Thursday, June 5, 2025
29.6 C
Singapore
type here...
Subscribe
Home Blog Page 5291

Race relations 2: Once an ethnic minority…

By
The Independent
-
0
Tang Li
Tang Li

Life abroad as an outsider can help one understand what ethnic minorities go through

By Tang Li

Tang Li
Tang Li

I spent a good part of my life as an “ethnic minority.” From the age of 11, all the way to 19, home was a small market town in Hampshire, Southern England. I was one of perhaps a group of 30 odd people in a town of some 10,000 plus who was obviously not White Anglo-Saxon.
I was the only person who could communicate with the owner of the Chinese takeaway (who was from Hong Kong) in a language other than English. While English is to all intents and purposes my “mother tongue,” I took pride in the fact that I could speak Cantonese, a language that no one else could understand.
While I did face one or two “racist” encounters, life as an ethnic minority in southern England wasn’t bad. Sooner or later, people got to know my name. I could walk into the bank and just say “My name Tang” and the bank officer would pull out my bank record and attend to whatever needs I had.
This easy convenience changed when I had to come home for national service. Suddenly, I was just like everyone else. I noticed this most when I could no longer get things done at the bank without identification. I remember the bank officer telling me, “Sorry, it’s quite a common name.” It was like being told that I was officially no longer interesting.
To my chagrin, people were less accepting if you were different in some way when you looked like them. In the two-and-a half years of National Service, I probably had more jibes directed at my “accent” than I had in the preceding seven over my skin colour.
Nevertheless, I made the decision to come back to Singapore to work. I have now been back in Singapore for 12 years. Slipping between English and Singlish is now a natural habit. My Mandarin has become better for the simple reason that I use it more than I did in the UK.
However, there’s another part of me that still feels for being different. I don’t expect “new arrivals” to become like me. In fact, I believe they can be themselves and still get on with life because …well, I did too. For example, one of my closest friends is a Nepali immigrant. I don’t expect him to become “Chinese” just to fit in with me. If anything, I try to reach out to him.
I have not yet become a fluent Nepali speaker. However, I find it easier to pick up Hindi than I do Hokkien. I have always believed that if I am more educated than the next guy, I should be the one taking the initiative to understand his culture rather than expect him to communicate through mine.
I guess all of this makes me unusual. An article in the Straits Times on September 12 stated that while Singaporeans are willing to accept colleagues from a different culture, they are less inclined to accept someone from a different culture into their social circle. Doesn’t it say it all about our efforts to create a fully integrated society?
Tang Li is an independent PR consultant and writer  
See also Race Relations 1

Populism is not a bad word

By
The Independent
-
0
PM Lee
PM Lee

By Elvin Ong

PM Lee
PM Lee

The policy changes in education, housing and healthcare announced by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in his National Day Rally this year have drawn plaudits from most mainstream commentators for both the substance and the rhetoric. They note how the proposed changes fit squarely with the aspirations articulated by a broad spectrum of Singaporeans in the National Conversation for a slower, kinder and gentler society.
Yet, there are also concerns from some quarters that the proposed changes are populist. Some say that the People’s Action Party (PAP) always focused on implementing policies with a long-term vision in mind for Singapore, and had eschewed short-term populism.
To the extent that such a characterization of PAP in the past is true, we should recognize that ‘populism’ is not necessarily a bad word. What is so wrong about tailoring government policies to benefit the most number of people? Are the ideas of economic growth, inclusive growth, and compassionate meritocracy not ‘populist’ too?
Moreover, it may be useful to view these so-called “populist” changes not just as a direct response to the findings of the National Conversation, but also as a direct result of the PAP’s declining success in elections over the past few years.
To recap, in the General Election of 2011, the PAP scored its lowest vote share since independence and lost Aljunied GRC to the Workers’ Party (WP). In the subsequent Presidential Election in that same year, the PAP’s endorsed candidate Tony Tan won with the slimmest of margins – just 0.35% of valid votes ahead of Tan Cheng Bock. In the Hougang by-e
lection in 2012, the PAP’s Desmond Choo once again lost to the WP candidate, Png Eng Huat. And finally, in Punggol East earlier this year, WP’s Lee Li Lian triumped over PAP’s Koh Poh Koon with a more than 10% margin.
These successive setbacks in the electoral arena for the PAP were a clear signal from the electorate to the PAP that they no longer agreed with its previously stagnant policies. Either shape up, or ship out.
The Minister for Environment and Water Resources Vivian Balakrishnan was absolutely right when he said, “Politics is about power.” When the PAP loses elections, its power diminishes. To regain power, it must win elections. And to win elections, it must win votes. And to win votes, it must change its policies both in substance and in rhetoric. Whether these changes are significant and substantive enough is up to the electorate to judge.
From this view, then, my point is that the PAP, as like all other political parties, have always been populist parties at the onset because they seek to maximize their votes. They are as populist now as they are in the past. Ironically, no matter how much PAP politicians may demonize populism or say they disregard public opinion in the past, they do so in order to pander to populism.
Overall, this politics-policy link that we have observed harbour signs of the growth of an enlightened democracy at its very best. The electorate knows what it wants and does not want, and is not afraid to signal its preferences. Political leaders take the electorate’s grievances seriously and work hard to address them. Now, time for the democratic institutions to catch up.
At the end of the day, the key lesson is this: Singaporeans must surely begin to see how their vote, if they can coordinate, can bring about the changes that they desire. It is certainly not a cliché to say that their destiny lies in their own hands.
Elvin Ong is a graduate of Singapore Management University and holds an MPhil in Politics (Comparative Government) from the University of Oxford. He is currently a PhD graduate student in the Department of Political Science at Emory University. 
 

