Monday, May 26, 2025
30 C
Singapore
Home Blog Page 5272

Asia focus for Aussie who wants to be PM

0

By P. Francis
Melbourne
3-Alan-with-Tony-Abbott (500x333)

RHODES scholar, swimmer, runner, cyclist, ex-seminarian, journalist and politician are just some of the threads weaved into the many-coloured coat of Tony Abbott, leader of the quietly-confident Liberal opposition Down Under as D-Day 7 September approaches.

No, he is not exactly like Joseph – the favourite son of Jacob – who was given the unique coat by his father as a sign of future leadership over his brothers, as related in Genesis.

Abbott is married to Marg and has three lovely daughters. He had to work very hard in opposition against two different PMs and now, some critics claim, it is his election to lose as the weekly polls have swung Abbott’s way. (Some polls have even dared to say – and newspapers have published the prediction – that PM Kevin Rudd could lose his Brisbane seat of Griffith.)

This Rhodes scholar, who studied at The Queen’s College in 1981, is one of the high achievers in the Australian political arena. Other Australian products of the premier scholarship, which has strict criteria, sharing a special ‘thread’ are Labor PM Bob Hawke (1983-1991), Kim Beazley (deputy Labor PM) and former Liberal opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull.

Even Singapore has its share of Rhodes scholars. Former Singapore Sports Council chairman and senior minister Dr Tan Eng Liang won the scholarship through Malaysia in 1981. The rumour mill had it in the late 1970s that “this man was being groomed to be the next Singapore PM”. History shows his career went a different way. Today Singapore has two serving MPs of that calibre – Raymond Lim (PAP) and Chen Show-Mao (WP), while Malaysia has MP Sivarasa Rasiah of Parti Keadilan Rakyat (People’s Justice Party).

Among Abbott’s plans for the future is integrating further into Asia by building from the ground up.

The Australian newspaper reported on 25 Feb this year: “The business community has swung behind Tony Abbott’s pitch for a new Colombo Plan, which would see thousands of Australian undergraduates undertake a semester of university work in the Asia-Pacific. Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop has been the driving force behind the new policy for scholarships paying travel, tuition and living expenses for Australians to study in Asia.”

Ms Bishop, a former education minister in the Howard government, had said that the scholarships would require recipients to work one day a week as interns for Australian businesses and non-government organisations in Asia. She said it was crucial to link the scholarships to career prospects for the students selected. Business Council of Australia president Tony Shepherd gave a big tick to the opposition’s plan and called it “a great idea”. “The original Colombo Plan (which brought Asian students to Australia) was very beneficial to Australia,” he said. “It formed fantastic alumni links to Australia.”

Brighton Secondary Year 10 express student Evelyn Lieng, of Melbourne, gave the plan an emphatic nod and said: “It would be a good opportunity to work in Third World countries and developing nations in Asia because many of us take what we have here for granted.” Lieng, who has a grasp of conversational Japanese and French – learnt in Years 7 and 8 at school – also had the impression that “Locals think the immigrants work too hard at school and employment, but just can’t be bothered to match the pace.” Perhaps that is why Australia lags behind some Asian countries in the academic stakes.

Meanwhile, Isabelle Weston, a Year 10 Student at Fairhills High in Knox, has hosted three different Japanese students in her home and will go on a study trip to Japan in mid-September. She said: “Guess it is a good plan to experience the culture, lifestyle and learn new ways of working. The Federal Government should select suitable students and teach them to pay their way.”

A Malaysian teacher, enjoying his retirement in Melbourne but wanting to remain anonymous, commended the plan: “Good idea.  What is needed now is to identify the Australian businesses and NGOs willing to host the interns and to participate in the programme. While the Aussies might be willing, I doubt if the Asian businesses or NGOs would give their full support. They might have reservations. Asian businesses, in particular, rely very strongly on personal commitment and loyalty, as you know. Their business culture especially, is very different from that of the West.”

