Connect with us

Commentaries

Singapore: Modern Feudal Society?

Published

14 years ago

on

Ajax Copperwater

I remembered once reading on a forum that Singapore resembled a “modern feudal society”. Few years later, I chanced upon the phrase, “Medieval peasants worked less than you do.” That got me thinking: what is medieval peasantry like?

Most of us think of peasants of being illiterate, over-worked and incapable of managing themselves. Evidence has shown this to be a biased misconception. This article is written to show that today’s modern people are not that different from peasants from medieval period. As feudal systems varied in different regions across the world, I will be focusing on medieval England as it is well-documented and accessible.

Feudalism was a system whereby the King gave his lands to his vassals in return for military service, labour and products, like wheat, in the form of taxation. The vassals granted some of the same lands to the serfs to live and work on them, in return for services and products. In addition, the vassals were expected to support the serfs by charity during times of difficulties, such as famine.

Within the peasantry, there were also sub-classes to differentiate their social status. They were freemen villeins, bordars and slaves. Freemen were rent-paying tenants of their landlords and owed little or no feudal burden to the latter. Villeins, bordars and slaves collectively formed the serfs.

Serfs were bound to their land, under serfdom. Even as they owned the lands, serfs were barred from selling their lands, neither could they abandoned their lands without their lord’s permission. However, they were free to accumulate wealth and personal properties. Serfs could also raise anything on their lands and sell the surplus to the market, though they had to pay their taxes in wheat.

Villeins were the most common of the serfs, enjoyed higher status and more rights than other serfs. They rented houses from their landlords, which may or may not include the lands around the houses. Bordar, the next status down the serf ladder, owned just enough lands to feed his family. Like villein, they were required to work on his landlord’s land on certain days of the week. Slaves were the lowest of the serfs, for they owned no property or wealth. They lived on the charity of their lords and worked exclusively for the latter.

Working Hours

“The labouring man will take his rest long in the morning; a good piece of the day is spent afore he come at his work; then he must have his breakfast, though he have not earned it at his accustomed hour, or else there is grudging and murmuring; when the clock smiteth, he will cast down his burden in the midway, and whatsoever he is in hand with, he will leave it as it is, though many times it is marred afore he come again; he may not lose his meat, what danger soever the work is in. At noon he must have his sleeping time, then his bever* in the afternoon, which spendeth a great part of the day; and when his hour cometh at night, at the first stroke of the clock he casteth down his tools, leaveth his work, in what need or case soever the work standeth.”

-James Pilkington, Bishop of Durham, ca. 1570

*bever, Anglo-Norman for either a drink or a snack.

How many hours did a medieval peasant work in a year? Although there were several calculations in the number of working hours, it was generally thought that medieval peasants worked lesser hours than we do today. However, do note that peasants worked around sunlight, and worked longer when the day is longer in summer than in winter. Singaporeans worked an average of 2307 hours in 2009. In the 13th Century CE, an English peasant worked 1620 hours in a year. It was 1440 hours for a causal labourer in 14th Century CE. From 1400-1600 CE, an English farmer-miner worked 1980 hours. Another calculation though puts medieval labourer as committing 2309 hours into work.

From Pilkington’s description of a labourer, it seem that he or she enjoyed more breaks in his work than modern humans. That does not mean peasants were lazy, as medieval peasants ate less calories than us. Thus, they had less energy for output, their tasks being extremely physical labour-intensive and needed breaks to conserve them. They generally did not work on Sundays (some shops opened for half a day on Sundays) and religious holidays, which there was at least one in every month (with the exception of April).

Thus, it could be seen that medieval England had more holidays than Singapore’s calendar. That also explained why medieval peasants worked lesser hours than us due to the holidays they enjoyed.

Education

It’s not true that all medieval peasants were illiterate. Education were provided free to children of peasants by the Church. This was to ensure that there was a pool of people from which the Church could recruit to become clergymen. These children were either taught by their village priests, the monasteries, or in public schools founded in the name of charity.

Why did medieval peasants need to read and write? This was to enable them to read legal documents concerning their assets and taxation. Latin was used for administrative purpose in England. Anglo-Norman French became the language of legal proceeding after the Norman conquest of England, until 1363 which was replaced by English.

