Debunking Myths - 13/04/06

First of all, kudos to MediaCorp for airing the TV forum between journalists and MM Lee Kwan Yew last night, a forum that was memorable in particular because one fellow actually said "We just think the PAP is playing by unfair rules and is power crazy, what do you have to say to that?".  I found that vastly amusing and it was a nice cap to my day.  Unfortunately I proceeded to become irritated when the issue of Hougang and Potong Pasir arose and we heard the same, tired old argument in response from MM Lee about how a party has the right to favour its supporters.

What truly irks me many a time is how the PAP obfuscates and convolutes matters with their dogmatic legalism and seemingly rational rhetorical sophistry.  This hides the heart of the matter and twists it into something else -- into self-serving, small-minded, petty manipulation of words to make it seem like they really are perfectly justified in everything they do.  Let's look at what they've been saying about why they can effectively deny Potong Pasir and Hougang upgrading.

A party has the right to favour its supporters, just like a business would.

The reason why a business would favour its supporters is because of self-interest.  The business, or indeed most other institutions, believes that it can achieve its own goals most effectively if it rewards those who are in favour of their organisation.  The government is crucially and fundamentally different.  Out of all institutions, it should be the one least characterized by self-interest.  This is because the first and foremost duty of the government is to serve the people.  A political party who is willing to sacrifice the interests of the citizens of the country in order to maintain its own political grip over the nation has shattered and perverted its priorities.  Such a political party is not one who gains its mandate through a willingness and dedication to all Singaporeans.  It is a political party who gains its mandate through favouritism and discrimination, alternating according to whichever best serves its own purposes and future.

Potong Pasir and Hougang residents deserve to be treated differently because they have made their choice to sacrifice a better living for the sake of having Opposition rule -- because of this choice, they are different from the rest of Singapore.

When a government takes into consideration the welfare of a nation it must take into consideration the welfare of all its peoples, regardless of their beliefs, as long as these beliefs do not jeopardize other people.  The government's duty of care extends to everyone and does not have the right to discriminate against their moral and political choices.  For a parallel example, let's just take their stand to its logical conclusion.  If governments all around the world were to say tomorrow: "We will not upgrade the houses of Muslim-Malays", we would instinctively reject that as a repulsive and unjust policy, because all Muslim-Malays are entitled to their beliefs, their moral creeds and choices, and they are all part of our "One nation, one people, one Singapore".  So the government must serve them too, if they have any respect whatsoever for their dignity and autonomy as human beings.  Similarly here; Potong Pasir and Hougang residents have made a conscious and informed choice which has to do with their belief system.  Their reasons may be varied -- perhaps they want more political vibrancy.  Perhaps they feel more comfortable with a friendly face in power.  Perhaps they genuinely think the Opposition candidates are more sincere and qualified.  Regardless of their reasons, they are exercising their civic rights and liberties as citizens of a democracy to prioritize these reasons over other considerations.  The government cannot discriminate against them because of this.  Regardless of their choices, they are our citizens! And the government needs to take care of all our citizens.  They need to protect all of us from terrorism, be concerned about how much can all of us afford healthcare, be willing to provide jobs for all of us.  That's because we are one country.  Such a discriminatory policy is only going to divide us along territorial lines, and insinuate that some people are more deserving citizens/all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.

We know something is gravely wrong with democracy when people are penalized for having any power whatsoever in it.  The whole point of having choices is that your choice matters, and can bring about your best welfare.  Democracy becomes poisoned when people are punished for participating, punished for daring to think of themselves as members of a functioning democracy.

We need some new answers from the PAP, but first we need some new questions from ourselves, to ourselves, about what it means to be a citizen, and what it means to be a human being.  Do you instinctively, in your mind and heart, without the trappings of their party rhetoric and official stands and legal codes, feel that what they are doing is ethical? Respectful to the human being? Fair, just, with the interests of the people foremost? We need moral outrage.  We need to care because no one else will.  The international media will write cursory reports on it and tsk-tsk behind our backs, but they are powerless to institute fundamental change.  Look at how The Economist gets sued for damages each time they so much as mention a whiff of nepotism.  If Singaporeans in Bukit Timah, or Marine Parade, don't care about what happens to Singaporeans in Potong Pasir or Hougang, then I have serious doubts on how much they truly deserve and appreciate their citizenship.  Yes, we may point fingers at the PAP, but I think we first need to care.  Are we too jaded to bother? Is it just an insider, intellectual ha-ha poor-people joke? If so, then that's a sad possibility to contemplate.

I wrote this article in the run-up to the elections.  If you'd read the last paragraph, I suspect you might detect my frustration with how the people around me were responding, or rather, seemed not to be responding to the issue of upgrading.  It seemed that mainstream media skirted carefully around the issue, and if letters were sent to the forums I didn't see any of them published.  Were we all afraid to stand up and say: hey, wait, this is just wrong? Please take this chance now to lobby for what should be a basic entitlement of the members of those two constituencies.  This is the least we can do to send a loud, clear signal to the PAP: Singaporeans think, feel and act a little more deeply than just for money. 

