The Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) has created the IPS Prism Project to “engage the people of Singapore to reflect on the different dimensions of governance and to work towards a future that they desire.” Between June to September 2012, it had “worked with diverse groups to identify … alternative scenarios of how we govern ourselves in 2022.”

IPS has created 3 scenarios “of how we might govern ourselves over the next 10 years based on three key driving forces — credibility of government, society’s definition of success, and distribution of resources.”

The aim of this article is to explore two other plausible scenarios that can be included in the national conversation. 

Before I proceed, the IPS Prism scenarios can be found here.

The 3 scenarios that IPS has created are as follows:

1. SingaStore.com (which they label as the ‘Pro-Singapore scenario‘): The public trusts the pro-business government as it prioritises economic growth and ensures better-paying jobs for Singaporeans (The Straits Times had described this as “Singapore is “the store and more” – pro-growth and pro-business”)
2. SingaGives.gov (which they label as the ‘Pro-Singaporean scenario‘): The public trusts a new government that emphasises an egalitarian policy framework, promoting pro-social values, egalitarianism, solidarity and human development (The Straits Times had described this as “Low but inclusive growth through greater welfarism”)
3. WikiCity.sg (which they label as the ‘Pro-active scenario‘): A coalition government is elected but public trust in government is low; no one central power dictates; this is a self-activating and self- correcting community (The Straits Times had described this as “Like online encyclopaedia Wikipedia, which has no one editor and is managed by the community, Singaporeans enjoy the full expression of their identities and potential without a strong central government.”)

I applaud the IPS for developing these scenarios to encourage Singaporeans to think ahead of a Singapore they want, so that we can collectively work towards it.

Here are some observations that I would like to make on the IPS Prism scenarios and the reporting by The Straits Times on them:

1. IPS had called the SingaStore.com scenario as a Pro-Singapore scenario while the SingaGives.gov scenario is called a Pro-Singaporean scenario. I do not think that these distinctions are as clearcut as they are put out. Is a “pro-business government” necessarily one that is good for Singapore and is one which promotes “pro-social values, egalitarianism, solidarity and human development” one that suggests that it is not good for Singapore? At the core of these distinctions is – what do we define as being pro-Singapore? Is it when we value the economy over the people’s rights? I think these distinctions are necessarily pro-government distinctions and are biased.
2. The Straits Times had described the SingaStore.com scenario as a ‘the store and more’ while describing the SingaGives.gov scenario as one that has “low but inclusive growth through greater welfarism”. Again, The Straits Times, I would argue, had portrayed the latter scenario negatively, by labelling the growth as necessarily “low”. The Straits Times, I would argue, had portrayed the distinctions, in biased ways, towards government groupthink. The Straits Times had also described the trust level of the government and the people in the SingaStore.com scenario as high. We are currently living this scenario as of now, and it is clear The Straits Times has an vastly inaccurate sensing of ground sentiments of the people.
3. Finally, the truth is the third scenario – WikiCity.sg – has only been thrown in, but for purposes that are unclear. In no way will this scenario exist in the short to medium term in any country in the world, unless humans are able to learn to see beyond their self-centred thought behaviour overnight. When this happens, humans would be able to govern themselves without structured governance because they will be able to look out for one another. The purpose of this scenario is meant to, perhaps, shed light on the philosophy and necessity of governance. But, are there other reasons to throw in this scenario? As a scare tactic? Because there are other scenarios that can be considered, but would threaten the idea that we should eventually value the SingaStore.com scenario? I will delve into this later.

To be clear, the last scenario – Wikicity.sg – will certainly play a lesser role in future discussions by IPS, in terms of the form and structure that the governance in 2022 should take.

*****

I would like to propose 2 additional scenarios that the IPS should consider, one of which I would suggest is more relevant for national discussion than the scenario of WikiCity.sg.

I will use the template that The Straits Times had used in their article, so that you would be able to make a comparison with how the government mouthpiece had presented the news.

(I encourage you to read the article so that you can see for yourself how biased (as I had observed) The Straits Times is towards presenting the SingaStore.com scenario in a light that is considerably more favourable than it would seem. It also negatively portrays the SingaGives.gov and WikiCity.sg in ways which do not justify so.)

For the additional scenarios proposed:

• I will label the 2 additional scenarios as Scenario A and B.
• I do not have as fanciful names as IPS have used for their scenarios, but I will describe them in plain language.

Scenario A: Singapore’s Needs Balanced (Pro-Singapore and Pro-Singaporean scenario)

• In a nutshell: The government focuses on the economic viability of Singapore but provides room for the social, psychological and welfare needs to be met.
• Trust level: Very high

The public trusts the government because the government is able to think strategically for the long term needs and sustainability of Singapore, and is yet able to ensure that the well-being of Singaporeans is taken care of and that people’s rights are treated with respect.

• Government control: Moderate 

The government continues to focus on economic growth, but identifies groups of people, such as the low-income earners, elderly and disabled, where targeted financial and social-welfare assistance is provided for them. The government puts in place a systematic process of registering these groups of people who require assistance and dispense support for them in a coordinated fashion, which does not require complicated registration processes.

• Business sentiments: Good

The government engages corporations, businesses and community groups, to facilitates discussions among them to find a solution that takes into accounts the needs of all these groups. The government will then proactively educate corporations and businesses on workers’ rights so that there is support from them. The government will enact policies which protect not only the rights of corporations and businesses, but also workers as well.

In the medium term, businesses and corporations will learn that employees who are respected will be more committed in their work. Businesses and corporations will benefit from this approach where the employees’ commitment towards the company and the drive and passion that the employees have will in turn drive up profits for the company. It’s a win-win solution.

• Fiscal position: Moderate to Strong

The government has invested the people’s CPF monies in the government securities, then in GIC and Temasek, which net between 7% to 17% interest rate. It gives the people an interest of between 2.5% and 4%. In 2022, the government returns the investments of the people’s CPF monies at a higher rate to them. The government also uses some of the interests from the investment of the people’s CPF to channel it into providing financial and social-welfare assistance for a targeted group which needs the assistance.

The government raises taxes by a few percentage points to increase revenue for public spending. This is channelled into funding for healthcare and education, so that the people are able to spend lesser, out of pocket, on these necessities.

• Social cohesion: Strong

The people trust that the government will not only pander to the needs of corporations and businesses, but it would also ensure that the people’s needs are met and respected. Corporations and businesses also do their bit to protect the rights of their employees and other social interests groups.

The government encourages and educates the people to think critically and express themselves. It encourages them to be involved in critiquing the government, so that the government could be motivated to create better policies. It also encourages Singaporeans to discuss issues previously deemed as sensitive, such as race and religion, so that the people are able to have a more critical understanding of these issues, and come to better acceptance of these issues, and of one another. This will create a Singapore where there is genuine respect for diversity and various beliefs. The people also feel more involved and engaged in Singapore and are able to proactively contribute to Singapore more strongly than before.

*****

Is this scenario plausible? I think it is a solution that can effectively address the concerns of Singaporeans, yet ensure that Singapore continues to puts economic viability as a priority. What do you think?

*****

Scenario B: Government as Facilitator (Capacity Building scenario)

• In a nutshell: Groups form in society to proactively manage key issues that they are concerned about. The government facilitates and builds the capacity of Singaporeans to be able to independently create solutions for Singapore while they manage the broad strategic issues of Singapore.
• Trust level: High

The government continues to adopt a broad strategic oversight of Singapore. It makes key decisions which will concerns the future and whole of Singapore. It also makes decisions as to the economic viability and foreign relations of Singapore. At the same time, Singaporeans are taught the skills for macro-thinking and are able to develop their own community-based solutions towards the co-management of Singapore. The government does not see itself as being the holder to all solutions. Instead, it sincerely consults with the people and the people partake actively in shared governance.

• Government control: Shared

There is a tiered structure to the sharing of governance between the government and the people. In different times, different tiers are adopted for operational purposes. The government will continue to have oversight of all areas of governance. During peace times, the government will continue to manage the “focuses on foreign and trade relations, defence, and maintaining law and order (as the WikiCity.sg scenario proposes as well) and facilitate the management of other areas among other groups. In times of emergencies, the government will take control of all areas of governance, while the people rally around the government to provide structured support.

• Business sentiments: Mixed (Potentially good)

The government continues to layout the overall strategic direction and growth plans of Singapore. This is communicated clearly and thoroughly to Singaporeans, who throw their support behind the government. Corporations and businesses feel secure with a strong leadership and strong citizen support and continue to invest in Singapore.

At the same time, they benefit from the innovation and creativity of the people who operationalise projects in groups, and offer diverse solutions towards more efficient operations in Singapore, and which also creates a vibrant culture.

• Fiscal position: Moderate to Good

The government continues to control and manage the financial areas of Singapore. However, this would mean that the government continuously engages, consults and updates Singaporeans on the financial situation of Singapore. The government is also transparent in its financial situation, so that Singaporeans are able to trust that the government will manage their monies honestly, wisely and responsibly.

Because of the clear and consistent communication, the people trust the government, so that when the government needs to make quick decisions in dire times, the government is able to do so decisively, and with the people’s support.

• Social cohesion: Fabulous

The government recognises its roles as a facilitator and one to build the capacity of all Singaporeans. The people take an active role in governance and as they mature in their role, become more responsible and wiser in exercise their power. There is a sharing of power, that respects the rights of individuals to their own lives.

There is also clear, structured and sustained communication between the government and the people, where the communication is honest and transparent. This creates very strong trust – a trust which did not exist in 2012. There is a strong sense of community spirit and a supportive environment, where Singaporeans care for and look our for one another.

*****

So, where does Scenario A and B sit in IPS’s scenarios. The chart below will illustrate this.

Strong government control

—>

SingaStore.com
Singapore’s Needs Balanced
SingaGives.gov
Government as Facilitator
WikiCity.sg

<—

Strong community involvement

You can see that currently, Singapore is very obviously in the SingaStore.com scenario. The suggestion from the powers may be seems to be that a move towards either a SingaGives.gov or WikiCity.sg should not be encouraged, as there are seemingly negative consequences in doing so.

However, IPS had only proposed 3 scenarios. This article attempts to highlight other scenarios that are similarly feasible.

Scenario A (Singapore’s Needs Balanced) which I had proposed is a balanced governing approach which continues to have an economic focus towards governance, but which also shifts slightly to provide for the social, psychological and welfare needs of the people, in a manner that is sustainable and viable in the long term. 

