Singapore’s Governance
By Kevin
Probably the last of many copied...
Thomas Friedman told America to get serious with learning from Singapore. Wei Seng asked for opposition and he got it. It was argued by Alastair on the Harvard Political Review that America can't follow Singapore and that it shouldn't. It was a strong cultural-political perspective but tend to treat the world as a little too static. Perhaps the key here is that people were getting somewhat too ideological about this 'learning from a model' thing.
As I finished my LSE100 Essay, I find myself more sensitive to our common tendencies to generalize from narrow cases or try to squeeze generalizations to fit individual cases just because of a couple of hints of a reasonable fit. We need to be eclectic about using models especially when it comes down to governance. It is not easy to point out key factors driving a performance or phenomena and often, obvious causes for one thing might be present in another situation where outcomes diverges. And that is where I find Alastair's piece a little flawed in its fundamental claim:
In order to properly understand Singapore’s government, you just can’t disentangle its “less-than-free politics” from its “attitude” and treat them as independent from each other, since it is Singapore’s political institutions that drive its government’s success.
I'm not sure if Alastair's definition of 'government's success' is the same as that of Friedman's because in Singapore, we tend to think of the government and the ruling party as synonymous. But I take it to mean that they are taking 'success' to be the 'governance of the country'. Undoubtedly, there is a lot of economics involved in the governance of Singapore and Alastair risk treating the governance as being about politicking, or even vile manipulation (which explains why he might think 'it’s also something that Americans will find morally abhorrent'). Economic incentives can be designed and put in place even in America's political structure and even if it does affect the Gini coefficient, I don't understand why that is that much of a cause for concern in the short term - to adopt the Singapore government's argument, you want to expend efforts to expand the pie, not waste efforts trying to divide it equally. More often than not, when the pie is not expanding, it's shrinking and that ones with small share of it simply gets even smaller shares. Thinking 'we're just different' doesn't help us learn from others, not to mention that America's liberal tradition doesn't appear to help with Gini Coefficient much either.
In the special report on the future of the state in the recent Economist, Singapore was praised once again and hailed as a model that the west should follow. The Economist provided a more pragmatic and balanced view of the issue, identifying exactly the many features that the west could follow. And perhaps more importantly, it urges Singapore to think also about relaxing its grip. It highlighted the progress made in thinking about its elitist education system (It's The End to something more positive and better; though some Singaporeans might disagree) and the investment made in people. The equation of success is always changing, the Singapore government do not always 'knows best'. We are already at the edge of development where there's no longer models or formulas we can follow and at this point of time, if granted people greater liberty is vital for success, I believe the government will move ahead with that.
It is pragmatism that drives the politics and economics in Singapore and the entire system is actually more laissez-faire, on a grander scale than most would have noticed.
Politics in America: Learn from Singapore?
By Wei Seng
Time to take politics & governance seriously?
Thomas Friedman, one of my favourite writers, in a visit to Singapore at the end of last month, proudly proclaims that there are lessons to learn from Singapore for American politics.
Politics? One might question. Singapore is supposed to be well-known for or often perceived in the West as a more authoritarian, repressive country. But here the learning pointers are precisely from the way politics is conducted: "Taking governance seriously, relentlessly asking: What world are we living in and how do we adapt to thrive?"
"Taking governance seriously" is vague and sounds as if the American government does not take governance seriously, but sometimes the things they do and the things they argue about, you really wonder if these people are in a government by the people, for the people, to serve the people or to serve their own interests. Even if the people in government were really concerned about the state of the nation, their stubborness and refusal to compromise or cooperate is paralyzing proper governance.
Singapore's brand of politics might be said to be of the pragmatic kind, which is pretty much the nature of Singaporeans in general: doing things not just for the sake of doing things, but because there are benefits, or because they work. No point harping so much on theory or idealism, whatever works is whatever shall be done. In a world where globalisation continually integrates parts of the world together, the line between democracy and other forms of governance or ideology start to blur, and perhaps it is wiser to adapt and subscribe to whatever works?
Not that I am an ardent or blind supporter of the way Singapore's democracy works, but I do feel that it is better to have a working government, albeit one that prescribes and reproaches like a strict parent, rather than a dysfunctional government that struggles to do anything at all for its people.
Read the whole article to get a good idea of what he thinks is good in Singapore. But ultimately, as Friedman concludes, what America should learn from Singapore is the correct "attitude" to adopt in governance.
