The Economist, 24 May 2001 print edition
NO LAUGHING MATTER: despite talk of an opening-up, politics on the island remains a one-sided affair.

“REINVENTING politics”, reads the slogan on name-cards handed out by members of Think Centre, a tiny Singaporean pressure-group. It is a bold notion: since independence, Singapore’s rulers have been so secure in office that the only aspect of politics in need of reinvention has been the opposition, whose leading lights have trodden a forlorn path of defamation suits, criminal prosecution and emigration. But in recent years even Goh Chok Tong, the prime minister, has been talking of the need for “a new vision for Singapore, an ideal, a fresh mindset”. Are refreshing breezes wafting through the political climate?

Not really: sitting so close to the equator, Singapore does not have anything as dramatic as the season temperate countries call “spring”. Yet there are subtle variations of temperature, and a number of initiatives suggest a warming-up: last September, in Hong Lim park in central Singapore, a “Speakers’ Corner” opened. Think Centre itself has made quite a splash, as has a non-partisan political-discussion group, the Roundtable; and the Internet has opened up free-wheeling debate and even, on talkingcock.com, a site devoted to Singapore, political satire. 

“All a show,” says J.B. Jeyaretnam, a nominated MP, who constitutes a third of the opposition: the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) won 81 out of the 83 elected seats in the last election, in 1997. Mr Jeyaretnam’s bitterness is understandable. He has been declared bankrupt for failing to meet payments of damages awarded in defamation suits (not, on this occasion, brought by members of the cabinet). If an appeal to be heard in July fails, he will lose his parliamentary seat and be disqualified from the next election, expected later this year or early next. One of Think Centre’s recent reinventions was to help organise a “Save JBJ” fund-raising rally. It produced some S$19,000 ($10,000), towards the S$235,000 needed. 

Already, in December, Think Centre had arranged an event at Speakers’ Corner, to mark international human-rights day. That provoked a police investigation and a warning, since it smacked of an organised demonstration. When it first opened, Speakers’ Corner attracted hundreds of visitors. It now keeps going largely thanks to one stalwart speaker, Tan Kim Chuang, a stockbroker, with a loyal audience of a dozen or so middle-aged and elderly men. Mr Tan has already spoken more than 50 times and, one day this month, was one of just three names on the list, posted at the conveniently adjacent Kreta Ayer Neighbourhood Police Post, of those registered in advance to speak. 

Like so much else in Singapore, Speakers’ Corner is based on an idea by Lee Kuan Yew, the senior minister, and comes with restrictions. The topics of race and religion are out of bounds, speakers must register and no amplification is allowed—prompting talkingcock.com to joke that now Singaporeans have the right to speak, they need the right to hear. 

Nevertheless, Singapore is a more relaxed and open place than it was, both socially and, despite strict censorship, culturally. Simon Tay, an unaffiliated nominated member of parliament, detects “a sense of tentative change, and of government seeking to manage social change”. But, politically, the dominance of the PAP is as secure as ever. Partly that is a result of its success. With GDP per head higher than Britain’s, Singapore is a safe, modern, high-rent enclave in an increasingly dodgy neighbourhood. Why fool around with opposition politics?

The passage last year of a law on political-party finance has made the opposition’s life even harder. It bans foreign funds and anonymous donations by Singaporeans of more than S$5,000 in any one year. And the government carefully polices those it believes may meddle in domestic politics, such as the foreign media. Last month it amended its broadcasting legislation to make it clear that satellite-television news stations were subject to the same rules that apply to the foreign press, in whose pages the government demands a right of reply—see, no doubt, next week’s issue of The Economist. 

Think Centre itself, along with another group, the Open Singapore Centre, chaired by Mr Jeyaretnam, were both named in March as “political associations”, subject to the political-donations law. In response, Think Centre announced it would field candidates at the next election. This, it later revealed, was an April Fool’s Day joke. It did not go down well. In Singapore, politics is no laughing matter.

FHM, October 2000
'PLEASE DON'T TALK COCK, LAH!'
Reverence for our most overlooked gift of the gab...

Forget Project Eyeball and its brash exclamations about being the "voice" of the digital generation  - if we wanted something nobody read, we'd buy a road map of the North Pole, thanks. And let's not get started on the dailies.

But at last, the news hungry can now turn to an alternative source for local news beyond the government mouthpiece.

So what if online tabloid Talking Cock doesn't have the journalistic integrity of our local dailies, it remains the paragon of local sub-cultures that are otherwise shunned in Parliament House.

Thank the Net Gods that some gushy columnist isn't exploiting valuable news space on the virtues of the latest government policies on this site.

Lim Peh (say that in a Hokkien way), resident cynic on policy making and regulation in Singapore, will no doubt entertain you with his charming column Lim Peh Ka Li Kong. It even has an online dictionary, the Lexicon of Lah, where the Sotong can find definitions of Singlish idioms and words.

See bei ho liao!

Project Eyeball, 19 September 2000 07:00AM
SATIRE SITES PART OF 'NEW APPROACH' TO POLITICS
By G Sivakkumaran

They may be here to stay, but to what effect? 

LOCAL political satire sites may examine serious issues tongue-in-cheek, but are they here to stay?

Nominated MP Zulkifli Baharuddin certainly thinks so. 

His reason?

They are part of a growing appetite for a more casual approach to politics, with the Internet as the new medium.

And this certainly seems to apply to www.talkingcock.com and www.mrbrown.com, which Eyeball featured yesterday as examples of
Singapore's political satire sites.

But how do they compare with more ''serious'' websites like Sintercom
and Think Centre in terms of reaching out?

Well, that depends on what the online community wants.

National University of Singapore lecturer Dr Randy Kluver believes that
people who visit websites with a political content do so because of their
interest in it.

And this, too, may be a small number, as he thinks the majority of people
log on for entertainment rather than politics.

Dr Kluver, who lectures on the Information and Communication Management Programme, added that those who visit such sites tend to be more discerning as ''they would see which sites they identify with''.

So they would log on to the different websites depending on whether they want humour or more serious political discussion.

''Singapore is not like China, where the Internet has broken the State's
monopoly over news.

''There is greater freedom of information here, so the impact might not be so great,'' he said.

But like it or not, the Government has to live with it.

Political-discussion websites like Sintercom have been in existence for a few years now.

More are springing up, including satire sites. And they are a virtual kopi
tiam, only that now they can ''talk cock'' from home.

They have a wider audience, too, given the immense reach of the Internet. 

The question, therefore, is: Can the readers tell humour from facts?

''It takes a bit of maturity to understand the issues behind it,'' said Dr
Kluver.

He added that immature readers might get access to a mature medium like the Internet, and problems could arise from that, especially if any of the websites touch on issues pertaining to race and religion.

However, Wilfrid, who responded to yesterday's article in Eyeball on
political satire, believes that there is no serious threat to society.

''We should be mature enough to distinguish between 'politics' and
'humour out of politics'.''

Given this, the impact of these websites could actually be less than
expected.

Dr Kluver believes that the impact of the satrical websites on local politics may be negligible.

So satire, at the end of the day, is about having a good laugh. And this is
what Wilfrid wants.

''Who cares what's right or wrong? Someone has a view and makes a
joke out of it, so that you can just laugh at it and have a nice day,'' he said.

The question is, will everyone see it that way? Are Singaporeans mature
enough an audience for political satire? 

Project Eyeball, 18 September 2000 07:00AM
SERIOUSLY FUNNY: websites take a satirical look at all things S'porean
by Lim Puay Leng and G Sivakkumaran

''By poking fun at the serious issues, these websites get their message across. It is light-hearted and yet political at the same time. Satire is the best form of political commentary.'' 
Bob Ho, 26, researcher

'Our only agenda is to have a good rip-snorting laugh at anything
and everything Singaporean.'
BC,the editor of TalkingCock

WANT to talk cock?

No, we're not being rude. Crude, maybe - but then, the local creators of
talkingcock.com, who invite people to do just that on their website, are
not out to be politically or socially correct.

Dedicated to all things Singaporean with a decidedly satirical twist, they
take the mickey out of anything - including political issues.

Just take the cue from their irreverent pseudonyms: ''Big Cock'' and ''The
Hen of God''.

Political satire or humorous social commentary in Singapore may sound
like a mad contradiction, but believe it or not, www.talkingcock.com is
not alone.

BrownTown, at www.mrbrown. com, has long been a local legend among Netizens as a website that examines nuggets of Singaporean life in a wry, humorous fashion.

In fact, when site updates stopped appearing last year, it sparked off
widespread murmurs (including a recent thread on SinterCom) on what
had happened to ''mr. brown'', aka Lee Kim Mun, 31.

With their growing number of fans, both sites, it seems, have found a
formula uniquely different from sites with heavier socio-political messages, like SinterCom or Think Centre: How to put serious issues across with an irreverent twist.

