5 ms·

It's an interesting moral bargain. Give up any rights to free speech and Internet freedom; in return get a well functioning government and municipal services.

by scurvy 10y ago

It's an interesting moral bargain. Give up any rights to free speech and Internet freedom; in return get a well functioning government and municipal services. Sure, they still house the huddled (brown) masses in ghettos, but they're making progress with public housing for natives. But it's still hot as hell all the time all year. No thanks.

rorykoehler 10y ago
I live here and while I don't envy the migrant workers who come here to build HDBs it is clear they do it because the alternative is far worse. They get lodgings and enough pay that they can send money home to support their family, buy some property and eventually move back. The issue is with systemic economic inequality between countries more than with Singapore itself.
- sho 10y ago
  I agree. And I actually admire the way Singapore is economically honest in this way. By hiring migrant workers to, eg, build the new MRTs, it gets them done much cheaper - and provides thousands of workers with much better jobs than they could have got at home. That money goes straight back to their home countries, raising the wealth of both. Compare to Australia, my own home country, where we could never countenance the ideas of "foreigners coming to take our jobs" - so infrastructure costs 5x as much and, more likely, simply never happens. It wouldn't surprise me if Singapore's what is it, 3 new MRT lines right now? costs the same or less as Sydney's 1 new line. And all the people we could have hired from the philippines or whereever are sitting in their slums unemployed. Who's racist again? Which is more ethical? Which is the better outcome? It boggles my mind how people can be all for foreign labour being used to make things overseas, for example the computer they're typing their comment on, but suddenly against the idea when the labourers have to come here temporarily to make it. It's the same damn thing!
  - satori99 10y ago
    I am also an Aussie, but I have a sister who is a permanent resident in Singapore, and owns a house and a business there. I have spent plenty of time there, and have met lots of western ex-pats who have found success there. But the immigrant worker thing bugs me. These workers, mostly women, are treated very poorly from what I have observed. I have heard my sister threaten her nannies with deportation for not complying with her orders, and have seen and heard of other ex-pats behaving even worse towards their immigrant employees. It seemed to me to be so normalized, that my sister and her friends do not recognize their behavior as being in any way abhorrent. I would hate to see that sort of tiered society in Australia ever. It might work on paper but it also changes the nature of the people they serve in an ugly way.
    - sho 10y ago
      Ah, you were talking about maids. Yes, I agree there needs to be far stricter enforcement there, and a cultural shift to go with it. I haven't witnessed any abuse personally but have also heard stories. I think it's because that mostly happens behind closed doors in private property - there's all sorts of scope for that few percentage of natural assholes to abuse the power they wield, plus as you say, it's sort of culturally acceptable. I too would like to see that changed. That said, would you destroy a whole class of employment just because of a few bad apples? Or even more than a few? I also know that for uneducated girls from villages in Indonesia, working overseas as a maid is like winning the lottery. The alternative is often to become a prostitute. Where's the line? And FWIW I've had a maid before and I don't think it changed me at all. But you're right - there's a certain type of person for whom having a little bit of power over a person unlocks something dark inside them, and in a domestic setting that can be a recipe for mistreatment. More regulation is needed - Singapore's laissez-faire attitude fails it here. I was talking more of the construction industry, where stories of abuse are much less common (and there are witnesses and company licenses at stake) - in this context, migrant work is IMO an inarguable good.
    - EliRivers 10y ago