MAS Tightens Unsecured Loans: How It Will Affect You?

By
The Independent
-
0
Shopping bags

Do you enjoy being in piles of debt? Does your definition of “a good time” involve rolling around in unpaid bills, like some kind of reverse Scrooge McDuck? No? Well a significant number of you must be lying, because the government seems sure you do. That’s why they’ve decided to ruin every credit card marketer’s day, by tightening unsecured loans. See how it affects you:
 

No no. What I need are restrictions on unsecured *teenage daughters*. Do we have any of those planned?

Our Debt is Growing

Between 2011 and 2012, the amount of debts written off (by banks) rose by 21%. Our ratio of household borrowing to GDP has been rising right along with it: from 64% in 2007, to 77%*.
Nothing to panic about. Not yet.
Borrowing often accompanies economic growth, and South East Asia’s booming this decade. If economies were body sizes, and you put us next America and Europe, we’d look like an Ralphie May at an anorexia convention. And as far as rising wealth (and debt) go, we’re nowhere close to countries like Korea.
So the good news is, we have money. The bad news is, we’re getting too used to spending it.
Hence, the authorities’ tightening of credit across the board.
(*No, we’re not acting like teenagers who just found daddy’s Amex. About three quarters of our household debt is tied up in home loans.)

Changes to Be Made

“We had strict criteria of our own! We only gave credit based on income, low outstanding debt, or honest looking eyes.”

The changes to unsecured credit affects credit cards, along with some personal loans (including the ones from licensed money lenders). The following changes are to be rolled out between now and 2015:
From December 1st, 2013:

  • All Financial Institutions (FIs) to conduct debt and income checks before raising credit limits.
  • Whenever FIs receive information that suggests someone isn’t credit-worthy, they must run debt and income checks.
  • Persons above 55 years old can only get credit cards if their personal assets exceed $750,000. Alternatively, they can get a guarantor. Said guarantor must earn at least $30,000 per annum.

From June 1st, 2014:

  • FIs must run checks on any borrower’s outstanding debt and credit limits.
  • FIs can only raise your credit limit with your written consent.

From June 1st, 2015:

  • FIs must inform borrowers of how long it will take to clear a debt, if they only make minimum repayments (usually $50 a month).
  • FIs must inform borrowers of what the total debt will be in six months, if they make no repayments.
  • Anyone who fails to repay credit card bills (or other unsecured loans) for 60 days or more cannot apply for more credit. (Yes, even from other banks or FIs)
  • FIs cannot extend credit to anyone whose total outstanding debt across all lenders exceeds 12 months of their income*.

(*If the debt remains in excess of 12 months of the borrower’s income for a period of 90 days or more)

How It Affects You

Singapore slingOnly 12 months of our income? Now how will anyone afford ONE Singapore Sling at Raffles?

There are two main ways this will affect you.

  1. Application Time for Credit Cards and Loans Might Take Forever
  2. You May Want to Start Paying Down Debt NOW

Application Time for Credit Cards and Loans Might Take Forever
If you apply for a credit card right now, all you need’s your CPF statement, or three months of your pay slip. I’ve never heard of approval taking longer than a month, and rejections are rare. With the new requirements, that might change.
FIs now have to dig up your whole credit history, and that tends to stretch out the application process. If you have multiple outstanding loans, charges you’re still disputing, a fistful of credit cards with different amounts owed, etc. then bring some hair wax to the bank counter.
It’ll be good for the beard you’ll grow while waiting.
To avoid the hassle, you should research which cards are best for your lifestyle beforehand. Remember that every switch might be that much more inconvenient from now on. Use SmartCredit.sg to compare the reward systems of credit cards in Singapore.
You May Want to Start Paying Down Debt NOW

Credit is going to be a lot harder to get, come 2015. If you have any plans in the near future (e.g. start your own business, take loans to study, pay for your wedding) then you’d better plan right now.
Start paying down your debts as soon as possible, so you won’t face liquidity issues later.
Besides, credit’s also been tightened for car loans and home loans. You may as well work on your debts now, before they start affecting your total debt servicing ratio (TDSR).
Image Credits:
andrewarchy, himenohogosha, Swami Stream,
Source: Moneysmart.sg

