OPINION
In the opening speech for the Third Amartya Sen Lecture on Sustainable Democracy, the former prime Minister of Thailand, Anand Panyarachun listed seven main pillars for the artchitecture of democracy: elections, political tolerance, rule of law, freedom of expression, accountability and transparency, decentralization and civil society.
In order to study and understand the missing pillars of democracy in Singapore, we must first ask ourselves the quintessential question: why do we need democracy?
Years of systematic de-politicization by the autocratic regime and relentless propaganda by the state media have diluted the sense of awareness among Singaporeans on the importance of democracy and promulgated two pervasive public misconceptions:
1. Democracy has nothing to do with bread-and-butter issues.
2. “Western-style” democracy is incompatible with an Asian “Confucian” society like Singapore.
Unless we debunk the above two misconceptions and educate our fellow citizens on the role played by democracy in their everyday life, we can never wake them up from their deep slumber.
How can we ever expect democracy to arrive when we never bother to fight for it?
Democracy is not some lofty ideal or concept conjured up by western philosophers to be found only in the books.
On the contrary, it is intricately connected with our everyday life from the schools we attend, the taxes we pay and the newspapers we read.
Democracy may not be a perfect form of government, but it is the least of all evils for it gives the people the power to determine their collective destiny instead of leaving it entirely to the hands of a few.
Singaporeans are perpetually obsessed with the value of their flats, their livelihoods, and other material comforts in life, but they have to realize that without political rights, whatever economic rights they may enjoy now are only ephemeral in nature.
For example, GST was raised from 5 to 7 per cent in 2006 by the regime arbitrarily without any consultation with the people. Despite widespread resentment and disgruntlement on the ground against the move, the regime still goes ahead to raise GST anyway.
It is able to do with impunity because there is no organized opposition either in parliament or in civil society to check on them. Hong Kong Chief Executive Donald Tsang also tried to introduce GST last year, but was forced to back down after street protests broke out from the Hong Kongers.
That’s the difference between Hong Kongers and Singaporeans – though Hong Kong is a self-administrative region of communist China, the people enjoy far greater political freedoms and democratic rights than in Singapore and therefore they are in a position of strength to negotiate with the government.
Another case study in point: the prices of HDB flats have sky-rocketed in the last two years bringing tremendous hardship to ordinary Singaporeans who have to take up higher and higher loans to finance the mortgage.
The regime shows no intention or sign of cooling the property market because they face no external pressure to do so.
At the same time, HDB had blatantly refused to divulge the real land and construction costs of each unit of flat to justify selling them pegged at market prices of resale flats.
Again, the regime is able ride roughshod over the people with little accountability and transparency because the people have been deprived of the necessary political and democratic rights to resist.
In the 1980s and 1990s when the four Asian tigers were creating economic miracles one after another, Singapore strongman Lee Kuan Yew would travel around the globe expousing his “Asian values” as a key contributory factor to Singapore’s economic growth.
His “Confucian” doctrine were ridiculed by then South Korea opposition leader and later president Kim Dae Jung as an excuse for authoritarianism. Lee would become more subdued in recent years following the success of South Korea and Taiwan in transforming themselves to full-fledged stable and functioning democracy.
Both countries were once one-party states like Singapore (and definitely more “Confucian” than cosmopolitan Singapore) ruled by dictators, but they are now vibrant democracies which demolished Lee’s argument that “western style” democracy is incompatible with Asian societies.
Even Lee’s concept of “western style democracy” is inherently flawed for democracy is a system of governance based essentially on certain criteria like the seven pillars as outlined by Anand Panyarachun – it has nothing to do with race, culture or nationality.
As South Korea, Taiwan, Japan and to a lesser extent, Hong Kong has shown, economic prosperity and political freedom can co-exist peacefully together without society degenerating into chaos and upheavals as often suggested by the regime.
Totalitarian states may prosper for a short span of time for as long the dictator is firmly in control, but once he passes on, the foundation on which his regime is built on will be dismantled and collapsed like a pack of cards as in the example of Indonesia.
Ultimately is much safer, reliable and practical for a country to have competing centers of power rather than one single monolithic regime in control of all levers of the government including crucial institutions like the media and police.
The people should be the guardians of the state and not the other way round. The role of the government is simply to govern and not to entrench itself in power perpetually.
Everybody is equal under the law. No individual or party has the “mandate from heaven” to govern Singapore forever. All governments are merely servants of the people and are subjected to their collective will.
