Are you willing to trade freedom for wealth or security?

[donbuggy]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jul/01/civilliberties

[SIZE=4]The new authoritarianism[/SIZE]
More and more of us are willing to trade freedom for wealth or security

by John Kampfner
Tuesday July 1, 2008

Why is it that a growing number of highly educated and well-travelled people are willing to hand over several of their freedoms in return for prosperity or security? This question has been exercising me for months as I work on a book about what I call the "pact".

The model for this is Singapore, where repression is highly selective. It is confined to those who take a conscious decision openly to challenge the authorities. If you do not, you enjoy freedom to travel, to live more or less as you wish, and – perhaps most important – to make money. Under Lee Kuan Yew, this city-state built on a swamp has flourished economically.

I was born in Singapore and have over the years been fascinated by my Chinese Singaporean friends. Doctors, financiers and lawyers, they have studied in London, Oxford, Harvard and Sydney. They have travelled across all continents; they are well versed in international politics, but are perfectly content with the situation back home. I used to reassure myself with the old certainty that this model was not applicable to larger, more diverse states. I now believe this to be incorrect.

Provincial governments in China send their brightest officials to Singapore to learn the secrets of its "success". For Russian politicians it too provides a useful model. These countries, and others in Asia and the Middle East are proving that the free markets does not require a free society in which to thrive, and that in any battle between politics and economics, it is the latter that will win out.

It is too easy to believe that this debate does not apply to us. Across western Europe, the US and in other so-called democracies, liberty is similarly losing out to both the post-9/11 security agenda and the power of global finance. Different countries hand over different freedoms; in Italy, Silvio Berlusconi (who makes no secret of his admiration for Vladimir Putin), brazenly attacks the judiciary, having effectively censored the broadcast media.

In Britain, we draw comfort from what we believe to be a robust public realm, with strong freedom of speech (although our journalists are far better at shouting than at digging out information). And yet, as David Davis so theatrically has reminded us, we are sleepwalking into a level of state surveillance that will not be reversed.

Many countries, including our own, are entering into new pacts with their rulers. Resurgent autocrats draw strength from the many weaknesses of western leaderships, not just their mistakes in foreign policy, but their failure to rejuvenate their own political systems, or to deal with a business culture that had lost touch with the needs of society.

It was Oswald Spengler who at the turn of the last century predicted that "the masses will accept with resignation the victory of the Caesars, the strong men, and will obey them".

A modern form of authoritarianism, quite distinct from Soviet Communism, Maoism or Fascism, is being born. It is providing a modicum of a good life, and a quiet life, the ultimate anaesthetic for the brain.

[tidus1203]

Depende sa restrictions in political freedom. But we have to remember wealth is also freedom. Freedom from being oppressed by others, freedom from modern slavery (aka corporate employee), freedom from being second rate from others.

[fourtheboys96]

a Singapore style "freedom" (if thats what you call it) maybe acceptable to me.

western style democracy is definitely not going to work in majority of asian countries maybe due to culture, etc.

[niky]

It depends on the freedoms... and whether the hand-over of such freedoms really entails prosperity.

The problem with a government that is beyond reproach is that once it goes down the wrong road, there's no turning back. Take a look at us, right now. PGMA does not tolerate criticism or questioning of her authority. Without so much as a single shot fired, she has effectively become an autocrat. Nullifying the checks and balances that are there to prevent such things, and to prevent corruption. Look at what they're trying to do... the President's office has free use of GSIS funds for projects that are not within the GSIS's mandate (the mandate is to protect and grow the fund to service GSIS members... not to dole out the money on "social programs" ). And now that GMA's man is in the SSS... there too.

And all of this political maneuvering is unquestionable. Even the ZTE and JPEPA deals are unquestionable, due to "Executive Privilege". Question... if you're answerable to no one but your immediate superior... where the hell is the check and balance? By upholding executive privilege, the Judiciary has effectively nullified its own power over the Executive branch.

With Singapore, it works due to the leader, not the system. Here? We see some progress... but I fear that it might be at a very steep price... and the cost of making a few people very, very, very rich.

An Autocracy is neither a good thing nor a bad thing when it comes to economy. Look at Russia (failed), look at China (succeeded... but only thanks to a blatant disregard of IPR, which helped boost its manufacturing economy). The only benefit of an autocracy with a laissez-faire approach to business is that it provides for political stability. And this is only a benefit if the right politicians are on top.

Do we want to take that chance?

[mbeige]

Freedom can be given up to a government we can all trust. Clearly that's not the case in our government.

Just take a look at how good "authorities" are in enforcing the law; they have been so desperate at gaining wealth, security, and the like, that the citizens become the scape goats. From the top ranks of the government, to the lowest ranks such as abusive MMDA personnel.

How can we let go of our "freedom" if they'll simply abuse it? At least in the Singapore example (I've been there, it's a "fine" city, because of all the fines you'll get if you make a mistake ), the government can be trusted because it has proved itself time and again to have a firm foundation that provides for the governed.

[roninblade]

just like the others, depende sa restrictions and the people running the government.

[Jun aka Pekto]

I'm kind of mixed on the subject. Take the subdivision we live in...... The Homeowner's Association is very strict with maintaining front yards and any trash lying around. If our house gets noticed by them, we have a short time to fix the problem. Otherwise, fines will be arriving in the mail and they're not cheap.

I imagine it's the same with places like Singapore. It's wealthy and clean. But, there are hefty fines if you slack off.

What are the odds such a system will work in the Philippines? Put another Marcos in place? I dunno. Flip a coin.

I did know one thing. It was quite safe in Metro Manila during Marcos' time if you had no interest in politics like me. I felt safe even when mingling with the poor. Most areas were clean and all the rallies seemed so far away. At least, it seemed that way.

I just don't know. Me? My natural tendency is to give the bird to anyone who restricts me. But, I have to set the example for the kids. So, I keep my fists clenched.

[mark_t]

My freedom is everything that I've got. I have nothing to trade.

[4wrider]

Actually, you will give up a little of your freedom for peace, order and wealth. There you will find greater opportunity to exercise your restricted freedom. This is much better than having all the potential freedom with limited means to enjoy the same. Who was it who said that "we are all in bondage to law in order to be free" was wise. Some people think freedom is license to do whatever you want be it good or evil but a well enforced legal system allows such freedom to the extent that you do not infringe on the rights of others (usually the general welfare).

[tidus1203]

Speaking of freedoms, dito nga sa mga slums natin political freedom is being sold for a measly P300-P500. What I meant is vote buying, people will sell their political right to vote for a that small amount just to get by a few days of food.