Tweet
<DIV id=printReady>
The Singaporean reality
published: Thursday | December 7, 2006 <DIV class=KonaBody>
The Editor, Sir:
I refer to the letter written by Paul Duncan titled "Why the Singapore model wouldn't work here." I am a Singaporean currently living in New York, and I cannot help but be appalled by the version of events given by a non-Singaporean.
Duncan agrees that Singapore is an economic miracle, but somehow holds to the view that ours is a totalitarian system possessed by a dictator. Taken together, readers might conclude that this dictator must be a pure genius to have single-handedly created this economic miracle. How fascinating.
The fact of the matter is that the majority of citizens living in any democratic country would also be willing to repeatedly vote in the same party if he or she can observe improvements in their living standards. This conclusion should be obvious if we consider that Duncan himself admits that Singapore has greatly advanced in education, wealth and living standards.
Duncan cites a lot of measures which he claimed helped Singapore's economical success. It is not true at all.
Let's examine the issue of population control which he suggested was a major part of an economic turnaround. It is openly acknowledged by Lee Kuan Yew today (largely retired), that he made a mistake in introducing population control in the past. It is currently acknowledged today by most people (except people like Paul Duncan), that this was a very serious blunder which will hamper rather than assist Singapore's progress in the future. To compensate for this mistake, the government currently encourages foreign emigration into Singapore which is completely contrary to the claim of population control.
Central provident fund
The central provident fund (CPF) is not at 25 per cent and meant only for retirement purposes. In reality, Singaporeans contribute 20 per cent of their salary while employers contribute another 13 per cent to this CPF fund. This fund is normally used to purchase property, fund education and health care. The main objective of this fund is to eliminate homelessness in Singapore and generally most Singaporeans do not keep the money till they are 55 although they can choose to. How else does Duncan think we financed those skyscrapers that he mentioned? Any left over money in the CPF would be available after 55.
In addition to that, it is not true that draconian punishments are levied against even the smallest legal infraction. Noise is allowed as long as it is not in the middle of the night or a violation of safety limits resulting in inconvenience to others. Otherwise you would be given a police warning. You will only be charged if you repeatedly disturb the peace. Dances and drums are allowed in Singapore streets, and many street performers perform in Orchard Road daily with full approval and encouragement of the authorities.
Contrary to what is said, there are a lot of people criticising the government with no repercussions unless the rebuttal of statements is considered a repercussion. A line is drawn, however, if slander is involved which is common for most countries; you can attack a person's policies but not a person's reputation.
Spitting is still done in Singapore and if you are caught, you are fined a relatively small sum of money. The rationale for this fine has to do with the hot and humid weather in Singapore which is a perfect breeding ground for diseases such as tuberculosis which was widespread in the early days of Singapore. It is not a light matter when people die due to 'anti-social' behaviour.
But I do agree with one point though, that Jamaica has to find its own way to prosperity. You have your own problems and we Singaporeans also have our own problems.
I am, etc.,
PATRICK LIM
<B
The Singaporean reality
published: Thursday | December 7, 2006 <DIV class=KonaBody>
The Editor, Sir:
I refer to the letter written by Paul Duncan titled "Why the Singapore model wouldn't work here." I am a Singaporean currently living in New York, and I cannot help but be appalled by the version of events given by a non-Singaporean.
Duncan agrees that Singapore is an economic miracle, but somehow holds to the view that ours is a totalitarian system possessed by a dictator. Taken together, readers might conclude that this dictator must be a pure genius to have single-handedly created this economic miracle. How fascinating.
The fact of the matter is that the majority of citizens living in any democratic country would also be willing to repeatedly vote in the same party if he or she can observe improvements in their living standards. This conclusion should be obvious if we consider that Duncan himself admits that Singapore has greatly advanced in education, wealth and living standards.
Duncan cites a lot of measures which he claimed helped Singapore's economical success. It is not true at all.
Let's examine the issue of population control which he suggested was a major part of an economic turnaround. It is openly acknowledged by Lee Kuan Yew today (largely retired), that he made a mistake in introducing population control in the past. It is currently acknowledged today by most people (except people like Paul Duncan), that this was a very serious blunder which will hamper rather than assist Singapore's progress in the future. To compensate for this mistake, the government currently encourages foreign emigration into Singapore which is completely contrary to the claim of population control.
Central provident fund
The central provident fund (CPF) is not at 25 per cent and meant only for retirement purposes. In reality, Singaporeans contribute 20 per cent of their salary while employers contribute another 13 per cent to this CPF fund. This fund is normally used to purchase property, fund education and health care. The main objective of this fund is to eliminate homelessness in Singapore and generally most Singaporeans do not keep the money till they are 55 although they can choose to. How else does Duncan think we financed those skyscrapers that he mentioned? Any left over money in the CPF would be available after 55.
In addition to that, it is not true that draconian punishments are levied against even the smallest legal infraction. Noise is allowed as long as it is not in the middle of the night or a violation of safety limits resulting in inconvenience to others. Otherwise you would be given a police warning. You will only be charged if you repeatedly disturb the peace. Dances and drums are allowed in Singapore streets, and many street performers perform in Orchard Road daily with full approval and encouragement of the authorities.
Contrary to what is said, there are a lot of people criticising the government with no repercussions unless the rebuttal of statements is considered a repercussion. A line is drawn, however, if slander is involved which is common for most countries; you can attack a person's policies but not a person's reputation.
Spitting is still done in Singapore and if you are caught, you are fined a relatively small sum of money. The rationale for this fine has to do with the hot and humid weather in Singapore which is a perfect breeding ground for diseases such as tuberculosis which was widespread in the early days of Singapore. It is not a light matter when people die due to 'anti-social' behaviour.
But I do agree with one point though, that Jamaica has to find its own way to prosperity. You have your own problems and we Singaporeans also have our own problems.
I am, etc.,
PATRICK LIM
<B
Comment