Workers’ Party chief Low Thia Khiang has slammed the PAP government for seemingly suggesting that Singaporean workers have only themselves to blame for their low incomes, because of their low productivity and skills. He said it was easy to blame our local workforce for low productivity when it was the Government which opened the floodgates to foreign workers.

Low was speaking Parliament on Tuesday in response to the Finance Minister’s Budget 2010 speech last week.

The Opposition leader pointed out that manual workers like cleaners and garbage collectors in developed economies are paid so much more than their counterparts in Singapore, attributing this to those countries’ more compassionate and effective policies to ensure that workers at the bottom of the economic ladder enjoy a decent and dignified life. Referring to the Government’s latest productivity drive, which is to grow productivity by 2 to 3 per cent each year over the next decade, Low wondered if low wage workers had to wait another 10 years for the wage increases which they had not seen in the last 10 years.

Low lamented that Singaporean workers are constantly told by the Government to “up-skill, re-skill, multi-skill, be cheaper, better, and faster”. He accused the Government of “squeezing every drop of effort and energy from our workers to achieve its desired GDP numbers”. He felt that the ‘growth at all costs’ strategy initiated since the late nineties resulted in the present state of our economy where low wage earners are growing dependent on state-funded handouts to subsist. He charged that for Budget 2010, the Government is using their same conventional wisdom to address the fundamental problems caused its policies of the last decade.

Abolish the foreign worker levy

Low called the Government to take a bold step to remove the foreign workers levy completely, and instead use the Dependency Ratio to control the growth of foreign workers in Singapore. (The Dependency Ratio sets how many foreign workers a company is allowed to hire for each Singaporean worker. The current ratio ranges from 1 Singaporean for every 7 foreign workers in the construction sector, to 1 is to 5 in the marine sector.) He reasoned that employers will save on the foreign worker levy they currently pay, and this could be used to benefit their local workers, including providing more training for them to improve their skills to become more productive.

Low also questioned whether the proposal to increase foreign worker levies was a revenue-enhancing exercise. He calculated that the Government collects about $1.6 billion in foreign worker levies each year.

Continuing education for older workers

In order to provide more adult continuing education programmes to cater to the needs of older Singaporeans, Low suggested starting a community college for citizens of all ages, especially older Singaporeans.  He said the college should have no or minimum entry requirements, offering courses that are totally modular. This would allow senior citizens to earn credits towards a degree or simply for self-enrichment purposes.

The PAP’s response

Responding to Low, PAP MP Josephine Teo criticised his suggestion to remove the foreign worker levy. She said: “To try and introduce an alternative system to a pricing mechanism is a very dangerous suggestion to make. It opens up a whole pandora box (sic) of the difficulties we have to overcome.”

Teo was dutifully following the PAP’s modus operandi of labelling any bold idea suggested by an Opposition MP as “dangerous”. She said that without the levy, foreign workers will be cheaper and more attractive to businesses, and some will find loopholes to get round the quotas, to get cheaper workers, “affecting jobs for Singaporeans”.

She did not explain what loopholes businesses would find to get around a higher dependency ratio, in a country which is renown for very strict enforcement of laws. She also seemed oblivious to the fact that it was the PAP government which opened Pandora’s box of troubles by allowing in so many unskilled foreign labourers over the past decade, and in the process depressing Singaporean workers’ wages and our nation’s productivity.

In a flash of presumptuousness, Teo declared: “I can speak on behalf of the union leaders that we totally and firmly reject Mr Low’s disastrous suggestion that we remove the foreign worker levy as it will harm our workers’ interest.”

This article was first published on Gerald Giam’s Blog

Related posts:

1. Low Thia Khiang on low wages
2. MP Low Thia Khiang’s speech on the Presidential Address
3. Low-skilled, low-wage workers an “economic problem”, says Lim Swee Say

Gerald Giam

Asean’s policy of non-interference in member states’ internal affairs has been taken to the extreme to mean closing a blind eye to just about everything Burma does.

Dr Desmond Ball, a professor of strategic and defence studies at Australian National University (ANU), recently published an investigative report that claimed that Burma is secretly building a nuclear reactor and plutonium facilities with the help of North Korea, and aims to possess a nuclear bomb by 2014.

The report, published in the Bangkok Post and reported by AFP, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Times of India, was a result of a two-year investigation based on radio intercepts and interviews with two defectors close to the clandestine operation. Among the revelations in the report were that there is a programme to train up to 1,000 personnel to form a “nuclear battalion”. The country reportedly now has 10 uranium mines, two uranium refineries and two nuclear reactor sites. These reactors could be capable of being operational after 2014 and producing one bomb a year, every year.

In a possibly related incident in June this year, a North Korean ship, the Kang Nam, was shadowed by US warships on its way from North Korea to Burma. The ship was suspected of carrying weaponry, missile parts or nuclear material. As it would have had to pass through Singapore en route to Burma, Singapore would have been expected to act against the ship when it entered Singapore waters.

This led the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to issue a rather revealing statement that “Singapore takes seriously the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, their means of delivery and related materials” and that “(if) the allegation is true, Singapore will act appropriately”.

It is unlikely that MFA would have issued a statement of this nature had it not been given credible information — probably from the US — that the ship contained weapons of mass destruction.

In July, Japanese police arrested a North Korean and two Japanese for allegedly trying to illegally export to Burma a magnetic measuring device that could be used to develop missiles.

These revelations, if true, should be a startling development for all countries in Asia, and in Southeast Asia in particular.

Implications of a nuclear Myanmar

What does a nuclear-capable Burma mean to its neighbours in Asean, the regional grouping of Southeast Asian nations which includes Singapore?

For sure, this would change the dynamics of its relationships with both Asean and major powers dramatically. The military junta that is ruling the country will suddenly become a real security threat to its neighbours. Even if they never use their nuclear arsenal, they would have acquired the ultimate bargaining tool to extract concessions from all the major powers in the world.

To predict what could happen, we need to look no further than North Korea, the country that is allegedly assisting Burma in this endeavour. North Korea first started pursuing nuclear technology as early as the 1950s. Their efforts were stepped up when the US, Japan and South Korea established a military alliance in 1965, and when they realised that their chief ally, the Soviet Union, might not live up to their defence treaty obligations. This culminated in their first nuclear test in 2006 and subsequent one in May this year.

The nuclear tests sent the major powers scrambling to engage North Korea through the Six Party Talks, which included the US and China, the country’s main international ally. From these talks, the North was successful in extracting concessions such as obtaining fuel aid.

Could this be Burma’s plan as well?

Unlike North Korea, none of Burma’s neighbours has a defence alliance with its main enemy, the US. In fact, all its Asean neighbours have signed the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation with each other and Burma. This makes it much less an urgency to defend itself from neighbouring aggressors.

Nevertheless, the junta’s paranoia is easy to underestimate. When a US battleship approached Burma to provide aid to the hundreds of thousands of victims of Cyclone Nargis last year, the junta reportedly thought the US was planning to invade them, and refused the aid that could have alleviated much suffering for its people.

Asean’s reaction

Asean’s reaction to this report has been silence, as expected. The grouping has demonstrated its impotence throughout its dealings with the recalcitrant Burma over the past 10 years. Asean’s policy of non-interference in member states’ internal affairs has been taken to the extreme to mean closing a blind eye to just about everything Burma does.

However, until now, Burma has not been seen as a security threat in the region. Would a nuclear armed Myanmar awaken Asean to the ticking time bomb in their neighbourhood? It certainly ought to.

Asean nations have a heavy responsibility to their own people to do all they can to prevent Burma from enriching their uranium into weapons grade material, and developing the means to deliver a nuclear weapon.

While this appears to be a long way off, Asean should not wait until Burma conducts its first nuclear test before acting. By then, it will be impossible to turn back the clock, as the US, Japan and South Korea are soon discovering with North Korea.

The time to step up the pressure on the junta is now, before they reach the point of no return.

—–

Read also:

Burma nuclear suspicions rise in light of N Korea – Huffington Post.

Burma’s missile dream – The Irrawaddy.

—-

More pictures of Burma’s tunnels by The Democratic Voice of Burma:

Related posts:

1. DNA suggests China Chinese originated from Southeast Asia
2. Free Burma! International bloggers to support freedom for Burma on Oct 4th
3. Co-ordinated, carrot-and-stick approach needed for Burma

Gerald Giam

With growing immigration from a more diverse spread of countries, will Singapore start seeing a dilution of our national identity as a result of immigrants insisting on their own cultural practices, even in the public sphere?

Last week, Straits Times reader Amy Loh wrote to the paper expressing her disquiet about the government’s emphasis on the need to speak Mandarin. This, she said, could be perceived as a clear signal to encourage residents of mainland China origin to choose to continue speaking only Chinese. She cited examples of how almost all new shop signs in Geylang are in Chinese only, fast turning this into a Chinese enclave.

In response, the Straits Times in an editorial slammed Ms Loh as being “xenophobic”, pointing to economically vibrant cities like London and Sydney as evidence that “recruiting foreigners” has brought great benefits to those cities. The paper went on to explain that the Geylang shop signs were in only Chinese for “purely commercial reasons”, as if that were an excuse for their cultural insensitivity.

This exchange raises another more important issue that Singapore, with its growing diversity and immigrant population, needs to start dealing with: The issue of multiculturalism versus a melting pot social make-up of our country.

Multiculturalism can be defined as a demographic make-up of a country where various cultural divisions are accepted for the sake of diversity.

A melting pot, on the other hand, is a society where all of the people blend together to form one basic cultural norm based on the dominant culture.

Countries like Canada and Australia have often taken pride in their practice of multiculturalism. The melting pot is often used to describe the US, where past generations of immigrants supposedly became successful by shedding their historical cultural identities and adopting the ways of their new country.

The Singapore model

The practice in Singapore has been rather mixed.

During the days of colonial rule, the British were happy to segregate immigrant races into different living quarters in the city, ostensibly in order to divide and rule the place more easily.

In the 1960s, then-Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew actively promoted the concept of a “Malaysian Malaysia”, as part of his attempt to ensure that Singapore Chinese were not disadvantaged by a political system that placed Malay rights above those of other races.

In 1989, the HDB introduced the Ethnic Integration Policy, under which the major races each have a representative quota of homes for them in a housing block. Once that limit has been reached, no further sale of HDB flats to that ethnic group will be allowed. The government claims that this is to prevent racial enclaves from forming.

During the tudung affair of 2002, MOE suspended two primary schoolgirls for insisting on attending school with their Muslim headscarves. Hawazi Daipi, the ministry’s parliamentary secretary, said that ”schools represent a precious common space, where all young Singaporeans wear school uniforms, as a daily reminder of the need to stand together as citizens, regardless of race, religion and social status”.

Backsliding towards a segregated society

Despite this apparent commitment to making Singapore a melting pot, there are examples of how the government has been promoting multiculturalism instead.

The Education Ministry continues to insist on its Mother Tongue policy in schools, whereby Chinese, Malay and Tamil Singaporeans are required to learn the language of their own ethnic group as a second language in schools. Thus Chinese Singaporeans have no choice but to learn Chinese, even if say their parents are Peranakan and don’t speak a word of Mandarin. Similarly, Malays do not have an option to learn Chinese to the exclusion of Malay.

The Speak Mandarin campaign started out as an attempt to get Chinese dialect-speaking Singaporeans to switch to using Mandarin. Over the years, it has morphed into a campaign to get English speaking Chinese Singaporeans to use Mandarin in daily conversations. Government leaders seemed oblivious to the grumblings among many Malays and other minorities about the blatant promotion of one culture over all the others.

