Lessons on Humanity

Thoughts from a Cultural Workshop in Batam

‘Music is not about telling a story, or describing a picture. Music is about feelings.’ In one of his Young People’s Concerts, Leonard Bernstein touched upon the topic ‘What does Music mean?’ The above was his answer. While the concert itself was given way back in 1958, I only had the opportunity to listen to it in DVD format in the comforts of a suite in Turi Resort, Batam. It was my first involvement with LPT ever since I ‘graduated’ in 2003.

Mr Wong had been preparing for the Batam Workshop at least a month before 16^th Nov 2008 when we departed Singapore. I was lucky enough to have had the chance to meet him for discussions on his objectives for the trip and how these objectives could be met. Through the discussions, I could sense this desire in Mr Wong, to develop ‘sensitivity’ in his students towards culture and ultimately, towards their own feelings. This was going to be about development in humanity.

The problem with an education in sensitivity is that one cannot teach it. One can only expose others in as different ways as possible, in the hope that one or a couple of these ways can evoke that ‘enlightenment of self-feeling’ within others. Having acquired an acute sensitivity of one’s own feelings, one is then able to truly appreciate culture and music, thereby transcending into a genuine appreciation of life in general. The Batam Workshop was thus that, a rigorous experimentation that the children and their parents were put through, visiting cultural venues such as ‘Tua Pek Kong’ and ‘Kong Zi’ Temple, natural spots such as mangrove swamps, local commerce culture such as the street markets and shopping malls, as well as an indigenous village. Just as Mr Wong described it himself, the trip was like a maze, he never really knew which path would lead to an outcome, or even if any of the paths would lead to anything at all.

For every activity and venue, the participants were given a list of questions that would serve as ‘guiders’ to bring out their feelings and thoughts. Mr Wong would also share his own feelings and viewpoints. The questions moved from the more tangible, observational types like ‘what are the differences between … and …’ to the more intangible ones on impressions, feelings and ‘what music arose during the visit’. The children and parents expressed themselves in words and sketches. The intention behind this simple exercise was simple – to get the participants to be more observant about things around them. The more observant one is, the more feelings one feels in greater depth. The greater the variety of feelings one is exposed to, the greater the range of expressions one is able to convey, be it through your writing, music, dance or any other form of design and communication.

At the end of the trip, the participants were divided into groups according to age to make their own sand design, based on the theme of ‘a diary in Batam’. The younger students created a temple out of the sand, but with surprising detail to the structural symmetry and wall design of the temples they had seen. The older students explored the philosophical paradigm of ‘life as a boat’ and the more raw expression of emotion of a struggle between a ‘snake and a chicken’ which they had seen in one of the villages. The adults chose to depict the journey from Singapore to Batam and their thoughts on the trip.

Throughout the trip, the children also kept a log of their answers to the questions posed and their thoughts in general. The visit to the village where they experienced little children selling fruits left a deep impression on quite a few of the older children. Most of their writings revealed a deeper sense of emotions beyond the superficial, ‘I felt that pity wasn’t the right emotion to describe my feelings then as they seemed happy and contented as they were selling or had sold the fruits’; ‘If I had to give up all I had now to come here to stay, I would not be too happy as I would have lost many opportunities.’ Different people had different thoughts, but all were equally original journeys of self-discovery into trying to explain what they were feeling and why they were feeling that. The key to me therefore, is that when it comes to your own feelings, there can be no right or wrong, there can only be whether you have experienced deeply or superficially.

Friends who I had informed of the trip had asked me, ‘Why go on a cultural trip to Batam? It’s a place of vices! Prostitution, gambling..’ I think the participants on the trip would be able to reflect a very different side of the reality. If we as humans simply take the pre-conceived, popular notion of things, and let these things guide us, then it is very difficult for us to understand ourselves as individuals. But if we put aside everything, and put our senses to the task of observation, and our mind to the understanding of our feelings, we can then find our own individuality, our own appreciation of our existence!

I am not sure how well Mr Wong has achieved his objectives and only time can really tell. But again, as he said, he had already laid the seeds of opportunity to his students and their parents. From the feedback of parents and children alike, everyone had probably started on the same footstep (be it bigger or smaller) in that direction…(for example, some students were very strong on their observations, while others were beginning to express in-depth self-reflection.)

