Freedom is a double-edged knife, say forum panellists
St Gallen Symposium S'pore Forum sees lively discussion on negotiating different freedoms
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox
(From left) Mr Tommy Koh, St Gallen Leader of Tomorrow for 2018 and last year, speaking during the panel discussion at the St Gallen Symposium Singapore Forum 2020 yesterday. With him were National University of Singapore adjunct professor Kevin Y. L. Tan; moderator and former Nominated MP Viswa Sadasivan; The Straits Times editor Warren Fernandez; and Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy dean Danny Quah.
PHOTO: NATIONAL YOUTH ACHIEVEMENT AWARD COUNCIL
Tee Zhuo
Follow topic:
If a personal mobility device (PMD) rider zooms by on an empty footpath, he is breaking the law, but is he actually curtailing anyone's freedom to walk there?
A moral conundrum, for sure, but one that a panellist at the 5th St Gallen Symposium Singapore Forum 2020 felt could be handled simply: A person could exercise tolerance and not immediately report the rider to the authorities.
The example is timely, given Singapore's hotly debated footpath ban for PMDs, but it also drives home a central theme of yesterday's panel discussion on freedom: While seemingly abstract and absolute, the context and conditions within which freedom operates are what people need to grapple with daily.
Moderator and former Nominated MP Viswa Sadasivan kicked off the discussion with the evocative analogy of freedom as a very sharp knife without a handle, carrying the risk of cutting oneself if used incautiously.
It was in considering this analogy that a panellist brought up the PMD example and tolerance.
"How we approach situations where (different) freedoms collide matters... In picking up that knife, perhaps the glove that we need to put on is the glove of tolerance," said Mr Tommy Koh, who was the St Gallen Leader of Tomorrow for 2018 and last year, and is completing his national service.
But the analogy presumes sufficient stability and prosperity such that the individual can wield the knife in the first place, said Professor Danny Quah, dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy.
"The great paradox in freedom today is how so much of the world has benefited from institutions that have given them economic prosperity, and (yet) are willing to throw them away," said Prof Quah.
Continuing the analogy, fellow panellist and The Straits Times editor Warren Fernandez said that knowing when not to wield the knife was just as important as knowing when to use it.
He cited the Charlie Hebdo shooting in 2015, in which 12 people were killed at the magazine's Paris office over offensive cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. He said that ST would never have run such cartoons, given Singapore's multicultural context and the impact that doing so was likely to have on society here.
"We recognise the responsibility we have... not to upset the context in which we have been able to enjoy that freedom," said Mr Fernandez, who is also editor-in-chief of Singapore Press Holdings' English/ Malay/Tamil Media Group.
Audience members at the forum held at the National University of Singapore (NUS) University Town asked a range of questions, including whether different freedoms can coexist equally, and how to negotiate different cultural views on rights.
Former MP and Singapore's Ambassador to Kuwait Zainul Abidin Rasheed, one of about 360 attendees, asked the panellists to consider whether Singapore has done well in revisiting the idea of freedom, especially in terms of the Government's role.
Professor Kevin Y.L. Tan, adjunct professor at NUS law faculty, said Singapore has become increasingly reactive "rather than looking at the whole picture".
"There is a piecemeal, knee-jerk reaction by the state to issues which involve freedoms," said Prof Tan, who was also the event's keynote speaker.
Citing the example of PMDs again, he said the Government was silent on regulation until a parliamentary question was asked, indicating poor planning.
Another example was the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (Pofma) passed last year, which Prof Tan said was an example where the state and security prevailed over individual freedoms, and an area which should be revisited.
But revisiting issues is an endless process, said Mr Fernandez. He traced how the balance between rights and responsibilities and individuals versus the collective has changed since the time of Singapore's first prime minister Lee Kuan Yew, and with each successive generation of leaders and voters.
Pofma is an example where the Government has taken on board the views of individuals and shaped a response to try to deal with the problem of misinformation and fake news, as many other societies are also trying to do.
On how Singapore might revisit the balance between rights and responsibilities that has been struck over the years, he added: "I think we will continue to change with a new set of leaders and a changing electorate. It will have to be a constant revisiting of the agreement we've come to in society."
The annual St Gallen Symposium is run by the University of St Gallen in Switzerland to promote inter-generational discussions.
Past speakers from Singapore include Senior Ministers Tharman Shanmugaratnam and Teo Chee Hean, and Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat, who spoke at the event last year.
The symposium's Singapore forum, organised by the National Youth Achievement Award Council, was introduced in 2016 as an event leading up to the main conference in Switzerland with the same theme.
