活到老,学到老

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had just delivered his National Day Rally about 12 hours back, before I overheard a comment by the cleaning aunty in my office this morning that I believe he would dread hearing too. She was talking to an external instructor, who’s an acquaintance, and overhearing this put me into total despair, disdain, disbelief, and discontent.

Hokkien: Tak simi ce? Mian tak ce lah, eh zo gang tio ho.
Chinese: 读什么书? 不用读啦,会做工就好.
English: Study for what? No need lah, can do work, good enough.

PM just highlighted the importance of citizens and residents across all age groups and socioeconomic backgrounds in our generation being resilient and ever willing to learn, unlearn, and relearn, in order to stay competitive worldwide. It is such blacksheep, in my opinion, that impede this process of staying strong to brave through the storm of changing landscapes.

In his NDR, PM even addressed in particular the importance of keeping the “活到老,学到老” attitude among the elderly fraternity, and even cited three examples of role models. This is the most vulnerable group to the skills crisis, and they would be the ones who drag the entire society down if they don’t stay relevant, competitive, and self-sustainable.

If you’re worrying I’m sweeping it across the board, the context is: she was given a chance to upgrade and stay at where she used to work at (where she met this other middle-aged man as an acquaintance), but she apparently did not and downplayed the necessity to do so. Some might argue she would just want to lead a simple life till retirement – granted. But the attitude she is portraying doesn’t seem so. She seems to be happy with the status quo, and that shouldn’t be the case.

Every citizen, young or old, capable or  incompetent, has a part to play to help Singapore forge ahead within choppy waters and unclear outlooks. No sailor on board a ship should stop at simply completing his job in rough seas and disobedient winds, and this has to come down all the way from the captain on a with a crew of 5,000,000.

Dazeeeeeeeeee.

Over the weekend, I had the opportunity to attend the Army Daze 25th Anniversary Musical held at the Drama Centre Theatre at the National Library, on Saturday, 25th August. A remake of the popular hit movie in the 1980s, it was, among other things, hilarious, enjoyable, light-hearted, and most of all, uniquely Singaporean.

The pre-show etiquette announcement was already full of atmosphere; and while trying their best to keep the classic jokes from the original movie, modern contexts were input for the younger ones. That way, they made it relevant and prevented it from looking like an ancient show.

What struck a little was the sudden turn of events after the intermission, where the characters got into conflicts which wasn’t shown in the movie. It appears, at least to me, as a subtle political tool to reemphasise the importance of serving NS to the younger ones in the crowd when the characters were encouraging one another with ‘politically-correct’ sounding words.

In any way, the loveable part about such plays is that they always allow us, the audience, to walk away not just feeling Singaporean, but identifying ourselves as Singaporean too. There was strong nationalism involved when the songs about the “Filipina Army” and “从大陆来的人” were implying heavy connotations about the roles of foreigners here and the parts they play in defending our country.

There is a huge difference in my emotions watching the play, and via the screen both before and after I wore green. Besides being able to relate truly to those jokes and mili-linguistics, I found that while all along I knew I could change lives, now that just reinforced it. Having a good laugh over something I’ll look back after decades and still have that same smirk – priceless.

A Nation’s Celebration

I’m currently blogging this from camp. Slightly more than 24 hours, I was in the heart of the country, celebrating with hearts across the country. Yes, you may hereby consider me one of the luckiest 27,000 Singaporeans this year who got to watch the actual day of NDP 2012.

It is never a boring affair to watch Singapore’ NDPs, be it live or on screen. I went this time with my brother, packed some fast food, and proceeded in for the queue. All around the MBFP area were volunteers and SAF personnel, which made me wonder why am I not part of it. Either way, let’s get to that later.

What we saw at the queue area was basically the epitome of ‘the Singaporean model’ – people slipping in between others in queue whenever they could, pushing and shoving, holding family meetings across the barriers, worrying out loud about their concerns for the event and what-nots, etc., all of which I immediately chronicled mentally. Even in a mood of national celebration, have we been that seasoned to always get the best out of every situation and not just enjoy the moment? Well, that seems to be the case. But it is this very characteristic among us that put our 47-year-old tiny red dot on the world map.

We had strategically planned our route of advancement impromptu, so it was a combination of luck and sheer skill and agility that we got from home-MRT-station to stand in less than 90 minutes. As per usual brotherly practice, we discussed on the next course of action 15 minutes in advance, were alert for quick routes and overtaking lanes, and showed total interest only in parade and ceremony. So yes, nothing else very much bothered.

