Powered by glolg
Display Preferences Most Recent Entries Chatterbox Blog Links Site Statistics Category Tags About Me, Myself and Gilbert XML RSS Feed
Sunday, Mar 29, 2015 - 22:02 SGT
Posted By: Gilbert

The Week After

I was woken up this lazy Sunday morning to some extremely discomfiting squeaks, and upon seeking out the source, came upon the surreal sight of Mr. Ham holding Mr. Robo up, with Ms. Robo laying into Mr. Robo's delicate bits with gusto, the whole incongruous affair being recorded on webcam.

Me: *wags finger at Mr. Ham* You! Bad hamster! What do you think you are doing?!


The indignities us hamsters put up with
(Source: Somewhere on the Internet)


Mr. Ham: *letting go of Mr. Robo, who slumps face-first onto the floor* Human, it was all for the good of your blog!

Me: Huh?

Mr. Ham: Look, I was reading through your WhatsApp messages, uh, accidentally, and came across the splendid suggestion that, I quote, "Put a chiobu or two you'll always get more readership." So, being the initiative-taker that I am, I invited Ms. Robo over for this very purpose.

Ms. Robo: Thank you.

Me: But that doesn't explain why she was... I apologize, m'lady - viciously kicking Mr. Robo in his unmentionables.

Ms. Robo: *looking adorably embarassed* I'm so sorry! It was a reflex action. Bad habit of mine, never could kick it. Um...

Me: Even if so, it still doesn't explain why Mr. Ham was holding Mr. Robo up in just the right position for a repeated assault.

Mr. Ham: Eh, it turned out that cute female hamsters are a dime a dozen online, but a hamster kicking another hamster in the nuts? That's comedy gold! Just look at how many extra hits the blog has gotten! It was all for the greater good!

*Mr. Robo groans incoherently, still lying prone*

Mr. Ham: Don't be a selfish bugger now, Mr. Robo. And you could have taken advantage of the latest research, you know.

Me: Enough of that. And Mr. Ham, where's Master Political Analyst Herr Ahm? He's due for his session about now.

Mr. Ham: I'll go get him. *walks in front of Ms. Robo, with predictable results* OWWWWW!

Ms. Robo: *even more cutely* Ah! I am really so, so sorry!

Me: Er, maybe I should see you out, Ms. Robo, while Mr. Ham staggers out of the other door.

*some minutes later, a familiar Gerham national stumbles in*

Me: Herr Ahm! Welcome back! But, er, why are you lurching about painfully in the same pattern as Mr. Ham...

Herr Ahm: Great hinds limp alike, after all.


They Came To Praise Caesar, Not To Bury Him

Me: Well, the news - the tributes poured in without pause, with an assortment of world leaders attending the state funeral, but perhaps the greatest foreign honour was India's declaration of a day of national mourning (which, it should be said, is not unprecedented). This initiative was supported at the grassroots by some families of Indian foreign workers, whose guileless gratitude was endearing if not particularly exact.

One of his definite achievements, I'd say, would be the near-total elimination of public corruption. If I had come from a culture where such a practice was regrettably endemic, I'd probably be impressed and thankful, too. From a purely humanitarian standpoint, one could argue that a lax foreign worker policy is actually desirable, as it allows people who would otherwise have earned next to nothing in their home country, to be able to support their families... probably.

To round out the less-savoury responses, some have understandably gotten a little tired of the pomp and ceremony (which, in all probability, the man himself would not have been big on). First off, reliable provocateur Alfian Sa'at has raised a couple of slightly uncomfortable points, while accusing The State's Times of selective (mis)representation (on this, he has my sympathies). All within his usual boundaries, though.

As for more... direct assaults, a local teen's unvarnished piece on Youtube has earned him instant notoriety (and possibly crates of free kopi, but then he's apparently more than prepared to be sued, so...). He's entitled to his opinion (and the consequences), definitely, just that his usage of religious parallels might not be that apropos given that the subject's view on the matter (i.e. no belief) is eminently sensible. Still, offended parties are after his (other) head, and unfortunately I don't think they're referring to circumcision.

There has been some debate on whether we should suspend - or even reconsider - forthright evaluation of public figures due to their passing; indeed, it does seem that criticism of our former Minister Mentor, which was hardly in short supply in online discourse, has become rather more muted of late:


Reddit: "You guys know who you are."
(Source: imgur.com)


Herr Ahm: Can't say I'm too surprised. But let's turn our focus back to the big picture here, in particular the concern that his successes are being used to re-legitimize tyranny. Basically, it seems that a new crop of strongmen are pointing to the Singapore story and saying, see, having one guy (i.e. me) in near-absolute control works! Why bother with pointless so-called democratic bickering, when you can have a fully-dedicated team who are in it for the long-term?

Me: Yup, this point came up on the 4O WhatsApp group chat discussion, but I'll leave the analysis to you.

Herr Ahm: Eh, it's kinda textbook - the case for a benevolent dictatorship goes back to Socrates, as I'm sure you're aware of. The main counterargument is also likely quite ancient - maybe having a wise all-powerful philosopher-king is great... but how can you be certain that you'll get one in the first place? If he turns out to not be so good, what then is the recourse? Duh, just vote him out? Hey, wait a minute here...

