List of Materials an Overview of Singapore

List of Materials

An overview of Singapore – “The Singapore Exception” (2015) The Economist

On Education

1. Hogan, David “Why is the Singapore’s school system so successful, and is it a model for the West?” (2014) The Conversation 2. Ross, Terrance F. “The Math Question That Went Viral” (2015) The Atlantic 3. Koh, Maureen “Women loses grandchild and daughter to suicide” (2015) MyPaper 4. Tan, Kenneth Paul “How Singapore is fixing its meritocracy” (2016) The Washington Post 5. Hussain, Amir “Death of boy, 11, who fell 17 floors after failing his exams for the first time ruled a suicide” (2016) The Straits Times

On Politics

1. “Singapore snip: prime minister takes big pay cut” (2012) The Guardian 2. Shaffer, Leslie “Why Singapore’s election may be the most interesting yet” (2015) CNBC 3. Liang, Annabelle “Huge election victory returns Singapore ruling party to power for the 12th time since independence” (2015) U.S. News 4. “Performance legitimacy” (2015) The Economist 5. “A little red dot in a sea of green” (2015) The Economist 6. Sleeper, Jim “American Leaders Swooning Over Singapore’s Thuggish Founder Are Blind Politically, Not Just Morally” (2015) Huffington Post

On Healthcare

1. Miller, Matt “What we can learn from Singapore’s health-care model” (2010) The Washington Post 2. Mcardle, Megan “The Myth of the Free-Market American Health Care System” (2012) The Atlantic 3. Feldscher, Karen “Singapore’s health care system holds valuable lessons for U.S.” (2014) Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

On Social Security/Social Policies

1. Fund, John “In Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew Built a Welfare State That Works” (2015) National Review 2. “The social contract” (2015) The Economist 3. “Seven million is a crowd” (2015) The Economist

On National Service/Conscription

1. Kwan, Jin Yao “A Case Against National Service” (2014) Guanyinmiao’s Musings

On Economics

1. Ng, Derong Ian “The Invisible Wall” (2014) Global Ethics Network 2. Bennett, Mia “A view of the Arctic’s future – from Singapore” (2015) Alaska Dispatch News 3. “The years that were fat” (2015) The Economist 4. “The rich are always with us” (2015) The Economist 5. “Many spokes to its hub” (2015) The Economist On Racial Tensions

1. Tulshyan, Ruchika “Singapore’s forced housing integration fueled its economic success” (2015) Quartz 2. Kuo, Lily “Singapore’s ban on public drinking is really aimed at its low-paid foreign laborers” (2015) Quartz 10/29/2016 The Singapore exception | The Economist

Special report: Singapore

Singapore The Singapore exception

To continue to flourish in its second halfcentury, SouthEast Asia’s miracle citystate will need to change its ways, argues Simon Long Jul 18th 2015 | From the print edition

AT 50, ACCORDING to George Orwell, everyone has the face he deserves. Singapore, which on August 9th marks its 50th anniversary as an independent country, can be proud of its youthful vigour. The view from the infinity pool on the roof of Marina Bay Sands, a threetowered hotel, casino and convention centre, is futuristic. A forest of skyscrapers glints in the sunlight, temples to globalisation bearing the names of some of its prophets—HSBC, UBS, Allianz, Citi. They tower over busy streets where, mostly, traffic flows smoothly. Below is the Marina Barrage, keeping the sea out of a reservoir built at the end of the Singapore River, which winds its way through what is left of the old colonial city centre. Into the distance stretch clusters of highrise blocks, where most Singaporeans live. The sea teems with tankers, ferries and container ships. To the west is one of Asia’s busiest container ports and a huge refinery and petrochemical complex; on Singapore’s http://www.economist.com/node/21657606/print 1/6 10/29/2016 The Singapore exception | The Economist eastern tip, perhaps the world’s most efficient airport. But the vista remains surprisingly green. The government’s boast of making this “a city in a garden” does not seem so fanciful.

Singapore is, to use a word its leaders favour, an “exceptional” place: the world’s only fully functioning citystate; a truly global hub for commerce, finance, shipping and travel; and the only one among the world’s richest countries never to have changed its ruling party. At a May Day rally this year, its prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong, asserted that “to survive you have to be exceptional.” This special report will examine different aspects of Singaporean exceptionalism and ask whether its survival really is under threat. It will argue that Singapore is well placed to thrive, but that in its second halfcentury it will face threats very different from those it confronted at its unplanned, accidental birth 50 years ago. They will require very different responses. The biggest danger Singapore faces may be complacency—the belief that policies that have proved so successful for so long can help it negotiate a new world.

In 1965 Singapore was forced to leave a shortlived federation with Malaysia, the country to its north, to which it is joined by a causeway and a bridge. Lee Kuan Yew, Lee Hsien Loong’s father, who became Singapore’s prime minister on its winning self government from Britain in 1959, had always seen its future as part of Malaysia, leading his country into a federation with its neighbour in 1963. He had to lead it out again when Singapore was expelled in 1965. By then he had become convinced that Chinese majority Singapore would always be at a disadvantage in a Malaydominated polity.

Mr Lee’s death in March this year, aged 91, drew tributes from around the world. But Mr Lee would have been prouder of the reaction in Singapore itself. Tens of thousands queued for hours in sultry heat or pouring rain to file past his casket in tribute. The turnout hinted at another miracle: that Singapore, a country that was never meant to be, made up of racially diverse immigrants—a Chinese majority (about 74%) with substantial minorities of Malays (13%) and Indians (9%)—had acquired a national identity. The crowds were not just mourning Mr Lee; they were celebrating an improbable patriotism.

Lee Kuan Yew himself defined the Singapore exception. As prime minister until 1990, he built a political system in his image. In line with his maxim that “poetry is a luxury we cannot afford,” it was ruthlessly pragmatic, enabling him to rule almost as a (mostly) benevolent dictator. The colonialera Internal Security Act helped crush opposition from the 1960s on. Parliament has been more of an echochamber than a check on executive power. No opposition candidate won a seat until 1981. The domestic press toes the government line; defamation suits have intimidated and sometimes bankrupted opposition politicians and hit the bottom line of the foreign press (including The Economist).

Singapore, it is sometimes joked, is “Asialite”, at the geographical heart of the continent but without the chaos, the dirt, the undrinkable tap water and the gridlocked traffic. It has also been a “democracylite”, with all the forms of democratic competition but shorn of the unruly hubbub— http://www.economist.com/node/21657606/print 2/6 10/29/2016 The Singapore exception | The Economist and without the substance. Part of the “Singapore exception” is a system of oneparty rule legitimised at the polls and, 56 years after Mr Lee’s People’s Action Party (PAP) took power, facing little immediate threat of losing it. The system has many defenders at home and abroad. Singapore has very little crime and virtually no official corruption. It ranks towards the top on most “humandevelopment” indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality and income per person. Its leaders hold themselves to high standards. But it is debatable whether the system Mr Lee built can survive in its present form.

It faces two separate challenges. One is the lack of checks and balances in the shape of a strong political opposition. Under the influence of the incorruptible Lees and their colleagues, government remains clean, efficient and imaginative; but to ensure it stays that way, substantive democracy may be the best hope. Second, confidence in the PAP, as the most recent election in 2011 showed, has waned somewhat. The party has been damaged by two of its own successes. One is in education, where its muchadmired schools, colleges and universities have produced a generation of highly educated, comfortably off global citizens who do not have much tolerance for the PAP’s mother knowsbest style of governance. In a jubilant annual rally to campaign for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights on June 13th, a crowd estimated at 28,000 showed its amused contempt for the illiberal social conservatism the PAP has enforced. Younger Singaporeans also chafe at censorship and are no longer so scared of the consequences of opposing the PAP.

Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore: An astonishing record (http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/03/leekuanyewssingapore)

The PAP’s second success that has turned against it is a big rise in life expectancy, now among the world’s longest. This has swelled the numbers of the elderly, some of whom now feel that the PAP has broken a central promise it had made to them: that in return for being obliged to save a large part of their earnings, they would enjoy a carefree retirement. And it is not just old people who have begun to question PAP policies. Many Singaporeans are uncomfortable with a rapid influx of http://www.economist.com/node/21657606/print 3/6 10/29/2016 The Singapore exception | The Economist immigrants. These worries point to Singapore’s two biggest, and linked, problems: a shortage of space and a rapidly ageing population.

Sources

Introduction The two volumes of Lee Kuan Yew’s memoirs provide a readable and lively account of Singapore’s recent history (from, of course, one important participant’s point of view): The Singapore Story: Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew (Times Editions, 1998); From Third World to First: Singapore and the Asian Economic Boom (Harper Collins, 2000).

Two later collections on interviews are also interesting: Hard Truths to keep Singapore going (Straits Times Press 2011); One man’s view of the world (Straits Times Press, 2013).

Kishore Mahbubani’s “Can Singapore survive?” (Straits Times Press, 2015) is a collection of articles covering many of the issues discussed in this report, in the author’s typically combative style.

Also interesting is Koh Buck Song’s “Brand Singapore: How NationBranding built Asia’s leading global city (Marshall Cavendish, 2011).

Highly recommended is the series of five lectures by Ho Kwon Ping on “The next fifty years”, given to mark SG50 at The Institute of Policy Studies, covering politics and governance, the economy and business, security and sustainability, demography and the family and society and identity. The texts are available on the IPS website (http://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/ips/) .

Land and Population The controversial 2013 population White Paper can be found at http://population.sg/whitepaper/resourcefiles/populationwhitepaper.pdf (http://population.sg/whitepaper/resourcefiles/populationwhitepaper.pdf) Elsewhere on http://population.sg/ are annual population briefings (http://population.sg/%20are%20annual%20population%20briefings)

On Singapore’s investment in its near abroad, see; “Mirror images in different frames: Johor, the Riau islands and competition for investment from Singapore”, Francis E. Hutchinson (Institute of SouthEast Asian Studies, 2015).

Politics An excellent introduction to Singaporean politics, though now somewhat old, remains Cherian George’s “Singapore: The AirConditioned Nation: Essays on the politics of comfort and control 19902000” (Landmark Books, 2000).

Mr George has also written an interesting examination of the role of the press in Singapore: “Freedom from the Press: Journalism and State Power in Singapore” (NUS Press, 2012).

http://www.economist.com/node/21657606/print 4/6 10/29/2016 Why is Singapore's school system so successful, and is it a model for the West?

Academic rigor, journalistic flair

Why is Singapore’s school system so successful, and is it a model for the West?

February 11, 2014 9.49am EST Author

David Hogan Honorary Professor, The University of Queensland

Stick to the textbook. Ray Chua/AP/Press Association Images

For more than a decade, Singapore, along with South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Shanghai, Hong Kong and Finland, has been at or near the top of international leagues tables that measure children’s ability in reading, maths and science. This has led to a considerable sense of achievement in Finland and East Asia and endless handwringing and headscratching in the West.

What then do Singaporean teachers do in classrooms that is so special, bearing in mind that there are substantial differences in classroom practices between – as well as within – the topperforming countries? What are the particular strengths of Singapore’s instructional regime that helps it perform so well? What are its limits and constraints?

Is it the right model for countries seeking to prepare students properly for the complex demands of 21st century knowledge economies and institutional environments more generally? Is Singapore’s teaching system transferable to other countries? Or is its success so dependent on very specific institutional and cultural factors unique to Singapore that it is folly to imagine that it might be reproduced elsewhere?

Singapore’s instructional regime

http://theconversation.com/whyissingaporesschoolsystemsosuccessfulandisitamodelforthewest22917 1/6 10/29/2016 Why is Singapore's school system so successful, and is it a model for the West?

In general, classroom instruction in Singapore is highlyscripted and uniform across all levels and subjects. Teaching is coherent, fitforpurpose and pragmatic, drawing on a range of pedagogical traditions, both Eastern and Western.

As such, teaching in Singapore primarily focuses on coverage of the curriculum, the transmission of factual and procedural knowledge, and preparing students for endofsemester and national high stakes examinations.

And because they do, teachers rely heavily on textbooks, worksheets, worked examples and lots of drill and practice. They also strongly emphasise mastery of specific procedures and the ability to represent problems clearly, especially in mathematics. Classroom talk is teacherdominated and generally avoids extended discussion.

Intriguingly, Singaporean teachers only make limited use of “high leverage” or unusually effective teaching practices that contemporary educational research (at least in the West) regards as critical to the development of conceptual understanding and “learning how to learn”.

For example, teachers only make limited use of checking a student’s prior knowledge or communicating learning goals and achievement standards. In addition, while teachers monitor student learning and provide feedback and learning support to students, they largely do so in ways that focus on whether or not students know the right answer, rather than on their level of understanding.

So Singapore’s teaching regime is one primarily focused on the transmission of conventional curriculum knowledge and examination performance. And clearly it is highlyeffective, helping to generate outstanding results in international assessments Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA).

The logic of teaching in Singapore

Singapore’s education system is the product of a distinctive, even unique, set of historical, institutional and cultural influences. These factors go a long way to help explain why the educational system is especially effective in the current assessment environment, but it also limits how transferable it is to other countries.

Over time, Singapore has developed a powerful set of institutional arrangements that shape its instructional regime. Singapore has developed an education system which is centralised (despite significant decentralisation of authority in recent years), integrated, coherent and wellfunded. It is also relatively flexible and expertled.

In addition, Singapore’s institutional arrangements is characterised by a prescribed national curriculum. National high stakes examinations at the end of primary and secondary schooling stream students according to their exam performance and, crucially, prompt teachers to emphasise coverage of the curriculum and teaching to the test. The alignment of curriculum, assessment and instruction is exceptionally strong. http://theconversation.com/whyissingaporesschoolsystemsosuccessfulandisitamodelforthewest22917 2/6 10/29/2016 Why is Singapore's school system so successful, and is it a model for the West?

High stakes for both students and teachers. Frans & all, CC BYNC

Beyond this, the institutional environment incorporates topdown forms of teacher accountability based on student performance (although this is changing), that reinforces curriculum coverage and teaching to the test. Major government commitments to educational research (£109m between 2003 2017) and knowledge management are designed to support evidencebased policy making. Finally, Singapore is strongly committed to capacity building at all levels of the system, especially the selection, training and professional development of principals and teachers.

Singapore’s instructional regime and institutional arrangements are also supported by a range of cultural orientations that underwrites, sanctions and reproduces the instructional regime. At the most general level, these include a broad commitment to a nationbuilding narrative of meritocratic achievement and social stratification, ethnic pluralism, collective values and social cohesion, a strong, activist state and economic growth.

In addition, parents, students, teachers and policy makers share a highly positive but rigorously instrumentalist view of the value of education at the individual level. Students are generally compliant and classrooms orderly.

Importantly, teachers also broadly share an authoritative vernacular or “folk pedagogy” that shapes understandings across the system regarding the nature of teaching and learning. These include that “teaching is talking and learning is listening”, authority is “hierarchical and bureaucratic”, assessment is “summative”, knowledge is “factual and procedural,” and classroom talk is teacherdominated and “performative”.

Clearly, Singapore’s unique configuration of historical experience, instruction, institutional arrangements and cultural beliefs has produced an exceptionally effective and successful system. But http://theconversation.com/whyissingaporesschoolsystemsosuccessfulandisitamodelforthewest22917 3/6 10/29/2016 Why is Singapore's school system so successful, and is it a model for the West?

its uniqueness also renders its portability limited. But there is much that other jurisdictions can learn about the limits and possibilities of their own systems from an extended interrogation of the Singapore model.

At the same time it is also important to recognise that the Singapore model is not without its limits. It generates a range of substantial opportunity costs, and it constrains (without preventing) the capacity of the system for substantial and sustainable reform. Other systems, contemplating borrowing from Singapore, would do well to keep these in mind.

Reforming the Singapore model

The Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s challenged policy makers to take a long hard look at the educational system that they developed, and ever since they have been acutely aware that the pedagogical model that had propelled Singapore to the top of international leagues table is not appropriately designed to prepare young people for the complex demands of globalisation and 21st knowledge economies.

By 20045, Singapore’s government had more or less identified the kind of pedagogical framework it wanted to work towards, and called it Teach Less, Learn More. This framework urged teachers to focus on the “quality” of learning and the incorporation of technology into classrooms and not just the “quantity” of learning and exam preparation.

While substantial progress has been made, the government has found rollingout and implementing these reforms something of a challenge. In particular, instructional practices proved well entrenched and difficult to change in a substantial and sustainable way.

This was in part because the institutional rules that govern classroom pedagogy were not altered in ways that would support the proposed changes to classroom teaching. As a consequence, well established institutional rules have continued to drive teachers to teach in ways that prioritise coverage of the curriculum, knowledge transmission and teaching to the test over “the quality” of learning, or to adopt highleverage instructional practices.

Indeed, teachers do so for good reason, since statistical modelling of the relationship between instructional practices and student learning indicates that traditional and direct instructional techniques are much better at predicting student achievement than high leverage instructional practices, given the nature of the tasks students are assessed on.

Not the least of the lessons of these findings is that teachers in Singapore are unlikely to cease teaching to the test until and unless a range of conditions are met. These include that the nature of the assessment tasks will need to change in ways that encourages teachers to teacher differently. Above all, new kinds of assessment tasks that focus on the quality of student understanding are likely to encourage teachers to design instructional tasks. These can provide rich opportunities to learn and encourage highquality knowledge work.

http://theconversation.com/whyissingaporesschoolsystemsosuccessfulandisitamodelforthewest22917 4/6 10/29/2016 Why is Singapore's school system so successful, and is it a model for the West?

The national high stakes assessment system should also incorporate a moderated, schoolbased component that allows teachers to design tasks that encourage deeper learning rather than just “exam learning”.

The national curriculum should allow substantial levels of teacher mediation at the school and classroom level. This needs to have clearly specified priorities and principles, backed up by substantial commitments to authentic, insitu, forms of professional development that provide rich opportunities for modelling, mentoring and coaching.

Finally, the teacher evaluation system needs to rely far more substantially on accountability systems that acknowledge the importance of peer judgement, and a broader range of teacher capacities and valuable student outcomes than the current assessment regime currently does.

Meanwhile, teachers will continue to bear the existential burden of managing an ongoing tension between what, professionally speaking, many of them consider good teaching, and what, institutionally speaking, they recognise is responsible teaching.

One of the central challenges confronting the Ministry of Education in Singapore is to reconcile good and responsible teaching. But the ministry is clearly determined to beddown a pedagogy capable of meeting the demands of 21st century institutional environments, particularly developing student capacity to engage in complex knowledge work within and across subject domains.

The technical, cultural, institutional and political challenges of doing so are daunting. However, given the quality of leadership across all levels of the system, and Singapore’s willingess to grant considerable pedagogical authority to teachers while providing clear guidance as to priorities, I have no doubt it will succeed. But it will do so on its own terms and in ways that achieve a sustainable balance of knowledge transmission and knowledgebuilding pedagogies that doesn’t seriously compromise the overall performativity of the system.

It is already clear that the government is willing to tweak once sacred cows, including the national high stakes exams and streaming systems. However, it has yet to tackle the perverse effects of streaming on classroom composition and student achievement that continues to overwhelm instructional effects in statistical modelling of student achievement.

Towards a knowledge building pedagogy

Singapore’s experience and its current efforts to improve the quality of teaching and learning do have important, if ironic, implications for systems that hope to emulate its success.

This is especially true of those jurisdictions – I have in mind England and Australia especially – where conservative governments have embarked on ideologically driven crusades to demand more direct instruction of (Western) canonical knowledge, demanding more testing and high stakes assessments of students, and imposing more intensive topdown performance regimes on teachers.

In my view, this is profoundly and deeply mistaken. It is also more than a little ironic given the reform direction Singapore has mapped out for itself over the past decade. The essential challenge facing http://theconversation.com/whyissingaporesschoolsystemsosuccessfulandisitamodelforthewest22917 5/6 10/29/2016 Why is Singapore's school system so successful, and is it a model for the West?

Western jurisdictions is not so much to mimic East Asian instructional regimes, but to develop a more balanced pedagogy that focuses not just on knowledge transmission and exam performance, but on teaching that requires students to engage in subjectspecific knowledge building.

Knowledge building pedagogies recognise the value of established knowledge, but also insist that students need to be able to do knowledge work as well as learning about established knowledge. Above all, this means students should acquire the ability to recognise, generate, represent, communicate, deliberate, interrogate, validate and apply knowledge claims in light of established norms in key subject domains.

In the long run, this will do far more for individual and national wellbeing, including supporting development of a vibrant and successful knowledge economy, than a regressive quest for top billing in international assessments or indulging in witless “culture wars” against modernity and emergent, not to mention longestablished, liberal democratic values.

 Schools Education policy Curriculum Singapore school curriculum PISA Teacher training

http://theconversation.com/whyissingaporesschoolsystemsosuccessfulandisitamodelforthewest22917 6/6 10/29/2016 The Math Question That Went Viral The Atlantic

The Math Question That Went Viral One word problem from a Singaporean school exam brieﬂy became the talk of the Internet last weekend.

Mario Anzuoni/Reuters T E R R A N C E F . R O S S A P R 1 4 , 2 0 1 5 | E D U C A T I O N

TEXT SIZE  

It didn't rise quite to the level of "The Dress"—the recent quandary that resulted in accusations of color-blindness across the Internet—but it still gave the education world its own viral moment over the weekend. A viral math question, in fact.

Last Friday, the Hello Singapore TV host Kenneth Kong posted a mathematical riddle to his Facebook page with the caption: "This question causes a debate with my wife .... and its a P5 question." The puzzle went viral across the country,

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/04/themathquestionthatwentviral/390411/ 1/5 10/29/2016 The Math Question That Went Viral The Atlantic with people ranging from perplexed adults to eager teenagers grappling with the simple question: "So when is Cheryl's birthday?"

Kenneth Kong/Facebook

The hysteria wasn't limited to Singapore. The question immediately made the rounds on Twitter—along with the hashtag #cherylsbirthday—and Reddit. It even made its way to the Australian Federation of International Students' Facebook page.

Without giving away the answer, here's a good starting point:

Albert knows the month, Bernard knows the number. Albert knows that Bernard doesn't know. Look at how many times each date appears. Figure out which month Albert was told, and begin the elimination process.

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/04/themathquestionthatwentviral/390411/ 2/5 10/29/2016 The Math Question That Went Viral The Atlantic The riddle worried some parents. "P5," known as "Primary 5" in the Singaporean education system, is the equivalent of 5th grade in the United States. Despite Singapore's internationally revered math proﬁciency, many parents were concerned that the question was far too advanced for their kids.

This prompted an investigation of sorts by Mothership.sg, a Singaporean news outlet. The organization obtained official confirmation (spoiler: the answer is included as well) from the executive director of the Singapore and Asian Schools Math Olympiad. According to the director, Henry Ong, the question was in fact for older "Secondary 3" students, or the equivalent of ninth grade here in the U.S. Ong also admitted that it was "a difficult question meant to sift out the better students."

Logical puzzles like this are common in Singapore. The country's math curriculum, which has a strong focus on logic-based problem solving, has been so successful that it's been adopted around the world, including in the U.S.

According to the latest report from the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA)—an exam designed to measure the math, reading, and science proﬁciency of 15-year-olds globally—Singapore's math competency essentially outshines that of the rest of the world:

Singapore scores highest in the PISA 2012 assessment of problem solving, with 562 points on the PISA proﬁciency scale. Only Korea has a similarly high score.

Singapore also has the highest number of top-performing students in problem solving: 29 percent of students reach proﬁciency Level 5 or 6 (the OECD average is 11 percent).

Performance in Problem Solving in Singapore

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/04/themathquestionthatwentviral/390411/ 3/5 10/29/2016 The Math Question That Went Viral The Atlantic

OECD/PISA

So what makes Singapore so good at a subject with which America's students have routinely struggled? Singapore's math instruction focuses heavily on mastery over rote memorization. Math students on the small island nation perform well because they understand the material deeply—not because they are studying for a speciﬁc test. Thus, they react well when "curveballs" are thrown at them in the form of confusing math questions.

Furthermore, the instruction of "Singapore Math"—as it's dubbed in the U.S. —uses a "layered" approach aimed at facilitating comprehension. Students digest the subject in stages, from the concrete to the pictorial and eventually to the abstract. This leads to conceptual understanding rather than numerical regurgitation: It's not just about getting the correct answer, but also about explaining one's thought processes.

U.S. students have made strides in math proﬁciency in recent years, but they still lag behind many of their peers internationally, falling at the middle of the pack in global rankings. In the same PISA report the U.S. placed 35th out of 64 countries in math.

And even though the "Cheryl's Birthday" question may be atypical of the average Singaporean classroom, perhaps it's still worth asking: Are you smarter than a (Singaporean) 10th-grader?

