Singapore

Ditch Earth Hour…Why not Earth Lifetime?

I did not participate in Earth Hour. Well I couldn’t because I was still on the way home at 8.30pm tonight. But I did see quite a few buildings like SMU switching off their lights at 8.30 sharp.

Even if I was at home, I would not have turned off my lights. To all the treehuggers out there, I’m sorry but I think this Earth Hour is quite a load of rubbish. The amount of time, resources and energy it took to come out with all the marketing material would surely exceed any savings from the few people turning off their lights for that one hour. It’s ironic that the bus stop ads for Earth Hour remained lighted up throughout those magical 60 minutes.

Its symbolic, yes everyone agrees on that. But beyond the symbolism, I feel that it makes participants feel they are doing something great for the environment for just that one hour, before returning to their normal, wasteful ways.

I have a few practical and achievable suggestions for people who really want to save the Earth:

1. Sell your car, or don’t get one. Take public transport.

2. Only very occasionally sleep with aircon. Train your kids to sleep without aircon.

3. Limit your TV time to max 1 hr a day.

4. Change all the lightbulbs in your home to energy saving ones.

5. Seldom print anything, and if you do, print double-sided, two pages per side or use recycled paper.

How many Earth Hour participants do all of the above? I do. I’d like to challenge all Earth Hour participants to do the same. I’m sure there are many more ways that we can reduce consumption without too much inconvenience to ourselves.

In fact, one particularly wasteful and environmentally unfriendly policy of the Government which flies in the face of Earth Hour is the Urban Redevelopment Authority’s (URA) Lighting Masterplan. Introduced in 2006, the Lighting Masterplan asks building owners to turn on the lights in their buildings at night to beautify the city, as well as design lighting on their roofs to make their buildings more attractive. Choong Yong has written more about this and I shall not repeat what he said. Needless to say I agree with his points. Personally I would find a darkened city that allows me to see the natural lights of the stars much more beautiful.

AIMS report shows the way forward

The government-appointed Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS) released its long awaited report this morning.

Firstly, I would like to publicly commend Mr Cheong Yip Seng, the AIMS committee and its secretariat for a very well-researched, well-thought through and balanced report, and for the very consultative approach they had taken throughout the past 18-months.

When I first heard about AIMS when it was first launched, I thought to myself, “That’s it, now the government is going to use this committee to justify their clamping down on the Internet.”

I’m glad AIMS has proven me wrong. Although I still feel they have been a tad too conservative politically, I think their proposals, particularly the ones on political content can be said to be “one small step for the government, one giant leap for Singapore”.

The AIMS report can be viewed at www.aims.org.sg. The committee proposed the eventual repeal of Section 33 of the Films Act, which bans party political films, and recommended tightened disclosure requirements for Section 35, which currently gives “the Minister” the right to ban any film that he deems to be against the public interest. This is a bold step forward, which I hope the Government will accept. In fact, I hope they go one step further to repeal both those laws.

The AIMS report also contained unedited letters from the public and corporations in response to its consultation paper. I was quite amused how many members of the public appeared to have overreacted to AIMS’ proposed liberalisations. Many letters focused on how liberalisation will lead to an erosion of morals.

Let me say that as a Christian, and a professed social conservative, I am the last one who would want to see any erosion of our nation’s moral fabric. However I agreed with AIMS that, with respect to the Internet, education will serve as a better safeguard of morals than regulation. The thrust of AIMS’ proposed liberalisations are actually in the political sphere. In this aspect, I am strongly in favour of liberalisation, because our country is lagging far behind our peers in the developed world.

It will take me a while to go through the 224 page report to give my comments. But in the meanwhile, the following is my feedback to AIMS’ consultation paper released a few months back. Since the final report is quite similar to the consultation paper, many of my comments still apply to this report.

————-

23 September 2008

Mr Cheong Yip Seng
Chairman
Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society

FEEDBACK TO AIMS’ CONSULTATION PAPER

1 On 29 August 2008, the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS) released a consultation paper to gather feedback from the public on its proposed recommendations to the Singapore Government on engaging new media.

2 This paper is my feedback to AIMS’ consultation paper. They are my personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of any groups or organisations that I am affiliated with.

3 The responses are grouped according to the chapters in AIMS’ consultation paper.

Chapter 1: E-engagement

4 There needs to be a paradigm shift in the Government’s thinking regarding e-engagement. As a general approach, instead of pouring money and resources into only building its own online platforms (e.g., REACH portal), where it tends to only preach to the choir, the Government should venture out to engage the “unconverted” on the latter’s turf. This was rightly pointed out in AIMS’ paper.

5 The Government may need to be selective about which areas it ventures into. The vast majority of bloggers who do not write about political issues would not appreciate it if a government official posts a comment “correcting” them for inaccuracies in their blog postings. However there are a few serious political bloggers who would appreciate a response to their ideas and suggestions, even if it comes in the form of a robust rebuttal from the Government.

