|
Book Reviews on "Singapore's Shame" |
 |
Acquiescence, Indifference, Co-option: Singapore's ShameMarch 2000 By James Gomez's Self-Censorship: Singapore's Shame is a welcome addition to already available commentaries on the Singaporean socio-political landscape. Compared to literature in circulation, Gomez's interrogation takes off from a different point-of-view. His central argument is that while structures and systems of governance - such as the use of the ISD and the reordering of the electorate boundaries - cement the hegemony of the ruling party and simultaneously close down avenues for non-hegemonic political expressions, the continued dominance of the ruling party since independence can also be attributed to the performative acquiescence to the pedagogic political grammar. That is to say an attempt to explicate the political landscape of Singapore must suspend, at least for a moment, working from a position that is critical of the pedagogic 'logic' of constructing performative expression and ask is the performative necessarily antagonistic to the pedagogic? Can the performative not function to maintain the pedagogic as well? This is where Gomez locates his contribution - recognising the intersections from which one can more comprehensively conceptualise the political landscape in Singapore - and argues that a sensibility of self-censorship circulates amongst the populace. And this further distances and alienates the possibility of political participation and expression "although there is nothing inherent in Asian cultures that make self-censoring a necessary feature." [15]. The main thrust of the text, I argue, can be demarcated into three parts - the first part spans between the chapters "Political Culture" and "A Political History." It sets the template on which the rest of the argument precedes. In this section, Gomez charts the historical development of the political culture in the nation, the discourse of ethnicity and economics - the dual pillar on which identity is staged - and provides a history of the political landscape of Singapore. Although it can be said that this section adds nothing new to literature in circulation, I would hesitate to do so. This is because what is insightful in this section is that it shows that not only is "the current system responsible for facilitating the censorial behaviour one witnesses in Singapore … [but that] such behaviour in return helps keep same the structure in place. Each is necessary for the other" [21]. In relation to sociological literatures that discuss the hegemony of the ruling party, Gomez's contribution marks a significant and necessary shift in that the critical location he takes-up does not emphasise a top-down 'logic' to understanding Singapore's political field, which has been a frequent and worn out strategy of 'reading' Singapore. From a top-down critical location the political landscape in Singapore that we are bearing witness to is explained in terms of the consistency and the reach of the ruling party in various domains of the everyday. Gomez sees this as an insufficient conceptualisation and introduces the idea of mutual interdependency. In doing so, he opens another location where the performative and pedagogic are not dialectically and polemically positioned, but are intertwined and mutually implicated. This is where and how hegemony is maintained. The notion of mutual implication in the systematisation of the political landscape is further pursued in the second section, between the chapters on "Rationale for Self & Other Censorship" and "The Censorial Process." This is the most innovative contribution of the text. In this section an attempt is made to delicately chart the performative commitments of those in Singapore. In general, the aim here is to constitute why an acquiescence of the performative to the pedagogic takes place. Gomez does this by first identifying the performative relation to political participation. He cogently asks why although there has been a move to cultivate a form of consensual politics with spaces open for citizenry participation - such as "feedback channels, non-elected representations in parliament and the encouragement of professionals to form political clubs with … organisational and fund raising capability" [33] - is self-censorship still pervasive. Recourse to a paradox within the institutional vocabulary can explain this, Gomez argues, as the fostering of participatory politics through various channels is nevertheless still blanketed through the placement of "a set of political out-of-bound markers, over and above the constitution" [33]. The case involving the decision not to publish one particular issue of the journal Commentary for probing political issues, the infamous Marxist conspiracy, the paranoiac reception of a member of the opposition by university students in Australia, and a multitude of other instances are cited to reinforce the paradox in the pedagogic vocabulary. It also illustrates the climate of self-censorship as practised both within the nation and the prevalence of this sensibility amongst citizens temporarily outside the nation. The final chapter in this section pursues the theme of self-censorship further. Here two forms of self-censorship are discerned. The first, as implied, is the censoring of oneself. The second is "the censorship of others" [56]. Gomez then proceeds to discuss the idea of censorship of others further and concludes with a bleak note: that "a more liberal and democratic political process, as predicted by some theorists, have not materialised in Singapore, and is not likely to do so" [66]. The pessimism of the final chapter is entrenched in the final section, especially the chapter "Impact on Politics & Society" which marks the consequences a self-censoring discourse has on the possibilities of alternative expression. This pessimism is later dismantled in "Agenda for Action." Again, as he has ritualistically done, Gomez provides concrete instances of the effects of such a climate. These include "intolerance for opposing