Remaking Singapore - Still Far to Go
-
i really couldn't agree more with Dr Tan Chi Chiu of Singapore International Foundation: "we've been for too long stuck in a box. For too long we've not been able to develop a degree of mental exploration"
Remaking Singapore
Still far to go
Strictly assessed, only education has been totally restructured, not much else. By Seah Chiang Nee.
Nov 21, 2005
THREE years ago, there was hardly a newspaper in Singapore without the word "restructure" in the headlines.
The press was taking the cue from the government's launch of a two-year exercise to thrash out, with views from a cross-section of citizens, a plan to remake the country - and the economy - to face the 21st century.
Of their 74 proposals, 60 were accepted last year. So how much of Singapore has been restructured?
On hindsight, some commentators now believe that the word "restructure" was an over-statement and this had resulted in public over-expectation.
It is a matter of perception. During the overzealous reporting, Singaporeans had taken it to mean a dramatic transformation of society - or the economy - and are somewhat disappointed with what has emerged.
"No cows are too sacred to be slaughtered" was the pledge. People had come to expect a brand new Singapore.
So far, few - if any - of the sacred cows - outside education - have been killed.
The changes are, they say, merely cosmetic, a tinkling with the system rather than restructuring.
But realists who had believed that the People's Action Party would never tear down what it had built for a completely new one (especially when Lee Kuan Yew is around), thought the changes were significant.
At any rate, it is a worthwhile operation because the public had participated in mapping the state's future. Singapore today is better and more relaxed for it.
Impact there has been, including the following:
Education: Impressive. The biggest restructuring lies in this area. The Ministry of Education has worked feverishly to move away from an exam-oriented, rote-learning system to one that produces thinking students with diverse skills.
Many schools have changed beyond recognition. Whether Singapore can evolve into a creative, high-skill services economy will depend on the exercise succeeding.
Economy: The exercise produced new ideas but with mixed outcome so far.
There was strong progress in developing a higher-skilled economy like hub activities in education, healthcare and business headquarters, especially in attracting biotech firms. Big plans for a tourism leap in coming years, including two casino resorts.
Poor: One centrepiece, getting Singaporeans to become entrepreneurs (less than 5%) has failed.
Stifling government hold on business in Singapore remains, despite an announced intention to reduce domestic to concentrate on foreign investment. In a few places, it had even increased.
Social life: Fair progress, nothing very dramatic. Life is a little less boring.
New measures to free up the lives of its citizens. Homosexuals are now welcome in the public service; busking is encouraged and bar patrons can dance on table tops; some nightclubs can open 24 hours and censorship relaxed for the performing arts and movies. There's less crackdown on brothels, especially in Geylang.
Politics: Virtually unchanged. It has not led to a freer political environment involving elections, or a freer press or permitted political gatherings that liberals are demanding.
The government rejected a suggestion to define the so-called "out of bounds markers" in politics that inhibit public discussion of "sensitive subjects", saying they can shift with circumstances.
Changing mindsets
Is it enough to free the Singaporean mind for the 21st century? After 40 years of top-down rule, Singaporeans have remained a hardworking, disciplined lot - but this is insufficient for the New World.
"The problem is: we've been for too long stuck in a box. For too long we've not been able to develop a degree of mental exploration," said Dr Tan Chi Chiu, who runs the official Singapore International Foundation.
"We've been very formulaic in our approach to success, both as individuals and as a nation; and I think we've got to break out of all this, and think wildly ..."
American media personality Christopher Lydon describes "Remaking Singapore" as "a very strange and marvellous preoccupation".
He says: "It struck me as brave, intelligent, obsessive, inspiring, perhaps neurotic."
For it to work, this little city-state must leap free from robotic efficiency to defiant outside-the-box creativity, requiring a full new rulebook for the information age.
But that dream of self-liberation never gets clear of Singaporeans' dependence on their micro-managing state.
It could have been better. "Remaking Singapore is a project dominated not by civil society or a free press but by the government, as if an entrenched power network could free itself from itself," Lydon adds.
The chief executive of the Banyan Tree hotel chain Ho Kwon Ping, said: "We have to totally rethink the strategy to take vis-Ã -vis China and our opportunities in the world."
For 20 years, he said, the economic strategy of Singapore and South-East Asia was to strive to be a competitive production platform for multinationals around the world.
"China now has devastated that model, because China is going to be the lowest-cost highest-efficiency producer not only of low-technology products but even middle to high-technology products," Ho said.
"Formerly the factors of production are land, labour and capital. But this time we have got knowledge as one of the factors of production. And this is where the Remaking of Singapore comes in," said Chiam See Tong, opposition Member of Parliament.
Setting a new direction is easier than producing a creative, thinking Singaporean or a domestic entrepreneur under existing circumstances.
"Where do you produce your entrepreneurs from?" asks Mentor Minister Lee Kuan Yew.
