Introduction
Singapore's Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam reminded the public that the country would continue to reject intolerant teachings and would continue to strength understanding and trust between its diverse communities (Channel News Asia, 2016). Divisive teachings and statements are to be dealt according to law as Singapore acknowledges the reality of its fragile but previous religious and racial harmony. For a country like Singapore which has been reliant on its stability and the diversity of its community, it is very important to keep track with any statement and activity that could divide its communities and cause chaos to its peaceful atmosphere.
Hate speech is any statement that attacks a group or person due to their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, religion, or disability (Tsesis, 2009). Hate speeches, whether in writing or in gesture, tend to incite violence and prejudices against a certain group or individual. The government had to intervene with proper legislation to protect certain groups against these forms of attacks. Hate speech laws were drafted by government to ascertain the rights of individuals and groups as well as keep the peaceful relationship among groups and communities which could be incited by only a certain incident of hate speech.
This assignment examines the advantages and disadvantages of hate speech laws to individuals, communities and the country as a whole. There is a need to look at how they are shaping the atmosphere and relationship among individuals and groups as well as in keeping the harmony of the country. Lastly, it is also necessary to look at how hate speech laws are being implemented with the acknowledgement on the need to ensure that they don’t violate freedom of speech or of the press.
Pros and Cons of Hate Speech Laws in Singapore
Primarily, the idea of hate speech laws and regulations in Singapore stems from the unique composition of its society. With the discrimination from Malaysia (during the Malaysia Federation), Singapore already knew that it had to keep its society solid and strong to avoid the same chaos that divided the Federation (Barr & Low, 2005). The Sedition Act and the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act were fundamental hate speech laws promulgated to help Singapore maintain its peace and stability. With the differences on culture and religion among people living in Singapore, the government had to ensure there are no forms of attacks and violence that could create civil issues of the country, thereby affecting its economic position in the global market.
Secondly, hate speech laws in Singapore keep the decency and discipline among people (Steiner et al., 2008). There should be a tolerant attitude among people in Singapore with the acknowledgement that people have rights to live without bigotry wherein they could live, practice their faith, and maintain respect with one another. Singapore is a country that respects human dignity; thereby it needs to maintain the same for the protection of its people.
Thirdly, to avoid further escalation of any hate speech statement, there is a need for a mechanism that deals with the problem. Without such mechanism, communities would be pushing for their responses that could only cause major chaos to the society as a whole. Because there are already mechanisms that could be tapped for those attacked by hate speeches, there is also a more sober approach to these situations. This avoids the problems and issues that are causing trouble to the country. Instead of feeling that the attack is against the community or the religious group, the mechanisms allow them to feel secure that the law is protecting them against such activity.
However, there are also those who raise concerns on the extent of hate speech laws in Singapore. For them, this kind of legislation is going to create an issue on the freedom of expression of people in Singapore. Both the Sedition Act and the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act are legislations with the encroachment on the freedom of people to express themselves (Bakircioglu, 2008). Because any statement against a religious group is a form of hate speech, individuals are also stopped from expressing their disgust on these groups. As a result, their freedom of expression or speech is considered to be restricted or regulated by the state. In fact, the instances of hate speech are considered a feature to be tolerated for people to enjoy their individual liberty. Because people have their own liberty, it would be unjust to stop them from expressing this liberty.
More than that, the issue of hate speech laws is its slope toward censorship and even totalitarianism policies. There are fears that hate speech laws could not implemented well and it is only the beginning on how the state censors the people. Because individuals are only allowed to speak good of a religious or a racial group, it is also already a form of censorship on people as they cannot express themselves (Warf, 2011). In Singapore, there are fears on the totalitarianism of the government when it already extends its authority to the rights and liberties of people. It is already the government that tells people what to say, and it would be a direct assault on the way they think. In this regard, the government is considered becoming a dictatorial one that tells the people what to do, what to think, and what to say.
