FC: Singapore political website reluctantly registers with government

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

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/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------