STRAITS TIMES WARNS: MY VIEWS NOT SUITABLE FOR THE OLD

The Straits Times, the nation's arbiter of freshness and originality, has issued this declaration about Cherian George and other "politically passionate people": "For older Singaporeans, much of what these political observers say may be old hat." (ST, Friday 22 February, p35) Readers of this and my other blogs, consider yourselves warned.

NEW WEBSITE ON JOURNALISM ISSUES

Do visit my new website, journalism.sg, dedicated to journalism issues in Singapore.

SINGAPORE ELECTIONS AND THE MAINSTREAM PRESS

Of all my musings about the Singapore elections and media old and new, the one that’s been most robustly resisted by the blogsphere is my observation that mainstream media coverage of the GE has improved. Bloggers accuse me of having an “agenda” (how easily we imbibe the discourse of the ruling party!) and wonder ruefully if I’ve toned down my views. Online, it seems, the only acceptable, flame-proof stand is that the press has been hopelessly pro-government and that Singapore reporters and editors deserve nothing but contempt for their performance. Allow me to say why such conclusions, first, fail to explain what we’ve seen in the media and, second, actually help the to perpetuate the press system. In case the second point didn’t register, let me restate it: most of the critiques I’ve read and heard about the Straits Times, CNA and other media by the anti-PAP crowd play into the hands of those trying to preserve the status quo. More on that later. Let me elaborate on my observations as systematically as I can.

1. Opposition coverage has been greater and fairer than at any point in the past 30 years at least. (Sorry, none of the objections I’ve read persuades me otherwise.) This is an impressionistic observation, but I am willing to wager that it would be borne out by any more systematic study, using quantitative methods such as content analysis or qualitative methods such as framing/discourse analysis, whether it’s of stories, headlines or pictures. No doubt, students at NTU and NUS will latch on this as a possible thesis topic, so we may have better evidence within a year or two.

2. There are multiple reasons for this improvement. Within newsrooms, there have always been editors and reporters who want to do a professional job if allowed to. Externally, there is pressure from alternative media, which are competing for influence. At the top of the system, there is a government that has always recognised that it must temper its impulse to control – not out of respect for liberal ideology, but because it knows if it completely destroys the mainstream media’s credibility, it will lose its main ideological vehicle.

3. Improvements in mainstream media performance have not caught up with the expectations of more critical, questioning Singaporeans. If you did not buy points 1 and 2, point 3 explains why. The mainstream media have improved in absolute terms, but this is of little comfort to individual readers and viewers like you, who will naturally judge media performance relative to your own expectations. And expectations have risen. Most of the reasons are obvious – education, etc – but one may be less so and is worth mentioning: the press itself has raised the bar over the years by publishing more intelligent columns and especially letters.

4. The mainstream media will never catch up with, let alone lead, expectations. The PAP press system ensures this. The government makes absolutely clear that the Singapore press has no right to set the national agenda. To put it another way, the press is not allowed to be an opinion leader or in the vanguard of change as an institution (though individual columnists may occasionally be the first to make a point). That’s the role of an elected government, the PAP says. The press is instead expected to be an opinion follower, reflecting (or maybe just slightly ahead of) the broad middle ground and its mainstream values. Whenever government leaders suspect the press of moving too far too fast, it is pulled back. However, it is not just political control, but also the nature of modern journalism, that keeps the mainstream press conservative, as I try to explain in the next two points.

5. Professionally, the principle of objectivity tells journalists to treat the world as it is, not as they think it should be. Even in societies with a free press, most professional journalists would baulk at the suggestion that they should play an active role in helping to reform the dominant political order. To get around this mental block, they would need to critique their understanding of what it means to be “objective”. This debate is taking place within the profession in the West, but it is nowhere near toppling the “cult of objectivity”, as some critics call it. Thus, professional, mainstream journalism is fundamentally conservative the world over, reflecting rather than challenging the existing power structure. (Vigorous debates in the press are in invariably reflective of a divided establishment, rather than a case of press vs establishment.)

6. Financially, it makes sense for commercial media to identify most closely with the middle bulge of readers/viewers, rather than with the minorities at either end of the political/values spectrum. Again, this factor is independent of political control. But have the media correctly assessed their market? My own view is that even after allowing for the fear factor and the lack of choice, the majority of Singaporeans (and we can quibble about just how big or small a majority it is, but it’s the majority nonetheless) are strongly in favour of continued PAP rule. (So is the stock market, apparently.) There is implicit acknowledgement of this in the blogsphere, in references to “mainstream” media. Let’s be honest: all said and done, critical bloggers know they don’t speak for the mainstream market. If they did, some (like Malaysiakini or Harakah in Malaysia, under a similar regulatory regime) would try to capitalise on it and try to become more than amateurs and hobbyists.

7. Given this mix of political, professional and financial factors, it is not surprising that the mainstream media reflect, rather than challenge, PAP dominance. In this regard, the press is not unique. Every major institution and profession in Singapore, similarly, is organically and structurally linked to the status quo, which is why the PAP system is so resilient. Most of us are part of this system for better or worse. Academics, lawyers, stockbrokers, businessmen, artists – the overwhelming majority work within Singapore as it is, even if this is not quite Singapore as some think it ought to be. (For example, I have yet to meet a stockbroker who would recommend dumping a stock, including SPH stock, just to chip away at PAP dominance. Yet, there’s no shortage of finance industry types who will take a holier-than-thou attitude towards journalists whose professional judgments, like theirs, are based on current, expressed needs of their customers rather than some hypothetical market of the distant future.) The main reason why journalists get more stick is that they are more visible, and not because they are any less professional or ethical than any other professional group. (And if you think the finance industry is less relevant politically than is the press, go read your Marx.)

