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

Political commentary is is criticism that is specific of or relevant to politcs, including policies, politicians, political parties, and types of government. Political commentary in this case, refers to Singaporeans slamming the government in the form of blogging and expressing their thoughts freely. In Singapore, people have the freedom to criticise the government on the internet but it is strictly regulated. Minor cases are tolerated. However, it is not common to see the government let their critics off. The regulation of political commentary on the Internet in Singapore is known to be so tight that people have to declare bankrupt after being sued by the government. Regardless of the government's intention, we cannot deny the necessity of the move. The government needs all its citizens to be cooperative, so as to allow the country to function efficiently. Without the cohesiveness and unity of the people, however witty the members of parliament may be, Singapore will never progress forward as a country, as a unit.

One good example is Dr Chee Soon Juan. He allegedly accused Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew for misleading Parliament over an alleged $17 billion loan to former Indonesian president Suharto. Mr Goh and Mr Lee then filed a lawsuit against him, forcing him to declare bankrupt. Though it was not clearly explained why they filed a lawsuit against Dr Chee, the intention was obvious. It was to protect the government from being tainted by such rumours. Such regulations are made to restrict political content. The regulations removes any doubt from the people of the government. Though it creates an different, perfect image of the government, this at least, secures peace and harmony between the citizens and the government.

The same goes for political commentary on the internet. The internet has evolved to be an important tool of communication in our daily lives. Even the slightest comments on the government posted on the net will have an impact on people. It is especially so when political commentary appeals to the entertainment of the people. It is human nature to be inquisitive and thus it is no surprising that websites like talkingcock.com receive lots of views. Therefore, it is also no mistake of the government when it comes to restricting political commentary. With the internet, common ideas are developed when people communicate. Should someone post a negative comment on the government, other people might also develop the same idea and hence will start to doubt the government. This explains the necessity of the regulation of political commentary.

However, we must not deny the fact that lesser restriction on political commentary is helpful too. What most citizens really want is actually a transparent government in which they know what is going on. There is no point covering up flaws in the government and finally collapsing in the end because of poor management and mistakes made. Furthermore, though we can argue that people can come up with rumours, we must also know that there is nothing to be afraid of if we have done nothng wrong. A good government will remain good no matter how people comment on their performance.

Hence, though political commentary may not be good, it is not exactly all bad either. The ability of each minister of parliament cant possibly change overnight because of criticsm. The competence and capability of the government will not alter. The government will still remain steady despite comments by a few unhappy citizens if the government is really that good. Instead, the only thing that will change is the popularity and trust the people have in the government. As always, we can argue that the popularity and trust is more influential and important.

What will be ultimately decided lies with the government. It has the power to choose whether to allow freedom of speech or a regulated, restricted political commentary. Though both have their pros and cons, the government will have to decide which choice will benefit them in the long run, for what is more important than the image of the government is the image of the country. The unity, the harmony and the progression of the country is the ultimate goal, not the government's image.