Democracy does not mean simply conducting elections every five years. Other integral components such as a free press, an independent judiciary and an active civil society must be present as well without which democracy becomes only a hollow name, a facade put up by the regime to legitimatize its rule.
So out of the 7 pillars of democracy, how many are Singapore missing? Find out in part 2 of the article.
Source: http://www.temasekreview.com/2009/10/26/singapores-missing-pillars-of-democracy-part-1/
OPINION
Of the seven pillars of democracy outlined by Anand Panyarachun, Singapore has only one – elections and even then, they can hardly be considered as free and fair given the short campaigning period, the opposition’s lack of media access and the absence of an independent elections commission.
The bitter truth is, Singapore’s elections are merely a farce in which no alternative parties other than the ruling party will ever hope to win with the odds stacked so strongly against them.
The dearth of political tolerance, rule of law, freedom of expression, accountability and transparency and civil society in Singapore is best encapsulated by a damning report released by the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute on Singapore following its annual conference held here in 2007:
“The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) expressed concern about limitations on the freedoms of expression, assembly, and the press, and of the independence of the judiciary in Singapore…..‘As one of the world’s most successful economies, Singapore should be a leader in human rights and the rule of law, and should now have the confidence and maturity to recognise that this would be complementary, not contradictory, to its future prosperity,’ said Mark Ellis, Executive Director of the International Bar Association (IBA).
‘The IBAHRI has identified a number of areas in which Singapore falls far short of international standards. In particular, democratic debate and media comment are extremely restricted and government officials have initiated numerous successful defamation suits against both political and media critics.’
The IBAHRI report examines Singapore’s record on a range of human rights issues identified by the IBAHRI as a priority. This includes freedom of expression (for example, the use of defamation legislation to hinder opposition activities, and restrictions on freedom of the press and the internet), the independence of the judiciary (there have been allegations of executive influence), and freedom of assembly.”
Singaporeans are guaranteed freedom of speech and assembly under Article IV, Section 14 of the Singapore Constitution, but they are hardly put in practice with the ruling party introducing a series of draconian, if not repressive laws over the years to curtail the political and civil rights of citizens.
A solo protest anywhere other that the designated Speakers’ Corner at Hong Lim Park is now illegal under the law.
Though Singaporeans are now allowed to gather and protest at Hong Lim Park, the police had installed CCTVs at its premises specifically to discourage them from doing so.
Political dissent is criminalized by a variety of laws to prevent Singaporeans from expressing their dissatisfaction and disgust at the ruling party thereby breeding a sense of apathy, cynicism and despair in the citizenry.
Of late, five Singaporeans were charged in court for conducting an “illegal procession” when all they did was to walk in a group in a public place from one point to another without holding any placards or shouting slogans.
They were initially acquitted in court, but the Attorney-General Chambers amazingly found it necessary to appeal against the decision and seek to convict them.
A relatively free press is an important component of any democracy to promote political discourse and debate.
In Singapore, all the print media are controlled tightly by SPH, a government-linked company whose Chairman is always a former PAP minister.
The blatantly pro-government stance of the SPH publications will put the Soviet Union’s Pravda and China’s Xinhua to shame for it is completely devoid of any sort of independent thinking and analysis except for the endless spins, propaganda and half-truths to trumpet the achievements of the regime and hide its atrocious mistakes out of public sight.
Opposition leaders and activists are often portrayed as trouble-makers, crankpots and freaks to diminish their credibility and appeal while PAP MPs and ministers are worshiped as demi-gods incapable of making even the slightest mistake.
The opposition is given little coverage except when they are involved in some scandals or law suits. On the contrary, the papers are abound with news of PAP leaders, especially its strongman Lee Kuan Yew who just simply refuse to fade away from the political scene at the age of 86.
The infamous Singapore secret police, or the internal security department, a relic left behind by the British during the Communist Emergency in the 1950s, continues to cast a long shadow over Singaporeans and preventing them from being actively involved in politics and civil activism.
In 1962, the opposition Barisan Sosialist was decimated by a wave of arrests of its key leaders under “Operation Coldstore” conducted by ISD’s predecessor – the Internal Security Council.
Many of them were detained for a number of years without trial, the longest being Chia Thye Poh (32 years), Dr Lim Hock Siew (19 years) and Said Zahari (17 years).
