Book Review: The Ruling Elite of Singapore

* Featured on The Real SG, SG Daily, The Online Citizen and TR Emeritus.

The Ruling Elite of Singapore is a brilliant publication, in which Michael Barr, a senior lecturer in International Relations at Flinders University, Australia, explores “the complex and covert networks of power” in the city-state of Singapore.

The text is divided into eight concise chapters, written in a clear, objective style that is not bloated with academic jargon. The content is juicy without being slanderous, and factual without being pedantic.

The book takes an incisive look at the “twin myths that Singapore is a meritocratic and multiracial society,” by revealing how the power of personal networks and the centrality of Chinese ethnicity form the true core of the networks of power and influence in Singapore.

The introduction gives a quick outline of the book, which is very useful for quick reference. I especially liked the summary for Chapter 3 (“a brief account of the historical evolution of the elite, the basis of its monopoly of power and the nature of its self-perception as a proud, self-satisfied elite”).

Chapter 5 features a quote by retired Permanent Secretary, Ngiam Tong Dow, who said in a 2003 interview:

“However good [Raffles Institution and Raffles Girls’ School] are and however brilliant their teachers are, the problem is that you are educating your elite in only two institutions, with only two sets of mentors.”

This comment highlights a lack of diversity in the process of elite selection and elite formation. It reminded me of the case with Wee Shu Min in 2006 (who exuberantly advised all commoners to “get out of [her] elite uncaring face”). While this disgraceful incident was not mentioned in Barr’s book, it displayed the self-entitlement and snobbish behavior that often accompanies a closed, elitist mindset.

Barr takes note of “the Lee family’s supremacy” in Singapore with a reminder (through a quote by Hamilton-Hart) of how the Lees are “effectively off-limits as subjects of criticism.” Barr also mentions how Ho Ching and Lee Hsien Yang have never been brought to account for any part in running down the value of their respective government-linked companies. Instead, both were praised and rewarded, despite their companies having engaged in “high-risk ventures that failed spectacularly.”

In the final chapter, Barr is diplomatic in pointing out how even the scenario of an opposition victory would not “necessarily challenge the system bequeathed by Lee Kuan Yew.” The author offers some critical thoughts without being overly optimistic or judgmental, in an effort to determine how much change or continuity there will be in the near future of Singapore’s political situation.

The job of an objective academic or historian is neither to sing praises nor hurl insults. It is to gather information and study the facts, in order to provide analysis and insightful commentary in order to educate the reader. I believe Barr has done very well in this regard, with his book’s intense focus on Singapore’s “ruling elite.”

It reminds us that politicians are supposed to govern society, not simply reward themselves at the expense of their serfs, I mean, citizens, because they feel entitled to do so.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the author, Michael Barr, for expanding his original paper into a full-length book, to the prestigious I.B.Tauris for publishing the title (and providing fine editing), and to Palgrave Macmillan for distributing the title in North America, where I am currently residing.

– By Jess: a former Singaporean who has a keen interest in the country, its people, and the direction of its leadership.

* * *

More Information:

The Ruling Elite (Amazon.com)
Book Depository (Free Shipping)
Michael Barr – Flinders University (Author)
I.B.Tauris | Palgrave Macmillan (Publishers)

Singapore: Academic Freedom?

* Featured on The Real SG, SG Daily and @KarinWahlJ.

Singapore: Academic Freedom?

Introduction
(1) Ray Buono
(2) Cherian George
(3) Christopher Lingle
(4) Chee Soon Juan
(5) James Gomez
(6) Tey Tsun Hang
Conclusion

INTRODUCTION:

According to AAC&U, academic freedom allows for those working within a scholarly community to “develop the intellectual and personal qualities required of citizens in a vibrant democracy and participants in a vigorous economy.”

Image from Yale-NUS

Cary Nelson, president of the AAUP (2006-2010), wrote that academic freedom means “the political, religious, or philosophical beliefs of politicians, administrators, and members of the public cannot be imposed on students or faculty.”

Students and professors need the freedom to share their ideas publicly and responsibly, so as to develop critical judgement by exploring a wide range of insights and perspectives.

Do academics in Singapore have a safe environment to express their own views?

Here is a brief look at some of the academics who “expressed their views” about the Singapore government.

(1) REY BUONO

Rey Buono is a respected theatre director, acting coach, and performing arts educator with over twenty years’ experience in South-East Asia.

Mr. Buono taught in Singapore for nine years between 1987 and 1996. He was hired by the MOE to establish the first Theatre Program in the Singapore educational system. The syllabus is still taught in junior colleges today.

In 1994, he wrote an article criticizing the architecture of the proposed Esplanade building. He said:

“The subtext of the article was the rigidity of the PAP government and the oppression of local artists. This was enough to result in the non-renewal of my contract. When I found employment with Singapore Repertory Theatre, I was not permitted an employment pass. Later, I found out that my phone was tapped, I was followed by police, and the Ministry had in its files detailed information about what went on in my classroom.”

In Mr. Buono’s opinion, the Yale-NUS humanities programme will “exist within the confines and restraints of politics and power.”

He writes more about his experience in an online comment at openDemocracy (when contacted, Mr. Buono confirmed he posted this comment).

(2) CHERIAN GEORGE

Dr. Cherian George, who received his PhD from Stanford University, was a journalist for The Straits Times. Since then, he has been a writer and academic engaged in journalism research, education and advocacy.

An excerpt from his title, The Air-Conditioned Nation (2000):

“In liberal democracies, it is all about freedom of the press from the government; in Singapore, it is about the government’s freedom from the press.”

In September 2012, he delivered a talk at the Singapore Management University law school about the co-existence of independent online journalism and traditional media in Singapore. A full transcript of the talk is available online.

Dr. George said:

(a) “The [Singapore] government has been quite forthright in claiming the authority to set the national agenda and to govern decisively, even if it means restricting the press.”

(b) “The government wants the space to effect unpopular policies that are beneficial for the country in the long term. . .but it may end up protecting itself from the kind of accountability that would keep it honest and responsive to the public.”

In 2013, Dr. George’s second application for tenure at Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University (NTU) was rejected. His contract with NTU expires in 2014. Despite petitions and an international outcry, NTU has maintained the stance to deny him tenure.

Karin Wahl-Jorgensen, a Cardiff University professor who was one of the external reviewers of George’s application for tenure, said she was “devastated” to hear the news.

“The real danger,” she said, “of these kinds of decisions is they will have a significant chilling effect. Self-censorship will result from it. Everyone wants to keep their job and it suggests that anyone critical of the government is not going to get a permanent government position.”

(3) CHRISTOPHER LINGLE

Dr. Christopher Lingle began research for his book, Singapore’s Authoritarian Capitalism, during his fellowship at the National University of Singapore.

Work on the book was disrupted when police questioned Dr. Lingle about a newspaper opinion article he had written. Within a week, he resigned his position and returned to the United States, saying he feared arrest.

In an opinion piece published in The International Herald Tribune, Dr. Lingle had written that some East Asian governments relied on a “compliant judiciary to bankrupt opposition politicians.”

Although Lingle’s published comments did not name any country or individuals, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew insisted it was clear Dr. Lingle was referring to Singapore, based upon the wording.

The paper agreed to pay $214,285 to Mr. LKY, who asserted that he had been defamed.

Dr. Lingle said:

“I am not surprised by the Singapore judge’s ruling. As far as I can see it, the judgement [supports] the criticism that Singapore’s rulers use a compliant judiciary to bankrupt their critics. . .whether they are the political opposition or news media or foreign nationals.”

The co-chairmen of The International Herald Tribune said their papers repeatedly defended the principle of a free press, and that it would be ludicrous if they set a different standard for newspapers their company owned (NYT).

(4) CHEE SOON JUAN

Dr. Chee Soon Juan is the well-known leader of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP). He is a vocal opponent of the ruling People’s Action Party, which has held power since 1959, and has been routinely persecuted by Singapore’s government.

Before entering politics, Dr. Chee was a psychology lecturer at the National University of Singapore.

A few months after Dr. Chee joined the SDP, he was fired from his position at the National University of Singapore by the head of the psychology department for allegedly using research funds to mail his wife’s doctoral thesis to the United States. Dr. Chee denied misuse of the funds and staged a hunger strike to protest his dismissal.

