As usual any article that praises or criticises Singapore will invariably draw supporters and detractors. Singapore seems to be an anomaly or a contradiction. That is why people like to write about it and read about it and offer an opinion about it.
I've deleted some of the shorter comments that have not added substantially to the views here. One liners praising or castigating Singapore without explanation of the opinions have been deleted.
David Hadden wrote:
Feb 13th 2010 1:13 GMT
As a Canadian I find it strange that Europeans find it necessary to lecture a country that has much less unemployment than Europe, an excellent health system, social peace (compared to Europe), a proper criminal justice system (no repeat drug traffickers or vandals), almost no true poverty, low personal and sovereign debts, and a culture of personal responsibility. Why would any sane Singaporean want to emulate Europe, or Canada, or the US? Rather, it is the decaying Western countries (US, Canada, Spain, Greece, Portugal and maybe even Great Britain to name the most visibly troubled)that should look to successful Singapore for guidance.
otaroomari wrote:
Feb 13th 2010 2:13 GMT
Western countries should emulate Singapore in how they handle their welfare system.I live in the United States where more than half of the population get some form of Government welfare program. This puts enormous strain on the budget;however, changing this in a Democratic country is political suicide. It is easy to enforce strict welfare rules in Singapore because it is an autocratic country.
Izan wrote:
Feb 13th 2010 3:34 GMT
I have heard multiple times how the European and North American countries should emulate the Singapore system and i do agree it does have it's benefits. However, there are different view from two ends of the spectrum. Don't get me wrong, the system does in one way or another prevents the citizens from being too complacent, but there is a need to focus more on Singaporeans and stop assuming that they won't do jobs that the foreigners are doing. It has in some ways due to the governments own decisions to reduce labour cost. Though it has been beneficial, Singaporeans got to come first. Provide them with such jobs before offering the jobs to foreigners. I mean it in the best of ways with not discrimination in mind. The citizen shouldn't pay for not being given priority in the name of low labour cost.
Southern Bourgeois wrote:
Feb 13th 2010 3:59 GMT
Singapore appears to have it right in creating and maintaining a culture of personal responsibility. In this area, the Congress of the U.S. should take notice and begin to implement incremental reforms to the welfare system to foster this ideology if the nation is to persist as "number one". On the other hand, Singapore may realize a near-perfect system if some sort of unemployment benefits system were set up such as allowing for unemployment insurance (public or private) to assist the laid-off during their re-training and job searches. There may already be something of this sort in Singapore but the article did not allude to any real monetary unemployment benefits system in place.
[There is some merit in an unemployment insurance scheme, especially for certain jobs with volatile fluctuations in employment, or even seasonal employment (tho there are no seasons in Singapore).]
[There is some merit in an unemployment insurance scheme, especially for certain jobs with volatile fluctuations in employment, or even seasonal employment (tho there are no seasons in Singapore).]
danmaxkl wrote:
Feb 13th 2010 4:37 GMT
David Hadden it appears that you've been in Singapore so long ,you have the pampered overpaid expatriate version of the "Stockholm Syndrome". Singapore is a ghastly place. It makes communist China look like a liberal democracy. I live and work in Malaysia and travel to Singapore quite frequently and you know what,I wouldn't live there if my salary was doubled overnight. It is like a theme park where the theme is "we're a country". Think Disney land but with the death penalty. [OMG! What an original concept! "Disneyland with a Death Penalty"! It's so catchy! Maybe the commentor could get some established writer to use the tag! Someone like William Gibson.] You see,Singapore suffers from a major id crisis. It wants what western democracies have,such as a vibrant middle class,conspicuous consumption and fair skin .. but guess what? it forgets that most of those countries also have a safety net for their tax paying citizens who fall on hard times. It's not enough to tax people just so you can prop up US investment banks or reclaim land for some Dubai-sque type of fantasy. It's a fact: Singapore has the most depressed teenagers in the whole of south east Asia and get this , the highest rate of teen suicide in south east Asia is where ? That's right Singapore. [Only Southeast Asia? So we beat Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia? Most of them are barely past agrarian economies. If they wanna jump to their deaths they will have to travel to the city to find a building to jump from. So Singapore teens are more stressed than teens from agrarian cultures. BFHD. Why not make more reasonable comparison? Oh wait. We can't beat Japan at suicide, teen or otherwise.] There's your successful Singapore. It is a country full of droids who are seen as units of production not human beings. That too goes for the highly (some would argue over) paid expatriate community as well. You become an automaton that lives to work ...
danmaxkl wrote:
Feb 13th 2010 4:43 GMT
I'm guessing all these posts are written by Singaporeans or Singapore residents. It figures, say all the right things as you never know who in the big brother city state is reading them ... The west needn't learn anything from Singapore.. Take Germany, Sweden,Denmark,Holland,Norway ... can you honestly tell me with hand on heart that these super wealthy liberal democracies need anything from Singapore. No, I thought as much. [Norway, no. The rest of you stay behind after class and learn something from Singapore. According to CIA, Singapore is 8th. Netherlands ("Holland") 21st, Sweden is 27th, Denmark 29th, & Germany 36th.]
newstime wrote:
Feb 13th 2010 5:22 GMT
The Singapore dollar should become the world's reserve currency it may! They have it right. I doubt Singapore has a deficit crisis. More likely the yuan.
Singapore is what every Western (and other) country was until about the time of Roosevelt and we are still living off the work ethic that created our wealth.
The waste fraud and laziness produced by our system is unbelievable. The Mexican immigrants have delayed our reckoning without them no one would pick fruit etc....This fact is well known to construction and business owners.
Singapore is what every Western (and other) country was until about the time of Roosevelt and we are still living off the work ethic that created our wealth.
The waste fraud and laziness produced by our system is unbelievable. The Mexican immigrants have delayed our reckoning without them no one would pick fruit etc....This fact is well known to construction and business owners.
Swiss Reader wrote:
Feb 13th 2010 5:35 GMT
David Hadden - I kind of like living in a place where unemployment is no higher than in Singapore, yet I can vote how I like without having to fear my vote being traced - and if my kid would fall for drugs (which heaven forbid) she will be treated, not killed.
Izan wrote:
Feb 13th 2010 6:10 GMT
I personally know the Singapore scene both socially and politically. It might seem all is good in sunny Singapore, that fear in citizens towards being traced and their future destroyed hunts them when they talk about politics and the government. So in some circumstances, a hype is made by the citizens, it will be 'entertained' for a while then disappear. Though it is not the case all the time, all I can say is that you have to live it to know it
[Man, what drugs are you on? I want.]
Curate's Egg wrote:
Feb 13th 2010 7:45 GMT
danmaxkl/
Well, I've never been to Singapore, but if your major complaint about Singapore is that people are seen as 'units of production not human beings', then I think we can apply the same complaint to my good, cuddly Canada.
And Singapore's prosperity is not based on illusions like Dubai - Singapore has several assets that can truly back its economic standing. Strategic location, one of the biggest harbour in the world, a major trade entrepot, educated population - you name it.
Well, I've never been to Singapore, but if your major complaint about Singapore is that people are seen as 'units of production not human beings', then I think we can apply the same complaint to my good, cuddly Canada.
And Singapore's prosperity is not based on illusions like Dubai - Singapore has several assets that can truly back its economic standing. Strategic location, one of the biggest harbour in the world, a major trade entrepot, educated population - you name it.
sachichma wrote:
Feb 13th 2010 10:34 GMT
Why should Singapore follow the way. In many issues Singapore is a good example for encouragement, cultural equality. Little India and next to it Arab Street and China Town, while France introduced a burka-ban, prohibiting women dressed with it to enter public buildings. Switzerland banning the construction of minarets, Germany's social system in disarray, Greece bankrupt. If there is any place where something evolved out of the Commonwealth, created by it own people without help of human rights hippies and do-goodie NGO's, then it is Singapore.
Make Love not War wrote:
Feb 13th 2010 10:48 GMT
I am puzzled about the point of this article.
It sets out a remarkably well consiedered system of welfare / avoidance of welfare. And the couple of bleak points it has are being addressed by the government.
So what problem does The Economist see here?
As an European I would strongly advise EU governments (notably those in Greece and other PIIGS) to study the Singaporean model and follow it.
Another point I like about the Singaporean system (which The Economist strangely avoids to discuss) is that non-Singaporeans lose their right of residence and have to leave Singapore as soon as they lose their job. If Europe would have been wise enough to do likewise, there would be significantly fewer problems with largely welfare-dependent migrant communities that constitute an increasing drain on their host societies.
Finally, I am also confident that Singapore is not silly enough to offer asylum to anyone showing up at its doors the way Europe does it.
Well done Singapore! We may not like every detail of your system of government and society, but unlike European governments, the government of Singapore puts the well-being of its hardworking citizens above that of dole-loafers and foreigners.
It sets out a remarkably well consiedered system of welfare / avoidance of welfare. And the couple of bleak points it has are being addressed by the government.
So what problem does The Economist see here?
As an European I would strongly advise EU governments (notably those in Greece and other PIIGS) to study the Singaporean model and follow it.
Another point I like about the Singaporean system (which The Economist strangely avoids to discuss) is that non-Singaporeans lose their right of residence and have to leave Singapore as soon as they lose their job. If Europe would have been wise enough to do likewise, there would be significantly fewer problems with largely welfare-dependent migrant communities that constitute an increasing drain on their host societies.
Finally, I am also confident that Singapore is not silly enough to offer asylum to anyone showing up at its doors the way Europe does it.
Well done Singapore! We may not like every detail of your system of government and society, but unlike European governments, the government of Singapore puts the well-being of its hardworking citizens above that of dole-loafers and foreigners.
outsidethebox wrote:
Feb 14th 2010 1:34 GMT
What makes Singapore so different from the West is that when it achieved material success its strong (perhaps harsh at times) government did not allow it to become complacent. Its very existence and certainly continued success is an affront to every liberal in America and Europe. It gives the lie to every welfare state out there. And so, increasingly does China with every passing year.
Taddles wrote:
Feb 14th 2010 1:54 GMT
Just as strict, cane-in-hand schoolmasters are popular with parents, so is Singapore often lauded for harsh treatment of personal failings. Example: a woman who lost her credit card while moving house was liable for its misuse because it took her a few hours to report it missing. Fair?
