|
This
slim publication of 93 pages should probably be
classified as a monograph rather than a book.
The
author, James Gomez, is a senior researcher in
political science. He is a member of The Roundtable,
a Singapore discussion group and is also the founder
of Think Centre, an independent research institution.
The
foreword by Philip Jeyaretnam sets the tone and
explains the concept of self-censorship.
Basically,
the author's theme is that self-censorship is
an attitude of mind that has now become widespread
in Singapore after years of governance by a single
party, the PAP (People's Action Party). The adverse
consequences of this culture of fear are analyzed.
His tone is that of an angry but cultured young
man, who is baffled at the indifference of the
majority to the need for change, as he perceives
it.
Having
cited well-known research studies on middle class
attitudes in other societies, he is critical of
the Singapore people who prefer to let things
be as they are.
Can
it not be argued that the success of the PAP in
bringing about widespread affluence, a strong
currency and a clean environment, to cite three
random examples, has enhanced its prestige among
many citizens?
The
author's view is that self-censorship has gathered
momentum and thereby strengthened the PAP. However,
as he points out, 35% of the votes in the 1997
general election were for opposition parties.
This is a sizeable proportion, but the non-PAP
parties garnered slightly more than 2% of the
votes. This type of "imbalance" is fairly
common and is a weakness of the traditional "first-past-the
post" system that prevails even in Britain.
The
author could have made a case for at least a partial
introduction of the proportional representation
system that will ensure that no votes are thrown
away or wasted as under the present system. He
has also only briefly touched on past developments
and trends that inevitably promoted a milieu of
authoritarianism in Singapore.
A
perusal of the Straits Settlements Gazette will
show that the British enforced strict censorship
on books, periodicals and films imported into
Singapore. During the Japanese regime, there was
a pure reign of terror. In the post war period
there was a clear and present danger of communist
subversion and more controls were imposed.
Singapore,
therefore, had become conditioned to relative
freedom to pursue economic and to restrictions
in political matters even before the PAP took
over the governance of the island.
I
was surprised to note that there was not even
a passing reference to the landmark Fajar case
in which the defence lawyer was D.N.Pritt assisted
by Lee Kuan Yew. A group of student members of
the erstwhile University of Malaya Socialist Club
were charged with sedition and were acquitted.
Yet
the author says, of the 1950s that "there
was space to organize for politics and to go about
such business without being under pressure to
conform".
The
writer feels strongly that the present inhibition
towards political reform or change of any kind
will linger in Singapore even if the old brigade
of leaders are no more. He cites Eastern Europe
to sustain this argument but there is historical
truth in Justice Home's assertion "Time has
upset many fighting faiths". Why should Singapore
be the exception?
There
are number of forebodings and warnings that Singapore
will lose out in the political and other challenges
of the new millennium.
A
number of ideas that the author suggests to activate
serious intellectual dialogue and to promote desirable
change are worthy of attention.
About
the Author
John
Doraisamy was formerly an associate professor
at the Education Faculty in Universiti Malaya.
Back
to top |
