Back to the Future Enhancements The Savings and Employee Retirement Plan, or Saver scheme, for commissioned SAF officers was launched with much fanfare in 1998. Two years later, the PREMIUM scheme, for warrant officers was launched. Last month, it was announced that the career schemes for officers and WOs will be 'enhanced' and that a third career track, the Military Domain Experts Scheme (MDES), was being created. This post recalls some of Saver's backstory and how that might illuminate possible issues for EOCS, EWOCS and MDES. A caveat: as they like to say, especially regarding security and military affairs, those who know don't speak and those who speak don't know so readers are forewarned not to take the following as definitive. Corrections and clarifications are, as always, most welcome. Too Little Too Early One big gripe with Saver was that the retirement age (called Saver End Date, henceforth SED), 42-45, was too early. It's worth recalling that, more than 10 years ago, Saver was a bold experiment to replace and streamline manpower schemes such as Contract Service (CS), Pensionable Service (PS) and Full CPF (also to reduce the gahmen's long term entitlement spending by greatly reducing the pool of personnel entitled to final salary pensions). It's also worth remembering that the retirement age for officers was 55 (with the retirement age for the rest of the population at 60 - now higher); promotion was often excruciatingly slow - not uncommon for officers to retire as CPT (whereas now MAJ2s seem to grow on trees). As such, 42-45 didn't seem too early plus it would give officers a head start in starting their second careers, cushioned by a gratuity-like payout of funds vested over the course of an officer's career upon reaching SED. This might be fine if an officer was single and without dependents at 42-45. But that's not your average profile of an SAF officer. Let's assume if most of them married at 29 and had two children by 33, the kids would still only be in secondary school at SED. Not a great time for instability and uncertainty on (yes, malecentric) Daddy's (un)employment front. And imagine what the wife would say. With the perception and fear of widespread and growing ageism in the private sector, it looked rational to bail out in their 30s - a particular pool being those who had taken local scholarships (with less promising Routes of Advancement compared to Overseas scholars but who also do a lot of the necessary but unglamorous saikang) once they had completed serving their bonds. The new age of 50 recalls the pre-Saver trend when officers could retire at 55 but tended to take early retirement not longer after they hit the big Five O. The additional five to eight years of salaried income and job security (rather than wondering whether SED will be 42, 43, 44 or 45) might persuade more to stay on until SED. And the timing seems about right to use some of that Saver payout towards the kids' tertiary education. Assuming some of it didn't get docked after some HBOI though. Vesting Turns Into Exit Light This early exodus of officers was not anticipated. Mainly because it had been anticipated. But the incentive of vested Saver funds was put in place to ensure officers stay until 42-45 may have become perverse and actually exacerbated the problem it was designed to solve. Over the course of an officer's career, some of his pecuniary benefits are not paid out as his salary and to his CPF account but rather vested with the Saver fund (which would be invested - the less than stellar overall returns is another long story). The longer the officer remained in service, the more of that vested amount he would receive when he eventually left service. I don't know what the scale was like but apparently it seemed to reinforce the decision of officers to leave earlier (in their 30s) rather than stick it out to SED; a reason I heard a lot was: 'Percentage loss is bigger but absolute amount is smaller if I leave early. And can kena cong gong if suay suay tio charge.' Leaving early also gave a sense of being able to 'lock-in' vested funds. Officers could be penalized, having a percentage of their Saver vesting withheld or confiscated, if they got into trouble over the course of their service. The super vague, catch-all offence under Sect 25 of the SAF Act was something that hung over those who served in a complex and demanding environment where, it seemed, sometimes, anything that could go wrong would go wrong. Those who, for whatever reasons, got 'stuck' and had to stick it out until SED went into what was jokingly called 'Saver Protection Mode'. Sure, Saver didn't invent the Great Watermelon stance. But given Saver's earlier retirement age reducing the number of months of steady pay and the size of Saver payout at risk anticipated to be larger than a PS payout or CS gratuity, it's rational for an officer to become more risk adverse as a result, especially if he's superscale but not that superscale. There's not been any mention about how vesting will work in EOCS or if it will changed substantially but one expects that at least the scale will be tinkered with to discourage early exit. Whether this will, once again, have unintended consequences is a completely speculative exercise at this point. Both Eyes Open, Both Hands Tied One of the things that made Saver different from previous schemes was that it had an investment component to sweeten the deal. Officers (and later WOs under the 2000 Premium plan) could opt for various combis: Dynamic (10% cash, 20% bonds, 70% equities), Balanced (10% cash, 40% bonds, 50% equities) or Stable (50% cash, 50% bonds). After a whole series of exogenous shocks, including SARS, DotCom, WorldCom/ENRON, this carrot didn't really come into fruition - I have no idea how much better or worse off officers' Saver pots were overall but it sounded ominous when officers were allowed to change their allocation to Stable two years prior to SED. Although many officers knew the risks of a Dynamic allocation when they signed on the dotted line, not quite a few felt extremely unhappy when this dynamism took them into negative territory. In the aftermath of Lehman Minibombs, any new scheme that has an investment component will require additional transparency and disclosure by the fund manager, more effective financial education of the officer-investor and better due diligence to tie both ends in. There is another group of people who did not want to convert to Saver at all. They preferred the then relatively less lucrative but much more secure option of PS. I've heard from more than one officer that they were told by superiors that if they did not convert from PS to Saver, their promotion prospects would be adversely affected. Again, pure hearsay and no way to prove or disprove it (say, by looking at how many of the most senior officers are actually still on PS). Nonetheless, the repeated instances I have heard these stories point to one takeaway for future policy: It's important to have a good policy. But it's also important to implement it in a way that will not cause a lot of fear and resentment. Particularly when it's in sectors that you can't wave away manpower problems by importing foreigners. It remains to be seen if EOCS, EWOCS and MDES will be shoved down the throats of currently serving personnel. Leadership By Example Ho Shu Huang writing in the RSIS Commentary 56/2009, 'An About Face to the Future: The SAF's New Career Schemes' (PDF) bemoaned how: Military service is now a career, as opposed to a calling, subjected to the expectations of the self-centred and self-confident Generation Me who ask not what they can do for the organisation, but what the organisation can do for them. One could extend his tirade into the realm of politics. Ministers appointed after 1 Jan 1995 are no longer eligible for pensions. But I don't think any Minister who was already entitled to and/or receiving a pension already offered to convert or forego it, regardless on the economically long-term rational mass abolition of pension schemes (around 1986 except Admin Service, Intel Service). This is probably comparing apples and oranges (or mere mortals) but it's not surprising that many officers, and indeed many Singaporeans, don't see it that way. The responsibility of eagles In the aftermath of mishaps, there's always the question of responsibility. On that subject, I heard an interesting proverb from my grandma some time ago and have been trying to look it up. The closest I could find was on Zaobao: 福建话有一句俚语"鸡仔不合，半天打老鹰。" 指小鸡们不合群、不听放，结果有一只被老鹰叨走了，急得母鸡张开翅膀，追打老鹰。这是比喻自家的孩子不听话，还要去责怪他人。 [My attempt at translation] In Hokkien, there is a proverb: "If chicks are not united, the eagles in the sky get attacked" which means the chicks don't stay together, don't listen (what?), in the end when one gets taken away by an eagle, the anxious mother hen extends her wings, chasing after the eagle. This alludes to cases when one's own children do not behave, the parents try to find someone else to blame. For a start, what I heard was somewhat different: "鸡仔勿盖，半天打老鹰。" [kua kiah mia kam, puah ti pah lao yoh] Roughly translated, it means: (The farmer) doesn't cover up his chicks and then goes on a hunting spree for eagles (when one gets taken away by an eagle). This makes a lot more sense than the Zaobao version; the latter suffers from two problems - Are chicks united in a group able to stand up to an eagle? And since when are hens able to attack eagles? Both versions attack the tendency to blame someone else when the responsibility lies firmly at home. But while the former is an entreaty and exhortation for unity and obedience to parental/governmental authority, the latter version emphasizes personal responsibility in taking appropriate, common sense precautions such as putting bars in toilet windows of detention facilities or doing 'world class' due diligence before investing in potentially non-world class companies. the very fierce Mai word MM's Principal Private Secretary Chee Hong Tat has taken a lot flak, some of it unwarranted, but c'est la vie - empathy and sympathy are often in short supply, even for a messenger carrying a message from Upstairs, when the very fierce S word is used. I'm not in favour of the state (that is my taxes) paying for dialect education in the public school system but I also think that urging families not to speak dialects at home was a serious mistake if only because of how it exacerbated the (communication) gap between grandparents and grandchildren. On a more practical note, for those of us who deal with overseas Chinese in the course of work, do business or even research fieldwork in the Pacific Asia region, the ability to speak dialects is always an advantage. The gahmen also discourages dialects at home based on the claim that it impedes the learning of Mandarin (i.e. the Beijing dialect). Since most of the Malaysians I know speak decent English, Bahasa, Chinese, Cantonese and Hokkien, I find this claim somewhat doubtful. And since the dialects are related to Chinese aka Mandarin aka putonghua aka guoyu, they might actually have positive feedback loops like those enjoyed by those learning related languages, like Spanish and Portuguese. So what am I actually going to do about it? For a start, as the individual level, I hope to be able to have simple conversations with my grandma without the need for my relatives as interpreters. A key word I hear a lot is mai. It means don't, usually implying don't want. In Chinese characters, it is often rendered as 不要 but my uncle tells me that it should be written as 勿愛 though only 勿 appears when it is compounded in phrases like mai gei (勿假 :: don't bluff), mai hiam buay pai (勿嫌袂歹 :: if not picky, it's ok), mai siao siao (勿痟痟 :: don't be crazy), mai sng sng (勿耍耍 or 玩玩 :: don't play around). [Helpful corroboration on this Malaysian forum thread for the Chinese characters added to the TalkingCock dictionary content.] I've got nothing against the current Speak Mandarin Campaign but wrt the perpetual Don't Speak Dialect Campaign, my response is mai guan ii (勿管他 :: don't pay any attention to them). Caplan's Twin (Non)Paradoxes Dr Bryan Caplan, in a forthcoming piece for Ethos (journal produced by the Singapore Civil Service College; this post is based on the version posted in his blog entry) presents the two puzzles about Singapore's political economy. First, despite unpopular economic policies the PAP has still been continuously re-elected; second, despite having Westminster-style democracy Singapore remains a one-party state. The paper then explores three families of explanations (His assessments in brackets): 1. Singapore is not really a democracy (Wrong) 2. Singapore's voters are unusually economically literate. (Dubious) 3. Singapore's voters are unusually loyal, deferential, and/or resigned. (Fits Facts Well) However the puzzles presented have been already tackled by other scholars. To cite the influential ones, Chua Beng Huat (Communitarian Ideology and Democracy, 1995), Paul Trocki (Wealth, Power and the Culture of Control, 2006), Yao Souchou (The State and the Culture of Excess, 2007). If we use the combination of Chua, Trocki and Yao, and these are full-length books with well-researched evidence, then we would have already arrived at 1: wrong, 2: dubious, but 3 would be wrong too. They show instead that Singapore's voters are consciously and rationally making a calculated choice to prefer economic growth over political liberalization. And there is choice; voters have thus repeatedly rejected Chee's SDP which emphasizes political liberalization and privatization and preferred Chiam's SPP and Low's WP because they emphasize greater redistribution of growth. My main critique of Caplan's paper and his interpretation of the facts ("World Values Survey" results) is that it evaluates the Singapore voter with the yardstick of the contemporary Anglo-American voter. This comparison is simply untenable since Singapore is historically, culturally, geographically, etc., different. In any case, the Whigs ruled semi-democratic Britain (no full suffrage and lots of autocracy) as a one-party state from 1721 to 1770 (with one year of Tory rule in between). The Tories who took over in 1770 to 1782 didn't do much for democracy either, and lost the American colonies as a result, and a lot more can be said about the 1800s and that century of empire, industrialization (and class conflict) and liberalization in Britain. So really, anchoring the puzzle in so-called Westminster-style democracy is both ahistorical and ethnocentric. After all, we did not inherit a Westminster parliament, but a colonial version of it. Our founding fathers, and here I mean the whole gamut from David Marshall to Lee Kuan Yew to Lim Chin Siong, fought the British and each other for democratic, constitutional, republican government, and the outcome of this politics of decolonization is quite unique. Interestingly, the British, when they first colonized this region, thought the natives, i.e. "Malays", were "unusually loyal, deferential, and/or resigned" to their autocratic political leaders, or in their words, apathetic and fatalistic to their despotic rajas (see Frank Swettenham's "The Real Malay"). In conclusion, Caplan could have reviewed the existing literature more thoroughly as well as taken more cognizance of Singapore's cultural and social-historical context and processes. Registration of Overseas Electors Received this in my email on 7 Mar 2009: On behalf of the Elections Department of Singapore, the Overseas Singaporean Unit is pleased to inform you that the Registers of Electors is open for public inspection from 3 March 2009 to 16 March 2009, as well as the revised qualifying criteria and registration procedure for overseas electors. The Elections Department's announcement is as follows: Date: 3 March 2009 Dear Sir/Madam, REGISTRATION OF OVERSEAS ELECTORS 1. I am pleased to inform you that, in connection with the revision of the Registers of Electors (REs), the Elections Department (ELD) has started to register overseas electors from today (3 March 2009). Overseas Singaporeans who satisfy the revised qualifying criteria may now apply to be registered as overseas electors via the e-services provided at our website (www.elections.gov.sg), at any time up to when the writ for an election is issued, and after the election. Once registered, the registration will remain valid until such time when the relevant RE is superseded by the coming into operation of the next certified RE, or when the registration is cancelled by the overseas elector concerned. Revision of Registers of Electors 2. As directed by the Prime Minister, ELD has revised the REs of the 23 constituencies based on the cut-off date of 1 February 2009. The revised REs contain the names of all persons who are qualified to be an elector as on 1 February 2009 and are not disqualified under any prevailing law. A person is qualified to be an elector if, as on 1 February 2009, he/she is a Singapore Citizen aged 21 and above, and is ordinarily resident in Singapore. 