For Robert Ho's "almost-complete archive of works", click here

ROBERT Ho is arguably Singapore's leading cyber-dissident. In late 2001, Ho was arrested in his home for allegedly posting "inflammatory" articles online during the general elections, representing the first-ever case of its kind.

In 2002, after an as-yet-unspecified article(s) was posted on the soc.culture. singapore newsgroup, police entered his home, seized his computer and served him a summons to attend an investigation.

Three weeks later, he was forcibly taken to a police station by officers who entered his home without a warrant or a charge. In 2005, on returning from a shopping mall where he had distributed flyers alleging electoral fraud, he was again apprehended and his computer seized.

In all, he has been arrested an additional three times since 2001, and on repeated occasions the authorities have remanded him at a mental institution. He has yet to be prosecuted for any of the alleged offences, although a criminal-defamation case is still pending from 2002.

While other critics, including international publications, have yielded to defamation threats from Singapore's political leaders, Robert Ho has emerged from his arrests and detentions even more recalcitrant against the establishment.

In Singapore's political cyberspace, where fear of surveillance and potential libel suits have compelled many dissident netizens and bloggers to post articles under pseudonyms, Ho continues to stick his neck out by disclosing his real identity online.

He is now a regular contributor to the Singapore Review newsgroup and is a blogger.

Fellow blogger and independent filmmaker Martyn See interviewed Ho via email and telephone last month. A longer version of the interview was first published at the blogspot singaporerebel.

See: In 2001, you became the first person in Singapore to be arrested for posting an article on the Internet. What happened?

Ho: On November 16, 2001, about 11:15am, eight serious stern men rang my doorbell and came into my flat. They quickly searched my entire flat, asked for my computer and took it as well as every single computer-related device from printers, floppy disks, CD-ROMs [and] modems to cables.

They then took me away to the CID [Central Investigation Department] Police Cantonment Complex. Being arrested and having all my entire computer system confiscated was quite unnerving and disconcerting. The handcuffs were locked on so tight I suffered a pinched nerve in my left wrist for weeks after.

At the CID, I was questioned for hours, during which I dictated my statements to [police official] Soh Kien Peng. I finished the statements around 14:05pm, pleading not guilty in summation to the charge of posting in soc.culture. singapore my article entitled "Break the law and get away with it, like PAP", posted on October 19, 2001. This article is also posted in "Singaporeans for Democracy" at www.sfdonline. org. [This was a reference to the ruling People's Action Party.]

After my statements were recorded, edited and signed, I was taken to a cell where I was to spend the night on the bare floor. The next morning, I was driven to the Subordinate Courts, where I awaited my turn for the judge to deal with me. We accused were processed like an assembly line, with each one getting very limited time or attention. Singapore efficiency, if you like.

When my turn came to plead, I tried to tell the judge that I wanted to claim trial and ask for release on bail, since my offense was probably bailable, being merely an [online] posting in a newsgroup. She was impatient, there being about 100 accused to process that morning before her lunch. I spoke into the microphone that she should not treat me on the basis of "once a madman always a madman", but I was sent to the Institute for Mental Health (IMH) for observation anyway.

In IMH, the doctors see us about once a week, so it took about three weeks before the doctor assigned to me could finalize his report, which was "fit for trial", which is another way of saying that I was not mentally ill. The charge against me was "incitement to violence" for asking voters to enter the polling stations without authorization. That this was a trumped-up charge, with very serious jail terms.

At trial, after I was released from IMH ... prosecutor Han Ming Kuang read the psychiatrist' s report on me, but only the old historical parts and not the conclusion, which is that I am fit for trial, to show that I was unfit for trial! Who would believe the truth of my mental state: a [public prosecutor] and the Straits Times or the psychiatrist who saw me? I was told beforehand by Soh that the charge would be dropped, and that once released from court I was to avoid reporters and leave the courthouse. So I left the Subordinate Courts, collected my entire computer system back from the CID, and went home without giving any interviews to reporters.

[Prosecutor] Han took so long to read all the old historical parts that the judge told him testily to stop. But Han continued anyway. The next day I knew why. He was reading not for the court, but for the Straits Times reporters present. The next day's Straits Times carried a large report of Han's readings to give the impression that I was mad and that was why the charge was dropped. At that time, Han Fook Kwang was editor, now chief editor I believe, of the Straits Times. Note the similarity in names as in the Chinese custom of naming siblings or close relations.

See: Barely eight months later, following two other online postings, the police twice visited you in your home.

