Raffles Institution
General Paper
Understanding by Design
Information Package on Politics
Unit Title: Politics
Level: Year 6 (Term 1, 2014)
Developed by: Mr Clement Cheng & Ms Angela Chew
Updated by: Ms S. Uma Rani & Mr Patrick Wong
Contents of Info-Pack
1. Understanding by Design: Politics………………………………………………………………..
2. Quotations on Politics………………………………………………………………………………
3. Cambridge and JC Essay Questions……………………………………………………………..
4. A Glossary of Basic Political Terms………………………………………………………………
5. Politically Correct: Vocabulary Quiz………………………………………………………………
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Page
2
5
9
15
17
The State:
a. The Purpose of the State – Two Contrasting Views: Plato and Hobbes…………..
b. Goals of Government (Mind Map).…………………………….……………………...
19
22
Political Systems:
a. Introduction to Different Political Systems: Political Compass Lesson Plan......
b. Political Compass …………………………………………………………………….
c. Spectra of States……………………………………………………………………...
d. Government and Freedom...….……………………………………………………..
23
24
26
27
Democracy:
a. What is Democracy? ..............................................................................................
b. What’s Wrong with Democracy (I): The Problem of Majority Rule………………....
c. What’s Wrong with Democracy (II): The Ignorant Voter………….………………....
d. Problems with democracy: Follow-up group work……………………………………
e. The trouble with democracy – and dictatorship (AQ Exercise)……………………..
f. Does democracy stifle economic growth? .............................................................
28
31
33
35
36
38
Politics in Singapore
a. Government Unlimited: The PAP Ideology of State Primacy………………………
b. Singapore – First World Electorate? (AQ Exercise): (I) Towards a First World
Electorate – Ho Kwon Ping / (II): Are We Prepared to be a First World Electorate?
– Norzian Mohamed Yunos……………………………………………………………
c. What Singapore can learn from Europe – Tommy Koh………………………………
War & Terrorism
a. Is there such a thing as a just war? …………………………………………………….
b. The Just War by St. Thomas Aquinas…………………………………………………..
c. Why wage war? …………………………………………………………………………...
d. Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech…………………………………….
e. Terrorism – Walter Laqueur (Short Compre Qns / Essay Qn)…………………........
f. The Terrorist Next Door (Activity & Quiz)………………………………………………
g. Re-Thinking Homegrown Terrorism – Busso von Alvensleben (Compre Qns)…….
h. Can Terrorism Be Cured? – Steven Metz………………………………………………
42
48
53
58
59
61
63
70
71
72
74
1
Essential Questions: What essential questions will focus this unit?
1. What is good governance?
2. What are the merits and limitations of democracy?
3. Which is more important: principle of pragmatism and economic development or freedom and
equality?
4. What is the nature of politics in Singapore?
5. Is war a biological necessity, a sociological inevitability or just a bad invention?
6. Can there ever be a just or an ethical war?
7. What are the causes of terrorism?
8. How can nations deal with the threat of terrorism?
Enduring Understanding(s): What will students understand as a result of this unit?
1. Politics is about power, order and justice and is at work at all levels of society: family, work,
religion, culture and government.
2. Different political systems create different societies with different lives for the people.
3. The political issues / questions that concerned philosophers in the past are still relevant today.
4. The political scene in Singapore is in a state of change, bringing new challenges in governance.
5. War and conflict are an integral part of human history and have profound consequences for the
lives of people.
6. Aggression may succeed in resolving conflict but often creates other problems that invariably
lead to human suffering.
Recommended Websites:
1.
Various BBC links to country profiles containing political-system information at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
(click
on
‘Country
Profiles’
in
the
left
column
or
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/country_profiles/default.stm - links to international organisations like the
United Nations, NATO and the European Union included).
2.
Sparknotes (www.sparknotes.com): Good summary site for works such as Leviathan, The Social
Contract, The Prince, along with thought-provoking study questions. A more reliable site than the
ubiquitous Wikipedia.
3.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Singapore: http://www.mfa.gov.sg/internet/ - read about Singapore’s
foreign policy and international relations.
4.
Ministry of Home Affairs, Singapore: http://www2.mha.gov.sg/mha/index.jsp - learn about
Singapore’s various domestic policies.
5.
The Official Website of ASEAN: http://www.aseansec.org/ - understand the important role this
regional organisation plays.
6.
Inside Europe (In-depth guide to the European Union with news, debates, an A-Z of jargon
and special features): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/europe/2003/inside_europe/default.stm
7.
UN: http://www.un.org/english/ - contains what you need to know about one of the key international
organisations today (also available in other languages like Mandarin.)
8.
Asia Pacific Online Network of Women in Politics, Governance and Transformative
Leadership (onlinewomeninpolitics.org): http://www.onlinewomeninpolitics.org/ - get more insight
on the place of women in politics today.
2
Recommended reading:
Non-Fiction












Introduction to philosophers on politics (Hobbes: Leviathan Ch. XIII, Aristotle: Politics, Plato: The
Republic, Machiavelli: The Prince)
Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy (on Idealism and Realpolitik)
George Orwell: Politics and the English Language
Margaret Thatcher, The Downing Street Years (autobiography of the ‘Iron Lady’)
Margaret Thatcher, The Path to Power (another autobiography; an insight into the intellectual and
political formation of one of Britain’s most famous female leaders)
Jung Chang: Wild Swans: Three Daughters of China (the true story of three generations of women,
including the effects of communism, Mao’s government and the Japanese occupation in China)
Lee Kuan Yew, From Third World to First
Gretchen Liu, The Singapore Foreign Service: The First 40 Years
Cherian George: The Air-conditioned Nation (short essays on politics in Singapore, among other
short pieces)
Warren Fernandez, Thinking Allowed?
Ghani, Peh, Teo, Lim, et al., Struck by Lightning: Singaporean Voices Post-1965
Kishore Mahbubani, The New Asian Hemisphere
Fiction









E.M. Remarque: All Quiet on the Western Front (an anti-war novel)
Thomas Keneally, Schindler’s Ark (based on the true story of German industrialist Oskar Schindler’s
efforts to save Jews in World War II Poland)
Robert Penn Warren, All the King’s Men
Jonathan Swift: A Modest Proposal
George Orwell: 1984; Animal Farm
Julian Barnes: A History of the World in 10½ Chapters (Chap. 1)
Joseph Heller: Catch 22
Pat Barker: Regeneration; The Eye in the Door; The Ghost Road
War poetry: Wilfred Owen, Siegfried Sassoon.
Recommended documentaries/films:
1. Scream Bloody Murder (a CNN documentary that focuses on genocide in Cambodia, Iraq, Bosnia,
Rwanda and Darfur.)
2. On Our Watch (a PBS online documentary on the Darfur crisis: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/ frontline
/darfur/)
3. Fahrenheit 9/11 (Michael Moore’s view on how the Bush administration used the 9/11 event to push its
agenda in Afghanistan and Iraq.)
4. Bowling for Columbine (Michael Moore’s exploration of why the Columbine massacre occurred.)
5. Spying on the Home Front (a PBS online documentary about national security measures vs. privacy:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/view/)
6. The Great Conspiracy – the 9/11 News Special You Never Saw (an alternative view of what happened
on 9/11.)
3
7. All Quiet on the Western Front (based on the E.M. Remarque novel on World War I – see above.)
8. Schindler’s List (based on the novel Schindler’s Ark – see above.)
9. Good Night, and Good Luck (on McCarthy's anti-Communist witch hunts in 1950s USA and some
journalists’ uncompromising response to it.)
10. Thirteen Days (on the Cuban Missile Crisis.)
11. La Battaglia di Algeri / The Battle of Algiers (a complex and moving depiction of the Algerian rebellion
against French colonialism.)
12. Platoon (a searing look at the brutalizing effects of the Vietnam War on Man and his conscience.)
13. Full Metal Jacket (looks at the dehumanising and surrealistic nature of the Vietnam War.)
14. The Killing Fields (a dramatic exploration of friendship during the bloody reign of Pol Pot’s regime.)
15. Munich (‘Tagline: The world was watching in 1972 as 11 Israeli athletes were murdered at the Munich
Olympics. This is the story of what happened next.’)
16. Welcome to Sarajevo (a devastating portrayal – shot in documentary-like-style – of conscience, struggle
and heart-breaking suffering during the Balkan tragedy.)
18. Restrepo OR The Battle for Marjah (about the war in Afghanistan)
19. Generation Kill (about the experiences of a Marine recon battalion in Operation Iraqi Freedom)
20. The Road to Guantanamo (a perspective on the extreme measures the US and the UK have taken in
their fight against terrorism.)
21. Lions for Lambs (with a title that alludes to incompetent leaders sending brave soldiers into the slaughter
of battle, the film takes aim at the US wars in the Middle East.)
22. In the Valley of Elah (explores the Iraqi War and post-traumatic stress disorder following combat.)
23. Rendition (centres on the controversial CIA practice of extraordinary rendition – i.e. the transfer of a
person, a terrorist suspect for instance, to another country known to torture prisoners.)
24. Hotel Rwanda (documents a hotelier’s efforts to protect refugees during the Rwandan genocide.)
25. Syriana (a geopolitical thriller that focuses on petroleum politics.)
26. Game Change (movie about the 2008 US Presidential campaign when Sarah Palin ran for Vice
President and the problems with the democratic process of elections)
Assessment: What evidence will show that students understand?
1. 2 Essays
2. 1 Comprehension exercise
3. Common Test 1 (Paper 1 only)
4
2. Quotations on Politics
(Main source: http://www.quoteworld.org/categories/politics/#)
Politicians and Government
1
Man is by nature a political animal. -
-- Aristotle
2
Private passions grow tired and wear themselves out; political passions, never.
-- Alphonse Marie Louis de Lamartine
3
The study of history is the beginning of political wisdom.
4
Use power to help people. For we are given power not to advance our own purposes nor to
make a great show in the world, nor a name. There is but one just use of power and it is to
serve people.
-- George Herbert Walker Bush
5
Good government generally begins in the family, and if the moral character of a people once
degenerate[s], their political character must soon follow.
-- Elias Boudinot
6
When a nation sins, it will have one ruler after another. But a nation will be strong and
endure when it has intelligent, sensible leaders.
– King Solomon, book of Proverbs,
from The Holy Bible
7
What is a minority? The chosen heroes of this earth have been in a minority. There is not a
social, political, or religious privilege that you enjoy today that was not bought for you by the
blood and tears and patient suffering of the minority. It is the minority that have stood in the
van of every moral conflict, and achieved all that is noble in the history of the world.
-- John B. Gough
8
Politics, as a practice, whatever its professions, has always been the systematic organization
of hatreds. -- Henry Brooks Adams
9
Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the
unpalatable.
-- John Kenneth Galbraith
10
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and
applying the wrong remedies.
-- Julius Henry Marx
11
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and hence clamorous
to be led to safety – by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them
imaginary.
-- Henry Louis Mencken
12
Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by
promising to protect each from the other.
-- Oscar Ameringer
13
All of us who are concerned for peace and triumph of reason and justice must be keenly
aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political
field.
-- Albert Einstein
14
…as Prime Minister, the most I could aspire [to] was to hand on to my successor a better
country than the one I had inherited
– Margaret Thatcher
– Jean Bodin
5
15
True unity cannot be promoted by making new divisions. Even less can it come about when
its promoters wish to gain control and take over from lawful authority.
– Josemaría Escrivá
16
Political image is like mixing cement. When it's wet, you can move it around and shape it, but
at some point it hardens and there's almost nothing you can do to reshape it.
-- Walter Frederick Mondale
17
Politics will eventually be replaced by imagery. The politician will be only too happy to
abdicate in favour of his image, because the image will be much more powerful than he
could ever be.
-- Herbert "Marshall" McLuhan
18
The bedfellows politics made are never strange. It only seems that way to those who have
not watched the courtship.
-- Marcel Achard
19
Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation.
-- Henry Kissinger
20
The trouble with this country is that there are too many politicians who believe, with a
conviction based on experience, that you can fool all of the people all of the time.
-Franklin P. Adams
21
There is no nonsense so errant that it cannot be made the creed of the vast majority by
adequate governmental action.
-- Bertrand Russell
22
In order to become the master the politician poses as the servant.
-- General Charles De Gaulle
23
A politician is a person who can make waves and then make you think he's the only one who
can save the ship.
-- Ivern Ball
24
He knows nothing and he thinks he knows everything. That points clearly to a political career.
-- Sir Walter Besant
25
Politics is perhaps the only profession for which no preparation is thought necessary.
-- Robert Louis Stevenson
26
A politician is a person who thinks twice before he says nothing.
27
The reason there are so few female politicians is that it is too much trouble to put makeup on
two faces.
-- Maureen Murphy
28
A passion for politics stems usually from an insatiable need, either for power, or for
friendship and adulation, or a combination of both.
-- Fawn M. Brodie
29
If there is one eternal truth of politics, it is that there are always a dozen good reasons for
doing nothing.
-- John le Carre
30
The politician is ... trained in the art of inexactitude. His words tend to be blunt or rounded,
because if they have a cutting edge they may later return to wound him.
-- Edward R(oscoe) Murrow
-- Joe Moore
6
31
One has to be a lowbrow, a bit of a murderer, to be a politician, ready and willing to see
people sacrificed, slaughtered, for the sake of an idea, whether a good one or a bad one.
-- Henry Miller
32
Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a
very close resemblance to the first.
– Ronald Reagan
33
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
34
Successful ... politicians are insecure and intimidated men. They advance politically only as
they placate, appease, bribe, seduce, bamboozle or otherwise manage to manipulate the
demanding and threatening elements in their constituencies.
-- Walter J. Lippmann
35
I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.
-- General Charles De Gaulle
36
Politics, like theater, is one of those things where you've got to be wise enough to know
when to leave.
-- Richard Lamm
37
The better I get to know men, the more I find myself loving dogs.
-- General Charles De Gaulle
-- Voltaire
Patriotism and Nationalism
38
Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people
other than your own comes first.
-- General Charles De Gaulle
39
You must reject that form of nationalism which hinders understanding and harmony. In many
moments of history it has been one of the most evil of barriers.
– Josemaría Escrivá
40
It is not patriotism to justify crimes or to deny the rights of other peoples.
– Josemaría Escrivá
War
41
The belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary; men alone are quite capable of
every wickedness.
-- Joseph Conrad
42
I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil
it does is permanent.
-- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
43
Politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed. – Mao Tse-Tung
44
The graveyards are full of indispensable men.
-- General Charles De Gaulle
7
Political ideas/ideology in general
45
There is no reason to accept the doctrines crafted to sustain power and privilege, or to
believe that we are constrained by mysterious and unknown social laws. These are simply
decisions made within institutions that are subject to human will and that must face the test
of legitimacy. And if they do not meet the test, they can be replaced by other institutions that
are more free and more just, as has happened often in the past.
-- Noam Chomsky
46
As in political so in literary action a man wins friends for himself mostly by the passion of his
prejudices and the consistent narrowness of his outlook.
-- Joseph Conrad
47
Idealism is the noble toga that political gentlemen drape over their will to power.
– Aldous Huxley
48
You begin saving the world by saving one person at a time; all else is grandiose romanticism
or politics.
--Charles Bukowski
49
History suggests that Capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom.
-- Milton Friedman
50
Nazism (national socialism) and communism (international socialism) were but two sides of
the same coin.
–Margaret Thatcher
51
Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is.
-- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
52
The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain expressions, even certain
gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict
and even censorship.
-- George Herbert Walker Bush
53
Transcend political correctness and strive for human righteousness.
-- Anthony J. D'Angelo
54
My father said, 'Politics asks the question: Is it expedient? Vanity asks: Is it popular? But
conscience asks: Is it right?’
-- Dexter Scott King
55
A 'No' uttered from the deepest conviction is better than a 'Yes' merely uttered to please, or
worse, to avoid trouble.
-- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
56
I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political
world as storms in the physical.
-- Thomas Jefferson
57
As a character says in the film Ninotchka when the heroine in Moscow receives a letter
censored with heavy black lines from greeting to signature: ‘They can’t censor our memories.’
– Margaret Thatcher
8
3. Cambridge and JC Essay Questions
POLITICS, WAR and TERRORISM
Cambridge Exam Questions:
Government
1. How far is increased prosperity for all a realistic goal in your society? (Nov 13)
2. How far, in your society, should unpopular views be open to discussion? (Nov 13)
3. Is violence ever justified? (Nov 12)
4. In your society, how far is equality for all a reality? (Nov 12)
5. ‘The key criterion for good government is how well the economy is managed.’ Is this a fair
assessment? (Nov 12)
6. Consider the view that efficient government is more important than democracy. (Nov 11)
7. ‘No politician’s reputation can survive the judgement of time.’ How true is this? (Nov 10)
8. How far should religion influence political decisions? (Nov 09)
9. ‘Only educated people should have the right to vote in elections.’ What is your view? (Nov 09)
10. Many developed countries are paying increasing attention to the needs of the disadvantaged.
How far is this true in Singapore? (Nov 08)
11. 'The view of the majority is always right.' Do you agree? (Nov 07)
12. How far should a state have a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders? (Nov 07)
13. To what extent do young people in your society take an interest in politics? (Nov 06)
14. To what extent should the State involve itself in the world of business?
15. “People, not the government, should decide how to organize their lives.” Is this a fair comment?
(Nov 04)
16. ‘A good leader must always look beyond the needs of his or her country.’ Do you agree? (Nov
03)
17. How far do you agree that health is the responsibility of the State, not of the individual? (Nov 00)
18. 'A benevolent dictatorship is the most effective form of government.' How far would you agree?
(Nov 99)
19. ‘Good government requires the courage to take unpopular decisions.’ Discuss this statement,
with examples to support your answer. (Nov 96)
20. Is personal morality the concern of the State? (Nov 96)
21. Is equality for all a realistic and desirable aim within a society? (Nov 94)
22. ‘Public campaigns are hardly ever effective.’ Is this true? (Nov 93)
23. What priorities would you set for government expenditure and why? (Nov 93)
9
Patriotism
1.
