Maybe the same could be said of some other people in high places.
Last Saturday, a deputy political editor at the national newspaper said in an article, that "there are some things more important than free speech."
True, real things like family ties, getting food on your table and being able to drink tea on a lazy Sunday afternoon, with a book in hand.
But, he went on to say that there should not be any hoo-ha in the blogging community if the authorities step in as a result of the community's inability to self police the words of others.
I think he has somewhat missed the point.
While conceeding that nobody would not know of any racist comments unless one goes to a website containing them, he asserted that it is still the responsibility of the blogsophere to "self police."
It reminded me of the times in army when my superior used to always tell me - I do not care how you do it, just get it down.
Besides, the hoo-ha is not about whether racist remarks should be condemned, but whether how "racist" were the racist remarks and whether the Sedition Act should be invoked in this manner - after all, it was so long ago that this has been invoked.
In the same breath, a minister was quoted on Sunday as saying that there has got to be revisions to the Sedition Act to make it more "relevant" - more relevant or more severe or more punitive to enact a chilling effect on the local blogging community?
The current dean of the LKY School of Public Policy at NUS and Singapore's ex-ambassador to the United Nations, Kishore Mahbubani raised 10 heresies about the whole notion of freedom of speech and implicitly, press freedom in his article "An Asian Perspective On Human Rights and Freedom of the Press."
Essentially, these 10 heresies all accuse the Westerners of double standards, hypocrisy and selfish for advocating free speech because they are not around in the local community to suffer the consequences of the implementation of free speech.
Unlike Amartya Sen, Mahbubani says that there is "a causal link between a more aggressive free press and increasingly bad government." Yet, Mahbubani says it would be "impossible for (him)" to prove it.
He cites the example of the Western media's coverage of the Tiananmen incident in 1999.
Yet for all its massive coverage of Tiananmen, the Western media failed to explain how this event was seen through Chinese eyes. Few Chinese intellectuals believe that China is ready for democracy. Most are as afraid of chaos and anarchy (a persistent Chinese disease) as they are of a return to Maoist totalitarianism. It was a battle between soft authoritarians and hard authoritarians. The Western media vividly reported the apparent victory of the "hard-liners" but it has failed to tell the world the true aftermath: the soft authoritarians have come back to power."
Honestly, while I found the numerous examples that Mahbuani raised in this article quite convincing, his case was lacking because of his weak argument.
His premise was that Americans did not accord to Asians a sense of "mutual respect" when it came to the discussion table. This stems from the fact that the most of Asia are generally not as economically developed as the West.
"The lessons from East Asia are clear. There are no short-cuts. It is necessary for a developing society to succeed first in economic development before it can attain the social and political freedoms found in developed societies."
He basically asserts that such freedom of speech only works for the West because they have achieved economic maturity.
"There is only one force that has the power to liberate the Third World. Economic development...shakes up old social arrangements and paves the way for the participation of a greater percentage of society in social and political decisions."
He goes on to add that the promotion of economic development has "significant costs, direct and indirect, for developed societies."
"What may be good for the Third World (promoting economic development) would prove painful for Western societies in the short run."
Mahbubani also went on to advise the West not to "even dream of overthrowing most of the existing governments in Asia."
"What Asia neeeds at its present stage of development are governments who are committed to rapid economic development. Sporadic instances of political crackdowns should be criticized, but these governments should not be penalized as long as their people's lives are improving."
I wonder if he is implicitly saying that it is okay for a tyrannical government to be in power, just as long as people's lives continue to improve and if there is economic progress.
A level playing field. Or one that is as close to that as possible, until Asia gets to the point of equal economic development?
Therefore I find it puzzling that Muhbabani should say that "(a)ny society which is at odds with its best and brightest and shoots them down when they demonstrate peacefully, as Myanmar did, is headed for trouble."
I hesitate to draw any hasty hypothetical conclusions here, but between what Amartya Sen and Kishore Muhbabani represents, I am more inclined to think that the way to go is between the deep end and the deep blue sea - somewhere in the middle.
Perhaps just as I almost forgotten how therupatic good food, good music and good company is to the soul, maybe people like me never really know what the merits of a free press because we have never had any contact with the notion of free press.
Whether or not the Americans' press is as "free" as they think is quite another matter, but it would be interesting to see how the Martyn See episode would transpire if reported accurately in the papers right here on our sunny island, set in the sea.
