Yes, it's a significantly racially charged, class-entrenched society whose government rose to power on a platform of communism and claims to be a democracy while practicing outright fascism. It's disgusting that the US props it up.
> significantly racially charged
What evidence do you have of this? In your other comment you say they come in with significantly restricted rights -> what does that even mean? First I will say that no one is forcing anybody to come into Singapore. These migrant workers come to Singapore because after weighing the odds, they feel that they can get a better life in Singapore instead of their home countries.
> class-entrenched society
In Singapore we have National Service. From the richest to the poorest Singaporeans, you serve national service together side-by-side doing the same thing. There is virtually no way of avoiding NS and there are heavy penalties if you do. Even the prime minister's children serve NS.
On top of that more than 80% of the population live in government housing flats. And these flats are not cheap, some of the bigger units have sold for more than 1 million dollars.
> rose to power on a platform of communism
This is the funniest part. The government was so against communism that communist leaders were jailed... and this harsh treatment of communist leaders is a common critic of Singapore. So for you to say they rose to power on the platform of communism just shows the depth of your misunderstanding.
Now, Singapore is not perfect. But trust me, its far better than whatever picture you are trying to paint of it.
> > rose to power on a platform of communism
> This is the funniest part.
He's not wrong that there's deep racism in Singapore. But it goes both ways. Singapore was ejected from the Malaysian Federation for baldly racist reasons--the ethnic Malays wanted to consolidate political power. The Chinese in that region are like the Jews of Europe--economically successful but culturally still the out group. It creates a ton of resentment for all sides.
Also, I've traveled widely throughout the world and turns out _everybody_ is racist. The U.S. is probably one of the least racist countries in the world. Why? Because we _talk_ about it and _admit_ it. In the vast majority of countries people still literally take for granted that ethnic group X is obviously naturally inferior, without making the connection between that belief and the Western concept of racism.
In the U.S. even the most rabid racists go through great lengths to justify and explain their prejudice. Believe it or not, that's what progress looks like. People need to stop using racism as a cudgel as it makes it impossible for people to discuss issues of racism. It's like calling somebody Hitler--it just ends the conversation. Ultimately it makes it easier for people to stay in denial about racism.
I do not appreciate your made up comments about my character. For the record I am not: (a) of SEA-origin; (b) within such a family; or (c) racist.
Absolutely. The flagged comment espoused so much hatred that I wouldn't want any Singaporean to hear it.
Really sickening.
It is laughable what people are saying here, that they wouldn't want any Singaporeans to read it. What?
That's my point. In most parts of the world someone could discuss American issues of racism like they studied under Cornel West. 5 minutes later they might say, in an off-handed comment, that group X is lazy and/or mostly criminals. And they'll never make the connection. It's mind-boggling.
Which isn't to say that plenty of Americans don't deny racism. They just have to work much harder at it, and they at least realize that their opinion is non-normative (even if it's technically the majority opinion).
Although not in this debate, I am stepping in to point out that doesn't mean a thing to support your point. It even makes you look like you're stretching facts to cover up problems. Let me illustrate it with a more obvious example.
Let's say the country has rich people's kids ending up in rich people jobs, middle class mostly middle class, and poor rarely coming up. This is the U.S. rather than Singapore. Let's say we add NS to the mix where everyone is forced to do a specific thing. The economic structure stays exactly the same since that has nothing to do with it. It's people's money, ability to teach kids better/worse, and connections to institutions that increase effectiveness of those kids along with what opportunities they have. I'd be shocked if this didn't happen in Singapore simply because it happens everywhere that I can tell.
From a research report from a local university: The institution of National Service is largely regarded as a social equaliser, which embodies fairness, equality and identity. More than 94% of respondents agree that Servicemen from different family backgrounds are treated equally during National Service, and that National Service policies are applied consistently to everyone in similar situations. [1]
In other words, it doesn't matter if you are the son of a millionaire or a janitor, in the army, they treat you the same. Beyond that it forces people to meet people from all sorts of socio-economic levels. And National Service extends until you are around 40 years old, whereby every year they may call you up to serve alongside CEOs', professionals, blue collar workers etc in the army.
