China comes in at first from the bottom on new internet freedom survey

[Patriot]

China comes in at first from the bottom on new internet freedom survey

A report released by Freedom House on Internet freedom has listed China dead last out of all nations surveyed.


The report, which rates freedom from a scale of 1 (free) to 100 (not free), gave China a score of 88, ranking it below Iraq and Syria and every other country surveyed. Last year, China had came in third from last place.

It is important to note that a number of nations were not included in the survey, such as North Korea, which would have certainly ranked lower than China.


This finding comes amid renewed efforts by the CCP to reign in dissent, both in cyberspace and out on the street.

Xinhua reported on Wednesday on a new law that gives Chinese courts the ability to jail individuals convicted of creating and spreading "false information" online for up to seven years.



Tech In Asia lists some notable examples of cyberspace restrictions, including a government push for real-name registration online; the adoption of a new cyber-weapon, the "Great Cannon," that was used to crash GitHub in April; a new anti-terrorism law that requires telecom and internet service providers to provide the government backdoor access and encryption keys; and a case in which a government agency was found to be distributing forged digital security certificates for websites, which could have been used as a means to deliver malware to users.

More recently, reports have surfaced that the Chinese government is looking into ways to harness "big data" to rank an online user's trustworthiness, and have indicated that authorities may use such a system to punish users accused of "trust-breaking."

Of course, this being China, these events have taken place in a nation that routinely blocks access to politically unsavory websites and censors sensitive online posts.



The Hong Kong Free Press reports that the Global Times has removed references to China in its report about Freedom House's new findings. The party mouthpiece's Facebook page also happily celebrated gaining its 1 millionth fan yesterday.


By Stanley Yu

[Images via Freedom House // HKFP]


Contact the author of this article or email [email protected] with further questions, comments or tips.
By Shanghaiist in News on Oct 30, 2015 1:40 PM

 

[Patriot]

Profile

Global TimesNewspaper · 1,010,889 Likes
· October 28 at 8:04pm · Edited ·

Global Times has reached one million Facebook fans, and to celebrate we’re giving away an iPad mini 2 and two Amazon Kindles!

To be in with a chance of winning one of two Amazon Kindles, just share this post with your friends; two winners will be randomly selected from the pool of sharers (but make sure you share the post publicly or we can’t include you in the prize draw!).

And for a chance to win the iPad mini 2, leave a comment on this post on the official Global Times Facebook page with your thoughts about our Facebook updates and how you think we could improve them. The reply that gets the most likes will win!

The winners will be selected and announced on our Facebook page at midday on November 6.

The Global Times Facebook page was created in April 2011; four years and six months on, we’ve attracted almost one million fans with our combination of the latest news and interesting pics and videos. But we want to do better – give us your suggestions below on what you’d like to see, and what you think of our Facebook page!

Global Times reserves the right to delete comments that it deems inappropriate. The editor’s decision is final.





64 Likes · 8 Comments · 12 Shares
[TABLE="class: uiGrid _51mz, width: 100%"]
[TR="class: _51mx"]
[TD="class: _51m-"]

Like​

[/TD]
[TD="class: _51m-"]

Comment​

[/TD]
[TD="class: _51m- _51mw"]

Share​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[Patriot]

World Report 2015: China

Events of 2014

China remains an authoritarian state, one that systematically curbs fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, association, assembly, and religion, when their exercise is perceived to threaten one-party rule. Since a new leadership assumed power in March 2013, authorities have undertaken positive steps in certain areas, including abolishing the arbitrary detention system known as Re-education through Labor (RTL), announcing limited reforms of the hukou system of household registration that has denied social services to China’s internal migrants, and giving slightly greater access for persons with disabilities to the all-important university entrance exam.​

But during the same period, authorities have also unleashed an extraordinary assault on basic human rights and their defenders with a ferocity unseen in recent years—an alarming sign given that the current leadership will likely remain in power through 2023. From mid-2013, the Chinese government and the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) have issued directives insisting on “correct” ideology among party members, university lecturers, students, researchers, and journalists. These documents warn against the perils of “universal values” and human rights, and assert the importance of a pro-government and pro-CCP stance.

Rather than embrace lawyers, writers, and whistleblowers as allies in an effort to deal effectively with rising social unrest, the government remains hostile to criticism. The government targets activists and their family members for harassment, arbitrary detention, legally baseless imprisonment, torture, and denial of access to adequate medical treatment. It has also significantly narrowed space for the press and the Internet, further limiting opportunities for citizens to press for much-needed reforms.

The Chinese government’s open hostility towards human rights activists was tragically illustrated by the death of grassroots activist Cao Shunli in March. Cao was detained for trying to participate in the 2013 Universal Periodic Review of China’s human rights record at the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) in Geneva. For several months, authorities denied her access to adequate health care even though she was seriously ill, and she died in March 2014, just days after authorities finally transferred her from detention to a hospital.

The government continued its anti-corruption campaign, taking aim at senior officials, including former security czar Zhou Yongkang, as well as lower-level officials. But the campaign has been conducted in ways that further undermine the rule of law, with accused officials held in an unlawful detention system, deprived of basic legal protections, and often coerced to confess. The civic group known as the New Citizens Movement, best known for its campaign to combat corruption through public disclosure of officials’ assets, has endured especially harsh reprisals.

In response to the Chinese government’s decision on August 31 denying genuine democracy in Hong Kong, students boycotted classes and launched demonstrations. Police initially tried to clear some demonstrators with pepper spray and tear gas, which prompted hundreds of thousands to join the protests and block major roads in several locations.

While senior Hong Kong government officials reluctantly met once with student leaders, they proposed no changes to the electoral process. Hundreds remained in three “Occupy Central” zones through November, when courts ruled some areas could be cleared and the government responded, using excessive force in arresting protest leaders and aggressively using pepper spray once again.

Protests continued in other areas, some student leaders embarked on a hunger strike with the aim of re-engaging the government in dialogue, while other protest leaders turned themselves in to the police as a gesture underscoring their civil disobedience. Despite the waning of street protests, the underlying political issues remained unresolved and combustible at time of writing.

 

[Patriot]

Human Rights Defenders

Activists increasingly face arbitrary detention, imprisonment, commitment to psychiatric facilities, or house arrest. Physical abuse, harassment, and intimidation are routine.

The government has convicted and imprisoned nine people for their involvement in the New Citizens Movement—including its founder, prominent legal scholar Xu Zhiyong—mostly on vaguely worded public order charges. Well-known lawyer Pu Zhiqiang and journalist Gao Yu, among others, were arrested around the 25th anniversary of the Tiananmen Massacre in June 2014. Many activists continue to be detained pending trial, and some, including lawyers Chang Boyang and Guo Feixiong, have been repeatedly denied access to lawyers. Virtually all face sentences heavier than activists received for similar activities in past years. The increased use of criminal detention may stem from the abolition of the RTL administrative detention system in late 2013.

