The Useless Tree

William Safire and Singapore and Williams College

I noticed today that Williams Safire died.  So, perhaps it is an appropriate time to recount the time, twelve years ago, that our paths crossed politically.

That crossing was rather unexpected.  Safire was, famously, a libertarian, conservative Republican, who had worked not only for Nixon but also Agnew ("nattering nabobs of negativism.").  I am a standard issue left-liberal Northeastern academic, who was raised on a deep antipathy to Nixon and Agnew.  But Safire and I shared a certain skepticism about the faux-democratic government of Singapore.

In 1995, Williams College, where I teach, decided to grant an honorary degree to Prime Minister Goh Chok-Tong of Singapore.  Some faculty, myself included, thought this was a bad idea, given the Singaporean government's track record on limiting academic freedom.  We asked that the invitation be rescinded.  The president of the college - a true gentleman, Hank Payne - said that he could not do that.  So, we took our protest to the national level.  Knowing that Safire had a history of challenging Singapore, we contacted him and alerted him to both the upcoming award and our protest of it.  He responded magnificently, with an NYT op-ed on July 10, 1995, entitled "Honoring Repression."  In it, he published my email address in an effort to link up our protest with others who might be sympathetic:

Should Williams College rescind its invitation, as "No Goh" faculty urge? Quite the contrary; let's hear his anti-freedom pitch. But a Williams political scientist (George.T.Crane at williams.edu) is organizing a serious, educational counter-award ceremony.

We did, indeed, have a counter-award ceremony, a weekend of talks and panels from leading Singaporean opposition figures. 

In the run-up to the weekend Goh and his apparatchiks came up with the idea of inviting both Safire and me (I had become infamous in the city-state for an op-ed I had published in the Washington Post on August 30, reprinted in full below the fold; no link available) to come and debate him in Singapore.  They would pay all of our expenses.  Of course, it was a set-up, an attempt to lure us into a venue packed with ardent Young PAP.  When the offer was made, I got a message to contact Safire.  We talked on the phone.  He asked me: "What should we do?"  I thought to myself: "This is rich.  Here's a moment when William Safire and I have been lumped together."  I told him I had no thought of going (my wife, worried I might get arrested, would not let me!) and that his idea of another op-ed in response was a good one.   It was a scathing and hilarious piece, "Singapore's Fear:"

Evidently Goh Chok Tung, the puppet who is keeping the Prime Minister's seat warm for one of Dictator Lee Kuan Yew's sons, became fearful at the revelation in this space that he may be confronted on his great day by the exiled Singaporean dissident Francis Seow, now a fellow at Harvard Law School.

Supporters of academic freedom at Williams want to arrange a debate between Goh and Seow. The trustees, who recently voted (8 to 7) to stick with the embarrassing invitation, hope the college's mistake in honoring repression can be rectified by having such a debate.

But dictator Lee wants Goh to avoid it at all costs. How to duck the dissident without appearing craven?

Result: A left-handed invitation has been extended to me and the Williams "no-Goh" organizer to come to Singapore to debate Mr. Goh. (The all-expense-paid invitation, in a letter to The Times that I hope runs today, is only "to" that island state, but presumably it is not intended to be one-way.)

But the best part was Safire's description of the crowd that would pack the hall in Singapore:

I would be pleased to engage in a one-on-one debate on universal values. But it's no fun to go up against anybody's "stooge," as Mr. Goh recently complained he is so frequently called. I'm ready to debate Lee Kuan Yew himself, and the dictator only.

The venue? A nation under the rule of law -- not Singapore, and not in front of an audience selected for me of Lee's relatives, cane-wielding thugs, Serbian generals, B.N.L. bankers, Packwood accusers and the Saddam Hussein Fan Club.

Since Dictator Lee admires the work of the World Economic Forum in Switzerland, where we have both spoken in recent years, a debate at the next Davos meeting would be accessible to an unintimidated press.

How about it, Mr. Lee? My one proviso: that your man Goh also agrees to debate Francis Seow, the Singaporean opponent your uptight regime obviously fears most, at Williams college this fall.

