In
my previous post [(http://pijitailai.blogspot.sg/2013/02/sustainable-singapore-or-sustainable.html)], I used the IPAT equation to show the PAP government is adopting the developing
country’s mind-set to run a developed country.
Hence, the emphasis of population driven economy is always the strategy
option for the PAP leaders, from the first (father) until the third (son)
generation leadership.
I
also discussed the PAP is just like an East India Company (http://pijitailai.blogspot.sg/2013/02/political-tsunami-pap-is-just-another.html), running Singapore like a British master (governor). And so the administration
option is to have local middle men and women as elites helping the PAP to rule Singapore
Inc.
Imperial
partnership means the partnership between the British rulers and the local
middle men (i.e. elites). They are happily
co-operating with each other for mutual benefits, i.e. British administrators enjoy
their life, pay (million dollars?), and helping British businesses. While the local Indian elites also get their
education, income and business enhanced.
Similar imperial partnership can also be found in China, in the late
Qing dynasty.
Singapore
Inc. under the PAP has noticed this advantage and it even goes one step
further, to enlarge the imperial partnership to foreign talents. The saying is we do not have enough local
talents (elites) and for economic development we need more and so we need to
import more foreign elites. We must give the PAP a credit for creating a new
extended meaning of imperial partnership, a tri-parte co-operation of rulers,
local and foreign elites.
Before
I go further, let revisit the sad history of the Great Famine in India:
The case of Great Famine 1876-1878 in India In part, the Great Famine may have been caused by an intense drought resulting in crop failure in the Deccan Plateau.[2] However, the commodification of grain, and the cultivation of alternate cash crops also may have played a role,[3] as could have the export of grain by the colonial government; during the famine the viceroy, Lord Lytton, oversaw the export to England of a record 6.4 million hundredweight of wheat.[4]
The famine occurred at a time when the colonial government was attempting to reduce expenses on welfare. Earlier, in the Bihar famine of 1873–74, severe mortality had been avoided by importing rice from Burma. However, the Government of Bengal and its Lieutenant-Governor,Sir Richard Temple, were criticized for excessive expenditure on charitable relief.[5] Sensitive to any renewed accusations of excess in 1876, Temple, who was now Famine Commissioner for the Government of India,[1]insisted not only on a policy of laissez faire with respect to the trade in grain,[6] but also on stricter standards of qualification for relief and on more meager relief rations.[1] Two kinds of relief were offered: "relief works" for able-bodied men, women, and working children, and gratuitous (or charitable) relief for small children, the elderly, and the indigent.[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%931878#Famine_and_relief
More
information on this sad history of Great Famine can be found in the
Internet. There is even a youtube video giving
analysis on this particular case:
History
as we read and know may not be 100% correct and providing a true picture. So do
the case of using the British rulers as the PAP leaders under the imperial
partnership. However, history always
serves as a reminder to us and unfortunately history always repeats
itself.
Reasons for the
Great Famine and potential risks in Singapore:
|
|
Great Famine
reasons
|
Potential risks
in Singapore
|
|
1
|
Bad
harvest and crops
|
We
cannot guarantee our economy is always growing so do the world economy.
|
|
2
|
Lots
of Indian produce are exported to world market (that benefits British and
local businessmen)
|
We
depend heavily on export and trade. We need foreign investments. No profit
they will go away.
|
|
3
|
Due
to export, foodstuff is not available to South India.
|
We
import foodstuff with strong S$. Cost
of living is a big concern in Singapore, especially low income families.
|
|
4
|
Liberal
economic policy, government should not intervene the market, esp. helping the
poor.
Govt
is in partnership with businesses (local and British) in the export of
foodstuff.
|
We
are not a welfare state. We are an open and free market. We must support foreign and local
businesses for their labour demand. MNCs, GLCs and the govt are partners.
|
|
5
|
Stricter
standards of qualification for relief and on more meager relief rations.
|
Social
welfare, medical coverage, CPF MSS, housing, all these are problems of
unhappiness.
|
If
you read about news of “Incomes up for most, not for poorest”#1, the rise of
inequality and the high GINI in Singapore#2, one will have to worry the fate of
lower income families in Singapore. The PAP government always claims that they
are ready to help but like the British administrators in colonial India they
seem to be more interested to partner with local and foreign elites in creating
wealth than helping the poor.
Singaporean
core has reasons to worry about the Population White Paper, worrying about their
future and their children’s future under the new imperial partnership. This is
in particular the concern of Tan Jee Say – the political implication of new
citizens.
<The only reason to give them citizenship is political, not economic. New citizens tend to vote for the government of the day – just look at what is happening in East Malaysia. 130,000 new citizens voted in the 2011 General Election, representing 6.32% of the total vote. Without them, PAP’s share of the national vote would have dropped to below 54% and several more constituencies would have been lost to the opposition. With 25,000 new citizens a year for the 5 years to 2016, there will be another 125,000 new citizens, accounting for 5-6% of the national vote; together with 60% they had in GE2011, this gives the PAP a buffer of 15-16% before its share drops below 50%. It is a very high hurdle for the opposition to overcome. At the constituency level, new citizens give the government an additional tool to gerrymander. New citizens can be added in sufficient numbers to save vulnerable constituencies. So the White Paper will help the PAP maintain its grip on the government without having to care for Singaporeans’ well-being.> Tan Jee Say’s speech at Hong Lim Park 16 Feb 2013
In
some ways, it seems to suggest that more new citizens are to strengthen the new
imperial partnership (PAP-local and foreign elites). And clearly, who will suffer if there is a
crisis in Singapore? Oh, we still have
our reserve but do you think the government will use it to help the poor who
are hungry and homeless?
The
worst case scenario is we do not know how much is in our reserve. Do we really have the reserved money when we
need it most?
What
do you think?
#1
http://www.asiaone.com/print/A1Business/News/Story/A1Story20130223-403999.html
#2
http://sg.finance.yahoo.com/news/singapore-income-inequality-rise-dept-135226813.html
Comments
Post a Comment