The hypocrisy of the masses: Rejecting elitism but holding on to an elitist society

In any given society, of the one thousand babies born, there are so many percent near-geniuses , so many percent average , so many percent morons.

I am sorry if I am constantly preoccupied with what the near-geniuses and the above average are going to do. But I am convinced that it is they who are ultimately decide the shape of things to come. It is the above-average in any society who sets the pace. (Lee Kuan Yew, 27 August 1966)

Elitism is the belief that there is always a small group of people at the top who actually make all the important decisions influencing society, whatever the political system and whatever is claimed to the contrary.

The mistake that Mr. Kwek Jian Qiang in his letter to the TODAY newspaper was to mask elitism under the idea of meritocracy. Unfortunately, he did not succeed in pulling wools over the eyes of many readers of the paper. It is precisely the belief in elitist principles that has in turn led to the establishment of meritocracy based on educational achievements and one’s individual performance to determine one’s social standing in society. This meritocratic principle as part of the elitist ideology expressed directly by our national leaders and their policies and espoused indirectly by Mr. Kwek in his article serves to legitimise the socio-economic and ethnic inequality we see in Singapore today.

As Professor Kenneth Paul Tan rightly said, “As the economic and political elite are rewarded with larger prizes, a vast and visible inequality of outcomes will replace the incentive effect with a sense of resentment, helplessness, social disengagement, and even envy among those who perceive themselves as systematically disadvantaged”.

Meritocracy is that tool to supplement rhetoric with a mechanism that delivers effective control and power and legitimised that unforgiving climate of winners takes all and losers having to fend for themselves and denied of any assistance from the state.

The interesting point to consider is this. Why do we decry elitism, by positioning ourselves as “less of a member of the elites, with humble beginnings” but continually endorsing the legitimacy of the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP), the main conduit in which the notion of elitism is propagated to govern over our lives? The sober fact of the matter is that there seems to be a congruence between the ideology of our national elites and their efforts at political socialisation and the political culture, beliefs and values of the masses. The levels of satisfaction and the continued support for the PAP indicates somewhat a certain compatibility between the values of the masses and those espoused by our elites and unconsciously and unwittingly, the PAP’s efforts at political socialisation since 1965 have contributed to this congruence between elite and mass culture. Singaporeans may reject the eugenics of former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew but we continue unpertubed by the notion of elitism and seem to accept the utility of an elitist society for Singapore.

So I see the latest remarks that expressed dismay and disgust towards Mr. Kwek’s remarks on two folds; (i) as an antithesis to this political congruence but at the same time (ii) unknowingly perpetuating the notion of elitism by rejecting Mr. Kwek’s remarks but continually keeping the source of that elitism in power, enabling and ensuring the entrenchment of elitism in Singapore. This speaks more of the hypocrisy of the masses and less of its rejection of elitism when the masses pit itself against the elites.

At the same time, the state’s elitism is based substantially on the PAP’s perception of itself, a sense of continued siege, less as a result of the organisational difficulties of its earlier founding days but more of its insecurity and insistence of its “given right” to bring about that grand vision of progress for all Singaporeans.

This in turn breeds compliance and the need on the part of the PAP to ensure compliance.

“He abjures politics, saying one can perfectly comfortable keeping within the bounds set by our present rulers, and that there’s no reason why anyone should risk his career, or worse for the sake of more freedom than he would know what to do with.” (Philip Jeyaretnam in “Abraham’s Promise”)

Singapore has all the while been building an elitist society and the masses had been an integral part of that endeavor. The time has come for Singapore to realise its fullest potential as a humane society, one that the government places human dignity, diversity, tolerance, respect and equal opportunity as the principal consideration in policy formulation and implementation and the rejection of elitism and an elitist society within the framework of a strong parliamentary tradition is the most constructive step forward and the vigorous participation of its citizens in a First World Parliament is the most responsible thing any citizen of this land should do.

Filed under: PAP, Parliament, Politics, Singapore, Kwek Jian Qiang

Questions for the Minister for Transport

It is nothing but an indictment of the failure of the SMRT leadership that the best solutions that they can come up with are slower trains arriving at less frequent intervals and considering that the MRT system has come under heavy strain over the past 10 years due to the rapid increase in population and ridership, the operational and regulatory oversight on the part of the Land Transport Authority is solely lacking.

In light of this, I propose to file the following questions in Parliament:

To ask the Minister for Transport:
(a) whether in his assessment SMRT and SBS is prepared and responsive enough in the event of an emergency situation to ensure the safety of its commuters on the public transport network; and

(b) what are the sustainable measures that SMRT and SBS together with the government have set in place to ensure that similar problems on the transport infrastructure do not happen again.

(c) To update the House on the maintenance schedule of the  rail network following forward and whether in his assessment it was appropriate that the floating slab tracks were last checked 10 years ago, considering that the MRT system has come under heavy strain over the past 10 years due to the rapid increase in population and ridership.

