Lessons from Singapore: a rejoinder - Response to Harvey C. Bunke's article in the May-June, 1989 issue of Business Horizons

Business Horizons, March-April, 1990 by Janamitra Devan

Lessons from Singapore: A Rejoinder

The ivory tower academic strikes again! As I eagerly opened the pages of the May-June 1989 issue of Business Horizons - indeed, one of my favorite business journals - I was aghast at the liberties the editor, Dr. Harvey C. Bunke, had taken in extolling the virtues of Singapore, my homeland. Still, as a "free Singaporean" (I will explain this later), I can only rejoice at the fact that here in America, even sweeping generalizations, dubious analyses, and flimsy hypotheses can find their way into print.

Dr. Bunke has stumbled into the kind of error that all students pursuing the higher reaches of learning are forewarned against - that is, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. With all due Confucian respect, Dr. Bunke, the arguments you advance can bear neither academic nor even lay scrutiny. Your analysis of Singapore is akin to that of the fly that sweeps down atop a dunghill (of which there are plenty in Southeast Asia, as well as in rural America) and thinks it has found the answer to the world's food shortage problems. It is a case of fallacious premising ending up, nonetheless, with an essentially correct observation. Let me explain.

Granted, Singapore has achieved remarkable heights of economic progress. Your thesis correctly attests to Singapore's undeniable achievements. Your testimony to the phenomenally successful public housing program, the efficient transportation facilities, an incorruptible administration, and the general successes prudent development policies have chalked up is beyond cavil. But your premise that Singapore's success is attributable to Confucian ethics is, to say the least, specious in the extreme. "Rooted in the ethic of the East," your article claims, "it suffers little from crime, drug problems, homelessness, begging, unemployment, or mental depression." Dr. Bunke, how do you explain the rampant corruption in Indonesia and the Philippines which you yourself mention? Or that which exists in China itself, where Confucianism was born? Or the Recruit scandal that has so badly shaken public confidence in the integrity of the government of that supreme model of Asian development, Japan? What of the pervasive destitution, unemployment, and underemployment infesting so many Eastern societies, despite the rich cultural traditions they can boast of? Is Singapore the sole purveyor of this non sequitur you call the "ethic of the East"? It must be understood that ethics is not and never was the sole prerogative of the East. What is so lacking in the Protestant ethic, which lays an equal emphasis on the same virtues of diligence, industry, and thrift that Confucianism upholds?

Singapore's success cannot be so neatly categorized and labeled as "Confucian." Throughout your article you quote several statements of Singaporeans that to me appear to be the type of propagandist pronouncements which choke the airwaves of the state-controlled Singapore Broadcasting Corporation and the columns of the Singapore press - better known as the purveyor of Orwellian "Newspeak" in its Singapore incarnation. These hectoring statements you quote smack of smug self-righteousness and conceit, which happen to be quite uncharacteristic of Confucian humility. "We would never let our family members be homeless. You Americans are so selfish," is one such fatuous quote. The "young U.S.-educated Singaporian [sic]" who said this is obviously an avid reader of the local Straits Times. It seems to me, Dr. Bunke, that either you did not sufficiently immerse yourself in the Singaporean ethic, or your conversations were confined to those Singaporeans who habitually spout the party line.

I am by no means waving the American flag myself. As I said earlier, I am a Singaporean. Nor am I attempting a total denigration of my own country. But I do take exception to misleading generalizations and half-truths. As you stated quite clearly towards the end of your article, "Singapore is not the U.S." Bravo! That saved your article somewhat. But let me make an equally profound statement: The U.S. is not Singapore. And when one attempts to compare two disparate entities, one is bound to tie oneself up in knots. Not that knots cannot be undone. Unlike the legendary Gordian knot, which was sliced through with Alexander's sword, I am relieved that the Bunkeian knot can be less trenchantly dealt with.

Let me clarify that the public Confucianization of Singapore is a fairly recent phenomenon, set into motion by the prime minister of Singapore. When the accidental creation of Singapore came about in 1965 (Singapore can rightly claim to be the first country to have been kicked out into independence!), the basic political and socio-economic goal set by our founding fathers was to build a democratic society based on justice, peace, progress, and prosperity. Nowhere was there any mention of Confucianism being the basic tenet of development. Instead, Harold Laski and British social democracy were invoked then. It simply was not possible to have harked back to Confucianism then, as it is equally impossible to do so now. Development took place on the basis of equal treatment of all races, religions, and cultures - a crucial requirement given the heterogeneous population of Singapore - and was rapidly attained due to hard-headed economic policies and, what is crucially important, a hard-working population. Not Confucianism!