Sgpolitics.net salutes Tak Boleh Tahan protesters Written by Ng E-Jay 12 March 2010 On Thursday 11 March, the Tak Boleh Tahan protestors who congregated outside Parliament House almost exactly two years ago to call on the government to help the poor cope with escalating prices were convicted of assembly and procession without a permit. The protesters conducted the event peacefully and did not on their own cause disruption to the public or to traffic flow, apart from attracting the interest of some on-lookers. Nonetheless they were still convicted under the Miscellaneous Offences Act. Mr Gandhi Ambalam, Ms Chee Siok Chin, and Dr Chee were fined the maximum amount of $2,000 ($1,000 for each charge) and sentenced to 2 weeks’ jail in default. Seven others were each fined a total of $1,800 for the two charges and 12 days’ imprisonment in default. The authorities have made it clear that no permit will be granted for outdoor political activities, rendering the permit system a white elephant that serves no purpose whatsoever. As clear as day too is the fact that certain laws in Singapore are used to stifle political dissent and prevent certain opposition voices from being heard publicly. During the trial, the defendants argued that Article 12 of the Singapore Constitution which states that citizens are to be treated equally under the law had been contravened because the police allowed a similar event organized by CASE to take place, but denied the rights of the Tak Boleh Tahan activists to do likewise. The defendants also argued that the government policy on banning all outdoor political activities regardless of circumstances contravened Article 14 of the Constitution which guarantees the freedom of speech and peaceful assembly unless national security is under threat. The judge disallowed both lines of defence. Sgpolitics.net salutes Tak Boleh Tahan protesters for championing the right of all citizens to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly, which are fundamental human rights as well as essential cornerstones of any true democracy. One need look no further than Hong Kong or Taiwan to see how a culture of respect for political dissent has created a thriving climate in which people are motivated to think on their feet and play an active role in shaping the nation’s destiny. Contrast this to Singapore’s situation where every bit of dissent is being carefully controlled and managed by the government, much in the same way the whole economy is being run. Is it any wonder why Singaporeans have growth politically apathetic and show such disinterest in being involved in national affairs? The Tak Boleh Tahan activists are not just victims of the government’s micromanagement of every aspect of political discourse in Singapore. They are also victims of the government’s iron-fisted approach to dealing with dissenting voices that they cannot tolerate, because of the fear on the part of the ruling clique that if such voices were to be given free expression, Singaporeans might take heed and this would erode their power base. The Tak Boleh Tahan activists have endured political persecution as a result of their beliefs and convictions, and many of them have paid a heavy price as a result of standing unwaveringly by the values they hold dear. Even though I was one of the 18 activists who were charged in 2008, I cannot count myself yet as being amongst the ranks of such activists. I can only admire their guts of steel and resolve from a distance. Currently, the defendants are appealing the decision and the execution of the sentences have been stayed pending appeal. I wish all the activists the best of luck in reaching out to as many Singaporeans and winning as many minds as possible. I will always be humbled by the monumental sacrifices in terms of personal freedom and time that some of these activists have had to put up with to bring this basic message to all Singaporeans. They do this not for any fame or glory, but simply because they love Singapore. Should treatment of chronic and terminal illnesses in Singapore enjoy better subsidies? (This article was originally written for The Online Citizen.) Written by Ng E-Jay 09 March 2010 French virologist Professor Francoise Barre-Sinoussi was one of the co-discoverers of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) some 27 years ago. Today, she has taken Singapore to task for failing to provide free treatment for HIV sufferers, who form one of the most stigmatized groups in our country. Prof Barre-Sinoussi, who was at the Biopolis last week to share her latest research findings on Aids, said that although she was initially impressed by Singapore’s healthcare infrastructure, she found Singapore’s lack of free HIV treatment difficult to accept. [1] In response, the Ministry of Health (MOH) pointed out that unlike France’s state-sponsored healthcare system which requires that a heavy tax burden be imposed on the population, Singapore’s approach of co-payments and subsidies allow for an affordable healthcare system without high taxes. It is time to question whether Singapore really provides affordable healthcare to the needy, especially in light of rapidly rising healthcare costs and the absence of a comprehensive social safety net for those who have fallen through the cracks. The introduction of means testing also means that the middle class is being saddled disproportionately with increasing costs. Given that treatment for critical illnesses like cancer as well as terminal illnesses can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, is it humane for the government to continue to insist that taxes be kept at an ultra low rate and to deny Singaporeans increased subsidies for such expensive treatments that have the potential to cause financial ruin to families? The burden on HIV sufferers in Singapore is perhaps one of the most acute, not just because they know they face certain death, but also because of the prevailing social stigma that they have to endure, as well as the fact that treatment costs in Singapore for them is very high. HIV treatment in our country is much more expensive than in many other developed countries because generic versions of commonly prescribed anti-retrovirals are not available, forcing HIV patients to purchase branded originals. This is compounded by the fact that many HIV drugs are not approved for government subsidies, leading to a double whammy for HIV patients. There is a serious need for a better system of subsidies for HIV treatment in Singapore. Initiatives launched by the MOH to promote early detection and treatment of Aids such as public awareness campaigns and anonymous HIV testing, while commendable, are by themselves insufficient at addressing the issue of humane treatment of HIV sufferers. Public awareness campaigns need to be more proactive in debunking myths about Aids and in erasing the stigma attached to Aids victims. The government also has to remove the insidious discrimination against HIV patients in the form of incomplete subsidies. Taxes in Singapore are already very low and there is ample scope for taxes to be increased to provide greater financial assistance to HIV, cancer as well as terminally ill patients. Taxes can easily be raised without affecting our level of economic competitiveness because the latter is actually being stifled not by taxes but by obsessive micromanagement of the economy by the government and entrenchment of GLCs which are unproductive. _________________________ References: [1] Channel News Asia, “HIV testing, treatment in S’pore should be free: Nobel laureate”, 08 March 2010. Sgpolitics.net condemns Gopalan Nair’s actions in the strongest possible terms Written by Ng E-Jay 08 March 2010 On Sunday, former Singapore opposition politician turned Californian lawyer Gopalan Nair perpetrated an idiotic prank in which he alleged that Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew had suffered a heart attack and had been warded at Singapore General Hospital (SGH). But barely 24 hours later, he revealed that it had been a hoax and that he was gratified by the reaction that the blogosphere had provided him. In other words, he shamelessly wallowed in his own amusement at the expense of others. I strongly condemn and denounce the despicable act of misinformation perpetrated by Gopalan Nair and call upon the blogosphere to similarly castigate and boycott his writings henceforth. It is the likes of people like Gopalan Pallichadath Nair that cause some Singaporeans to look upon the local blogosphere as essentially untrustworthy when it comes to current affairs or political commentary. It is imbeciles like him that allow the government an opportunity to unfairly tar bloggers as unreliable rumour-mongers who are unable to self-regulate and who revel in the misfortunes of others. Fortunately, Singaporean internet users are not that stupid, and bloggers have been quick to denounce Gopalan Nair’s rabid filth as moronic and unworthy of attention. I am proud in particular of The Online Citizen website (of which I am the political editor) for proactively censuring Gopalan Nair for his wanton attention-seeking antics. The article “TOC Editorial: Gopalan Nair’s despicable hoax” written by Editor-at-large Choo Zheng Xi correctly points out that Gopalan Nair’s actions had brought him further disrepute, and that deliberate misinformation from any side of the political aisle is inimical to the culture of transparency and accountability that Singapore activists and politicians are trying so hard to campaign for. The swift reaction by the local blogosphere in criticizing Gopalan Nair is evidence that an informal self-regulating mechanism is successfully evolving, contrary to what the government would have us believe. Gopalan Nair is not new to controversy. In 2008, he was arrested for contempt of court and apologized for his actions after being threatened with a prolonged jail sentence. However when he returned to the United States, he retracted his apology and repeated the same statements he had earlier claimed as having been remorseful for. This is the kind of dishonesty and lack of scruples that this man is capable of. To this day, Gopalan Nair continue to harass one of the arresting officers on his blog, even going to the extent of posting his personal particulars and insulting that officer’s religious beliefs. This man, Gopalan Nair, is an imbecile and a lunatic who should rightfully be charged under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. But obviously, Gopalan Nair is no longer a Singaporean and therefore thinks of himself as being above the law. What a shameless, self-absorbed, leaden-footed ninny of a man. Gopalan Nair’s orginal blog post, which he updated on Monday to reflect that it had all been a grand hoax, as well as his latest blog post, which effectively makes a mockery of all those who believed him: Law enforcement nightmare at Geylang Written by Ng E-Jay 08 March 2010 Is Singapore’s red-light district turning into a law enforcement nightmare for the authorities? It was reported in one of the Chinese papers that in June 2007, a group of 200 gangsters harassed and assaulted four policemen during a late night raid on an illegal gambling den near Geylang Lorong 14 and 16. Although the authorities have been actively clearing up scenes of illegal prostitution in Singapore’s famous red-light district, they have never been successful in disrupting the operations of illegal gambling syndicates which continue to flourish despite constant raids. According to the article posted on transitioning.org (Gilbert Goh’s website), the group of 200 gangsters surrounded the policemen, threw bottles and stones at them, and taunted them saying, “Do not be afraid of the police!” Someone was also alleged to have shouted, “The police only have 4 people, we have so many people, do not be afraid!” A police detective was forced to draw his pistol and fire a warning shot. A few men were later arrested at the scene. The standoff lasted for 15 minutes. One of the rioters was sentenced to 17 months imprisonment for the charges of rioting (section 147 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224) and of threatening a public servant (section 13D(1)(a) of the Miscellaneous Offences Act, Chapter 184) by District Judge Hamidah Ibrahim in January 2010. He is currently on bail pending appeal. At least one other rioter has also been charged and convicted of the same offences. Although this rioting incident took place some time back, it is indicative of the growing pressure on law enforcement authorities by gangster elements who are showing greater and greater disrespect for the law. In the early days when Singapore became a British colony, migrant Chinese organized themselves into secret societies and triads which persisted well past world war 2. It was only many years after Singapore gained self-rule that the problem was finally contained, though never totally eradicated. Now it seems the same problem is re-surfacing, compounded by the huge influx of foreign nationals in recent years. I call upon the government to take sweeping, decisive action to stamp out this growing menace and to drastically overhaul its liberal immigration policies which are testing our social fabric to the limit. This will be on your conscience, PAP. Productivity: Senior Minister, is it that simple? By Dr Wong Wee Nam 5th March 2010 At a Post-Budget 2010 Feedback Session held at Marine Parade Community Club recently, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong revealed what it takes to be a productive worker. He used two cases to make his point. First he used the example of a popiah skin maker who could only make 50 skins per hour. When his skill improves the next year he might make 100 skins per hour. This, as he explained, means the productivity has increased by 100 percent. In another illustration he showed the difference between the typist who could only type with 1 finger and needing 20 minutes to type a page and one who could type with 10 fingers and could finish a page in half a minute. In other words, if we could make a 70 year old toilet cleaner work twice as fast, our elderly hawker centre helper clean more tables in a given time and our taxi drivers double their speed, all of them would be very productive. If working faster is basically what productivity means, then we are doomed for another period of the same economic malaise that has struck us. Though I am not an economist and have never studied economics in school, I do know that productivity does not simply mean doing a task faster. It would be, in the old industrial age prior to the advent of computers and the internet. It would be, if we still kept competing with third world countries using third world technologies to produce similar kinds of goods. But aren’t we in the First World now? Though the government keeps talking about productivity, creativity and innovation, it looks as if our mentality is still stuck in the industrialized age. The Meaning of Productivity What then is productivity? French political economist, futurist and philosopher, Bertrand de Jouvenel, believed a man must be willing to change his way of working if he wants to increase wealth. He said, “If he were always to proceed in the same way, he would always produce the same amount in the same time and thus fail to do his share to increase the flow of commodities.” Furthermore he added, “An increase in the total flow of commodities is not, and cannot be, achieved by simply multiplying by a certain constant each of the specific currents of which the total flow is composed at a given moment.” Finally he said, “Increasing production demands continual changes in the way the labour force is divided.” Thus, to be productive, our workers must be mobile and adaptable. They must also have some independent thinking skills so that they will be able to identify and solve problems. However this does not mean just getting them better educated. This is because however educated a person may be, if he is conditioned to be passive and submissive he will always have this unconscious habit of waiting for instructions and cues from above in order to move. Therefore, to produce creative and innovative workers, we need a nurturing climate. There must be the freedom to express without fear and the room to initiate action without psychological inhibitions. This is because a controlled environment will destroy peoples’ initiative, motivation, instinct and sense of purpose. It can only breed workers who can only be slotted into the various niches in society and just do the work required of them. This is the problem with Singapore. There is no culture of inquiry, debate and research that can make us become a nation of innovative and creative people. A Better Example of Innovation and Productivity The story of Ida Rosenthal should be an inspiration to the small person running a humble business. Ida Rosenthal was a dressmaker in a small shop in New York in the early 1920s. At that time women wore corsets and chemises as undergarments. To improve the fit for her customers, Mrs Rosenthal started to experiment with undergarments and finally came out with the first brassiere. Soon the brassiere became a permanent accessory to her dresses. It became so popular that she decided to devote herself to manufacturing brassieres. She later found a company called Maiden Form, the first bra-making company, and very soon all the women in the world were “dreaming in a Maidenform Bra” as an advertisement then went. This is real productivity. It is not that Singapore does not have productive people. The very fact that our forefathers were prepared to uproot themselves and move to Singapore to start a new life from scratch shows we do have the productivity “genes” in us. It is just that these “genes” have been suppressed by the stifling climate and have not been allowed spontaneous expression. This is one reason why our film industry has lagged behind the Korean film industry. All along I had thought that Korean serials only attract young girls until I had dinner with a university professor and a specialist doctor. During dinner, both of them were animatedly exchanging stories of the Korean videos they had watched. The university professor told me the Korean videos are watched all over the world including US, Europe, Japan and the whole of South-East Asia. The spin-off from the popularity of the serials is the increasing attraction of Korea as a tourist destination. The university professor also told me that when she went to Korea for a visit, she insisted the guide brought her to all the Bay Yong-joon concerts and to the condo where he stays where she delighted herself taking photographs of his mailbox and all the fan mails in there (as