Singapore Democrats

As the next election draws nearer, government-controlled sources of information will increasingly push out commentary praising the PAP regardless of the difficulties and frustration that Singaporeans face.

But while this may have worked well for the ruling party in years past, circumstances have altered considerably with the expansion of the Internet.

No longer is it easy for the PAP to play fast and loose with the facts as bloggers, with the ability to retrieve information at a moment's notice, are able to call out the authorities' bluster and disingenuity.

This is why, if Singapore is going to mature into a thinking society where we are able to distinguish between news and propaganda, we must value our activists.

Alternative newsites such the Temasek Review Emeritus (which has recently called for financial support), The Real Singapore, The Online Citizen, Redwire Times, etc., as well as the myriad of blogs provide an invaluable service in our effort to develop a democracy.

Coupled with a fast-developing civil society sector where activists, once non-existent, are now making themselves heard on a variety of issues, the scene is set for citizens to take on a more meaningful role in shaping public policy.

This is the reason the SDP fought for democracy and the rights of our fellow Singaporeans.

Not only did we believe (and still do) that freedom, in and of itself, is worth defending, but we also knew that without our political rights, we could not fight for our social and economic interests – interests like curbing the excessively liberal immigration policy or protesting against the retention of our CPF money.

The exercise of our fundamental rights of speech, assemble and association – exemplified by the gatherings at Hong Lim Park organised by our activists – have enabled the blogosphere to keep the people informed of the damage done by PAP's policies.

If Singapore is going to develop into a truly First World society, a robust civil society, of which the Internet community plays an integral part, is indispensable.

PM Lee Hsien Loong recently disparaged the Internet as a medium that has “led to divisions and all kinds of different ideas being able to take root and germinate.”

It is unfortunate that the leader of a government that professes to champion a knowledge-based economy cannot see that it is “all kinds of ideas” that has led to progress and the advancement of human civilisation.

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad lamented that he failed in his 22 years in power as the Malays did not feel ashamed when they failed, whether in examinations or in life.

"I spent 22 years trying to change the Malays, trying to alter the perception that they were lazy, I failed," Malaysia's longest serving prime minister said today.

His comments came after the Education Ministry revealed that two examination papers for a national primary school test had been leaked, forcing nearly 500,000 pupils to resit the papers on September 30.

"In the past, when a Malay was sentenced to jail, the offender would hang his head in shame as it was not something to be proud of.

"But today, when a Malay is sentenced to jail, the offender will walk with his head proudly in the air, smiling as if he has achieved something."

The former prime minister was speaking at the launch of the book “Wahai Melayu” by author Anas Zubedy in Petaling Jaya today.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when this topic on market benchmarking of Ministerial and civil service salaries against the top private-sector earners was first debated in Parliament in 1994, I spoke against it.  Thirteen years after Parliament agreed to thesalary benchmarks, the debate continues over whether Ministers are being paid too much.  The issues I spoke on at the debate remain relevant to date.  This is blatant evidence that the public, like me, was not and is not convinced that the salary benchmark is fair and just.  I see no point in wasting public resources debating this salary issue every few years, if the sole purpose of having this supposed debate is just to pacify the people that the Government has given it fair thought before approving the high salaries.

While the Government can claim to have secured the mandate of the people at the recent elections last year and therefore has the right to pay itself based on the terms of the Government deemed most suitable, I wish to remind the Government that I do not think Singaporeans have given the Government a blank cheque.  Given the public disquiet and debate outside this House after the intended salary revision was announced, the Government should seriously consider setting up a panel for public consultation and coming up with a remuneration formula for the public service that can be adhered to, is practical and deemed reasonable by the public.  Many people are not convinced of the rationale of benchmarking the current salaries of the Administrative Service, including the Ministers’, against the top earners in the private sector.  One concern is that it is volatile.  This is inevitable when the variable components of private sector wages, such as bonuses and stock option gains, are taken into account in the setting of annual wages.  In addition, the benchmark not only considers the earnings of Singaporeans but also those of Malaysians and Permanent Residents.  While most of the individuals in the benchmark change every year, the level of wages taken into consideration will most likely increase over the years.  This is largely due to two factors.

Firstly, a larger income gap due to globalisation will result in more outliers earning very high incomes.

Secondly, the embrace of foreign talents in Singapore will result in a greater pool of high-wage earners that will qualify under the benchmark criteria, alongside potentially increased wage.

Even if the Government takes an average from the range within the benchmark, it may not be representative of the general trend of income earned by Singaporeans.  In the worst scenario, such a benchmark may even encourage money-minded civil servants to focus on policies that ensure the existence of the pool of top earners that satisfies the benchmark criteria.  Apart from the potential embarrassment from an escalating benchmark, that is headed for alarming high levels, it is also highly ludicrous that senior civil servants are consistently one of the highest paid in the workforce.  Remuneration in the private sector is volatile and employees are subject to stringent performance reviews.  For instance, stock option gains are possible only when an individual makes the correct investment decisions.  More often than not, such individuals have also helped to improve the value of the company.  However, human beings do not always make the right decisions throughout their entire life.

By benchmarking civil servants’ annual pay against individuals who have performed well during that year, there is an implicit assumption that civil servants and Ministers never make incorrect decisions.  But are they truly super human beings, forever error-free?  In addition, is there any job in the private sector that can guarantee that an employee is always amongst the highest paid in that sector regardless of the performance of that employee? There is much less job security in the private sector and even top performers face continual and fierce competition. Civil servants have an advantage as they are shielded from competition by foreign talent.  Ministers too are guaranteed at least five years of job security from one election to next.  Moreover, for the ruling party, there is always the flexibility of changing election rules in their favour to significantly increase job security for their Ministers.  After all, did SM Goh and MM Lee not previously admit that the GRCs enabled them to bring in Ministerial materials?

It is also ironic that we are consuming taxpayers’ money and we are also discussing how much more of  a fraction of a million to pay civil servants and Ministers, whilst we haggle over additional tens of dollars to hand out to our needy and disadvantaged citizens.  According to the 2005 report by the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations, the Singapore Civil Service has some of the highest paid civil servants in the world.  Our Government holds the view that this will ensure a clean, competent and effective civil service.  However, the fact shows that other countries with lower paid civil servants are able to enjoy such qualities.  Based on the corruption perception index and global competitiveness index, Singapore ranked below Finland and Denmark in 2005 and 2006.  However, the governing of a country should not only take into account these two factors. A more important factor that directly affects the lives of every Singaporean living here is the quality of life.  A survey that evaluates 39 quality of living criteria, including political, social, economic and environmental factors, personal safety and health, education, transport and other public services, found in 2006 that Swiss cities had topped the annual survey again while Singapore, with its highly paid and thus highly competent and clean government, ranked best amongst Asian cities, but was 34th in the world.

Based on the above facts, it would be interesting to know how much the civil servants are paid in countries such as Denmark, Finland and Switzerland, just to name a few. According to a United Nations’ report, the Switzerland Federal Office of Personnel revealed that the basic remuneration of civil servants ranged from 55,000 Swiss francs to 321,000 Swiss francs in 2006 which, based on an exchange rate of about 1.25, was about S$69,000 to S$402,000.

Good performers receive merit increments of up to 6% while worst performing staff may get a decrease in salary.  Although bonuses can reach 12% of salary for outstanding performers, the residence and overtime allowances are paid, it still seems that the highest-paid Swiss civil servants receive a lower salary than what Singapore civil servants and Ministers receive.  But, Sir, we have to note that they have neither a Prime Minister nor a President in Switzerland.

Sir, to cite another example, the 2006 United Nations’ report listed that the lowest monthly civil service salary in Finland was 1,200 euros, while the average was 2,600 euros for all wage earners. Even if the purchasing power parity is taken into account, it is highly likely that our civil servants here have a much better deal.  Based on such evidence, we believe that there is no need for enormously large salaries to attract and retain the right talent to run a country in an efficient and corrupt-free manner.

The Worker’s Party is of the view that the Government should consider modifying the current benchmark in place of a more equitable and sustainable one.  We suggest that the benchmark should take into account international practice, in particular, countries that could be taken into consideration would be those just cited, such as Switzerland, Denmark and Finland as well as those developed countries.

