During an interview with the Financial Times, PM Lee Hsien Loong was asked several questions about Singapore's political future.

One of the topics that was touched on was what will happen in Singapore's future and whether PM Lee could envision a non-PAP dominant Singapore.

In Response, PM Lee had said that he is not sure how it would work.

When the article in the Financial Times was published, it had wrote the report in a way that hinted that PM Lee was referring to a Coalition government.

PM Lee clarified on his facebook page that this is not exactly what he was referring to and highlighted that he did not really know what the future held:

Related: PM LEE: THE PAP COULD BE PART OF A COALITION GOVERNMENT ONE DAY

Parliament resumes with questions raised on housing, health, sports, PIC, transport, defence, education, and communications.

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER*

*7. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority has been checking the passports of all outbound and inbound travellers at all ports of exit and entry against Interpol’s Stolen and Lost Travel Documents (SLTD) database in the last three years; (b) how many travellers have been caught using lost or stolen passports which are not their own; and (c) what punishments have been meted out for the commission of such offences.

*11. Mr Pritam Singh: To ask the Minister for Communications and Information with regard to the local pay TV rates for the FIFA World Cup 2014, whether the Ministry will consider conducting a thorough review of the regulatory framework and policies that govern the broadcast of popular soccer and sporting events in Singapore so as to better protect the interests of the viewing public.

*16. Mr Png Eng Huat: To ask the Minister for National Development in respect of the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (a) what is the formula for pricing the rental rates for flats under this scheme; (b) what are the costs involved in providing these rental flats; (c) what has been the number of applications for 3-room flat types; and (d) whether the rental rates can be lowered to encourage the take-up rate for the bigger flat types.

*21. Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Minister for Health what efforts are ongoing to educate the public on the effects of the compulsory donation provisions of the Human Organ Transplant Act so as to minimise distress to family members of patients who meet the criteria for compulsory harvesting of organs.

*26. Mr Yee Jenn Jong: To ask the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the status of negotiations on the ASEAN Economic Community goal to free up the movement of professionals; and (b) what safeguards will be put in place to protect Singapore PMETs and to ensure national control over our immigration policies.

*31. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) on average, what percentage of GST paid by the lowest 20% of households (by income) is offset by all forms of GST Vouchers last year; and (b) whether the Government will consider fully offsetting the GST paid by all households in the lowest quintile even in years when there are no one-off Special Payments made.

*33. Mr Png Eng Huat: To ask the Minister for National Development what is the roadmap to bring the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) to the 200 blocks of HDB flats that are currently without full lift access now that the main LUP is coming to an end in December 2014.

*37. Mr Yee Jenn Jong: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Ministry is satisfied with the distribution of the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) claims between the six different qualifying activities; and (b) what measures does the Government have to increase the usage of PIC by companies in activities more directly related to innovation.

*39. Ms Lee Li Lian: To ask the Minister for Transport (a) how does LTA implement localised traffic schemes that restrict the entry of heavy vehicles to areas around schools or that have high pedestrian activity; (b) whether monitoring is done on a regular basis to assess the effectiveness of such schemes; and (c) whether LTA requires contractors who undertake projects to build flats or commercial projects to submit route planning for their heavy vehicles to ensure the safety of school children and residents living in the vicinity.

*42. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Defence whether the RSAF has measures in place to identify and be alerted of aircraft flying near Singapore which veer off their flight path so that they can be intercepted in time before they reach Singapore.

*44. Mr Yee Jenn Jong: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Development how does the Ministry track the availability of student care places in the industry and whether it will track and publish the provision of student care places as one of its key performance indicators in the Government’s Budget Book on revenue and expenditure estimates.

*45. Mr Png Eng Huat: To ask the Minister for Transport with regard to the introduction of ERP2 in 2020 (a) what is the roadmap to roll out the new islandwide GPS-based road pricing system and its value-added services; (b) what is the estimated cost of ERP2; and (c) what are the safeguards to minimise privacy issues.

*49. Ms Lee Li Lian: To ask the Minister for Education for Continuing Education and Training (CET) courses and National Institute of Technical Education Certificate (Nitec) and Higher Nitec courses (a) what are the current subsidised and full module fees for Singapore citizens; (b) since 2012, what is the trend of drop-out rates and the percentage of Singaporean students who drop out because they are charged full fees for repeating modules; and (c) whether the subsidies can be reduced instead of being withdrawn completely for repeating modules so as not to discourage learners.

*52. Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap: To ask the Minister for National Development regarding HDB’s Public Rental Scheme (a) what is the rationale for pegging the rental rate to market rent; (b) whether the rate should be revised given market rent inflation outpacing the income growth of low-income households; and (c) whether the rental rate can instead be pegged to the median income of targeted income groups to ensure affordability.

*57. Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Minister for National Development whether the Government will abolish or review the resale levy payable by persons who inherit subsidised HDB flats upon the demise of the former lessees.

QUESTIONS FOR WRITTEN ANSWER

8. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance what percentage of the Net Investment Returns (NIR) on the net assets managed by Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC), Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and Temasek Holdings is contributed to the Government’s Budget as Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) for each of the last five years, given that NIRC comprises up to 50% of the NIR on the net assets managed by GIC and MAS and up to 50% of the investment income from the remaining assets (which includes those of Temasek Holdings).

10. Ms Lee Li Lian: To ask the Minister for Communications and Information whether IDA uses technologically advanced and more accurate methods to audit mobile network traffic logs besides drive and walk tests and, if so, what are these methods.

11. Ms Lee Li Lian: To ask the Minister for Communications and Information in light of drop call rates published by IDA which state that subscribers should only experience 2.7 to 4.1 dropped calls for every 1,000 phone calls that they make (a) whether this accurately reflects what subscribers are experiencing on the ground; and (b) what measures are taken to ensure that the results are in line with actual experience.

12. Ms Lee Li Lian: To ask the Minister for Communications and Information how does IDA conclude that the drop call rate is a measure of the availability of radio channels to handle and maintain established phone calls when there have been no tests done or monitored for the availability of radio channels based on IDA’s Quality of Service standards and performance results.

13. Mr Pritam Singh: To ask the Minister for Communications and Information (a) since 2005, how many Singaporeans, permanent residents and foreigners respectively have more than three pre-paid SIM cards registered under their name; and (b) how many of these pre-paid SIM card users have not topped up their SIM cards at least once in the six-month window as required for their continued use.

17. Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Minister for Law (a) how many victim compensation orders have been granted by the courts under section 359 of the Criminal Procedure Code in 2012 and 2013 respectively; and (b) what is the range of compensation amounts awarded and for what types of offences.

18. Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Minister for Health in 2013, how many patients who are prescribed drugs at restructured hospitals do not collect their medication at all or do not collect the full course of their prescriptions.

19. Mr Yee Jenn Jong: To ask the Minister for Health (a) what content is covered in the language, orientation and immersion programmes for foreign healthcare professionals and what is the duration of such programmes; (b) how many foreign healthcare staff have attended these programmes each year in the last five years; and (c) what percentage of total foreign healthcare staff does this participation represent.

20. Mr Chen Show Mao: To ask the Minister for Health (a) what plans are there to expand the target medical and nursing intakes beyond the current 500 and 2,750 respectively; (b) what are the constraints to expanding the target intakes; and (c) what steps can be taken to overcome these constraints.

21. Mr Chen Show Mao: To ask the Minister for Health in respect of accident and emergency departments of public hospitals (a) in addition to the median waiting time for admissions to wards, whether the 95th percentile waiting time for admissions is tracked; (b) what waiting times for registration and consultation are tracked; (c) what an acceptable waiting time should be for registration, consultation and admission to ward; and (d) whether these waiting times can be released on a weekly basis in addition to median waiting time for admissions.

22. Mr Chen Show Mao: To ask the Minister for Health (a) what steps are being taken in implementing a nationwide programme for colonoscopy; (b) how much additional resources are needed in terms of facilities and number of specialists for such a programme; (c) whether there is a timeframe for implementing such a programme; and (d) given that screening participation rates typically take time to build up, whether the Ministry will consider running a pilot programme in the interim.

25. Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap: To ask the Minister for Transport (a) what is the breakdown of the motorcycle population in the Class 2, 2A and 2B categories for each year from 2011 to 2013; (b) what is the amount of COE revenue collected from the three categories respectively for each year from 2011 to 2013; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider abolishing COEs for motorcycles in the Class 2B category as these lower capacity motorcycles are usually used by lower-income persons for work purposes.

