38 Years now - and then what ?

Atobe SG

Now that Singapore has reached 38 years of Independence, should we not look at our past and the present, for the sake of our future ?

This review is even more pressing, given the economic mess that we are currently facing.

Life as a nation in Singapore is a result of the various peoples coming together from near and far, to form communities here.

Singapore Politics is in the hands of one ruling Party since independence from Malaysia in 1965, and with a general disinterest amongst the Singapore population towards participation in politics.

Can politics exist in such an environment ?

In his profound writing, Aristotle wrote that Politics is from the word Polis, which itself means an aggregate of many members living together; and Politicsarises from accepting the fact of the simultaneous existence of different groups hence, different interests and different traditions, within a territorial unit under a common rule.

Politics as such is the function of the people in governing their lives without oppression and without any constraints to normal life.

Politics is not about ideologies Communist or Liberal or Socialist or Democratic or Dictatorial Systems.

Politics is the fine art of society finding a balancing point in which government rule but do not intrude or constraint freedom of society to be active in politics itself which is part of life in the society.

Where does Politics begin and end ?

Does one ask where does sexuality begin and end ?

There is an innate natural understanding of the function of sexuality in any Individual for the sake of pleasure and procreation there is no need to question the beginning and ending of sexuality.

Much like sexuality, Politics is also part of Life, for the sake of pleasure and perpetuation of the community, the society, and the state.

If Singapore claims to be a member of the First World Society, then it is assumed that we have reached the maturely developed and complex form of societies found in member countries recognized as belonging to the First World.

What are the characteristics of First World Countries ?

In the First World, we will find tolerance and accommodation in the diversity of principles, philosophies, life styles, ideologies, attitudes, practices, religions, beliefs, and all Life Activities. In such a complex and mature system, such politics as practiced, is a system of fine balance where the majority does not oppress the liberties of the minorities.

Freedom of individual actions allowing for creativity is largely tolerated within the politics accepted by the community.

The majority does not force their principles onto the minority.

Politics is not exclusive to anyone individual or group.

If one person has a hold on politics, it will be tyranny; and when practiced for the benefit of a single group, it will be an oligarchy. These are the extreme ends of the politics.

In order for politics to work for the benefit of the People (or the Polis, as in Greek), the People should be active and free to participate, and be responsible to themselves.

Such free activity and participation should not be limited in time and scale, but should be effective at all times for the sake of politics.

Why do some countries remain stable and able to weather the most severe storms and crisis, while others cannot even stand up to a sneeze ?

USA, despite the diversity of people, with many differences in cultural, religious and political ideologies, and the push and pull of the demands made from every strata of its societies, is able to recover and pull itself out of so many crisis Depression of the 1930s, WW-1 and 2, Korean War, Vietnam War, Cold War, Financial Crisis of 1985 and 1997, and the catastrophes of September 11, 2001.

Singapore, despite our claim to First World status, remains perilously vulnerable at all times, especially in a polis where creativity, initiative and self-reliance is not a hallmark pronounce amongst Singaporeans, as one will find amongst the many different peoples in the USA most of whom are migrants from Third World countries.

Is there a problem in the manner that politics is practiced in Singapore, where the politics as envisioned by one group is forced onto the majority, where the peoples of this Island Polis are disinterested in their Politics and will follow whichever direction that the super group will envision the future direction should be ?

Is there any sense of responsibility to ones own future in an environment when one is nurtured to abhor political participation and to believe that politics is the exclusive preserve of politicians only ?

Is politics as envisioned by Aristotle remained to be ideals only, or is it a vital condition for the vibrant renewal and continued perpetuation of any society to remain great ?

Initial readings from Bernard Crick - "In Defence of Politics"

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

I'm starting to feel that along with politics, the populatce is starting to becoming disinterested in the nation as well, just look at how many people actually bothered to display Singapore flags this year, forget the wayang you see at kallang.

If the people don't feel that they really have any part in steering the boat, and are just being used as hamster wheel runners to power the nation human battery-style, with no control over their destiny. While they may accept this programming for a while as long as the ruling party are in line with their own direction, it won't before they start to feel alienated from the concept of "Singapore" and start looking out for themselves...

I wonder if in time, Singapore will get the impression of a "PAP" island or a Singaporean one?

Eiizumi SG

The current situation of one dominating party in Singapore ensures political stability.

Remembering Lee Kuan Yew's words, "Whoever holds Singapore's leadership must have the iron in him."

