by Roy Ngerng
When I left Singapore in 2016, I thought Singaporeans were disempowered. Why did Singaporeans not fight back, I thought then.
But living in another country has helped me gain new perspectives.
Living in an authoritarian regime can make one feel disempowerment due to fear, but there can be disempowerment in a democracy as well.
When I came to Taiwan, I thought to myself then: Taiwan is a democracy, everyone must have opinions, and everyone must want to fight for change. Six years after being here has helped temper my expectations.
For one, Taiwan was still living under brutal authoritarian rule up until the late-1980s.
Taiwan only embarked on its current democratization after that, and its democracy is relatively young, and it is still undergoing democratic transition. Older people above 40 who grew up under the authoritarian regime are likely to be more compliant, while younger people might have greater agency.
But Taiwan’s democratic transition is hampered by other factors. While younger people are educated on the ways of democracy, there is little opportunity that allows it to be practised.
Upon entering the workplace, Taiwan’s workers are faced with a system that is mostly hierarchical and archaic, where their thinking and opinions can be little valued, and where they have to largely comply with the demands of bosses.
Two factors could be at play. After seeing wages rise dramatically for over a decade in the 1980s and early-1990s, Taiwan’s wages then stagnated over the last 20 to 30 years. This has resulted in economic stagnation, and stagnation in society and at the workplace.
Workers became increasingly less valued, as bosses gained increasing power and commanded the ability to dictate how workers should behave.
The other factor is that Taiwan’s economy also has a strong orientation towards manufacturing, where workers are valued more for their compliance with system operation, rather than their thinking.
In the time I have been in Taiwan, I have been with various employers. I’ve had my fair share of unethical and authoritarian bosses.
In Taiwan, it is very common for professors to put their names on research papers where they did zero research or writing, especially for the older ones.
I had a professor put his name on a paper I wrote in full and submitted it for a report by a global consortium of authors while omitting mine. I had to write to the lead author of the report to inform them.
For me, it does not matter whether my name is recognized, but it is a matter of principle – the lack of ethics is unacceptable to me. When I resigned, I told the professor that his behaviour is unethical and that his behaviour was authoritarian.
After trying to convince me that he is not, he retorted: As you grow older, you will become more authoritarian. We cannot all be democratic.
Such authoritarian behaviour in the workplace plagues Taiwan’s society. It is why youths feel they are not heard, why they are leaving for overseas, and why the system in Taiwan becomes inefficient because workers are not empowered to improve the system.
It is why Taiwan’s bureaucracy is known among foreign companies or individuals coming to invest or work, as one that is difficult to manoeuvre around.
Taiwan’s democratic ambitions are therefore at loggerheads with its authoritarian work environment. It isn’t compatible, and at some point, Taiwan will be forced into a reckoning — whether to evolve to be truly more democratic or to allow the authoritarian workplace culture to weaken its democracy.
In contrast, being a knowledge economy means that a larger swath of Singaporeans is required to think and work smart. Being more international means Singaporean workers are required to work more efficiently. You cannot be international and a knowledge economy when workers do not have the agency to think, and when they do not have the adaptability to respond to international demands.
I miss the invigorating conversations I have with colleagues, where we challenge each other’s ideas to improve, and where our discussions are then heard by the higher-ups, more so than they generally are at the workplaces I was at in Taiwan.
Being an international hub also means that new ideas of work are brought into Singapore relatively quickly to improve the way to work at workplaces. There was also the knowledge transfer I received when working with bosses from overseas.
In Taiwan, work practices are still archaic. IT systems are old because there is no impetus to improve them, even in the two more renowned institutions in Taiwan where I worked at.
There is little training done on how project planning and meetings can be done more efficiently. Part of the reason is due to the relative lack of internationalization, so Taiwan is not as adept at adopting international best practices. It is less exposed to tools that could enable it to run more efficiently.
Also, legacy systems do not change because of the legacy mindsets of older bosses who refuse to adapt to better work processes, due in part to the economic and therefore social stagnation in Taiwan in the last two to three decades.
But I have only lived in Singapore and Taiwan, so I cannot say how they compare with other advanced countries.
But the experiences help me realize that a country’s people and efficiency are not determined by the type of governance they have. Government type, the efficiency and effectiveness of a country’s system, and people’s empowerment are separate things.
Singapore is less so of a democracy than Taiwan, but it runs more efficiently.
And while Singaporeans are more afraid to voice their political opinions than Taiwanese, Singaporeans, I dare say, are more responsive and empowered to make decisions at the workplace.
This is not to say that Singapore’s efficiency trumps Taiwan’s completely. On matters that pertain to the welfare of Singaporeans, say in terms of healthcare needs, decisions are made with efficiency, but they are not made with the best intentions for Singaporeans.
In Taiwan, healthcare is cheap and free for some, but it sometimes requires navigating through inefficient legacy systems. But while Singapore is led by a more authoritarian regime, its openness to international demands and a larger orientation to the knowledge economy means that workers are somewhat more empowered at the workplace.