“Ethnic self-help groups” like Mendaki, CDAC, Sinda and Eurasian Association have been formed to provide social services separately to Chinese, Malays, Indians and Eurasians.

Then there was the introduction of Special Assistance Plan (SAP) schools, which Mr Lee Kuan Yew sent his children to attend. SAP schools are given extra resources to nurture a generation of Chinese Singaporeans who are well versed in the Chinese language and culture. Again, nevermind the disquiet on the Malay and Indian ground.

Fast forward to last week, when the Straits Times all but condoned the use of Chinese-only shop signs in Geylang. Is our country sliding more and more towards a social model where it is acceptable for ghettoes of different races and people of different national origins to develop?

Many Singaporeans, and not just racial minorities, have expressed their irritation at service staff who are only able to converse in Chinese and not English, the de facto lingua franca of today’s Singapore.

With growing immigration from a more diverse spread of countries, will Singapore start seeing a dilution of our national identity as a result of immigrants insisting on their own cultural practices, even in the public sphere?

I hope not. Our nation may be young, but we have built up elements of a culture that is somewhat unique to Singapore — our local food, Singlish, a commitment to meritocracy to name a few. I welcome new immigrants who can contribute to Singapore. But I expect these immigrants to conform to Singaporean cultural norms rather than that of their country of origin. They should not think that they can simply continue to live and speak like they did back home, especially when interacting with Singaporeans.

As for local born Singaporeans, there is also a danger of our ethnic backgrounds taking precedence over our Singaporean identity. Chinese Singaporeans in particular need to be reminded that Singapore is not a Chinese country, even if their race might make up the largest proportion of the population.

Choosing the right model

I suppose there is no right or wrong in choosing multiculturalism or the melting pot. Different societies have tried both models, with varying degrees of success. Each nation will need to choose which one to emphasise more, depending on their unique circumstances.

My view is that Singapore needs to be more of a melting pot. This celebrates our commonalties rather than our differences. However this would necessitate giving up some aspects of our individual cultures, which some from the dominant culture may be loathe to surrender. But on the whole, I believe our society and culture will be stronger, more peaceful and more resilient if we emphasise our Singaporean-ness more than our Malay-ness or Chinese-ness

—-

Related posts:

1. TOC Open Thread: Multiculturalism, Indian style
2. Should Article 152 be scrapped from the Singapore Constitution?
3. Globalization and its impact on Singapore family values

Gerald Giam / Senior Writer

I strongly reject PAP MP Hri Kumar’s suggestion in Parliament that the Prime Minister should be given the option to appoint individuals from outside the rank of elected MPs to his cabinet. He had argued that the pool of talent available to the PM will “increase substantially” and he can draw on the experience of many “capable individuals”.

This is a dangerous line of thinking which is not just undemocratic, but foolish as well.

What Mr Kumar is asking for is to insulate ministers from the rough and tumble of elections, so that there is no need for them to shake the hands of “commoners” and appeal for their support at the polls. He is saying that a cabinet minister should not need to be directly accountable to the voters, so as to free him up to make decisions however he deems fit, with little regard for the views of the people. He is saying that the definition of a “capable individual” does not necessarily include having the ability and EQ to relate with those less intelligent or successful than himself.

Most glaringly, Mr Kumar is saying that what we need are technocratic managers, not politicians, to lead our country.

This reflects the view of the right wing of the PAP, but if accepted, will take our already struggling democracy down a path that many will live to regret.

Singapore will be worse off if we are led only by scholar-technocrats without the common touch. We need ministers who can emphathise with ordinary Singaporeans. Who see themselves as ordinary Singaporeans who had extraordinary opportunities.

I am not saying that it is impossible for an unelected official to have the common touch. But if we open the doors to this segment of society to lead us politically, we will be fishing from the wrong pond. We will, in the long run, attract the wrong sort of people to lead our country — people with a different set of values and motivations. Our country will then really turn into an “administrative state”.

In any case, it’s not as if we aren’t already led by technocratic managers, given that many of our scholar-ministers have never had to face an election fight to get into office. Many of those that did were shielded by heavyweight ministers in GRCs. Mr Kumar himself entered Parliament without a fight.

We need more inspirational leaders, not corporate managers. The cabinet should not be an extension of the Civil Service or the corporate boardroom.

I don’t know why the PAP hasn’t figured out why it is so hard to convince intelligent and principled men and women to join the party. Surely having a chequered history of jailing and abusing well-meaning social activists should not be that big a barrier to joining the party? Or is it?

Some may argue that this is the system in the US and it seems to have worked there. There is a big difference between the US system and the Westminster system: The US President is directly voted in (for all intents and purposes) by the people, whereas in Singapore the Prime Minister is simply the MP who has the most support in Parliament. In the US, cabinet members are an extension of the President, who is accountable to voters for their successes and failures.

All said, having a US-style cabinet without a US-style presidency will erode our democracy.

—–

Related posts:

1. Singapore neither a nation nor a country – Ministers
2. One country, two systems
3. SM Goh, please love your country more than the PAP

Related posts:

1. Student activism – what’s next?
2. Passion And Patriotism (PAP)
3. PAP MP says he is a man of ‘passion and purpose”

Gerald Giam / Senior Writer

Myanmar’s opposition leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has been charged with breaching the terms of her house arrest after an apparently uninvited visit by an American man.

This is clearly a flimsy excuse to extend her detention, which expires at the end of this month. These latest charges carry a penalty of 5 years imprisonment, which would stretch her detention beyond even the 2010 elections, effectively disqualifying her from contesting it.

She has been under house arrest under the country’s military regime for 11 of the past 19 years since her party, the National League for Democracy, was elected to power in the last democratic elections in the former Burma.

The United States, European Union and the United Nations have all expressed their unhappiness at these latest developments. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), through Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, has merely expressed “concern” and hopes that “positive steps will be taken”.

This is not enough. Myanmar has clearly violated the recently inked ASEAN Charter, which it is a signatory to. The country’s military regime has contravened several articles of the Charter, including:

Article 1(7): “To strengthen democracy, enhance good governance and the rule of law, and to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

Article 2(2i): “Respect for fundamental freedoms, the promotion and protection of human rights, and the promotion of social justice.”

Article 5(2): “Member States shall take all necessary measures, including the enactment of appropriate domestic legislation, to effectively implement the provisions of this Charter and to comply with all obligations of membership.”

Myanmar’s continued and unwarranted detention of its people’s democratically elected leader should be considered a case of a serious breach of the Charter. It is therefore appropriate for the matter to be referred to the ASEAN Summit, in accordance with Article 20 of the Charter.

In addition, ASEAN should strongly and unequivocally condemn this behaviour by Myanmar immediately, lest it be seen to be acquiescing to the military junta’s violations of basic human rights.

Singapore, as a founding and influential member of ASEAN, should likewise state its strong condemnation of Myanmar’s behaviour. This is in Singapore’s interest, as not doing so will invite accusations that we and ASEAN are not serious about implementing the principles outlined in the Charter, making a mockery of the entire Charter.

—–

Related posts:

1. Human Rights in ASEAN: An Economic Perspective
2. Myanmar regime belongs in the dog house
3. ASEAN – toothless but with a “sharp tongue”?

Malaysia cleans up the mess. Singapore takes the credit – shamelessly.

“DEPUTY Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng commended the Internal Security Department (ISD) officers for going all out to track down the escaped terror leader Mas Selamat, who was eventually caught in Malaysia on April 1.”

- Straits Times, 8 May 2009

Firstly let me state that I am glad that Mas Selamat has been captured. I thank the Malaysian police for their excellent work in capturing the fugitive. Malaysian Home Minister Hishamuddin said that they arrested him under the ISD because he was plotting something, which means they not only caught the JI leader who escaped from under Singapore’s nose, but possibly managed to thwart a planned terrorist attack.

I am, however, appalled that the Singapore mainstream media and Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng would go to the extent of congratulating themselves and taking credit for Mas Selamat’s arrest by the Malaysians. Instead of acting with a bit of humility and contrition, the Singapore Government has attempted to turn the tables on their “setback” and praise itself for the re-arrest of the alleged terrorist mastermind.

It should be pointed out that this is actually the second time that a neighbouring country has helped us nab the same man. Mas Selamat had escaped the first time in 2001 just before the first wave of JI arrests.

I’m sure MHA felt that this would be a PR coup for them, and that Singaporeans will queue up to congratulate the good work of the government if it blew its trumpet enough. Of course, reading the mainstream media, one would be forgiven for thinking this was the case.

“Minister’s hail arrest” – Straits Times

“ISD provides crucial lead” – Straits Times

“Singaporeans cheered by news of Mas Selamat’s arrest” – TODAY/CAN

“With Singapore downgrading from Orange to Yellow Alert for the flu virus, I think this comes as great news.” – a teacher quoted by TODAY

“Sources said that it was the Singapore ISD that gave the Malaysians the lead on Mas Selamat’s trail. If so, the department, which has come under the heaviest fire, has redeemed itself.” – Straits Times

I really wonder what Singaporeans really think?

Personally, I think this would be a most appropriate time for the Minister to apologise for all the worry, inconvenience and trouble caused to both Singaporeans and his counterparts in Malaysia and Indonesia for ISD’s slip up. It is not the time for praising the ISD for doing their job.

I am also surprised that Singapore decided to go public with the news of the arrest even before the Malaysians did. Obviously the Malaysians had a reason to keep the arrest under wraps for almost 1 ¹/₂ months. I’m not sure if they were prepared to go public yet. If they were, I’m sure given the extreme political fire the BN government is under (Perak crisis, by-elections results, Altantuya case, etc) they would have badly wanted to boast about this capture to their own people.

I would have thought the gracious and diplomatic thing to do would be to let the Malaysian government announce the arrest and take some credit for it. At a minimum, it should have been announced jointly, rather than having Malaysians hear about it from the Straits Times.

You see, this is why Malaysians get so irritated with us all the time. Then we wonder why, and just retort that they are jealous of us. Yeah, I guess the Malaysians are “jealous” we have such an effective secret police, who are able to get others to clean up after the mess they created.

 ———

Related posts:

1. Singapore government knew that Mas Selamat had been arrested
2. Captured after 398 days
3. Breaking News: Mas Selamat reportedly arrested in Malaysia

By Avery Chong, Gerald Giam, Nathaniel Koh, Watson Chong and Yaw Shin Leong

Singaporean workers are facing their most challenging period since Independence. Thousands have lost their jobs since the current economic crisis began last year, and unemployment is expected to continue rising through 2009 and beyond. Many workers have been forced to accept salary cuts or go on unpaid leave to help their companies stay profitable.

These workers should be saluted for their resilience, perseverance and adaptability in the face of enormous challenges. Singapore’s prosperity and economic progress were achieved primarily through the sweat of our workers.

The Government always claims credit for Singapore’s economic growth during good times, yet conveniently blames the global downturn when our economy takes a nosedive. However the facts tell a different story. Singapore was the first country in Asia to slip into recession last year. Our GDP is expected to contract 8.8% this year — much worse than almost all our major trading partners (see Annex A for the economic forecasts for our top trading partners).

The Government’s economic model may no longer be serving us well, and we need to start a national conversation to discuss alternative economic models to take Singapore to the next level of progress.

