Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.

Username
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 7,121
» Latest member: AngelesTra
» Forum threads: 1,372
» Forum posts: 46,394

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 28 online users.
» 3 Member(s) | 25 Guest(s)
Bob Butler 54, Classic-Xer, TeacherinExile

Latest Threads
I'm a sceptic that the 4t...
Forum: Turnings
Last Post: David Horn
1 hour ago
» Replies: 237
» Views: 5,991
Gray Champion Predictions
Forum: Theory Related Political Discussions
Last Post: David Horn
1 hour ago
» Replies: 124
» Views: 13,590
The Partisan Divide on Is...
Forum: General Political Discussion
Last Post: Bob Butler 54
5 hours ago
» Replies: 1,511
» Views: 45,173
2020 Predictions
Forum: General Political Discussion
Last Post: Eric the Green
6 hours ago
» Replies: 50
» Views: 1,626
How the Counterculture cr...
Forum: Turnings
Last Post: pbrower2a
Yesterday, 03:52 PM
» Replies: 27
» Views: 384
Election 2020
Forum: General Political Discussion
Last Post: pbrower2a
Yesterday, 03:50 PM
» Replies: 475
» Views: 30,082
Authoritarianism on the R...
Forum: General Political Discussion
Last Post: pbrower2a
Yesterday, 03:38 PM
» Replies: 8
» Views: 70
The Coronavirus
Forum: General Political Discussion
Last Post: Bob Butler 54
Yesterday, 01:20 PM
» Replies: 934
» Views: 22,652
Goodbye, "3 1/2 T"
Forum: Turnings
Last Post: TeacherinExile
Yesterday, 11:27 AM
» Replies: 12
» Views: 122
Neil Howe In The News
Forum: Neil Howe & The First Turning
Last Post: David Horn
Yesterday, 10:15 AM
» Replies: 26
» Views: 5,311

 
  If Trump loses the next election
Posted by: Mickey123 - 06-25-2020, 10:47 PM - Forum: General Political Discussion - Replies (44)

The old rules no longer apply.

Donald Trump was never supposed to be elected.  There's a general understanding amongst both sides and the powers that be in the U.S. that only proper mainstream candidates are allowed to be elected.  The left was shocked to see that the pact had been broken and that Donald Trump, who utterly fails to follow the rules for politicians, had been elected.

The American media, which is almost all left wing, decided they'd had enough, and abandoned their traditional objectivity.  They'd always had a left wing slant, but there was at least the appearance of objectivity, and this is now gone.  The media openly and blatantly oppose the president, and churn out non stop anti-Donald Trump articles and stories all day every day.

Traditional liberals are mostly unaware of this, as they can't stand Trump and so are under the illusion that the media is being objective.  But conservatives are well aware of what's happened, and they too have had enough of this.  The right now feels that the game is rigged against them, that the media is no longer playing its proper role in society and so conservative views can't be heard.  Any group which feels they can't succeed playing by the rules will seek to flip the board over and make new rules.

Trump is quite good at reading the mood of the right, and knowing what he can get away with.  If he loses the election, I think there is a very strong chance that he refuses to leave office.

Using any real or imagined justification, he claims the election wasn't fair, and that he isn't leaving.  The left's initial reaction will be to laugh, awaiting the hilarious moment when the sad old man is dragged out and tossed in a car.  But the next thing they realize, there will be a million right wingers flooding into Washington D.C., heavily armed and intent on protecting the president.

What happens next depends on what kind of support Trump can muster.  If he can get the police or secret service on his side, he can suspend congress and have his political opponents arrested.  If he can get the military on his side, he seizes control of the country.  Half the states revolt and refuse to follow the federal government, and the military moves to suppress them and force them back into compliance.  We have a civil war.

If Trump can't muster up military support, he attempts to at least hold control of D.C., with democratic congressmen in jail and whichever Supreme Court justices are willing to support him rubber stamping whatever he does.

How all this ends, I can't predict.  But we're really and truly in a Crisis now, and the old rules no longer apply.  I don't think Trump will go quietly.

Print this item

  So Trump isn't THAT BAD?
Posted by: pbrower2a - 06-22-2020, 10:13 AM - Forum: Turnings - Replies (4)

(Posted in a very different web site)


The fault with Trump is not that he is an idealist. His fault is that he has the wrong ideas. It is not mandatory that one understand the cyclical pattern in American history, but it certainly helps.

