The "disproportionality" phenomenon is associated with "first past the post" electoral systems. However, it cuts both ways -- near the equilibrium point, small changes in votes can lead to big changes in parliamentary seat distribution.

Proportional representation would reduce the disproportionality, but can introduce problems of its own. For example, consider a parliament of 45% Alpha Party and 45% Beta Party: were Alpha and Beta to be irreconcilable, it would be the Omega Party with 10% of seats that dictates policy.

Speranza Nuova,

Thanks for your comments. I am in no way advocating proportional representation for Singapore. There are many other ways to reduce disproportionality and PR is only one solution. I am pointing to the high Gallagher Index Score that Singapore has. The Gallagher Index (or least squares index) is used to measure the disproportionality of an electoral outcome, that is the difference between the percentage of votes received and the percentage of seats a party gets in the resulting legislature. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallagher_Index

In a eight person senior seminar project in Carleton, we calculated the G score for 70 electoral regimes from 1992-2001. These regimes cover range from Singapore, Malaysia, Belize, Colombia, United States, Bahrain, Mexico, Bangladesh, India to Botswana. Singapore has the highest G score in the world, with a score of 27.01 from 1992-1997 and 26.01 from 1997 to 2001.

For comparison sake for similar systems (first past the post), Malaysia has already pretty high G scores of 4.61 from 1995 to 1998 but not even close to Singapore. S Korea from 1993 to 1995 has a G scores of 9.92. I can share with you other countries G score if you are interested.

Singapore's high G score can be attributed mainly to our Multi-member district format, in which winner takes all in a MMD or in Singapore-speak Group Representation Constituency. Many countries have MMD systems (for example Chile), but within theor MMD system, seats are allocated proportional to the votes (although such a system still favors large parties and create higher G) No other country in the world has such a electoral system, except for Malta, whose G score is significantly lower than Singapore in any case.

One way to reduce G in Singapore is to make the allocations of our GRC seats proportional to the number of votes received. Even small changes such as reducing the size of GRC may have an effect in reducing G.

Good points that you brought up.

You said, "Economic elites in Singapore are largely conservative in their political outlook, either out of genuine content, fear or apathy. There is unlikely to be a Richard Li or Lee Shau-Kee in Singapore calling for more political reforms."

I have observed that few of the so-called economic elites (including those who have been co-opted by the govt) are fully supportive of the PAP's politically repressive tactics. 'Acquiescent' would be the word to describe it. Sadly, the culture of pragmatism in S'pore prevents our Richard Li's from speaking up for ideals, even if they know in the long run it will benefit our society. My feeling is that until these elites weigh in with their influence, there will be little movement in the political climate in the near future.

Wayne -- thanks for the reply! Just wondering, isn't "allocation of GRC seats proportional to the number of votes received" similar to proportional representation?

In any case I'd be most grateful if you could email me the seminar project paper, if that's okay with you. Am quite curious to learn more. :-)

Is freedom of assembly incongruent with economic growth and low unemployment? Must economic and social elites necessarily be conservative in their political outlook in an economically successful polity?

These questions on their own would be pretty absurd, considering the many liberal, democratic countries that are economically successful. However, I take it that you are implicitly assuming there is something about the nature of small states that makes it difficult for them to embrace liberalism without losing out economically. It's not obvious to me that something is, though, or whether it even exists.

Oops, should be "it's not obvious to me *what* that something is"

Gerald,

Is interesting you brought out the notion of "culture of pragmatism"? What is culture? Isn't it a dynamic interaction of belief systems over time? It is often neither monolithic or static? I don't think Richard Li of Hong Kong is any less pragmatic (perhaps even more) than the rich billionaires and millionaires in Singapore. A human being not only sees life through a prism of money and economic but also considers too the altruistic value of living. It simply takes a little more courage, tact, reason and guts to say the truth.

Twasher,

Thanks for your comments. I am not implying that there is something about the nature of small states that makes it difficult for them to embrace liberalism without losing out economically. But it is interesting that you brought out the notion of small states and control. From a historical perspective, both Hong Kong and Singapore was formed by the British on ideas of enlightenment and that the government that does best does least. What happened in our post colonial destinies that shape our islands today?