Closing the income gap

Singapore’s economic growth over the last decade has resulted in phenomenal income increases for PAP ministers, “foreign talents” and top company executives, while the incomes of low wage Singaporean workers have stagnated or even fallen. Singapore’s income inequality is now more in line with Third World countries than with other developed economies like Japan and Denmark.

Economic growth should benefit all Singaporeans, not just the rich and well-connected. While there should be fair rewards for hard work and good performance, the reality is that many ordinary Singaporeans work just as hard, if not harder, than their wealthy counterparts, but have not reaped commensurate rewards.

The Government should implement measures to increase the take home pay of low-wage local workers. This can be achieved through tighter restrictions on the import of foreign labour in domestic industries, skills development for higher value-added industries, productivity increases through capital investments and increasing government-funded income supplements.

The Goods and Services Tax (GST) for basic necessities like rice and sugar should be removed to benefit low-income Singaporeans. The GST should be reverted to its previous rate of 5% for all other goods and services, except luxury items.

While a no strings attached welfare state is undesirable, there is room for limited and conditional financial assistance for the unemployed. This financial assistance could be based on a fixed quantum or a proportion of the job seeker’s last drawn salary. It should not be disbursed solely at the discretion of Citizen’s Consultative Committees or Community Development Councils. It should be given for a limited period (e.g., six months) to all retrenched Singaporeans who demonstrate a commitment to looking for a new job.

Finally, wealthy Singaporeans should do their part to help their less fortunate countrymen through increased contributions to social welfare organisations and foundations that help Singaporeans in need.

We wish all our fellow Singaporean workers a Happy Labour Day!

——–
[1] The Economist Country Briefings (17 April 2009).

[2] Caught in the pay squeeze, Straits Times, 8 Jun 2008; MOM Report on Wages in Singapore 2006, p45.

Related posts:

1. Paradigm shift in focus required – from economic growth to economic development
2. How to deliver economic growth but lose an election
3. Economic growth fell well below expectations

I am very concerned over what seems to be a lack of efficient procedures in place to avert mass public health tragedies like the recent Geylang Serai rojak stall food poisoning incident.

Three lives have been lost (including one unborn baby), and 146 people have been affected by the food contamination, 48 of whom were hospitalised.

CNA reported that stall patrons started to fall sick between April 2nd (Thu) and 4th (Sat) with food poisoning symptoms such as severe abdominal cramps, vomiting, and diarrhoea. However it was only at 8 am on Sat April 4th that officials from the National Environment Agency (NEA) arrived to shut down the stall.

In another CNA report, a 44-year old woman said she and her mother stopped at the rojak stall for lunch on Friday, and less than six hours later, both women were vomiting and had stomach cramps so severe an ambulance rushed them to Changi General Hospital (CGH). They said it was “mayhem” there and that “there was a huge crowd, many of them holding their stomachs and appearing in pain… I asked around whether they also ate rojak from that stall. They all said yes.”

The woman who miscarried had eaten at the stall on Friday afternoon. She said the rojak smelled unusual, but carried on eating it.

Why did it take so long for NEA to shut down the stall? If people started to fall sick on Thursday, why was the stall allowed to remain open for the entire Friday?

The NEA graded the stall’s hygiene with a “C” grade back in December. While I do not expect NEA officers to check on the stall every day, given the barely passing grade the stall achieved, I feel it deserved tighter scrutiny from health officials.

One 54-year old housewife said that “environment in the centre (Geylang Serai temporary market) is not very clean. Sometimes there is rubbish around and it is very near to the wet market.”

More importantly, surely there should have been a more efficient mechanism to alert NEA of a stall selling contaminated food. Did the doctors that the victims visited on Thursday report the food poisoning cases to NEA immediately after attending to their patients? Is there even a mechanism to do so?

This serves as a lesson that all cases of food poisoning should be taken very seriously. Victims of food poisoning will almost always know the source of their infection. If doctors are required by law to inform the Ministry of Health when they diagnose infectious diseases like SARS, they should also be required to report any cases of food poisoning to the NEA immediately.

The moment a report is made, NEA officers should be activated immediately to investigate the stall or restaurant, and shut it down if necessary to prevent further cases of poisoning. While this could be quite a strain on resources, it is a necessary investment in the interest of public health.

At the same time, there should be an efficient way for consumers to report contaminated food. Not all food poisoning victims visit doctors, and many would detect bad food from its smell before consuming it. There should be a website or hotline for people to report such incidences easily. A general number or website feedback form does not really suffice, given the urgency in which such reports must be acted upon.

Visit soshiok.com for more.

Headline picture from Straits Times.

—–

Related posts:

1. Another case of food poisoning
2. Woman died in Indian Rojak food poisoning case
3. Recent spate of food poisoning “outrageous” and “unacceptable”

6 FEBRUARY — PARLIAMENT on Friday debated the budgets of three ministries – Foreign Affairs, National Development, and Information, Communications and the Arts.

Ministry of National Development

Mr Low Thia Khiang (WP-Hougang) queried the Minister for National Development about the recent demolition of flats on Hougang Avenue 7. He lamented that the demolition took place just seven years after Hougang Town Council used its own funds to upgrade the lifts in those flats. (Hougang, being an opposition ward, is at end of the queue for the Lift Upgrading Programme [LUP]. The LUP expenses for PAP wards are typically borne by HDB with small co-payments by the local town council and residents.)

Mr Low remarked that much of the money was wasted because of the early demolition. He said that in future, HDB should inform the Town Council earlier of its redevelopment plans, lest such waste took place again.

In her initial response, Senior Minister of State (National Development) Grace Fu, skimmed over the issue. Mr Low later pressed Ms Fu for an answer, adding that HDB ought to reimburse Hougang Town Council for the money that went to waste.

Ms Fu reiterated the Government’s earlier commitment to complete the LUP by 2014. Given the time needed to complete the works, HDB would have to make their selections and announcements of contractors by 2011.

Regarding the flat demolitions, the Senior Minister of State explained that HDB regularly reviews its land use, and that her Ministry “can’t tell seven years in advance” of redevelopment plans – “not even seven months”.Mr Masagos Zulkifli (PAP-Tampines) and Mdm Ho Geok Choo (PAP-West Coast) asked the Minister about the shortage of subsidised HDB rental flats for needy residents.

Minister for National Development Mah Bow Tan revealed that there were currently 4,550 applicants in the queue for subsidised rental flats. He said that “two-thirds of them have reasons not to be in the queue”. He cited examples of retirees who had no income but significant savings from the sale of their flats, yet qualified for rental flats. His ministry’s solution to this housing crunch would be to further tighten the eligibility criteria for rental flats.

Mdm Cynthia Phua (PAP-Aljunied) expressed dismay at this proposal, emphasising that in times of economic downturn, the Government “should have more love” instead of tightening the rental housing criteria for old folks. Mr Mah responded, saying that the purchase of a $90,000 two-room flat is “easily affordable” to someone earning $1,200.

In response to a number of MPs, including Ms Lee Bee Wah (PAP-Ang Mo Kio), who asked for the construction of covered linkways to shield residents from the rain and sun, Mr Mah asked rhetorically, “Have you heard of umbrellas?”. He said that those asking for covered linkways needed “a sense of proportion”, as it would not be possible to build linkways across all of Singapore. Nevertheless, he promised to consider all such requests.

Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts

Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts Lee Boon Yang revealed that to continue to raise the skills of the local IT workforce, IDA funding for IT courses under the Critical Infocomm Technology Resource Programme (CITREP) will be increased to 80%, with up to $50 in absentee payroll. He also announced that the PC Plus Programme, which provides low-cost computers and broadband access for low-income families, has been successful and will be expanded.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad (PAP-Hong Kah) asked about the Government e-engagement efforts, specifically regarding Senior Minister of State (MICA) Lui Tuck Yew’s remarks that the online community had failed to self-regulate unkind remarks made about Mr Seng Han Thong, who was burned by a resident.

Mr Zaqy observed that generally Singaporeans do not speak up to right wrongdoings in public. He asked why then we should expect any more from the online community. He expressed hope that MICA would not wait until the online community self-regulates before embarking on its e-engagement efforts outside of its own portals.

Responding, Mr Lui said that the Government was not closed to the idea of engaging Singaporeans on “objective” websites. He also clarified that by saying “self-regulation”, he was not advocating greater government regulation of the Internet.

Foreign Affairs

In response to comments by Dr Mohamad Maliki Osman (PAP-Sembawang) about the situation in Gaza, Foreign Minister George Yeo had this to say:

“I shared Mr Maliki’s abhorrence at the unending cycle of violence in Palestine, in particular recently in Gaza. When Turkey’s Prime Minister Erdogan stormed out from the panel in Davos last week, he expressed the anger which many people feel about the lives lost in Gaza when the Israeli Army moved in to stop the firing of rockets by Hamas into Israeli towns and villages.

Singapore has good relations with both Israel and the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah. While we understand the legitimate right of Israel to self-defence and understand the fear they face when rockets could suddenly explode in their midst in the middle of the night, we were however dismayed by the disproportionate response. We hope the present ceasefire will hold. We support a two-state solution with the Palestinians having their own sovereign state on the West Bank and in Gaza.

This can only happen if Hamas is prepared to work with Fatah and accepts the PLO’s (Palestine Liberation Organisation’s) commitment to renounce violence and recognise Israel. And Singapore has stated this position repeatedly at the UN and in various media releases.”

Parliament is adjourned until Monday, when the budget for the Ministry of Trade and Industry will be debated.

Related posts:

1. Rental flats in S’pore
2. Gaza – Perspectives on the situation
3. Financial crisis has become full-blown economic crisis, says George Yeo

The Singapore Government this morning responded to the recommendations submitted by the government-appointed Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS). It spelled out in its 18-page paper the reasons for accepting 17 of the 26 recommendations made by AIMS, and for rejecting the rest.

Summary of responses

The Government has agreed to rethink some of its current citizen engagement processes, like closing the feedback loop and replying to online letters in mainstream media websites. However it has declined to engage directly with bloggers on their turf, preferring to use its own portals like REACH (the Government feedback unit).

It has also declined to give more space for civil servants to voice their opinions.

On the Films Act, the Government has said it will liberalise it to allow political films which are “factual and objective, and do not dramatise and/or present a distorted picture”. The Government will continue to disallow “dramatised, sensationalistic and emotive” political films. An independent advisory panel, headed by a retired judge, will decide the fate of all party political films.

The Government will retain Section 35, which gives the Minister the discretion to ban any film, and has rejected AIMS recommendation for the Minister to spell out his reasons for doing so.

On the protection of minors, the Government has agreed to lift the symbolic ban on 100 websites only after a coordinating agency is satisfied that its programmes to protect children are working effectively.

However it has declined to pay for Internet filtering services for parents, except for certain low-income families.

Finally, the law will be changed to confer limited immunity from defamation actions on websites that host content.

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS

E-Engagement

Rethink some of its current citizen engagement processes

The Government has said that it will explore measures on how to formally recognise well thought-out suggestions and feedback submitted to it every year, to encourage more Singaporeans to come forward and be engaged.

This is an encouraging move. I’m sure there are many Singaporeans who, like me, have given up sending feedback to REACH (the Government feedback portal), because it all seems to go into a “black hole”, to be read only by junior civil servants. Although I don’t expect the Government to accept every suggestion, well-intentioned and considered views should not simply be filed away. They should at least be published and recognised so that other policymakers and stakeholders can read them and consider them for future implementation.

