Workers’ Party at Hougang, General Election 2011 (Image – Darren Soh, used with permission)

“We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion, to build a democratic society based on justice and equality so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation”

The transition from post-colonial or authoritarian rule to more democratic methods of government is something that Asia has witnessed a number of times in recent decades. It is important to see this for what it is – progress. People prefer to be free and attain self determinism, and that is precisely why the goal of building a democratic society is enshrined in the National Pledge. And while recent events in Hong Kong bring the question of democratic progress into focus today, it is the lessons of other countries in the region that are more relevant to the path Singapore is on. Can Singapore take the next step towards democracy?
 
Asian Values
Lee Kuan Yew was Singapore’s Prime Minister from 1959 to 1990. His rule overlapped significantly with that of Park Chung-hee in Korea, Marcos in the Philippines, Suharto in Indonesia and Chaing Kai-shek in Taiwan. All were undemocratic, authoritarian strong men. Some were brutal and murderous former military men, although Marcos like Lee was a former lawyer who came to power through the ballot box. And all the countries they once ruled have since taken big steps in becoming democracies – with significant personal freedoms, free presses and meaningful elections. Except Singapore. Here of course, personal freedoms, the press and elections are all constrained, in many cases by laws put forward by Lee himself. While we enjoy elections every five years, many of the fundamentals of a true democratic society are missing.
The question of why Singapore, and other authoritarian regimes in the region, did or continue to reject democratic principles has often been ascribed to a preference for so-called “Asian Values” – of Confucianism, respect for authority and collective progress over individual freedoms. Lee himself was a particularly well documented proponent of this school of thought, yet as one Asian regime after the next has transitioned to democracy, the validity of this philosophy has waned. Can Singaporeans really be so Confucian as to reject personal freedoms, while Taiwan, Korea and even Japan are fully fledged democracies? It seems unlikely.
To observe this Asian enthusiasm for democracy in action, we only have to examine the feelings of Koreans during their transition to democracy in the summer of 1987.
The Lesson from Korea
Today South Korea is a fully functioning democracy, ranking higher than the US on the Economist Intelligence Unit’s “Democracy Index” – but was for decades an effective dictatorship under Park and others. Korea made the transition in 1987, during a period of swift economic growth, after days of violent protests rocked the country. The feeling of many at the time was captured in a Straits Times quote from a Seoul resident by the name of Mr Suh:

“I don’t think my salary will go up if the students and others achieve their goals, but I think now, the point is not bread and butter, but freedom. In the 1960s, bread was the most important thing. In the 70s, Koreans focused on earning more money. But in the 80s, those basic issues have been solved and now we need more freedom”

Why even the man in the street is joining protest. Straits Times. 28 June 1987.

