By Chanel Morgan
Prospects for the lowest income earners in Singapore look to be getting even tougher. Without an official poverty line, and being the third richest country in the world, shouldn’t we strive to be a more charitable nation?
Our country is home to the highest percentage of millionaires. According to an MOF report in 2012, the top 1% of taxable income earners in Singapore are taxed an average of $0.7 million per year.
The rich are getting richer, with the number of income earners within the top 1%, rising from 29,524 in 2009, to 32,285 in 2012.
Since the IRAS only requires declarations on taxable income, non-taxable income – such as capital gains – need not be reported.
CPF statistics in 2011 illustrated that over 259,000 earn less than $1,000 a month, with 458,000 Singaporeans earning less than $1,500 a month. Even if a portion of these individuals include part-time workers or national service men, the evidence is enough to suggest that the number of Singaporeans struggling to make ends meet reaches well into the thousands.
It is globally known that addressing income inequality is the first step in reducing ‘poverty’ – both are intrinsically linked. Even though there are distributional policies on the government’s agenda to curb the poverty depth and severity, the hard truth is that in essence, the refusal to adopt a welfare oriented system is good for growth, but not so good for poverty.
Relative poverty dilemma
Consider the one-room apartments subsidized by the government – at times, these apartments house an entire family in a space of 30 square metres. The public housing statistics of 2008 revealed that one third of these families living in one-room flats do not earn any income; and despite the numerous religious, civil and non-profit organizations presently in the works, some of these low-income families are simply not eligible for assistance.
The most vulnerable in the poverty equation however, are those who are most often left out of sight. It is the children of lower-income families who are at high risk of suffering from the adverse impacts of poverty. As cited by the University of Queensland, Australia, “children experiencing family poverty at any developmental stage in their early life course have reduced levels of cognitive development”.
The only way to ensure every youth is entitled to a decent upbringing is to target Singapore’s problem of high inequality before it gets worse.
Finding a way out
One solution to minimize the income gap is for Singapore’s wealthiest individuals to espouse a philanthropic campaign similar to ‘The Giving Pledge’; a campaign organized and launched in 2010 by the world’s richest men, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates.
It all started when the world’s no. 82 Russian billionaire, Vladimir Potanin, advised Gates on his ability to persuade the world’s richest to donate, noting that Gates should “try and move this initiative from American soil”, making this “a real international initiative.’ Since 2010, the number of pledges has now grown to 114 signatories.
The Buffett-Gates initiative is based on billionaires making a moral pledge to donate their fortunes to charity within their lifetime or after death.
Recent signatories include New York based real estate magnate Stephen Ross, hedge fund manager Paul E Singer and the world’s youngest self-made female billionaire Sara Blakely; their charitable commitments can be seen at www.thegivingpledge.org, together with commitments made by other billionaires worldwide.
If Singapore were to launch a similar campaign which required the extremely wealthy to make contributions to a fund that specifically helped the poor, we would have to avoid creating a philanthropic culture led primarily through government patronage. Ultimately, people should be driven to give of their own will, to their desired charities and should be doing so from the heart, just like the Buffett-Gates initiative.
The Russian exemplar
Perhaps Singapore’s rich should take a lesson or two from Potanin, who decided to act on the fact that “The gap between the poor and the rich is so huge”. He understood his actions would not guarantee a radical change in attitudes, but that it would unquestionably encourage others to do the same.
Determined to get away from the reputation of being profligate spenders who bought yachts every few days, Potanin led the way for his fellow countrymen to give to charity. He was the first Russian billionaire to sign up for the Giving Pledge, promising half his wealth – worth US$12.3 billion, as of 8 August – to philanthropic causes.
Going through data gathered from Russia’s 15 wealthiest billionaires, and from annual reports published by their companies and charitable organizations, Bloomberg News recently confirmed that interest in philanthropy among Russia’s richest is increasing.
Between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2012, 15 Russian billionaires who offered documentation to Bloomberg donated a grand total of US$1.64 billion to charitable projects.
The total worth of Russia’s 15 richest men –they’re all men – was a whopping US$155 billion as of 8 Aug, which is roughly 8% of Russia’s economy; this meant that the 15 philanthropists who provided the data had given away roughly 1% of their aggregated fortunes during the three-year period.
All it could take is just one of Singapore’s wealthiest moguls to set the benchmark of moral precept, influencing others to get on the bandwagon. After all, many would agree that the path to happiness is to lead by good example. If we can promote a similar initiative of true philanthropy in Singapore, there’s no saying what Singapore cannot do.
Chanel Morgan is pursuing her Mass Communications Degree from Murdoch University.
Minding the gap
The saving of souls
By Augustine Low
“If I spend $1 million and we win 138,000 souls, that means every soul is worth less than $1,000. To me, that is a good buy.”
Indonesian businessman Wahju Hanafi could not have put it more explicitly when testifying at the ongoing trial of City Harvest Church leaders. He was justifying his $1 million-a-year donation to the church for its Crossover Project – the church’s way of evangelising through pop music.
Likening church donation to a “good buy” shows the extent of the culture to commodify everything.
But in truth, commercialisation of spirituality has its roots many years ago, in places as diverse as India and the United States, where empires have been built to cater to people’s dire need for soul searching.
The call to heal, to find bliss, to see truth and light – often in the form of a pop sub-culture – has resonated with masses across the continents.
