As a singaporean, I wish to add one more point to senior minister Tharman’s point about multiculturalism. And that is national service. All singaporean males above the age of 18, we have to serve for two years in the defence force . Here, we live, Train, eat together with people from all the four main races in Singapore and I’m proud of that. That is who we are, we love all the races here and we are one people.
@@csePraveenKumarB retired him to senior minister, even though many Singaporeans want him to be the next PM. There's some politics involved here but just know that hes a senior minster now.
Timeless and eloquent! I watch this atleast once every year and it continues to address global issues with potential solutions from Singapore experience, that are so relevant
Stop discrediting Singapore's success on being "small" country. Central African Republic, Nicaragua, Turkmenistan, Slovakia, Liberia, Mauritania have comparable population size. Why are they not as successful?
This is 2020, and to add to Mr Han's comment : ' Everytime he says 'social', I can feel the audience flinch. The housing policies, like many of SG policies are very intrusive and authoritarian. They work, yes, but I feel that it's very hard sell to American people. Just like our health care and social security system.' Nothing will sell to the American people today! That is the world's most unique country - God Save America!!
Americans are too far gone. They do not support things that work, they support things that are popular. Logic and reasoning have less sway on them than a Netflix drama
Everytime he says 'social', I can feel the audience flinch. The housing policies, like many of SG policies are very intrusive and authoritarian. They work, yes, but I feel that it's very hard sell to American people. Just like our health care and social security system.
I think maybe its in your imagination that people are 'flinching'. . People present there might not be as small minded as you think since they are there to discuss and learn of possible strategies which they might find ways to implement with some adaptation. I think there is a generally a consensus that traditional thinking of non-interference has not really be working and there is much discontentment and instability in many societies around the world, even the more developed ones.
You've to understand that the speaker himself said that this address was for the audience to 'learn something'. To then compare it to a hard sell is just not a comparison; i am assuming here that it was your intention as they came back to back in your sentences, unless you intended to only talk about US social demographic not being a fit to this, and thus this being pointless for them to learn. But my point still stands. In university, you learn to critically evaluate, whereby pros/cons are put into context for comparative evaluation. But you're not selling the idea itself to the reader. You're making a point. It is then down to the reader to ponder on it and take what he wants from it. That is what such conferences are for.
Not sure where you are from, but what is considered intrusive and authoritarian (housing policies) to you, isn't largely shared by Singaporeans at large. Controlling ethnic ratio works perfectly here in Singapore, and may or may not work elsewhere, but we are happy with what you called intrusive and authoritarian. You see neighbours of different ethnic belonging chatting with each other without biasness.
What is wrong with authoritarian, if it is well intentioned? Angela Merkel's open border policy was authoritarian. I do not see Brookings' neo-liberals flinch at that!
As much as Singapore is impressive for its amazing levels of material development, it does really seem like a very well-run private real estate operation. Mandatorily imposing racial and ethnic mix in neighbourhood may have the effect of reducing ethnic tensions, or do they? Does it simply push those tensions underground? A brutally honest analysis of Singapore would reveal that the majority of its population, north of 80%, are of Chinese descent. The Indian minority stands somewhere around 8%. There is little tension between the two, at least of significance. The Muslim Malay minority stands at around 14%. They find it easy to fall into the nativist trap as in neighbouring Malaysia, they are "bumiputra". The 'ethnic concentration' of real concern to Mr. Tharman, and the object of his government's plans to 'prevent ethnic enclaves' seem to refer primarily to Malay (Muslim) ethnic enclaves rather than anything else. We may couch it in as much diplomatic language as we like, but isn't that the root of the problem? It does seem rather hard to fathom a riot between Chinese and Indian enclaves for some reason. In his day, a considerable part of LKY's efforts at maintaining peace and stability within Singapore consisted of talks with neighbouring Malaysia to butt out of Singapore's internal affairs. Mr. Tharman's recipe for 'preventing the creation of ethnic enclaves' is just a nicer way of saying 'state-enforced assimilation'. There is no idea whether the people involved actually prefer such actions, are doing so out of their free will or whether, in the absence of such regulations, people would coagulate into their own native groups. How different is this then to that other exercise in state-enforced assimilation taking place in Xinjiang, China? After all, even there, the Uyghur are progressively being prevented from forming their own enclaves and asked to assimilate into the mainstream Chinese culture. In that case, it is termed cultural genocide and enforced assimilation. Why the negative press for the Chinese leaders doing the same thing there? Is it the rack of proper Engrish? May it be suggested that a more honest conversation be had as to what exactly makes a society that is able to interact freely without the visible hand of government. It is failing everywhere it has been tried. In India, state-enforced secularism has led to the formation of siloed communities with kettled emotions that is at danger of blowing up the second the government looks the other way. State-enforced communion of nations fell apart in the Soviet Union the minute Moscow was seen as weak. State-enforced togetherness based on religion could still not prevent the break-up of Pakistan into two in 1971. If people genuinely don't like each other, is it worthwhile for the state to enforce them to stick it out together? If Singapore has worked it way towards the prevention of troublesome ethnic/religious enclaves a la Molenbeek or Malmo or Bradford or Luton, then there is something to be heard here. It's strategy has successfully thwarted the creation of cesspools of rampant crime.