Sir, Denmark, like Singapore, employs a pay adjustment scheme to ensure that the pay of state employees in general and over a long period of time develops in parallel with the wages and salaries in the private sector.  For the Danish, their pay adjustment scheme automatically adjusts the central government pay development to the private sector pay development, but subject to a certain time lag.  Hong Kong tries to maintain their civil service pay level with the private sector, but they only maintain the broad comparability and not any explicit link.  Unlike Singapore, they all do not have a sure-win formula that ensures civil servants always have the best deal by benchmarking specifically to the top few earners.

While we accept that basic salary may be benchmarked broadly with the private sector in line with international best practice, we believe that performance pay should also be introduced to establish a visible correlation between performance and pay. Currently, the civil service has no financial bottom line in ensuring good outcomes although part of the senior officers’ salary is linked to GDP growth.

Sir, while it is necessary to link a percentage of salary to performance, it is also imperative to provide a performance regime whereby it is possible to discriminate performance for non-performers or under-performers, and to reward them accordingly.  Sir, in this respect, I welcome the adjustments in civil service pay structure just announced by the Minister.  A performance-related pay system requires a comprehensive and objective system of measurement, in particular, performance appraisals have to be more vigorous and transparent to the public, something that the public can identify with.  Variable bonus will only be given to civil servants and Ministers if the key performance indicators of the respective Ministries had been met.  We recommend having different KPIs for different Ministries from time to time so that Ministers and civil servants can concentrate their effort in deriving the right policy for Singapore in their respective areas.

For instance, Sir, some possible KPIs that the Government can consider adopting at this point in time are:  a 5% drop in Gini coefficient, reflecting efforts to reduce income disparity, for the Prime Minister; a 2% increase in the proportion of trips taken on public transport during the peak hours, reflecting efforts to make public transport a choice mode by the Ministry of Transport; a 5% increase in the total fertility rate, reflecting efforts to address the ageing population by Ministers and civil servants involved in the Committee on Ageing Population; and perhaps, a minimum long-term unemployment rate, reflecting efforts to address structural unemployment by the Ministry of Manpower.

By linking variable bonuses to clear and objective KPIs, the Government can concentrate on making the right policy for Singapore, rather than spending valuable resources and time tracking how much private sector’s top-earners had made each year and how the Government should therefore be paid.  Such objective short-term goals also track the success and ensure that long-term policies can be gradually attained.  In addition, this system will ensure that public officers are both accountable and responsible for the outcome of their formulated policies and keep the Government transparent to the public, in terms of its achievements, capabilities and accountability.

Sir, I would now like to move on to the issue of recruiting and retaining talent within the civil service.  MM Lee has said that it is not possible to hire a foreign talent to run this country because political leaders must have the passion, the commitment and must share the dream of the people.  Likewise, such qualities are essential in each and every one of our civil servants.  Not everyone is cut out for a career in the civil service and the loss of able people who lack such qualities is not a loss to our country. In fact, I believe that civil servants with such qualities will never be induced by the attraction of a private career and a private life, no matter how great the financial rewards offered by the private sector.  More importantly, Sir, it is common knowledge that the senior civil servants and Ministers in Singapore are hardly paid peanuts.  Although statistics show that officers aged between 28 and 33 make up more than 80% of resignations in the past five years – and I suppose many of these are scholars – it is not unexpected that these officers will review their options when their scholarship bonds end.  The alarmingly high percentage speaks of a bigger problem, perhaps, that scholarships funded out of taxpayers’ money did not attract the right mix of people.

According to one such civil servant who has resigned from the service, he said that the Administrative Service was not the best fit for him.  In fact, some who left said that they were drawn by the different challenges and new experiences, more so than by the money.  The earlier the Government comes to terms with this, the better for the people of Singapore.  If the original intention for the scholarship holders to serve as civil servants is not met and the Government continues to invest more resources in the same process in the hope for a reverse trend, the Government could be wasting precious resources for the wrong reasons and expectations.  In view of the above, I think more efforts should be made to explore other recruitment and screening methods to attract the talent for the right fit.

Sir, we agree that public servants should not be expected to make unreasonable financial sacrifice to be in the public sector.  However, neither should they be seen being paid unreasonable wages for their contributions.  According to the Department of Statistics, the bottom and top 10 decile of employed households registered an average monthly income of $300 and $6,990 respectively in 2006. Given such statistics, the argument that civil servants make unreasonable financial sacrifice is not convincing.  Even in the private sector, no organisation can afford to keep paying increasingly high salaries just to retain and attract top performers since resources are inevitably limited.  Moreover, in the case of public service, we need a different breed of people to come forward to serve. There is simply no point in offering high remuneration just to entice people to serve if what they are interested in is to make more and more money for themselves and their families in pursuit of material interest in life. Sir, do not forget that even if you do not pay peanuts, but pay with a bigger piece, say, a banana instead, you can still get a monkey.

In conclusion, Sir, the real issue is how to find the right leaders to run Singapore and to ensure that Singapore continues to succeed.  Benchmarking the civil service and Ministers’ salaries to the cream of the private sector’s income-earners who may or may not be at the same top all the time is controversial and distracting.  I would like to end this speech by quoting what Chua Mui Hoong said in the Straits Times: “How much they are paid is secondary.  Pay them well, but do not let pay drive the search for leaders.”

The Minister Mentor, Prime Minister’s Office (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): A point of clarification, Sir.  The Member has compared Singapore against Switzerland, Denmark and Finland.  Can I ask him if he considers Singapore’s population to resource ratio equal to Denmark, Switzerland and Finland?

Second, have they brought the standard of living of their people up, multi-fold times, from third-world to first-world in one generation?  To maintain that quality of government both in the political leadership that sets the tone for the whole civil service and for the whole country, can you get a Swiss-type government, Finnish-type government or a Danish government to bring about the results that Singapore has brought about in their own countries, let alone bringing them and their systems into Singapore?  Please explain.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I have to admit that these are the reports that I got from the United Nations. They have put up these reports.  I believe that, based on the reports of what they have assessed today, they are not lousier than Singapore, in terms of living standards or the performance of the government.  They have different conditions from us, but I gather that when we move forward, we are also emulating the standard of living of Switzerland.  Are we not?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: The Member has not answered my question.  Is he saying that we are comparing apples with apples?  Is he saying that the system of government in Finland, Denmark and Switzerland can bring them from First World to a superpower?  Can they do that?  Does he realise that Singapore’s GDP is only one-third of its external trade – that our external trade is three and a half times that of our GDP, higher than Hong Kong, by three times.  And that if this economy ever falters, it is the end of Singapore and its First World status. Denmark, Switzerland and Finland are part of Europe.  They can fail and they are still caught in a European situation.  If we fail here, we fall back to a South East Asian situation.  Just look around you.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, is the Minister Mentor saying that without paying such a high salary, we are bound to fail?  Even if we pay top-earner salaries, I do not think the present Government can bring Singapore to superpower status.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: I am putting a simple question and ask for his clarification.  He has compared Singapore as if it were a Denmark, a Switzerland or a Finland.  Their system, their governments, never produced the kind of transformation that we have had, and their system and their governments have a broader base, and can afford a mediocre government.

The Singapore base is less than 700 square kilometres.  When we started, it was less than 600 square kilometres.  Could the system in Denmark, Switzerland or Finland produce a transformation as in Singapore?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, on what basis does Minister Mentor think that if the system in Denmark and Switzerland is put in Singapore it will not be able to transform Singapore into what we are today?  I want to know what is the basis.  I have no claim that it will happen.  But I would like to know, from the wisdom of Minister Mentor, why he thinks that it will not happen.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Low, I do not think that you can see the clarification of Minister Mentor!  Mr Lee.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: I would like the Member to explain why he thinks Singapore is comparable to Denmark, Switzerland and Finland.  Look at the size of the country, the location of the country, the resources of each country and the history of its people.  Then look at Singapore, its size, its history and the nature of its population.

To make the transformation from what we were in 1959 or 1965, whichever the starting point, to what we are requires an extraordinary government with extraordinary government officers to support it, to bring to where it is.

If we go back to an ordinary system that exists around us, then we will go down to those levels.  It is as simple as that.  There is no guarantee that Singapore with less than 700 square kilometres can maintain this position.

(Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong and Mrs Josephine Teo interrupted the debate at this point.)

*****

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 14 — Ethnic Chinese and even the migrant Myanmar workers are more honest compared to the native Malays where money is concerned, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said today as he continued his decades-old belief of inherent racial weaknesses to explain the economic failures of Malaysia’s largest community.

The former prime minister also claimed that many Malays do not pay back their debts, and therefore many companies prefer to award contracts to the Chinese, whom he insisted were more trustworthy.

“Now I have a bakery. I want to say honestly, I am ashamed because among the Malay, Chinese or Burmese or any other workers, the Malay ones sometimes when they see money they forget themselves, they become dishonest,” Dr Mahathir told Umno-controlled Malay paper, Mingguan Malaysia in an exclusive interview published today.

Dr Mahathir is the chairman of The Loaf, a chain of Japanese-inspired bakery which first opened in Langkawi in 2006.

“Whenever the [Malay workers] see money, if they can swipe the money, they will. I have fired a lot of Malays because of this attitude. But the Chinese are not like that,” the veteran Umno politician said.

According to Dr Mahathir, some of his Malay managers have even tried to collude with his workers to cheat the outlets of money.

He also claimed that there are also cases where the managers did not deposit the outlets’ money in the bank, or have swindled the money by not recording the proper amount of sales.

“When we’re trustworthy, when we want to lend money, people will give because they know we will pay it. How many Malays when they borrow money, they don’t pay back?” asked Dr Mahathir.

He singled out as an example, those who received scholarships but refused to pay them back despite having the money to do so.

“We have to be trustworthy so people will give contracts to us. When we want to give contracts, we give to the Chinese instead because we know they will do their work properly. This is our weakness, not trustworthy,” added Dr Mahathir.

Dr Mahathir was widely panned last week after he described Malays as being lazy and dishonest in a speech last Thursday.

The 89-year-old said Malaysia’s largest race group lacks good values, ethics and were not hardworking enough, which he said has caused them to trail behind the other races economically.

In response to criticisms, Dr Mahathir said he was only calling a spade a spade: “I have never wanted to fool myself. If they’re lazy, I call them lazy. If people don’t like it, then be it. When I was Umno president, I used to nag all the time.”

Dr Mahathir is a staunch defender of race-based affirmative action policies as prescribed by the New Economic Policy, an economic model mooted in 1971 to close the socio-economic gap between the largely-urban Chinese and the rural Malays as well as other indigenous Bumiputera.

C O N F I D E N T I A L

SIPDIS 

E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/12/2017
TAGS: ECONPGOVPRELETRDSN
SUBJECT: BURLESQUE AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS LATER, SINGAPORE
STILL SEEKING SPONTANEITY 

REF: A. 05 SINGAPORE 2058
     ¶B. 05 SINGAPORE 2609 

¶1. (SBU) Summary: The Government of Singapore (GOS) is attempting to steer the economy to become more knowledge-based and entrepreneurial to counter the competitive challenges China, India and other lower-cost exporters pose. Characteristically, the GOS is taking the lead, putting schemes in place to encourage creativity and entrepreneurship, particularly in "strategic" sectors. It has even tinkered around the edges of its tight political controls, mandating a relaxation in social mores in order to give Singapore "buzz." But the dominance of government-linked corporations in Singapore's economy, an educational system that stifles independent thinking, and the continued presence of the government in many aspects of Singaporean life perpetuate "habits of constraint" that may hinder the development of entrepreneurship in Singapore. The recent failure of a French topless revue franchise, part of a GOS-led effort to pump up Singapore's nightlife, has laid bare the limits of such top-down efforts. End Summary.

------------------
Creativity by Fiat
------------------

¶2. (U) A strong record of economic success notwithstanding, Singapore's leadership recognizes that further growth will depend on finding economic advantages over the rapidly growing and low-cost economies of China, India, and ASEAN neighbors. As a developed nation, Singapore must also compete with other developed economies. To continue thriving, the GOS believes that Singapore must transform itself from an efficient platform for manufacturing and logistics into a global, knowledge-based and more entrepreneurial economy. With a small population, no natural resources, and a trade-heavy economy, the GOS is acutely aware of the need for Singapore to develop a strong entrepreneurial class that can adapt.

¶3. (SBU) Pursuing the objective with its usual vigor, the government is pouring in resources. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong chairs a Research, Innovation and Enterprise Council (RIEC), established in 2005 to promote R&D and innovation in "strategic" sectors of the economy. In 2006, the RIEC announced it would provide $916 million (SGD1.4 billion) over the next five years to fund entrepreneurs. Also in 2006, the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) unveiled its Science and Technology 2010 Plan (STP2010) which commits $4.9 billion (SGD7.5 billion) over the next five years to encourage raising R&D spending to 3 percent of Singapore's GDP by 2010.

-------------
The Challenge
-------------

¶4. (SBU) GOS efforts to promote entrepreneurship continue to encounter a risk-averse Singaporean mindset, government domination of the economy, and discouragement of critical thinking and inflexibility in the educational system. The 2007 Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Report (GEM) showed that, among the surveyed OECD and developed economies, Singapore was consistently below the mean for all indicators of social and cultural attitudes toward entrepreneurship. For example, only 57.8 percent of Singaporeans believed that new business success was accorded high status in their country, compared to an average of 66.2 percent among all the countries in the survey, ranking Singapore 21st of 24.

-------------------------
Government Itself a Cause
-------------------------

¶5. (C) Entrepreneurs continue to face obstacles in a number of sectors in the form of Government-Linked Corporations (GLCs), which account for nearly 60 percent of the national GDP. Temasek Holdings, the government's investment arm, is by far the largest investor in Singapore, with an estimated 50-percent stake in Singapore's GLCs. GLCs often compete against each other in key markets, making entry by an independently-held company difficult. For example, SingTel and Starhub, both Temasek Holdings companies, compete directly in the wireless service market and will soon do the same in the cable television market. The strong GOS role in directing the economy likely has the unintended result of "crowding out" natural economic development, according Dr. Sha Reilly, Chief Knowledge Officer at the National Library Board (NLB), which has a mandate to encourage creativity and entrepreneurship among young Singaporeans. She believes Singaporeans look first to the government, rather than the private sector, to be the innovation leader.

¶6. (C) Small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) -- a potential source of innovation and commercial nimbleness -- find it difficult to secure financing for their businesses since financial institutions, accustomed to an abundance of large corporate customers, are reluctant to lend to riskier SMEs. The 2007 GEM report ranked Singapore 17 out of 21 countries for venture capital availability. The Singapore Stock Exchange (SGX) is similarly inhospitable to SMEs, with many Singaporean entrepreneurs opting to list in other countries. SGX Executive Vice President Lawrence Wong told us that the SGX targets SMEs with a capitalization of SG$500 million to SG$5 billion ($327 million - $3.27 billion). Wong characterized the amount as "not a lot," but it does put SGX listing out of the range of many SMEs. He says a GOS proposal to develop an exchange catering to smaller firms was "still under discussion."

7.(C) While the government has allocated various funds to encourage SMEs, a number of business leaders told us that funding is still inadequate. They suggested that even if sufficient funding were available, it would still take at least a generation before an entrepreneurial culture would truly take root. Of the $4.9 billion STP2010 budget, less then two percent has been allocated for SME financing. Inderjit Singh, a Member of Parliament and an entrepreneur, told us that the proliferation of entrepreneurial schemes for SMEs was "government lip-service that fails to address the critical need to divest GLCs and open markets."

----------------------------------------
Political System Discourages Risk-Taking
----------------------------------------

¶8. (SBU) The GOS's tight political control and the "habits of constraint" it fosters have inhibited the development of an entrepreneurial spirit and risk-taking culture, according to Nominated Member of Parliament Kum Hong Siew and others. G. Jahyakrishan, Assistant Director of International Enterprise Singapore (IE), a government entity responsible for helping Singaporean companies grow globally, believes that a prevailing atmosphere of restraint "subtly" leads to less risk-taking behavior by firms and individuals. Siew believes the government's attempt to encourage economic risk-taking while limiting political and social freedoms is unsustainable because it discourages the kind of critical thinking required for entrepreneurship.

