By SEAH CHIANG NEE
The top 10% of the population are the rich, who live in wealthy districts, while the bottom 20% are the languishers who have difficulty coping with a high cost structured life. The third is the large middle class.
A SINGAPOREAN couple walked into a Lamborghini showroom and bought two units – his and hers – for US$650,000 (RM2.04mil) each.
“It’s amazing; young kids coming in and spending S$2mil (RM4.7mil),” the manager told a journalist. “I don’t think they were even 30 years old.”
Last year, 29 of these crème de la crème models were sold countrywide, beating Ferrari (26 cars).
In 2007 a total of 320 luxury cars including Rolls Royce, Bentley, Lotus, Aston Martin and Maserati, were sold to Singapore’s new rich.
As the nouveau riche basks in their newfound glory, more Singaporeans from the poorer quarters are approaching the government for food aid.
A growing number of homeless can be seen sleeping in void decks of buildings and, pressed by high living costs, more elderly citizens are working as toilet cleaners or collecting used cans for recycling.
Singapore remains largely a middle class society. The high number of shopping plazas attests to it. But the group may be decreasing as a result of globalisation and runaway prices.
The city-state of 4.7 million people has two – perhaps three – faces. On the top 10% are the rich, who live in wealthy districts, own yachts and blow S$10,000 (RM23,209) on a single meal.
At the bottom 20% of the population are the languishers who have difficulties coping with a high cost structured life in an international city. The third is the large middle class.
Take the case of Carol John, 27. She doesn’t own a bed, sleeps every night on thin mattresses with her three children. Hers is a one-bedroom flat that reeks of urine smell from the common corridor outside.
“I can’t save anything, it’s so difficult for me,” John, who is unemployed, told a reporter. She relies on her husband’s S$600 (RM1,392) monthly salary and S$100 (RM232) government handout.
She is luckier than others who are homeless – elderly and even entire families - who sleep at void decks or the beach and bathe at public restrooms.
In perspective, Singapore is the second richest country in Asia next to Japan, with a per capita GDP of US$48,900 (RM154,141).
Homeless cases are few, nowhere comparable in number to Osaka’s army of vagabonds or New York’s ‘bag ladies’.
In fact, nine out of 10 poor people in Singapore have their own home, and usually a phone and a refrigerator.
But in the local context, it is a potential minefield of unrest. The proportion of Singaporeans earning less than S$1,000 (RM2,320) a month rose to 18% last year, from 16% in 2002, according to central bank data.
The bad part is that life is often worse for the unemployed – compared to other countries - because Singapore has no safety net and no rural hinterland to cushion their suffering.
Unlike in Malaysia or Thailand, a jobless person who cannot cope with the global market has no countryside to retreat to so that he can live off the land.
The problem will get worse. In other words, the rich will get richer and the poor, poorer with the middle class remaining more or less stagnant.
The state’s Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality, has worsened from 42.5 in 1998 to 47.2 in 2006, which makes it in league with the Philippines (46.1) and Guatemala (48.3), and worse than China (44.7) according to the World Bank.
Other wealthy Asian nations such as Japan, Korea and Taiwan have more European-style Ginis of 24.9, 31.6 and 32.6 respectively.
This is one of the worst failures of the modern People’s Action Party, despite its ‘democratic socialism’ principles.
It was with these that its first generation leaders were able to turn a poor squalid society into a middle class success story.
Economists attribute the major blame to globalisation, which benefits the skilled citizens and the rich but makes it hard for the unskilled, the aged and the sick.
Even the highly educated are not spared.
The use of new instruments like company restructuring, relocation or out-sourcing of workers – unheard of before – is widening the gap and creating more income inequality.
For example, while the proportion of lower income rises, those who earn S$8,000 (RM18,570) or more increased from 4.7% to 6%.
This rising inequality could eventually undermine the bedrock of society - the broad middle class.
Some economists say that the feared erosion of Japan’s middle class, first enunciated by Japanese strategist Kenichi Ohmae, may already be happening here.
His country was emerging into a “M-shape” class distribution, in which a very few middle class people may climb up the ladder into the upper class, while the others gradually sank to the lower classes.
These people suffered a deterioration in living standard, faced the threat of unemployment, or their average salary was dropping, he said.
Gradually, they can only live a way the lower classes live: e.g. take buses instead of driving their own car, cut their budget for meals instead of dining at better restaurants, spend less in consumer goods.
And, Kenichi said, all this might take place while the economy enjoyed remarkable growth and overall wages rose.
However, the wealth increase may concentrate in the pockets of the very few rich people in the society.
The masses cannot benefit from the growth, and their living standard goes into decline.
The Singapore government, which relies on the middle class vote to remain in power, has vowed to make economic gap-levelling its top priority – for survival, even if nothing else.
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/4/12/focus/20914452&sec=focus
According to an article published by Today newspaper entitled “PM Lee on internet lessons“, while the recent parliamentary elections in Malaysia have been described as a “political tsunami” in which the Malaysian government’s underestimation of the Internet played a significant role, PM Lee Hsien Loong prefers to think in terms of of “simple truths”.
What are these “simple truths”?
PM Lee told Lianhe Zaobao in an interview, “My conclusion is this: If the People’s Action Party wants to continue to have the support of the people, it has to maintain an incorruptible and capable government, continue to reflect the wishes of the people, and continue to strive for a better future for Singapore.”
My immediate response to PM Lee is to ask him to read my article on the Iceberg of Singapore Politics.
