THE HIJACK OF GLOBALISATION
With regards to the relevance of the politics of globalisation, the ease with which governments can hijack such an amorphous phenomenon for various purposes and seemingly get away with it disturbs me.
My example is the all-too-famous IRs, but i will not dwell on the well-circulated debates. My ire is with the approach that the government went about to decide (paternalistically) for its people that we should have the IRs for pragmatic (when has it not been, except Suzhou) reasons.
This issue resonated strongly with me, especially with regards to globalisation, as it seems to me that the amorphous nature of globalisation has allowed the government to easily hide behind it and create a politics of fear, thus getting away with non-democratic, non-transparent and non-accountable policies such as this.
Some of the official reasons our ministers gave us (AFTER they decided) were that if we were not to jump on the bandwagon, many other neighbours would still offer up their land for casinos and 'IRs' and we would still lose out in the long term.
Our politicians seemed to attempt to paint globalisation in the light that it can be an opportunity if you make use of it and react to it, but if an idealist state passes up on it then it will just see other states reap the fruits and opportunities of globalisation's offerings.
While that theory MAY prove true, there is no way to ENSURE that the economic benefits would ultimately outweigh the social costs, and it would be years before we can estimate the long-term 'trickle down' effect to the average Singaporean.
Making use of the fact that even the elites of singapore (intellectuals, academics especially) may only have a fuzzy grasp of this phenomenon labelled globalisation, it is easy for governments to hide behind this impervious shield and ramp up the politics of fear.
The fear of losing out to our neighbours, especially our northern one, or even places like Macau, the fear of losing out another 'Number One' to others, sentiments like these are very effectively utilised to stifle opposition to the IR policy.
I feel that is also partially why there was quite a muted response when citizens discovered that our paternalistic government had already decided on having the IR before telling its people.
And if indeed one of the underlying aims was to draw habitual Singaporean/regional gamblers away from Genting Highlands and back to good old singapore, look who won the Sentosa IR; Genting & star cruises! It even defeated our only local tie-up with kerzner, so i guess our northerly neighbours had the last laugh.
Even if the main economic gain theory is largely true, Dr Li Xiaorong (research scholar at the Institue for Philosophy and Public Policy at the University of Maryland) makes the point that "The economic development of the state is not the same as obtaining economic rights for the people".
Having the IRs in Singapore does not directly translate to more disposable income for the average Singaporean. Even if there is, by what means can we credibly measure the economic benefit to the individual? And at what social cost would this be achieved?
My personal opinion is that the average Singaporean may buy the story that the IR will somehow improve his economic condition, while the powers-that-be conveniently utilise the pretense of subordinating a transparent, consultative process of policy-making to economic prosperity, intended to further entrench the elites' power and draw foreign investment.
Indeed, heeding the siren call of globalisation and acting fast on it will potentially result in economic benefits. My question is, benefits for whom?
It is thus pertinent for us concerned Singaporans to be aware of how governments react (or not react) to the facets and offerings of globalisation.
Indeed the politics of distraction through the offering of handouts and the building-up of a comprehensive social program to combat potential social ills of having a casino on our soil will distract some handout-hungry singaporeans.
But i guess for all loyal singaporeans who are concerned with our stakeholdership in the running of this country, we will need to delve a little more into such seemingly all-pragmatic, good-for-ALL policies.
My example is the all-too-famous IRs, but i will not dwell on the well-circulated debates. My ire is with the approach that the government went about to decide (paternalistically) for its people that we should have the IRs for pragmatic (when has it not been, except Suzhou) reasons.
This issue resonated strongly with me, especially with regards to globalisation, as it seems to me that the amorphous nature of globalisation has allowed the government to easily hide behind it and create a politics of fear, thus getting away with non-democratic, non-transparent and non-accountable policies such as this.
Some of the official reasons our ministers gave us (AFTER they decided) were that if we were not to jump on the bandwagon, many other neighbours would still offer up their land for casinos and 'IRs' and we would still lose out in the long term.
Our politicians seemed to attempt to paint globalisation in the light that it can be an opportunity if you make use of it and react to it, but if an idealist state passes up on it then it will just see other states reap the fruits and opportunities of globalisation's offerings.
While that theory MAY prove true, there is no way to ENSURE that the economic benefits would ultimately outweigh the social costs, and it would be years before we can estimate the long-term 'trickle down' effect to the average Singaporean.
Making use of the fact that even the elites of singapore (intellectuals, academics especially) may only have a fuzzy grasp of this phenomenon labelled globalisation, it is easy for governments to hide behind this impervious shield and ramp up the politics of fear.
The fear of losing out to our neighbours, especially our northern one, or even places like Macau, the fear of losing out another 'Number One' to others, sentiments like these are very effectively utilised to stifle opposition to the IR policy.
I feel that is also partially why there was quite a muted response when citizens discovered that our paternalistic government had already decided on having the IR before telling its people.
And if indeed one of the underlying aims was to draw habitual Singaporean/regional gamblers away from Genting Highlands and back to good old singapore, look who won the Sentosa IR; Genting & star cruises! It even defeated our only local tie-up with kerzner, so i guess our northerly neighbours had the last laugh.
Even if the main economic gain theory is largely true, Dr Li Xiaorong (research scholar at the Institue for Philosophy and Public Policy at the University of Maryland) makes the point that "The economic development of the state is not the same as obtaining economic rights for the people".
Having the IRs in Singapore does not directly translate to more disposable income for the average Singaporean. Even if there is, by what means can we credibly measure the economic benefit to the individual? And at what social cost would this be achieved?
My personal opinion is that the average Singaporean may buy the story that the IR will somehow improve his economic condition, while the powers-that-be conveniently utilise the pretense of subordinating a transparent, consultative process of policy-making to economic prosperity, intended to further entrench the elites' power and draw foreign investment.
Indeed, heeding the siren call of globalisation and acting fast on it will potentially result in economic benefits. My question is, benefits for whom?
It is thus pertinent for us concerned Singaporans to be aware of how governments react (or not react) to the facets and offerings of globalisation.
Indeed the politics of distraction through the offering of handouts and the building-up of a comprehensive social program to combat potential social ills of having a casino on our soil will distract some handout-hungry singaporeans.
But i guess for all loyal singaporeans who are concerned with our stakeholdership in the running of this country, we will need to delve a little more into such seemingly all-pragmatic, good-for-ALL policies.
posted by Firefox at 8:32 AM
|
