September 2008
The World's Just Jealous!
On Aug 8, 08, Singaporeans woke up to a new look in The Straits Times, which the daily paper touted as a ‘revamp’. Every few years, the paper appears to have one as if to draw attention to Singapore’s insecure quest of always having to be new and up-to-date. To me, it brings to mind the popular hard-sell catch-word in the Asian sex-trade – “new-new”, uttered with that lowest-common-denominator provincial accent. “We aim to keep up with your changing needs… You our readers are the main reason” was the paper’s official explanation on that eve of Singapore’s 43rd National Day.
No one will bother to point this out but it’s so telling to assume that what Singaporeans need is completely tied in to nationalistic patriotism – in the eyes of the press! Says a lot about the role of the press between the lines and headlines, despite what a certain Singapore State Minister told a Foreign Press Summit that the Government does not need the local press to be its mouthpiece. Doubly telling that no one bothers to refute that.
Telling is something most Singaporeans don’t or can’t bother with, since social sanctions are all neatly in place to curb critical thinking against the system. But let me help Singapore make up for it by investing some of that here. The new look of the ST was a layout of fanciful, colorful news-boxes, but boxes nonetheless. A spooky echo of our Minister Mentor’s call for all “to think out-of-the-box” now that the Internet revolution has rewired limits of information-restraint. A call that really means (to smarter thinking ones) that the Government will naturally rein in the wayang-wayang thinking out-of-the-box with strong ‘co-opting’ tactics in the public media (think ST’s STOMP project already!).
About the revamp, better yet is the ST’s own explanation for reinstating ‘the full stop’ in its brand-name as a masthead in the paper: “Another element from the original masthead making a comeback after 163 years, this time in orange” Not so red, then, to catch the ‘spotting-eye’, of course! Not only is the ST proverbially pulling out all stops in a telling move there, it clearly emphasizes the strapping finality of the ST word! And by recalling a time when Singapore was under British colonial rule – voila! Think Alfian Sa’at’s prophetic words in his poem Singapore You’re Not My Country: “…before we know it, we are a colony once again.”
“Why they hate Singapore” – political editor Chua Lee Hoong wrote in the Prime Commentary page of the ST on Aug 9. She pointed out that Singapore, like China, is an authoritarian state (now we’re talking!). So, some countries hate Singapore because “Singapore and China are examples of countries which are taking a different route to development, and look to be succeeding.” As my mother would say – sigh, how the world has changed.
Back in the 1960s, the Government here was wary of Communist insurgency. These days, we are proud to roll with China without a hint of the word Communism in tow. Like I said in my new spoken-word CD Baphomet Sacrum (out now in the shops) – “Isn’t success everything?” In Singapore, it sure is. Our Father who art in Singapore, success be thy name – amen!
Lee also called into question a Singapore-born, British journalist John Kampfner’s essay about the Singapore model in The Guardian. The latter’s piece stated: “Why is it that a growing number of highly-educated and well-traveled people are willing to hand over several freedoms in return for prosperity or security? This question has been exercising me for months as I work on a book about what I call the ‘pact’. The model for this is Singapore, where repression is highly selective. It is confined to those who take a conscious decision openly to challenge the authorities. If you do not, you enjoy freedom to travel, to live more or less as you wish, and – perhaps most important – to make money…. (Singaporean) doctors, financiers and lawyers, they have studied in London, Oxford, Harvard and Sydney… they are well-versed in international politics, but are perfectly content with the situation back home.”
Lee then asserts that Kampfner made the wrong assumption, whereby he fails to understand Singapore’s great formula for success – “Namely, if you speak English, if you are well-educated and well-traveled, you must also believe in Western-style democracy.” Indeed, Kampfner did make a wrong assumption but it’s not what Lee protracts. Methinks he made the wrong assumption that those well-heeled Singaporeans are “perfectly content with the situation back home” and that they really have a choice.
For those who still argue that they do, let me prove my point by asking a simple question. If given a choice, do you think the majority of Singaporeans would, for a moment, agree to the Government’s self-deviced pay-hike? One that allows the top State Minister to earn a salary six times that of the US President. Considering that we have at least four top guns in office (Prime Minister, Minister Mentor, Senior Minister, and the President), that should work out roughly to 24 times or so. As Lee herself pointed out, Singapore is but “small enough to be a suburb in Beijing”. Not China, love, but just Beijing.
Sheer proof that talking reason in Singapore is a prerogative of the State. - X’ Ho