When I was in California last November, curiosity drove me to visit Crystal Cathedral in Orange County, which boasts the world’s largest reflective glass building. At its peak several years ago, the mega church was dubbed the Hollywood church, with its movie star guest speakers and weekly ‘live’ TV shows.
But the church went bankrupt in 2010.
For every such story gone awry, there are dozens of success stories, whether of organised faith or alternative belief systems, where the following can be mind boggling.
The question that people have attempted to ask, but where the answer is often elusive, is: What is the price of finding God?
In the view of Mr Wahju Hanafi in the City Harvest Church trial, if it’s less than $1,000 per soul, it’s a “good buy”.
Despite all that has happened in this world, religion continues to possess power and moral authority. And rightly so, one could argue.
Religion’s positive force, like so much else in the world, flows from thought.
The challenge then is to avoid commercialised religion turning into modern business, into becoming pop sub-culture.
Which in turn suggests that the challenge for the state against the leaders of City Harvest Church in the ongoing trial is indeed a very delicate one which requires a deft balancing act.
For the general public, it makes for compelling following.
Augustine Low is a communications strategist.
Singapore's extraordinary household
Taken out of the school system and homeschooled, the Yap boys show what can be achieved with the active involvement of their extraordinary parents.
Thinking out of the box is the new normal in their home. Except that they can’t afford to think in clichés. Mathew Yap and his wife, Pew Ying, have chosen the road less travelled in education. They have taken all three sons out of school and homeschooled them for some time.
“Disappointed? No RI!” exclaims Mr. Yap, a Rafflesian from 1971-76, who doesn’t sound unhappy at all that his sons have not attended his alma mater. “It was a rather enriching journey, somewhat of an adventure, makes me a better husband and father I think, ” he adds, musing on their homeschooling experiences.
The boys
Today, eldest son Jeremy is 22 and has graduated with a diploma in new media studies from Republic Polytechnic. He is now doing national service. Their second son, Joseph, 20, has worked for six months as a pre-school teacher and will enter national service in November. He got his diploma in early childhood education from Ngee Ann Polytechnic last April. The youngest son Alyon, 16, also wants to go to a polytechnic after his O levels.
Jeremy, by the way, has Asperger’s syndrome, a form of hidden autism. Alyon’s autistic behaviours are a bit more obvious.
Jeremy was offered exemption from national service by Mindef, but he chose to serve nevertheless. “It’s an honour to do national service,” he says.
Those were exactly the words his father used on the day they made the decision after a specially-convened medical board review at the Defence Ministry’s CMPB (central manpower base) earlier this year. Mr. Yap explains he told his son he could opt out of national service, but it would be an honour to serve the nation.
Talking to the Yaps and their homeschooled sons, you see how often they are on the same page.
When Joseph says he wants to do communications and media studies next and is asked why, the swift reply is: “I want to be like my Dad.” “The fruit doesn’t fall from the tree,” quips Mrs. Yap.
The parents
Mr. Yap, 55, a former Straits Times journalist in the late 1980s who subsequently worked for Standard Chartered Bank and British Petroleum before setting up his own training consultancy, now also has publication covering Malaysia with focus on Iskandar, the ambitious development project in Johor.
He can be seen in photos with Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, Mr. Goh Chok Tong, Mr. SR Nathan on one wall of the living room in his East Coast condominium.
Mrs. Yap Pew Ying, 52, is a Raffles Girls School alumna who once taught in the gifted education programme in her alma mater but resigned as a teacher after she had her second son. She has not stopped teaching altogether. She continues to be a relief teacher.
An English teacher, she might seem better qualified than most to homeschool her sons. “But, it was a leap of faith into uncharted territory,” she says. “Those days autism, homeschooling were not words in the public consciousness in Singapore.”
The discovery
To begin with, she did not even know their eldest son had autism. “He had a gift for mimicking people,” she recalls. “He could mimic their speech without even knowing the meaning of the words.” He also loved to read. But he could hardly cope with the pressure as the time drew near to sit for the PSLE. Sometimes he would have to stay up till midnight finishing his maths and Chinese lessons. Naturally, he sought relief. “Sometimes he would hide in the toilet for an hour to read a book,” remembers Mrs. Yap.
There were also problems in school. Sometimes he would be bullied by the other boys and, pushed to the extreme, he would burst out. Finally, at 15, Health Ministry’s psychiatrists confirmed he had Autism-Asperger syndrome.
The school system more than a decade ago did not seem geared for students like Jeremy. Mrs. Yap had no illusions about how he would fare, given that he was particularly weak in Chinese. She could not blame the child. Her husband, a Straits-born Chinese Baba, and she herself, from Malaysia, did not even study Mandarin in their school years in the 1960s and 70s. But, for Jeremy, it was clear if his Chinese did not improve, that would drag down his grades and affect his future.
The solution
And so, Mr. and Mrs. Yap had no choice, but to figure a way out. Being a teacher helped a bit in the thinking: Their son did not have to study Chinese to get into a polytechnic, she realized. All he needed were five O levels. But he had to study Chinese in secondary school. So she took him out of school and homeschooled him herself.
“I also don’t want to go to school,” said the second son Joseph. He was perfectly fine, but did not understand why only his brother should be allowed to stay at home. He also wanted to be taught by his mother. “So I ended up teaching both of them, and had to bear in mind that they were two years apart,” she says.
Jeremy and Joseph needed five O levels but, to be safe, she made them take seven subjects, including Bible studies and – her own specialty – English literature. And she did not only teach them herself. They also enrolled in MDIS College, which prepares students for the O levels.