Trump does something terribly wrong that neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton, "Baby" Bush, nor Obama ever did: he romanticizes the past, alleging that above all, America suffers from the loss of some Golden Age. I can think of people for whom social characteristics not fully modern in American life were anything but golden. If one is black, especially in the South. then American 'greatness' implies that Jim Crow is killed once and for all. It is hard to imagine any competent and intelligent woman seeking a full return to the old patterns of male supremacy. A bit over a century, women did not have the vote, and men were commonly beating  their wives after drinking up their pay in the saloon... and did not have the opportunities of employment so that they had some control of the purse-strings.If one is a homosexual, then for LGBT rights alone this is as close to a Golden Age as there ever has been.

Much of the fault of Donald Trump is his extreme narcissism, something to which elite Idealists are especially prone. Figure that someone like "the Donald" has always been able to ensure that someone else pays the price if he fails. He assumes the reward and pushes the risk onto others. Such is pathology in economics.Those elites have become an exclusive club that ensures a homogeneous clique loyal to itself and containing nobody with empathy for those who might get hurt. Thus if one has ever known hardship one is corrupt in the sense of having empathy for others one gets locked out of responsible roles in life. Lack of empathy? Such characterizes narcissism at best and either sociopathy or psychopathy at its worst.

American progress depends upon the system clearing out vices before they become entrenched. Go in the direction that Trump promotes, and we end up with a hereditary hierarchy of the sort that entrenched social rot and ensured that people who suffered from it had no recourse other than revolution (likely futile), a focus on the Next World (which does nothing to improve things in This World), or defeatism (awaiting liberation from conquerors not as pathological as the oppressive elite), 

(more, and not relevant to that site but relevant here)

The generational cycle has kept America from going too far in any one direction by forcing change, much of it disconcerting. America has tended to be as militaristic as necessary when facing a 4T Crisis, has tended to put a focus on commercial prosperity in a 1T recovery or High, has led in innovative thought in a 2T, and has had the most intense hedonism in a 3T that allows Americans to explore the means of enjoying life as they might not enjoy it in other times and places . One consequence is that we Americans never develop a permanent character or the perception of a Golden Age. All Turnings are flawed, and such becomes more evident as society goes deeper into each turning. 

It is best that America break off any tendency to empire building once it has won the peace. Militarization of the culture degrades the culture. Just contrast Sparta to other Greek city-states in the Hellenic golden age, as does Toynbee. All Greek cities from antiquity have their historical museums, but that of Sparta shows a sudden decline of creativity at the point at which it becomes a garrison state -- which is about the time in which other Greek City states are reaching for the stars in science and are creating great literature and art. The Spartans had their priorities but those cane at a cost. A society that has expansion as its objective and finds peace simply a time in which to seek out opportunities to push its way in places in which such is unwelcome but possible due to intrigues and brute force eventually finds itself a dangerous enemy that can maul that society badly. Preserving 4T ways beyond a generation that need those for survival is one way to ensure that society fails to innovate and imagine its ways into making itself morally better than it was. 

A 4T typically leaves much wreckage behind and makes people want to make up for life put on hold during a Crisis.  Because work is reliably available, this is a good time for starting careers and family life. Such is the most obvious direction, and in a free society that is the direction that most people want. at the time. Philosophical depth? Such is a pointless distraction from the need to build a recently-neglected outer world. Intense feeling in culture? There was plenty of intensity in the militancy that made the previous 4T such a danger. A healthy society can certainly meet its dangers, but it generally seeks to mitigate any potential apocalypse.The highly-organized society necessary for meeting a demonized enemy gets in the way of commerce, stultifies the  raising of precious children who are more to be indulged than to be regimented, and of course in the way of making up for time. People in their mid-twenties who gave up their early adulthood for their country or their civilization have some catching up to do. 

A 1T is commercially successful. People know what is best done with military-style regimentation (let us say law enforcement and fire-fighting) and what is not so easily done (creative work, education, and collegial politics). People are scared of intense passions, those having recently making the previous 4T.. Blandness becomes the norm even in cuisine. So does meat loaf supplant Szechuan cuisine as something desirable to eat out in the 1T as the opposite happened in the 3T? Who knows?

