Changes needed to temper globalisation’s downside

If the fall of the Berlin Wall symbolised the end of socialism, then Brexit, Trumpism and the rise of right-wing politics on both sides of the Atlantic are considered, in some political and economic circles, as the end of the era of globalisation.

The euphoria over globalisation has cooled in recent years and we see a pushback, with mass protests against the economic slowdown, delays in ratifying free-trade agreements and, in many countries, a backlash against immigrants.

Globalisation was an extension of the free-market practices of the then-capitalist bloc. It advocated the free flow of trade and capital across countries without any barriers.

This brought with it a mass outsourcing of services and labour to leverage lower costs and highly skilled workers from all corners of the globe.

Though globalisation brought economic prosperity, the benefits were unevenly distributed. Two classes — winners and losers — emerged.

Corporates with high-tech supply chain networks and mechanised manufacturing processes, the educated class and the highly skilled cornered the gains.

Others underwent the painful process of job losses and falling incomes, while education and living expenses rose rapidly. These setbacks have been blamed on immigrants and outsourcing, which have been the lifeblood of globalisation.

As a result, globalisation has fanned xenophobia and hatred towards immigrants.

People resorted to their right to vote, as they lost their economic right to a sustained income. They voted against globalisation and supported right-wing politics, and the politicians took advantage of this.

When we are on board a crowded MRT train and see commuters trying to squeeze in, we get irritated. But when we read the news about Singapore bagging big contracts for a smart city in India, we are happy as we know it will create more jobs for us (“S’pore firms see India as land of opportunity”, Oct 7).

Both are the results of globalisation. We support it if it makes us prosperous, but we are against it if it takes away economic security.

Globalisation has a good and bad side. We have to create a mechanism to maximise the good and minimise the bad.

We need national-level planning and efforts to make income distribution even, minimise job losses and ensure a social safety net for vulnerable members of society who cannot catch up with the onslaught of globalisation.

This is the solution for Singapore and all other countries that will keep the backlash in check and bring economic prosperity to all. Or else, we may witness further disaster, anarchy and disruption.