GFW BLOG（功夫网与翻墙）

Proposals for Internet freedom in Singapore

2008-06-27T05:10:00.000-07:00

转自：citizen.journalism.sg

Proposals for Internet freedom in Singapore

21 April 2008

Dr Lee Boon Yang
Minister for Information, Communication and the Arts

Sir,

Proposals for Internet freedom in Singapore

The government has repeatedly acknowledged that Internet technology is constantly evolving and that regulation of the Internet must keep up with the times. Moreover, as a nation, there are vast benefits we can reap from our ability to use the technology effectively and creatively, and regulation should not be a dead hand foreclosing these opportunities. Heretofore, the government has promised and exercised a light touch, but it would be better if policy is based not merely on forbearance, but framed by more clearly articulated principles, in the interest of greater transparency and coherence.

As a group of active participants in Internet expression with a concern for media regulation, we submit for your kind consideration the enclosed proposals. They include both a general review of process rules, as well as content regulation, with special regard to (a) political expression, (b) hate speech and (c) sex and violence.

Each section bears its own list of signatories, and may list one or more among us who have dissented or abstained from the recommendation arrived at for that section.

We will be making this document public the day after we have submitted it to you, as we believe that the regulation of the Internet is a matter of public interest.

We are aware that these are issues of some legal complexity and do not pretend to have arrived at perfect solutions. However, we strongly believe that some of the key principles we’re advocating are important ones and hope that the government will take them on board in its ongoing review of regulations.

Yours sincerely,

Choo Zheng Xi (www.theonlinecitizen.com)
Alex Au Waipang (www.yawningbread.org)
Gerald Giam (singaporepatriot.blogspot.com)
Roderick Chia (rodsjournal.wordpress.com)
Bernard Leong (bleongcw.typepad.com)
Ng E-Jay (www.sgpolitics.net)
Mohan Gopalan (magnezium.blogspot.com)
Scott Teng Kie Zin (small-friend.blogspot.com)
Cherian George (journalism.sg)
See Tong Ming (singaporerebel.blogspot.com)
Benjamin Cheah (leounheort.blogspot.com)
Ho Choon Hiong (hochoonhiong.blogspot.com)
Justin Zhuang

Cc: Mr Cheong Yip Seng
Chairman Advisory Committee on the Impact of the Internet on Society (AIMS)

SECTION ONE

Introduction and Executive Summary

1.1 Introduction

In discussing media policy, some caricature the choices as a debate between those who understand the need for regulation and those who want a free-for-all. This is a false debate. The real issue is what kind of regulation can allow us, as individuals and as a society, to harness the benefits of free speech while minimising the harm that such speech can cause.

We believe that existing regulations are not designed to achieve this balance. Not just specific regulations, but also the government’s overall regulatory approach and processes, need urgent reform. Weaknesses and inconsistencies in regulation are already being exposed by fast-changing technology. This trend will only accelerate.

International law provides one important set of benchmarks for Singapore. Although the government has always insisted on Singapore’s right to chart its own course, we believe that Singapore would be the loser if we are seen to fall short of relevant international norms and best practices. None of the challenges Singapore faces is entirely unique. International law (specifically the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) provides useful guidance on how to balance freedom of expression with the need for certain restrictions that protect society.

In addition to referring to international norms, our review also takes into account Singapore’s trajectory towards becoming a more cosmopolitan and open society in which the Internet is a key enabler.

1.2 Social purposes of regulation

Any restriction to freedom of expression must be justified by a social purpose. International law (Article 19(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) provides a list of legitimate aims: respect for the rights and reputations of others, and protection of national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals. In line with international law, we do not believe that a desire to shield a government from criticism can be a legitimate function of media, particularly Internet, regulation.

Laws must also be narrowly tailored to that social purpose and be truly necessary for the stated aim, and must not be too broad, giving the authorities powers that go far beyond their original social justification, nor designed for the government’s convenience or political expediency. Any measures taken should restrict freedom of expression as little as possible, and not catch legitimate speech in the net. Since a democratic society depends on the free flow of information and ideas, it is only when it is imperative to limit that flow in the public interest that limitation justified: the benefits of any restriction must outweigh its costs.

We believe Singapore’s media laws currently fail these tests and in this submission, we make the following proposals:

1.3 Executive Summary

All regulation of speech should be platform-neutral. Laws and regulations specific to the Internet, such as the Class Licence Scheme and the Internet Content Guidelines, should be abolished, as should the powers conferred on the Media Development Authority (MDA) to ban and penalise producers of content and owners of websites.
What regulation there needs to be should be based on clear, narrowly-tailored statutes and prosecution, not through administrative discretion.
However, only in extremis should there be prosecution, and only in instances where public safety is directly undermined. Otherwise, community moderation is the way forward, and to this end a consultative body (IC3) should be constituted.
Limitation and regulation of political content is unjustified in principle and unrealistic in practice. The attempt to do so impairs Singapore’s maturity as a nation. The freedom to use the Internet to discuss political issues and promote political views should be guaranteed.
Racially and religiously offensive speech should not be proscribed by law; only incitement to injury and violence. Offensive speech should be handled through the community moderation (e.g. the consultative body) marshalling public opinion towards sensitivity and rationality.
The depiction of sex and violence should not be proscribed by law except when minors are involved in sexual situations, or real injury to participants or coercion took place during the making of such depiction. Matters of taste and offence to moral sensibilities should be mediated through community moderation, such as the consultative body.

In assent:

Cherian George
Alex Au Waipang
Roderick Chia
Choo Zheng Xi
Mohan Gopalan
Scott Teng Kie Zin
See Tong Ming
Justin Zhuang
Benjamin Cheah
Ho Choon Hiong

In assent, with reservations:

Gerald Giam - but abstained from 1.3(e) and in dissent from 1.3(f)
Bernard Leong - but abstained from 1.3(e) & 1.3(f)
Ng E-Jay - but dissent to 1.3(e). Current law governing racial/religious content is acceptable to me.

In dissent:

Nil

SECTION TWO

Process Rules

We propose three principles to guide the review of regulations and the regulatory process.

2.1 Regulations should be platform-neutral

Digital convergence is making it less viable to have different rules for different platforms (such as print, broadcast, online and mobile telephony). For example, regulating the import of books and magazines or banning of films is fast becoming meaningless when the same can be downloaded online.

Media regulation should be harmonised to avoid a schizophrenic regulatory regime. In harmonising barriers to free speech, we should level down and not level up: the most liberal and transparent regulation procedures should be set as the minimum target standard.

In some respects, the existing Internet framework should be extended to other media (for example, the freedom to publish without a permit). In other respects, sound offline media practices can be adapted for online media (for example, industry and community consultation relating to films and the arts).

We call for an abolition of all laws and regulations that are platform-specific, to leave only such laws that apply to the injurious nature of the speech wherever it may occur. By this principle, content regulation specific to the Internet, such as the Internet Code of Practice and the website registration scheme, should be removed.