This is a scenario that addresses the gaps in both the SingaStore.com and SingaGives.gov scenarios. I would also further suggest that this is a solution that can effectively ensure that the government’s priority in economic growth is not drastically shifted, while ensuring that the social, psychological and welfare needs of people are also carefully observed and respected as well.

The Singapore government has tended to take an either/or approach to governance – we have to either focus on economic growth or social and welfare growth. But is this necessarily the case? I would like to suggest that this is not.

The government needs to work a lot harder to invest in resources to allow themselves to continue in a focus that protects the long term economic interests of Singapore, but at the same time, caters to the needs of Singaporeans in balanced ways.

It is possible to find a common ground. 

I had also brought out Scenario B (Government as Facilitator), so as to put it in perspective that in the longer term, governance as we know it in current times, will change. Governance as we know it will evolve, but how? That’s the question. IPS had proposed the WikiCity.sg where the community makes all the decision.

I would like to propose Scenario B, in the form of a government which takes on the role as a facilitator. When governance evolves to a situation where the people are able to responsibly manage areas of governance, the government can allow them to spearhead programmes, whilst continuing to provide guidance and to facilitate the development of these programmes.

Can this be done? It can be – with a mix of capacity building, online communication and networking and an educated peoples who are taught from young about their social responsibilities, and where autonomy is given to allow them to put themselves out for trials, before they are sufficiently ready to take on further responsibilities. Necessarily, this will require more intensive resource investment. 

*****

As Senior Research Fellow Gillian Koh, the IPS Prism Project lead had said, she “would not be pressed on which scenario she thought was most probable. “The three scenarios are necessary in order to highlight the choices that confront us. So as organisers of this, we would not pick one scenario.”

This is true. The question is not only for Singaporeans to consider what we are ready for, but also for the government to consider – how much control is it willing to share, as we move into the next 10 years, where the people are letting the government know that they want some form of responsibility passed on to them, so that they can become responsible citizens in Singapore. 

• Will Singaporeans be more willing to think more broadly and strategically for Singapore’s long term future? 
• Will the government be more willing to accept differences perspectives and decentralise power to the people, by educating and building the capacities of Singaporeans? 

We will find out. But it is clear what needs to be done – for both Singaporeans and the government alike. 

Now, what would you do?

I do not usually talk about personalities.

But I was somewhat offended by this Forum letter, which I had initially causally glanced.

The Forum Page had titled the letter, “Beware the capitalist democracy trap“. How true, I thought to myself. Because capitalism is necessarily intertwined with democracy, when we pander to capitalism, we fail as a democracy because we necessarily have to deny the rights of people, over favouring capitalism.

And I thought to myself – how honourable of The Straits Times to publish this.

How wrong was I!

1. Firstly, the title was misleading. When I read further, the article discussed how we should preserve “capitalist democracies” by not “moving down the slippery slope” where we provide a stream of handouts” – The writer implies here that governments should not observe the welfare of the people.
2. Secondly, the writer brought out issues of “an increase in income disparity” but frames it such that this “puts further pressure on populist politicians to increase the number and duration of handouts to the disadvantaged.” – Here, the writer blames income inequality for governments have to redistribute wealth to balance inequality. The writer implies here that we should let income inequality grow.
3. I was appalled by his argument. His letter blatantly praises the government’s focus on economic growth at all costs and wants the government to not value human rights and to rebalance income and social inequalities. I was horrendously disgusted and wanted to know who was the guy who wrote this.

Does anyone know David Grant?

I searched online and found only one David Grant in Singapore. He is the CEO of optionsXpress Singapore and is also a member of the Investor Education Advisory Committee the Securities Investors Association (Singapore) or SIAS. On its website, it states that, “SIAS is the largest organized investor lobby group in Asia, with almost 70,000 retail investors as members.”

What I want to know is this:

1) Is this the same David Grant who wrote in to The Straits Times?

2) I would like to request that the David Grant behind this letter be known to the public.

3) If it is indeed the same David Grant, I would like to know why his affiliations weren’t shown? This would have dire implications on the interpretation of the letter.

There are major implications, because if it is the same David Grant, then as a business leader, he would necessarily favours pro-business policies.

Business leaders would generally and naturally want the government not to focus on social welfare policies which are aimed at helping the poor and needy. But there are real Singaporeans who are poor and who need social and welfare support! Are we to ignore their plight, simply because we should strive to be “the most powerful and liberating” economies by being a “capitalistic democracy”? I would argue that by being one – we won’t actually be liberating though.

So, is this the same David Grant?

Then my next question is directed at The Straits Times. Once against you instigate and infuriate Singaporeans with your biased selection of letters which serve only to justify what the government wants to do. Is this a clear reflection of the thoughts of the majority of Singaporeans, or has the Forum Page become effectively a blatant machinery to push out government agenda?

I need to know if this is the same David Grant. I hope that he would be able to clarify.

The recent saga involving NUS undergrad Alvin Tan and his blog posting has garnered much attention. I won’t delve into his actions as I do not know him a personal level.

But I would like to explore a bit about our thinking behaviour here.

*****

Let’s be honest. All of us have sex. Some of us take pictures of ourselves having sex or of our own naked bodies. In fact many of us do. But in private. Be quiet. No one should know. We shouldn’t let others know we do it. Otherwise, they will judge us. So, fact is all of us have sex, take pictures of ourselves. But pretend that we do none of that.

The funny thing is we do these very things but when someone else does the same – have sex, take naked pictures of themselves – we are quick to judge them for doing the same. We watch porn and like looking at naked people, and yet we are quick to judge others who do so, or post their pictures online, even though it’s pretty much like the porn we watch.

And then, we use arguments of morality and ethics to justify that what they do is wrong. They shouldn’t be taking these pictures. Of course, we do the same, but no – we cannot judge ourselves! How can we be immoral and unethical? No, these people are immoral. We are not. Well, everyone is saying they are so they are! Thank goodness they do not know what I do in my bedroom!

So, even though they have sex, take pictures of themselves, we label them as obscene – what we do as well. We engage in the same behaviour we label others as immoral, unethical and obscene as. We’ve learnt to simply bring out these terms whenever we need to judge someone for sexual behaviour which we think we should be labelled. Do we even know what these terms mean? Do we really?

The question I want to know is why? Is it because we truly think it’s immoral and unethical? – when we have sex and take pictures of ourselves, we are immoral and unethical then? Is it? Or is it because the predominant societal discourse is that we should label sex as being immoral and unethical, and therefore, we feel that we should take on the same discourse?

We have become part of the unthinking people of society? Or is it this – society thinks that we should not talk about sex publicly, and so we do not talk about it. Because it’s shameful, embarrassing – it’s just not something to talk about? Really? Is that why we talk about sex to our friends secretly? Is that way we think about sex to ourselves? Is that why we talk about sex but when someone else does it, we label them? Because we’ve chosen to carve ourselves within what we think society wants us to be, and we pretend that we shouldn’t talk and think and actually have sex, because that’s what society wants us to do?

What did this couple do? What they did was like what everyone else did – they had sex, they took photos of themselves. What they did differently though was to post it up. But are they the first ones to do it? You gotta be kidding me when you tell me no other person has ever done it. Do a search online and you can see many Singaporeans with naked pictures online. Do we bring them out and flame them? Sometimes we look at their pics and we get aroused. But no, no. This is something we shouldn’t talk about. This is something we shouldn’t be saying aloud that it’s ok.

What does it mean if people know we think it’s acceptable? No, people cannot know. So, we have to judge them. We have to label them. We have to be like everyone else. We have to say its wrong. Because we cannot look like we are accepting, even though we think so in private and continue to enjoy watching what they do.

Oh, and by the ways you know what? They are foreigners and wait, they are in NUS. What? I didn’t get to attend NUS and they did. How dare they! They don’t deserve it. They are talking away my right to study and how dare my government let people like that in! Never mind that there are many Singaporeans like them! Nevermind that during the Tammy incident, we didn’t make as big a fuss but we shared her photos like wildfire. Because the couple is cute and they are local. Never mind all at. Now it’s about taking a stand. It’s wrong. We shouldn’t talk about sex. We shouldn’t be taking photos. We do that too but we should think it’s wrong. And they are foreigners and taking my place in Singapore. They are wrong, wrong, wrong!

We are hypocrites.

Channel NewsAsia reported that, “Cleaners in some sectors can expect to take home a bigger pay packet and enjoy higher starting basic salaries of between S$1,000 and S$1,200, as part of efforts to raise productivity through the Progressive Wage Model (PWM).”

First, the good news – Finally, one group of low income earners will be able to earn a higher income – 23% to be exact!

According to the news, the increase in their incomes can be achieved “as part of efforts to raise productivity through the Progressive Wage Model (PWM)”. I don’t think anyone quite get what this means.

Increase productivity to increase wages? Really? You still want to champion this proposal? Nevermind that our productivity growth has seen one of the lowest in recent years. Nevermind that Singapore has one of the lowest productivity in the region. And nevermind that no one quite understand how you can increase productivity though the news reported that “the cluster is also pushing for a “wage ladder” to give more “wage points” to cleaners who pick up new and better skills, or take on bigger responsibilities.”

The news further reports that, “these include what the cleaners’ wages would have been if they had kept pace with productivity growth, the nature and working conditions in various cleaning jobs, as well as input from those in the cleaning industry.”

What this suggests is:

1. In the past few years, the wages of the cleaners have not kept pace with productivity, and so they are finally matching up with this increase.
2. But with productivity growth hovering around 1% and sometimes dipping 0% growth, what this suggests is that for all us – our wages should increase by only 1% or sometimes dip, if our wage growth is to follow productivity growth. Obviously, this is not the case. So, what’s the deal with typing wage increases to productivity increases?
3. Truth is, the cleaners’ wages have been unfairly depressed over the past few years and this increment is to actually push their wages up to match up with what inflation has taken away over the past few years. 
4. Truth is, if we account for inflation, their wages would increase even further. But if it does, then this will bring them closer to the wages of other workers, which mean pushing wages up across the board further. For now, $1,000 to $1,200 seems like something we can stomach for now. 

Fine. Whatever you want to put out. Doesn’t matter – as long as you increase the wages of the lower income earners. 

Obviously, with an uncontrolled labour growth policy and wage stagnation which wasn’t stopped in its tracks, the pool of low wage earners in Singapore has grown and has seen their wages stagnate or drop, in relative terms, over the past few years. This increase isn’t one pegged to productivity gains. Any mathematician will tell you that.

