Singapore to individually license websites, require a $50K bond against bad taste


20 Responses to “Singapore to individually license websites, require a $50K bond against bad taste”

  1. foobar says:

    Sounds like a profitable time to start a Singapore targeted classified ad site, since they’ll be helpfully clearing away any locally operated competition.

  2. morcheeba says:

    S$50,000 is about $40,000 USD

  3. I assume that BB already purchased their license before they published this article???

    • Boundegar says:

      I’m wondering what they intend to do about Singaporeans posting on non-Singaporean sites like Facebook. I suppose they could arrest them if they use their real name and details, but if the post is anonymous…?

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      There’s not enough money in the galaxy to insure our taste.

  4. peregrinus says:

    Come, fellow Singaporeans
    Let us progress towards happiness together
    May our noble aspiration bring
    Singapore success

    Come, let us unite
    In a new spirit
    Together we proclaim
    Onward Singapore
    Onward Singapore

    Come, let us unite
    In a new spirit
    Together we proclaim
    Onward Singapore
    Onward Singapore

    Bit of a contrast to “Land of the free”.

  5. Navin_Johnson says:

    Funny considering that Singapore is a pet country city-state for anti-tax/government types. Especially the kind which Silicon Valley seems to be producing so many of.

    • fuzzyfuzzyfungus says:

      Isn’t it obvious? Taxes are slavery, so countries with extremely low taxes, especially on capital gains(taxes on those crazy ‘wages’ that poor people apparently attempt to earn, or sales taxes, ideally on staple goods, are ok), are Free.

      What could be clearer?

  6. fractos says:


  7. apenzott says:

    Here is a site for their ban.  (Where do I get the $50,000?)

  8. Warren_Terra says:

    it’s not clear what the Singaporean government will do if, for example, the New York Times declines to obey.

    Let’s not be flippant about this: this could be serious. Sure, if I wanted to start a blog here in the US commenting on Singapore (a thoroughly worthy undertaking, if I knew anything about Singapore, it seems to me), this law would never affect me.

    But if I’m the New York Times and send correspondents to Singapore and even likely collect revenue within Singapore, this law might actually have some bite to it: they have hostages, they can reach me without having to convince any other states to respect their stupid, stupid law.

    Moreover: if I were inclined to start a blog about Singapore, it would probably reflect a great interest I have in Singapore: family there, for instance, or just a great love of the place. I might be inclined to visit – and this law would effectively make that impossible.

    So, yeah: this law is not quite the punchline you’re treating it as.

    • RElgin says:

      You have a valid point.  

      The DOJ in America has arrested people on lay-overs in the US who ran non-US online gambling sites, merely because they insist that these sites violate American laws, which they feel they can impose upon the rest of the world by grabbing people from an airport who unwittingly are physically in the US (not processed through immigration or customs).

      If the DOJ can break laws upon their whim, who is to say that the Singaporean Government can’t do the same?

      • twianto says:

        As far as I know you actually _do_ have to go through immigration on a layover in most cases. At the very least you need a valid visa (if you’re not from a visa waiver country). Which is totally nuts of course.

  9. The MDA (Media Development Authority) already blocks a handful of porn websites. I assume that if they find a foreign website to be violating this licensing and censorship program they will be able to add it to the blacklist. That said, the current blocking is no great firewall of China – it is spotty and inconsistent between the different ISPs. So practically, I think all this will do is make it harder on small local news sites.

  10. m2key says:

    Singapore – If Disneyworld were a country…

  11. danegeld says:

    Presumably the .sg domain will empty out pretty quickly? No small company or private individual could afford to put up $40K security. 

  12. scav says:

    Of course this is convenient both for censorship and for corrupt officials administering it, because I bet they don’t have to support any accusation of “bad taste”, and I bet there’s no appeal if you miss the 24-hour deadline on a takedown notice, or if they decide you didn’t comply fully enough.

    It’s a lot easier to pocket $50K that is already in your possession as a “security” than to take someone to court and make an effective case for fining them the same amount.  The uppity free-speech-loving bastards might even use facts and a sound legal defence to get out of paying!

Leave a Reply