TR EMERITUS

Right after work, when I noticed that I was copied in an email between Mr. Kumaran Pillai and someone from the Infocomm Media Development Authority (“IMDA’). As mentioned in previous postings, the Independent Singapore does pick up a few of pieces that I publish on my personal blog. The piece that the Independent picked up has the headline “OPINION | The Right Type of Darkie — The Perfectly Electable Prime Minister” and the story can be found at: [LINK] The premise of the article was simple – it was heartening to see so many ethnic minorities in contention for the top job from a political party that has screamed “White Male Dominance” for the last few centuries, and nobody was making it an issue. I did, however, make the point that the ethnic minorities were not just born and bred in the UK but at the elite social strata as one could get without being born into royalty. The only thing Indian about Rishi Sunak other than his name and complexion is his wife’s family. The same was true of Barak Obama who, while a little tanner than most of Middle America was not actually black. Just as Mr. Sunak and Mr. Obama are effectively “Whiter-than-White,” I did argue that Singapore would only have a Non-Chinese Prime Minister if the Non-Chinese was actually more Chinese than the Chinese. I am fully aware that the term “Darkie” can be offensive to some, the truth is the fact that for all America talked about its “First Black President,” and the UK talks of the possibility of its “First Indian Origin Prime Minister,” the truth is that Mr. Obama and Mr. Sunak are only there because they are the “dark-skinned” people that the “White Majority” societies accept and for that to happen they have to be at the elite. What is true of America and the UK is in many ways true of Singapore. What I find particularly interesting here is that when the Independent first put this up on their Facebook page, there was a comment from a Caucasian fellow who said that “there were many offensive terms used and the post had to be taken down.” An Indian fellow replied “Why – it’s true.” Unfortunately, both comments have been taken down. The person from IMDA stated that a member of the public had provided feedback to IMDA that the term “Darkie” was inappropriate. Whilst I had not broken any rules, IMDA did state that the term was “insensitive” to ethnic minorities. In his defense of my piece, Mr. Pillai stated that he as an ethnic minority did not find what I wrote offensive and had himself experienced racism in Singapore. So, the question here is what exactly is offensive here? Is the term “darkie” offensive or is it the fact that ethnic minorities, particularly those of a darker skin tone have to effectively become “lighter” if they are to make headway in a society where the majority is of a lighter skin tone. Sure, I understand “darkie” can be an insensitive word but let us be honest – that’s what “light” societies see darker skinned people as. I have had this argument with my mother, who lives in Germany. She has told me that I am too conscious of race or that living in Asia has given me a “chip-on-the-shoulder.” In the Europe she lives in, you are German or French or whatever if your born there, speak the language and hold the passport, regardless of your skin tone. However, she once got the shock of her life when she came back for a visit and saw how immigration decided to give two people in front of her a hard time. They happened to be black, but the only thing Mum could say to me was “Excuse me – they have French passports.” In fairness to Singapore, there are some controls on the worst types of behavior. The Singapore Government’s DNA has been programmed to remember the racial riots of our early years and so anyone even thinking of inciting a riot based on racial grievances ends up in jail. However, that does not mean that racism does not exist. It merely does so in subtle forms and one of it can be found in the way ethnic minorities try to be mainstream at the expense of their ethnic routes. I actually go very upset when an Indian Muslim friend of mine insisted on using a Western name when talking to a Malay girl – For God’s sake he had perfectly good name. I think of the number of Tamil fellows who crack “dark jokes” to fit in and as members of the ethnic majority, we tend to assume that because they are cracking those jokes, we forget to ask ourselves if they are merely trying to be part of us and will they have limits. I mean I remember kicking a small kid in the school toilet floor because, well I got tired of “Ah So – Mr. Miyagi,” jokes (I did tell them that I was happy to laugh along but the day I told them I wanted them to stop and they didn’t I would have no qualms kicking the crap out of them even at the risk of being expelled for bullying.) Here is a clip by Hassan Minhaj on what it was like growing up as a darker skinned minority migrant: [LINK] What is particularly interesting in this clip is that Mr. Minhaj mentions that his dad, who was born in India was willing to take a certain amount of racial abuse because he believed this was the “tax” he had to pay for the privilege of being in the USA. However, Mr. Minhaj says, he’s from a generation he was born and bred in America and the values of “equality” were in him. Hence, he was less tolerant of racial abuse. So, the question that we should ask ourselves is whether this something we are going to see here. There is a generation of ethnic minorities