[354] in libertarians
Fascism in Singapore
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Vernon Imrich)
Fri Nov 4 14:23:46 1994
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 94 14:07:17 -0500
From: vimrich@flying-cloud.mit.edu (Vernon Imrich)
To: libertarians@MIT.EDU
Cc: objectivism@MIT.EDU
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 94 00:37:04 -0800
From: mcpherso@lumina.ucsd.edu (John McPherson)
Subject: Singapore: Fascism Unmasked
[Late last month an international drama unfolded involving
Singapore and a libertarian professor. In the last stage of
this drama, I had some personal communications with that
professor and the article/speech below covers that exchange.
Singapore may have a high degree of "economic freedom", but
this experience indicates quite clearly that economic freedom
is not enough; we need full individual freedom in both the
economic and personal spheres. Fascists don't mind if you
own something or engage in trade, as long as they own _you_.
The incident involving Michael Fay was an indication, but we
rationalized that he "deserved" to be beaten. Now the
Singaporean government is going to cane French businessman
Marcel Aime Faucher 5 times and jail him for 8 months ... for
"overstaying his visa" to take care of some serious business
problems. The following incident shows clearly the reign of
Singaporean intolerance, and perhaps indicates a degree of
State "ownership" claimed over the people within its borders.]
======================================================================
Singapore: Fascism Unmasked
(speech given on 27th Oct. by John McPherson
to his Liberty Toastmasters club)
We almost had another international incident in Singapore, and I can tell you
some of the inside story. I doubt the media will be pushing this story very
hard, but it needs to be told. I'll try to give it to you chronologically,
except for those developments which need to be explained separately.
A Singapore official named Kishore Mahbubani wrote an editorial [1]
condemning European policies and promoting East Asian ones. Perhaps he felt
emboldened by the disgustingly positive response they got for the caning of
Michael Fay. Not that I condone what Michael did, but "physical punishment"
per se is a medieval, brutal, and thoroughly abhorrent practice which should
be condemned along with the rack, the iron maiden, flogging, and other
barbaric mechanisms of human torture. Anyway, Mr. Mahbubani correctly
condemned Europe for it's lack of free trade with its neighbors, but in his
zeal went overboard and seemed to be criticizing Europe just for being Europe
and for being a liberal democracy.
Enter an American professor of economics named Dr. Christopher Lingle at his
post in the National University of Singapore. When he read Mahbubani's
disingenuous opinion piece, his blood began to boil. Being a "Professor of
Liberty" and a staunch supporter of the rights of individual human beings, he
wrote a rather effective rebuttal which was published in the Oct. 7 edition of
the International Herald Tribune [2]. In it, he pointed out that Mahbubani
conveniently neglected to mention that his criticisms of European trade and
agricultural policies apply _equally_ well to some of the East Asian nations.
Mahbubani also rightfully condemned the current loss of life in Europe, but
Dr. Lingle pointed out that many Asian lives have been lost or ruined through
crushing dissenters under tanks or imprisoning them, bankrupting or buying out
the political opposition, and so on. Dr. Lingle also pointed out that we can't
really tell how many lives have been lost in Asian struggles because their
governments have a stranglehold on the media, and they tend to suppress
information unfavorable to their regimes. The coup de grace was actually
delivered first: for the past month there have been severe forest fires in
Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia, and when the public was finally informed
of the obvious, they were told that a committee meeting would be held ... at
the end of October! So, the fires have been burning all this month! Dr. Lingle
pointed out that the Europeans wouldn't just sit on their asses in the face of
such an environmental catastrophe.
There's something you should know about Singapore: they impose severe
restrictions on personal freedom, and freedom of speech is no exception.
10 days after Dr. Lingle's piece was published, he was approached by two
Singapore cops and submitted to questioning. The government officials saw
his piece as nothing less that "contempt of court", "criminal defamation",
and an attempt to "undermine public order in Singapore".
You may be wondering how I happen to know of Dr. Lingle. Earlier this year,
I set up an electronic network for libertarian students and faculty, and Dr.
Lingle was recommended to me by his French Canadian friend, Dr. Pierre Lemieux.
I had a few email exchanges with Dr. Lingle, and I added him to my network.
