Reformers at a Jurong Walkabout – from left to right – James Teo, Justin Ong, Tony Tan
One can be forgiven for believing that there is somewhat a connection between high-flying scholars and the ruling party. This can be attributed to the number of former scholars who are serving in Parliament and the Cabinet under the ruling party. Mr Tony Tan (TT), however, took an alternative path vis-à-vis his other illustrious colleagues.
A recipient of the SAF Merit Scholarship, he earned a Bachelor of Engineering with Honours from the University of Cambridge. He also earned a MBA and Biomedical degrees from the University of Leicester and Central Queensland University respectively. He left SAF to found an educational provider, achieving success that earned him the Spirit of Enterprise award. He has remained within the educational sector ever since.
Joining the Reform Party, he became a member of the Central Executive Committee in 2009. The Online Citizen was fortunate to be able to catch up with Tony, soliciting his views on various issues, and even managed to catch a slight glimpse into the upcoming educational seminar organised by the Reform Party.
In this exclusive interview, Tony Tan shares his perspective on the economy, national service and education. To find out more about Tony Tan and the Reform Party, why not pop over at the Reform Party’s Seminar on Education? It will be held on 130pm, 23rd January at Berkshire School Pte Ltd, 100 Beach Road #02-19A, Shaw Towers, Singapore 189702. The facebook page for the event is accessible at http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=231270716589&index=1
——————-
TOC: Why did you join politics?
TT: There are numerous reasons, but with one purpose – the hope of being able to make a difference to the people in the street however small it is. I am concerned what the government’s vision for Singapore is. I am also concerned with what ordinary Singaporeans want Singapore to be? Forty-four years ago, we achieved independence by circumstances. We were then at a crossroad – to be swallowed up by a bigger nation, or to trail blaze and succeed. The latter happened. We made it because the people in the street understood the vision and united with the leaders.
After 44 years, do we still have these successful ingredients in place to ride out the impact of globalisation and increasing competition from neighbouring countries? Do the people and the leaders still share the same vision? The vision appears to be developing Singapore to be a world-class city with Swiss standard of living. And the yardstick with which this “standard of living” is to be measured by what seems to be our Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Some Singaporeans have started questioning the quality of living standards despite the high GDP growth we have attained. Should we be afraid or excited about the vision of a world-class city with Swiss standards of living?
Being raised by a single mom with 3 brothers and 3 sisters, I understand poverty and the importance of social mobility and social safety nets. They make the society more inclusive and compassionate. According to MOM website and the Department of Statistics, more than 50% of the labour force earned S$2,000 or less monthly in 2006. Rising cost of living erodes their quality of life substantially. In 2007, the government argues the need for a higher GST to help the poor. Today there are families living in the parks after losing their HDB flats. The government has made a promise to help the poor. Can they convince Singaporeans why they cannot keep their promise?
I disagree that the performance of the ministers and the government should be measured by merely one factor – the percentage increase in GDP of Singapore. If that is the only focus, all issues would be studied with only 1 key consideration: what is the economic cost or value to Singapore? How can we build an inclusive society with such a one-dimensional approach?
The first group of members that formed the PAP many years ago included Union leaders, postmen and teachers. They formed the old guards and they fought hard on issues for the men in the street. We may need people from all strata of the society to be represented in the Parliament. If the issues for ordinary Singaporeans are not given priority and accorded attention in the Parliament, then we need to send in ordinary Singaporeans into Parliament to bring those issues across to the government.
Each of us has 1 vote. Singaporeans are the custodians of this country. Not any political parties. We need to get the message out to as many Singaporeans as possible to support or join any opposition parties.
TOC: You initially carved a career in SAF. Having been there and done that, what kind of reforms do you think our military can implement that will improve the lives of our servicemen?
TT: Many areas come to mind. The one area that will be of significance is the duration of National Service and the number of NSmen in-camp trainings. To continue to enjoy the support from NSmen, the ministry needs to seriously review the operational demands on NSmen. How we can achieve that will be elaborated in the subsequent question.
During those call-ups, are NS men gainfully employed? Do they feel they have contributed? National Service is the best and the single largest platform to engage our citizens. Are we making the most of this opportunity to make our citizens feel that they are making a meaningful contribution to the nation and be proud of it? Emphasis must be given to engage the NSmen, apart from ensuring that they clock their number of “high key” and pass their IPPTs. In short, win the support and win the “heart” of the NSmen.
