Singapore: A Model of Judgment for the United States?
3:01 PM Friday August 21, 2009
Tags:Global business, Politics
We often talk about judgment with regard to individuals, but organizations and countries can have good and bad judgment as well. I was recently in Singapore for a SAS customer event. Every time I visit, it has struck me as a country with good judgment. Singapore just celebrated its forth-fourth birthday as an independent country, and it deserves to congratulate itself (although it rarely engages in self-congratulation — another aspect of good judgment). In fact, I’d argue that in many ways Singapore is a great example for the United States. Why? Here are a few reasons:
1. Singapore is a hardworking, disciplined country. It decides what it needs to do, and then does it. Every year for National Day, for example, the government publishes a list of challenges it needs to overcome. This year’s list included such bracing issues as “How to maintain high economic growth and improve living standard?” and “How to stamp out new diseases and keep health-care costs down?” There is also the lighter, but sociologically problematic challenge of “How to get younger Singaporeans to marry and have children?” The list of challenges is enormously appealing in its clarity and directness.
2. Singapore is obsessed with education — not just for children, but throughout life. Another of its declared challenges is, “How to design job-training programmes and wage supplement schemes for low-income older workers?” The country tops the ranks of educational achievement regularly. While it was once justifiably criticized for emphasizing rote learning, it has introduced programs that encourage creativity.
3. Singapore is a highly capitalist society, but its government plays a strong guiding role. Some of the country’s smartest citizens go into government. The government creates industrial policy and actively facilitates growth and capability-building in those areas. It did a masterful job emphasizing IT and building up that industry, and now it’s actively pushing biotech and services. For example, in services the government wanted to build on organizations with great service like Singapore Airlines and Raffles Hotel. So it encouraged Singapore Management University (a private university that was established by the government) to start an Institute for Service Excellence, and stimulated the development of a Singapore Customer Satisfaction Index that would be applied to all service industries.
4. Like the US, Singapore is a highly diverse society, with lots of citizens with Chinese, Malay, Indian, and Arab backgrounds. Yet they all seem to get along pretty well, and the country’s culture is greatly enriched by the diversity. Public housing is ethnically and religiously integrated. Other countries could probably use a version of its “Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act,” which prohibits religious rabble-rousing.
5. Singapore invests heavily in infrastructure — housing, roads, IT, airport (only one, but Changi is a very impressive facility). 83% of its citizens live in public housing, but it’s clean and well-maintained. The country is rolling out a new high-bandwidth fiber optic network. Buses and subways are clean and run on time.
6. Singapore’s economy is doing pretty well. It does anticipate a decline in GDP of about 5% this year, but there are signs of a strong recovery. Its stock market is booming. Its banks didn’t go crazy with subprime lending or bizarre derivatives. One economist told me that the Asian financial crisis of 1997 was worse than the current recession for Singapore.
Okay, it’s not a Utopian society. The government is a bit authoritarian for my tastes, but not as much as in the Lee Kuan Yew (its first prime minister from 1959 to 1990) days. The prohibitions against spitting and selling chewing gum are a little much — though I really like the clean streets. Yes, you may be caned if you misbehave, but it might be better than locking up the world’s highest proportion of citizens in jails. I feel that Singapore destroyed much of its interesting architecture in the headlong rush to modernize. And it seems to me that too many of its citizens are obsessed with luxury brands and conspicuous consumption. These are relatively minor concerns, however, compared to the country’s strengths. And many of the seemingly autocratic regulations might be justified by the ethnic diversity and high population density of the country.
Singapore is tiny compared to the United States (and most other countries, for that matter), but that doesn’t mean it can’t be a model. Barack Obama keeps saying that we need to buckle down and work hard to build an economy based on real production, not hollow financial chicanery. We need a little more social order, and a little less individualism. Singapore has already pulled off both objectives, and continues to provide a good example of good judgment for the United States and the rest of the world.
* * *
Never miss a new post from your favorite blogger again with the HarvardBusiness.org Daily Alert email. The Alert delivers the latest blog posts from HarvardBusiness.org and HBR.org directly to your inbox every morning at 8:00 AM ET.
Comments (41) | Join the Discussion | Email/Share
Trackbacks
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4831
No trackbacks have been made to this entry.
Comments
Thanks, Tom for your comments. A few of my own.
I have lived in Singapore for 12 years and have thoroughly enjoyed it. Singapore has accomplished a lot in its 44 years of being independent- I am always impressed by what has been done.
One thing I can say is Singapore does a great job of “impressing” the rest of the world. They have certainly impressed you (I am glad you also noted the negatives). But deep below the surface there are problems that the usual visitors don’t see.
- As hard as the government tries, life is quite dull. But as we know, the arts, innovation, creativity and the buzz of the city come from the grassroots and not the government. You also cannot import these qualities.
-Hard working- yes. Efficient- most of the time. Effective- no. Enough said.
-Would all of this have been done without an autocratic government allowing freedom of press and speech? Probably not. But there is a lot to be said about the heavy handedness of the government and the force it uses to get things done. And there is a lot to be said about freedom of speech & press…
-Does the size (population) have anything to do with progress? Yes. It is a lot easier to progress with 4.5 million vs the 1.3 billion people in India. Self explanatory..
-People are generally happy here (I think- but I see very few daily smiles as compared to poorer, neighbor countries such as Indonesia and the Philippines)because they fill their daily “rice bowl.” So no one questions anything- in fact they are afraid to question. Why question when we have everything we need?
