An article entitled, “Amos Yee: YouTube Star, Teen-Ager, Dissident”, by Nathan Heller was published in The New Yorker on April 10 2015.
In his article, the writer wrote in support of Amos Yee alluding that Amos “has all the hallmarks of a green and thriving mind”. By now, most would have been aware of the teenager in Singapore who posted a video online that insulted Christianity and the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew.
Amongst Nathan’s views on Singapore’s intolerance to free speech, he commented, “The citizens of developed nations in the twenty-first century should not need to be told that free expression is a basic attribute of political health”.
Having watched Amos Yee’s video clips, my conclusion is that this young man is unquestionably smart, extremely articulate, and possesses the charisma and qualities to becoming an influential leader. In fact, a few of Amos’s opinions on social issues were actually worth deliberating in public forums.
The matter that got Amos into trouble is his unrestrained personal character assignation of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew, religious figure Jesus Christ and in his own words: “ how [swear word] delusional, and ignorant and stupid your parents are”. Against these individuals, he used vulgarities, offensive expressions and genital references that I believe even Nathan Heller would have trouble putting in print in The New Yorker.
As the video contains contents that are grossly inappropriate for this website, I have decided not to embed it into this post. It can however be easily searched on YouTube.
If one of the western markers for free speech includes the complete freedom to utter distasteful, rude and insulting words against another individual without fear of reproach, then Nathan is right. There is indeed limited freedom of speech in Singapore.
But Singapore has chosen the positive aspects of democracy and freedom of speech that comes with certain boundaries aimed, not to silence its citizens, but to build a harmonious multi-racial and multi-religious society where free speech is exercised with basic decency and mutual respect. This is true freedom. Fortunately, our system does not sanction the dressing of verbal bullying as free speech.
Source: U.S. National Archives and Records Administration
On the other hand, many casual observers in the western media have opted to critic Singapore’s stand through their own lenses. Many have taken the easy approach of publishing one-sided views. Many of the viewpoints lack objectivity while others are simply of very shallow substance written by opportunists who resorted to Singapore bashing in order to advance their self-centred agendas.
Sure, all of us may be entitled to our own opinions; political, religious and otherwise. But all of us must also be accorded the basic human rights of being treated with respect and decency.
In my last blog post that was written in tribute to the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew, I wrote of an experience I had many years back:
On a business trip to UK, I was walking along a busy street of the city of Manchester, home to the football club I have supported since a teenager (Manchester United).
I was with a dear Irish friend. As we were walking, I came across people standing by and holding placards, making noises and raising their voices. On the placards were distasteful, rude and insulting words describing certain leaders and politicians of another country. The people were name-calling these leaders with unflattering words such as “pigs”.
I have watched overseas demonstrations on television before, yet, at that moment I turned to my friend and ask him what was going on. His simple reply to me was: “freedom of speech”.
I remember very clearly, till this day, that I thought to myself there and then: “if this is democracy and this is what freedom of speech is about, then I don’t want democracy and freedom of speech”.
Well, ofcourse I do.
But I suppose what I really meant was I would not desire democracy and freedom of speech in the form that I witnessed that day. Obviously, every one of us is entitle to our own positions and views and I write this with no intent to damage the many overseas friendships that I have made and cherish over the years. But Singapore needs a democracy that is unique to her circumstances.
This is a major legacy that Mr Lee has left me and my fellow citizens. We can debate and disagree on policies and ideology. But we need to substantiate with facts and deliver in a respectable and honorably manner.
Sadly, today that brand of free speech which I witnessed has infiltrated many of our young’s minds. The internet has especially succeeded in spreading and deepening the influence.
As a parent, I can empathize with Amos’s parents of the difficulties that they must be going through now. As parents, we stand with them. The majority of parents today, my wife and I included, have to grapple with the adverse influence of the mass media on our children.
Amos will obviously need to learn the hard truth that one’s speech carries with it accountability.
“Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from judgement”.
- Jackson Pearce
The majority of Singaporeans would like to see Amos being mentored properly so that his obvious fine talents and energies are channeled to good use, both for his family and his country.
The mass media has a profound influence on our minds. This is especially so among our young, all of whom need mentoring from their parents and teachers in discerning the rights from the wrongs; the acceptable from the undesirable. Even where many things in life may be permissible, yet not everything is beneficial.
Hence, early control of the kind of materials that our young are exposed to is critical to the kind of values that they will grow up with. This is particularly pronounced in art and entertainment resources such as video games, sitcoms and music. Once ingrained, they will become harder to intervene. Amos’ mother has admitted to not being able to control him while Amos himself seem to be relishing the limelight instead
“Control” seems to be a dirty word to the western media and despised as uncool by many of our young. Yet, the predicament that Amos Yee’s situation we are seeing is but one of countless examples of rising disrespect to parents, authorities and establishments.
I am glad that not everyone even in the west agrees with Nathan Heller’s viewpoints. I came across this blog post where the editor pointed out: “Speech, and writing, can have major consequences, and far-reaching ramifications, both good and bad. And the only way to guarantee the good is to use forms of expression that are respectful and non-offensive … to everyone concerned”.
Nathan Heller can certainly consider my view on rights and freedom to be backward. He has every right in his country to continue penning his casual opinions from a distance.
But Nathan Heller has no stake in the long-term interest of our country, families and children.
We are the guardians of the benefits that we have been blessed enough to inherited from our pioneer generation. And we are the mentors of the next generation.
It is we who must determine and decide for ourselves what will make the future of Singapore brighter than our past.