Restricting Free Speech: The Impact on Opposition Parties in Singapore

Abstract

Although there has been a great deal of publicity surrounding the restriction of free speech with regard to opposition parties in Singapore, in real terms, the value of free speech for such parties is limited. First, defamation laws in Singapore require the opposition parties to exercise extreme caution to ensure political comments do not result in costly defamation suits or even imprisonment. Second, free speech in itself is of limited use politically for opposition parties if the content of this speech is not disseminated widely by the local media. As a result, both the fear of legal suits and the limited dissemination of content continue to restrict the potential of free speech for opposition parties in Singapore. This means the contribution of free speech activities to inter-party debate is low in Singapore, thereby undermining the fundamental role of democracy premised on fair inter-party competition.

Power and Populism: What the Singapore Model Means for the Chinese Dream

“…Former top senior civil servant Eddie Teo acknowledged Lee's shaping of Singapore's public service, which in Lee's mind, "should be cleaned up and turned into an incorruptible and meritocratic institution … having watched 12 Schein 1996;Leifer 2000;Kassim and Ali 2015. 13 For works which are critical of the Singapore model, see Barr 2014;Gomez 2006;George 2007;Rodan 2016;Low 2014. 14 Worldwide Governance Indicators, Country Data for Singapore: 1996-2014, http://info.worldbank.org/ governance/wgi/pdf/c193.pdf.…”

“…13For works which are critical of the Singapore model, see Barr 2014; Gomez 2006; George 2007; Rodan 2016; Low 2014.…”

Political pragmatism and the creative economy: Singapore as a City for the Arts

“…Enforcing tough punishments for seemingly minor uncivil behaviour -for example jay-walking, spitting and not flushing public toilets after use -indicate the authorities' tendencies to micro-manage Singaporeans' everyday life. With the ruling party controlling 82 of the 84 parliamentary seats, and a mass media pliant towards the government, political freedom is restricted (Chua 1995, Lydgate 2003, Gomez 2006). …”

“…This so-called openness does not exclude the possibility of government leaders suing film-makers and distributors for defamation. Dissidents, opposition members and international newspapers have been sued before, and many individuals were bankrupted (Gomez 2006). As a consequence, many creative workers exercise self-censorship (Gomez 2002).…”

Reimagining Singapore as a creative nation: The politics of place branding

“…Tough punishments for seemingly minor uncivil behaviour -for example jay-walking, spitting and not fl ushing public toilets after useindicate the authorities ' tendencies to micromanage Singaporeans ' everyday life. With the ruling party controlling 82 of the 84 parliamentary seats, and a mass media pliant towards the government, political freedom is restricted ( Chua, 1995 ;George, 2000 ;Gomez, 2006 ;Lydgate, 2003 ;Ooi, 1998 ). Singapore is also often seen as a sterile cultural ' desert ' ( Kawasaki, 2004: 22 ).…”