One big improvement they have had is just getting air-con in the bus terminuses and hubs. Even in January any time outside means dripping sweat. They used to be open-air.
Rather then the government lead (and miss) why not have the government act more as an even-distributor of things which are already gaining traction.
Years ago during Japan's go-go years, they have renderings and future plans for completely redesigned megacities made up of multiple semi-self-contained smaller hyper integrated neighborhoods --sometimes a neighborhood would be gigantic pyramidal buildings of capable of being self-sustaining in terms of labor, housing, recreation, food production, etc. but then the economy tanked and pop growth flatlined and we have relative slow decline and forgotten are those grand dreams of the future.
> a neighborhood would be gigantic pyramidal buildings of capable of being self-sustaining in terms of labor, housing, recreation, food production, etc. but then the economy tanked and pop growth flatlined and we have relative slow decline and forgotten are those grand dreams of the future.
Those were a fantasy, though, surely. I doubt we could make such structures (I think sometimes called arcologies?) work with todays technology, even if we had the resources and no regulatory hurdles. Maybe in a hundred years...
You sort of have a small version in the Orchard Road stretch. You could conceivably live above ION Orchard, go to work in your Takashimaya office, eat at an ultra cheap Lucky Plaza eatery or blow $300 at Les Amis at Shaw Centre, shop and exercise in any of the buildings in between, and never be exposed to the outside whilst living quite a comfortable life. Same at Vivocity, Raffles Place, Suntec/Promenade/Esplanade...
If you're living above ION then I doubt you need to scrimp by eating at Lucky Plaza...
When I stay in jakarta it's a similar feeling. A common pattern is an "anchor" mall with apartments and office buildings adjacent and in theory you could just stay inside the complex the whole time. GI/PI and Senayan Square come to mind. You could just build a dome over SS (and being jakarta, i wish they would..)
You would be amazed at the number of billionaires ambulating Singapore malls in Uniqlo T-shirts (bought on sale, naturally)... and how non-transparent and varied rent can be even in the same building: a flatshare I stayed in used to pay $4.5k/month whilst the American expat next door paid $9.5k/month for the exact same apartment!
That being said Lucky Plaza food is pretty bad, I only included it because of the underground walkway that theoretically "joins" it to the Orchard complex. Since it is technically my neighbourhood, I usually prefer going to ION's B4 food court or Wisma. But Lucky Plaza does have Iris, AFAIK the only true bespoke tailor in a building riddled with the "overnight Batam job for $200" types, so an ION resident could be coming over to check on his Loro Piana cashmere dinner jacket's progress.
I think Suntec is the one that shocked me the most when I first arrived, I got lost around the (now defunct) bowling place enough times to systematically use Google Maps until I learnt the corridors, because they don't meet at right angles. It's kind of amazing to have to think in 3D when you are used to navigating 2D streets...
> I think Suntec is the one that shocked me the most when I first arrived, I got lost around the (now defunct) bowling place enough times to systematically use Google Maps until I learnt the corridors, because they don't meet at right angles.
Suntec City or Marina Square? I don't recall a bowling alley ever being in Suntec.
In fact, apart from the rather confusing East/North/West wings used to refer to the various sections of Suntec, I find it quite straightforward as it's a straight path. Marina Square, on the other hand, is the mall with way too many corridors.
Yes, Marina Square. I usually enter at City Hall and emerge at Suntec (there used to be a great Vietnamese crab and tomato soup on the 2nd floor of one of the towers, in the days of Carrefour), and so much stuff is called Marina around there... it just ended up being "Suntec" in my mind. That being said remembering which escalator to take out of the Fountain of Wealth was confusing until I remembered it was next to Entrecote.
The bowling alley itself was easy to find, but trying to get back out, I always ended up in the overground footpaths to the Ritz. Where it gets really special is when the F1 is on, at which point none of the ground level options apply and you need to reroute vertically. This is how I discovered some of the hidden rooftops: there is a line of Thai and Japanese restaurants out of the second floor of one of the Suntec towers, on the roof with trees and a pond.
It is, though, much easier to navigate than similar 3D areas in Tokyo or Osaka; in particular despite having been there over 30 times I still get lost in Tokyo Station, once emerging a full mile east of the track. I am sure the maps make sense if you are Japanese...
You're right they are arcology. Here is one[1] of the examples, among many others they had. And another one[2]. Surely they relied on a bit of fantasy in the way that architects always seem to know what people want (but usually don't) and future availability of materials which would allow the construction of such visions.
Comparing that to the aircon in the buses... Getting soaking wet while hiking in MacRitchie, no problem. Riding the bus home and fearing to catch a cold because it feels like European winter with shorts and a wet shirt.. not fun.
I used to hike/run MacRitchie every weekend or other weekend, the full 16km. The trick is to bring a spare T-shirt in a plastic freezer bag (press before sealing to remove all the air). When you get back to the Mushroom Cafe, remove your soaked T-shirt and put on the dry one. I think it ranks with the first coffee of the morning in life's greatest small pleasures.
