The author has identified himself as "An Anonymous, Opinionated, All-Powerful Warrior Who, Because of His Endurance And Inflexible Will To Win, Goes From Conquest To Conquest, Leaving Fire In His Wake, And Who Is Also a Local With A Very Cantonese Name That Starts With The Letter L, Just So You Know".

AFTER 229 PAGES of rumination, the superfluously-named Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (or AIMS, as they insist) have turned in a list of recommendations to the government.

Broadly, the group recommend: relaxing laws on Internet election advertising; the repeal of legislation outlawing so-called "party political films"; establishing an "independent advisory panel" to determine which films can be banned because they contravene the "public interest"; and to lift a ban on 100 "undesirable" websites. Most interestingly, the group recommend "limited immunity" for "civil and criminal liaibility" for defamation in online media, which reflects a growing confidence in the limitations of online grouses.

In the background of deplorable media restrictions, AIMS' recommendations are sound, surprising and welcome. Even the manner it has been put together is (for Singapore) novel and beyond reproach, with a number of prominent bloggers and some of the country's more level-headed thinkers consulted for input. A perhaps bigger surprise is that the panel is chaired by Cheong Yip Seng, who used to call the shots at the Straits Times, a newspaper which may not be the People's Daily, but is not a world different either.

Cynics will be rightly sceptical about how many of these recommendations will become word of law. But there are several signs that bode well. In particular, Mr Cheong's involvement is telling - his insider status will soften the more hardline opinions. The former journalist Cherian George describes his former boss at SPH as a "master of the art of the possible".

A bigger reason why the recommendations are likely to become reality has much to do with the Internet's limitations. Despite the hype and "potential", the Internet has not changed the complexion of local politics as much as some people hope. Even excluding the media restrictions, there already are more than enough restrictions in the system to curb enthusiasm for the cut and thrust of politics. In any case, with only two opposition seats in a parliament of 84, there should be room to experiment with these ideas. There is little risk, some political capital and considerable goodwill to be had from easing online media regulations.

Let the heathens spill theirs on the dusty ground

Let the heathens spill theirs on the dusty ground
Lord will make them pay for each sperm that can't be found

For the vast majority of Singapore's internet denizens - the male ones, anyway - the most interesting proposal is the one to unban 100 "undesirable" websites, mostly pornographic. It is practically impossible to provide a virtual shield to pornography. There are far too many resources, far too many opportunities for the expression of the onanic arts. And there are even more lonely adolescents with a spare hand or two. (Probably just one in this day and age.)

But why block pornography at all? The AIMS panel is only for unbanning the websites after a "holistic" media literacy package for minors, which is a typically harebrained (and Singaporean) thing to say. The government did not interfere with the sexual feelings of the teenagers of the 70s - and they have less reason to do the same today. As long as it is legal and harmless, it is not the government's business - and nor should the government dictate what constitutes "undesirable".

Pornography might be artificial, unsubtle and foster a less than savoury attitude towards women, but the blocked 100 websites have not suddenly created a generation of rapists and perverts in the world, never mind the other 300-odd million of them. On the other hand, using a national firewall to block off some universally condemned smut, such as child pornography, will only arouse unwanted curiosity.

Unfortunately the AIMS panel does not go further in asking where the government stops and the parents start. Parents have a duty to explain to their children the right attitudes about sex in as much as they have a duty to tell their children to look both ways before crossing the road. The Internet has changed the world in many ways with its (now usually) wireless magic. But it is surely a road too far to use it as an excuse to defer one's duties as a parent.

Let the pagans spill theirs o'er mountain, hill and plain
God shall strike them down for each sperm that's spilled in vain