4 Apr 2007

Singapore : Development of Democracy in Europe and Asia

medium_PublicForum.2.JPGPublic Forum
Development of Democracy in Europe and Asia

Date
13 Apr 07, Friday
7:00 pm

Venue
Venue: Sheraton Towers, Scotts Road
Opal Ballroom
(Newton MRT Station)

Admission
Free

Speakers
Dina Abad
Fiona Hall
Ignasi Cambo Guardans
Eugenijus Gentvilas
Lydie Polfer
Saumura Tioulong
Graham Watson
Chee Soon Juan


From the Singapore Democratic Party site
Asian and European parliamentarians to speak at public forum
04 Mar 07

Several parliamentarians from Europe and Asia will visit Singapore next week. The highlight of the visit will be a public forum next Friday, 13 Apr 07.

The delegation is part of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) and Council of Asian Liberal and Democrats (CALD) which hold annual meetings to discuss the promotion of democracy as well as to foster greater cooperation between parliamentarians and democratic parties in Asia and Europe.

The forum will give Singaporeans the chance to interact with an international delegation of legislators. So make sure you keep next Friday evening free and make your way down to the Sheraton Towers. Admission is free. (For details, see below)

Apart from the forum, the delegation is expected to visit officials from the Singapore Government as well as the European Commission in Singapore. The visitors will also meet with Singapore Democrats. The SDP is a member of CALD. Meetings with civil society leaders are also being planned.

The delegation comprises of prominent lawmakers such as:

read more...

Singapore's 'fat cat' ministers to get fatter

I know there are a lot of articles and commentary out there about the decision to increase the ministers pay but I had to print this one as the title is the best yet. Yet again Alex Au of Yawning Bread manages to put every 'so-called' Singaporean journalist to shame.

It is a detailed and well argued dismissal of the supposed 'reasons' for the ministerial increase in pay.
By Alex Au at Asia Times Online

Singapore's 'fat cat' ministers to get fatter

SINGAPORE - Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong recently recommended an 83% pay increase for all his cabinet ministers, a proposal that would up their current annual pay rate of S$1.2 million (US$784,300) to S$2.2 million.

Singapore already pays its senior ministers better than any other Asian country and most Western ones. For instance, Prime Minister Lee's S$1.94 million is currently three times the US$400,000 US President George W Bush takes home in salary per year. Lee's salary is currently about 1.6 times that of his cabinet ministers.

Lee said on March 22 that ministers' current S$1.2 million salaries represented only 55% of the government's benchmark for standardized politician pay rates. Details of the new salary scales will be announced to Parliament on Monday. It is not yet known whether the government intends to adjust the pay packets to the benchmark in one leap or in a series of steps.

High pay for Singaporean government officials has historically helped curb corruption, which compared with other Asian countries ranks favorably on international graft rankings kept by such organizations as Transparency International. But many here feel that the upward adjustment, which will indirectly benefit Lee's ruling People's Action Party (PAP), which currently dominates Parliament by controlling 82 of 84 seats, is in poor taste at a time that many middle- and lower-class Singaporeans face a declining standard of living.

The benchmark Lee referred to - code name "MR4" - is a comparable measure based on private-sector compensation in six fields: law, banking, accounting, engineering, multinational companies and local manufacturing companies. Cabinet ministers' pay is equivalent to two-thirds of the midpoint between the 24th and 25th top earners in any of these fields.

"For the public service to remain an attractive employer," said Lee in his March 22 speech, "our terms must keep pace with the private sector. That is why our policy is to pay public servants competitive salaries, commensurate with private-sector earnings."

However, one would arguably be hard-pressed to find many Singaporean voters who would agree to the exponential salary increase, judging at least by the steady stream of criticism over the proposal published in Singapore's free-wheeling blogosphere.

"I think the biggest problem with the entire issue is that we have no check and balance. When ministers make the decision to increase their own pay, who approves?" asked Aaron Ng in his weblog known as Hear Ye Hear Ye.

Letters from readers published in the mainstream press have expressed more measured skepticism. "By saying that we need to pay top dollar for top talent we are saying that certain people are indispensable. This may breed complacency," wrote Dr Anne Chong Su Yan on April 3 in the government-linked Straits Times.