The atmosphere around the event area did not very much bring up a celebratory mood in me, but rather a more melancholic one. With so many of my peers, seniors, elders and others in society participating in NDP (and I actually met a few friends and even a colleague), it really made me wonder why am I a spectator when I can contribute to the nation’s largest event every year. To me, it’s one of the highest callings to do so. I later convinced myself that my turn will come, and that these two years in NS ought to be a blackout period for me. But once I ORD, the chances of participating in NDP would be rather limited, and so would the types of openings. In any way possible, it would still remain as one of my aims in the near future.

National identity isn’t very easy to come by. Having interacted with so many NSFs full of dissent and disdain with the nation for putting their life plans on hold, many of whom would take a private jet out of Singapore at all costs in wartime, I find an even greater sense of identity within myself and this nation. And going through NS and learning how to bear arms to protect my country if it calls for me, I know I would. In peacetime, rising up to the nation’s call would be to provide all I could for the only annual event that reinforces national belonging for my countrymen from all walks of life. There’s always a deep link between national identity and the military – those who have served would concur; those who haven’t will feel it for themselves in due time.

On the civilian side, I’m actually quite pleased to see that truly patriotic Singaporeans at the Bay. But where did they find their patriotism? From the stability, security, and the providence of a platform to realise their dreams? Then they are very wrong. It has to be something intangible – for instance, for the fact that this is where I am born and I will belong. It’s that simple. I can’t explain why, but that’s just why I would risk my life in war.

I am, on the other hand, 0.5/10 appalled seeing foreigners at the NDP. I admit I am slightly xenophobic (more like xeno-hatric) when it comes to this touchy issue, but I believe it should be an event purely for Singaporeans (with the exception of high commissioners and consulates of course). Should I go for a next NDP, I sincerely hope not to sight any Caucasians or Chinese mainlanders within the area. It just, in my opinion … does not feel right.

Whichever the case, our country will continue, at its best attempt with concerted efforts from all policymakers and citizens, to grow fro strength to strength. All these slight unhappiness at the MBFP are inevitable, but could surely be mitigated with that extra mile by every single stakeholder. I am confident, sure, and convinced that we will get there, just like how we got here in the first place.

Nationalism

Amdist all the furore over the Ferrari-taxi crash causing three deaths, I shall weigh in as well. To me, like many others, the incident was a display of netizens’ and citizens’ nationalistic behaviour rather than moral values. All the arrows were pointed to the Ferrari driver, a Chinese expatriate, whose irresponsible behaviour was the cause of the accident. And while xenophobia grew, many prominent netizens have posted notes and write-ups all over the Internet urging people to stop their narrow-minded thinking and be more objective. There are also calls for the government to correct this seemingly flawed mindset.

While I do agree with this, let’s put this issue in another perspective – nationalism. Has anyone noticed that anti-foreigner sentiments are actually a show of a gradual build-up in patriotism? While one might argue patriotism is about accepting all residents, regardless of nationality, in our country and into the society as one people. But the issue of implicit divided loyalties kick in. Anyone remembers Sun Xu, the Chinese scholar who has been in Singapore for a period of time but still has strong anti-Singaporean sentiments which he could not contain? Or is anyone irritated by foreign labourers living in your estate and more often than not making a mess which they do not realise? The influx of foreign be-it-talent-or-not has actually driven up our loyalty to Singapore, something which has been missing in the 1990s I suppose. But patriotism, for all it has been given that boost, presents us with another situation, making itself seem skewed and instead of unifying the nation, it is doing the opposite.

The country is now essentially divided. The two groups of people have different sets of habits and values and they are obviously misaligned. The job of the government now seems clear – to make sure one group barges. And they must be the foreigners. More often than not, they refuse to. Yet, as tempted as the government are to evict them, we need them. For both brawn and brains.

But in this specific case of the road accident, I have to concur with my countrymen that we have been focusing on the wrong argument. We have overlooked the basis of reckless driving – morals, not nationality. Why have the forum replies drifted? Is it just because the one at fault was a foreginer? If that is so, we are just displaying xenophobic nationalism. True nationalism is criticising the morals of the driver, regardless of his nationality.

If it was a Singaporean driving the Ferrari, how different would this case go?

A Thought on Wage Shock

I first came across this term today, to be honest. And I was badly surprised when I learnt that a prominent intellectual actually proposed a direct method of income gap reduction, which, in my opinion, fundamentally undermines liberal capitalism.

