Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Singapore Seeks Even More Control Over Online Media

timothy posted about a year ago | from the eric-holder's-new-consulting-gig dept.

Censorship 78

An anonymous reader writes "Currently ranked 149th globally in terms of press freedom, alongside Iraq and Myanmar, the Singapore government has chosen to further tighten its grip on the media instead of letting up. The Media Development Authority (MDA) announced yesterday that 'online news sites' reporting regularly on issues relating to Singapore and have significant reach among readers here will require an individual license from the MDA. Under the regime, website operators have to comply within 24 hours with any directives from the MDA to take down content that breaches standards. These sites also have to put up a 'performance bond' of S$50,000. The Government also plans to amend the Broadcasting Act next year, to ensure that websites which are hosted overseas but report on Singapore news are brought under the licensing framework as well."

cancel ×

78 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Overseas laws (4, Insightful)

Sigvatr (1207234) | about a year ago | (#43866067)

Usually when a country expects other countries to obey their laws, things don't work out quite so well.

Re:Overseas laws (4, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#43866129)

Extraterritorial laws can sometimes be enforced, but I'm not sure Singapore is really in a position to do so. The U.S. is probably the most effective at enforcing its laws extraterritorially (much to the dismay of many non-Americans), and the UK does so somewhat with its notorious libel laws, but Singapore ain't no US or UK.

Re:Overseas laws (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43866437)

It's simple really. If a website gets sufficient traction in Singapore to appear on government radar, they are probably in a position where they will want to incorporate in Singapore in order to more efficiently monetize their users there. I think it's pretty clear what most companies will choose to do.

Re:Overseas laws (2)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year ago | (#43866567)

Why would they want to base their operations where their users are? That means they'll need to pay local taxes.

Re:Overseas laws (1)

Alain Williams (2972) | about a year ago | (#43867061)

It doesn't matter where they are, many survive on advertising. Upset the government and it either grabs your advertising income directly or tells your advertisers that if they continue to advertise with you that they will be ''leant on''; either way: kills your advertising income.

Re:Overseas laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43867607)

Extraterritorial laws can sometimes be enforced, but I'm not sure Singapore is really in a position to do so

Singapore knows that they do not have that much of a traction, but then, there isn't anything that will keep them from trying

Re:Overseas laws (1)

chrismcb (983081) | about a year ago | (#43867841)

In this case it is relatively easy. IF You want reporters in their country reporting on news, you pay them this bond. If later you don't do what they ask, you sacrifice your bond.

Re:Overseas laws (5, Interesting)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a year ago | (#43866257)

Usually when a country expects other countries to obey their laws, things don't work out quite so well.

Except well, Singapore has a great firewall as well, and all media is censored prior to sale. If you note, it's any site with a large number of Singaporean readers. Which means if you don't comply, they will simply cut you off at the gateway. If you have any media assets locally, they can be seized. Or if you publish anything, expect Customs ot sieze them as well.

If you're a big publisher, this is quite problematic, especially if you have related media assets like DVDs and such.

And nevermind that Singapore is a huge port into Asia and often a stopover or destination.

Re:Overseas laws (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#43866343)

Singapore has a great firewall as well, and all media is censored prior to sale.

Perhaps, then, they should consider renaming their country the Nation of Wal-Mart?

Re:Overseas laws (1)

daremonai (859175) | about a year ago | (#43866545)

Perhaps, then, they should consider renaming their country the Nation of Wal-Mart?

They'll have to get in line behind the U.S. And China.

Re:Overseas laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43867289)

Singapore doesn't have a Wal-Mart

Re:Overseas laws (1)

penglust (676005) | about a year ago | (#43874711)

And your point would be?

Re:Overseas laws (4, Insightful)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about a year ago | (#43866481)

And nevermind that Singapore is a huge port into Asia and often a stopover or destination.

Surely you mean Hong Kong? Or Manila? The Lion City treads a very fine line at the best of times lah, if they insist on acting like a tinpot dictatorship they will most assuredly be treated as such.

The world needs Singapore a lot less than Singapore needs the world.

Re:Overseas laws (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year ago | (#43866791)

Singapore post delivers a lot of stuff from Hong Kong to the rest of the world.