Speranza Nuova,

Yes, thank you for pointing out that. It is similar to proportional representation but quite different as in it totally shuts out third parties. The Chile electoral system was designed in the Pinochet authoritarian era which favors the Conservative Party. According to this new system, parties or coalitions continue to present lists with a candidate for each of the two seats to be filled. The law considers both the votes for the total list and the votes for individual candidates. The first seat is awarded to the party or coalition with a plurality of votes. But the key is that first- place party list must receive twice the vote of the second-place list, if it is to win the second seat. This means that in a two-list contest a party can obtain one seat with only 33.4 percent of the vote, whereas a party must take 66.7 percent of the vote to gain both seats. Any electoral support that the largest party gets beyond the 33.4 percent threshold is effectively wasted unless that party attains the 66.7 percent level.

Consider a 3 member GRC in Chile. The first seat is definitely won by the Conservative Party because it will have a plurality of votes over the divided opposition center-left parties. The second seat is likely to go to the Conservative Party again unless the socialist parties can win a 66.7% of the votes in that district, which is almost impossible. Even if the socialist parties have a plurality of votes in the GRC, it can only take 2 seats unless it has a 33.4% of the votes. In addition, in such a system, can you detect any room for third or centrist parties?

Thus, this system favors the conservative party because the center left wing opposition in the democratic era is more divided. (There is only one conservative party as opposed to numerous left wing parties)

I see a parallel situation in Singapore. If Singapore adopts such a system, many GRCs would return all PAP candidates because PAP has had the capability to win 66.7% of votes in constituencies. Even if the opposition manages to win a plurality of votes in a GRC, PAP will still be guaranteed one seat in a 3 member GRC because it is unlikely that the opposition would win 66.7% of the votes in the GRC.

The project dataset (which comprises of almost 50 political, social and economic variable) is actually held by my Professor to be cleaned up. I will inform you once he makes it public for data analysis. As for my own seminar paper, I wrote on something unrelated to G. I wrote on the topic of "Democracy and Corruption in East and Southeast Asia", a paper I will be presenting at an conference next month.

If you are interested in comparative political institutions, a good classic book to read will be

Arend Lijphart, Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms & Performance in Thirty-six Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999. ISBN 0-300-07893-5

You can read more about him here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arend_Lijphart

both Hong Kong and Singapore was formed by the British on ideas of enlightenment and that the government that does best does least

Not really. Singapore applies "does best does least" only in the economic realm. In the social realm, it applies quite the opposite policy.

Twasher,

I was talking about the formation of colonial Singapore and Hong Kong. Both polities were founded by the British on ideas of enlightenment and that the government that does best does least. See Carl Trocki, Singapore; wealth, power and culture of control, London: Routledge, 2004. Again my question, what happened in our post colonial destinies that shape our islands today?

Wayne,

While I subscribe to a dynamic notion of culture, WRT to Singapore's 'culture of pragmatism' raised by Gerald, if framed a la Clifford Geertz's Interpretation of Cultures where culture is a set of durable symbols that transmits societal knowledge over long periods of time, this CoP could affect the preferences of economic elite actors not by determining their actions by limiting their options but by ranking their preferences. Which in turns leads back to your question about how our post colonial histories have shaped our current political systems.

This difference is linked to the question of survival. Chua Beng Huat (Communitarian Ideology and Democracy in Singapore) has identified survivialism as the root ideology for pragmatism and non-liberal communitarianism. Precisely because HK continues to enjoy a great power guarantee for its existence that the question of political liberalization does not threaten the survival of HK itself in the eyes of Hongkongers; a PAP-style narrative about being the One and Only Party that can guarantee the Singapore polity's survival is irrelevant there at best.

Again my question, what happened in our post colonial destinies that shape our islands today?

I believe the key event that led to the sad state of politics we have today was the 1966 general elections when Barisan Sosialis boycotted the elections. This allowed PAP a clean sweep and subsequent free reign in Parliament. Barisan Sosialis leader Lee Siew Choh later acknowledge this as a grave mistake, and apologised to voters during an election rally in 1980.

