Vaclav Havel was the last president of former USSR satellite state Czechoslovakia and the first President of the Czech Republic.  Reading John Lewis Gaddis' book The Cold War, I came across a mention of Havel that struck a chord so resonant and strong that it might well have been a direct message to me, as a Singaporean.  I felt I had to share it with you.

Havel did not call for outright resistance: given the state's police powers, there would have been little point in that.  Instead he encouraged something more subtle, developing standards for individual behavior apart from those of the state.  People who failed to do this, he wrote, "confirm the system, fulfill the system, make the system, are the system." But people who were true to what they themselves believed - even in so small a matter as a brewer deciding to brew better beer than the official regulations called for - could ultimately subvert the system.  "[W]hen one person cries out, 'The emperor is naked!' - when a single person breaks the rules of a game, thus exposing it as a game - everything suddenly appears in another light, and the whole crust seems then to be made of a tissue on the point of tearing, and disintegrating uncontrollably."

p191-192, John Lewis Gaddis: The Cold War

Havel was a staunch advocate of non-violence to achieve change.  He led the Czech people out of the totalitarian system they had lived in under the USSR in the Velvet Revolution (termed such because of its non-violent nature) of 1989, as their President, and was re-elected after the creation of the independent Czech Republic state soon after, in 1993.  He was the one who coined the phrase 'post-totalitarianism', which he described as a state wherein people could 'live within a lie'.

That describes Singapore perfectly.  Our 'prosperity and progress' government has carefully constructed a system which is comfortable to live and thrive in.  It is one that enables us, all too easily, to look away from the trash heap beneath the bed, because it makes us uncomfortable.  We can afford to ignore so many things because of our easy lives.  But what's left on that trash heap? Lives, reputations, common consideration for every layperson's rights and dignities.  But it's alright, to most Singaporeans; in order for me to be safe and sound, the show must go on.

True enough, the country is calm. Calm as a morgue or a grave, would you not say? -- Havel.

A grave: what has died, what do we bury, what do we mourn? Hopes and aspirations, common sense? Yet perhaps it's easier not to ask too many questions.  I've wondered countless times why I continue to dig this pit for myself by blogging about politics.  I know others have done the same.  If we quit now, if everyone just spontaneously - shut up - maybe the bad things will go away.

The tragedy of modern man is not that he knows less and less about the meaning of his own life, but that it bothers him less and less. -- Havel.

Except we shouldn't.  That is what it comes down to, doesn't it? We could just look out for our own hides.  We could just content ourselves with what we have.  We could just go elsewhere if we're not satisfied.  But what should we do? What is our fundamental moral obligation to our country?

Today, we do not need to revolt violently in order to achieve change.  We do not need to jeopardize everything we have worked to create for the past forty-odd years.  The revolution must happen within us before it can happen without.  We have to realize that we can change the mindset, change the system, because we are not powerless, nor are we alone.  I have to believe that by putting this post up on the Internet as a declaration of my vision of Singapore as a transparent and accountable democracy, I can move some people to think, some people to feel, some lie to unravel.

The exercise of power is determined by thousands of interactions between the world of the powerful and that of the powerless, all the more so because these worlds are never divided by a sharp line: everyone has a small part of himself in both. -- Havel.

The relationship of governance operates both ways: the act of governing, and the act of being governed.  If we do not hold up our end, if we do not agree with how we are being governed, then that relationship is fundamentally altered.  They don't get to determine the outcome of the equation.  Havel is right when he says, furthermore, that 'everyone has a small part of himself in both'.  The powerful are powerful because we have placed them there, and given them that power over us.  The question is: now what?

In the coming posts, I'm not going to indulge myself in too much griping any longer.  My piece has been said, and now it's time to turn my attention to actually scrutinizing the coming developments and issues that determine Singaporean politics.  But this principle, this underlying principle that Havel articulates so brilliantly, will always be in the back of my mind as I do so.  In whatever I write and say, both to utter strangers as well as to my friends and family, I will remember his words, and my aspirations.  I hope you will undertake this journey with me.

"Suppose you had 10, 15, 20 opposition members in Parliament. Instead of spending my time thinking what is the right policy for Singapore, I'm going to spend all my time thinking what's the right way to fix them, to buy my supporters votes..."

