The previous post was a draft letter to the Straits Times and Today. I shall further explain my viewpoint.
Generally, if we ever need to advance rules against freedom of speech ( as Germany does with Nazi symbols and salutes- doing the Hitler salute in Germany can land you in a couple of years of jail!), the position we need to start from is that the benefits and necessity of freedom of speech are so overwhelming, that the reasons needed to control it need to be strongly compelling, and that the measures taken be no more than neccessary.
Mad right wing punditry is one thing. Having press laws that would place me in possible criminal liability if I go ahead to strongly criticise either only the PAP's election manifesto or only the Worker's Party election manifesto between now and May 6th is another. For that might be construed as "party campaigning"!
It also makes Singapore and Singaporeans a lot less politically savvy than they should be. What happens when do not have the right to even publish a reasoned case for or against a political party's platform? It affects decision making, simply because part of the process of coming to a reasoned decision is discussing what you have just heard. It seems wholly irrational, according to the mainstream view in Singapore anyway, that a convincing case necessarily is a demagogic case. Why are voters who may not have very much sympathies with any politicians at all being prevented from discussing and questioning what sort of work their members of parliament have been doing in their respective Government Parliamentary Committees?
No wonder this election will inevitably see in Sembawang GRC, an automatic 25% of the vote for the SDP simply because no one during this period ( apart from PAP candidates of course) can criticise the SDP for its unneccessary and unhealthy advocacy of "martyrdom" politics. Conversely, there will probably be many voters in that contested GRC who may be under the illusion that the job of a member of parliament is nothing more than being a glorified city councillor. Not being able to publish critical reasoning on the issues has a detrimental effect.
Take for example this whole quibble about whether Singapore has a "first world" government. Both the PAP and the WP can be said to be simply vague in expressing what they mean by this. I think for instance Lee Kuan Yew is probably correct in a sense in saying we have a first class government in terms of its efficiency ( no really shitty cock-ups like letting 1000 foreign prisoners out into the streets of singapore instead of undertaking a promise to deport them) and its current and foreseeable lack of corruption in the near future. Low Thia Kiang on the other hand seems to be saying that we don't have a first world government in the sense of inadequate internal checks in our constitution- in other words a government which really works only because it is governed by gentlemen.
So there are real problems with these slew of restrictions on internet publication. You throw out intellegent commentary together with rubbishy commentary. Is that really what we want? Worse, what is available for legal publication is to my mind, often very insipid. And so we continue to get stupid letters from writers like Raymond Ng being published in our most respectable national newspaper. To show you how silly these letters can get, I am reproducing Raymond's letter in full below. As someone who is currently pursuing a university degree in Britain, you might disagree with my lack of respect, of course.
TV forum with MM Lee shows English-educated S'poreans are westernised, lack Asian values. Fix the school curriculum
I refer to the recent televised forum with Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew. Why should anyone be surprised about what happened? It is not a question of who's right or wrong.
When you remove all OB (out-of-bounds) markers, you expect nothing less than a free-for-all discussion. Blaming the young participants in the forum is counter-productive and unfair. They genuinely believed they were doing their best in such a one-off opportunity with MM Lee in a televised dialogue.
There are several conclusions we can draw from this forum.
Firstly, some of our young, especially the English-educated, are not just modernised but also westernised. They lack knowledge of Asian values which older people acquire as they get older and wiser.
Like our children, most of them do not understand their parents, take everything for granted and rebel when they get nagged. Most of them get over this phase when they grow up and settle down with children of their own.
Secondly, no matter how mature a society is, especially a diverse one like Singapore, you need OB markers. Remove them totally and chaos will prevail. Just look at the other societies around us. Personal or group freedom prevails over national interest. The result is perpetual disruption to economic growth and social instability.
I think the present government's policies are already in place insofar as the OB markers are concerned. What needs to be improved are Asian values studies in the English education curriculum.
Chinese culture with strong Asian values are inherent in the Chinese language itself. In my opinion, most of the Chinese-educated are more likely to have a stronger feel of Asian values.
Raymond Ng Chay Boon
There are many things that are very, very wrong with this letter. I will just deal with two issues. Firstly the whole notion that there exists a set of values called "asian" values. As opposed to what? Decadent western notions of freedom and liberty? African values? Suffice it to say it is a very debatable point.
One might even say that Mr Ng has painted a completely misleading picture of many societies where there there is a bias towards individual freedom. In my stay in England, and in my 30 days of travel around the Netherlands, France, Austria and Germany, I observed that these countries continue to be relatively at peace. I observed a large and noisy street protest during my stay in Paris, and Sorbonne university had to be barracaded off by the police. That hardly disrupted my holiday there at all.
Indeed there are animal rights protesters making a lot of noise in the middle of my university town every week and guess what Mr Ng? Most people's lives are not really affected!
This is not to say that Europe does not have its problems- it was somewhat eerie and depressing to observe a depopulating east German town like Chemnitz.
The point still stands however, that letters published in the Straits Times are not necessarily the font of wisdom. As already has been demonstrated, the opinions expressed in the above letter are the font of stupidity. In Britain, Raymond's letter would probably be worthy of being consigned to a cruddy tabloid like the Daily Mirror or The Sun.
I will end by concluding the following:
1- The current rules as they stand totally deter Singapore based bloggers from saying even sensible things about Singapore politics. It is a source of national shame that everyone, even talkingcock.com and everyone who contributes to tomorrow.sg, is chickening out simply because the rules about what we cannot say are so unclear. For heaven's sakes, what do you have to do to fall below or reach the standard of "fair and objective" comment?
2- What sort of action am I advocating? One thing that is clear is that I don't approve of breaking the law. What I am approving, and it is the only thing that I am affirmitively approving in my two posts, is for members of parliament passing a bill in parliament to CHANGE THE LAW in a constitutionally approved manner i.e. in a session in parliament.
3- As I have already explained, I think the reasons that are given for the law are on the first level, not convincing enough on their own grounds to curtail freedom of speech. Even if one agrees that some level of control is desirable, the general scaring off of all political comment whatsoever DOES show that the effect of such laws has been disproportionate to the aims that it is trying to achieve.
My name is Koh Jie Kai. Don't tell me I'm hiding behind the anonymity of the internet to "mislead the public". The public can jolly well make up its own mind as to whether I am making sense or not.