There is more that I could go into, but let’s leave it at that.
Things in Singapore are changing- for the better, which is why I choose to remain here. I live here for the people, the Singaporeans and foreigners who permeate the population. I also happen to enjoy the location with easy access to other Southeast Asian countries and the rest of Asia.
To sum it up, I would say Singapore has done a great job progressing to where it is today. It has the infrastructure and facilities of a developed, first rate country, but the people have the mindset of a developing country.
- Posted by Trip Allen
August 21, 2009 10:31 PM
There are lots of other weaknesses in the Singapore system. Life for the ordinary Singaporean is tough. He is subjected to the full blast of foreign competitions. The door is wide open to foreigners.
1.The income distrubution is lopsided. Our Gini Coeff is as bad as those of dictatorial regime in Africa. While Cabinet Ministers are paid in the S$millions (world highest), the bottom 20% are expected to survive on household income of S$600 a month. A recent UBS survey shows that Singapore has the second highest cost of living in Asia but income ranked only fifth.
2.There are little checks and balances in the system. The police, administrative and judiciary are not independent. The PAP government believed in internal checking of themselves. Can we trust that ?
3.There is a saying amongst the ordinary Singaporeans which goes like this
“It is better to be dead than to be sick in Singapore.”
4.More than 60,000 owners of HDB flats are in arrears in their mortage payments.
- Posted by Harry
August 22, 2009 10:12 AM
Singapore IS an authoritarian country. There’s no opposition, no direct democratic election, the government controls the press and so on.
Are you saying that emerging countries should pursue economic development first and suppress democracy and political freedom?
- Posted by Amir
August 22, 2009 1:55 PM
I’m an American living in Singapore right now and God help me if the US became like Singapore I’d renounce my citizenship and move elsewhere. This is a nice place to visit and maybe do some business, but I wouldn’t want to actually have to live here permanently.
- Posted by Bob
August 22, 2009 2:52 PM
Singapore has found success but at what price? People aren’t even allowed to protest and the govt has maintained power by carving up areas and suppressing the opposition. Its highly capitalistic, yes, but its citizens are amongst the unhappiest in the world. And the lack of individualism is so great they might as well be making robots.
- Posted by Joseph
August 22, 2009 5:58 PM
This sounds like a paid blog posting.Didn’t quite expect a standard like this from a Harvard related site.
I have had more than 15 years experience in the business and high technology sectors in Singapore at a very senior level.Let me tell you about the difficulty in finding creative , innovative talent here.
Dont go overboard with the new education policies ie it ” has introduced programs that encourage creativity” Why don’t the writer go to one of the hundreds of schools in Singapore and talk to an average Singaporean student ? Most still cant hold an intelligent conversation or make any meaningful analysis of topics outside their classroom curriculum.
Singapore is a safe,peaceful city and most things work here( but according to recent surveys, it is now one of the most expensive cities in the world ).We have to give the credit to the Singapore Government for that.
- Posted by Yolly
August 23, 2009 6:15 AM
As a non American reading this my first thoughts were of the poor human rights standards in Singapore, but then after reading some of the above comments I was reminded of the poor human rights standards that the UA has had in recent years.
Maybe Singapore is no worse after all?
- Posted by Craig
August 23, 2009 7:39 AM
When I read the article my first response was similar to previous commenters.
However, upon reflection – the US human rights record of recent years isn’t so good either.
Perhaps Singapore isn’t so bad compared to the US these days?
- Posted by Craig
August 23, 2009 7:41 AM
As “Harry”, the first poster says, life as an ordinary Singaporean is not easy.
Regarding wage supplements people who work hard for a living should be paid enough to actually make a living without having to rely on government handouts. Is that asking too much? I do not think so.
What use for job training when you can’t find a decent paying job after the training? The cut off age was 40, and getting even lower now. Have you seen the job ads that put the limit at 35 or 30? I have. Many of those that do not state it out right also put it into practice, discarding the resumes of those above the age limit without taking a look.
Other than age discrimination, there’s plenty of racial discrimination to go around too. Just ask any non-Chinese in Singapore. It only looks fine on the surface.
It’ll be a sad day when / if US ever becomes like Singapore.
- Posted by Tmr
August 23, 2009 10:31 AM
As all previous comments seem to go against the original article, thus I feel like voicing out my views, which are more inline with those of the author.
I’ve stayed in both Singapore and US for many years, while I value democracy and genuinely love the air of freedom in US, I believe that had the Singapore’s political system run loose, the possible fate of its people would be far worse than the previous commenters would like to assume. I can’t imagine a small country with only 3 million people not led by a united meritocracy government (BTW, to those who criticize the ministers’ pay, do you have any idea how much a similarly ranked official of a more corrupted government, such as that of China or Indonesia, can make under the table?), it neither has the volume to endure the attrition of a very liberalized system, nor has the capacity to stay afloat until any major mistake that arises from the democracy can be corrected.
I’m not saying people shouldn’t push the Singapore government for more freedom, just that over-simplification and optimization can lead to unintended catastrophe.
- Posted by Jerry Ji
August 23, 2009 11:17 AM
Craig: Don’t even compare USA’s human rights with Singapore. In Singapore you are barely allowed to protest. A party of two can even be considered illegal! You can be detained WITHOUT charges indefinitely.
If Singapore is so great, why do practically 50% of the population want to migrate? Many of the foreign students who study elsewhere also intend to stay on.
