Have you ever found yourself in a situation whereby you feel as if you've been pushed into an inconsequential little corner of humanity, stripped of the right to call your voice your very own; your intellectuality muffled by a forced deafening obmutescence; your very existence reduced to a mere speck of dust by the presence of a figure of perceived higher authority who commands tacit subservience? If your answer to any of these is yes, then perhaps you might be able to relate to what I'm about to write on.

I have been raised as a bourgeois in an orthodox patriarchal-authoritarian Asian family. When you are in a family who holds firmly onto this rather antiquated form of governance, you have to know your place. It's imperative that you understand the hierarachy of power that exists - the head of the family, being the father, has absolute control over everything and any reminiscent authority or its spectre for that matter, is depreciated down the line, from the eldest child right down to the youngest. I am the youngest child in a family of ten children. Hence on the family level, "authority" and "freedom of speech" to me are just lexical ambiguities.

Before you dip your foot into the murky waters of Assumption, rest assured that I am anything but a puppet in a family of proletarians. Silence does not spell consent. Like all political systems, it's a bit of a contradiction, really. I am the undisputed commander of my own free will and as unbelievable as it might seem, throughout my life, I have never really found a reason to rebel. Without being divorced from love and concern, my family adopts a pretty much laissez-faire disposition in my personal life. As far as I am concerned, curfews have been as bona fide as Greek mythology. Hell, I am like a CIA operative - my movements in and out of the house are made clandestine by the shroud of conscious nonchalance. In fact, I used to live in a maisonette and the stairway to (no, not heaven) the main door was virtually concealed from the rest of the house. As I have never been able to adopt the gaudy civility of telling my family where I would be heading to at any point of time, more often than not, they wouldn't know. Call it barbarous disrespect if it helps you sleep at night, I don't care. It's my family, I know better. I know for a fact that though it points towards dysfunctionality, it is actually a mutually unspoken family understanding. Ok, ok...if it is of any comfort, I've always had a pager or a mobile phone they can reach me on in case of emergencies - for instance, if I've run out of a month's supply of shampoo. So...I would have friends calling for me at home, only to be put on hold by whoever it is who answers the call at a particular point of time. It would be three or four successive hollers of, "Az! Your call!", from the lower level of the house, before the family member finally gives up hope of my presence in the vicinity and goes on to relay the unfortunate news to my friend, who, by that time, would have already been well-informed, courtesy of the series of space-penetrating hollers. Nevertheless, this fabricated insouciance of my private life should not be mistaken for disinterest or the lack of love. It is a conscious effort engineered towards the establishment of a sense of reciprocal trust.

But that's all in the individual context.

I do, on the contrary, find solace in the sang-froid of silence as far as decision-makings at the family level are concerned. For I understand with utmost clarity that personal autonomy in my family does not make you God. When decisions have to be made at the family level, like a local police precinct contending for authority with federal agents on national-level issues, that is where my jurisdiction comes to an abrupt halt. Macro-level issues the likes of the family financials and cold wars between siblings at the higher end of the hierarchy are big politics to me. It's my Forbidden City, my anathema. It's like the Money section on The Straits Times - unintelligible gibberish. Sometimes I do not understand the inner workings of those issues; most of the time, I just choose not to. Maybe it's a form of self-preservation. The vociferous dominant voices at the top of the hierarchy would simply drown the whispers of those at the lower end of the authority spectrum. Sure, you can be all evangelical and set out on a crusade to fight for your basic human right to voice out your opinions. But at the end of the day, all that mean shit. I mean, no disrespect to my family, they are the best. But this is the naked truth of the matter which I believe many of you can relate to, be it from the family perspective or that of any other social relationships. Hence, rather than settling for condescending approvals, I have come to the realization that sometimes there is more amplitude in a rhetorical silence than in a silenced jabber. Less is indeed more.

