NKF disclosure standards to be of the Government.

It is distressing to hear that Mrs. Goh Chok Tong remarked that the annual compensation of S$600, 000 of the CEO is peanuts because the CEO is running a million dollar charitable organization with hundreds of millions in reserve.

If the CEO salary was indeed "peanuts", this seems to imply that the pay of the CEO is perfectly acceptable to everyone, even to the household that earns S$1000 monthly and donated to NKF.

Therefore, why doesn't the board of NKF releases the salary range of the CEO given that almost 2 out of 3 Singaporean donates to NKF. NKF is one of the very few organizations that so many Singaporean donate to.

Using the same principle, NKF disclosure policy should be like the Government, which releases the salary benchmarks of its Ministers and civil servants because the public (i.e. taxpayers) pay its wages.

It shouldn't take a costly court session paid by the donors of NKF to disclose the "peanuts" salary of the CEO.

Positive outcome from the Gomez saga

Below is a forum letter that highlighted a positive component to the debate about the Gomez saga.

The Election department official has the right to lodge a complaint to the police. The police has to investigate the complaint, and took the time to conduct a proper investigation. The public prosecutor reviewing the case stated that Mr Gomez committed an offense and recommends a punishment (i.e. warning). Mr Gomez accepted the warning and is now working in Sweden again, and continuing his party involvement in Worker's Party.

From what I seen from the video where Mr Gomez was asking for the minority candidate certificate, I can imagine the election officer will be very concerned when he is being accused of being able to provide the form. This is especially so since it was clearly communicate to him in a forceful manner by Mr Gomez that the certificate was already submitted in the presence of other witnesses. If Mr Gomez did not remember that he actually did not submit it, and there was no evidence proving it, the election officers will most probably be penalized in their civil service careers at the minimal.

Therefore, comparing this incident to a customer service complaint to a typical government department is incorrect. Accusing an election officer in an election period that the officer does not have a submitted form which would disadvantage the party and the candidate is a serious matter. Regardless whether Mr Gomez genuinely forgot that he has submitted the form or whether he intentionally choose not to submit the form, the conversation between him and the election officer would definitely caused a lot of concern for the officer involved.

Even when MM Lee, PM Lee and DPM Wong come out very strongly in public stating that Mr Gomez has the malicious intention to discredit the election system, the investigation was kept narrowly by the police and attorney general chambers to only address the complaint by the election department.

The only question which was not answered is why the election department brought the complaint officially to the police on May 6 (Polling day) when the event happened more than a few weeks ago.

Anyway, I think the judiciary and police handled this situation professionally, and it is good for Singapore political maturity and institutions moving forward.


May 16, 2006
Gomez case shows justice is very much alive

I REFER to the article, 'Gomez let off with a stern warning' (ST, May 13).

When news broke that Mr James Gomez had been hauled up by the police as he was checking in at Changi Airport to fly back to Sweden on May 7, coffee-shop gossip was abuzz with wild rumours that the People's Action Party (PAP) was once again using scare tactics against the opposition.

Fuelled by rumour-mongering, the saga soon became a game of chance. People betted heavily that Mr Gomez would eventually be charged in court and slapped with a hefty term of imprisonment. This, the gamblers believed, was because the judiciary was under the control of the executive.

So, when it was reported that he was let off with a stern warning, many punters were left poorer by a couple of hundred dollars. However, the losses incurred by punters are not relevant to the saga.

What is relevant and significant is this: it is crystal clear that, in Singapore, the executive has no clout in influencing the judiciary (Attorney-General's Chambers) to 'dance to its tune' and prosecute its opponents.

It appears to be the notion of the man in the street that justice is blind to anyone who is deemed to be an adversary of the PAP.

I trust that the knuckle-rapping meted out to Mr Gomez will change the mindsets of those who believe the PAP is authoritarian and it must always be its 'way or the highway'.

The laws of Singapore dictate that the public prosecutor is vested with absolute discretion in recommending the course of action to be taken in criminal cases.

In the Gomez case, he was certainly not absolved of any wrongdoing. The learned public prosecutor, after reviewing the evidence in the case and taking into consideration the mitigating factors, recommended to the police that a stern warning be administered to Mr Gomez.

It is therefore pertinent for local rumour-mongers, as well as foreign adversaries of Singapore, to take note that justice in Singapore is very much alive, and that Singapore's judiciary is definitely independent of the executive.

Majulah Singapura!

