reclaiming romance

"At a time when opportunism is everything, when hope seems lost, when everything boils down to a cynical business deal, we must find the courage to dream. To reclaim romance. The romance of believing in justice, in freedom, and in dignity. For everybody. We have to make common cause, and to do this we need to understand how this big old machine works - who it works for and who it works against. Who pays, who profits."

- 'How Deep Shall We Dig', Listening to Grasshopers: Field Notes on Democracy, Arundhati Roy

Arundhati Roy's The God of Small Things is a profoundly stirring novel. She writes with a piercing sharpness and a strong sense of conviction. Because of that book, I was in awe and deeply fond of her writing. That led me to buying her latest book which is a compilation of her non-fiction writing. In the case of this book, the essays reflect her unflinching social and political beliefs.

Water no more: same same but different

One of the things that tiny city-state Singapore will never escape is its intertwined relationship with its northern neighbour, Malaysia. I thought it interesting but unsurprising how the recent news of a water agreement between the two states coming to an end was differently portrayed in the national media. There's no subtlety at all, how the news was portrayed in each of the country, as with most other news relating to bilateral issues between the two neighbours.

The headlines in Channel News Asia on 26 April is:
"S'pore will not renew one water agreement with M'sia which expires next year"'

And the headlines in Straits Times on 27 April is:
No need to renew water deal

Now consider the headlines in the Malaysian National News agency, Bernama, on 27 April:
Johor To Stop Selling Water To Singapore From Skudai Plant Next Year

I think I need not explain further how the headlines would influence the respective domestic readers on the same issue. I thought the distinction just stood out so starkly when I came across the articles. Yet it's all nothing new.

Being Aware

One can't help but feel sorry for the self-declared 'feminist mentor' Thio, who till yesterday appeared to be still helpless and clueless about why she has been met with such vehement disapproval from many Singaporeans. Did she realise that the strong tide of opposition against her and Josie Lau & Co has made a huge mockery of her claim to be 'feminist mentor'? Apparently at the AWARE EOGM yesterday, Thio spoke of her achievements and held out a 2007 book that mentioned her as the first woman dean of the Law Faculty at the then-University of Singapore. With all due respect, it was a rather painful sight to see her try to reclaim some degree of credibility and thereby assert moral authority with the raucous audience. She may have achieved much as a successful woman in Singapore, but now all that has been irreversibly tainted by her indelible involvement in the momentous AWARE episode.

The saddest thing is that even as the ex-committee and Thio were resoundingly rejected at yesterday's AWARE EOGM, they might be none the wiser still on why a huge segment of Singapore society has emerged to be so strongly against them. They believed in the self-righteousness of their actions and appeared incapable of understanding why their supposedly good intentions were not met with well-meaning support but were instead cast aspersion at. One would have thought that after so many weeks have passed, they would have had time to digest the arguments raised and therefore better understood the emotions and concerns of the opposite camp. In so doing, they should have been expected to be well-prepared for the EOGM.

But they were not. Therein, it was not just their weakness and ineptitude that emerged. It showed that they were motivated to assume office because they were only concerned with particular issues, not because they were truly passionate about all-encompassing women's issues.

To hear their own words, one almost suspects they have chosen to be led blindly by their own faith without regard for rational thought. It could not be that the women and men, Christian or non-Christians, who have spoken up against them were pro-gay or anti-family (as opposed to their being anti-gay and pro-family). Many concerned men and women have stood up, voiced their opinions and felt morally obligated to make a stand for fundamental values that they perceived were being eroded and for what they saw as unacceptable behaviour.

I was shaking my head when I read in the Sunday Times (May 3, 2009, p.11) this:

She (Thio) wanted to continue, but she was drowned out by the chants of "Your three minutes are up, three minutes, three minutes."

Later, she told the Sunday Times she was surprised by the "anger" and "vehemence" she felt from the AWARE members.

"It's very scary," she said. "What is happening to women in Singapore?"

What is happening to women in Singapore? To hear this coming from a top corporate lawyer and once Dean of the Law Faculty is almost bewildering. More so as it is a case whereby a woman doesn't get her own kind - other women. And even more bewildering to this writer is the fact that although weeks have passed and people's reasons for their unhappiness and disapproval have been presented all over the papers and the internet, this brilliant lawyer appears aghast and clueless still about the strong negative reactions received.

As for Josie Lau, this was reported in the interview in Sunday Times (May 3, 2009, p.31) that she had with Sumiko Tan:

"The truth of the matter is we were elected democratically through an open election. You can't ignore the fact that the team was elected according to the Constitution."

Constitutionally, yes, but in the eyes of her detractors, not ethically.

She shrugs off the critics and says she is not losing sleep over them. "I try not to read. I don't surf the Net much anyway - first I can't surf in the office and at home, I'm not very computer savvy."

Shrugging off the critics? Not bothering to read legitimate criticisms of others? Is it any wonder then that her team lost so resoundingly? Any leader would tell you that if you want to win over followers, if you want to lead with moral authority, you should rightly be concerned with criticisms: Not because you want to lead by popularity, but because criticisms have a place in any organisation. Where invalid and untrue, they allow you to present your arguments, establish an even stronger case for your stand or product, and to dispel misrepresentations or untruths that can potentially bring greater harm to your reputation; where the criticisms contain some shreds of truth, then you should be gracious and open-minded enough to consider them and self-reflect so as to right any wrongs and make progress.

What infuriated people and elicited strong ground-up activism was that Josie & Co persistently repeated evasive answers and did not, or could not, address the legitimate concerns raised by numerous people. Ultimately, they sowed their own seeds of distrust and allowed their credibility to be torn apart. When their 'feminist mentor' revealed herself, i think that was a major turning point which got more people riled and decided to stand up and be heard.

As I mentioned at the start, I feel more sorry and pity than dislike for Thio, Josie Lau and her committee. They often appeared helpless and clueless, and seemed more in need of help than being able to help others or further the cause of women's issues in Singapore. Well-meaning citizens though they may be - even if they were acting on their religious convictions to propagate their beliefs - I hope they do take the opportunity to reflect upon the "anger" and "vehemence" showed towards them.

At the same time, like many others, I am heartened and strongly encouraged by the activism of women and other Singaporeans who have stood up and helped right an injustice. This - civil activism - is what Singapore, or any society for that matter, needs in order to fight against bigorty, fundamentalism of any type, and deleterious incitements by any groups.

4.30am

Had a pleasant day that took me to places from Portsdown to Dover to Dempsey to Chinatown to Orchard and to the Pier. Many charming sights and then there's the rare blue sky to boot. But alas, Im out of camera action this weekend - and for the week to come - because both my cameras have been lent to others who have gone overseas to have fun while i remain behind in singapore the tiny town. Had an overdose of chocolate, both eaten and drunk. Also had a cup of cuppacino which i suspect is the reason why im still awake at 2.45am (it just poured and there's still lightning and rumbles of thunder), though i felt very tired at midnight sitting at a cafe.

