Singapore: Time to Remove Race Tinted Glasses

Singapore's nation building process is less than 50 years old. As nations go, Singapore has come a long way since obtaining its independence in 1965.

The physical progress is visible to everyone. Roads, buildings and subways are part of the scenery.

Singapore has done well on the human front too. The 2009 United Nations Human Development Index ranked Singapore at 23 out of 182 nations. Yet, some of the legacies of the 'Old Singapore' have not yet been exorcized.

Singapore is an avowedly meritocratic society. It is also a society extremely conscious of race.

The national identification card (NRIC) explicitly mentions race, right above date of birth. People think explicitly and subconsciously in terms of race. People are not merely Singaporeans but are instead Chinese, Malay, or Tamil Singaporeans.

Race is a complicated idea. While it normally refers only to physical aspects of individuals it is often associated with cultural characteristics as well.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines race as "a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock and [2] a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics."

The practice of Islam is generally diffused with cultural practices which predate the advent of the religion - clearly reflected in the architecture of mosques (Picture of Shah Jahan Mosque in Thatta, Pakistan)

My NRIC states my race is Pakistani.

Pakistan is a nation but the people certainly don't belong to the same stock. Standing at the entry point to India from China and the West, every invader since Alexander the Great has been adding to Pakistan's gene pool for centuries.

Yes, Pakistanis can be said to be loosely unified by some shared traits, including religion, language and dress. Even there, the differences are often stark.

Consider how the role of women differs across the country's geography. In Punjab it is commonplace for women to till the fields alongside men whereas in the Northwest Frontier province rural women lead a Taliban like veiled existence.

As for language, it is estimated that only 4% of Pakistan's population spoke Urdu as their mother tongue at independence in 1947. Today, functional Urdu is spoken by almost all Pakistanis but few speak the formal, classical version of the language.

Be that as it may, my 'Pakistani' heritage is quite meaningless in Singapore. My concern is distinct from my own race.

It pertains to the 'Malay-Muslim' question.

Singapore's Sultan Masjid located on Muscat Street

That is, the popular perception that all Singaporean Muslims are Malays and the two identities are inextricably linked. An imperfect premise which consolidates non-Malay Muslims, often with distinct religious and cultural practices, into a parallel Shariah legal system created and designed essentially for Malays.

It is true that Malays form approximately 13% of Singapore's population and comprise the largest single unitary block of Singaporean Muslims. The Malays are also guardians of a rich cultural tradition - a history of which they are rightly proud.

But what of the other Muslims who are not Malays? Those who have different perceptions of what it means to be a Muslim. Singaporean Muslims whose personal vision of Islam does not include burying placentas or the practice of female circumcision.

The Islamic world is by no means homogenous.

Between the black and white, the finer shades of grey are easily discernible. An examination of Islam in environments as disparate as Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Indonesia and Turkey reveals some of the internal differences and contradictions.

In essence, the 'New Singapore' warrants a review of conventional thinking about Muslims in Singapore. The approach towards the Muslim community must be distinct from the approach to the Malay community, recognizing that the Malay community is a subset of a larger Muslim community (and not vice versa).

Like most aspects of Singapore, race relations have considerably evolved during the last four decades. An emerging national consciousness has reduced the need for race based politics. Additionally, the lines within and between the various segments of society are blurred by the changing demographics of the city-state.

Although a controversial subject, Singlish (or Singaporean English) is a uniting factor among Singaporeans of all races

Surely, there must be others who believe a new race has emerged in the last forty years - the Singaporean race? A tribe best characterized best by its language.

Academics refer to the unique tongue as 'Singlish.'

By Blind Faith Alone

The concept of 'political correctness' (PC) has changed the way individuals behave in modern society.

Wikipedia defines PC as "a term applied to language, ideas, policies, or behaviour seen as seeking to minimize offense to gender, racial, cultural, disabled, aged or other identity groups. Conversely, the term "politically incorrect" is used to refer to language or ideas that may cause offense or that are seen as unconstrained by orthodoxy."

Physically surviving in an urban concrete jungle is one reality while navigating through a multi-cultural and multi-religious society is a challenge of a completely different sort.

