Is the government going to disown their actions?

The newspaper reported on a Time magazine (issue 12 Dec 2005) interview with former Prime Minister (now Minister Mentor) Lee Kuan Yew.  Time reporters Michael Elliot, Zoher Abdoolcarim and Simon Elegant asked him about a documentary on Singapore Democratic Party chief Chee Soon Juan that had been banned from the Singapore International Film Festival in March. Soon after, the police began investigating Martyn See, the producer of the video, under the Films Act. [1]

Lee replied, "Well, if you had asked me, I would have said to hell with it. But the censor, the enforcer, he will continue until he is told the law has changed. And it will change." 

(Source: 'MM Lee speaks on politics in Singapore, faith', Straits Times 6 Dec 2005)

It would be hard, now that the old man from the mountain has spoken, to continue to harass See and his friends in the film-making community, and to carry through on the threat of prosecuting him. They have lost the moral high ground, even if they ever held it.

Yet, Lee said the censor would "continue" until he is told the law has changed. Beside the ambiguity of such a reply, any intelligent reader should be prompted to ask, well, wasn't Lee part of the government that introduced the law in the first place?

Indeed he was. The part of the Films Act that deals with "party political films" was introduced in 1998, when Lee was Senior Minister in Goh Chok Tong's cabinet. Are we to believe that he had no part to play in it?

Even now, he remains in Lee Hsien Loong's cabinet. One can hardly pretend that for the last 8 months, the government -- and that includes Lee Kuan Yew -- hasn't been aware that their minions were going after See and his friends, seizing copies of the video and his camera equipment.

The government cannot easily say, oh, never mind about what went on before, maybe now the case should be allowed to lapse. 

Singaporeans will continue to remember that the government had every opportunity to stop the harassment by the police and the MDA during the past 8 months, even if the politicians did not initiate it (hard to believe though that may be).

Yet, here we have a cabinet minister who now says this whole affair should never have arisen.

Why?

Rather than some kind of unfortunate oversight that Lee tried to make it out to be in his reply, it was a realisation that they were being defeated by civil society.

See showed his film, "Singapore Rebel" at a film festival in New Zealand. It was also shown to members of the European Parliament. In both cases, it was prefaced by the story of political persecution that surrounded it.

The video is also downloadable from the internet, but honestly speaking, the predominant reason most people would take the trouble of downloading it would be curiosity stemming from awareness of the context – that of infringement of freedom of speech.

That awareness is high, because Singaporeans have been blogging on it, and foreign journalists have been writing about it. That Time reporters asked about it, and Time editors included it among the many questions which had been asked in 5 hours of interview, shows how high it ranks in others' perception of Singapore.

Whenever the subject of this video is raised by the foreign media or bloggers, it isn't about Chee Soon Juan (the newsmaker that this documentary sought to cover), nor is it about Martyn See, who was not famous before all this. It is about the heavy-handedness of the Singapore government. It's all negative, negative, negative.

And clearly, no amount of excusing their actions by saying, well, that's the law, or well, that's the political system that suits Singapore, cuts any ice.

The government's retreat has begun. The moral of the story is that Singaporeans should keep speaking out. We should not be afraid to talk freely to the foreign press. We should not be afraid to the thumb our noses at the quislings in the ministries, by letting the world know how we feel.

* * * * *

On 7 Dec 2005, the Straits Times reprinted a column first published in Utusan Malaysia (a Malaysian newspaper), by Zainuddin Maidin, the Deputy Information Minister in Malaysia. It's rare to see writings by Malaysian ministers published in the Straits Times; this exception is probably because his article praised Singapore.

Despite a rather rambling style, what caught my attention was this passage

I asked Singapore's Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, whether Singapore was able to tie the loyalty of its young professional generation to remain staying in Singapore when they qualified as global citizens who could serve anywhere.

Dr Vivian said that Singapore leaders understood this phenomenon. They not only wanted wealth but comfort in terms of freedom of expression, movement, action and a more comfortable living place.

He said this new development was being monitored and they were working towards developing new values to meet their aspirations, thinking and hopes to survive in a freer environment. He admitted that the political values were changing as the young generation no longer wanted to live in a regimented situation, which was oppressive and stressful.

-- 'Social challenges of Globalisation', 
Straits Times 7 Dec 2005 

There's nothing particularly new here since Balakrishnan has said similar things for over a year. What is different this time is the mention that the leaders "were working towards developing new values..."

It seems so superfluous. A new generation of Singaporeans clearly want certain changes – a free media and a fair electoral system among them. Why is the government still trying to think up ways of social engineering, as "developing new values" implies?

If the government is serious about meeting Singaporeans' aspirations, they can repeal the "party political films" section of the Films Act, they can get rid of Group Representation Constituencies, they can reduce the deposits that election candidates must put up to stand for election... and so many other simple things.

Only when they set about doing these will they be taken seriously. People know that talk is cheap. They will see through facile claims of opening up, when they also notice that all sorts of legal powers and biased regulations remain in place. What are they for, if not to impede other political parties, and sustain a culture of self-censorship?

* * * * *

Another reply by Lee Kuan Yew in the Time magazine interview was just as noteworthy.

TIME: But you would concede that Singapore now needs more contention and turmoil?

LEE: Surely, surely. Ideally we should have Team A, Team B, equally balanced, so that we can have a swap and the system will run. We have not been able to do this in Singapore because our population is only 4 million, and the people at the top, with proven track records ­- not just in ability, but in character, determination, commitment ­- will not be more than 2,000. You can put their biodata in a thumbdrive.

We also have a different culture, a different way of doing things. The individual is not the building block. It's the family, the extended family, the clan and the state. The five crucial relationships are you and the prince or the ruler, you and your wife, you and your children, you and your parents, you and your friends. If those relationships are right, everything will work out well in society.

The second paragraph is more wishful thinking on his part than a description of reality. It is no more than a regurgitation of Confucianist ideology (the mention of 'clans' made me laugh – how out of date is this?). Of course all cultures are different, but equally, there are huge similarities, because humans are basically human. And to pretend that Singaporeans are insulated from the cultural influences of the West in their political and social ideas is just so unreal.

But what I really want to take issue with is the notion that Singapore cannot afford to have more than one political party with the talent to run this place. It's demeaning to us all. It insidiously leads to a slur on any other party that speaks up. It is dangerous because it justifies all sorts of restrictions on non-PAP voices.

And it cannot be true.

30 years ago, Ireland was considered a third-world country in Europe. It had no modern industry, and many homes didn't even have modern amenities. As late as 1988, it had an unemployment rate of 16%!

In 1973, Ireland's economy was US$25 billion. 30 years later, in 2003, it was US$130 billion, with a per capita income 35% higher than the average for the EU.

In Singapore, our 1973 economy was US$4 billion, growing to US$92 billion in 2003. Starting worse off than Ireland, we're still not as rich as they are currently.

But population-wise, we're very similar, with about 4 million each. Yet, through these 30 years, the Irish had full democracy, full liberal freedoms, with the 2 leading parties, Fianna Fail and Fine Gael, alternating in office. At times, there were even coalition governments, compelled by mixed results from proportional representation.

How is it that Ireland can find so much leadership talent from 4 million people, and also pursue a steady determined path to economic development without resorting to authoritarian measures, and Singapore cannot? 

© Yawning Bread