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.

What is the Right Kind of Talent For Singapore?

When I read about how the Aljunied Town Council's General Manager is also the Managing Director of the facilities management service provider for Aljunied Town Council, I am dumbfounded and enraged. I am enraged not because of the discovery of such commerical arrangements but because it was ALLOWED to happen under the watch of our government.

The article was published in the Straits Times on Thursday 12 May 2011, on page A4, titled “Cynthia Phua promises proper handover”, with the following was reported:

“Aljunied Town Council is now managed by CPG Facilities Management, with whom the town council signed a three-year contract last year.  CPG managing director Jeffrey Chua is the town council’s general manager.  As the town council managing agent, CPG engages the services of other companies for services such as cleaning, maintenance and lift rescue.”

While CPG Corporation Pte Ltd is the corporatized and renamed Public Works Department, it is not apparent whether Mr Chua, as the Managing Director of CPG Facilities Management Pte Ltd holds shares or options in the firm CPG Facilities Management Pte Ltd (which appears to be a subsidiary of CPG Corporation Pte Ltd) or its parent.

Regardless, I find it difficult to understand how Mr Chua can carry out both his duties as the general manager of the town council, and the Managing Director of the town council’s managing agent.

Suppose Mr Chua, the Managing Director of CPG Facilities Management asked for a higher management fee, in order to deal with the rise in the foreign workers’ levy,  would Mr Chua the general manager of Aljunied Town Council grant that request?

If the town upkeep is poor, and HDB blocks are dirty, would Mr Chua the general manager of Aljunied Town Council replace himself as the managing agent?

It appears that there is a conflict of interest in Mr Chua’s roles.  If he receives a stipend or salary from both organizations, on whose behalf would he act?  If he only receives a salary from CPG Facilities Management, how can he then act in the interest of the residents of Aljunied GRC?

What I find extremely worrying, however, is that this matter only came to light because the Workers’ Party won Aljunied GRC, and there now needs to be a handover.  If the PAP had won, would this unhealthy arrangement have continued?  Are there any other such apparent conflicts of interest that we do not know about?

Eversince the topic of Ministerial Pay surfaced, the government has repeatedly maintained the rationale of having such policies - Attracting the BEST TALENT to serve in government and to prevent corruption. The logic behind the policy is both plausible and believable. Most Singaporeans either accepted or lived with it (As there is no mechanism to prevent the government from implementing such a policy with a PAP majority in Parliament). 

So, how is it that with the best of talents, that those in charge did not catch such conflicts of interest?

There can only be two reasons:-

1. The Aljunied MPs knew about the arrangement and chose to accept the arrangement. Perhaps, the fact that the company used to be a government entity was a strong reason why such an arrangement was allowed. If so, then the MPs did not carry out their roles in ensuring that the interests of the residents are at all times protected. Any other factors resulting in such a reason would lead to more worrying conclusions of dubious intent on the part of the MPs (Such as corruption, giving out favours, etc).
2. The Aljunied MPs did not know about it and hence couldn’t question the arrangement. If that was true, then there should be even greater cause of concern as it would mean that the MPs were either too busy to be meticulous or worse, that they were lazy and did not take their work seriously. No matter how you look at it, such a reason would point to the fact that the right attitudes of responsibility and servitude were not present.

Regardless, such a situation cannot be in the interest of the residents. After all, the general manager of the Town Council is but a salaried worker. He does not have any altruistic desire to serve the residents nobly or he would have gone into public service. The fact that he is also the managing director for the facilities service provider is sufficient evidence of that. Hence, whenever there is a conflict of interest, he will most probably decide on the promotion of self-interest as oppose to those of the residents. This is a natural instinct for all living things – self preservation.

This brings to the question if the following claims made by PAP/government holds true:-

1.   The government has a rigorous process to identify the BEST TALENTS to serve the country

The government is a technocratic one. They are great with technical solutions and are made up of elite scholars and intellectuals. However, is that the right type of people to RUN the country?

Technocrats are great as the enablers of progress and efficiency. But they are notoriously known for not being intuitive and hence cannot understand what OTHERS need. They rule by logic, not heart. More importantly, they do not take into account the understanding of the human psychology and how that will affect the outcome of scenarios. For example, the above mentioned case of conflicts of interest may very well never happen as there may be checks and balances in place to ensure that it will never happen. However, the fact that the situation opens itself up for questioning and doubt should be taken in serious consideration as is how the residents will react when the situation is known and perceptions created. Hence, the question of what is the rigor of the talent acquisition process that PAP/government employs needs to be examined and made known. Does it truly identify the RIGHT RATHER THAN BEST TALENT to serve the country?

