Thanks for your prompt reply. It is interesting to note “the clash of cultures between Indian and Chinese perspectives”. While Authoritarianism has brought our country to what it is today, I also disagree that it remains the way forward for our shared future. This is especially true when a high proportion of our population is educated to university level and that we have a growing middle class.

Hi Angelina,

When Tharman talks about “increase in state power”, he was referring to increased financial regulation. Singapore is an international financial hub, so it has to adopt the least strict code of financial regulation to attract financial players to be based in Singapore. However, thanks to the economic crisis, governments worldwide are tightening their financial regulation system, so this presents an opportunity for Singapore to tighten its financial regulation system without loosing its competitive edge against other international financial hubs.

I also believe the “new faith in interventionism” is a relative phenomena. The new faith is a result in the global collapse of confidence in the self-regulatory regime of the shadow banking system. The shadow banking system refers to the unregulated components of the financial markets such as hedge fund, which play an increasingly important role in financing the public market through securitisation.

I also don’t think he was referring to Authoritarian Regime or Democracy when he mentioned “the whole game of competing beliefs has run its cause”. I believe he was referring to the 3 leading school of thoughts in the economic circles – Free Market Economics, Keynesian Economics and Marxist Economics. Why would any PAP Minister make a speech that is equivalent to stepping his own toes?

Quote: “….the INCREASE IN POWER HAS BEEN ACCEPTED (my caps) across the political spectrum from left to right, because people fear the alternative that could lead to a cascading of market collapse across more markets than the financial industry.”

What does he base on to say this? Expecting the Govt to intervene when it is not within the ordinary citizens’ power, for eg regulating banks, does not mean that “increase in state power” is wanted or as he put it, accepted, unless Tharman meant something else.

Quote: “With this new faith in interventionism, it is thus essential to find pragmatic solutions that allow free markets to work within accepted boundaries, mitigating the build-up of excesses that will always be inherent in a free market system.”

What NEW FAITH in interventionism? People do expect or look to the Govt all the time, to do the right thing! It has always been essential for Govts to find pragmatic solution so that people are not exploited for the benefit of feeding the few ‘fat cats’, it is not just because of the crisis. Govts who did not do so thus leading to the market collapse believed in the free reign of Capitalism more than free market. “Build-up of excesses” are definitely due to Capitalism (even practised by the Spore Govt) not “free market”.

Quote: “The whole game of competing beliefs has run its cause. And we’re now in a world where the competing beliefs are relatively sterile debate. What’s more important is to observe the facts, learn from the facts, work out pragmatic solutions, keep adapting and improving them as we go along.”

Does Tharman mean either Democracy or Authoritarian rule is now irrelevant? “Observe the facts, learn from the facts….keep improving… ” – Who do not know this? US is doing it, UK is doing it, and even China is doing it. Whats ingenious about it? Whats new?

Rest of this speech, hogwash!

2 Indian students came up very strongly against this, because I used India as an example of how democracy and too much free speech stifles economic growth. A Philippino student also spoke up against this, saying that economic growth is not the only way for people to be happy. The Indian perspective on this was that free speech, freedom of expression and individual freedom was the key to happiness to India. Another student too asked my Chinese co-presenter what was the government doing for the people, given the massive mistreatment of rural migrant workers and the lack of social welfare. My co-presenter could not come up with a reply for that, so I replied, saying that we need to be pragmatic about it because there is too little money to go around and we need to be patient, for the economy to grow before even thinking about human rights and welfare.

Students and businesspeople from the West were bystanders during this seminar. Later when I asked them about it, they said it seemed like a clash of cultures between Indian and Chinese perspectives.

You could also say it was the nature of the Symposium that most students who took part were from the business world. And foreign capital, as I mentioned, are usually more than happy with the policy of pragmatic engagement. I met a Swiss business student, a Czech student, the president of Credit Suisse, and Peter Day from the BBC who were more than in love with Singapore’s foreign policy strategy, and how LKY grew the economy from nothing to first world. So probably I could have been whacked even harder (and I was expecting it) if the debate were open to NGOs or people from the non-business world.

In reply to kkk and Donaldson, I think there needs to be a separation between Singapore’s policy as we have seen it, and Singapore’s policy as we wish for it to be in future. Even if I may go overseas to defend our country and Asian Values, it is only because it has worked, and will work for most developing countries. I have no qualms in saying that without draconian measures enacted back in 1970s and 80s, we wouldn’t be where we are today.

