| Yawning
Bread. January 2006
Singapore not an open society, says Soros source: 'Today' newspaper and the Straits Times, 12 and 13 Jan 2006
|
|
|
12 January 2006'Today' newspaper A liberal speaks his mind By Clement Mesenas Within the plush comfort of the Raffles City convention centre, billionaire George Soros held court yesterday to an audience of 1,600 academics, government officials, businessmen and undergrads, enthralling them with his beliefs and vision for a global open society — and declaring that Singapore had yet to score in his book of liberal politics. Having made his wealth by the time he hit 50, Mr Soros is now into encouraging transitional and emerging nations to become "open societies" — open not only in the sense of freedom of commerce, but more importantly, tolerant of new ideas and different modes of thinking and behaviour. His Open Society Institute, which he founded 25 years ago, is a network of philanthropic organisations that is active in more than 50 countries — from Africa, Central America, Asia and South America. Mr Soros emerged as a liberal thinker as he engaged a distinguished panel that included Mr Kishore Mabhubani, dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Professor Tommy Koh, chairman of the Institute of Policy Studies. Interestingly, the United States, unquestionably the world's freest nation, earned the ire of Mr Soros, especially the Bush administration's war on terror following the 911 attacks. "How can we escape from the trap that the terrorists have set us," he asked. "Only by recognising that the war on terrorism cannot be won by waging war. We must, of course, protect our security; but we must also correct the grievances on which terrorism feeds ... Crime requires police work, not military action." Admitting his admiration for America, where he worked many years as Singapore ambassador to the United Nations, Mr Kishore Mabhubani believed that as the US grew in power, it felt less of a need to get to know the rest of the world, and in the process, was becoming more and more closed as a society. Agreeing to some extent, Mr Soros maintained that the US was a functionally open democracy, but "yes, we have lost our way", he said, pointing to the time in 2004 when the Bush administration, in his view, made a colossal blunder in launching the invasion of Iraq. Though he donated close to $40 million in an effort to defeat US President George Bush during the 2004 elections, he views the US as a viable democracy. "We can criticise our government, we can change our government and in due course, we will correct the wrong." With Mr Soros's drive to bring about change in China, where he admitted failure, and Myanmar, where efforts continue, the focus inevitably fell on Singapore. Panel member Benjamin Lee, a third-year National University of Singapore student, asked Mr Soros how he rated Singapore as an open global society. Mr Soros was blunt. "Obviously, Singapore does not qualify as open society," he said. But Singapore is prosperous and prosperity and an open society tend to go hand in hand, he said. "I detect a desire of greater openness," he said, adding that he had great respect for the achievements of Singapore's energetic leadership. "But I hope they will be brave enough to take the next step in the development of an open society." One way forward, he felt, would be to allow greater freedom of expression. The use of libel suits and financial penalties can be a tremendous hindrance to such expression, said Mr Soros. Responding, Prof Koh, stressing that he was not a member of the ruling People's Action Party, said that "open" and "closed" societies are two ends of a spectrum. "While the US appears to be moving from a more open to a less open society, Singapore is moving in the other direction — from close to open." Singapore ought to be encouraged, and it will in due course, make progress towards becoming a more open society, he added. In response to Mr Soros's remarks, a Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts spokesman told Today: "If we were not an open society, George Soros would hardly be able to make the comment at an open forum in Singapore, and be reported in the Singapore media."
12 January 2006 S'pore not an open society, argues George Soros By Erica Tay Mr George Soros, financier extraordinaire and an advocate of democracy, argued yesterday that Singapore cannot claim to be an open society if it continues to use libel suits against opposition politicians. At a packed forum organised by the Institute of South-east Asian Studies, the 75-year-old chairman and founder of Soros Fund Management was asked if he thought Singapore qualified as an open society. 'Obviously, Singapore does not qualify,' he said, adding that libel suits can be a 'tremendous hindrance to freedom of expression'. He cited an unnamed politician who, according to him, was in trouble after being sued for libel and made a bankrupt. However, he said: 'Singapore is a prosperous society and prosperity and open society go together. So I hope that Singapore will become an open society.' There was also now a desire for greater openness and an enlightened leadership in Singapore, he added. 'I am hoping that this leadership will be great enough to take that next step in development.' Mr Soros has been spending his fortune on a lifelong pet project - supporting democracy through his foundation, the Open Society Institute. He has also been an outspoken critic of US President George W. Bush's foreign policy. In his remarks yesterday, he took the Bush administration to task for its handling of terrorism. 'The United States under Mr Bush's leadership parted company with reality, and has entered some kind of fantasy world. 'Some people believe that 'might is right'...I don't think that democracy can be imposed from the outside. And it certainly cannot be imposed by military force,' he said, criticising the Bush administration's war on Iraq. Responding to Mr Soro's comments on Singapore, a spokesman for the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts said: 'If we were not an open society, George Soros would hardly be able to make the comments at an open forum in Singapore, and be reported in the Singapore media.' During yesterday's event, Mr Soros, who earned fame in the 1990s for his market-moving currency bets, left no one in doubt that democracy, not just dollars, is his passion. He said his experiences had taught him that 'all actions have unintended consequences and our view of reality is always divergent from reality'. But an open social climate can bring populations closer to reality, he told the audience of tertiary students and academics. He was explaining why he spends billions on civic causes, from funding universities in Eastern Europe to fighting apartheid in South Africa. The Hungarian-born Jew survived the 1944 Nazi occupation by living under a false name, and later escaped Soviet rule by emigrating to Britain. His views were shaped by philosopher Karl Popper's The Open Society And Its Enemies. * * * * * 13 January 2006 Debate on openness not closed – yet By Derrick A Paulo Speaking at the Singapore Perspectives conference organised by the Institute of Policy Studies, author Catherine Lim and Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (Iseas) political scientist Ho Khai Leong said yesterday that the new administration has taken only "half steps" towards a more open society, in which political freedom is like a "stream which meanders and sometimes disappears into the ground altogether". Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports Vivian Balakrishnan countered that political openness was not an end in itself but part of the process of good governance. According to Dr Lim, though, even if Singapore is to a certain extent succeeding in showcasing an alternative model to Western democracy, it is likely in the long run to lead to its own ruin. The need for authentic expression was too important, she said. "It can neither be intimidated into permanent silence nor seduced by material wealth," she said. "And if it is, we are all worse off for it." She called on the Government to let mavericks and "troublemakers" play their roles, as they give society a certain rambunctiousness. That kind of environment, she noted, nurtured a leader like Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew. The alternative, she said, is a monolithic society, which makes standard copies of its leaders. She also had a bigger concern. "I've come to believe with a heavy heart that even if the Government wanted to do something about it, Singaporeans are so used to the Government making decisions for us, any major change will be viewed with alarm," said Dr Lim. Another participant asked: "Are we depending too much on the Government changing, and not on ourselves changing?" Dr Balakrishnan agreed. "In a democracy, the people get what they deserve. The people decide whether they go along with policies. The people provide candidates for elections," he said. Dr Ho, meanwhile, said there is now a greater need for openness due to "new realities" created by issues in the past year, such as academic freedom and the National Kidney Foundation scandal. The latter "confirmed many Singaporeans' suspicion that something is rotten in the state of Denmark", said Dr Ho. However, Iseas director K Kesavapany said later that "credit should be given where credit is due". "Did the Government sweep it (NKF) under the carpet?" he asked. Wrapping up, Dr Balakrishnan emphasised results over openness or even partisanship. "I don't really care whether the PAP is in power 50 years from now. I do care whether the Government 50 years from now is a Government with competence, honesty and commitment, one which is pragmatic and recognises the world as it is," he said. "As for political dissidents, there will always be a place for them. But up to a point, they have to ask themselves: Are they willing to take responsibility, do more, get their hands dirty and have their results judged in real life — tangible outcomes, not mere theories." * * * * * 13 January 2006 Views split on pace at which S'pore is opening up By Zakir Hussein Singapore is opening up and just how fast - or slow - it is taking dominated discussions at a forum yesterday, with a minister pledging that it would gather pace, but two commentators saying they were unconvinced. Being plugged into the global economy has led to significant changes in society here, including in Government-people relations, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan said. Singaporeans were awakening politically and the level of debate and discourse was more sophisticated, and noticeably louder, he said at the Institute of Policy Studies' annual seminar. Sharing the stage with political commentators Catherine Lim and Ho Khai Leong, who differed with him over the pace of change, he cited the process of public consultations, such as over the integrated resorts, and devolving authority to grassroots groups to help needy residents. The Community Development, Youth and Sports Minister told the 700 participants that he believed there would be more issues floated by the Government for public discussion before decisions are taken. 'As politicians and policymakers, we would be truly foolish not to hear and address legitimate views genuinely and meaningfully, especially when we contemplate radical changes,' he said. Singapore's move towards a more open society would not be reversed, he added. Political debate would be louder, both within and outside the ruling People's Action Party, even if it retained political dominance. But Dr Lim, an author, and Dr Ho, a fellow at the Institute of South-east Asian Studies, felt little had changed and said the Government had a long way to go in fostering genuine political openness. What they agreed on was that Singaporeans valued security, jobs, public services and prosperity - and this was why the Government received political support despite concerns it was not liberalising fast enough. Issues of openness here were in the spotlight last year, noted Dr Ho. Media watchdog Reporters Without Borders ranked Singapore's press freedom among the lowest in the world; the University of Warwick dropped plans for a campus here, citing concerns about intellectual and academic freedom; and former United States ambassador Franklin Lavin was surprised by constraints on discussions given Singapore's openness to the world. And on Wednesday, financier George Soros said Singapore could not be considered an open society. But he noted that prosperity and open society went together, and cited the desire for greater openness and an enlightened leadership here. Dr Balakrishnan said yesterday that encouraging greater public participation had an impact on politics and governance, and was one of the Government's broad responses to globalisation. Alluding to recent riots in France and Australia, he said, however, that because of the nature of society here, Singapore would be 'cautiously radical rather than ideologically revolutionary' on issues of political freedom. Dr Lim saw this issue differently. The high regard other countries had for the Government and Singapore's economic success meant that there was less pressure to open up here. That was a reason why the Government could afford to suppress political dissent at home, even though the need for such dissent 'can never be stopped', she said. 'The political domain remains a backwater,' she added. She argued that the Government had 'a natural distaste of the noise of political debate and dissent', even as it sought to reassure the electorate it was opening up. Consultative initiatives like the Feedback Unit were publicised, while out-of-bounds markers were never spelt out except in response to specific situations, she added. And criticism of non-political issues was tolerated, but not criticism of the Government's competence and integrity, she said. One participant, however, questioned that view, asking if Singaporeans were 'depending too much on the Government changing and not on changing ourselves?' Dr Balakrishnan told participants that there would always be a place for 'so-called political dissidents'. But he challenged them to ask themselves if they were prepared to do more and create tangible results. He also said the Government was sincere
in wanting to engage Singaporeans - but reminded that it would always do
what was best in the country's interest.
|
|
|
|
Footnotes None Addenda None
|
|
