China’s juggernaut has region on edge
Singapore nervously tries to reshape its business profile

Robert Collier, Chronicle Staff Writer

Sunday, August 7, 2005

Singapore — All around this orderly, law-abiding country, people are being urged to do what until now has seemed totally unnatural: Take risks! Be spontaneous! Be creative!

On billboard ads, young models with devil-may-care looks jump ecstatically in midair to hawk clothing, sodas and real-estate developments. Banks sponsor blogger competitions and art festivals. Television shows lavishly praise tech geeks, musicians and fashion designers.

Last month, Singapore’s government even sponsored a graffiti contest, allowing schoolchildren to decorate city buses — a far cry from the days when such activity would be punished by a painful caning.

It’s all part of a wave of nervousness across Southeast Asia as leading industries face aggressive competition from Chinese firms. As China emerges as an economic giant, its southern neighbors are taking a less-adversarial stance than the United States, where Chinese business deals are viewed with suspicion.

Instead, the so-called Southeast Asian tigers, which have boomed in recent decades under the umbrella of the U.S. security alliance, are planning for a humbling task: finding a profitable, sustainable niche within the new Chinese economic empire.

Singapore officials say that Shanghai is likely to overtake the island nation within a decade as a corporate headquarters city for East Asia and is likely to draw away major companies and banks. Anticipating this change, they say, Singapore must morph further into a knowledge-based economy, with increased emphasis on high-tech research and development, as well as design, media, advertising and the arts.

Creativity, Singapore authorities have decided, is the missing link — any kind of creativity, but especially the patentable kinds.

For Singapore, long known for its authoritarian approach to economic development, this change requires a change in mind-set.

“We must reinvent ourselves,” said Education Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, who also is an economic adviser to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. “China is advancing very fast along the same value-added path we traveled in recent decades, so we must find new niches. We have been excellent engineers and managers, but we have not done enough as inventors and entrepreneurs. We are not producing enough patents.”

Until now, the region has benefited from China’s rising prosperity, as most nations have large trade surpluses with their northern neighbor, spurred by Chinese demand for raw materials and manufacturing inputs. Southeast Asia’s economies are growing at a healthy pace, ranging from 5 to 8 percent of gross domestic product per year. But analysts and government officials say the writing is on the wall.

“In Southeast Asia, we do not see China as a military threat but an economic challenge, and a large one,” said Noordin Sopiee, chairman of the Institute of Strategic and International Studies, a think tank in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. “Our margins are being shaved. China is doing to us what we did to Taiwan and South Korea in previous years. In time, our margins will become too small. So we need to act ahead of time.”

Chinese competition affects Southeast Asia in varied ways because the nations have wildly different economies, ranging from the European-level prosperity of Singapore to the African-level poverty of Laos.

In Cambodia, the issue is apparel. In Malaysia, it is semiconductors. In Thailand, home electronics. All are facing fast-growing competition from China.

“Globalization has helped us, but it is now hurting us,” said Loo Took Gee, an economic adviser to Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. “From China, there are a lot of products coming in at 30 percent to 40 percent below cost here. How in the world can one compete against that? I don’t have an answer.”

In the past few years, Malaysia has spent billions of dollars on an attempt to leapfrog into Silicon Valley status. It has built Putrajaya, an ultramodern capital city on former rubber and palm-oil plantations outside Kuala Lumpur, and Cyberjaya, a high-tech corridor next door to Putrajaya. So far, at least, Putrajaya has been a white elephant, with large, mostly empty buildings adorned with logos of global technology firms that have been lured to Malaysia by lucrative tax breaks, yet have avoided making major investments.

“I believe Cyberjaya will fail, but we need to try it anyway,” said Sopiee. “We need 30 years for that, and in the meantime we will have to shop around the world for talent. We will have to hire 10,000 electronics engineers, software developers, violinists, chefs, furniture designers, fashion designers. That is what the Chinese won’t be doing, so these are the niches we need to fill.”

For their part, apparel-producing nations fear that the expiration of international apparel quotas on Jan. 1, 2005, has spelled doom for their own industries as China gobbles up the world market.

After the quota system — known as the Multifiber Agreement — expired, Chinese apparel exports to the United States soared by 158 percent during the first five months of the year, far above growth rates in Indonesia of 23 percent; Thailand, 12 percent; Cambodia, 9 percent; and Vietnam, a 6 percent loss. Many observers say China would have grabbed even more market share if the Bush administration had not applied so-called safeguard limits against Chinese imports — a capacity that is set to expire in 2008.

“We have very good relations with China, but it is true that they are very tough competitors,” said Hidayat Nur Wahid, chairman of Indonesia’s upper legislative chamber, the People’s Consultative Assembly. He noted that Indonesia’s dilemma has been worsened by declining oil production and diminishing petroleum reserves, turning the country into a net oil importer for the first time in decades.

“We no longer are the rich country we were, because of oil,” Wahid said. “We must find an alternative, but this is difficult. … Chinese products are too cheap.”

In the United States, suspicion of Chinese motives is widespread, and congressional opposition to the attempt by CNOOC Ltd. to purchase Unocal Corp. of El Segundo (Los Angeles County) prompted the Chinese firm to abandon its bid last week. In Indonesia, however, Chinese investment is considered crucial to help rescue the oil and natural-gas industry from its slump.