27. Mr Yee Jenn Jong: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what percentage of pre-schools are currently certified under the Singapore Pre-school Accreditation Framework (SPARK); (b) what percentage of kindergartens and childcare centres are certified under SPARK respectively; (c) what is the share of SPARK-certified centres from the five anchor operators; (d) what percentage of pre-schools operated by the anchor operators are SPARK-certified; and (e) whether the Ministry can provide an update on its effort to get centres tested under SPARK.

30. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Acting Minister for Manpower how does the Government plan to raise the wages of local low-wage workers in industries other than cleaning, security and landscaping given that that there are around 110,000 employed residents in Singapore earning less than $1,000 per month (excluding part-time workers) and the enforcement of the Progressive Wage Model in these three industries is expected to impact only about 80,000 low-wage workers.

*Article first appeared on WP Facebook page.

PM in an recent interview in London talked about the possibility of Singapore having a coalition government in the future.

At a dinner, two young Singaporeans asked me what is a coalition government and the role of the President in such a scenario.

When no single political party has a majority of parliamentary seats in a General Election, the only way to form a government is for the party with the most seats to invite other minority seat parties to join it to make up the numbers to form a majority . So if all the opposition parties combined have more than half the seats, then they can form the government if all can agree to a coalition.

The smaller minority parties will set conditions to join. There will be a lot of horse trading and bargaining for ministerial posts and other key appointments. So you might get a DPM from a minority party or a finance minister from yet another party, as seen in many countries with coalition governments.

In such scenarios, each party would want to exert its influence and impress the people to score political points. More importantly, they may also try to court the President’s favour to utilise the reserves and lobby the appointments of key personnel in the civil service and stat boards.

The President in a coalition government must therefore stay absolutely neutral and show no favour to any coalition partner. He must not be seen to be affiliated to a political party. His integrity and honesty must be beyond question. He must be someone whose main concern is the people’s interest and not that of any coalition party.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock

Many readers will have seen PM Lee’s  recent “Lunch with the Financial Times” interview. That interview was no doubt aimed at a UK or global audience but actually it is vitally important for us Singaporeans, giving us a rare opportunity to see our PM perform without the protection of PAP control.  Here in Singapore we are unable to see or hear anything about or by the PM  that hasn’t been scripted beforehand or edited afterwards.  The PAP has total control over our  media corporations through the management shares and the rights this gives them to appoint directors or in fact over the hiring and dismissal of any member of staff of a media company.   These rights are enshrined in the Newspapers Printing and Presses Act and not some  speculation on my part.  Check the Act out here.

So how does our PM perform away from the cosy protections of a media controlled by his own government?  The answer, for all to see in black and white, is not very well.  His interview is  best summed up by a comment left on the, “In Memory of JBJ” Facebook page. “what a lame duck interview” .

I hadn’t been expecting any great insights but even so I was surprised by what seemed to be random thoughts or coffee shop musings more bluntly referred to as mind fa**ts.  He was overwhelmingly unimpressive and I was surprised that there is no sign of him being a pundit like his dad.  Maybe he was trying to be “his own man” in which case I recommend that he immediately start trying to be someone else instead.

This pathetic interview is the perfect illustration of why having no competition in government has been bad for Singapore.

There were multiple gaffes but it was the one where the PM seemed to admit the possibility of a change of government in Singapore and even the PAP going into coalition that caused them to rush around in panic later. This is the passage in question:

So can he envisage a day when the PAP is not running Singapore? “It could well happen,” he replies mildly. “I don’t know how it will work but it could happen.” A little later, he hints that the PAP is beginning to consider the possibility of one day forming a coalition government. “It may not be one team in, one team out, it may be more complicated – you’re getting used to more complicated than that in Britain now.”

 It seems abundantly clear to any ordinary reader that when the PM talks about things becoming “more complicated” in Singapore and then says “you’re getting used to more complicated than that in Britain now” that he must be referring to the fact that the UK has a coalition government.

However this interpretation resulted in some hurried backtracking on Facebook, presumably when he realised he might have given the impression that Singapore might progress one day to something more resembling a democracy. To quote his loyal States Times:

“PM Lee sought to clarify that what he meant was that he could imagine a situation in the future where the PAP is not dominant, but that he had no idea how that would work, “or whether it could be made to work at all”.

“To think that instead of PAP dominance we will have a stable two party system is naïve,” he wrote.

“Just look at the UK today – even there the two party system is no longer what it was. A coalition govt for Singapore was not on my mind.”

It is always a bad sign when your PM needs to clarify in his own newspaper and then again on his Facebook page. Despite his attempts to correct the situation and warn that Singapore would descend into chaos if we ever had a functioning democracy, the PM unwittingly provided the best argument in democracy’ s favour. It is because of the lack of competition in the political arena that we have a situation where the PM is clearly not able to think fast enough to avoid being caught out by even the mildest of questioning by an independent journalist.

This is particularly true when he has to face the novel experience of not being able to subsequently re-edit what he says. Typically even with all his clarifications, the PM was not able to produce a single argument why political competition would be bad for Singapore, just alarmist hints for consumption by a domestic audience fed misleading facts about gridlock in Western democracies.   I note here that the new term of denigration for his voters is ‘naive’. Previously we were “lesser mortals” and then “daft” . Our people quite rightly angry got angry with being called names by their leaders and turned daft back on them so it seems that naive is the term du jour.

As I said in a Reuters interview in 2010,

“Firstly, do not be afraid. You have a right to exercise, to have a say, in how your country is run,” Jeyaretnam told Reuters in an interview at his apartment…

“Singapore is not going to collapse. Competition in politics is as necessary as it is in economics to ensure efficiency.”

 Instead 50 years of repressive measures to prevent the development of an alternative government have left us with is a clear demonstration that where the Darwinian  laws of competition are not allowed to operate survival of the weakest triumphs. Lame duck is a good enough term but Dodos are what the PAP are actually turning themselves into.   The PM is as environmentally ill-adapted to the bracing world of competition outside Singapore as the Dodo was when new predators invaded its sheltered Mauritian environment in the seventeenth century. The longer the PAP continues to resist the development of political competition, the further Singapore will fall behind the advanced democracies in terms of creativity and innovation. 

Meanwhile our people are trapped in this authoritarian state. If our people are naive then they are naive only because the PAP controls all sources of information, blocks transparency, provide no accountability and  keeps them in a childlike state of dependency.

Kenneth Jeyaretnam

Secretary-General of the Reform Party

*Article first appeared on http://sonofadud.com

High World Cup Prices: Where do we go from here?

In a piece titled “Football, security and striking a delicate balance” on 15 April 2014, the Straits Times’ From the Gallery section observed:

Despite a cross-carriage rule that will mean Starhub subscribers get to enjoy the matches for the same price, Singapore still the most expensive places in the world to catch the tournament beyond the opening match, semi-finals and final.

Source:http://nnennaorg.blogspot.sg

Cross-Carriage

To understand why local football fans are so frustrated over the matter of sky high World Cup subscription prices, a look back at the circumstances surrounding the subscription price of World Cup 2010 for Singaporean viewers – before the implementation of the cross-carriage rule – provides a large part of the answer. The business decision of Singtel to break into the local pay TV market in a big way by bidding an exorbitant amount to win the rights from Starhub to broadcast the English Premier League (EPL) for three years from 2009 sent a crystal-clear signal to FIFA on how far it could go in setting a price for World Cup content for Singaporeans.

Reports have suggested that FIFA asked Singtel for $40m for the exclusive rights to all 2010 World Cup games, after discovering just how much the telco was willing to pay for BPL television rights. –Dodgy football pitch or S’pore own goal? The Business Times, 13 Feb 2010. 

One also has to ponder how different things might have turned out had FIFA not been influenced by the reported $400 million that Singtel paid to be the exclusive broadcaster of the English Premier League (EPL) starting this August. FIFA then saw fit to raise its asking price even higher. – Have a heart, telcos – make your customers happy The Business Times, 7 May 2010

On more than one occasion, Government ministers have stressed that the purpose of cross-carriage rule is to widen the distribution of exclusive content across pay TV retailers like Starhub and Singtel, and not to regulate prices. In practice, the belated introduction of the cross-carriage rule after the World Cup 2010 imbroglio sought to prevent companies like Singtel from sabotaging consumers as the Singtel effectively did in its attempt to break Starhub’s stranglehold of the EPL market. It proved to be a pyrrhic victory for Singaporean consumers, and cross-carriage was the Government’s response to disincentivise telcos for making crazy bids as the same content would have to be offered at the same price to rival telco consumers.

