“NO freedom of speech” as a label on Singapore is an anachronism in this era of Internet. To clear the city-state of that negative image, a strong message from the government is necessary.
Singaporeans are familiar with politics in Britain. There, the Speakers' Corner has long been maintained in Hyde Park as a symbol of freedom of speech. Now, borrowing the name, our government has sent out a loud and clear message.
It is meant for foreigners as well as for Singaporeans. To many foreigners, Singapore is a country of control － if people are not free to enjoy chewing-gum, what else can they do freely？
For long, we have cared little how outsiders look upon us. We hardly care whether they praise or criticise us. Anyway, the continuous influx of foreign capital has proved that political stability is what investors care most. To our government, while freedom and democracy sound pleasant, their pros and cons are still open to question.
Unfortunately, an imaginary scene or two have dominated the picture of Singapore in foreigners' minds. For instance, they have come to associate Singapore with the ban on chewing-gum, which they see as ridiculous.
Therefore, designating a Speakers' Corner would be a good public relations exercise to help improve the image of our city-state.
That would be a significant symbolic change － just imagine the everything-by-law society will soon be encouraging people to debate in public！
When interviewed by this newspaper, many political and academic figures and civil groups said they welcomed the move. Indeed, some of them even regretted that it could have been made earlier.
But they disagree on how the Speakers' Corner should be managed. Some believe that the government must make sure nobody abuses it. Others think it should be regulated in a laissez-faire way, which means speakers should be allowed to say whatever they like － even with name-calling － so long as they abide by the laws.
In Britain, speeches made in the Hyde Park Corner are not regarded as mainstream public opinion. The media do not cover them, while people listen more for fun than for any enlightenment.
That paradise of public speaking has become part of Britain's political tradition, serving a symbolic rather than practical purpose. Given this understanding, the British people feel little burden in keeping the Corner abuzz with speeches.
But Singapore has a different political culture. As the government is serious with everything it does, the people take everything it does seriously.
For example, some of those interviewed believe that both the government and the people should treat the Corner seriously, and that speeches made there should be substantive and constructive.
But how can one ensure that all the speakers talk substantively and constructively, and who is to judge whether they do？
More important, if we make serious efforts to ensure this and guard against that, won't there be a great many restrictions, defeating the very purpose of the Speakers' Corner？
It is unlikely that Singaporeans would be comfortable with the laissez-faire politics of Hyde Park Corner. They would ask： why isn't there some form of regulation since the Corner is set up by the government？
Yet regulations, however accommodating, could cause problems. For example, if permits from the police are required for making speeches, people will mistake the permit-holders for “authorised” speakers and think what they say is worth listening to.
