Thinking about SG Business and Policies

The flip side of being CEO

2007-11-06T20:43:00.000-08:00

The CEOs of Merrill Lynch and Citigroup have been asked to leave over the past one week when the sub prime debacle blow up in their face.

It is interesting to note that many deemed that CEOs are being paid way too much relative to the ordinary worker, but when they are asked to leave suddenly, there are little mention of the simple theorem of "high risk, high returns"

Also, at the end of the day, only a selected few can perform effectively at a CEO level of major corporations. A great CEO can significantly add value to any company, especially by hiring and retaining the right talents for the right position at the right time....

Observation on SG blogsphere with regards to Section 377A

2007-10-22T09:00:00.000-07:00

1. At the end of the day, no matter how much digital ink has been spilled on the issue (or any other issues), it is the government who has political power to decide. Many SG bloggers definitely want to say their piece, but to really change anything in Singapore at the national policy level, running for election and winning political power is a must.

2. The SG blogsphere appear to be overwhelming liberal based on the reactions from this issue. Therefore, how effective is the blogsphere to influence the majority in Singaporean when it is overly represented by a relatively much more liberal base? This is a reflection of US news media where most of the channels are liberal (e.g. CNN) until Fox come along. In Singapore, the mainstream is more conservative, which may be on reason why the SG blogsphere is much more liberal.

Comments section taken off the Straits Times Interactive

2007-09-29T17:46:00.000-07:00

Why has the comment option of the Straits Time Interactive has been removed?

STI may not realized the simple phenomena that readers who actually made the effort to write comments often feel strongly for or against the article, and therefore the comments are often relatively one-sided.

Given that STI tends to report more favorably on the actions of the government, it is not surprising the comments left on STI aim to balance that by being less favorably on the government.

The same phenomena is reflected in feedback ratings of Amazon.com or Yelp.com. Even though the normal distribution will suggests more 3 ratings out of a rating of 1 to 5, most of the ratings are often 1 and 5, and very few 3s. Readers or users who feel strongly will make the effort to do the review, and this is also the problem faced by internet-based survey causing bias sampling.

Therefore, read the comments on blogs and reviews knowing that you are hearing the vocal minority and obviously not the silent majority. Don't be overly shaped by these comments and reviews.....form your own judgment.

Cycling event .. .soon forgetton

2007-09-16T18:56:00.000-07:00

Singaporeans have short memory, especially in the blogsphere

After mr brown and the online citizen (two of the most widely read blogs) have shown clearly the alleged double standard the PAP has practiced by not allowing Worker Party to organize a cycling event while the Young PAP had done so in the past, nothing really happen in the last few days.

The mainstream media such as The Straits Times, Today, New Paper, Lianho Zaobao refused to chase the story why the Young PAP took these cycling events down from the websites very shortly (2-3 days later- what a coincidence!) after the rejection of the Worker's party application, and so nothing much really happen.

Now the current hot issue is the Mr Otto Fong being asked by his employer to take down his blog which has an open letter stating he is gay, and lots of blogs have articles on the incident. Is anyone else still blogging on the apparent double standards of the PAP with regards to the rejection of the Worker Party application?

It will be fair to estimate that the socio-political articles are followed regularly (once a week) by a very small percentage of Singaporean (<0.25%-2% / 10,000-80,000), and even this small percentage doesn't really take actions to the larger community. The most efforts these readers take is to leave both intelligent and random comments on these articles.

Nothing wrong with writing about all these events that happen and then nothing much happen, but this just shows the mainstream media still play a very big role in influencing Singaporeans. The blogsphere seems to have limited ability to compel the government to answer to some of their actions, unless the mainstream media decides to pursue the news.

Police Chief Tour of Duty

2007-09-16T18:34:00.000-07:00

Police Commissioner Khoo Boon Hui has served Singapore as the Police Chief faithfully since 1997. However, given that the maximum length of service for our Public Sector Leadership (PSL) such as Permanent Secretary and Deputy Secretary to be 10 years, are we expecting Commissioner Khoo Boon Hui to step down soon?

The need for political competition.

2007-09-16T12:00:00.000-07:00

Microsoft and PAP are alike in many ways. They provide what most common users/citizens need daily. They are very competent, and constantly innovate from within. They desire to have the best talents, and the best practices. They continually create value for their customers/people.

On the other hand, they are a monopolistic player in their respective spheres - software and politics. They have little credible opposition players in their respective spheres.Why is the US government suing Microsoft for antitrust behaviors then, if Microsoft is competent, and generated immense value for the US economy?

The answer is very simple.

Americans understand the need for competition. External driven competition is always more intense, always forces everyone to response better to their customers, and always provide better valued products at lower cost. History had and is constantly vindicating this phenomenon, rejecting the idea than internal driven innovation and betterment are better than external-driven ones. As many discerning consumers and businesses lament the lack of competition in the US software industry, I lament the lack of political competition in the Singapore political sphere.