Besides being taught Latin, peasants also learned English, their native tongue. Being able to read in English helped brought about religious upheavals as people began interpreting the Bible, translated into English, on their own. This would lead to the Lollardry, a religious and political movement, in the 14th Century CE. It was considered a religious heresy and a threat to the monarchy, thus was brutally oppressed until the English Reformation (which had its roots in Lollardy) in 16th Century CE.

Law and Order

Manor lords led very busy lives. They engaged in warfare overseas and within Britain, conducting business in London, praying to God and were occupied with enjoying the many pleasures of life.

Hence, they had no time for peasants and their trivial matters, being often away from their manors, leaving the overseeing of their lands in the hands of… peasants. The overseer, known as reeve, would either be elected by his fellow peasants or appointed by the lord. The reeve not only had to oversee the work of his fellow peasants, he was also responsible for the finance of the lord’s estate such as the collection of moneys and the sales of produce. He was pretty much the equivalent of today’s accountant and supervisor.

In some manors, the lord had a court leet to assist the reeve in administration and the policing of law and order. This court leet would be consisted of free peasants and held court to try civil and criminal matters. Civil matters would sometimes involve in the management of individual strips of land, known as the open field system, where peasants would farm and its borders. Courts leet are still in existent today, one of which in Laxton, Nottinghamshire, UK, staffed by the descendants of peasants. This system would go on to evolve into the jury system in modern legal proceeding.

Layout of a typical manor and village. The great advantage of a village is there is no need to squeeze into public transport to get to work as it’s right at the doorstep. (Source: Wikimedia Commons, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Plan_mediaeval_manor.jpg)

Having regular contact with legal matters made peasants somewhat minor legal. One example was in Gotham, Nottinghamshire, UK, during the reign of King John. King John was said to be passing through Gotham, making the village part of the Royal Highway. Villagers, who knew that meant they had to pay a Royal Highway tax, set out to fool the scouts sent ahead of the King. The whole village feign insanity, which were thought to be in those days contagious. The King made a detour away from the village, the latter thus avoided paying the tax.

End of Serfdom

From the 11th Century CE onwards, England benefited from more productive harvest, despite rampant warfare, thanks to the Medieval Warm Period. More farmland were created out of clearing forests and marshes. The population grew from 1 million in 1086 to 5-7 million. England grew prosperous.

One of the reasons England became richer than its neighbours during the medieval period was the autonomous rule of each shires run by reeves. England was unique in the sense that the people govern themselves using written records, which was more effective than words of mouth. In addition, it helped that the King and his supporters were busy in Normandy preventing and fighting off invasion (since the Norman conquest, the monarch of England is the Duke of Normandy, the title Queen Elizabeth II still holds in the Channel Islands), essentially ruling England in absentia.

All things must come to an end. The serfdom was weakened when the English economy moved to a money-based proto-capitalist economy, meaning taxes, products and services were beginning to be paid in money, instead of food. Famine of 1315-1317 and the Black Death during the 14th Century CE killed more than half of England’s population. Massive number of deaths caused a severe labour shortage, boosting demands for better working conditions and wage increases. Peasant revolts became more violent towards the ruling elites, with more frequencies and becoming more widespread.

Manor lords realised that peasants had become more unprofitable, and started to replace them with sheep, since the animals do not have human rights and provide dairy products, wool and meat, not possible with peasants. The wool industry contributed greatly to England’s coffer. By the end of the Renaissance era, serfdom had effectively died out in England. This increased the urbanisation of cities and its expansion, leading to improved economy than when the economy was largely based in the manors and villages.

Conclusion

As this article has shown, life as a medieval peasant wasn’t the worst of the worse and all gloom. That’s because people believed that everyone had a place. Serfs worked for all, knights fought for all and priests prayed for all. In some cases, serfs were actually wealthier than their free counterparts.

Depending on your perspective, peasants had a decent, if not a good quality of life. Though they did not enjoyed the healthcare and life expectancy we have today, they had work-life balance, control over their job scope and a say in local governance. Perhaps they might be happier than us when times were good and food were plenty.

