FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TOWN COUNCIL MANAGEMENT – WHAT IS REALLY AT STAKE

During the debate in Parliament on Town Councils on 13 May 2013, Parliament discussed the controversial sale of the Town Council Management System (TCMS) to Action Information Management Pte Ltd (AIM), a company wholly-owned by the PAP, allowing AIM to terminate the TCMS with one month’s notice should there be a material change in the membership of the Town Council.

WP had raised this issue inside and outside Parliament as it viewed the transaction as jeopardising the public interest. We could not see any justification for the sale to a third party, let alone a company owned by a political party, of the most critical town management IT system developed with public funds, leaving a Town Council powerless and at the risk of disruption of services.

It is most regrettable that Minister for National Development Khaw Boon Wan and Dr Teo Ho Pin have decided to distract the public by casting aspersions on WP’s management of the Town Council and on its Managing Agent, FM Solutions and Services Pte Ltd (FMSS). It is disappointing that the Ministry, too, has been drawn into the fray.

Many of Dr Teo’s latest allegations and questions have already been addressed in Parliament or in media statements issued by Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council.

Among Dr Teo’s latest allegations and questions is why we chose to appoint a Managing Agent to run a Town Council rather than hire staff directly as was done in Hougang Town Council. We find it odd that he should ask this question. The reasons should be clear to Dr Teo, as almost all PAP Town Councils have chosen to appoint Managing Agents as well.

Dr Teo also misrepresents my response in Parliament concerning the comparisons of MA rates cited by Minister Khaw. He said that I was “not sure of the unit rates paid by AHTC to FMSS”. I am surprised, as this is clearly different from what was correctly recorded in the draft Hansard which all MPs had received by Tuesday 14 May. What was clearly reflected in Hansard was that I said I needed to double-check the prices the Minister quoted on property units because I thought there might be some errors in the prices that he mentioned, and that we needed to ensure that the comparisons were made on the same basis, that we were comparing apples with apples. Indeed, as it turns out, there were discrepancies between the Minister’s figures and our computation methods, as seen in the subsequent media exchanges between MND and AHPETC.

The repeated reference to Tampines Town Council’s MA rates for 2012 alone is clearly not relevant, since the same Managing Agent quoted a much higher rate for Aljunied in 2010. Whether Tampines is an outlier in MA rates has not been answered.

Discerning members of the public have already seen the clear distinction between the AIM transaction and the appointment of FMSS, and some have even come up with their comparison charts. To summarise, the key differences are tabulated below:

If the Minister, Dr Teo or the Ministry believe there was any wrongdoing in WP’s management of the Town Council, we invite them to make a report to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau or other relevant agencies to investigate the matter, rather than to make these suggestions and insinuations. We assure these agencies of our full co-operation.

SYLVIA LIM
CHAIRMAN
WORKERS’ PARTY AND
ALJUNIED-HOUGANG-PUNGGOL EAST TOWN COUNCIL

"WP had raised this issue inside and outside Parliament as it viewed the transaction as jeopardising the public interest. We could not see any justification for the sale to a third party, let alone a company owned by a political party, of the most critical town management IT system developed with public funds, leaving a Town Council powerless and at the risk of disruption of services. It is most regrettable that Minister for National Development Khaw Boon Wan and Dr Teo Ho Pin have decided to distract the public by casting aspersions on WP’s management of the Town Council and on its Managing Agent, FM Solutions and Services Pte Ltd (FMSS). It is disappointing that the Ministry, too, has been drawn into the fray."

During the debate in Parliament on Town Councils on 13 May 2013, National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan made several remarks about the Workers’ Party (WP), Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) and AHPETC’s managing agent (MA), FM Solutions and Services Pte Ltd (FMSS).

Ms Sylvia Lim (Chairman of the WP and AHPETC, MP for Aljunied GRC) and Mr Pritam Singh (Vice-chairman of AHPETC, MP for Aljunied GRC) responded in Parliament to the Minister. The following is a summary of the key clarifications raised:

FMSS’ alleged party affiliations and preferential treatment

Following the General Election in May 2011, then-managing agent, CPG Facilities Management, had asked to be released from its contract with Aljunied Town Council (ATC). CPG was concurrently contracted as an MA with another PAP Town Council (TC) and felt that they could not work for both PAP and WP TCs. Hence there was a need to engage a new managing agent for the newly constituted Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC).

At that time, there were only a few companies in the market that provided town management for HDB estates: Esmaco, EM Services and CPG, all of which also had existing contracts with PAP Town Councils. The set-up of FMSS was due to the very real possibility that WP would be faced with no other company to manage AHTC.

None of FMSS’ shareholders and directors are WP members and FMSS is not a WP-owned company. FMSS was engaged based on its directors’ experience in property management, professional skills and track record in running Hougang Town Council. One of the directors of FMSS was the former General Manager of Hougang Town Council.

Managing agent contract tendering process

In 2011, Ms Lim exercised her rights as Chairman of the TC to waive a tender for the MA contract when it was first awarded after the GE. The Town Council Financial Rules provide for tender process to be waived in certain circumstances. The reason for the waiver was the urgency in the public interest to put in place a Managing Agent to handle the handover in time.

In 2012, Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC) issued an open tender for a new MA contract. There were three companies that picked up the tender documents, but only FMSS submitted a tender. AHTC was aware of its duties when dealing with a sole tenderer, and that the TC needed to ensure value for money for its residents. AHTC had also commissioned a special external audit of the tender award as an additional assurance of compliance and good governace practices, and that steps had been taken to ensure value for money.

Source: WP.SG

Below is Dr Teo Ho Pin's response to Ms Sylvia Lim rebuttal on her previous public statements

Refer to: http://therealsingapore.com/content/sylvia-lim-town-council-management-what-really-stake and

http://therealsingapore.com/content/workers-party-quickly-rebuts-pap-ministers-false-allegations

My response to the WP’s statement on Town Council Management as follows:-

The facts are clear. Based on their own calculations, their MA unit rate for 2012 was $ 7.58, 50% higher than the MA rate of Tampines TC which is of similar size. Based on their staggered pricing, their MA rate will be even higher in the following years. In fact by 2014, their MA rate will be about $8.50 or 70% higher than Tampines TC’s rate. Why doesn’t Ms Sylvia Lim admit these facts?

I asked serious questions about the financial probity of the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council, which Ms Sylvia Lim chairs.

Why did WP award multi-million dollar contracts to its close associates and supporters? No answer.

Are the Secretary and Deputy Secretary/General Manager, cum owners of FMSS, paid twice? No answer.

Ms Lim has not answered a single question I asked. 

When questions were raised about AIM, I gave a full public explanation and answered all the questions by the MND Review Team. Parliament held a full debate on the matter and the Minister for National Development answered all the MPs’ questions, including from Workers’ Party MPs.

Why is Ms Lim reluctant to answer questions? What is she afraid of?” 

