This is definitely the quotation of the week (maybe, it might even be the quotation of the year):
Jarret Huang (Secondary 3 student from Raffles Institution): "The sense of persecution is not a reactive measure in my situation but rather it is a pre-emptive measure taken such that certain things which are deemed incorrect cannot be said in certain situations.”
The red-herring that is often thrown at us if we directly question a minister about the curtailment of the freedom of expression is that we have false perceptions of persecution/restricions/etc. The restrictions that exist are purely in the interest of public order and safety and also national security. The restrictions do not prevent legitimate criticism.
Jarret Huang's response to Dr Vivian Balakrishnan's question about whether he feels persecuted hits the mark perfectly.
There is a political climate that has been carefully constructed and repeatedly reinforced that ensures that we practice self-censorship most of the time. It is not persecution but the fear of possible persecution that drives the self-imposed silence that many of us are guilty of.
Once in a while, a little boy would stand up and tell the Emperor that he is not wearing any clothes. :-)
3 comments:
Self-censorship as a result of reasonable self restraint based on reason and avoidance of hate or controversy is discretion. However, self censorship because of an external fear of persecution is oppression.
Has anyone questioned why and how a group of individuals who have gathered peaceably to demonstrate publicly as a form of outcry, their outrage at the burden of inflation is offending or threatening public interest or public order or security?
How is that relevant in the decision making processes of this government?
Something too sinister is entrenched and too afraid to be dislodged from its insatiable lust and continued hegemony of power ...
True. How does one end up threatening public order and safety if he is merely expressing his views about the rising cost of living? Pro-establishment types would argue that what these chaps did as part of the Tak Boleh Tahan campaign was unlawful as they did not have a permit.
But, permits have usually been refused for these type of events. And we would never know the reason(s) for refusal. We ought to adhere to a stricter standard of natural justice and insist that reasons ought to be given whenever any government department makes a decision.
The Courts in the UK are moving in that direction although traditionally under the common law there was no duty to give reasons. I believe that a parallel development of the duty to give reasons would cause the authorities to state categorically the reason for refusing a permit.
Surely, they can't refuse a permit for a peacful gathering to raise awareness about inflation on the grounds that it would threaten public order and safety?
True. How does one end up threatening public order and safety if he is merely expressing his views about the rising cost of living? Pro-establishment types would argue that what these chaps did as part of the Tak Boleh Tahan campaign was unlawful as they did not have a permit.
But, permits have usually been refused for these type of events. And we would never know the reason(s) for refusal. We ought to adhere to a stricter standard of natural justice and insist that reasons ought to be given whenever any government department makes a decision.
The Courts in the UK are moving in that direction although traditionally under the common law there was no duty to give reasons. I believe that a parallel development of the duty to give reasons would cause the authorities to state categorically the reason for refusing a permit.
Surely, they can't refuse a permit for a peacful gathering to raise awareness about inflation on the grounds that it would threaten public order and safety?
Post a Comment