So, is today’s Singaporeans better off than medieval English peasants? To a certain extent, yes. We pay higher tax to our government because the latter provides higher education, healthcare, housing and other services to everyone, which were not available to all peasants. However, we seem to be worse off than the peasants as people have become un-happier with life and have lesser leisure time and holidays.

We work longer hours as the invention of electric light enabled us to worked virtually in any hour of the time as we need not depend on sunlight for our work. Medieval calendar had more holidays than Singapore’s calendar, due to the religious significance of the holidays and people were more religious. During holidays, peasants would indulge in feasting, singing and dancing, something we still do today though we now spend lesser time indulging ourselves, some to the point of over-doing it.

Unlike medieval peasants, people today have less regular contact with legal proceedings. How many of us can say to know what is written in the Singapore Constitution? Of course, today’s laws are made more complex than medieval laws. However, that does not mean we can neglect what’s our basic rights as citizens as stated in the Constitution.

Singapore is a modern feudal society? Of course not, it’s a capitalist society. Otherwise every Singaporeans, native and new, would have been replaced by sheep long ago.

Recommended documentaries

• Terry Jones’ Medieval Lives.

• Michael Wood’s Story of England.

 

 

 

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Commentaries

Lim Tean criticizes Govt’s rejection of basic income report, urges Singaporeans to rethink election choices

Lim Tean, leader of Peoples Voice (PV), criticizes the government’s defensive response to the basic living income report, accusing it of avoiding reality.

He calls on citizens to assess affordability and choose MPs who can truly enhance their lives in the upcoming election.

Published

1 year ago

on

15 September 2023

By

SINGAPORE: A recently published report, “Minimum Income Standard 2023: Household Budgets in a Time of Rising Costs,” unveils figures detailing the necessary income households require to maintain a basic standard of living, using the Minimum Income Standard (MIS) method.

The newly released study, spearheaded by Dr Ng Kok Hoe of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP) specifically focuses on working-age households in 2021 and presents the latest MIS budgets, adjusted for inflation from 2020 to 2022.

The report detailed that:

  • The “reasonable starting point” for a living wage in Singapore was S$2,906 a month.
  • A single parent with a child aged two to six required S$3,218 per month.
  • Partnered parents with two children, one aged between seven and 12 and the other between 13 and 18, required S$6,426 a month.
  • A single elderly individual required S$1,421 a month.
  • Budgets for both single and partnered parent households averaged around S$1,600 per member. Given recent price inflation, these figures have risen by up to 5% in the current report.

Singapore Govt challenges MIS 2023 report’s representation of basic needs

Regrettably, on Thursday (14 Sept), the Finance Ministry (MOF), Manpower Ministry (MOM), and Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) jointly issued a statement dismissing the idea suggested by the report, claiming that minimum household income requirements amid inflation “might not accurately reflect basic needs”.

Instead, they claimed that findings should be seen as “what individuals would like to have.”, and further defended their stances for the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) and other measures to uplift lower-wage workers.

The government argued that “a universal wage floor is not necessarily the best way” to ensure decent wages for lower-wage workers.

The government’s statement also questions the methodology of the Minimum Income Standards (MIS) report, highlighting limitations such as its reliance on respondent profiles and group dynamics.

“The MIS approach used is highly dependent on respondent profiles and on group dynamics. As the focus groups included higher-income participants, the conclusions may not be an accurate reflection of basic needs.”

The joint statement claimed that the MIS approach included discretionary expenditure items such as jewellery, perfumes, and overseas holidays.

Lim Tean slams Government’s response to basic living income report

In response to the government’s defensive reaction to the recent basic living income report, Lim Tean, leader of the alternative party Peoples Voice (PV), strongly criticizes the government’s apparent reluctance to confront reality, stating, “It has its head buried in the sand”.

He strongly questioned the government’s endorsement of the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) as a means to uplift the living standards of the less fortunate in Singapore, describing it as a misguided approach.

In a Facebook video on Friday (15 Sept), Lim Tean highlighted that it has become a global norm, especially in advanced and first-world countries, to establish a minimum wage, commonly referred to as a living wage.

“Everyone is entitled to a living wage, to have a decent life, It is no use boasting that you are one of the richest countries in the world that you have massive reserves, if your citizens cannot have a decent life with a decent living wage.”

