My view on free speech is more a view of how it is commonly discussed: poorly, and in a limited manner.

When people talk about free speech, they have different ideas on how free speech is defined. Does free speech mean "I can say what I want, no one should be able to sue me"? Or "I can say what I want, but the government cannot sue me for saying it; private individuals, on the other hand, are allowed to sue me"? Or does it extend to "I can say what I want, but the government and public individuals (politicians) cannot sue me for saying it; private individuals, on the other hand, should be able to sue me"?

If you want to go in that direction, you can even talk about private repercussions of free speech. Just look at the Roy Ngerng and Tan Tock Seng - he was dismissed for (among other reasons) his private writings showing standards and values incompatible with his workplace. (See also: Amy Cheong being fired over racist speech, Justine Sacco being fired over a tweet.) It's an rarely examined aspect of limiting speech - that your workplace implicitly restrains your actions (and speech) outside the workplace.

That's not touching on the content of free speech, which ranges from "should racist speech be allowed" etc (I think other people are discussing this; I'm not going to repeat them). I've seen some comments that "shouting fire in a crowded theatre does not count as free speech", but an absolutist definition of free speech would count it as free speech. It, however, is not what people typically think of as free speech (because common definitions of free speech are nebulous).

My personal view is that I believe in that there should be speech limits (e.g. shouting fire in a crowded theatre should not be allowed); I haven't yet decided where I find it appropriate to draw those limits.

I do resent it when people blame the government for their perceived lack of free speech; it often comes off as though other Singaporeans lack autonomy (wake up, sheeple!). The way America is (almost) always used as a comparison example also annoys me: why compare us to America? Why not Europe? Australia? Malaysia? Africa? China? Even as counter-examples? E.g. I feel Confucianism and China could be an interesting example of how ideal political speech should operate (depending on the dynasty, etc, it contains shades of how speech is a duty rather than a right).

And even the concept of free speech is embedded in a culture - some other comments in this thread have touched on this, but I'm going to draw one theme out: that while some speech may not be explicitly illegal, cultural norms mean that that speech is looked down upon. Conversely: some speech may be (depending on how you read the law) illegal, but no one sues on it. I think that is a small point about the perceived difference in legal drafting: Singapore, UK, Australia, and America are common law cultures, so the idea is that laws are drafted with some particularity, but Continental Europe are generally civil law cultures, so the idea is that laws state general principles, and the judges then have more power to apply their discretion.

There's another cultural point about free speech is that about having a "mature and stable society" that can handle free speech (I'm paraphrasing). This is usually used in the sense of "Singapore society are not ready for free speech". But that's vague and has been criticised in earlier threads on this topic, so I won't repeat others.

Etc

I suggest going through earlier threads about free speech; we're coming off two months of quite a few discussions. Maybe ask our resident librarian?