# data[].attributes.body
Disagree.

Freedom of expression against government policy is severely curtailed in Singapore. Singapore's constitutional provisions surrounding media and journalistic censorship are kept relatively vague so that it's enforceable by the government under the common euphemism of 'defending national security', or 'preserving public order', which is simply defined, interpreted and enforced by the government themselves. Singaporeans are only allowed to protest in the Speakers' Corner in Hong Lim Park; holding a picket sign in any other part of Singapore publicly can warrant an arrest under the Public Order Act. Online petitions undertaken by the citizenry are often dismissed by the government, and surveys held by the government are closed when responses are 'overwhelming' (REACH survey on 377A).

When activist Jolovan Wham stood outside a police station for a few seconds to pose for a photo, while holding up a piece of cardboard with, quite literally, a smiley face on it, he was charged with violating the Public Order Act. Prior to this, two climate activists had been arrested for a similar reason -- including an 18-year-old student. The government insists that it is necessary for a police permit to be obtained for any assembly in a public place linked to a cause or in demonstration of a view, in order to maintain 'public order and safety'. What public order is being compromised by a smiley face, and two climate activists here?

When members of the public put out an online petition to the President to grant clemency to a mentally ill man with a limited capacity for making sound decisions himself, who'd been unfairly used as a vessel by drug trafficking businesses to transport drugs, who was sentenced to death, the petition gained over 100k signatures. Despite two appeals to the President, the state will be hanging him next Wednesday, in spite of the public's response.

All sorts of journalistic content can be censored by the Media Development Authority. Defamation proceedings are widespread, and they may be followed by a charge of sedition, which carries a sentence of up to seven years in jail. Political suffocation is accompanied by an economic shackle. Singapore's print and broadcast media are controlled by two major organizations. A governmental investment corporation owns one of them, MediaCorp. The other, Singapore Press Holdings, is privately owned (on paper), although its executives are appointed by the government. As a result, self-censorship is common, even among alternative independent media outlets, which are threatened by judicial and economic pressure.

The Orwellian provisions of the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation act in 2019 require all media outlets and digital platforms to publish "corrections" to any content that the government may consider "incorrect" arbitrarily. The government has been able to enforce its own narrative on a number of issues, including the death penalty, the pay provided to the prime minister's wife, and its handling of the Covid-19 scandal. Corrections are applied not based on substantiated fact, but solely on the government's stance and narratives.

Make no mistake: to say that there should be total, unregulated freedom of expression in Singapore without any form of restriction would be a major faux pas. Certain things require protection, such as the sanctity of different religions, the rights of minorities and terrorist threats against the state. But looking at everything in context tells us undoubtedly that the government has spared no expense in maximising laws to their advantage, to curtail freedoms and strongarm their narrative against the citizenry.

To say that there is a balance of freedom of expression in Singapore is laughable.

# data[].attributes.body
No, there is not an appropriate balance of Freedom of Expression in SG.

There had been many small scale peaceful protests in Singapore, but despite having not disrupted public order nor been a nuisance to the public, these protesters were still taken away by riot police.

Another reason is that people have to apply for a permit to protest in SG also leads us to believe that there is not appropriate freedom of expression in SG.

A permit costs money and has to be approved by the govt before the protest can be held. You also have to declare your purpose of protest, the date and time, the number of people in attendance, among others, and all of that needs to be approved by the government before a permit is given. Even with a permit, they can still call the protest off if they stray off the approved topic.

However, a clear line with minimal grey areas must be drawn on what can and cannot be done. To protect public safety and sanctity, some forms of expression and topics should not be allowed (ie. streaking, racism etc.). In fact, there are guidelines on what can and cant be expressed in Singapore.

although that is the case, there is still little freedom of expression in Singapore. Singapore claims that they allow their citizens free speech, but the moment someone says something that they do not agree with, the government will find some excuse to remove the content and reprimand the involved parties.

These show that the balance of freedom of expression in Singapore is askew.

read:
https://amp.france24.com/en/live-news/20210914-singapore-news-site-suspended-critics-fear-censorship

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/imda-suspends-the-online-citizens-class-licence-website-told-to-stop-posting-content-by

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A Singaporean news website often critical of authorities had its licence suspended Tuesday for failing to declare funding sources, regulators said, with a rights group slamming the move as "unacceptable censorship".

Critics frequently accuse the tightly-regulated city-state of curbing media freedoms, and The Online Citizen (TOC) had long been in the government's crosshairs.

