Tommy Koh wrote a very interesting
article “Is there an ideological cleavage in Singapore?” in the Newspapers
today. He muses what he describes as the belief system and shared values that
Singaporeans uphold and if these have changed. In simple words the Rules of
Singapore Society. He listed the five as :
- Free trade
and investment
- Market
economy
- Globalization
- Foreign
Talent
- Meritocracy
For each of the values listed, I analyzed
my perception of the general Singaporean’s ideals and contrast what our
Government leaders are actually practicing.
Free
trade and investment
For the most part of it, Singaporeans
understand that we need free trade to be moving smoothly, we are a country with
no natural resources or agricultural hinterland. Food is mostly imported
together with all the equipment, fuel, car spare parts and yes, importantly
iPhones and Samsung mobile phones, to keep the country going. Let’s face it, if
Singapore was besieged by an immense flotilla of warships, we would probably
last a few weeks at most a month. This is also aligned with Tommy Koh’s
article. The Government has also been clear that free trade is necessary, and
has made progress in accessing non-traditional resource markets and keeping our
borders open with little protectionist policies nor high import taxes.
Market
economy
Singaporeans feel that the right balance
of private and public sectors in the economy makes sense. On one hand we need
private companies to make a decent profit, continue to innovate and bring value
to the market place where consumers are willing to pay for the goods and
services. However, goods and services that should not be driven by profit such
as health care, education, defense etc should be clearly under the public
sector. Tommy did not make a clear distinction of this and his main point was
that whilst we accept a market economy, we do not accept a market society where
winner-takes-all. So what has the Government been doing? In one word,
“Befuddled”. Certain services such as Defense, Water resources, Land resources,
Tax departments are clearly run by public institutions and very successfully in
some cases. But others are in a mixed-up hybrid scenario.
First bugbear is Public Housing, by the
very virtue of the name implies it a Public Good, but with the series of poorly
appointed Housing Ministers, the HDB had lost it’s mission. DBSS, ECs, prices
pegged to market rates, have caused major discontent in the populace. Things
are turning around, but the jury is still out there whether these are
structural changes or a band-aid.
Secondly, Public Transport is a
Frankenstein epic disaster, Public Transport operators are expected to make a profit while at the same
time maintaining service standards, while the Government funds these operators’
capital investments in the form of buses and trains. As what a local blogger
succinctly declared “Privatizing Profits, Nationalizing Costs”, it is not
rocket science, Private or Public Transport, make a decision, don’t feed a
Monster.
Health care is in a slightly better
position, but still some aspects of it smack of bureaucrats trying to act too
smart. Singaporeans are clear that if they have a complicated and/or urgent
medical condition which requires a very experienced surgeon, the private
hospitals/medical route is the way to go. Polyclinics and Public hospitals
provide credible healthcare at subsidized prices, but only for people who can
wait 3 to 6 months. But if you need the condition to be addressed faster, get
off the subsidized prices and pay private prices. So the Public Healthcare
system discriminates whether you can pay for faster service?
Globalization
Singapore belongs to an interconnected
world and Singaporeans would definitely reject being an isolated regime such as
North Korea. Free flow of ideas, technology, people and capital from all parts
of the world makes Singapore a vibrant city. But as Tommy quipped, we are also
a country with no hinterland to escape to or avoid the omnipresent crush of
people. And I read with a faint smile on his jibe at Anton Casey
(http://youarebetteroffted.blogspot.sg/2014/01/why-singaporeans-need-to-revoke-antons.html) , “the growing resentment felt by many
Singaporeans that wealthy foreigners are free-riders. They come here to make
money and lead very comfortable lives, but give little or nothing back in
return. To make matters worse, some of them have a disrespectful attitude
towards Singaporeans.”
How about the Government’s position on
Global City or Singaporean Home ? They use either as convenient spin-doctor
propaganda. When it serves their agenda, they proclaim it a Global City as necessary
to encourage business startups and employment to attract rich Chinese,
Indonesians and Russians whose money are suspect. And manipulate the theme “Singapore
Home” when they tell Singaporeans to sacrifice two years of their prime for
National Service. Many of us may have the similar experience when bonus time
comes around, and your company CEO tells you that business is tough and the
external environment is uncertain. The CEO then change his/her tune to future career
opportunities and upbeat business forecasts when you receive a competing job
offer. Make no doubt about it, PAP’s Government goal is the ensuring the
survival of Singapore the Global City, regardless if Singaporeans are part of
that survival equation or not. (http://youarebetteroffted.blogspot.sg/2012/10/first-hand-acccount-population-dialogue.html).
Foreign
Talent
Let’s be pragmatic, Singapore cannot
function without any foreigners, we need the thousands of workers who labour in
construction sites, cleaners, cooks, waiters, housekeepers, retail executives
etc. These are mostly hard working people who want to earn enough and return
home to their families.
What Singaporeans are indignant about is
encapsulated in George Orwell’s Animal Farm quote, “All animals are created
equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” Tommy also alluded to this
in his article, “First, Singapore discovered that some so-called foreign talent
was not very talented. Second, there was the discovery that, in some cases,
when a foreign chief executive officer was hired, he or she discriminated
against Singaporeans when hiring staff.” Singaporeans are sick of their leaders
placing foreigners on a pedestal just because they come from a foreign land.
Before the bruising 2011 elections, the government
was adamant that their consultants were correct, and that foreign talent were
more talented rather than foreign. Many worthy and talented Singaporeans were
sidelined or never given the opportunities in this xenophilic environment. They
have now changed their tune with the National Jobs Bank where companies have to
demonstrate that they cannot hire Singaporeans within a certain period before
they can hire foreigners. Time will tell, if this is a charade to appease the electorate
for the next elections or an effective tool to stem foreign workplace invasion.
A first step is to acknowledge that they
were wrong and not all foreigners are talented. We have yet to see this realization
in official speeches.
Meritocracy
Pursuit of a better life, strive for
excellence and meritocracy are cardinal drivers for Singaporeans. We celebrate
our successful members of society be it when Singapore wins the Asian football cup
or when Anthony Chen’s ilo ilo wins Camera D’or at the Cannes Film Festival.
And as Tommy stated, “Singapore want to be assured that meritocracy is
accompanied by social mobility.”
In general, the government over the
years has performed reasonably well in this arena, increasing open places in
prestigious primary schools for non-affiliated children, scholarships and bursaries
for bright children who should not be disadvantaged due to their parents’
economic background. However, it is not all a rosy picture, why are scholarships
that could be given to needy Singaporeans given to Asean scholars, Chinese
post-graduate students and visiting academia? Many of whom only use Singapore as
a stepping stone to greener pastures overseas. Rolling stones gather no moss.
Singaporeans want more dollars given to the taxi-driver’s son or daughter who
may not be as academically bright as a chinese scholar, but who would be a
respectable upright member of Singapore’s society. Rather than anointing a
nomad who would flee once the going gets tough. The government needs some
soul-searching in this regard.
Conclusion
After
this deliberating thought exercise, I would say that Singaporeans continue to
uphold the belief system and values that make us unique, competitive and highly
regarded world-wide. The crux of the problem is that these values have been
mutated to suit the government’s own misguided goals. The ideological cleavage
in the belief system is really between Singaporeans and the existing PAP government,
and if the government does not Repent, then perhaps a hammer would be needed to
hit the nail on PAP’s head. 
No comments:
Post a Comment