8. Critics who only attack the mainstream media are barking up the wrong tree. Most societies have examples of mainstream, pro-establishment media that are not sympathetic to radical or progressive forces. In other words, in many countries with a free press, you will find newspapers not very unlike The Straits Times and Today. The big difference is that in those societies, such newspapers are not given government-protected monopolies. There is media diversity, including small non-commercial, cause-driven media published for ideological reasons. For those interested in media reform, the real issue is the absence of such alternatives, which can only be addressed by reviewing the media licensing regime. As long as critics focus their fire almost exclusively on mainstream media instead of the regulatory structure, the press system will outlast them, and every criticism expressed in GE2006 will be repeated in GE2010 as it was in GE2001, GE1997, GE1991...

9. Any serious attempt at regulatory reform must address these and other questions: (a) How to ensure that freer media remain accountable to the public, when even now not all journalists act responsibly all of the time? (b) How to deal with political expression that may be inflammatory? (c) Shouldn’t the government, elected by the people, be able to do its job decisively without being encumbered by fringe media that have no responsibilities to the larger public? Liberals have ready answers to these questions, but the real challenge is to get a buy-in from the majority of Singaporeans, let alone the government itself. Until these questions are persuasively engaged and answered, the government – supported by a majority of Singaporeans who are equally wary of taking risks with their way of life - will not want media reform placed on the agenda.

10. Finally, as a journalism educator, a (longer) word about whether this profession is worth bothering with. If you have no ties to Singapore, it is entirely rational to avoid practising journalism here. It is just too difficult. However, if you are a Singaporean with a love and respect for the written word, insatiable curiosity and a questioning mind, and a sense of duty to your community, the answer is equally clear: journalism in Singapore is challenging but still meaningful. If you are intelligent and conscientious, is the public better served by you stepping into the profession, or staying out? The answer is still the former. Then, what does it take to survive as a journalist under the PAP? If the PAP mismanages the press and utterly crushes the profession, the only journalists who’ll remain are the unthinking and unethical – stupid or self-serving sycophants. This may yet happen, but thankfully it is not yet the case. As of now, individual journalists can still serve themselves, their professions, their employers and their society best by striving to be better journalists – more hardworking, more in-touch, more analytical. I don’t care if this makes me sound too idealistic or too much of an apologist. As of now, I believe it to be the case. As for the larger issues of press reform, this is beyond us as individual journalists or individual newspapers to determine. Until there are signals from the rest of Singapore society, we journalists have to take the press system as a given and work within it. As for those outside the press who take potshots from behind the safety of their own jobs and the cloak of anonymity, they are no less realistic, pragmatic, cowardly – and Singaporean – than those who work within. Elections always bring out people’s frustration with the press, like at no other time. Paradoxically, it is also around this time when accusations fly from government leaders that the press is full of radicals with a pro-opposition agenda. The government, just like liberals, has its own ideas of what Singapore should be, differing from what Singapore actually is. Faced with that contradiction, the intellectually simplest response will always be to shoot the messenger. Often, journalists deserve it, and can learn from it. But journalists who know they’ve done their best needn’t take it personally. It is part of the Singapore condition – the national dilemma of how to reconcile the benefits of a dominant party system with the need for more checks and balances. PAP dominance: can’t live with it, can’t live without it.

[16 MAY UPDATE: Thanks to Alex "Yawning Bread" Au for engaging and extending the above arguments, and especially for providing some pithy examples of unbalanced coverage. Especially interesting: a case of unethical image-manipulation by CNA. See "Flat-footed and Worse" at www.yawningbread.org.]

SINGAPORE ELECTIONS: TWO POSITIVE SIGNS

After an acrimonious campaign fought in above-average rain and thunder, I’m inclined to look for rays of sunshine peeking through the parting clouds. I found at least a couple.

The first was the sheer class with which the Workers’ Party wrapped up its campaign. Reciting the national Pledge in closing its final rally. Sticking calmly and resolutely to its message that the WP would be judged by voters, not the PAP. Sylvia Lim warmly congratulating the winning PAP team in Aljunied. This is a party that has understood that Singapore’s swing voters don’t want a hysterical Opposition, but one that reflects voters’ image of themselves: rational and reasonable. This is also party with a long-term plan. It has introduced new candidates so young that the WP can count on a slate of seasoned campaigners not just in the next GE, but in the one after that. We are looking at the real possibility of a WP breakthrough at around the same time that Mr Lee Kuan Yew leaves the stage. It’s the prospect of a new era that even the PAP should welcome: a more competitive political scene that, if the PAP’s own party line is to be believed, will keep the ruling party responsive, honest and generally on its toes.

