« SINGAPORE: Be a cyber-activist? S'poreans can't be bothered, says panel | HomePage | Singapore - Said Zahari launches book »
03/07/2007
Lion without teeth - Book Review of "The Singapore Miracle" by Rodney King
Listen to this article
Taken from The Nation
Singapore is brilliant at self-promotion, says an Australian analyst, but it is no financial dynamo. Much of the world has been deluded by its hollow roars of success
Singapore, the modern city-state known for its authoritarian ways and conservative government, has a reputation for functional efficiency and capitalist success.
The smallest member of Asean geographically is often touted as one of Asia's great success stories - a gleaming city that emerged from the tropical swamps under a strict but wise autocrat, Lee Kuan Yew.
But a fascinating new book by Australian Rodney King looks deeper into the "the Singapore Miracle" and reveals that a lot of the city's supposed successes are in fact hot air.
Reports of Singapore being a dynamic commercial melting pot are, King says, simply the oft-repeated claims of a government that tolerates little dissent, and city leaders who may actually have stifled the sort of entrepreneurial dynamism you get in places such as Hong Kong, Shanghai, Taiwan and maybe even Bangkok.
King is a Perth journalist who lived in Singapore for a number of years and worked briefly at the Straits Times.
"The Singapore Miracle - Myth and Reality" casts doubt on the city-state's claims of cutting-edge efficiency, global competitiveness, economic freedom and transparency. Most Singaporeans are not as affluent as their government makes out, King says in his extensively documented, 500-page tome.
"Books about Singapore usually praise its achievements or criticise its authoritarian rule," he writes. "But few ever probe its widely publicised claims that it is a brilliant success that other countries should follow."
King argues that Singapore's workforce productivity is often mediocre and well below that of the West and Asian economies such as Hong Kong.
"The country also displays endemic inefficiencies at both macro and micro-economic levels. The performance of the construction, financial and service sectors is second-rate, while Singapore Airlines does not deserve the top rankings it receives."
Singapore, he says, has "a dependent and underdeveloped economy". Multinational companies and state enterprises predominate, and the economy has "low entrepreneurial and innovative capacities and an under-educated workforce".
The city-state's supposed affluence is also largely a myth.
"About 30 per cent of the population still lives in poverty by Western living standards," he says. And Singapore's Housing Development Board, Central Provident Fund and state-run health schemes have severe shortcomings.
What Singapore has been good at, he says, is marketing itself.
"Singapore has brilliantly sold itself to the world as an amazing success story to attract foreign investment and talent. It's managed to get most Western think-tanks and ratings agencies to give it top scores for such things as competitiveness, transparency, economic freedom, etc.
"These bodies reflect the interests of foreign capital and their methodologies are shoddy and incompetent at times. And the statistics they are fed by the Singaporean authorities are often dubious and designed to put Singapore in the best light.
"To sell itself to the world Singapore has also denigrated and patronised its lesser-developed neighbours."
Singapore was hardly an economic backwater when Lee Kuan Yew took power in 1959, says King, who has no special regard for the premier, who held office through his People's Action Party (PAP) for 31 years. Lee is now known as a "Minister mentor" and elder statesman.
"Lee is always carefully listened to, and rather too politely ... his views and lectures often receive reverential attention from opinion lenders, American think-tank experts and others who often have little direct first-hand knowledge of Singapore."
In the early to mid-'60s, Singapore had one of the highest living standards in Asia, with one of the best-educated and hardest-working populations. Its strategic location and magnificent harbour - with extensive British-built shipyard facilities - alongside one of the world's busiest sea-lanes, meant that it became a natural transport hub. And these features were a great asset for industrialisation.
The strategies Lee used to develop Singapore were an open-door policy to foreign capital and export orientation to tap into global trade. They helped the city-state enjoy double-digit growth from the '60s to the '80s.
But the Lion City became heavily dependent on foreign capital while state enterprises focused on infrastructure and "nation-building concerns".
Entrepreneurial and innovative capacities have suffered because of a lack of domestic competition and the predominance of state bodies. Public servants running state boards often have little experience of the private sector "and no idea how to run a business", King and other analysts say.
"The local private sector, normally the seedbed of innovation in most market economies, is stunted and starved of venture capital," King writes. "The country's capacity for indigenous research and development and entrepreneurial and innovative endeavours remains limited.
