JBJ’s son Kenneth joins Reform Party to keep his legacy alive
The Reform Party, which has been rudderless since the passing of opposition scion Mr Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam was given a big boost when JBJ’s son Kenneth joined the party and was co-opted into the party’s CEC 2 weeks ago. (read article here)
Mr Jeyaretnam said the timing was right and joining the party is one way to honor his father and to continue his legacy.
We applaud Kenneth’s move to join the Reform Party and hope that he will serve as a nidus to attract more qualified Singaporeans to join it.
In a way, the Reform Party was a farewell gift left to us by JBJ. Throughout his political career, he had fought consistently to overhaul and reform the obsolete PAP system to one which is based on the rule of law, democratic principles and power to the people.
The late JBJ never feared to speak up for the people even if it had led him to financial ruins brought upon him by the countless defamation suits launched by his opponents.
JBJ is one deserving opposition MP we should have put in Parliament to represent us. The PAP feared him and tried ways and means to bar him from Parliament.
Our parents’ generation have let JBJ down. Let us make up for the tribulations he has gone through for us by giving our whole-hearted support to his son, Kenneth and the Reform Party.
The Reform Party is not set up by JBJ just to make up the numbers. It is not a party which is contented to manage a HDB estate and willing to wait 50 more years to be in a position to challenge the incumbent.
Why “Reform” Party? Because without reforming the entire system, it is pointless to have elections after elections to give legitimacy to the PAP to masquerade Singapore as a vibrant democracy when it is nothing more than a totalitarian fascist state.
JBJ had called for reform of the political system, the judiciary, the media and many other flaws in the system put in place by the PAP to keep them perpetually in power.
The younger generation of Singaporeans desire more political competition and a level playing field. We must not allow ourselves to be fooled and misled by these shenigans again.
The time has come for change and we hope that Kenneth’s arrival into the polical scene will be a catalyst to galvanize and united the entire opposition camp to press on with its mission to demand for greater accountability and transparency from the PAP which is seriously lacking now.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26489.2
Friday, April 10, 2009
JBJ’s son Kenneth joins Reform Party to keep his legacy alive
JBJ’s son Kenneth joins Reform Party to keep his legacy alive
April 10, 2009
The Reform Party, which has been rudderless since the passing of opposition scion Mr Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam was given a big boost when JBJ’s son Kenneth joined the party and was co-opted into the party’s CEC 2 weeks ago. (read article here)
Mr Jeyaretnam said the timing was right and joining the party is one way to honor his father and to continue his legacy.
We applaud Kenneth’s move to join the Reform Party and hope that he will serve as a nidus to attract more qualified Singaporeans to join it.
In a way, the Reform Party was a farewell gift left to us by JBJ. Throughout his political career, he had fought consistently to overhaul and reform the obsolete PAP system to one which is based on the rule of law, democratic principles and power to the people.
The late JBJ never feared to speak up for the people even if it had led him to financial ruins brought upon him by the countless defamation suits launched by his opponents.
JBJ is one deserving opposition MP we should have put in Parliament to represent us. The PAP feared him and tried ways and means to bar him from Parliament.
Our parents’ generation have let JBJ down. Let us make up for the tribulations he has gone through for us by giving our whole-hearted support to his son, Kenneth and the Reform Party.
The Reform Party is not set up by JBJ just to make up the numbers. It is not a party which is contented to manage a HDB estate and willing to wait 50 more years to be in a position to challenge the incumbent.
Why “Reform” Party? Because without reforming the entire system, it is pointless to have elections after elections to give legitimacy to the PAP to masquerade Singapore as a vibrant democracy when it is nothing more than a totalitarian fascist state.
JBJ had called for reform of the political system, the judiciary, the media and many other flaws in the system put in place by the PAP to keep them perpetually in power.
The younger generation of Singaporeans desire more political competition and a level playing field. We must not allow ourselves to be fooled and misled by these shenigans again.
The time has come for change and we hope that Kenneth’s arrival into the polical scene will be a catalyst to galvanize and united the entire opposition camp to press on with its mission to demand for greater accountability and transparency from the PAP which is seriously lacking now.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26489.1
April 10, 2009
The Reform Party, which has been rudderless since the passing of opposition scion Mr Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam was given a big boost when JBJ’s son Kenneth joined the party and was co-opted into the party’s CEC 2 weeks ago. (read article here)
Mr Jeyaretnam said the timing was right and joining the party is one way to honor his father and to continue his legacy.
We applaud Kenneth’s move to join the Reform Party and hope that he will serve as a nidus to attract more qualified Singaporeans to join it.
In a way, the Reform Party was a farewell gift left to us by JBJ. Throughout his political career, he had fought consistently to overhaul and reform the obsolete PAP system to one which is based on the rule of law, democratic principles and power to the people.
The late JBJ never feared to speak up for the people even if it had led him to financial ruins brought upon him by the countless defamation suits launched by his opponents.
JBJ is one deserving opposition MP we should have put in Parliament to represent us. The PAP feared him and tried ways and means to bar him from Parliament.
Our parents’ generation have let JBJ down. Let us make up for the tribulations he has gone through for us by giving our whole-hearted support to his son, Kenneth and the Reform Party.
The Reform Party is not set up by JBJ just to make up the numbers. It is not a party which is contented to manage a HDB estate and willing to wait 50 more years to be in a position to challenge the incumbent.
Why “Reform” Party? Because without reforming the entire system, it is pointless to have elections after elections to give legitimacy to the PAP to masquerade Singapore as a vibrant democracy when it is nothing more than a totalitarian fascist state.
JBJ had called for reform of the political system, the judiciary, the media and many other flaws in the system put in place by the PAP to keep them perpetually in power.
The younger generation of Singaporeans desire more political competition and a level playing field. We must not allow ourselves to be fooled and misled by these shenigans again.
The time has come for change and we hope that Kenneth’s arrival into the polical scene will be a catalyst to galvanize and united the entire opposition camp to press on with its mission to demand for greater accountability and transparency from the PAP which is seriously lacking now.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26489.1
Singapore, a First World country?
Singapore, a First World country?
Straits Times Article (April 10, 2009): S'pore's meritocratic edge
Let me put aside my anger with MM Lee's obvious hypocrisy (quoted by ST, am seeking the original speech transcript for a better understanding of the context. Could have sworn the ST had a link to the PDF file the last time I checked):
MINISTER Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has urged Singaporeans not to delude themselves that they are a part of the First World in South-east Asia.
Singapore is situated in a region with 'special features' which makes it particularly vulnerable, so to keep its competitive edge and be relevant to the world, it must stay a cohesive, multiracial, multireligious nation based on meritocracy, he said.
If he had apologized about having repeatedly pronounced Singapore's "arrival" at First World status when trumpeting his achievements, I might have felt better about this.
