Democracy & Human Rights: The Singapore Model

The issue of democracy in Singapore has long been debated, given the political sphere being ruled by a single party,ie, the People’s Action Party (herein after referred to as PAP). In this post, I will attempt to discuss the effects of the seemingly “authoritarian” rule on the citizens and also the recent changes that was announced, which could be viewed as a response, on part of the State, to calls by Singaporeans for greater democracy in Singapore.

In its simplest form, democracy would be that of a state that is built for the people, by the people. The PAP has long been in power, even before Singapore’s independence in 1965. Since then, no other opposition party has come close to beating the PAP in the General Elections. Chua (1995) attributed this hegemony, and the continual legacy of the PAP, to the successful ideological trajectories put forth by the party. The PAP has no doubt created a miracle in building Singapore to what it is today. It is the ability to emulate the US, in less than half a century,is what that makes this party remarkable. Economically, the PAP has built a cosmopolitan city from Raffles’ child, surpassing its neighbours. In this respect, the success of the PAP in the development of Singapore’s economy has contributed to its continuing rule. However, the interventionist approach of this party has received criticisms, particularly from advocates of democracy from the West. A Singapore-born British writer, John Kampfner, recently wrote an article in The Guardian, a well-circulated British newspaper, labelling the Singapore’s model of authoritarian government as being an assault to modern democracy. The authoritarian government, he claims is providing a modicum of good life, and a quiet life, the ultimate anaesthethic for the brain. (Kampfner, John, ”A Modern Authoritarianism”,The Guardian, quoted in Today, The Daily Newspaper, MediaCorp Press, Singapore, 07/07/2008).  In almost every aspect, from where its citizens live, to how they behave, the state has had a say. Even MM Lee does not deny this. He said,”I have often been accused of interfering in the private lives of citizens. Yes, if i did not…we wouldn’t have been here today…And i say without the slightest remorse, that we wouldn’t have been here today, we would have not made economic progress, if we(the state) had not intervened on very personal matters..”(then PM Lee Kuan Yew, The Straits Times, Singapore Press Holdings, 20/04/1987). How has this State interventionist approach affected the rapport with its citizens? And more importantly, is it true that it has been an “ultimate anaesthetic to the brain”?

A recent BBC survey on the US presidency election campaign showed remarkable results. 29% of the Singaporean respondents choose Barack Obama, and 7% chose John McCain. 64% of the respondents fell under the “Either, Neither, No difference, Other, Don’t know/NA” category. (The Straits Times, Singapore Press Holdings, 10/09/2008). Singapore respondents scored the highest in this category, as compared to respondents from countries like the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Indonesia and China, who were more decisive in their responses. Has Singaporeans become politically apathetic? To a certain extent, this view is tenable. Given its legacy, it has come to a point whereby the terms “PAP” and “the government (the State)” often refers to the same entity. The PAP has, hitherto, successfully improved the quality of lives of its citizens. So, based on logic (and more so, the tight legislation, and the seemingly invisible viable opposition), there wouldn’t be a need for a revamp in the political sphere. Even if there was, how sure are Singaporeans on the credibility of the opposition in delivering the same results that the PAP has? Also, Chua (1994) aptly describes the daily lives of Singaporeans as being directly or indirectly tied to the functions of some state agencies or apparatus. In other words, it would be a dangerous affair to voice out, much less meddle, in the political sphere, without substantial evidence being put forth to support an argument. The ramifications seems to outweigh the possible advantages. The solution: to remain apolitical.But has Singaporeans become so obedient and law-abiding (or apolitical) to the point of being anaesthetised? In other words, have we lost the ability to think, following blindly to the directions given by the State?