As discerning readers, we should contrast this “misuse of university funds” with the Nassim Jade Scandal where Mr. LKY, his brother and his son purchased condominium units at substantial discounts from purchases amounting to more than $10 million that were carried out without mortgages and loans (John Harding, Deputy Assistant Commissioner of Inland Revenue at Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore).

(5) JAMES GOMEZ

Dr. James Gomez is a politician and academic from Singapore. He is currently a member of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) and was previously a member of the Workers’ Party.

Dr. Gomez has written several books and articles about Singapore, centering on politics, journalism, and civil society activities. He penned his first book in 1999 titled Self-Censorship: Singapore’s Shame.

In 2006, Dr. Gomez wrongly accused a staff at the Election Department for misplacing his minority certificate which he promptly apologized for. However, a police report was made against him and the police acted the very next day to investigate him for “criminal intimidation.”

The incident was played up by ruling party politicians and local media, which rarely deviate from the government line. Mr. Lee Kuan Yew seized the opportunity to call Dr. Gomez “a liar” and a “bad egg.”

So why was Tin Pei Ling — PAP MP for Marine Parade GRC — not harassed by the police in 2011 for flouting election laws on ‘Cooling off’ day? (Singapore Election Watch)

(6) TEY TSUN HANG

Tey Tsun Hang was an NUS law professor, former district judge, justice law clerk, seat counsel in the Attorney-General’s Chambers as well as a practising lawyer.

Prof. Tey has been critical of Singapore’s legal system, as evident in his academic publications:

(1) Death Penalty Singapore-Style: Clinical and Carefree (Common Law World Review, 2010)
(2) Scandalising the Singapore Judiciary (Australian Journal of Asian Law, 2010)
(3) Contempt of Court Singapore-style: Contemptuous of Critique (Common Law World Review, 2011)
(4) Legal Consensus: Supreme Executive, Supine Jurisprudence, Suppliant Profession of Singapore (Hong Kong University Press, 2011)

The blurb for Legal Consensus states that the book “hints at the power relations and dynamics between the political establishment and the Singapore judiciary.”

In an interview with The Monthly, Prof. Tey said he went ahead with publishing a number of articles highly critical of Singapore’s judiciary because he was “no longer willing to self-censor,” and did not want to go on compromising his intellectual honesty.

The Chief Justice of Singapore, Chan Sek Keong, criticised Prof. Tey’s writing in February 2012. By April 2012, Prof. Tey was arrested by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau for investigation on charges of corruptly gaining favours from students (Malaysiakini).

In May 2013, Prof. Tey was found guilty of six counts of corruptly obtaining gifts and sex from former student Darinne Ko. He was then sentenced to five months’ jail in June.

As NUS law grad “Rumpole” (now living and working abroad) says:

“The headline reads ‘NUS law professor faces corruption charges‘. Sounds reassuring right? Does this latest prosecution not show that even if you are a member of the establishment you are not above the law? Does this not vindicate the view that Singapore has a FIRST WORLD judicial system?

Wrong, wrong and wrong!”

* * *

CONCLUSION:

As Ray Buono wrote: “I am not the only lecturer to have this happen. I can name two of my contemporaries (and there are many more) — Christopher Lingle and William Ray Langenbach — both of whom I was close to; both of whom were expelled for political reasons.”

One has to wonder how “many more” academics have been treated in a similarly sordid manner — and how much of a factor this is in contributing to the steady brain drain whereby many of Singapore’s best and brightest leave for a better life elsewhere.

* * *

More Information:

Defining Academic Freedom (by Cary Nelson)
Please don’t be fooled by the Latest Sex Scandal! (by Singapore Consensus)
Freedom fears after outspoken lecturer’s appeal fails (by University News)
“Myth of the Online Bypass” (by Dr. Cherian George)
Paper to Pay $214,285 in Singapore Libel Case (New York Times)

Nassim Jade Scandal

* Featured on The Real SG.

1. “INCORRUPTIBILITY”

Asiaweek covered the Nassim Jade Scandal in May 1996, reminding readers in the introduction that the Singapore government “takes pride in its image of incorruptibility.”

2. NASSIM JADE (HPL)

Image of Nassim Jade | HPL

Nassim Jade is an exclusive, four-storey condominium located in one of the most prestigious districts in Singapore. It is owned by Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), which owns other upscale condominiums in Singapore such as Four Seasons Park and Scotts 28.

In 1996, the “pre-launch” secret purchases of Nassim Jade units by Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew, his son, and their family members became publicly known. The Stock Exchange of Singapore said HPL “was not forthcoming in responding to the Exchange’s requests for information.”

The situation became so bad that Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong directed these purchases to be investigated by Finance Minister, Richard Hu, and Deputy Director of the Monetary Authority of Singapore, Koh Beng Seng.

3. ONG BENG SENG

In The Business Times, Ong Beng Seng — property tycoon, founder and managing director of Hotel Properties Ltd (HPL) — described the fuss over the purchases of four condominiums by Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew and Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong as being “damn unfair.”

4. JOHN HARDING

John Harding is the former Deputy Assistant Commissioner of Inland Revenue at Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore.

He lays down the facts in the following blog comment:

When the “Nassim Jade Scandal” broke, involving Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew and his family, I was working at Singapore’s Inland Revenue, and [knew] the names of the guilty before the “Nassim Jade Scandal” hit Singapore.

Sometime between April and early May of 1995, Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), of which Lee Suan Yew was a director, offered units at Nassim Jade to “close business associates” for sale before its official launch for sale to the public.

The investigation revealed that not only had Lee Kuan Yew, his brother and his son purchased these apartments [at Nassim Jade and Scotts 28], they were offered substantial discounts to boot.

The apartments were due to be put on sale on the open market on April 27 1995. Three days before the official launch, HPL conducted a “soft launch” where a select group of potential customers were invited to have first go at the apartments. This was not exactly an unheard of practice amongst property developers. The problem was that because HPL was a publicly listed company, it had shareholders to account to. Rules under the SES Manual Listing stated that approval had to be sought for transactions involving “connected persons” of the company involved and those persons’ associates. HPL did not seek the permission of its shareholders and Lee Suan Yew, Lee’s brother, was a director of the company.

At the soft launch, Lee Kuan Yew’s wife, Kwa Geok Choo, chose an apartment to buy. She was quoted a price of $3,578,260 (or $1,583 per square foot) for the apartment. This was a seven percent discount on the list price.

Later, Kwa Geok Choo contacted her son, Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, and told him of the Nassim Jade apartments upon which he called his Aunty Pamelia Lee, wife of Uncle Suan Yew, and said that he and his wife, Ho Ching, wanted to get in on the deal as well. Aunty Pamelia then later came back to her nephew and offered him an apartment for $3,645,100 a discount of 12 per cent or $437,412 on the asking price. The Deputy Prime Minister accepted his Auntie’s offer.

This was not all. On the Scotts 28 condominiums, similar offers and purchases were made. Greedy Lee Kuan Yew and son bought two more units and paid $2,791,500 and $2,776,400 respectively for them, each bagging a five percent discount.

All in all, Lee Kuan Yew received from HPL a total of $416,252 whilst Lee Junior got $643,185 in discounts. All the purchases amounted to more than $10 million and were carried out without mortgages and loans.

It was also found out that Lee Kuan Yew’s entire family was in on the purchases. Daughter Lee Wei Ling, a medical doctor in a government hospital; sister Lee Kim Mon; and his two other brothers Freddy and Dennis; Kwa Kim Li, a niece of Lee; and Gloria Lee, Lee’s sister in law, all bought the condos at hefty discounts. Daughter Wei Ling bought two apartments at Nassim Jade and was reported to have sold one off for a tidy profit. Again, all these transactions were carried out without the approval of the shareholders of HPL.

It must be remembered that all this while, decisions of sales and the discounts were carried out secretly at the directors’ level by Lee Suan Yew. None of the shareholders nor the SES had the slightest idea of what was going on and neither did the Singapore public.

It was a national disgrace for Singapore.

5. FRANCIS SEOW’S “BEYOND SUSPICION?“

The eloquent speaker Francis T. Seow is a former solicitor general of Singapore.

