OUR SINGAPORE
CONVERSATION
Time for a new ideology
First, there was socialism that works. Then
there were pragmatism and communitarianism. What ideology will take
Singapore society forward, keeping the capitalist verve but
preventing the excesses of the market?
BY ASAD LATIF
For The Straits Times
SINGAPORE was born on the crest of an ideological wave. It might
be opportune to revisit those times as Singaporeans imagine their
country two decades hence.
The founding wave was democratic socialism. Caught
between the late-colonial state and insurgent forces committed to
its overthrow, the People's Action Party (PAP) offered the people
of Singapore a vision of independence in which socialism would be
achieved through parliamentary means. That offer came to be
encapsulated neatly in the formula "Socialism That Works".
Those three words distinguished Singapore from socialist
systems which stifled private enterprise and failed to meet human
needs, and from capitalist systems where entrenched economic
interests created unconscionable disparities of wealth, power and
opportunity.
Democratic socialism released the energies of the market,
but only under the watchful gaze of the state. The guardianship of
the state reflected the democratic principle because people vote
for governments, not for markets.
An invigorating era of legislative radicalism
followed.
The Housing and Development Board was set up in 1960 to
produce a home-owning population. The Women's Charter was passed in
1961 to protect the rights of half the population. The introduction
of national service in 1967 laid the basis of a people's army. The
scope of the Central Provident Fund, in place since 1955, was
expanded to help citizens purchase their homes.
Singapore came of age in that adventurous ideological
space.
Four decades later, an eerie ideological silence has
descended on Singapore. Democratic socialism is hardly even
whispered about. The second and third overlapping waves following
it - economic pragmatism and communitarianism - have receded as
well from public discourse.
Pragmatism was a way of making the most of the
international economic space available to Singapore at any given
time.
Communitarianism sought to hold society together beyond
the ambit of the purely economic. Each was justified on its own
grounds, but they could not find common ground. Growth had social
costs that communitarianism could not meet.
Of course, Singapore has national values. Multi-racialism
and meritocracy are two of them, and they are rightly celebrated,
but they are not ideologies: They are ideological strategies, meant
to achieve a larger end. What is that end?
The Singapore Conversation provides a good opportunity of
listening for an answer. Ideology focuses the mind on defining
issues. It allows citizens to look beyond the minutiae of changing
policies and judge their objectives and results against an
overarching and relatively durable social purpose. By creating
mental horizons, however diverse, ideology provides a sense of
direction, however contested.
What could a new ideology be?
How about "Capitalism That Works"?
'Capitalism That Works'
THIS is just a name. Whatever the name, there is an insistent
need for a new ideology today. Many regions of everyday life have
been privatised across the breadth of the neo-liberal global
economy, dispossessing or marginalising entire communities. As a
result, anti-globalisation - stemming from nationalist resistance
to the global market - is gaining ground profoundly both in
geography and mindshare.
Although Singapore is not in the dismal league of failed
market economies, disparities here, if left unchecked, could
calcify into embittered social categories and undermine the
achievements of 1959, when Singapore gained self-government, and
when the PAP came to power.
At a minimum, "Capitalism That Works" would tilt the
balance of power in favour of those who have been left behind by
the wild march of the market. The instrument of that rebalancing
would be an activist state.
Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam suggested
exactly this recently without naming an ideology when he declared
that Singapore's social compact could not be left to market forces
because they would widen disparities.
This is a valuable starting point that could gain firmer
direction by focusing on the ideological implications of concrete
issues.
For example, the repossession of HDB flats of those who
cannot keep up with their mortgage payments is an entirely
justified outcome in a market economy.
However, that outcome is ideologically difficult to
accept if public housing is seen as a social good, as it has been
viewed since the formative years of Singapore.
When an HDB family loses its home, the market loses
nothing, but home-owning Singapore loses a small but irreplaceable
part of its social self.
Society, protected by the state, will have to prevail
over the market in the new ideology. What form that protection
should take, how far it could go without promoting irresponsible
economic behaviour, how to pay for it - these are genuine
issues.
But the main, ideological question that has to be
answered first is whether public goods (such as public housing)
should be protected from the excesses of the market.
There is a caveat, however. No political system can move
faster than the collective momentum of public opinion. Therefore,
any idea of a working capitalism can work only if Singaporeans are
prepared to accept a different standard of living in the short term
as the price of living together in the long term.
If higher taxes are anathema to us because we cannot
countenance paying them to take better care of our frailer
compatriots; if we cannot accept old-age homes in our
neighbourhoods because they will drive down the prices of our
flats; if Singapore to us is nothing more than a market
masquerading as a nation, then there is hardly any place for
ideology in the Singapore Conversation.
The real danger would be for us to become so accustomed
to inequality in our midst that we begin to believe it is natural
and that nothing can be done about it. Once this happens, the
ideological clock will begin to tick backwards.
Several years ago, a little boy stopped me and said:
"Uncle, can you give to charity?"
I asked: "Which charity is this?"
He replied: "Me."
There was no one at home, and he was hungry.
My tiny Singapore comrade absolved me ideologically for
$2.
History might not be so kind to us collectively.
The writer, a former Straits Times
journalist, is a visiting research fellow at the Institute of
Southeast Asian Studies.
Opinion, The Straits Times, Tuesday, September 11, 2012 Pg
A16
