TR EMERITUS

By Dr James Gomez, Author, Self-Censorship: Singapore's Shame EDITORS' NOTE: (Self-Censorship: Singapore`s Shame written by Dr. James Gomez ten years ago  focuses on the political behavior of citizens and foreigners living and working in Singapore. He is currently revising his book to consider the impact of the post-internet environment. Dr. Gomez invites readers and bloggers to post their reactions, suggestions and comments to his draft chapters which will be serialized here each week.You are invited to join his Facebook Author's Support Group at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=59118927883  and check out his blog at http://www.jamesgomeznews.com/blog). His posting last week "Introduction" can be found here.) In political science, the term "political culture" has largely been understood as involving the norms, beliefs, values, sentiments and understandings that support a people's perception of modalities of power and authority within a particular political system. It is seen as setting theunrecorded ground rules as to how the political process will be played out (Pye, 1995). A particular political culture is assumed to arise as a result of historical development, contributing to the reproduction of the system or the processes that support such a culture. There is an elite culture that operates among the leadership and its allies of a polity while a mass culture, which is less sophisticated but not very different from the top,operates among the people. Often the operation of political culture has been considered within the confines of the nation-state. In contemporary times with the advent of the internet, globalization and the movement of labourand capital across continents, the production and maintenance of political culture also includes those who are accepted and expelled from theparameters of the nation-state as part of migration and immigration process. "Political culture" shapes "political behaviour", that is, patterns of political participation. It dictates and determines the political preferences of individuals in a system. In Singapore, it explains why people (both local and foreign) are willing to conform and engage only in politically sanctioned behaviour. This holds true of not only Singapore citizens but also foreigners who take up citizenship and work rights opportunities in Singapore. Political culture and behaviour also seeks to explain individual or collective participation as well as non-participation in the political process. For instance, it can explain why in the Republic, with its limited political participation, there is little that falls outside of "approved" channels. At the same time to also shed light on the reasons many Singapore citizens migrate and some why foreigners resident eventually move out or not continue their employment in the city-state. The net result is that the constraints on political participation have led to the rise of a dominant apathy in Singapore. But I do concede that in the last ten years there has been some movement towards political participation via online expressions with some of it spilling over into the offline world. However, the number of actors initiating such activities remains small but it contributes to the growing tensions with the dominant political culture. Intertwined with political culture is "political attitude," which marks the persistent psychological orientations and belief that underpin political opinions and voting patterns of the citizenry. It explains why citizens and foreigners alike residing in Singapore do not generally condone alternative political expression, why the ruling PAP is viewed as the only legitimate or "safe" choice, or why there is a general lack of ability to imagine a non-PAP government. It accounts for the climate of fear surrounding opposition politics, political oriented civil society groups and individuals as well as acts of civil disobedience. Collectively, political "behaviour"and "attitudes" are part a complex interactive system that contribute to the production, re-production and operation of a political culture in a given society. In the Singapore this is largely a politically self-censorial one. Although the whole notion of political culture (Almond Powell 1966; Almond and Verba 1988; Pye l995) has been made problematic with the post-modernist deconstruction of essentialisms, the debate within cultural studies is an ongoing one. In this respect, political culture, behaviour and attitudes can be debated and meaningfully used to explain the phenomenon of politicalculture in Singapore. They are all aspects of the same thing. Still, the scientific recording of political culture is often raised as an issue, complicated by philosophical