Regulation of political commentary

DISCLAIMER: Anything that is political that will be said is the direct fault of my English Teacher Adrian Chan, and he should be put under the ISA for torturing us with digestive biscuits. Amen.

In Asia, there are probably three countries who have stricter political control on their citizens than us.

The first one, courtesy of Kwok Shun Git, would be the Great Firewall of China, where you can't even access blogger (oh the horror) from. The government is strict, but surprisingly the citizens are happy. Some still manage to find holes in the system as always, but on the whole the citizens are not exactly striking.

The second one, is the very well known North Korea who spends a good two thirds of its GDP on one day: National Day, because the citizens heavily rely on that one day in the entire year to rejuvenate their souls and reassure themselves that they are not part of a failing country.

The third is Myanmar; is there much else needed to be said?

Before exploring what exactly the internet serves as, like a catalyst or whatever, let's first understand the true proper meaning and usage of political commentary.

Political commentary is meant to keep the government in check. There is a balance of power formed by the government and the media such that the media can make sure that every action taken by the government is carefully covered by it, and the people know what is going on, and have a faithful source of news to refer to in order to pass judgement.

Thus, it serves no little surprise that the press in these countries are indeed, one way or another, influenced by the government to no small extent. To further illustrate this:

"MediaCorp is wholly owned by Temasek Holdings, the government's investment company, while Singapore Press Holdings, which publishes 14 newspapers, including the Straits Times, is a government-linked company listed on the Mainboard of Singapore's stock market."

And the CEO of Temasek Holdings is Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's wife.

As stated somewhere in the Air Conditioned Nation, Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew commented that the press checking the government would only lead to scandals and blowing up of microscopic points. Instead of the press checking the government, the government should check the press.

Another interesting aspect is how video/podcasts are banned during electorial periods, mainly because these "audiovisual devices tend to influence the receiver's mind in a manner which is neither constructive nor properly adjusted".

Therefore the PAP has banned the use of podcasts and vodcasts nearing the electorial dates, but is this paranoia misjudged?

The proverbial saying of "better safe than sorry" doesn't hold water here, because in every society for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is social science. I want to learn it in school.

However this being the INTERNET, and also SINGAPOREANS, it is highly unlikely that any social backlash will manifest into anything more serious than the Hokkien dialect being misused once again.

The internet however, is not a panacea. It cannot accomodate dissent on a national scale without the relevant authorities realising and cutting off all avenues of access. But in the first place, is what the government even doing morally right?

To ensure political stability when our government is actually doing a good job (if you don't count the huge loses in Temasak Holdings) in the economy and social stability. True enough, when you introduce radical views that can be broadcasted all over society, there will be controversy, there will be uprisings. Problem is that these uprisings may be good or bad.

Do we trust the government to be good, stay good and remain good? Will this perpetuate into a slippery slope?

At the risk of being shot, I sign off here.