The Legal Janitor

Soon after Jamie Han complained about his letters not being published in the Straits Times, we see more of him in the ST Forum.

First, critique of ST’s government supported artificial monopoly:

Some would argue that the reading public here is too small to support more than one major newspaper. This may be true. But we must also take into account the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, which gives the Government the authority to grant licences to publishing firms.

At present, the criteria for approval is not transparent. Applications can be rejected without the need to give explanations. The Government may also choose not to renew the licence the following year without any justification.

Any honest person would admit that the Act has a part to play in the dearth of newspapers in Singapore.

The Government justifies the Act on the grounds that it prevents people from using the press to raise sensitive racial and religious issues that may shatter the fragile unity of our society.

If we are to accept this justification, then we must also accept the two main implications that can be drawn from it.

First, that Singapore as a society has progressed so little since the chaotic days of the 1960s racial riots that we still need laws such as the above-mentioned one in order to maintain a veneer of unity.

Second, that our citizens are so immature and uncritical that they would readily lap up any racist or religious propaganda that surfaces should the Act be removed or revised.

If we are to accept these implications, then we have to acknowledge the immaturity of our society.

And after, an actual proposal for reform:

Instead of focusing on controlling who can or cannot publish newspapers, we can instead focus on making people responsible for what they say or publish in public. An example would be the laws already in place that allow people to sue those who slander them in public.

By doing so, only people with views that stand on strong foundations not based on racial or religious prejudices, but on the firm ground of reason, would air them in public. Fanatics and demagogues would not get away with irresponsible use of free speech in such a system.

A free press need not necessarily imply an irresponsible one.

As much as we would like to think otherwise, racism and religious differences exist in our society, just like in any other. To censure open discussion of such issues is like burying one’s head in the sand and wishing that the problem would go away.

It would be a shame if Singaporeans do not make full use of the stability we are enjoying now to bring out such sensitive issues into the open. Do we really want to wait until times of crisis before tackling such issues?

The Government can help encourage such discussion by relaxing the publishing laws so that more avenues would be made available for people to discuss these and other important issues that affect our society.

Well, the letter is very well written, and I can’t really think of anything to say about it. I agree with almost everything he writes about, critique and proposal for reform. Egad, me agree with someone else? Maybe I’m not such a contentious bastard after all…

Why are we so afraid of the ‘R’ words? - Feb 17, 2005