A B O U T T H E A U T H O R http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/04/themathquestionthatwentviral/390411/ 4/5 10/29/2016 Woman loses grandchild and daughter to suicide, Top Stories News today My Paper | 我报

Advertising Enquiries Distribution Download MyPaper apps

ePaper >

Enter your keywords here

Home English Section > < Back to Top Stories Section Top Stories » Jul 28, 2015 Opinion » Business » Woman loses Lifestyle » grandchild and daughter Sports » Specials » to suicide

我报 Chinese > MAUREEN KOH

新闻 » HE was still coming to terms with the death of her 观点 » teenage granddaughter, who had committed suicide over 生活 » scoring two Bs in her O levels.

娱乐 » But three months after the 16yearold plunged to her death, Ng 特辑 » Siang Mui's griefstricken and guiltridden daughter, who was the teen's mother, also killed herself. The tragic double deaths have ePaper > left her soninlaw, who is the teen's father, mentally unstable.

More children and teenagers have been seeking help for suicidal MyPaper.sg thoughts, said the Samaritans of Singapore (SOS). MOST VIEWED SOS said that in 2013, 224 children and teens aged 19 and 专家：就业人数下滑趋势恐持续 below wrote in to them through its Email Befriending Service. From this group, 163 were considered to be at real risk of 美好人生从OGAWA开始 suicide. “单身很久很孤单” 宋智孝叹想恋爱但没对象 SOS is concerned about this age group because of the rise in the number of youngsters seeking help it saw 65 more young people in NetLink Trust fined $500k for not meeting standards 2013, compared with the year before.

Chou's marathonrunner film Yesterday, SOS also said that suicides among males had increased by 29 nears finish line per cent, from 227 in 2004 to 292 last year, while female suicides had 妊娠期糖尿病患易产过动儿 decreased by 20 per cent, from 154 in 2004 to 123 last year, The Straits

MOBOT Knight 时尚智能兼 Times reported. 具 In an interview with The New Paper, Madam Ng, 71, shared the 传BEAST携手前JYP制作人 devastation and anguish of the tragedy that began in January when, just 设自家公司筹备演艺发展 three hours after getting her results slip, her granddaughter jumped to her Truck driver who killed cyclist death. gets jail, driving ban

Pop group Abba to Take A Except for two Bs in English and Mathematics the student had scored Chance On digital reunion distinctions for her other subjects.

more > The only child left a note for her parents: "Mum, I am sorry for being a disappointment. I should have done better.

"Dad, I am sorry you will not have the chance to walk me down the (church) aisle to give me away."

Her parents used to fight over her education. The girl had been a straight A student who attended a top school. The mother wanted to push her to excel and her father felt that the child should be left alone.

"My Xiao Mei (her granddaughter's nickname) was always affected whenever her parents fought over her studies," Madam Ng said in Khek. http://mypaper.sg/topstories/womanlosesgrandchildanddaughtersuicide20150728 1/3 10/29/2016 Woman loses grandchild and daughter to suicide, Top Stories News today My Paper | 我报 "(My daughter) often compared Xiao Mei's results with those of her friends' children and would ask, 'How come so and so can do this and you cannot?' "

Xiao Mei's mother wanted her to get into medical school.

A family friend, housewife Lynn Wee, 45, spoke of how she and close friends tried to watch over Xiao Mei's mother after the funeral. Mrs Wee said: "She maintained a stoic front and even admitted that she would have been disappointed with her child's academic performance."

But that facade slowly slipped in the weeks that followed, said Madam Ng, who has three grandsons from two other children. Madam Ng said that a month after Xiao Mei's death, her father moved out. "That broke my daughter's heart."

A day before she killed herself, Madam Ng's daughter told her: "Ma, I shouldn't have pressurised Xiao Mei in her studies. You didn't do that to us when we were young and we all turned out fine."

The New Paper understands that Xiao Mei's father is seeking psychiatric help.

Added Madam Ng: "If only we had noticed or realised that Xiao Mei was suffering, we could have asked for professional help and this tragedy would have been prevented."

THE NEW PAPER

< read previous story read next story > Charge mobile devices for free Warning signs at 200 spots

Cheaper bus, train rides from Dec 30 Fire safety measures ramped up for Xmas lightup

Employment shrinks in Q3, axe falls mainly on Stamps to celebrate a prospurrous friendship foreigners

Thundery showers expected to last till end of the month CNB busts syndicate, seizes over $210k of drugs

Seletar bus package tender receives 9 bids NetLink Trust fined $500k for not meeting standards

Truck driver who killed cyclist gets jail, driving ban 8 women caught in vice raids in Hougang, Kovan

$280,000 raised for Jurong West market NorthSouth Line faces upgrade delay

Singapore ranked 28th most charitable country Modern Chinese outfits hit the runway

StarHub outages due to users' 'zombie machines' Smoke at JB hospital again, after deadly fire

With Deepavali coming, is it too early for Xmas decor in Excop appeals Kovan murder conviction Orchard?

Chaos as 2 HK lawmakers barge into meeting Floating solar cells on trial in Tengeh

Fire in Johor Baru hospital's ICU kills 6 patients Changi T1 rolls out checkin upgrades

PMETs worst hit by layoffs, lack skills for new jobs: CarFree Sunday expands to Telok Ayer MAS

Wife tells of affair that led to exlover's death Signal fault hits train leaving Jurong East

Four killed after ride flips in Gold Coast theme park App to check utility use every halfhour?

Students from 2 schools took wrong Olevel paper Share views on 'people's garden'

Jurong Lake design tender awarded Briton recorded 'torture of victim' in HK double killing

Hindu devotees help elderly Chinese man President Tony Tan pays respects to late Thai King

Teen falls to his death after inhaling butane 13 MRT stations to resume Sunday start times http://mypaper.sg/topstories/womanlosesgrandchildanddaughtersuicide20150728 2/3 In Theory | Opinion How Singapore is xing its meritocracy

By Kenneth Paul Tan April 16

Each week, In Theory takes on a big idea in the news and explores it from a range of perspectives. This week, we’re talking about meritocracy. Need a primer? Catch up here.

Kenneth Paul Tan is an associate professor and acting dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore. His forthcoming book is titled “Governing GlobalCity Singapore: Legacies and Futures After Lee Kuan Yew.”

In Singapore, a liberalizing middleclass society, the oncerevered idea of “meritocracy” has recently acquired negative overtones due to its association with elitism. However, meritocracy can — and probably did — provide a successful way of combining rewards, incentives and competitiveness with equality of opportunity. The question for Singapore today is whether this meritocratic balance can be achieved again in a competitive global city obsessed with a war for talent.

Social mobility, where those who do well can rise and those who don’t will fall, is a key component of meritocracy. In theory, leading positions in society should be filled by the most talented and motivated individuals, all of whom have been given the opportunity to succeed and have done so. This can create the conditions for a fair society to prosper and flourish.

Historically, Singapore may have benefited greatly from such an arrangement. When the former British colony became independent in 1965, it had an acute sense of its own vulnerability, not least because it lacked natural resources. Over time, meritocracy — particularly in the education system — became a way of effectively developing human resources and efficiently allocating talent to where it was most in need, particularly in key leadership positions in government, the economy and society.

It also created a widespread competitive culture that worked in tandem with an acute national instinct for survival and determination to succeed. In Singapore’s multiracial society, meritocracy necessitated a nondiscriminatory approach to developing and deploying human resources, which then became the legitimizing basis of social stability, a principle of governance and a pillar of national identity.

Most visibly, meritocracy has been a backbone of talent management in Singapore’s public administration. Each year, publicly funded scholarships are awarded to students to study at top universities, mostly overseas. The competition for these scholarships, on the basis of academic, extracurricular and leadership achievements, has been very keen. The returning scholarshipholders are stringently assessed to join the premier Administrative Service, where they are stretched, tested and groomed to become top publicsector leaders. The best of them become Permanent Secretaries (administrative heads of government ministries) or even cabinet ministers if eventually coopted into politics. Each year, Administrative Service officers are put through a thorough performance evaluation, ranked and subjected to a re calibration of their career potential. A significant number are mercilessly removed to make way for new officers.

Since the 1990s, Singapore’s practice of meritocracy has shifted in focus away from egalitarian starting points to more outcomeoriented concerns surrounding reward and incentive. To discourage freeriding and maintain business competitiveness, the government developed a strong antiwelfarestate rhetoric. It started to pay its top officials and political leaders some of the highest salaries in the world, attracting the most qualified Singaporeans and raising the opportunity cost of corruption.

Today, the Singaporean idea of meritocracy is criticized for entrenching structural limits on mobility; for its overly narrow idea of merit and success; and for an increasingly selfregarding elite that seems too interested in staying in power and that citizens perceive as arrogant and unresponsive to their needs.

There has, however, been some attempt to rebalance meritocracy, bringing the egalitarian considerations back by introducing redistributive policies in a cautious shift to the left, partly no doubt in reaction to strong signals of popular displeasure in the general elections of 2011. A “compassionate,” “inclusive” and “lifelong” meritocracy has found its way onto the government’s agenda, including changes to its “pressurecooker educational system,” criticized for streaming students into pathways that determine their life prospects at a very early age.

Learning from American universities more than a decade ago, Singapore’s universities remodeled their original British style of academic programs along the lines of the modular credit system, allowing them to broaden the undergraduate curriculum to include greater exposure to crossdisciplinary learning. In a sense, the liberal arts, usually a more privileged opportunity in the United States, became available to very large cohorts of students each year who pay highly subsidized fees in Singapore’s national universities.

University tuition fees in the United States has been escalating at an alarming level, creating a barrier to education for less wealthy students and loading those who do manage to pay the fees with debt for several years after they graduate. But strong government oversight in Singapore, by comparison, has kept education fees very affordable. An education at elite schools and the national universities is never priced out of reach of the average Singaporean household, with grants made readily available to students who are unable to bear the full costs of their education. Affordability is thus never a major barrier for students who merit entry into Singapore’s best educational institutions. Meanwhile, the government gives assurance that every school is (at least) a good school.

More recently, the Singapore government rolled out an extensive nationwide program to better connect education with careers and to encourage continuous lifelong learning, with the aim of enabling all Singaporeans to achieve skills mastery at any stage of their lives. This not only offers more Singaporeans a continuous opportunity to earn qualifications; it can widen the pool of talent for an advanced and more inclusive economy.

In Theory newsletter Sign up Emerging ideas and arguments behind the news. Some critics have pointed to the need for a radical overhaul of the system rather than what they consider to be tweaks of this kind. Changing an entrenched elitist mindset deeply committed to a highresultsproducing meritocracy will be difficult. But these recent developments may be a good start.

These policies may start to free up the institutional rigidities that hinder social mobility and restore a public sphere disenchanted by elitism, mistrust and envy. The polarization of the public sphere in the United States has to some extent been the result of such disenchantment. A much smaller and younger country, Singapore cannot afford to be paralyzed by permanent cleavages.

Explore these other perspectives:

Tracey Ross: The unsettling truth about the tech sector’s meritocracy myth

Bill Bishop and Julie Ardery: Why selfcreation matters more than merit.

The Post Recommends James Comey’s unavoidably horrible decision

Comey's options on Hillary Clinton's emails were all very bad.

The media shut down the Trump spinning

The press has learned to handle the lying Trumpkins.

Donald Trump’s chances of winning are approaching zero

The electoral map looks grim for Republicans.

PAID PROMOTED STORIES Recommended by

The Net Worth of Chelsea Homeowners Must Claim their Donald Trump's Mortgage Clinton $4271 Before End of 2016. Payoff Tip Is Genius Bankrate FetchRate Bills.com 10/29/2016 Death of boy, 11, who fell 17 floors after failing his exams for the first time ruled a suicide, Courts & Crime News & Top Stories The Strait…

Hang out? Sorry, I have to ‘It’s just a dog’, woman tells THE STRAITtraSin TIMES animal shelter volunteer as she allegedly drives oﬀ after hitting dog

Recommended by Death of boy, 11, who fell 17 ﬂoors after failing his exams for the ﬁrst time ruled a suicide

A Primary 5 boy was found dead at the foot of his Sengkang block on May 18, 2016. PHOTO: SHIN MIN

 PUBLISHED OCT 21, 2016, 7:41 PM SGT

 Amir Hussain (mailto:[email protected])

SINGAPORE - The death of an 11-year-old boy, who fell 17 ﬂoors from his bedroom window on the day he was to show his parents his mid-year examination results, was found to be "a deliberate act of suicide" on Friday (Oct 21).

In his ﬁndings, State Coroner Marvin Bay urged parents and educators to remind children that "their efforts in study may not always yield a commensurate result, and also that such failures are transient or temporary events".

He added: "Parents and educators should also constantly reassure them that they will always be there to help the child through each stumble, winding turn and setback in their education journey."

The boy, referred as Master H, was a Primary 5 pupil who had never failed in any of his subjects. But students transitioning from Primary 4 to Primary 5 would generally have a dip in their results. Changes in their examination format are meant to prepare them for the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE), the court heard.

On May 12, Master H got back his examination papers for English language, Mathematics, Chinese language and Higher Chinese. Out of a score of 100, the boy got 50, 20.5, 53.8 and 12 marks respectively.

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courtscrime/deathofboy11whofell17floorsafterfailinghisexamsforthefirsttime 1/2 10/29/2016 Death of boy, 11, who fell 17 floors after failing his exams for the first time ruled a suicide, Courts & Crime News & Top Stories The Strait… On May 14, his mother bought him a kite, after he told her his examination results were "average". In previous years, he had gotten an average of 70 marks for his TsubjHects.E S ThTe nRexAt dIayT, aS Sun TdaIyM, he EweSnt to ﬂy the kite with his father. The court heard that the mother would cane the boy's palm lightly, for every mark he fell short of her stipulated standard of 70 per cent.

On May 16, the boy got back his science examination paper. He scored 57.5 out of 100 for it.

On the morning of May 18, the mother saw the boy in his school uniform. But he was supposed to go to school in his physical education attire, as he had a Wushu lesson. She asked him to change his attire.

Shortly after, when his parents found his room door locked, they opened it with a spare key. But they found the boy missing.

They then saw him lying at the foot of the block. A paramedic pronounced the boy dead at 7am.

The mother was seen crying and repeatedly saying in Mandarin next to her son: "I only ask for 70 marks, I don't expect you to get 80 marks."

Said Mr Bay: "Master H appeared to have diﬃculty in understanding, and coming to terms with his precipitous fall in his grades. He appeared fearful of revealing his poor grades to his parents ...

"In his desperation, he had woven a ﬁctitious account of his grades to preserve an impression that he was coping well, and attaining grades that conformed to their pre-set expectations.... He had tragically taken his own life, rather than face the remainder of the day."

Helplines

Samaritans of Singapore (24-hour hotline): 1800-221-4444

Tinkle Friend: 1800-274-4788

Singapore Association for Mental Health: 1800-283-7019

Care Corner Counselling Centre (in Mandarin): 1800-353-5800

Mental Health Helpline: 6389-2222

Aware Helpline: 1800-774-5935

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courtscrime/deathofboy11whofell17floorsafterfailinghisexamsforthefirsttime 2/2 10/29/2016 Singapore snip: prime minister takes big pay cut | World news | The Guardian

Singapore snip: prime minister takes big pay cut Austerity hits wealthy city-state as Lee Hsien Loong accepts 36% wage reduction. But he will still be world's best-paid leader

Agencies in Singapore Wednesday 4 January 2012 07.34 EST

Amid growing public anger over housing costs and spiralling income pay inequality, Singapore's prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong, has agreed to take a 36% pay cut – but will remain the world's best-paid leader. Lee's oﬃce said he would accept the recommendations of a government-appointed committee to reduce his salary to 2.2m Singapore dollars (£1.1m). Lee has served as prime minister of the prosperous city-state since 2004.

The president, Tony Tan, faces a potential salary cut of 51%, though many observers may consider him well paid, at 1.5m dollars for a ceremonial post that requires him to perform only minor duties.

Salaries for government ministers will be reduced by 37% to an annual 1.1m dollars.

After the pay cut, Lee's salary will still be three times that of the Hong Kong chief executive, Donald Tsang, the world's next highest paid political leader, who earns about $550,000 (£353,000 a year.

By comparison, Barack Obama, as president of a country of 312 million people that also has the world's most powerful military and the top economy, earns £256,000; the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, gets £194,000; the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, gets £190,000; and David Cameron makes do on £143,000.

"Salaries must be competitive so that people of the right calibre are not deterred from stepping forward to lead the country," the committee said.

Gerard Ee, chairman of the remuneration committee, said parliament would debate the recommendations later this month. However, Lee, in a letter to the committee, said he would accept the new salaries.

Lee's ruling People's Action party won parliamentary elections in May with its lowest overall vote total since independence in 1965.

The salaries of Singapore's leaders soared in the 1990s, when they were benchmarked to an average of the highest private sector pay in Singapore.

Singapore's leaders had long justiﬁed their high salaries by saying the pay was necessary to attract the best managerial and leadership talent into public service.

Some Singaporeans, however, said they would prefer politicians' pay to be linked to average salaries or those of poorer people rather than to those of the top 1,000 income earners, as proposed by the committee. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jan/04/singaporeprimeministerleeloong 1/2 10/29/2016 Singapore snip: prime minister takes big pay cut | World news | The Guardian

"A good measure of a country's socio-political advancement is how a government helps the lowest rung of the society," Dawei Yan wrote on the Online Citizen, a socio-political website. "I still believe the pay structure should be pegged to the lowest 1,000 wage earners in Singapore."

The opposition said linking leaders' salaries to what they could earn in the private sector meant they focused only on the rich.

The Singapore Democratic party has proposed that ministers earn a multiple of pay levels for the lowest 20% of wage earners.

According to data from the ministry of manpower, the income of Singaporeans in the bottom ﬁfth was ﬂat or negative in the 10 years to June 2010.

More news Topics Singapore Asia Paciﬁc

Save for later Article saved Reuse this content

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jan/04/singaporeprimeministerleeloong 2/2 10/29/2016 Why Singapore’s election may be the most interesting yet

  

ĚĿĚČȚİǾŇȘ

PǾĿİȚİČȘ ĚĿĚČȚİǾŇȘ PŘĚȘİĐĚŇȚİǺĿ ĐĚBǺȚĚȘ 2016 ẄĦİȚĚ ĦǾŲȘĚ ČǾŇĢŘĚȘȘ ĿǺẄ ȚǺXĚȘ

Ẅħỳ Șįňģǻpǿřě’ș ěŀěčțįǿň mǻỳ ČǾMMĚŇȚȘ Șțǻřț țħě Đįșčųșșįǿň bě țħě mǿșț įňțěřěșțįňģ ỳěț Ŀěșŀįě Șħǻffěř | @ĿěșŀįěȘħǻffěř1 Fřįđǻỳ, 11 Șěp 2015 | 9:46 ǺM ĚȚ

FROM THE WEB Sponsored Links by Taboola

Top 8 Credit Cards For Excellent Credit comparecards.com

Congress Give Homeowners Who Owe Less Than $625k A OnceInALifetime Mortgage Bailout LowerMyBills

See The Hot Tub That Has Already Sold Out Twice Wayfair

Șųħǻįmį Ǻbđųŀŀǻħ | Ģěțțỳ İmǻģěș This Suit Company Is Revolutionising The Way Ẅǿřķěř'ș Pǻřțỳ (ẄP) șųppǿřțěřș řěǻčț țǿ ǻ čǻňđįđǻțě'ș șpěěčħ đųřįňģ ǻ ňįģħț řǻŀŀỳ ǿň țħě fįňǻŀ đǻỳ ǿf čǻmpǻįģňįňģ ǿň Șěpțěmběř 9, 2015 įň Șįňģǻpǿřě. Men Dress Indochino

