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

惊见名字日期不符 妻揭丈夫医药报告错误百出

在丈夫离世一个月后,妻子才发现丈夫的医疗报告上错误百出,病例和入院日期都写错,对院方的疏忽表示非常不满。樟宜综合医院获悉有关事件后,立刻修正错误文件,并且为此疏忽失误道歉。 丈夫潘坤顺为一名长期糖尿病患者,于今年6月15日在樟宜综合医院,因缺血性心脏病(ischemic heartdisease)离世,享年49岁。 他49岁的妻子,潘太太在经过一个月的丧期后,开始和家属亲人整理丈夫身前物件,发现院方发出的丈夫出院报告上写着别人的名字,才惊觉院方给错报告。 她的友人之后也帮忙检查有关保险食物,发现报告上也写着别人的姓名和年龄,方知一直以来她领着的出院报告都是别人的。 两份报告的个人资料都有问题,令她感到震惊和措手不及,立刻查看其它由院方提供的文件,随后在一份院方提供给保险公司额表格上发现丈夫的糖尿病例有误,将原本的19年写成30年。 她也发现到在医疗报告中,院方将丈夫住院病历日期写错,指其丈夫于7月7日被转入重护病房,但是丈夫已经在6月15日过世了。 种种的错误,令潘太太感到非常不满,表示这犹如在病患家属的伤口上撒盐。“我拿着别人的报告,是否也有人拿到我先生的报告呢?” 她指出,虽然院方表示没人领到其丈夫的报告,但是她过往失误已经令她感到不安,希望院方能够更加小心谨慎。 院方道歉补发正确报告 针对此事,樟宜综合医院服务营运总监吴敏龙指出,院方在获悉有关事件后,已经补发正确的医疗报告给潘太太,并且取回错误的文件。 他指出,院方对此次的失误事件以及所带来的影响感到抱歉,并且会认真看待此事,加强认证程序。“我们会让医院员工和接受者双方进行认证,避免类似事件重演。”…

RDU proposes S$1,300 minimum wage; urges govt not to evade important Parliamentary questions on low-wage workers

“The government should not skirt important parliamentary questions on low-wage workers,” said…

Yahoo News temporarily removes comment section in website, says it is to improve “community experience”

Readers are no longer allowed to write their comments on stories published…