On 8 July 2013, Parliament debated the Government’s response to the perennial haze problem. These are the questions I asked the Ministers and their responses (Part 1 of 3). The other two parts will be published over the next few days, together with questions and answers to my other Parliamentary questions during this sitting.

————————-

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Non-Constituency Member):Madam, I have two questions for the Minister of Defence. First, one of the big causes of anxiety among Singaporeans was the unavailability of N95 masks at the height of the haze. How will the Government ensure in the future that its stockpile of face masks gets to the distribution points faster? Secondly, are there any laws in place that require retailers to ration the sale of essential products the moment such emergencies break out, rather than a few days after the fact, so as to mitigate the effects of hoarding, and to ensure that the genuinely vulnerable people get the necessary protection that they need?

Dr Ng Eng Hen: They are relevant questions. In terms of anti-hoarding laws, I will leave it to MTI to answer, because there are some Parliamentary Questions based on that subject. What have we learnt from the run on masks or the panic buying of masks: if you look at what happened, based on that particular day – 21 June — the number of people that really ought to have been wearing masks was nowhere near the masks that were sold. This was anticipated demand, exactly as the Member has said. They were thinking, “What if the haze lasts for week and I am the last one without a mask in Singapore?” That fed into a frenzy. Why was there a difficulty in getting the masks from these warehouses where we had 9 million to the distributors: there was a reason. The masks that were stocked up by MOH were not for the public. They were for their healthcare workers. By the way, that stockpile is quite important, in case the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) viruses come here and infect us. So they were meant for health workers to make sure that there was sustainability and the way that they were stored, and so on and so forth, assumptions were made on a particular rate of use. There are very few systems that are prepared for a situation where from one day to the next, your demand of masks is 5,000 and the next day, 1 million. Very few distributors will stock that amount. If they do that as a business model, many of you would say that they would not survive. There are reasons for it.

Back to the Member’s question on how do we plan ahead: first, we have stocked up our masks, not only for the haze, but for contingencies like MERS or SARS or other infectious diseases. Secondly, MOH will be looking at packaging and see how we can roll it out in terms of our distributorship chains. All in all, it did not reflect badly on our system that we were able to react fairly quickly, including using the SAF to move the masks from the warehouses to the constituencies and retailers like NTUC Fairprice activating their supply chain to get the masks straight from the warehouses to their retail outlets including to other retailers, shows that there is a certain nimbleness or robustness in our system. We can do better but we did not do that badly.

————————-

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: On the subject of engaging all levels of government in Indonesia, since the Minister said that the ratification of the ASEAN Haze Agreement is being held up not by Indonesians’ central government, but by the Indonesian House of Representatives, the DPR, are there any plans to engage the Indonesian legislators directly to persuade them to ratify the agreement expeditiously, for example, by engaging them at the upcoming ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly?

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Unfortunately, my colleague from Foreign Affairs is not here but certainly, if Members of this House meet your colleagues in DPR, by all means, please persuade them of the wisdom of ratifying that agreement.

Gerald Giam
Non-constituency Member of Parliament

[Source]: Gerald Giam’s blog (http://geraldgiam.sg)

This is the PMO's full statement on the issue of the CPIB Officer being charged:

An officer from the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) has been charged with misappropriating public funds.

We take a very serious view of this case, especially because the officer was from an agency whose mission is to uphold the integrity of our system.

CPIB first uncovered the alleged wrong-doing in September 2012. As the accused was a CPIB officer and the alleged financial impropriety could have amounted to a criminal offence, the matter was reported to the Commercial Affairs Department of the Singapore Police Force, which carried out the investigation. This was to ensure an impartial and thorough investigation.

The Prime Minister appointed an independent review panel to look at how this case happened, and to strengthen the financial procedures and audit system in CPIB to prevent a recurrence. The recommendations of the panel are being implemented.

Individual lapses can happen in an organization despite safeguards and processes to prevent wrongdoing. But so long as we uphold the fundamental importance of honest government, and other officers in the organization are alert and courageous enough to report when they think something is not right, we will sooner or later detect such transgressions and bring the culprit to justice.

Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean, who is also the Minister in charge of the Civil Service, said: “This case is particularly serious because it involved a senior officer in the CPIB, which is entrusted with the mission of maintaining the integrity of the system.

“Public institutions and public officers are held to the highest standards of integrity and conduct. It is vital to have in place systems and practices to ensure integrity in the public service. There must be strong enforcement when there is wrongdoing, weaknesses in processes must be tightened, and most importantly there must be good values.

“We will take strong measures to tighten up processes. PMO is examining whether any supervisory lapses may have contributed to this incident. If so, it will take action against the officers responsible.

“As there have been a number of high profile cases recently, the public is understandably concerned about whether this reflects systemic issues in the Public Service. The Service itself is concerned about this. Earlier this year, PMO asked CAD and CPIB to conduct a study of public officers investigated by them for corruption and other financial crimes over the last five years to see whether there was any change in their number or profile.

“On average, CPIB opened 39 cases involving public officers per year for investigation. These cases made up about 20% of all cases opened by CPIB. About two thirds of the investigations involving public officers led to prosecution or disciplinary proceedings.1

“Overall the study concluded that cases involving public officers have remained low and quite stable over the last five years. Keeping the numbers low requires constant effort and vigilance.

“Significantly, many cases were reported either by the public, or by officers in the public service. This suggests a strong culture in Singapore and in the Public Service which rejects corruption.

“I have asked the Head of the Civil Service to share the study’s findings with his officers and to also make the key findings public. I understand that he will be doing so by the end of the week.”

PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
24 JULY 2013

1 -The number of cases opened by CAD involving public officers each year is about one to three a year, and account for a very small percentage of the total number of cases opened by CAD each year (ranging from 600 to more than 1,000).

