Merry Christmas
Merry Xmas to all Bangsa Malaysia .
Merry Christmas Usher and make sure to have a very good New Year ! Let's talk Christmas!
The Good :
INDIA
Christmas: Christian youth celebrate with prisoners
Diphu (AsiaNews) – Spending Christmas with prisoners, “to understand the true spirit of this feast – God who comes to live in the hearts of men and women.” This was the choice made by the Diocese of Diphu that organized a meeting in the local prison on 22 December.
It was a “unique experience” for the inmates. The diocese organised the event together with the local administration, the Baptist Church and Nehru Yuva Kendra, a youth voluntary organization. All 360 inmates participated in the event: many have been in prison for years.
Over 400 volunteers came together to prepare Christmas activities for the event. They said the decision to spend Christmas thus aimed to “communicate the message of Christmas to prisoners and to create a different atmosphere for them.”
The theme of the celebration was 'No one is born a criminal'. Lectures by local authorities on the importance of living a crime-free life gave inmates an opportunity to reflect in ways that could help them start a new life.
A Christmas play and singing carols were the most appreciated moments: all those present applauded the choir and joined in the traditional carol “Santa Claus – Jingle Bell”.
The party programme included moments of reflection. The detainees were divided into groups to discuss the circumstances that had led them to commit crimes: most admitted their guilt and said they were ready to pay the consequences of what they had done.
Abdul Das, one of the inmates, was called to cut the cake. Moved to tears, he said: “I never cut a cake in my life. This is the first time I have been accorded such an honour. I will remember this Christmas for the rest of my life.”
Samsing Kro, a catechist present at the event, said prison should be a “place for reform not punishment”. The local police superintendent, Bora, urged prisoners to lead “a different life once they leave.”
One of the organizers, Fr Tom Mangattuthazhe Thomas, told AsiaNews: “Most inmates are not Christians, but they understood the humility of the Child Jesus born in a stable. They could well relate to being told that there is ‘no room in the inn’, as Mary and Joseph heard repeatedly when they sought shelter in Bethlehem. Like them, the detainees know what it is like to feel like rejects.”
The detainees “were moved as they accepted the consequences of their actions and they literally begged the visiting youth not to follow in their footsteps. With them, I did really feel the meaning of Christmas vivid and clear, God coming to search and dwell in the hearts of men and women.”
The Bad :
CHINA
Xiaoshan: jail for eight Christians who opposed church demolition
Beijing (AsiaNews) – The People's Court of Xiaoshan District, Hangzhou city, has condemned eight Christians to between one and three and a half years in jail for opposing the demotion of their church.
This was reported by the China Aid Association (CAA), a US-based NGO fighting for religious freedom in China.
The judges condemned unofficial pastors Shen Zhuke and Wang Weiliang to three and a half years in prison and other believers Feng Guangliang and Luo Bingliang to two years. The other four defendants had their prison sentences suspended for the time being.
The verdict was handed down after a sitting of 12 straight hours, during which Shen Chengy, 75 years, felt ill and had to be admitted to hospital immediately. Observers said the “verdict had already been decided some time ago otherwise the trial would have taken much longer.”
The eight defendants were arrested on 29 July: they were opposing the demolition of a church in Cheluwan – Xiaoshan district in Zhejiang (see photo) – which the authorities alleged was built on public land without government permission.
In reality, according to the Christians of Cheluwan, the church had been built on private land bought by a Christian couple. For a long time, the community submitted requests for permission to build the church but the government never gave the green light, although all the papers were in order.
The Ugly :
PHILADELPHIA
Hoax Web site jabs anti-illegal immigrant town
PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - Santa isn't welcome in Hazleton because he's an illegal immigrant just like all the others the Pennsylvania town is trying to get rid of -- or so someone would have you believe.
A new Web site, http://www.nosantaforhazleton.com, says the town intends to keep Santa out this Christmas because he represents the illegal immigration the town council believes increases crime and burdens local services.
But the site is a hoax, created by someone in a bid to satirize a local law passed in July that has attracted national attention by imposing penalties on businesses and landlords to deter them from hiring or renting rooms to illegal immigrants.
Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta, who instigated the Illegal Immigration Relief Act Ordinance, said neither he nor the City of Hazleton are involved with the Web site and that while he's not taking it seriously, it may be illegal because it invites online donations. The town has referred it to police.
The site pretends to quote Barletta as saying, "Santa is a dangerous idea whose reign must be put to an end."
A "press release" on the site says a coalition of elected officials and concerned citizens have come together to act against "the nation's most prominent undocumented worker."
Hazleton's immigration act has been temporarily blocked by a federal judge pending a lawsuit against the town brought by immigrant supporters, including the American Civil Liberties Union. It is expected to be heard in early 2007.
Hazleton is a former coal-mining town of 31,000 people in the eastern part of the state.
Barletta said he has no idea who created the site, adding: "Whoever did that will certainly be getting coal for Christmas."
Control and the other Four 'C's: Managing Political Dissent in Singapore
(Catherine Lim)
The first C is CONTROL. What was true of the past 40 years of PAP rule is true of the present, and impossible to rule out for the future. A tight control, both of the political opposition parties and of members of the public who choose to criticise the government in the media, remains a cornerstone of PAP policy. The government continues to use its famous knuckleduster approach against its critics, instantly silencing them. There are two reasons for what appears to be relentless control even at a time of sweeping change.
