Hear Ye! Hear Ye!

The title of this entry was copied word for word from the headline of Thomas Friedman’s op-ed column on the New York Times a few days back, and the reason for borrowing his headline word for word is because it aptly describes the situation here in Singapore too, although there are definitely some differences.

In his column, Friedman acknowledged that a one-party autocracy by an enlightened group of leaders can have enormous benefits for citizens, and he used China as a shining example of the advantages of having a one-party autocracy, contrasting it with the currently dysfunctional (at least in my opinion) two-party democracy in America where the smaller party is constantly obstructing progress for the sake of obstruction while the bigger party is trying to create progress for the country, hence the term one-party democracy.

Actually, the one party democracy Friedman describes is not exactly unworkable. The problem in the United States now is that the Democratic Party is not dominant enough to completely ignore the Republicans. In Singapore, we have a one-party democracy that provides the same benefits as a one-party autocracy as stated by Friedman. Singapore does not have a problem with policy obstructionism simply because the Other is simply too weak to provide any decent challenge.

Does this then mean that a one-party democracy, Singapore style, is the ideal form of governance? Actually, I think so, provided that voters can cause the political pendulum to swing the other way when the need arises, for example, like what has happened in Japan recently. The only dangers in the Singapore-styled one party democracy are acts behind the shadows that are against the values of democracy.

Don’t be mistaken, though. There are great benefits of Singapore’s one-party democracy, but I still believe that the two dominant party democracy of the United States is still slightly better. However, after further contemplation, it really doesn’t matter whether it’s one-party, two-party, multi-party democracy, or even a monarchy, for so long as those in power use their positions to create a better life for everyone in society. At the end of the day, perhaps it’s pointless to argue over which style of governance is best, for everything is moot if those in power possess narrow, selfish interests.

This year’s National Day Rally speech is interesting because of the amount of time devoted to the topic of racial and religious pluralism in Singapore. There is no doubt that many people are still concerned about the state of the economy, and the prime minister would do well to dwell on that issue at length, but instead, a choice was made to devote a considerable amount of time on the issues of race and religion, issues which have not been publicly dealt with by the head of our government for a good number of years.

I am most certainly pleased that the prime minister has chosen to discuss the topic candidly and respectfully. Racial and religious harmony can never be taken for granted, and it is necessary to bring this topic onto the public agenda from time to time, lest we forget the painful lessons of our history. However, the content was pretty much predictable, toeing established government lines on race and religion, but well, what else can we expect from this occasional flogging of a dead horse?

The prime minister has outlined the various government efforts to maintain race and religious harmony in Singapore in terms of the punitive legislative measures, behind the scenes efforts to engage religious leaders and mediation efforts to amicably resolve conflicts, nipping potential flash points in the bud. However, I think what is more important is to cultivate a sense of understanding in Singaporeans with regards to race and religion, and not just mere tolerance.

Tolerance in my opinion, especially in the context of race and religion, simply means suppressing one’s objections or discomfort. A person can be racially tolerant, but it does not mean that person is not a racist. I am willing to bet to my last dollar that there are racists and religious extremists in Singapore who do not express their feelings outwardly because they don’t want to be thrown into jail under Singapore’s strict racial and religious harmony laws. These people can be said to be tolerant, but is this a satisfactory outcome? What will happen if the strong mandate of the state vanishes?

What we need is to engender understanding rather than tolerance. Easier said than done. It’s really about getting the individual to step out of their comfort zones. A person who always surrounds himself or herself with people of the same race or the same religion is very much less likely to be understanding of other races and religion. The association with people of similar traits is likely to result in the narrowing of one’s thought and thus resulting in diminished racial and religious understanding ability.

Forcing people to mix together, especially adults, isn’t a very good idea. It’s easier to do so with children, though. I remember I went to a government primary school, and many of my current friends from other races were made from back then. We played together, laughed together and were punished by our teachers together. At least for me, I didn’t care about race or religion; all I knew was that it was fun to be with everyone, regardless of race and religion.

I think the best starting point for racial and religious understanding is during childhood, and the government has to try and make sure that children experience racial and religious plurality at a young age, no matter which schools they are in. I generally don’t support government propaganda and ‘brainwashing’, but I am willing to make an exception for the sake of developing of religious and racial understanding.

Ever since changes to Singapore’s political system was announced a few months back, I’ve been thinking about why the Lee Hsien Loong government has decided to do all these when it is obvious there’s little tangible gain to the PAP from taking a small, liberal step towards reforming our political system. Reactions that followed the announcements of increasing the number of NCMPs, reducing the size of GRCs, increasing the number of single seat constituencies and permanently entrenching the NMP scheme as part of the Singapore political space were drawn along familiar battle lines, with the more belligerent cyberspace facing off against the cheerleading mainstream media.

I believe that most arguments for and against these changes have been exhausted, so I’m not going to comment about that. What piqued my curiosity regarding these announcements was the purpose behind them, and I came up with two possible explanations. It’s either the PAP has come to realise that being too politically dominant is is potentially threatening to their own political survival or Lee Hsien Loong is starting to move his chess pieces to secure his legacy in future annals. The more I think about it, the more I am inclined to believe the latter reason is more plausible.

Singapore’s first post independence Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, is most remembered for his iron fisted style of governance. In his drive to move Singapore from Third World to First World, Lee adopted a ‘my way or the highway approach’, and while this approach has had admirers, with the more recent ones being the Chinese Communist Party cadres, it has left a bitter taste in the mouths of many Singaporeans.

After Lee Kuan Yew came Goh Chok Tong, a leader with a softer personality but with the previous Prime Minister still sitting in Parliament and Cabinet as Senior Minister, and wielding extremely strong influence to boot, there was little Goh could do, so he built his legacy as a Prime Minister by masking the entrenched iron fisted style of governance with a velvet glove.

It seems that Lee Hsien Loong has decided against being a carbon copy of Goh and wants to carve out his own unique legacy. My guess is that the announced political changes are part of his plan to cushion the entrenched iron fisted style of governance, changing not just the look but lowering the pain of being punched by an iron fist. I believe there’re probably more changes afoot as Lee Hsien Loong continues to think about his place in future history books.

The real question I would like to see answered in the coming years is whether Lee Hsien Loong is willing to stop at donning boxing gloves, or would he be willing to replace the iron first with a gentle fist? Well, maybe he should go the whole nine yards. If everything ends up being upended by the end of Lee Hsien Loong’s tenure, his successor is going to have a difficult time.