Lee Kuan Yew and Jamie Han

Once again, when challenged, Lee Kuan Yew threw down the gauntlet. If you think you have a better point of view, he said to about 1,500 mostly NUS students at the Kent Ridge Ministerial Forum, then form a political party and win people over. 

"There is nothing to prevent you from pushing your propaganda, to push your programme out either to the students or with the public at large... and if you can carry the ground, if you are right, you win. That's democracy. We're not preventing anybody," he said. 

If only it were so simple. 

The Ministerial Forum was held on 31 January 2005, and featured some lively exchanges between Lee and the audience. 

Jamie Han, an undergraduate, had argued for less government control and remarked that "no matter how enlightened a despot is, ultimately, he'll turn into a tyrant if there are no checks and balances in place." 

Lee's words were in response to Han's remark. 

Lee went on to add three interesting points: 

Firstly, that the current leadership had proven its mettle, having seen the country through the Asian financial crisis in 1997 and the Sars outbreak in 2003. 

Secondly, the People's Action Party had remained in power by delivering results and getting good people to be with the party. 

Thirdly, he spoke of his own courage in the 1950s and 1960s. "I took my life in my hands and said I stand for this," suggesting that unless his critics were prepared to do likewise, their views were less worthy. 

These were interesting remarks, because all three of them begged more questions. 

It was interesting that even though he put to his critics the "electoral test" to prove themselves, he didn't do the same for the present PAP government. For them, the proof lay in their handling of the Asian financial crisis and the Sars emergency. Well, if that's the case, then the Thai, Hong Kong and Korean governments did just as well too, and in a competitive democratic environment to boot. 

Perhaps it was difficult for the PAP to claim a true electoral mandate when the electoral rules are so stacked against the opposition. 

The second remark, about the PAP remaining in power by getting good people to be with the party, begs the question: Would these people today – the third generation leadership – be with the party if they had to face the rough and tumble of truly competitive electoral politics? In other words, before belittling others for not standing for election, one should ask how many of the PAP's new faces and ministers would have agreed to join the PAP in the first place if they too had to face tough elections with the rules stacked against them?

In other words, is PAP's electoral sweep the result of having good people, or is having good people the result of being able to promise an easy electoral passage? 

Thirdly, when Lee spoke of his personal courage and conviction -- and indeed no one can argue he was short of either, nor should one suggest that those times were not dangerous -- it is easy to forget that the playing field was also much more level. 

In the 1950s and early 1960s, they were all single-member constituencies, not the group-representation constituencies that so dominate the map today and that make it extremely difficult for small, nascent groups or independent candidates to fight their way into parliament. Constituency boundaries were not gerrymandered mere weeks before Nomination Day, and minimum deposits were not prohibitively high. 

Nor was the press then controlled by the incumbent as much as today. In the last few years, even websites deemed to be political have been required by the Media Development Authority to put up good behaviour bonds, forfeitable should content on those websites cross some invisible line. 

(Thus it was adding insult to injury when Lee told Han that the least he could do was to set up a website.) 

All these point to the retort one can give every time the PAP boasts of their trial by fire in the 1950s and early 1960s, demanding that others do likewise before they are given any hearing: Give us the same level playing field that existed then.  

* * * * * 

Another point made by Jamie Han went off in a different direction. He said, "I think we have come to the stage where stability is already here and that, in order to progress, the minority viewpoints have to be heard." 

Lee's reply to that was, "I would beg to express my reservation that we have established unity and therefore all is well. You do not, maybe you do not realise how sensitive and how fragile some of this apparent unity could be..." 

Once again, I thought Lee's remark very interesting. It struck me that he immediately understood "minority viewpoints" to mean racial or religious minorities. I doubt if Han had such a narrow construction in mind when he asked the question. True, Lee didn't exactly specify racial and religious minorities, but his mention of the fragility of our apparent unity certainly suggests that. 

Lee's leap testifies to the government's inability to grasp that societal diversity can manifest in many dimensions other than race and religion. If you do not even see these other dimensions, then how do you begin to give due respect to other minority points of view?  This is going to be the weak link in Lee Hsien Loong's call for an "open and inclusive society". 

Now, about the apparent unity that in reality is very fragile, I actually do agree with Lee. I think it's very easy to mistake the surface calm and the absence of rude words in our mass media for "unity" or "stability". But I would argue that being oversensitive to the dangers has made things more fragile rather than less. 

What we have in our public discourse is a smothering of angry, offensive and downright ignorant language when it comes to race or religion. In its place is an incessant call by ministers and some journalists for more understanding. 

For example, look at what happened after the September 11th attack by al-Qaeda on New York. Asad Latif, an otherwise insightful, credible writer for the Straits Times was reduced to writing almost puerile articles pleading for understanding of Islam as a peaceful religion. Other interdenominational groups were marshalled by the government to issue joint statements reaffirming tolerance. 

I'm not saying they were wrong, I'm not saying that Islam is not a peaceful religion, but that the inescapable impression was that it was so government-organised. 

Once that impression is created, it is very difficult for truly independent civil society groups to speak out about tolerance too, because the message, however worthy, has acquired the stink of government propaganda. 

It might have been better not to be too careful and to let offensive words appear. Then wait for reasonable people, independent of the government, to heap condemnation on the offenders. That way, people at large can see that tolerance of minorities is a civic virtue with deep roots, and not merely a government platitude. 

By being so risk-averse to censor out all angry language, by monopolising the message of tolerance and not trusting independent groups to say it in their own way, our society will never mature.

© Yawning Bread 

Footnotes

On 2 Feb 2005, the Straits Times carried part-transcripts of the exchanges. his bit related to Jamie Han:

Student:

My name is Jamie Han, history honours student.

I'm not questioning your decisions in the past, I'm sure at those times, there was a need for consensus and stability. But I think we have come to the stage where stability is already here and that, in order to progress, the minority viewpoints have to be heard.

And I'm not saying that the People's Action Party is corrupt or anything now.

The truth of the matter is this No matter how enlightened a despot is, ultimately, he'll turn into a tyrant if there are no checks and balances in place.

MM Lee:

There's nothing to prevent you from advocating that, pushing that strenuously and finally getting a political party to adopt your platform, and we will put it to the vote. That's the democratic way of doing it.

I would beg to express my reservation that we have established unity and therefore all is well. You do not, maybe you do not realise how sensitive and how fragile some of this apparent unity could be...

(MM Lee talks about the 1964 race riots, the Jemaah Islamiah plot to blow up seven bombs in Singapore around 2001 which was disrupted, making the point that fault lines exist in Singapore society.)

Please do not assume that what you see as stability is something we can take for granted. It has to be worked for, looked after, nurtured and any incipient problem nipped in the bud...

Student:

With all due respect, sir, I just wanted to say One, that you are using the fear of the past in order to prevent progress; and second, you are picking examples of countries which suit your argument but I can raise a dozen others to counter with you.

But this is not a philosophical discussion, so thank you for your time.

Addenda

None