Liberalism Disavowed , livre ebook

228

pages

English

Ebooks

2017

Écrit par
Huat Chua Beng

Publié par
Cornell University Press

Lire un extrait

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne En savoir plus

Découvre YouScribe en t'inscrivant gratuitement

Je m'inscris

Découvre YouScribe en t'inscrivant gratuitement

Je m'inscris

228

pages

English

Ebooks

2017

Lire un extrait

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne En savoir plus

Publié par

Cornell University Press

Date de parution

19 juin 2017

Nombre de lectures

EAN13

9781501713453

Langue

English

Poids de l'ouvrage

3 Mo

In Liberalism Disavowed, Beng Huat Chua examines the rejection of Western-style liberalism in Singapore since the nation’s expulsion from Malaysia and formal independence as a republic in 1965. The People’s Action Party, which has ruled Singapore since 1959, has forged an independent non-Western ideology that is evident in various government policies that Chua analyzes, among them multiracialism, public housing, and widespread social distributions to the citizenry.

Singapore is prosperous and peaceful, it’s highly advanced on various metrics of economic development, it has a great deal of regional influence, it is home to sophisticated industries and a large financial service sector, and it features what are by Western standards unusually low levels of social inequality. Paradoxically, however, it is no beacon of political liberalism. Chua sets forth ample evidence that the dominance of the People’s Action Party is based on a combination of economic success and media control, limits on public protests, libel suits against political opponents, and severely curtailed civil liberties.

Voir

Publié par

Cornell University Press

Date de parution

19 juin 2017

Nombre de lectures

EAN13

9781501713453

Langue

English

Poids de l'ouvrage

3 Mo

LIBERALISM DISAVOWED

LIBERALISM DISAVOWED Communitarianism and State Capitalism in Singapore

Beng Huat Cua

CORNELL UNIVERSITY PRESS Itaca and London

All rigts reserved. Except for brief quotations in a review, tis book, or parts tereof, must not be reproduced in any form witout permission in writing from te publiser. For information, address Cornell University Press, Sage ouse, 512 East State Street, Itaca, New York 14850.

First publised 2017 by NUS Press, National University of Singapore First publised in te United States of America in 2017 by Cornell University Press First printing, Cornell Paperbacks, 2017

Library of Congress CataloginginPublication Data

Names: Cua, Beng uat, autor. Title: Liberalism disavowed : communitarianism and state capitalism in Singapore / Beng uat Cua. Description: Itaca : Cornell University Press, 2017.|Includes bibliograpical references and index. Identiers: LCCN 2016050361|ISBN 9781501713439 (clot : alk. paper)|: alk. paper)ISBN 9781501713446 (pbk. Subjects: LCS : Singapore—Politics and government.|Communitarianism— Singapore.|Liberalism—Singapore.|People’s Action Party (Singapore) Classication: LCC JQ1063.A58 C48 2017|DDC 320.95957— dc23 LC record available at ttps://lccn.loc.gov/2016050361

Cornell University Press strives to use environmentally responsible suppliers and materials to te fullest extent possible in te publising of its books. Suc materials include vegetable-based, low-VOC inks and acid-free papers tat are recycled, totally clorine-free, or partly composed of nonwood bers. For furter information, visit our website at www.cornellpress.cornell.edu.

Cover image courtesy of Timoty Cua Yi-neng.

Printed in te United States of America.

INTRODUCTION

S      a distance—te arrogant au-toritarianism of te ﬁrst and long serving, Prime Minister, te late Lee Kuan Yew; te long-term detention witout trial of political opponents, an estimated 800 individuals detained from 1963–87; te ﬁnancially ruinous libel suits against opposition party members troug te 1980s and 1990s; te bank of repressive legislation on labor relations, race relations, media and civil society organizations, wic are all constantly under treat of proscription and deregistration; and, ﬁnally, te aggres-sive gerrymandering of electoral boundaries and canges in electoral rules tat ave ensured te People’s Action Party’s (PAP) uninterrupted one-party domination of parliament since 1959. He aggregated eects of tese measures ave been seen troug te lens of liberal ideology as a “suocating atmospere” of political and cultural repression. Liberal critiques assert tat under suc conditions, te continuous support of Singaporeans in every general election of suc an autoritarian govern-ment must be motivated by factors oter tan good reason, suc as fear of punisment by te government, political powerlessness, political apaty or striking a Faustian bargain in return for improved material life. He PAP as indeed transformed Singapore from a regional trading economy in te twiligt of te Britis Empire to a ﬁrst-world economy in one single generation, since independence in 1965. An autoritarian state wit popular support tat works is a distressing idea in a world deﬁned by liberal democracy! Up close, ironically, it is easy to be seduced, as Singaporeans tem-selves ave been, by te city-state’s obvious success as a nation—te gleaming downtown banking district tat signiﬁes a global ﬁnancial cen-ter; te smootly integrated transportation network of roads, igways