Re:Overseas laws (4, Interesting)

Decker-Mage (782424) | about a year ago | (#43867543)

Actually, the world needs Singapore vastly more than Singapore needs the world. I've been there a half-dozen times so far and it is a bit oppressive if misbehaving is part of your makeup. Amazingly polite, amazingly modern, and amazingly clean. I'm a libertarian and opposed by principle to such laws but the people of Singapore get to decide that question. You can't stop a few million people in such a small area from successfully revolting. They sure as Hell don't have to let anyone or anything in, or most importantly through, if that's they have a problem with it, whatever it is. We nearly had one of our people executed (caught smuggling heroin in the frame of his bicycle). Fortunately for him, we were able to pay a fine and hand him over to US justice. He thought he was smarter than they were. Wrong guess, minus five. I hope his time in federal prison was far more enjoyable that a bullet to the head. And I can understand the Singapore side on this.

In terms of political-economic power, Singapore absolutely controls the major trading route from the Indian Ocean to the Asian-Pacific rim. Yes, you can go around it but you'll be in even more pirate infested waters, dealing with the odd reef and oceanic sandbars, etc. You'll also forgo refueling in Singapore if needed. And protection. We don't break out the .50 cal. machine guns for entertainment (although it's a trip to actually practice with one) as soon as we hit the Celebes Sea. So, when push comes to shove, even the US Navy is going to think twice about playing in the littoral waters should Singapore express dissatisfaction with some kind of embargo. Frankly, targeting anything there, even with brilliant weapons, is going to be Hell.

So, what are you going to do to Singapore? Squawk, that's about your only option. And I don't think you get much support (actually lot's of opposition) from the major trading partners dependent (Japan, China) on the flow of trade there. Historically, the US likes freedom of the seas (Mission #1 of the US Navy) far more than other nice-to-haves. I can't see that changing. Sorry.

Re:Overseas laws (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43867901)

Amazingly polite, amazingly modern, and amazingly clean.

Polite is not a word I would associate with Singaporeans. Politeness in Asia is really confined to Japan, Korea and Thailand.

Re:Overseas laws (1)

BattleApple (956701) | about a year ago | (#43876707)

I was in Singapore a few months ago and I found everyone I spoke with to be extremely helpful, friendly, and polite.

Re:Overseas laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43867961)

Actually, the world needs Singapore vastly more than Singapore needs the world.

Is this another Americanism where the world = U.S.? Singapore imports water and is surrounded by far larger neighbours, all of whom have cities with fairly large port nearby. If Singapore should close its ports (which is unlikely since their economy depends on it), there are other nearby ports that would be happy to take its place. Singapore MUST play nice with its neighbours and this is generally reflected with their reconciliatory foreign policies.

Re:Overseas laws (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43868791)

I hope his time in federal prison was far more enjoyable that a bullet to the head.

I hope it was more enjoyable than the hanging he would have received in Singapore, since that's the sole method of execution there.

Re:Overseas laws (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43869801)

damn. watch where you pointing that flashlight of TRUTH.

we all gonna go blind.

Re:Overseas laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43869871)

Actually, the world needs Singapore vastly more than Singapore needs the world. I've been there a half-dozen times so far and it is a bit oppressive if misbehaving is part of your makeup. Amazingly polite, amazingly modern, and amazingly clean.

Bullshit, they are rude and arrogant and they think their version of English (Singlish) is actually better than proper English.

In terms of political-economic power, Singapore absolutely controls the major trading route from the Indian Ocean to the Asian-Pacific rim. Yes, you can go around it but you'll be in even more pirate infested waters, dealing with the odd reef and oceanic sandbars, etc. You'll also forgo refueling in Singapore if needed.

Blah blah blah, soon The Kra Canal and the new north pole shipping route will render Singapore completely irrelevant.

Re:Overseas laws (3, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | about a year ago | (#43870289)

"I've been there a half-dozen times so far and it is a bit oppressive if misbehaving is part of your makeup."

Because watching poor, demanding greater freedoms from your government and chewing gum are of course part of the makeup of a misbehavour. This is the no true Scotsman fallacy, you're saying that if someone falls foul of Singapore's laws then it's obviously because they were misbehaving because no true nice person could ever fall foul of the law!

"I'm a libertarian and opposed by principle to such laws but" ...but you're actually not because you like the effects of a police state where everyone is too scared to dare speak out against the government, where numerous abuses occur and where such simple things as a porn DVD or chewing gum in your backpack can be grounds for you to be beaten, tortured, and jailed for a year?