3.The revised REs are opened for public inspection from 3 March 2009 to 16 March 2009. Do visit our website (www.elections.gov.sg) during this period to check that your name and particulars, if found in the REs, are correct. Registration of Overseas Electors 4.To facilitate voting by more overseas Singaporeans, the Parliamentary Elections Act was amended in August last year to shorten the required period of residence in Singapore for an overseas citizen to qualify for registration as an overseas elector. With this amendment, you will qualify for registration if you have been back in Singapore for an aggregate of not less than 30 days during the 3 years period immediately preceding 1 February 2009 (ie. during the period from 1 February 2006 to 31 January 2009). The amended law also provides for an extension of the registration period, up to when the writ for an election is issued, and resume after the election. In addition, application for registration may now be made online (using your NRIC number and SingPass for access) via the e-services provided at our website (www.elections.gov.sg). There will also be a new Overseas Polling Station set up at the Singapore Consulate in New York, making a total of 9 Overseas Polling Stations for the next Presidential Election and General Election. 5. For more information about registration of overseas electors and overseas voting, please visit our website (www.elections.gov.sg) or refer to the booklet, Information on Registration of Overseas Electors [PDF]. If you find yourself qualified to be an overseas elector and wish to cast your vote at any of the Overseas Polling Stations, do apply for registration now. If you happened to be an overseas elector registered in 2006, do note that with the REs having been revised, your registration is no longer valid. You are advised to apply for registration again if you meet the revised qualifying criteria to be an overseas elector. With Best Regards, REGISTRATION OFFICER ELECTIONS DEPARTMENT 11 PRINSEP LINK SINGAPORE 187949 Getting to know online knowledge The special issue of Episteme (Vol. 6 No.1) on the epistemology of mass collaboration is currently available free - though not sure for how long. Not surprisingly the examples cited are Wikipedia-heavy even as major changes are being proposed. A quick and dirty run-down of the articles: 'Wikipedia and the Epistemology of Testimony' by Toffelsen - how do people reliably know stuff by discussing it with other people rather than necessarily observing or experiencing it themselves? Take that, hard-core empiricism! 'Web 2.0 vs the Semantic Web' by Floridi - why will efforts by dispersed, imperfect humans to make the Web intelligible succeed while efforts to automate the processing of semantic content will fail? NEEDZ MOAR POWDERFUL A.I.Z? 'The Epistemic Cultures of Science and Wikipedia' by Wray - What are the different goals, social norms and incentive structures between Science with a capital S and Wikipedia (capitalized just because it is a proper noun)? Especially when comparing apples and oranges. 'The Fate of Expertise After Wikipedia' by Sanger - LOL is this just a shameless Citizendium plug? 'On Trusting Wikipedia' by Magnus - It's not just how knowledge is produced on Wikipedia but how it is read/used. I think Michel de Certeau said something like this, in general, best. Though the Onion also had a great shot at it. 'Prediction markets' by Bragues - How can we Digg for better divinations of the future? Put your money where your mouth/keyboard/mouse is! Of course, the flippant two-liners above do the articles a great disservice and you should read them for yourself. BTW can anyone recommend a good introductory text to the philosophy of knowledge? You think, I thought, FP confirmed It's not that surprising that Singapore isn't a think tank hub. Although government support, especially in terms of funding, is very generous wrt ISEAS and RSIS-IDSS, think tank hubs also tend to be university hubs and that, in turn, is largely a factor of the size of the possible student population which in turn tends to correspond with the size of the population of the city in question. Likewise, the most influential institutions also tend to reside in the cities of great powers. Not surprising that Beijing or Tokyo will rank highly in terms of Asian think tanks. As such, our institutions haven't done badly at all. A look at Foreign Policy magazine's taxonomy does raise some questions though. Our think tanks are not really 'policy makers' - RAHS excepted, I can't think of a single policy where local think tanks had a decisive influence.They are not particularly 'partisan' in the sense of pushing for party-political ideology, mostly because there isn't much political competition. Calling all of them 'phantoms' is IMHO unfair; RSIS does a lot of useful Track II work, what comes out of ARI and ISEAS is scholarly, critical and even enjoyable to read, LKYSPP... er... no comment. 'Scholars' - I think the think tanks themselves are pushing in this direction but we're not quite there yet, a lot due to the reasons mentioned above. 'Activists' - are you kidding? Regarding that fifth category of the 'Scholar' type think tank, Alan Chong and Tan See Seng's piece, 'Teaching international relations in Singapore: 1956-2008: from supporting development to global city aspirations?' in the most recent issue of International Relations of the Asia-Pacific (Vol.9 No.1) hits the nail on its head when they identify how the tensions between the dialectics of whether the future lies in open-ended knowledge inquiry or hewing to some version of state-associated pragmatism remains unresolved. The spiral paradox here is open-ended knowledge inquiry is the dominant ethos of the think tank community on a global scale; kind of like how being able to do good basic science is often regarded as the bedrock of doing good applied science, the ability to generate knowledge for knowledge's sake is a pragmatic necessity for the ability to generate good, actionable policy-relevant knowledge. But as long as we continue to harp on the second to the neglect of the first, I'm afraid we'll continue to chase our own tails in the one area of possible improvement where we possibly have some room for manoeuvre. The Job Credits Scheme as a Perverse Incentive KTM has been on a roll, frying up special Job Credits Scheme (JCS) char kway teow that I can't resist the aroma. I am prepared to give JCS the benefit of the doubt but I also suspect that there might be unforeseen and undesirable problems and consequences down the road. JCS is basically an incentive designed to get employers to minimize the level of unemployment of Singaporean citizens and PRs. Based on available information, JCS looks well designed in achieving its objectives. But the sociology of public policy dysfunction in general as well as the use of carrots and sticks in particular gives me pause in my enthusiasm for it. For example, banks gave big bonuses to reward performance, even if it meant taking too much risk. But we know how that is turning out. Or, likewise, in football: In 1994, FIFA tried to encourage more attacking and exciting football at the World Cup by increasing the number of points a team were awarded for a win, from 2 points to 3 points. The points for a draw or a loss remained at on 1 and 0 respectively. It was thought that if a team stood to win a greater marginal win by winning rather than tying, they would be eager to score more and quicker. Sounds logical, right? But the actual effect was, well, not a happy one (also see this 5 min video for more details). How could JCS be a perverse incentive? Firstly, as highlighted by one lady MP (can't remember who), in the short term, employers could split up their payrolls. Anyone paid, say $3,000 a month, would have their pay reduced to $2,500. New employees (their wives, old enough chewrens, their siblings, auntie, uncle etc etc.) could be brought in to take up the extra $500. The taxpayer ends up having to fork out an extra $60 a month. Of course this is easy for CPF to spot and red flag but some firms may be unscrupulous and/or desperate enough to resort to this. If many firms do this, the bill will be considerably larger than budgeted for and will cost additional money to claw back. Secondly, as it has been commonly pointed out, JCS may have completely zero effect on employers' decisions. Especially as salary/CPF costs are only one (albeit large) factor in the considerations of firms calculating profit/loss (other biggies are GST, depreciation, finance costs, professional fees) and cashflow (especially trade receivables and inventories). But the more serious problem, IMHO, is that as there is no control group for purposes of measurement, we will never know for sure. But firms will definitely be incentivised to say (very loud): 'Yes, JCS lagi bagus!' Who doesn't want extra cash from gahmen? And given that our gahmen, like most people, like to be praised and believe its own propaganda, it is more likely than not that JCS will be declared a great success but no one can say for sure whether it was or not. I don't pretend to know how to solve this. It may also be easy to solve but, not surprisingly as I only had farmer CEP, I'm just not seeing how, based on what I've read. Thirdly, leading on from the second point, it has been said that gratitude is merely the lively expectation of future favours. JCS may be temporary, gahmen say for one year only, but carrots are often harder to rescind than sticks - suppose this recession doesn't blow over in a year, guess what will firms say? Sure, gahmen give firms the 'no free lunch' lecture and tell them to go fly kite but what if firms were actually right and start massive retrenchment? The gahmen would have actively committed an error of commission like how the Japanese government raised consumption tax from 3% to 5% in the face of widespread opposition and got the blame for sending the economy back into recession in 1997. Conversely, if JCS is retained for too long, it may become embedded as a structural distortion to the labour market. Many Singaporeans may have been smugly critical of the NEP (oso supposed to be temporary only) in Malaysia but we may end up having our own version at home. It is a curious thing how policies evolve and take a life of their own and policymakers can't get off the tiger, like how CPF was meant to be first and foremost for retirement savings but nowadays its most important function is (1) pay HDB mortgage, followed by (2) medical bills, and then only if there's anything left (3) retirement savings. Temasek's Rebranding The exit of Ho Ching can be seen as the rebranding of Temasek as a Government-Linked Company to a domestic crowd, and as a Sovereign Wealth Fund to an international audience. Ho Ching's send off is overall a nicely timed publicity move to restore some hope in Temasek, especially when its high profile strategic investments in Wall Street have suffered considerable short term paper loses brought about by the subprime crisis. Objectively, Temasek practices going long and its investment time frame is minimally 10 years, according to the rhetoric and the rationale behind these modern imaginations of the East India Company. However, Temasek's declaration that its assets shrank by 31% from S$185 billion to S$127 billion in less than a year is still a painful national introspective moment. The fact that Temasek's assets in 2004 stood at S$90 billion and now it stands fatter at S$127 billion despite the recent crisis is easily forgotten when such significant losses are reported. Temasek after Ho Ching Ho Ching was in Temasek since 2002, and what a controversial reign. Under Ho Ching's watch, 40% of the SWF's investments are locked into financial institutions and with no bottom yet in sight, Temasek's rhetoric of buying low and value investing is increasingly harder and harder to sell in the prevailing gloomy short term mood. Moreover, Temasek's oblique involvement in destablising Thai politics because of the Shin Corp acquisition in 2006 is an embarrassing geopolitical and financial blight on Ho Ching's tenure at Temasek. Nevertheless, she has to be credited for the SWF's inaugural annual report in 2004 which transformed the SWF's image into one of more transparency and accountability, 30 years after the SWF was founded. Since 2007 particularly, SWFs from the UAE to Singapore were viewed with suspicion, and the SWFs in turn made placating Vulcan split hand gestures to assure the US and other governments that they come in peace to live long and prosper together. The surprise appointment of Chip Goodyear as Temasek CEO from October 1 this year is a progressive marketing move and part of this assurance package. The SWF's glare as a Singapore government entity is dimmed a bit consequently. Although Temasek's next acquisition in Wall Street or in a regional telco would still be greeted with trepidation and conspiracy theories, it would probably be less so than if the wife of the PM is in-charge of the SWF. Local and international expectations of greater openness will increase after Chip officially takes over later this year. Hopefully, Temasek's attempts to charm partners and ward off xenophobic protectionism will continue if not expand . The appointment of the American at the helm will drive the message that Temasek should be seen as any other big rejuvenated MNC. Furthermore, the new CEO also brings the promise of new ideas. There is already speculation that because of Chip's mining industry background, this would open doors for Temasek's diversification into commodities. Ho Ching after Temasek At the local front, Ho Ching's exit sends mixed political signals to a domestic crowd. Temasek now has the opportunity to rebrand itself as a proper GLC, if there is such a thing as a proper GLC, and not a Lee-Linked Company as critics like to see it as. Temasek's re-emphasised brand identity is that it is not related to the ruling elites, but it serves state interests first and foremost. The replacement of Ho Ching with an outsider, a non-citizen and an American even, is a political statement that there is no Lee Dynasty, and that Ho Ching is not after Temasek at any cost. Some might even say that it is a controversial endorsement of the "meritocratic" foreign talent policy and that there is no commercial job that a foreigner cannot hold, economic recession or not. However, her abdication has opened up more questions on where the outgoing Temasek CEO might end up next. The Internet is already rife with crystal ball gazing as Ho Ching being the next President, CEO of another major GLC or local icon like DBS since Richard Stanley will be taking his bow soon presumably. If that is the case, then the small public relations gains from Ho Ching stepping down from Temasek, only to saunter into another Singapore political-economic position of power, could be wasted. Temasek's Rebranding The exit of Ho Ching can be seen as the rebranding of Temasek as a Government-Linked Company to a domestic crowd, and as a Sovereign Wealth Fund to an international audience. Ho Ching's send off is overall a nicely timed publicity move to restore some hope in Temasek, especially when its high profile strategic investments in Wall Street have suffered considerable short term paper loses brought about by the subprime crisis. Objectively, Temasek practices going long and its investment time frame is minimally 10 years, according to the rhetoric and the rationale behind these modern imaginations of the East India Company. However, Temasek's declaration that its assets shrank by 31% from S$185 billion to