Introduction

and mass rapid transit trains; te endless expanse of ig-rise public ousing estates tat ouse te entire nation; te strong sense of orderli-ness and public security witout te ubiquitous police or armed soldiers tat one as come to expect of an autoritarian state; and, ﬁnally, te ig standard of material life of te citizens, all under an eﬃcient, eﬃcacious and uncorrupt government tat makes and carries out long-term, future-oriented plans. Economic success as elevated te small island-nation in te esteem of te world and given Singapore a voice in te global economy and political arena tat belies its small size. It is now frequently regarded by many developing nations as a “model” for development. Obviously, even its arsest critic will not be comfortable reducing te political economy of Singapore’s success to simply autori-tarianism at work, or its stauncest supporter seeing tis success as simply te triump of free-market capitalism. It would be easy to attribute Singapore’s economic success to its small and readily manageable size, wit all te advantages of an urban economy witout te drag of a rural interland except, as te PAP government abitually warns Singaporeans, smallness as its disadvan-tages. he island is devoid of natural resources, including land and population. Even Singapore’s supposedly advantageous geograpical loca-tion is dubious; until te opening of te Cangi International Airport, Bangkok was te international transit point for air travel from te West to norteast Asia. It is dependent on te regional and global markets for all its imports, wic makes it a very open economy tat is ex-tremely vulnerable to te ﬂuctuations of external conditions. his “vulnerability” as been ideologically arnessed to generate a string of political consequences: fear of becoming irrelevant to te global market, tus constantly in searc of nices of opportunities for economic growt; fear of fragmentation, tus an insistence on tigt social control to ensure social coesion; fear of political polarization by diﬀerent poli-tical parties wit diﬀerent ideologies tat migt jeopardize national development, tus an empasis on te administrative advantages of a one-party dominant government. In sum, a generalized anxiety about te long-term viability of te social, economic and political foundation of te island-nation as been transformed into a set of ideological justiﬁcations for and instrumental practices of tigt social and political control, wic taken togeter constitutes te autoritarianism of te regime. he muc-criticized politics of te single-party dominant parlia-mentary system is for te PAP te critical element of Singapore’s eco-nomic success.

Introduction

Single-party dominant parliamentary states are not uncommon in Asia. he Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) in Japan and te India Congress Party are two political parties tat ave dominated teir re-spective governments since te end of te Second World War. owever, in neiter India nor Japan as tere been absolute and undisrupted rule; bot parties ave been occasionally voted out of power. Indeed, te dominance of te Indian Congress Party as been severely eroded by te rise of regional parties in a federal system. Altoug te LDP’s and PAP’s situations seem similar, tere are diﬀerences. he LDP’s dominance appears unassailable, because te oter Japanese political parties ave witered into political insigniﬁcance. owever, te LDP is a deeply fractional political party wile te PAP leadersip is tigtly united. he speciﬁc criticism of te PAP is tus less about one-party dominance tan its istory of autoritarianism. Against te critique of autoritarianism, one sould note tat during te early 1960s till te end of te 1970s, wen political repres-sion was most intense in Singapore, autoritarian regimes were practi-cally te norm in decolonized nations and economic failure was te rule in tese regimes. hese failed states were caracterized by te pro-pensity of te autoritarian postcolonial elite to plunder te national wealt; endemic corruption at every level in bot te public and private sectors of teir economies; tribal or etnic antagonism, often encouraged by te self-interested elite; unscrupulous tampering of ballot boxes accompanied by violence during elections; and, ﬁnally, te increasingly alienated and restive population tat could only be controlled by state violence involving te police and military. From te struggle to political ascendancy, te ﬁrst-generation PAP leaders learned tat if tey were to defeat teir once erstwile radical left-wing comrades and win te earts and minds of te newly enfrancised citizens, tey would ave to equal if not better te asceticism and self-sacriﬁcing attitude of teradical left. hus, from te outset anti-corruption was te moral basis of its rule. To tis day, tis spirit to serve and anti-corruption remain core values of te PAP. In addition, te olding of general elections every ﬁve years as been retained altoug te playing ﬁeld as never been entirely equal or fair. he PAP is not beyond using its incumbent governmental prerogative to modify te rules of electoral contest to its advantage. In te early years, tis prerogative included te jailing of opposition leaders before elections and eavy-anded gerrymandering. Beyond tese tactics, elections ave always been conducted witout violence and witout te tampering of ballot boxes, as te PAP realizes

