The Root Of Unhappiness of Singaporeans

These days, there's growing discontent about our government. I ponder on the reason for the sentiments:

1. The mis-steps that our government made that created an uproar in the 2011 elections never went away. While the government acknowledge these mis-steps and tried to rectified them, the pandora's box was open and the nation is caught between a rock and a hard place:
• The Lose-Lose Situation of Property Prices
• Due to the relaxing of immigration policies and allowing "market forces" to dictate, Singapore property prices saw unprecedented rise during that period that far out stripes real wage increases. The government touted asset appreciation as "wealth creation" and most of us bought into that notion. Only with the "cooling measures" were the escalating property prices put to a stop. However, prices are still too high, especially for the younger generations. Yet, many cannot afford to have a deep property price correction as most have plough their life savings to "upgrade" to their current homes, believing the government's message of "wealth" in homeownership and able to rely on it for retirement or passing it on to their descendents. So we are caught and the only way out is when REAL WAGE increases starts to rise again and close the gap with the property prices.
• Until recently, most of us thought that we can rely on our home as a reliable and safe asset class for our golden years. Alas, the government is now finally sharing the other half of the real message - 99 years lease will start to depreciate our asset. Obviously, this has created a lot of anxiety and angst with our people AND RIGHTLY SO. As a marketing ploy to garner votes, PAP chose to share part of the message of homeownership. They now need to clearly share how the state will handle these homes when the 99 year leases ends. On paper, the state has every right to reclaim the homes and land but that would mean that they have hoodwink a good part of the nation into believing their piped dream of asset/wealth creation. This is a big headache for PAP as any further mis-step will most definitely cost them HUGE POLITICAL COLLATERAL DAMAGE.
• Failure to Transform Our Economy
• We used to be a manufacturing economy but we saw the dangers of the developing countries catching up and we successfully transformed to a knowledged based  economy, focusing on Financial and Infocomms. However, with our current crop of leaders, we recognized the need to transform again to higher value-add such as biotech and IP services but alas, we have not been successful so far. It seems we continue to rely on our past engines of Financials and Infocomms and that has hurt us. Countries like China, Philippines, India, even Vietnam and Myanmar are now as skilled and cheaper than us. Worse still, as we moved to re-train our citizens to higher order skills, we created a vacuum of real core skills (similar to other lower level jobs) which we now rely entirely on foreign talent to fulfill. Hence, we are yet again caught between trying to manage the influx of foreign talent and yet needing them to keep our core infrastructure going. In the meantime, we have yet to make a dent in the new industries like biotech and IP services. Worse still, we were distracted by other red herrings like building two casinos in the name of tourism which in the end, introduced more ailments to our citizens like gambling addiction, debts, underworld activities.
• Continued Stress on the Infrastructure
• Even as the government tries to catch up in building the infrastructure, the composition of our economy is hindering their progress. There is not enough manpower to build the roads and upgrade the MRT due to the tightening of foreign talent. The anaemic economy is also making our leaders more cautious in spending. As a result, we continue to hear of MRT disruptions, accidents on worksites, etc.

But the real root cause of unhappiness of many Singaporeans lies in our government abandoning their moral compass when they decided to proceed with compensating themselves with multi-million dollar salaries. This was a grave mistake that the late LKY championed, believing that it will eradicate corruption and attract the best talent to lead the country. Humbly, I DISAGREE. Yes, we need good talent to lead our nation but WHAT DEFINES GOOD TALENT? For me, the most important attribute starts with the heart - the desire to serve and be a servant to the nation. Having obscene salaries only serve to cloud the qualification process of finding the right leader. Now, we will ALWAYS DOUBT the intention of any PAP member (or politician) who wants to step up and serve. The government has abandoned it's moral authenticity in exchange for an easier path to attract "talent". Our people cannot come to terms with the government leaders taking home millions and yet claim to "understand and relate" the issues of the ground.

As you can see, there is a lot of work ahead of us as a nation; so where do we go from here ?

