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

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.