The Businesses of the State

The world is again caught in a state of flux and many changes which are beyond our wildest expectations are taking shape. From ISIS to Brexit, there is a looming picture of gloom and the impacts in socio-political-economic terms are wide and extensive. In the tiny state of Singapore, these tumultuous occurrences taking place in the middle east and Europe are far away from the minds of ordinary Singaporeans. Their immediate worries are about bread and butter issues. 

 

 

The economic slowdown does not seem to recover anytime soon and retrenchment exercises are back. In the early 60's when Singapore was emerging as a developing nation, the state took control of economic development and charted a course which had state-owned enterprises taking the lead in opening up new industries. State capitalism intensified even after Singapore ascended the ranks and became a developed nation in the 80's. In the next 3 decades, the state continued to expand and acquire substantial business interests either directly under its statutory boards or indirectly through state-linked companies. Today, it has become the biggest landlord and business owner. It is also the biggest employer in Singapore and a major international investor with an enviable sovereign wealth fund.

When every citizen is gainfully employed and is able to afford a roof over their head, no one really cares too much about who owns what and how much money is made by the businesses and their management. In the minds of a people deeply accustomed to letting the state take the lead in almost everything, the business of running our economy, including what investments to make overseas, belongs to the state and not the people or even private enterprises. However, as at every critical point in our growth as a nation, past solutions invite serious questions when they no longer appear to be effective in dealing with present day problems. Ever-rising rents and costs of doing business, increasing unemployment, retrenchments and slower economic growth have become recurrent topics in our daily news. When state capitalism in our past as an emerging economy could create jobs, homes, higher incomes and hopes for a better future, these times are considered hard times. A fundamental question relating to market economics has to be asked. Is a state-owned and controlled economy, with its current breadth and depth, still a viable solution for the challenges that Singapore faces, given that the dynamics of doing business today requires greater innovation and creativity?

It is not suggested that state capitalism per se is undesirable. For instance, state capitalism in China has brought sterling economic growth for the Chinese economy in the last 20 years and it would be hard to find any no pure free market economy in the world today. The state is always involved in some economically strategic matters, such as regulating the banking system and lending activities and ownership of what are considered important national assets. However, to the extent that state capitalism is essential in order to protect its people from a wayward economy, the logic falls short when it goes beyond that. Heavy-handed state intervention in free market forces creates serious distortions of the market, generating misinformation and unrealistic expectations. Extensive business interests of the state also unwittingly compromises good political governance when the state chooses to protect its business interests over the rights of the people . Unfair competition may also breed disenchantment and stifle entrepreneurship in areas seen to be dominated by state-linked businesses .  

Is it time for our economy to be driven more by real private enterprises than by state-owned businesses? If so, how can we achieve a better balance between state capitalism and free capitalism? These are questions that need a rethink at higher levels.

God Save Our President

A recent opinion expressed by the Straits Times (in ST, Tues, May 17, 2016) on “Understanding the President's role” spoke about the review of aspects of the Elected Presidency and the traditional role of our President and. It struck a cord with the following comment:

"The main tension arises from the grafting of a custodial role to the traditional unifying role in a Westminster system of parliamentary government. The latter is arguable the predominance for the Head of State in a participative democracy as he or she would stand above the fray and be a symbol of the dignity and continuity of the nation - an authoritative upholder of the aspirations within the National Pledge. The President represents all of the people, including those who are disadvantaged or lack a voice, and not just those who voted for thin. That is what lends moral authority to the office."

Indeed, our President has always been a symbol of national unity and political neutrality. He represented the ideals of ordinary Singaporeans and the belief that it was possible for an ordinary Singapore to rise to the highest office in the land. The country’s first four presidents, who held office between 1965 and 1993, were appointed by parliament. Yusof Ishak, Benjamin Sheares, Devan Nair and Wee Kim Wee were largely ceremonial heads of state with limited powers who acted mainly on the advice of the cabinet. Our President speaks at the opening of parliamentary sessions, attends state functions and receives foreign dignitaries. And on National Day, every citizen waits patiently to see the arrival of our President at the parade to recite the national pledge together. Sadly, this symbolic role of our President in a young republic like ours, was made to stand on its head following amendments to our constitution in 1991 to provide for the election of our President.

