The Singapore Fling

Originally published July 22, 2003
The Baltimore Sun

SINGAPORE, THE modern world's only Confucian state, has taken a long
look in the mirror - and found itself, well, boring.

And among the antidotes, the island's paternalistic government is
suggesting - drum roll, please - legalizing bungee jumping. Oh yes,
and reverse bungee jumping, which somehow sounds even worse.

That's one of many recommendations of the Remaking Singapore
Committee, set up by the authoritarians who run the city to keep it
globally competitive by inducing more creativity, risk-taking and
joie de vivre.

For the conclusion that Singapore lacks a certain spark - perhaps
even an essential spark - we hope its earnest managers didn't waste
any of its considerable wealth on consultants. Just ask any of the
visitors who have exhausted their interests in making money or
spending it in countless malls.

Singapore, of course, is a remarkable wonder, having evolved under
supreme leader Lee Kuan Yew's ruling party from a swampy backwater
into Southeast Asia's most orderly, clean, crime-free, well-educated
corner. It boasts one of the world's highest percentages of
homeownership, one of its freest marketplaces and one-party rule
famed for regulating the lives of its 4.2 million citizens down to
banning chewing gum, fining them for not flushing public toilets and
occasionally caning delinquents.

But along the way, creativity got squeezed out, which is proving to
be something of a business problem. Now even the government
acknowledges life there needs a greater measure of joy as well.

We would suggest that life in Singapore would be a lot more vibrant
if the government tolerated more dissent and political democracy. And
of course Confucius' concept of happiness had to do with living a
balanced life of virtue, not risk-taking.

But Singapore's not moving very fast toward the former (though the
need for greater free expression within firm political limits has at
least been acknowledged). And the island is already thoroughly
infused from top to bottom with very admirable Confucian virtues,
thank you very much.

That leaves us with the image of phalanxes of Singaporeans soon
dutifully lining up to attach themselves to long cords, free-fall
from high places and bounce around just short of the ground. Oh, joy.

Copyright © 2003, The Baltimore Sun | Get home delivery

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Subject: Haphazard Implementation of Policies with Wrong Emphasis.

Mellanie Hewlitt
Singapore Review
16 July 2003.

The Singapore Government has not been idle. In the past weeks, it seems they
have initiated bold new moves which include;

a) Relaxing restrictions on employment of Gays;
b) Allowing Bungee Jumping;
c) Allowing Bar-Top Dancing;
d) Allowing purchase of chewing gum;

But to be totally frank and honest, these so called "landmark liberal policies"
are part and parcel of basic rights that follow any democratic and civilised
country. They are not privilleges but are taken as a given.

Does one bestow a facist dictator with a humanitarian award or the Nobel Prize
if he allow his subjects to pee standing up? Surely not. In the same manner,
the latest policy changes should be viewed as a long overdue move to right
previous wrongs.

What exactly does the Government hope to achieve from these "liberal policies"?
Is there a link between chewing gum, bar-top dancing and bungee jumping on the
one hand, and international competitiveness and employment creation on the
other?

Perhaps it is argued that latest policy move touch on softer aspects like
making Singapore a more liberal place to encourage creativity. Even here the
policies fail to hold water. The best place to start would be liberalising the
educational system and moving away from an exam oriented system towards a
system that encourages students to develop at their own pace and in their own
areas of interest.

The only noteworthy aspect of latest devlopments is that it reveals the
conspicous absence of individual rights and liberties (even at the very minute
and personal level) in Singapore.

In my own simplistic way, I am still trying to work out how these liberal
policy package will help Singaporeans? It seems that we have policy makers who
are void of any real solutions to the countries problems and are tossing in
cavalier superficial changes in hopes to placate the masses.

It is conceeded that Singapore is approaching the status of a "matured economy"
like the UK and US which have also historically seen lower economic growths.
However, in the case of Singapore there is an added urgency in finding quick
and meaningful economic reforms. Unlike the US and UK, Singapore lacks a large
domestic economy to sustain growth of local industries and generate employment.

There is now an urgent need for policy reforms that advocate fiscal stimulus
and an expansionary monetary policy which would provide much needed fuel for
domestic growth and employment. And to put this task in perspective, one should
note that minimum economic growth of at least 2-3% per annum is needed just to
maintain current standards of living, avoid stagflation and provide sufficient
jobs for existing workers and graduates. Merely avoiding a "Technical
Recession" falls way short of this necessary benchmark.

There is already growing evidence that confirms that not enough is done in the
area of macroeconomic management to achieve the minimum economic growth rates
required to sustain current living standards. And it is no strange coincidence
that in the past week, the Monetary Authorities of Singapore has been critisced
for its recalcitrance in formulating an expansionary fiscal and monetary
package that will address current economic malaise. (See "Singapore MAS Policy
Tweak May Have Been A Bit Too Late" by By Izham Ahmad and Shen Hong
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES, Friday July 11, 2003;
http://sg.biz.yahoo.com/030711/15/3chs3.html)

With this in mind, latest refusal by the government to refuse release of CPF
funds is all the more baffling given that the island is in severe need of
entrepreneural spirit. Even more baffling is the implementation of projects
that are not condusive to employment creation. A prime example is the
driverless NEL line (which at day end costs even more to mainitain then a
manned MRT line.). In fact, in the recent few months Singaporeans have
witnessed imminent signs of weaknesses in many GLCs and government projects.
These range from stalled HDB projects, to sibling rivalries between Singtel and
Starhub (a debacle which is paid for in tax dollars). And in the recent week,
there is news that the loss making Esplanade project has also exceeded its
budget.

From this haphazard mes mash of "quick-fix" measures, one gathers that policy
makers are still unable to discern the crucial bread and butter issues that
matter most to Singaporeans. Policy measures that liberalise Bar top dancing,
chewing gum and bungee jumping cannot be classified as "bread and butter
issues". One suspects that policy makers have cleverly skirted the real issues
and are looking at the wrong places for the wrong solutions.

Given that we have the world's highest paid cabinet ministers raking in annual
salaries in the millions, the latest "Liberalising policies" are very
disappointing and one would have expected more from our leaders.

In these financially difficult times, Singapore's million dollar ministers have
no qualms about increasing MRT and power rates on the one hand, and denying
workers the right to their hard earned CPF income.

Looking beyond the local propaganda press, is this a government that cares for
its people? You decide. In the mean time, in addition to MRT rate hikes,
electricity rates will be increased by more than 4 per cent from July 2003.
Residential customers and small businesses will pay 4.7 per cent or 0.71 cent
per kilowatt hour (kwh) more, while business and industrial customers will pay
0.60 to 0.74 cent/kwh more.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------