Real progress, rhetorical at best and U-turn in nature

The headline in today’s Straits Times (19 January 2012) points to a ‘real progress’ in the ministerial pay debate. Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) Teo Chee Hean said that ‘we [the House] have come a very long way on this issue of political salaries and have moved much closer together, members from both sides of the House.” DPM Teo was said to have been struck at the “degree of convergence and agreement” achieved over the past three days.

Much has been commented on the pay formula and the benchmark proposed by the different stakeholders in this latest debate on the remunerations for political office. I shall not add to the chorus of opinions on the technical aspects of this debate involving formulas and pay scales, which I believed I am inadequate to assess and any attempt on my part to do so would be far from being constructive. Some have questioned the poor showing by Workers’ Party (WP) Members of Parliament during the 3-days debate, and to a certain extent, these critics are not entirely mistaken. WP members of Parliament have as much to learn as any Member of Parliament from the People’s Action Party (PAP). There are lessons to be learnt and the nation-state of Singapore stands to benefit from the continual development in the parliamentary depth of both the PAP and WP.

With this in mind, the PAP should seriously re-look at itself for trying to play the moral high ground not only in its central arguments in support of the proposals made by the Committee to review ministerial salaries but also in attempting to accuse the WP of being “inconsistent and playing political games”. Minister of State for National Development Tan Chuan-Jin echoed the accusations made in Parliament by Mr. Hri Kumar and tried to paint the WP as being insincere or at least, he was trying to allude to that. Mr. Baey Yam Keng went as far as to suggest that were “other political motivations.” Any political grandstanding in Parliament for one’s own party interests without any due regards for Singaporeans and their interest is regrettable. However, any attempt by the government to paint political grandstanding for party interests on the part of the WP in the name of putting national interests first by the PAP is pure hypocrisy. Singaporeans are intelligent enough to see that the PAP is no less a political party than the WP.

In the first place, why is there even a need to convene a committee to review ministerial salaries, setting in place a subsequent debate on the issue? The answer to my above question: Politics and the mechanics of national elections set in place and driven by the will of the electorate, which unfortunately runs against the agenda that the PAP wanted to set. Loosely termed, “a U-turn”.

Real progress came not from the political courage and convictions of the PAP but from the verdict of 7th May 2011. I was pretty surprised that the contribution of the ordinary Singaporean  was not recognised in length during the course of the entire debate. Instead, it shuffles between “sacrifices”, “principles”, “political grandstanding” and “formulas”

In that sense, fundamentally DPM Teo was referring to “real progress, rhetorical at best and U-turn in nature.”

Filed under: PAP, Parliament, Singapore, Workers' Party, Ministerial Salaries, Teo Chee Hean

Reforms not Rhetoric: A response to Prime Minister’s New Year Message 2012

“Much as we [PAP] would like to, it is not possible to please everyone completely. If all sides refuse to budge, Singapore will be gridlocked and nothing will move. Hence, we need to uphold a spirit of give and take, and actively search for creative and practical outcomes that serve the common good. And, after the final decision has been made, I hope that all parties will rally behind this collective decision.” (Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, New Year Message, 1 January 2012)

A ‘new normal’ is to say the least normal. A ‘new normal’ is still a normal political state of affairs. What Singapore really needs is a ‘New Deal’ as I have previously written extensively on. In the 12^th Parliament, the brutal fact of the matter is, the PAP has 81 seats while the largest alternative presence in the form of the Workers’ Party has 6 seats. The cynic will say that Parliament remains a rubber stamp for government agenda and he is not wrong in that respect.

The person of  the year in Singapore in 2011 should be the residents of Aljunied GRC after their admirable feat of kick starting that political reform process on 8 May 2011. The onus for tangible institutional reforms remains firmly on the plate of the PAP. Similarly, the biggest obstacle to systemic reforms lies not in the political wrangling and grandstanding of the alternative party in Parliament but on the intransigence of the ruling PAP in its attitude towards alternative and credible ideas during the policy-making process, masking their own ideas under the facade of the  “common good” and the “collective [majority] decision.”