Given that misunderstanding, the government will be forced to take every speaker seriously. It may even end up having to debate with critics in the street all the time.
In Singapore, topics about racial relations are sensitive in our multiracial society, given the complex geopolitical milieu in Southeast Asia. But Singapore has relevant laws which can be cited against sedition, and people are likely to support the government's use of the laws when needed.
Therefore, the government should allow people to make speeches freely, whether they make good sense or not. It is up to the public to judge what the speakers say.
Perhaps the venue will become a Hyde Park of Singapore where people speak and listen just for fun. Let history decide.
After all, the corner of free speech will be important only in a symbolic sense.
（The writer is a political reporter of Lianhe Zaobao. Translated by Allen Zhuang）
“演說者角落”可“無為治之”
21世紀(jì)伊始,新加坡就向世人宣告了兩個很有啟蒙意義的計劃：我們要成為一個“文藝復(fù)興城市”,也要辟設(shè)一個“演說者角落”。
這兩個計劃都借用了歐洲人的意象,“文藝復(fù)興”使人想起意大利的佛羅倫薩,“演說者角落”使人想到倫敦的海德公園。正如《聯(lián)合早報》記者吳啟基在一篇妙文中所說的,如果一切天然自成,不假“外力”,就不像新加坡。
我們要借外力,也說明我們欠缺之處。我們的文藝不彰,所以才有“復(fù)興”的大計。我們的言論天地不夠?qū)拸V,所以才有借鑒海德公園的必要。
一些知識分子就說,辟設(shè)“演說者角落”雖然是好事,但是它也很具“反諷”味道。他們認(rèn)為一個真正自由的國度,每一寸土地都應(yīng)是“演說者角落”,而不需要一個特設(shè)的地點。
“反諷”一說,確有其道理。多年來,言論自由這個話題,引發(fā)了政府與批評者之間不休的爭論。政府說它容得下異議,批評者則嫌證據(jù)不足。
在這互聯(lián)網(wǎng)時代,“抑制言論”這個標(biāo)簽顯得與時代氣息格格不入。要一舉擺脫這個標(biāo)簽,政府就得發(fā)出一個強有力的信息。島國人民熟悉英國政治,海德公園演說者一隅,向來是言論自由的象征?，F(xiàn)在政府借來一用,從它的角度來說,這個訊息總算明確了吧？
這個訊息的對象,也不止于新加坡人。外國人提起新加坡,總是歸納成一個“管”字,人們連嚼香口膠的自由都沒有,還有什么東西是不受管的？
過去,我們似乎不太在乎外國人的看法,展現(xiàn)的是一種笑罵由人的態(tài)度。事實上,歐美投資源源而來,也證明投資者所看重的是穩(wěn)定的政治。從政府看來,自由民主的氣象雖然討好人,它的利與弊還得從長計議。
不過,在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)時代,創(chuàng)意和革新已成了神圣的字眼,它們被視為國家和企業(yè)財富的泉源。反之,人們雖不敢低估穩(wěn)定和秩序的重要,但是卻顯然不愿多談,以免被指為呆板、不合潮流。
新加坡在政治形象上求變,不是媚俗,也不是媚外,而是與國家利益相關(guān)。刻板保守的社會,絕不是創(chuàng)意盎然的人才所向往的社會,而這樣的人才和企業(yè)家,都是各國競相吸引的對象。
美國經(jīng)濟學(xué)家瑟羅（Lester Thurows）近向本地報界說：“新加坡要吸引外來人才嗎？那么,何不先修改禁止香口膠的法令？
這是因為世人總覺得新加坡什么事都管,盡管這不是個事實?！?BR> 像新加坡這樣的小國,一個很悲哀的事實是外人對我們的印象,往往是由一兩個影像所壟斷。在許多外國人眼中,禁香口膠這回事近乎滑稽,因此印象深刻。從公共關(guān)系學(xué)的角度來看,要扭轉(zhuǎn)這個印象,使島國脫胎換骨,設(shè)一個海德公園那樣的“演說者角落”,不失為一個良策。
一個規(guī)規(guī)距矩的社會,現(xiàn)在竟然鼓勵人們舌戰(zhàn)街頭,這樣的變化,算是劃時代的變化了吧？
多名政界、學(xué)術(shù)界和公民團體代表在接受本報訪問時,都?xì)g迎辟設(shè)“演說者角落”,其中幾名還埋怨說這是“遲來的春天”。
這個“角落”應(yīng)該如何管理？受訪者意見不一。有者認(rèn)為政府應(yīng)該防止濫用,有者認(rèn)為應(yīng)該“無為治之”,只要不犯法,演說也好,漫罵也好,任由人們。
吳總理說,政府還在研究計劃的細(xì)節(jié)。可以想象的是政府正面對如何為這個“角落”定位的問題。
在英國,發(fā)自海德公園的言論現(xiàn)在絕非主流,媒體不屑采訪,在場聽講的人也是為尋開心,多過要接受啟發(fā)。這個演說天地,早已是英國政治傳統(tǒng)的一部分,它的象征意義多過實際的意義。英國人有了這個共識,政治上也就沒什么包袱了。
新加坡的政治文化不同,政府辦的每一件事都顯得認(rèn)真,意義充實,人民也嚴(yán)肅的對待。譬如接受本報訪問的一些人士,就很本能的認(rèn)為政府與人民應(yīng)該認(rèn)真嚴(yán)肅的對待這個言論“角落”,演說者應(yīng)該言之有物和有建設(shè)性。
但是,這樣的定位,在實際的管理上困難重重。例如,我們怎么確保人人言之有物？這應(yīng)該由誰判斷？更重要的是,如果我們要確保這個,確保那個,不就變得諸多限制,有損辟設(shè)一個演說天地的意義。
海德公園式的“無為”政治,我們是不習(xí)慣的。人們會問,既然是政府設(shè)立的,怎能不好好管理？
但是,一個“有為”的管理方式,即使是管得很松,也可能是問題多多。譬如說,由警方發(fā)出演說準(zhǔn)證,會不會給眾人帶來一個錯覺,以為這些人都是經(jīng)由*“品質(zhì)確認(rèn)”的,因此他們的演講都值得一聽。人們一旦有了這樣的錯覺,政府將被逼認(rèn)真對待每一個演說者,到時政府豈不是要在街頭與批評者舌戰(zhàn)不休？
一個多元種族社會,加上東南亞復(fù)雜地緣政治,敏感種族課題不可不防。新加坡已有明確法律,必要動用時,人民是會支持的。
在這樣的前提下,只要不破壞社會安寧,政府應(yīng)該讓人們自由“演說”,言之有物也好,言之無物也罷,讓人民自己判斷。一天如果這個演說天地成了另一個海德公園,人們只是在取樂,那也是歷史的偶然。
這個言論天地重要的,畢竟只是它的象征意義。
Singaporeans are familiar with politics in Britain. There, the Speakers' Corner has long been maintained in Hyde Park as a symbol of freedom of speech. Now, borrowing the name, our government has sent out a loud and clear message.
