There has been much talk about the “Singapore Model”. The West has long equated economic development with the free market ideology and liberal democracy. To the West, the “Singapore model” is characterised by the unorthodox exchange of political freedoms in return for economic wealth, as promised by the state.
Critics of this model argue that Singapore is really a company disguised as a country, labelling it “Singapore Inc.” But are they right? Is there something truly magical about this model that has put this little red dot on the world map
In the beginning
Singapore, a fledgling ex-British colony was thrust into nationhood right in the midst of an escalating Cold war in 1965. Half the world believed that the common good was best served by state planning while the other, the embrace of fundamental freedoms in economic and political processes. Endowed with neither natural resources nor the assured protection of its colonial masters, the nation’s leaders architected a hybrid model using the only resource available– humans.
This model, guided by a single political party, avoided all the trappings of petty political squabbling and focused all energies to carving out a defensible position in the global market place. It pioneered social mechanisms like a state-pension fund, which provided a means of affordable financing to incubate its state-driven industries.
The founding fathers of Singapore also borrowed the Chinese “imperial scholar” model to recruit and manage talent. The brightest of the cohort would be selected and heavily invested educationally (in the universities around). Upon their return, they would be managed with a careful mix of incentives (monetary, fast-tracked careers) and disincentives (career stagnation). It is worthwhile bearing in mind that this is a system that evolved out of many years for managing a largely closed subcontinent, where talent had few better alternatives outside the system.
Realities of the New World
Epochs in history have been marked by seemingly small changes in technology that resulted in changes in large social order in the years that followed. While the Singapore model has coped well with Industrialisation, less can be said for its effectiveness in the Information age today. Like the Railroad that came before it, the Information Revolution changes the boundaries of the market imagination.
The boundaries for the first time in history are truly global. The implication of this is that a small producer in a remote town in Asia will have to compete “with everyone for everything” , and produce a product which the market would pay for, even if it just services its specific locality. More importantly, it turns the comfortable confines of the insides of a closed system into the uncertainty of an open system where competition can come possibly from anywhere. And the full spillover impacts of these developments are still left to be seen.
Knowledge will be the key factor of production in the new age – and the ability to attract, create and apply knowledge will be a cornerstone sustainable success in the long run of any company or country . Some have termed this the advent of a “post-capitalist society”, a world where capital does not exploit labour in the traditional sense, but rather – exists to make knowledge effective. The welfare state and the labour union were both institutions born to cope with such a world where capital exploits labour – neither has faired very well in recent times in the wake of Globalisation.
Where pension funds, managed by professional managers are now the largest sources of Capital – Knowledge comes to the table at least as an equal. It is already industrial orthoxy that the value of knowledge workforces on companies’ balance sheets are quickly becoming their biggest assets – in fact, they are quickly becoming the only differentiating assets in the long run – because we live in a world of excess capital. And the failure to manage knowledge workforces well quickly shows up in increased costs, lowered productivity and decreased competitiveness.
Growth at all cost – how long can it last?
The Singapore model has long assumed that growth driven by an elite class was the only way to move forward, if not to survive. And for a long time, the assumption was probably accurate enough to be sound operationally. We have come to implicitly accept the need for inequality in our social compact to defend our economic interests. In fact, a closer look at our institutions will show that our model is a well-oiled machine designed to optimize our efficiency in competing in global markets.
However, the price of getting the assumptions wrong can be very high, a liability to be serviced by the future generations of our country. And there are already tangible signs of systemic dysfunction caused by our “market-based” mentality – rising cost of living and income inequality, increasing levels of immigration, and more intangible areas like the erosion of identity.
If one accepts that the ability to attract, create and apply knowledge will be a cornerstone sustainable success, we just might just have to concede that our business model, for the lack of a more appropriate word, is outdated. If knowledge is the be-all and end-all in this age – it would follow that all social and governance institutions should all be aligned to this end.
Structurally, a polity which asks a large part of society to outsource its agency and independent thought to a higher authority is structurally incompatible with an economy where questioning creates new value. An education system which puts children through laborious rigour and selection is both detrimental to creativity as it is demeaning to self worth – and ineffective for training the faculties that create bold ideas that change the world.
A HDB flat which is paid for upfront with a 30-year financing option doesn’t create the incentive to participate in the economy – it lowers the ability to bear risk through entrepreneurship. And the pursuit of an industrial strategy through importing of talent rather than growing from within is both more expensive as it is risky. What if the investments in foreign integration fail for any multitude of reasons?
It’s perhaps not that we’re not doing things right – we might just not doing the right things altogether. The irony of staring at the Singapore model is not only that the model which brought Singapore to its current status might work any longer, but it might be the very thing that is holding the country back. Maybe we have been aiming at the wrong goal all this while.