In hindsight, the Yaps seem to have made the right choices, but at the time they went through a lot of soul-searching, a lot of angst. Mr. Yap gestures in the air as he recalls sleepless nights, wrestling with heavy, academic and medical books on autism and Asperger’s syndrome. “It was not easy reading,” he says. But he wanted to understand the conditions of his sons so he could help them.
“We were inspired by our friends,” says Mrs Yap, talking about a couple. Trained teachers, they are “NIE (National Institute of Education) gold medalists”, she adds. And yet they decided to homeschool their own children.
Not every teacher can take care of children with special needs, says Mrs. Yap. She laughs as she recalls times when she was asked by Jeremy’s and Alyon’s teachers if they would be continuing in school. They meant well, agree Mr. and Mrs. Yap. The teachers had their sons’ best interests at heart. They needed special care.
But even teachers trained to teach children with special needs can’t handle all of them equally well, says Mrs. Yap. Some are good with children suffering from sensory dysfunction like Alyon’s odd autistic behavioral tendencies and obsession about cleanliness, others are better at teaching other children with hyperactive behaviours.
The Yaps have moved house in quest for a better education. They moved out of their landed house in Kembangan to an apartment in Siglap just because it was only a five-minute walk to Alyon’s Opera Estates Primary School.
Now the family lives in another condo in Katong. “By homeschooling him, I’m giving him time to mature,” says Mrs. Yap about her youngest son Alyon who is being homeschooled now again after two years in MacPherson Secondary School. Their plan is to let him do a preparatory course for O levels next year or 2015, and later enrol him in a polytechnic.
Faith and scouts
Alyon’s favourite subjects include geography and biology. “We are looking at a few private schools for his O levels preparation,” says Mr Yap. Alyon looks younger than his years and has a tendency to carry on talking about something he liked even when his parents tell him to stop.
He is able to remember “long strings of numbers”, says his mother, adding he also loves trains and cricket. He will get to see both when he goes to England where, with his sharp memory, he will probably get to know the London Underground like the back of his hand. He has already got wind of a London Underground maven who will bring him up to speed. And, yes, he will watch cricket. His parents are taking him to England this month as a treat, having taken the elder sons to Turkey last year.
Mr. Yap, who with his whole family worships at the Bethesda Community Church, laughs when asked if their faith led them to homeschool their sons. “Some may suspect we are Christian fundamentalists because we homeschooled our sons, but no that’s not why we did it,” he says. “More like by Divine- Mystery-Design than by luxury of normal choices.”
No wonder the former president was taken aback. When did you last meet a scout troop of boys and girls who did not go to school?
Yes, the Yaps are unusual. Mr. Yap, a former NorthEast CDC councilor, does not buy even the standard take on happiness. Happiness cannot be defined by material success, he says, it varies from person to person.
Mrs. Yap, of course, agrees with him. The English teacher, who regrets the young generation is “ill-read”, made a habit of reading together with her family, sharing books and ideas with them. When a family reads together, all the members stay on the same page.
The wrong road to relevance
By Robin Low
Social media is becoming a mature communication platform everywhere. In the early days, marketers have used social media as another medium to broadcast their messages. People joined social media because it is new, many thought it might be a fad and asked the question “Why do we do social media?” Years later, after 1.5 billion active users use Facebook daily, the question now is “How can I do better?”
Brands are using multiple platforms to engage their stakeholders. Hashtags are being commonly used across platforms. There are great interests in mobile devices and location based apps. These social technology updates today change our behaviors in many things we do. But social media is more than just Facebook, Twitter and using Hashtags, it is being an influencer.
In the age of the search engines, content is king. But in the age of social media, context is king. Amplification of signal is crucial to filter out the noise. The top-down information structure is long overdue and context is the catalyst that shifts focus on relevance. Our networks expand and contract. The pressure of connection is not significant as people today look for meaningful connections, relevant information and deliberate value. In the center of every experience are individuals interacting in the network — people driven information network.
With advancements in communications and technology, organizations may risk losing their relevance if they do not evolve and keep up. Traditional media cannot keep up with the speeds of social media. The era of command and control is over, large organizations and governments do not hold all the information, and in fact, information we get is increasingly social. Large organizations with top down bureaucracies find it hard to keep up with the dynamic challenges, and most often, when they fail to control the medium, they fall back in what they know — censorship.
In Vietnam, there is a contentious legislation that effectively prohibits Vietnamese bloggers and users of social-networking sites from discussing current affairs and sharing online stories. Unfortunately these decrees are becoming more common as countries lay down draconian laws about how their citizens are to interact with the Internet. China too has laws that put bloggers and others who share news to jail if they consider it to be rumours.
In Singapore, the government intends to moderate the online social space. The ministers used the term “noise” to describe the activity on social media, and there is a heavy tone on caution and danger whenever they deal with online discussions. The Online Citizen, an online news portal was gazetted as a political association for covering an alternate views in the General Elections. There were also sedition charges against political cartoonist Leslie Chew; the list goes on.
After losing popularity in the general elections and the by-election, the government started Singapore Conversation, a national conversation initiative planned at getting feedback and understand ground sentiment. However, many people are sceptical about the initiative’s effectiveness to understand the average Singaporeans.