Lim Tean cited his colleague, Leong Sze Hian’s calculations, which revealed a staggering 765,800 individuals in Singapore, including Permanent Residents and citizens, may not earn the recommended living wage of $2,906, as advised by the MIS report.

“If you take away the migrant workers or the foreign workers, and take away those who do not work, underage, are children you know are unemployed, and the figure is staggering, isn’t it?”

“You know you are looking at a very substantial percentage of the workforce that do not have sufficient income to meet basic needs, according to this report.”

He reiterated that the opposition parties, including the People’s Voice and the People’s Alliance, have always called for a minimum wage, a living wage which the government refuses to countenance.

Scepticism about the government’s ability to control rising costs

In a time of persistently high inflation, Lim Tean expressed skepticism about the government’s ability to control rising costs.

He cautioned against believing in predictions of imminent inflation reduction and lower interest rates below 2%, labeling them as unrealistic.

Lim Tean urged Singaporeans to assess their own affordability in these challenging times, especially with the impending GST increase.

He warned that a 1% rise in GST could lead to substantial hikes in everyday expenses, particularly food prices.

Lim Tean expressed concern that the PAP had become detached from the financial struggles of everyday Singaporeans, citing their high salaries and perceived insensitivity to the common citizen’s plight.

Lim Tean urges Singaporeans to rethink election choices

Highlighting the importance of the upcoming election, Lim Tean recommended that citizens seriously evaluate the affordability of their lives.

“If you ask yourself about affordability, you will realise that you have no choice, In the coming election, but to vote in a massive number of opposition Members of Parliament, So that they can make a difference.”

Lim Tean emphasized the need to move beyond the traditional notion of providing checks and balances and encouraged voters to consider who could genuinely improve their lives.

“To me, the choice is very simple. It is whether you decide to continue with a life, that is going to become more and more expensive: More expensive housing, higher cost of living, jobs not secure because of the massive influx of foreign workers,” he declared.

“Or you choose members of Parliament who have your interests at heart and who want to make your lives better.”

Continue Reading

Commentaries

Political observers call for review of Singapore’s criteria of Presidential candidates and propose 5 year waiting period for political leaders

Singaporean political observers express concern over the significantly higher eligibility criteria for private-sector presidential candidates compared to public-sector candidates, calling for adjustments.

Some also suggest a five year waiting period for aspiring political leaders after leaving their party before allowed to partake in the presidential election.

Notably, The Workers’ Party has earlier reiterated its position that the current qualification criteria favor PAP candidates and has called for a return to a ceremonial presidency instead of an elected one.

Published

1 year ago

on

5 September 2023

By

While the 2023 Presidential Election in Singapore concluded on Friday (1 September), discussions concerning the fairness and equity of the electoral system persist.

Several political observers contend that the eligibility criteria for private-sector individuals running for president are disproportionately high compared to those from the public sector, and they propose that adjustments be made.

They also recommend a five-year waiting period for aspiring political leaders after leaving their party before being allowed to participate in the presidential election.

Aspiring entrepreneur George Goh Ching Wah, announced his intention to in PE 2023 in June. However, His application as a candidate was unsuccessful, he failed to receive the Certificate of Eligibility (COE) on 18 August.

Mr Goh had expressed his disappointment in a statement after the ELD’s announcement, he said, the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC) took a very narrow interpretation of the requirements without explaining the rationale behind its decision.

As per Singapore’s Constitution, individuals running for the presidency from the private sector must have a minimum of three years’ experience as a CEO in a company.

This company should have consistently maintained an average shareholders’ equity of at least S$500 million and sustained profitability.

Mr Goh had pursued eligibility through the private sector’s “deliberative track,” specifically referring to section 19(4)(b)(2) of the Singapore Constitution.

He pointed out five companies he had led for over three years, collectively claiming a shareholders’ equity of S$1.521 billion.

Notably, prior to the 2016 revisions, the PEC might have had the authority to assess Mr Goh’s application similarly to how it did for Mr Tan Jee Say in the 2011 Presidential Election.

Yet, in its current formulation, the PEC is bound by the definitions laid out in the constitution.