I will make a prediction on popular music: if the most daring trends in 1T music were either "race" music (blacks could seemingly get away with more)  or sheer whimsy (Oh, Mr. Sandman... bring me a dream!") then I would expect something parallel.

About twenty years after the Crisis is over, kids who never knew the Crisis but instead knew relative safety get bored  and seek something very new.... and what might have been stale forty years earlier. In an Awakening Era, "commercial" styles start to seem dowdy.Intense feeling  looks safe enough for people who have never known it being used as a pretext for apocalypse. After all, Idealist kids can't imagine themselves being as "uptight" as Hitler or Mussolini. Sexual strictures that promote  exclusivity in relationships breaks down. Those who cannot think much often grab the seemingly-easy enlightenment of hallucinogens. Communes start looking attractive. Industrial work becomes unattractive,and much of it will disappear to the detriment of the people of little education who have made their incomes off a strong back and a good work ethic at "the plant".   On the other hand... a healthy society allows its assumptions to face a needful challenge. 

So what can go wrong in a 2T? Drug use flourishes, as does crime, Economic opportunity lessens, and people still want some semblance of the Good Life. Maybe Americans refine their principles, but perhaps refine them too much. Mysticism appears as a solution. Mysticism has solved nothing. The children of this time get neglected because Mommy and Daddy are contemplating everything but children that they take for granted.

So keep going the 2T way and society goes the way of the shaman, perhaps a competent thinker but a foolish  incompetent  at all else;. Society forgets its material basis and poverty ensues.

So it is off to materialistic hedonism as the Awakening era. One marker is that the popular culture quits pretending to have any high purpose. Thus Peter, Paul, and Mary give way to Michael Jackson and Madonna. The kids growing up have no use for philosophical depth; they want to have fun, and they insist upon its material basis. Big Business is delighted to offer such. On the other hand, society atomizes even more. Poli9tics becomes a means of enriching extant elites while real wages fall. Trickle-down economics become the sole offering in political life. Underpaid and overworked? Then solve that problem with another job! Corporate profits and executive salaries bloat as never before, and the elites in command of the economy and even non-profits become increasingly demanding, oppressive, and exclusive."Greed is good". Although the 3T might at first allow people the fullest enjoyment of life because nothing gets in the way, such is the lull before the storm. Because honest-to-proletarian work pays badly, people of talent start to seek speculative bubbles that promise high rewards on small investments. Speculative booms invariably go bust while bringing out the worst in commercial ethics. 

Along comes failure and the 4T. But you would not want a 3T to continue indefinitely.The system would become increasingly repressive, exploitative, and inequitable. Who wants a feudal economy? Who wants fascistic corporatism? Who wants to live in a society in which talent must defer to an entrenched hierarchy capable of imposing its economic ways upon everyone?       

Print this item

  Gov. Gavin Newsom Says People Now Required To Wear Masks In Public
Posted by: holly - 06-22-2020, 05:31 AM - Forum: General Political Discussion - Replies (5)

Gov. Gavin Newsom Says People Now Required To Wear Masks In Public

https://dailycaller.com/2020/06/18/calif...ed-public/

Print this item

  Time to END racism
Posted by: Eric the Green - 06-21-2020, 04:53 PM - Forum: Society and Culture - Replies (42)

In the USA and other places, we ended absolute rule of tyrants and gave white people the right to a fair trial. We should extend that right to black people!

Racism is ridiculous. Just because some people evolved in one kind of environment, and another in another, they should not have the same rights anywhere? Slavery has mostly ended. Now it's time for racism to end too.

Print this item

  The Lichtman Keys
Posted by: Eric the Green - 06-19-2020, 11:02 PM - Forum: General Political Discussion - Replies (7)

Key

1
Party Mandate
After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats inthe U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the previousmidterm elections.

