issues relating to Singapore” must register with
the MDA.
15
As licensees, ISPs and ICPs are also
bound by the MDA’s Internet Code of Practice.
The Code defines “prohibited material” broadly,
specifying only a few standards for sexual, violent, and intolerant content. 16 Where filtering is
not mandated at the ISP level, the Code requires
that ICPs deny access to material if so directed
by the MDA. Licensees that fail to comply with
the Code may face sanctions, including fines or
license suspensions or terminations, as authorized under the Broadcasting Act. In 2005, one
Web site titled “Meet Gay Singapore Friends”
was reportedly fined USD5,000 by the MDA for
being in violation of the Code. 17
Threats of civil and criminal liability under
other laws further deter Internet users from posting comments or content relating to sensitive
issues. In May 2005 the state-funded agency
A*STAR accused Jiahao Chen, a Singaporean
doctoral student in the United States, of posting
“untrue and serious accusations against
A*STAR, its officers and other parties,” and
threatened Chen with “legal consequences
unless the objectionable statements were
removed and an acceptable apology published.” 18 Chen complied with A*STAR’s
demands and replaced the posts with an apology, thereby avoiding a potential defamation
suit. 19 The high-profile case prompted caution
20
in the Singapore blogosphere and discussion
21
on how to avoid suit under the nation’s defamation laws.
22
In October 2005 two men were jailed under
the Sedition Act
23
for the first time in nearly forty
years. One received a one-month sentence and
the other a nominal one-day sentence and a
USD5,000 fine for posting racist remarks denigrating Muslims and Malays. 24 In January 2006,
a twenty-one-year-old was also charged with violating the Sedition Act after he posted four cartoons of Jesus on his blog. The charges were
eventually dropped, but not before Singaporean
authorities had confiscated the individual’s computer and removed the cartoons from his blog. 25
In November 2006 SDP activist Yap Keng
Ho was sentenced to ten days in jail after he
refused to pay a fine for speaking at an illegal
SDP rally, held in April 2006. Yap had posted a
video of the speech on his blog and was ordered
to remove it by a judge. 26
The above incidents appeared to presage
further repressive legislation and policies against
Singaporean Internet users. In 2007 the Ministry
of Home Affairs (MHA) is expected to table
before parliament a slate of amendments to the
Penal Code. The proposed amendments expand
the scope of nineteen offenses to cover acts perpetrated via electronic media, including “uttering
words with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person” (§298); defamation
(§499); and making “statements conducing to
public mischief” (§505). 27 Section 298 is being
modified further to cover “the wounding of racial
feelings,” so that offenders may be prosecuted
under the Sedition Act or the Penal Code. 28 The
MHA amendments also introduce nineteen new
offenses, including abetting “an offense which is
committed in Singapore, even if any or all of the
acts of abetment were done outside Singapore,”
as via Internet or mobile phone (§108B). 29
ONI testing results
ONI conducted testing on Singapore’s two major
IASPs, SingNet and StarHub, and on a third ISP,
SysTech. A common perception of the
Singaporean Internet community points to the
existence of a list of 100 banned Web sites purportedly maintained by the Media Development
Authority (MDA). ONI found that only seven Web
sites tested, all relating to pornography, were
blocked, including www.sex.com, www.play
boy.com, and www.penthouse.com. The blocking
of only these high-profile sites suggests that filtering is indeed mandated for symbolic, rather
than preventative, purposes. Moreover, the seven
366
Country Summaries
the MDA.
15
As licensees, ISPs and ICPs are also
bound by the MDA’s Internet Code of Practice.
The Code defines “prohibited material” broadly,
specifying only a few standards for sexual, violent, and intolerant content. 16 Where filtering is
not mandated at the ISP level, the Code requires
that ICPs deny access to material if so directed
by the MDA. Licensees that fail to comply with
the Code may face sanctions, including fines or
license suspensions or terminations, as authorized under the Broadcasting Act. In 2005, one
Web site titled “Meet Gay Singapore Friends”
was reportedly fined USD5,000 by the MDA for
being in violation of the Code. 17
Threats of civil and criminal liability under
other laws further deter Internet users from posting comments or content relating to sensitive
issues. In May 2005 the state-funded agency
A*STAR accused Jiahao Chen, a Singaporean
doctoral student in the United States, of posting
“untrue and serious accusations against
A*STAR, its officers and other parties,” and
threatened Chen with “legal consequences
unless the objectionable statements were
removed and an acceptable apology published.” 18 Chen complied with A*STAR’s
demands and replaced the posts with an apology, thereby avoiding a potential defamation
suit. 19 The high-profile case prompted caution
20
in the Singapore blogosphere and discussion
21
on how to avoid suit under the nation’s defamation laws.
22
In October 2005 two men were jailed under
the Sedition Act
23
for the first time in nearly forty
years. One received a one-month sentence and
the other a nominal one-day sentence and a
USD5,000 fine for posting racist remarks denigrating Muslims and Malays. 24 In January 2006,
a twenty-one-year-old was also charged with violating the Sedition Act after he posted four cartoons of Jesus on his blog. The charges were
eventually dropped, but not before Singaporean
authorities had confiscated the individual’s computer and removed the cartoons from his blog. 25
In November 2006 SDP activist Yap Keng
Ho was sentenced to ten days in jail after he
refused to pay a fine for speaking at an illegal
SDP rally, held in April 2006. Yap had posted a
video of the speech on his blog and was ordered
to remove it by a judge. 26
The above incidents appeared to presage
further repressive legislation and policies against
Singaporean Internet users. In 2007 the Ministry
of Home Affairs (MHA) is expected to table
before parliament a slate of amendments to the
Penal Code. The proposed amendments expand
the scope of nineteen offenses to cover acts perpetrated via electronic media, including “uttering
words with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person” (§298); defamation
(§499); and making “statements conducing to
public mischief” (§505). 27 Section 298 is being
modified further to cover “the wounding of racial
feelings,” so that offenders may be prosecuted
under the Sedition Act or the Penal Code. 28 The
MHA amendments also introduce nineteen new
offenses, including abetting “an offense which is
committed in Singapore, even if any or all of the
acts of abetment were done outside Singapore,”
as via Internet or mobile phone (§108B). 29
ONI testing results
ONI conducted testing on Singapore’s two major
IASPs, SingNet and StarHub, and on a third ISP,
SysTech. A common perception of the
Singaporean Internet community points to the
existence of a list of 100 banned Web sites purportedly maintained by the Media Development
Authority (MDA). ONI found that only seven Web
sites tested, all relating to pornography, were
blocked, including www.sex.com, www.play
boy.com, and www.penthouse.com. The blocking
of only these high-profile sites suggests that filtering is indeed mandated for symbolic, rather
than preventative, purposes. Moreover, the seven
366
Country Summaries