In his maiden parliamentary speech, Nominated MP Viswa Sadasivan stressed:
“Traditional thinking would suggest that prosperity, defined usually in economic terms, is the cause and happiness is the effect. Now, with research showing that happy people are more productive and driven and therefore have a higher potential for career success, it may make sense for us to pursue happiness as a necessary condition for sustainable economic success. Naturally, this is counter-intuitive but if we are prepared to think out of the box, it may just make sense…”
It should be the hope of many that this generation of Singaporeans inherit not just the past solutions formulated in bygone eras to face today’s realities. More importantly, they should wield with the bold spirit of invention that created them in the first place.
References:
- Chapter 1, Drucker, Peter F. “Managing in the Next Society”, Griffin Publishers
- Friedman, Thomas (2005), “The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century”, Picador
- Drucker, Peter F. (1993), “The Post-Capitalist Society”, Butterworth-Heinmann
- Florida, Richard (2003), “Rise of the Creative Class”, Basic Books
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Could TOC please reformat and present this article again. It’s a little hard to read. :)
Good article Ian.
I agreed with you that Singapore’s econmy will not last long in fact i read recently that we are already on the decline.
Our long held belief that MNCs will always provide jobs and enough GDP has somwhat faded with many uprooting to cheaper locations in Vietnam, China and Malaysia.
With a population that is ever dependence on people providing them a livelihood thorugh jobs, we have fail to ignite any risk taking opportunity-seeking enterprises within us. Even the big China market that MM Lee/PM Lee lauded only benefitted the big boys (GLCs). It never really benefits the common people who are too scared or ignorant about venturing into a far away place to make a living.
Singapore will probably have another 3-5 years before its economy goes flat or negative. The casinos though a good idea came too late as people have little left to gamble away after the recession.
Jobs created at the IRs will probably benefit the foreigners more than our local people.
The summer of discontent will hit the govt hard at the polls and rightfully so.
Good article. The assumption is that the model we adopt is good for the
people of Singapore.
However, in recent times, the shift has been to enrich the people involved,
more than the general population. At least that is the feeling most of us
get. it is really hard to see these policies as beneficial to us Singaporeans.
It is a classic case of paradox of success.
Meantime, Singapore success in the past relied so much on the network i.e. business and political allies alike. Now most of the allies are in trouble, they have to take care of themselves first before they can take care of Singapore, infact some of them event relied on Singapore for bail out through GIC, TH and MAS, all in the name of investment.
People will come to you if you have something to give, that really works in past, but can you still afford to keep giving now? For instance, can you provide cheap labour without overlooking the need of your own citizens now?
4) Passerby
Agree with you…Singapore is been trapped by its own success…somehow they are trying to depend on the same formula that results in past success…
Whether Singapore succeed or not depends on the new generation including foreign talents. The older generation has brought us to this level and don’t just sit there and complain or intellectualise. Go out there and grab it if you can.
Frankly I am quite fed up with all these questions and no answers.
When one look at historical ruins like Ankor Wat or Macchu Picchu, Singapore is not exempted. If we have been wrong so be it. If we have been right good luck, but it does not mean that we can’t go wrong from here.
LHL’s , unlike the older generations, leadership is questionable. We are declining not just with our income but also loyalty towards a country which seems alien now, The moment I stepped out of my door, I was confronted with foreigners and I wonder where are my fellowmen. I am not surprised that manyof my ICT reservist comrades have emigrated.
The Singapore model of growth is derived from the US model. The millionaire PAP always boasts that they are the best, they are the talented scholar, and always belittle the citizens that have quietly supported them for the past 44 years.
PAP are a bunch of ungrateful people. They don’t deserved the million they are earning.
can i say last time when they started builing this country, they had no prior experience?
somehow, it became a company?
6)Terrified
I agree with you, many year ago, i had been advising my nephews, brother- law and younger male friends to go oversea for job. All of them are very happy as they are considered real talents in other lands. Many of them after working for less then ten years had their own houses, cars and a good lifes. they really are very grateful to me. Many time, i had visited them in foriegn land and i really happy for them.
#2 Gilbert,
“The summer of discontent will hit the govt hard at the polls and rightfully so. ”
Do not under-etimate the relentlessness of the never-anti-voters.
They always never anti want. Regardless anythingie.
Your only chance : self-cleaning toilet.
Agreed. Many educated locals are also moving abroad after having had a taste for the larger world. Unfortunately, the Government’s efforts to stem this so-called brain-drain by retaining “talent”, not valuing people as *humans*, is counterproductive. No one likes to feel dehumanised or underappreciated *and* put up with living in a stifling envrionment.
From what I gather singaporeans are getting sick of the PAP.
Is there such a word as “architected”? Can we stop corrupting and murdering the English language by creating verbs from nouns arbitrarily?
