Parenting in Singapore

Tiger mums, helicopter parents and modern child-rearing angst

Chong Siow Ann   AUG 20, 2016,

At this present moment, we are all very much taken up with the talented and wholesome Joseph Schooling in whom the whole country has taken such proprietary pride. There is no doubt that much has gone into the making of what he is today. Other than the good luck of having good genes, and armed with grit and steely discipline, he has access to top-notch training and, as important, he has loving , effective and supportive parents who - let's face it - are unusual and remarkable in their abiding faith in and sacrificial commitment to their only child's dream. Had his parents quashed this seemingly improbable childhood dream, and insisted - perhaps as most other well- meaning parents would - on him focusing on his academic studies so that he could get a "real", conventional and safe job like a doctor, lawyer, or engineer, we would probably not have our very first Olympic gold medallist and true- blue Singaporean sporting hero.

HELICOPTER PARENTS

Within two generations, Singapore has catapulted itself into the First World. Meritocracy has been the organising principle of that transformation; and for better or worse, it has also been imprinted into our psyche.

With growing affluence and with most couples having fewer children, the latter have become the most precious of all possessions and, in tandem, parenting has become a very deliberate, self-conscious and angst-riven activity - particularly with the so-called helicopter parenting which is that odd amalgam of pampering and achievement pressure. Overprotective, over- controlling and intrusive, these helicopter parents would hover and keep their children on their radar screen: orchestrating and monitoring their activities, and swooping to blast away any obstacles in their path.

Sheep-like, disempowered and bereft of any sense of agency, these children are ferried, guided and nudged along the highways and byways of a demanding terrain of academic and extra-curricular activities. Having imbibed the ambitions of their parents and squinting through the parental prism, they see only one narrow path to success in life. The consequence - as we are told by concerned scholars and educators in a slew of scholarly studies, best-selling books and newspaper and magazine articles - is that these children who are consumed with the fear of not measuring up, don't learn to cope effectively with problems nor do they know how to soothe themselves when they are distressed.

There is "declining student resilience" and "emotional fragility", according to the Boston College psychologist Peter Gray. "Students are afraid to fail; they do not take risks; they need to be certain about things," he wrote of the students in the United States and the growing mental health crisis among them. "For many of them, failure is seen as catastrophic and unacceptable. External measures of success are more important than learning and autonomous development."

A five-year study from the National University of Singapore published in the Journal Of Personality this year showed that local children of intrusive parents who have high academic expectations of them are likely to be more self-critical and more inclined to feel that they fall short. "The child may become afraid of making the slightest mistake and will blame himself or herself for not being 'perfect'," said the study's lead investigator Ryan Hong, who warned bleakly that "it increases the risk of the child developing symptoms of depression, anxiety and even suicide in very serious cases".

Other research elsewhere has shown that students with "helicopter" parents are more likely to be medicated for anxiety and depression.

TIGER MUMS

To a certain extent, some parents may feel as hapless as their children, being compelled as they were in a meritocratic elitist society where - so goes the popular narrative - the best chance of material success in later life is attaining the requisite academic credentials earlier in life. And which parent would not be beset by that raft of guilt, uncertainty and anxiety of not doing enough in securing that head start for their child?

But still there is a general feeling that such values and expectations are wrong. The tendency is to blame the education system for being that crucible of feverish competition and high pressure.

There have been many calls for changes. As The Straits Times editorial of July 16 said, the recent revamp of the PSLE nurtures the hope that primary education should be for children "to develop their passion for learning, grow in values and character, and explore their strengths and interests".

That sounds intuitively and sensibly right but there is a salutary lesson to be learnt from the experience of the world's most powerful nation. Americans have been drilled to respect the individuality of their children, to support them in their self-chosen passions, and to boost their self-esteem which is supposed to make them learn better.

But as the American journalist Elizabeth Kolbert pointed out in her piece in The New Yorker a few years ago: "After a generation or so of applying this theory, we have the results. Just about the only category in which American students outperform the competition is self-regard."

She highlighted a study by the Brookings Institution that compared students' own assessments of their abilities in maths with their actual scores on a standardised test.

Nearly 40 per cent of American students declared that they usually do well in mathematics, but only 7 per cent of them actually did well enough on the test to qualify as advanced.

In contrast, 18 per cent of Singaporean students said they usually did well in maths; 44 per cent qualified as advanced on the test, with even the least self-confident Singaporean students outscoring the most self-confident Americans.

As Ms Kolbert commented wryly: "You can say it's sad that kids in Singapore are so beaten down that they can't appreciate their own accomplishments. But you've got to give them this: At least they get the math right."

And it's not just maths - American students are far from the top in international rankings for excellence in science. This Western orthodoxy of nurturing the self-esteem of the children and allowing them unfettered expression is anathema to Amy Chua, Yale law professor and author of that controversial book, Battle Hymn Of The Tiger Mother, where she expounded her exacting Chinese child-rearing of her two high-achieving daughters.

She argued that the sort of parenting which emphasises self-esteem without an accompanying insistence on actual accomplishment will set the children up to accept mediocrity. And it has another darker implication - a society that nurtures and blithely accepts unearned self-esteem could turn out entitled narcissists and weaken its global competitiveness.

The changes to Singapore's own education system are made in the hope that our children will have a less burdened childhood. But there is, I think, another intent, which is to help them be more creative, more original and more imaginative as adults - attributes that are essential for a "knowledge economy".

Let's hope that it will achieve all that, though Amy Chua's stern assertion might be something to be borne in mind.

However, being what we are, it is unlikely that our tiger mums and cubs would be an endangered species any time soon.

What makes us Singaporean?

What makes us Singaporean?

Published  AUGUST 08, 2015  Updated  March 21, 2016 

For many Singaporeans, the words that come to mind are “kiasu”, “hardworking” and “stressed”. The adjectives complement one another to showcase, in a way, a nation on steroids — a competitive citizenry that is obsessed with being No 1 in all that it does.

