- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
[h=2]Singapore – How long will the party last?[/h]
May 2nd, 2013 |
Author: Online Press
(1 May) – There is a statue of Sir Stamford Raffles on the
banks of the Singapore River that stares roughly in the direction of the
city-state’s Parliament. A plaque there, purportedly where Raffles landed in
1819, credits him for having “changed the destiny of Singapore from an obscure
fishing village to a great seaport and modern metropolis”.
But after some three decades of spectacular economic growth, has the
beginning of the end for this island-nation arrived? Many of those who arrive
from elsewhere to make a living in Singapore must come to Upper Circular Road, a
short walk east of Raffles’ effigy. The ministry of manpower hands out those
sought-after employment passes here, in a slick, air-conditioned office.
Appointments are given online; the offline turnaround time is almost
ridiculously short. This is, in many ways, the epitome of the country’s
efficiency, but increasingly for Singaporeans, also the most significant signal
of fault lines that threaten their society.
=> Issuing work passes and PRs like tissue paper? So as to ensure foreigners will out-vote SGs?
So significant, in fact, that it triggered one of the largest protest rallies
in the city-state’s recent history. Some 4,000-5,000 Singaporeans braved the
rains this February to demonstrate against a government white paper that
projects immigrants constituting about half of the country’s population by
2030.
Such turnouts are unheard of in modern Singapore, but the larger implication
is that of a silent citizenry finally speaking out against the political class.
The People’s Action Party (PAP), in power since Singapore’s independence in
1965, has rarely had to deal with any significant political opposition. Until
now. It began changing, perceptibly, during 2011. First, the PAP won (only) 81
out of 87 seats in the general elections, its worst performance since coming
into power. The city-state’s founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and his
successor Goh Chok Tong moved out of the Cabinet after calling it “a watershed
general election” after the PAP’s vote share fell from 75 per cent in 2001 to 60
per cent in 2011. That was in May.
In August, former Deputy Prime Minister Tony Tan, seen as the PAP’s man, won
the presidential elections, held for the first time in 18 years, by only 7,269
votes. Some 2.1 million Singaporeans had cast their ballot. Two months later,
lawyer-turned-politician Michael Palmer took over as the speaker of Parliament.
Last December, he resigned after admitting to an extramarital affair. His
constituency, Punggol East, then went to the hustings, and the PAP lost yet
another seat.
Popular former Foreign Minister George Yeo, in a Facebook post, simply asked:
“Whither Singapore?” A pertinent question, given that modern Singapore has never
witnessed such politics. Few would have thought the PAP’s grip over the
city-state would weaken this quickly.
At stake is not just a model Asian city-state, but one of the world’s richest
metropolises. The Boston Consulting Group estimates that Singapore has the
highest concentration of millionaire households anywhere in the world, with some
15.5 per cent of all households in the island-nation having at least $1 million
in assets under management.
Yet, Singapore’s monthly median income (excluding central provident fund) is
about $2,400, which really isn’t worth much, considering it is the sixth most
expensive city in the world, according to a recent Economist Intelligence Unit
survey.
As more money pours into Singapore, that divide – between locals sipping
coffee at a street side Kopitiam and expats stepping out of glitzy sports cars
for drink at some of Asia’s most expensive bars – is only getting starker. The
city-state’s Gini coefficient – the most commonly used measure of inequality,
with a higher number reflecting more disparity – was 0.478 in 2012, higher than
that of China and India.
For the government, in turn, it is becoming an increasingly difficult
balancing act. That tiny Singapore, which registers a mere 7.72 births per
thousand, needs immigration is clear. Its population is ageing, and the local
workforce cannot support the needs of a global financial centre. But bringing in
more foreign talent to keep the economic engine going, as the February protests
showed, has political ramifications.
While the noise on the street against immigration is diverse and loud, the
core issue is opportunity. Is it fair, for instance, for a Singaporean to
compete with an immigrant for access to education, especially if nearly half of
the island’s population could be composed of emigres by 2030?
The obvious path would be to tame growth, and instead seek a more equitable
economic model. Yet that would also mean risking the city-state’s position as a
financial powerhouse. It is also Singapore’s economic prowess that gives the
small island off the coast of Malaysia unusual geopolitical traction,
particularly in Southeast Asia. Much of today’s Singapore has to do with Lee
Kuan Yew and his vision for Singapore. His emphasis on meritocracy in the
government, after the territory separated from Malaysia that ensured the
creation of a bureaucracy and political class with unusual talent. That quality
once defined the PAP, and Singapore.
Singapore now stands at the crossroads. The government will need to take
difficult decisions that could, on one hand, limit immigration and hurt the
economy, or continue on the same path and risk losing political traction.
Whatever it is, it won’t be easy. It might not seem so in the shadow of Raffles’
statue by the river, but behind the surface, Singapore is slowly unravelling.
How long will the party last?
=> Party for the FAP Traitors?
