The deadline for completion is 2004 so the current extensive “reviewing” exercise, which began 10 months ago, has some way to go.

Its objective is a reinvented, post-industrial Singapore that can compete against large countries like China. But an initial assessment is that the pace is too cautious, too slow, producing little that can classify it as a “reinvention” of Singapore. A less generous word is “tinkering.”

One cynic, economist Christopher Nailer, told a conference in September that Singapore was not pushing ahead quickly enough to fend off neighbouring challenges. “It’s the pace of change that I don’t see. I don’t see anything there that is changing the model,” said the man from the Economist Corporate Network.

To be fair, the work couldn’t have come at a more difficult time.

In the first place, living in a terrorism-threatened region with all its unpredictable economic repercussions is not the best opportunity to plot Singapore’s long-term future.

Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew believes the terrorist threat to Southeast Asia could continue for 10 years. Hardly any facet of life is unaffected by it.

Economists are finding it tough even to predict what will happen in the next two years, let alone the level of foreign investment and tourism in South-East Asia.

For some 6000 of Singapore’s best and most representative people who are involved in the project, these are high hurdles that stand in the way of their work.

“The final outcome may be less experimentation than originally planned for,” said a banker. “I think this cautious mood is already apparent in some of the work so far.” In the end, he believes it may be just an extension of the People’s Action Party (PAP) oft-repeated strategy that national transformation should be “evolutionary,” not “revolutionary.”

There’s another reason: an “expectation” gap. The government did too well in selling the “recreating” idea. It has talked repeatedly of “reinventing” Singapore, implying that many of its old self will disappear.

“No cows are too sacred to be slaughtered” was the pledge. Many people have come to expect a brand new Singapore.

So far, few – if at all – of the sacred cows have been killed, outside education. SM Lee has, however, said that remaking Singapore’s economy does not mean throwing out every strength and virtue that has been developed.

In broad strategy, it will likely lead to a less-regulated entrepreneurial society, a higher level of technology in science and research and, of course, an innovative workforce.

One expected change, a major cut in the government’s heavy hand in business, is unlikely to happen anytime soon for two reasons.

The first is a poor stock market. “There will be no fire sales,” the government has repeatedly said.

Secondly, there are not enough able managers-entrepreneurs with vision to lead them to compete successfully in the world.

The biggest proposals introduced earlier this year included a revamp of the state Central Provident Fund (CPF) pension fund and cuts in corporate and personal tax rates.

When the committees were meeting the press on relaxing the government’s hold on business and the role of the CPF, reporters had asked about “tinkering” on several occasions.

Some observers see two basic problems. The first is government reluctance to give up too much control for fear that things will go wrong if it did.

The second comes from a young generation of Singaporeans who are raised to become too dependent on the government – and jobs.

Highly intelligent, many have an ambition to land that big civil service or private corporation job, shunning any business risks.

The political and bureaucracy in Singapore pay the highest salaries in the world, for which the crème de la crème often gyrates towards.

Traditionally, Singapore has always lacked a big business culture, the sort that exists in Hong Kong and Taiwan. Most businessmen are generally small or medium-scale traders or people who make money building and selling properties when the environment was good.

SM Lee says the government plans to release more of its able and resourceful officers to the private sector – after they have served their scholarship bonds.

The result is a breed of hardworking, efficient – but not too creative – workers most bosses in the past were content to employ, but not now. Today’s business needs well-trained employees who can come up with marketable innovations.

Nowadays, companies and nations alike increasingly compete to see who has the better ideas. Not surprisingly, the most significant, praiseworthy, achievement is Singapore’s dramatically changing education aimed at providing workers to the new demand.

It began long before the Economic Review Committee (and its seven sub-committees and 6,000 members) began its deliberations.

Last week, the government lifted the Whip in Parliament when it debated changing it further from its old rote-learning structure towards one that will produce all-round “thinking” students for the future.

The system has already been moving away from a rote study of data to one that will produce innovative abilities.

With two more years to go, observers are not ruling out the possibility that the final economic product may be more dramatic than what is currently expected.

Involving such a large number of people from a cross section of society is a unique experiment here. To have so many people involved in mapping out their own future helps to promote cohesion and commitment. Apart from anything else, this is a large benefit.

As the name implies, remaking Singapore is, of course, in reality a never-ending process neither limited by time frame nor specific committees.

Actually not everything is gloomy.

With Singapore signing up for a free trade future with several major business nations and strengthening of its domestic base, the future looks a lot better than the present.

Seah Chiang Nee is a veteran journalist and editor of the information website littlespeck.com

                                                            Home