Dr Teo Ho Pin

Co-ordinating Chairman of PAP Town Councils

Sometime after the last General Election, soon after I agreed to act as the Chief Editor of The Online Citizen, a junior staff from the PAP Government asked if he could meet me in my capacity as head of TOC, as well as some other young people from TOC to discuss how disenchanted young people may be engaged.

I met him soon after with some friends from TOC, and at this meeting, this person emphasised that he had taken leave and was meeting us in his personal capacity. His message to us was simple. He said that the Government was apolitical, that we should not confuse politics of a political party with policy initiatives of the Government, and that he wished that youths would see this distinction and would work with the Government in making better policies.

Even though I knew that it was impossible to totally divorce politics from policies  and even if this junior staff's proposal sounded like a tired old proposal by the Government to engage, it sounded sincere enough, coming soon after General Election 2011, that this Government will choose engaging the disenchanted over Party politics.

But how this PAP Government has responded to Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPE) in the AIM saga, has totally shattered any hope that the ruling Party can or will make any distinction between politics, policies and good governance.

"Where is the missing $1 million?" ~MND Press Statement (link: http://bit.ly/145pNbA)

As the Ministry of National Development (MND) sets the broad legislative framework and financial guidelines under the Town Councils Act and Town Council Financial Rules to ensure proper governance and accountability by Town Councils, MND should have sought clarifications from AHPE before making such insinuations. That would have been the right thing to do, and would have amplified to the disenchanted members of the public that this is a Government which can make clear distinctions between politics and policies.

"We also have to keep our system open and contestable. The political system must be such that it is easy for people to come in to contest, form a party and participate. To win cannot be so easy because if you win, that is a big thing, and your voice will count so you must achieve a high standard to win. But to contest it cannot be difficult. You cannot require a lot of money...It is cheap to contest but the hurdle to get elected should be high because you want to maintain the quality of the MPs and the quality of the political leadership and the political debate. The way to make the hurdle high is for voters to vote for the party and the leaders who will serve them best. The system encourages that because once an MP is elected, he looks after your constituency, he is responsible for your Town Council, he does not just make speeches in Parliament." ~PM Lee Hsien Loong at Kent Ridge Ministerial Forum on 5 April 2011 (link: http://bit.ly/mJUeiZ)

From PM Lee's speech at the Kent Ridge Ministerial Forum we can understand why MND has attacked AHPE so viciously, especially when they had the right as well as the channel to clarify 'the missing $1 million'. The opposition-held town councils cannot do well if the PAP is to have any chance of recapturing it at the next General Election. Is that another reason why opposition-held town councils keep doing so badly in the Town Council Management Report? (see http://bit.ly/12fXUuY and http://bit.ly/12fXUuY)

Against this backdrop, it is understandable why AHPE appointed a company they know for sure is not owned or affiliated to the People's Action Party (PAP). In fact, until the recent sitting in Parliament, no one knew if AIM is the only company PAP owned. I can certainly imagine the ways in how a PAP-owned company can sabotage an opposition-held town council, if the management of the town council's functions are outsourced to such companies.

So, coming back to the AIM saga, these are the facts:

*The author is a influential socio-political blogger who is also a member of the NSP. He blogs at http://www.raviphilemon.net

Source: Channel News Asia

After a five-month-and- counting dispute between the PAP and the WP over town council management, I went away thinking that everyone had blood on their hands.

And in a way, that's as it should be. What the whole time-consuming episode has shown us is that town council management is absolutely drenched with politicking.

In one corner, we have the PAP, which sold its town councils' IT software to a $2 company owned by former MPs, which then leased its use back to the town councils, with a one-month termination clause should an opposition party take over.

In the other, we have the WP, whose long-time supporters set up a managing agent company within days of its Aljunied GRC win in 2011. This firm, FMSS, has since been awarded $26 million worth of contracts from the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council.

Some, dismayed by this, have called for a "depoliticisation" of some form of town councils.

WP MPs led the charge in calling for new restrictions to prevent town councils from selling critical assets or systems to party-linked companies like AIM (Action Information Management).

I don't see why the status quo needs to change. What is unfolding now has shown in fact that the political nature of town councils has worked as it should, that is, in allowing them to be an arena where parties, and MPs, prove their worth.

Two main arguments have been forwarded for why town councils need to be depoliticised, and neither hold much water in my view:

1. Think of the "public interest"

WP MPs have reached for highfalutin rhetoric in lamenting a lack of "fair play" and "equality" in the PAP's software company's termination clause.

Mr Pritam Singh likened it to the way opposition wards were put at the back of upgrading queues in the 1990s.

This is a false sense of injustice. The upgrading policy infringed upon Singaporeans' desire for fairness because estate upgrading is an HDB project supported by taxpayers' money - opposition voters also contribute their fair share of state revenue. In contrast, town councils are supported by contributions from residents themselves, like a micro local government. Their financial portfolios are individually managed, without state interference. (There are substantial government grants to defray operational costs, but these are handed out according to size and profile).

When town councils do their jobs well, only the residents under their purview benefit; similarly when they fail.

Constituencies should not change hands costlessly. Voting for a different political party is a momentous decision, and should come with consequences, both good and bad.

That's why town council management is a crucial component of local electability.

Fairness is not an isolated virtue defined as equality in outcomes. Whether a situation is fair or not depends on initial opportunities, not final outcomes. This brings us to the second objection:

2. The status quo is unfair to the opposition

The WP's case is that it was pushed into an untenable situation by the PAP's town council politicking.

They were faced with an abrupt termination of the IT system (owned by PAP company Aim), and had to find a new managing agent within days in order that the entire GRC did not shut down after their historic victory.

Ironing out the kinks from this transition accounted for their poor showing in the last December's town council management report, said WP chairman Sylvia Lim.

I can't be the only one to think that contrary to this telling, the WP has actually shown itself to rather thrive in the politicised atmosphere of town councils.

It managed to get long-time supporters - who happened to be experienced professionals to boot - to set up a new managing agent, named FMSS, within days of the GE to step into the breach that the PAP left. (WP MPs say that the couple who own FMSS are party supporters, not members - unlike AIM's directors, who are all former MPs. But this is a weak differentiation. It would be easy for those directors to resign from the PAP. And no one expects FMSS to continue should the PAP one day win back Aljunied GRC.)

The fact of the matter is that in a crunch, the WP showed itself to have a strong, extensive and capable network of people that it can call on to support its local presence, a testament to its position and its leadership - just like, in fact, the PAP.

That the WP can run a town council is what sets them apart from other opposition parties, and is what has made them the most successful opposition party in Singapore's electoral history.

Why does it want to now give away its competitive advantage in calling for a revamp of the way town councils operate?

If it's just to win some moral argument with the PAP, it seems akin to cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

All political parties should be committed to a dignified handover when constituencies change hands.

A one-month termination rule is unacceptable (and it must be noted that AIM has said it was prepared to waive this had the WP asked for it, which it did not).

