Defining Free Speech
Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of democracy, but its extent is widely debated, particularly in Singapore, where social harmony is paramount. In a recent forum held by the Singapore Institute of Management (SIM) Singapore Affairs Society (SAS), experts, including keynote speaker Minister K Shanmugam, Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law discussed how to strike a balance between protecting free expression and implementation of restrictions that ensure societal stability.
Firstly, we need to understand freedom of speech and its application in Singapore. Freedom of speech is the right to express one’s opinions without censorship, restraint or legal penalty. It is expanded to the freedom of press and assembly and is the core of liberal philosophy. However, this right is not absolute, particularly concerning offensive and hate speech. Hate speech often dehumanizes its targets, which can justify violence against certain groups. This comprises offensive speech, such as slurs and incendiary remarks on the basis of immutable characteristics such as race and gender, and personal beliefs. Understanding the impact of hate speech is essential because unrestrained offensive speech can quickly evolve into threats against social harmony. Having undergone bouts of racial riots and division in the early days of Singapore, safeguarding social cohesion became a top priority of the Singaporean government. Singapore’s multicultural context makes it especially vulnerable to the divisive effects of hate speech. Hence, regulations prohibiting free speech are essential and justified in law. However, what does balance look like and what role do these laws play in maintaining harmony?
Necessity and Conduct of Regulations
Singapore’s speech laws are often perceived as overly restrictive and an infringement on free speech. However, the position of the government stands at maintenance of peace particularly amongst racial and religious groups. The cornerstone establishment of racial harmony is pivotal to the functioning of Singaporean society reflected in critical Acts such as that of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA) passed in 1990, empowering the judiciary to prosecute more ambiguous cases of hate speech. Additionally, a tool known as the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) was passed in 2019, towards the latter end of Donald Trump’s regime involving a slew of misinformation flooding channels of information.
The MRHA empowers law enforcers to prosecute individuals or groups for remarks that harm Singapore’s racial and religious harmony, regardless of the speaker’s background. So long as an attempt to diminish and downplay others on the basis of immutable characteristics and personal beliefs was made, they were liable for charges. The law may be viewed as archaic given the initial origin 35 years ago. However, an amendment in 2019 reviewed the act and further enhanced penalties for such crimes. It is also important to note that a further renewal bill was introduced in January 2025 to be passed following the debate on the committee of supply (Budget 2025).
POFMA, widely considered the most controversial free speech law, has been criticized by activists who feel targeted by it. POFMA functions by enabling governing officials to correct inaccurate information with the intention to mislead. This is conducted in consultation with the Attorney General Chambers (AGC) before a directive is given. The directive does not demand the removal of false information but demands a label informing the general public that the government has determined the information uploaded to be false and redirect them to the accurate source statements. This order can be challenged in court by individuals should they deem it unfair or an abuse of application. However, to date, no challenge has taken place. POFMA targets typically remove their posts out of fear of further prosecution and inability to monetise their pages. This means of censorship is by no means traditional but is self-censorship on personal consent.
False narratives, deepfakes and the prevalence of misleading content can undoubtedly impact public perceptions and point of view particularly during elections or national crises. POFMA serves as a corrective mechanism, issuing fact-checking measures rather than outright censorship. Regulations ensure public discourse remains grounded in truth and the truth only, but the regulation powers could also be misused to control narratives rather than simply prevent harm. If unrestricted speech enables misinformation that leads to lack of public trust or directly disproportionately affects certain groups of people or communities, regulations certainly become a tool to maintain a stable and informed society just like the existence of POFMA and its functions.
Effective regulation requires transparent and fair enforcement. While some groups perceive regulations from POFMA as primarily serving state interests, others acknowledge their necessity in an era of increasing digital threats, especially surrounding artificial intelligence. This shows the importance of media literacy and public awareness. Furthermore, state regulations regarding speech and digital regulations are undoubtedly very important but severely lacking. The support of citizens to the cause of digital regulations is necessary to mitigate the chilling effect that takes place if misinformation is allowed to run rampant. This cannot be mistaken for repression of speech. Laws can and do set boundaries, but people must exercise personal judgement on information presented on the internet.