Other ASEAN countries are not so open in the past and even now. They are considered third world mentality by Singapore and the west. Their mere intention is to protect the interest of their people and natural resources, hence westerners shun them. Singapore can’t afford to do that, for if they do that nobody would come hence no business for Singapore. Thus year in and year out, Singaporeans work harder and harder just to please the western master, but in the end what do Singapreans get? Heart Ache and More Heart Arche. Why is that?
To keep the city clean, you have to pay and pay
To keep the trafic flow, you have to pay and pay
To have the good infrastructure, you have to pay to pay
To have a cheap labour, pay and pay the foreigner
To have more talents, pay and pay more foreigners
To get more Foreign Direct Investment, Pay and Pay more subsidies and grants to investors
Think about it? Any of this has benefited Singaporeans? Singaporeans have been going around for a long time and tell people how well the city state has developed, it is very true. But what are the real value to Singaporeans. Has any of these progress being delivered to Singapore FOC, since the government has made so much money from Investors?
All are being done to please the western masters.
For years, Singaporeans has been blackmailed emotionally, If you don’t do this you will be reunited with the north neighbour. If you don’t do that, your mother, sister and wife will become maids in othe countries etc. etc.
Think about it…
I feel that the government made one fundamental mistake from a long time ago, that is, they do not tolerate alternative views. Stemming from that is a whole list of rules, rules and rules that are not to be questioned or challenged. The result of that – a citizenry that can only imagine, dream and conceptualize within the boundary of rules. The Singaporean today simply cannot think outside the box for that courage had been murdered. I remember Sim Wong Woo once said that in the U.S, you can make a U-turn on the road unless a road sign say otherwise but in SIngapore, you can only do so if you can find a sign that says `OK’.
LSL also recounted an incident which he was returning home and at the airport he saw all Singaporeans forming a long queue under the sign `Singapore Passport Holders’ when there was no queue in the row with the sign `All Passport Holders’. He thought it was funny but I think he should feel guilty or at least, regretful.
So, how can we create anything that is really original and saleable? I’m sorry to say this but I think we are almost braindead. And the `we’ includes everyone, if you know what I mean : )
“From what I gather singaporeans are getting sick of the PAP.”
Very soon the election will come, and Panadol from the PAP will be distributed in abundance. No, you don’t have a choice, the Panadol, aka bitter medicine, will force down your throat to cure your sickness. A soul will then be counted as helped by PAP through ShittyTimes. Period.
while I find it interesting that Viswa talked about some issues,
I wonder why he never use the free for all Hong Lim Park to say what he wanted to say, say since 3 years ago?
its so amazing that he speak up after he was called on to speak up after being nominated by that ….
10) housewifetan on September 23rd, 2009 6.04 pm
“I agree with you, many year ago, i had been advising my nephews, brother- law and younger male friends to go oversea for job. All of them are very happy as they are considered real talents in other lands.”
If those who have no confidence in the system go overseas to look for job, and settle there finding it a nicer place, more affordable, then would this not reduce the number of votes of no confidence?
Nice article Ian!
I do agree that the legacy of the founding of Singapore seems to be a historical burden today. Almost like food that has gone stale and is on the verge of being poisonous. I sometimes wonder why there’s this misconception that policies created upon independence must always be good, simply because it has been around since Singapore came into existence in the 60s.
I also wonder if there is an option to make the system more flexible to changes. Since we can almost directly attribute the inertia of the rigid ‘Singapore model’ to the advocates who insist it is perfect, wouldn’t it be better for Singapore if more people could have a say in what is truly good for us?
Singapore was one of the first countries in Asia to attract MNCs (multi-national corporations). This strategy worked for a time until other countries followed in Singapore’s foot-step.
Unlike Taiwan which did basic reserach into all sorts of manufacturing, Singapore took the easy way out by importing questionable foreign talent who contributed very little to Singapore industries. Singapore’s brightest where persuaded to do management and business studies.
The economic policy of Taiwan paid dividends whereas Singapore’s quick-and -dirty technique of importing foreign talent failed.
Taiwanese industries are today the world’s leader in computer technology and computer manufacturing.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_20/b3933011.htm
Singapore’s manufacturing industries soon died out because there really was no talent and it was becoming extremely uneconomical for MNCs to locate in Singapore.
The PAP government’s crony capitalism have them abusing the Land Aquisition Act to grow the government bigger and bigger. Land was forcibly acquired by the PAP government at peanut-prices from their rightful owners and sold to the public at “market” rate.
When the PAP government owns up to about 90% (over) of the land in Singapore, they can charge a very high rental price. So when you start a business, you would have to pay a large chunk of your income to the rental or mortgage, leaving a small percentage for profits.
