political challenges to Singapore

Coco_Coco SG

now that Singapore has a prosperous economy and is embracing globalisation, what do you all think are it’s political challenges as a result of these 2 factors?

wuming78 SG

wat u mean by political challenges?

Coco_Coco SG

maybe challenges to the current political situation such as policies, way of ruling and such...

sunny6110 SG

no challenges … no fight…. peaceful…. dats all I can say,,, kekeke

lowem SG

1. With 111,100 people jobless giving rise to an unemployment rate of 5.9%, much of it structural, personally I wouldn't describe Singapore's economy as prosperous. Only when the jobless can get jobs, not just any jobs but jobs which pay a living wage, then perhaps we can come back to see whether we shall describe it as prosperous.

2. Globalisation is a much-hyped word. But ask yourself, how have you benefited personally from this "globalisation"? Can you put down in no uncertain terms, how many dollars have you earned from it? Hmm, I'm not quite sure myself (!)

Atobe SG

The challenges to Singapore ?

To make it a truly open society, that allow the Citizens to be Politically Free to be involve in Politics.

This will be hard to achieve, as even the Politics within the Ruling Party is NOT a liberal process, in which there exist a tiered levels of membership - the General Party Members, the Cardres, and the Elite Members.

Here is a skeptical view of DPM LHL statement for a more Open Singapore, from a venerable Opposition Politician, praised by DPM LHL for being a true Singaporean:

From: [email protected]yahoogroups.com
Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 4:36 am
Subject:
More Open Singapore?: Have we not heard all this before?

http://www.thinkcentre.org/article.cfm?ArticleID=2278

From: J.B. Jeyaretnam
7 January 2004

I see DPM Lee is saying he will continue to open up Singapore.

Have we not heard all this before Goh Chok Tong said it when he assumed office.

Our citizens however continue to be presented with the inscrutable face of government. Perhaps we are talking of different things. When our ministers speak of opening up they refer to bartop dancing and like. Not the government decision making process which remain closely shut out from the citizens on whose behalf the decisions are purportly made.

Recently Open Singapore Centre was refused a licence for an indoor meeting. When as Chairman I asked for the reasons I was told I could not have the reasons. It was against public interest to allow the meeting and it was against public interest to tell us why the meeting was against public interest.

So would DPM Lee for the sake of clarity tell us what opening up is he referring to. Is he perhaps intending to allow topless dancing.

Signed

J.B. Jeyaretnam
7 January 2004

----------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.straitstimes.com/topstories/story/0,4386,228744,00.html?

DPM Lee promises a more open Singapore
He will keep up process which Govt began in 1984

Straits Times
7 Jan 2004
By Sue-Ann Chia

THERE will be no turning back of the clock. The opening up of Singapore will continue and even pick up speed.

'I have no doubt that our society must open up further. The growing participation and diversity over the last two decades have been vital pluses for Singapore, enabling us to adapt to changing conditions and to the needs and expectations of a new generation. They are key to providing Singaporeans an emotional anchor.' - Mr Lee. -- ONG CHIN KAI

Such was the commitment from Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong last night as he sketched the future of politics and society here in a speech clearly intended to set out how he plans to conduct government-people relations as Prime Minister.

'I have no doubt that society will have to open up further,' he told guests at the Harvard Club's 35th anniversary dinner.

The main message from Mr Lee, who is likely to take over the leadership this year, appeared to be that there will be continuity towards greater openness and consultation. However, certain limits will remain.

He began by noting that Singapore was going through a transition not just because of a changing of the guard. Rather, the world had changed irrevocably with a younger generation born after dependence in majority, and strategies to grow the economy and root the people had to change.

Opening up will continue for two simple reasons: The Government has no monopoly of knowledge and ideas in a more complex world, and Singaporeans, with better education, have a stronger desire to be involved.

The Government will do its utmost to continue to build a civic society, he said. 'As we engage one another and wrestle with our problems, we will encounter different views, but far better for us to manage these honest differences than become an apathetic society with no views.

