From: Harish Pillay <harish@brokat.com.sg>
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 17:53:30 +0800
To: nobody@replay.com
Subject: Re: Singapore & Freedom
In-Reply-To: <199712052343.AAA20937@basement.replay.com>
Message-ID: <199712070945.RAA05974@brokat.com.sg>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Anonymous shaped the electrons to read ...
> 
> >On Thu, 4 Dec 1997, J. Lasser wrote:
> 
> >And Singapore survives quite well being a totalitarian
> >capitalist society. Sure, you can pick nits and claim that
> >Singapore's not entirely capitalist, but it's more capitalist
> >than this country and certainly less free, too.
> 
>  > http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,266,00.html
> 
> >In some ways, Singaporeans are more free than U.S. citizens.
> >Income taxes and sales taxes are lower. Prostitution is legal.
> >The government does not impose rules on whom private landlords
> >can and can't rent to. Unlike some cities in the states,
> >Singapore has no curfews. Being able to walk outside safely at
> >night in any area of the city, even the poor excuse for the
> >city's red light district, has its attractions.
> 
> > -Declan
> 
> I lived and worked in Singapore for 8 years.  

Excellent opener.  I was born in Singapore and have lived here most of my 
life.

> Singapore is not what I call a free society.  Their system has many 
> advantages, you are pretty much free to make money providing you are doing 
> so in an area where the government has no interest.  The Singapore
> government runs many enterprises and if you happen to be their competition 
> they will tear you apart to get rid of the competition.  The Singaporean 
> government tends to cater to the multinational corporations, who were their 
> earlier ticket to economic prosperity, and don't do a lot to encourage local 
> grown business other than to provide a suitable environment for business, 
> which is good enough on its own.

Truth alert:  Yes, the govt is heavily involved in the economy - for example
Singapore Technologies (aerospace, silicon foundries, armaments), Sembawang 
Corp (shipbuilding, realestate, heavy engineering).  The truth behind these
companies is that about 15-30% of them are owned by the govt of Singapore's
investment arm, Temasek Holdings.  The rest are held by other companies (both
local and foreign) as well as the general public - i.e., these are listed on
the stock exchange.  

Indeed the govt does get into industries that it feels are critical for 
Singapore's survival.  This is the classic Singapore Inc operating.  For
example, late in the last decade, there was no private company doing wafer
fabicration.  The Singapore Technologies company, Chartered Semiconductor
started the first fab plant.  No other private company wanted to do it alone
but after that plant came up and became profitable (years later), there are
now numerous fabs either in operation or under construction by international
companies.  So, yes, the govt does at times choke the entrepreneurship drive
of the local population, but there are industries where the coexistence of
private initiative and govt-linked companies have been possible and viable.
 
> Singapore is a great place to do business, yours costs are
> predictable, something you can not say about the surrounding
> countries where corruption makes costs unpredictable.  Singapore
> labor is reasonably priced, well-educated, reasonably trained,
> and well-disciplined - or at least they don't talk back or
> complain unless you try something really stupid.  Singapore
> management is expensive, well-educated, but not quite as
> versatile as westerners.
> 
> Singapore is a social experiment, a group (read PAP) has gained
> control and decided to mold the society into something different
> than it was.  This is probably a good thing as in the 50s
> Singapore was a cesspool, in many ways.  The story goes that you
> could smell Singapore 200 miles out, in an airplane.  Everything
> that Singapore is today is what it was not in the 50s.
> 
> The educational system has been engineered to produce the maximum
> number of worker units.  Being a small country with limited
> resources (with labor being the main exportable resource) they
> could not afford to have an educational system which allowed some
> potential worker units to drop-out.  Compare this against the
> American system where you are free to succeed, or free to fail,
> the choice is basically given to the citizen.  In Singapore this
> is not how it works, the blinders are installed early, you are
> not permitted to fail to become a good productive member of the
> society.  In Singapore you are free, as long as you are a good
> productive member of the society.  Try talking back and
> complaining about the system and see where that gets you?  I
> think they call it Woodbridge.

Perhaps you need to go to Woodbridge (for the uninformed, Woodbridge
is where the local mental institution is located).  

Let's analyze the premise of an educational system.  I am a product of
this system and tempered with a dose of undergrad/grad school experience
in the US.  Any educational system thrives to create as its output, 
valuable citizens who can be self-supporting and useful (label it anyway
you want - worker units as you say is fine).  It has been a fine balance
between a fully liberal system and one that generates worker units for
the most part of the last 30-35 years.  The system erred to the latter.
The thinking today (you see I continue to choose to live here) is that
that model is flawed and needs to be tampered with.  It will take 5-10
years before an increasingly liberal system is in place - an increasing
thinking population that is part of the global information flow that will
characterize the next centuries economies.

> This social engineering may be a good thing.  Look at the
> benefits obtained by Singapore.  In the current economic meltdown
> in SE Asia Singapore is only threatened with lower growth.  The
> people are happy and they love their country and government, to
> the average Singaporean the government can do no wrong.  Most
> Western governments would love to be in the same position.

Not true the 2nd last statement.  The population is perhaps more tolerant
to failures or perhaps not informed about such because of the joke of a
press we have.

> There are costs associated with an engineered society of this
> type.  Elder Statesman Lee, he went by Harry Lee before he
> learned Mandarin, is always ranting about all the good genetics
> being wasted as there is a large number of educated women who
> have not married and therefore are not able to reproduce.  Harry
> has been ranting about this for more than 10 years.  In a
> nutshell certain segments of the population have lost their
> ability to mate.  The Singapore government has initiated a
> program to help educated Singaporeans find mates.  Great system,
> economic prosperity, but what am I supposed to do with this
> thing...
> 
> Don't forget the other good points, no guns or bullets, color
> copiers are (were?) restricted, all media controlled by the
> government (even Time magazine was banned), mandatory savings
> program (CPF), National Service, and the government attitude of
> those that are not with us are against us.  Also, don't forget
> that the Singaporean government has brought the Big Brother
> concept to reality.

As a private citizen, I cannot own a gun without a license.  *I* have
no problems with that.  Colour (we spell it with a u) copiers are
not restricted by any means.  Yes, media is controlled by the govt -
except for the 24 hour BBC world service radio broadcast on FM here.
Banning of magazines and newspapers are there - but you can continue
to get it over the net unfettered and uncensored.

Any problems with the "mandatory" savings?  I don't.  The money is
mine - I can use it almost immediately to buy stocks, pay for my home
etc etc.  I don't see no problem.  National service - I did my time
but perhaps the initial duration can be reduced from 2.5 years at
age 18 but it has helped to create a population that better prepared
mentally and physically to be able to defend the country if the need
arises. 

Pray tell me how the SG govt has brought BB into reality?  I love such
generalizations especially from a person who claims to have lived here
for 8 years.   I lived in the Pacific Northwest for about 7 years and
I will not make such statements.

> SingMonger

Interesting that you hide behind an anomymous name and you claim to
be outside Singapore.  I for one, will stand by my name and say that
things I should say about this country of mine (warts and all) and
not have to hide behind anonymity (not that I would not use anonymity
ever :-)).

Regards.
-- 
Harish Pillay                             	  h.pillay@ieee.org
Singapore      *** Ask me about Linux *** http://home.pacific.net.sg/~harish