Lionel De Souza

Next steps for PAP moving forward – all about the swing voters

A. Implement concrete plans to win over the 10%-15% of previous PAP voters who voted for the opposition this election. Statistically speaking, if the overall vote for PAP falls below 60% at any one time with more than half of the seats contested, PAP will definitely lose seats (i.e. 2001 election, 61% of popular vote translated into 4 opposition members)

1. Younger Singaporeans (25-40) who desire more opposition members elected into Parliament

a. Coming down hard against the opposition parties such as hammering WP over the James Gomez saga after the election is a surefire way to alienate this particular group. PM Lee’s post election speech rallying Singaporeans to move forward will appeal to this group.

b. Allow more PAP MPs to be more openly critical in Parliament.

c. Leverage on non overt party channels such as the Feedback Unit to target this specific group of younger Singaporeans. Young PAP tends to attrack young Singaporeans who have a predisposition to the party already.

2. Middle class Singaporeans who are more willing to vote for more credible opposition candidates ( a more important segment in terms of number of votes than the younger Singaporean mentioned above)

a. Desire to build a first world opposition by encouraging parties like WP to recruit more credible oppositions members for the next election will result in loss of PAP votes from this segment

b. Recruiting younger Singaporeans as PAP candidates from less well-off socio-economic background, such as those living in public housing with a history of volunteer work and excellent academic and career track record may encourage this segment to continue to vote for PAP. The current perception is that many (definitely not all) of the younger PAP candidates come from higher socio-economic backgrounds that the middle and lower class cannot relate to.

The 20-30% opposition loyalists are mostly Singaporeans who have an issue to pick with the government and are mainly from the lower socio-economic strata who directly feel the adverse impact of rapid globalization.

B. Continuing to govern well as per the last 40 years will ensure at least 55-60% of popular votes unless two things happen, which in my opinion is very unlikely in the next 5 years with the leadership of the PM Lee

1. Obvious corruption in the PAP senior ranks that is not addressed

2. Internal party conflicts which is apparent to the general public

Next Steps for Worker Party moving forward – all about organization development

Strategic Next Steps

1. Retain, motivate and recruit credible candidates now in order to contest more GRC in the future. PAP has a lot of resources, but if they are contested in every ward, they will be stretched. With good people, the organization will be strengthened.

2. Focus on winning two, if not at least one GRC, while contesting for at least 5 to 7 GRCs for 2011. May need to consider strategic bets such as placing Mr. Low and Ms. Lim on a GRC slate in 2011 together, and handing over Hougang to a new WP candidate. Handing over Hougang to a new WP candidate will take a 5 year plan to do so methodically.

3. Need to think about how to move more towards the middle ground to court the swing voters without alienating the loyal opposition voters. Proposing more socio-welfare policies without too much (obvious) fiscal irresponsibility will be the key to keep the loyal opposition voters (20-30%) and to win the swing voters (20-25%). You need 51% of the voters to be elected into parliament, not 55, 60 or 75%.

Tactical next steps

4. Take note of all PAP's promises in the contested constituencies to make sure these promises are realised so WP can remind the voters in the next election if these are not executed. Five years is a long time, but only an organization that can meticulously think of the next election in detail right now will be successful given the (very) high standards set by the incumbent party.

5. Ensure learning and takeaways from this election are documented for the next election. E.g. Establish a checklist for election paperwork for every candidate in the next election; assign an administrative/logistic/paperwork executive to every GRC and SMC.

6. Expand the current website by providing at least English and Chinese versions, if not also Malay and Tamil versions too. Advertise the url as often as possible in all forms of communication to provide more information to the swing voters who are the middle class who do use the internet (especially more in 5 years time).

7. Celebrate the good showings as quickly as possible after the election as compared to 2001 because it is important to galvanize the ground troops. Results should always be framed with reference to the dismal showing in 2001, with the intention to focus on the 2011 elections. The ground troops are critical in the election. One key to the PAP success is definitely the ability to attract sincere people to help with the ground.

On a last note to both PAP and WP, as PM had said, the successful party is one who can imagine how Singapore will be in 5 years time in terms of how the demographics will be shifting, and who will be the new loyal PAP and Opposition voters and the swing voters.

Successful politicans always fight the last election

There are some subtle differences in this coming election as compared to the last few elections. PAP appears to be fighting this election with the same tactics and strategies that had served them so well in the past. However, the environment and opposition parties are changing. Previous election strategies and tactics have also reduced the effectiveness of the same tactics.

Changes are written in terms of impact

Spreading of PAP resources: More seats are now being contested as the opposition camp drops its by-election strategy. Therefore, PAP will not be able to channel resources from uncontested wards to assist the contested wards in campaigning.

Coordination of opposition parties: For the first time in opposition history, there is a central coordination effort. Fewer three or four cornered fights will result in more intense campaigning by PAP for wards where they face only one opposition candidate as the opposition votes are not divided. Every vote counts more now.

Radicalization of SDP: SDP is attracting the more liberal and radical activists, which effectively reduces the level of radicalism in SDA and WP, resulting in the two parties becoming more palatable to the electorate. The past breakup of opposition parties is part of the evolution process for a nascent opposition where personalities dominate, and there is a clear separation between the SDA/WP and SDP now.

