Debated in Parliament on 9 Jul 2018.
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, “That the Bill be now read a Second time.”
The National Library Board Act establishes the National Library Board (NLB) and sets out its functions and powers. The NLB Act was last amended in 2012 to incorporate the National Archives function. It allows NLB to collect and preserve the rich body of written and creative works of Singapore for posterity. These resources are widely consulted by researchers, historians, authors and curators, and frequently used for exhibitions, or cited in books and articles. Collectively, all these help to nurture Singapore’s heritage and culture, and allow current and future generations of Singaporeans to reflect on our shared history and identity.
Today, NLB has the mandate to be the repository of all library materials published in Singapore. This collection is referred to as the Legal Deposit, and it has more than one million items covering the published history of Singapore. Some interesting examples of Singapore publications in the Legal Deposit include magazines from 1961 that vividly depict Singapore life in a different era. I may give you some examples: “Malayan Penfriends” for letter writing pen pals, and “The Scooterist: the magazine for all scooter riders”. There are also publications that have endured the test of time, such as the first edition of “Her World” from 1960, and newspaper collections, such as The Straits Times that date all the way back to 1845. So, it is a rich and important collection and is part of our collective heritage.
To effectively build the Legal Deposit collection, the NLB Act stipulates that every publisher is required to deposit with NLB two copies of library materials published in Singapore. The Act also allows NLB to acquire materials which may not have been first published here but nevertheless speak about us and Singapore. However, the current legal mandate only covers materials that are in the printed form or are contained in some other physical form, such as music in a compact disc (CD).
The Act has to be updated to keep pace with technological change.
With the Internet and other advancements, there is a vast and growing amount of written and creative work that is produced, distributed and published only in the electronic form, such as e-books and e-magazines. As recently as April this year, Mediacorp announced that 8-Days and i-Weekly, its popular magazines on local entertainment, are moving to a digital-only format.
More and more content is also being generated and published only on the Internet. For instance, there were more than 179,000 websites in the .sg domain as at June this year and this number is growing rapidly. Such electronic and online materials are important resources which capture the stories and collective memories of Singapore. If such digital material is not systematically collected in a timely manner, we will lose a significant part of Singapore’s published heritage.
Therefore, we propose to amend the NLB Act to give NLB the powers to collect Singapore-related material in the electronic form. This will ensure that such material remains accessible for reference and research even after an e-magazine is no longer available in any digital repository online, or long after a once popular website ceases to operate. The systematic collection and preservation of such digital resources will allow future generations of Singaporeans to better understand and appreciate the evolution of our society.
Others have already taken steps to do this. The United Kingdom (UK), Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea are examples of countries that have amended their legislation to allow their national libraries to collect and preserve electronic materials and websites.
In preparing this Bill, NLB conducted a public consultation last year to gather feedback on the amendments. In addition, NLB consulted publishers, academics, researchers, writers, librarians and bloggers through various stakeholder engagement sessions. Overall, there was broad support for the proposed amendments.
Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now elaborate on the proposed amendments to the Act.
The first set of amendments expands the definition of "library materials" beyond the printed form to include electronic and online material. The definition of “library materials” in section 2 of the NLB Act will be amended to include materials in the electronic form, such as e-books. The definition of “library materials” relating to films, videos, sound recordings and other similar materials will also be broadened to include electronic forms, including streamed content.
The expanded definition of "library materials" will also include any online material that is made available on what is called a "Singapore website", which is defined as a website under the .sg domain. A Singapore website or electronic service that is not under the .sg domain can also be included in this definition, if it is determined by NLB to be associated with Singapore; for example, where there are non .sg sites that have content that is considered to hold significant cultural or heritage value.
The second set of amendments pertains to web-harvesting. At present, NLB has to seek the written consent of website owners before making copies of online content that is of historical value to Singapore. This is cumbersome, and typically only a small percentage of website owners respond, perhaps because they are unaware of their websites’ significance to Singapore’s history and heritage. To address this, section 7 of the NLB Act will be amended to empower NLB to make copies of any online material published on a Singapore website through automated web-harvesting, without requiring NLB to seek written consent from the owners or producers.
In line with international practice, NLB will only collect material from websites that are publicly accessible; material will not be collected from websites that are password-protected or restricted to members or subscribers. Most websites will be web-harvested once a year, although Government sites will be archived more regularly in order to capture major developments in national policies or programmes. Other selected sites may be harvested more frequently, during periods in which they showcase events of significance to Singapore, such as official websites for National Day or the Southeast Asian Games. NLB will also archive more frequently websites which contain content on current affairs and are read by many Singaporeans, such as Mothership.sg.