We recognise that in order to give form to this principle, a major review of many pieces of legislation and subsidiary legislation has to be undertaken and this may take some time. In the interim, we propose the prompt introduction of an Internet Freedom Act, the essence of which would be to provide a positive list of exemptions. This proposed Act should, first, make it clear that no legislation originally intended for other media platforms should be extended to the Internet (e.g. the Films Act, Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, Undesirable Publications Act). Second, it should dismantle the parts of the Parliamentary Elections Act that impact on Internet political speech by anyone other than political parties and candidates themselves. Third, it should make clear that the provisions of the Broadcasting Act do not apply to the Internet.

In keeping with the last, the various registration and class licence schemes, the Internet Code of Practice, and the powers of the Media Development Authority to ban and fine Internet service and content providers should be removed.

2.2 Use clear statutes and not administrative discretion

If restrictions are necessary, they should be codified in clear and transparent laws. They must be precise, such that citizens can foresee what is or is not prohibited. The principle of rule of law should strictly limit the role of arbitrary decision making, particularly at the administrative level.

In too many instances, Singapore authorities have instituted vague restrictions that leave citizens guessing, such as the use of the term “persistently political”. This puts too much power in the hands of officials, who can decide as they go along how to interpret the rules, with the detailed reasoning behind those decisions shrouded in secrecy. Such vagueness should also be opposed because of its chilling effect, discouraging citizens from uttering even legitimate speech for fear that it might be deemed illegal. This practice must stop.

By this principle, there should be no restrictions on speech except as provided by clear provisions in statutes (e.g. the way Penal Code Section 376D(1)(c) clearly defines as an offence publishing and distributing information promoting commercial sex with minors under the age of 18). There should be no devolution of power to ministers and civil servants to make additional restrictions through subsidiary legislation, nor should they be empowered to make any judgements about when an infraction has occurred. It should up to a court of law to make such findings.

The principle is: “Prosecute or nothing”. The benefit of this principle is the reliance on a time-tested, publicly legitimate process, whereby the government has to make its case in open court as to why certain speech has to be prohibited, the content provider has adequate avenues to make his defence, and the court’s decision is required to be set out publicly in writing and be subject to appeal.

2.3 Community moderation instead of formal regulation

We believe that almost all of society’s legitimate concerns about the abuse of free speech can be addressed outside the formal regulatory system. Online communities have already evolved sophisticated norms of informal selfregulation. Internet forums are almost always moderated; bloggers keep an eye over readers’ comments appended to their posts. Popular sites heavy with pictorial or video content, such as YouTube, have their own rules forbidding salacious material.

With the evolution of new technology and social practices of netizens, it is neither practical nor is there need for the state to play the role of a master moderator. Legislation and state intervention, except in extremis, do not provide the best solution in dealing with the emerging complexities of the Internet.

The Internet is a social space, and social norms of leeway and consideration are constantly shifting. Although we have faith that these norms will evolve in pro-social directions, we agree that this won’t happen without some concerted effort. What is needed is a process through which online communities are represented in Singapore’s search for the right balance between individual freedoms and social goals.

One possible approach is to organise an Internet Content Consultative Committee (IC3) comprising one-third independent content providers, one-third persons familiar with rapidly evolving digital technologies, and one-third regular consumers of Internet content (i.e. regular surfers). The IC3 would issue recommendations whenever controversies arise regarding digital content, for example offering its view when conflicts arise between the state and content providers alleged to have behaved irresponsibly.

The IC3’s deliberations should be open to public view - and digital technology can be harnessed to this goal. The objective over time is to subject more and more so-called “sensitive” areas to public reason, replacing intervention by the state (whether heavy handed or light touch) with people’s own capacities for discernment and judgement. The only viable long term response to the impracticality of internet censorship is to help Singapore mature as a society, online as well as offline.

In assent:

Gerald Giam
Cherian George
Bernard Leong
Ng E-Jay
Choo Zheng Xi
Mohan Gopalan
Roderick Chia
Alex Au Waipang
Scott Teng Kie Zin
Cherian George
See Tong Ming
Justin Zhuang
Benjamin Cheah
Ho Choon Hiong

In dissent:

Nil

SECTION THREE

Regulation of Political Content on the Internet

3.1 Introduction and review of existing regulations

Legislation of political content on the Internet in its current form is flawed in principle and unrealistic in practice, and why we feel this is so is discussed in Sections 3.2 and 3.3.

Currently, the following statutes, inter alia, regulate political content on the Internet:

Section 5b of the Broadcasting (Class Licence) Notification, which regulates the discussion of local political issues on the Internet
Section 78A(1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap 218), which regulates election advertising on the Internet; and
Section 33 of the Films Act (Cap 107) which prohibits the making, distribution and exhibition of party political films

3.2 Discussion: Objections on Principle

The effect of these pieces of legislation is to add ambiguity to the scope of the law. Uncertainty infringes on the right of freedom of expression, as the lack of clarity over what can be expressed over the internet will, on balance, lead to more citizens choosing to withhold their comments on issues deemed political. The above-mentioned pieces of legislation stifle and discourage free expression of ideas on the Internet, thereby limiting democratic space in Singapore and limiting citizens’ access to alternative sources of information. Regulation in its current form is thus synonymous with censorship and interference with the democratic process, and undermines an important principle of the rule of law: clarity.

The internet is the ultimate neutral platform for expression. It does not inherently favor either government or opposition. Rather, it favors political engagement by all sectors of society, which even the government has repeatedly recognized is essential for a sense of ownership and belonging to this country. It will harm society and all political actors to limit one of the easiest routes to political participation.

3.3 Discussion: Objections in Practice

It is impossible to enforce any regulation of political content on the Internet. Anybody with a computer and Internet access can start a blog or website of his or her own, needing no special skills or equipment, and little or no start-up capital. The Internet was designed to be inherently free and borderless, and every day, organisations and people are working on ways and means to secure that freedom by writing programs to encrypt communications and bypass firewalls. Locally, many bloggers and determined filmmakers are likely to take advantage of the borderlessness of the technology to ignore existing and future regulation of political content on the Internet, in the process bringing the law into disrepute.

The following detail specific problems with the law, highlighting the ambiguity of existing legislation, as well as its practical unenforceability.

a) Broadcasting (Class Licence) Notification Section 5b

This section lays out such a broad scope that almost any Internet Content that touches on any matter of public interest can be construed to fall afoul of it, requiring as it does that any website that provides material “for the propagation, promotion or discussion of political or religious issues relating to Singapore” register with the MDA. The mandatory registration process requires disclosure of an individuals name, employer, and salary. This is an unnecessary level of micromanagement with sinister undertones: employment details should be irrelevant to the running of a political website.

Yet, clearly, the MDA has not set about asking the hundreds of Singapore-based websites that discuss matters of political interest to register. Even so, Section 5b is not without its deleterious effects, for the arbitrariness of deciding which website will next be called upon to submit itself to registration inevitably promotes self-censorship and a wariness about discussing certain subjects. Such indirect censorship is even more damaging to Singapore’s political maturity than direct censorship, promoting as it does, a culture of silence.

