The European Union and the crisis in the Eurozone

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

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

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

Filed under: History, Politics, euro, European Union

What is the Workers’ Party’s stand on welfare?

Source: Workers’ Party “Towards a First World Parliament” manifesto

In the preamble to the section of “Society” in the Workers’ Party “Towards a First World Parliament” manifesto, it stated that “every citizen has a right to a decent standard of living, work and a life of choices and opportunities without discrimination. The government has the responsibility to look after its citizens and should not just play a “charity role” when tackling the needs of the people and building a community.” The Party went on to explain that “the government’s minimalist approach to social welfare, in particular its rigid emphasis on family as the first line of defence, has caused much stress to poor and sandwiched Singaporeans.”

The Workers’ Party beliefs on welfare, community and society are as such:

1. The Workers’ Party is for a caring society and believes that social justice must be intrinsic to the concept of government. It also recognizes that Singapore is a multicultural society and everyone should be treated equally.

2. The society, as a whole, must direct resources to support the underprivileged.

3. The government has the obligation to protect and provide for vulnerable groups of people, especially the poor.

 4. The government must provide needs-based social welfare to ensure that no one who needs help is left stranded. Social workers should be given discretion to assess each case on its merits. Although it may mean that more resource sand effort will be needed to examine some cases, no citizen in need should be deprived of assistance.

5. People with disabilities have the right to live a dignified and fulfulling life and be integrated with the rest of the community.

6. The problems of the aged, especially the chronically ill, do not only refer to those who are destitute but also those whose families are unable to care for them for genuine reasons. Affordable healthcare and support facilities for them are essential. Voluntary welfare organisations are playing important roles here and more support from the government is necessary.

7. Besides physical health, the mental health of the elderly is equally important. Many retirees are still able to contribute to society and should be encouraged and given the opportunities to do so.

8. Single parents must not be left out of available assistance schemes.

9. The development of a strong and vibrant community will strengthen our social fabric, foster social cohesion and in the process build a national identity. We need to encourage individuals within the community to serve the neighbourhood to foster the organic growth of a natural community leadership.

10. Multiculturalism should be actively promoted and should form a corner stone of our social policies.

11. All children have the right to grow up with dignity in a safe environment free from the risk of abuse. Deterrence alone is no guarantee to ensuring the safety of our children. The environment must inherently reduce the risk of abuse and thus, safeguard the well-being of children.

Filed under: Manifesto, Politics, Singapore, Workers' Party, 工人党

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Missing the Point – That 10-years series answer to tertiary students since 2001

This article traces the development of the single narrative put forth by the government in rationalising the unfair transport concessionary arrangements for polytechnic students vis-à-vis their peers in a junior college.

2001 – Why the unfairness?

On 25 September 2001, Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for Communications and Information Technology why is it that students from the polytechnics pay adult fares for rides on buses and on the MRT whereas those from junior colleges only pay student’s concession rates, when both are of the same age and are students.

In his response to Mr. Chiam, the Minister for Transport, Mr. Yeo Cheow Tong said,

The public transport operators grant concessionary travel to various groups of individuals, such as pre-school children, students and senior citizens, to help lower their cost of travelling. The privileges and types of concession offered differ from group to group.

The public transport operators have a different concessionary travel scheme for students in tertiary institutions compared to those in schools. The polytechnics are considered as tertiary institutions.

For tertiary students, the operators offer two types of concession schemes. The first is the monthly bus concession stamp, which allows the holder to take unlimited number of trips on buses for the month that he or she holds a valid stamp. The other is the monthly MRT concession ticket, which entitles the holder of a valid ticket to travel on the MRT and LRT systems up to 4 trips a day.

Thus, a tertiary student who makes extensive use of the public transport system can cut down his or her transport expenditure by making use of the available concession schemes.

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.

A similar answer was given by Mr. Yeo Cheow Tong to Mr. Ong Kian Min (Tampines) to his speech in 2006.

Sir, Mr Ong [Kian Min] lamented about the reluctance of the PTOs to widen the use of travel concessions and season tickets. These are granted by the PTOs to various groups of individuals, such as pre-school children, students and senior citizens, to help lower their cost of travelling. These concessions remain the prerogative of the PTOs, and they are actually cross-subsidised by the majority of full-fare-paying commuters. The PTOs have, therefore, been very prudent about extending the travel concessions beyond the present groups, as it would ultimately result in other commuters paying higher fares.

