|
|
|
Singapore
trades freedoms for happiness
Bryan Murphy
The
Daily Campus
09 Feb
08
http://media.www.dailycampus.com/media/storage/paper340/
news/208/02/08/Commentary/Singapore.Trades.Freedoms.For.
Happiness-3197792.shtml
Ho-ho-holy
crap. Most people tend to make decisive judgments without fully
realizing their implications, from "Yeah, applying early
decision is an amazing idea," to "You're right, we
don't need to use a condom for this."
To that list
one could add, "Sure, let's go to study in this small
tropical island nation without fully realizing that it's
essentially a one-man state whose track record on press freedoms
ranks it below the civil-war-torn Democratic Republic of Congo,
Hong Kong, Kazakhstan and Djibouti."
Think of some
form of political expression you might reasonably expect to
employ in the United States and it would almost certainly get you
incarcerated in Singapore. In the U.S., it's not really such a
big deal if you're a famous political analyst who goes around
calling a former presidential candidate a "faggot" and
doing so certainly won't hurt your next big book deal - though it
will serve to further convince everyone that you're a leathery
old shrew.
Consider, by way of comparison, the plight of
Dr. Chee Soon Juan, the leader of an opposition party here in
Singapore. During the 2001 General Elections in Singapore, Dr.
Chee made a stir about a $17 billion loan to former Indonesian
President-slash-brutal-dictator Suharto. You might think an
astronomical loan to a man whose administration was specifically
condemned by the U.N. Human Rights Commission for its abominable
conduct and repeated slaughters of unarmed protesters would be
fair game for a bit of political rabble-rousing, but you'd be
wrong. Dr. Chee was hit with libel suits totaling 500,000
Singaporean dollars ($352,933) by Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong,
at the time the senior minister and prime minister of Singapore,
respectively. Dr. Chee lost.
An interesting thing about
libel suits filed by high-ranking members of the Singaporean
elite is that you are pretty much guaranteed to lose them -
especially if you belong to an opposition party. Another
interesting fact is that under Singapore's Constitution, those
fined at least S$2,000 cannot run in Parliamentary elections for
five years. As one could easily imagine, the libel suit is a
favorite tool in the political arsenal of Singapore's ruling
class. One must concede that there is a certain element of
poeticism to this form of control. Rather than taking one's
political opponents into a small room and shooting them, one sues
them until they are reduced to hawking self-penned novels by the
side of the street like a crazy old man - as happened to Joshua
Benjamin Jeyaretnam, the first member of an opposition party
elected as a member of the Singaporean Parliament.
Then,
if some group tries to make a documentary about the tragic plight
of such a street-side novelist and decides to call it,
hypothetically, "A Vision of Persistence," one need
only remind the filmmakers that according to the Films Act in
Singapore, it is illegal to make a film which "contains
wholly or partly either partisan or biased references to or
comments on any political matter," or could be construed as
making a comment on "a current policy of the government or
an issue of public controversy" - though, of course, the
prime minister can also ban any film whatsoever at any time at
his utmost discretion.
Addendum: the possession of
"obscene films" is also a crime, carrying a fine of
S$1,000 per film, though prostitution itself is not illegal in
Singapore.
More unsettling than the thought that a cursory
scan of my hard-drive by a police officer would result in about
S$500,000 worth of fines, however, is the total apathy of the
younger generation here to their seemingly unnoticed plight.
So
as not to seem negative, I've got to mention that the National
University of Singapore student body has the Huskies whipped in
terms of athleticism and entrepreneurialism. One cannot seem to
take three steps on this campus without passing a horde of toned
bodies or flat tummies - nor can one get from one class to
another without being bombarded with offers to purchase roses for
their loved ones, sweets for their friends, or tickets to student
plays and dances.
However, there's almost nothing here in
the way of student debate societies or political groups. Not that
there isn't more than ample soil for an advocacy group to grow
in. Prostitution is legalized in this nation, yet there are no
feminist protests. Pornography is illegal, yet there are no
free-speech advocates. Possession of a gram of marijuana might
not even get you a night in jail in certain cities in the U.S. -
Boulder, Colorado, cough cough - yet the U.S. has spawned
"Students for Sensible Drug Policy." Meanwhile, in a
nation with the highest per-capita execution rate in the world -
where the vast majority of executions are drug-related - there is
nary a whimper of protest raised.
Of course, I don't
expect anyone in the U.S. to care at all about the political
apathy of Singaporeans. As Jimmy Buffet would say, "It's
their own damn fault." The unsettling implication is what
their silence might mean for, well, all of us. Why don't
Singaporeans complain when minor drug pushers are straight-up
hanged, or when Playboy.com is added to a national block list?
Mostly, it's because things are pretty good here. Singapore is
extremely clean, extremely safe and extremely wealthy. No one
gets worked up over Presidential elections - even when they're
entirely canceled by the Presidential Election Commission -
because what does it matter? "The Father" will take
care of things, anyway.
It's part of the American
value-system to believe the rest of the world is chomping at the
bit for their chance for democracy and personal freedom - but
really, one has to wonder how many in the Third World want to
emulate America's rights and how many really just want to emulate
America's economics. The Singaporeans seem to have settled this
question for themselves and the answer is not what John Locke
would have hoped. One has to ask oneself what the truth is even
here, in the homeland of Thomas Jefferson - what price do
Americans affix to their freedoms? Is a couple hundred dollars
from an Economic Stimulus plan enough to buy them off? If not
that, then how about a vague assurance of freedom from terrorism?
It's the romantic view to believe that everyone burns
with a deep-seated desire for freedom and political rights, but
it often seems more accurate to assume that everyone burns with
need for an iPod and a Corolla.
Weekly Columnist
Bryan Murphy is a 4th-semester economics major currently studying
abroad in Singapore. His column appears on Friday. He can be
reached at Bryan.Murphy@UConn.edu
|
|
