Catherine Lim
'Oh yes, Singapore is a model worthy of emulation by other
societies but - '; 'Oh yes, I am very proud to be a Singaporean
except for this fear thing that is still around, you know what I
mean?'
3 pillars of sound governance
THE Singapore model has three features that are likely to
authenticate and legitimate it in the eyes of the global
community:
First, the tight political control is motivated not by megalomania,
greed or corruption but their very opposite: a genuine concern for
the welfare of the society.
Second, the method of getting rid of political dissidents is by due
process of law or by the simple expedient of marginalising
them.
Third, the sound pragmatism of a model that seeks only solid,
practical results surely stands out in a world where ideology and
high-sounding ideals have failed to solve problems.
The contrast has also led to an embarrassing anomaly. While
Singapore is consistently ranked among the top three in global
surveys on economic growth, business friendliness and so on, it is
placed with North Korea, Myanmar and Iran when it comes to
individual or press freedom.
Why is there this continuing government reluctance to open up at a
time when it can well afford to do so?
There are three possible reasons. The first is historical
continuity. This policy is part of an ongoing and enduring legacy
from the Lee Kuan Yew era of tough rule.
The second reason is strategic. Tight control of even minor
political issues means pre-emption of major ones, which, as the
Government has always maintained, Singapore cannot afford, with its
small size and dependence on the rest of the world to make a
living.
The third reason is psychological - a natural distaste of a
serious-minded and purposeful leadership for the noise and
rowdiness of political debate and dissent.
Here is a government that has made no secret of an almost
pathological dislike of polemics, posturing and populist
rhetoric.
This aversion to political debate is the reason not only for the
Government's continuing reluctance to make any change to its
quiescent, inactive state but the reason for the desire to make
that state permanent. Such a desire cannot obviously be openly
articulated to an increasingly sophisticated and vocal
electorate.
