Political spoofs: Seriously, we need more good laughs
The Straits Times, 2 June 2006
 
 
NOW that the bak chor mee man is back in the news, I would like to speak up for
this delicious piece of political satire and for good humour in general, and
why we seriously need more servings of both.
 
   But first, here is a tidbit on the responses to the infamous podcast which,
I trust, will make some of you smile.
 
   Apparently, among the tens of thousands of people who heard the podcast were
some who had absolutely no idea it was a spoof of opposition candidate James
Gomez's election form fiasco.
 
   Despite this, they still managed to find it hilarious.
 
   When I first came across this piece of information, I found it almost too
bizarre to believe but now realise that it is also too strange not to be true.
 
   Two days ago, Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts Lee Boon
Yang revealed that he, too, had heard - in creator mr brown's words - the
'persistently non-political podcast', and enjoyed it.
 
   Dr Lee said this even as he defended the Government's 'cautious approach' in
banning the use of video and audio feeds for the purpose of political
advertisement during the recent general election. But he promised a 'lighter
touch approach' towards new media at the next polls.
 
   He also restated the Government's longstanding concern that too much
political humour and satire would reduce elections and the selection of leaders
to laughing matters.
 
   This stand is vaguely troubling.
 
   Does it mean that if an issue is serious, one cannot and should not laugh
about it?
 
   But not all humour trivialises its subject.
 
   Last week, I watched a film called Paradise Now, on Palestinian suicide
bombers.
 
   It would be difficult to imagine a subject more tragic and serious than the
focus of this film. Yet, one of its most memorable scenes was also its
funniest.
 
   As they prepared to carry out a suicide attack in Tel Aviv to protest
against an Israeli raid on Palestinian fighters, two young men each took turns
to stand before a video camera to record their last words to family and
society.
 
   The first of the two put his all into his speech, only to have his friend
behind the camera tell him drily: 'Stop, stop, stop, the camera is not
working.'
 
   After the technical hitch happened a second time, the handful of supporters
watching the taping became so bored they started chomping away at their lunch
of pita bread.
 
   The scene is funny not because it trivialises the young man's fate, but
because it shows up the incongruity of certain situations in our lives.
 
   By learning to laugh at these situations, we also learn to recognise the
larger meaning behind them.
 
   Humour can also present a new perspective on an issue, one that we ourselves
may not have seen before.
 
   And it is a far less confrontational way to present a differing point of
view than an out-and-out rebuttal of another's stand.
 
   This was what the bak chor mee podcast succeeded in doing.
 
   Obviously, not everyone agreed with the Government's response to the Gomez
episode but local blogger mr brown, aka Lee Kin Mun, presented this alternative
point of view in so clever a fashion it drew laughs even from a minister.
 
   Will fewer Internet regulations allow more such political humour and,
therefore, lead to more Singaporeans taking elections less seriously than they
should?
 
   I doubt so.
 
   The first point to consider is that political satire is difficult to do; the
vast majority of netizens will probably not even attempt it.
 
   Secondly, most Singaporeans can and do draw a distinction between the sound
and fury of campaign season and who they want as their Member of Parliament
over the next five years.
 
   With or without the Internet, opposition rallies have always been big draws
because most people find them more entertaining than the People's Action Party
ones. Even the Prime Minister acknowledged that his son had said as much.
 
   But obviously, most voters do not cast their ballots based on which party
they find more entertaining, since the PAP still commands an overwhelming
majority in Parliament.
 
   There are also people who do not invest much serious thought into deciding
who to vote for. They choose according to their mood come Polling Day, or on a
whim.
 
   They are not a new phenomenon and they are hardly likely to be the ones to
follow Internet discussions on politics or have a taste for satire, although
they may overlap with those who heard the bak chor mee podcast and laughed,
without realising what it was spoofing.
 
   So I think the Government can well afford to ease up on controls over online
political discussions.
 
   I hope that the result will be more good laughs for all of us, seriously.