions of computers, is doubling in size every nine to 12 months and is running low on available electronic addresses. Four billion are now theoretically available, although many are not used because of allocation inefficiencies.

A new address system he is helping to develop will allow allow enough addresses for ``1,500 computers per square metre of the earth's surface, including the oceans,'' Bradner said.

He acknowledged it would be technologically possible for the creator of a site on the World Wide Web, a graphics-intensive area of the Internet that has been the focus of anti-pornography campaigners, to include a rating code in the address for a site. But he said each separate page would need such a code for it to be effective.

Opponents of the law said software now under development and other programs soon to be released will give individual users great ability to screen out undesired material without resorting to harsh and ineffective constraints on providers.

But Bruce Taylor, president of the National Law Center for Children and Families, told Reuters during a break in the hearing that it would be easy for Internet providers to comply with the law. ``All you have to do is code your indecent material for adults only,'' he said.

Government lawyers declined to comment on the case.

Date: Sun, 31 Mar 96 15:45:47 -0800 From: Chan Paul

I would like to dispute a certain point in Amy Leong's recent posting on the SBA's proposal. In her list of "minimum controls", item 5 highlighted that "no new laws" will be required. Correct me if I'm wrong, but how does this serve as any justification in the first place.

The fact that the SBA is resorting to the same old set of rules to deal with a new set of realities should set us all thinking. Let us take for example the recent amendment to the Women's Charter which allow members of opposite sex as a result of a sex reassignment procedure to get married. The must come partially from the case of that annulled marriage about 2 years ago when it was realised that the husband was originally a woman. Maybe before the birth of the sex-reassignment procedure, the rule prohibiting same sex marriage would make sense as your BC should tally with you ID. But now ....

My point here is that situation change and people should change to adapt. Is it wise to resort to a similar set of "tried and tested" rules to tackle an all new challenge?

When the motor car was invented, the British road authorities required the user of the vehicle to have a man holding a red flag walking in front of it at all times "to warn other road users". Think about it, does it sound foolish now?

Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 11:08:13 +0800 From: Amy Leong

>I think what we are interested in is a clear cut declaration of these OB
>markers. I admit that it is difficult to do this. Indeed, we should
> expect these standards to change as our society evolve.

..... I agree. Especially the point that "standards change as our society evolve". So that answers you point of " .. a clear cut declaration of these OB markers." which is not necessary and not practical. The practical things is to adopt what is already applied for film and press censorship.

Personally, I would like to see a system to operate as follows :

a. the present censorship guides ( as to the content ) apply to ensure consistency amongst the diff types of media ;
b. ISP not required to monitor/block content of any wed pages except for "gazzetted" sites like Playboy Mag which should be blocked;
c. citizens surfing the net should monitor and complain to ISP or SBA via email. Upon any complaints, the ISP and SBA should then investigate and decide on a ruling which the ISP is required to carry out, where appropriate.
d. ISP action should be limited to blocking out a site, not editing the content ( which is an impossible tasks ).

This form of "monitoring" assumes all site content is within the OB unless a complaint from the public is made.

>2. The intent of the new policy is to 'tell us who is behind the www site
>and don't do what the TV and press cannot do.'
>- As I have mentioned before, the internet is the best medium to support
> the government's 'right of reply'.

... Amy agrees.

Let me also clarify. When I said "don't do what the TV don't do", I was referring to the content of the web pages, not the technical aspect or the style of presenting.

> Publishers on the net should be able > to print letters from any concerned party at little or no cost on the net > almost immediately. If this is so, why bother to set OB markers?

.... I think OB markers serves to tell people not to cross the mark in the first place. E.g. Don't denounce another religion. I cannot imagine that just bcos of the right of reply, anybody can attack another religion which is expected to "reply" only.

Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 11:08:37 +0800 From: Amy Leong

>Hence, for me, a good way to make sure that laws are fair, non-repressive
>and transparent in execution is to set up a watch dog body where user reps
>are members. They can even just be the token member in a body of ten or
>twenty. The point of this is that the users now have eyes and ears in the
>process of regulation. The rep is elected by users and report to users on
>the watch dog body's work. I suspect the government will always want to be
>the WHO who gets to decide what constitute "objectionable material". This
>watch dog body can at least make this process more transparent and perhaps
>make it less likely that it becomes repressive. If they do become more
>gracious and allow citizens to also have a say, they this body can easily
>accommodate by taking in more users as members.

.... Regardless of whether there is to be a Govt body to decide. I will support the effort to form a group for self monitoring. This group can then file complaints to the SBA or ISP and recommend actions.

In fact I am hoping that the Govt "regulating effort" is limited to defining some general OB markers and then respond to complaints only. That way, they probably need a team of 2 or 3 persons.

>Take Sintercom for example, if I had to prove that I'm a person of
>'standing' (and how might a student do that?) and assemble an editorial
>board (how many will now want to put their names down?) and wait for the
>bureaucratic machine to grind out a license, it will be so much time spent

..... I thought you already have a team of "board members" listed and known to everyone already. Regarding the "person of standing". Personally, I hope everyone is by default such a person unless he is "......." ( e.g. bankrupt, criminally convicted ) This is do away with all kinds of red tapes.

