Journal of Law, Information and Science
|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Journal of Law, Information and Science |
|
ASSAFA ENDESHAW PHD LLM LLB[*]
The search for legal measures to meet the challenge presented by the Internet, namely the control of ‘undesirable’ information available through it to the public at large, has produced results in at least three countries. Just as in other countries, the existing laws in Singapore have not directly addressed the multifarious nature and insidious impact of the Internet. Considering that nearly all the laws in Singapore were aimed at conventional means of information dissemination, it is no surprise that they fall far short of the demand of the times and the standards that government sought to set for the new technology. It was therefore inevitable that Singapore would follow suit by enacting new legislation and/or setting out a “code of practice” that users and service providers would be expected to observe. This article seeks to explore the recent developments in Singapore in that direction and to assess the emergent regime of regulation.
Governments across the world are grappling with the problem of how to tackle what they consider to be ‘undesirable’ information available to their citizens through the Internet, or, as usually referred to, via cyberspace. Words, graphic images and DIY instructions (like how to make a bomb) supplied indiscriminately on the Internet to anyone who may care to access them from anywhere on the planet have been found objectionable on some ground or other. In particular, the unrestricted supply of information they regard as ‘immoral’, ‘obscene’ or ‘subversive’ has been cause for their worry as to what best means could be used to curb or, at least, ‘filter’ it.
There seems to be a consensus that children will be particularly vulnerable to pornographic material if the current free access to such material on the Internet continues unchecked. The recently exposed horror of paedophile murders in Belgium backed by networks brazenly operating on the Internet has dramatically illustrated this need. Although the technology to prevent free flow of any information will doubtless be pursued (along the lines of the so-called V-chip for television), there will soon be ways around any such technology, as has happened regularly in the past. The growing use of filtering devices to prevent transmission or reception of specified items of information and images will in the meantime enable a lessening of the perceived danger, even though other types of information might be smothered in the same process.
Germany underscored the need to do something about such information when it resorted to administrative action (the threat of withdrawing the licence from service providers[1]). France has been calling for international action to solve this problem; its proposal was formally presented to the EEC in April 1996.[2] Australian attempts to deal with the problem have undergone various turns and twists ending with the publication, on June 30, 1996, of the report of the Australian Broadcasting Authority, “Investigation into the Content of On-Line Services: Report to the Minister for Communications and the Arts”.[3] China has gone further in devising and imposing administrative requirements to screen out “unwanted” information from being available to its citizens who might surf the Internet.[4] ASEAN as a group has expressed concern and a desire to find a suitable formula.[5] The Malaysian Prime Minister was on record as saying that “There must come a time when the international community comes together to have a law that can be applied in every country...For example, if a person in the United States was floating dirty literature in the Internet which affects our children here, we can then appeal or bring a charge against the person”.[6] He also referred to the near impossibility of stopping news from being disseminated through the Internet: “Just about anything can be spread. You can be as subversive as ever and you can actually tell Malaysians they should revolt against the government. There is practically nothing we can do.”[7]
The search for legal measures to meet the challenge has produced results in at least three countries. The United States has taken the step most have so far been unable to do, namely the promulgation of special legislation (the Communications Decency Act[8]), despite the setbacks the Act has suffered before the courts.[9] France issued a censorship law known as the “Fillon amendment” although it too was declared by a court as being in violation of constitutional rights.[10] Britain amended its law on obscenity under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to make it an offence to transmit pornography from one computer to another electronically.
Just as in other countries, the existing laws in Singapore have not directly addressed the multifarious nature and insidious impact of the Internet. The author has indicated elsewhere, a few weeks before the impending changes were announced on 6 March 1996[11], that such was indeed the situation.[12] Considering that nearly all the laws were aimed at conventional means of information dissemination, it is no surprise that they fall far short of the demand of the times and the standards that the government sought to set for the new technology. It was therefore inevitable that Singapore would follow suit by enacting new legislation and/or setting out a “code of practice” that users and service providers would be expected to observe.
