The Lens: Double-edged sword of censorship sparks debates on freedom of expression while curbing harmful content

Sophia Ling, 12, German Swiss International School

Some might see the Malaysian government’s intention to curb posts on sensitive issues as an effort to maintain social harmony and prevent the spread of harmful content.

However, the requests have drawn criticism from many for their potential to infringe on people’s freedoms.

Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right that allows people to express their opinions without the fear of retaliation. It plays a crucial role in fostering diversity, promoting social progress, and holding those in power accountable. Governments could stifle or silence dissenting voices when they seek to regulate or control content.

Many agree on the need to remove content that incites violence, promotes terrorism, or contains explicit, illegal activities. However, determining the boundaries of acceptable speech is more challenging, and in democratic societies, restrictions on speech are typically narrowly defined.

In Malaysia, some have expressed concern about the government’s broader trend of increasing control over content. These actions can create a chilling effect where individuals self-censor their speech out of fear of reprisals. This can lead to the suppression of important discussions on social issues.

There are also fears that the government could use vague or overly broad definitions to target content critical of their policies.

Incitement to violence, hate speech, and other forms of harmful content are generally considered legitimate grounds for restriction.

However, any limitations on freedom of expression should be necessary, proportionate, and prescribed by clearly defined, transparent laws that are subject to judicial review.

Read more about this topic here

Workers in Singapore can now ask for four-day work weeks, more work-from-home days and staggered work timings starting from December 1.

The new guidelines were announced earlier this month by the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices.

Employees will also be entitled to ask for other arrangements, such as flexible work locations.

“Access to flexible work arrangements is often the main consideration for carers, women workers and senior workers when it comes to deciding to stay or return to the workforce,” said Yeo Wan Ling, co-chair of the Tripartite Workgroup.

While the guideline isn’t enforceable by law, it does require all companies in Singapore to set up a process for employees to submit a formal flexible-working arrangement request. Employers can reject the request on the grounds it would result in a significant worsening of productivity, a significant increase in cost or because it’s not feasible given the nature of the work. However, companies cannot reject a request on the basis that it runs counter to a firm’s traditions.

Singapore’s move is in line with several other countries.

While working from home became a mainstay during the pandemic, the practice has been on the decline as the world recovers from Covid-19 and employers, mindful of expensive real estate sitting empty, demand staff get back to the office.

However, retaining more flexible arrangements may be good for business. Those giving employees the freedom to choose how and where they work have proven to attract talent at a faster rate and generate more revenue.

Staff writers

• Why did Singapore introduce new guidelines for flexible work arrangements?

• What are the advantages and disadvantages of the new guidelines?

• Should Hong Kong consider implementing a similar policy? Why or why not?