On 2 July 1987, a few days after President Chun had agreed to protestors demands for sweeping reform, the Straits Times in an article titled “Hopes are up, but doubt and scepticism linger”, wrote that “South Korean’s reacted with happiness and excitement”, while still cautioning that the government must “act quickly”. On 5 July, the ST ran a piece on the Korean community in Singapore titled “Far away from home, Koreans share in jubilation”.
With words like “hope”, “happiness”, “excitement” and “jubilation”, the clear sentiment running through these articles is positive. Supposed “Asian values” took a very quiet back seat to the pursuit of democracy, for the obvious reason that people – Asian or otherwise – appreciate freedom over control, and democracy over authoritarianism. “There is no turning back” as one Korean businessman interviewed by the Straits Times put it. A military coup or return to dictatorship is unthinkable in South Korea today and anything of the sort would widely be seen as a huge step backwards.
Everyone likes an election
stimmzettel-anschluss
Dictators tend to make a show of following the democratic model to some extent. Hitler won a 99% majority in 1938 Nazi Germany in an election which used the shown ballot paper, where “Adolf Hitler” and “Yes” have unmistakable prominence. North Korea has elections once every five years, although there is only ever one candidate for each seat, someone who is guaranteed to have been approved by the “Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland”. In fact North Korea, probably the least free nation in the world, is officially titled the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to underscore its supposed democratic credentials. Of course Singapore is incomparable to either of those nations.
The point is that even the most oppressive of rulers knows that the legitimacy to rule a set of people can only come from those people themselves, precisely because all people prefer to be free, rather than just digits in someone elses economic machine. Conversely, no one has ever heard of a democracy masquerading as a dictatorship, but from Zimbabwe to North Korea, the pretence of democratic process where no real democracy exists is a common theme. Democracy, despite all its flaws, is the most legitimate model we have, which is why dictators often seek to channel it, to legitimise their own rule.
The next step
No one person can say what the next step for Singapore could or should be. Hong Kong, despite never having universal suffrage under British colonial rule, in fact has a significant history of enjoying other freedoms – of personal expression, to protest, of the press, of judicial independence – that are all part of the democratic model, and which do not exist in mainland China. Pro-democracy marches have over the years attracted hundreds of thousands onto the streets, long before the current “occupy” movement started.
As for Singapore, no such tradition of upholding democratic principles seems to exist, and a fundamental appreciation for such matters appears to be lacking. In many respects Singapore is in the opposite position of Hong Kong – having elections but none of the personal and civil freedoms that empower the democratic model. And while Hong Kong is protesting ostensibly to add universal suffrage to their list of freedoms, in many cases people have supported the movement because they detect and wish to resist a growing desire in Beijing to erode those freedoms that Hong Kong does have.
If we follow the symmetry of this argument, then perhaps the next step for Singapore is to build a deeper understanding of the non-voting, personal freedoms that we currently lack, but which are enjoyed in Hong Kong, and are the essential building blocks if we are to “build a democratic society” as described in the National Pledge.
This article was first published at andyxianwong.wordpress.com Image credit:

Subscribe
Notify of
5 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

年轻人投80履历工作仍没着落! 惟一些雇主称“找不到合适本地人才”

疫情下对本地就业市场带来冲击,从今年初至今,政府已出台了多达五次的财政援助措施,以期能协助企业和雇员度过疫情下的难关。 副总理王瑞杰等领袖,甚至预料未来数月会有更多人失业,然而这也让更多人开始质问,政府对于保障本地人就业的努力。 对于青年毕业生来说,当前刚毕业要觅职亦面对困难,甚至有年轻国人即使投了数十份履历,还是没能找到合适的全职工作!结果只好去兼职和学习新技能来度过当前危机。 据《今日报》报导,一名27岁受访者Hakim Wijaya,有两三年工作经验,再进入入拉萨尔艺术学院修读大学文凭毕业。然而,过去四个月,她应征多达80职位空缺,有回应只有寥寥数家,且条件也不尽人意。 还有26岁的大学毕业生Roy Ng也同样提交80份工作申请,还是找不到工作,结果打算再就读与商业相关的研究生课程,自我提升。还有者只得接受减薪保住工作。 还有更多类似的故事,例如26岁的准妈妈以为自己能保住饭碗,结果仍被公司裁员;再有原数码设计总监今年2月份被解雇,结果只能骑脚踏车送餐,收入从原本的8千多元,锐减至目前仅2千多元。 然而, 讽刺的是,一些雇主却认为,他们无法在新加坡找不到合适本地人才,例如本地金属包装制造厂Containers Printers总裁曾爱媄声称,虽曾考虑聘请新加坡人,但该公司工作需要一定的技术,聘请新人要花时间培训,所以人手不能说换就换。 一名建筑业者也表示,要找人替代自己公司的马国籍安全协调员不容易,安全管理人员需经过培训和考取证书,不是两三天的事,更何况目前都很少有这种能考取证书的课程在开班。…

我国需备足医疗资源能力 目前不太可能完全阻断冠毒!