Other than that what you say about Singapore offering safe passage is nonsense, it offers safe passage relatively free from piracy precisely because it is the route used right now for shipping through that region. You're assuming it's Singapore that makes it a good shipping route when in reality it's the chosen shipping route that makes Singapore - if it were to move Singapore would become irrelevant. As for refuelling I have to wonder if you've ever actually looked at a map, you do realise how small Singapore is right? refuelling before or after passing Singapore is a rather trivial exercise, again, the only reason it's chosen as a refuelling stop right now is because the world uses that shipping route.

The fact is that Singapore is entirely dependent on the world continuing to pass it's shores and pass through it's airport, it's the only reason it has some degree of wealth.

Right now Singapore is fine because it doesn't actually cause much trouble for the rest of the world, and because it's a Western ally but the reality is if any of that were to change it's simply way too small a nation to have a real impact. Closure of the Suez Canal or the Panama Canal would have a vastly larger impact due to the size of detour this would require but previous studies have shown it wouldn't be an insurmountable problem, it would be a pain but not the end of the world. Compare the size of Singapore's ocean territory, the locality of alternative paths, the locality of alternative ports, but perhaps most importantly, the number of close proximity nations that would gladly take Singapore's stopover trade for themselves.

It's not as if countries like China can't ramp up production to replace Singapore's historically significant manufacturing base overnight nowadays either. If anything Singapore needs the world to keep supporting it more than ever, because the things it used to do well are more and more trivially replaceable by other nations.

Re:Overseas laws (2)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about a year ago | (#43870091)

Ah, another person who has no idea what the Straits of Malacca are, why they are important, or why Singapore was built where it was.

Re:Overseas laws (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about a year ago | (#43866427)

works great when you can use the two magic words: nuclear fucking weapons

Re:Overseas laws (1)

paiute (550198) | about a year ago | (#43866563)

works great when you can use the two magic words: nuclear fucking weapons

I thought the two magic words were precious bodily fluids.

Re:Overseas laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43868613)

That, and see the article below "DOJ Fights To Bury Court Ruling On Government Surveillance" on how to do it within one's borders. Lot of countries eager to do this sort of stuff should learn it from the leader of the free wolrd!

Re:Overseas laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43866727)

Singapore is ranked 2nd in terms of Global Competitiveness by the World Economic Forum:

http://www.weforum.org/issues/global-competitiveness [weforum.org]

I think I'll take the economist's endorsement over that of a bunch of self important journalists.

Re: Overseas laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43869631)

Singapore probably more than any other country proves that economic and personal freedoms are orthogonal. It is not an either-or choice. You can argue that both the journalists and economists are correct.

Re:Overseas laws (3, Interesting)

nbauman (624611) | about a year ago | (#43866881)

The Wall Street Journal had a run-in with Singapore which was very amusing to those who think that the WSJ editorial page was written by pompous right-wing assholes.

The WSJ editorial page had long praised Singapore as a model free-market state, which showed that you didn't need socialism to get a developed economy.

Then they printed an op-ed essay in one of their editions by an opposition politician. Lee's government used to deal with its legislative opponents by suing them for libel. The Singapore courts always ruled that they had committed libel, and awarded Lee huge damages which drove the opposition politician into bankruptcy. Under Singapore law, you can't serve in the legislature if you're bankrupt. So they had to leave the legislature. Cute, huh?

So Lee sued the WSJ, which had an Asian edition with a large circulation in Singapore, for libel. Lee won. The WSJ had to pay damages, and even worse, they weren't allowed to sell their newspaper in Singapore until they published a groveling apology.

What a dilemma! Stick to your principles of free speech, and lose millions of dollars of sales in one of the fastest-growing asian markets? Or cave in, abandon your principles, and throw the political dissidents to the wolves?

The WSJ printed an editorial trying to educate Lee and the Singaporian people (and businessmen) of the virtues of American-style free speech. The Singaporian people didn't pay much attention. After all, this was a matter of money (and power).

So finally the WSJ caved in, paid up, and printed a groveling, Soviet-style recantation.

I was in Singapore about a year later. You can find the New York Times everywhere. I asked for a copy of the WSJ. Everybody was "sold out". I finally found a copy in a bookstore on the fifth floor of a monster shopping mall at the end of an out-of-the way corner.

The Singaporean people were very nice. All the teenagers walk around with science textbooks. The restaurants have signs that say, "No studying." They're neat and well-dressed like Moonies, only smarter.

Lee was interviewed on Terry Gross and he defended his human rights violations. He said when he came in, they were living in poverty. They didn't have toilets. Now it's a modern developed state with an economy like Western Europe. I guess people are entitled to choose a dictator. I guess the Cuban people are entitled to say the same thing about Fidel Castro.

