Regulation of political commentary on the Internet in Singapore

A virtual space with endless boundaries, the Internet is definitely a powerful free-for-all tool which can be used to spread news, be it truth or rumours. An authoritarian democratic city, Singapore has been imposing regulations specifically for internet content since 1996, but in this decade or so, the government has been applying this law with a ‘light touch’, evident from the little or no instances of censorship of political content online. Despite regulations such as the ban of political podcasting during election periods, Singapore is still an open society, as claimed by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in response to the Ministry of Information, Communications and Arts’ handling of an incident where the government was criticised. Is this totally true, or are these words just used to protect the stand of the government? Talkingcock.com and Mr Brown are two examples famous for making political commentary on the Internet in Singapore.

Talkingcock.com is a satirical humour website which engages in social commentary, including political issues. It has been labelled as a political website, but Talkingcock argues for the otherwise and claims that the definition of ‘political site’ has been over broaden to which any site which features local politics is considered as a political site. This website writes articles which mock at the unique features of Singaporeans, politics being one of them, and eventually its aim is to ‘build a community of Singaporeans with a sense of humour and who enjoy life in all its complexity’. In my opinion, I believe that Talkingcock.com and perhaps other satirical sites which have been alleged as ‘political sites’ should not be regulated, as these sites merely relieve tension by poking fun at Singapore issues and I doubt these sites mean any harm or attempt to mislead the citizens of Singapore by affecting their opinions on different parties. Furthermore, it is much less possible that the articles are defamatory as Talkingcock.com has stressed that the contents are purely fictitious and should not be relied on. The regulation of political commentary on the Internet hinders our freedom of speech, and we are not given the space to engage in dynamic and creative thinking which is improper of a global, 21st century open society.

Another name which most of you would be familiar with is Mr Brown, whose real name is Lee Kin Mun. Known by many as Singapore’s ‘Blogfather’, Mr Brown is a Singaporean blogger, well known for his social and political commentary despite Singapore’s regulations, whose podcasts attract several thousands of downloads per day. In his satirical blog posts and podcasts, Mr Brown openly highlights the ironies in government policies and also injects humour into his discussion of the behaviour of Singaporeans. However, he has been seen as a ‘partisan player’ who distorts truth by criticising the government. From my perspective, Mr Brown is a groundbreaker himself as he opens up the use of new media in Singapore, thus pushing the boundaries of freedom of expression of us Singaporeans, and by touching upon issues regarding politics, this encourages the citizens to be aware of the current affairs.

Overall, I feel that although the reputation of the government should not be smeared by mere rumours spreading over the Internet, the public’s freedom of speech should not be compromised too. Therefore, regulation of political commentary on the Internet should be in place, but to a minimal. Talkingcock.com and Mr Brown are merely poking harmless fun to provide entertainment with their satirical articles on political issues, yet they are often considered as ‘partisan players’ who try to change the viewers’ attitudes based on their ‘biased’ content. On the other hand, there should be regulations to control irresponsible political commentaries which sole purpose is to create tension among the citizens. Certainly, there is a need to define the line between constructive political commentary and those that are full of meaningless criticisms.

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 is an annual performance, broadcasted on the television, where various artistes and popular stars carry out stunts in the attempt to raise more funds for the needy through public donations. These stunts include life-threatening ones such as walking on a tight-rope and being immersed into an ice-filled container. Artistes have put in much effort in rehearsing these dangerous acts, and the result of their hard work is apparent when the show’s viewership is increased and hundreds of thousands of donation calls come flooding in, bringing the total sum up to over a million dollars. However, are these figures truly evident of the compassion the public has for the needy? Or are these people just paying a small tip for the entertainment by the stunt performers? In my opinion, I feel that performing spectacular acts is unnecessary to milk the public’s compassion for more generous donations.

Undoubtedly, we Singaporeans are very stingy people. Due to our ‘kiasu’ (afraid-to-lose) nature, we usually think for ourselves before others and often, we are unwilling to donate generously. Perhaps this is the main reason why most charity shows include stunt performances. However, do people make the donation calls truly with the intention of helping the deprived, or do they treat those calls as payment for the entertainment? I am afraid that the latter occurs most of the time. Yes, stunt performances may help to increase viewership and raise more funds, but think about the actual purpose of the charity show. It is neither to provide entertainment to the public nor to showcase the courage and talents of the artistes. In fact, it is to tell the unfortunate stories of the needy and to spread the message that these people are in need of help so as to raise funds for them, funds which are donated solely for the sake of compassion.

We, as members of the public, know that there are many people out there who need our help; we do not need charity shows to tell us that. We know that we can help them by donating money but we are just reluctant to do so. If we are compassionate enough, we do not even need stunt performances to make us reach for the phone. On the contrary, these performances mislead us into thinking that we are donating because we have compassion, but instead they are actually convincing us to donate for the sake of donating. Furthermore, performing stunts has no relevance at all in helping the needy. Ask yourself, how often does one think about the needy while watching a stunt performance? Not even once, perhaps. He would be so engrossed in the show that he might even forget his name!

One thing the artistes and performers cannot deny is the large amount of time and effort involved in the countless rehearsals. Instead of doing something which does not help in gaining the public’s sympathy, these performers should attempt something more meaningful and relevant, or even play their part in the donation drive too. These artistes are just like any other ordinary member of the public, but the difference here is their fame. Being the idols of many, if these popular artistes are sincere enough to donate, I am sure the public would follow suit too.

To sum up, I disagree with the need for artistes to perform stunts to milk the public’s compassion for more generous donations. How is the public going to sympathise with the needy after watching the show when stunt performances have no relevance to helping them at all? In fact, the inclusion of stunt performances distorts the actual rationale behind organising a charity show. Often, it results in the viewers making the donation calls not for the sake of wanting to help the disadvantaged, but for the sake of acknowledging the effort of the stunt performers.