Anyone disagrees with Friedman?
Vouchers for healthier living?
By Wei Seng
I'll need a discount on that
It strikes me as amazing that a Conservative government (albeit a coalition one with the Liberal Democrats) in the UK is actually introducing vouchers to encourage people to eat healthily and exercise. The report in The Independent claims that it is all part of a "government-backed healthy living" initiative called Change4Life, by launching a "Great Swapathon" that allows people to redeem £50 worth of vouchers for healthier food and activities by taking part in a survey on the Great Swapathon website.
It looks to me like a subsidy on healthier food, and I am surprised that the Tory government would actually consider such seemingly market-distorting policies considering their pro-market stance. But such a scheme is actually more pro-market than an actual subsidy on the price of healthier food and activities as this scheme involves the food industry and retailers and allows them quite a bit of influence in the campaign. Which then leads to people complaining that actually allowing firms in the food industry the ability to influence public helath campaigns is not quite a good idea because the firms would be more concerned with profits and their bottom line rather than what is truly good for the consumer or populace.
Either way, it is a good step forward for a country that is facing an "obesity time bomb". As the Health Secretary says, "the healthier option isnt always the cheaper option", so the poor should at least be allowed some access to more wholesome though more expensive foods rather than cheap junk food.
Lights Out on Government Intervention?
By Wei Seng
Really?
Paul Krugman, an economics professor, self-proclaimed liberal and columnist for The New York Times, writes in a recent article about how government intervention has been misconstrued by those championing a small government and the disastrous results of the attack on government intervention. While he might be biased towards the government because of his liberal tendencies, his arguments in the article certainly make some sense and are worth reading considering the barrage of articles against government intervention in America these days.
He first describes the crumbling infrastructure of more and more places in America, from roads to education, which he alludes to shrinking state and federal budgets. "Tax increase" is the taboo word these days in an age whereby recovery from recession is still fragile yet "deficit reduction" is on everyone's (at least the Republicans') lips, both at the state and federal level. Even tax increments on the rich are lambasted as a crusade by the government against big business, and we learn in Economics that a disadvantage of high taxes on the upper-income brackets is the repulsion of rich businessmen towards lower-tax countries. But the tax increments could have gone to repairing and reconstructing infrastructure which the majority use, while at the expense of the happiness of "the richest 2% or so of Americans".
Krugman has all along been against withdrawing the stimulus against the recession early, warning that the recovery thus far has been fragile and it will take plenty of time and money for the economy to bounce back to where it once was. The effect of states cutting spending cancelled out the positive effect of federal government spending, and now with federal spending poised for cuts America "is going into reverse".
Krugman is especially angry with conservatives who believe that "a dollar collected in taxes is always a dollar wasted, that the public sector can’t do anything right". A balanced perspective of the economist should be one that allows the free market to operate, but with guidance from the government. It does certainly seem twisted if the government is alluded to be unable to do "anything right", especially for a government like America's, even if governments of many failed states such as Somalia and Afghanistan have seemed unable to really do anything right.
In essence, time to think about what the government can do right, and not what it can do wrong.
The Bad Side?
By Kevin
Democracy Working
After all the 'hype' about the resilience of the emerging economies, The Economist seem to have featured some of our South East Asian countries is rather bad light in one of the recent issues. While talking about Philippines' recent elections, they hinted at the economy's untapped potential and the lack of political will to do something about it. And then they presented a skeptical tone towards the current Thailand government's ability to garner the support of the country.
Finally, the drama in Malaysia drew some criticism and sarcasm once again. In many sense, these articles have a 'When will they grow up?' attitude, suggesting that the events in each of the countries are all too familiar. Indeed, in some cases it is difficult to be hopeful that things would change. When it comes to politics, the region is still immature in the conduct of democracy and economic development may have increased but the fruits of prosperity not as well distributed as one would like.
Catching up on economic growth is an extremely important step towards altering the politics although it is not always a guarantee that this would occur. Yet we should not think of any particular political system as an ultimate destination. Our experience with evolution is that several models of existence would sustain; the changing circumstance will continue to push these models and systems to evolve.
Empowering Women in India
By Wei Seng
I want to contest in the Lok Sabha when I grow up!