Re:Overseas laws (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43867577)

Agree the Lee's are a bunch of assholes.

Here in America, we have 100% freedom to say whatever we want. But just don't say anything bad about the government [slashdot.org] .

Re:Overseas laws (2)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about a year ago | (#43867677)

Lee was interviewed on Terry Gross and he defended his human rights violations

I am not here to defend Lee, nor Singapore

All I want to point up is, when you are looking at the map of Singapore, try look at which country is at the North of the island of Singapore

There, you will find a place where Apartheid is still officially sanctioned

If you ever thought that Apartheid is dead when South Africa's racist government collapsed and when Mandela was released from jail, all you need to remember is to point your finger at the map of Singapore, and then, move your finger a bit, to the North

Re:Overseas laws (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year ago | (#43868909)

Yes, it's fun and easy to slap one-word push-peoples-buttons labels on things that are actually quite complicated.

Re: Overseas laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43869527)

Ironic reference to Mandella. After Mandella's release global attention shifted to Singapore where political prisoner Chia Thye Poh was languishing in detention for 23 years. Unlike Mandella Chia was a sitting MP when arrested, was never chared nor tried, and still lives in exile (in Germany) to this day.

Re:Overseas laws (1)

isorox (205688) | about a year ago | (#43871615)

Lee was interviewed on Terry Gross and he defended his human rights violations

I am not here to defend Lee, nor Singapore

All I want to point up is, when you are looking at the map of Singapore, try look at which country is at the North of the island of Singapore

There, you will find a place where Apartheid is still officially sanctioned

If you ever thought that Apartheid is dead when South Africa's racist government collapsed and when Mandela was released from jail, all you need to remember is to point your finger at the map of Singapore, and then, move your finger a bit, to the North

Israel is far west of Singapore, not north

Re:Overseas laws (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about a year ago | (#43867069)

Except when you're Singapore and will just simply block the websites they don't want.

Singapore is still a very important trade area even though it seems to suffer from the curse of ridiculous laws that seem to be prevalent in Asia (seriously, why can't there be a country with the freedom of business of Singapore/Hong Kong but with unrestricted personal freedoms?).

If Singapore doesn't like your site, they will either try to extort money from you (like what they did to the Wall Street Journal) or simply block your site from being accessed in Singapore. Since Singapore has one of the highest GDP per-capita in the world, many news outlets will play nice (and pay their extortion fees) rather than miss out on on a large economy.

Re:Overseas laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43871815)

seriously, why can't there be a country with the freedom of business of Singapore/Hong Kong but with unrestricted personal freedoms?

Because the US would wipe it off the map.

Re:Overseas laws (1)

kheldan (1460303) | about a year ago | (#43867313)

to ensure that websites which are hosted overseas but report on Singapore news are brought under the licensing framework as well

So politicians in Singapore are just as fucktardedly stupid when it comes to technology as politicians anywhere else in the world? Good luck making that work, Singapore.

Re:Overseas laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43873815)

I hate to point out the forest when the selective outrage is focused on the trees, but India is right down with Singapore at 140th on that same press freedom list. India's population is 1,200 million while there are a paltry 5 million in Singapore.

I realize India is a third world shithole western puppet, but can we spread the outrage out a little more evenly so it's less obvious to anti-western critics to discern our hypocritical hidden agenda?

Good luck, Singapore (1)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#43866113)

I think you'll find other countries are disinclined to care about/enforce/assist in enforcing/acknowledge/pretend they're not laughing at/etc. this kind of law.

From the Abstract... (1)

TWX (665546) | about a year ago | (#43866131)

The Government also plans to amend the Broadcasting Act next year, to ensure that websites which are hosted overseas but report on Singapore news are brought under the licensing framework as well.

Heh. Good luck with that.

Even if the Singaporean pipeline to the rest of the Internet were filtered like China's, there's no practical way to censor every possible news outlet that might choose to report on Singapore unless they take a whitelist approach and censor everything but the bit they're willing to let through.

Re:From the Abstract... (1)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#43866169)

I'd be interested to see how far their interpretation goes as well. Can you imagine the Singapore government trying to prevent the Seattle Times or a newspaper in Tolouse reporting that Singapore Airlines ordered more planes? Or trying to punish the BBC, Pravda, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, Al Jazeera, and every other news source if one of their planes went down?

I'd use a non-aviation example, but I can't rightly think of anything else in Singapore which would be reported on internationally. Except a stupid American kid vandalizing cars and getting caned.