>The web then should be policed not by bureaucrats or even the proposed
>watch dog body but by all users. They will submit their complains to the
>body who is empowered by law to take action. ISP are common carriers and
>shall not pro-actively do anything.

...... Amy's 100% support for this approach.

Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 11:08:26 +0800 From: Amy Leong

>It seems we agree that trying to censor discussions, be them political or
>otherwise, is counter-productive and would prefer that regulation focus on
>generally agreed boundaries of defamation etc.

.... I thought the Minister's announcement was clear that the govt had no intention to regulate any discussion. Regulations is only applicable to www sites.

>We need to be clearer about for example, for example, the
>criteria used to determine:
>1) if a site is 'political',
>2) if a site needs to register (ie, what is considered 'broadcast' content)
>3) the scope, ie only web site or will newsgroups, gopher, telnet, ftp,
>email etc also be regulated?
>
>Also, I would like to know if SBA considered making use of existing users'
>self-regulation, if so what were the reasons it decided not to mention it
>in their press release.

..... I believe the AG chamber is working on the details.

Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 21:10:01 -0800 (PST) From: Tan Chong Kee

>.... I thought the Minister's announcement was clear that the govt
> had no intention to regulate any discussion.
> Regulations is only applicable to www sites.

Are discussions in political parties' web sites considered 'discussions'? How can one regulate these sites while claiming not to regulate any discussion? Also, web is the focus of the announcement probably because it was the most media hyped form of communication. Sooner or later, regulation will extend to other forms like mailing list etc. When that happens, the same justifications will be used. I believe we should discuss the implications of such regulation now since it would, hopefully, put more information in the hands of those drafting future regulations and save a situation where the announcement is already made and no back tracking, however much it might improve things, could be entertained.

Law in the US is solely concerned with pornography. Proposed laws in Singapore is concerned with pornography AND political speech. The fight in the US is about censorship of pornography. In Singapore, although many also agree that education and parental guidance is better, most of us will concede that fighting pornographic censorship is a lost cause. Political speech can be censored by declaring a person not 'of standing'. Many in Singapore believe that the government has the power to bankrupt someone if he/she steps politically too much out of line. This 'standing' provision is then just patching the loop hole created by Internet to ensure a complete silencing of political opponents. Note that I am not saying that the government does this, only that many Singaporeans believe so. This is sufficient to make a seemingly innocuous requirement a tool to effect self repression if not state repression.

If we agree that the Internet is best policed by users with some governmental backup, then we should not write laws that can intrude and silence political speech. I'm in full agreement with Amy's proposal for a body to oversee Internet use. Such a body (be it the current SBA panel or any other) must have at least one user rep who sits as a full member and its decisions and actions must be made public.

Furthermore, requirements such as 'person of standing', 'editorial board' etc and distinctions such as 'narrow/broadcasting' should be dropped unless it can be convincingly demonstrated that they improve rather than impoverish net discussion and content production.

Finally, to put a small matter's record straight, Sintercom did not start with an editorial board. It started as a one-man show. I and many editors who joined early on received warnings from friends etc that we watch what we are getting into. All these happened in the days when the Internet was a free for all. With laws expressedly to regulate political speech, it is difficult to foresee the situation becoming better.

I am not arguing against regulation. However, I'm arguing that regulation must not hinder the growth of Internet and impoverish Singapore related content. This safeguard is best achieved by making the actions of any regulatory body transparent. The best way to ensure this is to include user rep in these bodies.

Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 23:52:25 +1000 (EST) From: Edmund Chia

Call me paranoid but I like to put myself in the place of whoever is in charge of national security when considering such issues. Therefore:

>Are discussions in political parties' web sites considered 'discussions'?
>How can one regulate these sites while claiming not to regulate any
>discussion? Also, web is the focus of the announcement probably because it
>was the most media hyped form of communication. Sooner or later, regulation
>will extend to other forms like mailing list etc. When that happens, the
>same justifications will be used.

Yes. Plato (or was it Socrates) communicated his ideas through a series of dialogues. Similarly, I can see a day when a series of 'structured' discussions may occur on a web page to advance a political message, or a series of e-mail leaflets with a political message. What happens when that message is not to the liking of the government? The current practice is to lock-up whoever might pose a threat to national security under the ISA? A less 'extreme' measure is to exercise control over service providers to 'screen out' any such messages, especially when given the nature of the internet, such political messages may originate from overseas but still possess reach an increasingly wide audience in Singapore (as Singapore draws closer to its stated objective of being fully 'electronically integrated'). The preferred option stated by some is to avoid any controls, and that political messages, regardless of the content or the source, should be given free expression on the net. And that if the government is unhappy with any political messages, they could respond to it with convincing counter-arguments. Unfortunately, IMO, our government is unlikely to simply be content to rely on the logic of its own message, and will almost certainly retain some instrument of control.

>I'm in full agreement with Amy's proposal for a
>body to oversee Internet use. Such a body (be it the current SBA panel or
>any other) must have at least one user rep who sits as a full member and
>its decisions and actions must be made public.