What this actually means is that finally we have acknowledged the inhumane way we continue to utilise the services of cleaners while treating them unfairly, and the adjustments are aimed at:

1. Bringing the wages of cleaners to being on-par with inflation and other financial burdens, such as increase in CPF payments, Medishield etc.
2. Bringing the wages of cleaners to one that can provide a basic standard of living, in realistic terms.

As Deputy Secretary-General of the National Trades Union Congress Heng Chee How himself had acknowledged, “the current situation as unsustainable, noting that the widening income disparity would create social tensions, and has increased the reliance on foreign workers.” So, NTUC has acknowledged that the truth of the matter is this – the widening income disparity is one key factor for the increase in wages, even as they do want to push out the ideology that wage gains has to be tied to productivity gains. 

Here, you have to understand why the government is doing this. Our government does not want to be a welfare government. They want to be a government that operates on economic principles. So, they do not want to be seen as increasing the incomes of people because it is “the right thing to do”. They know it is the right thing to do, but they won’t just to do it which they think will make it look like they have become weaker. So, they conjure up the idea that it’s all because of productivity – once productivity increases, wages will increase. The maths say otherwise, but it doesn’t matter.

They need to tie their policies to economic ideals and we need to increase wages, so this is a win-win ideology.

Similarly, they had not want to put in a minimum wage law, because another principle that the government operates on is that it doesn’t want to tie itself unnecessarily to laws that cannot be reversible – and a minimum wage law is one that they are uncomfortable with, in the current uncertain economic climate. So, they purport the idea of negotiating with companies to push the wages of low income earners organically. There are mechanisms behind how the government can intervene with wage changes. So, it cannot be as simple as companies suddenly agreeing to respecting people’s rights.

But does it matter? Yes and no. But, at this point, no. The government wants to save face and want to look strong, and economically-focused. We will give them that. As long as you treat people fairly – doesn’t matter how you do it.

Indeed, Mr Zainal Sapari, director for NTUC’s Unit for Contract and Casual Workers had said that, ”if the cleaners working for the government sector are earning wages according to the progressive wage model, it will have a ripple effect on cleaners working in the private sector.” Ripple effect, yes?

In effect, the government in instituting a minimum wage policy without calling it one – without having to tie itself to welfare governance principles.

*****

Fine. But it’s silly. If you do something good, you want to let people know. You obviously know people aren’t happy with their wages prior to this. You obviously know you have to institute minimum wage in some way, even if not as a policy. But why would you seemingly to do something which caters to the welfare of the people, but choose not to acknowledge it? Of course, the government has this train of thought – what I do has to be purely aligned to economic strategies. But this is an excellent opportunity for the government to showcase its soft side, its caring, understanding and empathetic side and the government is just going to let it go – firstly, by instituting wage increases in seemingly ad-hoc and piecemeal ways and in not taking credit for it. 

Maybe, once again, the government’s PR team isn’t the smartest again. Instead of putting out enforced propaganda such as what was done in The Straits Times Forum yesterday, the government can take credit for this real improvement, by launching a large scale campaign to showcase their efforts in increasing wages, and allowing some 300,000 Singaporeans to immediately change their mindsets of the government. But then again, what do I know? I am not the government.

They want to be Singapore Inc., and their inflexibility in mindset requires them to stick to a structured uncaring strategy. Pity. It’s a lost opportunity for the government, but they want to stick to their guns. Well played?

*****

Afterthought: I had a further think through on the government’s rationale for laying low on championing any news on wage increase:

1. Currently, there is a huge pool of low wage earners who earn below $1,000. The strategy of increasing the wages of those earning less than $1,000 is to life this group into the next income bracket. This is so that the government can make the statistics look beautiful – we do not have a huge proportion of low wage earners, if we are able to push them into the next bracket. So, the government has done its calculations and know it does actually have the money to provide for this little increment, just so that they do not look like they treat low wage earners in a mean way.
2. But this doesn’t take into account the income inequality. Even as the wages of low wage earners are uplifted, the wages of the higher wage earners will continue to rise more rapidly. Thus the income gap will only continue to draw further, as wages for low wages earners will never match up. This also means that the government would naturally have more money in their coffers, which would moderate the effects of any financial contribution they need to provide to increase the incomes of the low wage earners. In effect, the government doesn’t really lose much.
3. Even if the wages of low wage earners are increased, they are still accessed for their economic value more than their human value. Of course, the other Asian countries are similarly paying for human labour according to their economic value. It will be a long time before Asian economies will learn to respect human worth according to their human value, where workers are paid according to what they need to lead a respectable life, rather than what the value of their work is economically value – as the Nordic countries do. 
4. Finally, and most importantly, even as incomes rise, there are also increases for other financial contributions that Singaporeans have to fork out for. In recent months, the government has announced that Singaporeans would need to top up their CPF account to a higher Minimum Sum before they can draw out their CPF monies. MediShield premiums have also been increased. A monthly increase of $100 to $200 will hardly be enough to cover for these increases. After factoring in inflation, higher prices of goods and services and increases in these nationalised insurance plans, so to speak, the wages of the lower income earners actually continue to be devalued and eroded. their lot isn’t that much better. 

And this is the main reason why the government doesn’t champion any wage increases they are able to negotiate for – they know they are collecting back these monies they give out. As fast as they give out the money, they take it back as quickly. No loss on their side. In fact, they gain because the amount of money they take back is higher. And too bad no one is doing the calculations to realise this. 

Is the lower income earner better off? Not necessarily. So, the government has actually come out with an effective strategy of spreading out the announcements of the wage increments, and intersperse within them the announcements of the financial increments for the nationalised insurance plans, so that hopefully the good news (of wage increments) can hopefully cover up for the bad news (of increments to contributions to nationalised insurance plans). When the dust blows over, hopefully, what people will remember are the wage increments, where the announcements should be staggered for a longer period of time, a few months after the last announcement of this batch of financial contributions increments ends. Before another starts. 

For more updates, you can go to: The Heart Truths Facebook page.

In page A8 of The Straits Times today (Thursday, October 18, 2012), The Straits Times had written the following: “Instead of blogs and social media, he (Mr Bryan Chow) took to The Straits Times Forum Page to air his views. “Its readership is much wider (than social media) and provides for more credibility,” said the second-year medicine student at the National University of Singapore.”

The aim of this statement is three-fold.

1. The newspaper wants to slight blogs and social media as being media platforms which are not credible. It wants to discourage the reading of blogs and social media.

2. The newspaper wants to justify that it’s worth your effort to write into the Forum Page, instead of create your own blog or use social media, by highlighting its “much wider” readership.

3. In doing so, if you are less likely to set up a blog or use social media, and more more likely to write into the Forum Page, the newspaper would be able to centralise discussion on that platform. If their strategy works and you do not see the need to create too many competing platforms, then they would be able to effectively centralise and control the discussion in Singapore, by publishing only letters which are “approved”.

As it is, over the past few months, the newspaper has been forced to also cover news which have been discussed like wildfire online and so, to be considered credible, they had no choice but to cover those news.

See, the strategy of Singapore’s mainstream media is to allow for online “noise” to be contained in that domain. However, if it spills over when the population at large starts discussing about what had been brought up online, the mainstream media will have no choice but to pick up on it. And it gets tiring for the mainstream media to do so, because then they would have to provide alternate viewpoints, which as a controlled platform, makes it difficult for them to keep up with a consistent national propaganda. By covering alternative news, they are allowing Singaporeans to think and question in a way that is not aligned to the overall propaganda.

So they’ve moved into the next stage of their media framing strategy – take a more aggressive stance towards blogs and social media, render them as being less credible and refocus attention back to the mainstream media.

The strategy for the Forum Page is two-fold:
1. Ensure a consistent national propaganda is followed through in a consistent fashion in letters published.
2. Publish letters which offer alternative views which they find easy to stomach and does not upset their stance in an adverse manner, so as to appease the alternative voices. But will the suggestions be acted on? Or will it be aired and ignored? That is the question.

In today’s Forum Page, the newspaper had decided to do a feature which “reprises 11 letters in print.” According to the Forum editor, Yap Koon Hong, the letters were chosen based on three values. “First, contributions are voluntary … It is, in this age of social media anonymity, an unusual trait in public discussion, and we think, a very good reason for Forum’s credibility (again, thumping their own credibility and making a snide remark at social media) … The second principle was an organizing one, which was to reflect the variegated nature of last year’s issues. Politics was the runaway hit powered by the watershed elections … Finally, we kept the selection to one person, the Forum editor, because picking letters for publication us ultimately a judgment call.“

The Forum had purported these three values to look objective. They have also added this disclaimer – “Mea culpa if you don’t like them, and if you do, thank you. Either way, enjoy.” Sounds a bit like we have enough of you knowing that we have an agenda, but you know what, we couldn’t care less. We are tired of having to be honest.

(I was informed by a friend that “mea culpa” means “my mistake” or “my fault”. The Straits Times had clearly added this disclaimer to cover up for their lack of transparency, responsibility and credibility. By using a Latin word to describe how they know that by displaying the 11 selected letters that are biased, that they know they are hypocritical at criticising others (bloggers and social media users), they tried to cover up for their hypocrisy by saying that they are sorry by not exactly saying they are sorry – by using less known phrases.

In effect, The Straits Times knows that it is an irresponsible and biased media channel which takes clear sides, and they are trying to admit to it, but only as a disclaimer to people who will catch them out, as this article has.

*****

So, lets take a look at how they have put their judgment call to good use – noting the selection is done by only one person, and if the letters are representative of the viewpoints of Singaporeans at large – though this isn’t actually one of their selection criteria.

Single-party state works best for Singapore by Lee Kek Chin, 46

“Having a single party allows the leaders to steer the country in one direction.

On the other and, a two-party or multi-party system forces each party to serve party interests, sometimes at the expense of the country’s progress.

I believe it is because our single-party government steered the country in one direction.

Bigger nations with a two-party or multi-party system can afford to falter and recover. For a small country like Singapore, there is no room for second chances.”

Represent alternative voices well by Liu Mengqi, 23

“The opposition’s role in a democracy is not to take over the government to form another one-party government.

For a democracy to be effective, the opposition does not have to form a new government; it simply needs to form a capable party which can represent alternative voices in Parliament which seats members from two or more parties.

Singapore has come far since its independence, and the PAP deserves great credit for this.”