What he meant is to have in total control. As a small country, chaos is unacceptable. Once there is chaos, the chaos would spread and instantly destroy the nation. And it is instant.

I'm not saying that I'm pro-PAP. The leading party must be in total control. But judging by the strength of other opposition parties in Singapore, they really do not have the iron to control and help Singapore progress well. Only the PAP now has that strength but its strength is definitely quite qverwhelming.

Coalition government is totally unacceptable in Singapore because it show foreign investors a political weakness.

Imagine Singapore have multiple parties taking on the coalition government with only a house of 50 plus seats. That's too small a pizza to be shared by all to salvage hunger.

And we must also know, some opposition parties does not oppose for the policies are wrong, they oppose for the sake of opposing because they don't like the governing party.

[email protected] SG

38 years ah? then now what…. now is start the 39th year loh…...... give up hope liao give up expectations liao nothing to expect liao… at least when u dun expect anything u wun be disappointed when nothing happens

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Sadly, nowdays the PAP seems to be ruling on tradition, rather then mettle... just look at their recent moves...

Singapore needs the iniative to survive now, and we need creative people who can think for themselves. Unfortunately, the ruling party thinks that this is something that can be turned on like a tap and be controled, which is oxymoronic. Is like telling people to think out of the box but don't exceed the box or question boundaries.

The current PAP

kenhor SG

Originally quoted by Eiizumi
I'm not saying that I'm pro-PAP. The leading party must be in total control. But judging by the strength of other opposition parties in Singapore, they really do not have the iron to control and help Singapore progress well. Only the PAP now has that strength but its strength is definitely quite qverwhelming.

I can accept that the leading party must be in total control. However, we need checks and balances. There must be free elections to ensure the government is working for the people and NOT the other way around.

Viper52 SG

Agree with Kenhor, nobody is advocating a hung parliament or coalition governments here, but simply

* More transparency
* More checks and balances
* More say for the people
* Less pervasive role for the government

The following 2 AWSJ articles in my next 2 posts contain some very good points, but will doubtlessly not make it beyond the AWSJs small local readership into the local "mainstream" press here.

Viper52 SG

http://www.singapore-window.org/sw03/030808aw.htm

Singapore at a crossroads

Asian Wall Street Journal
August 8, 2000

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

SINGAPORE celebrates its 38th birthday tomorrow and one thing is abundantly clear: The good old days are over. As the country has suffered from low growth and two economic recessions since the Asian financial crisis, Singaporeans are getting used to the idea that they will not enjoy another decade of 9% growth like the one leading up to 1997. The question for the future is to what extent the city state needs to change the institutions which served it well during the high-growth era, in order to find the new productivity gains which will further improve its standard of living.
For nearly 40 years, the government micromanaged the city state and turned it into one of the economic dynamos of Asia. And ample credit is due: Singapore is an oasis of stability and prosperity in Southeast Asia. But today, government intervention in every facet of society is exacerbating an economic malaise that has both global and domestic causes. State-directed capitalism is losing its luster, and Singaporeans are recognizing the need for risk-taking and entrepreneurship. Moreover, the government has always claimed that a high degree of control over the media and public debate is necessary to maintain law and order. But four decades on, excessive state controls have created a climate of fear and stymied the kind of policy debate and creative thinking essential for competing in a global economy.

Singaporeans are well aware of this. The Economic Review Committee, established in 2001 and chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, raised high hopes when it promised to "leave no stone unturned" in formulating a new economic blueprint last year. There was disappointment later, however, when Mr. Lee admitted that while he had examined every stone carefully, he had then put many of them right back in their original places.

Nevertheless, the ERC did do valuable work by examining bolder reforms which might be taken up again in the future. These include loosening restrictions on the capital sequestered in the Central Provident Fund. Singaporeans currently are forced by the government to contribute around 36% of their salaries to a state-run retirement fund which earns paltry returns. Although the government does offer Singaporeans occasional opportunities to dip into these funds, for the most part the money sits around in savings accounts. This is unfortunate, as many new businesses could be started with this stock of seed capital.

Ultimately, in the case of CPF, the system was deemed to be "not broken," and thus not worthy of major overhaul. Advocates of tight CPF policy claim that Singaporeans can't be trusted to make the right financial decisions. In today's competitive economy, however, Singaporeans can not afford to be treated like children. Another stone that was carefully "put back" was the ERC's policy on government-linked company divestment. Through its investment arm, Temasek Holdings, the government holds major stakes in almost every business sector. Heavy state ownership in the economy discourages entrepreneurship and stifles the private sector, as private businessmen feel little incentive.

