Singapore censorship really good?

With reference to Today 06/11/2010 headline article, "Good for US, but not for Singapore".

Media censorship has long been a controversial topic debated over elite schools, criticized among netizens, as well as younger Singaporeans who have been influenced by the Western culture and idealogy of "freedom" and "liberialism".

The fact that the PAP is carrying out media-censorship over media platforms such as local newspaper, online and TV news reporting etc. is definitely. If one visits foreign online news portals, he would only find the same "breaking" news only days after in our Straits Times newspaper.

Although this matter has been ignored by many of the older generations, it started to become a hot topic for the younger generation elites at the turn of the century, with advancing information technology that effectively connects Singapore to Western culture. Complaints of "lack of sensational news", "inability to see the true story behind bigger events that happen in Singapore" are rampant, but slowly died down as they get ignored by the government.

As such, many are confused and determined that Minister of Home affairs, Mr Shanmugam, is indeed digging his own grave, when he released a press statement, that is predicted to be controversial, and will spark up past debates and more controversy over this issue.

However, it is instead understandable why the government is explaining its stand. There are really only a few controversial actions that the government is doing that raises public unhappiness, especially with increasing number of educated population. As such, with the General Elections around the corner, the PAP tries to "clear up" some of the unhappiness raised among the public, which one significant one is the complain of lack of democracy, freedom and liberalism.

However, what Mr Shanmugam said is not all bullshit. Although it is true that with one of hthe few motives of making government policies look good, there is an element of party interest involved in censorship, there are also true advantages of controlling the media, and giving news presses less freedom and independence to do whatever they want.

In U.S., 4/5 of newspapers published report mainly sensational news - deliberately finding faults in governmental policies, satiring of recent nationals events, focusing more on actors and actresses etc., so much so that the news reported have already deviated from its objective of reporting news. This motivation is fueled by the need and desire to earn more money, as the public would no doubt be more interested in sensational news, and it strips the public of real or sufficient news information and updates.

Furthermore, over-fast news reporting often leads to riots and rebellions in developing and less-developed countries. Sometimes, when a chain of undesired, sometimes small events that portray the government in "bad light" happen together, and get published in succession, it often leads to great public anger, leading to undesired riots that threaten the stability and peace of the country. As such, although there are ineffective or perhaps unfair governmental policies that have not been reported in the newspaper, it is understandable that PAP cannot be perfect. What is definitely more important is the peace and stability of that country.

Although there are clear disvantages of not being able to know both sides of certain stories, being hidden from some governmental failures, and being unable to get sufficient sensational news to entertain our lives, let us nonetheless accept the wiser choice for our society.