Constructing Singapore: Book review by Chee Soon Juan
-
Constructing Singapore: Book review by Chee Soon Juan
Wednesday, 03 June 2009
Far Eastern Economic Review
Constructing Singapore: Elitism, Ethnicity and the Nation-Building Project
Michael Barr and Zlatko Skrbis
Reviewed by Chee Soon Juan
The “Singapore Story”—the title of the first volume of founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s autobiography—is that a mandarinate elite built a bastion of political and economic success on twin pillars of good governance: meritocracy and multiracialism. “Chimeras,” say Michael Barr and Zlatko Skrbis, professors at The Flinders University of South Australia and The University of Queensland, Australia, respectively.The authors tear apart the Lee mythology with commendable academic rigor and gusto, arguing that such propaganda serves only to “facilitate and legitimize rule by a self-appointed elite dominated by middle-class Chinese in general, and by the Lee family in particular.”
This issue is examined not just through the lens of Singapore’s political system. Messrs. Barr and Skrbis delve at length into the education system, documenting in extraordinary detail how from an early age students are molded into the People’s Action Party’s image of the ideal Singaporean.The PAP Community Foundation, which runs over half of the preschools in Singapore, puts five- and six-year-olds through a demanding kindergarten regime. Over the next 10 years, children are pushed to participate in a bewildering number of programs through which the “best” are identified and scooped up to join the elite.
These schemes are designed to support and enhance a political infrastructure where power is concentrated in a select few. If all this seems like social engineering at work, that’s because it is. Mr. Lee has never been shy about his intentions to rear future generations of elites.
A more in-depth examination of the programs and considerable resources used to implement Mr. Lee’s eugenics agenda would provide the reader with a better understanding of the extent to which the Party went to ensuring that the elite reproduced and that the “lumpen masses” (to use Mr. Lee’s term) did not.In the 1980s, the PAP sought to increase fertility among university-educated women through financial incentives and dating services, while providing major subsidies for the voluntary sterilization of poor and uneducated parents.
How public policy impacts ethnic groups in Singapore is also keenly examined. Ethnic discrimination is carried out at the highest level of government. One prominent indicator is Singapore’s government-sponsored overseas university scholarships to students.Citing statistics from 1966-2007, the authors note that of the 228 President’s Scholarships awarded only 14 (about 6.1%) went to minority ethnic students.
The percentage dropped to 3.5% in the years between 1981 and 2007, even though minority ethnic groups make up more than 20% of Singapore’s population. The number of scholarships given by the Singapore Armed Forces to minorities is even more telling: only 2.2% of the awards given between 1971 and 2007 went to non-Chinese recruits. Messrs. Barr and Skrbis point out that it is not so much a question of whether, but rather of how consciously, these selection panels base their decisions on the wishes of Mr. Lee.
Both Mr. Lee and his son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, have openly stated that Singapore is not ready for a non-Chinese head of government. But in an irony that only autocratic systems can sustain, Mr. Lee has outlawed public discussions of race relations in Singapore.Using The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, the government could interpret any discussion of religious issues as stoking racial sentiment, and could potentially detain without trial persons found doing so, putting any honest discussion of the subject in a deep freeze.
The system is so successful in inculcating the PAP’s values, Messrs. Barr and Skrbis note, that even “cynics and opponents have trouble thinking outside the parameters of imagination set by the ruling elite.”Such intellectual and psychological hegemony has exacted a price, however. The imposition of a narrow political culture has left a society which lacks the passion and conviction necessary to weave the fabric of nationhood: “It has oppressed the imagination without uplifting the spirit, leaving the regime in a position that is outwardly secure, but is relying upon emotional roots that are shallow and brittle,” they write.
Messrs. Barr and Skrbis cite an ACNielsen survey of 1,000 Singaporeans, which found that 21% indicated a “desire to leave the country permanently.”The authors missed out on a couple more statistics: In a survey of 800 younger Singaporeans (ages 15 to 29) carried out by Singapore Polytechnic and reported in January 2007, 37% of the respondents said they are not patriotic and more than 50% said they would migrate overseas if given the chance.
Mr. Lee admitted in 2008 that the brain drain presented a “pretty serious” problem. About 1,000 of Singapore’s most talented people are giving up their citizenship each year—and the numbers are growing.