In 1988, over 20 Catholic activists were arrested and detained by the ISD for a “marxist conspiracy” to subvert the state under “Operation Spectrum”. One of the political detainees was a former Solicitor-General of Singapore, Mr Francis Seow who later went to exile in the United States.
These chilling examples of Singapore’s political history persists to this very day to strike fear and apathy in the hearts of every Singaporean. Few are willing to pay the price that these pioneers of Singapore had paid for their political beliefs.
The use of defamation lawsuits to cripple the opposition have the unwanted effect of detering young Singaporeans from joining politics.
The late opposition scion J.B. Jeyaretnam was implicated in many defamation lawsuits and bankrupted twice in his long suffering political career.
SDP Secretary-General Dr Chee Soon Juan was an assistant professor in psychology at the National University of Singapore before he joined politics.
He was sued for defamation first by P Vasoo, a PAP MP, followed by various PAP leaders in subsequent years, the latest being the Prime Minister and his father who were awarded damages of over $600,000 in a summary judgement.
Though the PAP leaders have defended their ligitatious tendencies on the grounds of protecting their reputations, the astronomical sums awarded to them inevitably raise suspicions if they are intended to cripple their opponents financially as well as to demolish their standing in society completely.
To quote from the IBA report as criticizing Singapore’s judiciary is a hazardous affair:
“Another area in which the independence of the judiciary is of concern is the cases involving the courts hearing defamation claims initiated by PAP officials……the slim likelihood of the successful defence of an action, combined with the extraordinarily high damages awarded in defamation cases involving PAP officials sheds doubt on the independence of the judiciary in these cases. The courts in defamation cases have substantial discretion in awarding judgment and damages.
Under Orders 14 (Summary Judgment) and 78 (Defamation Actions), the court has substantial discretion to resolve the case without a hearing in open court and to permit the quantum of damages to be determined by a Registrar in chambers.”
The recent furore over the announcement of the Lift Upgrading Program (LUP) is another timely reminder that almost all institutions of the state are under the influence or control of the ruling party.
Through the People’s Association, a supposedly apolitical statutory board funded by taxpayers’ monies, the ruling party has built a vast network of grassroots organizations in the form of residents’ commitees and community centers covering every constituency in Singapore.
Even in non-PAP wards, the PAP is able to parachute its rejected candidates to serve as “grassroots advisers” to interfere and hijack the daily running of the estates from their legitimate MPs.
With the Registrar of Societies under the Ministry of Home Affairs having the arbitrary power to refuse registration of any society deem to be against “public interest”, civil society is almost non-existent in Singapore.
This explains the perennial weakness of the opposition parties and the lack of an alternative power center emerging from the grassroots itself to challenge the regime because all resources on the ground are firmly in the hands of the PA, a quasi-PAP organization.
The above factors have combined over the years to de-politicize the citizenry to the extent that politics is now shunned by most young Singaporeans who prefer to pursue material comforts and possessions in life rather than to serve their fellow countrymen.
The pervading and sometimes overwhelming sense of apathy, scepticism and fear of participating in politics is the biggest stumbling block to Singapore becoming a healthy and functioning democracy for there is no democracy without participation from the people.
Until Singaporeans realize the importance of democracy and start demanding for it from the regime, the status quo is likely to remain for a long time to come for there is simply no impetus on the part of the incumbent to reform the archaic system which has served their interests so well over the years.
Source: http://www.temasekreview.com/2009/10/27/singapores-missing-pillars-of-democracy-part-2/
OPINION
As we have seen from Part 2 of the article, Singapore has only one (or rather, half) pillar out of the seven pillars of democracy.
Though Singapore conducts elections every five years, it lacks freedom of expression, political tolerance, rule of law and a civil society. Even the elections are far from free and fair.
How are we going to build these pillars right from scratch in the face of all the obstacles the ruling party has placed in our paths in order to preserve and perpetuate its political hegemony?
The opposition is weak, divided and powerless. There is literally no civil society to speak of. When there is one like Marauh, it prefers to fight for human rights in ASEAN rather than for Singaporeans. The Law Society is muzzled – it cannot utter a single word without permission from the ruling party. The police is empowered and authorized to harass and intimidate political activists into silence. The press is controlled by the ruling party. Most importantly, most Singaporeans remain ignorant, naive and apathetic about politics.
