Monday, November 23, 2009

Censorship Culture in Singapore



In 2005, photographer and educator Ann Mansolino spent some time in Singapore teaching at Ngee Ann Polytechnic University. She experienced first hand the culture of censorship in the country. While researching in the university's library, she found several photography history books that had pages torn out, sections of pages cut out, text whited out, and images covered up. While there was not a specific policy on censoring the texts, it did seem to be common practice. She decided to document these in a series called "Revised Edition." She says:

"Newer books were just benign -- it was censorship through selection. Rather than having photography books on the shelf that might have significant historical images that involved nudity that they'd then have to remove, the library only ordered books that couldn't possibly been seen as objectionable -- like 'Extreme Sports Photography!' or 'Shooting Weddings with your Digital SLR'. The new books did not have substance or support the curriculum, but no one cared, because they were unobjectionable. When I asked if we could have more books on [black and white] photography, as that's what was taught, the librarian just got a really smug expression and said, 'we have NEW books now.' And that was the end of the discussion." (A. Mansolino, personal communication, October 7, 2009)

Mansolino's experience with censored books is just part of a larger problem in Singapore today. The parliamentary republic is run by the People's Action Party (PAP), which has been in power since Singapore gained independence from Britain in 1959.

James Gomez's book, Self-Censorship:Singapore's Shame, explains how the PAP uses the people's self-censorship to their advantage and also help to continue cultivating the cycle of censorship. It is a complex system that works on many levels.

While the constitution allows for freedom of speech and assembly, it also gives Parliament the right to restrict those freedoms on the basis of national security, public order or morality. Something so broad as morality (whose morality?) leaves the door to restriction of freedoms wide open.

Some who have spoken out against the government or general policies have been persecuted. The government brings defamation lawsuits, bankruptcy and tax evasion suits against them, and the local news agencies (Singapore ranks 133rd out of 175 in the 2009 Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index), further damage the reputation and character of the individuals in the press (Gomez 17). Those images remain with Singaporeans and cultivate the strong fear of any opposition to the PAP.

Mansolino says, "People generally believe that the system overall is working -- they have the highest standard of living in the region, quality housing and health care, no crime, etc -- and are willing to put up with governmental restrictions as a result. They also fear opposing the system - it is a culture of fear...."

For the time being, there is little censorship on the Internet in Singapore (though there are still consequences for expressing personal opinions). Some Singaporeans are using that to their advantage. The Enquirer is all online, as well as sites like singapore-window.org.

Stay tuned for future articles on censorship in Singapore.



Print source:
Gomez, J. (2000) Self-Censorship: Singapore's Shame. Singapore: Think Centre.

Photos by Ann Mansolino

Sunday, November 22, 2009

We Want YOU To Care About National Information Policy




"What is National Information Policy and why should I care?" . . . I am sure some of you are asking yourselves. This may or not be a question that seems to spark debate over waffles and coffee, maybe it doesn't seem to be a hot button issue . . . but it is (don't let anyone fool you). National Information policies are all around us; behind every internet search we make, the books/ information we have access to, and the very way that we think about the world.

The biggest thing that comes to mind when I think about "National Information Policy" is: ACCESSIBILTY. This issue can (and does) include issues like net neutrality, e-democracy, accessibility of information through the internet,local libraries etc., as well as censorship and intellectual poverty. So, why is there an information hierarchy and what can we do as librarians to put an end to the reign of the wealthy? (I know, I know . . . "putting an end to the reign of the wealthy" is not in our job descriptions as librarians). Knowledge is power, and there are many that have better accessibility to different types of information based on social status. I can attest to this personally, as I spent 6 years of my secondary education in private schools and the other six years in Detroit Public Schools. When I was enrolled in seventh grade at a Detroit Public School, I spent two years reviewing things that I had learned in fifth grade in private schools. The poor suffer from not only an economic poverty but from an intellectual poverty as well. Clearly, there are instances when money can buy knowledge (and greater accessibility) . . .
So as librarians, how do we promote democracy? I think the first thing to do is to take a careful look at our information policies, and information accessibility. Also, the way that we can impact our local Detroit community is to attempt to put an end to the anti-intellectual movement that is rising from the ghettos. And this is no small task my friends . . . no small task indeed . . .

So what is National Information Policy anyway?


Well folks,here is a little tidbit from UNESCO:
"National Information Policies, including considerations of informatics and telematics, are the key to coping with the challenges of the Information Society. There has to be a complete re-examination of traditional information policies in the virtual, interactive, highly volatile reality of cyberspace, particularly in the framework of legal and ethical issues. Many developing countries are now struggling to "catch-up" with the industrialised."

I don't know if that cleared anything up for you . . . but then concepts like national information policy are flexible and transitive . . . and so the dialogue continues. . . .

Saturday, November 7, 2009

International Internet . . .or not?


Since the dawn of the internet,domain names have been dominated by Latin characters. This has severely restricted internet accessibility to those that are not familiar with and did not know how to convert their domain names into Latin characters. Recently, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has made a decision to allow domain names to be registered with non-Latin characters. It is generally believed that when Latin characters dominated domain names, that it restricted non-English speakers' access to the internet. Many are hailing ICANN's decision as an internationalization of the internet. Domain names will soon be allowed in Arabic, Chinese and Russian characters. Andrey Vorobiev, the RU-Center public relations department manager, is quoted as saying : "Now that all countries can write their URL addresses in their own languages, this decision is an important step for the internationalization of the Internet. The days have passed when people who don't understand Latin alphabet cannot use the Internet"(Tong, X. 2009). Currently, these changes are affecting local country codes (.ru for Russia), and over time top level domain names (.com, .net, .org) will be affected as well. China and Thailand are beginning to introduce workarounds that will allow people to access websites in their own language (BBC News). I think the main question becomes: how will this affect internet accessibility for webpages in different countries? How will this affect people that do not speak Russian, Chinese, and Arabic, and do not have keyboards with these characters?

