
Singapore’s Midlife Crisis - jseliger
http://city-journal.org/html/singapore%E2%80%99s-midlife-crisis-14311.html
======
tixocloud
What a great and interesting article. It's also refreshing to read that a
government advisor believes that the old managerial model is outdated. While
the ruling party has maintained dominance for many years, it has also brought
stability to the country. Neighbouring countries don't enjoy the stability and
progress as much as Singapore has. In terms of citizen happiness, which is
better? It's inconclusive. People who have nothing will always want something.
And people who have something will want something else.

------
jessaustin
Having lived in Singapore for several years, I have sympathy, but truly the
"problems" described in TFA are entirely those of the "first world". Yes, when
a nation becomes wealthier than 99% of other nations, its economy _will_ grow
more slowly than it did before. It's fine to encourage growth anyway, but one
knows at the outset that returns to such efforts are limited.

The demographic concerns, too, would be no surprise to e.g. Europeans or the
Japanese. Economies in which all the slots have been filled by previous
generations, are not encouraging the current generation to procreate. Older
generations are concerned, but not enough to do anything.

Ultimately, the voters of Singapore seem content with "the deal". That is, the
Lee family has ruled for 37 out of the 50 years that Singapore has existed,
and as the most recent elections confirmed that's exactly what the voters
want. LHL is an impressive man, but are there really no other Singaporeans
capable of serving as PM? If his health fails, it seems likely that his wife
or brother would step forward as "regent" while one or two of his sons undergo
the careful grooming and seasoning required to differentiate this dynasty from
e.g. the Kims of North Korea. Any significant change to Singaporean society
will only take place after its voters decide they _want_ a change.

~~~
xbmcuser
I have been living in Singapore for the last 7 years and the peoples
discontent has had some effect in the last few years. They have been
increasing the requirements for foreign labour every year for the last few
years. Very high property prices resulted in a similar curbs on foreigners
buying residential properties etc. So people do have the power to bring change
even in Singapore as far as changing the ruling party to some other is not
going to happen any time soon.

~~~
jessaustin
The changes you mention seem pretty limited in scope. I think that's the only
sort of change that _can_ occur in such a late stage of the Lee Dynasty. LHL
and his heirs would be _negligent_ if they tried to introduce big changes now
to how society or industry is organized. Even if they felt they knew what
should happen, they are well-practiced in maintaining the status quo, not
undermining it. Singapore will go through one or more "Yeltsins" before a new
order that effectively governs in a new way is found.

~~~
xbmcuser
Why would they want to change much they have been successful at what they are
doing. But at the same time they are changing with the times so not to be in a
position completely opposed to the majority of Singaporeans population.

~~~
jessaustin
Yes, "having one's cake and eating it too" is appealing in general, and I
don't blame Singaporeans for wanting that. As the Lee Dynasty comes under
heavier public criticism in coming decades for its authoritarian manner, I
won't be one of the critics, so long as free and fair elections are still
held. If Singaporeans want change, they'll eventually have to vote for it.

------
lordleft
Singapore is such an impressive city-state, but it always struck me as the
political equivalent of that guy we all know, who went to a top school and
became a highly performant professional but never subjected himself to a
serious self-examination of his ultimate purpose in life. Singapore is a
stunningly efficient country, but towards what end? Governments and cities
should exist for people, not the other way around. I do still admire
Singapore, and very much hope to visit some day. Great article.

~~~
notahacker
> Governments and cities should exist for people, not the other way around

To a large extent I saw Singapore - for better and for worse - as a country
whose sense of purpose was _entirely_ focused on existing for and achieving
the ends of what its people actually want (to be much wealthier, healthier and
more secure than their grandparents) without worrying too much about _means_
like political debate, ideology or caring much about heritage, national
identity, environmental impact or whether William Gibson thought it was as
edgy and cool as Kowloon Walled City.

I'm not sure its depoliticised, pragmatic governors whose tenure is secure
unless they really screw up are really less "for the people" than the fiat of
newly-elected ruling party _du jour_ whose prize for winning competitive
elections is the power to decide for people based whether its core ideology is
conservative or socially liberal, or indeed systems where popular will is
often subordinate to upholding constitutional principles and precedents
established some centuries ago.

Of course, just because death sentences for drug smugglers or retaining a
token unenforced anti-gay law on the statute book are popular with the people
doesn't mean they're remotely good ideas, but I'm not sure that the country
examining its collective purpose would change them anyway. Government for
somewhat culturally conservative people who have ugly memories of political
discord and happy memories of getting a flat with actual running water is
bound to take a different stance on what the people want than an competitive
democracy in a long-developed country with a long-established libertarian
streak.

