James Gomez

(Ed. Note: At the launch of his book, Self-Censorship Singapore's Shame, on 6 November 1999James Gomez distributed this open letter. The licensing division had turned down his application for a permit for accompanying remarks during his book launch citing non-observance of a three week processing period. This was the method use by the author to address his audience without breaking the law.)

I TOO have succumbed to the Singapore Shame and self-censored. I was appalled to find out that even to have a book launch at this bookstore, one of Singapore's oldest bookstore and speak during this event I had to apply for public  entertainment licence. This is the reality. This is the true extent of free speech in Singapore - modernised, globalised and purportedly a funky town.

Do all bookshops in Singapore apply for a permit when they launch a book or organise a reading?

Does the National Library similarly apply for permits when it organises similar activities? Or is it an over stringent application of rules and guidelines that serve to cripple the exploration of expression?

It is legislation, such as the Public Entertainment Act that has facilitated the rise of a censorial behaviour in Singapore - observable amongst citizens, residents, foreigners alike. When I was writing this book and analysing this phenomenon I thought this was something that afflicted a majority of people and that at least a minority was not affected and that I was a

part of this liberated minority.

Today, I realise that I was wrong. That it is not only the shame of the majority but my shame too.

Thus, making the Singapore's shame of self-censorship very real, present and operating healthily among us today.

Ordinarily I would not have given this issue of public entertainment licence a second thought. In fact my panel and I were quite prepared to speak and discuss the book until it dawned on me the day before the launch that the rhetoric of openness did not square neatly with existing legislation. When I did check with the licensing unit with a Madam Ng and explained to her the

event, I was told that a licence was needed. I expressed my surprise and applied for a permit that afternoon. I called this morning (Nov 6) at 10.15am explained the urgency of the matter, and how embarrassing it will be for everyone if I had to cancel the event.

Predictably I was given a quick rebuke that I should have applied early enough for it. I pressed the issue and minutes later I was sent a fax saying that my application for launch and talk was turned down. It was pointed out that the launch does not require a licence but it is the talk that does.

So I followed up the fax and asked what exactly can I do for a launch and called to speak with the Head, Licensing Division, Mr Koh Chor Huat. He said that he has not attended a book launch but since someone was introducing me, and I explaining why I wrote the book and another to review the book, he said that these constituted speeches so my application was

turned down.

He said, in any case, the time was too short and that it usually takes at least three weeks for requests to be considered. I expressed my disappointment that book launches which often times include a short opening address, a talk by the author and a reviewer were subject to licence applications. He reiterated that he only applies the rules and that I have to bear the

consequences of breaking them if I choose to proceed.

The licensing provisions as they stand now doesn't augur well for Singapore which is home to some of the largest bookstores in the region. Moreover it is unclear with such legislation in place what one should do as it stifles creativity. I took it that bookstores and libraries never applied for permit.

I have attended dozens of book related activities at Borders, Malayan Publishing House and Select where apart from the invited guest there was always an element of walk-ins that heard about the event through promotional materials and signage. This exercise reveals the extent to which such laws are applied in funky-town Singapore. The laws are cumbersome, administratively time consuming and restrictive especially when they apply in the very places (bookshops and libraries) where ideas are meant to flow and move.

But if I know Singapore as well I think I know it, you find that the response would be to nit-pick on details such as invited guests and suggestion of not making it a public walk-in event. More revealing would be the claim that in spite of existing legislation there is still creativity in Singapore!

That's the irony of the Singapore Shame, explaining why a book cannot be launched at a bookshop together with the accompanying remarks because there is a law that requires previous permit applications. At the very least bookshops and libraries on the occasion of a book related activity should be free speech venues.

Enough about silly legislation let me come to my book. I wrote this book as my personal contribution to the Singapore 21 process. I was involved in the discussions that dealt with politics and governance. I attended this year the first conference of the Singapore 21 Vision.

There I prepared a paper in which I called for the political dimension of the Singapore 21 vision to be also recognised and explored. In this respect, I decided to reflect a little more on the issue and do more background research to understand what was the problem that hinders the Singapore 21 vision on the political front. I believe, we as citizens can contribute to the

process in our own way without necessarily joining a political party.