But let us consider all this from the ground up, for I am a Master Political Analyst, after all. There are a number of questions in play here, but the fundamental ones would appear to be - What is democracy? Is democracy good? Is Singapore one? As in, really one?


Democracy 101

"But we either believe in democracy or we don't. If we do, then, we must say categorically, without qualification, that no restraint from the any democratic processes... should be allowed... If you believe in democracy, you must believe in it unconditionally. If you believe that men should be free, then, they should have the right of free association, of free speech, of free publication..."

- Guess who?


Herr Ahm: I'll make it brief. The first generally-recognized "official" democracy was that of Athens, some 2500 years ago, which involved direct voting on issues by some 50000 adult male citizens (some ~20% of the entire population). Of course, one can suspect that at least some smaller tribal groupings were functionally democratic before that, but Athens was the first well-documented example I know of that such democracy could work at a larger scale, where one did not personally know the other voters.

These Mediterranean democracies didn't last all that long, however, and by about the fourth century, there was nary one to be found (the Greek city-states largely through conquest, Rome by guys who thought they knew best, as always). For the next millenium and a half, only a very tiny percentage of the global population would live under any system resembling a democracy. This was an age of empires, and it was only in the eighteenth century that a parliament with real power was established in Britain. It would take until the mid-nineteenth century that today's cornerstone of democracy - universal suffrage - was introduced in France.

And then there are the various implementations of democracy. Direct democracy, where any qualified voter could vote on any bill of sufficient importance, is rare nowadays, if only for practical reasons; who actually has the ability, patience or inclination to give his opinion on the thousands of motions introduced daily? Therefore, a compromise tends to be adopted in practice: voters elect representatives, who then vote in their stead and in their interests (in theory). The titles used differ across countries, but the basic idea remains.

But enough of history. Does it work?


(Source: "Bayesian Dynamical Systems Modelling in the Social Sciences", PLOS)


From current evidence, it seems to. Its last great ideological competitor, communism, has collapsed spectacularly. Most quantitative measures such as GDP, education, etc, show a broad correlation with democratic processes. Of course, one could argue (to an extent) that these metrics were propagated by the democracies themselves, but there is a direct riposte: voting with feet, so to say. Voluntary migration happens overwhelmingly from less-democratic places, to more-democratic ones.

Me: Er, it could also be posited as from less-rich places to richer places, given the correlations.

Herr Ahm: Yeah, there's that. Still, on the whole, I think it's fair to state that if you had the choice of where to be reborn tomorrow, a more-democratic nation would be a good bet.

Taking the other stand, despite bold proclamations by Fukuyama and others that "Western liberal democracy" is the ultimate form of human governence, it should be noted that less than half of the countries existing today actually live up to that ideal, if we use Freedom House's definition of freedom as a proxy for that level of democracy, a proportion that is not increasing all that rapidly. By sheer weight of numbers, a common counter against the inevitability of democracy has been China's relentless economic development under authoritarian rule, against India's democratic torpor.

Me: Like Singapore.

Herr Ahm: Yep, which is why not a few of their leaders were admirers of the Singapore system. But that, doesn't this mean that Singapore isn't one? Or is it?


The Nature Of The Lion

"...to build a democratic society..."

- Singapore National Pledge

"Aspiration only lah."

- Guess who?


Technically, this is straightforward. We have an elected Parliament dissolved every five years or so, voted for by all adult citizens, and a separate Executive and Judiciary. There have been no credible allegations of vote-rigging. Going by the book, this is the very picture of representative democracy.

But turn the page, and you see political opponents being locked up (hasn't happened in awhile, but still...), the absence of clear divides between the state and the party (which extends to spending), blatant gerrymandering and gaming of rules on the constituency system, mostly free association, less free speech, and no free press. A paragon of Western liberal democracy, this is certainly not.

Me: It's complicated?

Herr Ahm: A good way to put it. From my readings, there exists here a fairly big carrot, and an equally large stick. Returning to the example of the grateful Indian foreign workers - it is likely true that many citizens at independence were, when faced with an uncertain future, inclined to turn a blind eye to certain... happenings, as long as there was stability, and perhaps even prosperity. The latter was indeed delivered, which was enough for much of the masses.

And as for the stick, it has been wielded... subtly. It could perhaps be better characterised as many smaller canes - dare to vote Opposition? *piak* No upgrading for you! Some of our individual candidates are unimpressive? *piak* Group Representation Constituencies! Write a critical but informed commentary? *piak* Let's see how you get that published in the mainstream media (most of the time)! None of these are heavy-handed enough to prompt sustained outrage alone, but let's just say that the repeated stings are adding up.

We should take care to acknowledge that there was an exchange going on here: the incumbent party delivered what enough of the people wanted, and (most of) the people in return yielded them increased leeway - the term seldom being more aptly used; it could be interesting to reflect on what might have happened if, perhaps for reasons beyond control (e.g. the Kra Canal opened), the local economy had collapsed beyond repair in those years; would the incumbents have quietly made way if voted out? Or, would it be considered a "freak result", and the army called in as threatened?

