The article lovingly copied and pasted for my own archive below is from Asia Media: Media News Daily and features yours truely. The original is posted here. I have recently commented on the issue and feel that the recent 'Bloggers Charged With Sedition', highlights what I believe to be the biggest and most powerful method of control that the Singaporean government uses to control the internet. Anyone care to guess?

Internet controls not just about blocking sites, says report
U.S. researchers say the government achieves cyber control using threats of defamation lawsuits more often than Internet filters

By Christine Chiao
AsiaMedia Staff Writer

Monday, September 12, 2005

Researchers from Harvard, Cambridge, and the University of Toronto say Internet censorship in Singapore goes beyond high-tech filtering software. Censorship of the web, they say, is instead achieved by strict libel and defamation laws.

An Aug. 17 OpenNet Initiative (ONI) report, "Internet Filtering in Singapore in 2004-2005," examines the methods by which the Singaporean government establishes cyber control over its netizens. According to the report, the state telecommunications department, Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), uses a rigid, complex legal system to maintain the government's standard of decency. In 2003, the Singapore Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts released a broad definition of indecency as anything that poses a threat to national security, moral values, any religious or ethnic group.

Derek Bambauer, part of the ONI research team and a research fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society of Harvard Law School, notes via e-mail, "While the number of sites required to be blocked by Singapore is much lower than in other states ONI has examined, it is clear that the combination of legal and technical controls can still restrict certain types of content significantly."

In a separate study, ONI noted the efficacy of China's Internet filtering system, widely considered one of the most comprehensive and technologically advanced in the world. In contrast with the Chinese government, Singapore officials implement little technical filtering to block undesirable sites. They rely instead on looming threats of defamation lawsuits or imprisonment. The results reveal the complexity of Internet regulation, highlighting the interconnection between legal and technological practices.

"ONI finds that most states employ a mixture of legal and technical regulation to control online content. Legal methods are often used to encourage or frighten citizens into censoring their expression preemptively. These two methods overlap and reinforce each other," explains Bambauer.

A May 7 Straits Times article notes one case involving Singaporean blogger Jiahao Chen. Chen, a former government researcher and graduate student in the United States, was contacted by A*STAR about a Mar. 3 posting on his Caustic Soda blog. A*STAR said his comments constituted defamation against the agency's chief Philip Yeo. Facing legal consequences, Chen, known online as AcidFlask, issued a public apology, shut down his blog and promised to avoid making similar statements in the future.

When Singapore does regulate the web by blocking sites it deems offensive, it depends on Internet service providers (ISPs). The Singapore Broadcasting Act requires ISPs, content providers, as well as political and religious organizations with websites to register and obtain a license from the government to operate online. The nation also uses hardware and software created by American companies such as Secure Computing, Websense and Cisco to regulate site access, says Bambauer.

By using proxy servers outside Singapore and accessing the web from within the country itself, the researchers found that of 1,632 sites tested, eight sites were blocked. The report suggests that these blocked sites are meant as warnings for the 1.8 million Singaporeans who have access to the Internet. The sites that are blocked include content about illegal drugs, pornography and religious fanaticism.

"Filtering software is flexible; it can block access to pornographic and human rights sites with equal ease. This raises important, difficult questions about what responsibility information technology companies have regarding the use of these products," says Bambauer.

“The ONI report is missing stories and insight from those involved with the Internet and civil liberties. The report was a restatement of other reports and findings such as RSF [Reporters Withour Borders], AI [Amnesty International] and the Think Centre in Singapore,” says Steven McDermott , author of Singabloodypore, a blog that highlights sociopolitical issues in the nation. “I am sure their report adhered to certain requirements and constrictions to meet their particular needs, [but] knowledge of a subject requires multiple perspectives.”

Bambauer says, though, that ONI research is different from other reports precisely because it uses "quantitative testing and analysis." "Most other work on Internet filtering or censorship is anecdotal or qualitative; while such approaches can lend some insight, a quantitative methodology is essential to draw defensible conclusions," says Bambauer.