Lastly, there is also a growing animosity among religious communities. The other would be thinking that the other is too sensitive on whatever they would say. In fact, those who made hate speeches would be considered heroes for speaking their minds even if there are hate speech laws that could put them in the direct problem of justice. Considering this, it is necessary to note that hate speech is impossible to be curtailed as these communities would be considering the issue to be a social and communal one. There is a need for the government to work with these communities for them to have a considerable understanding with each other rather than to fire hate speech laws at each other which would eventually fall out.
Freedom of Speech and Press
As already noted, one of the fears that come with these hate speech laws is the reality on the government’s role in stopping people from expressing themselves. Article 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore provided the rights to the freedom of speech, assembly and association (Tan, 2017). However, the government or the state also reserves the right to restrict these freedoms on the ground of Article 14(2). Based on this one, the state has the power to implement these hate speech laws suspending the freedoms of individuals.
In terms of level of implementation, it could be said that Singapore has a strict hate speech regulatory framework. According to Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, there is a need to enforce hate speech laws (Today Online, 2016). While these laws do not scrubbed out the expression of individuals, but they need to be responsible. He noted that there are more freedoms enjoyed by young Singaporeans compared to decades ago. However, more freedoms mean that the citizens must be responsible in using these freedoms for their own good. It is essential for them to follow what the law says to avoid any consequences such as the suspension of their freedoms as guaranteed by the Constitution.
It should be noted that based on the ranking of press freedom, Singapore is at the bottom part of the list. Freedom of press is restricted in Singapore especially with the government censorship on some issues that they feel could cause major impact to the political, civil and religious situations of the country (Gomez, 2005). As already noted, one of the fears is the censorship of the people, especially the press. With several restrictions based on the regulatory framework of hate speech laws and other restrictions as noted by various policies of the government, the freedom of the press is relatively low in Singapore. This could be a major indicator on the implementer attitude of the government, especially with regards to the issue of hate speech.
Conclusion
Freedoms of speech, expression and press are important aspect of a democratic country. These are elements of the society that make it more complex as well as effective. However, when these freedoms are causing divisions and chaos in the country, there is also a need to work out a series of actions that guaranteed the protection of all as well as the stability of the state especially with the challenges of extremism and intolerance.
Hate speech laws could be implemented to protect each group from any form of violence. There is a need to develop strong partnership and relationship among diverse groups and races. While hate speech laws provide a mechanism, it is only through this close relationship that the proper understanding of diversity is attained. It is important for the state to work on developing this relationship as a safeguard against any escalation of hate speeches being raised through these laws.
References
Bakircioglu, O. (2008). Freedom of expression and hate speech. Tulsa J. Comp. & Int'l L., 16, 1.
Barr, M. D., & Low, J. (2005). Assimilation as multiracialism: The case of Singapore's Malays. Asian Ethnicity, 6(3), 161-182.
Channel News Asia. (2016). Singapore’s politics must remain above race and religion: Shanmugam
Retrieved from http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/singapore-s-politics-must-remain-above-race-and-religion-shanmug-7975186
Gomez, J. (2005). International NGOs: filling the" gap" in Singapore's civil society. Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, 20(2), 177-207.
Steiner, H. J., Alston, P., & Goodman, R. (2008). International human rights in context: law, politics, morals: text and materials. Oxford University Press, USA.
Tan, K. Y. (2017). GROWING CIVIL SOCIETY IN SINGAPORE: THE FUTURE LEGISLATIVE LANDSCAPE. In Civil Society and the State in Singapore (pp. 241-279).
Today Online. (2016). More freedom of speech, but some restrictions necessary: DPM. Retrieved from http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/more-freedom-speech-some-restrictions-necessary-dpm
Tsesis, A. (2009). Dignity and speech: The regulation of hate speech in a democracy.
Warf, B. (2011). Geographies of global Internet censorship. GeoJournal, 76(1), 1-23.
