Regulation of political commentary on the Internet in Singapore- Refer to TalkingCock.com/ Mr Brown

Regulation of political commentary on the Internet in Singapore- Refer to TalkingCock.com/ Mr Brown

Many people criticized the Singaporean government for constantly monitoring political commentary websites, which some view as limiting the right to freedom of speech. Political commentaries like talkingcock.com and mrbrown.com use articles to parody political issues and recent events. They do this in such a way that it is blindingly obvious to anybody who hasn’t been living in a hole what they are talking about, but at the same time cannot be implicated for slander or anything like that. For example, talkingcock.com’s column Annals of the Dragon King is a parody, focusing on the point of view of PM Lee Hsien Loong, whose name translated means dragon prince, or something to that effect, about certain political issues. In each article under this column, certain substitute names are used to refer to certain political figures. One of them would be Men In White, which I think probably refers to the PAP, with reference to their uniform white shirt and white pants combination that they are seen in every time they are seen in public. Another would be Peasantland, which is use to refer to Singapore. While these two substitute names are quite far from their original, we all know what they are referring to. These political commentaries like to comment on and satirize any incidents regarding politics. For example, there was mrbrown’s famous “mee pok ta mai te gua” podcast when an opposition MP forgot to submit a form and was caught on camera not doing so. This shows that many of these political commentaries are light hearted, and aimed at entertaining.

However, in the past, political bloggers have been brought to task for going overboard in criticizing the government, such as mrbrown. In 2006, he released a scathing, sarcasm-laden article, criticizing the government for attempting to sway voters in its favour by doing things such as introducing progress packages before the election, and leaving bad news only until after the elections, so as not to stress Singaporeans out about rising costs, “thereby affecting our ability to choose wisely” during the elections. He also criticised the government for unnecessarily raising the cost of living in Singapore. This article drew flak from the media and authorities, which furiously labelled him as a disturber of the peace, and promptly refuted his arguments. However, this sparked a debate as to whether the Singapore government was unfairly restricting free speech, or whether they really were justified, as mrbrown had gone too far, which raises the question of whether political commentaries on the internet should be allowed.

The government restricts citizens from expressing any grievances they may have towards the current political situation in other media, so the only avenue left is the online one. While blogs and other such online media are allowed to discuss politics, the authorities also keep a close eye on what is posted here, and the writers would be persecuted if any of their material is seen as being anti-government. I feel that the government should not have to regulate political commentaries as of now. Firstly, while political commentaries can introduce the idea that the government is not all that perfect, many Singaporeans read these websites for entertainment, and not really to read about politics. Besides, even if the population was disgruntled with the current form of government, the pros would far outweigh the cons, and there is also no credible opposition to challenge for the governance of Singapore. Thus, the current government’s position is relatively safe. Singaporeans, being Chinese, tend to be more rational and base their opinions on facts, and not so much on feelings. Hence, they would choose the government that they think would be best for them, and so as long as the PAP presents a strong case for itself, they are likely to win.

In a way, political commentaries can also be useful, as they allow the government to see some of the gripes and grievances the citizens may have, and thus take action based on these. These political blogs can be seen as a representative of the views of the people, and so the government can treat these as feedback, and find ways to improve. However, the writers of these blogs also have to take care not to be biased, and should try to take both sides of an argument when writing, to avoid being accused of being selfish. Also, it might help to have a disclaimer on the website. For example talkingcock.com, the first thing that one sees when logging on to that website, beside the striking picture of a cock’s head, is a disclaimer essentially saying that the website aims to entertain, and everything there is made up and nonsensical. This would lead the reader to read it purely for entertainment purposes, and not misconstrue it as a political website. It also helps that it states in capitalised bold words that it is not a political website.

In conclusion, I believe that political commentary in Singapore need not be regulated so much, as these political commentaries are mainly to satirise for humour purposes, and not to slander the PAP and encourage readers to vote for a nonexistent opposition party. Furthermore, the readers ultimately make their own decisions based on facts that they have, and are not likely to be swayed by one or two articles criticizing the government. Therefore, the government should just live and let live, and let Singaporeans in Singapore express themselves.