Abbott has another plan – announced in a White Paper on 21 June this year: “With Asia’s real GDP expected to grow from US$27 trillion to US$67 trillion by 2030 and Northern Australia’s proximity to the tropical region, Northern Australia is well placed to capitalise on the significant economic, strategic and environmental macro-trends that will shape both the Asian and tropical regions.  We are determined to break the ongoing development deadlock that has held Northern Australia back for so long.  For too long, families have been reluctant to move to Northern Australia because of the absence of adequate infrastructure; and governments and the private sector have been reluctant to invest in major projects because of insufficient population.’’

Abbott’s vision is to use the north of the continent as a springboard for trade into Asia, where many countries are rapidly developing under the shadows of the economic giants, such as China, Japan and Korea. Highly-populated India could be called the sleeping giant, closest neighbor Indonesia has a huge market, Thailand is popular with Aussie tourists and Myanmar is slowly opening its doors.

In the past, Australian military forces have served in Singapore, Malaya, Borneo, Papua New Guinea, East Timor, Korea and Vietnam to help maintain peace and freedom.  It is a well known fact that Asian countries, including Singapore, Indonesia and the US have ventured Down Under and used the vast and rugged terrain of Australia for military training exercises.

Today, many people accept Australia as part of Asia. Even in sport, the Socceroos, Australia’s national football team, has paved the way into Asia by playing in the Asian Group for the past two World Cup qualifying rounds. They have been great ambassadors for the country. Melbourne, regarded as the sports capital of the world, will be in the limelight once again when the Aussies host their inaugural Asian Cup tournament in 2015.

The links are already there laid in stone and Abbott’s plan to further strengthen the bonds with Asia is another step in the right direction. The changing face of Australia is mirrored in the number of MPs with Asian heritage, who are involved in government at federal and state level. It is only a matter of time, maybe decades, when – just like President Obama in the US – a Prime Minister with Asian heritage is sworn in by the Governor-General of the day!

P. Francis is an English tutor in Melbourne, who has more than 20 years’ journalism experience with newspapers, books and magazines in Singapore and Australia.

