week 9: societal policies and impact

1. state: defining good life

2. social implications
3. critiques

1
 1. state: defining good life
-https://data.worldbank.org/country/singapore
https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/singapore/overview
GDP per capita: US$54,530 (2017); GDP growth: 3.2% (2018)

GDP increase exponentially after the .com

bubble burst and SARS outbreak

Usually mature economy start to be constant

but SG despite being a mature economy GDP
still increase quite high

2
-“one-party state” for three generations (Lim 2014: 6)
good life = materiality
sustained high growth
“…the government cannot afford to allow this desire for contentment to take root as part of Singaporean everyday
life. For a government whose claim to legitimacy to rule is based on the ability continually to improve the material
life of the population, the logic of global capitalism is unavoidable. It is the logic of staying on the competitive edge,
without rest, because to rest content is to risk being overtaken and sliding backwards relative to other nations,
which in turn would bring into question the legitimacy of the government itself. For the government, it is a
‘marathon without end’. Hence it seeks both to ‘per-sonalize’ the problem of stress as individual failure to compete
and to ‘culturalize’ it as the population’s declining ‘cultural capacity’ or reluctance to manage stress. It should be
noted that the government did not adopt a psycho-medicalized view of stress because the evidence for such a view
—for example, higher rates of divorce and suicide—is being redeployed elsewhere by the government. Such data
are read as symptomatic of the insidious individualism brought about by the global reach of Westernization.” --
Chua Beng Huat 1997: 165.

SG gov get to define a lot what the economy should be cuz PAP rule since beginning

Political legitimacy is always like how the gov can keep the Nation’s growth

Gov : stress is your own problem ur own failure deal urself

3
-state’s single-mindedness
no open discussion of common economic future
Economic Review Committee (2001), Economic Strategies Committee (2009), Committee on the Future Economy
(2016)
soft authoritarianism
“Singapore did not believe in the Western liberal democratic model which developed in the last half-century as
the pinnacle of human achievement and the solution for the whole of the world.” -- Prime Minister Lee Hsien
Loong, Straits Times 23 July 2009; cited in Chua 2017: 10.
suppressing opposition, alternative voices
NB: Societies Act, Public Entertainment and Licensing Act; also Marxist Conspiracy (1987), Roy Ngerng (2014)
ISA still in place, nb Malaysia repeal 2012
Whatever discuss is the economy review committee is being implemented, no open discussion  very single mindedness
Very little public discussion despite being a major shift of the direction of SG
Public Entertainment and Licensing Act  need a police licence if not can get sue (Hong Ling park right oso)
Marxist Conspiracy  many arrested under internal security act (arrested without trial) [many that involved are belong to
catholic church
Not allowed to speak unless you form a registered a political party  but PAP is very well known in suing opposition until
bankruptcy
ISA provides gov a very great power  very easy for the gov to do in the politics’ interest  mostly for the economic direction
In Malaysia ISA ady being repealed

4
2. social implications
-everyday life: “marathon without end” for a “materialist Utopia” – Chua 1997: 157, 165
“marathon race without an end” – Chua 2017: 96
-i. for school-going children: ever-competitive rat race
shifting emphasis: 1997 new initiative in education: “Thinking Schools, Learning Nation”
a. information technology (IT): IT future and Knowledge-Based Economy (KBE)
b. National Education civics initiative: Total Defence Initiative
most recent: teaching creativity
streaming/ranking, even earlier at P4; EM1, EM2, EM3, subject-based banding

marathon without end  SG gov continue to pursue better GDP  ppl has to keep on follow the action as well
 affects the ppl everyday life  marathon without end as well
1960s  children  training ground to be as a skill technician, business for the new industry etc  schooling
experience has to transform as well
Many emphasis on IT  suddenly got computer lesson  came to a brief stop after .com bubble burst
1997 MOE launch National Education civics initiative: Total Defence Initiative  implemented streaming of
the young student  to serve different economic purposes in the future
Streaming and ranking was start at a even younger age  then change to subject-based banding (no more
EM3) [foundational or standard curriculum]
5
-tuition becomes a must
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/7-in-10-parents-send-their-children-
for-tuition-st-poll (2015-07-04)
80% primary school, 70% for secondary, nearly 40% in preschool

https://www.todayonline.com/commentary/tuition-has-ballooned-s14b-industry-
singapore-should-we-be-concerned (2019-09-12)
$650million (2004), $1.1billion (2013), $1.4billion (2018)