Last Wednesday, two days after his questioning, I received email from him and
he told me he'd been questioned. He also told me that his lawyers had advised
him to keep a low profile.
Needless to say, I was stunned. I quickly responded to his message and told
him about the various ways I could get the word out that an American was in
trouble in Singapore. I also offerred an invitation to encrypt his messages
in case his email was under surveillance.
7 hours later, he sent me another communication; he'd been questioned a
_second_ time and told me to HOLD EVERYTHING. It was starting to look bad
again and publicity might further jeopardize him. The message was very short,
as if he didn't have much time to write it. I felt frustrated. Here a man
was in danger from a hostile foreign government, and I was instructed to not
shout it from the rooftops ... but I had to do _something_! So, I contacted
the French Canadian professor, Dr. Lemieux, and apprised him of the situation.
He thanked me and indicated concern for his friend. Meanwhile, it occurred to
me that Lingle's mail almost surely was being watched. A fascist dictatorship,
which Singapore is, no matter how "benevolent" the current state of their
fascism, will keep a malevolent watch on the communications entering and
leaving the country in the grip of their stranglehold. So I began thinking
about how to evade that malignant glare ... how to slip by messages without
their recognizing them as such. Two thoughts occurred to me: (1) embed
messages in digitized images, and (2) word our messages in such a way that they
would hint at hidden meanings. So I sent Dr. Lingle another message
apologizing for my drastic over-reaction, and then I became "conversational".
I'd never been to Singapore, and I figured it was a beautiful place ... would
the professor happen to have any digitized images he could send me, containing
"items of special interest"?
The good professor seemed to catch on right away, responding "you're right;
this place is lovely and quite orderly ... all visual images and material
advances have to be seen to be believed". Now _there_ is a gem of a double
message! Indeed, censors _would_ have to see all "visual images" and materials
being advanced in order to "believe" they contained no unapproved information!
Such is the paranoia of a totalitarian government. Meanwhile, I starting
contacting a few select others about this developing situation, and asked them
to keep a lid on it too.
The next day, there was silence. Dr. Lemieux and I got a little worried. He
had sent a query to Lingle, but he too got no response. I then sent another
message on the pretense that I needed to fill out some information on him,
asking for an "alternative" contact in case he went on "sabbatical" or "took
a leave of absence". Of course, I was afraid they'd jail him and I wanted
someone to contact that he could trust.
Then Dr. Lemieux got a somewhat alarming message: someone had leaked the
news! It seems that another economics professor contacted Lingle after reading
last Wednesday's Wall Street Journal [3]. In it, there was an editorial in
defense of Lingle, and it mentioned the fact that he'd been questioned.
Dr. Dunlevy then contacted Lingle and learned he was in serious trouble and
had been questioned a second time. Dunlevy then alerted the local papers and
the White House, and posted public messages on the network ... all the things I
assumed Dr. Lingle had asked me not to do. In retrospect, especially after
looking up the WSJ article, I think Dunlevy's response was reasonable. Anyway,
this all took place after my last communication with Lingle and before the day
of silence. That was Friday.
I went in Saturday, found there was no new news, and then proceeded to notify
more people through email, and I even made a call to an East coast professor
who I knew had a contact in Singapore. While I was going through my
preparations, another message came in. Dr. Dunlevy had seen a very interesting
release on the Reuter's dispatch: apparently Dr. Lingle had hurriedly left
Singapore "to visit an ailing father" and was now back safe and sound in
Atlanta Georgia! One of his first acts when he got back in the States was to
fax in his resignation to the National University of Singapore, and I don't
expect he'll be going back there any time soon!
References:
[1] "You May Not Like It, Europe, but This Asian Medicine Could Help",
Kishore Mahbubani, International Herald Tribune, 1-2 Oct '94, pg. 4.
[2] "The Smoke Over Parts of Asia Obscures Some Profound Concerns",
Christopher Lingle, International Herald Tribune, 7 Oct '94, pg. 4.
[3] "Singapore's Philosophers", Wall Street Journal op-ed, 19 Oct '94,
pg. A14.
[ps -- you may forward this article, but I would appreciate knowing
where it has been sent. JM]
