Main Stories, Top Story - Written on Friday, October 30, 2009 6:15 - 45 Comments
The Myth of Asian-style Democracy
In an interview with Fareed Zakaria in 1994, Lee Kuan Yew spoke of the notion of a distinct Asian culture and value system, and how this would cause many democracies in Asia to take a different form from their liberal counterparts in the West.
Singapore was cited as a living fulfillment of this possibility, a nation that adapted a British political system to its own success using Confucian ethics; namely, a culture that valued “learning and scholarship, hard work and thrift, deferment of present enjoyment for future gain ”.
Therefore in Lee’s view, Singapore was not an authoritarian state as many Western observers had criticized; but rather a genuine democracy, albeit one that took on Asian characteristics. With these words, Lee Kuan Yew left behind a legacy that would endure many years afterwards.
In her column last year, Straits Times political editor Chua Lee Hong wrote a defense of the Singaporean democratic model in an article titled Why They Hate Singapore. She quotes MM’s press secretary, Yeong Yoon Ying, to illustrate her point:
“Singapore is an example to other countries of how the free market plus the rule of law, and stable macro-economic policies, can lead to progress and success, but without Western-style ‘liberal’ democracy.”
More recently, Ho Cheow Seng wrote an article on the Young PAP blog, echoing this sentiment but in more vicious terms:
And so the West, and in particular the U.S., want now to teach us how to run our countries according to their model of Democracy. Beware of their pulling cotton wool over our eyes. Do you seriously believe there is genuine Freedom and practice of Human Rights in America?
In short, people like Lee Kuan Yew, Chua Lee Hong, and Ho Cheow Seng subscribe to an “Asian” school of democracy, one that rejects “Western” political constructs like a robust opposition, human rights, free press, and strong civil society. Apart from areas like the economy and popular culture, it is a line of thinking that holds Western ideas in condescension, understood to be incompatible with our Asian way of life.
On a theoretical basis, the thesis of an Asian-style democracy may make some sense. However, in light of sweeping political changes that have occurred in Asia, a number of inconsistencies begin to surface. For example, in Malaysia last year, incumbents Barisan Nasional lost ground to the opposition in its worst performance since 1957 , winning the parliamentary election but losing its two-thirds majority.
And for the first time in Japan’s history this year, the Democratic Party of Japan overtook the Liberal Democratic Party in elections, ending LDP’s 54 year hegemony . So, while places like Japan and Malaysia have not ended up as carbon copies of Western countries, these countries must have enjoyed some kind of vibrancy in their political climate – a supposed characteristic of Western countries – for these changes to have taken place.
So what happened to the thesis of an Asian-style democracy? Consider the words of DPP member Hsiao Bi Khim, a Taiwanese politician, in her essay “Civil Society and Political Freedom in Taiwan” published in the journal “Democratic Transitions in Asia”:
Throughout the election we ran a campaign on a slogan called “Government of the People” and we really mean that in a literal sense, that people must be involved in the policy making or decision making process of the government in every step of the way. The government must be the facilitator of society, rather than the dictator of what societies should represent.
Applying Lee’s idea of “Asian values” to Bi Khim’s words, it seems that Bi Khim isn’t very Asian at all. Therefore, unless we don’t consider Taiwan part of Asia, any talk of “Asian” or “Confucian” values conflicting with liberal democracy must be dismissed immediately or taken with a heavy pinch of salt at best.
Despite this apparent reality, why are so many people still enchanted with the idea of Asian-style democracy? Part of the answer may lie in history. During China’s modernization in the 1930’s, there lived a circle of political elites who welcomed the modernization process, but stressed how the process had to be facilitated using “Chinese characteristics”. Notice the resemblance between this and those who favor Lee’s line of thinking today.
However, there lay a pitfall in such a philosophy. Because terms like “Chinese characteristics” or “Chinese conditions” were nebulous in nature, these words were often manipulated to favor the ruling politic. Professor Yu Keping of Peking University elaborates:
Nevertheless, there was also a very dangerous implication behind the advocacy of modernization with Chinese characteristics…Everyone could explain so-called “Chinese conditions” and “Chinese characteristics” in terms of their own preferences and then oppose those elements of modernization, especially in the political realm, that were unfavourable to their own interests …
[Therefore] by negating the need for political reform in China, these scholars tended to promote resistance to democracy and helped to sustain authoritarian politics. When asked what “Chinese nativeness” meant, these scholars answered that it centered on the “needs of the present”, that is, on the need “to enrich people’s lives”, to “develop the national economy” and to “sustain national survival”. Democracy and political reform was not included in the “needs of the present”.