-the “Learn for Life” movement

https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/opening-address-by-mr-ong-ye-kung--minister-
for-education--at-the-schools-work-plan-seminar (2018-09-28)
•Rat race is getting earlier and earlier

6
-ii. for working adults
shifting viability of economic sectors  high volatility for domestic labour force
retrenchment
Committee on the Future Economy (CFE) Report (2017)
skills upgrade i.e. continuous retraining, neverending stuggle/insecurity
concomitantly, the “Learn for Life” movement for schools
also for elderly: “lifelong learning”
Marathon without end not only for young children but for adult as well

Given the speed of how economic changing rapidly in SG what u study can be irrelevant after 10
years  skills can be completely irrelevant overnight

A lot of retrenchment  some ady too old too late to change  implication to the own private
life
Get ready to lose your job anytime and hopefully skills future can help you

Stress on continuous retraining  never ending insecurity as the skills can be completely
irrelevant 7
-iii. particularly for “sandwich generation”
“sandwich generation”: the “squeezed middle class”; providing for the old + young

welfare aversion state: “We want to teach the people that the government is not a rich uncle…” (DPM S.
Rajaratnam, 1984)

1995: aged >60, ~1/3 CPF; few expected savings could cover retirement
CPF returns, 2.5%/annum; cf inflation 5.2% (2011), 4.6% (2012)
economic downturn: employer 10% (1997), 13% (late 2000s)
Majority of the advance nation got welfare system except SG
 wanna teach ppl that SG gov is not a rich uncle
Those elderly 1995  born in the transition period  did not
had a chance for a proper job  not many have CPF  didn’t
expect their saving can cover
Inflation rate is high but CPF is still 2.5%  in future due to
inflation, CPF may not have enough to cover
Economic crisis  give employer only has to fork out 10% to
the CPF account (initially is 20%) but the employee still have to
pay full 20%
8
Maintenance of Parents Act (1995)
i.e. family as primary unit of support

greater burden as family size shrank

hectic working life and rise of singlehood

“collective anxiety” (Chua 2017: 33)

•Instead of implementing welfare to pay the less fortunate  gov impose policies on
the family to do the job especially on the children

9
10
3. critiques
-i. GDP growth for whom? – Linda Lim 2014
“About two-thirds of jobs created in Singapore between 2006 and 2011 went to foreigners,
or well over 100,000 per year; together with their dependents, it is likely that the foreign
population grew by nearly 1 million (or 25% of Singapore’s total population) in just 6 years.”
– Linda Lim 2014: 10, fn 41

inflation >> rising wages

“In 1981, I earned $800 plus as a fresh graduate. At that time, one of my colleagues bought
a five-room HDB flat for $35,000. Now, a graduates’ pay has risen about four times but HDB
flat prices have risen more than 11 times.” – 2011-10-21.ST, cited in Chua 2017: 90.

2/3 jobs created but not really benefit for the SG ppl actually (mostly foreigners)

11
-ii. Singapore: home or hotel? – Geh Min 2013
packed density living: 2M population (1960s); 4M (1980s)
today: packing in immigrants, to reach 6.9M
ever-density of living space  ever-estrangement, ever-stress
“ungracious society”

president of Nature Society of Singapore (2000-2008), NMP (2004-2006)

12
-iii. worsening income inequality
1990-1997: Singapore’s bottom 10% of households suffered an average income decline of
1.8% – Rodan 2006: 156

Gini coefficient 0.422 (2000), 0.478 (2012)

“Singapore thus became the second most unequal economy, after Hong Kong, in the
developed world.” – Rodan 2016: 215.

in 2011: absolute poverty 10-12%, relative poverty 20-22% – Catherine Smith 2015

Singaporean “downward mobility” – Linda Lim 2014: 10-11

decline in Singaporeans’ well-being

Gini coefficient  determine the income gap

13