2005 – What is the role of the Government?

During the Committee of Supply debate on the Ministry of Transport on 3 March 2005, then Marine Parade GRC Member of Parliament, Mr. Andy Gan argued, “subsidies or rebates on fares for senior citizens and students should be forthcoming from transport operators instead of from the Government only.” He went on to say that the public transport operators could demonstrate their active community involvement through transport fare subsidies for senior citizens and students.

Mr. Andy Gan went on to suggest that the Government can plays its part by “giving tax concessions to transport operators for every dollar of subsidy contributed as an incentive for their contribution to society. Thus, with a combination of efforts from the Government and the private sector and a transparent approach to setting public transport fares, future adjustments to the public transport fares could be less controversial.”

It seems that Mr. Raymond, Minister of Transport in 2008 had an answer to Mr. Gan’s suggestion in 2005. He said in the Committee of Supply debate for his ministry in that year (6 March 2008). On the idea that that the state comes in directly and subvents across the board, Mr. Lim said, “I do not think this is advisable. When the state comes in, it should be targeted to those who really need help.”

He went on to explain to the House and Singaporeans the rationale for not extending greater transport concessions to the elderly, low-income and the young by reiterating an argument that Singaporeans have gotten all too familiar with.

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.

On that point alone, Ms. Eunice Olsen, Nominated Member of Parliament deemed it as “unacceptable”

2009 – Fares lowered in the midst of economic downturns, Unfairness remains

The unfairness in transport concessionary fares between Junior Colleges and Polytechnic students was especially pertinent during times of severe economic downturns. In the 2009 Budget debate, many members of Parliament raised this issue again.

“There is a sharp difference of fares that are paid by junior college students and Polytechnic students. Students purchase the same concession passes which have the symptoms of use. I urge the Government to overlook and to establish a fairer system of charging concession passes for all students by adjusting the prices for concession passes for Polytechnic students and we will be able to relieve the heavy financial burden of families, of all middle-income with at least one child in Polytechnic. Relieving costs at a time of belt-tightening in expenditure.” [Chiam See Tong, Potong Pasir]

I would like to plead on behalf of the polytechnic students. Unlike the junior college students, polytechnic students do not enjoy concessionary bus and MRT fares. I believe that this economic recession is the best time to correct this anomaly. [Er Lee Bee Wah, Ang Mo Kio GRC]

The transport operators’ explanation that to give our polytechnic students cheaper fare would mean higher charges for public fare is not acceptable. There is no need for this direct relationship. It is an expense item, but there are also many forms of revenue as well. URA and LTA over last few years have allowed more and more retail space in the MRT stations, and this space provides added revenue. Can MOT and the Transport Council be more persuasive and effective on this matter? [Cynthia Phua, Aljunied GRC]

On the point of unfairness, the minister gave a terse, feeble and illogical response, “The operators decide on concessions. However, I would encourage them to see how best they can help in these difficult times. Polytechnic students are a large and diverse group – there are students from wealthy families and students from less well-off families. We should not ask taxpayers to subsidise the fares of polytechnic students who could well afford it.”

In light of the economic situation in 2009, the Public Transport Council after consultation with the student campaign and many other stakeholders, tertiary students concession fares were reduced.

Below is a transcript on Gerald Ee’s reply to a journalist, when asked on how the reduction in tertiary student concession fares will help the polytechnic students. Gerald Ee is the Chairman of the Public Transport Council

Journalist:

[How does] the reduction in tertiary student concession fares helps the polytechnic students?

Gerard Ee:

I am not sure whether you are aware but there has been a meeting between the representatives of the polytechnic students, the operators and PTC representatives and they discussed at length to understand the concerns of the polytechnic students. Let me first start by emphasising that; I think many members of the public are sympathetic as well but perhaps they may not realise that polytechnic students are not left out in the cold. Right now they are treated at par with tertiary students so they do enjoy concessions like tertiary students. The polytechnic students want it possible for the operators to treat them as a different class on its own, somewhere between a JC and a tertiary, to enjoy better concessions than a tertiary but maybe not as much as a JC student, that is something on their wish list. I think the operators will look at it

But don’t forget next year, when come to the middle of next year, 1st of June , when we move through to a through fare system, the whole fare structure is going to change anyway. And probably that’s the best time really for the operators, and for everyone to sit down and relook at the structure and see what can be done. Because right now, what is critical and not to be distracted from is how do we take these rebates from the operators and adjust it in such as a way that every single commuter can get some benefit from it. So you don’t really want to distract that.