Ringsei,

Thank you for your comments. I think it is unhelpful to see "culture" as a set of durable symbols because this will

(1) essentialize people and groups while in fact there's a lot of pluralism and dynamism within and between culture in the form of people's attitudes towards symbols, myths, rumors and everyday appropriation of "commodified" culture [See Carol Gluck work on Japan's Modern Myth; Ideology in Late Meiji Japan] (worse case scenario is to recall Huntington's delineation of all East Asians into "confucianism"; worse still political scientists start to use these terms and code them in dataset and run regression analysis to see if "culture" affects democracy EEEEEEKS!)

(2) invokes the problematic notion of "reading back history". For example, when can we say there's a change in political culture towards pluralism in Taiwan? When it became democratic? When Chiang Kai Shek died? When Lee Teng Hui became President? Isn't that artificially creating popular temporal boundaries of such changes of culture when in fact within dominant cultures, strands of pluralism persists and exists? Perhaps it is helpful to see culture in keys---over time, some keys become major keys while others become minor keys. That's the reason why I don't buy into the notion of "hegemony"; hegemony is a sort of political narrative written by the elites to consolidate their position while in fact social dynamism can exist and do exist outside of the sphere of the state.

I am sure the Hong Kong government often tells its citizens not to rock the boat or else Hong Kong will go under without them (Pro Beijing parties and friends). That's the reason why Hong Kong independence question is so remote; a significant number of the popular accepts this form of political arrangement of dependence on dual sovereignty.

I agreed on Elite should get top pay, therefore if Minister should get that top pay inorder to maintain a honest and clean government, then after all we still need some monitoring system to keep track of their moral conduct......becuase money is still after all a " considerable " one......

Instead of reporting the income, condo, bungalow and other asset to the prime minister, I suggest to set up a similiar ICAC as per in Hong Kong.
And this organisation must not be reporting to anyone in the existing cabin but to the President, since President is in charge of the key to our country reserve, and the organisation should also have the authority to disclose whatever finding to the public after reporting the finding to President.

Hong Kong ICAC,


Common Corruption problems of public sector organisations :

Problem
Common Cause
Cures

Selective enforcement
Unenforceable legislation and unclear enforcement policy
Review legislation and develop realistic enforcement policy

Abuse of office
Inadequate supervision and instructions
Enforce supervisory accountability and lay down clear instructions and delegated authorities

Administrative delay
Cumbersome and unnecessary procedures
Streamline procedures, set performance pledge and monitor progress

Leakage of confidential information
Inadequate control measures
Establish proper security measures to safeguard confidentiality of information


Public not aware of their rights and obligations
Inadequate publicity of policies and procedures
Enhance transparency of policies and procedures

ICAC,

I have not mentioned Ministerial Salaries or (ICAC) Corruption in my post, and I am not sure where you are going with this.

Hi Wayne,

I am just doing some comparsion of Hong Kong and Singapore, and what are the pointers that we need to learn from Hong Kong in order to maintain the survive of the small state.

There are many pointers that we need to learn from them, especially on the self sustain.........

e.g. How they attract real talents and expats into the country, which create more jobs for the local, not attract hungry foreigners which competite with the local jobs .......

Another e.g, they scrap the GST plan, on how they justify the scrap, which why we can't do it?

GRC or no-GRC, I'm fairly confident that the G score would remain the same. The PAP contests elections using its brand name, and its outstanding performance in SMCs only reinforces my belief that it can easily sweep almost all the seats in parliament even if there is no Minister backing the constituency. The difference is that Singapore is an incredibly small nation. The views of heartlanders in Hougang are not likely to differ very much from those in Tanjong Pagar. Singaporeans are very brand-name conscious, so LTK is likely to continue winning Hougang as much as LKY would win (or remain uncontested) in Tanjong Pagar. The real problem is that opposition candidates have an uphill struggle getting any form of recognition since the brand name of their party is obviously not as strong as the PAP, so they either need very strong personalities (and positive media coverage) to counter-balance the lack of party branding or they will always lose with just 33.3% of the vote.

The only way to reduce that G score is through some form of proportional representation as you suggest. But to begin with Singapore has always used a first-past-the-post system even before the PAP came into power. It's going to be very difficult to change this system because clearly, it has turned out to work very well for the PAP, even though it was not the party that came up with it.

