I know some readers come to this site for reflections on Taoism and, occasionally, the I Ching.  And for those people – who I very much want to continue communicating with – my recent turn toward Singaporean politics must be rather disappointing: not a lot of Taoism happening there.  But I am going to keep at it for a bit longer.  It is election time in Singapore, a moment of unusual political activity, something that fascinates me.  The election happens this Saturday, May 6th.  Only about a week of active campaigning, which may seem like a marvelous thing to Americans weary from the permanent campaign of US politics, but which affords dissidents and opponents of the powers-that-be only a brief chance to make their case before the public.  Now is Singapore’s political moment, and I will concentrate on it for the next few days.

    That said, I should say that I have a history with the ruling party, the PAP.  In 1995, my college awarded an honorary degree to then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong.  I helped organized protests here: we opposed the idea of a liberal arts college, that relies upon academic and intellectual freedom, making an award to the leader of a government that clearly restricts academic and intellectual – not to mention political – freedoms.  A little background can be found here and here.   You will notice that I am referred to by my formal name, George T.  I have since made a habit of publishing under my nickname, Sam, which is what my friends and family have called me since I was an infant. 

    I am also going to post, below the fold here, the text of an op-ed I published in the Washington Post on August 30, 1995 under the title "Wrong Choice for an Honorary Degree."  While the key political actors have changed, the underlying issues are still largely the same.

    I want to make note of a significant difference between the politics of 2006 and the politics of 1995.  The key point is well summed up by this post on the Singaporean web forum, Sammyboy’s Coffee Shop:

But times has changed. In 1997 and 2001 [the last General Elections], most of the families have only
dial up 56kb internet connection. Now, boardband internet is cheap and
everywhere. Internet has lower the cost of information flow. So what
PAP traditionally controls 100% of the TV and print media, it has
little control over the information on the internet, which brings
better political news. I have given out hope for our CNA, TCS and SPH [state-controlled Singaporean media].
The news do not reflect the ground situation. Disappointed!

    That disappointment is the realization that the official media is not showing the huge turn outs for opposition rallies.  From where I sit, in extreme northwestern, rural Massachusetts, the expansion of web technology brings pictures and web casts of those rallies.  They are quite impressive.  My general sense is that the Worker’s Party, in particular, is in very good position to secure more seats in parliament than has ever been the case in the era of PAP repression.  Information flows more freely, the PAP cannot control it, and, as a result, opposition forces are in a much better position to makes real political gains.

     The internet allows for more pointed critiques of the PAP.  I could not have imagined anything quite like this post circulating widely in 1995.  Times do change, and, is some ways, for the better!

    Good luck to all Singaporeans struggling to expand political rights and freedoms.

     Below the fold, a critique of PAP repression, 1995 Goh Chok Tong-style:

    UPDATE: When I re-read my old piece I notice how mild my argument is in comparison with the criticisms being leveled against the PAP by Singaporeans this week.  This I take as another good sign: freedom of expression is growing and expanding in Singapore…

On Sept. 16, Williams College will dishonor itself by awarding an honorary
degree to Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong of Singapore, head of a government that
severely represses freedom of expression, a fundamental principle of any
American institution of higher education.

Supporters of the award argue that Singapore’s economic development of the
past three decades has been extraordinary by world standards and that its social
development has improved the lives of many residents. Goh, a Williams alumnus,
has been a key player in engineering economic policy and is, they contend,
worthy of our most prestigious prize. A closer look at the limitations on
political and intellectual life imposed upon Singapore by the Ruling People’s
Action Party (PAP), of which Goh is the head, suggests that prosperity has come
at the cost of basic freedoms, a situation that continues in spite of
liberalization in other "miracle" economies in East Asia, most notably Taiwan
and South Korea. Singaporeans are among the most well educated and cosmopolitan
in the region, but the PAP government chooses to repress political dissidents,
journalists and academics as a means of retaining power.