When it comes to the necessity and conduct of regulations, it is important to assess beyond simple lenses of absolutism in free speech and consider the goals of the society. In European societies, some minority or specific religious groups receive protections whereas others are fair game. For instance, antisemitism is regulated in France yet anti-Islam or anti-Christian narratives are perfectly acceptable. This could cause a rift in society and further exacerbate hatred towards the group they seek to protect. As such, Singapore’s approach is a zero-tolerance towards any group, they allow for the freedom of public practice of religion in donning apparatus or prayers but denouncement of other groups to raise one’s own religion or race is unacceptable.
Post New Censorship Theory
With close reference to Matthew Bunn’s article Reimagining Repression: New Censorship Theory and After, critical information of traditional (Liberal) vs new (Marxist) conduct of censorship is revealed to us. Bunn’s central argument revolves around the idea of self-censorship and repression of opinions rather than traditional top-down oppression by the state influenced by Michel Foucault and Pierre Bourdieu.
Applying this logic to Singapore, we see many instances where people self-censor due to perceived legal risks. This inherent belief, while unveiled to be false during the session, is something that many Singaporeans tend to hold close to themselves subconsciously and to date, frequently trap their speech within such a bubble. These beliefs are not irrational, as Singapore’s biggest free speech controversy, the Marxist Conspiracy (Operation Spectrum) and its predecessor, Operation Coldstore, reinforced fear and suspicion of communist or Far-Left ideologies. While such persecution is not recorded or known publicly today, it is undeniable that a scar on society has been left with the conduct of these operations. It is, however, important to note that self-censorship need not necessarily be a negative notion contrary to liberal presentations of free speech as it often allows for people to withhold themselves from infringing and restricting the free speech of others given that the conduct of hate speech and threats is most definitely, an encroachment onto the realm of free speech of others.
Media Literacy
While regulations are in place to combat online falsehoods and misinformation, media literacy was briefly brought up during the forum, highlighting the important role it has on educating Singaporeans about disinformation and misinformation in the complex media landscape. These falsehoods are presented in various forms, including fake news, AI- generated content and scams. Social media platforms prioritise engagement and virality over accuracy, exacerbating the rapid dissemination of disinformation. Its impact ranges greatly across demographics.
Gen Z and millennials, known as digital natives, are predominantly on TikTok and Instagram. However, they remain vulnerable to misinformation, despite their digital fluency. Milieu Insight conducted a poll and found that more than 60% of youth in Singapore under the age of 18 were exposed to fake news, from Instagram or TikTok. Furthermore, roughly 69 to 76% of people admitted to unintentionally sharing fake news, according to a study conducted by Nanyang Technological University’s (NTU) Centre for Information Integrity and the Internet (IN-cube). Although youths have a general understanding of fake news, their actual ability to discern and to critically think contradicts this understanding.
Older adults and the elderly are even more vulnerable on social media, as they did not grow up exposed to the internet, and tend to be too trusting of its content. CNA highlighted that seniors lack technical skills and digital literacy to spot disinformation, making them susceptible to fake news or scams because of smaller, less diverse social networks. This raises their reliance on peers for information verification. Moreover, according to the Institute of Policy Studies, it found that within a sample group, the highest proportion of victims to fake news were seniors, concluding them to be “informationally disengaged”. They were also found to have the lowest use and lowest trust in media and the second-highest rate of confirmation bias in news-seeking.
As mentioned, generative AI is considered a threat in our media landscape, as it could be exploited to amplify misinformation. Deepfakes and synthetic media are some AI-based tools that make it possible to generate remarkably convincing deceptive content making it difficult to distinguish from reality. It can be exploited to create videos, audio recordings, and images. One instance of this is when deep fake videos of Lee Hsien Leong giving tips on investment opportunities and discussing foreign affairs were spread around social media. It was swiftly taken down, but was severe enough for authorities to pass a law banning digitally manipulated content of candidates during elections. As tools like ChatGPT and Grok are easily accessible and frequently used, the ability to produce such content is a simplified process malicious actors could capitalise upon.