You also haven’t read a brainwashed media the likes of Singapore’s. They had to use AP for a speech by an opposition politician because they were so afraid to be fined by the current govt. For Pete’s Sake!
A speech by NMP highlights Singapore’s straw house:
“Profits take about 46% of Singapore’s GDP, which according to economists I spoke to, is extremely high compared to other developed economies.
And from what I understand, half of this high profit share goes to the coffers of foreign-owned companies with operations here. What is left in the GDP pie to directly benefit Singaporeans is therefore a relatively small amount.
According to a recent article in the Edge by economist Manu Bhaskaran, and I quote: “…This could be why even though Singapore’s per capita GDP is roughly 11% higher than Hong Kong’s, our per capita consumption is about 21% lower that Hong Kong’s. If we take per capita consumption as a better indicator of welfare, then simply going for high growth per se does not guarantee that we will achieve the best possible welfare outcome for Singaporeans….” Unquote. ”
Once PM Lee passes on there’ll be a LOT of people dancing on his grave and cheering. Of course you won’t read it in the media.
- Posted by Joseph
August 23, 2009 6:00 PM
SG Policies & governing structure did a great job managing the media and perception. Although I agreed with Harry’s first post which says, life as an ordinary Singaporean is not easy. I too, do not believe that democracy leads to development. And, a country needs to develop discipline more than democracy. The exuberance of democracy leads to undisciplined and disorderly conduct which is inimical to a country’s development.
- Posted by Jovan
August 24, 2009 12:01 AM
I have lived in the US and UK for many years, and I am now living in Singapore.
The writer is right about the government being more authoritarian and that the peoples’ rights to freedom of speech in Singapore are more restricted compared to many western societies. However as Singapore resident now, I have found that I have access to many other freedoms which I feel were more lacking in the western societies I had lived in: the streets are safe here, the transport infrastruture here is first-class, quality healthcare is affordable, and for all the complaints about racial discrimination in Singapore, underlying racial tensions are not as high as in the US. It is also remarkable how the government is able to achieve all these without taxing the living daylights out of the residents.
Singapore is probably not for everyone, but I personally don’t know a better place to live in or bring up a family.
- Posted by joshua
August 24, 2009 3:29 AM
I am a Singaporean and I have to say I was quite floored by how shallow this article is. But equally, a lot of the comments are pretty simplistic.
To take just the first point – Singapore is hardworking and disciplined. Well, perhaps Singapore is too hardworking – to the point of high levels of unhealthy stress among school children and workers, high desire for migration to ‘easier’ societies like Australia or Canada, and to the point of a low marriage and procreation rate (many believe they are related to poor work-life balance in Singapore).
Also, you’d work harder too if it was so easy to fire you, or if income inequality was so high, or if you lacked guaranteed health care or unemployment or pension payments. So Singapore’s ‘hardworking’ nature is the other side of a low-welfare society, with high anxiety and compromised quality of life. Also, it is easier to control people when they are so anxious all the time. And discipline is easier when you control the media and have libel laws that curb freedom of speech.
Having said all that – the author is right that things have improved noticeably since Lee Kuan Yew stepped down as Prime Minister in 1990, although he remains in cabinet. Also, I do agree that a lot of the good things in Singapore (and there are a lot) have been put into place and maintained BECAUSE of some of these controls. Does that mean we could not have had these things without a bit of authoritarianism? Who knows. But the real question is do we need this level of authoritarianism now? I and many others believe the answer is ‘no’. But it is a complex question, and not one with a simple or obvious answer. It certainly is not something that can or should be so easily glossed over as a positive – ‘hardworking and disciplined society’.
I still can’t believe the name ‘Harvard’ is at the top of this page.
- Posted by dan
August 24, 2009 8:31 AM
I’ve been in Singapore for a little over a year, and if I could pick it up and move it a few thousand miles north (or even south!), I’d probably stay. (The weather’s the only thing I can’t deal with.)
- Posted by Aaron Davies
August 24, 2009 11:39 AM
If countries were people vying for your consideration to be treated as a friend to hang out with, you might well opt for a more easy-going kind of fella, that was more open to diverse views and perhaps not quite as strict.
But I would say that if you were going to pick someone whose homework you might want to copy, or to be a partner in a school project, then Singapore would be your geek of choice.
- Posted by Joe Augustin
August 25, 2009 12:43 AM
I’ve lived in the U.S., Australia and Singapore for several years and have to agree with Jerry. Singapore’s a great place to be and I don’t feel that my civil liberties have been impinged on. Also, the overt racism towards darker skinned people in many Asian countries (especially in East Asia) isn’t as pronounced in multiracial Singapore. I’d live in Singapore all over again if I could.
- Posted by Fred
August 25, 2009 12:59 AM
This is just 1 side of the coin. How Singapore got this way is a careful analysis of our immediate environment and circumstances after WWII, then after the British left and we gained independence. There are so many things I’m angry about my country that I find it difficult to support some of our better policies because they seem to be govt whitewashing (no pun intended).
- Posted by Jac
August 25, 2009 3:18 AM
Jerry Ji: Having lived in Singapore for 6 years and being engaged to a Malay girl I can say that Singapore is only a Meritocracy in so far as you are born Chinese. Simply put the Racial Harmony Act has been a great tool employed by the PAP to suppress genuine racial talks and prevent protests by minorities into in-equalities that exist. Eg: Certain branches of the armed services are denied to Malays, can you imagine telling an African-American he is not allowed to fly fighters because he might have family in Africa and if the US went to war with Africa he could not be trusted. And yet this is what Lee Kuan Yew said about Malay born and raised in Singapore.