All’s well that ends well for Singapore but… By Heng Cho Choon, 69

“Although the PAP lost in Aljunied GRC, I have great respect for the losing team helmed by a Foreign Minister George Yeo.

Mr Yeo and his teammate, Minister (PMO) and Second Minister for Finance and Transport Lim Hwee Hua, paid tribute to Aljunied voters and congratulated Mr Low This Kiang, who led the Worker’s Party to victory in the constituency. I was impressed by Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Zainul Abidin Rasheed’s apology.

The pressure is now on Mr Low and his team to perform well or face defeat at the next general election. I hope the winners will not be carried away and will be prepared to work hard for the elderly in Aljunied who face problems like rising cost of living, transport costs and the escalating cost of utility bills.”

She prefers her First World estate by Khartini Khalid, 36

I don’t have to go into the details of her letter. We would know enough if it by now. (If I were the newspaper, I would be secretly happy that netizens have chosen only to focus on this letter but not notice the other letters.)

You just need to read between the lines to understand how the government wants to position itself.

Is this credible? The Straits Times Forum Page wants to see itself as such. However, if the mainstream media is biased in their selection of articles and letters, how credible does that make them? If they want a credible discussion to happen online, do they have to take the lead to be responsible in the news they put out? If the mainstream media puts out news which are biased, netizens are only going to learn from this media platform which has a “much wider” readership, and learn to also be biased – they swung the other way. If the mainstream media does not set an example on good media and reporting values and techniques, does it expect the online and social media to take the lead? This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

This must be the largest propaganda exercise that the government has conducted this year – behind the guise of the seemingly harmless Forum Page, so as to catch people off-guard and not rouse any feathers.

*****

Let’s be brutally honest here. No government will want to be truly honest to its people. They want to maintain enough power to be able to do certain things. This is more so in Singapore where the government believes in making strong, firm and fast decisions. And truth is, the people accept that and want that.

However, this paradigm is premised on a balance that is achieved by the government enacting policies which address the people’s needs and the people trust the government to work for their interests. So, if the balance is toppled, this paradigm will fall apart and people will stop believing in the government. And so, now we realise the pitfalls of having a strong singular government which continues to push through with its decisions, which are not made in accordance to our needs.

And that’s why we wake up to the notion that we need to have alternative voices. But how? We have the opposition but they cannot build up a strong enough presence in Parliament. We can go online and use social media but we haven’t learnt how to organize ourselves on it. For now, the government can still buy some time while the opposition and netizens figure themselves out. Meanwhile, the government can continue on its rampage. Or not.

See, at this point, if the government does the right thing by ensuring the people’s needs are met, we can bring the paradigm into balance again. Question is, will the government? Singapore is ruled like a company. This is an open secret. Our President and Prime Minister is the Chairman and CEO of Singapore Inc. We are workers. And simply put, workers have no rights. We should only work and help generate profits. Singapore Inc. isn’t Google. It’s primarily focus isn’t on welfare or innovation. It’s more aligned to Foxconn. Work and produce.

So, now the people are saying – we want to be like Google. We want balance, we want benefits, we want rights. Of course the government is resistant. If you want rights, companies will feel threatened. Their bottom line will be affected if they have to fork out more to pay for the welfare needs of its workers. Hell, no!

So, necessarily, the people’s wants are in direct opposition to the ruling principle of Singapore Inc.’s Chairman and CEO. If we give them rights, companies will find it more expensive to invest in Singapore. Our profit margin will drop. We become less influential on the international stage. So, what’s best for Singapore Inc.? Find a way to appease them and centralise all communication. We want to buy them over as cheaply as we can and to get them to buy into our propaganda – so cut the noise online.

But fortunately, Singapore Inc. is not an exact replica of Foxconn. Foxconn can settle it behind closed doors and put out a press release saying that there wasn’t any riots. God knows what they did to those who had protested. Singapore Inc. has an effective set of laws to curb protests. However, they are only in the physical space. In a knowledge economy, you cannot control the Internet. No one does that in a global capitalistic society. Once you do that, you become North Korea and Iran. As if it’s not already bad that people already criticise Singapore for the lack of human rights. But that has been for decades since, so the government can choose to blindside that criticism. But once we enact laws to control the Internet, we will immediately become like China. China has the size to play punk on the international stage. Singapore doesn’t. Once we become like a mini China, we immediately render ourselves irrelevant in the world economy. Even China won’t need to take us seriously.

So, what’s the solution? The government has to stop being a Foxconn and start being a Google. It has no choice. As much as the government wants to control the people, Singapore is only a very small country which is part of a larger sea change of things. In the developed world, people are talking about work-life balance, human rights, rights for workers etc. Also, as we move into the knowledge economy, we have to start being innovative and be critically engaged in the mind. These are all the things that Singapore fail on the international stage. Yet, the government wants to hold on to its control. The question now is, how far and how long more can the government hold on to it? It has to change. It’s not a choice. It’s a must.

Right now, the government is held ransom by four major events in the world. First, the current uncertainty in the world economy does not allow the government to take a drastic course of action. It’s focus would be on ensuring that the economy is kept afloat. Second, the American Presidential Elections and China’s political transition is currently taking place. Once this is over and the world’s two largest economies refocus their energies onto the economy once again, things will take a different turn – the government hopes that business-oriented politicians win and even if it’s not good for the welfare of the American people, Mitt Romney is who the government is betting on. Third, the world measures economic success by GDP. As long as the world continues to do that, Singapore cannot change its course. It has to ensure that it can keep growing economically, in terms of GDP, so as to stay relevant. And this means to work the people to the max. A fourthfactor, which is not so much related to world events, but more as a consequence of Singapore’s location is our location in a region where the countries continue to aim for economic growth, and thus as much as Singapore might be in a position to slow down, it cannot let up because of the pressures in the regional economies. Businesses have many opportunities to move their investments elsewhere and Singapore simply has to keep up with the pressure to stay relevant for them.

What can the government do then? Very simply, the government’s current strategy is in the right direction. Here, I focus on two of them – inculcating values and innovation and a focus on productivity growth. As we move into the knowledge economy, we need people who are able to think critically, constructively and in innovative ways. In a way, the older generation educated on a system of efficiency and structured ways might be a lost cause in the new economy. But the government can groom a new generation of thinkers for the new economy. But it would take another 20 years for the new thinkers to emerge and become workers. Second, the government’s focus on productivity growth is right. They seemed to have started to lose steam in this area because of the difficulties of doing so – but this is due primarily to their lack of willingness to invest financially and directly to boost productivity. They want to take a back seat to encourage companies to fork out some of the expenses as well. Therefore, what this means is the government has to pump in more direct investments to force companies to adopt technology to ensure increased output, at lower manpower numbers.

In the short to medium term, this is why it is necessary to have foreigners come into Singapore to mediate for the gaps in our talent pool of thinkers and lower productivity output. However, what this also means is the government has to fast track it’s focus and not leave it up to schools or companies to find enough value for reinvestment to take place.

No matter what, change has to happen. It’s a change that is taking place globally and Singapore has to go with it. The government might want to hold out for a bit longer, because it wants to tide itself through the current economic uncertainty. But once this is over, the government would need to double and triple up on its efforts to push forward directly with its focal areas, to make bold moves to change Singapore and take us to a next level, not just of economic development but into the new era of human, social, emotional and intellectual development.

Only because the government has to.

For more updates, you can go to: The Heart Truths Facebook page.

The Straits Times and Channel NewsAsia had reported that the “residents in the Sengkang-Punggol area had raised concerns to their MPs during Meet-the-People sessions, about rising health-care costs and the need for affordable medical services.” As such, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean had shared that the Singapore Thong Chai Medical Institution was thus opened in Sengkang to “fulfill the needs of residents in the area”. It “expects to serve mainly lower-income residents” and “offers free medical treatment for all”, though “the facility can treat a maximum of 200 patients daily”.

The move to set up a free clinic is a commendable move by the government, albeit a localized move which only caters to the residents of Sengkang. The people have feedback on the rising costs of healthcare and the government responded by providing healthcare for free – for the “lower-income residents”, in line with the government’s aim of providing targeted interventions.

It would be good for this model to be expanded and replicated in other estates as well.

1. The people in Singapore have also highlighted their concerns about rising and less affordable healthcare costs.
2. From a broad planning perspective, what is a more holistic strategy to ensure that the needs of the low-income residents are met on a national level, and not just at a localised level? Will the government look into nationalising this free service into other locales to provide for the lower-income residents?
3. Is there a more sustainable way of ensuring that the healthcare needs of the low-income residents are met in the longer term as well? In terms of the coverage of the population, the clinic caters to 200 patients daily. Does this meet the overall load of low-income residents in Sengkang who require this service? Can the provision of the free service be calibrated to ensure adequate provision for all low-income residents in Sengkang? This question would apply to the rest of Singapore as well.
4. The other question on sustainability is on cost and accessibility to services. Will the free clinic be able to meet all the healthcare needs of the low-income residents? Does it provide all services, such as for operations? If it doesn’t, is there a need to ensure that the health policies enshrine the values behind the setting up of the clinic – to provide care for the low-income residents in Singapore at a low or free cost, and which is not restricted within the operations of this clinic, but available on a policy and administrative levels, at all healthcare institutions?

It is commendable that the government has effectively responded to the healthcare needs and cost concerns of Singaporeans. This new initiative is currently a localised, and perhaps a one-off one. The government has recognized the issues that residents face – rising and less affordable healthcare costs among the lower-income population.

The government has recognised this model of addressing higher healthcare costs – through the provision of free healthcare services. How can this model to be expanded, to ensure that there’s sustainability and longevity to the model, through replicating this model across the rest of Singapore, and enshrining the values of this initiative into the healthcare policy? How can the lower-income population, as a whole, benefit from the recognition by the government on their need for free healthcare services?

I thought it fitting to comment on the Amy Cheong Controversy, to discuss about the issue of race.

Do you know that “race”, as we know it, isn’t real? We think that “race” is a biological marker of our differences. But it’s not. Our race, in terms of differentiation, is real, only in the visual sense. What should be more abhorred, is that we have taken this visual differentiation further and used it to undermine others, simply by how a person looks.

Let me share with you an anecdote. A few days ago, I had a meeting with some colleagues. We were discussing about whether to include Malay and Tamil languages on a poster that I was developing for a campaign. In the end, they recommended that I do not need to include the Malay and Tamil languages on one particular poster because the poster would be placed at a specific location which will be frequented mainly by the Chinese-speaking group. I accepted their recommendation, since I had assumed that they would be more familiar in the overall communications aspect of the campaign. It was only when I got home and reflected about the campaign did I realise that I was the only Chinese person at the meeting. The other members were Malay and Indian people but this didn’t cross my mind at the time of the meeting. I had not noticed their skin colour. I had recognised them just as another human being. Most importantly, at the meeting, we were able to make objective decisions, not determined by our skin colour. But then again, should we?

*****

Do you know that the colour of our skin has developed as a reaction to sunlight. I will try to put this as simply as could I understand it.

The colour of our skin is present because of a pigment called melanin Melanin protects us from ultraviolet radiation (UV). In the tropical regions (at and near to the equator), sunlight is the strongest, so melanin has to work more – it absorbs more UV rays. Then, the melanin granules will increase and expand – this will cause the skin to look darker. As you go further north and south towards the poles, the amount of sunlight is less intense and the duration of sunlight is shorter, so there is relatively less need for the melanin to protect us from the UV rays. Thus people in these regions have developed lesser melanin as they do not need as much protection from the UV rays. This is the reason why their skin is fairer. If you understand this, you will understand that after thousands of years of being bathed in sunlight in the tropical region, a person will naturally develop more melanin and become darker, while a person in the temperate region will develop lesser melanin and become fairer. The colour of our skin is thus an interaction of our skin with the climate. In other words, imagine that if you are suntanning and you decide to do it for the next 50 years without rest, your skin would become fairly dark by then (pardon the pun!).

Another reason for our skin colour has been suggested to be this – humans need Vitamin D for calcium. Vitamin D is made when our skin is exposed to UV rays. Since people in the tropical regions have darker skin, because of the melanin which absorbs the UV rays to protect them, they would take a longer time to absorb UV rays to produce Vitamin D. It can thus be explained that in order to produce enough Vitamin D, the people living nearer to the poles have developed fairer skins to be able to absorb more Vitamin D because of the shorter exposure and intensity of UV rays.

In short, the colour of our skin has developed according to how much sunlight it has been exposed to. Thus people in Africa, parts of the Indian subcontinent, the indigenous people of Australia and parts of Oceania have darker skin colours because of the amount and intensity of sunlight that they receive. And people in the northern parts of Asia and Europe thus have fairer skin tones. You can see a pattern emerge if you map the skin colour tones (Figure 1) to the climatic regions (Figure 2).

Figure 1: Human Skin Colour Distribution (Picture Credit: Skin Colour Adaptation)

Figure 2: Climate Zones (Picture Credit: Green Bee Buzz)

Also, do you also know that the Red Indians of America had descended from the peoples of East Asia? So, in current terms, the Red Indians would technically be Chinese, wouldn’t they? And if they are Chinese, why do we call them Indians? Because of their skin colour? Something is not quite right when we label people according to their skin colour, and then realise thereafter that they are genetically from then same lineage. So, actually, we are not different races. We are one race.

To put it in another way, for the Chinese in Singapore, if your descendants are still around in the next thousands of years and still living in Singapore, they will become brown – they will become what we term as “Malay”. If you discriminate against other people of different colours, that means you would necessarily discriminate against your own descendant.

*****

So, you might then say, fine. Maybe we are the same race. Maybe if I live here for long enough, my colour will change. And it’s all because of the sunlight. But they are different! The behave differently! They have different customs! They believe in different things! It’s weird. Well, it was weird when the Europeans colonised Asia and thought that everything the Asians did was weird. It was weird when the Europeans colonised the Americas and though that everything the indigenous people did was weird. In fact, whenever one group conquers another, the conquered will always be perceived as weird. Why? Because if I were to rule you, my culture would necessarily take precedence over yours, wouldn’t it? This is called power. We thus demonise the culture of the conquered and consider them as lesser or weird.

But is someone else’s culture really weird? Just because we don’t understand, does it make it weird? Actually, everyone thinks the same way. The Chinese thinks that some practices of the Malays and Indians are weird. The Malays think that some practices of the Chinese and Indians are weird. The Indians think that some practices of the Chinese and Malays are weird. Is it really? Or it is because we want to feel better about own practices, because it makes us feel better about ourselves? Is it because we need to justify our own importance? There are some thousands and thousands of cultures in this world. In fact, culture, practices and customs keep evolving with time. For example, in the present day, culture has evolved to one which has become more driven by consumerism. So, we will look down on cultures which do not act similarly. We think that people who want to lead a simple life or are rural or considered inferior. But is it so?

If culture is ever evolving, it must have necessarily evolved from one common point in time, thousands of years ago? Then necessarily, our cultures have evolved from the same common culture that peoples of that time had shared.

If we had shared the same colour, and we had shared the same culture, then why are we discriminating against one another?

The beauty of having different cultures is so that we are able to enrich one another. Different cultures have evolved from the different unique circumstances that people of the times had faced. And their cultures can teach us something about ours, just as well that ours can teach them about theirs. If they are able to do something better, so we can learn from them. Right?

*****

See, thing is, we see differences according in relation to ourselves. To us, the world is only right if it abides by our rules, or if it looks the same as us. If someone is different from how we think or behave, it is weird. Why? Because this someone is different from us, and if they are considered to be “right”, what does that make of us? Wrong? No, no! That cannot happen. They have to be wrong. They are weird. I cannot allow myself to become second-class!

And, that’s why, in the past, when men saw women as being different, they thought to themselves. Women do not look like us. They are not equals. And thus when the whites first saw the blacks in Africa and Australia, they decided that the indigenous peoples were not equals. So, we keep looking at any identifiable visual trait that we can find to use to compare ourselves against another, and put ourselves on the pedestal. So, it can be colour, different body parts, mannerisms, behaviours, acts etc.

Instead of understanding and accepting differences as they are, and embracing the diversity that allows us to learn from one another, we have decided to identify these differences and allow our fears to overrule this appreciation.

Because we fear being considered as less important, we make others feel lesser before they have an opportunity to make us feel so. Necessarily, in a place where there is a majority of people with the shared visual characteristics, they can band together to make the other feel lesser. Thus in Singapore, the Chinese, as the majority, might seemingly feel that they have a say as to how to define the other “races”. Yet, even among the Chinese, they will also find different visual characteristics that they can identify to judge another – the clothes they wear, the homes they live in, their educational level, and so forth.

I am putting this out here because I want to be as honest as the situation in Singapore as we can. There is racism in Singapore. Why? Because we are ignorant. Like everyone else in this world, we do not understand what race is. It is not a biological marker. We are genetically the same – just that we have different skin colours. And we fear others – we do not know enough about them, so we fear them. Obviously, as a Chinese person, you cannot understand the life of a Malay, and vice versa. You are not them. But is this a function as race, or any visually identifiable characteristic? No, it’s not. Even a Chinese cannot completely identify with another Chinese – each one of us, as much as we are all humans, have different upbringing, lifestyles, beliefs and choices that make us who we are.

We are unique. And we should stop at that.

But when our insecurities act up, when we feel a need to preserve our being and importance, we start to look at these ‘unique’ characteristics, compare them and then use them to judge one another. And when we judge and place ourselves in a position of power, we then look at someone else as lesser, and discriminate against them.

This is plain silly. This doesn’t say anything about the person we are judging. But it says a lot about us. We are ignorant and we have insecurities. Instead of finding out more and learning more about the other person, we judge. Instead of finding out and learning to deal with our own emotional and psychological discomfort with ourselves, we judge others to make ourselves better. What this means is that in the process of discriminating against someone, we are already lesser as a person.

*****

I would like to discuss a bit about the policies of Singapore and how it has also shaped the discourse of race. Because discussion on race and religious issue are not encouraged here, Singaporeans are not able to have an intelligent understanding on the issue of race.

However, if other countries are to be of example, even if we allow discussion on race and religious issues, will Singaporeans know how to be responsible and respectful in the way we discuss these issues? Even with an intellectual understanding of how “race” is not a real and biological construct, but one that has its sole basis on defining the power between individuals and groups of people, we continue to use it. Why?

People want power. You want to feel superior. You want to feel important. Can we let our ego and self centred ideals go away? Can we?

So, is the government right to restrict discourse on race and religious issues? Recent events has also shown that without open discourse, the issue will just be swept under the carpet. People continue to discriminate against one another, by visual distinction. They just don’t talk about it as openly.

Is it time then to open the discussion? Is it time for the government to take the lead in encouraging a responsible and respectful discourse on “race”?

Minister K Shanmugam has started taking to his Facebook to discuss racial issues. Perhaps the government is indeed exploring an approach on discussing about racial issues in a controlled manner.

For the rest of us, is it time we look within ourselves to understand ourselves instead of allow ourselves to feel uncomfortable, just because we don’t understand another person and their practices well enough?

I have very good Malay and Indian friends whom I respect and love. I honestly do not remember that they are Malays and Indians sometimes, only because we are having such a good time. Eventually, we choose to be friends with people whom we can “click” with. And we are not to those we cannot. Does that make them lesser? No, it just makes them different.

And if we start drawing lines and boundaries, because we start wanting to feel that our group of friends is better than the other, then it’s time to look at ourselves. Not at others.

For more updates, sign up to The Heart Truths Facebook page.

The question of how the government govern is a philosophical one. On the one hand, Singapore is a nation, where the government should take a holistic approach to protect the people’s needs. On the other hand, Singapore is a capitalistic economy, which is also compounded by the fact that our economy is very intertwined with the global economy, by necessity.

The government has thus made a firm decision to value capitalistic economic growth, with proportionately more importance than with attending to people’s needs. This is the reason why many decisions made the government are left to ‘market forces’, to allow for market demand and supply to achieve a price equilibrium for goods and services. However, in a capitalistic market, necessarily, the wealth of the richest will grow, by virtue of their buying power, which can push prices up, and leave the lower income group in the dust. This is further perpetuated by goods which sold singularly, for example, such as resale housing. When resale flats are out onto the market, it has been shown in recent cases that there would be a resale flat which has a confluence of characteristics which appeal to one buyer – location, proximity to the city, height etc – which thus drives one singular buyer to drive up the price of one resale flat. This would necessarily have a ripple effect on the other resale flats.

In an ideal world, the government would necessarily have to balance achieving economic growth and the people’s needs, to find a balance that allow the country to grow and that which allow the people to achieve a basic standard of living that is respectable. Necessarily, most countries are capitalistic, and this tips their balance in favour of the economy. They do so because in a capitalistic economy, you need to favour the rich, because they are the ones that drive the economy. However, the flip side is that they would also drive up income inequality.

Has Singapore done a good job? Singapore is in a unique position. As explained, our country and economy is compounded by the fact that we are necessarily intertwined with the global economy. This means a compromise on the standard of living of the people, as we divert attention on the economy. Also, it is true that without natural resources and a large enough domestic demand, we would necessarily have to rely on the import of resources and international demand. In short, we have no choice. One can only look to Bhutan to see how the other alternative of the situation could be. We could choose to allow the people’s social and emotional needs to outweigh that of the economy. This would mean that the people accept a more basic standard of living and that the country doesn’t look at economic growth as the main priority. Can Singapore do the same? We can. But only if the people are willing to accept a standard of living that’s considerably and relatively much lower. We would be able to only sustain a much lower population. At the same time, we would need to rely on natural resources for the production of goods and services for our own use – which would mean we would be a largely rural economy, with some manufacturing sectors. Can we accept that?

Necessarily, Singapore has grown to such an extent, that seen from another perspective, we have trapped ourselves in the global economy. Unless the global economy changes, Singapore will not be able to pull itself out. So the government has to continue to rebalance itself according to global dynamics and changes. Unfortunately, Singapore isn’t America, China or the European Union. Otherwise, we would be in a better position to redefine the global economic model. Even so, realistically, at this point, no matter how large a country’s economy and influence is, we have all been trapped by the capitalistic mode of production. So unless the world decides as a whole to change the economic model and to look for alternatives to the GDP as a marker for growth, countries will continue to be trapped in the capitalistic economy and the world will destabilize further, as GDP growth stagnates or drops.

And thus Singapore does not have a choice. Its main focus for survival is to ensure that it continues to reinvent itself to stay afloat in the intertwined and outdated economic model, which has served its time and needs to have a rethink – sooner than later.

Even so, does this mean that there’s nothing the government can do? Can a balance still be achieved – between economic growth and the people’s needs? Actually, the government has been trying to do that. But because they understand the deal that a strong governmental role in the redistribution of wealth will necessarily lead to an unsustainable economy and future, they have thus tried to inculcate a sense of responsibility in the people, for the management of their own wealth and social protection.

Herein lies the question – how much should a government take responsibility over people’s wealth and needs, and how much should the responsibility lie on the people? Currently, the government has put the responsibility primarily on the people. But the fact is, if you leave people to manage their wealth, are they the best people to do it? For the rich, it doesn’t matter as much, since they would have a larger stock to begin with. But with the poor, it becomes an issue. First, they do not have the capacity to increase their wealth in their jobs, for a few reasons – lack of education or opportunities, for example. Second, the management of wealth is a skill that needs to be trained. The poor is thus necessarily outclassed in a capitalistic model which they cannot manoeuvre effectively in. This is when a government needs to step in.

And the government has. The question is – is it enough?

There is no definite answer to this. The government thinks it has. But the people thinks that it hasn’t. Thus herein lies the third philosophical question.

In the first, the government needs to think about striking a balance between the capitalistic economy and the people’s needs.

In the second, the government has to strike a balance between what is considered the government’s responsibility and what is considered to be the responsibility of the people.

In this third question, the question is, how can the government strike a balance between the government’s priorities and strategies, with the people’s demands, which arises from their perception of their needs.

The last question cannot be answered on its own, and would rely a lot on the first philosophical question. Whether or not the government feels that the third philosophical question is important depends on whether they can achieve a balance in the first. And where there is economic fluctuations, the government’s priority will necessarily be on the first. Yet, in our current landscape in Singapore, the people’s priorities are on the third.

We have reached a point where we think that our standard of living is high enough that we want to our needs for social and emotional well-being to be met. However the government doesn’t think so – it feels that the country needs to be protected against any onslaught of economic changes. Yet, in a democratic government, they necessarily have to listen to the people, which thus puts them on a spot. As a responsible government, you would want to focus on the first question – to ensure Singapore’s survival in the world economy, which otherwise, you won’t even be able to think about the third question – to satisfy the people’s needs. Yet, the strength of the government is no longer that it was, what with the outburst of online tirade, and also with the government showing its lowest performance in the general elections last year, since the country’s independence. Finally, Singapore has fallen into the trap of democracy.

Democracy has its advantages but in a situation where the country needs to make strong decisions, it is necessarily handicapped by having to deal with multiple philosophical questions, than to be allowed to deal with the economy first. And this is why the government has taken a stronger overtone in its message to Singaporeans – let us do our jobs lest we let the country languish and become irrelevant! Of course, Singapore won’t disappear from the economic landscape just by a few bad decisions – not at least in the short term. But to keep Singapore on the radar of investors, on a long term basis, at an almost paranoid manner, requires a government which makes bullish decisions and continues to hold itself with such perfection.

The issue then is – how can you tell the people without having them think you are neglecting them? Because by doing so, you will lose more votes in the next elections, which will compromise your ability to make strong decisions.

After the elections last year, the government figured – let’s try to satisfy some of their demands, so that we can then refocus to do our jobs. So Khaw Boon Wan have been tasked to look into housing prices. The government had initially been resistant towards raising incomes, but due to social pressure, they have been forced to announce wage increases in targeted sectors.

Next, the government finally understood that, if we don’t help the people think about and to love Singapore, we won’t be able to let them understand what we are doing! So they decided that after the many years of stunting our ability to think about social and emotional issues, they would like to encourage us to think about compassion and love for one another. However, this is still not working. Necessarily, it won’t and they would understand it won’t because in the span of a few months, people aren’t going to learn about compassion and love. No human has the capacity to do that.

And with the urgency of the global economy becoming more tumultuous, the government felt that it needed to adopt a stronger stance – so, enough is enough! And that is why they have decided that they would have to talk down to people. Like an exasperated parent who feels like he or she has done everything to teach the child and yet the child wouldn’t respond, the parent has decided to scold the child. But of course, like any child who wants to have his or her own mind, the child won’t listen to the parent or will find the parent disrespectful – though the disrespect is felt both ways.

At this point, this is where Singapore is. The final question is this – how much are Singaporeans willing to understand the broad governance ideals that the government has to operate within? How willing are Singaporeans to look beyond the shores of Singapore to understand the dynamic changes in the world and how we would need to look beyond ourselves, to be patient with the government as they steer our ship in the right direction, and away from the storm, knowing that this storm isn’t something that Singapore has a choice in defining? How much are the people willing to understand these complexities and come out with their own solutions to help the government, and most importantly, to help themselves? At this point, the government’s priorities have shifted towards the global economy. It has to. Not not that, because the government bowed down to pressure and reduced the inflow of migrant workers, this has resulted in a shortage of workers in some sectors, which thus makes Singapore’s position even more vulnerable, because you need a strong domestic economy to ensure that while you manoeuvre in the global economy, you have a strong market to rely on. And this is why the government has to shift their position, while putting the needs of people on hold.

So, the final question isn’t philosophical, but one about responsibility, and a willingness to understand. Will Singaporeans step up to understand their responsibility, not only to themselves, but also to the country? This isn’t a question about PAP. Whoever is in government now will have to ride the waves of the economic situation. So, the question is about Singapore – how will we act to protect Singapore, and protect our lives and future on this little piece of land? How will we have the openness and broadness of understanding to understand what is at stake here for Singapore? How do we rethink our roles to think about what we can do to contribute to the protection of Singapore? How can we put aside our needs, for now, to think about these broad strategic issues?

Of course, the government would also need to remember that the people’s needs must still be met, after they ride out the storm. However, the people’s very worries are that the government will forget. And thus, the people keep up with their tirade. They have to – they’ve witnessed a time when they contribute to the economy, but when crunch time came, the government didn’t do as much as they could to support the people. Why should I work so hard for you, when it comes to my needs, you choose to cast them aside, even in the good times of Singapore? So, the government has to remember this – when the storm is over, people’s needs have to take precedent in some form again. Right now, the government can either pray that the economic uncertainty can continue through the next elections, so that their position in government can remain secure, or the people can hope that the economic situation will last only for another one or two years, so that they can use the next elections as a bargaining tool to urge the government to think about their needs.

Is this the best way forward? Unfortunately, we are trapped in a world which continues to purport the greatness of democracy and capitalism. The government had tried to steer clear of democracy, whilst pursuing capitalism. However, the concepts of democracy and capitalism are necessarily intertwined and at some point, a country which focuses on a capitalistic mode of production, will have no choice but to follow a democratic model, in some way. The openness of a capitalistic economy will fuel the openness for knowledge and thoughts. And fortunately or not, as we move into the knowledge economy, the government might feel burdened by a choice they have to shoulder on with, and at the same time, live with the difficulties that come with their strength of rule being compromised.

But is this the best way to rule? And is this the best way for the people to respond? Should the people hold the government to their responsibilities to respect the people’s needs, simply because they can do so in a capitalistic democracy? Well, we can. Then we will play into the game that has plagued governments in other countries, where the who in governance changes every few years and decisions flip flop according to who is in government. Thankfully, Singaporeans are pragmatic. We know what is good for the future of Singapore. We know where we shouldn’t head to.

But, doesn’t mean that there is a dissonance between our pragmatic thinking and the current online tirade? Well, it takes two hands to clap. In fact, the government has played itself into the democratic mode of governance, whether they know it or not. And when they do that, the people will necessarily play back to it since the people’s survival will be dependent on whether they can play it better than the government.

Finally, the real question is this – can all of us, as Singaporeans – as the people and the government – take responsibility? This is a very big question. It was a philosophical question that we had asked – how should the government balance the responsibility to ensure economic survival with the people’s needs? But it’s also bigger than that. How can all of us take responsibility to understand the situation that Singapore is in, and take the responsibility to be part of the solution? The government has to understand that Singaporeans have taken to the Internet to ‘complain’ because their voices have been repressed for a long time. Also, the lack of clarity that the people have with what the government is doing has led to a backlash, because of their fears that they will be taken advantaged of. At the same time, the government has fought back, as they try to refocus the government on tackling external issues.

It’s hard to end this article when the there are so many complexities to understanding the layers of operations of our country and economy, the form and functions of governance, and the social and emotional growth of the people. However, I do have to stop somewhere.

As mentioned, Singaporeans as a whole – the people and the government – has to ask ourselves this: How can we be responsible? How can we understand the strategic dynamics that affect our country and take responsible stances to produce solutions for ourselves, and for our country?

It is disappointing that PM Lee had used a poor choice of words in his recent interview with The Australian.

The Australian had quoted Mr Lee as saying:

“People are not so poor. They think their government is not poor so they expect the government to do more for them. They’re not poor but they feel less well off relatively than others they can see in society. There is that relative sense that ‘I should get my entitlement.”

“In America, entitlement spending is a big chunk of your budget. In Britain it’s half the budget. In Europe it’s not just entitlement spending but the whole idea of state welfare, which is entrenched and you cannot undo this. How do you cut back on spending when benefits, once given, cannot be taken back? The Germans have done a big restructuring over the last 20 years, but the French have not given up their attitude to entitlements, neither have fundamentally the Spanish or the Italians … We have started with very minimal welfare and we’ve gone on the basis of growth and high employment and low unemployment. If you’re out of a job you can find a new job. You will get help but the help is not something you’re absolutely entitled to. We have to adjust that without going overboard and ending up where the Americans are or the Europeans are or where the New Zealanders were.”

From a public relations angle, Mr Lee had made a blunder in brushing off Singaporeans as being “not poor” and seemingly want the “entitlement” that he might suggest that they should not be entitled to. He had over suggested that his government should ensure that they do not allow Singapore to go “overboard” with the allocation of their budget for welfare benefits, to end up like the countries which had. 

Are Singaporeans poor?

However, what is of more concern is that by saying so, Mr Lee and his government have shown that they are resistant towards responding to the people’s needs.

The question is – is Mr Lee right to suggest that Singaporeans are not poor? There are nearly 300,000 people who are earning less than $1,000 (based on their CPF contributions). Of these, it is estimated that about 100,000 are fully employed and the rest are employed on a part-time basis. It is discussed by some sectors that about 20% of the Singapore population lives in poverty. An article that I had seen on one of SMU’s publications had also opinioned that according to a study, the household income that a family of four should have to ensure a basic standard of living is $1,700. On top of that, Singapore’s Gini coefficient, and our income inequality is one of the highest in the world.

So, are Singaporeans poor? Mr Lee had said this – “They’re not poor but they feel less well off relatively than others they can see in society.” What Mr Lee is suggesting is that Singaporeans feel poor only because we compare to others. He seemingly suggests that we are not contended and what we feel about being poor might actually be imagined. 

Clearly, most Singaporeans are not poor. And Mr Lee is partially right in suggesting that for some, our sense of being “poor” might be misplaced – a suggestion could be that as we achieve a higher standard of living, we want to afford things that might be beyond our means, as we strive to be live a more ‘luxurious’ life. But is Mr Lee’s opinion targeted at this group of people?

Even if it is, in broad strokes, Mr Lee had thus slighted those who truly are “poor” – those earning below $1,000 and the elderly who, in their 70s and 80s, still have to work to make ends meet, among others. The question is this – does the government have an eye on them, to ensure that even if we do not go “overboard” in the resources we allocated towards those who are in the lower social rungs of society, that we continue to provide them with a basic standard of living that is respectable in the Singapore economic context?

The truth is this:

1. When the government opened up Singapore’s borders to a larger migrant flow in the mid-2000s, in subsequent years, there was a depression in the wages of those in the lower wage groups. In fact, the group earning less than $1,000 grew in numbers. However, it is also a fact that those who earn more than $4,000 grew as well. So, PM Lee isn’t wrong to say that (most) Singaporeans are not poor. But the reality is also that those in the lower wage group have not seen their lot increase, at least over the past decade – their wages have depressed, their numbers have rose and their standard of living has necessarily dropped. 
2. When the government opened up the borders, necessarily, the larger migrant flow would necessarily result in a moderation of wage increase, due to market forces – which would have slowed down the potentially higher wage increase for Singaporeans. The government had largely taken a capitalistic approach towards allowing market forces to calibrate the wages of Singaporeans, and thus necessarily, our wages would not have increased at a pace that it would have if the government had calibrated the opening of the borders more carefully. This is coupled, with inflation rates that have soured above the increase in wages. 
3. Thus, if PM Lee wants to talk about relative terms, we have actually grown poorer, than what we could have potentially achieved, if the government had not left wage increase to capitalistic forces but had actively intervened to calibrate the wages of Singaporeans, to compensate for the expected depression in wages, due to a relaxed immigration policy and to adjust for inflation.

But, if we go on debating on whether Singaporeans are actually poorer or not, it will only be a debate of words – we are either poorer or richer, however we choose to see it, in relative terms.

What would be the more important issue is this – what is the right thing that government can do?

Do Singaporeans want what they are not entitled to?

Mr Lee had this to say at the interview:

1. You will get help but the help is not something you’re absolutely entitled to.
2. We have to adjust that without going overboard and ending up where the Americans are or the Europeans are or where the New Zealanders were.

But what is “entitlement”? Here, Mr Lee is suggesting that there are some Singaporeans who feel that they are entitled to assistance that they feel that the government should provide. From anecdotal evidence, this might be true – though it is a human condition that exists in all countries, that there are a group of people who might rely on the government to fulfil their needs because they are unable or unwilling to do so. PM Lee is thus wary of “going overboard” with welfare spending, which might over-compensate this group of people, at the expanse of revenue which can be redistributed elsewhere.

However, aside from this group of people who might feel “entitled”, there are real concerns that Singaporeans have. For example, in the area of healthcare expenditure, even though Singapore has the world’s highest GDP per capita, we spend one of the lowest proportion of our GDP on healthcare and the people pays one of the highest out-of-pocket expenditure for healthcare – which means that we fork out proportionately more to pay for our own healthcare bills. It is obvious thus, that the government can afford to do more to increase funding to subsidise for healthcare needs, to match up to its responsibility, as can be seen by the example that other countries have set. Of course, do the other countries set the standard as to what affordable healthcare is? They don’t. But when even Singaporeans lament about the expensive healthcare, surely, the people can’t be lamenting because they feel “entitled”?

Healthcare is not an entitlement. Healthcare is a basic right that people should have.

In the most ideal situation, the people should be afforded free healthcare, but this is unrealistic in a capitalistic society. However, the government needs to recalibrate the funding for healthcare expenses, to ensure that the people do not feel burdened by healthcare costs, do not feel the need to have to work in their 70s and 80s so that they can continue to live, so that they do not need to worry if they will have enough in their old age – the government has a responsibility to ensure that people’s well-being, in this sense, is taken care of.

Mismatch of Expectations Between the Government and People

Simply put, the government has taken a capitalistic approach to managing Singapore. It’s all about money and managing the country’s purse strings in a most stringent way, that maximises the utilisation of manpower and resources, to achieve the highest profits. But Singapore is not a company, as much as the government chooses to see it that way. Singapore is both a company where there are workers, and where there are people whose well-being need to be taken care of.

Is PM Lee wrong to say that Singaporeans are not poor, that not everyone is entitled to help and that the government shouldn’t go overboard in its welfare spending? No, he is not – not in relative sense.

But the government needs to remember this – it is a matter of principle and expectations.

1. The government sees workers in a company. The people see lives in a country.
2. The government prioritises revenue and profits. The people prioritise their well-being. 
3. The government believes in capitalistic controls. The people believes in calibrated redistribution to balance income differences. 

There is clearly a mismatch of expectations, and a mismatch of the principles of governance. The government wants to continue on its path of capitalistic management and in recent overtones, is trying to bulldoze its way through – the most recent example as can be exemplified in PM Lee’s interview. But the people are not letting that happen. 

Who is Right?

The final question is this – the government still feels that it is a matter of power and control. In the current debate, it is a matter of whether traditional media and government control can survive and outweigh online opinion and fightback. The people are not letting it go, and neither does the government want to back down.

But who is right? Who wants to work for the betterment of Singapore? NO ONE. The government wants to increase its coffers and at this point, people don’t think it’s just for the country’s long term growth – one thing for sure, it doesn’t work for the interests of the people at this current point in time. The people want to fight for their what they perceive to be economic rights to be returned to them, which at this point, the government feels might be an “entitlement” which is not always deserved to a people who are not “poor”.

Who has the big picture? I am disappointed because at this point, both the government and the people have lost sight of Singapore and her future. We are fighting for ourselves – and not supporting one another. We are a complete disgrace to ourselves and our forefathers – brothers in a fight for the country’s wealth, which none had built but which the forefathers had. 

The government had created the National Conversation. The philosophy of this is important and necessary – the government and people need to start talking to one another again. But when both sides choose to continue operating in silo, and not talking – both holding their own National Conversation in their own realms, we will forever be a country divided. We have the ask ourselves this then – do we want to become like America, where the people are divided right down the middle, with half supporting the Democrats and half supporting the Republicans?

The government has to snap out of their comfort in wielding the power they had comfortably held on to for the past 47 years of governance. This power has gave them the illusion that their overall plans for the country are the best, and that their tight control to execute these plans by bulldozing the people are the best.

The people have to take a damn good look at themselves. How long more do we want to complain and actually still wait for the government to do what we keep hoping that they would do? How long more do we want to lament and then vote them back in again, so that we can continue to lament? When do we want to take the situation into our hands and say – if you won’t do what’s right? I will show you. We are only allowing ourselves to entrapped by the state of governance as we choose to be stuck in. If we want to regain power, then we have to restructure how we understand governance, and how we can take it into our own hands, to make things work and to provide solutions.

At this point, we are a disgrace and a laughing stock. If we choose to take opposing sides and refuse to have an understanding of each other and reach out to each other, than may peace be upon you. 

Me: My main purpose of writing this blog is because I want to bridge differences. Singaporeans and the government cannot go on like that. However, I do think PM Lee and his government has decided to take a more aggressive tone over the past few days. They want to make a stand. But that stand is not something that sufficiently aligns with the people’s needs.You cannot allow people to climb over you, but neither can you choose to hear beyond their voices and choose not to understand the subtleties of what they are saying.

Jude: You feel that the government is trying to make little of her people that they are serving?

Me: No, I dont. If you have read my articles, you will see that I constantly explain to readers that the government has its reasons and we need to learn to understand them. I appreciate the government. But I just read a snippet of PM Lee’s interview with The Australian, where he had surmised that, “Singapore needs to adjust accordingly “without going overboard”". What he had said will make Singaporeans very angry. By what he he said, it sounds like he is taking very lightly of what they are saying. See, I want people to understand the government because I understand on a broad strategic level, what they are trying to do. But I also appeal to the government to do the right thing. I appeal to the government to be sincere and to trust the people. The government doesn’t trust the people. Without the government trusting the people, the people will never trust the government. And the government is in a better position to set things right, than the people. So I am very worried that they have chosen to start taking an aggressive tone. I dont know who their PR company is, but I dont know if it is advisable to take an aggressive tone.

Jude: That I agree

Me: I am at a loss as to what I should believe in – again. Everytime I find a reason to understand the government, they do something which makes me reconsider. They simply CANNOT take an aggressive tone. A government cannot do that because it necessarily shows how you disrespect the people. And you CANNOT tell people that they should to not go “overboard”. They can think that but they cannot say that. It’s basic PR and I think the PR company has been making all the wrong moves over the past few months. It is causing more anger among the people.

Jude: So u think the government try to placate the people?

Me: No I dont think the government should do that. If you understand my line of reasoning, you would know I don’t think that. Any government who tries to simply placate the people will cause the downfall of the country. But the government should do the right thing. And the right thing is informed by statistics, available resources to provide for the people’s well-being and an understanding of what the people need to achieve a standard of living that maintains that well-being. This is what a government should do. The people obviously feels it is not adequate and the statistics clearly show the government can provide more. The government has to do the right thing. The government should not placate. But the government cannot be aggressive. The government should do the right thing. It’s simple as that. Before we go on, what are your views?

Jude: I believe that we can’t go toward being a welfare state. And I know people are not aggressively asking for that. What I do know is that people do expect the government to offer help, and if possible, render cash handouts. I believe everyone of us come with a certain form of assumptions and I agree that the government is in the best position to offer any form of assistance given the access to the statistics. In some way or other, I agree that the government needs to trust the people, as much as the people to trust the government. Then again, my own limited interaction with Singaporeans are that, not many people want to take responsibility for their own lives. They prefer the government to help, someone to care, someone to do it.

Jude (contd): The not-in-my-backyard syndrome is pretty serious. I take NS for example, everyone will agree to a point that it is important, but given a chance to turn it into a voluntary service, not many people take it up. Singaporeans complained that the FTs are not doing NS, but our own people are not very keen to contribute in the first place. We continue to think we live in peace, but are totally oblivious and apathetic to the situations happening in our region. If we think Singapore is going downhill, we should take a vacation in Malaysia or Indonesia. Start a living there and see if it’s all smooth. But I do believe that the government will help but in a more sustainable manner.

Me: Agreed. I agree with many of your points. I agree that the government cannot make Singapore a welfare state. It’s not sustainable. But what this means is – as a society, we need to define what are the more pertinent needs that society should have. Some people have commented that it’s healthcare, some, education. The government has to reevaluate its financial situation – and as much as it can, be honest to the people about its funds and spending. Can we afford to provide more for people’s education and healthcare needs? Can people pay a lesser proportion of healthcare bills out of their pocket.

Necessarily, the government might feel that in doing so, we are moving towards a welfare state. Which is why we need to understand this – what are the most pertinent needs that people have? Where are the areas where costs have risen to such an extent where the government might need to step in to recalibrate the costs? As we move forward in our development, in which areas have funding not kept up with inflation and rising problems, such as an increase in the prevalence of disease, and how can the government recalibrate the cost and funding structure to ensure that people’s most pertinent needs are still protected, and where they still feel they are able to have a secure living?

Primarily, people’s worries are these – cost of living and wages which might not have kept up with inflation and rising costs. Is this real, we might ask? If the people are talking about it, then to some extent, it has to be real. Then if that’s the case, the government has to evaluate the statistics and start looking at how they can recalibrate the cost and funding structure to account for that?

Jude: Yes, I agree with what you’ve said

Me: For example – I agree with the immigration policy to have a more open policy because we have jobs which are created which needs to be filled – but at the same time, when the government allowed for our borders to be more porous, they would necessarily know that in doing so, the people’s wages will naturally be depressed or rise slower, due to market forces. If they know that this would happen, how could they have calibrated people’s wages to ensure that in the rising number of foreigners and the depression or slower growth of wages, that the government can ensure that people’s wages are still compensated, as compared to a situation where people’s wages would have otherwise grown faster if foreigners had not entered? Whether or not foreigners were to enter, prices would rise. Yet, when foreigners entered, wages would be depressed or grow slower – so there is a mismatch here.

The government had expected this but had not done anything (not at least in my knowledge) to resolve this. Necessarily, people will feel the effects of this and they would know that they would have been, in some way, sacrificed or ‘cheated’ of their potentially higher income. And if the government knows this – this is an example of where they would need to do the right thing. Necessarily, it is because of the increase in migrant flow that the economy could continue to be sustained – so the government needs to ensure adequate financial compensation is provided to protect people’s interests as they continue to strive for economic growth for the government (and of course, for themselves).

Jude: And in your opinion, how would this calibration be applied?

Me: I do not have a full idea at this point – primarily because I do not have a full understanding of our financial situation, since the government has chosen not to reveal it. Obviously, it’s for national security reasons and I understand what is at stake. However, I would venture to say the following. The government has been apt to compare our taxes with other countries, and have considered it to be low. And the reasoning is that because of the low taxes, we do not have enough funds to increase funding or subsidies. However, first, the taxes do not include our CPF, which is 4 times the amount of the taxes collected. And it would be significantly more, after you account for their indirect investment in GIC and Temasek. Thus if the government is willing, we would definitely be able to increase our subsidies or funding for healthcare or education costs, for example, without having to raise taxes in the short term. However, the government has obviously made the decision that our CPF monies would be better used, invested in GIC and Temasek, and to increase our reserves.

Me (contd): Then the question is – why does the government think increasing our reserves is more important than increasing subsidies and funding for needs to increase our well-being. Of course, the government has explained that it’s for our long term needs, and we understand this as well. What the people don’t understand is this – how much money do you exactly think you need in your reserves? Why must we keep feeling compromised, because of a reserves you want to keep, which won’t benefit us in the immediate term, or even in the long term? Yet, at the same time, the people can see the incomes of their ministers rise exponentially, and they can see the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Necessarily, they know that as much as the government wants to explain they cannot increase subsidies or funding for well-being needs, is this money actually going to the rich? Without a full understanding of singapore’s financial situation, and when the rich get richer and the rest of Singaporeans feel that their wages are not increasing in relative terms, they would necessarily draw this conclusion – that the government refuses to increases spending for our pertinent needs because are they channelling it to the rich?

So the government needs to do a few things – how far does it want to explain its financial situation to give singaporeans a clearer picture? It has to give us a better understanding of our reserves usage and the amount needed, and how this is justified. It needs to look into explaining fully how the taxes are used, in conjunction with the CPF, and how this would lead to us realising that the subsidies and funding can necessarily be increased, because we would have enough to do so. See, the people are convinced that there is enough. The government doesn’t think so. When the government doesn’t want to clearly explain it’s position – this is what people are going to think – the more you do not want to explain, the more you have to hide, the more you are lying to us.

Me (contd): Second, if we compare to other countries, they are spending proportionately more for healthcare and education. Yet, Singaporeans have to pay a higher amount out of their own pockets. If the government is richer than most governments – we have the highest per capita GDP, and if the government necessarily has the capacity, why is the government spending one of the least for the people? From a statistical perspective, very simply, the government isn’t treating the people fairly. These countries are countries like Taiwan and South Korea. And these countries are equally countries who do not believe in spending excessively and in sustainable spending. What makes them more willing, and what makes Singapore so much less willing?

Of course, there are explanations for this – Singapore has no natural resources, so we need all the money and people that we can save and get. We have to be a lot more cautious than these countries. Is this true? The people are not convinced. Why? again, this goes back to how we are uncertain as to how the financial situation in Singapore is. Also, we are unaware as to how the government has calculated for the amount that is required for the reserves. What is the formula? Without adequate information on these, and when the people at the top gets richer – our own question would be this – why is there a discrepancy?

Me (contd): I would also venture to suggest – one difference that Singapore has from Taiwan and South Korea, who are more willing to spend on their people is also this – these countries engage in more sincere and open dialogue and conversations with their people, so necessarily their people’s voices are heard. Their people’s voices and opinions are respected. We might ask – but do we want to degrade to a situation like in Taiwan, where politics has become theatrics and the government has to pander to its people? I don’t quite think this is the case. Taiwan is not stupid. So are the taiwanese. In fact, this trust the people have and the sincerity in engagement has resulted in a people (of Taiwan) who understand the broad issues that Taiwan faces, and have a direct commitment to country’s welfare and long term progress.

If you look at South Korea, they have a stable government as well who does not overly indulge their people. So they would obviously be a better comparison. Again, what do these two countries have in common – their willingness and sincerity to engage with and consult their people – their willingness to listen to what their people have to say. And because of that, the people are able to understand the issues that the government face from a broader perspective, they have a higher stake in the country’s growth and future, and they want to do their part to be responsible for the country.

Jude: I am all for transparency. OK, I got to know what you want to say better. Thanks for sharing man.

Me: If anything, the government can learn from them in this aspect – once the government sincerely engages the people and listens to them sincerely, the people will have a real stake in the country, the people will seek out to understand the government and the country, and the people will provide constructive solutions for the government.

Me (contd): Question is – how sincere is the government? And are they willing to let go of their fears? Otherwise, what the people can only see is this – my government is not sincere in consulting us and they want to continue in their dogmatic approach. And thus, when the government takes on the recent aggressive stance that they are taking, then in the people’s minds, the government has refused to listen to its people.

I understand why the government want to take on an aggressive stance – you want to be a strong government. There are still decisions to be made. You still need Singapore to be stable to attract investments. But if I were them, what I would do is this – actually start engaging the opposition and netizens on conversations (which many commentators have been asking for). They can better control these conversations if they organise them rather than allow it to run amok online. Then you would say – but there aren’t enough people to run these conversations. Then the question is very simply this – the government has to put money where its mouth is – it needs spend money to hire more people to engage people on a more intensive level.

In short, the government has to be willing. It cannot be scared. It has to acknowledge that its lack of consulting the people has actually made it less relevant to the people and less understanding of the people’s needs. The government might be operating on a modus operandi that had worked well for that in the past, but times have changed – the people’s principles and focus have changed, and the government has to move with them. The government cannot keep to a growth model without listening to what the people want. Necessarily, the government has to balance the needs of the people with Singapore’s long term growth. But there are some very basic questions that needs to be answered – what are the people’s needs which needs to be fulfilled in an economy where costs have risen further than wages, and how can the government do the right thing – to provide adequately for the people? The government has to do the right thing.