Moving towards the center: SDA and WP are moving towards PAP's position in a gradual fashion, making them ironically more of a viable alternative to the incumbent party.

Lack of past voting behavior: The lack of past voting behaviors because of systematic walkover may result in a higher number of swing voters in the coming election. As more Singaporeans are virgin voters, even those who are in the 30s and 40s, they will more likely be influenced by the campaigning because of recency effects and they are not constrained by any past voting behaviors.

Improved quality of opposition candidates: Almost all the PAP and opposition candidates have similar education levels, work experiences and share the same passion to serve Singapore. The litmus test is whether you look at the profile of an opposition candidate and imagine him or her standing as a PAP candidate.

Adverse impact of previous walkovers on PAP candidates: Opposition candidates are mentally prepared for a hard period of campaigning as they have to contest against the incumbents. However, many of the PAP candidates are newly introduced or had won by walkovers. The systematic walkovers in the past have reduced the level of campaigning experiences amongst PAP candidates. Also, the lack of opposition members in Parliament makes the renewal process in the opposition camp more straightforward than PAP who has to turnover ¼ of its incumbent MPs every election.

Defamation suits: Serving defamation suits against a party who has no fear about lawsuits and against Mr. Chee who does not fear going to jail and is already not eligible for election seems to be ineffective in winning more votes. Conversely, this may be playing into the SDP's hand because the defamation suits and SDP’s (false) accusation against the PAP leaders will be in the news constantly. However, PAP leaders have to defend their integrity (rightly so), and choose to use the same legal approach to do so. The key difference is that the parties PAP sues do not seem to fear the implications of the lawsuit unlike in previous suits.

Candidates’ announcements timeline: Opposition parties will continue to receive constant publicity from the time they announce their candidates all the way to nomination day, and benefit from the recency effect (electorate will remember the opposition candidates more). However, PAP has already announced their candidates earlier, and will not be able to provide a direct daily benchmark against the opposition candidates who are being announced right before nomination days.

Progress Packages becoming an entitlement: Singaporeans are so used to receiving economic handouts before an election that it may have become a form of entitlement. It is akin to a company always issuing dividends, and suffering from a drop of share price if they even cut their dividends. The impact of handouts on election results will diminish.

Upgrading has become more common: As more flats have been upgraded and more new flats which don’t need upgrading have been built, it becomes less of an issue in many of the contested wards. This is still an effective tactic in the two opposition wards. Opposition contesting PAP controlled wards do not need to be too concern about the upgrading tactics.

If I were PAP, I would do the following things:

1. Reinforce the fact that the party will continue to provide economic prosperity to the people, and that the party itself is of the highest integrity with internal accountability (i.e. do not need the check and balances of the traditional parliment)

2. Refrain from suing opposition members before the polling day because it will give them a lot of unnecessary air time in the mass media. Electorate knows that the PAP is not corrupt (and I mean it in a serious way)
   

3. Focus on winning the swing votes (30-25%). Put less focus on the PAP supporters (40-45%) and the opposition supporters (20-25%) because they are very much less influenced by the campaigning. To do so, think about what would convince the swing voters to vote for PAP, and act on that. Different swing voters focus on very different needs, ranging from economic security to political freedom.
   

4. Do not lose a GRC as it will open a floodgate of opposition members in Parliment resulting in a tipping point in the political history of Singapore. Give up a few single seats to satisfy the need for opposition to win the young Singaporean swing votes who want to see some form of substantial opposition in Parliment. Whatever happens, never lose a GRC. Opposition will channel resources against the single seats because they believe that they have the highest chance of wining. In the past, single seat wards PAP members are often the most ready and battle hardened MPs. However, PAP has put a number of newer and less experienced PAP candidates on single wards in this coming election . Therefore, the opposition may be falling for this tactic.
   

5. Continue to keep pressure on the two opposition wards as it will put the two opposition chiefs (Mr. Low and Mr. Chiam) in defensive mode and distract them from helping their party members. Assigning SM Goh as the resource person for the two wards is part of this strategy. However, this may be less effective now as there are alternate leaders within the two parties/coalitions (i.e. Sylvia and Steve) to take on the offensive.

Postscript: Interestingly, SM Goh use the same quote 'We can't fight the next battle using today's strategies' in one of his review of the General election.

The Straits Times

Jun 3, 2006, 10.42 pm (Singapore time)

PAP will adjust its approach: SM

HE People's Action Party (PAP) needs to move with the times in order to satisfy the aspirations of a new generation of voters, said Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong.

'We can't fight the next battle using today's strategies,' he told reporters at the end of his two-day visit to Washington. 'We will not know what people's attitudes will be like four to five years from now, but we know it will be a different electorate.'

'The party is trying to understand the new ground - what the younger generation thinks and what we must do to meet their needs,' said SM Goh.