Anyway, I want to focus on the definition of "First World" here. Here's something from Wikipedia (link):
The terms First World, Second World, and Third World were used to divide nations into three broad categories. The three terms did not arise simultaneously. After World War II, people began to speak of the NATO and Warsaw Pact countries as two major blocs, often using such terms as the "Western Bloc" and the "Eastern Bloc". The two "worlds" were not numbered. It was eventually pointed out that there were a great many countries that fit into neither category, and in 1952 French demographer Alfred Sauvy coined the term "Third World" to describe this latter group; retroactively, the first two groups came to be known as the "First World" and "Second World".
It was intended as a political moniker, not an economic one. It so happened that most Third World countries were poor. Economically speaking, now that we are past the era of the Cold War, people often use the term Developed Countries and Developing Countries. Singapore is defined as a High-Income Country by the World Bank.
Notice how MM Lee abuses the term "First World" by taking advantage of (what I think is) the general misunderstanding of the phrase. Also notice how he has twisted the use in the context of a mixed social-political-economic environment.
The question now is "What is the motivation behind this exhortation?". Personally, I hope it is not a veiled threat against a (very slowly) rising tide of liberal thinking (which is, unfortunately, mistakenly tied to "First World" or "Western" countries whenever it suits people in power).
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26718.1
Straits Times Article (April 10, 2009): S'pore's meritocratic edge
Let me put aside my anger with MM Lee's obvious hypocrisy (quoted by ST, am seeking the original speech transcript for a better understanding of the context. Could have sworn the ST had a link to the PDF file the last time I checked):
MINISTER Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has urged Singaporeans not to delude themselves that they are a part of the First World in South-east Asia.
Singapore is situated in a region with 'special features' which makes it particularly vulnerable, so to keep its competitive edge and be relevant to the world, it must stay a cohesive, multiracial, multireligious nation based on meritocracy, he said.
If he had apologized about having repeatedly pronounced Singapore's "arrival" at First World status when trumpeting his achievements, I might have felt better about this.
Anyway, I want to focus on the definition of "First World" here. Here's something from Wikipedia (link):
The terms First World, Second World, and Third World were used to divide nations into three broad categories. The three terms did not arise simultaneously. After World War II, people began to speak of the NATO and Warsaw Pact countries as two major blocs, often using such terms as the "Western Bloc" and the "Eastern Bloc". The two "worlds" were not numbered. It was eventually pointed out that there were a great many countries that fit into neither category, and in 1952 French demographer Alfred Sauvy coined the term "Third World" to describe this latter group; retroactively, the first two groups came to be known as the "First World" and "Second World".
It was intended as a political moniker, not an economic one. It so happened that most Third World countries were poor. Economically speaking, now that we are past the era of the Cold War, people often use the term Developed Countries and Developing Countries. Singapore is defined as a High-Income Country by the World Bank.
Notice how MM Lee abuses the term "First World" by taking advantage of (what I think is) the general misunderstanding of the phrase. Also notice how he has twisted the use in the context of a mixed social-political-economic environment.
The question now is "What is the motivation behind this exhortation?". Personally, I hope it is not a veiled threat against a (very slowly) rising tide of liberal thinking (which is, unfortunately, mistakenly tied to "First World" or "Western" countries whenever it suits people in power).
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26718.1
Swinging Reform Party to the Center - Kenneth Jeyaratnam enters the political fray
Swinging Reform Party to the Center - Kenneth Jeyaratnam enters the political fray
The surprised entrance of Kenneth Jeyaratnam into Singapore’s rather bleak opposition scene represents a fresh air into Singapore’s political landscape. A note of caution would be that KJ should be considered on his own terms rather than on the terms of being the son of the late JBJ.
KJ graduated with a double first class honors from Cambridge University in the UK in Economics. If we believe PAP’s rhetoric about the need for a individual to become highly educated so as to become an MP, KJ’s educational credentials places him higher than most of the new PAP MPs in the last election. In terms of political experience, one could argue that he does not have much grassroots experience. Yet, his relationship with his father, which is best dissected by later historians, is in itself a form of education for him in all forms of politics - from grassroots to parliamentary electioneering. His economic experiences shores up the weak front of the opposition in convincing the electorate of the economic viability of a non PAP government (even that is particularly remote given most of the election’s outcome), even though hedge fund managers are certainly not seen as the good guys neccessarily in this economic climate. Some over exuberant Singaporeans might even called KJ the obama of Singapore given his age, credentials and public speaking skills, but generally having star powers may attract firestorm from opponents.
More importantly, while ST journalists predicted earlier that Reform Party (RP) would swing towards the SDP’s side, KJ’s entrance might swing RP more towards the political center (aka the WP). In doing so, it is likely that RP and WP might find common grounds in the next election, which means KJ could contest under a WP’s banner in a GRC. Alternatively, RP might ally with Chiam’s weakening SDA or the stoic NSP. If KJ would to run in a GRC with RP’s members under RP banner, one wonders if the results would be at best a NCMP seat for KJ given the weak brand name of RP. SDP will continue to reach out to RP under KJ, but it is unlikely that KJ would risk his maiden foray into the battle with a party with a huge target on its back constantly.
What about the PAP’s reaction?
A wait and see is always the preferred strategy for the PAP. The entrance of KJ into the political sphere would please the liberals within the PAP, who might be able to make the case for increased politicial liberalization given the percieved higher quality candidates for the opposition. The hardliners within the PAP might try to dig up JBJ’s past and mistakes to counter KJ, which can backfire on the party given that attacking a man who is not alive is simply underhanded to many electorates.Yet, such actions might provoke KJ to do something politically problematic, which will neutered the initial negative effects of any such attempts. Given that the PAP is increasingly populated with moderates, the wait and see atttitude would be the preferred outcome for the PAP in the short run.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26716.1
The surprised entrance of Kenneth Jeyaratnam into Singapore’s rather bleak opposition scene represents a fresh air into Singapore’s political landscape. A note of caution would be that KJ should be considered on his own terms rather than on the terms of being the son of the late JBJ.
KJ graduated with a double first class honors from Cambridge University in the UK in Economics. If we believe PAP’s rhetoric about the need for a individual to become highly educated so as to become an MP, KJ’s educational credentials places him higher than most of the new PAP MPs in the last election. In terms of political experience, one could argue that he does not have much grassroots experience. Yet, his relationship with his father, which is best dissected by later historians, is in itself a form of education for him in all forms of politics - from grassroots to parliamentary electioneering. His economic experiences shores up the weak front of the opposition in convincing the electorate of the economic viability of a non PAP government (even that is particularly remote given most of the election’s outcome), even though hedge fund managers are certainly not seen as the good guys neccessarily in this economic climate. Some over exuberant Singaporeans might even called KJ the obama of Singapore given his age, credentials and public speaking skills, but generally having star powers may attract firestorm from opponents.
More importantly, while ST journalists predicted earlier that Reform Party (RP) would swing towards the SDP’s side, KJ’s entrance might swing RP more towards the political center (aka the WP). In doing so, it is likely that RP and WP might find common grounds in the next election, which means KJ could contest under a WP’s banner in a GRC. Alternatively, RP might ally with Chiam’s weakening SDA or the stoic NSP. If KJ would to run in a GRC with RP’s members under RP banner, one wonders if the results would be at best a NCMP seat for KJ given the weak brand name of RP. SDP will continue to reach out to RP under KJ, but it is unlikely that KJ would risk his maiden foray into the battle with a party with a huge target on its back constantly.