In a nutshell, the PAP is doing none of what PM Lee has prescribed. The PAP government has demonstrated its incompetence: look at the shameful and inexcusable escape of JI terrorist Mas Selamat who limped out of the highest security detention centre in broad daylight. The PAP government no longer acts according to the wishes of the people: the working class has been disenfranchized by loss of jobs and stagnant wages due to the indiscriminate import of foreigners. Finally, the PAP government no longer enacts policies for a better future: our CPF system has become a sinking ship due to overcommitment of funds in expensive HDB housing which should have a cash subsidy and not just a market subsidy, and the government has thus far been unable and unwilling to address the issue of declining productivity and economic competitiveness which has allowed global inflationary pressures to feed into the local economy at a faster rate.
Hence, the PAP government no longer deserves the support of the people.
PM Lee also revealed in the Lianhe Zaobao interview that the government would be updating the regulations on new media in time for the 2011 elections. He said, “We will study if we should relax parts of the regulations but we will look at this issue very carefully, to prevent any adverse effect.”
Clearly the PAP government is under pressure to liberalize political content on the internet, and return Singaporeans their voice and freedom of speech which is actually granted under Part IV of Article 14 of the Singapore Constitution. Nonetheless, the government is hesistant about doing so, for fear that the growing dissent and discontent will lead to an uproar much like what has happened in Malaysia.
Citing prominent examples such as Dutch right-wing lawmaker Geert Wilders’ criticizing of the Quran and American filmmaker Michael Moore’s anti-Bush documentaries, PM Lee criticized political content on the internet as being prone to controversy and falsehoods, and its tendency to be used as tools of political propaganda.
My rebuttal to him is that exactly the same can be said of traditional news media, as is precisely the case for Singapore and Malaysia.
It is the job of readers to decide which commentaries are factual and relevant, and what they wish to believe in. It is not the job of the government to decide what is right or wrong on the internet, as far as political content is concerned. That is why oppressive legislation such as the Films Act and rules regarding election advertising should be repealed.
Finally, PM Lee took the opportunity to take a potshot at the Opposition MPs in Parliament.
He said, “In fact, they seldom engage the Government head-on in Parliamentary debates. Potong Pasir MP Chiam See Tong speaks less nowadays. Non-constituency MP Sylvia Lim’s speeches are rather cautious and reserved, which, of course, is a good thing.”
PM Lee has openly acknowledged that he deems Opposition members being cautious and reserved as a good thing. Of course, it is a good thing for the PAP. But it is definitely not a good thing for Singapore.
On Workers’ Party’s chief Low Thia Khiang, PM Lee said: “He is very sharp but he seldom debates about the thrust of government policies and the broader issues. It seems like he is more passionate about nitpicking and making the government look bad, which is quite different from the rousing speeches he gave in the election rallies.”
He added: “His attitude is that his responsibility is just to criticise government policies, and not to offer alternatives.”
My rebuttal to PM Lee is this: Has the government been able to rebut the points made by Opposition politicians, or have they merely skirted the issues? Also, why are we paying the Cabinet tens of millions of dollars a year if all they want is to push the buck to others and expect others to come up with alternatives to bad government policies?
While PM Lee’s assessment of Low Thia Kiang’s lack of depth and substance is certainly valid, he has conveniently evaded the real underlying issues once again: that the PAP government continues to lack accountability to the people.
It is my hope that voters will make full use of the ballot box at the next election to send a strong signal to the PAP that their arrogance and lack of regard for transparency and accountability can no longer be tolerated.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
With the very recent historic Malaysian
protests unseating their government, protesters should do it in
Singapore now. As the saying goes strike while the iron is hot; while
the Malaysian protests are still fresh in our minds.
No one can
honestly doubt the great power of protests. With the Internet and
instantaneous spread of news throughout the world, not only with script
but also with glaring images; it is impossible for any government to
ignore public protests. In the past, news of protests from one area may
not have traveled to another. But now preventing news of any action in
any part of the world, let alone any part of the country, is impossible.
During the Tak Boleh Tahan protest of March 15, 2008 in front of Parliament House, the entire
Singapore public saw with shock and aghast the brutal way in which
police officer ASP William Goh pushed and dragged unarmed law abiding protesters into police cars to
be driven away to police prisons. Great damage was done to the
reputation of the Singapore government that day; not so much because of
the protests but because of the high handedness of the Singapore police.
Singaporeans should keep up the momentum and make hay while the going is good. Watching police brutality against these protesters on the Internet, half the population of Singapore have already been alienated against this government. Keeping up the protests and provoking the police to further such acts will alienate the other half of Singapore.
Don't let this opportunity slip you. The moment is now. Protest now. Injustices abound. There is no shortage of major issues. CPF.
$3.7 million ministerial salaries. Food prices. Rice prices. The
repatriation of foreigners. The suicides. The poverty. The injustice to
Singapore Chinese Malays and Indians as well as others. The arrogance
of Lee Junior. Press censorship. Free speech. Free expression.
Remember this. Singapore's reputation around the world has already been ruined. The SDP has successfully managed to expose the charade that goes on there. Now
if you agitate, your voice will be taken even more seriously. Lee
cannot afford to alienate world opinion. Singapore is not Communist
China.
The power is in your hands. The power to protest. Use it.
Gopalan Nair
http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/2008/04/strike-while-iron-is-hot.html
for those who understand malay (me included, he he), anwar gave an impassioned speech earlier this week on his return to politics at kampung sultan sulaiman.
you tube has almost the full speech. search anwar returns - part 1 onwards.
he took digs at umno, including a certain mahathir.
i gotta say i am mesmerized by his oratory skills. a fantastic wordsmith, he has a way to hold and control the crowd. he pose a real threat to the ruling BN. pakatan rakyat can wrest the governing of malaysia from BN, on the strength of anwar alone.
i think the challenge is post-Anwar. is there someone in the midst who has the political will and leadership to step into his `big shoe'. malaysia politics is not finished yet. lots more action to come.