Singapore is a very rich country, and it is inevitable that there are the very rich, and the less wealthy. What the government has done is made a very affordable world-class education system that allows everybody an equal chance to equip themselves to succeed in life.
[1] http://docplayer.net/17167540-Institute-of-policy-studies-su...
Which doesn't argue against my point at all. I already illustrated where classism comes from and how it can only be one component. You'd have to address the others. Instead, you said a bunch of people surveyed in a police state said the police state plan was good. I've even read plenty of dissent on Singaporeans' blogs and stuff on that one so it's extra funny to see such overwhelming support.
In any case, what numbers and citations you should look for are what percentage of Singaporeans change classes and which transitions those work. Especially how often the poor become Middle Class and how often lower classes become upper class. Additionally, how often do upper classes become lower class. These will assess how much education and performance really matters vs their background or social connections. For example, in the U.S., the last number I saw quoted was 90+% of people stay in their economic class no matter what efforts put in. Most on boards or C-level positions also started as middle or upper class in "Ivy League" schools. So, our system is rigged to operate based on politics and reinforce current class situation as proven by its results.
So, what's Singapore's numbers on that? And could you even get accurate ones with its control over media?
There are also other factors that can help or hurt, like everybody living in the same city.
The evidence you ask for was already provided before your comment; clearly you didn't bother to read the thread.
National Service is fascist, and does not at all imply that the society is classless. In fact, from an anthropological perspective it could be construed that military organization is historically the most caste-ridden of all human societies due to its formal recognition of rank.
communism
Sorry, I should have said socialism. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Action_Party#Politi... ... Initially adopting a traditionalist Leninist party organisation, together with a vanguard cadre from its labour-leaning faction in 1958, the PAP Executive later expelled the leftist faction, bringing the ideological basis of the party into the centre, and later in the 1960s, moving further to the right.
When everyone is (relatively) equal and put through something comparatively arduous, it does good things for helping people gel together. It also probably helps instill a common sense of belonging to a nation.
I'd attribute at least some of Singapore's ability to cultivate a sense of national identity to things like NS.
From what I've seen, Singapore is fairly racist, but in the sense that pretty much everywhere and everyone is racist without very conscious mental effort. That said, Singapore seems pretty well integrated and culturally inclusive considering what a melting pot it is especially on the ground at the interpersonal level. I imagine that as such a small state, these things are easier to micromanage for a government though. Additionally, nothing kills xenophobic sentiment faster than exposure, and as a small city-state, Singapore also provide favorable conditions for that too.
> When everyone is (relatively) equal and put through something comparatively arduous, it does good things for helping people gel together. It also probably helps instill a common sense of belonging to a nation.
> I'd attribute at least some of Singapore's ability to cultivate a sense of national identity to things like NS.
National Service is a tad tricky to discuss. While you mention that everyone is (relatively) equal when put through national service, that statement mainly refers to male citizens and second-generation permanent residents. Females, foreign students, and first-generation migrants aren't required to do so, and I can hardly see how they would be able to empathise with those who have had to undergo NS.
One other thing — imagine if one applies to a large MNC, and the hiring manager learns that the applicant might have to eventually fulfill their reservist liabilities and disappear for a month. If the applicant pool is global and there are no quotas to meet for local hires, it's very difficult to see how a competitive role based in Singapore might be filled by a Singaporean.
As for quotas, I've heard a lot of people complain about them and how much of a pain it is to fill Singaporean headcount. Specifically on the subject of MNCs and reservists, I feel we're in an age where that could be easily seen as discrimination. Given we can't apply that to women who get pregnant, or people of religious origins (who may have additional holidays or fasting periods).
Morally speaking the US has a long way to go before it can claim any sort of authority. Singapore is also a much nicer place to spend time than the US which makes me (someone with a political philosophy practically the opposite of how Singapore is run) wonder if the means are less important than the ends.
