Each and every one of us enters this world with a cry, and it is with this utmost fundamental expression of ourselves that we first convey to our parents our basic needs and wants, later expanding the scope of communication to friends and then the community.
This is why speech—and thereby the freedom of speech—is so important: through it, we make ourselves heard as individuals, interact with others, and receive information that shapes our worldview in turn. I have chosen to compare France and Singapore because these two countries face the same set of problems vis-a-vis freedom of speech, including immigration and racial tensions. Yet due to their different historical trajectories and the particularities of their individual societies, they have addressed these problems in dissimilar ways.
[...] As Melanie Chew put it: “Normally an active member of the international community, [Singapore] has fought clear of human rights conventions, being signatory to only three of a possible 251.”2 In fact, the relative reluctance of the Singaporean state to sign on to external treaties advocating freedom of speech betrays its hesitation to embrace this fundamental liberty wholeheartedly. This is due to the belief that the latter comes at a certain price—one that is judged by Singapore to be too high, thus prompting it to set restrictions. B. The Limits of Freedom of Speech Singapore is not alone in the opinion that there are certain costs to freedom of speech, though. [...]
[...] The fear has been brought about not in small part by the defamation lawsuits that have been directed against past political dissenters16, and has cultivated a practice of selfcensorship. Lee Kuan Yew, who was also one of the PAP's founding members, has even been called most successful individual litigant in history” as a result of the numerous lawsuits he has filed—and won—against his political opponents. Neither does it help that the Inland Revenue Department often shows sudden interest in an individual after that person has locked horns with the government”18. [...]
[...] Ministre public case. As Bird concludes, idea of a law which could protect people from aggression on the basis of their race was still quite foreign to French law and democratic thought. Because of the state's reluctance to press charges, and because most racially defamatory allegations imputed groups rather than individuals, the décret Marchandeau was rarely applied and was generally ineffectual.5”6 Then came the Pleven Law, which became the first French legislation to recognise group identity, even if only implicitly. [...]
[...] In fact, when the DRMC was being drafted, one of the most debated issues was the subject of freedom of expression. While Marat and Robespierre wanted it to be undefined and unlimited, Emmanuel-Joseph Sieyès wanted it to be limited and framed by the law. Therein lie the two main ways of viewing freedom of speech: it can either be absolute, or limited. As a matter of fact, all the aforementioned sources of free speech, in both France and Singapore, contain limitation clauses. Even so, there are three complementary currents of thought that come under limited freedom. [...]
[...] From Third World to First, 1965-2000, 1st ed., Times Media Private Limited Lee Hsien Loong and Moisés Naím: The FP Interview: Singapore's Big Gamble, Foreign Policy, No (May - Jun., 2002), pp. 32-43 Mathieu, Bertrand: La liberté d'expression en France : de la protection constitutionnelle aux menaces législatives, Revue du droit public et de la science politique en France et à l'Étranger juillet 0101 P Mutalib, Hussin: Illiberal Democracy and the Future of Opposition in Singapore, Third World Quarterly, Vol No (Apr., 2000), pp. [...]
Bibliographie, normes APA
Citez le doc consultéLecture en ligne
et sans publicité !Contenu vérifié
par notre comité de lecture