6 Government representatives could respond by posting a comment on a blog post, or contributing full article response to the same blog. Serious blogs would be happy to grant the right of reply to the Government or any other party.

7 It would be preferred if politicians and government officials engage in their “personal” capacities — meaning there is no need to parade one’s full designations, titles and ministries when posting a simple comment on a blog. Blogosphere is an egalitarian society where the quality of one’s ideas counts more than the titles one carries.

8 Civil servants should be allowed to comment on policy matters outside the purview of their ministries, as long as they do so in their personal capacity and they do not divulge classified information. They should not be required to seek their permanent secretaries’ approval before speaking or writing to the media (including online media) on matters that does not directly concern their ministry.

9 The Information Ministry is already actively monitoring blogs and Internet forums. The Government should acknowledge some of the good ideas that are generated online, instead of constantly implying that serious political discussion is absent from the Internet.

10 E-engagement, if executed selectively and sensitively, could cause bloggers to be slightly more circumspect in expressing themselves on their blogs. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Internet experts have highlighted that “people are more polite when they know you are listening” .

11 The Government should consider issuing press releases, releasing embargoed papers or speeches to citizen journalists, and inviting citizen journalists to cover press conferences and official events. Credible socio-political blogs could be issued press passes like the Malaysian government did for Malaysiakini and other online media.

12 This is a good way to encourage citizen journalists to firstly, report rather than simply comment from a distance; and secondly, to provide fairer and more balanced coverage.

13 Ministers and senior officials should not be reticent in granting interviews with credible online media if asked.

Chapter 2: Online Political Content

14 Section 33 of the Films Act, which bans “party political films” outright, is an ill-conceived and unnecessary law. Various arguments have been put forward by the Government in support of the law. Most centre around the possibility of a “freak election” result due to a “scurrilous” video being released a few days before Polling Day.

15 There is no evidence anywhere in the world of an freak election result simply due to a false and malicious video being released in the last few days of campaigning.

16 Any falsehoods or misrepresentations can be dealt with using the existing Penal Code, Sedition Act or Defamation Act. Furthermore, with its unfettered access to the mainstream media, the Government can easily refute any false allegations, even if they are made at the eleventh hour.

17 The goal of keeping election costs down can continue to be achieved by current election laws which limit the amount a candidate is allowed to spend on each voter.

18 In addition, the Parliamentary Elections Act could be amended to require any party political films to clearly state the sponsor of the video, as is required in the US, Australia and other developed countries. This will provide viewers a frame of reference to judge the partisan nature of the video.

19 Most importantly, we should not underestimate Singaporean voters’ ability to discern what is true and what is false and malicious.

20 AIMS has proposed a compromise “blackout period” whereby no new political videos can be released during the election period. A blackout period will take things back almost to square one. It will hamper political parties’ ability to communicate with the electorate during the most critical period when voters are making up their minds.

21 Even if there is a blackout period or if Section 33 remains on the statute books in its entirety, there is nothing stopping someone from uploading a “scurrilous” video to YouTube (or any of the dozens of video sharing sites). The fact that it is “prohibited content” would make it even more attractive to watch.

22 While I applaud AIMS’ attempt to push the boundaries by proposing a relook, and possible repeal of the law, I believe that anything short of a complete repeal of Section 33 of the Films Act would be disappointing to many thinking Singaporeans.

23 Separately, Section 35 of the Films Act (Minister may prohibit possession or distribution of any film) should be also be repealed. This is an omnibus law which gives the Minister absolute discretion in banning a film. If left in place, it would render any repeal of Section 33 meaningless. It should be noted that Section 15 (Prohibition and approval of films for exhibition) already empowers the Board of Film Censors to ban films.

24 I fully agree with AIMS recommendations regarding Internet election advertising and removal of the registration requirement in the Internet Class License Scheme.

25 In addition, election candidates and political parties should be allowed to solicit and accept donations over the Internet without overly stringent requirements to verify the identity of donors.

Chapter 3: Protection of Minors

26 Requiring ISPs to provide filtering in the form of Family Access Networks (FAN) on an opt-out basis is better than nothing. However FAN could give a false sense of security to parents who think that filtering provided by ISPs is going to filter out all undesirable content.

27 In fact, FAN cannot filter out a very large portion of undesirable content. At the same time, it could end up filtering content that the adults in the family may wish to view. For example, adults doing research on terrorism, drug abuse or gay issues could encounter blocked pages when using FAN.

28 It is much more effective to encourage parents to install Internet content filtering software on their home PCs . While PC-based filters do not filter out everything, they provides several advantages over FAN:

a. Access logging. Parents can view all the websites that their children access by checking the logs recorded by the software. If the child knows his parents are monitoring what he is surfing, he is much less likely to access sites he knows are out of bounds to him. Some software packages are able to email the daily log reports to parents.

b. Designating access time. Most filtering software allows parents to set the time in which the Internet can be accessed.

c. Auto lock out. The software can be configured to automatically block Internet access to the child if undesirable websites are accessed too many times.

d. Turning off filtering for adults. Parents (who have the password) can turn off filtering and logging so that they themselves can have full access to the Internet.

