HONG JIA
First Year NUS Law, Associate Editor, SLR

A few Saturdays ago, an uncharacteristic sight awaited the commuter who emerged from Clarke Quay MRT station: a man stands on a grassy knoll and is speaking to a wide swathe of people. Two people beside the banner hold placards that proclaim “World Class Service or World Class Profits”. The 150-strong audience is substantial enough that when they roundly cheer and applaud the speaker’s denouncement of transport policy, one might indeed wonder if this is the spark of public political activism long lamented to be lacking, or suppressed, in Singapore.

When Speakers’ Corner was first introduced in 2000, it initially drew large crowds but they soon dissipated. Unless there were specific exemptions, obtaining a police permit in order to speak was the default. But there have been some relaxation of these regulations. In 2004, the list of exemptions was expanded and public exhibitions and performances were no longer required to obtain permits. In September this year, the Speakers’ Corner was handed over from the police to the National Parks Board (NParks) and now demonstrations, as well as speeches, can be legally carried out without a police permit. Loudhailers are allowed and the restrictions on which hours of the day activities can be carried out have also been lifted. Prior to the said event organized by The Online Citizen, another group had accordingly taken the chance to stage a brief demonstration against maid abuse.

But despite the media spotlight cast by news of the relaxed rules, Saturday’s protest against the transport fee hike was not a huge rally. The physical space it took up was dwarfed by the rest of Hong Lim Park that remained occupied in a spirited game of Frisbee. Nonetheless, the speakers spoke with conviction and passion and their words clearly resonated with many of those present, cutting across age groups and demographics. The transfer of control to NParks symbolizes a step away from (literally) policing public expression, and the greater ease of staging a demonstration-no need to book a time slot in order to speak, no screening beforehand-will certainly facilitate civic groups’ attempt to reach out to the public. Given a topic close to Singaporeans, and sufficient publicity, it is likely that the Speakers’ Corner will be able to attract a certain audience and provoke critical thought upon hot-button issues.

However, it is too early to tell whether it will have any discernible effect in promoting active political engagement in our society.  Much will depend on how our opposition party politicians and rights groups choose to use this medium in the upcoming months, if they even choose to do so, as well as how much the public is willing to respond to issues of not only bread and butter, but also politics and civil rights.

Along these lines, although the Ministry of Home Affairs has indicated express permission for activities including effigy burning and gay pride events, gay rights activist Alex Au was quoted in Today as unwilling to “dignify tokenism”. Cynics still feel that whatever changes Speakers’ Corner undergoes, and indeed Speakers’ Corner itself, are merely tokenistic in nature. Public speech and assembly, after all, are still restricted to this quiet corner of Singapore. Despite the historical significance of Hong Lim Park as a political venue for election rallies and speeches in the 50s and 60s, today it is far from a hotspot of human traffic, limiting the potential audience of Speakers’ Corner.

In addition, the apparent freedom of expression is still restrained by the large sign mounted conspicuously at Speakers’ Corner reminding all that certain controversial topics such as race and religion still remain grimly out-of-bounds. If Dr Chee Soon Juan had attempted to discuss the issue of Muslim schoolgirls’ headscarves on Saturday, he would still have been arrested and fined for breaching the terms of speaking at Speakers’ Corner. Less than three weeks after the new rules came into effect, real estate agent Thamilselvan Karuppaya experienced the OB-markers for himself when his online registration with NParks led to a call from the police informing him he needed a Public Entertainment Licence for his speech in which he had meant to address the use of Tamil in public signs. His subsequent licence application was rejected and he had to abort his plan to speak.

On the more political side, Saturday’s speakers, while denouncing the policies made by the government, pointed to policy-makers’ lack of consideration of alternative views as a deeper problem of Singapore’s political arena. This may not be an issue that Speakers’ Corner can help resolve. In another potentially illuminating moment relating to the ban on holding political events outside of Speakers’ Corner, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong recently took part in a cycling event at West Coast Park, organized by the PAP Community Foundation. Last year, the Workers’ Party had had to apply for a permit for a similar cycling event in East Coast Park to commemorate its 50^th anniversary, which was rejected. When Nominated Member-of-Parliament Sylvia Lim asked whether PM Lee had been granted a permit to take part in an outdoors political event, it was explained that although the PAP Community Foundation was affiliated with the PAP, it was a registered charity and its non-political nature allowed the PM to participate without a permit. To some, this was perhaps another complication to the issue of public politicking, but then again, it was never a simple matter to begin with.