Although Singapore has supposedly a democratic Parliamentary
system of Government, somehow one cannot miss the
domineering political atmosphere in Singapore that
reeks of a One-Party State runned tightly by a Single
Political Party; and loyally assisted by a tightly
Ministerial supervised Internal Security Department that
pervades all strata of Singapore society.
This is similar to the Communist system of Government that has
also the Single Communist Party that rules supremely unchallenged,
and assisted in its role to govern by the State Security Police
that works as a different organisation from the Police Force, and
similarly pervades the communities and societies of the various
Communist countries.
These Communist States will include the likes of China, Cuba,
Laos, North Korea, Vietnam, and those new countries that
emerged from the grips of old Soviet Russia - but
cautiously retained the
main security apparatus to allow the Heads of States
the ability to sustain the habit of having a tight grip
to political power by force.
Since being independent in 1965, LKY and his PAP had learnt
the rudimentary lessons of Communist controls - using the ISA to
allow the ISD to arrest anyone whom he accused to be a Communist
with impunity.
The success of LKY and his PAP was complimented in
the 1970s with China's Deng Xiao Peng desiring
to learn how Singapore has been able to have a single
Political Party to maintain A powerful grip on politics in
this modern day and age "without being unpopular".
Now in the 21st Century, Putin is taking lessons from the
Singapore experience of keeping strong political leadership in
place by making themselves indispensable and relevant in
an environment that demand change.
[The last time we heard from Dr.
Chee Soon Juan, the leader of Singapore's
opposition party (SDP), he penned
a column for this blog on the
comparative authoritarian capitalist systems of Russia and
Singapore. Since then, I've seen this comparison come up in several
other examples, including the
FT's cheeky suggestion that Russia should solve the succession
challenge by
importing a Singaporean
president. Here Soon Juan continues the arguments
explored in his first piece. - Robert Amsterdam]
Autocrat see,
autocrat do
By Dr. Chee Soon Juan
Nearly half-a-century ago Lee Kuan Yew came into power with the
help of the British government which was then the colonial overlord
of Singapore. After becoming the prime minister, Lee wasted no time
in cracking down on his opponents.
He used the Internal Security Act to detain without trial
opposition leaders, brought the mass media under the control of his
government, and systematically dismantled civil society, including
trade unions.
This enabled the ruling party to retain power uninterrupted from
1959 till the present. Lee himself was prime minister for 31 years
until 1990 when he handed over the reins to his successor, Goh Chok
Tong who was then the deputy prime minister.
In a speech not unlike that of an emperor, Lee told the nation
that Goh was not his first choice to succeed him. In fact, Goh was
ranked number five on Lee's list of the most capable successors. He
even diagnosed his deputy as "wooden", a reference to Goh's rather
stiff and un-charismatic demeanor. The hapless Goh took the
criticism like any obedient student would, with silence and a
smile.
Lee, however, ensured that he continued on in Goh's cabinet as
Senior Minister, a newly created post. Prime Minister Goh thus held
his position – under the long shadow of Lee. He did this for 14
years, earning the reputation along the way as a "seat-warmer" for
Lee Hsien Loong, Lee Kuan Yew's elder son, who many regarded as the
real successor to Lee Kuan Yew. When Lee Jr took over as prime
minister in 2004 Goh, in turn, replaced Lee Kuan Yew as Senior
Minister.
But Lee Kuan Yew still would not leave the government. He became
the Minister Mentor so named because he was a "mentor" to the set
of younger ministers. It was another position created specially for
Lee. Singapore stands unique in that it is the only country whose
prime minister requires a mentor.
No one is quite sure what Lee Kuan Yew's and Goh Chok Tong's
roles are in the government. Other than making occasional
appearances during state functions or visiting foreign governments
– activities that could be more than adequately handled by
ministers with portfolios – the two former prime ministers don't do
much else. They do, however, retain their kingly salaries that are
more than four times that drawn by the president of the United
States.
In what way Lee Kuan Yew adds value to the governing of
Singapore, no one is quite sure. In fact many Singaporeans view Lee
as a political relic that stymies rather than stimulates the
development of Singapore's politics. His portfolio as a mentor to
ministers not only demeans the role of other cabinet ministers, but
is also a hindrance to creative and bold solutions needed to tackle
Singapore's modern-day problems.
A wannabe Lee
Half a world away, another autocrat is embarking on a similar
political adventure. Vladimir Putin, under Russian law, cannot
continue on as president as he has already served two terms.
No matter. Like Singapore's Lee, Putin made sure that his
stepping down as president did not spell the end of his reign. He
endorsed (and by so doing virtually guaranteed the election of) his
protégé, Dimitry Medvedev who like Goh Chok Tong is the deputy
prime minister. Analysts have
described the
president-in-waiting as "obedient" and a "subordinate on whose
loyalty [Putin] can count." Uncannily like Goh, Medvedev is also
described as "stiff".
In return Medvedev says that he supports Putin to be the next
prime minister thus paving the way for Putin to continue wielding
his considerable power from another official position.