29 All this requires training for the parents. For parents who are IT savvy enough or are willing to learn, this provides the best method of regulating children’s access to the Internet and preventing them from accessing undesirable material.

30 For other non-IT savvy parents (who make up the vast majority of parents), there needs to be a concerted programme of parental education and awareness building.

Chapter 4: Intermediary Liabilities

31 I fully support AIMS recommendations in Chapter 4.

Summary

32 The following is a summary of my proposals:

a. Engage Netizens on their turf, not the Government’s.
b. Issue press passes and press releases to serious socio-political websites.
c. Allow civil servants to blog about policy issues.
d. Allow online political donations.
e. Completely repeal Sections 33 and 35 of the Films Act.
f. Encourage parents to install filtering software on their home PCs.
g. Educate parents on the use of such software.

33 I hope AIMS will consider these proposals in its final report to the Government

* * * * *

Submitted by:
Gerald Giam

Having a capable alternative party is in the national interest

Voices Editor
TODAY newspaper

Dear Editor,

I refer to the report, “Adversarial two-party system not for S’pore” (TODAY, November 17). Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong felt that the two party system cannot work for Singapore and that we are much better off with one dominant party.

Mr Lee’s familiar argument is that because we are small and lack talent, if we split our talent into two groups, we will end up with “two second division teams”. This is akin to saying that it is better to put all our eggs in one basket, than to have two baskets with fewer eggs each.

I disagree.

While few would argue that the PAP has performed commendably over the past 40 years, past performance is no guarantee of future success, as investment advisors always caution.

Mr Lee said that if ever the PAP becomes ineffective or corrupt, many opposition parties will spring up to take on the Government.

Therein lies the danger: If the PAP ever becomes corrupt, there will be absolutely no time for a viable alternative party to suddenly “spring up”, since political organisations take years to build up credibility. Furthermore, a corrupt government with firm controls on the levers of power will tend to use that power to entrench itself, stifling any potential opposition from arising. This is because their corrupt leaders will know full well that they will face prosecution if anyone else takes over the government.

Singapore may then be left in a disastrous situation of having a bad government with no capable alternatives.

For a small city-state like Singapore with little margin for error in governance, this could spell an unrecoverable decline leading to our very obsolescence as a nation.

It is therefore in the national interest for a well-organised, competent and morally upright alternative party to emerge, so that should the PAP falter, there will another party to take over the reins of government at the next elections and ensure that our country continues to prosper with interruption.

Obviously I do not expect support for an effective alternative party to come from the PAP, since it goes against its partisan interests.

However, I hope more Singaporeans will realise that greater political competition can produce not just better governance now, but improved stability for our future as well.

Regards,
Gerald Giam

This was published on 19 Nov 08 in TODAY.

The fear of the opposition

I happened to sit next to an older relative at a wedding dinner recently, when our conversation turned to politics.

My relative wondered why I had not followed my parents to Australia, and mused that he was considering moving there too. When I asked why, he cited the fear of political instability in Singapore.

That remark surprised me since Singapore is seen by many to be one of the most politically stable countries in Asia. We have had no change of government – violent or otherwise – since 1959.

When probed further, my uncle said he feared the opposition taking over in a freak election. I assured him that given the current state of the opposition, the PAP government will not be under any threat of losing an election within his lifetime. More importantly, I told him I trust Singapore voters to be wise enough not to vote a lousy party into power.

He countered by pointing out that even when the opposition had fielded “criminals” and slipper-wearing candidates, they were still able to garner 20 to 30% of the vote.

I explained, from my limited knowledge of electoral sociology, that in every election, there will be at least 20% of voters who are hardcore oppositionists and will vote for anyone who ran against the ruling party candidate. In Sembawang GRC where I live, 23% still voted for the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) team sans party chief Chee Soon Juan, even though it was running against a relatively strong PAP team helmed by the likable and Chinese-speaking Health Minister, Khaw Boon Wan. That was the largest margin of victory for the PAP in that election.

However the gulf between 23% and 50% — the latter being the percentage necessary to win a seat outright — is huge. Even in the most closely contested constituency of Aljunied GRC in the 2006 General Election, the PAP’s 55% win against the Workers’ Party would be considered a landslide in most other democracies. Consider the UK’s Labour Party, which won the 2005 election with just 35% of the popular vote. Put in this perspective, the PAP’s 66.6% overall percentage in 2006 was a blowout victory.