But, one important point here - there was a carrot. I vaguely recall once making the observation that the lack of large-scale indigenous demonstrations and/or riots in Singapore could not be due to "oppressive laws" alone, but also in large part due to a lack of sufficiently pronounced discontent, to wit, the carrot. Far more brutal regimes have seen popular protests. In summary, your incumbent party has so far struck the "right" balance between persuasion and coercion.

Me: So what you are saying, Herr Master Political Analyst, is that the current pseudo-democratic system works for us?

Herr Ahm: How do I put this... one of the most common tributes to the late former Minister Mentor was some form of "we were lucky to have him". This is true. You lot were lucky. Lucky in that the strongman you lot gave up so much latitude to actually knew his stuff, and was not one of the rather more common breed of charismatic shade-sporting plunderers.


Since you've won once, why not spin it again? Huh? Huh?


As the man himself once said, you either believe in democracy, or you don't. As I see it, the soul of democracy is the separation and balance of powers - by design, it will likely not maximize potential. What it instead does, if its protocols are followed, is to maintain a reasonable base level of governance. Yes, yes, you can point to America and some European liberal democracies having legislative deadlocks and budget deficits... but on the other side, the best decently-sized exemplar is... China? Well, fine then.

So, to repeat: you lot gambled in reliquishing civil liberties for stability. You lot got lucky. It paid off this time.


The Future Of The Dragon

"Resolutely resist the influence of erroneous Western thought."

- President of the Supreme People's Court, China


Me: Indeed, Singapore may not be the most convincing proof that our brand of authoritarian capitalism can be generalised for export. As a city-state, we have certain unique advantages and disadvantages. For one, our size makes law and policy enforcement, and administration in general, relatively direct. If the guy in charge feels something may be wrong, he can be at Ground Zero in like an hour maximum, depending on traffic conditions. The extension of our philosophies to more typical countries... may not be as natural.

Herr Ahm: Given that China is the major flag-carrier for a non-Western mode of democracy nowadays, we should really continue from where my esteemed colleague Dr. Chang left off last October. Interestingly, almost nobody actually outright states that democracy is a bad idea - even North Korea is officially a Democratic People's Republic, after all - just that the world should recognize their version of it, which may or may not extend to allowing opposition parties.

Of course, the trouble with playing fast and easy with definitions, is that words eventually lose their meaning. For example, one could make a good case that the Communist Party of China has not actually been particularly communist, by any recognized use of the term, for some decades already. They certainly aren't about to dissolve themselves, as according to classical socialist theory, but neither are they going to allow official opposition, other than puppet proxies, because it would be incompatible with Asian values.

This sounds almost admissible, until one considers where the heck Marxism and socialism got imported from. Confucianism? Weren't scholars being beaten up not all too long ago?

Me: To expound on this, it could be noted that "Western values" aren't historically that Western either. As noted, up until the nineteenth century or so, the prevailing political structure was some Emperor or King at the top, and an assortment of dukes, barons, etc below him, whether in China or Europe. Then again, it's easy to see how those in authority would like the idea of "loyalty and respect towards figures of authority" being one of their subjects' cultural values.

Herr Ahm: One could suspect that all these justifications for existing political systems could be more succintly explained as due to "wanting to stay in power", but that could be unfair.

The maneuvering for said power in the Dragon's innards has been entertaining, to say the least. The latest General Secretary has made waves with his huge anti-corruption drive... which more grizzled observers have noted to only have hit associates of his deposed rivals for some reason, while leaving legacy names untouched. Indeed, it seems probable that China does have opposing factions after all, just that it's kept within the family, the battles are not fought over the ballot box, and defeat is more... terminal.

Finally, China's major narrative remains unchanged, as expected if only due to its sheer size and inertia - given continued economic development, the status quo can probably be maintained, but as Dr. Chang hinted at, it is next to impossible for them to maintain growth anywhere near current levels. The implications could be... interesting.

But yeah, back to Singapore.


To Grant A Peaceful Rest


Friends, Singaporeans, NS men, lend me your votes
(Source: topyaps.com)


Me: I've already read a few predictions that the incumbent party will ride on this event - and the SG50 vibes - to get another strong mandate. Your thoughts, Herr Ahm?

Herr Ahm: Sadly, this is not unlikely. Humans - and hamsters, if I may add - are sentimental beings, after all. And which way will your cast your vote, human? Where lies your duty?

Me: Well, I was totally sincere when I wrote that he was a man of his time, and one with many virtues; my favourite representation of him remains the 1955 pro-democracy opposition vintage, by the way. I will strive to honour the values he stood for at that time, as best as I can.



comments (0) - email - share - print - direct link
trackbacks (0) - trackback url


Next: Another Typical Day


Related Posts:
Late Breaking News
Our Hamster Conversation
Pure Punditry
To Complete
Circling About
Back to top

Copyright © 2006-2025 GLYS. All Rights Reserved.