I recently watched Catherine Lim’s speech “Singapore: An Inconvenient Truth” on her blog and was thinking over some of the things she had said. So I decided it would be useful to have a transcript of it to look over, since I prefer reading to listening, and there are some details in it that are worth scrutinizing more closely.

If and when I have the time, I will post my thoughts about this at a later date. But for now, mayhap as a public service, I have some semblance of a usable transcript which I have made available here. You may either download the pdf transcipt to read offline, or read the rest of it below.

The usual disclaimers apply: this is not an authorized transcription, and its fidelity is not guaranteed. Dubious transcriptions are marked with a (?) and the occasional footnote. Punctuation was more or less arbitrary, except for certain obvious emphases in her speech, which are marked in italics. Minor grammatical editing or contextually obvious omissions are marked with [brackets].

The full text begins here:

Recently - despite the opulence, despite the magnificent success, despite the fact that Singapore really is a textbook case of success - you know, by any criterion of success, Singapore will qualify beautifully. If you take any hard indicator - in terms of income, in terms of education level and so on, Singapore is just tops. Now in spite of that, the inconvenient truth is that there is something dreadfully missing. It has not been properly articulated, but it floats around and everybody is aware of it.

It can be briefly described as this: a lack of political liberties which even the government cannot deny, a lack of political liberties nor opening up and what I’ve always mentioned in my articles, which probably is very offensive to them: there is a climate of fear. There is a climate of fear, not the kind of fear that you have in police states, [the] looking-behind-your-shoulder kind of fear, [the] thrown-into-jail-in-the-middle-of-the-night kind of fear, but still a very palpable one. The fear of offending a very powerful force: because if you do, punishment is sure to come your way.

Now what is this punishment? It is not incarceration (this was in the past) but in modern day Singapore, the kind of punishment that Singaporeans fear is not that kind anymore. As I had mentioned in an earlier speech, the attachment to material wealth is so great in Singapore because of the PAP’s policy, because of, I think, a conscious policy of giving wealth to the people, making them so contented that politics will be just irrelevant. Now because of this, the fear of losing even a little bit of the wealth is enough to keep an entire society on its toes.

At the anecdotal level - you don’t get it at the official level, but at the anecdotal level, there are endless stories; I’ll give just you a few examples. In the last general elections, for example. I have a friend - she plays mahjong with me occasionally - [a] well educated woman, and she told me, she said: “You know, I have to vote in the coming elections. I have to vote [for] the PAP.”

I said, “what do you mean, `have to?’”

She said “No, no, no, I just have to.”

I said, “why?”

“Because my son-in-law is in the civil service. He’s due for a promotion and I think I will jeopardize his chances.”

And then another one told me that, well, he was [on] the waiting list for one of the [HDB] flats, and he feared [losing his spot].
Now to me this seems the greatest nonsense - you know, for all my criticism of the government - our voting’s transparent; our electoral system is above scrutiny - it can stand any amount of scrutiny. But the fear is so great, it has entered everyday life. Taxi-drivers sometimes don’t want to talk to you, or you don’t want to talk to them in case they are government spies. (Audience laughs.) And you don’t want to be seen, for example, with an opposition member. Well, I’ve [gone] for lunch with opposition members and so on, but I’ve seen opposition members hawking their wares [outdoors], in shopping malls. I do not know whether you’ve seen them hawking their books and so on. And people just somewhat warily move around them.

Now this is the kind of fear that to me is very, very frightening. (But afterwards, I will tell you about my inconvenient truth.) So this is the inconvenient truth of the government and how does it show itself? Only sporadically, and I’ll give some instances of how this truth emerges. It emerges [and] breaks through this perfect surface of opulence, of well being, of harmony. But now and again you see evidence of it. For example: when the Prime Minister goes around to talk to the (?) students and so on - and tells them, as expected, about achievements and so on - they are not so interested in his plans for economic development and social development and so on, as in is his attitude toward, and his plans for, public consultation in the future, opening up and so on, which apparently he’s not very much prepared
to answer. This is one instance of how this kind of feeling breaks through.

