The following article was first published on 6 September 2007. With the talk of “reform” and “change” in the PAP government following the 2011 General Election, we feel it is timely to re-post this article for discussion.

Andrew Loh

Singapore‘s political and social climate needs to give space for more ventilation and variation.

Diversity will affect how the people and the Government relate. If Singapore is to become a place where people can fulfill their aspirations, where they can explore many different things, it will no longer make sense for the Government to always control and regulate every activity.”

Former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, in a speech at The Remaking Singapore Report Presentation and Appreciation lunch on Saturday, 12 July 2003, at 12 noon, at Fullerton Ballroom. (link)

Singaporeans who took then-PM Goh’s words to heart and tried to “fulfill their aspirations” would have found out that the words spoken by our government ministers don’t necessarily sync with the reality on the ground.

Remaking Singapore

When the Remaking Singapore Committee was formed in Feb 2002, led by Dr Vivian Balakrishnan with “about 100 people on the sub-committees” (link) , there was great expectation. The media was like a circus, feverish in its coverage of what ministers were saying, trumpeting the beginning of a new dawn.

The government was going to open up spaces, sacred cows would be slaughtered, Singaporeans were urged to “just do it”.

Expectations were of a Singapore finally coming of age – politically, socially, as a nation. Indeed, many encouraging statements were made by government ministers – painting a picture of a Singapore which is more open, vibrant and inclusive. A City Of Possibilities!

“Engage your ideals!”, cried prime minister Lee Hsien Loong only 3 years ago. “Just do it! Nike says Just Do It!… Find your own leaders! Organise your own solutions, move!”, he admonished Singaporeans.

Ministers Vivian Balakrishnan and Khaw Boon Wan were reported to have said that “there will be no sacred cows” and that policies which has become outdated will be “updated”:

The operating principle is that there will be no sacred cows. And if a policy has become outdated and is stifling new growth, we will have it updated.” – Khaw Boon Wan (21 Jan, 2002)

“There will be no sacred cows…there will have to be a systematic willingness to go through all policies and programmes we’re about to embark on.” Dr Vivian Balakrishnan on Remaking Singapore, Straits Times Feb 15 2002

It has been 5 years or so since those statements were made. (And ironically, the Remaking Singapore website is no longer available, when checked on the 6th of Sept, 2007.)

What has taken place, however, is contradictory to what the ministers have said – especially in the civil society and political sphere, and this has been proven in very recent events too.

“No longer makes sense”

Despite then-prime minister Goh Chok Tong saying that “it no longer makes sense for the Government to always control and regulate every activity”, the opposite is true.

The government’s idea of opening up more spaces, alas, seemed to only apply to The Speakers Corner where PM Lee wanted a “hundred flowers to bloom”, allowing a stripshow from Paris and more recently, casinos and F1 races.

If The Workers’ Party’s application to hold a cycling event isn’t even allowed, then all talk and promises of “Singapore’s political and social climate” being given more space is just that – empty talk and hollow promises. The sacred cows are still fenced up behind those electric fences. Untouchable.

The litany of recent bans and disallowed events speaks for itself.

One would by now be familiar with the ban on the picnic and the jogging activity which People Like Us wanted to hold, the ban on Martyn See’s films, the termination of Alfian Saat’s employment at a secondary school without any explanation, the rejection of a permit for The Workers’ Party to hold a cycling event, the rejection of Alex Au’s application for a foreign speaker to speak at a seminar, the rejection of the Singapore Democratic Party’s application for members of the CALD to speak at a public forum, the rejection of Alex Au’s application to hold a photo exhibition, a story telling event by Ng Yi Sheng was banned, and more recently, police were sent to stop a small group of Singaporeans protesting against the anime distributor Odex. The list goes on.

On occasions, these citizen initiatives were met with a number of buses of riot police, with truncheons and full riot gear.

(For a more comprehensive list of events banned in the last few years, please visit Singabloodypore’s blogsite.)

The saddest thing about all these rejections and bans is that obscure, nonsensical and poor excuses/reasons are given. Hypotheticals. Imagination. Machinations of a paranoid State.