Whereas idealized political systems are useful, and democratic ideology comfortable, it seems to me that the role geography (both natural and human) plays in shaping a society's values and politics is often neglected in layman discussions about foreign politics.
Could you cite some evidence for this? I don't see anything to that degree in wikipedia.
> class-entrenched society
What does that mean? Is it significantly different than the US? I can see people using the terms "racially charged, class-entrenched society" to increasingly describe us as well.
> It's disgusting that the US props it up.
I had never heard that the US props up Singapore before. Care to provide some evidence?
All the lowest rung jobs in Singapore are done by Indian/Indonesian/Philippino migrant workers who are allowed in to the country under significantly restricted rights.
class-entrenched ... what does that mean?
It means wealth runs deep between generations, and the society is significantly stratified.
the US props up Singapore
In exchange for looking the other way on Singapore's fascist dictatorship and history of large scale regional money laundering, the US receives the right to use the island as a strategic military base and regional signals intelligence collection point.
This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
How is this anything other than a straightforward win/win trade? The country gets work done for cheaper than hiring locals; the migrant workers make more than they could in their home countries. Mistreatment is of course illegal and they are in general free to leave at any time. Exactly how is this bad, unless you are against trade itself?
> wealth runs deep between generations, and the society is significantly stratified
Like every other country on earth, you mean? Except there's no real old money, because the country was only founded in the 1960s.
> looking the other way on Singapore's fascist dictatorship
Now you're just talking nonsense. Yeah, the fascist dictatorship with the single best passport on earth, that millions of people move to for work. Uh-huh.
Your opinions are so wilfully and aggressively ignorant that I actually wonder if you're trolling.
This statement may be shocking to you but people have rights and society has qualitative properties that cannot be purchased for money. 'Trade' is not the same as people's lives. If you treat people as disposable economic tools, you begin to create a culture and climate of facetious social engagement, private insecurity and fear... ie. your "win/win" becomes "lose/lose" very quickly.
there's no real old money
LKY and cronies laundered huge amounts of money from the pillaging of Indonesia, Malaysia and Myanmar's natural resources and established themselves as the highest paid politicians in the world. Much of the wealthy class in Singapore still owns significant business interests in those countries, such as vast palm oil plantations on recently deforested land. Meanwhile, the 'average' citizen is not doing so well, and the significant migrant labour underclass suffers daily out of economic desperation. These realities clearly represent dynastic, multi-generational wealth transfer and a stratified society. Basically, Singapore is a lot like Shanghai in conception ... rich people fled there during a period of relative instability then doubled down on exploiting regional postwar opportunities with the advantage of significant stores of capital.
the single best passport on earth
Gee, no rose-colored glasses there!
Simple fact actually. https://www.passportindex.org/byRank.php
As for the rest of your wild claims - if you had any evidence at all for any of it, your sensational exposé would probably topple the singapore government. Please, let me know before your book comes out so I can short some stocks!
You could say the same thing about impoverished minorities in the U.S. whose ancestors came from poor countries. It would still be racism to pay them or allow them less due to race. It's more amusing given the Singaporeans that show up in comments talking about how racist America is. Turns out Singapore is pretty racist and classist, too.
If country A has a lot of money but a labour shortage, and country B is poor but has a labour excess, then it is of mutual benefit for country A to hire people from country B to perform needed labour. Country B's workers are not being paid less because of their race, but because they come from a relatively poorer country.
The workers come to do a job in which they will be paid more (much more) than comparable work at home, they do it, they get paid, the work gets done, everyone is happy, they go home. How is this racist, or even generally bad?
This basic economic principle is also, of course, the reason why companies locate manufacturing in countries with large available labour pools and lower comparative wages. So is Apple racist for manufacturing in China?
Then the discrimination is based on source country instead of race. Either way, it's systematic discrimination. Singapore could just as easily pay based on position and prior experience across the board. Immigrants could move up in pay over time. Those there a certain amount of time could participate in the political process. And so on.