questions concern over what is scientific as well as the subjective nature of the topic. Culture, which is marked by the uncertainties of human behaviour, is a difficult phenomenon to record through quantitative methods such as surveys and other quasi-quantitative procedures. Interpretative analysis by those knowledgeable of certain countries, the people and the system has beenrecognized as a helpful way to bridge this impasse. Given the difficulties in methodology, in my first discussion of self-censorship ten years ago I modestly build on the limited works that have attempted to describe and record this phenomenon without actually employing a formal quantitative social science means. Instead, I collaboratively employed secondary sources, participant-observation and interpretative analysis to unpack this political feature. Ten years on as a Singapore watcher and participant, I reflect further on the initial analysis and bring into the discussion the post-internet environment and how it has come to bear on the political culture of self-censorship. In this exercise to understand the dominant political culture in Singapore,one needs to distinguish censorship by the state from acts of individual self-censorship, and actions taken by individuals to censor others and plot the relationship between them. The two are separate and different mechanisms. Thus, they require dissimilar tools of argumentation, even though the former may lead to the latter. In between the two are the normal and frequently agreed agents of socialisation that determine censorship bythe people. These are the family, school, the various para-political institutions, national service, the work place, the local mainstream media and sub-structures in society at large. These institutions contribute to the formation of attitudes but, in a centralised state as Singapore, these are principally influenced by the political. Therefore, the fostering and operation of such attitudes must be understood as being derived, to some extent, from the political system. For instance, the state's censorship of information through the decades has contributed to an inability of the people to formulate a sustained political critique or opinion, even if they want to. The internet to some extent has mitigated this situation but the mainstream media still dominates the information landscape. The self-censorship that emerges as a result can be attributed to a lack of confidence or a perceived incompetence in political matters because of a critical lack of information. Even more importantly, it can be argued that phenomenon of self-censorship is one of the tools the PAP indirectly uses to maintain its political hold over the republic and itspeople. This is what I demarcate, describe and evaluate when I scrutinise the issue of political culture in Singapore: it is the in-built political self-checking system among the citizenry and foreigners that helps the ruling party less visibly maintain its grip on power.  Read More →

During the Parliamentary sittings on 9 and 10 February 2009, Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan caused a storm when he allegedly said that Singaporeans should consider sending their elderly parents to retire in JB nursing homes if they cannot afford Singapore's nursing homes. Following the negative response from the ground, Mr Khaw Boon Wan changed tack and claimed that his words were "twisted". Did the media misrepresent Mr Khaw or did we misunderstood his intention? Let us revisit the Parliamentary records of his speech in the two days and the Straits report report a later. We leave you to judge for yourselves: Mr Khaw Boon Wan, 9 February 2009: "We discussed earlier about lower cost possibilities in the neighbouring region, especially Johor Bahru.  Let me talk about my day trip during the Chinese New Year to Johor Bahru.  I visited one site where a Singaporean investor is going to put up 200-bed nursing home.  I asked him, "How much would you be spending on your capex (capital expenditure)?"  It is mind-boggling, the construction cost and land cost are so low, that my cost of just putting up a polyclinic is probably more than his cost of putting up a 200-bed nursing home.  So the cost of keeping a resident in a private nursing home in Singapore can easily pay 2.5 months of nursing home care in JB.  If the connection is easy and if there is any urgent problem, you can always ambulance in the elderly to Singapore.  The family members can get to visit the elderly on weekends.  As this nursing home's CEO told me, even in Singapore, when they put the elderly in the nursing home, they also only visit them once a week over the weekends. Of course, many visit daily but quite a significant percentage just visit on the weekends. So, what is the difference with putting them in JB?  