Șįňģǻpǿřě'ș řųŀįňģ pǻřțỳ ǻppěǻřș șěț țǿ ķěěp ǻň ųňbřǿķěň 56-ỳěǻř ģřįp ǿň pǿẅěř, bųț Fřįđǻỳ'ș ģěňěřǻŀ ěŀěčțįǿňș čǿųŀđ bě țħě mǿșț įňțěřěșțįňģ by Taboola ỳěț. Mįțț Řǿmňěỳ: 'Ģǿșħ, İ ķįčķ mỳșěŀf' Fǿř ǿňě, ǻŀŀ ǿf Șįňģǻpǿřě'ș Ģřǿųp Řěpřěșěňțǻțįǿň Čǿňșțįțųěňčįěș (ĢŘČș), ěșșěňțįǻŀŀỳ țħě ěŀěčțįǿň đįșțřįčțș, ẅįŀŀ bě čǿňțěșțěđ fǿř țħě fįřșț Ħįŀŀǻřỳ Čŀįňțǿň ňěẅ țįmě įň țħě čǿųňțřỳ'ș ħįșțǿřỳ. Ħįșțǿřįčǻŀŀỳ, įf ǻ đįșțřįčț ẅǻșň'ț čǿňțěșțěđ, ěmǻįŀ přǿbě ǻ 'věřỳ įțș řěșįđěňțș đįđň'ț vǿțě, měǻňįňģ mǻňỳ Șįňģǻpǿřěǻňș ẅįŀŀ bě ģěțțįňģ șěřįǿųș đěvěŀǿpměňț,' fǿřměř ĐǾJ ǿffįčįǻŀ țħěįř fįřșț čħǻňčě țǿ vǿțě. șǻỳș "İ đįđň'ț ģěț ǻ čħǻňčě țǿ vǿțě įň țħě ŀǻșț ěŀěčțįǿň," șǻįđ ǿňě 33-ỳěǻř-ǿŀđ Ěxpěčț ǿįŀ țǿ ħěǻđ Șįňģǻpǿřěǻň ẅħǿ đěčŀįňěđ țǿ bě ňǻměđ. "İ đįđň'ț ẅǻňț țǿ mįșș țħě ħįģħěř ěvěň ẅįțħǿųț ǿppǿřțųňįțỳ ǻģǻįň," ħě ǻđđěđ, ňǿțįňģ țħǻț ħě đěŀǻỳěđ ǻ přě-pŀǻňňěđ ǻň ǾPĚČ đěǻŀ: țřįp ǻț țħě čǿșț ǿf 150 Șįňģǻpǿřě đǿŀŀǻřș (ǻřǿųňđ $106) șǿ țħǻț ħě čǿųŀđ Ǻňǻŀỳșț vǿțě. Bųffěțț ħǻmměřș Țřųmp: Ǻ mǿňķěỳ Țħě ŀǻțěșț ěŀěčțįǿňș ẅįŀŀ ǻŀșǿ bě țħě fįřșț pǿŀŀș șįňčě țħě đěǻțħ ǿf ẅǿųŀđ'vě đěŀįvěřěđ Șįňģǻpǿřě'ș fǿųňđįňģ fǻțħěř, Ŀěě Ķųǻň Ỳěẅ, ẅħǿ ǿvěřșǻẅ țħě čǿųňțřỳ'ș běțțěř řěțųřňș țħǻň șħįfț ǻẅǻỳ fřǿm ěxpǿřț mǻňųfǻčțųřįňģ țǿ ǻ ħįģħ-vǻŀųě șěřvįčěș ǻňđ ỳǿų įňvěșțměňț-đřįvěň ģřǿẅțħ mǿđěŀ čřųčįǻŀ țǿ Șįňģǻpǿřě'ș țřǻňșfǿřmǻțįǿň Țřųmp șpįķěș 30% įň įňțǿ ǿňě ǿf țħě řěģįǿň'ș fěẅ fįřșț-ẅǿřŀđ ňǻțįǿňș. ǿňě přěđįčțįǿň mǻřķěț ǻfțěř FBİ Řěǻđ Mǿřě › Șįňģǻpǿřě ěŀěčțįǿňș: Fįřșț-țįmě čǻňđįđǻțěș ỳǿų șħǿųŀđ ŀěțțěř ǿň ňěẅ Čŀįňțǿň- ķňǿẅ řěŀǻțěđ ěmǻįŀș Čřǻměř'ș ģǻmě pŀǻň: Țħě řųŀįňģ Pěǿpŀě'ș Ǻčțįǿň Pǻřțỳ (PǺP) įș ẅįđěŀỳ ěxpěčțěđ țǿ ẅįň țħě Ẅħỳ țħě șěŀŀįňģ pǿŀŀș, đřįvěň pǻřțŀỳ bỳ țħě ẅǻvě ǿf ňǿșțǻŀģįǻ țħǻț fǿŀŀǿẅěđ Ŀěě'ș đěǻțħ țșųňǻmį ẅįŀŀ șpįŀŀ įňțǿ ǻș ẅěŀŀ ǻș ģřǻňđ čěŀěbřǻțįǿňș țħǻț ǻččǿmpǻňįěđ țħě 50țħ ǻňňįvěřșǻřỳ ǿf Mǿňđǻỳ Șįňģǻpǿřě'ș įňđěpěňđěňčě. Bųț PǺP ẅįŀŀ bě bǻțțŀįňģ ǻ řěįňvįģǿřǻțěđ ǿppǿșįțįǿň țħǻț ħǻș ųșěđ șǿčįǻŀ měđįǻ țǿ břįňģ țħěįř měșșǻģěș đįřěčțŀỳ MǾȘȚ PǾPŲĿǺŘ țǿ Șįňģǻpǿřěǻňș, řǻțħěř țħǻň ħǻvě țħěm fįŀțěřěđ țħřǿųģħ ŀǻřģěŀỳ șțǻțě- Čǿměỳ'ș đěfěňđěřș, čǿňțřǿŀŀěđ měđįǻ ǿųțŀěțș. 1. čřįțįčș șẅǻp řǿŀěș ǻș FBİ'ș Čŀįňțǿň ěmǻįŀ Ǿf pǻřțįčųŀǻř įňțěřěșț țǿ ǿbșěřvěřș ẅįŀŀ bě țħě vǿțě șħǻřě. Țħě PǺP'ș přǿbě țǻķěș 11țħ ħǿųř șħǻřě ǿf țħě vǿțě șŀįđ țǿ įțș ŀǿẅěșț-ěvěř ǻț 60.1 pěřčěňț ǻňđ țħě țųřň http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/11/singaporeelectionsvotingunderway.html 1/5 10/29/2016 Why Singapore’s election may be the most interesting yet ǿppǿșįțįǿň pǻřțįěș ẅǿň ǻ řěčǿřđ șįx șěǻțș ǿųț ǿf pǻřŀįǻměňț'ș țħěň țǿțǻŀ 2. Ǻİ șỳșțěm fįňđș 87 đųřįňģ țħě 2011 ěŀěčțįǿň. Țřųmp ẅįŀŀ ẅįň țħě Ẅħįțě Ħǿųșě ǻňđ įș "Ǻ 60 pěřčěňț vǿțě ŀǻșț țįmě fǿř țħě řųŀįňģ pǻřțỳ, pěǿpŀě ẅǿųŀđ șǻỳ fřǿm mǿřě pǿpųŀǻř țħǻň ǻň ǿųțșįđě vįěẅ, 'Ẅǿẅ, țħǻț'ș șțįŀŀ ǻmǻżįňģ,' bųț įț ẅǻș țħě ŀǿẅěșț Ǿbǻmǻ įň 2008 pěřčěňțǻģě țħǻț țħě řųŀįňģ pǻřțỳ ħǻđ įň ħįșțǿřỳ ǻňđ țħǻț ẅįŀŀ bě țħě țěșț țǿđǻỳ," Čųřțįș Čħįň, Ǻșįǻ fěŀŀǿẅ ǻț țħě Mįŀķěň İňșțįțųțě, țǿŀđ ČŇBČ. 3. Ẅįțħ Țěșŀǻ'ș șǿŀǻř "Ẅħǻț ẅě ňěěđ țǿ ŀǿǿķ ǻț įș țħě țřěňđ. .. ħǿẅ ǻřě Șįňģǻpǿřě pěǿpŀě řǿǿf, ỳǿų'ŀŀ ňěvěř ǻșșěșșįňģ ẅħǻț įș țħěįř ŀįfě ŀįķě ħěřě." Ħě șǻįđ țħě vǿțě įș "ǻbșǿŀųțěŀỳ ǻ ħǻvě țǿ ķňǿẅ țħěșě ħǿųșěș ǻřě șǿŀǻř- đěfįňįňģ mǿměňț." pǿẅěřěđ Fųřțħěř đěčŀįňěș mǻỳ ẅěŀŀ șțěěř țħě ģǿvěřňměňț țǿ ǻ mǿřě pǿpųŀįșț șțǻňčě. İț įșň'ț čŀěǻř ỳěț ẅħěțħěř țħě PǺP ẅįŀŀ bě ǻbŀě țǿ řěģǻįň ŀǿșț 4. Ǿp-Ěđ: Ŀǻțěșț Čŀįňțǿň vǿțěș. ěmǻįŀ přǿbě čǿųŀđ ħǻňđ țħě ěŀěčțįǿň țǿ "Țħě pǻțřįǿțįč fěřvǿř țħǻț țħě pǻřțỳ șěěmș țǿ bě řěŀỳįňģ ǿň įș ňǿț ŀįķěŀỳ Țřųmp țǿ bǿǿșț įțș vǿțě șħǻřě bỳ mųčħ," șǻįđ Ňǻvňįțǻ Șǻřmǻ, Ǻșįǻ ěđįțǿř ǻț țħě Ěčǿňǿmįșț İňțěŀŀįģěňčě Ųňįț (ĚİŲ), șǻįđ įň ǻ șțǻțěměňț Ẅěđňěșđǻỳ. Bųț 'Čǿřřųpțįǿň ǻňđ țħě ĚİŲ ěxpěčțș țħě ǿppǿșįțįǿň pǻřțįěș' pǻřŀįǻměňțǻřỳ řěpřěșěňțǻțįǿň 5. řǻčįșm:' ŲȘ mįŀŀěňňįǻŀ ẅįŀŀ įňčřěǻșě ǿňŀỳ șŀįģħțŀỳ, ẅįțħ țħě PǺP țǿ řěțǻįň ǿř ģǻįň ǻ șŀįģħțŀỳ vǿțěřș ǻbřǿǻđ čǻșț ħįģħěř șħǻřě ǿf țħě pǿpųŀǻř vǿțě țħįș țįmě ǻřǿųňđ. ẅǻřỳ ģǻżě ǻț ģěňěřǻŀ ěŀěčțįǿň Běčǻųșě Șįňģǻpǿřě přǿħįbįțș pǿŀŀįňģ ǻfțěř țħě ǻňňǿųňčěměňț ǿf ǻň ěŀěčțįǿň, țħěřě'ș ňǿț mųčħ ǿf ǻ ģǻųģě ǿf vǿțěř șěňțįměňț běỳǿňđ ǻňǻŀỳșțș ňǿțįňģ ħįģħ țųřňǿųțș ǻț čǻmpǻįģň řǻŀŀįěș.

Řěǻđ Mǿřě › Șħǿẅđǿẅň ǿf Șįňģǻpǿřě'ș pǿŀįțįčǻŀ pǻřțỳ ǻppș

Țħě PǺP mǻỳ ģěț ǻ bǿǿșț fřǿm čǿ-ǿpțįňģ șǿmě ǿf țħě ǿppǿșįțįǿň pŀǻỳbǿǿķ șįňčě țħě ŀǻșț ěŀěčțįǿň -- șǿměțħįňģ țħě ǿppǿșįțįǿň pǻřțỳ Șįňģǻpǿřě Đěmǿčřǻțįč Pǻřțỳ (ȘĐP) ħįģħŀįģħțěđ ǿň įțș ẅěbșįțě, čŀǻįmįňģ țħě řųŀįňģ pǻřțỳ fįřșț čřįțįčįżěđ įțș přǿpǿșǻŀș fǿř ǻ mįňįmųm ẅǻģě, ųňįvěřșǻŀ ħěǻŀțħčǻřě ǻňđ ǻ "Șįňģǻpǿřěǻňș fįřșț" ěmpŀǿỳměňț pǿŀįčỳ, běfǿřě ǻđǿpțįňģ věřșįǿňș ǿf țħěm.

Șųħǻįmį Ǻbđųŀŀǻħ | Ģěțțỳ İmǻģěș

Pěǿpŀě'ș Ǻčțįǿň Pǻřțỳ (PǺP) șųppǿřțěřș přěpǻřě ĿĚĐ bǻňňěřș fǿř țħěįř ňįģħț řǻŀŀỳ ǿň țħě fįňǻŀ đǻỳ ǿf čǻmpǻįģňįňģ ǿň Șěpțěmběř 9, 2015 įň Șįňģǻpǿřě.

Țħě mǻjǿř įșșųěș đǿmįňǻțįňģ țħįș ěŀěčțįǿň čỳčŀě įňčŀųđě ǻ șțǻŀŀįňģ ěčǿňǿmỳ, įmmįģřǻțįǿň, țħě șǿčįǻŀ șǻfěțỳ ňěț -- įňčŀųđįňģ čǿňčěřňș ǿvěř ħěǻŀțħčǻřě ǻňđ țħě řěțįřěměňț-șǻvįňģș přǿģřǻm ķňǿẅň ǻș țħě Čěňțřǻŀ Přǿvįđěňț Fųňđ (ČPF) -- přǿpěřțỳ přįčěș ǻňđ čǿňčěřňș ǻbǿųț ģǿvěřňměňț ǻččǿųňțǻbįŀįțỳ.

Ěčǿňǿmỳ

Țħě ģřǿẅțħ ǿųțŀǿǿķ fǿř Șįňģǻpǿřě'ș ěxpǿřț-đěpěňđěňț ěčǿňǿmỳ įș ŀǿǿķįňģ čŀǿųđỳ. Țħě ěčǿňǿmỳ čǿňțřǻčțěđ ǻ șħǻřp 4.6 pěřčěňț ǿň- qųǻřțěř įň țħě șěčǿňđ qųǻřțěř ǻňđ řǿșě ǻ fěěbŀě 1.7% fřǿm țħě ỳěǻř- ěǻřŀįěř pěřįǿđ.

"Ěxțěřňǻŀ ħěǻđẅįňđș ħǻvě įňțěňșįfįěđ ǻmįđ țħě ųňčěřțǻįňțįěș įň țħě ģŀǿbǻŀ ěňvįřǿňměňț," ĐBȘ șǻįđ įň ǻ ňǿțě Ẅěđňěșđǻỳ, čųțțįňģ įțș

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/11/singaporeelectionsvotingunderway.html 2/5 10/29/2016 Why Singapore’s election may be the most interesting yet ħěǻđŀįňě ģřǿșș đǿměșțįč přǿđųčț (ĢĐP) fǿřěčǻșț fǿř țħě ỳěǻř țǿ 1.8 pěřčěňț, běŀǿẅ țħě ǿffįčįǻŀ fǿřěčǻșț ǿf 2.0-2.5 pěřčěňț.

Čǻŀŀįňģ Șįňģǻpǿřě'ș ěčǿňǿmỳ ǻ "șmǻŀŀ bǿǻț įň řǿųģħ șěǻș," įț șěěș čħǻňčěș ǿf ǻ țěčħňįčǻŀ řěčěșșįǿň įň țħě țħįřđ qųǻřțěř ǻmįđ șŀǿẅđǿẅňș įň bǿțħ țħě mǻňųfǻčțųřįňģ ǻňđ șěřvįčě șěčțǿřș.

İmmįģřǻțįǿň

Ǻňģěř ǿvěř ǻ șųřģě įň įmmįģřǻțįǿň, ẅħįčħ pųșħěđ țħě įșŀǻňđ-ňǻțįǿň'ș pǿpųŀǻțįǿň ųp bỳ ǿvěř ǻ mįŀŀįǿň pěǿpŀě șįňčě 2006 țǿ mǿřě țħǻň 5.4 mįŀŀįǿň ŀǻșț ỳěǻř, ẅǻș pǻřțŀỳ țǿ bŀǻmě fǿř țħě PǺP'ș șțřųģģŀěș ǻț țħě pǿŀŀș įň țħě ŀǻșț ěŀěčțįǿň. Pųbŀįčǻțįǿň įň 2013 ǿf ǻ pŀǻň țǿ įňčřěǻșě țħě pǿpųŀǻțįǿň țǿ 6.9 mįŀŀįǿň bỳ 2030 ẅǻș ǻŀșǿ ųňpǿpųŀǻř.

Țħě pǿpųŀǻțįǿň įňčřěǻșě șpųřřěđ ǻňǿțħěř įșșųě țħǻț ǻňģěřěđ mǻňỳ Șįňģǻpǿřěǻňș: čřǿẅđș ǿň pųbŀįč țřǻňșpǿřțǻțįǿň. Țħǻț čǻň ǻŀșǿ bě ǻ ķěỳ ǿpįňįǿň đřįvěř. Ǻfțěř șěvěřǻŀ đįșřųpțįǿňș ǿf țħě șųbẅǻỳ șỳșțěm įň Jųŀỳ, șǻțįșfǻčțįǿň ẅįțħ țħě ģǿvěřňměňț fěŀŀ ǻřǿųňđ 4 pěřčěňțǻģě pǿįňțș țǿ 76 pěřčěňț fřǿm ǻň Ǻpřįŀ pěǻķ țǿųčħěđ ǻfțěř Ŀěě'ș đěǻțħ, ǻččǿřđįňģ țǿ ǻ řěģųŀǻř șųřvěỳ bỳ Șįňģǻpǿřě-bǻșěđ Bŀǻčķbǿx Řěșěǻřčħ.

Șįňčě țħě 2011 ěŀěčțįǿň, țħě ģǿvěřňměňț ħǻș țǻķěň șțěpș țǿ ǻđđřěșș șǿmě ǿf țħě čǿňčěřňș, țįģħțěňįňģ řųŀěș ǿň ħįřįňģ fǿřěįģňěřș, įňčŀųđįňģ řěqųįřěměňțș țħǻț ěmpŀǿỳěřș čǿňșįđěř Șįňģǻpǿřěǻňș fǿř șǿmě jǿbș běfǿřě ǻppřǿvįňģ ẅǿřķ pǻșșěș.

Bųț čǿňčěřňș ǿvěř țħě ňųmběř ǿf fǿřěįģňěřș įň țħě čǿųňțřỳ řěmǻįň ǻ țǻŀķįňģ pǿįňț įň țħįș ěŀěčțįǿň. İň įțș 2015 mǻňįfěșțǿ, țħě ǿppǿșįțįǿň Ẅǿřķěřș' Pǻřțỳ čįțěș ǻ đěșįřě țǿ mǻįňțǻįň ǻ "Șįňģǻpǿřěǻň čǿřě," pǻřțįčųŀǻřŀỳ bỳ fǿčųșįňģ ǿň įňčřěǻșįňģ țħě čǿųňțřỳ'ș bįřțħ řǻțě, ẅħįŀě ħǿŀđįňģ țħě ňųmběř ǿf fǿřěįģň ẅǿřķěřș șțěǻđỳ.

Șǻfěțỳ Ňěț

Čǿňčěřňș ǿvěř ħěǻŀțħčǻřě ǻňđ řěțįřěměňț șǻvįňģș ǻŀșǿ đǿģģěđ țħě PǺP įň țħě ŀǻșț ěŀěčțįǿň.

İň ǻň ěffǿřț țǿ ǻđđřěșș șǿmě ǿf țħě ħěǻŀțħčǻřě čǿňčěřňș, țħě ģǿvěřňměňț ẅįŀŀ běģįň ųňįvěřșǻŀ ħěǻŀțħ įňșųřǻňčě fǿř Șįňģǻpǿřěǻňș ǻňđ pěřmǻňěňț řěșįđěňțș įň Ňǿvěmběř. Țħě přǿģřǻm ẅįŀŀ čħǻřģě ħįģħěř přěmįųmș -- șǿměțįměș mǿřě țħǻň đǿųbŀě țħě ěxįșțįňģ ģǿvěřňměňț- přǿvįđěđ įňșųřǻňčě přǿģřǻm -- bųț ẅįŀŀ ǿffěř mǿřě čǿvěřǻģě ǻňđ șųbșįđįěș fǿř țħǿșě ẅįțħ ŀǿẅěř įňčǿměș.

Bųț țħě ģǿvěřňměňț ħǻș řěșįșțěđ șǿmě ǿppǿșįțįǿň čǻŀŀș fǿř ųňįvěřșǻŀ ħěǻŀțħčǻřě.

"Țħěřě įș ňǿ ẅǻỳ ǿf ģįvįňģ șǿměțħįňģ țǿ ěvěřỳǿňě … ẅįțħǿųț řǻįșįňģ țǻxěș ǿň țħě mįđđŀě-įňčǿmě ģřǿųp," Țħǻřmǻň Șħǻňmųģǻřǻțňǻm, țħě đěpųțỳ přįmě mįňįșțěř, șǻįđ įň ǻ řěčěňț șpěěčħ ẅħįčħ ẅǻș pǿșțěđ ǿň țħě Fǻčěbǿǿķ pǻģě ǿf Přįmě Mįňįșțěř Ŀěě Ħșįěň Ŀǿǿňģ, ẅħǿ įș Ŀěě Ķųǻň Ỳěẅ'ș șǿň.

Țħě čǿųňțřỳ'ș mǻňđǻțǿřỳ řěțįřěměňț șǻvįňģș pŀǻň, țħě ČPF, įș ǻŀșǿ ǻ čǿňțįňųįňģ čǿňčěřň fǿř șǿmě Șįňģǻpǿřěǻňș. Țħě ģǿvěřňměňț'ș mǿvěș țǿ įňčřěǻșě țħě mįňįmųm ǻģě fǿř čǿŀŀěčțįňģ țħě fųňđș, įň ŀįňě ẅįțħ ŀįfě ěxpěčțǻňčỳ įňčřěǻșěș, ǻňđ țǿ įňčřěǻșě țħě "mįňįmųm șųm" ẅħįčħ mųșț bě șěț ǻșįđě ǻș ǻň ǻňňųįțỳ ħǻvě přǿvěđ ųňpǿpųŀǻř. Țħě įňțěřěșț řǻțě pǻįđ ǿň ČPF șǻvįňģș -- ẅħįčħ čųřřěňțŀỳ řǻňģěș fřǿm 2.5 pěřčěňț țǿ 4.0 pěřčěňț -- įș ǻŀșǿ ǻ pǿįňț ǿf čǿňțěňțįǿň. Țħǻț čǿměș įň ǻbǿvě Șįňģǻpǿřě'ș čǿňșųměř přįčě įňfŀǻțįǿň, ẅħįčħ fěŀŀ 0.4 pěřčěňț ǿň-ỳěǻř įň Jųŀỳ.

"Ěvěň įf įț ẅǻș ǻ 6 pěřčěňț řěțųřň, țħįș įș ňǿțħįňģ țǿ șħǿųț ǻbǿųț," ǿppǿșįțįǿň pǻřțỳ Ňǻțįǿňǻŀ Șǿŀįđǻřįțỳ Pǻřțỳ čǻňđįđǻțě ǻňđ ǻčțįňģ șěčřěțǻřỳ-ģěňěřǻŀ Ŀįm Țěǻň, ǻ ŀěģǻŀ čǿňșųŀțǻňț, șǻįđ, ǻččǿřđįňģ țǿ țħě

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/11/singaporeelectionsvotingunderway.html 3/5 10/29/2016 Why Singapore’s election may be the most interesting yet pǻřțỳ'ș Fǻčěbǿǿķ pǻģě. "İf țħě ģǿvěřňměňț řěǻŀŀỳ čǻřěđ fǿř įțș pěǿpŀě, įț ẅįŀŀ bě řěțųřňįňģ ỳǿų běțțěř řěțųřňș ǿň țħě ČPF."

Ħě ħǻș čǻŀŀěđ fǿř ǻ 15 pěřčěňț řěțųřň ǿň ČPF fųňđș, ǻččǿřđįňģ țǿ ǻ řěpǿřț bỳ Țǿđǻỳ ňěẅșpǻpěř.

Bỳ čǿmpǻřįșǿň, Șįňģǻpǿřě'ș 10-ỳěǻř ģǿvěřňměňț bǿňđ įș čųřřěňțŀỳ ỳįěŀđįňģ ǻřǿųňđ 2.8 pěřčěňț. Țħě řěțųřň ǿf țħě Ų.Ș. Șǿčįǻŀ Șěčųřįțỳ přǿģřǻm -- ẅħįčħ ųňŀįķě țħě ČPF'ș đěfįňěđ-čǿňțřįbųțįǿň mǿđěŀ įș ǻ đěfįňěđ-běňěfįț pŀǻň -- ẅǻș ěșțįmǻțěđ ǻț ǻřǿųňđ ǻ 6.5 pěřčěňț ǻț įțș běșț ǻț țħě ěňđ ǿf ŀǻșț ỳěǻř.

Přǿpěřțỳ přįčěș

Řųňǻẅǻỳ přǿpěřțỳ přįčěș ħǻvě țỳpįčǻŀŀỳ běěň ǻ ħǿț țǿpįč ǻħěǻđ ǿf ģěňěřǻŀ ěŀěčțįǿňș. Bųț țħįș țįmě ǻřǿųňđ, ħǿųșįňģ přįčěș ǻřě ǿň țħě ẅǻňě ǻfțěř ǻřǿųňđ fǿųř ỳěǻřș ǿf čǿǿŀįňģ měǻșųřěș fřǿm țħě ģǿvěřňměňț ǻňđ ǻș ěxpěčțěđ șųppŀỳ čǿmpŀěțįǿňș běģįň ǿųțșțřįppįňģ đěmǻňđ. Ǻfțěř ỳěǻřș ǿf přįčě įňčřěǻșěș, ħǿẅěvěř, vǿțěřș șțįŀŀ ǻřěň'ț pŀěǻșěđ.

"Țįģħțěř mǿřțģǻģě ŀěňđįňģ șțǻňđǻřđș ǻňđ čųřbș ǿň fǿřěįģň pųřčħǻșěș, ǻŀǿňģ ẅįțħ șŀǿẅěř įmmįģřǻțįǿň, ħǻvě pųșħěđ đǿẅň ħǿųșįňģ čǿșțș," Đǻňįěŀ Mǻřțįň, ǻň ěčǿňǿmįșț ǻț Čǻpįțǻŀ Ěčǿňǿmįčș, șǻįđ įň ǻ ňǿțě țħįș ẅěěķ.

Ģǿvěřňměňț ǻččǿųňțǻbįŀįțỳ

Ǻfțěř șǿ mǻňỳ ỳěǻřș ǿf ǿňě-pǻřțỳ řųŀě, mǻňỳ ǻřě čǿňčěřňěđ ǻbǿųț ģǿvěřňměňț ǻččǿųňțǻbįŀįțỳ ǻňđ țřǻňșpǻřěňčỳ -- ěșpěčįǻŀŀỳ ǻș pǿŀįțįčįǻňș' șǻŀǻřįěș řěmǻįň ǻmǿňģ țħě ħįģħěșț ģŀǿbǻŀŀỳ, șpųřřįňģ ǻččųșǻțįǿňș țħǻț țħěỳ ǻřě ǿųț ǿf țǿųčħ ẅįțħ ǿřđįňǻřỳ Șįňģǻpǿřěǻňș, pǻřțįčųŀǻřŀỳ ǿň įňčǿmě đįșpǻřįțỳ.

Țħě přįmě mįňįșțěř'ș ǻňňųǻŀ șǻŀǻřỳ įș ǻřǿųňđ 2.2 mįŀŀįǿň Șįňģǻpǿřě đǿŀŀǻřș ($1.56 mįŀŀįǿň) ǻ ỳěǻř, mǻķįňģ ħįm țħě ħįģħěșț ěǻřňįňģ čǿųňțřỳ ŀěǻđěř ģŀǿbǻŀŀỳ, ẅħįŀě měmběřș ǿf pǻřŀįǻměňț ẅěřě pǻįđ ǻřǿųňđ 192,000 Șįňģǻpǿřě đǿŀŀǻřș ǻ ỳěǻř įň 2012, ǻččǿřđįňģ țǿ měđįǻ řěpǿřțș.

Șįňģǻpǿřě'ș měđįǻň ģřǿșș mǿňțħŀỳ įňčǿmě ẅǻș ǻřǿųňđ 3,770 Șįňģǻpǿřě đǿŀŀǻřș ǻ mǿňțħ įň 2014, ǻččǿřđįňģ țǿ ģǿvěřňměňț đǻțǻ.

"Ǻ đįvěřșě pǻřŀįǻměňț įș čřįțįčǻŀ įň ǻșșįșțįňģ țħě ěxěčųțįvě țǿ mǻķě șǿųňđěř jųđģměňțș ǻbǿųț pǿŀįčỳ țřǻđě-ǿffș," țħě ǿppǿșįțįǿň Ẅǿřķěřș' Pǻřțỳ șǻįđ įň įțș mǻňįfěșțǿ. "Ǻ pǻřŀįǻměňț mǿňǿpǿŀįżěđ bỳ ǿňě pǻřțỳ fǻįŀș țħě țěșț ǿf řįģǿřǿųș đěbǻțě ǻňđ vǿțįňģ įň fǿřģįňģ șǿųňđ pǿŀįčįěș."

Ǿțħěřș ǻřě mǿřě bŀųňț: "Țħě PǺP ħǻș ǻň ǿvěřẅħěŀmįňģ mǻjǿřįțỳ įň pǻřŀįǻměňț. Șǿ đǿ ẅě ňěěđ ǻňǿțħěř pěřșǿň țǿ vǿțě ỳěș țǿ țħě PǺP'ș pǿŀįčįěș," ǻșķěđ Jěǻňňěțțě Čħǿňģ-Ǻřųŀđǿșș, ǻ čǻňđįđǻțě fǿř țħě ǿppǿșįțįǿň Șįňģǻpǿřě Pěǿpŀě'ș Pǻřțỳ, įň ǻ Șěpț. 6 șpěěčħ pǿșțěđ ǿň Fǻčěbǿǿķ.