The Goh-Seow debate never happened, even though I had the pleasure and honor of spending a weekend with Mr. Seow.  And neither did the Lee-Safire debate.  It was all posturing on the part of the Singaporean leaders. 

I never met Safire face-to-face, but one late summer we found ourselves thrown together as adversaries of the Singapore government.  Rest in peace.

My WaPo piece is below the fold.  

Lee Kwan Yew, Legalist Power-Monger Who Distorts Confucianism For His Own Interests

    Old man Lee is at it again, trying to rationalize the authoritarian system he created and helps to reproduce in Singapore by invoking Confucius:

Embracing Confucian values has enabled Asian countries to build harmonious societies and rapidly grow their economies, said Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.

The moral principles of the ancient Chinese philosopher, which place the interest of the community above that of the individual, aided the development of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore, as well as China and Viet Nam today.

     Notice his Confucian tag line: "interest of the community above that of the individual."  But, of course, he is forgetting something else: a commitment to the cultivation of our closest loving relationships, often defined through family ties, that trump our obligations to follow the law.  Here is passage 13.18 from the Analects:

Speaking to Confucius, the Duke of She said: "In my village there was a man called BodyUpright.  When his father stole a sheep, he testified against him."
   "In my village," said Confucius, "to be upright was something else altogether.  Fathers harbored sons, and sons harbored fathers - and between them, they were upright."

      Of course in the nepotism he has shown toward his own family's interests he follows this ideal to the hilt.  But would he, in his public defense of Confucius, accept this defense from one of his political opponents or from an average person on the street in Legalist Singapore?  I don't think so.  He would throw the book at the sheep stealer and the family member who dared defend him.  He is the only one who can practice that particular Confucian principle.

      There are many other aspect of Confucianism that the Monomaniacal Minister avoids, especially those passages in the Analects and Mencius that tell how political dissent is necessary and how recalcitrant power holders can be removed from office, or even killed, righteously.  Maybe he has clipped those portions out of his own copies of the classics.

     How's this for an idea: full blown Confucianism for Singapore!  Not just the half-baked, cherry-picked handful of quotations that are used to distract attention away from the repressive PAP Legalism that actually dominates the place.   That is something the Lee family dynasty could never accept.

Repeat After Me: It's Not About Confucianism....

    This almost slipped by me: back in early December Time Magazine (Asia edition) ran an interview and profile of our favorite Legalist, Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore.  It struck me as an effort to keep him before the public eye: yet another re-hash of his long political career.  Why, I wondered, is this necessary now?  I figure it's due to his inevitable irrelevance.  He is certainly still a force in Singapore, where he stage-manages the repression of political opposition from his perch as "Minister Mentor" (whatever that is), but, for the world at large he is widely forgotten and unknown.

       Singapore certainly has succeeded economically, but that is an old story.  The interesting question now is: when will it take on a political system commensurate with its economic and social development?  The  continuing authoritarianism of the Lees is old-hat, hearkening back to a time when economic justifications of political repression were more common.  Now, only a few dictators around the world fear genuine democracy as much as the Lees.  We can place them in the same category as Zimbabwe and Uzbekistan and the like.  Taiwan and South Korea have zoomed ahead.  Even China's politics are more dynamic than the pap of Singapore.  So, nobody really pays much attention to old man Lee any more.  He is the master of a domain that he himself has shrunk to a global afterthought.

       There was one passage in the Time piece, however, that should not go unchallenged:

Lee also embodies a uniquely Asian approach to governance that has often been at odds with the democratic principles espoused by many Western politicians. For decades, he has spoken in favor of what has come to be termed "Asian values" (he prefers "Confucian values"), a political philosophy that might be loosely summed up as respect for authority and order, while putting the good of society above that of the individual. His criticisms have focused on the excesses of unfettered democracy—particularly freedom of speech—and the impact they have on the search for economic growth.