On top of it, even at the status quo, don’t forget, as I said polytechnic students are treated like tertiary students, enjoying the same concessions and all the students from primary, secondary and tertiary are enjoying extra reductions; $1 to $4 so they are getting something, even those on concessions are getting something from this reduction.

2010 and beyond – Fares restored, Unfairness persisted

Fares were restored in 2010, a year later and the issue of unfairness between the Polytechnic students and the Junior College students in terms of their concession fares persisted. Little wonder that Er Lee Bee Wah brought it up again in Parliament.

Another group of students are the polytechnic students. Now, they have to pay $50 for their monthly ticket. And for the junior college students, they are paying $27.50. It is a big difference. So for the monthly concession for polytechnic students, it is $45 and for the junior college students who are of the same age, they are paying only $25. There is a difference of 80%. But for the consolidated concession that can be used for buses and trains, it is from $97 and $57 – it is a big difference. I urge the Public Transport Council to review the tickets for the polytechnic students.

What do you think was the response from the Minister, Mr. Raymond Lim? Yes, more of the same.

Ms Sylvia Lim and Er Lee have also asked for fare concessions to be extended to the disabled and polytechnic students, and more concessions for senior citizens. I understand the difficulties of the disabled. I understand that the request by the polytechnic students has been recurring. Mr Chairman, Sir, public transport concessions are determined and granted by the public transport operators. The costs of such concessions are cross-subsidised by other full-fare paying commuters. The operators will have to take this into account when considering any changes to the concessionary schemes. Nevertheless, we strongly encourage the operators to consider these requests. And they have in the past responded to such requests, by extending senior citizens concessionary hours to all hours except before 9.00 am on weekdays. So if you have any requests, do put it up to the operators. I believe that through engaging them, they can better understand your needs and maybe a resolution can be reached. As to whether the Government should intervene to provide concessionary travel, I think it is better to focus on providing targeted help or assistance to those who really need it.

Er Lee Bee Wah’s response to the Minister’s explanation summed up the frustrations of many polytechnic students, “Actually I am very disappointed with the response. It seems that we adopt a very hands-off approach, ie, leave it totally to the bus operators.”

The Minister in his attempts to put up a logical argument retorted, “As I mentioned just now, the critical question is do we help polytechnic students from low-income needy families? The answer is yes. As a Government, we help. So I am not quite sure where the disappointment is. The Government actually helps quite a fair bit.”

The Minister is totally missing the point. Sadly.

When the distance-base fare mechanism kicked in in the middle of 2010, the Minister reported, “For students, 76% saw weekly savings and 24% saw an increase.”

Fast-forward to the 12th Parliament convened after the watershed election in May 2011, this fundamental issue of unfairness was brought again and the same old terse response was regurgitated.

Sir, for years, I have been appealing to the Minister to grant polytechnic students the same transport concession benefits as the junior college students. As more youths are turning to polytechnic as an alternative route to higher education, the transport concession can lighten the financial load of the parents. [Er Lee Bee Wah, 19 October 2011]

Sir, there is one point that I feel passionately about. Whenever folks ask me about polytechnic student fares for MRT and buses, why they do not enjoy the same fares as their peers in Junior Colleges and ITEs? Frankly, I cannot look them in the eye and say something that I myself am convinced about. So, I would like the Minister to consider aligning this as fast as he can because there are really no grounds to say that you are both of the same age, but just because I classify you as polytechnic students, you pay more than your peers. This can be done anytime. We do not have to wait for the formula to be reviewed. [Cedric Foo, 17 October 2011]

During the last sitting of Parliament on 22 November 2011, Mr. Baey Yam Keng asked the following question (accompanied by the response by the new Transport Minister).

Mr Baey Yam Keng: To ask the Minister for Transport if he will clarify (i) the role of the Government versus the Public Transport Council and public transport operators in determining transport fare concessions for different commuter groups, eg senior citizens, students; and (ii) the basis for categorising diploma students with undergraduates under the tertiary student concession and not with junior college students under the school smartcard concession which applies to students under 21 years old.

The following is Minister for Transport Lui Tuck Yew’s response:

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.

The operators currently grant student travel concessions based on their level of academic pursuit and the institution of enrolment. Polytechnic students and university students are considered tertiary students because both polytechnics and universities are institutions of higher learning unlike junior colleges. The public transport operators currently provide concessions to polytechnic students via the monthly concession pass scheme.