Elections Department to tighten ballot box handling

By
The Independent
-
0
Chan Chun Sing
Chan Chun Sing

Chan Chun Sing
Chan Chun Sing

The Elections Department (ED) will look into how to tighten the handling and disposal of uncontrolled items such as ballot boxes during the electoral process, Minister for Social and Family Development Chan Chun Sing said in parliament today.
He was responding to a question from Workers’ Party MP, Pritam Singh, following the discovery of five empty ballot boxes at a school in Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC  last month. The boxes were used for the 2011 presidential election.
But there appeared to have been no lapse in electoral procedure or breach of the law, the minister said, because after the close of polling, the ballots are transferred into different boxes which are sealed and escorted to counting centres, and the empty boxes left behind cease to be considered “controlled items”.,
Mr Pritam Singh and Chua Chu Kang GRC MP Alex Yam asked if the empty ballot boxes should be re-classified as “controlled items” and incinerated six months after the election together with the ballots, No, said the minister, that was not necessary.
Contractors were expected to collect and dispose of the empty boxes and other elections paraphernalia left at the polling stations, the minister added.
However, a check on 164 schools turned up empty boxes at five schools.
Maruah concerned
“Maruah notes with concern that discarded ballot boxes have been found,” said Braema Mathi, Maruah president, in a statement. “This seems to suggest some lapse in proper electoral procedures. We note that the Elections Department has already filed a police report.”
She added: “This is an unfortunate incident which goes beyond just a procedural lapse. We say that this form of a lapse will play up the fears Singaporeans have over ballots being potentially traceable. Maruah’s research indicates that approximately 10 per cent of Singapore’s electorate still cast their votes with a fear that their ballots could be traced by the authorities and their voting behaviour held against them.
Maruah firmly believes that our votes are secret.
But we also ask for corrective measures to be put in place.  These are: to remove the serial numbers on ballotpapers and replace them with undifferentiated watermarks; cease the practice of writing the ballot serial number next to the voter’s name on the electoral roll at the polling station; and set up an independent, non-partisan committee to review the issue of the perceived lack of secrecy of the ballot.
It is the right of a citizen to free and fair elections which includes removing any element of voting in fear. The non-discarded ballot boxes, in this instance, do little to remove this fear.”

Interviewing Lee Kuan Yew

By
The Independent
-
0
Lee Kuan Yew
Lee Kuan Yew

By Tom Plate
From Los Angeles

Lee Kuan Yew
Lee Kuan Yew

Lee Kuan Yew, whom I first interviewed in 1996, was always a terrific interview and if you ask Western journalists how many public figures they can say this of, you may be surprised at how few they name. But I cannot think of one journalist who left Istana after an interview with Lee disappointed. I even tell my university students that one clear sign of an utter lack of journalistic talent would be to conduct an interview with Singapore’s first prime minister that came out dull.
Many public figures like to dodge tough questions but, if asked in a proper way, Lee is the reverse: He relishes the challenge. He does not want for intellectual self-confidence, he is not intimidated by the Western journalist, and he will generally say what he thinks.
In the hours of intense interviews for Conversations with Lee Kuan Yew, the 2010 book that was the first in the Giants of Asia series, Lee overtly ducked only one question (the identity of the three holdover cabinet ministers who had been unhappy and who wished to bail on his successor Goh Chok Tong) and when the his full quotes were presented to him for review (his standard policy – but he never asks to see what will actually be published), wished to have removed three comments he worried would create diplomatic problems for his son, the prime minister. One of those concerns (his outspoken view on ethnic cleansing in Sri Lanka) he agreed could be left in when I strongly protested that this view had to be included.
Edgy aides
In all the half-dozen interviews over the years Lee was always rational and reasoned, though he could be abrupt. It seemed to me during the conversations for the book in summer 2009 that the pair of aides present were in a constant state of nervous edginess, whether over fear of what I might ask of him or of what their boss might bark at them. But the then-senior minister, though suffering various ailments, answered questions with a laser-like attentiveness to the main points. It was this extraordinary talent for articulation that made it possible to construct a book about him over two mere afternoons, whereas much more time was needed for the ‘Giants of Asia’ books that followed (Mahathir, Thaksin, Ban Ki-moon).
Some critics felt the book was too favorable or soft – and some even got the mistaken impression that I thought Lee a perfect human being and Singapore a perfect place. To some extent that was my fault, but to a greater extent it was due to the nature of the ‘conversations’ approach to the book.  You see, by reputation (if to a lesser extent by reality), American journalists are viewed as aggressive types. That comes both from the legacy of the Watergate era, when persistent investigative journalism toppled a U.S. president, and from the norms of the U.S. system, which by custom and First Amendment endow the news media with an independence role. In style, too, the push-down-the-door, mike-in-the-face style always been de rigueur.  American journalists like to think of themselves as where Clint Eastwood might meet Ernest Hemingway. (Yeah, right….)
Yet the cowboy approach doesn’t always work; and in fact it sometimes works only to deny American reporters interview access. In the past decade I know in particular of at least two very well known sitting prime ministers in Asia who walked out on Western journalists expecting a lengthy interview session. It is difficult to relax a leader whom you wish to be candid and lengthy when your opening question is along the lines of: ‘How corrupt are you and when were you first corrupt’?
First American journalist who…
For his part, of course, a corruption question would never arise about Singapore (a tremendous achievement when you think about it) but Lee had been known to despise Western journalists whose sole homework for the interview would be to review negative human-rights reports and dreary old clips about caning and chewing gum. As far as I know Lee never denied me an interview if he was in town and available and I once asked an aide why. The answer was something like- For one thing you were the first American journalist who didn’t try to tell him how to run Singapore!
I once asked him why he bothered with an interview with me. He responded with a look as if I were crazy: “Because it is my job to influence the people who influence people’s opinions about Singapore.” The response was telling. For all his enormous towering and sometimes-scary ego, he cared most about making his little country look good and important.
And so on the occasion of his 90th birthday, why don’t we tell him that he did a very good job of that.
Why not indeed?

