Quora Answer: Are Singaporeans Happy with the Extent of Freedom of Speech in Singapore?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Are Singaporeans happy with the extent to which freedom of speech is preserved in Singapore?”

What is there to be unhappy about?  A person can say or write whatever they want within the realms of civilised society.  There is the right to have an opinion, and the right to own’s own dignity, which means that the right to insult is balanced by the right of the one insulted to defend his integrity.  It is no different from the rest of the world.  Of course, I understand that there are Singaporeans who are unhappy, and they complain.  But they fail to see the irony that their constant complaints are, in themselves, examples of freedom of speech.

We have to be cognisant of the fact that freedom of speech must be balanced with the rights of others.  Unfettered freedom of speech does not benefit society.  Hate speech and slander should not be given free rein under the umbrella of freedom of speech.  Consider, for example, the American experience, where politicians, primarily of the current incarnation of the Republican Party, giving statements denigrating ethnic groups, world religions, and advocating violence and segregation.  And we have music artistes putting out songs filled with violence, misogyny, and racism.  Those would be unacceptable to our values.

In Singapore, there is that added emphasis on communal sensitivities, so it is against the law to insult another ethnicity or religion simply on the basis of prejudice.  For example, disagreeing with Muslims on certain issues is acceptable.  Claiming all Muslims are terrorists is against the law.  This works for other religions as well, and Singapore has banned hate preachers such as Ismail bin Musa Menk, and Zakir Naik, for their attacks on other religions, and their call for segregation of the Muslims.  Christian preachers have been deported for denigrating Muslims and Buddhists. 

In the same vein, in regard to our experience with racial riots fifty years ago, we pay attention to racial sensitivities, and even though there may be missteps, there are efforts to address them.  We have only to look at Sri Lanka, where a once promising nation devolved into civil war between the Sinhalese majority, and Tamil minority, which has set the nation back decades, and caused untold hundreds of thousands of losses, both dead and injured.  Any police case involving racial provocation is given the highest priority.  We keep the peace by having absolutely no tolerance for any form of such exceptionalism.

Another reasonable limit to freedom of speech is slander, of which fake new is a major perpetrator.  Whilst we have the freedom of fair criticism, we do not have the freedom of character assassination by perpetuating falsehoods specifically to attack the character and integrity of people.  Again, we have to consider the American experience, where decades of extreme antipathy between the Democrats and the Republicans have left a nation divided along class lines, and a political class unable to engage in dialogue across the aisle, meaning legislation is often deadlocked due to partisanship.  This has trickled down to the electorate, such that it has fractured communities and families.

Accordingly, in Singapore, it is the right of freedom of speech, that a person could conceivably state, that he thinks this or that person, even the person of the President of Singapore, is an idiot, a lackwit, or an imbecile, and that is legitimate criticism.  A person could conceivably state that you dislike his or her hairstyle, dressing or even the way he or she speaks; and this would be petty, but legitimate criticism.  However, should there be an allegation of impropriety, corruption, or ethical misbehavior, that is an attack on their integrity.  This will invite legal action, and severe repercussions.  Such allegations should be accompanied with proof.

Consider how it is across the Causeway, in Malaysia, with its ethnic-based political parties, and religious prejudice between various groups.  Singapore cannot afford that level of schism, and chaos.  In light of this, the average Singaporean has little reason to fault our freedom of speech.  Freedom of speech should always be balanced with responsibility of speech.  You can say whatever you want, as long as you are able to back it up.