(d) what are the regulatory oversight that LTA has put in place to ensure the smooth running of the public transport system and whether in his assessment the LTA has been vigilant in ensuring that high quality of service and service standards were met by SMRT.

Filed under: Parliament, Politics, Singapore, Public Transportation, SBS, SMRT

An efficient and productive transport system, public and universal for all

Singapore needs to have a transport service that is public and universal for all. Market competition in the current arrangement is a fallacy. The increase in transportation fares, as past increases have shown, would at best result in an incremental increase in the service standards and efficiency of the PTOs and the transportation network and at worse, lead to more of the same – systemic overcrowding, delay in bus services, long waiting times, frequent breakdowns etc. The failure of pseudo-private competition is all too apparent here. It is a fallacy to think that SBS Transit and SMRT represent genuine competition, which will, ensures efficiency and good performance within the context of rigorous market discipline.

In light of the systemic problems and structural deficiencies within the public transport network, a case should be made again to nationalise our public transport system.

The Workers’ Party’s proposal to set up a National Transport Corporation to oversee and provide universal transport service to all is not an unproductive and uncompetitive model as what some politicians would like you to believe. Nationalisation in this context does not involve the mass expropriation of all the transportation assets. A responsible and rational party would do its utmost to promote the interests of Singaporeans both at home and overseas and would certainly refrain from mass expropriation, which would in turn deter investors from coming to Singapore. Rather, it would likely take the form of a shares buy-back from companies owned by Temasek Holdings, the Government-linked Corporation, as it commonly practiced. Viewed from this perspective, the proposal of the Workers’ Party doesn’t look like a major step after all. In other words, it entails the government buying back shares from companies linked to or under the investment arm of the Singapore government. In addition, the Government of Singapore has another investment arm, the substantially larger Government Investment Corporation (GIC), which invests primarily the country’s foreign reserves.

In the proposed model, the National Transportation Council would be run by competent people whose bonuses and benefits are pegged to certain Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) set forth by the government and unless these KPIs are met, bonuses would be docked, meaningful fines handed out and/or CEOs shown the door. I believe that this is a greater incentive than the existing model for the transport sector to perform well and to be marginally profitable.

Additionally, it is a fallacy to assume that under the existing model, you have genuine competition. The existing model essentially perpetuates the influence of two monopolies operating in different areas and often times they do not overlap. The incentive factor to improve its productivity and the competitive advantage is non-existent in this context. While it is not wrong to say that rail licenses are valid for only a finite period and operators have to tender for new licenses, some politicians do not tell you that such permits are issued on a 30-years lease basis. This is not going to spur better services from the transport operators in the short to middle term and whether it improves services and productivity over the longer term is questionable. Contestability is solely missing under the existing model, again contrary to what some have argued.

Furthermore, the National Transport Corporation should not be profit-orientated and should aim to provide public transportation service on the basis of cost and depreciation recovery. It is worth noting that these are principles upon which the North-South line and the East-West line were built in the first place.

All things being equal, would you rather nationalise the public transportation system when paying more for your public transport means more of the same and the increase in transportation fares is not accompanied by a corresponding increase in efficiency and service standards while structural deficiencies and systemic problems continue to persist?

The existing system is seemingly broken and has failed to meet the expectations of our commuters. It is time to seriously consider the alternative, a public and universal transport system that is both efficient and productive.

Filed under: Politics, Singapore, Workers' Party, Public Transportation, SBS, SMRT, Workers' Party Manifesto

From Northstar V to 15 December 2011

Northstar V was Singapore’s first surprise large-scale civil emergency drill held on 8 January 2006 (Sunday) with 2000 participants from 22 government agencies taking part and involved the disruption of public train services. The drill started at 6.25 am and lasted till 9.30 am. The drill took place at Dhoby Ghaut MRT station, Marina Bay MRT station, Toa Payoh MRT station, Toa Payoh Bus Interchange and Raffles Place MRT station.

Associate Professor Ho Peng Kee, then Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs puts in 2006 in response to a question by then Member of Parliament for Aljunied GRC, Yeo Guat Kwang said that,

Northstar V had successfully meet the key objective of “testing the coordination and validating the emergency response system of the 22 participating agencies, including the two public transport operators, namely, SBS Transit and SMRT Corporation.”

In a press statement released by the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) on the day of the exercise itself, it was stated that

Northstar V was “part of SCDF’s and its related agencies’ on-going efforts to sharpen our respective operational readiness and joint-capabilities for handling terror attack situations and tested the coordination and validated the emergency response system of the various agencies, which included the two public transport operators, namely SBS Transit and SMRT.”

In short, SMRT and SBS were deemed to have passed the test of operational readiness and emergency preparedness in 2206.

