Tng Ying Hui / Andrew Loh
The Singapore Democratic Party’s national day message was as usual more hardhitting than those of the other opposition parties.
The party’s message this year was delivered by four neatly-dressed “women democrats”, in the four national languages, via a rather well-produced video which was posted on its party website and on Youtube.
Ms Chee Siok Chin, a member of the party’s Central Executive Committee, started off by suggesting that Singaporeans “should take stock of our progress as a nation”. She then took aim at the ruling People’s Action Party. “Now, more than ever, Singaporeans are beginning to realise that the ruling party is making life more and more difficult for us,” she said. She turned to the income gap between the “wealthy and ordinary people”, saying that this gap “has widened to an unhealthy degree”. She blamed this on the “ruling circle, made up of elites, [caring] mainly for the rich and powerful, most of whom are foreigners.”
While Ms Chee’s message may appeal viscerally to Singaporeans, one wonders if it would have any substantive effect. By and large, Singaporeans do accept and realise that the income gap is partly caused by globalisation, which most country experience. To pin the blame on the “rich and powerful” alone is not very convincing.
While the income gap indeed has widened, it is also true that the government has tried to address the disparity. And it has done so through many schemes in the last few years, such as the Progress Package, U-Save, S&CC rebates, CPF top-ups, New Singapore Shares and now the Jobs Credit Scheme.
As a result, Singapore’s income gap – as measured by the Gini Coefficient – narrowed for the first time in 10 years last year. It fell from 0.489 in 2007 to 0.481 in 2008. If government help is taken into account, the figure drops further – from 0.479 to 0.462.
As globalisation spans the whole globe, disparity of income has to be acknowledged. Perhaps it is too simplistic for the SDP to pin the entire blame on the government – and to particularly charge it for “[caring] mainly for the rich and powerful, most of whom are foreigners”, without any substantiation of facts. We’ll come back to this later.
Nonetheless, globalisation is not an excuse for the government to ignore the seriousness of the income gap problem.
Perhaps what the SDP should have highlighted is Singapore’s high dependency on international trade which will enhance its vulnerability vis a vis the ills of globalisation. As statistics have shown, the “incomes among the bottom 30 percent of households had actually fallen since 2000” (New York Times). The inequality between the wealthy and the lower income should be more urgently addressed by policymakers. With our falling GDP (Singapore’s real GDP in 2008 was 7.7 per cent, a fall from the previous year of 7.9 per cent) and with the economic crisis still in our midst, the smaller Gini Coefficient attained last year is in danger of being widened again.
Ms Chee’s claim that the government “cares mainly for the rich and powerful, most of whom are foreigners” is oversimplified and biased. The government has created schemes that aim to tide many through the economic crisis, such as the jobs credit scheme. They have also repeatedly emphasized that narrowing the income gap is their top priority. Perhaps, what the SDP should have focused on is the the effectiveness and results of the schemes, instead of using rhetoric to score political points.
HDB and citizenship
Another example raised in the SDP message was the issue of elderly having to “toil for a living” because their CPF contributions have been used to pay for ever-rising HDB prices which are controlled by the Government, said Jaslyn Go. She also accused the government of “[reneging] on its promise” but she did not specify what this promise was. Nonetheless, because of this broken promise by the government, “more and more Singaporeans, young and old, are losing the roof over their heads”, she said. Ms Go attributed this to the government turning public housing into a ‘profit-making” venture and the rules requiring buyers of HDB flats to obtain loans from the banks.
Ms Go’s assertion that escalating HDB prices was as a sign of profit making by the government may be pure speculation, but the lack of transparency and whimsical rhetoric by the government regarding this issue is unsettling.
Nonetheless, Ms Go did not provide any statistics or examples to better substantiate her points. While it may be true that some Singaporeans are finding it hard to pay their mortgages, it may be convenient to attribute this solely to an inability to pay the banks’ housing loans or that the government is “profit-making” from it. The problem of lapsed payment is manifold, and the causes are varied.
