Tag Archives: politics

The Albatross

Being the fanboy I was of Dr Goh Keng Swee, I visited the Albatross File exhibition soon after it was inaugurated. I’m really thankful for SM Lee’s efforts to get it declassified and made public. After 60 years of nationhood, it is great to let out this ‘secret’ that our founding fathers kept about our separation from Malaysia. The truths revealed explains in part why Singapore had gone through a referendum to become part of the Malaysia Federation but could become an independent sovereign city state without any democratic process. Even Lee Kuan Yew described it as a bloodless coup. It was actually pretty much a coup, but of course, it was politically expedient for all at that point to describe Singapore as having been ejected from Malaysia.

Photo by me, taken at the NLB exhibition

The storytelling through the exhibition was great and it enabled me to digest a fair bit of content within a short time and appreciate the story line pieced together by Susan Sim and her team. It was a great work though given the somewhat sensitivity of the topic, there is very little doubt there had to be a lot of checks for political sensitivity and alignment to the historical narrative of Singapore.

I think this exhibition does a lot to prepare the public for the eventual launch of the founders’ memorial in 2028. For me personally, it was never really a question of whether it makes sense for our country to spend money on building the founders’ memorial, but more about how we can ensure that the generations that follow can remember and appreciate the miracle that is Singapore. This exceptionalism cannot be reduced to a single person or a particular set of circumstances. And many more stories need to be told, not just in history textbooks but passed down within families, between generations and across communities.

Our founding fathers were brilliant politicians and strategists, not just operators who kept the city-state running and punching above its weight. It would be dangerous to think there is nothing too hard for us now; or to throw up our arms in despair because of the difficulties of the conditions we are subject to globally, especially now.

I eventually bought the book which I’m looking forward to dive into.

Crowding out

In economics, there is this concept of crowding out when government spending drives out private sector spending because it soaks up available financial capital and drives up interest rates.

In Singapore, I think there is some kind of political and psychological crowding out. We have grown to be a hyper-meritocratic society and we are proud of it, believing that it is the best way of organising ourselves and our systems. And we rarely talk about the injustice perpetuated by the system because we don’t want to undermine this part of the cultural fabric.

Yet we are confronted with the reality of inequality in the society, where students from underprivileged families are expected to be measured and assessed equally before an examination in school with their peers who had better backgrounds and well-resourced parents, tutors and even siblings. How do we respond to that? Do we just say, the system will take care of it?

In many other societies, private charities, foundations and many other organisations step in to help. In Singapore, we almost think that it should be the government’s role. How many of us would think it is a gap worth bridging? How many of us, would think it’s the problem of school teachers, and try to load it on to the public service?

During PM Wong’s National Day Rally speech this year, he talked about some ground-up initiatives and community organisations, giving great examples of how we want to nurture the Singapore Spirit and encourage Singaporeans to step forward to shape the character of our society. He acknowledged that the government cannot force or direct this, but to encourage, recognise and celebrate.

And then he talked about this tension between the government and the people sector:

In many countries, you see such ground-up collective actions because the governments are not working, the governments are ineffective. So people are frustrated at the lack of action and progress. And they step forward to take matters into their own hands.

Singapore is in a different position. No one wants the government to do less. No one wants the government to become ineffective. Instead, we strive to be more efficient and responsive. And there are areas where we believe the government can and should do more – especially to provide stronger social support for those in need.

But it is not just about what the government does – and we certainly do not want to end up as a society where people rely solely on the government. It is about all of us – government, businesses, workers and unions, community groups and civil society – doing our part. All coming together for the good of Singapore and our fellow citizens. And moving forward together as one.

I think there will never be a straightforward way to demarcate, ‘this is the government’s job, this is private organisations’ job, this is the community’s role’. In many societies, cooperatives and community organisations provide many services – especially in more rural regions.

These organisational forms and structures could supplant and take up ‘market space’ (as new businesses may not be able to compete or provide similar services commercially since these organisations are already providing them effectively), or even ‘political space’ because government cannot claim credit for having achieved some of those social outcomes.

As a society, thinking about the sort of soft cultural institutions and the hard organisations, we might have to decide what kind of mix we want to form a society where we all have a stake in it and not just rely on a formal government structure. The way we have developed, where people are constantly moving around, uprooting themselves to get on the property ladder, not having a particular sense of belonging to a geographical community has made it harder to foster a sense of ownership or belonging to a group. It has also encourage a lot of selfish-thinking where people are just figuring out what rules or tricks they could follow on the path to prosperity and self-enrichment.