Should a love of one’s country still be encouraged? (Nov 09)
2.
How important is a sense of history in shaping the future of Singapore's society? (Nov 07)
3.
Does pride in one's country still have a place in the modern world? (Nov 99)
4.
‘One’s first duty is to one’s nation; only afterwards to oneself and one’s family.’ Discuss. (Nov
96)
International Politics
1. ‘The world would be a better place if more political leaders were women.’ What is your view?
(Nov 13)
2.
Discuss the claim that in the modern world people should care more about international than
national issues. (Nov 13)
3.
Why should we be concerned with current affairs when most of them will soon be forgotten?
(Nov 13)
4. How effective are international efforts to ease the problem of global hunger? (Nov 10)
5. Does the presence of a foreign power ever help a country with problems? (Nov 08)
6. ‘The world would be a better place if more politicians were female.’ Do you agree? (Jun 06)
7. Can small countries have a significant voice in world affairs? (Nov 04)
8.
In what ways does a country both benefit and suffer from where it is situated? (Nov 01)
9.
Discuss the extent to which global and national interests can be balanced. (Nov 01)
10. To what extent should richer nations help the poorer ones? (Nov 00)
11. ‘In today’s world, power is determined by economic success, not military might.’ Discuss. (Nov
97)
12. To what extent can international aid be really effective? Refer to specific examples to support
your answer. (Nov 96)
10
RJC/Other JCs’ Exam Questions:
1.
‘Foreign intervention in a developing nation does more harm than good.’ Comment. (RI 2013
Prelim)
2.
To what extent has the political climate in your society changed for the better? (RI 2013 Prelim)
3.
‘Democracy means more than having the right to vote.’ Discuss. (RI 2013 Yr 6 CT 2)
4.
Can we ever eliminate terrorism? (RI 2013 Yr 6 CT 2)
5.
What priorities would you set for government expenditure in your country and why? (RI 2013 Yr
6 CT 2)
6.
‘Is equality for all within your country a realistic and desirable aim?’ (RI 2013 Yr 6 CT 1)
7.
‘Do we expect too much from public figures?’ (RI 2013 Yr 6 CT 1)
8.
Should the state involve itself in matters relating to the family? (RI 2013 Yr 5 Promo)
9.
‘An educated people can be easily governed.’ Is this a valid statement? (RI 2012 Yr 6 Prelim)
10. ‘Women are not suited for politics.’ To what extent is this true? (RI 2012 Yr 6 Prelim)
11. Is it ever justified to spend large amounts of public money on national defence? Discuss this
with reference to your country. (RI 2011 Yr6 Prelim)
12. It has been said that Singapore is economically First World but socially Third World. What is
your view? (RI 2011 Yr6 Prelim)
13. ‘It is of no concern to the public what a politician does in his private life.’ Discuss. (RI 2011 Yr6
Prelim)
14. ‘Governments have a right to censor undesirable elements of their nations’ history.’ Do you
agree? (RI 2011 Yr6 Prelim)
15. “Not in my backyard.” To what extent is this a growing problem in your society? (RI 2012 Yr
6 CT2)
16. Does it matter that the leaders of most countries are men? (RI 2012 Yr 6 CT2)
17. To what extent can a world that is increasingly multicultural be stable? (RI 2012 Yr 6 CT2)
18. Do you agree that the tools of social media have reinvented social activism? (RI 2012 Yr 6
CT2)
19. Would you agree that the world needs more order than it needs freedom? (RI 2011 Yr6 CT2)
20. To what extent does your country challenge the current state of affairs? (RI 2011 Yr6 CT2)
21. ‘We have no permanent friends, only permanent interests.’ Is this a good principle to follow
in conducting relations between countries? (RI 2011 Yr6 CT2)
22. Do you think that your society will benefit from more freedom? (RI 2012 Yr6 CT1)
23. ‘Fine in principle but failure in practice.’ How far do you agree with this assessment of
democracy? (RI 2012 Yr6 CT1)
11
24. How far do you agree with the idea that war is a necessary tool for peace? (RI 2012 Yr6
CT1)
25. ‘The government always acts in the interest of the people.’ Discuss. (RI 2011 Yr6 CT1)
26. Is pragmatism an impediment to real progress in Singapore? (RI 2011 Yr6 CT1)
27. ‘Democracy is not for everyone.’ Comment. (RI 2011 Yr6 CT1)
28. Is China a better role model for the world than America? (RI 2011 Yr6 CT1)
29. Is it always the responsibility of the state to help the poor? (RI 2011 Yr 5 Promo)
30. What should a ‘first-world parliament’ look like in Singapore? (RI 2011 Yr5 CT)
31. Is world government a good idea? (RI Prelim 2010)
32. ‘Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions.’ Discuss
this with reference to your society. (RI 2010 Yr6 CT2)
33. ‘At the end of the day, government is all about teamwork and partnership.’ Comment. (RI 2010
Yr6 CT2)
34. Should nation-building be on the media’s agenda? Discuss this with reference to your country.
(RI 2010 Yr6 CT1)
35. “The world today needs more than one superpower.” Do you agree? (RI Prelim 2009)
36. Does the presence of a strong opposition in government help or hinder a country’s progress?
(RI Prelim 2009)
37. ‘The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.’
(Winston Churchill) Do you agree? (RI 2009 JC2 CT2)
38. ‘Countries have every right to respond with aggression when provoked.’ Do you agree? (RI
2009 JC2 CT1)
39. ‘More government intervention, not less.’ Is this the best way to solve the problems we face in
the world today? (RI 2009 JC2 CT1)
40. ‘To lodge all power in one party and keep it there is to ensure bad government.’ (Mark Twain)
Do you agree? (RI 2009 JC2 CT1)
41. ‘A country should be run like a business.’ Discuss this with reference to Singapore. (RJC 2008
JC2 CT1)
42. ‘Democracy isn't perfect, I just don't know a better system.’ (Winston Churchill) Do you agree?
(RJC 2008 JC2 CT1)
43. ‘Freedom of the press is no different from any of our so-called freedoms; it must be curtailed.’
How far do you agree with the statement? (RJC 2008 JC2 CT2)
44. Is a policy of non-interference an ethical position for a country to take in foreign affairs? (RJC
2008 JC2 CT2)
45. ‘War is but a necessary evil.’ Comment. (RJC 2008 JC2 CT2)
12
46. “More countries have understood that women’s equality is a prerequisite for development.” (Kofi
Annan) How true is this in today’s context? (RJC 2008 JC2 CT2)
47. ‘Affluence breeds political apathy.’ Is this a fair comment on Singaporean youth? (RJC 2008
JC2 CT2)
48. Do you agree with the view that elitism is justifiable when its beneficiaries are the broad masses?
(RJC 2008 JC2 CT2)
49. “Love of country requires affirmation and criticism.” (Peter Beinart) To what extent is this true of
your country? (RJC Prelim 2008)
50. ‘Race has no place in politics today.’ To what extent is this true? (RJC Prelim 2008)
51. Is harmony possible in a diverse world? (RJC Prelim 2008)
52. “Democracy is the worst form of government as it puts power in the hands of ignorant masses.”
Do you agree? (RJC, 2007 JC2 CT1)
53. How should we balance our need for personal privacy with the greater good of our community?
(RJC, 2007 JC2 CT1)
54. “Women make better politicians than men.” Comment. (RJC, 2007 JC2 CT1)
55. Are high salaries for government officials ever justifiable? (RJC, 2007 JC2 CT2)
56. “The Internet is the best thing that has happened to democracy in recent years.” Discuss. (RJC,
2007 JC2 CT2)
57. “Future wars will be fought over the control of natural resources.” Comment. (RJC, 2007 JC2
CT2)
58. “There is much more we can do to protect the rights of the migrant workers in Singapore.” How
far is this true? (RJC, 2007 JC2 CT2)
59. “The rise of China is one of the most serious threats the world has seen in recent years.”
Comment. (RJC Prelim 2007)
60. ‘Patriotism within the population is not something to be dismissed as merely state propaganda”.
Discuss this statement with reference to your country.”(PJC, Prelim 2006)
61. ‘Whenever people are well-informed, they can be trusted to govern themselves.’ Do you agree?
(SAJC, Prelim 2006)
62. ‘All countries should be democratic.’ Do you agree? (SAJC, Prelim 2006)
63. ‘Good government is the most dangerous government, because it deprives people of the need
to look after themselves.” (Mahatma Gandhi) Do you agree? (SRJC, Prelim 2006)
64. ‘Loyalty to one’s country begins at home.’ Comment with reference to Singapore. (YJC, Prelim
2006)
65. Do you think the world can learn anything from the fight against global terrorism? (RJC, Prelim
2006)
66. Terrorism is the scourge that man must live with. Discuss. (NYJC, Prelim 2006)
13
67. ‘Might is right’. Is this true of contemporary politics? (CJC, Prelim 2006)
68. Can effective governance be possible without science? (JJC, Prelim 2006)
69. Is obedience a positive or negative quality? Discuss with reference to your country (JJC, Prelim
2006)
70. A government’s aim is ultimately to make its citizens conform. Discuss (TPJC, Prelim 2006)
71. Do you think that it is inevitable that the next world war will be over natural resources? (TPJC,
Prelim 2006)
72. Should a government have the power to take away individual rights in times of crisis? (ACJC,
Prelim 2006)
73. To what extent can countries prevent military conflict? (IJC, Prelim 2006)
74. Do you agree that patriotism has no future? (MI, Prelim 2006)
75. ‘A leader must primarily be attuned to the needs of the youth.’ Do you agree that this is true in
today’s society? (MI, Prelim 2006)
76. How far should a government go in its counter-terrorism efforts? (RJC Promo 2006)
77. ‘Democracy does not guarantee a good life for all.’ Discuss. (RJC 2004, JC2 CT2)
14
4. A Glossary of Basic Political Terms Students Should Know and Understand
Source: Definitions from The Oxford Study Dictionary, compiled by Joyce M. Hawkins, John Weston,
Julia C. Swannell (redesigned impression 1994)
 policy: the course or general plan of action adopted by a government, party, or person
 politics:
o the science & art of governing a country
o political principles or affairs or tactics
 politician: a person who is engaged in politics, an MP
 statesman/stateswoman: a person who is skilled or prominent in the management of State
affairs
 mandate: (noun) authority given to someone to perform a certain task or to apply certain policies
 government: (a) governing, the system of method of governing (b) the group or organisation
governing a country (c) the State as an agent
 governance: governing, control
 regime: a method or system of government or administration
 parliament: an assembly that makes the laws of a country
 right wing: those who support more conservative or traditional policies than others in their group
 left wing: those who support a more extreme form of socialism than others in their group
 centre: a political party or group holding moderate opinions between two extremes
 liberal: tolerant, open-minded, especially in religion and politics
 democracy: (a) government by the whole people of a country, especially through
representatives whom they elect (b) a country governed in this way [from Greek demos = people,
+ -cracy]
 Conservative Party: a political party favouring private enterprise & freedom from State control
 Social Democratic Party: a UK political party with moderate socialist aims
 Social & Liberal Democrats: a UK political party formed by the merger of the Liberal Party &
some Social Democrats
 socialism:
o a political and economic theory advocating that land, transport, natural resources, & the
chief industries should be owned & managed by the State
o a policy/practice based on this
 Labour Party: a political party representing the interests of workers
15
 communism: a social system in which property is owned by the community and each member
works for the common benefit
 Communism: a political doctrine or movement seeking to overthrow capitalism and establish a
form of communism; such a system established in the former USSR and elsewhere
 capitalism: an economic system in which trade & industry are controlled by private owners for
profit
 meritocracy: (a) government or control by people of high ability, selected by some form of
competition (b) these people
 dictator: a ruler who has unrestricted authority, especially one who has taken control by force
 totalitarianism: a form of government in which no rival parties or loyalties are permitted, usually
demanding total submission of the individual to the requirements of the State
 constitution: the principles according to which a country is organised (from the 1992 edition)
 republic: a country in which the supreme power is held by the people or their elected
representatives, or by an elected or nominated president
 monarchy: (from the 1992 edition)
o a form of government in which a monarch is the supreme ruler
o a country with this form of government
 nationalism: (a) a patriotic feeling or principles or efforts (b) a movement favouring
independence for a country that is controlled by or forms part of another
 nation: a large community of people of mainly common descent, language, history, etc., usually
inhabiting a particular territory and under one government
 state (often State): (a) an organised community under one government (the State of Israel) or
forming part of a federal republic (States of the USA) (b) civil government
 partisan (parti-zan): (a) a strong and often uncritical supporter of a person, group, or cause (b) a
guerrilla
16
5. Politically Correct: Vocabulary Quiz
Instructions: Match the terms in the box with the correct definitions.
proletariat
insurgent
anti-Semitism
Nazism
nationalism
Fascism
class struggle
Communism
patriotism
democracy
genocide
monarchy
pacifism
bourgeoisie
referendum
Holocaust
amnesty
anarchism
Marxism
terrorism
sanctions
colonialism
socialism
totalitarian
1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent
socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and
typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. Period of killing and cruel treatment of the Jews by Hitler and the Nazi Party in the 1930s and
1940s.
3. Positive term used to describe armed opposition to a government.
4. Describes patriotic emotions for one's nation and political movement to preserve its culture or
win its independence.
5. Love and loyalty for one's country.
6. A direct vote by the whole electorate on a particular issue.
7. Refers to measures taken against a country to put political pressure on it peacefully. It might
involve the suspension of trade or economic or diplomatic restrictions.
8. Term to describe prejudice against Jews.
9. Rule by a dynasty or a royal family which passes on the right to rule through hereditary
succession.
10. An act of general pardon. Can apply to criminals or political prisoners.
11. The policy of deliberately killing a nationality or ethnic group.
12. The continual conflict between the capitalist and working classes for economic and political
power.
13. The propertied middle classes who provide capital for investment in industrialised society.
14. Refers to the urban working class in the Marxist concept of society. Exploited class.
15. Describes overseas possession by an imperial power.
16. Term which asserts that all war is evil and should not be resorted to under any circumstances.
17. Political and economic theory advocating the abolition of private ownership of the means of
production, with provision of work and subsistence of all.
18. A social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively
and political power is exercised by the whole community.
17
19. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should
be abolished.
20. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
21. The ideology and practice of the German National Socialist Party, especially the policy of racist
nationalism, national expansion, and state control of the economy.
22. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often
authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which
all goods are equally shared by the people.
23. The use of fear for a political end, fear induced by killing or some other act of savagery.
24. Relating to a form of government that permits no rival loyalties, demanding entire subservience
of the individual to the state.
18
6a. The Purpose of the State (Source: Ellen Grigsby, Analyzing Politics: An Introduction to Political
Science, Wadsworth (1999), Chapter 4)
Two Contrasting Views: Plato and Hobbes – What Purpose Should the State Serve?
In The Republic, Plato suggests that the highest purpose of the state is the promotion of
justice and that the best form of state is one that pursues justice. Justice is presented as following
nature. Plato explains that following your nature means being true to the person you are. It is doing
that which is natural, honest, correct for yourself. It is following your natural calling, your natural
purpose.
Moreover, when each person is acting justly, the state itself is just. As Plato saw it, if each
person followed his or her nature, individuals would divide themselves into three basic groups. In
The Republic, he elaborates on these three natural groups. Some people would naturally be inclined
to pursue manual labour and would become workers; others would naturally be drawn to careers
involving physical danger and would become auxiliaries (military leaders); and others would naturally
be interested in and good at public service and policy making and would, therefore, enter the class
of guardians (rulers). Plato believed that philosophers would be naturally suited to comprise the
group of guardians, insofar as philosophers most fully pursue the life of reason. In this discussion of
justice, the most important consideration, for Plato, was that each person do that which is natural
and, therefore, enter the group consistent with his or her natural inclinations, talents, and abilities.
Plato defined injustice as acting contrary to nature. Thus, if someone is naturally suited to
become a member of the auxiliary, but seeks to move into the class of rulers, this is unjust. If
someone, by nature, is fit to be a worker, but wishes to rise up into the class of guardians, this is
unjust. Moving out of the grouping into which nature suits you puts you at war with justice.
Interestingly, we see here that Plato warns against ambition, upward or downward mobility, and
doing something simply because it is popular or simply because you have the power to do it. Each of
these actions can lead us away from our nature and bring unhappiness to ourselves and injustice to
the state.
Notice that Plato's theory criticizes the very striving for advancement, the competition to best
your peers in as many fields of endeavour as you physically and mentally can, and the ambition for
ever-greater achievements in every area of life, all of which U.S. culture praises. If we listen to Plato,
we may begin to look askance at such approaches to life. We may ask whether all avenues of
pursuit are natural for all people.
Plato's writings raise fascinating possibilities, and have been the subject of innumerable
commentaries. Some readers have been appalled by his notion of three social classes into which
individuals are placed. Plato strikes some people as hopelessly hierarchical and authoritarian in his
thinking. Indeed, Plato was a critic of democracy, for he was convinced that ruling and policy making
were natural talents possessed by some people, but not by all. In making such claims, Plato has not
only offended democratic sensibilities, but has also struck some commentators as self-serving,
insofar as he saw philosophers (like himself) as the class most naturally suited for ruling the perfect
state. Yet, other students of Plato have seen his criticisms of ambition, competition, and individual
self-aggrandizement as compelling antidotes to U.S. culture's message that the only life worth living
is the frenzied climb-the-ladder-of-success-to-the-very-top approach to life. Some commentators are
19
moved by Plato's argument that living justly is more important than following personal ambitions. The
only thing certain in these interpretations is that Plato will continue to challenge his readers,
infuriating some and delighting others.
