Dr Tony Tan wins Presidential Election with 35.2% of votes. Sore losers erupt.

ST Facebook post:

"It is disturbing that an elected president did not receive more than a 50 per cent majority of votes," says our reader. Do you agree?

Selected comments from Facebook (I've taken those that wanted a re-vote. There were also some who said, we should live with the results as it is. But there were sore losers. Seems like those from the TJS camp. The TCB camp were mostly pro-stable govt and would have wanted TCB, but accepted TT as president.)

"Ya 65% did not vote for TT! Re election ..TT vs TCB!"

"Yes, agree that there shuld be re-election among the two. only then, we'll see who's the real winner!!"

"I find hard to accept TT as our president as 65% of the voters didn't support him. It just goes to show how many Singaporeans dislike him."

"Should use the Altenative Vote or Instant-Runoff election methods. ALOT more fairer in a multi-cornered contest."

"TOC and TR FB voters liked for TCB and TJS. We were at one point did not know who to vote for. Therefore I disagree. TCB is the only candidate that appeals to both Pro and Oppositions parties."

My Comments:
In such an election, you choose who you think would be the best president. 25% thought TJS was the one. No one else agreed. 5% thought TKL was the one. no one else did. Everyone has one vote. One opinion. One choice. No "backsies". Welcome to the adult world. You're not in primary school anymore.

If you think TCB would have been the better choice why didn't you vote for him in the first place?

If you voted TJS or TKL as the best choice why are you now willing to back another? What happen to strength of conviction? Loyalty? Or now that you know the "crowd" is with TCB, you wanna follow the crowd? Where is your independence of thought you bunch of cows?

----

Tan Jee Say is one deluded candidate. He thinks (constitutional) rules don't apply to the presidency. Not surprisingly, he attracts people who are equally deluded, and thinks (election) rules don't apply. He lost the GE. He thinks the PE is a second chance. Nor surprisingly he attracts people who think life is a game, that you can always reload saved game if you lose and get a second chance.

The PAP warned about a freak election result if voters anyhow vote. Well, we got a FREAK election result, didn't we?

TCB should have won, but because TJS conned gullible voters into supporting his delusional presidential gambit, he pulled enough voters away from the real alternative.

And the TJS voters now say, "sorry sorry, I anyhow vote. Have a second election, can?"

If you truly believe in your candidate, do you stand and defend him even in defeat, or do you find the next credible challenger and back him? The candidate attracts the people that reflects his character. The TJS voters who now asks for a round 2 of voting are fickle fickle voters of no integrity. They used TJS and TJS used them. They deserve each other.

And the best part, TJS has the unmitigated gall to think that if he didn't stand for election, all his voters would have spoilt their votes. What utter chutzpah! What delusions! What an ego!

He is just trying to assuage his guilt of having help perpetrated a FREAK election result.

TKL has been humbled at the polls and he has accepted defeat with humility. For that, I respect him. And I wish he didn't have to lose his deposit. I don't support him, and I think if he had pulled out, perhaps some of his votes might have gone to TCB. Maybe even enough to make TCB president. But what is done is done.

Pragmatism shouldn't be only consideration

Apr 18, 2011

READING the many opinions for and against a multi-party government, I think we need to first re-examine the assumption that alternative parties will challenge the incumbent's policies blindly and that they do not have Singapore's interest at heart.

Members of the opposition parties are after all fellow Singaporeans, who had their education under the same system and grew up in a similar social and cultural climate. And theirs and their families' well-being will mirror the state of health of Singapore.

Granted, they have different ideologies and choose to look at issues through different perspectives, and they definitely do not have the experience that People's Action Party (PAP) members have of running a country. But does that mean their views are definitely always wrong?

Looking at the Parliament speeches, blogs and interviews of the members of these alternative parties, I must say there are interesting ideas raised which seem plausible and deserve further discussion.

While I am impressed by the rigorous process that PAP has put in place to identify its talent pool, there is always a concern that such a formulaic selection process will inevitably value some attributes over the others. So no matter how diverse the talents are as claimed, one cannot help feeling that they are just more of the same.

Although there may be no "groupthink" within the PAP, can it be that the group is so conditioned to think what is best for Singapore mostly in terms of economic values and social efficiency, that other less valued factors are not taken as much into consideration or given as much weight during the deliberation process?

Good deliberation can occur only when groups with truly different ideologies, not bound by one-party discipline, are able to come together to each present their perspectives and understand why it can or cannot work.

[Because this writer's tone is respectful, I shall restrain myself from my usual rant. 

