
Singapore to regulate high traffic websites that report on Singapore - yink
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/28/net-us-singapore-internet-idUSBRE94R0G220130528
======
nubela
I'm a Singaporean and I fucking hate this. In fact, I built getgom.com because
our government has decided to ban porn as well.

And now.. THIS. Any Singaporean HNers out there, if you're up for it, as a
programmer, I'm wanna build something to circumvent this. Holler if you're
keen. Cheers.

\--

On another note, this is why whenever people say that Singapore is a fine
place to start a business, I say thats probably because you don't "live LIVE"
here. It's just another hub that you'll attempt to start up a business, and
leave somewhat. Unless you come from a 3rd world/developing nation and come
here to build wages. Other than that, I don't know many true blue Singaporeans
that's actually happy with the state of things.

~~~
frontfor
If the regulations are about blocking websites using standard Internet
censorship techniques akin to the Great Firewall of China, then it is
relatively easy to circumvent (provided that Singapore doesn't implement that
at a scale comparable to China). VPN, SSH server in foreign country, proxy,
Tor etc should do the job.

But if the regulations are about monitoring, reviewing and controlling, say,
local news reports _before_ they are published on those websites, then there
is nothing you can do, unfortunately.

~~~
ValentineC
> And now.. THIS. Any Singaporean HNers out there, if you're up for it, as a
> programmer, I'm wanna build something to circumvent this. Holler if you're
> keen. Cheers.

This might not be possible to circumvent with a 'hack'. What this is, is the
digital equivalent to the Newspapers and Printing Presses Act [1] (which is
part of the "regulatory framework" for traditional news platforms that is
cited in the article). It's a legal/regulatory thing, not a software thing.

Put simply, yes, this is a way for the government to regulate major news
organisations that are regularly visited by Singapore IP addresses, and that
write Singapore-related news articles at least once a week. (The MDA seems to
consider online services regulated under the Broadcasting Act. [2]) So:

(1) they ask these big companies to put up a $50,000 bond; (2) big company's
employees may feel the need to self-censor, especially if there's a
possibility that they might lose their jobs and much more if they're the ones
who write the articles causing big company to lose part of their performance
bond; (3) they achieve some degree of control over news and media
organisations with an incorporated entity in Singapore, since those are the
easiest to regulate.

The way I see it, it's really hard to define what Singapore-related news is,
and 50,000 unique IPs is roughly 0.08% of the IPv4 addresses allocated to
Singapore [3]. Considering that most consumer internet services here use
dynamic IP allocation, it's not a high threshold to hit.

(I'm not a lawyer. I'm also very interested in hearing everyone else's take on
this.)

[1]
[http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;page=...](http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;page=0;query=CompId%3A87a8472b-dd54-401a-b027-11e2bb71e5ca;rec=0)

[2]
[http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;page=...](http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;page=0;query=DocId%3A11156ade-b327-43b6-a9bf-
ab07bb7e2307%20%20Status%3Ainforce%20Depth%3A0;rec=0)

[3] data from <http://www.nirsoft.net/countryip/sg.html>

~~~
salem
My initial reaction on the new regulation was "good luck with that one" but...
like you point out, large organizations will likely comply to take down
requests or risk getting blocked (for less tech savvy users anyway), and
eventually reduce their reporting or self-censor. I-am-not-a-lawyer, but my
guess is that organizations outside of Singapore that ignore the law will put
their executive staff at risk of prosecution if they ever travel through
Singapore (a significant hub of air travel). So the likelihood that this
regulation is toothless and can be circumvented via proxies or Tor is low.

------
revelation
Oops, the cool, tax-saving getaway is a fascist dictatorship. Who could have
known.

~~~
rayiner
Singapore and China are proof of two things:

1) Freedom is not a necessary condition for economic prosperity (which
undermines a lot of American rhetoric of the last 50 years);

2) The global business community doesn't give a shit about democracy, as
demonstrated by its rush to embrace China, the Middle East, etc, and the
corresponding apologizing about their political systems.

I nearly puked on Metro North the other day (like a drunk Westchester teen
after too much fun in Manhattan) reading an article where some commentator
with business interests in China tried to downplay the free speech situation
in China as "cultural differences."

~~~
javert
> Freedom is not a necessary condition for economic prosperity (which
> undermines a lot of American rhetoric of the last 50 years)

That is demonstrably false. Everywhere you look, throughout history, the more
free a country is, the more economically prosperous it becomes. In fact,
_every single example_ fits this pattern. There is not a single exception.

China and Singapore are much more economically free than the US (and most
other places), and that's why they have seen economic "miracles."

If your argument is, "You don't have to have 100% freedom to have economic
prosperity," _that_ is true, but it's not an interesting observation. No
country in history has (quite) been a utopia of freedom.

> The global business community doesn't give a shit about democracy, as
> demonstrated by its rush to embrace China, the Middle East, etc, and the
> corresponding apologizing about their political systems.

You're treating the "global business community" like it's a "class," in the
Marxist sense: a bunch of people who all think alike. In fact, there are just
a bunch of individuals.

Most businessmen have similar values and ideas to the rest of the culture.
Which is to say, not great, not horrible.

I plan to go into business eventually in some form, and I hope you don't
justify punishing _me_ on the basis of your characterization of the "global
business community."

