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

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. . . .

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?