With these types of disinformation in mind as well as its effect on demographics, what does media literacy look like in Singapore? There have been several initiatives introduced to educate Singaporeans, both young and old, on navigating the digital landscape. Seniors can learn the technological skills necessary to defend themselves against online threats and scams through the Cyber Security Agency’s (CSA) SG Cyber Safe Seniors Program. The Ministry of Education (MOE) is implementing media literacy into the curriculum through the Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) program.Primary and secondary students receive training in critically evaluating media sources. Moreover, the EdTech Master Plan 2030 will emphasise AI literacy, so students can understand and interact with AI- powered content responsibly.
Child Safety
In Singapore, where internet penetration is among the highest globally, protecting children in the digital space has become an increasing concern. As deepfake technology and misinformation spread, children are face increasing exposure to deceptive content, making media literacy more crucial than ever. While social media platforms have introduced safety measures, recent changes show that many companies have cut back on their safety teams, leaving children at greater risk.
Singapore has put in place mechanisms such as POFMA to tackle misinformation, while organizations like the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) and the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA) have developed programs aimed at increasing awareness of digital safety. IMDA’s S.U.R.E. (Source, Understand, Research, Evaluate) campaign provides education on identifying credible sources, while schools have begun integrating digital literacy courses to help students navigate online spaces safely. Despite these, pervasive issues remain. Young users continue to bypass age restrictions and access inappropriate content, proving that more work needs to be done in improving platform security and ensuring that parents play a stronger role in guiding their children’s online activities.
However, internet safety cannot rely on regulation alone, as online habits reflect real-world behaviors. Studies show that excessive time spent on social media and exposure to distressing content can lead to anxiety, depression, and other mental health issues among children. In response, Singapore has encouraged digital detox initiatives, pushing for more offline engagement through outdoor activities and sports. These efforts seek to create a healthier balance between digital interaction and real-world experiences, helping children develop better emotional and mental well-being.
A key question is whether online child safety is primarily the responsibility of parents or the state. While institutions like IMDA and CSA have implemented policies and awareness programs, it is parents who must monitor and guide their child’s habits in the online world as parental duty. Yet not all parents have sufficient knowledge or digital skills to do so effectively accompanied by fears of invading privacy, this creates a complex problem where some children are more protected than others.
Furthermore, despite concerns surrounding social media, studies on the other hand, suggest that its use can contribute to better mental health by providing children with access to supportive communities and resources. Online platforms can serve as spaces for young users to share experiences, seek guidance, and find a sense of belonging, reducing feelings of isolation. However, whether social media becomes a positive or negative influence depends largely on how it is used. Rather than eliminating online engagement entirely, the focus should be on teaching children how to navigate digital spaces safely and responsibly, ensuring that they benefit from the advantages of technology without being exposed to its risks.
Ensuring child safety online in Singapore requires a combination of measures, education, and active involvement from both institutions and families. With stronger collaboration between the government, digital platforms, and parents, children can be better equipped to engage with the online world in a way that is safe.
In conclusion
Many topics were covered in this session discussing the future of free speech amidst digital governance. Discussions ranged from the role of regulations to child safety and alternative uses of social media, offering diverse perspectives. The essentiality of free speech has a variance shaped by cultural and historical contexts that we must be sensitive about. What one society considers essential may not hold the same value in another due to differing experiences. A society without boundaries descends into a primitive community, exposed to the elements and vulnerable to threats.
Sources
Milleu Insight: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/singapore-students-media-literacy-class-survey-fake-news-misinformation-deepfake-4649236
IPS Study: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/fake-news-scams-online-elderly-internet-facebook-2107146
