Dubious freedom
"Hong Kong people enjoyed freedoms without democracy while Singapore's citizens had democracy with fewer guarantees for freedom".

DURING Mr Harry Lee Kuan Yew's recent visits to Hong Kong , the Senior Minister of Singapore offered generous servings of advice to all who wished to hear. Many others wished that Mr Lee had simply stayed away.

A summary of his message to the people of Hong Kong is that they would have better off without the democratic reforms introduced under Mr Chris Patten, the last colonial Governor. Mr Lee has asserted that the key to Hong Kong's material development in the past was due to an emphasis on business and not politics. As such, Mr Patten's dalliance with democracy has been an unfortunate distraction. Following Mr Lee's argument, he would surmise that Hong Kong would be better off if the seeds of political reform planted by Mr Pattern were eradicated before they bear fruit. This view is apparently shared by Hong Kong's new Chief Executive, Mr Tung Chee Hwa.

Mr Lee insists that Singapore provides a prime example of the high rates of economic growth that can arise when citizens remain disengaged from politics. His simple message is: leave the tough decisions about governing to your leaders and get on with your own work in about business and commerce.

As is often the case, Mr Lee's arguments are articulate even though they are deeply flawed. Many people may be persuaded by his forceful and confident delivery. However, a close examination of his premises reveals some fatal defects in his arguments. Indeed, one can even find deficiencies in his analysis of his own country, Singapore.

Mr Lee and his self-admitted admirer, Mr Tung Chee-hwa, are right about the problems that may arise from increased politicisation of life in Hong Kong. They are also right that Hong Kong has made remarkable economic advances without relying upon democracy. However, they may be right for reasons they seem unable to understand.

In their eagerness to stress these points, Mr Lee and Mr Tung overlook the fact that individual freedom and civil rights have been the key ingredients of Hong Kong's past success. In this sense, it is correct to point out that participatory democracy was not important in the past. However, they are wrong about what forces are causing people to focus greater attention upon politics. Instead of pointing accusing fingers at Chris Patten or foreign provocateurs, Messrs Lee and Tung might do well to gaze into the mirror and looking north to Beijing.

An examination of the history of the former Crown Colony reveals that Hong Kong people were able to enjoy extensive freedoms even though they were deprived of a political voice. This peculiar arrangement arose out of the democratic traditions of their British colonial masters. With guarantees of freedom protected by an independent judiciary and a free press, an atmosphere was created where politics were generally benign. There was little to gain by being involved in politics even as there was little to lose by remaining uninvolved. And so, it is unsurprising that Hong Kong people have been considered to be apolitical.

The increased level of interests in politics among Hong Kong people is based upon their anxiety about the future status of the institutions that have supported their collective freedoms. The source of these insecurities is the uncertain political arrangements arising from the post-colonial leadership of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) and the Communist leadership in Beijing.

In response to the recently announced voting formula for the next Legco elections, Mr Martin Lee has warned of the "Singaporisation" of Hong Kong. This reference is to the actions taken by the ruling PAP to create rules designed to reduce the political influence of opposition parties.

As such, the citizenry in Hong Kong would voluntarily return to being apolitical if they were convinced that they would enjoy more freedoms in the future rather than less. Another precedence for an apolitical citizenry might be found by examining the situation in Singapore.

In pursuing its long-term goals, Singapore's ruling People's Action Party (PAP) has politicised every aspect of life in the tiny city-state. Despite having universal suffrage and frequent elections, there are fewer freedoms available to Singapore's citizens than were available in Hong Kong during its final years as a colony. In sum, Hong Kong people enjoyed freedoms without democracy while Singapore's citizens had democracy with fewer guarantees for freedom.

Mr Harry Lee's claim that people in Singapore do not engage in politicking is correct. However, they remain uninvolved because little is gained and much can be lost as it is so dangerous for those who would oppose the PAP regime. Opposition politicians are routinely hauled into court where they face libel writs. At least 12 major opposition figures have been sued by government officials, many of whom were bankrupted by the proceedings.

Little critical commentary is passed in the media on these unprecedented actions taken by the PAP against their rivals. The domestic media is under the regime's total control. With Singapore's draconic application of libel laws, publishers, printers, and distributors are potentially liable for every word in every publication they handle. Meanwhile, the international press refrains from commenting on Singapore's domestic affairs after facing costly lawsuits and damaging restrictions on circulation of their publication.

Consequently, media self-censorship about Singapore's affairs is unmistakable. Ironically, while there is little open criticism of Singapore, Mr Harry Lee freely offers his critical advice about the problems of much of the rest of the world!

One of the problems facing Hong Kong is whether the new leadership will exhibit the arrogance of power that is so evident in Singapore. Only time will tell whether how the SAR government will respond to criticisms from the media and react to the frustrations arising from attempts to implement its proposed programs.

If the SAR government becomes as hyper-sensitive to published reproaches of their actions and begins to react aggressively with libel writs as in Singapore, then this will signal the beginning of a serious erosion of freedoms and civil liberties in Hong Kong. Because the supporting institutions of civil society that protect freedoms and guarantee rights are mutually supportive, the loss of a free and open media will make it easier for there to be a corruption of power and a loss of independence of the judiciary.

In the wake of the handover ceremonies, the most interesting question is how Hong Kong might be better off under its new political leadership. For those seeking a glimpse of the future of "democracy with Chinese characteristics," then some clues are available in looking to Singapore.

Hong Kong's future would be brighter if its leaders reject the temptation to imitate the situation in Singapore where politics intrude so heavily into the lives of their citizens. Unfortunately, a logic has been put into motion by the SAR leadership and their masters in Beijing that will unavoidably lead to greater politicization in Hong Kong. Aside from an increase in the importance of political connections for economic success, there is certain to be a weakening in the instruments of civil society that have allowed Hong Kong to enjoy freedom and prosperity.

• The author is Visiting Professor of Economics in the Weatherhead School of Management of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. His first book, Singapore's Authoritarian Capitalism, was published by the Locke Institute (Fairfax, VA: 1996). Edicions Sirocco (Barcelona: 1997) has published his newest book, The Rise and Decline of the Asian Century.