Ẅħįŀě țħě vǿțįňģ įň Șįňģǻpǿřě įș čǿňșįđěřěđ fřěě ǻňđ fǻįř, țħě řųŀįňģ pǻřțỳ ħǻș įň țħě pǻșț țǻķěň ěxțřǻǿřđįňǻřỳ șțěpș țǿ pųșħ vǿțěřș ǻẅǻỳ fřǿm čħǿǿșįňģ ǿppǿșįțįǿň čǻňđįđǻțěș, įňčŀųđįňģ ẅįțħħǿŀđįňģ fųňđș fǿř ųpģřǻđįňģ pųbŀįč ħǿųșįňģ přǿjěčțș įň đįșțřįčțș ẅħįčħ đǿň'ț vǿțě fǿř țħě PǺP; ǻřǿųňđ 80 pěřčěňț ǿf Șįňģǻpǿřěǻňș ŀįvě įň pųbŀįč ħǿųșįňģ přǿjěčțș.

--Ňỳșħķǻ Čħǻňđřǻň čǿňțřįbųțěđ țǿ țħįș ǻřțįčŀě

—Bỳ ČŇBČ.Čǿm'ș Ŀěșŀįě Șħǻffěř; Fǿŀŀǿẅ ħěř ǿň Țẅįțțěř @ĿěșŀįěȘħǻffěř1

Ŀěșŀįě Șħǻffěř Șěňįǿř Ẅřįțěř

MǾŘĚ FŘǾM ČŇBČ by Taboola

Mįțț Řǿmňěỳ: 'Ģǿșħ, İ ķįčķ mỳșěŀf' http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/11/singaporeelectionsvotingunderway.html 4/5 (/) News » (//www.usnews.com/news)

NEWS (//WWW.USNEWS.COM/NEWS) / WORLD NEWS (//WWW.USNEWS.COM/NEWS/WORLD) Huge election victory returns Singapore ruling party to power for 12th time since independence

Sept. 11, 2015, at 10:57 p.m.

Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong of the ruling People's Action Party celebrate a win in his constituency in Singapore, Saturday, Sept. 12, 2015. The party that has ruled Singapore since it became a country a half-century ago appeared poised to stay in power for ᔀve more years as the city-state's citizens voted Friday in a compulsory election. (AP Photo/Ng Han Guan) THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Huge election victory returns Singapore ruling party to power for 12th time since independence

By ANNABELLE LIANG, Associated Press

SINGAPORE (AP) — Singapore's prime minister on Saturday lauded the city-state's youth vote for helping return his party to power in a massive victory for the 12th time since independence a halfcentury ago. The victory of the People's Action Party was never in doubt — it has won every elections since 1965 — but the huge sweep in Friday's general elections means the struggling opposition made no headway despite highlighting problems like income disparity, restrictions on free speech, overcrowding caused by immigration, and the rising cost of living.

The PAP got 83 of the 89 seats in Parliament while the opposition Workers' Party captured six. In an indication that the PAP has regained some of its lost popularity, it won 69.86 percent of the votes cast, according to the Elections Department, compared to 60 percent votes in the 2011 elections.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who won from the Ang Mo Kio constituency, singled out the youth, saying the results show that the young people "understand what is at stake, support what we are doing."

"It's a PAP landslide. An election that was focused on the opposition gaining ground had a reverse effect on voters. We are seeing the consensus of a silent majority, the people who are not active on social media, and they are sticking with the PAP," said Bridget Welsh, a senior research associate at National Taiwan University's Center for East Asia Democratic Studies.

Michael Barr, associate professor of international relations at Flinders University in Adelaide, Australia, said the timing of the election clearly made a difference -- it was called right after Singapore's 50th birthday celebrations on Aug. 9 while nationalist feelings were still high, and months after the death on March 23 of Singapore's founding leader Lee Kuan Yew, the father of Prime Minister Lee.

"There has also been a real effort on the government's part to ᔀx the worst of their problems, and be seen ᔀxing the worst of their problems," said Barr. "The PAP has been campaigning since 2011 to get this result, and it has paid off."

The senior Lee became the country's ᔀrst prime minister in 1965 and remained in ofᔀce until 1990, a period of rapid development and prosperity. His son has been prime minister since 2004.

Critics say the PAP gets an unfair advantage in the polls because of a system in which some constituencies, such as Lee's Ang Mo Kio, are represented by a group of four to six lawmakers. In a winner-takes-all, all members of the victorious team get entry into Parliament. The PAP usually ᔀelds a stalwart along with lightweight politicians, while the opposition is hard pressed to ᔀnd a heavy lifter to lead a group.

But in 2011, the Workers' Party wrested one such multi-candidate ward, Aljunied, from the PAP, sending ᔀve candidates to Parliament out of the seven seats it won. The party retained that ward and its ᔀve seats on Friday. Huge election victory returns Singapore ruling party to power for 12th time since independence About 2.46 million people out of a population of 5.47 million were eligible to vote, up from 2.35 million in 2011, with an increased number of voters born after independence. Most of these young voters take Singapore's prosperity, stability and a corruption-free, low-crime society for granted. These have been the main selling points of the PAP in past elections. But Singaporeans have also been asking uncomfortable questions about the restrictions on free speech and media, which they had been willing to sacriᔀce in return for economic prosperity. They also see an increasing number of immigrants from all over Asia, ᔀlling not only low-paying jobs but also middle-level and high-paying positions.

There have also been questions about the country's much-vaunted pension scheme with many wondering if retirees are reaping real beneᔀts. In the last quarter ending in June, Singapore's economy contracted by 4 percent, and the annual growth rate is projected to be 1.8 percent.

___

Associated Press writer Vijay Joshi in Bangkok contributed to this report.

Tags: Associated Press (//www.usnews.com/topics/organizations/associated_press)

Popular Articles

Supreme Court to Hear Transgender Bathroom Case 10/29/2016 Performance legitimacy | The Economist

Special report: Singapore

Politics Performance legitimacy

When it comes to elections, the PAP leaves as little as possible to chance Jul 18th 2015 | From the print edition

DISCONTENT ABOUT IMMIGRATION contributed to an election result in May 2011 that was seen as a watershed, even though the PAP as usual romped home, securing 60% of the popular vote and 93% of The late, great Mr Lee elected seats in parliament (see chart). After more than half a century in continuous office, an incumbent government could have figuratively shrugged and asked where else in the world a ruling party could secure such a ringing endorsement in an unrigged vote. Instead it acknowledged the result—its worst since 1965—as a serious rebuke.

Lee Hsien Loong promised some “soulsearching”, and indeed the government seems to have listened to Singaporeans’ biggest concerns, introducing some curbs on foreign labour and improved benefits for the less welloff and the elderly. It hopes this will help it at the next election, due by early 2017 but expected earlier, perhaps in September or October this year. The PAP may hope that the lavish celebrations to mark its birthday, dubbed “SG50”, will remind everyone what a good job it has done; and the patriotic glow that followed Lee Kuan Yew’s death in March will not have faded yet.

Voting is compulsory and secret, elections are held regularly and there is no ballotbox stuffing, blatant votebuying or intimidation, so it is remarkable that the PAP always wins by a huge margin. Lee Kuan Yew once said he was not intellectually convinced that a oneman, onevote system was the best (“results can be erratic,” he explained). Yet that was what Singapore inherited from the British and it has been faithfully followed, with subtle modifications, despite the fear of what is spoken of as a “freak” result: an opposition win.

http://www.economist.com/node/21657608/print 1/5 10/29/2016 Performance legitimacy | The Economist Voters are well aware of the

phenomenal economic advances PAP rule has brought. In a country where most of the population lives in homes bought from the government on long leases, the incumbent government also benefits from the power of its agencies to invest in improving housing estates. Moreover, the PAP has taken full advantage of the rule allowing the government of the day to choose the date of an election within the fiveyear term of a parliament. Incumbency helps in other ways too. The electoral boundaries review committee, for example, is suspected of tinkering with constituencies to favour the PAP. It does not convene until just before an election, so the fragmented opposition parties are often not able to divide up constituencies among themselves until just before the campaign period, which is usually very short; in 2011 it was just nine days.

A decision in 1988 to move from a system of singleseat constituencies to one where most seats are filled by Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) was justified by the need to ensure that ethnic minorities would be represented, which was done through a rule that slates of candidates must include at least one member of a minority. But it also made it harder for small opposition

http://www.economist.com/node/21657608/print 2/5 10/29/2016 Performance legitimacy | The Economist parties to come up with credible slates, and it enabled the PAP to have its own callow recruits swept into parliament on the coattails of cabinet ministers. In 2011, all but 12 seats were subsumed into four to sixmember GRCs. One reason that election was seen as transformational was that for the first time an opposition party, the Workers’ Party, won a GRC, in the district of Aljunied, defeating a slate led by the foreign minister, George Yeo.

The winners then found themselves up against another hurdle. Also in 1988, the government had taken away some of the functions of running its housing estates, such as basic maintenance, from the Housing Development Board (HDB) and handed them to new town councils, led by local MPs. In Aljunied, the Workers’ Party has found itself accused of financial irregularities, and it admits to making mistakes. Its supporters feel it has fallen into a trap.

The government also benefits from a tame mainstream press that is largely hostile to the opposition and rarely covers it between elections. During the campaign itself it tends to favour the government in the crudest way. “Is S’pore ready for a gay MP?” asked a headline in 2011 in the New Paper, a tabloid, about an opposition candidate.

The tenor of political debate, however, has been transformed by online and social media. The country boasts high rates of internet and, especially, smartphone penetration (with more than one phone per head of population). Facebook, too, is ubiquitous, with nearly 4m registered users. Most younger people follow the news (if at all) through social media. Where the official press is stuffy, tame and sanctimonious, cyberspace seethes with sarcasm and irreverent diatribes against the “gahmen” (government). This in turn has influenced the mainstream media.

Singapore’s government was swift in the 1990s to spot both the importance of the internet and the dangers it posed to its control over information. Early efforts to block pornography showed how hard it would be to limit access to the internet. But that has not stopped the government from trying to keep control, and cyberspace is no freeforall. Amos Yee, a schoolboy with a loud mouth and a YouTube account, who this year combined the two in an expletiveladen rant celebrating Lee Kuan Yew’s death, has ended up facing a custodial sentence. Roy Ngerng, a mildmannered former health worker and activist, risks bankruptcy for defamatory blogs posted last year. A popular tabloidish news portal, “The Real Singapore”, was shut down in May for sins such as whipping up “anti foreigner sentiment”. Defamation and contemptofcourt laws apply online as well as off. Bloggers are deemed responsible even for comments by readers on their posts. Sites that regularly cover news about Singapore have to apply for a licence and post a S$50,000 ($37,000) bond.

A career in opposition politics in Singapore has never looked attractive. The late J.B. Jeyaretnam, the first opposition member to win a seat in parliament (in 1981), faced a series of lawsuits and was disbarred from his legal practice, jailed and bankrupted. He also suffered the contempt of Lee Kuan Yew, who said he welcomed an opposition, but “we don’t want duds” such as Jeyaretnam or Chee Soon Juan, leader of another opposition group, the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP). Oddly enough, Mr Chee was also bankrupted after failing to pay defamation damages to PAP leaders. “If we had considered them serious political figures,” said Lee Kuan Yew in 2003, “we could have bankrupted them earlier.” The late prime minister’s ways of dealing with opposition were harsh— particularly so in the period before independence, currently much debated, when alleged http://www.economist.com/node/21657608/print 3/5 10/29/2016 Performance legitimacy | The Economist communists were jailed. Political losers and victims suffered badly, but there were not that many of them. Compared with other countries, the human cost of Singaporean authoritarianism has been low.

PAP leaders have always been unapologetic. They argue that the defamation suits—for slurs that would be ignored elsewhere—were not to suppress opposition but to protect the government’s reputation. No writs flew after the 2011 election. This may be because the PAP had concluded that such suits look petty and vindictive and help the opposition. Or it may be that the history of relentless libel action has worked. Politicians know not to impugn the personal integrity of PAP leaders. Suggestions of nepotism are especially likely to result in a suit. To Lee Kuan Yew, success running in families proved not that the system is rigged but that talent is hereditary. Plausibly enough, he argued that the family connection actually delayed his son’s accession to the top job until Goh Chok Tong finished his 14year stint in 2004.

Another deterrent to opposition is the apparent hopelessness of the cause and the petty bickering of a camp that now includes no fewer than eight parties, some little more than vehicles for their leaders. Mr Jeyaretnam’s son, Kenneth (who, endearingly, blogs as “Son of a Dud”), an economist, leads the Reform Party his father formed when he fell out with his Workers’ Party colleagues. Tan Jee Say, a former civil servant, banker and presidential candidate, left the SDP to form the Singaporeans First party. And so on. There is even a risk that in the next election the opposition may split the antiPAP vote in threecornered fights, hampering the Workers’ Party’s bid to emerge as a serious and credible opposition party.

Looking for a Goldilocks opposition

In keeping with its repeated statements that it would welcome an opposition (just not this opposition), the government in the 1980s also introduced nonelected seats in parliament: at present three opposition legislators sit there as “best losers”, alongside seven nonpartisan MPs nominated by the president. Lee Hsien Loong has even mused aloud about creating an opposition by unorthodox means, splitting the PAP into two teams. But, he said, the PAP had concluded that Singapore did not have the depth of talent this bifurcation would require.

Correspondingly, you would expect the PAP to attract the best and brightest. It has deep roots in the housing estates, and it offers a nearcertainty of winning and a chance of a ministerial job. As part of its “meritocratic” philosophy, and to render corruption redundant as well as professionally suicidal, Singapore pays its ministers handsomely, benchmarking their salaries to the senior privatesector jobs to which, it suggests, they would otherwise have risen. Many are drawn from the army or the civil service. Never having known anything else, many civil servants seem to confuse the ruling party with the government. For the party, perhaps the most worrying aspect of recent political developments is that is seems to be having trouble finding a parliament’s worth of credible representatives.

In this context, getting 60% of the vote does indeed look like a defeat. The PAP’s concern is understandable. Its success has been based on the conviction that it faces enough political competition—and internal discipline—to remain honest and committed to the national interest; but http://www.economist.com/node/21657608/print 4/5 10/29/2016 Performance legitimacy | The Economist not so much that it might actually lose power. So it can resist pandering to the sort of populist demands that, in Singapore’s view, sapped the dynamism from European economies, condemning them to slow growth, social unrest and unaffordable welfare states.

The 2011 result suggests that this delicate equilibrium may be at risk—not in the next election, nor probably the one after that, but soon enough to affect government policy already. Indeed, the changes introduced since the election are radical both in substance and in the tone in which the government has promoted them. It has expressed a new concern for the “Singaporean core” and presented itself less as a strict headmaster than as a benevolent parent caring even for its wayward children.

From the print edition: Special report

http://www.economist.com/node/21657608/print 5/5 10/29/2016 A little red dot in a sea of green | The Economist

Special report: Singapore

Foreign policy and national identity A little red dot in a sea of green

A sense of vulnerability has made Singapore what it is today. Can it now relax a bit? Jul 18th 2015 | From the print edition

KISHORE MAHBUBANI’S MOST recent book was called “Can Singapore Survive?”. Singaporeans are never allowed to forget that their country is small and its future fragile. If it does not remain exceptional, said the prime minister in that May Day speech, Singaporeans will be “pushed around, shoved about, trampled upon”.

Fifty years ago the city state was born out of a row with one of its neighbours, Malaysia. The other, Indonesia, had been waging a campaign of konfrontasi—just short of open warfare—against Malaysia and Singapore. Those days seem long gone. The Association of SouthEast Asian Nations, formed in 1967, boasts of its success in lowering regional tensions. Singapore’s relations with Malaysia and Indonesia are excellent. But for how long? The neighbours sometimes give Singapore reason to fret. In 1998 the then Indonesian president, Bacharuddin Jusuf Habibie, was quoted in a newspaper article as saying he did not see Singapore as a friend. Pointing at a map, he went on: “It’s OK with me, but there are 211m people [in Indonesia]. All the green [area] is Indonesia. And that red dot is Singapore.” Mr Habibie denied saying this. But, with a characteristic mixture of pride and paranoia, Singapore adopted “little red dot” as a motto.

Besides peace with the neighbours, the other pillar of Singaporean security has been the benign, Americanled order in Asia and the Pacific that has prevailed since the end of the Vietnam war in 1975. That, however, is now in danger. China seems to see America’s security presence as in part intended to thwart its own rise. Under Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore managed to position itself as the best friend in SouthEast Asia to both America and China. That makes a fallingout between the big powers especially ominous for it. It has already irritated America by joining the new Asian

http://www.economist.com/node/21657610/print 1/3 10/29/2016 A little red dot in a sea of green | The Economist Infrastructure Investment Bank that China has set up. China, for its part, gripes about Singapore’s links with Taiwan, where it sends its army to train.

So nervousness about the future is understandable. It is reflected in high defence spending (S$12.4 billion in 2014, or 3.3% of GDP, more than twice as much in money terms as in Malaysia, which has a population more than five times bigger); and in the two years’ national service for men which, according to the defence minister, Ng Eng Hen, enjoys 90% popular support among Singaporeans.

The sense of vulnerability and hence of the importance of national cohesion, instilled in Singapore’s leaders by Lee Kuan Yew and his fellows, is at the root of many aspects of the Singapore exception described in this report: in the fear of tolerating an effective political opposition; in the anxiety about communal tension; in the retention of repressive colonialera legislation such as the Internal Security Act. It has also influenced economic policy, including the ideological objections to welfare and its debilitating impact on the national psyche.

It can even be seen in the tough lawandorder policies for which Singapore is also famous. Its use of the death penalty is repellent to liberals, as is the resort to corporal punishment, for which the official terminology—“caning”—grossly understates the barbarity. But, say many Singaporeans, these policies have worked—and the system made by Lee Kuan Yew is presented as a package, as if the economic growth somehow justified the caning.

Singaporeans are never allowed to forget that their country is small and its future fragile

Lee Kuan Yew’s defining characteristic, however, was pragmatism, a willingness to change his mind. He long opposed allowing casinos in Singapore, but was a member of the cabinet that in 2005 agreed to allow two to open, generating within a few years gaming revenues equivalent to the Las Vegas Strip’s. He also, late in life, accepted that homosexuality was “not a choice”, though for men practising it remains an offence.

Time for a sonnet

This report has pointed to plenty of reasons to be optimistic about Singapore’s economic future— certainly for its welleducated, globally aware young people, who are in one of the best places in the world to ride the wave of Asia’s rise. But they and their leaders need to decide what sort of society they want. The danger is that they will no longer be meritocrats sitting atop an unequal yet basically harmonious society, but an elite in a country that relies on increasing numbers of shortterm migrants treated with little respect; and where an ageing, less educated group of fellow citizens feel disgruntled and let down.

Many countries in the world face similar dangers, but in Singapore they are especially stark because of its size and its severe ageing problem. As this report has also argued, Singapore is better equipped than most countries to avoid the worst outcomes. It can afford to relax politically without inviting chaos; it can afford to relax socially without causing unmanageable tension; it can afford to provide better for its needy and elderly without pushing the country down a slippery slope of welfare dependence; it can afford, in other words, to be less of an exception, more of a normal country; and, yes, it can afford even poetry. http://www.economist.com/node/21657610/print 2/3 10/29/2016 American Leaders Swooning Over Singapore's Thuggish Founder Are Blind Politically, Not Just Morally | Huffington Post

EDITION  US INFORM • INSPIRE • ENTERTAIN • EMPOWER

NEWS POLITICS ENTERTAINMENT WELLNESS WHAT’S WORKING VOICES VIDEO ALL SECTIONS 

THE BLOG American Leaders Swooning Over Singapore’s Thuggish Founder Are Blind Politically, Not Just Morally  04/02/2015 10:23 am ET | Updated Jun 02, 2015

Jim Sleeper Lecturer in Political Science, Yale University

T R E N D I N G

Kellyanne Conway Conﬁrms: My Boss Donald Trump Is A Ridiculous Man-Baby

FBI Director James Comey Knew The Risks With His Clinton Letter. Trump Just Showed Them. AP

To judge only by appearances, the outpouring of grief by a millionanda half Donald Trump Reportedly Didn’t Know Singaporeans at the funeral of their country’s founder and longtime prime What A Gold Star Family minister Lee Kuan Yew last week resembles that of Americans at the funeral Was of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1945. But, it also mirrors North Koreans’ weeping with unfeigned grief in 2011 over their deceased “Dear Leader” Kim JongIl, Donald Trump Is Still about whom the less said the better, and of Russians’ in 1953 over the body of Whining About Alec Baldwin’s ‘Nasty’ Josef Stalin, who had repelled the Nazi invasion and built a superpower with a Portrayal Of Him safety net but terrorized, imprisoned and murdered millions of innocent people in many countries, including his own. Barack Obama Named James Comey FBI Chief So much for appearances. Lee Kuan Yew was truly quite a bit more like Stalin For All The Wrong than like Roosevelt, but, since Singapore is a tiny citystate and world Reasons capitalist entrepot, he also resembled New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, under whom that world city, too — it’s only about 15% larger than Singapore — became cleaner, safer, more prosperous — and more sterile, unequal, and unjust not only for many of its AfricanAmerican and LatinoAmerican citizens but also for the onethird of its residents who are poor immigrants and whose lives, like those of onethird of Singapore residents, are glimpsed by most of the rest of us only when we see them at work.

Like Giuliani and Stalin, Lee was clever, disciplined, effective, prescient, racially divisive, vicious, vindictive, and a control freak. He cleaned the streets and waterways, selected the shade trees, imposed a somewhat robotic examinationdriven meritocracy in education, and secured the comforts of investors, and tourists, and tiny Singapore’s 70,000 resident millionaires (in U.S. dollars) and 15 billionaires by importing more than 1.5 million virtually  rightsless migrant workers to keep wages down and instill fear and culturalAmerican Leaders Swooning Over Singapore’s Thuggish Founder Are Blind Politically, Not J… sterility in generations of Singaporeans. And how did he instill it? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jimsleeper/leekuanyewsingaporethuggishfounder_b_6985958.html 1/8 10/29/2016 American Leaders Swooning Over Singapore's Thuggish Founder Are Blind Politically, Not Just Morally | Huffington Post “I am often accused of interfering in the private lives of citizens,” Lee said. “Yes, if I did not, had I not done that, we wouldn’t be here today. And I say without the slightest remorse, that we wouldn’t be here, we would not have made economic progress, if we had not intervened on very personal matters — who your neighbor is, how you live, the noise you make, how you spit, or what language you use. We decide what is right. Never mind what the people think.” (The Straits Times, April 20, 1987)

Many ordinary people kissed his feet for that. Welcome to human history and to the downside of human nature.

At least New York’s Giuliani was curbed by state and federal leaders and an independent judiciary, under a Constitution that had been crafted in open debate among brilliant founders. Lee abolished all curbs, and he virtually wrote and interpreted the constitution by himself. “We have to lock up people, without trial, whether they are communists, whether they are language chauvinists, whether they are religious extremists. If you don’t do that, the country would be in ruins,” he said in 1986 while imprisoning and cruelly abusing Catholic Church socialjustice workers who were certainly opposed to his practices and whom he also claimed but never proved were Communists.

Like many a silvertongued, anticolonialist, antiracist firebrand who turns his colonial masters’ noble rhetoric against them but wound up employing their tactics against those he was leading, Lee very tellingly foreshadowed his own transformation from tribune of the oppressed to autocrat of the oppressed during a 1956 debate in the colonial assembly by condemning Singapore’s British oppressors a bit too deliciously:

“Repression, Sir is a habit that grows,” he taunted Singapore’s British chief minister David Marshall in the island’s colonial legislative assembly. “I am told it is like making love — it is always easier the second time! The first time there may be pangs of conscience, a sense of guilt. But once embarked on this course with constant repetition you get more and more brazen in the attack. All you have to do is to dissolve organizations and societies and banish and detain the key political workers in these societies. Then miraculously everything is tranquil on the surface. Then an intimidated press and the governmentcontrolled radio together can regularly sing your praises, and slowly and steadily the people are made to forget the evil things that have already been done....”

That is precisely what Lee did as prime minister. When Lee and his wife Kwa Geok Choo read law at Cambridge, they developed a lovehate relationship to British imperial ways. He even took the English nickname Harry, and, late in the 1960s, when he was becoming Singapore’s strongman, British foreign secretary George Brown told him, “Harry, you’re the finest Englishman east of Suez.”