How much is too much compensation for a dead prisoner?

By
The Independent
-
0
Dinesh Raman
Dinesh Raman

Dinesh Raman
Dinesh Raman

One may choke to death, overpowered by others till one is unable to breathe. But, though fatal, that is not a “severe injury”.
That is one of the things you learn from the Ministry of Home Affairs’ statement on the death of Dinesh Raman – a statement “deplored” by civil society members yesterday. (See full statement.)
Dinesh Raman, 21, died in prison three years ago when after, attacking an officer, he had to be restrained by eight officers.
The autopsy report said the cause of his death was “consistent with positional asphyxia”. In other words, he was put (forced?) into a position where he was unable to breathe.
The Straits Times reported he was left in an isolation cell with his head to one side and his chest down in the prone position, restricting the respiratory movements of his chest and abdomen. The autopsy report noted he had suffered bruises and abrasions. But it added, “There was no evidence of head injury, compressive neck injury, skeletal fracture or dislocation.”
So Dinesh’s family and their lawyer, M Ravi, were making a false allegation claiming, “Dinesh sustained severe injuries from which he passed away,” said the ministry.
The ministry also denied their allegation that “the prison officers abused their positions of authority and assaulted Dinesh”. “Dinesh Raman was restrained as a result of his unprovoked attack on a prison officer,” the ministry said.
The prisoner died not because of abuse but because of negligence, according to the court.
“The court found DSP Lim guilty of negligence not amounting to culpable homicide… for failing to adequately supervise the restraint operation,” the ministry acknowledged.
DSP Lim was fined $10,000.
The government offered compensation to Dinesh’s family. However, the family has informally asked for “substantial windfall amounts that are completely disproportionate”, the ministry said. It pointed out that Dinesh was a secret society member who did not complete his O levels and never had a stable job.
By rehashing his criminal record, the ministry statement was indulging in character assassination, objected civil society members.
This is not the first ministry statement on Dinesh. The Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) has also issued a statement on the case.
But questions remain.
Why was DSP Lim found guilty nearly three years after the death of Dinesh?
The incident took place on September  27, 2010, but DSP Lim was found guilty and fined $10,000 on July 19, 2013. So when did the prosecution begin?
The question arises because Dinesh’s family wants the coroner’s inquiry reopened.
The Attorney General’s Chambers clarified on July 25 why the coroner’s inquiry was discontinued.
“Under the Coroners Act, the coroner is required to hold an inquiry into any death that occurs while in official custody – for instance, where an inmate dies in prison,” it said..
However, section 39 of the Coroners Act provides that if anyone is charged for the death under the penal code, then the coroner has to wait for the conclusion of the criminal proceedings.
That is why the coroner’s inquiry into the Dinesh Raman case was discontinued – “because the cause of death was established in the criminal proceedings,” said the ministry. Dinesh’s family did not object when the inquiry was discontinued, it added.
However, the family filed an affidavit with the High Court last month seeking a mandatory order for the coroner to reopen the inquiry. Dinesh’s mother, Madam Selvi Narayanasamy, claimed the case would have been “completely different” if Lim had not pleaded guilty because then “full evidence would have had to be called”.
In response, the ministry has accused the family of spreading “falsehoods” and claimed they want a “windfall”, “disproportionate” to their loss. The ministry claimed it had been “generous”, basing compensation on what Dinesh might have earned had he gone to ITE and held a steady job instead of being what he was — a secret society member without a steady job and not even O levels.
Far from sounding “generous’, though, the statement showed a lack of sympathy, speaking ill of the dead. The civil society members called the government statement “reprehensible”. Strong words, but the ministry did itself no favours by trumpeting its “generosity” to the family of a youth who died – however inadvertently – in custody.
“The MHA has reduced this case into a transaction by saying that Dinesh’s family is seeking a financial windfall,” said the civil society members in a statement “We want justice to be served and we are appalled by the apparent lack of compassion shown by the authorities.”
“The action of the ministry in publishing its press release is deeply wrong,” the statement said. “It has done so in a way that is clearly intended to destroy Mr Dinesh’s posthumous reputation. We have no doubt that by doing so it has added to the deep grief of the family, already suffering the profound pain of their only son’s loss. It is entirely unseemly for the Ministry of Home Affairs to have done so.
“As fellow citizens, we demand that the Minister for Home Affairs apologize to the family.”
The statement was signed by Vincent Wijeysingha, Constance Singam, Jolovan Wham, Andrew Loh, Martyn See, Russell Heng, Paul Ananth Tambyah and Ravi Philemon among others.