China has 500,000 registered nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), though many are effectively government-run. An estimated 1.5 million more NGOs operate without proper registration because the criteria for doing so remain stringent despite gradual relaxation in recent years. The government remains suspicious of NGOs, and there are signs that authorities stepped up surveillance of some groups in 2014.

In June, a Chinese website posted an internal National Security Commission document that announced a nationwide investigation of foreign-based groups operating in China and Chinese groups that work with them. Subsequently, a number of groups reportedly were made to answer detailed questionnaires about their operations and funding, and were visited by the police. In June and July, Yirenping, an anti-discrimination organization, had its bank account frozen and its office searched by the police in connection with the activism of one of its legal representatives.

 

[Patriot]

Xinjiang

Pervasive ethnic discrimination, severe religious repression, and increasing cultural suppression justified by the government in the name of the “fight against separatism, religious extremism, and terrorism” continue to fuel rising tensions in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region (XUAR).

In March, at least 30 people were killed when Uighur assailants attacked people with knives at the train station in Kunming, Yunnan Province. In May, 31 people died when a busy market in Urumqi was bombed. In August, official press reports stated than approximately 100 people died in Yarkand (or Shache) County in XUAR when assailants attacked police stations, government offices, and vehicles on a road. The Chinese government has blamed “terrorist” groups for these attacks.

Following the Urumqi attack, the Chinese government announced a year-long anti-terrorism crackdown in Xinjiang. Within the first month, police arrested 380 suspects and tried more than 300 for terror-related offenses. Authorities also convened thousands of people for the public sentencing of dozens of those tried. In August, authorities executed three Uighurs who were convicted of orchestrating an attack in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square in October 2013. Fair trial rights remain a grave concern given the lack of independent information about the cases, the government’s insistence on expedited procedures, the fact that terror suspects can be held without legal counsel for months under Chinese law, and China’s record of police torture.

While there is reason for the government’s concern with violence, discriminatory and repressive minority policies only exacerbate the problem. In January, police took into custody Ilham Tohti, a Uyghur professor at Beijing’s Minzu University critical of the Chinese government’s Xinjiang policy. Tohti remains detained and is charged with “separatism,” which can result in life imprisonment. In August, Uighur linguist Abduweli Ayup was given an 18-month sentence for “illegal fundraising” after trying to raise money for Uighur-language schools.

 

[Patriot]

Tibet

A series of self-immolations by Tibetans protesting Chinese government repression appeared to have abated by early 2014. The authorities punished families and communities for allegedly inciting or being involved in these protests; punishment of individuals included imprisonment, hefty fines, and restrictions of movement.

Authorities were intolerant of peaceful protests by Tibetans, harshly responding with beatings and arrests to protests against mines on land considered sacred and against detention of local Tibetan leaders. According to press reports, in June, police beat and detained Tibetans for protesting against copper mining in southwestern Yunnan province. In August, police in the Ganzi prefecture of Sichuan province fired into a crowd of unarmed protesters demonstrating against the detention of a village leader. Also in June, Dhondup Wangchen, who had been imprisoned for his role in filming a clandestine documentary in Tibetan areas, was released after six years in prison.

China’s mass rehousing and relocation policy has radically changed Tibetans’ way of life and livelihoods, in some cases impoverishing them or making them dependent on state subsidies. Since 2006, over 2 million Tibetans, both farmers and herders, have been involuntarily “rehoused”—through government-ordered renovation or construction of new houses—in the TAR; hundreds of thousands of nomadic herders in the eastern part of the Tibetan plateau have been relocated or settled in “New Socialist Villages.”

 

[Patriot]

Hong Kong

In January 2013, Hong Kong professor Benny Tai first proposed the “Occupy Central with Love and Peace” movement, designed to pressure Beijing to grant genuine democracy to Hong Kong in accordance with the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s quasi-constitution, which applies the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to the territory. The ICCPR requires that people should have equal rights to vote and to stand for election. In June 2014, nearly 800,000 voted in favor of democracy in an unofficial “referendum” organized by Occupy Central; in July, at least 510,000 people marched for democracy.

On August 31, China’s top legislature announced it would impose a stringent screening mechanism that effectively bars candidates the central government dislikes from nomination for chief executive. In response, students boycotted classes in late September and held a small peaceful protest outside government headquarters. The police responded by dispersing the students with pepper spray and arrests.

These tactics prompted hundreds of thousands to join the students. Organizers of the Occupy Central movement announced that they were officially launching their planned demonstrations and joined the student protest. On September 28, Hong Kong police declared the protest illegal and cordoned off the government headquarters grounds. This decision prompted more protesters to gather in the areas near government headquarters, demanding that police reopen the area. The two groups of protesters—those corralled in the government headquarters and their supporters on the other side—eventually walked out onto the major thoroughfares between them and effectively blocked the roads.

The protests eventually occupied several large key areas in Hong Kong’s business and government centers. After several incidents of excessive force on the part of police against the overwhelmingly peaceful protests, including continued aggressive use of pepper spray and several beatings recorded on video, the government adopted a passive stance, waiting for private groups to win injunctions before moving to clear out protest sites in a strategy of waiting for public opinion to turn against the demonstrators.

When courts handed down the injunctions, police cleared two areas and later thwarted an effort to block access to government offices, but two other smaller sites in the city remained occupied at time of writing with students considering whether to abandon “occupation” as a tactic.

The underlying political issues, however, remained unresolved, with both Chinese and Hong Kong authorities standing firm on Beijing’s August 31 decision. Benny Tai and other Occupy Central leaders tried to turn themselves in to police to underscore both respect for rule of law and their stance of civil disobedience, while student leaders held peaceful hunger strikes in an effort to persuade the government to reengage in dialogue.

Although media has greater freedom in Hong Kong than elsewhere in China, journalists and media owners, particularly those critical of Beijing, came under increasing pressure in 2014. In February, a prominent editor, Kevin Lau, was stabbed by unidentified thugs; in July, HouseNews, a popular independent news website known for supporting democracy in Hong Kong, was shuttered by its founder, who cited fear of political retaliation from China; throughout 2014, Jimmy Lai and his media businesses, known for critical reporting on China, were repeatedly threatened.

 

[Patriot]

Freedom of Expression

The Chinese government targeted the Internet and the press with further restrictions in 2014. All media are already subject to pervasive control and censorship. The government maintains a nationwide Internet firewall exclude politically unacceptable information.

