My initial reaction to the report Ms Shimun Lai’s offensive post was of anger, disgust and exasperation. She has rightly apologised and withdrawn the remark. This will be a tough learning experience for her, and I hope she emerges the better for it. But the heat she and others like undergraduate Sun Xu have generated with their thoughtless remarks will not dissipate so easily.
Racism will not go away, however many apologies are uttered. It has been part of society since, well, society began. Man has a long history of being suspicious, and speaking ill, of people who look, speak, dress or even eat differently from him. The only difference today is that the social media allows a person to vent to thousands what used to be said in smaller, private circles.
I have seen or experienced racism myself, whether it is rude remarks made by school mates, or stories related by relatives and friends that so-and-so did not get a job or promotion because of the colour of his skin. Several minority residents have approached me as an MP complaining of discrimination at the work place or in job opportunities.
Is Singapore different from other countries? Not in the least. Almost everyone I have spoken to who has spent time abroad has encountered racism in one form or another. My nephew studying abroad even had an egg thrown at him from a passing car while he was walking down the street.
No society or group should be judged by how some of its members behave. That is unfair. The real test is how society reacts in the face of such provocation. Look at our reaction. Singaporeans were quick to vigorously condemn Ms Li for her remarks, and to remind her that they were out of place in our society. That is the difference between us and some. In other societies, such utterances provoke violence and revenge or are defended on the grounds of free speech. I think we have a better sense of balance and perspective, and appreciate that there must be reasonable limits to individual liberties. It makes Singapore exceptional, and we must work hard to keep it that way.
We must continue to speak out against racism and discrimination when we encounter them. We should not simply shrug our shoulders and say that they are part of the landscape, an inevitability in a multi-cultural society. That would be admitting defeat and put us on the road to mediocrity.
And what to do about the likes of Shimun Lai and Sun Xu? I am reminded of one my favourite scenes in Attenborough’s movie “Gandhi”. Gandhi lies weak from fasting as a protest against the Hindu-Muslim riots. He is confronted by an angry Hindu man who demands that he eats. The man said that he killed Muslims in the riots because they killed his child. He was going to hell, but he did not want Gandhi’s death on his soul. Gandhi offered the man a way out of hell. He told him to find a Muslim boy orphaned by the killings, take care of him but to raise him as a Muslim. It was a powerful statement about salvation.
Ms Lai, Mr Sun and others who step over the line should not just apologise or simply accept whatever punishment comes their way. They should have an obligation to help in the healing process. And the best way to do that would be for them to get to know and befriend the very people they have condemned.
My initial reaction to the report Ms Shimun Lai’s offensive post was of anger, disgust and exasperation. She has rightly apologised and withdrawn the remark. This will be a tough learning experience for her, and I hope she emerges the better for it. But the heat she and others like undergraduate Sun Xu have generated with their thoughtless remarks will not dissipate so easily.
Racism will not go away, however many apologies are uttered. It has been part of society since, well, society began. Man has a long history of being suspicious, and speaking ill, of people who look, speak, dress or even eat differently from him. The only difference today is that the social media allows a person to vent to thousands what used to be said in smaller, private circles.
I have seen or experienced racism myself, whether it is rude remarks made by school mates, or stories related by relatives and friends that so-and-so did not get a job or promotion because of the colour of his skin. Several minority residents have approached me as an MP complaining of discrimination at the work place or in job opportunities.
Is Singapore different from other countries? Not in the least. Almost everyone I have spoken to who has spent time abroad has encountered racism in one form or another. My nephew studying abroad even had an egg thrown at him from a passing car while he was walking down the street.
No society or group should be judged by how some of its members behave. That is unfair. The real test is how society reacts in the face of such provocation. Look at our reaction. Singaporeans were quick to vigorously condemn Ms Li for her remarks, and to remind her that they were out of place in our society. That is the difference between us and some. In other societies, such utterances provoke violence and revenge or are defended on the grounds of free speech. I think we have a better sense of balance and perspective, and appreciate that there must be reasonable limits to individual liberties. It makes Singapore exceptional, and we must work hard to keep it that way.
We must continue to speak out against racism and discrimination when we encounter them. We should not simply shrug our shoulders and say that they are part of the landscape, an inevitability in a multi-cultural society. That would be admitting defeat and put us on the road to mediocrity.
And what to do about the likes of Shimun Lai and Sun Xu? I am reminded of one my favourite scenes in Attenborough’s movie “Gandhi”. Gandhi lies weak from fasting as a protest against the Hindu-Muslim riots. He is confronted by an angry Hindu man who demands that he eats. The man said that he killed Muslims in the riots because they killed his child. He was going to hell, but he did not want Gandhi’s death on his soul. Gandhi offered the man a way out of hell. He told him to find a Muslim boy orphaned by the killings, take care of him but to raise him as a Muslim. It was a powerful statement about salvation.
Ms Lai, Mr Sun and others who step over the line should not just apologise or simply accept whatever punishment comes their way. They should have an obligation to help in the healing process. And the best way to do that would be for them to get to know and befriend the very people they have condemned.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Monday, March 5, 2012
The $1.1 billion package to expand bus capacity – Who is the Government Subsidising?
Many people have asked about the Government’s decision to spend $1.1 billion to expand public bus capacity. One of the key questions is whether this is in fact a subsidy to SBST and SMRT, the two public transport operators (PTOs) . It is in fact a subsidy for commuters, and not a subsidy for the PTOs. This note explains why.