"Out of a top hat? The root problem is 'an East Asian reverence for scholarship'."
The battle is far from over. It may well take another 40 years. -
any summary?
-
Originally posted by lotus999:
I actually attended the Annual Conference on Remaking of Singapore, a gathering of some 2000 senior executives from various private and public organization in 2002 at Suntec City convention hall.
[b]i really couldn't agree more with Dr Tan Chi Chiu of Singapore International Foundation: "we've been for too long stuck in a box. For too long we've not been able to develop a degree of mental exploration"
Remaking Singapore
Still far to go
Strictly assessed, only education has been totally restructured, not much else. By Seah Chiang Nee.
Nov 21, 2005
THREE years ago, there was hardly a newspaper in Singapore without the word "restructure" in the headlines.
The press was taking the cue from the government's launch of a two-year exercise to thrash out, with views from a cross-section of citizens, a plan to remake the country - and the economy - to face the 21st century.
Of their 74 proposals, 60 were accepted last year. So how much of Singapore has been restructured?
I therefore came to witness for myself at first hand the kind of issues addressed which were mostlly about arts, cultural, community matters and some less significant cosmetics of real issues and problems.
In fact, I rose to ask the first question of Dr. Ballakrishnan: "Cost of living and doing business in Singapore is the greatest concern to Singaporeans. What would be done by the Remaking of Singapore committee about this serious problem affecting all citizens.
Dr. B replied: " There are two types of costs fixed and variable. For variable cost, most of them are beyond the control of government..." He merely skirted around the issue of high costs. After that a number of others began to ask some irrelevant questions and I could not have a chance to go into this.
After this question, the rest of the attendees mostly asked about arts, cultures of what the various sub groups were reporting. I really could not see any remaking of economy, politics or intellectual development of our country. To me this remaking thing is just another eye-wash like the opening of Singapore intellectual space or building of an inclusive society.On hindsight, some commentators now believe that the word "restructure" was an over-statement and this had resulted in public over-expectation.
The above-stated comments confirmed what I came across in my many posts to Feedback Unit during the past three years or so.
It is a matter of perception. During the overzealous reporting, Singaporeans had taken it to mean a dramatic transformation of society - or the economy - and are somewhat disappointed with what has emerged.
"No cows are too sacred to be slaughtered" was the pledge. People had come to expect a brand new Singapore.
So far, few - if any - of the sacred cows - outside education - have been killed.
The changes are, they say, merely cosmetic, a tinkling with the system rather than restructuring.
I have posted among many major issues about 20 major policy errors of the government over the past fourty years a copy of which is found in sgforums' "Definition of True Democracy" thread at page 11.
I have asked the question: "whether meritocracy policy" has produced great number of scholars who succeeded in creating jobs or upgrading our economic competitiveness. I asked why the scholars and ministers could not do anything about the economic restructuring to value-adding model and why the were unable to solve problems during the last 2 prolonged recessions when ministers have practically given up on the economy putting the blames on workers for lack of skills etc.
If indeed there has been an in-depth remaking of Singapore taking place as after the RSC today, we would have seen solutions to some of the 20 major policy errors but I see none.
I only see ministers still trying to talk out of problems. Whether it is Nicol Highway collapse or LTA's fiasco in MRT works, the old practices remain the same - ministers will try to put the blame on someone else or the citizens or the contractors but not themselves or their ministries for lack of trying after the last Hotel New World Inquiry and recommendations.
To my mind the Remaking of Singapore has been an eye-wash and the statistics on number of recommendations and implementations can indeed fool us all. -
I think the article got it wrong. There is restructuring in various govt ministries. There was no iron rice bowl anymore and HDB was privatised.
On the contrary, education is basically the same. We still do the same O and A levels, even worst, we started the ranking system that never went away even though the govt claim the contrary. -
i really couldn't agree more with Dr Tan Chi Chiu of Singapore International Foundation: "we've been for too long stuck in a box. For too long we've not been able to develop a degree of mental exploration"
Remaking Singapore
Still far to go
Strictly assessed, only education has been totally restructured, not much else. By Seah Chiang Nee.
Nov 21, 2005
THREE years ago, there was hardly a newspaper in Singapore without the word "restructure" in the headlines.
The press was taking the cue from the government's launch of a two-year exercise to thrash out, with views from a cross-section of citizens, a plan to remake the country - and the economy - to face the 21st century.
Of their 74 proposals, 60 were accepted last year. So how much of Singapore has been restructured?
On hindsight, some commentators now believe that the word "restructure" was an over-statement and this had resulted in public over-expectation.
It is a matter of perception. During the overzealous reporting, Singaporeans had taken it to mean a dramatic transformation of society - or the economy - and are somewhat disappointed with what has emerged.
"No cows are too sacred to be slaughtered" was the pledge. People had come to expect a brand new Singapore.
So far, few - if any - of the sacred cows - outside education - have been killed.