Benchmark for controversy
Beginning in 1994, the benchmarking formula was established precisely to avoid such political controversy, by providing a transparent way of moving ministers and top civil servants' salaries in line with market rates. At the time, it was argued that the responsibilities of managing a small country and a civil service that employed hundreds of thousands was roughly equivalent to the responsibility of leading a large business organization.

to continue reading

Singapore: Lee-Fearing Nation

medium_LKY_untold_story.2.jpgSpotted on SingaporeRebel.

"Ordinary people do not fear the Internal Security Act as much as they fear that if they voice criticisms against the government they will be punished in ways that can directly affect their livelihoods. Shopkeepers and taxi-drivers worry their licences will be revoked, and businessmen whether big or small, have the same apprehension. Civil servants fear their independent views on public matters will deprive them of promotions or get them transfers to insignificant ministries or the ultimate punishment - loss of employment. The press fears. The police fears. The ISD (Internal Security Department) fears. The army fears. The PAP MPs fear. And the ministers fear...Everyone fears Lee."
- T.S. Selvan, author and former ISD officer


"Between being loved and being feared, I have always believed Machiavelli was right. If nobody is afraid of me, I'm meaningless."
- Lee Kuan Yew, Oct 6, 1997

Singapore : The Ultimate Island : Lee Kuan Yew's Untold Story
Lee's Legacy

Opinions of Lee in the country are many. More often than not they are a curiously alternating vocabulary of praise and criticism. As his talents and gifts are many and unusual, so are some of his defects. They tell on the way people view him when in their different moods. When people are angry, they forget his merits, and when are happy, they ignore his faults. He then becomes the only barrier between man and chaos. He is glorified to a point where it is said that since God has forgotten to endow the country with any natural resources, he redresses the oversight by giving Lee to the country.

Some are genuinely caught in a moral dilemma because as they condemn of some of his shortcomings they cannot easily overlook his outstanding contributions to their material well-being. He has not been a mindless despot like some of the Third World politicians. Some, however thankful they are, still find it hard to morally excuse him for treating his political opponents with an almost neurotic disapproval and condemnation. He is accused of binding everyone to his system while he himself stays out of it. Even the Godless think he plays God. But they do not say whether God is a dictator.

But what is the long and short of it? Where does Lee stand? Curiously, what will Lee himself think of his role as he continues to lead his flock? Will he be chuffed by his admirers' adulations? Will he be stung like Prometheus by the diatribes of his critics? Or does he have his hopes pinned on history's final judgement?

To look back. When the British finally left the island, the migrants invested Lee with the power of sovereignty and they expected this sovereignty to be used in their rights and interests. The migrants did not wish the bossy and holier-than-thou colonial type authority. That phase was over. It was time, the migrants rightly thought, to belong and identify, to participate and be counted. It was in recognition of this right that the Sahib had also returned the island to the people.

Lee took over. Democratic politics immediately became an irredeemable sin; a political perversion. An Easterner by upbringing and a Westerner by education, a Machiavellian by instincts and a Zarathustran by genes, he at once concluded that a state could neither be run on Judeo-Christian virtues nor by any airy-fairy Western liberal exhalations. He sought authority in the way the East and governments of all larger states had been ruled before the British, American and French revolutions. Lee must have also picked up some handy habits from his early partnership with the communists. Communism, which believes that the state is a divine idea, subsumes the complexities of human experience under a rigid collectivist and monolithic order - one single will, one single state, one single party rule. More importantly, the communists' faith in the grave philosophy of the end justifying the means became a lethal weapon in Lee's hands. Not to forget, once in power, the communists do not capitulate; they want to rule forever.

to continue reading or comment

Singapore: Ministerial Salary Hike – Please Don’t Leave Workers Behind

Surely the local Singapore media should be picking up on this press release.

Press Release - Ministerial Salary Hike – Please Don’t Leave Workers Behind
Tue, Apr 03, 2007


The NSP shares the people’s displeasure over the latest campaign by the PAP government to justify salary hike for the civil servants. The government should not think that the common people would not understand the implication that the hike will invariably translate to even higher salaries for the Ministers. Such an assumption would be highly insulting to the people.

The NSP does not disagree with the fundamental principle that career civil servants should receive just rewards for their useful contributions to the public. However, as officeholders elected by the public, it is wrong for Ministers to demand salaries far higher than the non-elective state employees. Furthermore, it is inadmissible to rigidly peg Ministerial salary benchmarks to the highest earners in the private sector instead of pegging to the Ministers’ measurable performance.

