Outline how the Singapore state has, through its landscapes, tried to ensure Singapore remained an integral part of the global economy; and critically evaluate if these landscapes have indeed sufficiently met the needs of Singaporeans/the world.
After the Lion City’s separation from Malaysia, the Singapore government knew that Singapore needed to turn to the world as its hinterland. To ensure that Singapore stays viable, survives and thrives on the global economic stage, the state has implemented many strategies, which are reflected by Singapore’s changing economic landscapes. All these while, the Singapore government has always employed a top-down approach to its policy making; the economy has always been directed from the top.

In the first industrial revolution, Singapore faced many problems like the lack of natural resources, lack of experience of local entrepreneurs and high unemployment levels. Hence in order to encourage foreign direct investment (FDI) from transnational corporations (TNCs), the government looked towards building a No. 1 workforce. This was done through passing certain parliamentary acts and bills such as the Trade Union Amendment Bill in 1966 and the Employment Act in 1968. The former was to gain direct and indirect control on the trade union in order to control the workers. The latter led to the lengthening of working hours from 39 to 44 hours per week, reduction of public holidays from 14 to 11 days, and stricter criteria for employment benefits like retrenchment payment. Most importantly, the state wanted to create a docile workforce that would not create trouble, and was satisfied with current conditions and wages. Creating a highly disciplined workforce has certainly proved to be successful in attracting essential FDI to Singapore. Furthermore, this is no doubt advantageous to Singapore in creating the growth it needs.

However, while this top-down approach of governance was essential in the past, it might result in repercussions that are carried forward to the present, in the form of a risk-adverse and “too obedient” community. The docile workforce that was cherished in the past no longer fit in the requirements of today’s economy, which is to be more flexible, vibrant and creative. Furthermore, as can be seen in the recent release of the Singapore: Population white paper, local interests are not really given priority in decision making, as the government might feel that they know “what’s right” for the people. The people are increasingly demanding for the government to tackle income disparity issues and the overcrowding of foreigners in the country, yet the government is focusing their efforts on economic growth of the country, which is counter to what the people want. The top-down approach of policy making, though essential in the past, might currently be seen by the masses as the state’s ignorance and estrangement from the people. This increasing gap in the minds of the people and the government can cause unhealthy distress to the social and political fabric of the country, and even a possible overhaul of the current governmental body in the approaching 2016 General Elections, which Singapore is not yet prepared for.

During the third industrial revolution in the early 2000s, the government has focused on developing biotechnology and other high tech clusters in Singapore. As a result, we are seeing hubs like Biopolis (for biomedical research) and Fusionpolis (for ICT) emerge. The purpose of the high tech clusters is to ground global flows of knowledge, expertise and capital in Singapore’s economic landscape. This is only possible through creating environments for R&D to flourish, where traded and untraded interdependencies exist. The One-North business park’s design aims to tap into the latter, which are vital for creation and transfer of tacit knowledge; also to create an environment conducive to collaboration and relationship building that would encourage creativity, innovation and economic success. This is a great area for Singapore to be focused on, and success in creating a technology and innovation hub in Southeast Asia would ensure Singapore’s survival.

However it remains to be seen whether this will actually work. The very basis of Biopolis is fostering creativity and entrepreneurship – something Singaporeans lack, which shows a discrepancy in what the government is trying to achieve, and what is actually being done to promote that. The other countries might doubt that Singapore has the right social and cultural environment to foster the above attributes important in knowledge-intensive industries. It is easy for the state to provide infrastructure and funding, but the investor and talent pool remains limited. Singaporeans are just moulded to be risk adverse with the current education system and mostly are not the flexible, creative and risk-taking people that such high-tech clusters need. This is certainly a difficult problem to solve given that all of these arise from the government’s restrictive handling of Singapore. Furthermore, all these economic policies have created a widening income gap and possible over-reliance on foreign workers, which are nation-divisive concerns of the people.

Regardless, it certainly is encouraging to see the government always looking for ways for Singapore to establish a niche in the global economy. It indicates clear interest in the future of the country and Singaporeans should be thankful for that. However, if the government wants to achieve real, sustainable success in that, it needs to consider changing the ways it is handling the nation, and the people who are in it. Singaporeans are, after all, children of the state and what they are is the direct outcome of government moulding and policies.