THE SPEAKERS' CORNER

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, when I sent in my notice claiming the right I said I wish to speak on the pretence that the Speakers' Corner is proof that free speech, freedom of expression, exists in Singapore. That is my subject of this afternoon's talk, not just simply on the Speakers' Corner, but the pretence that because we are setting up a Speakers' Corner, there is freedom of expression in Singapore.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

5.40 pm

Mr Jeyaretnam: As I have said more than once, in Singapore, there is a lot of pretence by the Government about what Singapore is, a pretence that things are not what they really are and that is what concerns me. I have been asked by a number of people why am I so dismissive of the proposed plan to set up a Speakers' Corner. Well-meaning people have said to me, "Mr Jeyaretnam, why are you so dismissive? It is at least a beginning. Why don't you welcome a beginning of the freedom of expression?" I have no objection to that if it is hailed as a beginning of the freedom of expression in Singapore. But it is not. What it has been hailed is that it is another instance of giving greater opportunities in a freedom that already exists in Singapore when the freedom does not exist. Freedom of expression is not simply limited to be able to say something. An integral part of it is the right of assembly and that is not going to be afforded by the Speakers' Corner being set up.

We only just recently seen thousands upon thousands of women marching in Washington to protest against the gun violence in that country. Is that possible in Singapore today? Could people turn out to protest against something in the society? That is real freedom of expression. We have also seen people protesting, coming out to speak against the shooting in the United States by police officers of innocent people whom they suspected of having committed an offence. There were two incidents and it provoked an outcry. But in Singapore, would that be possible?

We had the recent case of a shooting by two police officers of a man who they said was armed with an iron rod. The Party issued a press release, calling upon the two men to be charged with murder and saying that if they had any justification, they could prove the justification in court and they will be acquitted. We said that because the Commander of the division to which the two police officers were attached immediately raised justification for the shooting of the man. The Straits Times, being a faithful servant of the Government, did not publish the press release as we put it. We called for the man to be charged with murder. It is covered up in some nebulous words, "calls for more action than a Coroner's inquiry".

So let us not pretend that there is freedom of expression in Singapore, that people are allowed the freedom to speak up wherever and whenever they wish to speak up, that the people have the freedom to assemble peaceably to show their dissatisfaction or discontent over some policy or over any act of the Government. All we have, now that the Government proposes, is setting up of this one space in Hong Lim Green and they make so much noise about setting it up and holding it up as an example of how free Singapore is, how it allows its citizens to speak up and this is what I am protesting about because the whole thing is a pretence. When one comes to look at the conditions that are attached, even to this little symbolism, one can immediately see that is not freedom of expression that is being allowed to the speaker at the Speakers' Corner. The Minister, in answering questions, produced a table of the conditions that applied at Hyde Park and in Singapore. If one looks at that - he spelled it out - one can clearly see that the proposed plan continues with the curtailment on the freedom of expression in Singapore. It does not, in any way, expand that freedom, or open up the society in Singapore.

Firstly, under the proposed plan, the speaker may not speak on anything religious in nature. And that, again, is an all-catching phrase, vague and nebulous. What is "anything religious in nature"? What is wrong, may I ask, if somebody who is a devoted Christian or Muslim stands up and speaks on the virtues of his religion? Would he not be allowed to speak? But then, are you not unduly restricting his freedom to speak on something which so vitally concerns the individual, the people, religion? What are you afraid of? Of course, it is another thing to call upon people to attack members of another religion. What is wrong with him or her speaking on the virtues, the values, of the religion itself, so that others may come to understand the religion better? But that is not allowed. So you are cutting down on a major aspect of freedom of expression.

Then it goes on to say that whoever speaks shall not say anything that may have the potential to cause feelings of enmity, etc, between races or religious groups. This again is as vague as one can get. What is meant by "anything that may have the potential to cause feelings of enmity"?