Our faulty Singapore Conversation

By
The Independent
-
0

By Vernon Chan
osc-large (300x200)

News Analysis

The publication of the Our SG Conversation Survey on 25 August 2013 has elicited varied responses. While there are some who have taken it at face value, some political commentators have questioned the validity of the OSC survey. For them, there seems to be a disjoint in what is being discussed and agreed on as opposed to the ground sentiments. This is a manifestation of an erosion of public confidence in survey instruments.

How would we know if the results of the year-long focus group-oriented OSC are indeed representative of what the average Singaporean feels and think; whether its hot topics are in line with what the average Singaporean sees as important? In other words, were the OSC dialogue participants representative of our population? Only by conducting a separate survey can the IPS provide the important “second layer of authentication” to the OSC dialogues.

The OSC survey should be viewed as a snapshot of our country’s mood at a point in time – in this case, the period between December 2012 and January 2013. It would not measure changes in the national mood, if any, caused by any significant event or events after that period.

The question that beckons is, was the survey representative of Singaporeans?

The IPS says that a random sample of 4,000 people will have a 95% probability, give or take 1.5%, of being representative of the population. While the sample was stratified for age, gender, and ethnicity, it may not be representative of the Singapore population in all other measures, such as income distribution or education level.

Also, what’s not stated in the results is the non-response rate of the survey. The implications are two-fold: an indication of the survey’s accuracy and quality, as well as an indication of the public’s degree of buy-in to the OSC brand.

The other thing that is not stated is the number of people who failed to complete each question. By discarding “Don’t know” and other non-responses in the presentation of graphical data, the OSC poll omits information that is critical in its extrapolations to the wider population.

While I have no problems with how the survey was conducted, I take issue with the sloppy phrasing of several questions. The survey is peppered with vague, ambiguous, and even contentious phrases like “forward-looking government”, “holistic education”, and “gay lifestyles”.

IPS researcher Leong Chan Hoong said that “the survey did not elaborate on the contentious term” and that respondents were allowed to interpret key phrases “using a lens they are normally used to.” This is contrary to the principles of sound survey design where neutral, straightforward language is used whenever possible, or explicit explanations provided otherwise.

Like many policy preference surveys which strive to highlight a ‘trade-off’ between policy choices, the OSC often comes close to committing the basic mistake of survey methodology: asking double barrelled questions. While one policy preference need not be linked to another policy preference it’s bundled with, the respondent is forced to either accept both or reject both.

By resorting to double-barrelled questions, a survey simplifies complex policy debates with multiple solutions and dimensions, traps respondents into believing there is a zero-sum game between policy preferences, and silences creative or radical solutions – as in Figure 13, “Comparing preferences to limits to individual freedom of expression and censorship”.

Figure 13

The second graph is far more egregious in its social engineering: “Censor media content; protect public interest” vs “Do not censor media content at all”. Did the IPS just tell 4,000 respondents that all censorship is to protect the public interest?

In another example (Figure 11), despite the title of the graph, the double barrelled question asked was: “Globally competitive academic standards despite more stress” vs “More holistic, less competitive education system”. In this case, the double barrel consists of bundling “globally competitive academic system” and “stress” on one hand and “holistic education system” and “less competitive system” on the other hand.

figure 11

It’s a question that places at least 4 items into false oppositions with each other!

The angst in Singapore is how Singapore education is intensely competitive for its students, not how globally competitive it is. Worded as such, the question changes the goalposts of the Singapore education debate by tying the high stress system to its alleged global competitiveness.

Like many policy preference surveys, the OSC survey is an exercise that measures intrinsic preferences instead of asking people if given today’s situation, which direction they feel policy should move towards.

There are some commentators who applaud how the OSC dialogue sessions are fostering a new spirit of active, open consultation. Yet the OSC survey, whether through design or sheer carelessness, ends up renewing the old spirit of guided, mediated consultation. It is my opinion this will do little to build trust in survey instruments or overturn perceptions that they do not reflect the real mood in Singapore.

Vernon Chan, a freelance writer and researcher, is a sociology graduate from NUS.