But truth be told, i came online to read about how the AWARE EOGM had turned out. The whole episode has been instructive on a few matters, the most significant in my opinion are: new media, its impact and role as tool for (social) mobolisation; and civil society and people activism. GE 2006 did demonstrate the impact of the new media and, correspondingly, the constraints of mainstream media. But i daresay this aware epiosode went further to throw into sharp relief how new media has become a politically important tool and authority of information that shaped and galvanised opinions and action. Once again it shows the speed at which information is being transmitted via new media, and how new media is effectively used by passionate and well-meaning citizens as the stage to repudiate untruths, scrutinise the people and arguments at the centre of the storm, and mobolise support.

The proceedings at the EOGM itself were captured by the public and reported live, while the broadcast media were apparently barred from entering the premises. This was just one thing. A separate website was set up by the old guard after their ouster, and a video exhorting support was put up at the website - all this done within the past few weeks. A university lecturer, a 'bible-beliving christian for 25 years now', posted a note about his views on Facebook; that became circulated online and was also mentioned in the press. It was remarkable because it was a thoughtful piece by someone in a well-regarded position in society that was posted on Facebook and subsequently circulated around. These voices of reason - along with numerous other analyses online - served to marshal public opinion, even if public opinion was probably confined to only a particular segment of society - those who are generally more educated and already active online. The new media also allowed citizens to engage each other and present their opinions without the burden of speaking out on a public platform such as the print media. (A scan of some of these postings would tell that many commentators, though anonymous, are highly educated and intelligent folks who shared insightful thoughts.)

More importantly, what came across rather strongly, I thought, was not the sensitive issue of religion; nor was it christianity per se, nor homosexuality, nor even AWARE itself. I thought the whole episode showed how a perceived sense of social injustice, so to speak, was keenly felt, pursued and 'righted' by passionate and concerned citizens who effectively mobilised new media to galvanise support. That the old guard eventually triumphed (on the basis of the eogm) showed that it was reason, a sense of justice, and the strength of their arguments that prevailed - this was demonstrated through what emerged in both new and old media over the course of events leading to yesterday's eogm.

Emotions had run high, but they were not without the company of reason and well-meaning thought.

Burma's junta and crimes against humanity

Day when Cyclone Nargis struck Burma:

May 3, 2008

Headline in The Straits Times on May 26, 2008:

"Turning point in tackling cyclone crisis: UN Chief urges more access for aid workers as junta warns against politicisation" (emphasis added)


Reading about the possible 'turning point' in the crisis that the Burmese are mired in now, any feeble feelings of relief and hope generated must surely be quickly replaced by a sense of unadulterated outrage and utter disgust at the junta's warning againist politicisation.

It only shows the psyche and hallmark of a despotic regime, whose first and foremost objective is to ensure that the regime survives and continues to exercise absolute power. The mere prospect that some form of authority might be ceded to an external power is enough to make them paranoid. Yes, despots are paranoid, and their perpetuation of power feeds on a constant paranoia - fear that their subjects would overthrow them (witness the junta's crackdown on the saffron-robed monks not long ago); fear that outsiders would jump at the slightest opportunity to expedite their downfall.

More than an indictment of their incompetence (this we knew all along), the junta's inadequate response to the cyclone crisis shows their obesession with power and control. Surely, they must be thinking that its people and the international community would not mind if the chance to oust them comes up fortuitously (indeed if only this were the case).

And so for weeks the junta had refused foreign aid and denied humanitarian workers access to the disaster area. One can only rationalize this in the context of a closed and reclusive regime who places utmost concern on the maintenance and exercise of power. This necessarily dictates that they must be wary of all external powers - especially if the latter have a record of criticising their rule - their intentions and actions inclusive.

More than three weeks have passed since the cyclone struck and brought untold misery to a people already living miserably under a brutal regime. And yet now we are only talking about a likely 'turning point'. How many lives have gone to waste and how much more widely and deeply have diseases spread during this period?

China's handling of its own crisis in the aftermath of the Wenchuan earthquake has been held up as a contrast to Burma's situation, highlighting especially the complete uselessness and cruelty of the junta in Burma. But this is hardly the point.

That the junta is recalcitrant, intransigent, brutal and has no moral and legitimate authority to govern is a recongised and affirmed fact. But what the ongoing crisis does is to crystallize all that the junta is known for and capable of: a deplorable and morally void government that commits unspeakable crimes against its people.

some (after) thoughts on 377A

In the Insight article ("A Fiery NMP gets her baptism of fire") on Friday Nov 2, the ST journalist wrote the following:

Homosexuality is immoral, she (NMP Thio Li Ann) asserted. "Repealing 377A is the first step of a radical, political agenda which will subvert social morality, the common good and undermine our liberties!" she said in a speech in Parliament last Monday that was widely disseminated and dissected, both in the mainstream media and the internet.

The words in bold (emphasis my own) grabbed my attention when I was reading the article. Yes, the rather convoluted speech that Prof Thio made in Parliament was widely disseminated. But while it was also widely dissected in the internet, I can't say for sure that it was the same case for the mainstream media. This ST journalist, however, conveniently associated the mainstream media and the internet in the same vein, as if the arguments made by Prof Thio had indeed been dissected to the same degree on both sides.

I am not convinced. As far as I know, only the ST had published an article by its senior writer Janadas Devan that can somewhat be qualified as having 'dissected' the speech by Prof Thio, so to speak. (His article can be read here: 377A debate and the rewriting of pluralism.)

To my understanding, dissecting a piece of writing or speech would mean analysing the arguments being made, including the premises and supporting evidence. Dissecting a speech is certainly not the same as making mention of it, no matter how infrequent or often (in terms of number of articles, for example) the speech was being referred to, in parts or in its entirety.

Many ST journalists would have enough sense to see through some of the, to put it mildly, unconvincing arguments made by Prof Thio. But they face institutional constraints which prevent them from 'dissecting' her speech in print. (For instance, they can't deviate from the government's line; and as the mainstream media, they have a responsibility not to inflame public sentiments; it's time to move on (as the signal from the government goes), and editors have to make a conscious choice not to publish further commentary on the issue, nor be seen as standing for or against either side.)

Predictably therefore, the mainstream media avoids critical commentary that truly dissects the speech by Prof Thio. Besides saying how both sides of 377A camps have intractable views, or that the majority of Singaporeans actually aren't bothered by 377A so society on the whole should live and let live, they have little else to offer in terms of substance. After all, the mainstream media wasn't the one which led the debate right from the start. They found themselves having to jump into the fold - and quickly at that - because the debate on 377A and homosexuality had moved into the mainstream almost suddenly.

On the other hand, bloggers aren't restrained by editors, nor are they compelled to tow a certain line. They are free to make comments, and indeed many have 'dissected' Prof Thio's speech, tearing apart her fallacious arguments. (If anything, Prof Thio’s credibility has suffered greatly from this episode.) Once again, the mainstream media pales in comparison to the blogosphere and shows itself incapable of providing quality analyses on a contentious issue, even if it is a particular speech that is the focus here.