It is a strange contradiction where citizens in Singapore are disempowered politically but relatively empowered workwise, as compared to a more empowered electorate in Taiwan but more disempowered workers in Taiwan.
What I am saying here is of course a generalization, and there are a lot more nuances, but I am also compiling things I hear from Taiwanese as well — it is a common saying among Taiwanese that Taiwanese workers are “slave” workers, that they are willing to be abused and exploited.
Of course, Taiwan has a vibrant and empowered civil society sector, but it is small, and some in civil society function in their own echo chambers. What they do either have little impact on society because society’s general apathy concerns little with the activism, or some of the advocates live in their own sense of an empowered world, apart from that of most Taiwanese.
Moreover, while Taiwanese activists have a more complex understanding of human rights than most Singaporeans due to the ability for more engaging discussions on these issues in the freer media and civic space, their understanding of human rights is still limited by the pace of democratic progress and societal stagnation in Taiwan.
For example, there is a lack of understanding even among civil society that expressing your emotions and temper unfettered and unrelated to work to other colleagues is considered emotional abuse, and should be frowned upon from a human rights perspective.
I’ve had to face instances of this and to be honest, I cannot handle it. I can handle it when work becomes stressful and I have to work my ass off to deliver it. But I cannot handle it when I am faced with emotional tantrums at work at an erratic pace, especially not in the human rights sector. It is psychological abuse and is incompatible with human rights.
In part, I think this is because under a generally exploitative environment in Taiwan where bosses have a greater ability to exert influence, there is a lack of discussion as to the accepted behaviour of bosses.
But then, there is also a general lack of discussion as to how Taiwan’s workplaces should be structured to be compatible with its democracy.
To some extent, Taiwan’s democracy becomes a PR campaign that the government uses to appeal to other democracies, but the act of enabling democratic practices in Taiwan’s workplaces is next to non-existent.
Free speech exists, and I have written close to a hundred articles in Taiwan criticizing its labour and wage system. I do not get sued or charged, but the government has not been responsive either.
Free speech can also feel constrained in the workplace, as workers dare not speak up against their bosses’ transgressions. Both times when I resigned, I only told my bosses off after I resigned that their behaviours were inappropriate and unethical.
The People’s Action Party (PAP) could of course do the same, to allow criticisms to exist while ignoring them. But it is perhaps more difficult for the PAP to do so.
Some of Taiwan’s politicians get rich by forming relations with businesses. Taiwan’s elections become a way for business interests to gain political influence, so competitive elections are relevant to the business community in this aspect.
But in Singapore, there is little need to appeal to business interests and competitive elections, since the PAP effectively controls the majority of business interests.
The question in Singapore, therefore, is about how to silence criticisms of the PAP from the opposition, in order to reduce competitive challenges to their rule.
For example, while there are democratic elections in Taiwan, colleagues I had spoken to feel powerless to change the system due to the way elections are seen as being bought by the donations of businesses.
The two major parties are seen as pro-business and do not offer viable alternatives for citizens to dramatically increase their wages and reduce the burden of housing prices.
It is different however in Singapore. Politically, Singaporeans are offered policy alternatives from the other political parties. The reason for not opting for these alternatives is due mainly to fear or apathy due to fear.
Singaporeans can be empowered to make decisions and can be adaptable if the work environment requires flexibility to adjust to international demands, so there is the possibility of exercising their empowerment politically too if their fears are mediated.
Though, it should also be noted that Singapore’s system is highly stratified where some people might not have access to knowledge work due to being streamed to a lower education level or lower-skilled jobs, and would be forced into compliance with lesser rights.
When I came to Taiwan, I thought that Taiwan held a lot of potential to be something more, and I still do. Taiwan has undergone two to three decades of economic and social stagnation, but if it starts to empower its workers again by allowing them to earn higher wages and be able to make greater contributions to the workplaces, Taiwan’s system will evolve into one that can innovate newer ideas.
Instead of Taiwanese leaving for Silicon Valley or other countries to create new ideas, more new ideas can be made in Taiwan instead, instead of being confined to select groups.
In Singapore, I see potential too. I see Singapore being able to develop not only economically, but also socially, where people can have access to a fairer society, with their social needs protected, such as healthcare, retirement, etc. It will become a Singapore that can become more caring, more at ease, and happier.
To some extent, Singapore is developing towards that direction, because being a knowledge economy and being more international, means Singapore has access to these global conversations about how livelihoods can be improved, and how work systems can be changed to be one that is more compassionate to workers — Taiwan’s insulation means such conversations are happening at a much, much lesser extent.
However, in order for the system to become better in Singapore, there needs to be a government that is more responsive to the needs of Singaporeans. More competitive elections are necessary. This will enable more democratic governance that would enable Singapore’s efficiency to be more responsive towards the needs of citizens instead of being efficient for the needs of a specific political party.
