Proud to be... disenfranchised?
@
10:16
•
Asian values,
democracy,
fascism,
fundamentalism,
politics,
Singapore,
Today
•
0
comments
I finally glanced at a newspaper today, and the first thing I saw was not encouraging.
According to an article on Today, most Singaporeans are proud to be Singaporean. Here's why:
The high level of national identity is due to the "multi-faceted socialisation process viz the education system, national service and mass media", said Singapore Management University law professor Eugene Tan. "This sense of belonging is further aided by the economic and social success that Singapore has experienced in one generation."
But that's not all the article mentions. Still quoting Prof. Tan, it says that most Singaporeans readily identify themselves as Asian rather than as part of an ethnic group, and that may be because
"... we have portrayed ourselves on the world stage as a microcosm of Asia, and that Western models of governance and way of life are not entirely appropriate to Singapore."
While Singaporeans took their duty to vote seriously, they were not sure how instrumental their votes were. Nearly half of them agreed that "politics and government are so complicated that sometimes (they) don't understand what's happening". Over one in two felt they did not have power to influence Government policy or action, while four in 10 felt Government officials pay little attention to what "citizens like (them)" think.
So we are proud of being Singaporean because we're a successful nation, and we're also happy to identify ourselves as Asian because our nation is successful without having adopted "Western" models of governance. Yet on the subject of our model of governance, a significant number of us think that we have hardly any influence over it. Neither do many of us have the understanding of how it works. So we're proud of being disenfranchised, and of a system we do not even know much about?
I think that the implications of what Prof. Tan said should make us rethink our attitude. And there's no reason to believe that he is completely off the mark. 'Asian values' have often been touted by our leaders as providing a good alternative to 'Western' political philosophy, and we regularly witness proud rejections of Western criticism in the local media, views that hold up the success of our nation as the vindication of our methods.
Amartya Sen has criticised the 'Western' and 'Eastern' (or 'Asian') divide that such a worldview paints as misleading, even though I do think that such a divide has been successfully manufactured in our psyche. He is also a strong critic of the brand of authoritarianism that is an integral part of the 'Asian values' package. And, looking back, I think I've come to agree with him – by summer last year, I had written an article defending democracy (which is unfortunately no longer available on The Straits Times website).
But right here we have the making of a damning critique just on its own. In what kind of society are people proud of a political system they do not comprehend and under which they have little if any influence? I can think of only two kinds: One that is fascist and one that runs on blind faith.
So what sort of model do we have exactly?
(0) Comments
Post a Comment