S$127 billion in less than a year is still a painful national introspective moment. The fact that Temasek's assets in 2004 stood at S$90 billion and now it stands fatter at S$127 billion despite the recent crisis is easily forgotten when such significant losses are reported. Temasek after Ho Ching Ho Ching was in Temasek since 2002, and what a controversial reign. Under Ho Ching's watch, 40% of the SWF's investments are locked into financial institutions and with no bottom yet in sight, Temasek's rhetoric of buying low and value investing is increasingly harder and harder to sell in the prevailing gloomy short term mood. Moreover, Temasek's oblique involvement in destablising Thai politics because of the Shin Corp acquisition in 2006 is an embarrassing geopolitical and financial blight on Ho Ching's tenure at Temasek. Nevertheless, she has to be credited for the SWF's inaugural annual report in 2004 which transformed the SWF's image into one of more transparency and accountability, 30 years after the SWF was founded. Since 2007 particularly, SWFs from the UAE to Singapore were viewed with suspicion, and the SWFs in turn made placating Vulcan split hand gestures to assure the US and other governments that they come in peace to live long and prosper together. The surprise appointment of Chip Goodyear as Temasek CEO from October 1 this year is a progressive marketing move and part of this assurance package. The SWF's glare as a Singapore government entity is dimmed a bit consequently. Although Temasek's next acquisition in Wall Street or in a regional telco would still be greeted with trepidation and conspiracy theories, it would probably be less so than if the wife of the PM is in-charge of the SWF. Local and international expectations of greater openness will increase after Chip officially takes over later this year. Hopefully, Temasek's attempts to charm partners and ward off xenophobic protectionism will continue if not expand . The appointment of the American at the helm will drive the message that Temasek should be seen as any other big rejuvenated MNC. Furthermore, the new CEO also brings the promise of new ideas. There is already speculation that because of Chip's mining industry background, this would open doors for Temasek's diversification into commodities. Ho Ching after Temasek At the local front, Ho Ching's exit sends mixed political signals to a domestic crowd. Temasek now has the opportunity to rebrand itself as a proper GLC, if there is such a thing as a proper GLC, and not a Lee-Linked Company as critics like to see it as. Temasek's re-emphasised brand identity is that it is not related to the ruling elites, but it serves state interests first and foremost. The replacement of Ho Ching with an outsider, a non-citizen and an American even, is a political statement that there is no Lee Dynasty, and that Ho Ching is not after Temasek at any cost. Some might even say that it is a controversial endorsement of the "meritocratic" foreign talent policy and that there is no commercial job that a foreigner cannot hold, economic recession or not. However, her abdication has opened up more questions on where the outgoing Temasek CEO might end up next. The Internet is already rife with crystal ball gazing as Ho Ching being the next President, CEO of another major GLC or local icon like DBS since Richard Stanley will be taking his bow soon presumably. If that is the case, then the small public relations gains from Ho Ching stepping down from Temasek, only to saunter into another Singapore political-economic position of power, could be wasted. Temasek's Rebranding The exit of Ho Ching can be seen as the rebranding of Temasek as a Government-Linked Company to a domestic crowd, and as a Sovereign Wealth Fund to an international audience. Ho Ching's send off is overall a nicely timed publicity move to restore some hope in Temasek, especially when its high profile strategic investments in Wall Street have suffered considerable short term paper loses brought about by the subprime crisis. The objective pundit would know that Temasek practices going long and its investment time frame is minimally 10 years, according to the rhetoric and the rationale behind these modern imaginations of the East India Company. Still, the SWF's assets shrank by 31% from S$185 billion to S$127 billion in less than a year . This is a painful national introspective moment despite the fact that Temasek's reported assets in 2004 stood at S$90 billion and now it stands higher at S$127 billion despite the losses. Nevertheless, this is a good opportunity for leadership change as any. Temasek after Ho Ching Since 2007 particularly, SWFs from the UAE to Singapore were viewed with suspicion, and the SWFs in turn made placating Vulcan split hand gestures to assure the US and other governments that they come in peace to live long and prosper. The surprise appointment of Chip Goodyear as the CEO from October 1 this year is a progressive marketing move, and the SWF's glare as a government entity is dimmed a bit. Temasek's next acquisition in Wall Street or in a regional telco would still be greeted with trepidation, but less so than if the wife of the PM is in-charge of the SWF. The appointment of the American will drive the message that Temasek bases its decisions on mainly corporate and commercial considerations, not political ones. There is already speculation that because of Chip's mining industry background, this would open doors for Temasek's diversification into commodities. Under Ho Ching's watch, 40% of the SWF's investments are locked into financial institutions and with no bottom yet in sight, Temasek's rhetoric of buying low and value investing is increasingly harder and harder to sell in the prevailing gloomy short term mood. Ho Ching was in Temasek since 2002, and what a controversial reign. Temasek's oblique involvement in destablising Thai politics because of the Shin Corp acquisition in 2006 is an embarrassing geopolitical and financial blight on Ho Ching's tenure at Temasek. Nevertheless, she has to be credited for the SWF's inaugural annual report in 2004 which transformed the SWF's image into one of more transparency and accountability, 30 years after the SWF was founded. Local and international expectations of greater openness will deepen after Chip officially takes over later this year. Temasek's attempts to charm partners and ward off xenophobic protectionism will continue if not expand . Ho Ching after Temasek At the local front, Ho Ching's exit sends mixed political signals to a domestic crowd. Temasek now has the opportunity to rebrand itself as a proper SWF, if there is such a thing as a proper SWF, and not a Lee-Linked Company as critics like to see it as. Temasek's reemphasised brand identity is that it is not related to the ruling elites, but it serves state interests first and foremost. The replacement of Ho Ching with an outsider, a non-citizen and an American even, is a political statement that there is no Lee Dynasty, and that Ho Ching is not after Temasek at any cost. Some might even say that it is an endorsement of the "meritocratic" foreign talent policy and that there is no commercial job that a foreigner cannot hold, economic recession or not. However, her abdication has opened up more questions on where the outgoing Temasek CEO might end up next. The Internet is already rife with crystal ball gazing as Ho Ching being the next President, CEO of another major GLC or local icon like DBS since Richard Stanley will be taking his bow soon presumably. If that is the case, then the small public relations gains from Ho Ching stepping down from Temasek, only to go into another Singapore political-economic position of power, could be wasted. Using the Copyright Act to Strangle the Blogosphere Singaporean bloggers might worry about being sued for defamation or charged with sedition but not that many seem at all concerned by the possibility of being hauled up for copyright violations, merrily cutting and pasting text and photographs from The Straits Times or posting video excerpts taken from CNA reports. Could media owners make use of the Copyright Act to selectively strangle and silence the blogosphere? Some blogs or websites could be told to remove numerous posts and to cough up royalties and legal costs. Given the ostensibly commercial nature of such actions by SPH or MediaCorp, it could seem a much less heavy handed way of cutting some up-and-coming websites down to size. Why haven't they done so yet? Could it be that the fair use provisions in the Copyright Act actually provide bloggers with sufficient protection? I am not a lawyer and don't really understand how various parts of the Act will be interpreted in a court of law. For example, some of the considerations involved in determining fair use include: Whether it is 'of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes' [35(2)(a)] - does having ads adversely affect your defence even if it isn't enough to pay for hosting? What determines if a blog is part of 'research or study' [35(3)]? Is being a student enough? Or will the defence that 'it is for the purpose of criticism or review... a sufficient acknowledgment of the work is made' [36] be allowed if one cuts and pastes a ST Online article and appends it with: 'What a load of nonsense from the States Times again. LOL'? How about 'if it is for the purpose of, or is associated with, the reporting of current events... in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical... or by means of broadcasting'? [37(a) and (b)] Interestingly, Ganga has pointed on his post about Films (Amendment) Bill that 'reporting of current events' to be changed to '...reporting of news by a broadcasting service licensed under any written law'. Does it mean that a current affairs blog could still be covered WRT copyright issues? But at the end of the day, it may not be in the interest of SPH/MediaCorp to clamp down on the blogosphere using copyright. It's not entirely clear how much profit bloggers cost them, given the relatively small reach of Singapore blogs. More importantly, the dependence on material from the mainstream media allows it (and its political masters) to continue to set the agenda for what is newsworthy. It is true that online discussion of that Hougang rally photo or French cooking lessons has made news in the MSM but these seem to be reactive rather than proactive and the exception rather than the rule. You may disagree with it, but they still get to choose what you can disagree with. Tocqueville on the ABS My initial reaction to the announcement of the formation of the Association of Bloggers Singapore was something along the lines of Huh? But I also absolutely agree with Aaron on how ABS started out on the wrong foot, especially the quote that he singled out. The tone (dunno about the intent) of the post was, well, rather adversarial. Most Europeans look upon association as a weapon which is to be hastily fashioned and immediately tried in the conflict. A society is formed for discussion, but the idea of impending action prevails in the minds of all those who constitute it... In America the citizens who form the minority associate in order, first, to show their numerical strength and so to diminish the moral power of the majority; and, secondly, to stimulate competition and thus to discover those arguments that are most fitted to act upon the majority; for they always entertain hopes of drawing over the majority to their own side, and then controlling the supreme power in its name. Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Book I, Ch 12: I suppose the ABS's self-introduction had been more sweetness and light, the response might have been more muted. Anyhow, regardless of all the flames, criticisms and brickbats, it's nice to see that no one really attacked their right to associate. Wherever at the head of some new undertaking you see the government in France, or a man of rank in England, in the United States you will be sure to find an association. Book II Ch 5 He might have added: When, in Singapore, Gahmen form something, they comprain interference in their lives. When prominent Singaporeans cobble together some random group, they cry elitism. When ordinary folks do the same, lots of other people laugh and say they will never amount to anything. When the members of a community are allowed and accustomed to combine for all purposes, they will combine as readily for the lesser as for the more important ones; but if they are allowed to combine only for small affairs, they will be neither inclined nor able to effect it. It is in vain that you will leave them entirely free to prosecute their business on joint-stock account: they will hardly care to avail themselves of the rights you have granted to them; and after having exhausted your strength in vain efforts to put down prohibited associations, you will be surprised that you cannot persuade men to form the associations you encourage. Book II Ch 7 This paragraph always floats up in my mind whenever some Minister or other complains that young Singaporeans are apathetic. But, contra Tocqueville, Singapore does have plenty of Government-sponsored/approved organizations like RCs, CCCs, PA, or my favourite bugbear, the PCF with its sprawling network of childcare cum education centres. These have not unsizeable membership numbers and give succor, as a source of real grassroots boots/shoes/slippers on the ground, to Das Partei itself. Their importance to the PAP is recognized by the Workers' Party which proposed to abolish them in their 2006 Manifesto (4.D.1). Even some US/EU-designated terror groups know that, lots of internet propaganda aside, they need to provide schools, clinics and other social services to build popular support and win hearts and minds. Tocqueville on Malaysiakini The AFP report, 'Malaysiakini at vanguard of media revolution', was slightly irritating in the way it conflated Malaysiakini and the Malaysian blogosphere. I tend to think of the former as a newspaper and a very different creature compared to blogs. While I take the essential point that both are part of the online ecosystem and are linked by feedback loops, Malaysiakini offers considerable news content and has a commerical for-profit (rather than free-to-view) subscription-based (rather than ad revenue-based) model. Without question Malaysiakini was on the vanguard of the Malaysian online news phenomenon and provided a brave, bold example that this whole generation of online bloggers and news providers has been able to draw on It was Crispin's quote (reproduced above) that got me thinking about what Tocqueville had to say about The Relation Between Public Associations and Newspapers: The effect of a newspaper is not only to suggest the same purpose to a great number of persons, but to furnish means for executing in common the designs which they may have singly conceived... Tocqueville describes how a newspaper may (1) spread ideas to many individuals, (2) serve as a site where the many individual minds with the same idea may meet and (3) keep these minds united and spur them to further action. Underlying all this are certain assumptions. That a platform has sufficient readership; it can't spread ideas to many if it's only read by the author and his dog. That there is a certain degree of interactivity whereby fellow readers are aware of each other; a bit of a problem when comment threads are filled with spambots, trolls and sock puppets. Or the feeling of 'Who the heck are these people??' when one reads the Straits Times Forum. That the site has sufficient holding power (lol burnout) and habitual visitors (lol crickets/tumbleweed). Malaysiakini fulfills these assumptions but it's doubtful if any Singaporean websites have reached that level yet. Thus it would be more helpful to know how, in a lot more detail, Malaysiakini achieved its current success. A newspaper can survive only on the condition of publishing sentiments or principles common to a large number of men. A newspaper, therefore, always represents an association that is composed of its habitual readers. I was immediately reminded of a particular quip from Bernard in Yes, Prime Minister about The Sun. It's undeniable that sex, celebrities, scandal or some combination thereof generally gets many more eyeballs. Just look at how the most sordid