Asian Human Rights Commission

[Ed. Note: Dr. Chee Soon Juan is a neuro-psychologist who joined the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) in 1992 and is currently the opposition party's secretary-general. Throughout the 1990s, he has sought to expand the political space in Singapore and the right of its people to greater freedoms, efforts which have brought him into regular conflict with Singapore's legal system and has resulted in his imprisonment twice. On International Labour Day this year, May 1, Chee was again arrested in the city-state with his party colleague Gandhi Ambalam for holding a public event without a permit. This is the second part of Human Rights SOLIDARITY's interview with Chee, which was conducted by Bruce Van Voorhis in Hong Kong.]

AHRC: Returning now to how to break the stranglehold that the ruling People's Action Party, or PAP, has on Singapore, you earlier mentioned the role of outside players [in Part 1 of the interview]. Before our interview began, you said the international media has often caved in though to the Singapore government. The International Herald Tribune and Asian Wall Street Journal have both lost libel cases in Singapore in the past few years involving a great deal of money. A number of the major international media organisations have their headquarters in Singapore - CNBC, the BBC, etc. If they're not willing to report what's going on in Singapore, how then can the international community assist the people there?

CHEE: I'm really hoping that at least through conferences that we attend, through the Internet, that we can begin to educate and tell people about the situation we have in Singapore. While the international media will not write pieces critical of Singapore, they will nevertheless write news reports, like AFP [Agence France Presse], Reuters, etc. They'll do straightforward news reporting, and then it's up to us to create some events for them to report. Otherwise, there is nothing for them to report. They cannot just manufacture the news. I suppose things like that can help. First of all though, it has to start with us Singaporeans organising ourselves, either in Singapore or Singaporeans living overseas, and then from there to appeal to the international community and NGOs [non-governmental organisations] to continue to bring up these issues, to pressure governments, especially governments that actually do business with Singapore, to tell them that we need to talk about democracy and how we are going to get this government to open up.

AHRC: Who are the political players in Singapore? Are there some political actors that you feel can take more of a leading role in this process, whether they are students or workers or political parties?

CHEE: At the moment, they are very hard to come by. It's hard when everything is so controlled. You are talking about jobs and people's livelihood, but we are still trying to see if people are willing to take bigger steps. We have to continue to encourage others; but at the moment, we don't exactly have people standing in line and knocking on our doors, but still, you never know. We have some very young people - 16-year-olds, 17-year-olds and 18-year-olds - coming in and wanting to be more active. I find that very encouraging.

AHRC: What needs to be done to strengthen civil society in Singapore?

CHEE: We need to continue bringing up some of these issues, to engage the government and try as much as possible to get out information. I know that Singaporeans - it may not be all of them but a significant percentage of them - are actually watching. Hopefully we can stir them enough so that maybe one, two or three people step forward and say, "I want to be a part of this movement, and I'm willing to take the risk."

AHRC: In the last elections in November 2001, the opposition got something like 20 percent or 25 percent of the votes. If the PAP had not interfered in the elections, such as offering the shares that people could convert into money that you mentioned earlier [in Part 1 of the interview], do you think the results would have been different?

CHEE: We were very disappointed. Previously the support for the opposition was always around 40 percent, especially for the larger opposition parties. That though was when the PAP got worried and put in place all of these threats and so on - vote buying and bribes - and it has worked to their advantage.

AHRC: Perhaps what's needed is a catalytic event - something that, once you get one person involved and then two people involved, will stimulate and encourage many more people to join the movement, but it's first getting those first few people to step forward to get the momentum going.

CHEE: I've been doing this for almost 10 years, and I'm very encouraged after the last elections, for I feel we had a mini-explosion within the party, with people, especially the younger Singaporeans. We have a lot of 20-somethings and 30-somethings coming in and being part of the party. I'm very encouraged by this. Hopefully, we will be able to continue this process. Even if they don't want to join a political party, we can give them avenues and encourage them to take part in civil society, in various organisations, NGOs, etc. We also hope that with the meetings we've had in Hong Kong that some of the Singaporeans living overseas will be encouraged enough to be actively involved.

AHRC: Our organisation, the Asian Human Rights Commission, has put a lot of emphasis over the years on Article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, or ICCPR, in which people have a right to an effective remedy if their rights are violated. Recently, we've done this in a concrete way with the launch in mid-March of our new publication article 2, a sister publication of Human Rights SOLIDARITY. What effective remedies, if any, do the people of Singapore have then if their rights are violated?

