Lesson from NKF: The Importance of Elections to Singapore

The importance of accountability and transparency has never been so evident in the minds of Singaporean than now because of the NKF debacle. Due to the incorruptible track record of our government, Singaporeans have developed a high level of trust for leaders in the public sector. However, good people with good intentions are not infallible. The high level of trust we have in good people should be complemented with a serious attitude towards institutional structures such as elections that hold them accountable.

Two out of three Singaporean donates to NKF. Beside the regulators, donors should have provided a more effective check on the old NKF. A few donors courageously did so, such as Mr. Archie Ong and Mr. Piragasum Singavelu, but were sued for their efforts. Many others choose to assume that the board of directors and regulators would ensure that all was well in NKF. We were wrong. This high level of misplaced trust most likely contributed to the lack of donors’ activism to hold NKF accountable.

James Madison, one of the signatory of the US Constitution put it aptly “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” Mr. TT Durai and the old NKF Board Members had good intentions to better the lives of the patients. Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan saw Durai as 'clearly a very competent man destined for success in whatever he wants to do'. However, without sufficient accountability and transparency, Durai and the old NKF Board lost NKF’s 'moral compass' and misplaced the public’s trust.

The NKF debacle has shown us the importance of having institutions that actually hold good people accountable. There is no doubt that the leadership selection process of the current ruling party is rigorous. However, we should not take this for granted. We need to remind ourselves that the election system is an institution for us as citizens to ensure that the good people in our government are held accountable.

Therefore, we should not just automatically vote for the candidates or party without giving serious thought to our choice. We need to make the effort to determine if the candidate or the party served the constituency well. Did they deliver what they promised in the last election, and if not, why? Are there any viable alternatives?

In addition, we need to be aware of the consequences of having more walkover constituencies in our elections. The opposition’s strategy to return the PAP government to power on Election Day increased the number of eligible voters not able to vote on Election Day. 50% of the 1.7 million eligible voters could not vote in the 1991 General Election, while 67% of the 2.0 million eligible voters could not vote in the 2001 General Election because of an increased number of walkover constituencies. With fewer Singaporeans participating, the value of the election as an institution for accountability diminishes.

In the absence of substantial political competition, Singapore‘s incorruptible and competent government depends heavily on good people to lead the country. In order for us to continue to have good people in power, we need to exercise our voting rights wisely rather than viewing Election Day as another holiday. Imagine the consequences to Singapore if the good people in our government start running Singapore as their little empire.

Active citizenship

PM Goh stressed that as voters, we have the responsibility to think “two, three elections down the road” and “vote for our children interests”. This is a watershed election, and Singaporeans must understand that our votes will determine the long-term fate of our country.

However, we need to remind ourselves that voting for the ruling party, despite their consistent and excellent track record, is not the only option for Singapore future. I would say a step towards national solidarity is voting for the marginalized opposition, to thrust upon them the heavy responsibility and privilege of serving our fellow Singaporeans and together with the PAP, help to run our country. I fail to see how another government after the election consisting of 82 PAP MPs and 2 opposition MPs will enable us to band together a nation where approximately more than 35% of the voters have voted for the opposition in the past decade. Such a government will alienate more than it will unite the people. Such a government will make many people leave the fate of Singapore to the capable hands of the PAP government, and not give a hoot after polling day is over. Active citizenship becomes an bureaucratic buzzword rather than reality.

An opposition GRC of 5 members, 2 or 3 single wards, a total of 8 opposition members. Less than 10% of the seats, and minimal threat to the PAP. But imagine the benefits! More constructive debates about economic and social policies, in a climate where they are crucial now. A government that is more representative of Singapore's populace, thereby creating more unity in its diversity. PAP and opposition MPs fiercely executing their electorate and parliamentary duties in preparation for the next election, knowing that there might not be a walkover nor an easy challenge the next time. More bang for your buck. The more discerning voter might realize that an overwhelmingly PAP-dominated government is likely to become untenable in our increasingly uncertain future.

Looking two or three elections ahead, loyal Singaporeans must see that a vote for opposition today equates to creating the dynamic government we need 10 to 20 years from now, where the PAP hegemony, a viable but significant Opposition minority, and active citizens together, in debates or in consensus, collaborate in our common goal of nation-building. It is just as well that the PAP has returned to power because like what Ms Chua Lee Hong of the Straits Times said, "the PAP is the only party capable of running the country at the moment".

The PAP had returned to power, and therefore without the irrational but justifiable fear of voting the PAP out of power, Singaporeans can think more carefully about the exact composition of the government they want to see in power now and for the future. A much more difficult task, but active citizenship doesn't come cheap.

Our civil servants must be responsible for the loss of $388 million.

The government, through PSD and ISA are right in writing the letters of explanation for the process leading to the mistake of the $388m payout.

However, the government should have been proactive in disclosing the details of the "isolated" mistake, instead of doing so only after repeated calls by the public. By being proactive, the government will demonstrate that it takes its sense of public accountability seriously.

I do not agree that it world be "inappropriate to punish the review committee or any of its members" for losing $388m to a public listed company. It is disconcerting to hear from the government that by punishing them, "that would only encourage a culture where civil servants shield away from taking responsibilities, and avoid making mistakes for fear of committing mistakes."

