0	1	self-defeating, effects, fear, and, paranoia

PAP's approach towards Singapore is defined by paranoia, K. Shanmugan, Singapore's law minister told a New York State Bar Association meeting in Singapore Wednesday. The week before, Lee Kuan Yew told Charlie Rose in New York that Americans have to understand how the current China leaders seem to be acting out of indignant fear -- it's time for them to start catching up with the West, on 500-odd years of development. But is Lee being too hopeful by saying the nature of US-China relations will change once the next generation of Chinese leaders, who speak English as their second language and therefore should understand the West better, take over?

Just look at the Singapore example. Almost 45 years after independence, its leaders still characterize it as being paranoid. Lee said Chinese leaders, who are barely 20 years into their own capitalist nation building project since it first started in the early 1990's, think they have "500 years" to catch up on. Sure, this figure is entirely arbitrary and are meant to indicate a perception of how much they think they are "behind." But, as a metaphorical indicator, Lee probably meant for it to give people a sense of what he perceives to be the dominant Chinese political culture. But the question is, would Singapore, PAP-led or otherwise, or a more confident China, ever emerge from the doldrums of paranoia, fear and regret?

Just like people are always just reacting when they are fearful, paranoid or regretful, the same could be said of governance. It could mean that the only "economic" method of salvaging a tanking economy would be to continuously cut labor costs. This means lower wages for an increasingly educated workforce, which also means dampening middle class aspirations while possibly widening the income gap. That those words come from Lee Swee Say, a highly-paid "minister without portfolio" and the chief of the National Trade Union Congress, the umbrella union in Singapore, does nothing to quell growing resentment on the ground.

But by "confident," it does not mean a blind, emboldened approach towards governance that is devoid of ethics and does not conform to global norms. It would suggest that for example, in the event of a dittering United States on climate change, one would step forward and take the lead on organizing global emissions cut instead of waiting and hoping for something to work out that would suit its developmental interest. Environmentalism is perhaps the only moral claim that can counter that of capitalism.

The point here is that policy that only reacts would never reach the heights of a creative approach emanating from a government or a political culture that is confident of the abilities and worth of its own people. This is effectively the antithesis of fear, paranoia and regret, meaning that you would always be reacting to something else...and that you are perpetual follower. Sure, these are ideal types and any approach to governance would be a shrewd mix of both, but if Singapore truly wants the kind of creative and entrepreneurial spirit to take root organically and if China wants to lead the world and be respected on their terms, an honest appraisal and rethink should be on the cards.