Engage voices outside of current Government platforms

The Government said that “it is not practical or feasible to respond to all blogs or forum postings”. No one is expecting the Government to respond to all blogs. But this should not prevent them from responding to some blogs, particularly those of serious socio-political bloggers who make cogent and rational suggestions in their posts.

It may be true that “not all bloggers welcomed (sic) the Government’s voice on their private blogs”, but there are some that do welcome a response.

I sense that the Government’s fear is that responding to a blog that is critical of the Government will lend the blog credibility, when it is more interested in discrediting opposing voices. Another fear is that a response will generate even more opposing views, which the Government may not have a response to. This may make the Government look bad.

I am glad to hear that the Government has decided to reply to online letters carried in the online letter forums of the local mainstream media. This should have been done all this while. There is no reason to believe that online letters are any less worthy of a response, since they too have been carefully selected for publication by the newspaper forum editors.

Giving more space for civil servants to voice opinions

The Government’s response to AIMS on this was a flat “no”. However, I feel the Government should consider allowing civil servants to comment publicly on policy matters outside the purview of their own ministry. For example, there is no conflict of interest for a MINDEF officer to comment on social welfare issues (which comes under the purview of MCYS).

Online Political Content

Certain party political films will be allowed, and during election period

It is a step forward for some party political films to be allowed, as opposed to the ridiculous blanket ban currently. Films that are “factual and objective, and do not dramatise and/or present a distorted picture” will be allowed under the amended Films Act. The Government has said that it will continue to disallow “dramatised, sensationalistic and emotive party political films which would do harm to rational and objective political debate”.

But who is to judge what is factual and objective, or a dramatisation, a distortion, sensationalistic or emotive? These are very subjective judgment calls, which I doubt even the Independent Advisory Panel would be able to make fairly.

It would be much better to treat political films no different than normal commercials seen on TV. Companies who produce commercials which mislead consumers can be fined. But you don’t ban all TV commercials on the pretext that a few commercials may be false and misleading.

I am disappointed that the Government has taken this approach. I believe the real rationale behind it is that the Government wants to pre-empt the making of any films which may swing an election against them. This is not just self-interested, but kiasu (afraid to lose).

My stand is that Section 33 of the Films Act should be repealed completely. False and misleading films can be prosecuted under advertising or defamation laws. Citizens should be trusted to judge the rest, whether they want to believe them or reject them.

Section 35 of the Films Act

The Government has agreed with AIMS recommendation to retain Section 35 of the Films Act (Minister may prohibit possession or distribution of any film). But it has rejected AIMS recommendation for the Minister to be required to provide reasons for the ban.

This means Section 35 remains as an omnibus law which gives the Minister almost absolute discretion in banning a film. This renders any liberalisation of Section 33 (party political films) almost meaningless.

I have noted that the Government has stated that “films that may be banned under Section 35 will not be party political films”. But since the Minister can simply ban films without giving any reasons, this power can be used to ban films that even the Independent Advisory Panel has approved.

It should be noted that Martyn See’s “Zahari’s 17 Years” was a political film but it got banned under Section 35. Precedent already contradicts the Government’s claims.

Extend positive list for Internet Election Advertising

Political parties will now be allowed to use podcasts, vodcasts, blogs and other new media tools for Internet election advertising. This is a positive move. The onus is now on political parties to make full use of the increased space they have to communicate with the electorate to help them to make a more informed decision at the polls.

Conclusion

Overall, I feel that the Government’s moves are a positive step forward in engaging citizens and liberalising the political atmosphere. However they are not nearly what is expected of a country at such an advanced stage of its economic development.

Click here to visit AIMs’ blog and for a copy of the Government’s response in full.

———

Related posts:

1. Was Minister Lui Tuck Yew confused by AIMs’ recommendations?
2. More political space for Singaporeans if Government accepts proposals: AIMs
3. AIMs achieving its aims?

Israeli blogger and former army reserve “AronT”, who blogs at Aron’s Israeli Peace Weblog, claimed that Israelis have long been indoctrinated by three political/military laws which dictate their dealings with Palestinians.

The first is one is: If force doesn’t work, apply more force.

The second law that most Israelis blindly accept is that “in a tough neighborhood, you have to be the toughest, whatever the cost.” This is used to justify any “disproportionate response” to Palestinian attacks.

Finally Aron’s third Israeli political law is: Arab leaders are intractable terrorists out to destroy Israel, so there is no one on the other side to talk to.

Aron’s full explanation of his three laws is at this blogpost.

Looking at the situation in Gaza right now, it is hard not to be convinced that these three laws are at play.

Current situation

Let’s have a quick situation report at the time of writing:

Following the end of an Egyptian-brokered ceasefire between Palestinian faction Hamas and Israel in December, Hamas resumed short range rocket attacks on Israeli towns bordering Gaza. This prompted Israel to launch its most blistering and sustained attack on Gaza since the 1967 Six Day War. As it stands now, there are about 470 Palestinians killed and over 2,000 injured. The UN says that about a quarter of the dead Palestinians are civilians. Four Israelis have been killed by rocket fire from Gaza.

The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) has just launched a ground offensive into Gaza, with infantry, artillery, engineering and intelligence forces now inside the territory.

On the diplomatic front, the United Nations Security Council has failed to agree on a statement condemning the Israeli attacks because the US has blocked it, claiming it is unbalanced. The US, Israel’s staunchest ally, is the lone major power in the world overtly supporting Israeli attacks, saying that Israel has a right to defend itself, and that a one-way ceasefire that leads to rocket attacks from Hamas is not acceptable.

Meanwhile, the President of the UN General Assembly, who represents all 192 member nations, has called Israeli actions a “monstrosity”.

Singapore’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has called the Israeli ground operations “an extremely disturbing development” and said “it can only exacerbate the already grave humanitarian situation”.

Reactions from some Singaporeans

While Singaporeans have understandably not taken to the streets to protest, unlike in other major cities like Sydney, New York and Jakarta, I asked two Singaporeans for their views on the current situation. (Note: These are their personal opinions. I make no claims that they are representative of all Singaporeans.)

On whether Israel’s current response is appropriate, lecturer Dr Syed Alwi questioned whether this attack by Israel is aimed at defending itself or for Israeli public consumption prior to elections.

NUS law student Cynthia Tang had this view:

The ferocity of Israel’s response to Hamas in the Gaza Strip must be understood within the conundrum of Israeli domestic politics. Israel’s general elections will be held on 10 February, where the prospect of a return to power of hawkish Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing Likud Party is not low. Hence, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (from the more moderate Kadima Party who had advocated land for peace) feels the pressure to harden his position on Hamas. There was initially a wave of Israeli sentiments towards land for peace (when Ariel Sharon was prime minister and first pushed for it), however the tide on the ground has changed since Olmert took over and failed to deliver the security benefits which would presumably materialise under the land concession and his government’s weak response in the second Lebanon war (in 2006), where the overwhelming deterrence once enjoyed by the almost invincible Israeli military was severely dented.

Israel’s response has worsened the situation in Gaza as, in addition to the attacks, they have, more damagingly, locked down the Gaza crossings which have completely crippled the Palestinian economy.  Such actions only serve to back Hamas and the Palestinian people into a corner, and make an agreement for a ceasefire difficult.

US support for Israel

On the one-sided US support for Israel, Ms Tang was of the view that the “US has to support Israel due to its domestic politics. Outside of the Jewish lobby in Washington, the general public opinion in the USA is still very much for Israel.”

She quoted an article in Foreign Affairs magazine, which stated that “widespread gentile (i.e., non-Jewish) support for Israel is one of the most potent political forces in the U.S foreign policy”. She opined that incoming President Barack Obama will be no exception.

Dr Alwi felt that the US’ response has added to its credibility problem in the Muslim world.

I am personally disappointed at Mr Obama’s silence on this matter. He has stated that he does not want to undermine the outgoing administration’s position. However, I believe it is a cop-out to avoid confronting a political hot potato. I’m sure he knows what is right, but is afraid to say it for fear of losing political capital with conservatives and the Jewish lobby.

In fact, I agree with some analysts that Israel has decided to seize the chance to attack Hamas now before January 20, when Mr Obama — who is much more fair minded on the Israeli-Palestinian issue — takes over as President.

Negotiating with Hamas?

Israel has categorically stated that it will not sit at the negotiating table with Hamas, which it brands a terrorist organisation.

Dr Alwi pointed out:

The problem with the word “terrorist”, is that one man’s terrorism is another man’s freedom-fighter. But I do agree that Hamas used to target civilians and this works against her image. Yes, I think Israel has to sit at the negotiating table because just about every other Arab Muslim group has had “terror” in its repertoire. If you do not deal with Hamas then who are you going to deal with? Once again is this because of altruistic moral reasons or is this refusal to deal with Hamas just for the consumption of the Israeli conservative lobby?

Hamas is a poor Muslim response to an organised militant Israel. You are not dealing with sophisticated ideas here. Its a raw response that plays on the Arab Muslim aspirations. Part demagoguery and part Rambo — but mostly poverty! These are people who feed on a sense of hopelessness, American double standards and Islamic rhetoric. I do not like Hamas, but then, the rest are no better.

Ms Tang added:

I have no doubt that Hamas is a terrorist organisation today. At present, the organisation routinely and systematically perpetrates acts of terror against Israel and had vowed itself against the very existence of Israel. However, that does not mean that there is no room for Hamas to gain legitimacy down the road as a political entity.

When Fatah was first founded and led by Yasser Arafat and other members of the Palestinian Diaspora in the 1960s and 1970s, it was one of the chief terrorist groups conducting terrorist attacks against Israel and also provided training to other Islamic militant groups. However, it gained legitimacy in 1993 when the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) renounced terrorism and signed an agreement of mutual recognition with Israel. This is not to say the Fatah re-entered into the mainstream out of the goodness of their heart, but because all political entities are pragmatic and will do the necessary to stay in power. In this case, Fatah did so to become the de facto government in the Palestinian Territories. If Fatah, the original armed nationalist group, could gain legitimacy and re-enter into the mainstream along the way, who is to say that Hamas can’t or will not? Hence, are they a terrorist group now? Yes. But it is an unknown if they will continue to be a terrorist group indefinitely. The key question is how do we incentivise Hamas to see it in their interest to enter into the mainstream, quite akin to Gaddafi’s Libya.

I agree that eventually Israel will need to negotiate with Hamas if it is to find a political solution, as distasteful as it might seem to them. The reality is that Hamas won the popular vote of the Palestinians (partly due to a fatal miscalculation by the US and Fatah).

And not just the PLO, but other political movements which started out with violence took the peaceful, responsible path after coming to power. South Africa’s African National Congress (ANC) is another example (although the violence committed by the ANC pales in comparison with that committed by the PLO and Hamas).

It should be pointed out that Hamas, along with all other Arab countries, actually supported the Arab Peace Initiative proposed in 2002 by Saudi Arabia. The Arab Peace Initiative, among other things, considers the Arab-Israeli conflict ended and establishes normal relations with Israel in exchange for full Israeli withdrawal from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967.

This is not to defend Hamas, which has, like the IDF, committed dastardly deeds against civilians. But one thing is for sure: Continued eye-for-an-eye violence is not going to bring peace — at least not in this conflict.

——–

Picture from the BBC.
——–

Related posts:

1. Parliamentary report — Debates on HDB rental flats, upgrading, e-engagement and Gaza crisis
2. TOC Perspectives: Views on AWARE
3. Chee Soon Juan’s ‘exploitation’ of the Burma situation?

