http://kentridgecommon.com/?p=5608
Upfront with Dr Catherine Lim
By The Kent Ridge Common (KRC)
Published: October 25, 2009
Dr Catherine Lim (CL) is a best-selling Singaporean fiction author. She received her Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Malaya, and subsequently immigrated to Singapore where she continued to work and further her postgraduate education at the University of Singapore. She obtained her Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics from the National University of Singapore. She subsequently attended Columbia University and the University of California, Berkeley, in 1990 as a Fulbright Scholar. She worked as a teacher initially, and later as a project director with the Curriculum Development Institute of Singapore, and a specialist lecturer teaching Socio-Linguistics and Literature with the Regional English Language Centre. She left her professional career to be a full-time writer in 1992. Her works include novels, short story collections, poetry and non-fiction.
KRC: In your article entitled “PAP and the People – A Great Affective Divide“, you pointed out a trend and we quote:
“But the disaffection remains largely coffee-house and cocktail party rhetoric only. Singaporeans continue to prefer the cover of anonymity. One reason may be the fear that the outspoken person will be marked out and victimised; another may be the sheer presence of so much proof of concrete well-being, such as a good job, a good bank account, a comfortable lifestyle.Whatever the reason, the negative feelings go underground. Now subterranean hostility is all the more insidious for being that, and has away of surfacing in the most trenchant way, for example, applauding any rambunctious opposition party member in pre-election rallies.”
15 years have passed since your article made the headlines. To what extent is the current reality in Singapore today consistent with the aforementioned that you have highlighted years ago? Why?
CL:I would like to believe that in 15 years, the situation had substantially improved, but the current reality still bears the same marks of a people too fearful to speak out their minds. If there appears to be greater openness, it is exactly this – appearance only. For while people readily make use of the anonymity afforded by the Internet, sometimes in the most rambunctious way,no one dares to challenge the OB markers* in the conventional media that remains the platform for political debate. And in any case, as was true 15 years ago (and will probably be true for the next 15), Singaporeans are so materially comfortable that even if they disagree with certain PAP policies, they are content to leave the work of disagreement and debate to the tiny ( oh so regrettably tiny!) minority of dissenting voices.
*Wikipedia definition for OB markers – OB marker, short for “out of bounds marker”, is a term used in Singapore to denote what topics are permissible for public discussion.
KRC: Since your 1994 article, there has been a change in Prime Minister guard with PM Lee Hsien Loong now in charge. Do you have reasons to believe that the OB markers have evolved since the change in guard or have they remained the same? Why?
CL:There is a tendency for people to believe that there have been sweeping changes, starting with Goh Chok Tong and being extended, reinforced and magnified by Lee Hsien Loong. I have often pointed out, in my political commentaries that yes, there have been very conspicuous changes, BUT NOT IN THE POLITICAL DOMAIN. Indeed, if anything, this area, far from keeping up with the other domains of industry, trade, business, education, the arts, etc. has shrivelled into a backwater – note the demise of political clubs like the Roundtable and the Socratic Club and the unlikelihood of similar ones emerging in the present political landscape. People – both Singaporeans and foreign visitors – have been so dazzled by the spectacular liberalisation permitted in virtually every area of national life and enterprise, that they have been completely blinded to its total absence in the one area essential for the political maturity of the society. People sometimes tell me, ‘See, so many letters critical of the government in the papers! We never had that before’, and I want to remind them that the issues raised are non-political ones, for instance on foreign workers, CPF, casinos, maids, etc. , exactly the kind of criticism that the government is happy to receive.
KRC: Your two political commentary essays drew a strong response from the then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong. Do you believe that the Prime Minister’s response has discouraged those out there from attempting to challenge the OB markers? Why?
CL:Yes. After my commentaries, there appeared to be a retreat of the critics. There have been sporadic voices, such as Mr Brown’s, but it only needs a stern response from the government to shut them up.
KRC: We are currently living in the Lee Hsien Loong era. Do you have any suggested ways whereby the younger Singaporeans of today can attempt to negotiate OB markers if there are any?
CL:I take heart from the fact that the Prime Minister has openly and publicly stated his mission of winning the hearts and minds of younger Singaporeans; indeed, he has little choice, since they will form a very significant percentage of the electorate in future elections, and also because the thought of losing large numbers of talented, highly educated, bright young men and women, through emigration, must be a constant nightmare. I would like to see a greater political awareness in young Singaporeans and a greater commitment to a public role, though not necessarily through entering politics. Again and again, I have exhorted them, through my commentaries and speeches, to ‘think through, stand up, speak up, and try not to be too afraid’. For honesty of intention, strength of purpose and courage of conviction count for a lot with the PAP government which, despite its inherent dislike of opposition and conflict, must have a grudging respect for these qualities even in the most recalcitrant opponents!