(One should note that dissecting Prof Thio’s speech ought not to be equated with pro-gay or opposing her per se; it merely examines the arguments made by her, whether they hold water or not.)

Most Singaporeans may indeed not be bothered by the 377A issue. But for those who do - many of whom are well-educated members of the public, net savvy and whom desire quality and alternative commentaries on social issues - they once again have to turn to the internet. Actually, most of the times they already rely on the internet for socio-political commentary.

Repealing 377A Episode - After Thoughts

Many people have commented that not since the casino (Intergrated Resort) issue has there been such a lively and contentious debate taking place both in Parliament and in the public.

But there is an important difference.

Whereas the casino issue was one which pitted the government against the people, so to speak, the entire 377A issue took on a rather different trajectory. When a petition was being put up to Parliament, it could have been a case of the PAP government vs the pro-repeal camp. But the outcome turned out to be otherwise.

In the case of the casino debate, it was the PAP government that was at the frontline, taking pains to explain to the public the necessity of bringing casinos to the island’s shore. When the debate came to a close, some Singaporeans were disgruntled, not only with the decision that was made, but also with what was perceived as the PAP government’s having already decided on the outcome despite public consultation.

Nobody seriously doubted that 377A will be retained. But quite likely they would have expected the government to be at the forefront in making the case for its retention. However, in making the now-infamous speech, NMP Thio Li Ann had somewhat hijacked the agenda and made herself the most visible opposition to the pro-repeal camp. She stole the thunder from the government, making the latter’s job more of making conciliation rather than defending the retention of 377A. It wasn’t the PAP government that stuck out this time round, nor were they symbolically linked to the retention of 377A. Instead, it was a NMP.

With nary a vociferous protest against the PAP government heard, both homosexuals and the pro-repeal camp (which includes straights) suddenly found themselves a new enemy: one who is even more vigorous and outspoken against homosexuality than any hitherto representatives from the government or anti-gay camp. As the aforementioned ST journalist noted in the same article: 'It is almost a certainty that Prof Thio will henceforth be largely defined by the public as the “anti-gay” NMP.'

Just as importantly, three PAP MPs had risen to speak about the illogic and discriminatory nature of keeping 377A. This is in addition to - I dare say - the open knowledge that 377A is retained not because the government is dogmatically opposed and discriminatory towards homosexuals, but because they decided that, politically and socially, the best option they had is status quo. The result is that the government escaped somewhat unscathed, in the sense that the wrath of the pro-repeal camp (and homosexuals who aren't part of the movement) did not fall on them.

Gays and homosexuals never expected the government to cave in to a petition. But they found themselves a new arch enemy who overnight drew their energies (and perhaps resentment) away from the government. They found, too, new allies in straight Singaporeans, both those who were hitherto neutral and those who are for non-discrimination and fairness, who felt incensed enough by Prof Thio’s speech to now want to make a stand on what they perceive as fair and right.

Given also that MM and PM had both, I believe, openly expressed or hinted that they believed homosexuality to be genetic (with even the MM saying that the law would eventually go when the tide of change is upon society), gays and homosexuals would already have less grievance (relatively speaking) against the government to begin with, even as they were prepared for the continued retention of 377A.

This further explains why Prof Thio rose spectacularly to become the symbolic representative of the anti-homosexual camp: for even as the elder Lee and PM have somewhat conceded ground to homosexuals, Prof Thio, in representing neither the ruling party nor the opposition, had indubitably - and perhaps unwittingly - put herself as the relentless head of the anti-gay camp.

Arguably, the government suffered less political fallout this time round - because a nominated member of parliament's vehement opposition had overshadowed the retention of 377A and deflected attention away from the bill that would be passed into law.

This was the important difference.

Some articles/commentary worth reading:

Section 377A is inconsistent: PAP MP Hri Kumar
ST's Janadas Devan exposes Li-Ann's Thiology by Cherian George
Hiding Behind Rhetoric: A rebuttal of Thio Li Ann
Dr Thio Li Ann's infamous Speech by Mr Wang
Repeal: a well fought campaign with huge gains by Alex Au
377A - To prevent what harm? by Prof Michael Hor

Re: MM Lee's remarks and his reply to Malaysian PM

This follows from my previous post on the issue.

MM Lee's reply to Malaysian PM Abdullah was published in the ST on 3 October. There are a few insights to be gleaned from the contents of his letter and its impressive annex.

It was obvious right from the start that MM Lee's remarks would not be to the liking of Singapore's neighbours. Yet, I believe, it was never MM Lee's intention to criticise them. (I am not saying this in defence of him; indeed i believe Singapore, in terms of its bilateral relations with its neighbours, would do better without those remarks from the MM.) He was being merely characteristically blunt and candid, and by pointing out (in his letter to Malaysian PM Abdullah Badawi) that he made those remarks in a "free-flowing dialogue", it was meant to convey the message that they were not made as criticism.

One may recall that MM Lee made those controversial remarks at a diaglogue on good governance. Though the ensuing controversy was in the main about race relations in Singapore's neighbouring states, relevant to the context in which he made those remarks, he made an important point on the kind of government Singapore needed owing to its geo-ethno environment: it was a government that was "really firm, stout-hearted, subtle and resolute". However, this message was ultimately drowned by the reasoning MM Lee provided to prove his point. In a somewhat ironic twist, the ensuing furore in Malaysia created a situation that seemed apt for MM Lee to demonstrate the essence of his remarks. His published reply to Malaysian PM Abdullah Badawi - made in a personal capacity, not government - seemed to bear out his advice.

At the dialogue session before a foreign audience who were in Singapore attending the IMF/World Bank meetings, MM Lee made reference to racial relations in neighbouring states to explain why Singapore needed a "firm, stout-hearted, subtle and resolute" government; such a government is needed in order to manage the Republic's relations with its neighbours. His view is that the attitude of Malaysia and Indonesia towards the Republic is shaped by their treatment of their minority Chinese. He had no need to make use of that occasion to pass those remarks as pointed criticism for a Malaysian or Indonesian audience, much less to court controversy or provoke anger - for he had merely repeated a position which he has always maintained, which is public knowledge. This was why in his letter he mentioned, significantly, that "I have not said anything more than what I have said many times before".

(But MM Lee more than anyone else should be acutely aware that for a topic as volatile and sensitive as racial politics, people are not given to cerebral and level-headed thinking. Aggrieved parties would likely find cause with his statement while those in power would vehemently refute it.)

More interestingly, his letter to Malaysian PM Abdullah Badawi reminded one of how much he is still the firm, legalistic and formidable politician who more than any Singaporean was personally and inextricably embroiled in bilateral politics between Singapore and Malaysia since their separation in 1965. His impeccable mind and steadfastly-held beliefs are apparent in his letter. He knew the Malaysian media well and knew that nothing short of an apology ("sorry") would ameliorate the damage his remarks had inadvertently caused. Indeed, Malaysian papers reportedly gave front-page prominence to his apology to PM Abdullah for causing him 'a great deal of discomfort'.