Singapore’s entry into the information age began in the 80s when the civil service was slated to be computerised at the same time as training of information technology manpower was taken up earnestly to support expanding industrialisation. This soon evolved, during the 1986-91 period, into a national Information Technology Plan through the co-operation of the National Computer Board, the Economic Development Board and the National University of Singapore to underpin the emergence of an export-oriented information technology industry. Then followed, in 1991, IT2000, a government blueprint to transform Singapore into an “intelligent island” where business, society and government would be inter-linked through a national information infrastructure, very much like plans in the US or Western Europe. The spread of the Internet came only in 1995 with an estimated 100,000 subscribers.[13]
Singapore’s position is compounded by the fact that, as the implementation of the IT200 plan to achieve total connectivity gains momentum, it is placed on the map as a leading nation in this respect; the rapidly expanding ‘virtual space’ so created needs to be filled. The new space has led to the emergence of vigorous electronic discussion newsgroups that scrutinise every aspect of life not only by enthusiasts from abroad but also from within the country. Linked as it has been with the ongoing debate on East v West values and to the political and social order in Singapore, the effervescence of communications on the Internet on practically any subject will not have passed unnoticed by the government.[14] The initial step seemed to have been a desire to counteract adverse publicity on the Net by helping set up a youth group that would rebut criticism and perceived misrepresentation of the reality in Singapore. The reactions of other countries to the explosion of information on the Net appeared to have been closely monitored too. Thus when the announcement came in March 1996 that “Guidelines” would be issued to providers of services with the objective of filtering out communications considered likely to disrupt the social and political conditions of Singapore, it was obvious that the government was on the path towards introducing legal measures. Interestingly, although there was no express statement on the difficulty of applying the existing laws or, even less, of their irrelevance to the new technology, the resort to new laws and forms of regulation indicated in no uncertain terms that they were seen to be not fully applicable.[15] We shall make a quick recap of the laws to show whether that was the case.
Before the introduction of the new regulations, there were four sets of laws that could have relevance to the Internet. These were the Undesirable Publications Act (Chapter 338), the Computer Misuse Act (Chapter 50A), the Indecent Advertisement Act (Chapter 135) and the Penal Code (Chapter 224). None of these laws could conceivably have embraced the new development in all its manifestations since all of them predated it. However, an assessment of the objectives of the laws in terms of the “undesirables” sought to be avoided would indicate that, however far removed they might have been from the current concerns, they might be read in certain ways to cover those concerns. To be sure, the exact forms in which the concerns are expressed today might call for a totally new approach, that is instead of tinkering with extensions of pre-existing laws to embrace the new developments. The degree to which either solution is appropriate will be shown relative to the four pieces of legislation referred to above.
The Undesirable Publications Act (Chapter 338) allows the Minister concerned to issue an order banning the import, sale or circulation of publications he deems to be “contrary to the public interest”. It is a requirement of the law that the Minister publishes his order in the official Gazette. The obvious question which arises is whether postings on the Net could be considered “publications” since the Act seems to have been intended to target hard copies, and not electronic versions. That such might have been the intention is proved by the definition of “publication” provided in the Act as one which “includes all written pictorial or printed matter and everything, whether of a nature similar to written or printed matter or not, containing any visible representation, or by its form, shape, or in any manner capable of suggesting words or ideas, and every copy and reproduction or substantial reproduction of any publication.” (Emphasis added.) Nevertheless, the broad definition issued might be interpreted differently, particularly since the medium of publication and the form of representation are not exclusive of electronic ones (as the underlined words suggest). The fact, however, that the government felt a new legal regime would be necessary and went on to issue, instead of making any amendments to the existing law, such a regulatory measure is indicative of the opposite; namely, that the Internet has been viewed as an entirely new species and therefore deserving of new law to reinforce existing ones in so far as they remain applicable. That no new Act was passed by Parliament nor a new regulation issued by the Minister concerned and it was basically left to the statutory organ in charge of broadcasting to implement the “Guidelines”, suggests that the government views the situation (appropriately, one might add) to be still in a flux, and therefore not deserving of a rigid legal solution.