Conversations happen on the Internet with or without the government’s approval. Setting up an official channel to listen to the public is not a good idea to solicit engagement as people engage on their own terms. Forcing communications into approved mediums and moderating views will often result in many people not participating at all. When the other mediums are ignored, many who share their views but are not heard become more apathetic or they begin to complain whenever they get a chance to do so.
With a goal to understand Singaporeans’ priorities, values and preferences, it hard to succeed when a selected group is allowed to participate, as information gathered is likely to be skewed. There will also be a waste of resources when the solutions implemented get a backlash from the public which causes the initiative to end prematurely after much planning and money spent.
The future of organizations is defined through shared experiences. The concept of engagement is simple, but the design of the public experience is complex in reality. Meaningful designs with intend, personalization and incentives to increase value of sharing all form the essence of the shared experiences. The emergence of new media creates new opportunities for engagement. At the heart and soul of the organization, a culture must take shape for it to lure affinity. Engagement in the human network requires a new outlook, a new approach, new model for conveying leadership and empathy. The organization needs to support thriving communities around them and have the infrastructure for the rest of the organization to support this. If the government can understand this, then they can be on their road to relevance.
Robin Low is a young Singaporean living in Boston. He is the founder of a nanotechnology company in the US.
Why Sundram should not move to Negri
By Tony Mariadass
The stakes are high for Singapore’s V. Sundramoorthy, who is tipped to take charge of Negri Sembilan in the Premier League next season.
The 47-year-old is no stranger to the Malaysian league, having first played for Singapore and then for Kedah (89-90), Pahang (91-92) and Kelantan (94).
So, he will be familiar with the demands and pressures of being a player in the M-League, but as a coach? He must know he will be in the hot seat.
Still, what is puzzling is why Sundramoorthy is moving to Negri Sembilan. The team finished at the bottom of the Super League this season with just one win and seven draws out of 22 matches.
The Deer, as the team are popularly known, were not a weak side this season. Indeed, they had eight new faces, including two imports – Argentinian striker Emanuel De Porras and Cameroon defender William Paul Modibo.
But Portuguese coach Divaldo Alves failed to raise their game and was replaced by assistant Ridzuan Abu Shah midway through the season.
Surprisingly, Negri Sembilan, which qualified for the ongoing Malaysia Cup through a play-off with Sabah in which they won 4-0, are riding high in the competition with two wins, a loss and a draw in four out of six group matches. They won and drew against defending champion Kelantan, beat Terengganu and narrowly lost to Pahang (5-3).
Over the years, Negri Sembilan’s performance has been anything but consistent. A fair number of their coaches have also been replaced. In fact, over the last 20 years, they have had nine coaches, including M. Karathu (94-98), Irfan Bakti Abdu Salim (98-99), Mohd Zaki Sheikh Ahmad (2000-02), K. Devan (03-06), Hatem Souissi (06-07), Wan Jamak Wan Hassan (07-11) and Mohd Azraai Khor Abdullah (11-12).
Now for a bit of history. Negri Sembilan tasted their first Malaysia Cup victory in 1948, ending a 61-year drought, and triumphed again in 2001. They won the Premier League in 1991, the Super League in 2006, the Charity Shield in 2012 and the FA Cup in 2003 and 2013.
Negri Sembilan also finished runners-up in the FA Cup in 1995; the Malaysia Cup in 2000, 2006 and 2010; the Charity Shield in 2004 and 2010, the Premier League in 2005 and the Super League in 2008.
So, the Deer have not exactly been deprived of glory all these years. Sundramoorthy will not have to create any “firsts” for the team.
It is learnt that he has agreed to a two-year contract and double-your-money deal to head the team next season. Though no figure has been disclosed, it could be anything from RM40,000 to RM50,000 a month.
The question is, can Sundramoorthy take the heat of the job?
Besides having to deliver the goods – at least a title in the new season-, he has to take the team back to top level – Super League – and qualify for the Malaysia Cup competition.
This is where all the hidden pressure will come into play: Will he have a free hand in the selection of players? Will he be able to go about his job without any interference from top officials of the state football association? And his biggest battle – can he trust his players?
Over the years, the Deer have been linked to match-fixing or suspected of it. Even the state’s youth team – the President Cup squad – recently faced such accusations. In fact, the coach was charged and jailed, and, along with several of the players, has been banned for life. A prominent bookie from Singapore was also found to be living in the state capital Seremban.
Negri Sembilan FA president Datuk Seri Mohamad Hasan, who is also the chief minister of the state, himself has come out to say that he suspects his team of match-fixing this season.
The Negri Sembilan fans will be another major headache for Sundramoorthy for they are very demanding and vocal about it.
No, it is not going to be a bed of roses for Sundramoorthy in Negri Sembilan. All indications are there are more thorns than roses awaiting him.
What seem to be in his favour are the lucrative deal, of course, and the not very long distance between Singapore and Seremban – about three and a half hours by road. He could make regular trips back home.
Otherwise, it is going to be a pressure cooker atmosphere for Sundramoorthy from day one. He will not know which side has its knives drawn out for him.
At the height of his career as a footballer, Sundramoorthy was known as the ‘The Dazzler’ and ‘King Cobra’, but can he waltz his way around the Deer or strike before he is struck? Only time will tell.
Tony Mariadass is a Malaysian sports journalist
No singing and swinging in the rain
By Bernard Pereira
This picture of students of Fairfield Methodist Scondary clinging to a fence to avoid rising flood waters around their school during heavy rain is truly an image of contrast to the Singapore that we used to live in during the “Roaring Fifties and Sixties”.