> "Singapore's way of doing things is that the government leads, then others follow," he told me. "This might be a problem - it is too centralised and so it may take too long for plans to trickle down.
Thus far, this economic model has well helped Singapore keep up with the times—though often not the first mover, Singapore is a consistent adopter of technologies just as they go mainstream. (c.f. NFC in public transport, sustainable architecture, smartphones, optical fibre)
But given the region's diverse business climates, I wonder if the more usual decentralized approach makes sense for most verticals for the region. Without significant expertise and infrastructure in localizing across the region, the SAM for any new product or service seems to be sufficiently small that technological improvements in most markets do not scale great enough to offset R&D costs and other fixed-cost risks for the potential margins to be enticing to investors.
When I read your reply I had to laugh and comment. I'm not sure where you got your impression of Singapore, but I think you are truly misinformed. May I ask have you ever been to Singapore or you just formed your own opinions of it online? I'm a foreigner living in Singapore for the past 7 or so years and who has gone through the education system here.
> significantly racially charged
What evidence do you have of this? In your other comment you say they come in with significantly restricted rights -> what does that even mean? First I will say that no one is forcing anybody to come into Singapore. These migrant workers come to Singapore because after weighing the odds, they feel that they can get a better life in Singapore instead of their home countries.
> class-entrenched society
In Singapore we have National Service. From the richest to the poorest Singaporeans, you serve national service together side-by-side doing the same thing. There is virtually no way of avoiding NS and there are heavy penalties if you do. Even the prime minister's children serve NS.
On top of that more than 80% of the population live in government housing flats. And these flats are not cheap, some of the bigger units have sold for more than 1 million dollars.
> rose to power on a platform of communism
This is the funniest part. The government was so against communism that communist leaders were jailed... and this harsh treatment of communist leaders is a common critic of Singapore. So for you to say they rose to power on the platform of communism just shows the depth of your misunderstanding.
Now, Singapore is not perfect. But trust me, its far better than whatever picture you are trying to paint of it.
> > rose to power on a platform of communism
> This is the funniest part.
Not just funny, but suspiciously racist. Ethnic Chinese in Malaysia and Indonesia were branded as communist all through the 1950s and 1960s and, especially in Indonesia, slaughtered. contingencies sounds like he might be from one of the non-Chinese ethnic groups in SE Asia, or part of such a family.
He's not wrong that there's deep racism in Singapore. But it goes both ways. Singapore was ejected from the Malaysian Federation for baldly racist reasons--the ethnic Malays wanted to consolidate political power. The Chinese in that region are like the Jews of Europe--economically successful but culturally still the out group. It creates a ton of resentment for all sides.
Also, I've traveled widely throughout the world and turns out _everybody_ is racist. The U.S. is probably one of the least racist countries in the world. Why? Because we _talk_ about it and _admit_ it. In the vast majority of countries people still literally take for granted that ethnic group X is obviously naturally inferior, without making the connection between that belief and the Western concept of racism.
In the U.S. even the most rabid racists go through great lengths to justify and explain their prejudice. Believe it or not, that's what progress looks like. People need to stop using racism as a cudgel as it makes it impossible for people to discuss issues of racism. It's like calling somebody Hitler--it just ends the conversation. Ultimately it makes it easier for people to stay in denial about racism.
The only properties of the society discussed with the exception of political history were "a significantly racially charged, class-entrenched society". How exactly is summarizing factual and historical properties of a society espousing hatred? Some of the comments here, including this one, are just plain illogical.
I'm a little shocked that your comment was flagged for supposedly being hateful. Even if it can be seen as a matter of opinion and not entirely factual, it wasn't hateful to me in any conventional sense of hate.
It is laughable what people are saying here, that they wouldn't want any Singaporeans to read it. What?
Europeans know all about American racism. But Americans know very little about European racism, especially modern European racism. Ever wonder why that is?
That's my point. In most parts of the world someone could discuss American issues of racism like they studied under Cornel West. 5 minutes later they might say, in an off-handed comment, that group X is lazy and/or mostly criminals. And they'll never make the connection. It's mind-boggling.
Which isn't to say that plenty of Americans don't deny racism. They just have to work much harder at it, and they at least realize that their opinion is non-normative (even if it's technically the majority opinion).
Europe is racist as all get out. I, as a brown man, never once felt like I belonged or had a chance of belonging. Urban America on the other hand never made me feel out of place (More rural places are different: my wife and I still get asked if we need separate checks).
I agree that Europe is racist unfortunately however I recollect serious ghettos in New York. I stayed on a Jewish Street in Brooklyn and there were practically 90% orthodox Jews in the area who avoided me like the plague (I'm white)... I walked a few blocks south and I was the only white guy. The black people there were very friendly and helpful but I could tell my presence was a novelty. I've never seen anything like that in Europe. The other thing that I notice is that race is on the top of everyone's mind all the time in the states to the point that it is a serious problem even when it shouldn't be.