The Government considered its investment to expand public bus capacity very carefully. It is an important step, aimed at reducing waiting times and crowdedness that Singaporeans experience as they take public transport.
First, what are the PTOs themselves responsible for? The PTOs are required to expand their bus fleets to cater to growth in passenger numbers, as well as to ensure they meet the service levels mandated under existing regulatory requirements. Therefore, in addition to operating the existing bus fleet, they will have to buy 250 additional buses to achieve this. They will fund this on their own.
Why is the Government putting $1.1 billion into the bus system? We are doing this in order to step up bus service levels well beyond the current service standards required of the PTOs.
a. It will increase bus capacity on existing heavily-utilised routes making them less crowded and giving commuters a more pleasant journey.
b. Almost all feeder buses will run every 10 minutes or less - for two hours during morning and evening peak periods, instead of a one-hour peak under current service level requirements.
c. Commuters on existing routes will thus benefit both from shorter waiting times and less crowded bus journeys.
d. A number of new bus services will also be added in order to improve connectivity, and provide commuters with more public transport choices.
e. These improvements are what commuters have been hoping for.
As a condition for the Government’s investment, the PTOs will have to deliver these service level improvements.
We cannot simply mandate that the PTOs add these 550 buses to improve service levels. First, because it goes significantly beyond the service levels under the current regulatory framework. Second, the PTO’s bus operations are already running operating losses, and the 550 additional buses in particular are projected to be a loss-making operation. The cost of acquiring and running the 550 buses are beyond what can be recovered through revenues from these buses.
a. Take the example of improving the frequency of feeder bus services. Increasing the number of buses will shorten waiting times but will add little to the revenue, since the total number of passengers taking the service will remain largely the same.
Without the Government stepping in, these significant service levels improvements would only have been achievable if fares are raised sharply. The 550 additional buses mean significantly higher costs - not only to purchase the buses, but also because more than 1000 drivers would need to be hired and paid a good wage. Fare revenues of the PTOs would have to go up by about 12% - 13% - which translates to an increase in passenger fares of about 15 cents per journey - for the PTOs to achieve this on their own. In the 5 years from 2006, fare revenues went up by only 0.3%, cumulatively. So 12% - 13% is quite a significant increase compared to the last 5 years.
Hence the reality of the matter is that the $1.1 billion Government package, or $110 million each year, is a subsidy for public transport commuters, and not a subsidy for the PTOs. It will improve service levels for commuters, not the profits of the PTOs.
The $1.1 billion package is expected to cover the losses on the 550 buses - in other words, the additional costs net of revenues. Of the $1.1 billion package, $280 million is budgeted for the purchase of the 550 buses over the next five years, and $820 million to cover the net operating costs over 10 years. This is based on best estimates currently. However, we will be monitoring and scrutinising the PTOs’ actual costs for both the purchase and running of the buses. Should their losses turn out to be lower than expected, the Government funding will be reduced correspondingly. So one way or another, there will be no profits made from the 550 buses.
The $1.1 billion for additional buses complements the $60 billion we are putting into the expansion of the rail system. It will take several years for the new rail lines to all come on stream. That is why we are stepping in now to add bus capacity and quickly improve the daily experience of commuters. It is what commuters wanted, and we have assessed that it is worth the public investment.
Despite this Government package, regular and incremental fare increases will continue to be necessary in future, as wage and operating costs rise, so that the bus industry can stay financially viable. The Government will also continue to make sure that needy commuters get adequate assistance for their transport expenses.
Foreign Spouse
I am glad that the Government has answered the call of help from many Singaporeans who have married non-Singaporeans, who want the chance to start a family in Singapore. See my speech in Parliament urging the Goverment to help them.
In 2010, there were a total of 24,363 marriages. Of these, 6,176 were between a citizen and a non-resident. This represents over a quarter of all marriages in Singapore. In most cases, the couple would naturally expect that the foreign spouse would be allowed to live in Singapore, and later, start a family here. But it does not always work out that way.
Taken collectively, these factors create an imposing obstacle against such couples marrying, settling down and starting a family in Singapore. If we are encouraging Singaporeans to get married and have children, why make it difficult for them simply because they choose to marry a non-Singaporean? Foreign spouses belong to a very different category from the foreign workers the Government is trying to reduce our dependence on. In fact, they are quite the opposite because they are here not for commercial reasons and for the long term. They are also part of a national agenda we want to advance. We want more Singaporeans to marry and have children and deepen their roots in Singapore. The old norms are changing. More are marrying out of race, religion and nationalities. Singaporeans who marry foreigners have the same hopes and dreams as other Singaporeans. The Government should help them make this dream come true, particularly those with low incomes and who likely have more limited options. We also want to make it easier for Singaporeans who have married foreigners and living abroad to come home. It is in keeping with the “inclusive” theme of the Budget.
What are the reasons for our caution? Is it the fear of marriages of convenience? If so, then this must be the minority of marriages, and even if not, can surely be addressed differently. The approach appears to be to flush out marriages of convenience by making it as inconvenient as possible for Singaporeans with foreign spouses. Besides, putting the spouse on a renewable social visit pass does would really deter sham marriages.
I hope the Government will do something to help. I believe it can be done while addressing its concerns.
I suggest that instead of issuing social visit passes, we institute a more permanent pass for foreign spouses.