The Workers’ Party’s Secretary-General, Mr. Low Thia Khiang has categorically allay the fears of Prime Minister’s Lee Hsien Loong by stating on the morning of the Party’s election victory in Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC) and Hougang Single-Member Constituency (SMC) that “Singaporeans have looked up to the Workers’ Party as a rational, responsible and credible party. They have responded to the approach of politics, which I have taken, that we should not oppose for the sake of (opposing), although we are the opposition. He went on to state that “[he] also do not believe that we should do grand standing by trying to show people that we are very confrontational just because we are the opposition; we will confront when necessary.

With this in mind, Mr. Howard Lee rightly encapsulates the political direction that Singapore should take, to “get out of politics and into policy.” In his piece for TheOnlineCitizen on 10 October 2011, He wrote that:

It should now be a time for our elected representatives to roll up their sleeves and get down to doing what they have been elected to do. In other words, it is time to get out of politics and into policy. This should be realised in changes and updates to existing policies that Singaporeans so wanted to see, which I believe drove the decisions that many voters made in this election year.

As Legislative Assistant to Mr. Low Thia Khiang, with much of my spare time being devoted to ground work and looking into the requests of the constituents, I can fully comprehend what the Prime Minister is trying to get at when he says that “Much as we would like to, it is not possible to please everyone completely.” However, I was very intrigued by his idea that “If all sides refuses to budge, Singapore will be gridlocked and nothing will move.” Simply put, in the current context that we are in, there will not be any parliamentary and policy gridlock. Period.

With this in mind, while Prime Minister Lee’s New Year Message is a step in the right direction, I hope that he recognises that more often than not, it is the PAP who refuses to “uphold a spirit of give and take” and accepts “creative and practical outcomes that serve the common good.” Certainly, when a “final decision has been made, all parties [should] rally behind the decision” but it is only possible if and only if that decision is in sync with the pulse of the population and speaks to the aspirations, hopes and dreams of the ordinary Singaporean like no other, or at the least the majority of Singaporeans. What the PAP thinks is good for Singapore may not be what Singaporeans rationally want from their government. There is a disconnect. It is not about ideas or ideology. It is also less about winning the political argument. It is more fundamental and systemic than that and it revolves around that disconnect between governance as envisioned by the PAP and the harsh realities on the ground.

It is ridiculously clumsy to seek out the “common good” when the voice of the individual voter has been diluted by the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) system and the current first-past-the post  arrangement. A parliamentary election that is organised under the Prime Minister’s office does not ensure political neutrality and it does not foster the development of a tighter collective will and common good. For better representation of the common good through voter diversity, Singapore should work towards an alternative system of proportional representation so that party votes can be reflected at the national level. The power of Parliament as the people’s representatives should be unfettered and thus the Office of the Elected Presidency should be abolished. Political reforms should be one of the priorities of this government if Prime Minister Lee is serious and genuine about a transformed and reformed PAP in the context of a ‘new normal’.

The Prime Minister in his New Year’s message highlighted that the issue of population “is a particularly complex and critical challenge”. I agree with him. I would also like to point out that the Workers’ Party in its “Towards a First World Parliament” Manifesto has dedicated an entire section to population and immigration, proposing a total of 13 policy proposals to move this country in the right direction. Similarly, the Workers’ Party proposed that ministers’ remuneration should be benchmarked internationally against the political office of developed countries and their remuneration should also take into account of all associated benefits under the total remuneration or total employment costs.

Will the PAP be willing to consider these rational and constructive solutions for the practical benefits that it can bring even though the proposals or ideas may have originated from the Workers’ Party?

Only time will tell whether Prime Minister Lee’s New Year Message is a potential vision for political reforms and policy changes or a rhetorical, warm and fuzzy piece of writing that contributes little to a country that is full of promise and potential, and one which I am proud to call home.