2
Contest
There is no serious contest for the incumbent-party nomination.

3
Incumbency
The incumbent-party candidate is the sitting president.

4
Third party
There is no significant third party or independent campaign.

5
Short-term economy
The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.

6
Long-term economy
Real per-capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.

7
Policy change
The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.

8
Social unrest
There is no sustained social unrest during the term.

9
Scandal
The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.

10
Foreign/military failure
The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.

11
Foreign/military success
The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.

12
Incumbent charisma
The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.

13
Challenger charisma
The challenging-party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.

Print this item

  The Next Warrior Age - Right Under Our Noses?
Posted by: Anthony '58 - 06-19-2020, 08:45 AM - Forum: The Future - Replies (14)

The Broken Windows Theory.  The death penalty for drug dealers.  Caning as a punishment.  High wealth inequality (their Gini coefficient is about the same as ours).  A one-party state in everything but name.  Free speech and a free press - so long as it isn't "seditious."

All concentrated in this tiny country - and coming to the whole world soon?

https://thebulwark.com/misunderstanding-singapore/

Misunderstanding Singapore

What the world gets wrong about the small, economic powerhouse—and its response to the pandemic.

Having lived in Singapore for the past ten months, on this my third trip here, I sometimes think the so-called Red Dot must be the most misunderstood country on earth. Its plight is owed to the outsized improbability of the place, hence its stubborn refusal to fit neatly into categories others have designed for the purpose of taming perceived “otherness.” Indeed, Singapore is variably misunderstood, the nature and degree of misunderstanding varying according to who is trying to cram it into which pigeonholes and why.

What the Chinese get wrong about Singapore

Mainland Chinese misunderstand Singapore because they assume that since nearly three-quarters of the country’s roughly 3.5 million citizens are ethnic Chinese, Singapore is a “Chinese country.” In some ways it is. In most ways that count it isn’t.

Singapore is the only majority-ethnic-Chinese country not geographically part of historical China. That is improbable. Like Hong Kong, too, its roughly 150-year history as a British colony and mercantile hub makes it different, institutionally and attitudinally, from China. In the 19th and early 20th centuries a small but significant minority of Chinese in Singapore sought actively to modernize by adopting many British institutions and manners, including English and sometimes Christianity. Meanwhile, in China efforts to modernize traversed the 1911 Revolution on a roughly similar trajectory, but soon detoured into chaos and then Marxism. The path dependency deviation between the groups matters.

Singapore was also thrust into sovereignty suddenly and against its will, yet another mark of improbability as history goes. Malaysia kicked it out of the newly formed federation in 1965, possibly the most fraught year in recent Southeast Asian history for a tiny, still mostly poor and virtually defenseless country to survive. Singapore survived anyway, its near-death experience profoundly shaping its sense of self in ways sharply divergent from the experience of mainland Chinese.


Most ethnic Chinese in Singapore, too, as also in other Southeast Asian countries, are descendants of minority dialect communities—mainly Hokkien, Hakka, Teochew, Cantonese, Hainanese, and the special category of Peranakan (a Chinese-Malay mixed group with a unique cultural style whose origins go back 15th-century Malacca). Collectively known as Nanyang (Southern Sea) or overseas Chinese, among themselves they are “Tang people” because it was during the Tang Dynasty (7th-10th centuries) that the ancestors of these groups migrated south before some headed out on Southeast Asia’s waves.

All this differentiates ethnic Chinese in Singapore from majority Han, Mandarin-speaking Chinese in China. But since 3.5 million people is less than the standard margin of error in the Chinese census, it is easy for mainland Chinese to misunderstand a thing so small that it seems almost negligible. When Singaporean diplomats and politicians insist to Chinese officials that Singapore is a multi-ethnic and multi-confessional society, as liberal an aspiration as a state is liable to adopt nowadays, Chinese officials typically smile and check their Rolexes. They are patient, and lately a little more insistent.

Singaporeans, meanwhile, understand China better than Chinese do Singapore, because they need to. This has led to muted schizophrenia. On the one hand, many Chinese Singaporeans feel proud to have tutored their big brother to the north on how to run an efficient, “smart” one-party state system, despite knowing that the sources and nature of the one party differ. On the other, many upscale Singaporean Chinese wince at mainlanders’ brusqueness, lack of worldliness, and the cloying nouveau riche behavior of wealthy Chinese whilst traveling abroad—including to Singapore’s spiffy Marina Bay Sands and Orchard Road shopping meccas
.

