This is inspired by MP Denise Phua on her recent comments on managing the internet. In short, Denise was shock to find an overwhelming anti-PAP comments on the internet and said the gahmen should manage us (luckily she did not use the word "fix"). Perhaps rich investors such as Bill Gates, who might rely on internet sources, particularly blog of unknown individuals, for news would think negatively of Singapore and don't give discount when we buy MS Office.

So here's some suggestion on how to "manage" the internet.

Great Firewall of Singapore
Do it the China way by building a Great Firewall of Singapore to search and filter all things perceived as negative by PAP such as NYP Tammy video, James Gomez News, persistently non-political podcasts.

Pros: There's a model (China) to follow, full control for government, can claim to create jobs for drones to do search & destroy block for these sites, peasants can't complain over things they can't see.

Cons: Induces more quitters, likely to p*ssed off investors/foreign talents, Internet is approximately infinitely large, smartass hackers can get around it and do more harm.

Likelihood: Singapore already have a great firewall in various extent, mrbrown was once famously banned by MOE two years ago (See here). But the firewall is unlikely to be the main tool for managing Internet for a simple reason, it's almost impossible to visit all websites/forums/blogs of Singaporeans to be effective.

Defamation and Law Suits
Something the Lee and Lee family likes to do to dissidents is to sue them in order to legally shut them up. Famous casualties include J.B. Jeyaretnam and Dr Chee Soon Juan. Even though I'm too "young" to be familiar with Jeyaretnam, I did witness Dr Chee infamously asking our then PM Goh "where is the money?!" been broadcasted infinitely on national TV. A more related example is the Acidgate a year ago where a Singaporean blogger was sue by A*Star over comments written on his blog.

Pros: Mostly worked very well, makes it illegal for others to do the same too, windfall from all the damages to be paid up.

Cons: Might backfire if you accidentally sue someone more powerful than you unless you are already the most powerful (Refer to T.T. Durai NKF Saga), placing the issue on the spotlight by suing would defeat the purpose of shutting individuals up. Possible work around by hiding comments behind satire or using disclaimers such as "persistently non-political podcast"

Likelihood: Expect to see it for a few high profile individuals (or a small group of peasants) to serve as a warning tactic once in a while. It takes too much effort to identify every individual and to bring them to court. History also tells us that the easiest way to bring more negative opinions and unwanted attention to all things you wanted to hide is to sue the other fellow.

Law by Law
Since the Government can just add/change/remove laws in Singapore easily, like they did for the recent elections to ban podcasts and persistent political blogging, it will be easy to make it illegal for Singaporeans to persistently write negative things about Singapore hence scaring away foreign investors. Famous example such as making music file sharing over Napster, mIRC etc illegal and the chewing is bad for SMRT ban.

Pros: Costs next to nothing to lay down new laws, essential step for lawsuit strategy above.

Cons: Run the risk of falling behind North Korea (Position 167, last while Singapore is at 140) in the Freedom of Speech index, gives bloggers more negative things to write about, encourages bloggers to read guide to anoymous blogging.

Likelihood: 99.9999999%. But this will be as effective as curbing illegal music download by closing Napster and stopping mIRC.

singapore essay pap mp