Why is the ruling party able to exert so much control, influence and dominance over every aspect of life in Singapore? It is able to do so because of a submissive, ignorant and disunited citizenry. Had it tried its dirty tricks in Hong Kong, Taiwan or South Korea (all “Confucian” societies like Singapore), widespread protests will occur and it will probably be voted out at the next earliest opportunity.
A politically aware, astute and active citizenry is the best form of defense against the excesses and abuses of power by all forms of dictatorships. As long the people are aware of their inherent rights as citizens, astute enough to differentiate the myths spun by the state media from the truths and actively participate in the socio-political life of their country, the regime will not dare to continue riding roughshod over us.
Singapore is not North Korea. We are an open, advanced and developed first world country. The regime cannot continue to afford damaging its own credibility by using the police and the law to criminalize legitimate political activity and dissent. Therefore it can only do so quietly away from public view and scrutiny.
Take for example the latest police rejection of SDP’s application for a permit to speak at Fajar wet market without giving any valid reasons. Had this happened in Australia, Canada, Hong Kong or Taiwan, a public backlash will be triggered and the police chief may even be called to step down.
Only in Singapore can the police stifle peaceful forms of political activity as such with impunity because first the media does not report on it and second, Singaporeans are too de-politicized to realize its significance.
The most pillar of democracy we must build right now is freedom of information (expression). Once we break the stranglehold of information by the propagandist mouthpiece of the regime, they can no longer continue to hide the unsavory aspects of their hegemony from the people.
It takes time to re-educate fellow Singaporeans who have been brainwashed by years of state propaganda, but time is on our side.
The older generation of Singaporeans depend chiefly on the state media for their news. They can be easily deceived and misled by SPH spin doctors to believe that the ruling party is infallible and the opposition is led by crankpots, but the internet will become the main source of information for future generations of Singaporeans.
The regime is able to control the mainstream media in Singapore through SPH which is always headed by a former PAP minister, but can it do so in a lawless world without borders? Can SPH control Temasek Review, Kent Ridge Common and Mr Brown at the same time? Even if it is able to accomplish this near impossible feat, can it prevent a Singaporekini from arising in the future?
As the Malaysia political tsunami has adequately demonstrated, freedom of information is crucial to counter the pro-government mainstream media and to raise the political awareness of ordinary Malaysians.
Former Malaysia Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi admitted that the new media played a pivotal role in the opposition’s stunning success during the 2008 elections.
It should come as no surprise that all but one of the 11 parliamentary seats in the federal territory of Kuala Lumpur were won by the opposition which also managed to win the wealthiest state of Selangor. The urban population depends on online news media like Malaysiakini for their news which enable them to see through the chicanery and lies of the mainstream media.
Right now, the Temasek Review has exceeded the online readership of SPH’s New Paper, but we are still far away from knocking the big players like CNA off their perch. Only when we are able to achieve it can we exert a real impact on the ground.
That’s where we need you our readers to continue lending your support to our cause. This is a battle of David versus Goliath. Without a substantial war chest, it will be foolhardy to challenge SPH.
Though we are pretty small and unknown now, there are a few trends in our favor:
1. Due to political considerations, the state media will never be able to beat us in terms of in-depth political coverage and analysis. This is where we will constantly outwit and outfight them because no SPH editors will ever dare to write the truth without the fear of losing their jobs.
2. The entire world is moving towards greater political freedoms and pluralism. A one-party state with a Soviet-era media is out of sync with the modern world. Everywhere in Asia, dictatorships and dominant parties are falling out of power giving rise to multi-party democracies from Indonesia, South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia and Japan. The young of tomorrow will be more politically aware, inclined and astute then present-day Singaporeans. The mainstream media will never be able to quench the intellectual thirst of these Singaporeans because it is created in the first place only to dish out state propaganda to preserve and perpetuate the hegemony of the regime.
3. The print media industry is in imminent decline in the face of constant onslaught from the new media with many established publications either forced to close down or wind down their operations, for instance FEER and Readers’ Digest. SPH is only able to keep its readership because people have no alternatives to choose from. Once they have a credible online alternative to turn to, they will flock to it en masse and SPH papers will be forced either to change its editorial stance or risk being rendered obsolete altogether. Since the 2008 elections in Malaysia which saw the opposition winning five states, the mainstream media is forced to moderate its previously pro-government stance to salvage their declining readership to the extent that MCA President Ong Tee Keat lambasted The Star (owned by MCA) for turning into an opposition mouthpiece.