Since August 2013, the government has targeted WeChat—an instant messaging app that has gained increasing popularity—by closing popular “public accounts” that report and comment on current affairs. Another 20 million accounts were shuttered for allegedly soliciting “prostitutes.” Authorities also issued new rules requiring new WeChat users to register with real names. In July and August 2014 , it suspended popular foreign instant messaging services including Kakao Talk, saying the service was being used for “distributing terrorism-related information.”

Authorities also tightened press restrictions. The State Administration of Press Publication, Radio, Film, and Television issued a directive in July requiring that Chinese journalists sign an agreement stating that they will not release unpublished information without prior approval from their employers and requiring that they pass political ideology exams before they can be issued official press cards.

In July, the CCP’s disciplinary commission announced that researchers at the central Chinese Academic of Social Sciences had been “infiltrated by foreign forces” and participated in “illegal collusion” during politically sensitive periods. The party subsequently issued a rule that would make ideological evaluation a top requirement for assessing CASS researchers; those who fail are to be expelled.

 

[Patriot]

Freedom of Religion

Although the constitution guarantees freedom of religion, the government restricts religious practices to officially approved mosques, churches, temples, and monasteries organized by five officially recognized religious organizations; any religious activity not considered by the state to be “normal” is prohibited. It audits the activities, employee details, and financial records of religious bodies, and retains control over religious personnel appointments, publications, and seminary applications. In 2014, the government stepped up its control over religion, with particular focus on Christian churches.

Between late 2013 and early July, the government removed 150 crosses from churches in Zhejiang Province, which is considered to be a center of Christianity. In July, the government handed down a particularly harsh 12-year sentence to Christian pastor Zhang Shaojie. Also in July, Zhuhai authorities raided the compound of Buddhist leader Wu Zeheng and detained him and at least a dozen followers, although no legal reason was given for doing so. The Chinese government also expelled hundreds of foreign missionaries from China, according to press reports, and it failed to publicly respond to Pope Francis’s mid-August statement that the Vatican wishes to “establish full relations with China.”

The government classifies many religious groups outside of its control as “evil cults.” Falun Gong, a meditation-focused spiritual group banned since July 1999, continues to suffer state persecution. In June, authorities in Inner Mongolia detained 15 members of what it called another “evil cult” called the “Apostles' Congregation" for dancing publicly and “tempting” people to become new members.

 

[Patriot]

Women's Rights

Women’s reproductive rights and access to reproductive health remain severely curtailed under China’s population planning regulations. That policy includes the use of legal and other coercive measures, such as administrative sanctions, fines, and coercive measures, including forced insertion of intrauterine devices and forced abortion, to control reproductive choices.

In September and October, female protestors in Hong Kong alleged that assailants sexually assaulted them, and that police at those locations did little to intervene.

China was reviewed under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) in October. The committee expressed concerns over the lack of judicial independence and access to justice for women and retaliation against women rights activists. Chinese authorities prevented two activists from participating in the review: Ye Haiyan, China’s most prominent sex worker rights activist, was placed under administrative detention, while HIV-AIDS activist Wang Qiuyun's passport was confiscated.

In November, the government released for comment the long-awaited law against domestic violence. While a step in the right direction, it falls short of international standards and good practices. The definition of domestic violence is overly narrow, and the protection orders that women can seek are poor and are tied to victims subsequently filing a court case against the abuser.

 

[Patriot]

Disability Rights

Although China ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in June 2008, persons with disabilities face a range of barriers, including lack of access to education and forced institutionalization (including as a form of punishment).

In China, one in four children with disabilities is not in school because of discrimination and exclusion. Official guidelines even allow universities to deny enrollment in certain subjects if the applicants have certain disabilities. In April, the Chinese Education Ministry announced that it would allow Braille or electronic exams for national university entrance, but in a landmark case to test this initiative, blind activist Li Jincheng was not provided with the electronic exams he had requested, but a Braille version which he did not know how to read. Li’s case highlights the difficulties people with disabilities have in being provided with reasonable accommodation, a right that is still not recognized under Chinese law. New regulations on access to education for people with disabilities drafted in 2013 were not adopted in 2014.

The Mental Health Law, which came into effect in 2013, stipulates that treatment and hospitalization should be voluntary except in cases where individuals with severe mental illnesses pose a danger to, or have harmed, themselves or others. In an important step in November, a patient currently held in a psychiatric hospital invoked the law in a lawsuit brought in Shanghai challenging his confinement. According to Chinese Human Rights Defenders (CHRD), central government rules require local officials to meet a quota of institutionalizing two out of every 1,000 people who allegedly have “serious mental illnesses.”

 

[Patriot]

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

Homosexuality was decriminalized in 1997, but was remained classified as a mental illness until 2001. To date there is no law protecting people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. There is no legal recognition of same-sex partnership.

Despite this lack of legal protection, individuals and organizations brought cases to court to try to better protect their rights. In February, an activist sued the government after the Hunan Province Civil Affairs Department refused to register his organization focused on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) issues, stating that homosexuality had no place in Chinese traditional culture and “the building of spiritual civilization.” The court dismissed the case in March on the ground that the government had not defamed homosexuals.

LGBT groups continue to document the phenomenon of “conversion therapy,” in which clinics offer to “cure” homosexuality. In March 2014, a man who calls himself Xiao Zhen filed a lawsuit against a clinic in Chongqing, which he said had administered electroshock therapy to him. It was the first time a court in China heard a case involving “conversion therapy.”

In November, a man filed a lawsuit in Shenzhen alleging discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation; if the court accepts the case it will be the first such case heard in China.

During China’s October CEDAW review, a state representative noted that: “the rights of all Chinese citizens [are] protected by Chinese law, regardless of their sexual orientation.”

 

[Patriot]

Key International Actors

Even as China has taken major steps backwards on human rights under Xi Jinping, most foreign governments have muted their criticisms of its record, opting to prioritize economic and security issues or trying to win Chinese co-operation on issues like climate change. Few bilateral human rights dialogues were held in 2014, and few governments that had pointed to such dialogues as centerpieces of their human rights strategy developed effective, alternative long-term strategies, such as elevating their engagement with Chinese civil society.

Foreign governments also largely failed to mark the 25th anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre, or to speak up for Hong Kong when China ruled out true universal suffrage for the territory, though several noted the harsh sentences handed down to high-profile human rights defenders and the release of Gao Zhisheng, who, however, remains under heavy surveillance. For the third time in recent years, South African authorities indicated they would not grant a visa to the Dalai Lama.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon similarly failed to criticize the Chinese government’s deteriorating rights records during his August visit, instead praising the government for “its contributions to the promotion of … human rights.”

 

[Patriot]

Foreign Policy

China’s 2013 leadership change has not yielded fundamental changes in its foreign policy, though it has more aggressively advanced its territorial claims in parts of Asia.