My uncle admires the PAP for what they have achieved, not just for Singapore, but for him personally. Growing up in a one-room flat, and now living in a private apartment, he has seen a dramatic improvement in his standard of living over the past 40 years. He reserved stinging criticism for some of his peers who “live in bungalows” and are still so ungrateful as to grumble about the government.

I cautioned him that past performance is no guarantee of future success, as investors always say. Just because the PAP has governed well in the past, does not mean that it will continue to do so for eternity. My uncle agreed that no country has had a particular party govern forever.

In the short term however, he was supremely confident that the PAP’s recruitment process will ensure that only top-notch candidates are presented in each election. In contrast, he said, the opposition was happy to take anyone who had a degree and was willing to pay the election deposit, even if they had no “track record”.

“What is your definition of a track record?” I asked him. Many of the new PAP MPs don’t exactly have a very long resume either. Nevertheless, he was sure that with the many interviews they had undergone with party leaders, coupled with the background checks, PAP candidates would definitely meet the necessary criteria for political leadership.

I asked him if he would consider voting for a non-PAP candidate if he or she were more “qualified” than the PAP candidate.

After initially saying he would, he later reasoned that it would be impossible for an opposition candidate to be as qualified as his PAP opponent. Firstly, the PAP’s recruitment process would throw up only the best men in the country. Secondly, anyone worth their salt, who genuinely desired to serve the people and make Singapore a better place would join the PAP instead of the opposition.

He was of the view that a capable person would be “out of his mind” to join the opposition, and that people who joined the opposition did so only out of self-interest or ulterior motives. Why else would someone want to oppose such an “excellent” government? Apparently, joining the opposition in and of itself indicated a character flaw.

He dismissed the possibility that some principled individuals joined the opposition because they could not see themselves joining the PAP due to fundamental disagreements with the latter’s style of governance. He also did not see the price many opposition members paid for their political beliefs as worthy of much respect.

Our heated discussion went on and on. In the end it was time to go home and we had to agree to disagree.

What the opposition fails to see

While I was slightly dismayed to hear these words from an educated senior citizen like my uncle, I have no doubt that he represents a significant constituency of citizens who have a “rags-to-riches” story to tell.

His point of view is particularly instructive for our opposition.

From my past conversations with many opposition members, I get the sense that many of them joined because they felt a need to “check” the ruling party — nothing else. And many of them think that just because they are not the PAP, and they shake a few hands and show up on Nomination Day, voters will choose them over their rivals.

This is a recipe for defeat — again and again, election after election.

What they fail to see is that the “swing” voters (i.e., those who may vote either way on Polling Day and who effectively decide the outcome of an election) are largely voting for a party to form the Government, not individuals who merely snap at the heels of the PAP behemoth.

Therefore, to win their vote, the opposition parties have to prove to these voters that they are competent and honest enough to lead the whole country, not just their ward, and will not end up flushing half a century of progress down the drain.

The opposition has two crutches that it always falls back on: One, that the unlevel political playing field created by the PAP makes it impossible to mount any significant challenge to it; and two, that good people do not step forward to join their parties.

These are both true to a great extent, but it should not stop the opposition parties from improving themselves internally, so as to present a more professional face to the voting public.

People want to hear different, and better ideas from the opposition on how to run the country, not just gripes about every little fault of the PAP.

It is not unusual that many Singaporeans hold the opposition to a higher standard than they do for the ruling party. After all, the opposition has no track record of successfully running a nation, and therefore has to prove they are twice as good as their PAP opponents before they will earn the vote.

It is my hope that our opposition will shift to a higher gear soon, and that more good men and women will join them. The next election is due by November 2011. With the economy heading south, it is likely that the Prime Minister will call for an election much earlier than that (since a poor economy generally favours the PAP over the opposition).

Time is running out, and the people’s hopes are slowly getting dashed. Can the opposition turn things around and dispel people’s fear of their success?

This article was first published on The Online Citizen.

The Elected Presidency and future non-PAP govts

The debate about the relevance of the Elected Presidency (EP) came up again on October 21 in Parliament. With new framework to tap investment income from the reserves, the PAP government has given the Elected President additional duties; most significantly, approving the Finance Minister’s formula for determining the expected long-term real rates of return of Singapore’s reserves at the start of each financial year.

This formula is not made known to the public and could be changed each year. The only safeguard is the President and his Council of Advisors.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, on learning that the Workers’ Party (WP) voted in support of the constitutional amendment, took the opportunity to prod them to change their stand on the EP.

The WP’s original stand was made clear in the party’s Manifesto, released before the 2006 election. The WP opposes the EP because they feel it will take away the power of Parliament as the people’s representatives.

The EP was introduced by the PAP government ostensibly as a “second key” to the nation’s reserves and a safeguard against the irresponsible appointment of key civil servants.