World Cup prices – 2010 vs 2014: More than meets the eye?

Source: football-wallpapers.com

For the 2006 World Cup, Starhub charged subscribers $15 under an early-bird promotion rate. For World Cup 2010, the rights for which were won by a last-ditch joint bid by both Singtel and Starhub, this figure had jumped nearly four-and-a-half times to $70.62 with the non-promotion rate at $94.16.

This time around Singtel shrewdly went it alone and held the early bird promotion rate at $94.16 with the non-promotion rate set at $112.35.

While there was a rise in rates from the 2010 figures, the non-promotional price for World Cup 2010 and the promotion price for World Cup 2014 was identical, a fact which lead some to conclude, not incorrectly, that there had been no real rise in prices, but only if one subscribes early.

These identical rates were more down to a hard-nosed business decision by Singtel, rather than any overwhelming desire to keep costs as low as possible for the Singaporean viewers.

With negotiations heading into extra time on the 2010 World Cup that kicked off in June, Singtel and Starhub had to join hands to meet FIFA’s demands – reportedly in the region between $40 million and $100 million – or risk the wrath of fans here. A deal was eventually sealed, albeit 35 days before the first match in South Africa kicked off. 

But this time around, there was ample time for either Singtel or Starhub to plan their moves.

Singtel did, and outflanked Starhub with its exclusive bid for the 2014 World Cup screening rights. It wanted to use the content to sell more EPL subscriptions…..(the World Cup 2014) is thrown in free for those willing to sign up for or extend their existing EPL contracts with Singtel for two years.

Singtel was essentially using its World Cup content to sweeten its EPL offerings, which fans had complained were expensive. A basic EPL package now costs $59.90 a month, almost twice the $34.90 sports bundle Singtel used to offer that came with EPL and other premium content like Uefa Champions League and Spanish La Liga. – Making football content affordable to all The Straits Times, 4 April 2014.

In spite of the operation of the Government-mandated cross-carriage rule for World Cup 2014, Singtel was still able to keep its eyes firmly on unlocking shareholder value, foregoing the prospects of a joint bid with Starhub.

In the aftermath of Singtel winning broadcast rights for World Cup 2014, Starhub complained about Singtel’s conduct in the matter as it had made a “sincere offer” to Singtel to submit a joint bid to FIFA. StarHub’s Chief Marketing Officer Jeannie Ong in an unambiguous media release, lambasted SingTel for going it alone instead of placing a joint-bid.

“We are concerned that customers will have to pay more for 2014 FIFA World Cup…At a time of escalating sports content costs, we made a sincere offer to our competitor for a similar arrangement as the last World Cup. A joint bid would have spread the cost of the content and allowed both operators to offer the tournament at a more affordable price, benefitting all viewers in Singapore. Unfortunately, our competitor chose to acquire the rights exclusively. The higher price our competitor paid for the exclusive rights for this year’s World Cup (compared to 2010 World Cup) exacerbates this trend.”

Would such a joint bid have really reduced prices for the consumer? Should the Government have reined in Singtel earlier and on what basis? Could Mediacorp have also come in to join hands in a private-public bid as well since it is going to pay Singtel to acquire the right to screen the opening match, semi-finals and final of World Cup 2014 anyway? Could FIFA have been persuaded to understand that for World Cup broadcasting in a small country of five over million people, the Singapore Government has mandated that it would no longer be left solely to private sector operators, and hence some financial sobriety is in order? Compounding the questions on the minds of many, no one really knows what is on the agenda when the telcos negotiate with FIFA or their appointed agents for World Cup broadcasting rights, like whether 4am broadcasts can be used as a bargaining chip by local telcos to negotiate a lower price for example.

Minister Lawrence Wong’s reply in parliament on 14 April 2014 acknowledged that a joint bid could have some impact, albeit marginal in the Minister’s opinion, as FIFA is the ultimate price setter in this game. Of course, it remains open to question as to how much of an impact this would have translated into, as information on bidding/broadcast alternatives and strategies are not public information. In fact, many football fans viscerally feel that World Cup broadcasting should be treated like a quasi-public good by policymakers, in view of the popularity of the sport and in view of the profits Singtel makes from its EPL broadcasting rights.

What are the alternatives? 

Source:http://sportsbusinessmanagement.wordpress.com

So, where do we go from here in light of FIFA’s superior negotiating position and Singtel’s EPL gambit which let the genie out of its bottle in the first place and exacted a heavy price on Singaporeans for any future World Cup broadcasting bids?

At outset, it is important to acknowledge that World Cup 2014 broadcasting has gone up 20-40% around the world from the previous instalment in South Africa. Going forward, FIFA will remain in a superior bargaining position, given the logic of supply and demand, even though Singapore fans were already paying $94.16 in 2010, double what fans in Malaysia and Hong Kong are going to pay this year.

Since Singapore cannot totally influence FIFA’s rates, the question before us now is what local strategies can be employed to moderate any rise in prices, or even lower prices for such exclusive content in future, in spite of what happened in 2010. Minister Wong informed parliament that the Government was going to review the anti-siphoning list (any event on such a list requires that it must be available for Mediacorp to acquire), in addition to reviewing cross-carriage measures as well.

Reviewing the anti-siphoning list with a view to expand it (to include quarter-final matches or even second round matches for example) may well be a good place to start as it opens the prospect of more matches to be offered free-to-air for the viewing public. What this would mean is that Mediacorp, the free-to-air provider would have to devote more money for sports-related public service broadcasting towards the World Cup, a potentially controversial move even if the majority of sports fans were in favour. Who would foot the additional costs if any, and which sports would be removed from its list to accommodate more World Cup matches?

A number of readers and football lovers have narrowed in on Singapore Pools, the only Government-sanctioned sports lottery operator which benefits from World Cup punting, to contribute towards subsidising the Singapore viewing public in reasonable proportion to its soccer-related betting collections and payouts. How much the lottery operator actually makes from World Cup related gambling is an open to question.

A Pools spokesman confirmed yesterday that the gaming operator will purchase airtime “through a combined deal” with both telcos during the June 11 to July 11 tournament. According to sources, Pools will spend $2 million. – Pools to chip in,The Straits Times, 13 May 2010

Minister Wong made the same point in Parliament – that Singapore Pools already contributes. Even so, it would be useful to know the specific contribution Singapore Pools’ makes and whether there is any scope for an increase, in addition to support with regard to some free-to-air coverage. As it stands, the Minister added that Singapore Pools provides support through a wide range of different schemes not just for MediaCorp, but also for Singaporeans to watch the matches at community centres.

A second option the Ministry of Communication and Information could consider is to mandate that Singtel and Starhub and/or Mediacorp conclude negotiations and sign off on an agreement with FIFA 12 months prior to future World Cup kick-offs. This would give the winning bidder or joint bidder enough time to ramp up an advertising campaign to recoup as much monies devoted to purchase content from FIFA, and in turn lower the final World Cup subscription fee for consumers which can be announced shortly before kick-off.

There is an argument that such a 12 month cut-off date will strengthen FIFA’s hand as it knows a mandated negotiation conclusion date is in force. However, the same argument can be made with equal vigour without such a deadline as FIFA’s hand only gets stronger with each passing day prior to kick-off anyway.

With companies and advertisers given the benefit of time to set aside the appropriate budget, they would have more creative flexibility to devote resources, financial or otherwise for TV or related advertising. During the 2010 World Cup, Puma, a leading sporting goods manufacturer reported that it would not be advertising on TV in Singapore during the World Cup as it needed at least four months to produce a TV commercial, while the rights were secured by Singtel/Starhub 35 days before kickoff.

Lobbying for better prices for Singaporeans

I asked the Minister whether the Programme Advisory Committee for English Programmes (Pace) had made any specific recommendation or advised MDA on measures to reduce the costs of watching the World Cup to Singapore consumers in light of the escalating costs from the 2010 experience.

The Programme Advisory Committee for English Programmes (Pace) has a sports fan as a new chairman, and if he has his way, bellowing at your favourite football team from your living room will become cheaper….He echoed the findings of the latest biennial Pace report, which deemed the subscription rates for the FIFA World Cup charged by Starhub and Singtel “high”. – Panel to watch football more closely; Viewers’ interests subjugated in past years: new chairman The Business Times, 8 Sep 2011

The Minister replied while the specifics were not on hand, Pace would have given feedback if it was something that mattered to them. Along with the Government’s upcoming review of the cross-carriage measures and anti-siphoning list, perhaps its time Pace, an advisory body, look into how it can add value on behalf of consumers to the discourse. The telcos are likely to oppose any Government interference in the setting of World Cup prices. And with a large foreign population in Singapore accounting for 36% of the total population, some with very high disposal income to boot, the telcos may feel that they should not be prevented from setting a price it feels Singapore residents can and should pay. Such an approach unfortunately also penalizes average Singaporeans and their choices in deciding whether and where to pay to watch the World Cup.