The PAP government’s “economic model” (wrong called “Singapore model”) is not one of economics, rather it is one whereby the (PAP) government has grown too big and that nepotism and crony captalism is the order of the day.
Thus, a political problem calls for a political solution, Singaporeans must be educated to vote against the PAP to stop it growing too big.
Hi,
This post makes interesting reading. The conclusion is definitely appropriate. There is a need to re-foster risk-taking again in the next generation. But this requires a major paradigm shift, which the present generation is not prepared to take. The reasons are many, but one is a recurring emphasis on stability and ‘safety’.
However, I’m curious to know why if the discussion is on an economics, the references are to non-economists? Peter Drucker is a lawyer by origin and not an economist, while neither are Thomas Friedman nor Florida as I recall. They make inspirational reading, but I’m not sure how many of their writings essentially convey consistency. One of the things which makes a model successful is consistency. I don’t recall (and I may be wrong here) that this is an omnipresent feature in their writings.
Another aspect which most businessmen/politicians/academics will tell you, Singapore Inc (to call it as such) is essentially an export-driven economic model, just like HK, Japan, Taiwan, etc. The model is outdated wrt Singapore now, not because the economy is not suited for it, but because of what is being exported. It does not mean it’s no longer suitable. There are still aspects which can be used. The question is not “Can the model be used?” but “How can we adapt the model to remain relevant?” This was the essence of what Dr Albert Winsemius had in mind when he started out as Singapore’s economic advisor.
Another point to contend. I don’t think the welfare state and labor unions were conceived to protect labor from capital exploitation. There are several reasons for its founding, but the objective was to ensure that its citizens/members have some level of defined living standards which they deem acceptable. To suggest that capital exploits labor is extremely socialist. There are enough instances historically, and even today, where labor is the one who holds capital to ransom. This is when labor unions have an extreme degree of bargaining power and strikes are the norm.
And finally, I’m not quite sure if the welfare state has been proven inadequate in the face of globalization. The pension system in continental europe has suffered for various reasons, among them excessively strong union power and weak government rules. But observe the Scandinavian model. It worked well, and is being marketed as an alternative to what the rest of Europe and the World practices, in spite of criticisms like high tax rates.
Dear housewifeTan,#10
Do not be so self-congratulating.Your nephews,in-laws and your
young friends who have gone overseas for a good life should be thankful to Singapore and PAP.Tell me,who give them good education when they were young?
Answer;Singapore Government.Who taught them how to read and write English?
Singapore Schools formulated by the Singapore Government.Who made Singapore
a household name around the world?Not you but rather PAP.I am sure your former
Singaporeans buddies are either professionals or skilled workers of some sorts
before they left for a greener pastures.I myself is an oversea guy.I have seen new
and not so new immigrants from 3rd and 4th world countries in North American and
Canada are are doing manual jobs like flipping burgers in MacDonald or a sale
person in Walmart or domestic helpers simply because unlike PAP,their country governments did not offer any opportunity for them to have a proper education.
On the other hand,Oversea singaporeans have a much better advantage just
because they are from Singapore-a place where people are well trained and
well educated.Even FTs from China,Phillipines,India in Singapore are smart
enough to use Singapore as a stepping stone to greener pastures.
So be grateful and thankful for being who they are and from.
aiyoyo
cpf wait till very old then take out,
work till old,
flats prices sky high, also
transport price, utilities price etc..
aiyoyo
“Not you but rather PAP” #23
The PAP government was good until the first generation old guards. After that, PAP MPs and ministers became self-serving.
The Singapore-model is to keep the well connected in power at all costs and to get the remaining of the population in a servile status.
The PAP government abused the Land Acquisition Act to own about 90% of the land thereby virtually killing the private enterprise. The PAP government runs a system equivalent to feudalism.
preston loon has committed two fallacies
a) If the PAP government were so good 200,000 Singaporeans would not have left Singapore for other countries. In fact, he has also left Singapore!
b) English is the de-facto national language of Singapore. So many come here to learn the language and, Singapore is usually the 3rd or 4th choice of those who can’t get into the advanced English countries.
The “Singapore-model” needs to change because it can’t be sustained in the long-run. The population is producing enough to replace itself ( the birth-rate at the moment means that the population is reduced by half at every generation) to sustain economic growth.
The GDP figures (given by PAP government) are dubious in that it is boost up because the PAP government has open Singapore to 2 million foreigners in the last few years.
I really hope that Alfian Sa’at would read and respond to my posts here; I believe that he might have an interest in the subject areas I will be touching upon.
Re: “The founding fathers of Singapore also borrowed the Chinese “imperial scholar” model to recruit and manage talent. The brightest of the cohort would be selected and heavily invested educationally (in the universities around). Upon their return, they would be managed with a careful mix of incentives (monetary, fast-tracked careers) and disincentives (career stagnation).”
