horizon scanning: trends and challenges for singapore

I have often asked myself what the biggest challenges facing Singapore's survival are. Ten years ago, I was afraid our manufacturing economy would be crushed by low-cost labour in China, and that we were too exposed to global financial markets. Today, I worry that the greatest dangers are internal: loss of national identity with the influx of PRs and foreign talents, and the growing income gap. The truth is, I don't know.

So over the next few months, I will try to compile a list of the possible threats to our future survival, prioritise and research each one to understand it better. Hopefully at the end of this exercise, I'll be able to form a more educated opinion on the question I posed above. And for whoever else is interested, perhaps this will be an interesting exercise too.

Comments and suggestions are welcome, the first step is to compile the list of trends (and some of the direct effects) that will shape our future. That can be found at the bottom of the page. From that list, I'm also posing myself some questions, which I hope to answer soon.

Questions

1. How will Singapore be affected by a double-dip recession, and how has the casino affected the resilience of our economy and our exposure to the rest of the world?
2. What are the biggest military threats to Singapore, and are we equipped to handle them? What else needs to be done?
3. How will the combination of declining birth rate, Singaporeans working overseas and increasing immigration affect our identity as Singaporeans and national institutions such as national service?
4. What are the threats to racial and religious harmony in Singapore, and what is the significance of recent government actions to restrict certain activities among religious groups?
5. What does the rise of China mean for Singapore? How will it affect our economic, diplomatic and defence policies? How will it affect our society?
6. Taking into account recent changes in CPF policy (such as cuts in employer contributions), is this system able to to support our aging population?

This list will continue to grow and priorities may shift, as I do more preliminary research into the list below.

General Trends (Laundry list of ideas)

Global
Dependence on Global Economy
- Double dip recession
- Global impact on local export-led economy
- Decline of USD as world reserve currency
- Revaluation of Yuan
- Impact of casino
- Status as trade and transport hub
Security Threats
- Terrorism
- Cyber Crime / Cyber Warfare
- Conventional threats
Globalisation
- Decline of nation-state, national identity and nationalism
- Growing PR population and NS
- Brain Drain
Rising China
- Risk of global power transition / contest for influence in Southeast Asia
- Conflict over Taiwan / Spratly Islands

Regional
- Political and ethnic instability in Malaysia
- Political unrest in Thailand
- Resolution of longstanding bilateral issues
- Relations with neighbours

Domestic
Aging population / Declining birth rate
Racial and religious harmony
Growing income gap
Income Tax and CPF
Environment
- Environmental Damage and Pollution
- Water

Useful References
Statistics - Economic Indicators (Singstat charts)
4 Challenges Facing Singapore (National Day Rally 2009)

giving christians a bad name

This was another part of a very interesting and thought-provoking conversation I had with two friends, an e.

They were telling me that Christians in Singapore should do something about the Charismatic churches, because they are giving Christians a bad name through their provocative public attempts at evangelism and insulting other religions. And if nothing was done soon, the government would probably crack down on them with the religious harmony act.

Firstly, what is a charismatic? Charismatics associated with the use of spiritual gifts (such as speaking in tongues), akin to Christians of the New Testament. Some say it is a denomination, but I think it is more accurate to describe it as a movement as churches of other denominations might also be charismatic to various degrees. And the most prominent Charismatic churches are non-denominational (or independant).

Secondly, what should other Christians do about them? Although I may not agree entirely with the extravagance of their styles of worship, or teachings such as the prosperity gospel, I am not aware that any of their doctrine is wrong. Other churches that deviate from the Bible are labeled as cults and churches would actively warn their members against them, the differences with charismatics are more like the ceremonial or cultural differences you'd find between denominations. Furthermore, there is no higher authority to censure non-denominational churches for such actions.

But, my friends argue, the charismatic churches have come to dominate the public face of Christianity. (I infer that they are referring to unwelcome street evangelism, extravagant property investment and pastors restrained for speaking against other religions.) Hence they feel that this is damaging to Christians in general. This is not about theology, it is about society. So shouldn't the rest of the Christians do something before the government is forced to take some sort of action?