KRC:What advice do you have for a local literary (or artistic) talent who wishes to produce a piece of work that reflects a critical view of political realities in Singapore?
CL:No matter what vehicle you use to express your views, you must take an informed and principled approach. Nothing can ever take the place of honesty and sincerity of purpose and the courage of one’s convictions. This kind of approach has no place for self-serving opportunism which in any case is quickly exposed.
KRC: Earlier this year, the government made amendments to the Films Act to “ease an 11-year-old ban on films that promote a politician or political party”. Do you think that is a step forward or a step backward? Why?
CL:In general, I applaud any change that frees up the arts scene, and deplore any change that only PURPORTEDLY does so, that is, it comes flanked by so many conditions that it loses all utility ( like the Speaker’s Corner), especially if the conditions are so constructed as to be interpreted in the government’s favour in the event of a disagreement.
KRC:What is your opinion on the topic of women’s engagement in Singapore politics (inclusive of ruling party and opposition)?
CL:I am all for ANY concerned Singaporean, regardless of gender, race, age, profession, ideology,etc. coming forward to be actively engaged in politics. The operative word is of course ‘concerned’; it seems to me that as long as Singaporeans are genuinely caring about social and political issues in their society and have its well-being at heart, they should make their voices heard.
KRC:Recently, you posted an interesting question to Minister Mentor (MM) Lee Kuan Yew and we quote:
“Sir, in the event of a serious threat of a freak election, would you do the unthinkable, that is, send in the army?”
It was also a concern that was highlighted earlier in the Kent Ridge Common. Hence, do you mind sharing with us your concern on this topic of ‘freak’ elections results that prompted you to quiz MM on the topic?
CL:For a long time, I have been interested in and fascinated by the special kind of democracy that is practised in accordance with the Lee Kuan Yew model of governance that indeed defines Singapore politics. It is essentially a sternly pragmatic, no-nonsense approach that has little patience with the noise and messiness of the liberal Western model. Its chief ( and only?) concession to the western model that was a necessary part of the colonial legacy, is the holding of free elections. Beyond that, the PAP government will only select those aspects that are good for Singapore’s political stability and material well-being, notably capitalism, of which Singapore is probably the best exponent in this part of the world. My question was prompted by my interest in seeing how far the PAP government, while Mr Lee Kuan Yew is still around, will go. Will it send in the army to retain its power, even if it means making itself a pariah in the free world of which it is a permanent member?
Continue on next page...
Upfront with Dr Catherine Lim
By The Kent Ridge Common (KRC)
Published: October 25, 2009
Dr Catherine Lim (CL) is a best-selling Singaporean fiction author. She received her Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Malaya, and subsequently immigrated to Singapore where she continued to work and further her postgraduate education at the University of Singapore. She obtained her Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics from the National University of Singapore. She subsequently attended Columbia University and the University of California, Berkeley, in 1990 as a Fulbright Scholar. She worked as a teacher initially, and later as a project director with the Curriculum Development Institute of Singapore, and a specialist lecturer teaching Socio-Linguistics and Literature with the Regional English Language Centre. She left her professional career to be a full-time writer in 1992. Her works include novels, short story collections, poetry and non-fiction.
KRC: In your article entitled “PAP and the People – A Great Affective Divide“, you pointed out a trend and we quote:
“But the disaffection remains largely coffee-house and cocktail party rhetoric only. Singaporeans continue to prefer the cover of anonymity. One reason may be the fear that the outspoken person will be marked out and victimised; another may be the sheer presence of so much proof of concrete well-being, such as a good job, a good bank account, a comfortable lifestyle.Whatever the reason, the negative feelings go underground. Now subterranean hostility is all the more insidious for being that, and has away of surfacing in the most trenchant way, for example, applauding any rambunctious opposition party member in pre-election rallies.”
15 years have passed since your article made the headlines. To what extent is the current reality in Singapore today consistent with the aforementioned that you have highlighted years ago? Why?
CL:I would like to believe that in 15 years, the situation had substantially improved, but the current reality still bears the same marks of a people too fearful to speak out their minds. If there appears to be greater openness, it is exactly this – appearance only. For while people readily make use of the anonymity afforded by the Internet, sometimes in the most rambunctious way,no one dares to challenge the OB markers* in the conventional media that remains the platform for political debate. And in any case, as was true 15 years ago (and will probably be true for the next 15), Singaporeans are so materially comfortable that even if they disagree with certain PAP policies, they are content to leave the work of disagreement and debate to the tiny ( oh so regrettably tiny!) minority of dissenting voices.
*Wikipedia definition for OB markers – OB marker, short for “out of bounds marker”, is a term used in Singapore to denote what topics are permissible for public discussion.
KRC: Since your 1994 article, there has been a change in Prime Minister guard with PM Lee Hsien Loong now in charge. Do you have reasons to believe that the OB markers have evolved since the change in guard or have they remained the same? Why?
