The Legal Janitor

Why is the freedom of speech (which includes all forms of expression) so important for a well-functioning democracy? It is not some esoteric concept lacking in practical purpose to the average Singaporean. Contrary to popular belief, an (mostly) untrammeled right to freedom of speech plays an extremely important and pragmatic role in any society.

There are competent arguments supporting a broad and strong right to freedom of expression from both a deontological and consequentialist perspective. However, since the government takes a dim view of the idea that freedom of speech is valuable in itself, and it appears that not a few Singaporeans are susceptible to the argument that “abstract ideas” will not put food on the table, I think the argument would have to be made first on utilitarian grounds.

In a democracy, freedom of speech, especially in politics, is essential for ensuring an accountable and responsive government. Free and open discussion of candidates and their policies allow voters to make an informed decision during elections. Public servants are held accountable for their actions and policies through open debate and criticism, paving the way for their replacement if they are corrupt or incompetent. Granted, we know from history that human beings are often swayed by emotions, rather than reason. It would not be unreasonable to fear that disturbance or unrest could result from an unfettered right to free speech.

But it must be remembered, that rights and freedoms are always a matter of balancing different interests, and in Singapore we fall on the wrong side of that balance. The right to free speech should be strong, to the extent where only speech which is explicitly and intentionally harmful to members of the public should be circumscribed. And even then, the punishment should be proportionate to the type and extent of harm perpretrated (physical? monetary?).

More importantly, political speech should be explicitly permitted. It is a travesty of justice that government figures are shielded from criticism by a myriad of laws, ranging from the civil (defamation), to criminal (ISD). I propose that as soon as anyone takes up public office, their right to sue for defamation, or any other action that can be taken to silence critics be immediately waived. I would go as far as to say, that even “meritless” criticisms be free from abridgement, simply because the definition of “merit” should not be determined by the state, but from within the marketplace of ideas. If one cannot withstand public criticism and even ridicule, then one does not deserve to be involved in politics. After all, if one has done nothing wrong, what does one have to fear from groundless accusations? More often than not, taking action to silence a critic only fuels speculations and rumours.

In political speech, we have two choices. On one hand, we can shield politicians from ALL sorts of criticisms, whether of merit or not, but the cost we have to pay is a fatal lack in accountability, and of an independent mechanism to correct errors in the system. Or we could have a system where politicians may lack privacy, or a way to silence their critics, or have to grow thicker skins, but in return we have a more open and accountable system, where incompetent and/or corrupt officials can be revealed early before they cause any harm. Which choice is the more logical one? Which choice is the more pragmatic one?

The alternative to freedom is oppression. If the government were to be the final arbiter of “value” in speech and expression, it would allow a small group of people to decide for the entire society what speech is valuable, and what speech is not. How would “valuable” be defined? Is there a guarantee that the state would not suppress legitimate criticisms? Keep in mind that in Singapore, the government explicitly includes politics as an issue which is out-of-bounds of public debate. Why is that so? Could it be that they fear criticism because they have made mistakes? Or that they fear greater accountability and scrutiny over their actions?

Let us be reminded, that the state is not a neutral, altruistic entity. It has its own interests, and agendas. The grasping hand of Leviathan is ever greedy and insatiable. As hard as the PAP tries, there is simply no guarantee that its filtering system would keep out miscreants who are unfit for office. By creating such a powerful and massive apparatus that is the state, with no in-built mechanisms of checks and balances, it is an open invitation for power to be abused.