1. The government should relook at recalibrating the entire cabinet's compensation structure to something that is more palatable to the people. Do not deny our leaders a good compensation package but it doesn't have to be at the top end of the nation's earners. This gesture will not only win back the trust of the people, it may even convert the detractors by showing them that our leaders are willing walk alongside as one of us.
2. Clarify what is to become of the homes when the 99 year leases expires. There should be a scheme that allows homeowners to extend their leases or at least have residual value; otherwise, PAP has renegaded on it's message of creating wealth through asset appreciation of people's homes.
3. Focus on educating our children and elders to be proud to acquire trade skills (such as carpentry, plumbing, manufacturing, music, etc). In the pursuit of higher order skills, we have come to rely on foreign talent to keep our country going and we are now held hostage. We need to reclaim that and to foster the mindset of our people that trade skills are not only respectable but that they will also be avenues to a good life. Countries like Germany and Australia are clear examples of such - Plumbers, electricians earn a good living! Promote and work with the industry to raise the standard and wages.
4. Review the structure of Organs of the State. Be transparent and ensure that there are no areas where authority can be left unchecked and abused. There are too many areas of conflict as highlighted in the recent fiasco on the late LKY's house.
5. Last but not least, HUMBLE YOURSELVES in front of the nation. Nothing beats sincerity and the willingness to sacrifice for the nation. When the people sees that the leaders are prepared to serve, that is when the nation will move forward as ONE PEOPLE.

Thank You and Good Bye. You Will Forever Be Remembered Mr Lee Kuan Yew

The news shook every fibre of Singapore, even as many were expecting the worse - Mr Lee Kuan Yew passed away peacefully at 3:18am on Monday morning, 23-March-2015.


Never has one man brought out such intense feelings and emotions of a nation as the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Singaporeans from all walks of life, old, sick, disabled, middle aged, professionals and even the young braved the elements of this week to pay their last respects to him at Parliament House as well as lined the streets this afternoon in heavy downpour just to send him off.


From my past entries, you would have gathered that I am highly critical of some of the approaches, policies and strategies of the current government and PAP. Many of which were originally tabled by Mr LKY. Even so, I feel an intense feeling of loss, sorrow and grief this week as we recount and honor the man whom Singaporeans regard as the founding father of modern day Singapore.


I come to realize that here was a man that was truly altruistic - His beliefs, convictions and actions were motivated purely for what he truly believed was for the good of Singapore and nothing else. While people like myself may disagree with some of his philosophies, no one can deny that MM Lee was a patriot, a man that has grabbed Singapore from the jaws of despair and brought it to the heights of a first world society.


Throughout the week, the whole world honored him as a great politician, statesman and a leader. His sons recounted his selfless sacrifices for the country but yet recognized that he was still a good father and grandfather. Most importantly, Mr Lee was A GOOD MAN.


His influence on Singapore has been nothing less than extraordinary and even in his passing, he still managed to gift us one final time - That every Singaporean came together as ONE NATION, ONE FAMILY and ONE SINGAPORE, supporting each other and grieving graciously.


My condolences to the late Mr Lee's family and know that it is that much harder to grieve publicly with the nation and the world.


All Singaporeans mourn the passing of a great man and to many of us, a father figure. He will continue to live in our hearts and minds. Even as we enter into a new era without his presence, I pray that we continue to grow and come together as a nation to support, protect and defend what is uniquely Singapore and preserve his legacy that will continue to guide Singapore.


Dear Mr Lee, thank you for dedicating your life to the nation. God Bless Your Soul and May You Rest in Deserving Peace for all of Eternity.

The New Way Of Governance - What It Should Be

Donald Low has expressed eloquently what's on my mind and how our government MUST EVOLVE in its governance to remain in power: http://sg.news.yahoo.com/contain-singapore%e2%80%99s-rich--institutionalise-dissent--donald-low-094743693.html


Singapore’s brand of meritocracy needs to be reformed, and the government needs to create legitimate space for alternative voices, says economist and public policy expert Donald Low.

Speaking at the second session of the Singapore Perspectives 2013 conference on governance on Monday afternoon, Low, a senior fellow and assistant dean at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, pointed out that the Singapore government’s once-admired “pristine policy lab” that churned out solutions in healthcare, housing, education and transport is no longer garnering complete trust from its people.

“The pristine ‘policy lab’ that our policymakers used to operate in is being replaced by a more critical public, and by a more diverse polity with competing interests,” he said. “Increasingly, our policymakers have to make hard choices, not just remind themselves of hard truths, (and) sustaining good governance in this new context is not impossible, but it would require significant institutional and policy reforms on the part of the government.”