“If each time after you feel, you think and try to understand why you felt what you felt, then in the future, you will be better able to express yourself in a way that helps others to feel what you want them to feel too! But if you do not feel, and do not train yourself to be observant in the first place, then you will find it very difficult to evoke any form of emotion in others at all. And gradually, humanity would have lost something ...” my own thoughts on art and communication

Political parties: Does pragmatic Singapore need them?

THE letter by Mr Gilbert Goh on Wednesday, 'Two-party system better', summarises the view held by some Singaporeans that a two-party system would be more beneficial than a one-party system as advocated by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong last week. However, the gist of the argument for a two-party system has not run away from 'checks and balances' and 'democracy'. To me, such arguments have not really understood the meaning and relevance of a party in the first place. The fundamental reason why parties are started is that they carry certain political and philosophical ideologies which they think should transcend towards social and economic policies which will best be able to raise the standard of living of society. The idea of having a political party just to ensure checks and balances on the ruling party (as these arguments seem to imply) miss the point completely. In fact, such a mentality would lead to an opposition party opposing for the sake of opposing.

On that same note however, if the governance of a country is based on pragmatism as our leaders have explained over the years, then one should question the whole idea of a party system. Pragmatism in reality is not beholden to any political or philosophical ideology. The best manifestation of it is 'the most suitable policies at the most appropriate times'. Indeed, for a small city-state like Singapore, completely intertwined within the complex web of globalisation and international cities, pragmatism may be the only viable form of governance ideal. We cannot afford to hang on to any pre-subscribed ideology, be it socialism or democracy, just for the sake of doing so.

However, the concept of a party, by nature of its cause for existence, will need its members to share a certain ideology. Surely, however, pragmatism is something that can receive unrestrained expression only through the individual. Any form of party whip will constrain a member's view of what is the most pragmatic way to do something. If a certain policy is pragmatic, however, individuals who do not belong to any party may also subscribe to it jointly (as if in a party) as it is the most pragmatic choice to take.

Would Singapore then be better off without political parties, but responsible and capable individuals putting themselves up for elections? A selected group of 'respected elders' within society can serve as the baseline moderators for such interested individuals. For those people championing a two-party system, surely, a non-party individual-based form of democracy would provide an even more elaborate check-and-balance framework of democracy.

(Above article was published in this form in ST Online Forum on 21st November 2008)

On Obama's Election

"We reward people a lot for being rich, for being famous, for being cute, for being thin ... one of the values I think we need to instill in our country, in our children, is a sense of 'usefulness', in other words, are we useful, are we making other peoples' lives a little bit better?' - Barack Obama

Mr Barack Obama's election as the next President of America, is indeed historic, and has grabbed attention and attracted euphoria all over the world. Youths especially have been invigorated, stimulated and excited by his vision of change, his background and his charisma. Many news reports have written on how the US and the world indeed could become, under the Obama presidency. I will not go into all that, and will keep this post short.

To me, Barack Obama is not about being an antithesis to George Bush, he is not about pulling out of Iraq, he is not about getting America out of the current financial crisis, he is not about being the first black American President. These are things the American electorate (if not the world) want to hear, and therefore, are the things he has said to gain their vote and support. To me, Barack Obama is much more. He is about intuition, a man in tune to his own thoughts and feelings, a human beings who inclines towards the tangible and woolly, often-much shunned concept of 'social fairness'. When studying in Indonesia as a young boy, he told his teacher he wanted to be President. His reason? 'So that he can make everyone happy.' This was his intuition speaking, something he would never be able to use hard facts and figures to prove how, something that is not 'rational' as the term is currently understood. But critically, this was his heart. Before anyone jumps to conclusions and misunderstands, make no mistake, this guy has a great brain. The key though, is that his brain is guided by his even greater heart.

The next four years will likely be tumultuous, I can only hope that at the end of Mr Obama's term, the very same people who are hula-balooing now about how great he is, will not judge him by the so-called facts and figures, and praise or criticize him on that. If so, I do not think they understand the greatness of this man. I hope Mr Obama shows to our world, that if you have your heart in the right place, you will never go wrong following your intuition. I respect him for that, and admire him, for his ability to gain the votes in today's calculative world in spite of his fundamental intuitiveness. That speaks volumes, for his brains.

The Future of Housing in Singapore - Part Two

Towards Housing, A Gracious Society - An Experiment with Social Housing?

Shelter is seen as a basic human right across the world, but this has been interpreted differently according to the various policies respective governments have chosen to take. Owing to an urgent need for housing in the 1960s to house the people previously living in villages and slums, the Singapore government pertinently and rightly took over the responsibility for creating quick but respectable public housing under the Housing Development Board. As time evolved, and the private housing market developed in strength, we retained this dichotomy between the public housing and private housing market, which formalized spatially through the separation of ‘walled private condominiums’ from ‘road access, concrete-paved public housing’.

