Loh Chee Kong, Today Online 8 Jan 08;
TWO reference points have been burnt into Singaporeans' consciousness when it comes to critical analysis of government policies: Author Catherine Lim's article suggesting that then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong was living in the shadows of his predecessor, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, and blogger mr brown's satire on the rising costs of living.
There are two other reference points that are hardly mentioned: Former top civil servant Ngiam Tong Dow's (picture) criticisms of economic and population policies, and National Neuroscience Institute director Lee Wei Ling slamming the direction in which Singapore's life sciences sector is heading.
Why is it that one group evokes sharp and direct censure from the political leadership, while the other does not?
Needless to say, Mr Ngiam and Dr Lee are backed by their achievements and standing in the establishment, and it would be politically awkward, to say the least, for any government to put down one of its own.
The two aren't the only ones to have publicly criticised the Government without incurring obvious backlash, political journalist-turned academic Dr Cherian George points out.
Dr George, a forceful critic himself, cited the examples of ambassador-at-large Professor Tommy Koh as well as academics and journalists outside the establishment.
He added: "If anything, the little difference with individuals within the establishment is that it is harder for the establishment media to ignore them."
Yet, it was precisely the prominence given to Dr Lim and mr brown in the mainstream media that rubbed the Government the wrong way.
Even so, it is tempting to draw up a checklist of what the Government deems as acceptable criticism, and what it does not, based on these examples.
For instance, the fact that you are of a high standing within the establishment, with a stellar list of achievements that lends you the credibility to speak on topics related to your expertise, probably means you would be quite safe from official backlash.
What could make you practically risk-free is to craft your criticisms in a more benign language, focus on the issue and steer clear of making personal attacks.
But matters are hardly so straightforward, of course. Such considerations are weighted differently depending on the subject or timing of the criticism.
For instance, suggesting that the incumbent Prime Minister, who was barely a few years into his job, was not the real person in charge — as Dr Lim did in 1994 — was hardly a case of good timing.
Wiser from her experience years later, she likened the political situation to a series of concentric circles. At the periphery were the day-to-day issues over which the Government would be "very accepting" of criticism.
Closer to the centre, the leaders might be more uptight about style, even if they are becoming more prepared for critiques of policies. At the centre, she listed political "no-nos" such as allegations of nepotism.
Ask mr brown, who had suggested that the Government had suppressed information on the income disparity until after the 2006 General Election, and he would probably add casting aspersion on the Government's integrity to the "no-no" list.
And the whole dynamic changes if you happen to be an Opposition politician.
As Mr Lee Hsien Loong, then the Deputy Prime Minister, spelt out in a Parliamentary speech in 2000, special treatment is reserved for those out to "prove to voters that the Government is not up to its job, and that they would do a better job themselves if elected".
Still, the Government's attitudes towards the Opposition are shifting, even if it remains the final arbiter "who decides how to cast its opponents", said Dr George.
He added: "It seems to be trying to show it will treat responsible Opposition in a civil way."
Calibrating its responses to its intended target undoubtedly serves the Government well in its twin objectives of widening the social sphere for civic engagement, while drawing a clear line on political challenges.
But such a clinical approach would also mean that many Singaporeans would rather keep mum than risk having their intentions misread. Few would want to be cast as challenging the political powers when they are merely unhappy with government policies, and a fine line divides the two.
Yet, why should Singaporeans expect the Government to keep quiet when it is being criticised? The more pertinent concern should be whether these critics get singled out and suffer repercussions for engaging the authorities in a head-on debate.
"Anyone who wishes to debate public affairs in a way that makes an impact should expect that one of the impacts is that the Government will engage them. There is obviously still some doubt in the public mind whether criticising the Government really is cost-free," said Dr George.
But if Dr Lim's experience is anything to go by, Singaporeans should have little to fear. She has gained prominence as a political commentator and continued to excel in her professional life.
She also became a cause celebre of the chattering classes. The same goes for mr brown.
Neither has speaking out against their paymasters stalled the careers of those like Mr Ngiam, Dr Lee or Prof Koh.
As the good professor put it, "an intellectual should not be afraid to take risks" and should expect to "get beaten up from time to time when we transgress the OB markers".
"Otherwise, how can you advance the cause if you are afraid of getting beaten up?" Prof Koh remarked in an interview a year after the Catherine Lim incident.
There you have it. The rules are quite clear actually: Speak your mind if you want to be heard. And if you want to dip your criticisms in political ink, get ready to be smeared.
After all, politics is a game that takes two to play.
The least any responsible media, establishment or not, could do is give all sides a fair airing.
