That $28million dollar question: An investment not a cost

Yes. It has now come down to that $28 million dollar question.

It costs transport operators in Singapore $28 million dollars per year if polytechnic students are given travel concessions similar to that currently enjoyed by students from junior college (JCs) and Institutes of Technical Education (ITEs). That is $28 million dollars lost annually in terms of operating revenue. Period.

I have 2 points to make in response.

1. I do understand that public transport operators have to be answerable to their stakeholders through their corporate performance. Reducing costs and maximising revenue and in turn the profit margin is what a responsible private organisation should seek to achieve on a year-on-year basis. In that case, the transport operators may want to consider not giving any of the student groups any concessionary arrangements, or increase the amount that JC and ITE students are currently paying to match the rate that is pay forth by the polytechnic students. In other words, if travel concessions are provided forth in the first place, the least the transport operators should worry about is the revenue that may be lost through the granting of travel concessions since they are labeled as “concessions” to begin with.

2. The planned polytechnic intake for academic year 2012/2013 is 27,065 and the total number of polytechnic students is approximately 81,195. In 2010, the total enrollment of students in polytechnics is 83,452 inclusive of full-time, part-time and advanced diploma students. Thus, taking an enrolment number of 80,000, transport operators are spending on average less than $1 a day investing in the education of our polytechnic students. The $28 million can be seen in roughly two broad ways; as a cost to the transport operators or an investment on the part of the transport operators in the talent enterprise for the Singapore economy.

Till date, the transport operators remain entrenched in their perennial mindset that this figure of $28 million is an operating cost to them. Unfortunately so. A fundamental rethink is long overdue and let’s consider investing in the future of this nation, a move that is not only strategic but would most certainly be welcomed by the respective stakeholders and shareholders.

 

References:

• Travel concessions for poly students will cost transport operators S$28m – http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1177393/1/.html

• A Guide to Polytechnic Education (Planned Polytechnic Intake for Academic Year 2012/2013) – http://www.polytechnic.edu.sg/polyguide/Intake.html

• Department of Statistics, Singapore (Education, 2010) – http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/reference/yos11/statsT-education.pdf

Filed under: Parliament, Singapore, Junior College, Polytechnics, Public Transportation, Tertiary Concession Fares

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

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

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

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

A new deal for Singapore: Response to President Tony Tan’s Address to Parliament on 12 October 2011

A new deal for Singapore

The elections that concluded on 7 May 2011 were a watershed election in the political history of Singapore. For the first time, a Group Representation Constituency (GRC) was won by the opposition Workers’ Party. It is a significant breakthrough for Singapore and heralds in a gradual coming of age of the Singapore electorate. The People’s Action Party has termed this the ‘new normal’. It must however be noted that a ‘new normal’ is to say the least normal. A ‘new normal’ is still a normal. What Singapore really needs is a ‘New Deal’.

Since independence, Singapore has been governed by the People’s Action Party (PAP). Singaporeans in effect have repudiated their long battle against the monopoly political power of the PAP and began to accept a compensatory state, a state whereby the government worked to insure high levels of GDP growth, ‘full employment’ and a broader distribution of economic purchasing power among Singaporeans in the lower and middle segment in society, in exchange for the intangibles in life, such as a better work-life balance, parenthood and the preservation of our cultural heritage such as the Bukit Brown Chinese Cemetery, to name a few. The electorate while initially rejecting the disrupting effect of economic modernisation, came to terms with the fruits of growth. Happiness was compensated with high and regular economic growth. This has to change under the ‘New Deal’.

The fundamental question is how much cost does the government wants to recover from services it had pledged to provide to the people regardless of the economic circumstances. This is a political judgment that the government must make, the consequences it has to bear at each election. A social democratic government would restore the “public” back into the public services, something solely missing in the soul of this nation, whose fabric is scarred by years of relentless economic progress. For Singapore to truly assume the mantle of a First World nation worthy of the name, Singaporeans and our policymakers must steer a different course and not see our everyday relationships and transactions as a zero-sum game. Singapore is greater than economic profits and Singaporeans more than pieces on the economic chessboard. This is the promise of the ‘New Deal’.

There was a belief that economic order and scientific management could be achieved by creating a cooperative relationship among labour, capital and state. There was need for planning and order in the economy. Such a model was structured and based, more often than not, in the context of a war economy with the mobilisation of all the resources and where the government had to work closely with business and labour to facilitate cooperation and efficiency within the industrial world. The trade union movement that we see today is an effort to recreate that “ordered economic world” which a wartime experience would produce. The current relationship between the government, workers and business is a barren marriage by which workers sacrificed any hopes for independent political power in exchange for immediate material gains. This has to change under the ‘New Deal’.

It is true that currently only the state has the capacity and the institutions to advance reform and progress in Singapore. This was in large part a result of the absence within the non-governmental sectors of institutions and agencies capable of supervising the government and the economy; that absence made it imperative and almost inevitable that control of the nation-building agenda fall into the government and the politicians who direct the agenda of the state and which indirectly, affects the fortune of the PAP in a Westminster parliamentary democracy. This has to change under the ‘New Deal’.