Vincent Wijeysingha resigns from SDP

0
Vincent Wijeysingha
Vincent Wijeysingha

By Kumaran Pillai

Vincent Wijeysingha
Vincent Wijeysingha

Outgoing Singapore Democratic Party treasurer Dr Vincent Wijeysingha gave this exclusive, no-holds-barred interview to The Independent Singapore before his resignation from the party. He spoke openly about his journey through the political landscape, the prejudices he faced and the need for greater gay awareness and advocacy.
He was a rising star, holding key appointments as party treasurer, head of communications, author of SDP’s shadow budget and prime contributor to SDP’s policy position papers.
His decision to quit electoral politics seems to follow the outing of his gay orientation on Facebook just before the Pinkdot event this year.
One party member said, “Vincent’s resignation is a loss to SDP.”
Dr Wijeysingha is the third to resign of the four-member SDP team that stood for election from the Holland-Bukit Timah GRC in the 2011 general election. Tan Jee Say and Michelle Lee have already left the SDP and Ang Yong Guan, the fourth member, is no longer seen at party events.
Here’s what Dr Wijeysingha had to say.
The interview
You’ve had an incredible journey in Singapore’s socio-political scene. First of all, how did you get involved in mainstream politics?
It’s an exciting journey, even if not entirely trouble-free!
Entering politics was fairly straightforward. During the first year after I came back to Singapore, I was looking at civil society initiatives. There was a lot of good work going on.
I sensed that, for me at least, a focus on wider politics would be worthwhile. It felt the right thing to do, engaging in the broader political spectrum.
What were some of the prejudices that you faced in your political life?
The most immediate prejudice I experienced was in the silence that surrounds homosexuality – it means that people like Vivian Balakrishnan can use it as a trump card during elections.
The existence of Section 377a implies that prejudice against the gay community is institutionalised in Singapore. And it permeates every aspect of our lives – through the school system, the army and the workplace. LGBT people end up hiding their true selves and living a life of silence in isolation. Dr Balakrishnan then uses it against us.
Tell me more about this video that was circulated. Was that taken at a private event?
It wasn’t a private event, it was a forum organised by M Ravi to discuss the Section 377a constitutional challenge that he was taking – the Ivan Tan case. I spoke at that event.
Was that before you decided to enter politics?
No, about the same time. Roy Tan, who has done a great job of chronicling the work of the gay community over several years, recorded the forum and uploaded it to YouTube. It was a useful contribution to the public debate.
It may have been a concerted plan on the part of some PAP supporters: the video was publicised about a fortnight before the general elections and then Dr Balakrishnan made a statement about it.
But my sense is that, in any case, the issue is complex: there are layers of prejudice and layers of commitment to democracy. There are those who are committed to democracy but struggle with the extension of rights to gay people.
What’s interesting was SDP’s response to Vivian’s statement about your “gay agenda.” SDP was quick to say that they do not have a gay agenda. But the larger question is, why not? If they are championing for full democracy, why leave the gays out?
This one is a semantic problem…
The term ‘gay agenda’ was coined by American evangelical churches to describe what they see as a nefarious plot by gay people to take over the world!
Dr Balakrishnan may have heard the term being used in similar fashion and then used it in the same way.
In fact, the term doesn’t have any substance to it – when you think about it – what is a gay agenda?
So when the SDP responded during the elections, we said that we don’t have a gay agenda – what we have is an agenda for the poor and an agenda for democracy.
Justice Quentin Loh said that in Singapore’s legal system, whether a social norm that has “yet to gain currency” should be discarded or retained is decided by Parliament. So shouldn’t you be championing the gay issues in Parliament instead?
As far as I perceive it, the Singapore courts don’t interpret the law. We don’t appear to have a natural justice approach to the law but follow what Parliament has prescribed. I call this the Yong Pung How Doctrine; he articulated it often during his tenure as Chief Justice.
In England, you will sometimes find judges saying emphatically that Parliament must look again at a particular issue. Our judges don’t do that.
But neither is Parliament the place where social change is initiated. It is the place where social change is ratified.
Social change occurs in the community. When a question arrives on the floor of Parliament, it has already been progressed outside.
A small number of non-government MPs does not change the legal framework but rather responds to public sentiment outside which, to be sure, is the task of politicians but, more importantly, of social activists, to shape.
What made you post about your sexual orientation just before the Pink Dot event this year?
As far as I am concerned, I was outed during the GE. It was already a known fact…
My post was rather tongue-in-cheek but it made an important point: that one should attend Pink Dot if one is, like me, committed to the equal rights of all people.
Speaking openly against a prejudice that has thrived in silence is part of the process that dispels the silence.
I understand that you are resigning from SDP…
Yes, after that post on Facebook, I received hundreds of ‘Likes’ and messages. Some wrote to congratulate me for coming out. And it really surprised me.
It struck me that LGBT people may have been lulled into a sense of security. The police do not raid our social spaces anymore; it does not use agent provocateurs. Several MPs including the two former Prime Ministers are on record as saying that no moral attitude should be assigned to homosexuality.
I was certainly lulled into a sense that all is well. That when Section 377a is removed from the statute book – and eventually it will – things in general will be okay.
But the sentiment is split: many of the comments in the social media were supportive but some were highly prejudiced.
The volume of misinformation and misunderstanding suggested to me that there is a major task ahead to address these negative views because they contribute to the very real discrimination in daily life. So that forced the question on me: how should I respond.
If I remained in party politics, I would focus on mainstream issues, ie. those at the political middle ground. This could result in the sidelining of marginal concerns such as those faced by the gay community – I faced a dilemma.
Ultimately, I came to the conclusion that I might be of better use if I engaged these marginal concerns, particularly since they impact on me and therefore have deep meaning for me as an individual.
Will you be joining any gay advocacy group or starting one on your own?
I haven’t thought that far. I do need to get involved, wherever it might be.
My values remain the same; they are the values the SDP inculcated. The SDP has provided a much-needed voice to place the issues of personal liberty firmly in the political arena.
I take those values with me; they form a key element of my values apparatus.
You see, in fact there is a “gay agenda”, but not in Dr Balakrishnan’s sense. It is an agenda for equal protection of the law, for respect and amity.
I’m sure that when people get over their initial prejudices through access to better information, the so-called gay agenda will be no more of a threat than the agendas for equal rights for women, for ethnic minorities, for disabled people that at one time were also viewed with suspicion and fear but which today are entirely mainstream.