Setting aside current practice with respect to "security interests", one issue to consider in any such regulatory body is accountability and credibility. The representatives, even user reps will have to shrug off the usual allegations of being political appointees. As even the judiciary is subject to regular accusations of bias, this will not be an easy task. The issue of accountability is also an issue - would it be accountable to the government, the courts, a college of eminent persons, etc.

Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 07:31:26 -0800 (PST) From: Tan Chong Kee

>The representatives, even user reps will have to shrug off the
>usual allegations of being political appointees.

The rep need not be appointed. He/she can be elected through Internet voting. There are already well established mechanism to do this by email and web.

It seems that we are more or less in agreement in principles and should move on to concrete proposals.

Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 16:48:25 +0100 (BST) From: Thong Wei Koh

> Especially the point that "standards change as our society evolve".
> So that answers you point of " .. a clear cut declaration of these
> OB markers." which is not necessary and not practical. The practical
> things is to adopt what is already applied for film and press
> censorship.

Not quite. What I am saying is the following:
1. If the government says that there are OB markers,
a. one asks; what are they? and then, why are they there?
b. and more importantly, should politicians in power be allowed to set limits on discussions on political issues?
2. I contest that OB markers are static. They must also evolve to be relevant. Who controls their 'evolution'?

> a. the present censorship guides ( as to the content ) apply
> to ensure consistency amongst the diff types of media ;

I think there is a general agreement that we are not asking for the contents on the internet to be exempt from defamation, libel laws etc or for that matter, the racial harmony act. I think that addresses much of your concern. To be blunt, personally, I think the boundaries can be roughly classified into the following:
1. Material that may endanger state security - military secrets etc.
2. Inflammatory material of racial/religious nature.
3. 'Unsubstantiated' personal attacks/allegations against politicians.
4. Materials that are judged to be incompatible with 'our way of life'.

The first three, I think, can be easily handled by existing laws and regulations. I am worried about the last one. Let us take Catherine Lim's article for example. I do not think she has overstepped the boundaries in that she has made any unsubstantiated allegations. However, she was berated for indulging in politics. This is important to our discussion as I think that incident was one of the first to elicit the expression 'OB markers' explicitly from the government. The government then proceeded to put up a barrage of criticism against her. That's ok. There's enough space on the net to accommodate their views. Why then does the government insist that OB markers are not to be crossed? Does it mean that Catherine is entitled to cross the markers if she is a member of a political party? Does it matter? The views are expressed publicly in anycase. Does one need to be a member of a political party to talk about issues that they are concerned about? One argues that she should not hide behind the 'protection' of her role as a journalist. What about private authors of web sites? What do individuals hide behind that is objectionable?

It is true that our society is different from the west in that we expect our elected leaders to be moral leaders as well. But I think it is quite dangerous to entrust politicians with the power to regulate the limits of political discussions. This is not a matter of subscribing to any silly western ideal. This is pure common sense.

Thus my question, who sets the OB markers? and why?

Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 12:07:21 +1000 (EST) From: Edmund Chia

Just a point of clarification - at present, do any of the 3 service providers provide information to parents on issues of guidance for their kids on Cyberspace, and or provide any software, netnanny, surfwatch, cyberwatch, etc? And are they required to do so by the SBA?

Date: Thu, 04 Apr 96 01:38:36 EST From: Lau Joon-Nie

>Just a point of clarification - at present, do any of the 3 service
>providers provide information to parents on issues of guidance for their
>kids on Cyberspace, and or provide any software, netnanny, surfwatch,
>cyberwatch, etc? And are they required to do so by the SBA?

The 3 local ISPs are currently not required by law to provide filtering software . They presently only block access to some 30-50 sites (they won't give the exact figure) on a list handed to them by SBA - something they've been doing for quite some time now actually (way before this framework was even announced).

One ISP was toying with the idea of coming up with a special kids-access package for parents but since the SBA framework came up - the idea's been shelved for now.

It appears from the SBA regulatory framework news release that public organisations like schools, libraries, community centres and cybercafes will be required to install such software. It goes on to say parents will be "encouraged" to do likewise too.

For those who wish to read the SBA release, it's actually on Edmund's homepage: http://www.antcrc.utas.edu.au/~kwe_chia/sef/SBA.html

Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 01:48:23 +0800 From: Romen Bose

>What I am saying is the following:
> 1. If the government says that there are OB markers,
> a. one asks; what are they? and then, why are they there?

These OB markers that we discuss are similar, I feel, to the real OB markers at sea. One can't quite gauge where it is until one either reaches it or is past it. However, the OB marker can be seen from a distance.

Similarly, the OB markers for political issues are quite obvious. They are there for a reason, to create a level and fair playing field. This means that in discussing political issues, both u and I have an equal opportunity to respond to comments made and so do third parties(the government). Once this is not the case or unsubstantiated and very critical comments are made, we reach the OB markers.

I think that at this point one has several choices. One can go ahead in the same manner but will have to face tight scrutiny from the Government on the issues raised and be able to defend ones position or one can also at this point correct the imbalance by giving equal opportunity for all sides to be heard, thus coming back within the OB markers.