How can we help our citizens reclaim that responsibility and stakeholdership towards the Singapore society? How can we do that in a manner that continues to maintain our unity as a nation, and strengthen our identity as Singaporeans?

Media and narratives

I used to love The Economist, and I even used to collect various articles to prescribe them to read for my students whilst I was teaching Economics at A Levels. It’s been a great influence on the way I write and approach sharing my opinion on things, and I enjoyed the dry wit and British humour, but these days I find the anti-China slant a bit uncalled for.

Take the recent report on China’s dominance in renewables. One of the article that talked about the improvement of air quality in China has the headline, ‘China’s air-quality improvements have hastened global warming’. I used to laugh at The Economist’s self-deprecating humour and when they lambasted silly but political manoeuvres of US presidents. When they try to criticise illiberal practices in China, I get it and understand the Western liberal lens that drives those considerations. However, this is a blatant low blow, a stark contrast to the highbrow approach that I would usually associate with The Economist.

The article isn’t even so much about China’s air quality but the science behind how some of the aerosols emitted by coal plants could have helped with cooling the atmosphere and how geo-engineering techniques based on that could play a role in climate change. Though latest studies suggest this will probably not be enough to cope with challenges in the shifting agriculture landscape as a result of climate change.

We are entering a new era where narratives are being distorted by English-language media, and it doesn’t help the rest of the world understand China any better.

I recall in 2018, when The Economist started a new column on China called ‘Chaguan’ (which really means Tea House in Chinese), they wanted to understand China better and to help the world do that. That hadn’t quite work.

Political culture

Woke Salaryman recently posted this comic article in response to comments towards a previous post about workplace ‘politics’. I really like the realism, the clarity and conviction behind their work. I think it is great that they call out the naivety of those who thinks that they can be ‘above’ politics at work but I’m writing this post because I want to add a more nuance layer to the conversation.

I think Singapore, by and large, have always been sensitive to overt kinds of politicking because of the way politics have been portrayed in our history. We take a more superficial view of what politics mean, as though it is all bad and about behaving in deceptive or conniving, self-serving ways.

And in the workplace, we default to thinking that the virtuous approach is simply to bury head and work hard. That can be a great start in a small working team or organisation where visibility isn’t really a problem. It also works well when productivity, key work metrics are not contentious. Then politicking can seem like it’s all about bootlicking, gossiping and acting in the worse, socially destructive ways.

Politics, which is derived from greek words meaning ‘affairs of a city’ is fundamentally relating to governance and interactions between fellow beings living in the same environment, subject to different constraints and influences that are interdependent on one another in the community. The relationship-building, social interactions, tussle for power, influence or mind-share are all part of it. In a workplace, where we are all coming together to achieve something together, it takes effort and the meta-layer of ‘work’ to organise everyone together.

Work today has evolved and become increasingly complex; it is hard to measure individual effort easily, and particularly challenging to identify precisely what the right skillsets are to progress to the next level. It is ultimately the ability to organise others and persuade them to work together that produces value as opposed to working and contributing directly.

There is a role for politics in all of lives, and maybe Singapore needs to build a culture of politcal-awareness and also encourage citizens to appreciate the positive role it can play in society, workplaces. And we may all also learn the right social, emotional intellect needed to handle tricky situations. With the geopolitical climate of the world today, Singapore needs to cultivate more brilliant diplomats than ever before. How else to do so than to help our people recognise the value of such work to the survival and success of a city state nation.

Driven by inspiration

If you think that Singaporeans were motivated by fear to build up our country in early days of nationhood, think again. There wasn’t really all that much to fear because we didn’t have much to begin with. This narrative that we had no resources, we had to rely on our manpower, and our ingenuity, that’s all true but it wasn’t translating into fear for our forefathers. We had it wrong to think that Lee Kuan Yew fearmongered two generations of Singaporeans into the building up a metropolis we have today.

I believe the early Singaporeans were driven by inspiration – the ‘against all odds’ was possible because it was well worth a shot. We didn’t have much to lose; and there was everything to gain on the table. We had institutions to build, and a new identity. How exciting! And of course, we do not slacken, we are not complacent, because we were not there yet – we were limited only by our ability to envision the future and inspire our countrymen towards it.