Other parts of the world have adopted a variety of different approaches, but I will like to bring to attention the ‘social housing’ concept as practiced in Scandinavia. To start with, I should clarify that social housing does not contain any developer implications, that is, it can be either public or private developed, or a combination of both. In Scandinavia, the model chosen is the primarily private developed one. This means that for every residential project a private developer undertakes, they are required by law to set aside 40-60% of units within that project for social houses, which can only sell at 40-60% of the market value of the remainder of the normal units within the estate. The developer is only allowed minimal differentiation between the social and normal units in terms of unit size and detailed façade. It is important to note though, that fully exclusive private developments continue to exist as well. Thinking aloud, what are the implications of such a model for Singapore?

Firstly, what will be the direct impact on Housing Development Board? The state subsidizes public housing using taxpayers’ money; the passing on of this responsibility to the private developers will mean a lifting of the burden on the state and indirectly the taxpayer. HDB’s remit will undergo a fundamental change from a housing developer, into a masterplanner/regulator which crafts regulations for the private developers and also work with them to develop the new ‘housing estates’.

Next, what are the implications on the private developers? Will they want to take over such a responsibility? The first reaction will be: why will they want to take over the responsibility of social housing, when they do not stand to make any profit from it? However, the possible economies of scales they obtain by having larger land parcels and increased units, yet still able to charge 40% of the units at normal market price, may actually offset the reduced prices they can sell the social houses for. This is something the HDB is currently not able to do, as it does not develop private housing. The state can also further entice private developers through passing on a portion of the original subsidies, PR allowances, more freedom of use on site. Indeed, this might give way to more mixed-used and well-integrated estates which can have both social and environmental benefits. Hopefully, this can also appeal to the civic-mindedness of our local private developers as they get a chance to improve our nation on a scale beyond the present. However, we are also of course not limited to local private developers; overseas private developers would still be welcome to tender their bids too.

Thirdly and most critically, what will be the impact of such a change on the ground? How will these new ‘housing estates’ look? For one, there will no longer be any concrete-paved void decks, as these will not be deemed marketable to the non-social market. The obvious direction will therefore be that these ‘housing estates’ will look and feel better than any ‘public or even private developments’, as the private developers will need to raise the bar to attract people to the normal units. I daresay that the majority of Singapore’s population on the whole, would be living in better-off conditions than ever before. HDB’s new found role will also be to work with the private developers to achieve this, and master planning will take foremost precedence. I will also hazard a guess, that these new estates will bring about a greater sense of social cohesion and etiquette, evoked by a greater sense of belonging; ‘unglamorous’ attitudes and behaviours may also thus, gradually disappear.

Finally, what will be the implications for the state in general? Again, the first reaction will be that the new ‘housing estates’ will raise land value over and above what any ‘public housing estate’ now can achieve. And the state stands to benefit through the imposition of Development Charge to cream off these increases in land value. A closer understanding will however render this unnecessarily true, as the increase in land value of these new housing estates, may be offset by a fall in land value in other land parcels in the country. However, as it stands, there can be no evidence that supports either the former or the latter. In all eventualities, this would be a fundamental issue that the Urban Redevelopment Authority as overall master planner of Singapore can address and work on, especially as it has effective regulatory and enforcement tools it has utilized well since its formation. This by itself cannot therefore be a reason for not experimenting with such ‘new housing estates’.

This brings me therefore back to what I see as the main obstacle for such a model from succeeding here in Singapore: The reception of the population towards the notion of paying more than your neighbour for an almost similar house, and a completely similar public environment. If Singaporeans refuse to buy the normal units in such developments, no private developer will be able to market the entire project. Similarly, it would be foolhardy as well, for the government to try to initiate such a change if it is not in line with the demands of the people.

Are we then, as Singaporeans willing to forgo our desire for individual distinction in terms of housing, if it means that almost everyone may actually benefits? If so, it might be worth experimentation starting with a regeneration of an older estate. Beyond just a roof over everyone's head, housing may be the best tangible avenue which the society can moves towards graciousness. After all, the house and the environment is where we spend most of our time.

The Future of Housing in Singapore - Part One

Housing Board Subsidies – Regressive?