Ho: As the above post shows, I was arrested twice more after that. Once was on July 3, 2002, when [police officials] came to my flat to seize my computer again. I persuaded [one police official] not to take everything, since everything had been seized and examined before and still carried the police sticker labels. So he seized only the PC [personal computer] tower. This has still not been returned to me today, probably because the case is still not closed, I believe. This is the case of "criminal defamation", which carries a considerable jail term.

[The police investigator] stopped calling me or investigating my case and ignored my phone calls and faxes to him to return my PC tower. On July 26, 2002, two policemen came to my flat just as I was sitting down to dinner and arrested me yet again. The entire police-procedures book was ignored and I was handcuffed, driven to Jurong Police [headquarters] and locked in a cell. Then, without even an interview with an investigating officer, I was driven to IMH, where the doctor, despite my strenuous objections, admitted me. Since doctors there see patients only about once a week, it took me eight days to get out.

See: And more recently, in a case that I believe has gone unreported, you were arrested and detained for distributing flyers at a shopping mall?

Ho: On February 27, 2005, I went to WestMall Shopping Center to photocopy and distribute copies of a document [making allegations of electoral fraud]. I was arrested, locked in a police-station cell [Clementi Police Division HQ] and then driven to IMH, where it took me about a dozen days to get out, again because the doctors see patients only once a week mainly. This case closed with a formal written warning on February 20, 2006. My entire computer system, a new one from the PC tower [police earlier] seized, which is still with him, was returned to me.

See: Were you a journalist? Where?

Ho: Hardly. I was a night sub-editor from late 1975 to early 1976 in the Straits Times. In the Straits Times, I occasionally witnessed the "Upstairs" control of news and I have written this in my Letter to Blair article, in my archive. We all know that the Straits Times practices what they euphemistically call "nation-building" , but the main quarrel many of us have with this rigid and total control of the media is not whether nation-building should be done or not or whether it is right for media to do this.

There is a deeper issue, and this is about truth and falsehood. Truth and falsehood are often separated only by a thin line, and that is why we talk about half-truths. So the Straits Times should, like a court witness, always tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, as an eyewitness to history. It is not about nation-building but about truth.

There is also the insidious effect of time. If a newspaper suppresses a fact or a piece of news one day, it is not too bad. But when it consistently suppresses similar facts, over time, this becomes a total manipulation of the reader's mind. So, over time, even innocuous news suppression, or a slight slant to the news, or a slight spin take on huge dimensions is an unforgivable attempt at nothing less than brainwashing.

See: How do you rate the performance of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong so far?

Ho: To understand Lee Hsien Loong's performance, you have to consider the advantages he inherited from his father [Lee Kuan Yew] and [Senior Minister] Goh Chok Tong and the challenges facing him. In a way, it is unfair to expect too much from Lee Hsien Loong because the challenges he faces today are the leftover unsolved problems that his father and Goh did not, or more likely could not, solve. It stands to reason that if his father and Goh could solve those problems, they would have done so already. So many of the problems that remain for Lee Hsien Loong are intractable ones.

He faces another obstacle: his father. Lee Kuan Yew is even more active now than, say, during Goh's time. There is a sense that he wants to set everything in stone, to so cast Singapore with rigid policies that long after he has become non-sentient, Singapore will still continue as though he is still in control, shaping events. Every person in power wants to shape his state according to what he thinks fit. and Lee Kuan Yew is no exception. But the only way is to shape institutions, not direct policies.

If you shape an institution, that institution can go on to evolve policies to fit any new circumstances. If you cast policies in stone, policies are quickly outdated and become irrelevant or counterproductive, especially so with the modern speed of change. The faster things change, the more you need institutions and not direct policies. So it is always best to leave behind strong institutions. What are some of these? Free and fair elections, for example; an independent judiciary; a critical press unafraid to investigate and spotlight governmental wrongdoings; a Parliament of independent- thinking MPs [members] that is not today's rubber-stamp yes-men; cabinet colleagues of diverse backgrounds who follow very different muses; an opposition that is free to challenge the government's ideas and policies.

On all of these, Lee Kuan Yew has failed, failed, failed. He has created a system that needs him at the top to continue running. Once he becomes non-sentient, Lee Hsien Loong either becomes another Lee Kuan Yew, or he will find that one-man rule or top-down rule cannot function. So either Lee Kuan Yew reverses his entire life's doings or else he better hope that Lee Hsien Loong turns out to be close enough like him. But then, remember that Lee Kuan Yew has already solved all the easy problems and only the hard ones remain. Thus Lee Hsien Loong will not have an easy time.