I do not think that the government is afraid of criticism. However, criticism of the way the politics of Singapore is run, must be very clearly justified. Even so, when one disagrees with the fundamental political philosophy of the ruling party, it is obvious that the person belongs to a differing political camp.

That's why the Government asked Catherine Lim to join a political party to make her stand. Her article was very well written and substantiated but the points raised in her article questioned the fundamentals of the political philosophy of the ruling party. When one does this behind closed doors or in private discussions, that is one thing. It can be accepted as a critique of the way things are done and changes that should be made. But when it is discussed in a very open forum like a newspaper it can do nothing but challenge the ruling party openly. That would obviously be overstepping the OB markers as the article now takes on political undertones of its own.

> b. and more importantly, should politicians in power be allowed
> to set limits on discussions on political issues?

I beg to differ in that the question above is moot as the politicians in power can set whatever limits on discussions they want for the people have given them the mandate to run the country and thus make decisions on most aspects affecting the lives of Singaporeans. They can set limits because they are in power.

> 2. I contest that OB markers are static. They must also evolve
> to be relevant. Who controls their 'evolution'?

Again, I beg to differ. OB markers are not stagnant. They were most definitely closer placed in the 70s and earl 80s as Singapore was going through its "nation-building" phase. At that time the main impetus was on the economy and all that helped it grow. Very little emphasis was placed on the arts and culture with the arts scene only developing here in the 1990s when the OB markers were shifted further to have differing opinions on how Singaporeans should develop as an item on the agenda for discussion. That's when the decision to have "r-rated" movies shown here was made.

The markers will move but it will not move with the fastest or the slowest in society. The markers will more likely move as Singapore develops into a more mature society.

>I think the boundaries can be roughly classified into the following:
>1. Material that may endanger state security - military secrets etc.
>2. Inflammatory material of racial/religious nature.
>3. 'Unsubstantiated' personal attacks/allegations against politicians.
>4. Materials that are judged to be incompatible with 'our way of life'.
> >The first three, I think, can be easily handled by existing laws and
>regulations. I am worried about the last one.
>Let us take Catherine Lim's article for example. I do not think she
>has overstepped the boundaries in that she has made any unsubstantiated
>allegations. However, she was berated for indulging in politics.
>This is important to our discussion as I think that incident was one of
>the first to elicit the expression 'OB markers' explicitly from the
>government. The government then proceeded to put up a barrage of
>criticism against her. That's ok. There's enough space on the
>net to accommodate their views. Why then does the government insist
>that OB markers are not to be crossed? Does it mean that Catherine
>is entitled to cross the markers if she is a member of a political
>party?

Political parties most definitely cross the OB markers as their interest in discussing issues of politics are very clear - to get into elected office.

If one gives an opinion belonging to a political party, one has the ability to state publicly, a political position which is contra to the ruling party's stand. This is acceptable from a political party as its agenda is quite clear.

If the opinion comes from a person who does not clearly identify their political party preference, that person is using an open platform to achieve his or her private agenda in stating a political position. This of course means that the playing field is no longer fair and level.

> Does it matter? The views are expressed publicly in
>anycase.

That's exactly why the views matter. It matters because it is not a private group that tells the government what it sees as a contra political view which the government should subscribe to. When it becomes a public group that tells the government in an open forum what political moves it has made wrongly, it is a direct challenge to the government and ruling party.

>Does one need to be a member of a political party to
>talk about issues that they are concerned about?

If one is concerned about an issue, public platforms are a great place to discuss them. However, when a person decides that his view of politics clearly differs from that of the ruling party's politics and comes out in public to state the contra position where he feels the government is wrong, he is getting into politics as he now directly challenges the government with a differing political ideology. At this point, he can should join a political party to give his views and make his intentions clear rather than hiding behind a public forum to spread his political views.

>One argues that
>she should not hide behind the 'protection' of her role as a
>journalist.

Let me assure u that there is no protection in being a journalist. in fact, journalists come under closer scrutiny as they are expected to inform the public of the recent happenings and explain issues that may be unclear. For a clearer understanding of the role of Journalism in Singapore, read the PM's speech at the 150th Anniversary of the Straits Times last year.

It is very clear that the media does not set the agenda in Singapore. The agenda is set by the men and women who have been voted in by Singaporeans as their leaders and only to whom are they accountable.

>Thus my question, who sets the OB markers? and why?

It is the elected government of the people of Singapore who set the country's political, social, economic and cultural agenda and thus the very same guys who set the OB markers. These are the people whom the majority of Singaporeans voted for as the legitimate government of Singapore. They are thus entitled to make the decisions on our behalf.

Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 17:22:37 +0100 (BST) From: Thong Wei Koh

I suppose I'm flogging a dead horse here, but I would like to reiterate some of the points I raised previously. This will be my last msg on this point as I am aware I am going off tangent here. Feel free to email me personally if you wish to continue the discussion on the following points.

> I do not think that the government is afraid of criticism. However,
> criticism of the way the politics of Singapore is run, must be very clearly
> justified. Even so, when one disagrees with the fundamental political
> philosophy of the ruling party, it is obvious that the person belongs to a
> differing political camp.

