This page would like to congratulate the government of Singapore for taking prompt action to rein in the so-called blogger and newspaper columnist Mr. Brown following his recent column in Today. As someone who lives in China, I have come to appreciate the dangers of heterodox political thought, and see the wisdom of nipping it in the bud less it blossom into the pernicious weed of dissent.

Some may argue with MICA Press Secretary K Bhavani's relentless criticism of Mr. Brown. Their arguments are not worth contemplating. As we know from the shining example of the People's Daily, a state-owned newspaper has a clear fiduciary obligation to limit political discourse to the boundaries circumscribed by its shareholder. What some agitators may scandalously label "groupthink", more correct thinkers will recognize as desirable alignment of media and public policy agendas. Any action other than immediately banishing Mr. Brown from print would be a breach of the newspaper's obligation to preserve social harmony by safeguarding accepted policy against improper public mockery.

Others may take issue with the correct judgment that the column was "polemic dressed up as analysis". They suggest that there is a role for satire in criticism of government, and for editorial that pricks the self importance of the political class. Again, this is dangerous nonsense and it should be dismissed out of hand. Public officials cannot be expected to function productively if they are forced to endure constant satirization and their policies subject to unseemly ridicule by complainers. It is right not to be sanguine about even a single column. Such seemingly humble beginnings could, if ignored, give rise to a veritable flood of pamphleteering, sketch comedy and even political cartooning. A young and immature electorate such as Singapore's cannot be expected to withstand a torrent of garish caricature in which elected leaders are depicted with funny noses, obscenely waggling eyebrows and unrealistically enlarged heads. At worst, some people may come to believe that is what their elected politicians actually look like. Furthermore, such improper commentary may dissuade talented people with fragile egos from public service. This is a sacrifice that a talent-deprived nation such as Singapore, where only about 2000 people are worthy of public office, can ill afford.

This space would also like to congratulate the MICA press secretary, who is also president of the Institute of Public Relations of Singapore, on keen public relations insight. Unschooled observers should not be fooled into thinking that an apparently disproportionate response to a satirical newspaper column may reflect poorly on Singapore by suggesting a regressive approach to media controls and public speech. Quite the opposite. It sends a powerful, international message by demonstrating the city-state's iron resolve to enshrine only the highest, government-sanctioned standards for public discourse. This is exactly the sort of leadership that an aspiring regional "media hub" needs to demonstrate. Singapore must attract creativity and talent, but only when it is moderated by correct political thought. For example, the situation comedy that appears "funny" at first glance may, in fact, be undermining social values. In such situations, bland mediocrity is ideal. The safe chuckle of mild amusement will always be preferable to the licentious guffaw of dangerous, irreverent comedy.

The newspaper's dismissal of the satirist Mr. Brown immediately following Ms Bhavani's strongly worded and highly visible public statement is, in fact, a public communications coup. It does not, as the conspiratorially-minded may think, suggest undue government influence over editorial decision making. Rather, it simply shows the energy and commitment with which Singapore's media responds to the government's mandate to ensure the highest journalistic standards. Those malcontents who argue that better results might have been achieved by a discreet, private conversation with Mr. Brown or Today's editors misapprehend the priorities involved. What is important is not to guide one commentator onto a correct path, but to ensure that the black gang of other so-called "satirists" waiting to pen solution-free polemics are reminded that there is no place for them in the mainstream media.

This is not to say that satirists are disenfranchised, however. Ms. Bhavani magnanimously establishes different standards for bloggers and mainstream newspapers. She writes, "[Opinions] which are widely circulated in a regular column in a serious newspaper should meet higher standards. Instead of a diatribe mr brown should offer constructive criticism and alternatives...It is not the role of journalists or newspapers in Singapore to champion issues, or campaign for or against the Government." This is quite correct. Proud newspapers have no role to play in political advocacy, which would debase them into wicked, yellow pamphlets. One has only to look at the disorderly United States of America, where the electorate is in a constant state of paralyzed confusion and cynical despondency due to the opposing advocacy positions of several major newspapers, to see the folly of such an approach. People should be free to form their own opinions without having to filter the partisan bias of unruly commentators. That is why this page suggests that Singapore's newspapers immediately ban all adjectives in political coverage in order to ensure that only dispassionately neutral reportage reaches the impressionable masses. To be safe, the government may also wish to consider banning adverbs, or at least licensing them only to individuals who have demonstrated that they can use them safely. It is not enough to restrict diatribes in name only. We must control access to the very tools used to fashion them.

We feel that it is unwise to suggest that Mr. Brown and his blogging clique might be tolerated in the mainstream media should they bring constructive suggestions rather than simply criticism. He should not be allowed to operate as the stalking horse for his black gang of highly opinionated wits. Ms. Bhavani has already correctly identified Mr. Brown as following an incorrect satirical-partisan-complainist line. Mr. Brown and his faction might well abuse the privilege of continued mainstream media to further mock civilized discourse by offering "constructive suggestions" in the form of calls for such patently unrealistic remedies as true multiparty government. Singaporean journalism, steadfast in its commitment to political neutrality, cannot brook such insult. If Singapore's mainstream media must dally with bloggers, far safer to dally with Xiaxue.