Isn't it time to move on from debate about debate?

Jan 21, 2006
THINKING ALOUD
Isn't it time to move on from debate about debate?

By Warren Fernandez

IS SINGAPORE an open or closed society? Has the space for public debate widened over the years, or have efforts to raise political engagement here been futile, making little difference, perhaps even being no more than a sham?

These perennial questions, which have been raised once again in recent weeks, are not academic or esoteric ones.

Especially not to the hundreds of Singaporeans who will gather this morning for the annual conference by the Feedback Unit to discuss ideas from its various feedback groups.

On the agenda are 'big picture' discussions on how to empower people and encourage more debate by, for example, giving them more information, as well as down-to-earth suggestions on whether employers should be given tax incentives to hire older workers.

Now, if political discourse here has remained unchanged over the years, as recently suggested by some commentators, notably writer Catherine Lim, then those engaging in these debates will be doing so in vain, and wasting a precious Saturday morning.

Worse, going by Dr Lim's article published in yesterday's edition of this newspaper, they will be, wittingly or otherwise, participating in a deliberate attempt at political diversion and deception.

This recurring debate on politics in Singapore is one of those 'half-empty, half-full' discussions.

To the cynics and critics, the half-empty crowd, not enough progress has been made in freeing political discourse here.

They can point readily to instances to back their case - the existence of laws which govern association and political discussions in public, regulate the Internet and the media, or high-profile cases when leaders have been quick to reach for political sledgehammers.

Then, from time to time, there are those surprising statements from officialdom, such as the recent breathtakingly ambiguous one by the police that wearing T-shirts en masse 'may be misconstrued by some as an offence'.

Pity the hapless former Raffles Girls' School students, taking their first steps in the public domain, who would be left bewildered by this episode: So, a collective wearing of T-shirts may be an offence? Some would construe it to be an offence, but not others? Who makes such strange laws, and why, they might well ask.

The likely response from their teachers and parents: don't ask so many questions, dears, lest you get into trouble with the police and the politicians - an unfortunate lesson, if you ask me.

Where does this leave the half-full crowd? While they might lament the steps backwards, they would also decry the ahistorical approach of the cynics. They might cite the famous line of the British leader Winston Churchill: 'The farther backward you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see'.

In other words, the state of politics in Singapore can be understood only by looking at developments over time. Rather than being weighed down by specific setbacks, look at the trends. To this way of thinking, political engagement is an ongoing, even inevitable, process. You win some, you lose some, but there is just no stopping the tide.

Singapore's laws and regulations might not have changed as much as the critics might like, but its political culture has evolved. Like it or not, the political costs of actions and reactions by leaders and led have also changed in the process.

To see this more clearly, consider the three major issues that dominated political discussion last year: the casino debate, the National Kidney Foundation saga, and the flap over draft dodgers.

All three issues sparked strong public reactions, with forceful arguments being made on all sides, not just by government leaders, but also by members of civil society - academics, journalists, civic groups and even ordinary individuals who wanted to air their views.

The debate took place not just in Parliament, but also in the media, both mainstream and the fast-developing new media (today's version of coffee-shop talk, which, alas, sometimes generates more hot air than light, but that's another story).

If truth be told, in each of these cases, the issues raised and the lines of contention were set and framed not only by government leaders, but also by others who chose to make a stand.

Even when government leaders tried to steer the discussion, as in the casino debate, they could not always do so. Like it or not, they had to engage the critics, respond to their arguments and defend their own positions. The outcomes of the debate, I suspect, were not always as government leaders might have envisaged.

But perhaps an even more striking sign of how things have changed is represented by Dr Lim herself, that icon of political engagement, or the lack of it.

Over 10 years ago, I interviewed her several times in the weeks after her first essay on the 'great affective divide' between the powers that be and the people sparked a furious reaction from the country's top leaders, no less.

Then, a cloud hung over her, casting a long shadow over all who yearned for more political openness in this country. People spoke in grim whispers about what had happened and what might follow.

So, the recent sight of Dr Lim, feisty as ever, sharing a platform with one of the PAP's young leading lights, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, but nonetheless unafraid to lament, some would say lambaste, the political situation here, was telling indeed.

As one puzzled diplomat remarked to me last week after that debate: 'Singapore is often spoken of as a closed, even repressive, society. But for such a society, you seem to spend a lot of time debating how open you should or might be.'

So, which of these views of the state of Singapore politics is closer to the mark?

To be sure, both have a ring of truth about them, but ultimately, I would come down on the side of the half-full crowd, which sees the progress that has been made, albeit in two steps forward, one step back fashion, as a hopeful sign of things to come, not a cause for heavy-hearted despair, as Dr Lim puts it.

As I see it, the more Singaporeans engage, among themselves and with their leaders, the more it will become natural for them to do so, thereby shaping the political culture of this young society.

To say this, however, is not to assert some 'best of all possible worlds' belief that everything in Singapore is hunky-dory, or that things are as good as it gets.

Rather, it has been my sense for some time that civil society needs to move on, to get beyond the seemingly endless debate about political debate, as it were.

Instead, I would argue that it is time to adopt the spirit of 19th-century American poet Walt Whitman, whose answer to the 'recurring questions' and tendency of 'forever reproaching myself', was to cry out to the youth of his day: 'The powerful play goes on, and you will contribute a verse.'

For too long, despite frequent calls from top leaders to Singaporeans to contribute their verse, the cynics have chosen to focus instead on asking: 'Who decides what kind of verse? Just who can contribute such a verse? Who stopped us writing verses to begin with?'

Of course, in a democracy, it is their prerogative to carry on a debate about debate endlessly. But, to my mind, this does not get anyone very far and represents a wasted opportunity.

For doing so detracts and distracts from the efforts of others who believe in the need, and urgency, to engage more meaningfully.

The powerful play goes on...

warren@sph.com.sg



The writer is foreign editor of The Straits Times. He is a member of the Feedback Unit's Supervisory Panel.