"Truth" or Truth by the State?

This is a brief entry because it is a response piece to one ST Forum letter, "Anarchy if people speak without a care for truth". This article presents an opportunity to scrutinize and deconstruct unhidden assumptions behind voices that support violence to freedom of speech, and not reconceptualize it to emanicipate oppression among the people. The author wrote in regards to Christopher Choo's article "Libel lawsuits may stifle opinion". Incidentally, Hui Chieh also demonstrates how we can critically examine and argue philosophical questions about truth. Instead of leeching off his work, I will state my position succinctly.

Erroneously, though paradoxically, the author states "I do not think that A*Star's action will have any impact on the issue of freedom of expression in Singapore. It has actually galvanised a healthy debate on what freedom of expression entails. I am encouraged to see more and more young people in our universities taking an interest in commenting on the perceived injustices in our society." No doubt the issue did raise a ruckus, or controversy among the community, but controversies do not ipso facto demonstrate a unhindered sphere of freedom of speech. Rather, one can still, and I think this issue illlustrated very well, judging from the heated discussion the blogosphere has invoked, how distorted and unbalanced the powers of representations are in our communication outlets. Not only has the media misquoted or misrepresented its sources (ST on the blogosphere) but also there is still a lack of hearing from the "outside" or the "other". All too often, the national press is only interested in sanitized, status-quo, pre-defined representations, and not the grave fundamental issues everyone should address. In this case, there is a real issue about freedom of expression in Singapore, and only a blind fool will think otherwise.

However, the crux of the author's stance is this:

"Freedom of expression must be accompanied by a responsibility to have your facts correct, and, if they are proven otherwise, to have the maturity to admit you are wrong, make an unreserved apology and move on.

It will be total anarchy if we have freedom of speech without the need to speak the truth. Every individual has a right to his opinion, but no individual has a right to be wrong in his facts.

In a civil society, it is not necessary to have 'a heated debate and raw engagement with an opponent' for new ideas and ways of thinking to emerge. Nothing lowers the level of conversation more than raising the voice."

In just a few paragraphs above, the author unreservedly states "I am not privy to the exchange between A*Star and Mr Chen, but, from press reports, it appears that he was given an opportunity to make an apology. The initial apology was considered inadequate by A*Star and the threat of a libel lawsuit persuaded him to make an unreserved apology." I think the case can be strongly argued that the press reports don't possess truth. It never did, and neither was the whole truth belted out on the national press. That's "truth" shaped and manipulated by the state press, and not the unequivocal truth one seeks to learn. Indeed, it comes with shame and pity that one is able to argue for an oxymoron that one can speak "truth" without asking himself if s/he even has the "truth". Is it "truth" that we will be in a state of chaos and anarchy if one speaks without in possession of the "truth"? How do we survive since nobody can be said to have access to all-knowing "truth"?

The author shouldn't be concerned about the "raising of voices". Our voices are already far too soft as it is.