What attributes should the next PM have? This article was first published in Singapore AnglePrime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has stated on numerous occasions that finding and grooming his successor - the fourth PM of Singapore - is imperative. He did explicitly state that he would like to have a younger PM succeeding him, but beyond that, PM Lee does not discuss the specific qualities for the next PM. I would like to take a stab in thinking broadly about the attributes the next PM should have, taking into account that the next PM will likely take over in 2016, assuming PM Lee serves out two full terms. In order to determine the specific attributes the new PM should have, I assess that these are three specific major issues the new PM have to deal with in 2016.Widening income divide with apparent slowing social mobility given the continual embrace of the globalized economy with increasingly competitive neighboring countriesDiffering demands and potential tensions between the "original" Singaporean and "naturalized" Singaporean as the continual significant influx of foreigners choose to take up citizenshipIncreasingly educated and online population acknowledging the credibility of the vocal "elite dissenters". The personal success of these "elite dissenters" are less beholden to the local governing elites and they will be more eager to question policies by harnessing the internet; these dissenting voices will be augmented by pockets of vocal specific interests groupsHere are the attributes which the fourth PM of Singapore should ideally have,which are bucketed into character, leadership, organizational and charisma attributes Character attributes Honesty and Integrity- It is likely that there will still be a one party majority rule in Singapore in 2016, so it is critical that the next PM must be a person of integrity and honesty. Effective governance is the competitive advantage of Singapore. These character traits lay the foundation for the moral authority to govern assuming the electioneering process is still perceived to be fair by the majority of the population and the participating opposition.Desire to serve the people of Singapore - The PM will potentially be able to achieve success somewhere else, so without this desire to serve the country and the people, he will be doing something else. Even as the PM aims to ensure the majority of the people are better off, he should not neglect those who are not able to compete as effectively in this increasingly competitive globalized economy.Leadership attributesCourage to make the tough decisions - Many long term policies have silent winners and vocal losers. The winners of long term policies may benefit over a long period of time in a diffused manner, while the losers may acutely feel the loss in a concentrated manner and vocalize their losses. Therefore, the PM must be able to make the tough but necessary decisions to benefit more Singaporeans at the expense of fewer, but yet listen and incorporate the inputs of participating citizens to fully address the trade-offs. For example, cutting CPF contributions to make Singapore more competitive was not popular, but was necessary due to more competitive labor in emerging economies in China and India.Think and execute strategically- The PM will need to ensure that the cabinet and civil service develop and implement long term strategic domestic and foreign policies, while able to honestly incorporating useful feedback from every level. The PM also needs to have an acute awareness of the influence of geo-political activities on Singapore, and plan accordingly.Communicate sincerely and clearly- The PM himself, and through his cabinet, must be able to communicate the tradeoffs of major policies clearly and sincerely to an increasingly educated and questioning population. Any major policies will have "losers" and "winners", and it is important to engage the "losers" in a positive fashion.Organizational attributesGet the best people to do the job and let them do the job - The PM must be able to recruit, motivate and retain the most appropriate ministers for the specific roles in the Cabinet. He must then trust the Ministers will do their job well by not micro-managing, but yet is able to hold them accountable. Even as the salaries of the Minister will continue to increase with the benchmark, the PM must ensure that money is not the key rationale for his Ministers to take on their roles.Build and maintain a robust coalition - The PM must be able to build sufficient genuine support from the majority of his cabinet, especially with the past PMs. The Ministers and ex-PMs will not agree to some decision and policies proposed by the PM, but it is important that the PM continue to earn their respect.Encourages a culture of dissent - He must genuinely listen and consider dissenting point of views within the cabinet so that every Minister will acutely feel the obligation to dissent in order to make better decisions incorporating multiple perspectives. The PM will then have to ensure that the cabinet will abide by the group's decision once it is made. In addition, it will be ideal that the PM will inspire his Ministers to adopt the same culture within the decision making groups of their respective ministries to better develop and execute robust policies.Charisma attributes Perceived as fair by the dissenters and opposition -In the face of a more discerning populace in 2016, the PM has to be perceived as fair by the oppositions during the election process to gain the electoral legitimacy to govern. Overt gerrymandering and refusal to upgrade opposition ward's flats would likely be counter-productive electioneering tactics in 2016. Even outside the election windows, unconvincing reasons for rejecting opposition parties request to hold similar type of outdoor events as the ruling parties will create the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the ruling party is unfairly leveraging its dominant political position.Appeal to the grassroots - The PM must be able to relate to Singaporeans from all socio-income backgrounds, especially with poorer Singaporeans. The PM has to truly enjoy grassroots work to gain the support of the grassroots leaders. Grassroots leaders will know if the PM is insincere in getting involved in these activities, and will not put in their best efforts.Able to interact well with world leaders - The PM must have the poise and intellect to interact and build rapport with the leaders of large and small countries easily.It is less important to determine the type of work experiences and education the next PM should have. However, to have all these attributes, the next PM must be very successful and effective in whatever he is doing right now. In other words, he has to be on "top of his game" in the past, present and future. P.s. I will like to thank Aaron, Wayne, Teh Si and KTM for the various inputs in the article. Appendix (not published in Singapore Angle):Implications of an younger successor to the Prime Minster positionPrime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has stated on numerous occasions that finding and grooming his successor – the fourth PM of Singapore - is imperative. The article aims to discuss the implication of PM Lee desire to have a younger PM succeeding him. PM Lee said he would like to see the reversal of the older age trend of Singapore PMs, as he took over at 52, as compared to SM Goh at 49 and MM Lee at 35.Therefore, based on this focus, it will be interesting to determine whether the next PM is already in or outside the parliament? If the next PM is already in parliament, could the next PM be one of the current cabinet members or one of the new Minster of State (MOS)? I assume that PAP will continue to win sufficient seats to select the next Prime Minister two to three election cycles from now in 2016 / 2021.How old does PM Lee wants a potential successor to be? PM Lee has stated in numerous occasions that he wants to look for someone in his late 30s and early 40s now to succeed him in the future, because the next PM should take over at a younger age than him to reverse the older age trend for PM.Therefore, someone who is not in politics right now must be below 38 to be in politics for around 14 years before succeeding PM Lee. This 14 years guideline is solely based on the political career track of SM Goh who entered parliament in 1976 and became PM in 1990.Political career of SM Goh and PM LeeSM Goh was first elected in 1976 at 35, and was appointed First Deputy Prime Minister in 1985 before succeeding MM Lee in 1990 at 49. SM Goh served for 14 years as PM before stepping down at 63.PM Lee was first elected in 1984 at 32, and was appointed as the DPM in 1990 before succeeding SM Goh in 2004 at 52. PM Lee served for 14 years as a DPM before taking over as the PM. If PM Lee steps down in 2016, two election cycles from now, he will have serve Singapore for 12 years as a PM, as compared to SM Goh serving Singapore as a PM for 14 years. PM Lee will then be 64, just a year over when SM Goh steps down as PM at 63.Situation A: The next PM is in parliament already.A1: Could the next PM be from the current cabinet?If the next PM is to be below 52 years old when he takes over, then no one in the current Cabinet (which only includes Ministers) qualifies based on age alone. This assumes that that PM Lee stays for only two full terms until 2016, which is 11 years from now, which is a reasonable assumption. The current youngest cabinet member is Dr Vivian Balakrishnan at 46. DPM Wong is 61 and DPM Jayakumar is 68.That said, there is no reason why the next PM cannot be older than 52 years old when he takes over, or that PM Lee may choose to step down much earlier. However, If PM Lee has already plan to groom some individuals within the Cabinet to succeed him as PM, then it seem unclear (to me at least) why PM Lee will publicly stress the need to have a younger PM if none of the Cabinet members can potentially succeed him in 10 years time and not be at least 56 years and older.A2: Could the next PM be from the ranks of MOS entering politics in 2006?Unfortunately, none of the MOS in 2006 is below 39 years old or born later than 1968. An MOS entering politics in 2006 will ideally be below 39 now to meet the age cap of 52 as SM Goh took 14 years entering politics as a MOS (1976) to become a PM (1990). In addition, there seem to be fewer “direct” MOS in the 2006 election, as compared to the higher number of “direct” MOS (i.e. Super Seven) in the 2001 election.A3: What about MOS that entered Parliament in 2001 or the current MPs?MPs that had entered politics in 2001 and appointed MOS will have to be in the Cabinet now to stand a reasonable chance to be the next PM. However, the MOS that enter politics in 2001 and are promoted into the Cabinet are older than 45 years old (as they already served 6 years).It is less likely for a current MP not holding a MOS position to be a potential PM, because of the long period of testing as a MOS and then Minster. Both SM Goh and PM Lee took up MOS position(s) almost immediately after joining politics.Situation B: The next PM will be in the batch of new MP elected into the Parliament in the next election – 2011.This may be a more unlikely situation, because any potential PM elected into Parliament in 2011 will only have 5 years in politics if PM Lee steps down in 2016. Even if PM Lee step down later at 69 in 2021 having been a PM for 17 years, the potential PM will only have 10 years to prove himself in politics. At the very least, the potential PM should be a DPM for a few years. Assuming PM Lee steps down in 2021, the potential PM entering politics in 2011 should be 42 years old and younger.Will Singapore likely to be have a PM over 52 who will take over PM Lee? The answer is likely yes if the earliest PM Lee will step down is 2016, and that it takes around 14 years for someone to enter parliament and be tested before being appointed as PM.Based on the desire of PM Lee to have a younger PM below 52 succeeding him, it is not possible for any Ministers in the Cabinet to be the next PM based on age alone. Also, it is unclear if any of the younger and more recent MOS will be selected for the role of the next PM, as all of them are relatively older. Moreover, given the short timeline from being elected in 2011 to PM Lee stepping down in 2016/2021, it is unlikely that a potential PM will be outside Parliament at this point in time.That said, nothing is impossible in politics, and this “back of envelope” analysis is solely based on historical context and PM Lee desire to have a younger PM succeeding him.References: Singapore Government Cabinet websiteMember of Parliament websitePM post - reversing age trend. The Straits Times. 18 December 2005.Tan, Adrian. 2007. PAP succession not really for CEOs. Today. 21 July 2007.Next PM should be ready in 10 years: PM Lee . Today. 