OCR Text |
Show HINCKLEY JOURNAL OF POLITICS 2002/2003 tion that as Singaporeans became more affluent, their moral sensibilities would be corrupted by the "excessive individualism fostered by Western culture," which was seen by PAP leaders as the cause of the decline of Western societies (LePoer 1991,203). "Looking ahead, senior leaders identified two major dangers to the nation: the failure of the nation to reproduce itself and the loss of national identity" (LePoer 1991, 203). As mentioned earlier, birth rates had steadily dropped since the 1970s, especially among Singapore's best educated citizens, because many had forsaken marriage and family in order to promote their careers. In response, the government provided "material incentives for giving birth to third and fourth children," in addition to singling out female university graduates "because of their failure.. .to marry and pass on their supposedly superior genes" (LePoer 1991, 204). Lee was a staunch believer that talent was "for the most part genetically determined" (Tamney 1996, 76), and this provided the rationale for Singapore's institutionalized eugenics. Beginning in 1983, the government gave a cash grant to poorer and less educated parents who agreed to be sterilized. Understandably, this policy received harsh criticism, and few individuals actually volunteered, leading the PAP to discontinue this policy in 1985 (Tamney 1996, 76). On the second problem of Singapore's national identity, public policy was designed to defend "positive traditional Asian values against the perceived threat from Western culture," which the PAP considers hedonistic, radically individualistic, and self-destructive (LePoer 1991, 204). This meant emphasizing "Asian values," Asian languages and promoting ethical Confucianism. In concise terms, this implies a "commitment to education and family loyalty, and a quiescent attitude to authoritarian rule," where the government takes on a paternalistic role in guiding societal development (Economist 1995, 38). According to Lee, a Confucianist view of social hierarchies speeds societal transformation: as a citizen, "you fit yourself into society 14the exact opposite of the American rights of the individual" (Economist 1995, 39). It is likely that the biggest motivation for the push towards Asian values/Confucianism was "to shift support for a national ideology into support for the...PAP" (LePoer 1991, 204). It served as a convenient means of convincing citizens to voluntarily subjugate their personal interests to the PAP's societal goals. In the end, this social engineering has deleterious effects on the social fabric: because "Singapore's harmony is an illusion based on the suppression of dissent," critical social processes such as debate and negotiation never take place (Tamney 1995, 66). This creates a society where "conservatism and respect for authority become rigidity and an inability to innovate," because citizens' democratic faculties are never exercised (Economist 1998, 23). In the end, "much-vaunted educational achievements" are reduced to "rote-learning and a refusal to question those in authority" (Economist 1998, 23). In sum, the PAP has demonstrated institutionalized dis- dain for the poorer and less-educated segments of society, and because of other PAP policies that have provided less financial and educational resources to minority groups, these intrinsically elitist eugenics policies are also tinged with institutionalized racism. On face, state-sponsored eugenics/racism is offensive to any regime that values democratic pluralism and diversity. The injustice is so glaringly obvious that even the PAP recanted after only a short time. Additionally, the government's attempt to control the public through the propagation of a submissive civil religion has the same deleterious effects. Diversity, in terms of a plurality of religious/ethical groups has been diminished. And one of the most crucial elements of any democracy, the willingness of the people to question the legitimacy of those in power, has suffered through the government's paternalistic attitude towards their supposedly inept subjects. Not only does democracy not exist in Singapore, but the government is actively working to undermine any type of civil society that could give rise to democracy in the future. Thus, the PAP has sacrificed pluralism in order to promote predictability, towards the end of an improved economy. The attempt to imbue society with Asian values only weakens the few democratic instincts that Singaporeans have left, leading to societal conformity and stagnation. CONCLUSIONS When ranking Singapore against the criteria of Dahl's pol-yarchy, democracy is non-existent. Of Dahl's seven procedural minimum conditions for modern representative democracy, Singapore meets only two. That Singapore has elected officials (1) and universal suffrage (3) hardly qualifies the regime as a democracy either procedurally or substantively. The criteria which the government does not meet are: the lack of free and fair elections (2), an incomplete right to run for office (4), no freedom of expression (5), no sources of alternative information about the regime (6), and a complete lack of associational autonomy (7). Keeping in mind that all seven of these conditions are necessary but not sufficient for a truly democratic regime, the judgement that Singapore is not only undemocratic but antidemocratic seems obvious. There are countless other factors which go beyond these minimum conditions to show how the PAP leadership doesn't possess democratic sensibilities, and how this treatment of the populace diminishes the chances that democracy will develop anytime soon. For Robert Dahl, the central premise of guardianship is that it is "preposterous" to assume "that ordinary people can be counted on to understand and defend their own interests -much less the interests of the larger society" (Dahl 1989, 52). The PAP falls squarely within this definition. It claims that "important issues do not embody value conflicts," justifying public input, "but that the main decisions to be made are technical ones" (Tamney 1995, 73), and as such, only government leaders "who...possess specialized empirical knowl- 17 |