And considering that this government has a phobia of having "10 or 20 opposition members in parliament", I strongly doubt that they feel the need to even the playing field. Instead, they may try to up the number of NMPs to compensate for the lack of opposition views. It seems that at least some NMPs are doing their job despite not having any voting power.

Chrischoo,

I would have to disagree with you here. Surely the33.3% in 2006 is an "average" that has not much significance unless our entire country is One entire GRC. (And yes, Israel is one entire GRC with a proportional representation system). First, SM Goh Chok Tong has said recently that the GRC system had to stay in order to allow first time PAP MPs in, suggesting that GRC had a powerful effect in supporting the victory of the incumbent. A fellow SA writer wrote to the ST forum last year arguing that,

"Most Singaporeans agree that the GRC system benefits the PAP because of the incumbency effect, and this will encourage more people to join the PAP. If the intention was to attract potential ministers, doesn't providing them easier access to Parliament cast doubt on their ability to win an individual contest? A candidate of ministerial calibre should be able to convince voters to support him in a one-to-one contest, rather than entering Parliament without a contest."

PAP's "outstanding" performance in SMC is of course influenced by national average as a result of popular support, but I posit that the opposition has known for sometime that that few existing SMCs, despite their smaller size, in a GRC dominated landscape would not return an opposition MP. I see a trend in opposition's strategy in moving its higher caliber candidates to GRC, in an attempt to beat the PAP at its own game, especially in the last two elections. In addition, Singapore's SMCs are usually in constituencies that have higher PAP support such as Middle Class MacPherson which has seen massive upgrading, upper class Bukit Timah and Joo Chiat whose residents are less inclined to rock the boat.

Let's further examine GRCs over time. Take for e.g. Eunos GRC. In 1988, WP led by Lee Siew Choh and Francis Seow won 49.1% of the votes in there. In 1991, the WP led by former BS leader Lee Siew Choh won 47.6% of the votes in a 4 member GRC. Could there be at least many precincts in both 1988 and 1991, perhaps in the more lower-middle Bedok North Area of Eunos FRC, that could return one WP MP, if Eunos GRCs was broken up? A similar case can be made for Ching San in 1997 and Alijunied in 2006.

Even so, as many have pointed out, SMCs has disappeared over the years, especially in constituencies where the opposition has done well. It is called the phenomena of Bradell Heights SMC which disappeared in 1997 after Sin Kek Tong won 47.6% for the SDP in 1991. Other 1991 Single member constituencies which disappeared in 1997 include Changi where WP Tan Bin Seng won 47% of the votes, Ulu Pandan where SDP Ashleigh Seow won 43%, 1991 Nee Soon South where SDP Low won 47.2%, Bukit Batok where SDP Kwan Yue Yang won 48.2% and so on.

First past the post was a system envisioned by the British to make voting as equitable as possible. Of course, now political scientists know that FPTP system, while compensating for high G or less equitable representation, tends to create two party systems and stable governments (Britain do not have yet a coalition government for many decades already). However, I wonder if the British people would accept such a system in Multi-member districts?

The GRC was a brilliant political institution to maintain adequate racial representation in a multi-racial society when it was first created. However, by extending its function in recent elections to parachuting first time PAP MPs into parliament had meant that GRCs got bigger. In doing so, it creates very high barriers for non-incumbents to enter parliament. As our society become more complex and educated, we must ask ourselves, are GRCs making our election more or less meaningful? If so, what does it say about political representation that a parliamentary democracy needs in order to function as one?

P.S. I don't see the number of NMPs and Opposition MPs being a zero sum game. Why can't there be more NMPs as well as opposition MPs? Why are we thinking of them in terms of zero-sum games?