I do not see how good deliberation can occur with members of the group with truly different ideologies. If one party believes that the free market is the best way for economic growth and government regulation just distorts the market, and the other party believes that while on the whole the free market does work, the natural greed and exploitative instincts of businesses needs to be controlled and regulated, the two parties will never be able to agree on how to regulate business. One will insist that it is necessary to rein in excesses, while the other will accuse the first of being an interventionist govt that will only distort and skew the market. How can there ever be a decision?]

Only then can the resulting resolution or compromise claim to have been fully looked at from all angles and not just based on the most pragmatic reasons.

As we have moved away from the survival phase of nation-building, pragmatism should no longer be the main or only consideration for policymaking.

[If not pragmatism, what? Idealism? Non-pragmatism? ]

For me, a good government does not necessarily equate a one-party government, but it is one which is formed by morally sound and competent individuals. I look forward to the day when competent and upright Singaporeans, with the same heart to serve, regardless of their ideologies, can pull their weight together for the betterment of Singapore.

[So are you saying that the current government is immoral, unsound, incompetent and made up of non-upright Singaporeans?]

Lee Jing Yng (Ms)

Don't judge system with Western eyes

Apr 18, 2011

RECENTLY, certain opposition groups have attempted to disparage our political system as being "Third World" just because political power here is largely in the hands of a single party ("WP's goal: A First World Parliament"; April 10).

Politics and economics are closely intertwined, like the relationship between mind and body. Just as a strong and healthy body needs to be sustained over the long term by a healthy mind, so too a country's economy needs a strong and healthy political system to nurture it on a long-term basis.

Each country should adopt the political system best suited to its needs. The two-party system may be more democratic and suitable for some countries, but for a country like Singapore with its historical development, small size, multiracial mix and lack of natural resources, the kind of system we now have is probably a better, if not the best, choice.

So we should not judge whether our political system is First World or Third World through Western eyes. If our economic and other achievements have attained First World standards, then our political system must also be First World, through our own eyes at least. It would be dangerous and foolish to discard something which has worked well just because it does not conform to foreign (mainly Western) norms.

Tan Gim Kheng

 

[I do not disagree with the conclusion, but with the process and the argument. Or perhaps the title.

 

To say that we need to judge not based on Western eyes, is to impute a cultural bias or a cultural content to governance and politics.

 

The difference I see is not about more democracy or less democracy, but the mechanisms of democracy. 

The two party system in the US, with the built-in check-and-balance is designed to slow down govt. That must first be understood. Their historical baggage is an inherent distrust of government. The two-party system has evolved into ideological opposites that sees working together and compromise as the betrayal of party beliefs.

The system is inherently unworkable.

Not because of Western values or perspective. 

But perhaps what the writer simply means to say is be courageous enough to see with reasonable and objective eyes and understand how the current system works rather than blindly following ideological principles which may be unsound.]

Flawed understanding of multi-party system

Apr 16, 2011

I REFER to Mr Daniel Yew's commentary on Thursday ("Is a multi-party system good for S'pore?"), in which he uses the analogies of a committee and an army to highlight the pitfalls of a multi-party system.

Both analogies are flawed.

Having a multi-party system is not akin to increasing the size of a committee. Rather, it is analogous to the view that a committee should be made up of different members of the company. Whether it is for a dinner and dance event or improving productivity, committee members are usually appointed from different departments to ensure proper representation of the company.

Similarly, his suggestion of widening the input of ideas in the army by consulting every soldier, as an analogy of a "many views" system gone wrong, is like asking the Government to consult every Singaporean. No, this is not what a multi-party system entails.

[So far so good. Multi-party system is not the same as direct democracy.]

He also mentioned that an army is best led by an able general who draws upon the advice and experience of his general staff. But isn't this a fine example of a multi-party system? The commanding officer listens and consults not just his rifle company commanders who lead the fighting forces, but also the support weapons and logistics commanders on support, back-up plans and contingencies. Isn't that what a multi-party system is for?

Khong Kiong Seng

[No. A general who consults all his unit commanders is like the Prime Minister who consults all his Ministers, who by the way are from the same party. A less dominant party with more opposition MPs is like a general with fewer advisers as unit commanders are lost to the enemy, or units are commanded by whichever is the most senior officer as key commanders (Minister-calibre MPs) are lost in battle.

But I take the point that the army is a bad analogy, as is the committee analogy.