Note an important distinction here. Keping is not suggesting that “Chinese characteristics” or “Chinese conditions” do not exist. Rather, he rightly points out that within the cultural and anthropological argument – that is, any line of thinking that emphasized such terms in its reasoning –is room for exploitation. Likewise, whenever terms like “Asian values” mentioned today, we should exercise such discernment: is there real value behind what’s being said, or is it just lofty rhetoric used to further a political agenda?
The second problem with the cultural argument is that it overlooks one huge reality – the fact that a society’s values are constantly changing. The 21st Century has been hailed by many as the age of change with the forces of globalization constantly shaping our culture and belief systems. With this in mind, how relevant are paradigms like “East vs. West” in a fast-changing globalized world? This is compounded by the fact that Singapore, ranked the 7th most globalized city in the world in a recent survey, tends to be more exposed to these forces of change.
A third problem is the influx of foreigners into Singapore over the last decade, resulting in a dramatic change in our social fabric. A recent population census highlighted that of the 5,000,000 or so people living Singapore today, only 64% are actual citizens, down from 73% in 2000 and 86% in 1990 . With foreigners now comprising one-third of our population, who determines our identity, culture and values as a nation? Surely, in answering this question, one cannot ignore the influence of these 1.8 million people living here, even if they lack the political rights of citizenry.
In final analysis, we see that any approach towards democracy using a cultural framework quickly disintegrates, running into many inconsistencies and problems. Instead, a correct framework should be one that first determines a set of universal themes and ideas, or “democratic non-negotiables” if you like, and then examines how these ideas can be applied to society.
Therefore, rather than asking the question: “What are Singaporean values, and how does that apply to a democracy?” we should be asking ourselves: “What is a democracy, and how does that apply to Singapore values”? Though the answer will still have a distinctly Singaporean paradigm, this shift in thinking will result in a democracy more authentic and meaningful for its citizens.
In closing, I would like to quote Kishore Mahbubani, dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy from his book Can Asians Think, who summarizes the matter so succinctly:
In refusing Western prescriptions, Asians were perceived to be promoting the superiority of their own values. In fact, they were merely arguing that they would be free to choose their own political paths. Lest there be any misunderstanding, Asian intellectuals – including those from China – argue that the ultimate destination of all societies is democracy. The destination is not in question, only the route and the timing are.
Related posts:
45 Comments
Singaporeans For Free Speech & Transparency
Singaporeans For Free Speech & Transparency
PAP’s regime cannot hide facts. The public wants to know and they will find out.
Democracy as it is practised in the West itself is a misnomer.
Just like some PAPpers worship PAP too much, methinks some pro-Western idealists worship the West too much.
“democratic non-negotiables”
I like that. It suggests values and requirements which cannot be corrupted because their inherent benefit is for society at large. Being for society at large should imply that there is sufficient transparency in the transactions taking place. This should ensure that no party can leech on the system without being noticed and having action taken.
*sigh*
I only feel sad that humans are always subject to corruptibility. We may start with the noblest intentions but even the brightest of us can fall the furthest. To mitigate this risk, we must have a system in place that cannot support collusion, with sufficient checks and balances that anyone should be able to verify.
Sadly, this requires freedom of access to information. Clearly, with our civil service not being accountable to the Singapore public (according to PAP MP Zaqy B Mohamad) and the obfuscating manner of reply to questions asked of our Ministers during Parliament sessions (quoting Minister for Finance Shanmugaratnam – “People do want to know, there is curiosity, it is a matter of public interest. That is not sufficient reason to disclose information. It is not sufficient that there be curiosity and interest that you want to disclose information”), we are not anywhere near this hopeful ideal.
If we can push a significant number of non-PAP MPS across and if our MM croaks, people will finally find the courage to step out from MM’s long overdrawn shadow to work out schemes and policies that are to the genuine benefit of Singaporeans, both short term and long term. I’m certain of this because when the PAP lose their only cult of personality, MM Lee, they’ll lose the one thing which ensured the votes of the older generation.
