TodayOnline: Softly spoken at the Corner (Sept 2 2008)

Softly spoken at the Corner

Tuesday • September 2, 2008


Tan Hui Leng

huileng@mediacorp.com.sg


THUS was a milestone in free expression marked: A lone businessman putting up posters to draw attention to failed overseas investments, and a group staging an express demonstration on the plight of abused maids.

But if such fledgling efforts at public demonstrations were disappointing to some who turned up expecting far more fire, at least, it was not the no-show that had been expected originally.

At about 9am yesterday — the first day that rules were relaxed at Speakers’ Corner at Hong Lim Park — 52-year-old businessman Teng Liang Huat registered to put up an exhibition that afternoon.

And at the last minute, non-profit group Hearers of Cries, which had earlier registered its evening event as a speech, decided to change this into a demonstration instead, complete with banners.

Much fanfare had led up to the liberalisation of rules: A police permit was no longer needed to speak at the park, visual aids were allowed as were sound amplifiers. Scenarios such as the burning of political effigies or a gay pride parade had seemed real possibilities, with authorities not objecting when these were suggested to them.

So it was that many, like retiree Roger Poh, 61, dropped by in keen anticipation yesterday evening, to see what would take place.

Mr Poh, who came all the way from Jalan Kayu, felt short-changed by the 22-minute ‘demonstration’ from Hearer of Cries – it began with founder Mike Goh appealing for whistle-blowers on maid abuses, after which a volunteer dressed up as an abused maid (complete with paint-on bruises and neck brace) appealed for help.

The speeches lasted less than three minutes in all.

“I’m very disappointed, I expected more,” Mr Poh told TODAY. “I was hoping for demonstrations at the last minute on more controversial topics such as ERP, ministerial salaries and cost of living. This (maid abuse) issue is innocuous. It’s an anti-climax.”

Alan Tan bemoaned the turnout of about 30 to 40 persons. “I though all of Singapore knew, why are they not here?” asked the 50-year-old teacher. “It’s Teacher’s Day today – we should see more students and teachers. Are they scared or are they just not interested?”

And where was the opposition, or other local activists, some wondered.

As Mr Poh said: “It’s the first day and all the media is here; it’s the perfect opportunity to be heard.”



SUBHD: ‘Hopefully someone can help me’

Some expressed pessimism over whether interest in Hong Lim Park could be sustained.

One or two in the crowd were heard mumbling that it would likely “die a natural death” – the same way that Speaker’s Corner had opened on Sept 1, 2000 with a bang that quickly sizzled out, some said largely due to its out-of-the-way location.

Architect Foo Siew Mun, for one, believes that the Internet is now the focal point as a new-age discussion forum and real live demonstrations have become less effective in pushing causes.

But for individuals like Mr Teng – who literally put his name in the record books when he registered to put up posters yesterday – it was a way to vent his frustrations.

Between 1pm and 5pm, he put up hundreds of notices in Chinese typeface, expounding on Singapore businessmen’s misadventures overseas and the bureaucratic red-tape faced. He had apparently run into legal issues when investing in a property overseas.

“I’m using this as a platform to voice my concerns about issues and hopefully, somebody can help me out,” said Mr Teng, who had learnt about the looser rules at Speakers’ Corner only the day before.

He was approached by members of the media, curious tourists and other passers-by, like law student Kerushnan who had dropped by with friends to see if there was “any action”.

Mr Kerushnan, 38, was upbeat about the opportunity for the man in the street to voice his opinions and concerns. Unfortunately, the second event of the day ended too early for the student who had classes in the evening – Hearer of Cries had registered for their demonstration to end at 9pm, but started packing up before 7.25pm.

The seven-member group, which set up a website in 2002, encourages the public to report maid abuse and offers vouchers as rewards. Founder Mr Goh appeared a tad overwhelmed by the keen media attention and declined to elaborate much on the organisation, refering reporters instead to its website.

“Everyone of us here can play apart to prevent maid abuse,” he said, and yesterday’s demonstration was a small start – the group intends to use Speakers’ Corner as a regular platform to spread its message.

After all, as architect Mr Foo put it succintly: “It’s a start.”

And a soft one at that.