What about the PAP’s reaction?
A wait and see is always the preferred strategy for the PAP. The entrance of KJ into the political sphere would please the liberals within the PAP, who might be able to make the case for increased politicial liberalization given the percieved higher quality candidates for the opposition. The hardliners within the PAP might try to dig up JBJ’s past and mistakes to counter KJ, which can backfire on the party given that attacking a man who is not alive is simply underhanded to many electorates.Yet, such actions might provoke KJ to do something politically problematic, which will neutered the initial negative effects of any such attempts. Given that the PAP is increasingly populated with moderates, the wait and see atttitude would be the preferred outcome for the PAP in the short run.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26716.1
Singapore suffers record contraction
Singapore suffers record contraction
By John Burton in Singapore
Published: April 14 2009 02:43 | Last updated: April 14 2009 18:48
Singapore’s trade-dependent economy contracted by a record 11.5 per cent in the first three months of 2009 from a year ago as non-oil exports fell 17 per cent in March, the 11th consecutive monthly decline.
The-sharper-than-expected deterioration in the economy’s performance forced the government to cut its full-year GDP forecast from minus 6 per cent to minus 9 per cent, which would make it Singapore’s worst postwar recession and Asia’s worst economic performer this year. The economy contracted 4.2 per cent in the fourth quarter of 2008.
Previously, the worst downturn in Singapore occurred in 2001 when the economy contracted by 2.4 per cent due to the bursting of the global technology bubble. Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s elder statesman, recently said that it could take as long as six years before the economy makes a firm recovery.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore, the de facto central bank, also devalued slightly the currency as it re-centred the secret policy band that pegs the Singapore dollar to a basket of international currencies.
The move is expected to result in a 1 per cent to 3 per cent devaluation of the currency, but MAS said there was no reason for any undue weakening of the Singapore dollar since inflation is likely to stay at minus 1 per cent to plus 1 per cent this year.
The latest data revealed the plunge in exports is slowing from a 35 per cent drop in January and 24 per cent in February. But there are worries that the continued weakness in the US economy will hurt exports for the rest of the year.
However, some economists argue that the dire figures for the first quarter suggest the economy has bottomed out and might start recovering or at least stabilise as the pace in the decline in exports slows.
Economists at banking groups said they were sticking with their forecasts that the economy could contract by 4 per cent to 5 per cent this year, with many saying the government estimate was too gloomy.
The poor economic data could set the stage for a much-discussed second stimulus package on top of a S$20.5bn (US$13.7bn) programme announced in January.
Lee Hsien Loong, the prime minister, said: “The crisis will eventually pass, but we will not be back to the situation before 2007. This is therefore an opportune time for the government to review our policies and strategies.”
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27057.1
By John Burton in Singapore
Published: April 14 2009 02:43 | Last updated: April 14 2009 18:48
Singapore’s trade-dependent economy contracted by a record 11.5 per cent in the first three months of 2009 from a year ago as non-oil exports fell 17 per cent in March, the 11th consecutive monthly decline.
The-sharper-than-expected deterioration in the economy’s performance forced the government to cut its full-year GDP forecast from minus 6 per cent to minus 9 per cent, which would make it Singapore’s worst postwar recession and Asia’s worst economic performer this year. The economy contracted 4.2 per cent in the fourth quarter of 2008.
Previously, the worst downturn in Singapore occurred in 2001 when the economy contracted by 2.4 per cent due to the bursting of the global technology bubble. Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s elder statesman, recently said that it could take as long as six years before the economy makes a firm recovery.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore, the de facto central bank, also devalued slightly the currency as it re-centred the secret policy band that pegs the Singapore dollar to a basket of international currencies.
The move is expected to result in a 1 per cent to 3 per cent devaluation of the currency, but MAS said there was no reason for any undue weakening of the Singapore dollar since inflation is likely to stay at minus 1 per cent to plus 1 per cent this year.
The latest data revealed the plunge in exports is slowing from a 35 per cent drop in January and 24 per cent in February. But there are worries that the continued weakness in the US economy will hurt exports for the rest of the year.
However, some economists argue that the dire figures for the first quarter suggest the economy has bottomed out and might start recovering or at least stabilise as the pace in the decline in exports slows.
Economists at banking groups said they were sticking with their forecasts that the economy could contract by 4 per cent to 5 per cent this year, with many saying the government estimate was too gloomy.
The poor economic data could set the stage for a much-discussed second stimulus package on top of a S$20.5bn (US$13.7bn) programme announced in January.
Lee Hsien Loong, the prime minister, said: “The crisis will eventually pass, but we will not be back to the situation before 2007. This is therefore an opportune time for the government to review our policies and strategies.”
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27057.1
Socialism has failed. Now capitalism is bankrupt. So what comes next?
Socialism has failed. Now capitalism is bankrupt. So what comes next?
Whatever ideological logo we adopt, the shift from free market to public action needs to be bigger than politicians grasp
o Eric Hobsbawm
o The Guardian, Friday 10 April 2009
The 20th century is well behind us, but we have not yet learned to live in the 21st, or at least to think in a way that fits it. That should not be as difficult as it seems, because the basic idea that dominated economics and politics in the last century has patently disappeared down the plughole of history. This was the way of thinking about modern industrial economies, or for that matter any economies, in terms of two mutually exclusive opposites: capitalism or socialism.
We have lived through two practical attempts to realise these in their pure form: the centrally state-planned economies of the Soviet type and the totally unrestricted and uncontrolled free-market capitalist economy. The first broke down in the 1980s, and the European communist political systems with it. The second is breaking down before our eyes in the greatest crisis of global capitalism since the 1930s. In some ways it is a greater crisis than in the 1930s, because the globalisation of the economy was not then as far advanced as it is today, and the crisis did not affect the planned economy of the Soviet Union. We don't yet know how grave and lasting the consequences of the present world crisis will be, but they certainly mark the end of the sort of free-market capitalism that captured the world and its governments in the years since Margaret Thatcher and President Reagan.
Impotence therefore faces both those who believe in what amounts to a pure, stateless, market capitalism, a sort of international bourgeois anarchism, and those who believe in a planned socialism uncontaminated by private profit-seeking. Both are bankrupt. The future, like the present and the past, belongs to mixed economies in which public and private are braided together in one way or another. But how? That is the problem for everybody today, but especially for people on the left.