[How is the credit card policy of commercial banks the fault of the Singapore Government?] The Singapore elite are protected, of course, by a pandering Press. Example: the Prime Minister's wife controls a State hedge fund that lost $50 billion but the media was voluminous in excusing her and she stayed in the job to this day. [SWF]
Singapore is hell for a non-privileged local and good for foreign capital. If only some of the other views expressed here could distinguish the two.
[How is the credit card policy of commercial banks the fault of the Singapore Government?] The Singapore elite are protected, of course, by a pandering Press. Example: the Prime Minister's wife controls a State hedge fund that lost $50 billion but the media was voluminous in excusing her and she stayed in the job to this day. [SWF]
Singapore is hell for a non-privileged local and good for foreign capital. If only some of the other views expressed here could distinguish the two.
Well Travelled For Real wrote:
Feb 14th 2010 2:39 GMT
I challenge the people living predominately in Europe, US and even in Asia all their lives, who only to stop over or frequent other countries, to uproot themselves and sink into another culture/country/system, before passing judgment of any kind. Most of the comments made are close to being classified as "Frogs in the a well" or rather "I see the horizons of the world with the limits of my vision". That is where disputes/war and may other unnecessary conflicts exists. Many comments are accurate..only in their home country, without truly understanding why certain systems are in place and how people feel and are comfortable. Nothing is perfect. But we all need to understand that we need to respect each other and never to expect others to be able to think/feel/express themselves the same way as we do. We are all brought up differently - value system, environment, religion etc. We need to forge a common goal of helping each other, creating synergy and developing one another's culture/systems. It's never who's better and never 'my success through the demise of others'. I have lived in Europe for 9 years, in North America for 7, Asia for 10. I have been educated in all 5 continents and have lifelong friend's all over. Let's put 'telling others what we know or believe' aside and start learning what others know and believe, to continue and learn and progress in this journey called 'life'. I am not the all knowing nor I am saying I am perfect but I will always remember this phase - "Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision as the limits of the world" and never to be that man.
outsidethebox wrote:
Feb 14th 2010 2:47 GMT
The per capita GDP of Singapore is a third higher than Germany - arguably the most economically successful nation in Europe. So who should be learning from whom here? Some of the accusations against Singapore here are just unreal. People there are just economic units (translation: they work harder than people in other places are willing to, even though they are economically successful). Or the one about unhappy teenagers. If Singapore is that much more successful than Europe now - try to imagine it in 10 or 20 years.
freedomresponsibility wrote:
Feb 14th 2010 3:48 GMT
@Make Love not War
"Another point I like about the Singaporean system... is that non-Singaporeans lose their right of residence and have to leave Singapore as soon as they lose their job."
I don't think that's a good thing at all. What does it matter if the person that works for you is a foreigner? Or to quote Deng Xiao Ping: "It doesn't matter if the cat is white or black so long as it catches the mouse." If they contributed to society's well-being just as much as any local they deserve equal rights and treatment.
"Singapore is not silly enough to offer asylum to anyone showing up at its doors...
If Europe would have been wise enough... there would be... fewer problems with... welfare-dependent migrant communities that constitute an increasing drain on their host societies."
Open borders isn't the problem. The problem is a perverse welfare state that penalizes work. These migrants wouldn't be such a drain if their welfare system wasn't so generous and the labor markets more open. Which is probably why the US doesn't have as big a problem with migrants draining state coffers.
"Another point I like about the Singaporean system... is that non-Singaporeans lose their right of residence and have to leave Singapore as soon as they lose their job."
I don't think that's a good thing at all. What does it matter if the person that works for you is a foreigner? Or to quote Deng Xiao Ping: "It doesn't matter if the cat is white or black so long as it catches the mouse." If they contributed to society's well-being just as much as any local they deserve equal rights and treatment.
"Singapore is not silly enough to offer asylum to anyone showing up at its doors...
If Europe would have been wise enough... there would be... fewer problems with... welfare-dependent migrant communities that constitute an increasing drain on their host societies."
Open borders isn't the problem. The problem is a perverse welfare state that penalizes work. These migrants wouldn't be such a drain if their welfare system wasn't so generous and the labor markets more open. Which is probably why the US doesn't have as big a problem with migrants draining state coffers.
quacko wrote:
Feb 14th 2010 3:55 GMT
David Hadden, when the entire media is controlled by the state, of course you only hear the good news. Singapore's unemployment figures combine permanent residents as well as citizens. PRs of course, will leave if they can't find a job. Also, people who are taking up training courses, or those who have taken too long finding a job, are left out of the equation. The lack of minimum wage means that many, many jobs pay exploitative wages far below living standards. Such jobs would not be allowed to exist in any country with a minimum wage. All these serve to suppress unemployment rates.
Please do take a proper visit to my country (not just what the government wants you to see) before you claim things like 'a proper criminal justice system' (of course there are no repeat drug traffickers, because all of them have been executed), 'almost no true poverty', 'low personal and sovereign debts'. A cultural of personal responsibility is what is pushed by the ruling party, except when it comes to their own actions.
I assure you many citizens, myself included, would be most happy to trade their citizenship for yours. If Singapore is so wonderful, why is the emigration rate one of the highest in the world?
Please do take a proper visit to my country (not just what the government wants you to see) before you claim things like 'a proper criminal justice system' (of course there are no repeat drug traffickers, because all of them have been executed), 'almost no true poverty', 'low personal and sovereign debts'. A cultural of personal responsibility is what is pushed by the ruling party, except when it comes to their own actions.
I assure you many citizens, myself included, would be most happy to trade their citizenship for yours. If Singapore is so wonderful, why is the emigration rate one of the highest in the world?
Jeff Dickey wrote:
Feb 14th 2010 6:24 GMT
I'd be willing to bet that essentially all the previous commenters praising fall into one of three groups:
1) Those who've never lived here, and rely extensively on PAP propaganda at first or second hand to form their opinions of the city;
2) Those foreigners who have been here, living the trendy expat lifestyle, raising the spending bar for those of us who happen to live here without piles of OPM at our disposal; and
3) Members of the 50%+ of the working population here, whose iron rice bowl is solidly welded to the Party or to Party-("Government-")linked companies.
What outsiders consistently fail to understand until they've lived here without the expat trimmings for a few years is that there is no meaningful difference between The Minister, the Party, and the Government. There is an excellent welfare scheme in place in Singapore — if you are a rich multinational corporation, or if you are somehow Connected to the powers-around-the-throne. The Singaporean ruling Party brags about its transparency, about how it tells people that it pays $3 million a year to a narcissistic old man whose only official job is "forecasting", and millions upon millions more to other loyal ministers. Forty percent of the minority of Singaporeans who are allowed to vote in elections vote Opposition, and yet every "elected" seat in Parliament is held by the ruling Party. ["Every Elected Seat... held by ruling Party"? Chiam See Tong and Low Thia Kiang are what? Chopped liver? Inaccuracy and hyperbole undermines credibility. It implies one is willing to fudge to make a point, and that makes the point suspect. As a "government-watcher" the writer should be aware of the features of a "first-past-the-post" election.] This Government-watcher has never seen the slightest bit of disharmony between the wishes of the dozen-plus Senior Ministers, the Prime Minister, and the above-Prime Minister on the one hand, and Parliamentary or bureaucratic establishments on the other. [In other government, such parliamentary excitement may sell newspapers, and provide fodder for public spectacle and speculation, but it never bodes well for the nation and the country. Taiwan's parliament puts the WWE to shame in terms of the shouting matches and the fisticuffs and the out and out brawling. Thailand with it's almost 20 coup d'etat since the 1960s, off and on military rule, an aged king was nevertheless finally on track to match Singapore's growth and progress when the military coup derailed the whole train. Indonesia is finally pulling together but there are still so many issues to resolve and so many problems to solve. Malaysia and the circus that is the 2nd Sodomy trial, Ministers that undermine and contradict each other, these are not signs of a strong stable government. Why would you want to wish that on us?] The Party (read: The Minister and friends) can afford to be transparent because they have systematically eliminated the possibility of effective resistance on the one hand, and the educational priorities that might lead to non-servile citizens on the other. And yet, when ill-advised but well-connected Connected individuals lose billions of taxpayer dollars, as with the S$58 billion loss (-31.35%) reported from Q1 2008 to Q1 2009, accountability does not match authority: no Connected heads roll. [If these loses came about while all about us, people were making money, that's incompetence. In a financial meltdown where banks are going bankrupt and value is lost by everyone, the question is not how much you lost, but how much you lost relative to other similar investors. The lack of comparative figures makes for a poor case.]
If this were North Korea or Cuba, some might not be so upset about this, but for a city that pretends to be "a little red dot" of a "country" having "the most stable democracy in the region", it's more than just a little bit hypocritical and self-serving. The Party compares Singapore to legitimate First World countries when it suits its purpose, as in the Potemkin-village shopping promenades for the wealthy; it switches the comparison to the third world at other times, such as when comparing the lowest economic classes and their treatment. The Minister's third propaganda "autobiography" was entitled "From Third World to First"; a local joke, told in whispers, is "well, we made it halfway, and we're taught to be content with our lot." And, like any similar country, self-censorship is a powerful force here, carefully stroked and nurtured; after all, many Bad Things can happen in life, and the ordinary person rarely has either recourse or sympathy from the well-trained public.
Not having a functioning social safety net is absolutely consistent with policy, as it would reduce the amount of money that those who lead the State have to play shell games with, and might make it somewhat problematic to give themselves raises and bonuses on schedule. This city does a lot of talking about the People, and in decades long past actually did a fair job of walking the talk, but the people who are best served by the Singaporean machine now are those who are most tightly plugged into it at the highest levels. Ordinary aunties and uncles, or those who are trying to get their children up the bizarrely competitive "educational" system here, are expected, in so many words, to "shut up and sit down." [This was from the AWARE saga and not something from the Govt. But this writer doesn't seem particularly fussy about where he gets his sound bite.] It's like the social and cultural lessons learned by humanity during the 20th century completely passed this city by — except to teach the rich more ways to make more money from anyone who was not born with a silver foot in his mouth.