The Elected President has much greater powers than most Singaporeans are probably aware of. According to the Singapore Constitution, the President may, at his discretion:

a. Appoint the Prime Minister (Article 25);

b. Veto the government’s choice of Chief Justice and Supreme Court judges, Attorney-General, Auditor-General, Accountant-General, Chief of Defence Force, Chiefs of the Air Force, Army and Navy, Commissioner of Police, Director of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), statutory board chairmen and members, Chairman of the Public Service Commission (PSC), and many other key public service appointments (Article 22);

c. Veto the appointment or removal of directors or CEOs of Government companies, namely, Temasek Holdings, GIC and MND Holdings (Article 22C);

d. Veto a request to dissolve Parliament, which is a prerequisite for calling elections (Article 21);

e. Veto any proposed legislation that curtails his own powers (Article 22H);

f. Veto the budgets of statutory boards (Article 22B);

g. Approve the CPIB Director’s request to commence a corruption investigation against anyone, even if the Prime Minister refuses (Article 22G).

In the case of (b) and (c) above, the presidential veto can be overridden with a two-thirds majority vote by Parliament.

Given the powers of an Elected President, it is no wonder that WP chief Low Thia Khiang argued in Parliament that “the office of the Elected President could be potentially crippling for a non-PAP government”.

However this is the most likely reason why the PAP government introduced the EP in the first place. Surely they do not see a need to check themselves!

Furthermore, the very strict criteria for standing for election as President would, as Mr Low put it, mean presidents would likely come from the PAP Establishment.

Let’s examine the qualifications for Presidential candidates (Article 19):

a. Has been, for at least 3 years, a Minister, Chief Justice, Speaker, Attorney-General, Chairman of the PSC, Auditor-General, Accountant-General, Permanent Secretary, statutory board chairman or CEO, chairman or CEO of a $100 million dollar Singapore-registered company.

b. Satisfies the Presidential Elections Committee that he is a person of integrity, good character and reputation;

For (a) above, almost all qualified persons are current or former government appointees. And there are very few $100 million Singapore-registered companies which are not Government companies or their subsidiaries.

Who are the members of the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC)? Basically “three wise men”: The PSC chairman, chairman of the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) and a member of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights. All these are government appointees (albeit some requiring presidential consent).

So, in summary, the field of candidates is limited to mainly government appointees. If that fails to throw up a candidate that satisfies the government, a government-appointed committee can make a subjective judgment call on who can run for president.

This played out almost exactly in the 2005 presidential election, when Andrew Kuan was disqualified by the PEC on grounds that as former Group Chief Financial Officer of the $1.9 billion JTC Corporation, his seniority and responsibility was “not comparable to those mentioned in the Constitution”.

Scenario: Opposition wins election

Consider the following hypothetical scenario:

An opposition coalition wins 51% of the seats in Parliament in the 2016 elections, way short of a two-thirds majority. The presidential election is not due until 2017. Therefore the Elected President is still the previous PAP government’s choice.

Come the August 2017 presidential election, the “three wise men” of the PEC are still in office, and cannot be removed without the approval of the sitting President. And so the field of candidates for the Presidency are still the PAP’s choices, and the choice of the President is a foregone conclusion at least until the 2023 presidential election.

This President exercises all the powers mentioned earlier, blocking appointments, including key security appointments of that of the Chief of Defence Force, Chief of Army and Commissioner of Police. Because the new government does not enjoy a two-thirds majority, it will be unable to override the President’s veto and will be forced to appoint the President’s preferred generals.

Even after 2023, seven years after the PAP has lost power, it may still be able to exercise its “third key”. Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew was quoted by Reuters on 16 September 2006, saying: “Without the Elected President and if there is a freak result, within two or three years, the army would have to come in and stop it.”

The most obvious implication of MM Lee’s statement is a threat of a military coup. But even without a coup, the presence of rebellious generals and police commissioners could be enough to destabilize the government and scare away investors.

Added to an uncooperative or adversarial Attorney-General, Chief Justice, Auditor-General and CPIB Director, the new government could be utterly crippled, not unlike the situation in Thailand right now.

For ordinary citizens who are not fully aware of the political manoeuvring behind the scenes, what they will see is a paralyzed government, incapable of getting anything done. They will yearn to “return to Egypt”, or the days when the PAP was in charge. By the 2021 or 2026 election, they will vote back the PAP into power and Singapore will be back to square one (less of course Lee Kuan Yew, for better or for worse).

Of course, the above scenario is an extreme example. If the PAP really had the country’s interests at heart, they would not paralyze the government after losing an election. But one can never predict how political parties will act, given that their foremost objective is to gain or retain power.

To keep or abolish?

Therefore, I am inclined to agree with the WP that the EP, in its current setup, is unsatisfactory.

However, I will stop short of calling for its complete abolition. In principle, a directly elected Head of State would enhance democratic accountability of Parliament to the people. What I feel should be abolished is the artificially stringent qualification criteria for President.