While China engages with various UN mechanisms, it has not significantly improved its compliance with international human rights standards nor pushed for improved human rights protections in other countries, such as North Korea. There are eight outstanding requests by UN special rapporteurs to visit China, and UN agencies operating inside China remain tightly restricted, their activities closely monitored by authorities.

As a member of the UN Human Rights Council, China regularly votes to prevent scrutiny of serious human rights situations around the world. In 2014, China voted down resolutions spotlighting abuses in North Korea, Iran, Sri Lanka, Belarus, Ukraine, as well as Syria.

China repeated its calls for “political solutions” in Syria, Sudan, and South Sudan in 2014, but took steps that prolonged human rights crises in all three. Particularly noteworthy was its veto of a Security Council resolution referring the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court. The latter was its fourth veto, alongside Russia, of Security Council action to address human rights violations in Syria since 2011.

In September 2014, however, a Chinese embassy official in Juba claimed that Chinese weapons sales to South Sudan had been halted; the change in policy had not been independently verified at time of writing. China also continued to pressure governments to forcibly return Chinese asylum seekers and to deny visas to individuals it dislikes, such as the Dalai Lama.

 

[Patriot]

Singapore

Singapore


- Select year - 2015 2014







Freedom on the Net 2015PDF version



STATUS:
PARTLY FREE

TOTAL SCORE:
41
(0 = Best, 100 = Worst)


OBSTACLES TO ACCESS:
6
(0 = Best, 25 = Worst)


LIMITS ON CONTENT:
14
(0 = Best, 35 = Worst)


VIOLATIONS OF USER RIGHTS:
21
(0 = Best, 40 = Worst)



Quick Facts

[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 50%"]Population:[/TD]
[TD="width: 50%"]5.5 million[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 50%"]Internet Penetration:[/TD]
[TD="width: 50%"]82 percent[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 50%"]Social Media/ICT Apps Blocked:[/TD]
[TD="width: 50%"]No[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 50%"]Political/Social Content Blocked:[/TD]
[TD="width: 50%"]No[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 50%"]Bloggers/ICT Users Arrested:[/TD]
[TD="width: 50%"]Yes[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 50%"]Press Freedom Status:[/TD]
[TD="width: 50%"]Not Free[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[Patriot]

Singapore





Singapore

STATUS:
PARTLY FREE



Key Developments:

JUNE 2014 - MAY 2015

• A political website was ordered to be shut down in the first ever use of the government’s 19-year-old licensing powers (see Content Removal).
• A new anti-harassment law, ostensibly introduced to protect ordinary citizens, was wielded against critics of the government (see Prosecutions and Detentions for Online Activities).
• Three individuals were charged under the Sedition Act for postings allegedly promoting ill-will between Singaporeans and immigrants (see Prosecutions and Detentions for Online Activities).
• The prime minister sued an activist blogger, the first time a government leader has taken an individual to court for defamation over a blog post (see Prosecutions and Detentions for Online Activities).
• A prominent blogger was fined SGD$8,000 (US$5,800) for contempt of court (see Prosecutions and Detentions for Online Activities).
• A teenager was found guilty of penal code violations over an online tirade against the late Premier Lee Kuan Yew (see Prosecutions and Detentions for Online Activities).

 

[Patriot]

Introduction:
Singapore entered its 21[SUP]st[/SUP] year of public internet access in 2015. Digital connectivity has grown quickly, with the People’s Action Party (PAP) government embracing the internet as essential infrastructure for economic development. However, it remains wary of the technology’s potential for liberalizing political debate and enhancing democratic participation.

The government acknowledged that Singapore’s political culture became more disputatious after the 2011 general election. While it responded swiftly to address public grievances over various social and economic policies, it has not opened up space for dissenting views. It appears determined to contain public debate within what it considers to be acceptable boundaries.

Indeed, during preparations for the elections in late 2015, the government showed heightened sensitivity toward online dissent, resulting in a series of unprecedented actions during the coverage period. It ordered the shutdown of a highly critical political website, marking the first time that a site’s license has been suspended. A new anti-harassment law, originally touted as a means of protecting ordinary citizens from cyber stalking and other social ills, was almost immediately wielded by the government itself against its critics. Another first was the prime minister’s defamation suit against an activist blogger.

The website shutdown and the charging of three individuals under the Sedition Act were all associated with expression that the authorities claimed could inflame relations between locals and immigrants. The interventions were symptomatic of the government’s struggle to manage the highly charged debate over its unpopular immigration policies. The debate has been most vociferous online.

The government’s restrictions on online debate have not been severe enough to neutralize the internet’s importance as a space for alternative and more authentic voices. Antigovernment views are routine in comment spaces, forums, and social media.

However, the government may succeed in slowing down the growth of independent news sites and in discouraging more organized activism. Since 2013, the government has used registration and fundraising regulations to stymie the emergence of professionally-run, independent online news organizations with the capacity for original daily reporting and regular investigative journalism – of which none exist in Singapore.

Although there was much international speculation over whether the death of founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew in March 2015 would usher in more political openness, there is no sign that this will be the case. On the contrary, the outpouring of sentiment over Lee’s passing may have solidified Singapore’s conservative base, strengthening the hand of hardliners who argue that Singaporeans value good governance more than civil liberties.

 

[Patriot]

Obstacles to Access:

As a wealthy and compact city-state, Singapore has highly developed information and communication technology (ICT) infrastructure. Its Intelligent Nation 2015 master plan for an ultra-high-speed, pervasive network achieved the target of 90 percent home broadband penetration. A new government program launched in September 2014 offers affordable broadband packages to low-income households. In addition, the national wireless network offers free public access. In late 2014, the government launched a high-level Smart Nation program that will include education and training to boost Singaporeans’ skills in developing digital technologies and applications.

Availability and Ease of Access

Eighty-two percent of households had internet access in 2014, while mobile phone subscriptions outnumbered residents by 58 percent.[1] The fiber-based Next Generation Nationwide Broadband Network (Next Gen NBN) reached 95 percent of homes and businesses by July 2013.[2] Home owners are offered free installation for the first 15 meters of fiber running into their homes. In addition, the national wireless network offers free public access.

