In an unusual public statement, the Singapore police said last week that if anybody behaved in a way that threatened another, they would shoot to kill. It's very extraordinary that they should trumpet this stance.

The context we all know. Singapore will be hosting the annual meetings of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund from 12 - 20 September 2006. Aware that lots of activists typically hold protest demonstrations around such meetings, the government has simply banned them.

The justification they have used is that of the threat of violence and terrorism. Indeed, many such summit meetings have been accompanied by rioting, and rioting tends to capture headlines. What is ignored is that many more demonstrations go off peacefully, and that people who want to plant bombs -– that is, terrorists –- do not need a riot or even a peaceful protest to do so.

And yet, very few Singaporeans have asked these questions. Forget the few blogs that foreign journalists like to monitor. I daresay the vast majority of Singaporeans accept and applaud the government's position.

Foreign journalists are apt to write stories about how authoritarian the Singapore government is -– and indeed it is authoritarian -– but I would suggest to you that that is only half the story. The other half is how and why Singaporeans prefer it that way.

Foremost among the Singapore politicians who speak the language of human rights and civil liberties is Chee Soon Juan. He has pointed out -- and I think, with considerable validity -– that if we want to get change in the face of such tight controls over so many facets of life in Singapore, civil disobedience is a necessary strategy.

Chee is lionised by the foreign press. He is very articulate, and in the light of a broader understanding of social and political history and the rise of liberalism, his position makes eminent sense. At the same time, he is persecuted by the Singapore government for his outspokenness. He makes good copy.

So here again, the real story may not be what Chee is saying or doing, but why Singaporeans are so deaf to it all. Here is a people who, by any standard, are well-educated, with access to the English-speaking world, middle-class -– for many, their basic needs hardly trouble them –- and well-travelled. Why are Singaporeans so docile and domesticated? What is this special breed that animal farm has produced?

That, I would suggest, is the real story.

* * * * *

 
State censorship and its control over the domestic media explains part of it. But more insidiously, it is self-censorship that keeps the show running.

Reporters self-censor. Academics self-censor. Bloggers self-censor. But more than that, they take it upon themselves to censor others.

"Is this too political?" they ask. It's a very common question in Singapore, but seriously, what is this concept known as "too political"? What does that mean? Too political for what? For your own health?

As some of you may know, I have a commentary website called Yawning Bread. Every few months or so, I would get an email from someone I do not know saying things like "You're so brave. But are you sure they're not monitoring you?"

What's the purpose of such emails? They're not telling me something I don't know. They're just spreading the fear that they themselves feel, but thinking they're doing others a favour by "warning" or "advising" them.

The fear is very widespread, infecting not just the poor and powerless. Just the other day, at another panel discussion, someone raised the question of suing the government over some constitutional right or other. One of the panelists then replied that yes, the idea is well and good, but first you have to find a lawyer who's willing to take up your case. There was nervous laughter all around. The audience recognised a shameful truth in that answer.

And that is perhaps why despite a stark absence of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, many people do not see it as any infringement of their basic rights. Quite the other way: they see it as one more example of wise government, protecting us from chaos.

You want examples? Look at Thailand. Look at the Philippines. But nobody ever says look at Britain, Australia or the United States. Rich, creative and free.

So, yes, one can trace responsibility ultimately to the Singapore government through these years. But the story today is much more layered than simply one of an authoritarian government riding roughshod over the citizenry. Many private citizens have become equally complicit.

* * * * *

 
So now, we have a kind of vicious cycle. The internalised fear of the people, the unchecked authoritarian instincts of the government and the vast array of laws and regulations that enable those instincts to be translated to actual control, all reinforce each other.

How will Singaporeans break out of this cycle?

I wonder whether a similar campaign has been launched. We are witnessing today an incessant attempt to paint the government-complaisant media such as the Straits Times, as trustworthy, truthful, balanced and so forth, and by contrast, the blogosphere as unreliable, with suspect motives.

* * * * *

 
Just a week ago, I was at another forum where I learnt that only 4 countries in ASEAN have human rights commissions or their equivalents, such as ombudsmen. They are Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia.

It struck me that all four countries underwent a revolution or at least a very deep crisis during the last 20 years, and in all cases, an active civil society and a public appreciation of the importance of human rights sprang from those crisis points.

It's not easy to draw commonalities from these 4 crises. In the Philippines and Indonesia, economic failure, corruption and gross inequality formed the background to the revolutions. In Malaysia, it was a schism between Mahathir and Anwar.

The Thai example might be the most interesting for Singapore. My imperfect understanding is that Suchinda tried to turn the clock back and impose military rule in all but name against a backdrop of rising democratic aspirations. Thousands came out to protest in the streets, the army opened fire and shot many dead.

Why would the Thai example be "interesting" for Singapore? Are there rising democratic aspirations in the little country? If not, what would it mean?

Given these examples, it is a sobering thought that before we realise why human rights, including the freedom of expression, are important, Singapore too may have to suffer a deep crisis, be it economic failure, scandal, schism or brutality. We are unlikely to enjoy a gradual liberalisation mostly because it is not in the ruling party's interest. I have a fear that Singapore will ossify, fall behind other countries, sink low, before we see the error of our ways.

At this point I will recall something a Straits Times journalist told me about a meeting some years back with then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong. Goh was musing about how the vast powers that the People's Action Party had accumulated would be terribly dangerous if they should fall into an opposition party's hands. If ever an opposition party won an election and inherited those powers, the People's Action Party might never stand a chance of making a comeback.

"But the PAP seems to have drawn the opposite lesson from this observation," the journalist said to me with some dismay. "The lesson they drew was that they must never, ever lose power."

Yet, in the course of any country's history, crises always happen. And Singapore will have our fair share.

What sorts of trends might lead to a crisis? I certainly don't have a crystal ball, but I would suggest, watch the income gap. 30 percent of Singapore households got steadily poorer over the last 5 years, even as the richer got much richer. In the last election, many of these 30 percent continued to vote for the ruling party, but how long before their patience runs out?

Scandals, schisms -– these are hard to predict. But no regime is forever immune to them. Sooner or later, Singapore will face a big one too.

The rigidity of Singapore's political edifice, epitomised by our tight, doctrinaire controls over expression and assembly suggests that the regime will not be flexible enough to absorb shock. The government's instincts when they face criticism is to batten down the hatches and hammer the critics rather than accommodate.

A society that takes noisy political debate and public demonstrations in stride -– and responds to the concerns raised -– is a healthier, more resilient one. By many measures, that, Singapore is not.

* * * * *

 
Chances are, the World Bank and IMF meetings will be carried off without a hitch. There will be no significant street gatherings, barely one unfurling of a banner. And the Singapore government will proclaim their great success in hosting the event.

Look at our peaceful streets, they will say, and we will look. But do we see restful quiet or sterile silence?

© Yawning Bread