Skip to main content

Hong Lim = Public Nuisance, Occupy Central = Public Disobedience, Which is the Asian Way?


Singapore government has decided to call #ReturnOurCPF protest at Hong Lim Park a public nuisance.  And yet over in Hong Kong, protesters claim their movement is a public or civil disobedience. Can these two represent Asian ways of democracy mentioned by PM Lee?  

PM Lee has made his point clear enough,  presuming the whole cabinet also agrees with this Way (of charging protesters at Hong Lim  Park).  What about Singaporeans?  Do you agree?

In a Forbes Conference, PM Lee said, "If you look at the countries in Asia, you'll know these are complicated countries and they work in different ways.”#1

Asian democracy gets complicated when bad examples are used.

Perhaps, we can look at the most successful Way in Asia - Japan. Meiji Reform started at 1868, less than 200 years ago. The reformation transforms Japan into a modern and democratic country.  Historians argue the modernization process has two important components work in parallel: militarism and democracy. Education, health care, technology, society, political and legal system etc. were all subjects to change under the Reform.  

We cut it short and jump to Singapore as a comparison.  Over the past 50 years, what are two most important components in Singapore development?

Pragmatism and Pseudo-democracy

Even though we have a very big defence budget, the word ‘militarism’ seems to be too strong.  It is  better to hide the ‘militarism’ under pragmatism as defence force or NS is mainly for self defence.  Pragmatism has inbuilt into  the whole of Singapore, from economic, education, language, birth control, housing,  even CPF. You contribute money to protect your future retirement need. The more you put in, the more you will take out later.  There is no free lunch.

Then, why a pseudo-democracy can also be the other important component?  Not to forget, everything the PAP government does is approved under the Parliament and acts according to Singapore Constitutions.  The government needs a mandate, in Chinese history, this is called ‘heavenly mandate’. In modern democracy or  pseudo-democracy, ‘Bills become Acts’ needs debate in Parliament.This is why the changes in Hong Kong Chief Executive Election need the final mandate from China’s Parliament in Beijing.

So, Singapore’s past success is based on the formula of
Pragmatism > Pseudo-democracy.
Pragmatism is taking the lead, doing 80-90% of the duty. And the parliament, as the supporting role, contributes to only 10-20% of nation building.

This is certainly off balance. But Singapore continues to progress as everyone is happy with this arrangement.  Not only that, Singaporeans also accept that this is the Confucian Way as claimed by the PAP leaders.  But how come an off-balance can be seen as a Doctrine of  the Mean#2.(Zhong Yong) One must in the mid-point then one can claim his/her ‘mean’ position.  The PAP is clearly not.

In a deeper understanding of Zhong Yong, it really does not mean the central position. In this case, the PAP  is right.  Look at the following Chinese weighting tool, the mean point is not necessary at the center.  You can adjust the balance as you wish.

http://www.chinesesinseh.com/toolsoftrade/Liteng/liteng1.jpg

The claim of running Singapore under the Confucian Way under this condition is right. There is no such thing of 50:50 for pragmatism and democracy. It is not necessary to maintain at 50% mark. However, Confucius will disagree with such an extreme off-balance of 80/90% pragmatism. Only Legalists will agree.   

Interestingly, can the future PAP leaders know the real meaning of  Zhong Yong and play it to their advantage in policy making?  Will Singaporeans accept such a big off-balance, such a misinterpretation of Zhong Yong? Why must it always be 90:10 or 80:20 and not 60:40 or 40:60?

The PAP has over used the Pragmatism, from education, health care, HDB, no dialect policy, media control, ISA, GRC, NMP, to the latest public nuisance and ‘To Singapore, with love’. At the same time,  the PAP popular votes are in the decline and more oppositions are in the Parliament.

These trends will continue. The new balance point may not be the mean.  However, it will also different from the past. The hard truth is every single point moving towards the mean point will affect the popularity of the PAP. This is because voters will give more considerations to Democracy or perhaps consider Democracy over Pragmatism.

Democracy and Pragmatism

Singaporeans are luckier than people in Hong Kong. Whether democracy or pragmatism, we don’t need Beijing approval.  But is the assumption of China never change right and for ever? Chinese civilization, over the past 5000 years, is a change and adaptation with new elements, including foreign importations. Look at how they live, dress, dine, educate and entertain!

If Western modernization and postmodernization are the guides, especially for Singapore, then we will shift to a more equal and new balance point between democracy and pragmatism. The PAP of course wants to hold the unrealistic Zhong Yong for another 15 years.  They prefer to continue to use pragmatism as an excuse and want Singaporeans to sacrifice democracy.

PM Lee’s ideal Asian Way of democracy is the Confucian Way. However, the Confucian Way of balancing Zhong Yong is outdated and becoming less pragmatic politically. Perhaps, he is still under the influence of his father.  

 
#1
http://www.singapolitics.sg/news/pm-lee-democracy-asian-states-must-find-own-way

#2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_the_Mean

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting ...

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...

对话一定要有共识吗?还是求取多元性来丰富自我?

全国对话喊到现在还一直高喊全国要有共识,尤其是全国对话的结果就是要寻求新加坡人的共识。不然,行动党就会说,我国的政治将会出现分裂,新加坡就变成一个不团结的国家。 全国对话一定要取得共识吗?文明对话的目的难道就是为了取得全国共识吗?如果是共识,那就一定有取舍。是不是说强势的人就领头共识,而落势的就落得一无所有。这不又走回老路,一条行动党独大的旧政治框框吗?看来,行动党对于过去,仍然依依不舍,行动党的共识,就是国家的共识,新加坡人的共识。 对话是要加深双方的了解,尊敬并且互相学习,吸取对方的优点,填补自己的缺点。这就是多元性的好处。然而全国对话的结果,如果只是强求共识,而忽略多元性和不同的意见,甚至否定他人的意见,那么,这个共识,是否具建设性,破坏性,还是分裂性,那就很难说了。 行动党似乎忘记了多元性。文明的对话并不是要把自己的 意见,信仰和理念强加给对方。即使这些意见,信仰和理念都是好的,善的。但是,对方未必会欣赏,未必会接受。因此,对话的结果应该是吸取对方的意见,改进自己的治国方针,然后,交给人民去决定,而这个决定也不过是大多数人的共识,而不可能是全国人民百分百的共识。 (乐观的看,行动党的全国对话,也不过是改进自己的治国方针,通过自己的小圈圈,自我讨论,研究,更新和改良行动党的政治策略,然后,在下一次大选时,拿出来让选民决定。因此,所谓的共识,在全国人民还没有决定前,仍然不是全国大多数人的共识。很可惜,行动党原本应该通过全国对话这个平台,吸收更多对手的意见,不同的观点,将它们纳入自己的政治策略中,然后在大选中让选民选择这个纳入反对意见的新政纲。可惜的是,行动党没有这个雅量,也或许根本看不起反对的意见。因此,它只能企图通过全国对话,硬要说这是全国共识。所以,充其量这只能说是行动党小圈圈的改良版政治策略,绝对不能说是全国共识。) ‘己所不欲,忽施于人’我们不喜欢的,不要强加他人身上。同样的,我们喜欢的,也不可以强加于他人身上。例如,有些人不喜欢吃有些食物,我们却很喜欢吃这类食物,但是,我们要尊重个人的喜好,不要强迫他人接受我们的建议。了解了这点,下一回提供食物时,就会通过多些选择,而不是只提供自己喜欢的食物。这点一般新加坡人都有这个敏感度,我们会了解马来族的要求,尽量避免他们敏感的食物。 为何行动党过去能够了解国人...