Reforming Singapore’s style of meritocracy

Speaking shortly after Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Lawrence Wong, who maintained the importance of meritocracy in Singapore, Low stressed first the need for some form of control over those who succeed in our country’s system.

“There is no prima facie reason to believe that those who have succeeded will channel their energies to improve society’s well-being,” he said.

Relating the example of Wall Street bankers using bailout money to pay themselves million-dollar bonuses, Low, who is also the vice president of the Economic Society of Singapore, cautioned against the establishment of a sense of self-entitlement among people who benefit from meritocracy and who believe completely in it.

“This kind of meritocracy breeds a belief among its beneficiaries that they are entitled to their rewards, that the market system is inherently just, and that inequality is natural,” he said. “They view those who have not succeeded in the system as slothful or lacking in merit — and thus undeserving of state support. Such a system increases resistance by the rich to the redistributive policies needed to address inequality.”

Low also argued that despite Singaporeans constantly being warned of the risks of a welfare state, the risks of moral hazard are significantly greater when the rich are not properly regulated.

“Corporate malfeasance imposes much larger costs on society than the so-called entitlement mentality of the poor addicted to government welfare,” he said.

How should Singapore emphasise fairness and social justice to prevent the abuse of its meritocratic system? Avoid conflicts of interest, ensure the independence of public institutions, and increase transparency and public accountability, Low asserted.

“It also means strengthening our social safety nets and other redistributive institutions, and ensuring a fairer allocation of risks between state and citizens,” he added.

Institutionalising dissent

In his remarks, Low also called on the government to be open to a greater diversity of ideas, advocating a system of “distributed intelligence” instead of relying on a small group of leaders.

“In the long run, we are better off relying on a system of distributed intelligence, on Singapore having a diversity of ideas and competing options, than on a system that is critically dependent on a similar group of people, no matter how bright they might be,” he said.

Making this happen, he added, would involve the government increasing citizen and researcher access to information, and giving added support to research in social science to equal its investment into hard sciences — a move that will enhance trust in the system of governance as well as its credibility.

Low also moved to debunk the concern expressed by ruling party leaders that increasing room for alternative, dissenting voices might paralyse the government.

“I’m more worried about how the desire for control, harmony and stability might weaken the already weak incentives for policymakers to allow competing ideas to surface, and to subject these to serious debate and analysis,” he said. “In short, I’m less worried about the risks of polarisation than I am about the effects of incumbency, the inertia of the status quo, and the tyranny of old ideas.”

Punggol East - What PAP Should Make of it ?

Punggol East just become the 3rd Opposition ward. The ruling party has now lost the last 2 elections (even if they are bi-elections). Both times, the PAP has chalked their failure to the bi-election phenomenon.

Personally, PAP's response to its latest loss is extremely disappointing. I would have expected the ruling party to take a long hard look at how it is that in a mere 21 months, the Workers' Party could have made up huge gains with voters' confidence to win; not narrowly but by an impressive margin 12% margin. In fact, I would even suggest that the PAP's press conference last night caused even more harm than good for the ruling party. DPM Teo projected a stoic front, incessantly citing that it was a bi-election and that it was always going to be a difficult campaign for the ruling party.

A difficult campaign, really ? I beg to differ....

1. The Opposition was seen to be less than united with a 4 corner fight. Granted that the other 2 opposition candidates were minnows but it most definitely did not put the opposition parties in a good light.
2. The Workers' Party was losing their new boy sheen. Mr Low continues to maintain that they are not offering an alternative government but serves to be checks and balance to the ruling party. Some may see this strategy as having a lesser ambition to lead Singapore but instead happy to be sitting at the table and relegated to second fiddle in the political landscape.
3. The government announced a slew of "citizen friendly" initiatives around bi-election period. Most expect that it would help soften the ground for the PAP party and its candidate

Instead, I like to recommend that PM Lee look closely as to why PAP suffered such a resounding loss this time round. Political analysts suggest that Punggol East is a new town, mostly with upwardly mobile young citizens with young famiies. These citizens are educated, do not pledge allegience blindly and without thought. Interestingly, it seems that these are the very citizens that are caught in the "Sandwiched Class". But with all the latest initiatives which was aimed at alleviating the challenges of these young Singaporeans, surely it should have been able to win them over ? So what went wrong ?