----------------------------
Education System Not Helping
----------------------------

¶9. (C) Singapore boasts a highly competitive and well-regarded primary and secondary education system, but the number of Singaporeans completing a tertiary education is relatively low. Only 23 percent of Singaporean students entering primary school complete a degree at a local four-year university. In other knowledge-economies such as Japan's, around 50 percent of students complete a university degree. However, according to Cheryl Chan, Assistant Director of the Planning Division at the Ministry of Education (MOE), the government does not plan to encourage more students to get a higher education. The university enrollment rate will continue to be maintained at 20-25 percent because the Singaporean labor market does not need everyone to get a four-year degree, she asserted.

¶10. (SBU) Singapore's education system has been criticized for being heavy on memorization and light on critical thinking and creativity. Based on the British model, the system is highly test-focused and separates students (a process referred to as "streaming") at an early age between high, middle, and low achievers. The GOS has slowly begun to introduce greater flexibility into the system by allowing "streaming" in subjects (rather than based on total average scores) and has created new magnet schools focused on mathematics, the arts, and sports. But there are only three such schools, and the overall education system has changed little.

-------------------------------
Some "Strategic" Sectors Suffer
-------------------------------

More local Singaporeans are getting hired amid a tight labour market. 

According to a half-yearly report issued on Monday, 15 September 2014, by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) - Statement on Labour Market Developments - the number of local Singaporeans employed in the first half of this year grew by 41,000. This is an increase of nearly 7,000 Singaporeans in the corresponding period in 2013.

The low unemployment rate has caused wages to rise and the real median income for fully-employed Singaporeans grew by 4.6 per cent last year.

MOM expects the hiring of local Singaporeans is expected to continue. It attributed the trend to “a confluence of foreign workforce constraints, higher wages and employers' adoption of flexible work arrangements to attract more women and older workers."

The employment of foreigners has decreased considerably. Excluding maids, the employment growth of foreign workers was 3.8%. The growth was 4.2% the previous year. MOM said the foreign employment growth in the second quarter of 2014 was the lowest since the third quarter of 2009, during the global recession.

Singaore Democrats

The ban of Ms Tan Pin Pin's film To Singapore, With Love is most unfortunate. The excuse given by the MDA that the decision was based on national security grounds defies reason especially when taken together with the PAP's immigration policy.

The SDP has said before that the large number of foreigners allowed into Singapore over a compressed period does not allow these nationals to assimilate into our social and cultural fabric.

This, per se, raises serious national security concerns.

Without a measured approach to immigration, we could be blindsided by developments of which a single incident could ignite and quickly spin out of control. The riot in Little India last year is but one example.

And even if we did react promptly, our actions could be severely constrained by the sheer number of the nationals and the political-diplomatic pressures exerted by their governments.

Thus far, we have been fortunate that no such incident has yet taken place. We are, however, tempting fate as the PAP continues to increase the number of foreigners entering this country despite the fact that we are already the third most densely populated country in the world.

No one is asking the Government to close our borders to foreigners. It is the execution of our immigration policy that is cause for concern. It should not have to be said that influx of foreign nationals must be weighed against national security considerations.

And yet, the party is minded to ban a documentary about Singaporeans – a group including lawyers, medical professionals and elected MPs – who have been away from the country for nearly half-a-century based on, it insists, national security concerns.

The danger that confronts Singapore is that a party that has been in power for as long as the PAP has, feels a sense of entitlement and arrogates to itself the right to do anything to protect its power even at the expense of the country.

Original letter sent to Lianhe Zaobao  and published (see below) on 8 Sep 2014

I refer to the article published on 3 Sep 2014 and thank Mr Ye for his letter. Mr Ye would know that PAP MPs who participated in last month’s parliamentary debate on the Israel-Palestinian conflict on 5 Aug 2014, like me, also enquired about the prospects of Singapore taking a stronger position in the matter. Hence, I am puzzled by the title of the article, “MP should take into account national interest when taking a stand on international conflict”.

I would like to clarify that insofar as my support for Palestine is concerned, I support all initiatives that lead to a peaceful resolution of the Israel-Palestinian conflict resulting in a just and internationally recognised settlement which creates a sovereign homeland not just for the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, but one which ensures the right of Israel’s existence as well. Until a final settlement is reached, I also support all humanitarian efforts to assist all those affected by the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

In a Facebook post on 23 July 2014, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong also called on Singaporeans to keep the victims of the conflict in Gaza in our “thoughts and prayers”. The Prime Minister also encouraged Singaporeans to donate towards humanitarian assistance efforts in Gaza. Since then, many Singaporeans of all races and religions have contributed generously. Singaporean Malay-Muslims contributed more than $1.2 million through all the 68 mosques in the country.

Mercy Relief, a secular and well-known Singaporean organization only last weekend organized ‘Pause for a Cause’ in Orchard Road, to raise money towards the humanitarian fund raising efforts in Gaza. Mercy Relief also organized a charity playdate at Northstar@AMK and collaborated with a well-know yoga operator, Sadhna Sanctuary to raise funds for the same purpose.

At its recent Hari Raya celebration for Aljunied GRC residents held at Jalan Damai, Workers’ Party MPs and members who had also joined the call to raise funds for the humanitarian effort in Gaza, handed over a cheque to the Badan Agama Dan Pelajaran Radin Mas (BAPA) or Religious & Educational League Of Radin Mas, a non-profit social organization which was first formed in Singapore in 1957.

Mr Yap would appreciate that Singapore is an open society and because of our international trade connections and a more interconnected world today, Singaporeans, including younger Singaporeans, are likely to be much more engaged in international affairs in future, not less. This is also part and parcel of citizen participation in a parliamentary democracy.

I believe that as a people living together in a multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-religious society for close to 50 years, we can understand each others’ sentiments and concerns, and even emotional responses to different events within our region and around the world. We should continue to respect each others’ views and allow one another the space to express views and feelings of happenings around us and the world, while being mindful of the sensitivities, and exercise self-restrain and tolerance towards each others as Singaporeans.

Pritam Singh
MP for Aljunied GRC

Original Letter by Mr Ye dated 3 September 2014

Aljunied GRC MP Pritam Singh recently called upon the government to take a stronger position in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and had earlier openly expressed support for the “Save Palestine” movement

(I am not sure what ‘Save Palestine’ movement Mr Ye is referring to in this case. I assume it is for the letter of support I gave one of my resident’s who sought to hold a charity fundraising concert on HDB land in Eunos in aid of the humanitarian effort in Gaza, with proceeds from the concert going to Mercy Relief).

From my position of as an ordinary citizen, I am very curious to know in what capacity MP Pritam Singh is expressing his support. Is it in his personal capacity? Or does he represent all Aljunied MPs to do so?

According to press reports, in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, both sides had used firepower / aggressive methods to inflict casualties on their opponents.

Foreign Minister Shanmugam, in answering an oral parliamentary question in Parliament in August filed by Chua Chu Kang MP Zaqy Mohamad, emphasised that Singapore supports following international law will support sanctions/punishments in accordance with international law.

In the current complex situation, both Israelis and Palestinians are blaming each other. Frankly, they should be accountable to the blameless dead and injured civilians, and in seeking to achieve their political aims, they should not sacrifice the safety and lives of civilians.

When cars go out of fashion, what happens to car parks?' 

It seems hard to imagine at the moment, but a day may (soon) come when cars go out of fashion in Singapore.

It is already happening in some European cities. Youngsters no longer see a need to take driving lessons, let alone buying a car. People are walking, cycling, taking public transport. The occasional car needs can be satisfied more coolly, via Uber or Zipcar or many such local ridesharing equivalents.

That will transform lifestyles and city landscape, for the better! Car parks will become excessive and redundant.

To help re-imagine such a scenario, URA is supporting PARK(ing) Day on Friday, offering all its parking lots for the public to transform into creative, temporary public 'PARKS'. This is part of a global PARK(ing) Day initiative.

The mission is to get everyone to envision a city with fewer cars, and more space for people, for living.

All ideas are welcome. We have so far received about 50 registrations, from community groups, local businesses and student bodies. The variety and creativity of the entries are inspiring.​

Former PAP candidates in the last election that lost in their respective constituencies have been moved to other constituencies.

Mr Ong Ye Kung who was appointed as a grassroots adviser in Kaki Bukit following a loss in the 2011 GE at Aljunied GRC has been moved to Sembawang GRC with Khaw Boon Wan.