But otherwise, parties should be given free reign in the town council sphere. Healthy political competition in a free market is in the public interest. The WP should focus its moral energies on lambasting other actually-unfair aspects of the local political landscape, such as the system of grassroots advisors from which opposition MPs are excluded.

Leave town councils alone. There's no need to fix something that works, simply because of a phantom fear of a bogeyman named politics.

Rachel Chang

*Article first appeared on http://www.singapolitics.sg/views/town-councils-if-its-not-broken-dont-fix-it

Source: Channel News Asia

In April, the Government accused Mr Nizam Ismail, the former chairman of the Association of Muslim Professionals, of allegedly “[pushing] for racial politics”.

In a letter to the Straits Times forum page, Mr Ho Ka Wei, the Director of Corporate Communications, Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY), explained the danger in this:

“If any ethnic community were to organise itself politically, other communities would respond in kind. This would pull our different communities apart and destroy our racial harmony.”

On 4 May, the Minister of MCCY, Lawrence Wong, reiterated the point.

“Similarly, while individuals in the NGOs are free to express their views, they should not use their organisations to pursue a partisan political agenda. Otherwise we may end up with religiously based VWOs or ethnic-based groups being used for political purposes. That’s something we cannot afford to risk in Singapore.”

On 1 May, I emailed Mr Ho to seek clarification on the Government’s position on the Tan clan association’s support for then-presidential candidate Tony Tan’s campaign.

“During the presidential elections in August 2011, it was reported by the media that one of the presidential hopefuls, Dr Tony Tan, was being ‘endorsed by the Federation of Tan Clan Associations, which has over 10,000 members, in his bid to become Singapore’s third elected president.’

“I would like to ask how the Government – or MCCY – sees the endorsement of Dr Tan by a clan association which represents an ethnic community (namely, Chinese), and if this endorsement goes against what you stated in the letter on 29 April vis a vis the Nizam Ismail saga.”

There was no response from Mr Ho.

So I re-sent the email to him on 8 May.

I have yet to receive any acknowledgement or reply from Mr Ho since.

On 10 May, I sent an email to the minister, Mr Wong, seeking the same clarification.

On 17 May, after not receiving any response, I re-sent the email again to the minister.

I have yet to receive any replies.

It is important for the Government to state its position on the matter so that there is no ambiguity when it comes to ethnic communities being involved in politics or political events. It is useless, really, to speak of grave consequences if ethnic communities or organisations are actively involved in politics, but we keep quiet when such things actually take place before our very eyes.

Worse, if the Government keeps quiet on incidents such as the Tan clan association’s support for Tony Tan, it raises doubt about the integrity of the system, or the seriousness of the Government’s position.

Should a Malay group or an Indian group pledge its support for a candidate of their respective ethnicity in future elections, by what moral authority would the Government stop this, if it does not condemn the actions of the Chinese-based Tan clan association?

We are staring at an abyss of ethnic/racial strife if our Government started taking sides on the ethnic divide, even if it is by omission. Its continued silence on speaking up against the Tan clan association’s actions do not bode well for Singapore.

In fact, the very dangers of which Mr Wong and Mr Ho warned are, arguably, being perpetuated by the Government’s silence in this instance.

Closing one’s eyes, covering one’s ears, and ignoring queries about such incidents do not solve anything.
 

Andrew Loh

*Article first appeared on http://andrewlohhp.wordpress.com/2013/05/20/governments-silence-on-ethni...

Singapore Democrats

As the world moves towards universal healthcare, Singapore is being left behind. At the 66th World Health Assembly which is currently taking place in Geneva, Switzerland, the United Nations (UN) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) have called for governments to adopt universal health care policies.

Health Minister Gan Kim Yong is reported to in attendance at the Assembly. The PAP Government has till now refused to make healthcare in Singapore universal, that is, available to all regardless of financial status.

At the opening of the Assembly, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said: "We must keep moving towards universal health coverage, so all people can have access to the health services they need without suffering financial hardship.”

WHO Director-General Margaret Chan reiterated that "everyone, irrespective of their ability to pay, should have access to the quality health care they need, without risking financial ruin."

Dr Chan praised the commitment of a growing number of countries which have shifted towards universal coverage for demonstrating "strong emphasis on equity and social justice".

Advanced economies all have universal health coverage for the citizens. Even the United States, one of the last holdouts, recently adopted the Affordable Healthcare Act under President Barack Obama which guarantees all Americans due healthcare.

Singapore thus remains one of the few countries in the world which refuses its people universal healthcare.

Singaporeans are expected to pay for the main bulk of our medical expenses when we fall ill. This is done through our Medisave accounts and out-of-pocket payments. The Government pays only a minor portion (30%) of what we collectively spend on healthcare. Governments in other developed economies pay about 70%. 

Because of this, many Singaporeans face financial ruin when they meet with catastrophic or chronic illness. Medical expenses are one of the top three reasons why Singaporeans go into debt.

Others avoid seeking medical treatment because they cannot afford it. Take, for example,Mr Ivan Lim who was diagnosed with diabetes. Because he faced financial difficulties, he tried to save money by taking his medication once every three days instead of daily. As a result, his condition worsened which resulted in his leg having to be amputated.

The SDP has proposed doing away with the Medisave scheme and replacing it with a state-run National Health Investment Fund (NHIF) where the Government contributes the majority of the funds with Singaporeans co-paying a smaller portion.

Read also: Scrap Medisave and increase govt spending 

Read also: The SDP healthcare plan made simple 

Under this plan, a working Singaporean pays an average of $400 a year depending on the level of one's income. This is a fraction of what one currently pays into the Medisave. Low-wage workers, the elderly and those without income do not have to contribute to the NHIF.

If one falls ill, patients pay only 10% of the bill out-of-pocket (capped at $2,000 per year) with the rest of the expenses paid by the NHIF. The 10% is waived for the elderly and poor who have no income.

This system ensures that all Singaporeans are provided proper healthcare without anyone being threatened with financial ruin if he/she falls ill.

In other words, the SDP National Healthcare Plan is universal. 

As countries moves towards a more equitable and caring healthcare system, Singapore has become the odd-one-out.

(To read the entire SDP healthcare paper, please click here.)

Singapore Democrats

*Article first appeared on http://yoursdp.org/news/singapore_against_tide_of_universal_healthcare/2013-05-22-5632

By means of a memorandum and a statement, Malaysian opposition politicians yesterday urged the Singapore authorities to show leniency to 21 people arrested for an illegal gathering at the Merlion Park earlier this month.

A group of PKR politicians handed the memorandum to the Singapore High Commission in Kuala Lumpur yesterday morning, while Teo Nie Ching, the DAP MP for Kulai, released a statement in the afternoon.

The PKR members — including vice-presidents Nurul Izzah Anwar and Chua Jui Meng — called on the authorities to “exercise restraint and give those arrested a second chance”, reported the Free Malaysia Today news portal. Bersih co-chairperson Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan was also present.