CNOOC is Indonesia’s largest offshore oil and gas producer, and it is scheduled to begin large-scale shipments of liquefied natural gas to southern China next year. Most industry analysts believe that CNOOC wanted to buy Unocal in large part because of the American firm’s gas production assets in Indonesia, which CNOOC would have been able to divert toward Chinese markets.

In Southeast Asia, most eyes are on Singapore, the hub of the region’s economy, where creativity has become the new buzzword.

Education has long been a linchpin of Singapore’s economic success, and the country has ranked No. 1 in some international surveys of school math and science skills. But Shanmugaratnam, the education minister, says this achievement may have come at a cost of excessive conformity. Now, he says, increased attention to the arts is needed to unleash Singapore’s economic potential.

“We are redesigning our concept of meritocracy to include a broader range of merits, not just results in standardized exams, to help stimulate creativity and innovation. The arts are a big factor in this,” he said.

Shanmugaratnam said Singapore has adopted arts education methods from around the world, including San Francisco’s School of the Arts, a high school in the Upper Market area that he visited in 2002. “That school had high standards and a broad curriculum,” he said. “It was very interesting.” Yet he remained confident that Singapore would win any comparison, adding: “It also had poor facilities, like the rest of your public school system. Our facilities are much better.”

Despite the region’s worries about Chinese business inroads, attitudes are markedly friendly toward Chinese diplomatic initiatives, and political leaders vie to be seen as friendly to Beijing.

Part of this sympathy is driven by ethnic loyalty. In most Southeast Asian nations, local business elites are composed largely of ethnic Chinese who maintain close ties to their ancestral homeland and support Beijing’s role in the region.

China’s diplomatic success may be coming at the expense of the United States. Washington officials are concerned by the emergence of a new 16-nation regional trade group, to be called the East Asian Summit, which will hold its first annual meeting in Malaysia in December. The members rejected a U.S. request to be admitted as an observer — the first time that a regional Asian group has excluded the United States, and a startling setback for the Bush administration.

“In Southeast Asia, we do not share the opinion of some Americans that China is a strategic threat,” said Chin Kin Wah, deputy director of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, a government-backed think tank in Singapore. “We view the Chinese role as very natural. There are certain economic frictions that can be difficult for us, but it is our neighbor.”

Greetings From Northfield Minnesota during the winter! Cold but sooo beautiful!

MY niece says “Happy New Year!”

Few of us went to Kurry Kebab, an Indian Restaurant near my college, notice how our activites revolved around food..HAHA…note my puffy face ARGH

Reunion Dinner with 2 other friends today! I HAD REAL FISH todaY! It was wonderful! =)

Happy Year of The Puppy! May next year will be a better year for all!

Yet another superior coverage of Singapore news by Lianhe Zaobao

新闻：新加坡
2006-01-25
要工人党修政纲　　刘程强：不民主！
● 洪艺菁　林义明
　　工人党秘书长、后港区议员刘程强昨天批评执政的人民行动党要求另一个政党修改政纲，不符合民主政治的原则，而且也再次表明将坚持立场，不愿按行动党领导人的要求去修改工人党的政纲。
　　
他昨天透过电邮接受本报记者访问时说：“据我所知，没有一个自称自由民主的地方，曾发生过一个政党要求另一个政党修改政纲之事。民主政治的运作，就是让各政党把政纲摆上台面，让选民自由选择。 ”
反驳“风筝说”

针对人力部长、行动党组织秘书（特别任务）黄永宏医生前天在记者会上形容他“好像是在乱放风筝，看哪一只风筝（竞选课题）会被风托起（能赢得选票），就继续放哪一个”这一点，刘程强回应道：“我不晓得黄部长可有放过风筝，请问如何一手同时放几个风筝呢？我和工人党都没有这种本事。况且，同时放几个风筝会错线交叉，我们没有纠缠不清的习惯。”

不过，刘程强表示他还是得感谢黄医生花了不少宝贵的时间去阅读工人党的政纲及对它提出意见，并苦口婆心地劝告工人党的领导层及其党员合力修改政纲。

他说：“现在执政党要求工人党修改政纲，是否因为执政党认为自己的理念是最好的，却又对选民没信心，不认为选民能够做出正确的选择？这可从几年前吴作栋资政强调‘集选区制度能保证执政党候选人不会被能言善辩的反对党候选人所击败’的言论中看得出来。但是，这么做实际上是违背了民主政治的精神。”

他指出，如果新加坡的选民真的如执政党所认为的还不成熟，使得行动党不得不尝试通过大力抨击工人党的政纲去暗示选民在大选时投选工人党是危险的，那行动党唯一可行的做法就是废除选举制，由它年复一年地领导新加坡，直到选民“成熟”为止。

要求行动党
也宣布政纲

工人党是在本月14日宣布新政纲。黄永宏上星期六首先对这份政纲开炮，指它埋有四颗“计时炸弹”，即要求废除组屋区的种族比率顶限及集选区选举制、废除民选总统制、解散由居民委员会与公民咨询委员会组成的基层组织以及为民众提供更多的津贴。