Mr Desmond Choo who lost in Hougang has been moved to Tampines.

The two will start to serve residents through the Grassroots at these new areas in preparation for the next election.

Two other long-time grassroots leaders have been moved into their old constituencies to take over their responsibilities.

These include Dr Kee Wei Keong, 64, and Mr Goh Chee Koh.

Both have served in various grassroots for over 20 years.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when this topic on market benchmarking of Ministerial and civil service salaries against the top private-sector earners was first debated in Parliament in 1994, I spoke against it.  Thirteen years after Parliament agreed to the salary benchmarks, the debate continues over whether Ministers are being paid too much.  The issues I spoke on at the debate remain relevant to date.  This is blatant evidence that the public, like me, was not and is not convinced that the salary benchmark is fair and just.  I see no point in wasting public resources debating this salary issue every few years, if the sole purpose of having this supposed debate is just to pacify the people that the Government has given it fair thought before approving the high salaries.

While the Government can claim to have secured the mandate of the people at the recent elections last year and therefore has the right to pay itself based on the terms of the Government deemed most suitable, I wish to remind the Government that I do not think Singaporeans have given the Government a blank cheque.  Given the public disquiet and debate outside this House after the intended salary revision was announced, the Government should seriously consider setting up a panel for public consultation and coming up with a remuneration formula for the public service that can be adhered to, is practical and deemed reasonable by the public.  Many people are not convinced of the rationale of benchmarking the current salaries of the Administrative Service, including the Ministers’, against the top earners in the private sector.  One concern is that it is volatile.  This is inevitable when the variable components of private sector wages, such as bonuses and stock option gains, are taken into account in the setting of annual wages.  In addition, the benchmark not only considers the earnings of Singaporeans but also those of Malaysians and Permanent Residents.  While most of the individuals in the benchmark change every year, the level of wages taken into consideration will most likely increase over the years.  This is largely due to two factors.

Firstly, a larger income gap due to globalisation will result in more outliers earning very high incomes.

Secondly, the embrace of foreign talents in Singapore will result in a greater pool of high-wage earners that will qualify under the benchmark criteria, alongside potentially increased wage.

Even if the Government takes an average from the range within the benchmark, it may not be representative of the general trend of income earned by Singaporeans.  In the worst scenario, such a benchmark may even encourage money-minded civil servants to focus on policies that ensure the existence of the pool of top earners that satisfies the benchmark criteria.  Apart from the potential embarrassment from an escalating benchmark, that is headed for alarming high levels, it is also highly ludicrous that senior civil servants are consistently one of the highest paid in the workforce.  Remuneration in the private sector is volatile and employees are subject to stringent performance reviews.  For instance, stock option gains are possible only when an individual makes the correct investment decisions.  More often than not, such individuals have also helped to improve the value of the company.  However, human beings do not always make the right decisions throughout their entire life.

By benchmarking civil servants’ annual pay against individuals who have performed well during that year, there is an implicit assumption that civil servants and Ministers never make incorrect decisions.  But are they truly super human beings, forever error-free? In addition, is there any job in the private sector that can guarantee that an employee is always amongst the highest paid in that sector regardless of the performance of that employee? There is much less job security in the private sector and even top performers face continual and fierce competition. Civil servants have an advantage as they are shielded from competition by foreign talent.  Ministers too are guaranteed at least five years of job security from one election to next.  Moreover, for the ruling party, there is always the flexibility of changing election rules in their favour to significantly increase job security for their Ministers.  After all, did SM Goh and MM Lee not previously admit that the GRCs enabled them to bring in Ministerial materials?

It is also ironic that we are consuming taxpayers’ money and we are also discussing how much more of  a fraction of a million to pay civil servants and Ministers, whilst we haggle over additional tens of dollars to hand out to our needy and disadvantaged citizens.  According to the 2005 report by the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations, the Singapore Civil Service has some of the highest paid civil servants in the world.  Our Government holds the view that this will ensure a clean, competent and effective civil service.  However, the fact shows that other countries with lower paid civil servants are able to enjoy such qualities.  Based on the corruption perception index and global competitiveness index, Singapore ranked below Finland and Denmark in 2005 and 2006.  However, the governing of a country should not only take into account these two factors. A more important factor that directly affects the lives of every Singaporean living here is the quality of life.  A survey that evaluates 39 quality of living criteria, including political, social, economic and environmental factors, personal safety and health, education, transport and other public services, found in 2006 that Swiss cities had topped the annual survey again while Singapore, with its highly paid and thus highly competent and clean government, ranked best amongst Asian cities, but was 34th in the world.

Based on the above facts, it would be interesting to know how much the civil servants are paid in countries such as Denmark, Finland and Switzerland, just to name a few. According to a United Nations’ report, the Switzerland Federal Office of Personnel revealed that the basic remuneration of civil servants ranged from 55,000 Swiss francs to 321,000 Swiss francs in 2006 which, based on an exchange rate of about 1.25, was about S$69,000 to S$402,000.

Good performers receive merit increments of up to 6% while worst performing staff may get a decrease in salary.  Although bonuses can reach 12% of salary for outstanding performers, the residence and overtime allowances are paid, it still seems that the highest-paid Swiss civil servants receive a lower salary than what Singapore civil servants and Ministers receive.  But, Sir, we have to note that they have neither a Prime Minister nor a President in Switzerland.

Sir, to cite another example, the 2006 United Nations’ report listed that the lowest monthly civil service salary in Finland was 1,200 euros, while the average was 2,600 euros for all wage earners. Even if the purchasing power parity is taken into account, it is highly likely that our civil servants here have a much better deal.  Based on such evidence, we believe that there is no need for enormously large salaries to attract and retain the right talent to run a country in an efficient and corrupt-free manner.

The Worker’s Party is of the view that the Government should consider modifying the current benchmark in place of a more equitable and sustainable one.  We suggest that the benchmark should take into account international practice, in particular, countries that could be taken into consideration would be those just cited, such as Switzerland, Denmark and Finland as well as those developed countries.

Sir, Denmark, like Singapore, employs a pay adjustment scheme to ensure that the pay of state employees in general and over a long period of time develops in parallel with the wages and salaries in the private sector.  For the Danish, their pay adjustment scheme automatically adjusts the central government pay development to the private sector pay development, but subject to a certain time lag.  Hong Kong tries to maintain their civil service pay level with the private sector, but they only maintain the broad comparability and not any explicit link.  Unlike Singapore, they all do not have a sure-win formula that ensures civil servants always have the best deal by benchmarking specifically to the top few earners.

While we accept that basic salary may be benchmarked broadly with the private sector in line with international best practice, we believe that performance pay should also be introduced to establish a visible correlation between performance and pay. Currently, the civil service has no financial bottom line in ensuring good outcomes although part of the senior officers’ salary is linked to GDP growth.

Sir, while it is necessary to link a percentage of salary to performance, it is also imperative to provide a performance regime whereby it is possible to discriminate performance for non-performers or under-performers, and to reward them accordingly.  Sir, in this respect, I welcome the adjustments in civil service pay structure just announced by the Minister.  A performance-related pay system requires a comprehensive and objective system of measurement, in particular, performance appraisals have to be more vigorous and transparent to the public, something that the public can identify with.  Variable bonus will only be given to civil servants and Ministers if the key performance indicators of the respective Ministries had been met.  We recommend having different KPIs for different Ministries from time to time so that Ministers and civil servants can concentrate their effort in deriving the right policy for Singapore in their respective areas.

For instance, Sir, some possible KPIs that the Government can consider adopting at this point in time are:  a 5% drop in Gini coefficient, reflecting efforts to reduce income disparity, for the Prime Minister; a 2% increase in the proportion of trips taken on public transport during the peak hours, reflecting efforts to make public transport a choice mode by the Ministry of Transport; a 5% increase in the total fertility rate, reflecting efforts to address the ageing population by Ministers and civil servants involved in the Committee on Ageing Population; and perhaps, a minimum long-term unemployment rate, reflecting efforts to address structural unemployment by the Ministry of Manpower.

