There has been a flurry of response on the web and comment in the blogosphere about Singapore’s ban on political commentary on blogs during the upcoming parliamentary elections:

“In a free-for-all Internet environment, where there are no rules, political debate could easily degenerate into an unhealthy, unreliable and dangerous discourse, flush with rumours and distortions to mislead and confuse the public.” — Singapore’s Senior Minister of State Balaji Sadasivan.

The rules, according to the Singapore government are this:

Private or individual bloggers can discuss politics. However, if they persistently propagate, promote or circulate political issues relating to Singapore, they are required to register with the Media Development Authority. During the election period, these registered persons will not be permitted to provide material online that constitutes election advertising.

Reporters without Borders condemned the rules, which have been in place since 2001.

Sadsivan expanded the restrictions to include podcasting and videocasting used for political advertising, during a parliamentary debate on 3 April.

At least one blog, Singabloodypore, has taken a firm stance against the ban:

“This blog is not registered with the Singaporean government, has never been asked to register, and if invited to register would NOT register. I, soci, also intend to post material of an “explicitly political nature” during the elections and will gladly show videocasting and podcasting of election rallies, speeches etc… of opposition candidates.”

Yawningbread, a blog written by a Singapore gay activist, has done an in-depth analysis of the ban. He found Sadsivan’s statements were not explicitly clear on what is not allowed, and asked “Is the government deliberately leaving the matter vague so that people will err on the side of safety and self-censor?”

Other bloggers have taken a more sarcastic approach to the topic. AsianPundit wrote:

“Before any ‘free speech’ advocates gets in a huff about this - AsiaPundit will note that private citizens will likely be allowed to make political speeches at Speakers’ Corner after registering with police. As such, this ban on political blogging is not a ban on free speech. It is merely a means to bridge the digital divide. Singapore’s technology savvy bloggers will now have to queue with their digitally disabled fellow citizens for a chance to talk at the Lion City’s only authorized free speech zone. The PAP are not oppressive, this is merely a means to bring all Singaporeans together.”

Jakartass provides an interesting Indonesian perspective, and the possible implications on free speech in his country.

Dancho Danchev provides useful list of links about censorship in Singapore.

Think Centre, a website that was forced to register, according to Reporters without Borders, reminds us that censorship is hardly limited to political issues. Last year, student bloggers who posted derogatory remarks about their teachers were punished with three days of suspension.