http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/perspective/vantage/4568-us-interests-and-the-pap
US interests and the PAP
Monday, 07 February 2011
Chee Soon Juan
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 nationals) 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 philosphical, 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 hardwork.
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.
Maintaning 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 approached? 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 thorugh 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.
<object width = "512" height = "328" > <param name = "movie" value = "http://www-tc.pbs.org/video/media/swf/PBSPlayer.swf" > </param><param name="flashvars" value="video=1781219040&player=viral" /> <param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param > <param name = "allowscriptaccess" value = "always" > </param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param ><embed src="http://www-tc.pbs.org/video/media/swf/PBSPlayer.swf" flashvars="video=1781219040&player=viral" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" wmode="transparent" allowfullscreen="true" width="512" height="328" bgcolor="#000000"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #808080; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 512px;">Watch the <a style="text-decoration:none !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#4eb2fe !important;" href="http://video.pbs.org/video/1781219040" target="_blank">full episode</a>. See more <a style="text-decoration:none !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#4eb2fe !important;" href="http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/" target="_blank">Need To Know.</a></p>
Dr Chee Soon Juan is the Secretary-General of the SDP.
US interests and the PAP
Monday, 07 February 2011
Chee Soon Juan
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 nationals) 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 philosphical, 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 hardwork.
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.
Maintaning 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 approached? 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 thorugh 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.
<object width = "512" height = "328" > <param name = "movie" value = "http://www-tc.pbs.org/video/media/swf/PBSPlayer.swf" > </param><param name="flashvars" value="video=1781219040&player=viral" /> <param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param > <param name = "allowscriptaccess" value = "always" > </param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param ><embed src="http://www-tc.pbs.org/video/media/swf/PBSPlayer.swf" flashvars="video=1781219040&player=viral" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" wmode="transparent" allowfullscreen="true" width="512" height="328" bgcolor="#000000"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #808080; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 512px;">Watch the <a style="text-decoration:none !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#4eb2fe !important;" href="http://video.pbs.org/video/1781219040" target="_blank">full episode</a>. See more <a style="text-decoration:none !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#4eb2fe !important;" href="http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/" target="_blank">Need To Know.</a></p>
Dr Chee Soon Juan is the Secretary-General of the SDP.
I had always cautioned all Singapore opposition about relying on western powers in particular US, to pressurize famiLEE LEEgime. These foreign powers have much more of their own interest to take care, and they will comfortably betray us any time, just as how they had treated many other countries including Sudan & Myanmar etc. Some opposition are very naive to idolize the USA as an icon of freedom and democracy, and there is a load of western crap that I will never buy.
。 Fortunately for 孙中山 that did not worked out, and then Japs started WW2 invasion using force like USA did to Iraq. Before WW2 Japs already invaded Qing during Sino-Japs war 甲午战争。After 孙中山 & 袁世凯 ousted Qing, the Japs Army began aggression from 卢沟桥 and worst than what happened to Singapore during WW2 they slaughter lots of Chinese and took lots of Chinese territories, and they setup the FAKE Manchurian Puppet Regime using the Last Emperor of Qing Dynasty - who was ousted by 孙中山!