李显龙总理星期天也指出，工人党新政纲里提出的部分主张，颠覆了新加坡立国的基本原则，因此促请它重新考虑政纲内容，并加以修订。

但是，刘程强过后表明工人党不会修改政纲。黄永宏前天形容他的回应过于仓促，并表示对这样的回应感到失望，还再三呼吁工人党再度考虑修改政纲。

对于黄永宏再度批评工人党新政纲埋有四颗“计时炸弹”，他昨天回应时说，工人党的政纲共有52页，行动党针对的只是其中的四项主张，却避开了其他值得关注的课题与建议。

“我感谢政府花时间去阅读我们的政纲。或许现在也是行动党宣布它的政纲的时候了。”

他重申工人党主张废除组屋区的种族比率顶限及集选区选举制，是因为它认为新加坡不同族群之间的谅解已达到更高的水平。

“我们应该超越以人工化的政策去促进种族交流的层次，让人们自由选择住所。”

至于工人党为何主张废除民选总统制，刘程强说国会应当是监督政府的最好机制，而政府保持透明是杜绝贪污的最好办法。

“杜绝贪污的最好方法是什么？只靠一位民选总统来监督，还是把数据放在网站上，由许多公众来检查？”

工人党也主张豁免生活必需品的消费税、推行失业保险计划，并为人民提供保费划一的基本住院保险计划，但是黄永宏却批评它只是承诺给予民众更多的津贴，却不解释津贴源自何处，说不定还想打国家储备金的主意。

对此，刘程强否认工人党提出这些建议，是为了把国家储备金挥霍掉，也不是要使政府破产，而是要设法协助那些在环球化冲击下陷入困境的国人。

基层服务
不应被政治化

至于工人党建议解散由居民委员会与公民咨询委员会组成的基层组织，刘程强说工人党无意抹杀现有的基层领袖的贡献，工人党之所以建议解散现有的基层组织，原因在于基层服务不应被政治化。

他指出，基层组织政治化对那些没有政党背景，只想为社区服务的基层领袖是不公平的。“为何居委会和公民咨询委员会的成员都得由执政党议员建议委任？”

他说，工人党因此建议通过社区选举，选出联络所管理委员会的委员，再由当选的议员出任委员会顾问。

Its True! Elections Matter

January 27, 2006 Friday
SECTION: Review - Insight

LENGTH: 744 words

HEADLINE: Elections matter even if everyone knows who will win

BYLINE: Lydia Lim

BODY:
NOW that election season appears to be around the corner, let me share a joke with you.

This is how it goes: What is the difference between an American democracy and a Singapore democracy?

The answer: In America, the date of the election is known but not the result.

Unlike voters elsewhere, we in Singapore know way before polling day what the outcome of a general election (GE) will be.

The People’s Action Party has been in power since 1959.

For more than 40 years, it has faced no serious challenger at the polls.

The last time there was anything resembling a real contest was during the 1963 GE.

That year, the opposition Barisan Sosialis won 13 of the 51 seats in the Legislative Assembly. The PAP won 37 seats with 46.93 per cent of the valid votes cast.

What is worth noting is that the Barisan MPs were themselves former PAP members who split from the main party, mainly because of differences over the merger with Malaysia.

But in 1966, the 13 Barisan MPs boycotted and later resigned from Parliament.

Since then, no other opposition party has been in a position to win a third of the seats in the House from the PAP, let alone form the government.

Given this state of affairs, it would not be unreasonable to expect elections here to be non-events. And many probably regard them as such.

For people in this group, polling day may mean nothing more than an extra day off from work.

What is surprising is that there are Singaporeans who still think the polls matter, a lot.

They want to vote. They think that even people living in wards where the PAP enjoys walkovers should be able to go to the polls and cast their ballots in what is known as a ‘vote of confidence’ for the sole contestant.

They also want to hear more non-PAP voices in Parliament.

One young person who feels this way put it like this: ‘Knowing that the PAP is going to form the government is not an issue for me. The issue is whether there exist sufficient checks on its power in the form of opposition members in Parliament.

‘As a young person in the Singapore system, which holds up meritocracy as a fundamental principle, I also want to see it in the political system, where a person who is good does well, in this case becomes an MP, regardless of whether he is from the PAP or not.’

Another said: ‘There’s a fundamental question I ask myself, even more fundamental than ‘Can I change things?’, which is ‘Do I care about this country?’

‘And I guess I do, that’s why I’m still engaged, despite the tactics of the ruling party that drive many to say, ‘What’s the point? Might as well keep my head down and earn money, leave politics to those in power’. ‘

We may be one of the few democracies around in which the outcome of elections is known before polling day, but that is not in itself enough to switch everyone off politics.

Conversely, the American system - in which real contests do take place - does not turn every one of its citizens on to politics.

During the last presidential election in November 2004, for example, it was reported that four out of every 10 eligible voters in the United States were so uninterested in politics, they could not be bothered to vote.

What this tells me is that whether to be politically engaged or not is really a decision each of us has to make at some point in our lives.

Do we care enough about the country we live in to form our own beliefs about how it should be governed? Or do we prefer to tune out of politics and just focus on our own jobs, families and circle of friends?