CL:There is a tendency for people to believe that there have been sweeping changes, starting with Goh Chok Tong and being extended, reinforced and magnified by Lee Hsien Loong. I have often pointed out, in my political commentaries that yes, there have been very conspicuous changes, BUT NOT IN THE POLITICAL DOMAIN. Indeed, if anything, this area, far from keeping up with the other domains of industry, trade, business, education, the arts, etc. has shrivelled into a backwater – note the demise of political clubs like the Roundtable and the Socratic Club and the unlikelihood of similar ones emerging in the present political landscape. People – both Singaporeans and foreign visitors – have been so dazzled by the spectacular liberalisation permitted in virtually every area of national life and enterprise, that they have been completely blinded to its total absence in the one area essential for the political maturity of the society. People sometimes tell me, ‘See, so many letters critical of the government in the papers! We never had that before’, and I want to remind them that the issues raised are non-political ones, for instance on foreign workers, CPF, casinos, maids, etc. , exactly the kind of criticism that the government is happy to receive.
KRC: Your two political commentary essays drew a strong response from the then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong. Do you believe that the Prime Minister’s response has discouraged those out there from attempting to challenge the OB markers? Why?
CL:Yes. After my commentaries, there appeared to be a retreat of the critics. There have been sporadic voices, such as Mr Brown’s, but it only needs a stern response from the government to shut them up.
KRC: We are currently living in the Lee Hsien Loong era. Do you have any suggested ways whereby the younger Singaporeans of today can attempt to negotiate OB markers if there are any?
CL:I take heart from the fact that the Prime Minister has openly and publicly stated his mission of winning the hearts and minds of younger Singaporeans; indeed, he has little choice, since they will form a very significant percentage of the electorate in future elections, and also because the thought of losing large numbers of talented, highly educated, bright young men and women, through emigration, must be a constant nightmare. I would like to see a greater political awareness in young Singaporeans and a greater commitment to a public role, though not necessarily through entering politics. Again and again, I have exhorted them, through my commentaries and speeches, to ‘think through, stand up, speak up, and try not to be too afraid’. For honesty of intention, strength of purpose and courage of conviction count for a lot with the PAP government which, despite its inherent dislike of opposition and conflict, must have a grudging respect for these qualities even in the most recalcitrant opponents!
KRC:What advice do you have for a local literary (or artistic) talent who wishes to produce a piece of work that reflects a critical view of political realities in Singapore?
CL:No matter what vehicle you use to express your views, you must take an informed and principled approach. Nothing can ever take the place of honesty and sincerity of purpose and the courage of one’s convictions. This kind of approach has no place for self-serving opportunism which in any case is quickly exposed.
KRC: Earlier this year, the government made amendments to the Films Act to “ease an 11-year-old ban on films that promote a politician or political party”. Do you think that is a step forward or a step backward? Why?
CL:In general, I applaud any change that frees up the arts scene, and deplore any change that only PURPORTEDLY does so, that is, it comes flanked by so many conditions that it loses all utility ( like the Speaker’s Corner), especially if the conditions are so constructed as to be interpreted in the government’s favour in the event of a disagreement.
KRC:What is your opinion on the topic of women’s engagement in Singapore politics (inclusive of ruling party and opposition)?
CL:I am all for ANY concerned Singaporean, regardless of gender, race, age, profession, ideology,etc. coming forward to be actively engaged in politics. The operative word is of course ‘concerned’; it seems to me that as long as Singaporeans are genuinely caring about social and political issues in their society and have its well-being at heart, they should make their voices heard.
KRC:Recently, you posted an interesting question to Minister Mentor (MM) Lee Kuan Yew and we quote:
“Sir, in the event of a serious threat of a freak election, would you do the unthinkable, that is, send in the army?”
It was also a concern that was highlighted earlier in the Kent Ridge Common. Hence, do you mind sharing with us your concern on this topic of ‘freak’ elections results that prompted you to quiz MM on the topic?
CL:For a long time, I have been interested in and fascinated by the special kind of democracy that is practised in accordance with the Lee Kuan Yew model of governance that indeed defines Singapore politics. It is essentially a sternly pragmatic, no-nonsense approach that has little patience with the noise and messiness of the liberal Western model. Its chief ( and only?) concession to the western model that was a necessary part of the colonial legacy, is the holding of free elections. Beyond that, the PAP government will only select those aspects that are good for Singapore’s political stability and material well-being, notably capitalism, of which Singapore is probably the best exponent in this part of the world. My question was prompted by my interest in seeing how far the PAP government, while Mr Lee Kuan Yew is still around, will go. Will it send in the army to retain its power, even if it means making itself a pariah in the free world of which it is a permanent member?
Continue on next page...