The first reason is given by the leaders themselves. They are convinced that the PAP leadership is the best that Singaporeans can ever have. The conviction is born not out of arrogance or hubris but of a record of clear PAP victories in the general elections over four decades. As one minister has remarked, the party can expect to be around for the next forty years. Hence, the tight control may be taken as continuing affirmation of the government's strength, a cautionary signal not only to the people at home, but to those outside who may be tempted to flex their muscles against this tiny city-state, famously described as no more than a little red dot on the world map.
The second reason for the control is seldom admitted by the leaders. It is their intense dislike of the noise, messiness and mayhem that often come with political dissent. A government that prides itself on its serious, no-nonsense style simply cannot tolerate an opponent who flaunts the very opposite – flamboyance, histrionics, impudence. The demagogue and the rabble-rouser will never be allowed a place in Singapore politics.
If there is anything that the PAP leaders have against liberal democracy, it is the system's tolerance of the strident individualism seen in opportunistic political activists. Noisy street demonstrations, face-offs with the police, raucous name-calling and fist fights in parliament - nothing, in the eyes of the PAP leaders, can be more demeaning to the serious business of running a country, or more damaging to social order. Hence, they practise what may be described as a fine selectivity in the adaptation of the democratic system inherited from the West, that is, keeping the basic elements that allow Singapore to be a legitimate member of the free world, and throwing out all the messy bits.
Here's a light-hearted poem on the subject:
'
The second C is CONSTRAINT. The knuckleduster approach, however, can no longer be as readily applied today as in the earlier years of PAP rule. The new demands and needs of a rapidly changing world are clearly a constraining force.
There are two major constraints. Firstly, Singapore as a member of the free world, has increasingly close and beneficial ties with it that are worth maintaining. Hence, the PAP leaders, already rankled by frequent criticisms in the western media of their treatment of the opposition, and by Singapore's ranking as only a little above Iran and North Korea in international surveys on press freedom, will, as far as possible, avoid more criticism.
But a far bigger constraint comes from within the nation itself. The Prime Minister has set out, as a major goal, the winning of the hearts and minds of young Singaporeans whose vote will make a big difference in future elections. Unlike their parents and grandparents who were only too grateful to be given government-subsidised flats with modern sanitation, the younger generation, being better educated and more exposed are much more sophisticated, discerning and demanding. Increasingly they have become more vocal, fearlessly speaking their minds, and sharing their views on the Internet on subjects their parents would have nervously avoided.
The government knows that it must deal carefully and sensitively with this group of Singaporeans. The prospect of bright, highly skilled young professionals emigrating to countries that can afford them, in their own words, "more voice, more spaceÕ", is very worrisome.
Here's a verse that could easily have come from one of these bright, outspoken young Singaporeans:
The third C is CONTAINMENT. Over the years, to contain political dissent, the government has set out stern parameters for political debate. These parameters have come to be known as the "out-of-bounds markers" which stipulate what will, and will not be tolerated. There are markers for both the content and the tone of the debate – no criticism of government conduct implying lack of competence, transparency and probity, and no disrespectfulness of tone or, as one minister has put in, using a Hokkien idiom, no "boh twa, boh say". Any disregard of these markers is met with a stern, robust rebuttal of the criticism, or with what has come to be the most feared response – a defamation suit.
The result is a climate of anxiety, even fear. It is an oddity of the Singapore political situation that while the people continue to say they are fearful about official recrimination, the government continues to insist there is none. The disconnect is so great as to be like something out of the Theatre of the Absurd. Yet obviously the leaders see themselves as having no choice but to maintain this effective method of muting the dissenting voice. Their present quandary seems to be this: how to continue doing this and still appear to be moving with the times or, in other words, how to have their cake and eat it too.
As luck would have it, the way out seems to be provided by the happy circumstance called serendipity, when apparently unconnected events come together in just the right way to provide the solution to a problem. Here's what is happening:
Currently, in keeping with its far-sighted policy of keeping up with rapid technological development, so as to stay ahead in the regional and international competition, Singapore is opening up in the most spectacular way in the areas of economic development and scientific innovation. To make the city-state an exciting, attractive world-class hub, this process of liberalisation is necessarily extended to other areas, notably, education, the arts and entertainment. Now here's the serendipitous bit: the openness in these areas of non-political activity is just the right thing to distract from its absence in the political area; the government's encouragement of frank feedback on non-political issues is just the right thing to distract attention from its intolerance of frank feedback on political ones. It is a brilliant transference strategy, even if an accidental one.
The overall impression, as a result, is of widespread, sweeping change, like fresh air blowing through once closed corridors. The disquieting truth that the political domain remains sidelined, indeed shrunk to almost nothing – for instance, most political clubs have closed down - is almost swamped out in the new euphoria. It is very common when asking a Singaporean whether the society has loosened up, to hear this response: "Oh yes. Only the other day, I was reading this letter in the forum pages of The Straits Times, lambasting the government for some educational policy, something unthinkable five years, three years ago." If asked specifically about the political domain, he may pause and say, "Well, there's the Speakers' Corner", or, "Oh well, the government has done so much for Singapore, so what is there to complain about?" Being well-traveled, he may go on to add that in the countries he has visited, there is rampant official corruption, poverty and crime, all of which, Singaporeans are, thankfully, free from.
