Time to do some crystal-ball gazing

The following commentary was published in The Straits Times on January 13, 2004.

---

When Deputy Prime Minister and prime minister-designate Lee Hsien Loong gave a speech to the Harvard Club on Jan 6, emphasising his continuing commitment to the opening up of Singapore, and specifically to the development of a robust civic society, the local and foreign media immediately contacted me for my reaction.

Their interest was obviously due to the fact that my controversial political articles and speeches over a decade have dealt with precisely this topic of political openness in Singapore – or rather, the lack of it. (Another reason was probably that my name had come up for mildly disapproving mention in the speech: I was the perfect example of what a civic society should not do.)

In considering the requests, I thought it would be better if, instead of giving separate responses, I put all of them together as a full-length article, with the specific theme of the Government-people relationship, to give a focus to this very large (and often unwieldy) topic of political openness.

An article on the leadership style of the next prime minister from the People’s Action Party (PAP) would, moreover, be a fitting thematic continuation of my earlier series on his two predecessors.

Here, indeed, is a unique moment in Singapore’s history when Singaporeans see before them a line-up of three dispensations, past, present and future, under three remarkable leaders – Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the first Prime Minister, now Senior Minister and respected world statesman, virtual creator of this island-state, Mr Goh Chok Tong, unquestionably the most popular and highly regarded Singapore leader, and Mr Lee Hsien Loong, the son of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, who will clearly use his considerable intellectual abilities and political acumen to assert his own distinctive leadership style, independently of his awesome father.

The need to assert this independence may have been the chief reason for DPM Lee’s choice of topic for his first major speech as prime minister-designate.

The promise of greater openness was his answer to all the speculative questions that have been swirling around him since PM Goh’s announcement of the succession, the most anxious being: Will the son, so much like the father in conservative temperament, stern purpose and emotional aloofness, revert to the old, harsh authoritarian rule? DPM Lee’s answer was clear: No. There will be no turning back the clock.

Singaporeans’ fears about the succession are based not only on the possible continuing influence of SM Lee, but also on the possible abandonment of the gentle, consultative style of PM Goh that they have come to value. These are really two faces of the same fear. DPM Lee’s answer here was reassuring too: No. The Government will continue to listen to the people, consult with them, engage them.

But the reassuring tone was tempered by caution. DPM Lee wasted no time in laying out the rules and guidelines for the opening up of Singapore society. The famous out-of-bounds (OB) markers would continue to ensure that government authority was not eroded. There would continue to be consultation and consensus, but the people must know their limits. In the end, the promise of openness exactly balanced the warning not to go too far.

Not surprisingly, the speech has generated an equal number of optimistic and cynical responses among Singaporeans, as seen in the journalistic analyses and Forum letters.

It is easy to see the contrast in tone between DPM Lee’s speech and a similar ‘maiden speech’ of PM Goh more than 10 years ago, when his warm, ardent promise of a ‘kinder, gentler society’ had created much excitement and hope. The contrast may be exactly what DPM Lee intended to signal, as yet one more answer to the many speculative questions about the coming change of leadership: Don’t expect the Government-people relationship to be based on sentiment. In a subsequent interview, he made clear that what he called the ‘touchy-feely’ kind of leadership style was not exactly his.

One gets the impression that for this leader – distinguished by his cool, dispassionate, rational approach to problem-solving – the sooner the emotionally charged issue of the Government-people relationship gets out of the way, the better.

All That Noise a Non-issue

In short, the speech, while it said nothing new, said a great deal about what he would want out of the way before he commenced his premiership: the comparison with his father, the contrast with Mr Goh, the fear that the structures of people consultation and bonding that had been built up carefully by the Goh administration would be dismantled.

There was a certain quality of finality in the disposal of these matters, one by one, in the speech, and one could almost hear DPM Lee saying: All right, everything has been clarified and straightened out and the ground rules have been laid. Now let’s move on to the real business of getting Singapore ahead in this new world of rapid change and tremendous challenge.

