Single party rule ‘best for Singapore’

See also: Tomorrow.sg entry and Today Online article

Extracted from the FT.com article:

Lee Hsien Loong, Singapore’s prime minister, has criticised Australia and New Zealand’s liberal democratic practices, suggesting that Singapore’s system, under which a single party has ruled since independence, is more efficient.

Mr Lee blamed Australia’s multi-party system for his failure to persuade Canberra to open its aviation market to state-owned Singapore Airlines, which is seeking to fly the transpacific route from Sydney to Los Angeles.

He said Australia’s National party, the minority partner in the ruling coalition, was against opening up the route because Qantas could threaten in response to cut unprofitable routes to rural areas where the party is strong. Qantas has opposed Singapore Airline’s entry on the transpacific route.

The decision was "a net loss" for Australia because it hurt tourism, Mr Lee said.

Inital reaction: WTF, where the are heck his speechwriters?!?

One failing of the PAP government of today is that they continue to define "goodness" in terms of economic prosperity. If it aids the nation in economic terms, it is good. If it does not or if it might in some way threaten prosperity, then it is "bad". Or should we say "ungood?"

I am surprised that our Prime Minster would apply this mindset to other nations, particularly to industralised liberal democracies.

Who is anyone but for Australians themselves to determine if not granting transpacific rights to SIA is really a "net loss"? It is for themselves to determine if servicing regional Australia is more important than XX million in extra tourist dollars.

Simple economic terms might very well have been the best way of thinking post-1965, in the 70s or even in the 80s. But I think we should move beyond using merely economics to define what is good and what is not.

"Goodness" need to be measured in some term other than economical. Social justice, given our state of economic progression, is just as important. The ungoodness of a lack of substantial dessenting view in Parliment far far outweighs any amount of efficiency that occurs.