TodayOnline: A more open field (Aug 26 2008)

A more open field

S’poreans can now stage demos using loud hailers, placards, and hold overnight candlelight vigils

Tuesday • August 26, 2008


derrick A paulo
deputy news editor
derrick@mediacorp.com.sg

BURN an effigy of a Singapore political leader? Organise a gay pride event outdoors? From next week, protests like these will have a place in Singapore.

These were some of the scenarios put to the Police, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the National Parks Board (NParks) yesterday when they announced the details on liberalising the use of Speakers’ Corner in Hong Lim Park to allow public protests. None of the agencies objected.

“We want to be as open as possible,” said MHA senior director (policy and operations) Tai Wei Shyong at the press conference yesterday.

He did concede that because of the many possible scenarios that could arise, the liberalisation of Speakers’ Corner will be a “work in evolution”.

Come Sept 1, Singaporeans can organise and participate in any demonstration at Speakers’ Corner — except those that involve race and religion — without having to obtain a police permit.

Permanent residents (PRs) can also participate in these demonstrations, in recognition of the stake they have in Singapore. But they have to apply for a permit if they wish to give a speech or organise a protest themselves.

Foreigners will have to apply for a permit to conduct or participate in any activity — to make the distinction that the political rights of citizens are different from those of non-citizens. Which raises this possible scenario: What happens if a foreigner joins the protest without the organiser’s knowledge?

“The rules will be interpreted reasonably ... If there’s no way to stop him, we’ll look at that,” said Mr Tai. The rules will be administered by the NParks. Its chief operating officer, Dr Leong Chee Chiew, said he was not anticipating “worst-case scenarios”.

Since Speakers’ Corner was set up on Sept 1, 2000, there has not been any breach of the rules, according to Singapore Police Force director (operations) Wong Hong Kuan. During this time, there was a total of 2,144 registrations involving 508 speakers.

With the liberalisation, the 7am-to-7pm restriction will be abolished, thereby allowing all-night vigils. Any form of banners, placards, posters and other visual aids can be used for speeches or demonstrations, as long as they do not contain violent or obscene messages or any that pertain to race or religion.

And on top of making a scene, NParks will allow the use of loud hailers and other amplification equipment between 9am and 10.30pm in Hong Lim Park, which can hold 3,000 to 4,000 people.

A point to note: A group of protesters may have to share the park with other protesters. NParks’ new online registration allows you to head down to Hong Lim Park immediately after you register — there is no booking system.

“We work very much on the basis of trust. We are not going to do screening and make sure you speak on what you said you will speak on. But if you give information, you must know you’re accountable for it,” said Dr Leong.

The mandatory registration information includes your personal details, the date and nature of the event and the topic.

Would the police have any knowledge of the registrations with NParks? They would not rule it out yesterday.

“What if someone puts on the website that he’s going to do bad things?” Mr Wong offered as a scenario.

But he wanted to “dispel the perception that there’s a preponderance of police presence” at Speakers’ Corner, which is located next to Kreta Ayer Police Station.

He said that police presence would be kept “minimal”. But the police will intervene to enforce law and order or if there are complaints from the public.

“There are no limits (to the protests) subject to public safety ... for example, the crowd is so big that it obstructs the public,” said Mr Wong.

An agitated crowd is fine – demonstrations are designed as such, noted Mr Wong – but he suggested that organisers choose “some calming words” or call the protests off if they cannot control the crowd.

Lawyer and activist Chia Ti Lik believes this step to open up is “an attempt to return control over something (the government) won’t be able to control”.

“Their stand against demonstrations won’t hold up in real democracies,” he said.

So, will there be any takers for public protests come September?

Gay rights activist Alex Au does not plan to “dignify tokenism”, but the Animal Concerns Research and Education Society is in discussions to organise a demonstration, its executive director Louis Ng told Channel NewsAsia.

NParks is ready to take on this new role.

“Our primary motivation is to keep Speakers’ Corner for use in as well-maintained conditions as possible ... If there’s a need to make good on anything, we can follow up,” said Dr Leong.

“So, don’t damage our shrubs.”