As if acting out his own prescient taunt to the Brits about the delights of their repression, he used a terrified parliament and judiciary and press to smear, bankrupt, imprison, harass, and exile other potential founding fathers. Of J.B. Jeyaretnam, another silvertongued but more principled member of the  opposition in independent Singapore’American Leaders Swoonings first parliament, Lee said: “If you are a Over Singapore’s Thuggish Founder Are Blind Politically, Not J… troublemaker...it’s our job to politically destroy you. Put it this way. As long as http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jimsleeper/leekuanyewsingaporethuggishfounder_b_6985958.html 2/8 10/29/2016 American Leaders Swooning Over Singapore's Thuggish Founder Are Blind Politically, Not Just Morally | Huffington Post J.B. Jeyaretnam stands for what he stands for — a thoroughly destructive force — we will knock him. Everybody knows that in my bag I have a hatchet, and a very sharp one.”

And, with incredibly petty vindictiveness, Lee’s government pursued Chee Soon Juan, who was fired in 1993 from his teaching job at the National University of Singapore after he had joined an opposition party, and who was repeatedly imprisoned and bankrupted simply for joining an opposition party and for holding small street demonstrations to air criticisms that state controlled media wouldn’t publish. When Chee, who couldn’t pay his huge bankruptcy penalty, was prohibited from leaving the country to address a humanrights conference in Oslo, Thor Halvorssen, President of the Human Rights Foundation, published an open letter to Lee’s son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, noting that:

“In the last 20 years he has been jailed for more than 130 days on charges including contempt of Parliament, speaking in public without a permit, selling books improperly, and attempting to leave the country without a permit. Today, your government prevents Dr. Chee from leaving Singapore because of his bankrupt status.... It is our considered judgment that having already persecuted, prosecuted, bankrupted, and silenced Dr. Chee inside Singapore, you now wish to render him silent beyond your own borders.”

Another onetime founding father of Singapore, its former solicitor general Francis Seow, had to flee the country after declaring that its Law Society, which he headed, could comment critically on government legislation. Seow was arrested and detained for 72 days under Singapore’s Internal Security Act on allegations that he had received funds from the United States to enter opposition politics. “[T]he prime minister uses the courts ... to intimidate, bankrupt, or cripple the political opposition. Distinguishing himself in a caseful of legal suits commenced against dissidents and detractors for alleged defamation..., he has won them all,” wrote Seow, who, convicted and fined in absentia on a tax evasion charge by Singapore’s courts, lives in exile in Massachusetts, where he has been a fellow at the East Asian Legal Studies Program and the Human Rights Program at Harvard Law School.

It took the undergraduate Yale International Relations Association and the faculty’s Council on Southeast Asia Studies to embarrass Singapore into letting Jeyaretnam’s son, Kenneth, and Chee come to New Haven to speak in 2012. (Seow did not respond to the invitation.)

Lee’s racism was almost quaint, trading on 19thCentury notions that his British colonial masters had held: “Now if democracy will not work for the Russians, a white Christian people, can we assume that it will naturally work with Asians?” he asked — not rhetorically — on May 9, 1991, at a symposium sponsored by the large Japanese newspaper Asahi Shimbun.

Race riots among Chinese, Indian and Muslim Malay residents of Singapore in the 1950s had taught him to impose “harmony” through strict allocations of resources and services along race lines: All Singaporeans carry ethnic identity cards, and Lee even invoked genetics to justify his enforced racial harmony  and service distribution:American Leaders Swooning Over Singapore’s Thuggish Founder Are Blind Politically, Not J… http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jimsleeper/leekuanyewsingaporethuggishfounder_b_6985958.html 3/8 10/29/2016 American Leaders Swooning Over Singapore's Thuggish Founder Are Blind Politically, Not Just Morally | Huffington Post “The Bell curve is a fact of life. The blacks on average score 85 per cent on IQ and it is accurate, nothing to do with culture. The whites score on average 100. Asians score more ... the Bell curve authors put it at least 10 points higher. These are realities that, if you do not accept, will lead to frustration because you will be spending money on wrong assumptions and the results cannot follow,” he said in 1997, in an interview for the book Lee Kuan Yew: The Man and His Ideas.

“If I tell Singaporeans — we are all equal regardless of race, language, religion, culture, then they will say, “Look, I’m doing poorly. You are responsible.” But I can show that from British times, certain groups have always done poorly, in mathematics and in science. But I’m not God, I can’t change you....” That was in 2002, in the book Success Stories.

And in 2011, in his book Hard Truths, we read:

“People get educated, the bright ones rise, they marry equally well educated spouses. The result is their children are smarter than those who are gardeners. Not that all the children of gardeners are duds. Occasionally two grey horses produce a white horse but very few. If you have two white horses, the chances are you breed white horses. It’s seldom spoken publicly because those who are NOT white horses say, ‘You’re degrading me’. But it’s a fact of life. You get a good mare, you don’t want a dud stallion to breed with your good mare. You get a poor foal. Your mental capacity and your EQ and the rest of you, 70 to 80% is genetic. “

Lee dropped his nickname “Harry” while touting his ways against Western criticisms of his mounting offenses against basic freedoms and his — and China’s — embrace of topdown, state capitalist control of all society. In 2012 The Economist magazine explained that state capitalism was pioneered by Lee, “a tireless advocate of ‘Asian values,’ by which he meant a mixture of family values and authoritarianism.”

Liberal, it wasn’t. “I had my own runin with Lee some years ago,” former Harvard president Derek Bok told me, “when the government in Singapore jailed the young head of the Harvard Club for ‘consorting with the wrong people.’ I wrote in protest to Lee and was surprised to receive a letter of several typewritten pages from him trying to persuade me that Asian values are different from those in the United States. Nothing in that experience [with Lee] would tempt me to try to establish a Harvard College in Singapore.”

Lee’s concoction of “Asian values” was meant partly to deter Westerners from criticizing repressive regimes. And as those regimes try to ride the golden riptides of global finance, communications, labor migration, and consumer marketing, they’re turning to ancient Confucian, Islamic, and even Western colonial traditions to shore up and legitimize their control against huge new inequalities, degrading labor practices and consumer marketing, and criminal behavior.

Here’s a short but devastating summary of the legal scholar Jothie Rajah’s Authoritarian Rule of Law, about Lee’s governance, that will require 15 minutes and a strong stomach to read.  American Leaders Swooning Over Singapore’s Thuggish Founder Are Blind Politically, Not J… http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jimsleeper/leekuanyewsingaporethuggishfounder_b_6985958.html 4/8 10/29/2016 American Leaders Swooning Over Singapore's Thuggish Founder Are Blind Politically, Not Just Morally | Huffington Post “Singapore is improving,” its apologists sometimes insist. But Reporters Without Borders now ranks it an abysmal 151of 180 nations in press freedoms — down from 135 in 2012. The Economist magazine’s rigorous Democracy Index ranks it with Liberia, Palestine, and Haiti. Human Rights Watch calls it “a textbook example of a repressive state.” Two years ago, a fivepart Wall Street Journal series documented its abuses of migrant Chinese bus drivers, a paradigm of how it treats the rightsless migrants who are onethird of its population. The country’s 2014 Gini coefficient, which measures income inequality, is 0.478, one of the widest in the world.

Alternative views come only on a few brave websites, such as Online Citizen and Tremeritus and in the YaleNUS bubble, which Singapore is taking care to accommodate: When the government tried a few months ago to ban “To Singapore With Love,” a documentary on leftist activists who had fled the country to escape certain imprisonment and worse, YaleNational University of Singapore College obtained an exemption to show it “for educational purposes” and decided not to use it only after the filmmaker Tan Pin Pin protested that if it couldn’t be shown everywhere in Singapore, it shouldn’t be shown anywhere.

While many Singaporeans are wonderfully astute and fair, owing partly to the very rigor and probity that Lee Kuan Yew demanded, many others are marinating in ressentiment, a curdled bitterness that, unlike clean indignation, blames Singapore’s ills on its critics. The ruling party seems to have hundreds of ondemand trolls who descend upon critical posts, hurling insults, as hundreds did at me when I posted an account here in Huffington Post of Singapore’s long, close, but secret collaboration with Israel in building up its own military. My Wikipedia page was also altered beyond recognition then by voluntary “editors” whose monikers identified them as Singaporean.

A commenter on another post I’d written questioning Yale’s joint venture in founding a new liberalarts college with the National University of Singapore exhibited the bitterness:

“I don’t see why we need to have a partnership with an institution that has produced the talents who... have morally and financially bankrupted their once great nation,” she wrote. “Call us authoritarian all you want but we are a prudent state while yours is a once great nation that is a banana republic on its way to fascism. And your nation owes us and other authoritarian regimes A LOT of money. All made possible in part by the notables graduates of Yale and other Ivies. I suggest that debt slaves adopt a more courteous attitude toward their creditors instead of name calling and stereotyping. Btw, Feel free to come grovel for a job once this comes to pass.”

The hypocrisy here is worth noting: Much of this commenter’s account of what American and global capitalism are doing to republican virtues and prospects is true, but any suggestion that similar things are happening in Singapore generates such excruciating discomfort among its elite apologists that they denounce critics in ways they wouldn’t dare to denounce their own country’s leaders.

 As Singapore flourished as a worldcapitalist American Leaders Swooning Overentrepot, Singapore its investors and’s Thuggish Founder Are Blind Politically, Not J… advisors, including some members of Yale’s governing corporation, paid little http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jimsleeper/leekuanyewsingaporethuggishfounder_b_6985958.html 5/8 10/29/2016 American Leaders Swooning Over Singapore's Thuggish Founder Are Blind Politically, Not Just Morally | Huffington Post attention to the repression and its festering costs. And Lee, in semiretirement as “Minister Mentor” (his son Lee Hsien Loong is now prime minister and his daughterinlaw Ho Ching is CEO of Temasek, one of Singapore’s two sovereign wealth funds), began sounding wise and avuncular, at least to journalists such as Thomas Plate (writing for Singapore’s government controlled Straits Times) and Fareed Zakaria (who was a Yale Corporation member at the time).

Like Giuliani and Stalin, Lee certainly had truths to impart to liberals: Because democracy is messy, its public virtues and beliefs do need assiduous cultivation. “You take a poll of any people. What is it they want? The right to write an editorial as you like? They want homes, medicine, jobs, schools,” Lee said in an interview for Lee Kuan Yew: The Man and His Ideas. He might have added, rightly enough, that most people even want some authority in their lives. Beyond that, a little island with no natural resources has scant wiggle room. Unlike the sprawling U.S., Singapore certainly has had no blunder room. That makes Lee’s iron grip seem admirable.

But Lee also had many truths to disguise, and, for that, he needed apologists. Thomas Plate, the journalist who became a Distinguished Scholar of Asian and Pacific Studies at Loyola Marymount University and author of the Giants Of Asia book series, of whom Lee Kuan Yew was the first, assured readers of his long account of the man’s thinking in the Straits Times newspaper that Lee “hated... uninformed debate,” because he preferred “free, frank speech” among leaders who are well informed and able to debate and govern, over the idea that everyone has a right to speak, no matter how ignorantly or dishonestly.

A veteran Singaporean government manager told me that he considers this distinction “cringe worthy” because Lee had no use for free, frank speech even among his peers. Remember, he crushed his fellow founding fathers. A Singaporean studying at Yale emailed me that “Plate is too uncritical about a supposed zerosum game between ‘truthtelling’ and ‘equal’ speech. Liberal democracy believes in the wisdom of crowds, that people refine their political thinking through the act of participating in politics. But the crowds are going to remain dumb if they don’t speak. (Funny how dumb has that double meaning).”

It’s not so funny. Elites in the United States and at Davos, unnerved by the western civic decay that they themselves have caused, are dancing desperately up Singapore’s garden paths seeking elegant reassurance from Lee Kuan Yew’s achievements that ultimately, “the people” can and must be ruled. But global elites can barely rule themselves.

Let’s hope that they’ll grasp the point of the joke about Lee that tells of two dogs swimming in the waters between Singapore and Borneo, but in opposite directions. The dog headed towards Borneo asks the other one why he’s swimming to Singapore. The answer: “Ah, the shopping, the housing, the air conditioning, the health care, the schools. But why are you going to Borneo?” The dog swimming away from Singapore answers: “Oh, I just want to bark.”

For dogs, barking is almost as important as breathing; in humans, it means speaking up in ways that nourish the arts and the best political solutions, which emerge from the wisdom of crowds. Without that, a society experiences  demoralization, decadence, and brain drain. Liberal democracy may beAmerican Leaders Swooning Over Singapore’s Thuggish Founder Are Blind Politically, Not J… implausible, but it’s indispensable and irrepressible, and, ultimately, it’s the http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jimsleeper/leekuanyewsingaporethuggishfounder_b_6985958.html 6/8 10/29/2016 American Leaders Swooning Over Singapore's Thuggish Founder Are Blind Politically, Not Just Morally | Huffington Post only way to affirm human potential and dignity. Stalin never learned that, and the Soviet Union paid the price. New York’s Giuliani never learned it, either but, thanks to constitutional democracy, others have replaced him. We can hope that, sooner or later, Singapore and China will learn it, too.

More: Ho Ching Lee Kuan Yew Lee Hsien Loong Thomas Plate TR Emeritus

Next Story: FBI Director James Comey Deﬁed Attorney General With Email Announcement

YOU MAY LIKE Sponsored Links by Taboola Enter a Name..Wait 14 Seconds, Then Brace Yourself TruthFinder People Search Subscription

Local Officials Are Asking Everyone to Carry This at All Times Shadowhawk Flashlights

Chapel Hill: This Meal Service is Cheaper Than Your Local Store Home Chef

I Tried Blue Apron and Here's What Happened Blue Apron

Every Teenager Should Get This Vaccine Shot Livestrong for Healthline

Chapel Hill, North Carolina Residents Are Stunned By This New Rule ProvideSavings Insurance Quotes

SUGGESTED FOR YOU

This Girl Was Bullied For This Dog’s Reaction To IHOP’s Trick For The Friday’s Morning Email: So THAT’S The Her Skin Color. Now Her Gumby Toy Coming Fluﬃest Omelet Is So More Grim Reports For Diﬀerence Between She’s A Badass Model. To Life Is All You’ve Ever Genius And Totally Trump Campaign Apple Juice And Cider Wanted Obvious

CURATED FOR YOU Generated from related, personalized and trending articles. View your news homepage.

WHAT’S HOT

POLITICSAmerican Leaders SEwooningNTERTAINM EOverNT Singapore’sEN ThuggishTERTAINMEN TFounder Are BlindCOME DPYolitically, Not J… http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jimsleeper/leekuanyewsingaporethuggishfounder_b_6985958.html 7/8 10/29/2016 Matt Miller What we can learn from Singapore's healthcare model What we can learn from Singapore's healthcare model

By Matt Miller Wednesday, March 3, 2010; 10:45 AM

We interrupt Washington's feud over the president's "way forward" for a brief word on a path not taken, courtesy of the only rich nation that boasts universal coverage with health outcomes better than ours while spending onefifth as much per person on health care. Introducing (drum roll please): Singapore.

Yes, it's an island citystate of just 5 million people. Yes, it's more or less a benevolent dictatorship. And, yes, until recently, bringing chewing gum into Singapore could land you in jail. But Singapore, a poor country a few decades ago, now boasts a higher per capita income (when adjusted for local purchasing power) than the United States. And here's the astonishing fact: Singapore spends less than 4 percent of its GDP on health care. We spend 17 percent (and Singapore's somewhat younger population doesn't begin to explain the difference). Matching Singapore's performance in our $15 trillion economy would free up $2 trillion a year for other public and private purposes.

Do I have I your attention?

Today we can't find cash to recruit a new generation of great teachers, rebuild our roads and bridges, pay down the national debt, or invest in better airports, highspeed rail, a clean energy revolution or any of a hundred other things sensible patriots know we should do to renew the country. We can't do these things in large part because the Medical Industrial Complex vacuums up every spare dollar in sight. It's only slightly melodramatic to assert that if we could run our healthcare system as efficiently as Singapore's, we could solve most of our other problems.

So how does Singapore do it?

In health circles it's always conservatives who bring up Singapore, because of the primacy it places on personal responsibility. According to Phua Kai Hong of the National University of Singapore, roughly one third of health spending in Singapore is paid directly by individuals (who typically buy catastrophic coverage as well); in the United States, by contrast, nearly 90 percent is picked up by thirdparty insurers, employers and governments. Singaporeans make these payments out of earnings as well as from health savings accounts. The system is chockfull of incentives for thrift. If you want a private hospital room, for example, you pay through the nose; most people choose less expensive wards.

Conservatives are right: Singaporeans have the kind of "skin in the game" that promotes prudence.

But that's only half the story. There's also a massive public role. For starters, adequate savings for retirement and health expenses are mandated by government (employees must sock away 20 percent of earnings each year, to which employers add 13 percent). Public hospitals provide 80 percent of the acute care, setting affordable pricing benchmarks with which private providers compete. Supplyside rules that favor training new family doctors over pricey specialists are more extensive than similar notions Hillary Clinton pushed in the '90s. And in Singapore, if a child is obese, they don't get Rose Garden exhortations from the first lady. They get no lunch and mandatory exercise periods during school.

There's more (including an ample safety net for the poor), but you get the gist: Singapore achieves world class results thanks to a bold, unconventional synthesis of liberal and conservative approaches. It's further to the left and further to the right than what President Obama or his foes now seek. The island's real ideology is pragmatic problemsolving. It works thanks to cultural traditions that let this eclectic blend flourish. The system is nurtured by talented, highly paid officials who have the luxury of governing for the longterm without being buffeted much by politics.

We obviously can't transplant Singapore's approach wholesale to the United States. But the reason we can't emulate even some of Singapore's success has to do with that iron law of healthcare politics: Every dollar of healthcare "waste" is somebody's dollar of income. As a stable advanced democracy, we're so overrun by groups with stakes in today's waste that real efficiency gains are perennially blocked.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2010/03/03/AR2010030301396_pf.html 1/2 10/29/2016 Matt Miller What we can learn from Singapore's healthcare model Any hope for something better starts with tallying the price of today's paralysis. Think about that $2 trillion the next time you see states, citing budget woes, shut the door to college on tens of thousands of poor American students. Or when the next firm moves jobs overseas because health costs here are soaring. Or when the next bridge collapses. Thanks, Medical Industrial Complex!

We return now to our regularly scheduled political battle, which (no matter the outcome, according to some projections) will leave health costs headed to more than 20 percent of GDP by 2019.

Matt Miller, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and cohost of public radio's "Left, Right & Center," writes a weekly column for The Post. He can be reached at [email protected].

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2010/03/03/AR2010030301396_pf.html 2/2 10/29/2016 The Myth of the FreeMarket American Health Care System The Atlantic

The Myth of the Free-Market American Health Care System M E G A N M C A R D L E M A R 8 , 2 0 1 2 | B U S I N E S S

TEXT SIZE  

Like The Atlantic? Subscribe to the Daily, our free weekday email newsletter.

Email S I G N U P

What the rest of the world can teach conservatives -- and all Americans -- about socialism, health care, and the path toward more aﬀordable insurance

Reuters

Avik S. A. Roy

Yesterday, Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry posted a stimulating comparison between the American and French health-care systems. "From my outlook," he writes, "there's something that I haven't seen discussed and yet seems striking to me: how similar the French and U.S. healthcare systems are. On its face, this seems like a preposterous notion: whenever the two are mentioned together, it's to say http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/themythofthefreemarketamericanhealthcaresystem/254210/ 1/7 10/29/2016 The Myth of the FreeMarket American Health Care System The Atlantic that they're polar opposites."

Indeed, there are a lot of misconceptions about how America's health-care system compares to those of the other developed countries, including France. Both liberals and conservatives believe that the American system is a "freemarket" or "capitalistic" one, and that European systems providing universal coverage are "socialized." In this article, I'll explain where both of these conceptions go wrong.

THE FREE-MARKET MYTH

In reality, per-capita state-sponsored health expenditures in the United States are the third-highest in the world, only below Norway and Luxembourg. And this is before our new health law kicks in. (The U.S. appears second in the chart because we only have 2008 data for the Luxembourgers):

In 2009, according to these statistics, which come mostly from the OECD, U.S. government entities spent $3,795 per person on health care, compared to $3,100 per person in France. Note that these stats are for government expenditures; they exclude private-sector health spending.

If anything, the U.S. ﬁgures understate government health spending, because they exclude the $300 billion a year we "spend" through the tax code by making the purchase of employer-sponsored health insurance tax-exempt.

So: if we measure the relative freedom of health-care systems by the dollar amount of government involvement in health spending, the French system is actually meaningfully freer than America's.

There are, of course, other important things to consider in terms of health-care freedom: do individuals have freedom to choose their own doctor, their own insurance, their own treatments, etc. On these bases, countries like the United http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/themythofthefreemarketamericanhealthcaresystem/254210/ 2/7 10/29/2016 The Myth of the FreeMarket American Health Care System The Atlantic Kingdom would fare very poorly. But very few people appreciate that the American government spends far more on health care than those of nearly every other country.

(For an excellent discussion of the ins-and-outs European health-care systems, I highly recommend this 2008 paper by Michael Tanner.)

The thing to remember in America is that we have single-payer health care for the elderly and for the poor: the two costliest groups. In addition, the relatively healthy middle class has heavily-subsidized private health insurance, in which few individuals have the freedom to choose the insurance plan they receive. Neither of these facts commend the American health-care system to devotees of the free market.

UNIVERSAL COVERAGE = SOCIALISM?

One of the most frequently-made arguments in favor of socialized medicine is that it saves money, relative to the American system. And it is true that Europeans et al. spend less per-capita, and as a percentage of GDP, than we do.

But the pro-socialism argument has a glaring weakness: it ignores the two most signiﬁcant examples of market-oriented universal coverage in the developed world, Switzerland and Singapore, where state health spending is far lower than it is in other industrialized nations. Neither Switzerland nor Singapore could be described as libertarian utopias--both systems contain aspects that conservatives wouldn't like--but they provide powerful examples of how market- oriented health care systems are more cost-eﬃcient than socialized ones.

I've described Switzerland as having the world's best health-care system. In Switzerland, there are no government-run insurance plans, no "public options." Instead, the Swiss get subsidies, much like "premium support" proposals for Medicare reform or the PPACA exchanges, from which Swiss citizens buy health care from private insurers. The subsidies are scaled up or down based on income: poorer people get large subsidies; middle-income earners get small

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/themythofthefreemarketamericanhealthcaresystem/254210/ 3/7 10/29/2016 The Myth of the FreeMarket American Health Care System The Atlantic subsidies; upper-income earners get nothing.

The OECD puts Switzerland high on the league tables in terms of government health spending, but that is due to a statistical anomaly. Switzerland has an individual mandate; the OECD defines state health expenditures to include insurance premiums that the government requires individuals to pay, even if that spending is on private insurance. That is a debatable approach from the OECD, because the spending goes directly to the insurers, without the government as a redistributor. If you adjust for this anomaly, Swiss state health spending is $1,281 per person (which accounts for the taxpayer-financed premium support subsidies). I've listed both figures in the chart.

The premium support system allows the Swiss to shop for their own insurance plans, which gives them the opportunity to shop for value--something that almost no Americans do. As a result, about half of the Swiss have consumer- driven health plans, combining high-deductible insurance with health savings accounts for routine expenditures.

THE SINGAPORE MIRACLE

The other important market-oriented counterexample is Singapore. Singapore has, arguably, the most market-oriented system in the world. Singapore's GDP per capita is about 20 percent higher than America's, with comparable (if not higher) health outcomes, and spends an absurdly low amount on health care relative to the West. How do they do it?

Singapores health system saves money and lives

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/themythofthefreemarketamericanhealthcaresystem/254210/ 4/7 10/29/2016 The Myth of the FreeMarket American Health Care System The Atlantic

The key to the Singapore system is mandatory health savings accounts: again, something that libertarians and many conservatives wouldn't like. Matt Miller of the Center for American Progress describes Singapore as "further to the left and further to the right" than the American system--something that could also be said of Switzerland.

In a manner somewhat like our Social Security system, Singapore takes mandatory deductions from workers' paychecks--around 20 percent of wages-- and deposits them into health savings accounts called Medisave. Medisave accounts are used mostly for inpatient expenses, but also some outpatient ones. Singaporeans are expected to pay most of their outpatient expenses with non- Medisave cash.

On top of Medisave, Singapore has a government-run catastrophic insurance program called Medishield. Singaporeans can opt out of that plan and buy private catastrophic insurance. Premiums for Medishield can be paid for using the Medisave health savings accounts.

Then there is Medifund, a safety-net program for the bottom 10 percent of income earners, and Eldershield, a private insurance program for long-term care for those with old age-related disabilities. On top of these government- sponsored programs, Singaporeans can buy supplemental insurance for things like outpatient expenses.