In claiming the Singapore’s model of authoritarianism as being an assault to democracy, and being “an ultimate anaesthetic for the brain”, Kampfner is directly insulting the intelligence of Singaporeans. To be apolitical does not mean that Singaporeans are incapable of voicing out their desires for a greater democracy. The establishment of a Feedback Unit demonstrates the desire of Singaporeans for a greater say in the decision-making process (Chua,1995). Also, the recent escape of ISA detainee, Mas Selamat Kastari, highlights this desire. The escape sparked massive calls from the public for a greater transparency from the state pertaining to the details of the escape. More evidently, the recent announcement made by PM Lee Hsien Loong, during the 2008 National Day Rally Speech, can be seen as a response to the call for greater democracy by Singaporeans. The State would allow peaceful demonstrations, and in a symbolic move, hand over the purview of Hong Lim Park (Singapore’s one and only Speech Corner) from the Police to the National Parks Board. The state would also allow the airing of podcasts and vodcasts containing political messages to be uploaded on the Internet during the election periods. However, these new changes are still subjected to certain Out-Of-Bound markers (OB markers as they are colloquially known). Regulations aside, the changes illustrate the more educated and affluent Singaporeans’ desire for greater democracy, and in so doing, it also demonstrates the effects of the “authoritarian” rule of the state.

In hindsight, the continuing legacy of the single ruling party has had its effects on its relationship with its citizens. On one hand, it creates political apathy, and on the other, it creates a desire for a greater democracy. The PAP has remained in power largely due to the its ideological efficacy (Chua,1995), and the remarkable results it has achieved. In other words, the PAP is there because people want it to be.In a strict sense, that is democracy, as the PAP is voted by the people, for the people. The lack(and quite possibly the total absence) of viable oppositions also limits the choices that Singaporeans have. Viable here refers to a party that is able to deliver the same results that the PAP has, if not better. Also, will the relaxation of rules see to a greater democracy? Only time will tell.

References:

1) Chua, Beng Huat(1994). “Arrested Development: Democratisation in Singapore”, in Third World Quarterly, Vol 15, No 4, (Dec 1994), Taylor & Francis Ltd, retrived from www.jstor.org.sg on 25/09/2008.

2) Chua, Beng Huat(1995). “Ideological Trajectory: From Authoritarianism to Communitarianism”, in Communitarian Ideology and Democracy in Singapore. London: Routledge, pp 9-39

3) Kampfner, John. ”A Modern Authoritarianism”, in The Guardian, quoted in Today, The Daily Newspaper, MediaCorp Press, Singapore, 07/07/2008

4) The Straits Times, Singapore Press Holdings, 20/04/1987 & 10/09/2008.

War & Terrorism: The Jihadists’ Manifesto.

This post discusses on issues of terrorism. In particular, I will examine the various social and political issues that has led to the rise of this phenomenon, and link these issues to two individuals; Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, in an attempt to comprehend the root causes of terrorism from a sociological perspective.

The issue of terrorism has received tremendous media limelight, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on the US. The attacks were linked to Al-Qaeda, an Islamic militant organisation, with the prime suspect being Osama Bin Laden, the allerged leader of this organisation. Osama Bin Laden (herein after referred to as Osama), was “the seventeenth of over fifty children fathered by billionaire Mohammed Awad Bin Laden…who made his fortune in a construction business based in South Yemen, sponsored by the Saudi royal family.” (Globalisation & Terrorism: The Migration of Dreams and Nightmares, Jamal R. Nassar, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2005). Osama “studied economics and management at the King Abdul Aziz University in Jeddah…receiving a degree in public administration in 1981.”(ibid) His ”Lieutenant”, Ayman al-Zawahiri (herein after referred to as Ayman) is a qualified physician who “was born in 1951 to a middle-class background in Cairo, Egypt.”(ibid) He later headed the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, a militant organisation, before joining the Al-Qaeda, becoming one of the main leaders of the organisation. As such, any attempts to link terrorism as a response to economic marginalisation would be highly inaccurate. Born into the better off backgrounds,and receiving high education, one would wonder how such talented individuals could lead the organisation in committing acts of terror aimed to oust US presence from Islamic states.