Which means effigies can be burnt – but with care. - Additional reporting by Esther Ng

ST Forum: Ease up on the censorship, please (June 17)

Ease up on the censorship, please

KUDOS to Channel 5 for not being afraid to air the Ellen DeGeneres talk show although Singapore is still not very open to topics about homosexuality.

However, it disturbs me that whenever the show host mentions her partner's name, Portia, or whenever there is any slight mention of her sexual orientation, Channel 5 censors it and the show skids forward. It would be good if viewers get to enjoy the full show for the celebrity's talent and entertainment value, and not one based on her orientation. I do not think that easing up on censorship on such occasions is condoning homosexuals' way of life.

Would it also be possible for Channel 5 to ease up on censorship for shows that are aired after midnight due to content - for example, Whose Line Is It Anyway?

The fact that these shows are aired at such a late time already means that viewers are primed for the content. Or perhaps a 'PG/Warning: unsuitable content for the young' notice could be flashed before the show starts.

Eunice Foo (Miss)

The Register: How Free Press breaks the citizens' network ( May 19)

How Free Press breaks the citizens' network
By Andrew Orlowski (andrew.orlowski@theregister.co.uk)
Published Monday 19th May 2008 16:15 GMT

In 2003 the journalist Ron Suskind captured one of the quotes of the decade when he cited an unnamed Bush administration official as saying:

"When we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality, we'll act again, creating other new realities."

On the web today, "political activism" has become a virtual reality game that anyone can play, whoever you are. To succeed, a campaign need not be reality-based at all: it can generate its own fictional cause, complete with symbolic heroes and villains. Eventually the "campaigners" bump into physics, or economics, or real electors - who may have different, more urgent priorities - and the "campaign" vanishes as quickly as it appeared.

But what's interesting is the real world consequences of the virtual campaign can be the complete opposite of the campaigner's stated goals.

For example, have a look at this exchange with Ben Scott. Ben is a policy director at Free Press. The outfit describes itself as a "national, nonpartisan organisation working to reform the media". A goal is a media more responsive to citizens, and more accurate too.

So we were intrigued when it sent out a press release last week titled "Comcast and Cox Caught Blocking BitTorrent All Day, All Night". Had one of the internet's most popular applications been KO'd for millions of users? Actually, no. BitTorrent was working just fine.

So we sent a brief note to Free Press, on the basis that if it wanted a more accurate media, perhaps it shouldn't send out inaccurate press releases, hoping the media reprint the inaccuracies without question.

"Blocking implies that Bittorrent exchanges are somehow prohibited," we wrote. "In fact, Comcast's Bittorrent sessions have run faster and more smoothly as a consequence of this network management. So it's inaccurate to describe it in such indiscriminate terms."

But there was a more disturbing aspect to this careless use of the word "block". Free Press had cited a study by students at the Max Planck Institute which showed network management techniques were being used by three ISPs: Comcast, Cox and Singapore's.

Now, Singapore is not the United States. The government monitors and controls internet use, with the policy of criminalising certain kinds of behaviour. Homosexuality is illegal, for example.

So "blocking", in Singapore, means that you can't read certain things, and can't write certain things either. In 2005, the government successfully prosecuted and jailed bloggers.

Doesn't equating a repressive block on free speech with network management techniques trivialise the issue? And consequently make it harder for genuine victims of censorship to make their case? But Ben Scott couldn't see the problem. He mailed us back:

"As you'll note, we mention only Comcast and Cox and discuss the issue explicitly in the context of US government policy in the Congress and at the FCC. We do not even mention the Singapore case, so I don't think we are equating the two countries. We do not have any knowledge about Singapore telecommunications practices and could not comment publicly on them."

He also defended the use of the word "block". Comcast blocks Bittorrent in the same way as a traffic light may block your road journey; you may actually arrive at the destination quicker. It doesn't detonate an IED by your car, and force you to walk.

As we've explained before, when Bittorrent's aggressive protocol is heavily used, other applications become unusable - so the cable operator tries to keep everyone happy.

Scott defended the inaccuracy:

"I would disagree with your characterization of RST packets. This is in fact blocking by definition. It think your analogy is inapt. It would be the equivalent of traffic stops sending me back home to start driving to work all over again."

Only it doesn't.