Fast-forward today, we seem to think that we managed to achieve all that we did out of fear. We think it was ‘kiasuism’ (fear of losing) that drove us. Probably not. What was there to lose anyways; and yes we are competitive because we want to win, not because we are afraid of losing. Being afraid of losing only happens when you have won at least once. And we did win, more than once, and we begin to hold on to our victories and achievements more than our vision of the future. And in fact, this vision of the future morph, and then slipped.

Consider this press release by the Singapore government in November 1988, there seem to be a clear policy and longer term strategy underpinned by a theoretical framework of the economy. There was a deep understanding of what it means for our economy to grow and the structure by which it is expected to grow with. But without a clear sense of vision for what we want to build Singapore into, we will fall into the trap of just trying to push certain figures up indefinitely.

Ten years ago, in 2015, Ravi Menon sketched out some kind of economic vision for the future framed in a retrospective 100th year anniversary speech for Singapore in 2065. It is brilliant and perhaps reflects Ravi’s aptitude for such high level strategic thinking and visioning. If we look at the decade of performance that took place after the speech was made, I’d say things have not been kind to the world and Singapore in terms of geopolitics. That’s perhaps something Ravi did not anticipate and would not have been expected to identify as a challenge for Singapore.

In the next five decades, our nation will be confronted with lots of geopolitical challenges and turmoil in the world; our economy will require more radical thinking and transformation than the country has ever had to go through. But we can only get through it with inspiration, not fear. We can only be driven by the desire to create a future we want to live in, rather than to react to the world’s situation with the classic ‘bo-pian’ attitude that we might find more common amongst our people.

Skills and degrees

There’s been recurring opinions, stories and new reports about jobs and skills in Singapore over the past couple of months. The Job Skills insights report presented some interesting results that can be interpreted in vastly different ways, and is perhaps worth our society deliberating over.

One of the statistic in the report (page 14) that comes across as strange though not surprising, is that a non-degree holder with high skills proficiency is finding it HARDER (lower chance of getting the job) to get high-skilled jobs while a degree holder with medium to low skills proficiency can access high-skilled jobs more EASILY (higher chance of getting the job).

And on the next page, it claims that those same degree holders who were mid-low in skill proficiency had higher remuneration, and more autonomy in the jobs they got. Overall, the slant of the report seems to be promoting the need to obtain degrees and more qualifications even though it is supposed to highlight the importance of skills.

There are different opinions about what exactly is happening in Singapore. Some believe that if there simply aren’t job opportunities around, the paper chase just ends up being an arms race where jobs are just moving around from one group to another. The winner then becomes the certificate issuing organisations and schools.

Others think that there’s something absurd about hiring process and HR if they are so reliant on the degree or paper qualifications rather than real skills. Perhaps the high density market and having no short of manpower options mean that such patterns emerge where paper ‘evidence’ is used more than trying to screen for real skills. That contributes to some kind of ‘efficiency’ in the process especially when the HR function in Singapore isn’t exactly the most progressive.

There are others who believe the government’s emphasis on skills had just become a matter of incentivising more paper mills because it is easier to have a clear-cut measure of the output of their ‘skills’ policy. This is why instead of having skillsfuture churn out people who have the skills for the future (such as AI-literacy, programming skills, ability to think more strategically, understanding of carbon emissions, understanding of new energy technologies or what sustainability is really about), we simply get more aunties who could bake melon pan, or uncles who could generate good morning messages with GenAI.

I exaggerate.

But the point remains that we have a culture that is steeped in wanting to have tangible proofs of something that is genuinely intangible. And degrees or paper qualification remains a proxy for us to somehow observe skills. The point of it all is really the skills rather than the degree – so to make it about the degree seems rather superficial and short term. If anything, the big companies hiring in Singapore could come to the conclusion that since the degree holders they’re hiring have already hit the mid-low level of skills proficiency, the talent pool is really shallow and this is it, and they forgo hiring the non-degree holders who have high skill proficiencies.

Maybe that is when they start pulling out of the market. Because they are not able to access the real talent pool they need.

In long run, our paper chase actually ends up stopping ourselves.

Climate startups

Whether it’s climate tech or climate or sustainability startups, I’ve been encountering them recently. Of course, they are just startup companies, looking to find a product-market fit and then scale their business. There is a massive distraction in today’s market where you could grow a business out of making grant applications and putting together plans, where you try to get funding to take off.

