FOR a small island state eager to take its place among the most successful nations in the free world of practising democracies, one would have expected to see a steady increase in political freedom, an ascending line from its virtual non-existence in the rough early years of brute survival, to the emergence of incomplete but distinct forms in a still evolving ethos, to an end point of full functioning in a mature society.
But there has been no such clear path. Instead, we see only a thin ragged line, rather like a small weakly meandering stream that sometimes disappears into the ground.
This sputtering along of the political process is in sharp contrast to the smooth steep trajectories of other areas of development, notably in the economic area, where growth can only be described in breathless superlatives; and even in those areas where the Government has been traditionally conservative, for instance, education and the arts.
Hence while the winds of change are sweeping everywhere, while the clarion call to be creative, to think outside the box, is heard everywhere, the political domain remains a backwater, with every sign of drying up altogether.
- Catherine Lim, Managing Political Dissent, Straits Times 20th January 2006
Apart from being an author, Catherine Lim has also been one of the most outspoken critics of the present government in Singapore to be published in the national press. And for that,
I salute her. It’s not often you read such eloquent articles, and especially not when one is talking about the government.
However, although her article speaks of Singaporeans being too comfortable and too fearful as reasons for their continued silence, I would suggest that those are not all the reasons.
Having been thinking for a while about the Singaporean society’s collective morality, I came to certain conclusions as to why it languishes in the era of 1950s post-war colonialism. These conclusions seem also to apply to the lack of a viable channel for dissenting voices to be heard.
The first is that although Singapore is a democracy, it is a
socialist democratic state. This is far from the democratic ideal in the minds of most people, who are actually really thinking about
liberal democracy. So, rather than a hands-off approach, allowing persons rights to develop their own freedoms through social and political means, the socialist democratic state is ‘’[willing] to restrict the political and legal rights of the individual in favour of a perceived social good’.
Secondly, the ‘early years of brute survival’ mentioned by Catherine Lim is, I imagine, referring to the years following Singapore’s independence from British rule. These early years of strict political control and absolute intolerance of dissent coincided with several extremely important socio-political developments in the already-developed states of that time: the hippie movement, and the feminist movement.
These movements were large scale demonstrations by large numbers of people, supported by intellectuals and politicians. They were also extremely powerful in their promotion of rights and freedoms and individualistic thinking. Apart from some tangential references like the Beatles and other musical groups, the movements and their accompanying ethos completely passed the Singaporean society by.
Lastly, the Cold War that persisted between the Western Democracies and the Communist Bloc helped to develop political freedom and liberal rights in the Western Democracies as a reaction toward the heavy-handed quashing of dissent in the Communist Bloc. By demonstrating their lack of fear of dissent, the Western Democracies attempted to one-up the Communist Bloc and in turn gain favour with the world at large.
Singapore, however, stayed largely aloof from the ideological issue, choosing to emphasise its capitalist free markets first, and its draconian laws against supposed commie anti-government interlopers second. This meant that the outside world saw in Singapore what they wanted to see - a friend of Western-style democracy – but neglected to look beyond that to discover the oppressive political environment which continues today, albeit in a slightly diluted form. As such, political freedom was sacrificed for economic progress, because anyone that was thought to even slightly disagree was liable to be branded a communist and sent to prison without trial.
These factors contributed to the lack of awareness amongst Singaporeans of alternative methods of governance, and even less support for them. They also created a society where one is not made aware of the rights one has, but is highly aware of the consequences of transgressing the governments’ rule. And it has also created a society whereby one can speak vehemently about being anti-government, but only whilst drinking Guinness Stout at the coffeeshop or whilst driving a taxicab.
Also, because the government has had such efficient and effective policies regarding the economy, a large proportion of Singaporeans, especially those that grew up in the post-colonial years, feel indebted to the government for their current success. And because economic comfort breeds passivity, there is no motivation for change, nor is there desire to actively pursue one’s rights or freedoms which one did not realize one was entitled to anyway.
Resultantly, not only has there never been a culture of speaking up in the modern state, many Singaporeans either feel grateful to the government, or have been brought up to be grateful by their parents, because anything else would be biting the hand that feeds you.
This lack of a public political forum is non-threatening to the Singaporean society, but only as long as the government in power has only the welfare of its citizens at heart, is uncorrupt, substantially and procedurally fair, a follower of the rule of law, and not given to abuse of power – in other words, perfect.
Anything less would require an active dissenting sector to be the voice of those who are lacking it, to create opportunities for feedback and dialogue, and to allow social and political progression.
No government is perfect, and it is only through dissent can a government look outside its own self-constructed box to view things from another perspective. Without dissent, there can be no improvements. Without dissent, there is no check or balance. Without dissent, there is no liberty.