Scott produced a few names of "experts" to back up his case. But none of these seem to grasp the distinction, either - and none have experience of building real networks, ones that don't fall over when the real people use them, doing the things people like to do. Like running Bittorrent, or making VoIP calls.

"I am not opposed to network management. I’m not opposed to throttling heavy users that are dominating congested links. I’m not opposed to congestion pricing. I’m not opposed to network tools that are used to protect security, etc. All networks use these tools. They use them today. They will use them tomorrow."

What he objected to was less than clear. But it's hard to draw up a policy when the definition of network abuse is so flexible. The press release of the day said that Comcast's actions were inexcusable, but Ben had just excused those actions in an email.
Breaking the citizen's network

But there's another more profound and disturbing aspect to a citizen's group declaring what can and can't be done with technology.

This is how I pointed it out to Scott (apologies for quoting it at length):

The internet gives citizens control over the tools of communication in quite an unprecedented way. This, obviously, threatens institutions which depend on scarcity of information for their authority. I think this is a pretty unique moment in the history of communications.

But I think I'm beginning to see the problem, and it's a classic information cascade. The "experts" tell you something you want to hear; you provide something the "experts" wouldn't otherwise have. You get "evidence of abuse". They get media prominence and social relevance. It's a dependency cycle. But is it real, or fictional?

The question you must answer is - is the network you / I / we propose one that is sustainable ? One that citizens can use as a template for the future?

In other words, would a temporary injection of RTS packets ever be permissible, or not? We'd soon find out. Joe Public goes to make a VOIP call, and then discovers that Bittorrent has grabbed all the available bandwidth and sockets. And it's completely out of his control. He can run one application or the other, but not both. We've outlawed intelligent and benign network management.

The precedent to remember is The Anarchist's Cookbook. This was lauded as the ultimate recipe book for creating disruptive stuff - like bombs. But The Anarchist's Cookbook was created at the CIA. It contained so many bogus instructions that it destroyed far more readers than intended targets. It was designed to fail.

Are you sure you're not creating a network that's designed to fail too? If the citizen's network fails - who benefits?

So far, I haven't heard a reply.

With its campaign to "Save The Internet", Free Press may achieve two goals that I fear are the opposite of what its biggest backer, George Soros, intended when he financed the outfit.

One is that it makes the job of genuine free speech activists - who work to promote cases of real repression - much harder.

The other is that it mandates a broken network as the default technical standard for citizens.

You may recall the "Stuckist Net" arguments here several years ago, when readers discussed how feasible it would be to evade lockdown technologies and create computer platforms that remained free and open. That was in the aftermath of CPRM, when it looked like Vista would be a tightly controlled system. That nightmare never came to pass, but the internet retains the ability to be a genuine "citizens' network", with even the domain name system open to alternatives.

But for the public to adopt such a system, it must offer a genuinely compelling alternative to AT&T and Comcast. It's no good advertising yourself as "citizen owned" if your offering falls over as soon as people use P2P. Similarly, selling a network with important features missing - such as VoIP - hardly makes it more attractive. You might get the odd politically-correct masochist, but Joe Public will stay away.

So in banging the drum for the virtual campaign, Free Press makes the big guys even stronger. That's an odd result for an outfit that says its goal is "to promote diverse and independent media ownership".

And a hell of a legacy to leave behind. ®

TODAY: MM: No S'poreans want to ask a question? (Oct 5)

By Loh Chee Kong
TODAY, Oct 5, 2007

The issue of homosexuality cropped up again during a question-and-answer session with Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew at the Nanyang Technological University's Ministerial Forum last night.

An English language undergraduate asked Mr Lee this question: Whether there was a "mutual contradiction" between Singapore's censorship laws and artistic expression, specifically on homosexuality and politics.

Mr Lee replied: "I cannot answer you on that. I just find it unbelievable that your artistic expression, or the desire and impulse in you, is suppressed because of the censorship laws. It cannot be.

"We are in a stage of transition ... I see no profits in having gay parades. If you are born homosexual, so be it. But must you parade it, or go out of your way to antagonise, embarrass or defy the more conventional view?"