Yet the problems are more than economic, and even the leaders admit that Singapore needs a new way of thinking. The government-backed "Remaking Singapore" committee was set up for this reason. The committee claims to complement the ERC's work of reviewing strategies for a new Singapore. The committee's report explains: "Singaporeans must develop the values, attitudes, skills, innovativeness and entrepreneurship necessary for an increasingly competitive and complex world. . . . If we fail, we risk losing our economic relevance, and our livelihood."

Some critics say that Remaking Singapore is little more than an updated version of the Singapore 21 consultative process of the 1990s. Remaking Singapore does offer hope of culling sacred cows, and some progress has been made. Nevertheless, a recent Straits Times article lists the sacred cows that have returned to graze by the stones that were carefully replaced by the ERC. The real meat of the proposals -- such as changes to defamation laws, increases in freedom of information, liberalization in mass-media ownership and an increased role for media in political discourse -- have yet to materialize.

Many Singaporeans would agree that globalization, technological revolution and an atmosphere of fierce competition means that Singapore needs a spirit of innovation. But it can't do that in a climate of fear. Singapore's atmosphere needs to change in order to introduce real political freedom. For example, the media isn't supposed to participate in politics, but the "out of bounds" markers are unclear, which leads to a veiled legal threat that discourages the media from rocking the boat.

And the public can hardly blame the press for being timid, because even if journalists threw caution to the wind, they would have a pretty hard time finding Singaporeans who are willing to be quoted. In a recent survey published in the Straits Times, only 15% of young Singaporeans surveyed had no qualms about publicly expressing views that differed from the government. Apathy was cited at the main reason, along with fear, although the article stated that "what they feared was not clear."

This ill-defined fear discourages healthy policy and political debate. Singapore's capacity for growth is diminishing, so the government can no longer promote development from the top down and point to this performance for its legitimacy. Nor can the ruling People's Action Party simply tell Singaporeans to "be creative," and expect such a change to happen while society otherwise stays the same. Rather, one prerequisite for creativity is an atmosphere where people aren't afraid to express themselves.

The PAP prides itself on being a democratically elected government, but it hasn't allowed for the growth of a viable opposition. It's true that a majority of Singaporeans support the PAP and would continue to vote to keep it in power. Many Singaporeans feel deeply indebted to their government for the high quality of life that they continue to enjoy. But now may be time for the government to reciprocate that trust. Reform doesn't need to be a zero-sum game: Few would like to see a breakdown in the orderly society that Singapore has worked so hard to achieve. But Singaporeans are undoubtedly capable of deciding important issues for themselves under a government that is more accountable to its citizens.

The ERC and Remaking Singapore show that there are some truly progressive ideas out there -- but what's missing is the impetus to bring them to life. There is a bit of a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," attitude -- so the system keeps plodding along. Thirty-eight years after independence, many in Singapore seem to understand that change is necessary and inevitable. But they may have to wait a bit longer for a new generation of leaders to take the stage.

Viper52 SG

http://www.singapore-window.org/sw03/030808a1.htm

Reinventing Singapore's economy

Asian Wall Street Journal
August 8, 2000

COMMENTARY: By MANU BHASKARAN

SINGAPORE impressed many observers when it embarked on a process of economic reforms -- months before the Asian financial crisis erupted in 1997 and made economic restructuring almost compulsory for policy makers. Since the initial rethink started in 1996, the Singapore authorities have accelerated deregulation in the financial and telecommunications sectors. The deregulation was bold -- breaking long-held policy taboos for instance regarding the role of Singapore-owned banks -- and succeeded in dramatically altering the landscape in the banking sector.
However, when the comprehensive study of the economy by the government's Economic Review Committee was announced earlier this year, many Singaporeans expressed disappointment that the government had not extended this radical transformation to other sectors. A major reason for this disappointment was the feeling that the critical changes necessary for Singapore to adjust to a tougher economic environment had not been made. The Singapore economy has been subject to a number of shocks in recent years which have depressed the dynamism of its economy -- the regional hinterland that its financial and trading hubs service has lost vigor after the Asian crisis; and the global economy has become much more competitive. A number of issues stand out in particular:

The high-cost structure in Singapore hurts returns to investors and produces a weak domestic private sector. Data from the US Department of Commerce on returns to US.companies shows that, compared to the Asian average, Singapore no longer provides the superior rate of return that it once did. Once a premium economy charging premium prices, it is now a less-than-premium economy -- but is still charging premium prices.

