Freedom of speech far from top of Singaporeans' list
Four days after the death of Singapore’s founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew, a YouTube video of a teenager began to circulate on social media. Curly-haired and bespectacled, the American-accented boy criticised both Lee and Christianity.
“They are both power-hungry and malicious but deceive others into thinking they are both compassionate and kind,” 16-year-old Amos Yee declared of Lee and Jesus Christ.
He later posted a blog entry with an explicit drawing of Lee and former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher.
Published during a time of national mourning, the video triggered a storm of outrage, with at least 20 police reports lodged in complaint. Yee was arrested on March 29 - the day of Lee’s state
funeral - and convicted May 12 on charges of making offensive remarks against a religion and for circulating obscene content. He is scheduled to be sentenced on June 2.
Yee’s case has been highly controversial in the city-state. While many say he should be punished for his attempt to sow discord among Singapore’s various religious groups, others insist that he was merely exercising his right to free speech.
It is a debate that has been rehashed now and again as Singaporeans take to the Internet to express their views, making media content more difficult for the state to regulate than before. How should one balance the needs of social cohesion with that of individual free expression?
Overseas observers and local free speech advocates may condemn the repressive attitude on both free speech and press freedom - Singapore ranks 153 in the Press Freedom Index, below both Myanmar and Russia - but the government has long been unapologetic about its stance.
“Racial and religious harmony is a ‘good’ that to be realised requires some restriction on another ‘good’ - freedom of speech. We do not apologise for this. It is a necessary condition for the preservation of the other good - social harmony,” said Bilahari Kausikan, ambassador-at-large at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
“Different societies and governments may make different calculations based on their specific circumstances, but this is ours.”
Singaporeans approached by dpa tended to agree with Kausikan’s view, although many preferred to remain anonymous.
“Free speech is okay, as long as you don’t hurt or offend anyone. If you offend people, then it's not a good thing,” a 70-year-old retiree said.
Trade-off between stability and one’s rights
“While many educated individuals stand by the need to protect one’s right to the freedom of expression, the rhetoric of curbing one’s freedom of expression for the sake of religious and racial harmony seems to be accepted by many Singaporeans, as a trade-off between national stability over one’s rights,” said Terry Xu, an editor of socio-political blog The Online Citizen .
Comparisons with other parts of the world have also led to freedom of speech being seen as a Western ideal, either foreign to or incompatible with Singapore’s needs.
Sebastian Song, a 42-year-old marketing manager, says he is concerned about free speech, but is not confident that his compatriots share his perspective.
“I think Singaporeans don’t comprehend what free speech is.”
Others say that life in a stressful, fast-paced city like Singapore brings more pressing concerns.
“I don’t really care about freedom of speech. I care more about the income gap, cost of living and safety, because I’m directly affected by these issues. I worry about whether I’m able to make a living in the career I want because it’s a lowly paid job,” said a 27-year-old waiter who requested anonymity.
“As long as most Singaporeans feel that the government is generally responsive to their needs, they are unlikely to demand freedom as energetically as other countries’ citizens do,” said Cherian George, a Singaporean who is associate professor in journalism at Hong Kong Baptist University.
Restrictions on freedom of speech might not trouble most citizens, but the government's efforts to maintain social harmony through the outlawing of offensive speech could eventually prove to be counter-productive.
“Because racial and religious offence is so subjective, and because the authorities don’t want to be seen as taking communities’ feelings lightly, there is a tendency to pursue petty cases that don’t really threaten public order,” George said.
“This can cause a race to the bottom, with different groups acting more and more sensitive, knowing that the law will side with them if they say they are offended. You end up with a culture of intolerance.”
- dpa
For more news and views that matter, subscribe and support independent media for only RM0.36 sen a day:
Subscribe now