Minxin Pei in Think again: Asia’s Rise:

Even when you look at autocracies credited with economic success, you find two interesting facts. First, their economic performance improved when they became less brutal and allowed greater personal and economic freedoms. Second, the keys to their successes were sensible economic policies, such as conservative macroeconomic management, infrastructural investment, promotion of savings, and pushing exports. Dictatorship really has no magic formula for economic development.

Many Singaporean students shy away from studying the humanities and social sciences because of the perceived lack of financial returns in doing so. Another push factor is the perception that those are the less ‘prestigious’ options — that only those whose grades weren’t good enough to get them into other streams or courses end up studying the humanities or social sciences (yes, I know economics is an exception). Thus there is a certain pressure not to be seen as one of those who ‘couldn’t make it’ into the more prestigious options.

It recently struck me that there might be another major reason why Singaporeans shy away from the humanities and social sciences. Perhaps there is a fear of dealing with issues with the following characteristics:

• Not easily quantifiable
• Invites critical examination of one’s own value system
• Raises problems that cannot be solved algorithmically but requires thinking of a less constrained sort

Certainly, many of my JC classmates really disliked being handed problems, even in mathematics, that could be solved only by a method that they had not been ‘taught’ in class. They wanted to ’solve’ things for which they knew the set procedure for solving. They were also extremely uncomfortable in GP lessons when encountering values different from their own. Mere discomfort on its own may not be a problem, but they actively avoided discussions that involved clashes of values. They did not even want to attempt to resolve such clashes or find out more about why they exist (reminiscent of the government’s warnings that racial or religious controversies should not even be discussed). In short, the preference of students for tasks with standard operating procedures may predispose them to avoid the humanities and social sciences, independent of the already existing financial and social disincentives.

MP Lim Biow Chuan:

Are we happy with the values of the young Singaporeans who have gone through the school system? Do they bear the positive traits that we want to see in the future generation of Singaporeans? Are the scholars that we produce, the GEP students, the top tier students in the IP schools, our university and polytechnic graduates - Are they humble, considerate, kind, grateful, compassionate, willing to help others? Do they appreciate all that Singapore has done for them and the many opportunities that they have been given compared to other third world countries?

My problems with this:

1. The assumption that gratefulness is a good thing. Now, it is clearly a good thing for people to be grateful to those deserving of their gratefulness, say people who have done them significant favours. But it is also clearly not a good thing to be grateful to people who have, say, harmed you. We would say there is something terribly wrong with the sexually abused child who is grateful for being sexually abused. In implicitly praising gratefulness Lim fails to delineate the conditions under which he thinks gratefulness is desirable. This primes his audience for the next rhetorical trick:
2. He then asks if students are grateful for what Singapore has done for them compared to other third world countries. Having been primed by his previous laundry list of ‘desirable’ values, the audience is asked if young people lack gratefulness for a particular thing. They are supposed to assume that young people should feel grateful for this particular thing. But it’s not so clear that one should be grateful as long as one’s living standards, opportunities etc. are better than those in third world countries. Furthermore, the MP had to throw in an ‘other’ there, as though Singapore is still a third world country. So there are two levels of framing going on — firstly, framing the issue as though gratefulness in general is a good thing; secondly, suggesting that Singapore is part of the group of countries we think of as third world countries, and hence that the latter is a fair group of comparison.

That’s the message I get from how the Citizenship and Population Unit is rewarding foreigners for giving their opinions on life in Singapore.

The Citizenship & Population Unit, Prime Minister’s Office (CPU/PMO) is conducting an e-survey for A*STAR’s foreign researchers to know you better and introduce global talents like yourself to the various aspects of life in Singapore through their privileged events. The e-survey will also help CPU/PMO to plan their upcoming events based on your feedback. These events are specially organised only for CPU/PMO’s partner organisations which include A*STAR.

The survey should take less than 10 mins to complete and they are giving away a stored value coffeebean card to every respondent. You may click on the link to start the e-survey.

—-

GREETINGS!

We are from the Citizenship and Population Unit (CPU). We hope to get to know you better and introduce global talents like yourself to the various aspects of life in Singapore, so as to enhance your living experience here!

I wonder if the CPU (oh, what a cute acronym) is also supposed to help decrease emigration. Going by their website there’s some mention of engaging overseas Singaporeans (in addition to the usual suspects of babies and immigration), but none on engaging disengaged citizens who live in Singapore.

To all the Singaporean students out there who might want to do a PhD:

You should be aware that it is actually possible, and, if you aim low enough, not terribly difficult, to do a PhD in a US university without having to pay anything out of your own pocket. In the sciences and engineering, it’s not difficult to get a funded PhD offer even if you have an undergrad degree from a local university, so long as your grades and research record are good. (In the social sciences and humanities, it may be rather more difficult to gain admission — although once you are admitted, you are typically fully funded. The reasons for this are a bit complicated — feel free to contact me directly if you really want my take on this.) I feel that I had to say this somewhere public, because I’ve recently been encountering a fair number of students in JC or university (or in between) expressing surprise when I told them this. I have to say, I find it shocking that some of their so-called “mentors” in the local universities perpetuate their students’ ignorance of this fact by not informing them of it and instead encouraging them to take up PhD scholarships offered by government research agencies. Given that there are such “mentors” around, I thought I’d offer this small bit of countervailing opinion, however little read it turns out to be.