"Heavy state control of the economy is exercised through an extensive layer of state enterprises. The state imposes this control through layers of red tape.
"The government also manages a big chunk of the people's savings through forced savings … and owns 72 per cent of the city-state's land. Moreover, the government controls the unions and most of the labour force. Equally mythical are Singapore's claims to being transparent. Nothing could be more untrue. The operations of Singapore's government and bureaucracy are swathed in secrecy."
King counters claims of high home-ownership levels, saying 86 per cent of Singaporeans rent government flats from the Housing Development Board on 99-year leases.
The author is provocative but very thorough. Every aspect of life in the city-state is analysed in detail.
"Singapore's flaws are hidden by the PAP state's vigorous marketing campaign," he says. And most local and foreign journalists "are usually too restricted or intimidated by government defamation laws and other penalties to challenge or refute" the "river of statistics" promoting Singapore's achievements.
There is a wealth of statistical and anecdotal material in this book to counter the official lines - or lies. Economists and anyone with an interest in Singapore should take note. This book could change the way you view our industrious neighbour.
But, perhaps the saddest facet of King's work is not what he's written, but the fact that the people who most need to read his book may find it hard to get, if Singaporean bookshops refuse to stock it, as he expects.
03:45 Posted by Charles Tan | Permalink | Comments (16) | Email this
Comments
> the people who most need to read his book may find it hard to get, if Singaporean bookshops refuse to stock it, as he expects. <
No worries mate. There are about 20,000 of us living in Perth. Just make sure Curtin, Uni WA, Edith Cowan and Murdoch bookstores have copies, and it'll sell like hot cakes, and will eventually end up in Singapore. Heck, there are *several PER-SIN flights everyday!
Anyway Perth WA (the most southern suburb of Singapore) has historically been a hotbed of dissent, for Singaporeans and ex-Singaporeans (the one's who managed to grab all their CPF—lucky sods!)—the sg.gov even keep "spies" there, the you-know-who's-who go there to play golf and to develop/buy/sell real estate, motel chains etc etc.
Posted by: Matilah_Singapura | 03/07/2007
20K dissenters? that's more than the members of all the
current opposition parties added up, including those who
had already quit or died
so why dont this large group of people show more impact?
they all depend on you to put up a blog? not even using
your real name...
(btw: my own real name is quite easy to find; just
takes some work)
Posted by: sgsociety.com | 04/07/2007
It really saddens me when a foreigner wishes ill towards Singapore. It bothers me even more when a person claiming to be a singaporean wishes for his motherland ill-will. From the pseudonym used like "Matilah Singapura" I guess one can really tell the character that you are. If you hate the guts of the PAP govt, then you ought to fight them but not the nation and its people. Why would a singaporean want their nation to die?!! unless of course you are a non-singaporean pretending to be one. There is a price to pay in everything, democracy included. Not everyone is prepared to pay for what you believe in your misguided democracy. Majority of singaporeans have spoken, so please respect that. Ironic, on one hand you claim the PAP govt has been harsh on you but did you not realise the fact that you are able to migrate and as what you said those others who have taken their cpf, have been allowed to do so. It would not work if Singapore is not a democratic country, would it? But of course, the democracy we have here is not what you have in mind and that is why you chose to live in perth. Many young singaporeans often forget this fact ... Our tiny island nation has no natural resources, land scarce and a significant proportion of lowly educated populations, not to mention the fact that we live under constant watch by our neighbours who could wish no less than our demise economically. Ask yourself this, why would foreign investors want to place their money here if not for what they have been offered so far? When that happens how will jobs be created? we don't have anything to sell, except for our skills. If what the book says is true, then I must have been dreaming all the while when I was on holidays overseas, including to great places in Australia and europe. Get real!
Posted by: Jackass | 05/07/2007
My dear Jackass,
Thank you for the pyscho-ANAL-ysis. I'm happy to inform you that you are totally WRONG in your assessment of my good self and my intentions. Oh well, none of us are omniscient and as a human, and therefore imperfect, you are entitled to be WRONG.
And if you are "saddened", I can't help you—we all make our OWN emotions—i.e. it is never anything "external", ok?
You get a job because what you DO (action!) is actually of "use" or "value" to someone else. Sorry to burst your bubble, bit no govt on earth can "guarantee" you a gig, or create one for you—sustainably.
I think it would serve you well to "get real", and you might even start by extracting the digit.