Singapore’s Intelligent Nation 2015 master plan, its sixth consecutive masterplan for the sector, achieved the target of rolling out broadband connections to 90 percent of homes; smartphone penetration has reached 85 percent.[3] In November 2014, the government launched its next major thrust, called Smart Nation, to integrate technologies more seamlessly and improve Singaporeans’ skills in not just using but also creating new technologies. A Smart Nation Programme Office has been set up under the Prime Minister’s Office, to take a “whole-of-Government, whole-of-nation approach.”[4]

The digital divide cuts mainly along generational lines. While close to 100 percent of residents aged 7 to 34 reported in 2012 that they had used the internet in the past year, the percentage was 51 percent for those in their 50s and 16 percent for those 60 and older.[5] In September 2014, the government launched a Home Access program under its SGD 8 million (US$5.7 million) Digital Inclusion Fund, to make internet connectivity more accessible and affordable to lower-income Singaporeans. Eligible households are provided home internet access and phone services with a broadband package at SGD 6 (US$ 4.30) per month for 48 months. This includes fiber connectivity and a basic device such as a tablet.[6]

Restrictions on Connectivity

No known restrictions have been placed on ICT connectivity or access to social media or communication apps, either permanently or during specific events. The Singapore Internet Exchange (SGIX), a not-for-profit established by the IDA in 2009, provides an open, neutral and self-regulated central point for service providers to exchange traffic with one another directly instead of routing through international carriers, thus improving latency and increasing resiliency when there are cable outages on the international network.[7]

Singapore has adopted a National Broadband Network (NBN) structure, with the network built and operated by an entity that supplies telecommunications services on a wholesale-only, open-access and non-discriminatory basis to all telecommunications carriers and service providers.[8] To develop Singapore’s all-fiber Next Generation NBN, a structurally separated network company has responsibility for the passive infrastructure, including the optical fiber. An operationally separate operating company is responsible for the active infrastructure, including routers, switches and access network equipment. These are in turn supposed to be separate from the retail service providers downstream, to avoid conflicts of interest. However, OpenNet, the builder-operator of the passive infrastructure, is currently controlled by a unit of government-linked Singapore Telecom (SingTel). Due to other players’ concerns that the acquisition was anticompetitive, regulators required that SingTel sell off 75 percent of its stake in that unit by April 2018.[9]

ICT Market

The dominant internet access providers are also the mobile telephony providers: SingTel, Starhub, and M1. SingTel, formerly a state telecom monopoly and now majority owned by the government’s investment arm, has a controlling stake in Starhub. The market is open to independent entrants. One of them, MyRepublic, rolled out a lower-cost 1 Gbps broadband service in early 2014 and announced its intention to bid for a 4G license that would make it the country’s fourth telco.[10] In March 2015, another newer player, ViewQwest, launched a 2 Gbps fiber-optic broadband service for households, offering what was touted to be among the world’s fastest home broadband plans.[11]

Regulatory Bodies

The internet infrastructure is regulated by the Infocomm Development Authority (IDA). As a statutory body of the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI), it takes instruction from the cabinet. In planning the all-fiber Next Gen NBN, the IDA has promised a competitive industry structure that would avoid conflicts of interest and allow retail service providers that offer services to end-users to purchase bandwidth connectivity at nondiscriminatory and nonexclusive prices.

 

[Patriot]

Limits on Content:

The government has kept a 1996 promise not to block or filter any political content.[12] However, in May 2015, it took the unprecedented step of ordering a political website to shut down, on the grounds that it had violated the Internet Code of Practice. A licensing system introduced in 2013 has been used to limit the growth of independent online news start-ups by restricting their funding options. Also in operation are powers to issue takedown orders to large commercial online news media. Despite these limits, the internet remains significantly more open than print or broadcasting as a medium for news and political discourse, which flow online largely unhindered. Restraints in online discourse are mainly due to fear of post-publication punitive action—especially through strict laws on defamation, racial and religious insult, and contempt of court (see Legal Environment).

Blocking and Filtering

The Broadcasting Act has included explicit internet regulations since 1996. Internet content providers and internet service providers (ISPs) are licensed as a class and must comply with the act’s Class License Conditions and the Internet Code of Practice. Under this regime, ISPs are required to take “all reasonable steps” to filter any content that the Media Development Authority (MDA) deems “undesirable, harmful or obscene.”[13]

As a matter of policy, the MDA blocks only a list of 100 websites, for the purpose of signposting societal values. This floating list has never been made public, but no political site has been blocked. Other than a few overseas sites run by religious extremists, the list is known to comprise pornographic sites.[14] Outside of this list, the Canada-based extramarital dating website, Ashley Madison, has been blocked since 2013, after it announced its plan to launch in Singapore.[15] No other site was subsequently singled out for similarly targeted blocking. The use of regulation to signpost social values has been linked to the influence of religious conservatives (mainly evangelical Christians) asserting themselves more in public morality debates.[16]

Like the IDA, the MDA is a statutory MCI body and answers to the cabinet. The Broadcasting Act empowers the MCI minister to prohibit disclosure of any directions to censor content.[17] This—together with the fact that most ISPs and large online media companies are close to the government—results in a lack of transparency and public accountability surrounding online content regulation.

Content Removal

In May 2015, the MDA declared that The Real Singapore (TRS) website had violated the Internet Code of Practice,[18] and that its Class License was therefore suspended.[19] Its owners were required to disable access to the website. They have apparently complied: visitors to the site now see the message, “The Real Singapore has been ordered to disable access to all our online services by the Media Development Authority (MDA) of Singapore.” This was the first time since the Class License system was introduced in 1996 that such action has been taken. A local network of digital freedom activists,

FreeMyInternet, criticized the MDA’s action as “arbitrary and unsubstantiated,” and indicative of “disproportionate power vested in a statutory board, and unclear guidelines on actions to be taken against objectionable content.”[20]

The MDA said that the TRS had “published prohibited material as defined by the Code to be objectionable on the grounds of public interest, public order and national harmony.” It did not specify what content had crossed the line, but said that several articles had “sought to incite anti-foreigner sentiments in Singapore.” Some articles were “deliberately fabricated” and “falsely attributed.” It said that TRS, previously run from outside of the country, came within the jurisdiction of the Broadcasting Act in December 2014, when two of the editors arrived in Singapore. The editors were given six hours to disable access to its site, and seven days to present arguments as to why their class license should not be cancelled. The two editors were also charged with sedition (see Prosecutions and Detentions for Online Activities).

The information minister said that this was only the 27th intervention against online content since 1996, and the first time a site had been shut down.[21] Previous cases apparently involved takedown notices for specific content. These are not made public. However, in 2013, the minister informed parliament that most takedowns were for pornographic content or solicitation; others were related to gambling or drugs. He told parliament that the MDA had never directed websites to take down content “just because it is critical of the Government.”[22]

A separate notice-and-takedown framework exists for large online news sites. Introduced in June 2013, it removes the identified sites from the class license and subjects them to individual licensing, under which they are required to comply with any takedown notice within 24 hours. The sites are required to put up a “performance bond” of SGD 50,000 (US$35,600) as an incentive to exercise best efforts.[23] The bond is in line with the requirement for television niche broadcasters.[24]

Ten news sites were on the initial list to be licensed under the new framework. Nine are run by Singapore Press Holdings or MediaCorp—which, as newspaper and broadcasting companies, are already subject to discretionary individual licensing and traditionally cooperate with the government. The new regulation was probably prompted by Yahoo Singapore’s news site, the only one of the ten not belonging to national mainstream media. However, although occasionally slightly bolder in its political coverage, neither it nor the other nine sites were likely to disobey a takedown request even without the new regulations. After it was licensed, Yahoo’s reporters were granted the official accreditation that they had sought for several years.