Another law having the same kind of focus, perhaps more directly, is the Indecent Advertisements Act (Chapter 135), which prohibits affixing, displaying or such other ways of transmitting obscene pictures, printed or written material. Yet, the intended target appears to be traditional forms of transmitting and displaying the forbidden items. A reading of Section 5[16] will support this view and make any interpretation which might seek to include cyberspace as being too elastic.
The other law with a concern for the protection of the public from immorality or obscenity is the Penal Code. Sections 292-4 prohibit “public exhibition” or singing of obscene material; so are “books, pamphlets...representations or figure or any other obscene object what so ever” and “in any manner put into circulation”.
Sending “indecent articles” by post is disallowed under section 93 of the Telecommunications Authority of Singapore Act (Cap 323). However, the obvious question of manifest difference with electronic media may make this provision inapplicable. Even if the purpose of the exclusion approximates to what may be desired to be done with regard to transmissions on the Internet, the specific reference to “post” will definitely prevent that from happening.
The other important law which is likely to impinge on the Net is the Computer Misuse Act (Chapter 50A). This Act’s coverage of data protection or security and the safety of computers may suggest that the content of the messages would be scrutinised. If unauthorised access to or alteration of program, data or output are prohibited, then, the transmission or display of obscene or generally unwanted material without the authority of the proprietor would appear to be inappropriate. However, this might look much further away from the objective of the law; besides, content alteration and mere display of something transmitted from somewhere else would seem to be different things.
There is an important aspect of the Misuse Act which should be mentioned. It relates to the question of jurisdiction over persons who have misused, or altered data stored in, a computer in Singapore. The law[17] does not make any exception to offenders depending on where they might be: “the nationality of the person involved or his residence at the time of the commission of the offence (access or alteration of program, data or output without authority) is immaterial so long as either the person or the computer, program or data were in Singapore during the commission of the offence.”[18] This aspect of the Act may appear to fit the cross-border nature of transmissions on the Net, however uncertain the prospect of enforcement of any decision based on it could be.
The new direction in legal development was ushered in when the Singapore Broadcasting Authority (SBA) issued a statement on March 3, 1996 indicating its intention to introduce a licensing scheme for Internet operators and content providers. The stated objective was that of keeping “the parts of the information highway which passes through Singapore relatively clean.” The SBA declared that “Singapore will encourage the development of the Internet to its full potential. However, we must also try to keep in check abuses in cyberspace like pornography, hate literature sowing social and religious discords, and criminal activities.”[19] The licensing arrangement was described to “concentrate on areas which may undermine public morals, political stability or religious harmony in Singapore”.[20]
The targets of the new regime would be, on the one hand, service operators which were stated to include Internet access service providers; resellers of such a service; and Internet service providers at public places like in schools, libraries or community centres. The requirement of being licensed or re-licensed (for those previously regulated under the Telecommunication Authority of Singapore) under the SBA suggests, though not explicitly, that what is under consideration is “communications of a broadcast nature”.[21] On the other hand, “content providers of a broadcast nature”, excepting “individual users in their personal capacity”,[22] will observe SBA’s guidelines on objectionable content without being exempted from existing laws that regulate print and broadcast media.