The anti-American ideology that Osama gained was based on radical thoughts of religious oppression which stemmed from colonialism. The rise of the West is seen as the continuation of “a project begun during the Crusades and colonial periods of denigrating, dividing and humiliating Islam.”(Al-Qaeda, Jason Burke, Foreign Policy, No 142, (May-Jun 2004), Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, retrieved from www.jstor.org). Ayman, on the other hand, “joined the Muslim Brotherhood, an organisation devoted to removing the foreign influences from Egypt” (Globalisation & Terrorism: The Migration of Dreams and Nightmares, Page 96, Jamal R. Nassar, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2005) when he was fourteen. By using verses from the Holy Qur’an (often parts of it, disregarding the verses as a whole), the acts of terror were legitimised and justified, as these militants were waging a war on the enemies of Islam. The main aim of these militants, or jihadists (Muslims who undertake the sacred duty of fighting against the oppressors of Islam) is to achieve matyrdom. In the Islamic context, anyone who dies in the course of a holy war would have a place in Heaven reserved for him/her. To note, this radical ideology is socially-constructed, by radical clerics who seek to justify their actions through the misinterpretation of the verses from the Holy Qur’an. As such, it can be inferred that exposure to this radical ideology has led to the involvement of the two individuals in terrorism, providing Al-Qaeda with the much needed funds and leadership that they need to continue the holy war against the West, colloquially known as the Infidels, in the jihadists’ context.

Moreover, both Osama and Ayman had been actively involved in attempts to overthrow the Saudi Arabia and Egypt governments respectively, governments whom they viewed as being “undesirably” secular, a product of Western influences. Their main aim was to establish a system of governance based on an Islamic discourse, which they believed to be the ideal form of governance for the rest of the Ummah (global Islamic community). Frustrated by their failure to achieve this aim, which is a form of political inequality for them, they began targeting the Westerners, hoping to achieve their ultimate goal by eliminating all outside influences that were impeding their success. This political inequality is another factor that has led to the rise of terrorism.

In hindsight, these individuals were socialised in an environment where radical ideologies prevailed, thereby exposing them to these ideologies, which emphasised on fighting the perceived continual oppression of Islam by the West. Over time, these ideologies were internalised and became a norm for them. Also, given their affluent backgrounds and high education, they had higher desires and aspirations for an Islamic political framework to be implemented in their countries,if not on a global scale. Due to frustration of their failure to change the status quo, they reverted to violence as a means to achieve this objective. A combination of the social and political factors collectively forms a cause for retaliation for these two individuals,in the form of terrorism, which culminated to the institutionalisation of violence through the formation of Al-Qaeda, an Islamic militant organisation. From a Conflict Theorist’s perspective, terrorism is the product of strategic and tactical decisions made owing to the inequalities that exists. In this respect, these two individuals felt that violence was the only way to achieve equality, in terms of religion and politics.

References:

1) Al-Qaeda, Jason Burke, Foreign Policy, No 142, (May-Jun 2004), Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, retrieved from www.jstor.org.

2) Globalisation & Terrorism: The Migration of Dreams and Nightmares, Jamal R. Nassar, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2005.

Crime:Blacks in Contemporary White America

In this post, I will discuss issues of crime and globalisation and the factors that led to the development of crimes. In particular, I will examine the effects of ethnic segregation of the African-Americans (hereinafter referred to as Blacks), the marginalisation and discrimination of this minority, the lack of economic opportunities available to this minority in the United States(US), and how these social conditions shaped the high crime rates in the urban Black community.