To address this problem, the government is now working hard to create a more flexible wage structure. However, such wage-centered strategies may not suffice. The key is to address costs which have deviated from market levels because of some distortion. Since wages as a percentage of gross domestic product is actually quite low in Singapore compared to most economies, high wages are probably not the most critical reason for a high-cost structure.

The more likely areas for distortions will be in land prices (and its effects on wages and rentals), high transportation costs resulting from the government's forceful anticongestion policies (which drive up the cost of distribution and logistics) and high regulatory costs. But without adequate measures to bring costs down, the economy will restructure with companies laying workers off, cutting wages, squeezing subcontractors' margins, forcing landlords to cut rentals, etc. This will produce deflationary headwinds in the Singapore economy.

This challenging domestic-cost environment probably accounts for the relatively weak private-sector companies in Singapore. The government has acknowledged that entrepreneurial vigor is lacking in Singapore. Returns on capital to locally-owned businesses tend to be lower than returns in foreign-owned corporations. Singapore has produced few privately-owned global success stories compared to the other city-state economy, Hong Kong -- where the government's role in the economy is much more muted.

The all-pervasive role of the government in economic decision making potentially reduces the flexibility of adjustment to such external challenges. The prices of major inputs -- land, labor and capital -- in Singapore are substantially influenced by government. The government owns most of the land, effectively becoming the monopoly supplier. The incremental supply of labor is controlled by the government through its controls on foreign-worker inflows. And Singapore's financial capital is also heavily influenced by government. The government owns a substantial proportion of domestically-owned corporations, and a huge chunk of national savings flows through government channels rather than market channels. This means that key prices in the economy -- wages, interest rates and rents -- are inordinately influenced by government rather than market forces. Since prices play a major role in signalling and incentivizing businesses on where to allocate capital, it is critically important that such prices not be distorted by government.

One issue of particular concern is how this economic structure leads to correlated errors. In a normal economy, errors by some businesses or individuals tend to cancel out, but in an economy where one player -- the government -- dominates, the risk of errors reinforcing each other increases. The overallocation of the nation's capital to real estate is one example of how such behavior has been evident in Singapore.

Singapore has a savings regime which produces the highest savings rate in the world, but does not appear to benefit from this much. Singapore savings rates have averaged more than 50% of GDP in recent years. Only part of this can be accounted for by the Central Provident Fund, Singapore's forced-savings scheme. Actually, much of it is due to massive government surpluses that have only recently started to recede. The result is that a large percentage of savings is channelled through the government budget mechanism or through the CPF rather than through financial markets.

High savings in Singapore did not, therefore, nourish the growth of its stock market or bond market -- nor did it generate the growth of dynamic and competitive broking, investment-banking and fund-management industries. Thus, the country with the highest savings rate in the world does not have a domestic-savings industry to match. There is also another anomaly. Despite having the highest savings rate in the world, separate studies by economists at two universities in Singapore suggest that a good number of Singaporeans will retire with less-than-adequate cash flows to sustain a high standard of living. This is a result of poor returns to Singaporean savers.

This brief analysis shows why it is so difficult for even the boldest reformers to reinvent the Singapore economy. The problems are not as straightforward as overvalued exchange rates or a banking sector burdened with bad assets. The problems in Singapore are deeply embedded in the economic structure. Removing one distortion could have significant adverse effects for some groups, or even pose systemic risks for the entire economy. For instance, if land costs are allowed to fall to levels which allow Singapore's cost structure to adequately improve, property owners, including virtually all households in Singapore, could see a major decline in wealth.

So, what should we expect in the future? A global cyclical recovery could well take some of the pressure off Singapore for a year or so, but the structural headwinds remain strong. In fact, some of the challenges facing Singapore are growing -- neighboring Malaysia is now aggressively expanding its services sector and in some cases competing directly with Singapore -- with a substantially lower cost base.

The good news is that these competitive challenges will encourage further policy reforms. Businesses with interests in Singapore can expect the following: (a) more cuts in income taxes; (b) a more cautious exchange-rate policy, meaning that the Singapore dollar is unlikely to see the secular trade-weighted appreciation it saw in the past three decades; (c) intensifying efforts to pare down costs in Singapore through deregulation and cuts in government-related charges; (d) a substantial change in the role of key government institutions such as the Housing and Development Board, to reduce government intervention in the housing market; and (e) further liberalization of the savings regime in Singapore.

