Sudhir Thomas Vadaketh /
Many of us will experience the joy of voting this year. More thrilling, perhaps, is that we will actually have tough choices to make—Singapore’s opposition has recruited some credible candidates. Good thing, for we need more of them in parliament if Singapore is to develop politically, socially and economically.
Though the People’s Action Party (PAP) has proved brilliant at transforming Singapore into a manufacturing- and service-sector economy, it has been far less successful in nurturing a knowledge-based economy. Qualities that served early Singapore so well—such as easy political consensus, an obedient populace, and a compliant media—now seem archaic.
Many HR (Human Resource) directors at multi-national companies (MNCs) paint to me similar caricatures of the typical Singaporean worker—hardworking and smart, but unable to question authority, think outside the box, or work collaboratively across the organisation. Though our government has been moderately successful in attracting some high-value knowledge work to Singapore, many firms have had to look outside for talent.
The “Singapore model” is good at churning out disciplined, process-oriented workers who can follow orders in their own silos. It is less adept at developing creative, dynamic people who can think strategically or build companies.
Liberalising school curriculums, increasing funding for the arts sector, and prodding people to “be creative”, as our government has done, is all well and good. But these efforts are doomed if Singaporeans have to contend with a stuffy social and political atmosphere. Everybody must feel comfortable voicing their opinions and defending their points of view, particularly contrarian ones.
We Singaporeans tend to take our cue from those above. More debate and opposition in parliament, therefore, will trickle down through society, creating a more conducive environment for all of us who want higher-income jobs.
But why should we care about fluffy notions of creativity? After all, Singapore has still been developing fabulously, hasn’t it?
Well, not really. Though impressive, Singapore’s headline GDP growth numbers obscure some real problems. Consider income inequality. In the decade to 2007, the bottom 30 per cent of households saw their real incomes stagnate, even as Singapore continued to churn out millionaires. By some measures, Singapore today is more unequal than China and the US. Economic growth has not benefitted all. The cost of living, meanwhile, has spiraled.
The government is not entirely to blame for all this. Singapore is subject to the same disruptive economic forces that affect other countries, including globalisation and resource shortages. Nevertheless, some policies, such as promoting high immigration, have certainly accentuated their impact.
That speaks to the other benefit of electing more opposition Members of Parliament (MP) — Singapore desperately needs discussion about alternative growth models.
Part of the reason for high immigration is that the PAP has been pursuing a high-growth economic growth strategy that involves feeding greater quantities of “inputs”, such as low-cost labour, into the system, rather than focusing on improving the productivity of existing workers.
This depresses low-end wages—the median salary in Singapore is S$2,400. In other words, 50 per cent of Singaporeans earn, at most, only as much as a university grad’s first paycheck. The most poignant description I’ve heard of Singapore today is a “first-world country with a third-world wage structure”.
This is not to suggest that migrants are unwelcome. They are, and will always be, important contributors to the Singapore story. The point here is that society needs to take pause and contemplate—do we really need to grow this way, or is there a more inclusive, sustainable path to economic development?
Without a more open society and active political debate, we will never know—Singapore will not benefit from the rigorous competition of ideas that is essential for better policies. Sure, income inequality is discussed more today, but why wasn’t it in, say, 2005? The PAP, for all its virtues, is prone to groupthink, just like any hierarchical organisation.
Judging by its new candidates, the PAP also continues to prefer likeminded personalities. This is best exemplified by Tin Pei Ling, who recently admitted that her greatest regret in life is that “I didn’t manage to bring my parents to Universal Studios.”
Some might salute her filial piety. But that is a given—we expect every candidate to love and respect their parents. Ms Tin’s answer, in fact, betrays a shocking lack of ambition and imagination.
More worrying are her thoughts on income inequality. In a 2007 speech, she makes it a point to state that while the rich have gotten richer, “the poor have NOT gotten poorer”. (Emphasis hers.)
Imagine that by 2030, some 70 per cent of Singaporeans are driving around in BMWs and Ferraris, while the bottom 30 per cent live exactly as they do today, some struggling to put food on the table. Is that development?
While the PAP’s recruits are cut from the same cloth, the opposition offers some diversity. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong recently questioned how the opposition can find many talented people if the PAP cannot. It’s probably because some talented people do not agree with all of the PAP’s policies.
Consider Gerald Giam and Ong Theng Khoon, two first-time candidates. I have known both for more than 15 years. Gerald is a family friend, while TK was my junior college classmate. They are affable, compassionate and smart, and I expect will make fantastic politicians.
Gerald is running for the Worker’s Party, while TK is running for the PAP. Is one much better than the other? No. They just have different ideas about how they can serve Singapore. Candidates like Gerald prove that the opposition can recruit talent.
The PAP has always attracted people who have somewhat similar credentials and consistent views on policy. But Singapore also needs alternative voices that can infuse politics with fresh ideas. Gerald will certainly do this—for instance, he has spoken about the need for Singapore to reduce its reliance on government-linked companies (GLCs) and MNCs, partly because that will spur job creation in our small and medium enterprises (SME) sector.
All this does not imply that Singapore needs to dabble with multi-party democracy. The PAP remains competent, effective and transparent. Singapore’s ideal model may indeed be having one dominant party that is kept on its toes by an able, vocal, strong opposition.
The current situation, however, is pitiful. There are just two elected opposition members in parliament. An ideal scenario, in my opinion, is for Singapore to elect up to 20 credible opposition members in the upcoming election. Out of a total of 87, that will still leave the PAP with more than three-quarters of the elected seats.