Although the government said the operations of the licensed sites would be virtually unaffected, the new framework raised concerns about the transparency and independence of regulation. The new licensing framework was made public through a press release three days before it was implemented.[25] Formally, the framework covers sites reporting an average of one article on Singapore’s news and current affairs per week over a continuous two-month period, and receiving visits from a monthly average of 50,000 unique IP addresses from Singapore over those two months. However, bloggers and other observers said that the criteria were unclear and inconsistently applied. The government’s assurances that commentary-driven blogs would not be subject to the new framework were not written into the regulations and only deepened unease about their arbitrary application.[26] In July 2015, outside the coverage period of this report, two independent sites, Mothership.sg andMiddle Ground, were subject to the same framework.

Several bloggers have publicly acknowledged removing critical content under threat of criminal prosecution or defamation suits (see Prosecutions and Detentions for Online Activities), while others are widely believed to do the same behind the scenes.

Media Diversity and Content Manipulation

Singapore’s highly targeted regulations have an impact on the diversity of its online landscape, both within the mainstream media sector as well as alternative media and blogs. The biggest online news players, in terms of resources and viewership, are the internet platforms of the mainstream newspaper and broadcast outlets of Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) and MediaCorp. They are subjected to the new notice-and-takedown framework, but the main avenue of control is the routine self-censorship that also afflicts their parent news organizations. MediaCorp is 80 percent government-owned, with SPH holding the remaining 20 percent. SPH is a listed company, but through the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, the government can nominate individuals to its board of directors. Since the 1980s, every SPH chairman has been a former cabinet minister. The government is known to have a say in the appointment of chief executives and chief editors. It also wields significant powers of patronage. Compared with authoritarian regimes that are more fractured and offer alternative sources of elite support, power and influence in Singapore are unusually centralized within the PAP’s top echelons.

For all these reasons, news websites run by mainstream media tend not to deviate significantly from the official line on controversial political issues, even in their opinion columns. While self-censorship is inherently difficult to monitor, bloggers have found evidence that mainstream news websites edited potentially contentious articles. In 2015, the SPH-owned national daily Straits Times deleted an online report quoting a cabinet minister, apparently because his comments were backfiring on the government.[27] MediaCorp’s Channel NewsAsia online portal deleted a report on a public forum after a junior minister’s answer to a question about national servicemen’s pay proved controversial.[28] What was striking about these two cases is that they went beyond the expected downplaying of dissenting views, and involved manipulation of factual news reports on officials’ own public statements. This may be indicative of the extreme sensitivity to potential controversies in the run-up to the late 2015 election.

Given the constraints that mainstream media work under, independent online media add significantly to the diversity of content. However, most socio-political blogs generate negligible revenue and therefore lack the manpower to generate original reporting and commentary on a daily basis. Efforts to professionalize citizen media have been hamstrung by government regulations introduced in 2013, which targeted smaller start-ups with ambitions to go commercial. On a case by case basis, publishers are required to sign an undertaking not to receive funds from foreign sources other than commercial advertising and subscription revenue. In addition, each has had to submit to the MDA detailed personal information about its owner, editorial team, and source of funds, including the names and national identity card numbers of individual funders.[29]These conditions were applied to three sites in 2013 and early 2014; as a result, one voluntarily closed down. In September 2014, the conditions were once again applied to a new company, The Opinion Collaborative, which was set up to run the leading independent site,The Online Citizen. The company complied with the request.

Although a registration system for political and religious sites had been in place since the 1990s, the earlier version did not impose any restrictions on their operations. The revised registration process, with its ban on foreign funding, appears designed to close off the possibility of any Singaporean site replicating the formula of independent news website Malaysiakini across the border in Malaysia. Malaysiakini had received startup grants and loans from overseas before becoming commercially viable. The websites that the government targeted with its new registration rules were not the most radical in Singapore’s cyberspace, but stood out for wanting to place citizen journalism on a financially sustainable footing.

While the government may have succeeded in inhibiting the growth of more professional and organized online journalism, the more informal sector remains vibrant. YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and international blog-hosting services are freely available, and most bloggers are able to operate openly. In addition to sites devoted to politics and current affairs, there are several NGO sites contributing to debates within their respective spheres, such as TWC2 (promoting migrant worker rights) and Transitioning (opposing the PAP’s immigration policies).[30]

All major opposition parties are active online. Social media discourse remains disproportionately critical of the government. Since the 2011 election, individual ministers and government agencies have ramped up and professionalized their social media capacity. Major government campaigns regularly and openly commission bloggers and creative professionals who are not ideologically opposed to such relationships. There is no evidence of large scale deployment of cyber troops. However, PAP supporters appear to be shedding some of their former reticence and, encouraged by their leaders’ example, are expressing themselves more, especially on Facebook. The government’s efforts to increase its internet presence through websites like Factually[31] and FiveStarsAndAMoon[32] have at most narrowed the gap with its critics. It has not been able to extend its unfair offline advantage into the online space.

Digital Activism

The internet is regularly used for popular mobilization, the success of which is constrained less by online regulation than by offline restrictions on fundraising and public assembly.

Online activism played a role in voicing public discontent over the government’s pension system, the Central Provident Fund (CPF). Activists who believe that the CPF lacked transparency and flexibility held a series of “Return Our CPF” protests at Hong Lim Park. The protest numbers appeared to have been buoyed by the controversy over the Prime Minister’s defamation suit against activist-blogger Roy Ngerng, who was one of the central figures in the protest movement (see Prosecutions and Detentions for Online Activities).[33]Addressing public disquiet, the government moved to make CPF withdrawal rules more flexible. However, the government did not provide the level of transparency that critics had demanded.[34]

Another online campaign centered upon a controversial relationship workshop for junior college students run by Focus on the Family Singapore, a Christian group. A junior college student publicized the workshop and its contents on Facebook, and the post eventually went viral, with many questioning the gender stereotypes in the workshop’s content. The junior college eventually did not renew the workshop for its students.[35]

Online activism was a major feature in the ongoing debate over LGBTI rights. The LGBTI community’s annual Pink Dot gathering on June 28, 2014 drew a record 26,000 participants, largely mobilized online.[36] The event also attracted a counter-campaign by different religious groups. A group of Muslims launched an online campaign to wear white to protest the LGBTI movement’s perceived threat to family values. They also took offense to Pink Dot being held on the first day of the holy month of Ramadan.[37] The largest Wear White gathering comprised 6,000 worshippers at the Faith Community Baptist Church.[38]

 

[Patriot]

Violations of User Rights:

While citizens remain free from major human rights abuses and enjoy high levels of personal security in Singapore, the government places a premium on order and stability at the expense of civil liberties and political opposition. During the coverage period, the prime minister won a defamation lawsuit against a blogger, while another blogger was convicted on a contempt of court charge. A teenager who posted a political tirade was convicted for obscenity and for wounding religious feelings. Three individuals were charged under the Sedition Act. A website and a blogger were charged under the new anti-harassment law. The authorities are believed to exercise broad legal powers to obtain personal data for surveillance purposes in national security investigations.