Why does this system work so well? Because it incorporates the central idea behind free-market health care: that health-care spending is most eﬃcient when that spending is executed by individual patients, rather than third parties. It's easy to waste other people's money. But if that money is your own, you are going

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/themythofthefreemarketamericanhealthcaresystem/254210/ 5/7 10/29/2016 The Myth of the FreeMarket American Health Care System The Atlantic to try your best to spend it wisely.

Singapore installed this system relatively recently. Prior to 1984, the former British colony had a system quite similar to that of Britain's National Health Service. In that year, the government reversed course, with impressive results. Singapore, of course, isn't a democracy--which allows the government to install sweeping changes that wouldn't be realistic here. (And in no way should my praise of Singapore's health-care system be interpreted as an endorsement of the country's political system.)

WHAT WE CAN LEARN FROM THE WORLD

The Swiss and Singaporean models wouldn't be perfect models for America; we would want to replace the Swiss individual mandate, for example, with a more market-oriented approach like allowing people to opt out of buying health insurance if they also agree to forego subsidized care. But both Switzerland and Singapore embody the most important principle of all: shifting control of health dollars from governments to individuals.

How could something like this come about in the United States? One could imagine a scenario in which Medicare was converted into the premium-support model, such as one of the Paul Ryan plans, with far more aggressive means- testing such that upper-income seniors would no longer be eligible for the program. In addition, the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance is phased out. The resultant savings could be used to oﬀer subsidized private insurance to lower-income individuals, as a replacement for Medicaid. Obamacare's exchanges, though seriously ﬂawed in their implementation, have some similarities to this approach. As these programs converge, we could have something that starts to look a lot like Switzerland.

The Singaporean system dovetails with an idea put forth by John Goodman and others of a universal tax credit that Americans could use to buy health insurance, or possibly even Medisave-like HSAs.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/themythofthefreemarketamericanhealthcaresystem/254210/ 6/7 10/29/2016 The Myth of the FreeMarket American Health Care System The Atlantic My message to conservatives is: wake up. America's health care system has many qualities, but it is far more socialized than you think, and we can learn from the experience of other countries to make it better. My message to liberals is: if universal coverage is your goal, the possibility for bipartisan compromise exists, if you're open to considering market-oriented approaches like those in Switzerland and Singapore. Let's put our heads together.

Follow Avik on Twitter at @aviksaroy.

A B O U T T H E A U T H O R

MEGAN MCARDLE is a columnist at Bloomberg View and a former senior editor at The Atlantic. Her new book is The Up Side of Down.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/themythofthefreemarketamericanhealthcaresystem/254210/ 7/7 10/29/2016 Singapore’s health care system holds valuable lessons for U.S. | News | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

News ingapore’s health care sstem holds valuale lessons for U..

From left: Ashish Jha, William Haseltine, Dean Julio Frenk

January 28, 2014 — The United States could learn a thing or two from Singapore when it comes to providing quality health care at reasonable cost, according to biologist, entrepreneur, and author William Haseltine.

Intrigued by the fact that the Southeast Asian nation spends only 3% of its GDP on health care in contrast to the United States’ nearly 18%—yet has a healthier population —Haseltine, president and founder of the think tank ACCESS Health International, examined Singapore’s approach to health care in his 2013 book, Aordable Excellence: The Singapore Health Story.

He thinks that Singapore’s emphasis on “social harmony”—on ensuring that everything in society works well and smoothly—is a key factor in that nation’s health care achievements. “They believe that nobody in their country, even a foreigner, will go without health care,” Haseltine said during a January 15, 2014 talk at Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH), where he served as a professor from 1976-92. “If they have to put

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/singaporeshealthcaresystemholdslessonsforus/ 1/3 10/29/2016 Singapore’s health care system holds valuable lessons for U.S. | News | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

more money into it to help to help the vulnerable population and the very old population, they do it.”

Haseltine gave a Centennial Dean’s Distinguished Lecture Book Presentation to a standing-room-only audience in Kresge G-2. HSPH Dean [[Julio Frenk]] introduced Haseltine as “a Renaissance person”—an accomplished basic researcher in HIV/AIDS, cancer, and genomics; an innovator who founded several successful biotechnology companies; and a researcher of health systems.

Faculty speaker [[Ashish Jha]], professor of health policy and management at HSPH, acknowledged that there are major di分erences between the U.S. and Singapore. Singapore is tiny in comparison, with roughly the same size population as Massachusetts, and its government intervenes in the economy and society much more so than the U.S. government. But there are still lessons to learn from Singapore “that are pertinent, that are relevant, that are completely on point with the issues that America is struggling with today,” Jha said. He cited, for example, Singapore’s emphasis on both the value of a free market system and the value of a strong government role in the marketplace to ensure a well-functioning health care system.

Singapore has a range of policies that support health care, Haseltine said. For example, Singaporeans are required to have a health savings plan, called Medisave, that works like a 401K retirement savings plan in the U.S; the government sets both policies and prices for private insurance companies; health care costs for services and procedures must be completely transparent; there’s a minister of “wellness” who emphasizes the importance of a healthy diet and exercise and works to curb smoking; there are high health care subsidies for those with low incomes; and the government invests heavily in medical education.

There’s also a compulsory savings program for workers called the Central Provident Fund that can be used to pay for housing; as a result, 85% of Singaporeans own their own home. “That is a big social stabilizer, and a big stabilizer of health,” Haseltine said.

Haseltine acknowledged that the Singapore government’s heavy hand in the marketplace and in society wouldn’t go over well in the U.S. But he thinks that some health care ideas from Singapore could work here, such as mandatory health savings accounts, greater transparency about costs and prices, and more regulation of insurance company prices and policies.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/singaporeshealthcaresystemholdslessonsforus/ 2/3 10/29/2016 Singapore’s health care system holds valuable lessons for U.S. | News | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

Sometimes, Haseltine said, the right government policy can have a positive impact. “We have this whole suspicion of government, but that’s a really big mistake,” he said. Trusting the government to set enlightened policy is a big lesson the U.S. can learn from Singapore, he said.

— Karen Feldscher

photo: Aubrey Calo

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/singaporeshealthcaresystemholdslessonsforus/ 3/3 10/29/2016 National Review Online | Print

In Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew Built a Welfare State That Works The key is to ensure that one generation won’t bankrupt future generations by living beyond its means.

By John Fund — March 27, 2015

Obituaries of Lee Kuan Yew, the first prime minister of Singapore who died this week at age 91, broke down into roughly two camps:

He was a hero, building a “clean as Disneyland” republic that runs like a Swiss watch.

He was an autocrat, who built a successful economy but crushed opponents and journalists who challenged his “managed” democracy.

Both statements have big elements of truth. I take a third approach, based on a fascinating visit I made to Singapore earlier this month. Lee Kuan Yew, a member of Britain’s leftwing Labour party while a student at Cambridge, managed to create a workable welfare state, one that provides for people without creating Social Security–like Ponzi schemes or unsustainable entitlements. Both liberals and conservatives have much to learn from what he built, the details of which are missing in most of the tributes to him.

Lee’s first priority when he became prime minister in 1959 was to reimagine Singapore’s economy. “Back then, this place was a swamp, with no natural resources, and it even had to import its drinking water from Malaysia,” Jim Rogers, a noted American investor who has lived in Singapore for nearly a decade, told me during my visit there.

By embracing free trade, capital formation, vigorous meritocratic education, low taxes, and a reliable judicial system, Lee raised the per capita income of his country from $500 a year to some $52,000 a year today. That’s 50 percent higher than that of Britain, the colonial power that ruled Singapore for 150 years. Its average annual growth rate has averaged 7 percent since the 1970s. “A 2010 study showed more patents and patent applications from the small citystate of Singapore (population 5.6 million) than from Russia (population 140 million),” noted economist Thomas Sowell observes.

But that wealth wasn’t used to create a traditional welfare state. Economist Mark Skousen notes that Singapore is rated along with Hong Kong as one of the two most free economies http://www.nationalreview.com/node/416071/print 1/3 10/29/2016 National Review Online | Print in the world. Any expansion of government is gradual and grudging. In 2013, when Singapore broadened its medicalbenefits program, the local Straits Times newspaper made clear the government’s philosophy: “The first [priority] is to keep government subsidies targeted at those who most need them, rather than commit to benefits for all. Universal benefits are ‘wasteful and inequitable,’ and hard to take away once given, [finance minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam] said.”

That mindset is embodied in Singapore’s philosophy of welfare, which rests on four pillars:

Each generation should pay its own way.

Each family should pay its own way.

Each individual should pay his own way.

Only after passing through these three filters should anyone turn to the government for help. But it will be there when needed.

Singapore’s approach to the provision of health care, retirement income, and housing is in sharp distinction to that of other countries. People are required to make relatively high payments into savings plans from which they can later buy a home, pay tuition, and purchase a variety of insurance policies. For those under age 50, the employee contributes 20 percent of his income, and the employer 16 percent. A third of the employee’s share is put into a private Medisave account. When the balance reaches 34,100 U.S. dollars, any excess funds can be used for nonhealthcare purposes. All are enrolled in a catastrophichealthcare plan, although they can opt out.

Healthcare expert John Goodman is credited (along with economist Richard Rahn) with first proposing medical savings accounts in the U.S. He says Singapore shows that they can work as the backbone of a healthcare system. “The issue is,” he says, “can individuals be counted on to manage their own healthcare dollars responsibly, or does health care work better if all the dollars are controlled by government or insurance companies?”

The answer is clear.

Not only is Singapore’s population healthy, but the private sector dominates healthcare spending, and consumer choice keeps healthcare costs down. In Singapore, the government’s share of healthcare spending has fallen to 20 percent, down from 50 percent 30 years ago. “Singapore has found a rational way to provide services that are provided by legalized Ponzi schemes in the rest of the developed world,” Goodman told me in an interview. “Those governments have made promises they must either default on or impose draconian taxes to pay for. Singapore has avoided that problem.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/416071/print 2/3 10/29/2016 National Review Online | Print It’s no wonder that other countries constantly consult Singapore for guidance on how to turbocharge their economies. In 2011, Ghana’s vice president, John Dramani Mahama, told a visiting delegation from Singapore that his country “takes a lot of inspiration from Singapore in their economic transformation from a third into a firstworld country.”

There is less to emulate from Singapore’s brand of politics. As Frank Lavin, a former U.S. ambassador to Singapore from 2001 to 2005, notes: “Lee believed that open politics can lead to demagoguery, rentseeking, and shortterm thinking. Yet over time, Singapore did become more open, allowing for both political debate and contested elections. . . . Of Lee’s many successes, his most important legacy might be the move to that more open political system to complement the open economics.”

But from my visit there, I believe that the least appreciated part of Lee Kwan Yew’s legacy is his method of ensuring that one generation won’t bankrupt future generations by selfishly living beyond its means. It’s a welfare state that works, and one he always said was available to any political leader with the courage to tell his people the truth about the limits of government’s power to pass out goodies.

— John Fund is nationalaffairs correspondent for NRO.

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/416071/print 3/3 10/29/2016 The social contract | The Economist

Special report: Singapore

Social policy The social contract

Two big, simple government promises—of a home and a comfortable old age—have become harder to keep Jul 18th 2015 | From the print edition

ON A RAINY Sunday morning, Chong Boon market is buzzing. This is “heartlands” Singapore, a housing estate in the district of Ang Mo Kio, row upon row of 12storey blocks of flats with the usual playgrounds, shops and a market with a food court, where stalls serve local favourites at S$34 a meal. One stand serving char kway teow (stirfried rice noodles) is so popular it gives people a queue number.

This is the group constituency of the prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong, though some in the food court say they were not aware of that. Many, however, feel the government has done well by them through two linked policies, on housing and retirement security. Since the 1960s, when the new country inherited a housing crisis, the government’s Housing Development Board has built over 1m flats. Now some 80% of Singaporeans live in HDB estates like these, overwhelmingly as owneroccupiers. The estates tend to look alike and they certainly pack people in. But Singapore has no slums and virtually no homelessness, the estates are generally clean and wellmaintained, and property values have soared over the years.

Owners mostly joined the property ladder thanks to the Central Provident Fund (CPF), into which a big chunk of everybody’s pay goes each month (at present 37%, made up of 20% from the employee and 17% as the employer’s contribution). People can then borrow from their CPF holdings to pay a deposit on a flat. The mortgages for the balance are repaid directly from their accounts. For first time buyers, the prices of HDB flats, sold on 99year leases, are heavily subsidised.

http://www.economist.com/node/21657613/print 1/3 10/29/2016 The social contract | The Economist “Public housing”, says Donald Low, an economist at the Lee Kuan Yew School, “is our de facto welfare state.” It is a simple, elegant and effective scheme. A government opposed to handouts has transferred wealth to lowincome families on a massive scale. The elderly enter retirement with a place to live and their own savings to live on. Almost all HDB owners aged 65 and over have repaid their mortgages.

However, the arrangement now faces three problems. First, the CPF has been tweaked so much it has become bafflingly complex. Second, many retired people have not saved enough to live on. Originally, people were allowed to withdraw all their savings when they reached 55. Now they have to keep a “basic retirement sum” in their account, calculated as the cost of buying an annuity from the age of 65 to meet the average living costs of those in the “second quintile” of incomes (the next tranche above the bottom 20%). In 2013, 45% of those reaching the age of 55 did not have that basic amount. Third, people’s money is tied up in their homes. To generate income, they can sublet part of their home, move to a cheaper flat or sell the final years of their lease back to the government, but many find all these options unpalatable. Singapore will face a growing problem of cashstrapped old people.

The

government has always favoured selfreliance and family support over welfare handouts. Parents http://www.economist.com/node/21657613/print 2/3 10/29/2016 The social contract | The Economist can sue children who fail to assist them. Meanstested schemes are available to help the needy and lowpaid. The jobless are funnelled into “workfare” and training. Since the 2011 election, however, the government has discovered a new generosity. Last year it announced a package of benefits for the “pioneer generation” (those born before 1950) which it has already financed with an endowment from the government’s coffers. It has also introduced modest meanstested pension payments and extended subsidised medical care. But it seems unsure whether to boast about having found a heart or remind the world that its head is still in charge.

Singapore has no slums and virtually no homelessness, the housing estates are generally clean and wellmaintained, and property values have soared over the years

New nursing homes are being built and new ways found to care for the elderly at home. In a facility for the destitute in Ang Mo Kio, some 140 older people, including many suffering from dementia, live in part of an HDB estate, three to a tworoom rented flat. It is a basic but inspiringly cheerful place, run by a charity, AWWA, but largely financed by the government. Singapore struggles with the idea that it still has some very poor people, but it accepts that some “social needs” remain unmet.

The HDB estates also represent what Singapore’s deputy prime minister, Tharman Shanmugaratnam, recently described as both the “most intrusive” and the “most important” of its social policies: the enforcement of racial quotas to prevent the formation of ethnic enclaves. Chinese, Indians and Malays are obliged to coexist at close quarters. Since a spate of race riots in the 1960s, Singapore’s government has consistently acted as though the country was just a few drinks and an inflammatory newspaper editorial away from vicious ethnic violence. But the one riot it has suffered, in 2013, was not racerelated.

Immigration policy has likewise been managed to maintain the ethnic balance. Since Chinese tend to have even fewer children than Indians and Malays, this has meant an influx of Mandarin speaking mainland Chinese who are sometimes resented by the Singaporeborn. The most common dialect of the older generation of Singaporean Chinese was Hokkien. Mandarin was hardly anybody’s first language.

Strict laws prohibit speech or writing that might cause racial or religious offence. In fact, Singapore mostly presents a picture of racial harmony. Some suspect these laws are used to silence government critics. But many Chinese who queued up to pay their respects to Lee Kuan Yew commented that few Malays seemed to join in. Malays are poorer, less well educated and account for nearly half of all arrests for drug offences. A 2012 study of the Malay community at Nanyang Technological University noted fears of the emergence of a “hardened underclass”.

From the print edition: Special report

http://www.economist.com/node/21657613/print 3/3 10/29/2016 Seven million is a crowd | The Economist

Special report: Singapore

Land and people Seven million is a crowd

Space on the island is getting tight. Singaporeans fear that foreigners are taking up too much of it Jul 18th 2015 | From the print edition

WHEN SINGAPORE SEPARATED from Malaysia, says Tan Kong Yam, an economist at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, it was as if a brain had been deprived of its lungs and legs. An urban centre with a hinterland became a country with none, depending on Malaysia for its water supply and on the outside world for its food. As a country, it was acutely short of space. One solution has been to add some: since independence Singapore has expanded by over onefifth, from 58,000 hectares (224.5 square miles) to nearly 72,000, by filling in the sea with imported sand. Marina Bay Sands itself, a number of massive office blocks and a golf course are all on land that used to be sea. The government expects the land area to grow by a further 8%, or 5,600 hectares, by 2030. But there is a natural limit to this growth.

Another option—to seek a hinterland elsewhere—has proved tricky. Wong Poh Kam, an economist at the National University of Singapore’s business school, points out that Johor, the Malaysian state just over the strait, could be to Singapore what southern mainland China has been to Hong Kong, offering land and labour at far lower prices. Johor and Singapore are already closely linked economically. Every day an estimated 50,000 Malaysians commute to work in Singapore from Johor Bahru, the state capital. Increasing numbers of Singaporeans and expatriates do the same, from new dwellings that offer more space at lower rents. But although relations with Malaysia have been excellent in recent years, Singapore does not want to be dependent on goodwill that has at times proved fickle.

Nearby Indonesian islands also provide room for Singaporean investment. Great hopes were once placed in Batam, for example, an island in the Riau archipelago as big as Singapore but with less than onefifth the population, where over 400 Singaporean firms have operations. However, http://www.economist.com/node/21657607/print 1/4 10/29/2016 Seven million is a crowd | The Economist optimism has faded as Indonesia has seen an upsurge in labour militancy. Farther afield, in the 1990s Singapore had heady visions of replicating itself as a manufacturing power in China, on 8,000 hectares of an industrial park outside the ancient Chinese city of Suzhou. It was an unhappy experience, culminating in Singapore’s ceding control of the project to the Suzhou authorities.

The shortage of land is

compounded by government policy on how it is used. Onefifth of the total, mainly secondary jungle, is reserved for the armed forces. Once space is allocated for industry, reservoirs, housing, roads and parks (including golf courses, which cover about 2% of the country), the squeeze is obvious. Yet the population, of about 5.5m now, has doubled in the past 30 years and is still expanding. In 2013 a government white paper forecast that it would increase to 5.8m6m by 2020 and 6.5m6.9m by 2030.

The immigration dilemma

This, however, assumed that Singapore would continue to take in large numbers of immigrants. Of these, between 15,000 and 25,000 each year would become new citizens, but the total number of foreigners coming in would be much higher. By 2030 the population of longstaying “permanent residents” would climb from about 500,000 now to around 600,000, and the number of “non http://www.economist.com/node/21657607/print 2/4 10/29/2016 Seven million is a crowd | The Economist resident” foreign workers would increase from the present 1.6m to 2.3m2.5m, covering both the lowpaid migrant workers who dominate the building industry, for example, and highpaid Western “expats”.

These projections have caused alarm. Already, probably more than half the people living in Singapore were not born there. That proportion seems likely to rise. Singapore has always been an immigrant society, quick to assimilate newcomers. But that openness and tolerance has frayed as some Singaporeans have felt crowded out, and foreigners are blamed for pushing up property prices and holding down wages.

The government argued the proposed levels of immigration would be necessary to maintain even moderate growth because Singaporeans are not reproducing themselves. Last year the “total fertility rate” (TFR), a notional estimate of the number of babies a woman will have over her lifetime, was 1.25, way below the replacement rate of about 2.1. Singapore is tumbling off a demographic cliff. From 2020 the number of workingage Singaporeans will decline, and by 2030 there will be only 2.1 workers for every citizen over the age of 64, compared with 6 last year.

Within the region, Hong Kong, Macau, South Korea, Taiwan and some mainland Chinese cities such as Shanghai have similar rates (Japan, a better known example, is actually a little more fecund). What is exceptional about Singapore’s TFR is that it has stubbornly resisted efforts to http://www.economist.com/node/21657607/print 3/4 10/29/2016 Seven million is a crowd | The Economist change it, stretching over more than 30 years, in contrast to other issues on which the government has focused its attention. In that time the country’s Chinese citizens, for example, have learnt Mandarin, which hardly any of them spoke as their first language. Many children, fluent in English and Mandarin, struggle to communicate with their grandparents, who speak other regional Chinese languages.

For such a persuasive government, the failure of the campaign to raise fertility suggests a lack of will. It has tried to make parenthood more attractive by offering “baby bonuses” and improved maternity and paternity leave, but if the aversion to babies has its roots in the economic cost of parenthood, maybe it is being sustained by an ideological opposition to increasing state support for childrearing and by the psychological effects of living on a small, increasingly crowded island. Whatever its cause, it has presented the government with one of its biggest political challenges: high immigration. This has become a source of great discontent, but there is no plan B.

From the print edition: Special report

http://www.economist.com/node/21657607/print 4/4 10/29/2016 A Case Against National Service | guanyinmiao's musings

guanyinmiao's musings

[email protected] GUEST CONTRIBUTION

A Case Against National Service

POSTED BY GUANYINMIAO ⋅ JUNE 20, 2014 ⋅ 24 COMMENTS FILED UNDER CSNS, MILITARY, NATIONAL SERVICE, SINGAPORE Preface. The prospect of National Service (NS) unse"les. Some of us brim with excitement, some of us cannot fathom the military regimentation and the physical exertion, and some of us question the very need for the purportedly anachronistic institution. “Why waste two years, with Singapore’s diplomacy, technology, and the disadvantages of servicemen in school and at the workplace”, the sceptics argue. And sometimes it is convenient for us who have gone through the two years to be dismissive of this perceived immaturity.

Yet there is value in responsible discourse. The Commi"ee to Strengthen NS made good recommendations, even though participants were hardly encouraged to challenge the premises of NS. I think that needs to change. I may believe that NS is needed for defence and deterrence, but we should engage Singaporeans who argue otherwise – especially the pre‑enlistees – in conversation. And hopefully this practice continues in the units. Go beyond the platitudes of “duty”, “honour”, “serving the nation”, listen, and answer the questions.

I have my disagreements with the commentary, but here is the piece by kronosception, who is due to enlist in less than a year.

—

In the Prime Minister’s 2012 National Day Message, he stated the need to “relook existing policies”, and that none of the policies were too sacred to be touched.

I wonder though, if National Service (NS) is even considered a policy, or if it has become part of Singapore as a whole? If a nation wants to relook its future, to reinvent itself, and to carve out a future for itself, surely it must relook a policy where young men (at the peak of their life) are sent for two years to a place with no opportunity to further themselves?

Sure, National Service brings many beneﬁts: discipline (regimental, nonetheless), a sense of camaraderie among young Singaporean men, and perhaps a strengthening of the “Singapore spirit” or “identity” (does one even exist?) But like it is with all policies, do the costs outweigh the beneﬁts?

Costs and Beneﬁts

This then, really begs the question: are these intangible “benefits” worth two years of a young man’s prime? In a time of relative global peace, where nation after nation is forging deeper ties with each other diplomatically and militarily – and with their fates increasingly intertwined, making them https://guanyinmiao.wordpress.com/2014/06/20/acaseagainstnationalservice/more interdependent – many would say that there is less need for such a strong army. More1/10 10/29/2016 A Case Against National Service | guanyinmiao's musings more interdependent – many would say that there is less need for such a strong army. More importantly, with Singapore’s deep coffers and large economic power, we certainly have enough money and capability to hire a large group of regulars to protect our country in place of a regular army. And surely, no definitely, Singapore has less of a need for NS than countries like South Korea and Taiwan, which face real and imminent threats of invasions. In South Korea, National Service is four months shorter. And in Taiwan, two. These are countries which face threats from their neighbours: real, declared threats which make NS geopolitically sensible.

However, the fact is that Singapore faces either imaginary threats, or real threats which an army of our current size would stand no chance against. Malaysia and Indonesia, our closest neighbours, have no interest in a"acking us because they have nothing to gain (imaginary threat). But even if they did, Malaysia’s population is easily ﬁve times of Singapore’s, and Indonesia’s is a whopping forty seven times of Singapore’s. Our active military strength – which includes reservists (350,000) and active personnel (around 72,000) – is only 420,000‑strong. On the other hand, Indonesia has 476,000 active personnel (more than six times of Singapore’s) and 52 million men ready for military service. Malaysia also has more active personnel than Singapore (124,000), and has around 640,000 reservists. They too have 12 million men ﬁt for military service.

Let’s look at that in perspective. The number of men in Malaysia ﬁt for military service is more than twice the population of Singapore, and the number of men in Indonesia ﬁt for military service is more than 10 times the population of Singapore. Are you telling me that Singapore actually stands a chance if these countries are to invade? (No, for the record.)

