Post A Levels and Inequality
Its been 15 days since the end of the A Levels and I’ve been working as an intern at the Ministry of Finance. I requested the opportunity to intern with them after participating in the Budget Essay Competition 2007 earlier this year to see whether the civil service would be something I would like to do; overwhelmingly, I’ve found after talking to many of the staff there that I believe it is.
Among some of the opportunities that were availed during my short stay there were a tea session (with the 3 other interns) with the Permanent Secretary Teo Ming Kian and his Deputy Secretary Ng Wai Choong, who both managed to find almost 2 hours to have tea/dinner with youth probably one third their age. Among the questions I asked him were whether he thought there was a problem with inflation outpacing CPF return rates, and whether Michael Porter was right to say that there needs to be a scaling down of attracting FDI to Singapore. To the former he said that there was no issue with that, because CPF rates were pegged to deposit rates (which I didn’t know and shouldn’t have asked), and to the latter he said that if we listened to every economist that said something about Singapore, we would probably have bankrupted ourselves a long time ago- which inevitably brought memories of H3 Econ’s module on the significance of economics.
I think the last question I asked was the only one which quite made sense, and that is why Singapore’s system, which taken from an academic point of view is impeccably logical and (to an extent) “commonsensical”- but still, people are immensely discontented. His response that there will always be discontent, and that this discontent is in reality very moderate as compared to even Malaysia, where the Hinduraf has taken to the streets. Furthermore, he said that this discontentment is not very prevalent in Singapore made me think- and right now I’m not sure whether what he says can be true in say 20 years time.
A question like that raises two issues: whether Singapore’s system is that “logically commonsensical”, and whether there is only “moderate” discontent in Singapore. Though highly debatable, I believe the first is to a large extent true- look at what is right compared to what is wrong, and perhaps we are only nitpicking. Inequality is a very large issue in Singapore, but the tax/transfer and assistance schemes are to a large extent very progressive (though whether people realise this is a different issue altogether). Civil servants want to do something about it, and they do- we are not talking about a system that is plagued by corruption and inefficiency, but rather one which actually wants to achieve something. Inequality is answered by workfare schemes, which although not the answer in full go some way in the direction of an answer.
The second issue in the question is the one that is beginning to scare me. To a large extent, discontent is muted in Singapore- but there is a large groundswell of nascent discontent that will build up over the next few decades if inequality in the economic sense and in the elitist sense is not resolved. One just needs to go on a quick blog surf to see the mindsets of the idealistic youth (who perhaps have not had the acquired taste for pragmatism that life seems to impart) and their discontent. Do we see this as a growing trend against a “maximum government”, or is it just part and parcel of a society that will just be discontented but grudgingly willing?
I believe it is neither. Discontent in Singapore is primarily directed at socio-elitism and economic elitism: this explains the backlash against minister’s salaries, even though such a move has (it must be qualified: to some) a very clear logic behind it. This discontent is particularly dangerous because it combines one of the most powerful of ideals, equality, with human jealousies, envy- perhaps in itself an offshoot of the cutthroat rat race meritocracy in Singapore. In a society where the cultured wear cufflinks while the heartlander is dressed primarily by the neighbourhood pasar malam, there is little middle ground to straddle when the inequality is so vast.
Arguably, this is common to all societies, whether in the USA or elsewhere. Some are dressed by Wal-Mart, while others by the Massimo Duttis and Versaces of 5th Avenue, New York. It is not the presence of a lesser inequality or a stronger middle class as the “middle ground” that lessens the discontent there. But the crucial “outlet” for discontent there is the presence of a political scene- discontent can be translated into political will, and there is a “voice” which actually is effective. Does this reduce discontent? Perhaps, at the immense cost of political efficiency and a resolute, clear policy stance that has enabled Singapore to be what it is today.
The Singapore of today panders to two groups- the first the economic bigwigs and the businesses, that mandate the pro-business stance that the government takes. The second is its people, the ones who make it possible. I believe that business is better for all as a whole, and that it is out of the question for in the next 50 years to see us reduce a pro-business stance to a populist stance. That would render Singapore ineffective to compete, and in 50 years time we would be nothing more than a state whose best years are past while the other cities of Southeast Asia power on. But then again, whether the benefits really trickle down to the people would be the crucial issue- and more importantly, whether they perceive it trickles down.
Thus said, there are two integral conclusions: first, that the government chooses between allowing discontent to grow or having a opposition as an “outlet” for discontent; second, that the government chooses the middle ground between a pro-business and a populist stance. The thing that underlies both is perception- how much does the public perceive as an “outlet” for their discontent, and as a “populist stance”. Simply put, half of it is what it is- and the other half, what it looks like.
Take Singapore’s transfer payments system: it is awfully complicated with tons of acronyms (kiFAS, U-SAVE among some), and as a whole, it is difficult to see how much one is receiving from the government. If we would just take all of this and replace it with a centralized system called say “the welfare system” which would just total up all the government is doing, and calculate it for you, the perception that the government isn’t doing anything would be ameliorated. People would remember that the problem is solved through “the welfare system”. This reminds me of the difference between Windows and Apple (which I use). Windows arguably can do more- but Apple is all about simplicity. I know what ilife offers: video editing, music player, etc- and thus I call my Mac a “multimedia machine”; ask me whether a Windows is a multimedia machine and I’d have to pause and think. The PC has all those functions and perhaps more, but the Apple doesn’t want to make me have to think before I make a conclusion.
This, increasingly, is sounding Orwellian- that all of it has to do with the mind, and that all we have to do is give a bit of minitrue treatment to every governmental function to usher us into utopia. It isn’t. There are many things which I feel aren’t right about government policy and inequality, but all this about perception has to do with what is already right about it. For what is already there in substance, we have to give it some style- for what isn’t there in substance, we definitely have to work on it. Singapore has been all about substance thus far; perhaps what it needs is a dose of private sector branding and image consultancy. Governing a country, like all things, needs substance- and a healthy dose of style.