Best regards
Posted by: Matilah_Singapura | 05/07/2007
More saddening is that despite so much evidence to the contrary, you still have the rabid defenders of the system. Tell me Jackass, does your condominium cleaner think that Singapore is a land of opportunity? Or does the 30% living in poverty thank their lucky stars they are in Singapore because of our stellar social support?
Posted by: emoboy | 05/07/2007
Emoboy wrote:
More saddening is that despite so much evidence to the contrary, you still have the rabid defenders of the system.
>> Emoboy, read my posting carefully. I did say in every system including those in Singapore now does have their own flaws. But one must look at the bigger picture. Again, I say this, Singapore is a tiny little nation with NO natural resources and we rely on our neigbours who are constantly watching us and wishing for our failures economically. But do you have better alternative that the policies which the PAP are offering now?!! If so then you stay here and tell our fellow singaporeans. Look at the WP, Sylvia Lim and her party members. They try to fight the system through constructive way and not wishing for the ill of your nation!
Emo wrote:
Tell me Jackass, does your condominium cleaner think that Singapore is a land of opportunity? Or does the 30% living in poverty thank their lucky stars they are in Singapore because of our stellar social support?
>> Just like my fellow singaporeans who cose to remain here, I live in HDB and am proud of it. The fact that there are so many foreign workers here show that they find Singapore is a land of opportunity. And if the cleaner as you mention is our local Singaporean, well, don't you think he is better off to have a job than having to beg had our govt not been successful in some of their policies. Again, like I said, I do believe there are flaws in some other policies but considering the constraints we have as a tiny island nation, I would think they are acceptable. Do you have any ideas how to take care of our fellow singaporeans who are lowly educated? I bet you can only scream and shout at how unfair life is but you forget about all these facts on Singapore, our tiny little island nation.
Your 30% figure is again not proven, just like those used by the Govt to propagate their agenda. I do not deny there are those who are poor but then again, 30% sounds incredible. I am not sure if you live here to come up with that number.
To me life is too short to pursue material happiness. Be contented. I am not defending the system, but I definitely find people like you worse, because instead of looking for workable solution, you can only criticise others, especially with intent to destroy this beloved nation.
Change does not happen overnight and if you look at how singapore has transformed itself, one has to admit we have come far from those days. You can now access any materials over the internet ... compare that to China. By the way, have you heard of singaporeans being hauled up in court for talking bad about PAP on the internet? Unless you threaten our national security, I would say the democracy that we are enjoying now is just fine.
Posted by: Jackass | 06/07/2007
My analysis of you, matilah singapura is so accurate that you can't even defend yourself. First of all, of so many possible pseudonym one can choose and you can only come up with an ill-wish towards you country (of course I am assuming you are a singaporean which one can also wonder). You could have chosen say matilah pap or others but why singapore? It definitely shows your true intent. Instead of showing remorse you instead tried to justify it.
It takes more than just simple words to burst my bubble, especially from a pretender. I have seen many ups and downs in life and unlike you who chose the "better life" in perth, I with many others opted to remain here and continue with our daily survival. Many of us do not have the luxury that you have, so my advice to you is just enjoy while you can. If you care about this nation, then you can start at the very least by changing your pseudonym.
Posted by: Jackass | 06/07/2007
"it is not proven that 30% of singaporeans are poor"; sure
you can say that, but I assume you do not deny quite a lot
of people are poor? take just the two murder cases: these
two families are not the ones enjoying the government-created
prosperity, are they? they do not own condos near orchard
road, shares of GLCs, etc; what should be done to help people
like that?
since you are so satisfied with the system, would you like
to comment on issues like the gap between rich and poor,
GST, ministers' salaries, whether homosexuals should enjoy
more rights, whether the SPH/mediacorp monopolies are good,
etc
Posted by: sgsociety.com | 06/07/2007
jackass wrote: "If you care about this nation, then you can start at the very least by changing your pseudonym."
I don't. My monicker stays :)
I hope someone awards you National Day honours for your "patriotism".