Singapore’s defence, therefore, is predicated on our economic ties and diplomatic efforts. Given our relative technological superiority, even if military deterrence played a part, its significance will be by no means diminished by a transition to a professional army which perhaps may cost us a few thousand, maybe a hundred thousand soldiers. Yet this number pales in comparison to the relative hordes that our neighbours have – hordes that could probably decimate Singapore using their fists if they wanted to.

What I’m saying, therefore, is simple. National Service is becoming more and more redundant or too lengthy due to the following reasons:

– A relatively long period of service compared to countries with real threats: South Korea and Taiwan. – Wasting away the time of men at the prime of their youth. – An increasing ability of Singapore to support an army completely staﬀed by regulars. – Perceived threat of Indonesia and Malaysia is more or less imagined. – In the event of aggression, military deterrence plays less importance than diplomatic defence (the United States, the Five Power Defence Agreement (FPDA), the United Nations).

Are these reasons really not enough?

The Case Against NS

Abolish conscription and put in place an army staﬀed by regulars instead. How to go about doing this? We probably have enough money to raise the salary of our regulars to a"ract more Singaporeans to serve of their own volition.

The solution and course of action is really quite clear. Abolish conscription and put in place an army staﬀed by regulars instead. How to go about doing this? We probably have enough money to raise the salary of our regulars to a"ract more Singaporeans to serve of their own volition. And this is supplemented by the extra cash we’re going to get if we reduce or end conscription (paying less people the same amount of money previously allocated to a larger group of people = more money per https://guanyinmiao.wordpress.com/2014/06/20/acaseagainstnationalservice/person). Not only does this solve the problem of conscription, it also helps – to an extent – to solv2/10e 10/29/2016 A Case Against National Service | guanyinmiao's musings person). Not only does this solve the problem of conscription, it also helps – to an extent – to solve Singapore’s labour woes. Why? Because the unemployed or underemployed have even greater incentives to enlist full‑time in the army, with be"er pay and career prospects.

This is not the only solution. It’s one possibility, a possibility I would like, but even the tiniest concession from conscription would be a logical move forward for Singapore.

Additionally, I would like to note that Malaysia is part of the FPDA, which includes the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, and Singapore. These countries have agreed to come to the defence of a country when it’s a"acked. Technically, this lowers the possibility or chance for Malaysia to be an aggressor towards Singapore, given that they would either be violating the agreement (incurring the wrath of the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand), or they would have to a"ack themselves. Which would be pre"y funny.

Ending conscription, or even moving to partial conscription gives young Singaporean men back two years of their lives, bringing a myriad of beneﬁts.

For one, it puts them on the same level as women in pursuing their studies. And do I have to mention how many relationships NS breaks up? Or how many opportunities to study NS destroys? Or even the many deaths NS has caused, and the lives it has ruined? Or how about the simple fact that not everybody is cut out for regimentation, and that it’s simply unfair to force conscription upon your country where there is no longer a need for it?

The Way Forward

The truth is, the benefits of NS are intangible, and the benefits of scrapping it are far more real and definitely outweigh the benefits of keeping it in place. So what to do?

Perhaps in the true Singaporean spirit of doing things, have a panel of ministers led by some minister (defence, perhaps) look into the policy of NS as part of an impartial policy review (I cannot stress this enough), to perhaps publish a paper to Singaporeans regarding their ﬁndings for the need of NS (obvious really, but since Singaporeans like everything in black and white), and ﬁnally to hold a referendum (or not, they could dictate, but holding a referendum really makes you more democratic) on whether or not NS should be scrapped, to remain, or for its duration to be cut short, or whatever their brilliant minds can come up with.

I’m not being sarcastic here. Our ministers are probably pre"y brilliant if they have managed to get themselves that position right? The question is, why are they not doing anything about it, or even discussing this issue in the manner it should be? That is, instead of treating it as an untouchable policy, why not objectively review it instead of pretending everybody loves NS to bits and trying to ﬁgure out how to “strengthen” it instead?

Lastly, probably many will remark that the fact I’m about to enlist makes my opinion one‑sided and not one to believe. I’m going to say that it’s exactly to the contrary. You are not going to find people willing to dedicate time and effort to reform NS more than the people about to enlist. And I think that speaks volumes about NS as a policy on the first level. But more importantly, I would think that even I myself would grow apathetic to this cause once it’s all over, because why the trouble?

So thankfully, as of this moment, I still feel intensely strongly for this issue, so I still have the energy and willpower to type this ridiculously verbose article (is it, though?). Let my snarkiness not cloud my arguments, because I do and I have considered both sides of the argument. Two years ago, I thought it was high time that NS be reviewed and reformed. Two years on, I could not feel more strongly about this. It’s high time that we do something about this, and that the government actually looks into this ma"er through an objective lens. https://guanyinmiao.wordpress.com/2014/06/20/acaseagainstnationalservice/With that, I rest my case. 3/10 10/29/2016 The Invisible Wall: The Economic Rift Singapore and the United States Global Ethics Network

Search Global Ethics Netw oSearchrk

Popular Blogs Video Groups Photos Events Forum Contests ABOUT

All Blog Posts My Blog Add

The Invisible Wall: The Economic Rift Singapore and the United States

Posted by Ng Derong Ian on May 1, 2014 at 1:31am View Blog

The Invisible Wall

A wave of capitalism has washed over the 21st century globe like an allencompassing typhoon. The free market economic model, which began in the West, has enveloped Far East nations due to a postCold War sweep of globalization. This new slate of globalization renders capitalism widespread in the 21st century. This new tsunami of capitalism in the Far East is more varied in practice and form. Areas of the world that once were underdeveloped have experienced rapid social and economic development. The use of capitalist economic modeling is now part of many governments all over the world, ranging from North Africa to Southeast Asia and the countries utilizing the free market and capitalist strategies have emerged only in the past 50 years. The United States’ form of capitalism has spread internationally; however, the core ideologies and governing style that allow its economic power to function so well in the U.S. are not necessarily shared by all nations, including Singapore. Because of historical and cultural differences, the governing style in the new capitalist societies may not translate to fair and equitable class development. The rift between established economic powers such as the United States and new powers such as Singapore is distilled by first analyzing both countries’ core philosophical influences, then examining their different governing styles and that analysis explains their uneasy relationship.

There has always existed a tension between the United States’ two differing grasps on liberty. The first strain is the Lockean concept of negative freedom, which focuses responsibility on the individual to accept ”success” or “failure” on their own. This concept has been the fundamental basis for America’s free market economy. On the other end of the spectrum, there is also a great emphasis on Jean Jacques Rousseau’s belief in positive freedom. This belief emphasizes an individual’s role in society and the responsibility of the entire population to participate in working together. This idea forms the base ideology for the United States’ form of democratic government. These two concepts of liberty have dictated America’s core philosophical platform. As such, the only substantive debate in American politics is the level of government influence wielded in economic decisions and trends. Some eras in American history have seen more or less government influence, depending on the time period, resulting in American economic fluctuations in wealth disparity and industrial development.

By all appearances, Singapore has adopted a style of governing and economic practices marked by a strong adherence to ‘Asian Values’, as taught by Confucius. Confucianism, a philosophical and ethical system derived from the teachings of Confucius, has played a pivotal role in the cultural formation and economic rise of Singapore. Singapore’s ‘Shared Values,’ first proposed by then Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong in 1988, includes principles such as ‘nation before community and society before self’ and ‘consensus, not conflict.’ In turn, academics note similarities between these values and those espoused by Confucius, who emphasized the importance of society, family, community, harmony and consensus (Tan, 1996). This observation highlights the influence that Confucianism on the cultural formation and policies adopted by Singapore. Indeed, these ‘Asian Values’ have been used to justify government policies and decisions. For instance, the Speak Mandarin campaign, launched in 1979, was aimed at promoting the ‘Asian Values’ by encouraging Singaporean Chinese to speak the language and hence retain their cultural heritage and values (Yeow, 2011). Furthermore, an examination of Singapore’s stellar economic performance in the late 20th century led Berger and Hsiao (1988) to assert that ‘Confucian ethics, as reflected in government leadership, competitive education, a disciplined workforce, principles of equality and selfreliance, and selfcultivation, provided a necessary background and powerful motivating force for the rise of East Asia’. The above examples suggest the importance and influence of Confucianism on the formation of Singapore as a nation.

While America’s and Singapore’s core philosophical approaches do not directly conflict with one another, it is important to understand how both the Rousseau and Lockean ideas on liberty has affected the United States’ government differently from Singapore’s Confucianinfluenced leadership.

Singapore decided to model itself after an autocracy that is dominated by one entrenched political party. The People’s Action Party, or PAP, has remained in power since the country’s inception. Such a phenomenon inspired neoconservative political philosopher Francis Fukuyama (1992) to describe Singapore as a soft authoritarian regime marked by two key features. Firstly, it is an integration of a marketdriven economic model and a paternalistic authoritarian government. Secondly, there is an emphasis on conformity to ‘group interests over individual rights’. While ensuring economic efficiency, such a style of government has created hesitancy amongst Western global powers that see governments, such as Singapore’s, as illfitting stewards of capitalist values. Singapore’s singleparty government and adherence to traditional Asian values are seen in the West as excessively strict and limiting.

Singapore’s government is viewed by American political culture as practicing farreaching infringementone political party allowing for unlimited business growth with no checks and balances, even though Singapore uses its oneparty leadership as a resource to efficiently build its economy. Its system of managing that economy is fundamentally incorrect when viewed by American political standards. A contemporary liberal stance in American politics would point out that Singapore’s promotion of its own businesses through its government would infringe on the Rousseauinfluenced ideology of positive liberty: that government has an inherent duty to the collective society, not just the market. A conservative stance in modern America would add that Singapore’s singleparty system is a gross government overreach and that too much is being controlleddisturbing the Lockean principle of negative liberty, which emphasizes the sovereign rights of the individual. http://www.globalethicsnetwork.org/profiles/blogs/theinvisiblewalltheeconomicriftsingaporeandtheunited1 1/6 10/29/2016 The Invisible Wall: The Economic Rift Singapore and the United States Global Ethics Network One cannot deny the contrasts between Singapore’s and the United States’ style of government. However, a closer analysis of respective value systems finds similarities as well. The perceived polarization between the two governments appears the result of deviation between the Western and Eastern cultures, which globalization has since undermined in the postcolonial era. While distinctions between Singapore’s ‘Asian values’ and United Statesstyle democracy exist, these dissimilarities are neither objective nor permanent and the two systems are able to coexist in governance. A closer analysis reveals that Asian and Western values do not contrast as strikingly as initially thought. Instead, the concept of ‘Asian values’ is more socially constructed than objective in nature and is a tool used by the political elite to consolidate power and maintain an authoritarian (or semi authoritarian) rule in their countries. Furthermore, history has demonstrated how values evolve alongside increasing levels of development in Western nations. For example, the ‘Protestant Work Ethic’ as put forth by Max Weber in 1905, presented as the spark for America’s economic dynamism and growth. However, a look at contemporary American society reveals that societal values like focus on hard work and frugality have lost their practicality as American society grew more prosperous and economically secure, thus resulting in a shift to postmodernist values that emphasize a higher quality of life over economic growth (Inglehart & Welzel, 2005). There is a good reason to believe that as Singapore continues to develop in the world market, her ‘Asian values’ will evolve to embrace and emphasize a more democratic style of government than the United States espouses. Fareed Zakaria asserted that ‘under the impact of economic growth, technological change and social transformation, no culture has remained the same.’ Indeed, facets of the ‘Asian values’ like hard work and diligence seem are aligned with the ideas espoused by the ‘Protestant Work Ethic’. Such an alignment suggests that there is room for an evolution of ‘Asian values’ that will gradually be in line with how values in the developed in the United States. Given that values are susceptible to change as a nation progresses economically, it would be incorrect to claim that Asian values are incompatible with democracy. While the two countries have different core philosophies, an opinion concerning Singapore’s governance of its population over the past years has proven similar to the United States’ desire for distance from soft authoritarianism. While the two countries have different core philosophies, Singaporean’s opinion of their government has drifted toward the United States’ repugnance of soft authoritarianism. The vote rate for the People’s Action Party, the ruling political party in Singapore, dropped significantly in recent decades (78% in 1980 to 61% in 1991) (Gomez, 2008). This suggests the increasing intolerance of Singaporeans toward an entrenched authoritarian government and more importantly, a shift in the values prioritized by Singaporeans. The United States’ discomfort with Eastern styles of government, such as Singapore’s, may well be dated and unfairly Westerncentric. As both governments clearly are influenced by their traditional philosophical approaches, a rift is developing between the United States and Singapore. The United States’ lack of understanding about Confucian ideology makes it hesitant to embrace Singapore as openly as it has other democracies in the area, such as South Korea. This reluctance has negatively affected the economic relationship between the two countries.

The concept and practice of free market capitalism is deeply imbedded in the culture and practical governing of the United States and this is true since its inception. The basis for American independence was rooted in taxation and trade rights. America’s economy is primarily influenced by the Lockean ideology of negative liberty the concept of an individual’s freedom from societal or governmental interference. The free market is a meritocracy that has worked well with the United States’ overall philosophical and governmental approach. This is because the free market is the absolute center of the United States’ culture. The United States’ economic influence has affected Singapore greatly. However, Singapore’s adoption of the United States’ free market is relatively recent. Singapore adopted a Lockean philosophy for its economy in that she has shelved many Confucian ideologies and increasingly style of government, in order to mimic the United States’ economic methods. Singapore’s impressive growth beyond so many other decolonized nations is a direct result of the adaptation of a onceexclusively Western marketplace. Nevertheless, it has adopted this Lockeaninfluenced free market system because it had no other choice but to swim faster than the competition, or drown with the wave of struggling decolonized communities in the postcolonial world.

Emerging governments are forced into fierce competition to prove their worth on an international stage, often sacrificing longstanding cultural values to fit in with the exclusive club of elite economic powers of the world. Singapore has placed itself in the position between the dominant world economies and smaller economies of its geographic region. It has allowed itself to be an intermediary between the private and public financiers of all sizes: from grotesque enormity to borderline insignificant economic influence. With its extensive network of Free Trade Agreements (numbering 18 in total) (1), Singapore has managed to open its economy and allow trade to prosper within and beyond its shores. This is testament of the leadership acumen of the Singapore government, which has proven itself savvy with smart financial decisions over the past few decades. These smart decisions deftly accomplished because of limited or no political interference was encouraged and facilitated by the soft authoritarian style of government. Singapore’s stellar economic record has allowed it to rise to the level of the global elite.

While it has grown tremendously since its birth, philosophical and governing differences may blockade Singapore from joining the establishment of economic powers that exist primarily in the West today. An example of these philosophic and governing differences manifests itself most plainly in The Economist’s 2014 Crony Capitalism Index (Planet Plutocrat). Singapore ranked 5th highest in the study, which indicates the percentage of billionaire wealth is that composes the entire country’s GDP. The Index shows Singapore’s wealth disparity on full display, a sideeffect of breakneck economic growth matched with a lack of government provision to ensure economic equality throughout the citystate. That study clearly demonstrates Singapore’s adoption of Lockean negative liberty with the runaway success of billionaires within its free market. What gives the United States (which ranked 17th) pause when interacting with Singapore is the lack of the “positive liberty” influence of Rousseau, which allows for some governmental and societal control of the free market to protect from unchecked corruption.

The United States’ political philosophy and practice is rooted in both Rousseau and Lockean principles, as well as many other influences and this has allowed its economic practices to become the most influential in the recent wave of globalization. The United States has always existed as a democratic capitalist society. This American “outside” economic influence forced Singapore into a philosophical limbo between an American capitalist agenda and its own traditional values influence its style of government and economy.

Singapore is experiencing a growing chasm in its culture. The past 60 years of tireless economic drive have become loose topsoil for a very old, wellestablished culture that remains the foundation for its culture, education and government. The United States has always existed as a democratic capitalist society. The globalizing of the outside world has written another set of rules for the citystate of Singapore, which now exists in a philosophical limbo. While it is an independent nation, the same countries that once claimed ownership now pressure Singapore to either adapt to the new capitalist paradigm or maintain its own heritage. Singapore is to changing its style of government to mimic the United States. Increasingly, it cloaks its Asian heritage, not because it is so different from the contemporary global community, but rather because established economic powers like the United States are uncomfortable when forced to interact with governments practicing ‘Soft Authoritarianism.’

The underlying philosophy of Singapore’s society is different from America’s. This difference is what creates an invisible wall between the two powers. From philosophy, to government, to economy, both nations fundamentally function under different premises and influences. The postcolonial era demonstrates what happens when one nation’s core values overtakes another. In Singapore’s case this has occurred through economic pressure from the United States and the West. Globalization has both encouraged Singapore’s independence and at the same time, forced it into autonomy with the West. While the United States continues to spread its ideological agenda, Singapore must make a decision soon as to whether it will adopt the American philosophical approach completely, or find an alternative route to preserve its own foundational culture.

Aaron Joshua Weintraub

University of Oregon

United States of America

Ng Derong Ian

Singapore Management University

Republic of Singapore

http://www.globalethicsnetwork.org/profiles/blogs/theinvisiblewalltheeconomicriftsingaporeandtheunited1 2/6 10/29/2016 A view of the Arctic's future from Singapore Alaska Dispatch News

Arcc A view of the Arctic's future -- from Singapore

 Author: Mia Bennett  Updated: May 31  Published October 8, 2015

In Singapore, they say, there are two seasons: summer outdoors and winter indoors.

On a hot and dangerously hazy night last month, the freezing-cold taxi cab from Changi Airport to my hotel proved that right. I had arrived on this tropical island nation to participate in a roundtable on the Arctic. My cab cruised past a Formula One racetrack set up for the weekend under the haze-shrouded lights of corporate regional headquarters and ve-star hotels. Singapore is an anomaly even within its own region, with its futuristic skyscrapers and shipyards sandwiched between the palm oil plantations and azure waters of Malaysia and Indonesia. But it is even more of an anomaly in the context of the normal locales of Arctic discussions. These places are relatively remote and cold cities like Tromsø, Reykjavik, Fairbanks, or St. Petersburg, which have no small shortage of experiencing winter outdoors.

Despite being thousands of miles from the North Pole, Singapore has matured into a respected Arctic player in recent years. In 2013, it gained observer status in the Arctic Council alongside four other Asian countries: China, Japan, South Korea, and India. An increasing number of Arctic forums are being held in the city-state, with this roundtable being a prime example.

Arctic Deeply, the World Policy Institute, the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore, and Guggenheim Partners sponsored the two-hour event, entitled "Asia in the Arctic: Where Things Stand." Speakers included a representative from the Singapore Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), a Chinese academic, a U.S. Coast guard, and an employee of the World Wildlife Foundation's Global Arctic Program, among others.

What's notable, however, is that there were no representatives from the energy industry. Unlike at conferences in, Norway, Alaska, or Russia, exploiting Arctic oil and gas was not really a topic of much discussion -- and in Singapore, there's a reason for that.

A nation of capacity builders

Whereas China, Japan, and South Korea arguably desire to import Arctic oil and gas, Singapore is not as interested in importing the region's natural resources as it is in exporting its own technologies to help develop them. Despite having no oil and gas resources of its own, the city-state has a highly developed, home-grown offshore oil and gas sector. Keppel Corporation, which the Singaporean state still inuences through a state-owned investment company, is one of the world's largest manufacturers of offshore oil rigs. Keppel also has several subsidiaries engaged in Arctic research and development. Keppel Singmarine has manufactured ice-class vessels in the Arctic for Russian oil company Lukoil, while Keppel Offshore and Marine Technology is researching offshore rigs, ice-worthy jackups, and other ice-ready technology.

All of this will likely keep Singapore at the edge of the Arctic resource frontier. Possessing the technology rather than the resources also endows Singapore with the exibility to go wherever the resources are being developed -- and indeed to help break open new frontiers -- rather than, like many Arctic states, having to wait passively for the commodities cycles to tick back up while trying to lure investors.

One Singaporean ofcial mentioned to me, "We're capacity builders." The country sees itself as providing services to other parts of the world rather than as having an interest in directly exploiting natural resources. (That said, Singapore does import almost all of its vital goods, from food to oil to even water, from Malaysia.) As the country only https://www.adn.com/arctic/article/blogsingaporeandarctic/2015/10/08/ 1/6 10/29/2016 A view of the Arctic's future from Singapore Alaska Dispatch News industrialized and modernized beginning in the 1960s following independence from Malaysia, Singapore sees itself as being able to offer its experience to other developing countries. To that end, the country recently welcomed several delegations from the Arctic.

As Kamal Vaswani, Acting Director-General, Europe Directorate from the Singapore MFA, explained in his talk during the Arctic roundtable, "Leaders of the Permanent Participants visited Singapore last November and had exchanges with our ofcials on various aspects of public policy, from sustainable development to cultural preservation. This included representatives from the Aleut International Association (AIA), Arctic Athabaskan Council (AAC), the Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North (RAIPON), the Saami Council, and the Arctic Council Indigenous Peoples Secretariat. From 7 to 10 September 2015, members of the AAC also participated in a short course on climate change adaptation strategies in Singapore, conducted under the Singapore Cooperation Programme."

Furthermore, in collaboration with the Arctic Council's Permanent Participants (all of which represent indigenous peoples' organizations), Singapore has also established a postgraduate scholarship program allowing students of indigenous descent from the Arctic to come to the Southeast Asian country to study public policy, public administration, and maritime studies. Such programs represent the new forms of knowledge exchange that can occur thanks to Asian involvement in the Arctic Council. These endeavors will also hopefully enable indigenous peoples to return home with the skills that will allow them to better manage and hold on to revenues from extraction and shipping instead of having to rely on managers from the outside.

Arctic shipping: a distant threat

The Arctic represents more than just opportunities for Singapore. The city-state's government is watching developments in the region with a wary eye, for should the Northern Sea Route or other trans-Arctic passages become fully edged shipping routes sometime this century, it could threaten Singapore's position as a hub for Asia-Europe trade. Currently, some 70 to 80 percent of oil bound for China and Japan passes through the Strait of Malacca. If these countries were to turn to the Arctic for either its resources or as a shipping shortcut, Singapore could see a good portion of its business decline.

One doesn't have to travel far to understand how port cities can swiftly fall from prominence. The city of Melaka (Malacca) is less than a three hours' drive north of Singapore. Nearly six hundred years ago thanks to its position halfway between China and India near the narrowest part of the Strait of Malacca, under the leadership of Hindu prince Parameswara, Melaka became one of the most important trading ports within the Asian shipping network. But in 1509, the Portuguese conquest disrupted Melaka's position at the center of the Asian trading network. With the European conquerors focused on fortifying their new-found trading post and staving off attacks, ships moved to more peaceful ports along the Strait.

Now, Melaka is now a UNESCO World Heritage Site welcoming tourists rather than cargo ships. Ships never returned in their former numbers. Today, while they still pass through the Strait of Malacca, they make their ports of call at Singapore instead, and sometimes alternatively Kuala Lumpur (Klang) or Johore in Malaysia.

https://www.adn.com/arctic/article/blogsingaporeandarctic/2015/10/08/ 2/6 10/29/2016 A view of the Arctic's future from Singapore Alaska Dispatch News Singapore is hardly resting on its laurels, and the threat of outside invasion is presently negligible (though Malaysia and Indonesia, as relative giants compared to Singapore, still remain on the government's radar). The success of its port is more than just an accident of geography. For decades, the government has made investments into its port to keep it world-class while promoting an extremely liberal trade regime. The government has also directed expansion into other transportation sectors like air travel and logistics, with Singapore Air and Changi Airport enjoying top- notch reputations within the industry.

But should climate change melt away the ice cap at the top of the world -- and, equally importantly -- should Arctic states make the requisite investments in infrastructure, services, and logistics like Singapore has, then the equatorial city-state could see its central position within global shipping networks threatened. More seriously, of course, climate change also represents an existential threat to a low-lying island nation like Singapore, which ofcials have repeatedly stressed in speeches at Arctic conferences.

A more watery future still remains a long way away. For now, Singapore is keeping an eye on the North while welcoming its indigenous residents to its air-conditioned universities, board rooms, and government ofces to learn the same skills that helped transform the sleeping shing village into a modern port.

This post rst appeared on Cryopolitics, an Arctic news and analysis blog.

This story is posted on Alaska Dispatch News as part of Eye on the Arctic, a collaborative partnership between public and private circumpolar media organizations.

Blog Business General SPECIAL FEATURES Asia Ice Breakers Shipping

About this author

Mia Bennett

Mia Bennett graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from the University of California, Los Angeles in 2010 with degrees in Political Science and European Studies and minors in Geospatial Information Systems & Technology, Scandinavian, and French. She focuses on the politics of Arctic resource management and Canadian infrastructure, and is interested in the application of GIS technology to Arctic dilemmas. She speaks French, Swedish, and is learning Russian. She freelances for the magazine ReNew Canada and currently lives in New York City.