I recognise that there are many Singaporeans who are not in a position to make this choice.

Some of them struggle from day to day to support themselves and their families.

But for those of you who can choose, I hope many more will choose to tune in rather than out.

If you know little about politics and policies, you can find out more.

If you disagree with the way elections are fought, electoral boundaries are drawn and group representation constituencies enlarged, you can make your views known.

Whatever you do, do not discourage those with an interest in political issues by telling them it is all a waste of time.

Because politics remains an important way to bring about change in society - yes, even in a democracy like Singapore’s.

Found on the New Conservative Party leader website, does other country MPs have similar humility in serving the people?
http://www.davidcameronmp.com/

Also see a labour MP website http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/

You elected me and sent me to the House of Commons to speak and vote for the people of West Oxfordshire.

It has been a busy year in Parliament and the constituency, but working for people and representing our area is a privilege.

Your MP is only as good as the information he or she receives, so please USE me by writing to me at the House of Commons or e-mailing me at:
camerond@parliament.uk

If there are any questions or issues that you would like me to raise, or things that you would like me to do or see in the constituency, please let me know.

Worker’s Party Manifesto under fire-Why doesn’t WP just put its manifesto online for the public to decide? Will the PAP pull the rug out of the WP’s home in hougang? Why focus on 4 areas of manifesto? What about the rest?

SINGAPORE : The Workers’ Party is still standing by its manifesto, even after the People’s Action Party fired salvos at it over the past few days, saying it will tear Singapore’s society apart.

Meanwhile, political watchers say the ongoing debate between the parties has fuelled even more election speculation.

A week after the release of the Workers’ Party’s manifesto, the People’s Action Party urged it to rethink its position on what the ruling party has called its “four time bombs.”

These are proposals to do away with grassroots commmittees; dropping the ethnic quota policy for public housing and the Group Representative Constituency Scheme; doing away with the Elected Presidency; and a call for more subsidies for the poor, without indicating where the money for this was coming from.

And it is not just the party bigwigs but also PAP MPs who have voiced disappointment over these proposals.

Said Halimah Yacob, MP for Jurong GRC, “It is quite irresponsible the way that they have proposed certain things, like for instance, dismantling certain structures, the RCs — criticising the RCs and certain other structures that we have put in place in order to promote a strong multi-racial society, ethnic integration.

“I don’t think we should take these things lightly. And on this goal, I think I’m a bit disappointed that this is the way that they have approached some of these issues.”

But the Workers’ Party has defended the proposals in its manifesto, which it says is the result of two years of hard work.

Said Tan Wui-Hua, president of the Workers’ Party Youth Wing and member of the WP Manifesto Committee, “They have not put down in very defined terms why the four issues are a time bomb. They are just saying it’s a time bomb and it will destroy the social fabric of the entire country.

“We genuinely feel these four issues are issues the people on the ground would like to see changed. Therefore, we speak for the people and we feel it’s good for the nation. So the truth is, now if they say it’s bad and we say it’s good, we let the voters decide.”

Political watchers say the way the debate between the two political parties has evolved has taken them by surprise.

But they also noted that the debate has stirred up interest among many Singaporeans in the Workers’ Party manifesto.

Political Science Assistant Professor Suzaina Kadir says such debates are healthy.

She said, “The opposition in Singapore needs to think strategically, have a manifesto and provide an alternative framework, and has to be debated publicly. It could certainly be the case the manifesto cannot hold and is potentially problematic but when you have a debate like that in the open, then people have a sense of not just broad motherhood statements, but concrete policies, so people can decide on a far more mature level.”

But one thing is clear — the debate, has fuelled even more election talk.

Dr Suzaina explained, “It fuels further speculation among us that elections are coming; that’s why you’re getting the kind of reactions you’re getting. I can’t say it’s a sure sign; it comes together with a lot of other signals political observers look at. I think what’s curious about this whole incident is, it has come in a matter of days after several announcements that people have taken to imply elections are coming. When these events occur one after another, it reinforces people’s beliefs that something is about to happen.”

Meanwhile, other opposition groups like the Singapore Democratic Alliance have declined to comment on this debate. - CNA /ct

Finally, a positive step towards more openess in Singapore (See my earlier post for reference to White Elephant Incident”
Also, read the ST forum today, many wonderful letters to read. It is free at www.straitstimes.com

ST Forum
Jan 21, 2006

SALE OF ‘ELEPHANT’ T-SHIRTS
Students were not warned

I REFER to the letter by Mr Tan Weiming, ‘Elephants saga contrary to goal of open society’ (ST, Jan 19).

Classroom still belongs to Yeats and the Bard Nurse with 180 patients: System needs fixing too Be good to our canine friends Students were not warned Pull of ‘roots’ made him keep citizenship Vital to preserve the right to vote Announce GE date earlier He doesn’t qualify as overseas elector Do we still need an NCMP?

Upon learning from the organisers that some students would be setting up a stall to sell T-shirts to raise funds for a charity, the police advised the organisers that a permit was necessary. Despite the fact that the application was made at the last minute, we approved it quickly so that the sale could proceed.