An Assistant Director at the CPIB was charged in court today for misappropriating an amount of not less than $1.7 million. We also note an increase in corruption-related offences among high-ranking and junior public officers recently.

Who guards the guardians?

We urgently call on the government to tighten the system to fight corruption. We view corruption involving public money as more serious than other offences involving public servants. Even more important is the old question – who will guard the guardians themselves against corruption? The government needs to address the public’s concerns.

High salaries will not mitigate corruption

The government’s policy is that paying high salaries will mitigate corruption in the public and civil service. It is time for this policy to be questioned again. We urge the government to prioritise a ‘stick’ approach, rather than a ‘carrot’ approach, in tackling corruption. Corruption can only be deterred if the penalties are costlier than the potential bribe received. This should begin with imposing tougher penalties for offences such as asset misappropriation.

SPP: eradicating corruption among public servants

The SPP has taken an interest in eradicating corruption among public servants for many years. Back in 1987 in Parliament, our Secretary-General Mr Chiam See Tong pushed for a commission of inquiry on the CPIB investigations on the ex-Minister for National Development, Mr Teh Cheang Wan. We believe it is in the public interest that there can be no suggestion of any concealment or cover-up of any corruption or criminal wrongdoing on the part of public servants.

MRS LINA CHIAM, NCMP

Chairman, Singapore People’s Party (SPP)

*Statement first appeared on http://www.spp.org.sg/corruption-and-the-cpib-high-salaries-will-not-mit...

The HDB has built two pedestrian overhead bridges (POB) at Lorong 6 Toa Payoh - barely 20 metres apart. The photo on the left (taken in June 2013) shows a POB under construction in the background and an existing one in in the foreground.

When contacted, Mr Khoo Wei Tat, a principal engineer at the HDB, said that a second bridge was constructed because the existing one did not have a covered shelter and that it did not lead directly to the bus-stops on both sides of the road.

The SDP enquired in a subsequent email why a shelter could not be constructed on the existing POB and a covered linkway from the POB to the bus-stops built. This would be much less costly than to build a completely new bridge. 

Mr Khoo replied that the HDB had considered the option but found it "technically not feasible" to build a shelter on the existing bridge. As for a covered linkway, he said it"would be long and winding and also sterilises the land".

When asked what "sterilises the land" means, Mr Khoo did not explain but did say that that building a covered linkway will require "additional land".  

Firstly, a covered linkway connecting the bridge to the bus-stop is not long - it is about than 30 metres on one side of the road and less than 10 metres on the other. 

Secondly, it is not winding - there is an existing path from the old bridge to the bus-stop (see photo, right) and it is relatively straight. Thirdly and obviously, additional land is not required as the path is already in place. 

Given the above, the SDP is not persuaded that building a new bridge is the better option. The building of another POB when one already exists seems to be a painful waste of public funds.  

The construction project does not even benefit Singaporeans in any appreciable way as most of the workers are foreigners. 

The question is how many more such projects have been, and are being, undertaken? They will, of course, add to the GDP but do we really want this kind of economic growth?

(Photo below taken 25 July 2013: The completed bridge with shelter. According to the HDB, the old bridge will be demolished once the new one is operational.)

SDP

*Article first appeared on http://yoursdp.org/news/2013-07-25-5647

ESM Goh Chock Tong said that Singapore needs to guard against elitism because it threatens to divide society. 

He was speaking at the Raffles Institution Homecoming event yesterday. He cited that top schools such as RI must ensure that their students do not become elitist or develop a sense of entitlement. 

ESM Goh also spent 6 years in RI during the 1950s and he described it as Singapore's melting pot of the best students from different racial and religious backgrounds. He added that it did not matter whether they were rich or poor back then.

Mr Goh said that back in his day, there was a very open meritocracy that allowed social mobility for most people. However  but he also acknowledged that as society matured, there has been a stronger divide and income inequality has grown. 

Children of rich backgrounds tend to have a head start in life, thanks to their parents giving them greater opportunities, but ESM Goh warned against letting this develop into a sense of entitlement. 

"When society's brightest and most able think that they made good because they are inherently superior and entitled to their success; when they do not credit their good fortune also to birth and circumstance; when economic inequality gives rise to social immobility and a growing social distance between the winners of meritocracy and the masses; and when the winners seek to cement their membership of a social class that is distinct from, exclusive, and not representative of Singapore society - that is elitism."

Despite acknowledging that the system of meritocracy maturing over the years may have caused this greater divide, ESM Goh said that the solution is not to replace meritocracy. 

He said that meritocracy should not be practiced in a way that divides society. 

"Those of us who have benefited disproportionately from society's investment in us owe the most to society, particularly to those who may not have had access to the same opportunities. We owe a debt to make lives better for all and not just for ourselves."

Commenting further on what the government is doing, he said that they are continually intervening with policies and programs to benefit families who have fallen behind. 

He reiterated that these measures would help to ensure that Singapore's meritocracy remains fair and inclusive. 

Singapore is well-known for its low expenditure on healthcare, but a former nominated Member of Parliament has called on the government to spend more so that, in turn, low-income elderly can pay less.

Currently, Singapore's healthcare spending is at 4 per cent of its GDP, a quarter that of the United States' spending. Most OECD countries spend more than 10 per cent of their GDP on healthcare.

In a passionate speech in early March, DrKanwaljit Soin, an orthopedic surgeon, argued that needy elderly people, in particular women, as they outnumber men after the age of 85, end up skipping medical treatments because they worry about paying the bills.

She cited a 1995 National Survey of Senior Citizens that found 88 per cent of people over 55 had not made financial provisions for their old age and health needs.

At least a portion of these senior citizens are still alive today and, possibly, are among those worrying about medical bills.

As evidence, perhaps, of the problem of under-consumption of healthcare in Singapore, men and women here lose a higher percentage of life-expectancy to ill-health as compared to other developed countries, said Dr Soin.