The ONI report's legal analysis is also significant, he says. "It is critically important to understand that Singapore’s laws regarding defamation place a relatively heavy burden on defendants, which leads to caution regarding on-line expression (particularly political expression). This background legal context helps non-Singaporeans understand the larger environment within which filtering operates."

France-based press freedom advocate Reporters Without Borders (RSF) ranks Singapore as among the worst press freedom offenders in their 2004 report; out of 169 countries, Singapore is ranked at 147th in terms of press freedom.

Date Posted: 9/12/2005


Human Rights

So it appears that the surveillance of the internet in Singapore is working well then...
By Pearl Forss, Channel NewsAsia

SINGAPORE : For the first time in Singapore, two bloggers have been charged under the Sedition Act with making racist remarks.

Twenty-five-year-old Nicholas Lim Yew faces two charges and 27-year-old Benjamin Koh Song Huat faces three.

A subordinate court was told that both their blogs had racist content, which sparked off a heated discussion online.

The charges read that Lim had, on 16 and 17 June 2005, posted racist remarks on the general discussion forum of www.doggiesite.com.

Koh was alleged to have done the same on 12, 15 and 17 June on another website, www.upsaid.com.

In doing so, they are alleged to have committed an act which had a seditious tendency.

This is defined as promoting feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races of the population of Singapore.

Both men are out on bail of S$10,000 each.

The case is expected be heard again on September 21.

A person is deemed to have committed an offence under the Sedition Act if he performs any act which has a seditious tendency, or conspires with any person to do so.

It is also an offence to utter any seditious words or to print, publish, sell, distribute, reproduce or import any seditious publication.

First time offenders can be fined up to S$5,000, or jailed up to three years, or both.

For subsequent offences, they can be jailed up to five years and have their seditious publications forfeited and destroyed. - CNA /ct

Related Link:
Tomorrow.sg and Racist Blog
Relevant Portion of Sedition Act from Singsingapore

I am not a Freedom of Speech absolutist but I am aware that sometimes governments use certain tactics in an attempt to justify legitimate political issues and debates not reaching the population of certain countries and so I have provided links to two very important sites:

"We believe that the benefits of Freenet, for example for dissidents in countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, far outweigh the dangers of paedophilia or terrorist information being distributed over the system."

Ian Clarke, Freenet


The Free Network Project
Anonymizor

I have also looked up Sedition on wiki and got quite a shock...

Sedition refers to a legal designation of non-overt conduct that is deemed by a legal authority as being acts of treason, and hence deserving of legal punishment. The term is deprecated in most countries, though equivalent language may still be in use in totalitarian and fascist jurisdictions.

Critical speech, political organization, and mere association between individuals may be considered as "sedition." And though such behaviours may be common in a free society, in societies where sedition laws exist the acts and behaviours which qualify are highly subjective, and typically left to the whims of state agents. Legal definitons of sedition often include subversion of a constitution, or incitement to rebellion or insurrection toward the lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws.

Because "sedition" is typically considered the subvert act, the overt acts that may be prosecutable under "sedition" laws vary from one legal code to another. Where those legal codes have a traceable history, there is also a record of the change of definition for what constituted sedition at certain points in history. This overview has served to develop a sociological definition of sedition as well, within study of persecution.

The legal difference between sedition and treason consists primarily in the subjective ultimate object of the violation to the public peace. Sedition does not consist of "levying war" against a government nor of "adhering to [its] enemies, giving them aid and comfort" (Article Three, U.S. Constitution). Nor does it consist, in most representative democracies, of peaceful, non-violent protest against a government, nor of attempting to change the government by democratic means (such as direct democracy or constitutional convention).

Human Rights

The worry is that this is commonplace in Singapore. Surely someone can tell if the daughter has been convicted of a criminal offence or not? If not then the agent has no right to hold Veerpal Kaur.

