Padd Solutions

Converted by Falcon Hive

Showing posts with label Asian values. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Asian values. Show all posts

Robotic notes

Posted by moses @ 18:52 • , , • 0 comments


Recently Gallup did a study that indicates Singaporeans are among the most, if not the most, emotionless or inexpressive people in the world. The reactions from some people were predictable.

Immediately there were people who contended that the survey questions are subjective, which only seems like a puerile stock response. How much interpretation is needed for questions like "Did you smile or laugh a lot yesterday?" Do Singaporeans understand words like "smile or laugh" differently? Besides, although people's perceptions of happiness or other feelings are indeed subjective, subjectivity is not the issue here—whatever people might think emotions like happiness mean, the study simply wants to know if they feel them or not.

A critique of the methodology needs to be better than that. And because the results are empirical, you can't disagree with them (the plural of your anecdote is not data, by the way). You could disagree with the interpretation of the results, but there too the critics have mostly failed to impress. This brings us to another irony in the indignant responses that seek to paint Singaporean culture as different and therefore not assessable from "subjective" 'Western' perspectives.

This group of responders seems to be asserting themselves as the voice of objectivity and of calm unemotional logic. Yet they fail to see their own hilariously inaccurate assumptions and the contradictions in their position. This is true in at least two respects:

1. "Asian Values" are a stereotypical fantasy

There are clearly some cultural differences between, say, the USA and Singapore. But simply citing "Asian values" is far from giving a good description of these differences. For one, it is widely recognised that Singaporeans are very materialistic and often egotistical in their pursuit of wealth. How does that jibe with the supposedly communal-spirited Asian Values that are now used to explain why Singaporeans are less emotionally expressive as individuals?

Popular conceptions of Asian Values are incoherent and not matched by the reality in our society. This calls into question the whole concept of a monolithic set of Asian Values itself.

2. Your government wants to retain talent, not drive them out

Many of those arguing against the study seem to be people who are patriotic and fiercely protective of Singapore's image. These are often the same people who, going by what they say, like to insist that Singapore does it better than most other places. And because of that, they tend to agree that the ruling party has done the right thing and therefore that we should all be more grateful to the government and the country instead of being critical. Don't like it? Then pack your bags and leave.

Well, that demand—that people who complain, both foreigners and citizens, should leave the country—is not one that the ruling party is making. In fact, evidence points to the contrary: They want to attract and retain talent to keep Singapore economically competitive. So for all your insistence that the government and the country are on the right track on the important things, you seem to be advocating doing something different here. What gives?

It might seem that the study implies we're a race of robotic worker bees that are emotionless or at least inexpressive. But it turns out that we're robots without a good sense of logic either. So that begs the question: What are we really good at?

Singapore 21

Posted by moses @ 06:44 • , , , , , , , , , , , • 2 comments


Singapore is a bit like a child who was bullied and looked down on by its peers—it grew up having something to prove.

The insecurities of Singaporean society are a reflection of the insecurities of its founding fathers. And as all deep psychological traumas go, the result is a pathological pattern of behaviour—in this case, the perpetual post-Separation obsession with proving that it can prosper without natural resources and an initial industrial base.

To this end, Singapore has transformed itself into a rentier state in all but name. And the resource that is rented: Human labour. Factories and offices in Singapore are in principle no different from the sweatshops of the Third World, riding on loose or non-existent labour laws and wage legislation that help make the country competitive as a magnet for foreign investment. Politically, in order to facilitate this path of economic development, security and stability have been prioritised over other goals such as democracy and social justice—again, much in the manner of the archetypal rentier state.

What sets Singapore apart from other rentier states that rely on renting its workforce to foreign investors is the kind of industries it seeks to attract. Thus, a significant part of the workforce has to be trained and educated enough to do the kind of work that those industries require, but not in a manner that is enough to enable them to challenge the country's socio-economic trajectory.

That is the essence of Singapore's famous economic and political pragmatism.

However, popular dissatisfaction with its immigration policy and with falling standards in the provision of public services point to a parallel but related trend in the country's political and economic stance.

