Democracy or Wealth: A Case Study - Singapore

Challenge, Nov, 2000 by Gerald Houseman

In this informal survey of students, most chose political freedom over a strong and unemployment-free economy. But not all.

AN ONGOING question about American college students, and, for that matter, about American society in general, involves a trade-off between economic and personal security and political freedom. Quite often, of course, this question is posed in ideological terms, and it is a fair guess that political conservatives like to portray these values as contrasting elements more than liberals or social democrats might. At this ideological level, the issue of "freedom or security" hardly seems worthwhile from the viewpoint of critical social science. It can easily be argued, after all, that a measure of economic security provides freedom to individuals in a way that the free market neglects.

It should be interesting, all the same, to delve into the opinions of today's college students to see how their values surrounding such issues stack up. For as surely as students are committed to American individualism, freedom of choice on all sorts of issues, and an open society, they appear equally committed to the security that comes with a good economy and reasonable employment opportunities; a life free of threats such as poverty, ill health, and crime; and the ability to rely on rewards in exchange for effort.

I stumbled into this four-year project quite by accident. I decided to show a film on Singapore to a freshman-level class in American politics and government in the fall semester of 1994. The idea was to demonstrate to students that a society that has marked contrasts with the United States in its programs, and perhaps even in its underlying values, can find success on its own terms despite its great differences with the "American way." I believed that this film, which was one of the more effective I have seen in recent years, [1] would provoke discussion on a variety of topics such as economic policy, societal values, political socialization, and the ingredients of national development.

And indeed it did. I found that students, through exposure to this film, a government-issued booklet on Singapore's social programs, [2] and a list I provided based on my knowledge and observations while staying in that country, [3] were quite enthusiastic in taking up this comparative model as a means of discussing and debating their ideas of what a government and society are about.

Modern Singapore seems almost ideal for such a comparative exercise. It provides a model of government and society that may be unprecedented: a combination of economic growth, maturity, social planning, and even great wealth--gross domestic product (GDP) per capita is more than U.S.$30,000--along with a considerable measure of authoritarianism. Singapore engages in quite heavy surveillance of its citizens, including monitoring of the Internet and other telecommunications, as well as strict regulation of political activity and public meetings, government-controlled media, single-party rule, and enforcement of many measures affecting the daily lives and activities of Singaporeans. Among these measures are regulations of traffic and even the right to own an automobile; heavy fines for littering, graffiti, or failing to flush a public toilet; ID requirements; and housing laws. In historical terms, Singapore might be seen as an anomaly because much of the literature and experience regarding authoritarian governme nts has rarely displayed any "upside" or success factors in such governments (other than perhaps industrialization successes or military achievements).

Singapore, however, receives high marks from observers and writers for obviously providing good living standards for its people, [4] and not in the drab and stultifying environments we have come to associate with places like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Indeed, citizens of Singapore are permitted to leave their country, though few choose to do so, in contrast to the situation in many authoritarian regimes. Living in Singapore, in fact, is equated with having an excellent housing program, good to excellent health standards, and educational, cultural, economic, and employment opportunities in an almost crime-free environment. The country's economic growth rates over most of the past decade have exceeded 7 percent per year and have sometimes climbed as high as 9 percent, while unemployment has been virtually nonexistent. Indeed, a labor shortage has been the norm. [5]

All of these factors present an obvious quandary: Is political democracy necessary for providing a satisfying and hopeful life for a nation's people?

Over a period of four years, this question was posed in a classroom situation to students who had been given background information on how Singapore functions. Students were asked to write essays discussing and comparing the life in Singapore, as it had been depicted to them, with life as they perceived it in the United States. They were asked to address the question of whether a society with virtually no unemployment, no crime, no homelessness, many of the amenities associated with technology and shopping malls, good public transportation, strong economic growth, and a great measure of personal and social security was worth exchanging for political freedom as practiced in the United States. Some Singaporeans, in expressing satisfaction with their system to me, said that it was advisable to simply ignore politics--the government, after all, is doing a competent job--and concentrate on the economic and social benefits. Is this trade, then, worth it: In other words, can we exchange political freedom as we know it for the kinds of benefits bestowed by the Singapore system?