Use of theatre analogy for decision on live parliamentary broadcasts a puzzling one

I refer to the letter from Leader of the House Grace Fu’s press secretary Michele Khoo (“No plans for live Parliament broadcast, which runs risk of changing sober tone of proceedings: Govt”; May 15).

Dr Khoo was writing in response to Mr Chirag Agarwal’s letter (“Live Parliament proceedings hold democratic allure and should be allowed in digital age”; May 11).

As a freelance performer and an independent theatre reviewer, I am bemused that the press secretary to Ms Fu, who is also the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth, would evoke theatre to mean something frivolous.

One of the ancient roots of theatre lies in the state, ritual and the polis. The closest present-day manifestations of this are state functions and ceremonies, including parliamentary proceedings. As long as someone is doing something and another is present to witness it, there is a performative element inherent in the activity.

As a Singaporean, I am supportive of a live broadcast of Parliament sittings, and by that, I mean an online broadcast. I will not be surprised if supporters of this move had that in mind as well.

It is impractical to have a channel on television dedicated to parliamentary proceedings. It is equally impractical to disrupt an existing channel’s programming.

Therefore, Dr Khoo’s argument of low demand, measured against TV viewership, is not fully relevant.

Furthermore, it is fascinating that her response leaves out online viewership figures for the occasional live broadcasts.

A complete broadcast of parliamentary proceedings is a public service and should not be tied to ratings. The Government should provide as many opportunities as possible for citizens to scrutinise proceedings and their representatives. Whether we make use of the broadcast is up to us.

In addition, a live broadcast leaves a copy of the complete proceedings for us to review at a convenient time. Having access to recordings of only the speeches leaves out information on how members behave in Parliament and the general atmosphere of the debate. What is unsaid is as crucial as what is said.

As for Dr Khoo’s concerns about Members of Parliament (MPs) “playing to the gallery” or “striking poses”, she should have more faith in the integrity of our parliamentarians. 

It is natural for them to feel pressured in the knowledge that their constituents are watching them as they speak or listen; representing the people is a grave responsibility. But if an MP has an urge to preen, pose and play to the gallery, it is more of a reflection on the MP than on the audience.

Finally, having spent countless hours in the theatre, I can assure Dr Khoo in full confidence that the tone of the proceedings is up to those being watched, what they say and how they play their part. 

One should not blame the broadcast medium or the audience, who are meant to be there in the first place.

Have views on this issue or a news topic you care about? Send your letter to voices [at] mediacorp.com.sg with your full name, address and phone number.