Déjà vu

During Breakfast, Nat, Elt and I were JUST talking about Catherine Lim, as an example of our Gahmen's sometimes High-Handed approach at regulating political discourse; and mere muinutes later, I run across this open letter which Catherine Lim wrote to the PM, about political openness in Singapore.

You can read her entire letter at her website. And her reasons for going online can be found at Cherian George's journalism.sg site.


She says of her reasons:

The Straits Times rejected the article, saying that there was really nothing new in it. I subsequently submitted it to TODAY, which also rejected it.

As a result I am turning to alternative sources of dissemination, and am going online. For I think I have some important ideas to share about certain major issues in our society which could have serious implications for the future. It does not matter to me if these ideas don't meet with agreement or even approval, but it does matter that they are shared with as many fellow Singaporeans as possible.


Excerpt of her letter:

...It is illuminating, Mr Prime Minister, that in your current dialogues with college and university students, they are less interested in what you tell them about the challenges of economic and social development, than in your thoughts and intentions with regard to the issue of human rights, public debate, public consultation, alternative voices, etc. Among them must be individuals who will be the future’s tiny minority of rebels, such as the wildly creative artist ready to defy conventions, and the ferocious non-conformist with political leanings, ready to challenge the establishment. It is a pity that your model has a place for the first but not the second, for surely true progress in society depends on the nurturing of both. And it would be the greatest pity of all if the young political rebel soon lost heart, got absorbed into the majority, and concluded, like them, that compliance with the powers that be, made for a more comfortable life. Fear, whether it results in people yielding in submission or lashing out in resentment must be the most damaging force in society.

I had begun this letter with a plea. It is an earnest plea to consider what can be done to remove this fear, for only then can the process of political reform begin, to lead eventually to what every society needs for resilience and the capacity for renewal– a continuing core, even if only a tiny minority, of alert, savvy, skeptical, dedicated and above all, unafraid citizens who can be relied on to be the movers and shakers. Indeed, no nation can be called great unless it can claim such a citizenry which transcends all governments. The greatest legacy of the PAP may, ironically, be in the creation of a society that no longer needs it....