It was the time when we were still an underdeveloped town, a part of Malaya and also the British Empire.
Roads were rickety, with a lot of cracks and potholes, to say the least. And flooding was a nightmare. But it could be a heaven, too, depending on how you interpeted it.
Believe it or not, whenever it rained cats and dogs, we would be ecstatically jumping for joy, rubbing our hands with glee. More so if we were outdoors, playing football or rounders. Or even if heading home after school.
By golly, it would be the best excuse for getting soaking wet – never mind the chills, or the coughs and colds. That came later. We would actually be relishing the rain!
And if it was me and my schoolmates out there, being caught in the downpour – instead of those Fairfield Methodist group – I bet you we wouldn’t have been clinging to the fence. No sirree!
We would have been swimming…. or splashing and frolicking like crazy out there in the rain or floodwater.
Of course, not if there was lightning. Or when we saw a ditch full of rushing water. For we knew or had seen enough horrors to know our limits.
Bernard Pereira is a former journalist.
The politics of OSC: What next?
By M Palaniyapan
Our Singapore Conversation (OSC) wasn’t the government’s first attempt to engage the ground and get feedback. The Feedback Unit was set up in 1985 for the same purpose. It was later revamped as REACH in 2006.
But the OSC was clearly different from these exercises. The intensity of public engagement in the OSC was never seen in the previous initiatives. In a year, about 50,000 Singaporeans took part in numerous face-to-face meetings. The conclusion of the OSC was marked with PM Lee announcing notable policy shifts in health, education and housing issues.
As this year-long exercise wraps up, it is now an opportune moment to reflect on the politics of the OSC: Who were the winners? Who were the losers? Strategically, what went right and what didn’t? And what next?
The poliical dividends for the PAP
THE OSC allowed the government to develop a more thorough picture of Singaporean’s sentiments and in the process address the chasm between party and people.
One explanation for the government’s poor gauge of the public sentiment was its heavy reliance on grassroots volunteers, who disproportionately sided with the PAP. This caused an echo chamber effect where pro-PAP views were amplified and contrary sentiments were drowned out leading to distorted signals to the cabinet.
With the OSC, the government was able to engage deeply with Singaporeans from a diverse range of backgrounds. Participants of OSC sessions included not just staunch PAP supporters but also those from the “silent majority” and strident critics.
The open-ended nature of the sessions enabled participants to share their sentiments openly. Many vented their frustrations, ventilated their concerns and voiced their ideas.
Key concerns which surfaced through the OSC, such as the high cost of living and frenetic pace of life, were affirmed by many — including the government — like in previous feedback sessions. But with the OSC, the government was better able to understand the human dimension of these problems.
In addition, the OSC put the government in a stronger position to shape public discourse. In recent years, public discourse has been largely spilling over to the online world and the overall tone has been borderline-negative. No one entity, can dictate public discourse, but with the OSC the government was in a better position to influence it — holding the magnifying glass on key issues and serving as a conduit for people to air their thoughts.
The OSC — which allowed the executive branch to connect directly with the public rather than through elected representatives — also subtly proved that it was unnecessary for opposition political parties to be in the parliament for alternative views of the public to be reflected to the government. The process of connecting with the ground directly helped fortify the significant policy recalibrations with legitimacy.
What about the opposition?
As the OSC got into full swing and the PAP was clawing back ceded ground, the opposition’s influence was rather limited.
The WP’s strategy of focusing on constituency-specific issues rather than national issues might have been fairly successful in garnering votes. But to apply the same strategy in response to the OSC and remain in the background might not work in its favour.
The PAP made it very clear that some significant policy shifts were to come and the OSC was going to play a critical role in shaping them. Thus it was evident that the OSC was an important plank in PAP’s political strategy. For the opposition to not give a counter-response was the equivalent of walking away from the goalpost as the rival team stepped up to take the penalty shot.
To be clear, it was expected and politically wise of the opposition parties to sit out of the OSC. Taking part in the OSC might have been seen as them playing to PAP’s game.
But opposition parties had other plausible strategic options which they didn’t explore. For instance, the opposition parties could have publicly highlighted the limitations of the OSC such as the lack of proportionate representation among the participants. A parallel process might have also been started and issues identified could have been highlighted in the parliament by WP. All these responses would have enabled the opposition parties to further their case that they are the authentic, alternative voice of the people.
But as Singaporeans engaged in conversation among themselves and with the Government, the opposition was silent; this might prove to be a tactical miscalculation on its part.
Recasting the OSC for the future
Many who took part in the OSC sessions remarked that they would like to see the spirit of active public engagement sustained. Doing so makes political sense for the PAP, too.
Maintaining a direct channel with the public, would complement the government’s efforts to keep in touch with the ground. The citizenry is frothing with strong emotions with regards to numerous national issues. It is unlikely that these sentiments would wither; instead they would be circulating in the online world or in private conversations. Maintaining a direct line with the people affords the government more influence in public discourse. If the government decides to dial down on public engagement, it would make it more prone to vacillating public sentiments.
While the government has been working on keeping touch with the ground through channels such as REACH, these methods haven’t been effective.
The main reason for this is the uncertainty among citizens about whether their feedback would be taken seriously in the policy-making process. The level of the government’s commitment to channels like REACH appears weak. The chairperson of REACH is currently Amy Khor, a senior minister of state, not a full cabinet minister.