We share the students’ belief, as stated in their pamphlet explaining the significance of the T-shirts, that activists should be ‘accountable in using legitimate means to express one’s views’. It was with this intention in mind that the police advised the organisers that a situation where the shirts were worn en masse may be misconstrued by some as an offence.

We regret that the impression may have been formed that the students were warned. This was not the case, and we hope that they will continue to play their part as active citizens.

On hindsight, there was no need for the police to have added this caution as we could have relied on the good judgment of the organisers to ensure the propriety of the event. We will bear this in mind in future.

Audrey Ang (Ms)
Assistant Director
(Media Relations) Singapore Police Force

Interesting Article from the Straits Times by famous author Catherine Lim

Jan 20, 2006
Managing political dissent

FOR a small island state eager to take its place among the most successful nations in the free world of practising democracies, one would have expected to see a steady increase in political freedom, an ascending line from its virtual non-existence in the rough early years of brute survival, to the emergence of incomplete but distinct forms in a still evolving ethos, to an end point of full functioning in a mature society.

But there has been no such clear path. Instead, we see only a thin ragged line, rather like a small weakly meandering stream that sometimes disappears into the ground.

This sputtering along of the political process is in sharp contrast to the smooth steep trajectories of other areas of development, notably in the economic area, where growth can only be described in breathless superlatives; and even in those areas where the Government has been traditionally conservative, for instance, education and the arts.

Hence while the winds of change are sweeping everywhere, while the clarion call to be creative, to think outside the box, is heard everywhere, the political domain remains a backwater, with every sign of drying up altogether.

This glaring incongruity has not gone unnoticed. It has led the dispassionate observer, both foreign and local, to qualify every praise of Singapore, no matter how lavish, with a polite ‘but’, as in:

‘Oh yes, Singapore is a model worthy of emulation by other societies but - ‘; ‘Oh yes, I am very proud to be a Singaporean except for this fear thing that is still around, you know what I mean?’

The contrast has also led to an embarrassing anomaly. While Singapore is consistently ranked among the top three in global surveys on economic growth, business friendliness and so on, it is placed with North Korea, Myanmar and Iran when it comes to individual or press freedom.

Why is there this continuing government reluctance to open up at a time when it can well afford to do so?

There are three possible reasons. The first is historical continuity. This policy is part of an ongoing and enduring legacy from the Lee Kuan Yew era of tough rule.

The second reason is strategic. Tight control of even minor political issues means pre-emption of major ones, which, as the Government has always maintained, Singapore cannot afford, with its small size and dependence on the rest of the world to make a living.

The third reason is psychological - a natural distaste of a serious-minded and purposeful leadership for the noise and rowdiness of political debate and dissent.

Here is a government that has made no secret of an almost pathological dislike of polemics, posturing and populist rhetoric.

This aversion to political debate is the reason not only for the Government’s continuing reluctance to make any change to its quiescent, inactive state but the reason for the desire to make that state permanent. Such a desire cannot obviously be openly articulated to an increasingly sophisticated and vocal electorate.

So what the Government has been doing quietly is to develop a strategy by which it can simultaneously achieve two objectives that appear to contradict each other: on the one hand, reassuring the electorate through a generous slew of opening-up measures; and on the other, making sure that nothing has changed.

The first objective can be made as overt as possible; the second is necessarily covert.

The result is a dual model of managing political dissent that is unique to the PAP leadership. It comprises both the soft, gentle, consultative approach of the Goh Chok Tong rule and the hard, stern no-nonsense approach of the Lee Kuan Yew rule; the soft approach being at the forefront, open for all to see, and the hard approach being in the background, hardly visible but clearly the prevalent one.

Hence, while the many official channels by which Singaporeans can freely express their views - the Feedback Unit, Speaker’s Corner, public forums - are all highly publicised, the warning of stern government action against those who dare abuse the channels by going beyond the out-of-bounds markers is only occasionally uttered, and even then in quick, brief response to direct questions.

These out-of-bound markers have never been clearly spelt out, but continue to operate as a broad metaphor, clearly to allow the Government its own interpretation of what is acceptable and what is not in political discourse.

By now, Singaporeans have a general idea of the permitted scope of criticism. The most readily tolerated is criticism of non-political issues, especially bread-and-butter matters, for example those related to CPF (Central Provident Fund), foreign maids and so on.

The somewhat grudgingly tolerated is criticism of government style, and the least tolerated is criticism of government competence and integrity.

The action taken against the transgressors of these markers has really been no more than a sharp and stern rebuttal of the criticism. But it works because in a small society that has been so long dominated by a powerful, implacable government, even this can create very real fear.

When young people, invited to public forums to speak their minds freely, talk about a still pervading atmosphere of fear, they mean exactly this.

This model is useful to the Government in the handling of criticism because, while the evidence for the soft approach is widespread, tangible and visible, the evidence for the hard approach is just this general sense of fear, hardly definable and thus easily challenged by the Government.

Hence the leaders can point to any number of instances of political opening up, usually supported by examples of the opening up of non-political areas such as the famous bar-top dancing issue, and say: ‘Fear? What fear? Look around you, see the many letters in the newspapers criticising the Government. Has anybody gone to jail for that?’

If pressed for a clear statement on how it will deliver on its promise to open up, the Government is apt to respond with a terse assertion that it will not necessarily follow the Western model that young people and journalists seem so enamoured of, but will instead develop its own model.