It’s not just PhDs — there are funded Masters courses in the US, even in the humanities. Please, before you sign any binding contract, talk to people in the field, and talk to as many people as you can find, not just your so-called advisors.

A European friend points me to a Dutch TV feature (link induces a download of a .wmv stream) on Singapore’s “success story”. It’s very one-sided. They interview LKY, Kishore Mahbubani and Philip Yeo, amongst others. They do not interview any poor people living in Singapore — only expats, a Straits Times journalist, and a young man who did his MBA at INSEAD. Nonetheless, the editors must not have been completely taken in by their one-sided sources — at the very end, the narrator says something like “if it looks too good to be true, it probably is”.

I read Richard Florida’s Rise of the Creative Class recently (five years behind the internet intelligentsia) and have been wanting to post excerpts from it that I found particularly pertinent to Singapore. Turns out that today’s ST has an interview with architect William Lim that dovetails nicely with one of Florida’s main points. First, Florida:

Places are also valued for authenticity and uniqueness, as I have heard many times in my studies. Authenticity comes from several aspects of a community — historic buildings, established neighborhoods, a unique music scene or specific cultural attributes. It comes from the mix — from urban grit alongside renovated buildings, from the commingling of young and old, long-time neighborhood characters and yuppies, fashion models and “bag ladies”.

People in my interviews and focus groups often define “authenticity” as the opposite of generic. They equate authentic with being “real”, as in a place that has real buildings, real people, real history. An authentic place also offers unique and original experiences. Thus a place full of chain stores, chain restaurants and nightclubs is not authentic: Not only do these venues look pretty much the same everywhere, they offer the same experience you could have anywhere.

Now Lim:

WILLIAM Lim thinks that Singapore stands out from other Asian cities because it lacks vibrancy. ‘In the upscale, high-rise Tokyo district of Ginza, you need only walk 50 yards to see traditional Japanese low-density streets off the main road.’

Singapore, however, cleared out the back lanes and side streets along with main arteries of old districts during its many urban renewal programmes over the years. The clean-slate approach and rigid state control drained the streets of colour that characterised traditional activities in these areas.

Dullness, he says, is still something that hobbles Singapore despite the more varied housing, shopping and entertainment projects pushed out in recent years. In this aspect, he feels the Government could take a leaf out of the underrated districts of Geylang and Little India.

He notes that these areas - crammed with old-style eateries, independent shops, red light zones and housing projects in side streets - are still vibrant because ‘they have not been substantially disturbed by road widening and clearances’.

Their charm, he adds, is ‘chaotic order’.

‘In this apparent chaos, there is a very unstructured order. Even though goods sold spill over onto the pavement, they don’t spill over onto the street. There is still space that allows people to walk through the area.’

The unpredictability of these areas generates creative energy that easily trumps the carefully planned glitz of Orchard Road.

Singapore needs more of such unpredictable areas which he calls ’spaces of indeterminacy’. This refers to ‘leftover spaces’ like void decks or land under flyovers, which he says should be used for anything as long as it is not harmful.

He also thinks the Government should set aside buildings earmarked for demolition - such as first-generation Housing Board flats - for use by the grassroots and arts communities in any way they deem fit.

Such a low-rental environment will give artists enough breathing space to mingle, explore and create works they would not otherwise do because they cannot afford the high rental for art studios.

‘Art is vibrancy for the community,’ he declares, citing the example of 798 Art District in Beijing, an artist enclave that grew out of decommissioned factories, now being compared to New York’s Greenwich Village.

‘It can be music, photography, writing, poetry. It’s a criss-cross of these ideas that generate energy,’ he says. For it to work, there needs to be enough buzz from not just successful artists but struggling ones too.

‘It’s very untidy and you have got to accept the untidiness,’ he points out.

In the background story:

‘Singapore is quite cosmopolitan, but that doesn’t automatically make a city vibrant. Melbourne is not a global city, but Melbourne is very vibrant. I talk to people in Bangkok, and they never bother about whether it is a global city or not. Who cares?

I would put it another way: Singapore thinks that one can create a great city the way one can create a great airport — make everything clean, comfortable and efficient, and attract a nominally ‘cosmopolitan’ clientele. But people don’t like certain airports for the same reasons that they like certain cities. The creative class especially doesn’t value cleanliness, comfort, and efficiency in cities as much as it does in airports. Sure, you need a certain amount of cleanliness and comfort to work, but taken to the extreme, it leads to a sterile environment. I used to prefer working in the grungier humanities library of my university rather than the much tidier, less crowded, quieter, and sterile science library. The humanities library felt alive; the science library dead. The former wasn’t noisy enough to hinder my work but had enough background shiftings and murmurings and sighs to make me feel like I was in a place full of life. Part of Florida’s argument is that most creative people like environments that are slightly ‘dirty’ that way. All the better if the dirt is authentic.