Now anytime there is a conference, and when it comes to Q&A time, you will have young people asking: “But hey, don’t we lack something? Don’t we lack a political opening up?” And of course - if you look at the blogs and the Internet which I don’t do because it overwhelms me - I’m sure you get a lot of instances of people asking these
questions. Very basic questions about the absence of certain things that are taken for granted - even in nascent, even in experimenting, tentative democracies - the right of assembly… Once I asked a friend - I said, “So in the next few years, [will you] see permission given for public assemblies, [will you] see political cartoons for example?” and all of them - there were only five of them - all of them without exception said, “Not in our lifetime[s].” You know - things absolutely taken for granted.

Right. Now, what is the payoff? The payoff is this - and this - now I come to my inconvenient truth, my own inconvenient truth. I’ve been a political commentator for many years now and I do not - I still feel a little bit ambivalent - sometimes I even get feelings of “we’re not exactly done” because I know I’m doing the right thing in sharing my ideas. But I keep checking myself to say, “Hey, are you being fair? Here is, possibly, one of the best governments in the world. Even the greatest critic, even the greatest detractor of the PAP will say, `This is a government that solves problems. This is a government that is so concerned about the well-being of Singapore; that is its main concern.”’

You look around at various countries around here - and Singaporeans are among the most traveled in the world - in the region [you] see examples of corruption, examples of squalor, examples of pure incompetence which you don’t see in Singapore. You just need to pick a few instances of how the government has solved problems. Look at SARS, terrorism, and now, what in fact I like very much: this putting into practice what the Prime Minister had promised about an inclusive society. Remember he said an inclusive society - nobody will be left out. And almost on a daily basis, I read about how the mentally disabled are being cared for; nobody is allowed to fall through the interstices of this so-called safety net; nobody is allowed to starve, and so on.

Now this sort of thing is very, very, very gratifying to me, and now on a purely personal level: you know I love comfort, I love safety, and I have a daughter who drives, who sometimes comes home from parties late at night. Do you know I never have to pace the floor chewing my fingernails saying “Huh! It’s 2 a.m. and she’s not back!” Never, because it’s so safe here. She comes home safely. But my friends tell me, “Hey, hey, you can’t assume that you can have these things, [that] you can take these things for granted abroad.” Sometimes I have a game of mahjong with a friend. I don’t drive - I come home by taxi at 1 a.m. and they say “You do that? You go home by taxi at 1 a.m.?” and I said “Yes”. I drink water straight from the tap. When my phone breaks down it is repaired within the day. I don’t think many of you can claim this kind of thing happening [abroad]. The efficiency is overwhelming. I go to CPF and so on and it’s all done.

And whenever I go abroad I feel ashamed of myself, because you know, having been used to this you take [it] for granted and you become a little bit superior, a little bit patronizing and maybe too parochial. I was in London in June last year, and checked into a nice hotel and so on, and the first thing I did was to pick up the phone and called thereceptionist and asked, “Is your water drinkable?” And then I felt so ashamed because he said “Of course it is!” and I said, “Oh my God!” You see, this is the assumption of a Singaporean, you go abroad and your water is drinkable; other people are not so competent. I got so embarrassed. I go to certain cities - Bombay and so on - and immediately there’s this feeling “Oh God! you know, everybody just take a broom; in Singapore we would’ve taken brooms to sweep the road!” and so on. Now this is a habit that I’ve got to cure myself of. I like safety, I like comfort, and this is a
very happy life.