Sports and politics: do they mix?

0

By Michael Y.P. Ang

basi_yeo_teo_chee_heanIt is fairly common for Singapore’s sports organisations to be run by politicians. So we have

Senior Minister of State for Trade & Industry and National Development Lee Yi Shyan serving as president of Singapore Badminton Association,

MP for Toa Payoh East (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC) Zainudin Nordin as president of the Football Association of Singapore, and

MP for Nee Soon South (Nee Soon GRC) Lee Bee Wah as president of the Singapore Table Tennis Association.
A person should not be excluded from presiding over a national sports organisation simply because he is a politician. That would be discrimination.
However, if a person with no prior experience in sports administration or as a competitive athlete becomes the chief of a national sports organisation, primarily because he is a politician, it raises the question: is this in the best interest of the sport or that person’s political career? (Being prominently involved in national sport raises a person’s public profile.)

Politicians running sports bodies per se is not a bad thing. In fact, it can be a very good thing.

Politics and sport seem like a good mix in Japan

Japan, a global sports powerhouse with 139 Olympic gold medals (of which nine came from the Winter Olympics), also has politicians running some of its sports organisations. For instance, Seiko Hashimoto, a member of Japan’s House of Councillors (the Upper House), is president of the Japan Skating Federation (JSF).

However, unlike her Singaporean counterparts, Ms Hashimoto is a former Olympic speed skating bronze medallist. Clearly, she has first-hand knowledge of what her sport needs to flourish. This is perhaps why the JSF continues to produce Olympic medallists in both speed and figure skating.

The ideal sports administrator

China’s Olympic and world champion Lin Dan recently told the AFP news agency, “Many people, including those from the BWF (Badminton World Federation), don’t really understand what the main problems in badminton are, and what it most needs, because many officials are not competitors.”

Former national athletes with an aptitude for sports administration are the ideal people to manage the sport they had competed in.

A great example is Singapore’s two-time world silat champion Sheik Alau’ddin, who went on to become the national team head coach and, later, technical director. Armed with experience as an athlete and coach, Sheik became the chief executive officer of the Singapore Silat Federation (SLF) in 2005.

Under Sheik’s leadership, the SLF continued its proud tradition of producing world champions and South-east Asian Games winners. At the inaugural Asian championships two years ago, Singapore won four gold medals.

Is sport the best use of Singaporean politicians’ precious time?

Not every former athlete is suitable for or interested in sports administration. Nevertheless, it is counter-productive for national sports organisations to pick only politicians as their presidents, especially if they have more pressing national matters to focus on.

For instance, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean is also Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs. These portfolios are in addition to the six constituencies within the Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC he oversees. Given his full-time work commitments, is he really the most suitable person to be president of the Singapore National Olympic Council?

Unless a politician brings with him a wealth of sports experience, Singapore sport is better served by having qualified, passionate sports administrators who can commit full-time to running national sports organisations.

It’s Singapore, not Swingapore

0

By Abhijit Nag

sgconversation

“What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculty!” said Hamlet.  He wouldn’t have been so sure about human rationality, though, had he gone around taking opinion polls.

Did you see the survey findings of Our Singapore Conversation?  Forty-five per cent of the respondents agree, and another 33 per cent strongly agree, that the government is managing Singapore well.  But only 42 per cent agree, and 22 per cent strongly agree, that the government is doing what’s right for Singaporeans. How can the number of people who think the government is doing a good job exceed those who think the government is doing what’s right for the people? Go figure.

That’s not the only puzzle posed by the report. It also makes you wonder how popular is the government’s new move for strengthening social safety nets. What’s crystal -clear is that Singaporeans want slower growth, fewer foreigners and tend to be conservative.

And you have to take your hat off to the old man for (a) knowing his people so well and (b) having such a big influence on them.

LKY values

Guess what matters most to Singaporeans. “Across age groups, filial piety and safety and security for their families were regarded the most important,” says the report.

LKY would approve. Filial piety, self-reliance, family ties, Mr Lee Kuan Yew never tired of upholding these while propagating what he called “Asian values”.