What Europe and the U.K. get wrong about Singapore

Many Europeans, and British if we count them separately, not only misunderstand Singapore, but some lately do so willfully. It’s been sporting to drag the country-cum-metaphor into the desultory but encompassing and protracted Brexit bust-up of the European Union. Both “remain” and “leave” factions in Britain, and diverse Continentals too, have over the past few years enjoyed tossing Singapore about by calling a would-be post-EU Britain a “Singapore on the North Sea” or a “Singapore on the Thames.”

What is usually meant by such epithets is that Britain will adopt beggar-thy-neighbor policies to get the better of its former partners. Some commentators, for example Pippa Norris in a recent Foreign Affairs essay, have specifically mentioned environmental standards, labor rights concerns, and food safety protocols. By implication, therefore, they suggest without apparently having thought it through that Singapore’s environmental standards are lower than, say, Indonesia’s; that its labor rights record, for citizens and permanent residents at least, is worse than Thailand’s; and that its food safety protocols are inferior to, say, Malaysia’s.

This is nonsense, of course. But it doesn’t matter when European scribblers do battle with each other. As with mainland Chinese not being bothered to look at real, existing Singapore, Europeans typically know little about how Singapore actually works.

Now, as far as imaginable beggar-thy-neighbor traits go, it’s true that banks in Singapore are typically more willing to ignore where large cash deposits come from, at least to a point, than is the case in the United States or Western Europe these days. After U.S. pressure on Switzerland some years ago caused changes in Swiss banking practices, Singapore moved carefully—as it turned out not carefully enough—to fill the vacuum thus created. Singapore’s government-owned DBS Bank got implicated in Malaysia’s 2015 1MDB scandal, after which the authorities backpedaled quietly but assiduously to relative safety.

It is true, too, that Singapore has a famed maximum-security private warehouse—so not a bonded warehouse within the jurisdiction of Singapore Customs—called La Freeport, nicknamed Singapore’s Fort Knox. La Freeport is for wealthy people to store and transit expensive items without taxes levied, customs fees collected, or questions asked about where the stuff came from. (Several countries have free-port facilities.)


It is true, too, that as the world’s largest maritime transshipment hub, officials know that the parade of ships lined up coming to and leaving the Port of Singapore Authority may be carrying cargos not fully listed on their manifests. But it would be extremely expensive to all concerned, if not impossible logistically, to fully inspect every ship in port, and carriers know that. So do the smugglers who pay kickbacks to some even as they bribe others into discretion.

Look, we’re talking here about a society heavily populated by overseas Chinese in a place that before World War II had a well-deserved reputation for over-the-top gambling, prostitution, opium dens, and more. The current generation, while hardly the same as their precursors, has not jumped completely out of its cultural skin. Boy Scouts they aren’t.

It is also true that corporate taxes are low in Singapore. But what attracts large corporations to site their Southeast Asian operations here is not mainly the tax rate or any banking “courtesies.” It’s the presence of ample talented human capital available to work for multinational enterprises, Singapore’s lack of “friction” (read: bureaucratic corruption), its safety, political and fiscal stability, and willingness to invest in itself.


Indeed, if one looks functionally at Singapore, it resembles less a typical country than a multinational corporation with global reach that just happens to have a flag, a U.N. seat, and an anthem. It doesn’t so much have an industrial policy, epitomized by the state-owned collection of sectoral-critical companies under the umbrella of Temasek, as it is an industrial policy. With assets of about $320 billion, Temasek’s only shareholder is the Singapore Ministry of Finance. That, too, is improbable.

Together with Singapore’s more conventional sovereign wealth fund, the GIC (Government of Singapore Investment Corporation), with estimated assets of $440 billion, a back-of-the-envelope calculation of Singapore’s deployable surplus financial assets comes out to around $218,000 in the black for every Singaporean man, woman, and child. (The exact numbers are not published so as to discourage currency speculation by local and international traders.)

A post-Brexit “Singapore on the Thames,” or for that matter any individual European Union member-state these days, should be so lucky—or so provident and economically competent—to have that kind of liquidity at the ready. They could really use it about now.


What the U.S. gets wrong about Singapore

So what of a United States, with a national debt of nearly $25 trillion—which translates into $75,757 per capita in the red? How do Americans misunderstand Singapore? Let us count a few of the ways.

