Letter:Free speech venues may threaten order

IN THEIR article, The case for free-speech venues (ST, Jan 20), Messrs Cherian George and Zulkifli Baharudin say that existing laws on speech and assembly are too sweeping and should be relaxed. They feel that the current system amounts to "prior censorship" and propose that certain places be designated as "free-speech" venues. Speakers can then book these venues on a first-come, first-served basis without the need for a permit.

We agree that "part of maturing as a society involves recognising the value of ideas, even when one disagrees vehemently with their source".

However, Singapore is a multi-racial and multi-religious society. Race, language and religion remain potential divisive fault lines which can lead to social unrest and law and order problems if not managed carefully.

The requirement for a public entertainment licence (PEL) is not to censor or inhibit public debate. It is to maintain public peace and safety and ensure law and order. Speeches which are political in nature, or touch on race, language and religion, can elicit disaffection or highly emotional responses. They have a higher propensity for law and order problems. Some control is desirable. These may only be made indoors, or in stadiums and athletic centres where the licensee has better control over access and behaviour of the audience. Applicants, including opposition parties, have been routinely granted PELs for events at these venues.

The police exercise professional judgment to ensure that public speeches do not threaten public peace and safety or disrupt law and order. They consider factors such as the proposed programme, nature of the speeches, suitability of the site and timing of the event. The police do not require the proposed speeches to be submitted with the application. There is no "prior censorship".

The writers say that their approach is an incremental step as the screening of Restricted (Artistic) movies at approved cinemas has paved the way. The analogy is misleading. R(A) movies are checked for content and censored appropriately before screening. Cinemas and other premises that show R(A) movies are also licensed. There is, therefore, appropriate control.

A "Hyde Park" setting is not appropriate for discussion of serious issues. These are thoroughly debated in existing forums, such as parliament or the media. Dr Chee Soon Juan has received extensive coverage in the media. His problem is not inadequate publicity, but full exposure.

In multi-racial and multi-religious Singapore, we cannot put at risk the racial harmony and sense of public order, peace and safety built up painstakingly over the years. For this reason, we cannot support the setting up of "free-speech" venues.

Published in the Straits Times. Jan 28, 1999