-- PM Lee, 3rd May 2006

I think PM Lee says it better himself than I ever could.

Extract from channelnewsasia.com:  Singapore News
	Time is GMT + 8 hours Posted: 04 May 2006 2046 hrs PM Lee says Singapore's future is key issue in General Election By S. Ramesh, Channel NewsAsia Related News   DPM Wong dismisses opposition's pledge over full-time MPs   FM Yeo wants to move on from Gomez issue, focus on Aljunied residents' needs   Singaporeans not getting the opportunities they deserve: SDA's Steve Chia more>>

SINGAPORE : Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has said the most important issue in this General Election is Singapore's future.

He asked for a strong mandate on May 6, so that he and his People's Action Party (PAP) team can take the country forward.

Speaking at a news conference on Thursday, Mr Lee made it clear that there are bigger issues at the polls than opposition candidate James Gomez.

The James Gomez issue has dominated campaigning the last few days, and Mr Lee wants to put it aside.

Mr Lee said he should not have waited for the Workers' Party to respond with details of what exactly happened.

He said the PAP had taken the matter as far as it can for now.

Mr Lee said: "I am not letting it go, that's why I am saying after elections there will have to be a proper public resolution. Right now, the more urgent priority is polling and I want people to be in the right frame of mind when they vote, and to have the right considerations as they sit down today, tomorrow, before they vote, to think what they want to do."

The campaign for the 2006 General Election is nearly over, and Mr Lee said he wanted to refocus on what this election is all about.

Mr Lee said: "I called this election for three purposes. First, to secure a mandate for myself and my team. Secondly, to decide on the future of Singapore and thirdly, to endorse a new team of leaders and MPs to take us forward in the next 15, 20 years.

"In one word, this election is about our future. We have presented the manifesto many times and you are familiar with it. What does it mean? Cast it in a different way, it means Peace and Prosperity for Singapore - PAP."

Oh, so now they want to talk about 'key issues' -- with one day left in the campaigning process! Gee whiz, the PAP must be really concerned about our future to devote one whole day to discussing key issues.  How sad that Singaporeans only got to pick up their newspapers today and read the PAP's last word on 'key issues' on Friday, when by Saturday night we'll know the polling results.

I think the PAP figured out they can't really pull the wool over Singaporeans' eyes any longer with this issue.  Not a single person I've talked to buys the PAP story about how Gomez wants to 'wayang' his way into deceiving everyone.  Everyone's sick, tired, scornful, and now they want to talk about 'key issues'.  My dad would say: my toe can laugh.

I don't think we've seen the last of the Gomez issue.  But for now the PAP is beating a tactical retreat to get in the last word on the key issues that have swung this election.  But I don't think it'll work.  I think they went too far this time, and that the Opposition, in contrast, has conducted themselves in a far more dignified and honourable manner than Them Who Shall Not Be Named.  The Opposition's concerns have been consistent and pushed for:  Healthcare costs.  Upgrading.  Means testing.  Transparency.  And what is the PAP doing? Running away.  On the issue of healthcare costs: no answer.  On the issue of selective upgrading being unethical: no answer.  On the issue of means testing: we'll talk about it later, and anyway maybe we won't implement it after all.  On the issue of transparency: Gomez, Gomez, Gomez -- which people don't buy.

Tomorrow we'll know if Singaporeans decided to let them get away with it.  I hope not.  I think not.  I think tomorrow we'll make them hurt, maybe not too much, but enough for them to know that they can't play this game with us for very much longer.  No landslide victory, no 75% mandate this time round.

Singaporeans, please let me believe in you.  Lee Hsien Loong got one thing right -- it is about our future.  That is the real 'key issue': if we want our future to continue to be one of being bullied, cowed, and distracted into being yes-people, or if we can find it in ourselves to be something more.  Something greater.  Not just a rich country behind whose back everyone laughs at, but a country with real dignity, who can't be pushed around.

They wanted me to care.  They said they put me in a cream-of-the-crop education system and spent money on me so I would care.  They wrote in my Social Studies textbook that I had to care.  Now I care, and I dare them to tell me to care in any other way. 