article that tends to be the most read article for the Straits Times Interactive. Or The New Paper. Or Wanbao. And yet Malaysiakini managed to survive and prosper without that kind of news and, what more, has turned a profit for the last four years. At this point, it's safe to say that habitual readership of the Straits Times is still way higher than a lot of non-MSM online platforms combined, even counting non-MSM websites that are largely derivative of MSM content (cut and paste, discuss, refer to). Though the treadlines might be unfavourable to the MSM, it still has a large entrenched advantage - with good strategy and clever marketing, it's not impossible to reclaim lost territory. How does our non-MSM sites draw in, maintain and grow habitual readership? Mahbubani on Rule By Law Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, Kishore Mahbubani, wrote in his book The New Asian Hemisphere: The Irresistable Shift of Global Power to the East (New York: PublicAffairs, 2008): The Western notion of the rule of law, in which all human beings are to be treated equally under the law and all citizens subject to the same laws, goes against the grain in Asian minds... Indeed, in the minds of the [Asian] ruling classes, the only function of the law was to enable them to discipline their subjects... To the Western mind, in contrast, the rule of law is to protect the individual citizen from arbitrary use of the powers of government. (p.85) I'm pretty sure that Mahbubani did not intend to include Singapore as part of those terrible Asian ruling classes. And the Singaporean mind is not a Western one either (leaving cultural determinism aside). In Asia, virtually all the elites (with the possible exception of those in North Korea and Myanmar) recognize that they have to gravitate towards greater respect for the rule of law. They know equally well that is impossible to build a modern society and a modern economy without a modern rule of law. This is the pill that all Asian societies will have to swallow, bitter though it may be in the early years of application. (p.90) Will be very bitter for non-ruling classes meh? Also 'greater respect for the rule of law' seems to suggest to me that, over time, with increased economic development and social complexity, politics needs to shift from the rule of/by good men to greater reliance on institutions (in both senses i.e. the types that reside in buildings and the types that reside in norms). In theory, China enjoys the same rule of law found in other modern societies... The Chinese government also realizes that no modern economy can function without effective rule of law. If China, for example, cannot provide the same property rights enjoyed by other modern societies, that fact alone will eventually stifle China's economic development. (p.138) So there we have it: you can have 'the same rule of law' but only 'in theory'. Would have loved to seen him elaborate on that. And it's nice to read that civil and political rights are not just Good To Have on their own but also intrinsically linked to that supreme pragmatic good of economic growth. Nardin on the Rule of Law Prof Terry Nardin, Head of the Department of Political Science at NUS published an article, a while back, in the Review of International Studies [Vol.34 No.3, 2008 (subscription or institutional access required)] that argues, particularly against political realism and postmodernism, that law is not merely an instrument of policy. He goes on to argue that the 'rule of law is a moral idea, if we understand the word "moral" as implying limits on the means by which governments as well as persons pursue their goals.' [p.385] Nardin does not defend or attack any real-life legal system. His piece is pitched at the abstract theoretical level of legal theory and his focus is on international law, i.e. legal relations between states rather than within them. Nonetheless, a mention of Singapore still manages to pop up. After arguing against a thin, or minimalist, definition of the rule of law, he then tackles what he deems to be overly inclusive definitions: To say, for example, that in some countries the rule of law is 'appreciated in instrumental terms' and 'dictated by efficiency and stability imperatives' is to use the expression 'rule of law' where it does not belong and where 'law' would suffice. [p.397] The quotes he takes issue with come from Dr Thio Li-Ann's chapter, 'Rule of Law within a Non-Liberal "Communitarian" Democracy: The Singapore Experience' in Asian Discourses of Rule of Law: Theories and Implementation of Rule of Law in Twelve Asian Countries, France and the US, ed. by Randall Peerenboom (London: Routledge, 2004). From the piece, I got a very strong sense that the author is also normatively committed to defining the rule of law as a moral idea.The author carefully built up his argument based on clear definitions of key terms like law and the rule of law and how, even though they are often conflated, we should not confuse them with policy and the exercise of power. Nonetheless, I cannot help but doubt whether the power of a moral idea and reasoned argument, on their own, can really speak truth to the powerful who have a vested interest in defining the terms of debate in some other way. New Server The site has just moved to a new server. Loose ends are still being chased down. If you run into any issues, feel free to contact us at singaporeangle@gmail.com. Server Update Dear Reader: The site has just moved to a new server. Things seem to be working fine but if you run into any issues, do feel free to contact us at singaporeangle-at-gmail.com. (Update: Make take a day or two to iron out all any remaining bugs.) The 229-page AIMS report recommends maturity and common sense The author has identified himself as "An Anonymous, Opinionated, All-Powerful Warrior Who, Because of His Endurance And Inflexible Will To Win, Goes From Conquest To Conquest, Leaving Fire In His Wake, And Who Is Also a Local With A Very Cantonese Name That Starts With The Letter L, Just So You Know". AFTER 229 PAGES of rumination, the superfluously-named Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (or AIMS, as they insist) have turned in a list of recommendations to the government. Broadly, the group recommend: relaxing laws on Internet election advertising; the repeal of legislation outlawing so-called "party political films"; establishing an "independent advisory panel" to determine which films can be banned because they contravene the "public interest"; and to lift a ban on 100 "undesirable" websites. Most interestingly, the group recommend "limited immunity" for "civil and criminal liaibility" for defamation in online media, which reflects a growing confidence in the limitations of online grouses. In the background of deplorable media restrictions, AIMS' recommendations are sound, surprising and welcome. Even the manner it has been put together is (for Singapore) novel and beyond reproach, with a number of prominent bloggers and some of the country's more level-headed thinkers consulted for input. A perhaps bigger surprise is that the panel is chaired by Cheong Yip Seng, who used to call the shots at the Straits Times, a newspaper which may not be the People's Daily, but is not a world different either. Cynics will be rightly sceptical about how many of these recommendations will become word of law. But there are several signs that bode well. In particular, Mr Cheong's involvement is telling - his insider status will soften the more hardline opinions. The former journalist Cherian George describes his former boss at SPH as a "master of the art of the possible". A bigger reason why the recommendations are likely to become reality has much to do with the Internet's limitations. Despite the hype and "potential", the Internet has not changed the complexion of local politics as much as some people hope. Even excluding the media restrictions, there already are more than enough restrictions in the system to curb enthusiasm for the cut and thrust of politics. In any case, with only two opposition seats in a parliament of 84, there should be room to experiment with these ideas. There is little risk, some political capital and considerable goodwill to be had from easing online media regulations. Let the heathens spill theirs on the dusty ground Let the heathens spill theirs on the dusty ground Lord will make them pay for each sperm that can't be found For the vast majority of Singapore's internet denizens - the male ones, anyway - the most interesting proposal is the one to unban 100 "undesirable" websites, mostly pornographic. It is practically impossible to provide a virtual shield to pornography. There are far too many resources, far too many opportunities for the expression of the onanic arts. And there are even more lonely adolescents with a spare hand or two. (Probably just one in this day and age.) But why block pornography at all? The AIMS panel is only for unbanning the websites after a "holistic" media literacy package for minors, which is a typically harebrained (and Singaporean) thing to say. The government did not interfere with the sexual feelings of the teenagers of the 70s - and they have less reason to do the same today. As long as it is legal and harmless, it is not the government's business - and nor should the government dictate what constitutes "undesirable". Pornography might be artificial, unsubtle and foster a less than savoury attitude towards women, but the blocked 100 websites have not suddenly created a generation of rapists and perverts in the world, never mind the other 300-odd million of them. On the other hand, using a national firewall to block off some universally condemned smut, such as child pornography, will only arouse unwanted curiosity. Unfortunately the AIMS panel does not go further in asking where the government stops and the parents start. Parents have a duty to explain to their children the right attitudes about sex in as much as they have a duty to tell their children to look both ways before crossing the road. The Internet has changed the world in many ways with its (now usually) wireless magic. But it is surely a road too far to use it as an excuse to defer one's duties as a parent. Let the pagans spill theirs o'er mountain, hill and plain God shall strike them down for each sperm that's spilled in vain Pad Thai Democracy Pad Thai is becoming the staple in Thai politics. Not the Thai's national dish, but the Thai's national disruption. Six months into the breach, where everything appeared to have reached a stalemate with the Thai premier recently bunkered in Chiangmai, King Bhumibol Adulyadej remaining silent and Army Chief Anupong Paojinda sitting on his hands behaving as if the monarch's military is (ironically) the last bastion of Thai democracy, the judiciary delicately stepped in. Just like in May 2007 when the courts ruled that Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai should be disbanded. The Thai court's decision to similarly disband Somchai's People Power Party and banning him and others from politics for five years, brought relief to the thousands waiting to leave Bangkok airports, and the thousands eager to fly back to Thailand's capital. Thailand's tourism was held hostage by the vindictively anti-Thaksin People's Alliance for Democracy which believed more in ochlocracy than democracy, and a government appointed, not elected, by them. The state of Thai democracy is very tomyam, both spicy and sour. Since 2006 with the downfall of Thaksin sparked off by Temasek's laudable economic venture with spicy political consequences into Thailand's telco pie, Thailand is a case study of relatively democratic and strong leaders with popular rural support sourly brought down by an urban Bangkok-centred mob. The rabble is presumably funded by Thaksin's political-business rivals waiting to fill the political-business vacuum created by Thaksin's ouster. With Thaksin gone, Samak gone and now Somchai gone, all since 2006, the PAD has tasted blood and brazenly won't stop till a PAD proxy becomes the Thai premier. Thaksin was corrupt on all accounts according to his adversaries, but his rule was stable and prosperous compared to what Thailand has gone through in the past two years. The same balance question is thrown up. Should we close one eye if the regime is not democratically perfect but they deliver generally? Looking at Thailand's democracy crisis, a cliche by now, the answer to the form and function of political change is still unfolding. Everyday Forms of Collaboration Almost a year and a half ago, I wrote about the everyday forms of resistance in Singapore on Singapore Angle. In recent months however, I began to take more interest in the other side of the coin, which is more troublesome to think and write about but perhaps far more intriguing - the issue of collaboration or participation in Singapore. This has been partly inspired by Dr. Timothy Brook's recent groundbreaking work on collaboration in China during World War II. Brook's book is both haunting and compelling. He challenges us to consider beyond the binary of collaboration and resistance to think about issues of appearances, costs, rivalry, and depth of state penetration that is associated with the disentangling of the binary. He hopes that one day, that could be a separation of the moralizing power of the rhetoric of collaboration from the scholars' professional investigation of the everyday forms of collaboration on the ground. In addition, he makes a more limited definition of collaboration and renders agency on both the state and the participants, instead of arguing along the thesis that everyone collaborates. Given this context, how do we think about everyday forms of collaboration in Singapore then? Thinking about collaboration at this stage is largely preliminary and I will be happy to stand corrected at any part of this discussion. Because of the lack of space to discuss the intricacies that underpins collaboration, I would also use the word participation at certain points instead, which entails a less loaded word and requires less explanation in a short SA article. But fundamentally, to what extent then is every Singaporean a willing collaborator if we play with the term too much? Is collaboration the right word to use? Do Singaporeans participate in our regime because there is no choice (bo pian)? Untangling Bopianess The discourse of bopianess (?????????) is particularly interesting, because it is tied to another contemporary discourse, Sianness . If Sianness denotes an expression of lack of interest amidst one's busyness, bopianess reveals a peculiar Singapore modernity that involves expressing one's busyness amidst the lack of interest for an alternative. This lack of interest, to a modern day critic, would derive from the lack of intellectual rigor and emotional courage to search for an alternative to get out of the bopian situation. To what extent is that true? A generation of Singaporeans graduating from the JC system that started in the 1969 increasingly fill important positions in Singapore society, ranging from business to politics to government to education. The education base in which elites in Singapore are derived from has shrunk in thinking about the PAP state since 1959. Could concentrated levels of thinking about resistance/collaboration and job opportunities be more contained within the compounds of these institutions that it was in the past? Increasingly, more and more Singaporeans have grown up in Singapore where there has not been an alternative party in power in their lifetime. Over their lifetime, the army's rhetoric in instilling the core values of a citizen-soldier is in full swing and improves with technology over time. It is likely and possibly that the Singaporean women are even more supportive of the military and the ideals of a citizen-soldier than the actual participant in the military. Not only that, much of the autonomous sectors of the economy, ranging from unions to media to government linked corporations, are linked to the state. Very few of them (and maybe us) openly oppose the political regime, and often actively participate in the regime itself. Some have even advocated jingoism, often comparing the superiority of Singapore and the exportation of the Singapore brand in relations to either