Lee Kuan Yew once boasted to a foreign journalist, "If people don't fear me, then I am meaningless. " This has led other sharp observers to note that Lee Kuan Yew's rule is "... only thinly disguised rule by decree" and that he has imposed a "fearocracy" . Make no mistake, Lee enjoys flaunting his power and using his power to force [so-called] solutions on people.

Lee Kuan Yew ruled during a time when the world was simple and straightforward. Lee Hsien Loong now faces a far different world than the one his father lived through. My prediction: Lee Hsien Loong will falter once his father is no longer around. The elder Lee left not a single viable institution intact in his haste to dismantle everything that got in his way. Simply put, if you create a system where you must have a Lee Kuan Yew in charge to function, then the moment a non-Lee Kuan Yew comes along, even if he is a son, things unravel. That is why I say: leave behind strong institutions, not a strongman.

See: You seem to display a particular affinity in delving into the psyche of Lee Kuan Yew. What is your fascination with the Minister Mentor?

Ho: I fought him for a dozen years. In those dozen years, I have come to fear him, ridicule him, expose his failings, all of which are now in written form in thousands of postings in soc.culture. singapore and elsewhere on the wonderful thing called the Internet.

When I first began writing anti-PAP articles, I was careful about defamation lawsuits; now, I couldn't care less. Nowadays, I have the luxury of ranting and raving against Lee Kuan Yew, restrained only by the facts and the truth and my credibility.

Most still have to be careful, but the Internet is spawning a freedom to think, associate and opine. For example, you can read a blog and leave an anonymous comment. That comment may be a sentence or a whole essay. Can Lee Kuan Yew clamp down on commentators? I think not. Can Lee Kuan Yew even take bloggers to court? Maybe today, but it gets less and less likely as the Internet age progresses. Already, there are proxies and encrypted communications that allow anonymous postings. If the PAP tries to wipe out blogs and Internet postings, all these will simply go underground.

Then there is email. The PAP cannot look into every email account to stamp out criticisms. For persistent emailers like me, it can quickly establish my identity and charge me, but it cannot do this to the occasional critic. It is so easy to write and forward an email that it is ridiculous to treat it as equivalent to an essay meant for publication. That essay may be more formal, but emails are often rough and thoughtless - can you take the same stance on both? The law courts will not be able to handle the load!

See: Do you think that Singapore will become a more open society with the passing of Lee Kuan Yew?

Ho: Definitely. Lee Kuan Yew is from a different era. That man cannot even type, which primary-school kids today all can. He still reads only printed paper documents, not a computer monitor. Can such a man run a 21st-century country? No way! Besides, there are more university graduates today than there were people in Singapore when Lee Kuan Yew became [prime minister]. He is a relic, a kind of fossil from the past, alive long past his time.

See: With the view that the [PAP] government is finding it increasingly difficult to stifle, or even manage, political expression on the Internet, what are your thoughts on Singapore for 2007 and beyond?

Ho: What will 2007 bring? Of this we can be certain: 2007 will bring exciting new technologies that will entrench blogs like this and free Singaporeans even more as they start their own blogs. Many will discover that they need not even write much or anything at all. For example, aggregator blogs like intelligentsingaporean are doing a good job of collating excellent blogs and important news articles and putting them all in one convenient click of the mouse.

I once wrote in one of my articles that "historians of the future will probably divide human history into pre-Internet and Internet ages, much like we currently divide history into BC and AD". So important is the advent of the Internet for transforming human society, shaping lives and creating communities of the mind. Every morning, when I switch on my PC, I have a delicious sense of anticipation, that the day will bring forth some remarkable poetry from [Singaporean blogger] Xenoboy or sharp insights from [Singaporean blogger and ATol contributor] Yawning Bread. Or that some news article will prove that the PAP is only human and very fallible [laughing], despite the unrelentingly one-sided portrayal by its controlled media. Rarely do I switch off disappointed.

For me, and for probably a million other Singaporeans, we are building a Singapore community of the mind. It is a true community by any definition. We share news, information, views, opinions; and argue, debate and dissect events of the day or issues of tomorrow. In other words, we interact, like any true community. Yet this community is still fragile and threatened by proposed new laws that tighten the already tight noose around online free thought and free speech, proposed by people who cannot understand the value of debate and discussion and who see in every criticism an attempt to dethrone them.

One of the reasons why Lee Kuan Yew and his PAP fear blogs is because of their very quality. The best Singaporean bloggers are astute, perceptive and highly intelligent. The best of us can analyze and articulate far better than [the government]. That is the main reason why they want to shut us down. The best Singaporean bloggers are real thought leaders and political analysts and incisive social commentators. Do you have any ministers who are as intelligent? Not a single one. Politician George Yeo tries to write a blog, but his efforts are pitiful. So are the efforts of the other PAP [politicians] .