This is a curious position. Are you suggesting that even if the criticisms are well founded and accurate, they should not be voiced simply if they disagree with the fundamental political philosophy of the ruling party? I am not aware that the truth or honest opinions of individual citizens require a license to be represented in the country. Where would that lead us?

> But when it is discussed in a very open forum like a
> newspaper it can do nothing but challenge the ruling party openly. That
> would obviously be overstepping the OB markers as the article now takes on
> political undertones of its own.

What concerns in life have no political undertones? If one disagrees with capital punishment and is ready to speak and take a stand in public, should he/she be deemed to have overstepped the OB markers? Government policies affect each and every one of us, and why should it not be the business of citizens to take on the responsibility to understand and discuss issues of importance in an open forum in a rational and responsible manner? I think it is of utmost importance that different perspectives and views are represented and considered rather than to restrict public discourse to a narrow government approved position.

Let us examine what the government proposes: It suggests that anyone who wishes to 'participate in politics' should declare his/her intention and join/form a political party. Does one have to signal his/her intention by joining a political party? Political parties are formed to gain power by popular elections in a democratic republic. But is that the intention of anyone who disagrees with the government and wishes to speak out? We can all contribute to society in many different ways; they will be those who will play the educational role, others to gather information, to formulate abstract ideas, and yet others to implement them. We can't be all things at the same time. Political/social scientist or economist might disagree with the government, but does that mean that they necessarily want to be in power? Theoreticians may be wrong, and it is the role of the practitioners to point out the flaws in the theories. Likewise, governments have the responsibility to explain and justify their policies and respond to feedback from the citizenry.

It is a dangerous thing for a society to start to distrust idealist and new ideas. Should Albert Einstein be thrown out of the lecture room because he is not an engineer enough to design instruments to prove his theories?

> I beg to differ in that the question above is moot as the politicians in
> power can set whatever limits on discussions they want for the people have
> given them the mandate to run the country and thus make decisions on most
> aspects affecting the lives of Singaporeans. They can set limits because
> they are in power.

I beg your pardon, but the question is not 'moot'. I don't think it is right to say that there is nothing to discuss simply because it has been instituted to be so. Politicians are given the mandate to run the country. That is true. But that does not mean that they are given a blank cheque to do whatever they wish whenever they can. I think we are confusing the issue of whether they are capable of instituting the policy that we are discussing, with the more philosophical matter which is; Should they? I would rather expect that most governments enact policies because it is 'fair' or 'just' rather than because they are in power.

But what have all these to do with the internet? Well, as I have mentioned before, the internet is a new medium that allows individuals to bypass traditional middle-men (printers, editors, publishers) to reach out to an unprecedented number of people. Therefore, to require that one respects a protocol that is not defined, or to join/form a political party in order to voice a differing opinion is a tad over the top.

The government has done a good job, and I am confident that it will be more than competent when it comes to justifying its policies in public. The internet is the ideal place for the government to engage its citizenry and address concerns dynamically.

Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 09:01:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Tan Chong Kee

There are now two different alternative proposals: one that calls for having at least one user member sit in a quasi-governmental body that does not act unless it receives complains and another (from Chade Meng) that calls for setting up a virtual forum of users and regulators to police the net. People can of course suggest others as we move along. We already know the goal of an alternative proposal (minimize abuse etc) but we need to put together a coherent argument about the relative advantages (and foresee any possible disadvantages) of our alternatives. In my opinion, the advantages are:

1) Without 'broad/narrowcast' distinction and license requirement, it does not discourage quality content production. (with current SBA proposal, quality content that attracts many readers risk being classified as 'broadcast' and attracting attention from government regulators to the content producer: is she of 'good standing', is there an editorial board etc, thus indirectly discouraging good content production)

2) Without extra regulation for political web sites, it does not risk discouraging political participation by the net users (predominantly the younger generation) and in fact helps to achieve the state goal of the government: encourage youths to participate more in politics. (current SBA proposal clearly perpetuates the perception that political speech is frown upon)

3) By emphasizing self-regulation and responsibility, the gov can achieve the same aim: an orderly net without having to resort to passing too many laws.

The general point is that this new medium need not be brought completely under the same laws as print and other media. Why?

1) As an experiment to see if free discussion without all those restrictions can be more productive and less kiasu. Such discussion can produce new ideas and directly benefit Singapore.

2) Then, we can objectively observe the pros and cons of regulation: compare print/TV with Internet to see their bests and worst. This will give us valuable information on how best to regulate media. The present spell of no regulation has been too short for anyone to start systematically doing this observation.

There must be other reasons why we should consider an alternative. I have not covered the relative merits of the two we have, nor have I said anything about their drawbacks. Maybe others on this list would like to add their opinions.

Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 13:20:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Tan Chong Kee

Thanks everyone for giving your valuable opinion to this panel. Based on what people have said, Thong Wei and I have written up what we think is a concrete and constructive proposal to Internet regulation in Singapore. Please read it and tell me whether you want to sign it. I'll wait until Wednesday 15 May for your response. After that, if there is no strong objection, I'll try to send it to the relevant authorities and also make it public. Thanks for your time and patience!

