A great political speech, said from the heart #GE2020

A friend sent me this. Said it was one of the best political speeches he has heard. I watched and I cannot agree more.

Integrity and honesty in government #GE2020

DPM Heng Swee Keat is right that our national leaders must be people of integrity and honesty. This is one of the chief reasons why the Singapore electorate has returned the PAP to government in all elections held since Singapore's independence in 1965. One of things that the PAP has also done well over the years is to root out corruption within its party ranks and civil service, so much so that the PAP is reputed for being whiter than white.

However, it is disingenuous for the PAP to insinuate dishonesty and lack of sincerity in parties opposed to it, especially in the current hustings. The PAP has again said that the SDP lacks integrity and honesty over the issue of the 10 million population issue. I am not sure that I buy the PAP's line on this. This charge is nothing new - it has been saying this for years, especially referring to Dr Chee Soon Juan. Is there nothing else the PAP can say, especially now? The pot calling the kettle black? One of its new candidates withdrew his candidacy due to public disquiet about the person's supposed elitist behaviour and hint of unanswered questions regarding his involvement in respect of some Brazil projects. While the jury is out on the case of Ivan Lim, it seems hypocritical to call into question SDP's honesty and integrity. 

If the SDP has outmaneuvered the PAP in respect of the 10 million population issue, it cannot then turn around and call the SDP dishonest. It just goes to show that the PAP has no effective response to the issue.

Yes, I am beginning to become convinced that we need good opposition voices in Parliament. It will give us the best of both worlds - a proven government which is clean, and opposition voices which will keep the decision-making sharp to avoid the occasional mis-thinking that the PAP has been guilty of, and which may cost the country millions, no billions, of $ of unnecessary expenditure. Even its distinguished former member, Dr Tan Cheng Bock, advocates this.

Majulah Singapura   

Read:

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ge2020-paps-heng-speaks-out-against-sdps-bogeyman-says-candidates-must-have-integrity-and

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ge2020-pap-should-not-try-fool-frighten-voters-about-change-govt-says-tan-cheng-bock

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/ge2020-psp-tan-cheng-bock-two-thirds-majority-12894722

The freak that never was

Another theory is working its way around the corner. According to this version, last Friday's General Election result was a freak result. If the PAP government had lost enough seats to boot it out of government, we'd call it a freak election result. But when the PAP wins so convincingly against expectations, is this not also a freak result?

There are people digging into various numbers and some have come up with the hypothesis that the swing originated from a particular group of people called new citizens. The assumption is that new citizens became new citizens because they liked what they saw, they liked the way Singapore is organized and governed, and they see it as a permanent home. So it is quite natural for them to vote for the PAP. The question is, how many of these became new citizens since the last election and  voted in GE 2015? For a start, there was an increase in the number of voters in GE 2015 - 2,304,331 to be exact. In GE 2011, the total number of registered voters was 2,060,373, making a difference of 243,958. This is a 11.8% increase. The number of spoilt votes in both GE 2011 and 2015 is more or less the same, around 2+ %. Given Singapore's declining birth rate over the last 20 years, the net increase in number can only be attributed to immigration/emigration. Obviously, an increase means there were more people coming into Singapore than going out. Thus the major component of the increased voter numbers can be attributed to new citizens in the last 4 years. Would these have caused the swing towards the PAP? Possibly.

This is a sketch of the new citizen hypothesis, but it does suggest that 'old' citizens may not have contributed as much to the PAP votes as has been assumed so far.

Myths and might

Someone brought this article to my attention. If you have not already read it, I think investing some of your precious time on this will be enlightening and well worth it.

Economic Myths in the Great Population Debate, written by members of the Economic Society of Singapore and published in the Institute of Policy Studies website.

