<!--noteaser-->
What would a future Singapore look like, say, fifteen or twenty
years from now? I would like to claim the creative licence of a
writer to come up with some tantalizing future scenarios!
An intriguing starting point would be what I have described
elsewhere as the special and unique Lee Kuan Yew model of
governance for Singapore. It is so successful that today it can be
said to be a major Singapore export. For notice how eagerly
countries as diverse as China, India, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam,
seek Mr Lee’s advice on their various economic projects.
A brief description of the model could be something like this:
Its goal—�total economic success. The kind of leadership needed—�a
completely efficient, hard-working, disciplined and above all,
incorruptible government. The means by which such a government can
achieve the goal—�any means, even measures unpopular with the
people or denounced by the outside world as undemocratic, as long
as they get rid of the obstacles in the way. The most detested
obstacle—�political opponents who dare challenge the government
openly and stridently. The most effective strategy against
them—�the use of fear to break them completely. And the most
fearful tool of all—�the defamation lawsuit reducing the opponent
to permanent financial ruin. Mr Lee has rather proudly described
what he calls his ‘knuckleduster’ approach, and has famously
declared that he would rather be feared than liked.
This model of governance, useful for the rough early years when
Mr Lee had to come down hard on Communist sympathizers, unruly
trade unionists, racist newspaper editors and triads, must today
seem like a relic of a bygone age. In its utter disregard of human
feeling, it must be repulsive to the modern sensibility.
Yet it will be around so long as Mr Lee is. One reason is the
enormous respect his colleagues have for him, reinforced by
Singapore’s still prevailing Confucianist culture of deference to
authority. But the primary reason must be this: a 100 per cent
proof of the model’s effectiveness, seen in the unfailing,
resounding re-election of the PAP over 4 decades. Nobody can argue
with that kind of success. No wonder then that the model has become
deeply embedded in the collective PAP psyche, to be faithfully
transmitted down the line of succession, the political equivalent
of DNA.
In the post-Lee Kuan Yew years, therefore, there will be no
possibility of a democratization of the model. Rather, the quandary
facing his successors will be this: how to keep the model intact
but change its appearance to fit in with the temper of the times,
in other words, how to update, repackage and give Lee Kuan Yew a
makeover.
Actually, this has already been done, through an overall
softening and humanizing of the PAP image. Mr Goh Chok Tong, the
first successor, had chosen as his slogan a ‘kinder, gentler’
society and Mr Lee Hsien Loong ‘an inclusive society’ where no one
will be left out. There have been numerous public campaigns to
emphasize ’solidarity’, ‘bonding’, ‘identity’, words non-existent
in the Lee Kuan Yew vocabulary.
While a softening of style is not difficult, a softening of
stance towards political opponents is a different matter. Clearly
the younger leaders want to continue to use the knuckleduster, but
with the caution and subtlety necessitated by the times, and not
the brute forcefulness unacceptable to a new generation of voters.
This difference in approaches has led to conflicts within the
party, as was evident in the James Gomez incident in the last
General Elections. Mr Lee, suspecting Mr Gomez, a member of an
opposition party member, of trying to pull off a nasty, malicious
trick on the PAP, had wanted immediate exposure and punishment,
whereas his colleagues, aware of public sympathy for the
opposition, had clearly disagreed. Post-Lee Kuan Yew, free of such
conflicts, exactly how cautiously and subtly will the leaders use
the knuckleduster?
Here are two predictions. Firstly, the infamous defamation suit
will be quietly dropped. So too the blunt, bellicose language, as
when Mr Lee severely told Singapore women that but for the PAP,
they would be foreign maids today. In a politically correct age,
his successors would have to mind their language. In the last
election, when the Prime Minister in an unguarded moment, talked
about ‘fixing’ the opposition, the word provoked an uproar and he
had to hastily retract it.
Secondly, the leaders would have to mind the outside world as
well. In his time, Mr Lee was not bothered, and was openly critical
of the democratic system. Indeed he would have had no qualms about
doing away with it altogether if was in Singapore’s interests to do
so. In fact, in 1984 when the PAP suffered unexpected losses in the
elections, he appeared on TV livid with rage and said something
about abolishing the one-man-one-vote system.
But his successors can’t afford to antagonize the free world
because of Singapore’s increasingly closer ties with it, in
virtually every area, from trade to education to environmental
issues. As long as the western model of democracy keeps its shine,
and it is still doing so pretty well—�witness that even the odious
regime in Myanmar claims it has ‘a roadmap to democracy’—�Singapore
leaders have no choice but to keep out of sight the authoritarian
component of the model, sometimes even appearing defensive about
it. This happens whenever they are asked to comment on those
international surveys which, while regularly putting Singapore
among the top three for economic success or business friendliness,
invariably place her only a little above North Korea and Iran when
it comes to press freedom.
But no matter how skillfully the leaders disguise the
knuckleduster, they will retain, even enhance its extremely
valuable function of creating fear. How will they do this?
Actually, a strategy of stunning ingenuity is already in place.
What it does is simply to alter the fear to fit in with the times.
Thus the raw fear of the old knuckleduster that had affected only a
small group of political dissidents, has now become a larger, more
generalized and more subtle fear, that affects the entire
population—�the fear of losing the good life. In a culture so
deeply attached to material wealth, the fear of losing even a
little of it through behaviour displeasing to the government, is
enough to keep a whole society on its toes. Countless are the
anecdotes of Singaporeans not voting for the opposition, for fear
of losing that coveted government-subsidised flat, of academics not
speaking up for fear of losing that coveted promotion. If it is
true that fear carries its own momentum and generates its own
self-correcting mechanisms, there must by now be a great deal of
self-censorship in the media, the educational institutions, the
arts.