“Whether, in the absence of such regulations, people would coagulate into their own native groups” - Seriously, no idea? You certainly have more faith in human nature than Tharman or myself. China's been doing basically the same in Xinjiang, and the reason why she's been heavily accused by doing so is simply because she is China. Western PR war and that's all.
Thanks for brutalism of your honest analysis, however you have left out many important factors such as giving people the essential healthcare, housing, benefits, creating world class infrastructures, creating good jobs and building a proper and clean govt. I fail to understand why India has so many opinions about others and be politically correct, when it cannot be fixed on a single objective - to lift billion of people out of abject poverty.
@@mjourdan So do you suggest that acquiescence to a state order be bought out from the people by way of material inducements? This is how it's being tried in China, possibly borrowed from the Singapore model. And the fortunes of these states are tied pretty much to the rates of economic growth they affect to clock up. How is this sustainable? Because all the material wealth can be demolished in not much time if the people do not get well by each other. Just look at Lebanon and Syria. Also, the people feel little obligation to maintain the state if they don't feel a personal sense of amity towards the other people they live amidst. Enforced assimilation of the Singaporean variety does not answer the fundamental questions animating the people's connect with one another. The material goods you mention can well be afforded by people of their own accord and effort over a period of time. For a country of India's size, it would be better if the people were left alone to fend for their goods and services by themselves, or with minimal government involvement at the most. The Indian government ought to be the last ones to bump into the fortunes of its people. For a free Indian, to be told by the government what to do and not do with their money, their time and their life ought to be abhorrent. The Indian people are well capable of looking after themselves in all situations - even the poor, who can and have worked their way out of their poverty. Case in point, the Indian diaspora, of around 40 million, with no rich dad, is the richest of its kind in the world, and they are largely unsupported by any government, proof that Indians when left alone are as competitive as they come. The reason India(ns) have an opinion on here is that Singapore is seeking to portray itself (or is adopted by some) as a model for others to follow or adopt, whereas on second look, it is just another extreme totalitarian society with minimal personal freedoms (no freedom of speech, no freedom of association) using material wealth as an alibi for others to overlook its severe shortcomings on personal freedoms. For the wise, that would be a hard bargain to make. From Mr. Tharman's words, all it seems is that when in Singapore, a person's life, space and surroundings all belong to the state, and life is lived at the pleasure of the state. This ought to distress even the casual seeker of individual freedom. By corollary, those pleasures can also be withdrawn at the whim of the state or its chosen favorites.
@@wandererli Why is it not fine for people to live amidst their own types when that is what naturally inclinations suggest? The problem is inter-group tensions that can really be defused only when groups develop natural connections and cultivate trust naturally, and these aren't happening if people are forced into assimilation like a horse and a donkey to come up with a mule. The point is, all this forced co-living is futile in the medium term, for it is remarkable the extent to which people can hide their true prejudices.