BUT (and this needs to be emphasised) this does not mean it will continue working for Singapore in the future. Personally I hate the concept of Asian values, and I hate living under stifling conditions and being suffocated by the education system. There are many Singaporeans overseas who escape precisely because of this reason, and I have met them at the Symposium as well. The government doesn’t need to do more for us, it needs to do less. Thus people complain for a reason, because they feel that something is wrong. It is up to civil society, alternative media and other fledgling organisations to capture this excluded sector so we can continue working as a cohesive system, rather than waiting for people to escape or to get pissed off enough to reject the system altogether.

HOWEVER is it only up to Singaporeans alone to decide on the change that is best for the country. Even if I do agree with certain foreign NGOs that Singapore as it is now, will not work for the future generations, I cannot gang up with them to criticise my own country.

So really this is the paradoxical situation of the generation living in a transitional era. It need not be a zero sum game when you either support the Singapore way or not. Obviously it has worked for us and yet there is this sneaking suspicion that it is not right for us. It’s not easy to reconcile the two. But you can, depending on the audience that you’re speaking to. We can go on and on here, about how high dependence on the government (which is seemingly becoming less in touch with the ground) is no good for us, and how we need to change. But at the same time, we can also advise other developing states about the Singapore way, and how they can get their act together to alleviate themselves from poverty, as we have done in the past.

I bet all the bankers present at the Symposium wanted a piece of Tharman for the following reasons:

1. They want bail-out fund from GIC and Temasek.
2. US and EU are cracking down on tax evasion. How safe is Singapore as tax haven?

How tough was it to defend Asian Authoritarian-Paternalism?

In addition to the human rights issue, could you tell us more about what the students say? I’m really curious.

I have been telling people about the democratic socialist nature of our system, which leads to the high dependence on the government. But apparently people are misunderstanding that I have meant the government is doing enough for them so they shouldn’t be complaining.

just thinking, this elite is impressed, is it because the elites invest here & there,

then lost $$$$$, so this is called impressed?

and these elites after hear that, then go invest into that country again,

in order to impress more people? (by lost more $$$$$$)

1 more sad story

aiyoyo

I concurred with your analysis totally. You put it very succinctly indeed. There are values of common interest to bigger countries that Singapore is good at and likewise Singapore has more to learn and hopefully make progressive change over time. However, one must also remember, however good a system (the ultimate hope of true check and balance) being developed, the driving force to make it all work is not without the greater support from its “matured, rational, inclusive and far sighted thinking” citizenry. The latter is lacking much as compared to other bigger and more developed countries. This is a sad fact that had been repeated and displayed in this site and others including the mainstream when engaging in public discourses. On contrary, I see more disparity and discriminatory behavior when we are faced with controversial issues. A fact I believed many may argue that “We are/were not given the chance to prove it…or we know what our values are and mine values are better than yours therefore…and many more”

I think many may conveniently forget that whatever we wished to promote or advocate, it can all happen from the heart of our home (and it should), including educating our siblings and spreading it to the circles of relatives and friends. We seriously have to sit down and ask ourselves, have we actually done that and put it into regular practice? The writings are on the wall indeed.

His articulated fluency and passion in his delivery shows quality of a good and collective leader in comparison to his many peers of a different ethnic background albeit some may disagree that under his tenure billions were evaporated (well at least on papers, but most Singaporeans are well aware who holds the master key to the bank vault). You can put on an act with diplomacy tact in public speaking but you cannot fake passion that shows in within.

Tharman is not without flaws (who doesn’t?) but at least he does not come across as an egotistical “high paying” nincompoop who cannot articulate in public speaking and with myopic views. I certainly hope he maintain his rational ways of doing Singapore good and hopefully those knots around his hands will one day be rid off so that his compassion and deeds for the betterment of the country can be unleashed with no strings attached.

So for economy, it is like whether the cock crows or not, the sun will rise and set.

Also we are just a tiny city state. Of course due to this fact, we have disadvantages and advantages as well. Advantage is that because it is tiny, it is also quite homogeneous and easier to control and suppress opposition. Which explains why there are 50% walkovers, 66% mandate and 98% seats for the PAP at every election. And also more easily ramp up economic growth by importing foreigners when times are favourable. But when things are in reverse, it is also terrible, like now.

very true of our society now.

Of course, given their respective backgrounds, my guess is that Tharman would most likely expouse a stronger regulatory view while Kenneth would go for a more macro arguement.

Over the next few years, we’ll be seeing many Western leaders looking to Asia (Singapore and China in particlar) for an understanding of how to structure large state-owned enterprises. They will learn from us how to equalise the qualifications and capabilities of regulators/public sectors with the private sector. Singapore in turn must learn how to develop its welfare system form the West as we progress as a nation.