“Tyranny is worse than a Man-Eating Tiger”
“苛政猛於虎也”
By Dr Wong Wee Nam
Written March 18, 2008
On 5th of March 2008, just before the Malaysian General
Election, Dr Mohd Mahathir, the former Prime Minister, declared in
an exclusive interview with Malaysiakini, the online political
website, saying “I believe in an opposition. I have always
maintained that this country needs an opposition and they should be
critical of the government without which we don’t have a mirror to
look at our faces. We think that we are very beautiful but it is
the opposition that keeps telling us (that may not be true).”
Of course, true to his style, he could not resist adding that it
would be a “disaster” if the country “loses its opposition” as in
Singapore.
Such a dig, unfortunately, sounds very much like a pot teasing
another pot black because Dr Mahathir has not really been an
exemplary democrat himself. Nevertheless it is difficult to
disagree with what he says about the need for an opposition unless
you are a control freak or have a dictatorial streak in you. He is
not wrong because this is a universal principle of democracy. This
is also nothing original because many thinkers from the past had
said as much.
John Stuart Mill, for example, saw opposing views as a process
to crystallize the truth and a way to prevent tyranny.
On 8th March, the voters of Malaysia elected more opposition
candidates than anyone had expected. Not that they heeded Dr
Mahathir. They simply felt that they needed a stronger
opposition.
The Situation in Singapore
However, not everyone in this part of the world feels that an
opposition is good. Certainly not the PAP or the 66% Singaporeans
who had voted in the 2006 Singapore General Elections. With the
help of the media, many Singaporeans still view the opposition as a
bunch of trouble-makers who are unable to get their act
together.
Citizens who are too active are likely to be branded by some
reporters as “radicals”. Give a dog a bad name and hang it.
Opposition who are docile and keep quiet will be accused of
sleeping in between elections in the hope that when the elections
come, voters will tend to “let sleeping dogs lie”. In other words,
the GRCs, the re-drawing of electoral boundaries, the climate of
fear, the obedient electorate and a media that rank very low on the
international freedom scale make sure that the opposition, whether
“mad dogs” or “sleeping dogs” are unelectable.
Many Singaporeans have also bought into the argument that our
country is too small to have an opposition. We have often been
reminded that we are in a region of conflict and if we have a
boisterous political scene, we would endanger the security and
stability of the country. Everyone knows that Israel is a small
country which is perpetually at war. Yet they have a parliament
that is divided into many parts by very diverse views. In spite of
their small size and political diversity, they are very united when
going to war and have superior military capability when confronting
their enemies.
Countries with riots and disorder are often held up as examples
of opposition-induced chaos when it is precisely the denial of
alternative voices that has led to such troubles. Of course this
reason is never recognized.
Never have countries with the healthy checks and balances of
plural politics e.g. US, UK, Western Europe, Australia, Japan,
Canada and New Zealand been held up as models to emulate. In fact
political checks and balances are frowned upon as inapplicable
Western concepts.
Are Checks and Balances a Western Concept?
Since when have checks and balances been the prerogative of the
West? Mencius has taught us that the first essential of a good
government is to know the people’s likes and dislikes and to
provide for the people what they like and avoid imposing on them
what they do not like. How can any government ever know what a
population truly like or dislike without allowing for real
dissenting views? How can any government know the needs of the
people by listening to their own kind?
The need to go beyond sycophants and yes-men to get real
feedback has piquantly been record in a story found in The Records
of The Warring States: The Record of the State of Qi – The First
Volume (战国策。齐策一)
Zou Ji 邹忌 was a very handsome official from the State of Qi. He
wanted to know if he was as good-looking as the renowned Xu Gong 徐公
and he asked the people close to him for their opinions. The wife
said he was way beyond comparison. His mistress and a friend both
also declared that he was far better-looking than Xu Gong.
One day Xu Gong came for a visit and Zou Ji scrutinised him from
head to toe. He came to realise that he was nowhere near Xu Gong.
That night, he reflected and came to the conclusion that the wife
was simply biased, the mistress was just holding him in awe and the
friend was seeking patronage. This led him to the view that a ruler
should not be blinded by sweet words and good news and should be
exposed to all kinds of criticism and he advised King Wei of Qi
accordingly.
The King found his suggestion sound and he ordered, “Those who
can tell me to my face that I have made a mistake shall be amply
rewarded. People who can only point out my faults on paper shall be
moderately rewarded. Those who discuss my errors and I get to know
about it shall also receive something.”
