Prof. Tommy Koh is the Arthur and Frank Payne Visiting Professor at Stanford University during the Winter and Spring quarters in 1995. Singapore Internet Community called on him towards the end of his stay and had a candid chat with him.
Prof. Koh on
One very significant fact about Singapore is that our per capita GNP is now the ninth highest in the world. Would you say we are now a 'developed' nation?
I would paraphrase Prof. Lim Chong Yah, in saying that by per capita GNP and by social indicators such as longevity and infant mortality, Singapore is now a developed nation; but by educational profile, we need another ten years to catch up. The basic problem is that one generation ago, we allowed too many people to stop at primary six, but we are now encouraging people to go on to secondary and tertiary education.
Besides these criteria, are there any that you would add?
IPS is now working on the idea of the quality of life, how to measure it and how to compare it with other advanced countries. By 'quality of life' I mean our cultural endowment, for example, our museums, our music, our theater and so on. Although it is not comparable with cities like London, New York, we have improved quite a lot in the last five years. Singapore has now our own semi-professional opera troupe, I am trying to launch a Mandarin theater, and we have annual performance art festivals, film festivals and antique auction.
How, if any, has the political climate of Singapore changed from the early 80s to the mid 90s?
The transition from LKY to GCT was an important watershed characterized by continuity and change. The leadership is now trying to 'widen the fairway' or I would like to say 'broaden the intellectual space' for people. We've tried cautiously to liberalize. But he has to maintain a balance between the wish to be more open and to carry along the conservative majority.
What do you think of the two articles written by Catherine Lim?
Catherine is my good friend and I think she is a very talented person. I thought her first article 'The Great Affective Divide' was OK, it was within the Out of Bonds (OB) markers, but I thought her second article in which she suggested that the PM was still dominated by the SM was unhelpful. Because first I don't think that is true, and second it does not help in facilitating this transition from the SM, who is such a great man, to the PM.
The main problem with OB markers is that if it is not specified, people will have a tendency to self-censor.
Well, the politicians are unwilling to indicate clearly and in advance where the OB markers are so one would have to continue to test the frontiers. I guess in a situation like ours, which is evolving, to use a legal jargon, we can't use a civil law approach where the rules are clearly laid out but must use a common law approach where rules are evolved on a case to case basis. That means that some of us get beaten up from time to time when we transgress the OB markers. I guess intellectual should not be afraid to take risks, otherwise, how can you advance the cause if you are afraid of getting beaten up. All my life I have spoken my mind, and will continue to do so respectfully I hope. Sometimes I am told I am a stupid fool, or a trouble maker. When I gave a speech to the Bukit Batok Forum on whether Singapore is over-regulated and gave some examples, I stepped on some toes and got a lot of negative feedback. If I had been afraid all my life, I would not have said anything.
So would you encourage Singaporeans to emulate you?
Yes, Singaporeans should take courage from people like me, Prof. Chan Heng Chee, Kishore Mahubhani and others who all our lives had been out spoken. From time to time we get beaten up but that is the price you have to pay. You must first do your homework and be prepared to defend yourself and be prepared to acknowledge mistake if you are wrong. Cowardice is not the answer. The answer is to be prepared to say what you believe in, and to do it in a responsible manner. You must never be reckless in the sense that you must always take into consideration the larger interests of the society.
In the current East vs. West debate, how hopeful are you that mutual understanding will come about? Will Singaporeans become more Eastern or Western in the future?
If you look at the whole of Asia, there probably isn't one society that is more Westernized than Singapore. But at the same time, our ethos is very much influenced by traditional values. We are a happy blend. I hope there will be increasing convergence between the US and East Asia. The US now is swinging from the liberal camp to becoming more conservative while East Asia is moving towards greater political openness, in our much smaller world nowadays, it is very hard for a society to insulate itself from the rest of the world. To avoid a clash of culture, there must be an attitude of mutual respect and learning. You can not have an attitude that I am always right and whoever deviates from me must be wrong. The US is itself an immigrant society and with the rising influence of Asian American, there is a greater chance for the US to come to a common understanding of East Asian countries than perhaps Europe, who does not have these advantages.