The first two sentences of the quote above are references to the education system and culture – specifically the “imperial scholar” one transplanted from feudal China – while the last is about employment as it relates to that education.
I will write several posts to address education and employment in light of the larger question of the sustainability the “Singapore model”.
I doing so, I will address the following questions:
1. Is the “imperial scholar” system sustainable in terms of Singapore’s real needs?
and,
2. Is the “imperial scholar” system sustainable on moral and legal grounds given that it is a system that institutionalizes a culture-based disadvantage for Indians and Malays, and that the government has a legal obligation under Article 152 of the Constitution to ameliorate for any race-based disadvantage, which in this case is of its own doing?
My next post deals with the first of the two questions.
I have re-worded the first of the two questions slightly here.
Q. Is the “imperial scholar” system sustainable if it has not served (or is no longer serving) Singapore’s real needs?
The “imperial scholar” education system and culture is one that places a higher premium on rote learning than its counterpart systems in other civilizations and cultures. (”Memorize the maximum number of factoids, regurgitate it all the Imperial Exams, and you shall be declared a scholar thereafter; most other attributes of contemporary – and even ancient in some cases – scholarship are downplayed, almost with a vengeance it would seem.”)
What of researching abilities? (I don’t confine ‘”research” only to those who conduct research studies.) Or an educational culture that encourages the development and effective use of critical abilities? Does the “imperial scholar” culture promote intellectual inquiry? Does it promote the application of knowledge to real life situations?
(Please note that the list of questions above are not exhaustive.)
I have often found that President’s scholars – the creme de la creme of the “imperial scholar” system – frequently lack the abilities that I listed.
Does one’s capacity for being a human repository for factoids at the expense of developing other important attribute of scholarship make one a liability instead, given that President’s scholars are largely employed in the top echelon of the civil service?
(cont…)
1. The so-called singapore model mentioned here could just benefit only non-singaporeans and these folks will fight to ensure that they are always satisfied.
2. In addition, the system created by the lky regime provides no opportunity for the regime to listen and implement methods that would benefit the citizens directly.
3. With this system, it is now possible for the lky regime to renew the citizens (rather than the citizens renewing the government/leadership of Singapore) to ensure that the population would vote in favour of the regime.
4. There is not more hope, thanks to the 66.6%. Splease stop worrying.
[i]b) English is the de-facto national language of Singapore. So many come here to learn the language and, Singapore is usually the 3rd or 4th choice of those who can’t get into the advanced English countries. [/i]
neigh the foreigners who came to our shore to learn english is not cost savin$
it a gateway to america or europe whichever way you looked @ it…
try gettin an entry permits inot the 2 countires as mentioned from their native lands..you will the the embassies concerned said…filled the triplicates forms..submit to us..we will considered your application…out of 10..9 endup in the recycled bin…
~NEXT~!!!
Before I continue, I would like to include an addendum to my post #27, which attempts to address he question, “Is the “imperial scholar” system sustainable if it has not served (or is no longer serving) Singapore’s real needs?”
I’ll clarify at this point that by Singapore’s “needs”, I meant its governance and administrative needs, a major one of is the needs of the economy.
Given that the the “imperial scholar” system is really a transplant from feudal China, it can be assumed that it was likely a system that developed from the needs of China’s feudal political system and economy of old.
The reason for my raisng this question is for the pruposes of examining if the needs of a feudal political system and economy are in any way relevant in a country that was put on the path of the modern state and the industrial economy from its very founding by Raffles; the “imperial scholar” model has NEVER been relevant for Singapore’s needs, if you ask me.
Not only that, Singapore’s economic needs have moved on to that of a service and knowledge economy, or so it is claimed.
Are our politicians as well as our economic planners schooled in the “imperial scholar” model equipped with the necessary scholarly skills for the task at hand?
I now move on to what I consider to be the other major aspect to this issue: a) the abrogation of legal obligations by the government; and b) legalized racism.
The legal status of Malays as the indigenous people of Singapore, along with the government’s legal obligations to all (disadvantaged) minorities got a public airing recently; specifically, I refer to the public debates around Articles 152 and 153.
I will be including Article 154 in this discussion.
Unsurprisingly, Lee Kuan Yew had made another one of his typically unschooled interpretation, this time of Article 152 of the Constitution when he referred to the *ameliorative* rights enshrined in the Article as ’special’ rights; no doubt, in the spirit of racist mischief that he is well known for, he means to stoke Chinese anger against the ’special’ rights that non-Chinese Singaporeans allegedly have over the Chinese.
This is the exact same political misdemeanour of Lee Kuan Yew’s that led to Singapore’s expulsion from Malaysia.
