6/01/2016

Who decides how much freedom we can have?

This is a democracy and one of the basic rights of an individual in a democracy is freedom, the right to free speech, freedom from fear of the authority, freedom to choose our beliefs and what we want to do with our lives.

Now hear this from Tharman.

‘There is more freedom now compared to a decade ago, “let alone when I was your age”…I was a dissident, a govt critic. It was completely different then, compared to where it is now. We have evolved into a society that has more freedoms, but it has some restrictions and they serve a purpose.”… “Society has to find the right balance and some freedoms have to be curbed for it to evolve in a way that advances other freedoms, he said. “Every society faces this. We haven’t found the perfect balance, and we have to keep evolving.”

The addition is prompted by Tharman's Press Secretary, that the first part about finding the perfect balance is still evolving and Tharman's view is that we haven't found the perfect balance. I do not want to misquote him.

(PS. I have rechecked the Today paper on the above quotes and that I have misquoted the DPM on the part about the perfect balance. My apologies to the DPM, no intention to misquote him. It is never my intention as such a thing can be easily checked. The key point in the article is about who should decide on the right amount of freedom, not so much as the perfect balance.)

The big question, who shall decide how much freedom we shall have? Do we elect our representatives to form the govt to curb our freedom, to decide how much freedom we shall have?

Are we happy with the amount of freedom we are having, and if not, why are we electing our representatives to curb our freedom and then complain that we don’t have enough freedom?
The freedom is ours in the first place. This is our country, we are the masters/owners of this land. We elect representatives to manage the country, not to rule over us, not to limit our freedom the way they like it. Why do we repeatedly elect our representatives to restrain our freedom as they wished? They will give us our freedom at an amount they think is right.
Is the GE a time for the people to elect their masters to rule over them?

27 comments:

patriot said...


Who decide?

The Voters decide who to be their masters
and
then the Masters
decide
the Fate of the
Voters.

Fair deal right?

patriot

Ⓜatilah $ingapura⚠️ said...

Tharman has got it the wrong way around.

It is THE PEOPLE who decide how much POWER the govt has in various specific contexts.

If it was the other way around, then you end up like Singapore---a quasi-communist state encased i a patina of capitalism, crony capitalism at the top....and reasonably
free market" down below---where these smaller enterprises are no "threat" to the big corporate boys.

Most people have accustomd themselves to Singapore's quasi-communist, crony-capitalist arrangement, and they don't really care about their freedom or limiting govt. power.

And so it will remain this way for a long long time.

Anonymous said...

Go to TRE and read what had happened to Teo Soh Lan and Roy Ngerng. So sad that these things are happening in my country.

Anonymous said...

Too late.aspiration already gone wif the dodo.'s

(No beautiful songs will ever b written here.i think.)

Anonymous said...

Our club official position is that we to a large extent can accept the present position except in the entertainment area. We do not agree the government put too much restriction in this area as that restrict our right to enjoy our rides. If there is a hearing, we intend to submit our view.

Yew Kuang
Kuda Riding Club
Singapore Chapter

Ⓜatilah $ingapura⚠️ said...

If you can do this in your MotherFucking Cuntry, then it would be reasonable to assume your nation has freedom of speech.

Anonymous said...

Its an very old topic freedom of what, speaking, talking. If u speak like a jokers not involving politics, u can talk anything lah. So RB's topic is on politics i guess. That is a bit different: it involves in power grab. Hear it? Power grab.

People in politics know the tricks. With power, use the power, without power, use being victimized, use twisted interpretations to sway opinion.

Very few published blogs or opinions on main media are factual and neutral. Even research papers from some think tanks, they are biased for their purpose.

I remembered just about 10 years ago, 1 often quoted nanyang professor gave a speech to unionists talking about unemployment in singapore. He created the term voluntarily unemployed singaporeans or volunteer unemployment.

I was impressed by Freedom of Speech. The mainly non grads unionists should be grateful if they were to be retrenched. They were just volunteers to be taxi drivers. But on the streets, i met too many graduate taxi drivers formerly were managers.

This is legal Freedom of Speech. Some learned men or women can use their positions to literally assault peoples intelligence without a single sign for regret. Freedom of speech makes it happens.

My point is: speech comes with social responsibility. Look at the last 2 words. S.. R..

On another extreme. I viewed a video of some young men and women had heat dispute with HL park supervisor on where should they use the park. That was the spot for Freedom of Speech. The park official seemed had no authority over the young. Then i saw the group with my own eyes, how the young men and women led a group went into the carnival like family gathering. The adults blasted the speakers so loud that the family gathering was overwhelmed. At the end, i realized from the press, the group of adults disturbed the handicap children s performance on stage. That was the real Freedom of Speech i saw with my own eyes.

I told myself, Freedom of Speech are not something worth a cent if some very minority used it to advance their own benefits: power grab.

Trump s one extreme of Freedom of Speech, Not all like his words. Why?

Words spoken lacking of taking social responsibility of the consequence the words can cause to society is not worth supporting.

My conclusion: freedom of speech comes with responsibility. Be socially accepted in the words used, and take full responsibility for the consequences, if the uniform men goes after u. May be this is freedom of speech.

If u want to change the laws, go GET ELECTED first.
Freedom of speech has no fixed yardstick. It changes with time and place.

Anonymous said...

Knn 1.08 pm anon, don't beat around the bush and talk indirectly on some event. Knn you motherfucker lar

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:14pm
U are the clear example of problem for freedom of speech. U are unable to express what in mind yet u used words to assault a writer who expressed his frank opinion on freedom of speech.
Personally i do not respect writer who express languages only known to himself. U wasted a chance on freedom of speech at 3:14pm
U need to learn more about freedom of speech. Its not a right it is a privilege to make sense to others. I did it and u could NOT do.