The Chiams, Tan Jee Say and mooncakes

By
Kumaran Pillai
-
0
Tan Jee Say
Tan Jee Say

By Kumaran Pillai

Tan Jee Say
Tan Jee Say

Former presidential candidate Tan Jee Say has been invited to eat mooncakes with the Chiams. But “it is no ordinary mooncake,” said one SPP member, “it is a political mooncake that is going to define politics in Singapore.”
Tan in a phone interview this morning has confirmed that he will be attending the function at the invitation of Mr. and Mrs. Chiam but would not say anything more about his membership.
But party members had more to offer:  One SPP member said that he had seen Tan at the SPP office on a few occasions. Tan will be joining the party in a leadership capacity and may be contesting in the general elections in 2016, he added.
The other prominent politician on the guest list is Dr Ang Yong Guan, who contested on the SDP ticket in GE 2011.
It turns out that the Chiams have been actively recruiting members into their party. Former RP Treasurer Kumar Appavoo joined the SPP late last year.
Prominent statistician and political activist Leong Sze Hian is also an active volunteer with the SPP since GE 2011. There are other new members who are going to be introduced at the party event tomorrow.
SPP has also reinvented itself after the electoral setback in GE 2011 and an unsuccessful coup led by political newcomer  Benjamin Pwee at the party conference in 2012.
Pwee has since taken over the Democratic Progressive Party and is the secretary general of the party. Several ex-SPP members who contested in Bishan-Toa Payoh have joined him there. He plans to stand from Bishan-Toa Payoh in the next general election.
Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Lina Chiam has also been speaking up more actively than her peers in parliament. She has championed several issues and not afraid to ask the hard questions. She has also been conducting her weekly walkabouts in Potong Pasir and Bishan-Toa Payoh.
I have personally met the Chiams on a few occasions and I must say that they are a determined lot: Mr. Chiam is still very jovial and charming despite his poor health and Mrs. Chiam, his faithful companion who stood by him against all odds, wants to preserve his legacy.

Lee and Lee: The job has changed

By
The Independent
-
0
PM Lee
PM Lee

By PN BALJI
Editor, The Independent Singapore

PM Lee
PM Lee

The city-state of Singapore appears to have run squarely into a mid-life crisis nine years after Lee Hsien Loong became prime minister, and two years after an embarrassing general election outing by his ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) and 18 months after a humiliating by-election defeat. The question observers in some circles have begun to ask is this: Just exactly where is Singapore’s leader?

