Totalitarianism and Freedom of Press

I was reading a series of essays by George Orwell on his views of the intellectual life, reading habits and his views on totalitarianism in post-war Britain.

He is a well read man and boasts a large collection of books which he had amassed over a number of years and laments on how the Brits with a 100% literacy rate even in 1940s prefer to spend money on cigarettes than on books. He is rather frustrated with the intellectual life of the common public.

But his thoughts on the freedom of press and speech in Britain is by far the most distinct. It is quite obvious in his essay that he is strongly against totalitarianism- which is quite evident in his well-known book "1984. It is obvious in his essay, his disdain for the former Soviet Union's propaganda efforts and inclination to distort historical facts to suit national interests.

But it has got me thinking- is living in a totalitarian state all that bad. Is there nothing worth redeeming about a country who controls what it's people reads and watches. It is often portrayed as leading to despotism and tyranny.

One thing for sure, every country in this world practices censorship of one kind or another. What makes some country's censorship "better" than other's? Why is this hero-worship of a so-called a human being like in North Korea really all that bad? Aren't we all doing that in Christianity, Islam and Buddhism- they were all humans before they were risen to diety-ism right.

Is this remnants of the past where the religiosity has been settled and everything else has to be secular now.

These are words of an anti-social being which does not conform to social rules and norms of today and hence deemed dangerous to modern society now. After all, isn't this exactly what the Islamic State wants- to establish a primitive caliphate. But let us think instead of what the above means for freedom of speech and association in a country and what an average intelligent person have to fulfil without being seen as non-patriotic and deemed anti-social to the very people he is trying to raise- his own countrymen.

For sure, the critical intellectuals of any country and the censors of a country both want a betterment of society. The robotic bureaucratic and over-zealous censor that is portrayed in books such as "1984" are really a caricature of an actual human doing a job that requires lots of discretion on his part. Slogans such as " war is peace" and " slavery is freedom" really appeals to intellectually curious of us who wants to find out how such blatant twist of words can actually happen in society and yet work in real life. In reality, it is non-practicable.

Censors and authorities have to create cartoons and clever advertisements to convince the people to do what they want them to do. In reality most censorship and authorities' propaganda efforts are targeted at public safety and protecting the public health and interests.

 Occasionally, they use scare tactics to warn people of the public health hazard such as advertisements on cigarette boxes and in Singapore, of emptying puddles of water lying around to prevent breeding of mosquitoes so that diseases such as malaria and dengue and more recently the Zika virus does not spread. [ In fact, I have written on one occasion of the over-zealousness of people destroying the puddles of water, just to prevent this from happening, that is the flip side of course] This is a staid job but someone's got to do this job simply because someone have to warned people of the potential health hazards. Not everyone have the sexy jobs of being foreign diplomats, economists or the central bankers.

There is simply one more charge constantly made against these staid bureaucrats of course and it is exactly what Orwell warned against as well: they are used in the perpetuation of an unjust or unfair order of society. Half a century ago, there are the secret police which locks up against anyone who spoke up against the prevailing government, interests or class. Today, in Singapore at least, there is the Internal Security department (ISD) or in some variation of it, in other countries. These are the people who lock people up for speaking up well against not necessarily the government but well who are deemed dangerous to society.

But of course, the definition of "dangerous" is contested and it is precisely because of this many so-called left wing intelligentsia constantly use this as a weapon for authorities against acting them. They deemed well exactly what was mentioned earlier about the bureaucrats, they are protecting the ruling class interests. Therefore, in this case, their belligerence towards the authorities is justified because they are simply lackey's for the ruling class.

Let us then bring back the duty of the intellect in society. Their role in society is to critique and comment the state of society for their betterment. But what makes an intellectual function well in such a set-up. They must as Orwell said be: intellectually honest. And in his words, sometimes " dare to do it alone."

But what I noticed about intellectual honest statements is that authorities do not actually clamped down on such reports. If an intellectual has made a statement that is honest and does not favour anyone, it is often left to it's devices.

What the authorities actually clamped down are polemical statements which is often so intellectually elitist- that it deems anything that run contrary to the government line must be considered benevolent simply because the government are merely mouthpieces for the ruling class hence anything to the contrary must be good for the "oppressed". Why intellectual elitist- simply because they believed that they are only ones with the knowledge of a government conspiracy to oppress a certain group of people.

What then must these so called left-wing intellectuals do to prevent such clampdown on their words- which they deemed beneficial for the people. For betterment of society, there must be a national duty towards it's country. With rights, comes with duties towards the nations and therefore we must not indulge in our so-called intellect and ask ourselves before: Whatever we are going to do, is it true to what we are seeing? Are we honest with ourselves or are we simply being " intellectually elitist"- thinking that by speaking up, we achieve martyrdom?

The other day, I read a very well-written article by Chee Soon Juan on the internet. Chee Soon Juan is a well-known opposition figure in Singapore. He has ruffled the feather's with the political elite and has several run-ins with the authorities. It was well-argued, well-written and, salient and very pertinent. The Internet posting went on to say that the Strait Times- the purported mouthpiece of the government, it is publicly listed as well and responsible to a wide-class of shareholders as well- did not publish the comment on it's forum page.

The public broadsheet has lot's of responsibilities- and one of them is to reflect national interest of the country. Chee Soon Juan's article had argued for an curtailment of the immigration policy of which as free and open country, the broadsheet is loathed to broadcast a policy based on national discrimination dependent on the prevailing political mood of another country. But yet, there was no clampdown on this article even though, the website had charged the broadsheet for being biased on it's reporting. In this age free-flowing Internet, the comment would have spread freely and openly. On the flip side, the recent sedition charges on two editors of the Real Singapore for inserting two false articles to incite racial tensions in Singapore. Consider the two cases: Can they be considered as oppression? Where then is the so-called oppression of un-free people of Singapore.

Are we being honest with ourselves or are we simply being "ideological" in our thinking.

At the end of the day, both intellectuals are looking towards the betterment of society by critiquing the pockets of unfair state of affairs, while the authorities and censorship have the duty of protecting national and public well-being. I believe there are good people in both camps and they are responsible and righteous people.

Both sometimes, must practice self-restraint in not being over-zealous in carrying out their duties but ultimately both must pledge allegiance to society that they served.