ABSTRACT
Since the end of the Cold War, and the virtual demise of left/right ideological commitments as the primary point of reference for international political relations, the idea of ‘culture’ has emerged as a major candidate for filling much of the conceptual vacuum. It is now frequently used both as the major explanatory category for a host of political and economic developments as well as an important basis on which leaders from a number of non-Western regions have justified certain approaches to politics. This has been reflected very clearly in the contemporary ‘Asian values debate’ – especially where matters concerning human rights and democracy are at issue. A number of political leaders and academic commentators from the Asia-Pacific region have emphasized what they see as the crucial role played by culture in determining patterns of social, political and economic behaviour. Seen in its most positive light, ‘Asian culture’ is taken to be basically responsible for the remarkable economic growth, rising standards of living, increased longevity, and low urban crime rates that have characterized development in parts of the region. Thus Singapore’s Prime Minister, Goh Chok Tong, says that correct economic policies are not all that is needed to preserve the living standards now enjoyed in the island state. Continuing success can only be assured by: ‘a sense of community and nationhood, a disciplined and hard working people, strong moral values and family ties’. These values, he says, are related directly to ‘Asian culture’ which ‘puts group interest above that of the individual’ (Goh, 1994).