From 2001-09, on average, there are 3 deaths per year. Since 2005, the Republic of Singapore Air Force had maintained an outstanding record of zero fatality for pilots. Why can’t the SAF as a whole strive for zero death? This should be one of the Key Performance Indicators for a peacetime armed force. Any loss of life is one too many. The Reform Party believes that an explicit target zero deaths arising from military training is needed.
TOC: Your party colleagues have advocated a decrease in defense budget. Based on your experience, how can our military reduce its spending?
TT: According to military and strategic analysts, such as Tim Huxley (author of Defending the Lion City), Singapore is using a forward-defence military doctrine . Our current investments in new weapons systems and technologies are to develop 3G SAF which seeks to dominate terrain by precision strikes, unmanned warfare and integrated knowledge command and control.
In the long run, the SAF will have to rely on Navy, Airforce and selected Army troops, while focusing the bulk of NSmen for defense. When that happens, there would be significantly fewer operational skills for NS men to be trained and honed. The duration of full-time NS can be reduced to 12 months. Duration of in-camp training may be over the weekends with minimum or no disruption to their jobs.
This change may mean that instead of putting 5 people on the ground supported by 1 who uses high-end technologies to achieve the military objective, we may just need 1 on the ground supported by 2. Although expenditure and investment on technologies and its enablers will increase, a sizeable saving in defence budget can be achieved by reshaping the Army. The need for a strong defence to protect our independence and sovereignty must still be maintained.
We need to start thinking about this, and how we can achieve this. In subsequent seminars of the Reform Party that will focus on defence and security threats, we will discuss this in greater detail.
TOC: There are who servicemen embark on educational pursuits during their national service term and have complained that they are either too tired or do not have enough time for their studies. How can such servicemen be assisted in their educational pursuits?
TT: For those who wish to repeat their GCE “O” or “A” level exams, MINDEF should grant them deferment. Later enlistment does not mean enlistees serve shorter duration.
For the others, with reduced duration of full-time NS to 12-18 months, servicemen should commit their energy and time fully on meeting training requirements. They can continue their education after NS full time.
TOC: While you have been an exception, other regulars who left the military after years of service have found it difficult in re-adjust to the demands of the working world. Thus, how can the social mobility and employability of former regular servicemen be enhanced?
TT: I believe the statement does not just apply to military servicemen. It also applies to professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) and anyone who has lost their jobs and forced to seek employment in other industries. Change is one of the constant realities of Singapore’s economy. The future workforce will need to learn to accept faster pace of changes to the employment needs of the economy.
Currently, there are quotas for polytechnics and universities, and the subjects on offer are designed to meet the manpower needs of industries. When the manpower requirements change, people lose their jobs, and their option is to get re-trained/skilled for other employment opportunities.
So what can we do to prepare our young ones for the globalised world? We would be discussing this issue and some of our proposals at the upcoming Seminar on Education.
TOC: Can the current education system equip students with necessary skills to deal with challenges in this knowledge-based economy? Why?
TT: To make our future workforce more resilient to economic changes, students should be empowered. They should be allowed to pursue their interests and develop their potentials, apart from academic pursuits. Students should take charge of their education and decide for themselves how they want to progress and set the pace at which they want to achieve it. There should be equal opportunities for all Singaporeans since young, regardless of abilities and disabilities.
Our students need to be confident, outspoken, multi-skilled, and be prepared to unlearn what they learnt and to learn like an unlearnt. The learning environment should change. From one where students are asked to accept what is taught to one where students will challenge what is taught. Like a forest, we need to breed new varieties that will add biodiversity to the current. The learning environment should also be representative of the society where different people with varying strengths fulfill different roles.
The future of Singapore also depends on whether the students of today are engaged to stay committed and rooted to Singapore. The students should be engaged to understand the various government policies and how they affect the lives of Singaporeans. They should be engaged to think and understand what are the alternatives, and how these can make a difference to the present system. Change is the only constant reality. Participating in change allows students to be engaged and to want to contribute to nation building. In short, the Reform Party believes in the importance of political education, which will bring about inclusivity.
TOC: Do you think our education system is suffering from an asymmetric distribution of teaching and learning resources, i.e. the best teachers and learning facilities going to the better schools? Why? If yes, what can be done to address this asymmetry?
TT: To answer that question, we need statistics from Ministry of Education (MOE). Numerous like-minded individuals have also asked whether children from the lower social economic strata of our society have performed more poorly in national examinations. Currently those data are not available.
Apart from that, some parents have highlighted that relief teachers, who are non-NIE trained, are teaching their children. MOE and each school should make public the percentage of relief/untrained teachers, adjunct teachers, trained teachers and experienced teachers (>3 years).