< vomit >
Posted by: Matilah_Singapura | 06/07/2007
sgsociety .. i never denied there are poor people in Singapore. But then again can you name me a place in the world where poors do not exist. Tell me a place where Govt policies are fair to every citizen. Politicans are politician, they care only about their well being not the citizens, they pretend to care only. Be realistic man. I am not a defender of PAP, nor do I deny there are flaws in their policies, like the ministerial salaries, gst increases, you name it. But given the circumstances and threats faced by Singapore, can any of you offer better alternatives rather than just offering blames?? I for one make my vote counts at each election and I am sure around 30 - 40% of singaporeans did that at each election. But the majority have spoken for status quo. So we should respect that. Until such time there are better alternatives, i guess we just have to put up or work around it to survive. So long as I can have a job to bring food on the table for my family, I say our system works quite well. What i am definitely fighting against is someone with the pseudonym "matilah singapura" pretending to fight for the betterment of this nation and its people when the true intent is otherwise.
Posted by: Jackass | 07/07/2007
> What i am definitely fighting against is someone with the pseudonym "matilah singapura" pretending to fight for the betterment of this nation and its people when the true intent is otherwise. <
FUCK YOU Jackass, you are a BLOODY * LIAR *. Where have I ever claimed to "fight for the betterment of this nation"?
I say again, just to ensure that the defamation on your character is crystal clear:
Jackass, you are a liar.
Posted by: Matilah_Singapura | 07/07/2007
>name me a place in the world where poors do not exist. Tell me a place where Govt policies are fair to every citizen
jackass: you did not answer my question, which is what you think ought to be done to help poor; I take it your answer is "nothing; we are already doing enough"
you also did not answer my other questions; if you want to engage in serious discussion, please dont start by adopting evasive tactics; the politicians are experts at this; you are only an amateur
Posted by: sgsociety.com | 07/07/2007
Jackass, you're the unique perfect product of Singapore's education system and public housing HDB system - the best mental and $$$ control.
Posted by: Bob H | 08/07/2007
You know what's funny? A guy who calls himself jackass is trying to tell matilahsingapura that his name is offensive. Seriously are we supposed to take you for real Jack?
And funny that you should mention government policies for the poor, especially since with pensions and medisaves now abolished, your average road sweeper is essentially doomed once he retires. But hey he can work till 70 and be proud about it! Plus you mention that the 30% figure is not proven, which obviously shows you didn't even read the blog entry about the book in the first place. Granted statistics are easy to pull out of any hat, but seeing as how 80% of Singaporeans live in HDB flats that they DON"T EVEN OWN, i don't see how far a stretch of imagination to say that all the one room flat people are not swimming in money.
Especially laughable is you thinking that all of us are trying to "Destroy the Nation". To be honest I think the PAP has done that pretty well already since the concept of Nationhood is entirely alien to the average Singaporean. Think about it: what do Singaporeans identify with? Social stability, security, clean streets, the MRT. Symbols perhaps, but hardly the sweeping sense of nationhood you might find in say... China. Why? Simply since there's hardly a sense of belonging here. You own material things, cars, a house (which you are really just renting for a long time), but do you actually contribute to your country?
This is what we are fighting for - the intangibles. The PAP gives you the material trappings of nationhood. But what really counts - the freedom of speech, the support of those less fortunate (entirely doable by the way since you challenge me to it - establish a scalable tax rate to support a social aid service. Health and education at very least should be free.) is conspicuously missing. Alot of these can only be attained at the price of commercial success - which at the end of the day is being held in the hands of a select few (who don't want things to change et all).
So you, the average joe is enjoying neither the supposed "economic success" (which is handily thrown in doubt by the book reviewed), nor the social freedoms. Just compare us to any European country which may have less capital in their reserves than Singapore. The people there earn more, and are supported from cradle to grave. And I'm hardly talking about an economic power house like Britain - go read up on Norway or the other Scandinavian states.
At the end, it is about making stubborn people like you realize that you deserve more. You've been getting the short end of the stick for so long that now you're defending it, almost like some eugenics experiment out of Huxley. Life is too short for material happiness? Well news flash you're getting neither material or intangible happiness, you are only being happy over left over scraps.
Finally, since you mentioned China, last i heard that opposition newspapers critical of the central government are making quick sales in Hong Kong (which is, after all another tiny island with no natural resources).
Posted by: emoboy | 09/07/2007
Sg wrote:
jackass: you did not answer my question, which is what you think ought to be done to help poor; I take it your answer is "nothing; we are already doing enough" you also did not answer my other questions; if you want to engage in serious discussion, please dont start by adopting evasive tactics; the politicians are experts at this; you are only an amateur.
