Author: Quintus Lim

One normally associates General Elections (GE) with democracies. However, is it plausible for democratic rights, such as freedom of speech, to be inconsiderable in a GE? This paradox was ostensible in Singapore’s GE2015, held recently in September. In a post-election survey by the Institute of Policy Studies in Singapore, “Civil rights and liberties” was ranked the 5^th least influential issue during the hustings[1]. As the largest opposition party, the Worker’s Party’s slogan in GE2015, “Empower Your Future”, appealed to the electorate to vote for Opposition leftism, and to give the Party a stronger voice in Singapore’s unicameral legislature. There was never an appeal to give the people a stronger voice in public. The most decisive confirmation of Singaporeans’ purported apathy to freedom was a 9.7% swing in overall vote share to the incumbent People’s Action Party, in an electoral campaign which completely ignored Singapore’s ostensible lack of full democratic freedoms. The result clearly demonstrated the Singaporean electorate’s relative lack of regard for the sinews of full democracy, and the merits of free speech. I thus attempt to account for this indifference, and also put forth suggestions for change.

It would be efficacious to first clarify certain doubts/myths by classifying the political system Singapore has adopted for herself – for why can a country with free elections still be considered undemocratic? In political science, Singapore is what we might call a ‘Competitive Authoritarian Regime’. Put simply, such regimes occupy the middle ground between Democracies and Autocracies. Examples in Europe include Albania, Croatia, Macedonia, Romania, Serbia and Slovakia[2].

What makes Singapore competitively authoritarian? There are free elections which satisfy the 3 conditions of contestation in the Democracy-Dictatorship (DD) Measure[3]:

• Ex ante uncertainty – election outcomes are unknown before voting is concluded
• Ex post irreversibility – election winners actually take office
• Repeatability – elections meeting conditions (1) and (2) occur at regular and known intervals. However, a number of restrictions prevent Singapore’s categorisation as a full democracy. Most notable is the lack of free speech and press etc. in Singapore[4]. The semi-authoritarian state intervenes heavily in 2 main areas:

• Negative speech on other races and religions
• Defamation of politicians (it is worthwhile to acknowledge that criticism of policies is allowed and rampant)

The most contemporary example of these fetters on freedoms would be Amos Yee. The teenage video blogger rose to country-wide infamy and (Western) worldwide fame, following his 53-day imprisonment. Yee was convicted of 2 charges: making offensive/wounding remarks against Christianity, and circulating obscene imagery. While it is widely alleged that his arrest was chiefly due to his criticisms on the late Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, it should be noted that this charge was withdrawn before court trial[5]. Nevertheless, it would be more productive to analyse the outcomes of this saga than on the putative reasons for his arrest.

On one hand, most in Singapore caricatured Yee as an irritable charlatan, displaying his affectation of political philosophy through attention-seeking slander and polemics. This view was further exacerbated by Yee’s squandering of donated bail, when he defied court orders repeatedly to cease his offensive online activity. Yee’s refusal to attend counselling, probation and even court hearings, certainly did not help with public perception that he needed to be disciplined.

At the other extreme, Yee was staunchly defended on grounds of his youth (and hence ignorance), and even disproportionately glorified. Yee’s achievements were likened to that of Nelson Mandela’s, an epithet justified in a book spanning all of 26 pages[6]. Singaporean opposition politician Goh Meng Seng went to the extent of burning effigies of former and current Singaporean Prime Ministers at the Singapore consulate in Hong Kong[7]. These acts, however, received lukewarm support at best. Goh scored a diminutive 23.1% of valid votes in his constituency (Chua Chu Kang) in the General Election 2 months later, less than a third of his incumbent opponents’ vote share (76.9%)[8]. Though this one-off incident cannot explain the entire result, the sheer scale of the disparity shows that, to some extent, what he was fighting for clearly lacked appeal in the Singaporean polity. Petitions to release Yee all but failed to garner the targeted number of signatures[9]. Moreover, I make a sharp distinction: a defence of Yee on grounds of his youth, and hence ignorance, does not equate to a defence of free speech. At best, it ignores the issue of free speech entirely.