The first chapter of his riveting book, Beyond Suspicion? The Singapore Judiciary, is entirely devoted to the Nassim Jade Scandal.

About the scandal, Mr. Seow wrote:

“Singapore’s anxious young upwardly mobile professionals [viewed] with dismay such preferential purchases of properties as virtually closed to them. . .unless they were also numbered among the rich and powerful. Such swelling angry public perception was bad news for a government at the best of times, but with a general election looming over the horizon, it was a prescription for disaster. Unless it was defused quickly, it could turn into a political time bomb.”

6. TANG LIANG HONG

Tang Liang Hong was a lawyer and opposition Workers’ Party candidate.

When Mr. Tang was interviewed by the Hong Kong-based magazine, Yazhou Zhoukan, about the Nassim Jade scandal, he questioned:

“Why wasn’t this matter handed over to a professional body like Commercial Affairs Department or Corrupt Practice Investigation Bureau? They are government departments. . .well-known for being [firm and impartial]. They would be more detached and their reports would have been more convincing to the people. Koh Beng Seng and Finance Minister Richard Hu are after all not experts in this field.” (Tang Liang Hong, 1996/97)

LKY and his son took offence at those remarks, and commenced a libel action. The presiding judge was Justice Lai Kew Chai, a former partner of the prime minister’s law firm of Lee and Lee.

Tang Liang Hong was bankrupted and had his property seized following the 1997 general election. He entered into self-imposed exile in Australia.

7. NETIZENS’ COMMENTS

(a) “It saddens and angers me that this ‘Lee’ family think they rule the whole of Singapore and [that] they are above the law.”
(SG Forums)

(b) “Korean President Lee Myung Bak bought an expensive plot of land for his own retirement home using the name of his own son. In suspicious and filthy arrangement the transaction was carried out but exposed. Similar to LHL’s HPL Nassim Jade Corruption Scandal.”
(DiscussWorldIssues)

(c) “What is disgusting about the entire Lee family is this. They not only are thieves, they take offense when you call them so.”
(LKY’s Monopoly on Corruption, Gopalan Nair)

8. YOONG SIEW WAH – FORMER ISD DIRECTOR

As former ISD director, Mr. Yoong Siew Wah, aptly summarizes:

“That the Singapore ministers are filthy rich, especially MM Lee’s family, is obscenely plain for the people to see. In spite of his opulence, MM Lee is drawing a whopping salary and jetting around at taxpayers’ expense to spout poetries to a gullible world audience. As he says when the coffin is closed, you will have the verdict. We all look forward to the day, especially those who survive him.”
(Singapore Recalcitrant, 25 April 2009)

Yoong Siew Wah – Former ISD Director

* Featured on The Real SG and TR Emeritus.

1. Internal Security Department (ISD)

The Internal Security Department (ISD) is Singapore’s secret police, who hold the power to detain indefinitely without charge or trial.

The ISD has also been described as “Singapore’s answer to the KGB” (by Dr. Chee Soon Juan in Journal of Democracy, Johns Hopkins University Press).

2. Mr. Yoong Siew Wah

Mr. Yoong Siew Wah was the Director of Singapore’s Internal Security Department (ISD) from 1971 to 1974. He was Director of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) in the 1960s, and had a distinguished career in the Singapore Special Branch in the 1950s.

The erudite (i.e. learned and knowledgeable) Mr. Yoong keeps a blog called Singapore Recalcitrant.

These edifying excerpts give us an insider’s view of Singapore politics — on government propaganda, “clownish” PAP ministers, and more.

3. Excerpts from “Singapore Recalcitrant”

[2013]

(1) “The contrast between these two women — one a political luminary of world renown and the other a run-of-the-mill PAP minister — is so great that one glitters like a shining star in the dark [while] the other exhibits darkness like a starless night.”
(Singapore Recalcitrant, 2 October 2013)

(2) “All this pomp and pageantry has the illusion of giving a veneer of veneration to former MM Lee Kuan Yew. . .Lee Kuan Yew has expressed a wish that when it is time for him to go it will be a peaceful and painless death. But if one believes in karma, retribution has a way of exacting justice and Lee Kuan Yew may find his wish hard to fulfill. . .There will be his diehards who will extol his so-called achievements and virtues and there will be his dissenters who will bury him with his evil deeds.”
(Singapore Recalcitrant, 14 September 2013)

(3) “David Chan has identified three major dimensions of trust which affect how citizens think, feel and behave and which may shed light on how and why the public trusts or distrusts the Government. They are competence, integrity and benevolence. . .Trust in benevolence is about people’s belief in the Government’s intentions and motivations. . .[it] gets eroded when people think that policies are formulated by an elite which is disconnected from ground sentiments, is unable to empathise, or does not care enough for the less fortunate or ordinary folk.”
(Singapore Recalcitrant, 28 September 2013)

(4) “That [Eric Tan] had been completely in the dark as CPIB director when his enterprising assistant director at the bureau, Edwin Yeo Swee Hong, was siphoning off bureau funds to the tune of $1.7 million meant for the bureau operations from 2008 until his ruse was uncovered last year is mind-boggling. . .His present downfall is a lessen which Eric Tan must imbibe seriously and carry out a soul-searching of his actions.”
(Singapore Recalcitrant, 6 August 2013)

(5) “It is in [Lee Kuan Yew's] character to disavow responsibility even in the face of glaring facts that the ‘Stop at Two’ policy was the main cause of the current low fertility rate. Perhaps he is deaf to the curses of Singapore women who had suffered deeply by his ‘Stop at Two’ policy. “
(Singapore Recalcitrant, 6 August 2013)

(6) “Is it not time the cocooned PAP Government should seriously consider the much-awaited nationalisation of the transport system to alleviate the anguish of the long-suffering Singapore commuters?”
(Singapore Recalcitrant, 20 July 2013)

(7) “The United States government has also weighed in on the issue [re: Singapore's new licensing scheme for online news sites] with the State Department saying that it was “deeply concerned” by the restrictive policy requiring the licensing of news websites. The State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki said: We urge Singapore to ensure freedom of expression is protected in accordance with its international obligations and commitments.”
(Singapore Recalcitrant, 10 July 2013)

(8) “The most oppressive condition is the $50,000 performance bond for the licence. It is not oppressive to SPH, MediaCorp or Yahoo but will be oppressive if it is applied to ordinary websites like TR Emeritus and The Online Citizen. To say that the PAP leaders are “Old Crafty and Very Cunning” (老奸巨滑） is no exaggeration. They first introduced the Licensing Scheme ostensibly to deal with news websites like SPH and MediaCorp as a red herring to divert attention later on their real heinous intention to clamp down on the anti-establishment websites. PM Lee and his run-of-the mill ministers think that they can hoodwink discerning Singaporeans in this way and is an insult to their intelligence. “
(Singapore Recalcitrant, 29 May 2013)

(9) “Our comical PM Lee Hsien Loong in his inimitable way gave a display of brilliant diplomacy during his recent visit to the USA at a dinner given in his honour by the American business community. One could almost scream with disbelief when he told the august American audience that in Shanghai when one turned on the tap one would find a flow of pork soup, a sarcastic allusion to the massive pig carcasses found floating in a river in China.”
(Singapore Recalcitrant, 22 April 2013)

(10) “It is a well-known fact that the prime minister and his ministers are drawing millions of dollars in salaries which are paid out of taxpayers’ money. They are in fact wallowing in wealth at the public’s expense and whether they deserve such humongous (some call it obscene) salaries has been viewed with disdain by the public, especially those who are struggling with the high cost of living.”
(Singapore Recalcitrant, 1 March 2013)

(11) “To show the callousness of the Singapore Government, two representatives of the Singapore Government Pensioners’ Association met a former Finance Minister to seek his assistance for an increase in the pensions of Government pensioners to cope with the rising cost of living — the response they got from this former Finance Minister was too shocking to be believed. The former minister told the representatives that the pensioners had served their purpose, that what they were getting was enough for them to get by and the Government was just waiting for them to die off. What kind of human being is capable of such callous atrocious utterance is beyond any human comprehension.”
(Singapore Recalcitrant, 1 March 2013)