1) Those who've never lived here, and rely extensively on PAP propaganda at first or second hand to form their opinions of the city;
2) Those foreigners who have been here, living the trendy expat lifestyle, raising the spending bar for those of us who happen to live here without piles of OPM at our disposal; and
3) Members of the 50%+ of the working population here, whose iron rice bowl is solidly welded to the Party or to Party-("Government-")linked companies.
What outsiders consistently fail to understand until they've lived here without the expat trimmings for a few years is that there is no meaningful difference between The Minister, the Party, and the Government. There is an excellent welfare scheme in place in Singapore — if you are a rich multinational corporation, or if you are somehow Connected to the powers-around-the-throne. The Singaporean ruling Party brags about its transparency, about how it tells people that it pays $3 million a year to a narcissistic old man whose only official job is "forecasting", and millions upon millions more to other loyal ministers. Forty percent of the minority of Singaporeans who are allowed to vote in elections vote Opposition, and yet every "elected" seat in Parliament is held by the ruling Party. ["Every Elected Seat... held by ruling Party"? Chiam See Tong and Low Thia Kiang are what? Chopped liver? Inaccuracy and hyperbole undermines credibility. It implies one is willing to fudge to make a point, and that makes the point suspect. As a "government-watcher" the writer should be aware of the features of a "first-past-the-post" election.] This Government-watcher has never seen the slightest bit of disharmony between the wishes of the dozen-plus Senior Ministers, the Prime Minister, and the above-Prime Minister on the one hand, and Parliamentary or bureaucratic establishments on the other. [In other government, such parliamentary excitement may sell newspapers, and provide fodder for public spectacle and speculation, but it never bodes well for the nation and the country. Taiwan's parliament puts the WWE to shame in terms of the shouting matches and the fisticuffs and the out and out brawling. Thailand with it's almost 20 coup d'etat since the 1960s, off and on military rule, an aged king was nevertheless finally on track to match Singapore's growth and progress when the military coup derailed the whole train. Indonesia is finally pulling together but there are still so many issues to resolve and so many problems to solve. Malaysia and the circus that is the 2nd Sodomy trial, Ministers that undermine and contradict each other, these are not signs of a strong stable government. Why would you want to wish that on us?] The Party (read: The Minister and friends) can afford to be transparent because they have systematically eliminated the possibility of effective resistance on the one hand, and the educational priorities that might lead to non-servile citizens on the other. And yet, when ill-advised but well-connected Connected individuals lose billions of taxpayer dollars, as with the S$58 billion loss (-31.35%) reported from Q1 2008 to Q1 2009, accountability does not match authority: no Connected heads roll. [If these loses came about while all about us, people were making money, that's incompetence. In a financial meltdown where banks are going bankrupt and value is lost by everyone, the question is not how much you lost, but how much you lost relative to other similar investors. The lack of comparative figures makes for a poor case.]
If this were North Korea or Cuba, some might not be so upset about this, but for a city that pretends to be "a little red dot" of a "country" having "the most stable democracy in the region", it's more than just a little bit hypocritical and self-serving. The Party compares Singapore to legitimate First World countries when it suits its purpose, as in the Potemkin-village shopping promenades for the wealthy; it switches the comparison to the third world at other times, such as when comparing the lowest economic classes and their treatment. The Minister's third propaganda "autobiography" was entitled "From Third World to First"; a local joke, told in whispers, is "well, we made it halfway, and we're taught to be content with our lot." And, like any similar country, self-censorship is a powerful force here, carefully stroked and nurtured; after all, many Bad Things can happen in life, and the ordinary person rarely has either recourse or sympathy from the well-trained public.
Not having a functioning social safety net is absolutely consistent with policy, as it would reduce the amount of money that those who lead the State have to play shell games with, and might make it somewhat problematic to give themselves raises and bonuses on schedule. This city does a lot of talking about the People, and in decades long past actually did a fair job of walking the talk, but the people who are best served by the Singaporean machine now are those who are most tightly plugged into it at the highest levels. Ordinary aunties and uncles, or those who are trying to get their children up the bizarrely competitive "educational" system here, are expected, in so many words, to "shut up and sit down." [This was from the AWARE saga and not something from the Govt. But this writer doesn't seem particularly fussy about where he gets his sound bite.] It's like the social and cultural lessons learned by humanity during the 20th century completely passed this city by — except to teach the rich more ways to make more money from anyone who was not born with a silver foot in his mouth.
culturewhiz wrote:
Feb 14th 2010 6:29 GMT
I agree with Izan that "Singaporeans got to come first. Provide them with such jobs before offering the jobs to foreigners." It's unthinkable that the government is so indifferent to the needs of its citizens...
McGenius wrote:
Feb 14th 2010 6:56 GMT
This may be naive but, don't Singaporeans donate to charity? Yes, I understand the government doesn't tax and spend but aren't there churches or other non-profit organizations that exist to take care of the needy? In the US the uber-wealthy were responsible for the big foundations that helped people, do the uber-wealthy in Singapore not do the same?
ObsTheTimes wrote:
Feb 14th 2010 7:18 GMT
Work is a privilege that you strive to attain. Its life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not life, liberty and a perennial free check.Government does not owe you a job or benefits in lieu of one. Singaporeans have the proper life ethics and values. The west will choose to impose its intellectual spin on a country that has gotten it right. Nothing is off limits for us to pontificate upon, even how foreigners choose to spend their hard earned money. Hopefully, rich singapore that leads the world on most metrics of human health and achievement, will keep its thrifty welfare system and for their own good, not reward slothful citizens. We in the US continue to let our politicians indulge in populist policies and further degrade and spoil our workers; just to win elections. Families have to be supported, but enough of generous no strings attached monthly checks that you only need to walk to your mailbox for, and then spend whichever way you want. At the restaurant or mall. Recently, jobless benefits were extended to 96 weeks!. If the state gives you free money, then it should get some say in how you should spend it. Liberals decry the lack of work. Barring the current recession, there are and will be plenty of jobs!, but unfortunately, a third of the workforce lacks 21 century work skills or doesn't want to work in factories. Everyone want to be a movie or sports star.Shouldn't the government administer tough love by trying to nudge its people to better themselves, instead of just giving them one lollipop after another?
happyfish18 wrote:
Feb 14th 2010 8:06 GMT
Indeed the nanny state needs not be so stingy in helping the poors and needy. The Dragon Lady is now back at the helm after her "Foreign Talents" at Tumasek had burn't off over 50 billion buying out troubled assets during the Credit crisis of US. In fact, Singapore's troubles from the buying spree has not ended there as the other government investment agency, GIC also announced it had lost tens of billion in investments in NY real estate and the troubled Swiss banking giant UBS. Indeed Tim Geithners aptly said to the Singaporean Foreign Talented investors is that "What is your Pain is also our Gain."
aditya jain wrote:
Feb 14th 2010 9:25 GMT
Laziness is frowned upon here. People in the US make fun of you if work too hard. If you are seen as studying too much, people will call you a nerd and tell you to get a life. Here it’s the opposite. If you don’t work hard enough, you will be labeled a ‘slacker’.
While Singapore has done well economically, it has not solved the problem of distribution. If the system just continues to serve the rich, and does not take care of those who are in need, there will be a point where protests will begin. It is in the interest of the government to take care of the needy, because if it does not, the passive resentment of the citizens will cease to be passive.
While Singapore has done well economically, it has not solved the problem of distribution. If the system just continues to serve the rich, and does not take care of those who are in need, there will be a point where protests will begin. It is in the interest of the government to take care of the needy, because if it does not, the passive resentment of the citizens will cease to be passive.
neutrino123 wrote:
Feb 14th 2010 12:51 GMT
Let's stick to the topic, talk about welfare, and related issue. Many believe Singapore's government can do more in handouts, but who's paying? Welfare, social securities offered by government came from tax, or debts, depends on what country you're from. If welfare's a dirty word in Singapore, tax's the word else where. It's a matter of choice, do you want high tax and a welfare state or low tax and welfare shortage. I personally prefer the Singapore model, where i get to choose how much to save and how much to spend, not just pay tax and hope my dear government will come to the rescue in time of needs. Instead of paying tax to supporting someone's parents, I'm paying to support my own. Many have brought in GDP per capita into this argument, what about the short coming in using it to measure wealth? It's conveniently left out, just those Singaporean who complain about welfare have left out how to fund those welfare program they desire. It's easy to make demand and promises, fulfillment the issue here, a rise in 10% tax to fund welfare program, next event in the line is another outcry, this time not from those welfare seekers but tax payers.
Johan Sterk wrote:
Feb 14th 2010 1:17 GMT
Singapore's Economic national economic development strategy was modelled after that of The Netherlands' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Winsemius), except for collective insurances providing its inhabitants a safety net. I wonder whether its social mobility and patents per capita now beats that of its model. I think not, nor is its unemployment less then that of The Netherlands. The same holds true for the US. Disinvestment in people does not yield prosperity.
UtarEmpire wrote:
Feb 14th 2010 1:43 GMT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T463nFtg3tg
Here are some examples of the useless louts in Singapore who just need to get off their rears and find work. We don't want scum like these leeching off of a welfare system, do we?
Here are some examples of the useless louts in Singapore who just need to get off their rears and find work. We don't want scum like these leeching off of a welfare system, do we?
WorkingMan wrote:
Feb 14th 2010 3:57 GMT
UtarEmpire,
Seems to me the video you posted provides all the evidence anyone needs to come to the conclusion that Singapore lacks - and desperately needs - a proper welfare system. It also seems to me most of the people in the video were working - for a pittance. So for you to call them "useless louts" and "scum" is plainly quite offensive.