In any case, registration of “political websites” cannot be effectively enforced. The webmaster of such a website may choose to shut his or her site down should the MDA decide to alert him or her to the need for registration. The following day, he or she can put its content back online, on a different URL. This could continue indefinitely, at little or no cost to the webmaster, but at great administrative cost to the MDA. Between this reality and the fact that the MDA has chosen not to pursue additional sites for registration under the Class Licence Scheme post-Sintercom, it is questionable what socially positive purpose Section 5b serves.

b) Parliamentary Elections Act Section 78A(1)(b)

Section 78 (1) (b) of the Parliamentary Elections Act allows the Minister to regulate election advertising over the internet during an election period. It applies to political parties, candidates, their agents, websites under a class license, and websites required to register with the MDA. It is the last category that we are most concerned about.

Dr Balaji Sadasivan said in Parliament in 2006 that websites that “persistently promote political views” will trigger a call for registration as a political site, followed by the application of the PEA prohibitions on elections advertising. These will prohibit the newly registered website from utilising internet tools that do not appear under a positive list.

This piece of legislation suffers from two major problems: Firstly, it is too broadly framed, with a potentially chilling effect on individual bloggers uncertain as to what constitutes “persistently political” speech. Secondly, it is ineffective in preventing the mischief it sets out to cure: political partisans can easily outflank the PEA by posting as individual, anonymous bloggers, as the law is so difficult to enforce, especially within a short election period.

Current regulations also put independent online news sites in a legal limbo. At present, licensed newspapers and their websites are exempted from the above regulations since they are rightly treated as purveyors of news, not advertising. However, no explicit exemption has been made for standalone citizen journalism websites that may be equally dedicated to informing and educating the public about the elections. Citizen journalists operating online should be able to report and comment on elections without fearing that they will be prosecuted for illegal campaigning.

Evolving technology will also blur the line between news sharing and campaigning (”election advertising”) through the Internet. Consider social networking sites like Facebook; individuals, whether in Singapore or abroad, can create and join groups supporting different politicians or political parties, as is the case in the United States. Besides the difficulty of ascertaining if such groups constitute “election advertising”, it is equally difficult to prosecute offenders, since Facebook is not a Singaporean company. As mentioned above, when a statute or bylaw becomes unenforceable, it just brings law generally into disrepute.

c) Films Act, Sections 33 and 35

Banning films unnecessarily prevents a fuller understanding of Singapore’s political history, and inhibits the emergence of an open and inclusive society. While not specifically directed at the Internet, the definition of “distribution” of a banned film could encompass Internet users who might want to post films with political content.

Section 33 of the Films Act (”party political films”) was cited by the MDA in the ban of the film Singapore Rebel, which documents the history of civil disobedience by Dr Chee Soon Juan and covers some aspects of his life, thereby providing a little-known aspect of Singapore’s history and a glimpse into the mindset and motivations of a well known opposition figure. Section 35 (”contrary to the public interest”) was cited to justify the ban on another film, Zahari’s 17 years, which explores independent Singapore’s early history through the eyes of one political actor during those times. The suppression of such films effectively choke off critical perspectives of Singapore’s political system and history.

Competing historical perspectives are essential for developing a mature body politic. Citizens should be trusted to present and assess the merits or flaws of political figures and parties.

The effect of Section 33 of the Films Act extends beyond just history. It also restricts the avenues for political parties, both government and opposition, to communicate directly to Singaporeans through Internet videos. Political leaders in many developed countries, including Japan, South Korea, Britain and the US, have in recent years effectively used websites like YouTube to broadcast their speeches to citizens. Even the use of political videos during elections in other countries has not led to any obvious distortion of the political process. It is therefore unfortunate that in Singapore, one of the worlds most wired countries, such an effective channel for rational political discourse is closed as a result of this law.

It is equally impossible to enforce Sections 33 and 35 of the Films Act. Despite the ban, Singapore Rebel and Zahari’s 17 Years are now viewable on YouTube and Google Video. Neither of them have been taken down, nor can be. In similar fashion, future party political films could simply be aired on the Internet, without having to go through the MDA. Once more, the very nature of the Internet makes it virtually impossible for the MDA to regulate such films.

It is instructive to note that Mr George Yeo, who was Minister for Information and the Arts when Section 33 of the Films Acts was enacted, recently admitted on Channel NewsAsia on 9 January 2007 that the government at that time “did not reckon this new media which allows you to produce the programmes quite cheaply”, and felt that the government has “got to adjust that position”.

3.4 Recommendations

We believe that regulation must serve a social purpose and must be enforceable to remain credible. Regulation of political content on the Internet does not serve a social purpose; if anything, it undermines free expression and encourages sub-optimal political discourse. It is also unenforceable, as demonstrated above.

In summary we recommend the following:

Abolish all Internet-specific legislation and bylaws, including the Class Licence Scheme
Repeal Section 78A of the Parliamentary Elections Act and Sections 33 and 35 of the Films Act.
Enshrine in the proposed Internet Freedom Act the right to discuss any matter of public interest over the Internet, even during election periods, and specifically include a provision stating that no other laws shall limit this freedom to discuss political issues and promote political views over the Internet, where “discuss” and “promote” shall also include content that is primarily sound, image and video.

In assent:

Choo Zheng Xi
Bernard Leong
Gerald Giam
Benjamin Cheah
Ng E-Jay
Roderick Chia
Ho Choon Hiong
Justin Zhuang
Alex Au Waipang
Mohan Gopalan
Scott Teng Kie Zin
Cherian George
See Tong Ming

In dissent:

Nil

SECTION FOUR

Regulation of Hate Speech on the Internet

4.1 Introduction and review of existing regulations

While protecting the racial and religious harmony of Singapore is a legitimate social goal, it must be borne in mind that any laws that attempt to achieve this by curbing speech necessarily conflict with the right to freedom of speech and expression. Freedom of speech and expression being a fundamental right, it is only when the threat to the community is grave that the right can justifiably be curtailed. Excessive curtailment of this right would not only be wrong in principle, it would also run contrary to the objective of maintaining racial and religious harmony and mutual understanding, since open discussion of these issues is crucial to achieving that goal. Whether or not a particular law that purports to protect racial and religious harmony is justifiable will therefore depend on what kind of conduct the law proscribes.

Currently, Section 4(2)(g) of the Internet Code of Practice (”whether the material glorifies, incites or endorses ethnic, racial or religious hatred, strife or intolerance”) makes racial and religious hate speech a consideration in Internet regulation. In addition, other laws that are relevant are Sections 298, 298A and 505 of the Penal Code.

4.2 Discussion

Section 2.2 (“Use clear statutes and not administrative discretion”) of this submission has argued that formal regulation should only be through statutes and prosecution in the interest of platform neutrality. Section 2.1 of this submission has argued for the abolition of Internet-specific regulation. Hence, the Internet Code of Practice should be abolished.

