Despite critics, Singapore will blaze own trail

The Straits Times, March 30, 2007
By Chua Mui Hoong, Senior Writer



FROM the moment it came into being, Singapore has always defied convention.

Analysts predicted its demise when Singapore had independence thrust upon it. Few thought Singapore could survive, so economists held on to the dream of a common market with Malaysia, even though two years of merger had seen little progress in that union.

Forty-two years on, Singapore did more than survive: it thrived.

Singapore has always forged its own way, made its own decisions after taking into account the unique calculus of its multi-ethnic people, an Asian instinct for discipline and deferred gratification, and its openness to trade, capital flows and ideas from the developed world.

Most Singaporeans will be proud of this legacy; I certainly am. Sitting in class after class at graduate school a few years ago discussing democracy or economic development, I was always struck by how much of an outlier Singapore was.

Plot Gross Domestic Product growth against political freedoms as defined by the influential Freedom House rating, and Singapore is always in the quadrant of countries with high incomes and low political rights, alongside the oil-rich Middle Eastern states.

Singapore defies classification, which I have always thought is one reason why its political and social systems are not well understood outside the Republic: because it does not fit into neat theories about democracy and development; or into any neat curves or trend lines.

Academics get brownie points for coming up with theories that accurately describe empirical data; what is the use of studying a unique system that does not fit into any theories?

Yet there is so much that is interesting about Singapore, precisely because it has always forged its own way.

Its pioneering policies in the early years are, by now, well known.

Examples include junking the import-substitution approach to adopt a policy of welcoming multinational corporations; starting a public housing programme and a provident fund to help finance it; starting a conscript army of healthy male citizens.

More recent policy moves that earn it accolades - and monographs in journals - include the system of charging motorists for travelling on congested roads; the move to e-government; and a health-care system that emphasises both individual responsibility and risk-pooling.

In the years ahead, no doubt more pioneering policies will be crafted.

This week, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew received an honorary doctorate from the Australian National University for his contributions to Singapore's success. Some students protested, and criticisms were levelled at him for being 'authoritarian' and ignoring human rights to push development.

Mr Lee challenged critics to assess Singapore by any yardstick of governance - rule of law, transparency, incorruptibility.

Western media reports often use shorthand phrases to describe Singapore, such as 'authoritarian', 'draconian', or having 'strongman' leaders.

Those phrases have coloured entire societies' views of Singapore, but hardly do justice to the interesting, organically evolving kaleidoscope of a society that is Singapore.

As Mr Lee alludes, Singapore is, and should be, unapologetic about its unique system.

Singapore exceptionalism - to borrow a term that America likes to use on itself to differentiate itself from the Old World - is a creed to be proud of.

Singapore does things differently because its circumstances are different.

As Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong noted recently, Singapore is at the 'leading edge' in policy-making, and cannot follow models elsewhere because it is an innovator at the frontier.

In the book Singapore's Success, Dr Henri Ghesquiere, a former International Monetary Fund executive and one of the rare foreigners who seem to understand Singapore, describes Singapore not as a model for others, but as a country whose experience in engineering economic growth yields lessons for others.

All this is by way of a preamble to reiterate something we all know already: that in the years ahead, Singapore will forge its own way no less than it has in the past.

Except that the issues on which pioneering minds work on will be quite different.

No doubt economic survival remains critical. The challenge for agencies like the Economic Development Board is to retain into the 21st century, its DNA of derring-do so well captured in the book Heart Work by former EDB chairman Chan Chin Bock.

But increasingly, brave new paths will have to be made in the social and political arenas as well.

The exhortations to leave no stone unturned, to slay sacred policy cows, to go back to the drawing board, apply equally to social and political policies, as to economic ones.

Of course the debate on what's next for Singapore is an internal one, by Singaporeans for Singaporeans. But those who favour more loosening up should not be typecast as lackeys of the West; nor should those who defend the status quo or a slower pace of change be dismissed as Establishment apologists.

At the heart of Singapore's socio-political dilemma is how much social and political controls to relax, as its economy becomes even more open and globalised, and as more foreigners make this their home.

Current censorship policies, current views on the role of the mainstream media, current thinking on engaging the new media, on the development of a political opposition, on the balance between law and order and freedom of speech and assembly - these form the hard kernel of socio-political policies which need rethinking.

The People's Action Party postulation that Singapore needs a 'dominant government' to thrive, is another issue which would benefit from further clarification and discussion.

What is meant by a dominant government? Is a dominant government the best for Singapore, going forward? Do citizens buy into that?

Such fundamentals of governance and politics, and thorny social issues, should be openly debated and discussed - precisely because Singapore has never feared blazing its own path, never mind what critics say.