Because the opposition party in  parliament has no role other than to question and to object to the proposals of the ruling party. They can of course agree and support some of the ruling parties proposals but if they support ALL the ruling party's initiatives, why are they in Parliament? How are they opposition? They can of course offer suggestions and amendments that they believe will improve the ruling party's bills, or they can even propose their own bill for debate (just as Walter Woon did for the maintenance of parent's bill, and he was just an NMP). BUT the ruling party is under no obligation to accept their suggestions or amendments, and they have no leverage to force the ruling party to amend or withdraw the bill for those requiring a simple majority. For those that require a two-third majority, if there are enough opposition, they can block such proposals (usually to amend the constitution).

So if the previous writer has misunderstood the scope of a multi-party system, this writer has not shown a clearer understanding either.]

Apr 16, 2011
Multi-party system can address talent shortage

MR EUGENE Tan gave examples of countries having two- or multi-party systems that failed miserably or ran into trouble and concluded that a one-party system is better ("UK, US? Give him a S'pore MP any day"; Wednesday).

But is it simply because of the nature of a multi-party system or are there other reasons? I doubt converting to a one-party system would help those countries to do better than they are today.

I think it is down to the quality of people chosen as leaders rather than the failure of the system itself. If you had ineffective people operating in a one-party system, it would failed as well.


[True! Very true! Signs of higher order thinking? Or just pure fluke? After all, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.]

Singapore has done well thus far because of the quality of its leaders rather than the system itself. But can we guarantee that this will be so in the future?

Indeed, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has said that there is a lack of talent in Singapore. If that were so, all the more reason we should adopt a multi-party system so that we can cast the net wider in search of talent.

We should not accept a one-party system simply because there is a shortage of talent. Rather we should find ways to solve the shortage problem.

Tan Wei Cheng

[And... this is a stopped clock apparently. ]

A single party can't represent all views

Apr 8, 2011 PRIME Minister Lee Hsien Loong's argument that 'if the PAP can't assemble a second team, I don't think the opposition will find it easier' shows a misunderstanding of multi-party democracy ('Not enough talent for two A teams'; yesterday).

It is not the job of the ruling party to assemble a second 'A team' - it is the opposition's. A two-party system is not about providing just two competent teams but also two different policy options.

Voters would not simply want two 'A teams', each with similarly impressive credentials but from the same party and holding largely similar views.

The point is to have two 'A teams' that represent different views and needs of constituents. The dialogue of these multiple viewpoints in Parliament is what refines national policy, ensuring all sectors of society have their interests considered.

Scarcity of talent is a poor argument for not having a multi-party system. No one party can presume to speak for the needs and views of the entire populace. In the last general election, the People's Action Party (PAP) garnered only 66 per cent of the vote. This means there is a sizeable minority of the population wishing to be represented by a different voice in Parliament.

The PAP may call itself a 'pragmatic party' that is 'ready to take in good ideas', but being pragmatic does not mean it does not have its own underlying ideologies and principles - meritocracy, for instance.

[I understand the point, and I understand the problem. Saying the PAP has an ideology such as "meritocracy" is like saying the PAP have an ideology like "rationality", or "fairness". What I mean by understanding the problem is that a two party system requires -- no, practically demands ideological absolutes. One pro-life. One pro-choice. One for hands-off govt, one for govt intervention. But PAP is not ideological except for its stand on integrity (non-corruptibility), and meritocracy. How does one take a viable stand against those position.]

However open a party may be to new ideas and differing opinions, it has its own party line to toe and cannot possibly stand for a plurality of viewpoints, especially when they are contradictory. Voters would be unreasonable to expect a single party to represent all viewpoints; that is why we have multiple parties.

[Yes, there will always be multiple viewpoints. What does that mean politically? This is what happens in the US: When the democrats are in power, businesses are tax, and welfare is provided. Then a few years later the republicans take over and reverse the policies... and then some. Then the democrats come back, reinstate their policies, reverse other new policies enacted by the GOP, etc. Two steps forward, 3 steps back. Legalise abortion, cut funding to planned parenthood. Allow gay marriages. Cancel it. Does this remind you of our northern neighbours political decisions and announcements?

The solution to this is to based policies not on ideology, religion, faith or even philosophy, but on rational consideration of the facts and the effects. Which is not to say that policies have not changed under the PAP. From family planning to pro-marriage and fertility. From no casino to two IRs. But such reversals are publicly discussed and all views are aired. There were strong religious resistance to the IRs, but secular reasoning prevailed, despite the presence of some religious people in the Cabinet.]

It would also be wrong to characterise the job of the parliamentary opposition as 'waiting and watching just in case the PAP screws up'.