The provisions of the Penal Code and their subparts can be divided into three categories:

Laws criminalising conduct that offends the racial and religious feelings of others;
Laws criminalising conduct that promotes hatred against a particular racial or religious group; and
Laws criminalising conduct that incites others to violence that is racially and religiously motivated.

Laws that fall under the third category, specifically Sections 298A(b) and 505(c) of the Penal Code, can be justified on the same basis that laws prohibiting incitement to offences generally are justified. Here, the risk to the community is at the greatest possible level, since the possibility of violence exists. Hence, purveyors of Internet content that seek to incite others to violence on racial and religious grounds should be prosecuted.

To give effect to the interest of the community in maintaining racial and religious harmony, enhanced penalties are also justifiable. Section 74 of the Penal Code currently provides for this. The signatories of this letter have no objection to this principle.

Where the threat is merely of promoting hatred between different racial or religious groups, the laws become less difficult to justify. This is even more so in the case of laws that criminalise offending the racial or religious feelings of others. In these situations the threat to the community is not immediate: there is usually time to manage any fallout. In such circumstances, to allow the social goal in maintaining harmony to trump over the right to freedom of speech and expression will make nonsense of that right.

Thus, rather than chill potentially-beneficial discussion of race and religion through overzealous legislation, it may be better not to resort to prosecution with regard to such speech. Instead, alternative forums - like the Internet Content Consultative Committee (IC3) proposed above - could be more representative and conciliatory. It has the flexibility to provide a nuanced stand, speaking out against bigoted and insensitive content, without guillotining freedom of speech. Through its moral force, it can retard the propagation and exacerbation of hate-filled speech, while leaving the door open to further discussion of the issues raised by any incident. In the process, society is given an all-important chance to build up its “immune” responses against provocative words - learning in particular to challenge bad ideas with better ideas. In contrast, when government is overprotective, it forecloses society’s opportunity to learn and grow.

On the other hand, the law against incitement appears inadequate in certain other respects. In many other jurisdictions, for example in the United Kingdom, other dimensions of personal identity including national origin, gender and sexual orientation are treated in ways similar to race, ethnicity and religion, should hate speech be involved. Furthermore, in the UK, the Crown Prosecution Service has advised the absence of religion enjoys the same protection as having a religion.

4.3 Recommendations

Abolish all Internet-specific legislation and bylaws.
Repeal Sections 298 and 298A of the Penal Code and replace them with new legislation that is more specific to the act of inciting others to cause injury to another class of people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, religion or the absence thereof, gender and sexual orientation.

In assent:

Mohan Gopalan
Roderick Chia
Alex Au Waipang
Choo Zheng Xi
Ho Choon Hiong
Scott Teng Kie Zin
Cherian George
See Tong Ming
Justin Zhuang
Benjamin Cheah

In dissent:

Ng E-Jay

Abstained:

Gerald Giam
Bernard Leong

SECTION FIVE

Regulation of Content Relating to Sex and Violence on the Internet

5.1 Introduction and review of existing regulations

Currently, much of Part 4 (”Prohibited material”) of the MDA’s Internet Code of Practice deals with various kinds of sex and violence. It does however say that the listed mentions are just “factors [that] should be taken into account”. Part 4(3) further suggests that they should be balanced against an assessment of “whether the material has intrinsic medical, scientific, artistic or educational value”.

Other legislation that are likely to be applicable include:

The Undesirable Publications Act wherein “publication” is defined, inter alia, as “any sound recording… any picture or drawing… any photograph… tape, disc…” This Act also defines “obscene” as something that “tend[s] to deprave and corrupt”, and makes the exhibition or distribution of obscene materials an offence. It defines as “objectionable”, something that “describes or depicts… matters such as sex, horror, crime, cruelty, violence or the consumption of drugs or other intoxicating substances in such a manner that the availability of the publication is likely to be injurious to the public good.”
Sections 292 and 293 of the Penal Code, as amended recently. Here, it is an offence if anyone “distributes, transmits by electronic means, publicly exhibits or in any manner puts into circulation” any “obscene… drawing, painting, representation or figure…”
Additionally, the Films Act can also be invoked. Section 21(1)(b) says that anyone who “exhibits or distributes” any film without a valid certificate from the Board of Film Censors shall be guilty of an offence.

5.2 Discussion

The regulatory framework seems rather confused and conflicting. For example, where the Internet Code of Conduct creates defences of intrinsic artistic and educational value, the other pieces of legislation do not. It is also impractical. If the argument is made that online content should be equally subject to laws as offline content, it would then mean that even a short video posted on the Internet would need a prior certificate from the Board of Film Censors as per the Films Act. This would be completely disproportionate to the scale of the activity.

Section 1 (“Introduction and Executive Summary”) of this submission argues that the convergence of platforms necessitates a convergence of regulatory standards, and the borderlessness of content necessitates that these standards must be consistent with international norms. It would be ridiculous to enforce any of the above legislation on only the fraction of Internet content that has a connection with Singapore.

No doubt the MDA recognises this, at least in part. Thus the “light touch” approach, in existence in 1996. However, this approach is unwise, based as it is on first having sweeping rules and powers and then not enforcing them except in the most egregious instances. What results is a sense of arbitrariness in decisions, especially when the reasoning and process is not visible to the public. The deliberate policy of applying these rules only occasionally eventually leads to the general public even forgetting that they exist or feeling free to ignore them. The only people deterred by the continued existence of these hazy rules are those who are considering making a substantial investment, either financially or creatively, and who therefore have more to lose if the regulator turns around and starts to actively enforce the rules. The result therefore is that the very creative industries that the MDA wishes to attract are deterred by the uncertainty and the sweeping scope of these rules while individual and noncommercial Internet users continue to treat the regulator and its rules as irrelevant.

Section 2.2 (“Use clear statutes and not administrative discretion”) has argued that formal regulation should only be through narrowly-tailored statutes and prosecution. We argue here that overlapping regulation such as the Internet Code of Conduct and the administrative powers given to the MDA to enforce it contradict this simpler, cleaner and more just principle. Hence, as argued in Section 2.1, the Internet Code of Conduct and similar rules specific to the Internet should be abolished.

As for the statutes themselves, viz. Sections 292 and 293 of the Penal Code, which make the depiction and distribution of obscene content criminal, we argue that they are far too strict compared to international norms, and in practice unenforceable, especially given the fact that vast amounts of pornography can be downloaded today. Keeping an unrealistic law on the books will tend to bring the law into disrepute and encourage a culture of disregard for the law. It is therefore further recommended here that the law be revised to merely criminalise the depiction of sex involving minors and the use of the Internet in furtherance of sexual grooming of young persons - something that is consistent with international practice.