 Please, spare us the sanctimony.  The ideological underpinnings of the Lee autocracy are not particularly "Asian," and certainly not "Confucian."  These kinds of formulations are simply a veneer, used to cover over the power realities of a one-party authoritarian political system.  We can find the strategies for maintaining the power of the ruler in Han Fei Tzu and Machiavelli.  It is about Legalism and Realism.  Nothing exotic in all of that.

    But, please, do not sully the reputation of Confucius by any association with the petty tyrants of Singapore.  They have never demonstrated the kind of Humanity Confucius demands of a gentleman.   Just ask the people who struggle for democracy and human rights in Singapore. 

Oh Mr. Lee, Your Legalism is Showing...

     Tin hat dictator Lee Hsien Loong, fronting for his unable-to-let-go-of-power dad, Lee Kuan Yew, is doing his Legalist dance again.  They've gone and banned the Far Eastern Economic Review for the unacceptable crime of reporting truthfully about opposition leaders Chee Soon Juan.  Can't have anything like a free and open press to get in the way of Lee family power.

     It used to be that the Lees would try to invoke Confucianism to rationalize their authoritarianism.  It was always a weak claim, when their methods of rule so obviously call upon Legalism to a much greater degree.  And banning publications is right in line with the legacy of the first Qin emperor.  When his Prime Minister, Li Si, proposed destroying books (scroll down to "Qin Empire") that challenged the Emperors authority, Qin thought it was a capital idea :

Li Si then complained that scholars study antiquity and criticize their own age to mislead and confuse people. This discussion of the Emperor's laws causes problems and should be prohibited. Li Si therefore recommended that all historical records other than Qin's be burned. Anyone other than approved academicians with literature or writings of the philosophers must turn them in to be burned within thirty days or be subjected to tattoo and "wall dawn" labor. Books on medicine, divination, agriculture, and forestry were exempt, apparently because they were considered of practical value; but they could only be studied under the tutelage of a law official. Furthermore anyone who used antiquity to criticize the present was to be executed along with his family.

     Practical knowledge, which may have the indirect political effect of boosting the image of the Lees, is fine.  But critical political or cultural or social thinking, forget about it.

      I wonder when they will start tattooing journalists there....

UPDATE: just had to add this image, via Singabloodypore:

Singaporean Legalism

      A fairly new blog, A Serial Number on my Vote, has a nice post and some good comments that detail the parallels between PAP leadership in Singapore and classical Legalism (hat tip: Singabloodypore).  This adds more specifics to a point that has been made here and here.

     The author, KiWeTo, writes: "Now, it would seem far fetched that a 3rd century BC ( that's -300 years for those who have difficulty with ) would be relevant to Singapore society today."  To which the staff here at The Useless Tree would reply: No! It is not far-fetched at all.  In fact, there are many, many ways that the classic texts speak to us today.  And thank you, KiWeTo, for devling a bit deeper into the Legalist practices of Mini Lee and company.

More Un-Confucianism from Singapore's Ruling Party

      Not so long ago, when Big Daddy Lee called himself "Senior Minister" instead of "Minister Mentor" (or whatever), back when Mini-Lee was still sitting behind Seat Warmer Goh, PAP leaders used to say that they were "Confucian gentlemen," and that maintaining their reputations was so important that they just had to bring libel suits (that always won in the corrupted judiciary) against anyone who dared utter the slightest remonstrance.

      Perhaps one good thing about the reign of Mini-Lee is that this sort of pathetic obfuscation seems to be gone.  Or am I missing something?  Do PAP leaders still roll out Confucius when they want to rationalize their Legalist authoritarianism?  I haven't noticed the Venerable Sage in the Lion City recently.

   In any event, the kangaroo-court libel suits continue, as the most recent action against Chee Soon Juan illustrates.  And the PAP is now going after bloggers who might be a bit too satirical in their postings.  It seems that Mini-Lee is so insecure in his position, with Big Daddy looking over his shoulder constantly, that he has to lash out against Mr. Brown.  Maybe that is why Singaporeans are the unhappiest people in Asia: humor can get you in trouble with the Law (or is it the Lees?).