Yet, as most would have noted, MM Lee was 'sorry' for the discomfort that his remarks brought on the Malaysian PM, not for his view on how the Chinese minority were marginalised. He did not change his view, and PM Abdullah in his public reply noted that too. In fact, true to his lawyer credentials, his letter carried an impressive annex that produced evidence supporting his expressed position. For the discerning reader, the detailed information in the annex, presented in a matter-of-factly manner, was meant to address various charges, including but not limited to those that criticised MM Lee for interfering in Malaysia's politics.

MM Lee said that Singapore needed a "really firm, stout-hearted, subtle and resolute" government to maintain relations with its neighbours. His letter, which underscores his response to an official reaction from neighbouring states, showed what and how it takes to be all that. He was 'firm' and 'stout-hearted' in that despite the unhappiness and furore that erupted in Malaysia, he held on to his position and explained the context in which he made those remarks, thereby registering the point that he, as a leader of Singapore, was not making remarks which had no basis whatsoever; he did not retreat. He was 'subtle' and 'resolute' in that he understood what is at stake - the possible jeopardising of bilateral relations - and made an apology without compromising his integrity. And thus he ended his letter saying, "after a decade of troubled relations with your predecessor, it is the last thing i wanted." This is an acknowledgement of the improved relations Singapore has enjoyed with Malaysia since PM Abdullah took over Dr Mahathir as Malaysian Prime Minister, and it also subtly reiterates the point he wanted to impress upon PM Abdullah Badawi and others: that he said those remarks not to provoke, nor to inflame feelings, and certainly not to undermine bilateral relations.

That the matter did not become yet another bilateral problem and is now closed is to the good of bilateral relations between both states.

Singapore Media's silence on MM Lee's remarks

Background
Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew on 15th September, at a dialogue session held on the sidelines of the IMF/World Bank Meetings in Singapore, made some comments which critiqued the treatment of Chinese in Malaysia and Indonesia. He said: “My neighbours both have problems with their Chinese. They were successful, they're hardworking and therefore they are systematically marginalised, even in education. And they want Singapore, to put it simply, to be like their Chinese, compliant. So every time we say 'no' to some scheme to knock down the Causeway and build a bridge, he says 'Oh, you are not cooperative' You are only thinking of yourself.”

His comments were construed as alleging that both Malaysia and Indonesia deliberately discriminate against their minority Chinese by holding them in a subordinate position. The comments have since earned the ire of politicians of Malaysia, with Indonesia apparently lodging complaints later than the former. Malaysia’s Mahathir Mohammed has hit out at the remarks, while other UMNO politicians have similarly expressed indignation over Lee’s remarks on the treatment of ethnic Chinese in Malaysia.

According to the Straits Times Thursday (28 September), KL and Jakarta have asked for explanation for MM Lee’s remarks (‘KL and Jakarta ask for explanation for MM’s remarks’). Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi has written to MM Lee seeking an explanation while Singapore’s Ambassador in Jakarta had been asked by the foreign ministry to give an explanation. Meanwhile, debate rages on in Malaysia not only over MM Lee’s making of those inflammatory remarks, but also over the truth, or untruth, of his opinion.

ST – Reports but no analysis
It is instructive to note that whereas Malaysian papers (from what I understand) have all given prominent attention to the issue, the Singapore Press in comparison have been relatively silent, with the ST filing reports on the issue under its Malaysia section instead of under prime news. The ST does report on the developments of the issue in Malaysia – who and which politician says what as well as the response of the public, for example, the Chinese – but these have strictly been presented as news reports, not commentary nor analysis articles by its columnists. Certainly, the establishment press has not joined in the fray by openly discussing the veracity of MM Lee’s remarks, not to mention their political ramifications. This is not surprising, and there are two reasons that may explain why.

Firstly, there has been no official reply from MM Lee with regard to the controversy that his remarks generated in Malaysia and Indonesia. It is just as expected that no cabinet ministers or government officials have made any comments, at least not which the public know of. The ST, being the national daily that reflects (or is deemed to reflect) the Republic’s position on matters of national importance, is unlikely to be ahead of the government in commenting MM Lee’s remarks or in examining the issue. For what it says and how it frames and reports the issue – as with other sensitive national and foreign policy issues – can affect how foreign governments and their citizens perceive the national and government attitude towards the issue.

Certainly, the ST would not want to add fuel to fire by commenting on the implications of MM Lee’s remarks ahead of clarifications from the latter himself or the Singapore Government. This would ensure that it does not run the risk of aggravating matters, especially with regard to a topic that is perhaps best left to academics and not discussed in the public sphere. By and large, the establishment press and the government play mutually cooperative role when it comes to issues relating to foreign policy: the media understands the gravity and sensitivity of foreign relations and do not – is expected not to – run afoul of the government’s authority and position on foreign affairs by purveying a separate or contradictory position.

Secondly, the Straits Times conscientiously avoids presenting every putatively minor bilateral spat or unhappiness raised by Malaysia as front-page news, so as not to elevate their importance and thereby politicizing the issue. The political consideration underlying this unspoken practice is simple, and a sensible one: given the political sensitivity of bilateral relations and the ST’s national role, it is almost imperative not to give prominence and focus to every piece of news relating, even if relatively significant, to Singapore-Malaysia relations, which are perennially delicate. Doing so could invite unnecessary scrutiny and inadvertently provide fodder for interested parties to impute political motivations.

One example would be the reporting of crimes in Johore by local newspapers during a certain period in the past. Some officials from across the causeway have at one point in time suggested that the media here were pursuing a hidden agenda by what they deemed as biased reporting on crime reports in Johore Bahru involving Singaporeans. While it is in all likelihood that newspapers here have a sensible reason to give greater prominence to such crime reports – they are sensational and thus commercially newsworthy – this may not be what officials in Malaysia think.

On the other hand, positive bilateral developments or news are often given front-page prominence to foster positive atmospherics. (Think, for example, Singapore ministers’ visits to Malaysia during various festive occasions.) Thus, the reports of Malaysians’ response to MM Lee’s remarks have so far been dutifully filed under the less conspicuous Malaysia section and not under prime news. The truth of the matter is that Singapore-Malaysia relations are delicate and the media on both sides have a tremendous capacity to influence opinion and bilateral relations, for better or for worse.

Media and its political role in foreign policy issues
The ST, as well as other media, is acutely aware of the troublesome nature of MM Lee’s remarks. They can neither come out in support of his remarks by commenting on race relations in neighbouring states, nor are they any likely to comment on the wisdom of making those remarks, which, one should note, were intended for a foreign audience whom the senior statesman wish to draw attention to the geo-ethno realities confronting Singapore (and hence their supposed connection to governance in the Singapore case).

Doing either would be politically precarious and would most inevitably aggravate the situation and lead to a possible quick deterioration in bilateral ties. It is therefore expected that local newspapers have since the onset maintained a neutral stance, reporting disinterestedly on the reactions from Malaysia and Indonesia instead of publishing any commentary pieces by its own journalists. (It also bears mentioning that thus far, ST Forum has only published a letter relating to the issue from one of its readers.)