More problematic may be adult pornography depicting coercive sexual acts. While some might want this proscribed by law, it is still worthwhile asking if a rape scene in the cinema today might be passed under the R21 rating. And the answer is yes. The only difference between pornography and general-release films is that the latter tend to be less explicit and gratuitous in its depiction than the former. However, this ultimately is a matter of degree and it will always be a subjective call as to where the line is. Moreover, the line shifts over time. It is hence better not to write this into legislation, but to leave this question of the depiction of coercive sexual acts to community moderation.

If in the making of the video, an actual coercive act took place rather than being simulated, then the law should go after the perpetrators of that act itself. The making of the video can be considered by the court to be an aggravating factor. The further distribution of the video may justifiably be proscribed as an invasion of privacy.

Likewise on the question of Internet content that depicts violence: The depiction itself should not be criminal, anymore than the depiction of it in cinema today is. Even murder and genocide (for example, in the film Hotel Rwanda) are allowed to be depicted. However, if in the making of such content, coercion took place or actual injury was caused, then naturally the law should intervene in the realworld event.

Section 2.3 has discussed the useful role of an Internet Content Consultative Committee (IC3) as an example of the form community moderation can take. It proposed that IC3 should not have any mandatory powers, but by being broadly representative and expert, it would over time acquire moral force. This is the appropriate forum for discussion about digital content involving sex and violence, and its consensus pronouncements are likely, in due course, to play the role of “signpostng”. It can also encourage appropriate labelling and fencing by site owners. Unlike laws or written regulations applied by bureaucrats whose deliberations are veiled by the Official Secrets Act, community moderation is an approach that is flexible, scalable and sensitive to changing public opinion.

5.3 Recommendations

Abolish all Internet-specific legislation and bylaws
Repeal Sections 292 and 293 of the Penal Code
Write into the proposed Internet Freedom Act the exemption of digital content from any existing laws pertaining to obscenity and violence except that involving persons under 16 years of age.
Let the IC3 evolve ways to deal with explicit depictions of sex and violence through community moderation.

In assent:

Alex Au Waipang
Ng E-Jay
Choo Zheng Xi
Mohan Gopalan
Scott Teng Kie Zin
See Tong Ming
Benjamin Cheah
Ho Choon Hiong
Roderick Chia

In dissent:

Gerald Giam

Abstained:

Bernard Leong
Cherian George
Justin Zhuang

新加坡网络管理体制探究

2008-01-26T18:48:00.000-08:00

作者：牛静来源：中国传媒报告2007年第4期转自：中国电子政务网

　　新加坡的网络是一个高度充满竞争的空间，在这里，政府管制、信息控制以及用户自律等在冲突中和谐并存，其网络管理方式主要是：对网络服务提供者及网民实行“轻触式”规制；对互联网内容实行严格的审查制度，这种管理方式是由新加坡特定的政治、文化因素决定的。

　　一、新加坡对互联网“轻触式”管理(A Light-Touch Regulatory Framework)

　　鉴于互联网通过各种网站和主页较大范围地向公众发布信息，新加坡把互联网作为一种广播服务进行管理。其管理部门新加坡广播管理局(The Singapore Broadcasting Authority，简称SBA)成立于1994年10月1日，1996年7月11日宣布对互联网实行管制。2003年1月，新加坡广播管理局 (SBA)、电影与出版物管理局(The Films and Publications Department)、新加坡电影委员会(Singapore Film Commission)三家机构合并，共同成立了新加坡传媒发展局(Media Development Authority，简称MDA)。从此，新加坡传媒发展局(MDA)接替新加坡广播管理局，成为互联网的主管机构。

　　(一)“轻触式”管理的基本思想

　　1996年3月3日，新加坡广播管理局(SBA)发表公告，阐述了新加坡政府对互联网的总体政策和对互联网的管理办法，公告称：“互联网是一个强大的通讯和信息工具。随着计算机进入家庭、办公室和学校，互联网用户将会迅速增加。互联网如同广播和印刷媒介一样，将成为一个广泛应用的媒介。新加坡将鼓励互联网的发展，开发其潜力。同时，也要加强对电子网络空间(CyberSpace)的检查，排除那些色情、容易诱发社会和宗教骚乱和犯罪行为的内容。”(苏丹，2004)1996年12月，由联合国教科文组织委托起草、澳大利亚广播局(ABA)出版的一份报告中指出，新加坡政府宣布“不会对互联网实行过度的控制”(ABA，1997)。互联网巨大的经济潜力，使新加坡政府选择了一种“轻触式”的网络管理方式。

　　新加坡传媒发展局(MDA)的管理方针中明确表示采用“轻触式”的管理，“MDA完全对新加坡的互联网发展和网络传播内容负责。在管理互联网方面，MDA采用一种平衡的、轻度接触的管理方式，以确保网络用户承担最少的责任，同时给网络经营者以最大的操作灵活度。MDA也鼓励经营者实行自我调节管理，并通过公共教育去弥补这种轻度管理方式的不足。”(MDA，2003a)“轻触式”管理，是指在已经达成一致意见的基础上用户进行自我调节，也就是 “自动管理(auto-regulation)”，即网络和媒体使用者根据国家的法律制度和灵活的纪律约束进行“正确”的选择和判断。

　　“轻触式”管理的前提是有相关的法律制度或规定纪律。新加坡传媒发展局(MDA)的互联网管理框架主要依据《广播法(分类许可证)》 (2001)通知，依照这一制度，ICP和ISP只要在MDA登记，便被视为自动获得经营执照。政府于1996年7月15日颁布“互联网管理法规”，也称分类许可证制度(Class License Scheme)，“互联网操作规则”(Internet Code of Practice)是分类许可证制度的补充。这二个法律条例都是为了鼓励负责任地使用网络媒体。它们对网络传播内容方面的规定，形成了新加坡网络“自我调节式管理”的基础，这也就是MDA所描述的“平衡的、轻度的”管理。

　　(二)“轻触式”管理的具体措施

　　新加坡这种“平衡的、轻度接触的”管理方式主要包括分类许可制、接受建议和鼓励行业自律、加强公共教育。

　　1.分类许可证制度

　　(1)对网络服务商的分类管理

　　根据2001年10月10日修订的《分类许可证制》，对互联网服务提供商(ISP)和互联网内容提供商(ICP)有着不同的要求。

　　互联网服务提供商(ISP)，必须在MDA登记。对其管理分为三类：互联网接入服务提供商((Internet Access Service Provider，简称IASP)，定点网络服务转售商(Localised Internet Service Reseller)、非定点网络服务转售商(on-localised Internet Service Reseller) (钟新，2001)。不同类型的ISP有着不同的职责和义务。互联网接入服务提供商(ISAP)是指新加坡三大接入服务提供商，即新加坡网 (SingNet)、太平洋网(Pacific Internet)和星枢网(Starhub Internet)；定点网络服务转售商具体指在网络咖啡屋、图书馆、社区服务中心和学校等地向公众提供互联网络服务的服务提供商；非定点网络服务转售商是指从互联网连接服务商处获得互联网连接，然后转售给公众的网络服务者，如“新加坡网络服务”和“国家计算机系统”。