This assertion that the good life given by the PAP government more than compensates for any political suppression reflects the majority attitude. It has become the leaders' strongest argument for containing or even doing away altogether with political dissent. "After all," they say, "it's what the people themselves want. After all, at the end of the day, what matters most is the bread and butter issue, not some abstract political ideal." In a world made insecure by 9/11, SARS, natural disasters, the aggressive rise of China, the stability and prosperity of Singapore must be the envy of many. Grateful Singaporeans attribute it directly to the PAP's tough stand against dissident elements that are almost always disruptive. The result is an unquestioning trust in and total dependence on the government, to continue to give them the good life and indeed, to do everything else for them.
Here is a little poem about how easily the government can manage a people who have become overdependent and hence politically naive:
The next and fourth C, CONFLICT, is possibly the most compelling, and comes from within the party itself. Perhaps "conflict" is too strong a word to use for a government that has always prided itself on consensus. But it may accurately describe the profound difference of styles between the first prime minister and now Minister Mentor, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, and his younger successors, first Mr Goh Chok Tong and now Mr Lee Hsien Loong. While Mr Lee Kuan Yew shows the stern, unremitting, uncompromising stance born of an earlier, tougher era, the younger leaders have no choice but to show the much more flexible, accommodating and friendly style required by the new mood and expectations of the times.
Such sharply contrasting styles must make for some disagreement when it comes to the formulation of major policies. While Minister Mentor disclaims any influence on the decisions of the younger leaders, the reality is that his stature is so immense, both at home and abroad, his very presence so awesome, that he continues to be the huge banyan tree he has been compared to, overshadowing everyone else.
Recently, political observers had occasion to watch this conflict in action. It happened during the time of the General Election in June this year, and was caused in the most unexpected way by a single incident, now known as the James Gomez debacle. Let me describe it in some detail because I feel it may be very representative of future conflicts in the management of political dissent, as long as Minister Mentor is around.
Mr Gomez, a young member of the opposition Workers' Party, had gone to a government department to fill in a certain form related to his intention to run in the elections as a member of an ethnic minority. Later he angrily accused the government officers of mislaying the form. When a video camera that had been installed in the premises showed that he had in fact not submitted the form at all but had put it in a bag he was carrying, he retracted the accusation and said something about being too busy and distracted that day.
The incident angered Mr Lee Kuan Yew who smelt mischief and wanted instant exposure of Mr Gomez, while the other PAP members were clearly more concerned with getting across their election messages. What happened during the short period of 9 days before election day was an amazing series of quick responses and about-turns by the PAP, which could only be explained by the sheer lack of time to reach a consensus. After the party's initial rebuke of Mr Gomez, Mr Goh Chok Tong, Senior Minister, said it was time to move on and concentrate on more serious election matters, but quickly retracted his statement, explaining that after consultation with the others, he felt that the gravity of Mr Gomez's scheme to discredit the government warranted an all-out condemnation. There followed a few days of this condemnation, clearly reflecting Mr Lee Kuan Yew's deep loathing of any form of dishonesty and trickery. But when it was clear that the tactic washaving the opposite effect on the people who were turning up in huge friendly crowds at the Workers' Party rallies, the Prime Minister announced, just two days before election day, that the government would deal with the matter after the elections and would now concentrate on addressing major issues affecting the lives of the people.
But, as the political observers noted, the damage was already done, and the rather impressive performance of the Workers' Party in the election was due to the people's sympathy for it and disgust at what they perceived as the usual PAP bullying tactics. Immediately after the election, a somewhat chastened PAP said publicly that in the future they would 'show a lighter hand, use a softer touch'. Mr Gomez was let off with just a sharp reprimand. But what was of particular interest to the political watcher was the outrage shown by Mr Lee Kuan Yew who happened to be abroad at the time: he sent back an angry message, publicly repeating his earlier accusation of Mr Gomez as an out-and-out liar, and challenging the Workers' Party to sue him, which provoked from them the rather coy response that they were 'not the suing kind'. Clearly, if Mr Lee had been fully in charge, the matter would have been dealt with very differently.
The Gomez incident remains a fascinating talking point among political watchers who are convinced that as long as Mr Lee Kuan Yew is politically active - he has announced that he will contest in the next general elections five years hence – he will continue to exert a powerful influence on Singapore politics. Because of the tremendous gratitude owing to him for his genius and courage in leading Singapore, it would be extremely difficult for the younger leaders to disregard his advice. Hence, there will continue to be, beneath the smooth lines of PAP consensus, the small zigzags of disagreement and tension, which may occasionally send out mixed and confusing signals to the people. Overall, it is expected that the mailed fist of Mr Lee's approach will prevail, even if sometimes clothed in the soft glove of the younger leaders' friendly approach.
Mr Lee's profound commitment to the well-being of Singapore is well-known: he once said that even when dead and lying inside his coffin, if he sensed a crisis threatening Singapore, he would up and solve it. Here's a poem inspired by this famous pronouncement:
The fifth and last C is CRYSTAL-BALL GAZING. Currently, Singaporeans are wondering about a future Singapore when Minister Mentor will have left the scene. What will it be like? Will there be a split in the PAP? Will Singapore politics be changed forever?