I agree with the general point that the US is less racist than European nations, but ignoring the larger point that the situation of the black American community is very much a product of decades long racist policies to systematically deny them the opportunity to build wealth seems very disingenuous to me.
Im not ignoring it. Other commenters are focusing on it to the exclusion of massive impact on whites caused by rural or lower-class discrimination. They also never bring up systematic discrimination against whites in black-run cities or companies. They focus on one talking point to promote a specific narrative. Im calling that out.
I doubt it. That America, with all its strengths and wesknesses, is mostly white is a weird thing that always comes up in Singapore threads. Someone always does an America comparison, ususlly dismissal, by bringing up white-on-black racism. It's like people are indoctrinated on specific talking points or something. That and the idea all Americans are set to bd wiped away with violent crime. I havent seen it here yet but it's another that showed up dozens of times when Singaporeans counterpoint on blogs.
Who knows what your background is but Im calling the oversimplification when I see it. I suggest Singapore drop those talking points to compare cost of capitalism in US with law benefitting mostly owners to their "give some get some model" benefiting their people in general. That would be more fair given America is a plutonomy.
White-on-black racism is not so much a talking point as a fact of American life. There is no oversimplification there. I have no idea what kind of rhetoric is involved in Singaporean dialogue, but that is entirely irrelevant to what I'm saying.
Capitalism isn't inherently racist, but it also has no intrinsic qualities that help it repair the ill-effects of past racist policies.
The sub-thread is on white-on-black racism in USA in a thread about Singapore. That's why I called it a talking point or something barely relevant. Im done with it on this one.
Although not in this debate, I am stepping in to point out that doesn't mean a thing to support your point. It even makes you look like you're stretching facts to cover up problems. Let me illustrate it with a more obvious example.
Let's say the country has rich people's kids ending up in rich people jobs, middle class mostly middle class, and poor rarely coming up. This is the U.S. rather than Singapore. Let's say we add NS to the mix where everyone is forced to do a specific thing. The economic structure stays exactly the same since that has nothing to do with it. It's people's money, ability to teach kids better/worse, and connections to institutions that increase effectiveness of those kids along with what opportunities they have. I'd be shocked if this didn't happen in Singapore simply because it happens everywhere that I can tell.
> Although not in this debate, I am stepping in to point out that doesn't mean a thing to support your point.
From a research report from a local university: The institution of National Service is largely regarded as a social equaliser, which embodies fairness, equality and identity. More than 94% of respondents agree that Servicemen from different family backgrounds are treated equally during National Service, and that National Service policies are applied consistently to everyone in similar situations. [1]
In other words, it doesn't matter if you are the son of a millionaire or a janitor, in the army, they treat you the same. Beyond that it forces people to meet people from all sorts of socio-economic levels. And National Service extends until you are around 40 years old, whereby every year they may call you up to serve alongside CEOs', professionals, blue collar workers etc in the army.
Singapore is a very rich country, and it is inevitable that there are the very rich, and the less wealthy. What the government has done is made a very affordable world-class education system that allows everybody an equal chance to equip themselves to succeed in life.
"The institution of National Service is largely regarded as a social equaliser, which embodies fairness, equality and identity. More than 94% of respondents agree"
Which doesn't argue against my point at all. I already illustrated where classism comes from and how it can only be one component. You'd have to address the others. Instead, you said a bunch of people surveyed in a police state said the police state plan was good. I've even read plenty of dissent on Singaporeans' blogs and stuff on that one so it's extra funny to see such overwhelming support.
In any case, what numbers and citations you should look for are what percentage of Singaporeans change classes and which transitions those work. Especially how often the poor become Middle Class and how often lower classes become upper class. Additionally, how often do upper classes become lower class. These will assess how much education and performance really matters vs their background or social connections. For example, in the U.S., the last number I saw quoted was 90+% of people stay in their economic class no matter what efforts put in. Most on boards or C-level positions also started as middle or upper class in "Ivy League" schools. So, our system is rigged to operate based on politics and reinforce current class situation as proven by its results.
So, what's Singapore's numbers on that? And could you even get accurate ones with its control over media?
One problem with comparing those stats across nations is that having centuries of stability will make those stats look a lot worse. Right after a big event like WW II, much of your lot in the world was the result of bad luck -- there were lots more highly-capable poor people, who were likely to move up in life, or whose children were (because of inherited personality traits). A few generations later, a lot of them have moved up, and social mobility will be smaller. You'd expect Singapore to have more social mobility than white America, for this reason alone.
There are also other factors that can help or hurt, like everybody living in the same city.
Well, you know, originally the PAP was allied with the communists. To the point where it seemed informative to describe them as more likely to be crypto-anti-communist than crypto-communist in an internal British communication, based on personal impressions more than anything.
The evidence you ask for was already provided before your comment; clearly you didn't bother to read the thread.
