April 26, 2011

• Saw this in an e-mail I received today.

  With the upcoming General Elections, and personally being very excited to have the opportunity to vote for the first time,
  I thought to share this as some noteworthy food for thought.

  
  It is written by the former president of AWARE.

  ——-

  A letter to my friends on the General Elections

  by Joo Hymn Tan  on Wednesday, 20 April 2011

  We don’t talk about politics, but I feel so strongly about these
  elections, I would like to find out what each of my friends think, and
  maybe persuade them at least a little!   

  Why all the excitement?

  Over the last 15 years, I lived in:  Tanglin, Newton and Bukit Timah

  Each time I checked the electoral rolls, it was the same:  Tanjong Pagar

  Now, without having moved, I am in Moulmein-Kallang.

  My neighbourhood was in three different constituencies in the last three
  elections:

  Holland-Bukit Panjang 2001

  Tanjong Pagar  2006

  Moulmein-Kallang 2011

  Question: Is there really a need to redraw boundaries every election?

  I have never voted in all my 40+ years. It was always walkover since
  GRCs were implemented. In 1991, when it was still al Single Member
  Constituencies, my constituency was contested, and I was 21 years and 9
  months old. However, that year, it was announced the the electoral roll
  of voters was only updated till July 1990!

  Question: Has this ever happened before or since? Why the sudden
  inefficiencies in government?

  PAP in 1950s is not the same as the PAP now

  Yes, in the early nation building years, the PAP could have been said to
  comprise of highly principled, intelligent and dilligent people, like
  Goh Keng Swee, Rajaratnam, Lee Kuan Yew etc.

  The PAP leaders today are completely different individuals (except for
  LKY), and their capabilities, outlook and values can also be said to be
  vastly different!

  Question: would any of the existing PAP Ministers really be able to
  handle a crises?

  Usual way mistakes are handled

  Mistakes made in the last 5 years:

  -          Mas Selamat’s escape (and subsequent failure of the police
  and military to search the homes of all his close relatives)

  -          the floods in Orchard Road, and Bukit Timah immortalised in
  the dramatic photographs of overturned cars

  -          the Youth Olympic Games being severely over-budget (and
  depending on who you speak with, under-publicised oversesas)

  Policy inadequacies:

  -          the over-heating of the housing market, where government
  housing aka HDB flats cost half a million dollars (where government
  housing is supposedly for the less well-to-do)

  -          the inadequacy of CPF monies resulting in the elderly being
  cleaners in hawker centres and fast food restaurants all over Singapore

  -          the huge and sudden influx of foreign workers, at all levels
  of employment leading to depressed wages for Singaporeans, and worse,
  loss of jobs

  It’s not about not making mistakes. We are all human, Ministers, civil
  servants etc not less so. The issue is there is little post-mortem or
  reflection to ensure that the same mistakes do not happen again. The
  most important thing is to take collectively responsibility and learn
  all we can from mistakes to make sure they don’t happen again.

  However, the usual focus by the Government is to place blame, remove the
  offending persons and brush everything under the carpet as quickly as
  possible. There are few avenues for the public to engage in meaningful
  dialogue with the Government over important issues.

  Question: Did the Cabinet do enough soul seraching and reflection behind
  closed doors away from public eyes? Were there enough diverse opinions
  to help them see the issues from all perspectives?

  Double standards?

  Contrast Mas Selamat’s escape: “It was an honest mistake. Let’s move
  on”.

  With the hoo-ha over James Gomez claiming he had filed his minority
  certificate when he had not during the 2006 elections. At least 4 days’
  worth of campaigning and media headlines were focussed on this minor
  mistake.

  Groundhog day of mistakes

  After the first flood, the Minister said that it was a freak accident
  and would happen only once every 50 years.

  Barely a month later, a second flood happened.

  A better response would have been to be less defensive and stating that
  the matter would be looked into to find out the real reasons etc, and
  acknowledging the public’s concern that overbuilding along Orchard Road
  (Ion, Somerset 313) may have contributed to poorer water drainage.

  An older example:

  Remember “Two is Enough” in the 60′s and 70′s?

  By mid 80s, it had become, “have 3 or more if you can afford it”.

  Around 20 years for a complete reversal of policies.

  Round two:

  In the early 90′s, the Government limited the number of universities in
  the Commonwealth where law and medicine degrees would be “recognised”
  due to oversupply

  By 2000, the number of “recognised” universities were increased, and
  soon after, they were recruting foreign doctors due to short supply.

  Around ten years for a u-turn.

  Not exactly comparing apples and apples here, but surely some lessons
  could have been learnt about how an “oversupply” could quickly become an
  undersupply? And in the second scenario, the reversal came only 10 years
  after the initial policy.

  Yet, there seemed to be no in-depth inquiry into why the initial
  policies were made and what led to the reversal and what lessons could
  be learnt to prevent making similar errors in judgment. This
  unwillingness to take long hard looks at Government policies has really
  affected the ability to address many issues.

  Question: Is the undersupply of HDB flats now another example of this
  short-sightedness?