By linking variable bonuses to clear and objective KPIs, the Government can concentrate on making the right policy for Singapore, rather than spending valuable resources and time tracking how much private sector’s top-earners had made each year and how the Government should therefore be paid.  Such objective short-term goals also track the success and ensure that long-term policies can be gradually attained.  In addition, this system will ensure that public officers are both accountable and responsible for the outcome of their formulated policies and keep the Government transparent to the public, in terms of its achievements, capabilities and accountability.

Sir, I would now like to move on to the issue of recruiting and retaining talent within the civil service.  MM Lee has said that it is not possible to hire a foreign talent to run this country because political leaders must have the passion, the commitment and must share the dream of the people.  Likewise, such qualities are essential in each and every one of our civil servants.  Not everyone is cut out for a career in the civil service and the loss of able people who lack such qualities is not a loss to our country. In fact, I believe that civil servants with such qualities will never be induced by the attraction of a private career and a private life, no matter how great the financial rewards offered by the private sector.  More importantly, Sir, it is common knowledge that the senior civil servants and Ministers in Singapore are hardly paid peanuts.  Although statistics show that officers aged between 28 and 33 make up more than 80% of resignations in the past five years – and I suppose many of these are scholars – it is not unexpected that these officers will review their options when their scholarship bonds end.  The alarmingly high percentage speaks of a bigger problem, perhaps, that scholarships funded out of taxpayers’ money did not attract the right mix of people.

According to one such civil servant who has resigned from the service, he said that the Administrative Service was not the best fit for him.  In fact, some who left said that they were drawn by the different challenges and new experiences, more so than by the money.  The earlier the Government comes to terms with this, the better for the people of Singapore.  If the original intention for the scholarship holders to serve as civil servants is not met and the Government continues to invest more resources in the same process in the hope for a reverse trend, the Government could be wasting precious resources for the wrong reasons and expectations.  In view of the above, I think more efforts should be made to explore other recruitment and screening methods to attract the talent for the right fit.

Sir, we agree that public servants should not be expected to make unreasonable financial sacrifice to be in the public sector.  However, neither should they be seen being paid unreasonable wages for their contributions.  According to the Department of Statistics, the bottom and top 10 decile of employed households registered an average monthly income of $300 and $6,990 respectively in 2006. Given such statistics, the argument that civil servants make unreasonable financial sacrifice is not convincing.  Even in the private sector, no organisation can afford to keep paying increasingly high salaries just to retain and attract top performers since resources are inevitably limited.  Moreover, in the case of public service, we need a different breed of people to come forward to serve. There is simply no point in offering high remuneration just to entice people to serve if what they are interested in is to make more and more money for themselves and their families in pursuit of material interest in life. Sir, do not forget that even if you do not pay peanuts, but pay with a bigger piece, say, a banana instead, you can still get a monkey.

In conclusion, Sir, the real issue is how to find the right leaders to run Singapore and to ensure that Singapore continues to succeed.  Benchmarking the civil service and Ministers’ salaries to the cream of the private sector’s income-earners who may or may not be at the same top all the time is controversial and distracting.  I would like to end this speech by quoting what Chua Mui Hoong said in the Straits Times: “How much they are paid is secondary.  Pay them well, but do not let pay drive the search for leaders.”

The Minister Mentor, Prime Minister’s Office (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): A point of clarification, Sir.  The Member has compared Singapore against Switzerland, Denmark and Finland.  Can I ask him if he considers Singapore’s population to resource ratio equal to Denmark, Switzerland and Finland?

Second, have they brought the standard of living of their people up, multi-fold times, from third-world to first-world in one generation?  To maintain that quality of government both in the political leadership that sets the tone for the whole civil service and for the whole country, can you get a Swiss-type government, Finnish-type government or a Danish government to bring about the results that Singapore has brought about in their own countries, let alone bringing them and their systems into Singapore?  Please explain.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I have to admit that these are the reports that I got from the United Nations. They have put up these reports.  I believe that, based on the reports of what they have assessed today, they are not lousier than Singapore, in terms of living standards or the performance of the government.  They have different conditions from us, but I gather that when we move forward, we are also emulating the standard of living of Switzerland.  Are we not?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: The Member has not answered my question.  Is he saying that we are comparing apples with apples?  Is he saying that the system of government in Finland, Denmark and Switzerland can bring them from First World to a superpower?  Can they do that?  Does he realise that Singapore’s GDP is only one-third of its external trade - that our external trade is three and a half times that of our GDP, higher than Hong Kong, by three times.  And that if this economy ever falters, it is the end of Singapore and its First World status. Denmark, Switzerland and Finland are part of Europe.  They can fail and they are still caught in a European situation.  If we fail here, we fall back to a South East Asian situation.  Just look around you.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, is the Minister Mentor saying that without paying such a high salary, we are bound to fail?  Even if we pay top-earner salaries, I do not think the present Government can bring Singapore to superpower status.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: I am putting a simple question and ask for his clarification. He has compared Singapore as if it were a Denmark, a Switzerland or a Finland.  Their system, their governments, never produced the kind of transformation that we have had, and their system and their governments have a broader base, and can afford a mediocre government.

The Singapore base is less than 700 square kilometres.  When we started, it was less than 600 square kilometres.  Could the system in Denmark, Switzerland or Finland produce a transformation as in Singapore?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, on what basis does Minister Mentor think that if the system in Denmark and Switzerland is put in Singapore it will not be able to transform Singapore into what we are today?  I want to know what is the basis.  I have no claim that it will happen.  But I would like to know, from the wisdom of Minister Mentor, why he thinks that it will not happen.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Low, I do not think that you can see the clarification of Minister Mentor!  Mr Lee.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: I would like the Member to explain why he thinks Singapore is comparable to Denmark, Switzerland and Finland.  Look at the size of the country, the location of the country, the resources of each country and the history of its people.  Then look at Singapore, its size, its history and the nature of its population.

To make the transformation from what we were in 1959 or 1965, whichever the starting point, to what we are requires an extraordinary government with extraordinary government officers to support it, to bring to where it is.

If we go back to an ordinary system that exists around us, then we will go down to those levels.  It is as simple as that.  There is no guarantee that Singapore with less than 700 square kilometres can maintain this position.

(Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong and Mrs Josephine Teo interrupted the debate at this point.)

*****

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate.

A Minister in Singapore gets an annual salary of $1.2 million, our Prime Minister gets $1.9 million, and our Minister Mentor gets $2.7 million, as reported in the press.  Compared to our office-bearers, the President of the United States gets an annual salary of only nearly $1 million.  The Prime Minister of Canada gets paid about S$400,000; the Australian Prime Minister receives an annual salary of about S$300,000; the Prime Minister of the UK gets about S$500,000 and the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong SAR government gets about S$600,000.  The salaries of these heads of government that I cited are amongst the highest paid in the world and the salaries of our Ministers easily surpass them.  It can be said that our Ministers receive the highest salaries in the world.  This can be entered into the Guinness Book of Records as a world record.  This is another first that Singapore can boast of, ie, Singapore is a small country described only as a dot on the world.  The United States of America has a land area of about 15,000 times that of Singapore and over 60 times more people than us, but our Prime Minister earns more than President Bush.

Yet, our Prime Minister and other Ministers are still dissatisfied – they want more. The question is:  if the heads of governments of other bigger and more industralised countries can live on salaries less than a million dollars, why can our Ministers not do the same?

It does not mean when a country is able to pay its Ministers more, they can automatically ask for more.  Why was Mr Durai of NKF ostracised for receiving more, although NKF can well afford to pay him more? The reason is that NKF is a charity and its funds all come from donations of Singaporeans who themselves are not rich.  Poor people are also supporters of NKF and the money they donated should mostly be used for the benefit of the patients and not to line the pockets of its employees. A charity must be run for the benefit or the purpose of the charity. Although the Government is not a charity, it has many similarities with charities, especially in the way it runs with honesty and integrity.  A government should be run entirely for the benefit of the citizens of Singapore.  When Ministers are paid exorbitant salaries, then Singaporeans perceive that the Government is not doing everything it can for the people of Singapore but it is more interested in lining the pockets of its Ministers.