Thus, what was surprising to many commuters who were struck on the Circle Line and the North-South Line on 14 December and 15 December 2011 respectively was how unprepared SMRT was in a situation of train breakdowns. We are not even talking about any security threats to the pubic transport system here. Considering how inefficient and unresponsive SMRT is during an emergency situation, the deployment of more police national service personnel to patrol and safeguard the transport system may not necessary achieve the aims set out originally by the Ministry of Home Affairs. As such, the efforts and planning made for Northstar V in 2006 is nothing more than a successful peacetime civil emergency exercise, which will be render null and defunct during times of crisis. One may think that I am taking this a little too far but one have to consider that during a terror attack on Singapore’s public transport system, the responsibility of the transport operators in terms of their readiness and preparedness is of immense importance and would go a long way in shaping the efforts of subsequent agencies such as the civil defence and police force to help the nation cope with the aftermath of any crisis.

Singaporeans may accept trains stopping due to an electrical fault but inefficiencies, unresponsiveness and unreadiness are inexcusable during times of a major incident on the public transport system such as the 5 August 1993 collision of two MRT trains at Clementi MRT station which injuried 156 passengers.

It is now redundant for SMRT to issue an apologetic statement and hopes to be able to move on with its operations. Public confidence has been eroded – even without considering the number of times the public transport system has disappoint in the past one year alone and their poor public relations with its external stakeholders – it will take a lot of time and efforts on the part of SMRT to restore its credibility and the trust and confidence that ordinary Singaporeans have in them.

Singaporeans deserve more and better from a supposedly first class transport system run by two of the most profitable and biggest companies in Singapore. The biggest failure of SMRT and SBS is being unable to see that the ordinary commuter is SMRT and SBS’s biggest stakeholder and thus far, the returns from their investment are officially negative, unfortunately but surprisingly.

What then should SMRT’s priorities in 2012 be? I humbly state the following 3 prioriries – Communication, Communication and Communication.

Since Northstar V, SMRT is more vulnerable and equally unprepared for any emergency incidents. It is either that SMRT treat emergency preparedness as a way of their corporate culture or they risk being a bankrupt entity, bankrupt in all sense of the word barring the financial part of the equation.

When commuters have grown accustomed to being mentally prepared for constant mismanagement on the part of our public transport operators, I think that it is a more than a sufficient indictment of the top leadership of the public transport operators and a cruel reflection of the appalling state of the public transport system in Singapore.

To conclude, I hope that when Parliament next convene, our members of Parliament will ask the following questions on behalf of the tens of thousands of commuters and tourists in Singapore:

To ask the Minister for Transport:

(a)    whether in his assessment SMRT and SBS is prepared and responsive enough in the event of a emergency situation to ensure the safety of its commuters on the public transport network; and

(b)   what are the sustainable measures that SMRT and SBS together with the government have set in place to ensure that similar problems on the transport infrastructure do not happen again. 

Filed under: Parliament, Singapore, Northstar V, Public Transportation, SBS, SMRT

This is a little note of gratitude.

This is a little note of gratitude. 

I started this journey with a few, until you came along.

Regardless of your station in life, you step forward and stood up to be counted.

From all four corners, we came together for a common purpose.

To serve the residents of Aljunied GRC together

At the end of a SMS or an email, you volunteered your time and energies

Weekday or weekends, it was not a problem.

You came along and with the little you have, you gave your all.

Thank you.

Tabula rasa, a blank slate was all I have.

Possibilities was abound, Hope was in the air.

In you I see commitment, commitment even in the most mundane of tasks.

In you I see responsibility, responsibility towards your fellow volunteers and each individual face in the crowd.

In you I see initiative, initiative to build a dynamic and enriching community.

In you I see passion, passion to be involved with no returns in sight.

In you i see a priceless you.

Thank you.

I provided the opportunity for you to serve, you taught me humility.

Thank you.

—

To all the committee members and volunteers of Bedok Reservoir-Punggol division, Aljunied GRC, 

This is my little note of gratitude that I have written specially for you.

I am really glad that you are together on this journey with me. I am so proud of you. Thank you for your hard work, your perseverance and your unrelenting commitment to the team week in and week out. The journey that we are on was never easy to begin with. Your efforts while often not directly recognised, goes a long way in sharing my worries and responsibilities and helping each resident to fulfill their respective aspirations for the community. Words cannot articulate the sense of gratitude I hold in me, and simple words of mine do not do justice to the contributions you have made to strengthening the team in Bedok Reservoir-Punggol.