  Fixated on the same solution whether or not it works

  1. Throwing money at the problem when main issue is not money

  Since the 80′s, the Government has been encouraging WOMEN to have more
  babies, with very little success. AWARE has brought up the issue of
  paternity leave since 1989, but has always been rejected, seemingly
  right off the bat without serious consideration or research to back it
  up.

  The Government’s preferred solution? Throw money at the problem.

  Round One: Baby bonus and tax breaks for women having 2 or more children
  below 30 years of age.

  Results not good. Solution? Throw more money at the problem:

  Round Two: Baby bonus and tax breaks for all women having 2 or more
  children

  Results still not good. Solution? Throw yet more money at the problem:

  Round Three: Baby bonus and tax breaks for all women having children

  (Note: Babies must be Singaporean at time of birth, and babies’ mothers
  must be married to babies’ fathers to enjoy benefits, so single unwed
  mothers and their babies are discriminated against and disadvantaged
  even as the Government keeps emphasising that human resources are all we
  have.)

  It has been said time and again by various organisations and individuals
  that financial matters feature to only a minor degree in the decisions
  to have children, yet the Government seems “deaf to all criticisms” and
  suggestions yet again. The more pressing concerns such as work-life
  balance arrangements, including flexi work, quality of life issues,
  education stress etc, were all not adequately dealt with.

  2. Not throwing money at the problem when the issue is chronic need of
  money

  Contrast this with the issue of the poor who are on Public Assistance.
  They have to be unable to work, have no assets and little or no family
  support to be eligible in the first place. Clearly an area where some
  extra money would be an enormous help.

  In the debate to increase it by around 10% to $290, in reply to
  arguments for larger sums by MP Lily Neo, the Minister replied
  infamously, “Do you want three meals in a restaurant, food court or
  hawker centre?”

  3. Throwing money at everybody whether or not they need it

  Contrast again to the new Grow and Share package (and previous New
  Singapore Shares etc etc), where each citizen receives at least a few
  hundred dollars. The top 20% certainly don’t need this handout at all.
  So why waste money by giving them any money at all? Wouldn’t it have
  been better to allocate it to the lower income groups?

  Question: What kind of persons could blithely vote themselves 8 months’
  bonus while quibbling for $100 increase in Public Assistance for the
  poorest of the poor?

  Rich-poor divide reaching alarming levels

  There are 100,000 households earning less than $1000 per month. That is
  households of 4 members (default definition by Government. Could
  actually have more than 4 family members). And over 800,000 employed
  persons earn less than $1000 a month. In a country where costs of living
  are spiralling upwards and even the middle classes are feeling the
  pinch.

  Question: Whatever became of social support and social harmony?

  So, what?

  So what would more Alternative Parties members in Parliament achieve? At
  the very least, more debate on issues and and more reflection. Each MP
  is only allowed 15 minutes max (I think) to speak on an issue. So the
  more alternative voices, the more points of views can be raised, and
  more food for thought, not only for the Parliament but the public at
  large, to generate more informed debate.

  Why now?

  It’s also important to vote in Alternative Parties members now, because
  I believe in the tipping point theory of 30%: you need at least 30% of
  new people to feel the effect of the change. Which probably explains why
  the 22% women in Parliament have not been able to make their presence
  felt. 

  It is also because as Workers Party has said, they are not able to form
  the government right now. We need to give Alternative Parties time to
  grow into the political process and mature. Because I believe there will
  come a time when the Alternative Parties form the majority in
  Parliament.

  To me, it’s not a question of if, but when. At the last elections, 66%
  voted PAP. I do not think it will take that long for the 16% to erode
  given all that’s happened, even with the influx of new citizens and the
  constant redrawing of electoral boundaries. At some point, the balance
  will tip, and the “unimaginable” will happen. And honestly, I rather
  that it happened when Lee Kuan Yew is still around. Whatever criticisms
  has been levelled at him, at least he is capable, and more than anyone
  currently in government, I trust him to handle a crisis. Most people
  predict rifts in the PAP after LKY’s demise, so that a swing to
  Alternative Parties after that is even more likely. Hence, I rather it
  happen now. (see also
  http://flaneurose.blogspot.com/2011/03/when-pap-loses-election-it-will-b
  e-time.html  for discussion on why it will be sudden and not
  gradual).

  Chasm between rhetoric and reality

  There are many many more reasons why I will unhesitatingly vote
  Alternative Parties, given my experience as a volunteer in AWARE and
  elsewhere, I saw such a huge chasm between policy/rhetoric and what was
  actually happening on the ground, and the hypocrisy of it all. And now
  as a mum of a primary school child, I see how flawed the education
  system is. I hear horror stories of students being kiasu, nasty and
  perfectionists from a very young age because of the environment. I fear
  for the future of our country.

  Learning from history so as not to repeat it

  Maybe I’m more pessimistic, but with politicians with such a
  non-reflexive mindset, I am not sure we can make it through many more
  uncertainties and crises. There are more than enough examples of
  corporates being taken over or wound up, and historical examples of
  empires and dynasties falling into decay when their leaders stop
  listening to the public and insist on doing things their way.

  
  

  • 3:02 am
  • 2 Comments