The PAP, and Singapore citizens may actually benefit more if we have stronger competition in the political arena. But alas, we do not have the equivalent of the US antitrust laws for Singapore political sphere, so as to ensure that the possible growth of credible opposition parties in a one- party dominated political environment. The question is: When will substantial political competition ever take place in Singapore?

Why the People Action Party (PAP) needs the Opposition?

2007-04-16T13:01:00.000-07:00

Let's try a thought experiment.

Imagine PAP wining all the seats in Parliament . No more opposition members in the Parliament. Convenient?

How will the international community perceived this result? Will they perceived Singapore to be a more politically stable country, or will they perceived Singapore to be more vulnerable without institutional checks and balance.

For a world that is moving towards more pluralistic governments, it seem the answer will be the latter rather than the former.

In addition, the PAP needs the Opposition to serve Singapore. More opposition members asking more substantial questions makes the government (PAP) works harder to provide the answers, and to increase disclosure, which is something that the Asian Financial Crisis taught everyone, including us.

Should we have opposition members in the Parliament?

Ultimately, you decide.

Why are Opposition members not considered credible?

2007-03-16T12:00:00.000-07:00

Just as we did not judge the PAP as not being credible when one of its MP was found guilty of corruption charges, we should not judge all opposition candidates as being not credible from the behavior of one opposition candidate.

Many opposition candidates have good educational qualifications, but only 4 have parliamentary experiences.

Many will agree that Mr. Low and Mr. Chiam had proven to be credible opposition members, because they had the opportunity to serve and be judged by their constituencies.

To have credible opposition members, we need to provide them with a chance to determine their credibility, by voting them in Parliament after serious consideration of each candidate.

The opposition MPs may disappoint us, but our election process allows us to vote them out in 5 years time. Moreover, with PAP in power, isn’t now a time to let the opposition candidates prove their mettle in Parliament?

It is easy to lament that the opposition members are not credible, but without the opportunity, how can they be proven to be credible?

NKF disclosure standards to be of the Government.

2006-07-01T16:49:00.000-07:00

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

2006-05-17T02:44:00.000-07:00

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

2006-05-07T12:30:00.000-07:00

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

2006-04-29T11:24:00.000-07:00

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:

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)

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)

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.

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.

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?

2006-01-12T12:47:00.000-08:00

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

Lesson from NKF: The Importance of Elections to Singapore

2005-12-30T12:10:00.000-08:00

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

2005-09-16T11:58:00.000-07:00

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.

2005-08-16T02:14:00.000-07:00

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

2005-08-03T01:42:00.000-07:00

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

2005-07-03T18:36:00.000-07:00

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?

2005-07-03T18:16:00.000-07:00

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

2005-07-03T18:13:00.000-07:00

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?

2005-07-03T18:03:00.000-07:00

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

2005-07-03T07:46:00.000-07:00

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.

2005-03-16T12:04:00.000-08:00

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?

2005-03-16T12:03:00.000-08:00

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.

Let choose our own MPs.

2004-02-12T11:59:00.000-08:00

Many of the new PAP candidates had walked into Parliament uncontested, and it struck me these new PAP candidates had a “free” ride to Parliament, by the virtue of being selected by PAP to run for election.

This is not the fault of the new PAP candidates nor the PAP, as many of the wards are uncontested due to the lack of opposition members.

However, we must ask whether this a healthy trend? If future elections have less credible opposition members running for elections, won’t our future MP be chosen by the PAP, rather than the people?

However, to have credible opposition members, we need to vote them to give them a chance to determine their credibility. Many will agree that Mr. Low and Mr. Chiam had proven to be credible opposition members, because they had the opportunity to serve.

The PAP candidates in each constituency desire legitimacy from the voters, as seen from their lamentations when their wards are not contested.

Therefore, if we do not vote in more opposition members to serve in Parliament, won’t that be detrimental to Singapore in the long run?

Overseas Voting Criteria: A contradiction?

2004-02-02T14:42:00.000-08:00

I applaud the Government's decision to implement overseas voting for the coming General Election for the simple reason that I personally will be able to vote while studying in the United States.

However, waiving the requirement to have spent at least two out of the last preceding five years in Singapore specifically for overseas government scholars strikes me as contradictory.

Even though the Government has expressed that the overseas voting criteria is not set up to alienate the privately-funded overseas student, the overseas voting criteria gives me the impression that I am viewed as less deserving to vote while studying overseas, simply because I am not a government scholar.

On the other hand, Prime Minister Goh has been wooing overseas Singaporeans, especially the overseas students of the so-called "Generation M", to return home and contribute to the nation's progress.

This contradiction in Government policy genuinely perplexes me.

I am persuaded to come back to Singapore, but yet am viewed as less deserving to have a voice in the nation I will be returning to.

This begs the question: why should I be persuaded to return if I am perceived as less deserving to vote?