You gave me a chance to know you and learn from you. Every opportunity that I share with you is a constant exercise in servant leadership and a lesson in humility.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Regards,

Bernard Chen Jiaxi

12 December 2011, 00 09hrs

Filed under: Aljunied GRC

社会主义，民主主义和民选政府

这篇文章首次刊登在工人党党报，铁锤报 （刊号: 1001)

工人党代表什么？

一眼望去， 工人党是个亲新加坡， 可信又可靠的政党。 它也是一个具有53年历史的组织。可是，对我来说工人党在很多层次上代表了一个决心改造以利为本的资本社会， 建立一个公正， 正直， 公平的新加坡。这个观点好像有着浓浓的社会主义色彩。但是很多人难免忽略了重要的一点；社会主义的根本是民主主义。社会主义和民主主义并不是政治理念的两个极端。相反的，一个民主的社会也是一个以民为本的社会。

工人党的政治理念 – 主权在民

工人党坚信政治公职必须通过竞争来寻求人民的委托。 由于人民是一切权力的基础， 因此人民必须拥有实际的权力，能通过选举选出代表； 同时在选举过程中参与塑造和建设国家的决策。以这为根本， 国会选举应当废除集选区制度。 这是因为集选区制度削弱了个别选民的代表权。集选区制度对于政治竞争来说是个绊脚石。国会选举应以单个议席的选区制度举行， 鼓励与提倡全民最大程度的参与和讨论。主权在民。

工人党也坚信一切发展都必须朝向建立一个以人为本的公民社会。 资本社会的残酷经济竞争和政治上的交易却往往和以人为本的目标背道而驰。采纳自由市场经济体系的后果是收入的悬殊。工人党不但寻求建立一个互相关怀的社会， 还提倡每一个人都应该获得平等的对待。建立强大的社区是政府应尽的责任，而不是对国民的“恩惠”或“善举”。

新加坡必须建立一个需要为基础，不附带任何先决条件的社会福利安全网，　以确保没有一个新加坡人不会陷于无助的困境。虽然建立一个社会福利安全网需要增加人力和资源去维持，但国民不应该因为无法负担而被剖夺所需。在经济萧条的时刻，当国民失去了工作，工人党深信失业人士在某种程度上应获得协助。最终，建立一个强大和具有活力的社区能够强化我们的社会结构，促进社会的凝聚力，与此同时也建立对国家的归属感。社区组织必须超越党派政治而且鼓励居民为社区邻里服务，使有能力的人士自然成为社区领袖。这比任何培养下一代领袖而设立的基金更为有效。主权在民。

所以要建立一个以人为本的公民社会，政府在制定和落实政策时就必须遵循多元性， 多文化， 相互尊重， 捍卫他人尊严， 包容以及机会平等的基本原则。工人党会以理性的信念赢得国民的尊敬，希望能摆脱过去街头抗争式的印象外衣，走大格局路线。这显然是长远经营，把希望交托在每个国民的身上。主权在民。

工人党捍卫民主程序

工人党党宪法所拟定的其中一个指导原则在于建立一个议会民主制度。在一个议会民主的政治体系里， 所有公民都拥有投选议会代表以及政府的`权力。然而，人民行动党政府一贯操弄我们的政治结构以及行程程序， 已将民众向它问责的机会减至最低。 首先，官委议员制应该废除。因为在没有人民授权的情况下，不应赋予任何人立法的权力。第二， 为了使国会拥有更多广泛的民意基础， 新加坡应该探讨和考虑采纳比例代表制。 我个人也认为新加坡应该把合格选举年龄从现有的21 岁调低至18岁。如果说，一名18岁的少年被断定能持枪捍卫国土，他为何在现有的宪法下被剥夺了决定国家大事的权力呢？给予每个18岁青年那神圣的权力将会是新加坡往后政治，经济与社会发展的一支强心针。

执政党与反对党的巧妙关系

新加坡人必须了解这一个事实。 一个民选政府是在政治竞争的环境下产生的。良好的政治竞争迫切需要执政党与反对党在多个层次上互相切磋， 实实在在地讨论国家的前景与未来。选民也必须了解只有他们的选票才能建立一个强有力的反对党 – 监督政府， 制衡执政当局。在维护我国的民主程序上，每个公民扮演着举足轻重的角色。 也只有良好的民主程序才能构成井然有序的政治轮替， 确保新加坡能持续发展与进步。

政治并不单是定期举行选举， 它是一个持续不断的动态进程。 政治上的竞争为人民带来更好的服务； 它也让政府更能体恤民间的需要， 更好地对民意做出回应。所以，你必须明白一个简单的道理 – 你有权力改变你的未来！

总结

我要在这里强调一点。 我并没有加入一个为了反对而反对的政党。 我深信国家的利益必须超越任何一个党派的自身利益。所以，如果执政党的施政方案利国惠民， 我将会给予政府我的支持。 同样的，如果政策有损国家与人民的利益， 我必定毫不犹豫地提出建设性的提议， 加以反对。我并不是一个反政府的激进分子。 我只是想尽力为我的国家出一点绵力，履行我的公民责任。

Filed under: 工人党, 中文