Classic statement from an armchair thinker. In practise? My chinese wife grew up with neighborhood and parent/grandparent speaking malay, and I play with them as childhood, and had known their language and culture from young. Till today we still had frequent exchanges during malay or chinese festivals. And I am from Singapore.
I guess you have never step into Singapore. Multi-religion can co-exist, why not multi-culturism? Have you ever seen different religions housed in the same place of worship? You should come here and Singaporean will be able to show you, a Taoist Temple with Hindu Deity and a Malay Deity. Multi-culturism, it exist here beyond your believes. You see different ethnic groups celebrating the festive of other ethnic groups. You see cross ethnic visiting homes of friends of different ethnic group on their festive celebration. I bet you can never believe all these exist. Get out of the well, take a look outside.
Cancan Jaker 1989 Singaporeans wanted s Dhanabalan to be the next pm. But LKY said Singaporeans not ready for chinese pm. Same story la. PAP don’t want non Chinese to rule Singapore, that’s why the import many Chinese from China and give them citizenship to be the Majority
@@Tommashelbyeee I never see any where that says Singaporeans then wanted Dhanabalan as next PM. I never even heard any of the older Singaporeans said that before. You made that one up. Singaporeans then didn't even think of LKY not being PM, they accept GCT as first choice. LKY did said that Dhanabalan is not chosen because Singaporeans are not ready for non-Chinese PM, but he said that Dhanabalan think the same.
Are you stupid? He is tired, give him a break. If we didn't like him because of his race, he wouldn't even have been dpm in the first place, he wouldn't even be allowed to be speaking to international audience like this. Use your brain before you comment
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
23:18 The keynote begins.
As a singaporean, I wish to add one more point to senior minister Tharman’s point about multiculturalism. And that is national service. All singaporean males above the age of 18, we have to serve for two years in the defence force . Here, we live, Train, eat together with people from all the four main races in Singapore and I’m proud of that. That is who we are, we love all the races here and we are one people.
.
He's not deputy prime minister anymore
.
@@avijeet1670 why so
@@csePraveenKumarB retired him to senior minister, even though many Singaporeans want him to be the next PM. There's some politics involved here but just know that hes a senior minster now.
23:20
Ppp
Timeless and eloquent! I watch this atleast once every year and it continues to address global issues with potential solutions from Singapore experience, that are so relevant
How could you have missed out mentioning National Service I'll never know.
That's what a top-down small society can achieve.
Stop discrediting Singapore's success on being "small" country. Central African Republic, Nicaragua, Turkmenistan, Slovakia, Liberia, Mauritania have comparable population size. Why are they not as successful?
This is 2020, and to add to Mr Han's comment :
' Everytime he says 'social', I can feel the audience flinch. The housing policies, like many of SG policies are very intrusive and authoritarian. They work, yes, but I feel that it's very hard sell to American people. Just like our health care and social security system.'
Nothing will sell to the American people today! That is the world's most unique country - God Save America!!
Americans are too far gone. They do not support things that work, they support things that are popular. Logic and reasoning have less sway on them than a Netflix drama
Моди говорит, что все планы убийства верны, и все индийцы должны убивать моди календарем
Everytime he says 'social', I can feel the audience flinch. The housing policies, like many of SG policies are very intrusive and authoritarian. They work, yes, but I feel that it's very hard sell to American people. Just like our health care and social security system.
I think maybe its in your imagination that people are 'flinching'. . People present there might not be as small minded as you think since they are there to discuss and learn of possible strategies which they might find ways to implement with some adaptation. I think there is a generally a consensus that traditional thinking of non-interference has not really be working and there is much discontentment and instability in many societies around the world, even the more developed ones.
You've to understand that the speaker himself said that this address was for the audience to 'learn something'. To then compare it to a hard sell is just not a comparison; i am assuming here that it was your intention as they came back to back in your sentences, unless you intended to only talk about US social demographic not being a fit to this, and thus this being pointless for them to learn. But my point still stands. In university, you learn to critically evaluate, whereby pros/cons are put into context for comparative evaluation. But you're not selling the idea itself to the reader. You're making a point. It is then down to the reader to ponder on it and take what he wants from it. That is what such conferences are for.
