For many people, Singapore appears as an idealistic society: cleanness, organization, serenity, but also dynamism are watchwords in Singapore.
I understood why the city had that reputation, when arrived the very first time in Singapore. Singaporeans have succeeded in giving sense to everything. Unless France, Singapore tries to make each worker, each building, each equipment as effective as possible. The MRT stop of Changi Airport looks rather like the idealistic street in Les Poupees Russes than a typical metro stop of Paris!
The history of Singapore is full of rebounds, and this modern Estate has taken much time to stand out. Singapore obtained its total autonomy in 1965, after English, Japanese, and Malaysian occupations. The City-Estate is considered as a model of success in Asia. Economists usually consider that Singapore is one of the four tigers of Asia (with Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea), which have experienced an impressive growth for a few years. Their cultural model is also recognized, regarding the way Singapore succeed in conserving the diverse cultures which compile it, creating, in spite of social tensions a tolerant society. This long and perilous construction has emerged, for many Singapore' inhabitants, thanks to their original model, and their way to face problems: by rigor and authority.
The main question is how does Singapore have succeeded in constructing such a model in which contestations are infrequent? Is that because the model is really idealistic or because the population hasn't a real political awareness?
In a first part, I will wonder about Singaporeans aspire to keep a link with past so as to have steady repairs (by traditions and so on), and an effort to appear like a modern society. Then, I will wonder about Singaporean culture and its link with that great success.
I Between traditions and modernity: a way to reach perfection?
"Our Singapore commercial law and our legal system can be like a bridge between businesses in the east and the west." In my opinion, this sentence delivered by the Singapore Prime Minister is a sign of the Singapore society ambition to remain between traditions (respecting some values of their diverse Asiatic minorities) and modernity (embodied by an aspiration to look like occidental society)
A/ In economics:
Singapore having not much of reserves other than a great capacity of fishing, the city had to extend and to thrive other activities, all the more with the Globalization, to take a seat on the world market. Thus, Singaporeans benefited from there geographical place in the world, at the middle of Asia, to develop a powerful harbor.
For the last several dozen of years, Singapore has turned its activities to some maybe more lucrative and fashioned as finance, services, like in other countries. The symbol of the modern city remains in its CBD, one of the most impressive centralization of skyscrapers in the world, where the high-status activities are situated at the same place. But actually Singapore hasn't much national financial societies; most of them are American or European. So the Singaporean efforts stand on how they could become an attractive country for foreign investments. Create an impressive CBD was a key to show that Singapore could be a modern city, as well as showing that their economical model could be as liberal as the occidental society.
And yet the city has conserved his powerful harbor, like a link between past and future, and they don't only keep it: they have improved it, so that Singapore is still the world first harbor regarding exportation and maritime traffic.
Singapore appears in spite of difficulties like an economical model for many countries.
B/ In the legal system:
The influence of the British legal system on the Singaporean one is significant. On paper, Singapore is still governed by the Common Law. The system itself has never been deeply contested in Singapore; however, Singaporeans demonstrated their desire to go forward, keeping their old system but just in adapting to our modern world. Thus, they have left the entirely common low system to adhere to a system we can describe as a mix between common law (which appears sometimes rigid, symbolizing traditions) and civil law (judges are for instance a bit less influential).
But the British influence is deeper. A few sides of English Rights are still integrated into Singaporean Common Law. But Singapore displays once again its desire to go forward in rejecting the British guardianship. In 2002, the Singapore Court of Appeal hadn't adopted the position of the British Court of Appeal. But in my opinion beyond this aspiration for a entire independence towards the United Kingdom, Singapore suffer because of its lack of ambition to create rights really adapted to modernity and to social needs. For instance, a few lows regarding homosexuality, from the Victorian time, are still usual. The gay community is important in Singapore, the model is censed to be quite open-minded, so why do those laws aren't revoked? Singapore is well known for its strict laws, and as far I'm concerned I agree that. However, when a topic is consensually agreed by a large part of the society, I think that we have to change the legislation, all the more when the country cares for minorities' freedom!
C/ In the instititutional and the political running:
The Singaporean Constitution (1963) provides a similarly political running as in the British model. The president is the Estate Chief. In fact he's a real puppet, as could be French Presidents under the Forth Republic (but unlike French Forth Republic, Singaporean Presidents are elected by the crowed since 1991) The First Minister Disignated by the President is the chief of the government; he's at the top of the political hierarchy of Singapore. The third kind of main institution is the parliament. There is one only room which takes care of the total law conception. Most of the members are elected (83/93), the other one are designated and one seat is reserved by the opposition party who has the most numerous number of votes.