This, at least, is according to a street poll conducted by TODAY of 525 respondents here — 354 Singaporeans and 171 foreigners — across all ages, who were asked to pick any three words to describe the Singapore identity.

While there were differing opinions, the most commonly cited attitude among the Singaporean respondents was “kiasu” — a Hokkien word that captures the uniquely Singaporean trait of being afraid to lose out.

It was mentioned by more than a third of respondents, who also used another colloquial term, “kiasi” — afraid to die or cowardly — to describe their countrymen.

In contrast, foreigners here painted a more positive picture of Singaporeans, with words such as “friendly”, “nice”, “hardworking” and “polite” cited most frequently.

As Singaporeans celebrate the Jubilee Weekend — a highlight being the anticipated National Day Parade tomorrow — the topic of national identity has come under the spotlight in recent months as policymakers and citizens look back on how far the Republic has come, and what the future holds.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has — on three occasions, no less — spoken about national identity as a long term concern in the next 50 years, as he shared what he felt were challenges facing the country over different time horizons. Among other things, the future generation will be “born in a different world”, and it remains to be seen what identity they will develop, Mr Lee said in a recent interview with Ambassador-at-large Chan Heng Chee.

The results of TODAY’s street poll were mirrored in the National Values Assessment study. Conducted by Barrett Values Centre and aAdvantage Consulting Group, the study found that while Singaporeans were describing society here in more positive terms such as “peace” and “educational opportunities” compared with three years ago, terms such as “kiasu”, “kiasi”, “competitive”, “materialistic” and “self-centred” were still on the list.

What makes Singaporeans tick

Commenting on TODAY’s street poll, Moulmein-Kallang Group Representation Constituency (GRC) Member of Parliament (MP) Denise Phua said: “I see this as a positive and a sign of self-awareness and ability to self-critique. (It is) not a bad thing since self-awareness is needed to check any excessive kiasu-ism.”

She added: “Every strength carried to the extreme becomes a weakness. Diligence and the drive to achieve are good attributes of a people and have led Singapore to where it is today. We are perhaps at a tipping point where if left unchecked, our strengths will become deficits that will lead us to becoming victims of our success.”

Of course, Singaporeans have redeeming qualities too, such as “hardworking”, with 14 per cent of the street poll respondents mentioning it, and also “friendly”, with 10 per cent saying so. But other words that frequently popped up were not as pleasant, including “selfish” and “rude”. It must be pointed out that TODAY’s survey is a snapshot poll that quickly captures Singaporeans’ views on what makes them tick. It is in no way a scientific survey or a reflective soul searching exercise where Singaporeans agonise over their psyche.

If respondents were given more time to think, a different consensus on the Singapore identity could have surfaced – such as descriptions of meritocracy, multiracialism and social mobility that are often mentioned in the national narrative to explain the city-state’s phenomenal success.

But to those who were surveyed by TODAY over two weeks in various parts of Singapore, their knee-jerk appraisal portrayed rather conflicting characteristics of Singaporeans.

Here is a sampling of what some respondents rattled off: Undergraduate Nicholas Chiam, 21, said Singaporeans were “cosmopolitan, driven and materialistic”; 39-year-old Prakesh Eranki, who works in IT, said “disciplined, honest, worried”; Dispatch clerk Najemudeen Mohamad Abrahim, 48, went with “busy, self-centered, pampered” while cleaner Kong Tuck Cheong, 56, said Singaporeans were “well-mannered, kind and xenophobic”.

It could be said that such views from the gut are the most honest, or also the most superficial as it is only a caricature of Singaporeans that has been reinforced over the years based on impressions rather than research.

To be fair, the Singapore identity is not easy to pin point. Public intellectuals who have weighed in on the topic over the years also do not profess to know the answer.

Prominent diplomat and academic Kishore Mahbubani said in a newspaper column in 2013: “I know that I am a Singaporean. But I do not know what a Singaporean is.” Similarly, law professor Simon Tay, in a separate newspaper column also in 2013, noted: “There is a broad appeal in the idea of Singaporean-ness. Even so, we have yet to clearly identify the cluster of values, ideas and habits that constitute the Singaporean culture and identity.”

Ms Debbie Soon, a research associate at the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) in the National University of Singapore, noted that there are multiple sources of identity markers that would help to understand what Singaporeans value. These include friendship and family ties, belief in meritocracy and other national values such as “commitment to principles that uphold cultural diversity”.

Ms Soon added: “The Singaporean identity is also shaped by the pursuit of civic interests, as well as common experiences like living in HDB estates, eating at hawker centres and doing National Service… It is a lattice-work of social networks and interests that bind us together; they transcend the commonalities of race, language and religion.”

As Singapore continues to grapple with its identity, foreigners, however, seem to view residents here in a better light.

Among the expatriates and foreign students living here who were polled and posed the same question of using three words to describe Singaporeans, one quarter said “friendly”, compared to a mere tenth of citizens who felt that way. Many also said Singaporeans were “nice” and “helpful”.

Explaining this gap in perceptions between foreigners and Singaporeans, Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC MP Hri Kumar Nair pointed out that Singaporeans “measure ourselves against a higher standard of achievement”. “So examples of failure or bad conduct tend to be overly scrutinised and exaggerated. There is a sense of ‘we should be better than that’,” he said.

Dr Leong Chan Hoong, an IPS senior research fellow who studies migration and intercultural relations, added that foreigners living abroad are more open to different cultures. “They chose to work and study here, so they are naturally more receptive of the people here because they have to adapt to the new environment,” he said.

But some foreigners also hold a dim view of Singaporeans, using the same choice words of “kiasu”, “rude”, “impatient” and “arrogant” to describe citizens of their host nation. Similar to Singaporeans, they also felt residents here are competitive and lead hectic lives, with more than 10 per cent using “worried” and “stressed” to describe Singaporeans.

Health and loved ones, over wealth and success

Yet, for their supposed competitive streak, Singaporeans proved they were not as money-minded or success-oriented when push comes to shove. As part of the street poll, the respondents were also asked which of the four indicators – health, wealth, success and loved ones – they valued the most. An overwhelming majority chose loved ones (51 per cent) and health (37 per cent).