On the Internet, it is not your position or job title that matters, it is what you write, which means what you think or can think. The Internet is a level playing field for all, PAP and others alike. If you can write and analyze intelligently, you will have an audience; if you can't, nobody reads you or are convinced or impressed by you. Thus Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Hsien Loong fear blogs not because they are rubbish or lies as alleged, but because they are brilliantly argued and extremely well thought out. Some bloggers [would] actually make better ministers than the present cabinet. So Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Hsien Loong's fear of blogs is the primary fear of superior minds, a fear that has dogged power holders from ancient history. A fear that they cannot lead thought as well as the best bloggers can. A fear of better solutions, better thinking and better ideas better expressed. Lee Kuan Yew fears blogs and the Internet rightly, because they allow free speech and free thoughts.

He also fears blogs because although they are fleeting and ephemeral, often only superficially written and read, often taking off from facts and articles in mainstream media, blogs can also be lasting and permanent, and therefore a record that future historians can mine for valuable clues to a society and state's preoccupations. Lee Kuan Yew would, of course, prefer that historians only read his memoirs and his PAP media, so blogs present a challenge to his always trying to have the last word in everything.

Blogs present an alternative version of reality which challenges the artificial reality of PAP-[controlled] mainstream media. Additionally, if there is such a thing as a "national IQ", blogs promise to raise that IQ, so Lee would rather that we remain stupid and therefore docile, fed lies and propaganda and swallowing it all. It is not surprising that, as one PAP MP was shocked to discover, "more than 80% of blogs are against the PAP government".

That is nothing strange. It is just a natural reaction from the mainstream media's daily lies and spins and the total disservice they commit upon us. A new generation has discovered the power of the written word, the artful video and the sublime podcast. The "national IQ" is rising, and fast. Lee would rather that we return to the old status quo in which no change is possible or tolerated. He is desperately trying to drag us all back into the past, to an era where he always had the last word in everything and no dissent or criticism is possible, no alternative views are allowed. He always had a fear of free thinking, preferring that we instead think along lines he sets. Having said that, it is also an exaggerated fear.

See: Do you think this "exaggerated fear" permeates the PAP government and its policies?

Ho: Lee Kuan Yew is the master exaggerator. All his life, he has exaggerated his achievements and the difficulties he faced. This exaggeration is now entrenched into PAP methodology, and so every online critic has to be silenced, by hook or by crook. His entire government applies this exaggeration as its primary philosophy. When you exaggerate, you make yourself more heroic in proportion, the molehills you encounter become mountains, and your adversary or critic far more dangerous to you than they really are or were.

You also overkill, which is either trying to be over-successful or trying so hard that ultimately the result may not even be worth the effort or the sacrifice - or things and people sacrificed - and much of the people's legitimate interests have been sacrificed unnecessarily due to this need to over-try, overkill and overdo.

In policymaking, exaggeration means that you must always save a huge, vast sum for a rainy day that will never come. It means that you must create a fearful population forever afraid that tomorrow may never arrive and the sun may not rise. It means keeping a huge army for an invasion that will never happen. It means a perpetual prostituting to the Americans because they have the biggest army and economy. It means you must obsessively and relentlessly destroy every political opponent, no matter how insignificant. It means you must destroy this burgeoning online community because a populace is easier to control and manipulate if it is fragmented and divided and the online community promises to gel too many into a community not led by the PAP.

The thinking behind dictators is that communities of any kind are bad for their power and exercise of power. They would prefer their populace to be atomized into lone individuals or families because without a united front, they cannot be dethroned. Thus all religious groups are closely watched because they are also true communities with leaders and many followers who listen to these leaders, meaning that they may not also listen to the PAP. This is one reason why the Catholic Church in Singapore was targeted in 1987-88 in the infamous so-called "Marxist Conspiracy" in which 22 totally innocent people were arrested and jailed without trial, and accused of subversion to bring down the government. Churches are communities and they are often rich, often owning multimillion- dollar churches, and they are pretty big communities sometimes.

This exaggerated fear of groups or communities has led to the deliberate prevention and control of all societies in Singapore. The rules for registering any society of any kind, even a chess club, are strict and allow for the control of that society by the PAP. Thus nothing is left to chance. Lee Kuan Yew prefers his entire population to be atomized into tiny individuals or families who do not communicate with one another or form a community. He would rather they simply go to work, come home to a tiny atomized family life, and never interact with others. And he has succeeded in this. This is another aspect of his exaggeration.

                                                      Home