Between moral stimulus and severe libel

By Limas Sutanto

JAKARTA (JP): There is a close association between progress and criticism in life. Paul Karl Feyerabend, an Austrian philosopher and the pioneer of epistemological anarchism, says that most standards of criticism are found outside ourselves. The possibility of finding a standard of criticism within ourselves is very small. Thus, criticism from outsiders or other parties is essential to progress.

Nevertheless, criticism can trigger debates, dissent, disputes, and hostility. In authoritarian states, criticism of the ruler may result in oppression and repression of the critic. Was Singapore's top three leaders' response to criticism from the foreign press an authoritarian or repressive act? Or was their response a civilized, argumentative and rational act?

The dispute between Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Chok Tong and Lee Hsien Loong, and International Herald Tribune columnist Philip Bowring and New York Times columnist William Safire is an interesting issue. Although it involved a severe quarrel, the conflict was a civilized clash of rational, public argument. The foreign press brought their criticism up in the form of rational-argumentative- open statements. Within the scope of a rational-argumentative- open debate, it is hoped that each party will rely on the power of logic and critical thinking and not physical power. The criticism was actually perceived as libel by the trio, but it was brought up openly and transparently. Thus the value and quality of the criticism -- its constructiveness or destructiveness -- can be determined and tested openly too.

Second, although the Singaporean trio demonstrated severe anger, they also responded to the criticism with rational- critical arguments. The arguments were brought up openly and were tested in court.

The dispute was transparent and wide open for public analysis and verification. The trio's choice to find a solution in court further established the civilized characteristic of the dispute.

It seemed the trio's decision to find a legal and open solution, which then crystallized into a libel suit against the foreign press, caused Bowring and Safire to quiver. On Aug. 31, 1994 the Paris-based International Herald Tribune published an unreserved apology for their Aug. 2, 1994 article alleging political nepotism in Singapore.

The apology was then reported by the local The Straits Times and Business Time. The publicity indicates the existence of serious regret by Bowring. The Tribune's lawyer, K. Shanmugam, told the High Court and Judge Goh Joon Sang that the three defendants (publisher Richard McClean, executive editor John Vinocur and Bowring) "accepted and continued to accept" that the libel had been published. "They accepted and continue to accept that the libel is without foundation and untrue" (The Jakarta Post, July 25, 1995 page 11).

The Indonesian public may perceive Bowring's apology as being forced by the assumed tendency of Singapore's courts to side with the three leaders. The impression could be that the apology was forced by the possibility of damages. But Singapore's courts have demonstrated a high degree of independence -- one of the most independent in Asia. The entities of due process of law and procedural justice are held in high esteem by Singapore's courts.

Goh Chok Tong also responded to William Safire's criticism in a civilized manner. Goh challenged Safire to a televised debate in Singapore on democracy and other issues. But Safire refused the challenge by stating he would rather face Lee Kuan Yew in a debate in Switzerland. His argument was reasonable, but it reflects an intention to avoid a complicated debate with a prominent figure who will speak from a strong rational-critical- argumentative base.

Why were the trio persistent and highly self-confident? Because, although they are conservative leaders who of a state not based on a Western-style democratic system, their conservativeness has brought prosperity to Singapore. In addition, under their leadership, the city-state consistently implements the rule of the law. The law is highly respected in everyday life.

The background of these disputes is a difference in moral orientation. Singapore's three leaders, with their consistency to the rule of law, follow a form of moral orientation which Lawrence Kohlberg defines as a stage-four orientation, one of his six stages in moral development. It represents moral judgment whose main objective is obedience to social conventions and law. Stage four is not a low stage in development. It is true that Kohlberg describes the complete progression of human moral development as a process of achieving stage five, which is human free contract and freedom of conscience in stage six. But in his important article in 1979 entitled Educating for a Just Society: Updated and Revised Statement, Kohlberg argues that realistically, good quality citizens are educated to morally develop towards stage four. Higher stages are ideal, but very difficult to realize.

The foreign press' criticism can be seen as a stimuli to develop morals to stage five and stage six. As a stimulus, it should not be faced with anger or excessive irritability. But it should be realized that the process of moral development should take place in a stage-by-stage manner. It seems that for a multi ethnic city-state like Singapore, the state's existence should be maintained and manifested by a strict obedience to social conventions and law. Obedience will guarantee a strong cohesion among the citizens. This reality has most likely created a high sense of stability, so much so that a moral stimulus can be perceived as a severe libel.

Limas Sutanto, a psychiatrist and psychosocial observer, alumnus of the School of Medicines of Gadjah Mada University and Airlangga University.