Whereas the current situation is pure exploitation that contradicts some of the morality claims I see in discussions on Singapore. Especially how some in the comments will say they're pro immigrants, not racists, etc.
I see you're a security consultant. Here's a thought experiment for you. Say you have trouble getting work back home, but you hear that in Switzerland they have a shortage of security consultants and the going rate is $200/hr. You ring up a company there and offer to work - they say well your French isn't quite up to scratch so we can only offer you $100/hr. You say sure, they say OK here's a 6 month contract, you fly in, do the work, and fly out.
You are paid less than the natives. You are there because you can be paid less. You are benefiting from the trade, and so is Switzerland. You do not get to vote in Swiss elections. Are you being immorally exploited by racist discriminating Swiss? Of course not. It is a win/win situation and a fundamental component of foreign trade.
Economically, wealth has been created. Your home country is better off to the tune of $X when you bring home your fat stack of euros. Switzerland is happy too because it thinks it gained $2X worth of work. The world is better off because you were working productively instead of browsing reddit waiting for the phone to ring. This is why trade is good. Your labour was able to move from where it was not necessary, to where it was.
The foreign workers in Singapore are not being paid $100/hr, of course, but otherwise the situation is exactly the same.
Does that make sense?
Now, if you're fine with those concepts, then our discussion is entirely different. People fine with this are for unequal treatment of people by law. They're for two people doing same work for two, different paychecks. They're for people getting different political rewards for same effort in same location benefiting same country. If you're for all this, then we can then have the discussion only on specific opportunities at specific dollar amounts since that is all that matters to an amoral, rational capitalist. Let's look at it that way.
"Say you have trouble getting work back home, but you hear that in Switzerland they have a shortage of security consultants and the going rate is $200/hr. You ring up a company there and offer to work - they say well your French isn't quite up to scratch so we can only offer you $100/hr. You say sure, they say OK here's a 6 month contract, you fly in, do the work, and fly out."
Your example is amusing because I can't find work anywhere over here but am skilled enough that someone in a rich country wants to fly me over there. Let's assume it, though. The response of a rational capitalist is to bargain. I point out I have same (or more) skill than what they have on hand. I tell them they have people who can handle the customer interaction then give me specs in English. It's virtually no trouble. I suggest I'm paid for the result I get them. I might take a small, pay cut of around 10% or half now, half on completion of specific items for the uncertainty if I get local recommendations from them after completion. I might also forward the contract to their competitors to let them know I've been talent-scouted from across the seas, see if they want to bid higher, and use any higher bids as leverage on original employer to get me terms at or above offered rate.
What I won't do is take the $100/hr offer because rational capitalists... or utilitarians operating in their environment... who know better. I'd also locally promote in the political scene the concept of high-skill, foreign workers being able to get a track onto citizenship or permanent residency with limited rights. If the process is reliable, the Swiss can brain drain other countries much like U.S. does with its H1-B visa program. I'll remind them that the best workers are already flocking to countries that promise them more in return for their labor because they compete in a global, not local, market.
And the greedy assholes will either turn down the contract or political offer or they'll accept it. That's how that works.
"Economically, wealth has been created. Your home country is better off to the tune of $X when you bring home your fat stack of euros. Switzerland is happy too because it thinks it gained $2X worth of work. "
That's an oversimplification. People in the local country loose jobs and money to immigrants. Other people will benefit from increased productivity by hiring more labor at cheaper rates. This might be low or high quality productivity. The foreign economy will usually lose whoever they invested in who creates ROI for another country. They may or may not bring money back especially if the cost of living is high with low pay (see indentured servitude). The immigrant workers, if not having abusive hosts, may be better off if living conditions improved. This is not a good thing, though, because they were really choosing between the lesser of two evils. It's a less, evil thing that hurts them less. Although, it will be good for some if they end up in good positions. It's like a lottery.
"Does that make sense?"