With that vote bank out the window, the only thing they may try to rely on would be the new citizens who are only happy to be in Singapore, earning less than they should but more than they did in their previous home country. However, even if the PAP don’t lose the majority by this election, I see them enacting a downward spiral of draconian policies to ensure their hold on power. Anyone who demonstrates against such actions may be jailed for being part of an illegal gathering. Anyone who remonstrates against this may be sued in the Singapore Courts (where I don’t think they’ll get the same kind of justice one would find provided by a group of my peers).
Maybe, just maybe, the surviving members of the PAP may actually evolve to become actual statesmen who decide they actually want to serve their country first, their people next, and themselves last. Is this possible? One may hope.
Cheers!
Asia where got Democracy? What Asian styles or American styles? It is all bulls talking smelly things from their bottom instead of from their heads. Who invented Democracy? What started all these movements for Democracy?
There is only but one style of Democracy, as there is only but one style of Communism, as propounded by the originators of the concepts.
It is only the so-called practitioners (opportunistic politicians who wanted to grab power for themselves) who tried to twist and turn, who tried to interpret and define the concepts in the ways that are advantageous to themselves during their time in power.
So, don’t ever fall for those bulls!
TOC needs to send this article and ask for the opinions of politicians in India, Japan, HK, Taiwan, Thailand, the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia and what they think of this “Asian-style democracy” or whether they have a better word to define this.
I have no doubt they will snort at such a description.
What we are is basically no different from Animal Farm.
Let’s be very clear what is actually meant by “Asian values” as determined initially by the Chinese supremacist Lee Kuan Yew to stake China’s – and by extension, the Chinese people’s – supposed preordained ‘right’ to overlordship over all other poeples; this line of argument has now been taken up by so many non-Chinese and for Singapore’s purpose, by Indian Confucianazis like Kishore Mahbuban and now K Shanmugam – still wondering what the initial “K” in the law minister’s name might stand for.
“Asian values” is really the political values that the Chinese race have become accustomed to from their own political experience in Chinese feudalism. In the Singapore context, this fact alone means multicultarism’s version of a violation of secularism because Chinese political values, and only those that were relevant in the feudal state, have been imposed on Indians, Malays and other racial minorities.
The supremely dishonest Lee Kuan Yew and the party that he rules over to the point of their own disempowerment have packaged “Confucianist values” and then conflated it to mean “Asian values” to maximise support for his fascist agenda. But in truth, it is not Confucianist values – which I consider to be a moral philosophy but one that enunciates the moral values that a ruler must espouse – but another ancient Chinese LEGAL philosophy, namely Legalism*, that has been adopted in today’s China and one that Lee Kuan Yew believes is appropriate for Singapore.
The legal philosophy that is the ancient Chinese Legalism is all based on the assuption that humans are essentially bad – a sharp contrast from Confucianism’s basis that humans are essentially good. Ancient Chinese Legalism further carries the notion the notion that those who can transcend their essential ‘badness’ should be rewarded and those who can’t should be punished.
Does that sound that like the Singapore that we know and have come to loathe?
* Legalism, as the term is used today, carries many positive connotations because of its association with the American practise in jurisprudence, law formulation, and enforcement. The ancient Chinese legal philosophy of Legalism is a far cry from comtemporary American practise replete with admiration.
3) Solo Bear ,
Have you then made any distinction between ‘pro-Western’ and ‘anti anti-Western’? imo, ‘Western’ or ‘Asian’ or ‘Chinese’ are just political terms created by politicians to serve their own ends.
lobo
>>
Have you then made any distinction between ‘pro-Western’ and ‘anti anti-Western’? imo, ‘Western’ or ‘Asian’ or ‘Chinese’ are just political terms created by politicians to serve their own
>>
Me:
Yes, they are all political terms to serve their own causes. Same with the term human rights. I have discussed this at length before at my site.
What I find intriguing is that some opposition supporters see the need to bring in “foreign influence” like democracy and human rights. Why can’t they just vote for opposition without having to talk about these outside factors?
Some argue that LKY has tried to use Confucianism to rule Singapore. I can argue that opposition supporters are using pro-West values to dislodge PAP.