What is interesting to note is that the degree of responsibility expected of service providers would not be absolute. The Statement of SBA pointed out that what will be required of service operators is “to take reasonable measures against the broadcast of objectionable content on the Internet.”[23] As we will argue below, the requirement of “best efforts” or “reasonable measures” is dependent on a number of factors some of which may not be under the control of service providers at all. In cases, therefore, where the latter may be shown to have exerted their maximum efforts but were unable to, or could not ever, stem the supply of objectionable material, they might not be held liable in law. Indeed, the “Class Licence Scheme” of July 11, 1996 (to be discussed below) suggests that this may be the view of the SBA: “If any doubt arises as to whether a licensee has used its best efforts in compliance with the conditions of its 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.”[24]
A further level of enforcement outlined in the statement refers to requiring schools or community centres to install filtering software. As for those putting up webpages, the authority sought the operators to register with the SBA as well as that their editors be “persons of standing”. This will be so particularly where political parties set up webpages[25] or the webpages mainly concern political and or religious affairs in Singapore or where the publication is an electronic newspaper directed at Singapore subscribers.
In marked contrast with the demands placed on service and content providers, which are presumed to be not “individual users acting in their personal capacity”, the SBA promised that “Private communications not of a broadcast nature will not be affected.”[26] The government has also affirmed directly that it would not be curbing individual e-mail communications.[27] In a letter to The Straits Times,[28] an official of the Singapore Broadcasting Authority reiterated the following:
We acknowledge that a heavy-handed approach to Internet regulation will not only stifle the development and usefulness of this powerful medium but will also run counter to the Internet spirit as the Net thrives on the free flow of information.
To fully control what goes on in the Internet is not possible and it is not our intention to do so. We will therefore adopt a pragmatic approach in formulating our regulatory framework; one which regulates by exception, ensures minimum standards are kept and encourages responsible use of the Internet...[W]e strongly encourage community policing as a long-term solution for the healthy development of the Internet.
The Singapore Broadcasting Authority affirmed this view again, about a month later.[29] The Chief Executive Officer of the Authority also assured the public by stating that
We are not here to censor discussions and we are not trying to control discussion. All we hope to do is to encourage responsible discussion. And I think there is no fear whatsoever...people who would like to conduct discussion on the net, it will carry on as usual, and they need not fear. But by having regulation in place, we are telling people, the net user- ‘please conduct discussions in a responsible manner and be responsible for what you say because if you criticise someone, then some can actually take action against you in court if you say something that is defamatory to that person’.[30]
The new regulations, issued on July 11, 1996 by the Singapore Broadcasting Authority, took the shape of a “Class Licence Scheme” and became effective from July 15, 1996. The proper name of the legal instrument, drawn on the basis of Section 21 of the Singapore Broadcasting Authority Act (Chapter 297) is “The Singapore Broadcasting Authority (Class Licence) Notification 1996”, No. S 306/96. The coverage of the “Scheme” is set out under paragraph 3 of the Notification and includes six forms of broadcasting services among which are computer on-line services supplied by Internet content and service providers (the subject we have elected to dwell on). The six forms are subject to a class licence the details of which are enclosed in a schedule appended to the Notification.
The Notification differentiates between content and service providers. Paragraph 2 defines an “Internet Content Provider” as being an individual, corporation or group of individuals (in all legal forms and whether or not registered or incorporated under Singapore laws) who provides any programme on the World Wide Web through the Internet. The contents of the programmes caught by the definition do not appear to have been specific, although the requirement on single individuals may focus on programmes that are meant for “business, political or religious purposes” while those for organisations are “any programmes”. The distinction does not seem very clear.
The reference to “Internet Service Provider” (ISP), on the other hand, is followed by a list of those licensed under the Telecommunications Authority of Singapore Act to provide Internet access;[31] resellers of services from those with Internet access but dedicated to a single site or institution (therefore called “Localised Internet Service Reseller”); resellers of the same type of service but not at a definite location or to specific users only (thus called “Non-localised Internet Service Provider”). Organisations that provide Internet services to their own employees for use within the organisation concerned are not considered as being service resellers.