>> Okay, let me answer you, the current system may not be adequate, but then again, I am sure the govt is not stopping at status quo, in fact if you compare the current system with say 5 years ago, you got to admit, some changes already took place. Now tell me, what proposals do you have? If you do, how are you going to fund them? Seems like you think of me as an amateur, so let’s hear from you the the expert.
Bob h wrote: Jackass, you're the unique perfect product of Singapore's education system and public housing HDB system - the best mental and $$$ control.
>> On the contrary, I spent much of my early years in Australia, but I have seen the difference, and to be honest with you, it’s best feeling when you are home around your family and your own people.
Emo wrote: You know what's funny? A guy who calls himself jackass is trying to tell matilahsingapura that his name is offensive. Seriously are we supposed to take you for real Jack?
>> The term “offensive” as you are implying is not what I was referring to matilah singapura. Simply put, how can a guy with a monicker wishing for this nation’s ill will be taken seriously as wanting to fight for its people. I guess he is unable to argue based on facts from his last reply to my posting. He mentioned that the southern part of perth is a hotbed for dissents like us … and yet now he is saying he never claims to care for this nation. Funny, I am not sure if he understand the term dissent … he can’t tell the difference between a nation, its people and its govt. So if he is not fighting for this nation, what can he be dissenting from? Himself?
Emo wrote:
And funny that you should mention government policies for the poor, especially since with pensions and medisaves now abolished, your average road sweeper is essentially doomed once he retires. But hey he can work till 70 and be proud about it!
>> What are you talking about? Do you even have a good understanding of how it works in Singapore? Since when do we have pensions for roadsweeper? CPF you mean? I think you better get your facts right. Which medisaves being abolished? In any case, do you have a better plans for this group of citizens who are lowly educated and near zero in savings? Frankly if I can still work till 70, why not, it’s much better than sitting at home and waiting to die. But I also know of many elderly singaporeans who are spending much their twilight time doing voluntary works, have you seen them?
Emo wrote: Plus you mention that the 30% figure is not proven, which obviously shows you didn't even read the blog entry about the book in the first place. Granted statistics are easy to pull out of any hat, but seeing as how 80% of Singaporeans live in HDB flats that they DON"T EVEN OWN, i don't see how far a stretch of imagination to say that all the one room flat people are not swimming in money.
>> You said it yourself, these are mere numbers, stats, depends on who and what your motives are, it is easy to re arrange the number. I can bet you, the PAP can produce even better numbers to counter the book’s claims if they wish to. On housing, do you have a better plan? With Singapore being a tiny island, do you think we can afford giving everyone freehold lands? What will be left for our grandchildren and beyond? What do you think the price will be like when that happens? Look at how Singapore has transformed itself and provided roof for many Singaporeans. Being land-scarce, I think the HDB successfully did that. On the point of one room flat people are not swimming in money .. tell me, where in this world, people are swimming in money everywhere? Wealth is distributed equally? You are living in an ideal world? There are always the poor and the rich. It is the fact of capitalism.
Emo wrote:
Especially laughable is you thinking that all of us are trying to "Destroy the Nation". To be honest I think the PAP has done that pretty well already since the concept of Nationhood is entirely alien to the average Singaporean. Think about it: what do Singaporeans identify with? Social stability, security, clean streets, the MRT. Symbols perhaps, but hardly the sweeping sense of nationhood you might find in say... China. Why? Simply since there's hardly a sense of belonging here. You own material things, cars, a house (which you are really just renting for a long time), but do you actually contribute to your country?
>> The only person I specifically said of wanting to destroy this nation, is matilah singapura and his monicker says all. Be real here, you are comparing China with its great history dating back to many thousands of years with us, a less than 50 year old nation? What do you expect? Those symbols you mention, I believe, many foreign nations wish they could have. Funny you keep mentioning renting for a long time … well I know of many friends who live in Sydney for many years and are still renting because the housing prices are reaching beyond their limit. This despite being a continent with much lands to share. As I have said in my previous posting, chasing that material dreams are not for me, I am a contented man with a family to feed. I get more satisfactions beyond materialism. Strangely unlike you who think it is impossible to attain, many like me seem to be able to find peace and satisfaction in this little island nation. I do contribute to this nation and its people, more than just sitting in front of the PC and offer unconstructive criticisms, alias no action talk only. I am sure when the time comes, I will come to defend this nation.
