Earlier, scenario-planning guru Peter Schwartz, the Global Business Network chairman, identified several themes and challenges which are likely to affect Singapore in the future. These included the need for sustained innovation, dealing with the issue of climate change, and a regional disease outbreak.

-- Straits Times, 2 Feb 2008,
S'pore can be Asia's global city

He's American isn't he? [1] And he dares comment on what Singapore needs to do in the face of future challenges? Wouldn't his views shift the domestic debate about what policies we should adopt, thus interfering in our domestic affairs?

Arrest him! Deport him!

Then there's Neil Humphreys from the UK, who, for a few years, wrote regularly for Today newspaper commenting on life in Singapore from a foreigner's point of view. He also wrote 3 books, holding a magnifying glass to our social quirks, some of which aren't quite flattering. In fact, they sound like complaints! Wasn't that interfering in our domestic affairs?

Seize him when he next comes to Singapore!

Ensconced within the higher editorial positions of the Straits Times is Tion Kwa, who, just 3 months ago, penned a column about lousy customer service in Singapore.

What I learnt is that customer service often isn't there to solve problems. It's there to take down details to pass to someone else. Yet another level of procedures. And procedures are just getting out of hand.

[snip]

Singapore has a hardworking labour force. And many workers here will further boost their value to employers by taking part in the training scheme the Government is launching. The next element is for companies, shops and restaurants to give their staff some flexibility to show that they can be even better.

-- Straits Times, 3 Nov 2007, Following
procedures? Fine, but be flexible

Horrors! Is he trying to tell Singaporeans that there is something unsatisfactory about this place? That they should take up the government's scheme and not spurn it? That there are certain things we SHOULD do?

Tion Kwa, to my knowledge, is not a Singapore citizen. He's Malaysian. How dare he interfere in Singapore's domestic affairs! What was the ever-loyal Straits Times thinking when they hired him? Why hasn't the government acted against meddlesome foreigners like him?

* * * * *

Well, sometimes, the government does act.

Just a few days before the (27 Jan 2008) scheduled performance of the Complaints Choir, the Media Development Authority (i.e. the state censors) told the organisers of the M1 Fringe Festival that the event could not go on as planned. As explained to the media in a statement a few days later,

In its statement yesterday, the MDA reiterated that foreigners should not get involved in domestic affairs.

'While we recognise this is an arts entertainment event, it is nevertheless an exposition about Singapore's domestic situation,' Ms Tsang said.

'For this reason, we decided to approve the application but on the condition that only Singapore citizens participate in the performance. The Necessary Stage however decided to hold it as a private event instead, which does not require an arts entertainment licence.'

This clarification was in reference to the choir's decision last Saturday to call off all its public performances and hold invitation-only private performances, for which a licence is not needed.

Ms Tsang explained that the Government has always maintained that 'our laws and policies are an expression and reflection of the values of our society and any public discourse in such matters should be reserved for Singaporeans only'.

'Foreigners, even if they are permanent residents, should not interfere.'

-- Straits Times, 2 Feb 2008, Complaints Choir
issue: MDA made it clear from start

Predictably, there was a chorus of protest from the blogosphere against this silly attempt at censorship. However, what struck me most about this incident was how blasé the MDA was when its ban was circumvented. Notice for example, how it even told the Straits Times, "The Necessary Stage however decided to hold it as a private event instead, which does not require an arts entertainment licence," sounding as if it was taking some credit for the event going ahead.

This recalls the phrase "ceremonial censorship" used by Second Minister for Information, Communication and the Arts, Vivian Balakrishnan, when speaking to the Foreign Correspondents' Association in March last year. While he was speaking about internet regulation, the thinking behind it -- of using regulation merely to signpost normative values while allowing practitioners to flout the ridiculous rules -- seems remarkably similar to the stance taken by the MDA in this instance.

Yet, it is a wholly unsatisfactory approach to freeing up speech. Staging an event in the grey area can only go so far: you can't advertise, nor can you sell tickets openly. Worst of all, you cannot be sure that the authorities won't suddenly turn around and implement the law strictly, eventually charging you in court. With that kind of uncertainty, how do you invest time and money in a project?

I would argue that it is precisely this kind of uncertainty that is the government's objective. Here again, you see the government creating a situation where Singapore has a semblance of freedom, but one that is heavily constrained by fear of invisible boundaries. You even see, from time to time, the government boasting about their encouraging free speech, like the way the MDA has tried to take credit for the invitation-only performance of The Complaints Choir, without owning up to their true behaviour as crocodiles in the murky waters beneath.

There will be times when the crocodiles will snap, for instance when a visitor known to be a critic of the Singapore government is here to speak.

On 16 May 2005, for example, Yeshua Moser-Puangsuwan was denied entry into Singapore by the Immigration authorities at Changi airport. He was coming here to conduct a workshop organised by the Singapore Democratic Party. [2]

Last year, the public lecture that Douglas Sanders (left) was to give in Singapore was abruptly denied a licence. Sanders is one of the world's foremost experts on gay-related legislation.

Thus, it is convenient for the government to keep these sweeping powers at hand -- denying entry, banning events, and such. It is precisely in anticipation of situations which they deem threatening to their grip on power and their freedom to set the political agenda that the government would prefer to keep the laws, but choose not to enforce them in most circumstances. Never mind if in the end this undermines respect for the law as a whole. What is good for the ruling party is more important than what is good for Singapore's long-term interests.

Yet, more and more, the contradictions are showing. We want to attract talent; we want them to feel engaged and to contribute to Singapore. But to what degree should that engagement with their host country include civic participation and even activism? We want advice and ideas from foreigners whether on banking regulation, university reform or transport development, but what if the advice is unsolicited and critical? We want the Peter Schwartz's, the Neil Humphreys and Tion Kwas of this world to add value to our national discourse, but what if Douglas Sanders has something to say?.

* * * * *

 
Only a week ago, at a conference [3] I attended, Christopher McNally, a China specialist, drew the distinction between a "constitutional" state for which Singapore was his prime example, and a "non-constitutional, non-democratic" state such as China. His point was that in Singapore, there is, in a sense, the rule of law. The rules are clear and they can be relied upon to be enforced, even if you disagreed with the rules in the first place. In China, the rules are often unknown and the basis for official decisions shrouded in secrecy, let alone corruption. There is a huge amount of arbitrariness.

I believe his point was that a constitutional state, even if undemocratic and illiberal, was better than an unconstitutional one. Furthermore, rather than expect China to move in one leap towards liberalism and democracy, it is more likely to evolve into a constitutional state, where at least the laws, even if disagreeable, are visible and adhered to.

It is ironic that, coming back to Singapore, I see an example of how we are now moving in reverse, with another short-sighted attempt to allow a bit of freedom without giving up on legal weapons that may be useful against the government's political opponents.

The long-term effect -- and that's a reason to complain -- would be to erode the credibility of the rule of law when the enforcers themselves start to behave in such inconstant and hypocritical ways. Not that I am arguing for the licensing laws to be enforced. No -- they should be abolished. Bad law needs to go out with the trash, and the law that should rule is Freedom of Speech. 

© Yawning Bread