the mailbox was not locked). She also told me about another retired professor who not only owned all of Bay’s videos but who would also wait patiently at a hotel to catch a glimpse of him when he was in Singapore. Talk about the fanatic Filipinas and Japanese fans of Bay. The love for Korean dramas is not confined to the lay person. I once asked an ex-TV actress why she preferred to watch Korean dramas. She said the Koreans are very good storytellers. When I commented that the local dramas are not as good because the acting is not on par, she said that we cannot blame the actors because sometimes the scripts do not allow them to act. I asked if that was because the scripts needed to be politically correct and she answered the question with a laugh which said it all. No wonder the baddies and gangsters in our local productions do not look or behave like crooks and all the characters look and behave like one another. Goebbels, the Reichsminister of Propaganda who adored the film Gone With The Wind, had these words for his filmmakers. He said, “If I saw a film made with conviction, then I’ll reward its maker. What I do not want to see are films that begin and end with National Socialist Parades.” To him, if you want to make films, make them entertaining. What Needs To Be Done? We are living in an era of vast information and knowledge where rapid changes can make demands on the individual’s ability to change and adapt. The need for the personal development of our students, therefore, becomes even greater. Where difficult decisions need to be made between unclear alternatives, the need for personal integrity and moral courage becomes even more important. This must be the basis of educating our young. Not only will such a person adapt well, he will also likely to have better work ethics. We are now facing the problems of a developed country and the high costs will affect our competitiveness in many ways. What we really need to continue growing is to have people who can create new goods and services. Only innovating economies can expand and develop. We can no longer keep on churning out economic digits fit for an industrialized society. However, we can only create new goods and services if we have creative and innovative people. We cannot have creative and innovative people if the climate continues to stifle us. We cannot have creative and innovative people if a lot of our people are just waiting for the government to dispense wealth in the form of upgrading and pre-election shares and rebates. Our economy can no longer just depend on the few large corporations. In a city economy, it is vital that we have plenty of small and medium size businesses with a possibility of coming out with new ideas to create innovative work and services. There may be other views on how to turn Singapore into a home of creative and innovative people. However it is hard to imagine that an innovative and creative population can be created by just making all the motherhood statements of higher skills, higher productivity and higher wages without giving people more mental space to dream and allowing more alternative voices to be heard. For the policy makers and the people who run this country, it would be good for them to watch this video featuring an excellent talk by Sir Ken Robinson, who is an internationally recognized leader in the development of innovation and human resources, to get an idea of what we are facing and what needs to be done: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9CE55wbtY PAP MPs echo NSP’s concerns on impact of productivity drive on SMEs Written by Ng E-Jay 03 March 2010 During the budget debate in Parliament on Monday, PAP MPs echoed concerns previously raised by the National Solidarity Party (NSP) on the possible impact of the latest productivity drive on small and medium enterprises (SMEs). A couple of PAP MPs were of the view that some SMEs might face cashflow problems in the immediate future as they sought to enhance their work processes to improve productivity. [1] For example, Sin Boon Ann, an MP for Tampines GRC, said that the cost of labour and factors of production would necessarily go up when businesses attempt to follow the government’s lead in raising productivity. He pointed out that this occurred in 1980s when the the unit cost of labour increased as a by-product of the government pushing through measures to increase productivity through automation. Similar concerns about potential problems faced by SMEs were previously raised by the NSP in its response to Budget 2010 published on its website a day after the Finance Minister gave the budget speech in Parliament. The NSP explained that most SMEs do not have the financial means to embark on sizeable investments in human resource and technology to improve their productivity, rendering tax breaks for such investments useless for them. The NSP felt that special emphasis should be given to local SMEs to help upgrade themselves from mere contract manufacturers and spare parts suppliers to that of MNCs, and from Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) to that of Original Design Manufacturers (ODM), Private Label Manufacturers (PLM), or Main Brands Owners (MBO). Countries such as Taiwan and Korea, for instance, were successful in grooming their own local SMEs to become higher value-added industrial players, eventually overtaking their Singapore counterparts in the 1990s. In my opinion, the best way to help SMEs is to drastically reduce the suffocating entrenchment of GLCs in our economy. GLCs account for 60% of our economy. They are inefficient and uncompetitive because they are run by bureaucrats from the establishment circle rather than by seasoned business leaders. They promote poor allocation of resources and are not flexible and responsive to changes in the global marketplace. They stifle innovation and creativity by crowding out smaller players and cornering the domestic market. They lead to a hollowing out of the domestic entrepreneurial base by forcing promising young business talents to relocate elsewhere in search of greener pastures and a fairer and more level playing field. PAP MPs should heed the NSP’s critique of Budget 2010 and give the NSP due recognition when they raise similar ideas in Parliament. Unfortunately there seems little political will within the ranks of the ruling party to address the fundamental issues, especially the entrenchment of GLCS and micromanagement of the economy by the government which hurts our SMEs unfairly. _____________________________ References: [1] Channel News Asia, “MPs concerned low-wage workers could be left behind in productivity drive“, 02 March 2010. PAP and Opposition MPs raise concerns over foreign worker levy Written by Ng E-Jay 03 March 2010 PAP MPs raised concerns over proposed increases to foreign worker levies during the budget debate on Monday in Parliament. They held the view that businesses would be unduly affected in the short run. Jessica Tan, an MP for East Coast GRC, said that some business leaders are worried that the increased levy could impede their ability to leverage and capture the opportunities of the recovery. She also said: “This is further exacerbated by the fact that it is difficult, in the short term at least, to change the mindset of Singaporeans to take up certain jobs in industries like construction which are seen as strenuous and dirty, and some services jobs that require long hours of standing.” [1] Inderjit Singh, an MP for Ang Mo Kio GRC, said that we should focus on bringing in foreign workers to the key sectors where they are most needed, so that we can finely balance between supplementing our workforce, yet calibrating the flow of foreigners and leaving some jobs aside only for Singaporeans. In a previous article I wrote for The Online Citizen, I mentioned that it is not clear how raising the foreign worker levy, which is a blunt instrument that merely increases business costs for companies hiring foreign workers, would help very much in achieving the intended objective of raising productivity or of raising the overall standard of living of our workforce. Fine-tuning business operations or investing in new technologies could be unrealistic in many situations, for example, in the case of a construction company that is already operating on a tight schedule, or in the case of a wholesaler that is constrained more by cost factors rather than lack of technological investment. A higher foreign worker levy may also not be effective in making businesses look upon local workers more favourably because businesses do not have to make CPF contributions on behalf of foreign workers. The Government has to make fundamental changes to its policies, such as controlling the overall rate of import of foreign workers from the top down, fine-tuning the criteria for awarding various employment passes, and paying more attention to attracting quality foreigners rather than indiscriminately importing foreigners who possess no special skills over and above those possessed by Singaporeans. Indeed, an increased foreign worker levy would most probably only serve to fatten the Government coffers, but without inspiring companies to increase productivity or move up the value chain. Opposition MP Low Thia Khiang went to the other extreme and suggested that the foreign worker levy be abolished altogether. The MP for Hougang said: “My view is (that) the foreign worker levy … (has) becomes an opium; opium for the government because it collects money from the levy, opium for businesses because it is a soft option out for them, because instead of paying local workers with a higher salary, (or) raising productivity, they can bend on paying (the) levy and continue to have low productivity and lower labour costs to compete in the market.” Mr Low Thia Khiang was of the view that the government should just use the dependency ratio to control the growth of foreign workers in Singapore. He also said that the savings in foreign worker levy can then be used by companies to provide employment for local workers when the dependency ratio is reduced, upgrade the production process, or send workers for training to upgrade their skills. Mr Low has got it absolutely right that the foreign worker levy has become an opium for the government. However in his zeal at standing up for the needs of businesses, he has neglected to consider that erasing the foreign worker levy altogether would bring us back to square one, because businesses would be even more enticed to hire large numbers of cheap, unskilled foreign labour without feeling any push to improve their business operations or move up the value chain. The point was not lost on PAP MP Josephine Teo, assistant secretary-general of the NTUC and an MP for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC, who said: “I am puzzled by the member’s (Mr Low’s) description of the foreign worker levy and comparing it with opium. Because earlier he had said that there is no denying that our economy needs foreign workers. To try and introduce an alternative system to a pricing mechanism is a very dangerous suggestion to make. It opens up a whole pandora box of the difficulties we have to overcome.” “I am quite shocked by Mr Low’s suggestion to remove the foreign worker levy altogether. How does Mr Low propose that the government allocate the foreign workers quota efficiently to businesses without a levy mechanism? Would it be right for civil servants to pretend to know all about market demand and supply? Removing a levy is turning a blind eye to the social disparities they create.” Ms Teo also said that without the levy, jobs for Singaporeans would be affected as some businesses would find ways of getting around the quota system in their bid at securing the employment of cheap foreign labour. All in all, both PAP MPs as well as opposition MPs have spoken out on behalf of businesses who feel they could be affected by the increased levy, but unfortunately none of them managed to point out that it is fundamental policies that have to be changed. Merely raising the foreign worker levy will not help in undoing the disastrous policy of importing foreign workers too liberally, nor will it improve the lot of Singaporean workers who are suffering from the brunt of unregulated and unfettered competition. What is sorely needed is an overhaul to the government’s labour and immigration polices from the bottom up, not just a cosmetic makeover that does nothing to address the underlying issues. _____________________________ References: [1] Channel News Asia, “MPs express mixed views on raising foreign worker levy“, 02 March 2010. Dazzle with the Democrats: A night to remember Source: Singapore Democratic Party, 28 Feb 2010 They came, they saw and they cheered. And no wonder. It was a night to remember. From the lone voice of Dr Chee Soon Juan’s 10-year-old daughter, An Lyn, singing the national anthem to the loud crescendo of the finale, the dinner commemorating 30 years of democratic service of the SDP was a huge success. There was fantastic music, there was great food and drink, and best of all there was warm company. What more could a birthday celebrant ask for? The guests were greeted by Mr Gandhi Ambalam and Dr Chee Soon Juan with their spouses. They were ushered into the ballroom and serenaded by soothing symphonies of Bach, Brahms, and Pachelbel as the sipped on their pre-dinner drinks. Then as suddenly the lights dimmed and the pulsating beat of Black Eyed Peas took over. Tonight’s the Night boomed through the speakers as pictures of the Singapore Democrats, past and present, flashed across two giant screens on each side of the stage. And after the national anthem and the recital of the pledge by An Lyn, dinner was commenced with a sumptuous buffet spread of Asian and International cuisine. Wine and soft drinks flowed freely as the guests mingled and chatted. In the background, the diners were entertained by Fire Nation, an up and coming local band. The trio of two guitarists and a percussionist provided mellow popular classics from the 1960s to the 90s. Party Chairman Gandhi officially welcomed their guests who included leaders and representatives of the various opposition parties such as Singapore People’s Party, National Solidarity Party, Reform Party, and the PKMS as well as from the Australian, French, Thai, and US foreign missions. Two senior democrats were then presented with the party’s Long-Service Awards. Messrs Michael Hwang and Albert Lim were honoured for their dedicated services through the decades and were greeted warmly as they got on stage to be recognised. Leaders of the Young Democrats then took over to recite the SDP’s pledge. YD President also read out a congratulatory message from the International Federation Liberal Youth whose 3.5-million strong membership of youths spans across the globe. The next item was pure eye-candy as four men paraded the party’s past uniforms in a Fashion Walk. Mr Jufrie Mahmood wore the classic blue pants and white shirt, followed by Mr Gerald Sng who showed off a later version of the blue-and-white outfit with the red vest. Mr Priveen then strutted the stage in rhythm to the background music wearing the more recent uniform of the blue polo-shirt and khaki trousers. The Fashion Walk was capped off with Mr Teo Tian Jing showing off the latest outfit of a red polo-shirt complemented by the earthy-khaki pants. Mr Teo was no stranger to the catwalk as he was the winner of the Mr Singapore Universe pageant in 2006. The programme took a more serious tone when Dr Chee gave his address. He spoke about the expansion of the party and called on friends and supporters to show even greater fervour in their support for the party. Then came the highlight of the evening. As the lights dimmed and the ballroom hushed into silent expectation, the magazine was unveiled amidst the blaring of orchestral fanfare and strobe lights. The unveiling was greeted with enthusiastic applause befitting the stature of the smart-looking magazine. Even before the applause subsided, waiters and waitresses marched in with complimentary copies to distribute to the guests. The entire ballroom was transformed into a library look-alike where everyone’s eyes were glued to the pages of the magazine. Before the excitement could die down, in came the leadership of the Singapore Democrats with the YD in tow for the cake-cutting ceremony. After a round of introduction by the debonair emcee Mr Jagjit Singh and his glamorous co-host Pamela Tan, the birthday cake was brought on stage and the house went into a full-throated chorus of “Happy Birthday to SDP”. The words on the giant cake read: SDP – 30 years and going strong. This was followed by the familiar popping of the champagne bottle and a a round of toasts was presented by Assistant Secretary-General John Tan and CEC member Ms Chee Siok Chin. The audience returned the compliments with Ms Harn Ho, Ms Mathia Lee, and Mr Alex Au, all toasting the SDP in return. Ms Ho wished the Democrats well in the next elections while blogger Ms Lee thanked the SDP for supporting the NGO community. Mr Au was pleased to see the Young Democrats working hard and offered a toast to their political future. The evening climaxed in a finale that saw the leadership acknowledge the crowd by taking a final bow amidst a shower of streamers and confetti. It was a sight to behold and the audience responded with wild cheers. It was a great evening and we hope that we have been as gracious a host as you have been wonderful guests and we look forward to many more such celebrations. From all of us at the Singapore Democratic Party, we say a heartfelt thank you for helping us make our 30th birthday such a special and memorable occasion. Like we said, it was a night to remember. SDP marks its 30th year Source: STRAITS TIMES, 28 Feb 2010 The opposition Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) marked its 30th anniversary with a gala dinner yesterday, which was attended by members of the opposition scene and activists. The two-hour event kicked off with SDP chief Chee Soon Juan’s 10-year-old daughter, An Lyn, leading the 170-strong crowd in singing the National Anthem and reciting the National Pledge. Its chairman, Mr Gandhi Ambalam, gave an opening address before several members of its youth wing, Young Democrats, took the SDP pledge to signal their commitment to its beliefs on democracy and human rights. They included its president, Mr Priveen Suraj, 22, a law student at a private institution; honorary secretary Jarrod Luo, 26, a science graduate who runs his own business; and member Teoh Tian Jing, 25, a property agent. Two veteran SDP members, Mr Michael Hwang, 79, and Mr Albert Lim, 80, received awards from the party for their service dating back to the 1980s. Among the people at the event, held at Concorde Hotel in Orchard Road, were former NTUC Income chief executive Tan Kin Lian, blogger Alex Au and veteran lawyer Peter Cuthbert Low. Absent, however, were the two opposition MPs: Hougang’s Mr Low Thia Khiang of the Workers’ Party and Potong Pasir’s Mr Chiam See Tong, who founded the SDP in 1980. Dr Chee joined the party in 1992. In 1996, Mr Chiam left the SDP for Singapore People’s Party, following a public spat with him and party leaders. In the 2006 election, the SDP contested in the six-man Sembawang GRC and single-seat Bukit Panjang. It got 23.3 per cent of votes cast in Sembawang and 22.81 per cent in Bukit Panjang ward. Dr Chee, an undischarged bankrupt, cannot stand for election. Speaking yesterday, he said the dinner was made possible bya ‘mini-explosion’ in the party’s membership between 2005 and this year. He did not give any figures on the membership growth over the years. He said the party was able to attract new members as it insisted on doing what is right, not what is popular. He urged members to persevere in their pro-democracy efforts, saying ‘democracy cannot be wished for but has to be fought for’. Dr Chee also spoke about the push to boost productivity growth, blaming the poor level of productivity on the political scene which, he said, crippled creative minds and innovative spirits. Alluding to criticisms of his political style, he said: ‘I’ve been told I’m not much of a politician. I take that as a compliment because politicians believe in doing what’s good for themselves. I believe in doing what’s good for the people.’ Mr Priveen said it was this belief that prompted him to join the SDP shortly after the general election in May 2006. He told The Sunday Times: ‘The party’s ideologies in protecting and defending human rights and promoting democracy in Singapore was a key factor. ‘Singapore is a role model for many countries and we need to have a more democratic system.’ What is missing in the productivity debate Written by Ng E-Jay 26 Feb 2010 Budget 2010 which was unveiled in Parliament by Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam on Monday went to great lengths to emphasize the need to raise productivity in Singapore. It was proposed that the government spend $5.5 billion over the next 5 years at measures to retrain workers and help companies improve their business operations. The government intends to spend further $1.5 billion on research and development, and will nurture industries and companies it thinks has the greatest chance of innovating and succeeding globally. The solution, it appears, is based on greater government intervention in the private sector and increased micromanagement of the economy. But the same has been tried before, way back in the 1990s when productivity had begun to stagnate after two decades of high growth, and again in the early part of this decade, with initiatives spearheaded by bodies such as the Economic Review Committee. The proposals laid out in Budget 2010 seem like a tired re-run of the schemes devised in yesteryears. Why then is the government confident that it will succeed this time round? As the old saying goes, insanity surely is doing the same thing over and over again and hoping for different results. Perhaps it is time to question whether excessive government intervention in the economy is the true killer of productivity growth, and whether the latest slew of measures will have the unintended consequence of further retarding the ability of Singaporeans to innovate and think out of the box. Entrepreneurship, innovation, creativity and risk-taking are attributes developed not under the umbrella of a watchful and powerful regime that controls where the money flows and decides who should get what benefits and under what conditions. Those are qualities developed in the free market where competition amongst peers is the main driver of higher output and productivity. What is conspicuously absent in the productivity debate is the fact that after more than four decades of nation building under the PAP, Singapore as a country has become less entrepreneurial and less productive. The bedrock of any dynamic economy lies in its small and medium enterprises, the mom and pop businesses, the heartland shops, stalls and emporiums that cater to folks from all walks of life. In Singapore however, Government-Linked Corporations (GLCs) which account for 60% of the economy have crowded out many small players and stifled innovation. Worse, because they are run not by seasoned businessmen but by bureaucrats from the establishment circles, wastage and poor allocation of resources build up over time, and the lack of drive and creativity puts an ever increasing dampener on the whole economy. The suffocating entrenchment of GLCs in our economy must be drastically reduced before Singaporeans can break free from the economic chains that inhibit the full expression of their creative drive. We are getting nowhere with the current productivity debate because the government has refused to acknowledge the root cause of poor productivity growth and the proposed measures will only serve to entrench the status quo and deepen our problems. Ultimately the problem lies with what the PAP has done to, and will continue to do to, our minds. Opposition parties and alternative media respond to Budget 2010 Written by Ng E-Jay 24 Feb 2010 Singapore’s opposition parties and alternative media have responded to Budget 2010, pointing out its deficiencies despite it being touted as generous and progressive by the mainstream media. In its article “Budget 2010 exposed” published on its website on Tuesday, the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) said that throwing money at the problem of low productivity and making the same proposals that have been tried and found wanting will not make the problem go away. The SDP was referring to the Finance Minister’s Budget proposal of putting $5.5 billion to work over the next 5 years on sustained initiatives at raising productivity through investment in continuing education and helping businesses upgrade their operational expertise. The SDP pointed out the similar strategies were devised by the Economic Review Committee led by Mr Lee Hsien Loong in 2003, but that those measures have failed. The SDP also explained that Singapore’s productivity problem has been in existence for the past couple of decades, caused by over-dependence on MNCs, the channelling of resources to GLCs which are uncompetitive, and the continued autocratic system run by the PAP that pushes talented and skilled Singaporeans to leave the country. The solution proposed by the Singapore Democrats include: reigning in our addiction to MNCs and allowing wages to find their natural levels in a genuinely free market system, dismantling GLCs and allowing local SMEs to develop and grow to be world beaters, empowering our workers by allowing them to organise their own unions, and democratising the economy so as to retain Singaporeans and to prevent its hollowing out. The National Solidarity Party (NSP) also posted a response to Budget 2010 on its website on Tuesday. Signed off by Goh Meng Seng, the recently appointed Secretary-General of NSP, the statement questioned whether the proposed measures to improve productivity would benefit the majority of small and medium enterprises (SMEs). The NSP explained that most SMEs do not have the financial means to embark on sizeable investments in human resource and technology to improve their productivity, rendering tax breaks for such investments useless for them. The NSP felt that special emphasis should be given to local SMEs to help upgrade themselves from mere contract manufacturers and spare parts suppliers to that of MNCs, and from Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) to that of Original Design Manufacturers (ODM), Private Label Manufacturers (PLM), or Main Brands Owners (MBO). Countries such as Taiwan and Korea, for instance, were successful in grooming their own local SMEs to become higher value-added industrial players, eventually overtaking their Singapore counterparts in the 1990s. The NSP was also concerned that Budget 2010 ignored the need to enhance existing social infrastructure and amenities to cope with the increased population of 5 million and growing. Strains on the public transport system, for example, were not being adequately addressed. The NSP was also of the view that increased foreign worker levies without an effective quota policy could translate into even lower wages, which are not currently being protected by any minimum wage policy. In an interview with the Straits Times, Workers’ Party organising secretary Yaw Shin Leong shared the same views with NSP, in expressing worry that smaller firms may not know how to boost productivity even if they wanted to. [1] Mr Yaw told The Straits Times that the official stand of the Workers’ Party will be made known by Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim when Parliament sits next week to debate the Budget. However, Mr Desmond Lim, secretary-general of the Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA), took a slightly different stand on the productivity issue, essentially agreeing with what the government had proposed with regards to raising productivity. Mr Lim was of the view that multinationals and government-linked companies are the main pillars of the economy and thus should be given more assistance. Alternative media also weighed in on Budget 2010. In a video interview with The Online Citizen, TOC columnist Leong Sze Hian said it was good that the budget recognized the need to raise the real incomes of workers, particularly those from the lower income segment. However, Mr Leong pointed out that Budget 2010 did very little to address the woes faced by average Singaporean citizens in finding employment or competing with PRs and foreigners. Mr Leong also criticized the proposal to raise foreign worker levies, arguing that in the past when similar moves were made, companies merely passed on the additional cost to workers by either cutting their pay or lowering their benefits. This also eventually depressed the salaries of Singapore workers at the lower end of the wage spectrum. Mr Leong pointed out that previous measures at raising productivity did not lead to improved wages for lower income Singaporeans. He took specific aim at Workface, the main bulk of which is disbursed into the employee’s CPF account rather than given in cash which can be used for daily necessities. Mr Leong was also of the view that more money needs to be spent on healthcare to help the ageing population cope with increased medical needs and escalating costs of treatment. In conclusion, it would be interesting to see how the government reacts to the criticisms of Budget 2010, especially in light of the fact that it is clearly not an election budget, but merely an interim measure aimed at placating voter concerns over the deluge of low skilled foreigners and government policies that have suppressed wages and inhibited productivity growth thus far. _________________________________ References: [1] Straits Times, “SMEs may miss out on govt help, says opposition“, 24 Feb 2010. Just how progressive is Budget 2010? Written by Ng E-Jay 24 Feb 2010 We hear the word “progressive” being flaunted when used to describe Budget 2010, especially with regards to the new property tax system. But really, just how progressive is Budget 2010 and the new property tax system in particular? The PAP government is not renowned for being a progressive government, or a government that implements progressive taxation systems. The Goods and Services Tax (GST), a regressive tax, was implemented in 1994 and has been steadily rising ever since. A Standard Chartered economist recently predicted that the GST may eventually be raised to 10% by year 2012. The estate duty tax was removed in 2008. The government explained that the reason for its removal was due to the fact that it was impacting the middle and upper middle income groups disproportionately relative to the wealthiest of Singaporeans. But if so, shouldn’t the solution have been to modify the estate duty tax, as opposed to eliminating it altogether? In any advanced economy, estate duties are an important mechanism of redistributing wealth back to society. Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam said on Monday in his Budget statement that there will be a shift from the current system of a flat property tax rate for all owner-occupied residential properties to a system of progressive property tax rates based on the Annual Values (AVs) of these properties. Under the new property taxation system for owner-occupied properties, the first $6,000 of AV will be exempted from property tax. The next tier will be taxed at 4%, and the balance of AV in excess of $65,000 will be taxed at 6%. There is no change to the property tax structure of non-owner occupied residential properties and other properties, which will remain at a flat rate of 10% of AV. I am surprised at the government’s decision to leave the taxation of non-owner occupied properties at the current status quo. A higher tax rate for non-owner occupied properties coupled with reduced taxes for owner-occupied properties will result in further progressivity of the property taxation system. It might also help to curb excessive speculation in the property market to some extent, because speculation by definition is caused by people wanting to buy high and sell higher, not by people looking to live permanently in their new homes. A higher property tax rate for investment and other non-owner occupied properties is further justified at the present juncture because estate duty has already been abolished, resulting in reduced overall taxes on wealthy families. Current property tax rates and personal and corporate income tax rates in Singapore are already very low by international standards. There is ample scope for the government to increase taxes for the middle and upper classes to provide necessary revenue that can be used to further offset the burden on lower income groups through increased budget disbursements and tax reliefs. The lower income segment of the population is currently facing severe strain as a result of the overly liberal import of unskilled foreigners and the lack of a comprehensive social safety net. The needs of Singapore citizens will be best served by: a more sustainable model of economic management that recognizes the long term limitations of our nation’s growth rate, a more controlled rate of import of foreigners and more careful selection of the quality of foreign manpower we are importing, a more comprehensive social safety net for the needy, elderly and sick, independent labour unions that genuinely seek to protect the rights of Singaporean workers, and a “Singaporeans first” policy that gives due recognition and assistance to National Servicemen who have had their studies and careers disrupted due to National Service, and policies to ensure they are not being discriminated against in the workplace. Budget 2010, while going in the right direction of implementing a more progressive property taxation system, does not go far enough. Merely having a better taxation system but without overhauling the fundamental flaws in other existing government policies would just amount to applying bandages on an open wound but without treating the underlying injuries. Dissecting Budget 2010 This article was originally written for The Online Citizen Written by Ng E-Jay 23 Feb 2010 Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam delivered the Budget Statement in Parliament on Monday 22 Feb. In the opening paragraphs of his budget speech, the Finance Minister acknowledged the vulnerability of Singapore’s export-oriented economy which caused it to suffer a 10% GDP contraction during the most recent recession. However, it is disappointing to note that the budget statement did not mention ways in which Singapore’s economy could be diversified so as to make it less reliant on exports. Mr Shanmugaratnam said that Budget 2010 aimed at positioning Singapore’s economy to deliver growth based on productivity gains rather than ever expanding use of manpower, as per the Economic Strategies Committee (ESC) recommendations. Emphasizing the need for transforming our economy and raising worker skills has been a constant refrain of the Singapore government since the late 1970s. The initial success of the government in the early days of nation building was due to the fact that we started off from a low base in terms of worker skills and overall educational level of the workforce. By the late 1990s, growth in productivity had stagnated after a couple of boom decades. What has the Finance Minister said to convince us that it will be different this time, especially when the proposed measures in Budget 2010 are nothing novel or radical, but are merely variations of what the government is purported to have been doing in recent years? According to Budget 2010, the government will spend $5.5 billion over the next 5 years on sustained initiatives to help businesses and workers raise productivity. While $5.5 billion may sound like a lot of money, it is just half the amount spent on defence in a single year. It is also a tiny fraction of the amount of money lost by GIC and Temasek during the 2008 financial meltdown. Is the government truly serious about its latest initiatives at raising productivity? Mr Shanmugaratnam said that the government will support the growth of globally oriented companies including those involved in R&D. While that sounds positive on the surface, the government’s poor track record at picking industry winners casts doubt as to whether it should really be in a position to decide who should succeed or fail. Very often, the free market makes much better choices compared to a team of ivory-towered bureaucrats. There are also conflicts of interests because many of Singapore’s globally oriented companies are Government-Linked Corporations. The Finance Minister also acknowledged in his budget statement that reducing the dependence on foreign labour will pay off in higher productivity over the longer term, but impact growth in the short term. The undesirable outcome of having to deal with reduced growth in the short term could have been avoided had the government calibrated the inflow of foreign workers right from the start, as opposed to waiting till the population had become saturated with foreigners before narrowing the valve. In this instance, the government has shown itself to be reactionary rather than proactive. The Finance Minister also said that median incomes rose by 20% in real terms from 2005 