(12) “PM Lee Hsien Loong was later asked in a letter about the former minister’s callous utterance but he avoided touching on this subject. His answer was that Government pensions are governed by the Constitution and nothing could be done about it. This could be the lamest excuse that could have come out of the prime minister as the Constitution has been amended from time to time at the whim of the Government for whatever reason and that amending the Constitution to increase the pensions of pensioners could not have been an obstacle.”
(Singapore Recalcitrant, 1 March 2013)

[2012]

(1) “The National Solidarity Party (NSP) has shown remarkable spirit of opposition unity in declaring its intention not to contest [in the Punggol East by-election]. Remember the authoritative saying: Unity is strength.”
(Singapore Recalcitrant, 28 December 2012)

(2) “That is why the emphasis is on opposition unity to face the PAP in GE 2016. The whopping ministerial salary may not be the main issue but it will be a plus in favour of the opposition parties in their election campaign to show that most PAP ministers are self-serving politicians who are in the game for the taxpayers’ money.”
(Singapore Recalcitrant, 26 November 2012)

(3) “How can it be called a National Conversation when an important and essential segment of society such as the opposition parties and bloggers is excluded?”
(Singapore Recalcitrant, 15 October 2012)

(4) “True my disgust of the hubristic (i.e. arrogant) Lee Kuan Yew could make my presence at [the CPIB's 60th Anniversary Celebration at the Istana] a big embarrassment to him. . .my presence would have caused [considerable] embarrassment to that demigod.”
(Singapore Recalcitrant, 26 September 2012)

(5) “Since when has it been acknowledged that The Straits Times is a neutral paper which is conscientiously objective in its reporting on the opposition, especially during the hustings. The paper is strictly under the control of the Singapore Press Holdings whose chairman is a former minister of the Government, a spin doctor anyway one looks at it. So how can one run away from the impression that the mainstream media (MSM) is an all embracing propaganda organ of the PAP Government, of which The Straits Times is a prominent member.”
(Singapore Recalcitrant, 29 May 2012)

(6) “The point is if the first generation PAP ministers could be so noble and selfless in serving the people without enriching themselves with taxpayers’ money, why is it so difficult for the third generation of PAP ministers to follow the selfless example?”
(Singapore Recalcitrant, 15 January 2012)

(7) “PAP leaders are the first to assert vehemently that they are in politics to serve the people. But are they really or is it because of the astronomical salaries they pay themselves out of taxpayers’ money? They can holler till the cows come home but few, if any, of the politically-conscious Singaporeans will swallow that they are in it for altruistic reasons.”
(Singapore Recalcitrant, 6 January 2012)

[2011]

(1) “Does it surprise Mr Khaw that an ordinary Bhutanese could operate a blog, on which he has posted that ‘this is in reply to National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan of Singapore on his comments made on our country.’ For a Bhutanese he surprises readers with his fairly high standard of satirical replies to each of Mr Khaw’s disparagements of his country.”
(Singapore Recalcitrant, 5 November 2011)

(2) “Instead of answering the question, the former MM baffled his audience by hubristically urging the PhD student, who is single, to stop wasting her time on her doctorate and find a boyfriend instead.”
(Singapore Recalcitrant, 22 September 2011)

(3) “[LKY] thinks he is more sagacious (i.e. wise) than the famous Chinese sage Confucius. But the narcissistic Lee Kuan Yew’s booboos in his utterances have become his trademark.”
(Singapore Recalcitrant, 6 September 2011)

(4) “As shown by the General Election in May, the writing is on the wall that Singapore electors are disillusioned with the PAP one-party hegemony and have shown their disgust with the PAP by voting in a Workers’ Party (WP) team in the renowned Aljunied GRC. “
(Singapore Recalcitrant, 27 July 2011)

(5) “Then came the third generation PAP leaders who continue to carry on blithely the astronomical ministerial salary tradition and their so-called service to the people which we must now view askance. As long as their motivation is their whopping salaries, the distinction between greed and service to the people is at best indistinguishable. “
(Singapore Recalcitrant, 22 July 2011)

(6) “One of the biggest contributory factors to this political setback was the gratuitous warning by the hubristic Minister Mentor to Aljunied voters that they live and repent if they voted the WP. . .This will be a good beginning for WP and Singaporeans can look forward to seeing more excitement in Parliamentary proceedings. And the PAP will have some soul-searching to do. “
(Singapore Recalcitrant, 7 May 2011)

(7) “This only goes to prove that more opposition voices in Parliament are an imperative to provide a check and balance from time to time to the PAP government’s shortcomings.”
(Singapore Recalcitrant, 3 May 2011)

(8) “This prompted the Minister Mentor to warn Aljunied voters that they have five years to live and repent. Christians are appalled at the choice of the word repent by MM Lee. In christianity the word repent is used when a sin has been committed. Is MM Lee trying to imply that voting for the WP team in Aljunied is a sin? Is this not sacrilege?”
(Singapore Recalcitrant, 1 May 2011)

(9) “Why this PAP cinderella Tin Pei Ling, and not other new prospective PAP candidates, is being singled out for profuse criticisms by netizens is not entirely without logic. Her young age may be one factor indicating that she has just been weaned from suckling and lacks any political or worst still any humanitarian experience. But above all, it is her opulent lifestyle and rather highfalutin (i.e. pompous or pretentious) character that irk the netizens.”
(Singapore Recalcitrant, 3 April 2011)

[2010]

(1) “It is pathetic that [ST Editor Han Fook Kwang], who is just a cog in the massive government propaganda organisation, is trying to ape his political masters in continuing to hoodwink the people as to the insidious political role of The Straits Times. The Straits Times [is] a government mouthpiece.”
(Singapore Recalcitrant, 2 May 2010)

(2) “Whether by providence or not, the opposition, especially Kenneth Jeyaretnam, should tighten up their security to ensure that no mercenary is infiltrated into their parties to cause disunity.”
(Singapore Recalcitrant, 21 April 2010)

(3) “‘She did not marry me and become Temasek Holdings’ Chief Executive Officer. I married her because she had the talent of a CEO’. This was the dramatic revelation of PM Lee Hsien Loong in referring to his wife, Ms Ho Ching. . .”
(Singapore Recalcitrant, 18 April 2010)

(4) “Perhaps it could have occurred to the lucid mind of the Prime Minister the impetus that led to the evolution of the new media in Singapore. Every right-thinking Singaporean is aware that the sycophantic (i.e. spineless) mainstream media, especially the egregious (i.e. outstandingly bad) Straits Times, will only disseminate government propaganda and not any dissenting thesis inimical or unflattering to the government.”
(Singapore Recalcitrant, 28 March 2010)

(5) “…this will depend on how long the decadent PAP dynasty can last.”
(Singapore Recalcitrant, 16 March 2010)

(6) “Can you imagine anything more clownish than a deputy prime minister snoozing away during a speech by his fellow — DPM Wong Kan Seng — in Parliament? If Mr. Wong Kan Seng’s discourse can induce somnolence in Mr. Teo Chee Hean, he can certainly apply for a patent [to] cure insomnia.”
(Singapore Recalcitrant, 7 March 2010)

[2009]

(1) “The authors [of the book Men in White] fail to highlight Lee Kuan Yew’s more ignominious (i.e. shameful) persona. . .Lee Kuan Yew knew he had to depend on Lim Chin Siong and his mass base to advance his political ambition. The word gratitude is not to be found in Lee’s lexicon. In fact, it would have been a great joke if Lim’s detention caused [LKY] any grief.”
(The Sobering View of an Ex-ISD Officer, 10 December 2009)

(2) “[Lee Kuan Yew] is not unknown to have behaved erratically with venom in his speech when highly agitated. . .humility is not his forte and he has not been known as one to apologise for his mistakes.”
(An Unconscionable Injustice, 9 October 2009)

(3) “The exceptional receptions MM Lee received must have intoxicated him to the extent that he could have believed himself to be some kind of messiah delivering his gospels to his believers. . .There is an appropriate Chinese saying: Deficient in success but [excessive] in failure.”
(Singapore Recalcitrant, 22 June 2009)

(4) “Was it not a sickening joke for the Prime Minister to say that he and his ministers were suffering together with the masses?. . .That the Singapore ministers are filthy rich, especially MM Lee’s family, is obscenely plain for the people to see.”
(Singapore Recalcitrant, 25 April 2009)

(5) “The name Wong Kan Seng translated phonetically in Cantonese means certain to succeed. Well, Mr. Wong Kan Seng should now be at his wit’s end. . .otherwise the public might want to know if he justifies his whopping $2 million annual salary with all the booboos happening under his watch.”
(Singapore Recalcitrant, 24 June 2008)

* * *

References:
Censorship, sex and scandal in Singapore (by André Dao)
Internal Security Department (Official / Photo)
Internal Security Department (Wikipedia)
Malaya’s Secret Police (Institute of Southeast Asian Studies)
Pressing for Openness in Singapore (by Dr. Chee Soon Juan / PDF)

And Of Course:
Singapore Recalcitrant (Mr. Yoong Siew Wah’s scintillating blog)

Dr. Chia Thye Poh

* Featured on The Real SG and TR Emeritus.

