TR EMERITUS

Contrary to its name, Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) are not about freeing up trade. Prior to the signing of the United States - Singapore Free Trade Agreement (USSFTA) in 2003, Singapore imposed tariffs on only three products - beer, stout and samsoo. Trade was already free. Why then would the Americans want to sign a Free Trade Agreement with us? To be more precise, Free Trade Agreements are actually, Investor Rights Agreements. Their main purpose is to protect the profits of foreign investors. The game is to open the country up for mutual investment. In this case, US companies will invest in Singapore and Singapore companies will invest in the US. Naturally, each country will try to protect its politically and economically sensitive entities before opening itself for competition. Nonetheless, some segments of society will win, and some will lose. (Usually, the rich will win and the poor will lose). Nonetheless, both the Singapore and US governments were very pleased when the USSFTA was signed. For Singapore, it gained enhanced access to a huge market. In addition, a very high ranking member of the Singapore negotiating team emphasized that the USSFTA “enhanced the prospects of peace and stability in the region because the US underpins security for the whole of Asia-Pacific”. (Is not the US currently forming alliances to encircle China, provoking a major war in our backyard?) For the US, it was its first FTA with an Asian country and was a “high quality” treaty in terms of protection for investors. It hoped that other countries would follow suit using the USSFTA as a template. But twenty years on, only its staunch allies in the region have signed an FTA with them - Australia, S. Korea and Japan. The negotiations with Malaysia and Thailand did not succeed because large sections of poor people would be adversely affected and the governments could not force the deals over their heads when the people got wind of them. The other countries noted that the US is a far bigger political and economic power, and any bilateral trade negotiation would be unequal. Instead, they have opted for multilateral negotiations via the World Trade Organization (WTO). The USSFTA protects, even enhances, the profits of American companies by various ways: - having the government enforce extended patents, copyrights and prohibit parallel imports, thus pushing prices up. - allows an unlimited number of American professionals to work here so long as they meet customs and employment criteria (But only 5400 Singapore professionals can enter the US market per year via this route). - claims to uphold high labour standards but implicitly encourages otherwise. - grants American companies the power to sue the government if they deem their profits compromised by domestic policies. - restricts the government’s control of speculative capital seeking arbitrage gains, wrecking havoc on asset prices. Of course, Singapore companies, including Temasek and GIC linked companies, enjoy reciprocal benefits in America. The USSFTA set the benchmark for protection of investors in Singapore. Since then, more than 20 FTAs have been signed with many other countries, including Australia, Japan, Korea, India, the EU, UK, China. Our laws have been amended to enforce protection for foreign MNCs, affecting the lives of all Singaporeans. FTAs have their advantages and disadvantages. We cannot say that they are good for us just because they attract investors and thus bring jobs to Singaporeans and that they help companies based here to trade and invest freely with other countries. Their effects on the country have to be viewed holistically. After more than 20 years when the first FTA was signed and with 27 FTAs currently in force, - are the good jobs created justifiable given the displacement of Singaporeans in many other jobs? - has real wages of lower to middle income Singaporeans increased, stagnated or decreased? - has working conditions improved? - is the demise of many local companies in the face of foreign competition justifiable? - is the high cost of branded medicine making healthcare increasingly unaffordable justifiable? - has inequality improved or gotten worse? - has life become better or more difficult for the majority? Trade agreements are good if they are used to improve the lives of the majority of people and not just the rich. They should not take away our right to decide what is good for ourselves and our children. Importantly, the people and the labour unions should have a voice equal to that of business lobbies when negotiating trade agreements as these treaties affect our livelihoods fundamentally, although they operate silently in the background.   Foong Swee Fong      Read More →