Even without more salary increment, the Ministers are by no means short-changed. Ministers (as well as Parliamentary Secretaries and Speakers of the House) are eligible for pension after 8-years of service in their respective offices. Ministers also continue to draw a ministerial salary even as they are cashing in their pension. And with a salary that would effortlessly qualify them for the small exclusive segment of multi-millionaires of the country for which there are less than 2%, there is little reasons for Ministers to think they are underpaid.

The Minister in the Prime Minister's Office Lim Swee Say recently commented that pay hike for Ministers will benefit workers. Regrettably, he did not clarify that the pay hike will mainly contribute to the widening of the gap between the median wage (the wage below which 50% of the workers are earning) and the average wage, a figure skewed higher by having more high-earners. Moreover, workers have to brave hikes in GST, public transport, electricity, and postal services, while Ministers ‘weather’ a hike in their salary. The NSP believes that the formula for Ministerial salary must factor in the wage disparity between the low and high earners, as well as the structural unemployment rate. We further believe that the formula must be made transparent to the public.

The NSP further questions the logic of Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amy Khor that other countries with low reported salaries for their Ministers would not have a good, clean, and efficient government. We believe the availability of examples like Finland, Sweden, and Switzerland (which the Singapore government had wanted to emulate) exposes the flawed argument that the progress of a country depends on highly-paid Ministers who demand ever more.

Ultimately, we will like to remind the PAP government that the money to fund the salary hike does not descend from the heavens, and will unavoidably result in higher taxes, fees, charges, and levies for the common people, if the country’s reserves are not to be compromised.

In conclusion, the NSP is unconvinced that inflationary salary increment for Ministers is justified. It is morally abhorrent for the PAP government to attempt to misguide the nation into believing that the value of the highest elected public offices of a country is measured principally by the amount of remuneration that is paid to the Ministers. We do not welcome the development where the Singapore government is increasingly opined by the public as ‘political mercenaries’.

We believe that the disquiet from the ordinary citizens warrants the matter to be put to a national referendum. The PAP Ministers should also candidly state to Singapore voters during all future General Elections the price of their service which the nation is expected to pay (if they are elected), so as to accord voters the opportunity to fairly assess their choices.


The NSP respects the frequent proclamation by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong that his government will “leave no one behind”. But with another Ministerial salary hike, almost everyone will be left far behind.


Central Executive Council
National Solidarity Party


to comment

Myanmar leader meets Singapore FM

Main document from People's Daily Online.

The first secretary of the Myanmar State Peace and Development Council, Lieutenant-General Thein Sein, met with visiting Singapore Foreign Minister George Yeo in the new capital of Nay Pyi Taw Tuesday, the state-run Myanmar Radio and Television reported in a night broadcast.

Both sides did not disclose the details about their meeting.

Burma has offered to be a long-term supplier of sand, granite and other constuction materials to Singapore.

The city-state's foreign ministry says Burma's ruling military junta made the offer to Singapore Foreign Minister George Yeo, who is visiting the country.

Singapore, which lacks natural resources of its own, has been looking for other sources of construction materials after neighbouring Indonesia banned the export of sand.

Indonesian officials have said the ban is necessary to protect the environment, but critics say it is linked to pressure from Jakarta on Singapore over the signing of an extradition treaty. From Radio Australia News


Yeo, who arrived here on Monday on a three-day visit to Myanmar, had met with his Myanmar counterpart U Nyan Win and discussions were held on promotion of the two countries' trade cooperation and matters related to cultural affairs, official sources said earlier.

Yeo's Myanmar trip came two years after Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong visited the country in March 2005, during which Myanmar and Singapore agreed to strengthen their bilateral cooperation in sectors including tourism, airlink, improvement of business environment and increase of foreign investment in Myanmar as well as technical cooperation.

Economic cooperation between Myanmar and Singapore has been developing rapidly since 1995 when cooperation programs for the sectors of tourism, agriculture, livestock and fisheries, maritime transport and human resources development were initiated.

Meanwhile, Singapore has injected over 1.5 billion U.S. dollars into the country since Myanmar opened to foreign investment in late 1988, according to Myanmar official statistics. The investment was mainly put into hotels and tourism at the early stage and later expanded to oil and natural gas exploration.

The Myanmar figures also show that Singapore's bilateral trade with Myanmar amounted to 822.90 million dollars in the fiscal year 2005-06. Of the total, Singapore's exports to Myanmar was valued at 558.65 million dollars, while its imports from Myanmar stood at 264.25 million.