Conclusion

Source: FIFA

With the benefit of hindsight, there would appear to be some scope for the Government to further explore the prospects of a joint-bid between the telcos and to understand how the free-to-air provider, Mediacorp, a 100% Temasek owned company can enter the fray, even partly, with a view to bring the World Cup to Singaporeans at a more reasonable price. To do this, the Government would need to work with the telcos to better apportion costs for Singaporeans and strategise the issue with the public interest in mind.

For now, unless the Government goes back to the drawing board and addresses the issue from the perspective of the average football-loving Singaporean, FIFA notwithstanding, local commercial interests are likely to continue determining how much Singaporeans pay to watch the World Cup.

___________

Useful Links

Singapore costliest place to watch World Cup? – http://www.goal.com/en-sg/news/3880/singapore/2014/03/18/4690244/singapore-costliest-place-to-watch-world-cup

 

 

 

Pritam Singh

*The author is a Member of Parliament for Aljunied GRC (Eunos).  He won the Straits Steamship Prize, awarded to the top graduating student reading both History and Political Science, as an undergraduate at the National University of Singapore in 1999.  A 2003 Chevening Scholar, he also holds a Juris Doctor degree from the Singapore Management University. Pritam currently works as a lawyer and  is an NSman with the rank of Captain. He blogs at http://singapore2025.wordpress.com and is contactable at pritam.singh[at]wp.sg

 

PETALING JAYA: Malaysia Opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim lambasted Singapore for voicing support on Malaysia's initiative in handling the MH370 tragedy.

He described Singapore as "sometimes inconsistent" with its own belief, saying that the country had often championed meritocracy but would settle for "mediocrity" in terms of what was taking place in neighbouring countries including Malaysia.

"We the opposition are not totally against the initiative taken by the Malaysian government, but we question the lack of transparency.

"And Singapore should not infer us the opposition as being irresponsible in its criticism."

Anwar also claimed that he was misquoted in a foreign report, which read that he could solve the missing jet mystery in one second.

"What I actually meant was that I would take spontaneous or immediate action on the case."

*Article first appeared on http://www.nst.com.my/latest/font-color-red-mh370-tragedy-font-anwar-hit...

Much have been said to suggest that the next GE, the 12th since Singapore’s independence, is impending. But is it?

Proponents of an early GE point to global, regional and local factors to support their prediction.

The global scene, particularly, economic and financial trends (depending on how one argues for one or the other, actually) are cited to show that the trends, anywhere from USA to India, from the EU to China or Japan, indicate ‘uncertain’ times or the risks of pullbacks.

On the regional front, the ASEAN Common Market starting in 2015 is predicted to be especially toxic for Singapore’s employment as jobs will be lost, it is implied. But as soon as the floodgates are opened?

The local scene is fraught with tea leaves for reading by fertile minds. The Pioneer Generation Package, the PM directing revising the Registers of Electors (a requirement under Section 14 of the Parliamentary Elections Act… the Registers shall be revised not later than 3 years after every GE), Lim Swee Say saying he’ll contest or the latest movement of a fresh PAP face to a GRC – everything is interpreted to fit the prediction.

I am not denying that global and regional issues do not play a role in the decision to call an election. But usually, they are a minor consideration. In Singapore’s context, the only international issue that was reported to have triggered a GE was in 2001 (“After Sep 11, I decided to bring forward the general election, because I want to deal with the big problems.” PM Goh Chok Tong http://hindu.com/2001/10/27/stories/0327000b.htm). And it wasn’t economics but a political one that tilted the decision.

Therefore, that leaves us with local factors as major drivers to when an incumbent party will call for a GE earlier than stipulated.

At the risk of being judged as over-simplification, one can summarily dismiss most of the reported ‘local events’ (aforesaid) as mere noises. Noises which the PAP is all too happy to leave be as signals of an early GE. If nothing else, it can only work to PAP’s advantage if and when opposition parties, with their relatively lesser and limited resources, expend incorrectly anticipating a GE. What’s more, it may also serve to allow the PAP to gauge what the opposition reveal in their hands. After all, deception is key to victory.

Regardless, before my 2cents worth on predicting the next GE, let us be informed by the history of S’pore GE since independence. With 11 GEs since Aug 1968, the average time between GEs is 4 years 3.6 months. Only in 1988 and 1991 were GEs called after less than 4 years.

1988 was perhaps motivated by its own party renewal; LKY was the only one from the original PAP founding group, and his weight was needed to push the introduction of GRC, leaving him and his younger cabinet colleagues a longer time to manage the anticipated changes needed to continue PAP’s dominance with less chance of a hitch.

1991 was when Goh Chok Tong ostentatiously wanted a new mandate for his succession as the new PM. He had also confidently declared that ‘the ground is sweet’…only to lose 4 instead of 1 seat plus a 2% drop in the popular vote.

Hence, what should we be focusing on for clues in predicting a GE?

Well, short of another catastrophic global economic, financial or political event, there is little reason for not just the PAP but any incumbent party to bring forward a GE. Except when the threats are clearly external and existential, voters are always a fickle lot. To LKY’s mind, one can count only on 30% or about one-third of die-hard supporters either way in any election. If his belief still holds sway in the PAP leadership, as it surely must, then the last 2 BE defeats, coming so soon after the lowest popular win by PAP ever, must surely serve to inform PAP on any decision about the next GE.

So, we are better off looking at the key considerations that must be in place for Lee Hsien Loong to announce the next GE. Amongst others, I suggest two indispensible ones.

One, ‘the ground must be sweet’. If the ground is not sweet, why risk a GE? Why, especially when PAP continues to hold the balance mandate years to govern, to influence or actually sweeten the ground with all the resources at its legal disposal? Rather a no-brainer, no?

If “the ground is not so sweet” (https://www.facebook.com/pap.sg/posts/196651707039358?stream_ref=5), ”, as it was admitted in GE 2011, then there is no legal way to avoid any GE.

Two, the PAP must have enough candidates. Without the requisite numbers, not just to win the GE but to remain ‘dominant’ (PM Lee confirmed that non-negotiable goal in his recent FT interview clarification) i.e. with an overwhelming majority or at least 2/3 of total seats, however sweet the ground may be is of no use.

An analysis of the 81 PAP MPs suggests that at least 4 to 6 old horses are clear liabilities (Mah BT, Raymond Lim, Wong KS, Gan KY). Another 18 to 22 have grown long in the tooth or are looking to retire instead of being retired by an increasingly unfriendly electorate (mainly MPs since 2001 or earlier). Finally, we can point to 3 or more duds from 2011 GE (readers can guess who these may be).

Hence, in total, PAP will need to find at least another 24 new faces like they did 2006, 2011. Perhaps, even more – because with such pressures mounting, Ministers like Khaw and Yaacob will only be too happy to feast on their salary windfalls than suffer the indignity of defeat or the ridicule of lampooners. Heck, I wager that even Goh Chok Tong would like to do a Mahathir, pretending to or resigning ostentatiously to make way for others – but hopefully be persuaded or called back to fight another battle, only this time with a greater say in policies. Who knows? This is a game of chess when it’s about power.

The PAP have already conceded that they could not field their preferred A-list candidates in GE 2011. Can they do better now than then? In the current restless climate  – mostly brought about by their own pride, snafus and doctrinal blindness – what makes anyone think that it would be easier to recruit not just proven but willing potential candidates? Who, in his/her right mind would want to throw in his/her lot with a party clearly on the decline? PAP is caught, nay, have self-trapped themselves between a rock and a hard place. Deservedly so!

It is not my purpose to prove anyone wrong. Just offering a different perspective. If it helps the opposition cause, given their limited resources, that’s good enough for me.

2cents

*The author blogs at 2econdsight.wordpress.com.

<above pic: Straits Times Chief Editor Warren Fernandez>

ST Editorial
18 Apr 2014

There’s much to be said for the spirit of the Chingay Parade, well rooted after over 40 years, which inspires people to “celebrate together as one” the different cultures of Singapore and the world, as its organisers put it. That international flavour has been a highlight of the much-loved street event over the years.