And they still resonate with young Singaporeans.

Tellingly, it’s people over 50 and those earning less than $1,000 a month that want the government to take more responsibility for providing for the people, says the report. The majority of teenagers, on the other hand, feel the people, not the government, should be more responsible for themselves.  And that view is shared by a sizable section of under-50-year-olds.

The influence of LKY shows in other ways, too.

Most Singaporeans would like to keep taxes low even if it means limiting support to the needy. More affluent Singaporeans, earning over $7,000 a month or living in private property, “seemed more willing to pay higher taxes to support the needy”, says the report. But that may be because they are in a better position to pay. Flat-rate indirect taxes such as the GST impose a heavier burden on lower-income groups.

“Bleeding heart liberals” most Singaporeans are not.  Gay lifestyles are acceptable to only 34 per cent of teenagers and 35 per cent of 20- to 34-year-olds – and even fewer older Singaporeans. Same-sex marriage is unacceptable to most.

It’s Singapore, not Swingapore.

Bright young things and the hip and the cool may lament, “Say it ain’t so, Singapore.”

People may wonder whether all the fuss over social welfare, gay rights, freedom of expression (apparently not a big deal, curbs acceptable to the majority) is much ado about nothing.

Here’s what we do know.

 “Sing” or “Swing”, if the people have their wish, this will still be a Garden City with green, open spaces for years to come. And who wanted Singapore to be a Garden City? Mr Lee Kuan Yew, of course.

Banned in Joo Chiat

0
The way we see it, The Independent Singapore News

Street walkers are not the only ones who are banned in Joo Chiat, the URA has also banned new diners from operating as sit-in restaurants.

Relational Goods was told by URA, which is in charge of issuing dine-in licenses to pack up its tables and chairs in anticipation of increased congestion at the intersection of Joo Chiat Place and Everitt Road.

The place has other popular eateries and restaurants like Fei Fei Wan Tan Mee King and Smokey’s.

In the past, the residents in this area have complained that their driveways have been blocked by cars driven by patrons of these eateries.

To mitigate this problem, the owners of Relational Goods negotiated with the nearby Church to use their parking lots for their customers in order to ease the parking menace in the vicinity.

Despite their efforts, URA did not budge and said that they can only operate as a take-away outlet.

But wouldn’t take-away outlets compound the issue further?

It would only encourage more drivers to park indiscriminately so that they can grab their food on the run.

Where’s the spirit of entrepreneurship that the government is encouraging?

What Sentosa Cove says about Singapore

0
Property News

If you want to have a snapshot view of how dramatically Singapore has changed politically, economically and socially just take a drive around Sentosa Cove, the only residential enclave that boasts exclusive oceanfront living for Singaporeans and foreigners.

Executive Adrian Tan, who had the rare chance to drive in, described it this way: “It is like driving into Beverly Hills. The bungalows don’t have fences and the beach is all yours and only yours.”

Throwing S$30 million at a bungalow is quite common. That is also the only place where foreigners can buy a landed property without asking for permission.

The Merdeka Generation that joined in the gamble with Lee Kuan Yew to build a “democratic nation based on justice and equality” might wonder if this is the Singapore they had put their money on.

Politically, the country has moved so far away from the socialist roots the ruling party was embedded on.

The PM’s recent speech has given some hope that this shift could change.

The white and white attire (to show a sense of ideological purity) worn by the People’s Action Party politicians at party functions, the official dictate for ostentatious (including waterfront) living and the principle of giving every Singaporean a good life were examples of its socialist ideals.

Economically, the country was Singaporean-centric that made sure every citizen had a decent-paying job and equal opportunities. As it transformed itself from marshland to metropolis with foreigners, especially the super rich, cruising in to work, live and play here the national core is showing signs of distress.

It is the social sphere that is seeing the biggest impact. As the Sentosa Cove people float in their private yachts enjoying champagne and caviar, a growing group of Singaporeans are struggling to make ends meet.

Singapore’s Gini coefficient, designed to show income inequality, was 0.452 last year, say OECD reports. It is the worst in the developed world.