Personally, I think that PAP doesn't understand what it has lost for quite a while now - Trust of the people. The GE2011 election was a 1st clear indication where the popular vote dipped to 60.14%, a 6% drop even though they occupy 93.1% of Parliament. Citizens are getting cynical with a government that has been in power for so long that it feels that it no longer understands how to listen nor emphatize with its citizens. Take for example, the candidates in each party's corner - PAP decided to field a surgeon (another validation of PAP's elitist mentality) against WP's sales trainer. Most would agree that citizens can't related to specialist doctors (as oppose to GPs) better than they can relate to a sales trainer.

Ultimately, I continue to believe that PAP has lost the plot. Singapore cannot be govern by technocrats and elitists. Governance is a privilege that requires people who has a deep desire to serve and who understands the plight and challenges of its people. If PAP continues to portray its "Father Knows Best" arrogance and recruits only the elitists based not on the heart but the head, then we may well continue to witness the consequences of a broken covenant between a government and its people.

The Science of Motivation - What Chen Show Mao Understands that PM Lee and His Cabinet Doesn't

Total Disappointment! -That's how I feel these many months after the GE2011. I was hoping that the tremors of the GE2011 would wake PAP up from their slumber.
I guess that at the end of the day, author Catherine Lim is correct - that the PAP doesn't have the sincere and ernest will to change and "reinvent" itself; despite what I believe is PM Lee's genuine wish and intentions. The Men-In-White have been gotten accustomed to a lifestyle that is too comfortable, too elitist and most importantly, that they too much to lose for them to ever want to change anything, really.

When I listen to Mr Chen Show Mao's parliamentary speech today, I cannot but admire the man even more as I listen to how wise and clear he is on the real crux of the issue at hand. In his speech, he clearly identified that the sequence in which the Compensation Committee and the Government has gotten wrong -

"The 1st principle should be political service and not competitive salaries. Political service should not be seen as a burden or sacrifice but a privilege and a calling".

His entire proposition is sound in how his party (The Worker's Party) has suggest in using the MP's allowance as the "benchmark" to set all political office bearer's salary. More importantly, he has the MP's allowance pegged against the Civil Service compensation scale which in turn is adjusted to ensure competitiveness with the overall Singapore labour market. There is common sense and logic in their proposal which is SIMPLE and where the man-in-the-street can relate. Granted that his suggestion of a Minister's salary being 5 times and the PM salary being 9 times that of the MP allowance is arbitrary, but then again, suggesting a 40% "discount" to demonstrate the ethos of "sacrifice" is also arbitrary.

What is more interesting is that our government and the esteem members of the compensation review committee are suppose to be man of high intellect, wisdom and integrity. Little wonder that they have not heard of new ideas and discoveries on the science of motivation.

I am sure most of you have heard of TED and will even have seen this presentation - It shows very clearly (and we know it in our guts when we hear Dan Pink) that behavioural analysts, scientists and psychologists are recognizing that the old school of conventional rewards motivation do not work for higher order work.

So what really has happened with this compensation review ?

Personally, I view it as the people at the top trying to ensure that the social order remains intact. For starters, the compensation review committee members are as follows:

1. John De Payva - President, NTUC (where the Secretary-General is a MINISTER)
2. Fang Ai Lian - Retired, Managing Director of Ernst & Young, on various boards
3. Stephen Lee Ching Yen - President, SNEF, Council of President Advisors, Chairman, SIA Engineering
4. Po’ad bin Shaik Abu Bakar Mattar - Council of President Advisors, was Managing Partner Deloitte & Touche
5. George Quek - BreadTalk entrepreneur
6. Lucien Wong - Managing Partner of Allen & Gledhill
7. Wong Ngit Liong- Chairman, Venture Corporation, 24th Richest in Singapore
They are either hobnobbing with the government or they are the Who's Who in Tatler Singapore. How can they even begin to comprehend the mystic of honor, calling and serving as a privilege?
In addition, they know many of the ministers well (or will know them well) and inevitably, they will have some level of allegiance towards them; afterall, they recognize that they are impacting the Ministers' lifestyle and families.