The changes are, they say, merely cosmetic, a tinkling with the system rather than restructuring.
But realists who had believed that the People's Action Party would never tear down what it had built for a completely new one (especially when Lee Kuan Yew is around), thought the changes were significant.
At any rate, it is a worthwhile operation because the public had participated in mapping the state's future. Singapore today is better and more relaxed for it.
To some people, the remaking of Singapore, sadly, is immerging as cosmetic esp when
1) many have participated actively in it.
2) all has great expectation of it.
3) for the very first time, the govt actually asked people for inputs on a systematic, nation-wide scale.
Don't get me wrong. This is somehow expected given the result we seeing. But I just want to point out that there is this divergence of thinking and expectation between the govt and its people. And Singaporean should learn to see this.
For the people's remaking of Singapore, it would naturally be concerned with job prospect and security, upgrading of workers' skill, better management of public cost structure etc Those bread and butter issues.
For the govt's remaking of Singapore , it would concern managing Singapore's competitiveness against the backdrop of gloablisation and integrating world. Those issues concerning staying in power, attracting big MNCs in coming to Singapore, sharpening its revenue structure etc.
Perhaps on the onset of the remaking, the govt should have spelled this out clearly to Singaporean. -
the normal-salary men and the poor are interested in the bread and butter issues. hence what robertteh mentioned - cost of living.
the other group of people are hardly concerned with it because they are living on the high side. -
To be frank, I personally believe that Sg gov is serious in remarking of our nation. I agree with alot of forumers here; cost of living is a priority in remaking of Sg.
As the gov had hinted over the future direction of the remaking of our island nation, we can expect the following items in the near future:
1) Gov is giving the private sector is free hand in the industrial land properties. JTC is finally let going the tight control of the factory space. This move is critical, as it has a direct impact on the potential foreign investor. The factory spaces can be sold to the investors, and free market economic factors will determine the "right" pricing from the actual demands. In long run, it will encourage investors to put $$$ into the land as a potential investment.
2) Corporate governance. A lot of Sgx listed companies had been dogged by the corporate governance issues. The ACCS and Citiraya are the classic cases. Sg gov has made an effort to trackle the issue at the root and make the investigation process transparent to the public. We can see our corporate sector to grow from strength to strength after we emerage out of the storm. I am confident that our gov effort would win the hearts of the potential investors and we could see the havest in 2006-2008. Through our experience in handling the Barring Bank Incident, we know that by taking an impartial and transparent approach, we can ride over the rough batch and get up on our feet again.
3) Narrowing the income gap. It is critical that the social glue that cemented our society together through our worst crisis are not debonded by the widening income issues. It is a sad fact that our country is facing restructuring. Some of our fellow countrymen are facing the blunt of the changes. Gov is doing at least something to cushion the blow. But we really hope that more effort from all singaporean and gov can be given to help the less fortunate. Let us remind ourselves that "No singaporean will be left behind!"
I am sure that someone from gov is reading our post even now. I am also happy that the changes and action plans by our gov is more people friendly.
I urge our fellow forumers to contribute more postively. Cheers! -
Remaking Singapore. Ah, gambling tops it all!!!!
-
Much has been said, few actions have been forth coming.....Originally posted by archon1234:3) Narrowing the income gap. It is critical that the social glue that cemented our society together through our worst crisis are not debonded by the widening income issues. It is a sad fact that our country is facing restructuring. Some of our fellow countrymen are facing the blunt of the changes. Gov is doing at least something to cushion the blow. But we really hope that more effort from all singaporean and gov can be given to help the less fortunate. Let us remind ourselves that "No singaporean will be left behind!" -
How do you expect the govt to narrow income gap when low wage earners do not have the skills for higher pay?
Come to think of it, Singapore is second to Japan in terms of flat income distribution. The people who complain abt income divide don't know what they are talking about. I suggest they take a look at US and Hong Kong and China. -
Go and check you stat before you come here bull horns.Complaining? we are here discusssing and we are not talking about income divide per se.Originally posted by Salman:How do you expect the govt to narrow income gap when low wage earners do not have the skills for higher pay?
Come to think of it, Singapore is second to Japan in terms of flat income distribution. The people who complain abt income divide don't know what they are talking about. I suggest they take a look at US and Hong Kong and China.
Unless you don'r read our local new, you don't know what you talking about. -
I am aware of this income gap discussion but I think its a natural phenomenon in a global economy.
Low skill workers need to compete against other low skill workers in China and Msia, they either reduce their pay or have no jobs at all.
At the same time, skilled workers will demand higher pay in a KBE.
So how do you propose we reduce this gap? Ask the richer people to take pay cuts and lose them? Pay the low skilled workers higher pay and be uncompetitive?
We have to accept a wider income gap unless the low skilled workers upgrade themselves. -
This is the only positive point of engagement, other rambling we don't need.Originally posted by Salman:unless the low skilled workers upgrade themselves.