|
Book Reviews on "Singapore's Shame" |
 |
One Man's Fight To Expose Singapore's Shame Malaysiakini.com By Nancy Chng March 4: Many Singaporeans are reluctant to take risks, but James Gomez and three friends knowingly risked prosecution when they organised a public forum last October without official permission. The session was titled "Youth and Politics in Singapore". In late January, police informed the four they wouldn't be prosecuted but instead would be let off with a verbal warning. The move may indicate that the Singapore of the 21st century may allow significantly more scope for free discussion than Singapore of the late 20th century did. The forum that 34-year-old Gomez held without a police permit was related to the question of what Singapore would be like in the new century. The session was billed as "raising awareness in the Singapore 21 process", referring to the government's recent unveiling of a blueprint called Singapore 21. Its "buzz" phrase is "Every Singaporean Counts". The Singapore 21 process was initiated by the government in response to socio-demographic changes such as an aging population and an increasing social divide. The government consulted over 6,000 people for opinions on how to strengthen community bonds so people remain committed to Singapore and to keeping the country "relevant" in the 21st century. Skeptics in the island republic would suggest that up until recently, Singaporeans who were too outspoken or perceived as dissenters could count on receiving unwanted attention or be subjected to close scrutiny. But the fact that the forum organisers weren't charged may indicate a softening of hard rules. The change was signalled in comments by Singapore Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong - at a Singapore 21 forum - about two weeks before Gomez and his friends were told they weren't being charged. In remarks that made headlines in The Straits Times, Lee assured citizens that the government was keen to have citizens take part in debating national issues and, on its part, would get civil servants to be more open to public input. Evidently responding to the common perception that many Singaporeans are too wary to speak their minds and to question official policy, he stated: "There is no policy too sensitive to question, no subject so taboo that you cannot even mention it". He added: "As long as the argument is over policies, the limits for debate - or the out-of-bound markers - are very wide." In Singapore, "out-of-bound (OB) markers" demarcate subjects considered taboo for public debate, such as race or religious issues. In recent years, these markers have widened, as the deputy PM pointed out, and "sensitive issues, such as the roles of SAPs (Special Assistance Plan Schools) and madrasahs can now be discussed openly." The deputy PM made clear that while Singaporeans should feel free to take shots at policies, the policymakers reserve full rights to shoot back. The government "will not accept every criticism as constructive feedback, nor promise that its responses will always be meek and mild," he said. "Meek and mild" is hardly the way the government has dealt with political opposition in the 35 years since Singapore became independent. Now that the government is content it has plenty of successes to crow about in the path to development, it apparently has decided it can afford a more relaxed attitude to deal with political discontent - or even just individuals with different opinions and ideas. But for a population long used to being brow-beaten into accepting the notion that Big Brother Knows Best, will there be enough individuals to test just how much more relaxed the authorities will be to expressions of dissenting views? It is this climate that James Gomez captures - and challenges - in a 90-page discourse published last year "Self Censorship: Singapore's Shame". His experience in getting it published shows that society is used to not wanting to rock the boat: no one seemed willing to undertake it. Rather than knock fruitlessly on doors, Gomez decided to spend S$10,000 of his own money to publish and promote the book. He had it published under the aegis of the Think Centre which he set up last year and describes as an "independent political research initiative focusing on Singapore and the Asia-Pacific region to critically examine issues related to political development, democracy, the rule of law, human rights and civil society". Gomez's willingness to literally put his money where his mouth is makes him stand out in Singapore society which finds comfort in conformity. As someone in the book trade observed: "It takes someone with exceptionally thick skin to do what Gomez is doing". Thick skin is what Gomez evidently has. A former student activist who majored in political science at the National University of Singapore, he went on to get a masters degree in politics from the University of Essex in the UK. His father, Thomas Vincent Gomez, was a founder of Singapore Mercantile Workers' Union, during the post-colonial period when unions were hotbeds of activism. James was the youngest of 11 children and the only one with an interest in politics. The author dedicates the book to the memory of his father who died last year. Gomez isn't someone who is easily deterred. When not organising discussions or tirelessly promoting his book and ideas, he holds a job as a researcher at a German foundation. He is also a member of the Roundtable, a Singaporean policy discussion group. A month after he came under police investigation for organising the Singapore 21 forum, he applied for a public entertainment license to launch his book, but the police turned down the application. They said a book launch per se did not require a license - only public talks. Mindful of watchful eyes, Gomez refrained from giving a speech during the launch, but was happy to field questions. Even after the launch he found out that not every major bookstore would carry the title. He threatened to picket one of them by carrying a placard saying "Shame!". The threat appeared to work and the shop eventually made a few copies available for sale. Explaining the title of his book, the author says: "Singaporeans are very face-conscious, so shaming them is an effective tool". He states in the preface: "The strength of the censorial sentiment that operates within the Republic is so pervasive that it is crippling. It prevents citizens and residents from raising questions, voicing opinions and acting on matters that affect their polity. On the surface, when it comes to regular matters, everything seems normal in Singapore; however, when it comes to alternative political expression, it is very different. There is a climate of fear." "This book sets out to demarcate, describe and evaluate the in-built political self-checking system that helps the ruling party less visibly maintain its power," Gomez writes. He argues that the phenomenon of self-censorship is one of the tools the People's Action Party indirectly uses to maintain its hold over the Republic and its people. Political participation in Singapore has been regarded as being "the exclusive domain of the PAP". The PAP's current moves to welcome broader public discussion and participation come after many years during which most citizens felt it was sensible to stay "meek and mild" and not speak their minds, after leading opposition political figures were slapped with legal action. In Gomez's view, the individual who has different opinions from mainstream political thought would feel subjected to informal pressure not to express him or herself, yielding to one of three types of censorship: censorship by state, private self-censorship, or censorship of others by the people. Gomez's book doesn't add anything new to the issue of expressing political dissent in Singapore. It does not offer any profound suggestions to overcome the innate Singaporean inclination for self-censorship (although the author does include a section entitled "Agenda for Action: What Can We Do?"). But the fact that the week after its launch the book became the best selling non-fiction book at MPH bookstore indicates that Gomez has struck a chord with some readers. Perhaps Singapore junior colleges should make this recommended reading for its students. This could open an avenue for a meaningful public debate on censorship and conformity in the political arena. Encouragingly, the government has signalled it wants lively discussion and debate about the "Singapore 21 vision". To promote freer discussion, one can only hope that the bureaucrats and civil servants pay some heed to the remarks of Lee who also said "we hold nothing against anyone for simply holding a different opinion from the government". If the government truly wants progress in achieving the Singapore 21 vision, it has to ensure that the message permeates through its ranks. And the day books like Gomez's raise yawns rather than eyebrows is the day Singapore takes a big step ahead in that direction. NANCY CHNG is a writer and editor. She recently moved back to Singapore after 11 years in Jakarta where she edited financial reports and wrote political commentaries for a brokerage house. Prior to that she was the Bangkok correspondent for Singapore's The Straits Times. |
|
|
THINK CENTRE |