A 2001 study by the World Health Organisation (WHO) found that men here lose 11.4 per cent of life expectancy to ill-health or disability, while women lose 14.1 per cent. In contrast, men and women in New Zealand and Australia lose between 8.5 to 11 per cent.

And in arguing that out-of-pocket expenses are too high, Dr Soin pointed out, even the "much vaunted 3M system" -- Medisave, Medishield and Medifund -- only represents 10 per cent of the patient's total healthcare expenditure.

This means, for those without employer benefits and private insurance, the bulk of hospital bills are settled through out-of-pocket expenses.

Read the rest of the article here: http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/govt-spends-too-little-hea...

Ng Eng Hen, the Defence Minister, warned on Friday of a new 'threat' to Singapore's Total Defence. That is: distorted or false information, rumours and smear campaigns on the internet. 

He was speaking at the Total Defence Symposium at the Ritz-Carlton Millenia Hotel.

He went on to explain that the misinformation is aimed at "weakening our resolve" and calculated to "cause disunity". He suggested that those who want to harm Singapore spread the misinformation during times of crisis when such information spreads rapidly and causes confusion and chaos. 

Going on to talk about Singapore's Total Defence efforts, Dr Ng cited the 2003 SARS crisis and the recent Haze episode as examples where Singapore's Total Defence efforts have been working. 

However, his remarks have drawn a lot of criticism from netizens. Some have commented that they don't know what Total Defence really is anymore, while others compared the situation in Singapore with other countries.

One commenter with the moniker 'Persimon' highlighted how paranoid the Minister seemed: “Why [do] so many people intend harm Sg?” He went on to compare US, UK, Canada and Australia saying that despite having free speech and free media for at least a decade, there countries were not ‘harmed’.

Another with moniker ‘millionare 394’ had even criticized the existence of Total Defence: “Total Defence [has] been more than 20 over years, yet i could not find a single mask when i needed to??”

‘Stephen Marlin’ was in agreement, “During HAZE, no N95 masks available even tho Govt had a HAZE meeting. During SARS, Govt didn't have a contingency plan until it starts to go out of our hands.”

Commenting on the Minister’s comments about disunity, another commenter by the name ‘Dante’ said “I thought the WORST form of disunity is when half of a country's population are FOREIGNERS, imported in the shortest time span of less than a decade?”

Shouldn't the Minister be more worried about 'real' threats like terrorism, corruption in the high levels of the civil service and rising crime rates rather than focusing on online comments?

It seems that more and more members of the PAP are out to smear the online voices of the citizens.

In an interview with Singapolitics, Dr Balakrishnan, the Minister for Environment and Water Resources shared information about his political career including key points about his relationship with the PAP.

He gave insight into the PAP's process of recruiting members and particularly the cabinet, saying that the PAP was not afraid of differences in opinions. What it didn't want was charlatans (those who create falsehoods or tricks). 

Dr Balakrishnan explained that he was originally recruited by former PM Goh Chock Tong in 2001, despite having some points of disagreement with the PAP. Then PM Goh had told him to "hold fast onto his values". This advice has been something that the minister had never forgotten. 

"You come in. It doesn't matter if your beliefs or views are different from us. If you can convince us, we will make changes. But on the other hand, if we show you that this is the right thing to do, you must be intellectually honest enough to admit it."

Dr Balakrishnan also said that this is often very difficult when there are strong opinions being held within the cabinet. The cabinet has a collective responsibility, which means that the whole cabinet must stand behind decisions and policies. 

He explained that when members of the PAP have differing opinions, it is their responsibility to discuss intellectually and in detail to come to an agreement. The PAP does not screen members' views, instead it wants ministers to hold strongly to their values. So long as they are honest and genuinely held, members should create strong arguments to support them. 

However, if the group can objectively show that another opinion is better, then the individual must concede and stand behind the decision also. 

Talking about what happens when there is a strong conflict that cannot be resolved, Dr Balakrishnan said that in this situation, the minister opposing should ask to step down. He emphasized that this is part of being in Cabinet and is what should happen if there is a difficult, controversial and yet fundamental point of conflict. 

This, he explained, is likely to be part of what makes the government so successful. When decisions are made, the full cabinet must stand in agreement and be prepared to defend the policy. This is what is meant by collective responsibility and helps to strengthen the decision making process ensuring that the long-term interests of Singapore are always considered. 

Does the same apply to citizens?

It is clear that Dr Balakrishnan holds this process in high regard and respects the way it works, but are these views the same when applied to citizens?

He explained that the PAP values differing opinions so long as they are genuinely held and can be supported with strong arguments, however when citizens raise their concerns, they seem to often be ignored by the government. 

Sometimes, they are even shot down by our leaders with threats of lawsuits. 

Many netizens said that this interview is one of the biggest joke that the PAP has ever made.

What do you think?

But in life, probably nothing exists in isolation.

This abstruseness can probably be traced to one element --- mindset. Or rather, the difference in mindset between the rulers and ruled, the "capital owners" and the workers, the rich and the rest.

Going about life in this island state in study, eating, shopping, exercise, travelling etc probably feels good or even at times seems like in "paradise". But, and this is a big "BUT", if one aspires to move on to the rest of the things one would naturally do in a life time, then "BIG" problems start to set in. Of course, there might be exceptions such as those belonging to the very rich and powerful. What is concerned here is the "masses", not the "outliers".

To some learned folks in fundamental Economics, probably many would agree that nominal GDP growth as a measure of social progress is at best a "misnomer". Nominal GDP growth can be price driven. Its how the GDP is measured in each country and one approach is to aggregate the sum of all expenditures in a country over a certain period of time, usually a year. If goods, services, factors of production etc are inflated in prices, obviously the aggregate reflected in the GDP will likely show an increase. But is this "increase" real or just "nominal" rise ( inflated value ) in dollars term?

