[LINK] RFI: Singapore's Blocks
bscott@gtlaw.com.au
bscott@gtlaw.com.au
Wed, 21 Nov 2001 19:06:28 +1100
Western commentators argue that democracy is more than just popular
elections. For example during the cold war the US would frequently
criticise elections in the USSR's client states as shams and undemocratic
on a number of bases (eg no true candidates, no anonymous voting, state
sponsored terror directed at opposition groups etc). (equally,
commentators such as Noam Chomsky have themselves criticised democracy in
US client states (mainly in South America) on largely the same bases).
They would say that to have a "true democracy", there needs to be other
elements. Some of those elements are things like:
(a) ability to discuss issues freely;
(b) ability to criticise the status quo;
(c) ability to criticise the objectives of government;
(d) ability to receive information critical of the status quo or objectives
of government.
To the extent that something restricts these things then one could argue
that that thing can fairly be said to be anti-democratic (in the broader
sense of the term above). In the case of anonymity, if a person is
reluctant to make a criticism (for example, because of a fear of reprisals
- whether by the State or privately) as a result of the lack of anonymity,
then one could argue the effect was anti-democratic. Equally, a person's
reluctance to make a criticism is mirrored by the fact that others in
society don't have the opportunity to become aware of the criticism, so the
effect is doubled.
Of course, you could argue that while lack of anonymity may have some
effect, it has no noticeable effect and/or the effects are worth the
benefits. Equally you could argue that Western commentators are full of
bull.
Ultimately it all hinges on what you think it means to "behave responsibly"
I guess.
Brendan
AC Tseng
<ac157au@yaho To: Roger Clarke <Roger.Clarke@xamax.com.au>,
o.com> link@www.anu.edu.au
cc: (bcc: Brendan Scott/Gilbert & Tobin/61)
21/11/01 Subject: Re: [LINK] RFI: Singapore's Blocks
02:34 PM
hi Roger and all who've contributed to this pretty
interesting topic,
I'm Juliet, currently a student in Oz and a
Singaporean. :) I've been lurking for awhile now on
Link cos I find tech stuff and topics interesting even
though I'm not very technically inclined. Besides, it
was a requirement for one of my research subjects at
uni. :p
I've got just a question: What is anti-democratic
about this statement?
> Elsewhere in the FAQ is this paternalistic and
> anti-democratic explanation:
>
http://www.sba.gov.sg/work/SBA_Home.nsf/e6ec9fbb120846764825665500251a2e/be2ca1365416142f482563e60031d718?OpenDocument
> "By asking religious and political groups to
> register their Web sites
> with SBA, we are encouraging them to behave
> responsibly. Anonymity
> breeds irresponsibility. We want to keep the
> information highways
> safe for Singapore, by ensuring that the Internet
> community avoids
> becoming a platform for inflammatory and possibly
> insidious
> discussions which could incite religious and racial
> discord", i.e. we
> deny the right of Singaporeans to dissent from the
> position of the
> government.
Perhaps a little history should be considered when
looking at statements like this. We've only been a
nation for about 35 years, since 1965, after we broke
away from Malaysia. We've had racial riots in the 60s
and religious riots as well (the Maria Hertog [sp?]
affair). We've also gone through ideological conflicts
such as the student riots (Hock Lee bus riots) where
the government was trying to quell Communism.
When we started out as a nation after the Japanese
Occupation and after the split, we had nothing. We
only have people and from the start, the government
imposed pretty tough rules, laws etc. to maintain the
peace and stability in an unstable region. We are not
geographically isolated, unlike Australia or NZ. Thus,
any racial or religious problems which could arise in
neighbouring countries will affect us and vice versa.
I can't say we are a true democracy (thank goodness
for that!). IMO, we are sort of socialist-democratic.
We have opposition parties and we have public forums
where people are allowed to state their opinions about
government policies. Not everyone agrees with some of
the policies, but in a way, we are more concerned with
social capital, rather than individualistic gain. We
just had our elections the weekend before Australia
had hers and I must say we had a lot more opposition
parties than before. We now have about 4 or more
opposition groups. But the ruling party still won.
Why?? Not becos we're suckers for "punishment", but
becos the party had policies which work. They didn't
try to use the racial or religious card or even
character smears on the MPs. They just concentrated on
the main issue (ie. the recession) and how to improve
or tide over this. Materialistic? Possibly. But at
least everyone is sure to get their super at age 55
and have a fair chance to enter university based on
their merits rather than on the colour of their skin.
(sigh...i can be considered not very good academically
then...)
The politics in Singapore is not about the individual
politician, but it's about the people, the nation. The
parties, to succeed, will have to ensure that the
people's interests are first and foremost. Is this
anti-democratic? Isn't democracy where the people vote
for a government of the people, by the people and for
the people? Our political parties are all made up of
the ordinary people - businessmen mostly, doctors,
lawyers, heck, even a journalist!
The Internet is, I guess, a pretty new area for the
government and many governments, and countries around
the world are trying to come to grips with how best to
cope with the fact that information can be freely
gotten. However, much of the info on the net isn't
very credible and not many people know that (maybe
lack of knowledge or not wanting to know anything
outside of their sphere of interest could be possible
factors). A political party or religious group will
have to be responsible, whether they're in a physical
location or online for Singapore becos we can't afford
to have racial or religious riots like the 60s again.
These are still fresh on people's minds and anything
can just trigger it. I can understand the government
treading carefully on such brittle ground. A careless
remark, without vetting, or just to gain political
ground, that will or could possibly create
repurcussions which we don't need, especially when
events in the world are moving towards that.
In my life so far back in Singapore, I didn't have to
worry about my personal safety or money getting lost
somewhere or by someone or organisation. Everyone's
happy in the country which is strange for an
"autocratic" nation, no? We have major public holidays
for the four main religions and we have neighbours who
can be any race or religion or whatever. No
segregation in public or private schools or even for
work. We can freely discuss political or government
policies or issues in the world. Heck, we can freely
discuss anything! But we have to get our facts right,
back it up. Can't just make blanket statements.
Maybe the government is paternalistic in this regard,
but a small nation with only 35 years of independence
and no natural resources will have to learn to be
tolerant of others and walk carefully. We are still
trying to find ourselves, our national identity and
it's not easy to do. There's change in the air always,
but it's not immediately apparent. It takes time.
I guess that's all that I want to say. Thanks for
putting up with this long piece! Hope it helps, I'm
still trying to figure out the paradox of my nation.
:)
cheers,
juliet
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1