Death of the Critic

《紐約時報》專欄作家沙費爾William Safire前天因癌症去世。我會對這個名字這麽熟悉，不是因爲他是普利策獎得主，而是因爲他是李光耀資政的“常駐”批評家。用字大膽的他曾在評論裏批李光耀為"dictator"，更明目張膽地在與李光耀的訪談中提及他的種種指設。他是我寫公共政策報告時，最喜歡引的評論家。

以下是沙費爾與李光耀的一段精彩唇槍舌劍：

“Q: Let me challenge you on that. I've written that you're a dictator.

A: [Laughs]

Q: I've often written that.

A: Yes. But if that makes me a dictator, well, you have won. So, am I a dictator? Do I need to be a dictator when I can win, hands down?
Q: That's a good question. Why don't you permit competition politically if you can win hands down?

A: I do permit competition.

Q: That's not what the competition says.

A: Let me make it simpler for you. Joseph Nye, head of the Kennedy School, recently came to Singapore as part of our international advisory board to get our universities to improve their standards. And I had known him for some time, met him before he was in government. At the time he was there, there was this little fuss about a dissident who said, ""I'm going to speak at Raffles Place,'' which is our business center, ""without a permit.'' He asked, why don't we let him speak? I said the law has been on the statute book for the last fifty years. If everybody just turns up at a busy junction at lunchtime and makes a speech and runs around, and everybody does it, there would be pandemonium. We are not that kind of a society. He says, ""Why don't you have a Hyde Park?'' I said, ""Yes, we'll think about that.'' We'll probably do it.

Q: How long ago was that?

A: About two weeks ago.

Q: Now, in that time, there was a Chee Soon Juan ...

A: Yes, that's right. That's the chap. And he said he's not going to pay the fine, and he's been properly charged. He's not going to pay the fine. He's going to go to jail to be a martyr. Fine. But he's no martyr.

Q: Wait ... Isn't there a law on your books saying that after you reach a certain level of fines, you can't stand for office?

A: I don't think he'll be fined beyond that. It would be wonderful.

Q: Well, the fine is a $5,000.00 limit, and the first fine is $3,000.00.

A: But how do you know the first fine will be $3,000.00? We don't know. And we are not going to press for it. Why should we?

Q: Well, why should you fine him anything, if you're not worried about him?

A: Because the laws are there, and he has complied with those laws for the last eight years, since 1992 he has been campaigning. And now, because he has lost, and lost badly in an open, free election, one to one against one of our candidates, he's had exposure on television, which was disastrous for him because he was caught out lying and fibbing and fabricating evidence on a health care paper which he presented. So he's been away for two years, in Australia, licking his wounds, so he wants to find a way to get a splash back, so he tries to ... so he gets a big splash in the Western press ... because they want to beat me up. (Laughs) It's all right; it doesn't bother me.

Q: But here you've just called this man a liar.

A: Yes. He is a liar.

Q: Now, can he sue you for libel?

A: Yes, he can.

Q: Would he win?

A: He would lose. I can prove it.

Q: But if you sue somebody for libel for calling you a liar, you'll win.

A: Because I don't lie.

Q: Ah. So ...

A: If they can prove that I am a liar, I'm done in. And when they sue some of our MPs and Ministers for having mis-spoken, they pay damages.

Q: You don't feel that you have abused, or misused, the law to intimidate people into not running against you?

A: (Laughs) No. No. I don't think so. They can run against me, but it's an effort to gather enough people to make that consistent try year after year, to build an organization.

Q: Now, here you are, an intelligent man, and regarded highly by a lot of intelligent, conservative Westerners, many of whom are friends of mine, and you're trying to leave me with the impression that there is an open, free, political competition ...-

A: Yeah.

Q: Backed up by a free press in Singapore. That is just totally at variance with the facts.

A: [Laughs] I do not agree with that. You called me a dictator. My answer to that is you are entitled to call me whatever you like, but that doesn't make me one, because I don't have to be a dictator. I can get a free vote and win. And there's a long history why that is so. Because I have produced results, and the people know that I mean what I say and I have produced results. You say there's no competition. We have enormous competition from the Communists. Maybe our fault ...-

Q: That's ancient history.

A: Not quite. Not quite. They were in the background all the time until 1990 when they signed the agreement and laid down their arms entirely. And they were always working through open front organizations. So we had fairly stringent laws to keep them out of it. Right.

Q: Uh-huh.

A: Now. We do not own the press, as they do in Malaysia. The press is owned by ... nobody is allowed to own more than 3 percent of the shares. The management of the press is in the hands of our four big banks.

Q: And that makes them terrified of crossing you.

A: No. That makes them having a vested interest in stability and growth, and they support parties that will bring about stability and growth.

Q: But what about truth and freedom? Isn't that just as important as stability ...