The Reform Party believes in Transparency. Information that is of interest to the public should be made available.
TOC: What is your opinion of the integrated programme that allows selected students to skip “O” levels?
TT: In one of the TOC articles on education , it was penned:
The former president of Japanese multinational Matsushita remarked some years ago to the then-Economic Development Board (EDB) Chairman Ngiam Tong Dow that our educational structure had some brilliant individuals perched like eagles on high peaks, but the average education level of the rest was not high. He advised that Singapore should concentrate on educating the masses to raise the average level and not just focus on the top scholars. He said that to advance as a nation, we need “high broad plateaus, not solitary peaks”.
We need to challenge all students to ensure that their potentials are developed to the fullest. Mr Ngiam has clearly pinpointed that our education system had helped the brightest to be “perched like eagles on high peaks” and the integrated programme is another such example.
During the Seminar on Education, we will share some of our proposals to improve education for the masses. As for the brighter students, we also have proposals to allow them to pursue wider spectrum of subjects and easing on the age restriction as to when they can do GCE O/A level examinations.
TOC: Do you think our current education system favors the early bloomers and sidelines the late ones? What improvements can be made to make the system more inclusive so that adequate attention is paid to both groups to allow them to realise their potential?
TT: Currently about 1 in 3 students are in the “Normal” stream. Students who are in “Normal” stream feel abnormal and at that young age, they may lack the maturity to understand the need to group them in accordance to learning abilities. This would have a negative psychological effect on their confidence in learning and may hinder the development of their potentials in other areas.
Should we avoid the creation of a “sure-fail” formula by placing slower or less interested academic learners or late bloomers together, and labelling them as “Normal” when they know it is not normal to be in such a grouping?
Parents are anxious that their children may be streamed to Normal. It is perceived that the future of Normal students is less bright as they are at the bottom of the academic ranking in PSLE. But is this academic ranking necessary? Why must the PSLE consist of English, 2nd Language, Math and Science? What are the possible tradeoffs that we have in focusing our future generation countrywide on PSLE during their formative years?
This is also one of the issues we will be discussing at our Seminar on Education. Please join us at the seminar and give us your feedback on our proposals on how to avoid streaming students of different abilities too early and yet still allow each to learn and develop at their own pace.
——————-
A few other pertinent questions have been put across to Tony. They are listed below and they will be discussed during the Seminar On Education. Interested to know more and have other burning questions or issues to raise? Do make a trip down to Shaw Centre and participate in the seminar cum workshop on 23rd January.
- Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew recently admitted that our method of bilingual education is flawed. Should Singapore continue with bilingual education, and if yes, how we should go about administering it, bearing in mind the past failures?
- Is there an endemic problem with regards to stigmatisation based on academic achievements within certain facets of our society? Why? And what can be done if there was such a problem?
- What is your opinion of the government’s decision to implement the primary school fees hike?
- What is your opinion of the current system of primary school admissions?
- Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek commented that although Singaporeans score high in standardised tests for maths and sciences, however, rarely do Singaporeans go on to be world-beaters in the corporate (entrepreneurs) or academic world (top-notch researchers). Why is there such a huge gulf between the math and science achievements up to high school (Junior college) level and that beyond?
- What kind of reforms should our tertiary institutions consider implementing so that our undergraduates will enjoy a quality education that will enable them to take on challenges in their careers?
- What hindering factors are stopping Singaporeans from pursuing advanced degrees, and what reforms can be made to enable those who wish (especially working adults) to pursue a further an advanced degree achieve their goals with peace of mind?
- What is your opinion on the current system pertaining to the dissemination of government scholarships?
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
If the issues for ordinary Singaporeans are not given priority and accorded attention in the Parliament, then we need to send in ordinary Singaporeans into Parliament to bring those issues across to the government.
This is a very powerful statement for LKY & his cronies PAP Ministers to reflect upon themselves.
now a scholar join.
wah if next time a retired general or cdf join that will be great.
People like Tony Tan who join the opposition will face a long, uphill and arduous road ahead.
Hope he has the stamina to do what it takes. And not drop out.
Just look at Dr Chee Soon Juan. He started in 1992 and since then encountered nothing but election defeats, lawsuits and jail. Yet he persevered even after being bankrupted. I am not sure when he will succeed.
Even Chiam See Tong after 25 years as an MP still cut a lone figure, and now also in poor health without a strong party or successor. I don’t know whether he is wise to continue his fight in a GRC at next elections and become a liability to the others due to his health.
Low Thia Kiang, although still healthy is still a lone figure as the WP is not seen as growing. Instead more parties like the Reform Party are being formed. Why have so many and not being united?