2.   High Pay is needed to attract the BEST TALENT and prevent CORRUPTION

I continue to maintain that when compensations are at such astronomical levels, it brings to question the motives of candidates wanting to go into public service. The government still has not acknowledged such a possibility and continues to staunchly defend the compensation policy (both pay and pension). At times, even leaders of private enterprises have demonstrated more accountability to their employees than any of our Cabinet Ministers with $1 pay/annum:

·         Steve Job of Apple

·         Vikram Pandit of CitiGroup

·         Richard Wagner of GM

·         Robert Nardelli of Chrysler

·         Allan Mullally of Ford

While they may still take home millions in other channels like stocks options and grants (which is based on performance), they are still forgoing their otherwise base compensation.

In addition, if the talent acquisition process does not get us the RIGHT TALENT to lead the country, then does the HIGH PAY even makes sense? Won’t we be reinforcing the perpetuation of errors?

As for corruption, I strongly believe that it depends on the moral make-up of any individual. A person is corruptible because his/her DNA entertains such provisions. It is therefore easily defensible if the selection rigor ensures that such moral make-up is truly tested and qualified.

3.   The government is a CLEAN GOVERNMENT

No one will argue that there is virtually no corruption in the ranks of our policy makers. However, the definition of corruption is taken in its most narrow sense – Monetary gains.

If we expand the definition to include intangibles like morals, justice and equality, then I suggest that our government isn’t all that clean.

Many incidents shows that our government has corrupted its moral authority:-

1.   Placing monetary wealth/gains ahead of all other values like servitude in itself corrupts the morals of the country and the government. This is especially evident when you speak to the citizens. Many are focused on economic progress. Many are swayed by the offer of upgrading and what it means to them financially.

2.   Continue to promote opaqueness so that there is less opportunity for debate and questions – What you don’t know, you can’t question.

·         How much do we have in our country’s reserves?

·         How are the top civil servants measured in their performance and what consequences were met out when they make mistakes?

·         How are future leaders being selected/assess?

·         Would the Aljunied Town Council commercial arrangements, ever been made know if PAP remains in control of that GRC?

3.   Putting partisan interests ahead of citizens’ interests. The government has linked upgrading to votes when in fact every citizen is entitled to government programs since it is taxpayer’s monies and not PAP’s. The redrawing of electoral boundaries. Conducting external surveys (Did the government use their party funds or taxpayer monies?).

More importantly, my concerns sky-rocketed when I notice the similarities of our society's situation to a summary on Orsen Welle’s novel “Animal Farm”-

Orwell describes an all-to-familiar corruption that undermines the goal of the revolution: in which those leading the revolution rally the masses not so much for the good of the masses, but so that the leaders can assume the role of master, complete with all of the oppressive conduct that goes with an authoritarian regime.

While the government is not oppressive, it serves to intimidate through its intolerance to questions of its leadership. They will cajole, bribe, scare and smear whatever is required to maintain the psychological prison that they have successfully erected in the minds of most Singaporeans. The rule in every sense is authoritarian psychologically.

So long as the government continues to value technocrats, future government leaders will continue to retain the technical expertise but not the human connection. They will continue to lack the compassion/grace to understand how societies really work and to embrace the diversity of differences of perspectives. In their minds, Singapore is a factory/company, not a society (Think of why Singapore, Inc. was mooted?).

Clearly, there is enough for every citizen of Singapore to ask

WHAT IS THE RIGHT KIND OF TALENT for Singapore?

A Burden On The Nation - The Government Pension System

I chanced upon this article which highlighted the tremendous burden the nation has to undertake for the government and how the high salaries of the Ministers and Civil Servants needs to be addressed to correct this imbalance.

https://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/notes/patrick-lee-song-juan/astonishing-pensions-for-pap-ministers-top-civil-service-top-police-officers-and/224986124185235
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Astonishing Pensions for PAP Ministers, Top Civil Service, Top Police Officers and High Court Judges, etc !

by Patrick Lee Song Juan on Tuesday, May 10, 2011 at 4:03pm

Subject: Fw: Astonishing Pensions!
Date: Sunday, 8 May, 2011, 5:09 PM


Do company CEOs have life long pensions?
From a personal friend of mine (apologies for those who do support the PAP!):

Still, it's useful general knowledge to know how much they are paid [tax free]
every year or by a lump sum payment. No wonder they are laughing all the way to their bank.

Dear friends

A lawyer friend (whose name I have with-held) has given me the shocking answer to my query: Do retired ministers receive 50% of their last-drawn pay for life? (scroll down: be sure to read the text in bold especially).

I also attach a copy of the Parliamentary Act so you know I am not making this up.

Please spread this message by cutting and pasting the text below in a new email message and sending it to all your friends.

Some people actually think our ministers only make $40,000 a month, hence are not bothered by our ministers' pay. Some people think it's okay for our ministers to quibble over $30 increase in subsidies to the poor!!

