Several years ago when I was in Washington DC, I had a conversation with a US ambassador about democracy in Singapore.
“Singapore is an important trading and defence partner to the US,” the diplomat told me. “The State Department doesn't want any headache about democracy there.”
On another occasion, I queried a senior State Department official about US support for autocratic regimes in places like the Middle East and Asia, making a specific reference to Singapore, of course.
His reply was revealing although not entirely surprising. He did not refute the notion that the US Government was supportive of the PAP but chose to characterise his country's position thus: “The American Government is elected to serve the interests of the American people, not uphold democracy in other countries.”
No doubt. The problem begins when there is a conflation of what's in America's interests and its government's support of undemocratic regimes. It is axiomatic that US interests extend far beyond its borders, and these interests primarily revolve around promoting trade (opening up markets for US multinational corporations) and buttressing its military defence around the world.
If supporting an undemocratic regime will sustain or promote these interests, then Washington DC will do it.
The politics of 'pragmatism'
But recent developments in the Middle East are tearing apart the philosophical, moral and even practical underpinnings of such an approach to US foreign policy.
The chaos and violence presently taking place in Egypt is the ugly result, unintended as it may be, of the US' support of tyrants in the Middle East. For 30 years, President Hosni Mubarak was the preferred, if not perfect, ally of the US. His ability to bring a semblance of stability to a volatile region was supported by the successive administrations of the US Government.
But what about his autocratic ways? They were rationalised away as a necessary evil in the accomplishment of a bigger goal of regional peace. Undesirable and painful as it is freedom and democracy, the so-called pragmatists say, must be subjugated in the name of stability and peace.
The one thing that the US failed to heed was the wisdom of one of its very own sons. Martin Luther King, Jr once said: “True peace is not merely the absence of tension, it is the presence of justice.” And justice can only exist when people are free.
Oppression in the Middle East may have worked for the rulers – for a while. In Egypt, the autocratic system became untenable for the people and on 25 Jan 11 the political lid blew. The Egyptian people took to the streets demanding reform. Mubarak has thus far resisted calls for him to step down, forcing a conflagration that has pulled the country to the brink.
US foreign policy makers have no idea how the aftermath of the revolt will turn out. The twin pillars of US interests in the region, namely the Middle East peace process and oil, are now staring anxiously into the abyss. How pragmatic does such a policy look now?
Corporate America's darling
In the realm of realpolitik and geopolitics, Singapore has much in common with the Middle East. The US Government sees the PAP as a crucial partner in maintaining strategic US interests in the region. And the PAP plays this up for all its worth, particularly on two fronts: trade and security.
Let's start with trade. The Singapore Government continues to ensure that MNCs setting up shop in Singapore reap huge benefits, including generous tax breaks.
And cheap labour? No problem. The PAP simply brings in foreign nationals – by the millions – to ensure an abundant supply of low-wage workers.
As a result Singapore has become the poster-child of corporate America, and US trade policy reflects this stance.
What about Singaporean workers? What about the fact that we have no trade unions and workers are not allowed to organise themselves? What do we do when our elderly are forced to work beyond what their bodies can bear?
Free trade, lest anyone misunderstands, is important because it is free trade that supports the free market which, if it is genuinely practiced, rewards enterprise and hard work.
But free trade must necessarily come with freedom, for without freedom workers cannot organise and bargain for decent wages and conditions. A free market is an illusion when one side holds all the power and sees not the need to negotiate with those it employs.
In truth, there is no free trade in Singapore, only forced trade.
And there is not a thing Singaporeans can do to change such a policy because there is no democracy in Singapore and, worse, it is in the US interest that the PAP maintains the status quo.
Maintaining hostility
Turning to military-security issues, the PAP's strategy is this: Play up America's fears of an unstable and potentially hostile region in which Singapore is a dependable ally and a strategic partner for the US.
Mr Lee Kuan Yew's constant baiting of the Muslim community is, at least in part, aimed at maintaining this psyche. When Indonesia and Malaysia react to his racially offensive remarks, it stokes the sense of vulnerability and reinforces the siege mentality of Singaporeans, and rallies support for the PAP.
More importantly for the PAP, this creation and maintenance of tension between Singapore and our Muslim neighbours is good for business for the military-industrial complex. It gives us a reason to purchase huge amounts of arms and other military equipment from the US. The US Defense Department, of course, finds such an arrangement very satisfactory.
While such an approach may be fruitful for US arms manufacturers, is it good for Singaporeans and Singapore? Is positioning ourselves in constant tension with our neighbours to the north and south healthy for the future of this nation?
Again, how can we debate this issue and vote for a more enlightened approach? We can't. Not without democracy. But then, it is in the US interests that we don't.
Just who is undermining Singapore's interests?