When this phenomenon is allowed to persist for a sustained period of time, likely anamorphosis sets in. How then can the citizenry not feel "vanquished" in such a situation? Just stop some young couples or people on the road and take a survey on some rudimentary matters and chances are, controversial and "disturbing" replies might emerge. The deep vexation, misgiving or fear among young people of starting a family is real. How would young, idealistic individuals want to bring another life into this world if it is fraught with much uncertainties, risks or even a life time of struggle?

Beneath the calm of daily lives, many "worrying" issues lie latent. A mindset change is probably needed in all segments of society to correct this idiosyncrasy. It may have to start from the top for there is a Chinese saying, “上梁不正下梁歪”。

Related:

Social Stability and Political Continuity - Ability to Adapt to Change

PS101 In Action: Scholars' Choice in Oxford U - PPE (Political Science, Philosophy, Economics)

Part 1 Socio-Political Economic Realities: Solving Our Nation Problems

PSS

*The writer blogs at http://pro-sustainable-sg.blogspot.sg

On Saturday, a series of National Day Dinners were held across the island and attended by key members of the PAP. Each had similar things to say about what the government is going to focus on going forward.

DPM Teo spoke to attendees at SengKang, while DPM Tharman addressed the residents of Bukit Batok. Over on the West Coast, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office S Iswaran gave a speech and Dr Vivan Balakrishnan spoke at Senja-Cashew.

They had cited feedback from the Our Singapore Conversation sessions as useful in forming government policies. Over 46 000 Singaporeans had participated in the sessions since the beginning of the sessions last year.

The key areas that were discussed by the different Ministers were Housing, Education, Healthcare and Transport.

DPM Teo had highlighted that healthcare policies aimed at providing peace of mind especially to seniors. He also talked about the Community Health Assist Scheme which allowed middle to lower-income Singaporeans to receive subsidies on certain treatments.

DPM Tharman had also emphasized in his speech that the government is going to help more elderly Singaporeans with their healthcare costs.

Talking about housing, some of the Ministers said that the government was going to keep home ownership affordable; focusing especially on first home buyers.

As part of their efforts to improve Education, DPM Teo had said that more focus would be put on preschool education, as well as post-secondary school options to allow all Singaporeans to grow to their full potential. He also shared that more focus would be put on special needs children.

On the West Coast, S Iswaran said that “Our challenge is to ensure that Singapore remains the best home for our families, with a heart that cares for every one, and hope and opportunities for all. The government will work with all Singaporeans to chart a new path to realise this vision.”

This seems to sum up the general direction that all the Ministers were trying to portray and is in line with PM Lee’s message in his 2012 National Day speech of Hope, Heart and Home.

These promises are all very heartwarming and it’s clear that the government is focusing more effort onto pleasing the citizens with their policies. Perhaps this change is due to their decreasing popularity as evident from the vote count in 2011.

The National Conversation initiative was launched in 2012 and was introduced as a way for the citizens to be heard by the government. Clearly the results in GE2011 were a wake-up call for them to initiate more Singaporean-first polices.

However, despite the minor improvement, many unfavorable policies are still being forced through such as the MDA regulations and the Population White Paper.

If losing 6 seats in GE2011 (7 after Punggol East) caused the PAP to change their policies, having more opposition voices in parliament would only force the PAP to listen even more to Singaporeans.

Even for those who believe that the PAP is doing a good job, it is apparent that having more opposition voices forces the PAP to bring in more pro-Singaporean policies.

On 5 Jul 2013, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, speaking at the DBS Asia Leadership Dialogue, said:

"I don't think it will make us a society where everybody is absolutely equal and I don't think we want to do that. In fact if I can get another 10 billionaires move to Singapore and set up their base here... I think Singapore will be better off because they will bring business, they will bring opportunities, they will open new doors, they will create new jobs, and I think that's the attitude with which we must approach this problem."

While it is hard to argue with the common sense notion that chasing equality of outcome destroys incentives, PM Lee's argument was aimed at knocking down a straw man which the PAP has been doing for years.

I’d like to discuss the real economics of the real economy, giving a simple common sense take on bringing in billionaires and bringing in businesses.

Wooing wealth misses the point

It is often claimed that the major benefits to Singapore associated with billionaires moving here are job creation and revenue from income and consumption taxes. These are, however, tiny unless, of course, those billionaires are here to spend their billions in a big way.

Unfortunately, billionaires who relocate to Singapore do not conduct business here commensurate to the size of their net worth. Furthermore, they make use of accounting "magic" (tax engineering) on their personal income to change most of it into capital gains or anything that is taxed at a lower rate. 

Additionally, if the businesses accompanying them pay parent or sibling companies located overseas for "intellectual property", then the Singapore end is left with little or no corporate profit to tax. 

It is hard to make the case of wooing billionaires to relocate to Singapore as a strategy. Wooing wealth misses the point. Wealth is a mere proxy for what would be useful to Singapore as these profits are "accounted" away to Bermuda or any other corporate tax haven. What is useful would be bringing in businesses that will be domiciled in Singapore.

Wooing businesses: The art and the benefit

Inviting appropriate types of businesses to set up shop in Singapore (through temporary incentives, for instance) has obvious benefits. Such businesses would generate high enough value to contribute to the economy and to create good jobs that can be filled and such businesses might provide the impetus for human capital to evolve.

The type of businesses we bring in would have to take into account our "human capital pipeline” which includes the stock of Singaporean students in local and overseas universities, polytechnics and ITEs, and the courses they are reading. It also includes the current stock of Singaporeans in the workforce and their capabilities as well as information about how long they are expected to stay in the workforce. 

In fact, understanding the human capital pipeline is the most important consideration to be successful in attracting businesses to set up shop in Singapore. The businesses we bring in will have to fit with what is in Singapore’s human capital pipeline. Otherwise, Singaporeans will not be getting jobs in those businesses and we will have to import foreign labour to fill the vacancies.

