THE TEMASEK REVIEW

OPINION

For the second time in two months, Singapore Law Minister K Shanmugam warned of the pitfalls of Singapore adopting a “Western” model of liberal democracy, this time in the PAP magazine Petir, which was given extensive publicity in the state media.

Mr Shanmugam had earlier spoken on the topic to an audience of American lawyers in Singapore a month ago.

In this instance, it is obvious that his targeted audience are not only PAP members, but the general public as well.

Mr Shanmugam expressed his concerns that “a younger generation of better-educated voters feels the political process and system in a democratic state should be based on the Western model of liberal democracy.”

The Straits Times reported that “Mr Shanmugam and government leaders reject the view, arguing that the best systems are those that fit the society they govern.”

“Younger Singaporeans may therefore believe that the Western model of liberal democracy can be adopted without trade-offs….And if the majority chooses slower development and a lower quality of life, and is willing to accept more tensions within our society in return for changes in the political system, then so be it,’ he added.

There are three inherent fallacies in Mr Shanmugam’s arguments, one – there is a “Western model of liberal democracy”, two – it does not fit Singapore society and three – it will lead to slower development and a lower quality of life.

#1 Liberal democracy is a “Western” concept:

It is disingenuous for Mr Shanmugan to label liberal democracy as a “Western model” to generate the impression that it is not applicable to an Asian society like ours.

Democracy, or liberal democracy as anybody calls it, is a universal set of principles and practices of governance which applies across the board to all races, cultures and religions.

It is akin to human values like filial piety. Can we say that there is a Chinese filial piety or an American one? No, all human beings, regardless of nationalities or cultures subscribe to filial piety as an intrinsic value of showing gratitude to our parents. There is no need to put a label on it.

Similarly, democracy is a system of government which ensures that the ordinary people have a say in the running of their country. It is based on the rule of law and put in a place an institutionalized system of checks and balances on the ruling party.

In all democracies, there is a clear separation of powers between the legislative and the executive. The judiciary is independent and the press is relatively free to criticize the government and expose its wrong-doing.

According to such strict definitions, Singapore does not even qualify to be a “democracy” in the first place.

Holding regular elections is simply not enough to justify its status as a “democracy” when all the other critical pillars of democracy are absent.

#2 “Western” democracy will not work in Singapore:

Only until recently, Singapore’s octogenarian leader Lee Kuan Yew was trumpeting “Asian” or “Confucian” values as the ideal model of governance for Asia democracies as opposed to ”Western” democracy.

His ”values” were rubbished by former South Korean President Kim Dae Jung as an “excuse for dictatorship and tyranny”. Kim himself was a fervent believer in democracy and he almost lost his life when he was kidnapped by agents from South Korea’s military dictatorship in the 1970s.

When he won the South Korean presidency in 1997, he introduced further political and economic reforms in South Korea including dismantling the cozy ties between the government and the conglomerates or chaebols.

South Korea was ruled by a military dictatorship in one form or another since the 1950s and it is in a perpetual state of war with North Korea since the two have yet to sign a formal peace treaty to the Korean War.

It has been more than 10 years since South Korea makes the peaceful transition to a vibrant multi-party democracy and its economy is still booming.

Besides South Korea, a wave of democratization has engulfted the entire Asia-Pacific region from Indonesia, Taiwan, Malaysia and Japan.

Taiwan was governed by a one party uninterrupted for 40 over years and is definitely more “Confucian” than Singapore. It is now a full-fledged liberal democracy. 

Even Communist China is adopting democratic principles at the grassroots level. The Chinese Communist Party now rules by consensus and is trying to introduce a proper system of power transfer and succession within its ranks.

The era of rule by a single strong man like Mao and Deng is gone and there is no dynastic politics in China. Do we see the children of Mao and Deng in the Chinese Polituro?

So if liberal democracies can work in these Asian societies with the exception of China, why can’t it work in Singapore?

In fact, Singapore is a more conducive place for a multi-party democracy because of a few factors:

- it is a small place which is relatively easy to govern, try conducting elections in Indonesia, a sprawling archipelago of over 20,000 islands.

- Singaporeans are highly educated and are able to understand the issues concerning the nation. They can be trusted to make an informed choice.

- being a docile, mature and peace-loving people, there is little risk of social disorder or unrest breaking out.

#3 Adopting “Western” democracy will lead to a lower quality of life and more tensions in society:

With due respect to Mr Shanmugam, he should substantiate his statements instead of regurgitating an old wife’s tale from Lee Kuan Yew who said this in 1992 during a visit to Tokyo:

“With few exceptions, democracy has not brought good government to new developing countries…What Asians value may not necessarily be what Americans or Europeans value. Westerners value the freedoms and liberties of the individual. As an Asian of Chinese cultural backround, my values are for a government which is honest, effective and efficient.”

Mr Shanmugan should show Singaporeans how adopting a “Western” model of democracy will lead to a lower quality of life for Singaporeans.

According to a recently released United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) report, the most developed countries in the world are all liberal democracies like the Nordic countries, Canada, United States, Australia, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Luxembourg and Japan. Singapore is the exception rather than the rule.

Under the rule of the PAP, only a small percentage of the population get to enjoy the high quality of life befitting of a first world nation as the fruits of the nation are inequally distributed leading to a widening income gap.

As a minister, Mr Shanmugam earns about $2 million dollars a year or $166,660 a month which is 64 times the median monthly pay of an ordinary Singaporean, or $2,600.

The people are frustrated because there is no opposition or credible alternatives to challenge the PAP. There is increasing resentment and disgruntlement on the ground at the relentless influx of foreigners into Singapore. The social tension is rising, but kept suppressed by the repressive political system, but it doesn’t mean it is non-existent – it will build up gradually till it explodes one day.

Under a democratic system of government, the people will have the opportunity to toss out an incompetent, uncaring and unpopular government to elect one which truly cares for their interests and will strive to improve their standard of living.

It will also allow disagreements and differences to be aired and settled publicly in a civil, mature and responsible manner instead of allowing grievances and animosities to fester beneath under the veneer of normalcy.

Mr Shanmugam said that “Singaporeans are entitled to decide whether they want the trade-offs,” but we are unable to do so because of the repressive system put in place by the PAP to perpetuate its rule for eternality.

This is not a democracy works, be it “Western”, “Asian” or otherwise, but a dictatorship, a feudal dynasty and a totalitarian state!

Whatever system of government which best fit Singapore is for the people of Singapore to decide, and not Mr Shanmugam or the PAP.

Copyright © The Temasek Review, 2009

 

Related articles:

>> A rebuttal to Shanmugam that Singapore needs a strong leadership for speedy decisions to be made

>> Shanmugam wants PAP to provide greater political education to Singaporeans

>> Educate students about politics, says Shanmugam

18 Responses to “A rebuttal to Shanmugam’s assertion that “liberal democracy” is not suitable for Singapore”