　　公众通过定点和非定点网络服务转售商所提供的代理服务器连接网络，代理服务器可以阻止用户访问那些包含有害信息的网站。转售商必须删除MDA所界定的有害网站、新闻组和文章。互联网服务提供商(ISP)有协助SBA对任何违规行为进行检查的义务。MDA将进行“抽样调查”以确保ISP依法令行事。

　　互联网内容提供商(ICP)，无须专门注册，但以下情况必须注册：1)在新加坡注册的政治团体通过互联网以WWW方式提供网页者。2)在WWW 上参与有关新加坡的政治和宗教讨论的用户团体或新闻组。3)为政治目的或宗教目的而提供网页的个人，以及由广管局通知其注册者。4)通过互联网络在新加坡销售的联机报纸，由广管局通知其注册者。 (MDA，2005a)MDA指出，注册是为了加强和明确使用网络的责任，在不违反法律规定和不破坏社会和睦的前提下，政治和宗教团体可以自由讨论。与一般的执照审批制不同，申请网络经营者依《分类许可制》自动发放执照，网站只要在MDA登记，便可直接获得经营执照。登记后的网站自觉根据《互联网操作规则》，自主判断并管理其网页内容。

　　(2)网络提供商的责任与免责

　　互联网服务提供商和内容提供商之所以要求在MDA注册登记，主要原因是要防止和及时地清除网上出现的有害信息。互联网连接服务商根据MDA提供的“黑名单”禁止用户连接或屏蔽相关网站。网络服务商不仅要订购经过MDA审查同意的新闻组，而且要删除包含有害信息的新闻组或文章。互联网连接服务商必须在MDA同意的基础上建立用户守则，保存用户访问的有害信息的站点记录。同时，IASPs有义务帮助MDA管理者进入这些被禁止的网站。

　　对网络运营商的责任要求，见于《分类许可证制度》概述部分第五条：“SBA不可能随时主动地监视互联网络，查处有害信息站点。因此要求信息服务提供者按广管局的指示关闭有害站点。对于那些预定服务项目，如新闻组(newsgroup)服务，要求各ISP按照广管局的内容指导原则对服务内容进行检查。”第六条：“由于互联网络的站点数量众多，并且变化很大，要想在互联网络连接服务商(ISAP)这一层次上进行完全的控制是不可能的。广管局鼓励其他 ISP在各自的网络内部进一步的控制，以对互联网络连接服务商(ISAP)的控制进行补充。”(新加坡广播管理局互联网络管理法规，1996)为了减轻互联网服务和内容提供商的顾虑和负担，《互联网操作规则》规定了服务和内容提供商的免责条款：1.如果网络接入服务提供商或转售商在接到传媒发展局 (MDA)的通知后，按要求关闭了含有“禁止内容”的网页链接，即可免责。2.如果网络接入服务提供商或转售商按照MDA的要求取消订阅那些含有“禁止” 内容的新闻组，即可免责。3.①对基于网络服务而建立的私人讨论区(如聊天室)，只要保证不设定“禁止内容”范围内的话题，即可免责。②对基于网络服务而建立的公共展示区(如BBS系统)，只要在日常编辑、检查的过程中关闭了含有“禁止内容”的链接，即可免责。4.网络内容提供商必须按照MDA的要求，关闭含有“禁止内容”的网页。(MDA，2003b)

　　2.接受建议与鼓励行业自律

　　在接受建议方面，MDA举行定期的对话会议，收集公众的观点和反馈意见，为网络行业提供诸多建议以满足消费者的兴趣和需求。(CRC， 2003)与MDA一起行使管理互联网职责的是建立于1996年的国家互联网咨询委员会(National Internet Advisory Committee，简称NIAC)。该委员会是新加坡政府专门为互联网的发展和管理而设置的咨询机构。它由来自政府机构、互联网服务提供商、互联网内容提供商、互联网用户以及各有关部门的代表组成，就互联网发展中出现的问题向政府提出参考建议，协助政府制定有关的法律法规，及时收集社会各界对政府有关政策的反馈意见，为MDA提出建议，为更好地使用互联网及新媒体而进行公共教育提出意见。(MDA，2005b)

　　在倡导行业自律方面，MDA鼓励网络行业实行自治，建立自己的评判标准。MDA鼓励互联网服务提供商和内容提供商制定自己的内容管理准则，如内容分级标注系统。2001年2月，经过政府管理部门、互联网业界的协商和对用户意见的调查，一套自愿性质的行业自律规范——《行业内容操作守则》制定完成。《行业内容操作守则》主要由三方面内容组成：公平竞争、自我监管和用户服务。《行为内容操作守则》规定：对于任何采纳《守则》的网络服务提供商或内容提供商，必须履行以下核心义务：不得故意在网上放置不恰当的、让人反感的或是法律明确禁止的内容；采用恰当的内容分级系统，将不同的信息加以区分，标明其所属的网站；不得使用错误或误导性的描述；尊重用户个人资料的隐私；未经对方请求不得发出电子邮件；遵守新加坡现行的广告管理标准。

　　《行业内容操作守则》虽不具备法律的强制性，但互联网服务提供商或内容提供商一旦签署，就必须全盘接受，不得删改。目前，通过新加坡三家最主要的互联网服务提供商——星枢网(Starhub)、太平洋网(Pacific Internet)和新加坡网(Singnet)已经采用了《行业内容操作守则》，并将《守则》纳入到了用户合同中。(苏丹，2004)审查制回顾委员会 (CRC，2003)的报告中提出：“网络经营者应该保持社会敏感，有自我责任感。网站经营者应该在内容自治方面有更多的自主权，更少地受到MDA和相关决策部门的干涉，这也取决于他们的自律状况和责任感。”

　　3.加强公共教育

　　MDA于1999年11月13日扶持了一个公共教育组织——互联网家长顾问组(PAGi)，其目的主要是为公众，特别是为家长提供长期的指导，协助家长帮助孩子负责地使用网络。互联网家长顾问组(PAGi)的主要活动是，通过对家长进行培训和辅导，帮助孩子正确使用互联网，到2002年底，互联网家长顾问组已经组织了40000名家长讲座、培训(PAGi，2005)。同时开发并鼓励使用“家庭上网系统”(Family Access Networks，简称FAN)，这一系统的主要功能是过滤色情和不良信息，为不太了解网络和不会使用过滤软件的家长提供解决方案；MDA和国际性机构 “互联网内容分级协会”(Internet Content Rating Association)合作，开发新的内容管理工具。从2003年1月起，新加坡传媒发展局还设立了500万美元的互联网公共教育基金 (Internet Public Education Fund)，用于研制和开发有效的互联网内容管理工具。(MDA，2006)