Apart from that, REACH hasn’t been engaging either. Most REACH sessions are one off dialogues and development of ideas is limited.
These issues were somewhat addressed in the OSC. With Heng Swee Keat, a Cabinet Minister, helming the initiative and the PM himself laying it out during his widely-watched National Day Rally, the exercise gained significant traction. Also, there was a definite timeline and policy announcements were promised after the exercise was complete; this signalled the importance of citizen’s input in the policy recalibration process.
Also, unlike REACH which heavily relies on its online forums to conduct discussions, in OSC there was greater emphasis on face-to-face discussions which tend to be more engaging.
For revamped methods of engagement to be successful they must demonstrate the government’s commitment and sustain deep levels of engagement.
To this end, community centres could take the lead by organizing monthly discussions on national issues. To avoid the perception that these sessions are just talk sessions, MPs could turn up to show their support. Collating the input from these sessions, the government could address key concerns raised through these sessions in a quarterly fashion.
Conclusion
THE OSC was a quick reaction to the GE 2011 and the souring national mood. It allowed the PAP to gain a sense of the ground and side-step the opposition in going direct to the citizens
It also threw the relevance of grassroots organisations, which were once critical to sensing the public mood, into question.
Engagement of citizens is a work-in-progress. Despite the government’s assurance that the OSC spirit of active consultation would be sustained, there is the more difficult task of convincing the unconvinced that the Lee Hsien Loong government is listening and, more importantly, acting. Maybe the next conversation can be on the sacred cows that need to be re-examined, even culled.
The writer is a young Singaporean passionate about Singapore politics.
Catherine Lim and LKY
By Robert Yeo
The sentence, Speak Truth to Power, is a Quaker advice and it summed up what Catherine Lim did in a dinner talk she gave at Tanglin Club last month. Indeed, she has been doing that for 17 years, speaking truth to power fearlessly.
Addressing a sell-out audience and referring to her 2011 book (A Watershed Election), she reminded her readers that she criticised the high ministerial salaries, the authoritarian ways of the PAP and the adverse influence of Lee Kuan Yew on the GE campaign. She wrote that nothing would change.
After the election results, the government reduced the ministerial salaries and Lee stepped down from the cabinet. Catherine Lim could not believe what happened. She repeated what she had written: “‘The Lee Kuan Yew era is over.'”
When first asked to speak, she was reluctant as she had just published her book and there was her blog. What made her change her mind was an article published on April 6 in The Straits Times entitled The Singapore Way: The Way To Go? by American journalist Tom Plate.
Plate’s article was an excerpt from the Afterword of his just-published second edition of Conversations with Lee Kuan Yew.
Plate wrote: “By fax I once asked him to offer some self-criticism. He referred me to Catherine Lim.’
This fine writer, perhaps his most persistently perceptive critic… was Plate’s description of her, and he went on to quote her:
“‘Mr Lee’s legacy is so mixed that at one end of the spectrum of response, there will be adulation, and at the other, undisguised opprobrium and distaste.”
Catherine Lim never doubted the force of her commentaries on Lee but for the first time, he acknowledged her as a critic to be reckoned with. He had in the past dismissed her as ‘ a novelist… with the capacity for grotesque caricature’. Well, the novelist now felt vindicated.
But she did not gloat. The government had ignored her, The Straits Times had ignored, after publishing her initial articles. Now, the great man, late in life, a year after leaving politics, a widower, had finally said in print that Catherine Lim was someone who had contributed to his self-criticism.
The significance of Lee’s admission that Lim was a critic to be counted has escaped most watchers of Singapore’s politics.
Her position as critic
In her talk, she referred to the Prime Minister’s recent National Day rally speech in which he said his government would take care of housing, education and health and create a more inclusive society, but sceptics said that they had heard it before.
She stated that the electorate had become so disillusioned and alienated they were beyond the reach of concilation. The government was facing a “crisis of trust.”
What could it do? She suggested two choices. The first is to go back to the old knuckleduster days of Lee Kuan Yew. The second is to open up Singapore society in a way that has not been seen before. In other words, replace the old, stern top-down approach with a people-friendly, bottom-up one, something that a minister had called the light footprint.
But she did not think the second option would work. First, it would mean overhauling a mindset.
She used the phrase ” a collective DNA” that made the party constitutionally incapable of change. Second, PAP leaders have always believed that Singapore was too small and vulnerable and it would always need the strong, paternal hand of the party. Third, it would mean the dismantling of the feared machinery of the ISA and the defamation suit.
She she could not see the present PM doing it
What next for the PAP?
First, she said, prepare for the next general election likely in 2016. Second, concentrate on the economy as a long-term strategy. Get the economics right and the rest will take care of itself, as the Prime Minister had said: ” Good policies make good politics.”
But third, the government would still use what she termed “old instruments” to curb critics who overstepped, like the outspoken blogger or the satirical cartoonist. In this sort of behaviour, the government had skilfully created the mixed strategy of blowing hot, blowing cold.
It forced the White Paper on population on the people and then invited them to engage in the great Singapore Conversation. It looked Machiavellian.
She stressed that the scenario just painted was speculative, as is the feeling that the PAP, despite displaying a harmonious whole, may be internally torn and may split up
Finally, she offered this advice to young people who asked her for ways of dealing with the government: “Think through, stand up, speak up and try not to be afraid. But alas, alas, these days I myself am feeling, well, not exactly afraid, but nervous, uneasy. I think I am suffering from what is sometimes called the Quo Vadis syndrome, that is, the anxiety of whither are we going.”