Indeed, that will be the new prime minister’s major preoccupation. He will devote his time, energy and intellectual gifts to enable Singapore, in the drastically changed circumstances created by the emergence of new and deadly political and economic dangers – terrorism, Sars, China – to continue to prosper and take its place among the most competitive economies in the world.

There will be no letting up. The economic imperative will be as compelling for him as for his father, a generation ago, striving to ensure the survival of a little island with no natural resources and no clear means of making a living.

So how will the promised opening up of Singapore society fit into this goal? DPM Lee’s answer is likely to be a straightforward one: once economic prosperity and political stability are achieved, the rest will follow – greater liberalisation of the arts, a higher level of education, greater political sophistication among the young, greater participation in the shaping of government policies.

Indeed, DPM Lee may be tempted to say that all these are already happening: the leaders have just to continue to work hard, plan well and, more importantly, adapt quickly to the formidable changes of a world in flux, to ensure continued economic growth.

What DPM Lee may also be tempted to say, but won’t, because it is not appropriate at this time, is this: With this primary goal, all the noise about the need for more political space is just that – the noise of the vociferous few. The majority are concerned only about bread-and-butter issues. That is my priority too. I can wait out the noise. It is a nuisance I have inherited from the earlier administration. It will disappear as soon as Singapore is in top form again, and people enjoy prosperity once more. Then it will become a non-issue. And that’s exactly how things should be.

My surmise is that the new prime minister will deal with the problem of openness and the related issues of the Government-people relationship, censorship and OB markers, in exactly those terms – as more a nuisance than a real problem.

For the truth is that political criticism in Singapore poses no threat at all, being sporadic, isolated, ephemeral and unsustained. It follows a certain pattern which is highly predictable. The critic comes forward when there appears to be some relaxation of controls, the Government responds to his article or speech with its usual vigour, the critic retreats. He may even panic and apologise. It will be a long time before anyone dares venture out again.

How does one deal with a nuisance? Either by ignoring it or smacking it down. Small nuisances such as frivolous criticism on the Internet or the Forum pages will be ignored. More serious criticisms, that is, those defying the rules and guidelines that have already been set out clearly, will be smacked down and got out of the way.

And what exactly is the kind of criticism that will not be tolerated by the Government?

DPM Lee has already made that clear in his speech. It is any act that is perceived by the Government as mischievous, out to score political points, and likely to erode trust in the Government. Cynics will say that this criterion is so wide-ranging that it can be applied to any criticism at all, and be used as the justification by the Government as an example to warn future trouble-makers.

Hence, it can render irrelevant the detailed guidelines for public discussion that were crafted recently by a team of civil servants in response to the Remaking Singapore Committee’s call for clear rules. Hence, nothing will have changed.

Manageable Criticism

Three examples of not-to-be-tolerated behaviour may be cited – my political commentaries which criticised certain aspects of the PAP leadership style, Dr Amy Khor’s use of the word ‘betrayal’ in Parliament, to describe the Government’s failure to alleviate the sufferings of her constituents during the economic crisis (actually she was merely repeating what her constituents had said), and the report on foreign talent by the Nanyang Technological University academics, which contradicted government reports.

These examples are diverse and reflect the wide range of causes of government displeasure – sensitive topics touching a raw nerve, strong language demeaning government dignity, contradictory data undermining government credibility.

But annoyed though the Government was in each case, it easily smacked down the offenders. No similar political commentaries appeared after mine, no Member of Parliament will neglect to scrutinise the language used in future feedback, and no academic report questioning government data is likely to appear in the near future. (It is a dismaying thought that all three examples come from the Goh Chok Tong administration. It may simply mean that the ‘gentler’ approach of the Prime Minister eventually loses out to the sternness of the rest of the PAP administration.)

The upshot then is that the so-called problem of political criticism and public debate is entirely manageable, is really only a nuisance and therefore will never merit the attention of a national problem such as unemployment, increasing competition from neighbouring countries, or fractious unions.

