That was what struck me about a commentary in the Straits Times in response to a point made by outgoing US ambassador Frank Lavin.

In his farewell speech on 11 October 2005, Lavin devoted about 10 percent of his address (titled 'Foreign policy: No islands anymore') to what he saw as an area of interest -- that while Singapore adapts nimbly in many ways, in some other ways, we seem to be stuck in the past. He said,

Singapore has its share of challenges as well. Singapore has flourished over the past 40 years, but is a 20th century model adequate for the 21st century?

Singapore is grappling with the definitional questions of what kind of society it wants. Remaking its economy is, in a sense, the easy decision. Shaping a political system to reflect the needs and aspirations of its citizens is more difficult and more sensitive.

What are the bounds of expression? What say should citizens have in their government? In this era of Weblogs and Webcams, how much sense does it make to limit political expression? Remember, we have the death of distance. There are no islands anymore.

As part of Singapore's success is its strong international links, it is surprising to find constraints on discussions here. In my view, governments will pay an increasing price for not allowing full participation of their citizens.

Reporters at the event immediately saw the significance of those remarks. Reuters, for example, shot out a news bulletin headlined "US envoy slams Singapore's political curbs". The Financial Times said, "US envoy slaps Singapore over freedom of speech".

The Straits Times, our national champion -- or is that our pro-government champion? Gee, we get confused sometimes -– instantly sprang to the defence. The commentary by Paul Jacob on 15 October 2005, opened with,

So THANK you, Ambassador Frank Lavin, for leaving us with a parting shot. From a well-intended friend no doubt.

Dripping with hurt, that was. Then with threat and sneer,

It was made at a farewell dinner organised in his honour on Tuesday, after which he headed straight for the airport, somewhat like Cinderella, I suppose, before diplomatic immunity expired at midnight.

More of the same:

No telling how upset some might have become otherwise. Maybe even taking up placards and protesting about interference in domestic affairs at the US Embassy gates.

Frankly, no Singaporean will bother to do so, unless mobilised by the People's Action Party. If you look at various blogs in the days after, many reported with some glee what ambassador Lavin said. Singaporeans welcomed his saying what they too had long felt.

Continuing, the spurned-lover feeling expressed in the Straits Times could be seen from the next sentence:

Singapore has helped throw a protective cordon around embassies like the US', seeing as how concerned Washington has become now that the policies and pronouncements of President George W. Bush's administration have made it among the world's most disliked nations.

It's saying, I have stood by you and protected you all this while, and now you criticise me?

It was also in reference of a remark that Lavin made to 'Today' newspaper. That newspaper reported,

Referring to a failed demonstration outside the US embassy last year against the Iraq War, Mr Lavin said he was "embarrassed" when the police asked him if he wanted to press charges against the demonstrators. "I said 'no'. I mean, go ahead, hold the signs and say something if you want to."

-- 'Today', Sealed lips in the age of blogs?, 12 Oct 2005

It's good that he revealed that. It highlights to the world how intolerant of dissent our system is, and how expressions of unwelcome opinions are routinely criminalised.

After venting its spleen, the Straits Times attempted to rebut Lavin's points. It first began by pointing out that the US is no example of freedom and democracy, saying one should

reflect on the debate that ensued on its own soil over the controversial USA Patriot Act of 2001 in which the government gained new powers to wiretap phones, confiscate property of suspected terrorists, spy on its own citizens without judicial review, conduct secret searches and the like.

and

likewise its detention of suspects at Guantanamo Bay.

We compare favourably, the Straits Times said, listing the areas in which there is debate in Singapore:

• casino
• Buangkok metro station
• the "forceful exchange between the Prime Minister's press secretary Chen Hwai Liang and academic Cherian George on issues of governance and civil disobedience"

In the case of the Buangkok metro station, readers will know from other Yawning Bread articles that the police were called in and the possibility of criminal charges was raised. 

In the case of Cherian George's commentary article published in the Straits Times, what he wrote about was how the PAP has perfected the art of calibrated coercion, a method of control that works so long as people will not flout the law. But, George opined, calibrated coercion can be undermined by civil disobedience, for if people no longer fear the law, how does one coerce? In response to his article, the government bared its fangs and accused him of siding with the opposition and talking up the merits of breaking the law. 

I read George's article. While it didn't bathe the PAP in apostolic light, it didn't go as far as the PM's press secretary claimed it did. The latter was reacting more to his own government's fears than to George's words -- typical of authoritarian leaders who feverishly imagine enemies under every bed.

In conclusion,  Jacob's Straits Times commentary said,

I don't think the debate here between the Government and citizens on what kind of society we want to become is any less vigorous,

and we shouldn't forget

that this process has been under way here long before anyone told us it was the thing to do.

I think he misses the point. Sure there is debate, but there is tight control over what views are permitted within the debate. Other views are excluded through intimidation, editorial excision and excessive use of law and police powers. It's a debate among permitted views and permitted participants held in permitted media.

As Lavin told 'Today' newspaper, it was "very difficult to find a platform if you have a policy point to make that might be critical of the government".

The danger, as he said in a reply in the Q&A session that followed his speech, is that "the lack of open and vigorous debates might reduce a government's popularity if it doesn't let ideas or views be properly aired."

By overzealously protecting its power, the government is trading away its potential popularity, despite all the good work it had done with respect to the economy.

It is not a sustainable political system for a government to rely on raw power at the expense of citizen engagement.

"I think governments should take a broader view of political expression. It will provide a greater sense of attachment for the Singapore population," the departing ambassador added.

Many, many Singaporeans, with Singapore's long-term interests at heart have been saying the same thing for a long time. We have been routinely ignored. At last, somebody who could make an impact has said it too. And what do we get? A tantrum from the Straits Times.

© Yawning Bread