 The New Deal promises a ‘broker state’, where the state will forsake and assiduously reject any central design on the economy or promote a transcendent national goal or memory, to reduce the disconnect and the awkward dichotomy between the government and her people. The Singapore government instead guarantees the rights of particular interest groups and oversees pluralistic competition in the national marketplace. The broker state is the promise of the New Deal. The relationship between the government and the people has to change. The relationship between the unions and the government has to be altered. The relationship between the community, grassroots organisations’, the constituents and the government has to be radically reconsidered. The New Deal encompasses the entire marketplace that is the Singapore body-politic of which the government is one of the many stakeholders, an important stakeholder none the less, with moral obligations and responsibilities to the electorate.

The government has to ensure that GDP, the homogenisation of mass culture, and the increasing availability of consumer goods do not defined this nation’s social and political values. The growth and consumption ethos had served the economic needs of a young nation in 1965. This is no longer sufficient in 2011. Economic growth is as important in ‘The Singapore Story’ as it is in ‘The New Deal.’ What is important and of particular focus in the ‘New Deal’ lays in the fact that growth and GDP should not be allowed to undermine efforts to address the human needs of the larger society. The fact that Singaporeans seemed to acquiesce in social and economic changes that appeared in many ways averse to their interests and heritage is appalling and disappointing.

Constructive Disobedience is another beacon of the ‘New Deal’. 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 re-script 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. I am first a Singaporean son then a member of the organisation I belong to. I belong first and foremost to Singapore and the interests of Singapore are my priority.

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 complacency. At the same time, it is in the national interest to ensure that Singaporeans are not held ransom by the PAP, by having another political party capable of taking over should the ruling People’s Action Party falter or lose its mandate to govern. 

The ‘New Deal’ will do what conformity to the status quo could not, 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, regardless of race, language, religion, political affiliations and social class, so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation, a nation that is home, an inclusive home for all that we can all be proud of. Singapore will be a home we all share and the future of Singapore is one that we will build together, as one united people.

 Thank you.

Filed under: Parliament, Politics, Singapore

My views on the Elected Presidency

1. I am of the view that the powers of Parliament as the people’s representatives must be unfettered.

2. I am of the view that the office of Elected President conflicts with the tenets of Parliamentary democracy.

3. I am of the view that an Elected Presidency do not make Singapore more democratic. A one-party dominant system remains with or wthout an Elected President

4. I am of the view that if you seek to be the voice of the people, contest in a Parliamentary election, not a Presidential election.

5. I am of the view that the Elected Presidency does not check and balance the government of the day. In fact, the legislative agenda in the President’s Address is set forth and prepared by the government. The President listens, encourages, advise and supports the government. The Prime Minister and his cabinet makes the decisions and proposes legislation to be voted on in Parliament by representatives elected by the people and executed by the Civil Service. In this context, the Presidency duly elected by all the registered electors in Singapore is a major distortion.

6. I am of the view that the Presidency should be reverted to its former ceremonial position and significant cost-savings can thus be made. The taxpayer monies that are being utilised to hold a Presidential Election can be re-directed to provide more substantial social services to better serve needy Singaporeans.

7. I am of the view that instead of a Presidential Election Campaign, Singapore needs a nationwide campaign drive to educate Singaporeans on the Singapore Constitution, the historical evolution of that constitution and the Legislative Political Process.

8. I am of the view that instead of making a choice for President, Singaporeans should ensure that the appointment of a ministerial position by the Prime Minister be put up for approval and scrutiny in Parliament.

9.  I am of the view that the government of the day is accountable to the people of Singapore through Parliament and if you want to have an effective check and balance against a strong executive government and the government to be accountable to you and contribute effective and gainfully to the policy formation process, you need not an Elected Presidency but more established players in Parliament. An Elected President cannot rid the inherent imbalance in a one-party dominant Parliament.

Filed under: Parliament, Politics, Singapore, Constitution, Elected Presidency

Not Stones but Bricks for Nation-Building – A response to ‘Don’t throw stones… offer better ideas’: MG Chan, ST, 3 July 2011

I refer to the article (‘Don’t’ throw stones. . . offer better ideas’, Sunday Times, 3 July 2011) and I would like to offer my opinions  and reflections on the comments made specifically by Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports Major-General (NS) Chan Chun Sing to his audience at the Young PAP dialogue.

I must say that I did not attend the Young PAP dialogue and thus my views may not be wholly representative of the entire discussion that transpired at the dialogue and I am basing my opinions and views reported in the Sunday Times, which I believe attempts to encapsulate the entire gist of his comments during the dialogue.

From what I read, MG Chan’s central theme throughout the dialogue was to encourage young Singaporeans to go forth and do something and actively pursue an active ownership of the country and he highlighted that “politics for politics sake” is poisonous to the country’s future. Certainly, this is not the first time a government minister has urged young Singaporeans to reclaim the country for themselves, seize the initiative and rid any inkling of dependency on the government. The only difference this time round was that MG Chan adopted a “Socratic-style” dialogue instead of a lecture from the podium. That in itself should be applauded and further encouraged and built upon for future dialogues. But I am disappointed to know that the same narrative has been packaged and communicated in a different way.