If the issue can be so neatly settled, why did DPM Lee give it such prominence in his speech, to the extent of spelling out rules and guidelines? There are two possible reasons, both tactical.

Firstly, the issue had been a major concern of the Goh Chok Tong administration, and for purposes of showing PAP unity and continuity, would have to be given the same attention, at least initially. A less-than-detailed treatment might not give the impression of the smooth continuity of PAP policy that the DPM wished to emphasise.

Secondly, DPM Lee is aware that, much as he wishes it, the issue will not go away but will continue to be brought up by the people who now have the additional communication channel of the Internet. A kind of fatigue and sense of futility have already set in among some Singaporeans, as shown in public debates and discussions.

But the peculiar gratification of being able to talk on and on about the ‘fear factor’ to an enthusiastically cheering audience means that the issue serves an emotional need and is here to stay. DPM Lee clearly understands that such behaviour, though irritating, is politically harmless, and hence, will patiently listen as long as he needs to.

Does all this suggest an insincere, hypocritical government? Not at all. It merely shows the effectiveness of PAP realpolitik, the shrewd pragmatism that judges the value of an action by its outcome, not by its means.

So, in a nutshell, the prognosis based on a careful reading of the speech might be something like this: The PAP intolerance of political dissent in Singapore society remains, for no other reason than the society’s own good; suggestions for change will be taken up only if they happen to fit in with government decisions already made, but the Government will continue to keep an open mind and listen and consult with unfailing patience, in the belief that only in this way, can Singaporeans evolve and mature.

Specific Strategies

If there is to be prediction of specific strategies likely to be used by the new prime minister to fulfil his promise of more openness and a stronger civic society without compromising the PAP economic imperative, and his own distinctive leadership style, what are they? The following are some of these likely strategies:

Separating civic society into the political and the non-political, then going all out to develop the latter while ignoring or paying only cursory attention to the former.

The Government will publicly support and commend the contributions of societies and organisations that seek to protect the environment, the cultural heritage and artistic traditions, those that exemplify humanitarian values and fight to protect the foreign worker, abused women, abandoned children, and those that seek bold innovation in business, the arts and sports. It will be prepared to take even strong criticism from these groups and reverse its policies as a result.

In the economic area in particular, the present libertarianism of the Government will be even more pronounced. The flowering of these non-political civic groups will have increasing appeal for the masses, and diminish the standing of the political groups which, for lack of support from the public, will soon die a natural death (This is indeed, sadly, the prediction for political discussion groups such as The Roundtable.)

Exploiting the special fears created by Sept 11 and Sars – retrenchment, decline in earnings, safety – to convince Singaporeans, once and for all, that the PAP preoccupation with practical issues of day-to-day living, rather than abstract ideological issues of political liberalisation, is the best way to serve the people’s interests.

In this, the PAP philosophy will be endorsed increasingly by the rest of a world similarly traumatised by these deadly threats.

Making small offerings that will add zest to the life of society, without incurring any threat to government authority, offerings like the Speakers’ Corner, bar-top dancing, bungee jumping and a bohemian corner. (However, the tokenism may already have been seen through by an increasingly sophisticated younger generation.)

Continuing to use the strong arm of the Government in the case of recalcitrant critics – such as the ‘crusading journalists’ mentioned by DPM Lee, who openly challenge the Government – but at the same time taking the trouble to justify the action through calm, patient, clear and rational explanations, to present an image of a reasonable, transparent government.

The strategy has additional benefits: the public is in effect being given a political education and the offenders are isolated, hence losing whatever public support they may hope to have.

Prediction in political matters is ever hazardous, but the remarkable speech of DPM Lee, so carefully crafted and so exhaustive, clear and purposeful in setting out the entire tone and substance of his leadership style, becomes a tempting crystal ball into which to gaze to get glimpses of Singapore’s future at this crucial stage of her development, as she takes her place among nations in a changed world.