On Freedom of Speech, Religion and Lee Kuan Yew

The idea of free speech was opined by Thomas Jefferson and other Founders of the
United States of America, who believed that minimizing the limits on what peopl
e were free to say was essential for a liberal democracy to thrive.
The marketplace of ideas belief holds that the truth and good public policy arise
from the competition of widely varying ideas freely shared in public discourse.
The proponents of free speech also believed that open exchanges of ideas would
encourage tolerance among people with opposing views.
Be it as it may, the powers of freedom of speech does not include the right:
1. To incite actions that would harm others (e.g.,
Deliberately raising a fire/b
omb alarm in a crowded area to incite a stampede or general disorder, without an
y basis for doing so")
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
2. To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
3. Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
To determine whether our dear Amos Yee's rant on youtube qualifies as a speech t
hat ought to be defended under the banner of Free Speech, let us examine his wor
ds:
Lee Kuan Yew, contrary to popular belief, was a horrible person and an awful lea
der to our country. He was a dictator, but managed to fool most of the world to
think he was democratic. And he did so by still granting us the opportunity to v
ote, to make it seem like we have freedom of choice.
However, during [his] rule, he controlled the entire media and education, prolif
erating nationalistic propaganda on a daily basis. And he placed an excessive su
rplus of his books in popular bookstores. In most of his books, look at how he s
elf-indulgently plasters reams of pages with these montages of pictures of his e
xperiences. Like Ooh, look how much better I am compared to you.
And of course he is absolutely notorious for suing people who criticised him, fo
rcing them into jail and leading them into bankruptcy. Apparently, his thirst fo
r suing is hereditary, too. So he created an environment where his blatant flaws
as a leader were hidden, because most people were afraid of criticising him in
fear of being found guilty by the judicial system that he controls. So everythin
g that people hear is about how great Lee Kuan Yew is.
In short, Amos Yee's rant holds more shit than a jammed sewage tank, and should
not be protected under any form of freedom of speech argument.
1. Load of defamatory remarks that can hardly qualify as personal opinion
For someone who was not even born when Lee Kuan Yew stepped down as prime minist
er, and whose command of History and the ability to evaluate it is limited to hi
s secondary school educational background, he is as much qualified to discuss Si
ngapore politics and history as I am qualified to lecture on the Theory of Quant
um Physics. Perhaps it would be more forgivable had he opted to give us some ela
boration on why he finds LKY a personally horrible person; perhaps he had met ou
r prime minister when he was busy swimming around as a sperm. Without any eviden
ce, facts, all Amos has is a bag of defamatory remarks.
For a 17 year old who feels he is as qualified as Henry Kissinger to give his vi
ew of society and the world and be taken equally seriously, his usage of terms s
uch as "criticised, judicial system that he controls" are as misused as me sayin
g " I was effected so much by Amos Yee's rant I cried" when the correct term sho
uld be "affected". The difference between insult and criticism is intent. The i
ntent of criticism is to point out where you have gone wrong so that you can cor
rect the problem. The intent of insult is to do emotional harm. Clearly Amos's
rant aims to play to popular public opinion of the deficiencies of the current g
overnment. Herein lies the difference, opposition members and their supports do
actually have valid points and issues to debate with the government. Amos does n
ot.
Making baseless claims like the "judicial system that he controls" only opens Am
os up to getting served with contempt of court. Baseless allegations that attack
the institution you expect to protect your rights is as wise as attempting to l