These amendments are similar to web-harvesting legislation in the UK, Australia and New Zealand. In the UK, the British Library is empowered to harvest online works available to the public through websites with domain names relating to the UK or to a place within the UK or works which have been created or published within the UK. The national libraries of New Zealand and Australia have similar powers.
The third set of amendments provides for an electronic legal deposit. The current legal deposit scheme requires publishers to deposit with NLB two physical copies of library materials that are published in Singapore. Going forward, section 10 will be amended to require publishers of library materials in electronic form to also deposit a copy of these with NLB within four weeks of the date of first publication. The copy deposited must be free of any technological protection or access restrictions, such as password protection, to enable NLB to digitally preserve the content for posterity and provide access to researchers at the library premises.
With the proposed amendments to the NLB Act, there will be consequential amendments to the Copyright Act to permit NLB to copy any online material made available on a Singapore website, for the purpose of performing NLB’s statutory function of acquiring and maintaining a comprehensive collection of library materials relating to Singapore. Although the content is already available to the public on Singapore websites, current copyright laws generally require obtaining the consent of the copyright owner of the content on the website prior to copying the content.
A new section 49A will, therefore, be created in the Copyright Act to allow NLB to make copies of online literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works. A new section 113A and an expanded section 116 will provide likewise for online sound recordings and cinematograph films, and published editions of literary, dramatic, musical and/or artistic works, respectively. These amendments are necessary to make clear that NLB is not infringing any copyright laws while web-harvesting Singapore websites to collect and preserve them.
The Copyright Act will also be amended, via an expansion of section 45(7A) and a new section 113B, to allow the web-harvested content of Singapore websites to be made available on computer terminals within the premises of libraries and archives in Singapore. This is to make the preserved content accessible for research and reference within libraries and archives, where there are safeguards to prevent users from further copying or distributing the work.
Mr Speaker, in summary, the proposed amendments will allow NLB to more effectively fulfil its mandate to collect, preserve and make accessible our nation’s published heritage in both print and electronic forms. This is important so that today’s Singapore stories will be kept alive for future generations of Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed.*
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Sir, I stand in support of this Bill. The library is a common ground where diverse groups of people come together, be it young children eagerly browsing picture books at the children's corner, or students in reading rooms preparing for their examinations, or the elderly engrossed in their daily newspapers – the library is an identifiable icon in our cities and in our hearts.
At the same time, as Singapore progresses to a Smart Nation, so must our libraries.
I commend the efforts by NLB to upgrade our libraries to adopt the technologies of audio-visuals while preserving print books. I was delighted to see how Yishun library was transformed after its renovations earlier this year, to include digital learning zones, quick response (QR) code borrowing systems and more.
The proposed amendments to the NLB Act are a step forward to preserve and eternalise Singapore’s digital heritage, by collecting electronic publications through legal deposits, and by preserving Singapore domain websites through web archiving.
Sir, I stand in support of the Bill, but I would also like to raise a few clarifications.
Firstly, I would like to clarify what implications these amendments will have on publishers and their interests. Part of the amendment mandates publishers to deposit one copy of any electronic publication within four weeks of publication, on top of existing requirements to deposit two physical copies.
Also, under section 7(2)(f) of the Bill, it is stated that NLB is allowed "to make copies of any online material made available on a Singapore website, at the times and in the manner the Board considers appropriate." Unlike physical copies where there is a limited number of books deposited in libraries, such an amendment will technically allow the Board to make unlimited digital copies of the publisher's work.
I also understand that within the Bill, amendments are made to the Copyright Act. Under section 113 of the Copyright Act, cinematographic film and sound recordings are now included as online material that will be collected by NLB. These materials will also be made available within the premises of the library.
Can the Minister clarify how the interests of publishers will be guaranteed to ensure that the sales of their hard work are not affected by the digital access provided by NLB? Is there a grace period after publication before content will be made available in the libraries?
Next, web archiving is a practice observed in other countries, such as the British library, as the Minister mentioned, and the National Library of South Korea. Both the British and Korean libraries also have their web archives made available for public access. In the same vein, will all our web archives, without exclusions or exemptions, be made available for public access on NLB’s Web Archive Singapore portal or on other platforms?
Web content that is available today may not be as easily located or may even be taken off decades later. With a proper database of Singapore-specific websites and content, it will be easier for academics, researchers and businesses to conduct research on Singapore.
Prof Ang Peng Hwa from the Wee Kim Wee School, also suggested to have indices and abstracts of archives made available online for citizens and researchers to have greater access. Will the Ministry consider this?
Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Darryl David.
Mr Speaker, Sir, NLB can trace its roots to Sir Stamford Raffles who, in 1823, started a small collection of books in the Raffles Library. While the Raffles Library was an exclusive book club that limited its access and membership to the elite, the NLB now serves all residents in Singapore through its 26 public libraries and national archives.
As part of the process of preserving our national heritage and identity, the National Library Act mandated that two copies of every Singapore publication made available for sale or distribution should be deposited with the National Library for the purpose of posterity. This was mentioned by the Minister earlier on.
Up to date, close to 1.3 million items have been archived and a vast majority, if not all of these items, are in the form of physical "hardcopy" publications, such as books, magazines or written papers. These materials are invaluable in providing us with records of how our society’s narratives and discourses have evolved over the years, and how such narratives have shaped and continue to shape our community, our society and, indeed, our country.
In 1995, the Library Review Committee identified technology as a game changer that will disrupt the operations of libraries. In order for libraries to remain relevant and continue to serve the needs of the nation, the Committee recommended that NLB embrace technology and consider how technology could be used to promote and enhance the establishment of Singapore as an international information hub.
The Committee's recommendations were prescient, as technology has, indeed, changed the way information is published, disseminated and stored. As more information gets published online and with physical copies of books giving way to electronic publications, the process of archiving information becomes challenging. We need to re-examine how we can continue in our quest to preserve parts of our history and identity in the digital age, or risk social amnesia where important electronic information is lost due to the lack of means to archive them.
As the Minister mentioned earlier, NLB currently relies on two main ways to archive online content. First, publishers and authors can voluntarily deposit electronic copies of their publications with NLB. Second, NLB would seek explicit consent from owners of websites to take a snapshot of their sites and archive those snapshots in a restricted access database. Both methods can be cumbersome and laborious, often yielding results that are not proportionate to the effort that is put in.
So, I agree with the proposed changes to the Act that will empower NLB to archive online materials more expeditiously and facilitate the records keeping process. One of the key benefits of the amendments is to allow NLB to create a more complete picture about online discourses, especially those that shape social or political narratives.
The open nature of the Internet allows for more pluralistic expressions of opinions and views. With more conversations taking place on online platforms like blogs, websites, forums and social media, it makes sense for us, as a nation, to archive those conversations so that our future generations can gain access to important records about how their social or political landscape has been shaped by the generations before them.
While most people would agree that we need to preserve websites and digital materials for records and posterity, we need to consider several aspects of this practice.
First, with new websites and digital content being published or created daily, the amount of information that NLB needs to manage could be increasingly large. With such a wealth of information, how would NLB ensure that the information is stored securely while yet remaining publicly accessible? And while the Bill has made provisions for the archival information to be made accessible, can we consider easing the rules of how this archived content could be accessed and used so that more people can benefit from them?
Secondly, while NLB is vested with the authority to take digital snapshots of websites, and publishers of online content are legally obliged to provide NLB with a copy of their e-publication free of protection and restrictions on access, we need to be cognisant that these publishers continue to hold the copyrights to their publications. NLB, in this instance, needs to clarify and explain the boundaries of public and private copyrights, and how it intends to protect private copyright and IP when digital copies of such e-publications are made publicly accessible.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the increase in technology and its use have intensified the shift from traditional print media to online digital content, and the increase in reliance on online platforms to disseminate information means that the electronic and digital universe will become an increasingly important space where many conversations, dialogues and other expressions of thought will take place. Such expressions of thought are important reflections of our community and I agree with the amendments to the Act that will allow such e-publications and websites to be archived. I thus end my speech in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Ong Teng Koon.
Mr Speaker, it is timely that the NLB Act is being amended. The proliferation of digital media means that more and more content is being generated by a more diverse range of sources. Anyone can create a blog, write a post or self-publish an e-book online. This has several implications for NLB's archival functions.
First, focusing on traditional sources is not enough. Second, taking an annual snapshot might not be enough, given the speed at which content is created and then replaced. Therefore, the move to expand the definition of "library materials" to include electronic materials and any online material made available on a Singapore website is an important one. This updates the intent of the Act fit for our modern circumstance.
Similarly, the move from a scheme based on voluntary deposit of content to one where NLB has the right to make copies of library materials is a sensible reflection of the current media environment.
However, how does NLB define the scope of online material which may be web-harvested? Will it be clear to the content creators whether each particular piece of content would qualify to be web-harvested? Do they have the right to reject web-harvesting? And if web-harvesting applies only to "Singaporean websites", would this create an incentive to post content on overseas sites, with the deliberate intent to avoid archiving?