Dr. Chia Thye Poh – Singapore Profile

* One of the world’s longest-held political detainees (32 years without charge or trial; 1966-1998)

* Recipient of the LLG Spirit Award (2011)

* Quote: “The PAP government [is] intolerant towards sharp criticisms. . .they seem elitist and arrogant.” (Dr. Chia Thye Poh, 1989)

1. Background and History

Dr. Chia Thye Poh (born 1941) was detained under Singapore’s Internal Security Act for allegedly conducting anti-government, pro-communist activities.

He was imprisoned for 23 years without charge or trial, then placed under house arrest for another 9 years, with restrictions on his place of abode, employment, travel, and exercise of political rights.

Amnesty International recognizes him as “Singapore’s longest serving prisoner of conscience.”

2. Barisan Sosialis

Dr. Chia was a university physics lecturer when he entered politics.

He was a member of the Barisan Sosialis (Malay for “The Socialist Front”), and an elected member of the Legislative Assembly for Jurong Constituency in 1963. The Barisan Sosialis was formed in 1961 by left-wing members who had been expelled from the People’s Action Party (PAP).

3. The Power-Packed Minute in Parliament

This is an excerpt from Parliamentary Debates of the Dewan Ra’ayat (House of Representatives), dated 19 September 1964.

Dr. Chia was given one minute more to “complete his speech.”

Here are some of the things he managed to say:

“Sir, when the Prime Minister talks of defending our country, we find it hollow. . .This Government is oppressing the people; more than 200 political leaders and trade unionists are in the jails of Singapore. . .Political dwarfs like Mr. Lee Kuan Yew can strut around and talk big. . .All this nonsense [with] these riots is just to hide the truth that the main culprits belong to the ruling parties.”

4. 1966 Arrest Under the ISA

Dr. Chia was in his mid-twenties when he was arrested on 29 October 1966 under the Internal Security Act (ISA), which allows for indefinite detention.

Dr. Chia was detained for his role in organizing and leading an illegal protest march of supporters to Parliament House on 8 October 1966. He had handed a letter to the Clerk of the House demanding for a general election, the release of all political detainees and the nullification of “undemocratic” laws.

The other detainees were released after they signed a document promising to renounce violence and sever ties with the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM).

However, Dr. Chia refused to sign the document!

In his own words:

“To renounce violence is to imply you advocated violence before. If I had signed that statement I would not have lived in peace.”

For more than 30 years, Dr. Chia would quietly but steadfastly refuse to cave in to the authorities’ demand that he publicly confess to being a violence-oriented communist.

“If the government had the evidence,” Dr. Chia stated in a 1998 feature in Asiaweek, “it should have tried me in open court.”

5. Arrest and Imprisonment

Dr. Chia’s detention for 32 years — without charge or trial — gives Singapore the dubious honor of holding one of the world’s longest-held political detainees.

The length of detainment is technically longer than that of Nelson Mandela (who was put on trial in 1964 and spent 27 years in jail).

The detention left Dr. Chia in poor health, with lung problems, a weak bladder, and psychological scars.

His eyesight deteriorated from many years spent in a darkened cell. During his interrogation, he was told that prisoners held in the darkened cell would go insane in a few days. The authoritarian PAP regime also kept him subjected to day-long interrogations in a freezing cold room.

Later, the regime started pressurizing Dr. Chia’s aged father to persuade him to give up. Security agents were also directed to drive Dr. Chia through the streets of Singapore, while taunting him to sign his confession paper. They told him he would “rot in jail” otherwise.

6. Domestic Exile

When those tactics still failed to break Dr. Chia’s spirit, he was sent into domestic exile on Sentosa island on 17 May 1989.

Dr. Chia was made to pay rent for the one-room guardhouse, as well as pay for his own food.

This was due to the Singapore government’s audacious assertion that he was under “observation status” and not a prisoner. Dr. Chia thus negotiated a deal which allowed him to work as a freelance translator for the Sentosa Development Corporation.

In 1992 Dr. Chia was allowed to move back into his parents’ home, and in 1997 he was allowed to accept a fellowship from the Hamburg Foundation in Germany for politically persecuted persons.

In November 1998, all remaining restrictions were lifted. Dr. Chia immediately called upon the Government to repeal the ISA, citing that the ISA is a law that “tramples on human dignity and strikes fear into the mind of the people.”

For three decades, mild-mannered Dr. Chia was branded by the Singapore government as a violent “communist revolutionary” and a threat to national security.

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, a political science professor at the University of Malaya, said:

“It is a damning indictment on the Singapore Government to have held a chap for all those years and then when finally releasing him issue all those restrictions. It was such an inhuman thing to do.”

7. 2011 Recipient of the LLG Spirit Award

Established in 1988, the Lim Lian Geok Spirit Award is the highest honour in the Malaysian Chinese community. The award is bestowed on those who live up to the spirit of Lim Lian Geok, former Chairman of The United Chinese School Teachers’ Association Of Malaysia.

In 2011, Dr. Chia was honored with the prestigious LLG Spirit Award.

The 70-year-old was fondly remembered by the 400 people attending the award presentation at the Confucian Private Secondary School in Lorong Hang Jebat.

At the ceremony, Dr. Chia shared his words of wisdom:

“A university is not an ivory tower. . .what matters is its spirit, its capacity in bringing up graduates that empathize with the people and work for the progress of mankind and world peace. . .Just as Mr. Lim Lian Geok had said, his body might be destroyed, yet his spirit would survive and flourish. [That spirit] will always live in the heart of the people. It will always inspire us to overcome all difficulties and march on.”

Associate Prof. Andrew Aeria, a political scientist at Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS), aptly described the sharp-witted Dr. Chia as “a shining icon to the struggle for human rights and democracy.”

8. 5 Reasons Dr. Chia Deserves Our Respect

(i) Integrity and Conscience

Dr. Chia: “[Signing a false statement] would have been against my conscience. I wouldn’t have been able to live in peace with myself.”

(ii) Formidable Intellect / Insight / Courage to Speak His Mind

“Under the PAP rule, there is no genuine parliamentary democracy. . .there is always the danger of one-party rule slipping into one-man rule, and worse still, into dynastic rule. The PAP government does not like critical newspapers or publications, and is intolerant towards sharp criticisms. They seem elitist and arrogant, regarding themselves as the best and the most suitable to rule Singapore. And they rule it with iron-handed policies.”
(Dr. Chia Thye Poh, 1989)

(iii) Remarkable Resilience

Dr. Chia: “My ideal has not been dampened after [more than thirty] years under detention. In fact, prison life can only make a person more determined to fight against oppression and for a fair, just and democratic society.”

(iv) Peaceful Nature

Dr. Chia insists he bears “no personal grudge against anyone” (including his tormentors responsible for the deplorable 32-year detention).

(v) Benevolence

Dr. Chia: “The struggle for democracy is much more than personal battles. Democracy is not about violence.”