How can a small place like Singapore have so many opposition figures and parties and also be strong and formidable?
So political wannabes need to bear in mind and learn from all these so as to take appropriate strategies when they enter the unique Singapore political arena.
Three cheers for Tony! His spirit to serve sets him miles apart from the type of candidates the PAP has offered. He probably make a better MP than half of those that are in the Parliament now. A great spark in a very grim political landscape. There are three possible scenarios for Singapore. First, the segment of people disenfranchised and disengage will enlarge and the country will degenerate into oblivion and we become the “kampung” again if we allow the PAP to continue its current political dominance unimpeded. Second, the PAP government would response with carrots like more NMP, more single wards contest, Reach, “buy votes” and sticks like fixed and persecute oppositions, increase barriers of political contests…and manages to buy sometime but we will still continue to degenerate. Third, a forced challenge by the oppositions and we have true political reform – this is the light at the tunnel because we can only achieve greater heights when we are motivated as a community. Only by embracing diversity and having inclusive society that we can ensure that light is not a train coming at us. I hope more capable people would answer to the Reform Party’s calling Wake Up, Stand Up and Sign Up! And join the legion to effect political change in Singapore. For our own sake.
Congratulations to Mr Tony Tan and his wife Ms Hazel Poa for joining Reform Party.
I hope the Reform party will take a closer look at France Education System which enables its citizens to develop themselves to their fullest potential by not charging them exorbitant rates at all levels leading to doctoral degrees. Here are the 2009 rates that I obtained from the handbook at the Alliance Francaise Singapore:
1) Degree – 169 Euro per year, Master -226 Euro per year and Doctoral – 342 euros per year.
In Singapore, an engineering students pays close to $ 7,000 for each year of study or close to $30,000 for a 4- year degree course. As he has to pay back this amount of money and also pay for the high cost of an HDB flat, he will have great financial difficulty supporting a family with children, and/or pay for taking a master/doctor. French students who pass their baccalaureate or A level equivalent are guaranteed places in any of the 84 universities. Only the top 5% fight for places in the Grand d’Ecoles. In other words, the majority of their students have the opportunity to become graduates or even advance further without having to bear the burden of too high costs. Recently, the French govt approves an additional budget of over 50 billion dollars to reform their educational system without the need to increase student fees.
We are 44 years old and already heading towards extinction, as our birth rate is only 1.2, which is among the 5 lowest in the world. Who does not want a bigger family if the social, economic and political situation is right and the “feel good factor” is conducive for raising a family? With cheap foreign labour earning less but working more hours, there is a tremendous pressure for local Singaporeans to work longer hours thereby causing an imbalance between working life and family life. That we have to bring in millions of foreign workers is clear testament of PAP’s failed policy.
Reducing the education cost is one of the factors that will help the students tremendously. It will also reduce their financial burden and free up some money to help them raise a bigger faimily that will help us to be less dependent on foreigners.
Sad to say, the self-imposed multitude of problems are now beyond the PAP’s
capability to resolve. I do not blame the PAP leaders. They are simply incompetent.
More scholarships for foreign talents.
More citizenship for foreign talents and rich talents.
This is the easiest and best way to make up the numbers, to grow the GDP in order to compensate for the low birth rate and lack of local born talents, at student level as well as working adults.
And expensive HDB flats, tertiary education, delay CPF withdrawal, NS, etc for locals. They got no choice what, right? Even at elections, they also got not much choice and hence 66% will vote for the PAP.
I was at the Seminar on Education earlier this afternoon. It was a very insightful event and spells out RP’s education policies clearly.
Best wishes to Tony and Hazel in their political endeavour. It’s gonna be a rocky ride, but it’s inspiring to see people willing to stand up for Singapore.
And congratulations to RP in having both of them in their ranks! If there’s one thing I can see of them during the seminar, it was their articulateness.
Not surprised that Straits Times did not report on Reform Party walk-about.
MIW lap-dog!
RP should contest in JURONG GRC! Sure WIN!
RP, come to Sembawang GRC, i like to see
RP vs The Cow
I sincerely hope the Reform Party come out with a clear and simple mission statement accompanied by specific actions that will win over the population. Example: To
reduce the financial burden of the citizens by:
1. Providing a pension for all citizens over the age of 65 years old.
2. Reducing tuition fees for all students at financial institutions.
3. Reducing pub bills , transportation costs and medical costs
4. implementing a minimum wage for Singapore citizens and reducing the hugh number of foreigners.
5. increasing the financial aid or other forms of assistance to the needy..