It is most unlikely that the immediate post-Lee Kuan Yew years will see the kind of turmoil experienced in some societies when a great leader departs and leaves a political vacuum. For an essential part of PAP policy is smooth transition and continuity, through the practice of careful selection, grooming and testing of new leaders. Through this process of self-renewal, the party aims to preserve the prized Lee Kuan Yew legacy of competence, discipline and incorruptibility of leadership, and thus ensure, permanently, the well-being of Singapore.
But fifteen, twenty years down the road, the scenario may be very different. There may arise challenges and problems that will, most ironically, have been caused by this very legacy. A people who have been trained to trust the PAP government implicitly and to engage only minimally in the political process by voting responsibly once every five years and for the rest of the time concentrating on doing well in business, the professions, the arts, community work, etc will lack political savvy. In another speech, I had compared them to hothoused plants incapable of surviving in the tough, brute world outside, the jungle out there. Never exposed to the rough and tumble of street politics, always accepting every official policy, Singaporeans could become blinded to the faults of their leaders.
As long as the legacy is kept intact, there will be no problem. But over the years, long after its founder is gone, the legacy is bound to be diminished and diluted, if only because the new leaders will have come from increasingly different backgrounds and experiences. For one thing, they will be more globally exposed. There could appear a self-serving and corrupt leader who, because he wears the trusted PAP mantle, will get away with it. This is a frightening but possible scenario.
Another equally bleak one may once again be attributed to the PAPÕs deliberate creation of a whole generation of apolitical Singaporeans. Young men and women, encouraged to concentrate on pursuing ambitions of world-class achievements, will see themselves as cosmopolitans belonging more to the world than to their home country. If it is true that love of one's country is something spontaneous, the result of direct experience of the soil or direct witness of a fellow countryman's heroic tenacity of purpose and fighting spirit, then the loyalty of a whole generation of protected, cossetted Singaporeans may be called into question. For their loyalty will not be to Singapore, but to the good life that Singapore has given them. In the event of a crisis, this very conditional, fair weather loyalty, will vanish as soon as the temptation sets in of relocating in a part of the world where they can continue to enjoy this good life. Currently, there are anguished debates about whether there is a Singapore identity, about whether young people are prepared to die for their country.
If the PAP were asked to give their own thumbnail history of their management of political dissent, they might begin with the hard power of Lee Kuan Yew, which was right for its times, then go on to the soft power of Goh Chok Tong who had promised a 'kinder, gentler society', and end with the smart power of the present Prime Minister, a blend of the previous two. Clearly, this power is still evolving, its final shape as yet undiscernible.
But suppose we do a little speculation. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that his primary concern is to meet the needs and expectations of young Singaporeans, in order to build, for the future, a strong cohesive nation that despite its small size, can hold its own against any aggressor. This is a very long term goal, well past the political life of every present PAP leader. Surely part of the smart power must be to convert this concern into present action to achieve the desired future? What could that action be? Could it begin with a change of PAP mindset?
Imagine we are looking into the crystal ball, and actually seeing this change of attitude towards political dissent. The leaders now recognise, even if grudgingly, that the need for freedom of expression, the impulse to challenge, is a natural and permanent aspect of the human condition, found in every society, at every period in human history. Moreover, they may even acknowledge that this impulse may not be a bad thing after all, for it could bring about long-term change and renewal, though not without cost. The acknowledgement leads to full acceptance of the democratic package, that is, including all that annoying messiness. This in turn leads to positive action, that is, dismantling the existing mechanisms of control and containment to allow for the exposure required by the democratic process. At long last then, there will be true political education in the society.
If – dare we say when? – this happens, Singapore will have come into its own. It will have achieved an identity, a sense of its uniqueness, a rootedness. It can now take its place with those mature societies in the free world that are admired for their unshakeable commitment to allowing a place in their midst for even the most rabidly dissenting voices. Singapore will then no longer be just a niche nation, a boutique model where visitors come to learn how to build science centres, prevent pollution, improve the public transportation system, improve the teaching of mathematics, etc. It will no longer be described as just efficient, innovative, progressive, etc. but as great. Even a tiny red dot of a nation can be truly great, because ultimately the greatness of a society comes from its willingness to take risks to allow for the full nurturing of the human spirit in all its needs, both of promise or peril.
Catherine Lim is a Singapore-based writer.
Malaysia Christmas China India PHILADELPHIA Singapore
Merry Christmas Usher and make sure to have a very good New Year ! Let's talk Christmas!
The Good :
INDIA
Christmas: Christian youth celebrate with prisoners
Diphu (AsiaNews) – Spending Christmas with prisoners, “to understand the true spirit of this feast – God who comes to live in the hearts of men and women.” This was the choice made by the Diocese of Diphu that organized a meeting in the local prison on 22 December.
It was a “unique experience” for the inmates. The diocese organised the event together with the local administration, the Baptist Church and Nehru Yuva Kendra, a youth voluntary organization. All 360 inmates participated in the event: many have been in prison for years.