At the other end of the scale, the country has the dubious distinction of being a place where the super rich amass their wealth super fast.

A Barclays report in 2013 showed that 51 per cent of high-net worth individuals in Singapore became rich in less that 10 years, topping the world’s charts.

The number of people with more than $1million in investible assets reached about 133,000 in 2015, about double the level in 2010.

Singapore is becoming one big party town with people like Eduardo Saverin, the co-founder of Facebook, and Australian mining tycoon Nathan Tinkler setting up home here and entertaining their friends and clients in trendy nightspots where their bills can go up to tens of thousands of dollars.

But not everybody is part of this party as the everyday stresses of living in a tight squeeze of a city are more in many people’s minds.

So, when PM Lee Hsien Loong said if he could persuade 10 more billionaires to move to Singapore, he would, even if that worsened the income divide, there was a sense of resignation all round.

“…billionaires bring business, they will bring opportunities, they will open new doors, they will create new jobs,” said the PM.

No one, not even the Merdeka Generation, would want a return to the backwater days of old Singapore.

But the question is whether this relentless pursuit of the fleshy and the flashy should continue at such full speed – and whether

Singaporeans should be allowed to claim back some aspects of the nation’s old-world charm.

A fitting time to reflect as Singaporeans look towards marking the country great again.

This article was first published in 2013 and updated in 2021. 

When property becomes lottery…

0
Property News

Property NewsOf all the statistics that are thrown at the property-obsessed Singaporean, the most ignored, but most worrying, is the one that speaks volumes about the dark hole that the country is digging for itself.

The money stashed away in residential property is hitting a payback of more than than 4 per cent of GDP; in many other modern economies that figure is just a blip.

The hunger for amassing property is reaching the stage where owning a second, third, even a fourth one, is talked about without batting an eyelid.

For a country whose economy is maturing, putting so much money into a non-productive sector like property will make this a country of landlords, not of businessmen and innovators.

The government is very mindful of how this property play will affect the country’s long-term prosperity.

But its hands are tied somewhat. It is caught in a classic squeeze of wanting to act decisively and not wanting to go the full hog because of a political backlash.

Home-ownership was the government’s showcase policy since it took power in 1959. Now nearly 90 per cent of Singaporeans own their homes. Down the road, this well-intentioned policy morphed into encouraging young citizens to upgrade and older citizens to downgrade.

It was to feed into the aspirations of the former and to unlock the property treasure trove of the latter so that the senior citizens will have spare cash to live their august years in retired bliss.

People who live in their first homes for a long time is a rarity with buying and selling properties a norm these days. Property conversations are almost always about how much a home can be sold for.

Singaporeans have become nomads in their own country.

In this kind of frenzy, it will be political suicide for a government to think about acting decisively to cool the market.

Since 2009, the government tried to cool the market seven times. Each action brought about a similar result. The rate of home sales went down a little, but picked up a few months later.

As Institute of Policy Studies research associate Christopher Gee has said in a newspaper interview: “Incremental measures have unintended consequences in encouraging more people to jump in because they think there will be another round coming and thus act to lock in a property now.”

That accelerates demand, which explains why the seven measures have not been very effective.

For example, sales of new private homes in June 2013 surged 23.8 per cent when compared to the figure in May.

The bigger worry is the likelihood that the interest rate regime might have a shorter life span in the coming years.

If that happens, the highly-leveraged Singaporean will face a tough time paying off his mortgages.

Ratings agency Moody’s has entered the scene ringing the alarm bell: The ratio of Singapore dollar loans to deposits hit a six-year high at 79 per cent last year.

And household-debt has risen 40.4 per cent since 2009 but monthly incomes went up only 26.3 per cent.

The agency even took the rare step of downgrading Singapore’s banking system from “stable” to “negative” because of the institutions’ exposure to loans and mortgages. The government has shrugged this off, saying the banking system is doing fine.

Mindful of the pothole-ridden road ahead, the Monetary of Singapore Authority had acted earlier by getting banks to take into account all of a borrower’s outstanding loans, including for cars and credit cards, when assessing mortgage applications. Total repayments cannot be higher than 60 per cent of gross monthly income.

