Singapore: Materially rich, spiritually poor

Good commentary by Catherine Lim, one of Singapore's most famous authors.

Do read it.

"Are we achieving all this material prosperity at the cost of something? Soul, spirit, heart, senses, whatever you want to call it?"

No political drama, but no money politics either

Watching the high drama unfolding in the US presidential elections, we sometimes lament the lack of such action in Singapore.

The excitement and fulfillment of 'the democratic process'--having candidates with opposing viewpoints fervently debating issues that affect our everyday lives; being able to speak your own mind; being able to read competing newspapers with different takes; and, perhaps most importantly, of actually having a choice--is missing in Singapore. We do not enjoy such things.

However, there is one thing about American politics that we don't like: the whole campaign financing model, and how rich lobbies and corporations and individuals can have undue influence due to their deep pockets. In short, money politics. Many countries are bedevilled by this. Thankfully, as far as we know, Singapore is not.

Our dear prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong, articulated this briliantly in a recent interview :
(the whole interview is worth reading)

"Political advertisements cost a lot of money, including production, buying airtime on TV or print advertisements.

Singapore politics will turn bad if political campaigning costs a lot of money.

From a narrow perspective, if political parties have to produce advertisements, the PAP will have an edge because we have the resources to do so.

However, from a broader, national perspective, it is not a good thing. This is because many people will be willing to donate money to parties that need money, but political donations are never unconditional.

You win the election and after you come into power, the donors will politely 'seek payment for debts'. What do you do for such debts of gratitude?

In developing countries, this often turns into a problem of corruption. In the United States, it is not called money politics, but campaign financing.

(John) McCain has adopted a clear stand on reforms on this problem, but he still has to campaign. He has no choice as the system is such that he has to raise funds for political advertisements.

I do not hope for Singapore to go this way."

Straits Times should do better

Here are two articles that appeared on the same day, on the same topic, one in the Financial Times, and one in The Straits Times. Judge for yourself.

FT: Temasek adds to Merrill stake

ST: Temasek bought additional $819m Merrill shares in Feb

National complacency?

At the end of last week, Singapore's minister mentor, Lee Kuan Yew, disagreed that the Singapore government should be blamed for the Mas Selamat Kastari debacle.
("Guards were negligent, says MM", ST, April 5 2008)

Instead, he framed the issue in terms of national complacency: after years of safety and stability, national complacency has set it. We all believe that nothing can go wrong, and so when something does, we're shocked by it. The security officers were complacent, all Singaporeans were complacent.

On the whole, we agree with this complacency thing. We know some Singaporeans who leave their gates open and cars unlocked, believing nothing bad will ever befall them. Years of comfort have indeed bred complacency.

"He [MM Lee] said Singaporeans are being complacent when they believe that the government will take care of all security measures."

But curiously, the article did not suggest that the government itself had been complacent.

So, in effect, following the escape of a potentially dangerous would-be terrorist from a Singapore prison, it sounds as though the government has absolved itself of blame--aside from Mas' security guard--and is instead recasting the entire issue in terms of the complacency of ordinary Singaporeans.

Not many are impressed. The most volatile--and clearly irrational--response we received is from a taxi driver, who said, "Who cares if Mas Selamat has escaped? Good for him! If I see him on the street, you know what I will do? I will offer him help. I will take him where he wants to go. After all, he has never been charged with anything!!! He is not guilty of anything!!! Good for him for escaping from the government"

(Mas Selamat was being held under Singapore's Internal Security Act, which allows for detention without charge. He has never been charged with any crime.)

Of course, even if true, the government can't possibly say that it was complacent--the strength and stability of Singapore's one-party rule is based on continued deliverance of peace and prosperity.

Government rules with an iron-fist. In exchange, it delivers safety and money. This is the manna we have all been brought up on. To think there might be more to life is, quite frankly, a shock to our system.




Aside:
Are we doing too much?
Having visited Malaysia last week, and experienced the elaborate security measures on the way out of Singapore, we wonder: Are we doing too much? Are we trying a little too hard to prove to the world that we are doing something?

Why does every person leaving Singapore have to be fingerprinted? Even our waif-like, long-haired, Chinese female friend? There is no way she could be Mas Selamat in disguise...or is there?