Between moral stimulus and severe libel<\/p>\n
By Limas Sutanto<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): There is a close association between progress
\nand criticism in life. Paul Karl Feyerabend, an Austrian
\nphilosopher and the pioneer of epistemological anarchism, says
\nthat most standards of criticism are found outside ourselves.
\nThe possibility of finding a standard of criticism within
\nourselves is very small. Thus, criticism from outsiders or other
\nparties is essential to progress.<\/p>\n
Nevertheless, criticism can trigger debates, dissent,
\ndisputes, and hostility. In authoritarian states, criticism of
\nthe ruler may result in oppression and repression of the critic.
\nWas Singapore's top three leaders' response to criticism from the
\nforeign press an authoritarian or repressive act? Or was their
\nresponse a civilized, argumentative and rational act?<\/p>\n
The dispute between Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Chok Tong and Lee Hsien
\nLoong, and International Herald Tribune columnist Philip Bowring
\nand New York Times columnist William Safire is an interesting
\nissue. Although it involved a severe quarrel, the conflict was a
\ncivilized clash of rational, public argument. The foreign press
\nbrought their criticism up in the form of rational-argumentative-
\nopen statements. Within the scope of a rational-argumentative-
\nopen debate, it is hoped that each party will rely on the power
\nof logic and critical thinking and not physical power. The
\ncriticism was actually perceived as libel by the trio, but it was
\nbrought up openly and transparently. Thus the value and quality
\nof the criticism -- its constructiveness or destructiveness --
\ncan be determined and tested openly too.<\/p>\n
Second, although the Singaporean trio demonstrated severe
\nanger, they also responded to the criticism with rational-
\ncritical arguments. The arguments were brought up openly and were
\ntested in court.<\/p>\n
The dispute was transparent and wide open for public analysis
\nand verification. The trio's choice to find a solution in court
\nfurther established the civilized characteristic of the dispute.<\/p>\n
It seemed the trio's decision to find a legal and open
\nsolution, which then crystallized into a libel suit against the
\nforeign press, caused Bowring and Safire to quiver. On Aug. 31,
\n1994 the Paris-based International Herald Tribune published an
\nunreserved apology for their Aug. 2, 1994 article alleging
\npolitical nepotism in Singapore.<\/p>\n
The apology was then reported by the local The Straits Times
\nand Business Time. The publicity indicates the existence of
\nserious regret by Bowring. The Tribune's lawyer, K. Shanmugam,
\ntold the High Court and Judge Goh Joon Sang that the three
\ndefendants (publisher Richard McClean, executive editor John
\nVinocur and Bowring) \"accepted and continued to accept\" that the
\nlibel had been published. \"They accepted and continue to accept
\nthat the libel is without foundation and untrue\" (The Jakarta
\nPost, July 25, 1995 page 11).<\/p>\n
The Indonesian public may perceive Bowring's apology as being
\nforced by the assumed tendency of Singapore's courts to side with
\nthe three leaders. The impression could be that the apology was
\nforced by the possibility of damages. But Singapore's courts have
\ndemonstrated a high degree of independence -- one of the most
\nindependent in Asia. The entities of due process of law and
\nprocedural justice are held in high esteem by Singapore's courts.<\/p>\n
Goh Chok Tong also responded to William Safire's criticism in
\na civilized manner. Goh challenged Safire to a televised debate
\nin Singapore on democracy and other issues. But Safire refused
\nthe challenge by stating he would rather face Lee Kuan Yew in a
\ndebate in Switzerland. His argument was reasonable, but it
\nreflects an intention to avoid a complicated debate with a
\nprominent figure who will speak from a strong rational-critical-
\nargumentative base.<\/p>\n
Why were the trio persistent and highly self-confident?
\nBecause, although they are conservative leaders who of a state
\nnot based on a Western-style democratic system, their
\nconservativeness has brought prosperity to Singapore. In
\naddition, under their leadership, the city-state consistently
\nimplements the rule of the law. The law is highly respected in
\neveryday life.<\/p>\n
The background of these disputes is a difference in moral
\norientation. Singapore's three leaders, with their consistency to
\nthe rule of law, follow a form of moral orientation which
\nLawrence Kohlberg defines as a stage-four orientation, one of his
\nsix stages in moral development. It represents moral judgment
\nwhose main objective is obedience to social conventions and law.
\nStage four is not a low stage in development. It is true that
\nKohlberg describes the complete progression of human moral
\ndevelopment as a process of achieving stage five, which is human
\nfree contract and freedom of conscience in stage six. But in his
\nimportant article in 1979 entitled Educating for a Just Society:
\nUpdated and Revised Statement, Kohlberg argues that
\nrealistically, good quality citizens are educated to morally
\ndevelop towards stage four. Higher stages are ideal, but very
\ndifficult to realize.<\/p>\n
The foreign press' criticism can be seen as a stimuli to
\ndevelop morals to stage five and stage six. As a stimulus, it
\nshould not be faced with anger or excessive irritability. But it
\nshould be realized that the process of moral development should
\ntake place in a stage-by-stage manner. It seems that for a multi
\nethnic city-state like Singapore, the state's existence should be
\nmaintained and manifested by a strict obedience to social
\nconventions and law. Obedience will guarantee a strong cohesion
\namong the citizens. This reality has most likely created a high
\nsense of stability, so much so that a moral stimulus can be
\nperceived as a severe libel.<\/p>\n
Limas Sutanto, a psychiatrist and psychosocial observer, alumnus
\nof the School of Medicines of Gadjah Mada University and
\nAirlangga University.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/between-moral-stimulus-and-severe-libel-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}