Most of them were making their maiden speeches in Parliament and some of these brainwaves were merely a condensed version of what they had said in the august chamber.

On our media legislation this is what MP Baey Yam Keng has to say. He puts it succinctly,

'As I read comments in the newspapers and compare them with those in blogs and online forums, I sometimes wonder if they are from two different populations talking about two different countries. I do not think that the reality is mostly positive like in the traditional media or like what the new media is portraying, mostly negative and critical. I believe that the real world is somewhere in between. We have to accept that it will be very difficult, in fact, impossible to monitor and rebut all negative online comments against the Government. We should also consider relaxing regulations on traditional media to allow people to vent grouses and frustrations, without always demanding for constructive suggestions. Singaporeans can then engage openly in meaningful, level-headed discussions without fear of prosecution... Thus I urge the Government to consider amendments to our media legislation so as to promote greater media freedom.'

The Government, in trying to win the hearts and minds of the next generation, should and ought to give an ear to the voice of our young MPs who represent the mouthpiece of the new cohort of voters.

While the American brand of 'freedom of the press' means a free-for-all with no holds barred and our squeakily clean and antiseptic version of press freedom are two extremes, what our young MPs are advocating is a more moderate version of press freedom.

In the US, the government may not prevent the publication of a newspaper, even when there is reason to believe that it is about to reveal information that will endanger its national security. By the same token, the government cannot:

>>pass a law that requires newspapers to publish information against their will.

>>impose criminal penalties, or civil damages, on the publication of truthful information about a matter of public concern or even on the dissemination of false and damaging information about a public person.

>>impose taxes on the press that it does not levy on other businesses.

>>compel journalists to reveal the identities of their sources.

>>prohibit the press from attending judicial proceedings and thereafter informing the public about them.

Collectively, this bundle of rights, largely developed by the US Supreme Court decisions, defines the 'freedom of the press' guaranteed by the First Amendment.

In the case of Bartnicki v Vopper (2001), the court held that even when a statute is directed at deterring unlawful conduct (for example, the interception of telephone conversations) and not at penalising the content of press reports, it nevertheless constitutes a naked prohibition on the dissemination of information by the press that is in violation of the First Amendment. In so holding, the court ushered in a new era of the principle - the fundamental right of a free press to disseminate truthful information about public matters.

The Internet is the bane of all dictatorial regimes but even in democracies, new anti-terrorism laws have tightened government control of it and undermined the principle of protecting journalistic sources.

The Internet is one of the most powerful agents of press freedom. It exposes truth to those who wish to see and hear it. It is no wonder that some governments and big corporations fear the Internet and its ability to broadcast the truth. It is vital that citizens have the freedom to hear, to read and to see.

If our mass media were to gain more credibility then there should be more room for dissenting and/or alternative voices, otherwise bloggers would just use the Internet to add falsehood and half-truths to their online output and fill their blogsites with more fiction rather than facts.

The blogsite of our post-65 MPs is a step in the right direction.

Heng Cho Choon