[Source]: http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/whither-singapore-113050100818_1.html
(1 May) – There is a statue of Sir Stamford Raffles on the
banks of the Singapore River that stares roughly in the direction of the
city-state’s Parliament. A plaque there, purportedly where Raffles landed in
1819, credits him for having “changed the destiny of Singapore from an obscure
fishing village to a great seaport and modern metropolis”.
But after some three decades of spectacular economic growth, has the
beginning of the end for this island-nation arrived? Many of those who arrive
from elsewhere to make a living in Singapore must come to Upper Circular Road, a
short walk east of Raffles’ effigy. The ministry of manpower hands out those
sought-after employment passes here, in a slick, air-conditioned office.
Appointments are given online; the offline turnaround time is almost
ridiculously short. This is, in many ways, the epitome of the country’s
efficiency, but increasingly for Singaporeans, also the most significant signal
of fault lines that threaten their society.
=> Issuing work passes and PRs like tissue paper? So as to ensure foreigners will out-vote SGs?
So significant, in fact, that it triggered one of the largest protest rallies
in the city-state’s recent history. Some 4,000-5,000 Singaporeans braved the
rains this February to demonstrate against a government white paper that
projects immigrants constituting about half of the country’s population by
2030.
Such turnouts are unheard of in modern Singapore, but the larger implication
is that of a silent citizenry finally speaking out against the political class.
The People’s Action Party (PAP), in power since Singapore’s independence in
1965, has rarely had to deal with any significant political opposition. Until
now. It began changing, perceptibly, during 2011. First, the PAP won (only) 81
out of 87 seats in the general elections, its worst performance since coming
into power. The city-state’s founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and his
successor Goh Chok Tong moved out of the Cabinet after calling it “a watershed
general election” after the PAP’s vote share fell from 75 per cent in 2001 to 60
per cent in 2011. That was in May.
In August, former Deputy Prime Minister Tony Tan, seen as the PAP’s man, won
the presidential elections, held for the first time in 18 years, by only 7,269
votes. Some 2.1 million Singaporeans had cast their ballot. Two months later,
lawyer-turned-politician Michael Palmer took over as the speaker of Parliament.
Last December, he resigned after admitting to an extramarital affair. His
constituency, Punggol East, then went to the hustings, and the PAP lost yet
another seat.
Popular former Foreign Minister George Yeo, in a Facebook post, simply asked:
“Whither Singapore?” A pertinent question, given that modern Singapore has never
witnessed such politics. Few would have thought the PAP’s grip over the
city-state would weaken this quickly.
At stake is not just a model Asian city-state, but one of the world’s richest
metropolises. The Boston Consulting Group estimates that Singapore has the
highest concentration of millionaire households anywhere in the world, with some
15.5 per cent of all households in the island-nation having at least $1 million
in assets under management.
Yet, Singapore’s monthly median income (excluding central provident fund) is
about $2,400, which really isn’t worth much, considering it is the sixth most
expensive city in the world, according to a recent Economist Intelligence Unit
survey.
As more money pours into Singapore, that divide – between locals sipping
coffee at a street side Kopitiam and expats stepping out of glitzy sports cars
for drink at some of Asia’s most expensive bars – is only getting starker. The
city-state’s Gini coefficient – the most commonly used measure of inequality,
with a higher number reflecting more disparity – was 0.478 in 2012, higher than
that of China and India.
For the government, in turn, it is becoming an increasingly difficult
balancing act. That tiny Singapore, which registers a mere 7.72 births per
thousand, needs immigration is clear. Its population is ageing, and the local
workforce cannot support the needs of a global financial centre. But bringing in
more foreign talent to keep the economic engine going, as the February protests
showed, has political ramifications.
While the noise on the street against immigration is diverse and loud, the
core issue is opportunity. Is it fair, for instance, for a Singaporean to
compete with an immigrant for access to education, especially if nearly half of
the island’s population could be composed of emigres by 2030?
The obvious path would be to tame growth, and instead seek a more equitable
economic model. Yet that would also mean risking the city-state’s position as a
financial powerhouse. It is also Singapore’s economic prowess that gives the
small island off the coast of Malaysia unusual geopolitical traction,
particularly in Southeast Asia. Much of today’s Singapore has to do with Lee
Kuan Yew and his vision for Singapore. His emphasis on meritocracy in the
government, after the territory separated from Malaysia that ensured the
creation of a bureaucracy and political class with unusual talent. That quality
once defined the PAP, and Singapore.
Singapore now stands at the crossroads. The government will need to take
difficult decisions that could, on one hand, limit immigration and hurt the
economy, or continue on the same path and risk losing political traction.
Whatever it is, it won’t be easy. It might not seem so in the shadow of Raffles’
statue by the river, but behind the surface, Singapore is slowly unravelling.
How long will the party last?
=> Party for the FAP Traitors?
[Source]: http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/whither-singapore-113050100818_1.html