Tiananmen-style massacres or middle-of-the-night disappearances are not the
style of PAP strong arms. Rather, the Chinese saying "kill a chicken to scare
the monkey," is their watchword and the bankrupting libel suit their preferred
tool. Prominent leaders of legal opposition parties engaging in constitutionally
guaranteed political processes are regularly sued for comments that supposedly
defame government officials. The PAP has never lost this sort of court battle,
perhaps, as a recent U.S. State Department report stated, because "judicial
officials, especially the Supreme Court, have close ties to the ruling party and
its leaders." And in case this is not enough to discourage political dissent,
the state has in its arsenal the Internal Security Act, which allows for
indefinite detention without trial, liberating jailers from any judicial
constraints on how they treat those in their clutches. It was used against
Francis Seow, former solicitor general of Singapore, in a bizarre 1988 case that
alleged his involvement in a plot on the part of Reagan administration diplomats
to bring down the authoritarian PAP government.

The Singaporean press is effectively controlled by the state, and foreign
publications have been targets of libel suits. This summer a case was settled
against the International Herald Tribune, which had been sued by Prime Minister
Goh and former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew for publishing an article asserting
that a form of "dynastic politics" was emerging in Singapore. No names were
mentioned in the article in question, and it is common knowledge that Lee has
long been grooming his son, currently a deputy prime minister, for the highest
political office. The Tribune was ordered by a Singaporean court to pay $680,000
for the supposed defamation. Short of full-blown libel suits, limitations on
circulation have been imposed at various times on a variety of foreign
publications, including the Economist and the Asian Wall Street Journal. Such
actions have a chilling effect on all sorts of speech.

Perhaps most troublesome in regard to whether a liberal arts college should
honor Prime Minister Goh is the situation faced by Singaporean intellectuals,
whose freedom of expression is severely compromised by the PAP government.
Without the protection of academic tenure, some faculty members have lost their
jobs because of their criticisms of government policies.

One of the most egregious cases is that of Chee Soon Juan, who was a lecturer
in neuropsychology at the National University of Singapore. He was so dismayed
at the increased political repression in the late 1980s that he decided to seek
public office. In December 1992, he ran as an opposition Social Democratic Party
candidate in a by-election against Prime Minister Goh. Although he lost at the
polls, he continued his activism until the university took action against him,
auditing his research grant of $27,000 in Singapore dollars and finding that he
had supposedly misspent $226 ($137 in U.S. dollars). When he attempted to defend
himself, he was sued by the head of his department, a member of Parliament for
the ruling party, for defamation. He chose not to contest the case and was
forced to sell his house to pay the subsequent fines. Chee was ultimately fired
from the university over the matter, punishment for his political activity.

Most academics are not nearly as politically engaged as Chee Soon Juan, but
his travails have driven home the message that crossing the government brings
devastating consequences. Last year when Bilveer Singh, a political scientist at
the National University of Singapore, wrote an opinion piece in the Jakarta Post
that suggested that economic inequality is now growing in Singapore, he
prudently retracted his comments after a government official demanded that he
provide more data or "withdraw these allegations." To continue to debate the
issues in the face of PAP displeasure would have put his livelihood at risk.
Open debate of topics potentially embarrassing to the government is simply not
possible in Singapore.

Goh has suggested that he would like to gradually liberalize Singaporean
society; he promised a "kinder and gentler" government in his inauguration
address in 1990. Whatever his good intentions, however, he has not acted
decisively to reduce restrictions on expression. Last year, in response to a
measured and mild critique of the PAP, he threatened to hit political dissidents
in the "solar plexus." Other leaders in the region have placed their careers,
indeed their lives, in jeopardy to open their societies. Goh has not
demonstrated this kind of political commitment or courage.

Singapore is not the harshest authoritarian government in the world; indeed,
it is far from the worst. One would hope, however, that an honorary degree from
an American college would be reserved for those who struggle, at great personal
cost, to expand the most humane and enlightening facets of our existence. Goh,
sitting atop a political system that seeks to stifle even the mildest critical
commentary, is not such a person.

The writer is an associate professor of political science at Williams
College.