Of the indicators they valued the least, almost half (49 per cent) selected wealth and 43 per cent said success.

Naturally, more among the older respondents cherished health compared to the younger crowd, the majority of whom put loved ones as top priority.

“When we are young, many of us feel invincible. We are brimming with life and energy, and ill health is a remote consideration,” said Dr Chia Shi-Lu, MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC and Government Parliamentary Committee for Health.

“As we grow older, we can feel it in our bodies and see some of our friends and loved ones succumb to ill health, and our own mortality becomes all the more real to us, so we start paying more and more attention to keeping healthy.”

But what accounts for the intriguing incongruence in Singaporeans’ attitude towards life – that while many survey respondents affirm the Singapore identity to be kiasu and competitive, strangely, their priority is not to accumulate wealth or success?

This lack of monetary ambition is also borne out in a separate online survey TODAY conducted with 665 Singaporeans to get their views on how they perceive concepts of home, work, and play. When asked what mattered most in their jobs, two in three respondents chose job satisfaction and work-life balance over pay packages.

Are Singaporeans really not motivated by materialistic rewards? Clearly, some are driven by money. But what the survey findings reveal is Singaporeans’ peculiar personality, said analysts, which could be attributed to pragmatic concerns of survival rather than simply making money.

There are two seemingly contradictory factors behind such attitudes. One, Singaporeans have grown up with a narrative of the country’s vulnerabilities and hence the need to stay competitive which only worsened in recent years with the influx of foreigners. Two, growing affluence has led to Singaporeans wondering why they are striving so hard for and placing more value in non-monetary pursuits, as can be seen in calls for slower economic growth and a more relaxed pace of life.

While some Singaporeans yearn for a more chill-out environment, they will never shake off the kiasu spirit – a trait that some say the Government evidently encourages as it fears citizens, if not hungry enough, will result in the economy being overtaken or swallowed by rivals. Good is not good enough, one has to be extraordinary to excel.

The fear of being left behind in this globalised world where the city state, as an open economy that is welcoming of foreigners, could also be spurring Singaporeans to keep pace with the competition or risk losing out in schools or jobs and eventually their lifestyle and even homes once incomes are lost.

This concept of exceptionalism to compensate for Singapore’s vulnerability due to its small size and lack of natural resources has been reiterated by Singapore leaders time and again, which could explain why the kiasu mentality is deeply ingrained among Singaporeans.

Some observers also note that domestic concerns such as the high cost of living is not helping, as it causes constant anxiety among Singaporeans who worry if they have enough. In fact, pricey goods and services is among the top peeves of the respondents in the street poll.

Asked what they disliked most about Singapore, many said the city was becoming too expensive and too crowded due to the surge in the number of foreigners recently. Many were also unhappy with the stressful lifestyle and the hot, humid weather.

Mr Hri Kumar could empathise with concerns of over-population. “It is natural to want more space, whether at home, at work, on the roads or places of leisure. But crowdedness is a feature of a vibrant city-state. It is wishful thinking that you can have fewer people and expect everything else to remain the same.”

As for the rising cost of living, he noted that this is a common concern in countries all over the world. “Costs will inevitably increase as living standards improve, and in Singapore, we have seen a dramatic improvement in a single generation,” he said. “The more important question therefore is how Singaporeans can best deal with the impact of these increases in the short, medium and long term, while still ensuring that our children will be better off than we are.”

In the short term, policymakers need to pay particular attention to elderly Singaporeans, “who worked when wages were low and now find that their savings cannot keep up with inflation”, he added.

What Singaporeans like about their country

But for all of the gripes, there are several things which Singaporeans like about their country. Among those polled, the oft-cited attractions were safety (almost one-third) and the wide variety of good food (17 per cent).

It is no surprise that Singaporeans were appreciative of the city’s safe environment, said Dr Damien Cheong, research fellow at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies whose area of expertise likes in homeland defence and security studies.

“As Singaporeans are well-travelled, they know that in many countries, they have to be extremely careful about personal safety, which can ultimately restrict activities. Here, the fact that one can walk, jog and cycle along the streets after dark anywhere one pleases, gives one much more autonomy,” he said.

As Singapore continues its journey as an economic powerhouse, the country seems forever tied together by a curious combination of its “scared to lose” mentality and stress, dislike of escalating population and prices, and love of security and food.

What does it actually say about the Singapore identity? Nobody can quite tell, except for a simplistic perspective that Singaporeans are high-strung foodies who dislike crowds. But it does explain their top choices to kick back and unwind.

Unwind the Singaporean way - sleeping and surfing the Internet

In the online poll with over 600 Singaporeans, among the top leisure activities enjoyed the most are sleeping, hanging out with friends and family (typically to eat) and going online – two out of three are solo and passive activities.

The fact that sleeping and surfing the Internet rank so highly did not surprise National University of Singapore sociologist Tan Ern Ser.

“Singaporeans may be tired out from having to balance family responsibilities and work commitments, particularly if they have young children and/or elderly parents to look after. I reckon sleeping is a good way to recharge…while going online involves no additional running around and therefore highly accessible,” said Dr Tan.

Tampines GRC MP Baey Yam Keng, an avid Internet user, felt that online surfing is a phenomenon that is not unique to Singapore. “Going online allows anyone to escape into a different world - be it connecting with friends, shopping or watching videos and playing games. It is an avenue for immediate gratification,” he says.

“But it may be more popular for Singaporeans as an avenue in dealing with stress and frustrations due to our pace of life, high smart phone penetration and our sophisticated telecommunication infrastructure which all make it easy to go online anytime.”

Mr Baey could not have said it clearer, confirming the poll results that Singaporeans are stressed-out individuals who require sleep and online therapy to loosen up. At least they can seek solace in Singapore’s food paradise – but rising prices could lead to another bout of stress. 