The second ray of sunshine, which came at 2am after the election results, is possibly even more significant. Singaporeans have learnt to dread the PAP post-results press conferences. PAP leaders have earned a reputation for being sore winners. Results that would send other countries’ politicians over the moon are met with black faces. Voters are scolded and lectured for being ungrateful. Veiled threats are issued against segments of the population suspected of denying the PAP the 100% vote that it thinks it is entitled to. When PM Lee appeared on TV, I expected him to honour to this classic PAP tradition. To say that I was pleasantly surprised is an understatement. The PM threw out the old PAP script and did exactly what he should do. He acted Prime Ministerial. Everything he said, and the way he said it, had this sub-text: the time to be partisan is over; from this moment, I act as the PM of this nation, not as the leader of a party.

Thus, he had only good things to say about the Workers Party and the two Opposition MPs Chiam See Tong and Low Thia Khiang. He empathised with voters who stuck with the Opposition incumbents, choosing to see their decision as emanating from something virtuous – voter loyalty – rather than any irrational or irresponsible impulse. Sure, he couldn’t resist a jibe at former WP leader JB Jeyaretnam and the SDP, but these did not detract from a generally gracious victory speech. Old style PAP politicians might see this as softness on the PM’s part. Wasn’t he basically legitimising the Opposition? I think, however, that the PM’s post-election message is the smartest tack for the PAP. First, it acknowledges that the appetite for Parliamentary opposition cannot be wished away. The ruling party has to respect that desire. Second, however, the challenge is to channel that appetite towards what the PAP has called “First World” Opposition. To achieve this, it is worth anointing some types of Opposition in order to draw a contrast with other types regarded as illegitimate.

Third, and most importantly, the PM’s message has the effect of setting the PAP apart from the hoi polloi of political parties. If Opposition MPs are inevitable and perhaps even a growing force, the battleground for the PAP must shift. It is no longer about monopolising Parliamentary seats. Instead, it is about establishing in Singaporeans’ minds that the PAP remains the natural party of government, and the only party of national unity – regardless of whether the Opposition has two or 10 seats. To sell this idea, the PM must act accordingly. He must be above the fray. As much as possible, he must act as if it is beneath him to engage in street fights with political parties that are nowhere close to challenging the PAP’s status as the party of government.

Unfortunately, old habits die hard. We’ve seen too many of those old habits over the past month. We can only hope that PAP leaders do an honest post-mortem of their campaign. Clearly, voters were not impressed by the PAP’s heavy artillery directed at James Gomez and the two incumbent Opposition MPs. It appears to have backfired. It earned neither respect, nor votes – a lose-lose proposition. It was seen as divisive, and at odds with Mr Lee’s agenda outside of elections, which is increasingly about inclusiveness and respect for diversity. In fact, it may be precisely because Singaporeans bought into the new PM’s vision that they found it hard to swallow the PAP’s hardline election rhetoric and tactics. Mr Lee had built up a considerable stock of goodwill since becoming PM, but the PAP drew down on those reserves in its campaign. As the party of national unity, the PAP should now put the polls behind it and get back on message. The PM’s conduct of his post-election press conference was a superb start.

Let’s see where the PAP goes from here. There are three bits of unfinished business:
1. The lawsuit against Chee and the SDP. One can assume that this will proceed full steam ahead, and that this will not upset too many Singaporeans, as most seem to have understood that Chee is deliberately courting trouble in order to grab attention.
2. The James Gomez affair. The Aljunied results show that people are not persuaded that it's a big deal, even if they agree that his conduct was suspicious. Will the government dig itself even deeper to "win" the argument? This is a high risk gambit, the risk being that the government looks ridiculous at the precise moment that it should be focusing attention on its victory. No doubt, action won't be pursued if there isn't a watertight legal case, but there is also the court of public opinion to consider. (Update: the police have stepped in to investigate a complaint of "criminal intimidation" of the elections department by Gomez.)
3. Upgrading and estate improvement for Hougang and Potong Pasir. This is not an immediate issue, but the government will need to confront it eventually. The fact of the matter is that it is untenable for the PAP government to preside over a Singapore that includes any urban slum. Whoever the MP is, the government will have to intervene before any HDB estate becomes decrepit. Not to do so is to undermine its performance legitimacy. Imagine news pictures of a rundown estate in the world's press. The cost to Singapore's reputation would be just too high.

SINGAPORE ELECTIONS: SDP’S FUTURE

Here’s what the SDP contributed to GE2006: 2.2 points to the PAP’s vote share. If it had not contested at all, the PAP’s share would have been 64.4 percent, not 66.6. Voters have rejected the Singapore Democratic Party once again, but this is unlikely to be the end of the story. It is inevitable that the party will split, if not entirely disintegrate.

Really, the only surprise is that the SDP has cohered as long as it has. For several years, there’s been an irreconcilable contradiction at the heart of the SDP leadership. The old SDP, represented by chairman Ling How Doong and other stalwarts, wants to win Parliamentary seats and knows from experience that the way to do this is by painstakingly cultivating the grassroots (even if in practice they lack the energy or resources to do it). The new SDP, led by Chee Soon Juan, is less interested in electoral politics. It is instead engaging in a long term struggle to transform political culture in Singapore.