The ephemeral nature of the Internet means that old content may disappear forever. This archive may be the only place that future researchers will be able to access such content. Is an annual archiving exercise sufficient? Websites are updated daily, sometimes even more than once a day. How much could be lost between each archiving exercise? But unless NLB is Google, it would be impossible to archive the entire Internet constantly. So, a line will need to be drawn. The question is whether annual is the right line.
Conversely, having collected such a comprehensive catalogue of materials, how will NLB use and make accessible the electronic publications and archived websites so that more people can benefit from valuable content about our country?
We have to be conscious of the need to balance the public interest with that of the copyright holders and ensure that access to the material is controlled.
The Copyright Act is being amended to enable the content to be archived without violating copyright. It is, of course, critical to protect the rights of content creators but, at the same time, it is in the national interest to allow access to the treasure trove of archived documents. The current proposal is to restrict access to two terminals at NLB. This is similar to the offering in other countries, such as the UK, where there is one user per legal deposit library, and New Zealand, which allows only three users at a time.
But does this achieve the right balance between the need for access and the protection of copyright? How did the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) determine the number and location of access terminals?
For example, should researchers at universities be allowed to access the materials with some safeguards? Also, how would users who are unable to travel physically to the NLB site access the data? Should some level of online access be allowed, but carefully tracked to avoid abuse?
In fact, one may argue that the speed with which content is created means that the value of "old" news decays faster online than it does in the print world. In that case, perhaps the balance of the Act should be settled in favour of the user rather than the copyright holders. After all, it would take great determination to wait a year to queue up at two terminals to read content.
The other facet of the Internet is the diversity of views, which can be published online without any filters or approvals. Compared to the old days of publishing, there is likely to be a lot more controversial content – content of low quality or accuracy, or downright threats to our national security.
The furore around Fake News in Singapore and around the world is a testimony to the pervasiveness of this phenomenon. What will NLB do about websites with objectionable content, for example, content which could pose a threat to national security?
While it seems that the NLB should archive these for the sake of posterity, what safeguards will be put in place to restrict access? Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Minister Iswaran.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me, first, thank the Members Mr Louis Ng, Mr Darryl David and Mr Ong Teng Koon who have all spoken in support of the National Library Board (Amendment) Bill. They have raised several valid questions. Let me now endeavour to address them in some detail.
Mr Ong Teng Koon has asked about the scope of online material which may be web-harvested, and whether it would be clear to website owners which elements of their websites would be web-harvested. The intent of this amendment is to ensure that Singapore-related content, which is increasingly found online, is collected and preserved for future generations so that they can better understand the evolution of events here. So, in the first instance, NLB will collect material from all .sg domain websites. This means that NLB will not be collecting material residing in social media, such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, that are not within the .sg domain. For .sg websites, NLB will archive all the pages within the websites, including images, portable document format (PDF) documents, audio files and video files, that are hosted within the websites themselves. However, content hosted on external websites, such as links to videos hosted on YouTube, will not be archived.
In addition to .sg domain websites, we also recognise that there are other non.sg websites which may also contain valuable content about Singapore. For such websites, NLB will proactively approach the site owners for permission to archive the sites.
Mr Speaker, I want to reiterate here that NLB will only be collecting material that is publicly available; it will not collect material that is behind a paywall or open only to subscribers or members.
Mr Ong Teng Koon has also asked if an annual web-harvesting exercise would be sufficient, given that the content on the Internet changes so quickly and frequently. We do not intend to emulate Google, I assure Mr Ong, but the proposed frequency of harvesting the .sg domain websites is generally in line with international practices. However, as I mentioned earlier, there will be instances where some websites will be archived more frequently. So, it becomes a judgement call in terms of the currency and relevance. But by and large, an automated annual exercise should suffice to provide that snapshot that is being sought.
On the specific issue of whether NLB will be web-harvesting objectionable material, such as content which could pose a threat to Singapore’s national security, to be clear, what NLB endeavours to do is to preserve a comprehensive record of Singapore-related websites through web-harvesting. As these are important resources that chart Singapore's cultural and social changes over time, it is essential that we capture them as they are so that they can accurately reflect the cultural and social landscape of our nation at different points in time.
If the websites archived are found to contain content that is found to be objectionable under the relevant laws or codes, then NLB may block access to that content. In other words, NLB will still archive the content, but may not allow access to it.