5 comments:
it just seems as if the attention has shifted to a critiqe of western legislation more than a critique on our own singaporean ones.
you're right, he does miss the mark somewhat. i don't particularly remember the Americas being built upon a history of totaliatarian rule, rather they fought for their independence and were laregly democratic in the political beliefs.
not advocating pro-amercian sentiment, but hopefully just objectifying something where they "took their time" to get to where they are now. somewhat.
it is somewhat ironic that singapore is considered a free and independent country when its own citizens cannot discuss freely on public discourse without the fear of authorities. this means that the laws are not designed to protect us (or public discourse at least). arguable of course, but it does seem that way somewhat.
the impact of the racist commentors does not rile me more than that of Martyn See actually. he's actually being treated like some kind of "political enemy of the state". and i find that rather disturbing. why are singaporeans being treated like that? do we just stand by and watch? i think alot of us are still doing that, they've got us frozen in our boots, we don't want to jepordize our futures. there's too much at stake for radicalism.
but take everything away from us, and we'll have nothing left to lose. for a cause at best, then we start weighing it on the scales as to whether it's all worthwhile or not.
*sigh*
putting things into perspective, and by that i mean to look at singapore, one cant fairly compare ourselves to other economically developed first world countries like the us or those in europe because simply put, singapore is exceptional.
we're an anomaly, let's face it. and while we have put the days of political turmoil and economic instability behind us, socially, we have a long way more to go.
and while we're at it, we shouldn't even touch on the issue of whether we truly are a "free and independent" country since this really comes down to an argument of definition.
the bottom line is, while singapore is peaceful in terms of inter-racial harmony, it is apparent that racial tensions still exist. discrimination is still practised whether we like it or not. people may not articulate these prejudices, but they are latent in our society.
the sedition act may seem "irrelevant" to this era now, but it still serves the same purpose it used to.
at the risk of sounding pro-establishment (which i am, as long as it suits me.), i must agree with what mm lee said once; that this harmony we now enjoy is not a stable and reliable one. it is fragile and precarious and we can lose it as easily as anything, and once social structure is lost, we lose everything else along with it; economic prosperity and the luxury to walk the streets at night without being worried about getting killed.
people may make a big deal about the freedom of speech. but we must know our limits. talking about the problems you have with gvt policy im sure is not a crime. but you must be responsible. if something is truly wrong, there must be a constructive way to articulate that problem. freedom of speech is not freedom to say absolutely anything you want and getting away with it, it is only so if you speak responsibly.
if you think something said aloud is unacceptable, what makes you think it will be acceptable on the internet?
i really do not get the whole hoopla about having absolute freedom of speech. then, someone could just tell everyone about my alleged fungal infection in certain places that got passed to a certain someone through intimate contact, and get away with it.
really. let it go already.
and wrt policing the internet; the very nature of the internet makes it difficult to police. at a panel discussion with the ICAC in HK last year, they revealed that they are at the frontlines in formulating a global internet police. and they admit that while planning would be easy, it is the implementation that would be the real bitch. imagine having to convince every country to surrender resources to chip in to this global policing effort!
that's why many say, it just cannot be done.
eh, i cannot "just let it go" because i typed these 2 long posts as a response to what i doing for my mass media class right now.
but having said that...WOW! such unprecedented extended responses are more than welcome. =)
but do read into my tone as well, because no where have i said outright that either way is the "right" or "the way to go."
i am non-committal, because for me this is an on-going process for me as i decide for myself. that's why while this blog is all about me thinking aloud, i do so, trying to be darn responsible in the process.
because this is a public domain and i am thus liable for what i say.
the basis of this post wasn't so much about advocating an all out "freedom of speech" for singaporeans.
for one thing, if we have so-called "first amendment" rights, are singaporeans fully prepared for that sort of responsibility. it does not come overnight, as i think bunnyoncrack(boc) has suggested.
but that does not mean we stop lobbying for it.
if we aren't allowed the leeway to do anything minorly opposed to government policy, if we can't assemble peacefully or comment without fear, then we're just giving our government a go-ahead to do wotever they like, whenever they like, and so long as they don't meddle in our affairs, we won't meddle in theirs.
i've felt that way for a long time, in fact i still do. i could stay in singapore so long as the government gives me my cpf, my health benefits and does everything that is good for me.
but somehow, there doesn't seem to have that integrity of giving back to the nation i call home.
if Martyn See is being investigated for making an opposition party video, maybe somewhat anti-government, and they're investigating people who've been in contact with him. all this is really somewhat intrusive. and the powers that be simply have more disregard for its citizens than for its nation.
certainly, the issues of political pluralism and alleged draconian gvt are in a league of their own.
perhaps i did not make myself clear. i was really explicitly referring to critics who insist on the freedom to say whatever they want whenever they want because "it's my blog and i'll blog if i want to", even if it means raving about your selfish racist sentiments.
i doubt we'll live to see the advent of the "first amendment" in singapore. and this isn't necessarily a bad thing.
while i am wildly against promoting racism and the like in cyberspace, i also very much understand what you mean wrt the martyn see episode.
questioning his friends is one thing, but cracking down on the people who downloaded his video is another altogether. the line has to be drawn somewhere.
Post a Comment