SINGAPORE POLITICS: OPENING WINDOWS, SWATTING FLIES

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 SINGAPORE 002058

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/06/2015
TAGS: PGOV PHUM SN
SUBJECT: SINGAPORE POLITICS: OPENING WINDOWS, SWATTING FLIES

REF: A. SINGAPORE 1197

B. SINGAPORE 1178

Classified By: Acting E/P Counselor Paul Horowitz, reason 1.4(d)


1. (C) Summary and Comment: Technology, social change, and
hopes for creativity-driven economic growth engines have
pushed Singapore's government to adapt its style, but little
has fundamentally changed. From a well-publicized debate on
whether to allow casinos to essays calling for political
liberalization, the recent abundance of public discourse in
Singapore might cause some to think that a more open society
is taking shape here. The GOS still decides which issues are
open for debate and its levers of control -- including
defamation suits, a compliant press, and vaguely defined
"out-of-bounds" markers -- are still firmly in place. In our
view, there is no political liberalization at work, but there
is more latitude for personal expression. It is important
not to extrapolate from these modest changes and project a
fully open or democratic society. Singapore leadership has
simply established a new equilibrium point in their desire to
maintain an orderly environment while promoting a vibrant,
creative intellectual domain. End Summary and Comment.

The Spirit of Lee
--------------


2. (U) In his first National Day Rally speech last August,
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said, "We are so capable, we
are so efficient, we are so comfortable that we stick with
what we have tried and tested and found working and we are
reluctant to take risks and try new things. And that is a
weakness." This reflects a widely accepted prescription for
"fixing" the Singapore model -- fostering entrepreneurship
and creative thinking -- in order to mature from a
manufacturing to an information and services based economy.
Lee cautioned, however, that the government was unwilling to
give up all control over public debate. Quoting Chinese
leader Deng Xiaoping's dictum, "When you open the windows,
the flies come in," Lee added his own twist: "So, you can't
close the windows, you'll just have to have a fly swatter."

Some Subjects No Longer Taboo...
--------------


3. (U) Increased media coverage of "sensitive" issues during
the first ten months of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's
administration suggests a more open society. The most
obvious example, dominating the news for the past year, was
the contentious debate over whether Singapore should allow
casinos (Ref A). Singapore's censors have continued to shed
some of their traditional discomfort with sexually explicit
material -- in May, for example, a Straits Times article
announced (with a full-color photo) the Crazy Horse Paris
Cabaret had selected Singapore as its Asian venue, with
(semi-nude) performances beginning this fall.


4. (U) Discussion of more overtly political issues also has
increased. For example, the government's move in March to
ban a short film about an opposition figure (Ref B) sparked
negative reactions on weblogs that spilled over into
mainstream media. In April, a government agency's threat to
sue a Singaporean graduate student in the United States who
had criticized the agency on his blog led to internet and
newspaper discussion of the propriety of the government's
using defamation suits to stifle free expression. In May,
the impending execution of a man convicted of trafficking one
kilogram of cannabis prompted a public forum, a candlelight
vigil, and opposition party calls for abolishing capital
punishment. Political observer Catherine Lim set off a
modest storm of commentary when she argued in the "Straits
Times" that, while the new practice of seeking bottom-up
feedback was welcome, political freedom was still lacking.
While individually these stories are unremarkable, taken
together they present a contrast to Singapore's normally
stifling media atmosphere.

But Off-Limits Still Broadly Defined
--------------


5. (U) Many boundaries are still firmly in place. The GOS
continues to enforce its ban on "foreign interference" in
domestic politics. In April, a local NGO invited an Amnesty
International representative to speak at a forum opposing
capital punishment; authorities let him attend, but did not
allow him to speak. Afterwards, the police publicly
questioned the forum's MC about her nationality -- she had
alluded in her remarks to living abroad. In May, immigration
officials denied entry to an American non-violence advocate
who was coming to participate in a workshop organized by an
opposition party; a Ministry of Home Affairs press release
about the case cited an internet account of a similar
workshop he had conducted in Singapore in January as the
reason for the exclusion.


6. (U) The effective ban on artists' commenting on political
subjects is another persistent boundary. While the GOS
publicly claims it wants to cultivate creative talent, when
local first-time filmmaker Martyn See entered his short film
about opposition figure Chee Soon Juan ("Singapore Rebel") in
the Singapore International Film Festival, he was advised to
withdraw it and was later called in for police questioning.

Old and New Techniques
--------------


7. (C) Government figures continue to sue opponents for
defamation (Ref B). By downplaying the role of
intermediaries such as opposition parties, NGOs, and
religious institutions, the GOS inhibits political
mobilization by keeping interactions between individual
citizens and the government. It reinforces the more overt
"out-of-bounds" markers by creating a sense of quiet but
ever-present official vigilance. The suggestion that a
defamation suit could be filed against someone who posts
objectionable material on a weblog plants the idea that the
government monitors the internet. Home Affairs Minister Wong
Kan Seng's statement that Singaporeans have no reason to fear
being "locked up in jail, disappearing in the middle of the
night and you don't come back" reminds Singaporeans that such
things have happened here in most citizens' living memory.
Political commentator Cherian George remarked to poloffs
that, with its rich history of using the machinery of state
to keep its political foes in line, the People's Action Party
(PAP) today only has to employ token amounts of "repression"
to remind would-be opponents of its power.

Comment: Finding the New Equilibrium Point
--------------


8. (C) Singapore's leadership recognizes the impossibility of
maintaining a monopoly on the flow of information in the
internet age and they are experimenting with ways of
selectively loosening the reins without losing control. The
casino issue tested this new approach: the government
selected the issue and set the terms of debate; it encouraged
the public to express their views and professed to listen
when they did; it announced the decision everyone expected
and signaled its expectation that the public would close
ranks in support.


9. (C) Singaporean leaders are changing their style because
they believe they must. They have created a prosperous,
efficient, crime-free state, with a cosseted press and no
effective opposition. They remain vulnerable, however, to
exogenous economic developments and are single-minded in
pursuit of guarantors of future economic growth. Fine-tuning
the level of political discourse responds to the challenges
to governing that a technologically savvy society in the
information age poses. They hope it might also contribute to
domestic dynamism. Given the sophistication and education of
the population and its unfettered access to information about
the rest of the world, one is tempted to conclude that
Singapore's constraints on public discourse and political
activity are unsustainable in the medium term. While this
may be an attractive proposition, the PAP nevertheless
continues to satisfy most of the people most of the time, and
we see no signs of bubbling discontent serious enough to
disrupt the orderly and disciplined polity that is Singapore.


10. (C) The government has limited appetite for reform,
seeking as it does the benefits of a more open society
without the costs. Yet its rhetoric will continue to imply
more open days ahead. In part, this allows the government to
co-opt the issue. In part it reflects at least a bit of
sincerity. If Singapore has to choose between control and a
more vibrant society, it will choose control every time.
Remember, changes in Singapore are undertaken in order to
perpetuate the system, not to reform it.
LAVIN