Relevant Articles:
Recent Singapore/Burma issues
ST Censors Singapore-Burma Druglord Connection

to continue reading and comment

3 Apr 2007

SINGAPORE: A*Star tells why it wanted to sue student blogger

Welcome to the land of 'Newspeak' where the Philip Yeos of society decide what we can and cannot have an opinion on.

One year on and Philip Yeo seems to be determined to clear his name of accusations of bribery etc. Still none of what is stated in the article below undermines the original allegations. There is no evidence being produced simply a white paper issuing their position on the debate. According to Philip Yeo we are now 'allowed' to have an opinion on the GPA, but on all other issues relating to the fallout we are not allowed to have an opinion? They also state that they threatened to sue Acidflask but in no way influenced his decision to close the blog down.

Bribery claims went well beyond fair comment, says outgoing chairman.

Straits Times
Friday, March 30, 2007


The Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*Star) has come out to explain why it had wanted to sue a graduate student who posted comments about the agency in his blog in 2005.

The blogger, Mr Chen Jiahao, a 25-year-old graduate student who went by the moniker AcidFlask at that time, had implied that the agency was corrupt.

Among other things, he alleged that A*Star bribed universities to enrol its scholars, paid professors to accept scholars into their labs and suggested that its scholars enrol in universities with which it had "connections" rather than the more expensive, top-notch ones.

Outgoing A*Star chairman Philip Yeo told The Straits Times that he was telling the whole story now in response to queries from the public in the wake of The Sunday Times' report on their second online spat.

The agency had not disclosed the exact nature of Mr Chen's remarks in the past as this would mean repeating the libel.

But too many people, especially those in the blogosphere, came to mistakenly believe that A*Star was annoyed that Mr Chen was querying the high Grade Point Average (GPA) its scholars must achieve.

They also thought that the agency had forced Mr Chen to shut his blog site, casting the blogger as a victim of bullying.

What upset A*Star, said Mr Yeo, had nothing to do with the GPA issue, which anyone was entitled to have an opinion on.

But Mr Chen's assertions that A*Star indulged in bribery and corruption went well beyond fair comment.

Mr Chen's allegations had damaged the reputation of the agency and its officers and scholars, who were unjustly portrayed as being not good enough to get university places on their own merit.

That was why it threatened to sue the former Public Service Commission scholar who is now pursuing his doctorate at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

But when A*Star demanded an apology and retraction of the postings made on March 3 in 2005, Mr Chen demurred. When he did so, it was clearly an insincere response, prompting the agency to reiterate its threat to sue.

Related Links:
A-Star has their own white paper on this…
Melissa Sim, Sunday Times II
Melissa Sim, Sunday Times
A*Star seeks unreserved apology from blogger
Acidflask's Story
A*Star confirms warning to student over defamatory blog
How is Singapore Science Really Doing?
Acidflask
Committee to Protect Bloggers
The New Zealand Herald
Reporters Without Borders
A*Star
Index of Freedom of Expression
Chen Jihao's comments about the bond system of student loans.
Acidflask's view on ineffective investment in academic research.
Acidflask's blog 'obituary' by a fellow Singaporean blogger.
Fellow blogger Gilbert Koh considers Singapore's defamation law.
Another take on Singapore's (British-born) defamation legislation.

to read on

Singapore foreign minister visits Myanmar

Way to go George.

I wonder if you will be popping in to say hello to Aung San Suu Kyi who says "Tourism to Burma is helping to prolong the life of one of the most brutal and destructive regimes in the world. Visiting now is tantamount to condoning the regime."

Agence France Presse: Singapore foreign minister visits Myanmar
Mon 2 Apr 2007


Singapore’s foreign minister George Yeo arrived Monday in military-run Myanmar on an official three-day visit, officials said.

“George Yeo came here at the invitation of the Myanmar government. He will stay here for three days,” an official at the Singapore embassy confirmed.

Myanmar’s information ministry said Yeo had arrived in Yangon and will travel Tuesday to the new administrative capital Naypyidaw to meet with senior officials.

Neither the ministry nor the embassy would provide further details on the trip.

Myanmar’s Prime Minister Soe Win has been hospitalised in Singapore for more than two weeks.

The junta insists that he is in good health and is merely there for medical checks, but exiled dissidents believe Soe Win’s health could be fading.

The junta leader, Senior General Than Shwe, also spent nearly two weeks in Singapore for medical checks in January.

Over the last three months, several firms in Singapore have signed contracts to search for natural gas in Myanmar waters.