On 4 December at a National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) forum for employers and unions, NTUC chief Lim Swee Say and Acting Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong were both reduced to imploring employers to retrench foreign workers before Singaporean workers, in order to minimise job losses for the latter, who make up a sizeable bloc of voters in every general election. This is a truly sorry state of affairs in Singapore’s employment landscape.

Firstly, it appears the government has taken a cold, utilitarian attitude towards foreign workers. It is as if these workers are soulless machines, who should be simply discarded when they are no longer needed. In fact, each of these workers is probably the sole breadwinner whose remittances support a large extended family back home.

Secondly and more importantly for Singaporeans is the fact that if the government has to beg employers to retrench foreigners first, it implies that their policies so steeply favour foreigners, such that if left to market forces, employers would naturally want to shed Singaporeans first.

Mr Lim said it “makes business sense” to release foreigners first during a downturn if a Singaporean could do the same job equally well. His reasoning is that when the economy recovers, it will be easier to source for foreign labour than compete for local talents with business rivals.

The Minister evidently has never been a business owner himself. If both can do the job equally well, it will make better business sense to axe the Singaporeans first, since they carry the extra loaded costs of reservist duty (for men), maternity leave (for women), employer CPF contributions and paid childcare leave (for both). In addition, family responsibilities and higher costs of living compel Singaporeans to ask for higher wages to meet their living expenses. They will also be less willing to work overtime or commute to far flung factory locations as this will take away time from their families (or their second jobs, in many cases). Foreign workers, who are here without their families, have less reason to make such demands. It should therefore be the government’s duty to its citizens to ensure that the total cost of hiring a foreign worker is not lower than the cost of hiring a Singaporean.

The government’s argument is that foreigner workers — referring to blue collar workers, not “foreign talent — provide low cost labour for our companies in good times, preventing these companies from uprooting and moving to lower cost countries like China and Vietnam, which will result in even more Singaporean job losses.

While this argument sounds good to the ears on the surface, it obscures the fact that no matter how lowly we pay our workers, the cost base of Singapore is still much higher than in China and Vietnam, or even Malaysia. Human resources firm ECA International Asia recently reported that Singapore has leapt 27 places up the global rankings of the world’s most expensive places to live in.

For most companies with operations here, the highest business expense after wages is office rentals. High rentals are caused in part by the government allowing “market forces” to run amok in the 1990s and property prices to rise so steeply that it has rendered our economy uncompetitive. Of course, the government will not admit that rentals make us uncompetitive — they will insist that our wages are the culprit. Nevertheless, even wages, while kept low for blue collar workers, have risen significantly over the past few years for senior managers and “foreign talent”, and this undoubtedly accounts for a large portion of companies’ wage bill.

The pittance paid to foreign workers has effectively suppressed the wages of Singaporean blue collar workers. At the end of the day, not only do Singaporeans lose out in wages and jobs, but so do foreign workers, whose living conditions and low salaries (after deducting the government levy) leave much to be desired for a developed country like Singapore which claims to uphold migrant worker rights.

The only ones who benefit are the corporations and their shareholders — and of course the people whose bonuses are tied to the country’s GDP growth rate, not the unemployment rate.

——

Note: You can click on the writer’s name to access all previous articles by the same writer.

——-

Related posts:

1. Level the playing field for locals and foreigners in employment
2. Use of police resources for welfare purposes – who is paying?
3. Paying more for good people – what if it backfires?

The stunning news blared out on Friday that Singapore’s largest bank, DBS, will be cutting 900 jobs by the end of this month. (See here). At least half of the job cuts will be from its 7,600 workforce in Singapore.

DBS CEO Richard Stanley said that the cuts will be “across all business units and functions, and at all levels of the organisation”.

When I first informed my editor of the news, his immediate reaction was, “Damn, the retrenchments have started.”

It is natural to assume that retrenchments point to an economy that is hitting the doldrums. After all, won’t companies only start retrenching staff after all other avenues of cost cutting have been exhausted and the company is starting to bleed?

Mr Stanley’s explanation for cutting jobs tells another story: “To be a more streamlined organisation” and to “run a tighter ship”.

Indeed DBS Group Holdings reported that for the first nine months of 2008, net earnings were S$1.67 billion, albeit down 13% from 2007. Profit before allowances was S$2.64 billion, down just 1% from last year. Third quarter earnings stood at S$402 million. The bank’s press statement emphasized that their “balance sheet remains strong”.

Of course, from a profit-driven business standpoint, job cuts make sense to help the company maintain its profitability and obligations to shareholders. In most organisations, employee payroll takes up the biggest chunk of expenses, so cost cutting cannot be complete without job cuts.

This is very much the pure capitalist, hire-and-fire approach, of which banks epitomize. One could argue that in good times, bankers can earn 12, 18 even 24-month bonuses, so why can’t they also suffer the downside of a slowing economy? Working in a bank could be seen as high returns but high risk.

But banks are not the only companies who operate in this fashion. Back in early 2003, PSA Corporation, the port operator, retrenched 800 staff — 14% of its workforce — in its bid to remain competitive after its loss of major shipping firms Maersk and Evergreen. This despite posting a S$559 million net profit in 2002.

I can understand if a small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) has to cut its workforce to remain in the black. But is it ethical for large, profitable companies which have enjoyed years of profits and built up a war chest of reserves, to axe employees the moment dark clouds start to gather?

Shouldn’t layoffs be a tool of last resort? Have these staff been given the option of working with reduced salary in order to keep their job? Or are retrenchment exercises a way of shedding off more expensive older workers, and replacing them with younger — sometimes foreign — talent. Keep in mind we are dealing with people’s lives, not just digits on a spreadsheet.

Obviously I am not in a position to judge whether the DBS management has done their due diligence. Their press statement said that their expenses fell 16% from the previous quarter, due to what they claimed were “proactive management of controllable expenses”. To their credit, they seem to have at least attempted other measures.

Some listed companies are known to conduct manpower reduction exercises to reassure investors that they are doing something to improve profitability. In most cases, the companies’ stock prices rise immediately after the announcement is made. So while the axed employees are thrust into the jobless wilderness, the biggest beneficiaries of job cuts are often the executives who make the retrenchment decisions, as they stand to benefit from rising share prices and bonuses due to increased profitability.

There is a lot of talk about corporate social responsibility (CSR) these days. About how companies should give back to the community they operate in and spruce up their corporate image at the same time. But charity should begin at home. A company’s first social responsibility ought to be to its employees, which depend on it for their living.

A company which retrenches staff when it can afford not to would be hard pressed to earn much loyalty and attachment from them. The net result is that it will find it much harder to attract and retain talented workers in the future, especially when the economy improves. This will force them to offer obscene salaries and bonuses to entice talent, setting themselves up for unsustainable manpower costs later.

Running a listed company is not easy, and it is made harder during lean economic times like these. However as Singapore and the rest of the world heads into recession, company executives will do well to remember that people should come before profits. This would benefit not only employees, but the company as well in the long run.

———-

Related posts:

1. Will the Jobs Credit Scheme save jobs?
2. 新三块钱国币 (New three dollar)
3. The jobs we hope to create aren’t going to stick unless they are jobs that people want, says Mike Rowe

I happened to sit next to an older relative at a wedding dinner recently, when our conversation turned to politics.

My relative wondered why I had not followed my parents to Australia, and mused that he was considering moving there too. When I asked why, he cited the fear of political instability in Singapore.

That remark surprised me since Singapore is seen by many to be one of the most politically stable countries in Asia. We have had no change of government – violent or otherwise – since 1959.

When probed further, my uncle said he feared the opposition taking over in a freak election. I assured him that given the current state of the opposition, the PAP government will not be under any threat of losing an election within his lifetime. More importantly, I told him I trust Singapore voters to be wise enough not to vote a lousy party into power.

He countered by pointing out that even when the opposition had fielded “criminals” and slipper-wearing candidates, they were still able to garner 20 to 30% of the vote.

I explained, from my limited knowledge of electoral sociology, that in every election, there will be at least 20% of voters who are hardcore oppositionists and will vote for anyone who ran against the ruling party candidate. In Sembawang GRC where I live, 23% still voted for the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) team sans party chief Chee Soon Juan, even though it was running against a relatively strong PAP team helmed by the likable and Chinese-speaking Health Minister, Khaw Boon Wan. That was the largest margin of victory for the PAP in that election.

However the gulf between 23% and 50% — the latter being the percentage necessary to win a seat outright — is huge. Even in the most closely contested constituency of Aljunied GRC in the 2006 General Election, the PAP’s 55% win against the Workers’ Party would be considered a landslide in most other democracies. Consider the UK’s Labour Party, which won the 2005 election with just 35% of the popular vote. Put in this perspective, the PAP’s 66.6% overall percentage in 2006 was a blowout victory.

My uncle admires the PAP for what they have achieved, not just for Singapore, but for him personally. Growing up in a one-room flat, and now living in a private apartment, he has seen a dramatic improvement in his standard of living over the past 40 years. He reserved stinging criticism for some of his peers who “live in bungalows” and are still so ungrateful as to grumble about the government.

I cautioned him that past performance is no guarantee of future success, as investors always say. Just because the PAP has governed well in the past, does not mean that it will continue to do so for eternity. My uncle agreed that no country has had a particular party govern forever.

In the short term however, he was supremely confident that the PAP’s recruitment process will ensure that only top-notch candidates are presented in each election. In contrast, he said, the opposition was happy to take anyone who had a degree and was willing to pay the election deposit, even if they had no “track record”.

“What is your definition of a track record?” I asked him. Many of the new PAP MPs don’t exactly have a very long resume either. Nevertheless, he was sure that with the many interviews they had undergone with party leaders, coupled with the background checks, PAP candidates would definitely meet the necessary criteria for political leadership.

I asked him if he would consider voting for a non-PAP candidate if he or she were more “qualified” than the PAP candidate.

After initially saying he would, he later reasoned that it would be impossible for an opposition candidate to be as qualified as his PAP opponent. Firstly, the PAP’s recruitment process would throw up only the best men in the country. Secondly, anyone worth their salt, who genuinely desired to serve the people and make Singapore a better place would join the PAP instead of the opposition.

He was of the view that a capable person would be “out of his mind” to join the opposition, and that people who joined the opposition did so only out of self-interest or ulterior motives. Why else would someone want to oppose such an “excellent” government? Apparently, joining the opposition in and of itself indicated a character flaw.

He dismissed the possibility that some principled individuals joined the opposition because they could not see themselves joining the PAP due to fundamental disagreements with the latter’s style of governance. He also did not see the price many opposition members paid for their political beliefs as worthy of much respect.

Our heated discussion went on and on. In the end it was time to go home and we had to agree to disagree.

What the opposition fails to see

While I was slightly dismayed to hear these words from an educated senior citizen like my uncle, I have no doubt that he represents a significant constituency of citizens who have a “rags-to-riches” story to tell.

His point of view is particularly instructive for our opposition.

From my past conversations with many opposition members, I get the sense that many of them joined because they felt a need to “check” the ruling party — nothing else. And many of them think that just because they are not the PAP, and they shake a few hands and show up on Nomination Day, voters will choose them over their rivals.

This is a recipe for defeat — again and again, election after election.

What they fail to see is that the “swing” voters (i.e., those who may vote either way on Polling Day and who effectively decide the outcome of an election) are largely voting for a party to form the Government, not individuals who merely snap at the heels of the PAP behemoth.

Therefore, to win their vote, the opposition parties have to prove to these voters that they are competent and honest enough to lead the whole country, not just their ward, and will not end up flushing half a century of progress down the drain.