One of Singapore's few alternative news sources, it often ran stories more critical of the authorities than those in the pro-government mainstream media.

The city-state's media regulator said it had suspended the company's licence to operate its websites and social media channels as it had not fully met obligations to declare funding.

Sites such as TOC "are required to be transparent about their sources of funding", the Infocomm Media Development Authority said in a statement.

"This is to prevent such sites from being controlled by foreign actors, or coming under the influence of foreign entities or funding."

TOC was ordered to disable its websites and social media accounts by Thursday. If it fails to provide enough further information, then its licence to operate may be cancelled entirely, the regulator warned.

The site, which first registered in 2018, had not fully complied with its obligations to declare its funding since 2019, the regulator said.

It noted that TOC had allowed subscribers to get specific articles written in return for "subscription funding", and warned this "could be an avenue for foreign influence".

But chief editor Terry Xu told AFP that the site "has never received any foreign funding, nor would it in the future", and the company was considering its options.

Earlier this month, Xu and one TOC writer were ordered to pay substantial damages after losing a defamation suit against Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director for Human Rights Watch, said the licence suspension was "outrageous and unacceptable censorship, disguised as government regulatory action".

"The reality is the Singaporean government has been looking to shut down TOC by hook or by crook, because they simply don't like their independence or their critical reporting."

Singapore ranks 160th out of 180 countries and territories in Reporters Without Borders' World Press Freedom Index, where number one indicates the country with the greatest media freedoms.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Singapore news site suspended, critics fear censorship - France 24

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Singaporean news website often critical of authorities had its licence suspended Tuesday for failing to declare funding sources, regulators said, with a rights group slamming the move as "unacceptable censorship". Critics frequently accuse the tightly-regulated city-state of curbing media freedoms, and The Online Citizen (TOC) had long been in the government's crosshairs.

# data[].attributes.body
We disagree.

To us, freedom of expression means being able to say anything we want, anywhere, while being considerate of others’ feelings and taking accountability when necessary. The plurality of views is important, however we feel that that’s lacking in Singapore as it is mostly an echo chamber. People generally prioritise harmony and go with the status quo and we rarely question things.

We are trying to protect public order by restricting protests to Hong Lim Park, which we feel isn’t entirely freedom of expression. We feel that there’s a lot of censorship in media as well (eg. IMDA rules)

# data[].attributes.body
We think there is an appropriate balance, however there are certain things that people cannot freely express which might come across as hypocritical. We believe it is balanced because it helps to maintain a peaceful society in Singapore. On the other hand, people cannot fully express their beliefs due to the many restrictions in place.

We agree with the current approach however we believe that there are certain things that could be better.

# data[].attributes.body
Disagree.

Because despite the freedom of expression, there are topics that we aren't able to talk about without worrying about consequences. Singaporeans should be able to speak about anything freely.

Some of the government's interests protect the feelings of the citizens, but at the same time in some capacity people aren't allowed to talk about matters that concern them as a nation.

# data[].attributes.body
We believe that there is a decent amount of balance of the Freedom of Expression in Singapore. However, we also think that there should be more freedom for the public to exercise their beliefs when it comes to things that fall under the Contempt of Court. (E.g. Protesting outside of Hong Lim Park - Public order). We believe that the law should be applied on a case to case basis.

# data[].attributes.body
Is there an appropriate balance of the Freedom of Expression in Singapore?
No. On a scale of 1-10, we would say that it i a 4. In general, there isn't much of a freedom of expression. When looking at the main form of media in Singapore it is heavily restricted, and when the younger generation voice them out their feelings are always set aside because of how the older generations might react.

State your views if you agree / disagree with the current approach and why?
We disagree.
With the way the current approach is going, it will be a never ending cycle. Very much of a
"if we aren't going to change it, then who will?"

# data[].attributes.body
Agree. There must be a line drawn to ensure Singapore remains a harmonious country.
e.g. if the line is not drawn and people can express however they want/like, Singapore will be like America, where the freedom of speech has caused division and disorder.

# data[].attributes.body
yes, we believe it is balanced.
the only time freedom is limited/challenged with is when your security is compromised, it isn't just about protecting one's security but singaporeans as a whole.
there aren't many platforms or websites that are restricted by the government, we can still go on with our daily lives.

# data[].attributes.body
Is there an appropriate balance of the Freedom of Expression in Singapore?

State your views if you agree / disagree with the current approach and why?