　　二、新加坡对互联网内容实行严格的审查制度

　　(一)网络审查制实施的原因

　　新加坡2002年对网络审查制的调查显示，70%的受访者对目前新加坡的审查标准比较满意(CRC，2003)。政府及公众大多认为为了防止有害信息，对互联网实行检查是十分必要的。在所列举的需要检查的7种传播内容中,新加坡人认为以下三种最需要进行检查:一是向青年人提供的资料；二是可能导致种族冲突的新闻报道；三是有害于种族感情的公开言论。“在一个不断变化、多种族、多种宗教并存的社会里，在一个需要对青少年保护的社会里，我们需要对各种种族和宗教群体保持高度的关注，同时关注青少年的道德价值问题。而审查制就是将那些诋毁种族、宗教的内容，将那些对青少年成长有害的内容、损害公共秩序、侵蚀社会道德内容剔除出去。”(CRC，2003)这正是新加坡对互联网内容进行严格审查控制的重要原因。而且,检查制度在新加坡是被政府长期培植，被大众作为新加坡社会特色而普遍接受的管理方式。(刘振喜，1999)随着社会的不断开放与上网群体的年轻化，网络审查的目的与重点也发生变化。大部分的新加坡人较为保守，自1992年至2002年连续十年的调查表明，人们对审查制中有关性和裸体描述的评判没有什么改变。然而，随着新加坡人的受教育程度越来越高，他们更多的接纳不同的观点，甚至非正统的观点，因此，要求信息内容获取自由和要求提供自由表达空间的人越来越多。这促使网络审查标准不断改进。

　　2003年新加坡的家庭网络用户达到73.7%，个人电脑使用者达到64.6%，而且有一半的个人电脑使用者可以连接到国外网。2002年，新加坡互联网计划小组(Singapore Internet Project Team)就“互联网在新加坡”进行调查，结果表明年龄在18岁以上，46%的青年是互联网主要的使用者。而对于很多受过IT培训的当地新加坡学生，这个百分比更达到了71%。(Kuo, E.C.Y et al.，2002)MDA面对新的群体必须重新考虑审查政策和指导方针的适当性。

　　(二)新加坡网络规范的内容

　　《互联网操作规则》明确规定，“禁止那些与公共利益、公共道德、公共秩序、公共安全和国家团结相违背的内容。”同时，原有《诽谤法》、《煽动法》、《维护宗教融合法案》等相关内容也适用于互联网管理。具体来说，新加坡网络规范的内容主要有以下几个方面：1.公共安全和国家防卫的内容。即任何危害公共安全或国家防卫的内容都禁止在互联网上交流。这些内容具体指：危及公共安全和国家防卫的内容；动摇公众对法律部门执法信心的内容；惊动或误导部分或全体公众的信息；引起人们痛恨和蔑视政府，激发对政府不满的内容。这些规定确保了公众在对政府进行批评时自负其责地发表言论。2.种族和宗教的内容。破坏种族和宗教和谐的内容受到禁止。包括抹黑和讥讽任何种族或宗教团体的内容、在任何种族和宗教之间制造仇恨的内容、提倡异端宗教或邪教仪式，如恶魔崇拜的内容。3.有关公共道德的内容。败坏公共道德、与社会主流价值观相违背的的内容被禁止。这些内容主要指：含有色情及猥亵的内容；提倡性放纵和性乱交的内容；刻画或大肆渲染暴力、裸体、性和恐怖和内容；刻画或宣扬变态性行为，如男同性恋、女同性恋、奸污儿童的内容。(Sarah B. Hogan，1999)

　　新加坡对互联网进行检查的重点是对青少年有害的色情信息，但是随着网络空间中政治争论日趋增多,检查的内容逐渐从色情内容转到政治信息方面。同时，政府任命了一个专门的管理委员会负责在互联网建立Singapore Infomap主页,发布有关新加坡的信息，同时驳斥错误信息。

　　(三)新加坡网络审查的原则

　　新加坡对互联网进行检查时，有四项应当遵守的原则:1.对进入家庭的资料的检查应严于对进入公司企业的检查；政府有关部门在企业信息和非企业信息之间作了区分,供公司企业经营用的信息可以尽可能地自由流动,而对非企业信息,进入家庭的信息则应进行检查。2.针对青年人的信息利用要严于对成年人的信息利用。3.对公共消费信息的检查要严于对个人消费信息的检查。4.对仅用于艺术、教育等目的的资料的检查较为宽松。(刘振喜，1999)

　　这一检查原则体现了新加坡网络管理区别对待的特点，即家庭与公司企业、儿童与成年人、公共大众与个人消费者区别对待。对公司企业需要的信息、为艺术、教育服务的信息类型所作的检查比较宽松，对于纯粹娱乐性的信息检查较为严格。

　　三、新加坡网络管理体制评价

　　“轻触式”管理的好处显而易见。对个人或公众网用户来说，这种管理方式是向自由民主的乌托邦迈进了一步。对网络经营者来说，这种管理方式使消费者有了自由选择的权力。(Thompson, K.，1997)对政府管理者来说，自我调节管理使费劲的监管、统计和报告工作变得省力，尤其是当获得许可的人可以根据一系列准则进行正确地“分类”时，政府的工作变得更为轻松。

　　新加坡“分类许可证制度”实行后，代理服务商们都被迫“同意”在法律允许的范围内活动并主动承担责任，由于对法律惩罚的惧怕，没有发生任何反抗行为。正如期望的那样，没有人去违反MDA的互联网政策规定。澳大利亚默多克大学传媒、传播与文化学院讲师Terence Le认为，一系列条例中关于权力部门自我宣称的“透明度”的内容很少，而政府的管理控制的内容相对较多，这种控制已经在不同时期成为新加坡网络管理的精神依据(Terence Lee，2005)。

　　新加坡的网络政策并没有受到很多公开反对，公众把注意力放到了网络暴力、色情内容的泛滥上。在一个政治合法性随着管理的道德提高而增加的年代，我们不难理解为什么公众大规模地支持政府审查和禁止有害和反动内容的举动，尤其当政府对儿童和未成年人的保护举措印制成图片加以宣传时，公众更加理解政府的作法了。政府部门有权力使公众远离被禁止的网站，无论这些网站是有害儿童的还是政治异见者的，新加坡一直强调需要靠政府管制网络公共领域。

　　通过“分类许可证制度”建立的轻触式管理方式实现了一种平衡，网络服务提供者和网络内容提供者在开办网站时可以不用通过MDA的许可，而自动获得了一种注册登记的权力。这就使建立个人主页、个人的博客，以及公开个人信息等都变成很轻松的一件事，个体可以不经意地成为网络内容提供者，并受到这种自我调整的权限的影响。这种精心设计的含糊不清的法律条例扩展了政策执行的范围，使权力部门处罚违法者或可能的违法者时有了较为任意的权力。另外，所有的网站提供者和用户都清楚地明白所有的非互联网法律都适用于在线网络世界。“分类许可证制度”所规定的“细则不免除许可证持有者遵守与其所提供服务相关的其他成文法。”(MDA)因此，该管理方式毫无疑问是较为灵活的、透明的管理方式。

