It's election time in Singapore again and, just as the night follows the day, the ruling party, the aptly acronymed PAP, is unjustly and corruptly undermining the opposition and, more generally, democracy.
What happens - and this is utterly commonplace PAP practice - is that an election is called; the opposition begins to engage in careful and measured political debate; a ruling party candidate claims that he has been libeled; the ruling party candidate sues; the courts, which are hopelessly intertwined with the PAP, find in favor of the ruling party candidate; a large fine is imposed on the opposition, enough to bankrupt him; by law bankrupt candidates cannot run for office, end of story.
As if on cue, we have this story today:
Singapore - Leaders of an opposition party faced the threat of legal action on Saturday for newsletter articles alleging that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was perpetuating a corrupt political system set up by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's founding father.
The alleged defamation was contained in three English and Chinese articles in the latest issue of the Singapore Democratic Party's (SDP's) newsletter, The New Democrat, according to letters of demand served on members of the party's 12-member central committee, including party leader Chee Soon Juan.
Chee, bankrupted by a defamation suit stemming from the last general election, and the others were given until Tuesday to apologize and pay unspecified damages to the Lees. The prime minister is secretary general of the ruling People's Action Party (PAP).
Of course, the system is corrupt. The US State Department, in its most recent report on human rights, puts it rather blandly:
Some judicial officials, especially supreme court judges, have ties to the ruling party and its leaders.....
Government leaders historically have used court proceedings, in particular defamation suits, against political opponents and critics (see sections 2.a. and 3). Both this practice and consistent awards in favor of government plaintiffs raised questions about the relationship between the government and the judiciary and led to a perception that the judiciary reflected the views of the ruling party in politically sensitive cases.
George Soros, whose riches insulate him from the standard PAP defamation suit, is a bit more direct:
"The use of libel ... can be a tremendous hindrance to freedom of expression," Soros said in response to questions at a seminar. "Obviously, Singapore doesn't qualify as an open society."
That's right: it is not an open society.
It is also fairly common for PAP men to say that they rule in the mold of Confucian gentlemen. That Singaporean society is infused with "Asian" or "Confucian" values that respect authority and hierarchy and competence, and that is why they win elections. This, of course, is wrong on two scores. First, the PAP does not rule in a Confucian manner, they rule in a Legalist manner. Their primary concern is the maintenance of their political power and the use whatever means necessary, even to the point of banning blogging and pod-casting during this most recent election, to stay in power. If they were truly Confucian, they would not rely upon repression of the opposition through a politically corrupted judiciary. Second, we cannot know what kind of society Singapore really is, or, at least, what the true political expression of Singaporean society might be: the PAP will not let people speak freely at election time and they will not allow for a genuine choice for elections.
It is not about Confucian culture, it is about, and has always been about in Singapore, a dirty little political party struggling to hold on to power.
UPDATE: The opposition party leader, Chee Soon Juan is not backing down.
Granted that Singapore is never and would never be a truly democratic society, and also, "confusianist"society.
But, it worked.
The "SDP" opposition, the defendant, was a spent political force under the current "failed" leadership of Chee Soon Juan.
Chee, is a political, attention seeker. He have a previous track records for misguiding the public with his half truth political agenda.
Bearing the banner of "Democracy" he had garnered support of many international rights. They have accepted him without an understanding of the rogue he is. Just because he plays to their tune.
Does democracy bring bread to your plate? Had Democracy saved the Phlippines from economic and polictical messiness.
I for one is happy to get rid of rhethoric spouting politicians like Chee, who have no views to improve the life of the people, except for "more democracy and free speech" ) who have been proven to be as eveil as the evil they decried in public ( Chee have been shown time again for misleading the public, "dare to Change" a book which he published full of misleadig half truth which he had admitted on public TV that the book was not truthfull and is only for leisure reading. )
On a more relevant note.
The way of the tao is not democratic, and neither is it about human rights.
" Heaven and Earth are Unkind, Ten thousands of things are as sacrificial dogs. The wise man is unkind, the people are all as sacrificial dogs. "
Posted by: Kenjifire | April 23, 2006 at 05:26 AM
Kenjifire,
Thanks for the comment. Two points in response: 1) If Chee is as shallow and venal as you suggest, won't that be obvious to a majority of Singaporeans, too; and if it is, why is the PAP so determined to destroy him? Why not let him contest elections and, if he is truly bad, let him lose? Indeed, the PAP's treatment of Chee, and other opponents, suggests that they do not trust the political wisdom of Singaporeans.
2) Your point about Tao and Democracy is an interesting one. But, I believe, while Taoism is not necessarily democratic, that it would favor, generally, life under democratic regimes versus life under authoritarian regimes. And to be a bit more pointed: Singapore is further away from a Taoist ideal than, say, Australia... I will try to make this topic a post by itself in the near future...
Posted by: Sam | April 23, 2006 at 02:45 PM