Singapore is an authoritarian state, right? Well, Singapore is a one-party state, but not much less so than Japan has been since it re-emerged as a sovereign state in 1951. No one claims that Japan isn’t a democracy, so why Singapore? There are regular elections . . . which the People’s Action Party happens always to win.

Singapore is a “managed” democracy, and let’s be frank about what that means: The opposition is not going to win political power short of pigs flying and the moon audibly whistling “Majulah Singapura.” The system is subtly but effectively rigged—I mean protected—against that. So Singapore is not a liberal democracy by law or constitutional guarantee. There are limits on due process, for example, that Americans would not tolerate. But despite that, Singapore produces mainly liberal outcomes. Aside from its both principled and pragmatic quest for ever more multi-ethnic and multi-confessional harmony, people here are free to leave the country and return at will, to read anything they like, and to write and say anything they like so long as it doesn’t cross the line into potentially incendiary bigotry or intolerance. The line can move this way and that if the authorities think it needs to, so most critics self-police.

Once you’ve been here a while, you understand the reasons for this. Given its location and multi-ethnic composition, Singapore lacks the buffers of external security and social stability that America has typically—but obviously not always—enjoyed. For various reasons, Americans tolerate more individuated noise and ambient disorder than most people; Singaporeans, like most East Asians, place a higher premium on conformity and risk-avoidance. Americans demand political agency and voice; in Singapore those qualities rank lower on the priority list. Younger people sometimes chafe at this, but not enough yet to approach any significant tipping point. China will not pluralize its politics in a Western sense anytime soon, and Singaporean elites will not abandon their paternalist outlook either.

But Singapore has the death penalty! Yes, and so do thirty U.S. states. Singapore has not used that penalty much lately, and it still has virtually no violent crime or serious drug problem. It has no gun violence either, because tens of thousands of guns aren’t lying around.

But Singapore is a police state! Really? Then where are the police? Except during the famous annual Formula One race, where the cops are out in force to protect people against large numbers of drunken foreign chowderheads, you rarely see any. Maybe they’re sunk down in their cop-lairs watching the CCTV monitors that are ubiquitous here. Indeed, that might be why women of any age can walk anywhere, day or night, without fear of assault. And why there is virtually no graffiti or petty vandalism.

But the caning! Singaporeans did not invent caning as a punishment; the British did. I dislike the paternalism it represents, but I’m not a Singaporean so it’s none of my business. As for the infamous 1994 case involving then-18-year old Michael Fay, few Americans know that, beyond stealing road signs and squirreling them away in his room for no particular reason, Fay said “Fuck you” to the judge during his trial. Had he done that in, say, Kentucky or Texas, he’d have longed for a mere four switch swats on his asinine teenage ass.


But the chewing gum ban! That’s just Singapore’s way of implementing James Q. Wilson’s “broken windows” theory, which holds that public order is seamless and associative. It worked in the New York City subway system, and it works in Singapore.

Singapore and COVID-19

Ah, but efficient, technocratic, shiny, chip-on-shoulder Singapore has screwed up the COVID-19 crisis big time, hasn’t it? The U.S. media reports that number of cases has skyrocketed lately, and numbers don’t lie.

It’s true that numbers don’t lie, but it’s equally true that those who rely on numbers without sociological filters to tell them social truths are muttonheads. Recent U.S. press reports on Singapore’s handling of the pandemic have been misleading.


Let’s summarize the record. Singapore felt the foul winds from Wuhan very early in what became the pandemic. If Americans generally or the U.S. government had been paying attention to what was happening here, they wouldn’t have been caught with their britches down. But ’merkins, as Lyndon Johnson used to pronounce it, pretty much never care about, pay attention to, or deign to listen to foreigners—especially one from such a teeny little place as this. You play with and pet a cute little bunny, you don’t seek advice from it or respect its capacity to teach you anything.

The last public lecture sponsored by the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at Nanyang Technological University, my host for the year, took place on January 31. I should know because I delivered it. From mid-January through mid-March, Singapore kept its infection curve fairly flat, as effectively as—if not more so than—Taiwan, South Korea, and Hong Kong, by using similar methods: temperature monitoring, testing, tracking, selective isolation, and a judicious use of masks. But schools and businesses remained open, and the economy hummed as usual. At the university, classes continued, as did smaller-scale meetings. I could feel some ambient tension, but trust in government and amid society—both earned from having endured the SARS ordeal in 2003, and some lesser public health scares thereafter—remained high.