Consider Singaporeans who do not know me too well but wish to meet me socially. Dare they ask me out for drinks? If we decide on a meal is it necessary for the food to be halal – and can they order alcoholic drinks or pork dishes while eating on the same table with me? If one of us is a Hindu then maybe a vegetarian restaurant is our only option.

Those are all serious questions and different people will answer them in different ways. In the case of Muslims, I am sure that the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) will have certain PC guidelines which will increase Singapore's 'common space.'

However, life does not always have to be so serious. Often there are situations where split second decisions on simple but possibly sensitive issues are required.

A recent experience at Somerset MRT station will illustrate my point.

For those not familiar with Somerset station, there are currently many temporary pathways and detours due to construction work. The entry and exit paths are divided by a metal barrier and human traffic flows in both directions are considerable, especially during peak periods.

A blind man was travelling down the escalator in front of me. Once he reached the ground level he started waving his cane from left to right while walking against the flow of people.

Picture a sea of people walking in one direction suddenly faced with a man violently swinging a cane raised about six inches above the ground. People were jumping as if they were sprinters running a hurdle race – the knock-on effect meant others were violently running into each other as the person in front of them suddenly stopped to avoid walking into the blind man!

Do I help the gentleman, watch the show or just pretend that nothing unusual is happening?

I dashed across grabbed the man's left arm firmly and asked him if he needed help to get to the station platform. He shrugged off my hand and politely informed me that he was fine and knew exactly where he was going.

I smiled as I thought about the disruption and the high jumpers he will create during his remaining 30 or so meters walk. No doubt, he will board his train and reach his destination.

Acts of faith require a lot of bravery and a little bit of folly. Such acts are not always religious in nature

I could not help pondering what the incident reveals about human nature. On what occasions do we steel ourselves and face the world alone, optimistic that we will ultimately succeed irrespective of the hardship (to us and others) on the way.

Often it is harder to accept our own personal limitations and graciously accept assistance from others than it is to move forward on blind faith alone.  

The Temasek Charter 2009 – a Post Mortem

Temasek Holdings Charter 2009 has generated considerable debate within Singapore. Given the size and importance of Temasek one can understand why.

In 2008, Singapore's GDP was measured at S$ 257 billion while at last count the Temasek investment portfolio was valued at approximately S$ 130 billion. The numbers indicate why constructive debate about Temasek's future is meaningful for all Singaporeans.

The 2009 Charter has made two key changes. Both the modifications are interlinked.

Firstly, the new Charter defines Temasek as "an investment company managed on commercial principles to create and deliver sustainable long-term value for our stakeholders."

As a corollary to the above the new Charter declines to mention any explicit role in 'Godfathering' any part of Singapore's economy or capital markets.

The door remains ajar in case the Board and government decide active intervention by Temasek is required.  This is due to the ambiguity in the new Charter about the Board's ultimate responsibility, is it due to 'stakeholders' or 'share holders.'

Consider that Temasek is a commercial investment company responsible to stakeholders or is it "an active value-oriented investor ... in order to create and maximise shareholder value." (Emphasis added by author.)

It may sound like semantics but note that the stakeholders include all Singaporeans whereas the shareholder is technically only the Singapore government.

Take a situation where the government encourages the Temasek Board to invest in the under construction casinos or some other investment for 'the public good.'

Whether such an investment will result in long term value creation for Singaporeans can be endlessly debated. Institutional investors like Temasek make investment decisions based on a proprietary decision making process and the consequent lack of transparency may raise the hackles of the wider public.

Temasek Holdings was formed to manage the investments of the Singapore government. Until recently it played a pivotal role in developing the city-state's economy.

However, a lot has changed since Temasek's incorporation in 1974.

Singapore is now a developed nation with a sophisticated economy and capital markets structure. The government may have directed growth in the last four decades but the future lies with the private sector.

In a recent opinion piece the Money Editor of the Straits Times asked, "Who will grow the next SIA or Keppel? Shouldn't this special nurturing role be part of Temasek's role?"

The answer is the domestic and international capital markets.

If any business is commercially viable then, at a price, it will be able to raise financing for itself. Size is not an argument any longer. The international capital markets can absorb transactions of almost any size.

Today's Singapore no longer requires Temasek to play the role of the stock and bond markets.

