to the critics of democracy and human rights
I recently came across this article on the Young PAP website. The article is essentially a condescending piece of rhetoric intended to heap large doses of disdain upon what the writer, a particular Ho Cheow Seng, bluntly calls “The Devotees of Western Democracy and Human Rights”. While I respect the writer’s individual right to express his point of view, there are numerous logical flaws in the arguments that the writer makes and this blog entry is written with the intention to identify and correct these instances of cognitive disconnect.
As the current Chinese Premier Wen Jie-bao [sic] once said in his address to the Chinese People’s Congress… He went on to say that history has shown that China had never harboured any imperialistic ambition and had not occupied an inch of anyone’s territory.
I cannot verify the accuracy of this quote, but I would like to believe that it is an approximately accurate quote of what was said. However, one should really consider the disparities between China’s actions and its rhetoric. Particularly in Chinese politics, there is a tendency to make vague statements pertaining to political stances and ideology that can be easily circumvented by clever political maneuvering. Perhaps China does not harbor imperialistic ambition in a militaristic sense, which makes it seemingly benign in comparison to the strong-handed tactics of the British Empire and Spanish Armada of yore. But does it really have no imperialistic ambition at all?
It is a well-known fact that China has an increasingly powerful global presence, especially in developing countries around the world. In places like Sudan, China is establishing itself as a powerful economic force and trading partner, selling arms in exchange for oil imports from the impoverished state that has been wrecked by the senseless violence of civil war.
Similarly, there is the hotly debated issue of the alleged annexation of Tibet by the People’s Republic of China. Despite having been “placed under the sovereignty of the Chinese Government” since the 1950s, civil unrest in Tibet has occurred as recently as the “314” (March 14th 2008) riots which saw an uprising of the people being suppressed by the Chinese Government in the form of a major crackdown by the People’s Armed Police (中国人民武装警察部队).
Considering all this, the writer’s use of quotes from the Chinese Premier in such a context probably doesn’t reflect very well on his understanding of actual political circumstances in the real world. And by the way, the writer might want to note that the Premier of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China is Wen Jiabao (温家宝), not Wen Jie-bao. Also it’s called the “National People’s Congress” (全国人民代表大会) not the Chinese People’s Congress.
And so the West, and in particular the U.S., want now to teach us how to run our countries according to their model of Democracy. Beware of their pulling cotton wool over our eyes. Do you seriously believe there is genuine Freedom and practice of Human Rights in America? May I refer you to Noam Chomsky’s “Manufacturing Consent”, a book that exposes American Democracy as a sham?
Even if we overlook the seemingly juvenile language used in the quoted argument above, the inherent sense of cognitive disconnect in the article rears its ugly head again. My understanding of Chomsky’s argument against the existing state of democratic practices in the United States is that the political agenda in Washington tends to revolve around backroom politics and private-sector lobbying, rather than the actual needs and desires of the people.
However, it should be noted that Chomsky is also one who has great hope in America’s continual ability to uphold it’s reputation as the Land of the Free, where civil liberties are upheld and freedom of the individual is observed and ensured by the State.
Clearly, the writer of the article in question fails to acknowledge the fundamental difference between the practice of democracy and the notion of civil liberties, where he refers to the latter as the “genuine freedom, and practice of human rights in America”. In an ideal world, you would probably have both of these ideological concepts in practice, but in the real world, one can always exist without the other.
Besides, Chomsky’s “Manufacturing Consent” is a 1988 publication that puts the blame on government for not only making use of mass media, or what we call the mainstream media today, as a means of influencing the ideology of the populace, but also effectively silencing news outlets that seek to deliver an alternative, allegedly “subversive” perspective. There’s no point in calling the kettle black when you’re a blackened pot yourself, but doesn’t Chomsky’s argument also ring true when you consider the circumstances in which the mainstream media operates in Singapore?
Right up to the second half of the 20th Century, Afro-Americans were still fighting their white counterparts to be accorded equal rights. Martin Luther King Jr. had this to say:
“I have a dream that the children of slaves and the children of former slave-owners will one day sit at the table of brotherhood”.
Martin Luther King Jr. may well be more than surprised should he be alive today to witness that an Afro-American, a coloured man holding the highest post in ‘the Land of the brave and the free’, the post, that is to say, of the President of the United States of America.
The writer should be commended for acknowledging the significance and non-triviality of the progress in civil rights that is reflected in the election of Barack Obama to the highest position of office in the United States of America.
However, this acknowledgement turns into the Achilles’ heel of the general argument brought forth by his article. Considering the fiery rhetoric where he questions the existence of freedom and individual liberties in America, isn’t it a tad ironic that the election of an African American to the Office of President of the United States demonstrates the ability of America to rise above its troubled history and ensure that freedom reigns in the land – where a man who would have been denied the right to vote before the National Voting Rights Act of 1965, was not only able to see his name on the ballot, but win the election itself.
After all, to paraphrase the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. himself, in a world where people will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character, the notions of freedom, democracy, and individual liberties are not an American concept, nor a European concept. Neither are they an African concept, nor an Asian concept. They are a universal concept that should apply to anyone and everyone who considers themselves a member of the human race.
So let freedom ring, not just from the paddy fields of Burma, or the killing fields of Darfur, or the mountaintops of Tibet.
Let freedom ring from every village, every city, every state, every nation, and every nook and cranny of the universe.
Let freedom ring.
As a final note, the provenance of the article in question already suggests the inherent bias that is to be expected from an officially sanctioned mouthpiece of the youth wing of a political party. However, even if we set aside our differences and seek to adopt an objective perspective, this very brief analysis of the article shows the lack of depth and intellectualism of the article in question. Seriously, is this really the best that the up-and-coming political elite can come up with, or am I expecting too much? I wonder.
Related posts:
October 17th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
The article by Ho is indeed poorly written. He tries to be “intellectual” but fails. However, I think we can see the main issue which he has articulated ineffectually; that S’pore should forge its unique way of governance and no model can be pressed on it.
It’s a topic worth thinking about, and Ho has added nothing substantial to this debate. But let’s move on.
It’s a bit nonsensical to suggest S’pore should outright copy the Western model of democracy or create its own model of governance from scratch. In reality, S’pore’s “model of governance” has been a mixture of Western implants and local adaptations. S’pore by all definitions is a parliamentary democracy. Freedom of speech etc is guaranteed in the Constitution, but existing laws, as some critics claim correctly, do violate this principle to some extent.
Taking a look at Western democracies, freedom of speech or human rights etc issues are not absolute. If there was genuine freedom of speech, I could stand up in the middle of a movie screening and shout “Fire!” – and no one can fault me, because I’m exercising my freedom of speech. Hence freedom of speech or human rights (pardon me for lumping all these airy stuff together) to a certain extent, to a tolerable limit agreed upon by society for everyone’s sake.
In S’pore’s case, the govt has decided for society that the tolerable limits are smaller than the Western democracies. Is it appropriate for them to decide, is it acceptable for the rest of us to live with it?
I think that’s the juice of the whole thingy here (:
November 12th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
oh, i had read the govt’s official response to the White Paper by Amsterdam, and I thought this paragraph coincides with the point in my previous comment:
“Singapore has a written Constitution that is Supreme and which guarantees fundamental liberties such as the right to life or personal liberty, right to equal protection, freedom of speech, assembly and association, and freedom of religion. Such rights are not absolute. They need to be balanced against the interests of society as a whole. Just as much as the freedom of speech and freedom of assembly need to be protected, we believe that it is a fundamental human right of all our people to live in a safe and stable environment, free from violence and social disorder.” (bolded words mine)