Basket.

In the news today: snobbish elitist bitch lacking education in proper punctuation posts angry rant responding to middle-aged white-collar worker's very real concern about the future of Singapore and the ability of the government to look after its citizens; as a result, said bitch's identity is published in Straits Times, said bitch is reprimanded by father, a Member of Parliament, receives counselling from school (which happens to be my alma mater; just as she asks why all the idiots have her surname, I must ask why all the idiots must come from my alma mater) and is forced to take down entire personal weblog.

So - whose side am I actually on?

Honestly speaking, what she said might have been naive, ignorant, insensitive and blatantly insulting, but if the powers that be continue to crush dissent in this manner, they cannot expect to have a vibrant, creative, open civil society.

After posting the above rant, she was subjected to personal attacks by hundreds of users over the Internet. Her views, motives, personality, education and even family connections were dissected and discussed and she was subject to much verbiage from all quarters. That in itself should have been punishment enough. There was absolutely no need for her school to intervene and for the entire affair to be published in the news media - or for her identity to be made public in the papers. An unnecesssary hassle for all, and an intrusion into her privacy and that of her family's.

What we should not forget is that she posted it on her own personal weblog - and though the argument goes that there ought not to be complete freedom of speech on the Internet (something I agree with absolutely), it was a personal reaction to another person's opinion. To avoid being sued for libel she could have put it in a less... colourful manner, but in essence that was what she felt. If one makes an opinion publicly, one should be prepared to be attacked for it, because there will be someone out there who disagrees with you and is not afraid to say so. If we stifle dissenting opinions, how is there going to be the "marketplace of ideas" the government so fervently wishes for?

Essentially she was crucified for expressing her personal opinion - something authority figures in Singapore have a disturbing tendency of doing. From the earlier flutter over students blogging undesirable comments on their teachers, to a certain-government-agency-which-I-shall-not-name's tendency to threaten lawsuits, to the MINDEF directive on blogging, systematic moves have been made by the powers that be to curb free expression of ideas and opinions. The government says it wants debate; if this keeps on it can only move further and further in the opposite direction.

For us to truly develop as a modern cvil society, we must ditch this mindset of suing the pants off every single joker who so much as looks us the wrong way. Accept that we are flawed, recognise that feedback cannot always be sterile and squeaky-clean and learn to laugh at ourselves a bit. While the First Amendment enshrines this attitude in the United States, Singapore continues to be bound by some of the strictest libel laws in the world; a fact completely incongruous with the government's stand that debate is good.

Let people say what they think; then let people who disagree punish them for their naivety. Or was it simply a slow news day?

Interestingly, her father expressed in the newspapers that he agreed with her stand. It seems that the bitch will never get out of her ivory tower now. Then again, such are the people who rule us and will rule us for once and the future.