|
Almost
any new book challenging Singapore's political
status quo is guaranteed to be eagerly read. James
Gomez's Self-Censorship:Singapore's Shame has
the extra significance -- unlike other books written
and published abroad -- of being written by a
Singaporean living in Singapore. Surprisingly,
moreover, it was published in Singapore and was
on sale there, which has raised questions about
Gomez's independence from the notably restrictive
government. Further, Singapore's Shame is very
different from many others in that it is less
a call for government reform and more a rallying
cry to Singaporeans to take the responsibility
of effecting change themselves.
Gomez
paints the familiar grim climate-of-fear picture
of Singapore and asserts that it is one of the
few southeast Asian countries least likely to
see political reform. His reasoning is that Singaporeans
have been cowed into censoring themselves -- and
others -- in the face of almost complete control
by the ruling People's Action Party (PAP), which
has punished critics through detention without
trial, defamation suits and tax evasion charges,
and has portrayed them as fringe elements dangerous
to the good life the PAP has provided. The result
is a citizenry that will not risk raising politically
sensitive issues. That silence Gomez calls Singapore's
shame. Philip Jeyaretnam's excellent foreword
reinforces that theme, urging Singaporeans to
"Dream of the impossible, and contemplate
new happenings."
Gomez
is at his best in describing the crippling situation
in which Singaporeans find themselves. He roundly
dismisses the government's preference for consensus-building
(as in the recent Singapore 21 consultations)
rather than allow oppositional politics; its emphasis
on and interpretation of Confucianism; and its
argument that "Asian values" rather
than universal human rights norms are better suited
to Singapore. His several anecdotes are gems.
For example, he relates that, during the course
of his working on the book, the reaction was often
"Are you allowed to do this?," then
"Will it get you into trouble?," and
finally "Will it be available in Singapore
bookstores?" Such anecdotes speak volumes
and stick in the reader's mind far more than the
early rather academic chapters.
Gomez
is right in stressing that Singapore could be
vastly different if Singaporeans spoke up. Change,
as we have seen in many countries in recent years,
invariably comes from within, though with the
support of the international community. Yet I
cannot bring myself to castigate Singaporeans
who remain silent or exist through cooperation
with the current political system. Who wants to
join the ranks of Chia Thye Poh, Francis Seow,
Tang Liang Hong, J.B.Jeyaretnam and Dr Chee Soon
Juan? In my view, Singapore is more shamed by
the repressive policies and practices of its government
than by people too fearful to pursue alternatives.
The
Agenda for Action chapter has interesting proposals,
some of which also surfaced in the March 2000
Human Rights Forum in Singapore, organized by
the Singapore Think Centre, with which Gomez is
associated. In order to empower people, he calls
for the coming together of like-minded people
to share ideas, identify key issues and disseminate
their information widely, for example through
cyberspace. He recommends more inclusive discussions,
bringing in views from Singaporeans abroad and
through regional and international networking.
He also suggests specific topics for possible
discussion, such as an Election Watch group, a
citizens' charter and a public complaints bureau
-- all legitimate issues for discussion in an
open society.
Human
rights campaigners have at times been called idealists
incapable of understanding the "real"
world, and some readers will certainly question
the practicality of Gomez's proposals. But in
his conclusion he himself forestalls the doubters,
answering those who will say there is no need
for reform in Singapore, that discussion should
go through a political party, or that change will
come after Lee Kuan Yew. The mainobstacle -- the
government's own intransigeance in allowing opposition
views to be aired -- he clearly regards can be
overcome only, or mainly,if Singaporeans stop
censoring themselves and others.
Some
years ago, former prisoner of conscience and Czech
Republic President Vaclav Havel said, "One
thing I will not concede: that it is meaningless
to strive in a good cause." Singapore's Shame
is one more worthy effort in a good cause. Nevertheless,
two crucial questions will continue to be asked:
how distant is Gomez from the government and what
will be the response of the people of Singapore?
About
the Author
Margaret
John is the Co-ordinator (Singapore and Malaysia)
of the Amnesty International Canadian Section.
Back
to top |