Credibility

More on the White Paper on Population. The PM said, quite rightly, that the conversation will continue outside of Parliament on the issues raised. Whether the Paper is right or not, we will know possibly in 2020 or 2030. Many of us may not be around when that happens. But the PAP did insert a caveat as the debate over the numbers were debated. That 6.9 million suddenly became a guide and not a target and the Paper, amongst other things, was amended accordingly But more damaging to its credibility was the original claim, albeit in a footnote, that nurses belong to that class of workers considered "low skilled" (page 40, footnote 12). This also was amended, but not when the politicians and their officials pointed it out, but when the nursing profession raised the issue. The government may called this a (regrettable) mistake, but it is a disturbing mistake nonetheless. You just have to wonder about the authors of this paper, which took one whole year to develop and write, whether in their minds they view our Florence Nightingales as low skilled workers. There is such as thing known as a Freudian slip and this is perhaps a significant mental one. Maybe the reason is because, today, many of them - the nurses, are from mainland China and not a few are Filipinos, which unfortunately, have been associated in Singapore more with household maids. There has been a dwindling number of locals who are willing to take on the profession, which is not to say that the profession is any less noble and essential.

But that's how our officials see people - low skill, high skill, low class, high class, moneyed class, foreigner, moneyed foreigners, maid-master/madam-servants, temporary foreign workers (whose job is to provide for locals - build its houses. feed them, ensure that they continue to lead a comfortable life, etc.) And alas, national policies are an outgrowth of these prejudices and biases, are they not? It is no wonder that the government appears to have created a chasm between itself and the people. This stratification reminds one of the labourers who are beholden to the rich gentry, the landowners, and the capitalists for their livelihood in a bygone era - a point that Mr Iswaran, and probably Dr Balakhrishnan, seem to have been at pains to point out in Parliament last week. Nothing really ever changes, does it? The thesis, anti-thesis which must then give way to a new synthesis. Has the PAP become the unfeeling thesis of the day that is crying out for an anti-thesis? Hopefully, we are more enlightened by virtue of the fact that we have received so much education. But above all, we need to stay humble, As some wise people have said, it doesn't matter how good the policy is, how visionary, how well-meaning nor how enlightened it is.

The important thing is that it be communicated well such that people will want to fall over each other to get in line (ok so I exaggerate) to give it their self-serving support, but support nevertheless. In this the sitting government has failed miserably, and at great political costs.

Hyperbole

As expected, the much debated Whitepaper on Singapore's future population growth (Population White Paper: A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore) was passed in Parliament yesterday. What else can you expect when the PAP has more than a two-thirds majority of seats in Parliament. Of course, the Opposition Workers' Party (WP) voted against it. But more significantly, 3 of the 4 Nominated MPs voted against it too, and the other one didn't express support either way.

This issue has been the talk of the town in the past two weeks, in the office, along the corridors, on the streets in the bus stops, at the coffee shops and foodcourts, at home and at mom's place. I am no exception. And you know what? Of the 10 people I spoke to, 10 of them opposed increasing the population to 6.9 million. Goes to show how unrepresentative of Singaporeans Singapore's Parliament is. Well, of course PAP will tell you that mine is an unrepresentative sample of the population, so my 10/10 cannot be taken seriously. But seriously too, I wasn't taking a poll. It just was a fact the everyone I met opposed the idea of having 6.9 million people sharing the limited space on this island. Even those who were staunchly pro-PAP didn't want to venture an opinion. If this issue were put to a Referendum today, I am quite sure that the outcome will be different from what Parliament decided yesterday.

Of course, as the paper got talked about and there was a sense of overwhelming opposition to the numbers, PAP Ministers began to insist that 6.9 million is "not so much a target but more a projection", that the actual number is likely to be between 6.5 - 6.9 million. Some government Ministers went as far as to say that the preferred number is 6.5 million. This is incredible as I understood that the Whitepaper was 1 year in the making, and involved feedback from no less than 2,500 people. After all that time, money and resources (paid for by tax-payers, may I add), our government is not too sure if they have the numbers correct. If not, what are we then debating about? It is no wonder that these same government Ministers not only turned English language teachers but also demonstrated the meaning of "hyperbolic".