The basic obligations of service or content providers, or, to use the exact phrase, the “conditions of class licence” under the Schedule are that
(a) those currently active would register with the SBA within 14 days after the effective date of the Notification (that is 15 July 1996);
(b) those to be established at later stages will register within 14 days of providing service;
(c) in the case of Internet Service Providers, to “faithfully and truthfully furnish such information, and furnish such undertaking, as the Authority may require in connection with the provision of the Internet Service Provider’s service”;[32]
(d) in the case of Intent Content Providers (particularly political parties registered in Singapore, those who engage in on-line newspaper business “for a subscription fee or other consideration”,[33] those putting up web sites either as a group or individually) to “faithfully and truthfully furnish such information, and furnish such undertakings, as the Authority may require in connection with the Internet Content Provider’s service”;[34]
(e) they keep and furnish to the SBA “all information, records, documents, data or other materials concerning or relating to the provision of its service as the authority may, from time to time, require”;[35]
(f) they use their “best efforts” to ensure that their services comply with such Codes of Practice as the SBA may “issue from time to time” and that their service are not used “for any purpose” and do not contain “any programme that
(i) is against the public interest, public order or national harmony; or
(ii) offends against good taste or decency”;[36]
(g) they ensure that their services are not used for certain prohibited acts, namely in furtherance of games and lotteries, broadcasting of horse-racing analysis; fortune-telling; solicitation of prostitution or any other immoral activity;[37]
(h) they ensure that rules in place regarding the supply of professional advice or consulting, censorship of sound recordings, films and video recordings by the appropriate bodies have been complied with;[38] and
(i) they pay the prescribed fees.
Undoubtedly, the requirement on Internet Access Service Providers (IASP) would appear to be extensive. However, the SBA has indicated its willingness to help out by suggesting to them such sites as might be offending the Conditions of Class Licence, that is the Schedule; where that is done, the IASP concerned will be obliged to comply and remove or prohibit the broadcast in whole or in part. This is further clarified in an Annex to the Schedule. The SBA has declared that it “recognises it would be impossible to actively monitor the Internet to pre-censor objectionable sites. As such ISPs will only be required to block out objectionable sites as directed by SBA. For services that involve subscription, such as newsgroups, ISPs will be required to exercise judgement on which services to subscribe to, in accordance with SBA’s Content Guidelines.”[39] The latter have recently been incorporated into a Code of Practice, as envisaged earlier (mentioned above) and we will turn to them presently.
The Internet Code of Practice was issued on July 15, 1996[40] as a public notice (No.2400), pursuant to the powers delegated to the Singapore Broadcasting Authority.[41] The short foreword placed at the head of the Schedule refers to the Authority’s mandate not to include “in any broadcasting service which is against public interest or order, national harmony or which offends good taste or decency” and that the Code was issued to ensure that this is done.[42] Internet Service Providers and Internet Content Providers which are required to obtain licenses under the Singapore Broadcasting Authority (Class Licence) Notification 1966 are further expected to comply with the Code and “to satisfy the Authority that they have taken reasonable steps to fulfil this requirement.”[43] Those failing to do so would be subject to the Authority’s power “to impose sanctions, including fines”.[44]
The excluded or “unwanted information” are listed under section 2 of the Code of Practice. The general exclusion covers anything “which is against public interest, public order, national harmony or which offends against good taste or decency.”[45] It might be noted that the exclusion targets those which are “against” the listed items without stating how one would judge what may be against from what is not against. The difficulty for licensees of determining, offhand, whether any posting or transmission of information might or might not be offending the Code appears clear. It is well known that even the established legal rules pertaining to issues of public interest or good taste might not be sufficient to cover the actions of the licensees. The broadly defined duty, on licensees, of ensuring that the standards are maintained will inevitably demand more of licensees’ resources: a greater degree of proficiency in legal parameters of what are permissible and not so as per the Code; more extended periods of examination of postings and communications before they are released for the subscribing members (and the public at large); increased levels of interaction (perhaps not excluding conflicts) with subscribers arising from a likely reluctance of licensees to accept communications which appear not to “pass” the tests implicit in the Code; the impacts of all of these on costs and returns.[46]
However, this may be counter-balanced by the fact that the standard of performance required of licensees appears not to be absolute in that they are only enjoined to “use their best efforts to ensure” compliance.[47] Although the implication of the “best endeavours” proviso is not immediately clear, the special circumstances of the Internet, the rapidity of communications and the difficulty of harnessing the continuous flow for regulatory purposes,[48] may be taken into account in determining whether a licensee was or was not in breach of the code. Moreover, considering that cyberspace is increasingly proving ungovernable even by the standards of the best “cybercops” imaginable, the degree of allowances for failure envisaged by the Code may indeed be wider than might appear. Compared with the best alternative of shutting out any “unwanted information” through a total blackout (the very notion of which the government has repeatedly come out against), the requirement of “best efforts” in a reality which is characterised by dynamism and unpredictability and, therefore, enormously beyond control might be construed as permission to continue business as “normal” or “slightly less than normal”.