Even the most diligent of workers may not be able to stomach the fate of forever being a mere cog in the economic machine. Hence, as a form of compensation for their dedication to the government's vision, citizens were promised comfortable middle class lifestyles that were ensured by the provision of subsidised high-quality public services. This is one of the reasons why the government has invested heavily in the country's healthcare and transportation infrastructures—things that are, incidentally, important in maintaining the productivity of the workforce.

This social compact has held until fairly recently. As Singapore increasingly aligned itself with the neoliberal paradigm, however, the old wisdom of labour market liberalisation—which also happens to be a core tenet of neoliberalism—was eventually joined by the move towards the privatisation of state-owned enterprises.

With this move, naturally, came an increased emphasis on profitability, which has been blamed for the fall in service standards in the country's public transportation system, as demonstrated by the recent and unprecedented major disruptions to urban rail services.  At the same time, fares continue to increase, which only helps to lend credence to the notion that the privatisation of public transport has not been in the public's interest.

In addition, as an extension of its stance towards the labour market, Singapore is importing large numbers of cheap workers in its continuing effort to keep labour costs low, thereby contributing to overcrowding and adding to the stress on the country's infrastructure.

Thus, Singaporeans can no longer expect the nanny state to take care of them. Now, all we get in return for our hard work and dedication are promises that are no longer backed by concrete socio-economic support structures. We may have been a first-class rentier state before, but now, with increasing income inequality and decreasing welfare, there is less and less to separate us from the neighbouring states we so enjoy looking down on.

Can things change? Perhaps with the aid of the vast sums of public money that is currently given to the government's investment bankers with little or no public oversight. Will things change? Probably not if we are counting on the old guard to make it happen.

Unfortunately, at the rate we are going, change probably won't come soon enough. Add in the uncertainty in the global economy and the prospect of slower growth, and you know we're in for a rough ride. 

So, in light of our predicament, let me say this: Welcome to the 21st century, ladies and gentlemen. The worst is yet to be.

Proud to be... disenfranchised?

Posted by moses @ 10:16 • , , , , , , • 0 comments



I finally glanced at a newspaper today, and the first thing I saw was not encouraging.

According to an article on Today, most Singaporeans are proud to be Singaporean. Here's why:
The high level of national identity is due to the "multi-faceted socialisation process viz the education system, national service and mass media", said Singapore Management University law professor Eugene Tan. "This sense of belonging is further aided by the economic and social success that Singapore has experienced in one generation."
But that's not all the article mentions. Still quoting Prof. Tan, it says that most Singaporeans readily identify themselves as Asian rather than as part of an ethnic group, and that may be because
"... we have portrayed ourselves on the world stage as a microcosm of Asia, and that Western models of governance and way of life are not entirely appropriate to Singapore."
However, the article goes on to say that,
While Singaporeans took their duty to vote seriously, they were not sure how instrumental their votes were. Nearly half of them agreed that "politics and government are so complicated that sometimes (they) don't understand what's happening". Over one in two felt they did not have power to influence Government policy or action, while four in 10 felt Government officials pay little attention to what "citizens like (them)" think.
So we are proud of being Singaporean because we're a successful nation, and we're also happy to identify ourselves as Asian because our nation is successful without having adopted "Western" models of governance. Yet on the subject of our model of governance, a significant number of us think that we have hardly any influence over it. Neither do many of us have the understanding of how it works. So we're proud of being disenfranchised, and of a system we do not even know much about?

I think that the implications of what Prof. Tan said should make us rethink our attitude. And there's no reason to believe that he is completely off the mark. 'Asian values' have often been touted by our leaders as providing a good alternative to 'Western' political philosophy, and we regularly witness proud rejections of Western criticism in the local media, views that hold up the success of our nation as the vindication of our methods.

Amartya Sen has criticised the 'Western' and 'Eastern' (or 'Asian') divide that such a worldview paints as misleading, even though I do think that such a divide has been successfully manufactured in our psyche. He is also a strong critic of the brand of authoritarianism that is an integral part of the 'Asian values' package. And, looking back, I think I've come to agree with him – by summer last year, I had written an article defending democracy (which is unfortunately no longer available on The Straits Times website).

But right here we have the making of a damning critique just on its own. In what kind of society are people proud of a political system they do not comprehend and under which they have little if any influence? I can think of only two kinds: One that is fascist and one that runs on blind faith.

So what sort of model do we have exactly?