[PM Lee was not saying the role of the opposition was to watch and wait. His example was of someone who is competent, talented and wants to contribute. He can either join the PAP and start contributing immediately, or join the opposition and wait for the PAP to fail so that he can start to make policies.]

The very point of the multi-party system is that opposition politicians, though not forming the government, can still contribute to policy discussion and refinement in a very real way, which is through Parliament.

[Idealistic at best. Look at the US with its mature two-party system. Opposition obstructionist tactics do not "refine" policies or bills. They weaken, distort, dilute, and divert efforts and initiatives leading to compromise that waste time and resources. The US govt will shut down on Friday (Sat noon SG time) because their partisan and gridlocked Congress cannot agree on the budget.

Realistically, opposition can raise discussion on issues, and if in the course of the discussion, the PAP or ruling party fails to answer to the satisfaction of the people, this can be pointed out during election to remind the people of the inadequate response of the ruling party and perhaps persuade the people that it is grounds to vote out the party.

But if that is the role, then NCMP and NMPs can perform just as well if not better. I always felt that Siew Kum Hong and Walter Woon were great NMPs and perform better than opposition MPs.]

The parliamentary opposition's raison d'etre goes far beyond whether the ruling party 'screws up' or not. So long as there are different views in society and voters who do not wish to be represented by the ruling party, there is a need for more than one party in Parliament.

Michael Cyssel Wee

[Let's just say I disagree. Not every view is worth a party. Some views are so narrow, they become one dimensional caricatures. Some views are temporary. Some views are irrational. Some are misguided or dumb.]

Opposition in Disarray

Mar 2, 2011

Instead of forming a single party, agree on straight fights against PAP

GETTING opposition parties to unite against the People's Action Party (PAP) in a general election is unconstructive, impractical and unworkable ('Only a united opposition can succeed' by Mr Paul Chan; last Saturday).
Simply merging different parties together would mean that weaker individuals and ineffective groups get conveniently subsumed into the association.
Given the challenging roles and duties of opposition politicians, there should be competition between parties - in the form of leadership calibre, manifestoes and overall quality.
As the immediate goal of opposition parties is to increase party credibility and persuade people to vote for them, they cannot compromise on their policy proposals and recommendations.
As they are motivated by varying ideals, though bound by the common purpose of serving the people, there are significant differences in their strategies for a better Singapore.
Also, the different levels of development among opposition parties may also deter the establishment of a single party.
Case in point: The resignations and confusing developments that appear to have roiled the new Reform Party contrast sharply with the situation in more established parties whose game plans are in place and well-articulated.
Merging into a single bloc now will result in valuable time and resources being wasted on wrangling over leadership positions and bickering over bureaucratic imbroglios, instead of focusing on substantive policy issues.
A call for unity without proper justification will hardly convince Singaporeans of the opposition's readiness to challenge the status quo.
Nonetheless, what opposition parties can - and should - do is to discuss the distribution of their candidates across the electoral map, to prevent three-way fights.
This would prevent splitting the opposition vote. More importantly, straight fights against the PAP will ensure contests in all constituencies, and allow all eligible Singaporeans to have their say at the ballot box.

Kwan Jin Yao

Disunity is obstructing an effective by-election strategy

WHEN the by-election strategy was hatched 20 years ago, it worked because the leaders of the opposition parties then were united ('Only a united opposition can succeed' by Mr Paul Chan; last Saturday).

The strategy was a hit as it garnered the opposition four seats in the 1991 General Election (GE), a record since Singapore's first GE for Parliament in 1968 when the People's Action Party (PAP) was returned to power on Nomination Day, and when walkovers became virtually a permanent feature thereafter.
A by-election strategy is still relevant. However, with so many opposition parties and self-centred leaders, it is almost impossible now.
One minor disagreement among opposition candidates would result in one of them joining or forming another political party.
The reality is that some opposition candidates can barely hope to keep their election deposits in a GE.
Opposition parties should pick their candidates more carefully.
For instance, those who are older than 60 and have lost in two GEs should refrain from contesting.
In fact, I think the opposition parties cannot find the 43 effective candidates they would need for a by-election strategy in the upcoming GE.
For example, if the Workers' Party can find five credible candidates like party chairman Sylvia Lim, it may have a chance of winning Aljunied GRC by employing the by-election strategy, on the assumption that the PAP is assured of forming the next government on Nomination Day.