So let's look at the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. From what I can gather, the key clause of concern here is 8(1)(a):

8. —(1) The Minister may make a restraining order against any priest, monk, pastor, imam, elder, office-bearer or any other person who is in a position of authority in any religious group or institution or any member thereof for the purposes specified in subsection (2) where the Minister is satisfied that that person has committed or is attempting to commit any of the following acts:

(a) causing feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different religious groups;

Most of the other clauses are more concerned with political or subversive activities "under the guise of, propagating or practising any religious belief". So the actual act of evangelism is perfectly legal, as long as you do not provoke "feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility".

I can't claim any expertise in these matters, and I have just been trying to deepen my own understanding in these matters with a little help from Google. Any comments or corrections on the statements here are welcomed.

is religion selfish?

I had an interesting philosophical discussion over lots of wine the other day with an atheist and an agnostic friend, both impressively well versed with Christianity and other religions.

There are many reasons why people have religion, but I figure it usually ties in to the meaning of life and what happens after death. In my very logical way, I deduce that if you believe there is a god, then you would want to figure out which is the true god. Clearly most religions, especially monotheistic ones, are mutually exclusive, and various religions offer different teachings about how you should live your life, and what happens after life. Many religions preach good works, others teach confession or faith, for example; the afterlife implications include entering heaven or hell, attaining enlightenment or being reincarnated as a cockroach. So whether the prospect is of damnation or reincarnation, wouldn't most people want to figure out which is the right god and religion?

My agnostic friend rejected this view as being too selfish. If there really is a god, a supreme being, shouldn't religion be about worshiping and glorifying this god, and developing your personal commune with this god, rather than looking out for your own selfish interests, he asked.

I was rather stumped at the point. Had I been so selfish all along? Too much wine perhaps. So we moved on to another interesting topic of charismatic churches which I will write about another time. But later that night, I think I sorted it out in my head.

At least for Christianity, we are taught that God first loved us, and because we had destroyed our own lives with sin, he suffered and died for us so that we could once again be saved and spend eternity with him in heaven. So is it selfish to want to go to heaven? On one level, I guess it is. But at the same time, we are not just satisfying our own desires, but also God's desire for us. The Bible's parable of the Prodigal Son is God's own analogy for his relationship with us. The prodigal son sinned greatly against his father, and when he was penniless and destitute he was too ashamed to return to his father's house. Would it have been selfish of him to want to re-enter the family mansion - yes, certainly. Yet in the end it was because his father loved him so much, he would not bear to see his son suffer and brought him home. It is natural to want salvation and eternity in heaven, yet we should rightly be ashamed of our human condition, and recognise that we are not worthy; but ultimately if we have the personal commune with God, we would also do it because we want to make him happy. And we would also do our utmost to bring all the other prodigal children home as well.

survivor (kabul) - an afghanistan exit strategy

The lunchtime conversation turned to how the coalition forces could make a respectable exit from Afghanistan, and quickly began to converge around three key themes:

1. And lasting solution must involve Afghanistan's neighbours (Iran, Pakistan), since they have the biggest long-term stake in its stability.
2. Any regime set up must be led by a "strong man", not someone the West is artificially propping up
3. The regime need not be democratic, because we shouldn't enforce Western norms on a very non-Western society. But the people should be given a say in the type of government that is formed.

Merging these themes together, I came to the logical conclusion that Afghanistan needs a radio talk show, an idea that came to be dubbed Survivor (Kabul). The rules are simple:

1. Anyone can audition, from all parts of Afghanistan and surrounding countries.
2. Participants will take part on discussions on the future system of governance for Afghanistan that will be aired day and night. No decision needs to be reached, but views will be shared, as they no doubt will be around all the radio receivers. (It has to be a radio talk show because there is very limited TV in Afghanistan.)
3. Every week, inhabitants of Afghanistan will use their mobile phones (the only modern piece of technology they own) to vote people off the show.
4. Others will probably be blown up by IEDs and suicide bombs, but this should be accepted as a normal part of tribal rivalry for ascendancy.
5. At the end of several weeks, the number of participants should be whittled down to a committee that could then be charged with drafting up the final design of what the government should look like, and maybe even form part of that government.

By the end of the show, we would hopefully have a few strong men: politicians representing the strongest constituencies and interest groups, and warlords with the financial and political clout to buy the necessary SMSes. We should also have a few slumdogs, who have a clear grasp of the political sentiment on the ground and the political acumen to reach the top without getting killed. And we should have some representation from the surrounding countries, which can surely afford to buy a enough SMSes for their favourite representatives.

It's an out of the box idea, but why shouldn't it work? And what would the coalition lose by trying?