L-R: Cherian George, Alex Au, Ken Kwek and moderator Teo You Yenn.
L-R: Cherian George, Alex Au, Ken Kwek and moderator Teo You Yenn.
L-R: Cherian George, Alex Au, Ken Kwek and moderator Teo You Yenn.

By Kirsten Han

Freedom of expression in Singapore is not only repressed by the powerful, but also frowned upon by citizens and policed by individuals, said a panel at a free speech event on Saturday.

Cherian George, an associate professor in journalism at the Hong Kong Baptist University, gave a lecture on freedom of expression in Singapore at the Singapore Advocacy Award’s fundraising event Deliberating the Freedom of Expression in Singapore. He later also spoke on a panel with blogger Alex Au and journalist-turned-filmmaker Ken Kwek.

The event could not have been more apropos to current affairs making the headlines in the city-state; a three-day court hearing to assess the amount of damages blogger Roy Ngerng has to pay to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong for defamation closed on Friday, while 16-year-old Amos Yee will likely be sentenced on Monday afternoon after being convicted of wounding religious feelings and distributing obscene material.

George asserted that Singapore “has by far the least freedom of expression” of all advanced industrial nations. Yet this dubious distinction has not been met by public pressure for change, mostly because Singaporeans themselves tend to see freedom of expression as a “selfish and socially irresponsible right.”

The actions (or lack thereof) of ordinary citizens was a common thread throughout the discussion. It was noted that Amos Yee had been arrested after over 30 police reports lodged by Singaporeans. Kwek said that his film Sex.Violence.FamilyValues had been banned in 2012 because of a complaint that led to official action.

“My concern… is the guy next door. He is the scariest to me now,” said Kwek.

Au suggested that the self-policing that many Singaporeans appear to undertake might stem from a feeling of deep insecurity. “When we feel insecure, whether as an officeholder in the state, or whether just ordinary people in communities in Singapore, when we feel insecure, we want that security of rules, controls and bans to keep us going,” he said.

In response to a question about trends related to defamation cases, George argued that the People’s Action Party traditionally went for the “big guns” such as international media and opposition politicians, and only takes serious action against lower-profile bloggers when they don’t “play ball”, as most commentators would generally comply with demand letters to take down posts and publish apologies.

Au felt that there has been a “tremendous amount of response to defamation suits” among Singaporeans, but that this response has manifested in the perpetuating of self-censorship.

He later argued that Singapore had got it backwards in defamation cases by maintaining that powerful individuals in positions of influence should receive higher damages over libel.

“The more powerful that person is, therefore the more levers he has to correct what damage, what injury he has suffered,” said Au. “And therefore the compensatory damages should be less, and therefore the bar should be set very high before defamation kicks in.”

In considering what can now be done to advance freedom of expression in Singapore, Kwek felt that this was a question everyone has to “keep agonising” over, and that it is only by practice that the principles of free speech will be instilled in society.

Speaking about the “freedom to hear”, Kwek emphasised that Singaporeans need to learn how to allow for the existence of different views, including those that one might not agree with.

“The political culture of Singapore is not entirely in the hands of the political leaders, but also in our hands,” George added, encouraging Singaporeans to talk and engage rather than appeal to the state apparatus to deal with unpopular opinions and content. “We can show the restraint we don’t see from our leaders.”

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

Reinforcing preschool subsidies for middle-income families from 2020

The government will reinforce preschool subsidies including for middle income families in…

肖像遭盗用 何晶“被代言”比特币投资

淡马锡控股首席执行长何晶肖像被盗用,以招揽比特币投资者,虽然本人已经否认,但是有关诈骗信息仍在流传,连金融管理局都发出警告,呼吁民众切勿跌入诈骗陷阱。 当局指出,互联网上有网站伪造《海峡时报》报导,捏造指何晶曾经发表“新加坡人通过财富漏洞赚取数百万元”、“大银行震惊了”等言论,另一家网站也贴出何晶的照片,多家新闻媒体的标志,以及类似“新加坡人支付的秘密投资”等标题字眼。 当局表示,相关网站所提供的信息据误导性,且非常具欺骗性,因此促请民众提高警惕。 金融局也呼吁民众若发现有类似诈骗活动的行销或投资活动,应该立即报警。 总理夫人何晶曾于去年11月期间,就相关的“比特币交易计划”等流传数个月的捏造新闻,在脸书上帖文澄清,也呼吁民众不要上当,不要相信任何能够投资致富的手段,更应该停止转发有关报导。 何晶并非首名政治界和金融界被诈骗网站盗用肖像,以哄骗人们进行比特币等“快速致富”投资的人物,其他被盗用者还包括我国总理李显龙、金管局主席兼国务资政兼社会政策统筹部长尚达曼、人力部长杨莉明等。

Yes to recommendations to improve progression prospects: MOE

By Howard Lee The Singapore government has accepted the 10 recommendations proposed by…

从陈振声演说“终于提出具体想法” 梁文辉促检讨本地PMET就业机会

新加坡前进党秘书长梁文辉认为,昨晚(14日)贸工部长陈振声发表演说,从他口中总算有提出具体想法。然而,民众仍看不傲一个连贯性的计划,他猜测或许“重头戏”还要等到20日的副总理兼财政部长王瑞继口中,才能揭晓。 对于陈振声提出国家需保持贸易开放,梁文辉认为肯定没国人会反对,我们唯一的自然优势就是我们的地理位置和深海港口。但即使赞成签署更多的自由贸易协定(FTA),前提是不应允许外国人,不受控制地进入我国,代替本地人的就业机会。 2.    增加工作岗位是我们现在的重中之重,因此在医疗保健,幼儿教育,交通,金融服务和信息通信技术方面创造十万个工作岗位是可喜的举动。但是,没有提及我们将如何从外国人PMET那边拿回一些我们失去的工作,立即分配给我们的PMET。 希望在不久将在所有城镇设立的就业中心将对此进行检讨。 3.     在数码技术的基础建设上进行更多投资是好的,但为何等到现在才有这样的觉悟?他提到了1990年代政府基于大型机技术成功进行的计算机化和自动化。那么,为什么现任政府这么长时间才在数码技术上采取行动呢?我们许多人都会记得以前的“One Singapore”数码平台计划,在没有任何官方解释的情况下,不了了之。 当前需依靠新概念和技术 梁文辉也认为,如果陈振声能在一些超前的数码概念之前发表演讲,而不是在港口,那将更加使人振奋。虽然港口代表了我们发迹的源头,但毕竟我们的将来需要依靠新的概念和技术。…