For convenience, I shall refer to this as a Marriage Pass (not a Pass or Marriage). Under a Marriage Pass, the foreign spouse should be allowed to live and work in Singapore so long as the couple remain married. The Marriage Pass should also allow the couple to purchase a new HDB flat, and entitle the spouse to subsidised medical care.
What happens in most cases is that the foreign spouse would be issued a social visit pass which can range from 30 days to a year. Some are even required to leave Singapore before their passes are renewed, or without assurance that it will be. Their applications for Permanent Residence will take a few years to be approved, if at all.
It is not a satisfactory situation. The problems are compounded because many of these marriages involve Singaporean men and women with low incomes. The new couple are uncertain about their future. Because ICA, for good reasons do not reveal its criteria for giving a visit pass or PR, the couple is never certain if or when it will be granted. While foreign spouses can work on a long-term visit pass, they find it difficult to be employed because of their uncertain status. When the spouse is asked to leave Singapore and return to renew their passes, it adds to the family’s expenses. The couple cannot buy a new flat from HDB because at least two people in the family nucleus must be citizens or permanent residents to qualify. As it will now take the foreign spouse longer to obtain PR, the situation will remain difficult for some time. If the foreign spouse is a lady, she will not enjoy subsidised medical care, and so it will be more expensive to plan and start a family.
Taken collectively, these factors create an imposing obstacle against such couples marrying, settling down and starting a family in Singapore. If we are encouraging Singaporeans to get married and have children, why make it difficult for them simply because they choose to marry a non-Singaporean? Foreign spouses belong to a very different category from the foreign workers the Government is trying to reduce our dependence on. In fact, they are quite the opposite because they are here not for commercial reasons and for the long term. They are also part of a national agenda we want to advance. We want more Singaporeans to marry and have children and deepen their roots in Singapore. The old norms are changing. More are marrying out of race, religion and nationalities. Singaporeans who marry foreigners have the same hopes and dreams as other Singaporeans. The Government should help them make this dream come true, particularly those with low incomes and who likely have more limited options. We also want to make it easier for Singaporeans who have married foreigners and living abroad to come home. It is in keeping with the “inclusive” theme of the Budget.
What are the reasons for our caution? Is it the fear of marriages of convenience? If so, then this must be the minority of marriages, and even if not, can surely be addressed differently. The approach appears to be to flush out marriages of convenience by making it as inconvenient as possible for Singaporeans with foreign spouses. Besides, putting the spouse on a renewable social visit pass does would really deter sham marriages.
I hope the Government will do something to help. I believe it can be done while addressing its concerns.
I suggest that instead of issuing social visit passes, we institute a more permanent pass for foreign spouses.
For convenience, I shall refer to this as a Marriage Pass (not a Pass or Marriage). Under a Marriage Pass, the foreign spouse should be allowed to live and work in Singapore so long as the couple remain married. The Marriage Pass should also allow the couple to purchase a new HDB flat, and entitle the spouse to subsidised medical care.
There are a number of advantages. It gives certainty to the couple. It makes it easier for them to own a home and start a family. And if administered properly, it will also enable the Government to grant fewer PR or citizenship and only to very deserving cases as the Marriage Pass is a viable alternative to foreign spouses in a genuine marriage.
The concerns about sham marriages may in fact be reduced as the spouse’s right to remain in Singapore will depend on the continuity of the marriage, and getting a PR is less assured.
As a check against abuse, there could be various conditions placed on the Marriage Pass. For example, it could be mandatory that children born under the marriage would have to apply to become Singapore citizens. Also, where the couple have purchased a HDB flat, they could be made to disgorge the profits from the sale should the Marriage Pass be terminated, and the flat sold, within a certain time period from the sale.
I hope the Government will consider the suggestion. If it is not viable, I hope the Government will share if it intends to make it easier for Singaporeans to marry foreigners and settle down in Singapore.
Internet Freedom
Newspapers, later the radio, then television, have been the main way of reporting news and information for many years. But while that has helped the advancement of society generally, there are serious risks which come with the easy dissemination of information. So, modern society has over time worked out sensible rules for the media to abide by so that it will be a tool for enlightenment and progress, and not one which divides and destroys.
These rules are not peculiar to Singapore, but have been developed in many other countries, including the Commonwealth of nations, from which we inherited much of our laws. So eg. we have rules of sub judice, where the media is not permitted to discuss and speculate on pending court actions or criminal charges as that may prejudice the fair trial of the action. We also have defamation rules, which protect the freedom to express an opinion honestly held, but not the propagation of lies. Responsible newspapers apologise or print clarifications when they get the facts wrong, or print responses to an opinion which is not shared. These rules advance the cause of accuracy, transparency and accountability, and provide a framework where people can live and prosper in a healthy environment.
The problem is that much of these rules and conventions were developed in the age before the internet. The internet represents a platform for everyone to share information with, and express their views to, many others. This facility is no longer the domain of traditional media. That is a good thing in many ways. However, today many people, particularly the younger generation, turn more to the internet for news and information, and not only from sites maintained by established news agencies or reputable journalists. The rules, convention and discipline which have been built up for many years do not apply or are difficult to enforce, and there are serious consequences to this.
I am not attacking the internet or people’s right to express their honest views. There is much good in this. But just as society had developed rules and norms for the traditional media, we need to think about doing the same for the internet.