The opposition has two crutches that it always falls back on: One, that the unlevel political playing field created by the PAP makes it impossible to mount any significant challenge to it; and two, that good people do not step forward to join their parties.

These are both true to a great extent, but it should not stop the opposition parties from improving themselves internally, so as to present a more professional face to the voting public.

People want to hear different, and better ideas from the opposition on how to run the country, not just gripes about every little fault of the PAP.

It is not unusual that many Singaporeans hold the opposition to a higher standard than they do for the ruling party. After all, the opposition has no track record of successfully running a nation, and therefore has to prove they are twice as good as their PAP opponents before they will earn the vote.

It is my hope that our opposition will shift to a higher gear soon, and that more good men and women will join them. The next election is due by November 2011. With the economy heading south, it is likely that the Prime Minister will call for an election much earlier than that (since a poor economy generally favours the PAP over the opposition).

Time is running out, and the people’s hopes are slowly getting dashed. Can the opposition turn things around and dispel people’s fear of their success?

———–

Related posts:

1. Fear, apathy – and being interested
2. Breaking News: 9 opposition MPs, including NCMPs, to be allowed
3. Where to, opposition?

If the most important position in the world – the US Presidency – can be left to a democratic vote by citizens, I don’t see why Singapore cannot do the same.

The debate about the relevance of the Elected Presidency (EP) came up again on October 21 in Parliament. With new framework to tap investment income from the reserves, the PAP government has given the Elected President additional duties; most significantly, approving the Finance Minister’s formula for determining the expected long-term real rates of return of Singapore’s reserves at the start of each financial year.

This formula is not made known to the public and could be changed each year. The only safeguard is the President and his Council of Advisors.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, on learning that the Workers’ Party (WP) voted in support of the constitutional amendment, took the opportunity to prod them to change their stand on the EP.

The WP’s original stand was made clear in the party’s Manifesto, released before the 2006 election. The WP opposes the EP because they feel it will take away the power of Parliament as the people’s representatives.

The EP was introduced by the PAP government ostensibly as a “second key” to the nation’s reserves and a safeguard against the irresponsible appointment of key civil servants.

The Elected President has much greater powers than most Singaporeans are probably aware of. According to the Singapore Constitution, the President may, at his discretion:

a.  Appoint the Prime Minister (Article 25);

b.  Veto the government’s choice of Chief Justice and Supreme Court judges, Attorney-General, Auditor-General, Accountant-General, Chief of Defence Force, Chiefs of the Air Force, Army and Navy, Commissioner of Police, Director of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), statutory board chairmen and members, Chairman of the Public Service Commission (PSC), and many other key public service appointments (Article 22);

c. Veto the appointment or removal of directors or CEOs of Government companies, namely, Temasek Holdings, GIC and MND Holdings (Article 22C);

d. Veto a request to dissolve Parliament, which is a prerequisite for calling elections (Article 21);

e. Veto any proposed legislation that curtails his own powers (Article 22H);

f.  Veto the budgets of statutory boards (Article 22B);

g.  Approve the CPIB Director’s request to commence a corruption investigation against anyone, even if the Prime Minister refuses (Article 22G).

In the case of (b) and (c) above, the presidential veto can be overridden with a two-thirds majority vote by Parliament.

Given the powers of an Elected President, it is no wonder that WP chief Low Thia Khiang argued in Parliament that “the office of the Elected President could be potentially crippling for a non-PAP government”.

However this is the most likely reason why the PAP government introduced the EP in the first place. Surely they do not see a need to check themselves!

Furthermore, the very strict criteria for standing for election as President would, as Mr Low put it, mean presidents would likely come from the PAP Establishment.

Let’s examine the qualifications for Presidential candidates (Article 19):

a.  Has been, for at least 3 years, a Minister, Chief Justice, Speaker, Attorney-General, Chairman of the PSC, Auditor-General, Accountant-General, Permanent Secretary, statutory board chairman or CEO, chairman or CEO of a $100 million dollar Singapore-registered company.

b.  Satisfies the Presidential Elections Committee that he is a person of integrity, good character and reputation;

For (a) above, almost all qualified persons are current or former government appointees. And there are very few $100 million Singapore-registered companies which are not Government companies or their subsidiaries.

Who are the members of the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC)? Basically “three wise men”: The PSC chairman, chairman of the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) and a member of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights. All these are government appointees (albeit some requiring presidential consent).

So, in summary, the field of candidates is limited to mainly government appointees. If that fails to throw up a candidate that satisfies the government, a government-appointed committee can make a subjective judgment call on who can run for president.

This played out almost exactly in the 2005 presidential election, when Andrew Kuan was disqualified by the PEC on grounds that as former Group Chief Financial Officer of the $1.9 billion JTC Corporation, his seniority and responsibility was “not comparable to those mentioned in the Constitution”.

Scenario: Opposition wins election

Consider the following hypothetical scenario:

An opposition coalition wins 51% of the seats in Parliament in the 2016 elections, way short of a two-thirds majority. The presidential election is not due until 2017. Therefore the Elected President is still the previous PAP government’s choice.

Come the August 2017 presidential election, the “three wise men” of the PEC are still in office, and cannot be removed without the approval of the sitting President. And so the field of candidates for the Presidency are still the PAP’s choices, and the choice of the President is a foregone conclusion at least until the 2023 presidential election.

This President exercises all the powers mentioned earlier, blocking appointments, including key security appointments of that of the Chief of Defence Force, Chief of Army and Commissioner of Police. Because the new government does not enjoy a two-thirds majority, it will be unable to override the President’s veto and will be forced to appoint the President’s preferred generals.

Even after 2023, seven years after the PAP has lost power, it may still be able to exercise its “third key”. Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew was quoted by Reuters on 16 September 2006, saying: “Without the Elected President and if there is a freak result, within two or three years, the army would have to come in and stop it.”

The most obvious implication of MM Lee’s statement is a threat of a military coup. But even without a coup, the presence of rebellious generals and police commissioners could be enough to destabilize the government and scare away investors.

Added to an uncooperative or adversarial Attorney-General, Chief Justice, Auditor-General and CPIB Director, the new government could be utterly crippled, not unlike the situation in Thailand right now.

For ordinary citizens who are not fully aware of the political manoeuvring behind the scenes, what they will see is a paralyzed government, incapable of getting anything done. They will yearn to “return to Egypt”, or the days when the PAP was in charge. By the 2021 or 2026 election, they will vote back the PAP into power and Singapore will be back to square one (less of course Lee Kuan Yew, for better or for worse).

Of course, the above scenario is an extreme example. If the PAP really had the country’s interests at heart, they would not paralyze the government after losing an election. But one can never predict how political parties will act, given that their foremost objective is to gain or retain power.

To keep or abolish?

Therefore, I am inclined to agree with the WP that the EP, in its current setup, is unsatisfactory.

However, I will stop short of calling for its complete abolition. In principle, a directly elected Head of State would enhance democratic accountability of Parliament to the people. What I feel should be abolished is the artificially stringent qualification criteria for President.

The US Presidential candidate needs only to be born in the US, be at least 35 years old and have lived in the US for at least 14 of those years. In addition, there is a two-term limit and the Senate (the upper house of Parliament) can disqualify impeached and convicted individuals from running for President.

If the most important position in the world can be left to a democratic vote by citizens, I don’t see why Singapore cannot do the same. In any case, the Elected President maintains only custodial, not executive powers.

Therefore I would like to suggest that we keep the EP, but the qualification criteria should include:

a.              Born or naturalised citizen;

b.              Lived in Singapore for at least 35 years;

c.              Has not held the office of President for more than one term;

d.              Is subject to the qualifications as a Member of Parliament (Article 44)

e.              Is not subject to any of the disqualifications as a Member of Parliament (Article 45);

f.               Has not been a member of any political party for three years leading to the date of his nomination for election.

My main rationale for (f) is to try to minimize the number of politically-aligned candidates, since the President is expected to make decisions without favouring any political party.

I have deliberately excluded any criteria for financial knowledge, even though a large portion of the President’s duties pertain to financial oversight. I would expect the candidates themselves to prove to the electorate their financial competence, and scrutinize each others’ records.

In essence, this relatively thin criteria is not to lower the bar, but to subject the candidates to the electorate’s scrutiny, instead of members of the Establishment. With an educated and world-aware electorate, I trust the “wisdom of crowds” to make the right decision.

This proposal is a work in progress. I hope readers can discuss this and offer counter-suggestions. If there is sufficient interest among readers, I will write another article to discuss my rationale for the other proposed criteria, and possibly include amendments based on feedback.

———————

Related posts:

1. Tan Kin Lian eyes elected presidency
2. WP does not support Elected Presidency still
3. Who elected these clowns?

Gerald Giam / Deputy Editor

Among the goodies to be doled out by the government to encourage couples to have more kids are an additional one month of paid maternity leave, increased Baby Bonus and childcare subsidies, and more tax rebates for working mothers.

I welcome the new measures announced by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. I have to confess that I am an interested party — my wife is due to give birth to our first child in two weeks and we stand to benefit from these new procreation measures. (In case you are wondering, I was not one of those who petitioned the government to bring forward the effective date of these benefits.)

However the financial benefits were hardly factor in us choosing to have children. The reason is simple: Raising a child costs much, much more than any benefits the government can afford to give us. If we had decided to have kids based on the government’s financial incentives, we would have gotten an ‘F’ for our Cost-Benefit Analysis 101 class.

If the government is hoping that the $1.6 billion they are setting aside annually for these benefits is going to increase the fertility rate by much, they are sorely mistaken.

As PM Lee pointed out himself, we are up against very powerful cultural forces working against childbearing. Greater career opportunities, a love for self-serving pleasure, a distaste for doing hands-on work, and the negative portrayal of the traditional family by the media all relegate childbearing to the bottom of the totem pole of priorities in a typical young couple’s mind.

The government needs to tackle the problem at its roots, rather than simply treat its symptoms.

In broad terms, this means investing money and resources into changing young Singaporeans’ mindsets. For example, the state could fund more programmes in the mass media that promote the joys of marriage and parenting. Or it could also fund organisations like Focus on the Family or Centre for Fathering to help them do what they do best.

It will not be easy, and it brings great risks of being accused of being a nanny state. While we may balk at any attempts at social engineering, the serious problem of low birth rates demands serious interventions. The alternative, of course, is to import more foreigners and end up becoming like Gulf emirates Qatar and Dubai where foreign talent makes up the majority of the population.

Non-traditional babies

Singapore also needs to look into nurturing babies from “non-traditional” sources.

Single mothers are an undeniable part of our social landscape. While I believe it is a mistake to have sex and get oneself pregnant before marriage, I also realise that for pregnant single mothers, that mistake has already been made. There is no point punishing the mother further — I don’t believe anyone is foolish enough to set out planning to be an unwed mother. Raising kids is hard enough with two parents, what more with just one?

More importantly, it is unconscionable to punish an innocent, unborn child for his or her parents’ sin by denying the child the benefits and the head start that other children receive.

Therefore I believe that single mothers should receive the same maternity and employment benefits as married mothers. This was an excellent point that was raised by Ms Lee Lilian at the Workers’ Party’s YouthQuake event recently. To do so will not only give her child a more equal start to life, but more importantly could encourage more single mothers to keep their babies instead of taking the easy way out by aborting their babies.

