The author discussed about the foremost geopolitical challenge China is facing as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) marks its centenary on July 1. He pointed out that bilateral ties between US and China are patently lacking in trust, but believes both can find convergence and achieve mutual respect if determined efforts are channelled towards policies, institutions, norms, and cooperation that seek to incrementally enhance security and cooperation for both countries even as they robustly engage each other on the issues.
In the 13th general election since independence, the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) – which has governed Singapore since 1959 – won 83 out of 93 seats, with a popular vote share of 61.24%, its third lowest on record. The Workers' Party (WP) won 10 seats, including an unprecedented two multi-member electoral constituencies, cementing its standing as the leading opposition party. Not only did this outcome fall short of the strong mandate the PAP had sought, it was arguably its worst electoral performance since independence as the PAP's control of elected seats dipped below 90% for the first time. In experiencing its worst health and economic crisis, which Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong described as the 'crisis of a generation', voters were expected to adopt a 'flight to safety' mindset. This would, ordinarily, have worked to the PAP's advantage. Instead, there was a flight away from the status quo ante.
In an age of pervasive informationflows, governments do not defeat fake news. It's the people as a society whodo.The threatof deliberate falsehoods, or more popularly "fake news", posesserious threats to the democratic wellbeing of societies. The marketplace ofideas increasingly suffers from truth decay, propagated online or offline,imperilling an already vulnerable information ecosystem. In turn,this compromises the functioning of a democracy, which is premised on citizenshaving a shared reality rather than multiple distorted realities.
Singapore was and remains an immigrant society. The immigration of newcitizens and temporary workers has become the primary means by which thepopulation is replenished and right-sized for its economic and demographicrequirements. More than one in three persons (or 38.6 percent) living inSingapore are foreigners (non-citizens, including permanent residents) in2013.[2] Of the 3.45 million working population in Singapore, about 38 percent(or about 1,296,800 persons are foreigners.[3] The vast majority of theseforeigners are transient workers (migrant workers) on short-term work permits.Of these, about 211,000—all women—are employed as domestic help (or 'maids' inlocal parlance) as of June 2013.
This paper seeks to examine the putative growth of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in Singapore. A key impetus for the nascent CSR movement in twenty-first century Singapore is the economic imperative. As a trade-dependent industrializing economy, the economic development drive coupled with the need for international expansion has made it necessary for Singapore businesses to be cognizant of the growing CSR movement in the western, industrialized world. The government supports the CSR endeavour with an instrumental bent, where CSR ideas and concepts are adapted, incorporated, and promoted in various sectors of the economy. This paper assesses the state's active encouragement of CSR in various facets of economic life in Singapore. The government sees itself as a promoter and practitioner of CSR. For instance, Singapore's unique tripartite labor relations have recently emphasized a CSR gloss while CSR is also touted as being beneficial for corporate governance as well as improving the competitiveness of companies and improving the quality of life. However, CSR is too often seen as another form of corporate governance. This paper argues that the CSR drive in Singapore coheres with the government's pragmatic approach to governance broadly conceived. There are many intrinsic and tangible benefits in the government being seen as an active promoter of CSR in various facets of Singapore life. The close association with the various concerns of CSR ensures that the government is seen to be involved in issues, such as environmentalism, work–life balance, anti-corruption, and philanthropy, that concern and appeal to the younger generation of Singaporeans. The CSR endorsement by the state, while not taking a legislative framework and still very much a private sector-driven initiative, is in accord with Singapore's political and cultural values where the promotion of social responsibility (individual and group), harmony, cohesion, and stability in a multi-racial, multi-religious, and multi-lingual society are very much valued. In studying the putative CSR movement in Singapore, a sense of the values that the state, in partnership with the business world, hopes to inculcate would be evident.
In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the primary weakness of US foreign policy, particularly in Southeast Asia which is home to the largest Muslim community in the world, was that it was driven by concerns over archipelagic Southeast Asia as the "second front" in the "global war against terror." Military warfare and coercive legislation and enforcement are grossly inadequate in winning the hearts and minds of a community. Religion-wise, Asia is not a tabula rosa. Many religions have long co-existed in Asia. The virtues of religious freedom are not alien to Asia but need nurturing given the dominant imperatives of governance, control, and economic growth.
