Free press? Not likely in Singapore

Free press? Not likely in Singapore

Self Censorship: Singapore's Shame
By James Gomez
Think Centre, Singapore, 1999
90 pages
S$18.90

SINGAPORE (JP): What does it take to speak one's mind in
Singapore, especially on topics deemed "sensitive"? A thick skin
helps. That, and a freedom from fear. Evidently, James Gomez
possesses both attributes. A police investigation into his
activities -- mainly for organizing public talks -- has not
daunted him. In late January, police informed Gomez and three of
his friends that they would not be prosecuted for holding a
public forum last October without official permission. The
session was titled Youth and Politics in Singapore. Instead, they
were let off with a "verbal warning".

Since then, Gomez and associates have held at least two other
public forums under the Politics 21 series -- "Every Singaporean
matters". The most recent forum, held in early March, was on the
subject of human rights. Normally it is a topic that would turn
off most Singaporeans, nevertheless, the forum drew about 150
people. Among the speakers that evening was Chee Soon Juan, the
secretary-general of the Singapore Democratic Party, who, after
losing his job at the university, has been reduced to selling his
books on the streets these days.

At the human rights forum, there was a general consensus that
Singaporeans seem to be afraid to speak out. This conclusion, in
fact, forms the basis for Gomez's book, Self Censorship:
Singapore's Shame, which he published himself last year, since,
according to him, no publisher in Singapore dared to undertake
the project. Gomez says he spent S$10,000 of his own money to
publish and promote the 90-page book.

Gomez's willingness to literally put his money where his mouth
is makes him stand out in Singapore society, which finds comfort
in conformity. That Gomez isn't associated with any political
party actually helps his cause. He would like more Singaporeans
to speak their minds openly, without fear, and he is sending out
this message with no obvious political agenda.

A former student activist who majored in political science at
the National University of Singapore, Gomez went on to get a
masters degree in politics from the University of Essex in the
U.K. Currently, he holds the position of a researcher at a German
foundation. He is also a member of the Roundtable, a Singaporean
policy discussion group.

Gomez might have inherited some of his public speaking flair
from his father, Thomas Vincent Gomez, who was a founder of the
once powerful Singapore Mercantile Workers' Union during the
post-colonial period when unions were hotbeds for activism. James
was the youngest of 11 children, but the only one with an
interest in politics. The author dedicated his book to the memory
of his father, who died last year.

A month after he came under police investigation for
organizing the October forum, he applied for a public
entertainment license to launch his book, but the police turned
down the application. They said a book launch per se did not
require a license -- but public talks did. Mindful of watchful
eyes, Gomez refrained from giving a speech during the launch, but
fielded questions.

After the book was launched, however, he found out that not
every major bookstore would carry the title. He threatened to
picket one of them by carrying a placard saying "Shame!" The
threat appeared to work, as the shop eventually made a few copies
available for sale. However, at least one bookstore abruptly
returned unsold copies of the book, proving Gomez correct in his
book title.

Explaining his title, Gomez says: "Singaporeans are very face-
conscious, so shaming them is an effective tool." He states in
the preface: "The strength of the censorial sentiment that
operates within the Republic is so pervasive that it is
crippling. It prevents citizens and residents from raising
questions, voicing opinions and acting on matters that affect
their polity. On the surface, when it comes to regular matters,
everything seems normal in Singapore; however, when it comes to
alternative political expression, it is very different. There is
a climate of fear."

He writes: "This book sets out to demarcate, describe and
evaluate the built-in political self-checking system that helps
the ruling party less visibly maintain its power." He argues
that the phenomenon of self-censorship is one of the tools the
People's Action Party indirectly uses to maintain its hold over
the Republic and its people. Political participation in Singapore
has been regarded as being "the exclusive domain of the PAP".

In Gomez's view, the individual who has different opinions
from mainstream political thought would feel subjected to
informal pressures not to express himself, yielding to one of
three types of censorship: censorship by the state; private self-
censorship; or censorship of others by the people.

Gomez's book does not add anything new to the issue of
expressing political dissent in Singapore. It does not offer any
profound suggestions on overcoming the innate Singaporean
inclination for self-censorship. (Although the author does
include a section titled "Agenda for Action: What Can We Do?")

But the fact that one week after its launch, it became the
best selling nonfiction book at MPH bookstore indicates that
Gomez has struck a chord with some readers.

Encouragingly, the government has signaled that it wants a
lively discussion and debate about the "Singapore 21 vision".
(The Singapore 21 process was initiated by the government in
response to sociodemographic changes such as an aging population
and an increasing social divide. The government consulted over
6,000 people for opinions on how to strengthen community bonds so
people would remain committed to Singapore and to keep the
country "relevant" in the 21st century.) The PAP's current moves
to welcome broader public discussion and participation come after
many years of indoctrinating into most citizens' minds that it is
better to stay "meek and mild," after leading opposition
political figures have been slapped with legal action.

To promote freer discussion, one can only hope that
bureaucrats and civil servants, and indeed, the entire
population, will pay heed to the recent remarks made by Deputy
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who said: "We hold nothing
against anyone for simply holding a different opinion from the
government". For more credibility, he should have added: "Nor
for expressing it."

If the government truly wants progress in achieving the
Singapore 21 vision, it has to ensure that the message permeates
through its ranks. And the day when books like Gomez's raise
yawns rather than eyebrows will be the day Singapore takes a big
step forward in that direction.

-- Nancy Chng