Anonymous said...

The price of freedom of expression MUST Not or should not be served by those in power but for the public to challenge.

The social responsibility or rather your social standing is decided by the public.

If you talk rubbish or speak lies, you will lose social credibility or power with the people which is sufficient deterrent.

However, in your truths found to be destabilising to some people, then the problem or issue here is the visions for Sin which are under threat. And if part of your vision is to support "ddmocratic dictatorship" , then there can be no end to bloodshed.

In that case, you can't put the cart before the horse.

Anonymous said...

anon 1:08pm, when you want to use your freedom of speech, get the facts right before you hantam butak. Do you know why there were two groups approved to be Hong Lim Park at the same time with opposing agenda?

Think first lah before you show your ignorance.

When someone is driving a car and you purposely walked into his path and you blame him for driving into you?

Xiao!

Anonymous said...

Ya, ya, telling lies, half truths or distorted truth is abusing freedom of expression.

Anonymous said...

You are free to make fools of yourselves

Anonymous said...

Look at Steven Lim. Freedom of expression or freedom to be a fool. What's the big deal? It is his life.

Look at Amos Yee. Freedom to be a fool TO YOU. What's the big deal? It is his life.

A fool's life as much a fool as you who embrace fools.

b said...

Everything is controlled by the gov that get elected. People are just sheeps and not all animals are equal. Election is an unfair game where the winner takes all.

Anonymous said...

All fucking idiots, how neh?

Anonymous said...

Hi Redbean, best wishes to you from a faraway land. Please be very careful what you write, we, your readers would not like to see you checking into Hotel Changi. Take care.

Anonymous said...

You want to unfool the person? Pls. The person rather take your money
You want to unfool the Govt? Pls. They rather take your money(in millions)

Anonymous said...

The bloodshed. Karma is a bitch.

Mothers of some of those killed in the bloody crackdown on China’s 1989 Tiananmen pro-democracy movement say they have lived through 27 years of state-led “terror and suffocation” and vow to continue pushing for the truth ahead of this weekend’s anniversary of the events.

An open letter signed by 131 mothers and published by the overseas advocacy group Human Rights in China said victims’ families have endured constant harassment and intimidation by Chinese security services for pursuing justice for their loved ones.

“For us, family members of the victims’ families, it has been 27 years of (state) terror and suffocation,” the letter said.

“For 27 years, the police have been the ones who have dealt with us,” the letter said, listing a string of measures including electronic snooping and surveillance of family members, fabricated accusations and intimidation.

“All these actions undoubtedly desecrate the souls of those who perished in (the crackdown) and insult the honor of the living,” the letter said.

Anonymous said...

Ano 6:47pm
That was not true. The student Wang Dan was a professor in Taiwan up to April 2016. His contract was not renewed. Taiwanese distrust Wang because he could not account for the donations money given to him. He is corrupted.

Another student Wu Er kai Si is also in Taiwan. He is not trusted also because of money.

The other woman ran to US and married US citizen ang mor. Speak with US ascent, happily as a US citizen.

Do not believe June 4 students protest. Those followed those corrupted students were hard luck and stupid.

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:36pm
I got the fact right.
1. From the meeting video between the 2 young people and the HL Park supervisor. The supervisor clearly told the young people their area was allocated near the hotel side and not the CC side.

2. The 2 young people sited the speakers all at the CC side which was already occupied by the Children society s tends. Common sense if these young people had, would not have put their speakers to cross fire with the children society.

I saw the young people shouted, went near the stage when the autistic children were performing. The loud noise disturbed the parents watching their kids. The young people s crowds standing near the stage block the parents from watching.
I felt heart pain for the children s parents, when i learned that those were autistic kids.

These group of young men and women do not deserve support from people with some sense of justice. They are fake opposition.

Ⓜatilah $ingapura⚠️ said...

@ 108:

>> My point is: speech comes with social responsibility. <<

And your point is wrong (which is OK, don't worry), because it is impossible to determine OBJECTIVELY what is or isn't "socially responsible" speech. And if there is an "authority-in-charge" to make such a determination, then we are back to square one: no freedom of speech.

If you want to "protect feelings" or prevent blaspheming or anti-religious expressions or racial epithets which "hurt peoples' sensitivities", then your society cannot have freedom of speech.

Tharman and the govt would gather more "cred" if they just came out and said: "This is Singapore. There is no freedom of speech here"....and that will be it.
Many cuntries in the world adopt this stance, and they still manage to exist, and their peoples get on with their lives.

Anonymous said...

Religious voices are needed to keep people stupid. With religion, there is no need to question because everything lies in good blind faith.
So they are not protecting their feelings. They are protecting necessary stupidity to keep them under control. If stupid people keeps peace, then you deserve to be contented peaceful slaves.

Anonymous said...

In God we trust. With so many gods provided for your fancy, you are literally divided by these gods. And to keep you from killing each other over these gods, you shall all come under one supreme ruler.

It makes sense doesn't it?

Divided and conquered.

Anonymous said...

Just pray to your invisible God for blessings on your Govt.
Bless your Govt with good heart, brains and lots of money.

Let go and let God.

Don't argue, question or hurt feelings.

Just go to your cardboard quietly, like a mouse, and pray.

Anonymous said...

In Sin, cardboard policemen deter crimes.
Cardboard politicians got voted into Parliament and cardboard dead leader gets to be revered like god.
At least like what Rb says here, world leaders defer to LKY. Maybe because of LKY, they also defer to LHL.

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

Hi Anon 5:20, thanks for your concern.

What I wrote were what Tharman said, nothing new.
The only thing that was new was to ask who should decide how much freedom we should have.