Legal Environment

The republic’s constitution enshrines freedom of expression, but also allows parliament wide leeway to impose limits on that freedom.[39] As the ruling party has consistently controlled more than 90 percent of seats in the legislature, laws passed tend to be short on checks and balances. The Newspaper and Printing Presses Act and the Broadcasting Act, which also covers the internet, grant sweeping powers to ministers, as well as significant scope for the administrative branch to fill in the details through vaguely articulated subsidiary regulations, such as the website licensing and registration rules described earlier in this report (see Limits on Content). Other laws that have been used against online communication, such as the Sedition Act and Political Donations Act, are open to broad interpretation by the authorities.

The Sedition Act, dating from colonial times, makes it an offense “to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the Government” or “to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore,” among other things.[40] Punishments for first-time offenders could include a jail term of up to three years. Newer provisions in the penal code (Section 298) provide for jail terms of up to three years for offenders who act through any medium with the “deliberate intention of wounding the religious or racial feelings of any person.”[41]Singapore’s first cases of imprisonment for online speech were under the Sedition Act in 2005, over postings insulting Muslims.[42] This was also the first prosecution under the Sedition Act since independence in 1965. One of the side effects of Singaporeans’ participation in social media, bypassing experienced mainstream media gatekeepers, is that members of the public now have more opportunities to give and take racial or religious offense through content posted online. Police investigations into complaints of insult and offense appear to be a regular occurrence. In most known cases, police intervention at an early stage has been enough to elicit apologies that satisfy those who feel targeted by offending expression. Occasionally, however, charges are brought against the offenders.

Defamation is criminalized in the penal code, but to date, no charges have been brought under this law to punish online speech.[43] Civil defamation law is fearsome enough. PAP leaders have been awarded damages in the range of SGD 100,000 to 300,000 each (US$71,000 to US$213,000) in defamation suits brought against opposition politicians and foreign media corporations.[44] Electronic media have been affected: in 2002, a libel suit was leveled at Bloomberg for an online column; it settled out of court and paid three leaders damages totaling SGD 595,000 (US$422,000). The government has not heeded recommendations by international human rights groups to introduce caps on compensation for nonmaterial harm to reputation.[45] There has also been no move to modernize Singapore’s plaintiff-friendly defamation law in line with recent developments in British and other Commonwealth jurisdictions, which have sought to safeguard legitimate political debate in the broader public interest. Similarly, the offense of scandalizing the judiciary has been used in Singapore to punish criticism of the court that in most democracies would be considered to fall within the norms of political debate. In 2008, a blogger was sentenced to three months in prison for this offense.[46]

In April 2014, a new Protection from Harassment Act came into force.[47] It was touted by the government as a way to protect citizens from cyberstalking, bullying and other troubling social trends. Under the law, a person who uses “threatening, abusive or insulting” expression likely to cause “harassment, alarm or distress” can be fined up to SGD5,000 (US$3,500). If done intentionally to cause harm, the offender can also be imprisoned for up to six months. If it includes a threat of violence, the jail term can be raised to 12 months. A separate provision in the Act protects public servants and public service workers from “indecent, threatening, abusive or insulting” expression when carrying out their work. An offender is liable for a fine of up to SGD 5,000 and up to 12 months in jail. Similar penalties are provided for stalking – which would cover, for example, repeated suggestive e-mails that would be reasonably known to cause harassment, alarm or distress. For all these provisions other than the one covering public officers, the victim can seek damages through civil proceedings. Victims can also apply to the court for a protection order, which could include prohibiting continued publication of the offending communication. The government also inserted into the law a section providing civil remedies for “false statements of fact” published about a person. The affected party can seek a court order requiring that the publication of the falsehood cease unless a notice is inserted setting the record straight. Although the Act was presented in parliament as a means of protecting ordinary citizens, it was quickly wielded by the government as a new instrument against critics (see Prosecutions and Detentions for Online Activities).

Prosecutions and Detentions for Online Activities

The new Protection from Harassment Act was marshaled by the Ministry of Defense in January 2015 in response to an online article written by an inventor with whom it was involved in a patent dispute. The Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC), acting for the ministry, invoked the law when it wrote to the writer and the website where the article appeared, The Online Citizen, to demand that they stop making and publishing “false statements.” Both the writer and the website challenged the government’s demand, arguing that the ministry does not qualify as a victim of harassment, being a large organization with the capacity to defend itself.[48] The case had not been resolved by the end of the coverage period. The anti-harassment law was also used to stop a satirical Facebook page, SMRT Ltd (Feedback),[49] from insulting Wendy Cheng, a blogger who has become a celebrity in her own right. Cheng’s popular Xiaxue blog has been criticized by more progressive bloggers for its intolerant and reactionary views.[50] She successfully applied for a protection order, stopping the satirical group from making more insulting or abusive comments against Cheng and her family.[51]

A teenaged blogger, Amos Yee, was also charged under the new anti-harassment law over online postings celebrating the death of founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew. However, prosecutors requested an acquittal on the harassment charge after the court found Yee guilty on two other charges in May 2015.[52] During the week of national mourning, the 16-year-old had posted a video of himself arguing why Lee did not deserve respect. At one point, the expletive-ridden commentary likened the delusions around Lee Kuan Yew to the beliefs of Christians. He was found guilty, under Section 298 of the penal code, of deliberately wounding religious feelings. Responding to a comment by the late British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher that Lee was usually right, Yee had also posted a manipulated image depicting the two politicians having sex. For this, he was found guilty of obscenity under Section 292. In view of his age, the prosecution proposed probation. Public opinion was sharply divided over this highly publicized case, with many arguing that Yee, as a child, should have just been ignored.[53] Petitions and a public rally were organized in his support.[54] However, the affair also revealed a strong reactionary streak within the Singapore public. Multiple complaints had been made to the police about Yee’s video. One man ran up to Yee outside the court and slapped him for insulting Lee Kuan Yew, for which he was sentenced to three weeks in jail.[55]

In February 2015, two administrators behind the anonymously run political site, The Real Singapore (TRS), were arrested under the Sedition Act over a report on an annual religious procession. A scuffle had broken out involving devotees who were playing drums.[56] The Real Singapore published a report claiming that the complaint about noise had originated from a Filipino family.[57] The widely shared article, which was never substantiated, drew many negative comments against Filipinos.[58] The TRS editors, Yang Kaiheng and Ai Takagi, were charged in April on seven counts of publishing seditious material on the TRS website and Facebook page. They faced a fine of up to SGD 5,000 (US$3,500) and three years’ jail on each charge. The charge sheet said that the offending articles had the “tendency to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different groups of people in Singapore”, namely, ethnic Indians and Philippine nationals.[59] In May 2015, Yang was allowed to leave Singapore to visit his ailing father in Australia.