I came from Malaysia and I know - I know for a certainty, that had I remained in Malaysia I would not have got the benefits that I got. I got a scholarship to get my master’s, to do my PhD, and it is a life that I would say is completely fulfilling. And yet why am I doing this? I’m doing this because, you know, at the end of it, I - somebody at the end of the table asked me about my ideology and so on - I would say I’m an idealist. I believe that - I believe in the necessity of the democratic system. No matter how much the actual manifestation of it is in the world, there’s this enormous gap between the ideal and what you see around us; in fact, [an] unbridgeable gap. And yet the idealist in me says that as long as you have the ideal - as long as you have that - there can always be international disapproval and redress, but you take it away [and] it’s going to be very difficult.

My quarrel with the Singapore model of governance is this. The model of governance is based on integrity (of the government), discipline, hard work, incorruptibility - something that you don’t get to see in other countries. But,it is this: the government’s stand is this - we are the best. We PAP, you have re-elected us over four decades, we are the best. And they’re not saying it in a mood of arrogance or hubris. Not at all. Very matter of fact people. We are the best, if you really want us to solve problems, we are going to be around for the next forty years. That’s what Lee Kuan Yew has said. We are going to be around, we are the best, and please don’t give us trouble. In other words, youpolitical dissidents, don’t make a lot of noise like little dogs yapping at our heels, please leave us to do our job quietly. Here’s a government that has an almost pathological dislike for what they call the mess and noise of democracy.

Now democracy comes with this inevitably - you’re gonna have an opposing group, you’re gonna have a lot of quarreling and so on. Singapore has always been scornful - maybe a little bit abused by some - for example, by the mayhem that you get in the Taiwanese parliament where they swing handbags at each other and so on. (Audience laughs.) And Singapore has always been scornful of the messy, the unruly media. Lee Kuan Yew is totally contemptuous of the unruly media that you get in the West, for example.

So they are saying, please, please, please, we need a peaceful atmosphere to do our work; don’t let us waste time having to answer your questions. In fact as recently as the last elections, the Prime Minister said this when he was asked about opposition representation in parliament. He wanted to keep the numbers small. And you know what his reason was? “If the number is big, I will have to spend too much time fixing the opposition!” (laughs) In an unguarded moment, he used the word ‘fixing’, and of course people jumped on him. In Lee Kuan Yew’s time he could have gotten away with any kind of language, but not today. So I think he had to retract the word quickly.

But that is their stand, and their stand is: “What are you quarreling about? You let us take care of the problems. We give you everything in return. Safety - not just safety, but possibly one of the highest standards of living in Asia! Education - everything. So on your part, sorry, citizens of Singapore, shut up! Don’t give us trouble, but you do your duty minimally. Your only political engagement is a minimal one and what is that? Vote responsibly once every five years and for the rest of the time make money, right, develop your career, be happy, right? Do everything you can - humanitarian work; [if] you like community work, but stay out of politics!”

So that is their stand.

Now to me, it’s [a] very dangerous model. It will work as long as Lee Kuan Yew’s around, because he’s absolutely, I think, forthright, genuine, honest in making things work in Singapore. But past Lee Kuan Yew, post-Lee Kuan Yew, I’m not so sure. I keep bringing up this doomsday scenario, maybe just to frighten Singaporeans. I say, this is a possible scenario. Twenty years, thirty years down the road, Lee Kuan Yew will [be] no longer there. The core PAP principles, they will change - and certainly not in the direction of enhancement. Not even maintenance; they will definitely degrade. Naturally! Look at the young people, right, coming up, the new leaders, they will be newly exposed. They will not have the mindset of the old PAP leaders. Now what will happen? The worst possible scenariois: a new leader will come onto the scene, totally corrupt, but he is protected because of the mantle, the PAP mantle,which he wears, and also because by that time Singaporeans have become so compliant, they don’t question.

