Introduction to Self-censorship: Singapore’s shame
James Gomez
Even though a variety of global incidents such as the 1997 Asian economic crisis, the 2001 September 11 incident, SARS, the global financial meltdown of 2008 have been touted at varies times as catalysts for political change
in the region, the wave of democratization has yet to reach Singapore’s shores.
Singapore remains one of the few countries in Southeast Asia that has not witnessed meaningful political reform that can lead to regime change. This is not from a want of effort over the years by a range of activists from all walks of life.
Apart from being persecuted by the PAP government, these activists have not been able to stir the citizens into mass democratic action, because most people in Singapore self-censor themselves and censor others who are sympathetic to the democratic process.
Many Singaporeans disillusioned with the state of political development in the city-state have increasingly opted to emigrate, but they are being replaced by the PAP government with new citizens and resident workers who buy into this self-censorial, hence ensuring there is a dominant political culture in Singapore that will not facilitate democratization.
Numerous commentators have noted that the structural constraints of Singapore’s political system are responsible for hindered political development in the Republic. Its geographical size as well as the penetration and domination of the ruling Peoples’ Action Party (PAP) in all sectors of society have been cited as reasons. Control is almost complete.
The party has over the years placed many of its political allies both local and foreign in elite positions. It has grown to such proportions as to become an oligarchy. It is not a political party in the traditional sense. It has merged government, state structures and para-political organisations, and has co-opted and sponsored civil society actors.
The new area of co-option is the integration of foreign residents in Singapore as well as foreign governmental representatives to buy into the PAP style of managing Singapore. Such explanations of the PAP’s hegemony have been often supplemented with examples of the party’s encroachment of civil and political rights and its acts of persecution.
It has been noted that opposition politicians and selected members of civil society have suffered detention without trial, defamation suits, the application of tax evasion charges and others less visible methods of pressures that operate in the background such as denial of job opportunities.
Since 2000, the PAP has also opened a new front to respond to the small but increasing acts of online and offline civil disobedience acts. Through the PAP`s persecution, repressive methods and techniques, livelihoods and careers of activists have been broken and destroyed.
The net impact is that many of these activists have become disillusioned and dropped out of the scene. Such actions by the PAP government have also kept away a substantial number people from stepping forward to take on the regime. Collectively, these repressive features are regularly offered by commentators as explanations why the pace of political liberalisation in Singapore has been slow.
As a result, discussions on political development often center on sharing political governance. The PAP is often placed at one while on the other, actors such as opposition parties, civil society or individuals are lined up
as contenders for political and policy influence.
The ruling party’s reluctance to share governance in real political terms has been offered as the main impediment towards reform, in particular in the area of electoral reform. The PAP is the foremost feature on people`s minds when they speak of political development.
There is a failure to see and acknowledge that after nearly five decades of centralised rule, there has developed among the citizenry (and a majority of new citizens and resident workers buy into this), a censorial political culture that acts as an equally important obstruction.
The structural constraints and punitive actions that impact on the people’s behaviour have not been adequately recorded and debated. Neither have the people’s culture perpetuating the very features that support restrictions against alternative political expression and action similarly considered.
This focus on the people and how they contribute to the state of political conservatism in Singapore is an important variable for analysts and activists to ponder alike. This feature of political culture to some extent determines the success or failure of political endeavours by individuals or groups. Thus, an in-depth understanding of the people’s behaviour is vital in formulating any strategy for political action.
The prevalence of this self-censorial culture among the elite and the masses shows how the PAP administrative state has, over the decades, been able to effectively expand its control over the hearts and minds of its citizens. It has been able to foster a self-censorial political culture that can also be similarly seen in countries in the region such as Burma, China, Laos and Vietnam which are either one-party states or military dictatorships.
I thought in my initial analysis in 1999 that this Singaporean political culture was unique not only to the region but also unique globally. In spite of similarities elsewhere I continue to hold this view. For me, in the Singapore case, it is the paradoxical combination of high economic growth, small size, modernity, global outlook, high inflow of foreigners, and a technically non-communist political system that makes it stand out from the authoritarian regimes.
The oil rich Middle-Eastern or Muslim states, dictatorship and military commands in Latin America and Africa, the
remaining communist regimes scattered around the world and the countries listed above in the region where self-censorship also prevails do not have these similar features as Singapore.