Singaporeans have also come to appreciate the cultural expression of foreign residents, like the Songkran water festival which is synonymous with Thai exuberance. In turn, Singapore citizens abroad and their guests are hospitably treated when they celebrate Singapore Day in a public place, as in London’s Victoria Park.

Plans of some Filipinos to hold a celebration at Ngee Ann City’s Civic Plaza in June to mark Philippine Independence Day ought to be viewed in the same light, especially if they aim to follow a similar event held annually along Madison Avenue in New York City. Of course, some of that city’s xenophobes might protest now and again but Americans in general have welcomed the enlivening effect of the parade, street fair and cultural show.

Most Singaporeans would like to think the Republic would be no less welcoming to Filipinos.

So, what is one to make of the outrageous outburst of some netizens who object to the Pilipino Independence Day Council Singapore’s use of the Marina Bay skyline in an event logo and the terms “two nations” and “interdependence” in posters?

Making anonymous and threatening calls to the organisers of the Filipino event, demanding its cancellation, is simply beyond the pale. Worryingly, it betrays an intolerance and mean-spiritedness among some that might well be turned on local groups or causes too, that rub such netizens the wrong way.

Of course, one can always choose to ignore such ranting and raving among people who lack the courage to identify themselves and offer nothing more than empty vitriol. But the damage they inflict on Singapore’s image is not to be dismissed. Such anti-foreigner sentiment needs to be rejected by all.

While Singaporeans have made known their unhappiness about the over-rapid inflow of foreign workers in recent years, which resulted in key infrastructure, from transport to housing, becoming more crowded and costly, most would not be blind to the contributions of guest workers in building and running today’s Singapore.

The majority of Singaporeans would thus find the unseemly fashion in which foreign guests were targeted to be contrary to what this nation of immigrants stands for, as an open, trading economy, welcoming to people, capital and ideas from around the world.

Source: Straits Times editorial on 18 April 2014

Reform Party notes the announcement by the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) on 14 April 2014 that advance estimates of Singapore’s GDP growth during Q1 2014 show the economy’s quarterly growth rate slowing to just 0.1% at an annualized rate.

However this does not tell the full story, as it was only growth in manufacturing and construction that kept the growth rate from slipping into negative territory. Manufacturing grew at an annualized quarterly rate of 4.5%, down from a growth rate of 10.4% in the preceding quarter. Only the construction sector expanded at a faster rate, growing at a quarterly annualized rate of 10.7% compared to 1.4% in the previous quarter. Services, which account for two-thirds of the economy, contracted at an annualized quarterly rate of 1.8% as compared to the 6.1% expansion in the preceding quarter.

Reform Party expects the external environment to deteriorate further in the course of this year due to a continued slowdown in Chinese and US growth. This will be exacerbated by the misguided efforts by several of the major global economies to simultaneously achieve greater government savings through a reduction in budget deficits or increases in surpluses and an improvement in their external position by running a higher current account surplus. In aggregate this is just likely to worsen a global slowdown in growth rates that has already taken hold.

We therefore anticipate, in the absence of government intervention, Singapore’s growth prospects to worsen over the course of the year and the contraction in our services sector to accelerate. While the government is offsetting some of the slowdown through public sector construction activity, most of this spending goes to foreign companies that largely employ foreign workers. In addition there is a limit to how much infrastructure spending can increase before the rate of return falls to zero. It may seem a good way of increasing GDP growth.

If Reform Party were in government, we would implement a stimulus package of up to 1% of GDP as further measures to offset the slowdown already seen taking hold in the services sector. This would amount to about $2-$3 billion and only be about 10% of the probable real surplus for this year of some $30 billion including investment income and capital receipts. There would thus be no danger of dipping into past reserves. In any case a significant portion of the extra spending would come back to the government in the form of tax receipts, fees and income of GLCs and Stat Boards.

The Reform Party would target lower-income groups, primarily on equity grounds but also on the well-established fact that those on lower incomes spend a higher proportion of their income. Thus money distributed to those on median incomes and below is likely to be more effective in stimulating the economy than if it was given to the better off.

We are hampered by the dearth of statistics that the PAP government makes available as well as the lack of funding for alternative parties. However the Yearbook of Statistics 2013 gives the median monthly income from work, including Employer CPF and share of annual bonuses, in 2012 of full-time employed residents as $3,480 and for those at the 20^thpercentile as $1740. Monthly income from work per household member in full-time employed resident households using the same criteria was $2,127 and $1020 for the median and the 20^th percentile respectively. There were roughly 3.3 million Singapore citizens in 2012.

Reform Party calls on the government to introduce a supplementary budget to provide Singapore citizen household members with a cash payment as follows:

Bottom 20^th Percentile $2000

20^th-50^th Percentile       $1000

50^th-75^th Percentile       $ 200

For children below the age of 18, the payment should be made to their chief caregiver, normally their mother.

We estimate the total initial cost of this measure to be less than $2.5 billion but we expect the final cost to be considerably less once the taxes from the additional spending and output generated are taken into account.

The domestic economy is already close to recession if not already in one. Reform Party believes that stimulus measures of this order of magnitude are needed if the economy is not to deteriorate further and we are not to suffer an unnecessary shortfall in terms of output, employment and growth.

Kenneth Jeyaretnam
Secretary General
REFORM PARTY

[Below is a Facebook status update made by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong about SINGAPOREANS PROTESTING OVER PHILIPPINES INDEPENDENCE DAY HELD AT TAKASHIMAYA]

I was appalled to read about those who harassed the organisers of the Philippine Independence Day celebrations, and spammed their Facebook page. They are a disgrace to Singapore.

Fortunately this appears to be the work of few trolls. Heartened that many sensible Singaporeans condemn this thuggish behaviour, and support Tan Chuan-Jin’s stand on this issue <http://on.fb.me/1ml0Y4u>.

We must treat people in Singapore the way we ourselves expect to be treated overseas. Many Singaporeans live overseas, and are warmly welcomed in their adopted homes. I just attended our Singapore Day in London. How would we have felt if British netizens had spammed our website, and abused Singaporeans living in Britain?

We must show that we are generous of spirit and welcome visitors into our midst, even as we manage the foreign population here. Otherwise we will lower our standing in the eyes of the world, and have every reason to be ashamed of ourselves. – LHL

Lee Hsien Loong

Prime Minister of Singapore

Below is the text of Dr Wong Wee Nam's speech delivered at the forum entitled Responding to Marginalization: Assimilation vs. Integration during the Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats' General Assembly held in Siem Reap, Cambodia in April 2014. 

Singapore is small country. To the world, the country does not seem to have many problems. It is rich, it is efficient, it is stable, it is safe and there is law and order. For these reasons, businesses like Singapore and corporations like to make their headquarters there.

Singaporeans also appear to be colour-blind as far as ethnic relations are concerned and that is why many foreign workers are very eager to work in Singapore. They find Singaporeans tolerant and non-discriminating. In a tiny island like Singapore, there are many enclaves nicknamed after many Asian countries: Little India in Serangoon Road, Little Philippines in Lucky Plaza, Little Myanmar in Peninsula Plaza, Little Vietnam in Joo Chiat and Little Thailand in Golden Mile Complex. These are places where the various foreigners can feel comfortable in. The signboards written in the respective ethnic scripts, the sound of their countries’ music blaring out from the hi-fi players and the smell of spices and indigenous food make these foreign workers feel very much at home.

Is Singapore really a paradise of ethnic harmony? Are there no ethnic tensions beneath this façade of ethnic harmony?

In any society, people differ in their nature, attitudes, ideal, interest, aspirations, community values and religious beliefs. Singapore is no different. We are not a homogeneous society. There are three major races. The Chinese, the largest ethnic group, form 74.2 percent of the population, the Malays 13.2 percent and the Indians 9.2 percent. Each race has its own unique culture, language and also generally shares a common religion. Without understanding and tolerance, these cultural, linguistic and religious differences between the groups can sometimes cause tension and lead to conflict.

Even each of the races is not homogeneous. The Chinese have their dialect groups. In the early days of Singapore they had their ethnic differences, quarrels and discrimination. However, with Mandarin promoted as a common language and inter-marriages, Chinese in Singapore now see themselves more as Chinese Singaporeans and less as Hokkiens, Teochews, Cantonese, Hainanese or Hakkas. However, with the recent influx of migrants from the Republic of China, there is now some tension between some local Singaporean Chinese and the newly-imported Chinese. Even though they can communicate in Mandarin, the differences in attitude, behaviour, culture, slangs and habits do make them distinct.

The Malays are also made up of various groups from the Malay Archipelagos. They are, however, unified by their adoption of the Islam religion and a Malay language.