As with many of you guys, I'm sure, I am not a blind follower. I am worldly-wise enough to know that people at the top don't always know what they are doing all the time. Anyone needs a reminder of the situation in Iraq? Enough said. On a side note, whether they would admit to that is another story for another blog entry. That said, I am not a fool who rushes in where angels fear to tread. If I think my family has made a good decision on an issue, I keep my mouth shut. Otherwise, I still keep my mouth shut. Notwithstanding, I have never done anything I wasn't willing to, and I don't intend to start, ever. Neither do I see the need to tell the whole world about it. I believe my family is fully aware of this muted standpoint of mine and there is a sense of implicit approval from them. You don't have to like it, just try not to make it too ostensible.

And so far, this understood agreement has served me well.


Lovefoolosopher

I was having coffee with a group of friends recently, when one of them began complaining about how he had to search for a place to stay because he had decided to move out of his house, as he felt that he did not want to be a burden to his retired parents. He is a single, 23 year-old undergraduate, whose only source of income comes from the royalties he receives for his freelance website-designing. The rest of my friends and I were quite taken aback by his decision. In Singapore, if you are still single (even though you have a job), moving out and living on your own is relatively equivalent to Neil Armstrong’s venture to the moon – a small step for Man, a giant leap for Mankind! Well, at least that was how the social norm in this little island used to be. However, taking my friend’s crisis as an illustration, things are changing here, and the Singapore government is getting worried.

My friend had demonstrated the rapidly changing values of the new generation of Singaporeans, which are beginning to incline towards the liberalism of the West, particularly the United States of America. In America, the ripe age of 18 marks the genesis of adulthood and many young adults would have already moved out of their parents’ homes by this age. On the other hand, if you are a 30 year-old single in Singapore, with a stable job and a fairly comfortable income and still living with your parents, you would be considered a filial child. Such is the difference in values between Singapore and the West.

This is because Singapore’s political ideologies throughout the years, since its independence in 1965, stem very much from the teachings of Confucian, the great Chinese philosopher, like respect for authority and the importance of family unity. These teachings are in stark contrast to the ideologies of the West (America), which hold sacred the values of individualism and the freedom of speech.

However, my study is not about advocating authoritarianism as being a better political philosophy than America’s democracy or vice versa, because the suitability of any country’s political philosophy often depends on many factors, like the size of the population, its political history, the political tensions surrounding its region, the might of its military, the power of its economy or the background of its leaders. Enlightening this point, both Singapore and America obviously have had their individual political ideologies working for them throughout their histories, thus explaining their economic success. However, in the context of Singapore, although its achievements are unquestionably admirable, what is the price that the people of Singapore have to pay for these achievements? Why does the Singapore government believe so strongly that Asian values as opposed to Western liberalism, are the very principles that have made Singapore what it is today? What are some of the personal values that the people have to sacrifice for the good of the community? These are some of the questions that I hope to discuss in this paper. In fact, with regards to the question, “How far should Singapore compromise its values for economic growth?”, I believe that Singapore should, on the contrary, be asked, “How far should Singapore ‘not’ compromise its values for economic growth?” This is because I feel that certain collective national values of Singapore have devalued the more “personal” values of the individual Singaporean. This forms the basis of my discussion.

The People’s Action Party (PAP) – Is it simply an “authoritarian” government?
History has shown that the values and culture of a nation are often shaped by the one person or party that has brought about the greatest political revolution in that country, regardless whether the change was positive or one that had thrown the country into political hell. In Germany, there was Hitler; in the former Soviet Union, there was Lenin; in Indonesia, there was Suharto and in Singapore, we have Lee Kuan Yew and the dominating political party, the People’s Action Party (PAP). Hence, to understand the values of the Singaporean people, it is crucial that we first, try to fathom the values of Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP.