CHEE: I think it is important for civil society and political parties to continue to advocate an open society. This is the only way we can live. It's like sunlight - there is no better disinfectant than sunlight - that will begin to expose all of these different abuses that have been going on. I think that the most effective remedy that we can have is organisations and individuals that step forward and say, "It's important for us to address these issues if we are going to talk about genuine and long-term progress, peace and stability that must not be defined by authoritarian regimes because they will just say that dissent is not good because it will create tumult." This is not true. I think one remedy would be to really begin to talk about this.

They have convinced Western powers who are so supportive of the Singapore government - myopically in my view - not to discuss these issues, so much so that all they want to talk about when they get to Singapore is how they can increase their investments in Singapore as a gateway to Asia. That's a very opportunist, myopic view. If they are willing to see that not everything boils down to just globalisation and profit margins for multinationals, then they will see that more democratic space benefits them.

All this talk about terrorism - what are you going to do about it? You're not going to be able to start bombing people like you bombed Japan or Vietnam. It's a very different fight, and the one very effective tool, if they are willing to see it, is the use of democracy. We need to continue to get democrats - people who believe in openness, tolerance and inclusion - to ensure that we will begin to have expanded political space and discussion. It's no use trying to look at Lee Kuan Yew and people of his type to see how he can promote the fight against terrorism. It's not going to work.

AHRC: Some commentators, especially past and present U.S. presidents, have said that economic reform will lead to political reform. This theory, if you will, has been directed specifically at China. However, Singapore does not fit this pattern, and, if anything, China since the late 1970s has followed the Singapore model of instituting economic reforms without political reforms. Based on your experience in Singapore, how would you assess what one might call this theory of democratisation, that economic reform leads to political reform?

CHEE: I think it's too simplistic to say that, once a country gets rich, it automatically becomes democratic or at least there is pressure to become democratic. You also have to take into consideration the structure of the economy, the size of the country, and, in a situation like Singapore, it's very hard to find political space, and I'm talking geographically. Where do you go, for example, if the government starts looking for you? Also, because the economy is totally in the hands of the government - at least the domestic sector through different conglomerates involved in everything from supermarkets to shipbuilding to child-care centres to car rentals and that kind of thing - you depend on the government for your livelihood. In addition, the government also controls housing - 86 percent of Singaporeans live in government-owned housing. You stand in line to make an application for this housing. If you get out of line, what happens to you? It thus plays in the minds of Singaporeans. Consequently, when you begin to control Singapore the way the Singaporean government does, it's going to be very difficult for society to begin to liberalise. This is an important factor in the democratisation of Singapore.

AHRC: Being based in Hong Kong, AHRC is, of course, sensitive to what happens here. Tung Chee-hwa, the political leader of Hong Kong, is also an admirer of Confucianism, and Singapore shares many similarities with Hong Kong. Both are commercial cities which are home to predominantly Chinese populations, for example. What signs should local people in Hong Kong look for that may indicate that the Hong Kong government is adopting the Singapore model of political control?

CHEE: I don't see how Hong Kong can avoid it as China is already deep into it, and therein lies the problem. When people refuse to see the Singapore model as a problem, it leads to these authoritarian regimes all over Asia trying to emulate it. I can tell it will be disastrous because don't forget we are an island-republic, we are a city-state. How do you compare this with China? We are smaller than Shanghai; and if you try to replicate what has happened in Singapore, you are just going to be up against so much trouble. Singapore's economy has run into problems precisely because we have been so autocratic in our style, so much so that it has killed all of our entrepreneurial spirit, creativity, spontaneity. This is exactly what is going to be needed in the so-called New Economy, Singapore's next phase of economic development. We are experiencing this in surveys that rank Singapore's entrepreneurial activities as nowhere close to what Hong Kong is capable of. It's going to be very sad, and it will do Hong Kong enormous damage if it tries to go the way of Singapore. It reminds me of the saying: Be careful what you wish for as it might just come true.

AHRC: Are there things that people should be looking for - changes to the judiciary or certain kinds of laws that indicate that Hong Kong may be moving down this path?

CHEE: Once you get the introduction of laws in place, you find that you weaken the system, and everything else is possible. The other thing is, of course, the judiciary - it's the cornerstone. The third leg is the media. If you begin to weaken these three pillars, the government has then got you in its hands. Anytime it wants to manipulate public opinion or move against a certain section of society it does so at will, and this translates later into problems in the economy because you are not able to sustain this kind of authoritarian regime, not in the type of economy we are talking about.