I think it is ironic that this change is coming after the US government loosened its control over ICANN a month ago. ICANN was initially developed by the US government as a non-profit corporation to oversee a large variety of Internet related tasks. Last month, ICANN signed an agreement that gives it autonomy and puts it under the scrutiny of the "internet community" (BBC News). It seems interesting that now that ICANN is not dominated by English speakers and is taking the needs of the internet community into account, that it is choosing to make the internet more accessible for non-English speakers.

Sources:
Internet Addresses Set for Change (2009, October 30). Retrieved November 7, 2009, from http://news.bbc.co.uk
Tong, X. (2009, November 5). Russian expert: Non-Latin character names key to Internet internationalization. Retrieved November 7, 2009, from http://news.xinhuanet.com
Whitney, L. (2009, October 30). ICANN approves non-Latin domain Names. Retrieved November 7, 2009, from http://news.cnet.com

Friday, November 6, 2009

Democracy on the Internet?

We all love Democracy right? Its one of those things you love without fully understanding what it is, like freedom or hot dogs. So what does it mean when the Council of Europe starts calling for more democracy on the web? This week the Council of Europe will be holding the 2009 Internet Governance Forum in Egypt. While it would be beyond the scope of this blog to point out the irony of holding a forum on e-democracy in a country with a sham democratic system of government, it would behoove us to discuss what e-democracy is.

The internet is recognized to be the means by which everything comes to pass. It can be said that a large number of people in the world effectively live on the internet. Their financial transactions, social interaction, entertainment, learning and working are all done on the internet. So like every aspect of human life, the internet needs to be controlled and it needs to be done in a way that will jive with current governmental/ economic setups, so what else but a democracy?

What does this mean? Are we voting on internet content? e-democracy, according to the Council of Europe, means equal access to content and equal opportunity to produce content. The internet then is an extension of "freedom of expression" or "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" The country of France went so far as to decide that internet access is a fundamental human right. But will the internet become intrinsically linked to our understanding of democracy?

So what do you think? Is the internet a fundamental human right? What does democracy on the web mean to you? Is democracy the best way to govern the web? Should national governments decide how the internet should be run? Should only national governments with democratic systems be allowed to decide? What about China, who currently hosts the highest number of internet users in the world? What should they talk about at the 2009 Internet Governance Forum?

What Do You Know About Net Neutrality?



Net Neutrality can be broadly defined as the" idea that the government should mandate that ISP's act as dumb pipes;"(Singel,2009) allowing internet traffic to flow freely without regard to what is contained in the data packets. There have been many opponents to this idea, people that want to see the internet broken into a tiered service where some websites or services are given a priority. The ALA and the FCC both believe that creating a tiered service would greatly hamper businesses and democracy. In a nutshell, opponents of network neutrality believe that companies should be allowed to pay a fee that would allow their websites to become more readily available on the Internet. As of September 2009, the FCC has instituted rules that ensure that the internet remains a neutral and free flowing network. The main opponents of these rules have been Comcast, Verizon and AT&T. Companies like Comcast want to restrict and slow down internet traffic based on the type of traffic. Thankfully the FCC has decided that they not only want to support Net Neutrality but they are also going to expand the rules to include portable devices/ data connections. Before September, there were no official rules that protected net neutrality; instead there were four guiding principles: "network operators cannot prevent users from accessing lawful Internet content, applications, and services of their choice, nor can they prohibit users from attaching non harmful devices to the network" (Reardon, 2009). If you are interested in viewing the FCC commission meeting click on the link below:
http://www.fcc.gov/openmeetings/ocm-09-29-2009.html#full



Sources:
Reardon, M. (2009) Amazon, Facebook, and Google back FCC on Net Neutrality. www.news.cnet.com
Singel, R. (2009) FCC Backs Net Neutrality-And Then Some www.wired.com

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Private Libraries?

I once visited the Huntington Gardens in Pasadena, California. It is a beautiful setting featuring not only the gardens, but also art collections and a library. But could I visit the library? No. I was not a faculty member or a doctoral student or a scholar. I simply wanted to look.


Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I did not actually try to make my way into the library. I had checked the requirements on the website and discovered that I did not meet the criteria. (I wonder if they would now make an exception for a LIS student.)


So why this odd mix of emotions in my head? I didn’t have any desire to see anything in particular, I didn’t have research to do – I was just a curious man with a desire to see a beautiful building and its collection. As a private library, The Huntington is free to create its own rules for admittance. It just seems odd that it should be titled a library. Libraries now have the connotation that they are institutions which are free and accessible to all. Would a name change to “The Huntington Collection” make it less appealing to me?


The name Huntington Library was most likely applied to the collection when it was still the private library of Henry Huntington; however, the semantic value of the word library makes me believe that I should have the right to visit. Change it to The Huntington Collection, and I am more willing to accept that access may be restricted. Change the name to The Huntington Archives and I then see accessibility as open, but I would also accept that parts of the collection may be restricted. I find it fascinating the amount of power that simple words can have!


So, should private libraries like The Huntington be called libraries? I don’t know that it is a very sensitive topic or even something that anyone would devote a great deal of time arguing. As a linguist, I find issues of meaning to be very interesting and I often wonder if I am alone in my curiosity.


I’ll get into that library some day.