Now this is something that I tell young people. I feel almost a duty to tell young people: “Please question!” They never question the assumptions that are implicit in the speeches of the leaders. I’ll give you one example. I think by now we’ve heard enough of this; whenever people ask about political opening up and so on, the government says: “Choose! [Do] you want prosperity, or [do] you want chaos? Look at what’s happening around you. [It’s] either or.” And Singaporeans say, of course we want order, we want prosperity. We don’t want chaos. They will never question this assumption - the two need not be mutually exclusive, you know!1 Maybe in
Lee Kuan Yew’s time, he needed what we call the knuckle-duster approach, but today everything is in place. This a very strong government; it’s got all the mechanisms to deal with even extreme situations.

[...]

Well, what happened was that in 1994, I wrote a political commentary. In fact I had no idea that it would nearly plunge me into the role that I am playing now. I wrote a political commentary called “The Great Affective Divide”. Affective mean emotive, meaning that there is an emotional estrangement between the PAP leaders and Singaporeans. Despite the prosperity, Singaporeans feel this sense of annoyance [and] irritation. Why? Because of the arrogance of the PAP which today has disappeared greatly now. But in those days it was very obvious: the top-down style, the parochial style; I speak down to you, we are the best, and so on. Now they have changed a great deal. Now the style,and how was this annoyance shown? Well, not just in the private channels of coffee shops and cocktail party talk, but
in a very real way during elections, when you have these disgruntled people coming out, spoiling their votes, voting in an opposition member who [had] never even appeared on the ballot, they just put his name there and in fact, a monkey, they said, could’ve got[ten] voted in as a result of this.
So then I wrote another article. So this one didn’t get any response immediately. I wrote another. Oh, I mentioned my disappointment that this was happening because this was when Mr. Goh Chok Tong became Prime Minister, he made a promise to Singaporeans which really gratified me and it was this: he used the words of the older Bush to say he was bringing in, ushering in, a gentler, kinder society. Now obviously a marked departure from the stern, no-nonsense, authoritarian regime that had been represented by Lee Kuan Yew. So I thought, hey! that was a tacit
acknowledgement that people’s needs were now changing, we now had new people coming onto the scene, a new set of young people, a new generation of voters who would not take kindly to Lee Kuan Yew’s knuckle-duster approach.So we - well, at least I - was very happy. But for a few years, nothing seemed to have changed. Nothing! And then I wrote this article to point out that this promise was not fulfilled. And I gave as my reason this: the overpowering presence of Lee Kuan Yew, [who] is still around today, as anyone can see. You know the famous analogy used for him? The banyan tree: you know the banyan tree with its huge, spreading foliage that would only allow very weak saplings to grow in its shadow? Now, Lee Kuan Yew was compared to the great banyan tree - so as long as he’s there, it would be extremely difficult.

Now the article - this article [was] followed by another one called “One government, two styles.” I think it was the second one that upset them more, because names were mentioned. Now this is still a Confucianist society, where you show deference to people who are older, who are in authority, and you don’t dare mention people by name. Now this time, I mentioned names, in particular Goh Chok Tong, and again, you know, harped on this point about the one government and two styles. Here was Goh Chock Tong, trying very hard to have a gentler, more consultative, more
people-oriented approach, and here was the former Prime Minister, now the Senior Minister really having the upper hand. Now, I had no idea, just no idea! that two commentaries - which would be totally innocuous, I think, in other settings - had created such an uproar. It was like two weeks, three weeks before there was a response. Not a direct response to me. I woke up one Sunday morning, groggily in my nightgown - ah! and saw on the front page: there was this report, and almost exactly these words which filled me with fear. And the words were something like this: “Dr. Lim has shown disrespect. She must be curbed. She has gone beyond the pale.” and so on and I said “Oh my God!” These words predict a lawsuit - a defamation lawsuit, which means bankruptcy.