What is the purpose of the state? According to Hobbes, we cannot know until we have
answered another question: What is human nature? To understand human nature, Hobbes
concludes, look into your own psyche. What you'll find when you do this is a story of passion, desires,
fears, aggressive impulses, and instinctive urges to acquire power. However, you will also find an
element of rationality. This mixture of passion and reason in human nature must be understood,
Hobbes says, if politics itself is to be made comprehensible. Hobbes proceeds with his analysis by
stating that the violent and impulsive components of human nature lead to social conflict. Whenever
aggressive human beings live in groups, violence is always a possibility. Moreover, Hobbes believes
that humans are naturally equal to each other. What leads him to this conclusion? He tells us that he
has observed weak humans and strong ones and has been struck by the following fact: Even the
weakest of humans is capable of killing the strongest. The weak person can launch a sneak attack,
wait until the strong person goes to sleep, creep up on a strong person from behind, use cunning
and trickery, but manage somehow to kill the strong. Does this not, Hobbes asks, prove that — in
terms of the only thing that really matters, that is, staying alive — we are all fundamentally equal?
The fact of our equality, coupled with our shared tendencies toward aggression, creates a human
condition in which each of us is vulnerable to all others. No one is safe. The strongest can fall at the
hands of the weakest.
The alternative to such a miserable life is shown to us by our reason. Each of us can use our
reason to deduce that, were we able to protect ourselves from the dangers posed by all others, we
could improve our chances of having a longer and less brutish life. Reason tells us that it is in our
self-interest to join with others to create a power over all of us that will have the function of deterring
each individual's natural aggressiveness. We will find it rational to create a power that will function in
the following manner: It is to leave us alone unless we act aggressively toward another, in which
case it is to punish us severely and quickly. Knowing that such severe punishment is certain if we
ever commit aggression, we will each be deterred from harming others by our fear of such
punishment. At the same time, knowing that the power will leave us alone if we do not act
aggressively, we will be able to live full, active, productive lives unencumbered by any unnecessary
intrusions from this power.
The power Hobbes describes is the state. In spelling out its reason for being (deterrence), he
has also laid the foundations for justifying its existence. Its purpose is to provide security through
deterrence and thus promote the survival of humanity. Notice how different this argument is from
Plato's advocacy of the just state. Hobbes rejects what he considers to be lofty and Utopian dreams
of achieving a perfectly just state (as Plato would define it) and concentrates, instead, on teaching us
the importance of creating a state that can crack down on violence. Without the powerful state
capable and willing to enact swift and severe punishment on any and all wrongdoers, each of us is
vulnerable to attack from naturally aggressive human beings. Without the powerful state watching
over us, we are likely victims in a world of predators. Our choice is clear: We can have a powerful
no-nonsense state that will protect us, or we can live desperate and terrified in a violent world in
which every single person has the power to kill any of us at any moment.
20
If this sounds far-fetched and unduly pessimistic, Hobbes argues, think again. In a
provocative anticipation of how his critics will assail his low opinions of human nature, Hobbes asks
us to think about the following: When you leave your home, do you lock your doors and windows?
Thinking like a Hobbesian in terms of 20th century technology, do you do the same when you leave
your car unattended? If you are at home alone in the evening, do you make certain that your doors
are locked? When you travel alone, are you mindful (and perhaps suspicious) of strangers you
encounter? If you have a child and live close to your child's school, do you allow your child to walk
alone to school? Do any of your actions implicitly affirm the violent propensities of which Hobbes
writes?
Just as Plato elicits strong reactions, so does Hobbes. Some writers have seen him as
pathological. Some have attacked him for justifying what looks like a police-state. Some have
blamed him for trying to steer political theory away from questions of justice and toward more
prosaic issues of law and order. Others have found in Hobbes a cogent argument that governments
need to be more concerned with fighting crime and promoting safety. Some have read Hobbes and
wished that we did have such a deterrence power, so that one could take a peaceful walk in the late
evening along city streets, or be away from our possessions without worrying so much about theft
and vandalism.
Whatever our individual interpretations of Plato and Hobbes may be, their writings convey
the complexity of issues in the field of political theory. They help us to begin thinking critically about
the purposes of states and about the normative dimensions of governing.
Questions:
1) How do the two philosophers’ notions differ in terms of:
a. The nature of human beings
b. The notion of government / role(s) of the state?
2) Which philosopher do you agree (more) with, and why?
3) Is there a difference between political ideology and political reality?
4) Do people have inalienable rights which a state/nation cannot take away?
5) Which takes precedence: personal freedom or national security?
21
6b. Goals of Government – Mind Map
22
7. Introduction to different political systems: Political Compass – Lesson Plan
Enduring Understanding: Different political systems create different societies with different lives for
the people.
Essential Questions: (i) What is good governance? (ii) Which is more important: principle of
pragmatism and economic development or freedom and equality?
Objective: To help students understand that different opinions on how much governments should
intervene in social and economic affairs will inevitably give rise to different political systems.
1) Homework assignment before the lesson: Students read “The Political Compass” (next page)
before coming to class.
2) Quiz students on whether they know the meanings of terms like “left-wing”, “right-wing”, “liberal”,
“conservative” etc. (Note: these terms have varied meanings depending on context.) Put their
answers on the board.
3) Get students to find out their own political orientation. EITHER get students to:
i)
Do the adapted (Singaporean) version of the Politopia questionnaire; OR
ii)
Do the online Political Compass questionnaire at http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
Note to the teacher: Emphasise to the students that there are no right or wrong answers to the
questionnaires.
4) Make a rough Political Compass/Politopia grid on the floor of the classroom using masking tape.
Students stand on their approximate positions to indicate their political orientation on the grid.
This will allow them to see the distribution of political orientations among their classmates.
5) Explain that the north-south axis represents the social scale (i.e. how much the government
should intervene in personal affairs), while the east-west axis represents the economic scale (i.e.
how much government should intervene in economic affairs). Questions that could be asked at
this point include:
i)
Where do you think the following leaders are on the grid: Hitler? Stalin? Obama? Hu
Jintao? (Some of the answers can be found in the “Political Compass” reading.)
ii)
What do you think the terms “left-wing”, “right-wing”, “liberal” and “conservative” in
today’s context might mean on this grid?
Note to the teacher: The Political Compass grid is one of many attempts to explain different
political systems. Different theorists use different scales or axes to do so.
6) Follow-up activity: Group/class discussion on Singapore politics.
i)
Where would you place the Singapore government on the Political Compass grid?
ii)
Think about Singapore in the 1960’s (the period of the Communist threat and racial riots)
and Singapore now. Has Singapore’s position on the Political Compass grid shifted over
the years? If so, where were we in the 1960’s and where are we now?
iii)
Where do you think Singapore SHOULD be? Should the government intervene more or
less in our personal/economic affairs?
23
7b. The Political Compass™ (http://www.politicalcompass.org)
In the introduction, we explained the inadequacies of the traditional left-right line.
If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for
example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy,
on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy a less extreme
leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be
someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet.
That deals with economics, but the social dimension is also important in politics. That's the one that
the mere left-right scale doesn't adequately address. So we've added one, ranging in positions from
extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian.
Both an economic dimension and a social dimension
are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show
that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (i.e. the state is more important than the individual) and that
Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former
involves state-imposed arbitrary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is
voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved. Hundreds of such anarchist
communities existed in Spain during the civil war period.
You can also put Pinochet, who was prepared to sanction mass killing for the sake of the free
market, on the far right as well as in a hardcore authoritarian position. On the non-socialist side you
can distinguish someone like Milton Friedman, who is anti-state for fiscal rather than social reasons,
from Hitler, who wanted to make the state stronger, even if he wiped out half of humanity in the
process.
The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not
communism but anarchism (i.e. liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism (i.e. an
entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy).
24
The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neoliberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian
Party, which couples law of the jungle right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social
issues. Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and order positions, and
are more economic in substance (i.e. no taxes) so they are not as extremely libertarian as they are
extremely right wing. On the other hand, the classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism
(libertarian socialism) belongs in the bottom left hand corner.
On our home page, we demolished the myth that authoritarianism is necessarily "right wing", with the
examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an
extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of
today's Labour parties. If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics,
the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground.
2.
International Chart
A diverse professional team has assessed the words and actions of internationally known
contemporary leaders to give you an idea of how they relate to each other on the political compass.
25
7c. Spectra of States
SPECTRUM 1: Degree of State Intervention
Night Watchman State
(minimal/classical liberal state)
Developmental State
- concentrates on policing & military
- intervenes little in economic markets
- plays little role in civil society
- function is to uphold rights to life, liberty
and property, protecting individuals from
internal and external threats to these
Social Democratic State
- strong relationship between state and
private economic institutions (e.g. through heavy
economic reliance on state owned enterprises)
- principal aim, to which most or many other ends
are subordinated, is to secure rapid economic growth
- prevalent in East Asian states that have developed
rapidly since 1945
Example: 19th Century Britain. American Republicans
often argue for a state more like this.
Examples:
Possible Advantages/Disadvantages:
Possible Advantages/Disadvantages:
SPECTRUM 2:Degree of Popular Control of Political Leaders
Liberal Democracy
Illiberal Democracy
- broader social and political objective
of securing greater social and
economic equality
- often fails to focus on general
economic prosperity
Examples:
Possible Advantages/Disadvantages:
Authoritarian Regime
Totalitarian Regime
Iran, Syria
- free & fair elections
- universal suffrage
- high degree of personal liberty
- strong protection for individual rights
- strong civil society in which state rarely intervenes
- frequent transfers of power through elections
- elections (not necessarily fully fair)
- little protection of rights & liberties
- state control of media/communication
- opposition at strong disadvantage
- thus, few or no transfers of power
through elections
- no fair elections
- thus, lack of accountability of rulers
- governed by political elites who do not
have to compete for support but operate
a political oligarchy or by a dictator
- heavy-handed state intervention
Examples: US, UK, India
Examples: Russia, Malaysia, Singapore
Examples: China, Saudi Arabia
Possible Advantages/Disadvantages:
Possible Advantages/Disadvantages:
- frequent, brutal state
intervention in all aspects of
social & economic life, often
through a secret police
- indoctrinates citizens into
an all-encompassing ideology
Examples: Nazi Germany,
Stalin’s Soviet Union, North Korea.
Possible Advantages/Disadvantages:
26
7d. Government and Freedom
Describe and evaluate three further specific national policies that restrict freedom in some way. At least one should be from Singapore/another country.
Policy/Country
Rationale for Policy
How it Restricts Freedom
Why I agree/disagree with it
e.g. does it promote my own/others’
freedom/ good?
(Fill in your own evaluation here.)
Example/Practice:
CPF (Central Provident Fund) is
Singapore’s forced nationally administered
savings/investment scheme. Employees and
employers contribute to an employee’s
account, from which sums may be
withdrawn, subject to restrictions, for
healthcare, home purchase and after
retirement.
To meet the three key needs of
retirement expenditure, healthcare and
home ownership, which constitute the
basis of financial security in retirement.
To do so without breaching the ‘principle
of self-reliance’, i.e. to force the
individual to be responsible for his own
future needs, as opposed to relying
(excessively) on the state.
A person is not free to choose not to save for the
specified ends. For example, she cannot decide
that she prefers to live it up while she’s young
and start saving only later. She is also not free to
take on greater risks and invest elsewhere,
potentially at greater profit. E.g. a person who
bought S$100 worth of gold in the 70s would
have gold worth S$1900 in 2011, but only about
S$740 in 2011 as a result of the forced
investment through CPF.
27
8a. What is Democracy?
‘Democracy’ (demokratia) is a Greek term with two root words: demos, meaning the people
of a certain constituency (also called a demos) or the citizens of a state, and kratia , meaning power
or rule. Hence:
A ‘democracy’ is a state in which, in some sense, the people have the power or the citizens
rule.
This is as opposed to states in which some person or group, e.g. a monarch or dictator, a cartel of
wealthy oligarchs, an autocratic political party, exercises a monopoly on power.
The ancient Greek democracies (c. 500 BCE) were small city-states and they practiced a
form of direct democracy: all citizens/voters were directly involved in legislating, deciding policy and
governing. More specialised and time-consuming tasks of government were allocated to a small
number of office holders, but office-holders were subject to regular rotation and chosen by lottery
(and not on the basis of merit or competence) by the rest of the community. All citizens also
attended a regular Assembly, publicly debating and voting on major policy decisions, such as
whether to go to war, as well as doing regular jury service, so that all members of the community
also took it in turns to exercise justice.
At the heart of this original system of democracy was an ideal of political equality: every
citizen was to have the right to make his opinions heard and to contribute to public policy debate; no
citizen was to be regarded as unqualified to govern, rather every citizen was to be entitled to a part
in determining the nature and direction of the regime under which he lived. In return, every citizen
would be obliged to contribute to the state, financially and by utilising his time and talents to
discharge official duties. Accordingly, even today:
‘Democracy’ refers to a regime whereby political power is in some way widely spread, where
power in some way rests with citizens regardless of their perceived competence or ‘merit’.
For example, in even illiberal democracies today (e.g. Russia, Malaysia, Singapore), there are no
educational requirements for suffrage; indeed, ballot papers are often printed with pictures (symbols
of candidates or parties) precisely to ensure that even the illiterate will be able to cast a vote.
Many democratic theorists and activists today look back to the ancient Greek city-states with
great affection, regarding them as providing a model of participation in deliberation, judgment and
decision-making of which modern democracies fall far short. For example, participatory democrats
regard democratic participation as an activity enriching for the individual, which should be more
actively promoted in modern states. They argue that participation in public debate develops an
individual’s political understanding and reasoning abilities, while shouldering a share of the
responsibility for making decisions that affect everyone develops his concern for his fellow citizens
and commitment to the common good. Thus, participation makes citizens more virtuous and
intelligent. Participatory democrats are likely to emphasise not only elections, but also freedom of
speech and assembly, including the right to stage political demonstrations and protests, as essential
to democracy, since it is through the exercise of such freedoms that citizens are able to raise issues
for debate and make their voices heard. Participatory conceptions of democracy inspired the famous
mass protest movements of the 1960s in the U.S. and Europe, especially France, including anti-war
and anti-nuclear protest movements and early environmentalist movements. Today participatory
democrats promote the use of the internet to enable more widespread direct consultation of the
electorate, including through referenda.
Deliberative democrats also look back to the debate and discussion of the ancient Greek
Assembly. They contend that political decisions made in the light of open public debate and
argument are likely to be more rational and more legitimate, because better justified and more
reflective of thoughtful choice. Many deliberative democrats suspect that the necessary quality of
deliberation cannot be achieved if there is too much mass participation, as mass participation does
not tend to promote careful and reflective discussion. They emphasise the quality rather than the
quantity of participation. Still, deliberative democrats agree with participatory democrats that
democracy is not merely a matter of counting preferences (votes) and often also think that
democratic participation is intellectually and morally enriching for individuals. Deliberative democrats
emphasise the intellectual duty of parliamentarians to deliberate and decide publicly, reflectively and
rationally. They may also recommend the increased use of focus groups, where a small section of
the population can be engaged in rational debate; what transpires should be both systematically
reported to a wider audience and genuinely taken into account in policy-making and governmental
action.
Although ancient Greek direct democracy has proved an inspiring model, it should be noted
that it was possible only because a considerable number of people – notably women, slaves and
non-Greeks – were excluded from citizenship. These non-citizens did most of the work that
sustained the economy and the wealth of the privileged male citizens, so freeing them to spend their
time on education (equipping themselves with the skills necessary to effective discharge of political
office) and on engaging in politics. Similarly, democratic pragmatists today believe that it is neither
practical nor desirable for most citizens to devote energy and resources to political activity. In
practice, they claim, an elite political class with the wealth, connections and/or ability necessary to
make a career in politics will compete for the allegiance of ordinary people, most of whom will spare
little time or thought to politics. Moreover, this delegation of political responsibility to an elite is
desirable because it leaves the majority free to pursue their own private interests, which is all most
of us really want, and to exercise their talent and ingenuity in the service of private enterprise, which
conduces to economic growth and a better material standard of living for all.
In any case, true direct democracy, in which all citizens are personally involved in all aspects
of government, seems to be impossible except in very small-scale societies. (Even the largest
ancient Greek city-state recognised no more than 30,000 citizens in a total population of 200,000.)
Full direct rule by the people seems to be impossible in our large, egalitarian and bureaucratically
complex modern states. Today, the closest approximation to direct democracy, government by
referendum, is practiced by Switzerland, the only nation to attempt semi-direct democracy of this
kind. In Switzerland, all major laws must be approved by a double majority: the majority of the
people and the majority of the cantons (administrative regions or constituencies). In addition, any
citizen may challenge any act of parliament if he is able to gather 50,000 signatures in support of his
challenge within 100 days; in that case, a national vote must be scheduled and the law will be
rejected if a majority of voters reject it. Procedures for citizens to veto or enact legislation by means
of citizen-initiated referenda also exist in several U.S. states, e.g. California.
The vast majority of sovereign democracies, however, practice some form of representative
democracy. This is where the people choose representatives (e.g. Members of Parliament) to
represent their interests. In representative democracies, the spread of political power among the
people is achieved in that:
1. Rulers are chosen by the ruled (e.g. Members of Parliament are directly elected as
representatives of geographical constituencies) or by the chosen representatives of the
ruled (e.g. the Prime Minister is chosen by the party or parties in coalition commanding a
majority in parliament; the Cabinet, i.e. ruling executive, is appointed by the Prime
Minister).
29
2. Rulers are accountable to the ruled; they are obliged to justify their actions to the ruled
(e.g. UK opposition MPs publicly grill Ministers on their policy decisions) and removable
by the ruled (usually through and at the next mandatory election, after the expiration of a
term of office).
Note that representatives generally have independent discretion in their own right and are not mere
mouthpieces of the people they represent – otherwise representation would be indistinguishable
from rule by referendum. For example, on 18 March 2003, Parliament approved British participation
in a US-led invasion of Iraq, although February opinion polls had indicated that over 50% of the
electorate opposed the war and although about 1.5 million people had taken to the streets of London
in protest against it. It is arguably desirable for political representatives to have a degree of
independence between elections, since they have access to more information and more time to
deliberate carefully than the average voter, if not better judgment. Of course, representatives are
generally prevented from remaining too aloof from their constituents’ views by the need to win future
elections.
