Nations

LET'S TALK ABOUT OPENNESS

A debate begins on the benefits of criticism

By Andrea Hamilton / SINGAPORE

ASIAWEEK

IN SINGAPORE, THE GOVERNMENT is used to being right. But crises like the current economic turmoil have a way of challenging even the most established order. Today, a debate is emerging within the city-state over the role of the public in its own governance. How involved should average people be in political affairs? What is the proper role of groups outside the government in assessing the island-state's appropriate direction? And, centrally, how tolerant should Singapore's rulers be in accepting criticism from average citizens? Surprisingly, it is the government itself that has sanctioned and encouraged the discussion.

At a conference last month sponsored by a government-affiliated think-tank, a variety of civic groups called on Singapore's elected officials to be more tolerant of dissent. The discussion was in many respects a watershed. Participants spoke of their fears that keep them from voicing opinions despite the government's calls for more grassroots political participation.

Ambassador-at-large Tommy Koh, a respected intermediary between the government and citizenry, pleaded for a "culture of tolerance" at a press briefing following the conference, which was closed to non-Singaporeans and to working journalists. (This story is based on interviews with participants.) Said Koh: "[There is] a real need for the government not to visit those who express dissenting views with retribution. This creates an atmosphere of fear."

In the past, government officials have used legal action against their critics. Consider the case of opposition politician J.B. Jeyaretnam. In early 1997, on the eve of elections, Jeyaretnam referred obliquely to two police reports filed against Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong "and his people." Goh sued for defamation. Ten months later, a Singapore judge found in Goh's favor but ordered Jeyaretnam to pay only $13,000 in damages. The defendant acknowledged: "It could have been worse." Jeyaretnam knows. He has been on the losing end of several lawsuits brought by government officials since the 1970s. Also, his legal troubles are not over. He faces an appeal by Goh that the damages awarded by the judge were not high enough. Jeyaretnam has also appealed.

Critics at the conference also worried about a more subtle weapon to inhibit critics: ostracism from within the community. In Singapore, the fear of failure has long been a key factor driving overachievement. On one hand, such fears have produced a highly successful culture; Singapore's financial muscle far outstrips its size. But critics contend the same aversion to risk discourages individuals from taking chances.

For some, a telling example of how the government has used the threat of public humiliation to silence opposition is the case of Catherine Lim. A novelist, Lim wrote two columns in late 1994 in The Straits Times which were bluntly critical of Goh's governing style. The PM responded by publicly scolding Lim for undermining his authority. He went on to say that political commentary and criticism should be limited to those actively engaged in party politics and not undertaken by "writers on the fringe." Private citizens expected Lim would be hit with a libel suit, although that never materialized. More than three-and-a-half years later, the incident is burned into the public psyche as a warning.

Given that, calls for greater openness can seem hollow. T. Sasitharan, the artistic director of the Substation performing arts center, said at the conference: "I fear the reality beneath the rhetoric of these proceedings is still about the government seeking full and final control. I fear it is about developing new modalities of subtle, clinical and calibrated control." For her part, Lim says she would not write today the articles that got her in trouble in 1994. "The only way we will know [the fear] is gone is when we wake up one day and no one is talking about it." When might that be? Lim cannot say: "We're doing a kind of dance where the government lets you come one step forward, then pushes you two steps back."

Nominated MP and longtime social activist Claire Chiang says the on-again, off-again nature of the government's push for more openness represents its own anxiety: "They fear the chaotic." Still others contend the complaint of critics that they are inhibited from speaking their minds is overstated. Says Simon Tay, another nominated MP: "Fear can be a crutch to do nothing. No government is going to say, 'come on, challenge us.'" He believes the government is sincere in wanting to loosen control. "But it is a question of how to let go. It's like a nervous parent watching their child take its first steps."

Brig.-Gen. George Yeo, minister for information and the arts, opened last month's conference by noting that the Singapore government must adapt to a changing world by opening up. Others have noted that the region's worsening economic situation demanded a more open and transparent system. And so, the debate over tolerating criticism is on. One thing is certain: It will not be a free-for-all.