12 April 2007I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society, but the people themselves; if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education." - Thomas Jefferson Redirect Please go to http://sgthink.blogspot.com/ All articles have been transferred to sgthinkPlease email sgthink@gmail.com for any questions. Implications of an younger successor to the Prime Minster position Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has stated on numerous occasions that finding and grooming his successor – the fourth PM of Singapore - is imperative. The article aims to discuss the implication of PM Lee desire to have a younger PM succeeding him. PM Lee said he would like to see the reversal of the older age trend of Singapore PMs, as he took over at 52, as compared to SM Goh at 49 and MM Lee at 35. Therefore, based on this focus, it will be interesting to determine whether the next PM is already in or outside the parliament? If the next PM is already in parliament, could the next PM be one of the current cabinet members or one of the new Minster of State (MOS)? I assume that PAP will continue to win sufficient seats to select the next Prime Minister two to three election cycles from now in 2016 / 2021. How old does PM Lee wants a potential successor to be? PM Lee has stated in numerous occasions that he wants to look for someone in his late 30s and early 40s now to succeed him in the future, because the next PM should take over at a younger age than him to reverse the older age trend for PM.Therefore, someone who is not in politics right now must be below 38 to be in politics for around 14 years before succeeding PM Lee. This 14 years guideline is solely based on the political career track of SM Goh who entered parliament in 1976 and became PM in 1990. Political career of SM Goh and PM Lee SM Goh was first elected in 1976 at 35, and was appointed First Deputy Prime Minister in 1985 before succeeding MM Lee in 1990 at 49. SM Goh served for 14 years as PM before stepping down at 63. PM Lee was first elected in 1984 at 32, and was appointed as the DPM in 1990 before succeeding SM Goh in 2004 at 52. PM Lee served for 14 years as a DPM before taking over as the PM. If PM Lee steps down in 2016, two election cycles from now, he will have serve Singapore for 12 years as a PM, as compared to SM Goh serving Singapore as a PM for 14 years. PM Lee will then be 64, just a year over when SM Goh steps down as PM at 63. Situation A: The next PM is in parliament already. A1: Could the next PM be from the current cabinet? If the next PM is to be below 52 years old when he takes over, then no one in the current Cabinet (which only includes Ministers) qualifies based on age alone. This assumes that that PM Lee stays for only two full terms until 2016, which is 11 years from now, which is a reasonable assumption. The current youngest cabinet member is Dr Vivian Balakrishnan at 46. DPM Wong is 61 and DPM Jayakumar is 68. That said, there is no reason why the next PM cannot be older than 52 years old when he takes over, or that PM Lee may choose to step down much earlier. However, If PM Lee has already plan to groom some individuals within the Cabinet to succeed him as PM, then it seem unclear (to me at least) why PM Lee will publicly stress the need to have a younger PM if none of the Cabinet members can potentially succeed him in 10 years time and not be at least 56 years and older. A2: Could the next PM be from the ranks of MOS entering politics in 2006? Unfortunately, none of the MOS in 2006 is below 39 years old or born later than 1968. An MOS entering politics in 2006 will ideally be below 39 now to meet the age cap of 52 as SM Goh took 14 years entering politics as a MOS (1976) to become a PM (1990). In addition, there seem to be fewer “direct” MOS in the 2006 election, as compared to the higher number of “direct” MOS (i.e. Super Seven) in the 2001 election. A3: What about MOS that entered Parliament in 2001 or the current MPs? MPs that had entered politics in 2001 and appointed MOS will have to be in the Cabinet now to stand a reasonable chance to be the next PM. However, the MOS that enter politics in 2001 and are promoted into the Cabinet are older than 45 years old (as they already served 6 years). It is less likely for a current MP not holding a MOS position to be a potential PM, because of the long period of testing as a MOS and then Minster. Both SM Goh and PM Lee took up MOS position(s) almost immediately after joining politics. Situation B: The next PM will be in the batch of new MP elected into the Parliament in the next election – 2011.This may be a more unlikely situation, because any potential PM elected into Parliament in 2011 will only have 5 years in politics if PM Lee steps down in 2016. Even if PM Lee step down later at 69 in 2021 having been a PM for 17 years, the potential PM will only have 10 years to prove himself in politics. At the very least, the potential PM should be a DPM for a few years. Assuming PM Lee steps down in 2021, the potential PM entering politics in 2011 should be 42 years old and younger. Will Singapore likely to be have a PM over 52 who will take over PM Lee? The answer is likely yes if the earliest PM Lee will step down is 2016, and that it takes around 14 years for someone to enter parliament and be tested before being appointed as PM. Based on the desire of PM Lee to have a younger PM below 52 succeeding him, it is not possible for any Ministers in the Cabinet to be the next PM based on age alone. Also, it is unclear if any of the younger and more recent MOS will be selected for the role of the next PM, as all of them are relatively older. Moreover, given the short timeline from being elected in 2011 to PM Lee stepping down in 2016/2021, it is unlikely that a potential PM will be outside Parliament at this point in time. That said, nothing is impossible in politics, and this “back of envelope” analysis is solely based on historical context and PM Lee desire to have a younger PM succeeding him. References: Singapore Government Cabinet website Member of Parliament website PM post - reversing age trend. The Straits Times. 18 December 2005. Tan, Adrian. 2007. PAP succession not really for CEOs. Today. 21 July 2007. Next PM should be ready in 10 years: PM Lee . Today. 12 April 2007 I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society, but the people themselves; if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education." - Thomas Jefferson What makes a good manager? This article was originally published in Singapore Angle: PerspectiveIt seems that whether their manager is "good" or "not good" plays an important role in whether my friends are "happy" in their jobs. Based on my work experiences, business school training, and just talking to many people, I will try to focus on what a good manager should do specifically for major tasks, and the key attributes he or she should have. This list is definitely not meant to be exhaustive, and I would be grateful if readers share their insights in the comment thread.*What a good manager should do for major tasks: 1. Explain why and what to do. Be clear about how the task is related to the bigger picture and what the expectations and deliverables are.2. Provide guidelines on how to do the task. Provide recommendations how certain tasks can be accomplished effectively and efficiently, but stress that these are only recommendations, and not rules.3. Be clear of the timeline. Be upfront about the deadline, and provide context why the deadline is important. Do not "hedge" the deadline by forcing the direct reports to rush the work unnecessarily.4. Share with them the support available. Inform them about the different resources available to complete the task, especially who to seek out for help if necessary. Set their expectations on your availability for this task.5. Consequences if the task is not done on time at the right quality. Let your direct reports understand what will happen to them, you and the team if the task is not done on time at the required quality.The initial conversation can be 15-20 minutes, which will prevent a lot of unnecessary communication down the road. This conversation should also be iterative as new information is received. What attributes a good manager should have:1. Genuine care for the development of their direct report. The good manager should be genuinely concerned about the direct reports' development in the company, assuming he or she want to make the effort to develop.2. Refrain from micromanaging unless absolutely necessary. This is harder than it sounds. Many managers are promoted because of their individual contributions, and not necessarily because of their ability to manage. Therefore, some managers find it irresistible to be more directive than necessary to their direct reports who are not performing at the same level of excellence as what the managers were doing before promoted. When deciding to be more directive, a good manager has to balance the trade-off from the shorter term increase in quality of work produced vs. the longer term impact of lowering motivation of the direct reports.3. Balance fairness and discretion. A manager has to treat all its direct reports in a consistent manner but yet be able to make exceptions for individuals with specific needs. Being able to strike the right balance is critical in gaining trust and avoiding favoritism.4. Over communicate rather than under communicate. A manager should let his direct reports be aware of how the team's work contributes to the bigger picture, and communicate any update from senior management to the direct reports accurately and promptly. The manager should realize the more context the direct reports have, the more flexible and effective the direct reports will be in executing their tasks as they are closest to the actual work. * I learn this from my first project manager I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society, but the people themselves; if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education." - Thomas Jefferson Scholarships - figuring out if they are right for you? This article was origingally published in Singapore AngleThe article is co-written by Vaughn Tan and Sze-Meng Soon Many qualified A-level holders will be considering both local and overseas scholarships to pay for their tertiary education. Having spoken to many friends who are scholars 3-5 years out from graduating from college, we wanted to share some insights they've given me about how their scholarships have either made them happy or want to break their bonds, as well as some suggestions for those considering scholarships. This is not intended to advocated either for or against scholarships -- that decision is highly personal. We do want to urge students considering scholarships to recognize is that there are many components to making a well-informed decision about scholarships that may not be immediately apparent to them. REASONS SCHOLARS ARE UNHAPPY WITH A BONDED SCHOLARSHIP Their work is not as challenging and fulfilling as it could be.Some sponsoring organizations are unable to provide continuous training and opportunities for personal and professional development. Scholars in these organizations find that they are unable to work on problems they personally find challenging or fulfilling and sometimes find it difficult to rise in the organization at an expected pace. During college, they discovered interests or passions different from or not compatible with their scholarship obligations.Many scholars discover their passions while actively involved in their studies or through internships, either local or overseas. For example, someone who is invigorated and excited by his internship in the commodities trading industry may realized he or she is not be as passionate about regulating the same industry when returning to serve the organization. Some scholars also find that they are interested in pursuing advanced degrees but that their scholarships limit their ability to do so. They realize that there are other jobs that offer better total compensation based on their priorities.Smart students have many options after graduating, and bond obligations frequently prevent them from choosing the best option based on their priorities. The total compensation for any job is a package that comprises salary, benefits, bonuses, job security, type of work, hours, and many other aspects of work that may be more or less important to different people. Choosing the best job means being able to choose the job that gives you the best total compensation based on what's important to you. Let's take salary as an example. Selected international firms operating in Singapore offer globally-pegged base salaries adjusted for prevailing tax rates. The Straits Times (July 21, 2007) noted that the starting monthly salary for top-tier global consulting firms is $5,500 in Singapore, with an average of 2-4 months bonus. Global investment banks in Singapore will also pay entry-level analysts approximately at the same rate, with an average of 8-14 months bonus. If they are performing well, average base pay increases by 15-20% annually for at least the next 3-4 years, and rises significantly (75-100%) in either their fourth or fifth year. That said, the high monthly salary comes with long working hours and low job security. Consultants typically work 55-65 hour weeks with plenty of travel, while investment bankers work an average of 80-100 hours per week. Analysts in both consulting and investment banking are usually the first to lose their jobs for poor performance or if the economy turns south. If you value higher salary and are willing to put in the hours and accept the lack of job security, perhaps investment banking or consulting are good career options for you. Beyond consulting and investment banking, top-tier MNCs such as Shell, P&G, and GE also pay their graduate hires very competitively, especially in the US or Europe if you choose to work overseas (not as much in Singapore due to lack of a global wage structure for new graduates). While many scholarship organizations do not pay as well, they have higher job security and more reasonable working hours. Another important thing to consider is that taking up an overseas scholarship means that you will implicitly receive an additional $2000-3000 per month over your base pay (as you work off the $250K-350K value of your bond over the 6-year bond period).GENERAL SUGGESTIONSFind out more about the scholarship organization you're considering from scholars currently serving or broken their bonds.Talk to your JC alumni who have taken up scholarships and have been working in their organization for 3-5 years. Ask them whether they feel challenged in their job, and more importantly, whether they are genuinely happy and why so? Try to talk to at least 2-3 people in the same organization. If it is possible, try to also talk to scholars who did not choose to complete their bonds in the respective organizations and find out why. Ask around if you don't know these people directly. Your teachers and friends will know others working in these organizations. If you ask the scholarship organization to introduce you to their scholars, be aware that they have a vested interest in presenting happy, satisfied scholars to you. When you're working to figure out what you'll be doing for the 4-6 years after your graduate, it is always prudent to find external data points to validate what you hear. Think hard about where the information you receive is coming from.Find out more how your university experience may change your career focus.Doing this actually takes a lot of effort because it is so hard to know how the four years of university experiences will shape your thinking and passion. You can try to talk to the (Singaporean and non-Singaporean) alumni of your targeted universities to find out why they choose their particular careers, and what drives them to choose what they are working in now. There is really no easy way to predict how events, professors, classes, internships, and people you meet will shape your thinking about your future career. Find out more about the type of opportunities after you graduate and the average compensation.Do recognize that attractive, challenging jobs are within reach if you do well academically, intern in good companies, and participate actively in school activities. The recruitment process for the most attractive jobs is always selective, but you can prepare for this. The opportunities offered to students graduating from many of the top-ranked overseas universities are global in nature, and very diverse. If you choose to take a scholarship, you should understand why your base salary will be lower than your peers who are in the consulting or investment banking industries. Also be aware that many people find that attractive-sounding careers turn out to be less appealing than they first appear -- for example, many investment bankers leave their programs early because they find the long hours unsustainable. Again, find out more about what opportunities are available and talk to several people working in the the jobs you want to be in.SPECIFIC SUGGESTIONS If your family can afford to pay for your