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

 

Singapore’s government keeps a firm grip on the media in Singapore, be it the presses, television or the Internet, and is especially cautious regarding the Internet, and regulates the political commentary on the Web in Singapore. With strict guidelines that they expect the people to adhere to, and punitive measures such as doing time, censorship or fines, it would be impossible for anybody to say that we Singaporeans enjoy political freedom. Of course, we have the right to vote among other rights, but regulating the content on the Internet could be seen as either a defensive stance, or a cautious stance taken by the government. Thus, these measures have been quite controversial, and have been heavily criticized by people from Singapore and other countries.

While I do not welcome such measures and view them as defensive manoeuvres by the PAP, it cannot be denied that the Internet can indeed inflict serious harm on anyone, much less a ruling party. Rumours are easy to fabricate, quick to spread, and hard to disperse. In an article by the Straits Times, the PAP defended this regulation by stating that if a false rumour was spread, it would be impossible to make sure that every chatroom, every forum and every website corrected it even when it was proved to be fabricated. Slander can hurt political candidates and inciting videos may have dire consequences, as what one sees can change his perception of things.  Even if some content on websites are not meant to hurt a candidate’s chances in elections, falsified content or heavily satire videos and cartoons may subject him to public ridicule, eroding the respect that the public has for him. Thus, while such strict political regulations could be a mite too rigid, there is indeed some sense in this and the government does have a point. Of course, there are some exceptions and not all satirical or political websites are banned, as can be seen from the famous Mr. Brown or the website ‘Talking cock’.

In my opinion though, I feel that these measures stifle the freedom of us Singaporeans, and while the government defends itself by saying that as long as we abide by these rules, there is nothing to fear, these political regulating actually achieves the opposite effect. With the ‘fine-print’ easily allowing for loopholes, and without the wherewithal to fully comprehend what do the guidelines mean, most of us Singaporeans decide that we would rather quench this desire to voice out our thoughts on political issues and rather play safe by not blogging or writing at all. After all, even if what we say is beneficial to the country, if it is not phrased correctly, we face legal action and a jail term. While there is no denying the talent and capability of our government, there is no refuting the fact that Singapore also has many people who are not only gifted, but genuinely want to improve our country and share their views not because they want to undermine confidence in the government, spread false rumours about political candidates, or humiliate anybody. With this system, these voices that the government would do well to heed are silenced and this would not be beneficial for Singapore in the long run.

Singapore’s government should lax these a bit as only then will more Singaporeans dare to comment on political candidates, the government or the way Singapore is being run, and no matter how smart the government is, it is the citizens who elected them and it is these points of view that should be respected. The government and the citizens can adopt a symbiotic relationship, as long as each does not cross the line: We can offer constructive feedback to keep the government in check, and they grant us the freedom of speech and more political freedom.

Such as how almost everybody is respectful in ‘Meet-the-MP’ sessions, we Singaporeans will respect the government and strive in helping Singapore to improve, but first, we need and want more freedom of speech on the Web.

President’s Star Charity Show- is there a need for artistes to perform stunts to milk the public’s compassion for more generous donations?

 The president’s star charity show held annually stars MediaCorp celebrities such as Zoe Tay, Fann Wong, Fiona Xie, Gurmit Singh, Adrian Pang amongst many others, and also other household names such as Hardy Mirza.  Without doubt, these names a long do not generate revenue for the show, and even impassioned pleas will not convince most Singaporeans to donate, even for a good cause. Thus, these artistes resort to perform stunts to persuade the public to donate, and also appeal to their compassionate nature for more generous donations. Such stunts include contorting themselves to fit into tight boxes for a period of time, walking on tightropes across buildings, eating fire and other stunts that are extremely dangerous. In my opinion, while such stunts may be perilous despite all the safety precautions, it is quite sad that there may actually be a need for artistes to perform such stunts to raise money.

 

                       Singaporeans are a complex people to understand. While their compassion can be seen from the outpouring of money and daily necessities donated, and the heart-felt condolences for the tragedies of the Sichuan earthquake and also the 2004 Tsunami that ravaged many countries of the world. However, the quintessential Singaporean turns a deaf year to the pleas of beggars, buskers, or physically handicapped who are trying to make a living. Perhaps, while we will not hesitate to offer a helping hand to people who we can see helpless, dying and needy, through the television or newspapers, but it could be different for us to make a donation to a charity hotline if we do not actually feel that our efforts are worth it. Words are usually meaningless and if a picture is a thousand words, then a stunt where the celebrity puts himself or herself in jeopardy is worth a thousand impassioned pleas by anybody, even a famous artiste. When one sees the blood, sweat and tears that one sweats for a cause, then the cause must be a good one, and worth contributing to and fighting for.

       

        Furthermore, the artistes sign up of their own free will, not only because they genuinely want to help the less fortunate that the money from the show goes to, but also these stunts while dangerous, is a test of their courage, willpower and also prevents an invaluable experience. Also, while some people may argue that they are not actually putting themselves at risk because there are far too many safety measures, thus proving that these stunts are just an act meant to milk public compassion. However, I dismiss these arguments as ludicrous. Firstly, I do not see how will it make anybody feel better and more willing to donate if any person, much less a celebrity, walked atop a narrow walkway connecting two twenty-storey buildings without a safety harness. Also, while contorting oneself into a box for ten full minutes may not be life-endangering, but it is still extremely painful for celebrities who have had undergone mere months of training.

              

        Lastly, there are always needs and there is no reason why getting more money for a good cause is a sin. If such stunts encourage people who have money to spare to give more money, why discourage this? It is hard to define if there is need for artistes to perform such stunts to encourage the public to give more generously, because when it is for a good cause, there is always room for more money. Everybody benefits: The public has done a good deed, the artistes have also contributed to a good cause and the needy of course benefit greatly. As long as the artistes’ intentions remain pure, the public are not coerced into giving donations, the money goes to the needy, then there will always be a need for artistes to perform stunts to appeal the compassionate side of the public for more generous donations, as the more donations received, the better it is.

(653 words)