Politically speaking, the government and the media know that MM Lee’s remarks, whether justified or not, have the potential of making yet another diplomatic fiasco, and the best they can hope for now is that the issue would die away over time, after MM Lee makes his response. (The Malaysian Government is not wrong in saying that MM Lee’s remarks can incite racial feelings in Malaysians, particularly amongst the minority Chinese, and MM Lee’s making of those remarks cannot but force his Malaysian counterpart to make an official response.)

Note: With regard to the above discussion, one may wish to draw parallel to another figure’s remarks which have engendered world-wide reaction. Pope Benedict XVI’s recent speech on faith and reason had quoted a line from an obscure 14th-century Byzantine emperor, which earned the ire of Muslims world-wide. The ST has since reproduced his entire speech (ST Review, 25 September) and carried articles of academics and its journalists alike.

Arguably, the controversy involved sensitive religious matters just as MM Lee’s remarks touched on sensitive racial relations. However, unlike the prominent commentary and analyses given to the Pope’s speech and its consequences, the ST gave inconspicuous coverage of MM Lee’s remarks and the furore which ensued in Malaysia and, to a lesser extent, in Indonesia. This only underscores the nexus between bilateral relations between Singapore and its immediate neighbours and the media in the sensitive foreign policy arena

Addendum: This was written before MM Lee made his response to Malaysia PM Abdullah Badawi. MM Lee's reply, understandably, has been filed under Prime News in the ST, though not given front-page coverage. As it is, his reply and PM Abdullah's response were reported in a straightforward manner, without any commentary. The Malaysian Government have decided not to pursue the issue, after the PM said to the Press that he has 'noted' MM Lee's reply.

No protest

The IMF and World Bank are having their meetings here in Singapore this week, and the Singapore government has rightly seized the opportunity to promote and put the island-nation on the world map. The Four Million-Smile campaign and the flowers and greenery that have suddenly sprung up all over Orchard Road and the Suntec City area are all meant to welcome IMF and World Bank delegates and create a favourable impression of Singapore. Yet despite all these efforts, it seems that Singapore has found itself in an embarrassing situation, attracting international attention for all the wrong reasons.

I am referring to the restrictions by the Singapore government on civic protests during this period. Whereas the IMF and World Bank welcome international NGOs and various protest groups to stage their protests during the meetings, Singapore, as the host country, has decreed that there will be no outdoor protests during the meetings. Security concerns - such as the threat of terrorist activities - and local laws were cited as reasons for the restrictions. Notwithstanding the validity of these reasons, Singapore's decision has inevitably placed the spotlight (once again) on the government's authoritarian streak and its non-conformity towards democratic norms. (Outdoor protests, which can be peaceful in nature, is a form of freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly.) So while the government's intention is to elevate the profile of Singapore vis-a-vis the high visibility of the event internationally, the irony is that it has been given a head-start through the wrong focus. With the ban on outdoor protests, i wonder if it is ironic that would-be protestors should now find themselves protesting against Singapore instead of against the two financial institutions and/or their agenda. Not just for Singapore, the ban on outdoor protests has equally become a source of embarrassment for the IMF and World Bank, who have registered their unhappiness with the Singapore government. As of now, i believe the latter is adamant not to make any kind of accomodation.

Did the IMF and World Bank and Singapore not see all this coming when it was decided that Singapore would hold the 2006 meetings? And are the reasons furnished by Singapore valid? I do not doubt the government's genuine regard for the security of the meetings. Although it is quite unlikely that some bombs would go off or some clandestine terrorist activities would take place during such a high-level security function, the security measures put in place are surely typical of the government's meticulous planning and predisposition to adopting extreme measures. Put simply, the government and police would rather be safe than sorry, even if it means taking inconvenient and unpopular measures. It doesn't help also that this government has an almost clinical dislike and intolerance of the least bit of chaos and untidiness; everything needs to be under control in order that an event or a process can proceed smoothly without a hitch.

The second reason the government stated is that it cannot apply the law selectively, allowing foreign groups to conduct outdoor protests but denying the same rights to its citizens. This, i believe is the deeper reason why the government would not budge, and this was said clearly with the local audience in mind. Had the government made any sort of leeway for foreign groups wishing to stage outdoor protests during the meetings this week, the potential fall-outs of its decision are undoubtedly domestic, not international. It would literally have presented local activists, bloggers, opposition parties (not least Dr Chee's SDP) and like-minded civic groups with a golden opportunity to decry the government's blatant double-standards. In such a situation, while the nation would have gained from favourable press coverage world-wide, the loser would be the PAP government which have a lot of explaining to do to Singaporeans. Thus it is that Senior Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong mentioned that local laws have to be applied fairly to foreigners and Singaporeans alike.

What about Singaporeans' attitudes? Are they even concerned with the IMF and World Bank meetings, the government's ban on outdoor protests and the potential benefits to Singapore of hosting the international event? Frankly speaking, i doubt most even give two hoots about the whole thing. The Uncle selling chicken rice or minced pork noodles in Jurong and Bedok aren't going to be directly affected in any way by the influx of V.I.Ps. They still go about their business as per any normal days, and the people who patronise their business are still going to be students from nearby schools, housewives and local working folks. Not some English-speaking delegates in armani suits or ladies with LV bags. As for other Singaporeans, life would be slightly different - a lot less exciting and troublesome. The question in their minds would be, Which roads are affected or closed for the meetings? And maybe they would also give more deliberation to their choice of dining venue as they think about which places in the city area would be less crowded. Outdoor protests? I would hazard a guess that a good majority are fully supportive of the government's decision, for like the latter, they have become accustomed to orderliness and would prefer not to have to fuss over some groups protesting abstract issues which they aren't interested in at all. (Not that civic protests would necessarily be disorderly, but it is highly probable that they are regarded as a distraction that can be done away with.)

It remains to be seen if the negative attention given to Singapore's decision to ban outdoor protests would persist or even build up into something more sticky and problematic for the government. I can only forsee the Straits Times giving coverage to all the positive comments by the foreign delegates in due time - nuggets of comments/feedback on local food, the abundant greenery, impressive efficiency etc. That would surely make me cringe.

Related sites:
Singapore tightens cordon on protest
Peaceful Streets by Yawning Bread
Smile Singapore

No change in upgrading policy

It was reported in The Sunday Times yesterday that the government's policy of upgrading will not see any major change. Essentially, this means that PAP wards will continue to receive priority in upgrading; opposition wards - Hougang and Potong Pasir - will still be last in line. The announcement comes more than a month after the GE took place on May 6, where the incumbent PAP lost by a greater margin in the two opposition wards compared to its performance in GE 2001. The PAP's offer of upgrading as an election tactic was deemed to have failed, and the PM said the party would have to review its strategy to win back the opposition wards.