But why would a polity not prioritise political freedoms they could potentially have? Is ignorance the culprit? Singapore’s education system always ranks highly in multinational comparisons; one would be hard-pressed to substantiate a claim that Singaporeans are stupid. Is it political apathy? The statistics repudiate this – voter turnout towered at 93.56%[10]. To put this in perspective, the equivalent statistic for the UK in its own 2015 General Election was 66.9%, the highest in 18 years[11], and for the 2014 Scottish Referendum, 84.59%[12]. Is fear a palpable factor? Yes, I would postulate – not the fear of being sued[13], but the tangible fear of socio-political instability and how Singapore is perceived by foreign markets. In other words, it is a fear of the weaknesses of democracy, that they might undo our ‘economic miracle’. I apply my analysis specifically to freedom of speech, though my arguments can in principle easily be transferred unto freedom of press etc.

The implementation of free speech would certainly increase the qualitative liberties of Singaporeans. However, before proceeding, it would again be useful to dispel certain myths about freedom of speech. Contrary to popular belief, the right to freedom of speech is not ‘the right to say whatever one pleases’. It is, at an abstract level, a right to egalitarianism, i.e. the right for everyone’s opinions to be heard equally. The liberal doctrine thus disallows any form of speech which seeks to end any individuals’ freedoms, e.g. the Nazis’ speeches against the Jews, for such would be inconsistent with the principles upon which they are based. In line with Rawls’ lexical priorities[14], those significantly threatened by others’ speeches can thus legitimately ban it, not in restricting the perpetrator’s liberty, but in exercising their own[15].

Applied to Singapore, freedom of speech can unlock people’s freedoms, but also Singapore’s Pandora’s Box: race and religion. The Government of Singapore characterises the dynamics between Singapore’s 4 main races as “racial harmony”. An alternative (and certainly not implausible) interpretation to this is that interracial problems are buried deep down and never spoken of, a dynamic similarly observed in France. E.g. in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo attack, President François Hollande took pains to frame the incident as an attack against democracy[16], shifting focus away from the palpable religious tension behind the shootings. In Singapore, there is a dogmatic fear, perpetuated by government rhetoric, that the implementation of free speech would slay these sacred cows; freedom of speech without the supporting “responsibility of speech” can easily descend into citizens’ widespread abuse of their unrestrained political powers in exposing ethnic fault lines, severely attenuating social stability. For a country whose total trade has constantly exceeded 250% of GDP[17], social instability can have high social costs and even higher economic costs, if Singapore were to be perceived as unsafe. Race and religion thus form Singapore’s demilitarised zone, preventing the reunification of liberty and stability.

Perhaps Singaporeans misunderstand that free speech unrestrainedly allows all speech. I have explained above that it does not. However, it is not unreasonable to assume that the law is an insufficient deterrent when passions are stirred. Racial riots were the epoch in the days leading to Singapore’s independence; clashes in July and September 1964 between the Chinese and Malays left 36 dead and 560 injured. What is truly frightening is that majority of these deaths occurred after a curfew had been imposed[18]. The threat of incarceration cannot peremptorily counter the fracturing of racial fault lines. If the deontology of freedom, buttressed by judicial enforcement, is inadequate in preserving freedom itself, how can free speech be allowed? Thus, history sustains the argument for the future, a powerful argument which has resisted various interlocutors’ challenges, for essentially, it argues Singaporeans cannot have free speech because of Singapore’s diverse racial and religious composition – because of who we are!

One may flip the dialectic around and posit that freedom of speech would solve the problem at its roots, by allowing the gamut of races and religions to openly discuss and resolve simmering tensions. I predicate that such an assertion is too simplistic and optimistic. Freedom of speech is a double-edged sword which allows for both mitigation and exacerbation of multi-ethnic conflicts. The 2011 Belfast riots[19], as well as the 2015 race riots in Stockholm[20] and Dresden[21], all peaceful established democracies, serve as convenient invocations to hinder any notion that democratic experience can bring ethnic peace in the long-run.