education.Consider going without the scholarship even if you really do want to work for the scholarship organization. It is difficult to determine how your career and life goals will change after fours years of intense learning and discovery, so it's valuable to have the option of deciding what you want to do and where you want to work after graduating. Find out if your prospective scholarship organizations accepts applications from non-scholars and gives them access to the same development opportunities. For example, the Singapore Administrative Service has been accepting non-PSC scholars after graduation into their Management Associate Program (MAP) which provides the same development opportunities to PSC scholars in the MAP. All Management Associates (scholars and non-scholars) are eligible for absorption into the Administrative Service after four years. That said, if you are very sure you want to work in the specific organization after extensive due diligence, it is a definite win-win situation for you and the organization if you take up the scholarship.If your family cannot afford to pay for your education, especially for an overseas one. A number of Singaporeans have funded their education with no-bond grants and loans from overseas institutions. Usually, this requires working at least 10-20 hours a week in the school, and definitely during the summer. This is a much more difficult route, because grants are very limited for applicants not from their respective countries, and many Singaporeans may not be able to afford the loan even if it is extended. It is still possible, and we hope readers who are studying overseas and funding themselves with grants and loans will share their experiences in the comment thread. If these options are unavailable, then bonded scholarships are still the most feasible financial means for you to study overseas if you choose to do so. In this situation, it is even more important that you do the due diligence to understand the trade-offs involved in taking a scholarship and do your best to commit to returning to your sponsoring organization after graduating. Think hard about whether or not it is worth going overseas for school given that local universities offer grants, loans, high-quality education, and opportunities for exposure to overseas experiences through student exchange programmes. At the end of the day, we acknowledge that is no perfect outcome if you do not have the financial means to study overseas. Scholarships may be right for you but they are a four to six year commitment with significant financial implications. We hope your eyes are wide open if and when you decide to sign on the dotted line RESOURCESElia Diodati, a Singaporean blogger, has worked with other Singaporeans to consolidate multiple lists here on non-bonded financial options to study in colleges in major countries. The authors highly recommend this resource.The authors will like to thank their friends for their insights, and checking on the validity of the data in the article. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society, but the people themselves; if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education." - Thomas Jefferson Three questions to answer in any job interview This article was originally published at www.singaporeangle.comThis post may be useful to Singaporeans who are graduating or switching careers. There are so many points of view on how to secure an offer from a job interview that it can be intimidating and confusing.There are really three questions that need to be answered in any job interview, which the interviewer may or may not actually ask directly. Failure to make the interviewer say YES firmly to any of the three questions will most likely result in a rejection letter or call.Answering these three questions has been very helpful to enable me to secure job offers during my MBA.The three questions are:A. Can you do the work?B. Do you want to do the work?C. Do we want to work with you?Let me explain in more details:A. Can you do the work? You have to ensure you know the explicit and implicit current and future requirements for the job you are applying to. For more junior position, you will need to prove that you have the knowledge and skill sets to do the work. For senior positions, it is critical to exhibit the potential to take on managerial and leadership positions, in additional to the knowledge and skill sets to do the work. Taking stock of your transferable skill sets is critical.B. Do you want to do the work? This may sound obvious. Why would someone interview for a position that he or she may not be interested in. However, if you have not research the company extensively through secondary sources (i.e. annual reports, news release) or primary sources (i.e. talking to other employees), this is an objective signal that you are not that enthusiastic about the job and the company. It is worth reflecting what the top three reasons for wanting to work in the specific company for the specific position.C. Do we want to work with you? This is the hardest question to prepare. For example, professional services firm (i.e. consulting, investment banking etc) candidates tend to meet at least 5-10 executives before extending an offer to ensure "fit". What is "fit"? Beside the basic requirements such as ability to interact, persuade and motivate individuals with different temperaments within the culture of the company, the candidate must be able to share and relate to the implicit and explicit values of the company. At the end of the day, the hiring executive and the team members must feel comfortable with you during the entire interview process to want to work with you at least 45-60 hours a week!It is actually important to end the interview stating explicitly that you want to receive an offer from the company. It is refreshing for the interviewer to hear your intent explicitly when the request is put across in a professional manner.At the end of the day, life is not always fair. We may try our best to answer these three questions, and not receive an offer. The key is to reflect on what we could have done better. It is more convenient to blame the interviewers for not giving us an offer, but wiser to move on and see how we can improve.If any readers have any insights or different points of view in this matter, please share in the comment section!I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society, but the people themselves; if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education." - Thomas Jefferson Information needed to support the closing of gap for Ministers' compensation Singapore need convincing answers This letter was published in TODAY on April 12th 2007The current debate on ministerial pay increase failed to provide the facts to back three assertions made by the Government for the need to increase the entry-level salary for ministers, or the MR4 grade, from $1.2 million to $1.8 million in 2008.The Government asserts that we have to close the gap because of the need to recruit talent, to retain talent and to prevent corruption.Singaporeans will be better persuaded about the validity of closing the gap if they are provided with the answers to these questions:1. The need to recruit talent The Government should provide Parliament with information showing the number of potential candidates since 2000 who have turned down requests to stand for election to be appointed into political office starting as junior Ministers of State.The potential candidate should explicitly state that the compensation, with the potential to earn $1.2m as a minister within the next few years, is not attractive enough to leave his or her current career now.The Government should show how many of these potential candidates would stand for election if compensation is increased to $1.8m.Candidates who state that their lack of desire to be in politics or to be a public figure is unconnected to the compensation, should not be included in this assessment.2. The need to retain talentThe Government should provide Parliament with data showing the number of political office holders since 2000 that have decided to leave the Government mainly due to the uncompetitive compensation because the MR4 benchmark has been stuck at the 2000 level. We don't need names, but figures should be provided.3. The need to prevent corruption The Government should provide Parliament with data to show that there is a compelling need to increase the compensation to counter increased opportunities for corruption in the ministerial ranks resulting in incompetent government in the next five to 10 years. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society, but the people themselves; if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education." - Thomas Jefferson Singapore public sector leaders' compensation: Striking a balance This article was first published at singaporeangle perspectives Singaporean will agree that it is important to ensure the right compensation to attract, retain and motivate public sector leaders who have the desire and ability to serve us at the highest level. Public leaders include our political office holders (Ministers of State and higher) and top public administrators such as those in the Administrative Service on Superscale salary. The compensation should not dissuade highly qualified individuals from serving in the public sector, but neither should it overly attract individuals to want to serve in the public sector because of the compensation package, which includes an attractive pension plan. A litmus test involves the public sector leaders asking themselves whether they can actually command an equivalent or higher compensation if they leave the public sector now. If the public sector leaders do not reflect whether they are indeed worth the compensation they are paid, then the public may be forced to exercise their assessment via their votes if there are significant and obvious discrepancies. It is also possible to assess how many of our top public leaders who leave the public sector to continue with their career are able to receive their equivalent compensation. For example, David Lim left the Cabinet and joined Neptune Orient Line as a CEO, earning more than what he was compensated as an Acting Minister. He did have a shorter tenure in NOL than the public sector though. Using the private sector to benchmark the compensation should be a double-edged sword. If the compensation is pegged to top private sector earners, then it is important to be assessed by the market too. Many will agree with our Prime Minister Lee that low compensation should not be a push factor. However, if some public sector leaders wish to leave the public service for non-monetary reasons, should those who stay benefit indiscriminately from increased compensation? Are many of our top public leaders leaving the public service due to uncompetitive compensation? If not, maybe more efforts should be channeled into non-monetary ways to retain those with the ability and desire to serve the public. Some may choose to move on after completing their "national service" to successful private sector careers and compensation is unlikely to be the main driver. Many, including our political leaders, will agree that compensation should not be the main motivating factor for public sector leaders to be in the public service. However, if a public sector leader is unable to receive their equivalent compensation if they are asked to leave the public sector, could the compensation actually dissuade such a leader from making the hard but right decision with the potential risk of derailing their political or civil service career? Most rational individuals will choose not to break a golden rice bowl that may support them for life, and right and hard decisions lie directly within the purview of our top public sector leaders. Going back to the first principle of why we aim to pay our public sector leader well is important to understand the critical implications of pegging our public sector leadership compensation to the top private sector earners. Paying to attract, retain and motivate the right talents for our public sector leadership is critical for Singapore, but paying too much also results in its own set of issues. The writer encourages readers to refer to Yawing Bread analysis for an explanation of the mechanism of pegging top public leaders' compensation to top private earners, and look forward to seeing similar clear graphical explanations on this issue from the Singapore Government. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society, but the people themselves; if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education." - Thomas Jefferson Singapore's reputation has taken a beating The Straits TimePublished in the ST ForumSep 19, 2006A more lengthy exposition at Singapore AngleI FIND Dr Andy Ho's article, 'Activists shooting themselves in the foot' (ST, Sept 18), rather biased in painting the civil-society organisations (CSOs) as groups that prefer disruption to engagement. By boycotting meetings with the IMF/World Bank, it is arguable that their efforts have come to naught as they will always have other opportunities to express their views. However, it is undeniable that the reputation of Singapore has taken a significant beating in the international arena, especially as Singapore has limited control over how we are perceived by the rest of the world, by the foreign media. At many of the IMF/World Bank meetings, inputs from the CSOs are extremely important and even critical to the success of the dialogue. Even the World Bank president explicitly acknowledges this. It would have been relatively reasonable had the Singapore Government just taken the preventive steps of only providing an indoor venue for rallies, permitting the use of only cardboard poles, and erecting metal barricades. But the act of blacklisting individuals seems to border on overkill. While Singapore did reverse its stance later to admit 22 of the 27 blacklisted activists, the decision to blacklist them may have significant repercussions. Singapore's reputation will take a hit when multiple well-regarded CSOs inform the world that due to our action, they have chosen to boycott the IMF/World Bank meetings. The perception that Singapore holds little respect for freedom of expression and the right to organise will be reinforced, overshadowing the good work it has done for the IMF/World Bank meetings. Singapore has a few more days to manage the snowballing backlash, instead of painting the CSOs as being narrow-minded in disengaging from the process. What Singapore can and should do is to treat these CSOs with the same respect it has given to the IMF and World Bank, and to be more transparent in how it has to balance security with the freedom of expression demanded by the CSOs. As the host, Singapore must work with the IMF/World Bank to engage the CSOs to change their mind about the boycott.An impending crisis to our Singapore reputation from offending the international