Far from essential to economic growth, as Kishore Mahbubani of Singapore's foreign ministry has argued, Asian values are an illusion created to foster obedience.
Christopher Lingle, an economist, served as a Senior Fellow in the European Studies Program at the National University of Singapore.
Western thinkers assume that the rise of East Asian powers will inevitably result in conflict and that these nations will become more like Western societies. Neither is likely. East Asia's nations have emerged from colonial obscurity to center stage. They will not succumb to ruinous wars. The difficulty that Western minds face in grasping the ascent of East Asia comes from the unprecedented nature of this phenomenon: a fusion of Western and East Asian cultures in the Asia-pacific region.
A great deal has been made of the World Bank's announcement that the high rates of economic growth in the East Asian miracle economies stem from getting the fundamentals right. While that observation emphasized astute macroeconomics, various commentators have asserted that these fundamentals relate to unique Asian values. Kishore Mahbubani ("The Pacific Way," January/February 1995) implies that a fusion of Western and Asian cultures defines what he terms the "Pacific way."
Despite this presumed fusion, Mahbubani's essay points almost exclusively to the beneficial consequences of these Asian values. Beyond satisfying the self-serving political considerations of apologists for ruling regimes, this one-sided approach reflects an important trait arising out of Asian customs. The values said to promote prosperity stifle self-critical introspection. Wondering aloud about the cultural and political order is too often treated as an unacceptable sign of weakness in leaders. In others, it is an unacceptable heresy.
Commentary not unconditionally full of praise for the Asian political status quo provokes a strong response from the powers that be. Authoritarian East Asian regimes take a variety of steps against ordinary citizens, academics, journalists, opposition politicians, and even outsiders. The treatment might involve a mild rebuke, citation for criminal defamation or libel, and perhaps detention without trial.
In light of severe restrictions on freedom of speech, citizens have few opportunities to communicate with leaders. Similarly, for critics to air their views is difficult. The rules governing civic discourse in East Asia limit discussions of the Pacific way to its promoters and foreign critics. Communication between rulers and ruled tends to be a one-way, top-down procedure. And rather than the glue that holds Asian societies together, Asian values may be an illusion concealing the iron grip of petty despots.
Meanwhile the failures and problems in Europe and other parts of the West are discussed ad nauseam in a remarkably free atmosphere. Little in Mahbubani's observations about Western culture is novel or insightful. By joining the chorus of Western self-criticism, he and other outsiders might imagine that Western institutions involve only a self-destructive cycle. However, civic discourse and communication in the West involve a free-for-all of individual opinions expressed as a matter of constitutional right and cultural conviction.
A paternalist approach to political rule often gives way to authoritarianism, leading many Asian regimes strongly to resent direct criticism. However, while Asian cultures generally rely on an indirect method of dealing with problems, their approach does not work with thin-skinned government officials. Dialogue with Asian regimes has strict limits, and resentment is not limited to outside critics. Criticism from the citizens of Myanmar, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, or Singapore is no more welcome. Despite remarkable advances under some Asian regimes, the rigid intolerance of these authoritarian capitalist states bears a troubling similarity to fascism.
Singapore's rulers have provided a recent example of intolerance. In a celebrated case, I was tried in the High Court of Singapore for my remarks in the International Herald Tribune. (1) I was responding to Mahbubani's views in the same newspaper, which were similar to his Foreign Affairs article. He suggested that European leaders follow the success stories of East Asia. I responded that certain repressive tactics may have made the model unacceptable for Europe.
Specifically, I said that some East Asian governments relied on a "compliant judiciary to bankrupt opposition politicians." While I did not identify a particular country, in attempting to link my remarks to his country, Singapore's prosecutor may have confessed the guilt of his regime. He admitted that members of the ruling People's Action Party of Singapore and its founding father, Lee Kuan Yew, had an established track record of suing opposition politicians for defamation. He insisted that "there is no such other country" where this has happened and identified 11 major political opposition figures whom legal actions, initiated by members of the ruling party, had financially ruined. I was found guilty of statements contemptuous of the Singaporean judiciary. The court assessed stiff fines and all court costs to the defendants, and the editor, publisher, printer, and distributor of the Herald Tribune were convicted for publicizing my words.
Meanwhile, the Western media openly air the views of Singaporean officials, who demand a right of unedited reply from publications that circulate in Singapore. For example, when it abbreviated a wordy statement from the Singaporean government, The Economist found its circulation severely curtailed.
Mahbubani relies on a dubious cause-and-effect connection between the material success of Asian economies and the authoritarian repression that may have accompanied that success. His arguments insist that restraints on individual freedom are necessary for economic progress. Meanwhile the West, having lost its moral compass due to an irrepressible fixation on individual rights, suffers low economic performance. This viewpoint implies the unimaginative assumption that material gratification is the only or most worthy goal of humankind. In any event, his arguments overlook how the economic life cycle partly explains the weak growth in the West. That the United States and Europe compare unfavorably with the vibrancy of nascent East Asian economies is unsurprising. Eventually the tiger economies too shall be tamed.
- previous-disabled
- Page 1of 2
- next

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.