Called Infocomm 21, Singapore's transformation is spearheaded by the Infocomm Development Authority (IDA), a recently formed government agency responsible for simultaneously promoting and regulating infocommunications -- services at the intersection of computing and telecommunications like email, high-speed Internet services, and data processing. The trouble is, for the IDA to succeed, the country will have to shed its image as the land of big brotherly love.

The agency inherits a legacy that includes a list of 100 banned Web sites, and several incidents where media business licenses (which regulate circulation) were restricted because of unfavorable coverage of the government or failing to comply with the government's "right to reply."

In Singapore, the government has the right to insist that the press publish, in full, its replies to any article. In 1986, Time magazine ran afoul of this law and had its circulation slashed from 18,000 to 2000. Also included in this dark history is last year's "virus-scan" incident. SingNet, the government-run ISP, invaded the hard drives of its subscribers in a putative search for viruses. Naturally, this sent Internet users scurrying to delete any potentially offensive materials from their personal computers.

We interviewed IDA CEO Yong Ying-I via email to ask about the contradictions between regulating and promoting infocommunications development. IDA's first measure was to break the government's monopoly on telecommunications and permit local and foreign companies to compete against government-run SingTel with voice, data, and Internet services.

Ms Yong correctly pointed out that her country is successful in persuading US corporations to locate offices within Singapore to gain entry to Southeast Asia. According to the IDA, approximately 1400 of the 5000 international companies with offices in Singapore are American. And some of them, like ChemConnect, PeoplePC, and Draper Fisher Jurveston, are Red Herring 100 companies. But is Singapore willing to mend its censorious ways? What follows is her excerpted email response to our questions on the topic:

Our promotional and developmental responsibilities cover the entire infocomm space, including content developers, aggregators, software companies, and technology companies. We work closely with other Singaporean agencies on e-commerce across all sectors. IDA also leads the push to get the government online.

I shall now address your queries on censorship and the control of media in Singapore. These issues must be understood within a context that acknowledges that Singapore, like many Asian countries, is a nation in transition. Look back in time and you can see that the most obvious feature of our history is change.

Thirty-five years ago, our nation was born into an environment rife with racial conflict, poverty, and illiteracy. Today, it is a very different place. It has one of the highest literacy rates in the world. A diverse spectrum of ethnicities live and work together in complete equality and prosperity. And, a sophisticated national infrastructure has been put in place to provide all citizens with a quality of life that is envied around the world.

As this transition has unfolded, the role of government in society has changed as well.

It is instructive and illustrative of my point that the Time case happened almost 15 years ago, and the others not long after. It is also instructive that these publications were never banned and despite the restricted circulation, continued to be available in Singapore. Today, of course, Time, the International Herald Tribune, the Asian Wall Street Journal, Asiaweek, and the Far East Economic Review have become an integral part of Singapore's media scene. A visit to any news kiosk, or a quick glance at the media advertisements on our public buses, graphically confirms this fact. Even more importantly, any Singaporean can log directly on to the Internet any time they want. I might also add that in the nonelectronic area, additional newspaper and television licenses have just been issued and the restriction on home satellite dishes will soon be reviewed.

The pattern is clear. The historical trends speak for themselves and, I believe, cannot be misunderstood.

Yes, censorship laws are still in place -- as they are in many European nations. But, their role is changing as society changes. The 100-site ban that you refer to is aimed at sites with explicit sexual content. It is not political or meant to stifle the free exchange of ideas between and among Singaporeans. Rather, it is a symbolic statement of certain moral values that we Singaporeans hold collectively. It should not be forgotten that Singapore is an Asian society, and that all the ethnic groups represented here value sexual modesty and discretion. In this respect, the average Singaporean holds values that are not unlike those held by citizens in America's Midwest.

But, censorship in Singapore is not a static institution. The role of censorship is changing as our society transitions into a future in which our people are ever more interactive with the world at large. The same is true for institutions that protect personal privacy.

As I write this, our government is actively reviewing and framing new standards and laws for the protection of individual privacy, on and off the Net. It is also framing new consumer protection regulations. In fact, the National Internet Advisory Committee has already drawn up an e-commerce code for the protection of personal information and communication. I believe that issues of censorship, privacy, and security are also very relevant in the US today. Perhaps most significantly, from the point of view of multinational companies that may wish to locate operations here; there is absolutely no restriction on private data encryption and companies are free to protect the data that they store or transmit through Singapore in any way they wish. I am sure that these steps are only the beginning, not the end, and that our views on this issue will continue to converge with those of other developed, Net-savvy nations in Europe, North America, and elsewhere.

In summary, I would like to stress that in examining Singapore's suitability for a role as Asia's infocomm hub, it may be more appropriate to extrapolate from the direction taken by our government and national institutions over the past two decades, than to make judgments based on past incidents that have been stripped of historical and social context.

Finally, I would like to address the Internet scanning incident that occurred early last year. As widely reported in the international and domestic press, this was a well-intentioned action to fight a "viral" invasion that "went bad" due to haste and poor judgment. The scan explored the vulnerability of individual computers to the particularly nasty and virulent "Trojan Horse" virus. The scanning process did not allow for exploration of data files, only for a systems check for viral entry points. At no time was privacy violated, nor could it have been. In retrospect, all the parties involved recognized that it was inappropriate to have conducted the scan without prior communication with customers. A strongly worded apology was issued to all affected. Subsequent to the event, all ISPs in Singapore agreed to guidelines that require prior and explicit customer agreement with and consent to remote scans before they can be conducted.

Thank you very much and best wishes, Yong Ying-I