Uncategorized
Climate of fear hurts Singapore
Reuters wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald:
A climate of fear that stops citizens from speaking out against the government could eventually lead to the decline of Singapore, novelist Catherine Lim says.
Lim, Singapore’s best-known writer, praised the government for its economic achievements but said its Achilles’ heel could be its suppression of criticism, such as defamation suits against opposition politicians and bans on protests.
“A compliant, fearful population that has never learnt to be politically savvy could spell the doom of Singapore,” Lim told Reuters in an interview.
View the rest of the story here.
December 15th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Hi Catherine,
You could be a shining beacon to our opposition parties as well as our nation. You are right that ‘lee kuan yew’ model would not hold in another 20 years later. A ‘personality-centric’ political system has been proven in history that would not hold. We need to ‘reform’ our political scene.
December 16th, 2007 at 2:05 am
“Climate of Fear” is a regularly used expression in Singapore, and a rather weird one: when challenged to explain “Fear of what?”, the speaker is usually unable to do so. Some point to the case of Chee Soon Juan, but this is unenlightening, because the specific activities that led to trouble: his dismissal by NUS for using his research grant to send his wife’s thesis for examination in Georgia, the public comments on GCT, LKY and LHL that led to the defamation lawsuits, and the civil disobedience acts that led to his brief imprisonment, could all be easily avoided. Even the cases of Catherine Lim and Mr Brown were atypical: a critic of the government normally does not receive a letter of reprimind from the prime minister or get so publicly dropped by a newspaper – such matters are usually handled quietly.
So those who say “climate of fear” were merely being oversensitive, or just finding excuses for their own timidity? Some commentators, such as our late NUS Business School collegue Jennifer Mao, who used to write a regular column in Lianhe Zaobao, would mock others “what’s there to fear; see I often criticize but nothing heppens to me”, but this merely reveals a failure to appreciate the basics of Singapore’s social psychology. A behaviour may be irrational, but if an irrational behaviour is widespread, there must be a reason for it. My answer to “Fear of what?” is “Fear of official disapproval”.
To explain this, it is first necessary to explain, why does the government show official disapproval so often? Given its grip on political and economic power, why should it worry about little pinpricks from the likes of Catherine Lim and Mr Brown? Can a few cartoons about Jesus Christ or jokes about Islam really do much harm? In the west, no one would expect the government to take action since these minor matters are obviously beyond its control. Curiously as it may sound, it is precisely because of the government’s power and wide span of control that it has to intervene even in little matters: since it is so much in control, anything happening in public is assumed to be “the government allows it to happen”, and the government would get the blame for anything anyone does not like. If the government is responsible for everything, then it has to be cautious about everything.
It then naturally follows that anything, anyone, is labelled as “approved” or “not approved”; since speaking up could cause one to be classified as “not approved”, one need to be extremely cautious, even fearful, about anything one says.
December 16th, 2007 at 2:21 am
this was written in Aug 2006
Catherine Lim is a well known novelist – see for example the following web pages:
http://www.thecore.nus.edu.sg/post/singapore/literature/c.lim/c.limov.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Lim
http://www.litencyc.com/php/speople.php?rec=true&UID=2732
However, in 1994 the then Prime Minister of Singapore Goh Chok Tong, suggested the idea of her becoming a politician in a public letter addressed to her responding to two articles she published in Straits Times. The suggestion might be rhetorical, but it was deadly serious all the same. She did not however take up the suggestion, and apologized to him for any distress her articles might have caused him, thus putting an end to the storm-in-teacup might-have-been. Her occasional returns to the political forum, usually to make some statements about the lack of prospect for real changes, are still eagerly anticipated, but probably disappointing when one actually occurs.
So why is she such a sought-after political commentator, even prospective politician? Whenever anything “sensitive” need to be done, one looks for a safe choice, someone with a sort of “stamp of approval”, so that even if something unexpected arises, you do not get blamed for making a bad choice. Political commentary is obviously “sensitive”, but getting someone with stamp of approval to do political commentary probably makes the exercise redundant, since what he/she has to say is quite predictable. Getting Catherine Lim to do political commentary was obviously a brainstorm that occurred to someone at Straits Times: She has considerable social and behavioural insight from her material for writing novels, and is sufficiently well known and well off to be able to speak independently. These factors make choosing her a relatively easily defended move – after all, if her comments upset anyone, you can always say, oh well she was a novelist.
In passing, let me mention another prominent figure who was for a brief period seen in the same light, the retired senior civil servant Ngiam Tong Dow, but his discussion of bureaucratic practices in the government soon petered out.
Catherine Lim’s first 1994 article talked about an “affective divide” between the government and the people, but it was the second one that caused problems: she basically said Goh Chok Tong was not to blame for some of the “harsh” things that were taking place (e.g., suing opposition politicians for defamation was not yet the familiar practice, but became commonplace after the 1997 election). She might have thought she was being helpful, but failed to realize that the implication that the Prime Minister was not in full control, was unacceptable to the incumbant, whose letter simply told her to go into politics formally if she wished to “set the political agenda”, leading to her apology and (for a few years) hasty exit from the political forum.