It probably hasn’t escaped the notice of any reasonable informed observer of Singaporean affairs that the government has a tendency to paint the internet as containing unreliable information or as a corrupting influence on our morals. The latter is a constant theme in the Chinese-language media; while the English language-media seems to harp more on the former. Lee Boon Yang’s latest justification of the government’s response to AIMS’s recommendations contains yet another smear of the internet:

There is a difference from giving such films the privilege to circulate freely in Singapore, to saying that those who want to watch it, you go to the dark reaches of the Internet and watch it.

Dear me, here I am frolicking around in the dark reaches of the Internet! Who knows what will pounce on me any moment?

Need I mention that I don’t see how, if the link to a video of a film is passed by e-mail between people in Singapore, the film is not circulating freely in Singapore? But, you know, only scary people or crazy people who actually frequent that scary place called the internet would be reached by this circulation! And so we can let them watch it, they’re damaged anyway, and the rest of the population should stick to the light-filled streets painted by the mainstream media.

I came across this old MND speech defending HDB’s anti-singles pro-family policies. I thought the following two excerpts juxtapose nicely:
(1)

Sir, let me remind members that public housing is subsidized housing. The subsidies are justified because it promotes social objectives which are in the public interest. Racial harmony, social cohesion, family values. That is why public housing comes with many rules and regulations. We try to keep such rules to the minimum. Even then, I must admit that they can be quite bewildering. However, I wish to assure the House that they are necessary. Coming back to housing for singles, let me state upfront that our public housing policy is pro-family in orientation, to support the Government’s social objective of promoting family formation and bonding.

(2)

Mr Ang Mong Seng had suggested that we build HDB blocks purely for singles to encourage greater social interaction. Sir, many members in this House have asked for a review of HDB’s role. Even while the review is going on, I can categorically say that HDB will not take on a role which others like SDU and SDS are better placed to play.

Yeah, yeah, I should find more difficult fish to shoot.

This is what the index claims to do:

We define prosperity holistically to include both material wealth and quality of life. Rather than replicating other measurements that rank countries by their actual levels of material wealth or life satisfaction, the Index produces a ranking based on the conditions that foster prosperity – that is, the factors that promote economic competitiveness and improved liveability in a given country. We refer to these factors as drivers of prosperity and to those that impede prosperity, as restrainers. The Index endeavours to rank countries according to the strength of these drivers and restrainers, not according to simple measures of income and life satisfaction.

Their Country Rankings Table conveniently divides the factors they used into two categories: those to do with economic competitiveness and those to do with comparative livability.

Singapore ranks first on the economic competitive index, largely due to extremely high scores in ‘economic openness’ and ‘commercialising innovation’. And I do mean extremely: Singapore and Hong Kong get scores of 46 and 47 respectively for economic openness, and the next highest score is 20 (Belgium and Slovakia). I didn’t dig into Legatum’s methodology to find out how heavily economic openness is weighted, but suffice to say that Hong Kong ranks second on the economic competitive index. Clearly this is one factor that favours city states, which because of their lack of natural and human resources have no choice but to open their economies to trade. Singapore, however, is strongly penalised for ‘dependence on commodity exports (presumably refined oil) — in the top 20 countries on the prosperity index, only Singapore and Norway score negatives for dependence on commodity exports, and strong negatives at that.

The index that I find more interesting is the comparative livability index. It will not surprise many that Singapore doesn’t top the tables here. It’s ranked 17. Its biggest negatives are in ‘moderate climate’, ‘time for leisure’, and ‘religious freedom’. Compare HK’s biggest negatives: ‘pleasant environment’, ‘moderate climate’, and ‘family life’. I’m a bit puzzled by why both HK and Singapore get -11 for ‘moderate climate’: doesn’t HK clearly have a more moderate climate than Singapore’s? Anyway, it’s interesting that HK also has the same disparity between high economic competitiveness and comparatively lower livability — #2 for economic competitiveness versus #19 for livability. As noted in the report and summary of this year’s rankings, this seems to a be a common problem for rich Asian states: they tend to rank high on economic competitiveness but low on livability. Other examples are Taiwan which is #5 for economic competitiveness but #37 for livability and Japan which is #4 for economic competitiveness and #22 for livability. Wealthy ‘Western’ countries are more balanced in their economic competitiveness versus livability scores. Australia, the overall top-ranked country, scored 6th for economic competitiveness and 10th for livability. Next comes Austria which scored 9th and 8th in the two categories, then Finland with 12th and 5th.

Despite the disparity between the economic competitiveness and livability rankings, #17 is still not bad — I dare say it is something to be proud of given that Singapore wasn’t exactly given a favourable start etc. Singapore’s extremely low score for ‘time for leisure’, though, I find morbidly fascinating. It’s not just low, it is the lowest score of the 100 countries studied. Here are the countries that received scores of less than -3 on this count: Kuwait -28 (tied with Singapore), Israel -6, South Korea -19, Greece -7. So we’re at the very extreme end of a distribution of scores mostly (for less rich countries) clustered around 0, and mostly positive for rich countries. As one might expect, the very high end of scores for this category is dominated by countries in rich European countries (Denmark 45!!).