I refer to Mr Pang Khang Chau's reply, "Copyright Act keeps online industry safe"(ST, Dec 15) on legitimate concerns about the inequity of the recently amended Copyright Act.
Mr Pang is wrong in stating that Mr Ngiam Shih Tung's letter "S'pore-based website owners at a disadvantage" (ST, Dec 8), quoted out of context from the Financial Times article, "Who is to blame for Web sex?" (ST, Dec 5).
Mr Ngiam's contention was that instead of Internet service providers taking down contents on spurious claims, the amendments to the Copyright Act go one small step forward by saying that the claims have to be backed by a Statutory Declaration (SD).
A SD is legally binding and the person making that is liable to legal proceedings if the SD turns out to be false. That is a good step.
The arguments thus far put forward in previous correspondance by Mr Ngiam to this paper and on the website (www.sintercom.org) present a stong case for an explicit "put-back" clause in the spirit of the "take-down" clause.
That plea is still valid and the replies from the Law Ministry have not answered the point convincingly.
The speed and urgency with which the amendments were pushed through Parliament suggest some other agenda that is not entirely evident.
The stance that the law "is part of an ongoing effort to encourage the growth of a knowledge-based economy and to promote e-commerce and creative innovations" is not convincing when the replies thus far have been dismissive and, to a certain extent, condescending.
I thank Mr Pang, nonetheless, for saying that this is not the final word on the subject and that the government will monitor the new provisions and make refinements as needed.
I think the discussions thus far have been useful enough for including the "put-back" clause.
Let's be proactive and not reactive, waiting for some high profile, money-wasting legal suit.
HARISH PILLAY
Originally published in the Straits Times, December 22, 1999.