Now I was amusing those at my table just now with my daughter’s reaction, and I will tell you, because it was very amusing. Now I have a daughter, and she was with me when I was looking at the report and she had just graduated as a young doctor - very proud of her first salary cheque - [she] just got her first salary. And I said “Ah! Jean (?), sorry, your mother has no money to sustain any lawsuit, you’ll have to bear the burden.” And she turned pale green, and she said, “Oh my God! I will be bankrupted into the third generation!” (Audience laughs uproariously.) And that’s something which amused the group so much, I’ve got to tell you. She has a great sense of humor, she said, “Mom, I want you to do this. You get dressed now, I’m going to drive you to the Prime Minister’s house, where you are going to make an apology, you’re gonna make three full prostrations towards him before you make that apology!” (laughs)
Later, it became so funny! My daughter has a tremendous sense of fun, and then later when she told her friends, you know, all [her] doctor friends, and I think they played up to me in order to irritate me when they called each other and they knew my phone is tapped - it probably was - they didn’t give their names: they said “This is No. 2 calling No. 7” and so on (audience laughs again), and I told them, I said, “Young people, let me tell you this. When I become Prime Minister - not if - when I become Prime Minister, my first official act will be to dock off 25% from your pay!” and that frightened them.

So there it was. Now this was the only time when people asked me: “Were you frightened?” Because it was the government. I said: “Yes, because, you know, the thought of being bankrupted is a frightening thing.”

That was Sunday. [At] 9 o’clock sharp on Monday, I picked up the phone to call the Straits Times, but I could already feel the iciness: they didn’t want anything very much to do with me. I don’t think it was the top man - I was put through to somebody - and I asked two questions, which received monosyllabic answers. My first question was: “Did you get flak for it too?”

“Yes.”

[The] second, very vital question: “Are we gonna be sued?” Because they would have to be sued with me.

“No!”

And that, oh God, that lifted a big worry, and after that, did you know that I was almost euphoric? to say “Hey! that’s OK. If nothing happens, that’s OK. I can take it; what can they do to me?”

But let me tell you, now, the reactions of the public. I had no idea that Singaporeans would be so provoked - do you remember that time, Kannan? - my God! Everywhere I went, there was this kind of excitement, and I think I knew why: Singaporeans felt the same thing; I wasn’t even saying anything new. I wasn’t saying anything new. But nobody had said it, and I had given expression to something that they felt very keenly. Now, I must tell you something very comical. A few days after - at that time I was living at near Holland Village - at the post office, I heard somebody call my name. A young man appeared. I sorta turned around, I sorta saw a scruffy-looking young man. He put out his hand in the manner of Heil Hitler! He said, “give it to them, the bastards! Give it to them!” (laughs) It was funny. I collapsed laughing. I was thinking, oh my God! that that kind of sentiment was provoked. And then at home, there was this old gentleman, Mr. Sami-something, who kept calling me from his hospital bed. He was recovering, you know, from some heart problem, and he called me about five or six times a day, and a typical call would be something like, he would be gasping and saying “I can provide you with more proof, please go on, you’re doing this for me.” And then he would always say, “I’m now going for my medication now. Don’t go away, I’m coming back!” (laughs) He was so funny.

But, I didn’t want one thing that struck me, was that how Singaporeans really felt about the situation, but were either too busy, too frightened, whatever, to talk about it. Now, meanwhile, what was happening was for a while, for a while, there was a great deal of anger. A favorite question people asked me is this: “Were you called up? Was thereany attempt - overt or covert - to punish you?”

I said, “Not at all. Not at all.” In fact, I need not even have worried about the defamation lawsuit, because the Straits Times is a very careful newspaper. It would never, never, never’ve published anything even remotely libellous; it would’ve fine-combed everything, so I would not have anything to fear. Any article that appeared, I think, in the Straits Times would be safe.
So, nope, they left me alone, but, for a while, I think Mr. Goh Chok Tong - I personally quite liked him, because he’s a good man, he’s a kind person - but I think he was very upset that I had mentioned the Confucianist culture.I suppose that I had shown him disrespect. In fact, later, Minister Yeo - George Yeo - at that time I do not know if he was Minister of Foreign Affairs, I’m not quite sure - now in an interview, he chided me - oh, [he] chided me - he rebuked me for disrespect, and he used this Hokkien expression, which is a very powerful one to criticise a person for disrespect: boh tua boh seh. Any Hokkiens here who understand this? Now boh tua boh seh means literally that you have no sense of hierarchy, your position in a hierarchy - you have no sense of your relationship to those above and below you. And that was said.