Seems to me the video you posted provides all the evidence anyone needs to come to the conclusion that Singapore lacks - and desperately needs - a proper welfare system. It also seems to me most of the people in the video were working - for a pittance. So for you to call them "useless louts" and "scum" is plainly quite offensive.
danmaxkl wrote:
Feb 14th 2010 4:37 GMT
For all you fans of super Singapore,it appears that A. You live in the bubble and thus are force fed state controlled media output via the resident mouthpiece "Channel News Asia" or B.You have a misguided notion of a SE Asian utopia/Shangri La where every body walks around free from the fear of crime,unemployment and all the other potential social maladies that affect other less well run countries. From a business point of view Singapore is an utopia; it has a disciplined work force and low taxes. That said however,it has NO soul. I know several Singaporeans who are very unhappy and whose marriages are all but over due to pressure and the alienation between family members that living to work creates within households. There is more to life than GDP. Singapore wants to replace Hong Kong as the regional Financial hub but I doubt that will ever happen. What makes HKG so great is that it has a real democracy, despite it being of China.
danmaxkl wrote:
Feb 14th 2010 4:41 GMT
Relative to the size and population of Singapore it has quite a high unemployment rate.If it wants to be considered a developed nation ,then it will have to implement certain social programs that developed nations have or else it will never really be accepted to that club it so desperately wants to join. [Singapore does not want to join any club. Those club requires one to have stupid rules like Welfarism, and Strikes, and Demonstrations. And unemployment rate is a rate. It takes into account the size of the population. The first line is meaningless without explanation.]
tri400 wrote:
Feb 14th 2010 4:42 GMT
"The casinos, which open on February 14th, have already helped reduce unemployment"
That's totally false. Casinos don't invent or produce anything of value to society. [Irrelevant and non sequitur. Casinos create jobs and reduce unemployment. There was no claims that they invent things or produce value. Strawman argument. Logic failure.] They only cause misery and pain to a lot of people.
That's totally false. Casinos don't invent or produce anything of value to society. [Irrelevant and non sequitur. Casinos create jobs and reduce unemployment. There was no claims that they invent things or produce value. Strawman argument. Logic failure.] They only cause misery and pain to a lot of people.
danmaxkl wrote:
Feb 14th 2010 4:49 GMT
neutrino- count yourself lucky you live in a country with only 4 million people. That's the trouble ,Singaporeans as well as being taught how to be productive automatons ,there is a case for them to be taught civil and social responsibilty. I don't see the German's,Dutch or Scandinavians having a problem with their high taxes and the average citizen in all those countries live very well. In Singapore you get to live very well if you earn a lot of money . You need to travel and live abroad to see how other countries with successful innovation and knowledge based economies do it .. it's called equitable wealth distribution. Where are your Confucian ideals?
danmaxkl wrote:
Feb 14th 2010 4:55 GMT
Some of the comments on here sound like they are coming from Singaporeans,who no doubt live in that bubble called Singapore. Tell you what guys!! Take a trip to some northern European countries and see how it's done. [Sorry. I can't afford to go to Europe. I hear coffee costs $20. I have to pay the coffee shop enough so he can pay his high taxes.] Better still, go to Japan.. Now you could learn a thing or two there about equitable wealth distribution. [Another expensive place. Why are all the countries with equitable wealth distribution so expensive?] Singapore is like a former 3rd world country that has suddenly struck it rich and the elites want to hoard everything for themselves. Typical in 'developing' countries.
danmaxkl wrote:
Feb 14th 2010 5:03 GMT
quacko you are an amazing man and I hear everything you say. I'm a Brit who lives and works in KL . I travel often to Singapore for the day and sometimes overnight and I know a fair bit about that place. As I mentioned in a previous post,Channel News Asia force feeds propaganda to any one unlucky enough to have to stay over in hotels there . It's very hard to even get Al Jazeera in your hotel as its style of reporting and exposing things is not what the ruling elite want to have people watch. It's worse than China because it is a pretend state. China at least admits that it is socialist
Erik Nikolai wrote:
Feb 14th 2010 6:43 GMT
This article reinforces my high esteem for Singapore. Europe and the United States would be well-advised to emulate it. No wonder my favorite investor, Jim Rogers, decided to relocate his family there.
I look forward to moving to Singapore in a few years, as I get a bad conscience by being productive here in Europe – I don't want my hard work to support socialist governments.
I look forward to moving to Singapore in a few years, as I get a bad conscience by being productive here in Europe – I don't want my hard work to support socialist governments.
Johan Sterk wrote:
Feb 14th 2010 7:09 GMT
UtarEmpire wrote:"Here are some examples of the useless louts in Singapore who just need to get off their rears and find work. We don't want scum like these leeching off of a welfare system, do we?"
It's quite shocking to learn that citizens from so called Christian Nations have become so devoid of empathy and civilization to call the elderly and mentally ill 'useless louts'. Are you in favour of the final solution too?
It's quite shocking to learn that citizens from so called Christian Nations have become so devoid of empathy and civilization to call the elderly and mentally ill 'useless louts'. Are you in favour of the final solution too?
Johan Sterk wrote:
Feb 14th 2010 7:16 GMT
Erik Nikolai wrote: "I look forward to moving to Singapore in a few years, as I get a bad conscience by being productive here in Europe – I don't want my hard work to support socialist governments."
Remember not to return if you can't help yourself any more and depend on the compassion of others.
Remember not to return if you can't help yourself any more and depend on the compassion of others.
Johan Sterk wrote:
Feb 14th 2010 7:49 GMT
David Hadden would you be able to differentiate between different European countries? Without it your statements are just meaningless clichés because their truth values depends on the country you talk about.
Econoducationist wrote:
Feb 14th 2010 10:36 GMT
Well, most have given more credit to the Singapore government than is due.
Here one key performance indicator for all to ponder : You take the latest published annual financial reports of its two sovereign wealth funds (Temasek, and GIC) . Then take its reported accumulated losses ( which is above the iceberg) divided over its 3 million citizens and it shows about US$ 80,000 loss per head !.
Does anyone realise this number far exceeds the existing per capita debt of USA, or Greece or Spain or Dubai !. And this is not even including any hidden loss below the Singapore iceberg !.
Here one key performance indicator for all to ponder : You take the latest published annual financial reports of its two sovereign wealth funds (Temasek, and GIC) . Then take its reported accumulated losses ( which is above the iceberg) divided over its 3 million citizens and it shows about US$ 80,000 loss per head !.
Does anyone realise this number far exceeds the existing per capita debt of USA, or Greece or Spain or Dubai !. And this is not even including any hidden loss below the Singapore iceberg !.
JShell wrote:
Feb 14th 2010 10:55 GMT
I feel like I learned as much (or more) from the range of comments than I did from the article. Thanks both to the Economist, and the commenters.
Family is an interesting puzzle piece not mentioned often in the West . . . but how many families save enough to really be their own safety net? Especially if they're at the bottom of the economic ladder? Class issues run deep, whether its in the US, Europe, or Asia. Unlocking creativity for a growth-oriented meritocracy seems like the best way that those problems can be transformed, and those systems redeemed (if that's even possible).
Family is an interesting puzzle piece not mentioned often in the West . . . but how many families save enough to really be their own safety net? Especially if they're at the bottom of the economic ladder? Class issues run deep, whether its in the US, Europe, or Asia. Unlocking creativity for a growth-oriented meritocracy seems like the best way that those problems can be transformed, and those systems redeemed (if that's even possible).
Make Love not War wrote:
Feb 14th 2010 11:29 GMT
@Erik Nikolai
I still dont think that Singapore is a good place to live, yet. When visiting, I noticed that people were scared to speak their minds, not just regarding politics but in many areas of life. Relative to Western societies this is definitely a step in the wrong direction.
[Scared to speak their minds to you? Were you wearing a white shirt and white trousers? Singaporeans only talk about food, money, cars, soccer, and property prices. They complain about ERP, property prices, foreign workers, foreigners, crowded buses and train, and waitresses who can't speak English. If you were lucky enough to meet some taciturn Singaporeans, consider it your lucky day.]
What we need is some kind of hybrid model. "Democracy" as it is lved in the West has failed, as we all now painfully witness. It has been hijacked by special interests, and regular, hard-working folk are systematically being taken advantage of.
Singapore is too rigid in curtailing personal freedoms, on the other hand, and not democratic at all.
Somewhere in-between would be good. I think a "weighted" form of democratic vote might be in order. E.g. people who pay high taxes, or have advanced, recognized academic degrees get more than one vote. People on welfare, maybe just half a vote. That way power would be shifted to those who carry society without excluding weaker contributors altogether.
Btw, for any fool believing in one-man-one-vote pls note: e.g in EU elections, a German voter carries about 80times less weight than one from Malta, although obviously the German voter is contributing much more to the EU on average. Indeed a German vote has within the EU the least weight of all nationalities.
[Democracy is a red herring. Democracy is a process, not an end in itself. Singapore had 3 Singapore Idol (local version of American Idol) in the last few years. All three times, the winner was a young male Malay. Now it might well be that the Malays are incredibly talented musically, and none can hold a candle to them. But the suspicion was that only the Malay community bothered to vote and they voted for their favourite son. By no means am I saying that the voting in Singapore Idol was a model of democracy, but there are similarities. In many elections for government or other positions, popularity, charisma, and group identification counts. More than competence, skills, and aptitude. Democracy is a way of choosing leaders based on popularity. So winners of Singapore Idols are the most popular by sms voting on the night of the finals. But can they sing? The reality is that some runner-ups have better recording contracts and musical careers than the winners after the Idol competition.
Selection of leaders should not be a popularity contest. So you can see that some of the PAP candidates have the personality of damp dishtowels compared to the flashy and flamboyant opposition. But the PAP candidates are competent.
I still dont think that Singapore is a good place to live, yet. When visiting, I noticed that people were scared to speak their minds, not just regarding politics but in many areas of life. Relative to Western societies this is definitely a step in the wrong direction.
[Scared to speak their minds to you? Were you wearing a white shirt and white trousers? Singaporeans only talk about food, money, cars, soccer, and property prices. They complain about ERP, property prices, foreign workers, foreigners, crowded buses and train, and waitresses who can't speak English. If you were lucky enough to meet some taciturn Singaporeans, consider it your lucky day.]
What we need is some kind of hybrid model. "Democracy" as it is lved in the West has failed, as we all now painfully witness. It has been hijacked by special interests, and regular, hard-working folk are systematically being taken advantage of.
Singapore is too rigid in curtailing personal freedoms, on the other hand, and not democratic at all.
Somewhere in-between would be good. I think a "weighted" form of democratic vote might be in order. E.g. people who pay high taxes, or have advanced, recognized academic degrees get more than one vote. People on welfare, maybe just half a vote. That way power would be shifted to those who carry society without excluding weaker contributors altogether.