To ensure the successful transfer of leadership to a loyalist
while retaining ultimately power, one needs to, firstly, see to the
demise of any meaningful opposition. Like Lee's Singapore, Russia
has quite successfully decapitated institutions that would
otherwise provide robust opposition. The imprisonment of oil tycoon
Mikhail Khodorkovsky, for instance, meant that liberal democratic
forces would be deprived of an important source of financial
support. In the 1960s, Lee Kuan Yew went after millionaire Tan Lark
Sye who had emigrated to Singapore from China. Like Khodorkovsky,
Tan was a philanthropist who donated millions of dollars to start a
university in Singapore. And like Khodorkovsky, Tan was also
enthusiastic in his support of a democratic opposition. Lee
promptly revoked Tan's Singapore citizenship and chased him back to
China.
The arrests and persecution of journalists and the closing down
of the independent media in Russia is reminiscent of how Lee Kuan
Yew detained without trial newspaper editors in Singapore and
brought the media under government-owned companies. Lee's Newspaper
Printing and Presses Act forbids anyone other than the government
to own newspaper companies. The existing media in Singapore
regularly sing the praises of the government. Compare this to what
the
New York Times
wrote about the recent clamping down on Russia's media:
The few remaining critics increasingly write or speak out at
their peril, as new laws tighten the government's grip…Nina
Ognianova of the Committee to Protect Journalists puts it
chillingly: "The process of squeezing critical journalism out of
the public space is now near complete."…In the meantime, polls show
President Putin's popularity has soared. No wonder. Fewer and fewer
Russians can see or hear from anyone who opposes him, his policies
or his government.
More recently Garry Kasparov was imprisoned for five days
because he had staged an unauthorized march to protest against
Putin's political machinations. In Singapore, my colleagues and I
have been repeatedly jailed for speaking in public without a
permit.
By itself jailing dissidents and crackdown down on the media
would be insufficient for Putin to stay on as the strongman of
Russia. The President also needs to sell Russia as a "stable",
albeit undemocratic, place for foreign investment. Russians, and
much of the capitalist world, are willing to accept such
authoritarian methods in exchange for immediate and rapid economic
gain – a situation not unlike that in Singapore. Such a
politico-economic arrangement has led some analysts to coin the
term "authoritarian capitalism" where a country grows economically
at the expense of democratic development.
Cracks starting to show
But how does such an arrangement benefit countries like Russia
and Singapore? For a period, the trade-off may seem worthwhile,
desirable even. But in the longer-term, without the political
checks and balance that democracy provides, problems in society
become entrenched and ultimately unmanageable.
In Singapore, Lee's authoritarianism has become outmoded and
sclerotic, making Singapore unable to develop new ideas to
capitalize on new opportunities or to tackle problems that present
themselves. While society needs to compete on innovation and
creativity, Singapore is firmly stuck under Lee Kuan Yew's
intransigence of insisting that order and discipline in society
come before dynamism and vibrancy.
The current financial boom that Singapore is experiencing masks
a worrying problem in the city-state's economic health. Foreign
funds have been pouring in because of tax incentives and the
beefing up of banking secrecy laws. Indeed Singapore recorded the
highest rate of growth of the number of millionaires in the world
last year. The economic growth has not, unfortunately, been backed
up by the increasing productivity of its various industries.
Moreover the infusion of foreign funds, much of it suspected to
be illicit from money-launderers, has resulted in the income
disparity widening at an unprecedented rate. According to a United
Nations' survey, Singapore ranks 105 th in terms of income
equality.
Also contributing to the viagra-like growth of the GDP is the
flooding of Singapore with foreign nationals. In a period of ten
years, the Singapore government has forced the nearly doubling of
the population. The influx of people cannot but boost economic
growth figures. What it does to the infrastructure and to the
social arrangement between locals and foreigners is another matter.
One reason for the drastic change in immigration policy is cheap
labour. Unskilled and low-income workers from China, India,
Indonesia, etc are needed to keep wages down so that the economy
can continue to attract investments from multinational companies.
Such downward pressures on wages make life a nightmare for the
locals as they are unable to survive on such low incomes.
As a result, many Singaporeans have found themselves mired in
poverty. While homelessness was alien to Singapore in the past, the
city-state is now awash with destitute people. But even under such
dire circumstances, Singaporeans have no say in the policies that
affect them.
Good – for awhile
Without dissent, governments are ignorant about problems that
beset the country. Dissent and debate are feedback that acts as
crucial indicators of the health of society. Without these,
internal pressures build up that will eventually cause the lid to
pop as it did in Indonesia in 1997. Prior to Suharto's overthrow,
Indonesia also focused on economic growth at the expense of its
politics. The international business community hailed the country
as a shining example of how "disciplined democracy" was good for
the country's development. But without an opposition and a free
media, Suharto grew increasingly despotic, corrupt, and detached
from the burgeoning problems of the country. Things fell apart when
the 1997 Asian financial crisis visited the region and caused
Indonesia's currency to plummet. Suharto was toppled through mass
street demonstrations. But because there was no political system in
place to oversee an orderly transition of power, the country
descended into chaos.
Authoritarian capitalism was attempted with abysmal consequences
in Indonesia. Its failings are beginning to show in present-day
Singapore. Such a system, which Vladimir Putin so obviously
relishes, may be attractive for a time. But in the long run, the
rot creeps in ever so inconspicuously and eventually hurts the
country more than it helps. Rulers like Lee and Putin have yet to
learn that there is no short cut to sustainable development and
progress, and that democratic accountability is still the key.
Posted by Robert Amsterdam
on December 14, 2007
http://www.robertamsterdam.com/2007/12/the_last_time_we_heard.htm