Despite these figures, the authors assert that the system works: “There is enough talent in the dynasty and enough truth in the myths of meritocracy, elite governance and pragmatism to ensure that the city-state is stable and profitable.” This begs the question: For whom does the system work? Can a national system that results in one of every three of its younger citizens feeling no loyalty to the country be considered successful? This dissonance is left unaddressed by the authors.
It is also curious that Messrs. Barr and Skrbis choose to measure the success of a political system in terms of profitability. The authors are evidently impressed by the economic growth that Singapore has experienced over the past few decades. But again that success story needs significant qualification. The income disparity in Singapore has widened in the last decade. Between 1998 and 2003, the average household monthly income of the poorest 20% of the population decreased by nearly 15%, while that of the richest quintile surged by 11.7%.
It would be foolish to argue that Singapore’s overall economic situation has not improved over the years. But to attribute this growth to the PAP system is equally foolhardy. As nobel laureate and economist Paul Krugman aptly noted: “When Asian economies delivered nothing but good news … it is easy to assume that so-called planners knew what they were doing. It is easy for government policy makers to look competent in a prosperous economy. But they may not have a clue!” Mr. Krugman’s statement (made in 1998) is noteworthy because 10 years hence, with the global economy unable to continue producing the kind of capital that has been flowing into Asia and Singapore, the pap leaders are now quite bereft of the star qualities they had been attributing to themselves during the boom years.
Constructing Singapore is worthy of the attention of analysts and policy makers. It is unfortunate, however, that the book already appears dated, as the economic upheaval has created vastly different circumstances. It would be interesting to see how, if at all, these changes will impact the elite-model in Singapore. A revised edition tracking and analyzing such developments would command even greater attention.
Chee Soon Juan is the secretary-general of the Singapore Democratic Party.
http://www.feer.com/reviews/2009/may/constructing-singapore-elitism-ethnicity-and-the-nation-building-project -
The reality of Singapore has been drowned by the humdrum of daily activities by the “lumpen masses” kept under tight control with the imposed necessity of keeping their employment safe and not to rock the status quo.
This in turn has benefitted the political stability for the Ruling Elites, who has the total freedom to impose at will all the self-serving politics that perpetuate their own relevance to Singapore's success that would have otherwise come naturally.
Since the founding of Singapore, this island had been a jewel in the Far East and "managed" with a light hand by the East India Company - to be followed by the British Colonial Government.
The success of Singapore from 1819 through the early 1950s, was without the PAP in government, and Singapore thrived and excelled itself within Southeast Asia and the entire Far East.
Prior to the PAP's existence, Singapore had competed with Hong Kong since the 19th Century, and continue to do so even to this day.
After 52 years of PAP continuous monopolistic rule - why is Singapore so desperately hung up in a continuous search for political talent to the extent of government interference in the development of entrepreneurship and creative human talent - all with the purpose of ensuring Singapore's continued success ?
Have they mishandled the limited human resources for 52 years that led to the present situation where Singapore face a "crisis of Human Talent" ?
Without any similar PAP type of controls in Hong Kong, and without the Central Planning interference from China's Communist Party - why has Hong Kong not have similar difficulties in finding political talents and entrepreneurship from amongst their own society to lead Hong Kong into the future ?
The purposeful continuation of a siege mentality - that stems from a perpetuated sense of political and economic vulnerability - has been carefully crafted by the PAP political leadership to ensure their own political relevance to Singaporeans.
This sense of political and economic vulnerability has been the hallmark of Singapore since being evicted from Malaysia, with Singaporeans being made to carry the burden of MM LKY's mistake in his willful ambition to lead Singapore into a merger that was opposed by many who knew and have a better grasp of the mentality of the Malayan Malay politicians and the intricacies of politics with the Malayan Royalties.
The present day Singapore is totally different from the bustling and 'laissez faire' spirit that was a hallmark of Singapore since 1819.
This spirit was lost when PAP stepped into political power in 1957 - with its fanatical drive to plan the development of Singapore according to "master plans" for every political, social, communal, and economic activities that exist in Singapore.
The spirit of free enterprise was lost in Singapore since 1957 but remains as a central feature of Hong Kong's image of continued success and prosperity - both in spirit and character.
