Punk'd!! And posting this at the expense of lunch...

OK, ok... I'm taking a bit of time out of my ridiculously hectic schedule to fill out the 'It' in this ST article on Opposition Parties slamming podcast ban rule:

"However, teacher Victor Yang, 31, who blogs on politics here, said: 'It's a step forward.
'There is a generation that is trying to work towards more leeway and fewer restrictions, and by coming out to say this, the Government is acknowledging that the electorate is changing.'"

Context, tsk, tsk... context... sigh...

In the conversation I had with Serene, the point I was trying to make was that the government imposed restrictions on podcasting and vodcasting reflected its unwillingness to completely surrender control on the terms of political debate and discourse, but that the government was conceding the fact that bloggers will inevitably comment on politics. I was trying to explain the distinction between blogging about politics, and persistently promoting a political viewpoint (which is the condition under which blogs are required to register). Something Data at Singapore Ink also comments on.

I was making the point that since we are expressing political views without persisting in promoting any political viewpoints, we don't need (at Singaporeangle) to register as a political website, and the government isn't likely to clamp down on us. In that respect, the government was conceding ground to political debate that does not constitute the advocacy of a political position. Really, I have no issues with that. As discussed earlier on this blog by Huichieh, there is something in what MM Lee said to Jamie that resonates with me, the idea that if you are dissatisfied with what the political party in power stands for, organise yourself, win support for your cause and take on the government.

I do think the PAP stays in power because it does have broad support among the people, but here is where I made the other point, that the electorate is increasingly becoming vocal, and that the government, in conceding openly (rather than leave the OB markers invisible) that discussions of a political nature will be tolerated (ok, problematic word, I am not going to address at this point) is responding to the changing nature of the electorate.

I am interested in observing how the upcoming and the subsequent elections will reflect changing social norms given that a large part of PAP's success in maintaining its position in power will depend ultimately on the vote of a generation that has very different expectations concerning restrictions on expression compared to the ones before.

Of course, if our views are political and we express them consistently, then of course definitions over what constitutes 'persistent', 'political view' can be argued over (as Data points out)... but I did get the feeling that the fact that more explicit boundaries are being drawn is a step forward; and helps us decide what to say, and how to put it across.

So, those of you wondering how I managed to make such a comment in the context of the ST article, here's the story.

Perhaps Serene was just running a very tight deadline and was eager to put in the obligatory 'other point of view' and had run out of time to explain the context. But, sigh... should have replied through email instead, or if I didn't have the time to compose one, decline the interview.

P.S. I also made the point that the banning of podcasts and vodcasts was something I had no opinion on whatsoever because I have not ventured into the technology (yes, yes... I belong to the Stone Age) and that's something that really isn't a loss to me at this point of time.