Let me give a stark example. After the announcement of the investigation into the conduct of the former heads of CNB and SCDF, there was much discussion on the net about what they did. That is to be expected. However, what also happened was that people began speculating about the identity of the woman who was involved. Pictures and profiles of various women were circulated. Can you imagine the immense pain and distress of the women who had been wrongly identified? How would you feel if that was your mother, wife, sister or daughter being so freely discussed and dissected? What is their recourse? They can sue for defamation, but who do they sue? The messages and photos would have been circulated to many people, making it difficult to track down who is responsible. And if the posts are anonymous, as many of them are, how do you go about identifying the perpetrator? The woman would have to apply to Court to compel the different hosts of the sites or the Internet Service Provider to disclose the identity of the individual behind the post, but that may not yield meaningful results. And how many people have the resources to take such arduous, expensive action? It is unfair to the ordinary man in the street that his reputation, and sometimes his livelihood, can be destroyed by casual statements. It does not provide a healthy environment.
The concerns I have expressed are not new. Many others have expressed it before. At least one country, Japan has tried to do something about it. In 2001, Japan passed a very statute called the Act on the Limitation of Liability for Damages of Specified Telecommunications Service Providers and the Right to Demand Disclosure of Identification Information of the Senders. Probably sounds better in Japanese.
We need to develop our own laws to address these issues. Again, I stress that I am not attacking the internet or freedom of speech, in particular, the freedom to express an honest opinion. In fact, many proponents of free speech say that it is a necessary ingredient of transparency and accountability. And we all want that. But where is the transparency and accountability when a person can publish lies anonymously, and ruin the life of an ordinary individual. Why does it cost nothing to post an untruth, but much pain and financial resources for an innocent person to obtain justice?
All over the world, countries are grappling with this very same issue. It is a new paradigm. I propose that we develop a framework of laws which balances the right of an individual to express his views on the net, and the right of an individual to seek redress quickly and at low cost. It is also important that the laws must be clear enough to prevent abuse, and not used as a means to stifle legitimate speech. That is a difficult balance, but right now, where the net is concerned, there is complete imbalance. We may even have to set up a specialised agency to help members of the public who have legitimate grievances. I am stressing “public” because those with resources can better take care of themselves. My proposal is meant to benefit ordinary Singaporeans, so that they will not be left powerless.
The Internet is an important tool for advancement, and when used properly, provides a platform to do much good. But we should all want it to be used responsibly. I accept that the challenge will be to find an acceptable balance and it may well take some time to do so. I hope that conversation will begin soon.
Crisis Management
On 15 December 2011, there was a major disruption of the North-South MRT Line. Much has been said about the causes, and the matter is now the subject of an inquiry. We will in due time learn more about what happened and why, and so I will not dwell on these matters.
But the incident opened our eyes to another serious issue. There did not appear to have been an emergency response plan, and if there was one, it was inadequate, or executed poorly. I am sure many were particularly concerned by the chaos that ensued in the aftermath of the incident. Many people were stuck in pitch darkness in the tunnel with little ventilation. The electrical back-up which was supposed to work did not. The train drivers, who were best placed to take immediate action, were for some reason, not able to make announcements. The evacuation took a long time and there was great confusion. The public were still entering the station thinking that services were still running. People leaving the station were not sure what to do and where to go. The crowds spilled onto the streets, looking for alternative transport.
This was a simple train disruption. What would have happened if there had been a fire or it had been a terrorist attack? There is no doubt that it would have been horrific. We can have inquiries, meetings and discussions to determine who was responsible, but that is only part of the challenge we face.
We have long prided ourselves on our record on law and order. We are regarded as one of the safest countries in the world to live, play and work. But that is generally in the context of crime prevention and enforcement. The law and order challenges we face today are different. One of the greatest risks we face is terrorism. It has not disappeared with the elimination of Osama Bin Laden or other prominent terrorist leaders. It may not be as dramatic as airplanes flying into buildings or terrorists wielding Kalashnikovs running through our streets. But incidents of sabotage, such as bombs on buses, fires in confined places, derailment of trains will do as much damage. Not just the loss of life and property, but loss of confidence in our agencies and in Singapore.
Are we prepared for these threats? We have conducted a number of exercises to train our Home Team and military forces, but the SMRT incident has demonstrated starkly that there are other areas to address. Chief among these is whether public transport operators, owners of buildings and other organisations in charge of places where large numbers pass through or congregate, have adequate and workable plans to deal with emergencies, have trained their staff to execute these plans and, just as importantly, whether such plans are known to, and co-ordinated with, public agencies like the police and SCDF, which will at some stage be responding to the crisis as well? Is there even a plan or protocol as to when and what stage the private body should involve the government agencies?
Experts often say that the first response to the crisis will determine the extent of the damage or loss to human life. In this regard, it is critical that the organisation on the ground, whether the public transport operator or the building owner, responds effectively. Are we confident that they will be able to do so, or is it the case that we will only find out when a crisis occurs?
I therefore ask the Government whether it has plans to audit the emergency plans of private and government organizations to see if they are robust, not just on paper but in practice, and ensure that there will be effective co-ordination with public agencies. Does the Ministry of Home Affairs have a minimum standard for crisis management for significant institutions and if it does not, is MHA satisfied with allowing them to determine their own plans?