Some of the businesses we bring in should also be developmental, meaning that they might require skills that Singaporeans will be able to develop quickly given what is in the pipeline. Specifically, these skills correspond to incrementally higher capability requirements. This nudges capability development upwards. (Of course, natural business evolution via competition also serves that role.)

A few of the businesses we bring in might, in some cases, be aspirational, entailing the next step up in the pipeline and supporting the evolution of our human capital. These should entail high value jobs that Singaporeans can fill with the right training. Initially, operations might be small and consist of foreign labour, but they would be filled with Singaporeans in the years to come. This means an incentive-driven "pull-up” in terms of capability development.

These are the three elements of "business attraction” that we have to be aware of. In addition, we have to be aware that jobs shape human capital. Many students pick fields of study based on jobs available.

Shaping the human-capital advantage

The strategy of luring businesses should be used to plug "business gaps” in the economy which occur when a large number of Singaporeans are under-employed. Underemployment occurs when a worker’s capabilities and education are not necessary for his/her current job. Such a response to underemployment  grows the economy because some existing work is replaced with higher value work.

On the other hand, it is unclear that the government is capable of picking future winners. While I believe that huge government-led pushes should not take place, it does not preclude "experiments” to assess whether certain types of businesses would thrive. It also does not preclude "piling-on” proportionately to reinforce and accelerate a reasonably strong private-sector led trend.

There is also a "deeper” strategic aspect to this. A nation like Singapore that depends on human capital must be proactive in shaping, maintaining and extending a human-capital advantage. Choosing what businesses to woo is useful for shaping human capital. If done right, it means lasting prosperity for Singapore.

Thought has to be put in to consider the kinds of skills that will be needed in future, and the kinds of capabilities that are easy or difficult to build up elsewhere. We do not want to invest in skills that would be easy for 240 million Indonesians to pick up. Rather, we would like the over 600 million people in South East Asia to depend on 3.3 million Singaporeans. 

It is not outrageous to seek to become a regional centre of excellence that other nations depend on for crucial expertise. Studying where other nations are in their development and deducing where they are going is only preliminary groundwork in this difficult task. I will not pretend to know exactly how to do it, but it is clear that it is a matter of gradual positioning.

Conclusion

By now it should be clear that wooing appropriate businesses leads to far more direct and certain effects than simply wooing wealth. This is not an anti-wealth tract, but rather an anti-wealth-fixation tract. Rather than chase the uncertain and often unlikely benefits of billionaires relocating to Singapore, we should woo businesses that will bring good high-value jobs for Singaporeans. 
 

Jeremy Chen is pursuing his PhD in Decision Science at the NUS and is a member of the SDP's housing policy panel.

Earlier this year in May, a group of Young Democrats visited Pulau Ubin to look into some development issues: http://therealsingapore.com/content/young-sdp-members-visit-pulau-ubin-look-development-issues

Following the publication of the article about their time on Pulau Ubin, the Singapore Land Authority issued a statement to say that the article is misleading and contains a number of factual inaccuracies.

The SLA's full statement can be seen at: http://therealsingapore.com/content/singapore-land-authority-sdp-young-democrats%E2%80%99-article-misleading-inaccurate

Now, in response to the SLA Statement, SDP has released another article saying that they disagree with the accusation made by SLA.

This is the SDP's full response: 

The Facebook post from SLA has said that the Young Democrats' (YD) report of our visit with the residents at Pulau Ubin is "mischievous and irresponsible". We disagree. Our report is based on oral interviews with the residents and the documents they presented to us.

In Mr Chua Bing Qing’s case, despite the SLA’s denial that it was not an eviction letter but only a "census survey”, we note that the letter from HDB dated 12 March 2013 was titled "Clearance scheme: Clearance of structures previously acquired for development of adventure park in Pulau Ubin.”

The letter goes on to say that

SLA has sought HDB Land Clearance Section (LCS)'s assistance to clear the above squatter house. In connection with the clearance, officers from LCS/SLA will visit your premises to conduct a census survey for the purpose ofdetermining your eligibility for resettlement benefits. (emphasis added)

The letter adds: "Please note that the resettlement benefits offered is strictly ex-gratia ('by favour' or 'no obligation').”

We think that this letter (click on photo to enlarge letter) determines clearly if it was simply a "census survey” or eviction notice. Readers can judge for themselves.

The SLA subsequently issued a clarification on 17 April 2013, stating that there was no plan to evict the residents – "in the foreseeable future."

As for Madam Samiyah's case, the information about the lawsuit came from her. While Madam Samiyah may or may not be the owner of the land title deed, she told us that she was a resident on the island and the land she was living on was acquired. 
 

Singapore's first prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew, warned against the risks in helping to develop an economic zone in neighboring Malaysia, adding that the wealthy city-state he helped build might not be around in 100 years if it did not pick good leaders.

"I am absolutely sure that if Singapore gets a dumb government, we are done for," Lee, who turns 90 next month, wrote in "One Man's View of the World", a book launched on Tuesday.

Losing none of the candour that made him one of Asia's most influential leaders, Lee had sharp words for some of Singapore's neighbors, in particular Malaysia, from which Singapore split in 1965, amid ethnic tension between its Malay majority and the Chinese minority.

Lee also spoke about risks involved in the Iskandar economic zone that Malaysia is developing just north of Singapore, which has attracted large investments from the city-state.

Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Lee's eldest son, and Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak have both promoted Iskandar, which many believe can complement Singapore, just as Shenzhen has helped Hong Kong overcome its space constraints.

"This is an economic field of co-operation in which, you must remember, we are putting investments on Malaysian soil," Lee said. "And at the stroke of a pen they can take it over."

Lee appeared alert but frail at the launch event, requiring assistance to stand and walk about. He did not take questions, but said his 400-page book recounted "90 years of various experiences" and included hard facts and hard truths.

