Quora Answer: Why is Singapore Actually Freer than Malaysia, although Some Rate Malaysia Higher?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Why is Singapore actually freer than Malaysia, although organisations rate Malaysia higher?” 

That really depends on how you define “free”.  From a Singapore perspective, we emphasise responsible speech over freedom of speech.  This concept of absolute freedom belongs to a society that emphasises the needs of the individual over the needs of society.  Singapore is in Asia, where the needs of society, the collective, is more important. 

Consider press freedom.  In Singapore, the press have to be accredited.  The government or any private individual reserves the right to correct stories about them.  Allegations have to be proven.  Any form of race-baiting, religious scapegoating, and dig whistles common in the Western press, or even in Malaysia, is against the law.  In the name of press freedom, Malaysian journalists have written articles against minorities, and Malaysian politicians have openly spouted racist ideas.  If that is freedom of speech and the press, we do not need that. 

Singapore has a high threshold for claims of damages in libel and slander.  This means people cannot use that as a means to shut down criticism.  Any such legal claim must prove that there is a loss of income and reputation.  This seems counter-intuitive when there are more than enough reports of our own politicians suing individuals and organisations for that same thing.  But that can be argued to be in the public interest.  By all means criticise the establishment, but have facts and proof, not allegations.  We cannot have people writing whatever comes to their mind, and feeding conspiracy theories.  Something like the Q-Anon conspiracy and its consequences in the United States is not going to happen here.  Those groups and message boards would have been shut down a long time ago. 

Consider the so-called repression of political parties.  Singapore has, at last count, over a dozen registered political parties.  Most of them are only active closer to the General Elections.  There are strict rules on who can stand for election.  This precludes a situation such as Malaysia or even India, where politicians have pending court cases or convicted criminals.  Political parties may not advance allegations of corruption or any form of misbehaviour without proof, which impinges on the integrity of the government.  That is reasonable.  Why should we devolve to the gutter politics and populism of places like the United Kingdom.  Just over 50% of the population voted for Brexit, against their own interests.  In Singapore, politicians with such an obvious conflict of interest and lack of integrity would not even be allowed close to the ballot box. 

Malaysia and elsewhere, elected representatives of Parliament can freely jump parties.  This means that people elected on one mandate are free to abandon it for self-interest.  This renders the people’s choice moot.  It also feeds a culture of voting for individuals as opposed to ideas and policies.  In the Philippines, people voted for Joseph Ejercito Estrada because he was a local celebrity.  He turned out to be an inept kleptocrat.  In Malaysia, politicians regularly jump from one party to another.  This means any government must spend time making deals to serve the interests of these people, not the actual electorate.  In Singapore, any elected official who leaves a party immediately relinquishes his seat in Parliament. 

This is what I think freedom is.  Singapore is largely free of corruption.  We have no lobbying, unlike the United States, where people can buy legislation.  Singapore has a responsible press climate.  Our local press is colourless, and obvious cheerleaders of the establishment, but even they know they have limits because we have access to news from all over the world.  Singapore is largely free of crime.  You could go out in the wee hours of the morning alone, and nothing is likely to happen to you.  Singapore is free of abject poverty, major disenfranchisement, or institutionalised homelessness.  Those are the freedoms that matter.