to 2008, justifying the government’s growth strategy of importing large numbers of foreign workers. Unfortunately, Mr Shanmugaratnam has neglected to consider the fact that wages at the lower end of the income spectrum are still stagnating. Therefore, contrary to what Mr Shanmugaratnam has said, the government had indeed embarked on a “growth at all cost” model of economic management in recent years, because the growth strategies contributed to larger income disparities and failed to take into account the strain on the social fabric of our nation as a result of uncontrolled population expansion. The Finance Minister’s proposal for the government to facilitate mergers and acquisitions (M&A) through enhanced tax benefits and waiver of stamp duty on transfer of unlisted shares is disconcerting. M&As are good for an economy only up to a certain extent. While they help weed out companies that are not so competitive, in a small economy like Singapore’s, they also have a tendency to create monopolies that eventually retard productivity growth because of reduced competition and crowding out of smaller players. The Finance Minister also spoke about nurturing the next generation of business leaders, such as spending money to enhance SPRINGS’s Business Leaders Initiative, which is a grooming programme for young business talents. In order to successfully groom the next generation of entrepreneurs and risk-takers, the entire educational system has to be overhauled to encourage creativity and innovative thinking. The stigma of failure has to be removed. The stifling political climate which infects the civil service and our educational institutions must also be addressed, because vibrant minds cannot flourish in an oppressive environment. Unfortunately however, the ruling party does not seem to have the political will to make the necessary changes. The government has made the right decision to focus on productivity and reduce the reliance on unskilled foreign labour. The Finance Minister also made the right connections in asserting that future productivity growth can only come about by a concerted effort by businesses, individuals, and the government. However unless fundamental issues concerning our educational and political system are addressed, the government will only be able to go so far before it hits a brick wall and has to retrace its steps all over again. __________ Read the finance minister’s full budget speech here: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/budget2010 On the beat to the hustings? This article was originally written for The Online Citizen. Written by Ng E-Jay 19 Feb 2010 On Wednesday 17 Feb, PM Lee Hsien Loong called for the Registers of Electors to be updated, exactly one year after the Elections Department had conducted the previous revision. [1] The Registers of Electors contain the particulars of all eligible voters at the time of revision. There is one Register maintained for each electoral division. According to Section 5 of the Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap. 218), a person must be a citizen of Singapore, be not less than 21 years of age, and be an ordinary resident of Singapore in order to be a qualified elector. The latest update of the voter rolls would allow people who became new citizens since the time of the previous revision to be eligible to vote. There seems to be a consensus in cyberspace that new citizens would tend to vote for the incumbent People’s Action Party (PAP) out of gratitude at having been given a chance to live and work in Singapore. According to the Parliamentary Elections Act (PEA), a revision to the Registers of Electors has to occur not more than three years after each general election. The previous revision was completed in April 2009, almost three years after the last general election in May 2006, within the timeframe stipulated by the PEA. The current revision however is occurring at a time when not required by law. This has fueled speculation that elections are due soon as the ruling party would want to include as many eligible voters as possible, especially new citizens. Are we on the beat to the hustings? On 18 Feb, a day after the Elections Department announced that the Registers of Electors were being revised, the government gazette also published the boundaries of altered polling districts pertaining to the current 14 group representation constituencies (GRCs) and 9 single-member constituencies (SMCs). [2] However, prior to the publication of the Electoral Boundaries Report which is normally released shortly before the general election, opposition candidates will have to continue to play the guessing game as to whether the constituency they are targeting will remain intact or be absorbed into other constituencies. The government announced last year that the number of single seat wards would be increased and the average size of the GRCs would be reduced. Other proposed changes to the electoral system include having up to 9 non-constituency members of parliament from the opposition camp should there be insufficient opposition MPs to make up the number. However, fundamental defects to Singapore’s electoral system remain. Elections are currently under the sole purview of the Prime Minister’s Office and there is a complete lack of independent oversight. Election deposits which currently stand at $13,500 per candidate make barriers to entry unreasonably high for the opposition. Without a free and pluralistic mainstream media, and without any independent body overseeing the conduct of elections, these changes to our electoral system are merely cosmetic makeovers that bear the semblance but not the substance of liberalization. Former PAP stalwart Lee Khoon Choy wrote in the preface to his autobiography that “It is often said that one must write history from a distance”. With the current monopoly that the ruling party has over political discourse in Singapore, it is often hard to envision a political destiny different from what the PAP has laid out. Yet I am sure that if the PAP does not level the political playing field and bring fairness and transparency back into the game, history will not judge it kindly even if it is written from a distance. _________________________________________ A note for overseas voters: Shortly before the 2006 general elections, the laws were amended to allow citizens living overseas to vote. When the revised Registers of Electors are exhibited for public inspection, Singaporeans residing abroad may apply to be overseas electors by registering online at the Elections Department website, or by submitting an application form by registered mail or by hand to the Elections Department or to any of the overseas registration centres as stated on the Elections Department website. [3] Registration for overseas voters will remain open until the writ of election is issued, and will resume after the election. Once an applicant has been successfully registered, his or her status as an overseas elector remains valid until the Registers of Electors are next revised. _________________________________________ References: [1] Channel News Asia, “Electoral rolls to be updated“, 18 Feb 2010. [2] Channel News Asia, “Government gazette publishes boundaries of altered polling districts for GRCs, SMCs“, 18 Feb 2010. [3] Elections Department website: http://www.elections.gov.sg So much for respecting individual opinion, Singazine Written by Ng E-Jay 19 Feb 2010 Former blog aggregator Singazine.com has twisted and misinterpreted my words out of context. In their latest “Statement of Intent” published on their website, Singazine.com alleged that I favoured censoring opposing views in order to maintain opposition unity, and worse, that I am somehow against constructive criticism if it does not suit my fancy. This is a misrepresentation of my stand. In my previous critique of Singazine, my issue was with Singazine accusing other blog aggregators of practicing censorship. My view is that every website or blog aggregator should be free adopt their own editorial policy, and that no one is obliged to represent all the myriad views in cyberspace. If Singazine wishes to accuse SG Daily of being censorious in their approach, one may also accuse the same of Singazine, which currently aggregates more pro-opposition views than pro-PAP views. Isn’t Singazine guilty of the same, by their own standards? Contrary to how Singazine has interpreted my words, I am not taking issue with their aggregating blog posts from agent provocateur sites like notmysdp.org which hardly offers constructive criticism but engages in personal attacks that border on being defamatory. My issue is with Singazine making unfair jibes at others for not doing so. Singazine talks about democracy and transparency yet at the same time seems intent on imposing their standards and views upon others. I find this baffling. If Singazine thinks it has done a good job representing all the views of cyberspace, why are they shutting down now? So far Singazine has not given any satisfactory response. All they have said is that “the intention from the start (was) to shut down Singazine once the stated message had been transmitted“. For all its talk about being representative of Singaporean bloggers, Singazine has in fact taken a confrontational and adversarial approach which include lashing out at sites like The Online Citizen and Temasek Review for not having done their part in promoting the efforts of individuals. I find this viewpoint baffling as well because websites like The Online Citizen welcome, and regularly publish, contributions from guest writers. I would like to ask Singazine editors if they have ever submitted a piece to TOC for publication. The overall tone that Singazine has taken is that they are in a position to tell others what to do. So much for democracy, transparency, and respect for individual opinion. When one blog aggregator makes an unfair jibe at another … Written by Ng E-Jay 17 Feb 2010 I find it quite amazing that the editors of Singazine.com would find it fit to accuse another blog aggregator, SG Daily, of being guilty of censorship (see attachment below at the end of this post). SG Daily, in case readers are unaware, is one of the longest standing blog aggregators, specializing in aggregating blog posts of a socio-political nature that pertain to developments in Singapore. As far as I can tell, SG Daily’s selection is very diverse and no one can rightfully accuse them of practising censorship. I wonder why Singazine.com would accuse another blog aggregator of practicing censorship. Perhaps unlike Singazine.com, SG Daily exercises some degree of editorial judgment from time to time, and refrains from linking to blog posts that clearly have an agenda of causing opposition parties to become disunited. This is unlike Singazine.com which actually takes pride in highlighting posts by notmysdp.org, a blog site clearly run by agent provocateurs who are out to sow mistrust, discord and animosity in Singapore’s opposition camps. Exercising some degree of editorial judgment is NOT the same as censorship. Every blog aggregator has the right to exercise editorial judgment in accordance with the site owner’s own value system. No one has the right to demand that a blog aggregator follow his or her approach, which may not suit the blog aggregator at all. Singazine.com should realize that freedom of speech describes the ideal social contract between a government and its people. It does NOT describe the social contract between private organizations, which have the right to set their own rules and agenda and to deny a voice to all those whom they dislike. I am glad Singazine.com has announced they are leaving the blog aggregating industry. Clearly they do not have the spurs of political maturity stuck into their hides. Singazine.com’s latest notice to readers (screenshot taken from its website on 17 Feb 2010, 9.30pm): Economic Strategies Committee: Real Change or Just Words? Written by Dr Wong Wee Nam 15 Feb 2010 “Entrepreneurial culture is about challenging the authorities, questioning the existing ways of doing business, moving away from the routines and norms. It’s about the unconventional, rebellious and diverse.” — Professor Huang Yasheng of MIT. After many months of deliberation on how to improve the economy of Singapore, it was a disappointment that the high-powered committee made up of ministers, business leaders, corporate leaders, union leaders and top civil servants could only come out with a report that said nothing really new. Productivity, innovation, vibrant place, global hub, etc — all these are tunes that have been sung before by other equally high-powered choirs at one time or another since the late ‘70s. These textbook answers have not worked before. What makes the Economic Strategies Committee so sure they will work this time? Is it just going to be a big public relations exercise, full of headlines, plenty of talk, but with little achieved? There is no doubt the Economic Strategies Committee wants to make Singapore rich. However there is nothing in the report that says the proposed “changes” will make things equitable for all Singaporeans. The Corporate Influence Singapore’s economy is largely determined by big corporations. Our economy has always been touted as a capitalist economy where there is free competition and absence of governmental interference. This is in fact not so. What we have is actually corporate socialism where the PAP government’s policies have always favoured the large corporations with good tax rates, contracts from the government, support for training of workers and regulations to help protect them in times of crisis. These big businesses are given preferential treatment to stop them from relocating elsewhere and they are a great beneficiary of the safe and clean environment that our tax money provides. The aim of corporations is not to provide social services but to make money. Don’t expect this to change. The bigger they are the more say and the more influence they will have on business policies. They will continue to influence policies to protect their investments and maximise profits. Thus, whenever there is a recession or when the big businesses face stiff competition, their response is through cost-cutting measures like getting concessions from workers or laying them off. These measures cause hardship to their employees but protect their own bottom lines. In Singapore, wages are not determined by supply and demand. If there is a shortage of workers in any sector, the policy is not to raise wages to attract workers but to import cheap foreign workers and keep the wages down. All this is done in the name of globalisation, free market enterprise and competitiveness. The wages of the lower income group will always be kept low because there will be no shortage of low wage foreign workers in a world where many people are still hungry. In the end the workers most affected are the manual and the lower-skilled workers. Globalisation and competition mean big businesses and corporations will always be able to get concessions from workers by resorting to the constant threat of relocation. What makes us think that the new proposals will result in any real difference? From Rags to Riches Singapore did not become a modern city from a pirate’s nest overnight. It did not become rich just because of big corporations. It only became what it is today through the enterprise and sweat of the previous generations that have been here. Without the constant remaking by our forebears, Singapore would still be an island of fishermen and villages. The health and vitality of the country depends on the quality and state of its component parts. The most important of its components, especially in a city-state like Singapore, is its people. Ultimately, no matter how Singapore goes about rejuvenating itself, it has to take into consideration the physical well-being, the mental inventiveness and the social stability of its people. For all these three conditions to be met, the most fundamental principle is that wealth in a country must be distributed fairly. Each and every one of its citizen must be ensured a fair share of the pie so that physically, he and his children can reach their full potential to function optimally; mentally, he is free from anxieties to be inventive; and socially, he harbours no animosity against any group in a way as to divide society. In a country where the income gap is widening, it is more crucial to reflect how the income should be distributed. Blaming globalization for the income disparity is just an excuse for not doing anything. If a smaller and smaller percentage of the population is getting a larger and larger proportion of the national income and assets and a large percentage of the population are sharing a meager proportion of the leftovers, then there is going to be a potential social problem. The only way to re-distribute income is through public policies. Unfortunately the problem is that the people who are in the position to initiate and influence the changes are members of the tiny apex who have the largest share of the national income. It would be difficult for these people to come out with an equitable system especially when it means affecting their self-interest. It is natural for anyone in this position to believe completely in the virtue of Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” and the so-called system of meritocracy. It is only natural for anyone who has benefited from the system to want to maintain the status quo, saying that the policies work and the rest have only to blame themselves for their misery. Conditions Needed for Productivity Singapore’s education system and political climate are good for an industrial age. The system creates efficient digits and the stifling political climate produces obedient workers. All this is good while industrialization lasts, but not any more. If we proceed the same way, we will always produce the same amount in the same time and remain dependent on cheap foreign labour to remain competitive. The system does not produce productive workers. In the new economy, to be productive, a worker must now be able change his skills continually and move to where he can contribute more to production. This means a person must be mentally and socially flexible. At the moment, the government thinks that we can solve this problem by just re-training our workers. Unfortunately, if a person has been taught to be obedient and to follow others all his life, how much more mentally and socially flexible can he be made to be? It is so much harder to re-train an adult when the mind has already been primed to be obedient and to be a cog in the machinery. Because of this, the re-training of