Reduce abortions, please

There are over 12,000 abortions carried out each year in Singapore. Almost a quarter of all pregnancies in Singapore are terminated. Over 60% of abortions are performed on married women. The moral ramifications of this crime against unborn humanity are far reaching and fearful to consider.

Even if one does not believe in the sanctity of an unborn human being, consider that if all pregnancies in Singapore were carried to term, our birth shortfall from the replacement level will be more than halved. Currently Singaporeans are about 23,000 births short of replacing themselves.

We need to do more — much more — to reduce the staggering abortion rate in Singapore. For a start, we need to strongly restrict the use of on-demand abortion as a method of contraception for married women. This was based on an extremely liberal and cold-blooded approach to population control in Singapore during the 1970s and has no place in baby-scarce 21^st century Singapore.

Married women should be strongly discouraged — even prevented — from having an abortion without any good reason.

But what are we going to do with all these unwanted babies?

Firstly, I believe parental instincts will kick in once the baby is born, so abandonment should not be an issue.

Secondly, for single mothers who are unable or unwilling to look after their own children, there needs to be a better system for giving up babies for adoption, and for adopting local-born babies. Currently the system is so onerous that couples who wish to adopt prefer to adopt from orphanages in China than from their fellow Singaporeans.

Thirdly, the social sector needs to be expanded for more children’s homes to look after kids who are not able to get adopted out. It may sound cruel to have a child born into an orphanage, but I believe that every life is precious and we can never predict what great contributions a child may make to God’s great earth in the future, regardless of his or her circumstances during childhood.

Worklife balance

There was little mention about concrete plans to encourage more work-life balance in Singapore. Many of mothers want to return to the workforce after giving birth. However, are reluctant to because they want to be involved in raising their kids and have no intention of returning to the rat race.

Apart from developing a more family-friendly culture, Singapore companies need to seriously look into job redesign to provide part-time or home-based work for mothers. In our digital age, telecommuting is entirely possible for many professional jobs. By hiring two part-timers to fill one full-time job position, companies will not only provide more jobs for mothers but more often than not will be able to get more than half the time from each worker.

Welfarism or financing the rich?

On a final note, I wonder if the $1.6 billion is going to be money well spent. It has been reported that over 40% of the giveaways is going to be in the form of tax rebates. Since only a small percentage of income earners actually pay taxes, tax rebates are essentially carrots used to incentivise well-to-do couples who don’t actually need the extra money. This goes against basic socialist principles (on which Singapore was founded) of redistribution of wealth from rich to poor, not the other way around.

The maternity leave payments should not simply be based on one’s last drawn salary. Can you imagine: a mother who makes $20,000 a month will get $40,000 cash from the government and $40,000 from her company when she would surely have enough savings and investments to not need that money. Therefore I believe that maternity leave benefits should be capped at $3,500 per month so as not to finance the rich to make them even richer.

Similarly tax rebates should be capped at say the first $3,000 of taxable income. In other words, a person earning $10,000 a month should not get any more tax rebates in absolute terms than someone earning $3,500 a month.

Conclusion

No one can fault the government for not trying hard enough to raise our flagging birth rates. But political will, strong as it may be, is up against much more powerful societal forces. We need to step out of our box and radically change our approach if we are going to edge our birth rate closer to the elusive replacement level.

———–

Related posts:

1. Nanny gets serious about babies but…
2. Don’t be a stupid cupid
3. Singapore’s declining birth rate

By Gerald Giam and Selene Cheng

This paper seeks to highlight problems and provide suggestions for improving the public transport system in Singapore. It is based on the author’s own experiences as a middle-income commuter who relies almost exclusively on public transport, with input received from fellow commuters.

Land transport a key focus for 2008

In his New Year’s Day message, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced that a key focus for 2008 for the government is to improve our public transport system, so that more Singaporeans will take buses and trains instead of driving cars. He acknowledged that the government “can do more to make public transport a choice mode of travel”.

Among the proposed measures PM Lee highlighted were long-term goals like building more rail lines. However, he pointed out that there are some changes which “can and should be made more quickly” like improving bus services, making transfers more convenient, as well as running more trains at peak hours. This policy focus by the PM is certainly welcome news for the millions of Singaporeans who depend on public transport to get around.

In January, Transport Minister Raymond Lim unveiled a series of short and long-term changes to the public transport system, a culmination of the Ministry of Transport’s Land Transport Review. This paper builds upon these proposed changes and offers more recommendations for further improvements.

‘Good’ is not enough

The standard of Singapore’s public transport system is generally good compared with other major metropolitan areas like Los Angeles and Sydney. However, simply being ‘good’ may not be enough, because of the unique constraints that Singapore faces.

It is the government’s stated goal to make public transport a “choice option” [1]and a “viable alternative to the car” [2]. With just 617 sq km on our main island (much of which is set aside for water catchment and SAF training areas), it is untenable for Singapore to have the same proportion of residents driving their own cars as in, say, Los Angeles, which has a much larger land area.

Hence, with private cars priced out of the reach of most of the population, they are left with little choice but public transport. It is therefore inappropriate to just benchmark Singapore’s public transport system against other cities in developed countries. In most of these countries, a car can be purchased for as little as $3,000, making private transport a viable alternative for a much larger percentage of the population. Most Singaporeans enjoy no such luxury. Furthermore, we should not be comparing Singapore with countries that are known to have overcrowded and inferior public transport systems. If there are improvements to be made, Singapore should strive for them rather than look backwards.

There are two broad categories of commuters who regularly take public transport:

Category 1: People who cannot afford to buy a car or take taxis except during emergencies;

Category 2: People who may be able to afford a car in the near future.

For the Category 1 commuters, who are likely to comprise the bottom 50 per cent of income earners, the government has a moral obligation to ensure that the cost of public transport is kept affordable, and that most parts of the island (especially where workplaces are located) are within reach of the bus and rail networks.

Public transport operators SMRT Corporation (SMRT) and SBS Transit (SBST) need to continually explore ways to improve the efficiency of their services, so as to keep their costs and fares affordable for this group of Singaporeans.

Category 2 commuters are probably the target of the government’s efforts to make public transport an attractive alternative to cars and cabs. For this group, comfort, convenience and speed are three main factors besides cost that influence their decision whether to take public transport or to drive.

Once these people switch to driving, it is very unlikely that they will return to using public transport. A recent Singapore Press Holdings survey of 295 people who drive cars showed that only two per cent reverted to taking the MRT or buses [3].

With the expected increase of Singapore’s population to 6.5 million from the current 4.3 million and the growing affluence of the population as a whole, it is imperative that improvements be implemented soon to make public transport a more attractive option than cars.

Ride or Drive?

For most commuters, the decision on the mode of transport is dictated by three main factors:

a. Comfort

b. Convenience

c. Cost

Lower travel costs are usually the only reason for taking public transport instead of driving. Remove the cost factor, and the comfort, convenience and speed offered by cars or taxis make public transport a hands-down lose.

The key for the government, therefore, is to ensure that costs of public transport are kept low, while increasing comfort and convenience.

As illustrated in Figure 1, as fares and commuters’ income increase, the scale will be tipped in favour of driving. Since fares and income will inevitably increase in the long run, the government and public transport companies need to put in more effort into increasing the comfort and convenience of MRT trains and buses.

Problems and Solutions

As a commuter who relies almost exclusively on public transport, I have observed the following key problem areas in our current public transport system:

· Overcrowded buses and trains;

· Inadequate trip planning facilities;

· Inconsiderate commuters;

· Lack of genuine competition, resulting in ever-increasing fares

This paper offers two sets of suggestions on improving the public transport system in Singapore. The first are the “quick wins” — measures which can be implemented quickly and with minimal cost. The second set of suggestions, while not asking for the moon, will require some policy and perhaps mindset changes to implement.

The Quick Wins

Recommendation 1: Lengthen peak hour timings

Unlike many other major cities I have travelled in, including Tokyo, Singapore’s MRT is crowded at almost every hour of the day, including late evenings and weekends.

It has become a norm to be standing sandwiched between other passengers for the entire ride. Passengers jostle for personal space. Women passengers clutch their handbags closely to their chests to preserve their modesty. At least 20 per cent of standing passengers have nothing to hold on to, as the grab poles are located at the centre of the carriages. Whenever the train comes to a sudden stop, many of them get thrown off balance. The situation is magnified for pregnant mothers, senior citizens and people with disabilities. It is simply not safe, in many cases, for them to board these crowded trains.

Is it any wonder that many young Singaporeans will swear to buy a car as soon as they can afford it to escape this madness?

The most distressing times to take public transport are during the morning and evening rush hours, or late at night on weekends. According to SMRT, peak hours are defined as:

Monday to Friday, between 8 to 9 am and 5.15 to 6.30 pm

Saturday, between 8.15 to 9 am and 1 to 2.30 pm

During these times, the train frequency is about 2 to 5 minutes. However after “peak hours”, train frequency drops to about 7 to 8 minutes. Disappointingly, SMRT’s “peak hours” do not seem to coincide with the full evening rush hour timings, and curiously neither do they coincide with the taxi peak hour surcharge timings (5 to 8 pm).

Busy professionals rarely leave work in time to make it to the MRT station by 6.30 pm. Many (particularly Category 2 commuters) leave work between 6.15 and 7.30 pm. The result is a space crunch as passengers try to get on the trains between 6.30 and 8 pm. Commuters find themselves packed like sardines on both the North-South and East-West lines.

Later at night between 10 and 11 pm, especially on weekend nights, this crunch situation is repeated when people head home after an evening out in town. Unfortunately, train frequency is not as high as during peak hours and the trains are often packed to overflowing.

SMRT’s 2007 annual report [4] (see Table 1) revealed that while the number of passenger-trips has increased 10 per cent from 2003 to 2007, the number of car kilometres operated actually decreased by 14 per cent. This explains how average car occupancy increased 23 per cent in that same period.

Is it fair for commuters to be paying higher fares yet having to squeeze into much more crowded trains?

SMRT should be compelled to increase its train frequency and extend its peak hour timings.

In response to my suggestion on 23 Sep 07 to extend peak hour timings, SMRT responded:

(T)he current train service frequency is sufficient to meet commuter demand during these time (sic).

On the perception of overcrowded trains, we would like to point out that, although our trains are designed with an engineering limit of 1,800 commuters, we rarely carry more than 1,400 commuters per train during peak hours. In fact, the actual typical average passenger load per train is about 1,200. Furthermore, when benchmarked against 15 of the world’s top metro operators from major cities, we are ranked among the top five with one of the lowest density of passengers on our trains. During peak hours, we have an average of four passengers per square metre, as compared to six passengers per square metre for metros located in other densely populated cities.

SMRT has admitted that during peak hours, there are up to 233 passengers squeezed in to each carriage, and that peak hour passenger density is 4 passengers per square metre. Based on my experience commuting at peak periods, it appears 6 passengers per square metre would be a more accurate estimate.

In any case, even 4 passengers per square metre is too close for comfort. As explained earlier, it is immaterial to benchmark our passenger density against other major cities if we want public transport to be the desired option for most Singaporeans.

To solve the overcrowding problem, SMRT should extend the evening peak hours to 8 pm every day (even on weekends) and have a higher frequency during the late evening from 10 to 11 pm. During peak hours, the train frequency should be 2 minutes. After peak hours, a frequency of 3 to 5 minutes should be the norm. There is no reason to have train frequency exceeding 6 minutes at any time of the day.

I note that it was recently announced that the government will be spending $40 billion by 2020 to extend the rail network, and the Land Transport Authority (LTA) will be working with rail operators to run 93 additional train trips per week from February 2008. These are positive steps in the right direction.

Recommendation 2: Develop a harmonized trip-planning e-portal

The available trip-planning facilities on our public transport network are dismal relative to the level of technological advancement of our country.

Although a printed bus guide is available for purchase, it is not convenient to carry around and it is not easy to plan one’s trip using it. SMRT and SBST run their own online bus and MRT guides. However, most people plan their trips based on where they want to go, not which transport company to use. To have to run a web search on both sites is excessively time consuming and confusing.

LTA, SMRT and SBS Transit should jointly develop a harmonised online bus and MRT guide with “intelligent” features that help commuters plan the fastest, most convenient way to get from point A to B — be it on the MRT, buses or a combination of both. This online guide should be viewable even on small mobile screens and should be able to accept queries via SMS.

In order to ensure the best possible product is built using the most appropriate technology available, the government should fund part of its development costs. In addition, the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) should grant permission for the free use of their road maps in this portal.

Long-Haul Changes

Recommendation 3: Tackle inconsiderate behaviour

There is an appalling lack of courtesy and consideration among many commuters. This contributes much of the unpleasantness of taking public transport, especially for less able-bodied people.

Some examples of discourteous behaviour include:

· Not giving up seats to the elderly, pregnant mothers or parents carrying infants;

· Rushing into the train without giving way to alighting passengers;

· Not moving to the centre of the carriage or the back of the bus;

· Leaning against grab poles, preventing others from holding on to them.

Although it is not the core business of public transport operators to teach commuters manners, inculcating a culture of courtesy among commuters could help to make the ride much more enjoyable.

Many commuters do not seem to be aware that they are obliged to abide by certain unofficial rules. For example, the sign located above the corner seats on the MRT, “Please give up this seat to someone who needs it more than you,” is ambiguous and comes across as more of a suggestion than a requirement. It is not surprising that many passengers find it perfectly acceptable to fall asleep (or pretend to do so) on those seats and not give up their seats even if a heavily-pregnant woman is standing in front of them.

The approach of the public transport companies ought then to be

i. Making clear to commuters the behaviour expected of them;

ii. Feed societal pressure to encourage good behaviour;

iii. Work with the Ministry of Education in implementing a social graces programme in schools .

A list of suggestions on how to do this is in the annex at the end of this article.

Recommendation 4: Introduce genuine competition into public transport

SMRT and SBST form a duopoly over public transport in Singapore. Not only do they control both the bus and rail networks, they control the taxi fleet as well. The rationale for the government’s decision to privatise public transport was to reduce costs to the government and to promote greater efficiency brought about by market pressures.

However, market pressures only work if there is genuine competition. This cannot happen when there are only two players in the market.

The recent move by the government to introduce a tendering system for bus routes is sound in principle. However, unless more independent bus operators are allowed to enter the market, the tendering exercises will serve only as window dressing for the same oligopoly.

The government’s concern about allowing more entrants is that it would impede its efforts to have an integrated bus and rail network. This can be addressed by establishing a common set of standards that different operators are obliged to adhere to. For example, ezlink card readers should be installed on all buses, regardless of operator, and these readers must be able to calculate transfer fare reductions. With the LTA taking over the centralised planning of public transport routes, it would not take much more effort to plan for more than two bus companies to cover all the necessary routes in Singapore.

A similar bidding process should be implemented for MRT lines as well. As there are no other local companies with the expertise to run MRT lines other than SMRT and SBST, foreign operators should be allowed into the market to compete with the incumbents. Ultimately it will be commuters who will benefit from lower fares and better service.

Recommendation 5: Appoint only officials who are accountable to Singaporeans to the PTC

The Public Transport Committee (PTC) is seen, rightly or wrongly, by many Singaporeans as a rubber stamp committee which only executes the wishes of the public transport companies.

It would be better to appoint to the PTC land transport professionals (e.g., LTA officials) and elected Members of Parliament from the two largest parties in Parliament. This will ensure that the PTC is both cognisant with the technical complexities of public transport, sensitive to the needs of the people and accountable to them.

While few will deny that Singapore’s public transport system is above average compared to most of the world, there is still much room for improvement if we are to achieve the aim of making it an attractive alternative to driving.

Transport companies need to pay closer attention to comfort and convenience on public transport, and the government has a responsibility to ensure that there is sufficient competition so as to keep prices affordable. Having an affordable, efficient and comfortable public transport system will increase the quality of life for millions of Singaporeans, while easing the congestion on our roads.

Listed in the Annex is a summary of the above-mentioned points as well as further suggestions on how public transport companies can address the problems faced by commuters.

SUMMARY OF PROBLEMS AND SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS

Comfort

Figure 2: Queue lines outside train doors

Convenience

Cost

1 MOT’s Land Transport policy strategy (http://www.mot.gov.sg/landtransport/policy.htm)

2 Speech by Minister of Transport Raymond Lim, 18 Jan 08 (http://app.sprinter.gov.sg/data/pr/20080118996.htm)

3 Few make the switch to public transport, The Straits Times, 15 Jan 08

4 http://www.smrt.com.sg/annualreport2007/pdf/SMRT_Trains_LRT.pdf

———————-

Related posts:

1. Public Transport: Uniquely Singapore, F1 or F9?
2. YouthQuake: Public transport the key to a less congested Singapore
3. Transport Ministry and PTC wash their hands off public transport subsidy for people with disability issue

A government-appointed advisory council this morning released its draft recommendations on changing Singapore’s Internet regulatory regime.

Titled “Engaging New Media – Challenging Old Assumptions”, the 102-page paper by Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS) is now open for public consultation at its website, www.aims.org.sg, with feedback to be used to help formulate its final recommendations to the government.

The AIMS paper covered four broad topics — engaging citizens using the Internet, online political content regulation, protection of minors and liability for Internet service providers — each with its own set of recommendations.

The issue of online political content comes hot on the heels of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s National Day Rally speech, where he had announced a few liberalisations of the political space in Singapore.

Among AIMS’ recommendations were a repeal of the law banning “party political films”. The paper lamented that the ban on party political films “is too wide-ranging” and warned that this “drift-net approach could potentially stifle creativity” at a time when Singapore is trying to build its reputation as a creative hub. It acknowledged that technology had out-paced the law and made it “unenforceable”.

In a departure from the oft-heard government line that politics must be serious, AIMS acknowledged that “political videos, parodies and satires are part of contemporary culture”. The paper also pointed out that other non-media specific laws already exist to counter potential threats to our society, making parts of the Films Act redundant.

AIMS nonetheless sought to walk the middle ground by providing alternatives to an outright repeal of section 33 of the Films Act, which prohibits party political films. These included narrowing the scope of the law to ban only films which make “scurrilous and false allegations that undermine respect for the Government”, appointing an “independent advisory panel” to decide on political films, or a classification system for political films.

AIMS also pushed for Internet election advertising regulations to permit videos or recordings of election rallies and the use of blogs and social networking tools during the election period. However one of its recommendations to allow party political films, but restrict their release only during a “blackout period” during an election campaign. This is likely to invite the most debate.

Beyond politics, AIMS also recommended ways to protect children from harmful content on the Internet using a combination of education and parent-controlled Internet filtering software.

AIMS chairman Cheong Yip Seng said that feedback from the public to its consultation paper will be seriously considered, and that the Council had not arrived at a final position yet, particularly about online political content regulation. However, he emphasised that the final recommendations will be based on “what is right, not necessarily what is popular”.

The consultation period is expected to last six to 8 weeks, with the final report to be submitted to the government by the end of the year.

The full consultation paper is here (pdf file).

The video of the press conference is here.

————

Related posts:

1. Bloggers’ group proposes sweeping changes in Internet regulation
2. PM Lee proposes “24-hour cooling-off” period before Polling Day
3. Don’t govern the Internet with Old World methods

This is the first of a two-part series in response to the marriage and parenthood package announced by the Prime Minister in his National Day Rally speech 2008.

In his National Day Rally speech, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced a slew of measures to increase Singapore’s fertility rate. It was the second time since taking over as prime minister in 2004 that he had sought to tackle this pressing national issue, which has often been cited as the most critical issue facing our young but ageing nation.

Mr Lee explained the two-pronged approach to reversing the trend of low birth rates: Firstly, encouraging people to get married, and secondly, encouraging couples to have children.

Earlier intervention needed

It appears that the Government’s solution to the problem of young people not getting married or marrying too late is merely a tweaking of the same approach that has delivered limited success so far, that is, to fund the matchmakers.

The marriage problem in Singapore is three-fold: Firstly, people putting off marriage until too late; Secondly, society’s attitudes towards marriage, and thirdly, higher divorce rates.

When couples get married too late, they will often have more difficulty conceiving. Many may give up trying and simply opt not to have kids. The issue of older, educated women not getting married is well known and needs no further explaining.

To tackle the problem of late marriages or no marriages, we need to focus on not just singles in their 30s, but also younger people in their late teens and early 20s.

Once people leave school or university, their casual social circle tends to shrink dramatically. The uphill task of finding a partner begins from the first day of work. Therefore if the government really wants to throw money at the problem, it should consider funding matchmaking programmes directed at university-age students. This is a group that most private matchmaking agencies will likely avoid as they don’t have as much disposable income as older singles.

Even pre-university students could be beneficiaries of programmes encouraging marriage. I do not advocate matchmaking for teenagers, but there could be more programmes advising students on how to prepare oneself to be a more ideal partner in future. These programmes could cover issues like respecting oneself and the opposite sex, encouraging abstinence before marriage, healthy sexual behaviour, financial management, and grooming and etiquette, among others.

Mindset changes

Society’s attitudes towards marriage have also changed since a generation ago. Nowadays, young people no longer see marriage as critical to leading a fulfilling life. Alternative lifestyles abound and young people have many other life options to choose from. It doesn’t help that the media often portrays being married and having children as signing away one’s individual freedom.

Parents and society also need to change their mindsets that young people should wait until they have graduated and are settled in a well-paying job before considering marriage.

Too often, the excuse for not getting married is simply that it costs too much. If couples are prepared to have simple wedding ceremonies and live simply in the first few years of their marriage, it is actually quite affordable to get married.

The role of religion

The PM did not mention the critical role religion plays in getting people hitched and having kids. All the major religions in Singapore strongly encourage marriage and childbearing. Many couples met each other in church or other houses of worship.

While it would be a stretch to suggest that the Government should fund faith-based programmes that promote marriage and parenthood, this is an angle that policymakers should not overlook, given that 85% of Singaporeans have their worldviews shaped by religion.

Reducing divorces

The divorce rate in Singapore has been rising with each successive year. For couples who divorce before bearing children, this further delays childbearing or causes many to completely abandon any plans to have kids.

An increasing divorce rate has a knock-on effect on younger Singaporeans. As broken marriages become more pervasive in society, it could put off other people from getting married in the first place as they would increasingly question whether marriage is really worth the trouble and heartache.

To reduce the number of unhappy marriages in Singapore, our society needs to urgently look into this problem.

Summary

There is no silver bullet that can encourage people to get married earlier, and it is definitely not something the Government can or should do alone. It will require a national effort led by, most importantly, singles themselves, but with assistance from non-government organisations and religious institutions in partnership with the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports.

————

Related posts:

1. Even Cupid has to adapt
2. Promote entrepreneurship – but what kind of stupid rule is this?
3. “Stupid” to advocate learning of dialects, says MM Lee’s PPS