Will Singapore be judged by a different yardstick?
by Loh Chee Kong Updated 11:50 AM Jun 06, 2009AS FAMILIES huddled around their radio sets on June 5, 1959 - that momentous day when the first Singaporean Cabinet was sworn in - a jubilant voice belonging to then-Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew pledged to bring about “a happier and better Singapore”.
Fifty years on - and after a short-lived, tumultous merger with its northern neighbour - the transformation of an island beset with a shortage of urban housing, widespread unemployment and backward economic conditions is strikingly obvious.
The Republic’s success story, as Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) senior research fellow Gillian Koh put it, goes beyond the material. “Our success is defined not by economic success but the fact that most people of the Independence generation and their children enjoy access to high-quality housing, healthcare, education at the standards that people from other post-colonial states talk about,” she said
Yet, to outsiders at least - and the Government has made no bones about it - “economic success has become the ideological benchmark for Singapore’s raison d’etre”, in the words of Australian scholars Ien Ang and John Stratton in their 1995 book The Singapore way of Multiculturalism: Western Concepts/Eastern Cultures.
Concurring, Singapore Management University law academic Eugene Tan felt that the economic imperative “has been so compelling as it is necessary, and provides the Government with tremendous performance legitimacy”.
“But such an abiding focus ... important as it is to our very survival, has given Singapore the shallow feel of being a mere economy,” said Assistant Professor Tan. “... to have national pride and success that stems primarily from economic prosperity would mean that we run the risk of our self-worth as a nation measured in economic terms as well.”
As Singaporeans look back on the last 50 years with pride, there is a clamour for a different yardstick. One that is arguably borne out of necessity as the country moves out of its nascent stage.
GDP A Byword for progress
Several economists whom Weekend Xtra spoke to pointed to the Government’s apparent focus on the economic growth rate.
Said Centennial Group economist Manu Bhaskaran: “In the early years, economic policy was not just about growth but ensuring that growth benefited everyone - the HDB programme to house people as well as to help them build wealth was a critical feature of economic growth. The emphasis then was also on jobs for Singaporeans.”
On its part, the Government had made its stance clear on using the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as the chief measure of economic progress. Responding to a Today analysis on the topic, the Ministry of Trade and Industry acknowledged in February last year that GDP, which does not reflect externalities like environmental costs or income distribution, had its limitations as a measure of economic welfare or progress.
But it was “still the best gauge of an economy’s progress”, it said. “Knowing a country’s GDP per capita tells us a lot more about the economic well-being of its people than any other single measure. Other measures can complement GDP but cannot replace it.”
United States-based Singaporean economist Linda Lim pointed out that GDP growth was “obviously necessary to guarantee ever-increasing living standards for Singaporeans”.
But assuming Singaporeans “still want to see improved living standards in the next 50 years”, the definition of these standards might change, “with quality of life becoming more important than the quantity of material goods consumed”, suggested Professor Lim, who lectures at the University of Michigan.
“GDP growth can enable all of these. So it’s not going to go away, nor should it.”
Still, Nanyang Technological University economics professor Choy Keen Meng noted that it would be “sad indeed if Singaporeans ... continue to view consumption of goods and services as the ultimate objective of life”.
As the late American politician Robert Kennedy pointed out: “The gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play ... It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.”
It is worth noting, though, that Mr Kennedy’s words in 1968 came almost 200 years after the founding of the United States. In that regard, Singapore has time on its side.
Beyond economic growth
SMU economics don Davin Chor has already noticed a “subtle shift”, in the last five years or so, in how success is being defined.
“There is also now a push to define ourselves as a global city,” he said. “As the economy matures and growth moderates ... I would argue that it would be helpful to redefine success in Singapore by whether we can build ourselves up into an attractive global city where businesses and talented individuals, both local and foreign, would like to live and work in.”
Away from the economy, observers felt that the political system has much scope for development in the decades to come. In recent weeks, the Government has already signalled that the political landscape has to evolve.
While some might use political freedom rankings by international think tanks as a gauge, IPS’ Dr Koh argued that the true test lies in how Singapore’s political system and institutions - and the people running them - respond to the competing demands and trade-offs, including greater liberty or “commitment to political and social fundamentals”.
For SMU’s Asst Prof Tan, the development of a national identity; how the society treats the underprivileged and disadvantaged; and even the “lessening importance” of Group Representation Constituencies in the electoral system might be among the measures of how the political landscape here is evolving.
Another indicator, he added, might be a Prime Minister from a minority race or a female President or Prime Minister.
But perhaps the ultimate gauge of Singapore’s future progress lies not in the country’s accolades or how it is viewed by outsiders.
Instead, true progress, argued Institute of South-east Asian Studies senior fellow Terence Chong, comes when individuals are empowered to define their own successes - independent of societal expectations.