Re:From the Abstract... (1)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#43871449)

Defamation is whole different ballgame than simply reporting on news about the country itself.

Re:From the Abstract... (1)

countach (534280) | about a year ago | (#43866543)

I don't think they're under any illusion that they can cut off the news flow. I think they just want to tame the biggest outlets to their will, and they figure the 95% control of the masses that this gives them is enough. Not being too familiar with Singapore politics, I'm not sure exactly what they are aiming at.

gum (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43866151)

I am sure the singapore government will take down any reference of gum.

Free Penthouse For Everyone In Singapore (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43866229)

Let's get it started in here!

Overseas? (1)

laughingcoyote (762272) | about a year ago | (#43866247)

And exactly how do they intend to enforce this against sites hosted overseas, provided the owner of the site doesn't live in Singapore either? Do they plan to build really, really long canes?

Re:Overseas? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43866425)

They don't have to enforce anything outside their country, they just need to enforce it inside their country. If a foreign site doesn't comply, Singapore can just block it so no residents can access the site.

Re:Overseas? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43866483)

Simple. There is already a filter in place. Play by the rules, or get filtered out.

Re:Overseas? (1)

dean.collins (862044) | about a year ago | (#43868535)

yep....for my next trick...get me a 10 year old who can show you how to get around the filter

Re:Overseas? (1)

Razgorov Prikazka (1699498) | about a year ago | (#43866523)

>And exactly how do they intend to enforce this against sites hosted overseas, provided the owner of the site doesn't live in Singapore either? Do they plan to build really, really long canes?

Probably they will use their guns. In the battle of Singapore (February 1942) they had all their guns pointed towards the sea. Hours long they sat there with binoculars waiting for the Japanese Imperial Navy to arrive. The Japanese soldiers did... Over land... From the back... Completely circumventing the whole defence basically. (irony is a bitch huh?)
So the guns are still as good as new and ready to fire in 3... 2... 1...

Re: Overseas? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43866559)

Simple: drones.

Re: Overseas? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43869567)

Less violent, blockade. Singapore wouldn't last a month against a total blockade.(Actually their own citizens would be eating each other in a week.)

Re:Overseas? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43866621)

How about being the owner of a proscribed site, travelling on a flight from A to B that has to touch down in Singapore (Changi [wikipedia.org] Airport - now there's a name to conjure with!!!) for an emergency or perhaps a fuel stop that isn't advertised in the schedule? I'm sure the authorities would want the passenger manifest and notice the presence of an "arrest on sight" person. Its not uncommon, several countries have done it in the past (citation? dunno, but I'm thinking of people who ran "illegal" gambling sites and were unfortunate in their choice of flights).

And there's always the possibility of kidnap/extraordinary rendition too. Again, something that is not uncommon.

There's plenty of precedents for the Singaporean authorities to lay their hands on the owners of sites that get up their noses. The ordinary length of cane will suffice and, sir, did you pack your own luggage???

Hmmmmmmm???????

Re:Overseas? (1)

chrismcb (983081) | about a year ago | (#43867871)

If you are reporting on Singaporean news, you have a reporter locally. If you don't have a reporter locally, then you are regurgitating what someone else is reporting, they just need to go after whoever does.

Singapore, it's king, and government suck cocks! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43866295)

They also take it up the ass.

Some of them are even considering having tracheotomies so they can give new meaning to "deep throat".

Re:Singapore, it's king, and government suck cocks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43866459)

Singapore doesn't have a king. Perhaps you're confusing it with Thailand?

newsflash! (2)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#43866475)

This is Slash My Dots reporting from the republic of Internetland. In Singapore news, it turns out the royal family are assholes.
News Update: this story may be attempted to be controlled by Singapore but the Internetlandians do not recognize their authority over Internetland, seeing as how they only own and rule Singapore.

In related news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43866479)

In related news, Slashdot was seized earlier today for reporting this story.

What an asshole country (2)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43866755)

I once met a Singapore woman ins hostel in Stockholm/Sweden. By chance we had a conversation about freedom. I asked her, the insensitive clod I am, about freedom of speech in Singapore and, confirmed by her remarks stated that Singapore has NO freedom (media, speech, etc). Even 10000 km away from her home it was as if a minder would watch over her what she says, fearing she would be punished. Beyond strange.
No better than North Korea. Not at all.

Singapore is a shiny dystopian asshole dictatorship void of freedom. Nice buildings. But shallow and like a prison for thoughts. 1984 comes to mind.