Although these two missions sound complementary in theory, that’s only the case if there’s a conscious effort to balance them. Chee has made no such effort. It’s easy to understand why. Having been roundly rebuffed by voters in past polls, and now disqualified from contesting, he knows that his personal future lies with getting the attention and approval of foreign pro-democracy groups. Since these groups deal routinely with far larger and more brutal regimes than Singapore, Chee can only sustain their interest in him if he remains in the news as a victim of PAP authoritarianism. His repeated attempts to provoke the authorities – inviting fines, suits and even jail terms – seem crazy in the eyes of many Singaporeans, but are entirely rational when one realises who his real audience is.

Whether or not you agree with his strategy, the point is that it is at odds with the interests of the rest of the Opposition, including most of his SDP colleagues. I suspect that Chee was only tolerated by the likes of Ling because he was willing to do the work. At best, it was a live and let live relationship. It was a relationship that always looked vulnerable to pressure – and that pressure was provided by the PAP’s lawsuit, which forced SDP leaders to decide where their interests really lay.

SINGAPORE ELECTIONS: MIXED MESSAGES

The PAP is back in power and Mr Lee Hsien Loong has won his mandate, but victory has come at a cost to his political capital. Unfortunately, the PAP seems to know only one way to fight elections. That unchanged style is at odds with its approach outside of elections, which is increasingly about inclusiveness and respect for diversity. In fact, it may be precisely because Singaporeans bought into the new PM’s new vision that they found it hard to swallow the PAP’s old-style election rhetoric. Notably, its upgrading-for-votes gambit was not just unpalatable but also ultimately ineffective – a lose-lose proposition. Mr Lee had built up a tremendous stock of goodwill since he became PM, but the PAP drew down on those reserves in a campaign that was unnecessarily divisive. As the party of national unity, the PAP must now put the polls behind it and get back on message.

16-YEAR-OLDS RIP INTO ME

Anyone who stereotypes Singapore students as apathetic, uninteresting and generally "blurr" would be heartened to read this blog, in which integrated programme students of Victoria Junior College mercilessly post-mortem my recent talk to them. It's especially heartwarming to read them working through the question of whether people need to be labeled as pro-this or pro-that. Click here.

THE CARTOON CONTROVERSY AND THE LIBERAL PRESS

[This is the text of a talk given at a forum organised by the Singapore Institute of International Affairs, 27 February 2005.]

Ever since the controversy over the Prophet Mohammed cartoons broke out, allusions have been made to a so-called Clash of Civilisations between the West and Islam.

More sober minds have rightly resisted framing the issue in such polarising terms. Yes, Muslims may be universally offended by the cartoons. However, the politicisation of this affair and its escalation into acts and threats of violence by some people in some places was contingent upon quite specific political factors, and not some built-in tendency within Islamic civilisation.

Similar nuance is called for when thinking about what the controversy says about Western media. A strong commitment to liberal ideals is not necessarily incompatible with greater sensitivity to the feelings of Muslims and other cultural groups. The media do need to accommodate a global, multicultural audience, but these accommodations can be made within the Western discourse on press freedom.

Just as Muslim leaders and thinkers today are finding, within Islamic tradition itself, the cultural and theological resources for a tolerant and progressive worldview to challenge extreme and militant thinking, so too it is possible for the liberal West to locate, within its own discourse, the seeds for more sensitive media coverage of the world.

A good starting point is a 60-year-old document, A Free and Responsible Press. Better known as the Hutchins Commission report, it was published by a commission of inquiry initiated by Henry Luce, the founder of Time magazine. It is a classic text that continues to be essential reading in many journalism and media studies programmes in America.

Being a thoroughly American document, the report stays true to the principle of the First Amendment, under which the government is basically prohibited from making any law that infringes on press freedom. However, as its title states, the report invokes the need for responsibility.

It makes a crucial distinction between press freedom as a moral right and press freedom as a legal right. Press freedom is a moral right because a man “owes it to his conscience and the common good” to express his ideas. Yet, precisely because the right is based on the duty one owes to the common good, the right disappears when the duty is ignored or rejected, the commission said. “In the absence of accepted moral duties there are no moral rights.”

This description of a moral right that only exists when twinned with responsibilities sounds surprisingly similar to how press freedom is cast outside of the liberal West. Thus, at the level of moral arguments, the civilisational divide is not as great as is sometimes assumed.

It is in translating morality to law, however, that there is a significant difference. In the liberal view, as expressed by the Hutchins Commission report, legal rights must always be broader than moral rights. In other words, the moral responsibility of the press cannot be made legally compulsory. To allow the state to encroach on legal rights when the press gives up its moral rights may be “a cure worse than the disease”, as the report puts it.

While no country offers its citizens absolute legal freedoms, it is certainly the case that legal protections against censorship are wider in liberal jurisdictions than in non-liberal jurisdictions, where there is a stronger impulse to fit the legal to the moral.

So, yes, there is a yawning divide in legal rights between liberal and non-liberal societies. However, defenders of liberal freedoms have struck an unnecessarily petulant note in the current debate by failing to distinguish moral arguments from legal arguments.

Liberal societies have good reasons for protecting press freedom with broad legal rights.
However, they confuse themselves and offend others when they say that the press is right to publish whatever the press has the right to publish; in other words, to equate what the press can do in a liberal society with what the press should do.

This is a matter of conjecture, but I do suspect that the present furor could have been averted if, early on, politicians and journalists in the West had made such distinctions, and resisted the urge to mount the moral high ground when defending the legal rights of their newspapers. It was their failure to acknowledge that the offending newspapers had violated any moral duty that provoked the Muslim anger.

