Share on Facebook

The book, Impressions of the Goh Chok Tong Years in Singapore, is a collection of 45 essays written by a varied group of academics and political commentators that, taken together, paint a broad picture of the “quiet, low-key” man who had transformed Singapore - quite literally. Though he was largely credited for navigating the country through several major crises, including the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis and the SARS epidemic, many of the authors noted that it was perhaps Goh’s affable style of leadership that left the greatest impression on that era. 

Lest you think the book is a biography of Goh, it is not. Rather, it offers a lens from which readers can hope to understand contemporary Singapore during that 14-year period in which Goh had indelibly left his mark as Singapore’s second Prime Minister. Published by the National University of Singapore (NUS) Press and the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS), Impressions is divided into five main areas – domestic politics, foreign relations and defence policy, economics and policy challenges, society, and culture.

The book is edited by Bridget Welsh, a political science associate professor at the SMU’s School of Social Sciences, James Chin, foundation head at Monash University’s School of Arts and Social Sciences (Malaysia campus), Arun Mahizhnan, deputy director at IPS, and Tan Tarn How, a senior research fellow at IPS.

Domestic politics

Goh became an immediate object for comparison right from the time he took on the country’s highest political hot seat. People’s expectations were especially confronting at the time, given the legendary accomplishments of his predecessor, Lee Kuan Yew.

The book opens with a comparison of leadership styles. Goh, though physically tall and imposing, was admittedly in favour of a “gentler”, “softer” and more consultative approach. And it was this style of leadership that, as James Chin argued, helped to arrest the decline in popular votes for the People’s Action Party (PAP).

Chin also noted that the consultative units set up by Goh during his tenure, including IPS, the consultative committees and town councils, elevated important issues, and allowed for effective dialogue between the political elites and the citizenry.

While Murdoch University’s Garry Rodan agreed that “Goh’s engagement was consensus-based”, he felt it “ultimately served the interest of the PAP”. To this end, Chin and the NUS political science professor Hussin Mutalib argued that the Goh government “adopted new tactics to maintain and rebuild support for the PAP”. The changes to the electoral system, especially the introduction of the Group Representation Constituency (GRC), “essentially curtailed the ability of the opposition to gain significant political power”.

The authors pointed out that Goh, as the PAP’s leader, had to protect his party’s interests and political survival. As such, he “was not hesitant in attacking the opposition and defending the PAP and its leaders through means that had become common under his predecessor – defamation suits and character labelling”.

The case of outspoken author, Catherine Lim, who had written two articles in 1994 on Singapore’s politics, raised issues of the invisible ‘out of bounds’ (OB) markers. K.S. Rajah, a renowned lawyer and former judicial commissioner to the Supreme Court, noted that the presence of OB markers “do not seek to remedy a social or legal mischief but seek to restrict the freedom of communication”.

Foreign relations and defence policy

Tommy Koh, Singapore’s ambassador-at-large, noted in his essay that Goh consolidated Singapore’s position in Southeast Asia by launching several initiatives to “make ASEAN more integrated and more competitive”. This includes expanding Singapore’s political and economic space, spearheading Singapore’s FTA policy, and promoting greater inter-regional cooperation between ASEAN and Northeast Asia, India and Europe.

Alan Chong, an associate professor at Nanyang Technological University’s (NTU) S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), painted Goh as a champion of multilateralism, who envisioned a global, multilateral framework as the platform that would best safeguard Singapore’s interests.

N. Ganesan, a professor at the Hiroshima Peace Institute, pointed out that Goh had lobbied hard for the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) in 1993, and worked together with Thailand for the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) in 1994. He also noted that it was Singapore who initiated the setting up of the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) and the Forum for East Asia-Latin America Cooperation (FEALAC).

Kuik Cheng-Chwee, a lecturer at the National University of Malaysia (UKM), highlighted Singapore’s skilful diplomacy: “by borrowing the strength of the political heavyweights to manoeuvre through the swift currents, the city-state reduces the risk of capsizing in the rough sea of international relations”. Under Goh’s leadership, Singapore not only retained American presence in the region through bilateral and multilateral efforts, but also engaged China into ASEAN-led multilateral processes.

Bridget Welsh, who focused on the image of Singapore as seen from the United States, noted that the focus had shifted from “limits of civil liberties” to “success in the economy and crisis management”. This was largely due to the efforts of Goh and his administration.

On the defence and security front, RSIS’ Bernard Loo argued that the Goh years remain “probably the most important period in the growth and development of the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) into a credible conventionally structured, jointly oriented armed forces, plausibly the most modern and most well-trained armed forces in Southeast Asia”.

Zachary Abuza, a political science professor at Simmons College, noted that Goh left a deep imprint on Singapore’s defence and security policies, especially in its approach to the emerging threats of terrorism and Islamic militancy in the region. Through Goh, Singapore became an important security ally to both the United States and ASEAN members.

Economics and policy challenges

Manu Bhaskaran, a partner and board member of strategic advisory group, Centennial Group Inc, noted that while the policies under the Goh administration largely reflected the approaches of his predecessor, Goh had led a series of major policy changes that transformed the economy; policies that opened up the economy, “with a large stock of investment abroad and an extensive web of free trade agreements”.

Singapore’s drivers of economic activity became more diversified, as dependence on electronics production was reduced. Meanwhile, new sources of growth appeared in both manufacturing and services sectors. Bhaskaran noted further, “The economy under Goh has shown a capacity to re-invent itself, as new and higher value activities as varied as pharmaceuticals and wealth management have sprung up.”