* * *

References:

1989 Interview with Chia Thye Poh (Think Centre)
1999 report on release of Chia Thye Poh (LA Times)
Award for Asia’s Forgotten Man (SG Rebel)
Barisan Sosialis (Infopedia)
Chia Thye Poh (Wikipedia)
Chia Thye Poh: A Man Who Never Gave In (Asiaweek)
Chia Thye Poh long time prisoner of conscience is honored (Asian Human Rights Commission)
Chia Thye Poh, Photos (National Archives, SG)
Parliamentary Debates of the Dewan Ra’ayat (19 September, 1964)
Singapore’s Gentle Revolutionary (South China Post)
Speech by Chia Thye Poh at LLG-Spirit Award Ceremony (Think Centre)

More Information:

Rare photos of Dr. Chia Thye Poh (SG Rebel)
The Secret of Singapore (by Dr. Chee Soon Juan)
Dr. Chia’s “One Minute” (YouTube, 1969)
Dr. Chia’s Acceptance Speech (YouTube, 2011)

Singapore’s Democracy – The Truth Behind The Myth

* Featured on The Real SG, FMT, SDP, SG Daily, and TR Emeritus.

This article on Singapore’s Democracy is presented in nine sections:

1. Introduction
2. Constitution of Singapore
3. Do Singapore Citizens have Freedom of Speech?
4. What is the Form of Government in Singapore?
5. Is Singapore’s Founding Father, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, a ‘Despot’?
6. Internal Security Act (ISA)
7. “Operation Spectrum”
8. What do others think about Singapore’s Democracy?
9. Conclusion

* * *

1. INTRODUCTION

When I was a student in primary and secondary school (1992-2002), not once did I ever hear that Singapore had a Constitution.

I am now a U.S. citizen and grateful I have these rights as a U.S. citizen.

I was mildly stunned during my naturalization ceremony when the judges extended me a warm welcome saying that I now had “rights” as a U.S. citizen. It was the first time I realized I had RIGHTS as a citizen of a country.

Did I feel like I had any rights as a Singaporean in Singapore?

No. None at all.

Let’s see why — beginning with what a constitution is and why it is so important.

2. CONSTITUTION OF SINGAPORE

// Parliament House, William Cho

So, what is a constitution? It is defined as:

“The system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government.”
(The Free Dictionary)

Why is a constitution important to a nation?

“A constitution is important because it protects the rights of the citizens of a concerned nation, irrespective of their religion, caste, creed, sex or physical appearance. A constitution, thus, can be safely said to be a social contract between the government and the people it governs.”
(Ask.com)

The office of the Attorney-General of Singapore states that “one of the key aspirations of [Singaporeans] is to build a democratic society based on the fundamental ideals of justice and equality.”

Singapore’s national pledge also states that the citizens aspire to build a democratic society (NLB).

What is valuable about democracy? The UN explains:

“The values of freedom, respect for human rights and the principle of holding periodic and genuine elections. . .are essential elements of democracy. In turn, democracy provides the natural environment for the protection and effective realization of human rights.”
(United Nations)

The Constitution of Singapore states that every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression.

3. DO SINGAPORE CITIZENS HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH?

If they do, I am curious about the following three cases.

(a) The following line was removed from an article that appeared in The Straits Times:

“And [the Singapore government shows] no sign of loosening their grip on mainstream media as a vehicle for reaching out to the public.”

At the time of this posting, Mr. Cherian George (author of that article) states on his blog post that the “sentence was deleted by ST editors and does not appear in the published version…which illustrates how the Singapore press does not like to say too much about the controls it faces.”

(b) Section 8 of the Broadcasting Act states that:

“Every broadcasting licence, other than a class licence, granted by the Authority shall be in such form and for such period and may contain such terms and conditions as the Authority may determine.”

As former NMP Siew Kum Hong writes:

“Basically, the MDA can decide what the terms of the individual licences are, and presumably can also decide that the terms are confidential, such that the public will never actually know what the licences say.”
(Why the new MDA framework is censorship)

(c) Human Rights Watch’s deputy Asia director Phil Robertson’s comments in 2012:

“Singapore’s claims of exemption from human rights standards are just lame excuses for abuses. . .the people of Singapore deserve the same rights as everyone else, not more clever stories justifying government oppression.”
(Singapore: Stop Hiding Behind Old Excuses)

Would people like Phil Robertson from internationally respected organizations put their reputation on the line by making false declarations?

4. WHAT, THEN, IS THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT IN SINGAPORE?

According to Wikipedia, a political ideology typically contains certain ideas on what it considers to be the best form of government (e.g. democracy, autocracy, etc.), and the best economic system (e.g. capitalism, socialism, etc.).

This section gives a quick overview of the different sorts of political ideologies.

Let’s take a look at the following three terms: illiberal democracy, authoritarianism, and fascism.

(i) “A classic example of an illiberal democracy is the Republic of Singapore. An illiberal democracy, also called a pseudo democracy, empty democracy or hybrid regime, is a governing system in which, although elections take place, citizens are cut off from knowledge about the activities of those who exercise real power because of the lack of civil liberties…”

(ii) “Authoritarianism is characterised by absolute or blind obedience to authority, as against individual freedom and related to the expectation of unquestioning obedience.”

(iii) “Fascism is a system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, [and] suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship.”

And what is a dictator?

“A dictator is an absolute ruler; a despot. A despot is a person who wields power oppressively.”

5. IS SINGAPORE’S FOUNDING FATHER, MR. LEE KUAN YEW, A ‘DESPOT’?

At least one person thought so, and said so, in public.

William Safire, the late New York Times columnist, called Lee a dictator at the World Economic Forum in 1999. Safire accused Lee of showing disregard for the principles of liberal democracy.

Mr. Safire said: “The determinedly irreplaceable Lee Kuan Yew is the world’s most intelligent, and to some most likable despot.”

Mr. Lee’s response to the accusation of dictatorship was: “Do I need to be a dictator when I can win, hands down?”

Years ago, NUS student Jamie Han had a lively exchange with Mr. Lee Kuan Yew during a dialogue with NUS students at the Kent Ridge Ministerial Forum.

Jamie Han: “No matter how enlightened a despot is, ultimately, he’ll turn into a tyrant if there are no checks and balances in place.”

Mr. Lee’s reply: “I was no despot. [That older] generation knew that I fought for them. . .you don’t put your life at risk in calling me a despot.” (The Straits Times)

A collection of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew’s quotes is available on Lee Kuan Yew – Wikiquote.

In 1971, Mr. LKY said:

“Freedom of the press, freedom of the news media, must be subordinated to the overriding needs of the integrity of Singapore, and to the primacy of purpose of an elected government.”
(The Exotic World of Singaporean Journalism)

In 1984, Mr. LKY said:

“I make no apologies that the PAP is the Government and the Government is the PAP.”
(Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy)

Some other quotes by Mr. Lee Kuan Yew include:

“WE are in charge. Every government ministry and department is under our control. And in the infighting, [Mr. J.B. Jeyaretnam] will go down for the count every time…I will make him crawl on his bended knees, and beg for mercy.”
(as recounted by C. V. Devan Nair — who said he was “alarmed” at some of the things Mr. Lee said during that lunch — in Requiem for an unbending Singaporean)

“We decide what is right. Never mind what the people think.”
(Lee Kuan Yew / Straits Times, 20 April 1987)

“Please do not assume that you can change governments. Young people don’t understand this.”
(Lee Kuan Yew / Post-2006 General Elections)

// “Knuckle Dusters” | Image by Colourbox

“Supposing Catherine Lim was writing about me and not the prime minister…She would not dare, right?…If you take me on, I will put on knuckle-dusters and catch you in a cul de sac…Anybody who decides to take me on needs to put on knuckle dusters. If you think you can hurt me more than I can hurt you, try. There is no other way you can govern a Chinese society.”
(Lee Kuan Yew / Hong Kong University Press)

“I started off believing all men were equal. I now know that’s the most unlikely thing ever to have been. . .by observation, reading, watching, arguing, asking, and then bullying my way to the top, that is the conclusion I’ve come to.”
(Lee Kuan Yew / The Man & His Ideas, 1997)

These are things Mr. Lee Kuan Yew has said. So if he or the ruling party in Singapore wishes to sue Wikiquotes or the contributors to that page for defamation, it’s going to be a bit of a roundabout if you are suing your own self for defamation (since such compilations are based on things Mr. LKY has actually said on record).

I leave it to you, the reader, to decide if the above quotes depict an individual who is dictatorial in mind, spirit, and action.

6. INTERNAL SECURITY ACT (ISA)

What is the Internal Security Act (ISA) of Singapore?

“[The ISA] grants the executive power to enforce preventive detention, prevent subversion, suppress organized violence against persons and property, and do other things incidental to the internal security of Singapore.” (Wikipedia)”

The law is a controversial one. Why?

