TLDR;
- Geographically, Singapore lends itself to trade. Singapore has a rich heritage of merchants and traders.
- The Merchant mindset prefers to take, and not make.
- This puts Singapore at an inherent disadvantage to create value.
- As the economy grows more intangible (article for another time), this also skews us towards a profit-without-product state. This is not resilient or healthy in the long-term.
- But things are temporal - cultures take time to change.
History of Singapore’s Role in International Systems
Since the late Medieval Era, merchants ranging from China, Europe and the Middle East appear to have engaged with the settlement based on historical records. Archaeological evidence points towards Singapore (or Temasek as it was known then), as a trading centre and a fortified city.
It makes sense that the island along the straits of Malacca allowed it to be a natural trading hub. As such, I think it is conceivable that this hub has persisted through many historical eras: the Majapahits, the Srivijaya and other dominant coastal powers who have thrived in these straits.
Yet, its geographic strengths alone was not enough to save it. There are no good records the capture the decline of the Sultanate of Malacca until the arrival of the British in the 19th Century. It is unclear what happened during this dark age for the island now known as Singapore.
The prevailing Merchant Mindset in Singapore
Without getting into the details too deeply into identity, questioning what a nation is, etc. I find it very much believable - at a broad level - that the economy, culture and norms of a nation are heavily influenced by its location and geography. I attribute this to my interest in geopolitics. Singapore’s geography and historical role as a trading hub has naturally led it to develop its reputed openness for business and trade; diversity and multiculturalism; neutrality and peace-loving disposition.
However, I wonder if this has also shaped Singaporean society in a more sinister way.
In an economy that thrives on trade, I believe that societal pressures have evolved with a “merchant-mindset” in parallel. Its a bit of a loose term - but I define it as a societal norm that is disinclined to create products. Instead, much of what the society does is to profit off others, and skimming money off the flows between others. For example, roles related to retail, distribution and commodity trade. The “nobility” of Singapore in the 19th century were successful examples of this. Many leading figures were renowned and well-connected merchants, and formed much of the old-money elites. There names are on the streets of Singapore to this day.
I am not disparaging them - it is important too to recognise their contributions and returns to society. Tan Tock Seng is a good example of this - he has a hospital named after him.
Taking will always be more attractive than making
In more modern times, Singapore has since built itself as a logistics and financial hub. Again, providing essential services for global trade and finance, and being rewarded handsomely from such flows.
Anecdotally, there is a continued emphasis towards money making ventures (trade, distribution, investment) as opposed to producing tangible goods. If adverts on youtube are anything to go by - these are often exploited through “get-rich-easy” schemes.
As much as we try, the Singapore government’s push for STEM subjects has not really redirected Singaporeans away from this mindset. The finance and services industry remains fairly glamourous and the paramour of many young graduates. Many top engineering graduates do not do engineering. Though skilled to do so, few engineers make. Instead, they join the cadre of business graduates who continue to take and profit from the flows of others.
Digital and technology companies have since become the next sexy thing for many STEM graduates. Yet again, much of the product creation and hard technical skills to build products reside overseas. It remains unclear to me if the digital revolution can buck this trend of taking and not making here.
I caveat that this is not meant to be a criticism, merely an observation.
The Economic Concern
In the future, my concerns lie in whether this has tilted Singapore’s economy and society in an unhealthy way.
Digital marketing, digital advertising, fintech, drop-shipping and Cryptocurrency (retches) are new sectors that many Singaporeans have gravitated to.
With the absence of a tangible product, it is far too easy for many of these businesses to be dealing in the economics of bullshit.
To illustrate: The “product” is funded by hyped-up venture capitalists, advertised by snake-oil sales people, and surreptitiously sold to anxious customers who frankly should invest or spend their money on more meaningful things.
More broadly, these activities are neither economically nor societally enriching. They are geared towards taking without creating anything actually valuable. Aside from this being a purely extractive activity without really adding anything substantive in terms of creation, I shall also talk about the evils of marketing and advertising in another post at some point [reminder: link mkt/ adv post here]
The Societal Spillover
An economy driven by novelty has its limits.
From a societal point of view -when everyone “sells” and no one “does”, there is a huge risk of us eating our own bullshit. We become susceptible to marketing and hype that may not make us happier individuals. And so, I fear that the already frail hollowness of materialistic will continue to be enfeebled by such ventures.
Afterword:
Again, I have nothing against people working in this industry, and indeed there are far too many in less “tangible” sectors who are doing good! Effective services that address real unmet needs.
There is also a big push by the government towards innovation and product creation. And it is wholly necessary - government intervention in an area where Singapore seems culturally and economically disinclined to do so. It make take quite sometime before change will happen - but I am slightly optimistic.