And then for a while I think they were angry enough to say very strong analogies (??) for me. Mr. Goh Chok Tong - I think it was reported in the papers, he said: “Those of you [who] dare” - let me see, what was it - “who want to attempt to sock me in the jaw, I’ll aim for your solar plexus.” Now, I had no idea where the solar plexus was, I had to look [it] up in the dictionary. My God! that is a vital area. You look at that! And then Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, and he said “who is this Catherine Lim? If I had been in charge, this sort of thing would never have happened.” (Audience laughs.) So, well, he went on for a while, but let me say this: over the years, over the years, there have been signs of… tolerance, if not acceptance, tolerance.

I can sum it up like this: I have gone on writing political articles. For a while [the] Straits Times - I remember there were three [articles] I sent in, and each time they said [it’s] too short, [it’s] too long, whatever - and then they started accepting my articles again; probably because the mood had changed, had softened a little bit, including one on the ministerial salary. By the way, I don’t write articles on specific issues - I’m not interested in, for example, the casino or COEs and so on - but I like to write articles on trends, on relationships with the government and so on. I’ve been writing - until recently - now, I mentioned this to the group at my table - and in September last year, I wrote a political article. By the way I should mention this: I was so happy for the last two, three years, because every time I made a speech at an institute like this, transcripts of my speech would be given to me for me to clean up, and then the transcript would be given to the Straits Times, and each time they would happily print it. In fact, even TODAY newspaper - they would compete for these articles.

Suddenly, in September last year, I wrote another article, and this time it was slightly different. I upped the ante a little, because I wanted a response from the Prime Minister. Normally, they would not respond to my article[s], they would just sort of [dismiss them]. It was called “An open letter to the Prime Minister”, meaning that if it got published, he would have to reply. And the Straits Times said, “we can’t… we don’t want to print [it] because there’s nothing new, you have said the same thing before.” I said (?) [something about] the climate of fear and so on. But the point I was making was this - and it was a real urgent theme - I had been noticing, in the, like, past two years? that this need to open up, which was kept alive in Mr. Goh Chok Tong’s time, you know, everytime… well, sometimes, the official reply would be “Be patient”, “In a good time, we will do it”, “When we’re ready,” and so on. But suddenly I
noticed this need, this expectation had sort of fallen off the radar. Nobody spoke about it anymore - political clouds (?)had closed. I never saw any political commentary in newspapers mentioning it, and although there was an immense opening up - you know, the last few years have seen an opening up that would astonish any visitor to Singapore, or a Singaporean who’s been away five years and returned, he would be totally astonished. But please note that the opening up is in virtually every area except the political area. It’s even in areas that are traditionally conservative like education. Definitely in entertainment. Oh, definitely in entertainment! I remember watching movies and watching plays and saying “Oh! you mean our government allows this kind of thing?” [It’s] the kind of thing that would never had been allowed on moral grounds in any of our Asian societies.

But the opening up is immense, in, as I’ve said, virtually, every area, except in politics: they draw a line there. They don’t mention it specifically. This government would never, never say anything that would make, that would throw political debate out into the open. They don’t want that. It’s something so, I think, innately distasteful to them; they don’t want it. So when I noticed this, I got worried [and said], “Wait a minute! What’s happening? Are Singaporeans so happy, are they so bought over, are they so contented that they have now accepted completely this model of governance and a political opening-up is no longer part of the future?” Young people - let them quarrel a little bit, but they will be co-opted into the government if they are extremely talented, or they will be so busy making money, so busy in cosmopolitan [lives] that there will be no question of a political opening up, which I wanted to see so
badly, not just for the reason I’d mentioned just now, for preserving the integrity of society, but because of Singapore’s very vulnerable position.