Prior to 1964, the Chinese and the Malays have no problem co-existing peacefully with one another, each going about their own life and doing their own business. There was no record of ethnic tension between the two races for centuries until 1964. The race riots of 21 July 1964 show that racial harmony could not be taken for granted. If one race is made to perceive as inferior to the other or vice-versa, it lays the foundation for racial conflict. It only takes political groups to champion one side against the other to bring the tension to the surface. A political conflict easily becomes a racial conflict. This was what happened to Singapore in the July 1964.

Once a wound has been inflicted it can easily be reopened. Five years after the first racial riot and four years after Singapore became independent, the second racial riot in Singapore happened. The riot had nothing to do with the people in Singapore. It was actually a racial riot that had started in Malaysia on 13 May 1969 after their general election. But for some reason, it spilled over into Singapore. We, therefore, see that racial emotions is so deep-seated that a riot in a neighbouring country could open up old wounds. Racial harmony is such a fragile thing.

The Indians in Singapore are also not a homogeneous group. They are made up of Hindus, Tamils, Silks, Sri Lankans and others. They have no problem coexisting harmoniously with each other. When Mrs Indira Gandhi, the Prime Minister of India was assassinated on 31 October 1984, it had nothing to do with Singapore. Yet tension arose between the Hindu and the Sikh communities in Singapore. Trouble was averted only with the timely intervention of the Singapore police. India is not even a neighbouring country.

Recently with the influx of the wealthy Northern Indians into Singapore, there is now a potential ethnic tension based on class, caste and language between the Indians from north and the native Singaporean whose forefathers had come mainly from the south.

We can, therefore, see that racial harmony is an elusive creature and ethnic tension bound to exists as long as groups of people see themselves as different from others.

In July 2013 the Institute of Policy Studies, a government think-tank, and OnePeople.sg conducted a study on racial and religious harmony. It was found that while relations between different races appear to be good on the surface, signs of tensions do exist that suggest relationship between the races are not that close.

Though there is no discrimination of minority in using public services or workplace or interracial and religious tension, there are stereotyping as about 80 percent said that if they know a person’s race, they would have a “good idea” of what some of their behaviours and views would be like.

Only 23.3 percent of Chinese respondents said they have close Malay friends.

About 16 percent said they would not try to get to know people of other races and religions even if they were given the opportunity.

There is a lack of true trustworthy relationships. About 63 percent of the respondents from the minority races believed that they could trust more than half of Singaporean Chinese to help them in a national crisis.

The Singapore Democratic Party understands the differences between the various races would remain with us. It believes these differences should not be allowed to create fears, anxiety, discrimination and resentment in any racial group. The most important thing is not to allow any group to lag behind in economic progress. Thus on September 2013, the SDP studied published a policy paper entitled A Singapore for All Singaporeans: Addressing the Concerns of the Malay Community.

Though it addresses only the Malay community, the largest of the minority races, it is an alternative blueprint to build a truly multi-racial, multi-cultural society.

The median household income of the Malay is the lowest amongst the three major races. This is due to many factors such as education, job opportunities and social prejudices.

The SDP believes that by tackling the underlying causes that put the Malay community in Singapore at a disadvantage, we could achieve the noble cause of building an inclusive and cohesive society.

Ethnic tensions will inevitably be present when people with emotional attachment to race, religion and language live together. After a long period of co-existence, different groups learn to live and let live. However the demography of Singapore is changing rapidly with the sudden, great influx of many foreigners. With the sudden flooding of the country with foreigners, there is little time for understanding. The danger is that the newcomers, coming in huge numbers, will ignore the fact that our minority community is an integral part of the Singaporean society. They may not have the awareness that Singapore is a multi-racial and multi-cultural society.

This would create new tensions. Take for example the new migrants from China. It would take time for them to understand the culture of the other minority groups. Many work in the service sector and cannot communicate with the Malays and the Indians. As a result this creates frustration and the minorities feel marginalised.

There was an incident where a new citizen even complained against a neighbour for cooking curry.

Furthermore many citizens do feel their jobs have been taken away and their wages suppressed by the migrant workers. If our minorities start to feel that security, belonging, participation, and economic well-being is being threatened and that they have been discriminated against, the resentment formed could heightened the level of ethnic tensions.

In the past, when migrants come to Singapore, the ties are cut. Nowadays with modern communication and easy travel across the borders, it is harder for the new migrants to integrate or assimilate.

In a big country, ethnic violence can be localised in a small area without affecting the whole country. Singapore is so small that a major ethnic strife would embroil and paralyse the whole country. Not only will there be economic disaster, it will also affect the security of the country as other countries may be drawn into the conflict. We must not forget that new migrants still have relatives in the homeland where they come from.

Peace and stability have painted a rosy picture of ethnic harmony in Singapore, but we can see that there is a lot to be vigilant about and much needs to be done.

Dr Wong Wee Nam is a general practitioner and a member of the SDP's Healthcare Advisory Panel. 

Ten reasons why you must resist the Filipino celebration of their independence day at Orchard Road:-

1. Its our country, our land and though we allow foreigners to celebrate their national day here, it must be done discreetly and preferably indoor. The real show must always belongs to Singapore only.

2. There are at least 10,000 people reported to be dropping by the event so there's the issue of security and crowd control. Other tourists will also be inconvenienced by the massive crowd. By the way, who's paying the tab for the event?

3. If we allow Filipinos to celebrate their national day at Orchard Road, who will be next? The Indians, PRC Chinese or Malaysians? Will Orchard Road be turned into a play ground for foreigners only to wave their own national flags?

4. Its a open secret that our government is courting new citizen votes and the PAP will go all out to appease the foreigner demand to stay in power even at the expense of angering its own people.

5. The government has sold us out by bringing in foreigners to replace us at the job front and new homes are specially build to house them. We can't allow them any ground any more else we become second-class citizens in our own country.

6. Many Singaporeans have complained that they are reporting to foreign supervisors now and we are routinely being replaced by their own kind at the work place. We need to fight back before we scrap the bottom of the barrel.

7. Filipinos tend to group among themselves and there is hardly any integration with us locals. There are already close to 300,000 Filipinos among us and that's enough!

8. The Prime Minister has called us names when we objected to the national day celebration at Orchard and this has as a result created great animosity between the locals and the Filipino community. We apologise for this uniquely- Singaporean phenomenon whereby politicians will criticise its own people routinely so that foreigners can have easy access to jobs, homes and education.

9. We don't hate our Filipino workers but when our sovereignty and national rights are being compromised, we will fight back aggressively with our lives for this is our country.

10. Singaporeans worldwide celebrate Singapore Day in the host countries and not our national day and its mainly confined to parks and not downtown shopping tourist belt. Please don't be fooled by our Prime Minister.

Gilbert Goh

DISCLAIMER: TheRealSingapore.com is a platform for users to submit content and all content remains the property of the individual contributors. The views and opinions expressed by author(s) within the website are solely that of the contributors and in no way reflects the views of TheRealSingapore.com. 

The developments over the celebration of the Philippines Independence Day (PID) by Filipinos at Ngee Ann City is cause for concern – a concern not just over the event but also over the wider and more pressing issue of immigration in Singapore.

Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-jin said that Singaporeans who oppose the celebration “peddle hate”, that such behaviour is “repulsive” and that they were engaging in “bigotry”. PM Lee Hsien Loong joined in, adding that these Singaporeans are a “disgrace to Singapore”.

The pushback by Singaporeans so accused has been vehement. For or against the PID celebration, one thing is clear: Social tension over the large number of foreign workers in Singapore is real and set to become more serious.

This country cannot descend into xenophobia and the SDP repeats our call to Singaporeans to focus our angst and energy on the root-cause of the problem which is the PAP's immigration policy and not on the people who come here to work.

It must be acknowledged, however, that the frustrations of Singaporeans are not fictitious: We face an over-crowded city where jobs are increasingly harder to come by, the cost of living is at a record high, and an infrastructure that is overburdened. This is a recipe for social conflagration.

Given such a circumstance, education and appealing to our better angels is the more effective way to manage social tensions. Giving alternative solutions due attention is also important. To this end, the SDP has drawn up an alternative immigration policy to limit the inflow of foreign workers into this country and implement the Singaporeans First policy. (To read the paper, click here.)

A question of moral legitimacy

At such times, we need leadership. But leadership cannot come in the form of Ministers hurling epithets at Singaporeans, however justified they think their comments are. Leadership must come from authority that possesses moral legitimacy. Think Gandhi, King and Mandela. Such authority governs through persuasion and education, not fear.