Unfortunately, liberal societies tend to be allergic to any criticism of the press by government leaders. Politicians observe this taboo out of respect for press freedom. Such an attitude is misguided. In liberal societies where press freedom is deeply entrenched, it is self-serving of the press to affect indignation at any criticism of its conduct, as if it is a precursor to censorship. Furthermore, such reactions smack of a deeper fraud. Press freedom does not belong to the press; it belongs to society as a whole. Liberal societies should have no qualms about members of society, even its political leaders, declaring that the press did not get it right, and if necessary disowning views that are circulated in the media.

Such an admissions of failure, I have tried to argue, would not violate the precepts of liberalism or press freedom.

On the contrary, as the Hutchins Commission report suggests when talking about the future of press freedom in America, “The legal right will stand if the moral right is realized or tolerably approximated.” That is why, across liberal societies, newspapers generally do not take too many liberties with the feelings and values of their own communities. They have the legal right to, but they choose not to offend their readers’ deepest cultural and religious norms, either because the journalists share those norms or because they know better than to alienate their readers too much.

Thus, accommodating different communities around the world, including Muslims, does not require any qualitative shift in what the best liberal newspapers already do. It simply requires that existing professional instincts be applied to the new realities of globalisation.

Many Muslims have argued that the way to build bridges with the non-Muslim west is not to be any less of a Muslim but to be a better Muslim. The same logic applies to the liberal press. The way to accommodate communities that they do not understand is not to be any less of a liberal journalist, but to be a better liberal journalist.

CALIBRATED COERCION


Managing civil disobedience

Note: My academic paper on this subject has been published in the Working Paper series of the Asia Research Institute, NUS. You may download the PDF file by clicking here. I've tried to apply these ideas in analysing Chee Soon Juan's strategy of civil disobedience. Below is an op-ed piece published in The Straits Times on this topic, and the ensuing exchange with the government. The op-ed piece first appeared on this site. (See an earlier posting below, which contains more comments from readers.)

The Straits Times, 10 October 2005, Pg 19
By Cherian George

THE 'white elephants' affair has resulted in a 'stern warning' to its unnamed perpetrator. After this case, people will be more careful to check that they do not accidentally flout the law, as the unfortunate Mahout of Buangkok appears to have done.

However, this is unlikely to be the last such case. The stern warning will not deter opposition activists who believe in deliberately breaking the law to make a political point. Their attempt to inject civil disobedience into Singapore's body politic represents an intriguing challenge to the People's Action Party's ideological hold. It calls for deft handling. While thwarting a protest is easy for the authorities, the question is how much political capital they will have to spend in the process.

This is the real power of such campaigns. By deliberately but non-violently flouting laws that they deem unjust, opponents put the authorities in a fix.

The state could choose to close one eye, but this would diminish its authority and probably invite follow-up breaches until these are too large or too flagrant to be ignored. If the state responds with force against a peaceful protest, the activists can still try to claim the moral victory. They may succeed in convincing the wider public that the law in question - and the state's power in general - is neither just nor moral, but instead backed by sheer force.

Thus, campaigns of civil disobedience test a state's moral legitimacy, revealing whether its rule is based mainly on consent or on coercion.

Dr Chee Soon Juan has been dabbling with this strategy for some years, at least since 1998, when he spoke in public without a permit and landed up in prison. His new book, The Power Of Courage, promotes non-violent civil disobedience as an opposition strategy in Singapore.

The Government has responded that the rule of law must be respected. Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng said that wilful law-breaking 'regardless of whether you think it is a silly law or not ... does violence to the rule of law', even if the actions are peaceful.

While the principle of zero tolerance for law-breaking is straightforward, applying it will be a challenge. Civil disobedience will test a key element of PAP governance: its acumen in calibrating its use of force against political challengers, such that opponents are neutralised with minimum collateral damage.

This is not to deny the other - and much better-understood - sources of the PAP's strength, namely its outstanding record in delivering the goods, its internal discipline and its ability to win genuine freely-given loyalty from the majority of Singaporeans.

But every state, by definition, also comprises instruments of force. And the intelligent use of force is no less a dimension of good governance than, say, an efficient bureaucracy or long-term urban planning.

Its calibrated approach to coercion may be one of the least appreciated of the PAP's many skills. Indeed, stating it this way will probably provoke some incredulity. After all, even some of the PAP's most ardent supporters think it is guilty of occasional overkill. PAP leaders themselves are not coy about their macho side. Mr Lee Kuan Yew talks of knuckledusters and nation-building with equal aplomb. If the PAP were to develop and market a computer game, it would be a cross between SimCity and Street Fighter.

Self-restraint

IMAGE aside, however, the facts show a government increasingly aware of the need to exercise self-restraint in its use of force. Yes, it has an array of repressive tools within easy reach. But, compared with other states that possess similar tools and are controlled by similarly strong-willed leaders, Singapore's Government has been relatively judicious and sophisticated in their use.

The spectrum of coercive tools available to an authoritarian regime today ranges from political murders and disappearances, and torture and imprisonment without trial, to criminal prosecution, civil action, the banning of organisations, sabotaging opponents' means of earning a living and character attacks through state-controlled media.