Speaking to reporters yesterday, Chua read from the memorandum: “We recognise the need for Malaysians in Singapore to respect the laws of Singapore. However, we call on the authorities to exercise proportionality and fairness in applying the law.”The arrests on May 11 came after two gatherings staged by Malaysians here — on May 8 and 11 — shortly after Malaysia’s general election on May 5.

Nurul Izzah, daughter of de facto opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, reportedly added: “We hope the Singaporean authorities would take into consideration that the Malaysians are working there. Without a permit to enter Singapore, how are they to continue earning a livelihood?”

Teo highlighted the plight of one of those arrested, whose employment pass was revoked. This means the scholarship holder “won’t be able to fulfil her contract and as such, she will have to pay S$100,000 (RM240,000) to her employer as compensation”. She declined to reveal what scholarship this was.

In her statement, she also claimed that the 18 Malaysians under investigation are not allowed to leave Singapore, for now. This has caused difficulties for those who had been travelling daily to Singapore for work, and they have to stay in hotels for the time being, she said. — Today
 

*Article first appeared on http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/pkr-dap-members-appeal-for-leniency-towards-merlion-park-protesters

Picture: Inside the Parliament of Finland with Peter Ostman, chairman of the Christian Democratic Parliamentary Group.

Finland has been ruled by coalition governments since independence in 1917, a period of nearly 100 years. Its continuity has allowed a diversity of ideas to thrive and helped the country punch well above its weight (it has a population of 5.4 million, roughly similar to Singapore’s). International studies often define Finland as the “least corrupt” and “least failed” state in the world (as its minister of European affairs and foreign trade Alexander Stubb would remind us).  It is also a world leader in many different fields, for example, educational syatem, Nokia and Angry Birds.

Early this week in Helsinki, I met up with Peter Ostman, chairman of the Christian Democratic Parliamentary Group. He explained why the country is stable despite having six different political parties coming together. All parties agree on the core welfare state, so there was no major policy difference. They are well balanced between the left and the right, so there are no extremes of policy and each has to accommodate the views of the others. His party is a junior partner with 6 MPs but has the interior ministry. It decided to join the government in 2011 after 18 years in Parliament because “it is fed up with making suggestions that do not get accepted” and “they want to take responsibility for decisions made”.

Tan Jee Say

* Jee Say was a Presidential candidate in the 2011 Presidential Election. The article first appeared on his facebook: http://www.facebook.com/TanJeeSay.

I am very pleased that Jeremy has set out in writing his reasons why he disagrees with my proposal for the privatization of Temasek and GIC and the distribution of shares to Singaporeans.   I hope we will see more of his ideas on this subject or anyone else’s for that matter. Unfortunately Jeremy’s disagreement seems to stem from a basic misconception and a failure to grasp what the process of privatization and public listing of a previously nationalized  asset entails. As he has misunderstood the process much of what he has written makes little sense.

Before we get into that mess let’s start with areas of common agreement. Happily we both agree that there needs to be more transparency. However Jeremy seems to accept the government’s own figures for its budget surplus which I most definitely do not.  Our government’s budget figures are not set out in the format described as  ‘best practice’ for governments by the IMF and in general use by advanced democracies worldwide.  As a result our budget contains discrepancies which makes it impossible (even for me) to decipher and gauge true values. I first alerted Singaporeans to these discrepancies in 2012 here.

Jeremy also agrees with me that one possible way to achieve transparency without privatization and public listing and distribution of shares is the Norwegian model, where the SWF is required to achieve an extremely high level of transparency and is responsible to Parliament for its performance each year. I’ll come onto Norway later because Jeremy gets mixed up by that as well.

Jeremy worries that $6 billion a year of extra spending is being unduly profligate and talks about finding savings in the defence budget to pay for it. This is despite my pointing out that the true surplus in 2012 was at least $36 billion.  I also pointed out that even the Net Investment Returns Contribution of $7 billion which is supposed to be allocated to current spending, in fact went straight back into the reserves.  The savings to be made in the defence budget are miniscule compared to the surpluses and the amount MOF likes to give away to other nations.  In any case I contend that we should be increasing our spending on defence in line with the rest of Asia not reducing it.

I was completely confused by Jeremy’s contentions that privatization (allowing public listing and trading in the shares of our SWFs) would not bring about transparency and accountability and wondered why he brings up the global financial crisis of 2008 as having some relevance to my proposals.  I do not see how this is an argument that listing the shares of our SWFs will lead to less transparency.  Also why would Jeremy would have brought up MERS as an example?  MERS (which stands for Mortgage Electronic Registry Service),  is an electronic registry operated by a privately held company (MERSCORP, Inc.) designed to track ownership rights and mortgage loans in the United States. Since this is a privately held company it is not listed on a public stock exchange.
Could it be that Jeremy simply didn’t know what is meant by the term ‘privatization’ when proposing  that we allowing public listing and trading in the shares of our SWFs.  As his arguments make no sense I am guessing that Jeremy has confused the process of ‘privatization’ with privately owned  or he may here be thinking of private equity buy outs. Jeremy is fiercely refuting a proposal that was never posited in the first place.

I don’t see how he could have made this mistake.  I even give Warren Buffet’s publicly listed company, Berkshire Hathaway as an example of how transparency is a spur to better performance in my original article.

After mixing up private and publicly listed and so forth Jeremy says that transparency did not prevent the global crisis of 2008.  Here Jeremy is correct. But did I say transparency would somehow prevent financial crises?  No, I make no claims for transparency by itself. I do not say that it will prevent future financial crises.  The cause of that crisis was indeed not a lack of transparency. If anything there was too much data, as Nate Silver makes clear in his excellent book, “The Signal and the Noise”. The problem lay in the interpretation of that data and the conflicts of interest to which certain key institutions like rating agencies were prone. These examples of willful blindness to the fallacies in the analyses by ratings firms were then compounded by the mistakes of policy makers, at least in the initial stages, which almost brought the global financial system to its knees.

There is no argument to be made that a public listing will not bring about a much greater level of transparency. Of course it will.

How about accountability? At present there is very little information available to judge the performance of our SWFs. We do not even know what the real level of assets is. What we do know is that historically there is a strong statistical correlation between the level of secrecy in an organization and the likelihood of mismanagement or fraud.

Privatization and the disclosures that would be necessary if the SWFs were listed would make it much easier to identify underperforming management. It would provide a spur in the side of management, to use LKY’s favoured term. Accountability is like everything else- we have to demand it.

By listing Temasek holdings and GIC, shareholders would be able to vote against the re-election of the board or individual directors at the company’s annual meeting if they felt that the company was underperforming. It is notable that no heads rolled after both Temasek and GIC lost a significant percentage of their value, even though they claimed to have recovered their losses remarkably quickly.

Having to publish regular audited accounts would also allow a spotlight to be shone on the way the management of these companies value their positions.  I believe that Singaporeans want to know how the PM’s wife is doing and to be able to move her on if her and her team’s performance is subpar.

Of course just as transparency doesn’t guarantee good governance so even a public listing might not prevent fraud altogether. UBS, in which GIC invested so much and lost most of its investment, is a good example. On balance, if our assets are being squandered and lost through poor investment decisions then I would rather know than not.

Nevertheless a system that allows the government and the managers of the SWFs to transfer assets into the fund at grossly undervalued levels, see “Has Temasek Found A Cure for Balding?”, is one where one should be suspicious of the performance claims by management. Notwithstanding the fact that the current CEO of Temasek got her job purely on merit, as our State-controlled media frequently remind us, privatization would also ensure a separation between management of our SWFs and the government, which is necessary to fulfill any standard good governance requirements.

Jeremy agrees with me on Norway but after that his ideas fall down because he has failed to grasp the fundamental difference between Norway’s situation and that of Singapore. The Norwegian fund has been built up by taxes and royalties on the earnings from the exploitation of the country’s gas and oil reserves. As these are exhaustible resources that, by definition, cannot be replaced, there is a strong argument that they should be represented on the nation’s balance sheet as an asset.  They belong not just to the current generation of Norwegians but also to future generations. As they are used up, they should be replaced by financial or real assets such as infrastructure investment. The current generation should only be able to draw on the income from those assets.

Singapore is a different case entirely. The assets of our SWFs represent forgone consumption by present and past generations of Singaporeans. There were no resources that were used up to earn those assets only sacrifice and austerity by Singaporeans past and present.  In other words, the sweat of your grandfather’s brow, people being denied medical treatment that is freely available in most other advanced countries and our old people, the disabled and those in single parent households having to live in hardship. I could go on but I have made the point repeatedly that our people live in wholly unnecessary austerity to accumulate surpluses that will never be spent even if they are not frittered away through poor investments.

There is no obligation to pass on these assets to future generations and it should be up to individuals to make their own decisions as to how much they want to leave (in economics we call this their intergenerational time preference function).

One can say with certainty that with productivity growth averaging at least 2% per annum in advanced countries like the US (though maybe only half that in Singapore due to the PAP government’s preference for cheap foreign labour over automation) that future generations as a whole will definitely be much richer than current generations. Likely technological advances may raise this productivity growth by several orders of magnitude.

Thus it is difficult to make a case as to why the state needs to maintain a reserve beyond what is needed for genuine emergencies or to defend the currency. At the moment the MAS has to hold down the Singapore dollar to prevent our currency appreciating too far and making our economy even more uncompetitive, so arguably it does not need to hold excess reserves.  In a succinct and admirably clear article (see here) Andy Wong also supports the contention that the reserves are much bigger than they need to be. Furthermore it has not been explained to us why we need to go on accumulating assets at the same rate nor why the PAP government is so anxious to keep postponing the CPF withdrawal age and the minimum sum.

We can think of Singapore as being like an enormous hedge fund, though apparently with only subpar returns. A few government functions are added on, though one day a future government might want to divorce itself from the people entirely and just keep the assets! As a hedge fund, it is in an admirable situation compared to the rest of the industry. This is because it can coerce its investors into keeping their money in the fund and make withdrawals more and more difficult.  I am sure a lot of real hedge fund managers would like a similar situation.

This brings us of course to a further reason why the current situation is so unfair to the present generation of Singaporeans.  If there were no immigration then future generations would be the descendants of Singapore citizens today and one could argue that to retain a substantial pool of assets in the state’s hands for the benefit of future generations at least had some merit. As an economic liberal who believes in individual choice, I would still prefer those decisions to be made by the individual.

However, the PAP government seems determined to dilute the current generation’s stake in the SWFs by enfranchising millions of new citizens. It has been suggested that the underlying reason behind this is to maintain its grip on power. While it still has control over the people’s assets it has an enormous carrot to use to induce foreigners to become citizens and to bribe them once they do so.  We can already see that happening in a limited way with the foreign scholarship programmes that our SWFs have set up.

Thus, while I would support some form of progressivity in the distribution of shares to try and ensure that more of the assets go to those at the bottom of the wealth distribution in an effort to promote genuine equality of opportunity, as opposed to the present fake meritocracy, I do not see any rational argument why the bulk of the assets need to be held back by the state as Jeremy advocates. His self-confessed collectivist bent is not radically different from the PAP’s and does not represent genuine reform. Despite saying he wants more transparency he seems to favour keeping the status quo. While he may feel that readers may be impressed by his knowledge of simultaneous equations from O Level Maths, it does not really buttress his arguments which have shaky theoretical underpinnings and some serious fundamental errors.

Nevertheless it is great that he has come forward to provide a rationale and hopefully we can have more reasoned debate in the future.  As Jeremy is an SDP policy author, the more common ground we can establish now the better.

Kenneth Jeyaretnam

*The author is the secretary-general of the Reform Party and blogs at http://sonofadud.com

Singapore leaders start to talk about the importance of having multiple skills rather than just obtaining a degree.

This is the clearest sign yet that the authorities are expecting a sustained period of relatively low economic growth and slower employment opportunities.A NUMBER of political leaders have appealed to Singaporeans not to place too much faith on university degrees in an apparent effort to manage public expectations.

Singaporeans, especially parents, who have long regarded the university degree as a key to a good life will likely be shocked.

For decades, the government has been en­couraging youths to study hard or lose out in a competitive world. This apparently spells a change in education strategy.

It has also thrown more light on a baffling revelation made earlier by a senior Education Ministry official to American diplomats.

This revelation was that the global economy embraced by Singapore has made it much less conducive for over-educated societies.

Having a large number of graduates, once thought crucial for Singapore’s prosperity, is now considered not conducive to the changing manpower market, at least in Singapore.

However, none of the political leaders – the Prime Minister and three ministers – has mentioned another reason for the excess of graduates – the mass intake of foreigners.

Led by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan, the leaders are now advising Singaporeans to consider non-university routes to success.

Khaw said: “You own a degree, but so what? You can’t eat it. If that cannot give you a good life, a good job, it is meaningless.”

He added that Singapore could not have an entire nation of graduates.

“Can you have a whole country where 100% are graduates? I am not so sure. What you do not want is to create huge graduate unemployment,” he said.

Then it was the turn of Education Minister Heng Swee Keat, who said that a good qualification alone does not guarantee a career, let alone a job.

Thirdly, Acting Minister for Social and Fa­mily De­ve­l­opment Chan Chun Sing said it is not the degree or diploma that is most important for graduates, but the ability to learn a different set of skills.

“The soft skills in life have to be acquired and have to be continuously refreshed. If not, even with the best degree from the best universities in the world, we may find ourselves obsolete one day.”

They were taking the cue from Prime Minister Lee who had earlier told polytechnic students that getting a degree is not the only option. He encouraged them to work for a few years or start their own business.

“You will gain experience and understand yourself better and then be better able to decide what the next step will be,” he said at Ngee Ann Polytechnic’s 50th anniversary celebration.