RISKS OF "DUMB GOVERNMENT"

Lee Kuan Yew is widely credited with building Singapore into one of the world's wealthiest nations with a strong, pervasive role for the state and little patience for dissent.

His influence extended beyond the tiny population of 5.3 million, as the city-state's economic success served as a model for many developing countries, including China under Deng Xiaoping, and he still garners respect from global leaders.

In his book, Lee says he met Chinese President Xi Jinping in November 2007 in the communist leader's first meeting with a foreign leader after he was promoted to the Politburo Standing Committee.

"He struck me as a man of great breadth," said Lee, praising the way Xi endured various trials and tribulations and worked his way up through the Communist party.

"I would put him in the Nelson Mandela class of persons."

Although China is becoming increasingly powerful, Lee said the United States' economic prowess was unlikely to wane, due to its innovation skills that lead to gadgets such as the iPad.

But it was worrying that President Barrack Obama had recently lost several of his aides, Lee added. "That such experienced advisers have left him is not a good sign."

Lee stepped down as prime minister in 1990, handing power to Goh Chok Tong, but remaining influential as senior minister in Goh's cabinet and subsequently as "minister mentor" when Lee Hsien Loong became prime minister in 2004.

The elder Lee resigned from his cabinet position in 2011 after his long-ruling People's Action Party (PAP) stumbled to its worst electoral showing since independence in 1965.

On his fears for the future of Singapore, Lee, who once famously vowed to rise from his grave if something went wrong with the country, now seems ready to let fate run its course.

"I have done my job," he said. "I found a successor and handed over to another generation... I cannot live forever as a young, vigorous 40- or 50-year-old."

By Kevin Lim

(Additional reporting by Rachel Armstrong; Editing by Clarence Fernandez)

*Article first appeared on http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/06/us-singapore-leekuanyew-idUSBRE9750JS20130806

<pic credit: Yahoo! Newsroom>

Malaysia was prepared to lose talent “in order to maintain the dominance of one race”, said Singapore’s founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew in his latest book.

In the 400-page book titled “One Man’s View of the World”, which was launched on Tuesday, the former minister mentor shares his views on international politics, the global economy, climate change and more.

He noted that Malaysia’s “race-based politics place the country at a disadvantage” and was “voluntarily shrinking the talent pool”.

While the government there is now “somewhat more willing to acknowledge this loss” by trying to lure Malaysians back, their efforts may be “too little, too late”, he said.

It was mentioned in the book that in the last 40 over years, the ratio of Chinese and Indian Malaysians dropped significantly. In 1970, the Chinese made up 35.6 per cent of the population- the number shrunk to 24.6 per cent in 2010. The Indian population fell from 10.8 to 7.3 over the same period. 

Lee believes that in the competition for skills and brainpower, Malaysia is “losing ground” and “giving other countries a head start”, he added.

He also thinks that it is “impossible for (Prime Minister Najib) to win votes from the Chinese and Indians without losing votes from his party’s core supporters—the Malays”.

He also touched on how Singapore and Malaysia have taken different paths, and that there is now a “live and let live” understanding.

For example, in 1965, when the countries separated, English was a common language. Subsequently, Malaysia chose to drop the language.  Years later, in 2003, English was reintroduced for the teaching of science and mathematics.

Lee said: “When the (Malaysian) government concluded that it was a disadvantage to lose English, they reintroduced (it…).”

This, however, was opposed by the Malays, “especially those from rural areas”, and the policy reverted six years later. 

“Singapore and Malaysia have chosen two entirely different ways of organising our societies,” he noted.

“But we have each come to the understanding that there is no need to try to influence the other to your own point of view. We cannot change them. They cannot change us,” he said.

*Article first appeared on http://sg.news.yahoo.com/malaysia-losing-talent-to-keep-one-race-dominan...

In the lastest development in the dispute between SDP's young democrats the the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), SLA has published a new response on it's Facebook page. 

The dispute is over a visit that the young democrats paid to Pulau Ubin residents to find out more about development issues. (Young SDP members visit Pulau Ubin to look into development issues)

The SLA had said that the article published by the young democrats was misleading and inaccurate. (Singapore Land Authority: SDP Young Democrats’ article misleading & inaccurate)

However, standing by their original article, the young democrats had provided clarifications and asked the people decide. (SDP Responds to SLA: Census survey or eviction letter - let the people judge) 

Now, SLA released a status on it's facebook page. Read the full statment below: 

Singapore Land Authority

The response by Mr Clarence Zeng, writing on behalf of the Young Democrats, relied on a HDB letter dated 12 March 2013 regarding the census survey carried out in Pulau Ubin. SLA has already explained in April 2013, both publicly as well as directly to the affected residents, that the letter was not intended to be an eviction notice. It was wrongly captioned as a clearance scheme for which SLA and HDB had apologised publicly. SLA and HDB officers had also met the affected residents to assure them that the purpose of the census survey was to establish the eligibility of households for resettlement benefits and not to evict them. We are therefore puzzled as to why Mr Zeng insists on making reference to this letter and causing anxiety for the residents.

Mr Zeng also alleged discrepancies between the rent paid by Mr Lim and the previous media statement. The short answer is that Mr Lim was not part of the March 2013 census survey involving 22 households. Apart from these 22 households who are residing on Pulau Ubin without Temporary Occupation Licences (TOLs), there is an existing group of residents/commercial operators (Mr Lim’s family is one of them) who are already on TOLs. Their TOLs are for dwelling, commercial or a combination of both, and of varying land areas and floor areas. Mr Lim is occupying a much larger unit comprising a 2-storey building with a floor area of almost 5,000 sq ft. 

Hence, we are at a loss as to the basis for the allegation that the Government is “charging high rents to compel the residents to give up their land”. That said, we do not propose to prolong this exchange. The facts are plain for all to see and judge for themselves.

