Singapore's government has made moves designed to allow its people to express themselves more freely, but skeptics say they do not really give more democratic space, Kelvin Ng reports for Inter Press Service.
SINGAPORE (IPS) - Singapore's cautious government appears keen to show that it is ready to stand back and let the more than 3 million people of this city state speak up freely, but critics are not impressed by its recent moves.
On Jun 5, Minister for Information and the Arts Lee Yock Suan said the government would grant up to two new broadcast licenses each for radio and television, and one for a newspaper in order to "strengthen the local media".
While some greeted it as at the start of a more open media environment, others said that the decision to restrict new licenses to the same government-controlled entities will mean little radical change.
Earlier, the Singaporean government announced that by end- August, citizens will be free to voice their opinions at a Speakers' Corner loosely modelled on London's Hyde Park.
Last year, the government released a report entitled Singapore 21, promising to be more consultative because "every Singaporean matters".
But despite these moves, some Singaporeans are chafing at what they say is a public relations exercise by a government that has come under fire for leaving little room for open dissent.
Speakers planning to mount the soapbox at Speakers' Corner, for instance, will have to register with the police, must not use loudhailers or microphones, and cannot comment on racial or religious issues, which are considered sensitive subjects in this country, majority of whose people are ethnic Chinese. However, speakers will be able to proceed upon registering, and need not submit information on their speech.
"The Singapore 21 vision is a sham, and even Speakers' Corner is tied down with certain conditions that restrict its optimisation as a site for free speech," said poet-playwright Alfian Sa'at.
"I feel it is one of the present government's bids to show the world that there is freedom of public discourse in Singapore," added Veronica Leng, a mass communication lecturer.
Critics call the government's approach a two-steps-forward, two-steps-backward dance, where it seemingly relaxes rules but subtly enforces its dominance.
In this month's decision to allow more media players, for instance, foreign players need not apply as the new broadcast licenses will only be granted to government-controlled Singapore Press Holdings, the publisher of the entire nation's newspapers. Government-owned broadcast company Media Corp. will get the newspaper license.
This was the result of a government review of local media, done by the Ministry of Information and the Arts, because of convergence of traditional media like broadcasting and print with the Internet.
But the Jun 5 announcement was faulted for not really providing more space for new voices in the media. Writing in the English-language daily 'Straits Times', Arun Mahizhnan of the Institute of Policy Studies says Singapore "should not coy" about deciding to have some control over the media, which countries like the U.S. also have, but that "the downside (of the new policy) is that it is the same old duopoly".
"This is no inspiration to those who were looking for a wider editorial spectrum or broader industry capacity," he was quoted as saying.
The government, for its part, says it wants to balance a more open media market with "allowing a Singaporean identity to fluorish among Singaporeans", as a ministry statement put it.
Indeed, Minister Lee insisted during the Jun 5 announcement that "the regular reporting on Singaporean affairs for the Singapore audience has to be done by Singaporean media". Local critics in the 'Straits Times' however say new technology makes it unrealistic to believe the market can be limited to ensure that only locals report on local news.
Apart from media itself, the government is also a key player in other forms of expression.
It maintains control of the arts through funding. It has poured some 600 million Singapore dollars (349 million U.S. dollars) into developing a Singapore Arts Centre that hopefully will make the arts "a part of the daily life of all Singaporeans", as the government explained.
A veteran playright, in an essay published last year, questioned the state's role in the arts sphere. "Why has it been necessary for the state to expand and strengthen its domination in the arts, instead of enabling the non-government enterprises to grow with state assistance?" asked Kuo Pao Kun.
Sa'at, whose co-authored play "sex.violence.blood.gore" was censored last year, agreed that some standards must be set for the arts. "But what I find most profoundly disturbing is that this validation and legitimisation is provided not so much by the artistic community or even the public but by the Government," he wrote in an unpublished letter to the 'Straits Times'.
Political dissent is an even touchier issue for the government, led by the ruling People's Action Party that has ruled Singapore for some four decades.
Local critics also lash out at the Internal Security Act (ISA), which allows for detention without trial. Although the ISA has not been used politically since 1987, its existence contributes to a climate of fear and restraint in Singapore, said James Gomez, a political researcher who owns Think Centre, an event and publishing company.
The centre was registered as a business to get around the red tape that surrounds applications for political discussion groups - and its existence is cited by some as proof some groups are finding ways to air their views here.
Gomez hopes that the Think Centre will encourage Singaporeans to have a greater awareness and increased participation in political discussion.
When he started out last year, people were sceptical. Some wondered if he would be arrested. At the launch of his book 'Self-censorship: Singapore's shame' last year, the authorities denied Gomez permission to speak publicly. To date, the centre has held four seminars, the most recent of which in March drew 150 people.
"It has already made a difference by its existence and activities that things political are possible. It gives courage to those who do not have or those who want to explore opportunities," he said.
The centre's activities have drawn the attention of the police, who send "at least three" officers to monitor each meeting, Gomez said. "I usually go up to them and say 'hi' and ask for their names. I also have pictures of them taken."
But even as more Singaporeans gather to discuss political issues, it may not be easy for them to openly slow their political affiliations.
On May 22, the government passed a new law which says political parties may only receive anonymous donations up to a limit of 5,000 Singapore dollars (2,900 U.S. dollars) yearly - a measure that people like Gomez say was passed without consultation.
Under this law, political parties will have to submit the name, address, and identity card number of any Singaporean who donates above that amount.
Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng said the Political Donations Bill was passed to "keep foreign intervention out" of domestic politics.
But to others, the required disclosure of donors' particulars, especially those of opposition supporters will further limit free expression in Singapore. "The non-consultation over the Political Donations Bill is one recent example," said Gomez. "So it shows that in fundamental political issues there is no consultation.