The most extreme of these tools have never been used in Singapore. And it is noteworthy that detention without trial, under the Internal Security Act, was used frequently in the 1960s and 1970s but has not been applied to non-violent political opponents in almost two decades.

As for criminal prosecutions, most of these have not involved jail terms. Dr Chee went to prison because he would not pay a fine. The state's weapon of choice - defamation civil suits - similarly does not involve incarceration, though it can be devastating financially.

Some may argue that these distinctions are academic, as the PAP's calibrated coercion is still coercive enough to neutralise the opposition. On the one hand, that is precisely the point being argued here: The PAP has developed into an art form the ability to suppress challenges with a fraction of the brutality employed by the most ruthless dictatorships, but with an effectiveness that more than matches them.

Still, the difference between physical torture and a lawsuit is hardly insignificant. To claim otherwise - to say that Singapore is like the Soviet Union of the past, or like Zimbabwe today - is to trivialise the suffering of dissidents in some of the most inhumane regimes of the modern era.

Furthermore, different tools have different secondary effects. That is why calibrated coercion is not only more ethical than unbridled repression, but also the smarter option for any regime interested in long-term consolidation rather than short-term plunder.

States that overplay their hand often find the excessive violence backfiring on them. It unleashes a moral outrage that opponents can harness to mobilise a hitherto-inert public behind their cause.

Tipping points

IN THE Philippines, the sight of opposition leader Benigno Aquino Jr, gunned down in cold blood on the tarmac of Manila International Airport in 1983, was the beginning of the end of the Ferdinand Marcos regime.

Indonesia, May 1998: The shooting of four student protesters was the tipping point that turned the Reformasi campaign against then-president Suharto into a full-blown revolution.

Malaysia's Reformasi got a fillip from sensational images of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim being snatched away under the Internal Security Act and then emerging from custody with a black eye, courtesy of the country's police chief.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew would later comment that the Mahathir government erred tactically in using the ISA instead of a straightforward criminal charge - a rare hint that the calibration of coercion is a conscious policy, even if never enunciated.

One of the few political theorists to have analysed the cost of a state's violence to the state itself was political philosopher Hannah Arendt.

In her pithy treatise On Violence, she rejected Mao Zedong's oft-quoted dictum by arguing that while violence can flow from the barrel of a gun, power cannot.

Power corresponds to the human ability to act in concert; it belongs to a group and exists only as long as the group coheres.

'Single men without others to support them never have enough power to use violence successfully,' she wrote.

'Even the totalitarian ruler, whose chief instrument of rule is torture, needs a power basis - the secret police and its net of informers ... Where commands are no longer obeyed, the means of violence are of no use ... Everything depends on the power behind the violence.'

Power is sustained by legitimacy, and legitimacy is what's lost when violence is misapplied. 'To substitute violence for power can bring victory, but the price is very high; for it is not only paid by the vanquished, it is also paid by the victor in terms of his own power,' she said.

Therefore, even though violence, power and authority often appear together, they are not the same. Indeed, she added: 'Power and violence are opposites; where one rules absolutely, the other is absent. Violence appears when power is in jeopardy, but left to its own course it ends in power's disappearance.'

Arendt thus zoomed in on the counter-intuitive truth that run-of-the-mill dictators have failed to understand. As in so many other areas, the PAP belongs in a different league. It may have wielded mallets to smash assorted flies in the 1960s and 1970s, but since the mid-1980s it has been relatively self-restrained in the use of force.

This is why the Catherine Lim Affair was able to create such a stir in the mid-1990s, and is still talked about 10 years later, despite the fact that she was not arrested, exiled or 'fixed'. Her books were still published and used as literature texts in government schools, so she was not even punished professionally.

Three decades ago, these less-calibrated means of coercion were more routine. A Singaporean from that period, transported through time to the present day, would be dumbfounded by the notion that the Catherine Lim Affair - which never got nastier than a verbal lashing - could be iconic of PAP intolerance towards dissent. He would have concluded, correctly, that the PAP had changed.

Our time-traveller would be wrong, however, if he assumed that the PAP had undergone a fundamental philosophical conversion towards liberal ideals. As Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong emphasised at his talk at the Foreign Correspondents Association last Thursday, it has not - and will not.

The change is instead at the level of methodology. By systematically shifting political controls behind the scenes - through legislation covering trade unions, universities, the press, religious groups and the legal profession - the PAP has pre-empted ugly confrontations with institutions that could challenge its authority.

Mixed blessing

THE contemporary scene of calibrated coercion is a mixed blessing for Singaporeans who want more freedom. There is certainly less cause for fear today than in the old days when coercion was more blunt. On the other hand, the PAP's self-restraint gives its opponents less moral ammunition.

Controls are so seamlessly integrated into the system and coercion is so well calibrated that the average Singaporean can go through much of life without bumping into the hard edges of PAP authoritarianism. This is bad news for pro-democracy activists, who consequently have a tough time reminding Singaporeans that they should care about political liberalisation.

That is where Dr Chee's strategy of civil disobedience comes in. It is a predictable response to the PAP's success at calibrated coercion. It involves seeking out laws that may not enjoy great public support, and deliberately flouting them to provoke a forceful response. The use of force will ensure victory to the PAP, but the price of victory, to borrow Arendt's words, will be 'paid by the victor in terms of his own power'. The strategy turns the state's monopoly of force against itself.