Btw, for any fool believing in one-man-one-vote pls note: e.g in EU elections, a German voter carries about 80times less weight than one from Malta, although obviously the German voter is contributing much more to the EU on average. Indeed a German vote has within the EU the least weight of all nationalities.
[Democracy is a red herring. Democracy is a process, not an end in itself. Singapore had 3 Singapore Idol (local version of American Idol) in the last few years. All three times, the winner was a young male Malay. Now it might well be that the Malays are incredibly talented musically, and none can hold a candle to them. But the suspicion was that only the Malay community bothered to vote and they voted for their favourite son. By no means am I saying that the voting in Singapore Idol was a model of democracy, but there are similarities. In many elections for government or other positions, popularity, charisma, and group identification counts. More than competence, skills, and aptitude. Democracy is a way of choosing leaders based on popularity. So winners of Singapore Idols are the most popular by sms voting on the night of the finals. But can they sing? The reality is that some runner-ups have better recording contracts and musical careers than the winners after the Idol competition.
Selection of leaders should not be a popularity contest. So you can see that some of the PAP candidates have the personality of damp dishtowels compared to the flashy and flamboyant opposition. But the PAP candidates are competent.
Singapore succeeds because our leaders, our government are not populists. Yes they know they have to win elections, but they also know that elections is once every 3 to 5 years, but governing is everyday and about looking beyond the horizon.
The problem with Democracy is that over time, it draws out the charismatic, the populist, the charmers, the showman, the Man of the People. There is nothing wrong with these if they were competent, and knew what they were doing. But we get people like Bush.
And the US Presidential Elections now spends US$1b to choose their president. Candidates blows millions of dollars for a chance to win a post that pays US $200,000 a year, if I understand correctly. Heck, even if they get paid what a Singapore Minister is paid, their campaign expenditure exceeds their entire salary within their term of office by a factor of several hundred. And that tells me something about the value of position (as valued by the campaign contributors) as well as the relative value of the democratic process compared to other pressing issues. People would rather throw money in an election campaign than to channel that money to say helping the homeless or funding schools, or providing healthcare for the low income. The democratic process as practised in the US, is wasteful and perhaps even irrelevant.]
The problem with Democracy is that over time, it draws out the charismatic, the populist, the charmers, the showman, the Man of the People. There is nothing wrong with these if they were competent, and knew what they were doing. But we get people like Bush.
And the US Presidential Elections now spends US$1b to choose their president. Candidates blows millions of dollars for a chance to win a post that pays US $200,000 a year, if I understand correctly. Heck, even if they get paid what a Singapore Minister is paid, their campaign expenditure exceeds their entire salary within their term of office by a factor of several hundred. And that tells me something about the value of position (as valued by the campaign contributors) as well as the relative value of the democratic process compared to other pressing issues. People would rather throw money in an election campaign than to channel that money to say helping the homeless or funding schools, or providing healthcare for the low income. The democratic process as practised in the US, is wasteful and perhaps even irrelevant.]
Erik Nikolai wrote:
Feb 15th 2010 1:03 GMT
@Johan Sterk wrote "Remember not to return if you can't help yourself any more and depend on the compassion of others."
People aren't being compassionate under a socialist government. Their property is being redistributed automatically, through coercion. This denies people the feeling of good will which they would have gotten if they had chosen to donate their money voluntarily. Under socialism, voluntary charity (the only true type of charity) is replaced by the cold hands of the state.
Charity and good will tends to blossom in more libertarian, free market societies. Historically, The United States has been the best example of this.
People aren't being compassionate under a socialist government. Their property is being redistributed automatically, through coercion. This denies people the feeling of good will which they would have gotten if they had chosen to donate their money voluntarily. Under socialism, voluntary charity (the only true type of charity) is replaced by the cold hands of the state.
Charity and good will tends to blossom in more libertarian, free market societies. Historically, The United States has been the best example of this.
outsidethebox wrote:
Feb 15th 2010 1:17 GMT
Should one believe that Singapore can be a very stressful, difficult place to live because it is so competitive? I'm pretty sure it is. Sadly, in the real world, it is that stress and competitiveness that leads to economic success. It has been alluded to here that there is much more to life than per capita GDP. That's so true. There are obviously many who would choose a more comfortable, less "nose to the grindstone" sort of life. It is hard to believe that the Singapore government is going to offer that choice to its people however. They are going to be condemned to ever higher levels of achievement while Europe slips to relative 3rd world status.
bismarck111 wrote:
Feb 15th 2010 1:34 GMT
I am all for the attitude towards welfare. However this statement strikes me as insensitive
"In an interview given to National Geographic last July he said that if native Singaporeans lag behind “hungry” foreigners because “the spurs are not stuck on [their] hinds”, that is not the state’s problem to solve."
Priority should be Singaporeans citizens first. I would like to ask LKY would the average foreigner be hungry enough to work in Singapore if he was required to spend two years slogging through the jungles of SEA.
Singaporean male citizen spend two years of their life and the possibility of being maimed or killed in training just so their jobs can be taken by foreigners. For NS he is called up 2 weeks to one month every year for reserve training often at the drop of a hat. Would an American programmer tolerate it if he was forced to go to Iraq and return after two years to have his job filled in by an Indian on a H1B Visa? And then to rub it in have Obama say "Thank you for risking life and limb, but you weren't cheap enough"
Many young Singaporeans are leaving in droves because there is no benefit to being Singaporean, particularly if you are male. its so easy for companies to fill a substantial amount of positions with foreigners. . The only positions reserved for Singaporeans are clerical staff and secretaries because they don't fall under the work permit or employment pass. Everything else is open season. The Department of Manpower grants employment passes in record time. I have seen cases where they grant them in 1-2 days.
To those commentators here who say that Singaporeans are drones I disagree and agree. They are drones not because they of the political, social or education system, but because of economics. For those who say that not having a welfare system would help people gets people off their butts. It does, but it does not motivate people. The Singaporean government is concerned, because drones do not become entrepreneurs. The Singaporean government has tried tried many schemes - attracting multinational companies, foreign talent, making the education system more creative another. Taiwan is very much like Singapore, its Chinese, has military service, but produces entrepreneurs by the truckload. The main reason is the pay scales of civil servants creates alot of incentives for bright people to become civil servants.
"In an interview given to National Geographic last July he said that if native Singaporeans lag behind “hungry” foreigners because “the spurs are not stuck on [their] hinds”, that is not the state’s problem to solve."
Priority should be Singaporeans citizens first. I would like to ask LKY would the average foreigner be hungry enough to work in Singapore if he was required to spend two years slogging through the jungles of SEA.
Singaporean male citizen spend two years of their life and the possibility of being maimed or killed in training just so their jobs can be taken by foreigners. For NS he is called up 2 weeks to one month every year for reserve training often at the drop of a hat. Would an American programmer tolerate it if he was forced to go to Iraq and return after two years to have his job filled in by an Indian on a H1B Visa? And then to rub it in have Obama say "Thank you for risking life and limb, but you weren't cheap enough"
Many young Singaporeans are leaving in droves because there is no benefit to being Singaporean, particularly if you are male. its so easy for companies to fill a substantial amount of positions with foreigners. . The only positions reserved for Singaporeans are clerical staff and secretaries because they don't fall under the work permit or employment pass. Everything else is open season. The Department of Manpower grants employment passes in record time. I have seen cases where they grant them in 1-2 days.
To those commentators here who say that Singaporeans are drones I disagree and agree. They are drones not because they of the political, social or education system, but because of economics. For those who say that not having a welfare system would help people gets people off their butts. It does, but it does not motivate people. The Singaporean government is concerned, because drones do not become entrepreneurs. The Singaporean government has tried tried many schemes - attracting multinational companies, foreign talent, making the education system more creative another. Taiwan is very much like Singapore, its Chinese, has military service, but produces entrepreneurs by the truckload. The main reason is the pay scales of civil servants creates alot of incentives for bright people to become civil servants.
Carlos Collaco wrote:
Feb 15th 2010 2:39 GMT
I've not been there myself but have read or heard about Singapore since my early years.
The insight I got added up to a largely positive picture of a small yet economically proportionately outsized city-State.
The very fact so much is heard of and spoken about on Singapore reveals a success story on most counts from the flagship airline to the cleanliness of the city's streets.
No small achievement over decades of strict rules and hard work as laid out by an autocratic leadership no doubt.
On balance, strong purposeful government has served Singapore and its citizens right.
It has been a home-grown model to suit a mixed population of around 5m living on less than 700 square km.
Also, there are local components to the territory's history that played an important part as to how it evolved.
I would not like to compare the beginnings, growth and implementation of Europe's, or the US's, or Canada's welfare systems to that of Singapore.
Social, economic, philosophical and political backgrounds are quite different at root which would render any conclusions underwhelming.
Nor would I be drawn into general discussions on institutionalised laziness and waste without going through relevant data first.
However, I am in no doubt that many countries in the West, including my own, should indeed look into some of the remarkable 'top-marks' Singapore has obtained by dint of its 'harsh' ways.
Not necessarily to emulate but to improve existing systems here aiming to achieve greater efficiency by developing the concept of purpose.
The welfare State as we've known it in advanced democracies was a major development in societies that embraced it measuredly.
The very concept is now increasingly questioned not for in-built flaws that likely developed.Rather it is the ageing populations and the wild economic globalisation pitching against each other countries with entirely diverging cost-structures that is a threat.
This has spawned very hard questions as to how to keep such systems self-sustaining in the future.
It would be oversimplistic to condemn Europe's cherished welfare State while overstating the pluses of Singapore's restrained model.
I strongly believe we can learn from each other.
The insight I got added up to a largely positive picture of a small yet economically proportionately outsized city-State.
The very fact so much is heard of and spoken about on Singapore reveals a success story on most counts from the flagship airline to the cleanliness of the city's streets.
No small achievement over decades of strict rules and hard work as laid out by an autocratic leadership no doubt.
On balance, strong purposeful government has served Singapore and its citizens right.
It has been a home-grown model to suit a mixed population of around 5m living on less than 700 square km.
Also, there are local components to the territory's history that played an important part as to how it evolved.
I would not like to compare the beginnings, growth and implementation of Europe's, or the US's, or Canada's welfare systems to that of Singapore.