- http://facebook.com/SingaporeLandAuthority/posts/538155412923060

Singapore Democrats spent Sunday morning visiting our fellow citizens in the South and Southwestern parts of the island. It was a great occasion to meet residents and wish everyone a Happy National Day.

Our bus ferried us from Kreta Ayer in downtown Singapore all the way to Jurong West, covering the various food centres in between where we sold our flagship publication The New Democrat.

The current issue features our three main policy papers: healthcare, housing and population. Many residents were attracted to the headline ‘We cannot have 7 million people’. The piece carried our proposals on how Singapore can tighten our immigration policy and, in so doing, enhance the quality of life of our people.

The SDP has not let up is our ground campaign since the last general elections in 2011. We have been working to carry out our message to voters even as we continue to be the party of ideas, publishing alternative policy papers and proposing realistic solutions for our country’s problems.

While walkabouts are important for us to spread our message in the widest manner possible, it doesn’t allow us to spend time with residents and to get to know them in an extended manner.

We make up for this by alternating such mass walkabouts with house visits where we knock on doors and call on residents at their homes. Such visits give us more time and freedom to chat with residents and hear from you.

Its also a time where we can better explain our platform and alternative policies. Our next house visit date will be in three weeks time. Here’s hoping to see you!

Have a great National Day weekend and to our Muslim friends, Selamat Hari Raya.

More of the National Day walkabout photos at SDP’s facebook album.

Singapore Democrats

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong delivered his National Day Message today (Aug 8). Here is his speech in full:

NATIONAL DAY MESSAGE 2013

My fellow Singaporeans

1. I am speaking to you from the new SAFRA clubhouse in Toa Payoh. This is where SAFRA built its very first clubhouse in 1975. We have just rebuilt it with better facilities for NSmen and your families. It is a small gesture to thank you for your many contributions and sacrifices. It is also an example of how we are upgrading our amenities and environment as Singapore develops, year by year. 

2. We have made steady progress this past year. We have cleared the queue for HDB flats, stabilised BTO prices and tightened up on property speculation and excessive borrowing. We have added more buses and increased the number of bus routes. We are trying out free early morning MRT rides into the city. We will add more trains to the existing lines. Phase One of the downtown Line will open in December, and more MRT lines after that. We also celebrated several successes in the arts and sports, including our LionsXII team winning the Malaysian Super League.

3. We are tackling longer term issues too, especially marriage and parenthood, as well as population. The White Paper on Population in January provoked strong reactions, but the debate helped us to understand the issues better. We face difficult choices: We need foreign workers to serve our economy and Singaporeans’ needs, and immigrants to make up for our shortfallof babies. But we also worry about crowding and congestion, and maintaining our Singaporean identity. So we are feeling our way forward carefully, conscious both of our needs and our limits, and seeking the best outcome for Singaporeans. 

4. Our economy is holding steady amidst global uncertainties. We are attracting more quality investments. Unemployment remains low. We grew by 2.0% in the first half of 2013, and expect to grow by 2.5-3.5% this year, higher than previously expected. Even as we tighten up on foreign workers and immigration, we must maintain investor confidence and keep Singapore open for business.

5. The world is changing rapidly and unpredictably. Technology is transforming our lives. Societies everywhere feel under pressure: Jobs have become less secure, wages are rising more slowly or even stagnating, families are working harder, and parents worry whether their children will do better than themselves.

6. Singapore is changing too. The economy is maturing and our population is ageing. Different groups in society now have more diverse and even conflicting interests. Older Singaporeans worry about healthcare and costs of living. Younger ones aspire to wider education opportunities and more affordable homes. 

7. Our road ahead will be different from the road we have travelled. So we must reassess our position, review our direction, and refresh our strategies to thrive in this new world. 

8. In my Message last year, I said that Singapore should always be our best Home, with Heart and Hope. We launched Our Singapore Conversation to define our shared future together. Many have participated actively and passionately. We heard many valuable suggestions. Thank you for taking part in this effort.

9. Our Singapore Conversation has helped us crystallise what we aspire to: A Singapore which gives its citizens opportunities to succeed and live fulfilling lives. A nation which defines success in many ways, and offers multiple paths to many peaks. A society with safety nets that give people peace of mind. A community where the disadvantaged get help, and those who have done well in turn do more to help others.

10. We will set goals and work out plans to realise these aspirations. We must match these aspirations against the world we live in – our competition, our opportunities, and our potential as a people.

11. Today Singapore stands tall internationally. Many countries admire us. Developed countries and emerging economies want to pick up ideas from us. Every citizen gains from our strong Singapore brand – our workers enjoy a premium in wages, and our people studying and working abroad are welcomed and respected.

12. At the same time, other countries are rapidly progressing and catching up. We must stay ahead of the competition, and maintain our standing in the world.

13. To succeed under changed circumstances, we must adapt our basic approach to nation building. We must strike a new balance between the roles of the individual, the community and the State. 

14. We must strengthen our sense of community. We need to give greater mutual support to one another – helping the less fortunate in big ways and small; volunteering for causes that we care about; organising ourselves to work for the common good. 

15. We already do this, especially during crises. When dengue and the haze threatened us, we stood together and took care of one another. That is Singapore – not just separate individuals, but a community with a shared purpose and a sense of collective responsibility, taking the initiative to help one another in good times and bad. We need to strengthen this spirit of togetherness.

16. The Government will also play a bigger role to build a fair and just society. We will do more to enable every Singaporean to succeed, through education and lifelong learning. We will keep avenues to rise wide open to all. We will help those from families with less get off to a good start in life, beginning from pre-school. We will tackle the cost of living, for example healthcare costs, especially for the elderly. We will foster a more equal society, by helping every family afford their own HDB flat, and giving low income workers a better deal through Workfare. In Singapore, everyone will always have a stake in this country, and ample chances to make good in life.