Singapore's development contrast that of Hong Kong - like a distorted mirror image - where the people in Hong Kong has the ability to influence public policies, their voices heard and seriously considered, their political rights are jealously protected, while Singaporeans will generally submit and surrender themselves to the whims of the Ruling Elites that manipulates legislations that further disenfranchise Singaporeans of all political, social, and economic rights.
Regardless of CSJ's political methods, he continue to expose the truth of the "Real Singapore".
-
i wanna migrate
not becos i dunlike sg
is becos i want go out of this small dot
and look at the bigger picture of the world
imagine this
other than singapore, nobody knows who the fk chee soon juan is
-
Originally posted by gigabyte14:
i wanna migrate
not becos i dunlike sg
is becos i want go out of this small dot
and look at the bigger picture of the world
imagine this
other than singapore, nobody knows who the fk chee soon juan is
CSJ may not have the high profile publicity given to Obama - but rest assured, he and his cause has not gone unnoticed.
‘Singapore’s shame: ordeal of Chee Soon Juan’
‘Robert Amsterdam acts for Chee Soon Juan’
“CNN Talk Asia – Transcript of Interview with Chee Soon Juan”
“U.S. Department of State Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2008 - Singapore”
“U.S. Department of State Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2006 - Singapore”
-
His cause? In some other countries CSJ would have "disappeared" or been imprisoned
-
Funny how the Report of Human Rights Practices doesn't include the country that compiles it.
-
His cause? In some other countries CSJ would have "disappeared" or been imprisoned
Chee was imprisoned.
-
There are other contritbutions made but not included, and should help to make the Singapore Story to develop further:
by Catherine Lim
A nation of politically naive citizens can threaten Singapore’s survival. It is time the Government teaches politics and independent thinking to its people.
THE interested observer of the Singapore political scene cannot but notice the emergence of a new model of People’s Action Party governance. After 40 years of PAP rule, through the leadership of two prime ministers and in the first year of the third, the emerging model carries the strong endorsement of the past prime ministers and is shaping into a blueprint for future governance.
It is actually an updated version of the old model, to fit in with the changing climate of the times. Basically, it has kept intact the substance of the old model but dispensed with the style.
It continues to affirm the philosophy of PAP founding father Lee Kuan Yew, which can be distilled into a few hard-headed principles:
- The incorruptibility, dedication and self discipline of the elected leaders;
- The primacy of the economic imperative for a tiny, resource-poor island state in a ruthlessly competitive world;
- The absolute necessity of trust in the government-people relationship.
But it has abandoned the style that Mr Lee had deemed necessary to go with the stern principles - that is, an authoritarian, no-nonsense manner which has little use for sentiment - and actually opted for the exact opposite: an all-out effort to win the people’s hearts through a friendly, patient, consultative approach.
The change started with the Goh Chok Tong administration, which declared its goal of creating a kinder, gentler society. But it was left to new Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong - once perceived by the people to be aloof and arrogant - to reinforce, consolidate and complete the process.
In his constantly proclaimed aim to develop a caring, inclusive society in which no one would be forgotten, PM Lee is easing into an affable, witty and engaging style that has come as a surprise to many Singaporeans. In the short time he has been in office, he has established a pleasing camaraderie with young Singaporeans whom he has singled out for special attention and nurturing.
The new model seeks to achieve a fine balance between the famed, awesome PAP efficiency and a still-developing PAP amiability, between the old habit of top-down decisions and the new practice of seeking and welcoming bottom-up feedback, between hard pragmatism and gentle empathy, between, in short, the constantly competing claims of head and heart.
The recent Casino Debate is a good illustration of this striving for balance. The new Prime Minister took great pains, after making a decision in favour of the tough economic realities of today’s world, to reassure critics that he would balance the decision with the necessary measures to check, correct and prevent the social and moral ills they had warned him about.
The handling of the Casino Issue is likely to be the modus operandi for all future major issues: The Government will, in all sincerity and goodwill, invite free and frank views from everyone (but firmly turn down all suggestions of anything as raucous and messy as a referendum or street demonstrations), consider the views carefully, make its own decision, explain it with greatest care and patience, and then make a rallying call for all to close ranks and move on in a display, once more, of national unity.
There are two ways of looking at the new model of governance.
The first, that of the sceptics, says: Nothing has changed. The PAP Government merely goes through the motions of consultation and dialogue. It will never budge from the old tough Lee Kuan Yew stance: Leave us to do our job, and do not make any trouble.
