|
Straits Times Article on "Singapore's Shame" |
 |
Book on 'S'pore's shame' launchedIt is written by ex-university student activist James Gomez, 34, who says self-censorship was acute here By CHUA LEE HOONG A FORMER university student activist has written a book to decry what he calls "Singapore's shame", the tendency here to self-censor by refraining from expressing alternative political viewpoints or to water them down. Mr James Gomez, 34, is now a researcher with the German foundation, the Friedrich Naumann Stiftung, here. He argues in his book that such self-censorship was acute here, and would impede the country's progress towards realising the Singapore 21 vision. In an abstract of the book, he says: "For a country that is economically advanced, modern and positioned as a global city, Singapore resonates with a climate of fear. Democracy is often misrepresented, misunderstood or treated as a dirty word. "When it comes to politics, it is pure paranoia. Few question why by-elections are not held or why the presidential process ends in no contest. "Instead, what is common is the practice of self-censorship." He said that the book, entitled Self-censorship: Singapore's Shame, was his own version of the Singapore 21 report. He added that he had attended several sessions of the S21 consultation process, as well as the S21 Conference on "The Way Forward" in July. He launched his 98-page book, priced at $18.90, at the MPH Stamford Road bookstore yesterday. In an interview at the event, he said he had spent $8,000 to publish 2,000 copies of the book and another $2,000 to promote it. He was in the news in 1990 when he was embroiled in a leadership tussle at the National University of Singapore Students' Union. He went on to the University of Essex in England to pursue his master's degree in politics. His father, Mr Thomas Vincent Gomez, was a founder of the Singapore Mercantile Workers' Union in 1959, one of the most powerful unions of the time. He died earlier this year. The younger Gomez said yesterday: "My father always wondered which of his 11 children would be politically inclined. He finally found it in me." Asked if he would stand for General Election, he said: "Everyone should consider running for General Election. Either for the opposition, or the ruling party." He published his book under the aegis of the Think Centre, a company he incorporated recently. He intends this to become a research centre and is in the process of seeking funds and staff for it. It was registered as a sole proprietorship, he said, because he could not find anyone to stand with him. Asked if the centre would team up with the Open Singapore Centre set up by Workers' Party leader J.B. Jeyaretnam and Singapore Democratic Party leader Chee Soon Juan, he said: "I will cooperate with anybody and everybody with good faith and intentions." The Open Singapore Centre has the avowed aim of pushing for greater information transparency here. Mr Gomez said he hoped his book would start greater exploration of political space in Singapore. "I hope I can win moral support from the ruling party," he said. "A cohesive society does not mean a conformist society but a plural one. As long as we can celebrate plurality with cheek and comfort, we will have a funky town." Make rules 'more transparent' THE police need to make public entertainment licensing rules more transparent and flexible, Mr James Gomez said yesterday. The political researcher, who launched his book Self-Censorship: Singapore's Shame at MPH's Stamford Road bookstore yesterday, said the police had turned down his application for a licence for the event. The faxed rejection letter, which Mr Gomez distributed to the audience, said that a book launch per se did not require a public entertainment licence. "It is the public talk that requires a licence," it said. Asked by reporters later to comment, Mr Gomez said: "What exactly does that mean?" Book launches, he noted, usually included remarks from the author, the person who wrote the foreword and a reviewer. Yesterday, Mr Gomez asked his audience of about two dozen people -- mainly friends -- to recite after him: "My shame... Our shame... Singapore's shame... "Consider the book launched," he then said, before proceeding to field questions. Lawyer Philip Jeyaretnam, who wrote the foreword, did not speak. Lecturer Hussin Mutalib, who was slated as the reviewer, did not turn up as he had decided to attend Indonesian President Abdurrahman Wahid's talk instead. Speaking to The Straits Times after the launch, Mr Gomez said he had remembered about the licence only on Friday, while chatting with his friend Philip at lunch time. He faxed in his application the same afternoon. The reply, which noted that processing normally took three weeks, came yesterday morning. Mr Gomez asked why a public entertainment licence needed three weeks when a company could be registered in one day. "The police licensing people also need to become part of Singapore 21," he said. EXCERPTS: From the book THE PEOPLE "There is...evidence that currently it is the people that do not rise up to the challenge of change. "The Singapore 21 vision should address the issue of political reform directly. To this end, a national commission for political reform led by the people needs to be constituted." AGENDA FOR ACTION 'A group of like-minded people need to come together. Such like-minded people should not be restricted to the elite but must be drawn from a larger cross-section...They should in principle share the idea that active political engagement need not have anything to do with party politics and should be independent of the state..." SELF-CENSORSHIP "The biggest human-rights violation in Singapore is the great disrespect shown for an individual's civil and political rights, done scurrilously not by the state but by the censorial behaviour of the majority. "Even when alternative political views are expressed, often it is buried under so much euphemism that it serves no function... "Some rationalise the consequent watered-down message along the lines of making small, incremental gains. By couching...in these terms, they claim special knowledge over what are the boundaries, how to push them and when..." OPPOSITION PARTIES "Most of the opposition parties are in reality nothing more than political NGOs. They are generally unable to capture a seat in Parliament under the current electoral system and...operate only as weak conduits for alternative political expression." |
|
|
THINK CENTRE |