manual and lower-skilled workers often end up with them taking up “bad jobs” of poor pay, low job security and little advancement prospects. Where Do We Start? If we want a working population that is mentally and socially flexible, we need to start in the schools and improve the political climate outside them. Children should be taught to think and question, have their diversity of thoughts and opinions accepted, and their strengths recognized and allowed to develop. Outside schools, the political environment must encourage people to think and offer an opinion if they have one without fear or favour. Everyone should be allowed to object or resist any change that he thinks would be disastrous to his or to society’s well-being. There is no doubt that different people would have different opinions, but in an atmosphere of freely expressed opinions, each opinion will become part of the driving force of public opinion that will form the foundation of any new law or public policy. In order to achieve this, we must, first of all, accept the fact that all of us who have a head on our shoulders would have opinion inside it. No one has an empty head. The second condition is that those who think only their ideas count and are in a position to impose their opinion on the rest must now try to open their minds to opinions and ideas that are different from theirs and try to look at problems from a different perspective. A society with a workforce where the majority do not think and whose heads are only filled with opinions of those who have the power to impose will not have the variety of ideas, the innovativeness and the dynamism to reinvent and rejuvenate itself to the fullest potential. For many years, we have been so used to being herded and enjoying the abundance of green pastures that we have forgotten that situations are constantly changing. The economic recession showed that new formulae have to be found if we do not want to decay. If we continue the way we are, people will want to be herded, their minds will refuse to think and they will not want anything more than basic material needs. How then can we produce workers who can give us the productivity that the country needs? Mental and social flexibility produces creative workers who can create new opportunities for themselves. This provides the foundation for people to innovate and move in new directions. To have a more productive society in the new economy, there must be a people who are not contented with the status quo. There must be a people who do not just sit down and be told what to do. There must be a people who are willing to challenge old ideas even if they are from the bosses. Case Studies In such an economy the small businesses and the individual must also be given space to develop. How did Singapore become a food paradise? This came from ceaseless innovations and changes that started with the large numbers of hawkers that we have plying their trade along the road to the present food courts. Why then could we not allow budding entrepreneurs some latitude to start small and let inventiveness change them into big enterprises along the way? Many years ago I knew of an old lady who knitted hats and mittens in an attempt to make a living for herself. She displayed her handicraft in a quiet corner near the market. But the land cows or tigus came and confiscated her goods and warned her not to do such a thing ever again. If a person is not allowed to display and sell his creations, what motivation would society give for anyone else to create? I also knew of a poor old lady who made home-made kuehs and sold them through a provision shop trying to feed herself. Of course, she was stopped and told that she had to do it in a factory if she wanted to carry on. Did the authorities try to improve things by recommending her to a factory as a consultant? Did anyone try to sit down with her and see how things could be worked out without flouting the laws? How do we encourage enterprise when we continually suffocate it? If we want life and creativity in our country we should allow these people to flourish in the streets. The artists, the writers, the poets, the performers and the craftsmen should be given a start in life there, like the old hawkers of the past. As long as an activity is clean, poses no health and safety hazards and causes no public nuisance, we should allow it. We should allow public atria and spaces for the use of performing artistes and craftsmen liberally. Would this not also build a more vibrant city as well? The Elitism Problem The danger of a wide income gap is that the top strata of society will get the good and expensive education, the top posts and the top income. They will be enriched by the best of arts and be able to influence the policies that benefit them. This is only a small percentage of the population. There is a big pool of population whose potential needs to be tapped. Everyone has a potential and we do not know where the next gem will come from. I knew Wil when he was a little patient of mine. He came from a neighbourhood school that hardly produced distinction students. When he grew up, we lost contact. Some years later, when he was in his late twenties, he called me up to invite me for lunch. He wanted my advice on some investments he wanted to make. On the appointed day, he came in a chauffeured-driven Mercedes to pick me up. I thought he worked for an investment company and had used the company car to pick me up. He told me he had to employ a driver because he could not drive. At lunch, he filled me in on his rags-to-riches story. He told me he had continued his secondary education in a neighbourhood school and had spent most of his time daydreaming in class. When he was in secondary four, his teacher got irritated by his inattentiveness and told him if he wanted to daydream, he might as well think of something and take part in the Young Inventor’s Competition. He did and invented a walking stick that produces warning flashes of light when tapped. This would be useful for the blind at night. He won an award and the results were posted on the Internet. There was no follow-up from anyone until a big US multinational shoe company read about his invention and persuaded the school to let him take leave from his studies for a few months and allow them to bring him to New York to see if he could come out with something commercially-viable with his idea. He did. He invented a sports shoe that could emit light at the heel when a runner walks or jogs. The shoe became a worldwide phenomenon and the rest is history. He became a millionaire. He planted his idea in Singapore but it took an innovative company in US to germinate it. He won an award in Singapore but no one in Singapore was innovative or cared enough to nurture him. Perhaps no one paid attention because he came from a neighbourhood school and was not a scholar. Sim Wong Woo, too, was ignored in Singapore and only blossomed in the US. If we continue to let the elites decide what is good, who has potential and which is the right way forward, we will never be a nation of producers. To be a nation of producers, we must be a nation of mentally and socially flexible workers, who are entrepreneurs and initiators at every level. In order to do this our minds and thoughts must be made free. This is the most important recommendation that the Economic Strategies Committee has completely missed out. What a pity. What the Religious Harmony Debate has missed out thus far EDITOR’S NOTE: Sgpolitics.net wishes all readers HAPPY HOLIDAYS! Written by Ng E-Jay 13 Feb 2010 As a week of heated discussion over religious harmony in Singapore draws to a close, with an avalanche of attention focused on the pastor who denigrated another religion and the three teenage boys who were arrested for racist slurs, I cannot help but ask myself: what is missing from the debate thus far? Everyone is fervently and almost unanimously behind the idea that racial and religious harmony must be preserved, and that all individuals and organizations must watch their words carefully lest they offend the sensibilities of other races and people of different faiths. I applaud the good sense of Singaporeans to stand on the side of justice and tolerance, especially in a time of global geopolitical turmoil. Yet I cannot help but wonder why the debate has missed out on the rights of minority groups like gays and lesbians to be free from bigotry. What recourse do the sexual minorities have if, for example, a religious authority started to castigate them as “abominations”, and proceeded to tell them openly that if they did not mend their ways and become straight men and women, their souls would rot in hell? Unfortunately, the sexual minorities will have no recourse under the law no matter how deeply hurt they are, because the law as it currently stands protects religion from being offended by individuals, but does not protect individuals whose sensibilities have been offended by religion. During the AWARE saga last year, a group of women hijacked a secular organization and attempted to impose their bigoted beliefs concerning gays and lesbians onto others, and indirectly, onto society as a whole. As the debate grew more heated and intense, fault lines were revealed and it seemed for a moment that society would become deeply divided. Fortunately, the brave women of AWARE stood up for their rights and vigorously defended the tenets of tolerance and respect for individual differences. Today, citizens like myself can sleep in comfort knowing that the voice of reason has not been extinguished from our shores. Unfortunately, the current debate surrounding racial and religious harmony in Singapore has focused exclusively on preventing one religion or one race from insulting another religion or race, but has totally neglected the rights of minority groups like sexual minorities to be free from persecution. I find this double standard deeply disturbing. Another issue that troubles me There is a very stark contrast between what happened to the 3 teenage boys who were arrested for the racist remarks they had made on Facebook, and what happened to Pastor Rony Tan of Lighthouse Evangelism Church. In the case of the 3 boys, a police report was filed by a person who was offended by the racist comments. The police investigated and arrested the boys under the Sedition Act, an extremely draconian law that was originally enacted to preserve the hegemony of the British Colonial masters. If the 3 boys had been subsequently charged and convicted under the Sedition Act, their future careers would most certainly be completely ruined. Their once promising lives would forever be consigned to the rubbish bin. Fortunately, the intense debate in cyberspace resulted in the 3 boys being let off with only a police caution. In previous times, the state would most likely have come down very hard on the 3 boys, in an attempt at scaring a hundred monkeys by killing a single chicken, so to speak. In the case of Pastor Rony Tan, his address was made to a congregation of hundreds of followers, and the videos were subsequently uploaded onto the church website as well as Youtube where they could be viewed by literally thousands if not tens of thousands of Singaporeans. Clearly Pastor Tan had far more outreach than the 3 teenage boys, and was in a position to do far more damage to our social fabric and hard-earned racial and religious harmony. The Pastor was given a mere slap on the wrist and made to endure a few days of public humiliation that in no way jeopardized his career or professional life, unlike the young boys who could be denied job opportunities in the future had they been charged and convicted of a serious criminal offence like sedition. DPM Wong Kan Seng said that interrogation by ISD is not less serious than arrest. [1] However this does not change the fact that the Ministry of Home Affairs could have easily referred Pastor Tan’s case to the police for investigation and follow up action, like what happened to the 3 boys. Why the difference in treatment for the pastor? I think the answer lies in the fact that the government wanted to make an example out of the pastor, to elicit responses from various communities and religious organizations, and showcase the act of contrition and apology on the part of the pastor. Over the past few days, the mainstream media has done their job admirably — providing extensive commentary on why religious harmony is important, and articulating how major religious leaders have accepted the pastor’s apology. The government wanted to use the pastor as an example of how a case of religious insensitivity can be identified, properly handled, and safely diffused, with all sides reaching an amiable conclusion. This orchestrated act is possible only because the pastor is an opinion-maker and has some influence on his congregation. The 3 boys by contrast are certainly not opinion-makers and have no influence beyond their small Facebook presence. Is this why they were summarily dealt with using the strong arm of the police and of the law? If so, I am gravely disturbed by this discrepancy, because it would imply that how one is treated before the law depends on one’s station in society, and not whether the act itself is deserving of such treatment under the law. _______________________________ References: [1] Straits Times, “ISD investigation not less serious than being arrested: DPM“, 10 Feb 2010. Conflicting signals from Government over foreign manpower policy This article was originally written for The Online Citizen. Written by Ng E-Jay 9 Feb 2010 The government appears to be sending out conflicting signals over its foreign manpower policy, a possible indication that rising concerns over the liberal import of foreign workers in recent years are starting to overwhelm decision makers in the PAP cabinet. Last Sunday, Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong told the media during a visit to Nee Soon Central that when scaling down our dependence on foreign workers, we have to take into account business cycles. [1] Mr Gan said that when the economy is doing very well, we need to allow it (the import of foreign labour) to expand a little bit within some limits. In his own words as quoted by Channel News Asia: “In a recession, we have to monitor the situation and allow the foreign worker population to come down, but when the economy recovers, we have to be very careful, (and) calibrate our response carefully, otherwise you may stifle the economic recovery.” The Manpower Minister appears to be articulating the point that the government will adjust the inflow of foreign workers according to economic conditions so as to balance the supply and demand of labour. As Singapore is currently embarking on an economic recovery after being severely hit by the global recession in 2008, is Mr Gan suggesting that more foreign workers will be allowed in at this point in time, in response to our new-found economic expansion? If so, then Mr Gan’s remarks could be in contradiction with the position taken by the Economic Strategies Committee (ESC), as well as the views expressed by the Prime Minister, Senior Minister, and Minister Mentor, who in the past couple of weeks went all out in assuring Singaporeans that the inflow of foreign workers will be moderated. Speaking at the sidelines of a community function on 24 Jan, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong said that “If you want to grow fast, it means a larger foreign workforce, which I don’t think is advisable because already, we have too huge a presence (of such workers) and we’re not emphasizing productivity.” [2] A day later, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong added on to SM Goh’s remarks, saying that “we cannot indefinitely expand our workforce by importing more and more workers from abroad,” and that Singapore is to adopt a new economic growth strategy focused more on improving productivity than pursuing growth at all costs, as we are faced with physical constraints such as limited land. [3] Assurance that there would be fewer foreign workers in five years also came from Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, who was the first minister to put a time line on the Government’s pledge since last year to reduce the inflow of foreign workers. Speaking at an event to mark the Housing and Development Board’s 50th anniversary, MM Lee said that “The next five years, we have decided we will tier down our need for foreign workers“. [4] The suggestion for Singapore to cut back its dependence on, and moderate the inflow foreign labour, with a renewed emphasis on raising productivity in place of mere expansion of the pool of workers, was formally articulated by the Economic Strategies Committee (ESC) which released its report in early February. The ESC report, taken in conjunction with the statements made by the Prime Minister, Senior Minister, and Minister Mentor, clearly indicate that the government is committed to reducing the inflow of foreign labour as the current rate of import cannot be sustained. Although the ESC had based its report solely on economic considerations, it does not take a genius to figure out that the government, in deciding to fine-tune its foreign manpower policy, must have also taken into consideration rising concerns on the ground concerning foreign workers depriving Singaporeans of jobs or suppressing wages at the lower end of the income spectrum. Given that the deadline for the next general election is fast approaching, it would be politically foolhardy for the ruling party to ignore the rising groundswell and the legitimate concerns voters have over the impact of the government’s foreign manpower policy on their livelihoods as well as on the social fabric. Yet, the Manpower Minister has made remarks which suggest that the inflow of foreign workers will be raised if economic conditions warrant it. This seems to call into doubt the government’s sincerity in reducing the reliance on foreign workers in a five year time-frame. To add to the confusion, Mr Gan also said that foreigners “abroad” are the real competition, not foreigners who work within our shores. [5] The Straits Times quoted Mr Gan as saying that everyone working and living here — be they citizens or foreigners — should be considered the “in-group” who are contributing to the country, competing against the real “out-group”, who are those (foreigners) working outside Singapore. Is Mr Gan therefore suggesting that foreigners working here are to be considered on equal footing with born and bred citizens, by mere virtue of the fact that both groups are collectively competing against the rest of the world? How can that ever be a realistic or reasonable notion? The government’s clumsy