'People should debate issues with reason, passion and conviction, and not be passive bystanders in their own fate.'

And the Government? It 'will pull back from being all things to all citizens'.

But even as he painted a picture of a more open political culture, DPM Lee noted that those who want a faster opening up and bristle over the out-of-bound markers - a golfing term - ought to remember that 'most Singaporeans still do not play golf'.

For them, bread-and-butter issues are their primary concern. The Government has to keep faith with this less articulate majority.

If doubts remained over his commitment to engage the people and move towards openness, DPM Lee last night reminded his audience of his long and close involvement with the values of consultation that the Goh Chok Tong government has come to be associated with.

It dates as far back as 1984. That year, the People's Action Party suffered a big setback in the elections, losing two seats. An internal post-mortem report affirmed the substance of PAP policies but also urged the party to pay heed to people's emotions - not just logic - and emphasised feedback and consensus-building.

'I drafted that report as the secretary. I was then 33, fresh in politics, and that was how I saw it,' revealed Mr Lee.

He added that, over the past two decades, he had pushed the process of opening up 'both as a member of the team that fostered the liberalisation, and directly in many consultations, discussions and forums big and small'.

Looking ahead, he laid out five ways to engender civic participation.

First, there should be guidelines for public consultations, including a commitment that the Government will be transparent in its decision-making process wherever possible. But the public must also give ideas based on a good understanding of the issues.

Second, there should be rigorous and robust debate. The Government will not view all critics as adversaries. 'If it is a sincere contribution to improve government policies, but one which we do not agree with, then our response will be dispassionate and factual, pointing out where we think the criticism is mistaken but encouraging the critic to continue to stay engaged or even counter-argue.'

But criticism that scores political points and undermines the Government's standing 'is another matter altogether'. Continue to expect a strong rebuttal and those entering the arena, such as the opposition, should understand the rules of the game.

Third, civic participation should go beyond words to include action, including volunteer work.

Fourth, the media should adopt a national perspective on issues and while writers are free to argue for or against policies, 'crusading journalism' should be avoided.

Finally, there is the role of Government and here he reaffirmed a fundamental principle - that it must continue to lead the way even as it takes in more views. 'The Government cannot abdicate its
responsibility to lead from the front.'

He ended by noting that just as it was not possible to plan the
opening up of the last two decades, the future would be one of feeling the way forward, 'crossing the river stone by stone'.

gasband SG

Well it is true that there are more unemployed then before. But this is also partly due to ever more graduates and people entering the workforce and not finding work.

Also, i still have friends who refuse to take up jobs or complain abt jobs who pay them $2000+ but got no benefits because contractual and want to quit.

If these people can change their attitudes, it wun really solve the issue but at least it could reduce the number of people unemployed.

Globalisation has its goods and bads. Globalisation allows companies to expand overseas easier. Globalisation opens up more markets for the economy. It has its bad too but i guess as humans, instead of waiting, we should adapt to the changes.

thinker SG

Aiya tok tok no use la. Ppl want to see action and results.

Ppl want to see everybery happy, got more time with their families, does not struggle to meet daily needs, more healthy working conditions and lifestyle, etc.

[ Neo ] SG

Very nicely put forth by gasband.

Improvement to 'prosperous' the economy or 'embrace globalization' is not going to be primary about political reforms or whatever you have.

Improvement in this topic has got to come our own intrinsic attitude change.

Apart from inevitable structural decline mentioned by lowem earlier, another important non-economical hindrance that is unconstructive towards the relieve of unemployment rate lies primarily by the mainstream value of our definition towards work and success.

Our notion of work and success had probably came from our parents or other in contact icons during some part of the early life.

And by their definition, work and success typically means that one would have to be a white collar, hold a supervisory or managerial position, and sell their sweat and soul to their respective employers.

Success was defined directly to ones position on the vertical level of an organization chart, and MNC was then, the hype word for any one individual to be telling his/her friends on where he/she is currently working.

But that was then, in the 1980s when the Singapore economy focused heavily on importing in the Japanese technology and the early beginnings of the local electronics and manufacturing industries.