Ms Go’s point that “in a year, 1,000 Singaporeans renounce their citizenship” is not accurate. Perhaps she is using the number mentioned by MM Lee, when he spoke about Singapore’s brain drain problem. The 1,000 Singaporeans emigrants MM Lee was referring to were the “top brains”. Thus, the total number of Singaporeans leaving is much higher, supposedly.
Foreign talents
The SDP’s views on the issue of immigrants, delivered in Malay by Ms Surayah Akbar, was the most hard-hitting. She suggested that the government should think of other ways to resolve the economic problems instead of “allowing the unfettered flow of foreigners” into Singapore. Social tension as a consequence would “threaten the foundation of our nation”, she said. The issue of immigrants has been a hot topic of debate for some time, and the fear of “social tension” is a legitimate one. This, however, should not suggest that our immigration policy should change to one that blocks the flow of foreigners. Globalisation has manifested itself in every single way possible and immigration is another product of it. In fact, acknowledging that globalisation has indeed arrived is analogous to accepting the consequence of immigration flow.
Ms Surayah’s point that these “foreign talent [sic] is taking jobs away from Singaporeans” is an oft-repeated one which most Singaporeans would concur with. The allegation has always been dismissed by the government but without providing any further proof that this is not so, this issue will not go away anytime soon. Ms Surayah’s assertion that the influx of foreigners has resulted in “unemployment and retrenchment for Singaporeans”, however, may not be entirely accurate. This is because the record unemployment Singapore has experienced this past year happened in the midst of a global recession. Thus, to put the entire blame on the influx of foreigners may not be very accurate – or convincing.
Her point about the “more than one million foreigners in our midst” potentially leading to “social tension” in Singapore, however, is one many would agree with. Even the Prime Minister has warned about this.
Ms Surayah’s call for the government to “look into the reasons for the mass emigration of Singaporeans instead of allowing the unfettered flow of foreigners” is a longstanding call which some Singaporeans have been making. Indeed, Singaporeans are dismayed that the government seems oblivious to this call.
Pet issues
Speaking in Tamil, Mdm G Prema reiterated several of the SDP’s pet issues – the lack of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, the constitutional rights of Singaporeans and the “stranglehold that the government has over the mainstream media”.
“An ill-informed electorate will be unable to positively contribute to the future well-being of the nation,” Mdm Prema said. Interestingly, while these are well-known issues associated with the SDP, Mdm Prema’s delivery was the shortest among the four speakers.
Hope
Ms Chee then ended the SDP’s message on a more positive note. “There is hope,” she said, “and the hope lies with you and me.” She urged Singaporeans to “reach out and reach up with the Singapore Democrats for a more caring, open, just and democratic society.”
Perhaps the SDP should have addressed the issue of healthcare as well, which is an emerging concern among our elderly folks and which will see significant changes – HOTA, step-down care, rising costs, etc. Singapore is among the fastest ageing nations in the world. As the latest results have shown, we are spending much lesser in healthcare, compared to countries such as the United States, France and the United Kingdom, in terms of GDP.
Healthcare should be at the forefront of any political parties’ policies.
The SDP’s National Day message was delivered with apparent sincerity and each of the four speakers were articulate – clear and precise in their delivery, especially Ms Chee. Perhaps what the SDP should keep in mind for future messages is to do deeper research into some of the issues they would speak on and provide brief but better substantiation to the points they bring up.
Finally, one wonders why the SDP, for a message addressed to the nation, had chosen four women to deliver the message – none of whom holds any substantive positions in the party, although Ms Chee is one of two woman CEC member.
Among the parties which had a National Day message for the nation this year, the Workers’ Party and the SDP are the only ones which did not have it delivered by party leaders.
—–
“Singaporeans do accept and realise that the income gap is partly caused by globalisation….”
The article mentions the word “globalisation” at least six times.