National Service is fascist, and does not at all imply that the society is classless. In fact, from an anthropological perspective it could be construed that military organization is historically the most caste-ridden of all human societies due to its formal recognition of rank.
communism
Sorry, I should have said socialism. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Action_Party#Politi... ... Initially adopting a traditionalist Leninist party organisation, together with a vanguard cadre from its labour-leaning faction in 1958, the PAP Executive later expelled the leftist faction, bringing the ideological basis of the party into the centre, and later in the 1960s, moving further to the right.
Actually, I'd argue that something like NS, its merits not being discussed here, does do good for social cohesion and cultural integration.
When everyone is (relatively) equal and put through something comparatively arduous, it does good things for helping people gel together. It also probably helps instill a common sense of belonging to a nation.
I'd attribute at least some of Singapore's ability to cultivate a sense of national identity to things like NS.
From what I've seen, Singapore is fairly racist, but in the sense that pretty much everywhere and everyone is racist without very conscious mental effort. That said, Singapore seems pretty well integrated and culturally inclusive considering what a melting pot it is especially on the ground at the interpersonal level. I imagine that as such a small state, these things are easier to micromanage for a government though. Additionally, nothing kills xenophobic sentiment faster than exposure, and as a small city-state, Singapore also provide favorable conditions for that too.
> Actually, I'd argue that something like NS, its merits not being discussed here, does do good for social cohesion and cultural integration.
> When everyone is (relatively) equal and put through something comparatively arduous, it does good things for helping people gel together. It also probably helps instill a common sense of belonging to a nation.
> I'd attribute at least some of Singapore's ability to cultivate a sense of national identity to things like NS.
National Service is a tad tricky to discuss. While you mention that everyone is (relatively) equal when put through national service, that statement mainly refers to male citizens and second-generation permanent residents. Females, foreign students, and first-generation migrants aren't required to do so, and I can hardly see how they would be able to empathise with those who have had to undergo NS.
One other thing — imagine if one applies to a large MNC, and the hiring manager learns that the applicant might have to eventually fulfill their reservist liabilities and disappear for a month. If the applicant pool is global and there are no quotas to meet for local hires, it's very difficult to see how a competitive role based in Singapore might be filled by a Singaporean.
I can't really disagree with anything you're saying. Wrt to only males going through NS, I can imagine someone in the Sg govt making the assumption "if all men go through NS and bond, then when they start families, their wives will follow" - considering that they tried to convince the smart to pair off with the smart, I wouldn't put that line of reasoning past them.
As for quotas, I've heard a lot of people complain about them and how much of a pain it is to fill Singaporean headcount. Specifically on the subject of MNCs and reservists, I feel we're in an age where that could be easily seen as discrimination. Given we can't apply that to women who get pregnant, or people of religious origins (who may have additional holidays or fasting periods).
Morally speaking the US has a long way to go before it can claim any sort of authority. Singapore is also a much nicer place to spend time than the US which makes me (someone with a political philosophy practically the opposite of how Singapore is run) wonder if the means are less important than the ends.
One of the common refrains by the Singaporean govt. is that they have their own way of doing things.
Whereas idealized political systems are useful, and democratic ideology comfortable, it seems to me that the role geography (both natural and human) plays in shaping a society's values and politics is often neglected in layman discussions about foreign politics.
Could you cite some evidence for this? I don't see anything to that degree in wikipedia.
> class-entrenched society
What does that mean? Is it significantly different than the US? I can see people using the terms "racially charged, class-entrenched society" to increasingly describe us as well.
> It's disgusting that the US props it up.
I had never heard that the US props up Singapore before. Care to provide some evidence?
significantly racially charged ... could you cite some evidence for this?
All the lowest rung jobs in Singapore are done by Indian/Indonesian/Philippino migrant workers who are allowed in to the country under significantly restricted rights.
class-entrenched ... what does that mean?
It means wealth runs deep between generations, and the society is significantly stratified.
the US props up Singapore
In exchange for looking the other way on Singapore's fascist dictatorship and history of large scale regional money laundering, the US receives the right to use the island as a strategic military base and regional signals intelligence collection point.
> migrant workers who are allowed in to the country under significantly restricted rights
How is this anything other than a straightforward win/win trade? The country gets work done for cheaper than hiring locals; the migrant workers make more than they could in their home countries. Mistreatment is of course illegal and they are in general free to leave at any time. Exactly how is this bad, unless you are against trade itself?
> wealth runs deep between generations, and the society is significantly stratified
Like every other country on earth, you mean? Except there's no real old money, because the country was only founded in the 1960s.
> looking the other way on Singapore's fascist dictatorship
Now you're just talking nonsense. Yeah, the fascist dictatorship with the single best passport on earth, that millions of people move to for work. Uh-huh.
Your opinions are so wilfully and aggressively ignorant that I actually wonder if you're trolling.
How is this anything other than a straightforward win/win trade?