Not sure where you are from, but what is considered intrusive and authoritarian (housing policies) to you, isn't largely shared by Singaporeans at large. Controlling ethnic ratio works perfectly here in Singapore, and may or may not work elsewhere, but we are happy with what you called intrusive and authoritarian. You see neighbours of different ethnic belonging chatting with each other without biasness.
What is wrong with authoritarian, if it is well intentioned? Angela Merkel's open border policy was authoritarian. I do not see Brookings' neo-liberals flinch at that!
Good man Good leader
As much as Singapore is impressive for its amazing levels of material development, it does really seem like a very well-run private real estate operation. Mandatorily imposing racial and ethnic mix in neighbourhood may have the effect of reducing ethnic tensions, or do they? Does it simply push those tensions underground?
A brutally honest analysis of Singapore would reveal that the majority of its population, north of 80%, are of Chinese descent. The Indian minority stands somewhere around 8%. There is little tension between the two, at least of significance.
The Muslim Malay minority stands at around 14%. They find it easy to fall into the nativist trap as in neighbouring Malaysia, they are "bumiputra". The 'ethnic concentration' of real concern to Mr. Tharman, and the object of his government's plans to 'prevent ethnic enclaves' seem to refer primarily to Malay (Muslim) ethnic enclaves rather than anything else. We may couch it in as much diplomatic language as we like, but isn't that the root of the problem? It does seem rather hard to fathom a riot between Chinese and Indian enclaves for some reason.
In his day, a considerable part of LKY's efforts at maintaining peace and stability within Singapore consisted of talks with neighbouring Malaysia to butt out of Singapore's internal affairs.
Mr. Tharman's recipe for 'preventing the creation of ethnic enclaves' is just a nicer way of saying 'state-enforced assimilation'. There is no idea whether the people involved actually prefer such actions, are doing so out of their free will or whether, in the absence of such regulations, people would coagulate into their own native groups. How different is this then to that other exercise in state-enforced assimilation taking place in Xinjiang, China? After all, even there, the Uyghur are progressively being prevented from forming their own enclaves and asked to assimilate into the mainstream Chinese culture. In that case, it is termed cultural genocide and enforced assimilation. Why the negative press for the Chinese leaders doing the same thing there? Is it the rack of proper Engrish?
May it be suggested that a more honest conversation be had as to what exactly makes a society that is able to interact freely without the visible hand of government. It is failing everywhere it has been tried. In India, state-enforced secularism has led to the formation of siloed communities with kettled emotions that is at danger of blowing up the second the government looks the other way. State-enforced communion of nations fell apart in the Soviet Union the minute Moscow was seen as weak. State-enforced togetherness based on religion could still not prevent the break-up of Pakistan into two in 1971. If people genuinely don't like each other, is it worthwhile for the state to enforce them to stick it out together?
If Singapore has worked it way towards the prevention of troublesome ethnic/religious enclaves a la Molenbeek or Malmo or Bradford or Luton, then there is something to be heard here. It's strategy has successfully thwarted the creation of cesspools of rampant crime.
“Whether, in the absence of such regulations, people would coagulate into their own native groups” - Seriously, no idea? You certainly have more faith in human nature than Tharman or myself.
China's been doing basically the same in Xinjiang, and the reason why she's been heavily accused by doing so is simply because she is China. Western PR war and that's all.
Correction, the Chinese population is only 70%.
Thanks for brutalism of your honest analysis, however you have left out many important factors such as giving people the essential healthcare, housing, benefits, creating world class infrastructures, creating good jobs and building a proper and clean govt. I fail to understand why India has so many opinions about others and be politically correct, when it cannot be fixed on a single objective - to lift billion of people out of abject poverty.
@@mjourdan So do you suggest that acquiescence to a state order be bought out from the people by way of material inducements? This is how it's being tried in China, possibly borrowed from the Singapore model. And the fortunes of these states are tied pretty much to the rates of economic growth they affect to clock up. How is this sustainable?