In a certain side, this model could be perceived as a modern political model. (The similarity with European democracy is obvious). However, my occidental and Rousseau's point of view make me think that such a political model where powers aren't actually separated is anti democratic. All the more when I learnt that a constitution revision in 1991 changed the way of election of the members of parliament making its access very difficult for the opposition! I might be on the wrong track with my French idealistic ideas; nevertheless I believe that no matter which the society is, having a counter-power is important for the progress. In Singapore, its evolution doesn't tend to an improvement; the aim rather seems to keep the People's Action Party as the headmaster of the political life (in the government for 40 years). On that aspect, although I acknowledge that participative democracy isn't an idealistic model, I'm sure that it could just be positive for Singapore to draw inspiration from it a bit more.
II A particular and dynamic culture
A/ Consequences of the minorities assertion:
Subsequently to racial riots, Singaporean government has quickly promoted cultural distinction. Each culture, each minority, each language, should subsist in the same city and thus creating an open minded society, without segregation, without racism, where the watchword would be tolerance. This respect for the minorities, which is certainly inspired by the British model of society, is promoted in the Constitution, and a lack of respect of that principle is severely reprehensible.
In Singapore some minorities' areas have been thrived. Little India, China town are the most famous, but some other areas like Myanmar district are also listed. Personally, I've never been to India or China, but we told me is that people in these areas are acting as if they lived in their country of origin: the same clothes, the same language, the same way to go shopping, the same way to eat, the same values...
Singapore acknowledges several languages but without any removal of the principle of the minorities promotion, Singapore had to adopt a language which could be useful and who could takes care of any of the minorities. Thus, the languages currently spoken in Singapore is the "Singlish", a soft mix of English mainly, Malaysian, and other languages, all of that with a strong Malaysian accent.
In my opinion, it's quite clever to promote a "salad bowl" model of society when you admit that there are deep differences between groups, it doesn't serve to obstinate to think that there is one culture, that everyone should refer to it, as we tend to think in France. In Singapore, instead of bringing tensions in the society, the different minorities tend to create a positive energy. Chinese values have for instance integrated into Singaporeans minds some essential values for their economical prosperity as work, humility, or discretion...
B/ A lack of political awareness as a slow down for progress?
On paper, Singapore has always acknowledged occidental virtues as if there were theirs. But, it's maybe a way to restore occidental investments confidence. For a minimum of risk investors need stability. Democracy, Human Rights are some of these guarantees for occidental investors. Paradoxically, the government has always advocated liberty, freedom, liberalism; and yet, citizens' freedom is restricted. As I told (in I,b,§2), liberty of some sexual practices are not complete. In the same idea, some kinds of press are censured in Singapore (The Far Eastern Economic Review, pornographic press, Malaysian press, and above all Malaysian pornographic press). What the government represses as being counter nature crimes, could be seen as an invasion of privacy. It's so paradoxical. On one hand the government promotes the freedom, and on the other hand, it demonstrates a huge authority towards the population, it seems to be very narrow-minded concerning some topics.
And, Singaporeans, in spite of there aspiration to build an idealistic society in where strands of modernity and those of progress would be woven as one, they don't seem to have a lucid and impartial perception about their own system. They don't question if the government is totally legitimate, if what happens is really good for the crowd (as we can do in France...!). I think that if Singaporeans don't pay much attention to this kind of thinks it's just because it's a very respectful and law abiding population. If Singapore manages to get out from the crisis, becoming a powerful country, it's thanks to their political and legal system. They are confidence about that; they must respect the fundamental on what they have been built. It's inconceivable for Singaporeans to forgo entirely this model! Unless French citizens, Singaporeans ones believe that the government is enough skilled to take decisions for the crowd. Singaporeans I have met, have a good opinion of the government. Actually, they consider that if the other parties don't succeed in being elected, it's just because there are weak.
I guess that my French revolutionary culture makes me think that all the systems need deep contestations to be auto-regulated, but a society which rejected entirely the principle of occidental democracy, affirming that difference; it makes me question a lot of thinks. What we learn in French school about the benefits of a participative democracy, what can bring a demonstration and so on... Often, French demonstrations are unfounded. It's a way for the opposition to put in an appearance. In Singapore, demonstrations are forbidden. But that interdiction would be more a social consensus than a sign of authoritarian because the citizens don't seem to need it.
Singapore looks like a society where the rules are very severe for us, but reflecting especially Singaporeans culture and it's why they don't question much their model. In their case, we cannot say that Singapore citizens suffer from a lack of political awareness, it's just that they are in harmony with their system.
Singapore has succeeded in building such a model thanks to a particular culture: a desire to reach perfection, in adding amelioration whenever they can, and in taking benefit of whatever they have. Their lack of political "occidental" awareness is finally assumed and Singaporeans citizens are proud of that difference.