Let us take an instance. If a speaker from a minority community stands up and says that his language is neglected; there should be greater use of his language, because it is one of the official languages in Singapore, that the Government should encourage greater use of his language in official correspondence or in Government offices, would that be considered as having the potential to cause feelings of enmity between races? Do you consider that may arouse feelings of hostility in another community? Again, you are cutting down a major portion of the freedom of the individual. Every community, every group, should have the freedom to speak about matters that concern them. And if you are not going to allow them to speak because you are worried that it may have the potential to cause feelings of enmity, then you are telling him to shut up. You cannot speak on this subject at all. So, where is the freedom of expression? It is all this pretence that upsets me and which I cannot accept. Let us be honest with ourselves for once and say that, "No, we are not saying that this means that we have complete freedom of expression in Singapore. This is just a little beginning that we are really testing to see whether we can have freedom of expression in Singapore or not." If the Government takes that line, then I have no quarrel with it, but it is the pretence. That is what I wanted to speak about this afternoon.

Then there is this question about registration. I have heard the Minister but I am still not satisfied of the need for registration. All that is needed is for the man or woman to produce the identity card to show the officer that he or she is a Singapore citizen, and then be allowed to speak. There is no need for any records to be kept. There is no need to ensure that there are no policemen there. There is no objection to have a police officer there to see that persons who speak are the persons who have shown their identity cards and proved themselves to be Singapore citizens. I cannot see the need for their particulars to be recorded and kept, not just for a day, as I asked whether it would be destroyed. It is going to be kept for five years. Why? And I have tried to get an answer from the Minister whether these records will be released to anyone. He has not answered the question. All we get are evasive answers, attempting to laugh away the question, that we have better things to do than to keep records and to give to others.

Mr Chiam has asked whether the speeches would be recorded. Again, it is laughed at. And yet, the Minister, when I asked him questions at the last sitting, says we have to keep the records because we need to look at them later if there is any complaint to determine what the speaker has said is against the law or not. Well, there you have it. There is an admission that the speech will be recorded. Otherwise, how can you determine what he has said is against the law or not?

So there are all these curbs, all these restrictions, against persons speaking out freely without fear. He is still subjected to this fear. In Singapore, he will be subjected to the fear that his particulars will be released to the ISD, which I asked the Minister and he has not replied on that. And Singaporeans know that the ISD has the power to detain him or her for 28 days. Are they going to come up and speak when they know that their names may be released to the ISD and they might be called up and questioned? So where is the freedom of expression in Singapore? It is a continuation of what we have had for the last 40 years since the PAP took over, complete curtailment of the freedom of expression in Singapore. This Speakers' Corner does not open up the freedom at all. It is just a pretence.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Your time is up.

Mr Zulkifli Bin Baharudin: Sir, can I be allowed to say a little bit more?

Mr Deputy Speaker: There is no provision for you to speak.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Information and the Arts (Encik Yatiman Yusof): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the NCMP moved the Adjournment Motion on three grounds. First, he is dismissive about the Speakers' Corner. Secondly, he thought that the Speakers' Corner is a great pretence, because of the conditions tied down. Thirdly, there is a need for registration, and the question why the speaker's name and speech need to be recorded. I thought he would come up with something really big, really philosophical, but he was merely playing the old records. Sir, I rise to oppose the motion made in the name of Mr J B Jeyaretnam. The Constitution of Singapore provides for the right to freedom of speech and expression. We have no need for a Speakers' Corner to prove that this freedom of expression exists in Singapore.

The Speakers' Corner must be seen in perspective - it is no more than an additional venue for Singaporeans to speak up on issues of concern to them and it is free of licensing requirements.

The Speakers' Corner is set up in response to calls for an outdoor venue where people can speak on any subject they want to without prior application for a licence. It is an exemption from the Public Entertainments Act. There is a big difference between having to apply for a licence and just putting your name down and a few other details before proceeding to deliver your speech. Registration does not require approval; it is just a notification, and a check for eligibility.

Sir, the NCMP talks about the absence of free speech in Singapore. We have always had free speech. Indeed, no other city in Asia has the same ready access to local and foreign news wires, magazines, television and radio channels and the Internet for our citizens to communicate their views.