With that, I wish all Singaporeans a very healthy and rewarding 2012.

Thank you.

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

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

Where’s the leadership, Mr. Lee?: The Government’s non-response to tertiary students over the concession fares issue

We are all used to this.

Public transport operators are listed companies and need to earn a profit for their operations. At the urging of the public, they have granted concessions to various groups of people. However the more concessions that are granted, it would mean that other commuters would have to pay higher fares to make up the difference. [Yeo Cheow Tong, 2001]

In Singapore’s case, public transport concessions are provided by the public transport operators based on their commercial considerations.  Any concession that the PTOs grant, such as for senior citizens, is a form of cross-subsidy from other full-paying adults. [Raymond Lim, 2005]

Concessionary travel on basic bus and train services are determined and granted by the public transport operators (PTOs). The cost of concessions is ultimately cross-subsidised by other full-fare paying commuters and the operators have to take this into consideration before extending travel concessions beyond the present arrangement. [Lui Tuck Yew, 2011]

This is a non-answer. It is a non-answer on two basis.

1. The fallacy of that ‘economic burden’ argument 

We are always told that “the cost of concessions is ultimately cross-subsidised by other full-fare paying commuters.” The last I check, the SMRT leases out approximately 28,900 square metres of commercial space within the train network. A total of 33 MRT stations have been refurbished with increased space and rental yields. Average occupancy rate in FY2010 remained high at 99%. SMRT alone achieved rental revenue of $65 million despite economic downturn as reflected in its 2010 financial year report. This was an increase of 13% from the previous year. SMRT expects rental revenue to grow by another $6 million with increased rental space at MRT stations. This is notwithstanding the revenues it made from its taxi business and advertising streams.

SBS on the other hand, made $50.1 million from its outdoor advertising and rental streams. (Bus Advertising, In-Train Advertising, Interchange Advertising, Train Station Advertising, Shop Space, Road Show Space) This was an increase of 32.9% increase in revenue over the past year.

The cost of concessions need not necessarily have to be cross-subsidisied by other full-fare paying commuters. It can be cross subsidised by other revenue streams under the charge of both SMRT and SBS. Besides, it must be noted that even without the increasing the concessions for tertiary students, the fares of adult commuters have increased over the years.

Besides, the junior college students are enjoying a higher rate of subsidies as compared to the tertiary students. Who is paying for their subsidies? That “full-fare paying commuter”?

So the government’s argument is fallacious to say the least and falls completely flat when considered further. It is a non-answer.

2. The Government has much greater influence over the Public Transport Council (PTC) and the public transport operators (PTOs) than it has acknowledged in its public statements.

Transport fares don’t just go down during economic downturns with a simple announcement made by the PTC. The government has a big role in it. Given that the public transport operators are commercial entitles, public transport fares would only go up and not down. The demand for public transport in Singapore is essentially inelastic. 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. There is no need to lower fares. In fact, 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 fact, upon each request, the Public Transport Council kindly offers the PTOs with a blank cheque to run roughshod over the hard-earned income and savings of ordinary Singaporeans, registering record profits year after year while the real income of ordinary Singaporeans continue to fall.

The same bottom line argument can still be used for refusing to lower fares during economic recessions. However, the government will not allow that. The government’s role on the PTC and the PTOs is and can be significant. The government has to make a political judgement and ultimately it has to be responsible for the judgment made. At the core of it, the government needs to have the will but as seen repeatedly, this government lacks the will to do the right thing on the tertiary concession fares issue. It is disappointing to say the least.

Nonetheless, a non-response is better than a no-answer but that is just not enough. The government can certainly do better than that. The government was elected by the parents of junior college and tertiary students to ensure an affordable standard of living for all. Right now, the government is leaving the elderly, the disabled and tertiary students behind. Action, moral clarity and the will to govern fairly is sorely lacking.

