Disclaimer: All opinions expressed herewith and henceforth at Singapore Angle are solely that of the KTM and have precious little to do with that for any of the organizations that the KTM works for, or seems to work for (including STOMP and the Ang Mo Kio Kway Teow Stall). :-)

First, let's talk about democracy. If we look at any of the existing so-called democratic countries, what's clear is that there are some really rich people, while the majority are somewhat poor. Some people may say, no lah, where got, the Americans are all very rich what.

Rich and poor is relative. The poorest of the poor in Singapore probably isn't all that poor compared to the poor in the third world countries. Of course, people will then point out that cannot compare like that, since the cost of living in Singapore is higher mah. That's precisely my point. In the same way, compared to people like Bill Gates, most Americans are poor. :-P

The other interesting observation is that taxes are progressive. That means that Bill Gates also pays significantly more taxes than the average American. In fact, the benefits that he gets from the US Government are most certainly not commensurate with what he pays in taxes.

Superficially, something isn't quite right, or is it? Why should the rich pay more taxes? I had argued in another blog entry some months back that some amount of socialism is necessary for social stability. The rich are effectively paying off the poor so that the poor will not get too jealous (or perhaps too desperate) and have to resort to robbing the rich to stay alive. Some people will talk about humanity and dunno what milk of human kindness. I'm more inclined to factor out such moral elements (or value judgments) and look at the problem from a somewhat more clinical perspective.

The question is: why are such systems stable? Why don't the rich gather up their wealth and move somewhere where they dun have to subsidize the poor? Is it a question of nationalism and/or loyalty to their countries?

With some thought, the KTM came to the conclusion that the reason why the rich live with the present situation is not a question of loyalty, it is simply because they need the poor.

Society has always had a pyramid structure, kind of like a food chain. The fat cats at the top have always lived in luxury and ruled over a broad base of peons who eke out a living day-to-day. That was the reality in the past, it is a reality in the present, and it will most certainly still be the case in the future.

This is a symbiotic relationship. The rich actually need the support of the mass of the poor to remain rich and the poor needs the patronage of the rich to survive. When the rich turns tyrannical and the poor gets pushed beyond what they can bear, a revolt happens. The leaders of the revolution then take the place of the old masters and the Circle of Life continues. This the law that governs life on Earth. :-P

What is democracy? Democracy is simply a mechanism that feeds the peons at the base of the pyramid with the illusion that they matter and do not revolt. It does however does not affect the underlying power structures. No system of government will (or at least the KTM naively believes). :-)

That said, what is the role of the Government? Volumes of books have apparently been written about this matter and unfortunately, the KTM is a lazy bum and doesn't really have the time to do his research and so he will spout whatever comes to him naturally.

The KTM believes that the primary role of the Government is to provide its citizens with opportunities. Period. More diehard socialists will ask for more, dunno what security lah, wealth, whatever. The KTM is very simple-minded and is happy to keep it simple as just equal opportunities.

An opportunity is not the same as a guarantee. People are not born equal -- and any attempts by any Government to try to ensure equality is certain to fail. Think communisim yeah?

Because a Government cannot afford a revolt by the rich (since they are paying for most things) and is in fact often controlled by the rich, there is only a finite amount of resources (money) that it has access to -- and the KTM is talking in general terms. Let's factor out the countries with oil for the sake of argument (though even oil is arguable finite).

The role of the Government at a very basic level is to regulate the distribution of tax money and determine how much goes back to who and how.

What does equal opportunity mean? It cannot mean that every citizen is guaranteed a university education at the expense of the State (like in France), even though such a scenario is desirable. This is true for two reasons: (i) money is finite and spreading it too thin will mean that the overall quality will be low; and (ii) not everyone has the aptitude for studying.

What equal opportunity means (at least to the KTM) is that given a limited amount of resources (think places at NUS/NTU) that the resources are allocated via some transparent and fair (or as fair as possible) mechanism (think 'A' Levels).

At this point, people will start talking about the late bloomers (again!). The KTM doesn't want to sound unsympathetic to their plight ('cos he is), but the problem here is that no matter how we choose to draw the line, someone is bound to fall (just barely) on the wrong side of the line.

What's more important is for people to realise that there is more than only one route to success in life (though the definition of success is also debateable). The sad thing in the KTM's opinion is that many seem to be so fixated on pursuing success on the academic route that they fail to look around.

The KTM doesn't really give too much credence to dunno what human rights, fair and/or free elections like his fellow bloggers. Such things don't really matter much (to him) as long if we have in place a system that provides equal (access to) opportunities to our citizens.

While this question may seem straightforward, it's not. How do we even begin to quantify opportunities and the access to them? Without data, we can talk till the cows come home and not come to a conclusion. :-)