It is surely a most pleasing thing to the PAP leaders that
political control can turn out to be such a neat and handy
by-product of economic success. By this time they must have totally
convinced the people that a political opening up leading to chaos
leading in turn to the flight of investors leading finally to
economic ruin, is not an option for a small city state with no
natural resources. By thus casting opposition politics in the role
of the ultimate and supreme national enemy, the government is
rewarded with two outcomes: firstly, opposition representation in
parliament will remain at its present abysmally small number, and
secondly, political dissent will be stifled at source.
Furthermore, because this fear of losing the good things of life
is essentially a middle class fear only, far removed from the stark
terror in police states, there is a third welcome outcome: the PAP
leaders can turn to their foreign critics and say, ‘Fear? What
fear? Do you see anyone in jail?’ For a while, they were politely
inviting the critics to come visit Singapore and see for
themselves.
There is no doubt that the future will see further finessing of
the knuckleduster to adapt even more precisely to the society’s
changing ethos. Barring any unexpected external catastrophe, the
future of Singapore in the next 10,15 or 20 years, can be reliably
extrapolated from this present stable state—�the government’s
dominance on one side and the people’s compliance on the other,
each feeding off and reinforcing the other.
But can it last? Suppose, say by 2030, there has emerged a new
breed of Singaporeans, young, bold, fearless. Suppose they form a
new opposition party that is refreshingly different from the PAP in
being more charismatic, adventurous, idealistic. Suppose that after
half a century of PAP leadership, fatigue sets in and Singaporeans
yearn for that magical thing called change. Among the restive
young, the prospect of liberties never experienced before must be
exhilarating. Such is the seductive power of change that even the
older generation might be tempted to vote in a charismatic
opposition party despite perceiving it to have just 60% or 50% of
the famed PAP efficiency.
What will happen then? Will the PAP leaders be put in a corner?
Will they feel compelled, in order to save Singapore, to bring out
the knuckleduster and start a new cycle of Lee Kuan Yew-style
political suppression?
Here’s a bold surmise. Picture this scenario: help comes from an
unexpected quarter—�China. For years, China has been in the
ascendant—�economically, politically, militarily, culturally. It
has opened up to the world in the fullest possible embrace of
capitalism. It has spent much time and money courting smaller
nations, particularly those in Africa. It is well on the way to
taking over the superpower status of the United States now in
decline. It is ready to offer the world an alternative to the
western model of liberal democracy, now discredited. Its model is
distinguished by its non-ideological, pragmatic and very benign
nature, for the goal is no more than creating wealth for the people
through competent leadership. Political scientists scramble to find
a new name for this exciting innovation,coming up with
not-so-elegantisms like ‘managerialism’ or ‘communitarianism’. But
China decides to call it ‘The New Democracy’, in a shrewd
demonstration of continuity with the past, and readiness to lead
for the future.
Where decades ago, the Soviet Union had disastrously tried to
open up before the proper structures were in place, making the
mistake of allowing glastnost to come before perestroika, China
astutely makes sure it’s got the order right. Part of its
perestroika is retaining the old mechanisms of control. Its model
is thus a skilful blend of two historically opposed
systems—�autocracy and democracy, and hence is not unlike the
existing Singapore model. Indeed, China graciously acknowledges
that the inspiration had come from the tiny city state. For back in
the 70s Deng Xiaoping paid a visit to Singapore, was shown around
by Lee Kuan Yew, and must have been so impressed that he took back
ideas which resulted in the eventual remaking of China. While
little Singapore had been in no position to tell the world that the
so-called autocratic Lee Kuan Yew model was really the most
democratic in creating wealth and a middle class, China, the new
behemoth, makes this claim with every confidence and flair. It
attracts a large following. It proudly ushers in a new era in
history. When China and Singapore thus stand side by side on the
world stage, the Lee Kuan Yew legacy will be celebrated in a way
that he could never have dreamt of.
I did warn about a writer’s imaginative excesses! We can also be
hopelessly, incurably idealistic and romantic, continuing to
believe in those intangibles and abstractions called freedom, human
rights, the human spirit, etc. which have no place in the
realpolitik of the China-Singapore model but which thankfully are
provided for in the still existing system of liberal democracy.
This system is by no means perfect but it is history’s best shot at
achieving justice in an imperfect world. For even if the real-life
practice of democracy is dismayingly far from the ideal, as is
indeed evident everywhere, the very presence of the ideal means
that there can be international disapproval and redress. But remove
it, declare its demise, and there will be a rapid backward slide to
the old abuses that it had tried to correct in the first place.
The futuristic China-Singapore model of governance, despite its
glow, lacks this sacrosanct quality of the democratic model. For
instead of the premise that since leaders are likely to abuse their
power, the necessary checks and balances must be given to the
people, the China-Singapore model has it the other way round: the
leaders themselves are good enough to be entrusted with the checks
and balances. Clearly, the model will only work in the hands of
righteous, impeccable leaders such as Plato’s philosopher-kings or
Confucius’ rulers carrying the mandate of Heaven. But as we all
know, in the real world there is a depressing lack of such. A Deng
Xiaoping or a Lee Kuan Yew may never come our way again. After
them, such a model could be disastrous.
If man does not live by bread alone, a nation does not survive
in the long term by material prosperity alone. I’m going to risk
being churlish and say that as long as Singapore’s leaders do not
pay heed to the fundamental needs of the human spirit, they can
never be called wise, only clever, and as long as the nation they
lead is admired only for its material achievements, it can never be
called great, only successful.
http://catherinelim.sg/2008/02/23/a-challenge-for-the-future-democratising-the-lee-kuan-yew-model-of-governance/#more-25