Let me bring up this point very quickly. You know, because our society is so much based upon material achievements - it’s a culture that I say this is linked together by the cash nexus, nothing but the cash nexus - that the loyalty, and this is what I pointed out, if there is any loyalty in Singapore, it’s not to the nation, it’s to the good life that the government has provided and will shift the good life.2 I already see it happening. Not young people - they explore different settings and then come back - I see it among people (including some relatives) who have bought second homes in English-speaking countries - Australia, Canada… Oh! You, you catch hold of any wealthy Singaporean and he definitely has a home abroad. And
I know for a certainty that should there be any trouble they will quietly up and go. No rush! No furore! It’s gonna be, “Oh, my daughter-in-law needs me, I’ve just become a grandmother, I’m going there to take care of my son.” And so very quietly, they will up and go.

Now to me that is tragic, that is frightening, you know, when a situation like that happens. In fact, it is a problem because some years ago, Mr. Goh Chok Tong actually thought that the problem was big enough to be brought to the forefront of national consciousness. Do you remember that he mentioned the problem of “stayers and quitters”? It was like a severe reproach to Singaporean[s]. Singaporeans, those of you who are quitters [whom] up and go away, you don’t deserve our regard. Those of you who are stayers, well, you are true Singaporeans. Now, this is frightening for Singapore in the long run.

The other thing that worries me when you don’t have an identity, when you don’t have this connection with your country, when you don’t feel this kind of organic link to it, is because of Singapore’s special position. You know, Singapore is this tiny little country being set between two larger, more powerful neighbours who don’t particularly love us, you know. And anything can happen. In fact, one political sociologist described Singapore as “a little Chinese fish swimming in a large Muslim sea”. This is the reality.

Now what happens, should there be external trouble? For me, no matter how fantastic our government [is], no matter how efficient [it is], you still need a robust civil society. You definitely need a robust civil society in the event of external trouble. Oh, no, no. No government can do without that. But I don’t know whether we can come to (?) it. Do you know Singaporeans still sometimes have debates on whether we are patriotic people? Remember Dr. Vivian Balakrishnan brought up this point. He said his ten-year-old son asked him: “Why should I die for my country?” You know, that kind of thing.

So, there you are. A whole lot of… I would say… quandaries, problems, dilemmas that we have to solve, and I’m just one little voice. I do not know how long I can go on doing that, but I probably will continue doing it. I can’t count on another fourteen3 years, but I wish some young person would pick up. But never mind. Even if the newspaper doesn’t want to publish my articles anymore - in fact, I sent them my latest speech which I made in NUS just on the 15th, that was just a week ago, and the title of the speech was, “A challenge for the future: democratizing the Lee Kuan Yew model of governance”. Well, again, they wrote back to say, this old hag, we don’t want this, you’ve already said all this. They didn’t actually use the rude word “old hag”, but they said “you’ve already said all these things before”. So I’m not even sure now what would be new to them. I think I have an idea: my
next offering to them will be in fictionalized form. I think a little story, a little dialogue, I think that will be quite fun. Let me try that; I’m mischievous enough to try that.

So, my present position is this: I take my role of political commentator very seriously. Somehow it has been thrust [upon] me - I didn’t ask for it! and I would rather be happy going on with my own happy little life, but, OK, I will do it. And as long as I’ve got some ideas that are not so crackpot, I can share them with young people, and even if, right now, they don’t provoke much excitement, it doesn’t matter. I think I will continue doing that.

Footnotes
  1. It seems clear to me in context that the ‘two things’ Catherine Lim refers to are prosperity and the chaos of democracy, rather than literal, mere chaos.↩
  2. Somehow this sentence isn’t quite coherent to me. Am I missing something?↩
  3. I suspect a misspoken number here because it seems to be an appropriate contrast to the PAP’s forty years’ presence mentioned earlier in the talk↩