that will suck up things like the “dark” jokes or the implicit understanding that the Prime Minister can only be Chinese because it’s a small price to pay for the social stability that we enjoy. However, what do the generations who do not have memories of the racial riots of the 60s feel? Yes, they can laugh at the dark jokes as their parents did, but will they also accept that someone from their community having an equal chance of the top jobs without having to become more like the majority than the majority? In a way, the recent influx of migrants (since 2004) has delayed our need to ask this question. We now have local born Chinese versus Mainland Chinese. In Singapore, “Indian” automatically meant Tamil – this is no longer the case (which was unfortunately brought home to me at press conference when our 6th President refused to give Tamil soundbites to Vasnatham because it was an “Indian” and not a “Tamil” event.) Have a look at the following clip from Hassan Minhaj: [LINK] Delaying real unity has delayed having to question to the status quo of the 1960s. Will that, however, be something that can be done forever?   Tang Li *Although I’ve been based mainly in Singapore for nearly two decades, I’ve had the privilege of being able 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 →

The fallacy of broken windows was introduced by French economist Frédéric Bastiat in 1850. This is the economic idea of opportunity cost, which is something that is unseen. Bestiat illustrated with the parable of a cobler whose son broke a pane in the window at his shop. All the folks who came said well, it's just too bad, but if there were no broken windows, there would be no jobs for glaziers. The cobler was advised to just a get a glazier to fix a new window. The broken window parable is called a fallacy because the inherent idea is destroying something creates wealth. The cobler is forced to engage a glazier to fix the damage. Thus the glazier has an income, which he then goes on to buy groceries for his family. The grocer has the money to bring his family to a nice diner. The restaurant owner can go attend a concert, and so on... creating a multiplier effect. So the broken window indeed creates wealth. However, what is unseen, is the fact that had the window not been broken, the cobler would not have to pay for the glazier. He could have used that money to buy groceries for his family. The grocer has the money to bring his family to a nice diner. The restaurant owner can go attend a concert, and so on... creating a similar multiplier effect. This lost benefit is known as the opportunity cost. If destruction has economic benefits, then carrying the cobler narrative to a logical conclusion, a glazier can get boys to break as many windows as possible and he will be flooded with jobs and create greater wealth. This fallacy is not a joke. It is pushed by politicians who unwisely see economic benefits in creating wars. US weapons production created wealth and jobs in America for the destructive wars they create in foreign lands. Imagine taking those resources away from weapons production into fixing their third world country standard rails, roads and bridges. We see a lot of broken windows in Singapore. I am agreeable to structures being replaced where they are dilapidated, no longer serve their purpose, pose a danger to users, or where greater capacity becomes necessary, etc. But change for the sole purpose of a new facade or to be more modern, is questionable. The government has a programme of tearing down and rebuilding almost the entire community centres all over the island. Perhaps the most current topic is that of the new national stadium. It is basically a grand ostentatious show piece, a trophy infrastructure. The project had the green light despite the fact it is well known almost all stadiums built for world cups and olympics became white elephants after the events. Our new stadium was not even built for an event! Even stadiums in football crazy Brazil became white elephants, what possibility is there for Singapore to be any better. Finally, economic reality catches up, and the government has to bail out the failed private operators. Why tear down the old, but absolutely functionable national stadium, where we all had fond memories, and replace with an architectural show piece. The truth is, the government works on a very old economic model of infrastructure multiplier. Pour S$2b into a new structure and viola GDP grew by S$2b plus the multiplier effect. If the S$2b were to be handed out to the poor where the propensity to consume is great, they will spend and GDP too will grow. Busineses improve and income tax collection will increase. Another current issue is SER. A more or less similar situation are blocks of residential buildings around new MRT station developments that are torn down. An example is HDB blocks at Viking Road, behind the Redhill Station. All these were torn down and condos rose in their place. This is the idea of the government of creating more wealth because cheaper structures give way to more expensive ones. Its just a matter of valuation, nothing to do with wealth creation. In the case of SER, the point to be all riled up is not so much the cost-benefits to the residents involved. The concern is the sanctity of contract. The government has proven it will throw legal doctrines down the garbage chute if it serves their purpose. I am sure the Lease Agreement has some exit clauses, which probably has to do with eviction and evacuation due to structural concerns. It will not have anything to do with wealth creation nor re-development. Acquisition for re-development would be dictated by a different legislation. Gaze over the landscape and you will see many examples of broken windows in singapore.   Patrick Low   * The author blogs at Going Down The Rabbit Hole.        Read More →