Does the PAP have the moral legitimacy over the PID situation – and, for that matter, over the bigger issue of foreign workers in Singapore? How can it when over the years it has chosen not to openly debate the immigration policy but rather force it on the community?

There is also the issue of public assembly. The Government's handling of the matter hardly inspires confidence. Does the PID event at Orchard Road have a permit? If yes (which, presumably, it does), then why were Malaysians arrested for holding a public event following their country's elections in 2013? Why were the Burmese stopped from their gathering (also at Orchard Road) to call for the stop of bloodshed in Myanmar?

Back then, the police had warned that foreigners "should not import their domestic issues from their countries into Singapore and conduct activities which can disturb public order, as there can be groups with opposing views."

Then there are PAP MPs and Government-led organisations who are allowed to stage protests, including protests in security-sensitive areas like Parliament House. That right, however, is denied the opposition.More importantly, why are Singaporeans banned from commemorating events in our own country when Filipinos are given the green light? Members of the SDP were even prosecuted for marking National Day in 2008. 

It is such arbitrary use of power and the disregard for the rule of law that has, in the eyes of many Singaporeans, eroded the moral standing of this Government.

The party claims that it derives its power from regularly held elections. Again, Singaporeans are able to see that the victory did not come from free and fair electoral practices but rather through the control of the mass media, the giving out of monetary packages just before polling, the threat of HDB upgrading, the use of lawsuits, the curtailment of the campaign period...

When moral legitimacy expires and the people don't trust those who rule over them to act in their interest, trouble is seldom far away. And when these same persons in authority ride the high horse and indulge in name-calling, the antipathy grows.

If circumstances deteriorate, the threat of force – and even the use of it – cannot win the cooperation of the people. The most fundamental lesson that any student of politics learns is that without the people's cooperation, a government is defunct.

At this crucial juncture, Singapore needs leadership – leadership that has moral legitimacy, not just executive power – and one that that will win back the trust of our people.

SDP

Source: YourSDP.org

According to a Straits Times survey, voters are most concerned about the presence of government accountability when it comes to picking an MP.

Residents want to see proper checks and balances in place to ensure accountability within the government. For many, this is more important that having a well run estate at the constituency level.

The survey also revealed that another issue that was seen as important was an MP's personal attributes rather than the party he or she belonged to.

The survey asked residents what issues were most important and respondents had to rate the level of importance of each of 6 factors: the party of a candidate, their personal attributes, their impact on the voter, the level of accountability, national policies and the need for more alternative voices.

In general, most voters felt that all attributes were important but also felt that local constituency level issues were not as important as these national level interests.

The survey itself took responses from 500 residents and asked them to rate how important they felt each of the factors were.

[Article first appeared in http://geraldgiam.sg on 21/4/14.]

Indeed, the Finance Minister revealed that the Government had in fact been using about 47% of NIR on average over the past 5 years. This works out to almost half a billion dollars less each year in the Budget than what the Constitution allowed for. However, for FY2014, the Government plans to top up the Budget with the maximum 50% of NIR.I asked the Finance Minister this question during the 14 April 2014 sitting of Parliament to find out if the Government had been using the full 50% of Net Investment Returns (NIR) to supplement the Budget, as is provided for in the Constitution. While it is widely assumed that 50% of the estimated long term annual returns from investing our Reserves is contributed to the Budget each year, the Constitution actually allows for “up to 50%”, which means it could be less than 50%.

———————————

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance what percentage of the Net Investment Returns (NIR) on the net assets managed by Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC), Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and Temasek Holdings is contributed to the Government’s Budget as Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) for each of the last five years, given that NIRC comprises up to 50% of the NIR on the net assets managed by GIC and MAS and up to 50% of the investment income from the remaining assets (which includes those of Temasek Holdings).

Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance): The Net Investment Returns (NIR) framework allows the Government to tap the investment returns of our reserves for budgetary spending in a sustainable way. Under the framework, the Government can spend up to 50% of the long-term expected real return from the net assets managed by GIC and MAS, and up to 50% of the net investment income from Temasek and other assets.

The Government generally budgets to take in 50% of Net Investment Return Contribution (NIRC) at the start of each Financial Year (FY). The actual NIRC taken in at the end of the FY may vary due to changes in the fiscal position and to differences in the actual outturn for the maximum NIRC compared to what was budgeted at the estimates stage.

From FY2009 to FY2013, the actual NIRC taken in has been close to the maximum 50%, with the Government taking in on average slightly above 47% of the NIRC. We expect to take in the maximum 50% of NIRC in FY2014, in view of an expected overall budget deficit.

The NIRC has been able to supplement the Budget by $7 billion to $8 billion annually. Our approach to taking in NIRC reflects a prudent approach to fiscal spending. We should spend to achieve desired outcomes, rather than spend to the last dollar available.

Further, our government spending needs will increase over time, and the NIRC will remain an important source of revenue over the long term. It is therefore vital that we spend in a disciplined way, and ensure sustained benefits from the returns on our reserves.

Source: Singapore Parliament Reports (Hansard)

Gerald Giam

Non-constituency Member of Parliament

Source:: Gerald Giam’s blog

Today the Infocomm Development Authority  (IDA) announced that they were looking to increase competition in the mobile sector by expanding the role of Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVNO).

To those who are not familiar with the jargon of the mobile industry, MVNOs, as the name suggests, do not operate their own networks but instead lease spectrum from other operators and piggy-back on their networks. They then attract customers by offering slightly cheaper price plans than the main operators. They are wholly dependent on the main operators for maintenance of the network.  Service standards are thus usually considerably worse. The main operators will prioritize their own customers in the event of any breakdown.  It can sometimes take weeks to get services restored as I discovered to my cost when using a MVNO for my broadband service in the UK many years ago.

At present there are up to six small MVNOs in Singapore mainly serving foreign workers with a collective market share of less than 1%. Virgin, the UK company controlled by Richard Branson, tried to enter the market as a MVNO in 2001 but quickly gave up, presumably because it was unable to get attractive terms for its leased spectrum.

This may have had something to do with the fact that all the mobile companies, like all the telecoms companies and indeed most of the large corporations serving the domestic market, are controlled by the government through the octopus-like tentacles of Temasek.

As I have long argued, extensive domestic monopolies and cartels, the majority of which lead back to the government, mean that Singaporeans pay more for many goods and services than citizens of other countries and often suffer from a lack of innovation. This is particularly true in mobiles. Mobile plans in Singapore require you to buy a mobile separately. Mobile operators in other countries often offer handsets and include the cost of this in the price plans.  Surprisingly Singaporeans often pay more for their plans without a handset than residents of the UK and the US do for mobile plans that include a new handset.

We also lag behind in innovation. While Singapore may not look bad in a comparison of international broadband speeds we have to consider that we are just a city and a fair comparison would be with speeds in the major cities. The actual broadband speeds, in my experience of Starhub’s network, were nothing like the advertised ones, because it was shared with many users. While SingTel is now rolling out  plans with advertised speeds of up to 500 Mbps, this compares with speeds in major US  cities offered by Google and others of up to 1,000Mbps. And the major US mobile operators rolled 4G networks a long time before Singapore. I also read today that the regulator had to intervene to stop the state-owned mobile companies from charging their customers for what should be a free upgrade to the 4G network. 4G was rolled out in the UK last year so we are lagging behind.

This is what I wrote back in December 2011, when there was the last round of wayang over competition:

In Parliament on Monday the Government announced changes to the Telecommunications Act designed to give them powers to require a telecoms company, or Telco, to divest its assets and business to a separate entity should it be found to be engaging in anti-competitive behaviour. Also the government now has the power to take over any network or services if it is in the National or public interest to do so.

 According to the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts, Dr. Yaacob Ibrahim, the Government is committed to ensuring fair competition ‘because ultimately we believe that this will drive prices to an affordable level for all Singaporeans’. This sounds suspiciously similar to what I have always said. Namely, that competition is as vital in business as it is in politics. In particular I was sceptical not so far back, of the Worker’s Party plans for  nationalising the transport industry when I felt that competition (with a strong neutral regulator ) would always be in the best interests of the consumer. My caveat was that I always point out that what we think of as privatised here in Singapore is not really that privatised.

Are these proposed changes to the Telecommunications Act anything other than a public relations charade designed to give the appearance of opening up the domestic economy to more competition?  In fact they do nothing to reduce the power of government-owned or controlled cartels which dominate many of the key consumer sectors of the economy?