So what is the difference, if you want to replace one foreign ideology with another?
I say that if you want to vote for opposition, just do it. Let’s stop bringing in all these “foreign values” stuff that serves not the people but the political parties only.
“Why can’t they just vote for opposition without having to talk about these outside factors?”
Words have been invented by first movers (thinkers of the past) to describe situation(s), so use it lah. Why reinvent and call it outside factors.
Sometimes, it takes others to give us a better idea of what we are missing (or having aplenty).
“stuff that serves not the people but the political parties only.”
The problem is that one has to be governed (by politicians belonging to political parties) and hence you need to choose who can best represent your interest more (after their own interest) – that is politics.
Nice article…especially to those who are clinging on to their jobs, trying their best to promote obsolete rhetoric.
Using an SAF advert:
Compromise is not an option.
@ solo bear, two comments:
1) you seem to be very fond of making sweeping generalisations — people who favour human rights are “Pro-Western”; Lee Kuan Yew uses a “Confucian” worldview, when this is not the case. if anything, this is the main idea i’m attacking with my essay. how valid are these “east vs.west” paradigms in a globalized world, and even if we do admit that there’s a significant chasm between the “East” and “West”, why can’t we mutually learn from one another?
2) i think its very naive to go into things ex-nihilo. all of our ideas, including the ones you espouse personally, have origin from somewhere else. i think there’s nothing wrong in admitting that some of our ideas are borrowed from the West, as long as we don’t administer them in a prescriptive way.
9) Solo Bear on October 30th, 2009 1.56 pm
I am not sure why you seem to ‘fear’ foreign influences. They may have ideas that we do not, so we ask them to present lor. In the end, we have to decide whether it is suitable or not. I would like to believe that we can THINK.
In any case, you are talking about ‘SOME’ opposition members, and I can’t think of many who actually invited ‘foreign influences’.
If you were to ask me WHY these ’some’ opposition members do such a thing, I would say that they already evaluated and agree with these ‘pro-western’ values, and is simply inviting someone who can present it better. Think of it as ‘foreign talent’? =)
Frankly, I feel something is already very wrong if you had to label an idea so that you can dismiss the label and not the idea. Why not simply address the flaws of the idea itself?
Lobo:
>>
I am not sure why you seem to ‘fear’ foreign influences. They may have ideas that we do not, so we ask them to present lor.
>>
Me:
The point is not fear. The point is that our internal politics is our internal politics. Why must we get outsiders to be involved?
Ali:
>>
1) you seem to be very fond of making sweeping generalisations — people who favour human rights are “Pro-Western”; Lee Kuan Yew uses a “Confucian” worldview, when this is not the case. if anything,
>>
Me:
Isn’t democracy a western ideal? Isn’t that what you are asking for? Isn’t Confucianism what LKY has been talking about?
My point is actually not whether it is East vs West. My point is whether it is East, West, North or South, we should not allow outside influence to decide who governs us.
If you want to vote PAP, vote PAP. No need to talk about Confucianism. If you want to vote opposition, vote opposition. No need to talk about democracy or human rights. No need to talk Asian values – whatever Asian Values is.
We don’t need to copy wholesale the western democracies but that does not mean we should reject the positive aspects that could certainly be adapted to suit the local conditions. It seems that we might have been infected by some of the negative free enterprise mentality but not learning to empower the people. As the population becomes more educated, widely read and travelled, greater participation and egalitarianism should follow.
Similarly, Confucianism must move along with modern times and should not be taken at face value. It is impossible to turn the clock back nor is it desirable to replicate a rigid and feudalistic society.
I have strong reservations over the practice of “democracy” in India, Taiwan, Thailand, the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia are anything to be envied. Chaotic parliamentary debates and corruption are prevalent, entertaining, but do not serve the people well. Democracy has become a farce in these countries, serving the interest of the powers that be.
Democracy is only half the solution since it is only a mechanism that puts the people, who are perceived to serve the common good, in power. The other half of the solution still rests on these individuals to actually serve the common good. That’s why democracy cannot do without a free and independent press and a strong and independent judiciary to actually function.
I’m angry at both the PAP and those who blindly voted for them in the elections.
