Obviously, Soros was right

"Obviously, Singapore does not qualify as an open society," he said.

Billionaire and founder of the Open Society Institute, George Soros, said this at a forum organised by the Institute of South East Asian Studies. He added that libel suits can be a "tremendous hindrance to freedom of expression".

Both the Straits Times and 'Today' carried his remark prominently, but both also closed their news stories with a riposte by a spokesman for the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts: "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." 

Why was it necessary, I wondered, for the reporters to run to the government and offer them the last word on the matter?

Soros also made plenty of critical remarks about the American government's policy, particularly over its response to terrorism.

"The United States under Mr Bush's leadership parted company with reality, and has entered some kind of fantasy world," he said.

I looked in vain for a riposte from the US Embassy or the State Department. Our newspapers didn't run to them for a response.

There were two other little factoids that our press didn't mention either, but which I heard from someone who was present in the hall.

The first was that when the question as to whether he thought Singapore qualified as an open society was put to him, Soros answered "Obviously, Singapore does not qualify..." with hardly a second's thought. It came out with swift certainty. 

The second was that the entire audience of 1,600 burst into applause as he said that.

"Now, why do Singaporeans do that?" my friend asked me as he described the scene.

I needed more than a second to think.

"Maybe," I felt my way forward, "they're applauding him for saying what they all feel but are afraid to say so themselves?"

My friend then thought for another second.

"Then, it reflects very badly on Singapore!" he concluded.

* * * * *

The following day, there was yet another conference, this time organised by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS). One of the speakers, political scientist Ho Khai Leong said the government 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".

Writer Catherine Lim's view was similar. She warned that insisting that Singapore is different from other democracies is ultimately self-deluding. Even if we succeed in showcasing an alternative model to Western democracy, she said, it is likely in the long run to lead to our own ruin.

The need for authentic expression was too important, she stressed. "It can neither be intimidated into permanent silence nor seduced by material wealth, and if it is, we are all worse off for it."

Vivian Balakrishnan, the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports, tried to shift the terms of the debate, saying political openness was not an end in itself but part of the process of good governance.

This is the kind of viewpoint that stunts our political maturity. Such a formulation presupposes that good governance is little more than delivering a better material life. It is only on that assumption that one can suggest that an open society is merely one of the means to an end. If a better life can be obtained without free expression, then why not? 

But would you argue this too: if a better material life, (also known as "good governance") can be obtained despite corruption, abuse of power, oppression of minority rights, etc, then why not? Why bother to protect minority rights or stamp out corruption?

Because life is more than just about material things. It's also about dignity, a sense of justice and the human spirit. And to the extent the state and society are the collective means by which we realise the things that matter to us in life, then these elements of dignity, justice and the human spirit must also find expression in state and society.

Hence, openness, as much as honesty and accountability, are part and parcel of good governance. They are not merely tools that we may or may not choose to use. They are, pace Balakrishnan, not just part of the process, but worthy ends in themselves.

More pathetically, Balakrishnan tried to do what I call "a Lee Kuan Yew", challenging critics to stand for election. The tactic aims to dismiss as worthless, because unsupported by votes, the opinions of those who do not win a parliamentary seat in our, shall we say, well-managed, elections.

He said, "In a democracy, the people get what they deserve. The people decide whether they go along with policies. The people provide candidates for elections."

And, further on, "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." 

In other words, don't just talk. Stand as a candidate in our "free" elections. If you demur, then shut up.

* * * * *

That same week, I had a conversation with a journalist working for a global media organisation. She had lived in Singapore for 6 years previously, but she is now based in a neighbouring city.

We were discussing what possible stories she could do about Singapore, as part of her new job. Without fail, the "Is Singapore opening up to gays?" question came up.

I said, at the policy level, it's more superficial than real. They're still refusing to decriminalise, for example.

Aware that the government has long used the "conservative society" justification, she remarked, "That's surprising, you know, because in my 6 years in Singapore, I've always thought Singaporeans were quite open and accepting."

I offered my view that the government's justification reflected more their own personal prejudices than society's opinion at large, pointing out to her that our ministers and junior ministers appear to be disproportionately Christian, with some of a quite fundamentalist ilk. Does government policy reflect their religious views more than anything? I mused.

She immediately thought that would make a very interesting story, "but how am I going to get my visa approved if they find out I'm doing such a story?"

Foreign journalists cannot enter Singapore on a social visit visa (i.e. as a tourist) and do interviews. Our government considers doing interviews as working and tourists are not supposed to work. If any journalist wants an interview with our ministers, they have to show that they entered on a Professional Visit Pass. To get this pass, the journalist has to submit "2 copies of the letter from a Singapore-registered organisation acting as local sponsor, stating purpose of visit and details of activities" -- words from the website of the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority.

What this means is that the journalist has to declare in advance the purpose of the article and a local organisation is held hostage for the journalist's good behaviour.

Knowing these rules, she thus sensed that it is virtually impossible to research and write such a story. Discussing whether our government's behaviour is skewed by ministers' religious beliefs is one of the many things that even a foreigner like her knows is probably outside an OB marker. "OB" stands  for "out-of-bounds", indicating a subject, discussion of which will bring a ton of bricks down on one's head (not forgetting libel suits to which Soros himself referred). 

As Catherine Lim said at the IPS forum, criticism of non-political issues was tolerated, but not criticism of the Government's competence and integrity.

So, are we still an open society? 

Why is it that in the US, any number of journalists and bloggers can write about how the Bush administration -- nay, George W Bush himself -- is driven by their warped religious zeal?

And it's not the decadent no-holds-barred West that indulges in such "disrespectful" journalism. In India, when the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was in power, there were plenty of commentators accusing  ministers of pursuing a Hindu-revivalist agenda. In Malaysia, every now and then, the media raises the question of whether the federal or a state government is motivated by Islamist zeal. Yet it is out of bounds in Singapore.

Isn't it obvious then, that we don't qualify....? 

© Yawning Bread 

Footnotes

None

Addenda

None