Over 400 volunteers came together to prepare Christmas activities for the event. They said the decision to spend Christmas thus aimed to “communicate the message of Christmas to prisoners and to create a different atmosphere for them.”
The theme of the celebration was 'No one is born a criminal'. Lectures by local authorities on the importance of living a crime-free life gave inmates an opportunity to reflect in ways that could help them start a new life.
A Christmas play and singing carols were the most appreciated moments: all those present applauded the choir and joined in the traditional carol “Santa Claus – Jingle Bell”.
The party programme included moments of reflection. The detainees were divided into groups to discuss the circumstances that had led them to commit crimes: most admitted their guilt and said they were ready to pay the consequences of what they had done.
Abdul Das, one of the inmates, was called to cut the cake. Moved to tears, he said: “I never cut a cake in my life. This is the first time I have been accorded such an honour. I will remember this Christmas for the rest of my life.”
Samsing Kro, a catechist present at the event, said prison should be a “place for reform not punishment”. The local police superintendent, Bora, urged prisoners to lead “a different life once they leave.”
One of the organizers, Fr Tom Mangattuthazhe Thomas, told AsiaNews: “Most inmates are not Christians, but they understood the humility of the Child Jesus born in a stable. They could well relate to being told that there is ‘no room in the inn’, as Mary and Joseph heard repeatedly when they sought shelter in Bethlehem. Like them, the detainees know what it is like to feel like rejects.”
The detainees “were moved as they accepted the consequences of their actions and they literally begged the visiting youth not to follow in their footsteps. With them, I did really feel the meaning of Christmas vivid and clear, God coming to search and dwell in the hearts of men and women.”
The Bad :
CHINA
Xiaoshan: jail for eight Christians who opposed church demolition
Beijing (AsiaNews) – The People's Court of Xiaoshan District, Hangzhou city, has condemned eight Christians to between one and three and a half years in jail for opposing the demotion of their church.
This was reported by the China Aid Association (CAA), a US-based NGO fighting for religious freedom in China.
The judges condemned unofficial pastors Shen Zhuke and Wang Weiliang to three and a half years in prison and other believers Feng Guangliang and Luo Bingliang to two years. The other four defendants had their prison sentences suspended for the time being.
The verdict was handed down after a sitting of 12 straight hours, during which Shen Chengy, 75 years, felt ill and had to be admitted to hospital immediately. Observers said the “verdict had already been decided some time ago otherwise the trial would have taken much longer.”
The eight defendants were arrested on 29 July: they were opposing the demolition of a church in Cheluwan – Xiaoshan district in Zhejiang (see photo) – which the authorities alleged was built on public land without government permission.
In reality, according to the Christians of Cheluwan, the church had been built on private land bought by a Christian couple. For a long time, the community submitted requests for permission to build the church but the government never gave the green light, although all the papers were in order.
The Ugly :
PHILADELPHIA
Hoax Web site jabs anti-illegal immigrant town
PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - Santa isn't welcome in Hazleton because he's an illegal immigrant just like all the others the Pennsylvania town is trying to get rid of -- or so someone would have you believe.
A new Web site, http://www.nosantaforhazleton.com, says the town intends to keep Santa out this Christmas because he represents the illegal immigration the town council believes increases crime and burdens local services.
But the site is a hoax, created by someone in a bid to satirize a local law passed in July that has attracted national attention by imposing penalties on businesses and landlords to deter them from hiring or renting rooms to illegal immigrants.
Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta, who instigated the Illegal Immigration Relief Act Ordinance, said neither he nor the City of Hazleton are involved with the Web site and that while he's not taking it seriously, it may be illegal because it invites online donations. The town has referred it to police.
The site pretends to quote Barletta as saying, "Santa is a dangerous idea whose reign must be put to an end."
A "press release" on the site says a coalition of elected officials and concerned citizens have come together to act against "the nation's most prominent undocumented worker."
Hazleton's immigration act has been temporarily blocked by a federal judge pending a lawsuit against the town brought by immigrant supporters, including the American Civil Liberties Union. It is expected to be heard in early 2007.
Hazleton is a former coal-mining town of 31,000 people in the eastern part of the state.
Barletta said he has no idea who created the site, adding: "Whoever did that will certainly be getting coal for Christmas."
Control and the other Four 'C's: Managing Political Dissent in Singapore
(Catherine Lim)
The first C is CONTROL. What was true of the past 40 years of PAP rule is true of the present, and impossible to rule out for the future. A tight control, both of the political opposition parties and of members of the public who choose to criticise the government in the media, remains a cornerstone of PAP policy. The government continues to use its famous knuckleduster approach against its critics, instantly silencing them. There are two reasons for what appears to be relentless control even at a time of sweeping change.
The first reason is given by the leaders themselves. They are convinced that the PAP leadership is the best that Singaporeans can ever have. The conviction is born not out of arrogance or hubris but of a record of clear PAP victories in the general elections over four decades. As one minister has remarked, the party can expect to be around for the next forty years. Hence, the tight control may be taken as continuing affirmation of the government's strength, a cautionary signal not only to the people at home, but to those outside who may be tempted to flex their muscles against this tiny city-state, famously described as no more than a little red dot on the world map.