the increasingly insolvent and decadent West or the economic and cultural backwardness of the East, playing the Oriental and the Occidental simultaneously. Bopianness in the political context, as one imagined, will likely to be invoked by the participant accused of collaboration (often at a later date) where the participants' actions somehow becomes unacceptable in the contemporary political context. Hypothetically, someone who orders/participate/approves publicly of the detention without trial of political activists at one point in the past, if asked to account in the future or even the present, might argue that he or she "bopianly" did so. The discourse will likely to go like this: I did it because I needed a job, I did it because I have a family, I did it because someone higher up wanted/ordered me to do so. Basically I had no choice but to participate unwillingly given the context of the time. If collaboration is extended to everyday forms of discourse, a probable scenario as followed frequently occurs too in Singapore. Hey Mr. Tan, I thought you really did not like the government/hated civics and moral education/did not sing national anthem/never tuck in your uniform and also late after canteen break when you were in Jc, how come you are working in the education ministry today? A reply might be, "Bo pian lah brother, I need a job. The economy is bad. The private sector pays poorly loh and the government is actually treating people well. I mean if I was to do it again, I probably would not have tuck out my shirt so much. Aiyah, young days mah. You don't know meh, I resist secretly bysometimes defying my boss, telling people about how bad the ministry is in the pub and taking longer coffee breaks." Can the idea of collaboration be gendered too? Since women in Singapore have been perceived by some as participating less actively in the regime, will their discourse of "bopianess" have greater currency? As many teachers in Singapore are women, do they play a particular role in forming the next generation of youngsters within the confines of a panoptical school system that might perpetuate the possible rhetoric of bopianess for another generation? Assembling a Functional State and Individual - From Bopian to "I choose leh" (???????????? loh!) Yet bopianess can be reinterpreted in the realities of the Singapore context. Did not participants in the current PAP regime actually provide essential services to ordinary Singaporeans? Did not/Do not many men and women within the PAP sincerely advocated for the voice of the ordinary people, and often mitigated the worst of the policies melted out from the top above either behind the scenes or openly? Without ordinary Singaporean participants in the RC, would we have lantern festivals and Hari Raya celebrations that bring the Singapore community together? If we all resist, will there be a functional state in Singapore? Can we live/Should we live/How do we live in a state that has more people who resist rather than participate? What about those who invoke the mantle of "I choose one leh because I believe what I did was best for Singapore at the times?" Are these people necessary morally problematic because they declare themselves so? Do we admire them for their courage and their moral perseverance? What do we intellectually make of the term "collaboration" then? To sum up, I am interested in writing two more posts in thinking about collaboration - one about the perception of Overseas Singaporeans on the issue of participation and their potential (misfounded) moral high ground and the other about resistance (and lack thereof) in the country. For Singapore, it is not only that people participate in the running of the state, but also that the state depended on participants to enforce its power and privileges. Yet, in the writing of everyday forms of resistance and everyday forms of collaboration, are strawmen created for intellectual musings? Or is it in reality, heterogeneous Singaporeans resist and participate on our own terms on a daily basis free from issues of morality that persist in discussions on collaboration on a previous era? Everyday Forms of Collaboration Almost a year and a half ago, I wrote about the everyday forms of resistance in Singapore on Singapore Angle. In recent months however, I began to take more interest in the other side of the coin, which is more troublesome to think and write about but perhaps far more intriguing - the issue of collaboration or participation in Singapore. This has been partly inspired by Dr. Timothy Brook's recent groundbreaking work on collaboration in China during World War II. Brook's book is both haunting and compelling. He challenges us to consider beyond the binary of collaboration and resistance to think about issues of appearances, costs, rivalry, and depth of state penetration that is associated with the disentangling of the binary. He hopes that one day, that could be a separation of the moralizing power of the rhetoric of collaboration from the scholars' professional investigation of the everyday forms of collaboration on the ground. In addition, he makes a more limited definition of collaboration and renders agency on both the state and the participants, instead of arguing along the thesis that everyone collaborates. Given this context, how do we think about everyday forms of collaboration in Singapore then? Thinking about collaboration at this stage is largely preliminary and I will be happy to stand corrected at any part of this discussion. Because of the lack of space to discuss the intricacies that underpins collaboration, I would also use the word participation at certain points instead, which entails a less loaded word and requires less explanation in a short SA article. But fundamentally, to what extent then is every Singaporean a willing collaborator if we play with the term too much? Is collaboration the right word to use? Do Singaporeans participate in our regime because there is no choice (bo pian)? Untangling Bopianess The discourse of bopianess (沒辦法) is particularly interesting, because it is tied to another contemporary discourse, Sianness . If Sianness denotes an expression of lack of interest amidst one's busyness, bopianess reveals a peculiar Singapore modernity that involves expressing one's busyness amidst the lack of interest for an alternative. This lack of interest, to a modern day critic, would derive from the lack of intellectual rigor and emotional courage to search for an alternative to get out of the bopian situation. To what extent is that true? A generation of Singaporeans graduating from the JC system that started in the 1969 increasingly fill important positions in Singapore society, ranging from business to politics to government to education. The education base in which elites in Singapore are derived from has shrunk in thinking about the PAP state since 1959. Could concentrated levels of thinking about resistance/collaboration and job opportunities be more contained within the compounds of these institutions that it was in the past? Increasingly, more and more Singaporeans have grown up in Singapore where there has not been an alternative party in power in their lifetime. Over their lifetime, the army's rhetoric in instilling the core values of a citizen-soldier is in full swing and improves with technology over time. It is likely and possibly that the Singaporean women are even more supportive of the military and the ideals of a citizen-soldier than the actual participant in the military. Not only that, much of the autonomous sectors of the economy, ranging from unions to media to government linked corporations, are linked to the state. Very few of them (and maybe us) openly oppose the political regime, and often actively participate in the regime itself. Some have even advocated jingoism, often comparing the superiority of Singapore and the exportation of the Singapore brand in relations to either the increasingly insolvent and decadent West or the economic and cultural backwardness of the East, playing the Oriental and the Occidental simultaneously. Bopianness in the political context, as one imagined, will likely to be invoked by the participant accused of collaboration (often at a later date) where the participants' actions somehow becomes unacceptable in the contemporary political context. Hypothetically, someone who orders/participate/approves publicly of the detention without trial of political activists at one point in the past, if asked to account in the future or even the present, might argue that he or she "bopianly" did so. The discourse will likely to go like this: I did it because I needed a job, I did it because I have a family, I did it because someone higher up wanted/ordered me to do so. Basically I had no choice but to participate unwillingly given the context of the time. If collaboration is extended to everyday forms of discourse, a probable scenario as followed frequently occurs too in Singapore. Hey Mr. Tan, I thought you really did not like the government/hated civics and moral education/did not sing national anthem/never tuck in your uniform and also late after canteen break when you were in Jc, how come you are working in the education ministry today? A reply might be, "Bo pian lah brother, I need a job. The economy is bad. The private sector pays poorly loh and the government is actually treating people well. I mean if I was to do it again, I probably would not have tuck out my shirt so much. Aiyah, young days mah. You don't know meh, I resist secretly bysometimes defying my boss, telling people about how bad the ministry is in the pub and taking longer coffee breaks." Can the idea of collaboration be gendered too? Since women in Singapore have been perceived by some as participating less actively in the regime, will their discourse of "bopianess" have greater currency? As many teachers in Singapore are women, do they play a particular role in forming the next generation of youngsters within the confines of a panoptical school system that might perpetuate the possible rhetoric of bopianess for another generation? Assembling a Functional State and Individual - From Bopian to "I choose leh" (我�?�擇的 loh!) Yet bopianess can be reinterpreted in the realities of the Singapore context. Did not participants in the current PAP regime actually provide essential services to ordinary Singaporeans? Did not/Do not many men and women within the PAP sincerely advocated for the voice of the ordinary people, and often mitigated the worst of the policies melted out from the top above either behind the scenes or openly? Without ordinary Singaporean participants in the RC, would we have lantern festivals and Hari Raya celebrations that bring the Singapore community together? If we all resist, will there be a functional state in Singapore? Can we live/Should we live/How do we live in a state that has more people who resist rather than participate? What about those who invoke the mantle of "I choose one leh because I believe what I did was best for Singapore at the times?" Are these people necessary morally problematic because they declare themselves so? Do we admire them for their courage and their moral perseverance? What do we intellectually make of the term "collaboration" then? To sum up, I am interested in writing two more posts in thinking about collaboration - one about the perception of Overseas Singaporeans on the issue of participation and their potential (misfounded) moral high ground and the other about resistance (and lack thereof) in the country. For Singapore, it is not only that people participate in the running of the state, but also that the state depended on participants to enforce its power and privileges. Yet, in the writing of everyday forms of resistance and everyday forms of collaboration, are strawmen created for intellectual musings? Or is it in reality, heterogeneous Singaporeans resist and participate on our own terms on a daily basis free from issues of morality that persist in discussions on collaboration on a previous era? Everyday Forms of Collaboration Almost a year and a half ago, I wrote about the everyday forms of resistance in Singapore on Singapore Angle. In recent months however, I began to take more interest in the other side of the coin, which is more troublesome to think and write about but perhaps far more intriguing - the issue of collaboration or participation in Singapore. This has been partly inspired by Dr. Timothy Brook's recent groundbreaking work on collaboration in China during World War II. Brook's book is both haunting and compelling. He challenges us to consider beyond the binary of collaboration and resistance to think about issues of appearances, costs, rivalry, and depth of state penetration that is associated with the disentangling of the binary. He hopes that one day, that could be a separation of the moralizing power of the rhetoric of collaboration from the scholars' professional investigation of the everyday forms of collaboration on the ground. In addition, he makes a more limited definition of collaboration and renders agency on both the state and the participants, instead of arguing along the thesis that everyone collaborates. Given this context, how do we think about everyday forms of collaboration in Singapore then? Thinking about collaboration at this stage is largely preliminary and I will be happy to stand corrected at any part of this discussion. Because of the lack of space to discuss the intricacies that underpins collaboration, I would also use the word participation at certain points instead, which entails a less loaded word and requires less explanation in a short SA article. But fundamentally, to what extent then is every Singaporean a willing collaborator if we play with the term too much? Is collaboration the right word to use? Do Singaporeans participate in our regime because there is no choice (bo pian)? Untangling Bopianess The discourse of bopianess (沒辦法) is particularly interesting, because it is tied to another contemporary discourse, Sianness . If Sianness denotes an expression of lack of interest amidst one's busyness, bopianess reveals a peculiar Singapore modernity that involves expressing one's busyness amidst the lack of interest for an alternative. This lack of interest, to a modern day critic, would derive from the lack of intellectual rigor and emotional courage to search for an alternative to get out of the bopian situation. To what extent is that true? A generation of Singaporeans graduating from the JC system that started in the 1969 increasingly fill important positions in Singapore society, ranging from business to politics to government to education. The education base in which elites in Singapore are derived from has shrunk in thinking about the PAP state since 1959. Could concentrated levels of thinking about resistance/collaboration and job opportunities be more contained within the compounds of these institutions that it was in the past? Increasingly, more and more Singaporeans have grown up in Singapore where there has not been an alternative party in power in their lifetime. Over their lifetime, the army's rhetoric in instilling the core values of a citizen-soldier is in full swing and improves with technology over time. It is likely and possibly that the Singaporean women are even more supportive of the military and the ideals of a citizen-soldier than the actual participant in the military. Not only that, much of the autonomous sectors of the economy, ranging from unions to media to government linked corporations, are linked to the state. Very few of them (and maybe us) openly oppose the political regime, and often actively participate in the regime itself. Some have even advocated jingoism, often comparing the superiority of Singapore and the exportation of the Singapore brand in relations to either the increasingly insolvent and decadent West or the economic and cultural backwardness of the East, playing the Oriental and the Occidental simultaneously. Bopianness in the political context, as one imagined, will likely to be invoked by the participant accused of collaboration (often at a later date) where the participants' actions somehow becomes unacceptable in the contemporary political context. Hypothetically, someone who orders/participate/approves publicly of the detention without