Today's example shows clearly the problem that we are facing. A call for a new vision has been made and supported by the people but old laws hinder it. These laws that were enacted for a different era to negotiate different political situations of Singapore's pre- and immediate post-independent era are no longer relevant in their present form.

Things have since changed. With the advance of the Internet, we have to be more current.

Look around us, the Asian crisis has initiated democracies in transition in many countries. The challenges these countries now face is how to consolidate the gains made and move forward.

Even as you read this letter this is what is precisely happening with Gus Dur's visit to Singapore. He is making a short and quick around ASEAN tour following his election as Indonesia's first democratically elected president.

So where does this leave Singapore. I suppose the S21 process is our own kind of reform, albeit, in the true Singaporean sense a cautious, anxious and overtly suspicious one. Why suspicious because whenever this vision is pursued in a more progressive manner, it is predictably viewed as suspect.

Although this new call needs to be supported by changes in legislation, given the reality of ruling party politics and the absence of a sizeable opposition in parliament and a weak civil society, it would not come to pass. It would take a much longer time for this issue to come to boil.

So what do we do in the meantime, do we just sit back or do we take the calls to move forward at face value and move. I decided with the later. And hence the book. In the section where I call for like-minded people to come together, to

explore what we want to do through discussion, is an attempt to start the process. I know Singapore and I know the people. There will not be many takers as they are scared and will instantly not want to be involved in something that does not give them instant material gratification.

Furthermore, risk-takers generally receive little support. But having said that there are others, who care and are willing and are like-minded. It is to these people that the book reaches out. And I know they are only a few. But if such people can come together, it is a start and it would give the conversation and discussion activities a chance to grow.

I have been encouraged, since the book as been out the last few weeks to have met new like-minded friends and I was hoping that today would be a good way to start the process by sharing some thoughts and ideas.

But alas it was not meant to be, as I had to come face to face with reality of the public entertainment licence. If at a book launch you cannot talk and discuss your book what else can you do? However, I am not disheartened but realistic. I know the reality of politics and don't expect the law to be changed in the near future but I am confident that in the interim we can start a dialogue with the authorities, in particular the public entertainment licensing unit and the police.

There is a need to work with these two departments to make them understand what the Singapore 21 vision is and how they should respond when the calls for a new and creative Singapore are being experimented by people willing to take up this call.

There needs to be more information available about existing rules and regulations such as a booklet that gives detailed explanations about rules and regulation. This should be available at every community centre or police post. It should be made possible for applications to be sent via the community centre or police post.

Applications should also be made possible through the use of Internet. With so many of us online, this should be easy enough. There are many things to which we can apply through the Internet, why not the licence. The waiting period of three weeks is too long and unrealistic. The process should be quick and transparent. Can't it be ready on the same day? Applications for passports, renewals, NRICs, driving licences and business registration are faster.

The Singapore civil service is known for its efficiency why not reflect it in this area. The expected response is that it needs time to evaluate the application. If this is so what are the steps. Let's have it transparent.

There should also be the possibility to make block applications, say for events planned for one calendar year. Or a flat licence that is given to an organisation or person to organise activities in different places for a year subject to renewal process. Or run a programme to gather more views on how to improve the present situation.

Currently, the law is not well known and the application process is not transparent. The letter from the licensing unit is vague. In this vagueness you would expect people to stumble. And when they do, do you punish them immediately? Or do you work with them to explain the situation and work together to achieve the Singapore 21 vision.

The licensing authorities and the police need to respond to how they want to help and facilitate explorations of those who want to execute the Singapore 21 Vision. They have to go beyond predictably saying that they are civil servants and they are merely enforcing the law according to the respective sections. They need to be savvy, change their mindset, embark on a public education programme in partnership with civil society and act to bring reform from within so that the right atmosphere is set to move Singapore forward.

Let us not approach the millennium in a climate of fear, anxiety and vagueness.