This sounds a lot more like research in academia than the economics of a free market. While government is hoping to drive the development of good climate solutions, they are still tapping on the market where it failed, doing so through what they believe are ways to keep things market-driven when they have actually replaced the market and allowed the grant application processes to pick winners.

The challenge is that the winners picked through a grant application process are not going to be the type who wins in the market. These are firms who would have scrutinized the fine print, delivered on arbitrary KPIs and proxies that some bureaucrat came up with in his or her office. And these schemes are just distracting time, money and resources away from the startups towards satisfying governance requirements. After all, ‘it is taxpayers’ money”

The work of growing a new industrial ecosystem isn’t easy and I’ve spent considerable part of my career thinking about ecosystems, value chains, bottlenecks in developing an industry. If the government can give some demand assurance perhaps for a specific project, or product that the customer would be able to use or satisfied with, then it could help. And very often, if politicians want to be able to make claims about having supported one particular development then things becomes more difficult, not easy. When economic support is driven by a desire for narratives rather than allowing the stories to emerge from a system that is created, you can get a poorly specified policy.

Singapore’s 60th

I sat down and listened to the National Day Rally speech with a break in between. In terms of delivery and finding the stories to tell, I’d say Lawrence Wong did well. He also positioned the 4G team well, and to a large extent, it almost feels like political campaigning. The election results this year have shown a good amount of trust in the PAP government and reduced tolerance for weak opposition candidates. So I’d expect that the ruling government would lead confidently and start working on rolling out a vision.

I think the elements of vision involve more of the old playbook, unfortunately: another committee to work on the economy, more new towns and spaces earmarked to be developed, and then programme funding or tweaks to support Singaporeans, in terms of reskilling or upskilling.

There’s this common thread that Lawrence Wong seem to have been emphasizing, but I’m not sure I observe much of it on the ground. He seems to be recognising that general sense that the government had been dominating decision-making, and so there are generally more attempts to involve the people, to gather feedback, or to listen in. If that was his diagnosis about the sentiments, it is correct. It is not something to be ‘fixed’ overnight however. And it will take time to create a culture where people contribute responsibly to policy-making, and to concern themselves with the needs of the wider society.

Over the years in Singapore, there had been more individualistic attitude – because the government’s approach to just about everything involves sticks or carrots, more often than not, there’s this general attitude of ‘what’s in it for me?’ From the NDR speech, I can see Lawrence Wong urging less of that individualistic attitude, more of the ‘we’, but I wonder what are some behaviours that the government or the civil service can lead with, in order to foster and encourage that.

Trust in Singapore

As our nation crosses the diamond jubilee at SG60, people were putting down their wishes of ‘I want to…’ during NDP. The messages played on the videos for NDP were really inspiring and had nice stories from ordinary Singaporeans of diverse background. I felt genuinely moved and encouraged that we can be more than just ourselves and what we bring because Singapore is just a society that has been on the move, that has been developing and growing and thriving. It all feels good.

The stuff that doesn’t feel that good – how do we approach it though? The fact that places and spaces have been sacrificed, people uprooted to make way for development (as the Tekong story suggested). Or that sporting feels more like a lone wolf endeavour more than a national one, particularly during the ‘invisible phase’ of training, working towards Olympic qualifications, etc (story of Lloyd Valberg; though one can’t say this through that story since Singapore wasn’t yet a nation in 1948). Or that the big corporations often push around small businesses because that is ‘normal’ in our culture (story of Yanee; ‘but are you ready for an order of this scale’).

There is a choice to be made on how we see things. And whilst we have been told repeatedly there would be trade-offs, we haven’t yet learnt the real principles and intentions behind the decisions on those trade-offs. Why do we choose one over another? To the ones in places of power, it might be obvious. How could the sacrifice be made worthwhile for those suffering from its consequences?

What principles do we use to uphold our values – whether they are peace, justice or equality? Or perhaps progress? What happens when they are trading off each other? What if we cannot accomplish all of them at the same time? Often, ‘progress’ as the value seems to take centre stage. And is the kind of progress broad or narrowly defined?

To move forward, we must also learn unravel more the principles worth learning about and keeping, which we can use to navigate the future. Our forefathers left them for us but if we don’t pick them up to use them, it would be squandering the success that they’ve worked so hard to build us.