The Singapore govt has money in the reserves. It is not a sacred cow. Why should 100 of billions of dollars be wasted in bad investments without any accountability and yet a single cent cannot be taken out from the reserves for the benefit of its people. This is the PAP’s Achilles Heel that must be exploited to the hilt at the next elections. Their position is indefensible.
Alleviation of the financial burden is the key to election success. The opposition
should not detract from this aim.
.
,
another SAF scholar who do not know the ground problem but acted to know. can someone ask him, have he been to the lowest rank of the SAF organization to see how the guys suffer by their fantasy statistic numbering and thoughts? if one year can train a soldier up, why not say 6 months more realistic. 3 months basic soldiering skills training and 3 months strategy training. this mean we do not need you scholar. we save time and money for the poor.
MVT,
Being a scholar in the SAF is not a sin. I am not a scholar but I know many scholar friends in th SAF including many generals. You will be surprised that they know quite a bit and have contributed quite significantly to the SAF.
I like Tony’s suggestion to reduce NS to a year given the latest development of modern technology and war doctrines. There are no sacred cows. We have to reduce wastage and enhance productivity. You know there is talk about whether inter-continental missiles can replace pilots in modern warfare. Yes for certain missions like static strategic targets, airfields etc and maybe not for for mobile targets like tanks, enemy airplanes etc. When they find the answers, changes will be made. The PAP used to say that the NS liability of 2 and a half years cannot be compromised but they have changed it recently to 2 years.
It is good to have scholars in the opposition to level the playing field.
#14,
“It is good to have scholars in the opposition to level the playing field.”
I think its a MUST to have strong opposition to level the playing field.
SAF Merit.. 2nd class benchwarmer to SAFOS and still considered the farmers of SAF.
Don’t think the ruling party or gahmen gives a mouse’s ass or even did as much as furrowed a brow.
Anyone who knows anything about the government and scholarships and scholars knows that only SAFOS scholars are scholars in the SAF.
This shorty is probably turning against the government now because he was not good enough, and so was rejected, when he was in the establishment.
University of Leicester and Central Queensland University?! Gimme a break.
2nd class benchwarmer at best.
But if it gives the Reform Party intense orgasms by allowing them to believe that they ensnared one of the government’s “elites”, I guess day dreams are kinda harmless and inconsequential in the long term.
I don’t really care even if he has only a PSLE cert as long as he conduct/think like a Scholar and have the guts/charisma to lead us
RP, please be kind and come to HG.
Gerald, TT, James and Justin,
there is no turning back now.
Full Steam Ahead!
Come to Nee Soon East and you can sure win.
The person there – his time is up.
Ordinary Singaporean Sixpack of Nee Soon East know he did not fight for them. He, very scared one. So, we all suffer – suffer for years already.
I will fight for you Tony. I am ex-military guy too.
Mr Tony Tan and his wife Ms Hazel Poa , Dear Sir and Madam, You have my sincere prayers and thoughts,Proves to every one that you are worth the cloths you are wearing and i have no qualm about that , go and give you best, With God Blessing , i sure both of you will excel.Do not count how many times you fall, count how many times you get up !!!! ,FULL ENGINES AHEAD !!!!!!!! cha yu!!! GO,GO ,GO,GO.never ,never never gives up, guys!!!!!
Each time I return for reservist training, each time I’m more convinced that loyalty cannot be BOUGHT absolutely.
I’m an NS officer and whenever I go out lunch or tea breaks with fellow regular officers (few Maj to LTC to one Col), I am somewhat shocked to learn that most plans to migrate with family eventually. Being friends before during cadet days, I could question how they could sit there day in and day out complaining and then blatantly earn Govt’s high pay and then talked about leaving Singapore. They offered no comments. Interesting. High cost centres with unhappy civil workers-hmm.
So to those loser bootlickers and divas attacking RP and running down whatever scholars/whoever they recruit, get a life ! At least they are BRAVE enough to stand up against injustices and risk consequences by going public with their mission.
Geez…what has some parts of Singapore become? A group of whiny, hypocritical, bootlicking, 2 faced divas. Till you turned into a 4 faced statue with a shrine for worshippers, like in Bangkok, SHUT the f@%$* UP! Go find something constructive to do instead. Zzzz.
Thank you Tony Tan – our hero, our patriot. Present and future generations of Singaporeans will thank you and your family for your contributions and sacrifices. May luck and happiness be with you and your family forever and ever.
3 cheers and many more to come to Tony Tan and the likes of him. Thank you again, I bow to you and your family.
SaveSingapore