Mr S. Iswaran's hyperbole must take the prize hands-down:

“It will exacerbate uncertainty in the economic environment and accelerate business closures and the offshoring of activities...”

“Singaporeans will lose their jobs and instead of productivity-led growth, it would easily tip our economy into a downward spiral. This abrupt move will derail our efforts to boost productivity and restructure the economy...”

“We would be breaking faith with companies who are already invested here and are in the process of ramping up their operations...It will damage our reputation and severely impair our efforts to attract new and different businesses which can offer precisely the kind of diverse jobs that better educated Singaporeans seek...”

 “But what the Workers’ Party is proposing is to jam-brake and put our economy in a tailspin, and our businesses and workers risk a hard landing...”

In sum, what he was saying is that Singapore will face imminent collapse if the Whitepaper is rejected. And why? Because businesses will jump ship and go elsewhere, never mind that we have one of the most business-friendly tax regime in the world. Odd that this same "jump ship" argument is not applied equally to the proposed population proportion of 40% foreigners in the Whitepaper. Going by the same logic, if the economy goes south, wouldn't they jump ship too, and leave the 60%  who are Singaporeans to sink or swim, assuming that we would have developed a high dependency on their presence?

Fortunately, 13 people in Parliament were not taken in by such hyperbole. They demonstrated more balance, pragmatism and common sense - something that the PAP government USED TO be well-known for. But more importantly, going by my conversation with people on this matter, they were speaking for the majority of Singaporeans.

The PAP government may have won the votes in Parliament yesterday, but it may likely have lost the plot in the long run.

Sources:
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/wp-proposal-is-drastic-and-inherently-risky--s-iswaran-052728130.html
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/govt-clarifies-population-projections-044450169.html

Singapore for Lease

The government of Singapore just announced that its target population growth number, right up to 2030, will be 6.9 million. No one can fault this government for being forward thinking. In fact, right from the very beginning, in 1959, Singapore has been led by a group of highly capable people who put policies into place that has brought it first world status in less than 40 years. You can't take away this achievement. I grew up under this government, and I must say, benefitted from these policies. There may be many naysayers. I suppose they might have had a vastly different and likely unpleasant experience compared to mine, but I would venture to say that for most of us citizens, life has become good. This is brought home the more you travel outside the country.

But I come not to praise the past, important as it may be. Let us not forget history, how we got to where we are lest a collective amnesia comes to haunt us one day. I come to consider how the current leaders appear to have a plan to lease out the entire country to foreigners come 2030. I quote Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, the Minister for the Environment & Water Resources, about the rationale for this policy Whitepaper:

"...we will need some kind of 'top up' over the next two decades - foreigners to work with us, care for us, pay taxes and to help create opportunities...".  (Today, 31 Jan 2013, page 4).

If this doesn't sound like renting out our country for monetary returns, I don't know what is.  According to the numbers worked out in this scenario, by 2030, we will have 2.5 million foreigners gainfully employed in our midst whereas citizens will make up 3.8 million working people. That's roughly a 40% foreigner and 60% citizen-working population. Well, if you think about it, this scenario is based very much on our experience today. The older citizens among us are well endowed with residential properties. Many rent part or even all of these out to foreigners. It does not take a leap of imagination to arrive at the thought that we can rent out the entire country, much as we do our houses in order for our tenants, the foreigners, to "care for us" and "pay our taxes".

My worry is that this assumes the foreigners amongst our midst are stupid enough to support us in our "old age". Why should they? They come here to make money for themselves, to live for themselves, and to leave when things don't go right. Otherwise they won't be foreigners, would they? They'd would have traded in their foreign citizenship for Singapore's. But our government is an optimistic lot, and they think they can hook these 2.5 million foreigners, hook, line and sinker, to support the old folks in Singapore, willingly or unwillingly.

The optimism expressed in the White Paper goes beyond belief. And given that the current government has messed up the triumvirate policies on foreign workers, transport and housing in the past ten years, it doesn't give me any confidence in the robustness of the policy proposals. The White Paper would likely turn out to be largely a work of fiction.