Under the naked eye, the PAP may be perceived as just another authoritarian government (some might not even be able to tell the difference in political ideology between Singapore and communist China), which limits the freedom of speech and political rights of its people, because it believes that only the elite are fit to rule a nation. Its dogma of “Asian” values holds dear, the principles of meritocracy, family unity and most important of all, total subservience to authority.

However, while other governments that share similar authoritarianism ideology or elements of it, like the former Soviet Union, Vietnam, Indonesia under Suharto’s rule and the Philippines under Ferdinand Marcos’ rule, have collapsed, the PAP’s authoritarian regime is still going strong and has brought about meteoric industrial and economic success throughout the years.
This political feat by a ruling body that is sometimes regarded as a form of dictatorship has brought it under the microscope of western liberals, because unlike other forms of dictatorship in history, Singapore has defied the political laws of nature – that has proven time and again that dictatorships like Communism and Fascism are, but ephemeral political systems. Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP have denounced the liberal ideologies of the West and adopted, instead, the rather passé authoritarian ideology that comprises of these elements: pragmatism, elitism, meritocracy, multiracialism, “Asian” values and political socialization. In a nutshell, these elements are as follows:

Pragmatism
The PAP has been described by Lee Kuan Yew as being rational and anti-ideology. This means that the ruling party believes in the practical results of a particular policy – whether it actually “works”. The PAP will strive for the best practical solution to a problem and will not forgo it for the sake of dogma. If the PAP senses that a policy is not working for the nation, it will quickly discard it. The PAP is more apt to believe in what has been tried and tested than in ideological “dreams” or “visions”.

Elitism
In the words of Thomas Jefferson in his letter to John Adams in 1813, “I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents…”
The PAP holds the same conviction when it comes to leadership. It believes that only the most trustworthy, brightest and most intellectual, are fit to lead. It believes that people are born with different capabilities – the concept of equality is, but non-existent. There are rulers and there are followers. The PAP believes that a government is “for” the people but can never be “by” the people.

Meritocracy
Social and occupational advancements in Singapore are based on individual achievement, regardless of factors induced by politics, economic, race, social class, or religion. This kind of meritocratic principle is applied in civil service, government-linked companies, education and the military. Meritocracy complements the principle of elitism in Singapore because the more highly qualified a person is, the higher is his rank in society.

Multiracialism
The population of Singapore comprises of Chinese, Malays, Indians and Eurasians. Multiracialism refers to the respect for and tolerance of all the ethnic groups and cultures and that they are treated as equals under the law. The PAP does not tolerate racial conflicts and have established sanctions against seditious racial or religious remarks.

Asian Values
The majority Chinese leaders of Singapore, especially Lee Kuan Yew, were very much, and still are, attached to the teachings of Confucianism (from China), which advocates values like tradition, hard work, thrift, family unity, filial piety, pragmatism, submission to authority and working towards the good of the community. Some critics believe that this is a form of subtle rebellion against the values of liberal democracies of the West (especially America), like individualism, freedom of speech, and aspirational politics (about “dreams” and “visions”, e.g. the “American Dream”, in contrast to Singapore’s pragmatic political culture). Singapore’s “Asian” values have played a key role in shaping the cultures and values of the people. This will be discussed in further detail in the later part of this paper.

Political Socialization
The government of Singapore is aware of the fact that the values and culture of Singapore (and any nation, for that matter) can change through external influences. For instance, the problem of casual sex in Singapore is becoming more rampant now. Hence, the government tries to salvage eroding values or inculcate new ones through “political socialization”, which I feel, is the euphemism for “social engineering”. It refers to the utilization of public policies and campaigns to influence the minds of the people so that they will see in the point of view of the government.

From the national ideology listed above, five core values have been developed for the society. In January 1991, Parliament of Singapore was presented with the “White Paper on Shared Values”, termed as “The Shared Values. They are:
1. Nation before community and society before self;
2. Family as the basic unit of society;
3. Community support and respect for the individual
4. Consensus, no conflict; and
5. Racial and religious harmony.