Social, economic, philosophical and political backgrounds are quite different at root which would render any conclusions underwhelming.
Nor would I be drawn into general discussions on institutionalised laziness and waste without going through relevant data first.
However, I am in no doubt that many countries in the West, including my own, should indeed look into some of the remarkable 'top-marks' Singapore has obtained by dint of its 'harsh' ways.
Not necessarily to emulate but to improve existing systems here aiming to achieve greater efficiency by developing the concept of purpose.
The welfare State as we've known it in advanced democracies was a major development in societies that embraced it measuredly.
The very concept is now increasingly questioned not for in-built flaws that likely developed.Rather it is the ageing populations and the wild economic globalisation pitching against each other countries with entirely diverging cost-structures that is a threat.
This has spawned very hard questions as to how to keep such systems self-sustaining in the future.
It would be oversimplistic to condemn Europe's cherished welfare State while overstating the pluses of Singapore's restrained model.
I strongly believe we can learn from each other.
neutrino123 wrote:
Feb 15th 2010 4:44 GMT
Danmaxkl, you have bring in social responsibility, what about personal responsibility? If both of us earn the same income, i save for retirement, you indulge yourselves, at our retirement I'm well off, you're on welfare, it would be fair, if you only get minimum from welfare, I have suffer during working years and enjoy during retirement years, you have enjoy during working years and suffer during retirement years. Take note in retirement, I'm moving from a lower to a higher budget, where yours the reverse, who would be better off, and for the record, I don't belong to high income group. It's all back to my first post, would rather let big brother plan for you, or you plan for yourselves?
There will always be free raider, or tragedy of the common, if you're generous about welfare, it's inevitable. Life is about choices, I'm moving forward, upgrading myself to live a better life, you can stay there wait for handout, but if welfare system change, I'll open the flood gate, flush out my reserve, enjoy myself, if you're cheating, let's cheat together.
Equitable wealth distribution you seek exists in communism, does it work? Most thinkers have ignore the fact that rich and poor belong together, a world without poor, is a world without rich, we are just normal. We can never cure poverty, when everyone is feed, they will demand more, it's human, Maslow's hierarchy of needs, when will it ever end?
There will always be free raider, or tragedy of the common, if you're generous about welfare, it's inevitable. Life is about choices, I'm moving forward, upgrading myself to live a better life, you can stay there wait for handout, but if welfare system change, I'll open the flood gate, flush out my reserve, enjoy myself, if you're cheating, let's cheat together.
Equitable wealth distribution you seek exists in communism, does it work? Most thinkers have ignore the fact that rich and poor belong together, a world without poor, is a world without rich, we are just normal. We can never cure poverty, when everyone is feed, they will demand more, it's human, Maslow's hierarchy of needs, when will it ever end?
OMFG wrote:
Feb 15th 2010 5:09 GMT
I'm a Singaporean and have lived Hong Kong, China and Europe. Let me tell you what is wrong with Singapore - in recent years the govt has been too liberal with letting in foreign cheap labor just like Dubai.As a result it has led to a degradation of quality of life.
We now have service staff in retail that can barely speak English the main lingua franca in Singapore. There are severe overcrowding in public places,trains, buses, etc. Public security has also dropped as there are now more prostitution, gambling, hawking of unlicensed foods and formation of foreigner's enclaves in low rental areas.
Public housing price has gone thru' the roof despite the deep recession as newly minted permanent residents are buying and renting houses and syndicates were able to corner the market - making public housing unaffordable to young couples planning to get married. To make matter worse liberal entry of cheap foreign labor has severely depressed the salary of blue-collar work - making many technical work unattractive for local workers. Worker's productivity has dived because no employer want to invest in new equipment and training due to the easy availability of cheap labor.
Singaporeans being of migrant stock welcome skilled professionals who can contribute to their society and economy to work there - but the PAP govt has gone too far with their liberal foreign labor policy. Now there is call by Singaporeans to replace our ineffective ministers and union leaders with foreign talent as well - just like what we have done with institutions like DBS Bank and NOL\APL shipping line.
[I really believe this person is a Singaporean. He complains like one.]We now have service staff in retail that can barely speak English the main lingua franca in Singapore. There are severe overcrowding in public places,trains, buses, etc. Public security has also dropped as there are now more prostitution, gambling, hawking of unlicensed foods and formation of foreigner's enclaves in low rental areas.
Public housing price has gone thru' the roof despite the deep recession as newly minted permanent residents are buying and renting houses and syndicates were able to corner the market - making public housing unaffordable to young couples planning to get married. To make matter worse liberal entry of cheap foreign labor has severely depressed the salary of blue-collar work - making many technical work unattractive for local workers. Worker's productivity has dived because no employer want to invest in new equipment and training due to the easy availability of cheap labor.
Singaporeans being of migrant stock welcome skilled professionals who can contribute to their society and economy to work there - but the PAP govt has gone too far with their liberal foreign labor policy. Now there is call by Singaporeans to replace our ineffective ministers and union leaders with foreign talent as well - just like what we have done with institutions like DBS Bank and NOL\APL shipping line.
Econoducationist wrote:
Feb 15th 2010 5:24 GMT
Another reason why Singapore's emigraton rate is still the world's highest among all 1st and 2nd world nation states ( leading to one writer to have written that the city states most talented people are leaving in "drones") is because until today there is no social security laws in Singapore to protect workers rights.
In fact this serves as an underhanded means how Singapore had attracted and continue to attract foreign investment which is at odds with its leader's claim of it being a first world nation.
For example, compared to Singapore's nearest neigbhour Malaysia which both were ruled as one territory by the British before , the workers protection laws in Singapore until today have not changed a bit since it was last legislated as the Employment Act in the 1960s to attract the first wave of investors 40 years ago.
[Yet strangely it is the Malaysians that come over to work in Singapore! With its poor workers' rights and lack of social security! The evil Singapore government has not only managed to hoodwink the Singaporeans... BUT ALSO THE MALAYSIANS!!!! Oh the inhumanity!!!]
The British started workers "Provident funds" system in the 1950s in both Singapore and Malaysia to legalise compulsory monthly compulsory savings from wages earners cashable at age 55 for retirement.
In addition to this Employee provident fund , Malaysia's parliamentary government also also passed the Social Security Act shortly after ceasing to be a British colony which make employee redundancy payment a compulsory feature of worker protection today in Malaysia whereas Singapore's ruling party has chosen to turn a blind eye on its citizens welfare to this very day.
As a result , any employee can be legally and easily terminated by any employer after many years of service at the mercy of any employer in Singapore. So this is in reality how Singapore goverment markets iself investor-attractive and investor friendly for quick economic gains at the long term hidden expense of its citizens workers.
So do you still want to come to Singapore to work ? Yes if you are looking at short term gains but no if you are looking at long term right ? So this emplains why Singapore is becoming more like a hotel or corporation and its own natives who have global market values have good reasons to leave from the place in drones.
In fact this serves as an underhanded means how Singapore had attracted and continue to attract foreign investment which is at odds with its leader's claim of it being a first world nation.
For example, compared to Singapore's nearest neigbhour Malaysia which both were ruled as one territory by the British before , the workers protection laws in Singapore until today have not changed a bit since it was last legislated as the Employment Act in the 1960s to attract the first wave of investors 40 years ago.
[Yet strangely it is the Malaysians that come over to work in Singapore! With its poor workers' rights and lack of social security! The evil Singapore government has not only managed to hoodwink the Singaporeans... BUT ALSO THE MALAYSIANS!!!! Oh the inhumanity!!!]
The British started workers "Provident funds" system in the 1950s in both Singapore and Malaysia to legalise compulsory monthly compulsory savings from wages earners cashable at age 55 for retirement.
In addition to this Employee provident fund , Malaysia's parliamentary government also also passed the Social Security Act shortly after ceasing to be a British colony which make employee redundancy payment a compulsory feature of worker protection today in Malaysia whereas Singapore's ruling party has chosen to turn a blind eye on its citizens welfare to this very day.
As a result , any employee can be legally and easily terminated by any employer after many years of service at the mercy of any employer in Singapore. So this is in reality how Singapore goverment markets iself investor-attractive and investor friendly for quick economic gains at the long term hidden expense of its citizens workers.
So do you still want to come to Singapore to work ? Yes if you are looking at short term gains but no if you are looking at long term right ? So this emplains why Singapore is becoming more like a hotel or corporation and its own natives who have global market values have good reasons to leave from the place in drones.
Yamaka wrote:
Feb 15th 2010 5:38 GMT
This article shows how "outsiders" glamorize Singapore - a tiny, city State - and how the ordinary citizens abhor the labor policies of their terribly autocratic government!
If America (where 308 millions live) relaxes her immigration policy, everyday millions of people will enter the country to work and live well- "in the land of the free and home of the brave".
On the other hand, Singaporean citizens emigrate out as soon as possible! Why?
It is a very autocratic land with so much corruption at the higher level of the Government - elites and politically connected live well - the press is impotent and most citizens are stressed out beyond belief, and her teenagers commit suicide in record numbers. Why? No American will go and settle in Singapore even if his salary is tripled overnight. There is more to life than just dollars and cents. Freedom and fairness is more important and social safety net is very relevant to any advanced Society.
It does not mean citizens need to abuse their economic and political freedoms, as in USA and in Europe.
If America (where 308 millions live) relaxes her immigration policy, everyday millions of people will enter the country to work and live well- "in the land of the free and home of the brave".
On the other hand, Singaporean citizens emigrate out as soon as possible! Why?
It is a very autocratic land with so much corruption at the higher level of the Government - elites and politically connected live well - the press is impotent and most citizens are stressed out beyond belief, and her teenagers commit suicide in record numbers. Why? No American will go and settle in Singapore even if his salary is tripled overnight. There is more to life than just dollars and cents. Freedom and fairness is more important and social safety net is very relevant to any advanced Society.
It does not mean citizens need to abuse their economic and political freedoms, as in USA and in Europe.
Tan Wu Meng wrote:
Feb 15th 2010 7:46 GMT
As a longtime subscriber, I was surprised to read an article such as "The stingy nanny" on your website.
