Authoritarianism in Singapore
One of the more perplexing issues for those who try to find a causal relationship between economic growth or education and democracy is the problem posed by Singapore. In Singapore, despite an urbane, prosperous and well-educated burgeoning middle class, authoritarianism has survived virtually unchecked for over four decades.
In short, there is not only an apparent lack of a causal link, but also a correlational association between the different variables.
Of course, there is an easy explanation — there is rarely, if ever, a perfect correlation between any two variables (at least in the real world). Taking an exception to the rule and using it to disprove the rule does not work when the rules are supposed to be broken every now and then.
Looking at the big picture, a good argument can be made that there is a causal link between economic growth and education and democracy. South Korea and Taiwan are often cited as two examples.
But having said that, why is Singapore the exception? That there are exceptions is no surprise, statistically speaking, but explaining those individual exceptions is a separate issue worth looking at.
One thing that strikes me is that I am a member of the middle class or upper class, quite educated, and well aware of issues like human rights. I would be the perfect opponent to the authoritarian government of Singapore.
And yet, I really doubt that given the chance, I would vote out the People's Action Party regime. This is not because I condone the PAP government's actions — I find them to be as repulsive as much of what many totalitarian regimes have done.
The main reason I would not oppose the PAP (actively supporting it being a different issue altogether) is that it has successfully managed Singapore. I view democracy as largely a means to an end — democracy is meant to lead to good governance. Singapore has, in my view, achieved good governance without resorting to democracy.
The PAP spews a lot of crap about how more civil rights would jeopardise economic growth. I don't buy what they're selling. I think Singaporeans deserve better civil liberties, and I support any and all attempts to do this.
What I am more shaky about supporting is those who fight for civil liberties, but at the same time don't seem to have the managerial ability requisite to run the government. Chee Soon Juan, the perennial critic of the Singaporean government, strikes me as one fellow who fights the good fight, but poses an unknown quantity when it comes to governance. There is, after all, no use in having democracy but bad governance.
In my own country, things are more simple to sort out. The ruling regime here does not permit democracy, and has horrible governance. The opposition at least wants democracy, meaning we can only go up from here.
Singaporeans on the other hand are trapped between a rock and a hard place — good governance or democracy? I'm not sure if I envy the position they are in.
What slightly heartens me is that at some point or another, the PAP will slip up, the corruption that comes with power will rear its head, and Singaporeans will realise that in order to sustain a clean and efficient government, there must be democracy.
At the moment, though, the surprising thing is that Singapore remains a well-managed country, despite the lack of democracy. Despite achieving good governance, however, this prosperity cannot last unless democracy enters the mix.
Not too long ago, I read an interesting conjecture in Time, postulating that there are good dictators and bad dictators. Good dictators, like those in Taiwan and Korea, lead their country to prosperity and let the tide of democracy push them aside so the prosperity is maintained. Bad dictators keep their countries poor and stand in the way of democracy.
What kind of dictator will the Singaporean government be? We can but hope that it will either change for the better, or that the opposition will be finally able to present a tangible need for more democracy to check heretofore-unkown excesses of the PAP regime. One thing is for sure, in my opinion: at one point or another, Singapore must turn to democracy to maintain its good government.
Infernal Ramblings is a Malaysian website focusing on current events and sociopolitical issues. Its articles run the gamut from economics to society to education.
Infernal Ramblings is run by John Lee. For more, see the About section. If you have any questions or comments, do drop him a line.
Comments
Thoughts? Comments? Discuss this and other ramblings at the forums.
(Alternatively, contact the author privately.)
| Related comments from forum thread "I Can't Believe It's Not Democracy!": | |
|---|---|
|
Comrade_Naga
Member Posts: 20 IP Logged | Posted at 4:57:03 am Jul 22, 2007
Who really cares about democracy nowadays? Look at the youth, many of us don't give a d*** about voting. Forget about the politicians and their contempt for democratic principles. Slowly a country will develop into a state that respects civil rights and the rule of law. South Korea and Taiwan used to be pseudo-democracies but now are considered mature democracies. But, if the apathy of the youth prolongs democracy will just simply be forgotten. ~multum in parvo~ |
| Last five replies (1 comments not shown): | |
|
mafioso_tnm
Member Posts: 3 IP Logged | Posted at 11:29:58 am Dec 11, 2007
Comrade_Naga: Why don't youth vote? Have you ever thought about that? You can't simply generalize by saying youth don't vote because they don't care about democracy. Has it occurred to you that youth don't vote because, frankly, there isn't anyone worth two cents to vote for? The Gov, is well the Gov, while the opposition are equally lame ducks. There is no point in voting in the present political climate. With voting rendered irrelevant, why vote? |
|
MalaysiaBaru
Member Posts: 13 IP Logged | Posted at 8:48:24 pm Dec 13, 2007
Kee to deciphering Umno semiotics............. So now for Hishammuddin to say that he would use the keris again in 2007 as a protector of all Malaysians – not just Malays – is disingenuous. Any intelligent Malaysian can see through the doublespeak. What is even worse – and insulting – is what he said about "desensitizing" non-Malays to the issue of the keris. Only a person with a supercilious attitude would behave that way. What he implies by that statement is that non-Malays must accept what he does, no matter how revulsed they are by it. It's like slapping someone in the face and then slapping him again and again, and telling him that he has to tolerate it each time until he gets used to it. What arrogance! Website - http://www.jeffooi.com/2007/11/kee_to_playing_the_foll_again.php |
|
Rashaad
Member Posts: 5 IP Logged | Posted at 10:06:42 am Dec 15, 2007
Freedom to do whatever makes you happy may fall into a gray category, it leaves for too wide an interpretation. Freedom is overrated. That said though, a little freedom wouldn't hurt anyone. Except the government. |
|
sowhatsup
Member Posts: 2 IP Logged | Posted at 6:51:26 pm Jan 9, 2008
AnonC, so you are saying 1. Singapore is no better than Malaysia? 2. Mahatir is better than Lee Kuan Yew? 3. KL & JB are safer to walk around than Singapore? 4. Singapore economy is worse than Malaysia? 5. Ringgit is stronger than Sing dollar? The truth will say for itself. Singapore can't have a 100% democracy but at least Singapore have good dictatorship (system). |
|
sowhatsup
Member Posts: 2 IP Logged | Posted at 6:57:21 pm Jan 9, 2008
AnonC, so you are saying 1. Singapore is no better than Malaysia? 2. Mahatir is better than Lee Kuan Yew? 3. KL & JB are safer to walk around than Singapore? 4. Singapore economy is worse than Malaysia? 5. Ringgit is stronger than Sing dollar? 6. Singapore is NOT developed country and Malaysia is? The truth will say for itself. Singapore can't have a 100% democracy but at least Singapore have good dictatorship (system). What do Malaysia have? 1. S-NEP (Stupid New Economy Policy) 2. Public Race discrimination 3. Convoluted religion and the states 4. IRA 5. Corrupted Police 6. Corrupted government |