However, the government’s special concerns as iterated in the Code might necessitate a performance on the part of licensees which is more than “business as usual”. In contrast with the general exclusions cited already, the remaining parts of section 2 (a, b, and c) state in no uncertain terms that the government leaves no room for compromise. These are concerns for public security and national defence, racial and religious harmony and public morals. Not only are the elements of each category listed separately but also its sub-elements. Thus, pornographic or generally obscene materials, the propagation of permissiveness or promiscuity, violence or nudity and depiction of sexual perversions such as homosexuality and paedophilia are outlawed from being supplied in Singapore.
It goes without saying that the scope of the prohibitions and the dividing line, for instance, between information that would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice[49] and such other information as that might strengthen it, will require judicial guidance and determination. In that regard, the general exclusions and the special ones are not very far apart. However, the specificity of exclusions enumerated help licensees and the public at large in identifying the no-go areas.
Singapore’s attempt to curb smut and other material considered objectionable on grounds of creating social discord or fomenting political disorder is in line with the efforts of many countries that find themselves in a similar situation. The fact that the each country will have to work out solutions in accordance with its specific social and political needs and aspirations is also obvious. What may be uncertain is the extent to which the law brought in at any stage will keep up with the fast pace of developments in the communication technologies. On the positive side, the government, the service providers and the users recognise that changes are unstoppable and that flexibility would be desirable. Thus, Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was quoted as saying, “So I think we need to put in some mechanism, some basic control. Not to close off information, but to channel and guide the development of the system, and let norms evolve”.[50]
On the other hand, the multi-faceted nature and potentially explosive impact of Internet technology will continue to defy exact formulae. The fact that it is a cross between print media, the television and the telephone where voice, image and written forms are manipulated to create and transmit messages with instantaneous speed will dictate responses which might not be adequate or lasting. As an official of Cyberway, one of the Internet access service providers in Singapore, asserted, “We can install programs to stop our customers from accessing the unsavoury sites. We can disallow access to certain discussion groups. But if the surfer knows how, he can get around it.”[51] An editorial in The Business Times[52] encapsulated the problems and prospects in this way:
Can control of this amorphous, constantly evolving medium ever be comprehensive ? No. Apart from the fact that new websites are popping up by the hundreds every day, determined hackers can and will work around any regulations that authorities anywhere try to impose. But that is hardly an argument to have no regulations at all. Some measure of control will at least make access to the worst of the Net less than straightforward. This should help keep much objectionable material at bay, especially from the young.
With these recent measures, Singapore has responded to the challenge of balancing the beneficial features of the Internet with the control of its objectionable aspects. Yet, there is no gainsaying nor foretelling what the future might hold and what sort of changes might be required in the laws to keep up with unfolding developments in information technology that Singapore has sought to embrace unconditionally. Ultimately, the call for an international agreement and technological solutions will find further echos in due course.