The Public Transport Council is aware of the requests for more concessions and will work with the operators to see how best these requests for more concessions for the disabled and the polytechnic students could be considered in future review of fares for the different commuter groups. For instance, for this year, the senior citizen concession hours have been extended to full-day throughout the week to benefit elderly commuters.

As for the Government’s role, our focus continues to be on providing help alongside fare revisions to help the needy adjust. We will continue to provide targeted assistance such as through the Public Transport vouchers and the ComCare Fund, as well as through various work support schemes. This approach ensures that those who are really in need of assistance will receive it, and also makes the best use of public fundss.

While Lui Tuck Yew is the third minister of transport since 2001, nothing much has changed on the part of the government, using and re-using a feeble argument to justify an obvious and oft-quoted unfairness in mainstream discourse.

For 10 years, the fundamental issue of unfairness in concession fares between a JC/ITE student and a tertiary student continues to remain unresolved. The latest fare reduction in 2009, on hindsight looks like a false dawn towards future reforms in the concession fare structure for tertiary students.

In light of the implementation of a distance-based through fare structure in June 2010, a reform of the concession fare structure would be especially essential. What is required here is a transparent fare mechanism to determine all concessionary rates, rather than ad hoc and temporary lowering of fares in response to public pressure.

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. A decisive gesture on by the PTC and PTOs to resolve this inherent conflict in the same spirit of responsible, rational and constructive engagement would be much appreciated.

At least, stop giving students that 10-years series answer.

For that, students would certainly be very grateful indeed.

Thank you very much

Filed under: Politics, Singapore, Junior Colleges, Polytechnics, Public Transport

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

Singapore is ours, it is ours to shape

My name is Bernard Chen Jiaxi and I am an ordinary Singaporean. I grew up in a lower-middle income family. My father is a hardworking blue-collar worker, had little education but work tirelessly on, leaving home every day with the welfare of his family and the future of children at the top of his mind. My mother stopped school after his O levels and like any other housewife, made many sacrifices and gave my sister and I the best. My parents were the most beautiful gift in my life and I thank them for all they have done for me. At the age of 26, I have no major achievements to date and unlike my peers, I am still in school, as a result of my previous “academic mishaps”, trying to obtain a good degree and finding my way around the society-at-large.

Some of you who know me may wonder why I am so active in alternative politics in the Workers’ Party. What’s the point? Is there a need for me to be involved at this point in time? Am I in this for fame? Am I in it to prove a point to my peers? Why don’t I finish my studies first and be involved in politics when I am well and truly established and successful in life?

In my opinion, there is no better time to be involved in politics than when you are young. You have certainly less baggage and more time to do your part for nation-building. There is really no better time. When will one be considered as well and truly established and successful in life?

Furthermore, my participation in the Workers’ Party has been and will continue to be a rewarding experience. Since joining the Workers’ Party in 2006 at the age of 21, I have learned a lot and met so many people at different stages and circumstances in their life that I can attest to my growth as an individual. I have enriched myself and have been given the space and the responsibilities to make mistakes and learn from them. For that, I am grateful to the Party and the leaders for all their confidence and trust. Political activism is certainly a most unique experience that other “vocations and work” do not offer. I begin to see that life is more than just a relentless and selfish academic pursuit and it teaches me to see past the “I” and that my personal interests are in no way more important than the welfare and interests of the community and my fellow Singaporeans. I am glad that I can be of service to them as an undergraduate.

Cynicism in political affairs or anything political is not unexpected but my experiences as an activist and a member of the Workers’ Party has sufficiently demonstrated to me that politics in Singapore remains the best avenue in which the interests of Singaporeans and the values of this nation can be upheld. We should encourage our young and our children to take up an interest in the affairs of the nation and be actively involved in politics.

Singapore is as much a part of me as it is a part of you. I am proud of this nation and I want to make it even better, a country that my children and my children’s children would be equally proud of. This country is ours, it is ours to shape.

At the end of the day, there is no stronger motivation for entry into politics when you know that your small single act can go a long way in providing comfort to their circumstances, whereupon a listening ear may be all that is sufficient.

My name is Bernard Chen Jiaxi and together with my fellow peers in the Workers’ Party, we are here to be of service to our fellow countrymen.

 

Filed under: Politics, Singapore