The emergence of a dominant one party state and its harsh response to alternative political viewpoints and action has fostered a negative perception towards political expression over the year in Singapore. Even with the arrival of the internet in Singapore since the late 1990s such negative perception also holds true to some extent to online political
expressions especially when they are brought into the offline world.
This situation causes the majority of the people to see individuals and groups engaged in alternative political discourses as illegitimate beings, not to be encouraged but stopped or sidelined. Such an attitude is manifested through the people’s act of self-censorship and/or the censorship of others.
Given this backdrop, in the immediate short to mid-term, broad-based political support from the ground for a progressive politics in Singapore remains weak. While the internet has provided a new platform, and there has
been some growth in political expression and action, the more progressive elements are unable to garner mass public support.
The self-censorial political culture prefers to err on the side of caution and support the more conservative portion of these elements. Support for alternative political action such as civil disobedience remains weak and sporadic. There is some space to articulate a political problem, draw attention to it, and perhaps even make suggestions for change. However this remains at the level of rhetoric, taking place on “sponsored” or “non-partisan” platforms, and is
restricted to calls for a civil society to operate within the boundaries of the current law.
Even within civil society this space is heavily constricted by the laws of the self-censorial political culture that penetrates and operates there very effectively among its various sectional interests. Although discussion,
criticism and activism related to explicit political issues such as human rights, the electoral system, opposition political parties and the constitution (almost non-existent in Singapore along non-political party
lines ten years ago) are now more evident with the arrival of the internet, the pressure is to pursue it along “non-partisan” lines.
Singapore`s civil society is held ransom by a bunch of offline pre-internet activists weaned on the philosophy of non-partisanship who immediately counsel individuals associated with new online initiatives through their tea and advice sessions. When die-hard new and old activists reject such measures, these advocates run the risk of immediate censorship (nowadays done more subtly), rejection, marginalisation and name-calling. Given these dynamics of political culture attitude and behaviour, the political system continues to be upheld in its censorial form.
Under these circumstances, political change in Singapore cannot be expected if any strategy towards this end opts to target citizens. Instead, it would be more effective to focus on needs of a small group of political progressives and construct some kind of platform for this group to articulate its vision. In 1999, this resulted in the founding of the Think Centre. The aim then was to create political awareness.
While the Centre made some gains and set the pace and tone for online-offline activism in the early years, the Think Centre has been unable to hold its own as a multi-partisan political NGO in Singapore. In this regard it has succumbed to the offline pressures of non-partisanship. Due to internal limitations it has gone off tangent to its original purpose and aims (which is off course the prerogative of its caretakers) and has been either unable or unwilling to execute a change of leadership at the helm (since I stepped down).
Singapore`s political civil and political landscape has since changed. To move any new political agenda forward it is now important and necessary to draw support from like-minded sympathisers and partners to explore strategies for political engagement in a change environment.
In 1999 when I broached the idea of setting up a political NGO it seemed a catch like 22 situation - asking people to take risks in a politically punitive environment. At that time I felt such a strategy was nevertheless important in the long-term for the creation of greater political space and the interim, it could provide the means for like-minded people to form their own political community.
Since then the situation has changed. A set of people in the last ten years have come forward, taken a political stand and have acted upon them on a civil society platform. What is needed now is an organisation or network of people with activist experience from a broad spectrum of backgrounds, issues and organisational experience including those who have been active some 20 years ago to led the way forward. Such an entity needs to go beyond local politics and think globally in terms of its network and reach for democratization in Singapore. Such a move is important, as Singapore needs to widen the pool of people who will be politically creative and innovative enough to carry the country into the next century.
The absence of a risk-taking class at the philosophical and political level is a key problem. The PAP government’s call for the people to be active and to take matters into their own hands has not taken off the ground due mainly to the censorial behaviour of the majority and reluctance on the part of the PAP to endorse the legitimate co-existence of
political difference.
Over the years a small group of people have been successful in gaining legitimacy for their alternative philosophical and political expression but they do have to face a conservative majority that constantly tries to censor
difference.
That there is a need for a risk-taking culture to permeate the political and social infrastructure of Singapore is clear and some have taken this risk. But at the same time is important that if we want to succeed that such an organization or network is well managed and run by individuals who are clearly aware that even in politics, professionalism and
commitment to deliverables are important qualities to determine success. This is the important feature for the next phase for Singapore`s political society.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25034.1
No comments:
Post a Comment