• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Is singapore becoming a victim of its own success?

babuSingh

Alfrescian
Loyal
These are the best of times and the worst of times in Singapore, the world’s only global city without a natural hinterland, whose prosperity and good governance are the envy of much of the world, and a model for others to follow.

But while the city-state remains an alluring success story to much of the outside world, Singaporeans themselves are starting to question the long-term viability of their longstanding adherence to elite governance, meritocracy, the primacy of growth and state paternalism.

The “Singapore consensus” that the People’s Action Party (PAP) government constructed and maintained in the last five decades is fraying, partly because many citizens perceive it to be outdated.

The Singapore consensus has been underpinned by the notion of vulnerability—that because of its small size, lack of natural resources, ethnic and religious diversity, and geographic location in a potentially volatile region, the city-sized nation is inherently and immutably vulnerable.

More: Singapore’s public housing looks like this

From this existentially anguished reality, a developmental belief system emerged. Its tenets include a strict academic meritocracy as the best way to sort talent; elite governance insulated from the short-termism and myopia of ordinary democratic pressures; the primacy of growth, delivered through a heavy dependence on foreign labour and capital; an acceptance of the need to equalise opportunities but not outcomes; and an indifference to inequality, as reflected in the state’s aversion to welfare.

The Singapore consensus made possible impressive socioeconomic development for much of the past fifty years, when demographic and economic conditions were also far more favorable. Yet today many Singaporeans are contesting it.

At first glance this might seem odd: Singapore has one of the highest per capita incomes in the world. But its economic success masks some uncomfortable truths about life in this city-state.


Flickr/Philippe Put

Income and wealth inequalities in Singapore are among the highest in the developed world, while the cost of living has spiraled in recent years. For many of its residents, the country’s impressive material achievements have not translated into higher levels of happiness or well-being.

In various surveys, Singaporeans are found to work some of the longest hours in the developed world and are described as one of the world’s least happy peoples.

Almost three-quarters are afraid to get sick because of perceived high healthcare costs while more than half indicate they would emigrate if given the chance.

In December 2013, Singapore had its first riot in fifty years – reflecting its inability (and possibly, unwillingness) to accommodate the more than one million low-skilled foreign workers in Singapore. Yet its economic model is still highly dependent on taking in increasing numbers of such workers as Singaporeans continue to shun and stigmatize menial jobs.

Two years ago, low-wage mainland Chinese bus drivers, bereft of bargaining power, instigated Singapore’s first labor strike in twenty-six years. Meanwhile, economic pressures coupled with the lack of efforts at fostering integration have led to an uptick in racism and xenophobia, tarnishing Singapore’s reputation for openness and tolerance. A country the business community long admired for its stability and openness to foreign nationals and ideas is now witnessing pent-up tensions bubbling over from time to time.

More: Saving and social welfare in Singapore

In many ways, Singapore is a victim of its own success. From the 1970s to 1990s, it developed from a manufacturing and trading hub to a global service and knowledge economy. In the process, a nascent, post-colonial misfit evolved into one of the world’s most well-governed states and dynamic economies. This rapid transformation, driven and engineered by the state, outpaced the ability of entrenched ideologies, policies and institutions to keep up.

At the same time, contradictions in the Singapore story are beginning to emerge. For instance, the government’s aspirations for Singapore to be an entrepreneurial and innovation-driven economy collide with the institutions, policies and practices that inhibit risk-taking, experimentation, collaboration, and egalitarian norms—all of which are critical for a creative economy.

Singapore’s global city ambitions bump up against an emerging national identity. The nation faces an ideological quandary, as its own people question whether its strict academic meritocracy and the belief in the necessity of elite governance has also bred a narrow bureaucratic and political class that is increasingly out of touch with ordinary citizens. This has happened precisely as the electorate, increasingly weary of a sycophantic government-controlled national media, is seeking more mature engagement and debate about Singapore’s future.

By failing to adapt to these new socioeconomic and political realities, Singapore has set the scene for a fierce clash between competing societal and political visions.

The big question is how to forge a new consensus—which will involve, among other things, greater welfare and lower immigration—without swinging too far in the other direction, and without undermining the very efficiency and openness that made Singapore so successful in the first place.

At the same time, an increasingly plural political scene is likely to offer voters greater choice about the balance they want to strike.

In South Korea and Taiwan, the transition to full democracy was, initially at least, wrenching, socially divisive and politically destabilizing. But both countries managed eventually to amble towards stable, rule-based and competitive democratic systems.

This, in turn, paved the way for the emergence of properly organized, collectively financed welfare states that enabled both countries to balance economic growth with social investments in areas such as healthcare, old age security and unemployment protection.

Singapore’s transition is likely to be much less wrenching and destabilizing. First, the city-state is nowhere near as repressive as the (military) dictatorships in South Korea and Taiwan that ruled until the 1980s. Equally important is the fact that the vast majority of Singaporeans are homeowners. A home-owning society is far less likely to upset the apple cart of stability and prosperity.