For the NCMP's information, there are 72 news organisations or agencies in Singapore, and there are currently 37 cable TV channels in Singapore, of which more than three-quarters are foreign channels like the CNN, BBC and CNBC, transmitted through SCV, some of which had even featured the hon. Member in their programmes. In addition to these, there are more than 5,000 publications, including Time, The Economist and AWSJ. Sir, Singapore has become an international media and financial centre precisely because we allow a free flow of information within our country.

Singaporeans, including the Opposition MPs, have many channels of communications. Opposition Members can publish party newsletters, write books and host Internet websites. In effect, you can say and publish anything you want within the boundaries of law, and this applies to the Speakers' Corner. There is no pretence about it. These are facts.

Sir, Singaporeans have used all these openings to their fullest. We understand that a new generation of Singaporeans have shown that they want to be heard and that they have views and suggestions to contribute. We are listening to them. So it is evident in the way they articulate their views robustly in frequent letters and complaints to the domestic newspapers. A study of the forum pages of local newspapers shows that readers have been much more forthcoming in expressing their opinions on a range of issues over the past few years.

If the Member cares to look into the letters that had appeared in The Straits Times' Forum page for the last one week commenting on Kendrick Tan Cheng Kang's case, he would understand what I meant.

A writer, named Benjie Pedro, whose name sounds a bit foreign to us, had this to write about the Forum page, in November last year. Let me quote what he said:

'At the risk of sounding too patronising, I cannot help but admire the way this country allows issues to be discussed and debated through the ST Forum. With an increasingly vocal and demanding citizenry, it could be anything from "social ills" to inefficient service to national issues. The best part is, positive response and concrete corrective actions are actually taken by the relevant parties (or authorities) most of the time in order to improve the situation.'

He concluded:

'People here actually do have a voice, and are being heard, just by the mere power of the pen. Singaporeans have a lot to be truly thankful for. In another place I know too well, the easiest way to get things done is by knowing the "right people" who could wield influence. Otherwise, you might need to amass a million signatures for a petition or hold a massive rally [as proposed by the Member himself] to be heard.'

Is the Member's proposal the only civilised, correct, democratic way?

Sir, in addition to the print media, there are also regular feedback programmes on TV and an increasingly popular medium today is the talk-back sessions on radio. During these sessions, there is a free flow of comments and vigorous arguments on the most current incidents. And it is not confined only to local TV stations.

Increasingly, many Singaporeans have been forthcoming in expressing their views on Government policies, often critical, in live news and current affairs programmes on foreign channels. Academics, Members of Parliament, community leaders and financial analysts and even the man-on-the-street have been featured prominently. Finally, we have the Internet. I do not think there is a need for me to elaborate more about this.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in no society is there absolute freedom of expression or speech. Singapore is no exception. The Constitution specifically provides for restrictions to be imposed on freedom of speech in areas such as incitement of any offence, contempt of court, defamation and public order. This is the point which the Member fails to understand. He asks, "What is wrong in allowing a person to go to the Speakers' Corner and express the virtue of their religion - if these people were ready?" I believe that similar avenues are available. If the Member is keen to know about Islam he can go to the mosque and listen to the speech about Islam. If somebody is keen to know about Buddhism, he can go to the temple and listen to it. The point is, there is a grey line between preaching the virtue of one religion and criticising and comparing it with the others. We must not forget that a religious speech made in an open area had, in the past, triggered a riot that had cost Singapore a lot in terms of its religious harmony. I think we have talked about this when we debated on the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill and I believe that the Member is very familiar about this argument.

There have been sound reasons why we do not allow public meetings outdoors without a permit. It was not very long ago that we had this problem. Mr Wong Kan Seng, in his speech in Parliament on 25th April this year, has already explained that despite its own reservations on its potential for public disorder, Government decided that the idea of a Speakers' Corner is worth trying out in view of the support it has attracted from the civil society groups. To reinforce Government's sincerity in trying this idea out, considerable latitude would be exercised.

The calls for a Speakers' Corner have arisen because the world is changing and the limits are wider. So Government has responded and shown that ---

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. The time allowed for the debate has expired.

The Question having been proposed at Thirty-nine minutes past Five o'clock pm and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at Nine minutes past Six o'clock pm.