What is more unfortunate is that PM Lee has lost a great opportunity to make a believer out of me and many other educated Singaporeans who see the situation for what it is - A feeble attempt to demonstrate that PAP is "re-inventing" itself.

So far, it has served to alienate me even more.

Kampung Temasek - The School of Doing

I mentioned Kampung Temasek before in one of my previous post (http://mychangingperspectives.blogspot.com/2011/05/with-awakening-comes-search-for-answers.html). I have since managed to catch up with one of the founder and a core member of the team.
They have a noble dream and desire to bring back the 6 C's - Courage, Curiosity, Creativity, Compassion, Collaboration and (Competence) to the Singapore society and more importantly, to the children of Singapore.
They are a non-profit organization that is looking to get off the ground. The school grounds are currently mid-way through construction in Ulu Tiram, a town 30 minutes away from the Causeway in Johore.
I am thinking hard on whether to lend my effort to their cause....It is a cause that I can relate to as it does focus on making Singapore a more humane, caring society....  

The 1st Real Test Of Whether The Government is truly listening - New GPS ERP System Trials

The way that PM Lee has reacted to the results of GE 2011 and the responses given have been interesting.

The removal of 5 heavyweights Cabinet Ministers (not including the loss of George Yeo) along with a closely followed announcement of reviewing of Ministerial pay demonstrated how serious PM Lee percieved the erosion of support for the PAP.

The initial days seem to suggest that perhaps after numerous empty rhetorics of "listening to the citizens" that this time, it might just be for real. Or is it ? Only time will tell if the leopard has truly changed its spots.

I believe that the desire to change from PM Lee is genuine but will he be successful doing it ?

My biggest concerns/fears from these recent actions are:

1. Is it a knee-jerk reaction to appease the negative public sentiments. Was the shuffling and musical chairs so quickly really necessary ? Was there proper contingency planning ? Many have expressed the abruptness of such changes which was out-of-character for PAP.
2. Will the old habits come back after the dust has settled? This translate to whether there is a steely will to effect change. Make no mistake, 60% of Singaporeans voted for PAP for a reason - They are happy with how PAP is running the country. I will venture a guess that many are in the civil service. For PM Lee to see through the change, alot of lives will be affected, especially in the civil service - Will they take kindly to the changes of attitudes and possible reduction of compensation or will they put up a wall of resistance? It is definitely a delicate balancing act for PM Lee, no doubt.
3. With the new "we will listen" posture taken up by most new MPs, have they veered too much too soon in "listening" to the citizens to a point where they begin to adopt a populist approach ? They may have already dug a hole for themselves by setting up the expectations of their constituents in being more consultative. Being consultative is great but it is not always the right approach as is being autocratic - Both approaches are correct when it is called for by the situation.
4. With the "new found" power, do our citizens know how to exercise their voice responsibly? Personally, I agree with the view that our electorate remains young and immature - One need to look no further than the example of calls for bi-election for Potong Pasir when the GE Elections results were not even a day old. Will our citizens revert to their old habits of "just complaining" and never being satisfied when something doesn't go their way? (There is a distinct difference in lending our voices to logic and common sense versus throwing tantrums when things doesn't go according to our wishes)
5. Are PM Lee's actions driven out because he recognized that the government is not serving its citizens well or because he needs to quickly gain back the lost votes for his party ? (While both intents are not mutually exclusive, it will tells us if the government has seen the errors of its ways or that it is just responding through survival instincts for the party)
6. Is his ENTIRE Cabinent and government aligned with him on his new path? Jimmy Lee seems to suggest that it might not be so http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/civil-servants-call-pm-changes-populist-measures-spp-121911506.html

As I said, only time will tell us if the change is truly real and coming from the right place.

Fortunately, that time is now as the 1st real test to gauge whether the new attitude of PM Lee's government is genuine has presented itself, although it did catch many by surprise. It is none other than the latest announcement from LTA on the trials for the New GPS ERP System.

Motorists raise concern over proposed new ERP system

The Land Transport Authority (LTA) is looking for new ways to implement the electronic road pricing (ERP) system without the physical infrastructure marked by the existing iconic -- and controversial -- blue-and-white gantries dotting Singapore, but a proposed approach is raising concern among motorists.