The second reason for the control is seldom admitted by the leaders. It is their intense dislike of the noise, messiness and mayhem that often come with political dissent. A government that prides itself on its serious, no-nonsense style simply cannot tolerate an opponent who flaunts the very opposite – flamboyance, histrionics, impudence. The demagogue and the rabble-rouser will never be allowed a place in Singapore politics.
If there is anything that the PAP leaders have against liberal democracy, it is the system's tolerance of the strident individualism seen in opportunistic political activists. Noisy street demonstrations, face-offs with the police, raucous name-calling and fist fights in parliament - nothing, in the eyes of the PAP leaders, can be more demeaning to the serious business of running a country, or more damaging to social order. Hence, they practise what may be described as a fine selectivity in the adaptation of the democratic system inherited from the West, that is, keeping the basic elements that allow Singapore to be a legitimate member of the free world, and throwing out all the messy bits.
Here's a light-hearted poem on the subject:
'
Say out the four-letter word'.
The Devil at once shouts 'Pope',
The Pope frowns and says 'Hell',
The pessimist mutters 'Hope'.
'Porn', growls the puritan,
'Bush', scream the Iranians,
'Cops', grumbles the hooker,
'Jews' roar the Palestinians.
For Donald Trump, it is 'Poor',
And for the poor, it is 'Limo',
The PAP says, 'We have two,
They are 'Oppo' and 'Demo''.
The second C is CONSTRAINT. The knuckleduster approach, however, can no longer be as readily applied today as in the earlier years of PAP rule. The new demands and needs of a rapidly changing world are clearly a constraining force.
There are two major constraints. Firstly, Singapore as a member of the free world, has increasingly close and beneficial ties with it that are worth maintaining. Hence, the PAP leaders, already rankled by frequent criticisms in the western media of their treatment of the opposition, and by Singapore's ranking as only a little above Iran and North Korea in international surveys on press freedom, will, as far as possible, avoid more criticism.
But a far bigger constraint comes from within the nation itself. The Prime Minister has set out, as a major goal, the winning of the hearts and minds of young Singaporeans whose vote will make a big difference in future elections. Unlike their parents and grandparents who were only too grateful to be given government-subsidised flats with modern sanitation, the younger generation, being better educated and more exposed are much more sophisticated, discerning and demanding. Increasingly they have become more vocal, fearlessly speaking their minds, and sharing their views on the Internet on subjects their parents would have nervously avoided.
The government knows that it must deal carefully and sensitively with this group of Singaporeans. The prospect of bright, highly skilled young professionals emigrating to countries that can afford them, in their own words, "more voice, more spaceÕ", is very worrisome.
Here's a verse that could easily have come from one of these bright, outspoken young Singaporeans:
World reports and surveys
Are impressed by Singapore;
They note its glowing charts
And watch its economy soar.
An A for sound investments,
An A for rule of law;
An A plus for governance,
Each is a perfect score.
But it is a dismaying D
For freedom of the press,
Political debate and dissent
Get a grade that's even less.
Since we have turned global
We need the world's regard,
So let's correct the imbalance
And improve our report card.
The third C is CONTAINMENT. Over the years, to contain political dissent, the government has set out stern parameters for political debate. These parameters have come to be known as the "out-of-bounds markers" which stipulate what will, and will not be tolerated. There are markers for both the content and the tone of the debate – no criticism of government conduct implying lack of competence, transparency and probity, and no disrespectfulness of tone or, as one minister has put in, using a Hokkien idiom, no "boh twa, boh say". Any disregard of these markers is met with a stern, robust rebuttal of the criticism, or with what has come to be the most feared response – a defamation suit.
The result is a climate of anxiety, even fear. It is an oddity of the Singapore political situation that while the people continue to say they are fearful about official recrimination, the government continues to insist there is none. The disconnect is so great as to be like something out of the Theatre of the Absurd. Yet obviously the leaders see themselves as having no choice but to maintain this effective method of muting the dissenting voice. Their present quandary seems to be this: how to continue doing this and still appear to be moving with the times or, in other words, how to have their cake and eat it too.
As luck would have it, the way out seems to be provided by the happy circumstance called serendipity, when apparently unconnected events come together in just the right way to provide the solution to a problem. Here's what is happening:
Currently, in keeping with its far-sighted policy of keeping up with rapid technological development, so as to stay ahead in the regional and international competition, Singapore is opening up in the most spectacular way in the areas of economic development and scientific innovation. To make the city-state an exciting, attractive world-class hub, this process of liberalisation is necessarily extended to other areas, notably, education, the arts and entertainment. Now here's the serendipitous bit: the openness in these areas of non-political activity is just the right thing to distract from its absence in the political area; the government's encouragement of frank feedback on non-political issues is just the right thing to distract attention from its intolerance of frank feedback on political ones. It is a brilliant transference strategy, even if an accidental one.
The overall impression, as a result, is of widespread, sweeping change, like fresh air blowing through once closed corridors. The disquieting truth that the political domain remains sidelined, indeed shrunk to almost nothing – for instance, most political clubs have closed down - is almost swamped out in the new euphoria. It is very common when asking a Singaporean whether the society has loosened up, to hear this response: "Oh yes. Only the other day, I was reading this letter in the forum pages of The Straits Times, lambasting the government for some educational policy, something unthinkable five years, three years ago." If asked specifically about the political domain, he may pause and say, "Well, there's the Speakers' Corner", or, "Oh well, the government has done so much for Singapore, so what is there to complain about?" Being well-traveled, he may go on to add that in the countries he has visited, there is rampant official corruption, poverty and crime, all of which, Singaporeans are, thankfully, free from.
