http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/perspective/va…
US interests and the PAP
Monday, 07 February 2011
Chee Soon Juan
Several years ago when I was in Washington DC, I had a
conversation with a US ambassador about democracy in Singapore.
“Singapore is an important trading and defence partner to the
US,” the diplomat told me. “The State Department doesn’t want any
headache about democracy there.”
On another occasion, I queried a senior State Department
official about US support for autocratic regimes in places like the
Middle East and Asia, making a specific reference to Singapore, of
course.
His reply was revealing although not entirely surprising. He did
not refute the notion that the US Government was supportive of the
PAP but chose to characterise his country’s
position thus: “The American Government is elected to serve the
interests of the American people, not uphold democracy in other
countries.”
No doubt. The problem begins when there is a conflation of
what’s in America’s interests and its government’s support of
undemocratic regimes. It is axiomatic that US interests extend far
beyond its borders, and these interests primarily revolve around
promoting trade (opening up markets for US multinational nationals)
and buttressing its military defence around the world.
If supporting an undemocratic regime will sustain or promote
these interests, then Washington DC will do it.
The politics of ‘pragmatism’
But recent developments in the Middle East are tearing apart the
philosphical, moral and even practical underpinnings of such an
approach to US foreign policy.
The chaos and violence presently taking place in Egypt is the
ugly result, unintended as it may be, of the US’ support of tyrants
in the Middle East. For 30 years, President Hosni Mubarak was the
preferred, if not perfect, ally of the US. His ability to bring a
semblance of stability to a volatile region was supported by the
successive administrations of the US Government.
But what about his autocratic ways? They were rationalised away
as a necessary evil in the accomplishment of a bigger goal of
regional peace. Undesirable and painful as it is freedom and
democracy, the so-called pragmatists say, must be subjugated in the
name of stability and peace.
The one thing that the US failed to heed was the wisdom of one
of its very own sons. Martin Luther King, Jr once said: “True peace
is not merely the absence of tension, it is the presence of
justice.” And justice can only exist when people are free.
Oppression in the Middle East may have worked for the rulers –
for a while. In Egypt, the autocratic system became untenable for
the people and on 25 Jan 11 the political lid blew. The Egyptian
people took to the streets demanding reform. Mubarak has thus far
resisted calls for him to step down, forcing a conflagration that
has pulled the country to the brink.
US foreign policy makers have no idea how the aftermath of the
revolt will turn out. The twin pillars of US interests in the
region, namely the Middle East peace process and oil, are now
staring anxiously into the abyss. How pragmatic does such a policy
look now?
Corporate America’s darling
In the realm of realpolitik and geopolitics, Singapore has much
in common with the Middle East. The US Government sees the
PAP as a crucial partner in maintaining
strategic US interests in the region. And the PAP plays this up for all its worth, particularly on two
fronts: trade and security.
Let’s start with trade. The Singapore Government continues to
ensure that MNCs setting up shop in Singapore reap huge benefits,
including generous tax breaks.
And cheap labour? No problem. The PAP
simply brings in foreign nationals – by the millions – to ensure an
abundant supply of low-wage workers.
As a result Singapore has become the poster-child of corporate
America, and US trade policy reflects this stance.
What about Singaporean workers? What about the fact that we have
no trade unions and workers are not allowed to organise themselves?
What do we do when our elderly are forced to work beyond what their
bodies can bear?
Free trade, lest anyone misunderstands, is important because it
is free trade that supports the free market which, if it is
genuinely practiced, rewards enterprise and hardwork.
But free trade must necessarily come with freedom, for without
freedom workers cannot organise and bargain for decent wages and
conditions. A free market is an illusion when one side holds all
the power and sees not the need to negotiate with those it
employs.
In truth, there is no free trade in Singapore, only forced
trade.
And there is not a thing Singaporeans can do to change such a
policy because there is no democracy in Singapore and, worse, it is
in the US interest that the PAP maintains the
status quo.
Maintaning hostility
Turning to military-security issues, the PAP’s strategy is this: Play up America’s fears of an
unstable and potentially hostile region in which Singapore is a
dependable ally and a strategic partner for the US.
Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s constant baiting of the Muslim community is,
at least in part, aimed at maintaining this psyche. When Indonesia
and Malaysia react to his racially offensive remarks, it stokes the
sense of vulnerability and reinforces the siege mentality of
Singaporeans, and rallies support for the PAP.
More importantly for the PAP, this
creation and maintenance of tension between Singapore and our
Muslim neighbours is good for business for the military-industrial
complex. It gives us a reason to purchase huge amounts of arms and
other military equipment from the US. The US Defense Department, of
course, finds such an arrangement very satisfactory.
While such an approach may be fruitful for US arms
manufacturers, is it good for Singaporeans and Singapore? Is
positioning ourselves in constant tension with our neighbours to
the north and south healthy for the future of this nation?
Again, how can we debate this issue and vote for a more
enlightened approached? We can’t. Not without democracy. But then,
it is in the US interests that we don’t.
Just who is undermining Singapore’s interests?
For too long the PAP has framed the issue
by painting opposition leaders as being agents of foreign interests
out to undermine Singapore. Mr Francis Seow and Mr Tang Liang Hong
are but two examples. I have become its latest target.
The truth is that through the decades that it has been in power,
the PAP has relied on the West – first the
British government and now the US – to prop up its undemocratic
rule. For the past five decades, Singaporeans have had no free and
fair elections, citizens live in fear of being detained without
trial or made bankrupt thorugh lawsuits, and lived without a free
media.
The denial of democracy may work in the US interests and the
interests of the PAP. But if history and
present happenings in the world are any indication, they will not
last.
Watch the full episode. See more Need To Know.
Dr Chee Soon Juan is the Secretary-General of the SDP.
Be Our Supporters
http://www.facebook.com/yoursdp