Quality journalism deserves a price. Trained and experienced journalists must be paid at market rates. An internet newspaper needs constant support from its readers in order to continue growing and expanding. We cannot afford to stagnant at this crucial stage. We have to take off from here and become a full-fledged professional news site run not by amateurs bloggers but by trained journalists.
It is impossible to change the unfair laws placed by the regime to cripple the opposition, rebuild and unite the fragmented opposition to become a force to be reckon with overnight or to stop the constant police harassment of political activists, but right here we have a good chance of building the most important pillar of democracy – freedom of information.
Without a credible, strong and influential online newspaper to counter the daily lies, spins and propaganda of the mainstream media, we will never be able to free the minds of our fellow Singaporeans from the shackles that the ruling party has imposed on them for so long (yes, for far TOO LONG!) We will never be in a position to deny them their customary two-thirds majority in parliament for the next 50 years! Do you want another 50 years of one-party rule?
So, please help us by clicking on the “donate” button on the right hand bar. We have already upgraded our server to a dedicated server and will be spending money to acquire a few other sites in the near future. We want to bring more socio-political sites to attain our readership, in fact the more the merrier. When our company is incorporated, we will employ professional journalists to manage the site on a full-time basis. We will have to pay market rates in order to secure their services and all these need money.
Rome isn’t built in a day. We cannot expect Singaporeans to wake up from their long slumber immediately. The road ahead is long, arduous and full of dangers, but time is on our side. With patience, perseverance and a bit of luck, we believe we will reach our eventual destination. It may take us one, two, three or ten years, it doesn’t really matter. Your kind assistance and support will greatly help us to shorten the journey ahead.
From our Correspondent
Despite its lofty 23rd position out of 104 countries in the Legatum Prosperity Index, Singapore scored miserably in other sub-index rankings such as “democratic institutions” and “personal freedom”.
The 2009 Legatum Prosperity Index ranks 104 countries worldwide based on a definition of prosperity that combines economic growth together with measures of happiness and quality of life.
It is based on statistical analysis of more than 40 years of data for more than 100 countries worldwide, produced and supervised by the Legatum Institute, with input from the research consultancy Oxford Analytica and a panel of respected academic advisors in the fields of economics, history, development, sociology, and political science.
Below are selected sub-index rankings of Singapore:
Despite the process of representative elections, the overall level of democracy in Singapore is low. The population is limited in its ability to participate in the political process and civil liberties are severely restricted. With designated executive elections, the regulation of the election process is low and there is a significant degree of autocracy. The judiciary is, however, independent and free from political interference. Singapore has a relatively stable political system that has been in place for 42 years, ranking the country 28th for regime stability.
The major limitation on Singapore’s freedom is its low ranking for freedom of religion, movement, and choice, locating the country at 73rd. Whilst the ranking for individual freedom is low, 79% of the population remain satisfied with the level of choice and control they possess over their lives.* Over 80% of the population believe the country to be a desirable destination for ethnic minorities and immigrants.* (Gallup World Poll)
Singapore displays mixed levels of social capital. A high proportion of people believe friends to be important and 91% believe they can rely upon family and friends, ranking the country 28th, worldwide.* Whilst a high 61% reported having donated money, only 15% reported volunteering and 30% claimed having helped a stranger, ranking the country in the bottom third on these variables.* General trust in others is low at 15% of the population, and membership of groups and clubs is low, with 7% of the population involved in sports, 7% in arts, and just 1% in environmental activities.*
[Source: 2009 Prosperity Index]
The disturbing thing is not the figures but the fact that 79 per cent of Singaporeans remain satisfied with the level of “freedom” they “enjoyed” under the authoritarian regime which shows that they are still largely ignorant of their political and civil rights.
Political rights does not entail merely voting at the polls once every five years. It includes political awareness and maturity as well as interest of the citizenry to partake in the socio-political life of their nation.
Right now, Singaporeans are so apathetic that they are simply content to leave the entire running of the nation to the nanny state dominated by one single party with no independent institutions to check on it which lies the greatest danger.
How can Singaporeans be sure that their leaders are always capable and incorruptible? What if one Chen Shui Bian were to take over the reins of the government one day, will we be able to detect his chicanery, let alone remove him from power via peaceful and legal means?
The archaic political system which has served the ruling party so well for five decades is a ticking time bomb for Singapore once the senior leaders pass on for there is no system in place to check on the incumbent to ensure some sort of accountability and transparency on its part.
