|
Doraisamy
exhibits his conservative nature when he claims
that the 'timeless' wisdom of the PAP's successful
social and economic policies have brought into
effect an 'unspoken' (pun not intended) social
contract for the peoples' self censorship. He
seems to overlook the fact that the flames of
the Asian financial crisis have engulfed Southeast
Asian politics. It has burnt away without trace
some of the old vestiges of "Asian Values"
power base, its rhetoric and a singular dimension
of economic development. Even though the crisis
has abated, the heat from the ember is producing
sufficient energy for innovative ways to engage
in politics. Doraisamy's worldview, premised on
hard ground, has to give way to a more fluid style
of politics. It is in this setting that Gomez's
book should be contextualised instead of the older
paradigm.
In
keeping pace with this new fluidity Gomez has
by leading the way organised forums, made a book
tour of Australia and New Zealand, instituted
a human rights study committee, set-up an active
website (www.thinkcentre.org)and has got the ball
rolling with regard to publishing a magazine.
His savvy style is not without grit determination
and he is trying very hard to break the chains
of political apathy among his fellow Singaporeans.
It is regrettable that Doraisamy has overlooked
Gomez's action vis-à-vis the book.
The
reviewer's recommendation for an analysis of a
proportional representation system to highlight
inherent problems of the 'first past the post
system' is desirable. However, it must be understood
that that would call for a quantitative analysis
that might be difficult to reconcile with the
issue of self- censorship, a qualitative theme.
Gomez, however, could have added this as one of
his methodological problems in his introduction.
The Fajar case could have been used by Gomez to
beef up his case to show that in the 1950s there
were young people who were willing to fight their
case in court with regard to civil liberties.
I do not think much can be said about the generation
today except for a "gungho" few.
In relation to the 1950s, Doraisamy's provides
a new dimension in the study of Singapore's political
historiography. He interestingly suggests that
Singapore has always had a citizenry that practised
self-censorship and he sees no break in neither
methods nor modalities of British colonialism
and PAP rule with regard to 'pressurising' the
public to conform. This is a challenging hypothesis
that will get students of political history excited.
However, I remain unconvinced because he has not
shown sufficient evidence to proof this crucial
point. I have not lived in the 1950s but I see
that era through my father's eyes who claims with
much pride and passion that the people living
in Singapore then had no reason to fear to speak
out at the authorities. Maybe I am dabbling in
historical romanticism or looking back at a 'golden
age; very similar to the conservative worldview.
On the other hand, the onus to proof the constant
of political self- censorship in both eras remains
with Doraisamy.
Amidst all this, Doraisamy's greatest contribution
is that it has articulated the position of those
not ready for a "vertical takeoff" of
civil society in Southeast Asian politics. This
is important for two reasons. One, it gives important
feedback to the civil society groups about how
certain sectors of the society feel about them.
Second, it will provide the advocates of the 'new'
politics some incentive to try to engage those
whose politics is less daring, less controversial
and more importantly, not 'blessed' by the authorities.
Yet Doraisamy dared to be different in his review.
So too Gomez in his politics.
Back
to top |