Nobody seriously thinks of returning to the socialist systems of the Soviet type - not only because of their political faults, but also because of the increasing sluggishness and inefficiency of their economies - though this should not lead us to underestimate their impressive social and educational achievements. On the other hand, until the global free market imploded last year, even the social-democratic or other moderate left parties in the rich countries of northern capitalism and Australasia had committed themselves more and more to the success of free-market capitalism. Indeed, between the fall of the USSR and now I can think of no such party or leader denouncing capitalism as unacceptable. None were more committed to it than New Labour. In their economic policies both Tony Blair and (until October 2008) Gordon Brown could be described without real exaggeration as Thatcher in trousers. The same is true of the Democratic party in the US.
The basic Labour idea since the 1950s was that socialism was unnecessary, because a capitalist system could be relied on to flourish and to generate more wealth than any other. All socialists had to do was to ensure its equitable distribution. But since the 1970s the accelerating surge of globalisation made it more and more difficult and fatally undermined the traditional basis of the Labour party's, and indeed any social-democratic party's, support and policies. Many in the 1980s agreed that if the ship of Labour was not to founder, which was a real possibility at the time, it would have to be refitted.
But it was not refitted. Under the impact of what it saw as the Thatcherite economic revival, New Labour since 1997 swallowed the ideology, or rather the theology, of global free-market fundamentalism whole. Britain deregulated its markets, sold its industries to the highest bidder, stopped making things to export (unlike Germany, France and Switzerland) and put its money on becoming the global centre of financial services and therefore a paradise for zillionaire money-launderers. That is why the impact of the world crisis on the pound and the British economy today is likely to be more catastrophic than on any other major western economy - and full recovery may well be harder.
You may say that's all over now. We're free to return to the mixed economy. The old toolbox of Labour is available again - everything up to nationalisation - so let's just go and use the tools once again, which Labour should never have put away. But that suggests we know what to do with them. We don't. For one thing, we don't know how to overcome the present crisis. None of the world's governments, central banks or international financial institutions know: they are all like a blind man trying to get out of a maze by tapping the walls with different kinds of sticks in the hope of finding the way out. For another, we underestimate how addicted governments and decision-makers still are to the free-market snorts that have made them feel so good for decades. Have we really got away from the assumption that private profit-making enterprise is always a better, because more efficient, way of doing things? That business organisation and accountancy should be the model even for public service, education and research? That the growing chasm between the super-rich and the rest doesn't matter that much, so long as everybody else (except the minority of the poor) is getting a bit better off? That what a country needs is under all circumstances maximum economic growth and commercial competitiveness? I don't think so.
But a progressive policy needs more than just a bigger break with the economic and moral assumptions of the past 30 years. It needs a return to the conviction that economic growth and the affluence it brings is a means and not an end. The end is what it does to the lives, life-chances and hopes of people. Look at London. Of course it matters to all of us that London's economy flourishes. But the test of the enormous wealth generated in patches of the capital is not that it contributed 20%-30% to Britain's GDP but how it affects the lives of the millions who live and work there. What kind of lives are available to them? Can they afford to live there? If they can't, it is not compensation that London is also a paradise for the ultra-rich. Can they get decently paid jobs or jobs at all? If they can't, don't brag about all those Michelin-starred restaurants and their self-dramatising chefs. Or schooling for children? Inadequate schools are not offset by the fact that London universities could field a football team of Nobel prize winners.
The test of a progressive policy is not private but public, not just rising income and consumption for individuals, but widening the opportunities and what Amartya Sen calls the "capabilities" of all through collective action. But that means, it must mean, public non-profit initiative, even if only in redistributing private accumulation. Public decisions aimed at collective social improvement from which all human lives should gain. That is the basis of progressive policy - not maximising economic growth and personal incomes. Nowhere will this be more important than in tackling the greatest problem facing us this century, the environmental crisis. Whatever ideological logo we choose for it, it will mean a major shift away from the free market and towards public action, a bigger shift than the British government has yet envisaged. And, given the acuteness of the economic crisis, probably a fairly rapid shift. Time is not on our side.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26622.1
Whatever ideological logo we adopt, the shift from free market to public action needs to be bigger than politicians grasp
o Eric Hobsbawm
o The Guardian, Friday 10 April 2009
The 20th century is well behind us, but we have not yet learned to live in the 21st, or at least to think in a way that fits it. That should not be as difficult as it seems, because the basic idea that dominated economics and politics in the last century has patently disappeared down the plughole of history. This was the way of thinking about modern industrial economies, or for that matter any economies, in terms of two mutually exclusive opposites: capitalism or socialism.
We have lived through two practical attempts to realise these in their pure form: the centrally state-planned economies of the Soviet type and the totally unrestricted and uncontrolled free-market capitalist economy. The first broke down in the 1980s, and the European communist political systems with it. The second is breaking down before our eyes in the greatest crisis of global capitalism since the 1930s. In some ways it is a greater crisis than in the 1930s, because the globalisation of the economy was not then as far advanced as it is today, and the crisis did not affect the planned economy of the Soviet Union. We don't yet know how grave and lasting the consequences of the present world crisis will be, but they certainly mark the end of the sort of free-market capitalism that captured the world and its governments in the years since Margaret Thatcher and President Reagan.
Impotence therefore faces both those who believe in what amounts to a pure, stateless, market capitalism, a sort of international bourgeois anarchism, and those who believe in a planned socialism uncontaminated by private profit-seeking. Both are bankrupt. The future, like the present and the past, belongs to mixed economies in which public and private are braided together in one way or another. But how? That is the problem for everybody today, but especially for people on the left.
Nobody seriously thinks of returning to the socialist systems of the Soviet type - not only because of their political faults, but also because of the increasing sluggishness and inefficiency of their economies - though this should not lead us to underestimate their impressive social and educational achievements. On the other hand, until the global free market imploded last year, even the social-democratic or other moderate left parties in the rich countries of northern capitalism and Australasia had committed themselves more and more to the success of free-market capitalism. Indeed, between the fall of the USSR and now I can think of no such party or leader denouncing capitalism as unacceptable. None were more committed to it than New Labour. In their economic policies both Tony Blair and (until October 2008) Gordon Brown could be described without real exaggeration as Thatcher in trousers. The same is true of the Democratic party in the US.
The basic Labour idea since the 1950s was that socialism was unnecessary, because a capitalist system could be relied on to flourish and to generate more wealth than any other. All socialists had to do was to ensure its equitable distribution. But since the 1970s the accelerating surge of globalisation made it more and more difficult and fatally undermined the traditional basis of the Labour party's, and indeed any social-democratic party's, support and policies. Many in the 1980s agreed that if the ship of Labour was not to founder, which was a real possibility at the time, it would have to be refitted.
But it was not refitted. Under the impact of what it saw as the Thatcherite economic revival, New Labour since 1997 swallowed the ideology, or rather the theology, of global free-market fundamentalism whole. Britain deregulated its markets, sold its industries to the highest bidder, stopped making things to export (unlike Germany, France and Switzerland) and put its money on becoming the global centre of financial services and therefore a paradise for zillionaire money-launderers. That is why the impact of the world crisis on the pound and the British economy today is likely to be more catastrophic than on any other major western economy - and full recovery may well be harder.
