新加坡走自己的路

In his article, “Our de-vocalised public space”, （LHZB, 1 Nov） Chan Cheow Pong deplored the lack of political space here for argument and debate. In “A letter to my Dad aka the government” （LHZB, 15 Nov）, Julie Ng Siew Choo continued this theme.

　　Mr Chan cites as proof the lack of anti-US demonstrations over Iraq during the recent visit of President George Bush in Singapore. Unfortunately, he did not explain how such demonstrations would have been in our national interest.

　　On freedom of speech in Singapore, Mr Chan fails to distinguish between form and substance. The substantive issue must surely be whether Singaporeans have a right to a different view and whether they have effective avenues to express them.

　　The answer is clearly“Yes”as is amply demonstrated by many Singaporeans exercising this right in the Forum Pages of the newspapers, the Internet and elsewhere. The space for political debate has gradually but steadily widened. That Mr Chan could publish such a critical piece in Lianhe Zaobao shows this to be so.

　　As a form, street protests may be an accepted channel for expression in other countries in other circumstances. In Singapore we have different but effective avenues for expression.

　　Mr Chan is dismissive of them, arguing that because the Government defines these alternatives, they are tantamount to restrictions on an individual's political space. Mr Chan advocates that “society”, but not the elected government, should decide the boundaries of political action and expression.

　　How is this to be achieved？ Who is to represent and interpret the will of “society”, if not the elected government？ In countries with an elected and functioning government, it is the government's responsibility to define public policy and to govern in accordance with the constitution and the laws of the land, in the interests of the collective and public good.

　　If they fail to do so effectively, the electorate can vote them out in the next election. Every individual in such a society lives within the framework of policies and laws determined by the elected government.

　　Ms Julie Ng asked why the government still needs to censor films at all, since she is already 21. But censorship is not just a question of age, but societal norms of public decency and morality. Even in Western countries like the UK and Australia, censorship boards decide what can or cannot be shown publicly in films. Every country needs to uphold the values affirmed by the majority of its population. In no country is individual freedom absolute.

　　Singapore society must evolve and grow on its own terms and at its own pace. Just because we refuse to ape other societies mindlessly in having street demonstrations or in our censorship standards does not make Singaporeans a“de-vocalised” lot, or signify any lack of idealism or self-mobilisation.

　　On the contrary, it underlines a growing maturity and confidence in our own model, which has enabled Singapore to grow and prosper.

　　在《被迫失语的公共空间》 （11月1日刊《言论。双语》版）一文中,曾昭鹏对我国缺乏政治辩论的公共空间表示愤慨。黄秀茱也在《给爸爸（又名政府）的一封信》（11月15日）中,阐述相似的主题。

　　曾昭鹏以美国总统布什访新期间,无人肯站出来为伊拉克战事*来证明他的论点。然而他却没有进一步说明*行动对新加坡究竟有何助益。

　　关于新加坡的言论自由,曾昭鹏似乎对形式和实质分辨不清。从实质来说,真正的问题是新加坡人是否有权利采取不同的立场,并通过有效的途径加以表达。

　　答案是肯定的,因为许多新加坡人已经透过报章的言论版、互联网和其他媒介,充分地行使他们的发言权。政治辩论的公共空间肯定已经逐渐扩大了,曾昭鹏能在《联合早报》发表他这篇不同观点的文章就足以证明。

　　从形式来说,由于社会情况迥异,街头*可能为一些国家所接受。对新加坡而言,我们有不同但却有效的途径让人民表达立场。

　　曾昭鹏对此却不以为然。他认为既然这些管道都是由政府划定,就表示个人的政治空间受到了限制。曾昭鹏强调政治的行动和表达的范围,应该由“社会”划定,而不是由政府制定。

　　可是除了民选政府,“社会”的意愿又当由谁来划定？在民选政府治理的国家,政府有责任按宪法和律法施行政策,以维护公众群体的利益。

　　如果政府没有尽责,选民可以在下届大选中不再投票支持他们。在此社会体制下,代表选民的议员,也会共同在国会制定出人人都必须遵守的律法规范。

　　至于黄秀茱说不明白为何她已过了21岁,她所看的电影还需要经过审查。其实,我认为黄秀茱不明白的应该是：电影的分级审查制度不单是年龄的问题,也关乎整个社会的常规和公众的道德准则。即使在西方国家,就如英国和澳洲,也是由电检部决定哪一些片段可以搬上电影荧幕,哪一些则不可以。因为需要捍卫大部分社会公众所认同的价值体系,所以没有一个国家会赋予个人绝对的自由。

　　新加坡社会显然必须按照本身的条件和步伐循序渐进地发展。我们不盲目地模仿其他国家举行街头*,也不采纳他们的审查标准,并不表示新加坡就成了“失语” 的国家,或是我们缺少理想和自发力。

　　相反的,这反映了我们的政治环境正逐渐走向成熟,而且我们对自己的模式有信心。这也正是新加坡能蓬勃发展的基础。