trial of political activists at one point in the past, if asked to account in the future or even the present, might argue that he or she "bopianly" did so. The discourse will likely to go like this: I did it because I needed a job, I did it because I have a family, I did it because someone higher up wanted/ordered me to do so. Basically I had no choice but to participate unwillingly given the context of the time. If collaboration is extended to everyday forms of discourse, a probable scenario as followed frequently occurs too in Singapore. Hey Mr. Tan, I thought you really did not like the government/hated civics and moral education/did not sing national anthem/never tuck in your uniform and also late after canteen break when you were in Jc, how come you are working in the education ministry today? A reply might be, "Bo pian lah brother, I need a job. The economy is bad. The private sector pays poorly loh and the government is actually treating people well. I mean if I was to do it again, I probably would not have tuck out my shirt so much. Aiyah, young days mah. You don't know meh, I resist secretly bysometimes defying my boss, telling people about how bad the ministry is in the pub and taking longer coffee breaks." Can the idea of collaboration be gendered too? Since women in Singapore have been perceived by some as participating less actively in the regime, will their discourse of "bopianess" have greater currency? As many teachers in Singapore are women, do they play a particular role in forming the next generation of youngsters within the confines of a panoptical school system that might perpetuate the possible rhetoric of bopianess for another generation? Assembling a Functional State and Individual - From Bopian to "I choose leh" (我選擇的 loh!) Yet bopianess can be reinterpreted in the realities of the Singapore context. Did not participants in the current PAP regime actually provide essential services to ordinary Singaporeans? Did not/Do not many men and women within the PAP sincerely advocated for the voice of the ordinary people, and often mitigated the worst of the policies melted out from the top above either behind the scenes or openly? Without ordinary Singaporean participants in the RC, would we have lantern festivals and Hari Raya celebrations that bring the Singapore community together? If we all resist, will there be a functional state in Singapore? Can we live/Should we live/How do we live in a state that has more people who resist rather than participate? What about those who invoke the mantle of "I choose one leh because I believe what I did was best for Singapore at the times?" Are these people necessary morally problematic because they declare themselves so? Do we admire them for their courage and their moral perseverance? What do we intellectually make of the term "collaboration" then? To sum up, I am interested in writing two more posts in thinking about collaboration - one about the perception of Overseas Singaporeans on the issue of participation and their potential (misfounded) moral high ground and the other about resistance (and lack thereof) in the country. For Singapore, it is not only that people participate in the running of the state, but also that the state depended on participants to enforce its power and privileges. Yet, in the writing of everyday forms of resistance and everyday forms of collaboration, are strawmen created for intellectual musings? Or is it in reality, heterogeneous Singaporeans resist and participate on our own terms on a daily basis free from issues of morality that persist in discussions on collaboration on a previous era? Strike Eagle or Struck Turkey? Sometime between Teh Joo Lin's 3 Nov Straits Times article ('RSAF's first F-15 leaves Boeing factory') and David Boey's 26 Nov piece ('Strike Eagle with zero combat defects'), the F-15's win ratio rose from 101 to 0 to 104 to 0. While it is true that the F-15 will be 'another significant milestone' for the RSAF, I'd like to make three bohliao-kaypoh comments. Less is more? The cost of new generation fighters has been increasing steeply. Getting and delivering value for money has been a key concern for all defence establishments. The 24 F-15SGs will be replacing the fleet of around 40 A4SU Super Skyhawks and it is claimed that they will deliver even more bang despite their reduced numbers. However, in the introduction to a recent edited volume (Military Transformation and Strategy), Dr Bernard Loo warned that smaller numbers will make 'the loss of even a single platform all the more costly, and potentially strategically disastrous.' We've seen how the numerical matters with respect to 'boots on the ground' but how far will this extend to wings in the air? New is old? It's a pity that Teh's article described the A4SU as 'Vietnam-era'. That is certainly true for the A4 line but not the A4SU series. Just as how Boey's article emphasized not insignificant local input into the F-15SG; the A4SU had also, previously, been held up as an earlier example of how our local defence technology establishment could upgrade foreign platforms. Ironically, the F-15 line is no spring chicken either; it was first delivered to a combat wing in 1976. Will the F-15SG get leapfrogged by surprise regional acquisitions of the JSF or F-22? Fit for purpose? The F-15SGs will be key to generating the type of conventional airpower required for the RSAF's core mission of deterring potential aggressors. However, I am also reminded of how less glamorous RSAF assets such as helicopters (especially the Chinooks), refueling tankers (KC-135) and transport aircraft (like the C-130) have been in rather more demand for UN peacekeeping (e.g. Timor Leste), coalition operations (Ops Blue Orchid in Iraq) as well as humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (Ops Flying Eagle for the 2004 tsunami). Should more have been invested in the latter set of capabilities? Singapore General Election 2009 Likely? In times of crisis with people gravitating towards the government for assistance in domestic concerns, it is usually a good time for ruling parties (from UK to Singapore) to call for a general election. With recent happenings in Singapore, is it worth the effort of the ruling party of Singapore to call for a general election? In this article, we examine the progress made by the government and the factors that might be for or against their favour in calling for one in the coming year. With a global financial crisis propagating across the world since late September this year, most countries including Singapore will likely face a long period of negative growth. For some of us, this may be the most disastrous financial disaster in our life times which started off from a subprime mortgage crisis in late 2006. Depending on your own perspective, it is also a challenge because great wealth is usually created in such times. How does this affect Singapore's political landscape? Given that the political scene in Singapore is strongly linked to the government's performance of managing the economy, it may be a possibility for the ruling party to call an election when people will gravitate and rally around a common cause in such difficult times. If you look back to the last two elections held in 2001 and 2006, you will see some emerging trends. The election in 2001 was called after September 11 and the internet bubble bursted. At that point, the ruling party used global events to rally the people, winning a landslide with 75.3% of the popular vote. Compare to the most recent election in 2006 where the economy was recovering, the ruling party only won 66.6% of the popular vote. What has happened between last election till now? In 2006, Singapore was undergoing an economic recovery followed by the decision to build two Integrated Resorts and organizing the IMF-World Bank event. Within the last two years, Singapore has also brought the first F1 night race into her shores. With the building of the integrated resorts and Singapore's reputation as a financial hub for southeast Asia, there is a strong growth in private wealth, drawing not just from the rich within the region but from China, India, Middle East and Russia. With such growth, the domestic side of Singapore faced a different reality. The electorate has faced with the rise of the good and services tax (GST) from 5 to 7%, followed by a lot of real estate activity via en bloc sales, and finally led to a year of extraordinary inflation of 4.2% coming from rising costs from NETS payments, transportation, costs of living and utility bills. Of course, there are other issues which took centre stage over the past two years: the University of New South Wales debacle, the ministerial pay increase, the rise of retirement age to 67 with annuities scheme looming over the horizon, the recent purchase of shares on UBS, Citigroup and Merrill Lynch by Temasek and GIC and today, the losses of S$12M made by town councils from the constituencies held by the ruling party. With some issues that threatened and eroded the strength of the ruling party, the option to hold an election during such tough times may not be as appealing for the ruling party as compared to the one in 2001 that is focused mainly on national security. There are a few factors that could tip the election both ways for the ruling party. Let's start from an optimistic position for the ruling party. The first will be the vast talent pool that the ruling party enjoyed in her selection of candidates. The strength of the PAP to attract competent talent who might have been dissenting voices against them in the past leaves the opposition very little opportunity in party growth. Even though the Workers Party (WP) has managed to attract professional talent in the last elections, it is still an uphill battle for them to be able to get people to contest in all the constituencies. In fact, in such difficult times, even with the electorate begrudging the high ministerial pay and the rising costs of living, they will prefer to vote for the ruling party with a pragmatic perspective given their strong track record in economic recovery. The second reason is strong grassroots support within the ruling party. The ruling party has a strong grassroots machinery that can be fully utilized to last a nine day election campaign from marketing to canvassing votes. In the last elections, the Workers Party had to rely on very few volunteers to help them with 10,000 flyers over one estate. If the strong infrastructure of the ruling party is not a factor, they have also provided good incentives for the electorate to vote for them, from estate upgrading to progress packages before and after the election. How about the flip side of holding an election next year? Of course, if you are away from Singapore for the past two years, there are some changes on the ground. Being back from Cambridge for the past three years, I have witnessed one general election and a lot of interesting events moving from cyberspace to the real world. Social or the "not so" new media has become a new tool for the opposition and civil society groups to take on the establishment on several niche issues. In fact, in the recent rally speech, the PM has made two announcements: (i) to allow political podcast and videocast online and (ii) the opening up of Hong Lim Park for protest. It is a telling sign that the ruling party has come to terms with the realization that there is no way to regulate cyberspace given the power of technology and social practices of netizens to spread information at such a quick rate. Even though the ruling party has adopted the principle of selective liberalization, it has given the society more space and diversity for debate with restrictive conditions. Within weeks of the opening of Hong Lim Park (aka Speakers' Corner), the online activists have now moved into the offline world, for example, the recent protests made by Tan Kin Lian in a non-partisan effort to seek redress from the financial institutions for the investors who bought the highly toxic structured Lehman products from the banks. If not more, we are also seeing a more outspoken younger generation who even used Facebook to organize a petition against transportation hikes in the polytechnics. If that is not enough, a lot of young people in Singapore are lately inspired by the campaign ran by Barack Obama calling for change from the younger generation. The social media has transformed various political landscapes within the span of one year from US, Korea to Malaysia. The next election will be exciting because the last election only showed the Internet emerging as a platform to verify and counter checked the news from the mainstream press, like the famous Hougang photo from Alex Au. It has not reached the level of vote canvassing or political donation like the way how the Obama campaign has done with the US Presidential elections. Recently, I have made a gentleman's bet (over a pint of beer) with Sze Meng (a fellow colleague here in SA) that the next general election will happen in 2009 (but seriously, it should be 2010). How will be the next general election decided upon? It depends on the people, the economy, and how the ruling establishment plans to navigate the country out of recession. Author's Note: This article is originally published in the Temsoc Newsletter at the invitation of Ms Gayle Goh, the Temasek Society; a Singaporean political and current affairs society in the University of Cambridge. Note that I have made some edits to the original article published here. Singapore General Election 2009 Likely? In times of crisis with people gravitating towards the government for assistance in domestic concerns, it is usually a good time for ruling parties (from UK to Singapore) to call for a general election. With recent happenings in Singapore, is it worth the effort of the ruling party of Singapore to call for a general election? In this article, we examine the progress made by the government and the factors that might be for or against their favour in calling for one in the coming year. With a global financial crisis propagating across the world since late September this year, most countries including Singapore will likely face a long period of negative growth. For some of us, this may be the most disastrous financial disaster in our life times which started off from a subprime mortgage crisis in late 2006. Depending on your own perspective, it is also a challenge because great wealth is usually created in such times. How does this affect Singapore's political landscape? Given that the political scene in Singapore is strongly linked to the government's performance of managing the economy, it may be a possibility for the ruling party to call an election when people will gravitate and rally around a common cause in such difficult times. If you look back to the last two elections held in 2001 and 2006, you will see some emerging trends. The election in 2001 was called after September 11 and the internet bubble bursted. At that point, the ruling party used global events to rally the people, winning a landslide with 75.3% of the popular vote. Compare to the most recent election in 2006 where the economy was recovering, the ruling party only won 66.6% of the popular vote. What has happened between last election till now? In 2006, Singapore was undergoing an economic recovery followed by the decision to build two Integrated Resorts and organizing the IMF-World Bank event. Within the last two years, Singapore has also brought the first F1 night race into her shores. With the building of the integrated resorts and Singapore's reputation as a financial hub for southeast Asia, there is a strong growth in private wealth, drawing not just from the rich within the region but from China, India, Middle East and Russia. With such growth, the domestic side of Singapore faced a different reality. The electorate has faced with the rise of the good and services tax (GST) from 5 to 7%, followed by a lot of real estate activity via en bloc sales, and finally led to a year of extraordinary inflation of 4.2% coming from rising costs from NETS payments, transportation, costs of living and utility bills. Of course, there are other issues which took centre stage over the past two years: the University of New South Wales debacle, the ministerial pay increase, the rise of