You may say that's all over now. We're free to return to the mixed economy. The old toolbox of Labour is available again - everything up to nationalisation - so let's just go and use the tools once again, which Labour should never have put away. But that suggests we know what to do with them. We don't. For one thing, we don't know how to overcome the present crisis. None of the world's governments, central banks or international financial institutions know: they are all like a blind man trying to get out of a maze by tapping the walls with different kinds of sticks in the hope of finding the way out. For another, we underestimate how addicted governments and decision-makers still are to the free-market snorts that have made them feel so good for decades. Have we really got away from the assumption that private profit-making enterprise is always a better, because more efficient, way of doing things? That business organisation and accountancy should be the model even for public service, education and research? That the growing chasm between the super-rich and the rest doesn't matter that much, so long as everybody else (except the minority of the poor) is getting a bit better off? That what a country needs is under all circumstances maximum economic growth and commercial competitiveness? I don't think so.
But a progressive policy needs more than just a bigger break with the economic and moral assumptions of the past 30 years. It needs a return to the conviction that economic growth and the affluence it brings is a means and not an end. The end is what it does to the lives, life-chances and hopes of people. Look at London. Of course it matters to all of us that London's economy flourishes. But the test of the enormous wealth generated in patches of the capital is not that it contributed 20%-30% to Britain's GDP but how it affects the lives of the millions who live and work there. What kind of lives are available to them? Can they afford to live there? If they can't, it is not compensation that London is also a paradise for the ultra-rich. Can they get decently paid jobs or jobs at all? If they can't, don't brag about all those Michelin-starred restaurants and their self-dramatising chefs. Or schooling for children? Inadequate schools are not offset by the fact that London universities could field a football team of Nobel prize winners.
The test of a progressive policy is not private but public, not just rising income and consumption for individuals, but widening the opportunities and what Amartya Sen calls the "capabilities" of all through collective action. But that means, it must mean, public non-profit initiative, even if only in redistributing private accumulation. Public decisions aimed at collective social improvement from which all human lives should gain. That is the basis of progressive policy - not maximising economic growth and personal incomes. Nowhere will this be more important than in tackling the greatest problem facing us this century, the environmental crisis. Whatever ideological logo we choose for it, it will mean a major shift away from the free market and towards public action, a bigger shift than the British government has yet envisaged. And, given the acuteness of the economic crisis, probably a fairly rapid shift. Time is not on our side.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26622.1
Lee Kuan Yew: THE FUNDAMENTALS OF SINGAPORE'S FOREIGN POLICY
S Rajaratnam Lecture 2009 by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew
THE FUNDAMENTALS OF SINGAPORE'S FOREIGN POLICY: THEN AND NOW
Independence was thrust upon Singapore. The fundamentals of our foreign policy were forged during those vulnerable early years. They remain relevant because small countries have little power to alter the region, let alone the world. A small country must seek a maximum number of friends, while maintaining the freedom to be itself as a sovereign and independent nation. Both parts of the equation - a maximum number of friends and freedom to be ourselves - are equally important and inter-related.
Friendship, in international relations, is not a function of goodwill or personal affection. We must make ourselves relevant so that other countries have an interest in our continued survival and prosperity as a sovereign and independent nation. Singapore cannot take its relevance for granted. Small countries perform no vital or irreplaceable functions in the international system. Singapore has to continually reconstruct itself and keep its relevance to the world and to create political and economic space. This is the economic imperative for Singapore.
To achieve this, we have to be different from others in our neighbourhood and have a competitive edge. Because we have been able to do so, Singapore has risen over our geographical and resource constraints, and has been accepted as a serious player in regional and international fora. We earn our living by attracting foreign investments and producing goods and services useful to the world. Hence, we must always have the ability to be ourselves and be different from others in the wider region of East and South Asia. Had we disported ourselves like our better endowed neighbours, we would have failed. For Singapore, unlike others in our neighbourhood, is of no intrinsic interest to any developed country when they can invest in our larger neighbours endowed with more land, labour and natural resources.
At the same time, we must never delude ourselves that we are a part of the First World in Southeast Asia, a second and third world group of countries. Our region has its own special features. Singapore's destiny would be very different if we were sited in Europe or North America. We cannot transplant our island elsewhere. Therefore, a recurrent issue for Singapore is how to differentiate ourselves from our neighbours in order to compete and survive, and also get along with them. This is a perennial foreign policy challenge.
The Changing International Environment
As the world changes, small countries have to swiftly adjust their policies and positions in a pragmatic and clinical manner. We have to live with the world as it is, not as we wish it should be. We must remain nimble to seize opportunities that come with changing circumstances, or to get out of harm's way.
Let me outline the major changes in the international and regional environment since we became independent.
In 1965, the Cold War was at its height. The world was bipolar, divided into communist and non-communist blocs and a main fault line ran through Southeast Asia. The Vietnam War had been raging on for several years. That year, President Lyndon B Johnson upped the ante by bombing North Vietnam. All the non-communist countries of Southeast Asia faced serious internal threats from communist insurgencies or subversive movements supported by a China that was then in the throes of the launch of the Cultural Revolution.
All the non-communist countries of Southeast Asia were embroiled in disputes of varying intensity with one another. Singapore had just been "separated" from Malaysia and Indonesia was pursuing a policy of "konfrontasi" against Malaysia and Singapore. The Philippines claimed Sabah. Brunei with British help had suppressed an internal rebellion backed by Indonesia. There were also strong irredentist pressures on the borders between West Malaysia and Thailand, and between the Philippines and Indonesia. In these unpropitious circumstances, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was formed so that the non-communist states in Southeast Asia could contain and manage their differences to meet the greater threat from the communists.
The world has completely transformed. The Cold War is over after the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 and the Soviet Union imploded in 1991. Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar and Cambodia have joined ASEAN. The threat of mutual nuclear annihilation during the Cold War has gone.
But it is not the "end of history" that an American has written in the euphoria of triumphalism. The Cold War divided the world into two blocs for more than 40 years from the end of the Second World War. Two heavily armed nuclear blocs made it a dangerous world. Once this over-arching strategic discipline of the bipolar Cold War was dissolved, long submerged conflicts broke out in many parts of the world, but fortunately not in Southeast Asia.
With the collapse of the communist ideology of how society and the economy should be organised, all states joined the global wave of the free market.
Singapore has since 1965 plugged into the international economic grid. We welcomed Multi-National Companies (MNCs) to invest and manufacture in Singapore when the conventional wisdom was that MNCs exploit Third World countries. As an open economy, we took full advantage of globalisation.
East Asian countries had been leading the pack in this globalisation wave. They distinguished themselves from other Third World countries by single-minded emphasis on development. Japan was the earliest to plug itself into the global system. The Newly Industrialising Economies of Hong Kong, Republic of Korea, Singapore and Taiwan followed suit from the 1960s; then came the Southeast Asian 'tigers': Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand. Vietnam reformed its economy in the 1990s.
The most dramatic transformations were China and India. China's re-emergence in the world economy is the single most profound event of the 21st century. Two huge economies in China and India will reshape the world order before the end of the 21st century.