Re:What an asshole country (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43867403)

You've been a very, very nice mouthpiece AC.
You're off the TSA no-fly list for the next month.

Regards, NSA ECHELON Team

Re: What an asshole country (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43870173)

I'm OFF the list? Does that mean I can finally fly again without a round trip to Gitmo?

Looking forward to the TSA anal fisting, porn scanner and seeing a fat TSA guy putting his fingers between the legs of a kiddy.

Security. Yeah. Now extra disgusting.

So the USA is now part of Asia??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43870033)

Really, there's fuck all difference here between what Singapore or China WANT to do with the internet and what the USA are doing and want to extend.

This is news for people IN Asia, but there really isn't anything here for Merkins to complain about unless they're completely unaware of their own situation.

Yeah, about that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43866991)

"The Government also plans to amend the Broadcasting Act next year, to ensure that websites which are hosted overseas but report on Singapore news are brought under the licensing framework as well."

And what planet do these pinheads live on?

Re:Yeah, about that... (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about a year ago | (#43867105)

Planet Asia, where 85% of the world's insane laws come from.

Also where they have a tight control of the nation's internet, China style and so if they don't like what you're posting, a few edits in a text file later, and *poof* you're site is as good as gone to anyone browsing the web in Singapore.

Are they granting themselves global authority? (1)

fufufang (2603203) | about a year ago | (#43867775)

The Government also plans to amend the Broadcasting Act next year, to ensure that websites which are hosted overseas but report on Singapore news are brought under the licensing framework as well.

How exactly are they going to enforce their Broadcasting Act for foreign media? Start sending their minuscule army around the globe?

Re:Are they granting themselves global authority? (1)

NewtonsLaw (409638) | about a year ago | (#43867847)

Duh! They've hired the MPAA/RIAA to do their off-shore enforcement for them.

Just ask Kim Dotcom how that works.

Singapore : Why You So Like That? (1)

WhoBeDaPlaya (984958) | about a year ago | (#43867801)

Why You So Like That? ;)

p0rn (2)

Sperif (1005787) | about a year ago | (#43867881)

Singaporean censorship is extreme. No unions, no protests, no news against the government and worse, one cannot access p0rn websites from S'pore. When one knows that Singapore's prime minister's wife is also CEO of the biggest hedge fund of Singapore...

Re: p0rn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43869571)

Singapore has two funds. One is chaired by the PM himself, the other has his wife as CEO. The Economist had to fork out I think 300k for desribing this as having "a whiff of nepotism"

Re:p0rn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43870225)

Errr... I live and work here, and just want to set record straight.. there are protests in the form of political rallies by the opposition at election time, there is readily available news and commentary against the government, both online and counter opinions even in the primary paper on occasion. It's a known fact the opposition has been gaining seats in Parliament over the last election. And since it's a concern, you can, in fact, access porn from here, the blocking is about a hundred sites that anyone can easily circumvent. I'm no apologist for the way things are done... but it's not extreme by any stretch, this is no China or North Korea.

domestic politics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43867929)

Most of my peers see this move as politically motivated. The incumbent party has been losing votes in recent elections and attribute it partly to political thought that is growing on the online world. While the incumbent party is looking less and less relevant to the masses, not just in terms of ideology but in terms of actual performance, it is widely understood that this move is the party's attempt to silence political dissent in order to stop further erosion of its popularity. There's so much bad PR from the incumbent party over various recent issues it's entertaining to watch.

The incumbent selectively uses various laws towards its political purposes, and anything that would potentially lower its GDP would not be one of them. China talks to big companies in an "obey or get lost" fashion, but Singapore looks at the money first - it doesn't have much of a domestic market to speak of.

I grew up in Singapore.

Singapore is bankrupt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43868185)

Singapore runs giant ponzi scheme scheme through GIC and Temasek - just check paper "Mr. Madoff Goes to Singapore" and www.baldingsworld.com. They couldn't hide this news and lots of people realised Singapore crooked their books. Singapore is bankrupt, the ruling elite is terrified and do anything to remain in power.

Re:Singapore is bankrupt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43868427)

Ben Bernanke says: COPYCATS!!!

%d-ick (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43869013)

us3rs. BSD/OS

Singapore is losing credibility (1)

vikingpower (768921) | about a year ago | (#43869775)

I know of at least one corporate R & D department where use of results from Singapore University is explicitly prohibited. The place stinks.

Sinagpore? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43871259)

yeah i have something to report:"nothing to report about singapore, but the seefodd is great and its rain one aday."

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>