July 2003

Bungee jumping gets you nowhere

    

  

 
It is somehow depressing that bungee-jumping is rolled out as proof of liberalisation. It only reminds people how little we have to show for all the talk about making Singapore a more vibrant place, able to inspire and retain our citizens, and attract the best talent from anywhere in the world.

What changes have we seen so far? Bar hours have been extended. Bar-top dancing permitted. A simpler process for licensing of shows. It's mostly about entertainment. And it brings to mind Juvenal's comment about keeping the masses fed with bread and circuses, so that they will not make revolution.

Yet revolution is what Singapore needs. I don't mean the kind where property is destroyed and people killed, but a revolution in thinking and governance. After all, a revolution is a process whereby a people takes back ownership of their country.

Ironically, this is exactly what our ministers have been calling for. They say Singapore needs a paradigm shift; we must become bottom-up instead of top-down. People must take responsibility for their own lives, they must seize the initiative, speak up and push their ideas. Singaporeans must feel that this country belongs to them.

Well and good. And what substantive changes have we made to enable this revolution? Hardly any. Our Speaker's Corner is a joke. Anywhere other than that spot in the blazing sun, you still need a police licence to exercise your constitutional right to freedom of speech and assembly, (Singapore constitution, articles 14.1a and 14.1b). The licence is not always given.

Media control has not changed. You still a licence from MITA to publish even a low-circulation, niche-interest magazine, what more a newspaper. There are onerous regulations for websites, particularly those deemed political.

The Singapore constitution guarantees freedom of association. The law of Singapore requires all associations to be registered. The Registrar of Societies denies registrations without giving a reason.

Nothing has really changed. Underlying the inertia, unfortunately, is an attitude on the part of the government and a perception on the part of the citizens that make change almost impossible.

Let's start with the perception – that the government is heavy-handed and intimidatory. Here's a simple example: How often, when we hear ministers call on people to speak up, they also say, in the next breath, that the government reserves the right to come down hard with their rebuttal? This is just like a shop assistant telling customers, "please feel free to browse, but if you steal anything, we will apply the full force of the law." You can imagine how many customers will feel keen to browse.

And the attitude is shown up by Mr Lim Boon Heng's comment, as reported by ChannelNewsAsia on 13 July 2003: "it would be step backward if the gay community starts to push and demand rights. I think there's going to be a backlash."

This is a remarkable admission by a minister that a whole class of citizens does not enjoy equal rights, and furthermore that if they started to ask for their rights, it would be a "step backward".

What are the rights that gay Singaporeans don't enjoy in equal measure to other Singaporeans? The freedom of association – their society was denied registration. The freedom of assembly – the writer was not allowed to hold a public forum in 2000. The freedom of speech – censorship polices that allow negative portrayals of gay people, but block positive portrayals.

Another attitude problem: the government wants gay Singaporeans (and foreigners) to contribute their talent and skills to the civil service and our economy generally. But they do not think we owe them equal recognition and rights in return.

It has been argued before that it does nothing for social harmony to speak the language of rights. It creates a contentious society. But that was for the old paradigm, when stability and harmony was paramount. We've now realised that the obverse of stability is stasis, and that of harmony, apathy. What we want now is a dynamic, ideas-driven, creative society.

Economists tell us that legally secure property rights are an essential foundation for a competitive, thriving economy. Arbitrariness in economic governance distorts the relationship between effort and reward. Singapore knows this and lives by this. We are proud that we are almost corruption-free and that we have an impartial and efficient legal system to protect economic interests. We attribute much of Singapore's economic strengths to this.

Has it not occurred to anyone that if we want an equally dynamic civic society, we need a commitment to human rights? Arbitrariness in political governance likewise discourages any investment in the spirit of citizenship. It is only when people feel that they will be fairly treated and their civic freedoms impartiality protected, that a society will bubble over with ideas argued with passion, and self-help projects pursued with a sense of ownership. No amount of bar-top dancing or bungee-jumping will get you that.

© Yawning Bread 

 

Background:

On Saturday, 12 July 2003, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong made a speech to the Remaking Singapore Committee, at an event where he formally received the committee's report.

In his speech, PM Goh announced another step in opening up Singapore. He said, "Singapore should be a place where people can make informed choices, and decide on the level of risk they are comfortable with. As a concrete example, take bungee jumping. It is not an activity that I would do. But I accept that some of you may want a rush of adrenaline from jumping off a high bridge, suspended from a rope. So we will now allow bungee jumping in Singapore."

Whoopee!

I wrote this article and offered it to Today newspaper. I haven't heard from them for a week and so I assume they don't find it suitable for publishing.

 

Footnotes

None

Addenda

None