Only recently, Members of Parliament have been trying unsuccessfully to get the Minister to increase the Public Assistance from $250 to $300 per month. How will the people react if they found out that the Government is asking for a pay hike of Ministers’ salaries when the Ministers are paid of about $100,000 a month?  The people in the bottom 5% are still paid only about $1,000 a month.  What are the Ministers going to say to these people when there is such a great disparity of incomes between them and the lowly-paid workers?  As far as I am concerned, they have all lost their moral authority, vis-a-vis the low-income workers. The gap of their incomes is too great, in fact, 100 times.

The poor worker has to work 100 months to earn the amount of salary a Minister earns in a month.  The duty of political leaders is different from that of a leader in a commercial world.  In the commercial world, the CEO or the manager has to only think of the bottomline, but the political leader must, at all times, maintain integrity and moral authority to inspire and to rally the people.  Once the moral authority is lost, the whole credibility is also lost.

A Minister receiving a salary amount of $1.2 million will certainly undermine his moral authority.  As John F Kennedy said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”  The question is how to determine the salaries of Ministers. The Government chooses to fix the benchmark of Ministers’ salaries by pegging them to the highest earners in the private sector.  I think this is unfair to the taxpayers who are footing the bill because the high performance managers and the CEOs are given all kinds of extras, incentives and perks, such as bonuses, stock options and also bonus shares.  In other words, their salaries are highly inflated.  How can our Ministers take that as a benchmark?

A fairer way is to peg Ministers’ salaries to the Ministers of other First-World countries.  I think Hong Kong is a good country to follow.  Hong Kong is an Asian country about the size of Singapore. They are paying the head of government of about $600,000 a year or about $50,000 a month.  I think this is a fair salary.

At the last debate in this House on the revision of Ministers’ salaries, I suggested at that time that we pay our Ministers $50,000 a month.  This time round, I would suggest that Ministers be paid higher, about $70,000 a month or $840,000 a year.  If we pay our Ministers overall less by $20 million, that amount can be saved and we can easily use that to up the PA allowance – $300 per month – to benefit another 66,000 cases.  The last time, I believe it was Dr Lily Neo and others who were asking for more PA allowance.  There you are, if you can save on the Minister’s salaries, we can have another 66,000 people benefiting from the money we save by giving less to the Ministers.

The F1 Grand Prix which concluded yesterday is the 7th such event held in Singapore since 2008. In that time, Singaporeans have had to endure the adverse consequences while deriving few benefits from the race.

Road-closures impose huge inconveniences to motorists who experience delays not just around the few days of the race but in the weeks leading up to it when the circuit infrastructure is set up.

Feeder roads as far away as Nicoll Highway, Rochor Road, Beach Road, North Bridge Road and the CTE see daily traffic jams (see here).

Those taking public transport are also affected. A total of 58 bus services had their routes redirected due to the event (see here). As a result, many people arrive late for work (see here).

Retailers are also affected. Sales in the areas affected by the road closures are expected to plunge 30 percent (see here).

And its not because of a state occasion. The F1 is a private event where a few businesses and individuals make lots of money.

For that matter, it is a sport that few Singaporeans are – or can afford to be – fans of. A prime grandstand seat costs upwards of $1,000 and a “gallery” ticket is around $600 (see here).

Perhaps trying a bit too hard, event promoter Mr Michael Roche spun the race as a “huge social occasion” (see here).

“We don't want to be a '$25-chicken-rice Grand Prix'. We want to be a great experience,” he added. Perhaps Mr Roche might like to tell us where to find $2.50 chicken rice at the race the next time.

The PAP spins even harder. Minister Ng Eng Hen officiated a Bishan grassroots gathering trying to “bring the F1 experience to the heartlands and foster community cohesiveness” with residents (see here).

In the real Singapore, football is the sport more likely to bring the common folk together. But when Mr Rooban Kanth screened World Cup matches outside a house for free - a popular initiative in the neighbourhood -  the police closed it down (see here).

The truth is that the grand prix is, and will always be, catered to the well-heeled. No amount of spin from the organiser or a PAP politician can obscure this fact.

And with money, comes vice. During the event, social escorts, including those from abroad, descend upon our city-state.

“I timed my visit to Singapore a few days ahead of the F1 since I think it should bring me good business," said Jenny, a Chinese Russian escort, who was among dozens of scantily-clad women looking for customers at a five-star global hotel chain (see here).

And where there is racing, one can be sure that gambling is never far behind.

Each F1 event costs $150 million to stage of which we, the taxpayers, fund 60 percent (see here).

In 2012, Mr S Iswaran, Second Minister for Trade and Industry, agreed to a secretive deal with the F1 organisers to stage the race for another five years in Singapore. Singaporeans were never consulted on whether they wanted to see more F1s held here.

By Yee Jenn Jong

The following is my speech delivered on 19 September 2014 at the International Conference of Asian Political Parties, 8th General Assembly at Colombo, Sri Lanka. The theme for the General Assembly was “Building An Asian Community”.

I had attended the ICAPP 8th General Assembly held in Sri Lanka from 18-21 September with 2 colleagues from WP Youth Wing. Also from Singapore were representatives from the Singapore People’s Party. The event provided an interesting exchange of ideas with some 300 politicians from the ruling and opposition parties of around 30 countries. Asia has very diverse cultures, religions, geographies, ideologies, types of governments and state of economic developments.

Groupie of delegates from WP and SPP of Singapore at ICAPP 2014

Throughout the proceedings, many speakers including myself had referred to the Asian century. As I listened to the optimism and occasional words of caution sounded by the speakers of the enormous potential of Asia, I was reminded of a discussion during my General Paper (GP) tutorial class in college over 30 years ago. The topic then was about Africa. After World World II, there were many countries that were gaining independence. Africa was exuberating with confidence as their resource-rich countries broke away from their colonial master. Sadly, with wars and mismanagement, the huge potential of Africa did not materialise, perhaps not yet. Asia is now indeed racing ahead with many of its huge economies on the rise. However, political leaders must guard against terrorism, internal and external conflicts and narrow-minded policies that can tear a country apart.

Yee JJ delivering speech at ICAPP, 19 Sep 2014

Building an Asian Community: Promoting Peaceful Developments and Embracing Political Diversity

Good afternoon, Mr Chairman and honourable delegates of ICAPP. As introduced, I am a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament in Singapore’s 12th Parliament. I am here with two Youth Wing colleagues of the Workers’ Party. They are currently in the youth wing session delivering a speech.

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 19 ― Lawyers will take to the streets and rally against the Sedition Act 1948, after the Malaysian Bar approved a peaceful protest against the law critics contend is misused to quell dissent against the government.

At an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) of the Malaysian legal profession’s body today, lawyers voted through the Bar Council's proposal that was amended to include a march calling for the repeal of the colonial era law.

“Jalan!” Bar Council's National Young Lawyers Committee chair Syahredzan Johan told Malay Mail Online, using the Malay word for “walk”.

Malaysian Bar president Christopher Leong told a press conference after the EGM that the Bar Council would organise the walk “as soon as possible”.

“The Malaysian Bar is against the Sedition Act, the use of it, the abuse of it, because the Malaysian Bar is of the view that you cannot stop discussion, debate, or criticism as these are all integral parts of the thinking and maturing process.

“And we need such discourse, debate and criticisms if we hope to have real understanding, mutual respect and lasting harmony,” said the Bar Council chairman.

Leong said an overwhelming 701 members had voted in favour of the motion, while 13 had rejected it.

He also said that the Malaysian Bar resolved during the EGM to call for the abolition of the Sedition Act, the withdrawal of all charges that are pending, a suspension of the use of the law and for the Act not to be recast into a new law.

“Whilst not advocating rudeness, insults and disrespectfulness, the Malaysian Bar calls upon the Malaysian government to uphold the primacy of the right to and freedom of speech and expression, in particular: freedom of information, academic freedom, journalistic freedom, and freedom to scrutinise, discuss, debate or criticise,” said Leong.

The lawyer also said that the proposed bills drafted by the National Unity Consultative Council (NUCC) to replace the Sedition Act were done with the Bar Council's assistance as the NUCC lacked resources.

Like many other Singaporeans I was shocked when I heard about the case of  the UK  mother divorced from a Singaporean husband and the ensuing  bitter custody dispute over their son. Custody battles and marital breakdown are never pleasant but what shocked me most was the light this case shed on our Ministry of Home affairs whom it appears have been literally asleep on the job. Who actually is guarding our Island and protecting our interests?