AHRC: We have talked a great deal about the past and present in Singapore. What about the future? Is there any hope for political change some day in Singapore? Specifically, what are the salient points of your "democratic blueprint" for Singapore in your new book, Your Future, My Faith, Our Freedom: A Democratic Blueprint for Singapore?

CHEE: If you are gong to labour without any hope, then I'd say pack up. You've got to maintain - however difficult it is - hope that will keep you going. If you look at what has happened in the past - the experiences of the Taiwanese dissidents, the former Soviet Union, apartheid - you've got to tell yourself that things will change; it's just a question of when and how. Hopefully, that will keep you going.

I am hopeful because Lee Kuan Yew is going to die one day. Mind you, I don't wish him ill. I really don't, but his presence really puts a damper on any kind of opening up of Singapore, and it would have to take his removal from the Singapore scene before I think that anything can have a chance and open up and grow.

AHRC: But it seems that his son is in the wings to take over in the next elections.

CHEE: People, even conservative Singaporeans, are unhappy about this. Having to live under an authoritarian regime for the last 40 years and to give your unquestioning obedience and loyalty again to someone, it's not going to be acceptable. It seems very arrogant. He is not popular at all.

AHRC: In your new book, what are some of the other points you raise?

CHEE: I think one has to discuss economics because you will not catch people's attention in Singapore if you don't discuss this subject as everyone is concerned about Singapore's economic well-being. We have come to the end of one phase of economic development, and it's going to be very difficult to get to the next phase. This is where democratic reform is very important, and this blueprint runs into the distribution of wealth. If we don't start addressing this problem, the productivity of workers will be affected.

We also have another problem with our pension scheme, or what we call the Central Provident Fund, as it's being used up. The government has allowed Singaporeans to use their pension savings to buy government housing. Everybody has been using their savings for this purpose, and then you suddenly realise that, when you retire, you haven't got any savings. It has become a very serious problem. Again, if we don't have a society that is able to point out all of these problematic policies that have come about, I don't see how we are going to continue avoiding some of these problems.

There is the education system as well. Everything is so geared towards an elitist model in Singapore. We need to have an open debate that asks: Where is our education system taking us? What kind of so-called "educated citizens" are we producing? The government is not trying to hide the fact that it wants human widgets - people who will only benefit the economy. Every time they talk about knowledge-based they say a knowledge-based economy, not a knowledge-based society.

AHRC: When you talk about the connection between democracy and the economy, how will a lack of democracy affect the economy by, for example, lowering Singapore's gross domestic product, or GDP?

CHEE: If you look at studies done by analysts and economists, they have shown that Singapore's economy was created by hard work and sweat. The government has been taking in a lot of money through forced national savings, like the Central Provident Fund, and taxation and has ploughed it back into the economy. How much of this though can you continue? You can only build so many roads; you can only build so many factories. After a while, GDP begins to fall off. When it does, you have to regenerate it and encourage more efficient output - quality output - from the workers. In a society like Singapore's - in comparison to, say, the former Soviet Union - the workers don't feel that they are productive in that sense. This leads to a decrease in productivity. This is what we are seeing in Singapore at the moment.

Paul Krugman, a well-known economist, was the one that highlighted this problem of Singapore's economy. It's very input-driven. After a while, you come to a stage of diminishing returns, and you have to work harder. If you get a worker to screw screws into the wall, it will take a certain amount of time; but if you give him an electric screwdriver, he can put so many more screws in the wall in the same amount of time. That's capital investment. If you give him another screwdriver though, it's not going to increase his output because there is only so much he can do in that amount of time. What you need to do is to begin to empower workers and to think of more efficient ways of working rather than just plough in more capital investment because, as I said, you get this rate of diminishing returns. That's how Krugman described the Singapore economy, and that's what he found happened to the former Soviet Union.

AHRC: How would greater democracy then translate into higher GDP?

CHEE: People having the freedom to try and to fail - the entrepreneurial spirit - is where I see the link. I keep looking at Hong Kong and Singapore and say that we've got to speak better English because this is the way to get into the American market, but look at Hong Kong: they don't speak as much English as Singaporeans do. Look at some of your entrepreneurs here in Hong Kong though; look at some of your movie actors breaking box-office records in the United States. We are still not getting anywhere, and we speak better English I feel. It's this kind of mentality and spirit that democracy encourages - freedom that translates into human enterprise. It's not just in the political realm, but it spills over into economics as well.

AHRC: Thank you very much for taking time from your busy schedule here in Hong Kong to meet with us and to share your views about political and economic developments in Singapore.

Click this link for part 1 http://www.ahrchk.net/hrsolid/mainfile.php/2002vol12no02/2202/