Political Apologism

For those who still deign to read the Straits Times (read: insufficiently jaded or insufferably naive), today’s Review section featured a rather fetchingly long exerpt from the de facto memoirs of Prof. Tom Plate, “internationally syndicated columnist”, whose Pacific Perspectives column is highly popular in the region for its acerbic and humorous takes on Asian affairs from an American perspective.

Now, say of Tom Plate what you will, and I’ve heard several bad things about his articles (and some good things as well), but his paragraph on Singapore struck me. Being somewhat of a gahmen apologist myself, I can perhaps identify with his (albeit not-too-popular) stance. I often ask myself what government doesn’t have at least a few skeletons in the closet. I also think that, despite the PAP’s paranoia and strong-arm policies with regards to political opposition and dissent, that it is to a large extent the ability of the government that has sustained the electoral support for it. No one else but the electorate, and the sorry state of some of the opposition (tellingly misconstrued by people such as Dr. Chee), is to blame for the PAP’s continued dominance.

Plate’s opinion about the state of the press in America and Singapore is apt, as well. In America some types of slander can pass off as a feature of freedom of expression. In Singapore, that situation is different. Who, then, is to blame for being sued for clearly not respecting the rule of law here? The repressive laws, or the people who brazenly and foolhardily ignore them? Safire-type firebranding in any case is not the only way to express political thought. The Straits Times (read: gahmen lickspittle, bootlicker press, subservient propagandists) is bland, formalized, and contains none of the polemics that characterize American columns. Well and good. If that is what our political climate engenders, so be it. It still publishes good stuff, from time to time, if you censor all the government press releases. But it’s not bad; its not overly acquiescent propaganda, just because it doesn’t publish fiery anti-PAP articles half the time, or question policies all the time. Admittedly, there is still a long way to go before ST can be considered nuanced in its representation of Singapore politics. But it’s not that bad. I mean, if Catherine Lim can get away with publishing her Managing Political Dissent article, I’m not certain we’ve sunk to PRC or USSR levels just yet. And unlike the PRC, we can’t and don’t censor blogger. There is sufficient leeway for any sane, rational Singaporean to express himself on a myraid of topics, including those political in nature. As to racist comments on blogs, while I don’t support draconian action myself, they did have it coming, really.

What I am probably getting at is that, firstly, while Singapore is no hotbed of freedom of expression, it isn’t North Korea either by a long shot. More importantly, though, the Singaporean, if prudent, rational and open-minded, has the leeway to pretty much say anything he wants. Additionally, PAP-bashers are probably taking the wrong approach with polemics and cynicism. We have a base to work on to improve Singapore; we’re hardly at the nadir. Finally, I’m of the strong opinion that the nature of the demographic is changing to incorporate a more politically active population, one that is both more qualified and more willing to grapple with the issues of the political scene here.

So here’s to a better Singapore.

***
Penned by The Arbiter