 Who, after all, is the ultimate owner of the three Telcos operating in Singapore? SingTel, though listed, is majority-owned by Temasek. As is Starhub, in which Temasek has an interest, either directly or indirectly, of about 57%. Even the third player, M1, has Keppel Telecoms (an 80% owned subsidiary of Keppel Corporation in which Temasek holds 22%) and SPH Multimedia (part of Mediacorp) as holders of a third of its shares. The Malaysian state Telco, Axiata, owns a further 20%. In any case, a large number of the directors and senior managers at all three Telcos are either MPs, or have a Civil Service or GLC background. Since the Government clearly controls the telecoms industry already, the need for extra powers to nationalize it in the public interest would appear to be unnecessary.

 Without the sale of Temasek’s stakes in at least one of the dominant mobile operators (SingTel or Starhub) here to the private sector, it is difficult to see how we are going to get a more competitive environment, and thus lower costs and greater innovation. Monopolists’ desire to protect their previous investments is going to be a big factor inhibiting their take up of new technologies. Fiddling at the edges with weak players, like MVNOs, who will remain dependent on the regulator to ensure they get treated fairly, is not going to change that.

We are moving globally to a world where quantum leaps in technology and productivity are reducing marginal costs to zero in many industries.  While this might seem a natural recipe for monopoly,  technology is changing so rapidly in many industries that the state capitalist model that Singapore espouses risks being left trailing in the dust. Our state-owned companies may try to hold back innovation and restrict consumer choice at the PAP’s behest to make sure they control the free flow of information and continue to reap monopoly profits. However technology will invariably find a work-around.

One example is the fight unfolding at the moment in the US where a tiny start-up, Aereo, whose business model allows consumers to by-pass the established networks and cable companies and watch TV over the internet, is being challenged in the Supreme Court by the same companies.

I have long advocated a radical dismantling of the state capitalist model and a strengthening of competition regulation if we are to encourage innovation. Mobile telecoms is just one area where government monopoly does not serve consumers’ interests nor our ability to compete globally in new technology industries.

Kenneth Jeyaretnam

Secretary-General of the Reform Party

*The author blogs at http://sonofadud.com

Dr Chee Soon Juan will be speaking at the 59th Liberal International (Ll) Congress to be held in Rotterdam, the Netherlands from 24-27 April 2014. He will be speaking in a session titled "Business, Trade and Human Rights".

Also on the panel are Mr Markus Loening, former German Federal Commissioner for Human Rights; Dr Hakima El Haite, Moroccan Minister for the Environment; and Mr Gerard Oonk, Director of the India Committee of the Netherlands (which is part of the official “Stop Child Labour” NGO Coalition Campaign in the Netherlands); and Mr Jef Wintermans, Director of MODINT, a trade association for textile manufacturers.

The session will discuss balancing sustainable economic growth with the promotion and protection of human rights as well as the advancement of ethical trading and business practices on a regional and international level.

The US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (USSFTA) was touted to be a job creator when it was signed in 2003 (pictured, right). However, most of the jobs created have gone to foreigners brought in enmasse by the PAP Government.

This has, in turn, suppressed wages for Singaporeans, caused the cost of living to escalate, and the quality of life to deteriorate.

The SDP had warned before the USSFTA was signed that because of the non-inclusion of clauses to protect workers' rights and the lack of independent labour unions in Singapore, Singaporean workers' conditions would worsen as a consequence.

The European Union (EU) will also be signing a free trade agreement with Singapore. It has completed its negotiations with Singapore on a free trade agreement which needs to be ratified by its member states. The document does not include provisions that explicitly commit to the protection of workers' rights (see here and here).

The SDP Secretary-General will call on the EU to be mindful not to exploit Singaporean workers. The income inequality generated in Singapore by free trade pacts without addressing workers' wages, coupled with the undemocratic nature of our political system, is ultimately unsustainable and will cause intractable problems for Singapore.

We will post Dr Chee's speech following the conference.

Dr Chee will highlight the effects of past free trade agreements such as the one Singapore signed with the US and how it has affected Singaporean workers. Income inequality has widened in Singapore and low-income workers continue to be left without minimum wage protection.

Source: YourSDP.org

When I entered Parliament in 1980, there were no opposition members in the House. By 1984 we had 2, Chiam See Tong and J B Jeyaretnam. To allay the electorate's concerns on the absence of an opposition voice in Parliament, 2 schemes were introduced in Parliament, one the NCMP(Non Constituency MP) scheme and the other the NMP scheme. I will discuss the NMP scheme here because Singaporeans are now invited to send in their names for consideration if they want to be an NMP.

“A constitutional provision for the appointment of up to 9 NMPs was made in 1990 to ensure a wide representation of community views in Parliament” and “NMPs contribute independent and non-partisan views in Parliament” ( Ref: records from the Singapore Parliament)

To be an NMP, one should be non partisan and show no favour to the party in power or the opposition. Thus they cannot be members of a political party. As non partisan, he should also not use parliament as a platform to champion a particular cause, be it animal, gender, racial or religious interests, as his role is to represent all Singaporean interests. Parliamentary MPs select them from a list recommended by a special select committee. However, for the scheme to truly achieve its objectives, the select committee should have been an independent body of Singaporeans with Singapore's interest at heart. But it has never happened that way.

To find non partisan Singaporeans prepared to go to parliament was never easy. So, over time, the NMP scheme took a path that should never have happened - specifically by allowing sectorial or functional group representation. So you have NMPs representing trade unions, tertiary institutions, professional bodies, businesses, arts and theatres, social services and sports. These are civil society groups with vested interests. Can they be truly non partisan?

When you invite one group and not some others to be represented in Parliament, you raise more questions than answer. Pressure mounts on the select committee - why are some not included? For example, some questioned the rationale for a trade union NMP when there are already so many elected labour MPs.
At the same time, there are many other groups representing clan associations, religious organisations, minority races, new citizens and people of different sexual orientation, all wanting their voices heard in Parliament. Naturally, they are unhappy that they are not allowed representation in Parliament under the NMP scheme. Nevertheless, some can still find a way into Parliament indirectly, through proxy representation - by way of getting an NMP to speak for their cause. Thus the NMP scheme can be a backdoor for some of these vested interest groups.

Parliamentarians must earn the right to speak in the House. To earn this right, he or she must get elected in a general or by-election. Being elected by his constituents, he is responsible and accountable to his constituents for whatever he says in the house. On the other hand, an NMP, not being elected, is not responsible or accountable to anyone. Also, by participating in an election, the MP takes the risk of losing and not being elected. This is not so in the case of the NMP. So Parliament, being the highest legislative body in the land, must not be seen to promote non-risk taking, which is not in line with government's call to its citizens.

At the House sitting to pass this Bill in 1990, l aired my views. When it came to voting, I was torn between party interest and national interest. I chose the latter and voted against it despite the Whip not being lifted. My party was not happy but my conscience was clear.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock

*Article first appeared on Dr Tan's Facebook page here.

Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC MP Hri Kumar said that the GRC System is still very important in Singapore in order to maintain the voices of ethnic minorities in parliament.

He was speaking at a roundtable discussion hosted by the Straits Times last Wednesday.

He shared that one of his Chinese residents had confessed to him that she was more comfortable voting for a Chinese representative than an Indian, noting that Hri Kumar had replaced a Chinese MP, Leong Horn Kee, when he joined the GRC.

Hri Kumar shared that the resident understands that her and her friends' concerns were irrational but he acknowledged that this was still a gut response, likely to affect many others too.

His remarks were in response to a question about whether Singapore should return to having single-member constituencies to allow each MP to stand on his or her own merits for a seat in parliament rather than being able to ride on the coattails of another member of the GRC or the party they stand under.

The GRC system was originally introduced in 1988 to ensure that ethnic minorities held seats in parliament. Each GRC must have at least 1 ethnic minority inside to ensure that these races are represented in parliament.

However, critics have pointed out that there was no lack of ethnic representation before 1988. Many Singaporeans feel that the GRC system is unnecessary as most Singaporeans do not vote along race lines. It also brings in other problems including allowing 'free-riders' to get into parliament without being a very strong candidate.

Hri Kumar expressed that while most Singaporeans may not vote along race lines, there are definitely some who do. This could easily affect the outcome of elections and cause a lack of representation of minorities in parliament. That would be a disaster, he said.

He explained that sometimes the biggest barrier is language, citing his door-to-door sessions where residents chose not to speak with him and instead with other volunteers because they could speak in a language they were more comfortable in.

He said that "these things do matter. And we cannot just brush them aside."