The author goes on to suggest that Temasek can play a part in developing an 'eco-system' to support industry clusters. "There have been many calls for the investment agency to earmark some of its resources for investment in smaller Singapore companies that need that extra boost to grow."

Nothing wrong with the suggestion provided that any such investments by Temasek be made on commercial terms, in line with its charter. If Temasek wishes to create a unit to invest in unlisted small businesses or act as an incubator for others then it is free to do so.

For a long term institutional investor, there is no contradiction between acting commercially and investing in large green field projects / initiatives as long as the target investment returns are quantified.

If subsidies are required then they should come directly from the government's operating budget and not from the savings of Singapore citizens.

Temasek is not the government's 'investor of the last resort' and nor is it a charitable organization.

Temasek is an investment vehicle that is managing money on behalf of Singaporean citizens, the ultimate beneficiaries. How do Singaporeans, or indeed the Board, measure the long term performance of Temasek.

Performance measurement is critical not just to ensure that the management is held accountable for its action but also as a means to utilize the returns.

To illustrate, let's say an individual investor makes an investment of $100 and he expects an 11% p.a. return over 5 years. At the end of 5 years the investor determines that the return on his investment has been (say) 14% p.a.

In all likelihood the investor will take a portion of his excess returns (the equivalent of 3% p.a. for 5 years) and use it to reinvest elsewhere or for consumption purposes.

Now substitute Singapore citizens for the investor and Temasek as their investment manager. In other words, if Temasek exceeds its target investment return then as the owners of the funds Singaporeans should see the benefits.

At some point the government must create a mechanism for returning excess investment returns to their source – the Singapore taxpayer.

The Norwegian sovereign fund provides 4% of its annual return to the government each year. This not necessarily the preferred way of returning a national fund's benefits but it illustrates the principle.  It may be difficult to execute an equitable mechanism for distribution but an effort must be made.

Temasek has been entrusted with public money to invest on behalf of the nation. If it does well the benefits should accrue not just to its employees but to the nation at large. When there are investment losses the entire nation feels the pain, if only in sentiment.

In order to avoid future controversy the government will be wise to offer greater clarity to the Board about Temasek's sole purpose, i.e. to invest profitably for the benefit of Singaporeans.

Some have cautioned against dropping the reference to Temasek's nurturing role but business entities operate best when focused on clear long term objectives. There is too much money at stake in Temasek for there to be any confusion about possibly conflicting roles between 'stakeholders' and 'shareholders.'

Being transformed into a commercial investment fund operation will reduce the temptation of a political government using Temasek as an investor of last resort.

Imagine how many proton car manufacturers can be supported by Temasek if a future government of Singapore decides that such projects are required for 'national development purposes.'

Has Singapore Lost the Race to Hong Kong?

The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) appears to have stepped up enforcement of regulation pertaining to irregular trading at the Singapore stock exchange recently. In the last few weeks, several improper share trading cases have either come before the courts or been settled out of court.

The most high profile case concerns the actions of Dr. Tan Chong Koay and his Pheim Asset Management (Asia) and Pheim Asset Management (Malaysia). In litigation before the Singapore High Court, the MAS have accused Dr. Tan of manipulating the share price of United Envirotech in December 2004. Envirotech was listed on the Singapore Exchange in April 2004.

The MAS moves come hard on the heels of tough action by Hong Kong's Securities and Futures Commission (SFC). Since July 2008 the SFC has successfully prosecuted nine cases of insider trading. The proceedings represent a drastic shift for a city where insider trading was not a criminal offense until 2003.

Notably, some of the SFC successes have involved influential Hong Kong businessmen.

Mr. Richard Li's attempts to privatize telecommunications provider PCCW were scuttled after SFC efforts. Another case involved the Chinese electronics tycoon, Mr. Huang Guangyu and his alleged attempts at securities fraud in the shares of GOME Electrical Appliances Holdings Ltd.

Are the MAS actions meant to signal that Singapore remains a serious regional stock exchange and is not to be left behind in the race for regional financial leadership?

A stock exchange is a key part of any vibrant capital market. Without a deep and liquid stock exchange, the development of a robust financial sector is seriously limited.