Article 152 obliges the government to correct any disadvantage caused to minority race Singaporeans, including in the area of education.
The uneven outcomes in performance by minority race persons in any field is typically a result of:
1. disadvantage caused by historical circumstances;
2. disadvantage caused by small numbers; and,
3. disadvantage caused by racial discrimination.
(Of course, in racist discourse such as that which is occurring in this thread, the “genes” and “culture” arguments tend to take centrestage. Culture plays only a small part, but by the same “culture” argument, there are grounds for barring the Chinese from professions like law and politics.)
I have written in my earlier post that the imposition of the “imperial scholar” educational culture – which is incidentally the caste system of feudal China though no Chinese would ever admit it – is a deliberate, and racist imposition on Indian and Malay Singaporeans which sets up an uneven playing field for them vis a vis the Chinese.
Yet, despite the institutionalization of racism in education, the Chinese supremacist government has abgrogated its obligation to *ameliorate* for racial minorities after having deliberately caused an uneven playing field for them in education, which has longer term effects in employment, financial fortunes, and professional and social prestige that are lifelong.
So, even if Lee Kuan Yew had made the correct constitutional interpretation of Article 152, where ARE the ’special’ rights and ‘unequal (ie.special) treatment’ that the Chinese supremacist Lee Kuan Yew erroneously claims the government is enjoined to deliver to Indians and Malays? The only thing that has happened here is to make Indians and Malays feel unspecial.)
I will move on to the issue of Article 154 in my next post.
Article 154 of the Constitution states:
[start]
Impartial treatment of Government employees
154. Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, all persons of whatever race in the same grade of the service of the Government shall, subject to the terms and conditions of their employment, be treated impartially.
[end]
In lay terms, the Article means:
1. If there are other provisions in the Constitution to invalidate it – there aren’t – the provisions in this Article do not apply.
2. The government is legally obliged to treat minorities in any civil service grade equal to the Chinese in the same grade – this section of the Constitution deals with minority rights, after all.
3. However, #2 is subject to the terms and conditions of the employment of persons from minority races. In other words, there CAN be terms and conditions in employment to instituionalize unequal treatment of racial minorities vis a vis the Chinese: institutionalized racism. (I would say that the most publically known example of this is probably with regards to Malays in the SAF, though it applies to the entire civil service. Specifically, there can be – and probably are – terms and conditions of employment at PSC Grade 4, say, that make Grade 4 the “glass ceiling”, as an example, for racial minorities. I have heard, and not just once, that the government ‘doesn’t want too many Indians’ in certain civil service positions.)
Thus, the empty claim of ‘meritocracy – probably to distract Singaporeans that there isn’t any – that creates an uneven playing field for Indians and Malays from the word “go” in early childhood, follows him/her throughout his/her life.
TOC, help me understand your policies because I have not been a user here for long.
Is my post #31 under moderation because of the link?
preston loon at 23),
No one is refuting the fact that the quality of education in Singapore does give Singaporeans an advantage over those from third and fourth world countries. On a side note, different people will have different perceptions of what differentiates a nation from another third or fourth world country, and no surprisingly, there will be people who will also challenge why are Singaporeans being compared to those from third and fourth world countries (this basis of comparison are remarkably similiar to those official press releases by the various ministries to glorify Singapore’s achievements).
Singaporeans are indeed are hardworking. But I am sure you agree that it is the social pressure imposed by this model which makes Singaporeans to be so. What’s going to fuel this growth after 20, 30 and 50 years? Singapore is losing lots of it’s talent which are deemed outcasts of the current model. How many more must Singapore lose before it realises that it is a mere stepping stone for others?
CPF is a made into a very Big Component in our lives.
To Remove IT would mean admitting that it is Flawed.
The FACT remains, CPF is a COST to EmploYers. Period.
This , to me at least, means CPF is Part of the Salary from the Perspective of an Employer. Correct or not?
If I run a shop and hire a singaporean for $2000, i still need to pay for his 14% cpf. So, to me, his salary is NOT JUST $2000 but! $2280.
Now they give out JCS.
Why not stop CPF payable by employers for a while?
Oh, CPF is used by people to pay and pay housing loans.
Why like this? Add here and minus there?
Lets hypothesize:
================
1. IF Public housing is not made so EXPensive, there is less Pressure on Paying the LOANS.
2. This means LESS is NEEDED in the CPF.
3. If Public Housing is made AFFordable, the people need Not Rely on CPF scheme.
4. This translates into Employers no need pay and pay such overhead.
5. Which translates into Competitiveness for citizen workers.
6. Which means More Gets Employed potentially.
[Scenarios with/without CPF: ]
=========================
A. IF employee does not need CPF, and gets employed as a result of being cheaper, he gets to have income of say $3000 a month. Although he does not get CPF of 14% = $420, he gets a JOB paying him $3000. Using Sessame Streets game of comparing 2 pictures to see what is the difference, you tell me which is better : Not getting a job thus income vs Not paid CPF.