To recap on the case. The mother had obtained  a court order in the UK giving her custody of her son but the boy’s father had successfully applied for an injunction in Singapore to prevent her taking the child whom he had taken to reside with his Singaporean parents. I do not understand why the father was able to block enforcement of a UK court order granting the mother custody and I sympathise with the mother who was able to convince a UK court that she was a fit person to have custody. However, what she did next was extraordinary.   She hired a former London Metropolitan detective to help her recover her child and to abduct him back , by return as it were.
I do not understand why the agency she hired, Child Abduction Recovery International, did not advise her to use the legal route rather than embark on this course of action. But whatever the  reason we should be grateful that and the former London Metropolitan detective, Adan Whittington she hired was able to uncover a huge breach in our National security. After just one day of reconnaissance in Singapore  he found out a universal truth about Singapore and they were able to easily enter Singapore illegally (see link).

The universal truth he uncovered is that (particularly wealthy) foreigners enjoy privileges and freedoms in Singapore denied to us lesser mortals -( the locals).  In this case Mr Whittington soon identified a bastion of privilege and wealth, almost another country in itself, namely Raffles Marina.

Yet again our border protections and security services have been shown to be inadequate and the personnel charged with enforcing border security incompetent if not criminally negligent. The former Met detective should actually be praised for his public service to Singapore in highlighting the huge flaws in our security. In a day he was able to establish that our marinas are unguarded and an easy entry point into Singapore for any potential terrorist with a dirty bomb or biological weapons or dirty funds for laundering or indeed human trafficking. I am often told by anti-death penalty activists that drugs are still very easy to obtain in Singapore despite the well used death penalty and now I understand why.

It was not as though the couple landed on a beach or secluded inlet. Why are yacht marinas which one would have thought would have been an obvious weak point, not under 24 hour surveillance and security? If no immigration personnel are on duty between 6pm and 9am then surely it should be impossible to access or exit the marina? Perhaps the PAP Government’s over eagerness to establish Singapore as a yachting hub for gambling millionaires makes them unwilling to subject owners of yachts to the same laws that lesser mortals like you and I have to obey. After all the PAP’s thinking is probably that anyone who owns or is a passenger on a yacht must be a person whom we want to attract.

Mas Selamat

The fact that this kind of blunder has happened so frequently would be farcical were the implications for national security not so grave. There was the Mas Selamat incident in 2008, though there the security services were unable to prevent him leaving the country rather than entering. Recently there was the case of the Malaysian woman who was able to get through the Causeway checkpoint by tailgating another car. She was able to drive off before the immigration officer raised the alarm or lowered the barrier. Then she was able to give the police the slip for three days. She actually had to drive into the MFA and create a disturbance before the police were able to apprehend her.

This failure at the most basic level of border security is inexcusable, particularly when contrasted with the amount of money  spent on defence and defending our skies. This amounted to some $12.5 billion in 2014 or 3.4% of GDP. By contrast Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia spend much less than Singapore on defence as a proportion of GDP (see link). Parliament is not provided with a breakdown of this spending between equipment and manpower  so once again we are left to speculate. My conservative guess would be that more than one-third of this goes on equipment purchases. Recently Jane’s Defence Weekly speculated that Singapore had increased the number of F15SGs, one of the most advanced fighters in the world,  it operates to 40. Coupled with over 70 F16s we have by far the most powerful air force in ASEAN.

I am not advocating cutting defence spending, particularly at a time of rising external threats. There is certainly no economic need to do so since the PAP Government is running a budget surplus of about three times the current level of defence spending. I support the reduction of NS to twelve months or less and a larger professional army which may even lead to higher defence spending. However, I do feel that we need to evaluate the effectiveness and relevance of existing weapons programmes and proposed future purchases, particularly when the Government is unable to prevent what next time could be terrorists landing at a regular marina in Singapore without any kind of border control or screening. Without surveillance what is to prevent them offloading miniaturised Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) such as dirty nuclear bombs or lethal biological weapons. Even conventional weapons could be smuggled in.  We are an Island and our coast is a natural barrier but also a potential weakness. Let us spend a fraction of what we spend on sophisticated air weapons like the F15 and the proposed F35 Lightning II purchase, on ensuring these basic security lapses do not recur.

Singapore Democrats

Our post Perfect example of the government not listening has stirred the PAP nest, triggering a spirited defence of the F1 event by the party's supporters.

The common refrain that runs through their rationalisation of the grand prix is that it would put Singapore on the global map, give us international recognition and bring us tourist dollars. And, besides, Singaporeans enjoy watching the sport.

Let's examine these claims.

1. The F1 attracts tourist dollars to Singapore

Second Minister for MTI, Mr S Iswaran, reports that the race brings in an additional $150 million in tourist receipts (see here). But the cost of the event is $150 million (see here) which means that we just about break even.

And that's not taking into account the hidden social and health costs such as added stress for motorists and commuters in an already overcrowded city, added pollution to a country blanketed in haze, and an increase in prostitution and gambling.

2. Singaporeans love F1 

Even Channel News Asia reported “Singaporeans lukewarm as F1 bandwagon hits town”.

It quoted a pharmaceutical executive, Ms Adeline Tay: “There is not much exposure (to) motor sports in Singapore in the first place, and many of us cannot tell one driver from the next. It feels like a money-generating event for the country, and not for Singaporeans, who just avoid the mad traffic in the area.” (See here)

3. F1 gives us international recognition

Perhaps. But is this the kind of recognition that we really want? To be known as the playground for the super-rich but, behind the glamour, a place where our elderly have to work to survive?

In truth, the issue is not just about the F1. It is about the mindset and priorities of the PAP and where it is taking our country.

Together with casinos, the staging of the glamour event is aimed at styling Singapore to be the Monaco of the East where rich foreigners come here to play.

A CNBC report Can Singapore become the 'Monaco of the East'? quoted a yacht manufacturer saying, “The good thing about Singapore is that it has a lot of foreign people who live here and they are used to that kind of lifestyle at home.”

If we want international recognition, then let us be known for taking care of our elderly, our weak and our poor, not for Lamborghinis revving down Orchard Road

If we seek global branding, then let us compete to be the world's most liveable city, not an overcrowded island where only the wealthy get to enjoy life.

If we yearn to be on the world map, then let us strive to be like Silicon Valley, not Las Vegas.

The heckling was uncalled for. The waving of the Singapore flag was shameful and self-righteous.

It does not in any way make their cause larger than the other.

The ascribing of erroneous identities to a voluntary welfare organisation borders on hysteria and demonstrates a severe lack of comprehension of the realities.

Clearly, these are deluded and unfounded accusations. The state made them victims, but their self-righteousness turned them into bullies.

Their mentalities, behaviour and words have distracted many from the issue, a pertinent issue nonetheless. Irresponsible and calculated move that does the issue and the livelihood and predicament of ordinary Singaporeans no justice.

Unfortunately, YMCA was the victim of symbolic violence perpetrated by Roy and Hui Hui in the name of the Singapore flag and speaking up for Singaporeans.

This is unacceptable behaviour if the Police investigations confirm it. Heckling is wrong. Heckling at special needs children is doubly wrong. What has these special needs children done to deserve being heckled down?

There are a few issues here beyond this act of heckling.

Firstly, heckling is an act of tyranny against freedom of expression, something that I believe we have been promoting. Ironically, this happened at Hong Lim Park and by the group who clearly went to Hong Lim Park because they wanted to freely express themselves.

Secondly, and following from the first point, it seems the concept of freedom of expression has been partially applied when the group deemed it convenient - that they want to express their opinions freely but will not hesitate to shout down others who do not seem to be "on their side". I would think that if one truly believes in freedom of expression, then one must respect the space and right of others to do so as well. It's okay to debate, but heckling is an act of aggression with the aim of either humiliating or shutting others up. So, heckle is not okay.

There is nothing wrong in disagreeing with policies, issues or even ways of doing things. However, the way of discourse to share our different views must be constructive and carried out with decorum and respect for one another, and in a way where the safety and interests of the more vulnerable in our society are being protected.

What happened in Hong Lim Park yesterday was unjustifiable by those who claimed to be carrying out a "peaceful protest".

PAP MP Intan Mokhtar

*Comment first appeared on her Facebook page here.