Case contrast: America and Singapore
Singapore: Politician gets arrested for public speaking without a permit (Chee)
America: Film maker wins awards for defamatory film that distorts the truth (Moore)
Differences:
1. In America, one is free to express with legal impunity one's political views any way one wishes in just about any medium of communication. In Singapore, one is allowed by law to publish persistently political views only as a registered political website or organisation or as a politician. Public speaking requires a permit.
2. One can get away with slander of political leaders in America but not in Singapore.
Possible consequences of each situation:
America: great plurality of views, disagreement, falsehoods, debate
- lively, often rambunctious and chaotic debate
- society is more polarised and partisan
- more citizens hold stronger ideological views, and are generally more political interested.
Singapore: general absence of a plurality of views, disagreements, debate (?) A high priority placed on the speaker to take responsibility for his message and not too speak without careful thought and proper substantiating evidence (atmosphere of a court of law?)
- absence of lively political debate
- majority of the society either self-professedly apathetic about local politics, or hold fairly standard, homogenous views that largely acknowledge the credit due to the government for Singapore's success today
Pros of a society like America's?
1. There is certainly freedom of expression; individuals can voice their political views without fear of being sued by the government. In this we can see the encouragement of a more vocal and assertive people who know and value their civil liberties. Citizens are free to act as effective checks and balances for the government. If there is any wrongdoing by an elected official, chances are that it will be exposed sooner or later.
2. In the presence of so much political debate, the people are given opportunities to be aware of and to evaluate the many different positions put forward on important issues that concern them. The people thus can become more politically astute and play a more meaningful role in the shaping of policies.
Cons of such a society:
1. When there is in general no legal deterrent to ensure that speakers are made responsible for their messages (and the consequences that follow or may follow), there will invariably be a proliferation of many unsound views, and perpetuation of outright falsehoods that will inevitably adversely influence a segment of the population. People may also be encouraged to think that they can get away with uncritical comments and that it is perfectly fine to mock and slander: is this really desirable for the intellectual and moral climate of that society?
(A possible counter here would be that given enough thinking and reasonable people who are interested in the truth, and in what's best for the society, there is no need for lawsuits to keep the undesirable excesses of such a situation to a minimum. For instance, there does exist some informal system of checks and balances for views published on the internet: citizens would check on other citizens and those who persistently propagate silly or extremely unsound views may have their reputations discredited. Social approval or condemnation is arguably as effective a check on irresponsible individuals than libel suits.
Pros of a society like Singapore's:
1. Premium on responsible speech
2. Cleaner, tidier political scene where, due to the general lack of passionate political discourse, issues can be discussed more objectively, more efficiently. (Imagine the sheer amount of money and human capital spent on Fahrenheit 911 and the subsequent Fahrenhype 911 thought necessary to counter the perceived inaccuracies of the original pseudo-documentary)
3. Ensures that only the best or the most passionate about improving the political scene do so.
Cons of such a society:
1. Discouragement of political discourse (possible counter: there exists at least several internet sites that engage in serious discussion of political issues, and the government does allow "internet chatter"; opposition parties are given space in the media)
2. Political apathy among populace: either be a politician (register yourself) or shut up (possible counter: not having strong political views and criticism of the government not necessarily a sign of apathy, just that things are going well. "Politics" need not only consist of lively political debate)
3. The development of a less politically astute populace who may be manipulated by an intelligent and powerful ruling party (possible counter: do you believe this is the case for Singapore? How is "manipulation" verified? Are our people really becoming less political astute compared to the average American?)
How do you think Singapore can become a more open society without risking social cohesion and efficient governing system it has run so successfully?
At the end of the day, whether an open society such as America is desirable seems to be a matter of how highly we value freedom of expression in comparison with other desirable things such as social cohesion and a priority on responsible speech.