In Singapore, Doors Open but Don’t Swing

Artists were told to flourish, kids to think more independently, and citizens to relax and have more fun. The official messages were to herald a new era of openness in Singapore, eager to improve its authoritarian image and draw talent from abroad.

The purported shift was much touted in Western media. Time magazine extolled “swinging Singapore” in a cover story last year.

But old ways and new intentions do not seem to mix easily in this tightly controlled city-state, where for 40 years the governing People’s Action Party has dominated every walk of life with an unusual combination of tight government control and freewheeling capitalism.

Despite the talk of change, cultural and political restrictions remain or have even been reinforced.

The movie “Eyes Wide Shut” by the late director Stanley Kubrick was censored--a sign that the state monitors who screen all imported movies, CDs and publications have not mellowed.

Singapore’s political patriarch, Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew, has touched off a crackdown on “Singlish,” the local brand of English mixed with Malay and Chinese.

After Lee remarked that TV comedies in which Singlish is used stifle the country’s economic development, government-controlled naTV vowed to “educate” the lead character of a popular sitcom.

Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong recently rejected a proposal for a “Speakers’ Corner” in Singapore, underscoring the law that prohibits Singaporeans from making public speeches without a police permit.

Most recently, the interior minister accused the Straits Times of “alarming” Singaporeans with “unbalanced reporting” of crime stories. Even though the newspaper is under government control, its editors sometimes test the limits of what can be reported.

All this despite comments from Singapore’s leaders that their society must open up in order to maintain its dominant role as a financial and trade hub in Southeast Asia.

To compete in today’s globalized economy, they said, Singapore must change to attract artists, financial wizards and experts from abroad, as well as keep young, educated Singaporeans from leaving. They pictured a “vital global center for information and the arts” --a “Renaissance city.”

But except for a few new nightclubs and a play dealing with AIDS, there’s not much evidence of Singaporean glasnost taking hold.

“A lot of it is purely cosmetic,” said poet and playwright Alfian Sa’at. “Singapore is still permeated by restrictions, censorship and self-censorship. And not many [Singaporeans] try to confront it.”

Singapore’s leaders are still wrestling with how to kindle creative thoughts without endangering the political and social status quo in this wealthy nation of 3.2 million people, experts say.

“The government is collectively feeling its way on this one,” said Bruce Gale, a regional analyst with the Singapore-based Political and Economic Risk Consultancy. “They want to be careful. They want to open the society, but without endangering their grip on power.”

“Singapore has become more relaxed since the ‘80s, but it’s certainly not a liberal democracy,” Gale added.

Legislator Chiam See Tong recently told Parliament: “Democracy is not a luxury for Singapore. It is a necessity if it wants to be vibrant, dynamic and creative.”

The leadership elite seems convinced the paternalistic approach can coexist with new ideas.

George Yeo, the influential minister of trade and industry, said Singapore will continue to change.

When asked whether greater changes are needed for Singapore to become a global metropolis, Yeo said: “We won’t make changes in order to please journalists, but to optimize our chances for survival.”

Yeo said he felt “uneasy” by the Time cover story on “swinging Singapore.”

“We changed because it’s good for us to change, not to please [the West],” he said. “And please don’t exaggerate these changes, because you’ll be disappointed.”