“Until the individual reclaims the term ‘success’ and defines it according to his own personal values, we will always be saddled with conventional notions like ‘excellence’ and ‘being the best’.” WEEKENDVTRA
by Loh Chee Kong Updated 11:50 AM Jun 06, 2009AS FAMILIES huddled around their radio sets on June 5, 1959 - that momentous day when the first Singaporean Cabinet was sworn in - a jubilant voice belonging to then-Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew pledged to bring about “a happier and better Singapore”.
Fifty years on - and after a short-lived, tumultous merger with its northern neighbour - the transformation of an island beset with a shortage of urban housing, widespread unemployment and backward economic conditions is strikingly obvious.
The Republic’s success story, as Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) senior research fellow Gillian Koh put it, goes beyond the material. “Our success is defined not by economic success but the fact that most people of the Independence generation and their children enjoy access to high-quality housing, healthcare, education at the standards that people from other post-colonial states talk about,” she said
Yet, to outsiders at least - and the Government has made no bones about it - “economic success has become the ideological benchmark for Singapore’s raison d’etre”, in the words of Australian scholars Ien Ang and John Stratton in their 1995 book The Singapore way of Multiculturalism: Western Concepts/Eastern Cultures.
Concurring, Singapore Management University law academic Eugene Tan felt that the economic imperative “has been so compelling as it is necessary, and provides the Government with tremendous performance legitimacy”.
“But such an abiding focus ... important as it is to our very survival, has given Singapore the shallow feel of being a mere economy,” said Assistant Professor Tan. “... to have national pride and success that stems primarily from economic prosperity would mean that we run the risk of our self-worth as a nation measured in economic terms as well.”
As Singaporeans look back on the last 50 years with pride, there is a clamour for a different yardstick. One that is arguably borne out of necessity as the country moves out of its nascent stage.
GDP A Byword for progress
Several economists whom Weekend Xtra spoke to pointed to the Government’s apparent focus on the economic growth rate.
Said Centennial Group economist Manu Bhaskaran: “In the early years, economic policy was not just about growth but ensuring that growth benefited everyone - the HDB programme to house people as well as to help them build wealth was a critical feature of economic growth. The emphasis then was also on jobs for Singaporeans.”
On its part, the Government had made its stance clear on using the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as the chief measure of economic progress. Responding to a Today analysis on the topic, the Ministry of Trade and Industry acknowledged in February last year that GDP, which does not reflect externalities like environmental costs or income distribution, had its limitations as a measure of economic welfare or progress.
But it was “still the best gauge of an economy’s progress”, it said. “Knowing a country’s GDP per capita tells us a lot more about the economic well-being of its people than any other single measure. Other measures can complement GDP but cannot replace it.”
United States-based Singaporean economist Linda Lim pointed out that GDP growth was “obviously necessary to guarantee ever-increasing living standards for Singaporeans”.
But assuming Singaporeans “still want to see improved living standards in the next 50 years”, the definition of these standards might change, “with quality of life becoming more important than the quantity of material goods consumed”, suggested Professor Lim, who lectures at the University of Michigan.
“GDP growth can enable all of these. So it’s not going to go away, nor should it.”
Still, Nanyang Technological University economics professor Choy Keen Meng noted that it would be “sad indeed if Singaporeans ... continue to view consumption of goods and services as the ultimate objective of life”.
As the late American politician Robert Kennedy pointed out: “The gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play ... It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.”
It is worth noting, though, that Mr Kennedy’s words in 1968 came almost 200 years after the founding of the United States. In that regard, Singapore has time on its side.
Beyond economic growth
SMU economics don Davin Chor has already noticed a “subtle shift”, in the last five years or so, in how success is being defined.
“There is also now a push to define ourselves as a global city,” he said. “As the economy matures and growth moderates ... I would argue that it would be helpful to redefine success in Singapore by whether we can build ourselves up into an attractive global city where businesses and talented individuals, both local and foreign, would like to live and work in.”
Away from the economy, observers felt that the political system has much scope for development in the decades to come. In recent weeks, the Government has already signalled that the political landscape has to evolve.
While some might use political freedom rankings by international think tanks as a gauge, IPS’ Dr Koh argued that the true test lies in how Singapore’s political system and institutions - and the people running them - respond to the competing demands and trade-offs, including greater liberty or “commitment to political and social fundamentals”.
For SMU’s Asst Prof Tan, the development of a national identity; how the society treats the underprivileged and disadvantaged; and even the “lessening importance” of Group Representation Constituencies in the electoral system might be among the measures of how the political landscape here is evolving.
Another indicator, he added, might be a Prime Minister from a minority race or a female President or Prime Minister.
But perhaps the ultimate gauge of Singapore’s future progress lies not in the country’s accolades or how it is viewed by outsiders.
Instead, true progress, argued Institute of South-east Asian Studies senior fellow Terence Chong, comes when individuals are empowered to define their own successes - independent of societal expectations.
“Until the individual reclaims the term ‘success’ and defines it according to his own personal values, we will always be saddled with conventional notions like ‘excellence’ and ‘being the best’.” WEEKENDVTRA
