In response to the sound and fury of market investors angry with the treatment of Sky One, the SGX rebutted bluntly: “ …. the SGX’s review revealed no threat to fair, orderly and transparent trading. Hence, no suspension occurred”.
But three weeks ago, billions of dollars were wiped off the the market capitalisation of three stocks – Blumont, Asiasons and LionGold – because the very same regulator deemed that “our review showed disorderliness in the market and lack of transparency that could also threaten the fairness of trading”.
Check out these words: “could also”. Not definitely, not emphatically but “could also”. So we let billions of dollars ride on a hunch?
Richard Teng, the Deputy Chief Regulatory Officer at the SGX, defends further: “In the case of Sky One, designation was not necessary. But for Blumont, Asiasons and LionGold, designation was instituted to remove the froth of excessive speculation in the market and permit the fundamentals to assert themselves in determining market prices.”
To put it curtly, should that not be the market’s job? Having flagged out the gaping flaws between the three companies’ fundamentals and their stock prices, should not the SGX have left the market determine the appropriate equilibrium? Why the interventionist approach?
Many investors would have been glad to live with the wild gyrations of these stocks. To declare a designated status is to allow trading with one hand in cuffs. It would have been wiser for the SGX to suspend the stocks for an extended period for the companies to clarify their situation and for broking houses to revisit the fundamentals and for the issues to be sufficiently aired.
By imposing the designated status, the SGX did not create “a fair, orderly and transparent trading” for the three companies or the market. To the contrary, it exacerbated the uncertainties for the investors, companies, their suppliers, bankers and others. Hence, the share prices of the three companies plunged.
Queries and suspensions are appropriate tools, and in many instances sufficient. . Declaring a designated status should only be utilized in cases where fraud or criminal breaches are suspected or detected. The SGX should be careful not to overplay its hand. The collateral damage could be extensive, as seen in the current inertia in the market.
What is fair? Who determines what is fair?
So, what happened to integration?
Are locals and foreigners growing further apart in Singapore? An annual global survey of expats shows Singapore has slid down the rankings in social integration.
In the 2013 HSBC Expat Explorer survey released yesterday, Singapore has slipped from fourth to sixth in the overall experience of expatriates and fourth to seventh in the quality of life. But there has been a big drop in integration, down from 18th to 26th among the 37 countries surveyed.
This year’s report does not go into details, but last year’s report said:
“Expats living in Asia generally report finding it difficult to integrate into the local community. The number of expats who agreed strongly that they had integrated well in the local community in Asian countries including Malaysia (25%) Singapore (19%), Thailand (14%), and Hong Kong (11%) were much lower in comparison to many English-speaking countries such as Canada (44%), Australia (43%) and the UK (41%). The trend is highlighted when looking at the social activity of expats in these countries, with many expats in Hong Kong (50%), Thailand (48%) and Singapore (41%) in strong agreement that they tend to socialise with other expats rather than locals.“
This year’s report shows Singapore ranks sixth when it comes to making friends but 18th in making local friends and 21st in feeling welcome at work.
“Job market security is still a major concern for expats in Singapore, with 53% (compared to the global average of 39%) citing it as one of the top three threats to their financial wellbeing and confidence,” says the report.
The expats seem just as stressed as the locals. The survey shows Singapore ranks 32nd in work-life balance.
The expats are also feeling the pinch of the rising cost of living. The report says: “As well as the high cost of groceries and going out (65% and 64% said they are spending more respectively), Singapore emerges as one of the most expensive countries for public transport, with 63% of expats pointing out the higher costs.”
It adds: “The education and childcare system is also expensive (79% and 83% saw an increase in cost respectively) but it seems that expats are willing to pay the fees, because the higher costs are justified by the quality of service. Nearly eight in ten (78%) say that the quality of education is better in Singapore and 72% say the same for childcare.”
Singapore attractions
In fact, Singapore ranks second only to Germany as the best place to bring up a child.
And Singapore has other attractions. It ranks fifth in ease of setting up a new home.
More than half the respondents (54%) this year said they came to Singapore mainly because of better career prospects.
Last year’s report noted: “Singapore scores well as a place to live among expats, with 76% having found that their quality of life had improved upon relocation. And 74% witnessed an improvement in the financial status of their household. “
Singapore continues to attract skilled young professionals, says this year’s report, with 62% in the 18-34 age group.
Of the 228 expats surveyed in Singapore, 20% work in IT. While 29% came from Malaysia and 23% from India, 8% each came from Indonesia and the Philippines and 7% from China.
Top 10 Countries for Expatriates
| Country | Setting Up | Integration | Quality of life | Overall expat experience |
| Thailand | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 |
| Bahrain | 6 | 23 | 2 | 2 |
| China | 15 | 4 | 2 | 3 |
| Cayman Islands | 1 | 24 | 3 | 4 |
| Australia | 2 | 14 | 8 | 5 |
| Singapore | 5 | 26 | 7 | 6 |
| India | 28 | 12 | 5 | 7 |
| Taiwan | 24 | 8 | 6 | 8 |
| Spain | 8 | 7 | 16 | 9 |
| Brazil | 20 | 1 | 17 | 10 |
In Asia, the highest proportion of expats earning more than $250,000 are located in Indonesia (22%), Japan (13%) and China (10%) compared with a global average of just 3%. Comparatively, the lowest-paid expats live in Europe, where average salaries are $53,000 annually.
Race and Sports — a better mix?
By Augustine Low
Chinese play basketball and table tennis, Malays play football and sepak takraw, and Indians gravitate towards hockey and cricket.
Racial dominance and racial imbalance in sports is nothing new.
So it was somewhat surprising when Football Association of Singapore President Zainudin Nordin told MediaCorp’s Suria channel recently that the country must pull in all races to play football.
He said: “Firstly, I’m proud of the Malay community for their talent in football to be successful. But if we want our nation to succeed, we need more talent regardless of race so that we can choose the best of the lot . . . we must give an opportunity to everyone and we must use the system of meritocracy to see who deserves it most.”
Zainudin, also MP for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC, put it in the context of meritocracy. Really? Meritocracy? Since when has meritocracy been about the numbers game? If Malays have the passion and flair for football, and they work hard to excel at it, don’t they make it to the national team on merit?
There is possibly more to it than what was said. Remember, Zainudin is also Chairman of community organisation OnePeople.sg (OPSG). He made his remarks about pulling in more races for football not long after presenting an OPSG report on race relations in Singapore. The findings showed that there are still challenges to overcome in race relations.
It was revealed, for instance, that racial stereotyping is fairly common and that one in two Singapore residents do not have close friends from another race. OPSG announced that it aims for more opportunities and programmes to promote racial and religious harmony.
So Zainudin could be a little uncomfortable about the racial imbalance in football. Football is the most global of sports, and it is Singapore’s most high profile sport. As such, this makes Malay dominance in the sport all the more glaring.
The national team has always been dominated by Malays but not to the extent that it is today. In recent weeks, 23-man teams selected for Singapore feature only three non- Malays – Madhu Mohana, Gabriel Quak and Qiu Li. Qiu is China-born and only received his citizenship in 2008. So that leaves only one Singaporean Chinese and one Singaporean Indian in a 23-man national team.
In contrast: The first team of the celebrated 1977 Malaysia Cup winning squad coached by Choo Seng Quee had six Malay, five Chinese, two Indian players and one Eurasian. And the famous 1980 team coached by Jitta Singh which reached the final of the Pre-Olympics Qualifying Tournament had a first team comprising eight Malays, four Chinese, two Indians and one Eurasian.
So taken in that context, racial diversity has taken a backseat in Singapore football. It might also encourage stereotyping that Malays overwhelmingly prefer football over studies. This is certainly wrong, but it’s the sort of stereotyping that could well be fostered by almost total dominance of football by Malays.
Although racial imbalance in football may provide some discomfort, it is in itself not a problem. I am more concerned that our young do not seem to kick a ball around for fun anymore, and experience sports for the sheer joy of it.
As with many aspects of Singapore society, sports has become all too competitive. In schools, students select at least one CCA – either sports or uniformed group – and they clock up several hours each week on it. They prepare intensely for competition. They have to participate to earn points.
The situation may get better. In July, the Education Ministry announced that from 2014, the revamped PE syllabus will enable students to take part in more (up to six) types of sports and physical activities. This is the right way to go.
For now, I look at my 13-year-old son as a case in point. He does not have non-Chinese friends, and at the risk of oversimplifying, it is partly because he spends so many hours each week on a CCA that is Chinese-dominated. Whereas my friend’s teenage son has many non-Chinese friends – and I think it’s largely because his chosen sport is cricket!
My contention is that sports as a way to promote racial understanding and tolerance, and bridge racial divides, is largely underestimated. When I was my son’s age (many moons ago!), I had many Malay, Indian and Eurasian friends. We would think nothing of kicking a ball around for the joy of it. In fact we also played speak takraw, volleyball, basketball, table tennis, hockey . . . any sport we could get hold of equipment for.
Playing together, win or lose, for fun or for real, racial lines become blurred, cultural barriers are destroyed, and class divisions are transcended.
As legendary American football coach Vince Lombardi once said: “People who work together will win, whether it be against complex football defences, or the problems of modern society.”
Augustine Low is a communications strategist.
Is SGX killing or cleansing the market?
The aggressive way that the SGX descended on certain listed companies the last three weeks raises a very pertinent question: Is the stock exchange of Singapore cleansing the market or killing it?
Three companies – Blumont, Asiasons and LionGold – were hit with lightning speed and declared designated stocks. Inevitably, the stock prices crashed. Like the destruction that was left by the storm that hit Singapore two days ago, the stock market storm left many players with vanishing fortunes..
A host of others — like Mirach Energy, Tritech and Sky One — were questioned on their stock trajectories. Every query was met with a mad rush for the exit by investors. Many have been badly burned, to say the least. Of course, there were a whole lot of collateral damage. The other penny stocks were white-washed.
The question inevitably beckons: Why the sudden tightening in the SGX regulatory regime?
In the heady days of Singapore-listed China stocks, many of these mainland domiciled stocks went on dizzy rides, one after another. Sometimes simultaneously. Media queries to the SGX were met with the standard mantra: Caveat emptor or buyer beware.
Needless to say, many have been burned by these China stocks. Just how much CPF money has been lost is anybody’s guess.
To be sure, the SGX needs to be commended for their belated action. Hey, better late than never. Companies whose shares have run far ahead of their fundamentals better be prepared to explain, or go down into the tunnel for an unruly and wild ride.
So we have ascertained, rightly or wrongly, the SGX desires an orderly market, perhaps as pristine as Singapore roads. No cornered stock, no syndicates running shared operations or company managements ramming stocks for unexplained or unjustified reasons. No more froth, controlled liquidity and ordered, fundamentally driven stock price increases.
But is that what a stock market should be? SGX needs to carefully calibrate what kind of exchange it wants to be. Markets are about liquidity, sometimes excess. There must always be a buzz. Very much like in Hong Kong and Kuala Lumpur. The penny stocks provide the liquidity and the buzz and to a certain extent, the callousness that grip a vibrant market.
If the Singapore market consists of only trusts, reits and blue-chips, the liquidity will run dry except for the periods surrounding the results seasons when portfolio adjustments are made. Portfolio managers don’t chase prices, hedge funds thrive on mispricings. Funds keep to target investing. It is the penny stocks that provide the character, the noise and the excitement.
Little doubt, the SGX is in a pickle. How do you provide a vibrant yet orderly market? Can it be done? Should it be done?
Syndicates have been part of the local market milieu for a long time. They will not go away. They may underground for a while, but they will adapt and return in different guises. Proprietary house trading, remisiers’ churning and market-rumour punting are all part of the game.
All said, the SGX has stumbled upon a new powerful weapon – the gap between market capitalisations and fundamentals. Recalcitrant companies will have a hard time ahead of them.
The lost art of parenting
By Mary Lee
A New York Times feature revealed that toddlers in America were being entertained with photo apps on parents’ iPhones. Pre-schoolers were using these smartphones to play games. The writer clearly hasn’t visited Singapore. These are ordinary daily sights on buses, trains, restaurants and coffee-shops. Primary school children get to play with iPads.
These devices are great behaviour modifiers – up to a point. While they help to keep a child quiet and engaged, studies have also shown that too much exposure can desensitise an eight-year-old to his environment, where he doesn’t get up to pick up pencils a teacher has knocked over right in front of where he is sitting.
Now, Singapore is to launch the first-ever study on parenting of young kids, dealing in four areas: parents’ knowledge of their child’s learning and development; parents’ attitudes and aspirations towards their children; strategies in caring for their child; and resources in those areas. (Here we go: giving parents more reason to be even more kiasu!)
On top of all this, there’s the news that Swedish children have taken over the families (when to go to bed, what to eat, where to go for vacations, what to watch on television) with the banning of smacking since 1979. Oh dear. Adults with no say in the running of the family? Are we that far away from this situation?
Singapore children can be fairly bratty as well. I blame it all on poor communication at home. When both parents go out to work they leave their children to be looked after by the maid or grandparents, all of whom have no real authority in disciplining bad behaviour, at home or in public. Teachers in school have no authority to curb rowdy, bad behaviour in the classroom or in school. Members of the public travelling on the bus or trains have to endure rowdy behaviour from students.
All is not lost: communication helps. On the bus or on the train, speak to the teenager who seems to be the group leader about keeping down the noise level. At home, parents should discuss with grandparents and the domestic helper what has gone wrong during the day. All parties should be heard and acceptable behaviour arrived at. Grandparents who don’t speak English should be able to use whatever language they are comfortable in. If they have no understanding of computers or smartphones, they can be taught: they mustn’t be made to feel useless and irrelevant in this technological age.
Then maybe the toddler who likes looking at pictures on the iPhone will find joy sharing it with his grandparents and chatting with them, and learning to speak their real mother tongue at home.
Book that you wouldn't have read
Singapore lawyer and academic Jothie Rajah has come out with a book, Authoritarian Rule of Law, on how the government has used the law to systematically dismantle political liberalism. The book has been hardly talked about because the media has generally ignored it. Here veteran lawyer G Raman dissects the book and recounts to P N Balji his favourite chapter
1. What does this book show about politics and the law in Singapore?
On the political plane the book deals with the decimation of dissent in Singapore. Law has been used as a tool for this purpose. The veneer of “rule of law” is exposed with all its warts and blemishes. The defence by the PAP on its adherence to rule of law is made short shrift of.
Dr Jothie Rajah presents a masterful study of the doctrine of “rule of law” and its corruption by “rule by law”, the very antithesis of “rule of law”. Singapore has not subscribed to the rule of law as so brilliantly illustrated by the laws that Jothie has referred to in her book – the Internal Security Act, the Public Order Act, the Vandalism Act, etc.
Rule by law is the order of the day for the PAP. It is woven into Singapore’s political fabric inextricably. It explains how the PAP has been able to exercise hegemonic power in Singapore since 1959 – 54 years of uninterrupted authoritarianism.
2. The author tries to “unpack the complexities and paradoxical co-existence of the rule of law and rule by law”. What are some of the examples she has used?
Dr Rajah has used the medium of an academic dissertation to comment on the “rule of law” in Singapore. The breadth and depth of her research is such that almost every sentence is footnoted to support her arguments. Her treatment of the subject is not polemical nor is there any trace of rhetoric.
She has cited other scholars of standing on the anatomy of rule of law. Quoting Randall Peenenboon, “’rule by law’ as operating when ‘states …… rely on law to govern but not accept that basic requirements that law bind the state and state actors’”. She touches on Thio Li-Ann’s explicit comment, “…..Singapore state’s subordination of liberal democratic values to statist goals like stability and economic growth…….is more accurately characterized as ……..rule by law”.
Dr Rajah goes back to the colonial past on the intrusion of ‘rule by law’. “The one defining event that might have ruptured colonial ‘rule by law’ and generated a groundswell of awareness for ‘rule of law’ individual rights – an anti–colonial battle for independence – did not occur in Singapore. The closest thing to a liberation movement was represented by the left-wing Socialists and the Communists in post World War II Singapore. But because of the Cold War anxieties of the time, the British allied with the pro–‘West’ PAP to repress the left wing, smoothing the way for ideological continuity between the colonial state and the nation-state”.
Repression has been the hallmark of the PAP’s rule. Rule of law was subservient to rule by law. Dr Rajah goes on to postulate:
“Thus it is that ‘rule by law’ has had a long and powerful presence in Singapore. The liberal humanism of the Constitution and the Proclamation sits like a thin, extremely fragile veneer upon deeply rooted structures that counter and devalue the proclaimed democracy, liberty, justice and equality. ‘Rule by law’ has a far deeper legal tradition in Singapore than ‘rule of law’”.
3. And what conclusions does she come to?
To continue with the earlier question, Dr Rajah’s conclusions would inevitably stem from her own political perspective. She has stated her position in very clear terms :
“While I have done my best to resist polarizing positions, I ought to declare my own normative inclinations towards a ‘rule of law’ that presents and upholds political liberalism”.
That is her stand and to her it is meaningless relegating rule of law to second place in preference to economic success and administrative efficiency which emphasize function rather than “values and ideals”. She decries material well-being against norms of democracy and liberalism.
4. Which is your favourite chapter? And why is this your favourite chapter?
Chapter 5, which also happens to be the longest. It has a telling headline : “Policing Lawyers, Constraining Citizenship”. The headline, so aptly chosen, tells all – how the legal profession has been emasculated and citizens deprived of their basic freedoms.
It is my favourite subject because it deals with the legal profession (the Bar) which in every country is the mouthpiece of society. By their very calling the Bar puts on the mantle of a defender of rights especially in disputes between citizens and state. But almost every member of the Bar who chose to represent political detainees got himself detained.
What is worse, the Law Society, one of whose objectives is to comment on the Bills introduced in Parliament had this right taken away. It can only comment on Bills and Acts of Parliament if invited to do so. The Law Society had its wings clipped. It has almost been made redundant.
The chapter represents quintessentially the theme of the book – rule of law v rule by law. In her own unique penetrating style Dr Rajah sums up the Singapore situation :
“The ‘rule of law’ / ‘rule by law’ ambivalence of the Singapore state is reflected in the way the state carefully adhered to ‘rule of law’ procedures while scripting a ‘law’ (ironically concerning the legal profession) that undermines ‘rule of law’ principles.”
The dichotomy between ‘procedures’ and ‘principles’ and between form and substance is what informs the book. Form may impress a non-focussed observer. But a focussed observer will note the total lack of substance in the state’s claim that it subscribes to the theory of ‘rule of law’.
5. The author has presented two case studies – the Vandalism Act and the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act – to show how the government has controlled political discourse. What are her arguments?
The chapter dealing with newspapers is titled “Policing the Press”. Dr Rajah is very astute in the choice of language. Her entire text bristles with words and phrases that are evocative delivering her message with a punch without being combative. That is the beauty of the book – a studied detachment but with the eye of a pathologist carrying out an autopsy.
Let us hear from her on the flavour of this chapter :
“This case study demonstrates the manner in which the enactment of legislation has undermined and reconfigured a freedom closely connected to the freedom of expression and the pluralism of political liberalism: the freedom of the press.”
Need I say more? The total muzzling of the print media and the ownership and control of the broadcast and telecast media by the government have sealed the coffin of press freedom in Singapore.
As a true academic Dr Rajah presents the case for the government as well in dealing with press freedom. She refers to the speech Lee Kuan Yew made at the June 1971 Annual Assembly of the International Press Institute defending the actions he had taken in banning two newspapers and detaining the journalists of a third newspaper. The defence by Lee was “that Singapore newspapers had periodically become fronts for hostile foreign interests and that the Singapore Government, as a responsible government, must act to prevent this ‘anti-national’ subversion.”
Dr Rajah also exposes Lee’s real thoughts on press control. He considers himself as the guardian of people’s values. They need guidance so as to protect them from the wily and pernicious message purveyed by the West. She cites Lee :
“At a time when new nations require their people to work hard and be disciplined to make progress, their people are confused by watching and reading of the happenings in the West. They read in newspapers and see on TV violent demonstrations in support of peace, urban guerillas, drugs, free love and hippieism. Many people are uncritically imitative.”
Dr Rajah sums up Lee’s attitude on press control and in that process reveals his treatment of the people of Singapore :
“He issues to ‘the people’ the instruction to ‘work hard and be disciplined to make progress’, a didactism that simultaneously infantalizes ‘the people’ and elevates the state by placing Lee in the position of pedagogue”.
Dr Rajah traces the methodical but sweeping inroads that the government has made since 1971 into press freedom. The Presses Act abandoned any pretense at respecting press freedom when it ordained that 99% of the shareholders shall be entitled to one vote each while the remaining one per cent were entitled to 200 votes each. The Editor and the Chairman of the Board of the company publishing the newspapers were to be government appointees.
The Vandalism Act has been scrutinized intensely by Dr Rajah. She has taken account of the political forces at work when this Act was passed. The opposition Barisan Socialis had taken the struggle for democracy to the streets. Slogans were painted on roads and bus shelters and posters hung from street lamps. [It will be recalled that Parliament was not convened to discuss the “separation” of Singapore from Malaysia in August 1965. It was only convened in December of that year because the government was forced to do so in order to pass the budget for the ensuing year.] Parliament which is to be the centre for discussion of important national issues was shut during this period. Can one blame the Barisan for taking their struggle to the streets?
She deals with the severity of punishment for vandalism – three strokes of the cane and imprisonment for up to 2 years. She criticises the Act as being regressive. Perhaps Dr Rajah should have encapsulated her abhorrence of the law by dealing with the then Attorney-General Ahmad Ibrahim’s view of the Act. Lee referred to Ahmad Ibrahim’s disagreement in drafting the law because, to quote Lee, Ahmad Ibrahim wrote screeds of opinion on why he thought the Act was against the accepted norms of criminal jurisprudence. But Lee put his foot down and the Act was passed. Ahmad Ibrahim was one of the last few intellectuals who had a straight backbone.
6. Do you see the government making any changes to these two laws in the near future?
No! Under the PAP the legal arsenal for dealing with dissent has only grown stronger. Even pledges made by the government are not kept. It will be recalled that Lee Hsien Loong had once said that if Malaysia were to abolish the Internal Security Act Singapore would consider doing the same. But alas! The very next day after Malaysia announced the abolition, Singapore confirmed that it will not do so!
So long as these two laws help PAP to be propped up, they will not be scrapped.
7. Can the government continue to use the law to control political discussion in Singapore?
Habits die hard. Why should they dislodge something that has worked for their benefit for the last 54 years? However, given the increasing antipathy towards the PAP and the use of the social media to express alternative views by the younger Singaporeans, a day will come when all repressive measures will be thrown overboard as jetsam.
SDP man rebuts The Independent's article
I refer to your post “Our vote is not cheap, you need to earn it” on 28 October by Kumaran Pillai. I would like to point out the gross inaccuracies and blatant omissions that were carried in the article.
You had reported that Mr. Frankie Low former member of the Reform Party had said that the opposition needs to consolidate before the next GE and then you went on to quote him on this: “We don’t have the people, the resources or the money to write elaborate policy papers.” This gives any reader the impression that Mr. Low is speaking on behalf of all opposition parties.
I have no doubt that you are aware that the Singapore Democratic Party has put up at least four major policy papers since 2011, namely, the SDP National Healthcare Plan, our housing plan Housing a Nation, our population paper called Building a People, our paper to address concerns of our Malay community called Singapore for all Singaporeans. These were all very comprehensive papers and yet, the article had omitted mentioning any of this.
You had also said that the Secretary General of the SDP showed up as a guest speaker at Gilbert Goh’s “anti-foreigner protest”. It is mischievous of the author to say this as the rally was called Population White Paper protest. By calling it an anti-foreigner protest is to do a most flagrant disservice to those who are not against foreign labour but were there to protest against the over-population and the government’s immigration policies. In fact some of of the speakers including Chee Soon Juan had explicitly said, “We must attack the policies, not the people who are here for work.”
Yet Mr. Pillai had found it fit to call Chee an “anti-foreigner and teaming up with Gilbert”. The former also quotes Chee trying to juxtapose this to what the latter currently stands for. If the author had been responsible in his reporting, he would have quoted Chee’s defence of foreigners rather than desperately trying to paint the SDP SG as anti-foreigner.
NSP has niche role to play
By Tan Bah Bah
After the Workers’ Party, the Opposition party with the best shot at having a presence in the next Parliament is the National Solidarity Party.
It has a chance in Marine Parade GRC where its 2011 share of votes was a respectable 43.36 % of 154,451 votes. But it will have a Bukit Timah to climb. Ward by ward, the Goh Chok Tong/Tan Chuan Jin led PAP incumbents have not done anything wrong. The team looks pretty solid, never mind all that catty Kate Spade talk about Tin Pei Ling who, I gather, is very hardworking in MacPherson where a new refurbished community club is waiting to be unveiled.
Of course, the NSP can stick to its guns in Marine Parade and go for the big one. The prize is too tempting. And it has Low Thia Khiang and Aljunied for inspiration. The difference is that Low already had years of experience as an MP in Hougang before Aljunied and in running a town council. Voters knew he could run a town council. He had an able colleague, Sylvia Lim.
The other Opposition icon, Chiam See Tong, went for broke in Bishan-Toa Payoh and the party lost.
The NSP under Chong-Aruldoss may want to do a thorough rethink of its political and social agendas.
What is that it wishes to do exactly? What are the realities? Does it seriously believe it can be a broad-based party? If not, can it carve for itself an entrenched special role in local politics?
Before all this soul-searching even begins, the priority is to get into Parliament. Here is where the party has to make some hard and smart decisions, with its ears firmly to the ground on what the PAP strategies are.
The NSP has two stars in its midst – Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss and Nicole Seah.
Not every public figure has star quality. I would narrow down the attributes of such a personality to the following:
Personability – Leader with a pleasant disposition
Empathy – Has sympathetic ears
Charisma – Someone you like to be with
Believability – You trust and believe in the person
Add to these the good public speaking skills of both NSP leaders. This is not merely the ability to convey your message. They speak credibly. I have not heard either make wild claims and allegations.
I see Chong-Aruldoss and Seah as strong candidates in the right single member constituencies. It would be such a waste to see them go down in any GRC adventures. As a national party and because it does not want to let down its supporters, the NSP will not give up the GRC fights. And it should not. There will be others who can carry the torch.
What are the two SMCs waiting for the two NSP stars?
Unfortunately, there are not too many around. The new NSP secretary-general did well in Mountbatten in 2011. She polled 41.38 % of 23,731 votes. This would be her natural constituency.
Nicole Seah should go over to Pioneer SMC and take over Steve Chia’s place. In 2011, Chia got 39.27 % of 25,745 votes.
To strengthen its credentials for a voice in Parliament, the NSP may be better off pitching itself as a specialist or niche party. I think Singapore has a place for such special interest parties. The government’s one-size-fits-all philosophy sometimes works against the interests of underdogs who just need a bigger voice to articulate their problems – and push for action, not merely talk and lament.
Both Chong-Aruldoss and Seah have a natural inclination to care for the less privileged. As a working mum with three children, the former will have lots to say and do on family-centred issues. The latter has spoken often on caring for the elderly and the difficulty of getting enough good social workers.
These are areas the NSP may consider specialising in. Seah, in particular, is a fine role model and a magnet for younger Singaporeans to volunteer their services to complete the national network of social services.
Parliament should never be allowed to deteriorate into a place where issues become lost and buried. There should be a diversity of voices vigorously challenging the habit of taking things for granted. Two MPs who can make a big difference is better than a large group who are there to make up the numbers.
New hospital in the north – who will staff it?
By Mary Lee
Plans for the new 1,400-bed hospital in Sengkang East must have been in the works for a while now — the Khoo Teck Puat Hospital in Yishun was kicked around for years too — but the announcement that Sengkang East will open in 2018 – two years earlier than originally planned – will help to draw even more votes to the PAP in the 2015 general elections. What can the opposition dangle? That, without it, the Sengkang East hospital may not be there by 2016? A bit limp, that.
In the meantime, the opening of the new north hospital raises serious manpower planning questions that need to be tackled: Where’s the staffing coming from? How many foreign doctors and other healthcare professionals, including nurses do we have to import? Support staff (the cleaners, administrative workers) one can draw from the Integrated Resorts (IRs, which, incidentally, never got round to giving the 70,000 jobs they promised anyway).
The IRs apparently have jobs for 22,000 “mostly locals” and contributed an impressive $22.3 billion in tourism dollars in 2011. As the IRs are up and running, let’s leave it to their marketing departments to compete with casinos in Macau, the Philippines and elsewhere, and the social workers to deal with gambling addictions – a much larger problem than was originally anticipated.
Why didn’t they plan instead on making Singapore the medical hub that it’s become? Income from medical services internationally reached US$1.74 billion and is going to see “phenomenal growth” according to researchandmarkets.com.
We currently have 10, 225 doctors (giving us a doctor:population ratio of 1:520), 34, 567 registered nurses (1:150) and only 1:3230 dentists (MOH figures). There is a 2020
Healthcare Masterplan where, by 2020, with the third medical school, we will produce 500 doctors, 3,700 nurses and 20 pharmacists annually. Not enough, as the queues in our specialist and polyclinics will show.
Admittedly, manpower planning may not seem as magnetic a vote-getter as building a brand new hospital. But can we be given a look anyway?
Bonsai Nation: Will Singapore matter when China becomes No. 1?
By Bob Tan
“Singapore is a bonsai in China’s image – a miniature doppleganger similar in all respects save size.” –China is to be studied, not feared 1 (July 17 2010)
There are few uplifting conclusions to draw upon when one is compared to a bonsai.
A senior Chinese leader once used the word to describe Singapore and its dismissive connotation did not escape a Singaporean businessman in attendance. Despite hosting myriad waves of Chinese immigration and a track record of bankrolling Chinese revolution and war efforts against foreign aggression, Singapore in the eyes of the Chinese leadership today is at best miniaturized model with some genetic similarities.
What can a compact and dense city state 42km across about 4,000 kilometres away offer to a continental nation with more than 200 times the people? So, what’s in favour and what’s not for Singapore if China surpasses the US to take No.1 spot in Asia2, the world’s most populous and fastest developing continent? Anyone who’s played the board game Risk will recall fondly the bonus army advantage gained if Asia was under one’s control….But I digress.
Will securing top spot in Asia become a prelude its drive for the No. 1 spot in the world? This will make them the first non-Western power to do so in two hundred years. From revolution to the capitalist road, the No. 2 is now breathing down No.1‘s neck. That is significant. Who trains for silver placing?
Here are three arguments for and against Singapore’s cause. What’s on the table is by no means exhaustive.
AGAINST #1 Just another brick in the wall: China’s outward interests are extensive today
With BRICS they have in some ways started to chip away at American economic hegemony, providing further ballast in restoring a multipolar world. Bilateral agreements for instance to bypass the USD in favour of direct exchange are hallmark of a seachange from a defensive posture with the yuan.
That said, China’s hard power posturing over territorial disputes in both the South and East China Sea across 2012 and 2013 should at least ring some alarm bells. The media trumpeting of the combat-readiness preps for their new aircraft carrier and stealth fighter in the same period also further suggest a sea-change from the sepia-toned memories of 韬光养晦 (tao guang tang hui), a strategy of misdirection.
Of course if we look further back, China has suffered a history of strategic encirclement since the 19th century starting with the Opium War. What sort of behaviour can one expect from a de-contained power?
Singapore’s China and US hedge against the bigger picture
FPDA has been in effect since 1971. Singapore’s naval facilities have serviced American fleets since the days my dad played in a band at a bar named Melbourne where marines and MPs regularly clashed in the 70s. Singapore’s foreign policy approach today looks a hedge between the US and China3. Can it afford to piss off either, or for either to get pissed off with each other for that matter? Further, the Singapore gateway of 1990s yore sitting at Asia’s southern continental tip is just one cog in its complex foreign policy orientation.
In response to Obama’s (now weakening?) Asian pivot, China has set up its own network of friendlies across the continents to extend influence and protect shipping lanes. Its interests in Africa have been questioned despite its proclaimed non-interventionist independent foreign policy of peace ‘see where America builds drones, China builds roads’. Beyond that, there is the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, the String of Pearls and its Latin-America pivot right smack in the American backyard.
AGAINST #2 It’s not like they’ve always listened… What happens when Singaporeans the Chinese listen to retire or pass on?
Once, a suggestion was made to a Chinese leader to make English first language to better adapt to the global marketplace. The response was unsurprisingly no. There was no way a leadership with the mindset of a long-continuing civilization and bounded by 4000 years of script would accede to that. It turns out mastering English with millennia of script guiding though continues to be something the Chinese have yet to master.
While former PM Lee Kuan Yew4,5,6, diplomat Tommy Koh and historian Wang Gungwu (technically Malayan-born but currently Singapore-based) remain voices that resonate with the Chinese, what happens when they are no longer around? A recent mainstream state media news article laments this possibility7.
Also foreshadowing this was an incident in 2005 when Straits Times correspondent Ching Cheong was arrested and accused of espionage in China. It took herculean Singaporean efforts a long time to get him back8.
AGAINST #3 People-to-people relations on the decline captured in online public opinion
In a city-state oft-described to thrive culturally looking East yet with an eye looking West strategically, this intricate leverage may be unhinging as xenophobic, anti-Chinese vitriol online permeate Singapore’s political blogosphere further channeled through social media, web forums and web 2.0-based communities. This trend prompted nationwide attention when Singapore’s Prime Minister devoted a sixth of his sixty-minute long 2012 National Day rally to nip the emergence of a divisive, politicking fault-line (this term was covered widely all over mainstream state media and online public discourse, with acknowledgement and action by ruling party members of parliament).
The digital revolution has provided a space for generating public opinion online and this has been redefining the contours, peripheries and centre of gravity of public discourse in a country whose citizens are often associated as operating within self-regulating out-of-boundary markers.
Incidents from Sun Xu9 to Ma Chi10, the curry incident11, the first strike in 25 years (see Figure 1 below for a study of its impact)12, to clashes over public transport etiquette have instigated many a social media frenzy. Many have leveraged the power of web 2.0 and social networking services to organise and amplify their displeasure across time and space.
Singapore pushing the envelope of urban density has had its impact on the latest floodgate of Chinese immigration, the first in 60 years.
This latest wave augments the fifth largest overseas Chinese community in the world. Those who identify themselves as Singaporean Chinese can be generations apart from their ancestral homes in China. Preferring the identifier of Huaren as opposed to Huaqiao and Huayi, this glimpse of self concept is an indicative signifier implying distinction, from the Chinese mainland. 1 million mainland Huaqiao and Huayi Chinese nationals are recent additions (since immigration laws were relaxed in 1989) and they currently share this space with the existing 2.8 million Singaporean Chinese Huaren citizens. 500,000 Peranakans or Straits Chinese make up the earliest arrivals of this diasporic landscape. Who knows how many of these myriad Chinese subgroups in Singapore (a long-time receiving location for Chinese emigration) also subscribe to the China Dream? Further, the Chinese narrative may not resonate at all with Singapore’s non-Chinese population.
If Singapore’s population target of 6.9 million is to be achieved within a generation the ratio of 1 foreigner out of 3 singapore citizens becomes 1 out of 2. The white paper was not well received. It prompted a first – mass demonstrations organized through social networking services and attended by the thousands. Such publicly confrontational acts have been unheard of in decades.
AFFIRMATIVE #1 Long running host country to Chinese immigration and exchange
Singapore is the only place outside greater China with a Chinese-majority population. In 1840, the Chinese in Singapore made up 31% of the 10,000 strong island population. 150 years later in 1990, it was 75% of 3 million. This is a percentage it maintains to this day. That should, by right, naturally make it a great place for the Chinese to do business, work, study, or live.
It maintains top ranking as source of remittance to China. The latest wave of Chinese immigration into the China, the first is sixty years continues a tradition that has gone on record for at least two hundred years.
Singapore trains China’s mayors. High-level exchanges are frequent and narratives about Singaporeans who mattered to China are plenty13.
1. Sun Yat-Sen’s base of operations during the remains well-maintained today, a visual marker that ensures the story of Singapore’s role in the Chinese revolution remains clear.
2. Singapore is a recent recipient of panda diplomacy, that usually comes with more perks than meets the eye.
3. Confucius Institutes: However, Singapore is just a node in this global network. Also, see Conficius Institutes look beyond language. The report notes the number of Institutes and classrooms globally have risen to more than 1,000 over the past nine years.
AFFIRMATIVE #2 Money talks
Economic cooperation is robust and Singapore’s been there from the start. It was given entry into China’s markets before official ties in 1990. Trade between the two has since edged toward S$100 billion in 2010. In that year, China was the second-largest source of tourist arrivals and Singapore’s biggest investment destination. Singaporeans have been actively taking steps to establish themselves in China, imprinting a Singaporean flavour and presence into the Chinese landscape. There were more than 18,000 Singapore projects in China amounting to US$47 billion. Singapore-style condos and food courts dot the Chinese urban sprawl. If Chinese projections are correct, its middle class could one day number up to 700 million. With the amount of building and development yet to be done what we have is a huge market a size the world has never seen, for Singapore entrepreneurs to tap in to. China is Singapore’s third largest trading partner after Malaysia and the EU (See Figure 2).
AFFIRMATIVE #3 Lessons from a one-party state retaining legitimacy while regulating online public opinion
Lessons on the digital revolution: China’s number of internet users stood at 591 million halfway through 2013. For a country often taunted as monolithic and homogenous, that number was a milestone. A little less than a decade ago in 2005, the number was 111 million. Relative to its population however, China’s attempts to bridge the digital divide continues to need work.
According to a study published in the Washington Post that looked at internet penetration rates from 2002 to 2012, the US grew from 50 to 81%. China was in a wholly different league. It started at 5% and grew to 42% in the same period. In 2012, Singapore’s internet connectivity was reported to be at about 99%. Despite the democratising potential of the medium, China took its chance. They saw that Singapore, a familiar country with somewhat similar characteristics had fine tuned the floodgates of the internet, gave some room for alternative voices to emerge online, while maintaining one-party political legitimacy.
– – –
To conclude, these arguments for and against are just the tip of the iceberg. Comments and thoughts to widen the discourse are most appreciated.