This statement may be shocking to you but people have rights and society has qualitative properties that cannot be purchased for money. 'Trade' is not the same as people's lives. If you treat people as disposable economic tools, you begin to create a culture and climate of facetious social engagement, private insecurity and fear... ie. your "win/win" becomes "lose/lose" very quickly.
there's no real old money
LKY and cronies laundered huge amounts of money from the pillaging of Indonesia, Malaysia and Myanmar's natural resources and established themselves as the highest paid politicians in the world. Much of the wealthy class in Singapore still owns significant business interests in those countries, such as vast palm oil plantations on recently deforested land. Meanwhile, the 'average' citizen is not doing so well, and the significant migrant labour underclass suffers daily out of economic desperation. These realities clearly represent dynastic, multi-generational wealth transfer and a stratified society. Basically, Singapore is a lot like Shanghai in conception ... rich people fled there during a period of relative instability then doubled down on exploiting regional postwar opportunities with the advantage of significant stores of capital.
As for the rest of your wild claims - if you had any evidence at all for any of it, your sensational exposé would probably topple the singapore government. Please, let me know before your book comes out so I can short some stocks!
"How is this anything other than a straightforward win/win trade? The country gets work done for cheaper than hiring locals; the migrant workers make more than they could in their home countries."
You could say the same thing about impoverished minorities in the U.S. whose ancestors came from poor countries. It would still be racism to pay them or allow them less due to race. It's more amusing given the Singaporeans that show up in comments talking about how racist America is. Turns out Singapore is pretty racist and classist, too.
I don't understand how you are drawing these conclusions. I don't see any similarity at all to U.S. race relations.
If country A has a lot of money but a labour shortage, and country B is poor but has a labour excess, then it is of mutual benefit for country A to hire people from country B to perform needed labour. Country B's workers are not being paid less because of their race, but because they come from a relatively poorer country.
The workers come to do a job in which they will be paid more (much more) than comparable work at home, they do it, they get paid, the work gets done, everyone is happy, they go home. How is this racist, or even generally bad?
This basic economic principle is also, of course, the reason why companies locate manufacturing in countries with large available labour pools and lower comparative wages. So is Apple racist for manufacturing in China?
"Country B's workers are not being paid less because of their race, but because they come from a relatively poorer country."
Then the discrimination is based on source country instead of race. Either way, it's systematic discrimination. Singapore could just as easily pay based on position and prior experience across the board. Immigrants could move up in pay over time. Those there a certain amount of time could participate in the political process. And so on.
Whereas the current situation is pure exploitation that contradicts some of the morality claims I see in discussions on Singapore. Especially how some in the comments will say they're pro immigrants, not racists, etc.
I feel like you are not listening. These are not "immigrants", they are temporary foreign labourers who are flown in to do a job, do it, and leave. It is not "discrimination" that they are paid less - the fact that they are cheaper is the only conceivable reason for hiring them in the first place.
I see you're a security consultant. Here's a thought experiment for you. Say you have trouble getting work back home, but you hear that in Switzerland they have a shortage of security consultants and the going rate is $200/hr. You ring up a company there and offer to work - they say well your French isn't quite up to scratch so we can only offer you $100/hr. You say sure, they say OK here's a 6 month contract, you fly in, do the work, and fly out.
You are paid less than the natives. You are there because you can be paid less. You are benefiting from the trade, and so is Switzerland. You do not get to vote in Swiss elections. Are you being immorally exploited by racist discriminating Swiss? Of course not. It is a win/win situation and a fundamental component of foreign trade.
Economically, wealth has been created. Your home country is better off to the tune of $X when you bring home your fat stack of euros. Switzerland is happy too because it thinks it gained $2X worth of work. The world is better off because you were working productively instead of browsing reddit waiting for the phone to ring. This is why trade is good. Your labour was able to move from where it was not necessary, to where it was.
The foreign workers in Singapore are not being paid $100/hr, of course, but otherwise the situation is exactly the same.
I am listening carefully. In most Singapore threads, people show up to mention something about how people of different race or nationality get less rights plus poor treatment in America. This is bad. They mention it seemingly to distract from whatever problems in Singapore are being discussed by some Americans. Then, in same discussion, it's OK that Singapore is doing essentially the same thing with these "temporary, foreign labourers" from impoverished countries who have no rights, get paid less, get abused by a percentage of employers, and so on. My comments are directed at anyone with moral position that America shouldn't have second-class citizens but it's OK for Singapore to build its infrastructure on people who are just short of slaves.
Now, if you're fine with those concepts, then our discussion is entirely different. People fine with this are for unequal treatment of people by law. They're for two people doing same work for two, different paychecks. They're for people getting different political rewards for same effort in same location benefiting same country. If you're for all this, then we can then have the discussion only on specific opportunities at specific dollar amounts since that is all that matters to an amoral, rational capitalist. Let's look at it that way.
