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

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?

Finland Rules!

My favorite foreign nation has always had a leading role in technological advancement. Finland has quietly progressed on the technology front for years with very little fanfare. I moved to Finland 10 years ago. Before arriving in the country, I had no idea that the Finns were in the forefront of the revolution. I didn't even realize that Nokia is a Finnish company - it certainly sounds Japanese. I see that as one of Finland's main appeals. It is like Japan without the bright lights and self-cleaning toilets. And the latest news out of Finland adds another layer of excitement.

Finland has passed a law making broadband Internet access a legal right of all citizens. By July 2010, all citizens will have a guaranteed right to a 1Mb broadband connection. Naturally a country with only 5 million people will have an easier time implementing such a policy. In the US with our population of 300 million, a guaranteed right to Internet access is pretty unlikely.

Critics may argue that Internet access is no more a right than a car or a nice pair of shoes. I agree. It is not an inalienable right which should be added to various constitutions; however, when the access becomes easier to grant, when many parts of the country already have the infrastructure in place and when most of the population is savvy enough to take advantage of the service, then I don't see the harm.

When I lived in Finland, close to 90% of people had cell phones. Again, this was 10 years ago. That number may seem common now, but 10 years ago in the US, cell phones were still an expensive novelty. Finland seems to silently test ideas and set trends. Perhaps in 10 years, guaranteed broadband laws will not be breaking news.

Does Free Wireless Internet Have A Chance?

In the months following Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin made it a priority to have free wireless internet available throughout the city. The local government believed that this would give small businesses a chance to reestablish themselves, even though they may lack a physical location. The service did actually launch in the late part of 2005, but it was taken down less than a year later. What happened?

In the case of New Orleans, a private company began providing access to the area covered by the city owned system. Surprisingly, the service remained free.

I get excited when I think about the prospect of free wireless internet. As a subscriber to the local ISP that has a bit of a monopoly over the area, I have always tried to find a service which would give me the same speed for a lower price. However, if I could get service for free, I may be willing to sacrifice a few Kbps.

EarthLink mentions that higher speed access would be available to residents of the area for a fee. Obviously. I would never expect a company to enter a market without the idea that money could be made. I do think that it is a measure of good will that they had the sense to carry on the free service that the city determined was necessary. While it remains to be seen if the service will continue indefinitely, I see this as an interesting model for other cities that hope to provide better access to their citizenry.

Philadelphia shows the next possible step in the effort. Last year, Philadelphia transferred ownership of its city wide wireless internet service from EarthLink to a local company. It is estimated that about 80% of the city is now covered by the service.

I know that there are other factors involved in arming every citizen with free wireless access. Access is great, but what happens when many people cannot afford a computer. With major cities like New Orleans, Philadelphia, Atlanta and Chicago piloting different programs, we are bound to discover what systems work, what needs improving, and what can be used to increase access to an ever growing population of hungry internet consumers.

So, I do believe that this model does have a chance to be sustainable. Free wireless is obviously something that gets people talking. It helps to create a more even playing field and it gives opportunities to local businesses and residents who may have been left out otherwise. Will this be a quick and painless transition? I think not. Will it ever cover the country? Not likely. However, I don’t believe that slow service or the possibility that a corporation may be involved should put a stop to growth and expansion.

Could the web 2.0 be the beginning of the end of privacy in public libraries?

     Web 2.0… Web 2.0… Web 2.0… This seems to be the battle cry for libraries in recent years. The view being that, in order for libraries to compete in our ever more wired up world, they have to provide services in a similar manner to Amazon, Google, and the like. To be honest, they me be right on this. The problem is that the internet is a very public and open domain. Any information that goes out over the lines through ISPs becomes, by default, outside the control of library.

     This is not really a problem if patrons are using library computers to use social networking sites, like Facebook. Patrons sharing info is the name of the game. However, reference librarians searching for information for a patron that involves sensitive information are also recorded by ISPs and many corporate web servers. Companies can, and many times do, sell and/or trade information collected electronically about users/customers. Even if they don’t, there is still a record of the transaction, often in several places, out there.

     However, there appears to be no government policies in place that would, at least in any meaningful way, protect library users, let alone internet users in general. The advancement of the internet, and its accompanying technologies, has vastly outpaced the capacities of any governing body to develop effective policies. To make matters worse, if the PATRIOT Act is anything to go by, the Federal Government does not seem particularly worried about privacy. Also consider that the government has implemented, or is looking to implement, electronic surveillance. So, as it stands currently, library users will continue to be caught between the interests of money and national security.

