IS GLOBALIZATION McDONALDIZATION? - Singapore, Globalization, and the Asian Values Debate (Chapter 10)       Return to Unit List

Are Human Rights universally applicable to all people in all cultures around the world? Is it possible to find a definition of Human Rights that the world can agree on? Do Human Rights focus too much on the rights of individuals at the expense of recognizing the responsibilities individuals have toward the communities in which they live?

In this unit we examine the case of the debate over "Asian Values" and whether or not Human Rights are culturally relative. The most outspoken voices of the "Asian Values" position have come from the leaders of two Southeast Asian states: Singapore and Malaysia. They have also been echoed by leaders in China. It is interesting, however, that such calls for a culturally relative approach to human rights has come from the two wealthiest countries, in terms of GNP per capita, in the region. Moreover, both countries are more "globalized" in their economic development than other Southeast Asian countries. Is there a relationship between the degree of integration into the global economy experienced by Malaysia and Singapore, and their leaders' efforts to distance their countries from the liberal-democratic traditions of European and North American societies?

When we examine the "Asian Values" concept more closely, we find that there are many different but related issues being wrapped up in this phrase. On the one hand, the phrase seems to connote the prioritizing of "economic rights" and a decent standard of living for all citizens over the political and civil rights which Europeans and North Americans value, such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and other individual liberties. On the other hand, however, the phrase is sometimes used to assert that Western-style democracy is not necessarily appropriate for Asian countries that value "social harmony" and consensus over political contests and compromises. In addition, "Asian Values" are also called upon to explain the particular success that many Asian countries and regions have had in modernizing their economies, such as Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, and Malaysia.

Begin by reading an interview in Foreign Policy magazine with Lee Hsien Loong, son of Singapore’s former prime minister Lee Kwan Yew. While Singapore’s "gamble" on globalization certainly paid off in the 1980s and early 1990s, in terms of economic development, the city-state has faced economic difficulties since 1997’s "Asian Crisis." As the interview reveals, however, the Singapore government remains committed to its strategy of integration with the global economy. Next, you can read a report from The Far Eastern Economic Review that offers a slightly less celebratory account of Singapore's modernization. "A City Divided" details Singapore's growing disparities in household incomes.

• These articles convey some of the difficulties and risks associated with globalization. The degree to which a state can benefit from the global economy is also the degree to which it is vulnerable to global economic problems. The ongoing liberalization of Singapore's economy has also meant a degree of income inequality which, for the most part, did not exist prior to the mid-1990s.
• What has caused income disparities to develop in Singapore? Is the government trying to develop more of a "free market" system in Singapore? Is it trying to increase welfare and social services?

Keep in mind the changes in Singapore, as we'll return to them after examining the "Asian Values" idea more specifically.

To learn about the "Asian Values" idea and debates it has incited, see the following sites:

If you want a more thoughtful discussion of the idea of Asian Values and, more specifically, an analysis of how modernity in Singapore, China, and other East Asian countries is different from Western societies because of their Confucian heritage, listen to a speech by Harvard Professor Tu Wei-Ming, given at Rice University in 1998. In his speech, professor Tu mentions that Western values accept three ideals as critical components of modern society: a free market, liberal democracy, and individualism. Then he outlines six common values that Confucian countries in East Asia share (including Singapore, because of its predominantly Chinese population):

1. A strong central government that takes responsibility for the welfare of the people and for the stability of society.
2. The importance of rites and rituals in building public virtue, propriety, and morality.
3. The family as the basic unit of society and primary transmitter of cultural values from one generation to the next.
4. The importance of civil society as a "dynamic interplay" between the family and the state, mediating the relationship between private and public spheres of social life.
5. The centrality of education as a "way of learning to be human" rather than simply an institution for the acquisition of knowledge and occupational skills.
6. Overall quality of life depends upon the level of "self-cultivation" of its members. Such cultivation means that people accept their ethical responsibilities toward society, rather than simply pursuing their personal freedoms and happiness.

According to professor Tu, Asian Values should not be abused to legitimize authoritarianism, corruption, or dictatorial repression in Asian societies. Indeed, he sees a strong spirit of protest and a necessary role for "public intellectuals" in these societies to speak out against corruption and abuse when they see it. Asian Values, for Tu, does not mean that governments are not accountable for their actions.

After considering some of these issues, go back and re-read the article on Singapore from The Far Eastern Economic Review.

• Is there anything particularly "Asian" about Singapore's economic situation?
• Does it appear that the government is taking full responsibility for the welfare of the people, a responsibility which Tu Wei-Ming argues is one of the key points of the Asian Way?
• After listening to Tu's speech (or at least reading the above synopsis of his portrayal of a distinctly "Confucian" modernity in East Asia), do you find these six points at odds with your own ideas of a "developed society"? Do they strike you as very different from your own values? If so how? How "Asian" are these values?
• Tu Wei-Ming claims in his speech that while there's nothing wrong with a "market economy," a "market society" is a disaster. Why does he believe this? Does he believe that Western societies promote too much freedom and individualism at the expense of prioritizing one's responsibility toward one's society and community?
• Recalling some of the arguments on the Australian radio program, do you think "Asian Values" mask differences among Asian countries while also hiding commonalities between Asian and "Western" countries? Or, do you feel that there is a real difference between Asian and the West?
• Finally, should a liberal democracy be the inevitable outcome of modernization?