Free-speech venues an incremental step

THE response by Casamir Rozario (ST, Jan 28) on behalf on the Home ministry to the Roundtable's proposal for free speech venues in Singapore (ST, Jan 20) raises a few points which we now respond to.

First, he states that "race, language and religion remain potential divisive fault lines which can lead to social unrest and law and order problems if not managed carefully".

We agree. This is why we emphasised in our article that we were not advocating a free-for-all, and that even at free speech venues, speakers must continue to be held accountable for their words. There are other adequate laws currently in place to ensure this.

Second, Mr Rozario says that "a 'Hyde Park' setting is not appropriate for discussion of serious issues", implying that this is what we were proposing.

Nowhere in our article did we mention London's Hyde Park. We are looking for Singaporean solutions to a Singaporean problem.

Third, he states that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) would prefer venues where crowd control is easier, such as function rooms and stadiums.

We agree that crowd control is an important consideration. It is precisely because we respect the police's role in such matters, that we suggest that the authorities identify and gazette venues that are suitable.

Fourth, the Ministry disagrees with our comment that the Public Entertainment Licence (PEL) requirement amounts to prior censorship. Mr Rozario notes that applicants do not have to submit their speeches for clearance before this licence is issued.

However, under the constitutional concept of prior restraint, a speech does not have to be submitted for censorship for a citizen's right to free speech to be considered to have been denied him.

If the police wish to deny a citizen his constitutionally-guaranteed right to free speech, the onus is on the police to explain why it is necessary.

Fifth, in reply to our point that the PEL requirement should be relaxed, just as film censorship has been, Mr Rozario says that the two are not comparable.

It is true that the mechanics of issuing PELs differs from censoring films. However, our point is one of principle, not mechanics.

In regulating the arts and entertainment, Singapore used to have a policy of treating adult content automatically as harmful, and banning all of it. This has evolved into a more sophisticated approach, including allowing some cinemas to screen R(A) movies.

What we are calling for is an equally sophisticated approach to the regulation of political debate, recognising that not all such debate will unravel our racial and religious harmony. We should move away from the blanket rule of requiring PELs.

Gazetting a few free speech venues where PELs are not required is an incremental step, and not at odds with MHA's concerns about public order and racial and religious harmony -- concerns that we share.

If the authorities remain uncomfortable with the idea and think that things may get out of hand, we further suggest that Singapore start with a small number of free speech venues, or even just one, to serve as an experiment and a learning experience for both state and society. As the comfort level rises, more venues can be so gazetted.

We remain hopeful that the government will consider this evolutionary approach to expanding freedom of speech in Singapore.

Published in the Straits Times. Feb 3, 1999