The European Union and the crisis in the Eurozone

The outlook for the eurozone seems fairly grim, driven in part by the debt crisis in Greece, and Portugal and to a lesser extent in Spain, the ‘property bust’ in Ireland, low consumer, investor and business confidence, as well as the current strength of the euro, which has weakened the competitiveness of export industries. These indications do not necessarily precede the collapse of the eurozone and in the event that it does occur, though it remains a rhetorical possibility at best, or that the eurozone needs to be reformed dramatically, it is certainly not a sign of doom for the EU itself. Casting aside such extreme pessimism, the malaise in the eurozone should be viewed as a window of opportunity to institute further reforms in the governance of the European monetary union and facilitate further integration efforts.

What is clear is that the crisis in the eurozone is not going away anytime soon, which means that the crisis over the European monetary union won’t be going away either. The member states created a common macroeconomic framework within which each could pursue its own national interest. This framework does not work perfectly for all member states, under all conditions, all the time. But the goal of promoting an interest that is national persists. There exists a built-in tension between the lofty goals of integration and member states’ collective unpreparedness to think through the consequences of their ambitious project. Thus, the crisis in the eurozone should foster a particular shift in the mindset of the elite policy-makers, in that economic interdependence trumps national incentives. In sum, the crisis offers the elites an opportunity to facilitate the transformative powers of European integration by governance reform of the institutions of the monetary union, and not the expulsion of member states. This will enable the shaping and constraining of the demands of national governments within a supranational arrangement, and thereby strengthening European integration.

Reverting to national currencies would not only undermine the export competitiveness of the major European states like Germany but result in collateral damage to the European Union and the single market. It is evident that moving backwards is no longer an option, and muddling through is no longer viable. It remains that the only thing left to do is to move further along the integration project and realise that the necessary consequence of monetary union within and without the context of a crisis, is greater political union.

Filed under: History, Politics, euro, European Union

Two-Party System: Hallmark of The Singaporean Century

“Amongst other reasons, I don’t believe Singapore can produce two top class teams. We haven’t got the talent to produce two top class teams,” so says Former Prime Minister Mr. Lee Kuan Yew. 

This is a myopic and flawed comment.

1. His definition of talent excludes intelligent, capable and hardworking Singaporeans who are  not willing to subscribe to the ruling party’s line and disagree with their blueprint for Singapore’s growth and progress.

2. At the same time, it is an indictment of the nation’s public universities established to serve as the nation’s knowledge institutes and the cradle for the intellectual and experiential development of Singapore’s future leaders. Foreign educational institutions are essential and complement what is lacking in our education system but they should not be viewed as a convenient alternative to our nation’s universities. If talent cannot be identified and nurtured within our existing public universities, what does this say about the education system under the ruling PAP?

3. Lee Kuan Yew demonstrates his unwillingness and possibly his inability to appreciate and accept the changing political context in light of the 2011 General Elections and the preceding 20 years and fundamentally questions his relevance to the political discourse today.

Singapore is ready to move on without Lee Kuan Yew and allow his son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to lead the country. Casting an ominous shadow over the PAP, Lee Kuan Yew is a baggage to the development of the Party to meet the demands of an increasingly educated and well-informed citizenry. In short, Lee Kuan Yew is an impediment to the PAP today and in the context of a weak political alternative, Lee Kuan Yew is in fact hindering the potential of Singapore to continue to excel and punch above her own weight. Such is the irony.

Singapore must ready itself for a post-LKY era as the next generation of Singaporeans write the next chapter in the nation-building process. The Singapore Story: From Third World to First as illustrated by Lee Kuan Yew’s memoirs in 2000 is still very much at its nascent stage and the development of a two-party system to complement our existing governmental institutions could very well be the key to facilitate the maturation of the Singapore Story towards a First World Parliament and a robust and sustainable political polity that will do justice to the nation’s universities and her talent.

While a two-party system is non-existent in the existing Singapore Story, it is imperative that Singaporeans of all political stripes work together to build a two-party system which will be a hallmark of The Singaporean Century.

—

‘”It is in the national interest for the governing party to be subject to political competition, so as to promote higher standards of performance and guard against complacency [. . .] it is in the national interest to ensure that Singaporeans are not held ransom, by having another political party capable to taking over should the ruling People’s Action Party falter or lose its mandate to govern.

[. . .]

A First World Parliament leaves nothing to chance and prepares for eventualities, including the decline of political parties which are strong today. The higher the number of established players in Parliament, the greater the insurance for the future.” – Towards a First World Parliament, The Workers’ Party 2011 Manifesto

Filed under: History, PAP, Politics, Singapore, Workers' Party, Lee Kuan Yew, Two-Party System, WP 2011 Manifesto

Constructive Disobedience

Oscar Wilde in his book, “The Soul of Man under Socialism” has this to say about disobedience

Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who reads history, is man’s original virtue. It is  through disobedience and rebellion that progress has been made.

Singapore today needs constructive disobedience. By constructive disobedience, I mean disobedience not for the sake of disobedience, opposition not for the sake of opposition, Attempts to continually review the national consensus as one common citizenry and to rescript the dominant narrative that has tied this country down for the past 46 years so that Singapore can continue to hold the initiative in a globalised world and a challenging environment to further Singapore’s national interest and meet the dreams and aspirations of ordinary Singaporeans should be embraced and encouraged.

At the age of 21, I joined the Workers’ Party, a party in opposition since 1957 when it was first founded by Mr. David Marshall, Singapore’s first Chief Minister. I joined the Workers’ Party not because I am anti-PAP but because I am pro-Singapore. I joined the Workers’ Party not because I hate the PAP but because I want to serve the people of Singapore. I joined the Workers’ Party not because I want to disobey and rebel but because I want to contribute, to contribute to the nation-building process, to give back to this country for what this country has given me and to make this country a better home than the one I inherited from my parents. As a matter of fact, you can be a Singaporean and still join the ranks of the Workers’ Party.