Around two-thirds of all countries today have competitive elections that enable all adult
citizens to choose and remove their representatives in government. However, many such nations (at
least 30 in 2005) are illiberal democracies, where elected rulers pay little heed to individual rights
and use control of the media and state apparatus to manipulate electoral outcomes, and where
transfers of power are thus rare. For example, the People’s Action Party, which has ruled Singapore
since 1959 without ever losing an election, has been accused of manipulating the political system
through censorship, repeated gerrymandering (changing the boundaries of electoral constituencies
to its benefit) and heavy-handed use of the legal system against opposition politicians. It is
questionable whether illiberal democracies uphold the accountability rule (2. above) and can
therefore be regarded as truly democratic. As to liberal democracies, as hinted above, it remains
debatable to what extent they uphold the democratic values of political equality and participation.
30
8b. What’s Wrong with Democracy (I): The Problem of Majority Rule (Source: Modified
extract from R. Garner, P. Ferdinand & S. Lawson, Introduction to Politics 2nd ed. (Oxford 2012) Ch.
3)
Democracy, as we saw, is regarded as the primary modern ground for political obligation (the duty to
obey the laws), because if we participate in making the laws, these laws are likely to be in our
interests and in accordance with our choice. However, in practice, democracy will very rarely result
in unanimous decisions. As a result, democratic government means, in practice, following the view
of the majority.
There are a number of problems with this majoritarian principle. Firstly, many governments in the UK
and Presidents in the USA, for instance, are not elected with the majority of votes. This is because of
the first-past-the-post electoral system, where the winning candidate merely has to gain more votes
than any other candidate. This system is used in the UK, the USA, Canada, Jamaica, India and
Singapore, although most countries now use electoral systems where there is a more proportional
relationship between seats won and votes cast. This avoids the discrepancies that can occur with
first-past-the-post where there are more than two significant parties. For example, in the 2011
Canadian House of Commons elections, the Conservative parliament won a majority of seats (so the
effective right to govern) on 39% of the vote.
Even where majority rule is achieved, this leaves open the possibility that a government elected with
majority support may subsequently deny the principle of majoritarianism. For example, in Algeria in
1991, the Islamic Salvation Front won a majority of seats (but not of votes) in the country’s first multiparty elections. Suspecting the Front’s intention to abolish multi-party democracy upon victory, the
military intervened, cancelling the second round, and banning all political parties based on religion.
This was followed by a violent civil war. This raises the question whether it is ever justified on
democratic grounds to prevent a government with a majority of votes and/or seats from taking power.
Again, in every decision some people will be in a minority. Why should these people obey laws or
accept policies that they did not support? Rousseau’s solution is to say: provided the laws are in
accord with the ‘general will’, everyone unanimously will (‘really’) want to accept them, because this
is the right or moral thing to do; if they apparently do not accept them, then they can legitimately be
forced to, as this is merely ‘forcing them to be free’. But most of us are not so sure that everyone
either would or should always accept the ‘general will’ – and anyway, what if the majority preference
does not actually conduce to the common good, and so does not count as the ‘general will’
according to Rousseau?
Fortunately, minorities are usually shifting or fluid; everyone can be expected to be in a minority from
time to time. As a result, the majority in any particular instance is less likely to harm the minority’s
interests fundamentally, because those in a majority know that at some point in future, they may find
themselves in the minority. However, the persecution of a minority is much more likely where there is
a permanent majority and a permanent minority. The classic case is Northern Ireland where
traditionally most issues were decided along ethno-nationalist lines, with Protestants in the majority
and Catholics in the minority. The resulting persistent discrimination led to severe inter-ethnic
violence, especially in the 1960s.
31
The obvious solution to the problem of minorities is to introduce some device protecting their
interests. Many political systems, including the USA, do just this by including a bill of rights
protecting individuals against the majority. In the USA, this was included precisely because the
Founding Fathers were concerned about the potential dangers of majority rule or ‘tyranny of the
majority’, as they called it. However, it must be questioned how democratic is such a bill of rights.
For example, the Supreme Court in the USA is charged with interpreting and upholding constitutional
rights. It therefore can and often does strike down laws passed by democratically elected
legislatures as unconstitutional. Yet the Justices of the Supreme Court are not elected and it is
almost impossible to remove them from office. Again, the protection of some rights, e.g. the right to
free speech or to form political associations, is essential for democracy to function. However, as
discussed earlier, it is not clear that all rights, such as the right to property, are consistent with
democracy. Maybe our conclusion should be that democracy is not as special as we previously
thought. Perhaps democracy does not provide us with an adequate theory of political obligation after
all, because of the problem of minorities, and maybe we should regard other principles, such as the
protection of individual rights, as more important.
32
8c. What’s Wrong with Democracy (II): The Ignorant Voter (Source: Bryan Caplan – Millennia
Institute, Prelim 2009, Paper 2)
1
2
3
4
5
6
In a dictatorship, government policy is often abysmal but rarely baffling. The building of the
Berlin Wall, which divided Germany into East and West Germany, each subscribing to different
political ideologies, sparked worldwide outcry but few wondered. The Berlin Wall had some
drawbacks for the ruling clique. But all things considered, the Wall protected the interests of elite
party members. No wonder democracy is such a popular political panacea. This history of
dictatorships creates a strong impression that bad policies exist because the interests of rulers
and the ruled diverge.
This optimistic story is, however, often at odds with the facts. Democracies frequently adopt and
maintain policies harmful for most people. Protectionism is a classic example. Economists
across the political spectrum have pointed out its folly for centuries, but almost every democracy
restricts imports. When free trade agreements are negotiated, the subtext is not, “Trade is
mutually beneficial”, but “We’ll do you a favour of buying your imports if you do us the favour of
buying ours.” Admittedly, this is less appalling than the Berlin Wall, yet it is more confounding. In
theory, democracy is a bulwark against socially harmful policies, but in practice, it gives them a
safe harbour. How did this Paradox of Democracy come about?
One answer is that the people’s ‘representatives’ have turned the tables on them. Elections
might be a weaker deterrent to misconduct than they seem on the surface, making it more
important to please special interests than the general public. A second answer, which
complements the first, is that voters are deeply ignorant about politics. They do not know who
their representatives are, much less what they do. This beguiles politicians to pursue personal
agendas and sell themselves to donors
The real reason why democracy fails is based on the central idea that voters are worse than
ignorant; they are, in a word, irrational – and vote accordingly. Economists and cognitive
psychologists usually presume that everyone “processes information” to the best of his ability.
Yet common sense tells us that emotion and ideology – not just the facts or their “processing” –
powerfully sway human judgment. Protectionist thinking is hard to uproot because it feels good.
Likewise for other socially divisive issues like abortion and cloning. When people vote under the
influence of false beliefs that feel good, and force their elected representatives to enact policies
to enforce their false beliefs, democracy persistently delivers bad policies.
Across the board, irrationality is not a strike against democracy alone, but all human institutions.
Irrationality, like ignorance, is selective. We habitually tune out unwanted information on
subjects we do not care about or do not know about. In the same manner, we turn off our
rational faculties on subjects where we do not care about the truth. Economists have long
argued that voter ignorance is a predictable response to the fact that one vote does not matter
as it is not important in the grand scheme of things. Why study the issues if you cannot change
the outcome? Similarly, why control your knee-jerk emotional and ideological reactions if you
cannot change the outcome?
In the naïve public-interest view, democracy works because it does what voters want. In the
view of most democracy sceptics, it failed because it does not do what the voters want. In my
opinion, democracy fails because it does what the voters want. An irrational voter does not hurt
only himself. He also hurts everyone who is, as a result of his irrationality, more likely to live
under misguided policies. Since most of the cost of voter irrationality is paid for by other people,
we should indulge in our emotions. If enough voters think this way, socially harmful policies win
by popular demand.
33
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
7
8
9
10
In our modern time, the logic is chillingly simple. Time is money, and acquiring information to
make better decisions takes time. Individuals balance the benefits of learning against its costs.
In markets, if individuals know too little, they pay the price in missed opportunities; if they know
too much, they pay the price in wasted time. The prudent path is to find out enough to make a
tolerably good decision. Similarly in politics, where one vote is extraordinarily unlikely to change
an election’s outcome, it is no wonder that an ignorant citizen votes randomly. Except in freak
cases where the vote cast is the decisive vote, the probability of the citizen’s vote affecting the
outcome of the election is next to zero. If time is money, acquiring political information takes
time and the expected personal benefit of voting is zero, a rational, selfish individual chooses to
be ignorant.
45
When cataloguing the failures of democracy, one must keep things in perspective. Hundreds of
millions of people under democratic rule enjoy standards of living that are, by historical
standards, amazingly good. The shortcomings of the worst democracies pale in comparison with
those of totalitarian regimes. At least democracies do not murder millions of their own citizens.
Nevertheless, now that democracy is the typical form of government, there is little reason to
dwell on sayings like “better than Communism”. Such comparison is setting the bar too low. It is
more worthwhile to find out how and why democracy disappoints.
55
What then could societies do? If voters’ ignorance is the biggest problem, and since it is highly
unlikely that it will change any time soon, perhaps we should return to the true roots of
democracy as once practised by the Greeks who gave us democracy in the first place. We
should return to the ideals where only the truly responsible members of society should be
allowed to vote. In Ancient Greek societies, only elite male members of the society; the scholars,
businessmen, soldiers and people of similar stature, are allowed to speak and vote on matters
of grave importance. We should revive this practice today where only responsible members of
society get the majority of the votes. While this might go against the spirit of equality, the
prospect of the eventual destruction of society by ignorant voters necessarily forces us to
consider this unpopular option. We have to give those who have the capability to vote
responsibly so that greater good for society is achieved. Other members of society will still get
their vote. What I propose is that the responsible members’ vote gets twice the power over
others. This will certainly mitigate the dangers posed by ignorant voters.
There is no other reasonable option to democracy as history has proven. Yet, democracy itself
is a failing system because of the irrational voter. It is the lesser of the two evils; we have
chosen to live under a potentially flawed system of democracy rather than the certain failure of
communism. Yet, this flaw is easily overcome, if societies can take the first bold step to
eradicate the irrational voter. Some might say that better education helps. However, we already
live in a media saturated world where information is readily available. Sheer laziness and
irresponsibility are incurable. Only by moving back to the true practices of democracy that Man
can save democracy and society itself.
A) Summary exercise
Summarise the author’s reasons for the failure of democracy.
B) Related Cambridge/RI essay questions
1. ‘Only educated people should have the right to vote in elections.’ What is your view?
(Cambridge 2009)
2. ‘The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.’
(Winston Churchill) Do you agree? (RI 2009 Yr 6 CT2)
34
50
60
65
70
75
80
8d. Problems with democracy: Follow-up group work
What other problems does democracy in practice fail (besides those covered in part 8b above)?
Use the following trigger topics and use real examples to support your views:
1. Consider the flaws in the election process
2. Consider the impact/influence of lobby groups.
3. Consider the impact of partisan politics.
4. Consider the bias of the media due to their own political leanings.
35
8e. The trouble with democracy – and dictatorship (AQ Exercise) [‘Banyan’ (anonymous
commentator on Asian affairs), The Economist online. Aug 1st 2011]
BOTH America and China seem to have been suffering crises of political faith.
As a massive investor in American sovereign debt, China’s government will be as relieved as other
observers that last-ditch agreement has been reached in Washington, DC, to avoid a technical
default [i.e., roughly, not keeping up with debt repayments due to failure to reach agreement
between the two rival political parties on a national budget]. Some commentators in the official press,
however, may rather miss the opportunity to highlight the perceived flaws in America’s political
system. After all, a crackdown on coverage of the high-speed rail disaster on July 23rd [2011], in
which at least 39 people died, inhibits them from discussion of some of the flaws in China’s.
China’s press loves to point out the failings and hypocrisies of the “advanced democracies”. The
China Media Project at Hong Kong University has noted coverage of the phone-hacking scandal
gripping Britain that gloats over the “deficit of professional ethics among news professionals in
Western media”. Even last month’s massacre in Norway [a terrorist attack by an anti-immigration
anti-feminist xenophobe, Anders Breivik in July 2011], home of the Nobel peace prize awarded to
both the Dalai Lama and Liu Xiaobo, a jailed Chinese dissident, was grist to this mill. The official
Xinhua news agency produced a commentary entitled “the Nordic version of September 11th to
break the myth of Nordic peace”.
But it was the spectacle of American political gridlock, along with fear of the dreadful consequences
it might have for the world as a whole, that provided the best opportunity for what, during the Cultural
Revolution, was called “teaching by negative example”. After all, even Barack Obama has said
America risked having its credit rating downgraded because “it didn't have a Triple-A political system
to match”. For Chinese observers, the showdown highlighted some structural difficulties: the checks
and balances that hinder swift, decisive action; the tendency, between elections, for political parties
to pander to their hard-core activists and neglect the moderate centre; and the lack of influence of
those without votes, such as the future generations who will have to pay off America’s debts—and
the outside world. Xinhua raised these points in two succinct questions: “How can Washington shake
off electoral politics and get difficult jobs done more efficiently? And how can US politicians improve
their mindset so that they will care at least a bit more about the rest of the world when handling
domestic affairs with global reverberations?”
But the first of these questions also helps explain why it is hard for even the most nationalist Chinese
commentators to go to town at the moment about the superiority of the “Beijing model”. One of its
supposed advantages is precisely that it “gets difficult jobs done more efficiently”. And one example
often pointed to as a source of wonder and pride is the rapid development of a world-beating highspeed rail system. That is why this disaster seems to have provoked even more outrage than
previous scandals—such as those in 2008 over the shoddy building that made schools especially
vulnerable to the Sichuan earthquake and the revelation that some baby-formula was tainted with
melamine. Both involved presumed corruption and official connivance. But neither undermined a
central pillar of the party’s and government’s own claimed achievements. All three scandals showed
the limits to dictatorship—the lack of openness and accountability; the shortage of public scrutiny
over government decisions; and the absence of public debate about them among politicians,
however ugly that debate may sometimes look.
36
8e. [cont’d]
EXERCISE (You may need to do some research.)
Draft one paragraph in response to the following Application Question concerning the article above.
Remember that an AQ paragraph should: begin by identifying a key point from the text of relevance
to the question; continue by explicitly answering the question in relation to this point; go on to
provide reasons for this answer including objective/verifiable and specific evidence/illustration;
include analysis/evaluation.
Application Question: ‘Banyan’ highlights a number of arguments for and against democracy.
Explain which of these arguments you agree or disagree with and why. Illustrate your views by
referring to the political situation in your own society and elsewhere.
37
8f. Does democracy stifle economic growth? [Source: TED talks (transcript, edited). Yasheng
Huang (Professor of International Management, MIT). July 2011.
http://www.ted.com/talks/yasheng_huang.html (video & transcript)]
EXERCISE: While reading the following text, highlight and label: the thesis; the opposing view; the
main points in reply to the opposing view; any further main arguments for the thesis.
[1] My topic is economic growth in China and India. The question I want to explore is
whether democracy has helped or hindered economic growth. You may say this is not fair, because
I'm selecting two countries to make a case against democracy. Actually, exactly the opposite is what
I'm going to do. I'm going to use these two countries to make an economic argument for democracy.
[2] The first question to ask is why China has grown so much faster than India. (Over the last
30 years, in terms of GDP growth rates, China has grown at twice the rate of India, although in the
last 5 years, the two countries have begun to converge somewhat.) One simple answer is that China
has the Shanghai skyline and India has the Mumbai Dharavi slum. The Chinese government can act
above the rule of law. It can plan for the long-term benefits of the country, build the skyscrapers, and
in the process, evict millions of people from their homes, if necessary --that's just a small technical
issue. Whereas in India, you cannot do that, because you have to listen to the public. You're being
constrained by the public's opinion. So let me call this the Shanghai model of economic growth, one
that emphasizes the following features for promoting economic development: infrastructure, airports,
highways, bridges, things like that. You need a strong government to implement the Shanghai model,
because you cannot respect private property rights. You cannot be constrained by the public's
opinion. You also need state ownership, especially of land assets, in order to build and roll out
infrastructure very quickly. The implication of this model is that democracy is a hindrance to, rather
than a facilitator of economic growth.
[3] Now here's the key question. Just how important is infrastructure for economic growth?
This is the key issue. If you believe that infrastructure is very important for economic growth, then
you will argue that a strong government is necessary to promote growth. If you believe that
infrastructure is not as important as many people believe, then you will put less emphasis on strong
government. To illustrate that question, let me give you two countries. I'll call one country Country 1
and the other country Country 2. Country 1 has a systematic advantage over Country 2 in
infrastructure. Country 1 has more telephones and a longer system of railways. So suppose I ask
you, "Which is China and which is India, and which country has grown faster?". If you believe in the
infrastructure view, then you will say, "Country 1 must be China and it must have done better in
terms of economic growth. And Country 2 is possibly India."
[4] Actually the country with more telephones is the Soviet Union, and the data referred to
1989. After the country reported very impressive statistics on telephones, the country collapsed.
That's not too good. Infrastructure does not guarantee you economic growth. Country 2, which had
the fewer telephones, is China. Since 1989, the country has performed at a double-digit growth rate
every year for the last 20 years. If you knew nothing about China and the Soviet Union other than
our fact about their telephones in 1989, you would have made a poor prediction about their
economic growth in the next two decades.
[5] Country 1, which had a longer system of railways, is actually India. Whereas Country 2,
remember, is China. This is a very little known fact about the two countries. Yes, today China has a
huge infrastructure advantage over India. But for many years, until the late 1990s, China had an
infrastructure disadvantage vis-a-vis India. In developing countries, the most common mode of
transportation is the railways, and the British built a lot of railways in India. India is the smaller of the
two countries, and yet it had a longer system of railways until the late 1990s. So clearly,
infrastructure doesn't explain why China did better before the late 1990s, as compared with India. In
38
fact, if you look at the evidence worldwide, it is more supportive of the view; the economy grows, the
government accumulates more resources, the government can invest in infrastructure. This is clearly
the story of Chinese economic growth.
[6] Now let’s turn to two more countries, Country A and Country B. Country A, in 1990, had
about $300 per capita GDP as compared with Country B, which had $460 in per capita GDP. By
2008, Country A has surpassed Country B with $700 per capita GDP as compared with $650 per
capita GDP. Both countries are in Asia. If I were to ask you, "Which are the two Asian countries?