It is clear that there are not that many options left for the government as citizens continue to tie themselves up in property betting.

Singaporeans will soon have to realise that, like all forms of lotteries, property is not a one-way bet.

Four Issues We Must Have Missed at the National Day Rally Speech

0
Singapore Politics

By Ryan Ong
MoneySmart.sg
Singapore Politics
Know what happened last Sunday? Last Sunday I sat around waiting for the next half of the National Day Rally speech. Hell, I waited. By the time of the midnight Simpson’s rerun, I realized two things: (1) you can physically feel your kidney vibrate after 19th cappuccinos, and (2) there was no second half. The speech was over. Cut off, just like that. Where was the mention of these four issues?
What We Would Have Liked to Hear More About
Look, I understand what the term “rally” means. I didn’t expect the Prime Minister to start tackling hard issues in the middle of it. Not any more than I’d expect, say, Anthony Robbins to raise Palestinian rights in the middle of his motivational speech.
It’s meant to be all ra-ra and get you fired up, I get that. But you know what?
The ra-ra would have been much louder, and the patriotic fervour much warmer, had it included a few choice reassurances in:

  • Stagnating Wages Among Low-Income Earners
  • Population Targets in the White Paper
  • Income Inequality
  • Career Mentality

1. Stagnating Wages Among Low-Income Earners
In 2011, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) pointed out that real income for the bottom 20% of earners only rose by 0.3%, over the past decade.
So we had a little hoo-ha where the National Wages Council (NWC) stepped in. They recommended a wage hike for Singaporeans earning $1,000 a month or below. The amount indicated was $50 previously, and has been raised to $60.
Local firms heeded the call, and leapt into action with the speed and enthusiasm of a beached whale. Now I pointed out before: Around 3 in 10 (non-unionised) firms met the increases, and 4 in 10 gave nothing at all.
I understand that the government can’t make the selfish twerps give out the raises. That wouldn’t be business-friendly. And could result in mass retrenchments, among firms that are apparently so badly run they can’t even afford $60 wage hikes.
But surely we could get more incentives for these businesses to give the wage hikes? A carrot to dangle in front of them? At minimum, I thought we’d hear the PM egg them on a little.
2. Population Targets in the White Paper
In contrast to more extreme Singaporeans, I’m not an anti-white paper fanatic. I don’t equate our immigration policy with an extinction-level event.
I might equate it with having my nose shoved up an armpit every time I board the train, but not the end of my country per se.
So if the government says we need 20,000 to 25,000 immigrants per year, then fine. I’ll just take their word for it. But at the very least, don’t I get some notice on how we’re upgrading our infrastructure to cope?
What are we doing about our already wheezing and struggling train system? How are we changing bus and taxi services to adapt? How are we going to upgrade schools and employment policies to cope with the influx, or maintain sufficient open spaces?
Instead of hearing all that, we got a cheer leading pep talk about Changi airport. Look, we know our airport’s great; hell if it grows any more, it could probably secede and declare independence. That’s not the reassurance we needed.
The infrastructure question worth asking is: What sort of rising transport and infrastructure costs will come from an eventual population of 6.9 million?
And what are the plans to maintain our quality of life, in the face of that?
3. Income Inequality
Singapore has one of the highest GINI co-efficients among developed countries.
The GINI co-efficient measures income inequality, and we’ve already seen a rise from a GINI of 0.458 to 0.459, between 2011 and 2012. That puts us second highest in Asia, just after Hong Kong.
To be fair, some of the changes covered in the speech seem to help. For example, the stepped up Special Housing Grant (to include the middle class), and the switch to universal healthcare. But frankly, that’s like trying to cure stab wounds by flicking Panadols at the victim’s forehead.
Real changes might involve something like changing the Goods and Services Tax (GST) from a blanket rate. Let the rich folk pay 10% on their yachts or Maseratis or whatever; they’ll barely notice. But don’t dump a 7% tax on, say, diapers and baby food for a single mum.
Higher GST for luxury goods, lower (or no) GST for necessities. Then we might see the income gap start to narrow a bit. So, is there any chance of…oh damn.
Well just stick with us on Facebook then, and we’ll load you with the money making tips you need to stay afloat.
4. Career Mentality
The Singaporean worker has been targeted by the media a lot lately; it’s something I expected the PM would address. It was also in the Straits Times. The headline in print read: PMET – Pampered, Mediocre, Expensive, Timid.
It seems when Singaporeans can’t earn enough, it’s our fault for not being “analytical, creative, articulate, and productive”. When big companies can’t hit their profit margins, it’s not because they lack those exact same qualities.
How about some definition of “meritocracy” here? Is free market capitalism something we’re applying just to individuals, and not to companies with third rate management?
Also, some direction on career mentality would have been nice. Consider:

There’s no minimum wage, so it’s up to me to negotiate the best pay possible. But when I try to negotiate the best pay, I’m “expensive” and showing “a sense of entitlement“.

I’m encouraged to settle down, but when I try to, it means I’m not hungry enough for success. Because I “don’t believe in working late constantly” or “I’m hard to move” overseas.
This is a time when the PM could really help to clarify where we should stand. Are we supposed to be less competitive and more family friendly (I thought that’s one reason we tweaked the PSLE), or are we supposed to embrace our workaholic tendencies?

I don’t even know which side our vision consists of anymore. And I certainly didn’t get a clearer idea from the speech.

Was the PM responding to TISG?

0
The way we see it, The Independent Singapore News

The way we see it, The Independent Singapore NewsTan Bah Bah of The Independent suggested in his article published on the 10th of August that we should have a party instead of the annual National Day Parade.
In a television broadcast with the youth in Singapore which will be televised later tonight on CNA, the PM responds to TISG about having a party:
“We should mark the occasion properly; 50 years is an important milestone from where we started to where we’ve come.
“It’s been a very exciting journey and we’ve changed ourselves and we’ve changed Singapore. I don’t think we should just have a fireworks display and a party. I think that would not be at a right level.
He also said, government “does not have a magic source from heaven. Good things need to be paid for”.  And he explained that whatever the government gives out, will eventually come from the citizens.
Exactly, our reserves are what our people have accumulated over the years. It is our money, hand it back to us!

Is Singapore on its way to building stronger safety nets?

0
Singapore Political News

Singapore Political News

You have to hand it to the people.  You can have masterminds in government, but it is the “demos” – the common people, the populace – who ultimately decide how well a country or, at least, a democracy is run.

Consider what Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam said about social safety nets.

Western countries piled up large debts in their rapid growth years, he said, while Singapore saved and built up reserves, which it can now spend on social and economic priorities. The implication was how clever Singapore has been.

But there could be another interpretation, too. Look at the timing.

Western nations built up their social safety nets after the Great Depression and the Second World War. They were built to overcome adversity.

Singapore, on the other hand, is strengthening social safety nets after the PAP won the 2011 elections by the lowest margin since independence.  The move follows a setback for the ruling party. So is it more politic than altruistic?

There can be no question as to who is dictating the changes.

Of course, it’s the people. That’s why the government is addressing housing, health care, education and other hot-button issues.

The government can afford to help the needy. It built up funds, as Mr Tharman said, while the West piled up debts. Well done, Singapore. Hooray for the government for good housekeeping.

No one can question the acumen of a man like Mr Tharman, who is not only Singapore’s Finance Minister but also the chairman of the International Monetary and Financial Committee of the International Monetary Fund.

But governments and leaders can only be as effective as their people will let them be.

Look at India, for example.

 Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is a respected economist. Kaushik Basu, his former principal economic adviser, is now the World Bank’s chief economist. Raghuram Rajan, the governor of the Reserve Bank of India, formerly served as the chief economist of the International Monetary Fund.

Yet, India is an economic mess – the government unable to push through economic reforms in the face of opposition from other political parties and large sections of the people.

What does that tell you?

Not all the talent at the top can keep an economy shipshape if their policies are opposed by the people.

Good governance requires not only good leadership but also a supportive nation.

So who should you thank for the fat national nest egg the government wants to share with you?

Yourself — and all the others who allowed the government to pile up the money and didn’t ask for handouts.

Now the government is saying, “Thank you.” Could it be with an eye to the next election?