The US Presidential candidate needs only to be born in the US, be at least 35 years old and have lived in the US for at least 14 of those years. In addition, there is a two-term limit and the Senate (the upper house of Parliament) can disqualify impeached and convicted individuals from running for President.

If the most important position in the world can be left to a democratic vote by citizens, I don’t see why Singapore cannot do the same. In any case, the Elected President maintains only custodial, not executive powers.

Therefore I would like to suggest that we keep the EP, but the qualification criteria should include:

a. Born or naturalised citizen;

b. Lived in Singapore for at least 35 years;

c. Has not held the office of President for more than one term;

d. Is subject to the qualifications as a Member of Parliament (Article 44)

e. Is not subject to any of the disqualifications as a Member of Parliament (Article 45);

f. Has not been a member of any political party for three years leading to the date of his nomination for election.

My main rationale for (f) is to try to minimize the number of politically-aligned candidates, since the President is expected to make decisions without favouring any political party.

I have deliberately excluded any criteria for financial knowledge, even though a large portion of the President’s duties pertain to financial oversight. I would expect the candidates themselves to prove to the electorate their financial competence, and scrutinize each others’ records.

In essence, this relatively thin criteria is not to lower the bar, but to subject the candidates to the electorate’s scrutiny, instead of members of the Establishment. With an educated and world-aware electorate, I trust the “wisdom of crowds” to make the right decision.

This proposal is a work in progress. I hope readers can discuss this and offer counter-suggestions. If there is sufficient interest among readers, I will write another article to discuss my rationale for the other proposed criteria, and possibly include amendments based on feedback.

This article was first published on The Online Citizen.

Govt should play bigger role in managing price increases

On 11 October, The Straits Times Insight section discussed proposed changes to the Constitution to allow the Government to tap more of the returns from investing the reserves. The ST asked readers what they thought of the plan and what concerns they had about the changes.

A friend of mine wrote in, but the editor left out some of the important points he wanted to get across. Here is the full version which I obtained from him. The text in red were the omitted parts.

The government should play a more positive and active role in managing all the price increases that have been coming up since the end of the first quarter of 2008. I believe Singapore based monopolies and especially those that are government linked have taken advantage with all the increases that have and are affecting the common man in the street.

It can be easily observed that all this started since the end of the first quarter 2008 euphoria, of a healthy economy. There has been no let down. This is compounded with the highest inflation rate Singapore is experiencing now.

The financial meltdown has only escalated and enhanced this. To blame it all on the financial meltdown would be naïve as the government is in control of all the other increases that have been shoved down the common man.

Every time a price increase is announced the government announces a relief package. Why don’t we go back to the source? Prevention is better than cure.

Ajit Singh Nagpal

Joining Young PAP as your stepping stone to Parliament?

The Straits Times ran two reports on Saturday about how Young PAP is expanding its recruitment drive to woo new citizens and overseas Singaporeans. It also featured an interview with the YP chairman, which gave some insights into the dynamics of the organisation.

Young PAP (YP) chairman Vivian Balakrishnan fielded questions about the political aspirations of the young. Some excerpts:

On whether some YP members may feel ‘bypassed” as most candidates in previous elections did not come from their fold.
Dr Balakrishnan: I think the way to phrase the question would be, ‘Will joining the YP mean you’re excluded from consideration as a candidate?” The answer obviously is no. We will not discriminate against someone as a candidate… simply because it doesn’t make sense for us to do so… But whether or not you’re a candidate is not a matter of ambition but a matter of whether the party needs you with your particular set of skills, experience and whether you help build that slate of candidates that the party wants to offer.

On how those who are in the YP just to further their own ambitions will be exposed over time.
To be blunt, and I don’t want to name names… go and look at the last batch of candidates who, in a sense, jumped ship in order to get a shortcut to appearing on the ballot box. Now look at what they are doing, or have they jumped ship again, and you’ll find that there’s a certain behaviour pattern. From where I stand, good luck to them, I’m quite glad we made the right decision in not fielding them and in happily letting them go elsewhere and try their luck.

But what it also means is that I’m prepared to continue to be open and prepared to continue to take that risk, that some of the people who join us may have other agendas and may subsequently even stand against us. To me, it’s a risk worth taking, because if I were to go to the other extreme of being very selective and very tight, I run the risk of missing out opportunities to meet many, many more people.

So it doesn’t matter if there are a few opportunists who come in because in the PAP, time is the real test. And opportunists will not have the patience… the energy to survive the obligations and the duties which membership imposes on the PAP members.

I’m quite amused at the way Dr Vivian (as his YP “comrades” call him) just rephrased the first question to avoid alienating many of his party faithful who will probably never become MPs, despite their noble aspirations.

The second answer was a political snipe directed at a few opposition candidates in the last election who started out in the PAP then switched to opposition parties. However, the Minister skirted over the bigger issue which often dogs YP, which is the perception that there are many opportunists still within the YP ranks.