Lim Jit Chaing

[The By-election effect has already been discredited. It was really the LKY effect. Or more precisely, the LKY stepping down effect. That was the year GCT took over. Some people obviously thought, if LKY is not PM, perhaps it is time to consider alternatives.

However, of the 4 opposition voted in that year, 2 were duds. Instead of heralding a new phase in opposition politics, they were a blip on the political radar and a lesson that alternatives need to be credible, viable, feasible, and presentable. The people learnt their lesson and rewarded Chiam and Low, and promptly kicked out the two twits in the next election.

And it has been two ever since.

To counter the By-election effect, the PAP has implemented local election effect with upgrading and asset enhancement offered to "buy" votes. It was worked, but now with most precincts upgraded, there is less to offer.

But the real reason the opposition is in disarray is that the PAP has no ideological weakness, simply because it has no ideology. The members of the opposition flit from one part to another because in the absence of an ideology, the opposition are unable to present a logical, coherent alternative.

If they have an ideology, it is that the PAP is pro-Singapore. And how can any opposition decide to campaign on an Anti-Singapore platform?

Before the opposition even can decide to oppose the PAP, they need to decide what are they opposing? You can oppose policies, but policies can change. You need to oppose principles and ideologies. Or provide an alternative.

Without a ideological or principle platform, all that the opposition can do is oppose policies, which is a weak platform.]

What makes a democracy

Sep 22, 2010

MS MARGO McCutcheon surprised me last Friday ('No say? It's simply not true, she says') when she wrote that Singaporeans have far more say in what their government does than Canadians.

She offered as an example that Singaporeans were consulted before the goods and services tax (GST) was introduced, while Canadians like her were not for a 'harmony tax' imposed by Ottawa.

There is more to democracy than government-led consultation exercises. A democracy not only ensures that citizens are consulted on policies, but gives citizens real bargaining power to affect government decisions.

[True, there is more to democracy than just consultation. BUT, her point was that we have that, while Canada, supposedly a more mature democracy than Singapore, didn't. And that the practice of democracy as it applies to the citizen being consulted, is more obvious here, than in Canada. Implicitly, she is also saying that there was no bargaining power there. After all, if you're not even consulted, how can you bargain?]

Ms McCutcheon's American husband also described democracy as a fancy word for partisan bickering and gridlocked government. Rejecting democracy that way is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Perhaps. Or perhaps democracy as practiced that way is inevitable, and all democracies end in bickering and gridlock at best, and murders, shootings, and assassinations at worst. Can it be argued, that the competitive, confrontational, adversarial nature of democratic politics invariably leads to partisan bickering, and demagogic posturing? Can we look at the United States, which presents herself as the bastion of democracy, as an enviable paragon of democratic governance? Or can we read in the frustration of Ms McCutcheon's husband's statement an indictment of the Democratic process as practiced in the US?]

While we shouldn't adopt democracy's negative aspects, we should not cling blindly to the status quo simply because it may have worked in the past.

The form of democracy which works is one in which all political parties compete vigorously; and present better proposals for voters to choose.

[I agree. We should not cling blindly. If we cling, we should cling with our eyes open and be sure that it is what we want to cling to. Not because we do not know better. So we should look at other options. For reference, the CIA World Factbook list Singapore as a Parliamentary Republic, and the US as a Federal Republic. In either case a "republic" can be defined (and is commonly defined) as a representative democracy, as opposed to a direct democracy (the fact that we elect MPs to represent us means that we have a representative democracy). There are practically no direct democracies as it would be very difficult to manage. Maybe a very small country with only a few thousand citizens.

Theoretically, the competition of ideas as presented by different political parties should result in the best ideas being adopted. However, this is idealistic at best. The reality is that while some issues are clear as to what is best, on many issues, what is good for one segment of the electorate may not be so beneficial to another. Pro-family policies (not so good for Singles), policies for the lower income (doesn't help the middle income and above), benefits for mothers (what about fathers), etc. Inherent in democratic assumption is that people will vote for the greater good, BUT there is danger that people will vote out of self-interest, out of fear, out of greed, or even out of ignorance and misunderstanding.

Freedom of speech and freedom of information is supposed to educate and inform, but as Fox News in the US has shown, it can also be misused to incite fear and hate, and spread misinformation and confusion, and propel the agenda of an influential interest group.]

It should include an open and transparent government, strong and independent institutions not easily manipulated by partisan interests, and capable, upright politicians.

