Sign of the Times

Tamaki Saito (Mainichi)

I rang in the year 2010 in Singapore. Like on all my past visits to the city-state, it was hot and humid. My New Year's was peaceful with the exception of New Year's Eve, which featured a festive New Year's countdown with fireworks lighting up the sky and 20,000 bright "wishing spheres" covering Marina Bay.

Singapore's unique cityscape is comprised of both high-rises and tropical rain trees. Orchard Road sparkles with bright lights set up in celebration of the new year. The city brims with life, and it is no surprise that Singapore's per capita GDP is now higher than that of Japan.

The streets are clean, the crime rate is low, the people are friendly, and the food is cheap and delicious. There's great Internet connection, and the latest Japanese magazines are available at local bookstores. The annual Kohaku Uta Gassen, a singing competition that is televised live on New Year's Eve in Japan, is even aired on New Year's Day in Singapore.

The country has undergone incredible development in recent years. It must not only import food but also water; the only resource it has is its people. And yet, it has achieved remarkable development by making full use of its convenient geographical location and tax breaks, and attracting foreign corporations. It has marked a high economic growth rate of around 8 percent in recent years, and was ranked third in the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report for 2009-2010 (in which Japan came in eighth). With aspirations to become a major tourist destination, Singapore has begun holding F1 night races on street circuits, and the construction of a large-scale casino is currently underway.

And what has promoted and supported this development is Singapore's unique, extremely effective political system.

For all practical purposes, Singapore is a single-party regime dominated by the People's Action Party (PAP). There is a perfunctory opposition, but the election system is designed such that any opposition is at a great disadvantage. Until last year, the opposition held only two seats of the 84 in parliament. (A revision was made in the system last year.) Freedom of speech is also significantly restricted, and those who commit violations are sometimes incarcerated or deported.

Limiting political freedom for economic growth -- or dictatorship in the name of economic development -- can be seen in the past examples of Taiwan, South Korea, the Marcos years in the Philippines, and Indonesia's Suharto years. While the dictatorships of Taiwan and South Korea were overthrown by democracy movements, those in the Philippines and Indonesia fell as a result of corruption. Today, only Singapore maintains what some may characterize as an "ideal" dictatorship in the name of economic expansion.

This "grand design" can be attributed to Lee Kuan Yew, who was the republic's first prime minister and subsequently a senior minister, currently holding the post of minister mentor. In order to place utmost priority on the country's economic development, Lee purposely created a dictatorial form of government. At the same time, he thoroughly abolished corruption using harsh punishment, preventing absolute authority from corrupting officials. There's no explaining the rise of a resource-poor nation like Singapore into one of Southeast Asia's biggest economies without any mention of Lee. And this is why, despite international criticism towards his dictatorial ways, Lee has remained popular among the Singaporean public.

A mentality in which economic development takes precedence over individual freedoms, and the notion that a minority must be sacrificed for the greatest happiness for the greatest number can be characterized as a kind of utilitarianism. But is such an ideology out of step with the times?

Indeed, it's unlikely that we'll see a sudden surge in the number of countries who switch to dictatorships in the name of economic growth. But that may be because our criteria for what constitutes good fortune or happiness has changed. Perhaps, then, our hope for the absolute minimization of misfortune including disease and poverty, and the redistribution of wealth through such methods as basic income -- as opposed to economic growth -- will lead to the emergence of welfare dictatorships.

Taking this fantasy a step further, imagine that someone invents a computer that can determine optimal solutions to everything. We'd have to conduct a thought experiment about whether we would entrust governance to such a machine. (Which reminds me, for some reason, of the Hatoyama government's cost-cutting panel.)

If happiness were attainable through so-called "bread and circuses," I would support such an ideology. I believe, however, that there are at least two types of happiness. Biological needs that can be met through bread and circuses lead to one type of happiness. Meanwhile, there is a certain psychological happiness that can only be attained from dignity and relationships.

A utilitarian approach to the former is effective, as it can be measured. However, the latter type of happiness conflicts with such an approach because it is qualitative and cannot be computed. Some people, of course, have no illusion about politics addressing the immeasurable kind of happiness, and will find that acceptable. But I find the thought of limiting happiness that can only be attained through fulfilled desires unbearable.

The German philosopher and activist Rosa Luxemburg once said: "Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently." No matter how much our biological needs are met, our appetite for something more will remain. So how do we strike a balance between the satisfaction of our biological needs and the freedom of our desires? This, too, is a political question.

And thus I began my year with a rather grandiose dream. But such airborne reveries were swept away by the icy air blowing outside Narita Airport. (By Tamaki Saito, psychiatrist)