One can therefore assume that this reaffirmation of upgrading policy was committed after the PAP had done its post-morterm analysis of the GE results, which includes its embarrassing defeat in the two opposition wards. What, then, made the PAP government decide to stick to the policy, despite the protest and displeasure of seemingly a large segment of the electorate with regard to the perceived unfairness of the upgrading policy? From letters to the ST Forum as well as online discussion, it would seem that a sizable majority of Singaporeans, be they PAP supporters or anti-PAP, are clearly in disapproval of using upgrading as an election tactic. Many Singaporeans are incensed that the two opposition wards are unfairly neglected and denied upgrading simply because they are represented by opposition parties. Upgrading, they argued, should not be a political issue exploited by the party in power; the funds for upgrading are government (which is different from party, nevermind that the government is almost synonymous with the PAP) funds which all tax-paying Singaporean voters - regardless of where they live - deserve access to, on a fair and equal basis.

From the front page article "Upgrading for all wards, but PAP ones first":

"But in an interview with the Sunday Times on Friday, Mr Mah made it clear that this review would not affect the policy of giving lift upgrading priority to PAP wards. "There is no change, that policy still remains. We've looked at it and we believe that that is still something we have to do," he said.

"Giving PAP wards priority does not mean that the Government intends to deprive opposition wards of upgrading, he added, although this point might have been lost in "the heat and the noise of the elections"."

The Minister is quite mistaken. It is not that that point had been lost in the 'heat and noise of the elections'; it is that what difference is there between giving priority to PAP wards and 'depriving' opposition wards of upgrading. Precisely because since GE 1997 the opposition wards have been last in the upgrading queue, their chances of getting access to upgrading funds are nearly as good as zero, since they will always remain the last so long as they retain their opposition status and that there always will be PAP wards which have not been upgraded, as Mr Mah himself made clear in the interview. So, in effect, regardless whether or not the government's intention is to deprive the opposition wards of upgrading, it is clear that the policy inevitably deprives the opposition wards of a fair chance to have a shot at upgrading.

The article also mentions that the ministry of National Development uses three criteria to select precincts for upgrading: 'the age of the blocks, the geographical spread to ensure upgrading is not concentrated in only a few constituencies and support for the Government.' Mr Mah pointed out that about 800 blocks in PAP wards 'are as old or older and have not been upgraded at all'. He means to reiterate and demonstrate his earlier point that the government is not depriving opposition wards of upgrading, for the fact of matter is that there are more deserving wards which meet the critieria better than Hougang and Potong Pasir do. Why did the PAP not bring this up during the election? If the PAP had won the two wards on May 6, would the 800 blocks still be placed ahead of Hougang and Potong Pasir? That the PAP dangled a $100 million and $80 million upgrading offer to Hougang and Potong Pasir voters respectively shows that the government has the means to fund upgrading in the two wards. But more important, PAP leaders themselves have belaboured the point that the two opposition wards are badly in need of renewal after many years of neglect. I can't find the reports now but i believe SM Goh said something to that effect when helping to campaign for the PAP candidates in the two wards during the election period. This would suggest that the two opposition wards, even in the eyes of the PAP government, are doubtless in urgent need of upgrading.

Sure, there are many other blocks in PAP wards which are older than the two opposition ones. But the question is how the criteria is applied to determine which precincts come first for upgrading, which comes second, and which last. What is an equitable basis to select precincts for upgrading, given that there are three criteria employed by the Ministry? Do they all take equal weight in the consideration, or is one more important than the other? Because it seems that at the end of the day, it is the third criteria - support for government - which solely affects the chances of opposition wards receiving funds for upgrading. Mr Mah conceded much when he says, "I can't put the opposition blocks at the head of the queue, ahead of these 800. Surely not (Sunday Times p. 1)." The critical factor here is not age or geographical spread, but 'opposition'.

The PAP, of course, does not deny that voting is linked to upgrading. Their justification for PAP wards getting priority for upgrading is that upgrading is a major election platform for the PAP and they, when voted into power, had to fufill their duty to their supporters. Mr Mah says that this is only fair to the residents who had voted for them:

"Some people say that it is not fair that we link votes to upgrading. Let us look at it from the point of view of those who voted for the PAP. Upgrading has been a major election platform of the PAP. PAP candidates have promised their residents that they will upgrade their estates if they are elected. Once elected, residents expect them to fulfil their promise. So, i would argue that it is not unreasonable for these residents to be in front of the queue for upgrading, if they have supported the PAP candidates. After all, if we did not have people voting in the PAP candidates, you would not have the PAP Government and its policies to generate the surpluses to finance the upgrading programme." (The Sunday Times, p. 10)

Again, the Minister is quite mistaken. If his explanation is supposed to counter the charge of unfairness, he seems to have put the cart before the horse. No one seriously suggests the PAP not fufill its election promise when it is elected into office. If residents were promised upgrading and they voted in the PAP, it is only fair that the PAP fufills its promise to them. But when people say that linking votes to upgrading is 'not fair', what they really mean is that this should never in the first place be used as an election tactic; upgrading should not be used as a carrot to win votes because it rightfully should be made available to all Singaporeans, regardless of who they vote for in the elections. Fairness in this instance refers to the policy itself, not whether opposition wards should come before or after PAP wards in the queue for upgrading.

But, just as revealing, if not more, is the last statement made by Mr Mah: 'After all, if we did not have people voting in the PAP candidates, you would not have the PAP Government and its policies to generate the surpluses to finance the upgrading programme.' This smacks of self-righteousness. True, the PAP Government is capable and has done well to generate surpluses so important for financing the upgrading prgramme. Yet is it not the business of every government of the day to do its best economically and improve the livelihood of all citizens, not just of those who voted for the ruling party? Let it not be forgotten that in every constituency that the PAP won there is a sizable minority which voted for the opposition, just as in the two constituency where the opposition won, there are many who voted for the PAP. The Government is in power because voters had put them there; but after the government comes into power it should exercise governmental responsibility in a non-partisan manner, fairly to each and every citizen, and every residential ward. This includes ensuring that precincts in need of upgrading get government funds for that purpose.

At any rate the most interesting question that arises from the report is this: Given the earlier impression that the PAP had called for a review of its strategy in the opposition wards to reconsider the effectiveness of upgrading as an election tactic, why has it decided to continue with the policy, despite its apparent failure?

I offer here a few plausible reasons.

1. Contrary to popular belief, the upgrading policy to win votes is not quite a failure. Yes, it failed to win Hougang and Potong Pasir from the opposition hands, but it continues to retain the votes in other wards that have been dominated by the PAP. In the just ended GE, it is likely that the upgrading policy continues to play a role in affecting voters' decision. The physical state of the two opposition wards remain glaring examples of the price voters would pay for supporting opposition parties, and voters from PAP wards are not oblivious of that consequence.

