Regulation of political commentary on the Internet in Singapore

As Singapore is the so called "democratic country", free-will speaking is supposed to be allowed on the internet. In real life, people start speaking up at the speaker's corner, however, on the internet, political commentaries are widely known by the web surfers, as they serve as a channel for humour, or a channel for people to unleash their hatred for a particular minister.
As for Mr Brown, he attempts to inject humour into the events that happens that happens in Singapore. To prevent any offence that is sparked by the pod cast, he takes precautions by changing the names of the key personel of the events. For example Mas. The issue of freedom of speech in democratic countries is not as expected. With the freedom of speech, everyone should be given the same rights to comment, however whats the point of MR Brown not revealing the names of the people in the commentaries. This links back to the Questions of the regulation of politicl commentary in Singapore. Is it suppose to be allowed or banned? This questions lies in the depiction of SIngapore as a democratic country.
As shown in the blog, talking cock(a stronger political commentary as compared to Mr Brown), they first put up a page cautioning people of the nation, that the contents of the commentary posted on their web is fictional, not political, strong languages used and it written in free-expression. Is it just contradicting that, Singapore as a "democratic" country, does not allow people to speak freely, or is it just that Singapore's government had became autocratic.
The first caution stated on the cover page of the web, informs the readers that all the contents are fictional. Is this caution, just to ensure that this democratic country do not arrest people for posting their personal opinions of the state(which might sometime lead to flaming) on the web? Its just so ironic, a democratic country, not allowing free-will of speech.
The next caution is to inform people that the web is not political. This caution undermines the common sense of the readers or does it just ward off the moderators of the internet? It might seem politically wrong, but after all this is still a democratic country, its again back to the topic of freedom of speech.
The next 2 caution would be the use of strong language and free-expression. Its normal for them to caution the use of strong languages as its not beneficial to many children. However, like what is stated in the argument for the first caution, why does a democratic states forbids people to have free-will of speech?
The appearance just makes it look so ridiculous, stopping people from having the freedom of speech, when Singapore aims to be a democratic country, where we make our "own" decision.
Is it "own" or "their"?
Therefore, I think that as a democratic nation , Singaporeans should be allowed to give their personal opinions of the particular events openly in the public and not need to hide behind a facade, faking through all the flaming directed.