Joseph: If you read the amended “Gathering Act” it is actually illegal to be in gathering of one. So in Singapore a single person protesting is an illegal gathering subject to arrest. As for reading anything in the local media, it’s best to just enjoy the celebrity gossip and instead laugh at what passes as journalism in this part of the world. Compared to The Straits Times and Channel News Asia, Fox News is a bastion of even and fair reporting.
- Posted by Henry
August 25, 2009 8:11 PM
I don’t fault the writer as this is how Singapore looks – from the outside. The govt has done a great job in selling Singapore to the world. However, I have to agree with those who find this article shallow.
First of all, the income gap in S’pore is one of the widest in the world (as someone pointed out.)
The income of the bottom 20% has not moved in the last 20 or so. In fact, our elderly folks, who are now competing for unskilled jobs with foreigners from China especially, earn a measly S$650 a month cleaning toilets and tables at food centres.
The govt just amended the law to say that an assembly of one man constitutes an illegal assembly. It has also recently introduced the new Public Order Act where you are not allowed to “film an illegal event”. That is, if there is a public protest which is not allowed in S’pore and you film it, you can be jailed.
Housing prices has reached insane heights – despite Singapore being in its worst economic crisis in 40 years. Public housing, which is meant for the average citizen, is increasingly getting beyond the reach of the ordinary Singaporean.
Arts and Culture has been subsumed under a national umbrella called the National Arts Council. This means that anyone who wants to put out a play or book a venue for an event will have to go through the NAC.
If you make a film in Singapore, and you want to screen it, you MUST submit it for approval. The law is such that even if your wedding video, the authorities have the right to ban it – if they want to.
The death penalty continues to be applied to drug mules but at the same time, the Singapore govt does an enormous amount of business with the Burmese regime (Burma being one of the top drug producers in the region).
The state media is just as tightly controlled as it has been the last 44 years. Economic data is skewed to present a “happy” situation for Singaporeans. A recent example is how the media declared, “Singaporeans are a happy lot!” – until you realise that the survey which gave rise to such a headline was done in 2006, 3 years ago!
And for good measure, Lee Kuan Yew just rubbished any talk of democracy, equality among the races and free media. He called these “highfalutin ideas”.
So, lets not be fooled into thinking is a nice place. It has nice buildings (unless, like me, I find them stale and devoid of any character) but look deeper.
Perhaps the most damning indictment for Lee Kuan Yew’s govt is that he himself revealed, some 2 years ago, that every year, “1,000 of our best and brightest” give up citizenship and leave.
Now, if S’pore is such a great place, why do so many Singaporeans want to leave, including 50% of high school kids (according to a survey)?
- Posted by James
August 25, 2009 8:46 PM
Singapore is an economy, not a country.
- Posted by Darren
August 25, 2009 10:52 PM
A number of commentators have missed the point made by Davenport. He is asking if there are any lessons for the US to learn from Singapore. He is not saying that the US should become Singapore.
A number of commentators have made irrational and untruthful statements. For example:
James says the income gap in Singapore is one of the widest in the world. That’s simply untrue, and there is no study that supports his claim.
James also says “Arts and Culture has been subsumed under a national umbrella called the National Arts Council. This means that anyone who wants to put out a play or book a venue for an event will have to go through the NAC.” It also says that the authorities will ban wedding videos. That is again untrue. The NAC has no power to control the booking of events or staging of plays. Private videos are not controlled. Films which are screened are subject to rating and censorship (as is the case in many countries).
Joseph says “why do practically 50% of the population want to migrate?” There is no study to support this, and it’s likely to be untrue. The complaint in Singapore is not about outflow, it is that there are too many foreigners who wish to migrate into Singapore.
Harry says that there is a saying amongst the ordinary Singaporeans which goes like this “It is better to be dead than to be sick in Singapore.” That’s untrue. There is no such saying peculiar to Singapore, and it’s probably made up, for effect.
Davenport’s main point will probably be appreciated best by people who have had the opportunity to live in Singapore, the United States and perhaps some other countries. Singapore is far from perfect, and Davenport does not claim it to be so. It has an authoritarian face that is typical of many Asian countries. But it has a deeply capitalist heart which promotes business, home ownership, education and self-reliance. It is not big on welfare, although there is some measure of affirmative action (minorities are ensured representation in Parliament). Compared to its neighbours, it is corruption-free and the many races and cultures live in harmony. Because of its strictures against spitting and chewing gum, Singapore is an easy target for humour, but substantive complaints are few.
Davenport has made a good point in his thought-provoking article.
- Posted by W William
August 26, 2009 12:07 AM
‘James says the income gap in Singapore is one of the widest in the world. That’s simply untrue, and there is no study that supports his claim.’
HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT IT IS NOT TRUE?
‘James also says “Arts and Culture has been subsumed under a national umbrella called the National Arts Council. This means that anyone who wants to put out a play or book a venue for an event will have to go through the NAC.” It also says that the authorities will ban wedding videos. That is again untrue. The NAC has no power to control the booking of events or staging of plays. Private videos are not controlled. Films which are screened are subject to rating and censorship (as is the case in many countries).’
HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT IT IS NOT TRUE?
‘Joseph says “why do practically 50% of the population want to migrate?” There is no study to support this, and it’s likely to be untrue. The
HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT IT IS NOT TRUE?