Take TalkingCock. Its latest story is about scholars who have volunteered to chain themselves to long-range, remote-controlled bombs that can be activated by their employers if they break their bonds.

It has quotes from ''Chua Sah Kah'' and ''Ankat Bollah'', two scholars
who agreed with this. There is also a ''news in briefs'' announcing three
days' insemination leave for civil servants, and why some people find Fann Wong's book a heavy read.

BrownTown's top draw has been its ''alternative'' Singapore National
Education (SNE) series - with observations of local life that are downright hilarious, if somewhat dated, considering that it was last updated in April last year.

Gems include learning with mr.brown that ''the way to increase customer
satisfaction and higher usage of Public Transport is to charge more, make them go to work before 7.30 am to save 10 cents, and create more standing room in the MRT and Tibs buses''.

Or, ''...that the Nation's most-listened-to Radio Station...that has really
great traffic news, cannot be heard in CTE tunnels (but the rest of the
stations can).''

EASIER TO CHEW ON

IRREVERENT? Yes. Irrelevant? Maybe. Hilarious? It certainly is.

But is there more going on here than a simple ha-ha session?

SinterCom's editor Tan Chong Kee said he used to visit BrownTown
once or twice a week until Lee stopped updating it.

''I'd rather say that they are commenting on serious issues with wit and
humour.''

BC, the editor of TalkingCock who told Eyeball he prefers to stay
anonymous, says: ''We want to believe that Singaporeans are smart and
sophisticated enough to laugh at ourselves and our milieu. Too often, have we been painted as people who are thin-skinned and who lack a sense of humour.

''Basically, our only agenda is to have a rip-snorting laugh at anything and everything Singaporean.''

Laughter can be the best medicine, and also a medium for getting an
otherwise heavy message across.

''Humorous sites make the often complex political issues more easily
digestible,'' says marketing executive Mackie Ann Tan Eng, 22.

Morgan Chua, 51, who in his time as a cartoonist at the Singapore Herald was famous for his political satire, argues: ''I think Singaporeans are smart and mature enough to distinguish between what is fun and what is not.''

Are Singaporeans ready to appreciate this brand of dry humour?

Lee, or mr.brown, says the amount of e-mail he gets certainly shows they
are. But operations executive Ravi Menon, 25, thinks Singaporeans don't have a sense of humour - especially in the self-deprecating style these websites adopt.

The figures might argue differently: TalkingCock has had 6,528 hits in the one month since it began, while BrownTown has had almost 150,000
since September 1997.

The question for some may be whether authorities in Singapore are ready to accept it.

A line from TalkingCock.com asks in jest: ''Why is TalkingCock operating from the USA? You think they'll allow this kind of nonsense in Singapore for long?''

Lee thinks that the Government may not be ready for this kind of humour.
''But they know that they cannot censor everything,'' he says.

Samuel Leong, editor of his own local forum, says the sites bring in some much-needed humour.

''Satire and politics always go hand in hand. If the Government could
develop a sense of humour too, it would definitely make life in Singapore a lot more bearable.''

Humour and politics are a potent mix. To some, it may not be endearing.
But to others, as Lee terms it, it is a ''vent''.

Or, as executive H C Chan, 23, says, ''Call it chicken soup for the soul if
you want.''

There is no fowl play in that.

NOTE FROM THE EDITOR

Donno why also, but there seems to be a tendency by the press to paint us as a political satire site.

We wish to state categorically that we are NOT a political satire site.  

We are simply, a satire site.  Politics is just one of the many things we make fun of. 

Do people call The Onion or Mad Magazine political satire publications even though they, like us, also poke fun at politicians and politics? No, they're just simple satirists.

We suspect that we're basically a victim of the view that the expression of any alternative viewpoint is necessarily a political statement, regardless of how frivolous the treatment or subject. 

That may be so, especially in a fibre-deficient and kiasu society like Singapore, but only in the broadest theoretical terms.

We definitely do NOT have any particular social or political agenda except maybe that Singaporeans should relac one corner a bit more, try to respect alternative views and opinions more, and eat more fibre.

We certainly do not support any particular political party. (Although we are partial to the No Action Party.)

So, all you nice ISD people, please put away your microphones and night vision goggles and spend your time doing more important things like tend to your air-conditioners.

We are just totally boh liao. Clear?

Thanks.

--Big Cock
Editor in Chief