Re: WP Doing Nothing?
[h=5]
Daniel PS Goh[/h]Assuming the White Paper, Part I
I find the White Paper stupendously problematic in too many way. But a lot of ink, and saliva, have been spilled on critiques of the White Paper, so I will not repeat the already said points and will instead "value add" what I think are fresh insights (maybe stale already). Actually I hate the term "value add", as it stems from the same worldview guiding the White Paper, but thought I use it here for efficient irony.
I ask two questions concerning the White Paper from the perspective of Comparative Historical Sociology and Cultural Studies. The former is interested in the long term formation of states and the use of political economic resources for the purpose. In our political pop culture, this was what Chan Chun Sing was trying to highlight with his kechiu's on the Lanfang Republic, which was unfortunately performed too closely to a SNL routine. The latter, Cultural Studies, is interested in the underlying meanings that condition the way we see and act towards the world.
What are the underlying assumptions of the White Paper about Singaporeans and Singapore society? Why is the state making these assumptions at this juncture of its formation?
Assumption 1: Singaporeans, even if they want to, are not quite capable of having enough babies to replace themselves, so we need substantial new citizen top-ups.
The government says it "hopes" that TFR would go up some 10-20%. I hope the cabinet ministers would hold their breaths, so that they won't just hope, but WILL make it happen. Other nations that worry about their existential extinction, like Korea, Israel, and the Nordic countries, don't just hope and eagerly top-up their citizenry with immigrants, which insults new citizens too because they are top-ups. I like Norway's approach. A TV channel now shows cracking firewood for half the day on TV because firewood has a deep cultural significance for their national identity, and it promotes TFR-ing! On the other hand, we stuff cash into the pockets of the cash-rich to have more babies and the poor to have fewer.
Assumption 2: older Singaporeans will weigh down the workforce as they are not as innovative and productive as younger workers, and they cannot quite support themselves after retirement. And since Singaporeans are incapable of having enough babies that will grow up to become young workers, we need to import some and more to "revitalize" our workforce and "support" our old folks.
So we just want the youthful labour to be extracted from migrant workers to feed our famished senior citizens. Maybe because I am an academic working in the university, but the most innovative and productive workers here are the senior profs, until they kena semi-retired as "emeritus" prof. But isn't our economy a "knowledge-based economy"? Hey, I haven't heard that term for a long time! Is there a realization we are still stuck in the industrial mode? And what ever happened our world-class social security retirement scheme called the CProvidentF?
Assumption 3: Singapore entrepreneurs are non-existent and our businesses and workers are unable to improve their productivity, even in the medium term of 10-15 years. And since Singaporeans are incapable of having enough babies to revitalize an ageing workforce, we need to continue to bring in cheap foreign labour to keep our businesses alive.
We are in the realm of addiction treatment. The addiction is not to foreign labour, but to cheap labour. Foreign workers are historically incidental to being cheap labour because of the different stages of development of different countries in a globalized capitalist system. Nevertheless, it is an addiction that prevents our businesses and workers from becoming productive. Addiction treatment requires detoxification (from cheap labour lah, not foreigners), medication to reduce withdrawal symptoms (government support for restructuring SMEs and reskilling local workers), and behavioural therapy (productivity work practices). But the government doesn't seem to be very confident we can shake the disease, so seeks to maintain addicted substance abuse, albeit at a lower intensity.
Taken together, the assumptions suggest that the government has more or less given up on Singaporeans and the state on the ability of Singapore society to draw on its inner strength to tackle the demographic challenges. The question is why?