Because all the material wealth can be demolished in not much time if the people do not get well by each other. Just look at Lebanon and Syria. Also, the people feel little obligation to maintain the state if they don't feel a personal sense of amity towards the other people they live amidst.
Enforced assimilation of the Singaporean variety does not answer the fundamental questions animating the people's connect with one another.
The material goods you mention can well be afforded by people of their own accord and effort over a period of time. For a country of India's size, it would be better if the people were left alone to fend for their goods and services by themselves, or with minimal government involvement at the most. The Indian government ought to be the last ones to bump into the fortunes of its people. For a free Indian, to be told by the government what to do and not do with their money, their time and their life ought to be abhorrent. The Indian people are well capable of looking after themselves in all situations - even the poor, who can and have worked their way out of their poverty.
Case in point, the Indian diaspora, of around 40 million, with no rich dad, is the richest of its kind in the world, and they are largely unsupported by any government, proof that Indians when left alone are as competitive as they come.
The reason India(ns) have an opinion on here is that Singapore is seeking to portray itself (or is adopted by some) as a model for others to follow or adopt, whereas on second look, it is just another extreme totalitarian society with minimal personal freedoms (no freedom of speech, no freedom of association) using material wealth as an alibi for others to overlook its severe shortcomings on personal freedoms. For the wise, that would be a hard bargain to make.
From Mr. Tharman's words, all it seems is that when in Singapore, a person's life, space and surroundings all belong to the state, and life is lived at the pleasure of the state. This ought to distress even the casual seeker of individual freedom. By corollary, those pleasures can also be withdrawn at the whim of the state or its chosen favorites.
@@wandererli Why is it not fine for people to live amidst their own types when that is what naturally inclinations suggest? The problem is inter-group tensions that can really be defused only when groups develop natural connections and cultivate trust naturally, and these aren't happening if people are forced into assimilation like a horse and a donkey to come up with a mule. The point is, all this forced co-living is futile in the medium term, for it is remarkable the extent to which people can hide their true prejudices.
Multiethnicism works but not multi-culturism.
Classic statement from an armchair thinker. In practise? My chinese wife grew up with neighborhood and parent/grandparent speaking malay, and I play with them as childhood, and had known their language and culture from young. Till today we still had frequent exchanges during malay or chinese festivals. And I am from Singapore.
Are you a Singaporean?
I guess you have never step into Singapore. Multi-religion can co-exist, why not multi-culturism? Have you ever seen different religions housed in the same place of worship? You should come here and Singaporean will be able to show you, a Taoist Temple with Hindu Deity and a Malay Deity.
Multi-culturism, it exist here beyond your believes. You see different ethnic groups celebrating the festive of other ethnic groups. You see cross ethnic visiting homes of friends of different ethnic group on their festive celebration. I bet you can never believe all these exist.
Get out of the well, take a look outside.
@@kgtan7534 Wah Seh! Love Ur post. A lot of ppl anyhow luan pom. Buay tahan those lang haven't come to Singapore yet.
@@kgtan7534 multi culturism is different from multi-religionism. You can be from the same religion but have a different culture.
Oo
.
.
Ok
P
P
P
O
Pp
Pop
Pppp
O
Why remove him from DPM? because he is not a Chinese???
Because 3G leaders are moving down for the 4G leaders to take over.
Cancan Jaker 1989 Singaporeans wanted s Dhanabalan to be the next pm. But LKY said Singaporeans not ready for chinese pm. Same story la. PAP don’t want non Chinese to rule Singapore, that’s why the import many Chinese from China and give them citizenship to be the Majority
@@Tommashelbyeee I never see any where that says Singaporeans then wanted Dhanabalan as next PM. I never even heard any of the older Singaporeans said that before. You made that one up. Singaporeans then didn't even think of LKY not being PM, they accept GCT as first choice. LKY did said that Dhanabalan is not chosen because Singaporeans are not ready for non-Chinese PM, but he said that Dhanabalan think the same.
Are you stupid? He is tired, give him a break. If we didn't like him because of his race, he wouldn't even have been dpm in the first place, he wouldn't even be allowed to be speaking to international audience like this. Use your brain before you comment