There is no free press to expose the mistakes and fallacies of the executive. The Law Society is muzzled not to speak up on legislative matters unless asked to. The opposition is too weak to poise any challenge on the ruling party and Singaporeans remain far and large, ignorant and disinterested in the current affairs and politics.
Unless Singaporeans wake up from their slumber, our rankings in “democratic institutions” and “personal freedoms” will continue to fall and will eventually drag down the other economic sub-indices one day.
Minister for Law and Second Minister for Home Affairs K. Shanmugam addressed the Seasonal Meeting of the New York State Bar Association International Section
SINGAPORE has had a quite excellent relationship with the United States. This has resulted in many deep ties, including strong economic and strategic ties.
There are thousands of Americans living in Singapore. Several major American institutions have a significant presence in Singapore. Singapore and the US have a free trade agreement, which came into force in 2004. Singapore is America’s 15th largest trading partner.
We see a sustained US presence as an important stabilising influence in the Asia-Pacific region. Our sentiments have been backed by concrete actions. When US bases in the Philippines were closed, we allowed US ships and aircraft to use Singapore’s facilities.
Singaporeans of my generation and younger have been brought up on American TV and culture. Our universities have close linkages to the top universities in the US.
Between 2000 and 2007, about 2,000 Singaporean students were sent abroad on such government scholarships. Ninety per cent of them went to British or American universities. Increasingly, the trend is to favour the latter.
Ten out of our 21 ministers have had some education in the US. This would also be reflective of the upper echelons of the civil service. This education has made many of us admirers of many aspects of American society.
Over the foreseeable future, the opportunities in this region are going to multiply. Singapore is a natural place for Americans to locate. Why? Because we are a stable democracy with the following attributes:
But if you read about Singapore in some American newspapers, you may not get the picture of a prosperous, modern city-state with a strong adherence to the rule of law. Instead, you may believe that it is a repressive state that controls the people’s thoughts – as if that is possible in a modern, successful, wired and internationally connected city like Singapore – and that we unfairly target the press.
Our approach on press reporting is simple: The press can criticise us, our policies. We do not seek to proscribe that. But we demand the right of response, to be published in the journal that published the original article. We do not accept that they can decide whether to publish our response. That irks the press no end.
If untrue statements are made – that a person is corrupt or that he lied – there will be a suit. Let the accuser prove it. But if it is said that someone is stupid or that policies make no sense and the policies are attacked vigorously, then you can’t sue. There is public prerogative to comment on policies. In response, it will be sensible for us to defend the policies and ignore the attacks on our intellect.
Over the years, this approach has resulted in the Government and ministers having several tussles with news publications. The press is not used to this anywhere else in the world. And of course they don’t like it one bit. So every lawsuit is met with the same reaction: We are out to silence the press. That feeling has been pervasive and has coloured the general reporting on Singapore.
How objective is the criticism of Singapore in relation to press freedom? Is it possible to have a modern, successful, open economy if the people are not empowered and educated?
There is an organisation called Reporters Without Borders. It comes out with a ranking of countries on press freedom. Last year, it ranked Singapore 144 out of 173 countries – somewhere below Ethiopia, Sudan, Guinea and Haiti.
Monday’s International Herald Tribune carried a story on Guinea. It reported: ‘One month ago, over 150 people were gunned down by soldiers in the West Africa country of Guinea. Women were raped on the streets, and opposition leaders were locked up. This was the response of a brutal military junta to a group of brave citizens who dared to hold a peaceful pro-democracy rally.’
Singapore is apparently below Guinea in press freedom. This year, we have behaved better – so Singapore has moved up to 133. Still below Kenya (which saw riots following a disputed election) and Congo (which continues to struggle with the aftermath of an armed conflict that has claimed more than five million lives), but above North Korea and Eritrea.
If you look at a different ranking – the Freedom House rankings for this year – Singapore is below Haiti, Colombia, Kenya, Moldova, Guinea, Pakistan and so on. We are 151 out of 195.
These are all countries which are trying to progress. My point is not that we are in any way superior to them. The question is whether a truly objective assessment will give us such a ranking.
Our approach has therefore been to ignore the criticisms which make no sense. The people of Singapore know better. And the investors who put in billions here every year know better as well.
They do not have to come here. We do not have any natural resources. Our main selling point is that there will be good value added when they invest here, their investments will be protected and that we are a stable democracy. – ST
Source: http://www.temasekreview.com/2009/10/28/repressive-our-people-know-better/