However opponents to the regime have condemned the deals for throwing a monetary lifeline to the junta by reducing the effect of Western sanctions on the military.


to comment

2 Apr 2007

Akha Woman in Singapore Prison Case Goes to Singapore Supreme Court

From Akha Heritage Foundation

Ms. Meitinee Wongsa, an Akha woman from Thailand, was trafficked into Singapore. She was sent out of the country without due process and when she returned legally she was arrested. Now her case goes to the Singapore Supreme Court. Activism Works.

Ms. Meitinee Wongsa, an Akha woman from Chiangrai province in Thailand, was trafficked to Singapore under cloudy circumstances. She was quietly sent out of Singapore without due process when she didn't "work out".

Later when she chose to marry a man from Singapore, and set a date for marriage and returned to Singapore, the Immigration of Singapore arrested her and sentenced her to one year in prison for illegal entry.

Her fiance fought for her defense, and it was determined that highly irregular events happened in the handling of her case. How was she sent out of Singapore the first time with no arrest? Who signed what papers? Who was the translator? Why did they make her sign papers which said her real name was not in fact her real name? Why is there no record of her "arrest" with Singapore Immigration?

Now all of this is coming to light, and her case has been admitted by the Singapore Supreme Court.

In a day or two it will be listed on this site:
Supreme Court" under "Criminal Revisions".

This case has been very important to the freedom of Ms. Wongsa who is now in Portdown prison for many months.

It is also important because the Thai Embassy has had to admit she is there and confirm that she is a Thai citizen, which they did not want to do, (first they said her passport is false) and that her Identity card and passport are genuine. In the past Thailand has disowned Akha women trafficked to places like Japan.

You can contact the Singapore Consul in San Francisco to ask them about this case and for the immediate release of Ms. Wongsa. Her prison number is S12369.

Singapore Consul
595 Market Street, Suite 2450
San Francisco, CA 94105, USA
Email: singcg_sfo@sgmfa.gov.sg
Tel: (415) 543-4775
Fax: (415) 543-4788

Singapore citizens who need emergency consular assistance can call: (415) 595-4346
Use the last number, they actually answer the phone.

This case is also important in that it gives lots of light to how the Akha are treated, and the trafficking of Akha women by the Thais. The brothel owner in Hatyai has not been arrested at this time.

NGO's in Thailand have proved nearly totally useless in getting one of "their own" arrested for a crime.

Thank you for supporting Akha Human Rights.

We hope that her case is overturned and that she is released and allowed to marry and stay in Singapore as a FREE Akha woman.

to post a comment

Related Links:
Why Does Singapore Imprison the Victims of Trafficking? 3
Why Does Singapore Imprison the Victims of Trafficking? 2
Why Does Singapore Imprison the Victims of Trafficking? 1

JUSTICE IN SINGAPORE is Janus-faced.

medium_Seow2frntCoverLrg.gif

The preface to Francis Seow's latest book, Beyond Suspicion? The Singapore Judiciary (Southeast Asia Studies Monograph Series) Is included below. Francis Seow is a former Solicitor-General of Singapore, former president of the Singapore Law Society -- and a former prisoner of conscience. He now lives in exile in the USA. He is a prominent human rights defender and critic of Singapore's ruling party and has published extensively on Singapore's human rights record.

The Preface of 'Beyond Suspicion? The Singapore Judiciary'
The Singapore courts - when adjudicating commercial cases between two contending parties where neither the authorities nor the political élite are involved or interested - may be relied upon to administer justice according to the law. In this regard, Singapore judges have an overall reputation for the integrity of their judgments. The enthusiastic reports of international organizations, such as the Geneva-based World Economic Forum or the Hongkong-based Political and Economic Risk Consultancy, have to be read subject to this important rider.

This book, however, is concerned with the other face of justice in Singapore: where these very same judges, sad to say, inpolitically-freighted cases have repeatedly demonstrated a singular facility at bending over backwards to render decisions favourable to the Singapore government and its leaders. Whereupon their judicial contortions have acquired an international notoriety that concerned human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International, the Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists, and latterly the Lawyers' Human Rights Watch Canada, were moved to send their legal representatives to Singapore to observe the trial proceedings herein at first hand. Their observations confirmed what many Singaporeans have known all along: that the political context of such cases invariably influence the judges in their decisions.