The issue our economy has been facing is that though incomes were rising across the board, those in the upper quartile were getting richer much quicker than those on the polar opposite, which leads to the misconception of the “rich gets richer, poor gets poorer”. Yes, income gap today is indeed a problem not just in economics, but also in business, politics, or society. And yes, this paragraph is meant for people who haven’t been exposing themselves.

A wage shock seems legitimate for its candid approach to curb a perpetually widening income gap, but firstly, it poses a danger by freezing top earners’ wages. The richest are the petrol kiosks of the economy – they consume, they invest, they run businesses, they save, they withdraw. They provide livelihood to various sectors. If they were to know that their incomes would not rise, would they fuel the economy as they are doing so now? These millionaires would surely start to save more, invest less, pull out of markets – conclusively, they have a propensity to halt their inputs should they see no security in income.

On the other hand, should the poorest be rewarded with a relative wage increase, there would bound to be a few doubts on the serviceability of the wage shock policy. First, what would the poor do with the additional cash? Does purchasing power essentially increase? And if it does, is it in line with the wage shock suggestion? Well, negative answers to all of those. Disposable income increases but would likely not be tapped on, for they would be, similar to the rich, saved in bank accounts. All these point to the worst nightmare in the demand-centric Keynesian theory – massive withdrawals of money from the circular flow of income.

Banks must then be counted on to multiply these increases in savings receipts by structured financial engineering, i.e. inter-bank or inter-corporation investment. But then again, how would the new (or rather, re-created) equity be returned to society? Simple – dividends. And sadly, I put forth that only the rich are capable of receiving stock dividends and continue to engage in stock manipulation (note that they have part of their net worth in stocks, bonds and other financial products so curbing the rise of their incomes is largely superficial), which essentially undoes the efforts of the wage shock ‘therapy’.

Second, there would then be questions on where the additional 50% increase in the average Joe’s paychecks over three years would come from. Certainly not the government – for it would then be explicit income redistribution. And so employers? Well, what about keeping Singapore’s labour market competitive – when many of the lower income group work at plants or stores with an option of relocating overseas?

And then we talk about boosting productivity as a long term solution for rising costs of production and hence living. How can we boost productivity when the lower-income bracket, mostly engaged in intermediate or penultimate stages of producing consumer goods and services, are ordered to be payed ‘more justifiably’? Surely we don’t want that to happen, and much less losing our competitive edge.

This presents another issue with our economy – it has become to globalised, too international. What is moving our modest consumer market forward are large multinationals based in Singapore, securing inputs from Singapore, merchandising output in Singapore. Should there be any inbalance in either door of the factory, possibilities are the firm would pack up and leave for Changi. In this case, rising overheads due to a forced increase in wages are forcing them out. Should both income groups start to save more as described earlier, a cost-output spiral would be inevitable.

Should we really decide to go ahead with the wage shock, then I must put right hand up and say that three years, as suggested by the mastermind Lim Chong Yah is too long a time period. Within a shorter time span, say, one year, there must be proactive efforts in increasing worker’s wages; while ensuring the richer get lesser or no perks, not curbing any slight incremental behaviour. Policies have to be a moderation of extremes, for no bird can take flight with only one wing.

What it seems now is that the rich should be punished for being so, and the poor are an unfortunate group that ought to be sympathised by policymakers and receive help. I urge everyone out there to be slower in reaching this conclusion. We can also put it such that the rich have been working hard and smart enough to reach where they are, and it’s time for the poor to learn how to lead a new lifestyle.

But just as army recruits are not left out in the field to fight without a commander, this group of people need guidance. The government has to take a more frontseat role in developing and executing income redistribution techniques, especially those built on the basis of self-help. One of the issues to resolve is the lack of proper economic knowledge among the masses, for mindsets that have been bred across generations tend to be ill-informed ones and end up producing unfavourable results for the economy as a whole. Families could be educated on financial management, be engaged in actively contributing to the workforce, and how their subtle actions could have implications on the economy which would in turn affect their own livelihoods.

All these flak about how our economy has become, what are the issues, how should we resolve them, are all a layer of soil which have much more than meets the eye under them. In my opinion, our world has had enough economic reform, and since it has proved to be largely ineffective, it is timely to bring our attention to social reform, communal reform, behavioural reform, and even cognitive reform. That is the root of the problem.

References:
http://asiancorrespondent.com/80604/wage-shock-in-singapore-yay-or-nay/
http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC120414-0000055/Wage-shock-therapy-too-risky–Lim-Swee-Say