Other states have fallen into the trap when those at the top miscalculate, or when their functionaries - especially the police or army - get trigger-happy when putting down peaceful protests. There is little risk of the latter in Singapore, where uniformed services are highly disciplined and under firm civilian direction. The former scenario - political miscalculation - also seems unlikely.

However, it should be noted that a new and less experienced generation of ministers and permanent secretaries is taking charge. For them, there may be an urge to deal with challengers of any sort in the most expeditious manner, and the temptation to get their way through actual or threatened force may be irresistible. The alternative - the use of reason and debate - may seem too slow, too weak, especially when more decisive tools are at one's fingertips.

The situation, in short, is dynamic. The Government can narrow the opportunities for effective civil disobedience by pro-actively amending regulations that are over-broad and difficult to defend intellectually to the ordinary Singaporean. Until then, the Chees of Singapore will continue to pressure those points in the law. The authorities will not give in; they will say no. But they will have to calibrate carefully how they say no.

The writer is an assistant professor at the School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University, where he researches media and politics. This article is based on an academic paper on calibrated coercion, published in the Asia Research Institute's working paper series, at www.ari.nus.edu.sg.



Govt doesn't depend on 'calibrated coercion'

The Straits Times Forum page, 12 October 2005, Page H7

From:
Chen Hwai Liang
Press Secretary
to the Prime Minister

IN 'MANAGING civil disobedience' (ST, Oct 10), Dr Cherian George regretted that the PAP Government's 'calibrated approach to coercion' and its self-restraint had made it harder for 'pro-democracy activists - (to) remind Singaporeans that they should care about political liberalisation'.

He noted that 'that is where Dr Chee (Soon Juan)'s strategy of civil disobedience comes in', and commended it as a 'strategy (which) turns the state's monopoly of force against itself'.

Dr George has mixed up several different issues. First, the Government does not depend on 'calibrated coercion', but derives moral authority precisely from what Dr George himself acknowledged - 'an outstanding record in delivering the goods, internal discipline, ability to win genuine freely-given loyalty from the majority of Singaporeans'.

Second, this record of good and clean governance depends on rigorously upholding the rule of law in a plural and democratic society.

The Government must act when the law is broken, whether by opposition politicians or government supporters, and whether through violent or non-violent means.

If a law is unjust, there are established avenues for reviewing and changing it. Neither Mr Chiam See Tong nor Mr Low Thia Khiang has had to resort to 'civil disobedience' or defamation in order to be elected as MPs.

Our defamation laws follow the English model, and keep our public discourse responsible and honest. Dr George described defamation civil suits as 'the state's weapon of choice', but ministers can sue successfully only if they have been defamed, and they do so on a personal basis, not on behalf of the state.

Opposition MPs themselves have sued when they considered themselves defamed.

Third, zero tolerance for law breaking does not equate to zero tolerance for dissenting views. On the contrary, we encourage people to speak up and express their opinions on national policies and community life, so that out of the diversity of views a consensus can be forged, and a better decision made for the good of the nation.

Dr George's critical article was published in The Straits Times, contradicting his own claims.

Of course, where criticism is directed against the Government, then the Government has to respond to it or rebut it, or else lose the argument and the respect of Singaporeans. This is what it did a decade ago in response to Dr Catherine Lim.

Such exchanges do not represent 'PAP intolerance towards dissent'. They are part and parcel of public discourse in a democratic society.

Dr George is, however, right that the PAP has not 'undergone a fundamental philosophical conversion towards liberal ideals'. He offered no supporting arguments or evidence why these are the right ideals for Singapore.

The Prime Minister has explained why he does not believe that liberal democracy as practised in the West will work here.

Singaporeans know that we have thrived on a different approach - the PAP has won every election since 1959 because it enjoys the trust and support of the people, governs in their interests, and involves citizens in the large issues that affect us all.

Govt shouldn't equate analysis with advocacy

The Straits Times Forum page, 13 October 2005, Page H7

From: Cherian George

IN MY article, 'Managing civil disobedience' (ST, Oct 10), I analysed 'calibrated coercion' as one under-appreciated governance skill of the People's Action Party, and speculated that the opposition's strategy of civil disobedience presents a new challenge that the PAP would have to manage carefully.

The Prime Minister's press secretary, Mr Chen Hwai Liang, has responded by presenting the Government's position on its own success factors ('Govt doesn't depend on calibrated coercion'').

I will continue to refine my own analysis based on Mr Chen's and other responses. The PAP's record of political stability is unique in the world and deserves nuanced and sustained study, which I, like others in the academic fraternity, are committed to. I therefore welcome the Government's engagement with my ideas.

However, I am saddened that the Government has chosen to cast my article in partisan terms. Worse, it claims that I 'commended' the strategy of civil disobedience. This is not just a misrepresentation of my views. It is also a serious accusation, as it suggests that I was inciting readers to break the law.

I did not. I tried to explain Dr Chee Soon Juan's strategy, not champion it. Unfortunately, Mr Chen has chosen to equate analysis with advocacy. By this token, a historian who studies the rise of communism must be a communist himself. The terrorism expert who explains the motivations of Al-Qaeda operatives must be siding with terrorists. And a sociologist analysing Stefanie Sun's international appeal must be a groupie. Such labelling would make much academic research untenable.