Globalisation is generally regarded as the free, unimpeded flow of goods and services across borders. It does not necessarily mean the free movement of people across borders. This sort of movement generally takes place across uniform political entities, such as the EU single market. The world is very far away from a model where people can move freely around the globe: we are unlikely to see this in our lifetime.
To blame the depressed wages at the bottom in Singapore on globalisation is therefore, incorrect. The real culprit is the governments policy of allowing cheap foreign labour into the country in the mistaken belief that it is thus “helping” the manufacturing sector remain competitive (the manufacturing sector is allowed to employ seven foreign workers for every Singaporean employed). The result is that it holds down the incomes of the bottom third of society. We thus end up with a country with first world infrastructure but third world salaries for a large segment of the population: a poor outcome.
The solution is to restrict the flow of cheap labour for manufacturing and process industries. This might make some industries uncompetitive and cause some MNCs to leave Singapore. That doesn’t matter. The net result will be a raising of income levels at the bottom, which will lift the whole country.
Singapore is already a high cost country. A change in the FW policy will at least allow a significant segment of society to cope better. A smaller country with a smaller economy, maybe, but at least everybody will be better off without the need to ask the government for hand-outs.
#42 some say CSQ is like hairy potter, now u say ms chee is like “aung san suu kyi”. Wow… the hat is like wearing bigger and bigger..haha
still preferred the lady on the right, if she come to my area for election, i vote her lah. swee boh??
Anyway, to the points of criticism made in the article, not much time so let me keep it short:
1. Globalization effects can be tempered by Min Wage and retrenchment entitlements and retiree entitlements. These policies if implemented will go a long way in alleviating poverty.
2. Jobs Credit, U-save, Progress Package, etc do not help the situation in a meaningful way. They are handouts used to deepen the dependence of the poor on the PAP.
3. Why withhold the CPF and then give these handouts?
4. The writers Loh and Tng also forget to mention that HDB has made Singaporeans indebted to the PAP. We have the highest household debt:GDP ration in the world.
5. Are these not policies of the PAP peculiar to Singapore and not the world?
Dear RAY,
Can you point me to a reference that would show Singapore has the highest household debt to GDP ratio in the world? Would very much appreciate it.
E-Jay
and the NSP’s national message video is the lousiest done.
In 2007, Singapore’s household debt-to-GDP ratio is the highest in Asia, at around 71%.
Come out brother, stand in for the next election as an oppostion. Serve your country men and do justices.
And for all of you keep on arguing on this issue, do come out and stand in for next election. Share all your vision with us, not just talking here and there. Save your energy is the best formula.
I think one of the reasons why SDP does not include it’s top leaders of the party is because they believe in equality among people and that everyone can have their fair share of views regarding on certain topics.
And on their short and simple message is maybe because of they do not want to bore people with infinite mins long whinnings like other party or even govt does?
E-Jay,
Agree that one doesn’t have to be an economist to understand and highlight the economic mess the PAP authoritarian regime has led Singapore into, a contraction of close to minus 10 percent.
The neo-liberal capitalist excesses of the PAP is leading to cyclical booms and busts without any sustainability and stability. The only people who seem to have sustainability are the PAP ministers with their astronomical salaries, their extended family members and cronies.
The vast majority of Singaporeans are wage earners subjected to the vagaries of capitalist greed and exploitation.
To understand the plight of our fellow Singaporeans, one doesn’t need an economics degree or knowledge in hedge funds and financial products.
@ 46) Stranger on August 19th, 2009 1.46 pm @Yes we can: all government are answerable to the people through the ballot box.
49) Stranger on August 19th, 2009 2.18 pm @Yes we can: Nobody is stopping the opposition from contesting the GRCs.
Please do give the SDP website a good read. Their alternatives such as minimum wage and such are in Part 3 of their manifesto, and the lesser-known aspects of the elections can be found here:
http://yoursdp.org/index.php/truth-about/elections