~~~
rayiner
You're playing fast and loose with the word "free." Sure, no country in
history has ever been a utopia of freedom, but I don't consider any country
"free" in any sense of the word (even "1% free") that doesn't have meaningful
democracy. Indeed, that's what "freedom" has meant for the better part of the
last 300-400 years: political self-determination, not "economic freedom."

I can't look at a map and conceive of living in any country without a
functioning democracy, even though such democracies often curtail economic
freedom for the greater good. And I think most people feel the same way, deep
down. There is a reason the Chinese crawl over themselves to come to America,
not the other way around.

~~~
mseebach
What China shows (and what counters the US rhetoric) is that evidently
economic freedom can (at least to some extend) cause prosperity without
political freedom. Common wisdom has predicted the rise of some kind of
political freedom in China for years now, but what has actually been seen to
be on the rise is better governance - an oft-cited example is the case of Bo
Xilai[1].

1: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_Xilai#Downfall>

~~~
Steko
"What China shows"

We certainly haven't seen the endgame of China's development. Confidently
claiming that China has 'prosperity without political freedom' is simply
playing fast and loose with terminology. The stronger and more educated the
middle class gets, the more freedoms they demand.

Taiwan and South Korea were dictatorships but get freer every year. Still it
took decades of small steps to get where they are today (legitimate elections,
opposition parties winning) and clearly China has a long road to even get to
where those neighbors are today.

"some kind of political freedom"

While 2013 China is no poster boy for freedom hasn't the situation improved
every decade for 40 years? Isn't China today far more permissive and free than
in the past? Obviously in terms of elections maybe not so much but looking
only at elections might be ignoring real gains made in rule of law, property
rights, speech and social freedoms.

~~~
rayiner
The issue is causation. The American mantra for the last 50 years has been
that freedom causes economic development. What we're seeing with China is
economic prosperity causing increased pressure for political freedom (though
at a dramatically slower rate than I think Americans circa 1960 would have
predicted).

~~~
Steko
Definitely in agreement on the causation running the other way.

------
kmfrk
Singapore is like a YouTube sketch of what the Apple App Store would be like,
if it were a country.

~~~
mdda
Love the analogy. And I'm guessing that a fair proportion of the people
espousing Freedom of Speech/Politics here are also carrying iPhones, and
benefit from the rules-based system of the App Store.

The common justification for loving Apple is that their imposition of rules is
based on a fantastic focus on making things 'just work'. And that abiding by
the rules is a small price to pay.

Also, let's not forget that Singapore is a country that's smaller than New
York City. Of course, NYC is not as free as many places in the US either...

~~~
ValentineC
Why do you think New York City is not as free as many places in the US? (Just
curious.)

------
saryant
Singapore isn't exactly huge. What's to stop someone from setting up Wimax in
Johor Bahru (just across the border in Malaysia) and broadcasting the signal
into Singapore?

~~~
w1ntermute
Wouldn't the Malaysians just shut that down? No point in unnecessarily
antagonizing the Singaporean government.

------
Zoepfli
Any Singaporeans here? What's preventing you from chatting up the government
and ask for free elections? They don't seem that evil to me..?

You know, tell them "thanks, you did a great job developing this country, but
we would like to take it from here and control our own future...".

What would happen? Is there any way to do this that would be successful?

~~~
EliRivers
It's gradually happening. The PAP hold fewer seats now than at any time in
Singaporean history.

~~~
ValentineC
I should add that Singapore politics is somewhat complex, and it takes months,
if not years, of following Singapore news to have a grasp of what the
sentiment on the ground is. Some of the points that I think are relevant to
this thread:

(1) Much of the older generation and many newly naturalised immigrants feel
that the incumbent government brought them to where they are today, and are
willing to give up some liberties for economic success.

(2) Many of Singapore's constituencies are banded into groups for election and
town management purposes. [1] The party in power has the advantage in that
Cabinet ministers are members of the majority party appointed by the leader,
enjoy a much higher media profile by virtue of their jobs, and are more often
than not the heavyweight in a group electoral contest. This makes it difficult
for opposing parties to win in a positive publicity contest, since they enjoy
far fewer opportunities for positive media coverage.

(3) The perception of opposition quality in Singapore is still very negative.
While there were opposition candidates with stellar educational and
professional backgrounds in the previous election, much of the talent willing
to enter politics tend to be courted by the leading party. Also, no opposition
party thus far has spoken out against this policy.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_Representation_Constituen...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_Representation_Constituency)

