Skip to main content

2013 Year of Re-think, from Riot to Rentier Economy


Inside or outside Singapore, even it is an isolated case as claimed by the government, the Little India riot is a piece of international news.   It presented the other side of Singapore to the international audiences, that a stable country can also have violence.

So, we need to rethink the possible reasons for the Riot, beyond the official version.  Besides riot, the whole of 2013 is a year of re-thinking, re-consideration, re-assessment and re-evaluation of our past, present and future. The PAP is re-thinking and re-introducing democratic socialist.  Why?  It is because our very successful model is mainly based on the rentier economy and rentier capitalism.  So, the PAP is re-examining its glory past and tries to re-fine the model.  Will it work?  It is too early to tell.

Rentier economy

Rentier economy usually refers to oil rich producing countries but it can also refer to countries that have certain characteristics of a rentier state.

There are four characteristics that would determine whether or not a state could be identified as rentier#1: 
1. if rent situations predominate
2. if the economy relies on a substantial external rent – and therefore does not require a strong domestic productive sector
3. if only a small proportion of the working population is actually involved in the generation of the rent
4. and, perhaps most importantly, which the state’s government is the principal recipient of the external rent.[2]

How well does Singapore fit into the above characteristics?

1.   Yes. For example our location, our big government business, our special designed election system, etc.
2.   Yes. For example, our trade is many times our GDP, the tourists arrival is more than the local population, etc.
3.   Yes. For example, the emphasis on scholars and foreign talents and now even the casinos are only open for foreigners etc.
4.   Yes. For example, the CPF monies, official reserves, GIC and Temasek Holdings etc.  


Rental incomes

If we have the characteristics of a rentier economy, then where are the rental incomes?

These rental incomes can come from COE and ERP; work permits; casino licences; Singapore Pool; sale of state lands; the difference between CPF interest rate and investment returns of GIC/Temasek;  in elections through media control and boundary design; etc.

Singapore has no natural resources, but using administration measures, the PAP government can achieve the level of rentier economy for its own consumption.   

Besides the state having renting income, in a personal capacity, individuals can also enjoy profit above normal level.  One very clear example is the highly paid ministers.  Administration decision can be taken without public consultation to award ministers salaries above international standard. 

One of the reasons that rich becomes richer in Singapore is due to rentier economy. For example you can see them in property investment, in personal tax rates, or not to forget there is no capital gain (e.g. shares) and real estate duty.  

The unique rentier structure in Singapore can also benefit some individuals who dare to take risk.  For example, false marriage, false IC or lending of IC, illegal application of HDB flats, illegal subletting, etc.

With the rentier income in national and individual level, we now recall 10 events in 2013 that are related to this.  You can see from these events that how the PAP re-thinks and re-evaluate its position in a rentier economy.

The Top 10 Re-thinks in 2013

The ten 2013 things for thought for Singapore are as follows:

1 Punggol by-election: Why did voters reject the PAP? Are they happy with the current distribution under our rentier state?

2 Population: Why did the first ever large scale legalized peaceful protect in Singapore taking place in Hong Lim Park? Are they happy with the population distribution under rentier economic model?

3 Social media: Is ‘Free My Internet’ movement necessary? How do things change in the new media era? Can a rentier state continue to control the media?

4 Housing: Is getting a HDB flat first before marriage a new trend? Will the new housing policy make a fairer distribution of state estates?

5 Democratic socialism: Is this a re-think of the PAP? Is this a clear signal to move away from the rentier practices?

6 llo llo: How important are maids in Singapore society and the problems of children growing up under this environment? Like Little India Riot, is there an urgent need to re-think the foreign workers policy in the new democratic socialist arrangement?

7 MedicalShield: This medical insurance is now compulsory for all Singaporeans. You can’t even opt out. Is this the result of our rentier economy after a review of the past mistakes?

8 Legal and court: There are some challenges (Hougang by-election, gay right, death penalty etc.) to the interpretation of our constitution. This, perhaps, is the most important of all the events.   How does the court maintain its position in a rentier state?  

9 AIM and town council management: Will the story continue to the next election? How do public view the government using its rentier power to score points or lose points?

10 Prime Minister: Do we need to re-think his performance during the year? Is his high salary, due to the rentier capitalism, matching his performance over the years?

 

#1
For further reading:
Britain is recreating a rentier society fit for a baby royal


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting ...

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...

对话一定要有共识吗?还是求取多元性来丰富自我?

全国对话喊到现在还一直高喊全国要有共识,尤其是全国对话的结果就是要寻求新加坡人的共识。不然,行动党就会说,我国的政治将会出现分裂,新加坡就变成一个不团结的国家。 全国对话一定要取得共识吗?文明对话的目的难道就是为了取得全国共识吗?如果是共识,那就一定有取舍。是不是说强势的人就领头共识,而落势的就落得一无所有。这不又走回老路,一条行动党独大的旧政治框框吗?看来,行动党对于过去,仍然依依不舍,行动党的共识,就是国家的共识,新加坡人的共识。 对话是要加深双方的了解,尊敬并且互相学习,吸取对方的优点,填补自己的缺点。这就是多元性的好处。然而全国对话的结果,如果只是强求共识,而忽略多元性和不同的意见,甚至否定他人的意见,那么,这个共识,是否具建设性,破坏性,还是分裂性,那就很难说了。 行动党似乎忘记了多元性。文明的对话并不是要把自己的 意见,信仰和理念强加给对方。即使这些意见,信仰和理念都是好的,善的。但是,对方未必会欣赏,未必会接受。因此,对话的结果应该是吸取对方的意见,改进自己的治国方针,然后,交给人民去决定,而这个决定也不过是大多数人的共识,而不可能是全国人民百分百的共识。 (乐观的看,行动党的全国对话,也不过是改进自己的治国方针,通过自己的小圈圈,自我讨论,研究,更新和改良行动党的政治策略,然后,在下一次大选时,拿出来让选民决定。因此,所谓的共识,在全国人民还没有决定前,仍然不是全国大多数人的共识。很可惜,行动党原本应该通过全国对话这个平台,吸收更多对手的意见,不同的观点,将它们纳入自己的政治策略中,然后在大选中让选民选择这个纳入反对意见的新政纲。可惜的是,行动党没有这个雅量,也或许根本看不起反对的意见。因此,它只能企图通过全国对话,硬要说这是全国共识。所以,充其量这只能说是行动党小圈圈的改良版政治策略,绝对不能说是全国共识。) ‘己所不欲,忽施于人’我们不喜欢的,不要强加他人身上。同样的,我们喜欢的,也不可以强加于他人身上。例如,有些人不喜欢吃有些食物,我们却很喜欢吃这类食物,但是,我们要尊重个人的喜好,不要强迫他人接受我们的建议。了解了这点,下一回提供食物时,就会通过多些选择,而不是只提供自己喜欢的食物。这点一般新加坡人都有这个敏感度,我们会了解马来族的要求,尽量避免他们敏感的食物。 为何行动党过去能够了解国人...