So here's more about the seditious bloggers.
One of Mr Wang's faithful readers, Singapore Classics, agreed wholeheartedly that hate speech is bad, bad, bad. But he went to ask whether this badness really necessitated the use of the strong arm of the law at all. "Why resort to the law?", he said.
Conceivably, Mr Wang could answer the question with a mini-essay on how freedom of speech is never absolute and always has to come with limits etc. But then you readers already know all that, don't you? So Mr Wang will offer you a different kind of answer. Which gives you an idea of how this case probably proceeded.
1. Someone made a police report about these bloggers.
2. When the police receive a report, they have to investigate. That's their job.
3. When they finish investigating, they have to tell the prosecution. That's their job.
4. When the prosecution is told, it has to decide whether a crime has been committed (a pure legal exercise). That's their job.
5. If the prosecution decides that a crime has been committed, it has to decide what to do next (Drop completely? Ask police to issue warning? Proceed to charge? If so, what kind of charge?). That's their job.
In the present case, the relevant DPP (or DPPs) decided to proceed to charge.
Singapore Classics asked, "Why resort to the law?". The answer is that the DPP is first and foremost a legal creature. His powers reside within the criminal legal justice system. The matter has come to him, he needs to deal with it (that's his job), and he only has the powers to deal with it in the criminal legal justice way.
The DPP isn't the SBA, or a religious leader, or an ISP, or Blogger, or the forum webhost, or the Presidential Council on Minority Rights. Those institutions would have their own ways of dealing with the situation.
The DPP has only the DPP ways of dealing with the situation. And the DPP ways of dealing with this situation are either to charge, or not to charge.
DPPs themselves are a bunch of people with differing views. Given the same case, one DPP may decide to proceed; another DPP may not. Individual views and opinions do play a role. There ARE mechanisms within the Attorney-General's Chambers which seek to prevent individual DPPs' peculiar idiosyncrasies from playing an unduly large role. But by and large, individual DPPs' views and opinions do play a significant role.
In this case, the file most likely would have come to AGC together with 50 other files. All in a routine day's work. The files would have been randomly assigned to DPPs. The sedition case file came to a particular DPP, who studied it and then decided to proceed.
In unusual cases (this sedition case perhaps qualifies, because of the rarity), the decision may be examined at higher levels. It may, for example, be escalated to senior management, or all the way to the Attorney-General/Public Prosecutor himself. However, even the AG/PP himself is just a legal institution. Ultimately he has no non-legal type of measures to utilise. In the end, he either has to proceed to charge, or not. He can't say, "Let's forget about the criminal aspects and just order the bloggers to attend compulsory National Education class for three months." The AG/PP has no such powers.
Right now, the DPP knows everything about the case. He has the police file. He has full details of the investigation results. He knows exactly what those bloggers have written. He probably even knows what is residing in the bloggers' hard disks (most likely, the police would have seized the computers during the investigation). Knowing all this, the DPP decided to proceed.
It may or may not be the best decision (we wouldn't know, and in the end it may be quite subjective anyway). But the DPP did have all the facts he needed to help him in his decision-making process (whereas we simply don't know the facts - yet).
So let's wait and see.