After humiliation and defeat by the Western powers in the 18th and 19th century, various Asian states began a process of self-examination and change. For example Japan went through a successful Meiji restoration and Late Ching dynasty attempted various failed reforms. In time, the whole world came to realize the power of industrialization and many began to emulate Western economic, political and social organizations as well as to study and produce Western science and technology. Consequently, one recurring debate in this whole process has been the question of indigenous values: what do we do with them? Early Chinese thinking was to retain all traditional values while utilizing Western technology. It however, proved unworkable because old mindsets greatly hindered any effective adaptation and utilization. This has led many to swing towards the other pole and advocate complete westernization.
Since independence, the Singapore government's policy had effectively, be it consciously or otherwise, been one of modernization through westernization. It became a national policy to demolish traditional kampongs and replace them with high rise apartments, to discouraged traditional large families and promote the western nuclear family, to downsize Chinese education and promote English education. Although the Asian values discussion had started in Singapore by the mid 1970s, it was only during the late 1980s when Lee Kuan Yew spoke about Asian values to the Western media. Asian values once again became a hot issue. Now, not only are Asians involved in the debate, but an increasing number of Westerners as well.
During the late 19th and early 20th century, the focus was on economic and technological development. The key question was: `Are traditional values compatible with development?' In the case of Chinese culture, we had Max Weber answering no in the beginning and Peter Berger and others answering yes towards the end of this century. The consensus now is certain Asian values such as thrift, hard work and so on are precisely what a developing country needs. However, I would take one step further to note that these are positive values in all cultures and are not in any way uniquely Asian. Europe and North America embodied these values quite prominently too at various times during the first half of this century. What Asia did was to mobilize these particular cultural resources while suppressing others such as the disdain for trade and commerce, to aid its modernizing efforts. So, both Weber and Berger are right because culture is ever changing and they had simply commented on one ascendant facet of Chinese culture they happened to have observed in their time.
As the 20th century draws to a close, the focus of this debate has also moved on from economic to politics and sociology. The question that Lee Kuan Yew now asks is: `Is Western liberalism compatible with Asian political and social organization?' Within the Singapore context, this raises many issues and I'll list some of them here:
On the factual level, we can ask how Asian/Western is our present political and social organization, and how Asian/Western are Singaporeans? Since no immutable 'Asianness' can ever be found (we have already seen from Weber to Berger how dramatically a culture can change and adapt), does this not imply that all appeals to culture must acknowledge that it is ultimately an appeal to gradual but often fundamental changes? Hitchchock found in his 1994 survey that unlike Americans, East Asians are generally more respectful of authority and prize an orderly society, but he also found that we prize new ideas, official accountability and free expression, very much like the Americans.
We can also ask to what extent is this a serious assertion on the inevitability of authoritarian Asian government, and to what extent is this just a rhetorical rebuttal to ward off attacks from some ideological Western liberals? Furthermore, how would this essentially Confucian discourse relates to Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Buddhist, Taoist and many other cultures within our nation and those of our neighbours? Evidently, we cannot afford a cultural clash envisioned by Huntington.
Looking at the larger picture, we can ask how traditional values will again adapt and change as we move from the industrial age to the information age and from the Atlantic to the Pacific century. What new facets of traditional culture will now be in ascendance and how will that affect our society? Will we also adapt non-traditional values or acquire a different outlook on life?
I have carefully avoided mentioning the ills of both American and Singaporean societies to avoid the fallacy that there are but two choices: `Western liberalism' and `Asian conservatism' and that the more we discredits the one, the more inevitable the other will become. Instead of thinking about our cultural heritage as a static monolithic `other' to the West, why not look at it as a multifarious and dynamic living force? The key question then becomes: What particular values will Singapore need to mobilize in order to succeed in the 21st century? And how would these values affect our political and social organizations?