[Again, I think that was the point Ms McCutcheon was making explicitly and implicitly. Explicitly, she was saying that in having consultation and feedback, the Singapore Govt is practising openness and transparency. Implicit in this is that an effective government, a competent government is what a country needs. The means (democracy) is just a means. When the means becomes the end and we serve the means rather than pursue and appreciate the ends that we have achieved, we are getting the cart before the horse. What got her goat, so to speak, was the middle-aged couple "braying about democracy". From her perspective, all the democratic process in her country and her husband's have done little in terms of real progress and real improvement in lives. What we have here, she is saying, is inherently more tangible and more real. And we should appreciate it. Instead of chasing idealistic constructs that promises more than they deliver.]

Democracy should afford citizens the freedom to express their opinions without fear of unjust repercussions. The mass media should report objectively and fairly, and be willing to criticise the government when necessary.

[And one is free to express one's opinion here. Libel and slander laws apply, except for parliamentary privileges. As MM Lee has noted, the opposition in parliament have not abused their privileges in parliament. The fact that politicians in the US are regularly slandered, parodied, and ridiculed is no reason to expect the same in Singapore. Certainly, one can make the case that allowing untrue accusations that Obama is a a Kenyan Muslim taking orders from his Tribal puppet master to turn the US into a communist state is beyond the protection of freedom of speech. Or that it is so ludicrous that no one will take it seriously. EXCEPT people do believe it!]

Building such a democracy requires the effort and participation of all citizens. We need an informed citizenry that is able to elect leaders based on merit, rather than out of fear or ignorance, and hold them to account for their actions in office.

[Yes, it would be good if voters vote on the basis of what is best for the country, rather than what is best for themselves. But ultimately (and perhaps unfortunately), that is the basis of Democracy, that the people choose a person that best represents their interests. So people are going to wonder, does that Indian chap know my interests let alone how best to represent my interests? Does that young man know the concerns of an old retiree like me? Can that woman understand how a man feels when he cannot get a job to feed his family? Does that Christian know enough about my concerns as a Muslim or will he ignore or downplay the needs of my community? Or does that godless heathen understand that we CANNOT have a casino in Singapore? I'm afraid fear and ignorance are often the baseline reasons for voting.]

We can build such a democracy while avoiding the trappings that bog down some other countries.

[Actually, I believe the real issue is about competence and corruptibility. Representative Democracy requires competent representatives to form a competent government. If candidates are equally incompetent or corrupt, you basically have a Hobson's choice. And the problem is not just "some" countries are bogged down by some "democratic trappings". The problem is not that despite the failings of democracy, there is still a lot of progress in democratic countries. The miracle is that there is progress IN SPITE OF so-called democracy.

For large resourceful countries like the US, with able leaders who can nevertheless navigate the obstructions of the opposition parties, they can still bring progress to the country in spite of the worst excesses of the democratic process. But for less developed, less resourceful, less stable countries, "democracy" can cripple or even derail progress. And with a multi-racial society like Singapore, where there is no common language, history, religion or race, unfettered democracy may well rip this country apart. As MM Lee says, this is not a "natural" nation.

This has been a dialogue between a citizen of a "true" democracy realising that ideals not grounded in fundamentals such as competence, transparency are more show than real, and a citizen of a "limited" democracy wanting the full freedom of the ideal without realising that all freedoms must have reasonable limits or be tyrannical in its excesses.

The one true danger of democracy is the tyranny of the majority. And that is never more true than in a multi-racial, multi-religious society like Singapore.]

Gerald Giam

--------
Responses to the forum letter

Sep 25, 2010
What matters is a democracy that works

MR GERALD Giam's version of democracy ('What makes a democracy'; Wednesday) is precisely what I think Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew fears Singaporeans take for granted - an auto-pilot flight to success without recognising what made us successful.

Mr Giam dreams of a paradoxical democracy where all political parties compete vigorously and yet form a strong independent government institution void of partisan interest.

The fact is, there will be a partisan division because political parties cannot agree.

The world's greatest democracy, the United States, is stymied by its democratic structure. The President needs to submit his proposal (Bill) for approval by both the House and the Senate, with the two political parties at odds with each other.

Every Bill is debated vigorously by intelligent men on both sides and is often either amended or abandoned. While they debate and bicker, millions of Americans remain unemployed and jobs are lost to China daily. American wages have fallen since 2001.

Is this the type of democracy we should wish for?

It took an outstanding leader like President Barrack Obama many months to navigate partisan agendas to pass health-care reforms that give American workers basic access to health care.

[Actually, it took decades. The work started as early as the 70's.]

Would we prefer to wait so long should MediShield require fixing one day? I am glad my Government is not only capable but free from being politically shackled.