At the end of the day, it is not stating too much to highlight that this inherent unfairness within the concession fare structure is becoming a source of disappointment and disillusionment amongst the student community and their parents. A decisive gesture on the part of the government in tandem with the PTC and PTOs to resolve this inherent conflict in the same spirit of responsible, rational and constructive engagement would be much appreciated.

The government needs to be more responsible to its electorate and lead. This is at the end of it, a leadership problem. Don’t push the responsibility around with a single narrative. Start leading.

The recent Speakers’ Corner event organised by the Young PAP and past petitions and outreaches over the years have at the very least shown our government the meaning of humility and more importantly, the need for leadership, sorely lacking in this issue.

Leadership cannot be demanded. It has to be earned.

Where’s the leadership, Mr. Lee?

Filed under: PAP, Singapore, Junior Colleges, Polytechnics, Student Transportation, Tertiary Concession Fares

Why Singapore need a First World Parliament?: Mr. Inderjit Singh and his magnanimity

Singapore needs a First World Parliament and the case of the Workers’ Party has been buttressed by none other than the People’s Action Party (PAP) itself, more specifically by Mr. Inderjit Singh, member of Parliament for Ang Mo Kio GRC. I am glad to know that Mr. Singh has unconsciously subscribed to the ideas put forth in the Workers’ Party 2011 Election Manifesto.

WP – A Vehicle To Move Towards a First World Parliament

Singapore has come a long way towards First World infrastructure and economic advancement. However, it cannot claim to be a truly First World country until its governance mechanisms of checks and balances match up. The Parliament of Singapore today consists of 82 elected Members from the ruling People’s Action Party (“PAP”) and 2 elected Members from the opposition. If this imbalance is not corrected, we run the risk that Parliament will be seen as a rubber stamp for government agenda.

A First World Parliament is able to balance a strong executive government if there is a credible and responsible opposition with a mandate from the electorate. This will generate a culture of accountability and enable citizens of different political stripes to contribute to nation building and policy formulation in a vital Organ of State. 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. [Workers' Party 2011 Manifesto, Page 6 and 7]

In a speech to the party faithful during the 2011 PAP Convention on 27 November 2011, Mr. Singh stated that,

‎”Our policy making, is mainly a top down approach, largely driven by civil-servants, who formulate these policies and then justify them with facts and figures to convince the minister to get the policies approved.”

I guess there is enough credence to say that the PAP leadership have been framing the efforts and policies of our civil servants as their own, so as to discredit the opposition for their own political gain at the expense of robust debate, consultation and discussion. The opposition is as good as the PAP without the civil service. Viewed in this light, the sum paid to our ministers is not only exorbitant and wasteful but more importantly, the Workers’ Party do have more policy substance than the PAP as seen in their 2006 and 2011 manifestoes. Interesting, interesting indeed. The only difference between the PAP and the Workers’ Party is incumbency and the civil service and the many honest and hardworking civil servants in our government.

Mr. Singh went on to state in his speech that, “today when the bills are brought to parliament, they are already fully ‘cooked’ with no intent for further changes. I think we are losing a great opportunity to inject more wisdom and political judgment into bills and policies by not taking into account inputs from the MPs during parliament debates.”

He further said that “So instead of always trying to complete the 2nd and 3rd reading of bills on the same day,  why not allow MPs to form committees to further scrutinize the bills by consulting activists through channels like the policy forum and to suggest changes.”

So the truth is out. Parliament for a very long time has been the rubberstamp for the agenda of the government, whose policies are shaped by our civil service and decided upon by our ministers. In view of the 2011 watershed election, it must be said that our ministers does have really poor political acumen and judgment, a trait that is essential if Singapore as a nation-state is to survive in a turbulent and globalised world. Alas.

The case for a First World Parliament is made even more appropriate and worthwhile in light of Mr. Inderjit Singh’s statement.

However, Mr. Singh has a different proposal, one that is different from that proposed by the Workers’ Party.

I suggest that as much as we can do it, we should bring only ‘half cooked’ bills to into parliament.