And which one is a democracy?" you may argue, "Well, maybe Country A is China and Country B is
India." In fact, Country A is democratic India, and Country B is Pakistan -- the country that has
suffered long periods of military rule. It's very common to compare India with China. That's because
the two countries have about the same population size. But the more natural comparison is actually
between India and Pakistan. Those two countries are geographically similar. They have a
complicated, but shared common history. By that comparison, democracy looks very, very good in
terms of economic growth.
[7] So why do economists fall in love with authoritarian governments? One reason is the
East Asian Model. In East Asia, we have had successful economic growth stories such as Korea,
Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore. Some of these economies were ruled by authoritarian
governments in the 1960s, 70s and 80s. The problem with that view is it’s like asking all the winners
of lotteries, "Have you won the lottery?". They all tell you, "Yes, we have won the lottery." Then you
draw the conclusion the odds of winning the lottery are 100 percent. The reason is you never bother
to ask the losers who also purchased lottery tickets and didn't end up winning the prize. For each of
these successful authoritarian governments in East Asia, there's a matched failure. Korea
succeeded, North Korea didn't. Taiwan succeeded, China under Mao Zedong didn't. Burma didn't
succeed. The Philippines didn't succeed. If you look at the statistical evidence worldwide, there's
really no support for the idea that authoritarian governments hold a systematic edge over
democracies in terms of economic growth.
[8] So exactly why did China grow so much faster? Consider the Cultural Revolution, when
China went mad, and compare that country's performance with India under Indira Gandhi. The
question here is: Which country did better, China or India? China did. It turns out that even during
the Cultural Revolution, China out-performed India in terms of GDP growth by an average of about
2.2 percent every year in terms of per capita GDP. Yet the country was in the throes of utter chaos.
The country must have had something so advantageous to itself in terms of economic growth as to
overcome even the negative effects of the Cultural Revolution. The advantage the country had was
human capital -- nothing else but human capital.
[9] Here is what is indicated by the World Development Index indicator data in the early
1990s, the earliest data I can find. The adult literacy rate in China is 77 percent as compared with 48
percent in India. The contrast in literacy rates is especially sharp between Chinese women and
Indian women. I haven't told you about the definition of literacy. In China, the definition of literacy is
the ability to read and write 1,500 Chinese characters. In India, the definition of literacy, is the ability,
the grand ability, to write your own name. The gap between the two countries in terms of literacy is
much more substantial than the data here indicate. If you go to other sources of data such as the
Human Development Index and look back to the early 1970s, you see exactly the same contrast.
China held a huge advantage in terms of human capital vis-a-vis India. Or consider life expectancies:
as early as 1965, China had a huge advantage in life expectancy. On average, as a Chinese in 1965,
you lived 10 years more than an average Indian.
[10] So if you had a choice between being a Chinese and being an Indian, you would want to
become a Chinese in order to live 10 years longer. But if you could not choose your nationality, then
you would want to become an Indian man. Because, as an Indian man, you have about two years of
39
life expectancy advantage vis-a-vis Indian women. This is an extremely strange fact. It's very rare
among countries to have this kind of pattern. It shows the systematic discrimination and biases in
Indian society against women. The good news is that by 2006, India has closed the gap between
men and women in terms of life expectancy. Today, Indian women have a sizable life expectancy
edge over Indian men. So India is reverting to the normal. But India still has a lot of work to do in
terms of gender equality. In China, it's all about women. Sixty to 80 percent of the workforce in China
consists of women in the coastal part of the country. Whereas in India, it's all about men. The
Financial Times recently printed a picture of an Indian textile factory with the title, "India Poised to
Overtake China in Textiles". All the workers in the picture were men. From looking at that picture, I
say no, India won't overtake China for a while. If you look at other East Asian countries, women
there played a hugely important role in terms of economic take-off -- in terms of creating the
manufacturing miracle associated with East Asia. India still has a long way to go to catch up with
China.
[11] But what about the Chinese political system? You talk about human capital, you talk
about education and public health. What about the political system? Isn't it true that the one-party
political system has facilitated economic growth in China? Actually, the answer is more nuanced and
subtle than that. It depends on a distinction between the statics of the political system and the
dynamics of the political system. Statically, China is a one-party system, authoritarian -- there's no
question about it. Dynamically, it has changed over time to become less authoritarian and more
democratic. When you explain change -- for example, economic growth; economic growth is about
change -- you use other things that have changed to explain change, rather than using the constants
to explain change. Sometimes a fixed effect can explain change, but a fixed effect only explains
changes in interaction with the things that change.
[12] When it comes to political changes, China has introduced village elections. It has
increased the security of proprietors. It has increased the security of long-term land leases. There
are also financial reforms in rural China. There is also a rural entrepreneurial revolution in China. To
me, the pace of political change is too slow, too gradual. My own view is that the country is going to
face some substantial challenges very shortly, because they have not moved further and faster on
political reforms. But nevertheless, the system has moved in a more liberal direction, moved in a
more democratic direction.
[13] You can apply exactly the same dynamic perspective to India. In fact, when India was
growing at the disparagingly termed ‘Hindu rate of growth’ -- about one percent, two percent a year
only -- that was when India was least democratic. Indira Gandhi declared emergency rule in 1975.
The Indian government owned and operated all the TV stations. A little-known fact about India in the
1990s is that the country not only has undertaken economic reforms, the country has also
undertaken political reforms by introducing village self-rule, privatization of media and freedom of
information acts. So the dynamic perspective fits both China and India in terms of the direction.
[14] So why do many people believe that India is still a growth disaster? One reason is they
are always comparing India with China. But China is a superstar in terms of economic growth. If you
are an NBA player and you are always being compared to Michael Jordan, you're going to look not
so impressive. But that doesn't mean that you're a bad basketball player. Comparing with a
superstar is the wrong benchmark. In fact, if you compare India with the average developing country,
even before the more recent period of acceleration of Indian growth -- now India is growing between
eight and nine percent -- even before this period, India was ranked fourth in terms of economic
growth among emerging economies. This is a very impressive record indeed.
[15] Let's think about the future: the dragon vis-a-vis the elephant. Which country has the
growth momentum? China, I believe, still has some of the excellent raw fundamentals -- mostly the
social capital, the public health, the sense of egalitarianism that you don't find in India. But I believe
40
that India has the momentum. It has the improving fundamentals. The government has invested in
basic education, has invested in basic health. I believe the government should do more, but
nevertheless, the direction it is moving in is the right direction. India has the right institutional
conditions for economic growth, whereas China is still struggling with political reforms. I believe that
the political reforms are a must for China to maintain its growth. It’s very important to have political
reforms, to have widely shared benefits of economic growth. I don't know whether that's going to
happen or not, but I'm an optimist. Hopefully, five years from now, I'm going to report to TEDGlobal
that political reforms will happen in China.
EXERCISE:
Consider the following past essay question.
EQ. Consider the view that efficient government is more important than democracy.
(Cambridge 2011)
a. What features of the world provide relevant background to EQ? Refer to information from the text.
b. Explain why someone would think EQ is a good question to ask. Use ideas from paragraph [2].
c. Suppose you were writing an essay on EQ and you wanted to use what you learnt from the text
above to help you. Would you agree or disagree with the claim in EQ? How would your thesis begin?
d. What opposing view would you put in paragraph 2 (after the Intro) of your essay on EQ? Use
ideas from the text. Sketch the opponent’s argument. Remember to relate it to the terms of the
Question.
e. How would you reply to the opposing view in paragraph 3 of your essay on EQ? Use ideas from
paragraphs [3]-[5], [8]-[10] and/or [12]-[13]. Remember to relate explicitly to the terms of the
Question.
Related essay questions
1.
‘The key criterion for good government is how well the economy is managed.’ Is this a fair
assessment? (Cambridge 2012)
2.
In your society, how far is equality for all a reality? (Cambridge 2012)
3.
Many developed countries are paying increasing attention to the needs of the
disadvantaged.’ How far is this true of Singapore? (Cambridge 2008)
4.
‘Democracy does not guarantee a good life for all.’ Discuss. (RJC 2004, JC2 CT2)
41
9a. Government Unlimited: The PAP Ideology of State Primacy (Source: Amended extracts
from Freedom from the Press. Cherian George. NUS Press Singapore (2012) Ch. 4.)
For the People’s Action Party (PAP), winning the battle for power has never been enough. It
has needed to believe that it has won the intellectual argument as well. This is primarily due to its
strategy of maintaining hegemony in Singapore: while not shy about using coercion to discipline the
minority who stray, it wants the majority to cooperate voluntarily, not out of fear but out of sincere
belief that the PAP is right. The government considers it extremely important to attract into public
service the most able and accomplished Singaporeans of every cohort. Therefore, even if it cannot
convert external critics or opposition supporters, it is helpful to have a coherent and compelling
justification for its political system in order to maintain the loyalty of its supporters and satisfy the
conscience of its most intelligent inductees. Four pillars of PAP ideology ([1]-[4] – others could have
been included) are presented and critiqued below.
Key Concept: Hegemony describes the domination of a diverse society by the ruling class, who
manipulate the beliefs, values and mores of the society to impose their ideology so that it comes to
be accepted as the norm. This ideology represents the social, political and economic status quo as
inevitable, perpetual and beneficial for everyone, rather than changeable and designed primarily to
maintain the power of the ruling class. Where hegemony is achieved, most will cooperate with the
rulers voluntarily and power can thus generally be maintained by the mere implied threat of
intervention, with use of direct force becoming rare.
Background: Un-democratic Features of the Singapore System (Freedom from the Press, Ch. 5 & 10)

The Internal Security Act (ISA) of 1963 empowers authorities to arrest individuals without warrant
and detain them without trial. The largest single sweep was Operation Coldstore in February 1963,
which rounded up more than 110 opposition politicians, labour activists and other opponents. From
1965-2010, approximately 640 people were detained under the ISA. Former detainees’ accounts of
mistreatment in detention – sleep deprivation, interrogation in icy cold rooms and psychological
pressure – have not been contradicted by the government.

The PAP routinely introduces specific legislation to quell dissent. For example, trade unions were a
powerful political force before independence. (Trade unions are organisations for collective bargaining
of workers with employers, through which workers attempt to secure their rights and a better deal for
themselves.) The PAP amended the law so that new unions could be prevented from forming and to
substantially restrict the matters existing unions could negotiate about. It also consolidated the unions
into the National Trade Union Congress (NTUC), subsequently placing PAP MPs into NTUC
leadership positions. The PAP has dealt in a similar way with challenges from the press, which was
much freer and more diverse in the 1960s, and from student movements.

Opposition politicians are hindered by strict rules on outdoor talks, marches and other restrictions on
free speech, which prevent effective communication and mobilisation. These restrictions
disproportionately disadvantage the opposition since while incumbents can rely on actions alone,
opponents cannot succeed without the freedom to speak. Singapore’s defamation laws (laws against
unwarrantedly tarnishing the reputations of others through public comment) are particularly problematic
for the opposition. Statements that would be considered part of ordinary political debate elsewhere are
punished in Singapore. The amount of money prominent opposition leaders have been ordered to pay
has been sufficient to bankrupt them, thus disqualifying them from contesting in elections.

From the 1980s electoral divisions were grouped into Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs).
Each GRC must be contested by a team that includes an ethnic minority. The stated purpose is to
guarantee minority representation, but as a side effect the GRC system has helped to consolidate PAP
rule, since smaller parties have difficulty campaigning in such large areas. GRC boundaries are
redrawn less than three months before the polls by a committee reporting to the Prime Minister’s
Office rather than an independent commission, making it hard for the opposition to prepare effectively.
Districts where the PAP’s win was close in the last
42 election tend to be reconfigured before the next.
[1] Too Small for Democracy?
Singapore’s sense of vulnerability is seen as a natural response to its unique geographical and
social realities. Since years of peace and plenty may have lulled citizens into a false sense of
security, the PAP regularly reminds them about what it regards as the immutable facts of
Singapore’s existence: its small size, its heterogeneous population, and its unstable and unfriendly
neighbourhood. These conditions supposedly mean that things that may be viable elsewhere – such
as free-wheeling democracy and individualism – would be ruinous for Singapore. As Lee Kwan Yew
put it, “The people must be aware of its fundamental vulnerabilities, and willing to pull together to
face challenges.”
Singapore’s smallness is undeniable. Its land area of 710 sq. km. makes it slightly smaller than New
York City’s five boroughs, smaller than the Asian metropolises of Bangkok, Jakarta and Hong Kong.
With a population of 5 million, if Singapore were an Indian city, it would rank 5th; in China, it would be
around 12th. For the PAP, Singapore’s size amounts to an inescapable constraint that calls for a
prudent and conservative attitude to freedom. Yet, in terms of population, Singapore is not as small
as Singaporeans have convinced themselves it is. It is a middle-ranking country, larger than 100 or
so other states. Singapore’s supposedly limited talent pool is used to justify the lack of competition in
politics, as well as regulators’ tolerance for monopolistic government-linked and governmentlicensed companies in the media and other sectors. Yet many smaller countries, for example Iceland
(population 319,000), do not feel so constrained.
Moreover, while being small is a limitation in some regards, it is not necessarily a net liability for
governance. Singapore’s city-state status has spared it from the plight of other dynamic Asian cities,
where incessant rural-urban migration strains the infrastructure and creates slums. Singapore can
control immigration at its city borders in a way that the authorities in Mumbai and Guangdong can
only dream of. The various international rankings that are closely watched by the Singapore
government cast additional doubt on the idea that countries need heft to succeed. For example, the
top three in the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Index 2010-11 were all nations
with populations under 10 million – Switzerland, Sweden and Singapore. Also in the top ten are
Finland and Denmark, with roughly the same population as Singapore, and the Netherlands with
under 20 million people.
[2] Too Unstable for Democracy?
But size is not the only source of Singapore’s sense of vulnerability. The PAP sees Singapore as a
society riven by internal ethnic differences that pose a perpetual threat to its stability. The country’s
stability is made more tenuous by its location in South East Asia, where it is the only majority
Chinese state and is surrounded by Muslim neighbours. In 1950, Muslims went on the rampage
against whites and Eurasians after a controversial custody battle involving a Dutch girl who had
been adopted by an Indonesian family and raised as a Muslim. The so-called Maria Hertogh Riots,
which claimed 18 lives, were instigated in part by two Muslim newspapers that hijacked the court
case as a community cause. Half a century later, religious extremism remained an issue. After the
attacks on the United States of 11 September 2011, a cell of the regional Islamic militant group,
Jemaah Islamiah, was discovered in Singapore, showing that years of nation-building had not
eliminated the risk of religiously inspired violence.
43
Few aspects of PAP ideology have been as successfully transferred into the Singapore psyche as
this deep sense of vulnerability, rooted in a distrust of both fellow citizens as well as neighbouring
countries. However, Singapore’s ethnic mix may not be as explosive as the PAP claims and the
price of being located in South East Asia may also be exaggerated. Take the Global Peace Index,
an aggregate of various indicators by the Economist Intelligence Unit, with scores ranging from 1
(most peaceful) to 5 (least peaceful). Singapore’s aggregate score in 2007 was 1.673, placing it at
number 29 out of more than 140 countries studied. Lee Kwan Yew claimed that the relatively low
ranking for a developed country was because “we are in Southeast Asia”, “a volatile region prone to
problems.” Yet although “relations with neighbouring countries” was scored at 2, this was not the
main factor that adversely affected Singapore’s score. After all, although Southeast Asia has had a
tumultuous history, no war has been fought between members of ASEAN since the association’s
founding in 1967. Contrary to Lee’s claim, internal factors were responsible for dragging Singapore
down. The proportion of people jailed, with a score of more than 2.8 was rated as a bigger negative
attribute than regional relations. So was the level of distrust between citizens, given a (fairly poor) 3.
The biggest set of factors that pulled the country’s marks down was its level of militarisation, with
arms imports at close to 3 and military expenditure exceeding 2.4.
Furthermore, even if one were to accept that Singapore is especially vulnerable because of its racial
and religious mix and regional situation, it is not clear how this justifies the specific controls that are
currently in place. Many other societies emerging from ethnic strife have not seen democracy as a
hindrance to their peace-building efforts. While international law allows limitations on hate speech,
this should not justify censorship of dissent, the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on Freedom of
Expression said in his 2009 report. “Furthermore, resolution of tensions based on genuine cultural or
religious differences cannot be achieved by suppressing the expression of differences but rather by
debating them openly,” he added. Israel, which even the PAP could not deny is in a more vulnerable
situation, has allowed itself far greater press freedom and academic freedom than Singapore.
Freedom need not mean irresponsibility. For example, news media professionals in Singapore are
highly sensitised to the risks of causing offence to the country’s various ethnic communities.
Voluntary self-restraint resulting from a sense of social responsibility and not government control is
what keeps them responsible. Over the past three decades, most cases of political intervention in
the mainstream media have had nothing to do with Singapore’s supposed vulnerabilities. They have
instead been directed at shoring up support for policies or protecting the government’s authority.
[3] Against Individualism
The PAP frames freedom of expression as an individualist value and regards individuals as prone to
selfish and shortsighted urges. Freedom of expression is therefore regarded as a right that is in
tension with societal interests. The PAP does not deny the universal appeal of such a freedom.
However, it treats this individual longing for liberty as a luxury. The United States can allow extreme
individualism because the country’s size and resources give it the resilience to bounce back from
errors, PAP ideology says. Many other countries, however, need to strike a more conservative
balance between individual rights and societal interests. Furthermore, the PAP argues, individualism
is prioritised differently in different cultures. Singapore is an Asian society heavily influenced by
Confucianism, which emphasises community over the individual. “Consensus, not conflict” was
adopted by the Goh Chok Tong government as one of Singapore’s five Shared Values, along with
“Nation before community and society before self”.