16) Yuchengko on October 30th, 2009 5.30 pm
Democracy has become a farce in these countries, serving the interest of the powers that be.
true to a certain extend. Yet, how is our ‘democracy’ any better? it is also only serving the interest of the powers that be. at least in Taiwan, you can be caught doing corruption. Here we can only watch and accept.
an exceptional piece of argument.
actually, i am of the opinion that there is only one sole democracy model; an ideal, faultless one. it might not necessarily be western liberal democracy, or lee’s asian-style democracy, in fact, for the most part, such is only an assumed political state.
i believe that all countries are working towards such a goal, some naturally closer to it than the others. nations (that includes citizens and governments alike) continually modify policies and shape the landscape so that such a state of ideality may be attained. of course, being the perfect state, benefits to the people and government are distinguished in a manner that is acceptable to both parties; somewhat akin to a mutual agreement.
the evidence of such a phenomenon is clear, even in a country like singapore.
I can’t risk my kids future by voting the opposition. Look at what we got in the opposition now and you think they can rule Singapore? PAP is still my choice for the next election.
Germany was never an authoritarian regime. They were a German-Style Democracy.
“I can’t risk my kids future by voting the opposition. Look at what we got in the opposition now and you think they can rule Singapore?”
Do not vote then if you can’t risk it. They can definitely rule if you support them, so do support them. Your kids will have a better future if you support them else they are going to hate you in the future for being such a spineless irrational creature.
Singapore Advanced Digital Imaging Services
A good read
“Let’s be very clear what is actually meant by “Asian values””
Very sure the most important Asian values advocate by old fart is
SHUT UP AND SIT DOWN.
You see, when we ask for accountability, transparency and responsibility of the government which democracy could bring forth, you will have the old fart and parroted ShittyMedia/ShittyTimes talking about Asian Value to make you “SHUT UP AND SIT DOWN”.
What is Asian values?
So many different countries , how define shared asian values?
TW is also Asian country. Also one of the now-extinct Asian tigers of the Asian miracle.
TW is a vibrant democracy.
Its people were able to use democratic rights which contributed to the arrest and sentencing of their ex-President. If another asian president is corrupt, who is there to arrest him? I mean, i dunno can or not? u know you say and tell me lah.
TW is Asian.
TW has democracy.
TW has Asian Values.
Asian values includes Democracy?
“In short, people like Lee Kuan Yew, Chua Lee Hong, and Ho Cheow Seng subscribe to an “Asian” school of democracy, one that rejects “Western” political constructs like a robust opposition, human rights, free press, and strong civil society.”
They can subscribe to what they think is correct, so long as they don’t disturb the majority of us who don’t believe them. Keep your stupid ideas to yourselves.
To Daniel on October 30th, 2009 11.24 pm:
Re: Very sure the most important Asian values advocate by old fart is SHUT UP AND SIT DOWN.
Youère absolutely right. Shut up and sit down is especially useful when a ruler wants to extract the maximum amount of obedience from the ruled so that they will cooperate with him to cover up his incompetence and wrongdoings.
The specific human rights that they rail against are free speech (for everyone) and the rights of other political parties because they would threaten to expose the ruler s incompetence and wrondoings.
To help towards this cause, the ruler fabricates another Asian value from thin air: that Asians want strong leaders.
strong leader (defn.): He who has the greatest capacity for abuse.
The MIW played an important part in our past but they have no role to play in the future.
The time for change is now. Change will come whether we like it or not. For all their efforts to cling on to power, the people want a say in how they are governed. The era of one party rule belongs in the rubbish heap of history.
We have worth ship him too much that we have forgotten that Singaporeans are the one that build SIngapore today. Not PAP.
Phew.
what Singaporekia on October 30th, 2009 9.28 pm said is not without rationale; most of our opposition parties are too weak. Take chee and his gang, for example. They aren’t exactly helping with the (largely) pointless charade are they? If opposition were to be strong in this climate, at least some indication would have shown in the polls.
Oh and don’t go arguing about how our political landscape disallows opposition a chance; that, to me, is nothing short of bollocks. After all, is it not the citizens apathetic attitude that gave rise to such a phenomenon?
If we keep up with this attitude (the NATO one), change is impossible.
“Take chee and his gang, for example. They aren’t exactly helping with the (largely) pointless charade are they?”
Are we seeing some divide n rule here.