For these and other reasons, we are sanguine about Singapore’s transition to a liberal democracy with a far more redistributive state. Our optimism stands in stark contrast to the government’s fears about how increased democratic pressures here will make Singapore less governable, impede quick and enlightened decision making by elites who know better, and increase the likelihood of policies being made for short-term or populist reasons.


We think such fears are mostly misplaced. The contest in Singapore is less about basic political rights and freedoms. But neither is it just over “bread and butter” issues.

Rather, it is a post-modern debate over people’s ability to determine what constitutes achievement and well-being.

While a narrow focus on GDP growth and material prosperity helped to raise living standards early on, it has proven to be an incomplete barometer of success for Singaporeans.

For businesses, investors and policymakers in Singapore, the days of easy political consensus, stability and insulation from short-term electoral demands are over. Having sacrificed over a generation to attain prosperity, Singaporeans are now wrestling with what comes next.

This article originally appeared at New America's Weekly Wonk. Copyright 2014. Follow New America's Weekly Wonk on Twitter.

http://www.businessinsider.com/singapore-is-becoming-a-victim-of-its-own-success-2014-7?IR=T&
 

Thick Face Black Heart

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
There are some outstanding myths that are still held by those from the outside who do not see the finer details. The biggest one being that Singapore is "well governed". This myth still endures because the spotlight is shone on a segment of society that has taken advantage of the system and succeeded. Excellent marketing over the decades has helped cement this idea in the rest of the world. However, a closer inspection of our FT policies, failure to plan for infrastructure development to cope with the rising population, the asset enhancement policies, our CPF policies, etc, debunk this myth and expose it as a great fallacy.

The second bug bear is this continued rhetoric about a compassionate autocracy or benevolent dictatorship that served Singapore well in the past. This article describes this model of governance using terms like "state paternalism". And it is given a name - "the Singapore consensus". Good that there is some acknowledgment that the "Singapore consensus" has become outdated. This term is also a misnomer as there was never an open consensus to begin with, but instead governance through fear and intimidation, state-sponsored cronyism using taxpayer dollars (think GLCs and family-run businesses), and the prevention of an independent grassroots from forming (think people's association).

Significant political change is inevitable within the next two general elections. I believe Aurvandils' timeline of 2021 would turn out to be pretty spot on.
 

laksaboy

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
There are some outstanding myths that are still held by those from the outside who do not see the finer details. The biggest one being that Singapore is "well governed". This myth still endures because the spotlight is shone on a segment of society that has taken advantage of the system and succeeded. Excellent marketing over the decades has helped cement this idea in the rest of the world. However, a closer inspection of our FT policies, failure to plan for infrastructure development to cope with the rising population, the asset enhancement policies, our CPF policies, etc, debunk this myth and expose it as a great fallacy.

The second bug bear is this continued rhetoric about a compassionate autocracy or benevolent dictatorship that served Singapore well in the past. This article describes this model of governance using terms like "state paternalism". And it is given a name - "the Singapore consensus". Good that there is some acknowledgment that the "Singapore consensus" has become outdated. This term is also a misnomer as there was never an open consensus to begin with, but instead governance through fear and intimidation, state-sponsored cronyism using taxpayer dollars (think GLCs and family-run businesses), and the prevention of an independent grassroots from forming (think people's association).

Significant political change is inevitable within the next two general elections. I believe Aurvandils' timeline of 2021 would turn out to be pretty spot on.


To the daft Sinkies i.e. the 60.1%: the existence of skycrapers, malls, expressways, MRT lines and a busy port and airport are signs of a well-governed country. As if those things are exclusive to this dinghy little island. :rolleyes:
 

rushifa666

Alfrescian
Loyal
the second fallacy. we are better than our neighours. which first world country isn't? the sinkie horizon is just the top of their well
 

frenchbriefs

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
victim of its own success?what success?a hypocritical success,a success thats not even based on the efforts of its own people,a success based on foreigners.....u call a country of success when u have barbarians from 3rd world countries shitting and peeing all over the place?u call it a country of success when u have ugly citizens flinging hateful vitriol and discriminatory remarks at each other?to the point where they even practise discrimination towards coworkers that are not their kind?????is this called success????

what does the word singapore even mean?can u still say singapore is singaporean?do u even know what it means to be singaporean anymore?singapore is just a empty vestige of a word,for a feeling u have never felt.everything that makes us who we are traded away........

[video=youtube;D8Glnz2buVU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8Glnz2buVU[/video]
 
Last edited:

winnipegjets

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
But while the city-state remains an alluring success story to much of the outside world, Singaporeans themselves are starting to question the long-term viability of their longstanding adherence to elite governance, meritocracy, the primacy of growth and state paternalism.

The “Singapore consensus” that the People’s Action Party (PAP) government constructed and maintained in the last five decades is fraying, partly because many citizens perceive it to be outdated.