This assertion that the good life given by the PAP government more than compensates for any political suppression reflects the majority attitude. It has become the leaders' strongest argument for containing or even doing away altogether with political dissent. "After all," they say, "it's what the people themselves want. After all, at the end of the day, what matters most is the bread and butter issue, not some abstract political ideal." In a world made insecure by 9/11, SARS, natural disasters, the aggressive rise of China, the stability and prosperity of Singapore must be the envy of many. Grateful Singaporeans attribute it directly to the PAP's tough stand against dissident elements that are almost always disruptive. The result is an unquestioning trust in and total dependence on the government, to continue to give them the good life and indeed, to do everything else for them.
Here is a little poem about how easily the government can manage a people who have become overdependent and hence politically naive:
'We do have freedom,' say Singaporeans,
'As is clear from our present status,
Since we are free to do everything
That the PAP government lets us!'
The next and fourth C, CONFLICT, is possibly the most compelling, and comes from within the party itself. Perhaps "conflict" is too strong a word to use for a government that has always prided itself on consensus. But it may accurately describe the profound difference of styles between the first prime minister and now Minister Mentor, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, and his younger successors, first Mr Goh Chok Tong and now Mr Lee Hsien Loong. While Mr Lee Kuan Yew shows the stern, unremitting, uncompromising stance born of an earlier, tougher era, the younger leaders have no choice but to show the much more flexible, accommodating and friendly style required by the new mood and expectations of the times.
Such sharply contrasting styles must make for some disagreement when it comes to the formulation of major policies. While Minister Mentor disclaims any influence on the decisions of the younger leaders, the reality is that his stature is so immense, both at home and abroad, his very presence so awesome, that he continues to be the huge banyan tree he has been compared to, overshadowing everyone else.
Recently, political observers had occasion to watch this conflict in action. It happened during the time of the General Election in June this year, and was caused in the most unexpected way by a single incident, now known as the James Gomez debacle. Let me describe it in some detail because I feel it may be very representative of future conflicts in the management of political dissent, as long as Minister Mentor is around.
Mr Gomez, a young member of the opposition Workers' Party, had gone to a government department to fill in a certain form related to his intention to run in the elections as a member of an ethnic minority. Later he angrily accused the government officers of mislaying the form. When a video camera that had been installed in the premises showed that he had in fact not submitted the form at all but had put it in a bag he was carrying, he retracted the accusation and said something about being too busy and distracted that day.
The incident angered Mr Lee Kuan Yew who smelt mischief and wanted instant exposure of Mr Gomez, while the other PAP members were clearly more concerned with getting across their election messages. What happened during the short period of 9 days before election day was an amazing series of quick responses and about-turns by the PAP, which could only be explained by the sheer lack of time to reach a consensus. After the party's initial rebuke of Mr Gomez, Mr Goh Chok Tong, Senior Minister, said it was time to move on and concentrate on more serious election matters, but quickly retracted his statement, explaining that after consultation with the others, he felt that the gravity of Mr Gomez's scheme to discredit the government warranted an all-out condemnation. There followed a few days of this condemnation, clearly reflecting Mr Lee Kuan Yew's deep loathing of any form of dishonesty and trickery. But when it was clear that the tactic washaving the opposite effect on the people who were turning up in huge friendly crowds at the Workers' Party rallies, the Prime Minister announced, just two days before election day, that the government would deal with the matter after the elections and would now concentrate on addressing major issues affecting the lives of the people.
But, as the political observers noted, the damage was already done, and the rather impressive performance of the Workers' Party in the election was due to the people's sympathy for it and disgust at what they perceived as the usual PAP bullying tactics. Immediately after the election, a somewhat chastened PAP said publicly that in the future they would 'show a lighter hand, use a softer touch'. Mr Gomez was let off with just a sharp reprimand. But what was of particular interest to the political watcher was the outrage shown by Mr Lee Kuan Yew who happened to be abroad at the time: he sent back an angry message, publicly repeating his earlier accusation of Mr Gomez as an out-and-out liar, and challenging the Workers' Party to sue him, which provoked from them the rather coy response that they were 'not the suing kind'. Clearly, if Mr Lee had been fully in charge, the matter would have been dealt with very differently.
The Gomez incident remains a fascinating talking point among political watchers who are convinced that as long as Mr Lee Kuan Yew is politically active - he has announced that he will contest in the next general elections five years hence – he will continue to exert a powerful influence on Singapore politics. Because of the tremendous gratitude owing to him for his genius and courage in leading Singapore, it would be extremely difficult for the younger leaders to disregard his advice. Hence, there will continue to be, beneath the smooth lines of PAP consensus, the small zigzags of disagreement and tension, which may occasionally send out mixed and confusing signals to the people. Overall, it is expected that the mailed fist of Mr Lee's approach will prevail, even if sometimes clothed in the soft glove of the younger leaders' friendly approach.