In the 1990s, Housing Development Board changed their subsidy policy of flats to in effect, be a discount on the market price. Hence, a HDB flat located in the same precinct as a private condominium would sell at a much lower price in comparison. In our government’s drive towards home ownership such that everyone has a ‘stake in the country’, 95 per cent of the 80 per cent of HDB dwellers are owner-occupiers. This is indeed a remarkable achievement for a country just over 40 years old – a true testimony to the success of the government and the HDB.

However, there has been recent public discussion as to the rising costs of HDB flats and whether housing is still affordable in Singapore. Some questioned why the subsidies from the government were not a cost-based break-even subsidy, but one that was a discount on the market price. To this, the government stand has been that such a market-based approach ‘reflects the true subsidy buyers enjoy’ and has allowed HDB to price its flats affordably despite the sharp escalation in construction costs. Indeed, this is an accurate reflection of the situation. The bottom line being, if HDB changed its policy to a cost-based break-even subsidy, the amount of subsidy it would have to foot would increase with construction costs and this might prove unsustainable over a prolonged period. Hence, basing a subsidy on the market price will mean that the state as public housing provider gains less than it would have if it was a private developer. The public then benefits from this discount. The state however, still gains an excess over costs from their public housing developments, which is used to ensure that future public housing prices can be kept affordable. All this works well. However, let us explore deeper into the contributors of these subsidies – who is subsidizing for public housing in Singapore?

Under a cost-based break-even subsidy, an increase in construction costs will mean that the government will have to utilize more of taxpayers’ funds to subsidize the increase. Tax in Singapore is a progressive tax which means that the better-off contribute a larger percentage of their wealth towards taxes. Paying for the subsidies from taxpayer funds’ will mean that the better-off will subsidize an increasing proportion of the subsidy increase. This is definitely progressive.

Under a market-price based discount subsidy, the reduced profit from current public housing developments the state receives is used to subsidize future public housing developments. The reduced profit is received from the Singaporeans living in public housing developments today. The subsidy for future public housing is for the Singaporeans living in public housing developments tomorrow. What this means then, is that the population living in public housing is, effectively subsidizing itself over time.

But then, what about the state’s subsidy - the discount on market-price it has given to these 80% of the population? Who actually is paying for that? The answer depends on what the actual market price these public housing developments would be, based on demand, and not just on supply factors (i.e. location, costs). Simply put, if there would be no demand for these developments without the discount, (because those that can afford it would have sought out private developments, and those that cannot afford it, will simply not be able to afford owning a home), then the discount would actually not exist. The market price for something with no demand would be zero, and a discount on zero would be zero.

Therefore, it does seem that having 80% of public housing dwellers subsidizing themselves over time, leaving the 20% already living in private housing completely unaffected is regressive. In our quest towards a progressive society outlined through our other policies, this housing subsidy policy seems to go against that. Crucially, this regressive policy affects 95% (of the 80% in public housing), as they are home-owners. This is a percentage much larger than the population actually paying progressive taxes.

I am however, not advocating a cost-based break-even subsidy, as it is undeniable that over an extended period of time, that may prove increasingly unsustainable as construction costs and the living standard demands of public house owners rise. Nor do I think we should relook the home ownership policy of Singapore, as the ‘everyone has a stake in this country’ argument is a good and justified one. The solution, might then, just lie in an area which Singapore was weak in and could not afford to rely on when we first started off as a young nation in 1965, but has since grown from strength to strength – the private property developers. Can they offer affordable social housing?

(The above article was published in ST Online Forum on 29 Oct 2008, titled 'Are Housing Board Subsidies Regressive?')

The Future of Housing in Singapore - Prelude

The Value of a Human Being
There is an old adage that goes: ‘You can know the price of everything, but the value of nothing.’ However, as most students of free market economics will be able to tell us, the price of a good must be its value, and vice versa. So if goods are to be considered as ‘things’, then at least, we know the value of ‘some things’. We could debate till the cows come home on whether this is true, but I will not do so, because, after all, goods, by definition, are non-living things. Surely, the essence of life is living things, and the essence of society is human beings. What then, is the value of a human being?

Increasingly in today’s globalised and developed world, the value of a human being is represented by his capital worth. The grand aim of economics is to ‘optimize scarce resources.’ If we accept human beings as resources thus, then it is not difficult to come to the conclusion that, the more a person is worth (the greater his price if we all could be bought), the more his value to society is, and vice versa. But are human beings only resources, and nothing else?