1. We welcome and applaud SBA's reply to the petition that it intents to take a 'practical approach in regulating Internet' in its response to the Internet users' petition. We are likewise committed to seeing IT develop to its fullest potential in Singapore. However, we feel it is important to understand clearly that there is still no unanimous agreement on many issues. These include:

a. The direction of development of Internet use: Users would like more providers and lower fees while regulators prefer to limit providers through tendering of licenses.

b. What constitute objectionable content: Users generally prefer access to more content than regulators might deem acceptable.

c. What constitute political speech and threats to stability: Regulators generally tend to operate with a much broader set of definitions than users.

d. How much censorship parents want for their children: Some would like to censor the slightest mention of sex while others see such information as crucial to a healthy development of their children.

e. What do the distinctions private vs. public, or local vs. overseas mean: Are they determine by accessibility, content, number of hits, physical location of server or other criteria? How would mailing lists and other Internet functions be classified? Where can we draw the line?

f. The trade off between content censorship on the one hand and net speed, versatility and reliability on the other: All attempts to censor involve some costs. Users generally tend to prefer minimizing the impact on net efficiency while regulator generally tend to be more concerned with the effectiveness of censorship.

2. It should be clear that these are not easy divergence to resolve. There are no a priori right or wrong answers to any of them. We would suggest that the best resolution will probably not completely satisfy either perspective but would be one that is most conducive to IT development. Hence, recognizing that a close mutual engagement of users and regulators is crucial to ensure the development of IT to its fullest potential, we humbly propose the following approach:

a. Basic principles and definitions of what should be curbed should be discussed with inputs from users and the rest of the population in Singapore. Most importantly, these should be spelt out explicitly and agreed upon to dispel any potential misunderstanding and ambiguity.

b. We fully support the government's principle of `right-to-reply' in handling instances of disagreements in opinions in the printed medium. The internet provides the capability to disseminate information over a wide geographical area almost instantly. As such, any response from an aggrieved party should be easily reprinted and disseminated. We urge the authorities to consider drafting regulations that supports this principle as the primary method of control rather than censorship for the internet.

c. We believe that the public will take more responsibility for maintaining a high standard of decency on the internet if representatives are included in the actual regulatory body. We propose that the authorities accept a some members of the public as part of any regulatory body in order to represent the users' point of view.

d. It is important that there is a robust feedback channel between regulators and the users. With such a fast developing technology, it is crucial that an advisory body comprising of a suitable mix representing expert opinion, business concerns and user interests be formed to provide continual feedback to the regulators on the appropriateness and the effect of internet regulations.

e. Lastly, we urge the authorities to ensure that are adequate avenues for appeal against deliberations by the regulatory body and that the set of formal procedures and rules with regards to internet regulations be made easily accessible. Further, we hope that procedures or actions taken by the regulatory body to censor any content on the internet be published and made easily available.

3. We are optimistic that the new technology will be contribute not only to our economic growth, but also our development as a gracious and mature society. We believe that a flexible approach to such a new and untested technology is the best way to ensure that we, as a society, will reap the optimum benefits.

Before I begin, kudos to Chong Kee and Thong Wei for attempting to create some coherence out of the mass (mess?) of stuff we've been posting to this list. It's been getting awfully quiet here lately, can almost here a pin drop! I suppose things will pick up again as soon as the SBA announces the details of the framework, which is expected ANY TIME soon. So stay tuned!

BTW, the matter is not likely to be debated in Parliament again since the framework will come *under* the SBA Act - it will most likely take the form of subsid legislation or as an administrative structure. Depending on which sections of the Act are invoked, some things may have to be gazetted, possibly - names of registrable organisations, eg. But BG Yeo has indicated that the framework's not going to be debated before Parliament (at least that's what he told me).

For what it's worth - here's my response to Chong Kee's and Thong Wei's very laudable effort (esp since it's not easy keeping track of devts from afar) but I fear it may be a little late to make any impact on the framework that's expected any time now.

>1. We welcome and applaud SBA's reply to the petition that it intends to
>take a 'practical approach in regulating Internet' in its response to the
>Internet users' petition. We are likewise committed to seeing IT develop to
>its fullest potential in Singapore. However, we feel it is important to
>understand clearly that there is still no unanimous agreement on many
>issues. These include:
> a. The direction of development of Internet use: Users would like
>more providers and lower fees while regulators prefer to limit providers
>through tendering of licenses.
With Pacific Internet able to drop its rates to S$9.95 for the first 12 hrs a month, I'm afraid the lower fees argument doesn't quite hold the attraction it used to anymore, bearing in mind the considerable cost of having to pay for ILC connections which are about $1.5M a year per T1 (? - can't recall, can someone clarify?). Singnet has one E1 and a T1 to the US, Cyberway - one T1, and PI a T1, E1 and a 768Kbps one. They all lease international leased circuits (ILCs) from Singtel which in turn could've made more money from using the same bandwidth for IDD calls instead of selling it to the 3 IASPs at bulk rate. Cost of a T1 within the US is something like US$200 a year - the cost differential is already obvious. (Now, on top of that, there's the S$100,000 p.a. 2Mbps Singapore Internet Backbone which is shared equally among the 3 IASPs to run. Also, not forgetting the one-off(?) $450,000 internet licence fee they each had to fork out).