oad an empty magazine into your rifle, pointing at a policeman, then squeezing y
our trigger and hearing just an empty click. You dont take up arms without basis
against someone, stating it is in your right to do so, then complain of abuse a
nd I-told-you-so when the opponent retaliates with even greater force. It is wel
l within in the policeman's rights to defend him/herself.
Now seeing what LKY has done, I m sure many individuals who have done similar thin
gs comes to mind. But I m going to compare him to someone that people haven t really
mentioned before: Jesus. And the aptness of that analogy is heightened, seeing
how Christians seem to be a really big fan of him. They are both power-hungry an
d malicious, but deceive others into thinking that they are compassionate and ki
nd. Their impact and legacy will ultimately not last as more and more people fin
d out that they re full of bull. And LKY s followers are completely delusional and i
gnorant, and have absolutely no sound logic or knowledge about him that is groun
ded in reality, which LKY very easily manipulates, similar to the Christian know
ledge of the Bible and the work of a multitude of priests.
2. Christianity is a delusion? LKY's policies are bullshit?
Being creative is a positive skill. Amos attempts to outdo his wonderful speech
himself by comparing LKY to Jesus. Sadly, Amos disappoints us again by reaching
into his bag of defamatory remarks and scooping out a pile of crap, giving no re
ason why LKY is similar to Jesus, but instead launching into an all out attack o
n their supporters/believers. Apart from the obvious fact that it is extremely h
ard to give his sweeping statement that believers/supporters of LKY are "both p
ower-hungry and malicious", "delusion and ignorant" any basis, he fails badly at
making an argument between Faith and Delusion.
Like Richard Dawkings, Amos's implication is that religious belief is never base
d on evidence or perhaps that it exists despite the evidence. But even while Daw
kins discussed various arguments for God s existence, he was aware that religious
faith can be based on argument. Dawkins might have rejected those arguments as f
alse, but that does not change the fact that his own definition of faith is limi
ted. Even if someone has a bad reason for believing in something like homoeopath
y or acupuncture, they are not then accepting it unquestioningly they just may n
ot have looked at all the evidence or at the right sort of evidence. If I, as ma
ny others have done, decide that God is the best explanation of all the availabl
e evidence, then my belief, my faith , is grounded in fact.
The Problem of Free Speech
The primary rationale behind freedom of expression in the United States of Ameri
ca, as put forth by Cass Sunstein, is due to the principle of "government by dis
cussion." The framers of the American constitution realized that the only way th
e people can be sovereign while at the same time subject to the law was to organ
ize government around a system of deliberative discussion. As James Madison expl
ained, freedom of expression is the cornerstone of the whole system of American
government since it ensures discussion and debate among people of genuinely diff
erent perspectives and positions. The process of deliberation, Madison said, enc
ourages the development of general political truths. "A distinctive feature of A
merican republicanism is extraordinary hospitality toward disagreement and heter
ogeneity, rather than fear of it," Sunstein writes. "The framers believed that a
diversity of opinion would be a creative and productive force."
The First Amendment, understood in this light, is not so much a matter of protec
ting rights as ensuring sound public judgment through the process of public deli
beration. The true meaning of the law should therefore be determined, and limite
d, by matters having to do with the political process (broadly defined). Politic
al speech should be encouraged since it is essential to the functioning of democ
racy, while non-political speech should be less fully protected when it conflict
s with other interests and rights, such as privacy.
Amos Yee and Lee Kuan Yew
As pointed out from the start of this lengthy argumentative essay, even if Amos
was in the United States of America with its vaunted First Amendment that Freedo
m of Speech die-hards would sell their soul for, there have been legal precedent
s similar to Amos's case where the judge ruled that in favor of the United State
s Prosecution against the individuals of Schnek and Roth.

Amos's speech serves only to stir the increasing resentment against the current
ruling Party in Singapore, hoping that amongst the bagful of mud he slings, enou
gh will stick to earn him credibility, and that proponents of the opposition wil
l pick up his slack and add much needed weight to his arguments.
Amos questioned how a great leader is quantified. What is political greatness? A
ristotle provides which is that political greatness is the ability to translate w
isdom into action on behalf of the public good." So a great leader must not only
know what is best for himself, he must also know what his best for society. Thi
s would be a leader that possesses moral virtue, judgment, and public spirit in a
fine balance.
More than likely potential greats of our day will be viewed as odd or controversial
. Their greatness will likely be obscured by the political opposition they face i
n the current political climate. Another reason for not recognizing their greatn
ess in their own time is that often the events that modern leaders are currently
involved with have not yet resolved themselves. Britons in the 1930s did not kn
ow the role that Churchill would play in the undermining of fascism, and America
ns had even less knowledge in the early 1980s that Reagan s actions would bring ab
out a collapsing Berlin Wall and Soviet-styled communism with it.
Ronald Reagan once stated Greatness is ultimately a question of character. Good c
haracter does not change with the times: it has eternal qualities." Lee Kuan Yew
might have clamped down harshly on the Barisan Socialists and the Malayan Commu
nist Party cadre, as well as political opponents deemed detrimental to the funct
ioning of Singapore as a city-state. In Lee Kuan Yew's own words, "I did some sh
arp and hard things to get things right. Maybe some people disapproved of it. To
o harsh, but a lot was at stake and I wanted the place to succeed, that's all" F
or all his Machiavellianism attitude towards the opposition, Lee Kuan Yew's wide
ly publicised traits of integrity, vision and conviction brought Singapore to wh
ere it is today.
Prof. Bernard Bass says succinctly, "Leaders are truly transformational when the
y increase awareness of what is right, good, important and beautiful, when they
help to elevate followers' needs for achievement and self-actualisation, when th
ey foster in followers high moral maturity, and when they move followers to go b
eyond their self-interests for the good of their group, organisation or society.
Judging by the numerous well opined debates that are raging on today effects of
his leadership and policies across his many years at the helm of Singapore's whe
el, I believe that it is fair to conclude that Lee Kuan Yew is a great leader.