I agree with you on most counts. In fact, I wrote something like that to the ST Forum in the run-up to the 2006 GE. Please allow me to clarify:

I have no doubt that if every constituency was an SMC, we would probably see between 4 to 6 opposition members in parliament at the very maximum. The cases you cited are largely confined to 1991 - PAP's poorest victory. Sin Kek Tong (31.52%) and Tan Bin Seng (34.99%) performed dismally in the 2006 GE, and likewise I don't think that many SMCs will vote for opposition parties, but a handful *will*. Still, 4 to 6 opposition members won't cause much of a stir. There was some talk that Serangoon Gardens would have been won by WP in 2006 if it was an SMC. I think the G score will still be quite poor even if we had 6 opposition members in parliament. And I think that by and large the PAP will still poll a national average of around 66.6%. They might even do better, since the opposition teams obviously had to pick GRCs that they felt they had better chances in. The only way to enter maybe 15-20 opposition members is if a party as strong as the former Barisan Socialis returns and the national average for PAP dips to around 55% (highly unlikely anytime soon I think).

However, in a full SMC election, the PAP will either need to introduce their candidates earlier or try to slow down the pace of renewal in parliament so that they can re-use some brand name MPs who have made some impact. I doubt they would have retired people like Tan Soo Khoon in the last GE if his precinct was an SMC. Ultimately, the GRC system helps the PAP renew its slate of candidates without risking defeat. I'm not saying that this is a good thing, but apparently it has a positive impact (on them, and maybe us) because they can safely retire old or non-performing candidates. Also note that there are no by-elections if an MP vacates his seat in a GRC!

Lastly, I'm not saying that we cannot have more NMPs and opposition MPs. I'm just saying that from the PAP's point of view, they would much rather jack up the number of NMPs and keep the number of opposition MPs in parliament as low as possible. It creates the desired impact - some form of debate in parliament but not threatening enough to block the passing of bills. I don't think this is healthy, but that's the way they are going to do it. Constitutionally we are allowed many more than 3 NCMPs, but they stick to the bare minimum for that and max out the number of NMPs allowed. It's obviously intentional.

Ideally, like you, I think that GRCs should either be completely abolished or at the very least brought back to the 1988 days when 3-4 man GRCs were the norm. At least most of us would get to vote... I registered while I was overseas in 2006 but no luck!

As a Hong Konger reading your piece, i am quite impressed with your grasp of the local development.

True that the recent Chief Executive election has prompted outcries pushing the government to lay out the roadmap of political development in Hong Kong, but to a large extent the society remains passive and people "experience" politics often as speculators as if they're attending shows. For most of the time, a majority of citizens here concern most about economic and social issues. And political reforms, if not comprises made by the Hong Kong (and indirectly from the Chinese) government, coupled with economy-friendly policy packages, can be regarded as sort of tactical adjustment with a larger goal to "pacify" the social discontents.

So is HK as promising as Singapore? might be, but your prime minister does have a point---on a condition that if Singaporeans are given the key to unlock the political process.

ICAC,

Singapore has a CPIB for your information. If the KTM is not mistaken, the CPIB currently reports directly to the PM. Your suggestion to have CPIB report to the President is interesting and to some extent it makes sense.

The President is currently elected independently and he doesn't have any real executive powers so it's hard to imagine what corruption he can commit. Finally, the President is paid very well and unusually quite old (and therefore not likely to have much of an need to spend a lot of money).

The KTM likes your suggestion. :-)

Chrischoo,

Thanks for your comments. Will the G score fall significantly if Singapore has 5 or 6 MPs? Doing a simple math will suggest that G scores does fall significantly if the last election yielded 5 opposition MPs. But as you point out, the issue goes beyond perhaps the mathematical question here.

The retirement question of PAP MPs is a issue of empirical question. It depends on what your views are; if you believe that most people who vote PAP vote PAP for its brand not individual candidates and vice-versa for the opposition, that perhaps your issue is a non-starter. However, if you believe that most people vote PAP because of a superior candidate, than your considerations are real. But, should the PAP's concern on renewal be that of the people's concern?

Vic,

Thanks for your kind comments. I am not sure what you mean by Hong Kong society remaining impassionate. I was personally impressed by the turnout of the Article 23 demonstrations and I know of Hong Kong professionals and students who participate in that peaceful demonstration. The free press in Hong Kong will perhaps help to blunt what you mention the Hong Kong government is trying to do?