Further, that Mr Mah is 'surprised bread and butter issues not top concern' (p. 10) is telling of the government's perception of voting patterns and interests. If his views are representative of the government, it is clear that the PAP does not buy into the findings of the Institute of Policy Studies, which found that most voters 'value an efficient government and fairness in policies over bread and butter issues'. According to Mr Mah, his and other PAP MPs' interactions with their residents shows that many people are still concerned with jobs, cost of living and 'things like lifts, facilities'. Therein, the upgrading policy still holds sway with voters. It may not be able to win back the opposition wards, but it has been able to prevent others from switching to the opposition.

2. As Mr Mah himself said, upgrading was an election platform for the PAP. The PAP can ill afford to make a U-turn on the policy by giving preference to the opposition wards. The minister took pains to stress that the age of blocks and their geographical spread are factors that play a role in deciding which ward gets upgrading first. But he also made it known, unambiguously, that PAP wards would come first. To make any concessions or tweak the policy would be tantamount to going back on its promise, and the upgrading policy would be rendered redundant. This would make the PAP come across as not credible.

3. The PAP failed to win over the majority of Hougang and Potong Pasir voters not so much because the upgrading policy had failed, but because voters there have developed a sense of solidarity with and loyalty to their MPs, Mr Low Thia Kiang of the Worker's Party and Mr Chiam See Tong of the Singapore Democratic Alliance, respectively. The snippets of interviews done by the ST with voters from the two wards often bear this out. This factor probably outweighs the carrot of upgrading in winning voters' hearts and minds. In not changing the upgrading policy to favour the opposition wards, the PAP probably recognised that the crux of their failure lay not in the upgrading policy: Indeed, they have to go beyond that to win back the opposition wards.

4. Adherence to the upgrading policy does not imply that the PAP is giving up on the two opposition wards. Nor is the PAP in any doubt that the upgrading policy failed to win the two wards. Instead, the PAP appears to have made up its mind to make upgrading a peripheral issue by the next GE. For Mr Mah mentioned that the government has pledged that 'by 2015, all HDB blocks will have lifts that stop on every floor, with the exception of a small number of blocks whose designs make such works too costly (Sunday Times p. 1).' Given that the next GE is due by 2011, by then, lift upgrading would hardly be a bone of contention in the elections, since by 2015 all eligible HDB blocks, including those from the present opposition wards, will have or are slated to receive lift upgrading.

Therefore, what remains to be seen is not the issue of upgrading, but what new strategies the PAP will engage to retain its dominance against the rising popularity of the Worker's Party, as well as to win the two opposition wards in the next GE.

NKF saga - Participatory Citizenship?

While the international headlines have been dominated yet again by terrorism due to the repeated London bombings, locally, it is the NKF saga that has gripped Singaporeans' attention. There is not a day since then-CEO of NKF T.T.Durai made some startling relevations in court that the Straits Times (ST) has failed to report on something related to NKF. This is, however, to be expected after all since the NKF issue has taken on national proportions - and the ST, being the national daily, inevitably would be reporting on the unfolding events.

In its editorial, A Firestorm named NKF, on 23rd July, the ST editorialises:

We should think the political leadership is acutely watchful of an
us-against-them divide forming. Is it an exaggeration to say a generational leap
has taken place in Singapore society and in the nature of a quiscent citizenry?
Maybe it is too soon to say. But what the nation has seen exhibited in the
past fornight is empowerment, participatory citizenship - something the new
breed of government leaders has been urging on the people. The NKF firestorm
unleashed was discomfiting to some, but the popular demand for corrective action
has been a compensating act of morality. It has to be positive for the country's
future.

Undeniably, there has certainly been more active participation from the citizenry in bringing about changes to NKF over the past few weeks. Public wrath has been swift and audible not least because the ST has been generous with its reporting on the matter and publishing many a Forum letter that censures NKF's wrongdoing. Also, there's no doubt the government saw it necessary to intervene, by finding an interim chairman, a new board and CEO to replace the outgoing group - something which the public had clamoured for when they learnt of the glaring misinformation that has been fed them by the nation's most successful charity organisation. We have thus witnessed, most certainly, through the media's reporting and coverage of the issue how the NKF saga unfolded and the magnitude and extent of the public's anger.

With that in mind, there should be pause to think about what the editorial piece said of Singaporeans' involvement in the past few weeks in regard to the NKF saga. The editorial observes that 'what the nation has seen exhibited in the past fortnight is empowerment, participatory citizenship'. At first glance, it is all too easy to accept that assertion in its entirety. After all, public participation has indeed been visible and pervasive. Most Singaporeans have donated regularly to the NKF over the years, and almost everyone has something to comment about the issue. They each have their own opinion what kind of actions ought to be carried out when they realised the NKF has not been forthcoming and transparent with how public donation is managed.

Yet one should not forget that however active citizenry participation has been, the ST has been an interested and paramount party in how events played out in the aftermath of its court victory. One appluads the ST for bringing to light the lack of transparency of NKF. Despite it being one of the parties in the lawsuit, it has to fulfill its duty as the national daily by reporting the episode and the ensuing actions taken by NKF. At the same time, because it is one of the involved parties, and the victorious one at that, one should be aware that the ST has every power to influence, however subtly, the public's reactions towards the whole affair. This is not to suggest that there's foul play here but rather, the extent of the reporting, the opinions expressed by its employees (journalists and editors) and even right down to the forum letters chosen to be published - all this have a definite and deliberate impact on the views of the public. When the ST is the only newspaper that is read by most Singaporeans, it becomes that public perception is shaped strongly by the direction of the paper's reporting and stance on various issues.

(Take for instance today's (29 July) ST publication of Dr. Balakrishnan's clarification on the headline of an article ('Shape up, charities told') published yesterday. The minister took issue with the headline because it inacurrately suggested the substance of his comments. For ST readers who read mainly headlines and articles selectively, or even those who had read the said article, they would hardly have disputed the appropriateness of the headline. The impression formed would have been one which reinforces a negative perception of local charities. Had Dr. Balakrishnan not made any clarifications, it is likely that a negative impression of charities would become further entrenched. This case serves to illustrate the important role of the ST and the powers at its disposal to shape and influence the direction of readers' opinions on a public issue.)

The bone of contention here is however not the credibility of ST or any likely wrongdoing on its part. Having laid out the implications of the role of ST in the NKF saga, it is possible now to ask whether it is true if indeed 'empowerment' and 'participatory citizenship' were exhibited in the past few weeks. Such qualities are difficult to determine and measure, and generally speaking, the only way to get a feel of 'participatory citizenship' is through the media's coverage of public reactions. Participatory citizenship suggests a vibrant and active political culture where citizens' participation in public issues is high. This is perhaps evident judging by the amount of letters the ST has received as well as the unanimous public aversion to NKF's misconduct. In the case of empowerment, one can think of how the public voluntarily collected signatures through the internet to push for T.T Durai's resignation. Public disapproval has also been prominent as reported in the papers, and it is precisely the widespread wrath incurred that has had the government sit up and intervene.