“I did not want to give them the solutions, but work through solutions with them, so everybody understands the choices, the consequences, the trade-offs. Even if they  don’t agree with a decision at a point in time, they will understand the considerations behind it.”

I believe that he was probably influenced by the comments of the previous Minister of Community, Youth and Sports, Vivian Balakrishnan who said in the aftermath of the General Elections 2011 that

It’s very very important to talk to the patient, to explain these choices and the different trade-offs and make sure the people of Singapore understand this and participate more actively in the decision-making process.

Nothing much has changed and I would like to argue that the People’s Action Party (PAP) still believe that their policies are right, only the implementation and communication needed to work on. In such a context, it is almost impossible to empower young Singaporeans to take the initiative and to adopt a take-charge attitude instead of tearing down and outsourcing the problem when the PAP is merely on a public relations exercise to contain the political fallout from the last General Elections. I am afraid that the PAP government has yet to realise, much to the detriment of the long-term interests of Singapore, the shifting of the ground and the apparent “anti-establishment” sentiments in the political environment. At the end of the day, the government will stick to its tried-and-tested line and construct the same old narrative around their ideas and proposals. This will once again leave Singaporeans disillusioned and disempowered to act and take ownership of this country.

While I agree that there are many social media sites out there that repeatedly takes every single thing out of context, existing to serve the sole purpose of attacking individuals, organisations or anything related to them, it is certainly uncalled for to label the online world as being “dominated by the lunatic fringe”. In light of continually paying lip-service to the voices and aspirations of ordinary Singaporeans, the PAP may want to consider why so many Singaporeans, regardless of their age profiles, have been turning to the internet to voice their unhappiness and grievances. I can say with certainty that are many constructive ideas on the online world. They not only offer rational and responsible critique of the government but at the same time, propose interesting ideas that is worthy for further discussion and consultation and should be considered for possible implementation.

I am glad that MG Chan highlighted the point that “politics for politics sake” is poisonous to Singapore future. I believe it is time for the government to translate such rhetoric communicated to the public into actual policies on the ground and more importantly, the government must recognise that alternative parties such as the Workers’ Party are constructive and equal partners in the nation-building process. For a start, the “non-partisan nature” of the grassroots organisations should be reviewed. Gerrymandering at elections and pork-barrel politics in the form of linking votes to upgrading should be rejected. Delineation of electoral boundaries should not be under the Prime Minister’s Office and electoral boundaries should be made known a year before the general elections are called. Group Representation Constituencies should be abolished and an independent election commission, reporting to the Chief Justice should be established to organise parliamentary elections. Actions speak louder than words.

While the PAP continued to practice “politics for politics’ sake”, they should refrain from chastising young Singaporeans of complaining and not being able to offer ideas and proposals to bring the country forward. Politics should not be about the relentless tearing down of one’s opponents. It should be about the reconciliation of different ideas, policies, values and narratives into a coherent national consensus that will bring this country forward on a sustainable basis that is intrinsically rewarding for all Singaporeans.

With this in mind and in light of increased alternative representation in Parliament when Parliament reconvene for a new parliamentary term, I would like to propose that MG Chan and the cabinet look into working with the Workers’ Party and the sole representative from the Singapore People’s Party in jointly implementing the manifestoes put forward during the elections. As MG Chan has so kindly stated, “the government will remain open to ideas, regardless of political affiliations”.

Singapore has the ideas and plans of three parties that are pro-Singapore on the table in Parliament and countless visions and aspirations of differing individuals and groups in civil society and the political arena. Let’s work together, as one united people and one common citizenry to implement them to bring this country forward and foster a better future for Singaporeans and to leave behind a Singapore that is better than the one we have inherited.

The above involves the PAP to review and re-look at the national narrative that they have held so strongly since independence. It requires on the part of the PAP a pro-Singapore political agenda, a generous, noble and courageous heart and a tenacious and unselfish character. In the next 5 years, the electorate, including young Singaporeans and first-time voters to-be will place whatever remains of their confidence in the PAP and look with increased scrutiny and cynicism on their words, actions and policies.

Will Singaporeans get more of the same or will Singapore witness a renewed and rejuvenated PAP? Can the PAP truly deliver? Time will tell, when the electorate next goes to the polls.

—

References:

1. ‘Don’t throw stones… offer better ideas’: MG Chan by Rachel Chung, 3 July 2011 - http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_686715.html

2. Not just politics for its sake: MG Chan to youth by Leong Wee Keat, 3 July 2011  - http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC110703-0000159/Not-just-politics-for-its-sake–MG-Chan-to-youth

3. Govt needs to improve communication with citizens: Dr Balakrishnan by Satish Cheney, 9 May 2011- http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1127734/1/.html

4. The Workers’ Party Manifesto - http://wp.sg/manifesto/

Filed under: PAP, Parliament, Workers' Party