“Why do democracies fail?” That subject has been asked a lot in recent years, in books, on opinion pages and news broadcasts, and in an increasingly tense public discussion. But nearly invariably, I find myself responding to the question with another: Why shouldn't they? Democracy is uncommon and transitory, according to history, which is the only accurate reference we have on the subject. It appears to flare up almost unexpectedly at some fortunate location and then fade out just as abruptly. Genuine democracy is difficult to acquire and unstable once obtained. It is the exception, not the rule, in the vast picture of human events. Our democracy is not so much a positive driver for good governance rather a protection against an extremely bad one. Plato, in his still provocative "Republic," provides a framework for five types of government: aristocracy (rule by the “best”, that is, experts trained at governance), timarchy (rule by military honors), oligarchy (rule by a wealthy minority), tyranny (rule by a despot answerable to no one but himself) and democracy (rule by the people as a whole—a “mob” as Plato saw it), and while not all fall into these categories, they all contribute to our political systems. Despite its complexities, the core premise of democracy is deceptively simple: everyone should have an equal voice in how society as a whole conducts itself. According to Paul Woodruff's 2006 book "First Democracy: The Challenge of an Ancient Idea," "in democracy as it ought to be," "all adults are free to chime in, to join the conversation about how they should arrange their lives together." Nobody has total power, which breeds misuse and arrogance. Is it really necessary to think any farther than that? But who is to say 'they' aren't reasonable? It doesn't help that once such an individual has been enthroned, everyone else is eager to surrender to him. It's as if they suddenly understand how much freedom they have in his distinguished presence. As long as man is free, there is no more persistent or agonizing care than finding someone to kneel down to as soon as possible, proclaims the Grand Inquisitor in Dostoevsky's "The Brothers Karamazov." And what a sweet surrender! Alexander, Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler, and Mussolini were all outstanding political seducers, crowd-pleasers, and smooth talkers throughout history. The fact that once such a guy is enthroned, others would gladly submit to him does not help matters. Their interaction with the audience was especially close. For whenever power is wielded and displayed in such regimes, the consequence is immensely erotic. People, for example, appear to be in a state of collective pleasure. The seducer's declarations may be hollow, even stupid, but that doesn't matter because each one takes the aroused audience to greater heights of ecstasy. He may now do whatever he wants with his enthralled followers. They will give in to any of their master's desires. This is the human milieu in which the democratic concept emerges. It's no surprise that it's a losing battle. Genuine democracy does not make extravagant promises, seduces or charms, but rather aspires to a certain level of human decency. It's not erotic at all. It is a frigid affair in comparison to what happens in populist administrations. Who in their right mind would choose the mundane obligations of democracy to the quick gratification provided by a demagogue? Frigidity over limitless ecstasy? Despite this, the democratic principle has come near to being realized a few times throughout history - moments of grace when humanity almost managed to surprise itself. That is ultimately what democracy is about: an ideal that people seek to put into practice on occasion. Never fully and never for long — always clumsily and timidly, as if on trial. It is one of those elusive things, along with happiness, whose promise, even if it is always postponed, is more significant than its actuality. We might never achieve it, but we cannot afford to give up on our dreams. A deeper worry is that even the will of a majority may have little or no influence on how the country is governed.   Sjorne Shen      Read More →

I’ll be the first to admit that I am often quite critical of “my people.” As a rule of thumb, I don’t have much sympathy for the local, middle-class graduate Chinese, whom often comes across as self-entitled. You’re talking about a group that constantly complains about how “Indian” nationals are “stealing” jobs in the professional sector that they believe a degree entitles them to, yet they would have no hesitation in spitting on the maids who clean their homes or the construction workers who build them. We’re the group of people who complain that the “foreigners,” are “helping each other,” because to us that’s not normal – screwing our own is. The worst offenders are the young professional class. I think of the time that I was upset that Singapore takes violence seriously because I really wanted to go up to a young PMET in Asia-Square and headbutt him in the nose until he went blind. This excuse of a human being thought it was fun to squish some sweets that the cleaning lady wanted to take home for her grandkids. The only thing that happened to him was his equally pathetic girlfriend told him off and he looked a little sheepish. She should have broken a bottle across his skull thus freeing herself from the possible crime of producing excuses of humans as children. Because I take this stance, I don’t make myself popular in some parts of cyberspace. I get accused of being “pro-Indian” and “anti-Chinese” and if there’s nothing to have a go at me for, they go at me for marrying Vietnamese. Apparently, I am moving Singapore manhood downwards. Not sure how they figured that one out – at least the Vietnamese take care of their elderly and vulnerable whilst we screw over our old folks so that we can give whatever we have to people from “advanced” countries earning double what we do. Having said what I just said, I recently experienced something that proves what I’ve said to be wrong. I discovered Singaporeans who are willing to go out of their way to help their own. I am speaking as someone who is beneficiary of such kindness. It started with the return of gout. Had an attack in my left knee, which started on a Saturday night and got worse on a Sunday. By early morning, the pain was so bad that I have problems putting on my trousers. It was clear that I needed medical attention and so I thought I would make my way to the polyclinic. The first person who showed me kindness was the Grab (Southeast Asia’s answer to Uber). The man went out of his way to create space in the car so that I could get in and out with minimal pain. When he reached the polyclinic, he tried to get me as close as possible to the door so I would minimize the need to move the leg that was in pain. The pain was bad and I had to just deal with it. To say that sitting in a wheelchair was uncomfortable was an understatement. The second act of kindness came when I took another Grab ride back my aunt’s home, where I could rest. This Grab driver saw that I was having trouble walking and when I got to my aunt’s, he parked his car and helped me hobble up the unit (my aunty lives on the 22nd floor). This was something he didn’t need to do but he took it upon himself to help me past the moment when I had ceased to be his customer. So, it’s a relief for me to experience kindness from “my people” when I needed it. It made me feel a bit more optimistic about being Singaporean and Chinese. I mean, these guys were earning less than $20 from me and yet they still went out of their way to help me after their contractual obligation to me ran out. When you experience this type of thing, you get the sense that not all of us are “a***holes” and you start to think that if you have enough guys like this, it is possible to make a more decent society.   Tang Li *Although I’ve been based mainly in Singapore for nearly two decades, I’ve had the privilege of being able to meet people who have crossed borders and cultures. I’ve befriended ministers and ambassadors and worked on projects involving a former head of state. Yet, at the same time, I’ve had the privilege of befriending migrant labourers and former convicts. All of them have a story to tell. All of them add to the fabric of life. I hope to express the stories that inspire us to create life as it should be.      Read More →