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?
KRC: The New York Times described you as a leading voice for
liberalism and it is difficult to disagree with that. However, do
you believe that the liberalisation process in Singapore will only
make huge strides when MM Lee finally leaves the political scene or
there is still a chance that the process can make huge progress
even when he is still around. Why?
CL:Even Mr Lee’s most severe critics will allow for the
fact that without him, Singapore would never be in the fortunate
position it is today. Mr Lee’s special
model of governance which had no place for dissent was useful
during those early difficult years of Singapore’s life as an
independent nation, when his knuckleduster approach was exactly
what was needed to get rid of those unruly elements that would
surely have destroyed the society. But the situation today is different, indeed so
vastly different in terms of a more mature, more highly educated,
more exposed electorate, that post-Lee, the model will necessarily
undergo changes to be relevant at all. For one thing, Mr
Lee’s practice of suing political dissidents is likely to simply
fade away, because it won’t go down well with a younger, emboldened
electorate.
KRC:You have been a writer for a good number of years and have a
number of best selling works under your name and a few other pieces
that contain fingerprints of your engagement of our local politics.
Care to share with us the high points and low points of your career
thus far?
CL:In general I can say I have been extremely lucky as a
writer, having had help all the way, for instance, through the
generosity of Mr Robert Yeo, a fellow writer who, more than 30
years ago, got Heinemann to publish my first book, a collection of
short stories called ‘Little Ironies’. Also I had the good luck to
be the only writer writing in English at the time, which made me
somewhat of a novelty, and you know how helpful that can
be!
The Kent Ridge Common would like to thank Dr Catherine Lim for her
consent to our interview. We would like to wish Catherine all the
best in her future endeavours. We definitely look forward to future
best sellers written by her good self!
.