With the exception of “multiracialism”, these elements of the PAP’s political culture form a reflection of the teachings of Confucius and also, the political culture of China. Considering the fact that the Chinese make up about 77% of the total population, it is no surprise that Singapore’s political culture is very much influenced by the Chinese culture.

Yet, the political style of Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew, the founding father of independent Singapore (whom many believe, still holds the “real” political power in Singapore today, even though Goh Chock Tong has taken over as Prime Minister), cannot be termed simply as “authoritarian” – it is a little more complex than that. Lee Kuan Yew had ingeniously combined Leninist organizational tactics with elements of Capitalism. This has resulted in a nation with strong economic and industrial foundation (capitalism), but strictly controlled by a paternalistic, authoritarian government (Leninism, Communism, Confucianism). This is the key to Singapore’s economic success despite its dictatorial government. However, Singapore’s political system is not free from flaws. I will get to that in a later part of this paper.

So, what had influenced Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP to adopt such a political culture? It is imperative that we first look at the factors that had influenced Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP.

Lee Kuan Yew – The Architect
Like most significant figures in politics, Cambridge-educated Lee Kuan Yew grew up during the tumultuous times of World War II, and more significantly for Singapore, the Japanese Occupation. After the Japanese had surrendered, Lee Kuan Yew saw a need for a revolution for independence from the British colonial government.

Lee Kuan Yew was an English-trained barrister when he returned to Singapore in the late 1940s and had impressed even the British, by being very well educated and capable. They could see him as a leader of post-independent Singapore, who could maintain their colonial legacy. However, Lee Kuan Yew who had been harboring anti-colonial sentiments, had other ideas. It is important to note that by that time, the Chinese had already surpassed the Malays by a significant margin as the majority ethnic group in Singapore. However, these Chinese-educated Chinese, whose parents and grandparents were immigrants from China were still very much attached to the values and cultures of China and possessed anti-colonial feelings. However, Lee Kuan Yew and his English-educated Chinese revolutionary members had to find a way to reach out to the Chinese-educated majority, who did not trust them, being the English-educated Chinese that they were. Lee Kuan Yew had to seek assistance from the Chinese pro-Communist activists of Malaya (now known as Malaysia), which many thought was a very dangerous move since the Chinese communists had been involved in a guerilla war against the British just a few years earlier. This coalition gave birth to the People’s Action Party. With Lee Kuan Yew and his English-educated associates well-skilled in the legal and parliamentary department and familiar with the ways of the colonial powers, while the pro-Communist activists manned the street organization, mass campaigns and covert work, the coalition managed to gain the support of the Chinese-educated majority and achieved self-government.

The PAP later split into two, with the left-wing party forming the Barisan Socialist (Socialist Front). However, Lee Kuan Yew’s stint of partnership with the pro-Communist faction had made him aware of the effectiveness of the organization tactics of the Communists, whereby an elite few can efficiently control and direct a larger and even uncompromising majority. However, Lee Kuan Yew was also aware of the fact that an absolute totalitarian government found in China and Russia would not work if he wanted to build a capitalist and technocratic nation. Hence, his admiration for a Leninist organization control without sacrificing the importance of the forces of supply and demand and the individuals’ desire to compete economically, led him to form a unique political ideology that combines both Leninist Communism with Capitalism. This is the root of Singapore’s political values and culture.
I will next examine how these values of the government have affected the various aspects of the lives of the citizens of Singapore.

Issues Affected by Singapore’s Political Values & Culture

Employment in the Civil Service
Employment in Singapore, especially in the civil service, is very much based on the principles of elitism and meritocracy. The PAP competes with the private sector for the recruitment of citizens with the highest capabilities and qualifications by initiating rapid promotions, high salaries (which are increased annually) and bonuses, into government ministerial and civil service positions. The PAP believes that top-notch talents are scarce, considering Singapore’s small population. Hence, the only way to attract these talents to the government and civil service positions, and also to ensure their continuity and loyalty, is to pay wages that are competitive to those offered by the private sector. Illustrating this point, the government ministers in Singapore are the highest paid in the world. Even the salaries of junior ministers here exceed that of the President of the United States. Another rationale for high wages in the government sector, according to the PAP, is to thwart any temptations for corruption. This may be justified by the solemnly peaceful environment in Singapore politics.