Introduction

tat “clean” elections are critical to its justiﬁcation and legitimacy to rule in te eyes of te citizens and international observers. After 50 years of sustained economic growt, Singapore is now an overwelming middle-class society of public-ousing omeowners wit an increasingly better educated, culturally diverse and informed citizenry tat is globally connected and globally mobile, as students, tourists or managers in omegrown or foreign multinational corporations. Given tese canges, te continuing simplistic and reductionist caracterization of te Singaporean as “docile,” culturally race-bound and living in fear of political autoritarianism is descriptively inadequate. It is a view tat reﬂects an increasingly misinformed understanding of contemporary Singapore society. Wit te cultural diversity engendered by education and ﬁnancial aﬄuence, liberalization in te cultural spere is inevitable. Under te watc of Prime Minister Go Cok Tong and is successor, te current Prime Minister Lee sien Loong, te boundaries of public beavior, ﬁlms, art and teater ave all been pused back by artists and cultural activists, wit te government accepting te canges, often reluctantly. Wereas te Cold War was a convenient excuse for te ﬁrst-generation PAP leaders to exercise a eavy-anded repression of teir opponents, te same instruments of repression are no longer readily at and for te present or future generations. he potential loss of its esteem in te global political and economic arenas, including te risk of economic and political sanctions tat unnecessary and/or excessive political repression could bring, is a price too ig for te current and future PAP leaders to contemplate. In tis sense, te liberalization of culture and politics is inevitable; owever, tis is not te same as embodying liberalism in te polity. Political liberals, at ome and abroad, are keen to see Singapore develop politically towards a multi-party liberal democracy. hey pin teir desire and ope upon te general understanding tat te rise of te middle class, wic is abundantly evident in Singapore, would lead to a demand for political liberalism and ultimately liberal democracy, as it as in Taiwan and Sout Korea. Sadly, tey ave been consistently frustrated in te case of Singapore, most recently in te 2015 general election. Buoyed by te worst result suﬀered by te PAP in te 2011 general election, in wic it lost six parliamentary seats and received only 60 percent of te popular vote, tere was a widespread expectation tat opposition parties would gain furter parliamentary seats in te 2015 general election. Instead, te PAP romped ome wit close to a 10 percent increase in te national popular vote, winning nearly all te

Introduction

contested electoral constituencies; te top leaders of te Workers’ Party, te main opposition party, barely retained te six seats tey ad won by a comfortable margin in te 2011 general election. In tis latest general election, gerrymandering was kept to a minimum, and tere is no gain saying tat te election was witout credible opposition can-didates and alternative policy proposals to tose of te PAP regime. he ﬁnal result can only be interpreted as a ringing endorsement of te PAP government by an overwelming majority of Singaporeans. he 2015 general election result sowed tat te PAP is likely to continue to stay in power well into te tird decade of te twenty-ﬁrst century. he general narrative of te PAP government and te economic development of Singapore are by now legendary. owever, details of its ideological commitments and te concomitant economic and social political practices remain mired in simplistic explanations of autori-tarianism in politics and apparently unstinting support for free market capitalism in Singapore’s economic policy. Indeed, te PAP government itself migt be said to ave encouraged te simplistic view of its gover-nance and economic policies. Wat tis “encouraged” understanding veils, intentionally or oterwise, is te social democratic origin of te PAP, wic explains some of te fundamental social and economic pro-grams wic are critical to te economic and political success of te PAP government, and from wic it as not wavered in more tan its 50 years in power. he PAP’s social democratic origin, not autori-tarianism, explains te Party’s vociferous disavowal of liberalism as te basis of politics and government. his book locates te social democratic traces tat are embedded in, and continue to determine, te political economy of contemporary Singapore under te PAP government.

Embedding Social Democracy he PAP was founded in 1954, in a world wen decolonization was te preoccupation of every politically minded colonized subject and te prevailing political sentiment was invariably anti-colonial and left-wing. Communism, socialism and social democracy, ideologies of progressive movements in post-World War II Europe, were also te prevailing ideologies of te decolonization movements in Asia and Africa. he PAP, a political party of its time, was constituted by a coalition of two factions: a group of radical left-wing unionists, many wit no more tan secondary scool education in local Cinese-language scools, wit an ability to mobilize te masses against te colonial government; and

Voir