Singapore's happiness dilemma
SHARED INTERESTS: Iskandar represents the unity between two nations that share a commonwealth of humanity, writes Ng Tze Shiung
IS Aggregate Demand (or Gross Domestic Product) still, in the wake of the social fallout from the global debt crisis, a valid value for comparing standards of living between nations?
Recent allusions by some of our politicians to the progress made by the South Korean economy from an origin where, they allege, our economy was far superior, may have us convinced that monetary and material wealth is indeed a marker for the people's well-being.
Yet wealth is a subjective category. Malaysia lies in a different quadrant of the globe from South Korea. The dynamics of Southeast Asian society are vastly different from that of Northeast Asia. We have, however, in our neighbour, Singapore, a more cognate example by which to make a comparison. While Singapore's economy pales against the scale of South Korea's economy, it might be said to be more successful in its GDP per capita. The average Singaporean commands an income twice that of the average South Korean.
Certainly Singapore has prospered by leaps and bounds relative to the Malaysian economy. The average Singaporean commands an income four times than which is earned by the average Malaysian. As a model of public policy planning, Singapore constantly ranks among the most envied nations for being the cleanest, safest, most efficient and desirable to live and do business in.
Yet judging by the nuanced issues addressed in a recent Population White Paper by the Singaporean government, the response to the White Paper by the citizens of Singapore -- which by their standards might constitute an outcry -- and the Singapore government's delicate handling of their feelings, we may be persuaded that monetary and material wealth did not necessarily bring happiness to the average Singaporean after all.
The White Paper dealt with the problems of an unsustainable population. There are increasingly less births that can compensate for an ageing population. There will, therefore, be less working-age people to support the pensioned generation. More importantly there will be less income earners to sustain the economic growth that critically ensures that the national debt does not spiral out of control.
In recent years, the Singaporean government seems to have balanced this inadequacy by importing foreign labour, capital and knowledge. What was a solution to an economic problem has however unfolded into a political one. The Singaporeans have understandably developed a defensive complex against the foreigner.
The perception grows that the country that the people had built, and continue by their best efforts to keep safe, well and functioning, now benefits a class of foreigners who are either more affluent than the Singaporean, or by their skills are enjoying a status as privileged as Singaporean citizenship.
The headache for the Singapore government is that with this perception also grows a sense of injustice among the people of Singapore. What the leaders of Singapore experience today are the pains of nationhood. Their people, despite their apparent wealth, are unhappy because they perceive their special position as the rightful people of Singapore to have been trespassed by policies, which combine the free market with regulations to favour the foreigner.
To those who know their history, the irony is not lost.
Singaporean leaders may concede that roles have reversed since the days when then prime minister Lee Kuan Yew had called on the Malay states to open their traditional societies, forsake the special position of the Malay ruler and people, and embrace a liberal and pluralistic "Malaysian Malaysia" of free individuals.
The rupture in 1965 between Malaysia and Singapore had, I believe, originated with this struggle between the cosmopolitan and libertarian society of 1960s Singapore and what had already constituted a Malay "nation" in the Malay States.
Half a century later, Singapore's citizens look grudgingly towards the cosmopolitan and libertarian society of Singapore's City and Central districts and ask why the foreigner inhabiting those districts should claim the benefits of their nation's good government -- i.e. housing, employment, education, healthcare, public services, the port and market; -- when the foreigner could easily afford greater luxuries.
Or if the foreigner easily affords such luxuries, they ask why by comparison are they struggling to make ends meet?
Singaporeans are one step short from telling foreigners to go back to South Korea or wherever.
This reversal of circumstances is poignant. It saddens me to observe that Singaporeans, who were once part of Malaysia, are now after decades of hard work and conviction beset by a crisis of identity.
I believe nevertheless that an opportunity of reconciliation is presented by this moment. Unlike in the 1960s, Malaysia and Singapore today have something valuable in common.
They are both instructed by their own people, each of which recognises the strength of their national character to lie not in the fleeting riches of monetary and material wealth, but by the common weal that its body of people represents.
I suspect the governments of Malaysia and Singapore understand this opportunity.
Where the interests of Malaysia and Singapore overlap can be seen in the Iskandar growth corridor.
Iskandar represents the unity between two nations who discovered that they both share a commonwealth of humanity.
May Iskandar prosper as a combined national community, and may it be a beacon to the rest of Malaysia that the libertarian society of "Malaysian Malaysia" was never ever a superior or happier option than has been claimed to be.
Singaporeans sheltering under umbrellas during a demonstration against a government white paper on population on Feb 16. Reuters pic
