~by: Ghui~

Freedom of press and freedom of speech are the hallmarks of democracy. Singapore’s current position in the Press Freedom Index would therefore seem to indicate that Singapore is somewhat lacking in a key component of democracy.

Of course, Singapore is a young country and any new nation needs time to come into its own but is it enough to hide behind the guise of being a young nation? Is it sufficient to cite the oft quoted phrase “Asian values” as a reason to curb the press or free speech?

I do not deny that there can never be total freedom to say whatever one wants on a practical level. There are public policy considerations such as racial harmony or terrorism to consider. However, what falls under the umbrella of “public policy considerations”?

Recently, the Temasek Review Emeritus (“TRE”) has come under fire for alleged defamatory comments on its website. These offending remarks were apparently left by an over zealous reader of TRE.

I can understand why PM Lee is concerned by the unsubstantiated jibes and feels the need to vindicate himself. I fully believe that he has every right to publicly state that the comments on TRE are baseless and false. PM Lee is also completely justified in wanting to clear his name but are the measures he has taken entirely effective? Will the actions taken bridge the growing divide between the rulers and the ruled or do they only serve to further the rift between Singaporeans and the perceived ruling elite?

Are TRE’s transgressions potentially lawsuit worthy? I would think not. Such draconian measures should only be reserved for something that can threaten the security of Singapore of which this is not. There is after all a difference between one man’s reputation and a country’s foundation.

Post GE 2011, PM Lee promised a “lighter touch” on internet regulation. I had interpreted this to mean more engagement with the alternative media. I had thought that this would translate to more open dialogue in response to criticism and questions on the part of the government. I had also imagined that this would mean an end to lawyer’s letters and threatened law suits. This does not mean that members of the government should take to accepting all manner of insults but it does mean that it can tackle perceived criticism head on through discourse rather than resorting to “fear tactics”.

Take MP Baey Yam Keng for instance. Despite some rather rude postings on his Facebook page, he made the effort to defend himself by explaining his side of the story (see HERE). By so doing, he created dialogue and I have no doubt that this will win him some support.

For any government to be effective, there has to be productive communication. Genuine communication is built upon a relationship of mutual trust and respect and such trust and respect can never be fostered through fear. Fear is but a short term measure. Authentic authority is inspired by respect and I believe that it is possible for the PAP to earn that if more of its members follow Baey’s shining example.

It is possible maintain one’s reputation and defend untrue allegations without infringing on a free press or free speech. One can accept that others have a point of view without acknowledging the truth of that view.

As Evelyn Beatrice Hall once wrote: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" 

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

本地患者体内惊现变种病毒 专家:无证据表明病毒传播和毒性更强

在本地冠病患者体内发现变种病毒,但传染病专家表示,当前仍未有足够证据,能证明变种病毒的传播力和毒性更强。 自冠状病毒19疫情爆发以来,基因学家已不断将致病的冠状病毒 SARS-CoV-2 基因组排序,从而了解病毒传播机制。 据《立场新闻》报导,SARS-CoV-2 基因组平均每个月就可累积到两个改变,大部分改变都不会影响病毒活动。 不过部分仍可能会影响到病毒的传染及严重性。 而根据外国研究显示,排在第614位的氨基酸发生突变,使变异体从“D”(aspartic acid,即天门冬氨酸)变成了“G”(glycine,即甘氨酸)。因此被称为614G病毒。 这样的细微改变使刺突更稳定,导致病毒更容易侵入宿主的细胞,并产生更高的病毒载量。 根据《联合早报》报导,冠状病毒表面的刺突蛋白必须附着在宿主、也就是患者细胞上,病毒才能侵入细胞,这个刺突蛋白由千多种氨基酸(amino acids)组成。…

M’sia newspaper accuses S’pore journalists of unprofessional conduct

Singapore journalists are being criticised by their Malaysian counterparts for unprofessional conduct…

“合法必要”公开信息行为 智慧国数码政府署:莫与个资被盗案例混为一谈

日前本社报导,一名单亲妈妈蔡女士(译音),因为被诊断患有红斑狼疮,自2016年起就一直待业。她想申请提早领出公积金过活和养活家人,遗憾的是被当局拒绝。她在上月15日,写信给新加坡总统哈莉玛求助。 对此公积金局在脸书作出回应,并直接公开蔡女士全名,详述蔡女士治疗过程、其女儿获得政府助学金等财务状况。 这已不是公积金局在声明中,直接公开公积金局成员的名称。过去一些在网络上对于公积金局申诉者,都被当局直接公开点名。 不过,智慧国及数码政府署在前日回应媒体询问,认可政府“合法及必要”的公开信息行为,却“不应与公民资料未经授权被盗的案例”混为一谈。 “需捍卫公共信任” 当局称,相关单位作出澄清,是为了让民众对详情有更全面的理解。公开特定个资,也是为了传达可核实的事实,且如有必要让个体对政府的个案作出质询。 “公共机构需捍卫公众赋予他们的信任,并确保公民不被误导。” 当局也举例,个人资料保护委员会,也同样允许私企公开个资,以厘清一些个体作出的误导性指控。 当局指公共机构需遵守《公共部门(治理)法》以及政府指南中的资料保护守则,且与个人资料保护法的需求同样严格。

Retraction of invitation to hearing-impaired teacher “a mistake”, says MOE

“Susan Elliot has spent three decades in education and taught thousands of…