Melodramatic? Yeah.  Angsty? Rather.  It's not that I'm not self-aware ;) I generally disdain ranting and raving and white-noise diatribes.  But I think tonight, I have that right -- no, I have that obligation, to dare to feel something for the key issue of our future.  And I will make no bones about it, nor apologies. Cheers everyone: tomorrow we will know.

It's obvious that the Singaporean media has a clear bias towards one party, It Which Must Not Be Named.  I don't think the newspapers are exactly a propaganda machine, as most bloggers claim -- opposition views do come up, albeit in a less frequent and more shallow manner.  Once in awhile alternative opinions are offered.  But though the censorship and bias is subtle, it is also apparent.  Now, our journalists are educated, articulate, intelligent people, and we can only assume that the editors are too.  So why is this bias coming through?

I do know by virtue of association some people who work for the Straits Times, either as journalists or in high-level executive positions.  The problem is convincing any of them to speak up, for fear of retaliation from the person who commands the payroll.  Former Deputy Prime Minister Tony Tan is the current chairman of Singapore Press Holdings, which publishes the Straits Times, and owns a 40% stake in MediaCorp, who broadcasts television news and publishes Today.  That is pretty formidable to journalists, and understandably so.  Straits Times journalists are pretty damn well-paid, and this naturally makes it all the more difficult for them to take a step that would jeopardize their careers or the food they're able to bring to the table.  This means two things; first of all, no one is going to step up and commit to what's been going on in the press, because that's putting their head on the chopping block.  Secondly, even if I hear things -- and I do -- that give me insight into how things work, everything I say will only be hearsay, because I don't have the right to put other people in that kind of uncomfortable and threatening situation by telling the world who said what.

Let me just hypothetically say that the journalists largely exercise self-censorship.  When they do not, they hypothetically face the dismembering and disfiguration of their articles.  This is because the editors are hypothetically afraid of reproach from the higher-ups.  Hypothetically, they justify it to themselves by saying that 'every newspaper must take a stand', and that no newspaper is free from bias.  Hypothetically, once in awhile when editors step out of line, they may receive a stern reprimand.  But I don't think that there is any active persecution of journalists.  I don't think there is anyone telling them what to write and how.  I don't even think there are consciously expressed instructions of what is acceptable and what isn't.  I think it's more of an unspoken understanding.  That's curious about Singaporeans -- a law here, a law there, and they shrink back into their shells.  Are we really under so much pressure? Do we do it to ourselves, and have we ourselves to blame?

The white elephant T-shirt incident, where RGS girls sold T-shirts with the white elephant on them in a form of mild political protest, was extremely illuminating.  The police issued warnings to them -- but on whose instructions? I don't think the head of the ISD woke up one morning, read about it and went 'tell those girls we will lock them up if they continue to sell those T-shirts'.  I think it was more like the police chief thinking, oh no, will I be in trouble if I let this carry on? Is my job at stake? Hence the ridiculous action taken of clamping down on the kids.

We're a society who lives in a self-bounded prison of our own fears.  I've always felt that the most important part to freedom is realizing that we are free.  What holds us in, what stops us from realizing it, are all arbitrary constructs that very often have little potential to really harm us.  Yes, we are judicious.  Yes, we are wary.  Yes, we are cautious.  But it doesn't mean that we should resort to paranoia, or assumption that everyone who speaks out will be persecuted.  I have a friend who says her family will be voting for the PAP because her relatives, father included, are in prominent positions in society.  Here's a curious thing -- not a single person I've talked to believes that the vote is secret.  I'm the only person who thinks it is.  Maybe I'm naiive, or maybe I'm right: that the PAP, being such a legalistic party who prides itself on non-corruption, wouldn't put itself at risk by doing that.  That the PAP is arrogant enough to feel that they can get by without doing that (and they can).  What gives them this license? Ourselves, our fears, our active imaginations, our assumptions, our fetters.

On other news: I heard today from an again unnamed source that more news will be revealed on the Gomez issue, and we're edging closer to a police investigation.  That the PAP is unveiling its strategy in stages and we're only in an intermediate phase.  Hmm.  I have to go for class now, but I'll leave you with that thought.