Sacred cows, sacred excuses

Along with the sacred cows come sacred excuses – excuses which are so full of holes you can drive a 3-tonner right through it.

“Not in the public interest” is a favourite one with the authorities. “Contrary to public interest” comes in second. If these do not suffice, then threats to “public order” or “potential public disturbance” are offered. Of course, the authorities will also throw in the “permit is required” cliche. That always clinches it. If it doesn’t, there is always the terrorism bogeyman since 911.

Electric fences jolts you back into reality before you get too carried away with wanting to be a part of an “active citizenry” and get too close to the electric fences which protect the “sacred cows” of “no public assembly” and “public order”.

To ridicule or ignore the reasons or excuses given by the authorities would be to underestimate the serious consequences which would result – especially when we want to be a nation where citizens feel a sense of belonging, of identity and nationhood.

The rejected or banned events may be small or even insignificant by themselves, but taken as a whole such denial sets the tone for all of society.

People become disinterested, cowed, afraid even. They withdraw into the predictable paths laid out by the State – work, pay your bills, be happy. Don’t try and do anything for yourself.

And this is where the government should and must realize that a brush-off has consequences which stifle the activism, involvement and participation of citizens.

Ultimately, it creates disenchantment and disenfranchisement among Singaporeans. Why would anyone feel that they belong to a place which bears no identity to what he or she believes in?

Sacred cow – only PAP/govt is given green light

It is rather curious to see government agencies (with participation from government ministers and PAP MPs) taking part in very public mass activities. For example, the Consumer Association Of Singapore (CASE) held a “Walk With CASE” not too long ago, as proudly reported on its website.

The large group of participants even carried placards and looked strident and loud. One would imagine some shouting were involved as well, perhaps? (Click picture on left to enlarge.)

Weren’t the police concerned about “public disorder” or “public disturbance”?

If only events organized by the government – or the PAP – are given the green light, then Singapore will be nothing more than just a one-dimensional city, with a one-track mind, so to speak. Fluff City – skyscrapers and F1 races or not.

The very diversity which the Remaking Singapore initiative was supposed to encourage is sacrificed at the altar of conformity and uniformity – or if you like, blandness.

A new rallying cry

The new rallying cry of a “City Of Possibilities” follows “Remaking Singapore” in 2002. One can only hope that this new and latest initiative will see more substance and that the government will put its money where its mouth is.

That A City Of Possibilities means that citizens are the ones who initiate participation – and not just the government.

The government must stop behaving like a political party which puts its own self-interest and survival above that of Singapore and Singaporeans. For is this not the fundamental reason why so many events – especially the political ones – have been disallowed?

And this curtailing of civil society – which, essentially, means citizens doing things for themselves – will result in an uninteresting, uninspiring society.

Giving space to mavericks and “troublemakers”

Catherine Lim said it best, as in this quote by TODAY on Jan 13, 2006 :

“The need for authentic expression was too important, she said. ‘It can neither be intimidated into permanent silence nor seduced by material wealth. And if it is, we are all worse off for it.’

She called on the government to let mavericks and “troublemakers” play their roles, as they give society a certain rambunctiousness. That kind of environment, she noted, nurtured a leader like Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.

The alternative, she said, is a monolithic society, which makes standard copies of its leaders.”

Time for substance

It is time for the government to stop making meaningless statements which bear no resemblance to the reality being implemented on the ground. If they do not mean what they say, they should not say it at all.

But if they do say it, let their words be backed up with changes to legislation – the Penal Code, for example – so that everyone is certain that the government is committed to its declarations and, more importantly, citizens are unequivocally and unambiguously protected by the law.

Perhaps it is time to stop protecting the sacred cows with those barbed wire and electric fences.

Nah, not perhaps. It is time to do so, especially when our senior government ministers keep making public statements such as the ones below.They only serve to show up the emptiness of their words. It is truly unbecoming for a government which regularly trumpets its own integrity.