In a country where leadership has traditionally been decisive, clear and in your face, the government under Lee in recent years has been uncharacteristically muddling through a mini-crisis of confidence. There have been complaints from Singaporeans about the seemingly unchecked entry of foreign workers into the country, the growing rich-poor divide, the high cost of public housing, an overworked public transit system that has been plagued by delays and breakdowns, and scandals involving top civil servants.
 Even the one thing that Singapore has had bragging rights over in the past – its high annual economic growth rate – is now fading as the country becomes a mature economy and settles into more modest growth rates.  The mood of the nation is turning sour, with the population “wanting to have the cake and eat it, too”, as Eugene Tan, an assistant law professor at the Singapore Management University (SMU), said.
Former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong recently described the malaise as that of a nation reaching a mid-life crisis and hitting an inflexion point. Singapore is beginning to look like a listless and rudderless boat in an ocean of uncertainty.
For the first time…
But then came Sunday, August 18. Prime Minister Lee addressed the nation for the 10th time on the occasion of the country’s most important speech of the year, that marking independence day.
 This time, the prime minister came out fighting, with a speech that even observers such as Singaporean academic Cherian George referred to as “probably Lee Hsien Loong’s best National Day Rally speech.”
The nation saw Lee for the first time imprinting his own style on the annual address, saying that the country was at a turning point and the government was making strategic shifts to position Singapore for the next chapter in its future.
For the first time in a long while, Singaporeans saw a prime minister showing empathy for the masses, referring to the need for appropriate social policies and betraying a slight left-of-centre shift in political ideology. It looked as though the government was going back to its socialist roots during the early days leading to independence. 
There were references in the speech to grants for young citizens to buy public housing, measures to ease the anxiety of parents about getting their children into schools of their choice and, most important, a decisive move to bring every Singaporean under a comprehensive medical insurance scheme.
Don’t worry, Lee said emphatically, we will take care of you. In a measure of how sweeping Lee’s speech is being perceived, opposition politician Gerald Giam said, “The speech was a recognition that major reforms, and not just incremental tweaks to policies and philosophies, are necessary.”
To be sure, not everyone was convinced that the shift by Lee was genuine. Donald Low, associate dean of executive education and research at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, said the government is not on a reformist path. “I would argue that the changes reflect a government that continues to believe in the currency and relevance of its long-established script – but also one which is prepared to deliver its lines and perform its role differently,” he said in a commentary.
Former prime minister Goh said his successor is having a tougher time than his predecessors. Lee is still trying to find his feet governing a country buffeted by an unsettled population and a mature economy.
SMU’s Tan added, ” It’s hard to, and probably not fair, to compare…(but) a case can be made that Lee Hsien Loong has a tougher job because success is now harder to come by and society a lot more complex and diverse.
He has to look after material concerns and post-material aspirations unlike his two predecessors, who very much had to worry about material concerns.
So, to garner the people’s strong support for government policies is a lot tougher today since more Singaporeans than ever before know only of a First World Singapore. The Third Word to First World grand narrative is losing traction with Singaporeans born after independence.”
The three PMs
There is another unseen and unspoken issue. After nine years as prime minister, it is difficult to pin down Lee’s defining attributes and distinctive style, his persona.
Singapore’s founder and first prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew, took a nation, through crude and brutal domestic politics, to a level that nobody had ever dreamed possible. His successor, Goh, after a fitful early start, went on to stamp his mark as a consensus-building leader and rode a wave of strong economic growth.
But Lee Hsien Loong? He has served for nine years simply as someone who is known yet unknown.
Could it be that he came into office ever conscious of being his father’s son? He was always going to be compared to his father. That was inevitable. But it was unfortunate, because his father’s substance and style are now out of fashion.
George W. Bush, in his memoir, Decision Points, pointedly said, “the truth is that I never had to search for a role model – I was the son of George Bush (Sr.).”
There is a parallel here in Singapore. Lee Hsien Loong’s role model was inevitably seen to be that of his father. As the first-born son of his father (as George Bush Jr. was of Bush Sr.), Lee had an unspoken duty to follow in his father’s footsteps.
When decisive actions have been needed during his tenure as prime minister, he must have asked himself: Will I be seen as my father’s son? And will today’s generation accept that?
The Internet
Then, there is the Internet. Lee and his team have still not come to understand and embrace this wild, wild world of opinions. A nation constrained by a government that has traditionally communicated that it always knows what is best for the people has finally found its public voice.
And what would you expect of a public still in the first flush of a new-found freedom? They will grab the megaphone to make their voices heard, sometimes without a thought about the veracity and validity of their views.
They will test the waters to see how far they can go.
 Perhaps this is the karma of Lee Hsien Loong’s government.
Quotations from the prime minister in a recent book co-authored by Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt show how far behind the curve the government is in coming to grips with politics in the digital world.
 “The danger we face in future is that it will be far easier to be against something than for it,” Lee is quoted as saying.
By all accounts, the prime minister is highly respected for his intelligence. Those who have worked with him say that his ability to zero in on a problem, identify the underlying issues and come up with solutions is unquestionable.
 But in today’s Singapore, more than that is needed. What is needed is someone who is prepared to cast aside past policies that are causing different people different problems, roll up his sleeves and move a nation.
As SMU’s Tan said: “There is a growing desire for more consultation before policy is made, for a less dominant PAP government in many facets of Singapore life, for more political pluralism and checks and balances.
Then, there is the challenge of Singaporeans wanting an effective and efficient government, while desiring a less assertive and less domineering government.
It’s a case of Singaporeans wanting to have their cake and eat it, too.
In short, PM Lee’s challenge is the need to remain popular in a more competitive political setting while eschewing populist policies that may generate short-term gains but imperil the long-term future of Singapore and Singaporeans.
 The Cabinet
Lee also suffers from a cabinet that pales in comparison to the distinguished officials who populated the cabinets of the two previous prime ministers. Where today, for example, are the Goh Keng Swees, S. Rajaratnams, Lim Kim Sans, S. Dhanabalans, Tony Tans, Ong Teng Cheongs of previous generations?
 Tan said:  “Unlike his predecessors, who led Singapore with a group accustomed to the school of hard knocks, the lack of a political baptism among the 3G and 4G leadership means that PM Lee’s cabinet does not have the full complement of moral authority.
The long years of political dominance (1959 to date), including political hegemony between 1968 and 1981, have also meant that the PAP machinery is not as robust a fighting machine as it was in the 1960s to 1980s.
In short, the cruelest of cards has been dealt Singapore’s current prime minister. He has just another three years to reshuffle those cards before he faces his biggest electoral test. That test is not just for him, but for a country that is seen by many in Asia as a model for prosperity and harmony. It remains to be seen how he plays those cards. But his August 18 National Day speech suggests he may have a card or two up his sleeve.

Minding the gap

By
The Independent
-
0
Marina Bay Sands

By Chanel Morgan

Prospects for the lowest income earners in Singapore look to be getting even tougher. Without an official poverty line, and being the third richest country in the world, shouldn’t we strive to be a more charitable nation?
Marina Bay SandsOur country is home to the highest percentage of millionaires. According to an MOF report in 2012, the top 1% of taxable income earners in Singapore are taxed an average of $0.7 million per year.
The rich are getting richer, with the number of income earners within the top 1%, rising from 29,524 in 2009, to 32,285 in 2012.
Since the IRAS only requires declarations on taxable income, non-taxable income – such as capital gains – need not be reported.
CPF statistics in 2011 illustrated that over 259,000 earn less than $1,000 a month, with 458,000 Singaporeans earning less than $1,500 a month. Even if a portion of these individuals include part-time workers or national service men, the evidence is enough to suggest that the number of Singaporeans struggling to make ends meet reaches well into the thousands.
It is globally known that addressing income inequality is the first step in reducing ‘poverty’ – both are intrinsically linked. Even though there are distributional policies on the government’s agenda to curb the poverty depth and severity, the hard truth is that in essence, the refusal to adopt a welfare oriented system is good for growth, but not so good for poverty.
Relative poverty dilemma
Consider the one-room apartments subsidized by the government – at times, these apartments house an entire family in a space of 30 square metres. The public housing statistics of 2008 revealed that one third of these families living in one-room flats do not earn any income; and despite the numerous religious, civil and non-profit organizations presently in the works, some of these low-income families are simply not eligible for assistance.
The most vulnerable in the poverty equation however, are those who are most often left out of sight. It is the children of lower-income families who are at high risk of suffering from the adverse impacts of poverty. As cited by the University of Queensland, Australia, “children experiencing family poverty at any developmental stage in their early life course have reduced levels of cognitive development”.
The only way to ensure every youth is entitled to a decent upbringing is to target Singapore’s problem of high inequality before it gets worse.
Finding a way out
One solution to minimize the income gap is for Singapore’s wealthiest individuals to espouse a philanthropic campaign similar to ‘The Giving Pledge’; a campaign organized and launched in 2010 by the world’s richest men, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates.
It all started when the world’s no. 82 Russian billionaire, Vladimir Potanin, advised Gates on his ability to persuade the world’s richest to donate, noting that Gates should “try and move this initiative from American soil”, making this “a real international initiative.’  Since 2010, the number of pledges has now grown to 114 signatories.
The Buffett-Gates initiative is based on billionaires making a moral pledge to donate their fortunes to charity within their lifetime or after death.
Recent signatories include New York based real estate magnate Stephen Ross, hedge fund manager Paul E Singer and the world’s youngest self-made female billionaire Sara Blakely; their charitable commitments can be seen at www.thegivingpledge.org, together with commitments made by other billionaires worldwide.
If Singapore were to launch a similar campaign which required the extremely wealthy to make contributions to a fund that specifically helped the poor, we would have to avoid creating a philanthropic culture led primarily through government patronage. Ultimately, people should be driven to give of their own will, to their desired charities and should be doing so from the heart, just like the Buffett-Gates initiative.
The Russian exemplar
Perhaps Singapore’s rich should take a lesson or two from Potanin, who decided to act on the fact that “The gap between the poor and the rich is so huge”. He understood his actions would not guarantee a radical change in attitudes, but that it would unquestionably encourage others to do the same.
Determined to get away from the reputation of being profligate spenders who bought yachts every few days, Potanin led the way for his fellow countrymen to give to charity. He was the first Russian billionaire to sign up for the Giving Pledge, promising half his wealth – worth US$12.3 billion, as of 8 August  – to philanthropic causes.
Going through data gathered from Russia’s 15 wealthiest billionaires, and from annual reports published by their companies and charitable organizations, Bloomberg News recently confirmed that interest in philanthropy among Russia’s richest is increasing.
Between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2012, 15 Russian billionaires who offered documentation to Bloomberg donated a grand total of US$1.64 billion to charitable projects.
The total worth of Russia’s 15 richest men –they’re all men – was a whopping US$155 billion as of 8 Aug, which is roughly 8% of Russia’s economy; this meant that the 15 philanthropists who provided the data had given away roughly 1% of their aggregated fortunes during the three-year period.
All it could take is just one of Singapore’s wealthiest moguls to set the benchmark of moral precept, influencing others to get on the bandwagon.  After all, many would agree that the path to happiness is to lead by good example.  If we can promote a similar initiative of true philanthropy in Singapore, there’s no saying what Singapore cannot do.
Chanel Morgan is  pursuing her Mass Communications Degree from Murdoch University.

1...5,2905,2915,292...5,301Page 5,291 of 5,301

The Independent SG

Singapore News

Business

Bored at S$70k/year job, Singaporean man considers leaving stable finance job for career in insurance or property

SINGAPORE: A man in his late 20s took to...

Nvidia-backed Nebius Group secures US$1B in debt financing to fuel its AI infrastructure expansion

AMSTERDAM: Nvidia-backed Nebius Group has secured US$1 billion in...

Will China order more Airbuses than India?

China is reported to be considering ordering hundreds of...

Shanghai-listed GigaDevice to fill 55 roles at new global headquarters in Singapore soon

SINGAPORE: Shanghai-listed firm GigaDevice Semiconductor has officially opened its...

Singapore Politics

© The Independent Singapore