retirement age to 67 with annuities scheme looming over the horizon, the recent purchase of shares on UBS, Citigroup and Merrill Lynch by Temasek and GIC and today, the losses of S$12M made by town councils from the constituencies held by the ruling party. With some issues that threatened and eroded the strength of the ruling party, the option to hold an election during such tough times may not be as appealing for the ruling party as compared to the one in 2001 that is focused mainly on national security. There are a few factors that could tip the election both ways for the ruling party. Let's start from an optimistic position for the ruling party. The first will be the vast talent pool that the ruling party enjoyed in her selection of candidates. The strength of the PAP to attract competent talent who might have been dissenting voices against them in the past leaves the opposition very little opportunity in party growth. Even though the Workers Party (WP) has managed to attract professional talent in the last elections, it is still an uphill battle for them to be able to get people to contest in all the constituencies. In fact, in such difficult times, even with the electorate begrudging the high ministerial pay and the rising costs of living, they will prefer to vote for the ruling party with a pragmatic perspective given their strong track record in economic recovery. The second reason is strong grassroots support within the ruling party. The ruling party has a strong grassroots machinery that can be fully utilized to last a nine day election campaign from marketing to canvassing votes. In the last elections, the Workers Party had to rely on very few volunteers to help them with 10,000 flyers over one estate. If the strong infrastructure of the ruling party is not a factor, they have also provided good incentives for the electorate to vote for them, from estate upgrading to progress packages before and after the election. How about the flip side of holding an election next year? Of course, if you are away from Singapore for the past two years, there are some changes on the ground. Being back from Cambridge for the past three years, I have witnessed one general election and a lot of interesting events moving from cyberspace to the real world. Social or the "not so" new media has become a new tool for the opposition and civil society groups to take on the establishment on several niche issues. In fact, in the recent rally speech, the PM has made two announcements: (i) to allow political podcast and videocast online and (ii) the opening up of Hong Lim Park for protest. It is a telling sign that the ruling party has come to terms with the realization that there is no way to regulate cyberspace given the power of technology and social practices of netizens to spread information at such a quick rate. Even though the ruling party has adopted the principle of selective liberalization, it has given the society more space and diversity for debate with restrictive conditions. Within weeks of the opening of Hong Lim Park (aka Speakers' Corner), the online activists have now moved into the offline world, for example, the recent protests made by Tan Kin Lian in a non-partisan effort to seek redress from the financial institutions for the investors who bought the highly toxic structured Lehman products from the banks. If not more, we are also seeing a more outspoken younger generation who even used Facebook to organize a petition against transportation hikes in the polytechnics. If that is not enough, a lot of young people in Singapore are lately inspired by the campaign ran by Barack Obama calling for change from the younger generation. The social media has transformed various political landscapes within the span of one year from US, Korea to Malaysia. The next election will be exciting because the last election only showed the Internet emerging as a platform to verify and counter checked the news from the mainstream press, like the famous Hougang photo from Alex Au. It has not reached the level of vote canvassing or political donation like the way how the Obama campaign has done with the US Presidential elections. Recently, I have made a gentleman's bet (over a pint of beer) with Sze Meng (a fellow colleague here in SA) that the next general election will happen in 2009 (but seriously, it should be 2010). How will be the next general election decided upon? It depends on the people, the economy, and how the ruling establishment plans to navigate the country out of recession. Author's Note: This article is originally published in the Temsoc Newsletter at the invitation of Ms Gayle Goh, the Temasek Society; a Singaporean political and current affairs society in the University of Cambridge. Note that I have made some edits to the original article published here. Singapore General Election 2009 Likely? In times of crisis with people gravitating towards the government for assistance in domestic concerns, it is usually a good time for ruling parties (from UK to Singapore) to call for a general election. With recent happenings in Singapore, is it worth the effort of the ruling party of Singapore to call for a general election? In this article, we examine the progress made by the government and the factors that might be for or against their favour in calling for one in the coming year. With a global financial crisis propagating across the world since late September this year, most countries including Singapore will likely face a long period of negative growth. For some of us, this may be the most disastrous financial disaster in our life times which started off from a subprime mortgage crisis in late 2006. Depending on your own perspective, it is also a challenge because great wealth is usually created in such times. How does this affect Singapore's political landscape? Given that the political scene in Singapore is strongly linked to the government's performance of managing the economy, it may be a possibility for the ruling party to call an election when people will gravitate and rally around a common cause in such difficult times. If you look back to the last two elections held in 2001 and 2006, you will see some emerging trends. The election in 2001 was called after September 11 and the internet bubble bursted. At that point, the ruling party used global events to rally the people, winning a landslide with 75.3% of the popular vote. Compare to the most recent election in 2006 where the economy was recovering, the ruling party only won 66.6% of the popular vote. What has happened between last election till now? In 2006, Singapore was undergoing an economic recovery followed by the decision to build two Integrated Resorts and organizing the IMF-World Bank event. Within the last two years, Singapore has also brought the first F1 night race into her shores. With the building of the integrated resorts and Singapore's reputation as a financial hub for southeast Asia, there is a strong growth in private wealth, drawing not just from the rich within the region but from China, India, Middle East and Russia. With such growth, the domestic side of Singapore faced a different reality. The electorate has faced with the rise of the good and services tax (GST) from 5 to 7%, followed by a lot of real estate activity via en bloc sales, and finally led to a year of extraordinary inflation of 4.2% coming from rising costs from NETS payments, transportation, costs of living and utility bills. Of course, there are other issues which took centre stage over the past two years: the University of New South Wales debacle, the ministerial pay increase, the rise of retirement age to 67 with annuities scheme looming over the horizon, the recent purchase of shares on UBS, Citigroup and Merrill Lynch by Temasek and GIC and today, the losses of S$12M made by town councils from the constituencies held by the ruling party. With some issues that threatened and eroded the strength of the ruling party, the option to hold an election during such tough times may not be as appealing for the ruling party as compared to the one in 2001 that is focused mainly on national security. There are a few factors that could tip the election both ways for the ruling party. Let's start from an optimistic position for the ruling party. The first will be the vast talent pool that the ruling party enjoyed in her selection of candidates. The strength of the PAP to attract competent talent who might have been dissenting voices against them in the past leaves the opposition very little opportunity in party growth. Even though the Workers Party (WP) has managed to attract professional talent in the last elections, it is still an uphill battle for them to be able to get people to contest in all the constituencies. In fact, in such difficult times, even with the electorate begrudging the high ministerial pay and the rising costs of living, they will prefer to vote for the ruling party with a pragmatic perspective given their strong track record in economic recovery. The second reason is strong grassroots support within the ruling party. The ruling party has a strong grassroots machinery that can be fully utilized to last a nine day election campaign from marketing to canvassing votes. In the last elections, the Workers Party had to rely on very few volunteers to help them with 10,000 flyers over one estate. If the strong infrastructure of the ruling party is not a factor, they have also provided good incentives for the electorate to vote for them, from estate upgrading to progress packages before and after the election. How about the flip side of holding an election next year? Of course, if you are away from Singapore for the past two years, there are some changes on the ground. Being back from Cambridge for the past three years, I have witnessed one general election and a lot of interesting events moving from cyberspace to the real world. Social or the "not so" new media has become a new tool for the opposition and civil society groups to take on the establishment on several niche issues. In fact, in the recent rally speech, the PM has made two announcements: (i) to allow political podcast and videocast online and (ii) the opening up of Hong Lim Park for protest. It is a telling sign that the ruling party has come to terms with the realization that there is no way to regulate cyberspace given the power of technology and social practices of netizens to spread information at such a quick rate. Even though the ruling party has adopted the principle of selective liberalization, it has given the society more space and diversity for debate with restrictive conditions. Within weeks of the opening of Hong Lim Park (aka Speakers' Corner), the online activists have now moved into the offline world, for example, the recent protests made by Tan Kin Lian in a non-partisan effort to seek redress from the financial institutions for the investors who bought the highly toxic structured Lehman products from the banks. If not more, we are also seeing a more outspoken younger generation who even used Facebook to organize a petition against transportation hikes in the polytechnics. If that is not enough, a lot of young people in Singapore are lately inspired by the campaign ran by Barack Obama calling for change from the younger generation. The social media has transformed various political landscapes within the span of one year from US, Korea to Malaysia. The next election will be exciting because the last election only showed the Internet emerging as a platform to verify and counter checked the news from the mainstream press, like the famous Hougang photo from Alex Au. It has not reached the level of vote canvassing or political donation like the way how the Obama campaign has done with the US Presidential elections. Recently, I have made a gentleman's bet (over a pint of beer) with Sze Meng (a fellow colleague here in SA) that the next general election will happen in 2009 (but seriously, it should be 2010). How will be the next general election decided upon? It depends on the people, the economy, and how the ruling establishment plans to navigate the country out of recession. Author's Note: This article is originally published in the Temsoc Newsletter at the invitation of Ms Gayle Goh, the Temasek Society; a Singaporean political and current affairs society in the University of Cambridge. Note that I have made some edits to the original article published here. A By-Election in Jurong GRC? Dr. Ong Chit Chung, a military historian and a member of parliament (MP) for the Group Representative Constituency (GRC) of Jurong, has passed away. His passing away is indeed a lost for Singapore. Not only did he take keen interests in the foreign and military affairs of Singapore as a backbencher, he also served faithfully in various committees in parliament. Dr. Ong was the chairperson of the estate committee. His various articles and books on the military history of Singapore llikewise deserve a wide readership among Singaporeans. Yet Dr Ong's passing away triggers a related political question. Will there be a resulting by-election in Jurong GRC? The recent past suggests that there would be no by-election in Jurong GRC. In 1999, Choo Wee Khiang, a PAP MP from Jalan Besar GRC, resigned from his seat after pleading guilty in the lower court to a charge filed last December of helping a businessman cheat a finance company of S$830,000 (US$481,159) by issuing false invoices. The Workers' Party, the Singapore Democratic Party, the Singapore's People Party, National Solidarity Party and an academic called for a by election then. "There should be a by-election as the next election is hardly soon. If it were coming soon, one could justify a short wait and use a caretaker MP from the next constituency," Wee Wan-ling, a fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies told the Straits Times then. However, the then PM Goh Chok Tong announced that a by-election would not be held because he did not want Singaporeans distracted from efforts to recover from the economic crisis. As a result, the other 3 MPs in Jalan Besar "doubled-up" and took over Choo's duties in the GRC. Just prior to the PM's decision of whether to hold a by election, the Straits Times reported on June 6, 1999 that Chiam See Tong, the then leader of the SPP, argued that the real reason that Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong has to deliberate over a by-election for Jalan Besar GRC is that he fears a repeat of the PAP's 1981 by-election defeat at Anson. The truth is that the memory of Anson is still in his mind," said Mr Chiam, who represents Potong Pasir. Thus, if we draw upon the last election where the situation for the PAP was more difficult, it would be even more unlikely that there would be a by-election this time round. However, would it not be possible in the coming days that the PAP and the opposition, and by extension Singapore, would benefit from a by election process? This short article moves beyond the constitutional, "fairness" (whether 5 people should do 4 people work etc) and political expediency questions. These questions would likely be addressed in the mainstream and alternative media in the next few days. Rather I wish to explore the potential benefits for all parties if a by-election is held. The last by election held in Singapore was almost 16 years ago in 1992, where a by-election was held in Marine Parade GRC to renew the PAP ranks. In retrospect, it was an important by-election and it proved to be beneficial for the PAP. For the PAP, the then PM Goh Chok Tong received a strong mandate from the people by winning 72.9% of the votes against a SDP that could mobilize increasing number of human and financial resources then. Teo Chee Hean was first introduced into politics in this fierce fight against the SDP. Today he is one of the most effective and creative ministers, both in policy making and on the ground. As for Singaporeans who hoped for a more thinking and critical curriculum in the late 90s, Minister Teo's appointment benefited them as his stint in the education ministry was more than crucial in reforming the education system away from substantive rote-learning towards a more holistic and diverse education system. The changing context of Teo's policies and the active demands of students and teachers throughout the 1990s made