Dear Bernard,

I agree with you with many of your points; in fact, I argue that there is increasing political space for citizens to participate in Singapore and I strongly support the government in allowing such spaces for Singaporeans in order to build an active citizenry.

However, I wonder if there is still room for additional space for Singaporeans to debate the real "Out of Bound Markers" in Singapore. In my mind, while religion is justifiably bounded by markers, what about OB markers for matters of politics in Singapore?

Let me just pose two REAL OB markers in Singapore.
1) In Francis Seow's new book on "Singapore's judiciary; Beyond Suspicion" discusses with a critical eye at length on the HPL issue a few years back and by extension, the judiciary and the executive in Singapore. In addition, Nicholas Tartling (2005) edited volume "Corruption and good governance in Asia" is also similarly critical on Singapore (In my mind, many parts seems unjustifiable) Can Singaporeans discuss these issues? Or is that still one of the biggest taboo issue in Singapore?

2) While economists such as Manu Bhaskaran critically analysis Singapore's political economy in many of his writings, I wonder if any of his discourses have made it to the blogsphere or mainstream media?

Disclaimer: I do not endorse any of their writings but just to throw out some points on OB markers to think about.

Hi Wayne,

1. Btw, some of Francis Seow's books are in the Central Library, NUS. Unless both books you mentioned are in the banned publications list (like the recent FEER review), people should be able to discuss such issues mentioned in these books. Now, let me give an example, if someone writes an article to criticise a claim in one of the banned journals or publications, he or she will not be liable for the content of the article based on what the law constitutes as fair comment. However, in order for him to criticise the article, he has quoted chunks of the original article, he might run into trouble with the law by propagating and disseminating banned information.

Suppose SA publishes such an article (and bypass our internal review), we might get away with the fair comment, but it depends on how the establishment views. They have the power to hold us liable by arguing that we are propagating or disseminating banned material. Of course, I am not a lawyer and it will be great if any lawyer who pass by give us more information on this kind of situation.

2. As far as I know, recently Manu Bhaskaran was featured in ChannelnewsAsia with Chua Hak Bin from Citigroup. The news is on the propagation that our economy is going on a dual track. I have not seen any of his discourses in the blogosphere. I am sure that if his articles promote civil and rational discourse, SA will be interested to publish them (provided he wants to or not).

Dear Bernard,

Thank you for your comments. I am not specifically talking about Mr. Seow or Mr. Manu in particular but the ideas they are arguing. Let me phrase it slightly more bluntly:

1) Do our current laws on defamation and libel restrict discourses on corruption (corporate or otherwise) in Singapore?

2) Will a critical discussion on the bedrock of the government's legitimacy, the "successful" political economy of Singapore, be construe as an question on the "PAP's finesse to rule?"

Wayne,

On the first question, my honest answer is that I don't know. Without doubt, the laws of defamation and libel will definitely restrict discourses on corruption. In fact, it is very difficult & nearly impossible to do this kind of discourse. However, you can only attempt such discourses if you have sufficient evidence and not just making deduction based on linking this to that. Of course, we have not seen any precedents, so I can't go further what we have here.

On the second question, it depends on how the discussion is constructed in the first place. I don't have an answer to the question.

At the end of the day, the art of avoiding trouble is to know all the possible mistakes and loopholes that you know that you will get yourself into trouble. If you plan to make such discourse, we can always seek professional help with the lawyers. :)

Dear Bernard,

I agree with you that there are no easy answers to these two OB markers. =)And once again, I appreciate you for writing this article. It sparked off a lot of my own thinking.

Just some last thoughts on this matter:

When it comes to difficult issues in Singapore, do we necessarily have to prove beyond reasonable doubt in order to state a point? If we do, will a civil and rational discourse in order to learn and search for a clearer picture of the issue at hand be possible? Is Ho Khai Leong right when he says that Singapore citizens need to be "Super-citizens" in Singapore to comment on policy issues? Does this then depoliticize the populace then? How can informed discourses be possible beyond a wider audience? Is a wider audience important than to searching for more informed and rational discourse?

Apologize for Typos in last 2 questions:

Can discourses be possible beyond a more or less comfortable circle of already informed audience? Is a wider audience important in our search for enlarging the sphere of civil and rational discourse?

Hi Wayne,

Interesting questions that you have. Perhaps, let me make an attempt to answer the questions.

When it comes to difficult issues in Singapore, do we necessarily have to prove beyond reasonable doubt in order to state a point?

The criteria to prove beyond reasonable doubt is set down by the establishment. Their rationale requires the person to come up with substantial evidence or arguments to counter that kind of difficult issues. The NKF incident (although a corporate incident) was not uncovered because we found evidence beyond reasonable doubt. It was uncovered because T. T. Durai screwed up in the court proceedings. With his fumble, all hell broke loose and the public outrage came after.

If you want to take on very difficult issues, the pragmatic approach is to make sure that you have more ground covered.

If we do, will a civil and rational discourse in order to learn and search for a clearer picture of the issue at hand be possible?

The answer is yes. I don't have anything added to that.

Is Ho Khai Leong right when he says that Singapore citizens need to be "Super-citizens" in Singapore to comment on policy issues? Does this then depoliticize the populace then?

Actually, I only agree partially with his claim. My belief is that the private citizen should be at least well-informed or have the capability to make certain arguments with a less emotive stance. To be honest, Singaporeans should embrace Mark Twain's idea of "never let school interfere with my education."

Oftentimes, when I teach my students, I try to ask them some questions on current affairs. The average Singaporean student does not really know what is going on in the world. So, in order to get them to learn something, I have to start with things which they know, that is "Singapore Model" or the "Dance Floor".

Here is something which I observed in Singapore in the entrepreneurship talks compare to those I attended in MIT, Cambridge or other parts of the world. In a panel discussion, the chairman should regulate the person who ask the questions. However, most Singaporeans like to give a long story and not really asking the question. If you examine the town hall meetings by the US politicians, the average citizen can ask pretty sharp and incisive questions. In my own capacity when I act as a moderator, I told the audience that I will cut them off in a two minute mark. If our average citizen does not even know the etiquette of asking questions, how can we aspire to bigger things?

Can discourses be possible beyond a more or less comfortable circle of already informed audience?

Yes, see my above point. We need to raise the bar for the average citizen. Actually, we need to teach our primary and secondary school students debating, philosophy and understanding of our constitution. Of course, it is difficult but I prefer to start doing something from my own sphere of work than wait for the state to work on that.

Is a wider audience important in our search for enlarging the sphere of civil and rational discourse?

We need to expand the market, but that requires a slow erosion of our present materialistic values.

Dear Bernard,

Kudos to your efforts in sharing some of these skills to your own students! =)

You assert that "however, most Singaporeans like to give a long story and not really asking the question." Of course I agree with you that short and sweet answers are better but I wonder if this is "uniquely Singapore", or rather, a result of the prevailing habit of Singaporeans in proving a point using analogy and anecdotes. Could it be a result of the overall climate of discourses in Singapore; that sometimes it is needed to tell a grandmother story to tell an important point rather than going straight to the issue and risk being "too" direct?

BL,

While I agree that being over-emotive is detrimental to having a civil discussion about political issues, I'd posit that it's harder to have such exchanges with those who have, unfortunately, become apathetic; those who are still passionate may mellow if engaged appropriately; those who are fearful may find their fear less justified if exposed positive demonstration effects.

Great point on the art of asking questions. Conversation is a two-way, interactive flow. However I have also seen many British public sessions degenerate into a member of public disguising a harangue as a question and the politician skillfully evading any engagement on the substantive issues or assumptions when 'answering'.