被迫失语的公共空间

President George W. Bush has come and left.

　　During his recent visit to Singapore, he agreed with Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong on the joint establishment of a new communicable disease intervention centre and the strengthening of national defence and security cooperation under a new framework agreement. To Singaporeans, however, things have remained very much the same - life goes on as before.

　　It was the same when the United States initiated military action against Iraq in March this year. In our seemingly disinfected living environment, dissent and opposition appear redundant. Against the backdrop of synchronised voices, we continued to live as if nothing had happened as we regarded the war as none of our business.

　　It is thus no wonder that after a candlelight peace concert was held in April, a newspaper columnist mused that the money spent on candles could have been donated to charities. To her, that would be more practical. After all, we should accept that we are powerless to bring about any changes.

　　Until now, no one has found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Bush administration once said that the failure to discover these illegal weapons does not mean that they do not exist. This has been articulated before as well as after the war. Ultimately, the entire rationale could possibly be just an exaggerated claim.

　　Our memories of the visit to Singapore by this world leader with unparalleled power would probably consist of only television images of friendly handshakes and the traffic congestion in which some people were unfortunate to be caught in. For some foreign media, Mr Bush's trip to Singapore was all about“preaching to the converted.”

　　Perhaps, this is for the better. In our self-defined diverse society, we are inclined to equate freedom of speech with a long list of channels comprising the forum pages in newspapers, the Speakers' Corner in an obscure park and dialogue sessions organised by the Feedback Unit.

　　As for anti-war activities, didn't we have the candlelight peace concert？ How could one say then that Singapore does not have freedom of speech and association？ The many problems and difficulties involved in the process are immaterial. We are, in the end, a country obsessed with results.

　　Democracy is about the perennial struggle between rights and responsibilities. However, despite many explanations that the government is non-authoritarian and advice on the need for responsibility, society has not been accorded the corresponding trust and rights to find its own boundaries.

　　Can we infer that since it is only the government that can explicitly grant the space for opposition, any civil rights demands would definitely be deemed as breaking the rules？

　　Understandably, our foreign relations policies are the result of complex geo-political considerations. Nevertheless, the desire for peace by a small community within the country may not necessarily compromise national interests. The debate is no longer just about whether protesting on the streets is equivalent to social maturity.

　　Good intentions may be misconstrued and, of course, dissent can also be hijacked. To use the pretext of potential social unrest to restrict individual and community expression will only crush social initiatives. When members of society have exhausted their willingness for self-mobilisation, such a society which is devoid of idealism can rely only on state apparatus to kick off efforts to continue to better itself and to remake the nation.

　　We do not know how many voices have been interrupted, given the mundane lives we lead. And we are all too familiar with the dispiriting silence in Singapore. The public space here has gone all quiet. Have we finally internalised the view that we do not need to protest, and for that reason, we shall have no demonstrations？

　　布什来了又走了。

　　除了与吴作栋总理达致联合设立防治新传染病中心,及加强国防与安全合作的框架协定以外,我们的生活其实一如往常,波澜不惊。

　　和今年3月当美国向伊拉克开战时一样,在我们这个犹如经过消毒的生活环境里,异议和反对的姿态仿佛多余,因此大家认定事不关己,然后在声调和谐的背景下,继续若无其事。

　　难怪当时举行的烛光和平晚会后,这里会有论者自忖应省下买蜡烛的钱,将之捐给慈善机构较为实际。我们到底还是应该接受自己无能为力。

　　印象中,至今还没有任何人在伊拉克找到杀伤性强大的武器。布什政府曾表示,这些所谓的违禁武器没有被发现,不意味它们并不存在；战前是这么说,战后还是这么说,原来一切可能只是煞有介事。

　　于是,当这位目前权力所向披靡的大国元首光临自己所居住的城市,我们的记忆惟有电视画面中的把手言欢,及个人当天不巧经过市区而受困其中的交通阻塞。而一些外国媒体的解读是,布什这次到访我国,不过是向早已皈依的对象“传教”。

　　也许这样。在这个自诩多元的社会里,我们习惯将言论自由等同于报章的言论版、公园的演说者角落及民意对话等具体渠道的罗列。关于反战,烛光和平晚会最终不是举行了吗？清单上平添了这么一个活动,新加坡怎么没有言论和集会的自由？其中的过程有多曲折、多艰难都不重要了。我们的国家始终还是一个迷信结果的地方。

　　权利与责任是民主事业恒久的拉锯。然而,我们仍然听到官方不算专制的解说,及敦促人民理应负责的规劝,却未曾相应地被赋予社会自行制定言论规范的权利和信任。难道只因任何反对空间都必须由官方赐予,源自民间的权利诉求就绝对违规？

　　尽管复杂的地缘政治促成我国特定的外交立场,国家内部小众的和平诉求并不必然意味国家利益受到妥协。这已经不只是一场关于街头*,是否等于社会成熟的辩论。

　　善意可以被曲解,异议当然可以被骑劫。以社会潜在骚动的可能性限制个人及群体主观意识的表达,只会扼杀社会主体的能动性。当成员掏空自我动员的意愿之后,这个理想失落的社会或许就得永远依赖国家机器的启动,才能完成不断超越现状,改造国家的工程。

　　在庸碌的日常生活中,我们不知道有多少把被打断的声音,而新加坡的安静是如此理所当然地令人沮丧。倾听这片土地,此处的公共空间显得悄然无声,莫非是因为国人终于内化？我们不需要*,所以也就没有*？