Following the edict, the response was tremendous and this
feedback helped the State of Qi become one of the more respected
states during the Warring State Period.
So how can we say that checks and balances are a Western
concept?
Why the Need for Opposition?
Why do we need an opposition? First, having a strong Opposition
will make it difficult for an authoritarian government to govern in
any way they like. This will make a government more transparent
thus reducing mistakes in policy decisions and lessen pain for the
citizens. It allows citizens to participate in the process of
government thus giving the citizens a sense of pride and
community.
Without alternative viewpoints, there can only be a monopoly of
ideas and a narrow perspective of problems and solutions. Any
geneticist will tell you that in-breeding results in poorer quality
stocks. The same goes for the in-breeding of ideas. With greater
participation and a cross-fertilisation of ideas, there will be a
healthier and richer pool of alternative ideas. This means more
accurate feedback for the government and a more equitable
implementation of policies.
With an alternative viewpoint, the ruling party will be forced
to listen more closely to the people or stand the risk of losing
more seats to a better group of people. When the ruling party is
prepared to listen more closely to the people, they will make
policies that are more likely to benefit a wider cross-section of
the population and reduce hardships for the voiceless.
When there is a free marketplace of ideas and when people feel
that they are being listened to, they will be more likely to
participate in peaceful exchanges rather than become apathetic or
vent their frustration in a destructive way.
Finally the presence of an opposition will prevent the tyranny
of the majority from taking root.
The People Must Decide
The results of the Malaysian general elections show that the
will of the people is the ultimate factor in determining the type
of government and opposition they want. The headlines of the
newspapers on the day of polling rightly told the people: “You are
the boss”.
If Singaporeans want a better setup than they have now, each and
every one of our citizens must decide whether they want to have a
free marketplace of ideas and more vibrant political culture, and
work towards that goal.
Each and every one of us must decide whether we want to remain
apathetic or be a constructive participant in our country’s
affairs.
Each and every one of us must decide whether we want alternative
ideas to grow. If so we must be prepared to come forward and
contribute and help. We must see it as a duty of citizenship.
The question each and every one of us must ask is: What is my
role as a Singaporean? Is this my country or is this a hotel where
I sleep, a working place where I earn my living, a shopping centre
where I spend what I earn or a country club where I can just give
up my membership when it no longer provides me the fun? Am I the
boss?
We must no longer believe we are a country with Asian values and
must defer without question to the government’s decisions all the
time. Some Asian governments like to cite Confucianism as the basis
for their authoritarian ways. Does Confucius really advocate
autocracy? If we read the story below, we will know that this is
just a distortion of Confucius’ teachings.
Confucius was travelling around the Taishan countryside with his
disciples when he saw a woman crying copiously over a new grave. He
stopped his entourage and asked his disciple Zi Lu to find out what
happened. Zi Lu went up to the lady and asked her the reason for
her intense grief. The woman replied, “Some years ago, my
father-in-law was killed by a tiger. Later my husband was also
killed by a tiger and now my son has met the same fate. How can I
not be sad?” When Confucius heard this, he asked, “Since there are
tigers here, why don’t you move elsewhere?” The woman replied,
“This is a remote place, out of reach from the government. The
tyranny of the government cannot reach us.” Confucius sighed and
turned to his disciples, “You must all remember this. A
tyrannical government is worse than a man-eating tiger.” —
Book of Rites
Actual Text: 孔子過泰山側，有婦人哭於墓者而哀。夫子式而聽之，使子路問之曰：”子之哭也，壹似重有憂者。”
而曰：”然！昔者吾舅死于虎，吾夫又死焉，今吾子又死焉。” 夫子曰：”何為不去也?” 曰：”無苛政。”
夫了曰：”小子識之，苛政猛於虎也！” — 選自《十三經注疏》本《禮記•檀弓下》
Thus for those who do not believe in a democracy with an
opposition, it is good to keep this wise saying of Confucius in
mind.
On tyranny in the cloak of democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville has
warned us: “Let us beware lest democratic republics should
reinstate despotism and render it less odious and degrading in the
eyes of the many but making it still onerous to the few.” In such a
situation, Democracy would, as Oscar Wilde puts it, “means simply
the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people.”
And there are bastard shitheads from Turdistan who can only create
chaos by destructive critism and yet not offer anything
constructive.