     Now that the the power-obssessed Legalism of the PAP regime is no longer being filtered through a faux-Confucian happy face, one question rises to the surface: Is the Old Man building a terra-cotta army to take with him into the afterlife?

(Thanks to Singabloodypore for all of its good works and links).

So, Is This A Part of Lee Kuan Yew's "Asian Values?"

     There used to be a time, not too long ago, when the Lees of Singapore tried to position themselves as morally superior to decadent, overly liberal American culture.  That was the whole "Asian Values" thing of the 1990s, something that does not seem to get talked about anymore in Singapore, or just about anywhere else for that matter.  I was always deeply skeptical of these claims, seeing them as a thin excuse for continued autocratic rule.  Now, it seems, the Lees themselves have pretty much given up trying to distinguish a morally righteous Singapore from a hopelessly debauched America.

    Las Vegas, the most garish and vulgar of American culture, is coming to Singapore. (Of course, my friends at Singabloodypore posted on this first).

     The plan to build casinos strikes me as an admission of failure.  They cannot come up with other means of economic development, so they will try to lure rich folks from elsewhere and make nice and take their money.  Great.  I am all too familiar with this: it is the last resort (so to speak!) of the declining northeastern sector of the US where I was born and raised and live.   As we have de-industrialized, we have been unable to maintain living standards for the working class.  We become dependent on tourism, with low paying and unsatisfying jobs, which can keep some people here but which ultimately contributes to our declining population. People leave in search of better jobs elsewhere (yes, they leave for a wide variety of reasons, but the hollowed-out, tourist-oriented economy certainly does not keep them here).   

    Perhaps we should blame globalization: as competition opens up to the world at large, places like New England, and increasingly Singapore, can only create a limited number of high-paying jobs.  Manufacturing is gone; many services are also being outsourced.  The only thing left is to try to lure rich people to pleasure domes, ply them with alcohol and gambling and cajole them into spending their money.

    I do not want to be a scold here.  Although I have never been to a casino, I imagine it might be fun.  And I enjoy a bit of hedonism as much as the next guy.  My only question here is: what happened to Lee's vaunted Confucian righteousness?  I would agree if he stood up and said that Singapore is becoming, and should become, more liberal, in the classical sense of that term.  But he is not saying that.  He is not publicly admitting the reality behind this gambling scheme: Singapore under the PAP cannot truly distinguish itself from the "Western" practices that Lee had, not so long ago, denounced as decadent.  Welcome to the gutter Mr. Lee!

   Just to be clear: I think Lee's construction of "West" v. "East" was always flawed, a crude device for political purposes.  The "West" has never been as "Western" as the stereotype suggest; nor has the "East" ever been wholly "Eastern."  Lee's turn toward gambling just confirms this.

   Of course, no one would try to argue that gambling is somehow consistent with a Confucian world view; even Lee would not attempt that one.  I would only point out that neither is it consistent with a Taoist perspective, at least based on this passage from Chuang Tzu:

Games of skill and cleverness being in a light mood, but they always end up dark and serious.  And if things go far enough, it's nothing but guile.  Drinking at ceremonies begins orderly enough, but it always ends up wild and chaotic.  And if things go far enough, it's nothing but debauchery.  All our human affairs seem to work like this.  However sincerely they begin, they end in vile deceit.  And however simply they begin, they grow enormously complex before they're over. (55)

    But gambling may well be consistent with "Chinese culture," a category always larger than any single perspective or school of thought, as Lee Kuan Yew's own father is quoted as saying:

"We Chinese are gamblers," he told club historians before his death in 1997. "If two lizards scale up a wall, someone would bet on them."

   Not quite the "East" his son was trying to conjure up.  At least there is was one honest Lee!

Maybe Papa Lee Should Read Confucius

    Emperor Lee (or whatever he is calling himself these days: Prime Minister, Senior Minister, Minister Mentor...) is telling South Korea how to be "a first class country."  Singapore Election Watch turns the tables and suggests:

Maybe, Mr. Lee could learn a thing or two about how the South Koreans continue to manage democratic vibrancy and economic prosperity.