Moreover, with more providers doesn't necessarily mean better service - just means a wider choice ranging from excellent to absolutely-the-pits service, as the Aussie experience, with some 220+ providers and resellers, has shown (according to a market report by an Australian-based internet research consultant). Decent IASPs like Ozemail have rates comparable or more expensive than some of our IASPs). Simply put - you get what you pay for.

> b. What constitute objectionable content: Users generally prefer
>access to more content than regulators might deem acceptable.
> c. What constitute political speech and threats to stability:
>Regulators generally tend to operate with a much broader set of definitions
>than users.
My main concern is that service providers (including resellers and those providing widespread access such as educational institutions, libraries and community centres) will be overzealous in their implementation of the "Acceptable Use Policy" and this may do more harm than good. (AUP was first mentioned by the SBA CEO in his interview with the IT programme, Cybertime, last month (the transcript of which is unfortunately no longer available on the prog's website). :( FYI, according to him, all ISPs (which inclds resellers and other providers) will have to implement such AUPs and take "reasonable measures" to guard against easy access to objectionable material.)

And in their enthusiasm to comply strictly with the AUP, I fear they may start imposing stricter-than-necessary measures to ensure their users comply with the SBA guidelines when creating their own webpages. Some US unis have gone as far as disallowing webpages by even student organisations. Such harsh measures will definitely dampen creativity and enthusiasm to publish even legitimate, genuine content, which would be a sad loss indeed. (Imagine the irony if secondary school/JC students who are now taught web authoring skills then go on to uni and find themselves disallowed or heavily restricted in the way they want to publish their own webpages!)

> e. What do the distinctions private vs. public, or local vs.
>overseas mean: Are they determine by accessibility, content, number of
>hits, physical location of server or other criteria? How would mailing
>lists and other Internet functions be classified? Where can we draw the
>line?
It's clear from the SBA news release that the framework's only targeted at webpages. BG Yeo at the news conference on Mar 5 said newsgroups were not included due to their lack of substance and the amount of noise they contained which no one could take seriously anyway. So stuff like mailing lists, email and newsgroups are not the Govt's concern since they tend towards the narrow-casting end of the spectrum, rather than the broadcast side.

As for housing one's website overseas as a way to circumvent the SBA framework, his simple answer was "We can block it if necessary".

The question however that looms in my mind is over the phrase that goes something like this, "All content providers (except those acting in their individual capacity) shall be deemed to be licensed...." Does this mean personal homepages are exempted from this class licence? Does it then mean that they are not bound by the terms of this licence? It's a matter which SBA says will be made clear when the framework's details are announced.

Another concern of mine is the registration requirement for websites dealing with politics, race and religion. It's a question of degree. If I am a religious lawyer and put on my personal homepage a factual backgrounder on say, the political parties existing in S'pore or an overview on local constitutional law - dealing with writs of habeas corpus and the like, and the basic tenets of my religion - would I have to register? And if so, will there be registration fees involved? While those acting in their individual capacities are exempted from class licensing, does a similar exemption apply to those who's personal pages touch on these areas and to what extent can they? It does seem absurd that if someone wanted to put out a homepage featuring his racial origins and the multiracial milieu we live in, he'd have to register and perhaps even pay a fee in order to do so!

> f. The trade off between content censorship on the one hand and net
>speed, versatility and reliability on the other: All attempts to censor
>involve some costs. Users generally tend to prefer minimizing the impact on
>net efficiency while regulator generally tend to be more concerned with the
>effectiveness of censorship.
Techie staff at the IASPs will tell you that proxy caching of popular sites does actually improve access speeds tremendously as no longer do users need to visit the site overseas. It's already cached locally and refreshed regularly. Proxy caching is done not only to censor, but elsewhere, it is used to lessen the load on popular sites or reduce overseas traffic.

As long as the list of forbidden sites is kept reasonable to its present 50 or so, IASPs say that will have little impact on speed or operating costs. The problem will however arise if this list gets unduly long, meaning the server will have to check every single outgoing request against the list, thus slowing things down considerably and hence the need for more proxies, lines and bandwidth. So as long as the list stays reasonably short, access will be pretty fast and reliable thanks, ironically, to proxy caching.