Mr. Singh’s purpose for suggesting such an absurd idea is to “allow greater debate on bills and allow inputs beyond what the civil servants already provide to be incorporated.”

That in itself is worrying. Now who’s the one playing politics.

The more important point is this. The entire argument for a checks and balance from within the PAP has fallen completely flat. The ideological relationship between the Party and the people has been render asunder and bankrupt. The problem with the PAP is fundamental one, premised on its inability to understand the hopes and aspirations of ordinary Singaporeans, increasingly highlighted by its inability to resolve the physiological needs of Singaporeans and continually hampered by intellectual stagnation.

Singapore needs a new deal, not a new normal. [I have spoken about A New Deal for Singapore in my earlier posting]

Singapore needs a First World Parliament. The Workers’ Party is right on this point. For that I like to thank Mr. Inderjit Singh for his magnanimous comments at a Convention that was supposed to uplift the spirit of its party faithful. The irony cannot be more pronounced.

Filed under: PAP, Parliament, Politics, Singapore, Workers' Party, 工人党, PAP Convention 2011

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

The People’s Association and Singaporeans: Perpetuating its own delusion

I refer to the response made by Ms. Ooi Hui Mei, Director for Corporate and Marketing Communications on behalf of the Chief Executive Director for the People’s Association (“Why opposition MPs can’t be advisers to grassroots bodies”, The Straits Times, 31 August 2011) to the forum letter written by Mr. Muhammad Yusuf Osman (“Advisers to grassroots bodies should be elected MPs”, The Straits Times, 30 August 2011).

I have 4 simple points to made here.

1. Ms. Ooi’s comments have demonstrated that the People’s Association is a parapolitical tool of the Government of the day, formed by the People’s Action Party (PAP). The People’s Association is not a non-partisan entity.

2. The People’s Association adopts a short-term view of “Government”. While it is true that the PAP will be the political party that is most likely to form the Government at this juncture and in the foreseeable future, it must be noted that this view is not inviolable. It is disappointing that the People’s Association fails to differentiate between the “Government” and the “Party”. Furthermore, the Government of the day has a specific agenda to pursue during its term in office and it is almost not possible for the People’s Association to be non-partisan in its pursuit to “help the Government connect with people and help promote government policies and programmes”. It is simply a case of the People’s Association advancing the interests of the Government formed by the dominant party in the name of the people.

3. Pursuant to the point made above, the People’s Association is a divisive instead of a unifying force in society. On a side but related point, similarly, the elected Presidency is a divisive rather than a unifying process.

4. The People’s Association is misguided to appoint, on advice from the Government, someone whom the electorate has rejected to assume the role of the Grassroots Advisor of the Grassroots Organisations in the constituency. The GROs are not pieces on the political chessboard, pieces which belong to the PAP. GROs are rightfully the property of the people of Singapore and the individual or the team of individuals who have been entrusted with the mandate from the people should be the guardian(s) of this property.

In sum, the People’s Association has chosen to adopt a myopic, misguided and mistaken view on its role in the greater body polity and I am of the view that the People’s Association is sliding towards irrelevance. The sad thing, of course is that only the People’s Association continues to see itself as a non-partisan entity and continues to speak about that, not realising that it is perpetuating its own delusion as part of the “social contract” between the People’s Association and the Government of the day.

It is not too late to realise that the “social contract”, if any should be between the People’s Association and the people of Singapore and not the People’s Association and the PAP.

Filed under: PAP, Politics, Singapore, Grassroots, People's Association, Straits Times Forum

A Few Good Men

If you have been watching Channelnewsasia anytime over the past week or so, you would have noticed a particular trailer on an upcoming in-house production, “A Few Good Men” that will feature two former Prime Ministers, Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong and Singapore 6th President, S.R Nathan. It is a loaded title to start off with and it attributes excess recognition to the contributions of these men and displays an inherent gender bias. I am not trying to belittle their contributions to Singapore, especially in her formative years, but I am saying that the titled description takes away too much from the contributions of ordinary Singaporeans, male and female alike in the nation-building process.