Mr Lee's profound commitment to the well-being of Singapore is well-known: he once said that even when dead and lying inside his coffin, if he sensed a crisis threatening Singapore, he would up and solve it. Here's a poem inspired by this famous pronouncement:
The coffin was enormous
To match the god-like status
For both in life and death
He was a real colossus.
Someone who with the opposition
Was clearly in cahoots
Whispered, 'Ah, a new dawn!
No more defamation suits!'
At which the corpse sprang right up,
'Who said that?' it roared,
'He's defaming my good name,
So get our lawyers on board!'
The fifth and last C is CRYSTAL-BALL GAZING. Currently, Singaporeans are wondering about a future Singapore when Minister Mentor will have left the scene. What will it be like? Will there be a split in the PAP? Will Singapore politics be changed forever?
It is most unlikely that the immediate post-Lee Kuan Yew years will see the kind of turmoil experienced in some societies when a great leader departs and leaves a political vacuum. For an essential part of PAP policy is smooth transition and continuity, through the practice of careful selection, grooming and testing of new leaders. Through this process of self-renewal, the party aims to preserve the prized Lee Kuan Yew legacy of competence, discipline and incorruptibility of leadership, and thus ensure, permanently, the well-being of Singapore.
But fifteen, twenty years down the road, the scenario may be very different. There may arise challenges and problems that will, most ironically, have been caused by this very legacy. A people who have been trained to trust the PAP government implicitly and to engage only minimally in the political process by voting responsibly once every five years and for the rest of the time concentrating on doing well in business, the professions, the arts, community work, etc will lack political savvy. In another speech, I had compared them to hothoused plants incapable of surviving in the tough, brute world outside, the jungle out there. Never exposed to the rough and tumble of street politics, always accepting every official policy, Singaporeans could become blinded to the faults of their leaders.
As long as the legacy is kept intact, there will be no problem. But over the years, long after its founder is gone, the legacy is bound to be diminished and diluted, if only because the new leaders will have come from increasingly different backgrounds and experiences. For one thing, they will be more globally exposed. There could appear a self-serving and corrupt leader who, because he wears the trusted PAP mantle, will get away with it. This is a frightening but possible scenario.
Another equally bleak one may once again be attributed to the PAPÕs deliberate creation of a whole generation of apolitical Singaporeans. Young men and women, encouraged to concentrate on pursuing ambitions of world-class achievements, will see themselves as cosmopolitans belonging more to the world than to their home country. If it is true that love of one's country is something spontaneous, the result of direct experience of the soil or direct witness of a fellow countryman's heroic tenacity of purpose and fighting spirit, then the loyalty of a whole generation of protected, cossetted Singaporeans may be called into question. For their loyalty will not be to Singapore, but to the good life that Singapore has given them. In the event of a crisis, this very conditional, fair weather loyalty, will vanish as soon as the temptation sets in of relocating in a part of the world where they can continue to enjoy this good life. Currently, there are anguished debates about whether there is a Singapore identity, about whether young people are prepared to die for their country.
If the PAP were asked to give their own thumbnail history of their management of political dissent, they might begin with the hard power of Lee Kuan Yew, which was right for its times, then go on to the soft power of Goh Chok Tong who had promised a 'kinder, gentler society', and end with the smart power of the present Prime Minister, a blend of the previous two. Clearly, this power is still evolving, its final shape as yet undiscernible.
But suppose we do a little speculation. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that his primary concern is to meet the needs and expectations of young Singaporeans, in order to build, for the future, a strong cohesive nation that despite its small size, can hold its own against any aggressor. This is a very long term goal, well past the political life of every present PAP leader. Surely part of the smart power must be to convert this concern into present action to achieve the desired future? What could that action be? Could it begin with a change of PAP mindset?
Imagine we are looking into the crystal ball, and actually seeing this change of attitude towards political dissent. The leaders now recognise, even if grudgingly, that the need for freedom of expression, the impulse to challenge, is a natural and permanent aspect of the human condition, found in every society, at every period in human history. Moreover, they may even acknowledge that this impulse may not be a bad thing after all, for it could bring about long-term change and renewal, though not without cost. The acknowledgement leads to full acceptance of the democratic package, that is, including all that annoying messiness. This in turn leads to positive action, that is, dismantling the existing mechanisms of control and containment to allow for the exposure required by the democratic process. At long last then, there will be true political education in the society.
If – dare we say when? – this happens, Singapore will have come into its own. It will have achieved an identity, a sense of its uniqueness, a rootedness. It can now take its place with those mature societies in the free world that are admired for their unshakeable commitment to allowing a place in their midst for even the most rabidly dissenting voices. Singapore will then no longer be just a niche nation, a boutique model where visitors come to learn how to build science centres, prevent pollution, improve the public transportation system, improve the teaching of mathematics, etc. It will no longer be described as just efficient, innovative, progressive, etc. but as great. Even a tiny red dot of a nation can be truly great, because ultimately the greatness of a society comes from its willingness to take risks to allow for the full nurturing of the human spirit in all its needs, both of promise or peril.
Catherine Lim is a Singapore-based writer.
Malaysia Christmas China India PHILADELPHIA Singapore
Labels: Humor and opinion
posted by Ah Yun Wong at
5:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home