Post-speech answers
After the speech she was peppered with questions. Were you ever afraid? No, she replied unequivocally, ” I speak as a concerned citizen within my democratic rights. I have not taken instructions from anyone, I have no connections with a foreign power, no one can pin anything on me.”
What about your “relationship’, someone asked, with Goh Chok Tong whom you first criticised in 1994. She wrote an article called The Great Affective Divide in September that year and followed it with One Government, Two Styles three months later.
In the second article, she said Goh was under the influence of Lee Kuan Yew.
Goh took exception to that claim and challenged her to enter politics. Her answer: ” I wrote as a responsible person interested in the direction of Singapore’s politics. I don’t have to join a political party to be able to comment on it.
To return finally to her criticism of Lee Kuan Yew, no one can tell exactly the extent her remarks contributed to his self-appraisal. Recents reports of the first Prime Minister evince mixed responses. He has this year published two new books, The Wit and Wisdom of Lee Kuan Yew and One Man’s View of the World, tomes aimed to assure his legacy.
At the same time, press reports point to a physically frail, old person and on the Net one can see an image of him in a wheelchair feeding coi in Jurong.
It prompts the comment not often publicly mentioned that Lee is not what he used to be. This feeling is augmented by his poignant remark that when it was his time to go, and this from a person of secular belief, he hoped to meet Mrs Lee in the hereafter.
Catherine Lim has been speaking truth to power since 1994, when she published her article on Goh. Many are surprised that she has done so with impunity.
But because she speaks as an honest broker beholden only to her conscience and because she is an accomplished writer who knows how far she can go, perhaps no one should be surprised that she has got away with what she did—and is still doing.
Robert Yeo, poet and playwright, is a part-time lecturer at SMU.
Should You Buy the Biggest Flat You Can Get?
Yeah, I know we covered this topic before. But it was before all the big changes we’ve seen, so that old guide’s now as useful as a car manual from the time of The Flintstones. And since some of you have started asking this question again, I thought we’d better do a quick, fresh take:
Key Changes in the Wonderful World of HDB
I know the the editorial team’s frowning at this headline. I refuse to change it.
At the rate our media’s celebrating HDB, we’re months away from opening a “Wonderful World of HDB” theme park. You’ll see: “Sudden Subsidy” roller coasters, shooting out the mouths of politicians’ statues, and cafeterias selling Executive Condiments (EC) burgers.
(I call dibs on the ideas and names).
Now some of the celebrated HDB changes, which should impact your decision to get the biggest flat, are:
- Stepped Up Special Housing Grant
- De-linking of BTO Flats from Resale Flat Prices
- The Joint Singles Scheme
1. Stepped Up Special Housing Grant
The Special Housing Grant (SHG) is a $20,000 grant for HDB flats. This was previously given to lower income families ($2,250 a month and below), to buy 3-room and 2-room flats.
During the National Day Rally speech however, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced a step-up to the grant. It will now cover 4-room flats as well, and now the Middle Class will qualify. There was a mention of qualifying at a household income of $4,000 or under a month; I’ll update you with the exact figure once I’m sure.
A stepped up SHG might make a 4-room a far more sensible decision than a 3-room. You’ll have the potential for rental income (whether you use it or not), and more room for your family. All without surrendering the $20,000 grant.
2. De-linking of BTO Flats from Resale Flat Prices
Some people out there are still obsessing over capital gains (i.e. they think their flat is an asset, not a home). Which is great justification for certain healthcare ideas. Like subsidised hearing aids.
Your flat is not going to be considered an asset first and home second. I don’t know how much clearer the government can make that message. Hence, new flat prices are now de-linked from resale flat prices.
This is all good news for home buyers; it makes BTO flats more affordable. For them, it’s a sign that they may be able to pick the biggest one. For the investor types, buying the biggest flat no longer translates to the same kind of capital appreciation that it used to.
Let’s do this because we can share our lives. Because we can grow old together. Because a 4-room has way higher returns.3. The Joint Singles Scheme
Two single Singapore citizens can now make a joint application for a flat; this is under the Joint Singles Scheme (JSS). The subsidies they both get can be combined. And if they later get married, they get another $15,000 for their flat.
So if you and your partner are mostly sure about settling down, it might not be a bad idea to grab a bigger flat. There’ll be more room for your family, and you know another $15,000 subsidy will be waiting.
Other Related Factors
Some of you will have to use a private bank loan, instead of the HDB concessionary loan. Now don’t be afraid*.
*I mean that literally. Don’t. Like any wild animal, bankers can smell fear, and it sends them into attack mode.
You should, however, be aware that certain macroeconomic factors, and recent government policies, will impact your decision. Those of you intending to use private loans need to consider:
- Increased Difficulty in Refinancing
- Rising Interest Rates
1. Increased Difficulty in Refinancing
Refinancing has become more complicated, with the new Total Debt Servicing Ratio (TDSR) framework.
Remember your finances are evaluated every time you want to switch loan packages. And because the new TDSR factors in every single debt, even credit card bills, there’s now greater risk you’ll be unable to refinance.
And that was how the bank’s appeals department saved on time AND manpower.So if you want the biggest flat, here’s the question you need to ask: Can you maintain loan repayments, even after the fourth year (that’s usually when your home loan rates shoot up)? Assume you will be unable to change to a cheaper package.