Personally, I have met many few good Singaporeans in the Workers’ Party and they are as ordinary as anyone can be. To me, the description of “A Few Good Men” is most suited for the following gentlemen: Mr. Lim Ee Ping, Mr. Lim Eng To, Mr. Lee Choe Weng and Mr. Ng Ah Chwee etc, veterans of the Workers’ Party. They joined the Party between 1959 and 1988, partaking in the nation-building process of Singapore and contributed to the development of the Workers’ Party as a respectable political entity.

The Workers’ Party today would not be where it is today without the toil of ordinary members, past and present. No can should attribute too much credit to one or two individuals that have brought the Workers’ Party to where it is today. The development of the Workers’ Party lies in the collective efforts of the entire Workers’ Party team. The loss of any one member is a loss to the Party. However, having said that, no one is indispensable, contrary to what proponents of the Great Man Theory believes. The Workers’ Party is as strong as her weakest link. Thus, as the Workers’ Party continues to grow in the years ahead, it is imperative that the Party leadership continually reminds itself of the fundamental values that have brought Workers’ Party electoral success in 2011 and members should not be blinded by their own political ambitions and agendas, moving at a pace that resonates with the membership and speaks unreservedly of their boundless sacrifices to the nation-building process of Singapore. Invisible though they may be in the public eye, their contributions are in no way less critical than the brave people who made up the vanguard and whose names are celebrated and remembered in the many books and journals dotting the shelves of major bookstores in Singapore.

Mr. Lim Ee Ping, Mr. Lim Eng Toh, Mr. Lee Choe Weng and Mr. Ng Ah Chwee are shining examples of what ordinary Singaporeans can do for Singapore, even if one have position themselves on the other side of the political equation. They stood up for the interests of Singapore and played their part in the development of modern Singapore and their lives were intertwined with the fortunes of this nation. They celebrated with Singapore’s successes and saw Singapore through its darkest days. Together in their own little way, they have made Singapore a viable and successful nation-state and Workers’ Party a respectable political organisation.

Week in, week out, they came and supported the work of the Party, despite their graying hair and their ageing physique. They were not passive bystanders and offered not only their advice but got their hands dirty in the midst of all the action. They invested their time and youth in the Party and have not stopped one bit in their old age. They gave all they could, not asking for anything in return, hoping that their small actions can open the hearts and minds of their fellow citizens. Born into an environment which was politically hostile to alternative political forces, their views and political perspectives were way ahead of their times. They continued in a course of action even in the face of difficulty or with little or no indication of success. They are and will continue to be an inspiration to a young Singaporean like me.

They laid the foundations for future generations to come. Young activists owe them a great deal of gratitude and they should not be forgotten in the annals of Singapore’s history. Unfortunately, many a time we failed to see that there are more than just “A Few Good Men”. We disregard our personal sacrifices and contributions to Singapore and willingly gave all the credit to our founding fathers and mothers (Yes, Singapore do have her own founding mothers). As Baroness Margaret Thatcher once said, “No, No, No”. As Singapore celebrates its 46th birthday, do not forget that Singapore is made up of you and me. Singapore is made up of a strong and coherent imagined community. Though we may not have met every Singaporean, the reciting of the pledge and the singing of the national anthem brought our hearts from wherever we are together. Stringed as one united people and bonded to our respective networks and communities, Singapore transformed within a generation into a modern cosmopolitan city and a home which we are all so proud of. It is not just the work of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew and his cabinet.

To these few good men like Mr. Lim Ee Ping, Mr. Lim Eng Toh, Mr. Lee Choe Weng and Mr. Ng Ah Chwee, the national anthem is more than a bunch of incomprehensible words and the pledge more than just an aspiration. It constitutes their life work and their own personal gift to Singapore on every national day.