GE 2011 will simply have to be run another way.

"We accept the new media; that it's going to be a free-for-all. You can expect a more lively vibrant new media environment particularly during election period. Going forward, we will have to make efforts to engage these people, efforts to accomodate alternative platforms to air their views and we will look at how this can be catered to from now till next GE. It's too early now to say specifically what we will do. We need to study the plans, what's do-able in light of technological changes.

Some level of responsibility will enhance the quality of debate. At the end of the day, what do we want? We want informed debate, we want people to be more aware. That's very much part of a participatory democracy. If you're not informed, you can't take part, if misinformed or worse ill-informed, you are not making a valid contribution in the context of cyberspace and with the rapid development of the new media, having a sense of responsibility and interest to participate from a well informed, objective perspective is a good development."

-- Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts Lee Boon Yang: 31/05/06

It seems that MICA's evaluation of the impact on blogging on GE 2006 has led them to the right conclusions.  The sweeping developments which have revolutionized the balance of power in our political landscape cannot be stemmed.  Online discourse cannot be effectively clamped down upon due to technological avenues such as overseas and anonymous proxies.  To implement anything less than an absolute information blackout would be to incur the wrath of local Singaporeans, many of whom have gained political awareness through the Internet in GE 2006, as well as the disapproval of the international community which already views our ruling party as an anachronistic government in the arena of democracy.  More than anything, this shows that the PAP is finally coming to terms with the fact that Singaporeans cannot be bullied, browbeaten, bribed and threatened into voting with their feet and voting with their fear.  This is a victory that tips the scales of power a little more into the hands of us -- the citizens of Singapore.

I haven't openly agreed with the PAP in quite some time, but in this I must congratulate them on having taken the first steps in embracing the fact that our nation is changing and maturing.  Tactically, I'd say this is the right way to move in order to win back those they've alienated with their hardline tactics.  To continue to edge out opposition parties with their upper hand in a manner that's patently unfair and painfully obvious will only give opposition members the benefit of a martyr complex that will win sympathy to their camp. 

But time will tell if the PAP is only taking this step because it cannot effectively rule out the freedom of expression on the Internet without great social, economic and political cost, or if it genuinely recognizes the value in a maturing society that's starting to open its doors and step out onto the streets, to reach out to one another, and to congregate to discuss how to build their future instead of waiting for their country to be built for them.  One way of judging the genuine level of their commitment is to see if it takes other steps to allow for a more open society in other areas.  To stop threatening its own taxpaying citizens with the prospect of the elderly and the disabled having to overcome many flights of stairs to get to their own homes if they don't vote for the PAP would be an excellent start.  Another way to judge if they are truly becoming more open and inclusive would be to see how it treats those who dare to speak up in ways not confined to the computer screen - will amplification devices be allowed at Speaker's Corner? Will more permits be granted to those who wish to speak up and gather in protest? Will we stop 'embarrassing' the US ambassador by asking him if he wants to press charges when a straggling "crowd" of people gathered outside the US Embassy to demonstrate against the war on Iraq? Lastly, one must bear in mind that they have not reached a decisive conclusion on their treatment of the blogosphere and the online community.  There are still overtones in their words which potentially suggest that some measures will be taken to rein in bloggers if they go too far.  It is entirely possible that they will allow moderate posters to continue, figureheads for the "alternative voice", yet prosecute and punish those who are more extreme in their views and hence considered to be propagating "rumours and lies" in their books.  If censorship will occur at all, we will need a clearer stand from them on how it will be carried out before throwing any wild celebration parties.  After all, it is not the first time we have heard talk of a so-called open, consultative society while the signals tell us otherwise.

These are things the PAP must consider if it wants to prove itself genuine in its intention to entrust more responsibility to our citizens and hence invest more accompanying, underlying and implicit trust in Singaporeans.  But the men in white are not the only ones we should be watching.  We should also turn our eyes to Singaporeans themselves.  Will they take their cue, and capitalize on this opportunity which for the first time in a long while looks optimistic for the future of political participation? The media for instance -- will journalists start to be bolder in pressing for their alternative op-eds and news angles to be published, and will this also see an easing of censorship on the part of the news editors? A kind of tacit adventure of dialogue appears to be presently unfolding.  The PAP has made their overture, and it is time to determine our response.  I for one am keeping my eyes peeled, for just as MICA answers one question, it raises a host of others, and the answers are important in determining the impact of this latest announcement and what it really means for our country.

Addendum: Just as I finished writing the above post, which was based on this CNA article, I was alerted to a different report of the announcment published by the Straits Times and available here on Mr. Wang's blog.  This article focusses more on defending the restrictions which will continue to be in place, rather than the fact that Lee expressed that no action will be taken against those who have posted contents online, according to the CNA write-up.  It's these restrictions specifically which concern me.  It suggests that podcasting for the Opposition will likely continue to be banned, and access to certain materials will still be restricted, as I speculated about earlier on.  The ST article makes me temper my congratulations with an even greater measure of conservative suspicion.  What do you guys think this means? Is this a significant advancement, or just a smokescreen for the continued restriction of online avenues for alternative opinions?