HRW letter to Singapore government; German telecom URL

[declan@well.com (Declan McCullagh)]

Attached is the letter Human Rights Watch/Asia sent to Singapore yesterday.
Kudos to HRW for taking the lead in calling attention to the actions of the
censorhappy Singaporeans. More background is at:
  http://www.eff.org/~declan/global/

Also, you can find an English version of the German telecommunications act
at:
  http://www.government.de/inland/ministerien/post/tkge00.html

-Declan

---

August 13, 1996

BY FAX: +65-375-7765

Mr. George Yeo
Minister for Information and the Arts
460 Alexandra Road, 37th Story
PSA Building
Singapore 119963

Dear Mr. Yeo,

     I am writing on behalf of Human Rights Watch/Asia to protest the recent
decision by the Singapore government to establish strict controls on Internet
use. The implementation of the Class License Scheme, which, according to a
July 11 government news release, "will focus on content which may undermine
public morals, political stability and religious harmony,"ensures a leading
role for Singapore among international promoters of online censorship. This is
a particularly unfortunate role for Singapore, which has been a leader in the
development and promotion of Internet use in Asia. It places Singapore in the
same category as countries like China, where Internet users must endure
onerous restrictions.

     One of the most unique and valuable characteristics of the Internet is
its ability to establish easy, inexpensive and practically instantaneous
communication between the farthest points of the earth. By prohibiting
connections between its citizens and various Web sites outside its borders,
Singapore is in essence removing itself from the global Internet. If, as will
surely happen, its example is followed in other countries, the Internet, which
held such promise as the world's first truly global medium, will be nothing
more than a set of country-specific networks where local prejudices and fears
are reinforced by technology.

     Our specific objections concern Singapore's decision to regulate the
Internet as if it were a broadcast medium. Unlike broadcast media, the
Internet is the first truly mass medium. Through e-mail, it allows individuals
with nothing more than a computer and a modem to express their views to an
international audience. Even the World Wide Web differs significantly from a
broadcast medium in that individuals are not confronted with a particular site
upon connecting to the Web--they may choose whichever sites they choose to
visit. As with other forms of Internet communication, anyone may put up his or
her own site on the Web. The Singapore government's own use of Web pages
demonstrates how the Internet can be used to propound a particular point of
view. Its citizens, so long as they are not using their site to incite to
violence, should have the same opportunity to express views as their
government. As stated in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights:

     Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression: this
     right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and
     to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any
     media and regardless of frontiers.

     We are particularly concerned that restrictions have been placed on
Singaporeans who wish to discuss religious and political ideas online. It is
only through unrestricted discussions of such serious topics by all members of
society, no matter how unpopular their views, that these subjects become less
explosive. Forbidding discussion--in effect, treating its citizens like
children--will, on the other hand, ensure that dangerous topics remain just
that.

     We are also concerned that the extraordinarily broad categories of
forbidden content, as outlined by the SBA, will encourage arbitrary
restrictions on communication. According to the Internet Content Guidelines,
the following topics are banned.

     Public Security and National Defense

          a.   Contents which jeopardize public security or national
               defense.
          b.   Contents which undermine the public confidence in the
               administration of justice.
          c.   Contents which present information or events in such a
               way that alarms or misleads all or any of the public.
          d.   Contents which tend to bring the Government into
               hatred or contempt, or which excite disaffection
               against the Government.

     Racial and Religious Harmony

          a.   Contents which denigrate or satirize any racial or
               religious group.
          b.   Contents which bring any race or religion into hatred
               or resentment.
          c.   Contents which promote religious deviations or occult
               practices such as Satanism.

          Public Morals

          a.        Contents which are pornographic or otherwise obscene.
          b.        Contents which propagate permissiveness or
                    promiscuity.
          c.        Contents which depict or propagate gross exploitation
                    of violence, nudity, sex or horror.
          d.   Contents which depict or propagate sexual perversions
               such as homosexuality, lesbianism, and pedophilia.

By banning such subjects a chill will be sent through the online community in
Singapore, and will render the Internet essentially useless in allowing any
kind of serious discussion.

     In addition to forbidding particular content, the government has also
announced that some sites will be banned. Internet service providers were
given the deadline of September 14, 1996,  to begin using proxy
servers--devices that can prohibit connections to specified sites--to
connect all their
subscribers.

     Although the government has promised to use a light hand in regulating
the Internet, its activities even at this early stage indicate otherwise. A
July 12 posting in the Usenet newsgroup "soc.culture.singapore" was reportedly
removed at the request of the SBA, who asked local Internet service providers
for its removal because it alleged that lawyers at a local law firm were
incompetent. The request came, according to the Straits Times, after the law
firm complained to the government. Despite the removal from the newsgroup, the
message is still widely available to Singaporeans through other Internet
sources, indicating that content control will be difficult unless Internet
access is restricted even further.

     We hope that the Singapore government will retract these repressive new
regulations, and support the development of an unfettered Internet. Instead of
using its power to restrict Internet use, the government could play a truly
useful role by devising ways to expand its use to even the most disaffected
members of its population.

                                   Sincerely,
                                   Sidney Jones
                                   Executive Director

cc:  Mr. Goh Liang Kwang, Chief Executive Officer, Singapore Broadcasting
       Authority
     Ambassador Bilahari Kausikan, Permanent Mission of Singapore to the
       United Nations