国家传染病中心主任梁玉心教授指出,直到冠状病毒的疫苗面世为止,人们都必须和冠毒共处,因为就现阶段是不太可能完全阻断病毒传播。 而在面对冠毒病例不灭反增的情况,我国务必要有足够的资源和能力、专业且充足的医疗设施和体系。 梁玉心教授出席昨日(5月14日)在一项网络研讨会,在谈及冠毒疫情时,如是指出。 她表示依据冠毒的特质,目前不太可能全面阻断病毒传染,因此很可能会反复出现传染群,只是传染率偏低。 “即表示,未来不时会出现感染病例增加的情况,而我国必须拥有足够的能力和资源来应对。” 梁玉心教授续指出,在应对病毒带来的冲击,想方设法应对新病例、减少死亡率和发病率方面,足够和专业的医疗设施及体系也是必不可少的。

“下雪”申诉组屋问题 工人党市镇会称维修工作已恢复

本地网红“下雪” (郑彦彦),在instagram发文抱怨,自己所居住组屋状态残破不堪,并写道,“作为居民,我有支付市镇会费用,至少我希望要定期维修,至少不会引起任何危险。” 原来下雪住在后港罗弄阿苏一带的组屋,由阿裕尼集选区议员林瑞莲管理。她也晒出数张组屋照片,例如地面出现破洞未补、墙上现裂痕、电线外漏等等,与此同时,她也抱怨自己看见老鼠出现,公寓外的地板也已至少六个月未清理等。 任何人没想到过去曾公开支持人民行动党的网红“下雪”,居然是居住在后港一带。 她也在贴文指出,过去七年来,自己一直居住在后港组屋内,然而直至去年才开始注意到维修问题,而情况也愈发糟糕。 下雪也表示,自己并不想此事公诸于网上,但她母亲曾多次写信向市镇会投诉,甚至多次发邮件给工人党主席林瑞莲,但却始终未得到答复。 “所以这是我最后的手段,请做点什么,它不仅难看且不卫生,还存在风险。” 维修工程因疫情展延 在发文后,她也澄清这一系列抱怨,与个人政治观点无关。 对此,阿裕尼-后港市镇会也作出回应,已意识到该区所面临的问题,自去年底,就进行维修与粉刷(Repairs & Redecoration)工程,然而不幸因疫情影响暂停,目前工程也已逐步恢复。…

防火安全修正法一读 500旧楼或强制安装警铃消防喉

防火安全修正法案昨日在国会一读,其中要求所有建筑物必须安装重要防火安全设施,直接影响了500栋建立于70、80年代的老旧建筑物,以及一些如医院和疗养院等高风险建筑物。 防火安全修正法令中提到需要修正的部分有三大类,即加强建筑物的防火安全;更好地使用民防资源,让部队能更专注于处理高风险的环节;为了让业界更了解防火条例,简化监管程序。 赋予民防部队更大权限 修正部分赋予了民防部队更大的调查和执法权力,在加强建筑物防火安全方面,强制要求所有建筑物业主增添防火设施,包括那些老旧建筑物和高风险建筑物。 而供应商和生产商必须获得证书,证明受管制的产品符合防火标准,否则将被指控为使用或是促使他人使用违例材料。 若修法通过,民防部队将强制要求业主为包括办公室、工业建筑和购物中心等,在1991年或2002年消防条例实施前建设的建筑物中,安装警铃系统和消防喉。 在有关条例前建设的建筑物一般没进行过增建和改建工程,且面对着如住户密集或高年龄层的住户等高风险。 因此,民防部队需要酌情评估如何翻新有需要的建筑物,并在必要情况下允许业主采用不同的解决方案或更长的时限。 民防部队也能够直接进入涉及触犯条例的场所、调查任何涉案人士等,对违例者采取行动。因此若他们发现建筑物内存在严重的火患风险,如居住区过渡拥挤、逃生到被阻等,可在首次发现时,无需发出任何消除火患危险通知书(Fire Hazard Abatement Notice)的情况下,就对业者进行提控。…