The Elected President's key role is to act as a guardian of our past national reserves. The Elected President is endowed with oversight powers on government expenditure using such reserves. Many have criticised the changes as politically motivated and this is criticism does not seem to be entirely without basis. Only a select few qualify to be candidates under the changes which are more stringent than those who wish to be elected as Members of Parliament. The candidate must be a former senior political appointee, high-ranking civil servant or someone with strong financial management experience. These changes did not merely graft a custodial role to the traditional role of the President. In fact, it subverted our President's traditional role and politicised his office.

Every presidential election puts the candidates under the spotlight of political parties who have come to view these elections as another political contest for them besides the general elections. The impact resulted in the incumbent having won the 2011 presidential elections with 35.20% of the votes, with a narrow margin of only 0.34% over the second-placed candidate. Consequently, not only has the traditional role of the President been substantially diminished, the standing of the office of the President has also been lowered in the eyes of the general public after the political mud-slinging that has become commonplace during elections. One wonders why the Auditor General was not considered for that custodian role. Alternatively, it would have been more feasible to set up a new administrative office equipped with a strong secretariat to undertake the demanding task.

The expansion of the role of our President to include the protection of our nation's reserves is as undesirable as the expansion of the role of our Members of Parliament to manage town councils. The additonal responsibilities undermine the more important traditonal roles and the task of ensuring that our national reserves are not misused should have been assigned to someone else. As Head of State, our President must continue to be a symbol of unity and to undertake the tall order of keeping the financial expenditure of an elected government in check will compromise his symbolic status. Elected or not.

Troubled Souls

As our society learns to recognise that more could be done for those who are physically impaired, there seems to be a corresponding rise in social vigilantism that springs up quickly to condemn anyone who seem to show little consideration for the less able-bodied.

Not long ago, there was an impassioned plea in parliament for a better understanding of those who suffer some form of physical disability. There are many small voices that cry out to the able-bodied for more of their patience and understanding. It is important that we learn to hear these voices which are quietly tugging at our heartstrings as we strive to become a more compassionate society.

In sparing thought for those who are physically impaired, we need to realise that there are also many amongst us who do not suffer from any obvious physical impairment but need our patience and understanding no less. They are the ones suffering quietly from emotional distress who do not display the outwards signs of physical impairment that would have otherwise drawn to themselves the spontaneous help from concerned bystanders. Very often, these troubled souls are mistaken by social vigilantes as people who are cold and dispassionate in responding timely or appropriately to the needs of a less able-bodied person standing close to them. And they are caused to suffer from public ridicule and condemnation, adding on to their untold frustration and emotional torment and pushing them to breaking point.

Materialism and elitism have been the twin evils that have come to occupy our minds from the decades spent in a national pursuit for global excellence in every undertaking. Sky-rocketting property prices which are grossly disproportionate to the rise in income levels have shattered the dreams of many young Singaporeans and pushing them into migrating overseas. Keen competition with foreigners for jobs, housing and transport in our own land has displaced many individuals and families and severely dampened morale. Divorces are constantly on the rise and more children are left to the care of domestic helpers as dual incomes from their parents become indispensable. Rising business costs have closed the curtains on many local enterprises and constant skills upgrading have not brought about better jobs. Endless new legislations and regulations have raised the pressures of living in this small city-state and there are many people who look perfectly normal on a perfect day but are too stressed out mentally and emotionally. They are already at wits' end.

For all these troubled souls who appear as normal, healthy- looking people, they too have small voices crying out for patience and understanding as well.

"If I am not giving you my seat, it's not because I am unkind;  I am just lost in my thoughts."

"If I am not giving way, it's not because I don't care; I just do not have much time left."

"If I am not paying any attention to you, it's not because I am cold; I just don't know what I am going to do anymore."

"If I am going too fast, it's not because I am reckless; I am just worried that I may not make it."

"If I don't answer you, it's not that I want to be rude; I just don't know what is happening to me."

"If I don't see you standing in front of me, it's not because I am pretending to sleep. I am just very, very tired."

Let's all learn not to be too quick to point our fingers without sparing a thought for someone who may be one of these troubled souls. He or she needs our patience and understanding too.