Even if there are plans in place, a theoretical plan can fail quite dramatically when put to the test. However, paper exercises and rehearsed plans are insufficient. For example, all buildings are required to conduct fire drills regularly, but people do not take them seriously. The drills are announced in advance, and many go for tea breaks or schedule meetings elsewhere before the alarm is sounded. It gives new meaning to the phrase: "you know the drill". I accept it is highly disruptive to conduct surprise drills or to inject greater reality into our security exercises. No one will be grateful for the inconvenience, and it may even be dangerous where the plans turn out to be inadequate.
But these things are too important to ignore or leave to public and private organisations to work out on their own. I believe that the Government should have a system to audit the plans of significant organizations to determine, not only that they have adequate and comprehensive safety and evacuation plans, but that there is proper co-ordination plan with public agencies, in particular, the police and the SCDF. It should include a proper communications plan - which is something we do particularly poorly. It will be impossible to audit everyone, but at the very least, high traffic areas, such as train stations, bus inter-changes, shopping malls, sports and performance venues. The comments by the auditors can then be integrated into the crisis plan such that any lapses can be rectified and improvements tested during the next audit. This would develop into a set of standard operating procedures where each party knows what they and others are expected to do.
The MRT disruption taught us a lesson in crisis management with relatively little cost. I hope that something concrete can be done to ensure that we are able to deal with a larger, more serious crisis efficiently and effectively. It is impossible to ensure that a crisis will not happen. But how we respond to it will be critical in ensuring that Singaporeans remain confident in our safety and security.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Ministerial Salaries
When this House discussed the issue of Ministerial salaries in 2007, I focused on the technicalities of the old formula, and what I thought was wrong with it.
But I had failed to appreciate a larger issue. Money changes how people look at things. Paying high salaries can be intellectually reasoned, but it affects the relationship between the Government and the people.
Government is not perfect. It has never been, and will never be. We have all, at one time or another, been critical of something the Government did or failed to do. But, as former American President Bill Clinton observed, a successful country needs both an effective government and a good economy. There are no exceptions. In Singapore, we have both. Other government leaders, international institutions and expert commentators agree that Singapore, and what we have achieved, is exceptional. This did not happen by chance. The people of Singapore deserve credit. And so does the Government.
Singaporeans know this, and are appreciative of what the Government has done. But the issue of political salaries has, more than any other, shaped and changed the tone of our national dialogue. When we pay top dollar, we expect top results, and are less forgiving of errors. And so it has become with the way people treat Government. Any mis-step is met with the response that mistakes are unacceptable from highly paid leaders. Things have now become more “transactional”. That emotional connection, that redoubtable bond, which Singaporeans have always had with the Government, and which has been the bedrock of Singapore’s success, is at risk of disappearing.
Will the new formula make a difference? Many Singaporeans have shared their thoughts on the subject, and there are as many opinions as there are people sharing them. But what I find interesting is that very few are willing to state precise figures or formula which they would be comfortable with, let alone one everyone will agree on. I met a group of about 30 bright, young undergraduates recently and asked them what they thought would be a reasonable sum for the PM to receive. Not one of them was able to propose a figure. They all agreed it was very difficult issue. At another discussion I had with working adults, the figure ranged from $500,000 to $3 million. There was no consensus.
Even opposition parties cannot agree on the formula or quantum. Some have declined to go into any specifics, obviously to avoid scrutiny. The Workers’ Party unfortunately has decided to indulge in a game of cat and mouse. NCMP Mr Giam yesterday said that they are not willing to reveal what they or he submitted to Mr Ee’s Committee, saying that it was private. Why? What is there to hide? There are only two inferences: that the Workers’ Party private and public positions are different; or they have changed their position after the Report was issued.
Then NCMP Mr Yee let the cat out of the bag. He made the extra-ordinary assertion that the Workers’ Party held back some proposals so that they could raise them in this debate. He tried to explain that today by saying that the Workers’ Party were still researching the issue and shared what they had. But that is not what he said yesterday. He said: “We do not feel that we have to give everything to the Committee and this is precisely what Parliament is for.” And later he said: “I believe Parliament is where we come up with another proposal to be decided upon.” So it is clear what the Workers’ Party is doing.
The point of this whole exercise was for the Committee to consider all ideas, and to propose what it considers the best one for Singapore. That is how I believe every Singaporean understood it. But the Workers’ Party decided to play politics. They held back what they considered to be meaningful proposals, so that they could come to this House and announce to Singaporeans that they have better ideas. In short, they put their Party’s interests before Singapore’s interests.
But playing politics is their prerogative. Playing games and fence sitting are the privileges of the opposition. Politics is about making decisions, and the Government has one to make.
Common Principles
Despite the many different arguments, I believe there is much common ground between Singaporeans on this issue, which is often ignored. I would like to talk about matters I think we can all agree on.
First, we can all agree that the Prime Minister and the Ministers have very important and difficult jobs. They affect almost every aspect of our lives. In fact, is there any other job which has a greater impact on the success of Singapore, and the well being of Singaporeans?
Second, we can all agree that we want first class public services. When the Former Chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Dr Paul Volker was in Singapore last year, he was asked what he thought of our policy on salaries. Dr Volker is a highly respected economist. He has been a public servant almost all his life. When introducing him to the audience, Dr Kishore Mahbubhani made the point that Dr Volker was content to earn a modest civil servant’s salary, although he could have earned much more in the private sector. That was why he was asked the question, and I expected him to talk about the privilege of service. He did not. Dr Volker’s response to the question was simple and astute. He said it was a good idea to pay public servants well as it was important to ensure good public services. He cited the US Government’s response to Hurricane Katrina and the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico as evidence that US public services were seriously lacking. In short, in his view, you need good, capable people to provide good services, and you should pay good people well. The logic is irrefutable.