44
The obvious counter-argument to the PAP position is to reiterate the libertarian view: freedom of
expression is a sacrosanct individual right that cannot be violated by the collective. It has intrinsic
value – is good in its own right – and needs no extrinsic justification in terms of positive
consequences for society at large. This argument, regardless of its philosophical merits, has proved
politically ineffective because it allows the PAP to frame the debate in terms with which it is
comfortable, as a battle between the individual and society. Not surprisingly, when the choice is
framed in this manner, many citizens express their support for societal interest.
A stronger but less-heard critique of the PAP position is to point out that freedom of speech and
association is not just a matter of individual self-expression. It is also required for collective selfdetermination. Accordingly, senior Singaporean lawyer K.S. Rajah has argued that, even if we deemphasise the fundamental liberties of the individual, freedom of communication remains necessary
for representative and responsible government, which is a core principle of Singapore’s Constitution.
Similarly, even in the ‘individualistic’ US, an important strand of thought argues that the First
Amendment of the Constitution protects press freedom mainly because of its importance to the
community: press liberty deserves special protection not primarily because it promotes the interests
of individuals but because it allows citizens to deliberate on issues that matter to their collective
existence. The PAP is too hasty in assuming that restrictions on liberties must be a stand for
Singaporeans’ collective welfare against selfish individual urges.
[4] Against Populism
The PAP’s suspicion of the individual is also seen in its resistance towards populism. While the
people’s will is seen as the ultimate source of the PAP’s mandate, it believes they should not have a
constant, direct, bearing on decision-making – which is often better left to experts. The PAP’s model
of democracy entails citizens voting freely in competitive elections, after which the winning party
governs decisively. A responsible and responsive government rules with the consent of the public
and in the public interest – but without being slaves to public opinion. Many national challenges can
be addressed only by a strong leadership able to push through the occasional unpopular decision.
Short-term public opinion can obstruct good government, which requires a long-term orientation.
“That is why, in Singapore, the government acts like a trustee,” said Goh. “As a custodian of the
public’s welfare, it exercises independent judgment on what is in the long-term economic interests of
the people and acts on that basis.” Although citizens will increasingly be consulted in the formulation
of policy, decisions will not be made by referendum or opinion poll. Only over the long term are
people able adequately to assess the impact of government policies on their lives; they can vote
accordingly.
This philosophy is not alien to Western democratic discourse. Several respectable theorists have
taken a dim view of the capacities of the public and argued that the only realistic vision for
democracy is an elitist one in which day-to-day government is left to specialists. For example, one of
America’s most respected 20th century public intellectuals, Walter Lippman, has argued that real
individuals mostly do not know and could not understand what is going on in public affairs and that
“there is not the least reason for thinking that compounding of individual ignorance in masses of
people can produce an appropriate directing force overall.” Individuals can fail to act in their own
45
best interests by forgoing long-term security for short-term palliatives or they can neglect the
interests of others. Some decisions are too technical for the masses to grasp, while some issues are
too visceral to expect people to exercise cool rationality. Thus, with the renowned economist, Joseph
Schumpeter, we should be pragmatic and admit that the people cannot be expected to participate in
ruling, but rather their role is simply to elect a government to rule over them.
Of course, this theory of democratic elitism is only one view of what we should reasonably expect of
democracy. Against it are arrayed competing theories that see a much more active role for the public,
such as the illustrious Jurgen Habermas’ theory of deliberative democracy. This rejects the elitist
view that people are incapable of rational discussion of issues that matter to them; the problem is
that elites have not given them the chance. As the influential American media scholar James Carey
put it, “The people will begin to reawaken when they are addressed as a conversational partner and
are encouraged to join the talk rather than sit passively as spectators before a discussion conducted
by experts.” The people are capable of making, and should be encouraged to make, a public use of
the reasoning powers they display in their private lives and careers. They can and should come
together to think through the matters that concern them as a community.
The conflict between democratic elitism and deliberative democracy is unresolved. It would appear,
therefore, that the PAP is assured of good company, not just among the defenders of authoritarian
systems, but even within democratic thought. However, the apparent similarity between democratic
elitism and the PAP’s ideas is superficial. Go deeper and fundamental differences emerge. First,
while democratic elitism is as pessimistic as the PAP about the capacities of the public, it is resistant
to the over-concentration of power in the hands of leaders. The elite that Lippmann and others
pinned their democratic hopes on is an internally competitive elite with functioning checks and
balances, including an effective opposition and a free press. This is a far cry from the supremely
powerful executive that the PAP has constructed. Second, democratic elitism does not propose to
exclude anyone from the public sphere by force; rather, groups with the right to participate in politics
are to be educated to exercise “self-restraint”. The PAP, by contrast, ensures non-involvement by
curtailing civil liberties. American democratic elitists gained prominence in the wake of the
tumultuous protest movements of the late 1960s when social mobilisation was at its peak. They were
calling for some measure of calm, lest orderly government be overwhelmed and the democratic
system itself be discredited by chaos. By contrast, the PAP curtails democratic expression among an
already passive and demobilised citizenry. Its fear of unleashing an excess of democracy in
Singapore is akin to denying Sub-Saharan Africa food aid on the grounds that a culture of excess
has caused obesity in the West.
Each of the PAP’s arguments has its weaknesses but what is more, there is an internal contradiction
in its position. On the one hand, to justify its elitist and paternalistic version of democracy, the PAP
portrays the public as immature, incompetent in matters of state, and forever prone to disintegrate
into warring tribes. On the other hand, to defend its political legitimacy, the PAP holds up the public
as rational, responsible and wise, repeatedly returning the party to power out of enlightened selfinterest – not, as critics allege, because Singaporeans have been bullied and brainwashed. When
faced with appeals for a more deliberative and open society, the PAP is dismissive of the possibility
that a rational public could be cultivated to discuss sensitive issues peacefully and discern what is in
their long term interest. Yet the PAP also denies that its restrictions on freedom help it to dominate
over society; suddenly Singaporeans are too smart to be manipulated.
46
In debates about freedom, the PAP has also presented the options as a dichotomy, as if the only
alternative to the status quo is an extreme libertarian position with no limits on irresponsible and
destructive speech and action. In reality, democratic societies as well as international human rights
law accept that no freedom is absolute. International standards allow restrictions to uphold public
order, public morality and national security. The problem with the PAP system is not the presence of
restrictions as such, but that the particular restrictions violate international best practices: many are
contrary to well-articulated and established tests of legitimacy because they are over-broad and
excessively punitive. As a result, they discourage and dampen citizens’ democratic participation,
contrary to international law.
A) QUESTIONS:
1. What do you understand by the concept of ‘hegemony’? How does it apply to Singapore?
2. Highlight any facts that surprised you from this text. Why do you find these facts striking?
3. Which argument of the PAPs against liberalising Singapore’s authoritarian system do you find
most important? Why?
B) GROUP WORK
Discuss the section of text ([1], [2], [3] or [4]) assigned to your group and prepare to explain briefly
(in less than 5 minutes) to the class:

One argument of the PAP’s against further liberalising Singapore’s political system.

An example of a restriction on political activity this argument may justify and why.
Refer to ‘Background: Un-democratic Features of the Singapore System’ above as well as
your own general knowledge and evaluation.
Example: The PAP argues that since Singapore’s population is so small, we cannot afford
too much political competition, but need instead to ensure that all the most competent and
talented people collaborate to govern the country well. This may justify policies aimed at
discouraging independent activist movements such as student movements or trade unions,
since these may divert potential national leaders away from a unified national project and
toward specific causes and alternative centres of power.

Whether or not you agree with the PAP’s argument and why.
47
9b. Singapore: First World Electorate? (AQ Exercise)
(I) Towards a First World Electorate – Ho Kwon Ping (The Straits Times, 4 May 2011)
A NEW generation will decide Singapore's future in a few days. One of the ruling People's Action
Party's (PAP) concerns is to find a future prime minister from this generation. The opposition must
also fill its ranks with voices from the future, not the past. And as a nation, the baton that was
successfully passed from the founding generation to its custodians, the baby boomers of my
generation, is now being handed to Gen Y.
Across the entire world, Gen Y – those in their mid 20s to 30s – is coming of political age. They have
already made their mark in the Arab Spring, though arguably their inchoate1, even naive democratic
ideals may not translate altogether successfully from the street to the halls of government. In China,
Gen Y is still more concerned about economic self-improvement than the future of the Chinese
Communist Party, though they too are demanding more accountability from their government.
How should governments that have enjoyed more than a half-century of uninterrupted and
unopposed rule respond to the winds of change with a firm yet enlightened touch? Political science
textbooks provide no answer. Established liberal democracies with routinely rotating ruling parties
have no such dilemma at all.
Current events have not been inspiring. Arab leaders have no qualms about quashing youthful
dissent with bloodshed in order to perpetuate their rule. Halfway across the world, China's response
is to simply clam up, with arrests of dissidents representing more a lack of imagination about how to
deal with the imperative for change than a clearly thought through policy of repression. Besieged
Arab governments and stubbornly recalcitrant Chinese leaders are certainly more reactionary than
proactive.
The history of former colonies in the Third World trying to achieve First World economic and sociopolitical maturity is replete with failures. To achieve consistent economic growth with broad-based
gains for entire populations has hitherto been a rarely scaled hurdle. To maintain exemplary,
transparent governance with an entrenched ethos of incorruptibility is even harder. The Singapore
that the PAP built has already risen to the top of the list of successful newly independent states with
these two accomplishments. Can it remain in power with a clean sweep of all the seats on Saturday,
denying the opposition the role of a "co-driver"?
If history is anything to go by, this task will be daunting. History has not been very encouraging –
whether it be Israel's founding Labor party, India's Congress, Taiwan's Kuomintang or Japan's
Liberal Democratic Party. Ruling parties have generally foundered after about a half-century, then
lost their original visionary leadership and mandate to rule. Some have been voted – usually
temporarily – from power, others have splintered. The only ruling parties with zero challenges to their
authority, even after a half-century of rule, are those that do not subject themselves to elections at all.
If the PAP can buck the trends of history, it will have set a new paradigm.
And it is by no means impossible that the PAP will do precisely that, but possibly with greater
difficulty than it took in achieving its earlier goals. The PAP may have to amend its aims and accept
– if not in this general election, then in the next – that a robust multi-party system with a single
dominant ruling party but several responsible opposition parties in Parliament may be a more
sustainable and stable prospect.
With the PAP possibly holding the world record for the longest, uninterrupted stint as a governing
1
Undeveloped; unclear; unformed; embryonic
48
party, the Singapore story may provide an example of how other countries can make a successful
transition from what has been called "developmental authoritarianism" to a robust, sustainable multiparty system.
But everyone in the game must cooperate to make this happen: an enlightened ruling party less
obsessed about its own dominance than the survival of the system it helped to create; opposition
parties peopled by pragmatic, capable idealists; and most of all, a demographically young yet
emotionally mature electorate.
Whether the PAP should continue to rule without its efficiency being hamstrung by a "co-driver" – or
whether the car can bear the weight and lower speed in exchange for the extra safety and insurance
that a co-driver will bring – is what Singaporeans are essentially going to choose on Saturday.
Despite the importance of issues such as housing, transport and cost of living, the drama and the
significance of this general election is the prospect of Singapore moving towards a multi-party
system in this election or the next – towards, in other words, what the Workers' Party calls a First
World Parliament.
Whatever happens, three myths have been debunked by this election.
The first is that because the PAP has exhaustively searched the country high and low and its
candidates are the best in the land, there is a dearth of talent outside the ruling party. Therefore, a
robust multi-party political system is not sustainable and even dangerous because there simply are
not enough capable men and women to make this work.
In this election, the number of qualified opposition candidates has rendered this myth difficult to
maintain. The opposition parties have fielded many candidates who are clearly not the disgruntled,
self-interested and virulently anti-PAP "bicycle thieves" of the past.
Some share the same backgrounds as the PAP's "star" candidates: government scholarship holders
and senior civil servants, blue-chip professionals from the establishment and university-educated
professionals from the HDB heartland, all of whom have openly praised the PAP and avowed no
interest at all in destroying the system that nurtured them. If anything, they claim to want to protect
the system they grew up in, by playing the same kind of role as the elected presidency does on
another front – to serve as a check on the government of the day.
The second myth – favoured by the opposition – is that the PAP will do anything to perpetuate its
rule, from gerrymandering electoral constituencies and creating ever-larger Group Representation
Constituencies to threats of not upgrading housing estates in opposition-held wards. Certainly, in
previous elections, the PAP had adopted a much more aggressive, no-holds-barred approach than it
has in this.
In this election, the noticeably generous coverage of the opposition in the mainstream media, the
inclusion of previously disallowed social media as legitimate means of campaigning, and even the
unprecedented appearance of a senior minister in a television debate with opposition candidates,
have clearly not been the actions of a ruling party that wants only to perpetuate its rule by any
means possible. The younger PAP leadership has chosen to liberalise the political landscape in
Singapore even at the risk of losing more opposition seats, and even possibly going against the
instinct of the old guard.
The third myth is that young Singaporeans are generally apathetic and concerned only about their
narrow interests. Although the huge buzz in online forums about the election may represent only a
fraction of youth at large, although the large turnout in rallies by young people may only be for their
entertainment, although the many young PAP and opposition candidates may just be flashes in the
49
pan – the myth of apathy that older Singaporeans may have held about Gen Y is clearly no longer
viable. As the baby boomers pass into retirement, it is very encouraging to see young people coming
out and making their voices heard.
Unless we have a freak election with unexpected results, Singaporeans can be proud both of the
ruling as well as opposition parties. And of themselves too as an electorate whose demands are
increasingly shaping the responses of both players.
Singapore may be moving deliberately yet irrevocably towards a First World electorate – in an
evolutionary process that may take another two or three elections over the next two decades – but
one that embraces common values so that the electorate, not the political parties, demand civility,
intellectual rigour and competence of all their politicians, whatever their affiliation.
If all goes well, the winner in this watershed election may well be Singapore's future.
50
9b. Singapore: First World Electorate? (AQ Exercise) [cont’d]
(II) Are We Prepared to be a First World Electorate? – Norzian Mohamed Yunos (Broader
Perspectives, 2011, Issue Six)
51
AQ Question
Ho Kwon Ping is optimistic about Singapore having a “first-world electorate” following the events of the
2011 General Elections, while Norizian Mohd Yunos is more sceptical. Consider which author you agree
more with by examining their views on the following (as well as any other overlapping areas that you
note):
1) The PAP’s track record
2) The state of the Opposition
3) Engaging young voters
4) The use of social media
52
9c. What Singapore can learn from Europe (Source: Tommy Koh – The Straits Times, 19 May
2012)
It is a sad reflection on human nature that when a region is faced with a crisis, it is often treated with
disdain instead of sympathy. I recall that during the Asian financial crisis of 1997-1998, some of our
European and American friends were extremely unkind and predicted that Asia would suffer a lost
decade.
We must not do the same to Europe which has been faced with a serious financial and economic
crisis since 2008. I have, therefore, decided to swim against the tide of anti-Europe sentiments.
I wish to highlight the fact that not all the countries of Europe are in crisis. Last year, of the 27
European Union countries, only three had a negative growth rate. In the 2010-2011 Global
Competitiveness Index of the World Economic Forum, six EU countries were ranked among the 10
most competitive countries.
I wish to make the case that Singapore has much to learn from the successful countries of Europe. I
will focus on four European countries whose populations are below 10 million – namely, Denmark,
Finland, Norway and Sweden.
LESSON NO. 1: Inclusive growth
THE citizens of the world aspire to live in fair societies. One important aspect of fairness is the
equitable distribution of income and wealth. This is the moral force behind the economic doctrine of
inclusive growth. As a result of globalisation, technological change and domestic policies, many
countries have become extremely unequal.
The Occupy Wall Street movement is a reflection of the American people’s sentiments against a
growth model which over-rewards the top 1 per cent and under-rewards the remaining 99 per cent.
The inequality in Singapore, as measured by the Gini coefficient, is even greater than that in
America. Too great a gap between rich and poor undermines solidarity and social cohesion. It poses
a threat to our harmony and our sense of nationhood.
Let us compare Singapore, on the one hand, and Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden on the
other. Their per capita incomes in 2010 were as follows:
Singapore:
Denmark:
Finland:
Norway:
Sweden:
S$59,813
S$69,249(€42,500)
S$54,584 (€33,500)
S$105,096 (€64,500)
S$60,613 (€37,200)
53
The Gini coefficient is used universally as a summary measure of income inequality. It is based upon
the difference between the incomes of the top 20 per cent and the bottom 20 per cent. Zero
represents total income equality and one represents total inequality. What are the Gini coefficients of
the five countries? In 2010, they were as follows:
Singapore:
Denmark:
Finland:
Norway:
Sweden:
0.46
0.27
0.25
0.24
0.24
In order to get a better sense of the wages earned in the five countries by the bottom 20-30 per cent
of the working population, I have chosen the cleaner and the bus driver. The average monthly wages
of the cleaner and bus driver in the five countries are as follows:
Country
Singapore
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Cleaner Bus driver
S$800 S$1,800
S$5,502 S$6,193
S$2,085 S$3,910
S$5,470 S$6,260
S$3,667 S$4,480
A few observations are in order. First, Singapore’s per capita income is roughly similar to those of
Denmark, Finland and Sweden.
Second, the four Nordic countries are much more equitable than Singapore. This is reflected in their
Gini coefficients as well as in the average monthly wages earned by the cleaner and the bus driver.
Third, some Nordic countries have a minimum wage and some, such as Denmark, do not. The
minimum wage is, therefore, a means but not the only means to ensure that workers earn a living
wage.
Fourth, the (government's) argument that the only way to raise the wages of our low-wage workers
is through productivity increase is not persuasive. I would like to know, for example, how the two
women who clean my office can be more productive than they already are in order to deserve higher
wages? I would like to know how the Singapore bus driver can be more productive so that his
income will approximate those of his Nordic counterparts?
The truth is that we pay these workers such low wages not primarily because their productivity is
inherently low, but largely because they are competing against an unlimited supply of cheap foreign
workers. Because cheap workers are so plentiful, they tend to be employed unproductively. In the
Nordic countries, unskilled workers are relatively scarce and thus deployed more productively, with
higher skills, mechanisation, and better organisation.