“I agree that Singapore must be a place where people care deeply about what goes on around them. Singaporeans need to speak up, or better yet, do something. This is the hallmark of a nation. This is what differentiates a home from a hotel.” SM Goh Chok Tong, 2003 (link)

“Don’t ask what the Government is going to do. I read that some people are asking, now that you want young people to get engaged, what is the Government going to do to get young people engaged? Actually, we are going to wait. No, get up, do it. Nike says, “Just Do It”. Engage your ideals, your ideas, your energies, build a new generation, build tomorrow’s Singapore. Don’t wait or depend on the Government. Find your own leaders, organise your own solutions, move.”PM Lee Hsien Loong, National Day Rally, 2004 (link)

“We’ve got to support Singaporeans being spontaneous, being unconventional. We should not put obstacles in their way.” – PM Lee Hsien Loong, National Day Rally Speech, 2004 (link)

If the entire population needs to be protected from their own choices, then we’ll be in a very, very sorry state in the future.” – Vivian Balakrishnan, 2004 (Nov 17, 2004, Straits Times)

“We should have an open society which is welcoming of talent, which welcomes diverse views, is yet cohesive and has a sense of common purpose.” – PM Lee Hsien Loong, National Day Rally Speech, 2004 (link)

“You can get anything you want in Singapore. You can travel, you can bring it in. You can – you can organize what you want. You can say anything you want, and all sorts of things are said and debated in Singapore.”
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, interview with Charlie Rose, Aug 2005

“One does not develop a conviction and commitment to a society without first questioning and pushing the boundaries.” – Tharman Shanmugaratnam, 2005, (link)

“As for political dissidents, there will always be a place for them. But up to a point, they have to ask themselves: Are they willing to take responsibility, do more, get their hands dirty and have their results judged in real life — tangible outcomes, not mere theories.” – Vivian Balakrishnan, TODAY, 2006 (link)

“That’s the right spirit we want. We want people to participate, we want people to get engaged, do it within the law, you can do a lot within the law and if your motives are good and you want to do good for your people, for the community, for Singapore, you can do it and you ought to do it.” – PM Lee Hsien Loong, during General Elections, 2006 (link)

“The reason why the US got into the predominant position (in the world economy) is because it was prepared to allow a whole host of citizens to try, experiment, to do it yourself.” – SM Lee Kuan Yew, Asian Wall Street Journal, June 19 2001.

 

Read also: City Of Possibilities – or Fluff City

Cartoons courtesy of My Sketchbook

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

若确认国家安全、经济受威胁 陈如斯:总统有权宣布紧急状态

新加坡前进党秘书长陈清木早前建议,若本届政府期限到期疫情仍持续,可考虑由总统组织临时政府,直至疫情结束才召开选举。 对此,国务资政兼国家安全统筹部长张志贤昨日(25日)在国会反驳上述建议,并指尽管在面对疫情危机当儿召开选举并不理想,但展延大选至超过规定的期限也有违宪法。 他声称这类建议“有误导性且无助现况”,他指经过咨询总检察长意见后,后者认为推迟选举至规定的期限是违宪的。 张志贤强调,只有在宣布紧急状态下,才能展延选举。“尽管我国也曾渡过许多危机,不过自我国独立以来,从未展延政府任期超过宪法的规定以外。” 不过,国人为先党党魁陈如斯同样引述新加坡宪法反驳张志贤,指宪法也赋予总统,若确认局势确实危及国家安全、经济和百姓生计,总统有权发布紧急状态。 他认为,眼下冠状病毒19,已威胁到国人的经济和生活。若疫情拖沓至明年4月仍未消散,有理由可宣布紧急状态并展延选举。 陈如斯曾在2011年,与陈清木医生、陈钦亮和陈庆炎博士等人竞选总统。 陈如斯早前在接受本社专访时曾表示,在疫情危机下若召开选举,政府等同把自身利益摆在国人性命健康之上,是“不负责任的”。 他呼吁政府当前应全力抗疫,反对党也会和政府“同仇敌忾”。但是现在选举反而会分散国人的注意力,无法团结国人力量共同抗疫。 在宪法第150条下,国会依据紧急状态下的合理理据,可制定相关法律,与此同时也可展延选举。 若紧急状态结束,所有在紧急状态下制定的法律即作废,意味着那只是为协助国家渡过紧急情况下的临时措施。