A: Our press does not lie. It does not. Nobody is shut off.
Q: Now, you've written that your news policy, quote, ""is not to exclude the contrary point of view, but to make sure the government's point of view is clearly stated.+

A: Yes. Correct.

Q: So if I say that you're a dictator, and that one-party government is inherently corrupt, you do not feel that is libelous? I can go ahead and say that and write that in Singapore?

A: Yes. Everybody knows that we haven't got one-party government and we are not corrupt.

Q: But you say I am free to say that.

A: Yes.

Q: Even though you say I can't prove it.

A: You are stating ...

Q: What I believe.

A: ... a general principle. Are you saying that the PAP government is a one-party government and corrupt? If you say that, you have got to prove it.

Q: Why do I have to prove it? Why can't I just say it.

A: No.

Q: Why ...

A: Just now ...

Q: ... proof on the person who believes something to be true. Let me take off my jacket; it is a bit warm here.

A: When you made your statement, you made a general statement, and I said you are free to make that general statement. But if you are specific, and say that this PAP government is a one-party government and it's corrupt, that's a very damaging statement, and I say, ""Please prove it.+

Q: Well, I've seen where a publication suggested that compliant judges were used corruptly to bankrupt your opponent. Right?

A: I took them to court and they paid damages for that.

Q: That was because of your corrupt judges.

A: Now, just a moment. The World Economic Forum and it's rival organization, IMD, listed us in their competitiveness report, had confidence in our judicial system; compared to all of the other countries, it's right on top.

Q: That's on economic ... -

A: No, no, no, no. You don't have judges who are honest and competent in economics and dishonest and corrupt in libel cases.

Q: Why not?

A: Because that's not the way we run our system. That's not the way we appoint judges. A judge has been appointed ... we have inherited the British system. Once appointed, he cannot be removed. His salaries are guaranteed under the constitution. All his perquisites cannot been diminished.

Q: So the result of these pristine, honest, uncorrupt judges is that all your political opposition is driven into exile, or bankrupted, or, in other words ...

A: Just a moment. How are they driven into exile? We do not want them in exile.

Q: Huge fines.

A: Come off it. Let's go through individuals, right?

Q: OK.

A: Chee Soon Juan is not in exile.

Q: As of today he's not.

A: No, he is not. Why should he be in exile? There is a man called Jeyaretnam who's been--

Q: Before you leave him, what's going to happen next week?

A: I don't know. He'll be produced in court. He'll make his defense.

Q: Right.

A: His defense is the law is unconstitutional, which I think is farfetched.

Q: Right. So then he'll be either jailed or fined. Right?

A: He won't be jailed. Nobody has been jailed yet on the first offense. He'll be fined. He'll refuse to pay his fine, as he said.

Q: Right.

A: He held a meeting with the foreign correspondents at lunch and said he's not going to pay, he's going to go to jail. Well, that's his choice.

Q: Right.

A: So.

Q: So when that happened in the U.S. 220 years ago, the newsmen were fined, they went to jail, and the people turned against the government of John Adams and elected Thomas Jefferson.

A: (Sighs) You know, we are not America. And the people in Singapore are not going to react that way. And the other leader of the opposition, he booted out from his party and took over. That's already on record. The opposition leader said he just is giving the opposition a bad name. And I think that's correct.

Q: So why don't you let him?

A: I'm letting him.

Q: If you provide them with the ...

A: No, no, no.

Q: ... to speak up against you, and people don't like what they're saying, what are you worried about?

A: There are certain rules of the game which he has got to observe, and he has observed them. Since 1992 he's played by those rules. He had all the publicity he wanted. It did him no good.

Now he comes back and says, ""It's because the law is stacked against me. I'm going to change this constitution.+

Q: Isn't that what happened in the Soviet Union? With Scharansky?

A: That's a very different proposition. He wants to change this law. He stands for Parliament, gets into Parliament, then moves a motion; he changes the law.

Q: And why ...

A: You are not going to change me in this one encounter. I am not going to change you.

Q: No, but I'm trying to understand your thought processes.

A: [Laughs] My thought processing has been patterned and reinforced over forty years of government, of dealing with all kinds of people, and of governing a society and making sense out of the society. And this is how we've got from nearly 0 to perhaps 70-plus percent. ”

然後，看訪談的結尾：

A: [Laughs] We are not doing too badly.

Q: I appreciate this opportunity, and I'm grateful to you for it.

A: I haven't changed you, but that I didn't expect, and you haven't changed me, and I don't think you expected to.

Q: Well, I enjoyed it. I hope you did, too.

A: [Laughs] You are not a silly man, and I don't give you silly answers.

Q: I hope to see you again.

很喜歡這兩位聰明人的這種和平“吵架”。如果你也喜歡，請看全文：http://infusionetwork.livejournal.com/4131.html#cutid1