B. IF employee has to be paid CPF, and did not get employed and loses to a FT due to being a cheaper option for the employer, he loses $3000 income a month for every month that passes by. In Addition, obviously, he also did not get any CPF. The CPF also collects ZERO from this unemployed citizen.
In conclusion, while CPF scheme is mean for what is reported as good reasons,
such a model is appears to affect citizen employment rate.
What is Talent? $3000 worth of Talent. Can a normal singaporean not have the talent worth $3000 in the market to compete with FT? But then an Employer actually needs to pay and pay $3420 and not just $3000. So, if i were an Employer whose purpose in life is generally to earn more Money$, why would i want to hire a citizen unless its absolutely no choice?
sincerely,
Pinko
I guess my original post #31 was not allowed through.
I wish it was because it was meant to be the logical sequence preceeding the ones that came after it.
In that post I posed the question, “Is the “imperial scholar” system sustainable on moral and legal grounds given that it is a system that institutionalizes a culture-based disadvantage for Indians and Malays, and that the government has a legal obligation under Article 152 of the Constitution to ameliorate for any race-based disadvantage, which in this case is of its own doing?”
I dealt with legal grounds in the later posts allowed through, but this is about the moral grounds.
I stated that the imposition of the “imperial scholar” model on the Indian and Malay populations constitutues institutionalized racism because the style of rote learning is more of a cultural advantage for the Chinese than for the minority races; an uneven playing field in education was deliberately created for the Indians and the Malays.
This has far reaching consequences in employment, financial fortunes, and professional and social prestige.
To Lets Talk about the CPF model on September 24th, 2009 12.39 pm:
Re: “CPF is a made into a very Big Component in our lives…To Remove IT would mean admitting that it is Flawed.”
Not only the CPF, but I think HDB as well.
I know this will not make me popular.
I may not be fully knowledgeable about this, but I don’t know of any other housing scheme that is cross bewtween a wannabe social housing scheme and a private property one.
The only social housing schemes I have known so far are all rental property only.
There is this article carrying in MY PAPER today about a survey with foreigners feeling happy & content working & living in Singapore. Of coz they are happy with so many privileges line up for them instead of the citizens. Why don’t they conduct a survey with Singaporeans instead & see how many of them are jumping with joy?
loop
post #38 on September 24th, 2009 2.15 pm
////There is this article carrying in MY PAPER today about a survey with foreigners feeling happy & content working & living in Singapore. Of coz they are happy with so many privileges line up for them instead of the citizens. Why don’t they conduct a survey with Singaporeans instead & see how many of them are jumping with joy?////
i read it too. this is a no-brainer, if they not happy they won’t be living here. it’s like asking pappies if they worry about putting food on the table… ;)
@ 35) Lets Talk about the CPF model on September 24th, 2009 12.39 pm
You raise an interesting point regarding forgoing CPF if it meant an unemployed citizen could get hired. Only 2 problems.
1) CPF is the means with which government holds us ransom. Seriously. Sure, you can leave and take it all with you but you have to really think about it, yes?
2) Government has no incentive to make it easier to hire by forgoing CPF when it could mean less CPF funds for GIC investment, possibly leading to less funds to play with and brag about when times are good and blame others about when times are bad. After all, if an employer wants to hire without CPF, he can already get FT, which helps to increase the vote bank for the incumbent PAP.
@ Robox
Wow! I like many of your thoughts. However, I have to disagree about Indians being hard done by where rote learning is concerned. Have you looked at the syllabus of the kids in India today? It’s terrifying. I would pity our Singapore kids if they had to go into that system.
My point is about role models. The influence a kid absorbs while growing up.
In old Indian society, Brahmins were given the duty/role of memorizing much of what is now written down. This was a tremendous responsibility and is the sole contributing reason for the rich Indian culture still continuing today. Naturally, in a household where you’re always hearing chants and mantras, you’ll identify with it much more easily than someone who is a cobbler’s son.
Sadly, man’s aptitude for corruption ensured that the Brahmin’s role turned into an exclusive club where knowledge usually led to material gains or people who could provide that. If you were rich, you could send your kids to school. If you were Brahmin, the culture of learning ensured you would learn something and get ahead in life. If you were neither, well, life was not rosy.
Today, this translates to getting higher education because you can’t do much unless you know alot or you know people who know alot.
Fortunately, when India came into being, there were attempts to correct this social flaw by allowing quotas of other castes and backward groups in society to join medicine, engineering and other fields they normally found hard to get into. It’s not a perfect solution but I think people are getting more opportunities to escape the situations they began with.