Alaska Dispatch News uses Civil Comments. Please keep your comments on-topic, focus on the issue and avoid personal insults, harassment and abuse. Read the user guide.

0 Comments 

https://www.adn.com/arctic/article/blogsingaporeandarctic/2015/10/08/ 3/6 10/29/2016 The years that were fat | The Economist

Special report: Singapore

The economy The years that were fat

After decades of prudence, Singapore is well prepared for most eventualities Jul 18th 2015 | From the print edition

FIFTY YEARS OF breakneck growth have left Singapore’s economy in a position of enviable strength. Since 1976, GDP growth has averaged 6.8% a year. The past decade has seen vertiginous swings, from a slight recession in 2009 as the global crisis battered a very tradedependent economy to a 15.2% leap in GDP in 2010. Since then growth has stabilised in the range of 24% a year, which the government expects to continue for the next few years. Unemployment is low, just under 2%, and prices are subdued without stoking worries about deflation. The national finances look just as robust. Thanks to the CPF, Singapore enjoys a very high saving rate: nearly 50% of GDP. With investment averaging a still impressive 30% or so of GDP a year, the country has a structural surplus on its current account which last year reached 19% of GDP, a higher proportion than in any other developed economy. It also maintains a consistent fiscal surplus in conventional terms. The constitution mandates that the budget must be balanced over the political cycle, but ringfences half of the projected longterm investment income earned on the government’s reserves. When all the returns were added in, estimated the IMF, the surplus for the fiscal year ending March 2014 was 5.7% of GDP, compared with the official figure of 1.1%.

The full extent of the country’s reserves is a closely guarded secret. They are managed by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS, the central bank) and two sovereignwealth funds, the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) and Temasek Holdings. The government defends the opaque structure as a necessity: should the Singapore dollar ever come under attack, it can keep the assailants guessing. Nevertheless, the secrecy gives rise to occasional rumours that the reserves are smaller—or more probably bigger—than most suspect.

Singapore seems well placed to withstand an external financial crisis. It is a diversified economy with a strong manufacturing base as well as many service industries. But it is, its officials like to say, “at an inflection point”. It cannot continue as it has done because a growth model that relies on so many immigrant workers is unsustainable and has already become politically contentious. The government has been trying to prepare for change, with a typically intense focus on the core issue of labour productivity.

http://www.economist.com/node/21657609/print 1/3 10/29/2016 The years that were fat | The Economist A white paper on population in 2013 made a number of assumptions about the productivity of Singaporean workers in order to calculate how many foreigners might be needed. It worked out that, even with the controversially high levels of immigration it projected, Singapore would have to reverse a longterm slide in productivity if it wanted to maintain GDP growth of 23% a year between now and 2030. Productivity grew at an annual average of 5.2% in the 1980s and 3.1% in the 1990s but just 1.8% in the 2000s. The White Paper set a target of a 23% annual increase in average productivity for 201030. If Singapore falls short of that target, it will have to get used either to slower economic growth or even more immigrants.

At the micro level, says Ravi Menon, managing director of the MAS, it is possible to see some “positive mindset shifts to increase efficiency”, but “the macro productivity numbers are still not showing it.” In 2013 productivity increased by just 0.3%, and last year it actually fell by 0.8%. Some of the structural changes being made to improve it—notably rebalancing the education system towards more vocational and skills training and greater emphasis on creativity—will take years to make a difference. But measures such as the establishment of a S$2 billion fund to help businesses innovate and automate, and an increase in the levies employers must pay to hire foreign workers, might have been expected to provide a boost already.

A big part of the solution, the government hopes, lies in cyberspace. Singapore has invested heavily in the infrastructure of the internet: exchanges and islandwide broadband access at home, and undersea cables that route much of the internet traffic between Japan and Europe through Singapore. But despite high internet usage and smartphone penetration, it scores less well on an “e intensity” index developed by BCG, a consultancy, than countries such as South Korea, Denmark and even Britain. The index measures the availability of digital infrastructure, internet use by businesses, government and consumers, and spending on online commerce and advertising. Michael Meyer of BCG says Singapore falls short in three “output factors”—the adoption of e commerce; the use of the internet in small and mediumsized enterprises; and in advertising spending.

One initiative that may help change that is the government’s “Smart Nation” drive, involving a further improvement of internet connectivity, the deployment of sensors all over the island to garner more big data and the use of those data to develop new applications. Some interesting ideas are in the works. In transport, these include pointtopoint buses on commuting routes where demand is high, and driverless taxis for the “last mile” to the tube station; in health care there is already an app that alerts those trained in first aid of an emergency nearby; and in caring for the elderly, an alert might be sent to family or neighbours if, say, a tap has not been used for a while.

In the retail, hospitality and construction industries especially, the addiction to cheap foreign labour seems hard to kick. Government officials point to promising developments: online checkin for flights; restaurants offering iPads in lieu of waiters; supermarkets moving to selfcheckout tills; security guards being replaced with cameras. But counterexamples are also legion: the handyman who used to do the job himself in 30 minutes but now employs two Sri Lankans to do it in an hour; the employers sometimes caught with “ghost” Singaporean workers on their books for whom they pay CPF contributions so they can get a foreignworker quota. As one government official notes, it is a feature of inflection points that things can go either way. http://www.economist.com/node/21657609/print 2/3 10/29/2016 The years that were fat | The Economist

Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore: An astonishing record (http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/03/leekuanyewssingapore)

From the print edition: Special report

http://www.economist.com/node/21657609/print 3/3 10/29/2016 The rich are always with us | The Economist

Special report: Singapore

Inequality The rich are always with us

But we don’t like them that much Jul 18th 2015 | From the print edition

MEASURED BY ITS Gini coefficient, Singapore is among the world’s most unequal countries. The comparison is unfair: Singapore is also a city, and Hong Kong, New York and London all have higher Gini coefficients than it does. But Singapore measures its coefficient rather differently, excluding shorterterm foreign workers and nonworking families. And, understandably, it includes employers’ CPF contributions as income. Since these are capped for higherpaid workers, that narrows the income gap.

Egalitarians are troubled by Singapore’s reliance on several hundred thousand lowpaid foreigners. They are ubiquitous on building sites. Many live in crowded dormitories or worse. The frustrations some suffer were exposed by a riot in December 2013 after an Indian construction worker, on his Sunday off, was run over and killed by a bus. But such events are highly unusual.

Lee Hsien Loong thinks Singapore should not fret overly about its inequality rankings. “If I can get another ten billionaires to move to Singapore,” he said in 2013, “my Gini coefficient will get worse but I think Singaporeans will be better off, because they will bring in business, bring in opportunities, open new doors and create new jobs.” A generation ago people at all levels of society believed that a rising tide would lift all ships: they were better off than their parents, and knew their children would be better off still.

But that may no longer be true. In April, in one of a stimulating series of lectures to mark SG50, Ho Kwon Ping, a successful businessman, discussed waning faith in meritocracy. He warned that “the original social leveller”, the education system, may now “perpetuate intergenerational class stratification”. Only 40% of the children in the most prestigious primary schools live in HDB flats, home to about 80% of all children.

http://www.economist.com/node/21657611/print 1/2 10/29/2016 The rich are always with us | The Economist Singapore’s government, unlike New York’s or London’s, is its citizens’ overall tax authority, and its tax system is regressive. It has no capitalgains or inheritance taxes, and income tax is low: even after a recent rise, the top rate is 22%. In future elections it will face growing pressure to redistribute wealth more actively. At every stage it will balk, wary of the “slippery slope” towards effete welfarism. But it has the resources.

From the print edition: Special report

http://www.economist.com/node/21657611/print 2/2 10/29/2016 Many spokes to its hub | The Economist

Special report: Singapore

Business and finance Many spokes to its hub

In managing Singapore’s global business niches, the government still seems ahead of the game Jul 18th 2015 | From the print edition

THE COMPARISON WITH Hong Kong is inevitable. Both are thriving ports and financial centres; both have Chinesemajority populations and legal systems inherited from the British. But in the past 30 years Singapore and Hong Kong have trodden very different economic paths. With the opening of China, Hong Kong’s manufacturing industry shifted over the border, falling from about 20% of GDP in 1980 to just 1% now (see chart). In Singapore, it has dropped from about 28% a decade ago, but only to 19%. That is far below the 30% or so seen in places such as China, South Korea or Taiwan, but far above the levels in other developed countries such as America, Britain, France or Spain, let alone Hong Kong.

Yet Singapore faces many of the same pressures as its main regional rival: land scarcity, a tight labour market and competition from lowercost neighbours. The decision to retain a manufacturing base has been the government’s. It provides 420,000 jobs, many of them highskilled. RollsRoyce, for example, a British aerospace and marineengineering firm, has what it describes as its most modern manufacturing, training and research facility in Singapore. Of the 2,200 people it employs there, 90% are natives, mostly graduates of technical institutes.

The government argues that manufacturing nurtures the “ecosystem”—a favourite word—that sustains a financial and business hub. It also reflects historical insecurities: the yearning for a degree of selfsufficiency. For example, despite having no hydrocarbon reserves, Singapore is the world’s thirdlargest producer of refined oil for export and has expanded into downstream petrochemicals.

Singapore has moved consistently up the value chain. Electronics is one example. In the 1980s, thanks to Seagate, an American firm, and other multinationals, Singapore accounted for 60% of harddisk drives (HDDs) shipped globally. As production moved to Thailand, Malaysia and China in http://www.economist.com/node/21657612/print 1/5 10/29/2016 Many spokes to its hub | The Economist the 1990s,

Singapore became the centre for production of highermargin “enterprise HDDs”. By the early 2000s Singapore had 80% of this global market and had already begun to shift to the next level, harddisk media, in which it now has a market share of about 40%.

The strategy has been to spot opportunities and to make investment irresistibly attractive for multinationals. Five priorities for future “growth clusters” were listed in this year’s budget: advanced manufacturing; aerospace and logistics; applied health sciences; “smart urban solutions”; and financial services. Singapore, says Beh Swan Gin, chairman of the Economic Development Board, which promotes inward investment, is now seeking a “much more expansive role” in the business activities of the firms located there—not just as an offshore manufacturing location but as home to many more of their functions.

When it comes to domestic business, it is striking, in a country that boasts about keeping the state lean, how many of its most successful companies are “GLCs” (“governmentlinked”) in which, through Temasek, the government has a substantial stake. They include DBS (the largest domestic bank); NOL (shipping); SingTel (telecoms); SMRT (public transport); ST Engineering (highend engineering services); CapitaLand (property); Keppel (marine engineering, such as jackup rigs, in which Singapore has a 70% global market share); and SembCorp (marine engineering and utilities). http://www.economist.com/node/21657612/print 2/5 10/29/2016 Many spokes to its hub | The Economist Besides thriving property developers, Singapore does have innovative and expansive private companies, such as BreadTalk, a baker with a presence in 15 countries; Charles & Keith, an international chain of shoe shops; and Hyflux, which is building an export market using Singapore’s expertise in power and watermanagement. But Singapore’s bestknown brand remains that of a GLC: Singapore Airlines, its flagcarrier.

There is another, however: its own, as a city that works. It sees great potential in marketing its urban services. Its second governmental joint venture in China, for example, after the illstarred Suzhou industrial park, is to develop an “ecocity” in Tianjin. And a consortium of Singaporean firms is to design a new capital for the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh.

Singapore is also trying to establish itself as a hub for tech startups. This seems ambitious. It is a much more relaxed place than it was, with a lively cultural and entertainment scene, but it lacks Berlin’s vibes and Silicon Valley’s appeal as a financial and technological hub. Singapore’s government is throwing some money at the tech business and has attracted some venture capitalists and incubators as well. Its small size and excellent infrastructure makes it, they point out, a good place to try things out.

One place where they experiment is in Block 71, a oncecondemned factory block near shiny new glassandsteel edifices flaunting Singapore’s newindustry ambitions. Block 71 is now full of young startups. In the office of the Joyful Frog Digital Incubator, they are working on ventures such as Hijab2go, an app that allows Muslim women to model hijabs on their selfies before they buy. Wong Meng Weng of Joyful Frog says that young Singaporeans are becoming more interested in starting their own businesses. But an anecdotal impression is that Block 71 is dominated by foreigners, attracted in part by government money. As a technology hub, Singapore still lacks critical mass.

The Wimbledon effect

In finance as in manufacturing, Singapore plays host to the world’s biggest institutions but rarely wins prizes itself. Its three local banks—DBS, UOB and OCBC—are protected in their local market, a bone of contention when Singapore negotiates freetrade agreements and an irritation to foreign visitors, who find it harder to pinpoint a hole in the wall that will accept their debit cards than they do in Ulaanbaatar or Mandalay. In terms of market capitalisation, Singapore’s stock exchange is dwarfed by those in Hong Kong, Shanghai and Tokyo, its main regional rivals as financial centres.

Yet the city has overtaken Shanghai and Tokyo to become the largest centre in its timezone for foreignexchange trading, and globally lags behind only New York and London. Asked how it has managed this, Marshall Bailey, president of ACI, the Financial Markets Association, points to its being Englishspeaking and having high standards of governance. It is also, of course, Chinese speaking, and is the biggest offshore trading centre for the Chinese yuan outside Hong Kong. Besides that, it is a centre for derivativestrading and for the insurance industry, as well as home to 14,000 commodity traders and a thriving base for asset management and private banking, fast catching up with Switzerland. It is also gaining in importance as a legal centre for international arbitration.

http://www.economist.com/node/21657612/print 3/5 10/29/2016 Many spokes to its hub | The Economist According to a report by Deloitte, a professionalservices firm, the volume of private wealth under management in Singapore increased by 24% last year, but in global rankings it was overtaken by Hong Kong, with a rise of 140%. Policymakers like to point to the paradox that Singapore’s greatest disadvantage is being so far from China, the emerging regional economic superpower, yet that is also its biggest advantage. Over time, Hong Kong is steadily becoming more Chinese, even ahead of its scheduled full absorption into China in 2047. The struggle over constitutional reform also means that political stability there is no longer a given. Shanghai will become an ever more important financial centre, but, like Tokyo, it will be dominated by its local economy.

One of the city’s biggest failures has been that its public transport system has not kept up with population growth

So in finance as in other businesses, Singapore should be able to keep its pivotal role. With plenty of English and Mandarinspeakers, it can exploit opportunities with emerging Asia’s two biggest economies, India and China. And its development, infrastructure and institutions remain years ahead of other cities in its neighbourhood. SouthEast Asia is itself a fastgrowing region of over 600m people and an aggregate GDP of $2.5 trillion. Singapore still retains the assets that made it an important trading hub in the 14th century, and again after Stamford Raffles selected it as a base in 1819: its geographical location at the end of the Malacca Strait and a fine natural harbour. Indeed, in keeping with Singapore’s knack for building to meet expected demand, its harbour, already the world’s secondbiggest container port (after Shanghai) and busiest transshipment port, is being moved to the western end of the island, doubling its capacity. At the other tip of the island, a fourth terminal is being added to Changi airport; a fifth is planned. Capacity, currently 67m passengers a year, will double. (Last year 54m passengers used the airport.)

Given the economy’s strengths, Singapore’s officials can perhaps be forgiven for seeming smug at times. But they are also, as one of their diplomats puts it, “worstcasescenario people”, acutely aware of what could go wrong. One is that the quality of life—the “soft” factors that make Singapore so attractive to foreign investors—might deteriorate. The city’s air is relatively clean (except when poisoned by fumes from forest fires in Indonesia); international schools of all sorts are available; taxes and crime are low; bureaucracy is efficient; things work.

Population growth might threaten that, particularly if it leads to traffic gridlock, “the easiest way to strangle Singapore”, according to Kishore Mahbubani, dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School. One of the city’s biggest failures, he argues, has been that its publictransport system has not kept up with population growth, despite the hectic pace of undergroundrailway construction. Buying a car is very expensive, thanks to the rationing and auctioning of licences (currently an excruciating S$66,000 for a small vehicle). But running costs are quite low, despite an electronic roadpricing system that penalises drivers in the centre of town and at peak hours, so there is a perverse incentive to drive. And car ownership is still part of the “Singaporean dream”. Taxis are cheap but can be hard to find, especially when it rains. Space for new roads is scarce; precious heritage, such as the old national library, has already been lost to trafficflow improvements. The government has recognised the dangers. With better public transport, it may be politically possible to steer Singapore away from the car.

http://www.economist.com/node/21657612/print 4/5 10/29/2016 Singapore’s forced housing integration fueled its economic success — Quartz

SOCIAL ENGINEERING Singapore’s forced housing integration fueled its economic success Ruchika Tulshyan June 24, 2015

 Integration, whether you like it or not. (Reuters/Edgar Su)

Singapore’s economic achievements are impressive. A nation roughly the size of Manhattan, it still consistently ranks among the top ve richest countries in the http://qz.com/436056/singaporesforcedhousingintegrationfueleditseconomicsuccess/ 1/4 10/29/2016 Singapore’s forced housing integration fueled its economic success — Quartz world. However, the international media rarely focuses on Singapore’s success as an ethnically diverse and inclusive society, particularly in comparison with most other developed nations.

No doubt, it is not a perfectly equal society, nor claims to be. I myself have previously written about facing racial prejudice when I was growing up in Singapore. But Singaporeans of all ethnicities have unequivocal access to education and job opportunities. The country operates as a meritocracy where talent and determination is prized above race and connections. As many Western nations tackle the challenge of leveling the playing eld for their citizens of all racial and economic backgrounds, Singapore presents a fascinating case study.

Singapore’s deputy prime minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam recently linked the republic’s economic success to its diverse society. This inclusive society was deliberately engineered by the government’s “intrusive” housing policies, he said in May during the 45th annual St. Gallen Symposium held in St. Gallen, Switzerland. This dialogue starts about eight minutes into the video and resurfaces throughout the presentation.

An investigative interview: Singapore 50 years after independence - 45th St. Gallen...

About 85% of Singaporeans today live in public housing estates and 90% of citizens are homeowners. The public housing estates, managed by the government, have an http://qz.com/436056/singaporesforcedhousingintegrationfueleditseconomicsuccess/ 2/4 10/29/2016 Singapore’s forced housing integration fueled its economic success — Quartz enforced ethnic quota. Maximum proportions are set for the residents from various ethnic groups in these blocks of apartments. This helps “prevent the formation of racial enclaves and promote ethnic integration,” according to the government’s website. Sales of a new or resale apartment are not approved to a buyer from a particular ethnic group if it would lead to that group’s limit being exceeded.

“When it was rst done, I don’t think we knew how important it would be,” Shanmugaratnam, who is also the country’s nance minister, told the audience in St. Gallen. “Once people live together, they’re not just walking the same corridors every day, they’re not just taking the same elevators up and down, their kids go to the same schools… and they grow up together.” As a result of this policy Singapore has long enjoyed the benets of an integrated society where citizens of all races live and work together, he said. Citizens are also free to practice their religion and culture without fear of prejudice or persecution.

The British presenter Stephen Sackur challenged him repeatedly on the “authoritarian” nature of this policy. In turn, Shanmugaratnam pointed to the challenges faced by liberal Western societies today. He cited examples from Baltimore, and the state of Muslim populations in the UK and France, stating that without a social strategy to harness diversity, segregation and inequalities often run rampant. “The lessons coming out of all of our societies show that neighborhoods matter… it matters tremendously in the daily inuences that shape your life and the traps you fall into,” he said.

Would a similar experiment work in America?

Singapore’s model is not applicable for most countries and has rightfully drawn criticism for being too prescriptive. Shanmugaratnam himself admitted that policies like these will continue to evolve as Singapore faces new challenges of free-owing information, immigration and rising income inequality.

But maintaining status quo isn’t helping many liberal nations struggling to integrate diverse populations of all socioeconomic backgrounds either. Consider America, which is now the most unequal of all Western nations. The US also lags in social mobility behind Canada and Western Europe. As tragedies like Ferguson are becoming more

http://qz.com/436056/singaporesforcedhousingintegrationfueleditseconomicsuccess/ 3/4 10/29/2016 Singapore’s forced housing integration fueled its economic success — Quartz commonplace, it’s imperative to explore models where inclusion comes from the topdown, rather than left to natural forces.

An inclusive society doesn’t happen naturally

Defending the Singaporean government’s social micro-management, Shanmugaratnam said: “If we believe in social inclusion, if we believe in opportunities for all, we have to accept it doesn’t happen automatically because of the invisible hand of the market or the invisible hand of society.” He went on to highlight how in many societies, “you’ve got policies that went in the other direction and they trap people…where they started. If you’re black, if you’re low-income, you end up where you started.”

The self-segregation by race we see all over America or prohibitions on individual expression such as France’s burqa ban, are not sustainable solutions for countries looking to foster thriving diverse societies. Singapore’s housing policy would hardly be palatable to Western voters, but it has nonetheless managed to create a nonviolent and inclusive society.

Citizens that live harmoniously in multiethnic neighborhoods are often more indicative of inclusiveness than diverse populations that remain segregated along class and race lines. It’s akin to corporations with diverse employees but where inuence is concentrated in the hands of few white men.

The rest of the interview is also worth a watch. Shanmugaratnam discusses welfare, the role of the government in shaping the economy and the dichotomy between liberty and political constraints.

A version of this piece originally appeared on Forbes. Follow Ruchika on Twitter at @rtulshyan. We welcome your comments at [email protected].

http://qz.com/436056/singaporesforcedhousingintegrationfueleditseconomicsuccess/ 4/4 10/29/2016 Singapore’s ban on public drinking is really aimed at its lowpaid foreign laborers — Quartz

Singapore’s ban on public drinking is really aimed at its lowpaid foreign laborers Lily Kuo January 20, 2015

 Migrant workers on their day off, at Singapore's Marina Bay Sands. (Reuters/Tim Chong)

Singapore is considering a partial ban on public drinking. According to a bill (pdf) introduced in parliament yesterday, those caught drinking in public between 10:30pm http://qz.com/329426/singaporesbanonpublicdrinkingisreallyaimedatitslowpaidforeignlaborers/ 1/3 10/29/2016 Singapore’s ban on public drinking is really aimed at its lowpaid foreign laborers — Quartz and 7am would be subject to nes of up to S$1,000 ($800) and up to three months in jail for repeat offenses. Retail outlets would also be barred from selling liquor after 10:30 pm, though alcohol can still be served in pubs and restaurants. Being drunk in public is also a punishable offense (pdf, p. 18).

It’s a strange regulation to impose on a small city-state with one of the world’s lowest rates of alcohol consumption—about 2 liters per capita, compared to 9.2 in the United States, 11.6 in the United Kingdom, and 12.3 in South Korea. That may be because the bill is actually aimed at Singapore’s growing population of foreign workers, who make up a third of the work force, largely in low-paying jobs such as house cleaners or construction workers.

Though the idea of a partial ban was rst oated in 2012, the real impetus for the ban likely comes from riots that broke out in Singapore’s neighborhood of Little India in December 2013, after a South Indian man was accidentally run over and killed by a bus driver ferrying foreign workers back to their dormitories. More than 400 bystanders— mostly workers from India, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh—subsequently rioted. Activists and NGOs said their long-standing complaints about abuse at work, unfair contracts, and low pay may have played a role.

In the wake of the riots, some ofcials and residents accused the workers of posing a threat to social stability. Immediately after the riots, the government banned public drinking in Little India. (Increasing instances of drunk expats behaving badly in Singapore may also be a factor in the new legislation.)

http://qz.com/329426/singaporesbanonpublicdrinkingisreallyaimedatitslowpaidforeignlaborers/ 2/3 10/29/2016 Singapore’s ban on public drinking is really aimed at its lowpaid foreign laborers — Quartz

A little over 70% of Singapore’s 1.3 million foreign workers are low-wage migrant workers who earn less than $1,400 a month, much of which goes to pay back employment agencies that placed them. Workers have few legal means to demand owed compensation from their employers and little recourse if they are hurt on the job. (In 2013, employers left an injured worker from Myanmar in an alley where he later died.) A study by the Singapore Management University found that 65% of workers who made claims related to injury or salary said their employers threatened them with repatriation.

The current bill proposes maintaining the Little India drinking ban, along with the same restriction in another neighborhood popular with Chinese foreign workers, Geylang. The bill also classies dormitories for foreign employees—where most of these workers live, on the fringes of the island or near construction sites—as “public spaces” and therefore subject to the drinking limitations. Given their low wages, they’re not likely to go to restaurants and pubs as an alternative.

Tin Pei Ling, a government ofcial on a parliamentary committee for home affairs, told the Straits Times, “An island-wide ban may be somewhat blunt, but I think it is necessary. This is because if the measures apply only to certain areas, drinkers will simply be displaced to other areas.”

http://qz.com/329426/singaporesbanonpublicdrinkingisreallyaimedatitslowpaidforeignlaborers/ 3/3