I was at Hong Lim Park last Saturday for the above event. The turnout wasn’t really spectacular, but at least healthy. There were about 1500 ~ 2000 people there even though I did not expect this to attract a crowd as big as the protest against the Population White Paper. In fact, there was a carnival feel about it and at some parts of the park it even looked like a picnic.

I went not because I agreed with all the points raised by the organisers and the speakers. I went because I felt no one should decide for us what “the right news” should be. Whether that refers to doctored, or accurate news reports is moot. What truly offended me is that not only does the government treat us like children who aren’t capable of making the right decisions, it actually had the audacity to believe it had the moral authority to decide what is “right” for us. I felt strongly no one should modify our input in such a way whereby it affect our ability to come to an informed decision, or to “guide” us to only one particular conclusion about a matter. To but it very bluntly, that is simply mild or subtle brainwash.

So, my presence at Hong Lim was merely to make myself counted. However, I have to point out that the organisers may have missed one important point because I wasn’t really paying attention. While it is true the expansion of these regulations to cover online media can be used to stifle free speech online (and Tan Chuan Jin’s response that blogs which carries news can thus be covered by the expanded regulations clearly enforces that opinion), the fact is that the pre-existing regulations are already insidious on their own.

We are all aware that before the Internet came along, it was way more difficult for us to obtain counter opinions apart from that of the government, much less a detailed and well thought out one. Clearly, governments all round the world realised a long time ago it is far better to be able to affect how another think, than to control what he can or may say! Thus, media control is put in place because when counter opinion or another point of view is overwhelmed and drowned out, the public is left without enough information to decide, much less say, otherwise!

If that is done very, very well, the powers-that-be can not just pay lip service to ensuring the right to so-called free speech, it can even enshrine it in the Constitution! So, the Media Development Authority [MDA] is not really a watchdog at all and is in fact trying to live up to its name of “developing” media – the way the government wants it. Since that is the case, the matter of “quis custodiet ipsos custodes” that often pops up in the ongoing discussion of the expanded regulations is completely irrelevant. Simply do away with the first watchdog (i.e. the existing media regulations) and there will be no need for more watchdogs to keep an watchful eye at all.

Anyway, I arrived late at around 5:30pm to meet my colleague and friend who was already there. I couldn’t remember much of what the speakers said between then to the time I left. The only thing I could remember was one of the speakers mention that the government continue to treat us as if we were still in the 60s or 70s, which went on to inspire this piece. My personal opinion is, regardless whether there are those who have failed to behave maturely, it is high time for the government to relax its grip on this area. Even parents need to let go and let their child fall when he learns to walk, though that fall may hurt, and is rather unpleasant to the child.