What is NAC's strategy now for promoting the arts in Singapore? Will it try to put on grander but fewer events, or more smaller events?
I would say none of the above. My priorities are 1) to build a broader audience base for the arts. I am putting a lot of money into arts education in the school, bringing the performance art, the literary art and the visual art into the school. The future lies with the young people. If I do not have an audience base, nothing else I do will succeed. 2) Nurture a dozen artistic groups that can become first class, what I would call my flag ship company. 3) Nurture talents, not necessary in the flag ship company, but any young talents by giving them scholarships, help them to study abroad, help them publish their books, give grants to help artist exhibit their work and so on. 4) Bring to Singapore artistic groups from other countries to perform, and help our own artist to perform overseas. I also maintain arts venues for artists to perform, and work with foreign embassies to arrange for example French and Japanese festivals to enrich our cultural scenes. The last two years (93-94), I had the privilege of chairing the commonwealth writers' prize which was held in Singapore. That was a tremendous boost for our writers and it put literary art on the map.
What in your opinion is the ideal percentage GNP to spend on the arts?
Oh, the government is not prepared now to even talk about percentage. We are frankly under-funding the arts now. If we look at the per capita GNP we give to the arts, we are certainly not an advanced country. If we are serious about developing a cultural life, we have a long way to go.
Why do you think this is so?
Two things, people in high positions are not very appreciative of the arts so my political constituency is not very strong. The second reason is that there is an anti-subsidy philosophy that pervades our bureaucracy. High art cannot pay for itself, there is no country in the world who could do that. Pop art yes, you bring Michael Jackson here and that pays for itself. If you want ballet, orchestra, there is no way you can make them pay for itself. This is a blind spot in the bureaucracy.
This mentality is very much a characteristic of our government, do you foresee that changing?
I have not giving up the fight at all and I continue to hope there will be a sea change within the government. You know there has already been a sea change in the corporate world. Previously they did not give much to the arts, now more and more foreign and local companies are giving money and I hope the government can match that. I am also doing other interesting things like launching the OCBC arts card. For every event that we organize, we try to get corporate sponsors.
You were here in Stanford in 85 when you were given the Roston prize and you are here now as the Payne Visiting Professor. What would you say you have achieved during your present stay?
I have accomplish what I came here to do, which is to complete a series of lecture that will be published later as a book. I have also made myself useful in other way: talking to the law school, talking to groups interested in negotiation and conflict resolution and speaking to various associations. It was a very busy and productive ten weeks. Stanford is one of the great universities in the world and it is great to get re-aquatinted with the people here and establish institutional ties. I wish my wife were here but she needs a sabbatical from me. I am such a hyper person that she has trouble keeping up and insisted that she needed a break.
For a person of your stature and talent, why have you not tried entering politics?
Because I have character short-comings that make me unsuitable for politics. I am too moralistic a person, with too many moral scruples. I do not enjoy wielding power over people, I am too sentimental and I lack a killer instinct.
Looking at these short comings you have listed, and thinking of their converse, one would almost say that politics is a rather ruthless and not very moral affair.
Well, when you are responsible for the affairs of your country, you must always put the interests of your country before your own moral scruples. There is a distinction between public and private morality. In politics, you may have to do something that violates your personal ethical code for your country's interest. If you have a weak stomach then don't do it. I also don't enjoy the mud slinging that takes place in politics where you run down your opponent and demonize them, I don't like that. I have a character like a Golden Retriever rather than an Alsatian. You need to be a bit of an Alsatian to succeed in politics; if you are a Golden Retriever I don't think it will be very good. I see myself as a Golden Retriever.
Return to Interview Index