It does because Americans are educated on this in "US History." Much of our early infrastructure were built by slaves and low-paid immigrants who suffered enormously for benefit of local business owners and white citizens. It's looked back on as our version of the Dark Ages with those big into racism or exploitation still supporting it. It certainly benefited the owners and locals who weren't doing the work, though. The only good thing that came out of it is many generations down the line with democratic work some became real citizens with real rights. It might happen in Switzerland but I doubt a police state in Singapore will tolerate that. ;)
There are also white-collar jobs which will code this as "fluency in Mandarin required", which means you'd better be ethnic Chinese if you want to be considered.
There's some discussion here: https://www.reddit.com/r/singapore/comments/3bp5ql/the_stupi...
a truly horribly sub.
See Acemoglu and Robinson. South Korea's success was driven through similar means but that government has liberalized much more than Singapore at this point.
Maybe you should ask people who live there instead of thinking a wikipedia article is going to give you any insight.
The US certainly does not prop the government up, unless you mean propping it up by inaction or non-intervention.
As to the elements of authoritarianism, a lot of people would argue that the material and social benefits of living in an efficient, forward-thinking state outweighs the subtle elements of state control/overreach.
Sure, they still house the huddled (brown) masses in ghettos, but they're making progress with public housing for natives.
But it's still hot as hell all the time all year. No thanks.
Compare this to all of the other nearest cities / capitols in the region (or even further than that), I think you would have to go quite far in any direction to find a place that is as well looked after for all levels of society. (Taiwan?) And whats the other closest city to Singapore that has potable drinking water?
Is this bargain worth it? As an American, there are plenty of things the Singaporean government does that makes me uncomfortable. But who's to say which is better? Compared to Bangkok or Kuala Lumpur or similar, where would you have preferred to have been born?
afaik the water from malaysia isn't potable, it's treated in singapore.....
I guess now they do more desalinization and recycle sewage water for drinking.
Compare to Australia, my own home country, where we could never countenance the ideas of "foreigners coming to take our jobs" - so infrastructure costs 5x as much and, more likely, simply never happens. It wouldn't surprise me if Singapore's what is it, 3 new MRT lines right now? costs the same or less as Sydney's 1 new line. And all the people we could have hired from the philippines or whereever are sitting in their slums unemployed. Who's racist again? Which is more ethical? Which is the better outcome?
It boggles my mind how people can be all for foreign labour being used to make things overseas, for example the computer they're typing their comment on, but suddenly against the idea when the labourers have to come here temporarily to make it. It's the same damn thing!
But the immigrant worker thing bugs me.
These workers, mostly women, are treated very poorly from what I have observed. I have heard my sister threaten her nannies with deportation for not complying with her orders, and have seen and heard of other ex-pats behaving even worse towards their immigrant employees. It seemed to me to be so normalized, that my sister and her friends do not recognize their behavior as being in any way abhorrent.
I would hate to see that sort of tiered society in Australia ever. It might work on paper but it also changes the nature of the people they serve in an ugly way.
I think it's because that mostly happens behind closed doors in private property - there's all sorts of scope for that few percentage of natural assholes to abuse the power they wield, plus as you say, it's sort of culturally acceptable. I too would like to see that changed.
That said, would you destroy a whole class of employment just because of a few bad apples? Or even more than a few? I also know that for uneducated girls from villages in Indonesia, working overseas as a maid is like winning the lottery. The alternative is often to become a prostitute. Where's the line?
And FWIW I've had a maid before and I don't think it changed me at all. But you're right - there's a certain type of person for whom having a little bit of power over a person unlocks something dark inside them, and in a domestic setting that can be a recipe for mistreatment. More regulation is needed - Singapore's laissez-faire attitude fails it here.
I was talking more of the construction industry, where stories of abuse are much less common (and there are witnesses and company licenses at stake) - in this context, migrant work is IMO an inarguable good.
This is pure anecdote, of course.
In some cases they are supposed to be students, but are forced to work 40hr weeks in low paying jobs under threat of instant deportation.