The history of Blacks in the US dates back to the 18th century, when slavery was legitimised, and boat-loads of Blacks were brought in from all over Africa to be sold as slaves in the US. Described aptly in Bob Marley’s “Buffalo Soldier”, one of the lines in the song reads that the Blacks were “fighting on arrival, fighting for survival.”  The slavery culture set perceived notions that the Blacks were an inferior race (thus, legitimising their slavery), and these notions were to be carried on even in the contemporary scene, albeit legislations that abolished the discrimination of the Blacks in the US. Today, in most of the states in US, one would find the existence of Black ghettos- sub-standard neighbourhoods where majority of the residents are Blacks. These notorious neighbourhoods are riddled with crimes such as drug-trafficking, prostitution and gang violence, just to name a few. Poverty is another factor that is inseparable from these ghettos. This can be attributed to the inequalities in economic resources available to the Blacks, and the isolation of the Blacks from the rest of the American society, “which in turn has a variety of negative outcomes, including serious crime.” (Edward S. Shihadeh & Nicole Flynn, The Effect of Black Isolation on rates of Urban Black Violence, Social Forces, Vol 74, No 4,(Jun 1996), retrieved from www.jstor.org.)  To note, these Black ghettos, often located on the outskirts of major urban cities,are filled with dilapilated and abandoned buildings, remnants of the de-industrialisation process (which caused massive unemployment of the Black male migrants in the 1950s), creates a ripe environment for criminal activities, such as rapes and drug-trafficking, to be carried out. Also, against a backdrop of affluent and bustling urban landscapes, the vivid inequality is exacerbated, thus creating perfect opportunities for the impoverished Blacks to commit acts of crime, usually on the upper-class White majority.

The lack of job opportunities, or rather, the difficulties faced by the Blacks to obtain legal employment in the formal economy, is a driving factor for them to turn to crimes as these are alternative sources of income for survival, and often with lucrative benefits. “Interviews of a representative sample of Chicago-area employers…show that many consider inner-city blacks-especially young black males- to be uneducated, unstable, uncooperative and dishonest.” (William J. Wilson: The Plight of Inner-city Black Male, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol 136, No 3, (Sept 1992), retrieved from www.jstor.org.) As such, it can be inferred that such pre-conceived notions has led to the marginalisation of the Blacks in the formal economy. With such marginalisation, the Blacks are left with no choice but to turn to crime as a means of survival in the world of mass consumerism, which often stresses the importance of money for survival. A day’s worth of drug-trafficking may very well be twice, or even thrice the amount of earnings that a Black can earn working in WalMart for a month. The rise of Black youth gangs, which often indulge in acts of violence, can also be attributed to this marginalisation. “As one inner-city manufacturer…put it, “When we hear other employers talk, they’ll go after primarily the Hispanic and Oriental first..that’s pretty much it, that’s pretty much where they like to draw the line, right there.” (ibid) Such marginalisation, or discrimination, sets the stage for the Black youths to divulge in acts of violence against the Hispanic and Oriental minorities. The ethnic conflict is the result of the decreasing (or a total lack of) opportunities for the Black youths in the formal economy, due to the employers’ preference to hire Hispanic and Oriental youths. They experience a profound sense of alienation and marginalisation, and thus, they revert to acts of violence (which are essentially crimes against persons), such as shootings and bashings, to show their existence to the other ethnic minorities and also as a tool of revenge for their oppression.

In summary, it can be ascertained that the high crime rates in the Black community in the US is the result of several factors; mainly the physical environment that they live in, the vivid inequalities that is clearly evident, (given the close proximity of the Black ghettos to the main city) and their marginalisation and discrimination from the formal economy. In other words, the high crime rates are socially-conditioned and economically-motivated. As such, increase in law enforcement, such as more police patrols in the Black ghettos, would only serve as a temporary reprieve to alleviate this worrying phenomenon. Since the high crime rates in the Black ghettos is the result of social disjunture, a more hollistic approach, one which opens up economic opportunities,and abolishes marginalisation and discrimination, is required when public policies to curb this phenomenon are promulgated.

 

References:

1) Edward S. Shihadeh & Nicole Flynn, The Effect of Black Isolation on rates of Urban Black Violence, Social Forces, Vol 74, No 4,(Jun 1996), retrieved from www.jstor.org.

2) William J. Wilson: The Plight of Inner-city Black Male, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol 136, No 3, (Sept 1992), retrieved from www.jstor.org.