      That is interesting; I've been to Australia once in my life, year before last. I went from Brisbane to Roma, and by the time I got to Roma the only non-Caucasian faces I saw were serving me food. I was told (but have no other information, so this could of course be completely wrong) that their contracts and immigration status effectively tied them to their service job, hundreds of miles inland where the only other people like them were in a similar subservient situation, and that the people owning their contracts very much had that kind of power over them. This is pure anecdote, of course.
  - sheepmullet 10y ago
    > so infrastructure costs 5x as much and Does it really? I would love to see some like for like figures. And they do take the locals jobs. Singaporeans don't mind so much though because they get massive subsidies from the government and the economy is doing pretty well. If the government didn't provide incredibly subsidised housing the country would fall apart very quickly. Likewise if unemployment came close to 10%.
    - sho 10y ago
      > Does it really? I would love to see some like for like figures. That was nothing but a guess, but I think it's reasonable. Labor is the largest component of infrastructure costs by a wide margin, and migrant labor would be at least 5x less than local. Even if it's "only" 2x cheaper my point would stand, though, and that seems very conservative indeed. I'd also like to see some figures. I don't know what "massive subsidies" you could be referring to. The HDB system is the only one I can think of? Calling it "incredibly" subsidized is kind of overstating it - maybe 20%-30%, and you can only play that game twice, with 6 years in between. I think of it as more like a stock option. The HDB program costs about a billion a year. There's about 3.3 million citizens, so that's $300 a year each. I don't call that "massive", and I don't see why the country would collapse if it was withdrawn (not that there's any reason it would be).
      - scurvy 10y ago
        Doesn't 2/3 of Singapore live in public housing? That's a pretty subsidized way of life.
        sho 10y ago
        No, that is completely wrong, but admittedly it's a fairly uncommon situation so the confusion is understandable. Singapore is quite unique in that it's such a tiny city, the government has very tight control over land use, and as such has historically acted as a gigantic real estate developer. It has seen its mission as providing cost-effective and yes, sometimes subsidized, housing for its population, and the program to manage this is known as the HDB. Over 80% of the population live in HDB-provided apartment housing. However, the vast majority of those residents own their own apartments, having purchased them from the government (and yes, certain subsidies can apply - up to perhaps 30% the fair value of the property). It's public housing only insofar as it was developed by the government - certainly not free or nearly-free as the phrase might imply in other countries, so it's quite a misleading term to use.
  - scurvy 10y ago
    It's not just MRT's. It's any and all construction. On any construction site (even regular homes), you'll see barracks style housing for the migrant labor. They are de facto second class citizens.
    - sho 10y ago
      Well, they're not citizens at all, hence the phrase "migrant labour".
awongh 10y ago
I also think 1st worlders from North America / Europe overlook the degree to which Singapore 's government has succeeded in providing a clean safe well-organized environment for its people. Compare this to all of the other nearest cities / capitols in the region (or even further than that), I think you would have to go quite far in any direction to find a place that is as well looked after for all levels of society. (Taiwan?) And whats the other closest city to Singapore that has potable drinking water? Is this bargain worth it? As an American, there are plenty of things the Singaporean government does that makes me uncomfortable. But who's to say which is better? Compared to Bangkok or Kuala Lumpur or similar, where would you have preferred to have been born?
- scurvy 10y ago
  Ironically, isn't potable drinking water supply an issue for Singapore? It's mainly brought over from Malaysia, right? Read a few articles on the subject in the Straights many years ago.
  - awongh 10y ago
    I hadn't heard that. Do you have a link? afaik the water from malaysia isn't potable, it's treated in singapore.....
    - scurvy 10y ago
      Here's one from 2011: http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/04/07/singapore.water.dilemma/ http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/04/07/singapore.water.... I guess now they do more desalinization and recycle sewage water for drinking.

