Book Review: "Self-Censorship:Singapore's Shame", by James Gomez, Think Centre, Singapore.
This slim publication of 93 pages should probably be classified as a monograph rather than a book.
The author, James Gomez, is a senior researcher in political science. He is a member of The Roundtable, a Singapore discussion group and is also the founder of Think Centre, an independent research institution.
The foreword by Philip Jeyaretnam sets the tone and explains the concept of self-censorship.
Basically, the author's theme is that self-censorship is an attitude of mind that has now become widespread in Singapore after years of governance by a single party, the PAP (People's Action Party). The adverse consequences of this culture of fear are analyzed. His tone is that of an angry but cultured young man, who is baffled at the indifference of the majority to the need for change, as he perceives it.
Having cited well-known research studies on middle class attitudes in other societies, he is critical of the Singapore people who prefer to let things be as they are.
Can it not be argued that the success of the PAP in bringing about widespread affluence, a strong currency and a clean environment, to cite three random examples, has enhanced its prestige among many citizens?
The author's view is that self-censorship has gathered momentum and thereby strengthened the PAP. However, as he points out, 35% of the votes in the 1997 general election were for opposition parties. This is a sizeable proportion, but the non-PAP parties garnered slightly more than 2% of the votes. This type of "imbalance" is fairly common and is a weakness of the traditional "first-past-the post" system that prevails even in Britain.
The author could have made a case for at least a partial introduction of the proportional representation system that will ensure that no votes are thrown away or wasted as under the present system. He has also only briefly touched on past developments and trends that inevitably promoted a milieu of authoritarianism in Singapore.
A perusal of the Straits Settlements Gazette will show that the British enforced strict censorship on books, periodicals and films imported into Singapore. During the Japanese regime, there was a pure reign of terror. In the post war period there was a clear and present danger of communist subversion and more controls were imposed.
Singapore, therefore, had become conditioned to relative freedom to pursue economic and to restrictions in political matters even before the PAP took over the governance of the island.
I was surprised to note that there was not even a passing reference to the landmark Fajar case in which the defence lawyer was D.N.Pritt assisted by Lee Kuan Yew. A group of student members of the erstwhile University of Malaya Socialist Club were charged with sedition and were acquitted.
Yet the author says, of the 1950s that "there was space to organize for politics and to go about such business without being under pressure to conform".
The writer feels strongly that the present inhibition towards political reform or change of any kind will linger in Singapore even if the old brigade of leaders are no more. He cites Eastern Europe to sustain this argument but there is historical truth in Justice Home's assertion "Time has upset many fighting faiths". Why should Singapore be the exception?
There are number of forebodings and warnings that Singapore will lose out in the political and other challenges of the new millennium.
A number of ideas that the author suggests to activate serious intellectual dialogue and to promote desirable change are worthy of attention.
