PERFORMANCE OF PLAY

Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Home Affairs if he will give the reasons why the Public Entertainment Licensing Unit has refused the application for the play "Talaq".

Mr Simon S. C. Tay asked the Minister for Home Affairs why the Government banned the performance of the play "Talaq" by theatre group Agni Koothu at short notice despite the recommendation of the National Arts Council that it be allowed.

Mr Zulkifli Bin Baharudin asked the Minister for Home Affairs what were the legal grounds under which the performance of the play "Talaq" was disallowed.

The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Sir, may I take Question Nos. 3, 4 and 5 together as they are related?

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Thank you, Sir. The Police's Public Entertainment Licensing Unit (PELU) issues licences for public entertainment and meetings, such as plays, operas, variety acts, music performances and talks under the Public Entertainments Act. In deciding whether or not to grant a licence, PELU may consult the relevant authorities and, amongst other factors, PELU takes into account law and order considerations, including racial and religious sensitivities that may be evoked.

Sir, "Talaq", which explores marital violence and rape in the Indian Muslim community, was first performed in Tamil by the Agni Kootthu theatre group in December 1998, and twice in February 1999. In assessing applications made in respect of those performances, PELU sought the National Arts Council's (NAC) views. NAC recommended approval. Hence, PELU approved the licences for the performances. However, following the February 1999 performances, both NAC and PELU received adverse feedback that the play was offensive and misrepresented the Indian Muslim community and Islam.

Thus, when Ms Thenmoli, the president of Agni Kootthu, applied to PELU on 19th September 2000 for "Talaq" to be staged in Malay and English on 28th and 29th October 2000 respectively, PELU sought the views of NAC. NAC advised PELU to seek the views of Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS), as the play had attracted complaints previously. MUIS informed PELU that they had received objections to the play and recommended that PELU turn down the application. When NAC learnt of this, NAC decided to organise a preview of the play on 16th October 2000. However, Ms Thenmoli at first refused to hold the preview on the grounds that there were representatives from the South Indian Jamiathul Ulama (SIJU) on the preview panel. PELU therefore could not grant the licence for the performances. Ms Thenmoli subsequently changed her mind and agreed to a preview, which was held on 23rd October 2000. Representatives from MUIS, SIJU, Agni Kootthu and PELU were invited.

Sir, the following day, NAC and the Drama Review Committee (DRC) recommended to PELU that the staging of the play could be allowed, but subject to the removal of certain references to Islam and the announcement before the commencement of each performance and in all publicity materials that "although the play is based on the experiences of an individual, it is not intended to reflect on or defame the Indian Muslim community at large". In giving its recommendations, NAC also stated that ultimately it was PELU's prerogative if it wished to place greater weight on MUIS' views.

Sir, MUIS had strongly objected to the play as it contained Quranic references and religious connotations that might give the audience a wrong impression of Islam. In view of the NAC and DRC's recommendation, PELU sought MUIS' views on whether NAC's proposed conditions were adequate. MUIS replied that the conditions would not adequately address the objections raised by them, and reiterated their earlier strong objections to the play. After taking into consideration NAC's and MUIS' views, PELU turned down the application, as empowered under section 13 of the Public Entertainments Act. PELU conveyed its decision to Ms Thenmoli on 25th October 2000, two days after the preview.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore encourages artistic expression and creativity. But artistic works must respect religious sensitivities in multi-racial and multi-religious Singapore. Artistes should be mindful of our social realities and avoid creating racial or religious tensions, as they too have a responsible role to play in helping to preserve religious and racial harmony in Singapore.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I, first of all, say I see that the overworked Minister of State is again asked to answer all these questions whilst the Minister is here. But that is a matter for them.

But may I ask the poor overworked Minister of State, do I understand that the objections were first raised by some Indian Muslim men or an association representing them?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I do not know whether the Member heard my answer, but there were earlier performances in 1998 and 1999 in Tamil, and objections were raised.

Mr Jeyaretnam: By whom?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: By two groups - SIJU and the Federation of Indian Muslims. These were not just individuals but complaints from the members of these two groups.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Were there any complaints from any women's organisations?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Not that I know of. I do not think there were complaints from women's organisations.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Would the Minister of State or his Ministry make public the objections by MUIS setting out how it offends the Muslim religion or the Koran?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: That is part of the decision-making process. I do not think it is up to PELU to disclose all these grounds. In fact, 11 specific grounds were given, on which the view was formed that there were references to Quranic verses and also religious connotations which would give a wrong impression of Islam. Here, because the performances were in Malay and English - unlike the earlier performances which were in Tamil where probably the audience would be a more limited one - there will be larger audiences. So this will lead possibly to people of other races having the wrong impression of Islam, having perhaps an erroneous and lower impression of Islam than what it actually is, and this may lead to misunderstanding amongst the races.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Why was MUIS not told that they were at liberty, if they thought there were wrong interpretations of the Koran or anything else, that they could come out publicly with their statement and so let us have the debate open, instead of all being decided by the "Commissar"?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, it is up to MUIS if it wants to disclose the reasons, but in so far as the process is concerned, PELU has the powers and the discretion, and it has exercised it objectively and correctly. I think that is the important point - taking all views into consideration.

Dr Jennifer Lee (Nominated Member): First, a point of clarification. I believe the first performances of the play in Tamil were subtitled in English, so they did in fact reach a wider audience than just the Tamil community. In fact, I think, quite a few English-speaking were there in the audience and understood the play.

Secondly, all of us here fully understand that we live in a multi-racial society and that we are very sensitive about not offending all our various communities with their different religious beliefs. But there is also a danger of ---

Mr Speaker: Order. Can I ask the Member to ask her question?

Dr Jennifer Lee: Yes. How do we guard against being overly sensitive so that we are forever caught in a mind of not moving ahead when possibly we are overly sensitive to the sensibilities of certain communities? I have read the play and the context of it is very largely domestic violence.

Mr Speaker: Order. Can I remind the Member that you are not to make statements during Question time.

Dr Jennifer Lee: Yes, Sir.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I thank the Nominated Member of Parliament for the clarification. But I think we can still see a difference between looking at a play in Tamil and then reading the English subtitles and the actual play being performed in English, because for a start, I think the audience mix will be vastly different and moreover, the impact will be vastly different.

Yesterday we talked about whether PELU should be the authority for arts performances. In the arts, some will argue that because of the need to balance artistic merit and also the desire of artistes to express themselves and try new things and, on the other hand, the need to ensure that some of these sensitivities we talk about are observed, we have asked PELU to look at it, do a review, and the Ministry will also be in consultation with MITA to see who should be that one-stop agency.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I ask the Minister of State: does he not think seriously that this case affords the best grounds for setting up an appeals board consisting of distinguished, respectable citizens to decide on these questions?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Mr Jeyaretnam missed the debate yesterday. I think we talked about it at length. He was not here. He asked many questions. I answered him and corrected some of his misperceptions. This point was indeed addressed and this review will look at whether or not panels need to be set up.