We began humble. Learning and picking up whatever we could from these foreign investors corporations whom had came in generously and gave us our rice bowls.

And having started out lowly educated, the predecessors found that the faster and most effectively manner through which they can learn and pick up new things fast, was to listen full and obediently, to the more techno savvy from the faraway lands.

Over time, the above format became the conditioned norm of learning-on-the-job.

With the lack of other job competitors that could threaten the positions of those whom managed to make the grade up, along with the continuing influx of other various MNC whom had also started to stream into Singapore as part of the governments effort to attract in foreign funds, a large part of the workforce became even more stuck with their obsession up the chain-of-command.

Nobody paid much attention to lateral vision nor dared to attempt any form of disobedience, and hence the lament on the lack of entrepreneurial spirit and creativeness, which both ironically and tragically, had only surfaced just recently.

However in contrast and comparison, gone are those days when your foreign MNCs will come ringing on your doorbell to offer you a job.

In fact, when they told you that they dont have that job in SG now, they really meant that the jobs are gone.

For the unemployed but skilled, all that is left are the remnants memories of the office typewriter and the hopeless illusion that one day, you will be able to find another job that offers you a glamorous spot up the hierarchy and a pay that is similar to what you used to have.

And for those whom fall under the unskilled category, their hell is even darker when they scan thru their morning papers everyday to be searching thru blindly for a vacancy that they are so used to but SG no longer has, only to be oblivious to another more alien but open opportunity.

You cant really blame the unemployed who are in their 40s if the above is indeed the way with which that they still use to view job opportunities.

But for those in their late teen or early twenties who is also holding on to similar notions, then prehaps now would be a good time to wake up that idea?

Opportunities no longer come knocking on anyones door, and others will continue to poach jobs away.

Unless we go all out to knock on other peoples door (say China or Vietnam whatever you have..?) to poached them back, well be the only ones wholl end up with a poached egg in the wallet.

And that's like one big fat zero in the pocket.

Quite a depressing thought I know, so I gather its probably high time too for our own locals or organizations form their own cartel or alliance shit, and jump right in to make em' sweat like hell a bit.

Coco_Coco SG

well... there are many types on unemployment. sometimes it's not that there are no jobs in the economy but is that people are not willing to take up the jobs available.

benefits of globalisation cannot be measured in money terms lahz. sometimes it can be seen in the flow of more information. compare Singapore and North Korea den maybe u can get an idea of what globalisation is and how we have benefited from it.

Atobe SG

What has happened to the loudly promoted idea of Singapore being the Switzerland of the East, with Singaporeans enjoying the Swiss Standard of Living, and earning Swiss Standard of Wages from moving up the Technological Scale ?

Has Singapore tripped and fall so badly that graduates are now required to start their career as taxi drivers, retrenched bank officers being retrained to be hotel housekeeping staff, jobless engineers from bankrupt companies having to be toilet attendants ?

How many types of unemployed classification can one dream up ?

Those who become unemployed from being retrenched.

Those who become unemployed due to old age or being infirmed - therefore become UNEMPLOYABLE.

Then there are those who choose voluntarily to be unemployed - women becoming housewife, or the men preferring to be home-maker when their better half is able to earn a higher salary.

Again, there are the ambitious idealists, who constantly look for a higher wage that they feel is comensurate with their educational qualification.

Who was responsible to spur the expectation levels of the population to achieve higher standards of living, higher standards of wage earning capacities, higher standards of performance ?

Globalisation is intended by Governments to integrate the economies of like minded countries, so as to achieve larger economies of scale, and to allow each country to specialize in areas where they enjoy overwhelming advantage.

Globalisation will open up borders in all spheres of politics, economics, and social activities, at all levels of transactions.

Globalisation can only be achieved by those Government who are willing to subject their own sovereign authority to being reviewed by a group of like minded countries accepting this principle.

Is Singapore similar to North Korea (a.k.a DPRK) ?

Let us see, we are socially more open than the DPRK, but the Government of both countries are paranoid of internal security, especially a revolt from their own citizens.

