Democracy and Human Rights-The Thin Red Line
Controversial as it seems, Singapore is not as democratic as it seems to suggest. To begin with, The 1962 Merger Referendum of Singapore falsely presented Singapore’s citizens with a Hobson’s choice. That is to say, of all the 3 choices presented, all led to the merger of Singapore with Malaysia. Of course the rest is history as we know it, Singapore’s joy was short-lived, cut short with a certain tears and sorrows of a certain Lee.
Reporters Without Borders, a non governmental organisation advocating free-press recently published its 2007 results. Singapore was ranked a 141 out of 169 countries. This is an appallingly low figure for a democratic society like ours. The hand of the government can be seen manoeuvring throughout the local media, from radio to television and from television to the theatres.
Having brought about the point on media, it does not take a genius to realize the pivotal role it plays in the consciousness of its citizens. The Singapore government is adept at manipulating various mediums to broadcast its propaganda messages. Speaking of which, many governments, ranging from the extreme left to the most conservative rights, have all been held culpable of such a stratagem.
Truth be told, Singapore has been progressing steadily under the watchful Panoptic eyes of the government. Yet with progress comes a higher state of intellect. The current generation, well educated, always questioning, has come to realized a paradoxical presentation on human rights and freedom of speech.
No doubt, Singaporeans are free from physical abuse, a dire strait suffered by many citizens of other countries. The recent Tibetan uprising has brought media attention to the atrocities that the government has sentenced out on civilians. Looking further back in time, the Rwandan Genocide serves to highlight the extremities that a government can carry out on its citizens. Needless to say, of the approximate 1 million that dies, many died a painful torturous death.
Yet Singaporeans seem to have been denied a certain right to speak. It is the mental abuse that many young Singaporeans feel they have been assailed with. The Speaker’s Corner, opened in 2008 at Hong Lim Park, is known for the presence of a police station nearby. Potential speakers have to register their speeches and have their contents screened before given permission to speak. Sensitive subjects such as race and religion are prohibited. It is thus no surprise that the only sound present now at the Speaker’s Corner is the sound of rustling leaves.
Additionally, Roystan Tan’s controversial film,15, was inititally banned in Singapore in 2003. The Singapore Board of Film Censors was disdain with the amount of violence, nudity and Hokkien usage rampant in the movie. Ultimately, Roystan made 27 cuts to the film, leading him to create his satirical short film, Cut, later on. 15, a film portraying the real lives of teenage gangsters in Singapore was a honest film that portrayed a subservient side of Singapore’s otherwise clean image. It was perhaps too brutally honest, thus incurring the wrath of the censorship’s knife.
Thus democracy, or in Singapore’s case as it proclaims to be, a fitting mould for a society. There is no doubt economic progress. But beyond economic capital, there is a need to talk about cultural capital. Singaporeans might be financially well-off, yet we are poor in spirits. The government has sought to veil our creativity and expressions, citing reasons that it will undermine the society’s delicate fabric of peace.
Instead of looking it from this paradigm, I believe that the right to speak freely, coupled with the discipline of constructivism not destruction, will only serve to embellish Singapore’s already beautiful societal fabric.