attempts at addressing voters’ concerns over its foreign manpower policy has created more confusion than clarity. If this is not cleared up in time, voters may well express their dissatisfaction over the way the government has handled the foreign labour issue at the ballot box. _______________________________________ References: [1] Channel News Asia, “Measures to encourage low-wage workers to take up training expected during Budget“, 07 Feb 2010. [2] Straits Times, “Work smarter, harder to sustain growth: SM”, 25 Jan 2010. [3] Straits Times, “Grow productivity, not just GDP: PM”, 26 Jan 2010. [4] Straits Times, “Fewer foreign workers in five years, says MM”, 28 Jan 2010. [5] Straits Times, “Foreigners abroad ‘are the real competition’”, 08 Feb 2010. SDP’s Chinese New Year Message 2010 Youtube link Singapore Democrats Raising the foreign worker levy is a blunt move This article was originally written for The Online Citizen How will raising the foreign worker levy improve the lot of locals who are faced with stagnant wages and rising costs? By Ng E-Jay The Economic Strategies Committee (ESC) has suggested raising the foreign worker levy to discourage businesses from importing too many low-skilled foreign workers and motivate them to invest more in productivity. Speaking to the Straits Times a day after the ESC had released its recommendations for overhauling the Singapore economy, Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong said that companies that cannot raise productivity might have to go out of business or leave Singapore, and that the rate of import of foreign workers has to be moderated in light of “social constraints”. [1] However, it is not clear how raising the foreign worker levy, which is a blunt instrument that merely increases business costs for companies hiring foreign workers, would help very much in achieving the intended objective of raising productivity or of raising the overall standard of living of our workforce. Some economic analysts seem to have accepted the notion that penalizing companies for hiring foreign workers would magically make them think about investing in new technologies or improving the efficiency of their business operations. This could be unrealistic in many situations, for example, in the case of a construction company that is already operating on a tight schedule, or in the case of a wholesaler that is constrained more by cost factors rather than lack of technological investment. For such companies, merely increasing their cost of hiring foreign workers would only hurt their bottom lines, but would do nothing to spur higher productivity. A higher foreign worker levy may also not be effective in making businesses look upon local workers more favourably. Businesses do not have to make CPF contributions on behalf of foreign workers. Hence, even with an increased foreign worker levy, they may still find it cheaper to employ unskilled foreigners who are prepared to accept very low wages because they don’t have to finance an expensive mortgage or raise their families in high-cost Singapore. Certainly, merely increasing the foreign worker levy will not in itself do anything to raise overall wages and improve living standards if Government policies still favour foreigners over locals. Ultimately, the decision to hire or fire is also influenced by many other factors such as overall business costs which include rental and cost of raw materials, as well as the ability to compete effectively in our small domestic market. For instance, small businesses who feel crowded out by the growing entrenchment of Government-Linked Corporations would not be able to expand their workforce to include more locals because they would be more worried about operating as a going concern. The Government has to make fundamental changes to its policies, such as controlling the overall rate of import of foreign workers from the top down, fine-tuning the criteria for awarding various employment passes, and paying more attention to attracting quality foreigners rather than indiscriminately importing unskilled foreigners. To make the domestic economy more competitive, the Government also has to keep a lid on escalating costs which are hurting small and medium enterprises. It also has to reduce the entrenchment of Government-Linked Corporations in the economy, which might be an unpalatable move to the establishment, but necessary if we are to revitalize our economy. Despite the Manpower Minister denying that the increase in foreign worker levy is politically motivated, it is hard to deny that the Government is pulling out all stops in assuring Singaporeans that their interests are being taken care of. However in this case, raising the foreign worker levy is a blunt move that is will likely only penalize businesses that hire foreign workers but will not improve the lot of low income Singapore workers whose wages have remained stagnant for the past decade. Imagining Singapore without PAP: Why Not? Written by Ng E-Jay 04 Feb 2010 Mr Ling Tuck Mun’s ST forum letter “Imagining a Singapore without the PAP” (03 Feb) is a classic example of using vague, unrealistic, hypothetical scenarios to plant in readers’ minds the notion that it is unimaginable for Singapore to function without the PAP. His exercise of building sandcastles in the air starts with asking the reader to imagine that the PAP distributed all the reserves to Singaporeans, making them millionaires overnight, and then stepped down from power to make way for a new party to take over the governing of Singapore. Mr Ling then stated that he doubts if any Singaporean would still feel confident of the worth of having a million dollars without the PAP at the helm controlling the CPF, import of foreign workers, our defence, housing, and so on. First of the bat, who is Mr Ling trying to fool with his atrocious mathematics? Distributing our reserves of $400 billion to a population of 4 million Singaporeans (excluding PRs) would only yield $100,000 per person, hardly making everyone a “millionaire”. Mr Ling’s excursion into fantasy land to justify his support for the ruling party would have made hilarious bed time reading were it not indicative of very deep faults in the Singapore system. The reason why Mr Ling doubts if anyone can realistically imagine Singapore without the PAP is because over the decades, the PAP has systematically hollowed out civil space and political discourse, entrenched itself in all aspects of society, and either co-opted or eradicated individuals or groups that did not conform to its ideology. Over time, as the PAP monopolized all forms of political and civic discourse and established a complete hegemony in the Singapore psyche, it became almost impossible to contemplate life without the PAP — exactly what Mr Ling is experiencing. This quote from the book “Paths Not Taken” by Michael Barr and Carl Trocki sums up the situation: … … by the end of the 1960s, pluralism was fighting a rearguard action against the monopolisation of all public discourse – not just politics – by the state. The PAP had won the 1959 elections as a radical socialist party with strong left-wing backing. Once in government, however, the right wing of the party under Lee Kuan Yew embarked on a more conservative and authoritarian course. In 1963 the Singapore government arrested most of the leading leftists in a security operation called Operation Cold Store, and then systematically began to dismantle and marginalise all forms of civil society in the country – from the labour and student unions to the clan associations and the Chinese Chamber of Commerce. By the beginning of the 1970s, it was clear that all paths were closed except for the one being built by the ruling party. This path of elitism, meritocracy, ethnic essentialism, state-directed industrialisation, and – a radical departure from reigning political orthodoxy among post-war nationalist movements – integration with global capitalism. By the mid 1970s, the ruling party’s hegemony was so complete and its rule so successful – at least by its own measures – that it had become difficult to conceive of the earlier alternatives having ever had merit. Public discourse now contemplated with horror the possibility that the nation-building project could have had form other that which emerged. Alternatives were seen as options for failure, if not chaos and anarchy. Yet the studies presented here suggest that was not necessarily true. Alternative outcomes to the current state of affairs used to be well within the imagination of Singaporeans, and some of these alternatives may have have even contained viable seeds for a different kind of social development than that which Singapore experienced. The present did not just happen. It was crafted. It used to be within the imagination of Singaporeans to contemplate and indeed to chart a course different from the one the PAP has designed. It should not be impossible even today, because people are meant to be free, not permanently bound by the dictates of an authoritarian regime. Those who, like Mr Ling, accept the status quo as permanent, will not be at the vanguard of change which is inevitable as Singaporeans mature socially and politically. To accept the notion that it has to be the PAP managing our CPF pension scheme, our foreign talent policies, and our housing policies is to accept the idea that regardless of how flawed those policies currently are, we have to continue accepting the status quo and that no one else can manage them better than the PAP. I find such a notion belittling to Singaporeans as a whole because surely in a population of 4 million citizens, it cannot be just a handful of PAP cabinet ministers and slightly over 80 PAP MPs who are knowledgeable or qualified enough to implement policies that will benefit Singaporeans over the long run. I also find such a notion belittling to Singapore as a nation because the PAP is not Singapore and Singapore is much more than the PAP. To Mr Ling who challenges us to imagine life without the PAP, I say: Why Not? What political candidates should have (not necessarily paper qualifications!) EDITOR’S NOTE: This post originally appeared on Chia Ti Lik’s personal blog. A mutual activist friend of ours had earlier shared with both of us some very pertinent points about the supposed relationship between having good paper qualifications and being a good political candidate. Ti Lik’s post is reproduced in full here as it cuts straight to the chase. Also appended below this post is a Straits Times Forum letter I wrote concerning the same topic which was published on Saturday in the print edition. By Chia Ti Lik 02 Feb 2010 A very learned friend was a participant in an IRC discussion. The IRC discussion was about the local political scene purportedly mandating paper qualifications for credible candidature. I was told that a lot of good arguments were thrown up and they are in short summarized hereinbelow. I have reproduced these with the kind permission of the author, which until he tells me that he does not mind being named, i shall not name him :) Having paper qualifications has little to do with integrity. Political education and savviness is not usually formally taught. Not having paper qualifications does not mean a person does not have an education, i.e., he can be self taught. There is also the question of who should decide what the formal criteria for the eligibility of candidates ought to be. The requirement of paper qualifications for candidates reserves the right to rule to the upper classes, which will entrench themselves and is therefore undemocratic. Politicians, even ministers, always have a team of specialists which they can consult. It’s more important to look at the qualifications of that team. In a system where money has incredible corrupting influence, politicians must above all have backbone, not simply paper qualifications. The quality of candidates should be judged by the people, not by some institution (schools). Candidates with paper qualifications is a bonus, but if they are one with the citizenry, they will be elected anyway, and hence no requirements for paper qualifications are necessary. Having an educated electorate is the priority, not highly educated candidates per se. This leads to a more sustainable political system. Putting point 4 and 9 together, mandating paper qualifications creates an aristocracy/dictatorship that will dumb down the public to maintain their grip on power. This is unsustainable. In a short 11 points, the entire rubbish of elitism woven by the ruling party gets torn to shreds :) I was taken aback speechless. And I now share this with you. Straits Times forum page, 30 Jan 2010 Ex-scholarship holder in opposition? No big deal I REFER to the report on a former government scholarship holder joining an opposition party (‘Ex-Admin Service officer joins Reform’, Jan 20). While some have hailed this as a significant plus for the opposition, I view it as a non-event. First, many talented graduates have joined the ranks of the opposition in recent years, but many of them have opted to keep out of the spotlight, preferring to build a credible profile first. For example, Workers’ Party secretary-general and Member of Parliament for Hougang, Mr Low Thia Khiang, mentioned recently that his party has been recruiting new members, many of whom are probably academically well qualified. Second, I agree with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s assessment that we should not judge political candidates based on their paper credentials, but on what they can do for society. Using Mr Lee’s yardstick, I judge many opposition candidates favourably as they provide an alternative voice for the people, regardless of their qualifications. In fact, good grades are irrelevant to being a good politician, as the work of serving the community requires the heart more than the head. It is time we look past superficial measures of success like academic credentials, and pay more attention to an individual’s track record at work and in community service, which are more accurate indicators of his calibre. Ng E-Jay What is a General Election about? By Dr Wong Wee Nam 01 Feb 2010 Mr Mah Bow Tan, the Minster for National Development, certainly confuses me. All along I thought a general election is the time when the country and its people take stock of the past and signal what they want of the future. It is also the time when the voters of a constituency assess the candidates offered to them and give their verdict. If there is an incumbent, it is also a report card on their past performance. It is, therefore, very strange that Mr Mah should come out and declare that a general election is “not about me, an individual minister or an individual MP. It’s really about the residents themselves …” Where in the world has an election been about the residents and not the candidates? I believe this slip from the Minster of National Development is the result of undue pressure since it has been reported that his constituency is the target of a few opposition parties, including the National Solidarity Party, the Worker’s Party, the Singapore Democratic Party and the Reform Party. With such huge interest in Tampines, Mr Mah cannot be faulted if he should suddenly feel vulnerable. However, whatever he says about elections being about residents themselves, the National Development Minister will be judged for his work as a Member of Parliament and a Minister. The Minister Mentor understands this. That is why he said, “If Mr Mah is unable to defend himself, he deserves to lose.” So a General Election is not about the residents. It is about the candidates. Mr. Mah should know this. When he contested his first General Election in Potong Pasir, his excellent Senior Cambridge examinations results were compared to that of Mr Chiam See Tong’s relatively mediocre results. This was to try and show he was the more qualified candidate. Similarly, in a recent Singapore Perspective Forum, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong also touched on the importance of judging a candidate in a General Election. Referring to the trend of scholars joining the opposition parties, he said that “we hope Singaporeans will judge individuals like that as rigorously as they would judge individuals who join the PAP side.” “Let’s look at the person, not what degrees he has, but what he is able to do for Singapore.” All said, a General Election is about the candidate and not about the residents themselves. Thus, in the coming General Election, the voters of Tampines will judge Mr. Mah for what he has done for them as a Member of Parliament. It is also natural that the opposing candidates will also want the voters to give their verdict on what he has done as the Minister for National Development. When the Housing and Development Board was formed in 1960, its task was to tackle the acute housing shortage problem in Singapore as well as to get rid of its slums. It was meant to provide affordable housing to the citizens. It has done so admirably until recently when prices of HDB flats sky-rocketed. The Minister should know that if ever the prices of property go beyond the reach of the average worker and the asset inflation pushes up the costs of living for the low income group, there will be unwanted social consequences. An underclass will be formed and the poor, the destitute and the very low income groups will be slowly pushed out of the mainstream of social and economic life. As we have no countryside where the poor and destitute can go to, this underclass will have to form slums to manage their lives of despair. At the moment, the prices of flats are slowly going beyond the reach of many young Singaporeans. This is not because these Singaporean have become lazy and not competitive. In truth, most workers still work beyond their normal office hours. Many do make frequent trips abroad, separated from their loved ones, to earn their keep. Some even stay overseas for a lengthy posting when their duty demands. Our students are still scoring the As in examinations and many are still sacrificing their youthful adult lives doing night courses to better themselves. The reason why houses are slowly going beyond the reach of young working Singaporeans is that the wages they are getting are not keeping up with the escalating price of housing. When property prices are high and our workers are paid reasonably, they can still manage to pay their mortgages and own a home. However when the prices of flats are high, pushed up by the demands of a sudden increase in population, and the workers’ wages are depressed because of the great influx of cheaper foreign labour, the dreams of the young in wanting to own a home must be shattered. 