It is meant for foreigners as well as for Singaporeans. To many foreigners, Singapore is a country of control － if people are not free to enjoy chewing-gum, what else can they do freely？
For long, we have cared little how outsiders look upon us. We hardly care whether they praise or criticise us. Anyway, the continuous influx of foreign capital has proved that political stability is what investors care most. To our government, while freedom and democracy sound pleasant, their pros and cons are still open to question.
Unfortunately, an imaginary scene or two have dominated the picture of Singapore in foreigners' minds. For instance, they have come to associate Singapore with the ban on chewing-gum, which they see as ridiculous.
Therefore, designating a Speakers' Corner would be a good public relations exercise to help improve the image of our city-state.
That would be a significant symbolic change － just imagine the everything-by-law society will soon be encouraging people to debate in public！
When interviewed by this newspaper, many political and academic figures and civil groups said they welcomed the move. Indeed, some of them even regretted that it could have been made earlier.
But they disagree on how the Speakers' Corner should be managed. Some believe that the government must make sure nobody abuses it. Others think it should be regulated in a laissez-faire way, which means speakers should be allowed to say whatever they like － even with name-calling － so long as they abide by the laws.
In Britain, speeches made in the Hyde Park Corner are not regarded as mainstream public opinion. The media do not cover them, while people listen more for fun than for any enlightenment.
That paradise of public speaking has become part of Britain's political tradition, serving a symbolic rather than practical purpose. Given this understanding, the British people feel little burden in keeping the Corner abuzz with speeches.
But Singapore has a different political culture. As the government is serious with everything it does, the people take everything it does seriously.
For example, some of those interviewed believe that both the government and the people should treat the Corner seriously, and that speeches made there should be substantive and constructive.
But how can one ensure that all the speakers talk substantively and constructively, and who is to judge whether they do？
More important, if we make serious efforts to ensure this and guard against that, won't there be a great many restrictions, defeating the very purpose of the Speakers' Corner？
It is unlikely that Singaporeans would be comfortable with the laissez-faire politics of Hyde Park Corner. They would ask： why isn't there some form of regulation since the Corner is set up by the government？
Yet regulations, however accommodating, could cause problems. For example, if permits from the police are required for making speeches, people will mistake the permit-holders for “authorised” speakers and think what they say is worth listening to.
Given that misunderstanding, the government will be forced to take every speaker seriously. It may even end up having to debate with critics in the street all the time.