REPORT BY: CHIA SUE-ANN, SERENE LIM, SIAU MING EN, ROBIN CHOO, ELGIN CHONG, EMMANUAL PHUA AND EMILIA TAN

Singapore, City of Sensors

Singapore, City of Sensors  

LINDA POON  APR 21, 2017

https://www.citylab.com/life/2017/04/singapore-city-of-sensors/523392/

Armed with a deep pool of tech entrepreneurs and startups—not to mention a government that’s eager to make the most use out of them—the island-nation of Singapore offers a wealth of urban innovation.

Today’s Singapore provides free WiFi inside subway stations, and it’s paved the way for its first driverless taxis. With limited access to fresh water, the city-state has also developed technology to catch rain and desalinate some 100 million gallons of seawater a day. Even its fabled fancy bus stops get a dose of high technology.

Then there are the sensors, cameras, and GPS devices. They’re on trains, buses, and taxis, tracking traffic and employing artificial intelligence to predict crashes. You can spot them around public spaces to monitor safety and crowd density, and atop buildings to monitor air quality and pedestrian movement. But that’s just the beginning.

In short, Singapore is a city—and nation—of sensors, barely noticeable to the average citizen. But they know they’re there. It’s all part of the government’s plan to become the world’s first “Smart Nation,” which was kick-started in 2014 with the rollout of 1,000 sensors. In the grand scheme, Singapore wants to build a network of sensors to collect and connect data from all aspects of urban life—not just traffic and infrastructure but also human movement and behavior. All that information, collected across various departments, will then feed into a central platform, accessible to all governmental agencies. The engineers behind it have dubbed the plan “E3A,” for “Everyone, Everything, Everywhere, All the Time.”

Already, developers are working on systems that can detect, for example, if someone is smoking in a non-smoking area. And recently the government piloted a program using wireless sensor technology inside private homes to track the movements and sleeping patterns of older residents, as part of an effort to better safeguard the health of the growing aging population. It’s even hoping to harness artificial intelligence to help the government predict what services an individual needs.

“One of the most important things we want to use AI for is a thing called ‘Moments of Life,’” Mark Lim, director of product design in Singapore’s new digital agency GovTech, told the Centre of Public Impact in February. “The idea behind this was instead of asking citizens to go to different government websites and different apps, we could anticipate the services they require at key moments in life by using AI.”

And that central platform? By the end of this year, Singapore hopes to have launched Virtual Singapore—essentially a $73 million digital model of the entire city built by the French company Dassault Systèmes. It looks something like SimCity, with 3D renderings of buildings, parks, and waterways to help policymakers and urban planners visualize the data.

In this simulation, planners can zoom in on actual buildings to analyze their real-world energy use, or spot trends in, say, noise and pollution levels. They can simulate emergencies and test out possible solutions or explore the impact of the built environment on shadows and temperature over a particular area. Perhaps in the future, it can help planners detect the spread of disease based on the commuting patterns, or predict manmade disasters, all of which would put the government one step ahead of any surprises that might crop up.

With such advanced technology in the works, Singapore is easily the envy of aspiring smart cites across the globe. It’s even more impressive considering that just 50 years ago, the island was little more than a swamp; the GDP per capita was $500. “When Singapore became independent in 1965, no one expected it to survive,” says Simon Chesterman, a professor of data protection law at the National University of Singapore. “It was a tiny state with no natural resources—it doesn't even have water.” (Singapore imports its water from Malaysia.)

Meanwhile, several U.S. cities, especially New York City, Boston, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, are also working hard to tap into transformative power of big data, some with the help of universities and organizations like Mapbox, Bloomberg Philanthropies, and the Knight Foundation. Does that make Singapore a harbinger of what cities here in the U.S. should look like?

“Even Singapore isn't quite there yet in terms of what it aspires to be,” says Kelsey Finch, policy counsel at the Future of Privacy Forum. “What will hold true for U.S. cities is that they will aspire to be smarter …  and privacy is going to get balanced with a bunch of public good policies, making sure that city governments are transparent and accountable.”

The thing is, Singapore is as exciting for the future of big data and connected technology as it is unsettling for those concerned about the role of privacy in a smart city. It’s been successful in providing public services in part because it can collect vast amounts of data on its citizens without raising much public concern about mass surveillance—something that U.S. cities would find difficult.

There’s a lot that’s helping Singapore realize its vision, namely a strong tech sector, a proactive government, and a tech-savvy population that can see the results of this efficiency. But there’s also another factor: The city-state’s strict government can operate under rather lax personal data protection laws that restrict company use of private information but largely exclude the public sector. That means there’s little, if any, limit to how agencies collect and share data for the benefit of better services. According to Chesterman, that’s because Singapore’s data-protection laws aren’t about protecting individual rights as much as they are about creating an environment for big data to thrive.

Little Red Dot or the Apple of Nations?

Little Red Dot or the Apple of Nations?

Peter Ho  PUBLISHED   MAY 5, 2017

This is an excerpt from a IPS-Nathan lecture by Peter Ho, senior adviser to the Centre for Strategic Futures He talks about how citizen empowerment and changing expectations require governments to adapt. They must shift from a model of delivering 'government to you' and 'government of you' to 'government with you'.

In 2010, my friend, the futurist Peter Schwartz, described Singapore as the "Apple of Nations".

He was not using apple in its idiomatic form, but favourably comparing Singapore as a nation to Apple the company, which was then - as now - an inspiring paragon of innovation.

Apple is famous for its innovative and revolutionary products. Many think that this year, Apple will become the first trillion-dollar company in terms of market cap.

It was high praise from Schwartz. But of course, it begs the question of whether we can truly be the Apple of Nations, or whether we are in reality just a Little Red Dot.

Schwartz, who is no rosy-eyed admirer of Singapore, also warned: "The difference between Apple and Singapore is that the people of Singapore don't know how good they have it. They don't know just what a remarkable entity has been created here. They don't share yet that sense of passion that the people at Apple do."

This concern was echoed in Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's 2016 National Day Rally speech, when he said: "What I would like to have is that we be blessed with a divine discontent - always not quite satisfied with what we have, always driven to do better.