CSOs?I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society, but the people themselves; if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education." - Thomas Jefferson Is it legitimate to explicitly limit our journalists and newspapers as to what they cannot do? This article first appears at singaporeangleK Bhavani's reply on July 3rd to Mr. Browns June 30th satirical article "S'poreans are fed, up with progress!" is a setback for the government's call for us to be actively involved in our nation's future and also generates unnecessary implications for our journalists and newspapers.The reply factually corrected the misperception of issues in the satirical article. However, as the President of the Institute of Public Relations Singapore, K Bhavani must be aware that the tone of the reply is as important as the content.Even if the intention was not, the perception from the reply is that the government is less willing to receive feedback, especially it they are not positive. We should ideally offer constructive criticism and alternatives for issues raised, but it may be challenging for ordinary citizens, even journalist such as Mr. Brown, who often does not have sufficient information to always do so. This is why we have elected paid representatives with the involvement of the public to come up with solutions.The reply also asserts that "It is not the role of journalists or newspapers in Singapore to champion issues, or campaign for or against the Government. " Has the role of a journalist or the newspaper been legislated by Parliament? If so, which law(s) supported this statement within the reply issued by K Bhavani?Article 14 of our Constitution describing the restrictions imposed on our freedom of speech and the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act do not appear to explicitly support the statement. Therefore, it is unclear if the reply should have sweepingly defined what journalists or newspapers cannot do, especially when the reply aims to correct factual misinterpretation in an article of a long running satirical series.The law has always been consistently applied to everyone in Singapore, including its government, and therefore my constructive suggestion is that replies issued by the government must adhere to our constitution and laws.I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society, but the people themselves; if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education." - Thomas Jefferson Why make GRCs easy route to Parliament? Why make GRCs easy route to Parliament?Straits Time Forum June 30 2006IN THE report 'GRCs make it easier to find top talent: SM' (ST, June 28), the ease in letting PAP candidates win their first elections through the GRC system was not the original intention when the Constitution was amended to ensure minority representation.By allowing easier access to Parliament through the GRCs, the PAP is implicitly 'appointing' new MPs as they have an easier route into Parliament by riding on the coat-tails of ministers who anchor the GRCs.Most Singaporeans agree that the GRC system benefits the PAP because of the incumbency effect, and this will encourage more people to join the PAP.If the intention was to attract potential ministers, doesn't providing them easier access to Parliament cast doubt on their ability to win an individual contest? A candidate of ministerial calibre should be able to convince voters to support him in a one-to-one contest, rather than entering Parliament without a contest.It is uncertain candidates with ministerial calibre have to risk their careers by standing for election. Even if they lose, it should not be hard for the top talents to return to their previous posts or to seek a new job.Do we want to attract Singaporeans, even if they are top talents, to stand for election because the path to Parliament is easier? Call me an idealist, but the passion to serve the public should be one of the major factors, if not the most important, in standing for election.An example are the opposition candidates who are passionate enough to contest in the polls even when the odds are against them, especially in GRCs. Should we be concerned that the Government advocates an easier path into Parliament through the GRC system as a means to convince top talents to serve the public as an office holder? Are we attracting the right people to serve as potential ministers if the path was made easier for them?A follow up article on the Straits Time by a friend:July 7, 2006Time to go back to three-member GRCs?By Peh Shing HueiSO, IT is true.Group representation constituencies (GRCs) are really vehicles that help ensure a smoother ride for the People's Action Party's new candidates.Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong confirmed it last week. This easier passage, he said, allows the PAP to 'recruit younger and capable candidates with the potential to become ministers'.He added: 'Without some assurance of a good chance of winning at least their first election, many able and successful young Singaporeans may not risk their careers to join politics.'Why should they when they are on the way up in the civil service, the SAF, and in the professions or the corporate world?'This is a departure from the justifications hitherto given for GRCs, that they are needed to guarantee minority representation in Parliament and maintain quality as they compel the opposition to attempt to produce a slate of better candidates.Now, another equation has been suggested. GRCs plus new candidates equals easier electoral passage for PAP candidates, equals easier recruitment for the PAP.The formula is troubling for two reasons.# One, which has been raised in the Straits Times Forum pages, is the quality of leadership it is likely to throw up. What calibre of political leaders are we sifting for if they need such a big safety net before committing themselves to public service?As a post-'65er, am I looking to a future generation of leaders who cannot measure up to those my parents and I grew up with?I do not recall Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew needing an assurance of electoral victory before he plunged into politics, sacrificing a lucrative law practice for an uncertain political world where one's very life might have been threatened.And didn't SM Goh risk a successful career in Neptune Orient Lines to take on a single-seat constituency when he made his debut in Singapore politics in 1976?# Two, GRCs are state institutions which should not be confused with, and used for, party political needs.The PAP's difficulty in recruiting talent remains, at the end of the day, a PAP problem. Sure, the PAP is the governing party and forms the Government. But a distinction must still be drawn.As former senior civil servant Ngiam Tong Dow said in his new book, A Mandarin And The Making Of Public Policy: 'I think our leaders have to accept that Singapore is larger than the PAP.'The implication of blurring the lines between state and party is that state instruments could be continually manipulated for a party's - any party's - agenda.GRCs were introduced neither to assure candidates of victory nor aid party recruitment. They were also not meant to tie in better with the community development councils (CDCs), which was a reason given in 1996 for bumping up the size of GRCs from a maximum of four members to the current six.The GRC was meant to ensure minority representation. Return it to its original intent.Most Singaporeans are aware that GRCs do have the effect of aiding the PAP's electoral performance, but given that the PAP is still delivering the goods, I believe many view it as an acceptable trade-off, especially if it is also to protect the country's commitment to multiracialism.But if the additional reason now offered is that it is to ensure easier victories and, by extension, easier recruitment for a particular party, then a relook of the GRC is timely. It is no longer the deal Singaporeans signed up for.The crux of the problem now lies with its size.Mr Goh's comments suggest the current system, where GRCs are five- and six-member wards, assures new PAP candidates a good chance of winning. In other words, such jumbo GRCs risk making the ruling party too comfortable in the bid for seats.And with the one-minority-per-GRC rule still unchanged, larger GRCs also mean that the constitutional safeguard for minority MPs has been diluted compared to when GRCs had just three members.All things being equal, the Constitution now ensures minority representation need only be one-sixth per GRC, down from one-third in the past.Why not go back to the original size of three-member GRCs?It will guarantee minority representation at the level originally intended and shrink the giant coat-tails of the anchors and veterans, giving new PAP candidates a better chance to prove themselves as leaders.What about the assurance of victory?Well, that was never the aim of the GRC. But if there is any consolation, a three-man GRC still operates as a team, ensuring that rookies are not left on their own.If that's still not good enough, then perhaps those candidates wary of contest should just stay in their current careers. Politics may not be their cup of tea.I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society, but the people themselves; if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education." - Thomas Jefferson Six actionable recommendations for the opposition parties from IPS's Post Election Survey This article first appears at SingaporeAngleSix actionable recommendations for the opposition parties from IPS's Post Election SurveyEven though 85% of the voters support the view that there should be opposition party members in parliament, only 33% of the voters who voted cast their votes for the opposition. Opposition parties may want to consider the following recommendations inferred from the survey for the 2011 election:1. Opposition should continue to focus on the unfairness of the incumbent party using "upgrading" as an election issue, as this has wide-ranging support across Singaporeans over 40 years of age and also amongst the more educated Singaporeans and professionals.- More than 64% of the voters do not agree with or are neutral about the policy of "vote for upgrading".- By focusing on upgrading, the incumbent party loses more votes than it gains. Less than 30% of the voters stated that upgrading is an important issue while conversely, more than 83% of the voters stated that the fairness of governmental policy is important in influencing their votes.2. Opposition needs to reduce the incumbency effect by focusing on the need for different views and check and balances in Parliament, and by reaching out to the more educated and younger voters, and on the job situation to touch base with the less educated and older voters.- More than 72% of the voter base stated that the work of former MPs is important, favoring the incumbent party.- More than 84% of the voters viewed the need for different views and checks and balances in Parliament as important.- 50% of the voters stated that their job situation is an important issue, especially the older and less educated Singaporeans.3. Opposition should focus on harnessing the mass media to influence the lower educated, lower income and older voters. The opposition needs to learn how it might effectively communicate their platforms and policies to all newspapers catering to the English, Chinese, Malay and Indian communities and to build strong rapport with local senior journalists. The internet, political rallies and door-to-door visits are less important, even though these are heavily employed by all parties during the campaigning period.- Mass media is still overwhelming more important, with 75% and 69% of voters agreeing that newspaper and local TV programs are important in shaping their voting decision.- Election rallies and door-to-door visits which play a greater role during the campaigning period are less effective, with 47% and 45% of voters agreeing that these are important in shaping their decision.- The internet has a relatively small impact on voter's decision, with only 33% agreeing that it is effective in shaping voters' decision. Even party literature (34%) and radio (36%) are slightly more effective.- It has been widely recognized that the opposition has been more effective in communicating its messages to the public through the internet and rallies.4.Opposition must focus on wining the Malay and Indian voters by reaching out to them through the Malay and Indian newspapers and TV channels, as they are more supportive of the incumbent party.- More Malay (4.17 out of a max of 5) and Indian (4.25) voters agree that the incumbent party is more credible than the Chinese voter (4.09)- More Malay (3.72) and Indian (3.66) voters agree that the party affiliation of a candidate is important as compared to the Chinese (3.23)- More Malay (4.33/4.26) and Indian (4.26/4.06) voters agree that newspaper and radio is important as compared to the Chinese (3.83/3.64).5. Building party credibility is critical to overcoming the barrier for the voters to vote for opposition due to a significant gap between the incumbent and opposition parties. There is a perfect correlation in the ranking order of votes won by the four parties and the perceived credibility of the parties.- Over 87% agree that the incumbent party is credible, followed by WP (61%), SDA (49%) and SDP (18%).6. Beside the obvious characteristics of being perceived as being honest, efficient, hardworking, a fair person and understanding people, opposition candidates must be able to reflect and echo the views of the voters and be involved in grassroots or community work. The candidate must also be perceived as credible, even thought voters surprisingly stated that the party of the candidate is relatively less important.- All parties, even the incumbent parties, will have to continue to source for the best candidates as voters do not appear to just vote blindly for a candidate because of the party affiliation. The success of the incumbent party is due to the fact that the party has been able to consistently attract credible candidates to stand for election. As stated, 68% of the voters agree that credibility of a candidate is important, as compared to 52% of the voters who stated that the party affiliation of the candidate is important.- The importance of fairness for the voters (91% of voters agree that this is important) may have cost PAP votes due to perceived unfairness in "vote for upgrading" and the overwhelming attention on the James Gomez incident. Voters stated that fairness is relatively more important than credibility in a candidate, even though an overwhelming number of voters prefer candidates to have both characteristics.Points to note:- The above analysis is based on the limited information that is available from the IPS final survey report on its website. I do not have access to the survey questionnaire and actual dataset to conduct further analyses.