What will happen to employees in a commercial entity if they lose $388 m due to an isolated and genuine mistake, much less in this case when the public trust is at stake?

I believe our civil servants should be held responsible and given appropriate chastisement for losing $388 m of taxpayer monies, a significant sum in the face of economic downturn, so as to create the culture whereby civil servants will " get their facts right, and to check and double-check details and assumptions." Even a rap on the knuckles is better than letting them off scott free.

We should and must give second chances to people who make mistakes, but on the other hand, we should not cultivate a culture in our civil service that one can make mistakes and not be responsible for them.

Do we have a choice with respect to increased freedom of expression

Increased freedom of expression is not a luxury nor an option, but a societal and economic necessity for 21st century Singapore in an increasingly globalized and competitive world. For Singapore to ride through the ferocious storm of external economic, social and political challenges together, we need to have greater opportunities to think, speak and debate.

Thomas Jefferson, founding father of America, once remarked, ""I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society, but the people themselves; if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education."

With increased public debates, increasingly educated, informed and responsible Singaporean will be able to think for themselves, to produce and accept changes essential for our economic survival.

Maybe Singapore has a long way to go before we can exposit the same view as Voltaire, French author and philosopher who said, "I disapproved of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

However, if we have greater latitude now to rebutt bad speech with better speech, then I will say Singaporean will be able to adept to the changing world, without depending on the government for every decisions.

The question is whether we, as Singaporeans can trust one another to "distinguish between right and wrong, between reasonable and unreasonable views." ?

Therefore, we must constantly asked the question, "How mature are we?"

President Scholarships

I refer to “ Four Rafflesians win President’s scholarship.” (ST 29 July).

I was not surprised that the four President scholars were all Raffelsians. However, I was more struck by the fact that “all four come from comfortable background – none of them live in HDB flats.”

In Singapore where more than 85% of the population lives in HDB flats, not living in HDB flats is a reasonable proxy for higher income and wealth level. It will be reasonable to deduce that the four President scholars come from upper middle to high-income families.

I believe it is easier to accomplish many things if one do not have to work to help support the families during his or her studies. For example, how much time can you be expected to spend on your studies if you have to work after school to tend the family business, much less spending your time on extra-curricular activities? Furthermore, many lower income families may not be able to afford private tuition and enrichment classes for their children.

Are having all four of our President scholars coming from comfortable background a result of our merit-based education system? If I am not wrong, I believe a disproportional number of PSC scholars do not live in HDB flats, as compared to the general population.

I am not diminishing the four President scholars’ nor other PSC scholars’ accomplishment. However, can more students from a less comfortable background, living in HDB flats, meet the criteria to be awarded the President scholarship in the future?

The more important question is: Is there sufficient social mobility in our rapidly changing society?

Are our Government Buildings too Posh?

I refer to the letter "When Posh is Perfect" by Mr. Krishna M. Singh (May 17). Mr. Singh is using the example of the government offices of the 70s and 80s, while Mr. Tan Soo Khoon is talking about the government offices of the 21st century.

I fully agree that our government buildings should not be an eyesore, and provide a certain level of comfort to the civil servants.

However, from my limited experiences interviewing for positions in the public and private sectors, I was surprised to find that the interiors of a number of our government buildings are more posh than those from the top notch MNCs in Singapore.

I believe the companies are more interested in managing their cost structure than making their offices look too posh. Shareholders will be breathing down their necks if they realized the management is spending unnecessary amount of money on their offices.

After my interviews, I will have lunch at the coffee shop where an old lady will be clearing the plates.

I feel uncomfortable and wondered if the government can justify raising the GST to this old lady, while the interiors of our government buildings are as posh as some of the world class hotels.

Rethink the scholarship system

The recent articles on the difficulty in obtaining overseas scholarships sent me thinking whether the scholarship system in Singapore is still relevant in this global economy, where top talents are globally mobile.

I wonder how many of these 18 years old know the myriad of opportunities and the excellent compensation they may received when they graduated with from the top overseas universities.

An example is that top tier global investment banks and management consulting firms normally hire graduates from the top overseas universities, and they pay global rates. Therefore, an overseas Singaporean graduate working in these companies, even in Singapore, can easily start with a monthly compensation of $6000 and above, which is more than twice the monthly compensation of most bonded scholars.

Will the scholarship applicants whom can afford to pay for their overseas education still applied and take up the overseas scholarships if they know this?

Unless these financially able applicants at the age of 18 or 21 are sure that they want to work in the particular organization they applied for, obtaining an overseas scholarship may not be the best option.

Madam Tay Lai Cheng, principal of Temasek Junior College, echoes my concerns. In the frenzy of applying for all these overseas scholarships, these students must understand that these overseas scholarships are tied to the organizations, and they have to return to serve their bonds of four to six years.

Maybe it is time we should rethink the scholarship system. Are we also bonding too many of our talents?

I will like to see commercial overseas study loans, guaranteed by the Government, being made available for our qualified but financially strapped Singaporean students to study in the best overseas universities.

