Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Lee’s Singapore model seen as benchmark for China


‘Singapore is an example of how Eastern culture, Chinese culture in particular, can be successfully integrated with Western culture for a prosperous nation’

The passing of Lee Kuan Yew is resonating powerfully in China, which has viewed the city-state’s model of “benevolent dictatorship” as a reference point for its own reforms in the post-Mao era.
On Wednesday, unlike India and many other countries, the Chinese foreign ministry declined to name Beijing’s representative at Sunday’s funeral of the late Singaporean leader. But it did signal that the Chinese establishment was deeply deliberating on ensuring a befitting presence at the solemn event, which was set to draw a galaxy of world leaders.
Admiration

The Chinese have long admired Singapore’s model of authoritarian rule and good governance, which has achieved the rare feat of generating astounding prosperity without sacrificing inclusivity.
“For years, China’s leaders have been obsessed with learning from Singapore’s success. The city-state has maintained single-party rule with popular legitimacy, retained good governance with an uncorrupted bureaucracy, and delivered inclusive growth with equal opportunities for its people in a harmonious, multiracial society,” wrote the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post.
Analysts say that since China’s departure from orthodox Maoism in the late 1970s, many senior officials have visualised Singapore’s model of “managed democracy” as the Communist Party’s final objective.
The personal chemistry between Lee and the Deng Xiaoping, China’s revered leader, and architect of reforms, laid the foundation for a bond, which fed into Singapore’s attraction as a political and administrative role model. Deng, then Vice-Premier, visited Singapore in November, 1978; two years after Lee made his first visit to China, where he managed a brief handshake with the ailing chairman Mao Zedong.
A special relationship with Deng triggered a spate of China visits — 33 in all — where Lee met five generations of Chinese leaders. That developed in him a unique insight into the complex forces that drive the Middle Kingdom.
Taking advantage of his characteristic ability to build a relationship of trust with Beijing and Washington simultaneously, Lee became a natural intermediary during times of crisis.
Lee Kuan Yew (left) welcomes then-Chinese Vice Premier Deng Xiaoping in Singapore in September 1978.
‘One of their own’

The Singapore government hosted the first direct talks between mainland China and Taiwan in 1992 — a durable legacy that led to sustained cross-strait relations for the next two decades. Lee was also tireless in bluntly telling Western leaders that China would never become a Western-style democracy, though openings for popular participation may expand over the years.
Outside the citadels of the elite, many ordinary Chinese saw Lee as one of their own. The great grandfather of the Singaporean patriarch belonged to Dabu county in Guangdong province, 500 km from Guangzhou, a premier trading hub.
Xinhua reported that Lee’s family belonged to the Hakka ethnic group, which has migrated in droves to Singapore, mostly from Dabu. Lee’s espousal of “Asian values”, rooted in Chinese Confucian mores, has also resonated well among Chinese.
Singapore is “an example of how Eastern culture, Chinese culture in particular, can be successfully integrated with Western culture for a prosperous nation,” observed an editorial in the state run China Daily. In its tribute, the People’s Daily — the official newspaper of the Chinese government — said that Beijing has been inspired by how Lee managed the smooth and orderly succession of power in the city-state since his retirement in 1990.

SC strikes down ‘draconian’ Section 66A



Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is unconstitutional in its entirety, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday striking down a “draconian” provision that had led to the arrests of many people for posting content deemed to be “allegedly objectionable” on the Internet.
“It is clear that Section 66A arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech and upsets the balance between such right and the reasonable restrictions that may be imposed on such right,” said a Bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and Rohinton F. Nariman. The definition of offences under the provision was “open-ended and undefined”, it said.
The Bench turned down a plea to strike down sections 69A and 79 of the Act, which deal with the procedure and safeguards for blocking certain websites and exemption from liability of intermediaries in certain cases, respectively.
In the judgment, the court said the liberty of thought and expression was a cardinal value of paramount significance under the Constitution. Three concepts fundamental in understanding the reach of this right were discussion, advocacy and incitement. Discussion, or even advocacy, of a particular cause, no matter how unpopular it was, was at the heart of the right to free speech and it was only when such discussion or advocacy reached the level of incitement that it could be curbed on the ground of causing public disorder.
The court then went on to say that Section 66A actually had no proximate connection with public order or with incitement to commit an offence. “The information disseminated over the Internet need not be information which ‘incites’ anybody at all. Written words may be sent that may be purely in the realm of ‘discussion’ or ‘advocacy’ of a ‘particular point of view’. Further, the mere causing of annoyance, inconvenience, danger, etc., or being grossly offensive or having a menacing character are not offences under the [Indian] Penal Code at all,” the court held.
Holding several terms used in the law to define the contours of offences as “open-ended, undefined and vague”, the court said: “Every expression used is nebulous in meaning. What may be offensive to one may not be offensive to another. What may cause annoyance or inconvenience to one may not cause annoyance or inconvenience to another.”
The court pointed out that a penal law would be void on the grounds of vagueness if it failed to define the criminal offence with sufficient definiteness. “Ordinary people should be able to understand what conduct is prohibited and what is permitted. Also, those who administer the law must know what offence has been committed so that arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the law does not take place,” the court said.

Start preparing for SUCCESS

Dear aspirants,

Preparing for the Civil Services exam is being considered as an arduous task by many. To make it simple, start preparing for SUCCESS.

The famous quote of Benjamin Franklin is this...

"BY FAILING TO PREPARE, YOU ARE PREPARING TO FAIL"

Hence, let us start the preparation in a positive way.

We will be publishing news items, articles, our own comments and others' comments in this blog. Our purpose is not make you as "exam oriented", but "knowledge oriented", since the second one serves both. 

All the best.

Ganesh
0-9442060775