"At the same time, we have the wisdom to count our blessings so that we know how precious Singapore is and we know how to enjoy it and to protect it."

BIG GOVERNMENT VERSUS SMALL GOVERNMENT

Thrust into an unwelcome and unwanted independence (in 1965), the Singapore Government was in a hurry to turn the precarious situation around, and to transform Singapore into a "modern metropolis", in the matchless pledge of Mr Lee Kuan Yew in 1965.

With better access to information and higher expectations of governments, the view that "government knows best" is increasingly being challenged. The writer argues that governments should move toward a collaborative approach to policy-making, and connect, consult, and co-create with the people and private sectors.  

So, it is not surprising that in the beginning, governance in Singapore was characterised by big government - if you will - through strong regulation, seeking compliance with policy rules, and maintaining as efficient a system as possible, in order to get things moving and to get them done.

Through this approach, the Government embarked on a number of major initiatives that helped to lay the foundations for Singapore's prosperity and stability.

These included a massive public housing programme; heavy investments in infrastructure - in public transport, our port and airport; and an activist, government-led approach to attract foreign investments and build up the capabilities to support higher value-added activities.

In these and many other policy domains, the visible hand of government was as critical as the invisible hand of markets.

The Government's interventions enabled new markets and industries to develop. They also helped to ensure that economic growth throughout the 1970s and 1980s benefited all segments of the population.

GOVERNMENT VERSUS GOVERNANCE

Today, citizens and businesses alike have far higher expectations of government than before. Access to information has increased dramatically in scope and speed as a result of the Internet revolution.

Social networking platforms like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter have empowered citizens to express their views. Virtual communities are beginning to shape the debate and context of public policy issues.

The view that "government knows best" that perhaps characterised the situation in the beginning is increasingly challenged in today's world, in which citizens and businesses can easily gain access to much of the information that governments used to monopolise and control in the past.

THE FUTURE OF GOVERNMENT IN SINGAPORE

Today, the quality of government in Singapore is routinely listed at the top of a host of global rankings. That Singapore is already operating at the leading edge in many areas of governance means that it is no longer enough for Government policymakers just to copy and adapt from elsewhere.

For many of the emergent issues that we have to deal with, Singapore will have to evolve its own strategies and approaches. To achieve real breakthroughs, the Government will have to depend more and more on its own innovations.

And as a result, the Government will have to assume new levels of entrepreneurship with its attendant risks and uncertainties. A government that explores will also at times have to sacrifice some degree of efficiency in service of discovery. And it will need to become expert at conducting bounded experiments.

Indeed, the emergent, complex issues of the 21st century suggest the need for a new paradigm in governance - one that is Whole-of-Government, networked, innovative, exploratory and resilient in the way it confronts the challenges of our time - challenges rooted in complexity and accelerating change.

What is the appropriate model of governance for Singapore going forward?

The coming years will see a growing need for governance - which requires collaboration across the public, private and people sectors - rather than government acting as the sole, or dominant, player.

Today, the Government faces a myriad of complex public policy issues in which the trade-offs are much more difficult to make, because each could lead to unintended consequences and risks. Many of these public policy issues exceed the capacity of government working alone. Instead, they require the active contribution of private and people sectors.

A government-centric approach focused on efficiency and productivity will likely give way to a broader approach that leverages on the collective capacity of non-government actors, in order to achieve results of higher public value and at a lower overall cost for society.

How government interacts with the private and the people sectors will in turn determine how big a role each of these sectors will play. It is often overlooked that the Singapore Government has been a world leader in the engagement of the private sector.

A succession of five economic reviews - the Economic Committee of 1986, the Committee on Singapore's Competitiveness of 1998, the Economic Review Committee of 2003, the Economic Strategies Committee of 2008 and, most recently, the Committee on the Future Economy of 2016 - saw the public and private sectors coming together every few years to produce far-reaching policy recommendations for Singapore's long-term economic competitiveness.

FREE MARKET VERSUS MARKET INTERVENTION

A major factor that determines the size of our government has been our belief that free market forces should determine prices and economic outcomes. This is the approach that is the foundation of small government.

But in Singapore, faith in the market has not been uncritical or absolute.

Instead, the Government recognises that in certain cases, unfettered market forces can result in excessive volatility, negative externalities and under-provision of merit goods, like education, as well as public goods, like defence.

The economist Dani Rodrik outlined a framework that can be usefully applied to understanding how Singapore has chosen to blend the work of markets and government.

• First, the Government has sought to enable markets. This includes ensuring rule of law, property rights and public infrastructure - functions that most governments perform. In Singapore, enabling markets has also included industrial policy and capability development, subjects of some controversy in policy circles around the world, especially among proponents of small government that believe in the laissez-faire approach.

• Second, the Government has sought to regulate markets. This includes supervision of the financial sector, competition regulation and taxation of negative externalities, such as high charges for car ownership and road usage, and sin taxes on alcohol and tobacco products - and maybe in future, taxes on sugary drinks. But a key feature of Singapore's approach has been the shift towards lighter regulation accompanied by risk-based supervision, most recently exemplified by MAS' (the Monetary Authority of Singapore's) fintech regulatory sandbox.

• Third, the Government has sought to stabilise markets. This is the bread and butter of macroeconomic management. Singapore's basic approach in monetary and fiscal policy is not far different from global practices. But its efforts to address asset price inflation and credit crises are interesting examples of targeted interventions that harness market forces.

• Fourth, the Government has sought to legitimise markets. Globalisation, free trade and open markets lead to significant dislocations. Some of the sharpest debates over the role of governments centre on this: To what extent should governments facilitate adjustments, redistribute incomes or provide social safety nets, so as to maintain public support for market-oriented policies?

ENGAGING THE PEOPLE SECTOR

Complementing government and markets is the role that society will play in tackling the great challenges and wicked problems of the 21st century.

A key part of this governance process will be growing mutual engagement between the public and people sectors.

In his 2011 National Day Rally, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong underscored the importance of such engagement, pointing out that the nation needs to "harness diverse views and ideas, put aside personal interest and forge common goals". This is especially important because people's expectations have changed - and are changing, continuously.