An example of this is how the Government is likely to take a softer stance on online political discussions during the next polls, he said.

SM Goh said a change in approach was needed since 'policies and strategies have to be shaped accordingly to meet the new mood'.

Therefore, it was not possible for the Government to keep its curbs on the use of new media indefinitely.

SM Goh also acknowledged during Friday's interview Singaporeans' strong desire for opposition MPs.

'The PAP is not out to have a clean sweep,' he said. 'What we are trying to offer is certainty of good government and good people in charge. So my message is this: Have your desire for opposition fulfilled, but never to the extent of changing the government.'

He stressed the importance of political stability saying that otherwise the country could lose investment as foreign companies become unsettled by any uncertainty.

SM Goh was in Washington as part of a regular exchange of high-level visits

Will Singapore still exist in 2045?

From a Swiss national....

At a time when the entire nation is frenetically preparing for its 40th birthday, most young people seem to ignore the difficulties and uncertainties encountered in making Singapore such a great and increasingly vibrant metropolis.

It is nowadays common and trendy to hear people air a litany of complaints, ranging from the high cost of living to the big brother state, or the city’s dullness. Our current environment is so comfortable and worriless that we often overlook 40 years of continuous efforts to make Singapore such a clean, safe, convenient, peaceful, beautiful, corrupt-free, world-class and increasingly happening hub (and the list of adjectives could go on).Whilst elder people worried about mere subsistence in the 1950s, we are now concerned about futilities. It is indeed a great sign that Singapore has come a long way.

The main drawback of this rapid and astonishing transformation has been its high degree of interventionism and its relative lack of democracy. Many people do not see any cause of concern there, as the PAP has consistently shown excellent results since its rise to power in the 1950s.

I find it hard to disagree with this. Trading off democracy for prosperity has been a fair, almost necessary deal to rapidly change Singapore and drastically improve living standards. But is this trade off viable over the longer term? Can Singapore survive without political openness? Is a one-party, interventionist state desirable or even feasible to ensure Singapore’s future prosperity?

Since independence in 1965, numerous events necessitating rapid and bold interventions have demonstrated the advantages of Singapore’s capable and determined one-party government: The British pullback in the 1970s, the recession in the 1980s, the Asian crisis in the 1990s, and the SARS epidemic in 2003.

The political apathy of most Singaporeans is disturbing and alarming, yet understandable. Why participate in public debate when everything runs smoothly and repercussions can be incommensurable?

In this context, merely suggesting the implementation of a Western-style democracy in Singapore would be far too simplistic and surely counter-productive. Many of the supposedly democratic countries are indeed less stable and less prosperous than Singapore. Moreover, two-party systems often lead to a strong and destructive polarisation of the political landscape.

How should Singapore change then?

For all the reasons outlined earlier, Singapore is often called the Switzerland of Asia. This is true in many respects, but not in politics. I would like to believe that Switzerland’s political system based on people’s participation in public policy could prove interesting, if not useful to Singapore.

Switzerland has many similarities with Singapore: It is a small, wealthy, multilingual and stable country surrounded by large neighbours. It is admittedly situated in a more settled region and less multiethnic. It has however managed to not only survive, but to thrive across decades by involving its citizens in the political and economic development process. Swiss people vote on more than a dozen issues every year, ensuring vigorous public debates before reaching a national consensus. Not every citizen is politically astute, but most are at least aware and conscious of the major issues. Policies are often adapted and improved, but very rarely reversed, leading Switzerland to progress slowly, but on a firm and consensual ground.

The aim here is not to suggest that Singapore adopt a particular political structure. The brief description of the Swiss system serves to highlight the importance of public participation in the development of a nation. Regardless of the government’s effectiveness, people might progressively feel resentful if they feel excluded from the political process. Switzerland has successfully developed a distinctive system adapted to its national specificities. Singapore’s current political system is also unique in its own right.

Both have demonstrated their effectiveness. But is the latter sustainable?

I fear that, despite its effectiveness and proven track record, the upsides of Government ubiquity in Singapore have reached their limit. New ideas, concepts, programmes or policies should no longer stem from the Cabinet only or be copied from other countries. Singapore’s destiny should lie in every citizen’s hands, not just the Government’s. Admittedly, the decision-making process will be slower and new challenges will likely surface, but I view this as a necessary step to ensure consensus around Singapore’s future, and to avoid potentially damaging political crises.

Sustaining excellence is far more challenging than reaching it. The Singaporean political system will undoubtedly have to adapt to survive 40 more years. But who will have the willingness or courage to trigger this change? Singapore’s future is indeed ours to make, not the Government’s.

Olivier Muhlstein

Olivier is a Swiss national and a Singapore PR. He decided to settle down in Singapore after completing his MBA at NTU in 2004. He never ceases to be fascinated by the uniqueness of Singapore, its incredibly fast development and its aspiration to continuously progress