In the 1960s and 1970s, Singapore was berated in the Chinese media as a lackey of the American imperialists. The Malayan Communist Party (MCP) backed by China refused to recognise Singapore's independence. This changed after Deng Xiaoping visited Singapore in November 1978. It marked a dramatic change in Singapore's relations with China, and also China's relations with Southeast Asia. Deng visited Bangkok and Kuala Lumpur before he arrived in Singapore. He personally saw that China had fallen behind these supposedly backward cities. Also, he concluded that China had to stop supporting insurgencies in Southeast Asia if he wanted ASEAN to support the resistance to Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia.
In 1985, Dr Goh Keng Swee retired as Singapore's Deputy Prime Minister. He was invited to be Economic Advisor to the State Council on the development of China's coastal areas and tourism. China, a huge nation with an ancient history, was willing to learn from a tiny city-state.
Deng Xiaoping kept abreast of developments in Singapore and Southeast Asia. During a tour of southern China in February 1992, he said, "there is good social order in Singapore. They govern the place with discipline. We should draw from their experience, and do even better than them." Vice Minister of Propaganda Xu Weicheng led a delegation to Singapore for 10 days that same year. Since then, exchanges between Singapore and China have grown. Hundreds of Chinese officials continue to be trained in Singapore. Since 1996, we have trained over 16,000 Chinese officials.
Rebalancing the world
The post-Cold War world is in a state of flux. All countries are transiting to a different global order.
The present unprecedented global economic crisis has resulted from a lack of checks on the many financial products called "derivatives". There was insufficient oversight in international financial markets as layer upon layer of ever more complex financial instruments spun out of control. The world is suffering the consequences.
A mood for more regulations and control prevails in many economies. This could slide into protectionism. Protectionist measures to protect domestic employment will prolong the economic crisis with unpredictable geopolitical complications.
This crisis will hasten China's growth vis-à-vis the US. It is growing at 8%; the US may suffer negative or low growth. China has proven itself to be pragmatic, resilient and adaptive. The Chinese have survived severe crises - the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution - few societies have been so stricken. These are reasons not to be pessimistic.
The relationship between the US and China has already become the most important geopolitical issue of this century. Both countries realise that they need to work with the other. Neither wants conflicts. Both have to reckon with internal pressures from serious problems of growing unemployment.
However, American resilience and creativity should never be underestimated.
As the dominant global power, preserving the status quo is in US interests. As a rising power, China will not acquiesce to a status quo status indefinitely. Competition is inevitable, but conflict is not.
The US and China will both come through the present economic crisis. China is closing in on the lead the US enjoys. Their relations will remain stable, provided the world does not slide into protectionism. Each has to accommodate the core interests of the other.
The world, including East Asia, is not yet "decoupled" from the US. Multi-polarity where different poles are approximately equal in strategic weight is unlikely to emerge because the "poles" are not equal. A global economic recovery is not possible unless the US recovers.
After the crisis, the US is most likely to remain at the top of every key index of national power for decades. It will remain the dominant global player for the next few decades. No major issue concerning international peace and stability can be resolved without US leadership, and no country or grouping can yet replace America as the dominant global power.
Europe can become an economic force. Because its members have not submerged their sovereign interests, the EU cannot be a global strategic actor. This crisis has shown how divergent the national interests of EU members are.
China, the EU, Russia, India will be independent players. China has made beachheads in the Middle East, Africa and Latin America. It will be a global player in another three to four decades. China's present preoccupations are domestic, and its relationships with the countries of North East and South East Asia.
Russia's capabilities are limited. It wants to consolidate its influence in its "near abroad". Japan will be distracted by domestic politics. India is an emerging power, but at present lacks a competitive industrial base. However, it is the dominant power in South Asia.
China will pull ahead of Europe, Japan, India and Russia. US-China relations are setting the framework for East Asia. In the latter 21st century, US-China relations will become the most important bilateral relationship in the world, like the US-USSR relationship during the Cold War.
The US needs support from its European, Japanese and other allies to deal with international issues. The West is less cohesive after the Cold War. On international issues, like climate change, conflicts in the Middle East, proliferation, terrorism, food and energy security, pandemics or promoting Third World development, the US is not assured of unanimous support.
The current financial and economic problems require a global rebalancing of consumption and savings: a change in economic relationships between the US and China. Both must change in their cultural habits and mindsets. The American consumers must spend within their means. The Chinese consumers must increase their domestic spending. This will be a difficult transition.
Globalisation cannot be reversed because the technologies that made globalisation inevitable cannot be uninvented. In fact, better and cheaper transportation and communications will further advance the forces of globalisation. Singapore has to embrace this reality and remain open to talent, capital, technology and immigrants to make up for our low birth rate (total fertility rate of 1.29) with around 35,000 babies each year.
Singapore's Future
Singaporeans must always be prepared to maximise our opportunities and manage the challenges. In an era of increasing rapid and convenient transportation and communications, political leaders frequently meet each other at bilateral and multilateral summits; and they become comfortable to phone each other through secure lines. Ambassadors do not influence foreign policy so significantly. Sound foreign policy requires a prime minister and a foreign minister who are able to discern future trends in the international political, security and economic environment and position ourselves bilaterally or multilaterally to grasp the opportunities ahead of the others. Able foreign ministry officers and diplomats who give insightful recommendations based on dealing with their counterparts and assessments on the ground can greatly assist the Foreign Minister and his cabinet colleagues towards this end. But ultimately, it is the Prime Minister and other key ministers who decide on changes in policies. At face-to-face meetings over long hours they can sense each other's thinking and leanings before their officials are privy to them. Hence, our foreign policy from 1965 was settled by the PM and his key ministers. A mediocre PM and cabinet will decline our standing with other countries and we will lose opportunities like the lead we enjoy in Free Trade Agreements or Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreements with the US, Japan, China, India, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, and our close relations with the oil states of the Gulf.
ASEAN is now more robust than in 1967. It has been an exception among Third World regional organisations. ASEAN has avoided being bogged down in post-colonial rivalries and tensions, and has focused on development.
Several ASEAN countries are in political transitions, working towards more sustainable and durable systems. Political circumstances will determine ASEAN's pace of progress. Placed between the giants of China and India, ASEAN countries have to combine their markets to compete and be relevant as a region. There is no other choice. ASEAN is also playing a major role in shaping a wider architecture of cooperation in the Asia-Pacific.
Conclusions
Let me return to the complexities of Singapore's relations with our neighbours. The events that led to our independence are receding into history. These different complexities are not the result of historical baggage, but of basic differences in political and social systems. Baggage is something we can discard. Political and social systems we cannot change so easily.
Singapore is a multi-racial meritocracy. Our neighbours organise their societies on the supremacy of the indigenous peoples, Bumiputras in Malaysia and Pribumis in Indonesia. Though our neighbours have accepted us as a sovereign and independent nation, they have a tendency to externalise towards us their internal anxieties and angst against their own minorities. This is unlikely to go away.