Those who jumped ship would probably have accepted that their chances of getting elected under the Opposition banner were very slim. It would be unfair to exclude the possibility that some of them genuinely felt that the PAP was not the party they could support, and therefore joined the Opposition. However, the opportunists who didn’t jump ship know that their best chance of getting into Parliament is to get selected as a PAP candidate. Fortunately the PAP leadership is known to be “allergic” to people with political ambitions but little substance.

Looking at the slate of new PAP MPs from the 2006 General Election:

No more than half of them were YP members (I just made some assumptions, based on their resumes).
5 of the new candidates were appointed office holders (i.e., parliamentary secretaries or ministers of state) soon after the elections, but only 1 of them was (possibly) a YP member.
Of the other 4 office holders, all were either senior government officials or top executives in Singapore government linked companies (GLCs).
Of the remaining YP members who remained backbenchers, the vast majority of them are “grassroots MPs”. These are individuals who are deemed to be able to connect well with the ground, mainly because of their proficiency in their mother tongue, and their extensive grassroots experience through Meet-the-People sessions, Citizens Consultative Committees (CCCs) and Community Centre Management Committees (CCMCs).
All the other non-YP candidates have stellar professional careers to boast of.

According to the ST, some 100 people join the YP every month. That’s 1,200 people in a year — quite a sizeable pool of people to pick from. Yet half (possibly more) of the 2006 candidates were recruited from outside the party. This is probably another uniquely Singapore aspect about our government.

For those who aspire to get invited for tea sessions with the PAP, it is worth bearing these points in mind:

Joining the YP might get you noticed, but don’t expect to get picked as a candidate unless you can connect very well with heartlanders. This applies especially if you are Chinese.
If you are really keen on making a difference to government policy by becoming a Minister, you’re better off focusing your talents and energies in building up your credentials in the Civil Service, where Ministers can observe close up how you implement government policies. Being a scholar helps a lot but is not a requirement.
If you don’t join YP but still want to be a backbencher PAP MP, then focus on building your career and becoming a senior manager in a well-known company. The PAP leaders love recruiting people who fit their definition of success. A passion for politics is desirable, but optional.

What are your priorities, Mr Policeman?

This evening, as I made my way from Orchard MRT to the Myanmar Embassy to sign the petition to voice my revulsion at the brutal quelling of peaceful protests in Myanmar last week, I saw two prostitutes in front of Orchard Delphi (near the junction with Claymore Road) soliciting for clients. Their target clients were clear: single, Caucasian men.

A short distance down, as I walked up St Martin’s Drive where the embassy is located, I saw two policemen and a policewoman in plain clothes doing nothing but standing there eyeing every one walking up towards the diplomatic mission. At the embassy’s entrance, where a round-the-clock candlelight vigil is being held, another three or four policemen where there doing nothing productive except manning a videocamera mounted on a tripod, filming all the visitors as they went by.

I walked back down towards the MRT station a few minutes later. Those two prostitutes were gone (presumably with their clients). But again, in front of Delphi, another three prostitutes were there, smiling at Caucasian men who walked by and sometimes taking them by the hand and whispering something into their ears. None of the men succumbed to their charms.

I felt frustrated by this situation. Many tourists come to Singapore expecting a clean, wholesome place, free of vices normally associated with inner cities and Third World countries. Many of those men who were approached probably had a whole different story about Singapore to tell to their friends and family back home.

I decided to call the nearby police station to report this. The officer on the line told me he had sent in a request to the patrol, and that police officers will be there very soon. I waited for 10 minutes, and seeing no police car arriving, decided to just go home. However just down the road, I saw another policeman who looked like he was booking a motorist for a traffic violation. I approached him and reported the soliciting prostitutes. He told me plainly (albeit politely) that he did not have the authority to approach them, but would call in the anti-vice unit to have them handle it.

I don’t know what the outcome of this is. Perhaps the policemen eventually came. But what I can’t fit together is why our police would waste the manpower of six to 7 officers to eye a small candlelight vigil, while taking so long to respond to actual criminal activity taking place nearby.

What are their priorities? Keeping our streets safe and free of vice activities, or playing Steven Spielburg and filming and intimidating people who are peacefully expressing their genuine concern for their fellow human beings in Myanmar?

Update:

I wrote separately to the police’s “SPF Service Improvement Unit” to complain about the lack of enforcement all these years. This was their reply:

“Dear Sir

We refer to your email of 4 October 2007.

Police will continue to monitor the situation in Orchard Road closely and
will take enforcement action where necessary against any illegal
activities.

We thank you for your feedback.”

I encourage readers to call the police to report every time you see prostitutes soliciting in the Orchard Road area (prostitution is not illegal, but soliciting is). The number to call is 1800-7359999 (Orchard Police Post).

Once they get more complaints, they will feel under pressure to act on it. If no one complains, they will just continue to “close one eye” to the situation.