‘complaint in Singapore is not about outflow, it is that there are too many foreigners who wish to migrate into Singapore.’
FOREIGNERS FROM THIRD WORLD COUNTRY (FLAVOURABLE EXCHANGE RATE) AND FOREIGNERS FROM FIRST WORLD COUNTRY (HIGH PAY).
YOU SHOULD ELABORATE ON THIS.
‘Harry says that there is a saying amongst the ordinary Singaporeans which goes like this “It is better to be dead than to be sick in Singapore.” That’s untrue. There is no such saying peculiar to Singapore, and it’s probably made up, for effect.’
THERE IS SUCH A SAYING. WHICH PLANET ARE YOU ON?
‘Compared to its neighbours, it is corruption-free and the many races and cultures live in harmony.’
WHY COMPARE TO OUR NEIGHBOURS? WHY NOT COMPARE TO SWITZERLAND (GOH CHOK TONG SAYS WE HAVE A GOAL TO BECOME SWITZERLAND, REMEMBER?), AMERICA, DENMARK, NORWAY, ….
MANY RACES LIVE IN HARMONY. THAT SOUNDS LIKE MALAYSIA TOO, YOU KNOW!!!!
‘Because of its strictures against spitting and chewing gum, Singapore is an easy target for humour, but substantive complaints are few.’
WHAT ABOUT THE ONE MAN ASSEMBLY ACT? A SUBJECT FOR LAUGH TOO? HA HA HA…
PLEASE TELL ME WHO ‘PAID’ YOU TO SAY ALL THESE. PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU ARE A SINGAPORE CITIZEN, AND IF YOU HAVE A FAMILY, THAT YOUR WHOLE FAMILY ARE SINGAPOREANS AND THAT ALL OF YOU DO NOT POSSESS ANOTHER CITIZENSHIP. AND BY THE WAY, PLEASE CONSIDER SPENDING 2.5 years OF YOUR TIME IN THE SAF (EVEN IF YOU ARE A LADY) PLUS 13 YEARS OF RESERVE TRAINING (4 WEEKS PER YEAR).
- Posted by PAP SUPPORTER
August 26, 2009 5:40 AM
No mention here about how the Chinese control most of Singapore’s wealth even though they are a very small immigrant group there, meaning they are non-native “alien elites” who rule over the Singaporean masses.
- Posted by Eman
August 26, 2009 5:56 AM
Also, Singapore is far too crowded. How much natural areas are left in the area? Likely very little…it’s all been cut down so they could pave it over and build shopping centers and skyscrapers.
Many people don’t feel comfortable living in such crowded spaces like rats in tiny cramped apartments.
- Posted by Eman
August 26, 2009 6:04 AM
I am a Singaporean living and working in London since 2005.
For that, I feel qualified to comment on some of the points raised by the author and everyone else.
@W William I am not aware of the surveys / studies mentioned above (who cares about them anyways!). But I tell you for sure that the saying “It is better to be dead than to be sick in Singapore” well and truly exists (DEFINITELY not made up as you mentioned) in Singapore. Top quality healthcare exists, but they are ONLY available to the working class and the foreign expats with medical insurance. I know of people who die in government hospitals because they cannot afford to pay for an operation.
@Henry What you said is absolutely true. What we have in Singapore is structural and instituitional racism. Many Malays will never get the opportunity to serve in high-ranking positions in the military and this has been somewhat openly admitted by the government. Occasionally, you see the odd Malay Colonel / Major as a publicity stunt from the government.
What I whole-heartedly agree is that Singapore looks brilliant from the outside. The West may marvel at our economic performance but what no one sees is what the government controlled media has hidden and not reported.
Below is what I know (from foreign press/publications) and never openly discussed in Singapore media:
1) Singapore supplied equipment to Khmer Rogue in the 1970s. Much equipment captured by the Vietnamese in 1979 are produced in Singapore (I saw a documentary and recognised them, as I once served in the Army). Singapore is actually a supporter of the brutal regime.
2) Singapore is Mynnmar’s largest trading partners beside China and Russia. They supply us with illegal jade and we basically give them everything else. That is the main reason why they have survived decades of US sanctions.
3) Amnesty International personnel are not allowed into Singapore. For years, this group has tried to come into Singapore to investigate human rights issues such as Capital punishment and freedom of speech supression but none of them are allowed in.
4) The current PM (Lee Hsien Loong) is the son of Lee Kuan Yew. His wife (Ho Ching) heads the government investment vehicle. His brother (Lee Hsien Yang)was the CEO of several major privatised corporations. The son of the PM is a winner of government scholarships and will no doubt move into the goverment one day. Lee Hsien Loong himself was the FIRST holder of the prestigous government scholarship and was made a General in the Armed Forces by the age of 31 (no one before or after him has risen through the ranks so fast). Besides money, this Lee family yields absolute power and authority in Singapore.
5) The government has a way to surpress opposition by first allowing them to speak openly, then sue them for ridiculous charges of slander and libel. Many of past oppostion leaders like Francis Seow and Tang Liang Hong had to spend time in exile in States and Australia because they simply cannot pay the “damages” they had to pay the Lee family. FYI, these cases were tried in Singapore and the Judges are somewhat chosen by the government through cronism/nepotism (there is no Jury system in Singapore)
Singapore is not just about what you read. It is more about what you don’t
- Posted by Joaquin
August 26, 2009 7:16 AM
Unfortunately, the level of debate has degenerated even more.