Punjabi women held hostage in Singapore
Sunday 11th September, 2005
Saffajang Singh - Panthic Weekly Staff

Moga, Punjab (KP) - As already hundreds of cases of Punjabi youths having been tricked by unscrupulous travel agents have come to light in the past few years, yet another such case has come to be known. This time, it involves a Punjabi girl named Veerpal Kaur, who has been deceived while seeking to settle in a foreign country.


Mohinder Singh, father of Veerpal Kaur, alleged that a Moga based women's travel agent, who had promised getting his daughter settled in Singapore, is holding his daughter hostage. He also fears that his daughter will end up being trapped into the filthy ‘flesh trade’. Mohinder Singh had paid Rs. 51,000 to this travel agent who was arranging Veerpal's immigration to Singapore.


The unfortunate parents of Veerpal Kaur managed to gather Rs. 51,000 in the hopes that their daughter might be able to improve the family’s monetary conditions by working in abroad but now how it turned out tragically when they received a letter from Veerpal in which she details her tragic stories in Singapore. According to the letters, the travel agent who also obtained employement for her, took a $700 (Singapore) cut from her wages and then accused her of stealing $18,000 from a house. He also said that the travel agent now wants to recover the stolen amount before she be allowed to return to India.


The letters also mentioned that Veerpal was ill-treated and her modesty was sexually assaulted at the house where she was employed. When Veerpal Kaur’s parents took up this matter with the travel agent in Moga, they were told that Veerpal has to work in Singapore until she can pay back the stolen money or her parents would need to pay the Rs. 3 lakh equivalentof the stolen money.


Most unfortunate for Veerpal’s parents it that, despite numerous complaints, no action has been taken so far. A factor in this pattern of inaction be for the fact that Veerpal is of Dalit background. If India truly considers itself to be a democratic country, then it should be responsibility of the countries officials to care for ALL citizens of the country, regardless of their family background or caste.

Saffajang Singh can be reached at saffajang.singh@panthic.org


Human Rights

First saw this on Singapore Rebel. For those of you who have noticed a drop in my production rate I apologise. I am currently in Singapore having passed through immigration freely. As I am only here for a few days I have decided to spend time with good friends and great conversation instead of blogging about the great conversations.

Normal Service will be resumed in October 2005. Postings until then will be less frequent.


Agence France Presse
September 2, 2005
SINGAPORE

A SINGAPOREAN activist has filed a police complaint against national broadcaster MediaCorp for allegedly violating the island's Films Act banning political advertising using film or video.
The complaint, filed by Yap Keng Ho, accuses MediaCorp of screening two programs about ruling People's Action Party leaders and is meant as a protest against Singapore's stringent censorship, Yap said.

Yap told AFP Friday, Sept 2, he wanted to expose a pro-ruling party bias in the legislation banning political films with his complaint, which comes as police investigate independent Singaporean film maker Martyn See for making a documentary about an opposition leader.

The Films Act bans political advertising using films or videos, as well as movies directed towards any political end such as promoting parties.

"I feel that it is a very unfair and biased legislation," Yap, a 44-year-old information technology consultant, told AFP. "I want to show the world whether law enforcement (in Singapore) is going to be fair or not."

Yap's complaint alleges that MediaCorp had violated the Films Act by screening two programs in 2002 and this year featuring Singapore's founding father Lee Kuan Yew and his son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, respectively.

A spokesman for the Singapore police confirmed they received the complaint "and are currently making the necessary checks with the Media Development Authority (MDA)."

A spokesman for MediaCorp said they were unaware of Yap's complaint.

On Monday, filmmaker See surrendered to police his camera and remaining tapes of the documentary "Singapore Rebel" about Chee Soon Juan, secretary-general of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party.

Chee, the most vocal opposition politician in Singapore, is facing bankruptcy after the High Court ordered him to pay S$500,000 (US$300,000) for defaming PAP leaders.

Affluent Singapore has often been criticised by human rights groups for maintaining strict political controls despite its rapid modernisation since becoming a republic 40 years ago last month. Singapore has been ruled by the PAP since independence.

Human Rights