“I have two children in Australia. They studied there. I told them to stay there! It’s better for them to build a life there,” our 60 year-old taxi driver told us.
“Why?”
“Because Singapore is changing. It’s okay now, but it’s changing. Who knows about ten years from now? I don’t think it will be better. Better they build lives in a place where there is more room for them.”
I assumed he believed that Singapore was too restrictive and that he wanted his kids to have a more liberal environment.
“Where do you think Singapore is going?”
“It’s not like it used to be – when everyone listened. The old Mr. Lee (Lee Kuan Yew, denoted as “old” because his son Lee Hsien Loong is the current prime minister – that and he’s 87) and that generation of leaders – Rajaratnam and them….they knew the people’s hearts. They told us we were one family – we were in it together. They told us what to do and we did it. Now, people have all these ideas and questions. It was better when everyone listened and followed.”
And there it is.
Only, as much as a statement like that would ordinarily make me and Emily cock our heads and drop our jaws in incredulity, we actually adored this man.
“Singapore now, it’s all about money. Everyone wants to be better than each other. Everyone wants to be number one. They want money, money, money. We used to take care of each other, help each other out. Mr. Lee told us that our families were most important. You must be a good husband and wife to each other. A man can earn $10,000 in a day, and he can bring it home, but if he isn’t good with his wife, he can’t raise a family well. If a husband and wife are good with each other, and their children listen and do as they say, you can have a very good family.
“Families today, they don’t care. See this…this is Orchard Road. It is filled with malls up and down. All this shopping. On weekends, young families, they take their children to them and spend all day. Shopping, shopping, shopping. Where is the value in that?”
In short, he longs for the gold old days when Singaporeans worked hard, worked together and were united in building a future that had the promise of something more than just material gain.
And it all worked fine so long as Lee Kuan Yew was at the helm and everyone did as they were told.
Our taxi driver is what Singaporeans were – and the heart of what made Singapore what it is today. We love him. Something in it all made him almost huggable.
That’s the good side of Singapore. But an engineered project of this nature doesn’t come without costs. In Singapore’s case, there are a few dark elements – that parts people prefer not to discuss.
Like due process stuff that started it out.
“I’m not saying everything I did was right, but everything I did was for an honorable purpose,” Lee Kuan Yew told the New York Times in September, 2010, “I had to do some nasty things, locking fellows up without trial.”
At the beginning in the mid to late 1960s, Singapore was under siege. Malaysia expelled it, and then hated Singapore as it moved forward independently. Indonesia had issues with British Malaya becoming independent. Suhkarno, its founding President developed a police of “Konfontasi” (Confrontation) in which a barely cold war with Singapore and Malaysia developed and included actual skirmishes in Borneo at the border of Malaysian Sabah and Indonesian Kalimantan.
Meanwhile, the Chinese communist party engaged strong efforts to turn Singapore communist.
Lee Kwan Yew – who grew up in a family completely loyal to Pax Britannia – believed in capitalism and independence. He and his people feared both communists and Singapore’s neighbors. After all, no one wants konfrontasi.
With enemies outside and within, Singapore’s leaders decided to turn tough.
In 1968, two Indonesian marines landed in Singapore and committed murder. Singapore sentenced them to be hung. Despite Indonesia’s official protests, Singapore hung them in a public square – just to make the point. No lawlessness, no capitulation, sovereign Singapore.
During the period of communist activity, Singapore’s government made strong laws against communist activity and jailed numerous activists without charges or due process.
In the process of controlling the feared communist insurgency, Singapore made stringent laws on becoming a political party which continue to make it difficult to form opposition parties.
At the same time time, Singapore cleaned up corruption among police and government – at times forcing resignations of top government officials in instances of graft or wrongdoing. It may be hardline, but the government is very honest.
Freedom of speech is not absolute in Singapore. It’s one of the most common and strong Western critics. Lee Kuan Yew has defended this practice saying that not all forms of communication and expression are in Singaporeans’ interests.
For example, Singapore has always required periodicals to print letters to the editor from the Singapore government should the government disagree with an article about Singapore or its officials. Singapore does not require edits or retractions – but feels it deserves an opportunity to rebuttal. If a publication does not grant a rebuttal, Singapore reduces or cuts-off its circulation. At one time, Time Magazine and the Wall Street Journal both had restricted circulations in Singapore.