If you’re dependent on switching to cheaper loans, you’re playing chicken with a 16-wheeler. That’s the kind off assumption that later results in a fast, costly sell-off. Think about it before getting, say, a five-room flat or EC.
(PS: If you’re having trouble refinancing right now, try asking the mortgage specialists at SmartLoans.sg. It doesn’t cost you anything!)
2. Rising Interest Rates
This is not a concern with HDB concessionary loans (those home loan rates are fixed at 2.6%).
But interest rates for private bank loans have gone up, with some banks raising the spread by around 0.5% over the past year. American Federal Reserve policies, expected to come soon, might also raise SIBOR and SOR rates. And If I’m speaking Klingon right now, refer to this guide.
In short, if you take a private bank loan, be more careful about the size of the flat. A huge loan quantum can make even small shifts in interest rates quite devastating.
The Conclusion
Circumstances vary for each individual. But in general, people using a HDB loan shouldn’t be afraid to grab the largest flat. The drawbacks seem minimal.
But people using a private bank loan have to be careful they’re not over-leveraged. I don’t think these people will be bankrupted by rate hikes; but it can make their lives more deprived…for a long time.
Would You Buy the Biggest Flat? Comment and Let Us Know!
Image Credits:
jonolist, merick.fightBoredom (thumbnail), dinuks, iamlemonflim, bigpresh, sboneham,
Source: http://www.moneysmart.sg/housing-property/should-you-buy-the-biggest-flat-you-can-get-august-2013/
How Singapore’s Latest HDB Cooling Measures Affect You
Affordable housing is a big ticket issue right now. And when our government tackles a problem, they do it with a uniquely Singaporean slant: That is, the unshakeable conviction that anything worth doing is worth overdoing. Enter the latest HDB Cooling Measures:
“Hello, what you want? Clothes? Camera? Watch? HDB resale flat?”
What are the Latest HDB Cooling Measures?
- Reduction of the Mortgage Servicing Ratio (MSR) from 35% to 30% for HDB Concessionary Loans
- Reduction of the maximum loan tenure from 30 to 25 years for HDB flats; and 35 to 30 years for bank loans.
- 3 year increased wait time for Permanent Residents (PRs)
Here’s a quickie explanation:
1. Reduction of the MSR to 30%
The MSR measures the percentage of your income that would go toward repaying your home loan monthly.
In the past, HDB buyers had a MSR of 35%. So if you had an income of $2,500, your MSR would have been (35% of $2,500) = $875.
That means the maximum allowable repayment on your home loan, every month, would have been $875. The loan amount granted to you will be calculated based on this amount.
With the MSR now lowered to 30%, your maximum allowable repayment (again on a $2,500 income) would be a paltry $750. Which means the loan amount granted to you will be reduced accordingly. Yeah, you may have to shelve those upgrading plans for now.
Incidentally, the MSR for HDB Concessionary Loans are now similar to bank loans: Both are at 30%.
If the new MSR just wrecked your home loan approval, contact SmartLoans.sg for help. The mortgage specialists there can figure something out. It’s free, so long as we keep shoving them stale bread under the cellar door.
2. Reduction of Maximum Loan Tenure
The maximum loan tenure* is now set to 25 years for HDB Concessionary Loans and 30 years for bank loans.
*The time before a loan is repaid in full
A 30 year loan tenure with a bank loan will however only grant you 60% of the purchase price. If you need the full 80%, the maximum loan tenure you can take is 25 years, which is the same as the HDB Concessionary Loan.
A shorter loan tenure means higher monthly repayments for the same loan amount. Combined with the lower MSR, this means home buyers in general will be borrowing much less.
Follow us on Facebook, and we’ll address how the HDB and bank loans compare under the new ruling.
While that sucks, it does mean fewer Singaporeans will be over-leveraged. This should brace us for potential liquidity crunches, once the Americans change their fiscal policy.
3. Increased Wait Time for PRs
On the plus side, pets aren’t a problem.This is perhaps the biggest, most significant change. Previously, someone could buy a resale flat as soon as they got their PR status. It was a major contributor to rising resale flat prices, and sudden paranoid xenophobia. Now, a 3-year waiting period has been implemented.
The new restriction means some PRs will now have to rent (unless they can afford other private property). That’s good news for landlords, and for flat owners who have started letting out rooms.
If you have a sizeable 4-room or 5-room, now may be the time to keep an eye on the rental market.
A Message to Property Investors?
After the latest cooling measure, the Loan Applications Department was never the same.Resale flat prices were already plummeting, even before this cooling measure. Just yesterday (26th August 2013) we heard that zero COV flat sales tripled, from 14 in January to 49 in July.
(A zero CoV sale means the seller was only paid the actual valuation of the flat).
The new cooling measure makes it worse. Expect the resale market to contract, like a well salted slug, because PRs made up a significant part of the market. Now the new arrivals won’t be able to buy for three years, even if they had the cash.
The message to property developers is clear:
HDB flats are for housing first, and investment second.
The government isn’t going to temper its policies to cushion investors, so don’t count on resale flats prices hitting the dizzying heights they did a few years back.
How do you think these cooling measures will affect the property landscape in Singapore? Leave us a comment here!
Image Credits:
Oldandsolo, jaqian, Balaji Dutt, cubmundo
Source: http://www.moneysmart.sg/housing-property/how-singapores-latest-hdb-cooling-measures-affect-you/