It will be able to pass legislation, but will have to pay much more attention to alternative views. Some worry that if the PAP loses a Group Representation Constituency (GRC), Singapore will lose a crucial minister. But the PAP is bigger than any individual, with enough ministerial material in reserve.
This scenario will allow the opposition parties to improve, and will force Singapore’s staid mainstream media to report on more non-establishment opinions—both of which are in Singapore’s long-term interest. Our efficient civil service, meanwhile, will continue to chug along, implementing policies, and keeping Singapore working as smoothly as ever.
The only ‘downside’ is that politicians might have to engage in lengthier debates. But that’s precisely what will lead to better policies. Besides, I suspect our MPs will be adequately compensated for their time.
We should not, of course, expect the PAP to advocate such an outcome. The PAP will continue to behave like any successful monopoly.
Last year Minister Vivian Balakrishnan admitted that the PAP strives to grab all available talent in Singapore. In 2006, meanwhile, PM Lee said that if there are 10, 15 or 20 opposition members in parliament, “I’m going to spend all my time thinking what’s the right way to fix them, to buy my supporters votes…”
Recall that in Singapore’s exacting meritocracy, we are taught the virtues of competition from the time we are toddlers. Students fight it out for the best grades. Our free-market economy is lauded for promoting the fittest companies.
When it comes to politics, however, Singaporeans are suddenly told that we should forget competition, and instead embrace a monopoly.
Isn’t that odd?
————–
Sudhir Thomas Vadaketh is an editor at The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). The views expressed here are purely his own.
Asian democracies are fake democracies, they are basically dynastic set ups.
Sg is no difference. Just look at the amount of defamation suits and people in exile, you know its not democractic.
Redrawing boundaries and GRCs are unfair practice. And there is this constant invisible fear amongst voters.
Not sure when Singapore will change. The population is well educated and does not need autoritarian to guide us.
I think the subject should be “Why shouldn’t there be more Opposition MPs?” as the current one seems to indicate Opposition MPs are not important in nature.
Anyone with basic knowledge of democracy should know that one-party dominance is undemocratic, hence voting for more Opposition MPs into parliament does not mean you are anti-Singapore, rather you’re trying to protect Singapore democracy.
I have gone for re-skilling and after being certified, I am a newbie in the job market for this particular profession.
But I soon found out that the market is full of experienced, 3 to 10 years, FTs.
I have been looking at job ads online and in newpapers, 99 times out of 99 times, it advertises asking for min between 3 to 10 years experience.
There seems to be no or little requirement for fresh entrants even if certified?
I promise to vote them out.
This has become personal.
Simon Ng,
A spare tire for a car and NOT 2 spare tires for a car. You see?
I have many collegaues whom I know for 17 years. They don’t complain to me either. Does that mean they don’t complain?
Simon Ng 13 April 2011
I have a Malay worker , he earns S$2500 a month, The point is , if you know how to manage your income then life is not that tough afterall.
…………
indeed well spoken
for a family to live on $2500..is very very good..
if that is the case ow come ALL ministers must collect a monthly salary of over $100,000 includin the malay minister? and why on earth do a injun overfed collabrator hav a wages increased of over $895,00 payraise/annum?
why his tosai sugar quality is diamon class?
Having more opposition MPs as a form of “check and balance” is good for proper governace. But the question is how many MPs(whether be it PAP or Opposition) really understand the man on the streets?
By and large, being vocal to show that a MP / party understands the people is not enough. It certainly takes more than that.
I take this opportunity to highlight some of the issues (not exhaustive) which i have come across:
1. Continuous Education – We have been encouraged to continuously learn and acquire new knowledge so that we can upgrade ourselves. But education do not come cheap. By subsidising only the 3 universities (namely NUS, NTU and SMU), are we offering enough for the PMETs to upgrade themselves? We should not be only limiting to upgrading only a certain category of citizens but the encouragement should be a mass call for all who aspire to improve themselves.
2. Quality of Life – We aspire to raise the quality of life for all Singaporeans and those to want to join us in this little country. In the process, we work very hard to ensure we have enough to put the dough on the table and give more to our family. Overtime, we realise staying healthy is important to ensure that we can still do that. But it comes to a time where we work so hard that putting 10 hours or more of our time to work is becoming a norm. To add to the stress, family commitment , social responsibilities takes up a portion of time as well. So how can we raise the quality of life? By building beautiful parks is a great idea but how can we raise the quality of life so that Singaporeans can enjoy the superb parks we have?
3. Ability to stay as one – Singapore has advanced by leaps and bounds over the years. But this did not come without a price. I begin to see more and more people becoming intorlerant, impatient and unable to live with people of different cultures and background. Gone were the days when people were torlerant and cordial. As the population get more educated, the intorlerant behavior also “encouraged” them to look into the possibilities of legal recourse for every mistakes that are blundered by others. We started to lose the ability to be able to stay and work together with different cultures and people without forgetting to stay tolerant of others because everyone is different.
sad, sad,sad, Singaporeans needs more voices, more scrutinising and checking in the political arena…. so point to achieve so much education and be competitive in your career and life when comes to your own country’s political decision making, everyone shuts up…. it is so wrong and abusive government. people should be scared to say what they feel to the leaders and the leaders has no right to instill fear in the people….it is so so wrong…. singaporean has to wake up and stand for what is right for the country. one party in a country does not give democracy it is totally dictatorship and everyone can see that.singaporean have to come forward as a nation to fight pap to re value their policy making that will benefit the people, not the party itself.