> d. It is important that there is a robust feedback channel between
>regulators and the users. With such a fast developing technology, it is
>crucial that an advisory body comprising of a suitable mix representing
>expert opinion, business concerns and user interests be formed to provide
>continual feedback to the regulators on the appropriateness and the effect
>of internet regulations.
This is already being done - the National Internet Advisory Committee is being set up comprising of "suitably qualified individuals" and is supposed to look into all aspects of the net including its impact on business, commerce, marketing strategies, on the family, etc. May I suggest individuals such as Philip Yeo (CEO, Sembawang Corp and former NCB chief), Marc Tan (NCB's New Media Cluster), Dr Toh See Kiat (CASE president), Dr Tan Tin Wee (NUS Internet R&D Unit), Laina Greene (Telecomms law lecturer/consultant), Dr Ang Peng Hwa (Mass comm lecturer), just some names that come to mind. Do you think we'd be allowed to nominate persons? :)

> e. Lastly, we urge the authorities to ensure that are adequate
>avenues for appeal against deliberations by the regulatory body and that
>the set of formal procedures and rules with regards to internet
>regulations be made easily accessible. Further, we hope that procedures
>or actions taken by the regulatory body to censor any content on the
>internet be published and made easily available.
Yes, safeguards are important although it's not clear if such avenues for appeal can or will be incorporated into the framework or if appellants will have to resort to remedies offered by administrative law, eg. seek a court order to compel the regulatory body to do or not to do something, etc.

In closing, I think it's important to bear in mind that this framework cannot censor EVERYTHING, nor does it purport to. These attempts have already been described by BG Yeo himself as "symbolic... an affirmation to young and old alike of the values held by a community". So the idea behind it all appears to be - make access to undesirable sites *difficult*, and not attempt the impossible. While we, English-speaking, tertiary-educated professionals may object to having curbs imposed on certain types of information and on our desire to express ourselves freely, there's still a largely-conservative Mandarin-speaking majority out there who may want these curbs in place after all. Parents shunning their responsibility and leaving it to the state? A govt paranoid at seeing a replay of political, religious and racial strife of the past? Perhaps.

I thought I'd end off with a very revealing quote from LKY, in an interview with Nathan Gardels, editor of the New Perspectives Quarterly:

"The top 3 to 5 percent of a society can handle this free-for-all, this clash of ideas... If you do this with a whole mass... you'll have a mess. In this vein I say, let them have the Internet. how many Singaporeans will be exposed to all these ideas, including some crazy ones, which we hope they won't absorb? 5 percent? Okay. That is intellectual stimulation that can provide an edge for society as a whole. But to have, day to day, images of violence and raw sex on the picture tube, the whole society exposed to it, it will ruin a whole community."

> Before I begin, kudos to Chong Kee and Thong Wei for
> attempting to create some coherence out of the mass (mess?)

Thanks from me too.

> With Pacific Internet able to drop its rates to S$9.95 for
> the first 12 hrs a month, I'm afraid the lower fees argument
> doesn't quite hold the attraction it used to anymore,
agree.

> Moreover, with more providers doesn't necessarily mean
> better service - just means a wider choice ranging from
> excellent to absolutely-the-pits service, as the Aussie
agree too.

> will be overzealous in their implementation of the
> "Acceptable Use Policy" and this may do more harm than good.
can't be helped. kiasu and kiasi is natural Singaporean trait.

> Techie staff at the IASPs will tell you that proxy caching
> of popular sites does actually improve access speeds
> tremendously as no longer do users need to visit the site
agree too. the problem is indeed reduced. but the observation is that since the access speed is greater, more people are clicking more, so the access speed improvement through caching is counterbalanced by increase in user activity. So the tremendous improvement may not be that tremendous during peak time with some ISPs. What this tells us is that significant number of people were turned off by slow speed. Now that faster access is available, the pent up demand manifests as increased usage which adds to the load. Whatever it is, proxy caching is good for efficient usage of bandwidth, heavy load notwithstanding.

> overseas. It's already cached locally and refreshed
> regularly. Proxy caching is done not only to censor, but
> elsewhere, it is used to lessen the load on popular sites or
> reduce overseas traffic.
True.

> As long as the list of forbidden sites is kept reasonable to
> its present 50 or so, IASPs say that will have little impact
> on speed or operating costs. The problem will however arise
> if this list gets unduly long, meaning the server will have
> to check every single outgoing request against the list,
> thus slowing things down considerably and hence the need for
> more proxies, lines and bandwidth. So as long as the list
> stays reasonably short, access will be pretty fast and
> reliable thanks, ironically, to proxy caching.
Short lists need not mean limited number of sites because it could be a list of rules which can match more than one site per rule. But care needs to be taken on the way rule is formulated and implemented or risk throwing more babies out with the bathwater.

Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 22:21:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Tan Chong Kee

Thanks Joon Nie and Tin Wee for your very thoughtful responses.

OK, so we cannot make any impact in this very important first stage of legislation, but we can still (hopefully with faster coordination) try to argue for refinement if some rules are too restrictive.

Perhaps we should now concentrate on calling for (ok, back to the drawing board)
1) A clear and direct avenue of appeal
2) More transparent working: blocking should be made know to users
3) There be user rep in the National Internet Advisory Committee

Finally, the LKY quote is indeed revealing, esp in his estimation that it is only the top 5% of society that can handle 'free-for-all, this clash of ideas'. My personal estimation is closer to 50% if not more. There is a difference between a person who is innately incapable of critical thought (presumably due to low intelligence) and one who has been schooled not to think. The 5% refers to a situation where most Singaporeans have been schooled not to think. This state cannot last forever.

Return to The Panel Index