Is imposing a racial quota on schools an effective way to achieve racial integration?

I feel that imposing a racial quota on schools is a band-aid solution to the lack of racial integration within our schools.

First, I am not sure whether the enforcement of racial quota in public schools is constitutional? Can the Ministry of Education enforce a policy that states whether a citizen (student) is allowed to enter a particular school based solely on his or her race, due to the race quota?

Second, has there been empirical evidences showing greater racial integration ever since the imposition of the HDB race quota? Have Malay, Indian and Chinese families been interacting cross-racially more with one another after 1989 within their HDB blocks? Will we have more cross-racial interaction within schools if the racial quota is enforced?

Third, we need to determine who are the beneficiaries and losers from the enforceable of the racial quota in schools? On the surface, it appears that the minorities' students will benefit from the racial quota. However, imposition a racial quota distorts our meritocracy based public education system. I will argue that targeted programs should be developed to assist the academically weaker students, regardless of the students' race.

Fourth, is the enforcement of the race quota used to expedite racial integration, or to improve on the school's overall academic performance? Both objectives are of a different nature, and it is important to apply the most relevant solution to the respective issues.

I think Singapore should have more matured and honest conversations within the public and private spheres on race. It is important to recognize that we are not in the 1960s, and that Singaporeans are now more educated, with a greater awareness of how race can easily divide society, by looking at other countries.

No doubt the race riots in the 1950s and 60s are still fresh in our country' s short history, but I will argue that bad speeches and ideas on race should not be indiscriminately muted, but been countered by better speeches and ideas on race within our society.

More importantly, I hope that we will have faith that as Singaporeans, we will be able to be face the recent onslaught of race-related issues that threaten our social stability with honesty, maturity and humility, regardless of our ethnicities.

Disclosure should be applauded

The disclosure by S. Dhanabalan on the decision process to appoint Ho Ching as the executive director of Temasek Holdings is an excellent step forward in better governmental transparency and openness.

Discerning Singaporeans and international investors will be questioning the possible conflict of interests, and political sensitivity of appointing Ho Ching, who is the wife of DPM Lee Hsien Loong, to be executive director of Temasek Holdings.

However, by addressing these concerns in public, Temasek Holdings should be applauded for this positive step.

The government should continue to strive for greater transparency and accountability to the people, to show that it will continue to remain as one of the most corruption free government in the world. Therefore, we should continue to have these disclosures.

End of Opposition politics ominous for Singapore.

Is the opposition irrelevant to Singapore?

Should we should just abandon the opposition parties, and the elections, and just allow PAP to govern the country indefinitely?

First, did all 75.3 per cent of the voters vote for the PAP because they are grateful, intelligent and pragmatic? I am sure many are, but I am also sure some voted out of apathy, lack of information and fear of change. All election results give mixed signals, so let’s not start thinking that we know the exact reasons for all their votes.

Second, it may be argued that the lesser number of votes for the two incumbent opposition member are clear signals by the people that this is the beginning of the end of opposition politics in Singapore. This is a sweeping assertion. Well, what about the offer of upgrading in opposition’s precincts that voted above a certain percentage? Let’s not forget about that!

We need to ask ourselves some key questions about whether opposition politics is relevantto Singapore.

Will Singaporeans rejoice if there are no opposition politics in the future? Honestly, didn’t you wish you were living in a contested constituency, with more offerings of amenities and facilities by the PAP and the Opposition?

If we do not need opposition politics, why is PM Goh setting up a shadow cabinet, and lamenting that opposition candidates are only contesting so few seats, robbing PAP of much needed electoral legitimacy in uncontested wards?

I urge Singaporeans to think twice if they believe opposition politics have no place in our society. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I do not believe Singapore is unique in world history, that our leaders require no checks and balances.

It is presupposes that opposition politics equates to suspicion and conflict. On the contrary, a system of checks and balances is another form of mutual support. The existence of many government-initiated and non-government committees is the PAP’s way of creating a proxy of this system.

However, we need to realize that while a one-party dominated government may work now, it places our system of government in a state of unstable equilibrium. Even with artificial measures in place, the lack of competition in the political arena presents the same drawbacks as a monopoly operating in the private sector.What will happen if the incumbent party becomes ineffective in the future?Who will take over the government?

The opposition can only make the PAP better and more sensitive to the needs of the common people, just like how M1 makes Singtel more customer-oriented.

It will be truly ominous for Singapore if we think that opposition politics have no relevance in Singapore.

Political maturity at the cost of losing PAP?

In response to “the dilemma of voting in a well-run country” on 25th October 2001, Ms Chua argues that if all the young and educated Singaporean who believes in political maturity for Singapore votes for the opposition, the PAP will be thrown out of power.

Is that even possible? Singaporean had been returning PAP to power for the past 42 years, with more than 90% of the seats in the Parliament ever since independence.

Is the size of this group of Singaporeans substantial enough to vote in more than 42 Opposition candidates, an increase of 2000%? Ms Chua by expressing her personal fear that the PAP may be voted out of power by this group of Singaporeans appears to be influencing them to vote for the incumbent.