17. But remember: Each one of us must still do our best, and be self-reliant and resourceful. Because Singapore can only succeed if each one of us contributes his part. 

18. At the same time, all this is only possible if we are one united people, and not divided by race, social class, or political faction. We must always have able, honest and committed leaders, who can be trusted to serve Singaporeans. We need a good Government that thinks and plans ahead, and more importantly feels for our concerns and hopes. That is the way to build a better Singapore – together.

19. We have come a long way, but our best years are ahead of us. We have the power to shape our destiny and write a new chapter in the Singapore story. Let us stand together, and dedicate ourselves to building in Singapore a brighter future for all.

20. Happy National Day!

 . . . .

Two messages caught my attention this National Day.

The first was the Prime Minister’s National Day Message yesterday. He spoke of a new chapter to be written in the Singapore story, a chapter that will progress on a road different from that which we had travelled previously. He spoke of a Singapore where everyone will always have a stake in, one that will become possible when we stand as one united people, and not divided by race, social class, or political faction.

The second was at the national day parade. It was a message about a Singapore that is made up of many stories but all leading towards the story of one Singapore.

As I watched the many little stories that the performers put across, as well as the snippets of stories on the big screen, I was reminded of my own story.

Two and a half years ago, I decided to continue the story of my life from that point onwards in blue. I stepped out of my comfort zone and took the plunge into politics in GE2011. It was a step taken with the belief that there are different stories that each of us wants to write. It does not make one less Singaporean or less loyal to our country if our views differ from that of the government’s.

I recently visited a country that underwent an unexpected change of government. At last month’s general election, Bhutan’s former opposition went from 2 seats out of 47 previously to 32 out of 47. I had the chance to see the handover of power, with the swearing in of the new ministers and all MPs while I was there. What struck me was an orderly transition of power. The political parties and the people accepted the choices made at the ballot boxes and the handover was smooth. The new government could go about its business and write the next chapter of the country’s story the way they feel they must. Five years later, it will be for the people to judge the government’s performance and decide again.

I sincerely hope the National Day message of one united people, not divided by race, social class, or political faction will hold true. As it is, opposition MPs are not made into grassroots advisors. The People’s Association, which is given substantial ground resources and whose mission is “to build and bridge communities in achieving one people, one Singapore” works only with the ruling party. It certainly does not gel with the concept of unifying the country regardless of political faction nor does it respect the wishes of the constituents who had chosen their MPs. It leaves opposition MPs to form their alternative grassroots communities whilst deprived of government funding support to serve the community that elected them.

The Blue Team in red for the nation’s 48th birthday

With Chairman Sylvia Lim, proudly wearing our age for Singapore’s 48th National Day

The recent MDA regulatory framework had also caused an uproar amongst the blogging and internet communities. It has cast a shadow over earlier moves by the government to loosen up on its engagement with citizens. 

Yee Jenn Jong

*NCMP from the Worker's Party. The author blogs at http://yeejj.wordpress.com

We are glad that the SLA acknowledges the facts and data presented in our reply. However, the latest SLA response to my statement insists that there is no intention to evict Pulau Ubin residents. If, indeed, there is no such intention, then why the need to assess their eligibility for resettlement benefits?

We note that the SLA has used the term resettlement "benefits” rather than "entitlements” and these benefits are offered on an ex-gratia basis. Taken together, it is clear that the SLA's original intention was to evict the residents at Pulau Ubin even though it denies this.

Whatever the original motivation, the SLA appears to have subsequently changed its stance after the residents objected and issued a "clarification”on 17 April 2013 stating that Pulau Ubin residents would not be evicted.

This statement was, however, heavily qualified. Close reading of the statement shows that the SLA had no plans too evict the residents but only in the "foreseeable future” and that the present situation on the island would remain only "for as long as possible.” In other words, the residents are only given temporary relief.

This brings me to the crux of the YD's case: The residents are anxious and upset that they have not been given assurance that they can build their lives on the island in which they and their ancestors were born and grew up. How can they do this when they are not given concrete assurances but only vague timelines like "foreseeable future” and "as long as possible”?

Such frustration obviously still rankles the residents who expressed their views to us when we visited them a few weeks ago and this was what my colleagues and I reported. But instead of acknowledging that the matter is far from being resolved, the SLA tries to paint the picture that the residents are now happy and that the YD was "mischievous and irresponsible” in our report.

Even though the SLA said that it had visited the residents to explain to them that there were no eviction plans, it is obvious that the residents are still unhappy and anxious.

The SLA says: "We are therefore puzzled as to why Mr Zeng insists on making reference to this letter and causing anxiety for the residents.” The cause for the residents' anxiety does not stem from our visit to the island but the SLA's letter which leaves them in limbo.

It is obvious to anyone that if the residents were assured by the SLA that they would be able to continue their lives without such uncertainty, they would not be anxious – regardless of whoever visits them.

This matter can easily be resolved by the Government writing to the residents in English, Chinese, Malay and Tamil, and assuring them without qualification that they can stay in their homes for as long as they wish and that Pulau Ubin will be designated a national heritage site with no plans for urban development.

As for the matter of rent, the Government may not feel that what it is charging the residents is high. The SLA has stated that it will charge affected residents a TOL fee of up to $205 per month over a period of six years.

This may not seem much to high-income earners but given the financial situation of many of the residents of the island, a rental of even $100 is unaffordable for many.

Based on the above, we, therefore, call on the SLA to:

• write a second letter to the residents unambiguously assuring them continued stay on the island (if the SLA has already written a second letter, then it should make it public),
• declare Pulau Ubin a national heritage site whose present state should be preserved,
• publish the rent charged for each house on the island, including how TOL fees are calculated and the p.s.f. rental,
• retract the childish name-calling of the YD as "mischievous and irresponsible”.

Clarence Zeng
Young Democrats
Singapore Democratic Party