Regulation of political commentary on the Internet in Singapore-

Many of us are familiar with the popular satirical comedian, Mr. Brown, aka Lim Kin Mun. A well-known figure with a solid fanbase from spreading radical ideas about political judgements and revealing sides of policies otherwise shrouded in mystery by the Government in fear of ridicule, his posts on his blogsite "mrbrown: L'infantile terrible of Singapore" are woven throughout with blatant pokes at Singapore's social and economic system.

Most of us Singaporeans recognise our humble island country as a country of democracy, a country that allows and promotes free speech, a country where the people decide who leads the country and who doesn't. However, are we really the 'masters' of this country? Is democracy really prevailent in Singapore? Most will answer a defininte 'yes'. Oh, look at the elections, look at the free speech campaigns. If that is so, why are political figures like Chee Soon Juan arrested on a daily basis for voicing their insinuations in public? The notion of the government being an authoritarian one has never appealed to the minds of the masses. This, once again, is the inculcation of the prevailent mindset that whatever the Singaporean government does for us is the correct thing, is the best way. Political and social unrest are dispelled by mental barriers erected from within by the Government through their numerous fiscal policies and social laws set.

Mr. Brown's column in the Today newspaper reached its expiration date when the Government ordered its removal from the newspaper due to overly-critical comments on the Government's progress scheme and for what the government presumed as deliberate mocking. Putting it simply - this was an obvious show of Govermental restriction on political commentary on the Internet. If there was nothing to hide, if Singapore IS really a democratic society, why place such unfair and unjustified restrictions on the people? Ideas stem from creativity, which is in turn affected on a large scale by issues revolving the social structure of the nation. Such strict regulations on political comentary should be abhored. It is a complete contradiction to what the Government proposes on a daily basis. Why should citizens of DEMOCRATIC Singapore abide by the unfair jurisdiction of the law, on the topic of politics? The most obvious reason would be that the Government's achievements in economy and stability have exalted the masses to an extent that inner desires are dominated by psychological awe. Rephrased, it simply means that such succeses have impacted the way Singaporeans think about the structure of society as a whole.

I feel that it is vital to accept the fact that Mr. Brown is widely read and watched. His ideas spread like wildfire due to their 'catch-on' nature. The Media Development Authority's control has been slowly extending, from restrictions on what is broadcasted on television and radio, to further regulations on what internet users can upload and say online. Mr. Brown's position is thus naturally threatened by this encroaching tiger; however, no decisive blow can be initiated due to strong support from the masses - if something was done which could be defined as controversial, it could tip the balance in brown's favour, lowering the prestige of the government. Thus, the people act as a human shield towards the poised siege weapons of the powerful govermnet.

Although the government may be right in a sense to restrict the outflow of media to safeguard stability and ensure prevention of corruption, media containing a suitable level of criticism towards political issues should be allowed. Blanket-approval has been given to annihilate all media which place the government in an obviously bad light. We, as the people who are crucial towards this issue, should take a stand and thoroughly think - political commentary, does it do harm, or can it be safe to broadcast?