When we are in a crisis, the Government is free to act swiftly. When manufacturing jobs were lost to China, the Government's response was swift, as was its rapid reaction to the global recession.

Theodore Yeo

Sep 25, 2010

Singapore democracy 

 

'There is room for improvement.'

DR YIK KENG YEONG: 'The perfect democracy is as mythical as the unicorn (Mr Gerald Giam, 'What makes a democracy'; Sept 22). Elections are rigged, the electorate is apathetic and bribe-able, idealistic politicians commit sins, the administrative branch becomes inefficient, the judiciary operates under fear and the press resorts to gonzo journalism. These happen in democracies. There is, of course, room for improvement in Singapore, such as a more considerate bureaucratic response to public sentiment over bread-and-butter issues. The impression of an impassive leadership bent on pursuing its lofty goals, regardless of feedback on the ground, does prevail - well-considered though the goals may be. Singapore also does not yet have a credible opposition to present an alternate viewpoint, which is why it is important for the Government to be more empathetic towards direct complaints from the ground.'

An American view
'I admire Singapore's democracy. The Government seems to have the people's well-being at heart.'
MR MARK J. TOPOLSKI, North Carolina, United States: 'The democracy practised by America and Singapore, although different, are probably well suited for each county's size and demographic (Ms Margo McCutcheon, 'No say? It's simply not true, she says'; Sept 17). Having observed Singapore's for more than 10 years now, I sometimes wish American politicians would always, or at least sometimes, first ask themselves what is best for the people, rather than what will get them elected another term. I admire Singapore's democracy. The Government seems to really have the people's good and well-being at heart.'

[I think the point is that good governance is possible under democracy or other forms of government, and bad governance can also occur under other forms of government. The one advantage democracy has is a systematic approach and process to choose government, especially if government has gone wrong.]

Isn't GRC system affirmative action?

May 3, 2010

I REFER to last Thursday's report, 'Foreign Ministry responds to UN expert's comments'. On the sensitive issue of race, Singapore's Ministry of Foreign Affairs noted that United Nations Special Rapporteur Githu Muigai appears to advocate some form of 'affirmative action' to help the Malays progress in the area of education.

This approach, according to the ministry, 'has been tried by many countries without notable success'.

Even the president of the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (Muis) told Mr Muigai that the Malays in Singapore do not need any affirmative action policy because 'the Malay community had a deep sense of pride in its own ability to achieve steady progress under the national system of meritocracy'.

If affirmative action is frowned on by minorities themselves, why does the Government insist on keeping the group representation constituency (GRC) system in the political landscape? The GRC system, as propagated by the Government, ensures minority representation. Thus it is an affirmative action policy.

Does it make sense that the minorities in Singapore need affirmative action only to protect their political rights and everything else can be based on meritocracy?

[Because voters don't always vote on merit. They vote based on affinity and affiliation - i.e. race. Malaysia has tried living with race-based political parties, and the system is unravelling now. If your claim to representation is how ethnic you are, then you have to be more ethnic than your opponent and that just spirals down into extremism. When voting and elections are a meritocratic and transparent process, then yes, do away with the GRC. But voting is inherently confidential and in fact secret. And people are free to use any criteria, including race, to choose their candidates, and because politics is inherently local, and voters are generally selfish, the results will be domination by the ethnic majority.]

The minorities have spoken. They have the ability to achieve progress under the national system of meritocracy. The Government should recognise that and abolish the GRC system.

We are no longer living in the past. The tumultuous period of our early years can only serve as a lesson for all ethnic groups to maintain racial harmony at all costs. The past should not impede the desire of our multiracial populace to achieve the goal of becoming one nation, one people.

[Spoken like a true ideologue. What "desire of our multi-racial populace to achieve the goal of becoming one nation, one people?" Do you wake up each morning thinking about becoming one people with your Malay and Indian friends? Even now, new stress lines between Legacy Singaporeans and new Singaporeans and PRs are surfacing. What more existing ethnic lines? We don't need to live in the past to make the mistakes of the past. We can in fact make fresh mistakes. Low Thia Kiang speaks to the voters in the Teochew vernacular as part of his campaigning. Unless a minority candidate can do the same, they won't be able to even connect with some of these voters.]

The GRC system, as an affirmative action policy, can take our nation only one step forward in theory and three steps backward in nation-building.

[How?]

Png Eng Huat

[This is just a pretext to argue against the GRC, whether for political or racial reasons.]

Are they well thought out?