Mr Ong Teng Koon has also asked if website owners could decline to be web-harvested. He also pointed out that some website owners might post their content on non .sg sites to avoid being archived. In general, if you are publishing content on a website, one assumes that you want it to be read, and it is counter-intuitive to then say that "I want it to be published but I do not want it to be archived". In fact, our public consultation with website owners last year showed that they were generally receptive and supportive of the web-harvesting initiative as they understood that the intent is for us to retain the collective memories of our nation. Furthermore, this will allow them to have their content captured and stored for posterity. So, I think it is an alignment of interest. We recognise that website owners have the right to choose the platforms on which they distribute their materials, but we hope that they will join us in our efforts to keep a part of our history alive.
Several Members, Mr Louis Ng in particular, had also asked how NLB would be ensuring that publishers' rights and content creators' copyrights and IP are protected, while making collected material easily accessible to people. This is an important point. How do we strike that balance?
All three Members asked whether we can consider making access to digital archived content more accessible, so that more people can benefit from them. Indeed, it is important that we ensure that the nation's published heritage is accessible to future and current generations of Singaporeans, and for all the good reasons that we have emphasised.
But at the same time, we also share their concerns regarding the protection of commercial interests of publishers of electronic materials, and they have asked how we will ensure that these interests will not be compromised in any way through the amendments to this Act. These are valid concerns. We have also heard these concerns from stakeholders, like book publishers, in our consultations.
To strike a balance as we embark on this new scheme, NLB will, for a start, provide public access to the collected electronic publications and websites at the Lee Kong Chian Reference Library located at the National Library Building. These materials can only be viewed at the computer terminals with no downloading, copying or printing allowed. Two concurrent users will be able to view each item in the collections at any one time. This approach mirrors that of NLB's current Legal Deposit policy for physical materials, which requires two copies to be deposited. We think this strikes a good starting balance between safeguarding publishers' IP interests and giving public access to these materials.
There are, however, instances where the content of the collected electronic materials or websites are made available to the public beyond the library's premises. This is now done where express permission has already been given by the copyright owner or when the copyright has expired, and the content will be made accessible via NLB's digital services and websites, such as BookSG and Web Archives Singapore. For example, the archived websites of the W!ld Rice Theatre Company (www.wildrice.com.sg), the Eurasian Association Singapore (www.eurasians.org.sg) and Singapore National Olympic Council (www.singaporeolympics.sg) are made available online as prior consent has been given, while the digitised copy of Hikayat Abdullah (Stories of Abdullah), published by the Mission Press in 1849, is also available online as the copyright has expired. In time to come, we hope to be able to share a greater collection of materials on NLB's digital platforms through the support of content creators and publishers as they join us in our efforts to make our nation's published heritage accessible in more ways.
I want to assure all Members that under the proposed amendments, the copyright of digital content continues to reside with the content creators and publishers. In the event that members of the public or researchers wish to use the content beyond just research and study, they will still have to approach the copyright owners for permission.
Mr Louis Ng has asked if there was a grace period after publication before content will be made available in the National Library. As there are several steps involved in the processing of material, which includes quality check and cataloguing, it may take one to six months from the date of collection – depending on the type of material collected – before it is made accessible to the public. For instance, in the case of websites, it may take up to six months from the last archiving exercise before a website is ready for public viewing.
The online material collected via web-harvesting will also be made available in an easily accessible form. Mr Louis Ng asked if NLB will be making indices and abstracts of archives available online for citizens and researchers to have greater access.
As Mr Darryl David has pointed out, there is a large amount of information collected via Legal Deposit and Web Harvesting which NLB needs to ensure is stored securely while remaining publicly accessible. On this point, I want to highlight that NLB has a secure digital infrastructure that is protected in accordance with robust Government standards. There are regular reviews of the security and resilience of our system, including the necessary firewalls and antivirus software, to protect against malicious cyber activities. Alongside this, NLB’s digitisation and preservation policies will ensure that deposited content is preserved. This includes the migration of content to updated formats from time to time, which will prevent content from being corrupted or lost when formats become obsolete.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe I have addressed substantively the points that have been raised by the Members. I want to reiterate that the proposed amendments to the Act will be an important step forward in allowing NLB to preserve the materials which document Singapore's history and culture, so that these can be made available to our future generations. These amendments are especially crucial in this digital era, given that more and more valuable materials are now residing online and available in electronic formats. We must focus our collection efforts on such materials now so that we do not lose important pieces of our culture, heritage and history.
On this note, I want to once again thank all three Members who have spoken in support of the Bill. Sir, I beg to move.
*Question put, and agreed to.*
*Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.*
*The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr S Iswaran.]*
*Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.*
Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.00 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.36 pm until 4.00 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.00 pm
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]
PAPERCUTS