"Say you have trouble getting work back home, but you hear that in Switzerland they have a shortage of security consultants and the going rate is $200/hr. You ring up a company there and offer to work - they say well your French isn't quite up to scratch so we can only offer you $100/hr. You say sure, they say OK here's a 6 month contract, you fly in, do the work, and fly out."
Your example is amusing because I can't find work anywhere over here but am skilled enough that someone in a rich country wants to fly me over there. Let's assume it, though. The response of a rational capitalist is to bargain. I point out I have same (or more) skill than what they have on hand. I tell them they have people who can handle the customer interaction then give me specs in English. It's virtually no trouble. I suggest I'm paid for the result I get them. I might take a small, pay cut of around 10% or half now, half on completion of specific items for the uncertainty if I get local recommendations from them after completion. I might also forward the contract to their competitors to let them know I've been talent-scouted from across the seas, see if they want to bid higher, and use any higher bids as leverage on original employer to get me terms at or above offered rate.
What I won't do is take the $100/hr offer because rational capitalists... or utilitarians operating in their environment... who know better. I'd also locally promote in the political scene the concept of high-skill, foreign workers being able to get a track onto citizenship or permanent residency with limited rights. If the process is reliable, the Swiss can brain drain other countries much like U.S. does with its H1-B visa program. I'll remind them that the best workers are already flocking to countries that promise them more in return for their labor because they compete in a global, not local, market.
And the greedy assholes will either turn down the contract or political offer or they'll accept it. That's how that works.
"Economically, wealth has been created. Your home country is better off to the tune of $X when you bring home your fat stack of euros. Switzerland is happy too because it thinks it gained $2X worth of work. "
That's an oversimplification. People in the local country loose jobs and money to immigrants. Other people will benefit from increased productivity by hiring more labor at cheaper rates. This might be low or high quality productivity. The foreign economy will usually lose whoever they invested in who creates ROI for another country. They may or may not bring money back especially if the cost of living is high with low pay (see indentured servitude). The immigrant workers, if not having abusive hosts, may be better off if living conditions improved. This is not a good thing, though, because they were really choosing between the lesser of two evils. It's a less, evil thing that hurts them less. Although, it will be good for some if they end up in good positions. It's like a lottery.
"Does that make sense?"
It does because Americans are educated on this in "US History." Much of our early infrastructure were built by slaves and low-paid immigrants who suffered enormously for benefit of local business owners and white citizens. It's looked back on as our version of the Dark Ages with those big into racism or exploitation still supporting it. It certainly benefited the owners and locals who weren't doing the work, though. The only good thing that came out of it is many generations down the line with democratic work some became real citizens with real rights. It might happen in Switzerland but I doubt a police state in Singapore will tolerate that. ;)
There is indeed a strong race gap in the Singapore workforce, worse than the well-known gender gap in American pay equality. If you are on a work permit from the Philippines, for example, you will get paid far less than another in your department doing the same work from Western nations or a Singaporean local. This is a fact of life there that runs through all the industries. It is also quite common to see job postings in Singapore that only allow certain races to apply; these are more blue-collar jobs.
> It is also quite common to see job postings in Singapore that only allow certain races to apply; these are more blue-collar jobs.
There are also white-collar jobs which will code this as "fluency in Mandarin required", which means you'd better be ethnic Chinese if you want to be considered.
If it's because the job genuinely requires the language skills, you'll find that all around the world. But if they're using that to mask a desire for particular race, that's different. However, most Singaporeans are not qualified for this job since most are not actually fluent in Chinese.
I meant the latter. It's used to signal that an employer will prefer to hire an ethnic Chinese person. Another phrase used is "Chinese working environment".
and what a discussion, it's a well known that the r/Singapore is one of the most toxic expat communities in the entire reddit, full of spite and jaded cynicism toward anything, from the government, to the city and even signs of blatantly racism toward Singaporeans.
Singapore is pretty commonly cited in political science for being a single-party authoritarian government which subsidizes its popularity.
See Acemoglu and Robinson. South Korea's success was driven through similar means but that government has liberalized much more than Singapore at this point.
Yes, there are elements of racial and class tension in Singapore, but not significantly more than any other major city on earth.
The US certainly does not prop the government up, unless you mean propping it up by inaction or non-intervention.
As to the elements of authoritarianism, a lot of people would argue that the material and social benefits of living in an efficient, forward-thinking state outweighs the subtle elements of state control/overreach.
It's an interesting moral bargain. Give up any rights to free speech and Internet freedom; in return get a well functioning government and municipal services.
Sure, they still house the huddled (brown) masses in ghettos, but they're making progress with public housing for natives.
But it's still hot as hell all the time all year. No thanks.
I also think 1st worlders from North America / Europe overlook the degree to which Singapore 's government has succeeded in providing a clean safe well-organized environment for its people.
Compare this to all of the other nearest cities / capitols in the region (or even further than that), I think you would have to go quite far in any direction to find a place that is as well looked after for all levels of society. (Taiwan?) And whats the other closest city to Singapore that has potable drinking water?