PM Abe’s resignation: More lessons from the Land of the Rising Sun

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced his resignation today after less than a year in office. This followed a defeat of his party, the Liberal Democratic Party, in the recent upper house elections as well as a string of scandals involving ministers in his Cabinet.

Photo: Channel NewsAsia

I’m not an expert in Japanese politics, but from what I have read, I thought Abe was doing a pretty decent job, especially on the international front. Under his leadership, relations with China improved tremendously, with a series of high level exchanges of visits between leaders of both countries — Abe made Beijing his first foreign visit, and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao also made a successful visit to Japan.

Abe had great dreams of making Japan a “normal” nation once again. He converted the Defense Agency to a full fledged Ministry, and pledged to rewrite Japan’s pacifist Constitution. While the Constitution may have been music to the ears of Asians who suffered under Imperial Japan in the Second World War (and much earlier, in the case of Korea and China), it also made it very difficult for Japan to fulfill its international obligations as the second richest country in the world — for example contributing to the military aspects of reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, his focus on international affairs and ideological aspects of Japan’s future, coupled with his poor performance domestically, led to his downfall. Channel NewsAsia reported:

Rural voters deserted the LDP in droves in the recent election, failing to relate to Abe’s ideological agenda, which focused on building Japan’s global standing and rewriting the constitution.

But the campaign failed to resonate among voters as the opposition pressed on bread-and-butter concerns such as mismanagement of the pension system and income inequality.

“Japan’s Abe steps down as prime minister”, CNA, Sept 13

What lessons does this hold for Singapore?

I think voters are the same in Japan, Singapore and anywhere else. Bread-and-butter issues will always take precedence over international affairs or idealogical pursuits, no matter what the merits of the latter are.

This is the key reason why the PAP has been able to win election after election since 1959. They know the vast majority voters don’t give a hoot about what Singapore’s international standing is, or whether they uphold human rights or press freedom. What they care about is whether or not life will get easier for them and their families over the next five years.

Is it any wonder then that Dr Chee Soon Juan and his ilk are finding it so hard to get support from mainstream Singaporeans? I admire Dr Chee for what he is fighting for. I don’t think he is out to bring Singapore down. But I also think his focus on spreading liberal democracy and human rights in Singapore is not going to win him many voters–as least not until our “unfreedoms” directly hit our pocketbooks. Without voter support, you can’t win a seat in Parliament. And without enough opposition seats in Parliament, the Government will never really feel any threat to its position and can continue enact policies with impunity.

The key, then, for a successful political party would be to focus on issues that matter to everyday Singaporeans — jobs, child support, education, retirement. Values and ideology should still be the guiding light of our leaders, but these values need to be melted into butter which can spread on the bread of the common man.

Troubled families: Malay problem or Singapore problem?

But even as most Singaporean Malays are progressing, filling more places in universities and polytechnics, joining the middle class and living in bigger homes, one small group is falling behind.

And it is this minority — the dysfunctional families — that concerns Mr Lee Hsien Loong.

On the rise: Divorce rates, the number of single-parent households and an “unacceptably high number” of teenage births and early marriages. Calling last night on self-help group Mendaki to mobilise a community-wide effort to address the problem of such families, Mr Lee said this was vital to avert a “serious social problem” and “a human tragedy”.

“In the last two years, the community has started to tackle these issues. But you need to muster a major effort focused on this problem, and work out practical and effective solutions.

“In this area, your self-help efforts are critical….”

Excerpts from TODAY, 3 Sep 07

PM Lee, in his speech at Mendaki yesterday, brought up the issue about dysfunctional Malay families yet again. He had already mentioned it during the Malay portion of his National Day Rally speech last month, and I believe he also mentioned it during last year’s speech. Now he says it may result in a “serious social problem” and “a human tragedy”.

Obviously this is a very worrisome issue for the government, and the situation hasn’t improved much over the past year, otherwise PM Lee wouldn’t have mentioned it again and again.

But is this a Malay problem for the “Malay community” to solve on their own, or it is a problem that ALL Singaporeans need to collectively tackle? In his speech, PM Lee used the word “you” more than “we” to describe who needs to deal with the problem. I wonder why? Aren’t we all Singaporeans? Why the “it’s-your-problem-go-solve-it” approach? Should we continue on in our “self help” approach to problems, or is an “all of us help” approach more appropriate in today’s Singapore?

PM Lee mentioned that “it is much harder for the Government to intervene, or for other voluntary welfare organisations outside the Malay/Muslim community to take action, without being misunderstood or triggering a defensive reaction”. Is this really the case, or is it a false assumption? If done sensitively, would it be possible for Singapore’s limited social support resources to be redirected to where the need is currently most acute?

This post is not intended to be another smart alec commentary criticizing government policies. I don’t know enough about social problems to comment. I would really like to hear from readers what YOU think is the way forward.

————–