So yes, empowerment and participatory citizenship do seem to be the order of the day. Singaporeans have probably not seen such unanimous and widespread public response - met by swift government action - in a very long time. Yet there is a big caveat that is the cause of the discordant note registered in the editorial's comment that 'the nation has seen exhibited in the past fortnight, empowerment (and) particpatory citizenship'. Because the ST is an interested party in the affair, and because it is the nation's only daily (save for Today), it is empowered to influence or manipulate the ebb and flow of public opinions. While it cannot directly determine how many people would respond to and participate in a public issue, by the nature of the media, and especially SPH monopolistic hold on local news reporting here in Singapore, the truth is that the ST can contribute to the scope as well as substance of public debate and citizenry participation. Thus, while the editorial comments that empowerment and participatory citizenship were manifested in the NKF saga, could it be that the ST has a major role to affect that precise outcome; that the ST is the nurturer of a more mature and vibrant political culture in Singapore, in part because it has vested interests and stands on a moral high ground with regard to the NKF debacle? If so, it is perhaps disingenuous for ST to make such an observation.

Nineteen Eighty-Four

In a way, the world-view of the Party imposed itself most successfully on people incapable of understanding it. They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening. By lack of understanding they remained sane. They simply swallowed everything, because it left no residue behind, just as a grain of corn will pass undigested through the body of a bird.

- George Orwell, 1984


George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-four deserves to be read and reread because i think its depiction of a totalitarian society provides deep insight into the relationship between government and the governed. Although the Orwellian state is an extreme, it is precisely in its extremity that one sees the chilling consequences of the state's absolute control over its people. That the novel is as relevant today as it was in the past is reflected by the fact that Orwell's portrayal of the political system in the novel finds resonance in many societies today. Whether it is pervasive propaganda or oppressive governmental agencies, the sustenance of a totalitarian regimes rests, above all, on a relentless, self-perpetuating system of maunfactured truths. Therein also lies the instability of such a regime which is susceptible to implosion.

Of course, globalisation has ensured that the multitude of information channels and their availability has made it difficult for governments to withhold information from their people. Orwell's engulfing totalitarian regime may therefore seem a remote prospect today. Yet the rationale and the means of government control over its people in fiction and in reality aren't that far apart. The hallmark of a totalitarian government is not its brutality, but its capacity and the extent to which it is able to control and shape political thought or, more accurately, the human mind.

Someone wrote in to the ST Forum not too long ago and commented that the reason why the PAP is in power undefeated for so many years is because Singaporeans indeed do support the PAP government wholeheartedly. Such an appraisal of the preponderance of the ruling party's hold on power underscores the ignorance of some citizens of the political realities in Singapore. And it is comments from people like the said writer that makes the above quotation from Orwell's 1984 relevant and insightful even today.

Myanmar and Asean

I thought the commentary piece by Verghese Matthews (ST 23 May; 21) lends a good deal of insight into some issues concerning Myanmar.


"However, what is sometimes missed out is that the ASEAN divide is more than merely economic or developmental. The Myanmar controversy has highlighted a difference in the mindset within the grouping, leading maybe even to a thin fissure line, with Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam demonstrating a greater empathy for Myanmar than the other member countries.

Here again, this is neither surprising nor can be wished away quickly given the historical baggage of the four countires and the difficulties they have individually encountered in warding of what they perceive to be foreign interference in their internal affairs.

No doubt, like the rest of Asean, the CLMV countries recognised the dilemma faced if Myanmar assumes the chairmanship next year: It will not be helpful for Asean.

At the same time, if Myanmar is forced out of the chairmanship against its will, it would also not be a desired outcome and would be a "bad precedent".

However, despite these practical considerations, the CLMV countries are particularly outraged by external pressure (read Western governments) now disingenuously using the back door of Asean's rotating chairmanship to pursue an objective in Myanmar.

What hitherto could not be achieved by external pressure against an individual member country would now appear possible because of a weak spot in Asean's organisational structure.

It was, therefore, not at all surprising that the well-honed survival instincts of Cambodia, Wietnam adn Laos immediately detected areas of concern and threats for themselves in what was happening to Myanmar."

- ST 23 May, "Don't push Myanmar into a corner", 21



The CLMV countries have much in common not least because they joined Asean later than the core 6, but that they have remained as authoritarian regimes to this day. Myanmar's military junta is infamously known over the world because the country has an Aung San Su Kyi who is an internationalised political figure. Western countries are not hesistant to impose punitive sanctions in part because Myanmar does not bear any immediate importance in their strategic calculations. The other perhaps equally brutal regimes, however, receive less international attention because they do not have the equivalent of an Aung San Su Kyi to magnify their undemocratic rule. Clearly cognizant of how Asean's handling of the problem of Myanmar's impending chairmanship would have significant political implications for their regimes, these countries are not surprisingly sympathetic towards Myanmar. If they sense that the rest of Asean members are quick to impose their wishes on Myanmar to achieve a political objective, they would surely reconsider the utility of the organisation. This is perhaps why the other Asean coutnries such as Malaysia expressed unhappiness initially at the lack of democratic progress by the military junta in Myanmar, but later appeared to change tack by stating that the chairmanship problem is for Myanamr to resolve. This is perhaps an explicit attempt to demonstrate that they still adhere to the non-interference principle upheld by member states in Asean. Inasmuch as the non-CLMV Asean countries want Myanmar's chairmanship not to be a stubborn hindrance in Asean's relations with the Western powers, they have to tread cautiously to ensure that the problem would not lead to internal division and paralysis.

Why restrict political films?

The ST (Sat May 21, 2005: S9) published some of the responses to their Insight article which looked at restrictions on party political films under the Films Act. What brought about the original article was the banning of Martyn See's film on Chee Soon Juan from the Singapore International Film Festival. Interestingly, the 5 responses, which represented 'a sampling', were in one way or another in agreement that restrictions ought to be eased. Short of censuring the government over its policies pertaining to political films, the respondents gave reasons that explain why exposing Singaporeans to political films is acceptable and should not raise alarms.

One suggested that 'most Singaporeans are now well-educated, more open and discerning'. Another mentioned that 'giving electoral speeches is already a form of advertising', and hence restrictions on political films to prevent Singapore politics from degenerating into an advertising slugfest do not hold water. Yet another offers that 'if the PAP truly has the support of the people, why worry?'

I think they each have valid arguments against the 'government's anachronic prohibition of political films', but some of the comments nonetheless reflect a certain political naivety on their part. For instance, while one reader pointed out correctly that 'giving electoral speeches is already a form of advertising', yet this is hardly a factor for consideration on Government's censorship on political films. Fact is, regardless if the citizenry is deemed mature or that the PAP has strong support of the electorate, it is in the prevailing government's interest to stifle the flow of political information that is possibly inimical to its rule. If tomorrow the rules are relaxed, various political films are being made and the general public consequently has access to them, less palatable political realities may come to light and many might indeed readjust their political views. If politics is an art of persuasion, political films may just be a powerful medium that can be relied upon to galvanise the masses and affect political thought. Therein lies the reason why the PAP government is hardly likely to relent on restrictions on political films.