WHY EXPECTATIONS ARE CHANGING

I think there are a couple of reasons for this development. The first reason is that as government policies lead to improvements, the needs of the people change in tandem.

This is explained by Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Maslow's proposition was that after the basic physiological needs of a person are met, more complex psychological needs will have to be fulfilled.

At the top of this hierarchy of needs are the need for self-actualisation, which is to realise the individual's potential, and transcendence, which is helping others achieve self-actualisation.

So, if you accept this proposition, then after government has delivered on the basic needs of food, security, shelter, transport and health, expectations of the people are going to change, not in demanding more of the basic needs, but in fulfilling their more psychic needs in the upper reaches of Maslow's hierarchy, including social, emotional and self-actualisation needs.

The challenge for governments everywhere is that success in delivering the material goods of life - housing, food and so on - is no guarantee that it can be successful in delivering "the good life", however defined.

I suppose the reverse is true as well, although it is hard to imagine the good life without the basic necessities of liveability.

THIRD GENERATION SINGAPOREANS

The second reason is what I term the third-generation effect. Singapore is now 51 years old and into its third generation of Singaporeans. The first generation of Singaporeans lived through the turbulence and uncertainties of Merger and Separation. The next generation started life on a firmer footing, but at the same time imbibed from their parents a sense of the vulnerabilities. But the third generation of Singaporeans have known only the affluence and success of Singapore.

For them, the uncertainties of the 60s and 70s are abstractions from their school history books. When their grandparents speak of the turmoil and danger that they experienced, they shrug their shoulders because it is an experience outside theirs. Of course, they are hardly to blame for this, and they certainly need not apologise for it.

Singapore's founding generation made the sacrifices in order that their children and grandchildren would enjoy peace and prosperity.

But clearly, what persuaded their parents and grandparents will not wash with the third generation. But as long as we are all in this together - and I hope that they feel they are in this together - the hopes and dreams of our youth must also appreciate the tough realities that endure. By all means, dream, but dream with your eyes wide open.

So, communicating to the third generation will require fresh arguments and different approaches.

PEOPLE EMPOWERMENT

Citizens today feel empowered, because of the social media and higher levels of educational achievement. Indeed, Singaporeans today are much better educated than their grandparents. In 1965, the cohort participation rate for university education was a minuscule 3 per cent. Today, it is 30 per cent.

The non-profit group Ground Up Initiative (GUI) points precisely to how attitudes are changing in Singapore. GUI operates a 26,000 sq m "Kampong Kampus" space in Khatib, with the aim of reconnecting urbanites to the natural environment. The group's founder, Mr Tay Lai Hock, said: "I think the top should set the example, but I also believe, you first and foremost, must take responsibility for your own life...Don't blame anybody. Don't blame the Government... I have a choice to decide that even though they have made this policy, I don't want to be a victim of their policies."

THE BUKIT BROWN CASE STUDY

In 2011, the Land Transport Authority announced plans to construct a road that would cut through Bukit Brown, the oldest cemetery in Singapore. Heritage groups protested, while the Government maintained its position on needing land in land-scarce Singapore.

When Bukit Brown Cemetery was placed on the World Monuments Watch in 2013, one member of the group All Things Bukit Brown said: "I hope it shows that we are serious, that we want a seat at the table, just so we can present what we have heard from the community, what we have heard from the people who have encouraged us... You want development, but let's have a discussion, perhaps."

The Government has to deal with an electorate that feels empowered, demanding and actively seeks participation. In this regard, Our Singapore Conversation, launched in 2013, signalled the Government's commitment to listening to the people's views.

THE CASE OF THE MISSING PM2.5

By looking at issues from the perspective of end-users - namely the citizen - the government is able to design better policies than if they were just developed using the usual top-down approach.

During the 2013 haze, experts had advised the Government to consider releasing another indicator besides the Pollutant Standards Index (PSI) readings: the PM2.5 readings, which measure particles smaller than 2.5 microns. This is because PM2.5 particles greatly affect people with heart disease, as well as children and the elderly.

When the haze began, the Government published the three-hour PSI readings and 24-hour PM2.5. But netizens and doctors pointed out that the PSI did not factor in PM2.5 readings as air quality indicators.

Members of the public also expressed concern that the PSI values appeared different from what they had observed. Singaporeans even resorted to taking their own real-time air quality readings with commercial equipment.

The Government said at first that it would be confusing for the public to have too many figures to read.

But in the end, because of persistence of the public, NEA (the National Environment Agency) began providing more information on PM2.5, and from June 20, 2013, publishing the PSI and PM2.5 figures hourly, six days after the haze began. And eventually, from April 1, 2014, Singapore moved to an integrated air quality reporting index, with PM2.5 incorporated into the PSI as its sixth pollutant parameter.

GOVERNMENT WITH YOU

I have spent some time explaining how and why society in Singapore is evolving, and how government itself has to evolve in tandem. Put simply, it means a shift from the paternalistic and interventionist "government to you" and "government for you" to "government with you".

The imperative is for government to move towards a collaborative approach to policy-making, and be prepared to connect, consult, and co-create with the people and the private sectors.

Jobs of the future

Jobs of the future? Get set to create them for yourselves

Linda Lim and Benjamin Goh For The Straits Times JAN 25, 2017

Singapore needs to steer clear of Trump's way of saving jobs and focus instead on home-grown enterprise and the region's growth. US President Donald Trump has focused on the need to "bring jobs back to America", and some US multinationals (Carrier, Ford, Sprint) claim they are doing just that. But are jobs really being created, and are they jobs of the future, or of the past?

"Reshoring", or returning offshore production to the intended final market, has already been happening in response to market forces of globalisation and technological change, and as more local governments lure corporate investment with competitive tax breaks and infrastructure subsidies (as the state of Indiana did to retain Carrier).

But such non-market "job creation" also causes job loss, as higher costs to taxpayers and consumers, or reductions in other beneficial public expenditures due to lost tax revenues, reduce real incomes and thus demand and job creation in other sectors.