Emo wrote:
This is what we are fighting for - the intangibles. The PAP gives you the material trappings of nationhood. But what really counts - the freedom of speech, the support of those less fortunate (entirely doable by the way since you challenge me to it - establish a scalable tax rate to support a social aid service. Health and education at very least should be free.) is conspicuously missing. Alot of these can only be attained at the price of commercial success - which at the end of the day is being held in the hands of a select few (who don't want things to change et all).
>> Freedom of speech blah blah blah … are you saying we don’t get that here? Well maybe you just can’t open your mouth too big, especially if you have not got the correct facts or risk being sued. But believe me, people talk in the coffeshops, hawker centres, even govt offices. They talk about govt policies like ministerial salaries hikes, CPF changes, GST and much more, but do they get sent to jails? The fact that many singaporeans can access the internet and participate in various forums also says much of the progress that have taken place here. The opposition party, WP, did they get sent to jail for standing at the election? Well, at least they put their money where their mouth is, unlike many others. Ang singaporean like them, at least 30 to 40% of the population. But of course if your free speech is benchmarked against Chee Soon Juan’s tactis, then it is different. Look at how he and his party fared at the last election? So if you think your proposed social policies can work, why don’t you put them up, let singaporeans decide. Or are you saying we are not intelligent enough to see what is good for us and not? Tell me, did you ever learn economics? If so, how do you propose paying for your policies of free health and education. Even in places like Australia now the govt is moving away from being a total santa claus. Oh and you forgot to mention the fact that most these nations pay hefty taxes.
Emo wrote:
So you, the average joe is enjoying neither the supposed "economic success" (which is handily thrown in doubt by the book reviewed), nor the social freedoms. Just compare us to any European country which may have less capital in their reserves than Singapore. The people there earn more, and are supported from cradle to grave. And I'm hardly talking about an economic power house like Britain - go read up on Norway or the other Scandinavian states.
>> the funny thing about this book, so far I have browsed the internet and seems the only people who believe in it are relatively few and far in between, mainly those who have ulterior motives, may I say. The major international mass media seems disinterested or perhaps do not share the same theory. Funny you should be comparing us with the europeans, who are far more advanced, technologically and culturally. Let’s not forget that we are just a tiny island nation with no natural resources. Norway the very least can export salmon .. what are we to export? Goons? It seems that your mind is already made up with all these idealistic thoughts of western society, then I guess you should seriously consider migrating there. There is no stopping you. As for the rest of us here, we are quite happy with the way things are progressing. Again, if you feel, singaporeans are an oppressed lot, then why don’t you try to release them from their sufferings, stand for election, contribute through NGOs, and put your money where your mouth is not where you bum is.
Emo wrote;
At the end, it is about making stubborn people like you realize that you deserve more. You've been getting the short end of the stick for so long that now you're defending it, almost like some eugenics experiment out of Huxley. Life is too short for material happiness? Well news flash you're getting neither material or intangible happiness, you are only being happy over left over scraps.
>> Stubborn? I have lived my early years in Australia and even completed my university there. I have seen the difference. I have seen many who have left singapore and finally to have returned home because no place is like home, where you families and friends are. Funny that you should decide on whether I am getting material or intangible happiness, because after my living overseas experience, I truly am happy with my life. It’s a choice of how you ought to make your life happy, if you always wish for the sky, you’ll never be happy.
Emo wrote:
Finally, since you mentioned China, last i heard that opposition newspapers critical of the central government are making quick sales in Hong Kong (which is, after all another tiny island with no natural resources).
>> Although HK has no natural resources, it is a totally different from Singapore. They were under the rule and protection of Britain for decades. The land size is also much larger, now with the SAR status, they enjoy even more under China and its fast growing economy. We on the other hand live under constant economic threat from our neighbours. HK needs not worry whether they would have water one day, we constantly worry that we may not have it. The same system here won’t work there and vice-versa. Be real !
Posted by: Jackass | 10/07/2007
>Now tell me, what proposals do you have? If you do, how are you going to fund them? Seems like you think of me as an amateur, so let’s hear from you the the expert.
an old age pension would be a good start; if every citizen above 65 gets $150 a month, it would make life easier for a lot of people, and the cost would be about $0.5B, chickenfeed
compared with what is being spent on various exotic projects; the old people in the poor areas would spend their extra income at HDB shops, hawker centres, etc, so helping a lot more people than just themselves
Posted by: sgsociety.com | 10/07/2007