Regards

...........

DO MINISTERS RECEIVE 50% OF THEIR LAST-DRAWN PAY FOR LIFE?

Your friend is wrong about 50%. It is actually as high as 2/3rds. The Parliamentary Pensions Act provides that "office holders" (which means "Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Speaker, Senior Minister, Minister, Senior Minister of State, Minister of State, Mayor, Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Parliamentary Secretary or Political Secretary"). If you closed your eyes and threw a stone in Parliament House during a Parliamentary sitting - assuming if, and it is a big if, that everyone attends (which is never the case. Parliamentary sittings are lucky if 50% of MPs attend!) you will hit at least 1 or perhaps 2 with the stone ricocheting PAP chaps entitled to pensions.

Anyhow, back to your question. The Act has a formula for payment of the amount of pension. You start with a numerator of 8 (meaning 8 years of service as office holder) and add 1 for every year of service after that. You divide this number by a fixed denominator of 27, and you stop when the number hits 2/3rds, which means that anyone who has 18 years service will hit maximum pension. The amount that is due to him FOR LIFE is found at section 4:
4(2) The annual amount of pension payable to an office-holding Member shall be —
(a) in respect of every completed year of reckonable service in any office, or where he has served in
more than one office in each office, at the rate of one-twenty-seventh (1/27) of his annual salary in that
office; and

(b) in respect of any remaining uncompleted year of reckonable service in any office, or where he has
served in more than one office in each office, at the rate of one-three-hundred and twenty-fourth (1/324)
part of his annual salary for each completed month of reckonable service in that office.
(2A) The annual pension payable to any office-holding Member under subsection (2) shall not exceed two-thirds
of the highest annual salary of any office held by him.

(3) Subject to sections 13 and 15, a pension granted under this section shall continue for the life of the person to
whom it is payable but shall not be payable in respect of any period during which he is again an office-holding
Member; at the end of that period the pension shall again be payable and shall be re-computed with the addition
of that period to the period of his former reckonable service as an office-holding Member.

(4) For the purposes of subsections (2) and (2A), “annual salary”, in relation to any office, means the annual
equivalent of the highest monthly rate of salary (excluding any non-pensionable allowances) received by an
office-holding Member during any period of reckonable service as a holder of that office.

Astonishing, isn't it that the pension is payable based on the "Highest annual salary of any office held by him" and "highest monthly rate of salary". So, it doesn't matter that the MP was a low ranking parliamentary secretary for 17 years, and then became a multi-million $ minister for 1 year. His pension will be based on 2/3rds of his salary as a minister, as that is his highest annual salary of any office held by him. So, it also doesn't matter that there are occasional reductions in salary during recessions, since their pension is based on their highest annual salary.

On this basis, SM / PM / MM will get 2/3rd x $3 million for the rest of their lives. I understand that if they are eligible for pension and they are still serving, they get both salary plus pension concurrently. (see section 5).

Or did I forget to tell you that pensions are exempt from income tax? This is stated in the Income Tax Act!

It gets better. The Act says that the pension can be commutated. This means that it is paid in 1 lump sum instead of monthly payments for life. The lump sum is equivalent to 175.14 months of pension, i.e. 14.6 years of pension. It doesn't matter that the minister asks for it because he has terminal cancer and has 3 months to live. He will get 14.6 years of pension paid to him in 1 go, and it will be tax free. If MM's pension is based on 2.5 million (conservative estimate), his commutated pension is $36.5 million. Can buy a GCB with it, without any bank loan!

This is a real scandal. I was horrified when Goh Chok Tong proposed recently that ministers serve 8 years only, and new ones come in. It means that the pool of multi-million dollar pension earners will get bigger and bigger! It will add to the financial burden of future generations of Singaporeans having to pay for the pensions of people who have already been paid too much during their terms of office.

Who in the private sector is entitled to pension? And yet the ministers, etc are collecting tax free pensions on top of their world's highest salaries. Now you know why George Yeo is fighting so hard to keep his job as minister.

Incidentally, all Admin Service officers, Sr Police & Military Officers and High Court Judges are still entitled to pensions in the same manner.

Don't Think of An Elephant

This new thirst for understanding how my fellow citizens feel about our social-political landscape has brought new revelations and learnings to me everyday. I am in awe of the talent and knowledge that my fellowman has that I do not even know exist!

I am glad of this awakening as I have regain both the thirst of knowledge and understanding of different perspectives, concepts and philosophies.

Thank you to all who have been willing to share their ideas, ideals and thoughts. Thanks to the online revolution that provides a platform for them.

This article is a long and deals with how we view things. Definitely open my mind on a better understanding and how I relate to things.