For too long the PAP has framed the issue by painting opposition leaders as being agents of foreign interests out to undermine Singapore. Mr Francis Seow and Mr Tang Liang Hong are but two examples. I have become its latest target.
The truth is that through the decades that it has been in power, the PAP has relied on the West – first the British government and now the US – to prop up its undemocratic rule. For the past five decades, Singaporeans have had no free and fair elections, citizens live in fear of being detained without trial or made bankrupt through lawsuits, and lived without a free media.
The denial of democracy may work in the US interests and the interests of the PAP. But if history and present happenings in the world are any indication, they will not last.
Mon 07 Feb 2011 2:39 PM
|
Dr Syed Alwi - Some Comments
Dear SDP,
I agree with Dr Chee's views regarding US-Singapore ties.
The world needs FAIR TRADE and not a free trade that benefits only the West.
Here I wish to point out something :
If Malaysia and Indonesia really does go ahead and accept the American version of free trade - then Singapore will be the biggest loser !
Why ? Ask yourself whether Singapore SME's and GLC's can really compete for market share in Malaysia and Indonesia - against Western and Japanese corporations.
Enough said.
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
Mon 07 Feb 2011 5:00 PM
|
freedomT
Because of the US and British policies around the world, the whole world is really a mess. We don't need to listen to them. I agreed with Dr Chee in this. Why don't we Singapore make friends with Malaysia and Indonesia. Take advantage of their position around us instead of following PAP way of isolating them.
Mon 07 Feb 2011 10:12 PM
|
seebeng - Get rid of LKY's "siege mentality"
Yes, let's promote close cooperation with our immediate neighbors Malaysia and Indonesia. Although there is Asean founded in 1967 to promote friendly relations with member countries, Singapore harbors suspicion towards Malaysia, one of the five founding members of the regional grouping Asean.
It's time Singapore discarded its foreign policy based on LKY's "siege mentality" towards its immediate Asean members Malaysia and Indonesia. Also, let's not be a proxy for the US in this region to execute the superpower's strategy to "contain" China.
Terrorist threats will continue to be a concern here as long as Singapore is part of the "coalition of the willing" by blindly endorsing the US occupation and aggression in the Middle East.
Tue 08 Feb 2011 12:18 AM
|
Buwakasha
Having free trade agreements does not mean its really free. Philosophically speaking, free trade is fair trade. American acts usually have the opposite meaning to what the bill entails, e.g. The affordable housing act actually makes housing un-affordable.
Syed, trade does not have to be just between America and Singapore. The world is getting smaller, trade occurs with all countries. Americans are getting poorer and the Chinese are getting richer. In the future, the people with real spending power will be the Chinese, therefore the focus should be on trade with China, not America.
Tue 08 Feb 2011 5:04 AM|
|
Erik Strand - US and democracy
While the US is positive towards PAP, the US singles out other countries to be labeled as non-democratic and sanctioned - with support from the EU and other western countries. Belarus is one of the best examples. In Western Europe, it is called "Europe's last dictatorship".
I do not know enough to concider all the charges against Belarus's president Lukashenko. But after reading some articles at globalresearch.ca, it is clear to me that there is something fishy in at least some important accusations against Lukashenko. I have linked to a collection of these articles at www.fampo.no/Belarus.html - read them and compare the sanctions against Belarus to US politicy towards Egypt or Singapore.
The hypocricy in US and EU foreign politicy is some of the most important things to inform people about to further democracy.
Tue 08 Feb 2011 11:39 PM
|
freedomT
There is nothing wrong for us to invest and have join venture with Malaysia and Indonesia. Both countries have huge natural resources and for Indonesia, most of the areas are under developed. It would be a good thing to do business with them. Better than doing business with Communist China where we incur too many loses. All of you should know where. Trust and security will improved and we don't need to keep such an expensive SAF. We can be like Switzerland. Living in peace and harmony with the neighbours for years to come. Even in World war 2, Germany respected them and didn't even touch them. Get rid of LKY sick mentality that both countries are out to get us. With his PAP policies of trying to be a smart alex and his bossy attitude, of course our neighbours feel uncomfortable with us. Lets make friends not enermies. Then they will stop to outdo us totaly but instead share everything with us. Not like what LKY had said, in a famine if your Malay neighbour has rice, would they share it with you. No, they will share it with another Malay or Muslims family but not you. Enough is enough. His racist PAP must go. Period!!
I agree with Dr Chee's views regarding US-Singapore ties.
The world needs FAIR TRADE and not a free trade that benefits only the West.
Here I wish to point out something :
If Malaysia and Indonesia really does go ahead and accept the American version of free trade - then Singapore will be the biggest loser !
Why ? Ask yourself whether Singapore SME's and GLC's can really compete for market share in Malaysia and Indonesia - against Western and Japanese corporations.
Enough said.
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi