By Tan Bah Bah
The National Day Rally has always been a unique and intensely personal opportunity for the country’s leader to bond with the people, as much as it has been the platform to clarify policies and set or reset national directions. The PM faces the nation – unplugged. He pours out his heart. He explains, he gives insights on government workings, he offers his own thoughts, he encourages, he inspires.
As there have been only three PMs, judging how PM Lee Hsien Loong measured up to his predecessors requires only a recalling of the performances of Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong.
It was the first PM who set the format, tone and standards. The first rallies were relatively Spartan events. A simple auditorium, a few potted plants around the stage, and at one point, not even a screen backdrop. Then came the visual aids which became more sophisticated with better audio-visual technology. But nothing distracted from the state-of-the-union purpose of each rally. The speaker himself was often as important as the content of the message.
Lee Kuan Yew was such a natural orator that he really needed no props. It was not just a matter of excellent public speaking skills. He had developed a mutual trust with his audience which practically gave him carte blanche leeway to deal with the problems of the day.
Goh Chok Tong inherited that abiding faith. He even enjoyed some goodwill, with the public accepting the fact that Lee Senior’s giant boots were not easy to fill. He grew comfortable towards his later NDP rallies.
One disadvantage was his linguistic skills. He was being compared to the two Lees who could speak the three main local languages – English, Mandarin and Malay – rather well.
The current Prime Minister not only knows these three languages. He can also read Jawi and speak Russian.
Singaporeans expected and understood one important message emanating from the two-hour speeches on Sunday — that the government was listening to them and has decided to respond on housing, healthcare and education.
Sunday’s speech was pure cut to the chase. It was directed at the Singapore core, telling them that they will be taken care of. PM Lee exhorted young Singaporeans to reach for the sky as there is no limit to what they can achieve, provided there is trust.
The references to Changi, Paya Lebar and Tanjong Pagar were a reminder that there is ample space and land for many many more years of development.
PM Lee rose to the occasion – within the parameters set by Our Singapore Conversation. But did he reach out far enough to all Singaporeans, including those who continue to be anxious about their jobs and the presence of so many foreigners in their midst? A clue will come when the next elections are held.
Also read the rebuttal to this piece: The PM does not Move me
PM rises to the occasion
Strange bedfellows
By P.N Balji
AirAsia founder and Group CEO Tony Fernandes is not known to be fond of the Singapore establishment. Many a time he has been thwarted by the Republic when he tried to grab a slice of the lucrative Changi Airport cake.
It has been a cat-and-mouse game with Singapore since he audaciously launched Asia’s first low cost carrier in 2002.
As the airline soared to become the biggest budget airline in this part of the world, the Singapore business was somehow elusive.
But that is changing as the airline launches a charm offensive to fly more often out of Changi.
Fernandes can be Prince Charming when he wants to. Like when he wanted to get the Malaysian government’s permission to get the airline off the ground.
He told a Singapore audience in 2002: “I went to get Dr Mahathir Mohamed’s agreement. His PA told me Tun was not too well and can spare only a few minutes.
“I had to think on my feet. What do I tell him in those few minutes to convince him to let AirAsia take off.
“I thought of this line: I will let every Malaysian fly. How could the PM say no to that?”
But all his smartness and sharpness did not work in Singapore. Initially, he was not given landing rights at Changi. So he went to Bangkok, registered Thai AirAsia and flew into Singapore.
His attempt to start a bus service from Senai Airport in Johor Baru to pick up passengers in Singapore was stymied by the Singapore authorities.
The relationship was not going anywhere and at every opportunity he got, a frustrated Fernandes would poke fun at Singapore.
As recently as February 2012, he said in a tweet: “Singapore Airlines to start long-haul low cost carrier. Hahahaha. Deja vu.”
But things are changing. Air Asia started a subsidiary in Singapore in August 2012 — its fourth in Asia.
Then last month, it inked a three- year $1.8 million deal with the Football Association of Singapore to sponsor the national, under-23 and youth teams.
Why Singapore soccer? In world rankings, the country is behind the Philippines and Vietnam. The country has dropped from a top spot of 73 in 1993 to 156 in July this year.
Yes, so why Singapore?
Fernandes said at a press conference to announce the deal: “The Football Association of Singapore came up with a great proposal and I like what they were going to do with the youths.”
We emailed him some questions on the soccer deal and the hurdles he faced in Singapore. Uncharacteristically, the master of the soundbite and the PR spin declined to be interviewed.
A source who knows Fernandes well said: “That is Tony. He has learned when to keep quiet, when to talk.
“Singapore is the jewel in the aviation crown. it has taken him a while to shake hands with Singapore.
“He is not going to say or do anything that will spoil the party for his airline.”
The AirAsia-Singapore stand-off has cost the airline much momentum as other low cost players like Jetstar and Tiger Airways have muscled in into Changi.
Singapore CEO Logan Velaitham admitted in an interview with the Today paper: “The take-up rate among Singaporeans is not there. It’s about brand perception and the marketing team is talking to a lot of travel agencies about how to sell the brand to the Singapore heartlanders.”
Part of the problem is that many still think AirAsia flies only out of Kuala Lumpur.
As Fernandes and his team adjust to the realities of doing business in Singapore, there is one silver lining: the Indonesian market.
With AirAsia establishing its Asean base in Jakarta and Singapore signing an air agreement with Indonesia, the potential for growth is greath.
The airline has just added Medan and Surabaya to the list of Indonesian cities that passengers can fly directly to from Singapore. Add to this a burgeoning middle class, which McKinsey estimates will grow by 90 million by 2030, and they point to AirAsia finally finding its feet here.
In business, you have to be politically correct. Fernandes is finding that out the hard way.
African economy on the rise
By Gabriel Yap
Africa has posted economic growth of 5% per annum over the past five years. A figure forecast by the IMF to increase to 5.5% this year and 6% in 2014. It seems that the Eurozone crisis or the Fed Reserve change in monetary policies won’t affect the African continent at all.
In Nigeria, for instance, the continent’s most populous nation with 170 million people, consumer consumption has been on the rise and now accounts for 20% of GDP. The Nigerian government plans to build four airport terminals costing US$500 million and a gargantuan 20,000 MW electricity supply grid costing US$20 billion.
To finance the aggressive expansion plans, Nigeria turned to the international bond market for the first time in two years amidst the selloff in equity markets roiled by Bernanke’s comments on a possible tapering in QE on 22 May 2013. It offered $1 billion Eurobonds – $500 million of five-year notes yielding 5.375% and $500 million of 10-year notes yielding 6.625%. Both were arranged by Citigroup and Deutsche Bank AG.
What surprised most investors was that the bonds were very well subscribed up to four times. In addition, the respective yields were even lower than the first offering – for instance, the 10-year tranche sold at a higher 6.75% when Nigeria came to the markets in 2011.
Nigeria has put in place a Eurobond yield curve with the new issuances, with outstanding issues now due in 2018, 2021 and 2023. This will go a long way to buffer the volatile revenue stream from its oil production which now stands at 2.53 million barrels per day.
The other notable case is Ethiopia, the second most populous country – it averaged GDP growth of 10.6% per annum in the seven years to 2011, but its conservative government has chosen a more tightly controlled development model rather than the neoliberal ones adopted by other African countries like South Africa and Nigeria.
Nevertheless, Ethiopian GDP has grown to a respectable US$33 billion and is moving to unlock some sectors of the economy for foreign investments in a bid to reduce its US$8 billion trade deficit.
It has embarked on an ambitious five-year public works programme that will spend 15% of its GDP on infrastructure projects like roads, roadway and dams. It will also open up its telecom and retail sectors for foreign investments. Major retailers like South Africa’s Shoprite, privately-owned Makro and Walmart-linked Game, are certainly eyeing such opportunities.
In Ivory Coast, the government seeks to lure back investments after months of post-election crisis in 2011 which led to violence that killed about 3,000 people. That spooked investors and forced the country to miss payments on its international debt.
That landscape has changed rapidly – Ivory Coast’s GDP is expected to grow a strong 9% this year and the government will spend as much as US$10 billion in the next six years to expand its port at Abidjan, build a railroad between the western town of Man and San Pedro, Ivory Coast’s second largest port. In addition, US$500 million will be spent on the construction of a 275MW hydroelectric power plant in Soubre. These infrastructure projects are expected to fuel economic growth in the next five years as stable business conditions seep in and the growing consumer class emerges.
Another African rising star is the world’s second largest cocoa producer Ghana and I am certainly looking forward to the country’s first issuance of longer maturity bonds – it plans to offer 200 million cedis (US$97 million) in two tranches of seven-year bonds next month and again in November. Foreign investors like me would be able to participate.
Ghana is West Africa’s second largest economy and GDP growth is expected to hit 8% this year. Already I own some three-year and five-year Ghana bonds which are traded OTC by local banks and big regional banks like Standard Bank and First African Bank. The bonds are also listed on the Ghana Stock Exchange for easier monitoring.
A common capital distortion in EM or Frontier markets is the huge disparity in risk premiums for long and short-term debts. For instance, in Ghana, you can buy and sell three-month Treasury bills yielding more than 20% pa (yes, you would double your capital in four years). Of course, for foreign investors like me, the foreign currency risk is something I watch closely – in Ghana, the cedi has depreciated by about 7% against the US$ to about 2.05, but the risk-return is definitely still on risk-on gear as the country seeks to narrow its budget deficit which currently stands at 4% to GDP.
Who says that there is no money to be made in volatile Africa? Other than the sun-soaked beaches in Pretoria and Freetown, there are other attractions – not just nature and wildlife, but bright opportunities for the shrewd investor to cash in on the rising star.
Housing affordability a key concern in Singapore
A regional survey by iProperty has found that Singaporeans are concerned about affordability of housing given that HDB prices have doubled in the last seven years.
Low global interest rates and high liquidity in the asset market have driven property prices up, according to the iProperty survey report.
The report states that “72% of respondents think that foreigners have a part to play in driving up property prices,” elaborated iProperty Group’s Chief Executive Officer, Shaun Di Gregorio.
Forty three per cent feel the Government is not delivering enough housing to soak up the demand from foreigners. This is despite the fact that foreigners’ proportion of private home transactions have slipped downward as shown in the response before this.
Sixty per cent want more steps to cool the property market. The government agrees to this sentiment as Singapore’s central bank has introduced rules to ensure that a property buyer’s monthly payments do not exceed 60% of income.
There are also concerns that any hike in interest rates may lead to a sharp rise in mortgage defaults in Singapore. The gross rental yields in Singapore are also very poor, ranging from 2.58 per cent to 3.01 per cent, which increases the risk of default.
Download the full report here
Howe Liang Lane?
By Tan Bah Bah
I am moved by Suresh Nair’s piece on our forgotten or neglected sports heroes. These people were icons and part of our collective heritage of memories and achievements.
It is from these genuine giants of their times that we build up our sporting prowess and shoot for future glory.
How can our own sportsmen and women be inspired? Not just by reading about Usain Bolt, Yelena Isinbayeva or Lin Dan alone. They must be made to free proud that they come from a country which had produced – and not imported – Olympians and Asian or regional multiple-medal winning champions whose names resonate with the sports crowd.
The roll call of honour is fairly impressive – Tan Howe Liang, Wong Peng Soon, Ong Poh Lim, Chee Swee Lee, Junie Sng, C. Kunalan, Choo Seng Quee, Ang Peng Siong, Neo Chwee Kok and our water polo boys.
Follow the Australian example.
When Sydney had to hold the 2000 Olympics, a decision was made to honour Australia’s sports heroes and heroines, to let the world be reminded of the sports-mad country’s champions.
The lanes at the Olympic Park – the stadiums and swimming complex – were named after these icons.
You will find Dawn Fraser Avenue, Herb Elliot Avenue, Rod Laver Drive, Murray Rose Avenue, Shane Gould Avenue and Kevin Coombs Avenue there. Some may wonder who Kevin Coombs was. He was the first Australian Aboriginal Paralympic competitor for Australia. Coombs, who was also a wheelchair basketballer, competed in five Paalympics, including the first Paralympic Games in 1960.
Singapore’s Sports Hub – and the whole neighbourhood covering the Indoor Stadium – will be the perfect place to honour our true-blue sports heroes and heroines.
The roads and lanes around the hub should be named after Howe Liang, Peng Soon, Swee Lee, C. Kunalan and company. If need be, existing roads at the whole area should be also named after people who have made a big difference in our sports life. How about an Edward Barker Avenue, an Eng Liang Crescent, a Rahim Omar Road or a Lau Teng Chuan Lane?
The rojak nation
Poor Kevin Rudd. The Australian PM can’t be happy catching flak from a media tycoon who is no longer even a 100 per cent Aussie. That can’t happen in Singapore. The media here is wholly Singaporean. Singapore Press Holdings and MediaCorp are descended from companies that have been Singaporean longer than some of the new citizens.
It is only fitting that foreign interests should not be allowed to control Singapore media and influence local politics. Of course, there is the issue of media coming under the control of local political and business interests … but that is another story for another time.
When we talk of foreigners, let’s consider how much Singapore owes to the outside world – not just its prosperity as an export-oriented economy, but a whole lot more. Even the people going about the island are either themselves – or descended from – outsiders.
The original inhabitants, according to legend, were not homo sapiens. Remember the story of Sang Nila Utama? He was an outsider, a prince of Palembang. When he reached the island of Temasek and landed at the mouth of the Singapore River, he went hunting and saw a strange animal. He was told it was probably a lion. So he named the city he built, Singapura.
Centuries later, when Raffles landed on the island in 1819, however, it was a wilderness. It was his successor, William Farquhar, who developed Singapore as a British port and settlement. They were followed by waves of immigrants. The Malay enclave became a Chinese-majority city.
And then came independence.
In one respect, Singapore followed India. The national anthem is a song composed in the language of an ethnic minority. ( Ditto the Indian national anthem: Composed by the Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore, it is in Bengali, not Hindi.)
As the Singapore flag fluttered proudly from buildings and flagpoles in the run-up to National Day, no doubt, you could not keep your eyes from it. It is unique. The only flag with a crescent moon representing a country without a Muslim majority.
Singapore is inclusive – we are one nation, one people, one Singapore, to recall a popular song.
We’ve built a nation with our hands
The toil of people from a dozen lands
Strangers when we first began, now we’re Singaporean
Let’s reach out for Singapore, join our hands forevermore.
We are a “rojak “ nation, as one of the emcees at the National Day Parade said. We are from all over the place – there would be no Singapore without outsiders.
The foreign influence did not end even with self-government and independence. Lee Kuan Yew acknowledged his debt to the Dutch economist Albert Winsemius, who was chief economic adviser from 1961 to 1984. “Singapore, and I personally, are indebted to him for the time, energy and devotion he gave to Singapore,” Mr Lee said in his tribute when Dr Winsemius died of pneumonia in The Hague in 1996 at the age of 86.
Yes, Singapore owes a lot to outsiders, but we are not copycats. Is there any other nation like Singapore? No. We don’t just borrow but adapt and improve.
Singapore was not the first country to launch public housing. But our neat, orderly HDB estates with their town centres and greenery are a vast improvement on council housing in England and the “projects” in America.
Our education system is considered one of the best in the world. Our economy is second only to Switzerland’s, according to the World Economic Forum. Singapore Airlines, Changi airport, Singapore port have all been ranked No 1 at some time or the other.
How did a tiny island soak up so many superlatives?
We have got to be more creative, we are told, but look at our record. We have even made the English language our very own.
Yes, let’s not forget Singlish, lah. It’s not English, we are told. But that’s the whole point. We are creative, damn shiok, not copycats lah. English also can, but Singlish more powderful, lor!
Scrap GRC system; Maruah suggests alternatives
A Singapore human rights organisation wants the GRC system scrapped without sacrificing minority representation in Parliament. The Independent talks to Braema Mathi, the president of the group, Maruah
1. What are Maruah’s main reasons for wanting to scrap the GRC system?
The GRC system makes elections less democratic because of the law of large numbers – entry barriers are created for Opposition parties, who need to raise money for deposits and campaigning. These are resources that the ruling party can raise much easily.
It acts to prevent by-elections from being held – Maruah’s paper documents five cases where GRC seats were vacated and by elections were not held. Such contests are now common for single seats.
The free-rider effect – less electable candidates free-riding into Parliament on the back of more electable candidates – diminishes the representative character of Parliament.
GRCs are akin to a quota system. They can stigmatise ethnic minority MPs who get in through this electoral system. They also assume that Singaporeans might vote along ethnic lines and do not provide an opportunity for Singaporeans to prove otherwise. As such they may be harming ethnic relations and nation-building rather than the other way around.
Some of these points been brought into sharper focus after the last two by-elections in 2012 and 2013 and in the last general election.
2. What are the three key suggestions to fill the void?
One, revert to making all constituencies single seats. This provides the opportunity for ethnic minority candidates to compete on an equal footing. The paper documents many instances of ethnic minority candidates defeating ethnic majority candidates in straight SMC contests in 1980, 84 and 88.
Two, ensure that all contesting parties have to field a certain percentage of ethnic minority candidates in their national slate, tied to the population mix.
Three, if the electorate returns a Parliament that significantly under-represents ethnic minorities, then the best losing ethnic minority candidates would be made MPs without constituencies until the balance is put right.
Our belief is that this provision might not have to be triggered, as there is no clear cut quantitative evidence that Singaporeans vote along ethnic lines. Michael Palmer’s GE win in 2011 is one good example.
Maurah calls iits alternative approach the Ethnic Balancing Contingency System (EBCS).
3. In the GE of 2011, we have seen how the Workers’ Party has broken the invincibility of the GRC in Aljunied. Isn’t that a more liberating route to take? That is to beat the PAP at its own game?
It is a harder path to take and one that structurally benefits the incumbent party. This is not healthy for democracy and the representative character of Parliament.
4. Are you looking at other electoral/political reforms?
According to our research, 10 per cent of Singaporeans vote for the ruling party out of a misguided fear that their ballots can be traced and held against them.
In our first paper, we proposed measures to negate that fear so that every Singaporean can truly vote freely. They include removing serial numbers from ballot papers in favour of undifferentiated watermarks, etc.
We will look at other issues in future papers.
5. The way the system is here, what you think are the chances that your suggestions will be accepted?
We will not speculate on this, but it is Maruah’s mandate to try and push the boundaries on human rights issues.
6. Has Maruah achieved any breakthroughs when it comes to government policies?
It is not constructive for state or civil society organisations to claim credit for specific legal or regulatory changes. But we can say that, together with other civil society organisations, Maruah has contributed to Singapore adopting to the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD) and the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration. We also undertook constructive election monitoring in GE 2011.
7. Do you think the timing is right to push for such electoral reforms?
Yes. We are at the mid-term point, as it were.
8. What if the government ignores your report? What is your next step?
If and when that happens, we plan to take further actions to stimulate discussion and awareness of these issues.
[yop_poll id=”3″]
The most stirring speech of PM Lee’s career
But style overshadowed substance; time will tell if it is a decisive pivot towards inclusiveness or incrementalism rebranded
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong today delivered the most important speech of his political career. And what a speech it was. His unusually determined look and booming voice marked a shift from the more solicitous demeanor worn in some past speeches. And when his voice broke and his eyes teared – when talking about a visually handicapped Singaporean who had triumphed over the odds – many will recall his father’s tearful moment in 1965 when the merger with Malaysia came to an end. This was the Prime Minister’s most emotive and passionate speech yet.
Even before tonight, expectations for his speech ran at fever pitch. Speculation of a radical Left-ward shift in government policy was rife. In some ways these expectations made his task harder. The government had already been inching Leftwards from the late 2000s – introducing Workfare in 2007 and recalibrating the foreign worker influx in 2010 for example. More importantly, major policy shifts were realized after GE 2011 – in particular a new stance on public housing that bordered on the radical, to bring down BTO prices and build new rental flats. Massive new investments in public transport and a major shift towards more spending on healthcare were also announced.
To stand out, any big announcement on 19 August 2013 towards inclusiveness and equality would have to be exactly that – very big indeed.
For those hoping for major changes to what has been called Singapore’s “market fundamentalism” and ethic of competitive self-reliance, did the PM’s National Day Rally Speech deliver the goods?
Yes and no. Perhaps the biggest change of the evening was the announcement of Medishield Life, which would be restructured into a universal healthcare insurance scheme, providing more coverage so as to lower out-of-pocket expenditures to all Singaporeans, including the very old. This was such an important change that PM Lee actually mused about how this had to be carefully managed to curb healthcare over-consumption. This is clearly the first step on the road towards universal healthcare insurance – Singapore’s own Obamacare.
However even here, PM Lee cautioned that premiums would have to go up – but that the government would help pay them for those who could not afford them. Will the devil lie in the details?
Two other medical changes were noteworthy – the expansion of the Community Health Assistance Scheme which ensures lower prices for outpatient care at GPs to cover more Singaporeans and allowing Medisave to be used for outpatient care. Again, the PM again cautioned that Medisave contributions would have to go up to finance this.
The other major change of the night was to education. The gist of it was that the government respected the role of “top schools” as every system needs to have peaks, but would widen access to these schools to prevent them from becoming citadels of privilege.
In each primary school, 40 places would be reserved for non-alumni at Primary 1 admission. And the PSLE exams would be graded in a manner more akin to O-Levels and A-Levels, with broad grade brackets and perhaps no aggregate score, to avert hyper-competition and an over-emphasis on academics. These two changes are departures from “sacred cow-type” principles with extremely long pedigrees.
Taken together, however, these announcements do not seem to add up to the “major strategic shift” that the PM said the government was making.
But to many, this might not matter. The key was that it seems to mark a decisive pivot-point towards inclusiveness: a line in the sand marking the outer limit of what Heng Swee Keat, in last year’s National Day Rally speech called “extreme meritocracy”, and a visibly emotive, stirring pledge to move backwards from that line in the future, towards fairness and social justice. The phrase most often uttered? “Do not worry.”
Egalitarianism was the keynote tonight, from substance to style. PM Lee seemed to strain hard to demonstrate respect towards all Singaporeans, not only the elite. He highlighted many examples of Singaporeans who had not taken the classic scholar path. He even seemed to go too far when, in one joke, he said that he might find complex mathematical formulae forbidding (when in fact he has a Cambridge degree in Mathematics).
Critics will argue that tonight’s speech was incrementalism rebranded as radicalism. With the exception of Medishield Life, most of the other changes announced tonight were extensions of recalibrations the government had been executing in high gear since 2011 – some would say coinciding with the result of GE2011 and Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam’s subsequent elevation to DPM.
In fact some would go further and pin-point a number of deeper silences.
The fundamental PAP faith in maintaining a strongly differentiated elite, however meritocratically selected, remains. Some would question if it has served Singapore well in recent times, and whether its tendency towards credentialism and social immobility is out of step with the needs of a 21st century economy.
The government maintains its insistence on managing public finances to achieve big surpluses which would be even bigger were land sales included in the measure, not mentioning the billions in reserves which require Presidential assent to be touched. Some will call for bolder public spending of what is after all the people’s assets, so as to invest in leveling every Singaporean up towards First World status. In this regard, the segment of the speech where the PM impersonated a property agent might not go down well in all quarters – after all, the land he was “selling” to Singaporeans is state land acquired at rock-bottom prices in the 1960s.
Lastly there is the political dimension -which was not touched in this speech at all. Nowhere was there any attempt to heal political rifts in a country that the four elections since 2011 have revealed to be more politically polarized than at any time since the 1960s. This last point touches on that vital ingredient that PM Lee mentioned several times – trust. For real trust to flourish, the government may at some point need to grasp the nettle of political reform. When so much public, social and institutional space is dominated by the ruling party, from the media to grassroots bodies to a Parliament that over-represents the PAP, genuine social consensus formation and political inclusiveness will remain elusive, even if economic inclusiveness improves.
However what was different was the tone. Tonight the nation felt PM Lee promise that Singapore would start down the road to change its heartware, to perhaps recapture the brand of the old PAP that had championed the cause of the poor with bold social democratic moves in the 1960s and 1970s. And what a passionate, emotive promise it was! Even if the substance was somewhat lacking, the style was all there and the promise of more changes to come could captivate Singaporeans.
It will take hard work in the months and years ahead for that promise to fully materialize. As Nominated Member Of Parliament Laurence Lien remarked to The Independent Singapore: “I think it is the most significant policy speech I have heard him make. It is a real shift in priorities in making Singapore more fair and just. But we are now seeing more of a policy intent. There is a lot more work to do. And I would like to see the community being equal partners in much of the upcoming work.”
Perhaps the most rousing moment of the night was when PM Lee called on Singapore’s youth to “go forth” to do community and charitable work in Singapore and abroad, announcing that he was establishing the Singapore equivalent of the US Peace Corp. Towards the end of the speech the PM used glittering graphics to paint an awe-inspiring vision of how future infrastructure building – shifting Tanjong Pagar port to Tuas and expanding Changi airport – would help open up new and beautiful living space for Singapore.
Tonight was also marked by one other significant change – the speech was delivered by PM Lee alone, whereas in the last National Day Rally, three of his PAP colleagues had joined him at the rostrum.
Tonight what was on display was PM Lee’s assurance to Singapore that he was all in the game, he was a stronger leader than his critics made him out…and that the bucks stops here.
Time will tell if it marks a decisive pivot point towards the PAP’s old social-democratic brand – or a triumph of style over substance that will leave a new generation of Singaporeans unconvinced.
[yop_poll id=”2″]
This exam-smart PAP may pass the test
By Cherian George
This was probably Lee Hsien Loong’s best National Day Rally speech ever, because he played to his government’s strengths – and sidestepped its main weakness.
Compared with most states, the PAP government has traditionally scored an A* in tinkering with policies to remain responsive to the needs of the majority. That subject has been harder to excel in of late, because Singaporeans’ needs are more diverse and complex than in earlier decades.
But the PM showed the PAP at its technocratic best, ready to tackle key concerns over housing, healthcare and schooling. Importantly, he recognised that with trust in the PAP’s capacity to deliver at all time low, the battery of acronyms old and new would not be enough to win the public over. Neither would it suffice to recite past accomplishments, for that might signal complacency on the PAP’s part.
Instead, he reached out with simple and powerful words: “I promise,” he said at the start; and “Don’t worry” he said more than once. They might have fallen flat if they had come from some of his colleagues, but most Singaporeans probably still believe in Lee’s sincerity and dedication, even if they feel his government has shown signs of losing its way.
The second T-score-boosting strength of the PAP has been its breathtaking ability to dream big. And it hardly gets bigger than its plans for Changi Airport, Paya Lebar Air Base, the new port at Tuas and the old one at Tanjong Pagar. Of course, when full details are revealed, an increasingly critical Singaporean public will find plenty to quibble over.
But, compared with countries where megaprojects are more discussed about than delivered, I don’t think anyone doubts that this government will get the job done. And it was a smart choice to focus on these particular infrastructural projects in the Rally speech.
Most Singaporeans are uneasy about their country becoming the region’s playground – which is what the integrated resorts are making it – but few question the ambition to remain Asia’s air and sea transport hub, which is far more a part of Singapore’s traditional identity.
If his speech goes down well, it will also be because of what he didn’t add to the mix. He made passing reference to the need to “get the politics right” – a line that has featured in most of his major speeches in recent years. But, this time, he’d clearly decided against developing on it.
This guest contribution is edited from a blog originally posted at airconditionednation.com
Rudd-y negative, Rupe
By P. Francis
MELBOURNE-born American media mogul Rupert Murdoch, chairman and CEO of News Corp, could be the X-Factor tipping the scales in the Australian federal elections on Saturday, 7 September, some people claim.
Already the Australian media polls have shown the honeymoon of the second coming of Kevin Rudd as prime minister after being unceremoniously stabbed in the back – somewhat like what Brutus did to Julius Caesar – is beginning to wear thin.
Australia’s online 7NEWS on 10 August under the headline ‘Rudd momentum stalls, voters abandoning Labor’ said that their poll of 3000 voters in a two-party preferred vote showed Labor drop 1% to 47%, while the Coalition of Liberals and Nationals added 1% to climb to 53%. However,) 9NEWS’ online poll on 5 August showed that 75% of people had already decided who to vote for. The report said: “In the latest Essential poll published on Monday, 44 per cent of voters say they will ‘definitely not’ change their mind, while a further 30 per cent say a shift is ‘very unlikely’.” However a similar web poll on that day had the figure as high as 95% decided, though this could include non-voters and ‘repeat’ clicks by viewers.
Murdoch’s third-generation business empire was estimated to be worth US$ 8.3 billion in 2012 – including interests in Australia, the UK and the US. But it has not been smooth sailing. The 82-year-old has faced allegations of phone-hacking by his staff at the daily Sun newspaper in 2011 after he shut down his tabloid The News of the World.
His online biography said: “Murdoch has drawn wide criticism for monopolising control over international media outlets as well as for his conservative political views, which are often reflected in the reporting of Murdoch-controlled outlets such as FOX News Channel. In the 2010 American midterm elections, News Corp donated $1 million each to the Republican Governors Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a group supporting Republican candidates. Critics argued that the owner of major news sources covering the election should not contribute directly to the political campaigns involved.”
The mastheads Murdoch owns in Australia include The Daily Telegraph in New South Wales, the Courier Mail in Queensland and the Advertiser in South Australia. There have been front-page attacks on Rudd, who angrily countered with allegations that Murdoch, who owns Foxtel, had opposed the rollout of the NBN (National Broadband Network) by Rudd’s government to protect his Foxtel interests and was now waging a vendetta.
Meanwhile, the independent Monthly commentator Mungo MacCallum said that “the anti-Rudd push, if coordinated at all, was almost certainly locally driven” as opposed to being directed by Murdoch, who also took a different position from local editors on such matters as climate change and stimulus packages to combat the financial crisis.
However, The Guardian’s Bronwen Clune wrote on 9 August: “Amongst all the outraged responses to The Daily Telegraph cover featuring Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd and the call to ‘kick this mob out’, not to be outdone its latest front page, the most interesting point was lost. Can Murdoch’s editorialising impact an election? Evidence suggests there is no correlation between reader’s media consumption and how they vote. At least that’s been the consistent finding of the Australian Election Study, the most exhaustive set of data ever collected in Australia on the dynamics of political behavior, conducted on large samples for every election since 1987 and 2010.”
It could be said that mischief and Murdoch go hand in hand. In the past, he has described Rudd when he became PM in 2007 as “”…more ambitious to lead the world (in tackling climate change) than to lead Australia…”. He also criticised Rudd’s expansionary fiscal policies, during the 2008 financial crisis, as unnecessary.
So is the writing on the wall for the end of Rudd? Are voters going to be swayed by Murdoch’s media savaging PM Rudd? I asked a few voters two questions: (1) Do you think it is unfair to Rudd for Murdoch to use his media to target Rudd? (2) Will it in any way change how you vote?
Retired Malaysian-born Pat Lim, who lives in Melbourne, and has worked as a journalist in Australia and Malaysia, will be voting in the elections. He said: (1) “In any democracy, it’s a common practice for media organisations, whether big or small, to take sides for or against the government of the day – just as the government of the day takes aim at specific media organisations during their time in power. This is no different in Australia. The reality of the situation is that ultimately it is the voter who will determine the final outcome of the elections, and there are many factors to help the voter to decide or make up his or her mind. A media organisation’s slant may or may not have any influence at all in the final vote. (2) Absolutely not. Why should it have any influence on how I vote?”
Anthony Perera, of Canberra, who used to work in media production in Australia, Malaysia and Singapore, thought differently: (1) “It is not right for Murdoch to use his media to attack any politician.” (2) “Yes, it will affect how I vote.”
Benjamin Liew, who arrived from Malaysia 25 years ago, said: (1) “Murdoch’s attack on Rudd was unjustified. Why is he telling me and the people not to vote for Rudd? I feel there must be an ulterior motive on his part to control the media in the future when the Liberal is in power. Power crazy? He should be doing more charities to clean himself up with the amount of griefs and angers he created in his media corporations.” (2) “It does influence my vote because I think he has an ulterior motive if the Opposition (Liberal) is in power. I will vote against his wishes. It will be a negative impact if he keeps telling the people how to vote.”
Whatever the outcome on polling day, the sun will still rise on Sunday, 8 September as birds chirp in the trees and Christians worship in church. A mere mortal would have been elected overnight to lead the Great Southern Land in an unenviable ‘battle’ against an economy that can make or break a prime minister!
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.