Sinkees are questioning because they see that the government has not kept its end of the bargain.

The Singapore consensus has been underpinned by the notion of vulnerability—that because of its small size, lack of natural resources, ethnic and religious diversity, and geographic location in a potentially volatile region, the city-sized nation is inherently and immutably vulnerable.

Sinkees were dumb in the first place to buy the LKY's bullshit that sinkapore was forced out. We were not forced out; LKY engineered the exit of sinkapore from the federation so that he can be the top honcho. LKY wanted to rule the federation but that was not possible, so he settled for the island of sinkapore.

From this existentially anguished reality, a developmental belief system emerged. Its tenets include a strict academic meritocracy as the best way to sort talent; elite governance insulated from the short-termism and myopia of ordinary democratic pressures; the primacy of growth, delivered through a heavy dependence on foreign labour and capital; an acceptance of the need to equalise opportunities but not outcomes; and an indifference to inequality, as reflected in the state’s aversion to welfare.
Sinkees started to realize that the notion of meritocracy was bullshit; most of the scholarship winners are from the upper class. Overtime, it is the upper class that runs the country.
The social contract was sinkees exchanging reduced freedom for economic security and social stability. The PAP delivered for the initial years and then abandoned the contract and started to have policies that benefited themselves.
It was not in the social contract for the deluge of foreigners in the country to batter the wages of locals. Nor was there


At first glance this might seem odd: Singapore has one of the highest per capita incomes in the world. But its economic success masks some uncomfortable truths about life in this city-state.
Highest per capita means nothing when the wealth is concentrated in the top 5 percent!


Income and wealth inequalities in Singapore are among the highest in the developed world, while the cost of living has spiraled in recent years. For many of its residents, the country’s impressive material achievements have not translated into higher levels of happiness or well-being.

And the PAP doesn't get this!

In various surveys, Singaporeans are found to work some of the longest hours in the developed world and are described as one of the world’s least happy peoples.
Swiss standard of living indeed ...as defined by the PAP.

Almost three-quarters are afraid to get sick because of perceived high healthcare costs while more than half indicate they would emigrate if given the chance.

The PAP could help out by helping those who wish to emigrate to get a place in a first world country.



In many ways, Singapore is a victim of its own success. From the 1970s to 1990s, it developed from a manufacturing and trading hub to a global service and knowledge economy. In the process, a nascent, post-colonial misfit evolved into one of the world’s most well-governed states and dynamic economies. This rapid transformation, driven and engineered by the state, outpaced the ability of entrenched ideologies, policies and institutions to keep up.

At the same time, contradictions in the Singapore story are beginning to emerge. For instance, the government’s aspirations for Singapore to be an entrepreneurial and innovation-driven economy collide with the institutions, policies and practices that inhibit risk-taking, experimentation, collaboration, and egalitarian norms—all of which are critical for a creative economy.

Singapore’s global city ambitions bump up against an emerging national identity. The nation faces an ideological quandary, as its own people question whether its strict academic meritocracy and the belief in the necessity of elite governance has also bred a narrow bureaucratic and political class that is increasingly out of touch with ordinary citizens. This has happened precisely as the electorate, increasingly weary of a sycophantic government-controlled national media, is seeking more mature engagement and debate about Singapore’s future.

By failing to adapt to these new socioeconomic and political realities, Singapore has set the scene for a fierce clash between competing societal and political visions.

The big question is how to forge a new consensus—which will involve, among other things, greater welfare and lower immigration—without swinging too far in the other direction, and without undermining the very efficiency and openness that made Singapore so successful in the first place.

PAP's solution is to import 3 million foreigners and then make them instant citizens.


Singapore’s transition is likely to be much less wrenching and destabilizing. First, the city-state is nowhere near as repressive as the (military) dictatorships in South Korea and Taiwan that ruled until the 1980s. Equally important is the fact that the vast majority of Singaporeans are homeowners. A home-owning society is far less likely to upset the apple cart of stability and prosperity.

Shows how ignorant the angmos are. They don't know how the home ownership programme is hurting the majority of sinkees and are clueless on the CPF issue.
 

eatshitndie

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
it is judging from this pic when the line is long at fatty cheong. there's even a fat guy with his back to my iphone cam to grace the occasion. :biggrin:
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    104.7 KB · Views: 155

laksaboy

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Success lan jiao.singapore is like a body builder on steriod.

And just like a body builder on steroids, you may certainly achieve success with attaining a muscular physique, but your lanjiao shrinks and can't get hard.

I hope the Pioneer Package covers erectile dysfunction. :biggrin:


[video=youtube;VNHGqE1SC8w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNHGqE1SC8w[/video]
 

TracyTan866

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
What is success?

Is high GDP growth considered success?

Is happiness of citizens considered success?

Is a country with loyal citizens considered successful?

Can Singapore be considered as a successful country?
 
Top