Overall, this dual model is a very sophisticated strategy of containment, control and manipulation, by which the Government can have the political cake and eat it too: give every appearance of political freedom but ensure it is not the real thing, and meanwhile, behind the scenes, work at getting rid of it altogether.

Now, getting rid altogether of political dissent is something abhorrent to the free world and the Government is not about to provoke condemnation from a global community to which it is so comfortably, securely and advanta- geously linked.

But suppose it does the unimaginable, the truly ingenious. Suppose it turns things around and proves to the free world that this very condemnable act can lead to greater stability and prosperity for the society. Suppose it proves that dispensing with a major tenet of democracy can actually save democracy from itself.

The truth is that this is already happening. When the Singapore Government confidently tells inquisitive journalists and critics that it isdeveloping a model of governance that is geared specifically to the needs and aspirations of the people, it is in effect showcasing an alternative to the Western model of democracy. And it is succeeding to the extent that certain experimenting and developing democracies in Asia and Africa that are very anxious to wean or distance themselves from Western prototypes, but still stay within the fold, may look to the Singapore model.

This is not such a far-fetched scenario, for the Singapore model has three features that are likely to authenticate and legitimate it in the eyes of the global community:

The Singapore Government acts on the conviction that, at the end of the day, what matter most to the people are safety, job security and a peaceful and prosperous life.

Against these primary, urgent imperatives, political freedom is irrelevant or even meaningless. In the insecurity of a world atmosphere created by Sept 11, Sars, terrorism and natural disasters, nobody could agree more.

Indeed, the current high international standing of the Singapore Government is one of the reasons why it is succeeding so well in curbing political dissent at home. For if the world can accord such high praise to the leadership, how can its own people not believe that whatever it is doing must be right and good?

The result is that at no time has the dissident voice been more muted, at no time have political commentators stayed so warily away from the out- of-bounds markers. Political clubs such as the Roundtable have folded up; new ones are not likely to appear. And in an atmosphere of continuing anxiety, there will be continuing self-censorship. The greater the Government’s efforts to raise material prosperity, the more irrelevant and even harmful will the role of the political activist be seen.

And as if to push dissidents even more quickly into oblivion, the Government is working hard to win over potential dissidents, chiefly idealistic young people, by embracing two courses traditionally dear to them.

These are freedom of expression in the arts, and humanitarian concern for the underclass. Hence, the Govern- ment is going all out to create a lively arts scene by allowing bold experimentation in theatre, dance and movie-making. Similarly, it is going all out to help those left behind by the rapid pace of change, especially the poor and the handicapped.

Winning the battle hands down

THE result is spectacular. By giving buzz to a city once described as a cultural desert, and by putting a human face on a society once described as all head and no heart, the Government has taken over all the battles and cut the ground completely from under the feet of its critics.

It has won hands down. Indeed, it is well on its way to achieving its ideal of the Singapore society - one that will always be governed by a group of responsible, honest, hardworking men and women who will ensure utmost probity among themselves, through continuous self-monitoring and self-renewal.

This perfectly efficient and effective leadership is possible only because it need no longer be bothered by raucous dissidents who, at the least, are like small, pesky dogs yapping at the heels and, at the worst, a cancer on the body politic that has to be excised quickly. In this ideal society, the political engagement of the people is minimal, that is, voting wisely and responsibly once every five years and for the rest of the time cooperating with the Government to attain even greater prosperity.

In a troubled world where so much has gone wrong, the Singapore model may yet be a world model and this time without the qualifying ‘but’.

Already, Singapore is being cited as world exemplary on a wide range of achievements, besides its celebrated economic miracle: its quick adaptation to change, its foresight in being among the first to embrace and develop bio-technology, its preparedness in the face of global threats of terrorism and a bird flu pandemic, and its readiness to go to the help of neighbours devastated by natural disasters.

Against such a glowing picture, what I am going to say next will make me a surly wet blanket, a nasty shower of acid rain upon a glorious parade. I firmly believe that a model of governance in which political dissent has little or no role is deeply flawed on two points:

This need is something natural, inborn, universal, something that defines us uniquely as a species. It has to do with the human sense of self, identity and belonging. It is manifest in all societies, whether full, partial or nascent democracies.

Even in a non-democracy it is not absent; it has simply gone underground and is just waiting for the first chance to surface. It can neither be intimidated into permanent silence nor seduced by material rewards.

It is neither a means nor an end to anything. It simply IS, a force to be reckoned with. Now, if we want to know why, we will have to ask the anthropologist and the evolutionary psychologist who will be able to explain its primordial origins.

Hence, in any society at any time, there will be a small minority of eccentrics, mavericks, rebels and troublemakers, a group certainly not endearing to the government or the majority.

In Singapore, after years of marginalisation, this must be a very, very small group indeed. But it has a crucial role to play. Its dissident voice and contrarian stand are the very yeast to enliven the political dough. Even its unruliness and rambunctiousness are the very genes, though dangerously mutant and rogue, to give new life to a tired species.

