The reality is fault lines exist IN "A healthy dose of idealism can create one united people" (ST, Sept 5), Mr Cherian George argued that the Government's approach to race relations and democracy contributed to an "affective divide" between it and the electorate. In race relations, Mr George claimed that the Government lagged behind "an almost palpable, heartfelt longing" for a more integrated, Singaporean Singapore, which was visible in Feedback Unit or Singapore 21 dialogues, and on Internet chats. The Government shares Mr George's aspiration for a more integrated, Singaporean Singapore. But it has to recognise the realities of our multi-racial, multi-religious society. The fault lines exist, whether or not we acknowledge them. The participants of dialogues and Internet chat that Mr George quoted are a small elite. They do not represent the general population or ground sentiments. While the different communities do identify themselves as Singaporeans, they do not want to be forced together and lose their distinct characteristics. This is so for Malay/Muslims with their mosques and madrasahs, the Chinese-educated wanting to preserve Chinese language and culture, or different South Asian groups vigorously maintaining their separate identities and traditions. Mr George laments the Government's unwillingness to set up a statutory board to promote multi-culturalism. If only the solution were so simple. In reality, forcing communities together faster than they are ready to will only generate resentment, resistance and further entrenching of divisions. Democracy is indeed a core value enshrined in our Constitution. Singapore practises parliamentary democracy in full compliance with our Constitution, that is based on the provisions of the State of Singapore Constitution prescribed by the 1963 Order by the Queen in Council and many of the fundamental articles of the Malaysian Constitution that we adopted. The Government is regularly elected in clean and honest elections. It has governed with the mandate of the people for the last 40 years. Our system has evolved over the years, to meet our circumstances and suit our society. The prosperity, stability and progress of Singapore amply prove that it has worked. The problem is that western liberal groups try to co-opt the term "democracy" and use it as a codeword to endorse their preferred political model, which they seek to impose on Singapore. They want the media, including foreign media, to play a dominant role setting the political agenda; trade unions and special interest groups to contend for advantage against one another; strong opposition parties; and a weak government. Some Singaporeans also uncritically adopt and promote this line. This model is against Singapore's interests. Far from strengthening commitment and bonding among Singaporeans, it will weaken our cohesion, make us divided and fractious, and cause us to lose control of our destiny. Singaporeans who believe in this model, as perhaps Mr George does, are of course free to campaign to persuade Singaporeans to their point of view. But this is a quintessentially political question. The Government must, therefore, vigorously oppose them and engage them in debate, as it did with Ms Catherine Lim five years ago, and as I am now doing with Dr Melanie Chew and Mr George. Every citizen is entitled to exercise his political rights guaranteed by the Constitution. There is no "barbed wired and land mines in the depoliticised zone that buffers the Government from inconvenient interference". But no one is entitled to sanctuary, attacking the Government freely yet exempt from rebuttal and debunking, under the guise of providing non-political alternative views or feedback. Mr George says the Government's "highly litigious attitude towards the opposition" makes it hard for Singaporeans to think of themselves as members of a democratic society. He presumably refers to the defamation suits against opposition politicians like Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam, Dr Chee Soon Juan and Mr Tang Liang Hong. Singapore's defamation laws are based on English laws. Freedom of speech is a fundamental political right, but licence to defame is not. Politicians who have not defamed others, such as Mr Low Thia Khiang and Mr Chiam See Tong, have never been sued. Indeed, opposition politicians like Mr Chiam have themselves sued successfully for defamation, to uphold their reputations. We want to develop a form of politics where public statements by politicians are taken seriously, and adventurers and dishonourable men are seen for what they are. We do not want a situation where nobody can distinguish between true and false charges, and charlatans may not be unmasked until it is too late. This is not the first time that Mr George has held mistaken views on the way political debate is conducted in Singapore. Five years ago, Mr George accused the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of stifling debate in Parliament on important public issues. He wrote (ST, March 10, 1994): "this may result in public disillusionment with the country's principle democratic institution... "Parliamentary efficiency ...must satisfy the quality control of an increasingly critical and demanding public". The Leader of the House pointed out that Mr George had committed a breach of privilege and contempt of Parliament. Mr George immediately and unreservedly apologised. He wrote (ST, March 12, 1994): "Indeed, as someone who has attended most Parliament sittings over the past 3-1/2 years, I am only too happy to put on record my respect for the Speaker and his deputies. "In the eyes of this citizen, they have, at all times, discharged their duties with fairness and dignity." Yet Mr George now complains that "a society's lack of respect for democractic freedoms diminishes the perceived value of citizenship". He has forgotten his earlier statements. Mr George should not be too quick to criticise the institutions and laws that help maintain the quality and tone of our political discourse, or the political system that affords him the luxury of expressing critical views with no worse retribution than a sharp public rebuttal. ONG KENG YONG Press Secretary to the Prime Minister Prime Minister's Office