Time has worn down many of the sharper edges in our relations with our immediate neighbours. A habit of working together in ASEAN has also helped. Singapore is now more established, internationally and regionally. Forty years ago, many did not believe Singapore would survive, let alone prosper.
We have a strong economy, accumulated robust reserves, developed a civil service of integrity and ability, a mature and capable foreign policy team, and institutionalised our systems.
We have strategic relationships with the major powers. We have a credible defence capability. The SAF is an insurance in an uncertain world.
Each successor generation of Singaporeans must build on these assets and work out their solutions to new problems, seize new opportunities and avoid impending disasters in an ever changing world. The perennial challenge is to remain competitive. To be competitive, we must remain a cohesive, multi-racial, multi-religious nation based on meritocracy. We have to strengthen our national consciousness at a time when the forces of globalisation are deconstructing the very notion of nationhood.
All countries face this challenge. A country like America has over 200 years of history to bond its citizens. We have only 40 years. But so long as the succeeding generations of Singaporeans do not forget the fundamentals of our vulnerabilities, and not delude themselves that we can behave as if our neighbours are Europeans or North Americans, and remain alert, cohesive and realistic, Singapore will survive and prosper.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26621.2
THE FUNDAMENTALS OF SINGAPORE'S FOREIGN POLICY: THEN AND NOW
Independence was thrust upon Singapore. The fundamentals of our foreign policy were forged during those vulnerable early years. They remain relevant because small countries have little power to alter the region, let alone the world. A small country must seek a maximum number of friends, while maintaining the freedom to be itself as a sovereign and independent nation. Both parts of the equation - a maximum number of friends and freedom to be ourselves - are equally important and inter-related.
Friendship, in international relations, is not a function of goodwill or personal affection. We must make ourselves relevant so that other countries have an interest in our continued survival and prosperity as a sovereign and independent nation. Singapore cannot take its relevance for granted. Small countries perform no vital or irreplaceable functions in the international system. Singapore has to continually reconstruct itself and keep its relevance to the world and to create political and economic space. This is the economic imperative for Singapore.
To achieve this, we have to be different from others in our neighbourhood and have a competitive edge. Because we have been able to do so, Singapore has risen over our geographical and resource constraints, and has been accepted as a serious player in regional and international fora. We earn our living by attracting foreign investments and producing goods and services useful to the world. Hence, we must always have the ability to be ourselves and be different from others in the wider region of East and South Asia. Had we disported ourselves like our better endowed neighbours, we would have failed. For Singapore, unlike others in our neighbourhood, is of no intrinsic interest to any developed country when they can invest in our larger neighbours endowed with more land, labour and natural resources.
At the same time, we must never delude ourselves that we are a part of the First World in Southeast Asia, a second and third world group of countries. Our region has its own special features. Singapore's destiny would be very different if we were sited in Europe or North America. We cannot transplant our island elsewhere. Therefore, a recurrent issue for Singapore is how to differentiate ourselves from our neighbours in order to compete and survive, and also get along with them. This is a perennial foreign policy challenge.
The Changing International Environment
As the world changes, small countries have to swiftly adjust their policies and positions in a pragmatic and clinical manner. We have to live with the world as it is, not as we wish it should be. We must remain nimble to seize opportunities that come with changing circumstances, or to get out of harm's way.
Let me outline the major changes in the international and regional environment since we became independent.
In 1965, the Cold War was at its height. The world was bipolar, divided into communist and non-communist blocs and a main fault line ran through Southeast Asia. The Vietnam War had been raging on for several years. That year, President Lyndon B Johnson upped the ante by bombing North Vietnam. All the non-communist countries of Southeast Asia faced serious internal threats from communist insurgencies or subversive movements supported by a China that was then in the throes of the launch of the Cultural Revolution.
All the non-communist countries of Southeast Asia were embroiled in disputes of varying intensity with one another. Singapore had just been "separated" from Malaysia and Indonesia was pursuing a policy of "konfrontasi" against Malaysia and Singapore. The Philippines claimed Sabah. Brunei with British help had suppressed an internal rebellion backed by Indonesia. There were also strong irredentist pressures on the borders between West Malaysia and Thailand, and between the Philippines and Indonesia. In these unpropitious circumstances, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was formed so that the non-communist states in Southeast Asia could contain and manage their differences to meet the greater threat from the communists.
The world has completely transformed. The Cold War is over after the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 and the Soviet Union imploded in 1991. Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar and Cambodia have joined ASEAN. The threat of mutual nuclear annihilation during the Cold War has gone.
But it is not the "end of history" that an American has written in the euphoria of triumphalism. The Cold War divided the world into two blocs for more than 40 years from the end of the Second World War. Two heavily armed nuclear blocs made it a dangerous world. Once this over-arching strategic discipline of the bipolar Cold War was dissolved, long submerged conflicts broke out in many parts of the world, but fortunately not in Southeast Asia.
With the collapse of the communist ideology of how society and the economy should be organised, all states joined the global wave of the free market.
Singapore has since 1965 plugged into the international economic grid. We welcomed Multi-National Companies (MNCs) to invest and manufacture in Singapore when the conventional wisdom was that MNCs exploit Third World countries. As an open economy, we took full advantage of globalisation.
East Asian countries had been leading the pack in this globalisation wave. They distinguished themselves from other Third World countries by single-minded emphasis on development. Japan was the earliest to plug itself into the global system. The Newly Industrialising Economies of Hong Kong, Republic of Korea, Singapore and Taiwan followed suit from the 1960s; then came the Southeast Asian 'tigers': Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand. Vietnam reformed its economy in the 1990s.
The most dramatic transformations were China and India. China's re-emergence in the world economy is the single most profound event of the 21st century. Two huge economies in China and India will reshape the world order before the end of the 21st century.
In the 1960s and 1970s, Singapore was berated in the Chinese media as a lackey of the American imperialists. The Malayan Communist Party (MCP) backed by China refused to recognise Singapore's independence. This changed after Deng Xiaoping visited Singapore in November 1978. It marked a dramatic change in Singapore's relations with China, and also China's relations with Southeast Asia. Deng visited Bangkok and Kuala Lumpur before he arrived in Singapore. He personally saw that China had fallen behind these supposedly backward cities. Also, he concluded that China had to stop supporting insurgencies in Southeast Asia if he wanted ASEAN to support the resistance to Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia.
In 1985, Dr Goh Keng Swee retired as Singapore's Deputy Prime Minister. He was invited to be Economic Advisor to the State Council on the development of China's coastal areas and tourism. China, a huge nation with an ancient history, was willing to learn from a tiny city-state.
Deng Xiaoping kept abreast of developments in Singapore and Southeast Asia. During a tour of southern China in February 1992, he said, "there is good social order in Singapore. They govern the place with discipline. We should draw from their experience, and do even better than them." Vice Minister of Propaganda Xu Weicheng led a delegation to Singapore for 10 days that same year. Since then, exchanges between Singapore and China have grown. Hundreds of Chinese officials continue to be trained in Singapore. Since 1996, we have trained over 16,000 Chinese officials.