In Singapore, topics about racial relations are sensitive in our multiracial society, given the complex geopolitical milieu in Southeast Asia. But Singapore has relevant laws which can be cited against sedition, and people are likely to support the government's use of the laws when needed.
Therefore, the government should allow people to make speeches freely, whether they make good sense or not. It is up to the public to judge what the speakers say.
Perhaps the venue will become a Hyde Park of Singapore where people speak and listen just for fun. Let history decide.
After all, the corner of free speech will be important only in a symbolic sense.
（The writer is a political reporter of Lianhe Zaobao. Translated by Allen Zhuang）
“演說者角落”可“無為治之”
21世紀(jì)伊始,新加坡就向世人宣告了兩個很有啟蒙意義的計劃：我們要成為一個“文藝復(fù)興城市”,也要辟設(shè)一個“演說者角落”。
這兩個計劃都借用了歐洲人的意象,“文藝復(fù)興”使人想起意大利的佛羅倫薩,“演說者角落”使人想到倫敦的海德公園。正如《聯(lián)合早報》記者吳啟基在一篇妙文中所說的,如果一切天然自成,不假“外力”,就不像新加坡。
我們要借外力,也說明我們欠缺之處。我們的文藝不彰,所以才有“復(fù)興”的大計。我們的言論天地不夠?qū)拸V,所以才有借鑒海德公園的必要。
一些知識分子就說,辟設(shè)“演說者角落”雖然是好事,但是它也很具“反諷”味道。他們認(rèn)為一個真正自由的國度,每一寸土地都應(yīng)是“演說者角落”,而不需要一個特設(shè)的地點。
“反諷”一說,確有其道理。多年來,言論自由這個話題,引發(fā)了政府與批評者之間不休的爭論。政府說它容得下異議,批評者則嫌證據(jù)不足。
在這互聯(lián)網(wǎng)時代,“抑制言論”這個標(biāo)簽顯得與時代氣息格格不入。要一舉擺脫這個標(biāo)簽,政府就得發(fā)出一個強有力的信息。島國人民熟悉英國政治,海德公園演說者一隅,向來是言論自由的象征?，F(xiàn)在政府借來一用,從它的角度來說,這個訊息總算明確了吧？
這個訊息的對象,也不止于新加坡人。外國人提起新加坡,總是歸納成一個“管”字,人們連嚼香口膠的自由都沒有,還有什么東西是不受管的？
過去,我們似乎不太在乎外國人的看法,展現(xiàn)的是一種笑罵由人的態(tài)度。事實上,歐美投資源源而來,也證明投資者所看重的是穩(wěn)定的政治。從政府看來,自由民主的氣象雖然討好人,它的利與弊還得從長計議。
不過,在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)時代,創(chuàng)意和革新已成了神圣的字眼,它們被視為國家和企業(yè)財富的泉源。反之,人們雖不敢低估穩(wěn)定和秩序的重要,但是卻顯然不愿多談,以免被指為呆板、不合潮流。
新加坡在政治形象上求變,不是媚俗,也不是媚外,而是與國家利益相關(guān)。刻板保守的社會,絕不是創(chuàng)意盎然的人才所向往的社會,而這樣的人才和企業(yè)家,都是各國競相吸引的對象。
美國經(jīng)濟學(xué)家瑟羅（Lester Thurows）近向本地報界說：“新加坡要吸引外來人才嗎？那么,何不先修改禁止香口膠的法令？
這是因為世人總覺得新加坡什么事都管,盡管這不是個事實?！?BR> 像新加坡這樣的小國,一個很悲哀的事實是外人對我們的印象,往往是由一兩個影像所壟斷。在許多外國人眼中,禁香口膠這回事近乎滑稽,因此印象深刻。從公共關(guān)系學(xué)的角度來看,要扭轉(zhuǎn)這個印象,使島國脫胎換骨,設(shè)一個海德公園那樣的“演說者角落”,不失為一個良策。
一個規(guī)規(guī)距矩的社會,現(xiàn)在竟然鼓勵人們舌戰(zhàn)街頭,這樣的變化,算是劃時代的變化了吧？
多名政界、學(xué)術(shù)界和公民團體代表在接受本報訪問時,都?xì)g迎辟設(shè)“演說者角落”,其中幾名還埋怨說這是“遲來的春天”。
這個“角落”應(yīng)該如何管理？受訪者意見不一。有者認(rèn)為政府應(yīng)該防止濫用,有者認(rèn)為應(yīng)該“無為治之”,只要不犯法,演說也好,漫罵也好,任由人們。
吳總理說,政府還在研究計劃的細(xì)節(jié)。可以想象的是政府正面對如何為這個“角落”定位的問題。
在英國,發(fā)自海德公園的言論現(xiàn)在絕非主流,媒體不屑采訪,在場聽講的人也是為尋開心,多過要接受啟發(fā)。這個演說天地,早已是英國政治傳統(tǒng)的一部分,它的象征意義多過實際的意義。英國人有了這個共識,政治上也就沒什么包袱了。
新加坡的政治文化不同,政府辦的每一件事都顯得認(rèn)真,意義充實,人民也嚴(yán)肅的對待。譬如接受本報訪問的一些人士,就很本能的認(rèn)為政府與人民應(yīng)該認(rèn)真嚴(yán)肅的對待這個言論“角落”,演說者應(yīng)該言之有物和有建設(shè)性。
但是,這樣的定位,在實際的管理上困難重重。例如,我們怎么確保人人言之有物？這應(yīng)該由誰判斷？更重要的是,如果我們要確保這個,確保那個,不就變得諸多限制,有損辟設(shè)一個演說天地的意義。
海德公園式的“無為”政治,我們是不習(xí)慣的。人們會問,既然是政府設(shè)立的,怎能不好好管理？
但是,一個“有為”的管理方式,即使是管得很松,也可能是問題多多。譬如說,由警方發(fā)出演說準(zhǔn)證,會不會給眾人帶來一個錯覺,以為這些人都是經(jīng)由*“品質(zhì)確認(rèn)”的,因此他們的演講都值得一聽。人們一旦有了這樣的錯覺,政府將被逼認(rèn)真對待每一個演說者,到時政府豈不是要在街頭與批評者舌戰(zhàn)不休？
一個多元種族社會,加上東南亞復(fù)雜地緣政治,敏感種族課題不可不防。新加坡已有明確法律,必要動用時,人民是會支持的。
在這樣的前提下,只要不破壞社會安寧,政府應(yīng)該讓人們自由“演說”,言之有物也好,言之無物也罷,讓人民自己判斷。一天如果這個演說天地成了另一個海德公園,人們只是在取樂,那也是歷史的偶然。
這個言論天地重要的,畢竟只是它的象征意義。