Economic restructuring in Singapore is thus a work-in-progress. If further policy changes are made, there is no reason why the Singapore economy could not leverage off its substantial advantages -- for instance critical mass as a regional center and competitive advantage in high-value manufacturing -- and resume its role as an economic dynamo in Asia.

Mr Bhaskaran is partner and head of economic research for the Centennial Group

Atobe SG

It is certainly true that a Leader must have the iron in him to lead the crowd, and stay the course despite all the "doubts and storm" around him.

However, there is a difference between the iron in the personality of Leadership, from the rule over everyone with an iron fist.

Singaporeans elected LKY and the PAP - (into the leadership role of Self-Government from the early elections of the 1950's, to Governing an Independent Singapore from 1965) - on the platform that LKY had so eloquently advocated for the Peoples of Singapore to have freedom to gather, freedom of speech, that are the basic human rights for a better future of the People.

LKY had advocated and demanded from the British Colonial Government that these BASIC RIGHTS are the minimum standard of any society.

Yet, the iron in LKY resulted in his Political Party ruling Singapore with an iron fist that dealt a death blow to any and all opposition against him and his PAP.

Can 'Politics' still exist with ONE Personality and ONE Party dominating the scene ?

Can 'Politics' still exist when it is declared that it is the sole preserve of Politicians ?

What about the rights of the Peoples of Singapore that LKY had so eloquently advocated and demanded that the British Colonial Masters should recognised and accorded to the Peoples of Singapore ?

Does the Singapore Citizen - of an Independent and Sovereign Country - deserve NO RIGHTS at all ?

When a Strong Leader is elected to govern the Country, who will govern the Strong Leader - to ensure that the Rights of the Citizens are not trampled over at the discretion of the Strong Leader ?

Many such leaders have existed in history, and events have shown the iron rule of a single "iron back" Leader has resulted in catastrophies - Mao, Stalin, Castro, both the "Father and Son" Kims of North Korea; and in Singapore, our LKY admitted mistake with the 2 Child Policy in the 1960's that has long term effects of a declining population up till this day..

Perhaps one of LKY's favorite iron fisted policy with the CPF is now finally given due recognition of its dogmatic inflexibility that is a contributory factor to the high cost of doing business in Singapore.

In an closed political system that eliminate alternate voices, the Iron Leader will only listen to what he feels like listening.

Why should there be chaos and instability when there is no iron backed leader ruling with an iron fist ?

Do we need our parents to guide us from cradle to grave with a rod on our back, throughout our lives ?

Gun SG

I think your last question had already being answered in that same post. It is no secret that the total lack of flag-hanging participation by HDB-heartlanders is an indirect show to dissatisfaction towards the current PAP gov. The PAP pple ain't stupid, they know that full well how much distrust that they have created since the last GE.

But why are they still running that 1960's type of mentality that
Singaporean are stupid ? People had made much sacrifises for the last 38 years, in both good & bad times. And often than not, it is the PAP ministers to claim credit when things got better, while expecting the average folks to take up the slack in bad times.

Simple case like closure of Buangkok MRT station, the handling of public transport issues, unemployerment statistics, foreign workers and now the ever-obedient NTUC chairman saying CPF cut is ok....

It really amazes me how a million$ income can make high-caliber policians to become salesman for the PAP propoganda machinary.

Atobe SG

There are so many qualified young men and women, with tertiary education, but none have the willingness to be involve in the Life of Singapore.

Many shun away from being members of the Opposition Party, claiming that they will not associate themselves with fools.

Yet these same qualified individuals will engage in politics only when invited by the Ruling Party, and willingly submit their brilliant minds, and lend their own "brilliance" to a common thought from a common source. They prefer to suppress their own honest thoughts of the present situation and follow "Party Thinking".

They prefer to be part of a herd of sheep, baying in unison to a common prestigeous theme, then to shine in their own brilliant ability taking over control of any one Opposition Parties that are supposedly run by "Fools".

If the Opposition Parties are led by "Fools", will it not be easier to show one's "brilliance" standing next to these supposed "Fools" ?

At least the Constitution of the Opposition Parties will easily allow any capable person to join in the Executive Council and influence the thinking of the Party; more than it will be for anyone joining the Ruling Party.

Yet we deride those with the courage to stand up and speak the truth, although in a way that is not quite to our own preference.

Atobe SG

Double Post