Third, we can agree that not every capable person wants a life in politics. I dare say most do not. There are very good reasons for this, not the least of which is effect on their families. While we do not have an intrusive media, there is still a considerable loss of privacy, and a significant impact on personal lives. That includes having your spouses and children being openly discussed and their conduct scrutinised. Who wants that? Many will feel, quite understandably, that this is too high a price, whatever the pay.
Fourth, we can also agree that we do not want to set salaries so high as to make money the sole or main reason for seeking office. At the same time, we do not want it to be so low as to become a disincentive. NCMP Yee says we are fishing for talent in too small a pond. But if you create financial obstacles for good, capable people who are willing to step forward to serve, you are only making your pool smaller. No one wants to do that. Everyone wants to make public service open to all Singaporeans. Paying less does not make it more open, but more closed.
Sacrifice
Now we come to the nub: what should you pay capable people who perform critical jobs? This brings us to the other “s” word, which tends to dominate this debate: Sacrifice. It has been said that public service is a privilege, and not a sacrifice. Again, no one disputes that, but that is not the argument. The argument is that leaders should make sacrifices because it demonstrates that they care about what they are doing. That is another thing we can all agree on – we want our leaders to care about Singapore. But why look at sacrifice only in money terms?
I think we are asking ourselves the wrong question. It is not how much our leaders should sacrifice, but we want from them. I don’t want someone who tells me that his best quality is that he loves his country or that money is not important to him. Because these are the easiest things to say, and there will be no shortage of people who will say them to get approval.
What do I want from our leaders? I don’t want them just to be smart and capable: I want them to be the smartest, most capable people in the room. I want them to be fair minded, hard working, compassionate and of unimpeachable character. I want leaders who will not be satisfied until every Singaporean has a home and the means to a better life. I want to know that if there is outbreak of a deadly disease like SARS, or a terrorist bomb goes off, or Singapore faces an economic crisis, we have leaders who have the courage, intelligence, experience and determination to do what is necessary for the good of Singapore and Singaporeans. I want leaders who understand that their job involves a sacred trust; a vow to devote every fibre, every moment, every thought, every everything, in service to our country. That is the true sacrifice I think every Singaporean should demand. If we get the quality of people right, the question of quantity of pay answers itself. I believe most Singaporeans will agree with that.
The New Formula
That leads to one more thing we can all agree on: it is impossible to answer the question of salaries in a manner which will satisfy everyone. Many have said so in this House. Even the Worker’s Party agrees that there is no right or wrong figure. I would however like to make two suggestions.
I suggest the proposed formula be tweaked to cap the salaries for the Government’s term of office, with an annual increment for inflation. In other words, salaries will not rise if the benchmark median salary rises. This would create more certainty and more importantly, put paid to arguments that the Government will pursue policies to favour the top earners to increase its own pay.
I also ask the Government to do more to keep Singaporeans informed and engaged on this issue. There is still much misunderstanding over salaries, and you cannot have a proper dialogue if people are working off different facts. For example, many Singaporeans still believe MPs will receive pensions, although that was discontinued years ago. Some even believe MP and Ministers’ salaries are tax free. They are not. Within days of the release of the Report, Mr Gerard Ee had to say publicly that some had mis-understood what it said. Despite the enormous publicity on the subject, some are still unclear about the details of the new package. Although some would prefer that we not keep raising this issue, I support the proposal for the formula be reviewed every five years. I believe we should welcome every opportunity to debate it so that there will be a wider and better understanding of the facts and the arguments. It will also help if we publish annually and in clear terms the average pay package of Ministers, so that we can demolish mischievous allegations that Ministers will secretly earn more through discretionary and undeclared payments. This is fertile ground for those who seek to breed discontent and cynicism. Let us not give them the opportunity to mislead and divide Singaporeans.
Conclusion – an exceptional Singapore
I end with a final proposition we can agree on. We want Singapore to remain an exceptional nation, for that really is the only thing that keeps us relevant. This exceptionalism should not only be in the performance of our economy or the efficiency of our public services. It should also be in the trust and the relationship between the Government and the people it serves. All around the world, politics and politicians are viewed with great cynicism. Cynicism weakens the government; it weakens democracy and it weakens our country. We cannot afford to let that happen to us.
I therefore support the revision of salaries. The new formula is more relevant and intuitive. It deals with some of the criticisms of the old formula and does away with inequities such as pensions. A 30+ % cut is on any view significant. The National Bonus better reflects performance. Even the Workers’ Party agrees with a monthly wage of $55,000/mth. And as Mr Vikram Nair pointed out yesterday, even the difference in bonus computations may not amount to something substantially different.
So we now have a sound basis for the Government to move forward: strengthen connections with Singaporeans, focus on the difficult problems we all know are around the corner, and deliver on its promise for a better life for all Singaporeans. Because in the final analysis, that is all that really counts. I think we can all agree on that.
But I had failed to appreciate a larger issue. Money changes how people look at things. Paying high salaries can be intellectually reasoned, but it affects the relationship between the Government and the people.