From ‘love’ to ‘thug’: Biden win to change US-North Korea dynamic

by Sunghee Hwang Headline-grabbing summits between the leaders of North Korea and…

社论:选项无几的第四代总理接班人

总理李显龙在11日的人民行动党中委会改选和干部大会上,开启第三代交棒第四代领导接班人的行动,资深中委卸任,准备逐步让第四代精英班底接手政权。 然而,李显龙对总理接班人的选项,其实所剩无几。 纵观整个内阁和第四代精英,似乎很难找到民望较高、较具号召力和凝聚力的领袖。 李显龙实则”帐下无人“。面对一手”烂牌“,既要看起来亲民、又具备行政经验,李显龙能够找到的”最佳“人选,似乎就只有陈振声。 即便内政部长尚穆根回应媒体,根据干部大会上的”站位“照片,推断他是副总理只是揣测;但陈振声和尚穆根,站在李显龙身旁,也绝非巧合,其中的潜台词,党内人士心照。 另一个能够透露些潜台词的”站位“照片,就是去年陈振声随李显龙出访中国,乘总理伉俪出席检阅仪式,和同仁们的合照。 当时陈振声还是总理公署部长,站在合照的最中间,双手往后摆,显得格外突出。 而陈振声几乎每年都随团出使中国,频频与中国领导接班人会面。 行动党帐下无人?何不尚达曼? 但也有者质问,是否非得让第四代精英接任下任总理,是否还有其他选项?其中政府投资公司前首席经济师杨南强,就对副总理尚达曼卸任中委感到遗憾。 他认为,尚达曼是现有决策者中,对国家未来50年社会、经济和政治改革和挑战,更有远见和具开放思维的领袖。 他担忧,国家即注重精英、不分种族和唯才是举,但把”新加坡还未准备好又印度人当总理“当作借口,将是国人的悲哀和损失,也否定了大家看到关键改革的机会。…

《联合早报》制视频 反驳马交长高度限制论述

马国交通部长l陆兆福,在前日于个人脸书专页转发一段视频,向马国民众解释,为何政府反对实里达机场落实仪表着陆系统(ILS),并呼吁新加坡修改起降航线。 对此,本地中文媒体《联合早报》,在昨晚也制作一段视频回应,指出陆兆福分享的视频,信息有误。 在马国的视频指出,为何要限制实里达机场落实ILS系统,并建议更改起降航线,是因为ILS对地面障碍物有高度限制。 根据规定,距离实里达机场三公里处,地面障碍物高度不得超过54米,六公里处的高度限制则是不超过145米。 《早报》视频则反驳马来西亚的说法, 指出新马两国采用不同标准。 视频称,马国采用的高度限制,是障碍物限制面(OLS),旨在确保飞机低空操作时能保持安全。 视频称,每个机场OLS高度限制不同,是根据国际民用航空组织(ICAO)标准制定的“第一道防线”,但ILS系统,参考的却是障碍物评价面(OAS)。 若根据OAS,三公里处的高度限制应是93.8米,而不是马国声称的54米;六公里处高度限制则是198.1米,比马国的高度标准多出53.1米。 视频称,所有采用ILS系统的机场,都是参照OAS,而不是OLS。制定OAS需考虑机场跑道长度、航线角度等因素,确保有足够高度缓冲区。所以OAS是较准确的参照标准。 视频也指出,在距离实里达机场3.7公里处,已有一座高104米的马国建筑,不过没有超过OAS限定的高度限制。所以即是落实ILS导航系统,也不会影响巴西古当的发展,该区仍然可以继续建高楼。 实里达机场距离巴西古当仅2.4公里。实里达机场预计在明年1月3日启用ILS系统。根据现有降落航线,飞机降落是由北向南,飞过巴西古当上空降落实里达机场。…