In Singapore, the leadership succession transition is more subtle in practise then that exercised in the DPRK, but the political process remains the same - the 'Prince' will succeed the 'King'.

The politics of loyalty to the Ruling Party is pervasive in Singapore as it is in DPRK.

Is information freely available in Singapore when compared to the DPRK ? It depends on what and who create the information for the consumption of the Citizenry. Both the Governments of Singapore and the DPRK jealously guard the rights to publication and commentaries of local events for the consumption of the Citizens whom they governed.

Both the DPRK and the Singapore Government will very quickly incarcerate or neutralize anyone, who dare to poke his head up from amongst the docile crowd, and to pose a political challenge.

In different shades of severity, is Singapore not similar to the DPRK ?

[ Neo ] SG

Would it matter if Singapore truly becomes the Switzerland of the East?

Which is better?

Do we really want to become just another mere Switzerland clone in this part of the world?

Or do we want the world to know us as who we truly are, and that is as Singapore?

Having a humble start in the actual working world after graduating is nether a shameful and degrading fact, nor does it necessary equates to the impression that Singapore has tripped and fallen.

What does it matter if graduates become taxi drivers, or that retrenched bank officers find a second employment opportunity as hotel housekeeping staff?

Didnt our early immigrant ancestors went thru even harsher times as coolies, rickshaw pullers and street hawkers back during Singapores early history as well?

Cant our current subsequent generation not handle this little amount of hardship in this junction of economic transition in comparison with the even harsher times and condition that our forefathers faced and triumphed over?

The phenomena of having graduates or retrenched personnel being gainfully employed in regardless of vocation as long it is legal and morally upright, serves in fact, as a periodical reassurance to our nation and society.

By their spirit of resilience, the above group of people had shown that like our forefathers, they are the true survivors.

Nobody ( nor organization / body ) can be blamed be for spurring another onwards towards the achievement of excellence, higher performance, and higher standards of living.

This is motivation. It is not propaganda.

And should an individual choose to accept such ideals, it is then his/her personal duty and business, to attempt within their own means and ability, to work hard for their goals.

And as far as my memory can recall accurately, the government had never ever promised all in here, the 5 Cs as gifts.

Singapore is a democratic country with a capitalist economic environment. And within such mechanisms, opportunities dont come hand-fed by the State. They are created solely, by and at the discretion of individuals whom are sharp enough to have become aware of some particular needs.

Atobe SG

Hi [ Neo ],

Exactly. Wonderful statements.

Did Switzerland set out to be who they are, by trying to be someone else - like trying to be France, Italy, England, Germany, USA, Japan, or some society that they think are better than themselves ?

Or did they EVOLVED to their present Standard of Living at a PACE that is commensurate to the pace of developments in their society - in the area of politics, culture, social, education, and economic activities ?

Did they attempt to leap frog from the Stone Age into the Space Age in a compressed time period ?

Was their present status a 'Flash in the Pan' - that serves them a momentary experience of high comfort, which cannot be sustained over time or withstand the pressures of change ?

When PM GCT took over as PM, he set the goals for SGP to achieve a Standard of Living equal to that of Switzerland.

Do we need to achieve that SWISS Standard of Living, with its accompanying HIGH COST OF LIVING too ?

Could we not have evolve a high standard of living that is commensurate to the high Standard of Living that we are accustomed to as ASIANS - and at a pace of economic development that does not jarr our Cost of Living ?

Was it realistic to achieve the intended Swiss Standard of Living, by simply gearing up the wage levels of all Singaporeans, and pushing everyone to each level of technological training and development, but without changing the mindset and economic culture of Singaporean that remains shackled to the initiative of Government ?

Can a tall and mature tree be transplanted and expected to survive in a new environment, when its roots have not grown deep to nourish itself in a new environment and withstand the storms of a different environment ?

Would a tree grow stronger when it is nurtured from a sapling stage, and grown into maturity at a pace of growth that is commensurate and relevant to its surrounding ?

Some tropical trees do grow faster than other types of tropical trees, and even within its own species.