I was in Finland in August to attend a student conference on urban planning. We were hosted by the City Planning Office in Helsinki and addressed by one of the City Planners. Despite being half way round the globe, Finland is similar to Singapore in that it has one of the world’s highest GDP per capita. Its population of 5.3 million is comparable to Singapore’s 4.7 million. Economically, it relies heavily on high-technology industries, Nokia being the clearest example. There are obviously, marked differences between both countries with land area being the most obvious. Yet, in terms of density in Helsinki City Centre, the figures are quickly catching up with Singapore.

The lecture on Helsinki’s City Planning was intellectually stimulating, but the one point which most captured my imagination was this: In Helsinki, social housing is planned on the same site as private housing. To put it into Singaporean context, HDB flats are in the same building as private condominiums. Therefore, when developers build private developments, they have to provide for social apartments within the same development. We visited quite a few of such developments and I was amazed at the quality of the apartments. Water-front housing, landscaped open play areas, attractive architectures; the social apartments are on the whole, practically the same as the private ones, and both share a similar open space grounds. The price of a social apartment however, was only 30-40% the price of a similar private apartment! What really puzzled and subsequently amazed me though was: Who pays for the social subsidies?! The answer given was that the state and the developer had to share the costs of these subsidies. Regardless of who bore the brunt of it, the implications were clear in my head, it was an obvious case of the better-off paying for the less well-off. And what then were the better-off in effect paying for? To have the less well-off to be their neighbours!

I thought back to Singapore’s context and I thought, ‘This is impossible here!’ The doctor or banker subsidizing the taxi-driver so that he can be his neighbour?? I had to give further though to it, ‘If it was such an incredible concept in Singapore, why had it worked in Helsinki?’ After an internal elimination process, I came down to one single answer. It has nothing to do with population size, land size or economy type. It simply was that, the Finnish do not judge the value of their peers based on their income earnings. Therefore, while the doctor does not reject a higher earning than a taxi driver, he sees no reason that for something as fundamental as living environment, the taxi driver should have an inferior one to his. Because both the doctor and taxi driver know that both occupations are equally important to the society. This does not go against capitalism however, because it is recognized that the doctor’s job is harder than the taxi-driver’s, the doctor still earns more than the taxi driver, and he will be able to furnish the interior of his house to a standard, beyond which the taxi driver can afford to, and he may own a summer cottage in the woods, and he may own a larger car still!

In a society fuelled by meritocracy however, I wondered to myself, how is it ever possible for a doctor to think that the taxi driver should be his neighbour because of some intrinsic value to society, if all his life, he has been striving to be a doctor so that he doesn’t end up as a taxi driver! I subsequently had a discussion with one of my course mates from China, and he reflected another casual conversation he had in Sweden with a local. He asked the local, ‘Why do you not want to be in the University?’ To his and my amazement, the local said, ‘Only people who like to study go to the University.’ This is Sweden, with one of the highest GDP per capita in the world, and constantly ranks among the top in the HDI; not some backwards developing country.

And a rather ‘shameless thought’ struck me, maybe the base value of a human being should not be his economic ability to contribute to the society, but his effort to contribute to society to the best of his ability? Human beings are born to different opportunities, and therefore, meritocracy is a sure-step forward towards promoting greater individual development. Human beings too though, are born with different potentials and intellect, and therefore, recognition of the inherent value of humans to contribute to society is the next big step forward towards both individual and social development.

Capitalism seeks the optimal maximization of resources. Communism, despite all its attacks on capitalism, seeks ultimately to achieve equality amongst all human beings in what else, but material wealth. Should not we instead however, be seeking to maximize and achieve equality amongst all human beings the endeavor to contribute to society and the wider good? In this world of ours, resources will always be finite and seeking to equalize them will never be efficient, but endeavor will always be infinite and seeking to equalize them will always be efficient.

If so, should we then not reward such an endeavor? The immediate reaction to this is already ringing in my ears, ‘But how do we reward endeavor if we cannot measure it?’ Indeed, we cannot measure endeavor, but who every said that we must measure something before we can reward it? The governance of society to produce societal recognition that the poor and rich should stay together and in similar conditions because both are contributing their best value to society, is in itself, the best form of reward by example and implication.

Amidst the international panic of the financial markets, and the domestic furor of the workers’dormitaries in Serangoon Gardens, perhaps it is truly time for us as a society, to take a step backwards and see who really have contributed to society within the best of their means.

(The above article was published on ST Online Forum on Oct 15 2008, titled 'What a piece of work is man...and meritocracy: Finland and Singapore')