Only time will tell conclusively whether Dr Chee's application of civil disobedience to Singapore is as irrelevant as communism, as dangerous as terrorism, or as benign as a Stephanie Sun song.

However, until experience tells us otherwise, my own hunch is that it is possible to work legally for a better Singapore, and to call for changes in laws without breaking them. Most Singaporeans who are in favour of faster political liberalisation (including opposition leaders other than Dr Chee) appear to share this faith.

I also share the view of PAP MP Charles Chong and his grassroots leaders that Singaporeans who want to press for change need to be 'very creative, but within the law'.

That does not mean alternative approaches, such as Dr Chee's, don't deserve close and dispassionate scrutiny. Sadly, readers may get the impression from parts of the Government's response to my article that it will treat such study as equal to instigating others to break the law, and therefore out of bounds.

As for me, I will choose not to come to this pessimistic conclusion despite the unfair accusation, and accept on faith that there remains room in Singapore for the critical discussion of serious issues.

Don wasn't non-partisan in his analysis

The Straits Times Forum page, 14 October 2005, Page H22

From:
Chen Hwai Liang
Press Secretary
to the Prime Minister

DR CHERIAN George, in his letter 'Govt shouldn't equate analysis with advocacy' (ST, Oct 13), regrets that the Government had 'cast (his) article ('Managing civil disobedience'; ST, Oct 10) in partisan terms'.

His article states that it was 'based on an academic paper on calibrated coercion'. This paper, titled 'Calibrated coercion and the maintenance of hegemony in Singapore', describes Singapore as an instance of 'authoritarian rule', declares that 'the normative thrust of this essay is directed at democratisation', and claims to offer a 'sophisticated understanding of what makes certain kinds of authoritarian rule endure - the better to resist and challenge them'.

These statements, which show Dr George's true intention, were omitted from his Straits Times article, which was a sanitised version of his original paper. Is this being non-partisan?

Dr George also denied that he had 'commended' the strategy of civil disobedience. He protested that a terrorism expert who explains the motivations of terrorists is pursuing academic research, and not siding with the terrorists.

But if the expert goes further to suggest that there are good and legitimate reasons why a person has to resort to terrorism, that must be a different matter.

Indeed, Dr George's article did not directly commend civil disobedience. However, his attitude can clearly be inferred from its conclusion, which I quote:

'Mixed Blessing
The contemporary scene of calibrated coercion is a mixed blessing for Singaporeans who want more freedom. This is bad news for pro-democracy activists, who consequently have a tough time reminding Singaporeans that they should care about political liberalisation. That is where Dr Chee (Soon Juan)'s strategy of civil disobedience comes in. It is a predictable response to the PAP's success at calibrated coercion.' *

I am, however, happy that Dr George has now clarified that, in his view, Singaporeans who want to press for change need to do so within the law.

It is no surprise that critics of the Government, especially those who are academics, will want to portray themselves as being dispassionate observers who are above the fray.

However, the Government's response will depend on the substance of what they say, rather than the pose they strike.

[* NOTE: This letter from the PMO doctored a quote from my academic paper, persuading me that the PMO was not interested in a rational debate, but had a political interest in "winning" this exchange at any cost. The orignal "Mixed Blessing" passage included these sentences: "There is certainly less cause for fear today than in the old days when coercion was more blunt." And: "the average Singaporean can go through much of life without bumping into the hard edges of PAP authoritarianism." These sentences, in the middle of the quoted paragraph, were deleted by the PMO in its reply. This was the only way it could support PMO's claim about my inner motives, that I'm supposedly in favour of more brutal coercion so that pro-democracy activists would gain political mileage.]

Govt should distinguish between substance, form

The Straits Times Forum page, 20 October 2005, Page H7

From:
Kelvin Chia Kwok Wai

I REFER to the letter, 'Don wasn't non-partisan in his analysis' (ST, Oct 14), by Mr Chen Hwai Liang, the Press Secretary to the Prime Minister.

Mr Chen seems adamant about imposing the partisan tag on Dr Cherian George by virtue of the fact that his analysis was based on an earlier academic paper which Mr Chen sees as partisan.

There are two problems with this argument. Firstly, the presumption of partisanship is justified by quotes that were taken out of context from the academic paper. Dr George clearly states that there exist 'gaps in our understanding of authoritarian rule' because of normative and conceptual reasons, and the paper was an attempt to bridge such gaps by 'focusing on the
state' and 'taking seriously authoritarian rule'.

Secondly, to judge Dr George's intention in writing the article ('Managing civil disobedience'; ST, Oct 10) using a perceptual judgment (that I have attempted to refute) of an earlier paper by Dr George is faulty logic at best; it assumes the objective truism of such a judgment that is necessarily normative in nature.

Later in his letter, Mr Chen argues against all remonstrations that Dr George had commended the strategy of civil disobedience, when the latter merely suggested that the strategy is a mere 'predictable response'.

Certainly, one would not think that a doctor is commending the impending death of his incurable patient by stating reasons as to why such an outcome is medically predictable. Yet, such is the logic that is applied here.

I am pleased to be assured that the Government's response will depend on substance rather than form, but I urge the Government to make a clear and accurate distinction between the two.