I refer to the letter “Fear of backlash can censor debate” (April 24), which stated: “When individuals collectively demand the removal of support from something they consider deeply offensive and harmful, it communicates that the public will face backlash if they fail to accept a particular line of thought”.
I feel that we must distinguish between the message and the manner in which it is communicated. For example, some people convey their views with vitriol and malice. This dilutes the message and also dampens debate by putting people off.
In the case of IKEA Singapore, I approve of the way members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community, and their supporters, questioned IKEA’s tie-up with Pastor Lawrence Khong’s magic show, and I also respect IKEA’s stand on the issue. No one’s message was censored. If views were communicated as a vulgar and spiteful tirade, then I believe they should not be shared and perpetuated. In this case, the LGBT community expressed their criticism maturely, responsibly and respectfully.
Censorship is not always about what is being said, but also when and how it is said. A proper debate cannot take place if one party is hurling vulgarities.
Even communication on the Internet, traditionally a place where anything goes, should be done with awareness of the “mood” of the audience.
Being online removes us from direct physical threat, but this does not mean we should not observe common courtesy in communication.
For good debate to take place, the onus is on one to present his or her thoughts in a cogent way that makes people think and reflect.
Ideally, everyone should be able to express himself or herself without fear. But the reality is that we speak to an audience and how the audience responds matters too.