By mid-March the pandemic had spread to Europe, the Middle East, and North America. So, like many countries, Singapore imposed international travel restrictions. Now, my wife and I experienced this shift in tactics personally. We had long since planned to visit Western Australia in mid-March, travel to Bali to mark a birthday, and then return to Singapore on March 25. We made it to Perth on March 15 just a half-hour before mandatory 14-day quarantine for all international travellers to Australia went into effect. We never made it to Bali; all our flights were canceled out from beneath our toes. So we hastened our return to Singapore and made it back to Changi Airport on March 19 about 15 minutes before Singapore’s 14-day mandatory quarantine kicked in.

Otherwise, frankly, the virus had its fortuitous uses: We enjoyed Cambodia’s Siem Reap in early February without having to vie for oxygen with the usual hordes of Chinese tourists, and we happily floated back and forth to Batam Island in Indonesia during the last week in February to visit a Bali-themed spa, and all but had the place to ourselves.

But by mid-March a large number of Singaporean students abroad, their semesters kyboshed by the virus, sought to return home. The government was not about to refuse them entry, but despite careful precautions, some imported cases made it through, and a small but frightening number of community-to-community cases inside the country eluded tracking.

As a result, the government rolled out its pre-planned “Circuit Breaker” intervention on April 6. The new restrictions emphasized social distancing. The government also distributed free masks to all Singaporeans, permanent residents, and work visa holders. While economic and cultural activity slowed, Singapore has never imposed the strict lockdowns characteristic of most Western countries that got a late start dealing with the problem. Buses and rail still run, though largely empty, and there’s traffic aplenty on the PIE (Pan-Island Expressway, the same one you saw in “Crazy Rich Asians”) that we can see here on the edge of the NTU campus.

The government has tried to ride the crest of the wave, keeping the infection curve flat without flattening the economy. The tracking and monitoring methodology has produced actionable near-real-time data, and the government has acted as the data suggested it should. It’s possible to fine-tune responses on a small island with a technocratic mentality, a good track record, and an adequate reservoir of social trust. Alas, size matters.

This fine-turning, close-to-real time reaction mode, has worked, too. The one glitch so far has concerned the foreign migrant-worker dormitories, where some 300,000 Bangladeshis, Tamils from India, and a smattering of mainland Chinese live. And this is the glitch that the U.S media has mischaracterized.

These are dormitories for temporary contract workers, so it’s close-quartered housing. Far be it from me to defend the way the government and the less-than-diligent managers of the dormitories have tended to treat these workers over the years, who in the main do construction and landscaping jobs. But the workers themselves mostly consider themselves fortunate to have the work considering their alternatives. Once the virus made it into the dorms, it spread fast and wide, accounting for the sharp spike in the raw number of cases. The government made haste to limit the contagion once its extent became known, and the number of new dormitory-related cases has come down.

The key piece of information here that the U.S. media failed to report is that the foreign temporary workers live and work mainly separate from the rest of the population, and they have not functioned as infection vectors into it. Because they are overwhelmingly healthy young men, their cases have been asymptomatic or mild. None has died from COVID-19 or even required ICU care, and only a few have required hospitalization. The number of new cases per day in the general population has actually fallen since the workers’ dormitory problem erupted. The number of ICU cases as a whole has remained steady or has fallen.

Total deaths from COVID-19 in Singapore went from 2 on March 21 to 23 as of May 28—out of a total of about 5.7 million people on the island. The result is that Singapore’s record, measured by deaths per million to date, stands at 4. The number for the United States at present is 306. Yes, numbers don’t lie.

Seeing Singapore for what it is


We all know how people like to describe their closest friends—informally, endearingly—as “crazy.” We know what that really means: that we know someone well enough to see and appreciate their unique idiosyncrasies. That’s part of the wonderment of real friendship.


Something roughly similar, if less intimate, happens with countries. You can’t really appreciate them, for better and not, until you know them well enough to see their unique characteristics. Once you do, the boxes that people back home say they fit into begin to look shabby and all but silly. Singapore is more improbable than most countries, true; but the same observation applies, I think, in the round.