All these political leaders have served to clarify a comment made by a senior education ministry official that the government does not encourage more Singaporeans to get higher education.

As revealed by Wikileaks last year, assistant director of planning Cheryl Chan told the United States diplomats that it would instead cap graduate enrolment rate at 20%.

The reason, she said, was: “The labour market does not require too many graduates.”

She also admitted that only 23% of Singaporean students who entered primary school would ever complete a four-year tertiary education, a figure far below that of the United States (50%) and Taiwan.

This gave confusing signals to a worried population, which probably ranks as one of the most enthusiastic in Asia about getting a degree for their children.

Many continue to make great personal sacrifices to help their children and are unlikely to abandon this just because of what the government says. The new emphasis is for multiple skills and drive.

So far, the government has not reduced the places in university but has instead increased them. The number of universities were raised to five with a total enrolment of about 13,250 students, with about a third being foreign students. Cutting down tertiary education is obviously not in the cards – but “discouragement” is now taking place.

The ruling party is dependent on the scholarship system to recruit its future leaders, and it is still bent on attracting bright foreign students to its shores.

In addition, nearly 18,000 Singaporeans are studying in foreign institutions, mostly in Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom. According to local media reports, the market is unable to absorb the large number of graduates coming onstream.

One report quoted a McKinsey & Co study as saying that almost half of the graduates are holding jobs that do not require a degree.

The over-supply is having a dampening effect on graduates’ salaries (again no mention of the foreign arrivals), it added.

In the past 10 years, undergraduate numbers have doubled.

The effort to get Singaporeans to abandon the paper chase for their children is almost like mission impossible. Many have begun to spend thousands of dollars a month on private tuition for their kids starting as young as seven years old.

What is the new drive aimed at? One possibility is that it is trying to reduce the number of below average students from joining the paper chase but still encouraging the bright ones to carry on.

Economically, Singapore has barely escaped another technical recession. A revised first quarter GDP shows a rise of 1.8%. Gone are the days of double-digit growth, probably never to return.

So what work can non-graduates do? One suggestion from Prime Minister Lee is: “Become hawkers.”

Singapore plans to build 10 large hawker centres. It’s a chance to develop entrepreneurial skills in a business no Singaporean customer can avoid for long – if the products are good.

Seah Chiang Nee

Chiang Nee has been a journalist for 40 years. He is a true-blooded Singaporean, born, bred and says that he hopes to die in Singapore. He worked as a Reuters corespondent between 1960-70, based in Singapore but with various assignments in Southeast Asia, including a total of about 40 months in (then South) Vietnam between 1966-1970. In 1970, he left to work for Singapore Herald, first as Malaysia Bureau Chief and later as News Editor before it was forced to close after a run-in with the Singapore Government. He then left Singapore to work for The Asian, the world’s first regional weekly newspaper, based in Bangkok to cover Thailand and Indochina for two years between 1972-73. Other jobs: News Editor of Hong Kong Standard (1973-74),  Foreign Editor of Straits Times with reporting assignments to Asia, Europe, Africa, the Middle East and The United States (1974-82) and Editor of Singapore Monitor (1982-85). Since 1986, he has been a columnist for the Malaysia’s The Star newspaper. Article first appeared in his blog, http://www.littlespeck.com.

When I read the update from the CPF Board that they have helped to recover some $293 million of CPF arrears (including late payments) for more than 200,000 local workers last year, the numbers stood out. This is why we initiated the ‘WorkRight’ effort and we are stepping up our inspections ten-fold.

The sum is indeed not small, and is a cause of concern. Employees work hard to contribute to their companies and they should not be denied their rightful CPF contributions. CPF savings are important to all Singaporeans, especially for vulnerable groups of low-wage workers who rely on it to fund their retirement, healthcare and housing needs.

It is certainly not right for companies to deprive workers of their CPF. It is an offence under the CPF Act for employers to default on CPF contributions, and action is taken against companies who underpay or do not pay CPF to their employees. Currently, employers who break the law by underpaying or not paying CPF will be fined up to $10,000.

I have tasked my colleagues in MOM and CPF Board to review the penalties under the CPF Act, especially since the numbers show that non-compliant employers affected more than 200,000 local workers last year. By upping the penalties, this will hopefully serve as a stronger deterrence for employers. I also hope this will help to ensure that every employee is given timely CPF contributions, and that no worker is deprived of what is rightfully his or hers.

But it should not all be about the “stick”.

Both MOM and the CPF Board have stepped up efforts to bring about greater compliance with the CPF Act and Employment Act. We want to ensure that employees, particularly more vulnerable groups like low-wage workers receive their salary on time, are paid their CPF contributions, and are provided with paid annual and sick leave, amongst others.

Since last September, through the “WorkRight” outreach, MOM and the CPF Board have jointly been educating workers on their employment rights and reminding employers of their obligations through various channels such as print advertisements and talks. We have also stepped up enforcement activities. Previously, our annual number of inspections on employment rights averaged 500. In the last four months alone, WorkRight inspectors have already conducted 800 inspections.

On-site WorkRight inspection to raise locals’ awareness of their employment rights

One employee who has benefited from WorkRight inspections is Mr Chua (not his real name). His employer was found to have underpaid CPF contributions from Jan 01 to Nov 12. After investigations, his employer was educated about his CPF liability and advised to pay the remaining CPF arrears. In all, we managed to recover $26,000 for Mr Chua. This is not a small sum – and 56-year-old Mr Chua was immensely grateful as this amount would contribute towards his savings for retirement.

Employers must do the right thing and pay their local employees what is due to them in CPF contributions. Employees should also check their CPF accounts regularly by calling the CPF hotline 1800-221-9922 or via the CPF website to ensure that their employers have made the correct CPF payments.

If you know of employers who are not fulfilling their CPF obligations, do report by calling 1800-221-9922 or emailing workright@mom.gov.sg. Rest assured that the identity of the caller will be kept strictly confidential.

Let’s continue to ensure we all work together to make things Right for workers!

Tan Chuan-Jin
Acting Minister for Manpower

<Pic credit: TodayOnline>

Despite the recent high-profile departures of two defeated People’s Action Party (PAP) candidates to the private sector — Mr Ong Ye Kung, 43, and Mr Desmond Choo, 35 — the labour movement remains a fertile and effective training ground for potential candidates for the ruling party, political analysts and labour Members of Parliament (MP) said.

However, for some analysts, the latest departures have revived the perennial question of whether the PAP needs to relook its strategy of parachuting potential political candidates into the labour movement. They felt that the question has to be answered more urgently now, given the keen competition for talent from the private sector — which would make it harder for the labour movement to hold on to defeated candidates — and a more demanding electorate which could increasingly require politicians who have significant experience in mobilising workers.

National University of Singapore political scientist Bilveer Singh said: “What (PAP) must change is to throw away its practice of helicoptering someone into the labour force and assume that just because now she or he is from the NTUC (National Trades Union Congress), that person is representing labour.”