~~~
ValentineC
Just to follow up on point #3, one of the opposition parties in Singapore has
raised some concerns over the policy:

<https://www.facebook.com/nicoleseahnsp/posts/494238060647270>

------
elfgoh
In related news, someone has setup a tumblr blog to parody this move
<http://simisaialsolicence.tumblr.com/>

------
lominming
This does not make much sense. How do you regulate media talking about you?
This essentially means that you want to regulate everyone's freedom of speech.

"Online news sites that report regularly on issues relating to Singapore and
have significant reach among readers here will require an individual license"
This is so vague. If everyone on Facebook and Twitter is talking about
Singapore (which are not news sites), would FB and Twitter require a license?

It says that it does not apply to blogs. So everything here is ok? Again,
blogs/news site/video sites are so vague. News is essentially a content type,
not a platform type. <http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/blogs/directory.html>

I think this is unrealistic and is not going work in the long run.

------
seivan
Honestly, with the hate-mongering, the amount of rumours dressed like news on
these high-traffic websites flooded with so called keyboard-warriors, I
actually welcome something to counter it... however...

Unfortunately it will be poorly implemented, and going to look like Chinas
firewall.

I just wish instead of trying to spend money on silencing most of the bunch of
morons who somehow got an audience on lies and rumours (most of the time) -
they open up to more transparency and would somehow counter most of the bs
articles.

They like to call themselves "alternative media" and everyone else are
"politically correct corrupt media". Sigh.

ps Does anyone remember the series of images comparing George Orwell with
someone else regarding the overload of bad/junk information? ds

~~~
mseebach
> Honestly, with the hate-mongering, the amount of rumours dressed like news
> on these high-traffic websites flooded with so called keyboard-warriors, I
> actually welcome something to counter it... however...

I am absolutely certain Orson Welles would not be seen dead in your company
(unfortunately, he's not around to complain).

Attitudes like yours have been exploited to justify every limitation on the
freedom of speech in the history of limitations on freedom of speech - and
it's _very_ long. You're what a certain imposer of these limitations referred
to a useful idiot.

~~~
sp332
Is there no middle ground where we can have political dissent without vicious
gossip and other crap newspapers do? After writing _I am... for freedom of the
press, and against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and
not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens
against the conduct of their agents,_ Thomas Jefferson later noted, _I
deplore... the putrid state into which our newspapers have passed and the
malignity, the vulgarity, and mendacious spirit of those who write for them...
These ordures are rapidly depraving the public taste and lessening its relish
for sound food. As vehicles of information and a curb on our funtionaries,
they have rendered themselves useless by forfeiting all title to belief_.
[http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson...](http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeff1600.htm)

~~~
mseebach
Read that page of quotations, the whole one. All the answers are there.

Particularly:

"Since truth and reason have maintained their ground against false opinions in
league with false facts, the press confined to truth needs no other legal
restraint. The public judgment will correct false reasonings and opinions on a
full hearing of all parties, and no other definite line can be drawn between
the inestimable liberty of the press and its demoralizing licentiousness. If
there be still improprieties which this rule would not restrain, its
supplement must be sought in the censorship of public opinion." --Thomas
Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:381

~~~
sp332
That quote is from 1805, the second one I posted is from 1814, after he'd had
9 years more experience with a free press. Three years after that he wrote:

"From forty years' experience of the wretched guess-work of the newspapers of
what is not done in open daylight, and of their falsehood even as to that, I
rarely think them worth reading, and almost never worth notice." --Thomas
Jefferson to James Monroe, 1816. ME 14:430

In your quote he requires "the press confined to truth". But in the above, he
also claims that the press is not confined to truth. Maybe they should have,
at least, _that much_ restriction.

~~~
mseebach
Read the speech for context - <http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres17.html> \-
paragraphs 11-13.

Yes, there exists "laws provided by the States against false and defamatory
publications", but even when not enforced, the citizens saw through it,
"consolatory to the friend of man who believes that he may be trusted with the
control of his own affairs".

------
coldcode
How do they propose to force licenses on people outside of Singapore unless
they have a great wall of china system? I guess since this is on HN they will
demand a license?

------
elfgoh
Satirical article of how the policy came about
<http://www.breakfastnetwork.sg/?p=4850>

------
elfgoh
Wrong way to make the front page of hackernews sigh

------
outside1234
Not a surprise. Singapore is only two or three shades off of mainland China in
controlling its citizens.

------
batgaijin
Why now?