-IPS has used cluster analysis to determine the voter's segments of Conservative, Swing and Pluralists. However, I will focus on the more actionable variables such as age, education and ethnicity in my following recommendations because of the ease of identifying the voters involved.- These recommendations are also useful for the incumbent party to counter the opposition's focus for its 2011 election strategies.I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society, but the people themselves; if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education." - Thomas Jefferson Positive outcome from the Gomez saga Below is a forum letter that highlighted a positive component to the debate about the Gomez saga.The Election department official has the right to lodge a complaint to the police. The police has to investigate the complaint, and took the time to conduct a proper investigation. The public prosecutor reviewing the case stated that Mr Gomez committed an offense and recommends a punishment (i.e. warning). Mr Gomez accepted the warning and is now working in Sweden again, and continuing his party involvement in Worker's Party.From what I seen from the video where Mr Gomez was asking for the minority candidate certificate, I can imagine the election officer will be very concerned when he is being accused of being able to provide the form. This is especially so since it was clearly communicate to him in a forceful manner by Mr Gomez that the certificate was already submitted in the presence of other witnesses. If Mr Gomez did not remember that he actually did not submit it, and there was no evidence proving it, the election officers will most probably be penalized in their civil service careers at the minimal.Therefore, comparing this incident to a customer service complaint to a typical government department is incorrect. Accusing an election officer in an election period that the officer does not have a submitted form which would disadvantage the party and the candidate is a serious matter. Regardless whether Mr Gomez genuinely forgot that he has submitted the form or whether he intentionally choose not to submit the form, the conversation between him and the election officer would definitely caused a lot of concern for the officer involved.Even when MM Lee, PM Lee and DPM Wong come out very strongly in public stating that Mr Gomez has the malicious intention to discredit the election system, the investigation was kept narrowly by the police and attorney general chambers to only address the complaint by the election department.The only question which was not answered is why the election department brought the complaint officially to the police on May 6 (Polling day) when the event happened more than a few weeks ago.Anyway, I think the judiciary and police handled this situation professionally, and it is good for Singapore political maturity and institutions moving forward.May 16, 2006Gomez case shows justice is very much alive I REFER to the article, 'Gomez let off with a stern warning' (ST, May 13). When news broke that Mr James Gomez had been hauled up by the police as he was checking in at Changi Airport to fly back to Sweden on May 7, coffee-shop gossip was abuzz with wild rumours that the People's Action Party (PAP) was once again using scare tactics against the opposition. Fuelled by rumour-mongering, the saga soon became a game of chance. People betted heavily that Mr Gomez would eventually be charged in court and slapped with a hefty term of imprisonment. This, the gamblers believed, was because the judiciary was under the control of the executive. So, when it was reported that he was let off with a stern warning, many punters were left poorer by a couple of hundred dollars. However, the losses incurred by punters are not relevant to the saga. What is relevant and significant is this: it is crystal clear that, in Singapore, the executive has no clout in influencing the judiciary (Attorney-General's Chambers) to 'dance to its tune' and prosecute its opponents. It appears to be the notion of the man in the street that justice is blind to anyone who is deemed to be an adversary of the PAP. I trust that the knuckle-rapping meted out to Mr Gomez will change the mindsets of those who believe the PAP is authoritarian and it must always be its 'way or the highway'. The laws of Singapore dictate that the public prosecutor is vested with absolute discretion in recommending the course of action to be taken in criminal cases. In the Gomez case, he was certainly not absolved of any wrongdoing. The learned public prosecutor, after reviewing the evidence in the case and taking into consideration the mitigating factors, recommended to the police that a stern warning be administered to Mr Gomez. It is therefore pertinent for local rumour-mongers, as well as foreign adversaries of Singapore, to take note that justice in Singapore is very much alive, and that Singapore's judiciary is definitely independent of the executive. Majulah Singapura! Lionel De Souza I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society, but the people themselves; if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education." - Thomas Jefferson Thoughts on next steps for PAP and WP after the 2006 election. These are just thoughts, and definitely stand corrected if faced with facts. Next steps for PAP moving forward – all about the swing voters A. Implement concrete plans to win over the 10%-15% of previous PAP voters who voted for the opposition this election. Statistically speaking, if the overall vote for PAP falls below 60% at any one time with more than half of the seats contested, PAP will definitely lose seats (i.e. 2001 election, 61% of popular vote translated into 4 opposition members) 1. Younger Singaporeans (25-40) who desire more opposition members elected into Parliament a. Coming down hard against the opposition parties such as hammering WP over the James Gomez saga after the election is a surefire way to alienate this particular group. PM Lee’s post election speech rallying Singaporeans to move forward will appeal to this group. b. Allow more PAP MPs to be more openly critical in Parliament. c. Leverage on non overt party channels such as the Feedback Unit to target this specific group of younger Singaporeans. Young PAP tends to attrack young Singaporeans who have a predisposition to the party already. 2. Middle class Singaporeans who are more willing to vote for more credible opposition candidates ( a more important segment in terms of number of votes than the younger Singaporean mentioned above) a. Desire to build a first world opposition by encouraging parties like WP to recruit more credible oppositions members for the next election will result in loss of PAP votes from this segment b. Recruiting younger Singaporeans as PAP candidates from less well-off socio-economic background, such as those living in public housing with a history of volunteer work and excellent academic and career track record may encourage this segment to continue to vote for PAP. The current perception is that many (definitely not all) of the younger PAP candidates come from higher socio-economic backgrounds that the middle and lower class cannot relate to. The 20-30% opposition loyalists are mostly Singaporeans who have an issue to pick with the government and are mainly from the lower socio-economic strata who directly feel the adverse impact of rapid globalization. B. Continuing to govern well as per the last 40 years will ensure at least 55-60% of popular votes unless two things happen, which in my opinion is very unlikely in the next 5 years with the leadership of the PM Lee 1. Obvious corruption in the PAP senior ranks that is not addressed 2. Internal party conflicts which is apparent to the general public Next Steps for Worker Party moving forward – all about organization development Strategic Next Steps 1. Retain, motivate and recruit credible candidates now in order to contest more GRC in the future. PAP has a lot of resources, but if they are contested in every ward, they will be stretched. With good people, the organization will be strengthened. 2. Focus on winning two, if not at least one GRC, while contesting for at least 5 to 7 GRCs for 2011. May need to consider strategic bets such as placing Mr. Low and Ms. Lim on a GRC slate in 2011 together, and handing over Hougang to a new WP candidate. Handing over Hougang to a new WP candidate will take a 5 year plan to do so methodically. 3. Need to think about how to move more towards the middle ground to court the swing voters without alienating the loyal opposition voters. Proposing more socio-welfare policies without too much (obvious) fiscal irresponsibility will be the key to keep the loyal opposition voters (20-30%) and to win the swing voters (20-25%). You need 51% of the voters to be elected into parliament, not 55, 60 or 75%. Tactical next steps 4. Take note of all PAP's promises in the contested constituencies to make sure these promises are realised so WP can remind the voters in the next election if these are not executed. Five years is a long time, but only an organization that can meticulously think of the next election in detail right now will be successful given the (very) high standards set by the incumbent party. 5. Ensure learning and takeaways from this election are documented for the next election. E.g. Establish a checklist for election paperwork for every candidate in the next election; assign an administrative/logistic/paperwork executive to every GRC and SMC. 6. Expand the current website by providing at least English and Chinese versions, if not also Malay and Tamil versions too. Advertise the url as often as possible in all forms of communication to provide more information to the swing voters who are the middle class who do use the internet (especially more in 5 years time). 7. Celebrate the good showings as quickly as possible after the election as compared to 2001 because it is important to galvanize the ground troops. Results should always be framed with reference to the dismal showing in 2001, with the intention to focus on the 2011 elections. The ground troops are critical in the election. One key to the PAP success is definitely the ability to attract sincere people to help with the ground. On a last note to both PAP and WP, as PM had said, the successful party is one who can imagine how Singapore will be in 5 years time in terms of how the demographics will be shifting, and who will be the new loyal PAP and Opposition voters and the swing voters. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society, but the people themselves; if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education." - Thomas Jefferson Objective Singapore election website Objective review of the Singapore election 2006I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society, but the people themselves; if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education." - Thomas Jefferson Successful politicans always fight the last election Successful politicans always fight the last election There are some subtle differences in this coming election as compared to the last few elections. PAP appears to be fighting this election with the same tactics and strategies that had served them so well in the past. However, the environment and opposition parties are changing. Previous election strategies and tactics have also reduced the effectiveness of the same tactics. Changes are written in terms of impact Spreading of PAP resources: More seats are now being contested as the opposition camp drops its by-election strategy. Therefore, PAP will not be able to channel resources from uncontested wards to assist the contested wards in campaigning. Coordination of opposition parties: For the first time in opposition history, there is a central coordination effort. Fewer three or four cornered fights will result in more intense campaigning by PAP for wards where they face only one opposition candidate as the opposition votes are not divided. Every vote counts more now. Radicalization of SDP: SDP is attracting the more liberal and radical activists, which effectively reduces the level of radicalism in SDA and WP, resulting in the two parties becoming more palatable to the electorate. The past breakup of opposition parties is part of the evolution process for a nascent opposition where personalities dominate, and there is a clear separation between the SDA/WP and SDP now. Moving towards the center: SDA and WP are moving towards PAP's position in a gradual fashion, making them ironically more of a viable alternative to the incumbent party. Lack of past voting behavior: The lack of past voting behaviors because of systematic walkover may result in a higher number of swing voters in the coming election. As more Singaporeans are virgin voters, even those who are in the 30s and 40s, they will more likely be influenced by the campaigning because of recency effects and they are not constrained by any past voting behaviors.Improved quality of opposition candidates: : Almost all the PAP and opposition candidates have similar education levels, work experiences and share the same passion to serve Singapore. The litmus test is whether you look at the profile of an opposition candidate and imagine him or her standing as a PAP candidate.Adverse impact of previous walkovers on PAP candidates: Opposition candidates are mentally prepared for a hard period of campaigning as they have to contest against the incumbents. However, many of the PAP candidates are newly introduced or had won by walkovers. The systematic walkovers in the past have reduced the level of campaigning experiences amongst PAP candidates. Also, the lack of opposition members in Parliament makes the renewal process in the opposition camp more straightforward than PAP who has to turnover ¼ of its incumbent MPs every election. Defamation suits: Serving defamation suits against a party who has no fear about lawsuits and against Mr. Chee who does not fear going to jail and is already not eligible for election seems to be ineffective in winning more votes. Conversely, this may be playing into the SDP's hand because the defamation suits and SDP’s (false) accusation against the PAP leaders will be in the news constantly. However, PAP leaders have to defend their integrity (rightly so), and choose to use the same legal approach to do so. The key difference is that the parties PAP sues do not seem to fear the implications of the lawsuit unlike in previous suits. Candidates’ announcements timeline: Opposition parties will continue to receive constant publicity from the time they announce their candidates all the way to nomination day, and benefit from the recency effect (electorate will remember the opposition candidates more). However, PAP has already announced their candidates earlier, and will not be able to provide a direct daily benchmark against the opposition candidates who are being announced right before nomination days. Progress Packages becoming an entitlement: Singaporeans are so used to receiving economic handouts before an election that it may have become a form of entitlement. It