However, try to transplant a tropical tree to the northern hemisphere - and even within the warmth of a green house - its growth can only be stunted, dependent on the daily tending of artificial nourishment, and its strength cannot be stronger then the real tropical trees in its own original environment.

No, it is not humiliating for any individual to BEGIN one's career in a humble position, or accept a new humble beginning after having been forced to CHANGE one's accustomed comfort level WITHOUT CHOICE.

It is certainly true that the Singaporean historical background of being migrants, should help in our resilience towards hardship and changing circumstances of our economic experiences.

No one will expect economic environment of commerce and industry to be constant or static, as such environment besides being affected by market forces of competition, product life cycles, supply and demand, and most of all it will also be affected by politics within the country, as well as politics with others too.

There is a difference between an economic environment that is largely free, with the pace being set by Free Enterprise of the Citizens, and that of an economic environment that is largely dictated and operated largely by the Government.

When an individual MUST operate within the environment that is largely imposed on the individual, who is responsible for the failure when the environment crumble ?

Is there any difference between setting motivation and the goals propagated by Government effort to spur the population in a country to swim in the same direction ?

Can an individual choose not to follow otherwise ?

If having accepted the choice, can any individual - (with differing abilities, education standards) - move at the same pace as the majority, and align their personal goals with that set by the Government ?

What will happen to those in the Community that could not swim with the tide, should they be left to sink and drown ?

No, the government did not promise anyone the 5 C's as GIFTS.

However, they did promise Singaporeans that we will achieve a SWISS Standard of Living by the time PM GCT step down.

They did not promise to GIVE anyone the 5'Cs - but they certainly GAVE us (1) COST of Living that is CRAZIER than that of our immediate neighbors. This is despite the fact that our currency is stronger then our neighbors - that should allow us to be able to purchase the products that our neighbors are able to produce at a more comparative advantage then ourselves.

(2) CASUALTIES from an environment of accelerated competition in education and economic pursuit of excellence, so as to achieve the Government's vision of achieving the goal of a Swiss Standard of Living. Although never been publicly admitted, and slowly the medical profession are concerned enough to bring this matter to the public light - as the psychological casualties in our Singapore community grows from the numbers in our Young at the Primary Schools, and the Middle Age from the Economy. Read the ST Forum Page of Thursday, 15 January 2004.

(3) CONSUMPTION of material goods that forced a continual cycle of debt throughout one's economic lifetime, and forcing Singaporeans to be WELL BEHAVED economic 'beasts of burden' sacrifice their POLITICAL RIGHTS, and to be DEPENDENT on the Government.

(4) COMPLIABILITY of the people beaten into docileness and dulless by the dominance of the Government (a.k.a the Ruling Party) in Politics and Economics.

(5) COMPLEXITY of Living in Singapore, with the plethora of legislations that govern and control the mundane social, cultural, religious, economic and political behavior of Singaporeans - all of which make Singaporeans, slaves to a system set by the Ruling Party, who set themselves as the Decisive Know All for the Good of All Singaporeans.

Congratulastions, if you truly believe that Singapore is a DEMOCRATIC country.

The superficial cosmetic to make oneself beautiful is only skin deep, and cannot hide the hideous character for too long.

Only by playing on the psychology of the mind that one can be convinced the mind to see the Ugly Being as Beauty.

Is Singapore a Capitalist economy ?

A capitalist country will ensure that its Capital will have high yields when employed to any tasks or investment, otherwise capital will be diverted to some other more worthwhile venture.

In a Capitalist Country, Private Capital dictate the pace of economic development, NOT PUBLIC FUNDS.

The low yield performance of our Government Linked Companies (GLCs) are well documented by Money Managers.

In an environment such as Singapore, where private enterprise has been overwhelmed by State runned activities, are there any opportunities left for the individual ?

Are not the smaller businesses dependent on the 'HAND-OUTS' of subcontracts from the many GLCs that are dominating the services to Singaporeans - after squeezing out Private Enterprise by claiming of their inefficient economic size ?