What is the solution? The solution is for the State to reduce the supply of cheap foreign workers or
introduce a minimum wage or to target specific industries, such as the hospitality industry, for wage
enhancement.
54
LESSON NO. 2: Higher fertility
ONE of our challenges is our low fertility rate. For a country’s population to remain stable, it needs a
total fertility rate (TFR) of 2.14. Singapore’s current TFR is 1.2. Our population experts tell us that
our population will begin to shrink by 2025. They have, therefore, argued that, to make up the deficit,
we need to import foreigners to add to our population.
Importing foreigners is the second best solution. The best solution is to raise our TFR. On this point,
our policymakers seem to have run out of ideas. The various incentive schemes, such as baby
bonus, do not seem to be productive. It is time to look at our four European countries for inspiration.
Their 2010 TFRs were as follows:
Denmark:
Finland:
Norway:
Sweden:
1.87
1.87
1.95
1.98
The four Nordic countries have TFRs which are close to the replacement level. This achievement
seems extraordinary. They do not have the benefit of maids. There are over 200,000 foreign
domestic workers in Singapore. They also do not have grandparents who help with child-rearing. At
the same time, they have very high participation of women in their workforces. In terms of availability
of time and help for child-rearing, common sense would suggest that the TFR in Singapore should
be higher than those in the Nordic countries. How do we explain this paradox?
Our population experts cannot explain this paradox. I will venture a hypothesis. I believe that the
high TFR in the Nordic countries could be due to four factors: the availability of convenient,
affordable and good childcare; good work-life balance; an excellent and relatively stress-free
education system; and the relative absence of male chauvinism.
Let me say a few words on each of the four factors.
First, one of the missing links in Singapore is the inadequate supply of conveniently located, good
quality and affordable childcare for infants and young children.
Second, the work-life balance in Singapore, especially for many young professionals such as
lawyers, architects and teachers, is poor. Singaporeans work one of the longest hours in the
developed world. They have little energy for life other than work and thus little time for meaningful
family life.
The Government and our employers should reflect on whether the existing climate of encouraging or
requiring our young professionals to work late into the night is necessary or desirable.
Third, sociologists like Paulin Straughan have pointed out that Singapore’s highly competitive and
stressful education system is also a deterrent to working parents having more children. The Nordic
countries, on the other hand, are famous for their high quality, egalitarian education which fulfills the
children’s aspiration for a happy childhood. It is a paradox that Finland, with no streaming, no elite
schools and no private tuition industry, is ranked as having the world’s best education system.
Fourth, it is significant that the developed countries with low TFRs include Japan, Korea, Italy and
Spain, which have a high degree of male chauvinism. Is it possible that Singapore too has a high
degree of male chauvinism? The women of Singapore are often blamed for not marrying and having
children. Perhaps, the main problem is not our women but our men. Perhaps, what we also need is a
55
mindset change on the part of our men towards the status and role of our women and the shared
responsibilities of the husband and wife, and father and mother in domestic chores and child-rearing.
LESSON NO. 3: Embracing nature and sustainable development
SINGAPORE is probably Asia’s cleanest, greenest and most liveable city. Our air is healthy, our
water is potable and our land is wholesome. In addition, we enjoy good public health and food safety.
Visitors are astonished by the fact that, in spite of our high density, 47 per cent of our land is covered
in greenery. In view of this, the reader will ask what can we learn from the four Nordic countries? I
suggest three things.
First, people there love nature and their natural heritage. They seem to have an emotional, even a
spiritual, relationship with nature. They love their forests, lakes and fjords. In contrast, most
Singaporeans tend to have a more pragmatic relationship with nature. They apply a cost-benefit
analysis to the destruction of a natural heritage. Pragmatism is one of our virtues. We should,
however, be aware of the defects of our virtues. Not everything in life can be monetised.
Second, we can learn useful lessons from the way in which the Nordic countries have been able to
reconcile economic competitiveness with a deep commitment to sustainable development. After the
1992 Earth Summit, each of them has established a national commission to mainstream sustainable
development.
In the case of Finland, the Prime Minister chairs the National Commission on Sustainable
Development. The result is that there is a national consensus in each of those countries to
internalise the ethic of sustainable development into all aspects of life.
Third, at the micro-level, there are lessons in areas where Singapore has room for improvement –
for example, in energy efficiency, the use of solar energy, the recycling of waste, the use of nonpolluting buses, changing unsustainable patterns of consumption and production, etc.
LESSON NO. 4: Heritage, culture and the arts
IN THE past two decades, inspired by the 1989 Ong Teng Cheong report and Mr George Yeo’s
leadership at the then Ministry of Information and the Arts, Singapore has undergone a paradigm
shift in the areas of heritage, culture and the arts. The arts have blossomed. More and more
Singaporeans are interested in knowing their history and preserving their heritage. The trend is,
therefore, favourable. What can we learn from the Nordic countries?
First, we can learn the importance of giving all our children a good education in the arts. We have
made good progress in recent years. The opening of the Yong Siew Toh Conservatory of Music and
the School of The Arts were important milestones.
We can strengthen arts education in our schools. We should consider starting courses in art history
and museum studies at the undergraduate and graduate levels. This will help in the training of
teachers, curators, dealers, collectors and museum administrators, all in short supply.
Second, we can emulate the achievements of the Nordic countries in respect of museums. They
have an impressive range of museums with strong collections. They have been able to harness the
benefit of public-private partnership. Their museum collections extend beyond their nations to the
cultures of the world.
56
For example, the David Collection in Copenhagen is one of the world’s best collections of Islamic Art.
The Kiasma Museum of Contemporary Art in Helsinki has a very ambitious programming agenda,
covering Western as well as Asian and African art.
Third, because of their ancient Viking past and current strength in shipping and other maritime
industries, Denmark, Norway and Sweden have outstanding museums of maritime history.
Given the importance of maritime trade to Singapore’s past and present, it is puzzling that we do not
have a museum of maritime history. I hope one day the historic Clifford Pier, which now houses a
restaurant, will be the home of a world-class museum of maritime history. When that time comes, we
can look to the Nordic countries for inspiration.
Discussion:
What recent policies/initiatives has the Singapore government put in place to address these issues?
How effective do you think they are/will be?
57
10a. Is there such a thing as a just war?
Consider the following 6 factors that determine whether or not a war is just, and say whether you
agree with each of them.
1) The war must be for a just cause*.
* Would you accept the list of just causes below? Why / why not?
(a) Self-defence – only if the country is invaded.
(b) Assassination of a prominent person (monarch/ president)
(c) Attack on national honour (e.g. Burning the state flag, attacking the embassy)
(d) Attack on state religion
(e) Economic attack (trade embargo/ sanctions)
(f) Attack on neighbour or ally
(g) Pre-emptive strike
(h) Assisting an invaded friendly nation
(i) Human rights violations (so severe that force is the only sensible response)
(j) To punish an act of aggression
2) The war must be lawfully declared by a lawful authority. (e.g. Legitimate government /
UN)
3) The intention behind the war must be good.
- Creating, restoring or maintaining a just peace.
- Righting a wrong.
- Assisting the innocent.
- Having wrong motives for starting a war could lead to atrocities/ war crimes being
committed.
4) All other ways of resolving the problem should have been tried first. (i.e. We should
not put lives at stake until all other alternatives have been tried/ considered).
5) There must be a reasonable chance of success (assuming that it is wrong to cause
suffering, pain and death with no chance of success).
6) The means used must be in proportion to the end that the war seeks to achieve (i.e. It
must prevent more evil and suffering than it causes).
58
10b. The Just War by St. Thomas Aquinas
(Source: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/politics/pg0029.html
Resource Centre)
–
Catholic
Education
… it must be said that, in order that a war may be just, three things are necessary.
In the first place, the authority of the prince, by whose order the war is undertaken; for it does
not belong to a private individual to make war, because, in order to obtain justice, he can have
recourse to the judgment of his superior. Neither does it belong to a private individual to
summon a multitude of people together as must be done to engage in war. But, since the care
of the State is confided to Princes, it is to them that it belongs to defend the city, the kingdom or
province which is subject to their authority. Just as it is permissible for them to defend these, by
the material sword, against those who trouble them from within, by punishing the evil-doers
according to the word of the Apostle: "The prince beareth not the sword in vain for he is the
minister of God to execute His vengeance against him who doeth evil" (Romans xiii: 4), so, in
like manner, it is to them that it belongs to bear the sword in combats for the defence of the
State against external enemies. Also, the Psalmist says to princes: "Snatch the poor and deliver
the needy out of the hands of the sinner" (Psalm lxxxi: 4). This is what makes St. Augustine say
(Contra Faustum, XXII, 75): "The natural order, which would have peace amongst men, requires
that the decision and power to declare war should belong to princes."
In the second place, there must be a just cause; that is to say, those attacked must have, by a
fault, deserved to be attacked. This is what makes St. Augustine say in Book VI, Question 16, of
Questions on Joshua: "Just wars are usually defined as those which avenge injuries, when the
nation or city against which warlike action is to be directed has neglected either to punish
wrongs committed by its own citizens or to restore what has been unjustly taken by it. Further,
that kind of war is undoubtedly just which God Himself ordains."
In the third place, it is necessary that the intention of those who fight should be right; that is to
say, that they propose to themselves a good to be effected or an evil to be avoided. This is what
made St. Augustine say in the book De Verbis Domini: "With the true servants of God wars
themselves are pacific, not being undertaken through cupidity or cruelty, but through the love of
peace, with the object of repressing the wicked and encouraging the good." Consequently, it
may happen that, although the war has been declared by the legitimate authority and for a just
cause it may nevertheless be rendered illicit by the perversity of the intention of him who makes
it. "For," says St. Augustine (Contra Faustum, I, XXII, Chap. 74), "what is blamed in war? Is it
the death of those who must die sooner or later, but who give up their lives to bring peace by
overcoming guilty men? To blame this is the cry of cowards, not of religious people. The desire
for harming, the cruelty of avenging, an unruly and implacable animosity, the rage of rebellion,
the lust of domination and the like – these are the things which are to be blamed in war."
To the second argument (viz. that war is a sin, as being "contrary to a divine precept") it must be
replied that these precepts, as St. Augustine says (De Serm. Domini in monte, I, 34), ought
always to be observed in relation to the disposition of the soul; that is to say, that man ought
always to be ready, if necessary, not to resist or not to defend himself. But sometimes we must
act otherwise for the common good, and even for the good of those against whom we fight. This
it is that causes St. Augustine to say, in the Fifth Epistle Ad Marcellinum: "There are many
59
things that must be done against the will of those whom one ought to correct with a beneficent
severity."
To the third argument the reply is, that those who wage wars justly have peace as the object of
their intention, and so they are not opposed to peace, but only to that evil peace which the Lord
did not come on earth to bring (St. Matthew x: 34). Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Bonifacium,
CLXXXIX): "For peace is not sought in order to the kindling of war, but war is waged in order
that peace may be obtained. Therefore, even in waging war, cherish the spirit of the
peacemaker, that, by conquering those whom you attack, you may lead them back to the
advantages of peace...."
To the fourth argument the reply is that manly exercises in warlike feats of arms are not all
forbidden but those which are inordinate and perilous, and end in slaying or plundering. In olden
times warlike exercises presented no such danger and hence they were called exercises of
arms or bloodless wars.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Aquinas, St. Thomas. "The Just War." In The Summa Theologica. Great Books of the Western
World vol. 20 (Chicago, Illinois: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1952).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thinking It Over
Summarise the points that St. Thomas Aquinas makes to justify a war.
Taking It Further
1) To which wars can you apply Aquinas’ arguments?
2) Do you agree that there can ever be a just war? What are some of the reasons in
reality that might interfere with Aquinas’ arguments?
60
10c. Why wage war? (Adapted from Chapter 7 of Politics: A Very Short Introduction by Kenneth
Minogue)
Imagine there's no countries / It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for / And no religion too
Imagine all the people / Living life in peace
John Lennon, “Imagine” (1971)
[1] Since defeat in war could mean extinction as a people, and since there were always some states
that were, or might become, expansionist, warriors were needed for protection. But these protectors
were to become the problem rather than the solution to the desire for peace. Their feuding was
brought to an end by the ascendency of absolute monarchs, who then themselves became the
source of the problem. War was now the pastime of kings. By war, a state could grow to be a power.
[2] Hobbes (in The Leviathan, 1651) suggested three reasons for war: the scarcity of things men
value (such as well-watered land), the human passion for glory, and mistrust of others. The very fear
of the future aggression of others might well lead to a policy of pre-emptive strikes: Alpha fears that
Beta will attack, and decides to strike first, but Beta already fears this, and wants to get in even
earlier, fearing which Alpha…and so on.
Questions for [2]:
The first three reasons that Hobbes gives for war are:
a) “the scarcity of things men value”
Is this still true today? What are the things we value and have gone/may go to war over?
b) “the human passion for glory”
Discuss the notion of “glory” in terms of current realities of nationalistic/extremist
sentiment/pride/ideology. Give examples of nations that have gone to war for this reason.
c) “mistrust of others”
(i) What evidence do we have today of such “mistrust”? [e.g. spying; surveillance; intelligence]
(ii) How do modern nations respond to the “fear of the future aggression” that Hobbes refers to?
What policies/actions do governments make/take?
…[cont’d on next page]
61
10c. Why wage war? [cont’d]
Brother, brother / We don't need to escalate
You see, war is not the answer / For only love can conquer hate
You know we've got to find a way / To bring some lovin’ here today
Marvin Gaye, “What’s Going On” (1971)
[3] It had long been common to deplore war and seek its causes, as if it were a pathology to be
explained. Hobbes argued that war was the natural relation between humans, and the real question
was thus how they could ever achieve a condition of peace.
Questions for [3]
1. Do you agree with Hobbes that “war [is] the natural relation between humans”? Is war truly
inevitable?
2. What do modern nations do to “achieve a condition of peace”?
3. In the world today, what conditions exist which may discourage nations from going to war?
62
10d. Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech - full text (Oslo, Norway, 10 Dec 2009)
On “Just War” and a “Just Peace”
Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Distinguished Members of the Norwegian Nobel
Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:
I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest
aspirations - that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our
actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.
And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous
decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors
on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela - my accomplishments are slight. And then there are
the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice;
those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose
quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened of cynics. I cannot argue with
those who find these men and women - some known, some obscure to all but those they help - to be
far more deserving of this honor than I.
But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the
Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The
other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by forty three other countries
- including Norway - in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.
Still, we are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to
battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of
the cost of armed conflict - filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and
peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.
These questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn
of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease - the manner
in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.
Over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers, clerics, and
statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a "just war" emerged,
suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort
or in self-defense; if the forced used is proportional, and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared
from violence.
For most of history, this concept of just war was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to
think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from
mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars
between nations - total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred.
In the span of thirty years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it is hard to
conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II
was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who
perished.
In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and
vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another World War. And so, a quarter
63
century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations - an idea for which Woodrow
Wilson received this Prize - America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace:
a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect
human rights, prevent genocide, and restrict the most dangerous weapons.
In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities
committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds
dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from
poverty. The ideals of liberty, self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly
advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for
which my own country is rightfully proud.
A decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The
world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but
proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern
technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.
Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The
resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and
failed states; have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today's wars, many more
civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sewn, economies are wrecked, civil
societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, and children scarred.
I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that
meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and
women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the
notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.
We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our
lifetimes. There will be times when nations - acting individually or in concert - will find the use of
force not only necessary but morally justified.
I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and
more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life's
work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak -nothing
passive - nothing naïve - in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.
But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples
alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people.
For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted
Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that
force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism - it is a recognition of history; the
imperfections of man and the limits of reason.
I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today,
no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole
military superpower.
Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions - not just treaties and
declarations - that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made,
the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more
64
than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and
sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to
Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden
not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest - because
we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be
better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.
So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must
coexist with another - that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier's
courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause and to comrades in
arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.
So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths - that war is
sometimes necessary, and war is at some level an expression of human feelings. Concretely, we
must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. "Let us focus," he said,
"on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but
on a gradual evolution in human institutions."
What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?
To begin with, I believe that all nations - strong and weak alike - must adhere to standards that
govern the use of force. I - like any head of state - reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to
defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who
do, and isolates - and weakens - those who don't.
The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in
Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of selfdefense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded
Kuwait - a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.
Furthermore, America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them
ourselves. For when we don't, our action can appear arbitrary, and undercut the legitimacy of future
intervention - no matter how justified.
This becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self defense
or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions
about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose
violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.
I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other
places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly
intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a
clear mandate can play to keep the peace.
America's commitment to global security will never waiver. But in a world in which threats are more
diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. This is true in Afghanistan. This is
true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human
suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.
The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries - and other friends and allies - demonstrate this truth
through the capacity and courage they have shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a
disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I
65
understand why war is not popular. But I also know this: the belief that peace is desirable is rarely
enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That is why NATO
continues to be indispensable. That is why we must strengthen UN and regional peacekeeping, and
not leave the task to a few countries. That is why we honor those who return home from
peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali we honor them not as makers of war, but as wagers of peace.
Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going
to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth
in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant - the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving
force behind the Geneva Conventions.
Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain
rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe that
the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what
makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I
prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I
have reaffirmed America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves
when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor those ideals by
upholding them not just when it is easy, but when it is hard.
I have spoken to the questions that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage
war. But let me turn now to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we
can build a just and lasting peace.
First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop
alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior - for if we want a lasting peace,
then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the
rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with
increased pressure - and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.
One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world
without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose
bargain is clear: all will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will
forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work toward disarmament. I am committed to
upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I am working with President
Medvedev to reduce America and Russia's nuclear stockpiles.
But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the
system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are
flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the
Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for
nuclear war.
The same principle applies to those who violate international law by brutalizing their own people.
When there is genocide in Darfur; systematic rape in Congo; or repression in Burma - there must be
consequences. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice
between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.
This brings me to a second point - the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the
absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based upon the inherent rights and dignity of every
individual can truly be lasting.