Instead of crushing it, the Government should engage it and allow it to play out its role in what ultimately must be a beneficial political education for all. For only through engagement with difference can convictions be strengthened, courage tested and characters moulded. Only in the rough and tumble, the cut and thrust of political battle, can there be the conditions to throw up a political genius who will one day lead the society with vision and courage.

Something akin to these conditions must have thrown up an undisputed visionary and fighter we still have in our midst - Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Obviously, the conditions cannot be replicated, but through a genuine opening up - the operative word is ‘genuine’ - the Government can create the much-needed environment.

Of course, in the short term, there will be the disruptions and dislocations of major change and adjustment, but the long-term outcome is a very positive one - a mature, fully functioning society in which material prosperity is matched by a robust political life, in which the two are seen as richly complementary.

The alternative is a monolithic, undifferentiated society ever making copies of itself, an inbred society of made-to-order leaders and citizens who will be very vulnerable to the predation of more robust competitors from outside.

I am going to finish my exposition on a shockingly pessimistic note. I have come to believe, with a somewhat heavy heart, that even if the Government wants to do something about the problem, it may be a little too late.

Singaporeans have by now become so dependent on the Government for making decisions for us, for thinking for us, and so used to our comfortable lives, that any major change and adjustment will be viewed with alarm.

Instead of going on with my exposition, I present it in the form of a short story, with the title ‘The Experiment’.

The Experiment

AT THE fourth ministerial meeting to discuss the very troublesome young activist Frankie Mah, Minister Supremo asks: ‘Well, what’s the latest?’ There is a barrage of new information: the young rebel has got bolder; his following has grown; at the Speakers’ Corner, he attracts never-before-seen crowds; the Internet is full of excited chatter among young people about how to force the government to give in to the LOD, or the Long Overdue Demand.

‘And what’s that?’ asks Minister Supremo, in his gentle, well-modulated voice. Here, Minister A.H. — for years the minister has been known only by these initials - says angrily: ‘Freedom! Would you believe it? Here are young people free from poverty, squalor, corruption, and they’re clamouring for freedom!’

He gives another angry snort. The other ministers try to calm him down.

‘How long are you going to tolerate this nonsense?’ he asks. ‘Listen. I’ve done some research on the fellow. When he was 16, he cheated in a school exam. When he was 18, he got his girlfriend pregnant. Why don’t we use this info…’

‘No!’ says Minister Supremo firmly. Then he goes on to make the most astonishing announcement: ‘I’m going to say ‘Yes’ to all the demands of Frankie Mah.’

Everyone is astounded. Minister A.H. has fallen off his chair. ‘Yes,’ says Minister Supremo calmly. ‘Frankie Mah is going to get all the freedom he wants.’

The announcement first shocks Singaporeans into speechlessness, then rouses them into a frenzy of rejoicing. At last! At last! Frankie Mah has become a national hero.

In the following days, Singaporeans witness what they had never thought to see in their lifetime. Large crowds carrying placards denouncing the death penalty mass outside Changi Prison. A rambunctious crowd at the Speakers’ Corner repeatedly punch the air with their fists, denouncing this or that government policy. A long procession marches down Orchard Road carrying a banner showing a portrait of Frankie Mah under the word ‘Revolution’.

‘Aren’t you going to do anything?’ shrieks Minister A.H. ‘Yesterday one of them exposed his backside to show an obscene tattoo making fun of the government!’

Minister Supremo lets out a little chuckle. He says reassuringly: ‘Don’t worry, everything will be all right,’ then continues to look outside the window at a crowd gathered under a giant banner bearing a portrait of himself with a Hitler moustache. He listens to Frankie Mah shouting into a megaphone:

‘Hey, hey, Pee-Ay-Pee

Best-ever government in his-tor-ree

Please be our government in perpe-tui-tee!’

The other ministers watch uneasily as he lets out another chuckle.

In the third week, things suddenly change. Large, noisy crowds come out to demonstrate not for but against Frankie Mah. They are in fact petitioning the government to stop him. He is disrupting the peace of Singaporean life.

Only the day before, somebody was badly hurt in a scuffle. Before that, a fight had broken out in a mall, and hooligans had taken advantage of the situation to loot. Piles of litter are left wherever his rowdy supporters meet. Such a thing has never before happened in Singapore.

Minister Supremo receives delegations of Singaporeans urging quick government action. The Association of Parents and Teachers complains that the demonstrations are causing students to play truant. The Moral Society complains that the rude, crude behaviour of the rebels is influencing the young. The Tourism Promotion Society worries that all the mayhem will drive away tourists.

But the Minister is unruffled. ‘I’m waiting,’ he says with serene confidence, adding cryptically: ‘It will come.’

And it comes soon enough, on the 37th day of The Experiment. A huge flood of letters in the newspapers and on the Internet, matched by the largest-ever delegation to the government, all voice the greatest, most urgent concern of Singaporeans: ‘The value of our property is going down!’

Minister Supremo acts. Minister A.H. is jubilant. ‘Throw that scum into jail! Fine him! Cane him!’ But Minister Supremo says: ‘No. I’m going to invite him to tea.’

Frankie Mah appears very nervous as he is shown into the Minister’s office. As soon as he enters, he sees a huge poster with his portrait and the words:

‘Hey, hey, Frank-Kie- Mah

So you thought to have the last hurrah

You just might have gone a little too far!’