He added: “With greater politicisation of almost every issue in the country, you will need politicians and not administrators in Singapore. If you want politicians then you cannot be dropping them from the helicopters anymore.”

Mr Ong left the Civil Service and joined NTUC in 2008. Earmarked as a potential NTUC Secretary-General, Mr Ong was part of the PAP Aljunied GRC team that lost in the 2011 GE. He left NTUC in November for the private sector.

Mr Choo — who quit the police force to join the labour movement in 2010 — lost in the 2011 GE as well as the Hougang by-election about a year later. He told the media about three weeks ago that he would be leaving NTUC for the private sector at the end of this month.

Alluding to past PAP politicians, such as Mr G Kandasamy and Mr Devan Nair, who made their mark as unionists before they became politicians, Associate Professor Singh said the ruling party should adopt a strategy of recruiting “dedicated labour leaders who have served for years” into politics.

Singapore Management University law lecturer Eugene Tan argued that “parachuting” potential candidates into the labour movement would have “decreasing efficacy”. Assistant Professor Tan, who is also a Nominated MP, said: “It will sit uncomfortably and perhaps at odds with the growing need for labour MPs to have authority and authenticity which can come about only through being an organic part of the labour movement.”

He added: “There will be a patent and urgent need to relook the existing practice of parachuting if the symbiotic relationship between the PAP and NTUC is to remain purposeful.”

Labour MPs whom TODAY spoke to disagreed with the analysts. Among other things, they argued that the time spent in the labour movement should not be used as the sole measure of commitment to the cause.

Marine Parade GRC MP Seah Kian Peng, who joined NTUC in 1992 — about 14 years before he stood for election, pointed to the “very good” track record of the labour MPs. He said: “To me, it’s more important (to ask): Do they have the calibre? Do they have the heart? Do they have the passion and do they have the traits to be a good labour MP?”

He reiterated that the labour movement is a “good place to gain experience from” for anyone who wants to “feel the pulse of the ground, feel the pulse of the workers”. “That is good for any leader because you are exposed to the issues on the ground and union leaders tell it as it is,” he said.

Workers’ issues — the essence of S’pore politics

Historically, the labour movement has enjoyed healthy representation in Parliament. In fact, as Assoc Prof Singh put it, “the essence of the PAP is about the labour movement”. “Its survival was about fighting and winning the struggle in the labour movement,” he added. “The labour movement is the centre of gravity of Singapore politics — whoever controls and have the support of the labour force will control Singapore politics.”

At the last General Election in 2011, 14 PAP candidates — including Mr Ong and Mr Choo — represented the labour movement. This excluded those who previously had worked in NTUC, such as Senior Parliamentary Secretary (Manpower and Education) Hawazi Daipi and Tampines GRC MP Irene Ng.

Among the labour MPs currently in the House, at least a third did not have a long association with the labour movement before they entered politics.

In a letter to the press in March 2011 — responding to a reader’s letter which questioned the large number of MPs from the NTUC — then-NTUC President John De Payva and NTUC Secretary-General Lim Swee Say said that these MPs “give workers a voice in Parliament and make NTUC a more effective labour movement”. “As NTUC nurtures promising candidates for selection by PAP, we also recruit potential PAP candidates who can contribute to the labour movement. Such a two-way approach has served our workers and union members well,” they added.

Ang Mo Kio GRC MP Ang Hin Kee, who was the Chief Executive of the Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) — a labour movement initiative — for five years before he was fielded in the 2011 GE, reiterated the need to “further the interest of our workers”.

He added: “All of us (in the labour movement) try to be as effective as we can to represent the needs of our workers ... Now whether they serve as a staff or as a labour MP, that’s beside the point. The question is can we induct more people to understand the need to further the interest of our workers on the ground.”

Mr Seah pointed out that talent would “always be sought after”. “Some stay in the labour movement longer, some move on. But even those who have moved on, they would have spent a valuable part of their time with the labour movement. And for many of them, if you talk about Ong Ye Kung or Desmond, I know their heart is still with the labour movement and they’re still helping out in different capacities.”

Mr Ong joined Keppel Corporation as its Director of Group Strategy and Development in January. Speaking to TODAY, he said that he is still involved in the labour movement through his capacity as the Chairman of e2i and the adviser to two unions. Mr Choo could not be reached for comment by press time.

Asst Prof Tan said that he would not be surprised “if we see more labour MPs in the next GE” if the recruitment efforts in the other traditional hunting grounds prove “less fruitful”.

“This is particularly important at a time when the PAP needs to burnish its pro-worker credentials,” he said.

Noting that both Mr Ong and Mr Choo were “examples of the ‘conversion’ to unionists in a top-down rather than a bottom-up manner”, Asst Prof Tan said: “The PAP needs to have rank-and-file, from the ground-up unionists as well as high-flier MPs deployed as unionists. In recent years, the balance has been tilted more towards the latter group ...

“The challenge for the PAP is to get the balance right so that its pro-worker credentials and identity do not become hollow.”
 

*Article first appeared on TodayOnline forums (Written by Amir Hussain)

Acting Minister for Manpower, Tan Chuan-Jin, boasted about Singapore’s low youth unemployment rate today (Tuesday) in his speech at the Republic Polytechnic graduation ceremony.

He was speaking in front of about 400 students and encouraging them with the prospects of good job opportunities.

In his speech, he gave comparisons of Singapore’s youth unemployment rate with other countries, citing that youth unemployment was only 6.7% in Singapore, compared to 60% in Greece and 13% in Taiwan.

These figures are based on students who can gain adequate employment within six months of graduating.

Despite giving encouraging words that there are plenty of job opportunities, he also urged the graduates to continue learning and upgrading their skills.

He also assured the students that on top of the current job opportunities, the Government would also be continuing to generate new jobs and employment opportunities for people.

The Media Development Authority of Singapore (www.mda.gov.sg) promotes the growth of globally competitive film, television, radio, publishing, music, games, animation and interactive digital media industries. It also regulates the media sector to safeguard the interests of consumers, and promotes a connected society. MDA is a statutory board under the Ministry of Communications and Information (www.mci.gov.sg).

That’s how MDA describes itself on its platform. But how it will be arbitrarily regulating online news sites from 1 June 2013, goes against their stated objective (see MDA’s press release on the new licensing framework for online news sites here: http://bit.ly/ZqzfYg).

By couching this new regulation under the Broadcasting Act, and by stating that this new licensing is meant to provide ‘greater clarity on prevailing requirements within the Class Licence and Internet Code of Practice’, MDA has no need to bring this new regulation to Parliament, where it may be vigorously debated before being passed as law.

