More or Less: A Comparative Study on Freedom of Speech
In March 2020, activist Jolovan Wham stood outside a Singapore police station holding a cardboard sign with a smiley face, where officers were interrogating two teenage climate activists. 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 most Singaporeans responded with muted reactions to the restriction of free speech. In other democratic countries, such as 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 significantly. 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 will enable authorities in Singapore to control the environment by efficiently monitoring and removing speech. 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. In contrast, a growing number of Americans are dissatisfied with restrictions on 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 on free speech, believing that close monitoring would help maintain social harmony effectively. On the other hand, a growing number of Americans report feeling insecure about their right to speak freely. College students in particular seem the most skeptical, with 45% reporting self-censorship in classrooms due to 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 social media can easily build or destroy reputations, individuals are much more cognisant of their every action. As a result, even with greater access to free speech, many Americans hesitate to exercise it.
In summary, freedom of speech is the fundamental right to express oneself, and a core pillar of democracy. It is quintessential to any functioning democracy, as it allows members of the public to express their views openly and without restriction. At the same time, freedom of speech has also come under fire for its susceptibility to abuse. Over the years, numerous individuals have abused this freedom for malicious purposes, spreading lies and deceit, and even causing social unrest.
As a result, governments have taken different approaches to free speech, with some imposing stricter restrictions and others protecting it extensively. Consequently, this has led to disparate views on freedom of speech in the status quo. Growing up in a country that prioritises free speech naturally makes people more sensitive to restrictions on their rights, while being raised in a society that values social stability leads them to place less emphasis on free speech. In either case, it is evident that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to free speech.