30 years ago, the moment a young person comes out to work; he can confidently start looking for a flat even on one income and a loan for fifteen years. Nowadays, a young couple would need a dual income and a loan of thirty years and a very tight belt to just barely make it. The PAP government has always used asset-enhancement as a way of making Singaporeans feel rich. Since 80% of Singaporeans live in HDB flats, enhancing the price of HDB flats serves this policy. However, this only makes Singaporeans rich on paper and poor in cash, a situation they have to pay for because high property prices also make life more expensive for everyone. No, Singaporeans have not yet become lazy. However, they will, when the prices of flats go beyond their reach. What’s the point of hard work if your dream is beyond your reach? Why care about family, friends and community when it is better to grab everything when you can? Why bother to help the poor? Better to use the time and effort to make your buck as soon as you can. There is a real problem. If this problem is not solved, the next generation of Singaporeans and their children are the people who are going to suffer for it. The opposition is, therefore, right in wanting to Mr. Mah, as Minister of National Development, to defend his policy in the coming General Election. If he cannot defend his position in a constituency that he has nursed for 22 years and whose residents have already bought flats at an affordable rate long time ago, then his opponents deserve to be congratulated. Mah Bow Tan misses the point, gets caught red-handed by NSP Written by Ng E-Jay 01 February 2010 After National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan came to know of opposition parties wishing to contest Tampines GRC with the aim of raising the issue of escalating HDB flat prices, he tried to pour cold water on the opposition, saying they should focus on how they can best serve the people rather than making him the focus of their campaign. In his own words as quoted by the Sunday Times: “A General Election is not about me, an individual minister or an individual MP. It’s really about the residents themselves … … I offer myself up for election because I believe that I can do the best and the most for them. But ultimately it’s for the residents, the people to decide.” According to the same article, while the minister acknowledged some people may be adversely affected by the housing policies, he pointed out: “There’s no question that our policies are designed for the good of the people.” (ST, “Mah blasts opposition’s GE strategy” 31 Jan 2010.) Firstly, how can Mr Mah claim that the Government’s housing policies are designed for the good of the people when he has admitted that some have been adversely affected by them? What kind of logic and accountability is he displaying? Secondly, Mr Mah Bow Tan appears to have missed the point altogether. The opposition has never made him personally the focus of its campaign, but the Government’s housing policies which he directly oversees, which have driven Singapore citizens almost to the point of despair and desperation. NSP’s Secretary General Goh Meng Seng clarified in a Channel News Asia article that the party intends to contest the General Election in Tampines over Mr Mah’s policy decisions and not over personalities. It is unthinkable how Mr Mah could have missed the point so completely. Is this the same wool he pulled over his own eyes when he failed to forecast demand for public housing and indirectly allowed prices to skyrocket way beyond demographic and economic fundamentals? When asked about Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew’s remarks made earlier last week that Mr Mah deserved to lose if he could not defend his housing policies, the latter replied: “That’s MM speaking, very frank and very blunt … … But it’s a fact. If I’m not able to prove or convince a majority of my residents that I am able to do a better job than the opposition, then I will not be their MP. It’s as simple as that.” Mr Goh Meng Seng also positioned the NSP likewise: “It’s up to us to convince constituents that Mr Mah’s decisions are not good … … If we fail to do that, we deserve to lose. Nobody owes us anything.” As Mr Goh further elaborated to Sgpolitics.net, it would be good for politics in Singapore to be conducted based on informed choice drawn from open and thorough debate. This will result in greater accountability. I agree with this sentiment. Currently, it is PAP’s monopoly on political discourse in the mainstream media that leaves a huge void and results in complacency and lack of accountability on the part of ministers. The flaws in PAP’s policies are not given a free and fair airing in the public arena. Faults are allowed to fester and misguided policy actions accumulate over time, resulting in an avalanche that buries the masses. This is precisely what has happened to our housing policies which have buried many existing home owners in a pile of lifelong debt. I urge opposition parties to unite on this matter and conduct a vigorous campaign to put political pressure on the PAP to take urgent and drastic measures to correct the housing malaise that has infected Singapore. Affordable flats still available? Are you sure? Written by Ng E-Jay 31 January 2010 A Sunday Times article “Affordable flats still available” (31 Jan 2010) stated that there are still “gems” to be discovered in some housing estates, with 4-roomers in the suburbs like Jurong or Woodlands going as low as $300,000. $300,000? Is that considered affordable? According to the latest Monthly Digest of Statistics (Dec 2009) published by Statistics Singapore, the average monthly nominal earnings for CPF members was $3,500 in Q3 2009. Assuming a combined monthly gross household income of $7,000, it would take a married couple at least 20 years to pay off their mortgage for a $300,000 flat, and they would have paid around $85,000 in interest over the duration of their housing loan, assuming a very conservative 2.5 percent interest rate. Needless to say, a 20 year mortage is not a good recipe for retirement planning. What are this couple going to live on after they have fully paid off their home? What about those individuals earning below the average nominal wage of $3,500 per month? Even with the cheapest flats in towns, which are in reality anything but affordable except to the upper middle class, low wages earners would most likely have to straddle themselves with 30 year mortgages and spend their entire working lives working to pay for their home. Can you really blame home buyers for being disgruntled when resale flat prices have risen 40 percent from 2007 to 2009, especially when average nominal wages have remained stagnant over the same time interval? This means affordability of flats has fallen sharply for the average Singaporean in the last couple of years. We pay Mr Mah Bow Tan, Minister for National Development, a multi-million dollar salary, yet he has been asleep at the switch, having allowed supply to fall far short of demand, resulting in escalating prices. We have seen housing prices rise even in recessionary times. And if a 40 percent rise in 2 years is not a sign of rampant speculation, what is? An asset appreciation scheme to “unlock” the value of home ownership, as the PAP puts it, is a bona-fide scheme that allows property prices to evolve as the economy grows only if prices stay more or less in line with demographic and economic fundamentals. But fundamentals have been thrown out of the window in recent years. Instead, market manipulation and price fixing has become the order of the day. The Singapore market is so small that it is extremely easy for it to become cornered by speculators. Once this takes root, a bubble becomes almost inevitable. It is insane for the Government to allow such a thing to occur by refusing to properly regulate the market. The asset appreciation policy devised by the PAP has thus degenerated into a farcical scheme that amounts to nothing more than a pyramid game with speculators hoping to buy high and sell even higher, regardless of underlying fundamentals. The PAP Government started off providing truly affordable housing to citizens, but in the past twenty years this has been abandoned in favour of quick gains and a clear desire to milk the Singapore demographic for what it is worth, never mind the long term future. Hopefully it would not take the electorate another 20 years to realize what is happening to their own basic livelihood. Minister Mentor calls Singaporeans DAFT for faulting Government’s housing policies Written by Ng E-Jay 28 January 2010 I have never in my life seen a politician call voters STUPID for not accepting his party’s policies, and then ask them not to cast protest votes against his party, all in the same breath. Yet this was precisely what Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew did at a conference on Wednesday commemorating the Housing Board’s (HDB) 50th anniversary. According to a Straits Times report “Don’t cast protest vote” (28 Jan 2010), MM Lee said Singaporeans ought to understand that the Government sells them HDB flats at a subsidised price, below market rate, so that they can own an asset that will appreciate in value over the years. He also said voters must be “daft” if they found fault with the Government’s housing policies, and cautioned Singaporeans not to cast a protest vote against the ruling party over this. Mr Lee’s remarks were in response to a question by dialogue moderator Tommy Koh, who pulled out a Straits Times report which said that at least three opposition parties are keen to contest Tampines GRC that Mr Mah Bow Tan (National Development Minister) helms, as they want to raise the affordability of public housing as an election issue. True to his form, Mr Lee sought once again to strike fear in voters’ hearts by saying that their flats would no longer be of any value should Mr Mah lose to the opposition. A politician who operates in a system of free and fair elections, and who understands that he will retain power only if voters cast their approval at the ballot box will never, in desperation, call the electorate daft if they did not agree with him or his party, nor use illogical statements to instill fear in the minds of voters. Only a politician who knows the system is rigged, or carefully engineered (in Mr Lee’s own words) to guarantee electoral success for the incumbent, and who regards the electorate not as his masters but as his servants, will do what Mr Lee did. Even if our housing policies are sound (and they are most assuredly not), no leader from a Government that dares to call itself democratic before an international audience should cast such aspersions at its own constituents who disagree with its policies, as that goes against every grain of the social compact between an elected Government and its people. Why should Mr Lee be so worried about people casting protest votes against the PAP, if our housing policies truly benefit the people and have kept home prices affordable to most Singaporeans? The answer is that the Government has allowed asset appreciation to spiral out of control, such that young couples and Singaporeans starting their first home find themselves increasingly priced out of the market. How can Singaporeans have a decent retirement if they use up all their CPF purchasing an expensive home? How can our citizens have a decent quality of life if all their savings are tied up in property? The truth of the matter is that the Government has provided only a market subsidy in which first time home buyers are given a discount to the prevailing market rate, and not a cost subsidy in which first time home buyers can purchase flats at a price pegged to their cost of construction. When the general prices of property, including private property, rises sharply, that increases the total cost passed on to first time home buyers, and the market subsidy becomes of little assistance. The HDB has also done a very poor job of forecasting demand, and has not built enough flats to meet new demand. This has caused HDB flat prices to increase even in recessionary times. Ever increasing cash-over-valuation amounts are a symptom of this malaise. The PAP’s argument that its asset appreciation policy allows Singaporeans to unlock the value of their homes is also flawed. Early home buyers from the 1970s and 1980s will certainly benefit from this scheme, as the PAP at that time provided truly affordable housing. But just as the fast economic growth of the early years of independence cannot possibly be repeated again, so there is also a very real limit to the PAP’s asset appreciation scheme that seeks to allow home prices to evolve according to economic growth. Once home prices have been allowed to rapidly adjust upwards, or “unlocked” (borrowing PAP’s terminology), their full value has been built in, and simple mathematics dictates that further appreciation can only take place at a very slow rate. This conclusion is supported by the fact that Singapore’s economy can only grow at a very tempered rate from now on, as Singapore has reached developed nation status and has had all the “emerging market growth potential” milked out of the economy in the past two decades. Therefore, the asset appreciation policy will no longer give future generations of Singaporeans financial security, but will instead saddle them with a lifetime of debt. When the pocketbooks of Singaporeans have been hurt, they will rise to vote against the PAP, daft or not daft. If the PAP’s policies don’t change, one day they may wake up to find ballot boxes stuffed full of votes from citizens indicating that they would no longer tolerate having their dignity and quality of life trampled on so brazenly. A U-turn in PAP’s economic and population policies? We shall see. Written by Ng E-Jay 26 January 2010 Has there been a dramatic U-turn in the PAP’s economic and population policies? Despite recent statements by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on the need to raise productivity and temper the rate of import of foreigners, I remain unconvinced till I see actual results. On Monday, Mr Lee told the audience at the Singapore Perspectives 2010 Forum organized by the Institute of Policy Studies that Singapore has to adopt a revised economic strategy focused more on improving productivity than pursuing growth at all costs. This blog, Sgpolitics.net, has repeatedly used the phrase “growth at all cost” numerous times over the past year to describe the flawed economic and population policies of the PAP that will end in disaster should they be allowed to go on unchecked. Mr Lee said that land constraints prohibit indefinite expansion of the workforce by importing more and more foreigners, and in his own words as quoted by the Straits Times: “We have to extract maximum value from the resources that we have; every piece of land must be put to optimum use, activities which are no longer competitive or productive have to be gradually phased out.” He also said that both local and foreign workers “have to be be upgraded“. Mr Lee’s latest statements are at odds with what the PAP has been doing for the past decade — aggressively and indiscriminately importing foreigners and shoring up our population base as well as GDP figures by mere quantitative expansion. Has Mr Lee and the PAP finally realized that such a strategy simply cannot be sustained, and is already wrecking havoc on lower income Singaporeans who find it increasingly difficult to survive in an economic landscape flooded with cheap labour and unscrupulous employers not above hiding in the shadows of the PAP and using loopholes in the rules to exploit both domestic and foreign workers? Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong also spoke on the same topic the previous day, saying that Singapore’s workforce needs to raise productivity and improve capabilities, and that if the local workforce was more productive, then the country could be less reliant on foreign workers. Mr Goh has it backwards. The local workforce is already working hard to survive in the challenging job market and economic environment. It is the Government’s flawed policy of uncontrolled population expansion and import of untalented foreigners that have depressed our productivity levels. Given that many of our Government-linked Corporations as well as MNCs operating here are highly dependent on a constant supply of cheap labour, both local and foreign, to maintain their bottom lines, it remains to be seen whether the PAP Government will walk its talk and address the deep flaws in its economic and population policies. What we require is not simply a more controlled rate of import of foreigners, but much stricter controls as to what kinds of foreigners we import into the country. We need talented foreigners who can bring in skills and expertise that we don’t have, not unskilled and untalented foreigners who offer us no advantage but who merely displace born and bred Singaporeans from the job market because they can accept very cheap wages as a result of not having been saddled with an expensive HDB mortgage nor burdened with National Service requirements. To avoid both local and foreign workers being exploited by companies, we need a minimum wage system as well as strong and independent labour unions that genuinely champion workers’ rights, not a tripartite alliance composed of mere PAP surrogates. Above all, we need to import foreigners who show a genuine commitment to adapting to the local culture, not foreigners who merely bring in bad social manners and who are only prepared to use Singapore as a stepping stone before venturing to greener pastures. We need qualified foreign professions, teachers, bankers and innovators who can raise service standards and spur entrepreneurship, not foreigners who hijack SBS buses, scream at the top of their lungs at the MOE building when their children do not get into the primary school of their choice, or insist on speaking Mandarin to customers at BreakTalk when ours is a multi-lingual society with English as the official working language. What we need are foreigners who, through entrepreneurship or hard work, allow businesses to create higher value jobs for all, not foreigners who merely take away jobs that could have been filled by Singaporeans. The strain on the fabric of Singapore’s society brought about by flawed PAP policies over the past decade has indeed been felt by the electorate, and that is probably why the PAP is rushing to assure Singaporeans that the rate of import of foreigners will be controlled and more priority given to Singaporeans in areas such as education. However the announcements and changes made thus far have been cosmetic. The Singapore electorate can do its part by compelling the ruling clique to make substantial changes to its current policies by making it clear that it is prepared to use the ballot box to bring about the much needed change that Singapore needs. If voters remain complacent, the PAP will in all likelihood continue down the current sorry path, and that will be disastrous for our long term social harmony and even national security. We would lose much more than a home. We would destroy a nation. Grow productivity, not just GDP: PM Source: Straits Times, 26 January 2010 By Jeremy Au Yong, Political Correspondent SINGAPORE is to adopt a new economic growth strategy focused more on improving productivity than pursuing growth at all costs. The reason boils down to the country’s land and labour constraints, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said yesterday. ‘Our total land area is finite, and very little of it is lying fallow,’ he told a conference examining the challenges facing Singapore. ‘Our own population is growing slowly, and we cannot indefinitely expand our workforce by importing more and more workers from abroad.’ Mr Lee said Singapore would have to adjust its growth strategy and find new ways to continue to do well. And, with that change, it has to shift to growing qualitatively not just by expansion, but by upgrading. He said: ‘We have to extract maximum value from the resources that we have; every piece of land must be put to optimum use, activities which are no longer competitive or productive have to be gradually phased out.’ Similarly, he said, workers, both local and foreign, need to be upgraded. His call for higher productivity came a day after Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong spoke on the same topic – a clear sign that raising productivity is high on the Government’s priority list this year. The Economic Strategies Committee report, due for release next Monday, is expected to focus on it. The Budget statement, on Feb22, will respond to the committee’s recommendations. The general target outlined by both Mr Lee and Mr Goh is to double productivity growth to 2 per cent to 3 per cent a year, from the present 1 per cent. Productivity growth is usually considered critical to improving living standards. It means getting more value from each worker, resulting in more income being available to be distributed. Such a change will take a major effort, said Mr Lee. ‘But we have to do it so that progressively and inexorably, our economy will be transformed. ‘Then, even if our total gross domestic product grows more slowly, our workers can become more productive and our income per capita can continue to rise.’ Previously, Mr Lee has warned that Singapore would not go back to pre-crisis growth levels. Yesterday, he said the average annual growth of 5 per cent enjoyed in the past decade would be difficult to sustain. This was due to how much Singapore had progressed, and the push for higher productivity would result in slower expansion of the workforce. ‘We must acknowledge that we are now more developed economically than we were 10 or 15 years ago, and we can no longer grow as rapidly as before,’ he said. ‘There will be good years when we should go faster. There will be other years which are tough, where we will do more poorly, but overall, if you take it over the next decade, I think 5 per cent will be a stretch,’ he told about 900 people from academia, business, civil society and government sectors who attended the conference. Called Singapore Perspectives 2010, it was organised by the Institute of Policy Studies. Mr Lee also disclosed that the Trade and Industry Ministry is studying what a realistic long-term growth target would be. He was careful to stress that the push for productivity did not mean just working harder. Businesses needed to innovate relentlessly and be bold in seeking opportunities overseas, he said. Workers, on the other hand, had to be psychologically prepared to upgrade their skills over and over again throughout their working lives. jeremyau@sph.com.sg Work smarter, harder to sustain growth: SM Source: Straits Times, 25 Jan 2010 SINGAPOREANS have to work smarter and harder, and pick up new skills to keep the economy growing over the next decade, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong said yesterday. Given the Government’s move to moderate the influx of foreign workers, the rate at which productivity is increased will have to double if economic growth is to hit 3 per cent to 4 per cent a year, he explained. Raising productivity is one area that the Economic Strategies Committee (ESC) will address in its recommendations on Feb 1, he said. The Government forecasts economic growth of 3 per cent to 5 per cent this year and on Saturday, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong tempered expectations of an overly strong economic recovery. Speaking on the sidelines of a community event yesterday, Mr Goh noted that average annual economic growth was 5 per cent over the past 10 years. But productivity rose just 1 per cent a year on average. This good growth came from an expanding labour force, of which foreigners constituted a large part. But reducing reliance on foreign workers meant Singapore had to double its productivity growth to 2 per cent, he said. He acknowledged this was not an easy task, but said it must be tackled: ‘If we can achieve 2 per cent growth in productivity, then with the slowdown in growth of the foreign workforce, we think we can grow by 3 per cent to 4 per cent a year. So we’ve got to be prepared for slower growth. This is a trade-off. ‘If you want to grow fast, it means a larger foreign workforce, which I don’t think is advisable because already, we have too huge a presence (of such workers) and we’re not emphasising productivity.’ Productivity gains could be made in all sectors, but the service industry was one area with room for improvement, he said. He noted how in Europe, service staff performed multiple tasks: ‘One person serves so many people. Here, we have so many people serving one customer. We are not fast enough.’ Asked if raising productivity would be at the expense of jobs, he said this was unlikely. Singapore faced a shortage of workers but if the local workforce was more productive, then the country could be less reliant on foreign workers, he said. But working smarter and harder was also not good enough. He said workers had to build up their capabilities and learn a range of new skills to stay ahead. The ESC will also be looking at some other areas. Mr Goh said his focus in the next 10 years would not just be on economic matters. He would try ‘to build a qualitatively different Singapore in terms of our lifestyle, graciousness’. Citing a Jan 23 article by Straits Times columnist Neil Humphreys, in which he noted an incident where people turned a blind eye to helping a blind man, Mr Goh said this was an area in which Singaporeans could improve in their social graces. He said: ‘If we can do that with a matured economy growing by 3 per cent to 4 per cent, then… Singapore can be a very fine place to be our home. That’s my own personal aim.’ Yesterday, he distributed hongbao and festive goodies to 42 needy residents in his constituency, and opened the upgraded Marine Terrace Hawker Centre and Market before visiting stallholders and meeting residents there. zakirh@sph.com.sg PM Lee: Complete loss of perspective at Singapore Perspectives Forum Written by Ng E-Jay 26 January 2010 Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong spoke at length at the Singapore Perspectives Forum on Monday from issues ranging from the elections to immigration, but if media reports are anything to go by, he and the PAP have completely lost their perspective on national issues. Referring to recent mainstream media reports on ex-government scholars joining opposition parties, Mr Lee said that election candidates should not be judged by their academic abilities but by what they can do for Singapore. (CNA, “Candidates should be judged on what they can do for S’pore: PM Lee“, 25 Jan 2010.) In Mr Lee’s own words as quoted by CNA: “I can tell you, we interview many scholars and each time we field a few of them. And we interview other people too and we often field people who are not scholars. It is good to see it in perspective.” Reading between the lines, is PM Lee implying that scholars who join opposition parties are PAP-rejects? First and foremost, academically well-qualified people including scholarship recipients joining the ranks of the opposition is nothing new, particularly in recent years. It is only due to the fact that the mainstream media has consistently blacked out news of academically qualified Singaporeans joining opposition parties that the public has come away with the impression that this is a brand new phenomenon. Ex-scholars Tony Tan and his wife Hazel Poa joined the Worker’s Party several months ago but recently hopped over to the Reform Party. When alternative media like The Online Citizen highlighted this, the mainstream media had no choice but to play catch up. Secondly, if we are to judge candidates by what they can do for Singapore, then certainly more opposition candidates should be voted in regardless of their academic credentials. Without political plurality and adequate representation of true dissenting voices in Parliament, the PAP will always monopolize political discourse in Singapore and have the ability to bulldoze their policies through regardless of whether they are truly beneficial for Singaporeans. Opposition candidates are sorely needed in Parliament to balance Singaporeans’ interests against the self-interest of the ruling clique. In his speech, Mr Lee suggested that academic qualifications are by no means a decisive indicator of whether a given candidate will be a good one. While hardly anyone would disagree with this, Mr Lee’s statement is also highly ironic, because in the past, the PAP has always highlighted the paper qualifications of its candidates and used that to downplay opposition candidates whom they deride as uneducated individuals. In fact, even though the current batch of PAP MPs are well qualified academically, many of them are nothing but yes men and women who do not truly serve the interests of Singaporeans but who serve merely to legitimize the executive decisions of the PAP cabinet. I would go so far as to add that academic credentials are almost completely irrelevant to being a good politician as we have repeatedly seen individuals seemingly armed to the teeth with paper qualifications and scholarships turn out to be duds with poor character and a wrong value system. Hence, just as we should not get excited over the complete non-event of a couple of ex-scholars joining opposition parties, we should also not be deceived by the facade of false intellectual superiority continually dished out by the PAP in its attempt at brainwashing the masses that it is the only game in town. *************************************** Productivity and “Growth at all Costs” Amazingly, when Mr Lee spoke about economic issues, he said that Singapore will henceforth adopt a new economic growth strategy focused more on improving productivity rather than pursuing growth at all costs. (ST, “Grow productivity, not just GDP: PM“, 26 Jan 2010.) He said: “Our own population is growing slowly, and we cannot indefinitely expand our workforce by importing more and more workers from abroad.” He also said that Singapore has to shift to growing qualitatively not just by expansion, but by upgrading. It is precisely the PAP’s “growth at all cost” model of economic management that has led Singapore down the path it is today, as I’ve repeatedly highlighted on this blog. And it is precisely the PAP’s overly liberal foreign manpower policy and the utterly indiscriminate import of foreign workers with no special talents that have not only caused considerable hardship to lower income Singaporeans, but have also led to declining productivity over the past decade. The PAP in recent years has shored up GDP and population growth simply by rapidly expanding the ranks of foreigners, with very little attention paid to whether they really bring in skills sets that Singaporeans lack, and with scant regard for the fact that this model of population and economic management is unsustainable, and if left unchecked, will result in a colossal bust somewhere down the road. It remains to be seen whether PM Lee will walk the talk and do away with our growth at all cost strategy that benefits the wealthy and the elite but leaves heartlanders and working class citizens out of the economic equation. After all, so many of our GLCs depend on the ability to exploit cheap labour, both local and foreign, to maintain their bottom lines. The complete lack of accountability of the Government to the economic well-being of Singapore citizens is truly sobering. And that brings us back full circle to why we need political plurality and why there is an urgent need to hasten the democratization of Singapore, led not by people armed just with glossy pieces of paper credentials, but by people with the right values and mindsets, who are willing to uphold the tenets of democracy at all times. Inadequate Public Transportation The public transport companies have been increasing their fees steadily over the years, in response to the rising price of oil and the overall rising cost of labour. Or at least, that is what they claim. However, service standards such as train frequencies have in fact dropped, as Mr Goh Meng Seng, a member of the National Solidarity Party, explains in the following article. By Goh Meng Seng 23 Jan 2010 The following is a Table compiled to show the contrast of population growth vs MRT development. (Data compiled from Table 3.1 of the Yearbook of Statistics 2009 and SMRT Annual Report 2007/2008) From the table above, we can gather the following facts (from 2003 to 2008 as the population figures for 2009 is not available yet): Total Population Growth 17.6% Resident Population Growth 8.2% SMRT Total Number of Passenger Trips (Million) Growth 19.0% SMRT Car Kilometres Operated (Million) Growth -13.0% SMRT Average Operating Car Occupancy Rate Growth 35% What do the above statistics tell us? It is quite puzzling to me actually. The public transport companies like SMRT has been increasing their fares for the past 7 years but it seems that their service standards have dropped with respect to the population growth. It is very disturbing to note that while demand on MRT has increased steadily for the pass 7 years (We are unable to get the 2009 figures for population growth yet) in tandem with the increase in population growth, SMRT has actually DECREASE their train service frequencies by as much as 13%! An increase of 19% of demand couple with a decrease in supply of 13% will naturally result in packing the MRT cabins with more people! This is reflected in the increase of occupancy rate from 56 persons in a carriage to 76! It means that on average, Singaporeans will find the MRT 35% more crowded than 2003! I guess the LTA is sleeping on this development while agreeing to PTC and public transport companies’ demand in increasing their fares! I hope this is not another “Caught Off Guard” situation for the Ministry of Transport as it is for Ministry of National Development. Someone up there have to be accountable for mismanaging the whole situation for Singapore. WP NCMP Sylvia Lim has categorically questioned the PAP government on whether they are doing enough to cater to their aggressive FT policy which has artificially increase the population by 17.6% from 2003 to 2008. Yet, the PAP has continued to sleep on this important issue. We have seen how Ministry of National Development under Mah Bow Tan has totally mismanaged the housing needs in view of the expected increase of housing demand due to influx of FT. Now it seems that the Ministry of Transport has also totally mismanaged the transportation sector. There is no silly excuse of “Caught Off Guard” as the opposition party has already raised the alarm as early as 2006! Singaporeans have to see clearly that we are paying TOP WORLD CLASS salaries for these ministers but yet, we are having them mismanaging the situation here. The Ministry of Transport and LTA are only concerned about setting up more ERPs all over Singapore because that is the SACRED CASH COWS that will make money. Who cares about the general welfare of Singaporeans in squeezing in MRTs and Buses (yes, I believe we can show the same inadequacy if we build the statistical table for buses) everyday due to their mismanagement. The Ministers have hardly experience the frustrations of normal Singaporeans who take public transport daily. The MRT train frequency is really third world standards! It is about time Singaporeans should give PAP the wake up call! Vote the respective ministers out, give a clear signal to the PAP government that we want accountability! We want ministers who put Singaporeans’ welfare as their top priority, not how much money their ministries could save or make as their top priorities. If the above analysis is not convincing enough for you, then please take a look at the following table: For the period from 2003 to 2008, SMRT profits have increased 107.9% from $72.1m to $149.9m! What does this mean. There is an increase in demand, increase in fare but SMRT continues to reduce supply by a drastic reduction in 2004. While the demand continues to increase, it suppressed the corresponding supply while continued its demand of fare increase. The so call “improve in services” is just lip service. Service standards has dropped while SMRT just let the trains get more cramp! LTA under the Ministry of Transport, kept both of its eyes closed for all this while! This is totally unacceptable for a world class government with top pay! It seems that our PAP government only takes good care of corporate profits while neglecting the welfare of Singaporeans, allowing them to be reaped off by suffering sub standard services with increased prices. Do we continue to let them be or give them a wake up call? The choice is yours. Goh Meng Seng * I have added the figures of the SMRT side without the figures of population data here. The increase in the car operated per kilometer is partly due to the opening of circle line. This means that frequency of trains in other older lines might not have improved at all. Besides, this is offset by the increase in the demand, partly due to the increase in population (estimated about 3% plus if total population is to reach 4.99 million). As the result, the occupancy rate is just about the same. This result doesn’t change the main point that since 2003, the trains are getting very cramped, about 35% cramped.