Censorship in Singapore

2. Basis of Censorship in Singapore
From a Western, especially American, perspective, censorship is difficult if not
impossible to defend. But the position of the Singapore government and indeed even
the citizenry is that there are good reasons for censorship. First, as there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that media can have negative effects on their consumers, it is therefore wiser to err on the side of caution through censorship. Second, there have been incidents in the past where media reports have caused racial riots and the shedding of blood. These are the 1950 Maria Hertogh riots, the 1964 riots during Prophet Muhammad's birthday, and the 1969 riot spillover from Malaysia. These riots have been blamed partly on uninhibited reporting and are often cited as examples of how the press can incite racial and ethnic violence.

In the Maria Hertogh case, the Malay press played up the angle (in its words and pictures) that the Dutch girl brought up as a Muslim by a Malay family was now forced to take up the Christian religion. The story was read by the Muslim community as a case of religious injustice and a riot broke out--leaving 18 dead and 173 wounded.

Most recently, the execution of a Filipino domestic help in Singapore has sparked off anti-Singapore sentiments in the Philippines. Again, uninhibited and erroneous reporting have been blamed for the demonstrations and protests against Singapore.

Events like these are used to justify the need for tight censorship in a
multiracial/multireligious society, where the unimpeded flow of ideas instead of
leading to enlightenment can sometimes have negative effects.

Censorship also survives because of the widespread support of Singaporeans, as a
recent survey by the first author found. On a censorship scale of 1 to 7, the three areas where Singaporeans wanted most censorship were materials for the young, news
leading to race conflict and racially offensive public expression in that order.

Thus, censorship in Singapore is justified on historical as well as socio-political
grounds, favouring caution and prevention over liberalism. This position has been
systematically articulated by the government and accepted by the people as one of the
boundaries within which Singapore society must function.