During the one-hour session, he addressed issues such as press freedom and censorship. But when the session came close to an end, Mr Lee was concerned that only two out of the nine questions were asked by Singaporeans. He said: "Are there no Singaporeans who want to ask a question?"

Two Singaporean undergraduates then stood up to ask whether he was concerned with the high turnover rate of the teaching profession and what Singapore can do in the fight against global warming.

Mr Lee replied that the teaching profession is "unglamorous" but the Government's efforts to attract talents has paid off. He also revealed that the Cabinet is studying a paper on climate change.

TNP: THE subtitles were tweaked because of Singapore's censorship laws.

THE subtitles were tweaked because of Singapore's censorship laws.

That's one of the reasons why subtitles on some of its anime series are not accurate, said managing director Peter Go of local anime distributor Odex.

Anime fans have long criticised Odex's products saying they are inaccurately subtitled.

He was speaking at a press conference to announce the support of the Japanese copyright owners in its appeal against its case against Pacific Internet.

It has successfully obtained court orders to force SingNet and StarHub to reveal alleged illegal downloaders' identities, but its case against Pacific Internet was thrown out of court.

The company, which began a widespread crackdown on illegal anime downloading in May, has got flak from netizens for the quality of its anime subtitling.

Netizens have posted screen captures of illegal anime fansubs (fan-subtitled anime), comparing their subtitles to those on Odex's 'inaccurately subtitled' anime releases.

But why the discrepancy?

Mr Go said the subtitles of certain anime series had to be tweaked to conform with the Board of Film Censors' requirements.

He cited the example of popular anime series Fruits Basket, which contained content deemed too risque.

'We need to abide by the board's regulations - the series cannot have certain religious connotations, be too violent or touch on issues like homosexuality,' he said.

So Odex had no choice but to tweak the themes slightly.

In an earlier interview with The New Paper, Mr Go said that in response to the escalating popularity of fansubs relative to Odex products, the company decided to hire fansubbers (or fans who subtitle illegal copies of anime) to do subtitling work for their products.

But that backfired after fansubbers turned in sub-standard work, with inaccurate translations and grammatical errors.

At a press conference yesterday, Mr Go and Odex director Stephen Sing stood by the quality of their DVDs, which they say local anime focus groups have trouble distinguishing from the same titles released in Japan.

The main reason for its loss of more than 60 per cent of its sales since 2005, it says, is rampant illegal downloading here.

According to data collected by BayTSP, the US company hired by Odex to identify the IP addresses of illegal anime downloaders, Singapore has the highest per capita rate - one in 10 - of illegal anime downloading in the world.

Odex has used this data in its ongoing attempt to get local ISPs to reveal the identities of those identified by BayTSP as illegal downloaders.

Yesterday, Japanese copyright owners, including Media International Corporation, Toei Animation Enterprises Ltd and TV Tokyo Medianet Co Ltd gave Odex letters of authorisation, granting it permission to act on their behalf against illegal downloaders.

Representatives of the Japanese companies said they were prepared to act individually in support of Odex's appeal if the court required them to do so.

Said Mr Yukio Kawasaki, manager of the content business division of TV Tokyo Corporation: 'The best way to solve the problem (of illegal downloading) is through our licensees in each country.

'This is because the licensees can take action quickly. In this case, Odex is a very important partner to us.'

May Odex cracks down on illegal anime downloaders

2 Aug The New Paper reports 9-year-old among those who got letters from Odex

15 Aug Odex director flamed, threatened online

23 Aug Judge denies Odex PacNet subscriber details

Yesterday Odex brings in Japanese to help

Odex to have video-on-demand

IN an attempt to stem the tide of illegal downloading, Odex will offer video-on-demand anime on its website from next week.

This move, Odex directors say, will bring new anime to fans more quickly, allowing them to watch episodes as soon as one week after they are broadcast in Japan.

Said director Stephen Sing: 'We are hoping to be able to release episodes simultaneously with Japan, but there are logistical issues which have to be worked out.'

Such issues include making sure that the anime available on Odex's website - generally in Windows Media Video (WMV) format - are fully copyright protected with digital rights management technologies.

Managing director Peter Go said this was crucial to prevent these videos from being copied illegally.

The company is also working towards same-day broadcasts of selected anime titles on local TV.