Between moral stimulus and severe libel

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.