On this national day, I have a simple word of gratitude to these few good Singaporeans in the Workers’ Party. Thank you for your service to the nation. You made us all see that no matter which side you are politically aligned to, the interests of Singapore is paramount. You have made my entire journey in the Workers’ Party so much more worthwhile. Singapore is worth fighting for, worth standing up for and worthy of my time, efforts and sacrifices.

From the bottom of my heart, thank you!

Filed under: PAP, Politics, Singapore, Workers' Party, A Few Good Men

Constructive Disobedience has a place in Singapore

As a member of the Workers’ Party, I often hear the geniune concerns of ordinary Singaporeans during my work on the ground. It can come in various forms but borders along similar lines. They would raise their opinions on the various government policies and feedback the impact of these policies to the Party, with the hope that we can raise it in Parliament or effect a change in the direction of the policies. It sadden me to inform them that while our leaders have raise it in Parliament and will continue to do so in the next Parliamentary term, there is very little that the Workers’ Party can do to alleviate them from their exacting circumstances at this moment in time. Though this speaks volume of the government, their legislative agenda and the implementation of their policies on the ground, it also exposes the inability of the Workers’ Party to bring about change and the change agenda; if any seems to be in the court of the imcumbent PAP. Singaporeans must recognise that the majority of the electorate had given the PAP the mandate to carry out its policies that were set out and promised to them during the hustings. Under current configuraton, the People’s Action Party can easily outvote the Workers’ Party in any bill put before the house.

The idea of constructive obedience continually seeks out the mandate of the people, respects the will of the electorate in free and fair elections and connotes a rational, responsible and respectable mainstream political effort. The implementation of the idea of constructive disobedience lies in subjecting the governing party to political competition, so as to promote higher standards of performance and guard against complaency. At the same time, it is in the national interest to ensure that Singaporeans are not held ranson, by having another political party capable of taking over should the ruling People’s Action Party falter or lose its mandate to govern.

Over the past 2 days, we are beginning to see some hint of constructive disobedience in action played out via the political platform of the Workers’ Party in the form of the Workers’ Party General Election 2011 Manifesto. In the lead-up to the General Elections 2011, the Workers’ Party published a 63-page Manifesto setting out the beliefs, philosophy and proposals of the Party.

It was announced on 11 July 2011 that SBS Transit and SMRT had submitted applications for fare adjustments or in other words fare increase to cope with the significant cost pressures to ensure that the two companies remain profitable. ‎

In Chapter 9 (Transport), Page 41 of the Workers’ Party GE2011 Manifesto, it stated that

“The PAP’s government of outsourcing public transport to the Public Transport Operators, SBS Transit and SMRT, which are profit driven, results in conflicts against the public interest. Given that public transport is a basic necessity of modern life, serving the public interest should be paramount.’

On the following day, the Football Association of Singapore announced that a memorandum of understanding with the Football Association of Malaysia (FAM) had been signed and the Republic would be playing in the Malaysia Cup in 2012 after a 17 years hiatus.

Chapter 15 (Sports and Recreation), Page 62 of the Workers’ Party GE2011 Manifesto reads like this.

“Singapore’s previous participation in the Malaysia Cup football championship galvanised and united our nation and drew huge crowds of fans like no other event since. The Football Association of Singapore should explore re-entry of a Singaporean team into the Malaysia Cup on terms that are fair to our players, fans and other local stakeholders.”

In a quirky and a twist of concidence, these two developments demostrated that Constructive disobedience has a place in the national narrative today. It plays a most important and significant role to ensure that Singapore 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.

Constructive disobedience in the form of the Workers’ Party electoral participation did what conformity to the status quo could not, and that was to read the pulse of the ordinary Singaporeans like no other and set the direction for the nation in accordance to the aspirations, hopes and dreams of Singaporeans with a promise to realise them together with the people of Singapore.

Filed under: Constructive Disobedience, PAP, Politics, Singapore, Workers' Party

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