Calls for equitable standards across public and private sectors

According to Singapore’s Chinese media outlet, Shin Min Daily News, Dr Felix Tan Thiam Kim, a political analyst at Nanyang Technological University (NTU) Singapore, noted that in 2016, the eligibility criteria for private sector candidates were raised from requiring them to be executives of companies with a minimum capital of S$100 million to CEOs of companies with at least S$500 million in shareholder equity.

However, the eligibility criteria for public sector candidates remained unchanged. He suggests that there is room for adjusting the eligibility criteria for public sector candidates.

Associate Professor Bilver Singh, Deputy Head of the Department of Political Science at the National University of Singapore, believes that the constitutional requirements for private-sector individuals interested in running are excessively stringent.

He remarked, “I believe it is necessary to reassess the relevant regulations.”

He points out that the current regulations are more favourable for former public officials seeking office and that the private sector faces notably greater challenges.

“While it may be legally sound, it may not necessarily be equitable,” he added.

Proposed five-year waiting period for political leaders eyeing presidential race

Moreover, despite candidates severing ties with their political parties in pursuit of office, shedding their political affiliations within a short timeframe remains a challenging endeavour.

A notable instance is Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, who resigned from the People’s Action Party (PAP) just slightly over a month before announcing his presidential candidacy, sparking considerable debate.

During a live broadcast, his fellow contender, Ng Kok Song, who formerly served as the Chief Investment Officer of GIC, openly questioned Mr Tharman’s rapid transition to a presidential bid shortly after leaving his party and government.

Dr Felix Tan suggests that in the future, political leaders aspiring to run for the presidency should not only resign from their parties but also adhere to a mandatory waiting period of at least five years before entering the race.

Cherian George and Kevin Y.L. Tan: “illogical ” to raise the corporate threshold in 2016

Indeed, the apprehension regarding the stringent eligibility criteria and concerns about fairness in presidential candidacy requirements are not limited to political analysts interviewed by Singapore’s mainstream media.

Prior to PE2023, CCherian George, a Professor of media studies at Hong Kong Baptist University, and Kevin Y.L. Tan, an Adjunct Professor at both the Faculty of Law of the National University of Singapore and the NTU’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), brought attention to the challenges posed by the qualification criteria for candidates vying for the Singaporean Presidency.

In their article titled “Why Singapore’s Next Elected President Should be One of its Last,” the scholars discussed the relevance of the current presidential election system in Singapore and floated the idea of returning to an appointed President, emphasizing the symbolic and unifying role of the office.

They highlighted that businessman George Goh appeared to be pursuing the “deliberative track” for qualification, which requires candidates to satisfy the PEC that their experience and abilities are comparable to those of a typical company’s chief executive with shareholder equity of at least S$500 million.

Mr Goh cobbles together a suite of companies under his management to meet the S$500m threshold.

The article also underscored the disparities between the eligibility criteria for candidates from the public and private sectors, serving as proxies for evaluating a candidate’s experience in handling complex financial matters.

“It is hard to see what financial experience the Chairman of the Public Service Commission or for that matter, the Chief Justice has, when compared to a Minister or a corporate chief.”

“The raising of the corporate threshold in 2016 is thus illogical and serves little purpose other than to simply reduce the number of potentially eligible candidates.”

The article also touches upon the issue of candidates’ independence from political parties, particularly the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP).

It mentions that candidates are expected to be non-partisan and independent, and it questions how government-backed candidates can demonstrate their independence given their previous affiliations.

The Workers’ Party advocate for a return to a ceremonial presidency

It comes as no surprise that Singapore’s alternative party, the Workers’ Party, reaffirmed its stance on 30 August, asserting that they believe the existing qualifying criteria for presidential candidates are skewed in favour of those approved by the People’s Action Party (PAP).

They argue that the current format of the elected presidency (EP) undermines the principles of parliamentary democracy.

“It also serves as an unnecessary source of gridlock – one that could potentially cripple a non-PAP government within its first term – and is an alternative power centre that could lead to political impasses.”

Consistently, the Workers’ Party has been vocal about its objection to the elected presidency and has consistently called for its abolition.

Instead, they advocate for a return to a ceremonial presidency, a position they have maintained for over three decades.

Continue Reading

Trending