KTM,

As usual, very nice observation of ICAC's point =)

If "survival" means survival as an independent political entity, then of course SG has better prospect than HK now that HK is HKSAR within PRC. But in terms of economic well-being, then this is debatable since there is so much going still for HK even if Shanghai overtakes it.

But what about the long-term survival for SG as a small island nation? I prefer not to term it a City-State because that has other implications and so far as I know the City-States e.g. like Athens, eventually get swallowed up. Will SG ever return to Malaysia? Well that is the only other choice, really, apart from being forever independent. So the question is will SG one day have to return to Malaysia, in perhaps a way that HK has returned to China? This is really unlikely. But in theory it might. If Malaysia becomes authoritarian or militaristic or extreme Islamist, then for strategic reasons, it might seek to reclaim SG. KL would only succeed in a peaceful merger (as Beijing did with HK) and not by invasion (as Saddam did with Kuwait).

What might interest SG to join Malaysia? Offer a rotating Premier system i.e. with chance to become PM of Malaysia - would that not entice a future PM of Singapore to join? Offer disproportionate large no. of seats in the Malaysian Parliament, will not Singapore's future Parliamentarians go along. Throw in Brunei and its oil wealth, would such a Greater Malaysia not be attractive? To some maybe, but probably the same only issues: too many Chinese, too many urban voters, would quash this idea amongst Malaysians themselves. This idea will only win if Indonesia becomes extreme Islamist and Malaysians feel so threatened that they want to form some form of confederation with Singapore and Brunei to counter-balance an Iranian-style Indonesia. For now democratic Indonesia means Malaysia has little to be anxious about and little reason to want Singapore to return to the Malaysian fold.

SEAWatcher:

Thanks for your comments. Whether Singapore will survive (or merge with other countries) depends on numerous fortuitous factors. Some of these factors include the continual success of the global capitalist system, the ability to prevent brain drain, the perpetuation of a consumer-type political system and of course, the common reason as you point out, the success of an imagined community known as Singapore.

Whether Singapore will merge with Malaysia is frankly a very old topic. But I really appreciate that you have infused some important questions to think about for readers of SA:

"What might interest SG to join Malaysia? Offer a rotating Premier system i.e. with chance to become PM of Malaysia - would that not entice a future PM of Singapore to join? Offer disproportionate large no. of seats in the Malaysian Parliament, will not Singapore's future Parliamentarians go along. Throw in Brunei and its oil wealth, would such a Greater Malaysia not be attractive?"

Hi, I am a Hongkonger who have stayed in Singapore for 14.5 years (going through the pre-university education and SAF) before deciding to relocate back to Hong Kong in the last 4 years.

Maybe I am the best person to comment on this issue, because I am influenced by both regions.

Personally, I admire MM Lee Kuan Yew's foresight in transforming Singapore into a first class city. But, his Lee-Singapore concept instead of the Singaporean-Singapore concept will soon lead Singapore into troubles, especially after his death one day. (This view is totally objective, which is shared by many Singaporeans.) To be more precise, curbing voices down means neglecting your people's voice. Soon, no people will reflect the true situation faced by the people to the government. This is bad especially to the decision making of the government. I realize that the Singapore government has noticed this problem, and so they encourage people to be involved in politics. However, only people of similar views are recruited, and people of other views are simply feared. Singaporeans also over-rely on the government and this is a serious hinderance to economic development.

On the other hand, the government of HK is totally incompetent, relative to Singapore. This trains the people somehow. On the average, people of Hong Kong are more 'street-wise' compared to those in Singapore. They have the fighting spirit more. Recently, Hongkongers are able to combat SARS, bankruptcy, bird flu successfully. 10 years passed and a smooth transition from British to China has been carried out. Now, HK really benefits from China greatly. There are greater economic, social, education activities going on. HK people can move to mainland China to do business more effectively. Simply speaking, it is the spirit of HK people that they are able to recover so fast. Also, you can feel HK to be a more vibrant city, where talents are flocking back from elsewhere in the world.

As to Lee KY's comment that Singapore has a 'higher chance' of survival than HK, he has miscalculated the capabilities of HK people. Simply, HK people can survive without the government. HK's success today has proven this.