points of views" [67], the stifling of creativity and intellectual endeavour [68], the confinement of the notion of civil society within the boundaries of the ruling party [70-71], and the cultivation of a "citizenry [that] is not proactive" [73]. In so far as such consequences materialise as an effect of the performative's self-censoring sensibility, then the possibility of effectuating change and opening other spaces of signification from which to locate oneself is inadvertently impossible. Hence, Gomez's pessimism. But this sense of pessimism does not prevent Gomez from providing "a different approach towards political reform." [81]. His suggestions include the opening of political participation and the removal of out-of-bound markers, political education through "a variety of training programmes, workshops, seminars and conferences" [82], the setting up of "local political institutions or networks that can help in the reform process" [82], the development of a "non-national media" [83] industry, the creation of "an Election Watch to monitor electoral proceedings in the country" [83], and the development of a "Bill of Rights or Citizen's Charter" and a "Public Complaints Bureau" [84]. The provision of these suggestions dismantles the pessimism that closed "Impact on Politics & Society" and illustrates that the possibilities for socio-political change always remains open. Only through inventions, recreations and remappings of the political landscape that the political culture in Singapore can claim to be underpinned by democratic principles. And taking up some of these suggestions would be a start to reinventing the normative political field of the nation. I must add, in conclusion, that I find Gomez's text to be innovative, daring and insightful. His suggestions reflect a commitment to democracy and to a principle of citizenry participation in the machinery of politics and governance. In-lieu of the paradoxes in the pedagogic strategies of maintaining hegemony, Gomez's argument asks, rather passionately, how do we reconcile and acknowledge differences without suppressing alternative expressions. He responds that on the one hand there is a need for structural changes while on the other hand, an ideological shift, a change in the performative commitment both to itself and to the notion of a democracy on which the constitution of the nation is drawn-up, is also necessary. Insofar as such changes can be affectuated, the possibility of expressing other positions can be realised. That said, I still do have a few reservations with the text. Specifically, I have three queries, which are not meant to discount the forcefulness of Gomez's argument but is rather concerned with the ways in which such an argument can be legitimised further. The first question is where is the performative when it is the performative that gave rise to the issue of self-censorship, the central contribution of this text? The second is what methodological approach was employed in the gathering of the performative voice? And finally was there an emphasis on epistemological vigilance when the findings were complied and consequently 'interpreted'? I ask the first question because while the text claims to be premised on the performative climate, the references to these 'voices' remain lacking and inferences to the pedagogic machinery continues to dominate. An emphasis on the performative, by which I mean allowing the performative to be heard more frequently, would be beneficial to cementing the premise of the argument. The second query is raised to gesture to the need to be cognisant that different methodologies give rise to differing response because of the specific emphasis and concern of the various methodologies. What might be useful here would be to ear-mark the methodology employed in gathering public opinion, the problems encountered in the process of collecting information, the questions formulated to invoke the responses, and the emphasis of the methodology itself. And finally, I raise the issue of epistemological vigilance as deterrence to the possibility of universalising the performative grammar and to call forth for awareness that a denial of an epistemology that is complicated and impure is impossible. Thus it is crucial to remember while reading Gomez's narration of the performative as acquiescent that in as much as this is the case there is also the possibility that the performative in Singapore can be antagonistic to the pedagogic. The self-financed printing of Singapore's Shame and the difficulties Gomez faced in securing a publisher is testament to the earlier point. After all Gomez did publish his book and the circulation of the text in Singapore and Australia supports the point that the performative is not necessarily acquiescent with the pedagogic. At the same time, the pressing circumstances under which this book arrived in its final form reinforce Gomez's central argument about the acquiescent nature of the performative. What this shows is the urgency for an epistemological vigilance to be performed by the author and at the same time reminds the reader that s/he must also be cognisant of the need for an epistemological vigilance when reading the text. Arriving at the conclusion of Self-Censorship: Singapore's Shame I felt shamed and shameless simultaneously. Shamed because it brings home the point that other forms of expression are problematised not only because of the nature of the pedagogic machinery but because of my own complicity to the political vocabulary in place. And shameless because although I am aware of the lack of avenues for alternative forms of expression in a nation to which I claim citizenship I am yet to do something, or even anything, about not being able to hear others and let others hear myself. With this sense of shame and shamelessness, I strongly encourage the citizens of the nation to read Gomez's contribution, read themselves, and address some of the thorny issues in circulation within the socio-political landscape that they call 'home'. |
|
|
THINK CENTRE |