The second, that of the optimists, says: Everything has changed. Never before has a Singapore leader so earnestly articulated the need for a caring, inclusive society and reached out to so many people with such warmth, sincerity and good humour.
The high visibility of the current Government-people amity should not obscure the fact that the new model has a serious omission. It has left out, rather conspicuously, something which one would have thought vital to the proclaimed national goal of inclusiveness, which ensures that that no one, even if he or she is in the minority, is left out.
This missing element in the model is the need for a political opening up, which should lead to a situation where political freedom enables Singaporeans, at last, to enjoy the basic rights taken for granted in other societies in the free world - such as the right of free expression, assembly and demonstration.
The fact that only a minority of Singaporeans - those with a tendency to be more vocal and contrarian - has agitated for these rights, does not detract from their importance in an inclusive model.
More than anything, these Singaporeans want to speak with their own distinctive individual voices, without fear of reprisal. They want to convince the Government that, far from being a disruptive force in society, political freedom will eventually lead to the development of a distinct Singaporean identity and culture.
For at some stage, beyond the unavoidable cacophony and messiness of diverse voices raised in vehement argument and debate, there will emerge a new collective confidence that cannot but revitalise and embolden the other domains of national life, in particular the arts.
The arts often take their cue from their sister domain of political expression. A government crackdown on dissident voices will result, for instance, in self-censorship and a new cautiousness in theatre or drama, whereas government relaxation of political controls will see an enthusiastic exploration of hitherto taboo subjects.
Hence there is a close link between political freedom and the arts, and by extension, between both and culture. Implicit in any discussion of whether there is a Singaporean identity or a Singaporean culture (an angst-filled question in the frequent bouts of collective soul-searching by Singaporeans) there is the understanding, therefore, of this role of political freedom.
Implicit also is the understanding that if Singapore culture is to be distinctive and unique, it must have the freedom to develop spontaneously, in its own time, on its own terms, like the super-organism which anthropologists say every culture really is.
Hence, it is not the ersatz culture copied from the West, nor the rojak culture cobbled from an arbitrary selection of cultural products such as char kway teow, Singlish, the Merlion or the Durian.
Identity, culture, national pride, a sense of national belonging, the meaning of being Singaporean - it would be extremely difficult to define any of these ideals without at some point or other bringing up the part played by political freedom.
In view of the importance of this opening up of society, loosening of present strictures and removal of the infamous out-of-bounds markers, it is surprising that the matter has so little place in the new model of governance.
At no time in the articulation of his goals for achieving the society he desires for Singaporeans, has Prime Minister Lee made any significant mention of a systematic development of this arguably all-important political identity without which there can be no true national identity and no true culture.
The reason for the reluctance may lie in a certain mindset resulting from an adherence to one of the inviolable principles laid down in the Lee Kuan Yew philosophy - namely, an unshakable bond of trust between the Government and the people.
Mr Lee Kuan Yew crushed his critics because he saw all criticism - whether from Singaporeans or foreigners, from individuals or from organisations - as undermining the people’s trust in the Government’s integrity and hence making it more difficult for the leaders to do their job.
It is a distinctive PAP policy of pre-emption and nipping-in-the-bud that has proved very effective.
It may be said that Mr Lee Kuan Yew has left a legacy of almost pathological dislike of the flamboyant theatrics, histrionics and fraudulence that the Government has come to associate with those critics, especially those in the Opposition, who have dared to challenge it openly.
This stance was maintained through the Goh Chok Tong administration, and is likely to continue in the present administration of PM Lee, since allowing political freedom, especially in the present times when the young have become bolder and more vocal, could open the floodgates of a long, pent-up need and unleash a torrent of criticism that would prove unmanageable.
Between his adherence to traditional PAP practice, and his new avowal to reach out to everyone in society, PM Lee cannot be in too comfortable a position. His response so far has been to play down the issue, tolerate it, or isolate it if possible. At the worst, the Government could simply wait it out, politely listening and explaining, but doing nothing.
The overall result of this response is that while the winds of change are allowed to sweep through the corridors of business, education, the arts, entertainment, etc, they bypass the political domain, which continues to be in the doldrums.
But, ironically, the biggest wind of change, that is, the Prime Minister’s whole-hearted effort to touch people by breaking down all barriers of communication, may be the very thing to embolden some rebels to protest against the greatest barrier of all - that of political suppression.