     It is in this privacy hostile environment that public libraries are increasingly beholden to. In the past, due to the local and physical nature of library material, privacy was a laudable goal that was much easier to attain. In this day and age, however, without some sort of effective policies in place, privacy may prove to be a moot point soon. Is the web a good new home for libraries?

(This is the introduction to a small series on library and government internet policy, or the lack there of.)

Video: FCC Chairman talks Open Internet

The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski introduces the new FCC run site, http://OpenInternet.gov, concerning their proposed changes to Federal Regulations for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and their stance on "Open Internet". This video is an addendum to this post.



What do you think about these proposed changes by the FCC? Will they provide more access or will they actually restrict access?

Some Internets are more equal than others, Or not.: Net Neutrality and its impact on Information Access

One of the great things about the Internet, as opposed to many other forms of communication, is that everyone's voice is supposedly equal. There is a vast difference between protesting in front of your town hall and erecting a protest blog, for example. When you protest in front of your town hall (legally) you need a permit, you're only going to be out there until it gets dark, you need to arrange a time that all of your buddies can show up with signs, you need to MAKE signs, if it rains you're probably going to leave early, and the only people who are going to be around the Town Hall during that short period are going to see your protest. If you set up a blog, espousing your frustration for the level of fluoride in the Municipal Water System your blog is available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to everyone who has access to the Internet (provided their firewall doesn't determine you to be a menace) which can potentially be everyone in your town. The Internet can be a great equalizer in this way.

As great as this sounds, the truth of the matter is not all websites are treated in an equal manner. The impact of Advertising and Online Searching programming aside, the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) of individual websites can affect the availability of certain sites. If a website is eating up lots of bandwidth due to high traffic, lots of media uploads and other applications the ISPs can charge the user more, slow the download time of sites or block the offending applications on the site. This can severely damage access to information on sites run by people who can't afford a sudden price hike, particularly Libraries, non-profit organizations and educational centers with pitiful IT budgets.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposed on Monday (September 21, 2009) that they are going to start looking into more regulations on ISPs that will insure that they treat all web traffic equally. The so-called "net neutrality" proposal is supported by web application providers (like Google, Craigslist and Microsoft) who feel that their content is being unfairly blocked by ISPs because they use too much bandwidth.

As it is, there are few standards to determine which applications are menaces that the ISPs should be blocking. In the void of these standards the ISPs decided which apps were blocked, this included companies blocking Internet applications that compete with a service they provide such as Internet Voice calls. You can see where a conflict of business interests could impede with the access of information and services.

The FCC proposed that they will add two new rules to their "Four Freedoms" principals. The original Four Freedoms are as follows:

1. Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
   
   
2. Consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
   
   
3. Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
   
   
4. Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
   
   
   Monday's additions:
   
   
5. Broadband providers cannot block or degrade lawful traffic over their networks, favor certain content or applications over others and cannot "disfavor an Internet service just because it competes with a similar service offered by that broadband provider."
   
   
6. Broadband providers must be transparent about the service they are providing and how they are running their networks.
   
   (Via PC World)
   

The intent of the FCC is to prevent ISPs from favoring certain application creators that use less bandwidth or don't provide competing services. They also want to be sure that ISPs cannot suddenly hike their prices to their customers when they use lots of bandwidth without fully explaining their price scale and their practices. The goal, according to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is to, "safeguard the free and open Internet." (PC World)

Will these new rules do just that? Its hard to say. Dylan F. Tweney of Wired.net argues that the regulations will actually limit access instead of expanding it. He states that with these regulations, ISPs could no longer offer "all-you-can-eat, flat-rate Internet access" and would rather need to set pay-per bandwidth for all of their customers. This would mean that some entities who were saving money by getting the unlimited access package would have to pay for a higher priced, higher bandwidth service to accommodate their needs. While the FCC regulations would force the ISPs to be upfront about how much they will charge for what level of service, the prices will most likely go up. Milton Freedman must be spinning in his grave at these developments.

So is greater Internet freedom worth the inevitable price hike for access? It can be argued both ways. While the freedom is greater for those who can afford it, those who can't afford the increase in price will be limited. Someone who can't afford 100 dollars a month for high bandwidth use may have to use a lower bandwidth service, which will limit which sites they can visit and what information they can view. How about organizations that provide Internet Access to the public, like Public Libraries? Will they be able to afford all of the bandwidth that their thousands of patrons use every month? With Library budgets ever shrinking something may have to give, which will limit both the information Libraries can host and the access to information to patrons who can't afford either a computer or even the cheapest Internet service.

Because of these issues, the FCC and other government entities should keep Libraries and other Non-Profit Organizations in mind when developing these regulations. If their intentions are noble, they should keep in mind what Free and Open Internet really means as an ability to access information.