　　新加坡的网络政策发展一直与其集中化的媒体、电信、IT产业的发展相适应，集权制的网络监控占居主导地位，无论技术上和意识形态上都是如此。在 2001年7月，新加坡广播局要求Sintercom网站注册登记，因为此网站“从事传播、促进或讨论与新加坡有关的政治或宗教事务”。这个独立的网站建立于1994年，它被很多人看作是新加坡公民社会的灯塔，在过去它一直作为一个独立的政治站点，拥有着事前注册登记的豁免权(Goh, S.，2001)。Sintercom已经成为最有革新精神的非政府管制网站之一，鼓励当地或海外的新加坡人就新加坡的社会、文化、政治等发表自己率真的看法。在2001年8月，Tan Chong Kee，Sintercom的创始人宣称关闭这个网站，Tan解释说，《分类许可证制度》中含糊的法律可能会使他处于一种“自我审查”之中，隐瞒或移除网站上的任何内容都有可能冒犯法令，更为险恶的是，他也可能处于一种随时都被送上法庭的境地中，而是否被送上法庭则取决于当权者如何解释目前的法令内容，他说建立公民社会在新加坡是一件“注定失败的努力”(Tan, T. H.，2001)。尽管Tan强调Sintercom与新加坡广播局之间的争论与他关闭网站没有必然联系，但是很明显，新加坡这种轻度管理的“自我调节方式”已经成功地消除了互联网上的异己声音。

　　新加坡人已经逐渐接受了被监控的事实，并自觉地在这种控制之下活动。公众一般与政府部门联系或者从政府网站下载文件进行解读，通过与相关权力部门的联系或对话，来检查审查制实施的效果。政府的管制像一个透明的圆形建筑，在这个建筑内，权力可以对全社会实施。由于政策管制的范围分散，每一个个体和群体都在处理自己行为时为自己负责，自我调整、自我审查、自我管理，因此对于公众来说很难发现政策中的缺陷。(Foucault, M.，1977)

　　[参考文献][1]刘振喜(1999).新加坡的因特网管理.国外社会科学，(3)，46-51.[Liu Zhenxi(1999).Internet Management in Singapore. Social Science Abroad, (3), 46-51.]

　　[2]苏丹(2004).法治严明秩序为先——新加坡的网络内容管理.中国记者，(10)，84-85.[Su Dan(2004). Rigid Ruling by Law and Putting Order in the First Place: Content Management over Internet in Singapore. Chinese Journalists, (10), 84-85.]

　　[3]钟新(2001).新加坡广播电视委员会(分类许可证)通知(1996).载于陈晓宁主编.广播电视新媒介政策法规研究：国外法规与评介研究(第1版，第90-91页).北京：中国法制出版社，2001.[Zhong Xin (2001). Singapore TV & Broadcasting Committee (Classified Permit) Notice (1996). in Chen Xiaoning, ed. A Study into Media Law on TV & Broadcasting: Law, Regulations and comments Abroad(1st Edition, pp.90-91). Beijing: Chinese Legislation Press, 2001.]

　　[4]新加坡广播管理局互联网络管理法规(1996).新加坡广播管理法(第297章)，1996年7月11日公布.中广有线，摘录于2005 年8月13日.http://www.cncable.com.cn/temp/show.htm-temp=T200192029&id1= 20010808a00040001.htm.[Internet Management Regulations, Singapore TV & Broadcasting Bureau (1996). in Singapore Broadcasting Law (Chapter 297), Promulgate on 1996-07-11. extracted by Zhongguang Wire, Access Time: 2005-08-13.]

　　[5]Australian Broadcasting Authority(ABA)(1997).The Internet and Some International Regulatory Issues Relating to Content, A Pilot Comparative Study Commissioned by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization(UNESCO). Sydney: ABA, October 1997.

　　[6]Censorship Review Committee(CRC)(2003).Censorship Review Committee Report 2003. Singapore: Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts.

　　[7]Foucault, M. (1977).Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (Translated by Alan Sheridan). New York: Random House.

　　[8]Goh, S. (2001).Website with ‘Political Content’ Told to Register. The Straits Times Interactive, Jul, 18.

　　[9]Kuo, E.C.Y et al. (2002).Internet in Singapore: A Study on Usage and Impact. Singapore: Times Academic Press.

　　[10]Media Development Authority(MDA). ‘Broadcasting (Class Licence) Notification’. Broadcasting Act (Chapter 28, clause 18)(1996). Access Time: 2005-07-16. http://www.mda.gov.sg Singapore.

　　[11]Media Development Authority (MDA)(2003a). Media Development Authority of Singapore Act (Chapter 172). Singapore: The Statutes of the Republic of Singapore.

　　[12]Media Development Authority (MDA)(2003b). ‘The Schedule: Internet Code of Practice’. Broadcasting Act (Chapter 28, Section 3). Access Time: 2005-07-16. http://www.mda.gov.sg.

　　[13]MDA(2005a).“Registration of Internet Class Licenses”.新加坡传媒发展局网站.2005-07-25.http: //www.mda.gov.sg/wms.www/devnpolicies.aspx?sid=161.[MDA(2005a). “Registration of Internet Class Licenses”. Access Time: 2005-07-25. http://www.mda.gov.sg/wms.www/devnpolicies.aspx?sid=161.]

　　[14]MDA(2005b).“网络政策与指导方针”专栏.新加坡传媒发展局网站.2005-07-15.http: //www.mda.gov.sg/wms.www/devnpolicies.aspx?sid=161.[MDA(2005b).Access Time: 2006-07-15.http://www.mda.gov.sg/wms.www/devnpolicies.aspx?sid=161.]

　　[15]MDA(2006).有关Internet Public Education Fund的介绍.新加坡传媒发展局网站.2006-12.http: //www.mda.gov.sg/wms.www/devnpolicies.aspx?sid=190.[MDA(2006).Access Time:2006-12.http://www.mda.gov.sg/wms.www/devnpolicies.aspx?sid=190.]

　　[16]PAGi(2005).互联网家长顾问组网站.2005-07-14.http://www.pagi.org.sg/.[PAGi(2005). Access Time: 2005-07-14.http://www.pagi.org.sg/.]

　　[17]Sarah B. Hogan(1999).To Net or Not to Net: Singapore’s Regulation of the Internet. Hogan Mac, 1999-04-13.

　　[18]Terence Lee(2005).Internet Control and Auto-regulation in Singapore. Surveillance & Society, 74-95.2005-08-03.http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/articles3(1)/Singapore. PDF.

　　[19]Thompson, K.(1997).Media and Cultural Regulation. London: Sage and the Open University, 1-7.

　　[20]Tan, T. H.(2001).Sintercom Founder Fades out of Cyberspace. The Straits Times Interactive, 2001-08-22.

　　——发表于《中国传媒报告》(China Media Reports) 2007年第4期