Set up free-speech venues

The mixed response is not surprising, for there is no clear-cut way to look at the issues that have been raised. Some of the points he raised are important and relevant ones. In terms of timing, however, it is arguable whether a loyal opposition should be mounting an extra-legal campaign in a period of recession, when Singapore's reputation as a rational and orderly society is part of the recipe for recovery.

Another factor that will weigh in people's minds is Dr Chee's track record, which is one of poor judgment and self-serving instincts in his hunger strike, shiftiness in debate, and ineffectiveness at the polls. All this adds up to a wide perception that he is neither trustworthy nor credible.

It is important to separate these different strands and see each for what it is. Part of maturing as a society involves recognising the value of ideas, even when one disagrees vehemently with their source. Singaporeans may not have a great deal of respect for Dr Chee, but that should not preclude a serious discussion of the themes he raises.

What he is doing is making a statement about the unjustness of existing laws on speech and assembly by breaking the law wilfully, leading inevitably to a confrontation with the authorities.

The Singapore police should be commended for the gentlemanly civility and restraint they have demonstrated in dealing with the two Raffles Place talks.

The men in blue concluded -- correctly -- that the meetings, though they may be illegal, were not in danger of getting out of hand. They have not used any strong-arm tactics or mounted a show of force.

In handling cases of civil disobedience, the police need to apply fine judgment in assessing the real threat to public order and safety. So far, they have done so successfully.

Also noteworthy is the Singapore Democratic Party's own conduct. When one man in the audience heckled the police, Dr Chee appealed immediately for the public not to harass the officers, saying that they were only doing their job. The SDP is making it clear that its non-lawful campaign does not mean that it is in favour of non-peaceful action.

The peaceful tenor of the talks will make any reasonable person wonder: why should such gatherings be against the law? As we see it, there are two separate issues here. One is the fair application of existing laws. The second is the fairness of those laws.

The first is about how the police and courts deal with breaches in the here-and-now. The second has to do with society, through Parliament, reviewing the law for the future.

It is important to distinguish between these two different issues, because even if one believes that the law should be reviewed, one should not expect that any alleged breach goes uninvestigated until such time.

When he was served a summons to face charges in court, Dr Chee issued a statement saying that the summons was an attempt to silence him and stifle democracy.

This is not a reasonable view, for the authorities are duty-bound to uphold the law. Dr Chee may well try to argue in his defence that the law is unconstitutional, but this is something for the courts to decide. The process must be respected, and for him to protest that he has been charged at all is equivalent to claiming that he should be above the law.

As for the second issue, whether the existing laws on speech and assembly are appropriate today, our own view is that the restrictions are too sweeping, and should be relaxed.

This is partly a matter of principle. The Singapore constitution enshrines the right to free speech. That right must be respected, and only curtailed in those instances where the regulating authorities can show that allowing free speech will cause harm.

The onus should be placed on those seeking to restrict fundamental liberties and rights to justify the denial of a constitutional guarantee. It should not be the other way around, such that individuals have to apply to the authorities for permission to exercise their Constitutional rights.

Aside from the issue of legal principle, the question can also be looked at in more pragmatic terms. Singapore society has developed by leaps and bounds since the laws were written. Singaporeans are better educated than before, and have more to lose through anti-social behaviour.

Should people be allowed to speak and gather anywhere, anytime? We do not think the public would support such a move. Singapore is a densely-populated, fast-moving city, and speakers who choose to address a crowd at, say, Bedok Town Centre, would be making a grand nuisance of themselves.

It is right that the police have powers to ensure that the public can go about their neighbourhoods, workplaces and places of leisure without an onslaught of unsolicited speeches from preachers, politicians, entertainers and salesmen. However, we believe that there is also a need for some allowance in the law for people who want to say something in public or to conduct a forum without having to apply for a permit.

We declare our own interest here: The Roundtable is at present unable to organise fully-public forums. Our application to be registered as a society was approved in 1994 on condition that we included in our constitution a clause that only members can participate in our activities, preventing us from organising events for the general public.

In this and other ways, we, and we believe many other civic groups, are unnecessarily encumbered by the existing laws on speech and assembly.

We propose that certain places in Singapore be gazetted as "free speech" venues, which individuals and groups can book on a simple, first-come-first-served basis without the need to apply for a police permit.

We are not suggesting that people who speak at these places not be held accountable for what they say. If the words they utter violate the laws of libel, contempt of court, sedition, religious harmony and so on, they can be sued or charged. Instead, what needs to be relaxed is the practice of prior censorship, which is what the licensing rules amount to. Some space needs to be opened up to allow people to speak their minds without first having to obtain permission to do so.

The notion of allocating certain spaces where more liberal standards can be applied is not new here. In movies and drama, it already exists in the form of the R(A) system. Movies rated R(A) can only be shown downtown, and not in neighbourhood cinemas.

Most Singaporeans would agree that, by and large, the R(A) rating has served Singapore society well. On the one hand, by prohibiting movies with nudity, excessive violence and adult themes from being exhibited in neighbourhood cinemas, the rules help preserve the family-friendly ambience of residential areas.

On the other hand, by allowing R(A) movies to be shown downtown, Singapore's increasingly mature and sophisticated audience has been allowed a wider choice of films.

A similar approach can be taken to controls on public speaking. Our idea for "free speech venues" is the rough equivalent of the R(A) movie house: spaces where Singaporeans can gather to exercise a greater degree of freedom than what is generally permitted island-wide. Many such meetings may not produce great pearls of wisdom -- just as many R(A) movies are of dubious quality.

However -- in the same way that the R(A) system lets Singaporeans see the occasional world-class gem, such as Schindler's List -- increased freedom of speech can offer benefits that make it all worthwhile.

The greatest benefit of this incremental liberalising is that it gives Singaporeans practice in conducting political debate in a moderate and self-regulated fashion. The Government cannot monitor and regulate society forever, and in the next phase of Singapore's development, the public would have to be counted on to weigh competing interests and ideas on its own.

To reiterate, in suggesting more space for free speech, we are not advocating a free-for-all. People should still be held accountable for what they say and pay the price if their words are found under the law to cause harm.

But increasingly, Singapore should relax restrictions that prevent them from saying things in the first place. We believe that the establishment of free-speech venues is an incremental step that Singapore can well afford to take. Indeed, it is the minimum that should be expected for a society that aims to be a developed, cosmopolitan and great city.

Published in the Straits Times. Jan 20, 1999