What do Singaporeans think of the latest regulation by the Singapore government that requires certain types of websites to apply for an annual license?

Most articles centre around the reasons for the regulation and its impact hereafter. But no one has written as clearly as Darkness in framing this move against a broader context. If you want to understand the issue better and how it affects your thinking and your life in a more direct, personal way than you could imagine, please read his writings. These moves are not meant to restrict criticism against the ruling party, as much as they are meant to shape people's thinking of the ruling party. 9 out of 10 on the list are already in the pocket of the ruling party. Even the remaining one is not the actual target of the move and neither are the anti-establishment websites as some may think. The aim of such moves is to have the power and means to define the thinking of Singaporeans according to what the establishment thinks should be printed, decides and wants to be printed. If you want a taste of it, just consider how no less than 3 ministers came out of the woodwork to propagate the idea that having a degree may not necessarily guarantee a good job. Why would they say that? How did they arrive at this conclusion? What led them to such a conclusion? Do you see a data-driven debate in Parliament that is derived from policy impact such as the percentage cap on tertiary level education and open-door immigration across all economic stratas? From policy studies of how existing/new trade-related industries may redevelop, transform or form vital parts of our economy and thereby nationhood and wellbeing as a society? Instead, we have very convenient soundbites that are tossed around, with no thinking expected and asked of. They simply want to ensure that online media will also play the faithful role that traditional mainstream media has played since readership is shifting away from the latter. Extend that a little more: In the past, Parliament sessions used to be broadcast in fuller durations on TV channels in the earlier decades. This enabled the old man to propagate his thinking and ideas to the masses. Now, Parliament sessions are much shorter and the messages massaged and packaged into very bite-sized comments. If the establishment were serious about developing thinking people, the Parliament sessions, among other things such as objective on-air policy debates would be promoted. Instead, we live in a world where licenses and bonds are required should a single writer or party be able to command the following and thinking of many people. As a final note, if you want to know a person or a group, you do not just hear from them only, as you would do well to hear from others. Including sources that are not beholden to them. Meanwhile, as news of this move makes its rounds around the world, laughter can be heard from readers and the ones behind this move are non-the-wiser. Quid pro quo to Anon "It provides the means and grounding...": If you know what they are capable of, that is not reported in the news and behind the scenes since 50 years ago until now, you would understand so very well why Anon stays anon. Updated as of 31 May 2013: Source: http://www.mrbrown.com/blog/2013/05/yaacob-wants-you-to-read-the-right-things.html

Yet another silly move that is making Singapore ever more backward in a time when it is clear that entrepreneurship is becoming the name of the game in the 21st century, and at a time when Singapore is sorely behind in establishing a healthy and vibrant startup community. Part of having such a healthy community involves, among many other things, taking down barriers, which the government is doing very little about. Singapore's 20th century techniques of government regulation built a nice, stable, clean, efficient, and affluent country in the midst of a chaotic Asia, but sooner or later it's time to get with the beat, or fall behind in the 21st century, which is a distinctly different game. Requiring entrepreneurs to go through unnecessary licence hurdles and put down such ridiculous sums is a nonsensical move and will only hurt the Singapore economy.

It provides the means and grounding in which the government could start taking legal actions against sites that it deems to be 'politically' incorrect. (I wonder if Quora would be affected if people starts discussing Singapore related stuff here though) Judging by the amount of anonymous answers here, I guess the government is doing a great job in preventing people from speaking out :P

I burned with anger to be honest but actually in the end, it works against them as it makes more people believe that things said on the internet, even the outrageous ones, must have some truth in them.