I have pointed out many allegations made by others which are untrue. The burden is on them to show that what they say is true, rather than on me to prove a negative. Hence, the commentator called “PAP Supporter” completely misses the point by saying “How do you know that is not true?”
Indeed, I do know what I am talking about. The NAC does not have the level of control that James claims. There is no rule at all that says that the NAC vets venues for booking events, etc.
Similarly, it is untrue to say that 50% of the population wants to migrate. I will want Joseph to substantiate his statement. I have not seen any such statement and I suspect it is simply made up.
The saying “It is better to be dead than to be sick in Singapore” is NOT peculiar to Singapore. I have heard it said about the UK, the United States and a number of other countries.
Eman has said that “the Chinese control most of Singapore’s wealth even though they are a very small immigrant group there, meaning they are non-native “alien elites” who rule over the Singaporean masses.” That is misleading, if not an outright lie. The Chinese are not a very small immigrant group who “rule over the Singaporean masses”. The Singapore masses are 70% Chinese. It is remarkable the amount of misinformation that is put out in these statements.
Since I have been asked, I have certainly lived and worked in the United States and studied and worked in the United Kingdom. I am a Singaporean. I have served as an NCO in an infantry unit during National Service, and I have completed my reserve liability. I don’t have citizenship in any other country. The fact that rabid challenges are made to my relatively mild criticisms serves only to illustrate the type of debate that one has come to expect on the internet. There is very little evidence, and there is a lot of shouting in full capitals.
It’s sad that Davenport’s main point continues to be missed. He has acknowledged the flaws in Singapore, but his point is whether it holds any lessons for the United States. That deserves consideration, and it is not an answer to simply claim that Singapore “is too crowded”.
- Posted by W William
August 26, 2009 8:14 AM
Joaquim’s statement that there is “institutionalised racism” deserves special consideration. He is right. The races are treated differently in Singapore. Sectors of public housing, and places in Parliament, are reserved for minorities. The Constitution ensures special rights for the Malays.
But it is a fallacy to believe that racial harmony arises from equal treatment of all the races. There is indeed racial harmony – to a larger extent than there exists elsewhere. There is very little (or no) ethnic violence or hate crimes, which is quite remarkable, given the racial tensions there exist elsewhere. Different races are indeed treated differently – that is the controversial approach underlying Singapore. It has worked reasonably well so far. Davenport may be right in thinking that the Singapore experience offers some lessons.
Joaquim has also said “Top quality healthcare exists, but they are ONLY available to the working class and the foreign expats with medical insurance”. To have top quality healthcare for working class and foreign expats seems like a good start. Healthcare is a thorny issue in every society, but I daresay that Singapore healthcare is more accessible, and cheaper, than the insurance-driven system that exists in the United States.
Davenport puts it quite succinctly: “We need a little more social order, and a little less individualism.” The Singapore experiment opts for more social order at the expense of individual expression. That makes some bloggers unhappy, as they naturally feel that people ought to be able to march the streets to protest and demonstrate. But the rest of Singapore society, locals as well as foreigners, appreciate the “strictly business” environment that has been created.
- Posted by W William
August 26, 2009 8:29 AM
TO W WILLIAM
PROVE YOUR POINTS.
WE DON’T NEED ANOTHER LKY REGIME MOUTHPIECE TO TELL SINGAPOREANS WHAT IS ‘GOOD’. YOUR REMARKS ARE INSULTING OUR TINY FEEBLE BRAINS.
- Posted by PAP SUPPORTER
August 26, 2009 8:37 AM
PAP Supporter has made a number of ad hominem attacks, thus lowering the tone of the discussion. He has asked whether I am a citizen and whether I underwent National Service. I have answered those questions truthfully and positively. My entire family is, indeed, Singaorean. I notice that he has not stated his own credentials. I treat his arguments with caution.
I have repeatedly pointed out that it is for the person who makes the allegations to prove that what he says is true. Thus, the allegation that “why do practically 50% of the population want to migrate” or “anyone who wants to put out a play or book a venue for an event will have to go through the NAC” and that wedding videos are controlled are allegations that have to be proven by the person who makes them. That is the nature of debate.
- Posted by W William
August 26, 2009 8:43 AM
I’m Singaporean and I agree that life isn’t a bed a roses. There are negatives which have been elaborated and perhaps embellished by others in this discussion. We aren’t as ‘smile-y’ as our neighbours and probably not as happy or satisfied a population.
However that said, there are problems everywhere and I’m sure the grass always looks greener over the fence and across the ocean. I’m grateful for safe streets, decent housing and ready utilities. There’s lots that can be better I’m sure but I don’t see how being generally whiny and being publicly disgusted with your home country can help. To me, politics and my home country are not so intertwined that any feelings I have towards the present Government can so irrevocably taint what I feel towards my Singaporean identity.
- Posted by Yvonne
August 26, 2009 8:45 AM
Thanks to irrational commentators like PAP supporter, I believe that this is the very reason why opposition parties have not been able to flourish in Singapore.
I am a JC student in Singapore and would like to address the point about encouraging creativity in Schools.
Having had numerous immersion programmes in China, Edinburgh and Thailand on top of having friends currently studying in Australia or the UK, I believe that I can safely assure the public that MOE is indeed moving towards a more creative approach towards education and critical thinking.
What we must recognize is that this is a structural policy that will not magically change the Singapore population into out of the box thinkers overnight.