Because it allows for detention without trial (for potentially indefinite periods). Indefinite detention is in violation of many national and international laws, including human rights laws.

The ISA has been used to imprison political opponents, including Dr. Chia Thye Poh, who was held for 32 years without trial before being released.

ISA | Maruah Singapore has a timeline and brief history of ISA detainees, with an explanation of why the Internal Security Act continues to be the elephant in the room of Singapore’s political history.

Amnesty International’s Report on Singapore (1980) is also available online (you can also download the original PDF).

These quotes cast more light onto the ISA:

“Debate rages on over Singapore’s controversial Internal Security Act despite the government’s unequivocal rejection of calls to repeal the act or form a Commission of Inquiry to investigate detentions made under it.”
(Asian Correspondent, 2011)

“Amnesty International has been concerned for many years that journalists, newspaper editors and publishers who have been critical of government policy have been detained without trial in Singapore under the ISA. “
(Amnesty International Report, 1980)

“Although the government’s use of the ISA for political purposes elicited negative reactions from the public, it was not prepared to abolish, or make amendments to the Act. . .the absence of explicit definitions of national security threats. . .renders the ISA susceptible to political misuse.”
(Damien Cheong, 2006)

Note that Martyn See’s films on ex-political detainees (Said Zahari and Dr. Lim Hock Siew) are banned in Singapore.

As Mr. See says:

“You would think that with the opposition completely neutralised and the PAP firmly secured in the driver’s seat, LKY would relax a little and give civil society some breathing space. Instead, the government passed more laws to curtail civil activities — and if all these laws do not deter you, the ISA will.“
(Martyn See, 2013)

7. OPERATION SPECTRUM

I didn’t know anything about this (when I was growing up in Singapore) — I was less than a year old when this was happening in 1987.

“Operation Spectrum” was the code name for a covert security operation that took place in Singapore on 21 May 1987. 16 people were arrested and detained without trial under Singapore’s Internal Security Act (ISA) for their alleged involvement in “a Marxist conspiracy.”

Tan Wah Piow was a former student activist and president of the University of Singapore’s Students’ Union (USSU) in 1974. He was accused by the Singapore government as being the alleged mastermind behind the conspiracy.

About Operation Spectrum, Mr. Tan says:

“If one goes down to the truth of Operation Spectrum, it was an exercise to wipe out a generation of potential political leaders who could challenge Lee Hsien Loong. One must not underestimate the impact of Operation Spectrum. It was not merely ostracizing those 22 political detainees at that time. It was to teach a lesson to everyone else who were in the NGO (non-governmental organizations).”
(Asian Thinkers)

Tang Fong Har, a lawyer and member of the Law Society, was arrested in 1987 under the Internal Security Act (ISA).

She describes what it was like to be a prison detainee:

“One of the interrogators slapped me across my left cheek [with] the full force of his body. . .I was completely shocked by the assault. . .I continued vomiting until the fourth day, by which time I felt quite famished. I had never felt more terrible in my life.”
(A detainee remembers / August 1989 issue of Index on Censorship, a UK-based NGO)

Francis Seow was a member of Singapore’s elite class who was also arrested under the ISA in 1988. A review excerpt of Mr. Seow’s book, To Catch a Tartar: A Dissident in Lee Kuan Yew’s Prison, states:

“The confrontation between [Lee Kuan Yew] and [Francis Seow] began when the Law Society, under the leadership of Seow, began to criticize parliamentary legislation, in particular the proposed Newspaper and Printing Press Amendment. The friction between Lee and Seow increased when the latter stood up to Lee during the Select Committee hearings on proposed amendments to the Legal Professions Act.”
(James Gomez, 1996)

Tan Wah Piow eventually obtained political asylum in the UK and now practises law in London. Tang Fong Har is a lawyer now residing in Hong Kong. Francis Seow sought political asylum in the United States, became a Visiting Fellow at Yale University and then at Harvard Law School — he now resides in Massachusetts.

8. WHAT DO OTHERS THINK ABOUT SINGAPORE’S DEMOCRACY?

Here are some quotes and opinions people have about the type of democracy — or form of governance — in Singapore.

“If it’s taken me all this time to arrive at such a definite definition of Singapore, imagine how alien ‘fascism’ is to the average Singaporean. . .”
(X’Ho: Hushed Fascism, Singapore Style)

“A look at authoritarian democracy in Singapore, where the same party has won every election for more than half a century. Because of its strength, the government is able to exert control over the media, civil service and society.”
(BBC – Learning Zone)

“China is a paradise of academic freedom” after Singapore. [In Singapore] public humiliation is a more common tactic for dealing with those who do not toe the party line.”
(Daniel Bell in Dissent)

“[Singapore Inc] would be aghast at — and quite likely arrest — anyone compelled to spend 17 minutes publicly justifying democracy and why it matters.”
(The Age, AU)

“Singapore is essentially a third-world country that has a developed business district that allows corporatists, expats, and the upper class to pretend they live in anything but a backward fascist state.”
(The Fascism of Singapore)

“The Court casts significant doubt as to whether Singapore will ever recognize the fair and honest reporting privilege accorded to responsible journalism — a privilege available in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries with diverse histories and cultures.”
(Dow Jones Corporation, 2006)

Fareed Zakaria calls Singapore an illiberal democracy: “a democratically elected regime that routinely ignores constitutional limits on their power and deprives their citizens of basic rights and freedoms.”
(CIS, Australia)

“In pursuit of prosperity, the PAP regime has managed to cow a large section of Singaporeans into not valuing democracy and human rights.”
(Ang Hiok Gai / Asian Human Rights Commission)

“Disdain for intellectuals and the arts…Obsession with crime and punishment…Rampant cronyism and corruption…Controlled mass media…Disdain for recognition of human rights…Singapore is a full-fledged fascist state.”
(Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism)

“Under the PAP rule, there is no genuine parliamentary democracy. In essence, it has been practising a one-party rule. The opposition parties will never be allowed to grow strong…there is always the danger of one-party rule slipping into one-man rule, and worse still, into dynastic rule. The PAP government does not like critical newspapers or publications, and is intolerant towards sharp criticisms. They seem elitist and arrogant, regarding themselves as the best and the most suitable to rule Singapore. And they rule it with iron-handed policies.“
(Dr. Chia Thye Poh, 1989)

9. CONCLUSION

Refer to Section 3 of this blog post, which defines the political ideologies of illiberal democracy, authoritarianism, and fascism.

Which would be the most accurate description of the ruling party of the past five decades?

* * *

* Websites With More Information:

(1) Why is the Government So Afraid of Ex-Detainees? (Sgpolitics.net)

(2) That We May Dream Again (the about page states that “more than 2,500 Singaporeans have been detained under the ISA since the 1960’s”)

(3) Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism (by Dr. Lawrence Britt)

(4) Detention of Journalists and Lawyers under the ISA (Amnesty International, 1980)

(5) What Needs More Regulation: The Government or Online Media? (Lucky Tan)

(6) A Chronology of Authoritarian Rule in Singapore  (Singapore Rebel)

* Interviews and Opinions:

(1) “Challenge Singapore’s Facade Democracy” (The Online Citizen)

(2) Singapore: Where Speaking Truth to Power is Considered Defamation (by Alon Levy, Math PhD)

(3) Interview with Tan Wah Piow, alleged mastermind behind 1987′s “Marxist Conspiracy” (AsianThinker)

(4) Chia Thye Poh: The Man Himself (by James Gomez & Susan Chua)

(5) Chia Thye Poh: Respected Recipient of the 2011 LLG Award (Asian Human Rights Commission)

Singapore’s Education System – The Truth Behind The Myth

* Featured on TR Emeritus, TRS, SG Daily, All SG Stuff, and The Insider.

1. INTRODUCTION

When I was growing up in Singapore — I migrated to the U.S. when I was twenty — what caused me a lot of grief was the education system.

I don’t have a vendetta against the schools I attended. Some teachers really cared about students, in a way which went beyond how the students were performing academically.

It is the education system itself which I don’t remember fondly.

I always feel disheartened with reports in the establishment media that paint a rosy picture of Singapore’s education system (like here, here, and here). Few of them give a comprehensive overview of the real effects of the system.