It is misinformed misrepresentation to suggest being poor is "your own fault" in Singapore. We believe that no man or woman is an island, that each disadvantaged Singaporean is part of a broader family, that there is dignity and value in families looking after their kin in times of need -- as opposed to a society where each person answers the call of personal responsibility by asking if he is his brother's, father's or children's keeper.
When an individual abandons their children or elderly parents to the state, the cost is shouldered by all members of society, including those less well off but more filial. To ask the filial but less well off to contribute their taxes towards supporting those abandoned by more affluent families is not "welfare" -- it is a mockery of social justice.
The author extols "automatic benefits". But "automatic benefits" do not help workers develop new skills or find new jobs, either in the same sector or - where an industry is being superseded - elsewhere in the economy. The old adage of teaching a man to fish, rather than giving a fish-like "automatic benefit", may have relevance.
This is not to say Singapore has no income support. The Workfare Income Supplement functions as an earned income tax credit, which will be familiar to economists and those with an interest in Economics. Disadvantaged families receive support for their utilities and additional subsidy for healthcare. Singapore also provides more education support for the children of disadvantaged families, so that a cycle of poverty does not arise.
No system is perfect. But this has not deterred us from aspiring to a better system. We believe in building a Singapore model of social security which promotes independence and dignity rather than dependency. We cherish the value of family, and how social justice is best achieved when individuals and families do not pass the buck to society at large, and indirectly to those less fortunate. We are acutely aware, given the lessons learnt around the world in recent decades, that social security must be sustainable, rather than indebting future generations to placate the present.
It is misinformed misrepresentation to suggest being poor is "your own fault" in Singapore. We believe that no man or woman is an island, that each disadvantaged Singaporean is part of a broader family, that there is dignity and value in families looking after their kin in times of need -- as opposed to a society where each person answers the call of personal responsibility by asking if he is his brother's, father's or children's keeper.
When an individual abandons their children or elderly parents to the state, the cost is shouldered by all members of society, including those less well off but more filial. To ask the filial but less well off to contribute their taxes towards supporting those abandoned by more affluent families is not "welfare" -- it is a mockery of social justice.
The author extols "automatic benefits". But "automatic benefits" do not help workers develop new skills or find new jobs, either in the same sector or - where an industry is being superseded - elsewhere in the economy. The old adage of teaching a man to fish, rather than giving a fish-like "automatic benefit", may have relevance.
This is not to say Singapore has no income support. The Workfare Income Supplement functions as an earned income tax credit, which will be familiar to economists and those with an interest in Economics. Disadvantaged families receive support for their utilities and additional subsidy for healthcare. Singapore also provides more education support for the children of disadvantaged families, so that a cycle of poverty does not arise.
No system is perfect. But this has not deterred us from aspiring to a better system. We believe in building a Singapore model of social security which promotes independence and dignity rather than dependency. We cherish the value of family, and how social justice is best achieved when individuals and families do not pass the buck to society at large, and indirectly to those less fortunate. We are acutely aware, given the lessons learnt around the world in recent decades, that social security must be sustainable, rather than indebting future generations to placate the present.
vasdeferens wrote:
Feb 15th 2010 11:16 GMT
There will always be divergent views about how high or low to cast the social safety net. Cost , compassion and impact on citizens' motivation are some of the factors. Interesting, but relatively well-trodden ground.
Many of the comments have conflated this issue with others - such as whether Singapore's government is overly authoritarian and illiberal.
I think most Singaporeans support the government's welfare policy. However as this small nation state heads towards its 46th year of independence, its 'established' citizenry - themselves the children of immigrants - are working out what else they want now they have achieved developed world status in economic terms. Greater political freedom and social liberalism are likely to figure.
For some Singaporeans, such change cannot come quickly enough and hence they leave. I doubt the welfare policy is the main driver of this. Note that Singapore's population has grown circa 50% in the last 20 years, largely via immigration from other Asian countries. In the Asian context, Singapore is generally seen as place to make a better life - at least economically.
Many of the comments have conflated this issue with others - such as whether Singapore's government is overly authoritarian and illiberal.
I think most Singaporeans support the government's welfare policy. However as this small nation state heads towards its 46th year of independence, its 'established' citizenry - themselves the children of immigrants - are working out what else they want now they have achieved developed world status in economic terms. Greater political freedom and social liberalism are likely to figure.
For some Singaporeans, such change cannot come quickly enough and hence they leave. I doubt the welfare policy is the main driver of this. Note that Singapore's population has grown circa 50% in the last 20 years, largely via immigration from other Asian countries. In the Asian context, Singapore is generally seen as place to make a better life - at least economically.
happyfish18 wrote:
Feb 15th 2010 12:38 GMT
The Foreign Investment talents in GIC and Tumasek has burn't off almost 100 billions in risky investments. Their boss called the Dragon lady has been pressured to step aside briefly to take some responsibilities. However the charade did not last too long as she was enthroned with true dynastic pomp, Hefty bonuses are being paid to these Foreign Talents for their sweats just like the much chastised Uriah Heeps of Wall street.
AussieLouis wrote:
Feb 16th 2010 3:11 GMT
Singapore is a capitalist state run like a corporate body. Its mission is the enhancement of the 'bottom line', in this case the GNP. Ministers' and top civil servants remunerations are tied to it. In the recent recession, they drew less but still substantially higher (like 10 to 100 times the average wage). Top civil servants and Ministers are drawn from the top 1 to 2 per cent of scholars, given scholarships to Oxford, Cambridge, the Ivy leagues in the US and the best universities in other nations. They are often rounded off with further post-graduate degrees from Harvard, Stanford and the likes. A top servant of 30-35 years of age draws between $30K to $50K per month and a minister between $100K to $300K per month. Thus only the 'best brains' can rise to this level and they are the ruling or governing class. Accountability is based on mainly on political mistakes rather than on performance; they are already proven high-performers and any operational mishaps are disregarded. These 'talents' are put on life long career paths and are never taken out except in very exceptional cases. This is 'the privilege class' and they are allowed mistakes for training purposes. Lower civil servants are disallowed the privilege of mistakes and summarily penalised without delay.
Thus the country is run efficiently and productively. Every government department is run with positive returns in mind and therefore owns profit-centred entities to ensure positive bottom lines. The Army and Police Forces, for example, run highly profitable entities such as coin minting, weapons production, vehicle maintenance, aero-industries, securities and anti- industrial espionage services and innumerable companies. The ministry of housing runs design, construction, architectural firms, industrial and housing rental estates and so on. This is an illustration of how a country can be run as a giant industrial complex completely controlled by the state with the highest body being the cabinet acting like a board. The permanent Chairman is Lee Kuan Yew and the CEO, his son, the PM, Lee Hsien Loong.
The people of Singapore and the migrant workers (some are classified as 'foreign talents') are strictly considered as 'digits' (once described by LKY) and operating units contributing to the bottom line. There is a dispassionate manner by which they are treated not unlike Multinational Companies which contributed tremendously to Singapore's earlier progress. It is all very efficient if the human element is taken up dispassionately.
To counter dissent as is natural in human society, the press, unions, army, police, judiaciary, secret service and any organisation that may have an influence on society are fully controlled by the PAP government. Anyone who appears to display political leanings is monitored closely and quickly destroyed even if it appears a threat. One person protesting or speaking in public without official permission is deemed 'a riot' by law and is quickly charged and incarcerated. In political cases, selected judges ensured that defendants are guilty with evidences to the contrary ignored. Thus political dissent which may cause a blip to the efficient running of the state is totally disallowed. The result is an utopian state where almost everything works, crimes are low and everyone, to survive, must put their noses to the grind perpetually. No failures are entertained unless the destitutes so deem are totally hopeless and are given the minimum to stay alive. They are beyond protest or humiliation.
Thus there are three classes of Singaporeans; the ruling elite, the better off and the struggling majority; all run by a state controlled by a permanent first family.
Those who find this society stiffling choose to leave and there are literally thousands queuing to go elsewhere, mainly Australia, Canada, the US and New Zealand and such like havens of democracy. This is the middle class, well educated and well off. Thus there is a hollowing out of the middle managers, entreprenuers, other talents and potential dissidents. It suits the government fine as a declared policy of the PM is that he would easily replaced these disgruntled citizens. Singapore has close to 1.6 million migrant workers out of approximately 3.5 million workers. Obviously wages would be lowered with no protection for Singaporeans whose cost of living are first world; life can only get harder each day. To the expatriate professionals ('foreign talents') these hardships are alien as they enjoy their contrived privileges or kept a blind eye to the exploitation and suppression of the people. To the privileged and better-off this is reality and you either 'make or lump it'. And if you are unhappy, leave. Thus expatriate and short term visitors see a society that functions perfectly; the streets are safe and clean, shops are mega complexes filled with shoppers ( Singapore takes in 6 to 8 million tourists), the government is efficient. Its Utopia, all perfect if you like it!
Thus the country is run efficiently and productively. Every government department is run with positive returns in mind and therefore owns profit-centred entities to ensure positive bottom lines. The Army and Police Forces, for example, run highly profitable entities such as coin minting, weapons production, vehicle maintenance, aero-industries, securities and anti- industrial espionage services and innumerable companies. The ministry of housing runs design, construction, architectural firms, industrial and housing rental estates and so on. This is an illustration of how a country can be run as a giant industrial complex completely controlled by the state with the highest body being the cabinet acting like a board. The permanent Chairman is Lee Kuan Yew and the CEO, his son, the PM, Lee Hsien Loong.
The people of Singapore and the migrant workers (some are classified as 'foreign talents') are strictly considered as 'digits' (once described by LKY) and operating units contributing to the bottom line. There is a dispassionate manner by which they are treated not unlike Multinational Companies which contributed tremendously to Singapore's earlier progress. It is all very efficient if the human element is taken up dispassionately.
To counter dissent as is natural in human society, the press, unions, army, police, judiaciary, secret service and any organisation that may have an influence on society are fully controlled by the PAP government. Anyone who appears to display political leanings is monitored closely and quickly destroyed even if it appears a threat. One person protesting or speaking in public without official permission is deemed 'a riot' by law and is quickly charged and incarcerated. In political cases, selected judges ensured that defendants are guilty with evidences to the contrary ignored. Thus political dissent which may cause a blip to the efficient running of the state is totally disallowed. The result is an utopian state where almost everything works, crimes are low and everyone, to survive, must put their noses to the grind perpetually. No failures are entertained unless the destitutes so deem are totally hopeless and are given the minimum to stay alive. They are beyond protest or humiliation.