How MDA has described what it means by news:

“A “Singapore news programme” is any programme (whether or not the programme is presenter-based and whether or not the programme is provided by a third party) containing any news, intelligence, report of occurrence, or any matter of public interest, about any social, economic, political, cultural, artistic, sporting, scientific or any other aspect of Singapore in any language (whether paid or free and whether at regular interval or otherwise) but does not include any programme produced by or on behalf of the Government.”

is most disturbing. Because, as Andrew Loh said on his Facebook: ‘may as well just say: “Everything is news as long as we say so.””

MDA says that this new regulation is needed to place the online sews sites on a ‘more consistent licensing framework as traditional news platforms’. At a time when concerned citizens are debating the relevance of legislations which govern the traditional media in Singapore which inhibit press freedom (see this: http://bit.ly/130nI0d and http://bit.ly/Qvjz0W); and at a time when Singapore’s press freedom ranking has dropped to an all time low (see this: http://bit.ly/17CNWaR), this move by MDA to make online news sites to be consistent with the traditional media is to say the least, short-sighted and unfortunate.

As Sudhir Vadaketh said on his Facebook:

“A step backwards for Singapore’s media: instead of removing the strictures on traditional media channels, we have decided to introduce controls on online news sites. Among other things, Singapore’s Media Development Authority will now be able to order news sites to remove content it believes is “against the public interest, public security, or national harmony”, i.e. anything somebody up there doesn’t like; backed up with the typical financial threat: a $50K bond. This is terrible. The same climate of self-censorship that pervades our mainstream media will now inevitably creep online. Hope I’m wrong…”

10 news sites will now have to be licensed under this new framework, and 9 of them are SPH or Mediacorp websites. Yahoo! surely stands out in this list (see this: http://bit.ly/15f3boX). It certainly looks like there’s political motivation behind this new licensing framework, and the motivation seem to be to rein-in Yahoo! Singapore.

This new licensing framework also requires online news sites to put up a performance bond of of $50,000. I don’t know if Yahoo! Singapore will comply with this new licensing framework and put up the bond, or if it considers the bond to be hefty and arbitrary, but I am thinking of the implication of this new framework on websites like TR Emeritus (TRE) and The Online Citizen (TOC).

TOC has already said on it’s website (link: http://bit.ly/13WyOoa):

“Based on publicly available data of visitorship statistics for TOC and the regularity of our posts on Singapore news and current affairs, it would appear that the licensing regime could apply to TOC…In the event that the new licensing rules are extended to TOC, we will have to reassess the viability of continuing the website in light of the significant financial and legal liability the new rules impose.”

ZDNet reports that when asked “how new sites will be added to the list, MDA said it will continue to assess sites which meet the criteria and issue formal notification for them to move to the licensing framework. The regulator added that it does not actively police sites and usually assesses content when it receives complaints from the public.”

In this ‘new normal’, it may not take very much for members from the public to lodge a complaint about TOC or TRE nearer the next General Election, and if MDA assesses that such websites have to move to this new licensing framework at that time by placing a $50,000 performance bond, it may place a very heavy burden on these socio-political websites, and they may choose to cease operating at such a crucial time of national self-determination.  The online world is the most open ‘public square’ Singaporeans have for public discourse, and this new licensing framework for online news sites is a great impediment to this.

This new regulation of MDA’s, is a tool which can be misused for political reasons, and there are no safeguards against MDA acting arbitrarily to move socio-political websites to this new framework. And for these reasons, this new licensing framework of MDA’s, to regulate online news sites must be opposed.

Ravi Philemon

* The author is the former chief editor of The Online Citizen he is now a member of the NSP. He blogs at www.Raviphilemon.net

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NSP: New Internet Media 

Regulation a Step Backwards 

May 29 2013,

Singapore

The National Solidarity Party (NSP) is deeply concerned by the Media Development Authority's (MDA) announcement on the 28th of May, of a new regulatory regime for internet media companies that regularly report on Singapore news.

It is puzzling that at a time when it should be promoting more open and frank discussion about national issues, the Government has instead seen fit to increase regulation on a media landscape that is already tightly controlled.

Furthermore, this is a curious move because according to the MDA itself, online media companies are already subject to regulatory requirements and it expects no change in content standards as a result of the new regulation.

The MDA should clarify why, if existing regulation has been able to ensure acceptable content standards, new regulation is required.

Three aspects of the new regulatory regime are especially troubling:

1. Takedown rule

While giving itself the authority to demand the takedown of articles containing "prohibited content" within 24 hours, the MDA has not clearly spelt out what constitutes such prohibited content. In its press statement the MDA cited content that is prejudicial to racial harmony. This is an obvious and non-controversial instance of the takedown rule being applied. One wonders if this rule will also be extended to articles critical of government policy, articles tagged with reader comments that are critical of the government and articles that generally express opinions contrary to prevailing political wisdom.

We therefore call on the MDA to clearly articulate the instances in which it may invoke this authority, as well as make transparent which person or group of persons within its organization is empowered to exercise discretion in the application of this authority.

2. Performance bond

We are concerned that the $50,000 performance bond is calculated to have a disciplining effect on media organizations that may then exercise self-censorship in the first instance, rather than risk incurring financial penalty.

$50,000 is also a potentially high barrier to entry for burgeoning independent news outlets to operate and flourish. The effect of this barrier will ultimately be a diminution of our civil discourse and narrowing the language of our thought.

3. Qualifying Requirements

Finally, the minimum qualifying requirements of one published article a week over a two-month period and a traffic base of at least 50,000 unique users may discourage international news organizations from reporting Singapore news regularly for fear of becoming subject to the new regulations themselves.

Whither our National Conversation?

Taken together, the NSP believes that the spirit and the conditions of the new regulation will have a regressive effect on the development of the local media industry and the quality of journalism at large in our country.

While the Government has made much of its intention to be more open and engaged with the citizenry, by this latest move, we cannot help but be left with the feeling that it has merely been paying lip service to the notion of a National Conversation.

Hazel Poa

Secretary-General

On behalf of the Central Executive Committee

The Government has made changes to the Broadcasting Act, posting a notice on the Government Gazette today (May 29).

The amendments come after the announcement yesterday of a new licensing regime for news websites that meet certain criteria.

The notice states that sites that are accessed from at least 50,000 different Internet protocol addresses in Singapore per month on average, over any period of 2 consecutive months, and that contain at least one Singapore news programme per week on average, over the same period of 2 consecutive months, will be excluded from the automatic class licence scheme, Instead, these sites will be licensed under new rules starting from Saturday.

According to the notice, content under sub-domains of a website will be considered as part of the domain of the website.

All mirrored websites shall be regarded as part of the original website, if the original site is duplicated or transferred to one or more sites in or from Singapore.

The notice further defines what is a Singapore news programme, which means “any programme (whether or not the programme is presenter-based and whether or not the programme is provided by a third party) containing any news, intelligence, report of occurrence, or any matter of public interest, about any social, economic, political, cultural, artistic, sporting, scientific or any other aspect of Singapore in any language (whether paid or free and whether at regular intervals or otherwise)”.

This, however, “does not include any programme produced by or on behalf of the Government”.