Rebalancing the world
The post-Cold War world is in a state of flux. All countries are transiting to a different global order.
The present unprecedented global economic crisis has resulted from a lack of checks on the many financial products called "derivatives". There was insufficient oversight in international financial markets as layer upon layer of ever more complex financial instruments spun out of control. The world is suffering the consequences.
A mood for more regulations and control prevails in many economies. This could slide into protectionism. Protectionist measures to protect domestic employment will prolong the economic crisis with unpredictable geopolitical complications.
This crisis will hasten China's growth vis-à-vis the US. It is growing at 8%; the US may suffer negative or low growth. China has proven itself to be pragmatic, resilient and adaptive. The Chinese have survived severe crises - the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution - few societies have been so stricken. These are reasons not to be pessimistic.
The relationship between the US and China has already become the most important geopolitical issue of this century. Both countries realise that they need to work with the other. Neither wants conflicts. Both have to reckon with internal pressures from serious problems of growing unemployment.
However, American resilience and creativity should never be underestimated.
As the dominant global power, preserving the status quo is in US interests. As a rising power, China will not acquiesce to a status quo status indefinitely. Competition is inevitable, but conflict is not.
The US and China will both come through the present economic crisis. China is closing in on the lead the US enjoys. Their relations will remain stable, provided the world does not slide into protectionism. Each has to accommodate the core interests of the other.
The world, including East Asia, is not yet "decoupled" from the US. Multi-polarity where different poles are approximately equal in strategic weight is unlikely to emerge because the "poles" are not equal. A global economic recovery is not possible unless the US recovers.
After the crisis, the US is most likely to remain at the top of every key index of national power for decades. It will remain the dominant global player for the next few decades. No major issue concerning international peace and stability can be resolved without US leadership, and no country or grouping can yet replace America as the dominant global power.
Europe can become an economic force. Because its members have not submerged their sovereign interests, the EU cannot be a global strategic actor. This crisis has shown how divergent the national interests of EU members are.
China, the EU, Russia, India will be independent players. China has made beachheads in the Middle East, Africa and Latin America. It will be a global player in another three to four decades. China's present preoccupations are domestic, and its relationships with the countries of North East and South East Asia.
Russia's capabilities are limited. It wants to consolidate its influence in its "near abroad". Japan will be distracted by domestic politics. India is an emerging power, but at present lacks a competitive industrial base. However, it is the dominant power in South Asia.
China will pull ahead of Europe, Japan, India and Russia. US-China relations are setting the framework for East Asia. In the latter 21st century, US-China relations will become the most important bilateral relationship in the world, like the US-USSR relationship during the Cold War.
The US needs support from its European, Japanese and other allies to deal with international issues. The West is less cohesive after the Cold War. On international issues, like climate change, conflicts in the Middle East, proliferation, terrorism, food and energy security, pandemics or promoting Third World development, the US is not assured of unanimous support.
The current financial and economic problems require a global rebalancing of consumption and savings: a change in economic relationships between the US and China. Both must change in their cultural habits and mindsets. The American consumers must spend within their means. The Chinese consumers must increase their domestic spending. This will be a difficult transition.
Globalisation cannot be reversed because the technologies that made globalisation inevitable cannot be uninvented. In fact, better and cheaper transportation and communications will further advance the forces of globalisation. Singapore has to embrace this reality and remain open to talent, capital, technology and immigrants to make up for our low birth rate (total fertility rate of 1.29) with around 35,000 babies each year.
Singapore's Future
Singaporeans must always be prepared to maximise our opportunities and manage the challenges. In an era of increasing rapid and convenient transportation and communications, political leaders frequently meet each other at bilateral and multilateral summits; and they become comfortable to phone each other through secure lines. Ambassadors do not influence foreign policy so significantly. Sound foreign policy requires a prime minister and a foreign minister who are able to discern future trends in the international political, security and economic environment and position ourselves bilaterally or multilaterally to grasp the opportunities ahead of the others. Able foreign ministry officers and diplomats who give insightful recommendations based on dealing with their counterparts and assessments on the ground can greatly assist the Foreign Minister and his cabinet colleagues towards this end. But ultimately, it is the Prime Minister and other key ministers who decide on changes in policies. At face-to-face meetings over long hours they can sense each other's thinking and leanings before their officials are privy to them. Hence, our foreign policy from 1965 was settled by the PM and his key ministers. A mediocre PM and cabinet will decline our standing with other countries and we will lose opportunities like the lead we enjoy in Free Trade Agreements or Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreements with the US, Japan, China, India, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, and our close relations with the oil states of the Gulf.
ASEAN is now more robust than in 1967. It has been an exception among Third World regional organisations. ASEAN has avoided being bogged down in post-colonial rivalries and tensions, and has focused on development.
Several ASEAN countries are in political transitions, working towards more sustainable and durable systems. Political circumstances will determine ASEAN's pace of progress. Placed between the giants of China and India, ASEAN countries have to combine their markets to compete and be relevant as a region. There is no other choice. ASEAN is also playing a major role in shaping a wider architecture of cooperation in the Asia-Pacific.
Conclusions
Let me return to the complexities of Singapore's relations with our neighbours. The events that led to our independence are receding into history. These different complexities are not the result of historical baggage, but of basic differences in political and social systems. Baggage is something we can discard. Political and social systems we cannot change so easily.
Singapore is a multi-racial meritocracy. Our neighbours organise their societies on the supremacy of the indigenous peoples, Bumiputras in Malaysia and Pribumis in Indonesia. Though our neighbours have accepted us as a sovereign and independent nation, they have a tendency to externalise towards us their internal anxieties and angst against their own minorities. This is unlikely to go away.
Time has worn down many of the sharper edges in our relations with our immediate neighbours. A habit of working together in ASEAN has also helped. Singapore is now more established, internationally and regionally. Forty years ago, many did not believe Singapore would survive, let alone prosper.
We have a strong economy, accumulated robust reserves, developed a civil service of integrity and ability, a mature and capable foreign policy team, and institutionalised our systems.
We have strategic relationships with the major powers. We have a credible defence capability. The SAF is an insurance in an uncertain world.
Each successor generation of Singaporeans must build on these assets and work out their solutions to new problems, seize new opportunities and avoid impending disasters in an ever changing world. The perennial challenge is to remain competitive. To be competitive, we must remain a cohesive, multi-racial, multi-religious nation based on meritocracy. We have to strengthen our national consciousness at a time when the forces of globalisation are deconstructing the very notion of nationhood.
All countries face this challenge. A country like America has over 200 years of history to bond its citizens. We have only 40 years. But so long as the succeeding generations of Singaporeans do not forget the fundamentals of our vulnerabilities, and not delude themselves that we can behave as if our neighbours are Europeans or North Americans, and remain alert, cohesive and realistic, Singapore will survive and prosper.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26621.2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)