On "being Asian" and being democratic

In the past, our Mr Lee Kuan Yew liked to talk about being “Asian” and “different from the West,” and why a “Western-style liberal democracy” is not suitable for us. I think this topic is very important because it greatly affects how the public perceives politics.

Firstly, let us not forget there had been past remarks from Western scholars alleging that "Western" liberal and democratic values cannot co-exist with "Asian" traditional and cultural ones because the two fields of ideology conflict and contradict. Over the years, however, examples like Taiwan and South Korea (there could be more examples, like Japan and Hong Kong; the latter does not yet have a comprehensive democratic system though its citizens are considerably knowledgeable about democratic values) seem to have proven them wrong, because while not abandoning their cultural heritage, these societies have embraced liberal democracy, yes, a "Western-style" one. Surely some cultural change would take place as society evolves politically. With the effect of globalization and modernization, customs are selectively renewed or revamped, and rightfully so, as society sieves out the bad (negative and regressive) ones from those that are good (that encourage positivity). Respect, courtesy, caring for others, filial piety, etc. are enshrined while those that provide for gender discrimination, blind loyalty and servitude, for example, are downplayed. That is a good way of approaching culture, an enlightened one that shows the image of a nation confident enough to face and respect its own culture, while at the same time is in control of and not unnecessarily bound by it to the extent of retarding progress. This is not to say that the Taiwanese and South Koreans have attained full success in these -- they could still do better -- but they have done what could not have been done in Singapore, given the freedom and hence, prowess they enjoy. They are proud of their culture, and at the same time accepting of international norms and universal values, which include those of democracy, freedom and human rights.

Proponents of the concept of "Asian values," as it is pointed out, do so to "justify authoritarian regimes," and such "values" should not "be confused with 'traditional values.'"

Today, what we see in Singapore is a general lack of appreciation and in-depth understanding of mother language and culture, a seeming loss of cultural identity and that of cultural confidence and richness in cultural uniqueness, while at the same time, a society that fails on many standards of a truly democratic society. And do not be fooled by the “fanfare” of Chingay and the like, which do not overturn my above-mentioned problems, or the “lip service” of “mother tongue importance” which does not truly succeed in bettering the appreciation of languages, be it English, Chinese, or any language for that matter.

As far as the two criteria are concerned, we seem to have the “worst of both worlds” while the Taiwanese and South Koreans seem to have the best of both. This is not coincidental, and the system should explain it all.

It is also not due to the higher innate ability of the Taiwanese and the South Koreans; that they are more intelligent, more able, as some would like you to believe when they say we are not ready for a democracy.

It is not that we are of an inferior breed, meaning we are not less human than the Americans, the Europeans, or the East Asians. Indeed, that is what "Asian values" believes in, as reiterated by Bo Tedards. It is not the superiority of Asians that forms the cornerstone of "Asian values"; contrarily, it is our inferiority that sets the condition for being deprived of certain rights. Asian culture, according to these warped standards, is also stripped of the ability to yearn for such rights, as if those are values that go against ours. In my view, it is only when "Asia" "rises" with recognition of such rights that praise and celebration should be warranted. It is also noteworthy that as much as we are not satisfied with being inferior, we are not desperate to be superior; we just want to be equal.

While proclaiming to be an admirer of Confucius, Lee Kuan Yew could well get disapproval from the Confucian master on many policies and ideologies he implemented and possesses, from the way I see it. An understanding of “genuine” Asian philosophy and culture is needed to counter what seems to me as “hypocrisies.” It is quite difficult of course and more importantly, Confucius himself may not be completely right and basing our ideals solely on his texts is like following the Bible blindly. Chinese philosophy itself is varied and diverse. So an enlightened approach is called for.

While readers like you and I might be knowledgeable and intelligent enough to think about such issues and have sensible thoughts about them, there remain a wide proportion of our citizens who do not think enough and continue to willingly submit themselves to dictations of the definition and interpretation of those philosophies and ideals, in the wishful hope that those dictations are correct and that the best interests of this nation are served.

This could be the reason why the massively-hated-but-massively-thanked-for-the-achievements incumbent still gets 60.1% of the vote amidst the heat of GE2011. While being made up of “people who could benefit directly from PAP rule,” this PAP-voting bloc also consists of “blind followers” of anything indoctrinated by the incumbent which are masked in layers of "sweeteners" that comes in forms including but not restricted to “Asian values,” that encourage what seem to me are "misuses" of virtues like "gratitude," "thankfulness," "loyalty," and more.

So much more has to be done to correct this unhealthy situation in Singapore, and I hope readers here and beyond could have more concern with this. Political monopoly, while entailing economy and politics, often stretches over to philosophy and psychology. It is time to break the monopoly by talking more, and reading, watching and listening more from sources with a not-so-Channel News Asia perspective and different-from-the Straits Times coverage. These could include anything from local socio-political websites to foreign news channels -- yes, including "Asian" ones that are close to home -- like Aljazeera English, just to name one.