66
It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second
World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace
is a hollow promise.
And yet all too often, these words are ignored. In some countries, the failure to uphold human rights
is excused by the false suggestion that these are Western principles, foreign to local cultures or
stages of a nation's development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those
who describe themselves as realists or idealists - a tension that suggests a stark choice between the
narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values.
I reject this choice. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak
freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent up
grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also
know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has
never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the
rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America's interests - nor the world's are served by the denial of human aspirations.
So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always
be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of
reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face
of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is
telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the
power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear
to these movements that hope and history are on their side
Let me also say this: the promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it
must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks
the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach - and
condemnation without discussion - can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime
can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.
In light of the Cultural Revolution's horrors, Nixon's meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable - and
yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty,
and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul's engagement with Poland created space not just
for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan's efforts on arms
control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but
empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There is no simple formula here. But we must try
as best we can to balance isolation and engagement; pressure and incentives, so that human rights
and dignity are advanced over time.
Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights - it must encompass economic security
and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.
It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security
does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the
medicine they need to survive. It does not exist where children cannot aspire to a decent education
or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.
And that is why helping farmers feed their own people - or nations educate their children and care for
the sick - is not mere charity. It is also why the world must come together to confront climate change.
There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, famine and mass
67
displacement that will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and
activists who call for swift and forceful action - it is military leaders in my country and others who
understand that our common security hangs in the balance.
Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in
development. All of these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy
spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, or the staying power, to complete
this work without something more - and that is the continued expansion of our moral imagination; an
insistence that there is something irreducible that we all share.
As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how
similar we are; to understand that we all basically want the same things; that we all hope for the
chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our
families.
And yet, given the dizzying pace of globalization, and the cultural leveling of modernity, it should
come as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish about their particular identities their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to
conflict. At times, it even feels like we are moving backwards. We see it in Middle East, as the
conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by
tribal lines.
Most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by
those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from
Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the
Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if
you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint - no need to
spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or even a person of one's own faith. Such a warped view of
religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but the purpose of faith - for the one rule
that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto
us.
Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. We are fallible. We
make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even
those of us with the best intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.
But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human
condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals
that will make it a better place. The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not
have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached - their faith in
human progress - must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.
For if we lose that faith - if we dismiss it as silly or naïve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we
make on issues of war and peace - then we lose what is best about humanity. We lose our sense of
possibility. We lose our moral compass.
Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so
many years ago, "I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I
refuse to accept the idea that the 'isness' of man's present nature makes him morally incapable of
reaching up for the eternal 'oughtness' that forever confronts him."
68
So let us reach for the world that ought to be - that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our
souls. Somewhere today, in the here and now, a soldier sees he's outgunned but stands firm to keep
the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government,
but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes
the time to teach her child, who believes that a cruel world still has a place for his dreams.
Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still
strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of depravation, and still strive for dignity. We can
understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that - for that is the story of
human progress; that is the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our
work here on Earth.
Thinking It Over
1) What arguments does Barack Obama raise to challenge the traditional notions of a “just war”?
What new challenges do societies in the modern age face, that make it difficult for them to abide by
the traditional concept of a “just war”?
2) What does Obama think of the creed of non-violence advocated and lived out by Gandhi and
Martin Luther King?
3) What, according to Obama, makes for a “just peace”? What ought to be done in order for a “just
peace” to exist?
Taking It Further (Read the following article ‘Terrorism)
1) Is the traditional concept of a “just war” obsolete, given that countries face new and
unprecedented challenges in the world today?
2) What relevance, if there is, does the “just war” theory serve in modern society?
69
10e. Terrorism by Walter Laqueur (Adapted excerpt from A History of Terrorism)
Terrorism has long exercised a great fascination especially at a safe distance, but it is not an easy
topic for discussion and explanation. The fascination it exerts — what one writer calls “tempestuous
loveliness of terror” — and the difficulty of interpreting it have the same roots: its unexpected,
shocking and outrageous character. War, even civil war, is predictable in many ways; it occurs in the
light of day and there is no mystery about the identity of the participants. Even in civil war there are
certain rules, whereas the characteristic features of terrorism are anonymity and the violation of
established norms.
Terrorism has always engendered violent emotions and greatly divergent opinions and images of it.
The popular image of the terrorist some ninety years ago was that of a bomb-throwing alien
anarchist, dishevelled, with a black beard and a satanic (or idiotic) smile, fanatic, sinister and
ridiculous at the same time. His present-day image has been streamlined but not necessarily
improved. Terrorists have found admirers and publicity agents in all ages. No words of praise are
fulsome enough for these latter-day saints and martyrs. The terrorist (we are told) is the only one
who really cares; he is a totally committed fighter for freedom and justice, a gentle human being
forced by cruel circumstances and an indifferent majority to play heroic yet tragic roles: Gandhi
distributing poison, the Pope carrying a bomb.
The interpretation of terrorism is difficult for yet other reasons. Even over the last century the
character of terrorism has changed greatly. This goes not only for its methods but also for the aims
of the struggle and the characters that were involved in it. Only two generations divide the merely
anti-government terrorists from the extremist, mindless terrorists of Iran or Libya; yet, morally and
intellectually, the distance between them is to be measured in light years. The other difficulty is
equally fundamental: unlike Marxism, terrorism is not an ideology but an insurrectional strategy that
can be used by people of very different political convictions.
According to widespread belief, terrorism is a new, unprecedented phenomenon. For this reason its
antecedents (if any) are of little interest. It is one of the most elusive and yet one of the most
important and dangerous problems facing mankind. Terrorism is a response to injustice; if there
were political and social justice, there would be no terrorism. The only known means of reducing the
likelihood of terrorism is a reduction of the grievances, stresses and frustration underlying it.
Terrorists are fanatical believers driven to despair by intolerable conditions. They are poor and their
inspiration is deeply ideological. Terrorism is not limited by time or place: its target can be London or
Beirut. And, most frightening of all, the average terrorist is quite likely to be your friend next door.
A) Short Comprehension Exercise
Literal paraphrase questions (answer in your own words)
1. In what ways is terrorism different from war?
2. According to paragraph 3, why is it so difficult to interpret terrorism?
Inference questions
3. How is the use of the word “loveliness” (paragraph 1) to describe terror ironic?
4. From the second half of paragraph 2, what is the writer’s attitude towards terrorists? Provide
evidence.
B) Relevant Essay Question
How far should a government go in its counter-terrorism efforts? (RJC Promo 2006)
70
10f. The Terrorist Next Door (Activity & Quiz)
i) Mix-and-Match: Match the terrorist groups to their location…
Terrorist groups
Boko Haram
Abu Sayyaf & Moro Islamic Liberation
Front (MILF)
Jemaah Islamiya organization (JI)
Hamas
Hezbollah (Party of God)
Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (Basque
Fatherland and Liberty) (ETA)
Al Qaeda
Al-Shabaab
Aum Shinrikyo
Al-Qaeda Kurdish Battalions
Location of Operation and Region
Philippines (Asia)
Nigeria (Africa)
Somalia (Africa)
Indonesia (Asia)
Japan (Asia)
Palestinian Territories (Middle East)
Iraq (Middle East)
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia
(Worldwide)
Spain and France (Europe)
Lebanon (Middle East)
(ii) Quiz: Know what the terrorists are up to all around the world
1. ___________________’s composition is multiethnic, with its leadership positions mainly
occupied by Afghanistan- and Iraq-trained ethnic locals and foreigners. Unlike most of the
organization's top leaders, its foot soldiers are primarily concerned with nationalist and clanrelated affairs as opposed to the global jihad.
2. President Goodluck Jonathan declared a state of emergency and ordered his security forces in
May 2013 to crush _________________’s_ four-year-old rebellion. The group aims to topple his
government and create an Islamic state.
3. _____________is a religious cult group that carried out a gas attack in the Tokyo subway in
1995.
4. For almost 30 years ___________________________have been engaged in an insurgency for
an independent Islamic province in its present Catholic country in Asia.
5. ______________was formed in the 1960s and has more than 700 members in prison, who
fought for its minority culture. It is about 50-member strong today but in 2010, it declared a new
ceasefire and in 2012 has said it will disband completely.
6. _____________’s leaders are followers of the Iranian revolution’s Ayatollah Khomeini. It is a
Shi'a Islamic militant group that has a political party with seats in the government. It started a
war with Israel in 2006.
7. Since June 2007 ________________, a Sunni Muslim terrorist organisation has governed the
Gaza Strip, after it won a majority of seats in the Palestinian Parliament in the democratically
held 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections. It promised to “wipe out Israel off the planet”.
71
10g. Re-Thinking Homegrown Terrorism (Busso von Alvensleben, 17 Nov 2008,
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/re-thinking-homegrown-terrorism)
Home-grown terrorism stands high on the security agenda almost everywhere in Europe. Its links to
international extremist Islamic groups require that governments review and re-think how they
respond to it.
International security cooperation, border controls, and transport sector monitoring are all important,
but they don’t go far enough. Governments must also identify radical tendencies within Europe’s
Muslim communities and devise strategies to counteract them. The narrow aim should be to nip
terrorism in the bud, and the broader aim should be to open a dialogue with the Muslim community.
This agenda emphasizes intercultural communication as the best way to break down prejudices and
negative clichés on both sides. From the point of view of security policy, intercultural communication
is intended to immunize those sections of the Muslim community that are deemed to be potentially
receptive to extremist propaganda, with the clear aim being to prevent their radicalization and
recruitment to jihad .
For immunization of this sort to be successful, it is important to first clarify what can turn someone
into a jihadi .There appears to be no single answer. But one common pattern that does emerge is
that the jihadi message, because it promises meaning and identity, seems to appeal particularly to
people who are unsure about who they are and where they are heading.
Last year, a study of German Muslims analyzed social integration (including obstacles), religion,
attitudes to democracy, the rule of law, and politically-inspired violence. The vast majority of
respondents were from a migrant background, and a quarter were Muslims whose families had been
in Germany for a generation or more. In terms of ethnic origin and religious practice, they were a
representative sample of Germany’s Muslim community.
The study provided valuable insights into home-grown terrorism, for it revealed a consistently close
link between radicalization and “vicarious” experiences of marginalization and discrimination. A
critical factor was the powerful emotions generated by United States-led military interventions in
Muslim countries, and by the situation of the Palestinians. The blanket suspicion that was widely
seen as falling on all Muslims after every terrorist attack was also strongly resented.
But the study revealed no automatic correlation between Islamist sympathies and condoning the use
of violence. And, while individuals who had Islamist sympathies and condoned violence were more
likely than others to become involved in home-grown terrorism, a mere 1.1% of Germany’s Muslims
fell into this category. The authors also noted that the mechanisms that turn Muslims into potential
terrorists are the same as those that make German teenagers susceptible to xenophobic
propaganda and right-wing extremism.
The study’s conclusions applied only to Germany, but its main findings were largely corroborated by
a Gallup global survey. According to Gallup, only 7% of Muslims are politically radical and condone
the use of violence, and their motives are not so much religious as inspired by the demeaning
political and social treatment that Muslims are perceived to suffer.
This is in marked contrast to the conventional view in the West that the prime motive for Islamist
terrorism is religious. Many Muslims see that erroneous assumption as evidence of the West’s
contempt for Islam, reinforcing their view that Muslims as a whole are victims of discrimination and
creating a vicious cycle that may generate further radicalization on both sides.
72
Indeed, certain aspects of the host-country environment may contribute to radicalization. While
external factors also play a major role, Muslim attitudes toward their host country are strongly
influenced by the perception that Muslims are subjected to humiliation and oppression. This is liable
to be reinforced by any negative experiences that Muslims may suffer themselves.
Finally, there is the quantitative question. The number of potential terrorist recruits can only be
estimated, but it corresponds more or less to the percentage of the population in any Western
society that is likely to be involved in violent crime. In no sense do these people amount to a mass
movement. But, as protagonists in the complex web of interaction between the Muslim and the
Western worlds, they view militant terrorism as their preferred option.
There are, of course, other forms of interaction, and this brings us back to the question of how to
respond to home-grown terrorism. A distinction is often made between “hard” tools for combating
terrorism – i.e. executive, including military measures – and “soft” tools such as programs promoting
the integration of Muslim immigrants, efforts to stabilize and develop problem countries, and
strategies for intercultural dialogue.
The slogan “war for Muslim hearts and minds” is a grotesque yet revealing attempt to link both sets
of tools. Even when such interaction is to communicate a political message, an image of war is used.
If we adopt the parlance employed by al-Qaeda while at the same time proclaiming our intention to
communicate with the whole Muslim world, we run the risk of reinforcing al-Qaeda’s message. The
“competition of ideas” appears to be confined to al-Qaeda’s jihadi agenda. Such a response is hardly
likely to alter the mindset of potential recruits.
Today’s tendency to view Muslim grievances in one-dimensional terms reduces political discourse to
a very simplistic level. Our interactions with Muslims may be unconsciously influenced by this
defensive reflex, and that may encourage equally defensive attitudes on their part.
Comprehension skills
1. In your own words explain the two aims of European governments in dealing with terrorism.
2. What is the commonly seen pattern in young Muslims who are attracted to radicalization?
(Use your own words to explain)
3. What is the Western world’s understanding of the reason for Muslims turning to terrorism and
the Muslims’ own self-proclaimed reason?
4. In your own words, explain what are the two usual tools used to deal with terrorism?
5. i) Explain clearly how the slogan “the war for Muslim hearts and minds” links both sets of
tools used to deal with terrorism.
ii) Explain the irony in the above phrase.
73
10h. Can Terrorism Be Cured? (Steven Metz, 6 Feb 2006, http://www.projectsyndicate.org/commentary/can-terrorism-be-cured)
Terrorism is likely to define the year 2006 as much as it has ever year since 2001. Years from now,
historians will likely label the opening years of the twenty-first century the “Age of Terrorism.” As with
any new era, we do not yet fully understand what is happening and why. While most of the world
recognizes the problem, there are very different views on its causes and cures.
This much we know: terrorism is fueled by anger and frustration. Radicals use the inability to attain
political objectives peacefully to inspire fanatical action and to justify forms of violence normally
considered unacceptable. Beyond this basic point, however, there is less agreement on why
frustration and anger lead to terrorism in some cases but not in others. Moreover, there are two
broad schools of thought as to the appropriate response when they do fuel extremist violence.
One school believes that modern terrorism cannot be eradicated, or that the costs of doing so are
unacceptably high. For this group, the only logical policy is to “ride out the storm” by ending policies
which increase anger and frustration, and improving intelligence and defenses.
The second school of thought contends that terrorism can be eradicated by addressing its root
causes. Ironically, its adherents include both George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden. For bin Laden
and those who share his ideas, anger and frustration in the Islamic world stem from outside
repression and exploitation of Muslims. If the repression ends, so, too, will terrorism. Until then, all
means are legitimate when fighting a powerful and wicked enemy. Terrorism, for bin Laden and his
allies, is the only method available to strike at the West effectively. “It is permissible,” according to
bin Laden’s ally in Iraq, Abu Musab Zarqawi, “to spill infidel blood.”
Bush, in contrast, believes that terrorism is rooted in the absence of political and economic
opportunity. Rather than grappling with this, radicals like bin Laden blame outsiders, particularly the
United States and Europe. But the ultimate solution, according to Bush, is the creation of fair and
open political and economic systems that can eliminate anger and frustration through peaceful
means. Extremists might still exist, but they would be marginalized, finding few recruits or supporters.
Unfortunately, every approach has shortcomings. The belief that terrorism cannot be eradicated
assumes that the ability to tolerate terrorist attacks – to “ride out the storm” – is greater than the
willingness of terrorists to persist, or even escalate the attacks. By taking an essentially passive
position, this approach might merely prolong the Age of Terrorism needlessly. Moreover,
appeasement is based on the dangerous assumption that the extremists’ objectives are limited –
that once they attain their stated goals by using violence, they will become responsible members of
the world community.
Bin Laden’s position – that terrorism will end when the Islamic world expels outside influence – is
ethically and analytically flawed. On the one hand, it would condemn hundreds of millions to live in
repressive Iranian- or Taliban-style theocracies. On the other hand, the idea that poverty and
repression in the Islamic world are engineered from outside simply does not stand up to scrutiny.
Finally, the belief that democracy and economic reform will undercut terrorism is based on a series
of assumptions that may or may not prove accurate. For instance, it assumes that terrorists and their
supporters do not understand their own anger. But extremists say explicitly that their anger is caused
by the injustice of the global system and the repressive policies of powerful states. Closed political
systems and stagnant economies in the Muslim world, they contend, are symptoms, not causes.
The Bush position also assumes that fundamental political and economic change is feasible and
affordable – that open political and economic systems can be sustained with only modest effort –
74
because the desire for freedom and prosperity is universal. While true, it is not clear that a
willingness to tolerate the freedom of others, which democracy requires, is equally widespread. In
some societies, democracy is simply a way for the majority to repress the minority. In others, stability
or justice is more important than political freedom.
Finally, this perspective assumes that democracies will be willing or able to control radicalism and
crack down on extremists. But history suggests that new, fragile democracies are more likely to
attempt to placate radicals than to eliminate them, and that terrorists can exploit democratic
governments’ respect for civil rights and the rule of law.
The horrible truth is that failure to eradicate the root causes of terrorism is almost certain to extend
the Age of Terrorism, it is not clear that they really can be eradicated. To appease the extremists
might be easy but may not work. To allow them to win would be to accept the supremacy of evil. To
promote democracy and open government might be the ultimate solution, but it stands on a shaky
conceptual foundation of untested assumptions about the nature of the world and diverse cultures.
Unfortunately, the world is at a point where it can see the danger from terrorism but not the cure.
Worse still, a cure may not exist.
Questions for discussion
1. According to the passage, what are the 2 appropriate responses to terrorism?
2. What are limitations of each?
3. What has been the Singapore government’s response to terrorism? Do you think it has taken
the right approach?
4. The writer suggests that democracy and open government might be the ultimate solution.
What do you think? (Refer to the writer’s earlier arguments in the passage and to real and
recent events across the world to address this question.)
75