While the reaction among the English newspaper readers were predictable, the few Chinese paper columnists who commented on this turned out to be much more interesting: as a mere novelist, she should not have “talked down” to the Prime Minister, and her violation of protocol deserved a quick rebuke. Presumably they have the same attitude towards others that might presume to know better than the government. Given that the Chinese paper columns usually provide a more diverse set of views compared with the Straits Times, their failure to address her ideas and their deep concern for her manners, explain why this diversity has produced so little impact.
Currently Catherine Lim has a regular column in Today publishing her poems; here is an example:
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/123014.asp
Like such individuals as Janadas Devan, Philip Jeyaratnam, Cherian George, Elinor Wong… by virtue of her unique attributes, she occupies a niche as an alternative voice to be called upon now and then when such a voice is needed.
December 16th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Dear Catherine,
I thoroughly enjoyed the contents of your open letter to the Prime Minister asking for political openness before it becomes too late. Your letter resonates with my own internal feelings that Spore is heading for trouble with the present political constraints & “climate of fear”. Like a retarded child, Sporeans are devoid of political awareness and social understanding – they are conditioned to be only concern with attaining material wealth & social status – “inward-looking & self-centred”. Unfortunately, part of this upbringing can be attributed to the “parents” ie. the govt. They, too, are pre-occupied with “inward-looking” things like outward investments & ministers pay/benchmarks. Such unhealthy & inbred values will not served the nation well.
Given this rigid state of affairs & unwillingness to change for the better, we have left our shores for a western democratic country to seek our “greener pastures”. Ironically, after we left, Goh Chok Tong’s 2002 NDP speech spoke about “Quitters vs Stayers” branding the quitters as fair-weather folks without any love for their country and will be “concubines” in Jack-Neo-speak, “2nd Class citizens” in their new country. The NDP speech was really uncalled for – the govt should look themselves in the mirror before making such callous remarks. If you had listen to our aspirations, if we had better working conditions or entrepreneurial opportunities, if our children had access to tertiary education, etc, etc. A lot of “what-ifs” but little hope of achieving it! Leaving Spore was our only solution!
After 5 years in our adopted country, we have yet to feel our “2nd class status” and our lives here have been far richer (non-material sense) and happier (no fear, no pressure). Our children have done well in school and are now studying at the university – something which may never happened if we’re in Spore. Here, the govt listens to the people and enact policies accordingly. We have rights as well as a voice and we utilise them accordingly to ensure we are neither not discriminated nor abused. Can Sporeans realistically say the same?
Thank you for being the conscience of Spore. You have spoken out for many who chose to be silent & suffer accordingly.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:54 am
Well done Catherine,
I salute your concern and your guts to voice your concerns to the Singapore leaders. I feel that your non-partisan view carry more weight because you are expressing your view without political partisan bias.
In the past, the SG politicans criticise you because I believe they do not know how to deal with you since you are not aligned to any political parties.
But it is important the the people check on the government of the day to make sure they do the right thing. But it is true that the climate of fear is at work. Singapore being a small island with a small population, the opaque legal and political system that will bankrupt, jail or exile a dissident’s voice and the successful propaganda of the government that promotes its version of historical events and instil its version of “Confucious” values.
After the “Stay and Quit” message by the previous PM, I am glad I made the tough decision. After voting in my adopted country twice and saw a smooth transition to a new Labor govt, I realised that there are some beauty in democratic system, after all.
December 17th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Take risk to remove climate of fear, PAP…
We must agree that PAP is an efficient government. But it needs ”upgrading” to learn to drop the use of fear tactics to rule….
December 20th, 2007 at 10:03 am
“Demagoguery means exploiting ours fears for political gain. Demagogues have always promised security in return for the surrender of freedomâ€. – al gore
March 29th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Cheng Sun Says
Does Singaporeans know what is the meaning of ‘freedom ‘ of speech?
At the very deepest core level it means that I do not agree with what another person said but I will defend this person’s right to the death to say it. In other words I cannot shut a person’s mouth from talking about me even if it is nonsense to me. What happened after this person said it is another matter. But let this person say it first. If I stop this person from talking I am simply nothing but a bully. A dictator is a bully. Does this scanario sounds familiar in Singapore? Singaporeans are bullied by some dictators and by use of police to shut up. Singaporeans are living in fear to speak up. They are afraid of speaking the ‘disagreeable’ thing. But speaking the ‘disagreeable’ thing is not a wrong or ‘disapproved by Gahmen’ thing. Until Singaporeans learnt to speak up and not be afraid of dealing with disgreement you are just infants. Adults know you don’t have to be right to speak up. There is no right or wrong answers. It allows us to explore and progress faster and safer. It is creativty and possibility.
As far as freedom of speech is concerned Singapore is No. 2 in the world (only 2 oppositions). Singapore was No.1 before (only 1 opposition) and was nothing before a No.0 (zero opposition). Speak nothing become nothing as a nation, give and take another 10 years. This is what democracy is about, let the people’s voices be heard. The Gahmen does not necessarily has to agree. But speak up Singaporeans. It is about time you people disallow yourselves to be bullied.
I am glad Malaysians have the guts to speak up, so are the Indonesians, Thais, Phillipines and the Pakistanis.
April 15th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
You might find this site interesting as it lets you link Lianhe Zaobao and other Singapore newspaper covers to your blog
http://www.dailynewspapercovers.com/View/Singapore/Lianhe+Zaobao/