I understood why the city had that reputation, when arrived the very first time in Singapore. Singaporeans have succeeded in giving sense to everything. Unless France, Singapore tries to make each worker, each building, each equipment as effective as possible. The MRT stop of Changi Airport looks rather like the idealistic street in Les Poupees Russes than a typical metro stop of Paris!
The history of Singapore is full of rebounds, and this modern Estate has taken much time to stand out. Singapore obtained its total autonomy in 1965, after English, Japanese, and Malaysian occupations. The City-Estate is considered as a model of success in Asia. Economists usually consider that Singapore is one of the four tigers of Asia (with Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea), which have experienced an impressive growth for a few years. Their cultural model is also recognized, regarding the way Singapore succeed in conserving the diverse cultures which compile it, creating, in spite of social tensions a tolerant society. This long and perilous construction has emerged, for many Singapore' inhabitants, thanks to their original model, and their way to face problems: by rigor and authority.
The main question is how does Singapore have succeeded in constructing such a model in which contestations are infrequent? Is that because the model is really idealistic or because the population hasn't a real political awareness?
In a first part, I will wonder about Singaporeans aspire to keep a link with past so as to have steady repairs (by traditions and so on), and an effort to appear like a modern society. Then, I will wonder about Singaporean culture and its link with that great success.
I Between traditions and modernity: a way to reach perfection?
"Our Singapore commercial law and our legal system can be like a bridge between businesses in the east and the west." In my opinion, this sentence delivered by the Singapore Prime Minister is a sign of the Singapore society ambition to remain between traditions (respecting some values of their diverse Asiatic minorities) and modernity (embodied by an aspiration to look like occidental society)
A/ In economics:
Singapore having not much of reserves other than a great capacity of fishing, the city had to extend and to thrive other activities, all the more with the Globalization, to take a seat on the world market. Thus, Singaporeans benefited from there geographical place in the world, at the middle of Asia, to develop a powerful harbor.
For the last several dozen of years, Singapore has turned its activities to some maybe more lucrative and fashioned as finance, services, like in other countries. The symbol of the modern city remains in its CBD, one of the most impressive centralization of skyscrapers in the world, where the high-status activities are situated at the same place. But actually Singapore hasn't much national financial societies; most of them are American or European. So the Singaporean efforts stand on how they could become an attractive country for foreign investments. Create an impressive CBD was a key to show that Singapore could be a modern city, as well as showing that their economical model could be as liberal as the occidental society.
And yet the city has conserved his powerful harbor, like a link between past and future, and they don't only keep it: they have improved it, so that Singapore is still the world first harbor regarding exportation and maritime traffic.
Singapore appears in spite of difficulties like an economical model for many countries.
B/ In the legal system:
The influence of the British legal system on the Singaporean one is significant. On paper, Singapore is still governed by the Common Law. The system itself has never been deeply contested in Singapore; however, Singaporeans demonstrated their desire to go forward, keeping their old system but just in adapting to our modern world. Thus, they have left the entirely common low system to adhere to a system we can describe as a mix between common law (which appears sometimes rigid, symbolizing traditions) and civil law (judges are for instance a bit less influential).
But the British influence is deeper. A few sides of English Rights are still integrated into Singaporean Common Law. But Singapore displays once again its desire to go forward in rejecting the British guardianship. In 2002, the Singapore Court of Appeal hadn't adopted the position of the British Court of Appeal. But in my opinion beyond this aspiration for a entire independence towards the United Kingdom, Singapore suffer because of its lack of ambition to create rights really adapted to modernity and to social needs. For instance, a few lows regarding homosexuality, from the Victorian time, are still usual. The gay community is important in Singapore, the model is censed to be quite open-minded, so why do those laws aren't revoked? Singapore is well known for its strict laws, and as far I'm concerned I agree that. However, when a topic is consensually agreed by a large part of the society, I think that we have to change the legislation, all the more when the country cares for minorities' freedom!
C/ In the instititutional and the political running:
The Singaporean Constitution (1963) provides a similarly political running as in the British model. The president is the Estate Chief. In fact he's a real puppet, as could be French Presidents under the Forth Republic (but unlike French Forth Republic, Singaporean Presidents are elected by the crowed since 1991) The First Minister Disignated by the President is the chief of the government; he's at the top of the political hierarchy of Singapore. The third kind of main institution is the parliament. There is one only room which takes care of the total law conception. Most of the members are elected (83/93), the other one are designated and one seat is reserved by the opposition party who has the most numerous number of votes.