Also, for as many grievances as I have against MOE, the fact is that we produce scholars each year who top their cohorts in Oxbridge, Harvard, Top Chinese Universities, etc. I believe that anyone who has no faith in the Singapore education system but validates ‘Western’ forms of liberal education will recognize that these Singaporean students did not and could not have simply relied on being ‘book smart’ in order to achieve such excellence.
I am not a PAP/Government mouthpiece but I believe someone alleged that the Government, ruling party and Judiciary are not separate in Singapore. Having had the honour to interact with members of each sector, I believe reality to be the contrary. Every public service officer is trained to operate on the mindset that even if the PAP were to lose power tomorrow, that the Government would be able to function as efficiently and effectively.
As they teach us in School, there are no absolutes. Singapore is not absolutely good or bad, nobody or nothing is. But what we must recognize is that there are certain principles that form the baseline of our judgement of what is good or bad. In Singapore, the freedom of speech may be curtailed but I am proud of our preservation of integrity and morals.
I am a Christian and I am glad that in Singapore, my religious beliefs will not make me a victim of rejection from any academic institution or a victim of abuse or attack from my friends whose lifestyles I disagree with.
- Posted by Lim
August 26, 2009 10:04 AM
Singapore is liveable( like most countries, you just need to adapt) and to a certain extent, things work pretty well around here – that is if you earn a decent wage and are responsible. However, being tiny, it is a very dull and boring place( what is so exciting about shopping and food?) for most people likewise, the majority of the people are, sad to say – dull and boring.
Before you heap praises on this country, you should ask yourself this: do you want to be a singaporean? Try to mingle around or have DEEP conversation with the heartlanders or your average local singaporeans before you answer that question. You could also watch and compare reality shows with let say…the american, the taiwanese production etc.
To me, greater freedom and space plus complex social issues often translate to an interesting and lively citizen.
That you’ll unlikely find in the typical singaporean. Its long term implication/impact in living in such a control and “perfect” environment may cause severe personality( or on your psyche) disorder and render you immature/dull. You may end up very…underdeveloped as an individual or person which above all, the greatest disincentive in living in such a society.
- Posted by Denny
August 26, 2009 10:53 AM
Education is a thorny issue (as is the case in most societies).
Singapore schools are strongly biased towards the “hard” subjects (math and science). Good students are routinely selected (or “streamed”) to enter such courses, while poor students are shunted to the humanities (literature, history, geography). That policy is a value “judgment” (to use Davenport’s term). It reflects, rightly or wrongly, the belief that scientists and engineers have more to contribute to society than history professors or liberal arts majors.
That’s why Joe Augustine has got it spot-on when he characterises Singapore as the geek of choice. If countries were people, the United States would be the popular school jock (attractive, popular, strong) and Singapore would be the one kid in class who does his work but is easy to make fun of.
- Posted by W William
August 26, 2009 11:06 PM
I think that PAP Supporter actually brought up some valid points, though I’m certain that due to his manner of presenting his argument, he has likely destroyed any credibility amongst the readers here.
And I support W William’s premise that Davenport’s key focus is whether there is a great deal other countries can benefit from the lessons that Singapore has to offer in terms of the good things the country has wrought.
As a Singaporean, I agree that Singapore has come a long way and made many advances. There is much Singapore has done to make itself proud with so many achievements in so many fields. It’s system has made it very business friendly and highly attractive to people on both ends of the immigration spectrum, with good opportunities for many Western expatriates (the current climate has seen that shift significantly though, as such packages have started to wane) and favourable foreign exchange rates for low end wage earners.
In essence, my point is that Singapore has indeed done much to make itself an economic powerhouse, but little of it trickles down to the common man. Trip Allen’s mention of fewer smiles here is a significant point that happiness is indeed something scarce here. There have been calls for substantiation for some of the arguments made here, but I do not have one. However, I can attest to this lack of happiness and ask anyone who chooses to question this to simply walk down Singapore’s streets and speak with the common man and this will indeed be self evident after several conversations.
A cabbie once told me that despite the average Singaporean’s disgruntled attitude with how things lie, “We have food on our plates and TV to watch. Do you really want to risk that and go riot in the streets?”
’nuff said.
- Posted by Chris
August 26, 2009 11:18 PM
We seem to be meandering a little with regards to the conversation. I agree with W William that the article is meant to ask questions whether there is anything that the US govt can learn from Singapore and I agree that this is indeed the case as many other countries (albeit developing ones like China / India / Sri Lanka) have sent teams over to Singapore to learn about how we developed over the past 3 decades and how we manage to provide public housing for the people. All these are valid points, but to sell Singapore like the way the article did is a bit over the top.
As a Singaporean who’s also staying and living overseas for the past 2 years, this is my 2 cents worth. As with Joaquin, I feel that Singapore looks brilliant on the outside and is fantastic with all its infrastructure but is shallow on the inside. We have an infrastructure of a first world country but a mindset of a developing one. Which is better? I guess that’s all personal preference isn’t it? Alot of Singaporeans are happy feeling stifled by the politics, lack of freedom here but long more for the safe environment and first rate transport system (which increases after every election). There is nothing wrong with that.
Going down the education argument, I agree with Lim that Singapore has an education system which is academically inclined. We have 3 top students in Oxford this year which is a record in itself and we consistently churn out the top students in a lot of the top institutions worldwide. This is very possibly due to a deft combination of intellect and study-smart. However, that said, so what? Plenty of the entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and even Sim Wong Hoo didn’t even have a proper education. I think that’s where the lack of creativity and entrepreneurship emphasized in previous education systems has dealt us a bad hand. It’s good that the government is aware and trying to incorporate that now into the education system, but creativity encouraged in education system is only one aspect of it. Do we have creativity in our political system or other aspects of life?