it possible for more routes to educational achievements to be explored then it was possible in the late 80s and early 90s. His Paris Ris GRC has become one of the strongholds of the PAP, and the presence of an election must have helped him to work the ground hereafter. The opposition has not managed to make much of a foothold in Paris Ris GRC, despite a growing number of young professionals in the constituency. For the opposition, the election introduced Dr. Chee Soon Juan to Singapore politics. For better or for worse, Dr. Chee has gone on to be heavily involved in opposition politics in Singapore. He is the current Secretary-General of the SDP and has written several books on Singapore politics and has called for fundamental reforms in society. In addition, the NSP who contested in the election also solidified the experience of its veterans such as Tan Chee Kien and Ken Sunn, the latter whom is the current deputy President of the party. Likewise, the PAP could draw upon its 1992 election as a way to renew the ranks in Jurong GRC, paving way for younger Singaporeans to undertake the next lap for the party, especially since the PAP's leaders have repeatedly called for increased renewal of the party. Would it not be possible that another Minister Teo would emerge from this by-election? As its own party leaders too agree, there is nothing like an election to introduce experience in electioneering, understanding the ground and challenging the opposition on issues that hold dear to Singaporeans for the candidates. Would that not benefit Singaporeans if their leaders have more experience in relating to the ground in the by-election process? After all, Barack Obama, the Presidential Candidate for the Democratic Party, recently said, "Don't tell me that words don't matter." For the opposition, would it not be possible that a dream team could emerge to challenge the PAP through the availability of a by-election? Would a slate of candidates such as Sylvia Lim, Steve Chia, JBJ, and two new and credible faces not give them more experiences in moderating and clarifying their policies towards the people? Would it not be a win-win situation for Singapore if the opposition can take this opportunity to formed a united "all-star" team to contest against the PAP, thus drawing more credible people towards its ranks, thus providing a choice for Singaporeans in future elections? Finally, the last election was fiery in Singapore, but it was conducted with poise by most members of the opposition and won with 2/3 of the valid votes by the PAP. How then would a by-election be a distraction from economic problems or be a waste of tax-payers' money if we have yet another opportunity to prove that democracy in Singapore works when a by-election can equip its leaders with skills needed to succeed in an increasingly complex society? A By-Election in Jurong GRC? Dr. Ong Chit Chung, a military historian and a member of parliament (MP) for the Group Representative Constituency (GRC) of Jurong, has passed away. His passing away is indeed a lost for Singapore. Not only did he take keen interests in the foreign and military affairs of Singapore as a backbencher, he also served faithfully in various committees in parliament. Dr. Ong was the chairperson of the estate committee. His various articles and books on the military history of Singapore llikewise deserve a wide readership among Singaporeans. Yet Dr Ong's passing away triggers a related political question. Will there be a resulting by-election in Jurong GRC? The recent past suggests that there would be no by-election in Jurong GRC. In 1999, Choo Wee Khiang, a PAP MP from Jalan Besar GRC, resigned from his seat after pleading guilty in the lower court to a charge filed last December of helping a businessman cheat a finance company of S$830,000 (US$481,159) by issuing false invoices. The Workers' Party, the Singapore Democratic Party, the Singapore's People Party, National Solidarity Party and an academic called for a by election then. "There should be a by-election as the next election is hardly soon. If it were coming soon, one could justify a short wait and use a caretaker MP from the next constituency," Wee Wan-ling, a fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies told the Straits Times then. However, the then PM Goh Chok Tong announced that a by-election would not be held because he did not want Singaporeans distracted from efforts to recover from the economic crisis. As a result, the other 3 MPs in Jalan Besar "doubled-up" and took over Choo's duties in the GRC. Just prior to the PM's decision of whether to hold a by election, the Straits Times reported on June 6, 1999 that Chiam See Tong, the then leader of the SPP, argued that the real reason that Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong has to deliberate over a by-election for Jalan Besar GRC is that he fears a repeat of the PAP's 1981 by-election defeat at Anson. The truth is that the memory of Anson is still in his mind," said Mr Chiam, who represents Potong Pasir. Thus, if we draw upon the last election where the situation for the PAP was more difficult, it would be even more unlikely that there would be a by-election this time round. However, would it not be possible in the coming days that the PAP and the opposition, and by extension Singapore, would benefit from a by election process? This short article moves beyond the constitutional, "fairness" (whether 5 people should do 4 people work etc) and political expediency questions. These questions would likely be addressed in the mainstream and alternative media in the next few days. Rather I wish to explore the potential benefits for all parties if a by-election is held. The last by election held in Singapore was almost 16 years ago in 1992, where a by-election was held in Marine Parade GRC to renew the PAP ranks. In retrospect, it was an important by-election and it proved to be beneficial for the PAP. For the PAP, the then PM Goh Chok Tong received a strong mandate from the people by winning 72.9% of the votes against a SDP that could mobilize increasing number of human and financial resources then. Teo Chee Hean was first introduced into politics in this fierce fight against the SDP. Today he is one of the most effective and creative ministers, both in policy making and on the ground. As for Singaporeans who hoped for a more thinking and critical curriculum in the late 90s, Minister Teo's appointment benefited them as his stint in the education ministry was more than crucial in reforming the education system away from substantive rote-learning towards a more holistic and diverse education system. The changing context of Teo's policies and the active demands of students and teachers throughout the 1990s made it possible for more routes to educational achievements to be explored then it was possible in the late 80s and early 90s. His Paris Ris GRC has become one of the strongholds of the PAP, and the presence of an election must have helped him to work the ground hereafter. The opposition has not managed to make much of a foothold in Paris Ris GRC, despite a growing number of young professionals in the constituency. For the opposition, the election introduced Dr. Chee Soon Juan to Singapore politics. For better or for worse, Dr. Chee has gone on to be heavily involved in opposition politics in Singapore. He is the current Secretary-General of the SDP and has written several books on Singapore politics and has called for fundamental reforms in society. In addition, the NSP who contested in the election also solidified the experience of its veterans such as Tan Chee Kien and Ken Sunn, the latter whom is the current deputy President of the party. Likewise, the PAP could draw upon its 1992 election as a way to renew the ranks in Jurong GRC, paving way for younger Singaporeans to undertake the next lap for the party, especially since the PAP's leaders have repeatedly called for increased renewal of the party. Would it not be possible that another Minister Teo would emerge from this by-election? As its own party leaders too agree, there is nothing like an election to introduce experience in electioneering, understanding the ground and challenging the opposition on issues that hold dear to Singaporeans for the candidates. Would that not benefit Singaporeans if their leaders have more experience in relating to the ground in the by-election process? After all, Barack Obama, the Presidential Candidate for the Democratic Party, recently said, "Don't tell me that words don't matter." For the opposition, would it not be possible that a dream team could emerge to challenge the PAP through the availability of a by-election? Would a slate of candidates such as Sylvia Lim, Steve Chia, JBJ, and two new and credible faces not give them more experiences in moderating and clarifying their policies towards the people? Would it not be a win-win situation for Singapore if the opposition can take this opportunity to formed a united "all-star" team to contest against the PAP, thus drawing more credible people towards its ranks, thus providing a choice for Singaporeans in future elections? Finally, the last election was fiery in Singapore, but it was conducted with poise by most members of the opposition and won with 2/3 of the valid votes by the PAP. How then would a by-election be a distraction from economic problems or be a waste of tax-payers' money if we have yet another opportunity to prove that democracy in Singapore works when a by-election can equip its leaders with skills needed to succeed in an increasingly complex society? A By-Election in Jurong GRC? Dr. Ong Chit Chung, a military historian and a member of parliament (MP) for the Group Representative Constituency (GRC) of Jurong, has passed away. His passing away is indeed a lost for Singapore. Not only did he take keen interests in the foreign and military affairs of Singapore as a backbencher, he also served faithfully in various committees in parliament. Dr. Ong was the chairperson of the estate committee. His various articles and books on the military history of Singapore llikewise deserve a wide readership among Singaporeans. Yet Dr Ong's passing away triggers a related political question. Will there be a resulting by-election in Jurong GRC? The recent past suggests that there would be no by-election in Jurong GRC. In 1999, Choo Wee Khiang, a PAP MP from Jalan Besar GRC, resigned from his seat after pleading guilty in the lower court to a charge filed last December of helping a businessman cheat a finance company of S$830,000 (US$481,159) by issuing false invoices. The Workers' Party, the Singapore Democratic Party, the Singapore's People Party, National Solidarity Party and an academic called for a by election then. "There should be a by-election as the next election is hardly soon. If it were coming soon, one could justify a short wait and use a caretaker MP from the next constituency," Wee Wan-ling, a fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies told the Straits Times then. However, the then PM Goh Chok Tong announced that a by-election would not be held because he did not want Singaporeans distracted from efforts to recover from the economic crisis. As a result, the other 3 MPs in Jalan Besar "doubled-up" and took over Choo's duties in the GRC. Just prior to the PM's decision of whether to hold a by election, the Straits Times reported on June 6, 1999 that Chiam See Tong, the then leader of the SPP, argued that the real reason that Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong has to deliberate over a by-election for Jalan Besar GRC is that he fears a repeat of the PAP's 1981 by-election defeat at Anson. The truth is that the memory of Anson is still in his mind," said Mr Chiam, who represents Potong Pasir. Thus, if we draw upon the last election where the situation for the PAP was more difficult, it would be even more unlikely that there would be a by-election this time round. However, would it not be possible in the coming days that the PAP and the opposition, and by extension Singapore, would benefit from a by election process? This short article moves beyond the constitutional, "fairness" (whether 5 people should do 4 people work etc) and political expediency questions. These questions would likely be addressed in the mainstream and alternative media in the next few days. Rather I wish to explore the potential benefits for all parties if a by-election is held. The last by election held in Singapore was almost 16 years ago in 1992, where a by-election was held in Marine Parade GRC to renew the PAP ranks. In retrospect, it was an important by-election and it proved to be beneficial for the PAP. For the PAP, the then PM Goh Chok Tong received a strong mandate from the people by winning 72.9% of the votes against a SDP that could mobilize increasing number of human and financial resources then. Teo Chee Hean was first introduced into politics in this fierce fight against the SDP. Today he is one of the most effective and creative ministers, both in policy making and on the ground. As for Singaporeans who hoped for a more thinking and critical curriculum in the late 90s, Minister Teo's appointment benefited them as his stint in the education ministry was more than crucial in reforming the education system away from substantive rote-learning towards a more holistic and diverse education system. The changing context of Teo's policies and the active demands of students and teachers throughout the 1990s made it possible for more routes to educational achievements to be explored then it was possible in the late 80s and early 90s. His Paris Ris GRC has become one of the strongholds of the PAP, and the presence of an election must have helped him to work the ground hereafter. The opposition has not managed to make much of a foothold in Paris Ris GRC, despite a growing number of young professionals in the constituency. For the opposition, the election introduced Dr. Chee Soon Juan to Singapore politics. For better or for worse, Dr. Chee has gone on to be heavily involved in opposition politics in Singapore. He is the current Secretary-General of the SDP and has written several books on Singapore politics and has called for fundamental reforms in society. In addition, the NSP who contested in the election also solidified the experience of its veterans such as Tan Chee Kien and Ken Sunn, the latter whom is the current deputy President of the party. Likewise, the PAP could draw upon its 1992 election as a way to renew the ranks in Jurong GRC, paving way for younger Singaporeans to undertake the next lap for the party, especially since the PAP's leaders have repeatedly called for increased renewal of the party. Would it not be possible that another Minister Teo would emerge from this by-election? As its own party leaders too agree, there is nothing like an election to introduce experience in electioneering, understanding the ground and challenging the opposition on issues that hold dear to Singaporeans for the candidates. Would that not benefit Singaporeans if their leaders have more experience in relating to the ground in the by-election process? After all, Barack Obama, the Presidential Candidate for the Democratic Party, recently said, "Don't tell me that words don't matter." For the opposition, would it not be possible that a dream team could emerge to challenge the PAP through the availability of a by-election? Would a slate of candidates such as Sylvia Lim, Steve Chia, JBJ, and two new and credible faces not give them more experiences in moderating and clarifying their policies towards the people? Would it not be a win-win situation for Singapore if the opposition can take this opportunity to formed a united "all-star" team to contest against the PAP, thus drawing more credible people towards its ranks, thus providing a choice for Singaporeans in future elections? Finally, the last election was fiery in Singapore, but it was conducted with poise by most members of the opposition and won with 2/3 of the valid votes by the PAP. How then would a by-election be a distraction from economic problems or be a waste of tax-payers' money if we have yet another opportunity to prove that democracy in Singapore works when a by-election can equip its leaders with skills needed to succeed in an increasingly complex society?