is akin to a company always issuing dividends, and suffering from a drop of share price if they even cut their dividends. The impact of handouts on election results will diminish.Upgrading has become more common: As more flats have been upgraded and more new flats which don’t need upgrading have been built, it becomes less of an issue in many of the contested wards. This is still an effective tactic in the two opposition wards. Opposition contesting PAP controlled wards do not need to be too concern about the upgrading tactics. If I were PAP, I would do the following things: Reinforce the fact that the party will continue to provide economic prosperity to the people, and that the party itself is of the highest integrity with internal accountability (i.e. do not need the check and balances of the traditional parliment) Refrain from suing opposition members before the polling day because it will give them a lot of unnecessary air time in the mass media. Electorate knows that the PAP is not corrupt (and I mean it in a serious way) Focus on winning the swing votes (30-25%). Put less focus on the PAP supporters (40-45%) and the opposition supporters (20-25%) because they are very much less influenced by the campaigning. To do so, think about what would convince the swing voters to vote for PAP, and act on that. Different swing voters focus on very different needs, ranging from economic security to political freedom. Do not lose a GRC as it will open a floodgate of opposition members in Parliment resulting in a tipping point in the political history of Singapore. Give up a few single seats to satisfy the need for opposition to win the young Singaporean swing votes who want to see some form of substantial opposition in Parliment. Whatever happens, never lose a GRC. Opposition will channel resources against the single seats because they believe that they have the highest chance of wining. In the past, single seat wards PAP members are often the most ready and battle hardened MPs. However, PAP has put a number of newer and less experienced PAP candidates on single wards in this coming election . Therefore, the opposition may be falling for this tactic. Continue to keep pressure on the two opposition wards as it will put the two opposition chiefs (Mr. Low and Mr. Chiam) in defensive mode and distract them from helping their party members. Assigning SM Goh as the resource person for the two wards is part of this strategy. However, this may be less effective now as there are alternate leaders within the two parties/coalitions (i.e. Sylvia and Steve) to take on the offensive. All these can be more elaborately explained using game theory and decision science, which may happen if I find the time to do so….Postscript: Interestingly, SM Goh use the same quote 'We can't fight the next battle using today's strategies' in one of his review of the General election.The Straits TimesJun 3, 2006, 10.42 pm (Singapore time) PAP will adjust its approach: SMHE People's Action Party (PAP) needs to move with the times in order to satisfy the aspirations of a new generation of voters, said Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong. 'We can't fight the next battle using today's strategies,' he told reporters at the end of his two-day visit to Washington. 'We will not know what people's attitudes will be like four to five years from now, but we know it will be a different electorate.' 'The party is trying to understand the new ground - what the younger generation thinks and what we must do to meet their needs,' said SM Goh. An example of this is how the Government is likely to take a softer stance on online political discussions during the next polls, he said. SM Goh said a change in approach was needed since 'policies and strategies have to be shaped accordingly to meet the new mood'. Therefore, it was not possible for the Government to keep its curbs on the use of new media indefinitely. SM Goh also acknowledged during Friday's interview Singaporeans' strong desire for opposition MPs. 'The PAP is not out to have a clean sweep,' he said. 'What we are trying to offer is certainty of good government and good people in charge. So my message is this: Have your desire for opposition fulfilled, but never to the extent of changing the government.' He stressed the importance of political stability saying that otherwise the country could lose investment as foreign companies become unsettled by any uncertainty. SM Goh was in Washington as part of a regular exchange of high-level visits I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society, but the people themselves; if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education." - Thomas Jefferson Why not be MPs full-time? Published in Today 27th April 2006Why not be MPs full-time? I WOULD like to know why most of the candidates from the People's Action Party (PAP) have not said that they would choose to become full-time MPs if they are voted into Parliament, as compared to a number of opposition candidates who have vowed to do so if they are elected.As a voter, I would like to see my elected MP working full-time to serve my constituency. In addition, it seems that many of the opposition candidates live among the 85 per cent of the population in HDB flats. How many of the PAP candidates live in HDB flats, and can they understand our living conditions from a first-person perspective?Soon Sze MengI know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society, but the people themselves; if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education." - Thomas Jefferson Is meritocracy losing its foothold in Singapore? I just realised an article was written about a panel discussion I was involved in in August 2005 where I shared my article on Moving up: Does school system help? in the Singapore International Foundation symposium. Business Time SingaporeUma Shankari 6 August 2005More young people seem to believe so - and that's a development that policy-makers should watch AT A STUDENT symposium I attended recently, a session was devoted to the widening income gap in Singapore and whether it is cause for concern. The session, organised by the Singapore International Foundation, gave students a chance to talk to labour MP Halimah Yacob and West Coast GRC MP Choo Ho Geok about the growing income gap revealed by the recent Household Expenditure Survey. Mdm Halimah and Mdm Ho said the government is doing all it can to reduce the income gap. But some students said they are worried. They believe the gap, besides making it difficult for those at the bottom to live, is reducing social mobility. The Household Expenditure Survey, which tracked income changes between 1998 and 2003, found the average monthly household income of the lower 40 per cent of Singaporeans remained unchanged or declined. At the same time, the household income of the top 20 per cent increased almost 12 per cent. Mdm Halimah and Mdm Ho pointed out that income gaps are a global phenomenon. And they noted that Singapore, with its high home ownership rate, is better off than many countries, where the income gap is much wider. Also, they said, the authorities are trying to help. Acknowledging that there are some who need help, the government recently launched the $500 million ComCare Fund, aimed at levelling the playing field for children from needy families. But in a way, the students - and the authorities - may be missing the point. The way some students see things, it's not that Singapore isn't better off than other countries or that the government isn't doing enough to help; rather, their concern is that Singapore is not as committed to meritocracy as it once was. As one student put it: 'We are not as meritorious as we were.' This should worry policy makers. Since independence in 1965, Singapore has proudly promoted meritocracy and rapid social mobility. And the fact that some younger people are beginning to doubt whether this system still exists in totality shows that something is wrong somewhere. Students at the symposium seem to believe that this 'somewhere' is the education system. Some popular schools here give admission preference to applicants whose parents studied at the school. Agreed, it makes sense to let siblings attend the same school. But the reason for giving preference to the children of alumni - who may well be higher income people - escapes me. Another concern raised at the discussion - by panelist Soon Sze Meng, who has been vocal recently on whether the education system may be increasingly benefiting the better-off - is that property around the more popular schools is highly sought after and becoming increasingly expensive, giving the children of wealthier Singaporeans a better chance of attending these schools. Recent ministerial speeches, including those by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, suggest the government is watching the income gap closely. But the belief of some younger people is that it needs to work fast to convince the next generation that social mobility is still very much possible. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society, but the people themselves; if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education." - Thomas Jefferson Profile of govt scholarship holders Referral to a previous post in the STApril 5, 2006Profile of govt scholarship holders By Leslie Koh STUDENTS from better-off families made up about half of government scholarship holders last year. Around one out of two came from families that earn more than $5,000 and live in private homes. Figures from the Prime Minister's Office show that 53 per cent of Public Service Commission (PSC) scholarship holders came from families earning at least $5,000. This places them in the top one-third of families by income as only 37 per cent of all families in Singapore earned $5,000 or more in 2004. PM Lee Hsien Loong also said 47 per cent of PSC scholarship holders live in private homes, putting them among the 15 per cent of all families here that can afford more expensive private housing. He gave these figures in a written reply to Nominated MP Tan Sze Wee in Parliament on Monday. These figures are likely to fuel concerns that poorer families find it harder to move up the social ladder, as students from poorer homes have a lower chance of getting sought-after government scholarships that often pave the way for a good career in the civil service. In a column last year, recent graduate Soon Sze Meng asked if social mobility is on the decline here. Wealthier and better-educated parents can send their children to better schools, he noted, and they will, in turn, do better and win scholarships. Sociologist Alexius Pereira of the National University of Singapore took a different view of the numbers, saying they give little cause for worry. It is common across the world for the highly educated to make it into the top social class, he noted. In the United States, students from richer families dominate the newcomer list at top Ivy League universities every year. 'At these universities, only 5 per cent are from underprivileged families. In Singapore, half of scholarship holders come from average-income families. That's okay,' he said. The PSC, which gives out about 50 scholarships each year, stressed that it awards them based on students' abilities and potential, not on their socio-economic background. 'PSC scholarships are not study loans or bursaries which are granted based on financial need,' said the director of the PSC secretariat, Mrs Choo Lee See. The statistics appear not to have changed much over the past few years. At a scholarship award ceremony in 2000, PM Lee said 49 per cent of the 110 recipients that day had at least one parent who was a professional or manager. He also stressed then that restricting scholarships to poorer students is not in line with Singapore's principles of meritocracy and equal opportunity. Dr Pereira also noted that Singapore's meritocratic system ensures that bright but poor students do not miss out. 'If you're stupid and rich, you can't buy yourself out of it. But if you're bright but underprivileged, there are enough safeguards to ensure you can still make it.' I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society, but the people themselves; if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education." - Thomas Jefferson Lesson from NKF: The Importance of Elections to Singapore The importance of accountability and transparency has never been so evident in the minds of Singaporean than now because of the NKF debacle. Due to the incorruptible track record of our government, Singaporeans have developed a high level of trust for leaders in the public sector. However, good people with good intentions are not infallible. The high level of trust we have in good people should be complemented with a serious attitude towards institutional structures such as elections that hold them accountable.Two out of three Singaporean donates to NKF. Beside the regulators, donors should have provided a more effective check on the old NKF. A few donors courageously did so, such as Mr. Archie Ong and Mr. Piragasum Singavelu, but were sued for their efforts. Many others choose to assume that the board of directors and regulators would ensure that all was well in NKF. We were wrong. This high level of misplaced trust most likely contributed to the lack of donors’ activism to hold NKF accountable.James Madison, one of the signatory of the US Constitution put it aptly “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” Mr. TT Durai and the old NKF Board Members had good intentions to better the lives of the patients. Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan saw Durai as 'clearly a very competent man destined for success in whatever he wants to do'. However, without sufficient accountability and transparency, Durai and the old NKF Board lost NKF’s 'moral compass' and misplaced the public’s trust.The NKF debacle has shown us the importance of having institutions that actually hold good people accountable. There is no doubt that the leadership selection process of the current ruling party is rigorous. However, we should not take this for granted. We need to remind ourselves that the election system is an institution for us as citizens to ensure that the good people in our government are held accountable. Therefore, we should not just automatically vote for the candidates or party without giving serious thought to our choice. We need to make the effort to determine if the candidate or the party served the constituency well. Did they deliver what they promised in the last election, and if not, why? Are there any viable alternatives?In addition, we need to be aware of the consequences of having more walkover constituencies in our elections. The opposition’s strategy to return the PAP government to power on Election Day increased the number of eligible voters not able to vote on Election Day. 50% of the 1.7 million eligible voters could not vote in the 1991 General Election, while 67% of the 2.0 million eligible voters could not vote in the 2001 General Election because of an increased number of walkover constituencies. With fewer Singaporeans participating, the value of the election as an institution for accountability diminishes. In the absence of substantial political competition, Singapore‘s incorruptible and competent government depends heavily on good people to lead the country. In order for us to continue to have good people in power, we need to exercise our voting rights wisely rather than viewing Election Day as another holiday. Imagine the consequences to Singapore if the good people in our government start running Singapore as their little empire.I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society, but the people themselves; if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education." - Thomas Jefferson Trust the Maturity of Voters Published in TODAY on August 15 I urge the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC) to reverse its decision and allow for a presidential contest.As a young Singaporean, I am disappointed there will be no election on Aug 27.First, the electorate has matured considerably since the last Presidential election with higher education and income. It has reached a level of self-actualisation and would prefer an election. With the information from thePEC, the media and our political leaders, as well as knowing the importance of electing a person befitting of role of the Elected President, I believe the electorate would be able to make a mature choice.Second, the lack of an election could discourage the young from participating in the political process and might fuel cynicism. For young people to even consider entering the political arena in Singapore, itwould be good if they could have say in the process of electing the President of the country.Wayne SoonWayne Soon is my younger brotherI know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society, but the people themselves; if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education." - Thomas Jefferson Let's not endorse candidates yet Published in Today on Aug 10th 2005I REFER to the various endorsements of President S R Nathan made by political leaders, the NTUC and many civic organisations. This, even before Singapore knew who the other eligible candidates are.These early endorsements may dissuade other qualified Singaporeans from standing for the election and prove to be a disadvantage for them.In the interest of fairness, I hope endorsements will only be given once the slate of eligible cqndidates is officially announced.Then, such endorsements would be more effective.I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society, but the people themselves; if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education." - Thomas Jefferson The Right Choice for President Wayne Soon is my younger brotherTHE RIGHT CHOICE FOR PRESIDENTMonday August 8, 2005To remove any doubts about process, open up vetting of candidates to scrutinyWayne SoonPOLITICAL scientists have argued that electoral institutions are created by political elites to achieve certain social and political outcomes.In a young nation like ours - and speaking as a young Singaporean - I hope they reinforce our sense of shared purpose and destiny.The Presidential election on Aug 27 has prompted some debate among Singaporeans about whether there will be a "genuine contest" - a question that will be answered on Nomination Day on Aug 17.But it is important to look beyond the election, to the underlyingimplications of the Elected Presidency and the role of the PresidentialElection Committee.At the end of the day, do we perceive the office intuitively as anelite-centred, elite-serving one that is set apart from the people - or asone that is people-centred and potentially a unifier and a guardian of thenation's interests?The answer may lie partly in Singaporeans' perceptions of the committeeand its workings. The committee's role, in a nutshell, is to certify, through issuing the necessary Certificates of Eligibility, that a candidate is "a person of integrity, good character and reputation"; and that the person has, in its opinion, the "experience and ability" to carry out the duties of the office effectively.While the committee is guided by qualifying criteria dictated by theConstitution - such as executive and financial experience in a Government body or company worth at least $100 million - the detailed proceedings of the committee's decision are not revealed publicly. Nor is there a judicial review of the committee's decision. If, hypothetically, a corrupt Government were to come to power, a more transparent committee would make it harder for an irresponsible Government to install a crony as President, or to arbitrarily dismiss their own nominee's opponents as people lacking "integrity, good character and reputation".The importance of having a non-partisan President cannot be underestimated, as he or she must perform the role of safeguarding the country's interests and reserves. To secure the constitutional purpose of the Elected Presidency, as well as to overcome any perception of elitism, the committee might find it advantageous to open up the selection procedure to scrutiny.One way might be to introduce a review system of the committee's decisionso as to make the certification process more transparent. A bolder suggestion would be to remove the pre-qualification process altogether. The committee would then act as an advisory body which would recommend to the public its preferred candidates.Do Singaporeans derive a sense of unity from the Elected Presidency? Arguably, many heads of state around the world, regardless of their constitutional powers, inspire a sense of patriotism in citizens. What would it take to strengthen Singaporeans' sense of respect for and affinity with the President? In times of crisis, we have looked to the Government for guidance.However, in times of a major crisis, would we also look to the President to serve as the embodiment of our nation, as a source of unity and strength, regardless of one's political, economic and social positions?The Constitution spells out the office's specific veto powers over critical appointments and budgetary purse-strings. Can the people expect the President to ensure that the nation's best interests are looked after - even if he or she might have to battle with a less-than-honest Government, or arbitrate in the face of competing visions of the public good?Singaporeans who have thought critically about their expectations and their potential contributions to the Elected Presidency will have developed a purposeful approach towards the election of the seventh President.Instead of indulging in cynical conversations, as some do, they would do well to express their wishes for the Elected Presidency and the committee to their representatives. They should also educate the young about the roles of the Elected Presidency and the committee, and cast their vote on Aug 27 - assuming they have the chance to.The writer is a Singaporean student at Carleton College, Minnesota, and a research intern with a local think-tank.I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society, but the people themselves; if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education." - Thomas Jefferson Moving up: Does school system help? July 29, 2005FRIDAY MATTERSMoving up: Does school system help?WHEN Singapore became independent in 1965, it committed itself to the ideal of meritocracy and rapid social mobility.People believed that the sons and daughters of labourers might eventually rise to positions of wealth and even political influence. Many of the wealthiest and most powerful among us today rose from humble origins, as our society rewarded intelligence and hard work.However, there is a danger that continuing to adhere to the model of meritocracy that has served us well so far will lead towards increasing social inequality and slowing social mobility. This has happened in many countries larger, wiser and older than ours.If this turns out to be the case, Singapore's rising tide of economic success will raise only the luxury yachts in Sentosa Cove, leaving behind the bumboats of Clifford Pier.This has already begun to happen. The recent Household Expenditure Survey tracked income changes between 1998 and 2003. It found the average monthly household income of the lower 40 per cent of Singaporeans remained unchanged or declined. At the same time, the household income of the top 20 per cent increased by almost 12 per cent.Household incomes of those living in private property are now about three times as much as the incomes of the 85 per cent in public flats.Does this increasing income gap suggest declining social mobility in Singapore? Social mobility is the degree to which an individual's social status may change throughout the course of his life in a given society.Even without comprehensive studies of social mobility in Singapore, it is not hard to see that institutions which previously worked so well to increase social mobility may now become barriers to it.Take primary education as an example. Some primary schools are much more popular than others, because parents believe these schools give the child a head start in the meritocratic educational system. Some primary schools thus have 10 times more applications than available spaces.The primary school registration process gives preference to applicants with siblings and parents who are studying or have studied in the school.This legacy preference gives more educated, wealthier Singaporeans - usually alumni of the most popular schools - easier access to these schools for their children. Properties around the most popular schools are highly sought after and increasingly expensive, giving wealthier Singaporeans a better chance to send their children to these schools.Also, there appears to be a higher proportion of students from the lower-income households in the less academically challenging streams.An Insight feature in The Straits Times on July 9, 'Can bottom-rung kids climb up?', cited 2001 figures from the Education Ministry showing that 72 per cent of the students in the Normal stream lived in four-room or smaller HDB flats. In sharp contrast, only 16 per cent of students who qualified for the Gifted Education Programme lived in these flats.It is not difficult to imagine that the advantages of having more educated parents can help explain this disparity between the socioeconomic backgrounds of Normal stream and GEP students. Such parents can coach their children personally, or devote greater resources for tuition and enrichment classes.It would be sad if our publicly funded education and scholarship systems end up increasingly being of more benefit to students from better-off homes. Based on interactions with overseas scholarship students, I observed that a significantly greater proportion of these students live in private housing as compared to the general population.These scholarship holders, who benefited from their publicly funded education, will probably perpetuate the cycle by being the parents of the next generation of scholarship holders.Given that education is the key driver for social mobility in Singapore, these trends do not bode well for social mobility.The education system, which was previously unbiased, may increasingly offer greater benefit to the more educated and well-off Singaporean.Declining social mobility may also lead to increasing social stratification in Singapore.The top 20 per cent of our population lives a different life from the rest of the country. Some anecdotal examples: Better-off Singaporeans interact with their peers in their country clubs, alumni associations and fine dining establishments. Comfortably ensconced in their cars, they may not understand the inconvenience of waiting and jostling for space in public buses and trains. Those who have always lived in private condominiums rarely, if ever, have to deal with graffiti or urine in their lifts, the way HDB residents do.The Government is already channelling increasing resources into initiatives such as skills retraining to improve social mobility.However, as our nation matures, we need also to think of how we can help to increase social mobility as private citizens.We need to be aware of the consequences of widening income gaps and how Singaporeans from different socioeconomic levels live in Singapore.Those who have benefited from the meritocratic education system should channel energies and time to helping the less well-off better their lives. Only with this mindset and the will to act on it, can we be certain of celebrating another 40 years of nation building.The writer, a graduate of Stanford University, is due to pursue an MBA at the Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University.Guest writers alternate with Chua Mui Hoong in this weekly column.More discussion on blogs: Singapore Angle, Lct, Emil, PropagatorAn interesting (dated) discourse on social stratification and mobilityAn response from the Singapore Government on the Cut Waste Panel on this issueResponds to discussions: 1. The consequences of widening income gaps may reduce social mobility in a meritoratic system. Meritocracy benefits most if we all start with approximate the same amount of resources in life (i.e. Singapore in the 1960s-1970s). However, due to Singapore’s rapid economic development, most now have very different starting points. I want to stress that widening social inequality and income gap will generate increased relative poverty.2. I have give free tution before to very poor kids and visited 1-room HDB flats. The bottom 20% of Singaporean live in a a very different environment. Take a walk through some of the older 1-room HDB estates, and talk to teachers in some of primary and secondary schools where there are mainly 1-3 room flats. That said, we do have a large middle class (30-80 percentile?) as compared to many other countries.3. Take action? Give free tution to poor kids. Volunteer time and energy at NPOs that specifically help kids from poorer households. Do something on our own. Yes, we can always ask the Government to do more, but do we always want to do that?The Straits Times, Aug 8, 2005We can do much more for the less fortunateBy Teo Chin KerI CAN'T help feeling sometimes that Singapore is like a poor little rich kid. Riding on the crest of economic success, we may have lost sight of important social issues like the widening income gap and decline in social mobility.In a recent article, Stanford graduate Soon Sze Meng said that 75 per cent of the Singaporeans at his university live in private property.Despite efforts to broaden access to education, it is generally the case that students from well-to-do backgrounds go to the better schools, get scholarships and emerge as our future leaders.Their poorer peers, saddled with financial problems, continue to get the short end of the stick.We can do more to ensure there is opportunity for all. More scholarships can be awarded to disadvantaged students, for example, if organisations are less focused