Singapore Replies To 'Big Brother' By S.R. Nathan

The Washington Post

9 March 1996, Final Edition

Stephen Wrage, who condemned Singapore in "Big Brother's Home" [Outlook, Feb 11], claimed that when he applied to teach at the National University of Singapore, the authorities demanded that the Singapore ambassador in Washington -- myself -- interview him for political reliability. The university never asked me to interview Wrage, nor did I do so.

It is untrue that Wrage was only permitted to teach a class at the university after 10 weeks in the country. He gave his first tutorial on Aug. 5, 1994, four weeks after his arrival, during the first week of the semester.

Wrage said that his department chairman brought two agents from the Internal Security Department to a colleague's office, where they questioned his colleague and stripped his office of papers, records and computer files. This colleague was Dr. Christopher Lingle. The officers were not security agents but ordinary police officers from the local precinct, investigating the case that led to Lingle and the International Herald Tribune's being convicted of contempt of court. They went to interview Lingle in the presence of his department chairman, and Lingle himself handed over the documents.

The police never visited Wrage's home to demand that he empty water from a saucer under a potted plant. But public health inspectors do routinely visit homes to prevent the breeding of mosquitoes, which transmit dangerous diseas es like malaria and dengue.

Wrage reported that in elections ballots are serially numbered, implying that this is to trace how people vote. Numbering ballots was standard British practice, introduced by the British colonial government to prevent stuffing of ballot boxes. After counting, the ballot boxes are sealed in the presence of candidates and their agents and are stored in the vaults of the Supreme Court for six months until the ballots are publicly incinerated.

Wrage said that Singaporeans can have their leases terminated and their apartments seized on a pretext. The Housing and Development Board repossesses an apartment only when the lessee breaches lease terms clearly stipulated in the law, for example by subletting to illegal immigrants. Compensation is paid. In 1995, out of 600,000 public housing apartments, only 15 were re-acquired.

There are no monitors in public housing apartment blocks to report on young women who have illegitimate children. Having a child outside marriage is not grounds for the housing board to take back an apartment.

Contrary to Wrage's allegations, the Central Provident Fund (CPF) is a compulsory savings plan, not a tax. CPF savings are protected by law against all claims. The government did not touch a cent of Lingle's CPF, which he withdrew in full. Lingle's other savings in the Academic Staff Provident Fund were also protected, except for debts due to the government and the university. Lingle's debts to the university were paid under a court order obtained by the attorney general following garnishee proceedings.

Wrage said students must be certified politically reliable before they may attend a university. This requirement was introduced in 1964 to meet the then serious threat of communist infiltration and subversion. But it was suspended 18 years ago, in 1978, after the threat receded.

Wrage repeated the allegation by Lingle and the International Herald Tribune that the judiciary are "utterly compliant." The Tribune admitted that this allegation was unfounded and apologized to the Singapore judiciary. The 1995 World Competitiveness Report, by the World Economic Forum, placed Singapore ahead of Hong Kong, Sweden, Britain and the United States in terms of public confidence in the fair administration of justice.

Wrage said that foreign student debaters had to sit in silence and watch the locals debate because someone had failed to apply for a permit from the Internal Security Department. The Internal Security Department had nothing to do with this. Foreigners who debate in public need the proper visa, which the organizers of the event did not apply for. It would have been issued immediately if they had. Although the foreign debaters did not speak at some exhibition debates, they did participate in the competition. The Philippines team won.

Wrage criticized the government's response to Catherine Lim, who had attacked the prime minister and his policies. He said she was "repeatedly humiliated on the front page of the Straits Times by Mr. Lee himself." Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew never responded to Lim's articles. It was Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong who rebutted her arguments and asked her to put her views to the ultimate test, by standing for elections and convincing the people that she was right and the prime minister was wrong.

How could this have humiliated Catherine Lim? Is this not how democracy is supposed to work?



The writer is Singapore's ambassador to the United States.