[*] Lecturer in Law, Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
[1] In November 1995, German child pornography investigators (prosecutors) searched the premises of CompuServe, a service provider, and forced it, in the following month, to pull the plug from its clients whose activities were seen to be unacceptable to them. (The Times, London, December 29, 1995.)
[2] A step in this direction was taken when the G-7 nations (with Russia as a participant) issued a declaration containing 25 principles at the July meeting in Paris convened in the wake of the increased call to curb international terrorism. Two of these principles concerned the Internet; one related to agreement on encryption of data to allow government regulation; another on limiting availability of certain types of information on the Internet. See, EPIC Alert, Volume 3.14, August 1, 1996. See, http://www.epic.org/alert/
[3] Ibid.
[4] See, Assafa Endeshaw, Intellectual Property in China: the roots of the problem of enforcement, (Acumen Publishing Co., 1996) at pp.159-60.
[5] Wang Hui Ling and Chua Mui Hoong, “ASEAN and the challenge of new technologies”, The Straits Times [Singapore], March 8, 1996, at p.35. (Reporting on the Fourth Conference of ASEAN Ministers for Information held in Singapore.)
[6] “Wanted: Pact to check Internet smut”, The Straits Times, April 4, 1996, at p.29.
[7] Ibid.
[8] The Act, passed by the US Senate on June 14, 1995 and signed by President Clinton on February 8, 1996, bans materials considered “obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy”; the penalty for offenders includes up to US$100,000 of fines and 2 years of prison.
[9] The decision of the Philadelphia Court on June 11, 1996 to grant a preliminary injunction against the Act on the basis that it was unconstitutional (violation of right to free speech) has again been repeated at the New York Federal Appeals Court on July 29. The appeal of the Justice Department on the first decision is still being considered by the US Supreme Court.
[10] See note 2, above.
[11] See Geoffrey Pereira, “New moves to regulate the Internet here”, The Straits Times, March 6, 1996., at p.1.
[12] See Assafa Endeshaw, “New Rules for the Internet ?”, The Singapore Law Gazette, February 1996, at p.32.
[13] A reported estimate by Survey Research Singapore puts the number of intending subscribers by next year to go up to 291,000. (Ng Wei Joo, “300,000 could subscribe to Internet by next year”, The Straits Times, April 8, 1996, at p.2) The National Computer Board has already started surveys to assess current impacts of the Internet on homes and businesses. (Thomas Lee, “NCB to survey the impact of Internet here” The Straits Times, May 23, 1996, at p.19.)
[14] The Prime Minister of Singapore, Goh Chok Tong, is reported to have said at an ASEAN ministerial conference that “Censorship of undesirable material cannot be 100 per cent effective. But the act of censorship itself establishes what we perceive to be right or wrong and reaffirms to both young and old the values that we hold as a community.” See, “Governments around the world clamping down on Internet excesses”, Life ! : The Straits Times, March 12, 1996, at Page Five.
[15] The newly appointed CEO of the SBA seemed to suggest this when he said “We would like to have existing law apply on the net...some of the laws, they do not cover the [Internet] media so some of these laws need to be amended so they could cover offences committed on the net. Having said that, it would be neater and more effective if we could regulate such offences under the SBA and bring under the umbrella of the regulation framework rather than to take the particular case through existing law and prosecute them.” See, “An Interview with Mr Goh Liang Kwang”, Weekly Stories, http://cybertime.com.sg/sbaceo.htm.
[16] A brief version may be presented as follows: “Whoever affixes to or inscribes on any house...tree or any other thing, whatsoever, so as to be visible to a person being in or passing along any public place...or delivers...exhibits, to any inhabitant or any person...or exhibits to public view in the window of any house or shop, any picture or printed or written matter which is of an indecent or obscene nature, shall be guilty of...”
