Over the past 25 years or so, Singapore has been giving the world the impression that it is a free economy and even a model of free economy for newly independent countries. On the premise of this impression, it has often been believed that one day, democratic freedom and human rights would follow.

However, there are dissenting views on the reality inside Singapore which are often not publicly expressed for all kinds of reasons, one of which is the fear of offending the power-that-be, particularly former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew.

Malaysiakini talks to Dr Chee Soon Juan, secretary-general of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party. A documentary on him, Singapore Rebel , was recently banned by the government.

Malaysiakini: Singapore is widely perceived to be a free economy and its population is generally very well educated as compared to many other countries in the world. But it is also said that Singapore is not politically democratic enough and that the space for free speech is very limited. What is your observation and opinion?

Chee: There are many misconceptions about Singapore, the biggest being that it is a free-market economy. The domestic sector of Singapore's economy is overwhelmingly run by the government. Massive state conglomerates, such as the GIC (Government of Singapore Investment Corporation) and Temasek Holdings, run approximately 50 corporations that, in turn, run more than 500 subsidiaries that spawn even more sub-companies.

All in all, there are more than 1,000 GLCs that make up to 70 percent of all Singaporean companies. As a result the private sector has been sidelined. In Taiwan and Hong Kong, private small and medium enterprises generate 75 percent of economic activity whereas in Singapore they generate only 20 percent. Among the key Asian economies, Singapore has the highest percentage of state-run companies. Forty-five percent of Singapore's top 20 companies, for instance, have state shares of more than 20 percent. This compares to Korea's 15 percent, and five percent in Japan and Hong Kong.

Singapore's economy is also unwisely over-reliant on multinationals and because of this we have had to compete with our neighbours over low wages to keep the economy competitive. Singaporean workers have seen their wages cut but with the cost of living in the city remaining high. How long can the economy go on like this? Singapore needs to compete on ideas and creativity, something that the authoritarian state currently squashes.

It is sometimes claimed by the ruling Peoples Action Party (PAP) leaders that the very success of Singapore's economy is attributable to 'Asian values' that stress social order and organisational discipline, rather than Western individualism, human rights and democracy. What is your view?

One look at Hong Kong, Japan and Taiwan will tell you that the Lee Kuan Yew's 'Asian values' argument only serves to justify his grip on power in Singapore. Singapore was the centre of trade and commerce way before the PAP came into the picture. The Tan Lark Syes, Tan Kah Kees, and Loke Wan Thos in the early 1900s all made Singapore a notable economic entity by engaging in commercial activities such as banking, transport, rubber, and food products. All the PAP did was to promote Singapore as a centre for cheap and compliant labour, something that is not sustainable as results are beginning to show.

There is an observation that many Singaporeans are privately vocal and critical against their leaders and some of the government's policies, but they refuse to speak up publicly. Why? What are their fears?

The Straits Times conducted a survey in 2000 and found that 93 percent of Singaporeans were afraid to speak up about government policies with which they disagree or are unhappy with. Through the years of repression with the Internal Security Act (ISA), prosecution of the opposition politicians, suing of newspapers and opposition leaders, prosecution of Internet activists, and so on, is it any wonder that Singaporeans have become a cowed lot. People visiting Singapore find it hard to believe that a modern looking country like this one can be so repressive. Yet Singaporeans are controlled with a very short leash leaving little or no room for dissent.

Singapore's mass media is usually felt to be factually very accurate in reporting sports, crimes as well economic and financial news, but there is virtually no debate or investigative reporting on domestic political issues. Why? What do journalists and editors in Singapore fear?

What do journalists and editors in Singapore fear? Lee Kuan Yew.( photo ) There is also the knowledge that if they keep to the official line, they would be well rewarded with promotions and bonuses. It's nothing new, it happens all the time in dictatorships.

Given the relatively high levels of income, education and IT literacy, why can't Singapore's intellectuals and professionals set up and operate online independent media to provide an outlet for truly alternative news and views? What are the legal or political obstacles to operating an online independent media in Singapore?

Singapore is run on fear. With everything that has happened in the past - detentions without trial, prosecutions and defamation suits - Singaporeans are extremely fearful of starting some kind of an online independent media where the PAP can take punitive action against them at will. Online media is different in that it can operate from outside Singapore thereby escaping the control of the government. Many Singaporeans are using this albeit on an anonymous basis because they cannot afford to be identified.

How many people are still being detained without trial in Singapore? What are the charges against them?

No one knows for sure how many ISA detainees there are until the government decides to make it public information which may take a couple of years. At the moment a couple of dozen or more individuals have been accused of terrorist activities and imprisoned.

Since Sept 11, 2001, Singapore's government has again made concerted effort to defend and justify the existence of preventive detention without trial in the name of combating terrorism. What is your opinion on preventive detention without trial in Singapore?

Before Sept 11, the rallying cry was communism and scores of oppositionist leaders, journalists, student leaders and activists were detained without trial. The ISA wasn't invented to combat terrorism. The government now conveniently jumps on the issue to justify the continuation of the ISA. Without proper safeguards, what's to prevent the government from continuing to use the ISA on legitimate political opponents and activists?

Part 1: Singapore - a modern 'dictatorship'?