It would appear that having agitated for political change for so long, they are not about to stop now. A new, younger, sophisticated, more exposed electorate that likes to see itself as cosmopolitan, is making clear that this desired change should be much more than the concessions made so far, such as the setting up of the system of Nominated Members of Parliament to allow for more dissenting voices in Parliament.
And of course the change should be much, much more than the patently ineffectual Speakers’ Corner, the derisory Bohemians’ Corner and the laughable bar-top dancing. After these experiments, it is very unlikely that the Government will in the future offer anything that can be even remotely construed as a token, a sop or a joke.
The issue continues to be the most intractable problem on the political scene, and may be the worse for not having the clear-cut, unambiguous lines it had in the former Lee Kuan Yew regime.
While political dissent then was squashed unceremoniously, the new dispensation, in keeping with its image, has opted for a softer approach. But it is a necessarily ambivalent one which appears to satisfy no one.
The approach boils down to one of three standard responses, depending on which is most appropriate to the occasion:
- There already is freedom, as evident from the presence of a whole range of channels through which people can freely express their views, for instance, the feedback units, the forum pages of major newspapers, the meet-the-people sessions with MPs, etc.
- For a small, vulnerable country like Singapore, the political process must evolve slowly, if it is not to be a disruptive or even catastrophic force, as can be seen in so many countries today; and
- The issue of political freedom is really the concern of the minority only, as the majority are more taken up with bread-and-butter issues such as jobs.
Beyond the official responses, given almost perfunctorily, as if to waste no more time in getting to more important matters, there has been no indication that the Government even regards the call for political freedom as an issue, much less a problem worthy of careful diagnosis, prognosis and cure.
At most, it is regarded as a nuisance, to be tactfully handled but quietly monitored to prevent it from getting out of hand. As long as it remains at the level of mere verbal disgruntlement, the Government seems willing and able to live with it.
But it refuses to go away. With alarming regularity, over many years, it has cropped up at almost every public forum, debate or discussion. And dismayingly, the official response each time is the same.
By now, the form and wording of these Government-people exchanges, especially those between ministers and young people in public chat sessions, are beginning to take on a tedious predictability, as are the polite silences following the official responses (which silences, however, could later turn up on the Internet dressed in colourful and scurrilous verbiage).
Surreal feeling
HENCE, in the purportedly frank, friendly and no-holds barred sessions, the interlocutors seem locked in an uneasy ritual of spoken and unspoken responses, a pattern that will be repeated in similar future sessions, in a numbing cycle.
One gets the surreal feeling that everyone seems trapped in a Samuel Beckett-like circularity that nobody knows how to break out of:
Comment: There’s still fear in Singapore society.
Government response: What fear? Singaporeans are freely expressing their views and criticisms, and the Government is not putting them in jail for it.
Government not putting anyone in jail for expressing their views and criticisms ?
-
It is easier to critise others and make comment on construction of Singapore than to really work on it.
I love to critise other people works too.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
It is easier to critise others and make comment on construction of Singapore than to really work on it.
I love to critise other people works too.
Yes, you certainly love to criticise other people's works too - but do you put any brains into your criticism as Catherine Lim does ?If it is so easy to criticise others, have you been able to produce any of substance that can be said to be thoughtful and with some depth ?
Has it not been a characteristic of your postings that feature mere passing remarks from a person who just prefer to entertain herself after a long boring night managing an empty bar ?
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
Yes, you certainly love to criticise other people's works too - but do you put any brains into your criticism as Catherine Lim does ?If it is so easy to criticise others, have you been able to produce any of substance that can be said to be thoughtful and with some depth ?
Has it not been a characteristic of your postings that feature mere passing remarks from a person who just prefer to entertain herself after a long boring night managing an empty bar ?
well, that is one of my hobby mah. And what about you, after so many years of opposition propangadas and critism on the govt, what had you changed?? Nothing?
Been wondering for so long if you are posting direct from your toilet while suffering from constipation without even a fart.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
well, that is one of my hobby mah. And what about you, after so many years of opposition propangadas and critism on the govt, what had you changed?? Nothing?
Been wondering for so long if you are posting direct from your toilet while suffering from constipation without even a fart.
Can you even know what change is all about - when you cannot even differentiate between a constipation and a fart ?Try sobering up and think deeper instead of making mischevious and childish remarks.