Source: Hansard Mr Khaw Boon Wan in response to Ms Sylvia Lim, 10 February 2009 : On the nursing home in Johor, I mentioned it in passing because I made a trip there.  Actually my main purpose was to look at the hospital because Members have asked me to consider the possibility of Medisave to be used for hospitals there.  I used the opportunity to look at the Iskandar Malaysia region; I have not been to that part of Johor for many years and wanted to see how the development is shaping up there.  It was a very pleasant trip.  I went by the Tuas Second Link, then from west to east to Pasir Gudang, ended up with a nice seafood and cheap lunch near Pasir Gudang and came back through the new CIQ Checkpoint to our Causeway.  At the Iskandar Malaysia region, I also took a look at the site where I heard they have investment from a medical school from England which is coming to set up.  I also went to take a look at the Legoland theme park where the land is being prepared.  Sorry, for digressing. But many Singaporeans, including many residents in my constituency, go to Johor very regularly, top up their car, which many do, and also to have a nice seafood meal at much cheaper prices.  I think these are natural activities, and that is part and parcel of globalisation.  In fact, this is not even globalisation; this is regionalisation, and there is nothing wrong with that.  Consumers are free to choose.  I know many go over to the pharmacy there to get cheaper drugs.  It is not our fault.  The pharmaceutical companies have a way of setting prices: Third World, they set lower prices; First World, like Singapore, they set higher prices.  By allowing the flexibility of consumers walking over the Causeway, they benefit.  I do not think we should constrain them from doing so.  Our cost will always be higher because our wages are different.  Nurses are paid very differently here compared to Johor and ditto for doctors; likewise construction cost. I just want to point out to Singaporeans that there are options like these.  In fact, it is already happening.  This free flow of patients across borders, so much so that there is a term called "medical tourism".  Singaporeans go to Bangkok, I know, for lasik, and vice versa.  Americans come here.  Russians come here.  Singaporeans go to Penang and Malacca.  I think we should allow that.  In any case, how can we prevent it?  We cannot prevent it.  But in fact, by keeping the borders "open", it puts some competitive pressure on our local providers which eventually will be good for our own consumers.  Because if they price themselves too high, the patients will start going across the Causeway and they lose customers. Source: Hansard Mr Khaw Boon Wan in response to Mr Low Thia Kiang, 10 February 2009 : So no, I am not saying that if you are poor, I will put you in an ambulance, send you across the Causeway to Johor nursing home.  That is not what I said and please do not twist my words.  But what I am saying is for those in the middle-income group, you have choices, you are paying out of your own pocket, you decide.  Do you want to have a seafood meal in Singapore or you want to have a family reunion in JB, it is up to you, this is your own choice.  Do you want to fill your car tank in Singapore or you want to drive across and have a haircut, that is up to you.  You are spending your own money.  And I am just sharing with Singaporeans that there are alternatives of that kind.  But for low-income Singaporeans, we look after and heavily subsidise them.  There is no need for them to walk across, because they enjoy a heavy subsidy here.  They have to pay unsubsidised rate in JB.  It will be more expensive than what they can receive in Singapore.  So that is the way we do our systems and I hope to get the Member's support for it as well. Straits Times report, 11 February 2009:  Read More →

张志贤谦虚地说：“在人生的旅途中，没有什么是预先安排好的，我们只能在每个阶段竭尽所能，尽量做到最好，以及希望  自己  所做的  能  改善 别人 的 生活。”  看聊斋志异的时候，拆穿一只狐狸，总是先看到它的尾巴。狐狸就算是如何善于隐藏，在得意忘形的时候，总不免狐算不如天算，露出了它的尾巴，然后故事也就即将结束。但是，很显然的，对于张志贤来说，却是一个开始。这不啻是老天对新加坡人很残忍的一回事。说《人民》两字太沉重？谁会是张志贤的服务的《别人》呢？ 张志贤想改善《 别人》的生活，把改善《别人》的生活当成希望，而不是他的职责，这是相当明智的。因为毕竟这个《别人》是很笼统的一个字眼，而到底谁才是他心目中希望帮助的《别人》，也只有他自己本人心知肚明了。他说，“ 面对这次经济危机时，有两个方面值得政府关注，一是如何贴近基层，了解民之所想，正视他们的需要，确保所制定的政策和方案能正确的执行，并且真正执行得好，以减缓经济不景对人民的影响。”则不仅狐狸尾巴，竟连狐脚都跑出来了。难道说，做政府的，竟然是只有在“经济危机时”才来“关注”“贴近基层”、“了解民之所想、所需”吗？ 何况，在“ 确保所制定的政策和方案能正确的执行，并且真正执行得好，以减缓经济不景对人民的影响”这段话中，“确保正确也仅是为了减缓经济不景对人民的影响罢了，把话说在前头，一来没有意愿改善人民的生活、二来没有下定决心带领人民渡过经济不景气的难关。那么，对于张志贤被任命为副总理的美差，除了让他的薪水直叩3百万元的大关，改善了他本人的生活之外，吾人实在也看不出对新加坡人有什么意义。不是吗？大头领们大秤分金银、论资历排交椅，正所谓吹皱一池春水，做小民的，只要晓得加紧绑紧裤带，别忘记了买路钱，难道还奢想什么“及时雨”？ 同梁山的大首领与虎谋皮？   Source: yenny hanike  Read More →