Unlike the United States and Britain, Singapore does not make public figures exempt from libel and slander. In America, the President is considered too public to be subject to libel. People have to make up their own minds about what is said about the President. This largely extends to celebrities. The higher a person’s public stature, the less likely they are to be able to sue for libel or slander – which of course, tabloids rely on.
Lee Kuan Yew has many times sued people for libel and slander and won. He donates money from his suits to charity. He has said he did it to prove a point – that honesty and fair speech are important.
Although no formal laws govern the contents of the press in Singapore, one may find that the media here are generally quite complimentary and favorable to the government.
Freedom is present in most ways, but not absolute.
In 1994, an American teenager named Michael Faye brought Singapore’s criminal laws into view of Americans and the world. When Faye – whose father was working in Singapore – vandalized a car. Singapore’s Vandalism Act called for punishment by caning. Despite protests by the United States and a personal appeal by President Bill Clinton to punish Faye in the U.S. per U.S. law, Singapore upheld its ruling and caned Faye.
Caning and capital punishment are both part of the Singaporean penal system and are both executed swiftly once conviction and any appeals are through. Unlike our legal system, appeals usually take no more than a year.
All of this is dark and bothers many westerners.
However, what I find darker is the part few people notice at all – the foreign workers.
From the 1980s onward, Singapore’s economy began to outpace its population. There simply weren’t enough Singaporeans to perform all the work there was to do. Singapore developed a system of immigration to bring in foreign workers.
Singapore is nothing if not honest – and so it is always upfront about the terms of working in Singapore including pay, accommodations and rights. In this way, it’s amazingly open and comfortable with a system of severe stratification.
Bangladeshi and Sri Lankan workers are allowed in for usually a year at a time to work construction, including sewer work, gardening and ditch digging. Thais are allowed to come for construction as well. These groups must live in company dormitories and are not allowed to walk freely in Singapore except for part of the day on Sundays.
Burmese workers face the same, only they come to be nursing assistants and personal caregivers to the elderly.
Indonesian, Filipino and Sri Lankan women are allowed in on annual visas to work as nannies and maids. Their employers can fire them for any reason, at which them they are immediately deported. Some are allowed out on days off on Sundays – but not all. Employers can set curfews or even forbid their household help from going out. Pregnancy is grounds for immediate termination and deportation.
Some Filipinos with professional credentials are allowed to come to Singapore. They typically work as nurses or in IT. Occasionally, they may be sponsored for permanent residency, but not citizenship.
Indian and Chinese nationals are admitted for professional jobs. They must possess degrees and be capable of technical work. Because of their ethnic similarities to the Singaporean population, Chinese and Indians can usually stay for several years and may be sponsored by their employers for permanent residency and even citizenship.
Because of the current economic crisis and record 15 percent unemployment in Singapore, the number of workers allowed in has been greatly reduced. However, not as much in the construction and manual labor sectors as Singaporeans generally do not want those jobs.
Singapore has no qualms about its system of workers and immigration. It feels that workers are given the opportunity to earn more than they would at home and are informed completely about what their work entails. Foreign workers make knowing decisions. Singapore is for Singaporeans – and select foreigners with the high-level talent it needs. Singapore feels comfortable in being discriminatory with the ethnicities it allows to immigrate. Why shouldn’t it choose people who better mesh with Singaporean people and culture?
For an American – particularly me – this is one of the harder things to accept about Singapore. A few of the Burmese nurses I used to recruit broke my heart with their stories. Their lives are rough. However, despite the tight conditions – it’s true that they would rather live restrictive lives in Singapore with more opportunity than live poor, oppressed lives at home.
Amazingly, all of this didn’t end my love of Singapore. In a strange way, it opened my eyes. It made me question my values and the assumptions with which I was raised.
In some cases, I judge. Locking people up in dormitories 6-7 days a week doesn’t feel right to me. However, the government demanding a letter to the editor rebuttal….why not? As a former newspaper reporter, it’s almost shocking I say this – but if a publication is to be a truly free forum of speech, what’s the harm? Is the newspaper not restricting free speech if it doesn’t print it? Let people decide for themselves.
Overall, Singapore’s structure and success are on display in front of a backdrop of hard structure and rules. Yet it works for people – like our taxi driver who when we told him that his $750 bill for a three day hospital stay was cheap by our standard, thanked us for informing him. He was getting annoyed with his government, and now he’ll happily return to voting for the party that’s always run Singapore.
Sent from my iPad
