More or Less: A Comparative Study on Freedom of Speech
In March 2020, activist Jolovan Wham held up a cardboard sign with a smiley face on it next to a police station in Singapore where two teenage climate activists had been called in for interrogation. He was accused of unlawful public assembly five months later under Singapore’s Public Order Act.
People contended that Wham was not publicly protesting in this case, and some even later asserted that it was only a show of solidarity. Wham was prosecuted under the Public Order Act even though his actions had little effect on others around him and he was demonstrating support for a noncontroversial cause—climate change. Yet, the public response from Singaporeans towards the inhibition of free speech was largely muted. In other democratic countries like the United States, such a controversy would most definitely spark greater public outrage. So what distinguishes the two countries?
Firstly, the nature of free speech in both countries differs greatly. Principally, the Singaporean Constitution guarantees freedom of speech to all citizens. However, in practice, there are numerous restrictions on speech in Singapore. For instance, there are laws such as the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) which allows the government to take decisive action against any information deemed as “false”. This creates a controlled environment where speech can be easily monitored and taken down in Singapore. On the other hand, the US Constitution’s First Amendment provides more comprehensive protection for freedom of speech. It states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”, thereby protecting freedom of speech much more extensively than in Singapore.
However, the majority of Singaporeans seem to be satisfied with their current free speech rights, while a growing number of Americans seem to be dissatisfied by restrictions to freedom of speech. Based on statistics, 82% of Singaporeans are satisfied with how democracy is working in Singapore. This demonstrates how Singaporeans trust the restrictions placed onto free speech in Singapore, believing that this close monitoring would help to maintain social harmony effectively. On the other hand, there is a growing number of Americans reporting a sense of insecurity around their right to speak freely. College students in particular seem to be the most skeptical, with 45% reporting self-censorship in classrooms due to the fear of backlash.
One possible reason for these peculiar results could be the rise of cancel culture and online shaming in the status quo. In a world where one’s reputation can be easily built up or destroyed through social media, individuals are much more cognisant of their every action. As a result, despite having greater access to freedom of speech, Americans seem to be much more hesitant to exercise the right to free speech.
In summary, freedom of speech is the fundamental right to express oneself, and a core pillar of democracy. It is quintessential in any functioning democracy, as it allows members of the public to raise their views in an open and unrestricted manner. At the same time, freedom of speech has also come under fire for its immense propensity for abuse. Over the years, numerous individuals have made use of this freedom for malicious purposes, spreading lies and deceit, or even causing social unrest.
As a result, different governments have taken different approaches towards free speech, with some countries implementing stricter free speech restrictions, while others extensively protect free speech. Consequently, this has resulted in disparate views towards freedom of speech in the status quo. Being brought up in a country where free speech is prioritised would naturally make one more sensitive to restrictions on these rights, while being raised in a country where social stability is emphasised would lead to the deprioritisation of free speech. In either case, it is evident that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to free speech.
