this is again not quite about opposition, but too has some relevance
I am not a Yesman
I remarked elsewhere that I found the recent election boring, and one reason was the repetition of certain statements by different people on the government side. One statement, though not repeated as often, was particularly irritating: I am not a yesman. The statement, expressed in various ways, was repeated by a number of the new candidates for parliament when they were introduced to the journalists. I dont mean to say I disbelieve them; I have no doubt, when circumstances make it appropriate, they would offer criticisms and alternative ideas - I would do that too, though I have less chance than they of entering "appropriate circumstance", since I am less likely to meet important people and be asked for advice.
The problem with the statement is: nobody would ever say "I am a yesman"; since you cannot say anything else, making the statement itself has little meaning, almost like saying "I am a human" or "I believe the earth is round". This sort of statement is sometimes useful as a rhetorical construct, e.g., "I am human" is usually used to start a defense of some moral failing, and to begin his acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention, Jimmy Carter said "I am Jimmy Carter; I am running for President", to be followed by more meaningful statements explaining more specific ideas and attitudes. But if you follow it by statements like "In the past I was not a yesman; I believe being a yesman is not a good thing; therefore I will not be a yesman in the future", then the meaninglessness is being compounded.
The issue can be discussed in terms of Claude Shannon's Information Theory: the information value of anything is measured by the ignorance or uncertainty it removes; so if you know nothing about a person, like whether he/she is male/female, and I tell you this person's sex, I have provided one bit of information, the logarithm of the no. of unknown possibilities; if however I tell you Isaac Newton was male, it would not remove any uncertainty/ignorance so the information value was zero, the log of 1 which was the only possibility of Newton's sex.
When someone makes a statement for the public to hear/read, which takes some effort since our attention gets so many distractions, but we end up with no receipt of information, we get irritated. Of course, a lot of political speeches are not meant to transfer information, but to create a psychological connection: I am taking the trouble to talk to you; I want you to like me. This kind of content requires a lot of effort to compose and deliver, and some politicians are much better at this than others. Someone who has just been plucked out of a non-political job would usually not be able to deliver such content successfully, especially as the speechwriter might not yet know the person well enough to fit the words to the style of delivery.
In the mean time
I am so glad you are reading my blog; I wrote it specially for readers just like youself...
I welcome feedback; your frank and honest opinion will do so much to improve our...
Your call is important to us; please hold and someone will speak to you shortly...
"
Climate of Fear" is a regularly used expression in Singapore, and a rather weird one: when challenged to explain "Fear of what?", the speaker is usually unable to do so. Some point to the case of Chee Soon Juan, but this is unenlightening, because the specific activities that led to trouble: his dismissal by NUS for using his research grant to send his wife's thesis for examination in Georgia, the public comments on GCT, LKY and LHL that led to the defamation lawsuits, and the civil disobedience acts that led to his brief imprisonment, could all be easily avoided. Even the cases of Catherine Lim and Mr Brown were atypical: a critic of the government normally does not receive a letter of reprimind from the prime minister or get so publicly dropped by a newspaper - such matters are usually handled quietly.
So those who say "climate of fear" were merely being oversensitive, or just finding excuses for their own timidity? Some commentators, such as our late NUS Business School collegue Jennifer Mao, who used to write a regular column in Lianhe Zaobao, would mock others "what's there to fear; see I often criticize but nothing heppens to me", but this merely reveals a failure to appreciate the basics of Singapore's social psychology. A behaviour may be irrational, but if an irrational behaviour is widespread, there must be a reason for it. My answer to "Fear of what?" is "Fear of official disapproval".
To explain this, it is first necessary to explain, why does the government show official disapproval so often? Given its grip on political and economic power, why should it worry about little pinpricks from the likes of Catherine Lim and Mr Brown? Can a few cartoons about Jesus Christ or jokes about Islam really do much harm? In the west, no one would expect the government to take action since these minor matters are obviously beyond its control. Curiously as it may sound, it is precisely because of the government's power and wide span of control that it has to intervene even in little matters: since it is so much in control, anything happening in public is assumed to be "the government allows it to happen", and the government would get the blame for anything anyone does not like. If the government is responsible for everything, then it has to be cautious about everything.
It then naturally follows that anything, anyone, is labelled as "approved" or "not approved"; since speaking up could cause one to be classified as "not approved", one need to be extremely cautious, even fearful, about anything one says.