How, then, may a motion for freedom of speech be justified in Singapore? Is it even needed? John Stuart Mill, one of the forefront defenders of liberty, declared:

“Men, as well as women, do not need political rights in order that they may govern, but in order that they may not be misgoverned”[22]

It would be a daunting task for any balanced individual to make that claim that Singapore has been misgoverned to the extent that it legitimises an overhaul in the political regime and a proliferation of individuals’ political rights. Aside from its flamboyant prosperity, Singapore was constantly ranked the least corrupt country in Asia[23]. These stellar results are hardly the characteristics of misgovernment. Therefore, why risk the success and harmony which Singaporeans have worked so hard to achieve? Put in context, it suddenly becomes more comprehensible why freedom of speech bears no primacy in the ultra-pragmatic electorate’s wants and needs.

I do acknowledge that it is to some extent fallaciously circular if one attempted to diagnose the problems of free speech after conceptualising it as a problem. Proponents may find it more useful to focus on the benefits free speech may bring, rather than seek to rebut its weaknesses. The trouble is that in an ultra-pragmatic and highly successful technocracy like Singapore, there is a frugality of known, significant benefits free speech can bring. Nevertheless, one can and should still remain optimistic, and perceive this as a limit in our current knowledge (of the possibilities free speech brings), rather than a limit of free speech itself.

I further premise that an argument for freedom of speech lies not solely in its content, but also in the delivery of the argument itself. The doctrine of freedom ideally seeks, through egalitarianism, to embed a moral relationship between the elected and the electorate, grounding the legitimacy of authority by affirming the moral personality of individuals. It bears a special element of nobility and trust, virtues which should be exuded when representing the doctrine. Thus, it is highly uninformed to sanctimoniously pontificate for freedom of speech as though there will never be detriments to its implementation. Such is the downfall of the likes of Yee and other obstinate “liberals”, who defy authority and provoke controversy in the name of freedom! These discordant individuals in society, and those who uncritically glorify them as martyrs and Mandelas, conversely attain nothing but the diametric opposite. For through their exercise of ‘free speech’, they highlight to society the greatest weaknesses of freedom, and embody the exact behaviour Singaporeans wish to avoid. To premise that the fundamental principle of democracy lies in unbridled and irresponsible antagonism of the highest number possible is to accomplish nothing but utter humiliation to the liberal doctrine.

Freedom of speech is not volume of speech; such acts do it a complete disservice. An argument for freedom of speech in Singapore should instead be balanced, complaisant and equal, grounded firmly in reality without diminishing any criticality. It should, patiently and diligently, elucidate upon the potential gains to society overall, and in doing so, reorganise the debate from one of costs to one of benefits. An intentionally antagonistic argument for free speech without any consideration for the possible fracturing of racial harmony can only illuminate one’s misconceptions of the socio-political zeitgeist of Singapore. Such specious and irresponsible employments of speech may, paradoxically, exacerbate distrust and sustain the eschewing of full democratisation, playing right into their opponents’ hands.

Bibliography:

• A Theory of Justice, John Rawls
• Available at: http://www.eld.gov.sg/pressrelease/ParE2015/Press%20Release%20on%20Polling%20Day%20Voter%20Turnout.pdf (Accessed: 2 November 2015).
• BBC (2011) Second night of riots in Belfast. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-14128807 (Accessed: 2 November 2015).
• BBC (2015) Scottish independence referendum – results. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/scotland-decides/results (Accessed: 2 November 2015).
• Board, N. L. and Singapore (1964) Communal riots of 1964 | Infopedia. Available at: http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_45_2005-01-06.html (Accessed: 2 November 2015).
• Competitive Authoritarianism – Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War, Levistky et. al, 2010
• e, T. I. (2001) How corrupt is your country? Available at: http://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results (Accessed: 2 November 2015).
• François Hollande condemns ‘cowardly’ attack on satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo (2015) Available at: http://www.euronews.com/2015/01/07/francois-hollande-condemns-cowardly-attack-on-satirical-paper-charlie-hebdo/ (Accessed: 2 November 2015).
• Indicator Metadata (2014) Available at: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/TG.VAL.TOTL.GD.ZS (Accessed: 2 November 2015).
• Khan, S. (2015) Dresden riots: Protesters in Germany attack refugee buses shouting ‘foreigners out’. Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/dresden-riots-protesters-in-germany-attack-refugee-buses-shouting-foreigners-out-10467287.html (Accessed: 2 November 2015).
• Knapton, S. (2015) General election 2015: Highest turnout since Tony Blair landslide. Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11592557/General-election-2015-highest-turnout-since-Tony-Blair-landslide.html (Accessed: 2 November 2015).
• On Liberty, John Stuart Mill
• Principles of Comparative Politics, Clark et. al, 2010
• Representative Government, John Stuart Mill
• Sim, F., Chia, A. and 938 L. (2015) Teen blogger Amos Yee found guilty of two charges. Available at: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/teen-blogger-amos-yee/1841236.html (Accessed: 2 November 2015).
• Singapore activist sued by PM breaks down in court (2015) Available at: https://sg.news.yahoo.com/singapore-activist-sued-pm-breaks-down-court-164930747.html (Accessed: 2 November 2015).
• Singapore’s Mandela: A Brief History of Amos Yee, Jason Venning, 2015
• Some 50 people protest in Hong Kong in support of Amos Yee: Report (2015) Available at: http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/some-50-people-protest-in-hong-kong-in-support-of-amos-yee-report (Accessed: 2 November 2015).
• Sputnik and 38, sophm 0 E. (2015) Violence erupts in Sweden as ethnic groups clash in race riots. Available at: http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150625/1023830315.html (Accessed: 2 November 2015).
• The Singapore government: Drop the charges against Amos Yee! (no date) Available at: https://www.change.org/p/the-singapore-government-drop-the-charges-against-amos-yee (Accessed: 2 November 2015).
• Henson, Bertha. ‘The Burning Questions Of GE2015 – More Or Less Answered – The Middle Ground’. The Middle Ground. N.p., 2015. Web. (Accessed 15^th November 2015).

[1]) “Cost of living” took the highest priority at 64.6%, while “Civil rights and liberties” only received 9.9%.

The Burning Questions of GE2015 – more or less answered

[2]) Competitive Authoritarianism – Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War (Levistky et. al 2010), Page 4

[3]) However, the degree of democratisation in a country should not be interpreted from the rigid satisfaction of these 3 criteria of contestation; even full democracies do not always meet these 3 conditions. Furthermore, the DD Measure is but one classification system, other commonly-used methods of operationalising democracies in comparative politics literature include the Polity IV Project & Freedom House, which will yield varied results. Principles of Comparative Politics (Clark et. al 2010)

[4]) Aside from other criticisms including, but not restricted to, gerrymandering, the lack of fixed Parliamentary terms and the impartiality of the civil service etc.

[5]) http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/teen-blogger-amos-yee/1841236.html

[6]) “Singapore’s Mandela: A Brief History of Amos Yee”, by Jason Venning. https://vulcanpost.com/384762/british-e-book-calls-amos-yee-singapores-mandela/

[7]) http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/some-50-people-protest-in-hong-kong-in-support-of-amos-yee-report

[8]) By my own calculations

[9]) https://www.change.org/p/the-government-of-singapore-release-amos-yee, https://www.change.org/p/the-singapore-government-drop-the-charges-against-amos-yee

[10]) http://www.eld.gov.sg/pressrelease/ParE2015/Press%20Release%20on%20Polling%20Day%20Voter%20Turnout.pdf

[11]) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11592557/General-election-2015-highest-turnout-since-Tony-Blair-landslide.html

[12]) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/scotland-decides/results

[13]) Amateur blogger Roy Ngerng was successfully sued by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in 2015 for defamation after claiming the Singapore Government had misappropriated funds from the Central Provident Fund, Singapore’s compulsory savings scheme. The damages to be paid to the Prime Minister are currently being assessed by the Supreme Court. https://sg.news.yahoo.com/singapore-activist-sued-pm-breaks-down-court-164930747.html

[14]) John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Chapter 8

[15]) John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, Chapter 4

[16]) http://www.euronews.com/2015/01/07/francois-hollande-condemns-cowardly-attack-on-satirical-paper-charlie-hebdo/

[17]) http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/TG.VAL.TOTL.GD.ZS

[18]) http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_45_2005-01-06.html

[19]) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-14128807

[20]) http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150625/1023830315.html

[21]) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/dresden-riots-protesters-in-germany-attack-refugee-buses-shouting-foreigners-out-10467287.html

[22]) John Stuart Mill, Representative Government, Page 144

[23]) http://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results