Courtesy of Joshua Chiang

It is almost comical when Yaacob said the above in the BBC Video (at around 1 min 40s). It also reminds me of Dr Evil from Austin Powers, or the Cylon known as “Brother Cavil” from Battlestar Galactica.

It is my considered opinion that policies should be made with the sole objective of achieving a positive outcome that benefits the people. It is clear to me from Yaacob’s comment that there is no obvious benefit in these new regulations other than to further the ruling party’s agenda. Regardless whether this would control our freedom of expression on the Internet, what gave the government the right to decide what is the “right” thing for us to read? With Singaporeans being more educated these days, aren’t we more capable of discerning what is right or wrong regardless whether our society is more matured?

Those in support of these regulations said when Yaacob said “the right things”, he meant “accurate reporting”. Does the government believe those reports which put the various ministries in a difficult position or portray them as incompetent to be “inaccuracies”? Does it believe that new regulations enforcing that sites put up only “accurate articles” will make us believe Singapore to be a bed a roses, and that all the government ministries, departments and agencies are doing their job? If that is the case, then Yaacob is right to make quotation marks with his hands when he said “the right things”. Because it simply isn’t right at all! Anyone should rightly object to that because that means they are being fed only officially approved reports by the media. What is there to prevent us from being fed outright lies? If the government finds it difficult to convince the general public, then it is a crisis in trust and confidence where regulations will do nothing to improve.

Some people would say that the new MDA regulations are good, because it gave them confidence on what they read online. But they are missing the point. How can I have confidence in what I read when it forever presents a one-sided view – that of the government? For e.g. Am I to believe the bullshit that a person earning $1000 can indeed own a HDB flat, based on what the papers have shown me? Yet at the meantime it does not present the facts that this person will then be in debt, technically “enslaved” for at least two decades and by the time he finish servicing his loan there will be almost nothing in his CPF and on paper he still owe himself interest for the money he took out from the CPF? Am I to believe that we have a World Class Transport, when the experience of my daily commute says otherwise? Am I to believe that Singaporeans are given equal consideration when applying for a job if some so-called anti-government pages or sites did not expose classified ads where employers discriminate against Singaporeans by specifying that only Filipinos or Indian nationals need apply? In fact, if I wasn’t present at the Jurong East Stadium for Singapore Democratic Party’s Rally during GE2011, how would I know Dr Chee Soon Juan did not attempt to stage a march as The New Paper had reported? As far as I am concerned, regulation has not made our media any more truthful. In fact, not only has the “approved media” presented half truths, I would consider some of them to be blatant lies!

Considering all of the above, is it a wonder why our Press Freedom Index ranking is 149th, and also our Freedom of the Press ranking is 153rd? Not only am I against any further regulation of online news, I felt the pre-existing regulations should be lifted. To even accept that current printed media needs to be regulated would be to accept the argument that we need the thought control or even “approved news” in the first place. Frankly, why is there even a need for these new regulations, when the government already has in its arsenal so many tools to deal with rogue postings – from defamation lawsuits, to the Sedition Act and even the Internal Security Act [ISA]?

Some would quote the likes of The Real Singapore [TRS] as an example of why the Internet should be regulated. But the point is that if we have confidence in our “approve media”, what would provide the fertile ground for such sites to flourish? I know some of my friends still read the vitriol on TRS with a whole bucket of salt, if they have not stopped reading it already. As for those people who still believe the hatred or the so-called “outright lies” on TRS and hold it as the gospel truth, the fact is that such people exists in the form of those who consistently voted against the ruling party even before the advent of the Internet. Incidentally, that is also why I despise TRS, because it provided the perfect excuse for new regulations. Well done TRS, for an own goal!

Furthermore, there is a threat that these new regulations will now provide the legal framework to shut anyone down in the future. After all, it will only be a technicality to re-classify a blog or even a forum considered to be difficult and unfriendly to fit the description so that these new regulations would fit. There will be those who would say it is too far-fetched to imagine that it will be used to gag dissidents. My friend Roger Tan describes it best with this interesting analogy – “There is a reason why our officers punished us for pointing their weapons at another soldier during our National Service [NS] days, even when we know it is not loaded.”

If you need me to explain this analogy, then we are either on different channels, or you did not serve NS.

Before I end, a group of bloggers collectively called #FreeMyInternet, will be staging a peaceful protest at Hong Lim Park from 4pm to 7pm this coming Saturday. If you feel strongly about this matter and would like to be counted, please feel free to go and lend your support.