Media Freedom
After Amos Yee example in an earlier post (see HERE ) consider the following on the same issue of eida freedom:
1) Couple behind The Real Singapore (TRS) website charged with sedition
2) Thai PM repeats threats against media
What do you make of this extract by the Tai PM from the above link?
"I have not yet shut down any publications but please write in a good way. If it is not good, then I will need to do that," General Prayut, who is known for his impatience with the media, told reporters at a military academy in Bangkok yesterday. "I will shut them down only when they don't say good things," he added. In a further warning, he said: "If anyone says anything that causes damage to the Royal Thai Army or to the country, I will not stand for it.
3) Criticism yes, but not malice : PM Najib
PM Najib sent the opposition a lawyer's letter, but tellingly remains relatively subdued in response when it comes to ex-Malaysian PM Dr Mahathir's accusations at his links to the murder of a Mongolian woman and the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MBD).
This would probably constitutes sedition and lead him to being charged under the Sedition Act if not for the tremendous influence he enjoys in the country. His accusations serve to erode trust in the ruling govt and potentially destabilizes the country. But his defence is that he is playing the watchdog role here in speaking up against the possible wrongdoings of the establishment.
In all the examples above, realise there are good reasons on both sides whether there should be freedom to allow people to say what they want. Consider:
- are they false allegations designed to bring people down?
-will they erode trust in the government and thus hamper the nation from going forward? after all, if the govt does not have the support of the people, then the country cannot move forward.
-will it stem corruption and wrongdoings by making powerful organisations toe the line since they know they are being 'watched'?
Qn: To what extent should there be limits to freedom of speech?
1) Couple behind The Real Singapore (TRS) website charged with sedition
2) Thai PM repeats threats against media
What do you make of this extract by the Tai PM from the above link?
"I have not yet shut down any publications but please write in a good way. If it is not good, then I will need to do that," General Prayut, who is known for his impatience with the media, told reporters at a military academy in Bangkok yesterday. "I will shut them down only when they don't say good things," he added. In a further warning, he said: "If anyone says anything that causes damage to the Royal Thai Army or to the country, I will not stand for it.
3) Criticism yes, but not malice : PM Najib
PM Najib sent the opposition a lawyer's letter, but tellingly remains relatively subdued in response when it comes to ex-Malaysian PM Dr Mahathir's accusations at his links to the murder of a Mongolian woman and the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MBD).
This would probably constitutes sedition and lead him to being charged under the Sedition Act if not for the tremendous influence he enjoys in the country. His accusations serve to erode trust in the ruling govt and potentially destabilizes the country. But his defence is that he is playing the watchdog role here in speaking up against the possible wrongdoings of the establishment.
In all the examples above, realise there are good reasons on both sides whether there should be freedom to allow people to say what they want. Consider:
- are they false allegations designed to bring people down?
-will they erode trust in the government and thus hamper the nation from going forward? after all, if the govt does not have the support of the people, then the country cannot move forward.
-will it stem corruption and wrongdoings by making powerful organisations toe the line since they know they are being 'watched'?
Qn: To what extent should there be limits to freedom of speech?
posted by Dark Shadow | 2:31 PM
<< Home