keninabu!

Perfection in Singaporean Politics

The Straits Times has a forum letter today that they printed, with the title " How about 'Nobel Prize for Politics' for MM Lee?".

The writer of the letter is entitled to his own point of view. It happens to be one that I do not agree with. Here's why I disagree.

Firstly, I find the tone of the letter to be extremely distasteful. Essentially the letter lavishes praise on MM (for Minister Mentor) Lee Kuan Yew in a tone that is reminiscent of North Korean propaganda about Kim Il Sung. I don't mean that MM LKY is LIKE Kim il Sung: if anything, unlike the Great Leader, LKY has been known to shun the personality cult of obeisance. We don't have to sing glorious songs about his wartime deeds (in his memoirs, he wrote candidly about how he escaped death under the Japanese by the skin of his teeth as a young teenager), nor do we have to memorize his sayings ad verbatim ad nauseum. Nor do I mean Singapore is anything like North Korea: can you imagine Ministry of Sound or Zouk opening up in Pyongyang? (Maybe in the future when Jay Chou writes hip hop for the North Korean propaganda ministry!)

Rather, it's just the tone of sheer, blind adulation, in the same way some American teens exhibit similar dedication to Britney Spears or Jessica Alba. That type of blind faith is what I mean by "reminiscent of North Korean propaganda about Kim Il Sung".

To give you an idea of what I mean, take this excerpt for example:

"I am saddened by all the talk about the perception of him still 'pulling the strings', and the suggestion that he departs from the political arena as one way to quell the perception, or, should I say, misperception.
Is this how we treat what is probably Singapore's most precious, treasured homegrown mind so far?
Frankly, so what if there have been instances when his 'pulling of strings' has been pivotal, so long as it has all been to the benefit of Singapore?"

Echoes of plaudits for the "Great Leader"? Actually it sounds more like he is talking about Paramount Leader (Deng Xiaoping). But either way, it's highly discomfiting.

Logically there is nothing wrong with these statements, and historically, I have to agree that there were times when the pulling of strings was justified. For example, when MM Lee made a comment in the 90s along the lines of "mere tolerance (between races) is not sufficient: this implies that there still exists misunderstanding and ill-will". A very true insight into the real nature of racial harmony in Singapore, and it sparked off a debate that is more pertinent today than ever.

But there are more disturbing things to come in this letter:

"Singapore's political system, which MM Lee was instrumental in creating and evolving, is not perfect but it is as perfect as a political system can be. More importantly, it has and continues to be effective. A system, unique to Singapore, that has created three current Cabinet members with more than 50 years of prime-ministerial experience between them; a system where government surpluses have been returned to the people in the form of the Progress Package; a system where public housing gets continual upgrading. A system that is unlikely to be matched, let alone surpassed, anywhere in the world."

"Singapore's political system... is as perfect as a political system can be"?

Seriously, get a grip.

Logically he is right: the system in Singapore IS unique, and so logically it cannot be matched or surpassed with anything else in this world, since that would be comparing a statistical outlyer with the median.

But looking beyond the narrow logic of this letter, and using a more worldy reasoning, a political monopoly, maintained by the unfair media coverage (which is tightly state-controlled, as implied by this article by a foreigner who went through it), and enhanced by a subservient, apathethic and self-censoring populace can hardly be called a 'perfect political system'.

Especially since we are talking of a state with a constitution that basically guarantees freedoms only within the boundaries of the law (meaning that if you break the law, you have no constitutional rights of any sort), that gives employers absolute rights to intrude into their employees' internet privacy at the workplace, that has a single union controlled by a cabinet member, that gives the state the power to detain suspects without trial up to two years or more, and that does not have any legislation or government body to oversee consumer rights and to prevent consumer abuse.

In addition, the "surpluses" that he speaks of miraculously is returned to the people only during election year, at a time when the economy is recovering from a long depression. If you count the losses to the economy through the 6+ years of economic depression, the small sum of money returned to the people is really nothing, especially if we discount for inflation. Also bear in mind that for a number of years following the Asian Financial Crisis, government ministers retained their ridiculous payscale, even raising it in 2000, as implied by this article, at times of economic difficulty for most Singaporeans. Someone at that time wrote that "if the Singapore economy was a company, and the Cabinet was the Board of Directors, they would have been fired a long time ago instead of getting a pay raise".

You might think I find the government completely tasteless, but that is false. On a lot of matters, I agree with the government's take. For one, national service is a necessary measure. Making citizens pay for their own health care (instead of having a fully subsidized system like the Europeans) is a good idea when coupled with government subsidies. The Central Provident Fund, taxation for road use and car usage, and building a world-class transportation system, all these are brillant. The Singapore civil service and government bureaucracy is also fabulous, as anyone having to deal with German red-tape can testify ("In Germany it's public HARASSMENT, not service!" hissed a German friend of mine).

And trust me, when Hurricane Rita was threatening to hit Houston, I wished that the Singapore government was in charge (although the Houston authorities did handle it well, given the circumstances and given the fact that they were in the process of dealing with Katrina evacuees when suddenly Rita loomed).

What am I trying to say then? I'm trying to say that the Singapore political system is still not perfect. We still have a political system that has insufficient checks and balances to ensure that the people are protected from the government. We still have a political system that has tremendous potential for systematic abuse of power. We have one of the world's highest per capita execution rates and carbon emission rates. We also have one of the largest income disparities in the world. There is also much existing resentment and tension between the races as well.

There is much work to be done, and to be blindly complacent and self-laudatory is to ignore existing and underlying issues, some of which are extremely serious. By all means, celebrate past successes (which aren't even yours to begin with), but don't lose sight of other key issues.

One of the utilitarian tests of a "perfect political system" would include the harm test: is the state able to be held in check if its actions will do more harm to its citizens than good? In many cases, I would argue that this is not the case in Singapore at all.
Of course, I could very well be wrong; afterall I already am wrong and am already doomed to Judeo-Christian hell as a Buddhist.

posted by keninabu @ 11:14 PM