The Sedition Act was also leveled at a Filipino nurse working in a Singapore hospital, for Facebook comments that the authorities said could promote feelings of ill will and hostility between Singaporeans and Filipinos in the country.[60] Ello Ed Mundsel Bello allegedly said that he would be “praying that disators [sic] strike Singapore and more Singaporeans will die than I will celebrate;” and that he would “kick out all Singaporeans” and turn the country into a new “Filipino state.”[61] As he initially denied posting the comments, he was also charged with providing false information to investigators. The sedition cases were indicative of the highly charged debates over immigration policy. Singapore has seen a trend of online xenophobia against Filipinos and other expatriates: in May 2014, the Filipino community canceled a planned Philippine Independence Day celebration at a shopping mall after encountering heated online opposition, including threats by Singaporeans to disrupt the event.[62]

In November 2014, an activist blogger, Roy Ngerng, was judged to have defamed Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. The case marked the first time that an individual blogger has been sued for defamation by a government leader, and was seen by commentators as evidence of a souring of relations between the ruling party and critical segments of the public.[63] Ngerng’s blog, The Heart Truths, had regularly accused the government of providing citizens with inadequate returns from the Central Provident Fund (CPF), a national pension scheme built on compulsory contributions from employees and employers.[64] In one blog, he published a graphic illustrating the connections between the CPF Board, the government’s investment arms, and the prime minister, comparing this to a second graphic, from a news site, showing the organizational structure of a church whose leaders were in court charged with misappropriating funds. Lee’s lawyers said that the blog was thus claiming that the prime minister was guilty of criminal misappropriation of Singaporeans’ money.[65] They rejected Ngerng’s initial apology and his offer of SGD 5,000 (US$3,500) in damages, pointing out that Ngerng emailed similar allegations to the media even after apologizing.[66]In January 2015, the High Court ordered him to pay SGD 29,000 (US$20,700) in costs.[67] As of May 2015, the damages in the civil suit had yet to be assessed.[68]

In early 2015, blogger Alex Au was convicted and fined SGD 8,000 (US$ 5,700) for scandalizing the judiciary.[69] He is appealing the verdict. His offending 2013 blog had questioned the Supreme Court’s handling of a constitutional challenge to Section 377A of the penal code, which criminalizes sodomy. He was found not guilty on a second charge brought by the public prosecutor.

Surveillance, Privacy, and Anonymity

While many people communicate anonymously online in Singapore, registration is required for some forms of digital interaction. Government-issued identity cards or passports must be produced when buying SIM cards, including prepaid cards, and buyers’ details must be electronically recorded by vendors. Registration for the Wireless@SG public Wi-Fi network also requires ID. Website registration requirements, although imposed on only a small number of platforms, have raised concerns about unwarranted official intrusion into their operations. In late 2013, the owner of one site declined to register because the MDA required the names of anyone involved in the “provision, management and/or operation of the website,” including volunteers.[70]

Surveillance is “an accepted but hidden fact of life” and “few doubt that the state can get private data whenever it wants.”[71]Under the sweeping Computer Misuse and Cybersecurity Act, the minister for home affairs can authorize the collection of information from any computer, including in real time, when satisfied that it is necessary to address any threat to national security.[72] Court permission need not be sought. Failure to comply with such orders is punishable with a fine of up to SGP 50,000 (US$35,000), a prison term of up to 10 years, or both. Under the Criminal Procedure Code, police officers investigating arrestable offenses may at any time access and search the data of any computer they suspect has been used in connection with the offense.[73] No warrant or special authorization is needed. Penalties for non-compliance can include a fine of up to SGP 5,000 (US$3,500), six months in prison, or both. With authorization from the public prosecutor, police can also require individuals to hand over decryption codes, failing which they are liable to fines up to SGP 10,000 (US$7,000), jail terms up to three months, or both.

In 2013, international news reports said information leaked by former U.S. National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden revealed SingTel had facilitated intelligence agencies’ access to the traffic carried on the major undersea telecommunications cable, SEA-ME-WE-3,[74] but the news did not provoke an outcry among Singaporeans. Members of parliament and other commentators did appeal for more transparency regarding official surveillance efforts. Responding to a parliamentary question, the government said in October 2013 that, as part of the evidence gathering process, law enforcement agencies made around 600 information requests a year to Google, Facebook, and Microsoft between 2010 and 2012. Most were for Computer Misuse and Cybersecurity Act offenses, while the rest were for crimes such as corruption, terrorist threats, gambling, and vice. Although all requests were for metadata, agencies can request content data if required for investigating offenses, the government said.[75] The Personal Data Protection Act enacted in 2012, which came into force in July 2014, exempts public agencies and organizations acting on their behalf.[76]

Singapore has adopted a U.S. Defense Department concept, “Total Information Awareness,” to gather electronic records en masse to look for digital footprints that might provide clues of impending security threats. The idea, which has proven controversial in the United States, has been incorporated into Singapore’s Risk Assessment and Horizon Scanning program. According to one analyst, “Singapore has become a laboratory not only for testing how mass surveillance and big-data analysis might prevent terrorism, but for determining whether technology can be used to engineer a more harmonious society.”[77]

Intimidation and Violence

There were no violent incidents targeting internet users in the past year, other than the assault on Amos Yee, for which the attacker was jailed (see Prosecutions and Detentions for Online Activities). However, there was one case of intimidation that led to the cancelling of an event. After Filipinos in Singapore publicized through Facebook their plans to organize a Philippine Independence Day celebration at a downtown mall, the news drew strong protests online. The prime minister came out in support of the planned event, which appeared only to increase the volume of xenophobic rhetoric and criticism of Singapore’s immigration policies. A week before the event, planned for June 2014, the organizers announced that they were calling it off, following advice from the police about public order and safety concerns at the venue.[78] The authorities’ apparent surrender to online intimidation was surprising for a country that prides itself on law and order.

Technical Attacks

After several high-profile attacks on government and private-sector websites in recent years, as well as growing concern about cybercrime, more attention is being paid to cyber-security.[79] A Cyber Security Agency was established in April 2015 to mitigate attacks and protect critical sectors such as energy, water, and banking.[80]