Such reports do not dilute the clear memory I have — through direct experience — of the disadvantages of the aforementioned system.

2. “YOU’RE THROWING AWAY YOUR FUTURE!”

// Photo by Caroline Chia/SPH

I did quite well throughout most of my years as a primary and secondary school student in Singapore (Katong Convent Primary School and St. Anthony’s Canossian Secondary School, respectively). I attended Temasek Polytechnic for 1.5 years (I was enrolled in mass communications).

I switched from the pure science stream to arts stream when I was in Secondary 3, by choice, because I preferred the arts curriculum and the subjects there.

I didn’t hate math or science — I just had a higher level of interest in history and literature instead of a triple science combination (physics/biology/ chemistry).

Some of my fellow schoolmates at the time were shocked beyond belief that I made that switch.

Schoolmate #1: “But you’re the smartest student in the whole level!” (I was the top student for two years.)

Schoolmate #2: “OH MY GOD. What are you doing? You’re throwing away your future!”

I just kept quiet at the time as I thought to myself:

Dudes, all I’m doing is switching from the pure science to arts stream BECAUSE I want to study subjects I’m actually interested in. How is this going to limit my future? If things are really so confined or restrictive, I can seek out other avenues later, even if it means checking things out in another country if the situation is so bad that I have to extricate myself from it entirely.

Turns out that I did end up removing myself from the situation entirely. Why? Because (many years later), I realize the value of being capable of independent thought, instead of having to conform to a system.

Now I don’t mean the exact opposite, where systems are completely useless because everybody should be “free” to do what they want (and that’s coming from somebody who’s a self-described author/artist/non-conformist).

But when there is a problem, or problems, with a system, then it is in everybody’s interest that those points be made clearly and factually.

3. THE REAL TRUTH OF THE SYSTEM’S ‘MANTRA’

The extreme “rote learning” method in Singapore forces students to score well for the exams by memorizing and regurgitating facts.

The only time I started to enjoy reading and writing Mandarin was once I was out of school — because, hey! Things were actually more interesting (songs, comics, films in Mandarin), as opposed to the memorization of words/characters/vocabulary without the slightest element of engagement or fun.

“Just memorize, get good grades, and you’re The Perfect Role Model Student.”

Never mind if you can’t think for yourself or have no interest in formulating your own opinions on what is right/wrong, on what you like/dislike, on what you really want to do or be in the future.

“Work hard, study hard, get a good job (in the following lucrative sectors: banking, law, medicine, engineering, accountancy) — and you’re set for life.”

THAT was the real mantra of the Singapore education system, when I was a student in it for 12 years straight.

Notice that it is elitist in principle (the narrowing down of certain sectors that are “better” than the rest — and “better” solely because they are the traditionally financially lucrative industries).

There’s no room for any creativity or anyone to pursue their passion if it falls outside of what is deemed to be “good.”

The real truth is that it’s not what’s necessarily good for you — it’s what’s good for the Singapore economy (with citizens having been referred to as actual economic “digits”).

4. STRESS, HOMEWORK, SUICIDE — AND MORE STRESS

I wasn’t ever miserable as a student to the point of suicide, though it has driven many others over that edge.

But I remember the dreariness of school holidays, which weren’t vacation time at all, due to the loads of homework designed to keep students “industrious.”

And if homework wasn’t enough, there were the tuition/supplementary lessons as well as extra-curricular activities which literally ate up any remaining free time I had.

Now that I think about it, I think the loads of homework were partly designed to keep me from having “free thoughts” about anything else apart from being a good student (refer to “the real mantra” in above section).

Kids and teenagers shouldn’t be growing up in a pressure-cooker environment that stifles their minds, on top of having their voices or opinions silenced and/or not valued.

Yes, there should be some limits. For example, if a student was expressing him/herself rudely, or being violently disruptive for the sake of being rebellious.

But in an education system that equates “stress” with “industriousness,” and anything that doesn’t neatly conform to it as “rebellious,” it’s easy to “feel like an outcast even if one is desperately trying to fit in” (I read that description off a friend’s blog ‘about me’ page when we were 17).

5. THE TURNING POINT FOR ME

I quit my polytechnic course halfway because I didn’t feel particularly motivated, inspired or engaged with the course material.

Now again, I was enrolled in a mass communications course.

I didn’t enroll in that course because I had aspirations to be a deejay or TV news anchor. I enrolled because I had an interest in media and society, and maybe journalism, since everybody in Singapore told me that that was the field I should look into because I liked to write (dismissing the fact that what I like to write is fiction!).

There were several things that eventually made me so dissatisfied and disillusioned, that withdrawing from the course (with no backup plan or ANY idea what I was going to do thereafter) was still a better option than completing it just because I had to.

I remember one instance very clearly during my first year there.

During a journalism class, the very nice/friendly lecturer said with a compliant smile:

“Guys, as we all know, this is Singapore [so there are just some things you can and cannot say in the media]…”

My classmates were cool, friendly, and smart.

But I remember how everybody just took what the lecturer said — with no protest, no questions, no nothing. It was a very uninspiring moment because I was secretly expecting more.

While I admit that I didn’t do or say anything at that point either (I was a very quiet, unhappy mass comm student), that was the moment which made my 16 or 17 year-old brain “wake up” to the fact that I really wasn’t happy, with my life, situation, everything, and that I had to do something about it instead of being crippled by indecision.

Instinctively, I just felt it was wrong that it was accepted practice that nobody could really “speak their mind” in my country of origin without any serious repercussions (these articles on Gopalan Nair, Nicole Seah, and the late Jeyaretnam show the kind of treatment that “the opposition” has to go through).

6. I’M A HUMAN BEING, NOT A ‘DIGIT’

As a student, what I really wanted to be educated on was how to be a happy, purposeful and productive HUMAN BEING (not a “digit” for the economy).

I wanted to study subjects I had a real interest in, in the hopes it would help me identify my potential areas of skill and expertise so that I could eventually make a living from doing something I enjoy.

What kind of message is the system giving, when generations grow up in a stressful environment where you’re separated into “elite” or “non-elite” schools, instead of being part of an environment that endeavors to identify and bring out the best in each student (not all of whom have solely academic talents!!).

The following paragraph from a perceptive article says it all:

“The views of some of Singapore’s ‘elite’ students are revealing and disturbing. . .While the education system can produce excellent engineers and scientists, can the same be said of raising potential leaders who are sensitive to society’s needs?”
(Seah Chiang Nee, The Star Malaysia)

To me, one of the primary purposes of education should be to enable students to become capable, global-minded citizens, who have some kind of mental/spiritual/emotional involvement with their chosen line of work because of the contributions they can make to society, big or small.

An education system which suppresses independent thought, discourages the act of questioning, and dismisses this thing called ‘passion’, is not going to produce ideal human beings.

Here are the things the system does promote the development of.

It fosters apathy. It fosters inarticulation (“uh, ah, um, hmm“). It fosters subordination to the system’s one and only goal.

It produces people who are afraid to think, unable to question, and uninspired to seek out the truth.

Perhaps most disastrously, it fosters the belief that any kind of change is impossible. Heck, even the thought of any kind of change is an unwelcome thing (think of all the trouble you’d get into!).

But change is possible (which is what really scares the ones who are most invested in not disrupting the status quo).

People are not being delusional when they say:

“Every single action we take, however small, does have an impact on change…if we have the means to contribute, like with writing skills, it would be a pity not to use it.”
(Gopalan Nair, Singapore Dissident)

7. CONCLUSION

I published this blog post because like many other people who express similar views, what I’m interested in is The Truth.

That is just one of my many interests I developed outside of the education system that has been the focal topic of this article.

Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to share their informed thoughts with others.

* * *

Websites With More Information:

(1) The Fascism of Singapore (by an Israeli Math PhD who studied in a Singapore university)

(2) Singapore Education Producing Timid, Robotic Minds (online political activist)

(3) The Educational System in Singapore (concise forum post on an overview of the system and what can be done to improve it)

(4) Singapore Schools Shaping Elitist Mindset (article by The Star)

(5) Observations on Elitism in Singapore (by a former teacher of an ‘elite’ secondary school, with a mention on how wealth can be a handicap)