Thus there are three classes of Singaporeans; the ruling elite, the better off and the struggling majority; all run by a state controlled by a permanent first family.
Those who find this society stiffling choose to leave and there are literally thousands queuing to go elsewhere, mainly Australia, Canada, the US and New Zealand and such like havens of democracy. This is the middle class, well educated and well off. Thus there is a hollowing out of the middle managers, entreprenuers, other talents and potential dissidents. It suits the government fine as a declared policy of the PM is that he would easily replaced these disgruntled citizens. Singapore has close to 1.6 million migrant workers out of approximately 3.5 million workers. Obviously wages would be lowered with no protection for Singaporeans whose cost of living are first world; life can only get harder each day. To the expatriate professionals ('foreign talents') these hardships are alien as they enjoy their contrived privileges or kept a blind eye to the exploitation and suppression of the people. To the privileged and better-off this is reality and you either 'make or lump it'. And if you are unhappy, leave. Thus expatriate and short term visitors see a society that functions perfectly; the streets are safe and clean, shops are mega complexes filled with shoppers ( Singapore takes in 6 to 8 million tourists), the government is efficient. Its Utopia, all perfect if you like it!
vasdeferens wrote:
Feb 16th 2010 6:13 GMT
@ danmaxkl:
Your multiple comments are interesting. You say you are British living in Malaysia. Yet you sound very much like a disaffected [ex-] Singaporean. The "Disneyland with the death penalty" line is telling.
In any case, good luck. Try not to whinge too much. Life goes on.
Your multiple comments are interesting. You say you are British living in Malaysia. Yet you sound very much like a disaffected [ex-] Singaporean. The "Disneyland with the death penalty" line is telling.
In any case, good luck. Try not to whinge too much. Life goes on.
decodeit wrote:
Feb 17th 2010 10:43 GMT
As a second generation Singaporean, I fully agree with my government's non welfare state stance. Every citizen has been taught since young that we are a small country with limited resources. Our human capital is our most precious asset. In order to survive in this competitive environment, we have to constantly improve ourselves (be it academically or economically) because the bottomline to everything is survival. If one is hungry, would one think about ideological aspirations like freedom or would one think only of one's empty stomach. Consciously or unconsciously, I believe most working and contributing adult in Singapore would want a fair and equitable distribution of this created wealth. And why should someone who did not work for it get to enjoy it? Singapore is not a welfare state but we are not people without compassion. There are charities and NGOs set up to assist in helping the really needy and destitute. We believe in helping ourselves first, and my government has just done that by ensuring that all requests by the needy goes through thorough means testing. This is not to deter them but to ensure that help is given to the truly and genuinely needy because any wrongful distribution would deprive someone of the much needed aid.
In any country, there will definitely be some who would abuse welfare. By being careful and advocating self help, we are preventing such an issue from happening. In terms of sustainability, having a self help policy will go a long way as those who are not able to help themselves are given temporary assistance, until a time when they can stand on their own without being permanently crippled by unlimited welfare support.
In any country, there will definitely be some who would abuse welfare. By being careful and advocating self help, we are preventing such an issue from happening. In terms of sustainability, having a self help policy will go a long way as those who are not able to help themselves are given temporary assistance, until a time when they can stand on their own without being permanently crippled by unlimited welfare support.
klwk wrote:
Feb 17th 2010 3:04 GMT
For those making a big fuss out of the emigration rate from Singapore - it's pretty disingenuous to just give one side of the story. I too have many relatives who have moved to another country to work. Did they leave because they hate Singapore? No - the fact is that the companies they work for - some of which are Singaporean in origin - have global interests.
Singapore is a small, global city. Our population is reasonably well-educated, and extremely mobile. A world of opportunity awaits. What do you logically expect the emigration rate to be under these circumstances? Small?
Sure there are those that are unhappy with the Singapore life and leave for good. I had some friends leave Singapore for that purpose too. Sadly for a few, they realised (belatedly) that the grass isn't necessarily greener elsewhere. Sometimes the root of dissatisfaction is in the person, and not in the surroundings.
As for suicide rates, pls see this: http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide_rates/en/index.html and compare Singapore's rates with other advanced countries. There are numerous other studies online which can be easily found. Every life lost is saddening. But at the very least, it should be obvious that some of the more extreme claims on this board can be quickly dismissed by actually consulting real, rather than conjured up data.
Singapore is a small, global city. Our population is reasonably well-educated, and extremely mobile. A world of opportunity awaits. What do you logically expect the emigration rate to be under these circumstances? Small?
Sure there are those that are unhappy with the Singapore life and leave for good. I had some friends leave Singapore for that purpose too. Sadly for a few, they realised (belatedly) that the grass isn't necessarily greener elsewhere. Sometimes the root of dissatisfaction is in the person, and not in the surroundings.
As for suicide rates, pls see this: http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide_rates/en/index.html and compare Singapore's rates with other advanced countries. There are numerous other studies online which can be easily found. Every life lost is saddening. But at the very least, it should be obvious that some of the more extreme claims on this board can be quickly dismissed by actually consulting real, rather than conjured up data.
Longwater wrote:
Feb 17th 2010 5:35 GMT
The West has its fair share of welfare giving for many years. Singapore first generation leaders i.e. LKY et al, were wary of such burden. They inculcated later generation leaders to follow unquestionably. But the present 60s and 70s Singaporeans are not well endowed in wealth and education, so there are still many living below poverty line. In times to come, newer problems will arise in tackling the lower and middle classes as they will then be very much remote from a very few super-rich including government ministers and senior officials. By then, "Animal Farm" situation will arise. Watch out.
Whaam wrote:
Feb 18th 2010 7:18 GMT
My dad was orphaned in the 1960s. He and his siblings were left to scrape a living for themselves after the death of my grandparents. My dad went on to graduate from RI and NUS, find a job in an MNC, and start a happy and blissful family. Every Chinese New Year, my entire extended family gathers for dinner, where they reminisce about the old kampong days. Today, all my dad's siblings have houses, cars, and take vacations abroad regularly.
I am presently studying in the US. The richest country in the world. Within my college walls, 20 year olds party the night away, popping can after can of beer in a celebration of their youth and their parent's excessively large bank accounts. Right outside their walls, the homeless shiver in the cold, waiting for the next person to drop a coin in the palm of their hands. They collect money from the government every week. But next month, they'll still be waiting in the cold.
Welfare is not always about providing money. Welfare is also about providing opportunities. Let me assure you that the Singaporean system spoils the majority of its citizens. We enjoy the best health-care system in the world. Universal medical insurance AND low hospital fees? I have been to the States, to Europe, to Japan and Korea, and nowhere else is world-class health care made affordable to all. Our education is top-notch, and free. I studied at RI, and most of my friends lived in HDB flats and took the bus to school. In contrast, the top schools in the US are dominated by the rich and the white, who have only a superficial understanding of poverty and social injustice. At home, we walk our streets at night unmolested by crime and poverty. Here in the States, I won't even dream of walking downtown once the sun goes down. It is exactly this uniquely Singaporean "welfare" system that saved my dad from the gangs and triads, put him through school, and allowed him to provide me with all the material comforts I enjoy today.
Singapore definitely does not have a perfect system. I myself am not a PAP supporter, and I feel a sharp pang of disgust whenever we are "informed" that the PAP way is always the right way. But I'm proud of the achievements of this country, and like it or not, it was the authoritative ways of our leaders that brought us to where we are today. Poverty and crime DO still exist in our country. But I daresay the government has done an awesome job in keeping them low. We already have a working system, we do not need to follow a failing Western-Socialist model.
I hate it when my fellow Singaporeans lament about how the PAP sucks and in the next breath talk about how they want to emigrate. I disagree with many things the PAP does, and I feel strongly about income inequality. That's why I vote for the opposition, and that's why I take the effort to do community service. Who else can make Singapore a better place if not us Singaporeans? If you fly off to Australia/US/Europe, please don't turn around and tell us Singaporeans how to run this nation. It's still our country. It's no longer yours.
I am presently studying in the US. The richest country in the world. Within my college walls, 20 year olds party the night away, popping can after can of beer in a celebration of their youth and their parent's excessively large bank accounts. Right outside their walls, the homeless shiver in the cold, waiting for the next person to drop a coin in the palm of their hands. They collect money from the government every week. But next month, they'll still be waiting in the cold.
Welfare is not always about providing money. Welfare is also about providing opportunities. Let me assure you that the Singaporean system spoils the majority of its citizens. We enjoy the best health-care system in the world. Universal medical insurance AND low hospital fees? I have been to the States, to Europe, to Japan and Korea, and nowhere else is world-class health care made affordable to all. Our education is top-notch, and free. I studied at RI, and most of my friends lived in HDB flats and took the bus to school. In contrast, the top schools in the US are dominated by the rich and the white, who have only a superficial understanding of poverty and social injustice. At home, we walk our streets at night unmolested by crime and poverty. Here in the States, I won't even dream of walking downtown once the sun goes down. It is exactly this uniquely Singaporean "welfare" system that saved my dad from the gangs and triads, put him through school, and allowed him to provide me with all the material comforts I enjoy today.
Singapore definitely does not have a perfect system. I myself am not a PAP supporter, and I feel a sharp pang of disgust whenever we are "informed" that the PAP way is always the right way. But I'm proud of the achievements of this country, and like it or not, it was the authoritative ways of our leaders that brought us to where we are today. Poverty and crime DO still exist in our country. But I daresay the government has done an awesome job in keeping them low. We already have a working system, we do not need to follow a failing Western-Socialist model.
I hate it when my fellow Singaporeans lament about how the PAP sucks and in the next breath talk about how they want to emigrate. I disagree with many things the PAP does, and I feel strongly about income inequality. That's why I vote for the opposition, and that's why I take the effort to do community service. Who else can make Singapore a better place if not us Singaporeans? If you fly off to Australia/US/Europe, please don't turn around and tell us Singaporeans how to run this nation. It's still our country. It's no longer yours.