In a certain side, this model could be perceived as a modern political model. (The similarity with European democracy is obvious). However, my occidental and Rousseau's point of view make me think that such a political model where powers aren't actually separated is anti democratic. All the more when I learnt that a constitution revision in 1991 changed the way of election of the members of parliament making its access very difficult for the opposition! I might be on the wrong track with my French idealistic ideas; nevertheless I believe that no matter which the society is, having a counter-power is important for the progress. In Singapore, its evolution doesn't tend to an improvement; the aim rather seems to keep the People's Action Party as the headmaster of the political life (in the government for 40 years). On that aspect, although I acknowledge that participative democracy isn't an idealistic model, I'm sure that it could just be positive for Singapore to draw inspiration from it a bit more.
II A particular and dynamic culture
A/ Consequences of the minorities assertion:
Subsequently to racial riots, Singaporean government has quickly promoted cultural distinction. Each culture, each minority, each language, should subsist in the same city and thus creating an open minded society, without segregation, without racism, where the watchword would be tolerance. This respect for the minorities, which is certainly inspired by the British model of society, is promoted in the Constitution, and a lack of respect of that principle is severely reprehensible.
In Singapore some minorities' areas have been thrived. Little India, China town are the most famous, but some other areas like Myanmar district are also listed. Personally, I've never been to India or China, but we told me is that people in these areas are acting as if they lived in their country of origin: the same clothes, the same language, the same way to go shopping, the same way to eat, the same values...
Singapore acknowledges several languages but without any removal of the principle of the minorities promotion, Singapore had to adopt a language which could be useful and who could takes care of any of the minorities. Thus, the languages currently spoken in Singapore is the "Singlish", a soft mix of English mainly, Malaysian, and other languages, all of that with a strong Malaysian accent.
In my opinion, it's quite clever to promote a "salad bowl" model of society when you admit that there are deep differences between groups, it doesn't serve to obstinate to think that there is one culture, that everyone should refer to it, as we tend to think in France. In Singapore, instead of bringing tensions in the society, the different minorities tend to create a positive energy. Chinese values have for instance integrated into Singaporeans minds some essential values for their economical prosperity as work, humility, or discretion...
B/ A lack of political awareness as a slow down for progress?
On paper, Singapore has always acknowledged occidental virtues as if there were theirs. But, it's maybe a way to restore occidental investments confidence. For a minimum of risk investors need stability. Democracy, Human Rights are some of these guarantees for occidental investors. Paradoxically, the government has always advocated liberty, freedom, liberalism; and yet, citizens' freedom is restricted. As I told (in I,b,§2), liberty of some sexual practices are not complete. In the same idea, some kinds of press are censured in Singapore (The Far Eastern Economic Review, pornographic press, Malaysian press, and above all Malaysian pornographic press). What the government represses as being counter nature crimes, could be seen as an invasion of privacy. It's so paradoxical. On one hand the government promotes the freedom, and on the other hand, it demonstrates a huge authority towards the population, it seems to be very narrow-minded concerning some topics.
And, Singaporeans, in spite of there aspiration to build an idealistic society in where strands of modernity and those of progress would be woven as one, they don't seem to have a lucid and impartial perception about their own system. They don't question if the government is totally legitimate, if what happens is really good for the crowd (as we can do in France...!). I think that if Singaporeans don't pay much attention to this kind of thinks it's just because it's a very respectful and law abiding population. If Singapore manages to get out from the crisis, becoming a powerful country, it's thanks to their political and legal system. They are confidence about that; they must respect the fundamental on what they have been built. It's inconceivable for Singaporeans to forgo entirely this model! Unless French citizens, Singaporeans ones believe that the government is enough skilled to take decisions for the crowd. Singaporeans I have met, have a good opinion of the government. Actually, they consider that if the other parties don't succeed in being elected, it's just because there are weak.
I guess that my French revolutionary culture makes me think that all the systems need deep contestations to be auto-regulated, but a society which rejected entirely the principle of occidental democracy, affirming that difference; it makes me question a lot of thinks. What we learn in French school about the benefits of a participative democracy, what can bring a demonstration and so on... Often, French demonstrations are unfounded. It's a way for the opposition to put in an appearance. In Singapore, demonstrations are forbidden. But that interdiction would be more a social consensus than a sign of authoritarian because the citizens don't seem to need it.
Singapore looks like a society where the rules are very severe for us, but reflecting especially Singaporeans culture and it's why they don't question much their model. In their case, we cannot say that Singapore citizens suffer from a lack of political awareness, it's just that they are in harmony with their system.
Singapore has succeeded in building such a model thanks to a particular culture: a desire to reach perfection, in adding amelioration whenever they can, and in taking benefit of whatever they have. Their lack of political "occidental" awareness is finally assumed and Singaporeans citizens are proud of that difference.