Luckily or not, this year I’ve experienced Singapore both in normal times and now in the throes of COVIDaggedon. And from this perch one degree north of the equator I can look, virtually at least, upon my own country and city—Washington, D.C.—and what I see fills me with dismay. I don’t fear the planned trip home in about seven weeks’ time. I fear what kind of semi-stunned society I’ll find once I get there. The virus is almost incidental.

Adam Garfinkle is the founding editor of The American Interest. He is spending the current academic year as a distinguished visiting fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at the Nanyang Technological University in Singapore.

Print this item

  Hey everyone nice forum :)
Posted by: Jamesavalk - 06-11-2020, 06:16 AM - Forum: General Discussion - No Replies

Hey everyone nice forum Smile

Print this item

  Hey everyone nice forum :)
Posted by: Henrybop - 06-10-2020, 06:18 AM - Forum: General Discussion - Replies (1)

Hey everyone nice forum Smile

Print this item

  Thoughts on the mixed race, globalised world of the future
Posted by: Isoko - 06-09-2020, 02:59 PM - Forum: General Discussion - Replies (40)

So there was a post earlier by Eric the Green stating his usual left wing kingdom of heaven beliefs. Basically the how the world is going to continually be globalised and how everyone is going to be one big mixed race blob in the future with no countries or identies.

Now I've heard this what I'd like to call left wing kingdom of heaven beliefs before. So I recoiled in horror at such a prospect, saying how I'll be glad to be dead before such a world comes into existence. I have no shame in saying this and I would like to elaborate more on thoughts here about this concept.

The truth is, why would we want to live in such a world? Would it make the world a better place to live in? Why would such a world become better and more desirable then the previous one? There is a naive delusion amongst the left that if we mix everyone together, then all problems vanish and we can love one another. But Human beings are what they are and would simply find another reason to hate.

If we were to follow this version to the fullest, I think overall we would end up in the India scenario. There would be a lighter brown elite at the top and a darker brown proletariat at the bottom, fighting for whatever meager resources are available. How would it be an improvement on what we have now? Would it merely be a repeat of the past?

To be honest, this belief actually frightens me to think people actually believe this would make the world a better place. I will share you my ideal world and it is one that is common in the Russian Federation. It is designed on centre right thinking but I think it is a better ideal then the one I have just discussed.

A world of borders with different people and ethnic groups that learn to cooperate with each other. Imagine it like a street and we have different houses in the street. Do we all live in the same house? No. But we all live on the same street and look out for one another. Every house is different too and has its own unique vibrancy and taste.

You know, the Russian Federation is a nation of many different tribes and nations. Yet they do not mix together en masse but they live together peacefully as neighbours. As a result, a lot of traditions and identities are passed down through the generations and continue to do so. 

What is better I ask you all? A world government where everybody looks the same, acts the same, wears the same clothes? Where there is no Japan? No Russia? No Angola? Wouldn't that be a boring world to live in? 

Wouldn't real progress be living in peace with each other but preserving what we have to make the future even brighter? This I think is a real test of Humanity and if we could achieve this without the destruction of "progress", then boy, wouldn't we have achieved something? The preservation of the old combined with the new.

Is it wrong to dream this way? Is it unrealistic? I don't know. Does it make me racist for not desiring the left wing future? Or maybe an idealist perhaps?

Maybe it is but a sad and depressing reality. Maybe we are all destined to become the same. Depresses me a lot to think about actually. Always has done. I never saw any light in it.

Dunno if anyone feels the same way but give me a shout out if you do think it would be a sad reality.

Print this item

  1990s: cynical or optimistic?
Posted by: Blazkovitz - 06-09-2020, 04:23 AM - Forum: Turnings - Replies (18)

How do you view the decade? I have seen it characterised in both ways.

Cynical side:
-popularity of dark subcultures: goths, punks, metalhead
-high crime rates all over the Western world
-sinister movies like the Matrix

Optimistic side:
-the "smiley face" trend
-upbeat pop music like the Spice Girls

It seems the cynicism was more prevalent in the early to mid 90s, and the optimism in late 90s. It might represent a transition from Xer to Xennial culture.

Print this item