Government is not perfect. It has never been, and will never be. We have all, at one time or another, been critical of something the Government did or failed to do. But, as former American President Bill Clinton observed, a successful country needs both an effective government and a good economy. There are no exceptions. In Singapore, we have both. Other government leaders, international institutions and expert commentators agree that Singapore, and what we have achieved, is exceptional. This did not happen by chance. The people of Singapore deserve credit. And so does the Government.
Singaporeans know this, and are appreciative of what the Government has done. But the issue of political salaries has, more than any other, shaped and changed the tone of our national dialogue. When we pay top dollar, we expect top results, and are less forgiving of errors. And so it has become with the way people treat Government. Any mis-step is met with the response that mistakes are unacceptable from highly paid leaders. Things have now become more “transactional”. That emotional connection, that redoubtable bond, which Singaporeans have always had with the Government, and which has been the bedrock of Singapore’s success, is at risk of disappearing.
Will the new formula make a difference? Many Singaporeans have shared their thoughts on the subject, and there are as many opinions as there are people sharing them. But what I find interesting is that very few are willing to state precise figures or formula which they would be comfortable with, let alone one everyone will agree on. I met a group of about 30 bright, young undergraduates recently and asked them what they thought would be a reasonable sum for the PM to receive. Not one of them was able to propose a figure. They all agreed it was very difficult issue. At another discussion I had with working adults, the figure ranged from $500,000 to $3 million. There was no consensus.
Even opposition parties cannot agree on the formula or quantum. Some have declined to go into any specifics, obviously to avoid scrutiny. The Workers’ Party unfortunately has decided to indulge in a game of cat and mouse. NCMP Mr Giam yesterday said that they are not willing to reveal what they or he submitted to Mr Ee’s Committee, saying that it was private. Why? What is there to hide? There are only two inferences: that the Workers’ Party private and public positions are different; or they have changed their position after the Report was issued.
Then NCMP Mr Yee let the cat out of the bag. He made the extra-ordinary assertion that the Workers’ Party held back some proposals so that they could raise them in this debate. He tried to explain that today by saying that the Workers’ Party were still researching the issue and shared what they had. But that is not what he said yesterday. He said: “We do not feel that we have to give everything to the Committee and this is precisely what Parliament is for.” And later he said: “I believe Parliament is where we come up with another proposal to be decided upon.” So it is clear what the Workers’ Party is doing.
The point of this whole exercise was for the Committee to consider all ideas, and to propose what it considers the best one for Singapore. That is how I believe every Singaporean understood it. But the Workers’ Party decided to play politics. They held back what they considered to be meaningful proposals, so that they could come to this House and announce to Singaporeans that they have better ideas. In short, they put their Party’s interests before Singapore’s interests.
But playing politics is their prerogative. Playing games and fence sitting are the privileges of the opposition. Politics is about making decisions, and the Government has one to make.
Common Principles
Despite the many different arguments, I believe there is much common ground between Singaporeans on this issue, which is often ignored. I would like to talk about matters I think we can all agree on.
First, we can all agree that the Prime Minister and the Ministers have very important and difficult jobs. They affect almost every aspect of our lives. In fact, is there any other job which has a greater impact on the success of Singapore, and the well being of Singaporeans?
Second, we can all agree that we want first class public services. When the Former Chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Dr Paul Volker was in Singapore last year, he was asked what he thought of our policy on salaries. Dr Volker is a highly respected economist. He has been a public servant almost all his life. When introducing him to the audience, Dr Kishore Mahbubhani made the point that Dr Volker was content to earn a modest civil servant’s salary, although he could have earned much more in the private sector. That was why he was asked the question, and I expected him to talk about the privilege of service. He did not. Dr Volker’s response to the question was simple and astute. He said it was a good idea to pay public servants well as it was important to ensure good public services. He cited the US Government’s response to Hurricane Katrina and the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico as evidence that US public services were seriously lacking. In short, in his view, you need good, capable people to provide good services, and you should pay good people well. The logic is irrefutable.
Third, we can agree that not every capable person wants a life in politics. I dare say most do not. There are very good reasons for this, not the least of which is effect on their families. While we do not have an intrusive media, there is still a considerable loss of privacy, and a significant impact on personal lives. That includes having your spouses and children being openly discussed and their conduct scrutinised. Who wants that? Many will feel, quite understandably, that this is too high a price, whatever the pay.
Fourth, we can also agree that we do not want to set salaries so high as to make money the sole or main reason for seeking office. At the same time, we do not want it to be so low as to become a disincentive. NCMP Yee says we are fishing for talent in too small a pond. But if you create financial obstacles for good, capable people who are willing to step forward to serve, you are only making your pool smaller. No one wants to do that. Everyone wants to make public service open to all Singaporeans. Paying less does not make it more open, but more closed.
Sacrifice
Now we come to the nub: what should you pay capable people who perform critical jobs? This brings us to the other “s” word, which tends to dominate this debate: Sacrifice. It has been said that public service is a privilege, and not a sacrifice. Again, no one disputes that, but that is not the argument. The argument is that leaders should make sacrifices because it demonstrates that they care about what they are doing. That is another thing we can all agree on – we want our leaders to care about Singapore. But why look at sacrifice only in money terms?