“Oh and don’t go arguing about how our political landscape disallows opposition a chance; that, to me, is nothing short of bollocks.”
But the bollocks have been engineered for such political landscape to germinate.
“After all, is it not the citizens apathetic attitude that gave rise to such a phenomenon?”
If you feed them with bollocks, they will only know bollocks and look like bollocks.
“If we keep up with this attitude (the NATO one), change is impossible.”
A good made-to-believe complimentary close where at the end of the day you really need to deal with political landscape first and lastly the bollocks.
Always be sincere with what you are saying if it involves the larger well-being of the nation & the general population and if you want to empower them.
@ 21) Singaporekia on October 30th, 2009 9.28 pm
I only have the following quotes for you!!
“Those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserves neither.”
“When the government fears the people, there is liberty; When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”
Where do we draw the line when we don’t get to draw the line. Instead, someone else draws a line where WE are on a short leash and they continue to pay themselves higher salaries without delivering results that matter (and I’m not talking about kissing overseas balls to score points for themselves – today’s MSM headlines are so shameless!).
Cheers!
2 party state in the future, in my view, is InEvitable.
There is no point preventing what is gonna be InEvitable ‘cos it may be a futile attempt.
‘Future’ can mean anytime in future.
peace
32) X on October 31st, 2009 9.50 am
what Singaporekia on October 30th, 2009 9.28 pm said is not without rationale; most of our opposition parties are too weak. Take chee and his gang, for example. They aren’t exactly helping with the (largely) pointless charade are they? If opposition were to be strong in this climate, at least some indication would have shown in the polls.
really? I wonder how much of their ‘weakness’ is a result from reading about them from the MSM?
@ 32) X on October 31st, 2009 9.50 am
And how are they kept weak? By our not voting them into parliament, doing away with the PAP majority that time and again are very much full of NATO, except for pay rises for themselves and policies for their benefit.
Redrawing electoral boundaries every election cycle!!
Irregular election cycles!
Only 8 measly days allowed for actual campaigning!!
Police permits repeatedly denied when license to conduct a rally is requested!!
Being sued whenever they make any claim about actual wrongdoing/lies!!
Having the courts (who appoints the judges?) disallow witnesses/evidence that helps the opposition defend their stands!!!
Come on, open your eyes. Having met some members of the Opposition parties, I can sense they’re always second guessing themselves about what they can say because they really don’t want to get sued unnecessarily and waste money on damages instead of putting up the election deposit of ~$12,500 for each of their candidates (calculated as the sum equal to 8% of the total allowances payable to a Member of Parliament in the preceding calendar year, rounded to the nearest $500…this is 8% of approx. $156,000 for our part time MPs).
I should be glad that the blind followers of the PAP aren’t shooting at the opposition (yet) – seeing that MM Lee does not appear averse to calling out the army if the opposition come into power I’m not so sure if this is a case of when rather than if (through whichever appointment holder is beholden to him).
If it ever happens, do you think our wonderful incumbents will be in the country or run away with their $$$ to join their kids already living overseas?
Query 1
Could someone dispute this point I read recently. Up to a point in the 80s, all HDB transactions were only processed via a certain legal firm called Lee & Lee. That’s a lot of transaction fees for something that should have been put under a public tender. Anyone with facts to repudiate this?
Query 2
From http://www.elections.gov.sg/candidates_expenseslimit.html
Regarding the Elections Expenses Limit.
I was very amused to read the following text on the above website:
The law imposes a limit on the level of spending by or on behalf of every candidate in the conduct and management of his/her election.
This is to ensure a level playing field between candidates. Without such a limit, parties with greater resources will gain advantage through spending more for publicity and awareness. This leads to distortions in the democratic process.
Also came across this on the website (http://www.elections.gov.sg/elections_parliamentary.html):
Political parties will be given air-time by the television stations. The length of air-time depends on the number of candidates each party is fielding.
Could this point explain why I don’t recall seeing ANY air-time publicity given to any of the opposition parties…except maybe to disparage them!?
Also, even if the PAP stick with their election spending limit officially, what about all the air-time and press-time given in our MSM?? Should that be calculated as part of their elections spending limit?
Taken from an audit perspective, this is most definitely so because one should look at the substance over the form of the expense and the intention one can read behind it.