Is this bargain worth it? As an American, there are plenty of things the Singaporean government does that makes me uncomfortable. But who's to say which is better? Compared to Bangkok or Kuala Lumpur or similar, where would you have preferred to have been born?
Ironically, isn't potable drinking water supply an issue for Singapore? It's mainly brought over from Malaysia, right? Read a few articles on the subject in the Straights many years ago.
I live here and while I don't envy the migrant workers who come here to build HDBs it is clear they do it because the alternative is far worse. They get lodgings and enough pay that they can send money home to support their family, buy some property and eventually move back. The issue is with systemic economic inequality between countries more than with Singapore itself.
I agree. And I actually admire the way Singapore is economically honest in this way. By hiring migrant workers to, eg, build the new MRTs, it gets them done much cheaper - and provides thousands of workers with much better jobs than they could have got at home. That money goes straight back to their home countries, raising the wealth of both.
Compare to Australia, my own home country, where we could never countenance the ideas of "foreigners coming to take our jobs" - so infrastructure costs 5x as much and, more likely, simply never happens. It wouldn't surprise me if Singapore's what is it, 3 new MRT lines right now? costs the same or less as Sydney's 1 new line. And all the people we could have hired from the philippines or whereever are sitting in their slums unemployed. Who's racist again? Which is more ethical? Which is the better outcome?
It boggles my mind how people can be all for foreign labour being used to make things overseas, for example the computer they're typing their comment on, but suddenly against the idea when the labourers have to come here temporarily to make it. It's the same damn thing!
I am also an Aussie, but I have a sister who is a permanent resident in Singapore, and owns a house and a business there. I have spent plenty of time there, and have met lots of western ex-pats who have found success there.
But the immigrant worker thing bugs me.
These workers, mostly women, are treated very poorly from what I have observed. I have heard my sister threaten her nannies with deportation for not complying with her orders, and have seen and heard of other ex-pats behaving even worse towards their immigrant employees. It seemed to me to be so normalized, that my sister and her friends do not recognize their behavior as being in any way abhorrent.
I would hate to see that sort of tiered society in Australia ever. It might work on paper but it also changes the nature of the people they serve in an ugly way.
Ah, you were talking about maids. Yes, I agree there needs to be far stricter enforcement there, and a cultural shift to go with it. I haven't witnessed any abuse personally but have also heard stories.
I think it's because that mostly happens behind closed doors in private property - there's all sorts of scope for that few percentage of natural assholes to abuse the power they wield, plus as you say, it's sort of culturally acceptable. I too would like to see that changed.
That said, would you destroy a whole class of employment just because of a few bad apples? Or even more than a few? I also know that for uneducated girls from villages in Indonesia, working overseas as a maid is like winning the lottery. The alternative is often to become a prostitute. Where's the line?
And FWIW I've had a maid before and I don't think it changed me at all. But you're right - there's a certain type of person for whom having a little bit of power over a person unlocks something dark inside them, and in a domestic setting that can be a recipe for mistreatment. More regulation is needed - Singapore's laissez-faire attitude fails it here.
I was talking more of the construction industry, where stories of abuse are much less common (and there are witnesses and company licenses at stake) - in this context, migrant work is IMO an inarguable good.
That is interesting; I've been to Australia once in my life, year before last. I went from Brisbane to Roma, and by the time I got to Roma the only non-Caucasian faces I saw were serving me food. I was told (but have no other information, so this could of course be completely wrong) that their contracts and immigration status effectively tied them to their service job, hundreds of miles inland where the only other people like them were in a similar subservient situation, and that the people owning their contracts very much had that kind of power over them.
I think there is a fair bit of truth in this. There is barely a week that goes by here without a news story about some company or another grossly underpaying and/or mistreating immigrant workers in Australia.
In some cases they are supposed to be students, but are forced to work 40hr weeks in low paying jobs under threat of instant deportation.
Does it really? I would love to see some like for like figures.
And they do take the locals jobs. Singaporeans don't mind so much though because they get massive subsidies from the government and the economy is doing pretty well.
If the government didn't provide incredibly subsidised housing the country would fall apart very quickly. Likewise if unemployment came close to 10%.
> Does it really? I would love to see some like for like figures.
That was nothing but a guess, but I think it's reasonable. Labor is the largest component of infrastructure costs by a wide margin, and migrant labor would be at least 5x less than local. Even if it's "only" 2x cheaper my point would stand, though, and that seems very conservative indeed. I'd also like to see some figures.
I don't know what "massive subsidies" you could be referring to. The HDB system is the only one I can think of? Calling it "incredibly" subsidized is kind of overstating it - maybe 20%-30%, and you can only play that game twice, with 6 years in between. I think of it as more like a stock option.
The HDB program costs about a billion a year. There's about 3.3 million citizens, so that's $300 a year each. I don't call that "massive", and I don't see why the country would collapse if it was withdrawn (not that there's any reason it would be).