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
Can you even know what change is all about - when you cannot even differentiate between a causes constipation and a fart ?Try sobering up and think deeper instead of making mischevious and childish remarks.
All she needs is a slap and she will wake up.
-
Huh, all one gang one,...nevermind, me go out dating first, tomollo come back teach you all how to be a good citizen..hehe hehehe...Bye bye Uncles and Aunties, nice chatting, take care!!
-
What a pathetic country this is. You need to read what the martyr Dr Chee Soon Juan writes to get to the truth without the half lies and the propaganda.
-
Originally posted by Ah Chia:
Chee was imprisoned.
He is able to complain that he could not sleep well in prison.
Anyone in Abu Gharib complains of not being able to sleep?
-
aiyah that chee hong juan. useless thing. even if he becomes the prime minister or what, i don't think he can make any differences in singapore lorh. HAHAHA.
-
Originally posted by mancha:
He is able to complain that he could not sleep well in prison.
Anyone in Abu Gharib complains of not being able to sleep?
The real problem in Abu Gharib was that the detainees had no Rights and all their complaints could not even get any publicity.It is not that there were no complains of not being able to sleep..
It was not until the rot spilled into the open that the real reason for those complaining not being able to sleep in Abu Gharib became public knowledge that the detainees in Abu Gharib were subjected to interrogation techniques known as "sleep deprivation".
-
PAP go go!!! I love PAP!!
conspiracy theories again...
go to other countries and you will face even more corruption and bad events...
Bunch of complain kings again...
There are many ways to argue against the government without getting yourself into any troubles... however.. some idiotic people just like to choose those ways that get themselves into prison... and then keep praising themselves as matry...
Stories of corrupted leaders are just so irritating and untrue....
-
Originally posted by january:
PAP go go!!! I love PAP!!
conspiracy theories again...
go to other countries and you will face even more corruption and bad events...
Bunch of complain kings again...
There are many ways to argue against the government without getting yourself into any troubles... however.. some idiotic people just like to choose those ways that get themselves into prison... and then keep praising themselves as matry...
Stories of corrupted leaders are just so irritating and untrue....
Cheer leading or just suck the PAP eggs ?Are there so "many ways to argue against the government without getting yourself into any troubles...." ?
One sure way of avoiding any troubles is to be less persistent with your arguments, and not be a nuisance to the government - when they have no wish to listen to you.
What does that make you ?
Why do you even bother to insult the other countries about their corruption, when those countries practice corruption openly and do not need to disguise it in some legalistic ways to con their citizens ?
At least the citizens know that their Government practice corruption, and that is the way for everyone to go to get things done.
It now seems that in Singapore, Money is King - it gets you out of jail faster with an unusual lighter sentence, if the Law must be seen to be fair.
-
hey the farking book Lee K.Y - Nick name Lee KILL YOU, or you can add his bangla name behind. Lee Kill You AnYourMum, wrote is rubbish and he is selling his rubbish book at high price.
My idiot friend WAS READING that fark book while crossing the road during red light was crashed over by a LORRY.
Curse you, Lee K.Y, for selling rubbish books and killing idiots.
-
conspiracy theories again...
???
-
Constructing Singapore: "pragmatism" and personalised power
Tuesday, 23 June 2009
Singapore Democrats
Below are excerpts from Constructing Singapore: Elitism, Ethnicity and the Nation-Building Project by Michael D. Barr & Zlatko Skrbis
The legitimating myth of the primacy of innovative, problem-solving 'talent', unearthed through 'meritocracy' and the quest for ever-higher levels of organisational efficiency in all aspects of society, business and government operates in tandem with another legitimating myth: that the government operates in a purely rational, scientific, problem-solving manner, free of ideological considerations. The mantra for this plank of legitimation is the purest distillation of technocratic ideology: 'pragmatism'. Talk to Singaporeans and they will assure you that the government is 'pragmatic', that Singaporeans are 'pragmatic', and that even if there are problems and faults in outcomes, the Singapore system of meritocracy and 'pragmatic government' is only 'logical'. This is one of the main features that give Singaporeans a perception of their special place in the world. Singapore is tiny, but while most of the world is bound by 'ideology' and 'politics', Singaporeans punch above their weight because they operate as a 'pragmatic' and inherently logical meritocracy.
