To what extent should freedom of speech be allowed in the media?
Liberal democracies such as Britain or the US are based on the principle of popular sovereignty - the government does what the people want them to do. The US Constitution does, after all, begin with the words "We the People of the United States ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The media in these countries, especially since the advent of radio, television and the internet, has been the most powerful voice of the people, bending the government to the will of the people and ensuring that they never stray too far from the sovereignty of "We the People." The media must never be trodden on and forced to write what the government wants, because it is believed that such a phenomenon means you have (or are nearing) a dictatorship, and very bad things are likely to follow shortly after. The media is really the only way to know what is going on (and wrong, although they always make it seem worse than it is) with the world.
On the other hand, though the freedom of speech in Singapore has been improved a bit in recent times, it is still far from that of the abovementioned countries. In Singapore, freedom of speech has never been encouraged openly, though not the extent of the authoritative hand reminiscent of the communist North Korea. Though the Singapore's jurisdiction provides formal legal guarantee of freedom of speech to the citizens, it is not well implemented. Singapore government never encouraged the freedom of speech. People are not allowed to discuss political matters freely or lightly and even the media faces this repression, due to the implementation of the Internal Security Act and the Official Secrets Act.
However, since the invention of the internet, suppression of the media has become all but impossible in most of the world. Unfortunately Google China was forced to censor material recently, but nevertheless there is no way it can manage to prevent...