Frankie turns deathly pale. Minister Supremo graciously invites him to sit down and have tea and cake. First, the intimidation; then the charm. Frankie is overcome with relief. But he is still a little nervous.

The Minister says affably: ‘That famous tattoo. I saw it on TV, but those kiasu MediaCorp people blocked it out. Tell me about it.’

Frankie tells him. The Minister roars with laughter. Frankie is no longer uneasy. In fact, he feels comfortable enough to ask about something he has always wondered about.

‘Those initials in Minister A.H.’s name. What do they stand for?’

‘Will you promise not to tell anyone if I tell you?’ says Minister Supremo.

‘Yes, of course,’ says Frankie.

‘Well,’ says Minister Supremo. ‘Minister A.H. is a well-meaning chap, but with his outdated ways of thinking, he’s become a real pain. The initials stand for a rude word which I won’t utter, but it rhymes with ‘mass soul’ ‘. Frankie laughs so much he spills his tea.

It is time for him to leave. He is overwhelmed by gratitude. His eyes are shining with joy. From now on, his life will take on a new purpose.

Catherine Lim is a freelance writer. This is excerpted from an address given at the annual seminar of the Institute of Policy Studies last Thursday.

Overseas Singaporeans, Register to Vote BY FEB 6. Local Singaporeans, Check your names in the registrar online now!
San Fran Opens up Consulate Generals for Voting! Spread the News! Register at

www.elections.gov.sg

I have also emailed a question to the elections department with regards to the declaration part of the form on whom to declare to, will post the reply asap:

Registers of Electors ready for public inspection

Innovation a problem in Singapore Companies? Is it due to political system? Education system? Lack of Critical Thinking in Education sYstem? Emphasis on GRADES rather than innovation? Societal Comforts? Dependency Syndrome? All of the above? None of the above?

Copyright 2005 Singapore Press Holdings Limited
The Business Times Singapore

October 15, 2005 Saturday
SECTION: SPECIAL FOCUS

LENGTH: 624 words

HEADLINE: Missing link in S’pore innovation;
Firms don’t invest time, money and people unless there’s a crisis, reports VIKRAM KHANNA

BODY:
SINGAPORE ranks high on many drivers of growth - such as governance, infrastructure and economic stability - but in the key area of innovation, there’s a lot that’s missing, said Ronald Jonash, head of innovation management at the Monitor Group, a global business consultancy.

‘Part of the problem is that success breeds complacency. So if you’re used to being successful - which many Singapore companies have been - the crisis that drives you to the next level is not there,’ he said in an interview with BT.

Mr Jonash was part of a team that studied innovation practices in Singapore companies. The study was a joint project between the Monitor Group and the Institute of Policy Studies.

Recalling his visits to Singapore companies, Mr Jonash said: ‘Everybody we talked to said innovation is important. Everybody said it’s a nine or a 10 on the importance scale. They don’t believe they can win without innovation.

‘But is it urgent enough on the agendas of CEOs and government agencies? No, there are a lot of other things on their agendas right now. So unless something comes along to trigger innovation, they’ll talk a lot about it but they won’t necessarily act on it in terms of putting investment, putting metrics in place to encourage and reward it, and putting their best people on it. Innovation won’t happen until it becomes urgent. Our feeling is, that’s what’s missing right now.’

Fast follower

Also, Singapore companies continue to aspire to being ‘fast followers’ and, at best, regional rather than global players, said Mr Jonash.

‘But there’s a risk in both those strategies. If you don’t have aspirations beyond being a fast follower or a regional player, you’re in danger of being overtaken by a lot of other companies in Asia, especially in China and India - because they do have bigger aspirations. So, even if companies have been winning in the past by being regional fast followers, in the future, that’s not going to be enough.’

Moreover, companies need to innovate even to be good fast followers, Mr Jonash said. The success of Apple Computer’s iPod was the result of a smart fast-follower strategy, he pointed out, noting that Apple did not pioneer the hard drive-based MP3 player; it just took it to another level through innovative design and marketing.

‘So, if you just copy other products and services and try to deliver them from Singapore, you will have high costs and limited marketing capabilities. And other people will offer the same thing faster, better and cheaper.’

Strategic partnerships

Mr Jonash proposed that Singapore companies - whether they make products or deliver services - should develop a “portfolio of innovation initiatives’ that is weighted more towards higher-risk, longer-term projects. ‘When you look at what companies have in their portfolios right now, you notice a tendency to gravitate toward lower-risk, shorter term, incremental initiatives,’ he said. ‘What companies have right now is 80 per cent incremental and 20 per cent new platforms and new growth. It should be closer to 50-50.’

Another skill Singapore companies will need to develop in future, according to Mr Jonash, is the ability to create strong strategic partnerships in other parts of the world. ‘MNCs are looking for partners to be players in Asia, and if Singapore companies don’t step forward, they will look for partners in China or India or someplace else.’

Going forward, partnerships will be increasingly critical for companies to grow and conquer markets outside their home base, said Mr Jonash.

‘If you look at companies from smaller markets that have become global winners, like Samsung and Nokia, they have, without question, used partnerships to help them scale up innovation.’