Does Singapore's approach to institutional design vis-avis political representation prioritize strong and effective government, or is the goal one that is geared towards a representative government as a means of enhancing political governance? his paper examines the series of amendments to Singapore's Constitution and related legislation, between 1984 and 1990, and in 2010, which relate to political representation in Singapore's electoral system and unicameral legislature. At one level, the changes are part of the endeavor to retain Parliament's standing as the focal point of Singapore's Westminstermodeled system of government. The constitutional changes reflect the political elites' abiding belief that institutional design must produce a government with a clear mandate, demonstrated through a strong parliamentary majority, for it to govern resolutely and decisively in the long-term interests of Singapore. However, even as the changes are presented as a public interest endeavor to enhance Parliament's representativeness, the legislative changes marginalize the importance of representation in Singapore's parliamentary democracy.
Politics in Singapore is generally marked by incremental change. When Singapore eventually becomes a two-party or multi-party democracy, the 2011 general election is likely to be regarded as the starting point of the epochal political transition. It was a boisterous year politically where political excitement and consciousness went up several notches due to the 7 May general elections and the 27 August presidential elections, both of which produced keenly contested hustings and outcomes. The aftermath of the general elections also saw the retirement of former Prime Ministers Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong from the Cabinet.
Given Singapore's status as an economic powerhouse in the Asian region, it might be reasonable to assume that the level of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activity would be proportionate. However, in frequent comparisons of CSR across countries, both academically and anecdotally, Singapore seems to fall short. The understanding of CSR has not kept pace with the expectations and demands placed on business by the various stakeholders, including consumers and governments. It would be worthwhile to understand the reasons why this is so. The research has three objectives: - To examine the drivers of and impediments to CSR in Singapore; - To explore whether CSR is important for the future development of Singapore based enterprises, and Singapore generally; and - To propose how CSR can be made more relevant in the Singaporean context. Through exploring these questions, we hope to arrive at a more holistic understanding of how CSR is animated in Singapore, apart from purely economic motivations. And perhaps, we will be better able to account for the current ambivalence towards CSR that is prevalent in the private sector.
Singapore's immigration discourse is deeply influenced by its need to "right-size" its population. As a society that has and remains in need of immigration, contemporary immigration and globalization have rigorously challenged the conventional thinking and understanding of citizenship, as well as notions of who belongs and who does not. Nevertheless, international marriages and pervasive in-and out-migration for purposes of employment, study, and family, conspire to make more pronounced the decoupling of citizenship and residence in Singapore. This transnational dimension sits uncomfortably with the policy makers' desire for, and the imperatives of, state sovereignty, control, and jurisdiction.Although one quarter of people living in Singapore are foreigners, concerns of human rights and justice are largely peripheral, if not absent from the immigration discourse. This is seen most clearly in employment issues pertaining to foreign female domestic workers (FDWs), most of who come from other parts of Southeast Asia. 'Rights talk' is largely absent even as activists seek to engage the key stakeholders through the subtle promotion of rights for such workers.The government, however, has resisted framing the FDW issues as one of rights but instead has focused on promotional efforts that seek to enhance the regulatory framework. This dovetails with the reality that immigration law also functions as quasi-family law in which the freedom of FDWs and other foreign menial workers to marry Singapore citizens and permanent residents are severely restricted. As such, the immigration regime's selectivity functions as a draconian gatekeeper. Justice and human rights are but tangential concerns.
The focus of Singapore's response to terrorism post 9/11 has been to reach out to the "moderate, mainstream" Muslims as a bulwark against societal implosion. This article examines the broad‐based endeavor toward "religious moderation." While coercive draconian legislation remain the mainstay against extremists and radicals, the mobilization of soft law, aspirational norms, and values are consciously woven into the state's endeavors to enhance society's resilience and cohesion. They also seek to regulate religious conduct at a time when the state wishes to entrench secularism as a cornerstone of the governance of a multi‐racial, multireligious society. Rights and regulation are not antithetical to each other; they are integral to the entire process of managing sociopolitical risks that presents a real danger of an incivility spiral in which distrust, fear, and suspicion conspire toward societal breakdown.