Looking at how Taiwan has developed, the main worry I have for Singapore is about Singapore becoming more polarized.
Taiwan has become a two-party state, and due to the current political and historical situation, both parties have used their positions towards China to polarize the votes in society.
To be clear, Taiwan’s independence is being challenged by China, and there is a real need to vote for political parties that place priority on the security of Taiwan as a nation. At the same time, this issue has become used as a tool by which society is polarized on either side.
This has resulted in other more important social or economic issues being pushed down the line, and why many Taiwanese feel disempowered by a system that does not cater to their economic and social needs.
The current discourse in Singapore is also worrying and increasingly polarizing, albeit for different reasons. Due to the inequality and perceived unfairness — combined with the amplification by algorithms on social media, society is being polarized along those aligned with the PAP’s policies, and those perceived as unaligned. But this cannot bode well for Singapore, as it will mean a more divisive society.
Being in Taiwan, I miss having Malay and Indian friends. I miss being able to speak Singlish because it is a very efficient and adaptable language. I miss speaking in any way I like and still be understood.
I like how things are done more flexibly because of the various cultures that exist in Singapore exchanging the different ways we do things. Taiwan is more homogenous, and while I like being able to hold hands as a gay person without someone else staring, I miss the melting pot that is Singapore.
However, being away from Singapore for over six years now, I do not know what it is like, I hear of how people are increasingly impatient due to the stresses, and it is something that is happening in Taiwan as well. Inequality, unfairness and a sense of feeling bullied by an unequal system create distrust and anger, and it results in aggressive behaviours. It is why more road rage or violence at home occurs.
I am not sure what can be done in Taiwan, because it is seen as more difficult to break out of the current two-party system where both parties are more pro-business than pro-worker.
In Singapore, however, it doesn’t seem to have reached a stage of polarization as it has in Taiwan. Not affected by a foreign existential challenge, several of Singapore’s political parties are also able to propose more diverse economic and social propositions for the country. If citizens are able to make a decision not based on fear, but on the considered interests about the potential of Singapore, this might allow Singapore to move towards a direction that can better cater to the needs of a wider swath of Singaporeans.
Singaporeans can be empowered to make that decision, but the question is to not allow fear to act as a guide but to be guided by the knowledge of a better social prospect.
The efficiency of Singapore run by the collective of Singaporeans will still be maintained, if political parties learn to lead responsibly, including those which lose power.
My initial thoughts behind this post weren’t politically-inclined. I was thinking about the work environment in Taiwan, and how it compares with Singapore, and one thing led to another.
I have recently been given the chance to lead a team, and I realized the challenges aren’t simply to do your job well on a technical level but to also manage emotions not only from your team members but also from those at the top or sides.
The stresses of managing the various emotions can be challenging, and I understand how under unmanaged emotions, can lead to unchecked anger, and tempers being loosely thrown around. It helps me understand how a more stressful society means people turn to more aggressive behaviours towards others.
But I have lived my life seeking peace and staying true, and living a life where if I do not believe pain should be wrought upon me, then I should not wreak it upon others.
This resulted in me reflecting on my work experiences and how they compare with Singapore. The different jobs I have worked in reminded me of the importance of ethics, fairness and rights, including the right to not receive or express emotions incompatible with the job, and how these have a deciding factor in how and whether I continue in my positions.
It also led me to compare the societies and political systems I have lived in. This post is not intended to be a thorough investigation of the two countries, because it would be unfair to do so. But it does help me to appreciate the aspect of Singapore and Singaporeans that I missed, and the potential that both countries have.
Living in a less democratic regime does not mean workers lose their empowerment in all areas; they can still be more empowered in other areas given a more international knowledge economy, and then learn to use that empowerment more consistently to improve other aspects of their lives.
Living in a democratic country still undergoing democratic transition can still mean disempowered workers, when policies are not changed to enable workplace culture to align with the country’s democratic pathway, and where society still exists under a democratic-authoritarian contradiction that impedes the democratic process.
The brutality of prior authoritarian oppression in a country might also have an effect on how generations after learning to regain their lost rights, and have difficulty doing so.
It was a contradiction I am still learning to understand. While I felt politically oppressed in Singapore, I had a greater voice at work. And while it is possible to speak up politically in Taiwan, the workplace can be stifling and oppressive, as many colleagues in Taiwan had shared too.
But this also signifies the potential and possibilities that both countries have if policies are amended or citizens realize their power enough to make the change. It also means making decisions to prevent one’s own suffering.
This post was first published on Roy Ngerng’s Facebook page and reproduced with permission.
Ngerng was an activist in Singapore who campaigned for better returns for Singapore’s Central Provident Funds and was sued for defamation by the Prime Minister of Singapore. He also contested in Singapore’s General Election 2015 under Reform Party.
He currently stays in Taiwan after being unable to secure employment in Singapore due to his high political profile.
