APRIL 1 — The passing of Lee Kuan Yew has stimulated a lot of discussion among my schoolmates on Facebook. We left Penang Free School about 40 years ago, and many were convinced Singapore under Lee has done much better than Malaysia. It is important to look at the facts objectively, and ask a very pertinent question, ‘better for who.’

1. There is no doubt that the government of Singapore is far richer than Malaysia. The country’s two sovereign wealth funds, GIC and Temasek Holdings, together have nearly US$500 billion placing Singapore among the top 10 in the world, while Bank Negara’s total foreign reserves are only about US$111 billion. 

Per capita GDP of Singapore is again very high, at US$55,182 dwarfing Malaysia’s US$10,457. But a rather different picture emerges when considering local purchasing power. The worker earning average wage in Singapore has 64 per cent the spending power of New York, and is below the spending power of the average Malaysian worker, who comes in at 67 per cent. Perhaps this is because wage share of GDP in Singapore at 42 per cent is far lower than that of most developed countries, and is even below Korea and Hong Kong. A lot of the wealth of Singapore is thus in the form of company profits, rather than in the pocket of the workers. Perhaps that is why in terms of happiness, Singapore with a score of 39.8 is ranked six places below Malaysia’s 40.5.

2. Singapore’s universities have very high international rankings, with NUS consistently placed between 22-25 in the world. Yet the public university participation rate is only 30 per cent in 2015, and is predicted to reach 40 per cent in 2020. Thus each year only 30 per cent of Singaporeans entering primary school successfully secure a place in one of their country’s esteemed universities. Malaysia’s tertiary enrolment rate, estimated to be 36 per cent in 2011 by the World Bank, appears very respectable in comparison.. While Malaysians have consistently voiced dissatisfaction about the entry criteria and standards of Malaysian public universities, Unesco reports that the country has 491 private universities, of which nine are branch campus of foreign institutions. The Malaysian student is thus not prevented from entering university but rather tertiary education is more a challenging minefield that has to be navigated carefully! In contrast, Singapore’s public universities appear to be specifically planned to admit the elite academically gifted top 30 per cent of their student population, with the majority 70 per cent having to find their post-secondary education elsewhere.

3. Retirement benefits are important for workers, and it is useful to compare the Singapore CPF with the Malaysian EPF. Since CPF invests only in Singapore government AAA rated instruments, contributors are assured that their money is safe, and they will get the guaranteed dividends of up to 3.5 per cent in their ordinary account. Since 1960, the EPF has returned between 4-8.5 per cent to contributors with a dividend of 6.75 per cent in 2014. Furthermore, while the EPF contributor can withdraw all savings at the age of 55, in Singapore a sum of S$155,000 (RM418,182) has to be set aside as a minimum sum which the contributor cannot withdraw and has to be utilised for purchase of an annuity to start monthly payments after the age of 65. In Malaysian towns, one seldom sees old people cleaning the toilets, or mopping tables at hawker centers, sights very common in Singapore today. In fact Singaporeans are reported to be filling up nursing and retirement homes in Johore, where visits from family and loved ones may be less frequent. It is far from certain that after a lifetime of work, the Singapore retiree faces a more secure future than his Malaysian counterpart with increasing debate about the adequacy of the CPF system in funding retirement spending. Having secure AAA guaranteed savings is meaningless to the retiree with inadequate spending power and few nursing homes to stay in.

4. 50 years after Singapore left Malaysia, both countries have been ruled by only one governing party namely the PAP in Singapore and the Barisan National (formerly the Alliance) in Malaysia. In the 2011 Singapore general elections, the opposition won 40 per cent of the popular vote, but got seven per cent of the parliamentary seats. In the 2013 Malaysian general elections, the opposition won 52 per cent of the popular vote, gaining 40 per cent of the parliamentary seats. Although both ruling parties get more seats than they deserve, it is clear that the Singapore government is far more efficient in retaining seats despite losing significant popular votes. There are no financially bankrupt opposition politicians in Malaysia, and none have gone to foreign countries in self-exile. With at least 3 lively internet newspapers, Malaysian political news is exciting, to say the least. Although neither country can boast of a fair democracy comparable to the developed world, it is equally apparent the Malaysian voter makes a bigger impact with his vote.

While there is no doubt the Singapore government has competently and efficiently built up the country’s finances and global standing, the quality of life, educational outlook, retirement prospects and voting power of the average Singaporean is not obviously better than the Malaysian. Perhaps that is why 56 per cent of Singaporeans agree or strongly agree with the statement “given a choice, I would like to migrate.”  At the very least, Malaysians should not feel embarrassed or inferior when seeing better GDP figures from Singapore.

* Dr Ong Hean Teik is a consultant cardiologist

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.