No, that is completely wrong, but admittedly it's a fairly uncommon situation so the confusion is understandable. Singapore is quite unique in that it's such a tiny city, the government has very tight control over land use, and as such has historically acted as a gigantic real estate developer. It has seen its mission as providing cost-effective and yes, sometimes subsidized, housing for its population, and the program to manage this is known as the HDB.
Over 80% of the population live in HDB-provided apartment housing. However, the vast majority of those residents own their own apartments, having purchased them from the government (and yes, certain subsidies can apply - up to perhaps 30% the fair value of the property). It's public housing only insofar as it was developed by the government - certainly not free or nearly-free as the phrase might imply in other countries, so it's quite a misleading term to use.
The condo in that case is going to be far superior in every imaginable way. A $400k BTO is going to be very basic.
The rule of thumb is 20-30% discount on fair market value. Not 80%! Yes, it's a pretty sweet scheme if you're eligible, but it's not a total giveaway.
If you really could buy a $400k HDB that was comparable to the $2m condo next door then the $2m condo would never even be built, as there would be no market for it.
There are serious restrictions on resale hdb flats which cause them to be priced a lot lower than condos.
These restrictions are deliberate policy to ensure affordable housing and subsidise Citizens and PR.
The major ones:
- You have to be a citizen or PR of at least a few years. This cuts out 1.5 million people.
- You have to meet racial and PR quotas. This limits demand.
- You can't have other properties. This excludes people with overseas property and excludes wealthier Singaporeans from buying HDBs as investment property.
Yes I know. You sound like you're agreeing with me. I was arguing against some long-ago comments that insinuated the subsidies were "massive", "incredible", etc, and that being born in singapore was some kind of golden ticket to a life of endless government gravy. This is not at all the case.
I don't know where people thing the SG government would get these "incredible" subsidies from anyway. It's not the UAE!
It's not just MRT's. It's any and all construction. On any construction site (even regular homes), you'll see barracks style housing for the migrant labor. They are de facto second class citizens.
As someone who has lived in Singapore for a couple of decades I think I'm well suited to answering this.
There is plenty of criticism that goes on against the government both online and in real life. The only people who are charged with libel suits are those who have either - a) put forth blatantly false statements and have achieved a certain level of fame b) made statements against certain races and religions.
Obviously this isn't the same level of freedom of speech that is found in America but it is nowhere near as draconian as the western media would like to portray.
The number of people who fall into the categories above are a handful. For the millions of people who are only superficially engaged politically this simply does not matter to them, and the quality of living they enjoy far outweighs whatever prohibitions on free speech is imposed.
> For the millions of people who are only superficially engaged politically
People are much less likely to be politically engaged in Singapore because of the overall concern about how speaking out could affect them negatively. In private, you often hear strong opinions from taxi drivers, for example, who think they are anonymous to you, but rarely will they speak up in public. That is what happens in a society without free speech and when people can be publicly prosecuted for what they say.
Or they will take tens of thousands of dollars in fines from a teenager because of a critical blog post. That's why a young Singaporean was recently granted asylum in the States.
donald low is a well known critic of the government, and regularly posts his opinions on fb as well as in newspapers. he has also published a book that critiqued the effectiveness of singapore's contemporary policy choices.
he is currently a professor at the lee kuan yew school of public policy.
c.f. my comment on the same quote, which contends that business and market-size reasons are a greater factor behind this development model, as opposed to ideological reasons.
A common refrain from those interested in starting-up in the region is the lack of investment money and investors' own refrains on just how fragmented the regional market is. Those trying to do or set-up business in Singapore often find that there is little to complain about with respect to regulations. Probably the greatest problem that involves the government as a party is finding a sufficiently sizable customer base without government backing, but this is explained by limited SAM.
This completely true, but Singapore's propaganda goes over so well that people on hacker news don't want to hear it. Singapore handles its financials well as a country and that is about it. The extreme difference in the quality of life between the haves and have-nots is disgusting. There is no freedom of speech, the government is a sham democracy, and people's 'rights' are basically non-existent.
If your job requires you to be there, in face-to-face spitting style, then your job is not about being creative, and then you won't make it anyway, because you will be replaced by either a cheaper migrant worker or else your job will be automated into oblivion. If your job does not require you to be there, in that case, why would you actually care that "smart nation" can only be bullshit? You can perfectly well NOT care from Bangkok or Auckland. You do NOT need to be there in order NOT to care. You can do that from anywhere.
Rather then the government lead (and miss) why not have the government act more as an even-distributor of things which are already gaining traction.
Years ago during Japan's go-go years, they have renderings and future plans for completely redesigned megacities made up of multiple semi-self-contained smaller hyper integrated neighborhoods --sometimes a neighborhood would be gigantic pyramidal buildings of capable of being self-sustaining in terms of labor, housing, recreation, food production, etc. but then the economy tanked and pop growth flatlined and we have relative slow decline and forgotten are those grand dreams of the future.