Say what you will, but the truth of the matter is in Singapore the biggest human rights violation is the total disrespect shown for an individual's civil and political rights often done scurrilously, not by the state but by the self-censorial behaviour of the majority.

Self-censorship takes place when an individual who has an alternative political viewpoint, instead of articulating it, chooses to evaluate the consequences. Based on a supposedly rational calculation of the situation, individuals opt to modify their political opinion or refrain from expressing it altogether, especially, when its against the ruling regime.

Self-censorship operates via the censorship of others. It takes place when one person begins calling attention to another person or group engaged in expressing alternative political remarks or actions and asks others in the vicinity whether this is politically sensitive or even desirable. This is followed by an attempt to alert fellow members of an organisation, colleagues, friends, family and other networks that something is amiss.

As if that's not enough, a negative profile is also projected onto those articulators. They are painted as 'unpatriotic' and 'anti-Singaporean'. The all important indicator would be the question asked by the potential censor of others, "What is his/her agenda?".

This immediately raises doubts and suspicions over the other person's actions and warning bells go off in the heads all those around the articulator. But what makes people living in Singapore act this way?

Punitive actions

Years of strict regulations and punitive actions taken by the ruling People's Action Party against political opponents, members of civil society and foreign academics in Singapore is responsible for this unique brand of fear - a fear that strikes local residents and foreigners alike. Every time "politics" is raised, there is a great uneasiness that one's phone is tapped, e-mails monitored and government stalkers assigned.

The government's use of officers from the Internal Security Department for surveillance and information that the Ministry of Home Affairs has the capacity to scan e-mail accounts and polices every area of space for political expression make this fear very real.

Hence, in a country where most of its professionals, intellectuals, academics are linked closely to the state in one way or another, many find it hard to break out of self-censorship and contribute in an active and open way to support political pluralism. Only a few do. And those who do are usually independently employed.

In such a climate, there is no respect for debate or disagreement in Singapore. Tolerance, and a willingness to accept opposing views is absent or minimal. The ability to participate in adversarial relationships without being overwhelmed by feelings of aggression is almost always lacking. Moreover, most people don't know how to disagree without being disagreeable. Suspicion is the flavour of the day. The other choice is total avoidance of anything even vaguely political.

Political culture

Direct censorship and other censorship is sometimes difficult to keep apart as the former has a bearing on the latter. And this often has been the basis of critique towards the theory of self-censorship and censorship of others in Singapore. The focus on the political culture of the people is sometimes mistaken as removing blame from the regime and its punitive actions against those who have spoken up and acted against it in the past.

Others, say that there is no self-censorship because there are some people who speak up. That may be so but when it comes to organising for action, its easy to separate the cowards from those with balls.

It is this mistake of constantly focusing on the ruling regime without additionally taking into consideration the behaviourial attitudes of the self-censorial majority, both foreign and local, that has made moving the political process forward slow in Singapore.

Unable to understand that most are uncomfortable with vitriolic attacks on the government, efforts have not be directed towards a more mainstream approach to politics. That is, to bring alternative political ideas to the centre in Singapore to bring more people onboard.

This reduces those who constantly barrage the ruling party, to the reckless, the naive and the die-hards. Whether one is in an opposition party or a member of civil society, those who have been able to understand the psyche of the majority and have tapered their political manoeuvring to suit the environment in Singapore are the ones who are successful.

All others remain on the sidelines, marginalised or damned to ranting and raving on only anti-government, anti-everybody websites or unmoderated chat groups. Otherwise they remain largely as bitter individuals knocking their heads against the wall in the real world.

Risk taking

The absence of a risk-taking class at the philosophical and political level is a key problem at the present. But the challenge remains how to take risks and how to package them, in an environment where most people continue to be unfriendly and suspicious of individuals or groups espousing alternative political ideas.

And in the background where the overarching presence of a regime that watches everything that moves can make it overwhelming for those who want to experiment. This makes the task of employing new ideas and strategies to re-invent and market political engagement even all the more important.

Presently, the awareness of this problem, that is, most people practice self-censorship is a necessary first step. When this is established and accepted, it can create a situation where more people will recognise the problem and be willing to employ the relevant strategies and take the necessary risks to move the political process forward in the republic. Something that is long overdue.

In the meantime, whenever someone reads or hears something that sounds politically progressive and connected to Singapore and then mutters quietly in his or her head whether that person is allowed to say or write such things, would be evidence that self-censorship is alive, present and operating in the island city-state. That in a nutshell is Singapore's shame.

JAMES GOMEZ is author of 'Self-Censorship: Singapore's Shame'. He will be speaking on 'Prospects for Democratisation in Singapore' at University Malaya, History Department, 3pm on Feb 23.