Higher costs due to reshoring would also encourage technological upgrading, chiefly automation substituting machinery for labour. As President Barack Obama noted in his farewell speech in Chicago: "The next wave of economic dislocations won't come from overseas. It will come from the relentless pace of automation." Any new jobs are likely to require scarce higher skills, necessitating an increase in immigration, which Trump voters oppose - "jobs for whom" matters more than just jobs per se.

Then there is the very real risk that the jobs "brought back to America" are jobs of the past, not of the future, and will not last long anyway.

The prime example here is the car industry, which Mr Trump criticises for manufacturing in Mexico to export to the US. As comparative advantage dictates, car parts and models made in Mexico are more labour-intensive and less profitable than those made in the US. Taxing American consumers by imposing punitive tariffs on imports from Mexico, or "returning" production to the higher-cost US, would simply raise prices to US car buyers, disproportionately hurting lower-income consumers who are more price-sensitive. Consumers will have less income to spend on other domestically produced goods and services - for example, haircuts, restaurant meals or gym memberships - or will buy fewer cars. In either case, jobs will be lost (or not created).

Besides increasing automation to reduce costs, car companies would accelerate investment in new technologies like self-driving cars, just as they have invested in the ride-sharing companies Uber and Lyft. Fewer cars would be produced, each with fewer workers, and jobs would be lost not only in the factory, but also among drivers.

RELEVANCE TO SINGAPORE 
Why does this matter to Singapore?

Like the US, we are a high-income, high-cost country facing competition from lower-cost neighbouring countries in labour-intensive, lower-tech tradable goods like manufactures. Unlike the US, we do not have a large domestic market that would spur innovation and incentivise domestic production. We also do not have local companies that are large global players in particular market segments that could locate the high-skill, high-wage parts of their global supply chains in Singapore.

Rather, we have prospered by shaping ourselves to fit particular occupational niches in the ever-changing global supply chains and product portfolios of foreign multinationals, as in manufacturing and finance. To do this we have relied on selective tax incentives and corporate subsidies that are increasingly imitated by others or disallowed by international trade and tax rules, and on liberal immigration policies enabling the hiring of foreigners with the locally-scarce skills required by these investors.

Now, the anti-globalisation threats of a Trump administration and others across the Western world responding to populist anti-globalism may limit our ability to continue with this follow-the-multinational strategy. At the same time, the collapsing timelines of disruptive technological change make it impossible for markets to predict, and for governments to anticipate, the jobs of the future and the skills they will require. It may well be, for example, that the job of Uber driver, unpredicted and unheard of just five years ago, lasts only for 10 years before being overtaken by self-driving vehicles, while artificial intelligence first swells and then depletes the ranks of computer programmers and software developers.

But absolute job creation is not the whole story. Record US job creation and full employment under President Obama did not mollify Mr Trump or his supporters, for whom jobs (and immigration) remain the biggest concern. The reasons for their dissatisfaction are many: many of the jobs created are part-time, temporary, low-wage or insecure, and the unemployment rate is low partly because labour force participation has dropped as "discouraged workers" stop looking for work.

A recent study by professors Lawrence Katz (Harvard) and Alan Krueger (Princeton) found that 94 per cent of the 10 million net new jobs created from 2005 to 2015 were in the "alternative work" category, which jumped from 10.7 per cent to 15.8 per cent of American workers. This reflects the rise of independent contractors, freelancers, contract company and temporary agency workers, who another study estimates could reach 40 per cent of the US labour force by 2020. The number of one-person businesses (the "self-employed" or "entrepreneurs") has also soared, even in manufacturing.

At the same time, conventional full-time salaried corporate jobs have decreased. Today's tech giants like Google and Facebook employ only a fraction of workers per dollar of revenue or market capitalisation, compared with traditional industrial firms like General Motors and Boeing, which themselves employ far fewer workers per dollar of revenue than previously.

These labour market shifts have been enabled by technology. The emergence of online platforms enable individuals to raise capital, sell goods and services, and share assets like homes and cars, online, while 3D printing has contributed to the rise of the "maker revolution".

Deriving from social and cultural as well as market and technological shifts, these trends are likely to continue in the US and other developed countries. The shift towards locally provided custom goods and personal services rather than globally provided mass manufactures suggests a limit to, if not a reversal of, global production networks, even without newly protectionist policies. It also contributes to the low productivity and GDP growth that developed countries have experienced since the early 2000s.

THE REGION TO THE RESCUE 
Fortunately, Singapore is located in a geographical region whose economies will grow much faster in the next 50 years than the Americas, Europe, Japan or China, for demographic and catch-up reasons. Our location gives us an advantage over more distant competitors in servicing the regional market, while our superior infrastructure and education give us competitive advantages over our neighbours. But leveraging these advantages to ensure good incomes and occupations for Singaporeans will require nothing less than a post-industrial transformation of many of the institutions that served us well in the late industrial age, and the mindsets and expectations that go with them.

First, we can no longer rely on foreign multinationals, government-linked companies and other large local enterprises to "create jobs" and "raise wages" for us. Instead, we need to create jobs for ourselves, through entrepreneurial ventures, self-employment and, yes, "alternative work" arrangements (many of which can be well-paid).

Second, we can no longer rely on "job creation" through linkages with the slow-growing final markets of distant developed countries. Instead we need to expand our role in the faster growth of developing countries, with which we have complementary comparative advantages, particularly our neighbours. This may mean providing a different portfolio of products at different price points than we have been used to with rich customers and clients (for example, in medical services and tourism).

Third, our social safety net needs to be reconfigured to provide better security for citizens in more flexible but also more volatile "alternative work" arrangements (for example, provision for self-employment contributions to a revamped Central Provident Fund, perhaps a minimal basic income guarantee), and to avoid discouraging inherently risky entrepreneurial efforts.