The LTA on Tuesday awarded tenders for trials to develop the next generation of the ERP system, which will embrace the global navigation satellite system (GNSS), a technology that makes use of satellites to determine the position of a vehicle.

The agency said that while the current gantry-based ERP system has served well, congestion will become more extensive and it may become impractical to continue installing ever more physical gantries to manage congestion.

Motorists responded to the news unfavourably. 35-year-old business manager Eddrick Tan slammed the new system, claiming that the traffic congestion problem will still persist.

He told Yahoo! Singapore: "It doesn't address the traffic congestion issue at all. The current system has highly visible gantries and the fees shown on the board could be seen at least a hundred metres away, giving sufficient time for motorists to think twice before driving through an ERP gantry. But the new satellite ERP system could create confusion among motorists because of its complex nature, thus undermining its effectiveness."

"Moreover, using satellite tracking intrudes one's privacy," he added.

ERP gantries have become a sore point for many Singaporean motorists who believe that the fees imposed and the wide coverage are excessive and do not curb congestion.

Taxi driver Ong Boon Keng said the new system could allow the government to collect more toll revenue.

"Without a physical gantry, some motorists might be 'tricked' into driving into an ERP-marked area," he said. "And I think that it's unfair to also include the fees that are calculated based on the distance clocked. We motorists might end up paying much more."

An expert Yahoo! Singapore spoke to revealed that the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not provide 100 percent reliable coverage, particularly in Singapore where cloud cover, trees, and high-rise buildings are ubiquitous. All these will affect the accuracy of satellite tracking, said Dave Ang, a technical engineer for Cisco Systems.

In a press statement, LTA added that the development of the project is in its very preliminary stages and that the next generation ERP system, if technically feasible, is still some years away before it is ready to be launched and implemented.

Under the tenders awarded, each party will be given seed funding of $1 million "to design, develop and demonstrate technological solutions" for the new system. This includes on-road testing and may involve the installation of roadside equipment in order to facilitate testing.

In addition to charging motorists only according to where they go, the improved system could also take into consideration the distances they clock.

The four companies selected by LTA are Kapsch TrafficCom; MHI Engine System Asia & NCS; ST Electronics (Info-Comm Systems) & IBM Singapore; and Watchdata Technologies & Beijing Watchdata System.

The trial starts in June this year and will last for 18 months.

According to the LTA, Singapore is not the pioneer country in the world to explore satellite navigation technology to curb road congestion.

In January 2005, Germany introduced a road toll system on its 12,100 km expressway network for all trucks with a weight of 12 tonnes and above. The toll is calculated according to the actual distance travelled by the trucks on the autobahn, number of axles and the emission category.

The system employs a combination of mobile communications technology (GSM) and GNSS for automatic road toll collection. The modes of payment for the toll charges include both pre-payment and monthly billing.

I have indicated in an earlier post that many do not agree with the current transportation policy of vehicle ownership. A quick recap of the post:-

1. COE is the ultimate solution - congestion is a function of the car population and the capacity of the road network. Reduction of congestion comes with reducing car population or expanding the road network. Any other solution is temporal at best.
2. COE Bidding - The current system encourages irresponsible bidding. Get every individual/company to pay at the price they bid. No one wants to hear of themselves getting something at a higher price than someone else. Companies who bid higher will become less competitive as their cost of business rises up.
3. ERP - Traffic flow congestion is temporal and is dependent on timing (peak/non-peak hours). It doesn't solve the problem. It MIGHT alter people's travel behaviour but it is at the expense of other more important matters like spending more time with family.

 (http://mychangingperspectives.blogspot.com/2011/05/decision-of-whats-urgent-versus-whats.html)

Frankly, I am surprised at the announcement as it shows that either Minister Liu has not gotten round to reviewing all the projects his Ministry is looking into or if he did, has not recognized the potential furore that it will create when the citizens of Singapore hear about it. Whichever way you look at it, it doesn't put Minister Liu in a good light - He is too slow ! (in action or in mind)

The ball is now firmly in Minister Liu Tuck Yew's (and PM Lee's) court to see if he is indeed listening to the citizens of Singapore.