A Non-Political (Disorganised) Rant

My latest obsession is The Daily Show (after mrbrown linked to a couple of Jon Stewart videos) because it is funny, and clever, and because Jon Stewart is funny and well, clever.

And as you know I kinda have a thing for funny and clever guys. Although both he and Greg Proops scare me a bit because of their poise and spontaniety and strong opinions.

But no, ok, so here is the thing - we are never going to have something like The Daily Show in Singapore, are we?

Today was probably the first time in my life that I had "political talk" at the dinner table. So this is my question: why can't we poke fun at the things politicians do/say?

The Madhatters didn't make fun of politicians during last month's "political" show because they didn't want to go to jail.

Why should it be that way?

Why should making people laugh be diminishing your authority? Authority is given to you, you have the power to pass policies, or make laws, or whatever. And if what you do with that power is funny, why can't we talk about it in satire and in parody and laugh at it?

I'm thinking if you were to lose respect, it would be because of something stupid you did/said, and not because people made fun of the something stupid you did/said. We laugh at our friends all the time, does that mean we love them any less?

Now if we were to laugh at the opposition would it be more okay?

Perhaps that happens more because some opposition members get themselves into rather ridiculous dramas. Jon Stewart said once in an interview that the comedic material comes from the absurdity of the administration. So if we think some politician/policy is absurd or strange or ironic, why should we not be allowed to poke fun at him/her/it?

Is it because the media is... dare I say, dangerous? Especially new media? Personally I think mrbrown and mrmiyagi have done very well in their series of persistantly non-political podcasts, which have gotten more and more hilarious. I also think we need to learn how to not be afraid of laughing more.

I think we're just playing safe. And I'm sad because I think safe is boring. Just like local television.

Maybe it's just my belief - I believe people should always be allowed to judge for themselves what is good for them and what they enjoy. That's mean we shouldn't take away Singlish from TV because people aren't speaking good English (if they can't learn good English in school why should they think it's a good idea to pick up the language from a comedy show?), we shouldn't ban political blogging/podcasting because ... I don't even know why persistantly political content was banned.

Why should we stop people from saying what they want to say? If people want to listen to it, why do we stop them from listening? If people are offended by it, why are they still listening? It's like the "don't read my blog if you hate it so much" thing; why do some people force their views on people? It doesn't work. No one can force anyone to think anything they don't want to think.*

... well, salespeople come close.

*breath*

Is the reason we don't have such a programme like The Daily Show: a) a lack of really clever charming charismatic comedians, b) Mediacorp's too scared to pull something like that, c) no market for local political comedy, d) nothing to poke fun at, or e) no one's come up with such a concept around here?

What if I did something like that for Multicam? Will the government be watching? Did I just make a pun?

And why should the mrbrown podcast constantly have to say that they are persistantly non-political? Why can't we have open satire, and parody, and views, and not make me add this disclaimer: this is not persistantly political, I am just asking why, I don't want to go to jail, prison got no broadband?


*When people are brainwashed and... propagansa-ised they I think they do believe in what they are led to believe. People believe things because they think it's good for them. No one can make someone a rebel if he doesn't want to be one either.