Fourth, our education system needs to be more flexible and diverse, not only to allow students of different abilities, interests and backgrounds to maximise their individual potential, but also to encourage curiosity, different thinking, self-learning, action-based learning, and learning of other cultures and languages. Rather than academic credentialling to fit into particular occupational slots that are already disappearing in other people's enterprises, we should encourage the creation of our own enterprises fulfilling local and regional market needs.

At this juncture of our national and world history, "more of the same" development strategies that were effective in an earlier era will not work. Given how developed we already are, there are diminishing returns to yet more costly top-down state-directed investments in infra- structure, education and corporate subsidies. It is time to return to the bottom-up, market-driven, locally and regionally focused, small-scale individual entrepreneurship that made us successful in the past, and can do so again. This is where the jobs of the future lie.

---

• Linda Lim is Professor of Strategy at the Stephen M. Ross School of Business, University of Michigan.
• Benjamin Goh is a Master in Public Policy candidate at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

Singapore Quality of Life

Singapore ranked nicest city to live in Asia for expats, with the best infrastructure in the world: Survey  MAR 14, 2017,

VIENNA (REUTERS) - Singapore topped consulting firm Mercer's list of cities in Asia offering the highest quality of life, and its infrastructure was deemed the best in the world.

Vienna, Austria's grand capital on the Danube river, was the world's best place to live for the eighth year in a row, while Baghdad was again considered the worst. Globally, Singapore was ranked No 25.

Mercer's 2017 Quality of Living survey of 231 cities helps companies and organisations determine compensation and hardship allowances for international staff. It uses dozens of criteria such as political stability, health care, education, crime, recreation and transport.

Notably, Singapore was No 1 in the world for city infrastructure, followed by Frankfurt and Munich both in second place. City infrastructure, ranked separately this year, plays an important role when multinationals decide where to establish locations abroad and send expatriate workers, said Mercer.

Easy access to transportation, reliable electricity, and drinkable water are all important considerations when determining hardship allowances based on differences between a given assignee's home and host locations.

Is Singapore #1 In Asia’s Quality Of Life Accurate?

By Niranjana Mahalingam | Bon Vivant – Fri, Oct 16, 2015

The most recent Mercer’s Survey 2015 for quality of life ranks Singapore as number one in Asia, with an overall place of 26^th in the world. This should be no big surprise as we have been ranked as the nation with the highest quality of life in Asia for a couple of years now, beating countries like Japan hands down.

Although these results claim that we are the happiest nation in Asia, it raises a question of to what extent is that really true. These being results of indicators which gauge the living standards afforded to a population, whether or not we, as people living in Singapore, are truly satisfied with what we have available is a totally different aspect. Quality of life never directly translates to the happiness or level of contentment of a population. However, it does to a certain extent show us how blessed we are in having a decent level of living conditions made available for us.

This brings upon a dilemma for those of us who disagree that we are indeed the happiest country in Asia – are we truly unhappy with our living and working conditions, or are we taking our quality living standards for granted whilst being greedy?

How is quality of life measured?

There is a whole list of factors which are measured to give an estimated gauge of the quality of life for a country. To make things simple, we can classify these factors to four main categories: physical, social, economical and psychological.

Physical factors measure aspects like the contents of diet of a population, whether everyone has a roof above their heads with clean water supply and sanitation. It also takes into account public transportation facilities provided for the population. One thing to note is that, when the general diet of a population is analysed, food preferences become an important topic of discussion. Even if one disagrees that Singapore has a good quality of life, we cannot disagree that the thought of our local food is something that brings us happiness even when we are miles away from home. The good food in Singapore has set up such a culinary scene which makes a large impact on our quality of life, and we will touch on this later on.

Moving on, the next category of economic factors analyse the employment rate, the average income per member of the population, the percentage of those affluent and the cost of living in the nation.

Social factors count in education, social support system, opportunities for recreation and the welfare benefits given to a population. Finally, psychological factors ties in with social factors to estimate the level of happiness and contentment amongst people, along with the analysis of health and security in the country.

The problem with estimating the quality of life in a country is that, many of these factors do not have any precise measuring tool. It is difficult, for example, to measure someone’s happiness or contentment with life. Moreover, it is also difficult to assume that a population is living content with a good quality of life just because they have good employment rates, availability of physical necessities and a safe environment. That might be the problem that we are facing here in Singapore.

Singapore’s cost of living contradicts its position of high quality of life

It was indeed a great irony when the Mercer’s Survey for 2015 revealed that our nation had the best quality of life in Asia, because just a day before that, the Economists Intelligence Unit ranked Singapore as the world’s most expensive city for expatriates to live in. This might seem like familiar argument to us. Day in and out, we see plenty of expatriates coming into Singapore for business and employment, and often we hear from them that the living cost in Singapore is far higher than anywhere else they have been in the world. That way, it seems that a stable employment and decent living standards comes with a big price to pay in Singapore.

Perhaps the close relationship between the cost of living in a country and its quality of life is why it is so hard to understand how Singapore has hit a high position in both aspects! This is why it might be puzzling how it might be said that there is a high level of contentment in a country where affording a reasonable standard of food, shelter and recreation is difficult. It might be seen that although opportunities for high standards of living are aplenty, not everyone is able to achieve or sustain them.

Other factors making up the quality of life which we can relate to – how do they fare?

Some factors measuring the quality of life, like the employment rate of a country or the percentage of those affluent are not directly relatable to all members of the population. ON the other hand, elements like food preferences and general contentment with life are aspects which all members of the population, of any age, are able to empathise with.

As we had mentioned before, the good food in Singapore has set up such a great culinary scene which is renowned not just in Asia, but throughout the world. Our local food is almost always voted to be good food by us Singaporeans, and having it as part of our everyday diet definitely gives us contentment. As much as it makes us happy, not all of such food also grant as good health. There is a large variety in our local food cuisine but picking on healthy food options is what would help us boost both the diet and health elements of the quality of life scale in Singapore.

In conclusion, life in Singapore may not be perfect with an ideal cost of living or work-life balance as many may argue, but we still hold many positive aspects that we are blessed with compared to our other neighbouring countries.