on the bottom line and more concerned with the social good.Youths should be given more freedom to choose their own path in life. If I want to study archaeology, I have to go abroad.Such opportunities don't exist partly because of the pressure to stick to convention. We need to foster a culture that encourages individuality and creativity or face a 'brain drain'.Recent corporate scandals like Citiraya have highlighted the need for ethics and good corporate governance. We should strongly inculcate values like honesty in our young so our achievements are sustainable in the long term.It's too early to rest on our laurels. There is much more we can do to develop our people, especially the less fortunate and marginalised.Only then will we be a step closer to reaching our earlier goal of becoming the 'Switzerland of the East'.The writer is about to enter university.I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society, but the people themselves; if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education." - Thomas Jefferson Equip undergrads for exchange programmes Published in ST Forum on July 22nd. THE move by Education Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam to encourage undergraduates to go overseas on exchange programmes is timely ('Half of undergrads to spend time overseas'; ST, July 19). Exposing undergraduates to overseas cultures will sharpen their thinking, writing and public-speaking skills, create essential global networking opportunities as well as develop cultural sensitivity and flexibility. However, the new globalised economy demands students who are not merely rote learners and well trained in specialised skills. Education systems such as the United States' demand students who are able to think critically, write well and engage in frank exchanges. Thus, the three local universities should look into three areas. First, the extension of successful learning techniques and practices developed in the University Scholars Programme and other specialised programmes to the general student populace. This is to encourage students to develop critical-thinking, writing and speaking skills needed to succeed when on overseas exchange programmes.Second, to increase the subsidisation of students who wish to go for overseas programmes. Third, to encourage overseas Singapore students who study in the partner universities to share their experiences with local students. Wayne Soon Wayne Soon is my younger brother who is going to be in his second year in Carleton College Reply by SMUFor SMU students, the world is their oyster I REFER to the suggestions by Mr Wayne Soon on how local universities can give undergraduates more global exposure ('Equip undergrads for exchange programmes'; ST, July 22). The Singapore Management University (SMU) provides a premium tertiary education where students are taught by experienced faculty hired from prestigious overseas universities in a seminar-style environment. Students enjoy maximum personal attention in our participative American-style pedagogy which brings out the best in each of them by encouraging critical thinking and rigorous learning.SMU, however, goes beyond bringing the world to our students' doorstep. Close to 40 per cent of them get the opportunity for a variety of global exposure. Many of our students spend a term or two in foreign universities under our overseas exchange programmes. By the end of this year, SMU would have signed partnership agreements with 100 foreign universities in all continents.The situation in SMU is unique - every student who applies for overseas exchange will be granted approval. Many are also heading to non-traditional destinations like Mexico, the Czech Republic and Hungary. SMU students also benefit from other opportunities for global exposure, such as internships in overseas companies, community service in foreign countries and work and travel arrangements to experience employment abroad. In 2002, SMU started a programme called Business Study Missions where students get to explore overseas business opportunities, write case studies on how business is done there and appreciate the cultural sensitivities in a foreign environment. Our students have gone on Business Study Missions to Silicon Valley, Spain, China, India and Thailand.From the beginning, SMU has believed that overseas exposure challenges perceptions, enriches the mind and sharpens communication skills. It is an integral part of our degree programmes to steer our students towards divergence of thinking. By the next one or two years, half of the SMU student population would have experienced some form of global exposure. Prof Tan Chin Tiong Provost, Singapore Management UniversityI know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society, but the people themselves; if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education." - Thomas Jefferson It’s a good thing the rising tide lifts all boats. It’s a good thing the rising tide lifts all boats.It would suck if, in the future, the country we knew as young children and fresh immigrants became so alien to us as to become unrecognizable. When Singapore became independent in 1965, as a country we were committed to the idea of meritocracy and rapid social mobility, and to the kind of country that would give us. After all, at that time, there was no reason to oppose the idea that the son (or daughter) of a labourer might eventually rise to a position of wealth and even political influence. And this was so, for many of the wealthiest and most powerful among us today rose from humble origins. It is a credit to them that they wear their power and wealth lightly, recognizing that success and good things were granted them by a society that placed no institutional barriers in their way and rewarded instead of oppressed intelligence and hard work.But what if Singapore had taken a slightly different path? What if meritocracy had led us instead in the direction of increasing social inequality and slowing social mobility as it has done in many countries larger, wiser, and older than us? The country that the generation which saw independence imagined in Singapore’s future would be a very different place.Singapore’s rising tide might have raised only the fifty-foot luxury yacht in Sentosa Cove instead of also raising the bumboats and the tugboats and those small boats made of peely-painted plywood you see hanging out in the waters of the Singapore River off Clifford Pier. If history as it played out in other nations of the developed and developing worlds remains true to form, this hypothetical Singapore would find that all except the richest and best educated citizens were slowly becoming poorer and poorer. Under such conditions, the household income of the poorest members of our citizenry might be declining even as the country as a whole faced living standards undreamed of in the dark days of our separation from Malaya. Where the smartest and hardest-working rapidly rose to positions of power and general eminence, it is not difficult to imagine that they also became increasingly adept in holding on to their wealth and influence.The trendy, expensive eateries and shopping centres for which Singapore is justly famous would be frequented by the young and the wealthy, who would get there in taxis and tremendously expensive cars. Older Singaporeans who had seen Singapore change from a country of flatted factories turning out textiles and (later) electronic goods would be bewildered and left behind by the new knowledge economy. What, they might wonder, is this marvelous new “biotechnology industry” (for example) that the government keeps talking about, and—more important—can it be eaten? Together with the poor and even the middle-class, the old would bumble around on cheap but inconvenient public transport, wistfully looking in at one of the highest living standards in Asia and, some say, the world.If our publicly-funded education and scholarship systems were not as accessible and non-discriminatory as they are today, we might even find the children of the wealthy and well connected dominating the best schools and the most prestigious scholarships. Living in Districts 9 and 10 would become prerequisites for doing two (or even three) S-papers and then getting into the best overseas universities on the most lavish scholarships—without costly private tuition it would be impossible otherwise for even the most naturally gifted to cope.And of course, were this all to actually be true, worse—much, much worse—would lie in store. Social stratification would begin inexorably to creep into the egalitarian and meritocratic society that was born in 1965. Public parks and hawker centres would be the only places where the rich would come into contact with the poor, the old, and the obsolete, but they would never do that since these places lack air-conditioning and anyway do not have the cultivated and refined air of country clubs, alumni associations, and fine dining establishments like those sprinkled so liberally around the Sixth Avenue and Holland Village.Age would not, as our heritage of Asian values tells us, be revered for accumulated wisdom and experience—we would instead revile it for the obsolescence and poverty it implies. We would look with pity at the less educated pioneers of Singapore bewildered by credit card debt, investment vehicles, and six-dollar gourmet coffees from unpronounceable places in South America. We would vow never to let ourselves be left behind like that, to be true riders of the knowledge economy’s many and various waves. And then we’d order another double decaf grande vanilla soy latte with a hazelnut shot.We should all give thanks that luck and wise governance have ensured that none of this has come to pass in Singapore. Otherwise, things would really suck.I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society, but the people themselves; if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education." - Thomas Jefferson NKF disclosure standards to be of the Government. NKF disclosure standards to be of the Government.It is distressing to hear that Mrs. Goh Chok Tong remarked that the annual compensation of S$600, 000 of the CEO is peanuts because the CEO is running a million dollar charitable organization with hundreds of millions in reserve.If the CEO salary was indeed "peanuts", this seems to imply that the pay of the CEO is perfectly acceptable to everyone, even to the household that earns S$1000 monthly and donated to NKF.Therefore, why doesn't the board of NKF releases the salary range of the CEO given that almost 2 out of 3 Singaporean donates to NKF. NKF is one of the very few organizations that so many Singaporean donate to.Using the same principle, NKF disclosure policy should be like the Government, which releases the salary benchmarks of its Ministers and civil servants because the public (i.e. taxpayers) pay its wages.It shouldn't take a costly court session paid by the donors of NKF to disclose the "peanuts" salary of the CEO.I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society, but the people themselves; if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education." - Thomas Jefferson Give money to dialysis foundation instead Published in TODAY (13/7/2005)MANY may be reconsidering giving to the NKF.There is another organisation, the Kidney Dialysis Foundation (KDF), which aims to provide subsidised haemodialysis treatment to needy patients and attends to needy people with end-stage kidney disease.KDF staff salaries as a percentage of donations and other income is 9 per cent as compared to NKF’s 27 per cent.Members of the public may want to consider donating to this organisation that spends a smaller proportion of donated funds on its employees.But I still recommend they be more inquisitive about how their money will be spent.Addenum:NKF Financial Statement can be accessed hereKDF Financial Statement can be accessed hereLetter from KDF on TODAY (15/7/05)WE WOULD like to thank Mr Soon Sze Meng, who, in his letter, "Give money to dialysis foundation instead" (July 13), recommended the public to donate to the Kidney Dialysis Foundation (KDF).KDF is an independent, non-profit charitable organisation not affiliated to any other kidney organisation in Singapore.Set up in 1996, the Foundation has a responsibility of keeping costs low so that as much as 80 per cent of funds raised could be utilised solely for our patients.Our principle of raising funds on a pre-determined annual target ensures that other worthy charities will not be deprived of public funds. We have been receiving many calls lately from callers who mistakenly related us to the NKF.To clear misunderstandings, we would like to take this opportunity to clarify that KDF is not related to the NKF or any other dialysis organisations. KDF attends to the well-being of needy people stricken with end-stage kidney disease.We help to nurture hope and confidence to make life more meaningful, even for the most needy.Letter from Madeline GohGeneral Manager, AdminKidney Dialysis FoundationI know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society, but the people themselves; if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education." - Thomas Jefferson For Sake of World-Class NUS, Fewer Slots for S'porean Students Published in TODAY (14/7/2005)The recent push for the National University of Singapore (NUS) to be the first-choice university for Singaporeans has had one reader raise the question of why the Government is sending many scholars to universities overseas. His assumption is that sending top scholars to NUS will instead signal that our local universities are as good as the top schools overseas.However, Government scholars are not necessarily the top students in their cohort. There are increasing numbers of top students who choose not to take up a public scholarship due to the availability of bond-free financial packages from universities such as Princeton and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.The challenge for NUS is to convince these Singaporeans to choose NUS in the fiercely competitive global battle for talented students, instead of having more scholars sent to NUS on taxpayers' money.NUS has to attract not only the best students here, but also the best students in South-east Asia and elsewhere in the world. It is not feasible to develop a top-ranked university by enrolling only Singaporeans. To NUS' credit, it has made great strides in this internationalisation effort, with around 26 per cent of its student body last year drawn from outside Singapore.The discussion should be about whether Singapore is willing to accept the fact that there will be fewer spaces for Singaporeans at NUS, even as it becomes a top university with a higher percentage of qualified international students.Interesting response from Cut Waste Panel related to this issue: Scholars Being Sent OverseasI know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society, but the people themselves; if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education." - Thomas Jefferson