According to MOM’s monthly unemployment report for June, Singapore's overall unemployment remained at 2.1 per cent; resident unemployment, 2.9 per cent; and citizen unemployment, 3.1 per cent. Howbeit, it reflects a quaint time in history when we also have an interesting "worker demographic" situation related in part to the fact that many "Millennials" are coming of age and into the workforce during the Covid pandemic. This age group, already more willing to work in a "gig economy" environment, views job change rather casually. Consequently, they are also readily willing to quit current employment for other viable job options. The data also does not include 1) underemployed (who work in the margins/off the books), 2) part-time employed looking for full time employment and 3) those who have stopped looking for employment. But don't hold your breath; the employment paradigm has shifted and many previously and gainfully employed people will never work again. Globalization has resulted in an increase in the number who are surplus to the domestic economy. Furthermore, constant increases in automation, computerization and individual productivity have decreased the numbers of workers required to maintain economic output, as well as raising the bar for educational requirements for employment. Thus, technological and organizational advances are a double-edged sword, increasing economic inequality and unemployment along with total "wealth". Even low level service jobs at the local level are being eliminated by such "improvements" as self-checkouts counters at supermarts are increasing while the role and value of human intelligence and judgment are being marginalized by e.g. automated scanners, voice recognition systems, service bots, etc. A permanently unemployed class of individuals is being created. Unless we can find (or invent) useful employment for these people, or at least provide them with the wherewithal to feed, house and occupy themselves with a sense of dignity, we may be headed for a demographic social disaster. Based on what I’m seeing, the downturn has begun. A lot of money was dumped into the system in order to keep COVID from sinking the economy. Now Central Bankers all the world are trying to "cool inflation" by raising interest rates to take money out of the economy. This of course affect those from the lower employment rungs. Personally, I think the FED pulled the trigger on rates too drastically. Private banks and financial institutions are still flush with boatloads of cash and they don't have to raise their rates concurrent with FED hikes to take out the liquidity. A new driving factor for inflation has appeared, global competition for commodities and driven by an increase in commodity prices. That’s it, factory closed, staff shortages, fuel up, yields and deliveries down. It’s Globalism in reverse; inflation will drop when the factories and ships and people and flights work. In today’s numbers the real global production of goods and services is one fifth of the claims on its value. This mirage is fostered by the illusion of financial assets created in the credit process. CDS and and similar financial instruments continue to be created around debt in emerging markets. Many of those debts won’t be paid and will see the ensuing devaluation like in 2008-2009. That’s why crises are initially manifested in the financial sphere. But in reality correspond to the inability of people to pay for their own needs. This sounds reasonable as long as it's theoretical. However, when I look at reality, now and in the past, what I recall are recession preceded by inflation where people lost jobs and couldn't find new ones that were equal to what they'd lost or provided them with a decent wage. Worst, we see the price hikes in housing, healthcare and food lingering or becoming permanent. The other NEW element is that China now has a middle class of 400 million that wants the same standard of living like Americans/Europeans. And its' middle class is growing faster than the US middle class. With consequences for global prices. More cars were sold in 2021 in China than in the US. [link]. China is *now* the world’s largest oil importer, driving up oil prices world-wide. And the Chinese automotive market is growing faster than the market in the US. The fact is that American/Europeans consumers are now increasingly in competition with consumers abroad. You can laud this as lifting people out of poverty, but this competition must and does also increase consumer prices globally. And that factor, will persist. Commodity supply, from petrol to copper, to lithium is difficult to increase in the age of environmentalism. But this new reality of rising prices due to global consumer competition has yet to enter the Fed’s inflation model. US is still at 3.6% unemployment and a chronic labor shortage. It depends how much longer and stronger inflation will continue. The laws of supply and demand will determine if the global economy slip into a recession, technical or otherwise.   Sjorne Shen      Read More →