May 1, 2010
ELECTION CHANGES

THE changes to the Non-Constituency MP and Nominated MP schemes, the average size of group representation constituencies and the number of single-seat wards appear too utilitarian in intent and approach.

["Too utilitarian"? So should be less useful? More idealistic? Needs more bells and whistles to dress up the drab utilitarianism?]

The Government must be commended for its courage to implement novel - though unconventional - means of providing Singaporeans with both a strong majority government and an alternative voice in Parliament.

Many trust the Government has the longer-term interest of Singaporeans at heart and that the changes are made for the overall good of Singapore.

It appears we can have our cake and eat it too.

However, the idea that the political process can be changed so easily according to the prevailing political climate discomforts me. Surely the ruling People's Action Party will be foolhardy to consider these changes if, some day in the future, the opposition gets to control close to half of Parliament.

[If there are more than 9 opposition members voted into parliament, there would be no NCMP. Just as currently, if there are more than 3 Opposition MP, there would be no NCMP. Under current rules as approved by the President, the total of Opposition + NCMP cannot be > 3 (The rules however, allow the President to approve up to 6). By the time opposition gains almost half the seats in parliament, NCMP would be irrelevant. Heck, by the time they win 9 seats, NCMP would be irrelevant.]

What if these adjustments to the political system prove 'too' successful for the incumbent's liking? What if more opposition candidates win seats in Parliament in future elections?

Will the PAP then feel its political survival is under threat? Will it then respond by reversing these changes?

[If the writer is referring to the other changes - increasing the number of SMCs and reducing the size/candidates per GRC, these changes would give the opposition a better chance of actually taking an SMC or GRC. And with the game stacked against the opposition, a little leveling of the playing field can only be good. If in spite of all the advantages the PAP candidates enjoy they are still unable to win the election, then they deserve to lose, as LKY has said of even Mah Bow Tan.

Maybe if the PAP deteriorates to the point where they lose the trust of the people, the competence to govern, and the integrity to bow to the will of the people, they may well try to reverse the changes to the GRC system. But that is another story in another situation.]

What will this say about our democratic process? Is it a national ideal we consciously strive to improve and uphold, or a lowly tool to achieve a higher good?

[To summarise this writer's argument: These changes are all well and good, but when things start to look bad for the PAP, what will they do then? They'll reverse the changes showing that they pay lip service to democratic process when it is convenient for them, but will cast it aside when it no longer suits them. The problem with this argument? Hasn't happened yet. Ascribes ill-intent to the PAP in the future. Don't know if it will ever happen.]

Han Tau Kwang

[Certainly the PAP has no role to play to help the opposition win seats in Parliament. Or does it? The PAP astutely understands that voters know all about tricks and strategies, and can see that the current set up skews the playing field in favour of the PAP. Sure the opposition can win SMCs but GRCs? They haven't won one yet.

The changes to the parliament and the GRC system is to address two issues.

Firstly, the voters want alternative voices in parliament. A pair of opposition MPs, 1 NCMP and 9 Nominated MPs provide alternative views, but just aren't enough, or valid enough. And part of the reason there aren't enough real opposition is because the system is stacked against them. And the PAP has stacked the deck. Only 9 SMCs, usually headed by PAP strongmen, 14 GRCs with up to 6 MPs in each, all anchored by a Minister, sometimes 2. The opposition has little chance with such a system.

Secondly, given the trends with new, younger voters who say, don't tell us what you did, tell us what you're going to do for us, the PAP cannot rely on historic gratitude or shared history anymore to bond with the voters and get their votes. The younger voters are more likely to say, I grew up with the PAP, I think I've outgrown them. I want change. Let's give the other side a chance. The PAP won Aljunied GRC with 56% of the votes. In the next election, it might well be lost to the opposition. With the loss will be two Ministers (George Yeo & Lim Hwee Hua). The shift of votes to the opposition may not be stoppable.

The reduction of the GRC may well be a "don't put so many eggs in one basket" strategy. We can't afford to lose two ministers. The corollary to that is, the opposition doesn't have that many "stars" anyway. A 5-man GRC may just mean 2 good opposition candidates and 3 duds. The third point is that PAP may well lose a GRC in the next election. If the opposition wins even with the bar set so high, it would be all the opposition's doing. But if they win while the bar is being lowered at the same time, the PAP can steal some of the opposition's thunder.]

Comments on "The stingy nanny"

This is not from ST Forum Page, but the on-line comments (there were 65, I deleted some) on the Economist article "The Stingy Nanny" about the state of welfare in Singapore.

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).]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 !.

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).

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.

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.]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.