In the 1990s, Singapore's outlined its aspirations to become a regional financial hub. A key plank of the strategy centred on encouraging Singapore's development as a regional hub for the asset management business.

The plan made eminent sense, especially given the large pools of investable capital available to the government through various entities such as GIC and Temasek Holdings. It was believed the capital will be used to reward new and existing asset management businesses that expanded operations in the Republic.

Singapore has lost the race to become an asset management center but has emerged as a leading player in the private banking industry

One can argue that until several years ago Singapore was competing fairly effectively with Hong Kong in the asset management area. It has a competitive business cost structure. The regulatory framework is world class. The legal and operating environment is simple, clear and transparent.

Even Singapore's attractiveness as a place to live and work was being reviewed so as to shed the city's international image as dull and boring city. Strait jacket Singapore was loosening up on its strict social mores and its PR machine was advertising the fact.

Without a doubt, it takes time for a city to establish itself as an international financial centre. There are many factors and a confluence of events which determine success, or lack of it.

Broadly speaking, Singapore remains in the running as a regional financial center. The city plays a significant role in the global foreign exchange market and is a strong (new) player in the private banking arena.

But in the area of asset management and capital markets Singapore's growth has been lacklustre. The following data illustrates the extent of the gap which has opened up between the exchanges of Hong Kong and Singapore:

                                                          Singapore            Hong Kong

Market Capitalization (USD Billion):265                     1,329

Share Turnover (USD Billion):        260                       1,630

Listed Companies:                          767                       1,261

(All data is for calendar year 2008.)

Unfortunately, Singapore's stock exchange has not provided a solid foundation from which to build a regionally competitive capital market. The inadequacies of size and liquidity are painfully evident to local and regional market participants. 

MAS efforts in enforcing a strict regulatory framework are welcome as no exchange can thrive unless it is well regulated. Even so, without increasing its size no amount of transparency will catapult Singapore's stock exchange into the big league.

Singapore: Are Litter and Cyclists the Price of Freedom and Foreign Talent?

Five years is a long time.

Interest rates change, economies fall into recession, Malays become generals and Singapore becomes a tributary of China or India (depending on your neighbourhood).

Ok, so I exaggerate slightly but you get the message.

Much, including the city's demographic composition has changed in Singapore since I left for the Middle East in January 2004.

In the last few years, Singapore has seen a large influx of foreigners from China, India and other ASEAN nations

Earlier this decade, expatriates were still 'traditional' expats who relocated to Singapore to take up jobs in the regional offices of large multinational corporations (MNC). Once a standard 3-5 year contract was up they moved to whichever new city the corporate head office decided they were needed.  

There were exceptions but generally that's the way it was.

Fast forward five years to 2009 and let's examine the differences.

Gone are the generous salaries and benefits that 'international staff' received a few years ago. Many live in public housing. Expats are merely foreigners living and working in Singapore.

Foreigners work in all segments of Singaporean society.

Government officials argue that foreigners provide a much needed buffer in times of an economic downturn, such as we are in now. The contention is that foreigner workers are let go before locals and thus they create a natural 'shock absorber' for locals.

There were few foreign residents from mainland China and almost none from smaller ASEAN nations like Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar or Cambodia. Today it is hard not to come across someone from the PRC during a normal day's routine.

The smaller ASEAN nations seem to have encroached upon the Filipinos traditional turf in the service industry. New blood is good.

Change regenerates, invigorates and keeps the competitive and creative juices flowing. In the Singapore context, immigrants also expand the small domestic consumption base.

Singapore's strict laws are still in place but enforcement is not as stringent as in the past

But immigrants often bring with them social habits which Singapore worked hard to expunge from its society, like respect for common spaces.

Litter is everywhere. Footpaths are strewn with the plastic bags, McDonald's cups, beer cans and all types of refuse.

Cyclists have taken over footpaths. Pedestrians walk the pavements in terror of cycles speeding past them. It is necessary to have eyes in the back of one's head while walking around housing estates.

Pay someone enough and they will stuff mailboxes, post flyers and anything else that either borders on the illegal or is outright illegal.

Singapore is known internationally as a 'fine' city where everything from chewing gum to spitting is liable to a hefty fine. That was 2004. In 2009, enforcement of cycling and littering laws is a relic of the past.

