On The Management of Dissent
It may be useful to examine the case of the suspension of mr
browns column by Today from the point of view of how the PAP
government manages dissent . Such an examination is related to but
separate from two other issues. The first is whether one supports
the use of the management strategy, that is, whether one believes
it is the right thing to do (I dont, as I oppose censorship in
almost all its forms). The other is whether the management strategy
(and its implementation in specific cases) is effective in
furthering the governments goals (I think so, but some believe
that such as strategy is counterproductive.) I wont discuss these
two issues here, except to point out as an aside that the aim of
the management strategy is to ensure the partys continued grip on
power.
Media censorship (as has happened in the mr brown case) is not the
only strategy for ensuring longevity. In some places, they jail
people who speak their minds. Or they shoot them (the ultimate form
of censorship, to poach the phrase from V S Naipaul). In other
places, they engage in debate and hope to win the argument, though
not always by gentlemanly means. Some places also get round the
whole problem by resorting to gerrymandering. The United States,
having invented the word, continues to practice this science with
particular fervour. (But then, people who live in glass
houses
)
To understand the government's strategy in managing dissent to have
to take into account the cases of JB Jeyaretnam, Chee Soon Juan,
Francis Seow, Zulfikli, Catherine Lim, Cherian George, Koh Buck
Song, Martyn See, Low Thia Kiang, Silvia Lim, James Gomez,
present-day Ngiam Tong Dong, Mr Miyagi (in relation to the NS
photographs), Loh Meng See (with respect to the casino issue), etc.
Equally important are the dissenters who have been dealt with but
whose cases are not made public (these will shed light on the
behind-the-scenes tactics that are part of the management
strategy). Also equally important are the cases of dissenters who
are not dealt with at all, including the many letter writers to the
newspapers and bloggers whose views are even more critical than mr
brown. These negatives cases help to mark out the line beyond which
dissent is likely to elicit a public reprisal.
So how does this government manage dissent? There are at least
three principles which it has consistently used over the last few
decades, and which are applicable in the mr brown case:
1) Concentrate the attack on centres of power and influence. While
there are plenty of dissenters, a few of them matter more than
others. From these few, pick a very small number which can be used
as OB markers for the limits of allowed dissent. Note that they
dont target every dissenter, or every person associated with the
dissenter. They just pick out the key figure those around him
need not have to face the same fates, though they often suffer
collateral damage. mr brown, especially post-Bak Chor Mee election
podcast, can be considered a centre of influence measured by his
very big fan base. His regular newspaper columns also add to his
reach. Note that his podcast collaborator (an ill-advised word
under the circumstances, I know) on the mr brown show, Mr Miyagi,
is also a centre of influence, but he has been left
untouched.
2) Guard the mainstream, but tolerate the fringe. This censorship
principle finds application in many areas. In the arts for
instance, the government is very jittery about the mainstream forms
such as television and cinema. But it shows a high level of
tolerance for fringe forms such as theatre or stand-up comedy. In
the field of media, television and newspapers are considered
mainstream, and the governments strategy is to keep a tighter
leash on them. There is even some differentiation between the
newspapers, with articles printed elsewhere that would make some
people very unhappy if they read them in The Straits Times. The
political Internet in the form of blogs, although very active and
often sharply critical, is seen as a fringe and has thus been more
tolerated. If the political Internet becomes more mainstream in its
reach, expect the government to start applying the vice. Part of
the unhappiness at mr browns column is that it appeared in the
mass media. mr brown is a cross-over artist, a blogger who has
broken free of the small world of political cyberspace into the
much larger domain of the offline world as a newspaper columnist.
If his columns had remained a blog, chances are that he would not
have elicited the same response.
3) Politics must be treated seriously, and politicians must be
respected like one respects ones uncle (this was how it has been
put before by the government itself). It is useful to remember that
Catherine Lims most serious misdemeanour in the eyes of the
government is, more than anything else, her inappropriate and
insufficiently awed tone of voice when talking about the prime
minister. mr browns form and style of writing which has ranged
from the satire of his famous podcasts to something closer to
cynicism in the offending column - is something that goes against
the principle of seriousness and respect. Satire uses the tactic of
laughter to further its strategy of contempt. Cynicism is the black
ice on which all attempts at serious discussion slip and fall.
There is really no effective way to counter satire and cynicism.
Nevertheless censorship is in some ways the least ineffective. (To
counter satire with satire, as one minister was heard mulling,
doesnt work because jokes about the small guy can never be as
funny as the ones against the big fellow. Also, the governments
use of satire also legitimizes treating politics in an unserious
way, which is against the principle.) Why has Talking Cock
continued to be tolerated? Probably because it remains a Web (hence
fringe) phenomenon, though its founder Colin Goh writes a regular
newspaper column (his approach there is serious rather than
satirical). Perhaps also, Talking Cock's satire, though extremely
funny, seems to lack the extra sting: the difference between
laughing at and laughing with? In any case, Talking Cock doesnt
have quite the reach that mr brown now has.
In summary, in the Government's managment of dissent, there are
three things at least which are triggers for reprisal: who, where
and how. Who says it, where it is said, and how it is said all
matter in deciding whether to crack down.
An interesting question is the management strategy that is used in
dealing with the range of possible responses that the dissenter
adopts upon being "warned". But that is a subject for another
post.
http://tantarnhow.blogspot.com/2006/07/on-management-of-dissent.html
