The Debate on the Singapore Paradigm

The new authoritarianism

			Guardian, UK July 1, 2008 BY John Kampfner WHY is it that a growing number of highly educated and well-travelled people are willing to hand over several of their freedoms in return for prosperity or security? This question has been exercising me for months as I work on a book about what I call the "pact". The model for this is Singapore, where repression is highly selective. It is confined to those who take a conscious decision openly to challenge the authorities. If you do not, you enjoy freedom to travel, to live more or less as you wish, and – perhaps most important – to make money. Under Lee Kuan Yew, this city-state built on a swamp has flourished economically. I was born in Singapore and have over the years been fascinated by my Chinese Singaporean friends. Doctors, financiers and lawyers, they have studied in London, Oxford, Harvard and Sydney. They have travelled across all continents; they are well versed in international politics, but are perfectly content with the situation back home. I used to reassure myself with the old certainty that this model was not applicable to larger, more diverse states. I now believe this to be incorrect. Provincial governments in China send their brightest officials to Singapore to learn the secrets of its "success". For Russian politicians it too provides a useful model. These countries, and others in Asia and the Middle East are proving that the free markets does not require a free society in which to thrive, and that in any battle between politics and economics, it is the latter that will win out. It is too easy to believe that this debate does not apply to us. Across western Europe, the US and in other so-called democracies, liberty is similarly losing out to both the post-9/11 security agenda and the power of global finance. Different countries hand over different freedoms; in Italy, Silvio Berlusconi (who makes no secret of his admiration for Vladimir Putin), brazenly attacks the judiciary, having effectively censored the broadcast media. In Britain, we draw comfort from what we believe to be a robust public realm, with strong freedom of speech (although our journalists are far better at shouting than at digging out information) . And yet, as David Davis so theatrically has reminded us, we are sleepwalking into a level of state surveillance that will not be reversed. Many countries, including our own, are entering into new pacts with their rulers. Resurgent autocrats draw strength from the many weaknesses of western leaderships, not just their mistakes in foreign policy, but their failure to rejuvenate their own political systems, or to deal with a business culture that had lost touch with the needs of society. It was Oswald Spengler who at the turn of the last century predicted that "the masses will accept with resignation the victory of the Caesars, the strong men, and will obey them". A modern form of authoritarianism, quite distinct from Soviet Communism, Maoism or Fascism, is being born. It is providing a modicum of a good life, and a quiet life, the ultimate anaesthetic for the brain. The Singapore model A rebuttal by H.E. Michael Teo, Singapore's High Commissioner to UK Liberal democracy works for the west – but in south-east Asia, we have different views Guardian, UK July 15, 2008 See The new authoritarianism THE end of the cold war seemed to augur a new era of global convergence. In the battle of ideas and political systems, western liberal democracy had triumphed. But the reality is different, especially in Asia. Across Asia, western-style democracy has rarely delivered stable, legitimate and effective government. Few Asian countries have achieved good government through open multi-party competition or unfettered, rambunctious media. Many lack a long history of shared nationhood. Some are divided along racial or religious lines. Others have weak institutions and no traditions of civilian rule or civic society. As a former British colony, Singapore started off with a Westminster- style parliamentary system. But we have adapted it to suit our unique position: a small, multi-racial, multi-religious city in the middle of a turbulent south-east Asia. We introduced multi-member Group Representation Constituencies to ensure multi-racial representation. We created non-elected Members of Parliament from independent groups and opposition parties to ensure diversity of views in Parliament. We instituted an elected presidency to safeguard key state appointments and the nation's financial reserves. As English laws evolved after Britain joined the European Union, Singapore has not always followed, because our circumstances are different. Thus, unlike the UK, we have not weakened our defamation laws, which are essential to keeping our public discourse responsible and honest. This system of democracy has worked for Singapore. Singaporeans enjoy one of the highest standards of living in Asia – 90% own their homes. They are well educated, many in top universities abroad, including in the US and Britain. They know they live in one of the most transparent countries in the world, with a competent and non-corrupt government. Those who disagree with or oppose the government are free to speak out, challenge the government, and contest in free and fair elections. Had our system not consistently benefited the vast majority of citizens, and given them full opportunities to develop their human potential, the ruling party would have been voted out of office long ago. China and Russia study Singapore as one possible model for their own development. Whether they can adapt it to their own circumstances will depend on their ability to run a clean, honest and meritocratic system, governing for the long-term good of the country with the support of their people. But ultimately these large countries, with their long histories and ancient cultures, will develop in their own ways. They are not likely to morph into western liberal democracies, regardless of what Singapore does. Every society has to strike its own balance between individual liberties and the common good. Some in the west like John Kampfner feel a calling to go forth and convert the heathen to western liberal democracy. But the true test is what works in the real world, with real societies. To worship a western model as the only way, and dismiss all other solutions as authoritarian or undemocratic, is surely the ultimate anaesthetic for the brain.