FC: Singapore political website reluctantly registers with government

From: Declan McCullagh (declanat_private)
Date: Tue Jul 17 2001 - 08:40:44 PDT

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "FC: Biometric news: U.K. cops nab teen, U.S. police try face recog"

    Previous Politech article:
    
    "Singapore orders political websites to register with government"
    http://www.politechbot.com/p-02257.html
    
    ---
    
    http://www.sintercom.org/sba
    
       We were asked by Singapore Broadcasting Authority (SBA) to register
       Sintercom under their "Singapore Broadcasting Authority (Class
       Licence) Notification 1996" on 5th July 2001. Here is the letter.
    
       After receive this letter, we starting to think about our options.
       These are:
       
        1. To move Sintercom overseas
           
         Sintercom started overseas at Stanford University anyway, and
         moving it back to Silicon Valley where it started is very easy. The
         only problem is that going overseas will contradicts our belief
         that it is possible for openness to exist in Singapore, and that
         frank and open discussion of issues is good for the future of our
         country. Besides, I am now working in Singapore so moving only the
         web site but not myself overseas is not a complete solution. This
         brings us to option 2.
        2. To appeal with SBA
           
         I started the process by writing them a letter asking them why they
         have decided to revoke the exemption, hoping to start a dialogue,
         which hopefully could lead to sufficient mutual understanding,
         which will make a successful appeal possible. However, their reply
         was a reiteration of their original demand without any attempt to
         engage my query. I conclude from this that SBA does not wish to
         have any dialogue with Sintercom. This brings us to option 3.
        3. To stop operations and close down Sintercom
           
         Since a lot of my free time is taken up by the running of
         Sintercom, this is a very attractive option. If I can slowly scale
         back my public activities, I will have more leisure time for myself
         (BTW, anyone interested in taking over from me please write. I have
         been running Sintercom since 1994 and am about ready to move on).
         The only thing holding me back is our belief (maybe people who are
         more wise might perhaps say our naiveté) that it is still possible,
         even when election is near, to speak frankly for the good of the
         country. So this brings us to option 4.
        4. To register with SBA as they have demanded
           
         We have sent in the forms to SBA on 17 July 2001.
         
         Two things in the registration forms struck me. One is obvious: on
         Form B2, the webmaster must declare that he/she takes full
         responsibility for all the content on the website, regardless of
         whether or not he/she had any editorial control. Fortunately, when
         I searched the SBA website, I found a clause in their code of
         practice that made this declaration more reasonable:
         
         (3) An Internet Content Provider discharges his obligation under
         this Code:-
         
         (a) in relation to private discussion fora hosted on his service
         (eg. chat groups), when the licensee chooses discussion themes
         which are not prohibited under the guidelines in clause 4 below;
         
         This means that instead of having to actively read every single
         line that appears on our web-based chat, the webmaster needs only
         choose theme that are not prohibited. We only have three themes in
         our Forum: Kopitiam style general discussion, food, and forum
         self-governance. All seem alright to me. The other content, such as
         the Not The ST Forum, might have more problems and I shall come to
         them later.
         The other thing that struck me but only later was that on the annex
         to Form B2 page 2, the webmaster must provide not only he/her
         personal information like IC, address, phone and email (naturally,
         the webmaster must be identifiable and contactable by SBA), but
         also his employer's contact and monthly salary, regardless of
         whether the web site has anything to do with the webmaster's place
         of work. Why does SBA need to identify and/or contact the employer?
         I do not know, but have dutifully provided that information as
         well.
           
       Filling in forms was easy. Now, the question becomes: What does
       registration means for Sintercom? How can we comply?
       
       As I see it, there are these ways:
       
        1. To start erring on the side of caution, to hold back anything we
           think could remotely offend anyone, in short, to self-censor.
           
         This is not a viable option for us especially since it goes against
         our belief that it is possible for Singaporeans living in Singapore
         to speak their minds frankly because we do so with the best
         interest of Singapore at heart. To self-censor now defeats the
         purpose of our existence. So, this brings us to option 2.
        2. To pretend as if we did not register and operate as before
           
         Unfortunately this is not possible since the clauses "i. against
         the public interest, public order or national harmony; or ii.
         offends against good taste or decency" is so vague that almost
         anything in Sintercom could conceivably be construed as such. I do
         not want to be in a situation where I could be hauled into court
         anytime, depending on how someone in power has decided to interpret
         content in Sintercom. This leads to option 3.
        3. To send everything we published to SBA for clearance
           
         And we will censor anything that SBA tells us should be censored.
         We shall assume that if SBA clears certain content or does not
         reply to object to it, that particular content is kosher.
         
         In the SBA website, under the code of practice, it is stated that:
         
         (3) An Internet Content Provider discharges his obligation under
         this Code:-
         
         (b) in relation to programmes on his service contributed by other
         persons who are invited to do so on the licensee's service for
         public display (eg. bulletin boards), when the licensee denies
         access to any contributions that contain prohibited material that
         he discovers in the normal course of exercising his editorial
         duties, or is informed about;
         
         And in the Singapore Broadcasting Authority Act (chapter 297) it is
         stated that:
         
         15. If any doubt arises as to whether a licensee has used its best
         efforts in compliance with the conditions of this licence, the
         licensee shall be treated as having used its best efforts if it
         satisfies the Authority that it took all reasonable steps in the
         circumstances.
         
         I do not know what SBA defines as "all reasonable steps" but will
         assume that by furnishing SBA with everything instead of letting
         SBA discover content they object to and than having to inform us,
         we have taken "all reasonable steps". What we gain by doing this is
         that we will get clear and timely indication from SBA about our
         content. We protect ourselves from being accused of wilfully
         displaying content that contradicts section (x) article (y) of
         their code because the content had been up for 3 months and we did
         nothing to take it down. In this way, we will not self-censor, but
         we let SBA censor us whenever they like. This is not foolproof
         (nothing is) as someone could just set up another site overseas
         called NOT The Sintercom Site to archive all the censored stuff.
         But that person will not be me and it would not be within my
         control what happens overseas.
         
       Many things could still go wrong. We will try to hold fast to our
       belief and principals as much as we can as new problems crop up. If
       future problems are too numerous or too insurmountable, we could still
       close down Sintercom. Of course, we hope that day will never come. If
       it does, it would be a dark day indeed.
       
       Finally, I would humbly suggest to the government my belief that the
       most effective way to address worries about its good name being
       slandered is to engage critics in open debates. The Internet is
       neutral. It can spread slander about the government just as fast as it
       can spread slander about others. Likewise, it can spread good things
       about the government just as fast as it can spread good things about
       others. The Net is merely a neutral though powerful medium of
       communications. If the government is worried about the Net spreading
       slander faster than good things about it, it might want to do some
       exhaustive investigation why this is so. Trying to prevent differing
       views from appearing on the Net does not fundamentally address or
       resolve dissent. In the long run, trying to regulate discussion of
       issues on the Net will do more harm than good.
    
    
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
    You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
    To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
    This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jul 17 2001 - 08:55:20 PDT