As every Singapore netizen knows, the government is trying to force upon the country a licensing scheme that will allow it to regulate online news sites. This will give the government even more power to restrict citizens’ freedom of expression, as if this freedom were not already so severely curtailed. At this point, I think it is important to emphasize just how important the right to freedom of speech is.
Do you think freedom is intrinsically important? I do, and so do many others. Personally, I like freedom – I want to decide for myself how to live my life. I’m sure you, too, like being able to speak your mind freely, or to be able to choose whom you want to marry, or to decide whom you want to work for. You don’t live life to the fullest unless you get to make the choices that shape it.
But perhaps you object to such liberal hippy philosophizing. I’m sure Lee Kuan Yew would. But there are further benefits to society that can be had by respecting the right to freedom of speech. First and foremost, free expression allows us to ensure that the government knows what the interests of the people are. When we the people are able to openly express our interests and preferences, the government will be better informed about what the public wants. This is not unimportant – I find that those in power, and those who will one day be in power (i.e. scholars), are rather disconnected from the lives and concerns of the ordinary people. This isn’t necessarily because they are callous or uncaring. It’s just that they don’t live the kind of life that heartlander Singaporeans do. They don’t live in the same neighborhoods; their kids don’t go to the same kinds of schools; they don’t take the same kinds of transportation to work.
The elites in power live in their own social circle and they don’t come into frequent contact with people from less privileged backgrounds. I studied at an elite school myself, and some of my classmates were the sons and daughters of high ranking civil servants and ministers. They are my friends, and they’re nice people, but they don’t know what it is like for the rest of Singapore; one of my friends didn’t even know what Mee Poh was. Yet they are the elite scholars who will one day rule this city-state. You don’t have to imagine the result; just remember Lee Hsien Long’s remark about “mee siam mai hum” – we all laughed, but of course Lee wouldn’t know much about mee siam, and would never have spoken the phrase in daily life. Neither he nor people in his social circle actually eat such food. They don’t go to hawker centres – they don’t see the constant inflation of prices, and how that eats into your daily budget. And it is precisely because the elite can be ignorant of the citizens’ concerns, that the right to freedom of speech is paramount – without it there is no guarantee that the people who have so much power over our lives know what to do with that power.
Secondly, free expression allows for the public to contribute to the construction of government policy. It is healthy for there to be open and vigorous public debate over important issues and policies. Why is this? It may as well be said that most people aren’t experts in (say) national security or economic policy. Why not just leave it up to the experts, to the highly-educated public officials? The reason why we ought not do this is that no matter how clever or knowledgeable a person is, they can still be wrong. Intelligence is pointless unless it is used to doubt and critically assess one’s own beliefs. Unfortunately, the government – especially the civil service – is self-selecting. That is, the people that get in and get entrusted with positions of responsibility tend to share the same ideas and beliefs; they tend to think in similar ways; they share the same assumptions and the same prejudices.
People who think differently – the mavericks and the dissidents – are either not hired, or are not given any real positions of power, because they tend to rock the boat. What we get is an echo chamber, where biases reinforce biases and everyone shares the same beliefs uncritically. The officials with SAF-backgrounds tend to be the worse, because they are surrounded by people who dare not disagree. Listen to Chan Chun Sing speak on any issue, say, national defense – he is so utterly arrogant and so utterly convinced that he is right. It is no surprise that he is the way he is, because his men and commanders would never have dared disagree, and now that he is in government, his civil servants will be no less obsequious. Thus, it is important for policies to be subjected to public assessment and critique. The right to freedom of speech helps ensure good governance.
Thirdly, and most importantly, free expression allows us to deter governmental misconduct. Without the ability to criticize the government openly, or the ability of the news media to run exposes, how can we keep our governmental officials clean and honest? I find the PAP’s claim to be incorruptible, incredibly bizarre and breathtakingly arrogant. They are ultimately human and humans are flawed. No one is perfect; no one is incorruptible, especially not in an environment where there are no real checks and balances.
In a democracy, free expression is key in preventing governmental abuse of power. When public officials do not face the possibility of withering public condemnation or media investigation even when they commit wrongdoings, what stops them from abusing their positions and privileges? This calls to mind the recent AIM scandal where the PAP Town Councils sold their computer systems (built with taxpayer money) to PAP-affiliated Action Information Management (AIM). Even if the proceedings were entirely legal, as the government claims, there could have been impropriety involved – surely the government acknowledges that. Public criticism and journalistic investigation help to get to the truth of the matter, and are needed to deter any future possible incidents where public officials might improperly dispose of public funds, or inappropriately use public power for private ends. Look at China – look closely – it is precisely because the mainstream media cannot criticize or attack the government, that officials think they can get away with corruption and embezzlement. Free speech deters governmental misconduct – from America to Australia, free speech and a free press help to keep politicians honest and on their toes.
But aren’t there legitimate reasons for restricting free speech? Yes, there are. Inciting others to violence shouldn’t be legal, for example. But such exceptions are exactly that – exceptions. This doesn’t justify bankrupting people who disagree with you, or banning books and films you don’t like. The restrictions must be clearly and narrowly defined – as it stands, the government’s ability to curtail free speech is both too sweeping and too obviously motivated by politics. Singaporeans should not be treated like children. We can decide for ourselves what books to read, what films to watch, and what ideas are acceptable.
I think Lee Kuan Yew, when an opposition MP back in 1956, says it best:
“Repression, Sir is a habit that grows. I am told it is like making love – it is always easier the second time! The first time there may be pangs of conscience, a sense of guilt. But once embarked on this course with constant repetition you get more and more brazen in the attack. All you have to do is to dissolve organizations and societies and banish and detain the key political workers in these societies. Then miraculously everything is tranquil on the surface. Then an intimidated press and the government-controlled radio together can regularly sing your praises, and slowly and steadily the people are made to forget the evil things that have already been done, or if these things are referred to again they’re conveniently distorted and distorted with impunity, because there will be no opposition to contradict.”
Joel