And yet, the Singapore judiciary was historically free and independent of the government of the day or any other controlling legal authority, until the ruling People's Action Party - with no viable political opposition to keep it balanced and in check - began insensibly to entrench itself in the body politic of the nation. In that time, Prime Minister Harry Lee Kuan Yew, now nominally senior minister but still the enduring éminence grise of the People's Action Party (PAP) government, systematically gained control over the courts, which he exercises currently through his judicial point man and great friend, Yong Pung How: the chief justice*. In addition, Lee appoints only politically correct lawyers as judges whose loyalty he ensures with princely remunerations - well over and above the comparable market rates for judges worldwide. Corruption often-times simulates many forms and disguises: paying obscenely high salaries and bonuses to judges is one, for they inevitably assume the gratifying form of monthly retainers by the government for loyal services rendered or to be rendered. Given that he who pays the piper calls the tune, it is virtually impossible for judges to do justice by the citizens when the state or its leaders are involved as litigants, as this narrative will amply demonstrate.(* Yong Pung How has since stepped down from the judiciary. The current Chief Justice is the former attorney-general, Chan Sek Keong, appointed in April 2006)

Unlike previous defamation actions, the legal blitzkrieg herein - masterminded by Harry Lee Kuan Yew - was exceptional in the sheer number of PAP plaintiffs who retained in concert disparate law firms of high-priced lawyers and who, against valid objections and normal procedural laws, were allowed by the courts to maintain multiple lawsuits over the same matter against the defendants: lawyer and unsuccessful opposition candidate Tang Liang Hong, his wife, Teo Siew Har, and, ultimately, his defence counsel, J.B. Jeyaretnam, who was also then the secretary general of the opposition Workers' Party. The insidious purpose of this unusual legal manoeuvre was intended to overwhelm the resources in personnel and finances of the defendants, and of Tang in particular, and to hamper their defence - a manoeuvre that was patently obvious to the judges but who, chose to turn a Nelsonian eye on these legal shenanigans.



Read more

Host Not Found

Dissidents must be protected from internet censorship, argues Hari Kunzru in an essay for a PEN anthology, Another Sky.

Saturday March 31, 2007
The Guardian


"Sometimes the 'Don't be evil' policy leads to many discussions about what exactly is evil. One thing we know is that people can make better decisions with better information. Google is a useful tool in people's lives. There are extreme cases, we're told, when Google has saved people's lives." Sergey Brin, Google founder, interviewed in Playboy, September 2004

As the internet enters its second decade as a mass medium, it's worth looking back at one of the old saws that was bandied around in the covered-wagon days, when Californian sages made gnomic pronouncements about the future and the rest of the world repeated them at dinner parties. "The net treats censorship as damage and routes around it." These are the words of John Gilmore, radical libertarian, Sun Microsystems employee number five and bona fide west-coast guru-gazillionaire, and for much of the last 10 years they've been repeated as part of the founding story of the internet, along with a gloss about the net's inception as a military communications network designed to withstand partial destruction by nuclear attack.

In a technical sense, Gilmore (who was talking to a Time magazine journalist in 1993) has been proved right. The internet has provided an efficient conduit for people to share all manner of information other people don't want them to, whether those people are government whistle-blowers, child pornographers, political dissidents, intellectual property pirates or terrorists. From the Drudge Report to beheading videos, censorship is being successfully circumvented around the globe. Looked on from the neutral standpoint adopted by network engineers, this is proof of a robust system. Ethical or political judgements about the content of the information flowing through the networks aren't relevant. It's all data. We should celebrate.

However, around the world, people have also discovered that, despite the abstractions of network architecture and the nostrums of boosters who predicted a "new economy" free of material constraints, the internet is also a physical thing, which has its existence on real telephone lines, internet service provider (ISP) routers, undersea fibre-optic lines and hard drives humming under tangible desks. And it's used by people sitting in real offices with real doors that can be broken down by all-too-real police if the information they're sharing contravenes local laws - and in some cases even if they don't, but some foreign power strong-arms their government, as happened in Sweden in May 2006, when US diplomats incited a police raid on an ISP hosting a popular file-sharing service called the Pirate Bay. The internet's ability to route round censorship has the character of an ideal rather than a reality, a theoretical property.

No one understands this better than the Chinese journalist Shi Tao, who in April 2005 received a 10-year prison sentence for "divulging state secrets abroad". A translation of court proceedings showed that Yahoo! Holdings (Hong Kong), a subsidiary of the American search corporation, had given information to Chinese state investigators allowing them to link him to re-postings on foreign-based websites of an internal message the authorities sent to his newspaper regarding coverage of the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.


to continue reading