Within the element of “Asian” values, submission to authority is another chisel that shapes the ministerial and civil service environment in Singapore. The hierarchy of power in all organizations in the civil service ensures that everyone works systematically. Everyone is at the mercy of the orders and instructions posed to them. For instance, if you are a police sergeant, you will await orders from your police inspector on which locations to patrol, or which suspect to apprehend, or even, when to have your lunch. The police inspector, on the other hand, receives his orders from the next superior in line, the assistant superintendent. Far from what we see in Hollywood movies, the disregard for a direct order may not simply result in a suspension, but it could mean the end of your career. Submission to authority is everything in the civil service.

Multiracialism in Singapore
Singapore is an ethnic melting pot. Take a two-minute walk along any street on the island and you can see people from the three major ethnic groups. 77 percent of the population is Chinese, 14 percent Malays, 1.7 percent Indians and 1.3 percent Eurasians and other races (e.g. Bugis, Javanese, etc). Permanent residents and foreigners make up 24 percent of the total population. Although the Malays were the indigenous people of Singapore, by the late 19th Century, the Chinese had taken over as the ethnic majority. As I had mentioned earlier, Singapore culture as it is today had been very much shaped by the majority Chinese. This explains the presence of the political values of China in Singapore politics.

The PAP has gone to great lengths to ensure racial harmony. Discriminating racial remarks and actions are prohibited through strong sanctions. Lately, especially since the emergence of terrorist threats after the September 11 attacks on New York City, the PAP has begun to play down ethnic diversity to remind the people that Singaporeans are indeed “one people”, and they should disregard their ethnic differences.

One controversial policy that resulted from this issue was the ban on the “tudung” or head scarves for female Muslim students in secular schools. This policy had stirred up strong emotions from not only the Muslim community in Singapore, but also those from neighboring Malaysia and Brunei. Four Muslim students, who insisted on wearing their head scarves when the policy was first implemented, were suspended from school. The rationale given by the government was that religious symbols in schools, like the Muslim head scarves, hinder racial and religious integration in the classroom. After the September 11 attack, religion has been a very sensitive issue, which involves the Muslims specifically. Hence, the PAP justifies this policy on the grounds of promoting racial unity.

Although the PAP has repeatedly assured the people that all public policies have been established with racial harmony in mind, the minorities, especially the Malays, have expressed resentment against some of the policies, accusing the PAP of tilting towards the Chinese majority.

The Media in Singapore
The media in Singapore is closely linked to the government through government-linked companies (GLCs) and private holding companies that have close ties with the PAP. These companies include the Singapore Press Holdings (SPH), for print media, MediaCorp, for broadcast, and The Radio Corporation of Singapore, for radio. The print media is controlled by a various laws, which includes the Sedition Act (1964), the Internal Security Act (1964), the Essential (Control of Publications and Safeguarding of Information) Regulation (1966), the Undesirable Publications Act (1967) and the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (1974). Broadcasting media is controlled by the Singapore Broadcasting Authority (SBA). Home satellite dishes are banned in Singapore because the government believes that the nation might be influenced by external cultures that oppose Singapore’s “Asian” values. My intention is not to bore you with the details, but to give you an idea of just how tightly controlled the media in Singapore is.

The government of Singapore perceives the media as being a tool to inform and educate the public regarding government policies, campaigns and ideas. Of course, besides informing and educating, the government hopes to gain the people’s support. Other than these functions, the media is generally seen as an entertainment source.


Lovefoolosopher