   Which calls to mind this passage in the Analects (which appeared here just last week in reference to another hubris-prone leader):

The Master said: "The ancients spoke little.  They were too ashamed when their actions fell short of their words. (4.22).

   When visiting people in "open societies," Mr. Lee should speak little.

Update: Gomez Goes Free

    So, it turns out, as many of us suspected, there was no case against James Gomez, the Singaporean opposition politician hauled in for police questioning on flimsy charges of "criminal intimidation."  He has been freed with no charges filed. 

    We should not take this, however, as evidence of the genuine rule of law in Singapore.  Rather, it is simply another example of how PAP will manipulate the judiciary - and the police - to carry out its political commands.  Gomez had risen to prominence and thus threatened the PAP.  Even though there was no real legal basis for interrogating him, something has to be done to send a signal to the generally risk-averse (some might say fearful) Singaporean populace that even wholly legal and legitimate opposition will bring trouble down on your head.  This is how soci of Singabloodypore interprets the tawdry affair:

So basically [PAP] can hold anyone for a few days, never actually charge them with any violation, release them and claim that they are guilty of the alleged offence without ever charging them or taking them to court for the alleged offence.

     The PAP: plumbing new depths of petty Legalist harassment...

Communist China: Freer than "Republic" of Singapore?

      Daniel A. Bell, an accomplished and careful political theorist, has an article in the most recent issue of Dissent, "Teaching Political Theory in Beijing."  He has spent some time in Singapore and makes some interesting comparisons between the PRC and the Lion City:

The willingness to put up with political constraints depends partly upon one’s history. In my case, I had taught at the National University of Singapore in the early 1990s. There, the head of the department was a member of the ruling People’s Action Party. He was soon replaced by another head, who asked to see my reading lists and informed me that I should teach more communitarianism (the subject of my doctoral thesis) and less John Stuart Mill. Naturally, this made me want to do the opposite. Strange people would show up in my classroom when I spoke about “politically sensitive” topics, such as Karl Marx’s thought. Students would clam up when I used examples from local politics to illustrate arguments. It came as no surprise when my contract was not renewed.

In comparison, China is a paradise of academic freedom. Among colleagues, anything goes (in Singapore, most local colleagues were very guarded when dealing with foreigners). Academic publications are surprisingly free: there aren’t any personal attacks on leaders or open calls for multiparty rule, but particular policies, such as the household registry system, which limits internal mobility, are subject to severe criticism. In 2004, state television, for the first time in history, broadcast the U.S. presidential elections live, without any obvious political slant. (I suspect that the turmoil surrounding the 2000 U.S. presidential elections, along with the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, discredited U.S.-style democracy among many Chinese, and the government has less to fear from the model.) More surprisingly, perhaps, I was not given any explicit (or implicit, as far as I could tell) guidance regarding what I could teach at Tsinghua. My course proposals have been approved as submitted.

    Not many comparisons would highlight the PRC as a "paradise of academic freedom."   He goes on:

I did have one experience with censorship imposed from outside. I gave an interview to a Chinese newspaper that is widely read in intellectual circles. The interview dealt with China’s role in international affairs, and I made some critical comments about the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq that were published. However, I also made some comments about the ancient thinker Mencius—I argued that he justified “punitive expeditions” that were functionally similar to modern-day humanitarian interventions—that were not published. The Chinese government does not support any infringements on state sovereignty, and the newspaper probably worried that readers would draw implications for contemporary debates. To my surprise, the editor of the newspaper phoned me to apologize, explaining that the article was “reviewed” by a party cadre and that he had no hand in the matter. He also offered to publish the interview in full in an academic publication that would not be subject to the same sorts of constraints. In Singapore, by contrast, it is hard to imagine that the editor of the pro-government Straits Times would apologize to contributors whose views were censored: public humiliation is a more common tactic for dealing with those who do not toe the party line.

 Maybe the stakes are higher in Singapore because there it is less a matter of maintaining ideological consistency, and more a matter of rationalizing dynastic rule...