I think we are asking ourselves the wrong question. It is not how much our leaders should sacrifice, but we want from them. I don’t want someone who tells me that his best quality is that he loves his country or that money is not important to him. Because these are the easiest things to say, and there will be no shortage of people who will say them to get approval.
What do I want from our leaders? I don’t want them just to be smart and capable: I want them to be the smartest, most capable people in the room. I want them to be fair minded, hard working, compassionate and of unimpeachable character. I want leaders who will not be satisfied until every Singaporean has a home and the means to a better life. I want to know that if there is outbreak of a deadly disease like SARS, or a terrorist bomb goes off, or Singapore faces an economic crisis, we have leaders who have the courage, intelligence, experience and determination to do what is necessary for the good of Singapore and Singaporeans. I want leaders who understand that their job involves a sacred trust; a vow to devote every fibre, every moment, every thought, every everything, in service to our country. That is the true sacrifice I think every Singaporean should demand. If we get the quality of people right, the question of quantity of pay answers itself. I believe most Singaporeans will agree with that.
The New Formula
That leads to one more thing we can all agree on: it is impossible to answer the question of salaries in a manner which will satisfy everyone. Many have said so in this House. Even the Worker’s Party agrees that there is no right or wrong figure. I would however like to make two suggestions.
I suggest the proposed formula be tweaked to cap the salaries for the Government’s term of office, with an annual increment for inflation. In other words, salaries will not rise if the benchmark median salary rises. This would create more certainty and more importantly, put paid to arguments that the Government will pursue policies to favour the top earners to increase its own pay.
I also ask the Government to do more to keep Singaporeans informed and engaged on this issue. There is still much misunderstanding over salaries, and you cannot have a proper dialogue if people are working off different facts. For example, many Singaporeans still believe MPs will receive pensions, although that was discontinued years ago. Some even believe MP and Ministers’ salaries are tax free. They are not. Within days of the release of the Report, Mr Gerard Ee had to say publicly that some had mis-understood what it said. Despite the enormous publicity on the subject, some are still unclear about the details of the new package. Although some would prefer that we not keep raising this issue, I support the proposal for the formula be reviewed every five years. I believe we should welcome every opportunity to debate it so that there will be a wider and better understanding of the facts and the arguments. It will also help if we publish annually and in clear terms the average pay package of Ministers, so that we can demolish mischievous allegations that Ministers will secretly earn more through discretionary and undeclared payments. This is fertile ground for those who seek to breed discontent and cynicism. Let us not give them the opportunity to mislead and divide Singaporeans.
Conclusion – an exceptional Singapore
I end with a final proposition we can agree on. We want Singapore to remain an exceptional nation, for that really is the only thing that keeps us relevant. This exceptionalism should not only be in the performance of our economy or the efficiency of our public services. It should also be in the trust and the relationship between the Government and the people it serves. All around the world, politics and politicians are viewed with great cynicism. Cynicism weakens the government; it weakens democracy and it weakens our country. We cannot afford to let that happen to us.
I therefore support the revision of salaries. The new formula is more relevant and intuitive. It deals with some of the criticisms of the old formula and does away with inequities such as pensions. A 30+ % cut is on any view significant. The National Bonus better reflects performance. Even the Workers’ Party agrees with a monthly wage of $55,000/mth. And as Mr Vikram Nair pointed out yesterday, even the difference in bonus computations may not amount to something substantially different.
So we now have a sound basis for the Government to move forward: strengthen connections with Singaporeans, focus on the difficult problems we all know are around the corner, and deliver on its promise for a better life for all Singaporeans. Because in the final analysis, that is all that really counts. I think we can all agree on that.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Monday, April 4, 2011
Monday, March 28, 2011
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
The Tiger in the Room
I found interesting the strong reaction against Amy Chua's "Tiger Mum". Ms Chua is entitled to be strict with her kids, and bring them up in any manner she deems in their best interests. There are many other parents who are equally, if not more, strict. So why the reaction? Was it her assertion that her methods were superior? That still does not explain the ferocity of the response. Just because she claims superiority does not mean it is true. We can simply disagree, raise our children the "western" way and tell ourselves that they will be the better for it. But there lies the problem. We can disagree, but what if she is right? After all, her children have done well. The truth is many of us would prefer not to be "Tiger Mums" for different reasons. We do not like their methods, it is difficult, requires a lot of discipline, creates unwanted tensions with our children, etc. So it is easier to dismiss Ms Chua's arguments as flawed.
But there is another problem. It is undeniable that the amount of time a child devotes to school work has some effect on his grades, particularly in the earlier years. So while we may not want to be a "Tiger Mum", our child is competing against the child of someone who is. So no one likes a "Tiger Mum" because, in local parlance, she "spoils the market". We would prefer a level playing field, for all children to be educated the same way, so that their "true" abilities will determine their success. That may explain why some speak out against those who are prepared to queue overnight to get their children into elite kindergartens. They want places to be balloted, so that everyone has an equal chance and no one has to make a special effort. But we know that is unrealistic. People will always seek to gain an advantage, whether in education, business, finances or even romance. We send our kids for phonics and abacus classes when they are 3 or 4 because we think it will give them a head start in language and math. We send our children to tuition classes, not because they cannot cope in school, but because coping is not good enough. We want them to ace exams, and more importantly, do better than others.
Deep down, we fear and dislike the "Tiger Mum" because for all we are doing to help our kids excel, there is someone out there willing to go further then we are prepared to.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Friday, January 14, 2011
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