On the other hand, by mentioning merger again, I know that Lee KY is still unable to think of a way to restructure Singapore's economy. Unlike HK which can rely on China, Singapore is on its own. Its advantage, like port and business hub, is challenged by surrounding countries like Malaysia which is hostile to it. Its manufacturing edge today is challenged by China, which is capable of producing something 10 times cheaper than Singapore. Also, technology is booming in China (they can send space shuttle to space!) and you can see PRC students in almost all universities in the world. In general, they possess better ablility to learn and invent, compared to Singapore. So, where will Singapore stand in say 50 years time?

Well, you may argue that the biochemical industry is developing, but do you think that it is successful?

Also, Singapore is handicapped by its lack of natural resources. It depends water from its hostile neighbour. On the other hand, it has to own a huge army (that has not fought a war yet) where the officiers are mainly scholars. On the other hand, HK does not have this handicap. Being part of China, we get our resource guranteed from China. Money are reassured by the Chinese govt.

Today, HK has succeeded in transforming. Will Singapore be able to do this as well?

No doubt, Lee KY is smart and he sees that the only way of survival for Singapore is to merge with Malaysia and tap on its resources. But, the fact is that the Malaysians will not want a merger.

Personally, I am pessimistic over the future of Singapore and therefore relocate back to Hong Kong 4 years ago.

In my opinion, the only way for Singapore to survive is to let its people, ie Singaporeans, to be directly involved in the decision making of the country. Obviously a 7% GST (going up to 10% soon) is a absolute BAD policy for the people, causing resentment. How can the PAP be so 'smart' to carry this out? (HK people rejected even a 1% GST.) See, the only way of survival lies in its people. A Singaporean-Singapore instead of a Lee-Singapore is a crucial point of future success to the republic.

A sign of danger can be seen very clearly, ie. Singaporeans migrate to other countries at a substantial rate, like Australia, etc. Don't you think that this is a problem?

Well, please don't scold me or bombard me if you are not happy with it. I am talking about the truth, ie. from what I see and from what I hear. Interested people can share your opinion with me at tamama@tamama.hk

But just don't attack me. I welcome any peaceful discussion.

Hong Kong guy,

Dun worry lah, SA is quite civil and we welcome diverse views. Trolls will get deleted (and they generally don't come to karchow us). :-)

Frankly, the KTM agrees with your analysis. Singapore's situation is quite shitty compared to Hong Kong. Having China as a friendly big brother definitely helps secure the future.

Also the KTM agrees somewhat that having an incompetent government that doesn't get anything done may be better for the people because it forces the people to be more resilient. From the KTM's observations, it is indeed true that Hong Kongers are more gung-ho shit than Singaporeans (and the KTM means this in a good way).

However hor, public policy is about tradeoffs lah. It is also true that Hong Kong has a significantly larger segment of its population under the poverty line -- notwithstanding Hong Kong allegedly provides more welfare.

So you think that GST is a bad idea and Hong Kong is better because they rejected the GST? :-) First of all, despite your poor opinion of the Hong Kong government. The HK Government is not stupid. Do you think they would propose a GST and piss off the people for fun? Clearly there must be a reason for the proposed tax.

A country has to collect enough taxes to run itself. Hong Kong can get away with not imposing GST for now because the economy is booming and tax revenue will increase to take up the slack. Can this situation persist indefinitely? But of course, Hong Kong can count on Beijing to bail it out if it gets into trouble. What recourse does Singapore have?

The KTM has no disagreements with your views in principle, but he thinks that your views on public policy and taxation may be somewhat naive. The problems that Singapore will be facing as it tries to transform its economy are very serious structural problems. He doubts that even if the people have a greater say in public policy, it will make much of a difference. No hinterland means no hinterland. Small market means small market loh - though we try to sign dunno what FTAs with everybody.

A sign of danger can be seen very clearly, ie. Singaporeans migrate to other countries at a substantial rate, like Australia, etc. Don't you think that this is a problem?

The KTM actually thinks that having a mobile population is actually a good thing. Surely you know how small (and boring) Singapore is. Can we imagine everyone being cooped up and not having the opportunity to live where they want? Our problem over the next couple of years is not so much people leaving, but too many coming in and making this place to darn crowded. :-(