So…what happens now?
Well, for starters, we should start to think – what can I do? where do I start?
For starters, start to talk with the Opposition to find out what they are actually thinking and planning, rather than letting the MSM tell you. Afterall, I would not trust the MSM(aka SPH) to tell me that PAP candidates fart perfume. :P
The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Weekly Roundup: Week 44
[...] : on the Fascist state of Singapore & how it taught me to fear the BNP [Thanks Tracy] – TOC: The Myth of Asian-style Democracy – The Grand Moofti Speaks: Singapore: Progress, History and the Wet Market Controversy – [...]
I dont know why they keep saying Asian-style democracy and Confucianism had to do with Sg system.
If you look carefully at SG, SG is more authoritative than China, it is almost a dynasty. In China, Deng passed over to Jiang, Jiang passed over to Hu and their immediate families are not in politics.
In SG, father passed to son, planning to pass to grandson. DIL holding the sg purse, classmates and friends all surrounding the cabinets and gov linked companies.
If you say SG system equate to Confucianism or Asian democracy is a joke. Can someone pls explain how they equate to Confucianism or democracy?
37) Online Shmonline on October 31st, 2009 11.27 am
If it ever happens, do you think our wonderful incumbents will be in the country or run away with their $$$ to join their kids already living overseas?
==============================================================
I read that most of their children are overseas. They have huge bungalows there too.
I guess if anything happens here, example like 5 million PRCs take over the country, they can easily move overseas.
Because information is restricted here, we will never know how many of them actually hold Australian OR New Zealand PRs,
Alastair Su
in case u din know, kishore is someone who subscribes to the brand of thinking that asian societies have to shape their own democratic values rather than blindly following western-style democracy. to quote a sentence out of his book is kinda self-defeating….
@ don
i chose to use that quotation precisely because he holds that view. read the chapter its taken from in Can Asians Think? and you’d be surprised at some of the things he wrote there.
I think Kishore is a brilliant thinker and a very eloquent man. But he is also a diplomat, and when you’re a diplomat, you tend to have to pander to both sides — both the hardline “Asian democracy” advocates in Singapore, and the Westerners who put pressure on us. By quoting him, I just wanted to catch him in a position where he seems caught in pleasing both
Just in case if you did not know, Kishore is a big proponent of Asian values also
and this democracy with chinese characteristics has been around way before the 1930s, in fact it drew inspiration from the Meiji restoration.
But the article is interesting… but I think abit problematic
Nice one Alastair. Though I would argue that the ‘asian democracy’ paradigm was launched only in response to the so-called 3rd wave of democratisation after the fall of the berlin wall. Singapore didn’t want to adopt the iffy terms and conditions that came with being identified as a ‘proper’ western democracy, neither did it want to be excluded from the democratic bloc for economic reasons.
Thus the magical result of an ‘asian democracy’ – reaping the benefits of being within the wealthier sections of the planet, yet being able to refute accusations of repression by seeking recourse to cultural rights.
I would also like to add that with the decline of the US as a global hegemon, the debate on democracy seemed to have died out as well. With the Asia which is arguably still largely authoritarian, I doubt we’ll see a ressurection of the ‘asian democracy’ paradigm since there’s no need to be aligned with democracies anymore. In fact, we’d probably see our government up-playing our ‘chinese-ness’ or ‘authoritarian-ness’ to cosy up to China and Russia.
The highly educated citizenry should or can make this decision.
If they want, they could get it.
Leave a Reply
Uncategorized - Jan 15, 2010 10:12 - 126 Comments
It is affordable – Mah Bow Tan
More In Uncategorized
- Rebutting Law Minister K Shanmugam
- Challenge of communication
- TOC & Talk Politics hold successful Year in Review forum
- “Live” from Post Museum – TOC’s Year End Review
- The Fajar Generation
Uncategorized - Jan 15, 2010 10:12 - 126 Comments
It is affordable – Mah Bow Tan
More In Uncategorized
- Rebutting Law Minister K Shanmugam
- Challenge of communication
- TOC & Talk Politics hold successful Year in Review forum
- “Live” from Post Museum – TOC’s Year End Review
- The Fajar Generation
We need true transparency and access to facts, before Singapore can surpass the West in quality of democracy.