It has been in the news, early last month, that India has passed a Women's Reservation Bill that reserves one-third of Lok Sabha (Lower House in Parliament) seats for women, the bill having been tabled soon after International Women's Day. It seemed weird that such a bill needs to be passed in a country as democratic as India. Women have held or are holding powerful positions in India, from Indira Gandhi when she was Prime Minister from 1966 to 1977 and 1980 to 1984 to Pratibha Patil, current President of India and Sonia Gandhi, current leader of the Congress party that is in power. But that does not equate representation of women or by women.
As I read in Outlook magazine about how the bill will empower Indian women (Outlook is a news magazine published weekly, the equivalent of Time or Newsweek in India. I bought a copy of the magazine when I went to India), the statistics are quite unflattering. Women consist of only 11% of India's Parliament, compared to neighbours Pakistan (22%) and Afghanistan (27%), both Muslim-majority nations that give the uninformed the impression that women are under-represented in government. Even compared to global averages, 11% is much lower than the 19% world and Asia average. The number of women in the Lok Sabha has increased over the years but it is still low, hence Sonia Gandhi's justification to push through the bill this time round as leader of the party in power.
Such a bill would obviously be vehemently supported by women, but that appears not to be the case. According to the same Outlook article, some of India's earliest women MPs were against bills like these because it seemed to insult women's "intelligence and capacity" - i.e. neglect that women can and should be admitted into government on merit. This is the line of argument that many countries (Singapore included, though women are slightly better represented in Singapore: 23% in Parliament) use when countering propositions that women be represented in greater proportions in government: practice meritocracy - we should not let women into government for the sake of representation, but because they are willing and able to do so. But this seems to run counter to what people think with regard to racial / religious quotas: when it comes to representation by race / religion, there is a scramble to ensure proportional representation. This then seems unfair to women: are they really that undeserving of a chance to govern?
Already one-third of seats in Parliament are reserved for scheduled castes / scheduled tribes (SCs / STs, e.g. Dalits), so one-third of the seats for SCs / STs also have to be reserved for women. Of the initially unreserved seats, one-third is to be carved for women, hence the billl works such that 181 of the 545 seats are to be reserved for women, on top of the 122 reseved for SCs / STs. Women however can also choose to contest in an unreserved seat. The bill also works such that the reserved seat rotates to different constituencies, such that in 15 years each and every Lok Sabha seat would have been represented by women at least once, since during elections every 5 years one-third of seats are reserved for women. This bill is scheduled to expire 15 years after it is in place, whereby presumably by then women would be able to fight for their own seat to represent their constituency in government based on merit.
The benefits of the bill are pretty obvious: giving women a chance for their voices to be heard. "Softer" or "women's issues" would be championed, for instance "equal wages, health, nutrition and education for women and the girl child". Another article in Outlook magazine suggested through case studies how having women in power might bring about "enlightened" policies in development, focusing on education and public health, issues that women tend to be more concerned with given their experiences in caring for the family and raising the children, especially in a country with a patriarchal society like India.
To oppose such a bill, then, would seem to be insane, given that one is at once seen to be against women's rights. The two major parties in India, Congress and the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party, came together to support the bill while parties representing disadvantaged communities in Parliament opposed the bill. These parties stress that they opposed the bill not because they did not want to empower women, but because they wish to see a sub-quota for women of other backward castes (also known as OBCs, these communities might not be Dalit or under the SCs / STs category but are still disadvantaged) or Muslim women, given that Muslims are grossly under-represented in the Lok Sabha.
Still, it is promising that such a bill has managed to pass in India, given that women in India generally face more oppression and have less opportunities than their counterparts in other democratic countries, and hopefully time will indicate that it was a wise decision for the Lok Sabha to pass such a bill.
For a detailed yet succinct account of the politics behind the women's reservation bill, Coomi Kapoor's article in The Star, republished with some edits in mypaper, is a good reference.
Fashion in Singapore
By Kevin
Not the cars...
Lately I was made to do a research on Fashion in Singapore and I made loads of interesting discoveries about the fashion industry in Singapore that most girls plainly keen on shopping might not even know. It is interesting to note that our government agencies are very keen on developing the Singpore Fashion sector actually and has put in substantial efforts in helping to raise the profiles of some Singapore-based designers and highlight the achievements of some foreign-based Singaporean designers.
