A state of high anxiety

By Peter A. Coclanis, Published The Straits Times, 7 Oct 2013

SINGAPORE has been in a state of high anxiety for several years now, beginning even before the 2011 General Election and accelerating since then. The reasons for this have been repeated so frequently as to achieve litany-like status on the island.

Economic growth rates have been low in recent years (though things picked up in the last quarter). Economic and social inequality have risen. With an ageing population, immigration has been encouraged, leading to rapid growth in the non-resident population and a strain on infrastructure.

Housing prices, and living costs more generally, have risen markedly. Given these, and other developments, many Singaporeans are coming to believe their futures are behind them, with some going so far as to fear for the future of Singapore Inc itself.

The restiveness is palpable and can be gauged in various ways: by the mediocre performance by the People's Action Party in 2011; by the complaints on "the street" (and in taxis); and by the constant hand-wringing by bloggers and other members of the chattering classes.

Perhaps most tellingly and surprisingly by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's moving, soul-searching, two-hour National Day Rally speech on prime-time television on Aug 18.

In all of these ways, even an interested outsider like me realises that profound changes are afoot, and that life on the island tomorrow will be quite different from what it is today, let alone from what it was in the "distant" past.

In the light of the above considerations, it seems a propitious time to remind nervous, uneasy Singaporeans, in particular Generation X and Generation Y (Millennials), whence they came. Mr Lee Kuan Yew used to do this but his voice has been much muted of late. Nonetheless, to this outsider, it seems that a quick look back at this "distant" past might bring much needed perspective to contemporary policy debates.

Let's start with some numbers. The Yearbook of Singapore Statistics 2013 says the "resident" population as of the end of June last year was a little over 3.8 million. Of this total, 61 per cent were aged 44 or younger, with fully 37 per cent aged under 30. So the oldest of these residents were born in 1968; even the oldest in this cohort had no recollection of the troubled decade of the nation's birth and were children when the country boot-strapped its way up the economic ladder in the 1970s.

Consider a few bracing statistics. According to the CIA World Factbook, Singapore, with a figure for gross domestic product (GDP) per capita at over US$60,000 (S$74,760) last year, ranked near the top of the list of some 200 territories, placing sixth behind only Liechtenstein, Qatar, Luxembourg, Bermuda, and Monaco. For comparative purposes, Norway ranks ninth, Hong Kong 11th, the United States 12th, the Netherlands 18th, Canada 21st, Australia 23rd, Germany 27th, Britain 34th, France 36th, and Japan 37th.

In terms of nominal GDP per capita, Singapore, at about US$51,000, fares slightly worse, but International Monetary Fund data for last year still ranks it 11th in the world.

It is difficult to make precise comparisons for years almost 50 years apart, but it is nonetheless suggestive that, according to World Bank estimates, Singapore's nominal GDP per capita in 1965 (US$516) equalled about 14 per cent of that of the US, 25 per cent of that of France, and 28 per cent of that of Britain.

It was slightly greater than the figure for Panama (US$505) and slightly less than that of Jamaica (US$552), but the figure for Singapore, I am happy to report, was 15 per cent higher than the figure for Gabon and fully 18 per cent higher than that of Peru.

Chart-topping Singapore, then, really was a struggling, developing economy at the time of the nation's birth. Its straitened circumstances in the 1960s can be seen in other ways as well.

In the United Nations Development Programme's Human Development Report 1990, a variety of country-level data is presented for 130 nation-states going back to 1960. Obviously, caution must be used in employing and interpreting this data, but it is nonetheless revealing.

For example, life expectancy in Singapore in 1960 - as in Paraguay and Trinidad/Tobago - was 64 years. For comparative purposes, life expectancy at the time in Romania was 65 years, 67 in Poland, 68 in Bulgaria, and 68 in the USSR. Today, life expectancy at birth in Singapore is almost 84 years, one of the world's highest.

The adult literacy rate in Singapore as late as 1970 was 74 per cent (the same as in Mexico) placing the country well behind the Philippines (83 per cent), Mongolia (81 per cent), Panama (81 per cent), Thailand (79 per cent), Colombia (78 per cent), and Sri Lanka (77 per cent).

In terms of female literacy, Singapore fared even worse in 1970, registering a rate of 55 per cent, placing the country below a slew of countries, including Burma (57 per cent), Nicaragua (57 per cent), and Peru (60 per cent).

We all know how Singapore fares today in terms of educational attainment.

One could go on. A half century ago, Singapore was a small, developing country with serious problems in a tough region. Over the last 50 years, its economic and social positions have improved dramatically, absolutely and relatively, its status and profile have risen commensurately, and the built environment has changed almost beyond recognition.

These are things for all of us, but especially people under 45, to think about. After all, as George Bernard Shaw purportedly put it (the quote more likely originated with Oscar Wilde): "Youth is a wonderful thing. What a crime to waste it on the young." So, young people, let's reduce "crime", and think in time.

Once fortified with a bit more knowledge about Singapore's "distant" past - the truly difficult 1960s and 1970s - one gains new appreciation of the distance it has come, the manageability of today's problems - immigration, infrastructure, inequality, raising incomes all-round - and the formidable resources at its disposal.

Who knows? An ancillary effect of such appreciation might be to ease some of the nervousness and anxiety many resident Singaporeans feel about their future and their city-state's future.

The writer is Albert R. Newsome Distinguished Professor of History and director of the Global Research Institute at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. He has worked extensively in Singapore over the years.