The authorities seem to have been overcome with inertia. The general population has acquiesced itself to its littered surroundings. Yes, the odd complaint letter in the Straits Times is published and some bureaucrat dutifully responds but action on the ground is markedly absent.

Today's Singapore is the new, hip and happening international financial capital where everything from litter to blatant violations of traffic regulations are tolerated. The focus is on activities such as the Formula One night race or the arts scene.

Tourists and visitors to Singapore only get a small peek into the 'real' Singapore

Tourists walk around Orchard Road and not HDB housing estates. They are neither endangered by cyclists on pavements and nor do they see the litter.

There is a glimmer of hope (yes, I am an optimist).

The authorities recently undertook a campaign to keep food and drink off the subway system. The blitzkrieg campaign to enforce the rules handed out a large number of fines. The effects are visible and the operation is working.  

Perhaps the government will embark on a similar drive against cyclists and litterbugs soon.

It is imperative that the authorities get tough soon or the situation will completely spin out of control. At this rate of decline, I will be writing about Singapore's black market in chewing gum next year!

How very un-Singaporean.

Ben and Jerry’s, the Big Mac and Now the Pineapple – Singapore’s Expensive!

Singapore's increasing cost of living has been widely discussed in the media.

The price of an HDB flat, the Big Mac Index and even the price of Ben and Jerry's have provided Singaporeans with food for thought.

The Economist magazine's Big Mac Index is useful if one enjoys eating junk food. However, in today's health conscious environment maybe the price of a tropical fruit like pineapple is more appropriate?

Below is a sample of prices for a pineapple in various international cities. Singapore is expensive (as expected) but the real surprise is Shanghai.

City	Price (in USD)
Singapore	3.16
London	3.14
New York	5.99
Tokyo	5.88
Jakarta	0.63
Kuala Lumpur	0.74
Shanghai	5.69
Hong Kong	2.97
Bangkok	1.41
Paris	4.66

As soon as a Durian Cost of Living Index is calculated I will be sure to share the findings with you!

The above prices are from September 15, 2009 and are based on foreign exchange rates as at the same date (the Wall Street Journal).

Singapore’s New Media: New for How Long?

Singapore's New Media (NM) is growing up – and being taken seriously.

The rivalry between the Mainstream Media (MSM) and the NM is heating up. The past few weeks have seen statements from the Acting Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts Lui Tuck Yew and Prime Minister Lee directly addressing the NM.

The Singapore establishment is increasingly reacting to the online 'chatter' among Singapore's netizens

Several other instances point to the increasing importance of the NM in Singapore's evolving media structure.

An online site reported on a controversial speech delivered by NMP Viswa Sadasivan at the LKY School of Public Policy last month. The NMP wrote a detailed letter to the site to request the report be removed from the site.

If Singapore's internet media is an unimportant channel for news the NMP will not have been concerned about the report.

Then about a week ago the Straits Times newspaper published an opinion piece in its print edition which was taken directly from an internet site, the Online Citizen. The publication by the newspaper confirms that at least selective content in the NM is credible and worthy of a broader mainstream audience.

Statistically, a popular local online site recently reported that a media survey indicates that the top 5 search terms during the last 24 months are for independent online content providers, including the Temasek Review.

The last piece of evidence comes through an opinion piece by the co-author of the book, "Men in White." In the Straits Times article "Criticise, but please get your facts right", Mr. Sonny Yap (also the Deputy Political Editor of the newspaper) directly addressed criticisms raised by Singapore netizens.

Clearly, the NM is now being heard by all levels of Singapore's society.

While some may viewed it as a threat others see it as a 'balancing' factor in a society where the state owns and regulates all traditional media.

It is still too early for the NM to believe it has come of age. Much of the NM's content remains poorly written and relies on blatant anti-establishment diatribes for impact. Facts are often sacrificed at the altar of expediency.

Yet, the popularity of the NM in Singapore is testament to the dearth of outlets available for constructive debate. The NM is trying valiantly to fill the gap. Naturally, it is expected that the professionalism associated with NM outlets will increase over time.

It may not be long now before the New Media becomes defunct and becomes a part of the Mainstream Media.