Some of my findings included the fact that RAOUL is a Singapore label, by F J Benjamin; alldressedup is a label also home-grown and by The Link. Many didn't seem to realise that these are Singapore brands until perhaps they heard our finance minister praising them last year. One of the important designers for alldressedup is Sven Tan, a up-and-coming Singaporean designer. Then I found out about Jo Soh and her label 'hansel', with very interesting designs. I also think it is important that I remind everyone that Charles & Keith is from Singapore. I must highlight these brands because they are rather high profile and have caught attention of people of high fashion world like those in Europe and also United States.
I discovered some other brands which appear to be established in some other nearby markets like Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand. They are names like bYSI, which I didn't know was Singapore-based, and IORA, which I used to think was a little auntie-ish. It looks pretty good nowadays. In my research I learnt more about the Singapore Fashion Festival, an event whose existence wasn't knowledge to me until I embarked on this research and I got to know that IE Singapore, STB and SPRING Singapore and TaFf is behind the upcoming Asian Fashion Exchange. This particular thing covers the Audi Fashion Festival, Blueprint Trade Show and some fashion design competition.
In fact, my research led me to some other side stuff about design as well; because I was looking up on Andrew Gn, who is a Singaporean designer based in Paris, I found out about this President Design Award. Andrew Gn won the designer of the year for one of the past years. All these research was to prepare for a presentation and while eventually not all the information and knowledge was used, I guess I benefitted immensely from knowing all these details because they made me somewhat conversant about the industry in Singapore even though I might not exactly be appreciative of specific designs or the quality of those labels.
Monetary Policy
By Kevin
As I mentioned about the difficulties of governing Economies and Greenspan's disclosure on his workings on a paper in defence of his policies, The Economist recently wrote in their column about Greenspan's recent defence of himself. Those interested might want to access his paper here.
Managing Money
In general, The Economist adopts a rather sarcastic tone when discussing Alan Greenspan's role in the build up to the Subprime Mortgage Crisis in 2007. They are arguing that central bankers are around to ensure macroeconomic stability and therefore are expected to 'play safe' and manage the economy. That is, if reducing short-term interests rates could rein in the housing boom, that should have been applied. Even if Greenspan couldn't have identified the bubble, and that the house prices are not related to the interest rates that central bankers could influence, the leverage growth in securitised markets might be worth managing:
By looking only at the effect of monetary policy on house prices, Messrs Bernanke and Greenspan also take too narrow a view of the potential effect of low policy rates. Several economists have argued convincingly, for instance, that low policy rates fuelled broader leverage growth in securitised markets.
Of course, having just read Dot.con and Lord of Finance, I do realise that central bankers' attempts at interfering with specific market booms have often been ineffective or with rather disastrous results and thus choose to focus only on economic fundamentals like price inflation. Greenspan does have a point when he suggests that the central bankers are unable to deal with a global force that are changing the conditions of the economy. Very often, these efforts may create further imbalances that merely postpones a crisis.
Like I say, no one claims monetary policy is easy to conduct - it's too often more of an art than a science.
Governing Economics
By Kevin
The Maestro
Many have attributed the housing bubble that eventually resulted in the Subprime Mortgage Crisis to the previous, one of the longest serving Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan. We are pretty familiar with Greenspan, who have written Age of Turbulence. In his book, he highlighted his general argument against anyone who would finger-point him as allowing a bubble to inflate. He pronounce that it is impossible for anyone, whether the regulatory body or not, to accurately identify a bubble.
As for the Subprime Mortgage Crisis, politicians in the United States still blames it somewhat on Alan Greenspan and now that everything is cooling down, Greenspan offers his own defence. Although Greenspan was nicknamed 'the Maestro', he subtly attributes the period of great prosperity and low inflation to the globalization forces and technological advancement more than his skills at handling the monetary policy of US. In any case, he outlines his job at the Federal Reserve as an observer trying his best to keep to fundamentals of the economy and the crisis therefore comes as a surprise both because of how the economic agents have basically defied market assumptions namely on the issue of counter-party surveillance. Essentially the government cannot possibly provide the 'self-interest' that is supposed to drive the free market.
No one says that managing the economy is an easy job. Sound economics decisions by governments often turns out to be political disasters anyways so sometimes politicians stop heeding economists altogether. The recent issues that confront Tim Geithner is essentially similar; the economy is picking up thanks to his plans but people are unhappy with him. Figures on employment are not helping him anyways since the recovery is 'jobless' so to speak. Management of the economy is a huge balancing act for the government.
The idea of government has gone really far since the days of Locke's conception of the social contract. The philosophy of governance in the modern world is just getting more complicated.