I’ve often said it but Singapore is one of the hardest
places to discuss political commentary because of the surface of things,
everything looks relatively good. Even with Covid exposing gaps in the
government’s basic operations, things still look relatively good when compared
to most parts of the world. It’s not just the people from the developing world of
India, Vietnam, China and Bangladesh who are singing our praises. Its now
reached the state where people from the advanced nations of the USA and Western
Europe who look at us with the “what are you complaining about,” look whenever
we, the natives imply that our native land is less than perfect. Covid death
rates seem to support that. Singapore has reached a record high of 142 deaths.
Everyone who dies of Covid or Covid related issues makes the news. In the USA
and Western Europe, the death rate has long since become a statistic and they
talk about comparing the death rate to the number of people killed in wars.
To give credit where credit is due, much of the
success we enjoy is due to competent and honest government. Whilst Mr. Lee Kuan
Yew did make a few mistakes a long the way, one cannot argue against the fact
that he did get many things right, such as his insistence on keeping government
honest. I think of the Emirati businesswoman who told me, “Singapore washes the
face of the Oriental.” When it comes to things like government competence and
honesty, we rank alongside the world’s best like the Scandinavian countries
instead of our regional neighbours (which inevitably means we need be judged by
higher standards).
There has, however, been a problem with all our past
successes, which is the fact that its lead to an unhealthy political culture of
“father-knows-best.” Sometime in the early 1980s, Lee Kuan Yew got his
colleagues to retire in the name of “Leadership Renewal.” Instead of being the “first
amongst equals” or the man who took care of the politics so that intellectuals
he respected could get on with the business of nation and institution building,
he rebranded as “Father-of-the-Nation,” or as a former president alluded to – “God.”
Mr. Lee became a consultant to the developing world in
national development, a contributor to Forbes Magazine and “Senior Minister,”
in the cabinet of his successor and later on “Minister-Mentor,” in his son’s cabinet.
As old adage went, we were a very Christian nation run by the Holy Trinity of the
Father, the Son and the Holy Goh. As far as the rest of us were concerned, Mr.
Lee was running the show till the day he died – let us not forget both former
President Tony Tan and former Prime Minister, Goh Chok Tong recalled how he
told them not to come to him but to allow him to come to them because their
respective offices needed to be respected.
As a “God-King,” Mr. Lee had one failing – he wasn’t a
god and he died. Whilst Mr. Lee had proved effective enough, he left behind an
unhealthy political culture that one can only called “deference to the God-king.”
In way, this hasn’t been much of a problem. Things were
relatively smooth under his successor Mr. Goh Chok Tong and to an extent, still
are. However, Mr. Lee’s status of being a “God-King,” came from his ability to deal
with issues of the 1960s and 1970s,” which by his own admission were relatively
simple. Our neighbours were really under developed and so there was no competition.
Information was easy to control – the cost of a long-distance phone call was a
luxury expense.
This isn’t the case today. Problems are more complex.
Information or misinformation travels at a click of a button. Our neighbours
are also rising up and the competition of investment actually exist. The problems
of 2021 cannot be solved by the solutions of the 1960s “God-King.”
Yet, we have a political “God-King” culture, which
implies the public has to ultimately defer to the “God-King.” I take the
consistent debate on Section 377A, the section that criminalises annal sex
between men. The government takes a position of keeping the law but promising
not to enforce it. Our Prime Minister states “Legal Ambiguity” is best, which
is runs contrary to the concept of “Rule of Law.” One merely has to rely on the
benevolence of the “God-King.”
A more recent example, was the run up to the reading
of the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act or “FICA.” Much was made
about the ten-hour debate in parliament. However, the real debate ended up on
Facebook between an academic group and the Ministry of Home Affairs, in which
the Ministry stated that it was simply not possible for the bill to be abused
in its current form.
Mr. Remy Choo, Director of Peter Low & Choo LLC
and a qualified lawyer with over a decade of experience, underlines the key problem
with the Ministry’s Facebook position – it’s non-binding. Guarantees of
non-abuse through public pronouncements and Facebook pages are dependent on the
integrity of the person making them.
Taken from the Facebook Page of Mr. Remy Choo.
Singapore should look at communities that have a
tradition of “God Kings” as an example of how to manage a “God-King” culture.
First there was Bhutan, which was founded by a Tibetan
monk called “Zhabdrung.” He was by all accounts a very brilliant man. However,
he believed that he would rule forever because as per Buddhist belief, he could
reincarnate and keep himself in charge. The system didn’t work and the Penlops
of Trongsa had to establish the modern Bhutanese monarchy as we know it today.
Bhutan’s fourth king took things even further when he imposed democracy on the population
and insisted writing a clause that allowed parliament to sack the King.
A brilliant political unifier of a nation – however,
failed at reincarnating to rule in perpetuity
Then, there’s the 14th Dalai Lama, leader
of the Tibetan people in exile. As with Buddhist belief, the Dalai Lama is a “reincarnation”
of successor and for centuries, ruled Tibet as a “God-King.” Whilst His Holiness
(as a matter of disclosure, I am Karma Kagyud buddhist) has gained fame for his
teachings in the Western world and earning the Chinese Communist party’s ire,
his main achievement has been to impose democracy on the Tibetan community in
exile and to remove himself from political administration.
Born to be a “God-King,” but understood dealing with
God and Men were separate issues
So, here’ the point – if “God-Kings” in cultures that
have venerated “God-King” for centuries are making moves to separate “God” and “King,”
shouldn’t we be doing the same instead of enforcing the culture of the “God-King?”
No comments
Post a Comment