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

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

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

Two-Party System: Hallmark of The Singaporean Century

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

This is a myopic and flawed comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

—

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

[. . .]

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

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

A Few Good Men

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the bottom of my heart, thank you!

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

Nationalisation not Expropriation – Restoring the “public” back into public services

As a precursor to the following discussion, let me first point out that social democracy and socialism is not responsible for the economic malaise that we see in Europe today. It is the fiscal irresponsibility, weak economic infrastructural safeguards and feeble financial institutions that have resulted in the problems plaguing Europe today, not social democracy. Many a time, social democracy has been blamed for the economic problems in capitalistic models. At the same time, we must recognise that capitalistic, free market principles are in no way superior vis-a-vis social democratic considerations.

I would attribute Singapore’s economic success and the transformation of our nation’s economy to 4 factors, namely; fiscal responsibility, enforced public savings, strong financial institutions safeguards and a hardworking people wherein our nation’s talent is expressed in the nation-building process on a daily basis.

It is in this context that the idea of social democracy can be introduced into our public discourse and policy considerations. 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.

While the proposal of a National Transportation Council would not be something that would be implemented in this current parliamentary term as there would be 81 individuals in Parliament who would oppose such a proposal, it remain imperative that the government ensures that regulation measures are being stepped up. Currently, fines imposed by the Public Transport Council (PTC) on transport companies pales in comparison to companies’ profit margin and in my opinion; the PTC is not enforcing these regulations well enough. This is something that should be furthered improved upon.

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.

The fundamental question is how much cost does the government wants to recover from public services, 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 do the right thing and 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.

Filed under: Politics, Singapore, Workers' Party, Nationalisation, Public Transportation, Social Democracy

Nationalisation of Public Transportation and Social Democracy in Singapore

On 11 July 2011, the two public transport operators (PTOs), SBS Transit and SMRT submitted their respective applications for a fare adjustment, citing escalating energy and manpower costs.

Neither the fact that the PTOs requested for a fare adjustment nor the public reaction towards such an announcement was surprising. What was interesting and pleasantly comforting was the amount of positive traction and acceptance towards the proposals set out by the Workers’ Party in its General Elections 2011 Manifesto on public transport. The main tenets of the Party’s proposals were rehashed in a statement to the media on 12 July 2011 in response to the impending hike in transport fares. In short, since 2006 the Workers’ Party has been proposing to nationalise public transportation in Singapore with the creation of a National Transport Corporation to “oversee and provide universal transport service to all”.

The PAP government now finds itself between a rock and a hard place. In the midst of apparent political dissatisfaction with the incumbent, the populist in the PAP would do well to turn down the proposal of the PTO to raise transportation fares and delay the inevitable by a few more months. The economic pragmatic, on the other hand would allow the proposals of the PTOs to go through and thereby exposing the hypocritical nature of their electoral promises, justifying it in the name of competition, profitability and greater efficiency or more plainly, for the greater good of ordinary Singaporeans. At the same time, 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 ensure efficiency and good performance, within the context of rigorous market discipline. In fact, upon each request, the Public Transport Council kindly offers the PTOs with a blank cheque to run roughshod over the hard-earned income and savings of ordinary Singaporeans, registering record profits year after year while the real income of ordinary Singaporeans continue to fall.

The current transportation fares are barely affordable for many Singaporeans who have to cope with rising cost pressures, from education to housing. The justification for a fare hike is null and void and the PTOs seems intent to line their pockets with sufficient profits and forsake the “public” in public transportation. Contrary to what critics would have you believe, the proposal of the Workers’ Party to restore the “public” back into public transport would not deplete all our hard-earned savings and run this country down. It is not a loss-making endeavour and if competently run, nationalisation could reduce the costs associated with the duplication of functions and roles.

At the end of the day, all things being equal, would you rather nationalise the public transportation system when paying more for my public transport means more of the same and does not accompanies a corresponding increase in efficiency and service standards? The most fundamental question however, should be this. Can the government allow transportation fares to continue rising, year after year?

I am all in support of nationalising Singapore’s public transportation which in any case should be seen as a public good. In fact, my own political leanings lie very much to the left of the political spectrum, centre-left to be exact. Singaporeans must realise that social democracy has a place in Singapore today. I am referring less to the British socialism of 1945 but more to the Tony Blair New Labour socialism and 20th century Scandinavian social democracy. However, In a nation where the national narrative reject and look down unfavourably upon “welfarism and socialistic tendencies”, the acceptance of the proposals of the Workers’ Party on public transport is especially significant and refreshing while also constituting a damming verdict on SBS Transit and SMRT and indirectly the Public Transport Council and the Ministry of Transport by ordinary Singaporeans.

The nationalisation of Singapore public transportation. Why not?

 

References:

1. SBS Transit, SMRT submit applications for fare adjustments by Hetty Musfirah Abdul Khamid, 11 July 2011 –  http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1140233/1/.html

2. WP reiterates call for National Transport Corporation, 13 July 2011 - http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1140559/1/.html

Filed under: Politics, Singapore, Workers' Party, Nationalisation, Social Democracy

Constructive Disobedience has a place in Singapore

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a quirky and a twist of concidence, these two developments demostrated that Constructive disobedience has a place in the national narrative today. It plays a most important and significant role to ensure that Singapore continue to hold the initiative in a globalised world and a challenging environment to further Singapore’s national interest and meet the dreams and aspirations of ordinary Singaporeans.

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

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