by scurvy 10y ago

rorykoehler 10y ago

I live here and while I don't envy the migrant workers who come here to build HDBs it is clear they do it because the alternative is far worse. They get lodgings and enough pay that they can send money home to support their family, buy some property and eventually move back. The issue is with systemic economic inequality between countries more than with Singapore itself.

sho 10y ago
I agree. And I actually admire the way Singapore is economically honest in this way. By hiring migrant workers to, eg, build the new MRTs, it gets them done much cheaper - and provides thousands of workers with much better jobs than they could have got at home. That money goes straight back to their home countries, raising the wealth of both. Compare to Australia, my own home country, where we could never countenance the ideas of "foreigners coming to take our jobs" - so infrastructure costs 5x as much and, more likely, simply never happens. It wouldn't surprise me if Singapore's what is it, 3 new MRT lines right now? costs the same or less as Sydney's 1 new line. And all the people we could have hired from the philippines or whereever are sitting in their slums unemployed. Who's racist again? Which is more ethical? Which is the better outcome? It boggles my mind how people can be all for foreign labour being used to make things overseas, for example the computer they're typing their comment on, but suddenly against the idea when the labourers have to come here temporarily to make it. It's the same damn thing!
- satori99 10y ago
  I am also an Aussie, but I have a sister who is a permanent resident in Singapore, and owns a house and a business there. I have spent plenty of time there, and have met lots of western ex-pats who have found success there. But the immigrant worker thing bugs me. These workers, mostly women, are treated very poorly from what I have observed. I have heard my sister threaten her nannies with deportation for not complying with her orders, and have seen and heard of other ex-pats behaving even worse towards their immigrant employees. It seemed to me to be so normalized, that my sister and her friends do not recognize their behavior as being in any way abhorrent. I would hate to see that sort of tiered society in Australia ever. It might work on paper but it also changes the nature of the people they serve in an ugly way.
  - sho 10y ago
    Ah, you were talking about maids. Yes, I agree there needs to be far stricter enforcement there, and a cultural shift to go with it. I haven't witnessed any abuse personally but have also heard stories. I think it's because that mostly happens behind closed doors in private property - there's all sorts of scope for that few percentage of natural assholes to abuse the power they wield, plus as you say, it's sort of culturally acceptable. I too would like to see that changed. That said, would you destroy a whole class of employment just because of a few bad apples? Or even more than a few? I also know that for uneducated girls from villages in Indonesia, working overseas as a maid is like winning the lottery. The alternative is often to become a prostitute. Where's the line? And FWIW I've had a maid before and I don't think it changed me at all. But you're right - there's a certain type of person for whom having a little bit of power over a person unlocks something dark inside them, and in a domestic setting that can be a recipe for mistreatment. More regulation is needed - Singapore's laissez-faire attitude fails it here. I was talking more of the construction industry, where stories of abuse are much less common (and there are witnesses and company licenses at stake) - in this context, migrant work is IMO an inarguable good.
  - EliRivers 10y ago
    That is interesting; I've been to Australia once in my life, year before last. I went from Brisbane to Roma, and by the time I got to Roma the only non-Caucasian faces I saw were serving me food. I was told (but have no other information, so this could of course be completely wrong) that their contracts and immigration status effectively tied them to their service job, hundreds of miles inland where the only other people like them were in a similar subservient situation, and that the people owning their contracts very much had that kind of power over them. This is pure anecdote, of course.
- sheepmullet 10y ago
  > so infrastructure costs 5x as much and Does it really? I would love to see some like for like figures. And they do take the locals jobs. Singaporeans don't mind so much though because they get massive subsidies from the government and the economy is doing pretty well. If the government didn't provide incredibly subsidised housing the country would fall apart very quickly. Likewise if unemployment came close to 10%.
  - sho 10y ago
    > Does it really? I would love to see some like for like figures. That was nothing but a guess, but I think it's reasonable. Labor is the largest component of infrastructure costs by a wide margin, and migrant labor would be at least 5x less than local. Even if it's "only" 2x cheaper my point would stand, though, and that seems very conservative indeed. I'd also like to see some figures. I don't know what "massive subsidies" you could be referring to. The HDB system is the only one I can think of? Calling it "incredibly" subsidized is kind of overstating it - maybe 20%-30%, and you can only play that game twice, with 6 years in between. I think of it as more like a stock option. The HDB program costs about a billion a year. There's about 3.3 million citizens, so that's $300 a year each. I don't call that "massive", and I don't see why the country would collapse if it was withdrawn (not that there's any reason it would be).
    - scurvy 10y ago
      Doesn't 2/3 of Singapore live in public housing? That's a pretty subsidized way of life.
      - sho 10y ago
        No, that is completely wrong, but admittedly it's a fairly uncommon situation so the confusion is understandable. Singapore is quite unique in that it's such a tiny city, the government has very tight control over land use, and as such has historically acted as a gigantic real estate developer. It has seen its mission as providing cost-effective and yes, sometimes subsidized, housing for its population, and the program to manage this is known as the HDB. Over 80% of the population live in HDB-provided apartment housing. However, the vast majority of those residents own their own apartments, having purchased them from the government (and yes, certain subsidies can apply - up to perhaps 30% the fair value of the property). It's public housing only insofar as it was developed by the government - certainly not free or nearly-free as the phrase might imply in other countries, so it's quite a misleading term to use.
- scurvy 10y ago
  It's not just MRT's. It's any and all construction. On any construction site (even regular homes), you'll see barracks style housing for the migrant labor. They are de facto second class citizens.
  - sho 10y ago
    Well, they're not citizens at all, hence the phrase "migrant labour".

awongh 10y ago

I also think 1st worlders from North America / Europe overlook the degree to which Singapore 's government has succeeded in providing a clean safe well-organized environment for its people. Compare this to all of the other nearest cities / capitols in the region (or even further than that), I think you would have to go quite far in any direction to find a place that is as well looked after for all levels of society. (Taiwan?) And whats the other closest city to Singapore that has potable drinking water? Is this bargain worth it? As an American, there are plenty of things the Singaporean government does that makes me uncomfortable. But who's to say which is better? Compared to Bangkok or Kuala Lumpur or similar, where would you have preferred to have been born?

scurvy 10y ago
Ironically, isn't potable drinking water supply an issue for Singapore? It's mainly brought over from Malaysia, right? Read a few articles on the subject in the Straights many years ago.
- awongh 10y ago
  I hadn't heard that. Do you have a link? afaik the water from malaysia isn't potable, it's treated in singapore.....
  - scurvy 10y ago
    Here's one from 2011: http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/04/07/singapore.water.dilemma/ http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/04/07/singapore.water.... I guess now they do more desalinization and recycle sewage water for drinking.