Today, it all comes down to motivation and role models. If the role model you have is a thug and gangster, you’ll tend towards that. If your role model is someone who’s always learning, you’ll likely follow that. If you’re poor and pissed off that you’re poor, you’ll work damn hard to get out of your situation – the ‘how’ depends on the role models you have.
Coming back to the Singapore context, I can’t provide a fair opinion because I’m not familiar with Malay culture where learning and education is concerned. All I am willing to state is that it’s the family who set the scene for what and how a kid does. Rote learning? Sure, it’s not easy but it’s not impossible either. Though the ratio of Malay kids not doing well may be higher than Chinese and Indian kids not doing well, you still find enough from all the groups breaking through (perhaps not in terms of government appointments) to be successes. Conversely, you will also find enough people not doing well in this rote learning system.
Personally, I hate the rote learning system. I would take substance over form any day of the week and twice on Sunday. That may explain why I did badly in school. Though I have a few regrets about my early academic performance, I’ve still managed enough success for now and am more than happy with my life.
Robox:
Thanks for the very long series of insightful comments. Would you like to do an article in response to this one? I’m sure it would receive a much bigger audience as a proper article, rather than as a series of comments.
You know, thinking of this reminds me
“Since Goodyear’s departure, Ho is shedding her once-shy public image by appearing more at events such as Thursday’s news conference, where she declared the fund had recouped most of its losses from 2008 and is ready for dealmaking.”
Somehow I have as much doubt in this statement as well as the singapore model.
Temasek Holdings has recoup most of it’s losses? The losses were a staggering 90 odd billion and if Temasek Holdings were to *really* recoup all of it, you can be sure that the MSM would have that splashed all over the front page of the papers! The only “wayang” that I’ve seen (or at least I’ve seen, feel free to correct me here), is the 2 billion that they made by selling off Citi stakes.
What a load of bull. Ho Ching really has the midas touch. Whatever she touches turns to shit.
I think :
1. the recent SALE could have helped them lessen their fiasco impact. this may be to address the investment fiasco problem they have.
2. they came up with something that suggests more Accountability of the Councils. while that maybe the case, some thing are not revealed as before.
will people bite ?
is it coming very soon?
To Shihan on September 24th, 2009 4.24 pm:
Hmm. It’s very flattering that you should ask if I would write an article on this topic. I definitely agree with you that it would garner far more attention – and feedback – that way. I’m curious though: Is this an official request?
I’m a pretty new user here and I haven’t yet familiarized myself with all the names here – don’t know if you are staff or a like me, an ordinary user.
I’ve tended to be a ground up kinda guy, but who knows, because this is actually the third time in two weeks (or so) that i have been asked.
To OnlineShmonline on September 24th, 2009 2.44 pm:
I have a reply to your post, but not the time unfortunately. I will try later tonight perhaps. Thanks for your own post.
43) Anonymous
which is why i choke when i saw the article saying HC proclaims that…lol
Yamamoto @47,
Do you have a link to that article? That would be priceless!
The world had moved on since 1959. The early policies had worked well but new blood and new thiinking is needed to move the country forward into the future. Sadly our country is lead by a old man who had way passed his sell by date. We had not heard of any new ideas from our million dollar ministers how to stir the country forward over the next 10 -20 years. We had heard that LKY would be around for the next 10 years but hardly anything else. It sound more like how to keep the PAP in power rather how to manage the country to keep the prosperity going for future generation. The new world would have China and India beside the old players e.g USA, Japan etc as major players. The rules changes as well. We used to export to the West but China and India are doing the same and doing at a lower cost. We need to plan for another alternative export that is uniquely Sinkapore otherwise, large number of our labour force would be permanently unemployed especially those less well educated. There are many serious issues facing the country without a doubt. The civil service could absorb limited number of intakes each year leaving sizable graduated unemployed. This issue will get worst before it better over the next few years. Another major issue is the opening up of the Northern passage sea route from Asia via the Russian Arctic to Europe which will affect Sinkapore harbour shipping significantly over the next few years. That new route will reduce the journey time by 25% a significiant saving for shipping companies. All this issues had tremendous impact on Sinkapore economy and employment.
On immigrants.
My take: It is industrialization that has given the West the advancement that the East is lacking for the past 200 years. Industrialization brought forth tremendous increased in productivity. And it is through the system of the market economy — which weeds out inefficiencies and generates innovations — that people (as consumers) get to enjoy better and newer good goods and services at a lower cost (subject to how the individual chooses to spend). So if you are concern with increasing the standard of living, then you should open your minds to immigrants whom can make the economy stronger.
This, of course, puts pressure on people to upgrade so that they can command a higher paying job. What you should be concerned with is change, rather than immigrants per se.
See my comments to “Pursuing your dreams” at the P65 blog.