NUS senior fellow Lee Soo Ann pointed to Goh’s training as an economist, which helped him steer Singapore through two severe economic slumps: the Asian financial crisis in 1997 and the information technology crash at the beginning of the 21^st century. However, Singapore’s economic progress also resulted in a widening income gap – something that Goh had tried to address by focusing on education and skills training. But, as Shandre Thangavelu, an economics professor at NUS, argued, “Although the income inequality has widened since the Asian financial crisis, it is quite clear that without such initiatives by Goh, the Singapore economy might have faced even greater income inequality and lower economic growth.”

Society

Goh had placed a great importance on building an inclusive society that would cut across racial or religious boundaries. The authors in this section acknowledged, however, that the Goh years also saw the use of divisive labels like “stayers” versus “quitters”, “heartlanders” versus “cosmopolitans”. Ethnic, much less national, identities were constantly confronted by the influx of immigrants, as pointed out by Eric C. Thompson, a sociology professor at NUS, and Zhang Juan, a Ph.D. candidate at Macquarie University.

Norman Vasu, coordinator of the social resilience programme at RSIS, on the other hand, noted that the Goh years saw “many issues that tested the resilience of the Singaporean social fabric”, including the lack of interaction between different races in schools, the compatibility of the Islamic schools or madrasah within the national education framework, the prohibition of the wearing of tudung (headscarves) in state schools and the arrests of Singaporean Jemaah Islamiyah terrorists.

SMU’s Eugene K.B. Tan observed “subtle shifts in the relative emphasis on Chinese-Singaporean identity within the multiracial Singaporean-Singapore identity framework”. However, the fact; that ethnic Chinese forms a majority in Singapore but a minority in the region, whilst Malays are the minority in Singapore but the majority in the region, presents a rather precarious situation. As such, he wrote, “Cognizant of domestic and regional sensitivities, Singapore established formal diplomatic ties with China only after Indonesia and Malaysia had done so.”

Lily Zubaidah Rahim, a lecturer in government and international relations at the University of Sydney, examined the much talked-about “new dawn” in relations between the Malay community and the PAP government during the Goh years; that the Malay community “purportedly extended stronger political and electoral support to the PAP in recent elections”. She argued that the “evidence to substantiate these claims is largely anecdotal”, and added that such “claims are less than convincing given that longstanding concerns of the community remain unresolved”.

These concerns include the Malay community’s relative socioeconomic marginalisation, poor representation of Malays among the political elites, civil service top echelons and military. RSIS’ Yang Razali Kassim felt, on the other hand, that there were “more admirers than sceptics” within the Malay/Muslim community, so much so that with Goh’s stepping down in 2004, “it was not an exaggeration to say that the community felt a certain sense of loss”.

Yang Razali pointed out that what bonded Goh to the community was not so much that he was able to speak Malay at the traditional National Day rallies, “but his empathy for the aspirations of the community as an important part of the Singaporean nation-state”.

Culture

The arts scene expanded significantly under Goh’s vision of Singapore as a “global city for the arts” and a “renaissance city”. Tan Tarn How noted that the National Arts Council (NAC) and National Heritage Board (NHB) were both formed during Goh’s tenure. However, “artists continue to lock horns with a conservative state as they push the boundaries”.

Chua Beng Huat, a sociology professor at NUS, argued that Goh “liberalised the cultural sphere strategically, to alleviate the risk of such demands being transformed into pressure for political change”. He noted further that the government was quick to react “at the slightest suggestion of boundary crossing attempted by commentators or activists in the arts into politics”.

Examples include the rejection of the application by gay activist group People Like Us (PLU) to be registered as a civil society organisation, and the banning of the play Talaq (or, divorce) on the grounds of “religious sensitivity”. This “raised public scepticism of the government’s efforts to promote the arts and create space for public debate.”

Cherian George, head of the journalism division at the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, NTU, noted that while Goh’s governing style had promised openness and consultation, the role of the media – “working towards the same national goals as the state” – remained unchanged. However, the emergence of the internet as a major media platform had a “democratising effect”, as the technology emboldened “Singaporeans into criticising, teasing and lampooning the PAP much more openly than ever before.” 

Yen Yen Joycelyn Woo and Colin Yong Ping Goh, co-founders of the satirical website talkingcock.com, credited the Goh’s administration’s “anti-Singlish policy” for the birth of their website. The website takes jabs at Singapore’s vernacular English – a polyglot of English, Malay, Tamil and various Chinese dialects.

While arguing that “there is no inherent reason why one language is better than another”, the pair pointed out that “the recurring efforts to divide citizens into simplistic desirable versus deficient categories” were extremely unhelpful -- “stayers” versus “quitters”, “speakers of pure languages versus the ‘Chap Chye’ (mixed vegetables) Mandarin or Singlish speakers”.

All in all, though the book is not a biography on Goh Chok Tong per se, readers will most certainly get a glimpse of Goh - as a man and as a politician - through the eyes of others. Equally important is the portrait of Singapore; the economic, political and socio-cultural changes that took place in that significant period in which Goh was Prime Minister.

By looking at the changes on the ground and assessing the impact of the collective political leadership, the reader is presented with a story that, as the editors noted, comes not so much “driven less by the actions of leaders and policy frameworks than by the actions of ordinary and many extraordinary Singaporeans”.

It is therefore without a doubt that Impressions plugs, admirably, the gap in current literature on contemporary Singapore in what is now known as “the Goh Chok Tong years”.

Share on Facebook