Supporters and the members of the PAP are Singaporeans, so are the supporters and members of the Workers’ Party. In our own special way, while we may have differing visions and aspirations and policies for the country, we shared a common citizenship and are nationalists, patriots and leaders in our own right. But it is exactly the differing visions, aspirations and policies that make Singapore stronger, a home that rides not merely on its many infrastructural and material achievements but a recognition, tacit though it may be to appreciate the people around us, to redefine what is truly important to us as one people and to reclaim the history and heritage of this home for our children. That is why I joined the Workers’ Party. I am first a Singaporean son, then a Workers’ Party member.

On 7 May 2011, the residents of Hougang and Aljunied voted not with their hearts but with their heads for a more compassionate and dynamic Singapore. They did the right thing as sons and daughters of Singapore and paved the way towards a First World Parliament. The residents of Hougang and Aljunied may have been chastised for making a wrong decision by the incumbent, but we cannot deny their contributions to the nation-building process of this country. Indeed, I applaud and salute the efforts of these constructive “rebels” of Aljunied and I thank them for their every vote for a constructive, rational, responsible and respectable party to represent their interests in Parliament.

For the voters in Aljunied and Hougang who voted for the PAP, you have exercised your constitutional right as a Singaporean. You were loyal to Singapore. You had a choice and made your choice. You voted not for orthodoxy and familiarity but for progress. Similarly, many voted for the Workers’ Party less because of change but more for happiness, prosperity and progress for this country. Together, as one common constituency, the voters of Aljunied voted for Singapore.

Constructive disobedience, responsible opposition, rational challenging of the status quo and respectable politics can and should be virtues of Singapore. As Singapore grows in stature and matures as a nation, I am proud to have done my small part for Singapore, as a constructive and responsible “rebel”. When you next see a constructive and responsible rebel, instead of frowning upon them, do take a step forward and extend your appreciation towards them for their contributions towards Singapore.

My name is Bernard Chen Jiaxi. I am first a Singaporean son, then a Workers’ Party member. Will you take this Singaporean journey together with me?

Filed under: Aljunied GRC, History, PAP, Politics, Singapore, Workers' Party

Bukit Brown remains relevant to Singapore

I wrote a letter to the Straits Times Forum a couple of days and I was informed subsequently that it was considered for publication.

Please read the following two letters and make your own relevant assessment. Thank you.

—-
Straits Times, 15 June 2011 (Wednesday)
Redeveloping Bukit Brown fine but conserve slice of social landscape
I READ with profound disappointment the Urban Redevelopment Authority’s response (‘Bukit Brown cemetery: Tough decision in face of housing needs, says URA’; last Saturday) to Assistant Professor Irving Chan Johnson’s letter (‘Don’t shut a window to history’; June 6).

I am a young Singaporean who has witnessed the infrastructural developments of Singapore – which in no small part is due to the good work of the URA. But along the way, we seem to have lost the human touch and the spirit of our people.

The destruction of an important piece of Singapore’s social landscape would hinder rather than build upon a nascent national identity and a sense of belonging and community. The nation-building efforts of Singapore should encompass our history and heritage.

Bukit Brown has a special place in the hearts and consciousness of many Singaporeans. It represents a link to the past for both individuals and the community.

I am not against redevelopment but the redevelopment of Bukit Brown does not necessarily have to involve the clearing away of the graves. Any future plans for the place should include the conservation and redevelopment of the existing cemetery.

—
Title: Bukit Brown remains relevant to Singapore
I read with regret and profound disappointment the response made on Friday by Mr. Ler Seng Ann to Assistant Professor Irving Chan Johnson’s letter (Tough decision in face of housing needs, says URA)

I am a young Singaporean who have witnessed the infrastructural developments of Singapore and this is in no small part, a result of the good work of the Urban Redevelopment Authority. But along the way, we lost a human touch and a certain spirit of our people.

It is redevelopment plans like these that make young Singaporeans increasingly skeptical about National Day slogans and the rallying cry of our leaders, coming across as hypocritical to say the least. Incidentally, ‘Majulah, The Singapore Spirit’ is the rallying call for NDP2011. The destruction of an important piece of Singapore’s social landscape hinders rather than builds upon a nascent national identity and a sense of community belongingness. The nation-building efforts of Singapore should be inclusive, encompassing our proud history and heritage.

Bukit Brown has a special place in the hearts and consciousness of many Singaporeans. It represents not only the past but their individual linkage to the past. The loss of Bukit Brown is a profound loss to the richness of the Singapore Spirit.

I am not against redevelopment but the redevelopment of Bukit Brown does not necessarily have to involve the clearing away of the graves. Plans for the future of Bukit Brown Municipal Cemetery should include the conservation and redevelopment of the existing cemetery instead of its destruction. I am of the view that this is the most appropriate arrangement.

Bukit Brown Municipal Cemetery and the Urban Redevelopment Authority are symbols of the monumental growth of Singapore and an icon of this nation, the former being a representation of 19th century Singapore while the latter flying high the flag of 21st century Singapore.

Everything has its history, including history and that history has a future since everything we know comes from the past. As Singapore celebrates its 46th year of nationhood, Bukit Brown Municipal Cemetery remains relevant and has a future in modern Singapore.

When the discourse is over and the graves exhumed, the land on which Bukit Brown sits will appreciate in monetary value and policymakers will celebrate their own bureaucratic success but little do they know that without the cemetery, Singapore would be poorer in spirit and the meaning of a Singapore identity lost.

398 words

Filed under: History, Singapore, Bukit Brown, Heritage