To Lim, whilst I applaud your enthusiasm to voice your opinion and be concerned about such matters at such a young tender age, I very much disagree with your opinion that every public service officer is trained to operate with that kind of mindset. The sad truth is that the PAP will not lose power any time soon. Given the highhandednes of the ruling party to deal with any opposition, not many willing and able individuals wants to run for the opposition. Change is not necessarily always a good thing, but without getting the chance to even try, we’ll never know will we?
- Posted by axel41
August 26, 2009 11:40 PM
To W William
I believe that the trend of viewing Sciences as the holy grail and having smarter students being forced into it is definitely changing- or already has. As an student in the so called ‘arts’ stream, I see the proportion of arts students in my JC growing from year to year. Not out of desperation but, like me, out of choice and our love for the humanities.
For students who, as most are, are undecided about their career paths, I do believe that the Sciences offers a much wider range of career opportunities when it comes time to choosing a tertiary education. So practically, if I had not been so sure about wanting to do the arts, I would definitely have gone for the Sciences even though I don’t particularly like it.
Also, for students who are determined to do sciences even if they aren’t streamed as a ‘smart’ student, I have had friends who take the albeit longer but still viable path of going to a polytechnic then university.
To axel41
Ah, the gap between the ideal and practiced. I do believe that I am correct in saying that it is part of PSC’s modus operandi to operate with disregard to political allegiance. Although we have never had the opportunity to see this put into practice, I do have some measure of faith in the civil service.
At the end of the day, I believe your point of view depends on which social strata you belong to or which social strata you sympathize with. I have to admit that while not fabulously rich, my family lives comfortably. That I would, though not easily, give up my citizenship for greener pastures if they were presented to me. Perhaps this is a result of the pragmatic way of thinking my country has imbued in me.
Wherever you are, so long as you’re rich, it’s fantastic.
- Posted by Lim
August 27, 2009 1:34 AM
The article was deliberately provocative, in that it asked whether a superpower had anything to learn from a minnow.
I think the author probably expected more Americans to be outraged at the comparison, instead it seems as if it is the Singaporeans who have considered his questions more deeply. As always, Singaporeans are fond of soul-searching. When they look in the mirror, they are apt to see the imperfections before they see anything else.
It’s true that some bits of Singapore have progressed much faster than other bits. Singapore is a well-regarded financial hub, and is a good place to do business. It can look very much like a developed country, on the outside.
Its people, however, have a basic insecurity. Like America, Singapore is a nation largely composed of immigrants. Unlike America, Singapore is young, with all the adolescent uncertainties that come with such youth. Singaporeans are constantly wondering if they are too small to compete with their larger neighbours. They always speculate whether they would have a better life elsewhere. As Yvonne has put it, the grass always seems greener on the other side of the ocean.
That’s why there is a lot of truth in what Darren says, that Singapore is not a society, but an economy. Singapore is engineered for business. It’s succeeded admirably. The question is whether, having developed its hardware, it can upgrade its software too.
- Posted by Adam Wong
August 27, 2009 2:36 AM
Put it another way.This is not a place where you will see the likes of Larry King, Oprah, Conan, David Letterman, Timberlake, Jagger, Madonna and the many interesting community of artistes you find in America etc emerging.
Have you watch our parliamentary debates? All boring/colorless wooden block characters though they maybe good at work( like a typical technocrat or engineer).
Even the controversial Former President Junior Bush is much more interesting than any of our stifle politician or media personality and it has nothing to do with or without arts.
- Posted by Denny
August 27, 2009 2:41 AM
Denny, Mick Jagger is not from America. I’m not sure I regard Justin Timberlake as the epitome of musical art. And the jury is still out as to whether anyone finds Conan funny at all.
As for the rest, well, America has many talented people. It’s a far bigger country, and a much older one. Naturally it would have very talented people, far more than the other countries in the world. Singapore has barely 1 per cent of the United States’ population. A comparison seems unfair.
I imagine our leaders Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Hsien Loong are at least as interesting as George Bush. Granted the Singapore parliament is not exciting. But if you watch C-Span, you will quite likely fall asleep too. Not every congressman speaks like Obama. A legislature has a specific job to do, and it is not to provide light entertainment for the bored masses.
I accept that Singapore is less interesting than the United States. But that’s less because Singapore is a boring place and more because the US is the most interesting country on the planet. And there seems to be very little that our island can do about that.
- Posted by W William
August 27, 2009 3:05 AM
W William, these personalities are mostly associated with the land of liberty. The point I am making here is that you can’t grow such personalities in Singapore.
We have been portrayed to be in such a vulnerable state political and socially, the typical citizens must now live with a lot of inappropriate thou shall do this and thou shall not do that which make robots out of its citizens.
Foreigners should watch the current Singapore Idol( why don’t America Import our programs huh?) to gauge how vibrant or develop the next generation of young citizens going to be.
I am always amazed at how mature and articulate a 10 year old who grew up in the west can be compared to a local born 10 year old.
Food, shelter and security are fine. But a developed soul is more precious.
In such a stifled society, you can’t raise a people with so much soul,substance and depth.
The typical Singaporean( or Singapore) looks good on papers or report cards, that’s about it.
- Posted by Denny
August 27, 2009 3:17 AM
Related posts:
