In order to understand the long term strategic decisions that Singapore should make, it’s important to understand how Singapore fits in with the other countries in the region.

Singapore’s current strategy is aimed at “making friends” with the two global powers in the world, America and China, while developing relationships to a lesser extend with India, Russia, parts of Africa and South America, and maintaining economic ties with Europe, and the traditional partners of Japan and ASEAN.

Singapore wants to align itself with America and China, so that as we continue to benefit from this alliance, we are also able to act as intermediaries to balance the two global powers. Since our independence, Singapore has acknowledged that without our own hinterland, we have to seek out a hinterland. As relations with Malaysia were frosty then, to say the least, we couldn’t rely on them. Relations with Indonesia were terse as well. This also explains the glaring lack of trust that Singapore has towards the Malay population, because of a political fear that Singapore will lose its political sovereignty. Imbued in our leaders’ mind then were that Singapore would become a laughing stock that Malaysia and Indonesia were waiting to happen. And the leaders’ insecurities edged them on to transform Singapore.

Unfortunately, the Malays in Singapore were symbolically dragged into the fray even as the political disagreements were playing out of the larger national arena. What is essentially a political tirade among insecure leaders thus impacted the Malay population adversely, as our leaders felt vulnerable, with the thinking that the Malay population in Singapore might be used by external forces against Singapore. Rightfully or not, their fears materialised when some Malays were held under the Internal Security Act in recent years. Yet, would this be a case of a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Yet, the Malays in Singapore are the indigenous population of the land. The problem isn’t with what the Malays will do. The problem is that Singapore was artificially carved out from a Malay region which doesn’t reconcile with the history of the region. When the British and Dutch divided the Malay archipelago under the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824, they effectively split the Malay region according to their own political interests rather than acknowledged the historical and social truths of the region. Essentially, separating Singapore from the Malay archipelago is akin to New York being split from America or Tokyo from Japan.

Thus when Singapore looked outwards to establish a new hinterland, the decision was made to make our hinterland – the world. And thus we continue to align ourselves with world powers and to balance ourselves amidst their power. As Robert D. Kaplan said in his book, The Revenge of Geography, “a world balanced is a world free” and this is how Singapore continues to perch itself, as precariously as it might seem.

The ‘racial mix’ that Singapore seeks to maintain, is also measured against the larger picture of this balancing. In maintain the racial mix of a Chinese majority and a slightly increasing Indian proportionate population, Singapore seeks to maintain a demographic proposition to China as well as a testament to India of its growing prowess, one that is also an economic decision, as outlined in our Free Trade Agreement with India. Yet, the continued sidelining of the Malay population certainly doesn’t bode well for Singapore’s long term future, and is inherently not aligned to the history of the region.

In a world made up of larger and truer countries, Singapore recognizes that as a New York without America (or at our state of economic development then, as a Vientiane without Laos), it is unlikely that we will become internationally relevant, without our own larger country to prop us up, when needed. Thus the decision was made to make Singapore completely open where we will become the easiest place for businesses to do business. Once we do that, businesses will be attracted to the lack of over-regulation in Singapore and by extension, the world will become our hinterland. No other country has the kind of ‘advantage’ that we have, without a need to answer to a country and the corresponding citizens of a larger country. Yet, as much as we have city dwellers, they are also the citizens. So, herein lies the dilemma – as a city truly, how do you operate as a city but with having to meet the needs of a people who actually do not just see themselves as city dwellers?

As Singapore becomes the ‘hub’ that we’ve built ourselves up as, we created a new economic polity – one of a international node which, without the ‘burden’ of a hinterland, becomes a land that’s free for the world’s taking. Essentially, we’ve become a true property for the businesses of the world, which they can rent. Of course, a confluence of other factors also make Singapore the neat package – strong infrastructure, a strong legal and regulatory framework, ease of doing business, strong connectivity and links and an English-speaking population. By freeing up ourselves from having to meet the demands of the people, we become the dream that any business has ever wanted – back to the times when industrialisation first began and capitalists need not answer to its workers, where workers were made to work long hours and in poor conditions. Singapore now is a modern replication of the conditions of then.

Yet, the contradiction that Singapore lies on is precisely the flaw that it rests on – without a hinterland, a government that has geared its thinking towards planning Singapore as a city forgot to plan for Singapore as a country – for the social and psychological upkeep of the people, so much so that when the city has reached an economic standard of living that has propelled it into the league of the First World, only then did we realise that our people and politics are still stuck in Third World ideologies. A government which continues to want to constrain its people in a rich and connected country simply doesn’t make sense. The disjoint and disparity in our development has become our Achilles’ Heel.

Does this mean that our policy of engaging the America and China and neglecting our region somewhat is a pitfall for Singapore? No, this isn’t the case, for Singapore needs to adopt multiple strategies in order to stay relevant. Indeed, the states in the Southeast Asian region has always, in one way or another been tied to the fates of the larger states, like China and India. Malacca in the 1340s was a vassal state to China and as some sources have argued, Malacca had a special relationship with China and was considered a friend. This is exactly the relationship that Singapore hopes to achieve with China, and indeed, with America as well. For both countries, their stake in expanding or maintaining their diplomatic power in the Southeast region requires a strong focal point. For China, the alignment of Singapore’s demography makes it a natural partner for which to venture out from to claim it’s stake in the region. For America, what it had at one time established with Singapore mainly, is now also extended to Malaysia and Indonesia, with its traditional partner Philippines, and in fact, with the whole of ASEAN now.

Indeed, the Southeast Asian region was never a force to be reckoned with in itself, and this is really the geographical reality that Singapore is part of. As much as Singapore has carved out a niche for itself as a global node for the world, the geographical realities are such that Singapore belongs to a region which has always remained subservient to the stronger powers of China and India in the immediate region, and to the European colonialists and the Middle Eastern Islamists then. In fact, Singapore has never stood on its own for the most part of our history. We have always been part of a regional kingdom – Sriivijaya, Majapahit, the Malacca Sultanate, the Johor Sultanate and the Siam Kingdom. In fact, not only is our history intertwined with the region, the boundaries that now split Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia never existed and the fates of these states flowed with the straits that the archipelago lies in.

It is unrealistic at this point to think of a dissolution of the national boundaries, to allow our countries to align with one another again. Our recent history has created new memories, ideas of nationalism and rifts, such as racial ones, which will take time to heal and resolve themselves. However, for Singapore, without a hinterland to rely on, is our constant exposure to the world economy healthy when we are left at its mercy? We might have created strong financial institutions which can withstand the fluctuations of economic development, but without any semblance of self-sufficiency, is it wise?

It might be useful for Singapore to start exploring a regional approach and revive ideas of integration with the region once again. Our histories with the Malay peninsula and archipelago is one that the countries can look back on and envision for cooperation on a deeper level. Realistically, there is deep distrust among the countries – the Malays might not trust the Chinese. Also, the countries are at different levels of economic development.

But, yet, should we take these at face value and discount the cooperation simply because of past animosity created by the first generational leaders? Why is there distrust among the Malays and Chinese? It is one thing to accept the disagreements as natural and another to look at them to understand how they had developed, and what we can do to do things differently. Once upon a time, the Malays, Chinese and the Indians worked side by side. We spoke the language of one another and we would help one another in times of need. Before the idea of statehood as we understand it now came about, people were working together and we were friends. What changed? Because of an imposition of artificial boundaries in a period of global nationalism which created insecurities among peoples, which led to our leaders grabbing power from one another and distrusting one another? Is the inter- and intra-national distrust a reflection of our leaders’ insecurities and distrust towards each other, one which has arose over their want of power, and one that has become the national consciousness of our countries because of their strong rule of power?

It is in Singapore’s long term interest to have strong and friendly relations with the region, and especially with Malaysia and Indonesia. One day, when Malaysia and Indonesia attains a stage of economic development where they have significant bargaining power, where will that leave Singapore, not only with them, but with world powers who will shift their focus towards Malaysia and Indonesia, if they are not already shifting? One day, if world powers are able to influence and connect with millions more people in Malaysia and Indonesia, what significance will Singapore have?

In fact, when Kaplan spoke of how for “America, I believe, will actually emerge in the course of the twenty-first century as a Polynesian-cum-mestizo civilization, oriented from north to south, from Canada to Mexico,” what he speak about halfway around the world can similarly be applied to Singapore as well, albeit on a much smaller scale – where it is in our interest to align our interests with the north and south of our borders. Indeed, when Kaplan spoke of how if America were “not to continue to deepen links with Mexico and Central America … would be to see Mexico and perhaps some of its southern neighbors slip into a hostile diplomatic and political orbit,” what he says is ominous to the state of affairs of what can be in our region. Kaplan also spoke of how, “a border between a highly developed society and a less highly developed society will not attain an equilibrium, but will advance in the more backward society’s favour. In other words, the preservation of American nationalism … is unachievable unless Mexico reaches First World status. And if Mexico does reach First World status, then it might become less of a threat, and the melding of the two societies quickens.” In short, Kaplan suggests that, “this vision requires a successful Mexico, not a failed state.”

Yet, is Singapore comparable with America? In terms of geographical and political might, no. Yet, when played out on a much smaller scale, as it is in the maritime Southeast Asian region, Singapore is economically more developed as compared to the lesser developed but steadfastly growing economies in our immediate north and south. It would be wise to take a leaf out of Kaplan’s book to note how in ensuring the stability of not only Singapore but also of our region, integration and friendship with our region will only be beneficial. And as Kaplan had also mentioned, this means that we should work with our neighbors to also provide them with the necessary support, to uplift the region together, and then towards equilibrium.

Yet, this might seem like an arduous task, some might remark – for how is Singapore to integrate back with a region which we have learnt to reject, and which has learnt to reject us back in return. Several levels of change would need to happen in order for us to find renewed cooperation and dynamism within the region. Singapore would need to embrace and acknowledge the indigenous population of our land, but not only that, Malaysia and Indonesia would also need to accept the shift in demographic changes that have occurred in their countries as well, to create the diversity that exists in them today. In short, these countries would need to let go of their insecurities and embrace their history and the changes that have come along since. For Singapore, we have to acknowledge the reality of our history and use that to extend our friendship with the region. For Malaysia and Indonesia, they would as well have to let go of their colonial past to find renewed confidence in moderate Islam to guide them forward in a new era of development and cooperation.

Between Malaysia and Singapore, we’ve already started making headway in our economic relations, such as the joint development in the Iskandar region and the planned construction of a high speed railway to connect Kuala Lumpur and Singapore. In some sense, we are bypassing the fixed imaginations that our boundaries divide us to look into the connections that our history unite us once again. Malaysia and Singapore are thus taking the right steps towards embracing a common history that unite us, so that we can once again fulfill the destiny of our region. However, the current cooperation continues to be an extension of economic goals. As much as both our countries have gone on divergent paths over the past few decades, our common sole focus on economic development, whilst being trapped in outmoded forms of governance and societal impediments is something that both countries share. In order to truly relive the unity and dynamism that the region can bring, we need to reform politically and socially.

In 1994, the Singapore-Johor-Riau (SIJORI) Growth Triangle was established between Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore. Has the growth taken off? It seems that the SIJORI has been superseded by the growth of ASEAN as a region. However, the partnership has also managed to take off between Malaysia and Singapore, more so than between Indonesia and Singapore. Some reasons would be because there was a change in leadership in Malaysia and Singapore which provided renewed vigour to put aside differences to pursue new growth areas. On top of that, Malaysia was also growing economically more vibrantly. On the other hand, Indonesia’s growth had largely centered in Jakarta. The Riau Islands might just be too far away from the Indonesian capital to be significant. This shows up on the enforced political differences that the British and Dutch had when they the Riau Islands became Dutch and now Indonesian territories and Singapore became the British and now Singaporean territory. This division which doesn’t represent the real cultural and political meanings has created present illogical geographical situations – the Indonesians simply do not think that the Riau Islands are central enough to their polity.

Yet, from another viewpoint, Singapore might need to look beyond our own imaginations. When the SIJORI Growth Triangle was mooted by then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong in 1989, he had envisioned a hinterland in Johor and the Riau Islands. But in regional cooperation, it isn’t just about what makes sense to Singapore. It’s also about what makes sense to Indonesia and Malaysia. Perhaps the project didn’t take off as much until now because the governments of Indonesia and Malaysia didn’t see the benefit as much as Singapore did. However, Singapore has now reached a stage where we are growing at our seams. Also, Malaysia has in recent years decided that developing Johor to tap on Singapore’s growth might also have benefits in spurring the growth of the Malaysian economy. At the same time, the Malaysian Prime Minister has also decided that he wants to continue centralising growth in Kuala Lumpur, and yet partner the growth with Singapore by thus constructing a high speed railway between the two key cities in Southeast Asia. We are thus meeting at the right time once again.

On Singapore’s side, we would need to also learn to understand that Indonesia would need to see value in developing the Riau Islands. Otherwise, Singapore would need to understand the importance of the role that Jakarta has among the Indonesian leaders. Afterall, during the reign of the Majapahit kingdom, their capital had also been located on the island of Java as well. However, as Singapore learns to become more open in sharing in our growth with our neighbours, they might also learn to trust us more and explore further options with us. As mentioned, this is what Malaysia has done with the Iskandar region, and also in jointly developing two office buildings in Singapore. For Indonesia, they are also currently exploring relocating their capital in view of congestion, or in developing a second capital city. If they can see Singapore’s sincerity, they might even explore restarting the development of the Riau Islands, so that together, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore can grow together to develop a larger core economic region in the Southeast region, which will allow us to have a larger representation on the world stage, and achieve better equilibrium with the other world powers.

In order for us to achieve this, Singapore, as well as Malaysia and Indonesia, will need to understand the inherent fears and insecurities that they’ve been holding on to since parting ways with their ‘colonial masters’. This also requires political will to reform politically, economically and socially to kick start the region into a new dynamism. For Singapore, as we continue to go on the route of perform the balancing act between America and China and in future, Russia and India, we need to explore more seriously how we need to strengthen our ties with Malaysia and Indonesia. One day, we will need them more than they will need us. One day, we need to achieve self sufficiency within a cooperation framework with our two closest neighbours, with which we share a common history and with which we belong to. We might be separated politically by means of artificial boundaries which constraint our political cooperation. However, the history that we share, where the fates of Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore are intertwined over more than a thousand years, is something that is rooted in our natural and geographical history.

Do rich countries pay their people higher wages? Logically, the richer a country is, the higher the people’s wages should be, right? Let’s take a look.

In this article, you will see several charts. I’ve structured the this article to make it very easy to understand the flow. Please take some time to read through it.

In Chart 1, from left to right, you can see the richest to the relatively less rich countries (as measured by their GDP per capita) represented by the orange bars. Singapore is the one of the richest countries in the world. In this chart, Singapore is ranked second.

Interestingly, except for the top 4 richest countries (where the arrows are pointing), the majority of the countries in this chart have higher national average salaries, as compared to their GDP per capita. Of course, we might argue that since the top 4 richest countries are so rich, perhaps even as they already have very high average salaries, these still cannot match up to their GDP per capita.

However, if you look at Singapore and Hong Kong, the national average salaries are actually significantly lower than the GDP per capita.

Chart 1

(Source: Human Development Report 2013, BBC Global migrants: Which are the most wanted professions?

For a clearer picture, you can see in Chart 2, where the countries are ranked, from left to right, according to their national average salaries. You can see that even though Singapore has the second highest GDP per capita, we actually have the third lowest average salary.

Even though Luxembourg has a much lower national average salary than their GDP per capita, they still have the second highest national average salary in this chart, which means that their people are earning wages which are more commensurate to the wealth of the country.

For New Zealand, they might have a lower national average salary than Singapore but unlike Singapore, this matches their GDP per capita.

Chart 2

In Chart 3, you can see the difference between the national average salaries and the corresponding GDP per capita of the countries. You can see again, that for most of these countries, they have higher national average salaries than the GDP per capita. Norway has a lower higher national average salary than their GDP per capita but this is a reasonable US$3,000 difference.

For Singapore, our national average salary is US$22,199 lower than our GDP per capita.

Chart 3

In Chart 4, you can see this difference, expressed in percentage terms, where Singapore’s national average salary is 41% lower than our GDP per capita.

Chart 4

But why do Singaporeans get paid comparatively low salaries, even though we are one of the richest countries in the world? Where is all this money going?

If you look at Chart 5, we actually have the second highest income inequality in this chart, and actually among all the economically developed countries, after Hong Kong. Our high income inequality explains why even as the country is rich, the wealth isn’t equally distributed, where our comparatively low average salaries show that there there is a large pool of lower income earners, and a group of super-rich who are amassing the wealth.

Chart 5

(Source: Gini Coefficient OECD Factbook 2011-2012: Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics, Central Intelligence Agency The World Factbook)

On the flip side, you can see in Chart 6 that due to our comparatively low national average salaries and a huge income gap where relatively more Singaporeans are earning lower wages, our purchasing power is also one of the lowest in the economically developed countries.

Chart 6

(Source: World Economic Forum The Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report 2013)

Yet, for one of the richest countries in the world, isn’t it surprising that we have such weak purchasing power? Logically, shouldn’t we be able to afford more?

If the people aren’t able to have a respectable purchasing power, where is the money going? Or rather, what do people have to spend on?

In Chart 7, you can see that when it comes to healthcare expenditure, Singaporeans have to fork out their own money to pay for 64% of our bills – the highest among the economically developed countries. Even America, with the next highest private expenditure, an American pays only about half of their healthcare bills.

Chart 7

(Source: World Health Organisation World Health Statistics 2012)

So, on top of having a comparatively low average salary, where the wealth of our nation isn’t flowing back, Singaporeans are also made to pay more for their healthcare needs, stretching their already low salaries further.

In Chart 8, you can see that our low wages and the high cost of living in Singapore has thus led to a situation where we have the lowest retirement incomes among the economically developed countries in this chart. Even New Zealand, which has a lower national average salary can afford to save more than Singaporeans.

Chart 8

(Source: Yours Truly Singapore Blog: Tharman gives assurance on CPF retirement savings)

Coupled with high costs, you would understand why, with our meager incomes, the problem of livelihood would be much further exacerbated among retiree Singaporeans. It is thus not surprising when our older Singaporeans are left without a choice but to work as cleaners and labourers even as they should be allowed to live their old age pursuing activities which they have long postponed, because of work.

The often-argued point is that Singapore simply doesn’t have enough money to increase our social welfare spending because of our low taxes, so we cannot afford to increase our spending for the poor, or for further government expenditure on our healthcare bills, for example.

But is this so?

Chart 9 shows that among the countries compared, we have the highest surplus, as a proportion of GDP.

Chart 9

(Source: The World Bank Data)

Chart 10 shows that we have the second highest reserves, as a percentage of GDP.

Chart 10

(Source: Human Development Report 2013)

In absolute terms, this means that Singapore has nearly $260 billion in our reserves, which is third among the countries compared, as Chart 11 shows.

Chart 11

(Source: International Monetary Fund Data Template on International Reserves and Foreign Currency Liquidity)

So, do we have enough money? Clearly, we do. Clearly, the government has sufficient, and in fact, much more than just ‘enough’ to provide for the social welfare needs of Singaporeans. Yet, our government continues to allow the people’s wages to be depressed, even as the rich gets richer, and the people are expected to fork out more of their diminishing wages on the higher and higher prices of goods and services.

Yet, all this time, our political leaders earn significantly higher salaries than the average Singaporeans, as you can see in Chart 12. Our prime minister Lee Hsien Loong earns S$2.2 million annually (not inclusive of bonus), which is several times higher than the next highest paid political leader in Hong Kong. And as someone on my Facebook had pointed out, if you look at the salary per capita, our prime minister is actually paid several hundred times more than the American president.

Chart 12

So, by now, you can see in Chart 13, that Singapore is one of the richest countries in the world, in terms of GDP per capita (orange bar), yet we have one of the lowest average salaries in the economically developed world (green bar), which is not on par with our country’s wealth. Not only that, even as a very rich country, our people have the lowest average retirement income (blue bar).

Chart 13

Such shameful outcomes can be explained in Chart 14 where there is a considerably high income inequality (green bar), which results in Singaporeans having low average salaries, and coupled with high and rising costs, one of the lowest purchasing powers (yellow-orange bar) as well.

Chart 14

Finally, in Chart 15, we can see that even as our government allows the average salaries of Singaporeans to remain low, they have allowed themselves to earn the highest political salaries in the world, several times more than the next highest paid political leader.

Chart 15

(Source: Yahoo The 7 Highest Paid Political Leaders in the World (2013))

Not only can we see clearly where the high income inequality arises from and how the government sets the precedence as to how the rich would then learn to exploit the rest to further divide society, this also brings to fore a much larger question – why does the government allow the people to suffer while they continue to sit on their high pedestal, denying Singaporeans of a respectable livelihood, where the people have the lowest purchasing power and retirement incomes (among the economically-developed countries) – and for the richest country in the world!

The question to ask is, for a country so rich, why is the money not being shared with the people? Why is it not used to lessen the load of the people but why is the government stifling the financial health of the people even when they are old and/or sick? Why does the government deem it fit to shower themselves with such extravagant salaries but leave the people in the lurch to fend for themselves?

Indeed, for the longest time, our government has gone on the regular discourse that the people should be independent and take care of their own needs i.e. the people should pay for their own needs as far as possible.

Yet, how can self-sufficiency come to realisation when the government doesn’t allow the people’s wages to rise in tandem with increasing prices and the cost of living? How can the people be expected to fork out more for ever-rising healthcare costs, where their purchasing power is an embarrassment to the wealth that the country has amassed, and where the government continues to hide from its responsibility to protect the people?

All is not well in Singapore. Of course, Singapore is still comparatively much better off than most economically-less developed countries, at least in the material sense. Yet, for a country which is ranked the least happy people in the world by Gallup, what does the material wealth mean, when the people are emotionally and psychologically in such dire state of poverty? What does money mean when deep within, we are empty individuals who snide at others because of our inability to find joy within ourselves that we have to hurt another, just so that we can even be slightly compensated.

Where is our government’s morality in this? Do they not care for the people’s well-being at all? For political leaders who earn millions, has the joy that they have afforded themselves to buy blind them to the reality of the inner poverty that the people face?

The immediate solution is for the government to ensure that people are paid fair wages, where they are able to afford a respectable living, in the face of rising costs. However, if the government is unwilling to do so, it should ensure that prices do not rise or should rise in tandem with the increase of wages, or lack thereof. If the government continues to squeeze the people on all fronts, by depressing wages and increasing costs, this will lead to a very depressing state of health for the Singaporean society. Budget 2013 had taken baby steps to resolve our deep-seated problems of more than a decade-old but the question is, are they enough?

A society which no longer believes in its government and in the government’s direction doesn’t bode well for the long term unity, strength and strategy for the country. The people will stop working with the government and in the long run, the people will lose their drive and motivation, and we will lose our productivity and growth.

Singapore is in dire need for bold and dynamic changes to kick start our chugging engine. Our government is losing its moral authority at an ever quickening pace, where the trust among the people towards it is eroding at light speed. Such is the state of being when a government forgets its responsibility towards the people that had put it in power.

It is not sufficient at this point for the government to continue to make piecemeal changes when what we need are bold, reformist moves which understands where the root of the problem is, drill down to the problem and provide the necessary impetus to spur Singapore and Singaporeans into a new era of reformist dynamism and reignited passion and energy.

Recently Singapore made the news for money-laundering activities. The real question that underpins this isn’t whether this is moral or not – in capitalistic economies, as the world is largely structured along now, governments pander towards capitalistic overtures of making money, which necessarily means that governments are corrupt. Yet, this shouldn’t just be attributed to capitalism as governance and elites of past had always hoarded wealth to further themselves, whether through ‘clean’ or corrupt ways.

To Accumulate Wealth Or To Slow Down on Growth?

Thus Singapore’s dealings, if indeed true, aren’t surprising. However, the larger issue is this – for a country which does not have natural resources, what can Singapore rely on to accumulate wealth? Indeed, this would be the very first question that our leaders would have asked when Singapore first gained independence in 1965 – how can we survive? You can count how many ways a country can amass wealth in large amounts. If you look at the countries with the highest GDP per capita, they had accumulated wealth through having large reserves of oil, gambling-related activities or to become an offshore bank, which can even be used for purposes of black money laundering. Singapore doesn’t have natural resources or oil, so we have to make use of the other two wealth accumulation sources to great effect. Did we? PM Lee Hsien Loong had recently shared his satisfaction on how the two integrated resorts have brought in wealth for Singapore. Also, Singapore is one of the richest countries in the world, by GDP per capita, so indefinitely, our government’s ability to accumulate wealth is undeniable.

However, the question that has been edging Singapore on for a while now is this – are we willing to have slower economic growth and slower wealth accumulation? If we are to do so, will Singapore be rendered vulnerable, if we do not have enough financial capability to prop us up? This is the question that the government has been asking Singaporeans for the past few months. Singaporeans have said that they are willing yet the government continues to think that it might not be a good idea to slowdown growth. The problem is that for a government not used to explaining its actions to the people, it is faced with a situation where it believes that for Singapore’s standing to be maintained in the world and for Singapore’s continued existence, it is paramount that we continue to hoard on wealth. Yet, how do you explain this to the people, if you are to believe that they might not have the complexity to understand the reasons, as well as that it might reveal the hidden non-transparent modes of wealth accumulation?

However, the essential question isn’t whether Singaporeans should be willing to accept slower growth? This is how the government has framed the question, but this deflects from the real question. Singapore is the fourth largest financial center in the world and we have one of the world’s highest GDP per capita. Singapore’s position as an important node for business will not be undermined so easily, with the amount of business connections in this place. Thus whether or not we want to slow down on growth, this isn’t the question. However, the real question is not for the people but for the government to answer – as one of the richest countries in the world, is the government willing to transfer more social welfare spending onto its people?

The Equation of Trust and Wealth

Norway is also one of the richest countries in the world but do you see the people telling their government that they don’t need that much money? No, but why? The reason is because the people have benefitted from the wealth – Norway has one of the lowest, if not lowest, income inequalities among the economically developed countries. The government is willing to redistribute the wealth it has accumulated, so that the people has a fair share and stake in the government’s goals and in the country. If there’s one reason why there is such strong trust among the people and their government in Norway, it’s because the government shares with the people. Indeed, this is the common trait that ensures that the Nordic governments continue to enjoy such a high amount of trust between the people and the government – the sharing of wealth.

In Singapore, the government continues to ask of the people to trust them. Yet, the erosion of trust couldn’t be more blatant. Singapore held its largest protest gathering since independence against the government’s population white paper this year. In fact, Singaporeans have taken to online mediums to express their disdain and disappointment with the government in even greater numbers over the past past two years. But the erosion of trust didn’t just appear out of nowhere. The erosion of trust was a the byproduct of a government which had veered off course since the early 2000s. From paralleling its growth to the Nordic countries and Switzerland, it paralleled its growth with the United States.

Switching Allegiance to America and China

Why did Singapore send in troops to the wars fought by America? Having a stake in the war also means having a stake economically in those countries that the wars were fought. It’s a strategic move by the government to parallel it’s growth with America – America was strategically outlining its defenses in Iraq and Afghanistan, for stakes in the oil fields in Iraq, as well as to counterbalance the growth of China and Russia through Afghanistan. By aligning itself to America, Singapore can, not only be protected in its defenses by America, but it can also benefit economically from investing first militarily in these countries, and later on, economically. Thus you only have to observe the countries which Singapore sends its military to understand where it believes wealth generation opportunities are abound.

The alignment with America started proving disastrous when it became obvious that America’s then president Bush was mismanaging the economy. As Singapore had paralleled the American economy, we suffered similar consequences, thus our income inequalities rose in the 2000s and when the economic crisis hit in 2008, we were badly hit as well. However, thanks to the strong banking sector that we’ve strengthened from the financial crisis of 1997-98, we managed to thankfully advert a major crisis which continues to plague America today. And thus Singapore started aligning itself more fervently towards China, believing that China’s strong financial standing will be a boon to Singapore. Yet, as much as China has styled itself as a communist which it had actually forsaken and had taken on an aggressive capitalistic stance, it’s situation of high income inequality was something which the Singapore government also shared in the belief was a necessary outcome of economic growth as well.

Being Blinded to Growing Social Problems and Inequalities

Yet Singapore’s situation was vastly different from China. Singapore’s GDP per capita was significantly higher than China and even as we continue to want to accumulate wealth, we are starting from a high base, which means that Singapore is already in a position to not only accumulate wealth at all costs, it was also in a position to share the wealth with its people. And this was where Singapore got it wrong. In paralleling our worldview with America and China, we were led to believe that there shouldn’t be high transfers of social welfare back to the people and that the unhindered growth of high net worth individuals into Singapore would allow Singapore to gain significant wealth within a short period of time. What the Singapore didn’t account for, and indeed for America and China as well, was that because of the sudden and uneven wealth accumulation, social problems also ballooned its way into the society – income inequalities grew to unacceptable levels, and continue unabated, and the people could no longer dismiss or contain their anger with the unequal treatment that they suffer under their government.

Did the government miscalculate? The problem isn’t with miscalculation. The problem is with greed. Like the bankers which collapsed America’s economy, the Singapore government wanted to accumulate wealth at the expense of the people. But the government isn’t a corporate bank, or at least it shouldn’t be. A government’s role should first and foremost be to protect the rights and security of the people. But this was something that the government had waylaid as they followed America and China. And thus it is by no accident that the social movements that now pervades Singapore is similar to that that has transpired in America, where people are starting to question the morality of capitalism and are demanding for equality from their government.

Going Back to Basics – Redistributing Wealth for Equality

But as I’ve mentioned at the start of this article – the root problem isn’t with whether Singapore is too rich or whether growth should slow down. As long as Singapore is mired within the capitalistic system, it is in our interest to continue to accumulate wealth, to protect our standing and sovereignty. However, if the people do not share in the wealth accumulation, they do not see the need in them increasing their production for a wealth which they do not see and thus do not believe needs to be created. And when a government continues to push the people to produce for outputs which they perceive as uncompensated, they would be unwilling to join in the production and would be unwilling believe in the government’s push – thus the lack of trust between the people and the government in Singapore.

This has thus led the government to ask the people – should we slow down growth to have a better pace of life? But the joke is on the government, because the question should be – should the government transfer more social welfare to the people for them to share in the wealth? And the answer is, yes. If the government doesn’t transfer more social welfare to the people, the people will continue not to see the wealth that they are helping the government accumulate and if they don’t, they would rather slow down. So, the root problem of it all is a government which continues to believe in entrapping the wealth from the people, not a people which no longer cares about their country. The people will care as long as their stake in the country is respected, observed and cherished. When it’s not, they become uncertain participants – they become destabilised when they do not know how they are actually contributing to the country, and eventually, for themselves.

The solution to Singapore at this point is very obvious – a return to the basics of governance, where the country provides for the people and observes their rights. Once that is achieved, the people will work with the government to propel Singapore forward. The ball now lies in the government’s court, and if they do not do what they need to, the natural order of social and political evolution will simply render PAP a foregone conclusion at the next general election.

When I first saw the article, ‘Singaporeans among Asia’s happiest, says social media survey’ in the Today newspaper, I did not know which part of the article to pick on, because every part could be easily refuted. I can just imagine how Amanda Lee must have felt when she was told that she had to write this article based on a survey that is so weak in its basis.

So, according to Today, “a survey based on what people are saying on social media claims that Singaporeans are among Asia’s happiest people”. Today also reported that, “The survey is conducted by Eden Strategy Institute (ESI), a consultancy on social innovation.”

It was also reported that when “asked how this survey gels with previous ones, such as the Gallup poll, Mr Chu said he felt that it was “more scientific” and “looks at the drivers of happiness on a much wider population”.”

As a reminder, the Gallup survey, “measured positive emotions in 148 countries and areas in 2011 using five questions. These questions ask people whether they experienced a lot of enjoyment the day before the survey and whether they felt respected, well-rested, laughed and smiled a lot, and did or learned something interesting … Singaporeans, Armenians, and Iraqis are least likely worldwide to report feeling positive emotions.”

In contrast, the Asia Happiness Index was conducted “in five countries, namely Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, India and Indonesia. It calculates the Happiness Index score by taking into account the social media population in each country and the number of hits generated by a search engine when the researchers key in the predetermined words.”

So, according to Mr Chu, the Asia Happiness Index is “more scientific” and “looks at the drivers of happiness on a much wider population”. Let’s look at a quick comparison between the two surveys.

What Is The Methodology?

The Gallup survey was actually done in 148 countries whereas the Asia Happiness Index is done only in 5 countries.

Also, if you look at the Gallup survey’s description of its methodology, it says that, “Results are based on telephone and face-to-face interviews with 1,000 adults, aged 15 and older, conducted in 2011 in 148 countries and areas. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error ranged from ±3.4 percentage points to ±3.9 percentage points. The margin of error reflects the influence of data weighting. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.”

ESI claims on their website that, “The Asia Happiness Index is backed by scientifically-reviewed principles of true happiness, powered by an online intelligence tracking engine, and comprehensively covers over 200 million social media accounts in our initial set of five countries.” In their press release, they took great pains to discredit the methodologies of the other survey instruments by saying that, “Traditionally, Happiness studies have relied on the self-reporting method, yet the accuracy of self-reporting methods is known to be limited by memory bias, central tendency bias, acquiescence bias, and social desirability bias. It can further be misrepresented by the way survey questions are framed by the researchers.” Yet I wasn’t able to find out further how ESI had developed the index’s methodology or what their methodology was, other than what they had stated that the index “is backed by scientifically-reviewed principles of true happiness, powered by an online intelligence tracking engine, and comprehensively covers over 200 million social media accounts in our initial set of five countries.” This doesn’t say much.

On top of that, for the Gallup survey, you are able to download a “more complete methodology and specific survey dates” at the Gallup’s Country Data Set details.

Who Is This Company - Eden Strategy Institute?

Finally, and most importantly, do you know that the Eden Strategy Institute is actually based in Singapore. You can see their address here.

So, what we know by now is that a Singapore-based company has created a happiness index which they surveyed in only 5 countries where they ranked Singapore as the happiest country in Asia. In contrast, Gallup which is based in the United States surveyed 148 countries and ranked the United States down at 35th on the list.

Unanswered Questions

1. First, only 5 countries were surveyed in this index and they are all in the South and Southeast Asian region.
2. Second, the countries selected are of different socio-economic strata. It is hardly possible to have an accurate comparison as to how the socio-economic status of the country has an effect on the index scores.
3. Third, the methodology doesn’t describe or compare the usage patterns of the different populations in these countries – how do their patterns of usage affect their terminology use?
4. Fourth, does the methodology also discern the amount of usage and population size of the country to distill a more representative picture of the countries?

Finally, does ESI understand what the implications of using a broad survey of online social media tools are? According to a study conducted by The University of Gothenburg in Sweden which “surveyed 1011 Swedish Facebook users with our questionnaires, measuring respondents’ Facebook usage patterns, well-being and self-esteem,” the researchers found that “people on Facebook are likely to only report the events that are worthy of reporting. If everyone would report only those events that are worthy of reporting, the end result would be an illusion of people in general being more happy and successful than may be the case. When we then compare our own lives with others’ seemingly more successful careers and happy relationships, we may feel that our own lives are less successful in comparison.”

The study also says that, “because Facebook users often don’t have access to a full range of information about a person, they may erroneously infer that if a person is happy on virtually every picture, this person must be a very happy person … The correspondence bias is closely related to the fundamental attribution error – our tendency to ascribe a certain trait (e.g. happiness) to an individuals’ personality (happy kind of person), rather than to external circumstances (the party caused the happiness). Thus, on Facebook, it is easy to disregard that nearly all pictures are taken under happy circumstances (parties, vacations, interaction with friends and family) and thus erroneously conclude that other people are more happy than they may be … If Facebook users overestimate the happiness of their peers (which seem to be high and consistent), they may fall into the trap of comparing their own happiness (which consists of highs and lows and is constantly fluctuating) and consequently end up feeling less happy.” You can read more about the study here.

Does ESI know this? ESI’s Mr Chu had said that, ““Singaporeans love to send funny pictures or pictures of food, as a means of reaching out and sharing.” Well, there you have it, Mr Chu. Are Singaporeans really that happy? Your survey tool and methodology is hardly the scientific that you call it that it can adequately measure the happiness of Singaporeans. As to claim that other happiness studies are “limited by memory bias, central tendency bias, acquiescence bias, and social desirability bias,” ESI’s very own Asia Happiness Index are mired in these same biases as well. Now that we have concluded that ESI’s remarks are simply a matter of the pot calling the kettle black, if there are at least 3 different happiness studies which rank Singapore much lowly on our levels of happiness and each of these studies have a much wider country comparison, surely that should come to something?

The Gallup survey in 2012 ranked Singapore last out of 148 countries. The Happy Planet Index in 2012 ranks Singapore 90th out of 151 countries. The World Happiness Report in 2012 ranks Singapore 33rd out of more than 150 countries.

And in two of these (Gallup and the Happy Planet Index), Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia and India were all ranked higher than Singapore. Let me give ESI a tip – in future, if you want to come out with a new happiness tool, even if it’s just for show, at least come out with a stronger methodology or make it much harder to dissect. The Ministry of Finance does a fantastic job at that, so you should learn from them.

If you remember, this smacks of what happened when the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (Asia Competitiveness Institute) developed a new ranking of world cities last year – the Global Liveable Cities Index – which ranked Singapore 3rd, as compared to all other indexes which Singapore wasn’t even ranked in the top 10 in. I had previously written an article about this. You can read it here.

Clearly, the Singapore government is desperate to counter any surveys which present Singapore in a negative light. But instead of ensuring that the concerns of the people are met, so that this will reflect more positively in the surveys, the government’s strategy is to release their own surveys which rank Singapore highly to counter the countless surveys that are already in existence!

Wouldn’t it be more sustainable, and actually logical, that the government look into why Singaporeans are unhappy and find ways to promote the happiness within them, rather than to push out a survey to lie to the people, hoping that this PR move would sufficiently placate the people? Singaporeans are unhappy. Period. No survey which marks up how happy Singaporeans are will be able to pretend that away.

So, instead of fulminate the truth, perhaps the government needs to have the boldness to start looking at these issues with immediate attention to resolve them, well, with resolve.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was interviewed by The Washington Post last Friday. When PM Lee was asked, “In the last election, your party lost some seats. You will have to manage a [political] transition with a younger generation, which expects more,” he had said that, “It’s a different generation, a different society, and the politics will be different. . . . We have to work in a more open way. We have to accept more of the untidiness and the to-ing and fro-ing, which is part of normal politics.” When he was asked, “What are the key issues for Singapore itself?,” PM Lee had said that, “We have to negotiate a major change in our phase of development, from a rapidly changing phase to slower growth. We have to negotiate a change in generations, to a new generation that is growing up with the Internet and Facebook and has access to the whole world and is seeing opportunities all over the whole world.”

Unfortunately, The Washington Post and PM Lee have both not grasped the issue in its entirety. To attribute the current political transition to generational change suggests there is a huge spasm in expectations among a ‘younger’ and ‘older’ generation, that the generation difference is clearcut and this change is a natural progression of age, rather than of political evolution.

First, the current trappings felt by Singaporeans are nationwide, and particularly among those in the lower-income, middle-income and the working classes. Regardless of the generation, the disparity is felt similarly. If you look at the lower-income group, their chronic state of poverty entrapment is felt across all ages, especially among the older Singaporeans, who form the bulk of low-income earners, who have been stuck in chronic poverty for the past few decades and now do have enough savings for retirement, not helped by government restrictions in their wage increases and the withdrawal of their CPF monies.

Second, in some countries, the same political party can rule for decades and continue to enjoy the support of the people. In the Nordic countries, in the 1900s, up until the 1970s, the same political parties were able to gain the support of the people, because it focused on ensuring that the needs of all the people are met. Specifically, the governments in these countries focused on equality. Across the 70-year period, there were a few generations of people who all threw their support behind their government. Clearly, despite the ‘generational’ differences, age wasn’t what mattered. What mattered was a government which ensured that the people’s needs are met and that there is equality.

Indeed, across all of history, we can see that whenever there are growing inequalities and a small group of wealthy individuals, who continue to grow richer, while the rest of the population languishes, revolution occurs. It is an inevitable fact of society that when the majority of the population feels marginalised and entrapped while they suffer from unequal treatment, the tendency of the society would always be to right the wrong that is inflicted on them. During the French Revolution, the monarchy and noble classes were resistant towards ensuring that the rights of all are respected, and thus it was overthrown. In the Nordic countries, the monarchy and nobility started implementing reforms which tried to even out the inequalities, and peaceful transition thus occurred.

It is thus significantly clear if we look at history that unhappiness among a people shouldn’t be attributed to generational change, but very clearly, if there is rising inequality and a group of wealthy individuals entrapping the wealth of the larger masses, the state of imbalance will cause society to become unsettled and change will occur. Such is the state that Singapore is in now, where we have the second highest income inequality in the economically developed nations, where we have one of the highest concentrations of millionaires in the world, and where incomes of the top income earners have grown by leaps and bounds but where among the low income earners, their incomes have remained stagnant or even dropped.

The current problem that Singapore faces is due to a government which had allowed income inequality to rise, as they pandered towards a form of capitalism which favours the rich over the poor. The governments in the Nordic countries were able to thrive for many more decades because those governments pandered towards a form of capitalism which grew the wealth of their countries, but allowed the people to equally share in the wealth.

Yet, things weren’t always the case in Singapore, as it is now. In the 1990s, the government increased the CPF contribution of employers, so that workers can accumulate more savings in their retirement funds. In the 1990s, incomes were rising by a much faster rate than they did in the 2000s. According to Mr Leong Sze Hian, real median incomes were rising by more than 6%. Also, incomes were rising by several times more than inflation, which means people’s purchasing power weren’t eroded but that they could share in the economic output of the country. The Singapore government was doing so well in its protection over the people, that in 2001, it won resoundingly at the general election.

Yet, for whatever reasons, in 2001, the government started on a path which decidedly disadvantaged the people. The people could withdraw lesser and lesser from their CPF. The profits of the Singapore companies owned by the government, via Temasek Holdings, increased while real wages remained stagnant or even dropped. After the 911 incident, the American economy took their capitalistic economy towards a path which favored the rich and disadvantaged the poor, and Singapore similarly followed in that path. From aiming to becoming a Swiss model, the Singapore government altered their approach to parallel the capitalism style of America, which is why as the Nordic countries and Switzerland continues to now grow at a respectable pace with a society which enjoys equity and support of their governments, Singapore is now undergoing a stage where its people, like the Americans, are similarly unhappy with rising income inequalities and unfair treatment.

Yet, there are differences in the approaches of the American and Singaporean government. The American government likes to think of itself as being a true democracy, where the people enjoy their right to speak freely. Rightfully or not, the Americans do enjoy that, even if on the surface. Yet, for Singapore, for decades, our freedom of speech was severely curbed and we were not allowed to express political ideals, lest we get imprisoned or sued. The government had controlled the mainstream media tightly and shaped how they had wanted the people to think. Without access to other forms of media, the people’s only source of information, for decades after independence, was through the government’s mouthpiece.

Again, as can be witnessed throughout history, when a people are able to obtain more information, and if they had been unfairly treated, the more open access will allow them to understand the plight that they suffer and will become the impetus for them to take action to correct that. In history, access to information came with the advent of writing, more educational opportunities and the printing of newspapers. In Singapore, the open access of information came with the advent of the Internet, where more and more people could search for information which were previously restricted from them. In the 2000s, Singaporeans were finally able to understand their situation in life better. Coupled with higher education and income inequality, this spurred the people on to analyse their lives further. By the late 2000s, we pretty much knew how our lives were being controlled by a government which had implemented policies which had disadvantaged us.

So, PM Lee was right when he said that, “We have to negotiate a change in generations, to a new generation that is growing up with the Internet and Facebook and has access to the whole world and is seeing opportunities all over the whole world.” But what he did not understand correctly is that it’s not a generational issue. The problem was that the government had curbed access to information among the people and prevented the people from learning to think critically. Thus when the people finally had access to the Internet, we finally reclaimed our right to information. We could finally learn to develop our thinking that is not limited to government discourses.

Indeed, when PM Lee said that, “We have to work in a more open way. We have to accept more of the untidiness and the to-ing and fro-ing, which is part of normal politics,” he only got half the equation right. He is right to say that the ” to-ing and fro-ing” is “part of normal politics” but what he had not acknowledged was that in a true democracy, consultation with the people is normal and is what should be. Right from the start, the PAP government should have operated on an open and consultative platform but they didn’t. Of course, when Singapore first gained independence, the people were willing to be ruled by a government which made all the rules. But what worked for the government then was that we had capable and intelligent leaders who had the smarts to do what was right for Singapore. Things would have been very different if we had authoritarian leaders who were otherwise not capable.

Thus the truth of the matter is this – in Singapore, the government hasn’t caught up with the “normal” ideals of autonomy, of rights and equality. In fact, the government is more than 10 years behind. In the late 1990s, when the government had a strong mandate for rule and had supportive Singaporeans, knowing that Singapore will soon transit into a knowledge economy and where Internet access would become readily available, the government should have opened up politically, to allow for freedom of speech and open access to information. But because they had continued to want to hold on to their power, when they advanced to their next stage of economic development in the 2000s which marginalised the people, they couldn’t realise what the people were truly feeling, the government themselves were hindered by a lack of access to information.

And so for the early part of the 2000s, while the people started feeling the pinch of the new economic model which perpetuates inequality and a government which continues to believe it knows what is right, the government and the people started moving in divergent paths. By the late 2000s, people knew by then that their standard of living had been severely compromised and they had by then, have open access to the Internet, that they not only felt the unequal treatment, they could see it for themselves the statistics which pain the dire picture.

Is it a generational change then? Was PM Lee right to think of the change that is happening within Singapore as generational change? Clearly, the complex dynamics of the Singaporean society and politics would be severely undermined if we were to think of the current ongoings as a generational shift. It is not. If the government had continued on the path that it had taken in the 1990s where it began to open up and looked into the people’s welfare, Singapore would continue on the path of peace and prosperity for the next 30 or 40 years and we would continue to be a model for other countries to emulate even in 2030. However, the government had a change in direction in the 2000s. It lost its bearings and sold out to America, believing that meritocracy would achieve equality, but it operated on a basis of meritocracy which favoured the elites.

As such, Singapore is now faced with some very pertinent questions. The government has constantly asked the people to trust them. For a government which had capable and intelligent leaders in the 1970s, even as the people’s rights were compromised and as they were spiraling along from the Third World to the First, this could be asked of them – quiet and trusting submission. But when a government no longer has clear leaders but stubborn managers, and where a government can no longer read global fluctuations as clearly and well, it can no longer deny rights and information to the people and continue to ask for quiet submission. A people who has become more highly educated would want to contribute to their own country and would want to be part of the solution. The problem isn’t that the people don’t trust the government. It is that the government doesn’t trust the people. It doesn’t trust the people to be part of the solution, in part also because it fears that a more vocal people will one day deny them of their power. Yet, what is there to fear if you continue to do the right thing? From the 2000s, they knew they had to fear. So, without a government which knows how to trust the people, the people couldn’t trust the government as well.

Thus when the government puts out ideals of meritocracy, the people do not trust the government to practice a meritocracy which would lead towards equality. And it didn’t. Indeed, the government knew only how to speak of ‘meritocracy’ but they did not know what embodies it truly or what it means to be truly meritocratic.

Clearly, the time for change is now. But the government has severely underestimated its own need for change. It continues to believe that it’s the people who have changed, that there is a generational shift and that the opening up of information has disadvantaged the government. Truth is, the government is trapped in time. They do not realise that the people have moved ahead, yet they continue to hold on to ideals of the leaders of past – ideals which these leaders could live up to in the past, because of their capability but ideals that the current leaders do not yet understand. In order for them to do so, the current leaders have to themselves move ahead with time and move together with the people. The people have changed, yes, but the people have only moved towards realising the rights that they have, which had been denied. It is time that the government also move towards this realisation and give back to the people what belongs to them. It is time that the government learns to respect the people’s rights.

What is needed in Singapore is a political reform. During the French Revolution, reform came by the people throwing out their government. In the Nordic countries, reform came within the government where the government reformed itself. In Singapore now, reform will come by either PAP reforming itself internally or in the next general election, where the people vote a larger number of opposition members into parliament, which would more adequately represent their voices. Our government needs to reform itself to give people their rights back and to allow the people to be part of the solution. The government needs to start listening to what the people are saying and facilitate decision-making that is all-encompassing and wise. The government has to acknowledge equality as a principle, and not hold on to the outmoded idea of meritocracy, in the hope that it will allow Singapore to achieve equality. We should simply focus on equality. This means a government which is willing to let go of its elitist past and corporate motives, and to become a government of the people once again.

As of now, the people don’t believe that this government can do it. The people believe that the government has become too entrenched in its elitist roots. The people believe that the government continues to want to be a corporation which profits from the people. Budget 2013 has shown a government which can change and which can shift its fundamentals. This change has been spurred, largely by a people who have finally learnt to use their voices in a more coordinated way. It’s also edged on by idealistic PAP politicians who have had enough of toeing a party line, knowing that by doing so, they do disservice to the very people that they should serve.

PM Lee is right that change is coming, and is in fact, here. But what PM Lee needs to know is that we cannot attribute blame to the people for changing, or for being from a new generation. The people are only simply realising the rights that are rightfully theirs. They’ve learnt to start taking back rights which have been denied to them. However, on the government’s part, it needs to realise that it has continued to adopt outmoded approaches and has not moved on with the times. This government, as much as it is beneficial and necessary for the people in some aspects, need to also learn to innovate and think creatively. Perhaps, the lack of political competition has bred a government which has become complacent to social evolution. Perhaps, the lack of open discourse has created a government which has become too safe in their power. But no power, no people nor even no country has a right to existence, as long as it subjugates the right of another. But once we learn to respect and trust, and once we learn to come together for the good of all, and for equality, we can work together towards a future.

Health Minister Gan Kim Yong had announced that, the government will increase its “share of national spending, to provide Singaporeans with greater assurance that care will remain affordable and accessible.  Government spending will not only rise in tandem with the increase in national healthcare spending.  We will in fact take on a greater share of national spending, from the current one-third to about 40 percent and possibly even further, depending on various factors such as demographics, and our ability to manage healthcare costs and target our subsidies.  This will help to reduce the impact of rising healthcare costs on Singaporeans, especially the lower- and middle-income Singaporeans.”

Is the government’s increase of their proportionate expenditure on health to 40% a cause for celebration? Let’s do a quick comparison with some other countries to find out.

I looked at the countries with a similar economic development as Singapore and other countries which have healthcare systems which are ranked highly for comparison.

In Chart 1, you can see that Singapore allocates the lowest proportion of our GDP on healthcare. Whereas in South Korea and Japan, the proportion has been increasing since 2003, Singapore’s proportion has remained stagnant and even dropped in the middle years.

Chart 1

In Chart 2, you can see that Singapore’s proportionate government expenditure on health is actually the lowest, at 36.1% in 2009. Not only that, we’ve maintained a very low proportion over the years, whereas in United States and South Korea, the countries with the two lowest proportionate government expenditure after Singapore, they have increased their proportionate expenditure over the same period of comparison. In South Korea, this has risen by almost 10 percentage points from  2003 t0 2009. In fact, the proportionate government expenditure on health has declined all the way since Singapore’s independence. According to Mr Leong Sze Hian, “the share of public healthcare spending (has declined) from about 75 per cent in 1965 to about 33 (a third) per cent now,” which means that as our country became richer, the government started giving less to the people. In the Nordic countries and Canada, their governments pay for more than 80% of their healthcare bills.

Chart 2

On the flipside, you can see in Chart 3 that Singaporeans spend the highest proportionate expenditure out of our own pockets to pay for medical bills. We are required to fork out our own money to pay for more than 60% of our healthcare bills.

Chart 3

So, the government says that it would “in fact take on a greater share of national spending, from the current one-third to about 40 percent and possibly even further”. If you look at Chart 4, even if the government increases their proportionate expenditure to 40%, this will still be much lower than what the other governments are spending for their people.

Chart 4

It becomes even more glaring when you compare the proportionate government expenditure on health with the GDP per capita.

If you look at Chart 5, you can see that even though Singapore has the highest GDP per capita in the countries compared (and 6th among the 228 countries compared on CIA’s website), the government spends the lowest proportionate expenditure on health.

Chart 5

In fact, you can see that generally, the higher a country’s GDP per capita, the higher the proportionate government expenditure on health that the country is likely to spend for the people. This is not true only in two instances – first, even though Japan has a relatively low GDP per capita, the government spends a very high proportionate expenditure on health. At the other end of the spectrum, both the United States and Singapore has relatively high GDP per capita but their governments contribute the lowest proportionate expenditure on health.

This is significantly worse for Singapore which has the 6th highest GDP per capita among 228 countries, yet our government spends the lowest proportionate expenditure on health. With the GDP per capita that Singapore has, the government should spend at least contribute to 85% to our health expenses.

Yet, the government has decided to announce mightily that they will be increasing their proportionate expenditure to a puny 40%. This is nothing to shout about and is in fact disastrously embarrassing for a country which likes to thump its chest as having one of the world’s highest GDP per capita and wealth.

For a country that is so rich, we treat our people very poorly. 40% is nothing to shout about. If the government is truly sincere about making healthcare “affordable and accessible”, they should increase their proportionate government expenditure to at least 60%.

The health statistics are obtained from the World Health Organisations’s World Health Statistics, which can be found here. 

The GDP per capita statistics are obtained from the CIA, which can be found here. 

The Today newspaper had reported that, “Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew yesterday reiterated that the public transport system must remain “financially viable” for public transport operators (PTOs) … Mr Lui said the cost of upgrading Singapore’s transport system “has to be properly shared between the Government, the operators and the public”.”

Today also reported that, “He noted that rising operating costs, such as increasing diesel prices, are putting pressure on the PTOs, particularly on the bus industry. Between 2006 to 2011, diesel prices have risen by 55 per cent, while national wages have risen by 25 per cent … In contrast, fares have cumulatively risen only 0.3 per cent over the same period.”

Finally, Today reported that, “Against the backdrop of worsening bus industry financials, I expect that it will be a challenge for the PTOs to do more to expand and enhance bus services without additional assistance,” said Mr Lui.”

Let’s take a look at the statistics to verify Mr Lui’s statements.

In Chart 1 below, you can see that Mr Lui is right to say that costs have risen for the PTOs, in that staff costs and energy costs for SMRT has been increasing. However, SMRT’s revenue has also been increasing at a faster rate. Note that the revenue refers to the total revenue. Fare revenue refers to revenue collected from fares alone.

Chart 1

If the trend continues into 2020, you can see that SMRT’s revenue would be expected to continue to keep increasing at a faster rate than operating costs.

Chart 2

In Chart 3, you can see, however, that SMRT’s profits have decreased over the past 2 years. However, even then, SMRT has been registering healthy profits of more than a $100 million every year since 2005.

Chart 3

I wanted to look further – are SMRT’s staff costs increasing because SMRT is hiring more people? In Chart 4, you can see the comparison between SMRT’s staff strength, compared to the staff costs, and wages and salaries. The trends seem to correspond to one another. The staff costs includes costs other than for wages and salaries, such as those for training.

Chart 4

In Chart 5, you can see the percentage changes. Again, the trends seem to correspond to one another. However, in the last 3 years, there were much larger fluctuations, though they would largely even out – the overall increase in staff strength from 2008 to 2012 is 4.9% whereas the increase in wages and salaries over the same period is 4.8%.

However, I do have one question – why are wages and salaries increasing at an almost equal rate to the staff strength? Are there no increments to the wages and salaries of the staff? If there are increments, shouldn’t the rate of increase for wages and salaries be higher?

Chart 5

Next, I wanted to see how SMRT’s revenue changes with its ridership. In Chart 6, you can see that the trend corresponds to each other.

Chart 6

In Chart 7, you can see the percentage changes. From 2006 to 2009, the revenue increased at a faster rate of 6.9%, compared to the increase in ridership at 4.5%. However, the rate of growth dropped in 2010 and then picked up in 2011. During these two years, total ridership increased faster at 7.1%, as compared to the increase in revenue at 5.1%.

Chart 7

It seems that the increase in fares does not have a significant impact in increasing SMRT’s revenues, since the increase in revenue would more likely be attributed to the increase in ridership. What I do find peculiar though is that – why is it that the revenue would grow in tandem with the ridership, if fares are increased almost every year? Surely, the revenue should increase at a higher rate?

In 2011, the government had launched a $1.1 billion Bus Service Enhancement Programme, which “calls for 800 new buses – 550 from the Government and 250 from the operators – to be added to the existing bus fleet” by 2014.” Mr Lui had said that he had expected, “that it will be a challenge for the PTOs to do more to expand and enhance bus services without additional assistance.”

I decided to thus look at the growth of SMRT’s bus fleet. In Chart 8, you can see that SMRT’s bus fleet has increased steadily from 790 in 2002 to 1,050 in 2012.

Chart 8

Based on the government’s plan, another 800 buses will be added by 2014. In 2011, SBS Transit has a bus fleet of 3,015 and SMRT has a bus fleet of 1,021. Assuming that the number of buses to be added will be proportionately distributed between SBS Transit and SMRT, out of the 800 additional buses, SMRT will add to their fleet 200 buses, or one-quarter of the buses. This would roughly mean that 100 buses will be added to SMRT’s fleet in 2013 and 2014 each.

In Chart 9, you can see how the trend will develop if 100 buses would be added in 2013 and 2014. If you look at the increase in the bus ridership, this has been rising at a slower rate than the increase in the number of buses.

Thus it looks like the government’s plan to add more buses is to not in anticipation for a higher ridership. Rather, it is to alleviate the crowding in buses that could currently be faced by commuters. This should be seen favourably.

Chart 9

But the question is, would SMRT have been able to afford to buy the additional buses on their own? Of the 800 new buses, the government is buying 70% of the buses. Accordingly, in 2013 and 2014, SMRT would be buying another 30 out of the 100 additional buses, as can be seen in Chart 10. This is similar to the number that they had increased their bus fleet by in 2012. Yet, in 2010 and 2011, SMRT had increased their bus fleet by more than twice what they had done in 2012, and could continue to increase the revenue earned, at least in 2011.

Chart 10

So, would SMRT be able to continue to increase their revenue, even if they were to purchase the 100 buses by themselves? It is likely that they would. But if left on their own mechanism, they might perhaps increase the bus fleet by only 30, or at most, 50.

Thus the government’s strategy seems to be top up the additional buses, on top of what the PTOs would buy, according to their own estimates as to how many more buses would be required to alleviate the bus loads.

Just by looking at the statistics, I would surmise the following:

• The increase in fares does not seem to benefit the PTOs. It can be assumed that the increase in fares is to match up to inflation. However, as mentioned, I find it peculiar why even with the almost annual increases in fares that SMRT’s revenue continues to rise in tandem with ridership. 
• However, the wages and salaries of the SMRT staff seemed to have remain stagnant – both in terms of increments and in matching up to inflation.
• Finally, the government’s investment to add more buses is aimed at reducing the overloading of buses. They had most probably made some estimates as to how many buses were required to do so, how many buses the PTOs would be willing to buy, and then decided to top up with their own budget for the rest of the buses.

Just by looking at the statistics, I would suggest that the government’s intention to increase fares and the $1.1 billion investment for additional buses is a sensible one.

However, what then would account for the disagreement by Singaporeans with the government’s decision? I would propose the following:

• Singaporeans’ real wages and salaries have not been increasing fast enough and real median wages have remained stagnant over recent years. Thus Singaporeans do not agree that fares should be increased when there’s no parity in their wage increase.
• The government’s close ties with the PTOs has caused discomfort among Singaporeans. Temasek Holdings, which is owned by the government, has a 54.2% stake in SMRT. What this suggests is that the government is able to intervene in the decision-making within SMRT. However, there is no transparency as to how decisions are made between the government and the private companies that they have a stake in and thus suspicions have arose because of that.
• Finally, as people’s wages remain stagnant and the cost of living continues to increase, the belief among Singaporeans is that the government has intentionally depressed the people’s wages, while channelling profits into the companies owned by Temasek Holdings. Singaporeans believe that the government wants to raise fares and support the PTOs with $1.1 billion to benefit the companies, at the expense of Singaporeans, even if a look at the statistics might show that this is not the case.

So, what is the real problem and what can we do about it?

• First, the people do not trust the government because they feel that their purchasing power has been significantly reduced. It is true that median wages have not increased. What the government needs to do is to bring wages to parity.
• Second, there is no transparency in how decisions are made – in the increase in bus fares and the decision to invest $1.1 billion to buy additional buses for private companies, which would be expected to fork out their own capital for investments. What the government needs to do is to explain clearly to the people how decisions were made, to allow people to understand the decision-making.
• Finally, Singaporeans are uncomfortable with the government’s involvement with the private companies. They do not know if the government will sell-out Singaporeans. What the government needs to do is to be transparent in the decisions that they make within these companies and to also show clearly how the people’s money is being used in the investment of these companies and how the returns come back and are used. As of now, there is very little clarity to this.

The current problems that Singapore faces is due to a government which believes that it knows what is right and what needs to be done, and believes that it does not need to explain to the people about its actions. However, because the people feel that their livelihood is threatened, they no longer believe that the government has their interests at heart and do not trust the government. The problem is exacerbated by a lack of transparency and information access by the people on how the government makes decisions and uses their money. As such, the foundation of trust that the country needs to  built on is severely weakened.

A concerted effort by the government to clearly explain their decision-making and actions, and to consult with the people, needs to be complemented by a more critically-thinking population who is willing to look in more depth into the government’s decisions and actions.

Statistics for SMRT are obtained from SMRT’s annual reports which can be found here. The analysis in this article is only accurate as far as the statistics reported have not been manipulated. 

I am very concerned with how the international news media is covering the current sociopolitical ongoings in Singapore. Many international news agencies talk about how Singaporeans are angry with foreigners and how foreigners are facing a backlash in Singapore.

Singaporeans, I understand that many of us might be unhappy with the current state that Singapore is in. We might feel squeezed and unhappy with our wages and cost of living. But we need to be very cognizant of our emotions. Is it foreigners that we are unhappy about?

I want to talk about this because we have to understand this – Singapore is a small country. It is in the interest of any small country to maintain good relations with its neighbours as well as with the other countries in this world, especially with those higher up the chain. History has shown this to be the case, that we know.

This is why it is very important that in our anger, we need to be very clear that we do not cause the relationships that we have formed with the other countries to be affected. Am I saying that we should stop being angry because we need to maintain Singapore’s relationships? No, that’s not it.

What I am saying is this – we need to understand this anger. We keep thinking that we are angry with the foreigners but is this the case? When wages are depressed and do not grow and where prices of goods and services are increasing, should should we blame the foreigners? Well, we can, because it seems that we are not able to ask for higher wages because a foreigner can ask for a lower pay, and the company can choose the foreign worker over us. Or we can blame the rich foreigner for paying high prices for housing and cars, and jack up these prices beyond our reach.

Well, yes, we can blame the foreigners and get angry at them. But that is myopic. If we think a bit further, if the government implements a minimum wage, would companies still pay low wages? Companies would have to pay higher wages, and fair wages. If the government regulates prices of housing and cars, and introduce policies to prevent prices from shooting up, will prices jack up?

You see, the answer to our anger is not the foreigners. The problem is that wages are low and prices are high, because of prior ineffective and half hearted government regulations. It is ignorant of us to choose not to see the larger picture and choose only to direct our anger at the foreigners, when they are simply reacting to the government’s policies, or lack thereof, as well.

If this is the case, what then can we do? We need to focus our energies on advocating to the government to do what is right to protect our needs and to address our concerns. And truth is, after the past few months of advocacy, we are starting to see some progress now. Finally, the government is starting to admit that their policies aren’t effective, even as they have not said it. From just saying that they will tweak the policies a bit here and a bit there just a few months ago, they are beginning to change their tune. They are beginning to overhaul some policies.

So, Singaporeans, we have a voice. Our voices do matter. And we can push the government further to listen to us. This is only the beginning. We cannot let up. We need to keep pushing, and asking questions, and making sure that our government listens to us carefully and introduce policies that are in our interests. And as responsible citizens who care about our lives and our rights, we will continue to do so.

As as I’ve mentioned, we need to be clear and focused. Our anger is not with foreigners. It is with ineffective policies which have affected our lives adversely.

Why do I emphasise on this? If you look at it the other way – what if we have another government in charge? What if the Worker’s Party or SDP is able to form the government? They will need to continue to establish good relations with the other countries. We continue to need the support of other countries to be able to deal effectively with the world.

Do you think China or India will still be interested in working with Singapore if more and more Singaporeans continue to say angry things about Chinese and Indians? Look, Singapore is not a big country where even if we piss the other countries off, we can still continue to operate on our own, with our own local domestic economy. If you are a big country, you can piss on others and others will still find that you have some relevance anyhow. If you are a small country, you start pissing on others and everyone else will piss right back on you.

It’s myopic and ignorant of us if we continue to let our anger and fears run all over, without realising the impact that what our uncontrolled and misinformed beliefs and emotions can take us.

As much as we are starting to find our voice once again and as much as we are learning how to use our voice to effect change, we need to learn how to be responsible in our thoughts and voices. It’s not about screaming at the top of our voices about what our rights are, and in doing so, criticise that of all others, simply because we feel personally offended – this is not free speech. This is not human rights. When we do this, this is simply self-centred madness. If we criticise without care and respect, we are being highly irresponsible.

Having the freedom to express what we believe in, means taking responsibility in what we say. It means ensuring that we have thought through carefully about what we believe in, and in doing so, phrase what we say in a way that allows what we say to have the maximal impact on the government, and also at the same time, be mindful and respectful of others.

Understandably, Singaporeans are only starting to regain the freedom of speech that the government has denied us for decades. And in this new-found freedom, we might still be learning about how to think in a more critical and arranged manner. The freedom to think and speak is like composing a song. You want to put your music together and play it out, so that when people hear it, they can hear the flow of your story. But when we don’t put it together well, all they hear is noise.

And right now, we need to learn to put our story together well. And in order to do that, we would need to have clear and thoughtful understandings of things. We need to be very clear why our emotions are the way they are, to understand them and act on them responsibly. There will be other issues which will arise, but as long as we continue to think responsibly and critically, and when what we say is respectful and well-thought-out, we can ensure that we will be able to be more effectively heard.

My friends, as we grow and learn to regain more of our ability to speak out and voice our concerns to the government, we need to take responsibility for what we say and to find the most effective and impactful ways to convey our message, without hurting another, and yet, always having the broad picture in mind. In Singapore, we need to always have the broad picture because we are a small country. Like it or not, we need to think broadly. Our education system might have limited our scope in doing so, because of the government’s controlled way of getting our education across. But it’s time that we re-educate ourselves. It’s time we start reading up more and understanding Singapore’s position vis-a-vis the world and how, with this understanding, we can structure our thoughts from a more holistic point of view.

Even as we learn to find and use our voice, it’s not only about speaking up about our own individual rights. It’s also to speak up for the poor and less fortunate in society. It also means always thinking as well about Singapore’s position in the world, and how what we believe in and want, need to always be thought of, in conjunction with the larger position of Singapore and the greater good.