Of course, the argument is specious. Far from being the distillation of impartial rationality, the Singapore system of governance is systemically pervaded with ideological, social, ethnic and class biases. Yet the denial of the operation of ideology, or even politics, in the practice of government has a direct and profound effect on politics.
It restricts the space for legitimate social and political discourse, de-legitimizing the interrogation of aspects of the Singapore system that lie beyond the restrictive parameters of efficiency and effectiveness.
...Days after taking up the premiership Lee Hsien Loong revealed that he had been closely involved in bringing them ( Mr Khaw Boon Wan and Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam) into Cabinet while he was still Deputy Prime Minister.
These three men are the epitome of the Singapore technocrat, but their collective story -- and particularly the story of Lee Hsien Loong -- demonstrates a central feature of the Singapore system of governance that is not celebrated by the regime. We refer to the highly personalized nature of power, a feature that seriously diminishes the transparency of the system and disrupts its predictability. Patronage or sponsorship is a vitally important element in the rise of anyone in the Singapore political and administrative elite.
...The oil that lubricates the Singapore system is the exercise of personal power. The personal character of power is demonstrated without much effort in the person of Lee Kuan Yew, who remains in Cabinet 15 years and two prime ministers after his retirement from the premiership, with the creative title of "Minister Mentor". He was previously "Senior Minister" for the duration of Goh Chok Tong's premiership, but now Goh holds that title.
His presence in Cabinet must be most uncomfortable for Lee Hsien Loong. Not only does he have to work in the shadow of the founding father of modern Singapore, as did his predecessor, but in his case the man in question is his father. Even if Hsien Loong is really his "own man", who is going to believe it? Hsien Loong did not even get to announce this Cabinet line-up. It was Lee Senior who announced that he would continue in Cabinet for as long as he was fit and able to serve, and it was Lee Senior who announced the new hierarchy (for protocol purposes) within the Prime Minister's Office, whereby he would be third in line behind Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong. An anonymous "government official" was left to confirm Lee Senior's announcement six days later.
Why does Lee Hsien Loong not simply remove him from Cabinet, as is his constitutional right? Why did not Goh Chok Tong do so when he was Prime Minister? Regardless of the power they notionally possess or possessed by virtue of their institutional positions, they both understand that in or out of Cabinet, Lee Kuan Yew retains his personal networks and his personal power.
He needs a seat in Cabinet only so that he can legally have open access to Cabinet and other official papers and legally retain his privileged links to the Internal Security Department. On balance Lee Hsien Loong may not even want to see him gone yet because his own power networks are still underpinned by his father. In the case of Goh Chok Tong, his efforts as Prime Minister to build a personal and independent power base were thwarted by both Lees -- father as Senior Minister and son as Deputy Prime Minister.
In the end, after being outflanked by father and son during a property scandal involving the Lee family in 1996, Goh gave up trying to exercise real power and handed the reins of domestic government over to Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
In any case, Goh's efforts were never going to be very complete because he had no relatives in government. It was probably this characteristic more than any other that made him an ideal stop gap between father and son.The book is published by NIAS (Nordic Institute of Asian Studies) Press
Paperback
304 pp
ISBN: 978-87-7694-029-4
Available from: NIAS Press, Amazon.com and Select Books -
Originally posted by Atobe:
Cheer leading or just suck the PAP eggs ?Are there so "many ways to argue against the government without getting yourself into any troubles...." ?
One sure way of avoiding any troubles is to be less persistent with your arguments, and not be a nuisance to the government - when they have no wish to listen to you.
What does that make you ?
Why do you even bother to insult the other countries about their corruption, when those countries practice corruption openly and do not need to disguise it in some legalistic ways to con their citizens ?
At least the citizens know that their Government practice corruption, and that is the way for everyone to go to get things done.
It now seems that in Singapore, Money is King - it gets you out of jail faster with an unusual lighter sentence, if the Law must be seen to be fair.
Simi lan jiao?
At least january tried to be clear between an inept government and a corrupt government.
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
Yes, you certainly love to criticise other people's works too - but do you put any brains into your criticism as Catherine Lim does ?If it is so easy to criticise others, have you been able to produce any of substance that can be said to be thoughtful and with some depth ?
Has it not been a characteristic of your postings that feature mere passing remarks from a person who just prefer to entertain herself after a long boring night managing an empty bar ?