This bugs me about my own country too.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/one-in-five-migrant-workers-o...
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/tackling-the-exploitation-of-i...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-13/international-students...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-15/ombudsman-report-revea...
Does it really? I would love to see some like for like figures.
And they do take the locals jobs. Singaporeans don't mind so much though because they get massive subsidies from the government and the economy is doing pretty well.
If the government didn't provide incredibly subsidised housing the country would fall apart very quickly. Likewise if unemployment came close to 10%.
That was nothing but a guess, but I think it's reasonable. Labor is the largest component of infrastructure costs by a wide margin, and migrant labor would be at least 5x less than local. Even if it's "only" 2x cheaper my point would stand, though, and that seems very conservative indeed. I'd also like to see some figures.
I don't know what "massive subsidies" you could be referring to. The HDB system is the only one I can think of? Calling it "incredibly" subsidized is kind of overstating it - maybe 20%-30%, and you can only play that game twice, with 6 years in between. I think of it as more like a stock option.
The HDB program costs about a billion a year. There's about 3.3 million citizens, so that's $300 a year each. I don't call that "massive", and I don't see why the country would collapse if it was withdrawn (not that there's any reason it would be).
Over 80% of the population live in HDB-provided apartment housing. However, the vast majority of those residents own their own apartments, having purchased them from the government (and yes, certain subsidies can apply - up to perhaps 30% the fair value of the property). It's public housing only insofar as it was developed by the government - certainly not free or nearly-free as the phrase might imply in other countries, so it's quite a misleading term to use.
The rule of thumb is 20-30% discount on fair market value. Not 80%! Yes, it's a pretty sweet scheme if you're eligible, but it's not a total giveaway.
If you really could buy a $400k HDB that was comparable to the $2m condo next door then the $2m condo would never even be built, as there would be no market for it.
HDB vs Condo is a lot more.
There are serious restrictions on resale hdb flats which cause them to be priced a lot lower than condos.
These restrictions are deliberate policy to ensure affordable housing and subsidise Citizens and PR.
The major ones:
- You have to be a citizen or PR of at least a few years. This cuts out 1.5 million people.
- You have to meet racial and PR quotas. This limits demand.
- You can't have other properties. This excludes people with overseas property and excludes wealthier Singaporeans from buying HDBs as investment property.
I don't know where people thing the SG government would get these "incredible" subsidies from anyway. It's not the UAE!
You do realize they throw people in jail for criticizing the government on facebook right?
There is plenty of criticism that goes on against the government both online and in real life. The only people who are charged with libel suits are those who have either - a) put forth blatantly false statements and have achieved a certain level of fame b) made statements against certain races and religions.
Obviously this isn't the same level of freedom of speech that is found in America but it is nowhere near as draconian as the western media would like to portray.
The number of people who fall into the categories above are a handful. For the millions of people who are only superficially engaged politically this simply does not matter to them, and the quality of living they enjoy far outweighs whatever prohibitions on free speech is imposed.
People are much less likely to be politically engaged in Singapore because of the overall concern about how speaking out could affect them negatively. In private, you often hear strong opinions from taxi drivers, for example, who think they are anonymous to you, but rarely will they speak up in public. That is what happens in a society without free speech and when people can be publicly prosecuted for what they say.
Teenager jailed for insulting Lee Kuan Yew http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37505951
Same event, one of the charges is "wounding religious feeling" http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/29/asia/singapore-amos-yee-teen-b...
he is currently a professor at the lee kuan yew school of public policy.
he has not been thrown in jail.
Are you saying that one example proves that they don't do these types of things?
Who is this? I cannot find anything online about a person who was charged for doing so.
A common refrain from those interested in starting-up in the region is the lack of investment money and investors' own refrains on just how fragmented the regional market is. Those trying to do or set-up business in Singapore often find that there is little to complain about with respect to regulations. Probably the greatest problem that involves the government as a party is finding a sufficiently sizable customer base without government backing, but this is explained by limited SAM.