[17] Section 8 reads “...the provisions of this Act shall have effect, in relation to any person, whatever his nationality or citizenship, outside as well as within Singapore; and where an offence under this Act is committed by any person in any place outside Singapore, he may be dealt with as if the offence had been committed within Singapore...[T]his Act shall apply if, for the offence in question, (a) the accused was in Singapore at the material time; or (b) the computer, program or data was in Singapore at the material time.” Cf. Section 48(3) of the Companies Act that extends
[18] See note 12, above.
[19] The Singapore Broadcasting Authority, Statement on the Internet, March 3, 1996.
[20] Ibid.
[21] This is the sense one gets from the following: “Private communications not of a broadcast nature will not be affected.” Ibid.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Paragraph 15 of the Schedule to the Class Licence Scheme or the Singapore Broadcasting Authority (Class Licence) Notification 1996.
[25] An opposition party had reportedly launched its Web site in March, 1996; see, “NSP is first opposition party to launch own Web site”, The Straits Times, March 9, 1996, at p.25.
[26] See note 19, above.
[27] Information and Arts Minister George Yeo stated plainly during the budget debate in Parliament, “I am not really interested in regulating the Internet for private e-mail, individual web pages which are used more for communication purposes...Even now, our approach is to do only what is essential and do-able, and move in a tentative way, testing the water as we go along, one foot at a time...Our priority is to go after those who produce and distribute and not individuals, because there are too many individuals and it is not practicable.” The Straits Times, March 16, 1996, at p.27.
[28] Ahmad Shuhaimi, “Regulating Internet: SBA will be pragmatic”, Forum: The Straits Times March 20, 1996, at p.32.
[29] The Singapore Broadcasting Authority reportedly assured Internet users who petitioned it on the proposed regulations that “It is not our intention to limit free expression of ideas and curtail open, mature, debate on the Internet.” See, “SBA to seek feedback in fine-tuning Net regulations”, The Straits Times, April 24, 1996, at p.3.
[30] See, note 15, above.
[31] Currently, there are three of them: Singnet, Pacific Internet and Cyberway.
[32] Paragraph 2(1)(b) of the Schedule.
[33] Paragraph 4(a) of the Schedule.
[34] Paragraph 5 of the Schedule.
[35] Paragraph 10 of the Schedule.
[36] Paragraph 11 of the Schedule.
[37] Paragraph 13 (a) to (d) of the Schedule.
[38] Paragraph 13 (e) to (g) of the Schedule.
[39] Annex A of the Schedule.
[40] Republic of Singapore, Government Gazette Extraordinary, Vol.38, No.37.
[41] Section 18 of the Singapore Broadcasting Authority Act (Chapter 297).
[42] Internet Code of Practice, note 40, above, section 1(1).
[43] Internet Code of Practice, note 40, above, section 1(2).
[44] Ibid.
[45] Internet Code of Practice, note 40, above, section 2.
[46] Some have questioned the necessity of tight control at all by referring to the commercial viability of those affected by such control: “Money spent on regulation means Internet Service Providers (ISPs) can’t put money on bandwidth, speed and reliability (of their services)”. See “Factors in regulating the Internet”, Business Times, [Singapore] June 6, 1996, at p.2.
[47] Internet Code of Practice, note 40, above, section 2.
[48] The CEO of the SBA admitted to that effect when he said “We are not trying to be 100% effective in regulation because the Internet is such a flexible medium...If the minority of people would like to, on their own, venture to, surf and visit some of these sites, there is no way we can ensure that they will not, cannot do so.” See, note 15, above.
[49] Internet Code of Practice, note 40, above, section 2 (a) (ii).
[50] “B.G. Lee launches Net edition of Berita Harian”, The Sunday Times [Singapore], March 10, 1996, at p.3.
[51] Thomas Lee, “No problem sticking to rules, say access, service providers”, The Straits Times, March 9, 1996, at p. 27.
[52] “Editorial: Regulating the Internet”, The Business Times, March 7, 19996, at p.10.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/JlLawInfoSci/1996/15.html