Enjoy!

https://www.facebook.com/notes/chee-han-lim/dont-think-of-an-elephant/10150178587569500
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't Think of an Elephant

by Chee-Han Lim on Monday, May 9, 2011 at 11:38pm

I was at Deyi secondary school on the morning of the 8th May 2011. When Chiam See Tong appeared at the gates after receiving news that he lost Bishan-Toa Payoh, many people cried.

I feel very sad to see him go too. I think he’s a hero.

I went back home and watched American Dad and philosophically panicked about the three articles on qigong that I need to submit by July. I thought I this time confirm dio dai ji, but I thought that I should make a statement about Tin Pei Ling becoming an MP, if anything, to lighten the mood:

“Tin Pei Ling’s entry into parliament is an indicator of progress. Because sibeh jialat people also need representation”

And so I started thinking about how the nation has been split into factions for this GE.

Besides the explicit grouping of people who are pro-PAP and pro-alternative parties, observers have also offered several ways of classifying them. These include:

1)      Liberals vs. conservatives
2)      Young vs. old
3)      Idealists vs. materialists
4)      Middle vs. working classers
5)      Savvy vs. apathetic
6)      Cosmopolitans vs. heartlanders
7)      Mainstream vs. new media readers
8)      Those who are concerned with national issues vs. those with constituency ones
9)      Heart vs. head
10)    Emotional vs. rational

After concluding that the statement about Tin Pei Ling was a ‘wisecrack’ rather than a ‘pun’, I thought about another way to look at the factions.

I thought that we could categorize one group as those who treat politicians as ‘leaders’ and another who treat them as ‘representatives’. The former would probably swing towards PAP and look at candidates who are highly qualified, while the latter would support alternative parties and look at candidates who are empathetic.

One of the interesting things about the entire discourse on politics in Singapore is the regular use of the term ‘political leaders’ rather than ‘politicians’. It’s quite unique because I don’t see the dominance of the former in political discourse in the West. I think people in more lao jiao democracies are more insistent on their abilities and rights to steer the directions in which the their countries move, rather than to let a small group of people do the work.

There are therefore all sorts of politicians that are popular in these countries. In Singapore, on a contrary, what we find is a demand among the electorate, almost at an exclusion of others, for candidates with university degrees, for managers, lawyers, doctors, ex-civil servants, etc.

If all Singaporeans see politicians as representatives, there should be candidates who are not university graduates, who are hawkers, technicians, taxi-drivers, etc., insofar as among Singaporeans, there are many people who are not university graduates, who are hawkers, technicians, and taxi-drivers. But there does not seem to be a room for them.

Compared to 'political leaders', the word ‘politician’ carries a much more negative connotation, which can be seen in the sort of jokes about them (and about lawyers too), because people in the West are skeptical about what politicians’ interests really are. In Singapore, many people carry a considerable amount of respect for and trust towards politicians, as authoritative figures - as 'leaders'.

This also explains why alternative parties are called ‘opposition’. And that ministers who have insulted the people continue to receive supporting votes. Something quite unique as well. I argue that, beyond propaganda, history, and tradition, there is a cognitive-linguistic explanation for these phenomena.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Don't Think of an Elephant!

This brings us to a discussion about George Lakoff’s book called “Don’t Think of an Elephant!”. A long discussion.

Lakoff is currently a professor of linguistics at UC Berkeley. I first came across his writings in 2004, when I read “Metaphors We Live By”. He argues that we do not have the vocabulary to express many things, particularly emotions, and hence we resort to using metaphors. For instance, war metaphors are used to describe arguments:

“Your claims are indefensible.”
“He attacked every weak point in my argument. His criticisms were right on target.”
“I demolished his argument.”
“You disagree? Okay, shoot!”
“If you use that strategy, he'll wipe you out. He shot down all of my arguments.”


Some of us would probably remember the following dialogue from the movie Inception:


“Arthur: Okay, this is me, planting an idea in your mind. I say: don't think about elephants. What are you thinking about?
Saito: Elephants?
Arthur: Right, but it's not your idea. The dreamer can always remember the genesis of the idea. True inspiration is impossible to fake.
Cobb: No, it's not.”

Some of us probably do not know that the lines were inspired by Lakoff’s book, “Don’t Think of an Elephant!” The point of both is: negating an idea also evokes the idea.

Lakoff considers himself a progressive. So when the republicans won the 2004 elections, he decided to take action. Some analysts believe that Obama’s victory was partially due to Lakoff’s contribution (yes academics do contribute to social change too).

Lakoff argues that it is time to debunk two primary myths propagated by the Enlightenment movement (myths that have also been challenged by cognitive scientists like Daniel Kahneman, a Nobel Prize winner, and Amos Tversky):

1)      The truth will set us free. If we just tell people the facts, since people are basically rational beings, they’ll all reach the right conclusions

2)      It is irrational to go against your self-interest, and therefore a normal person, who is rational, reasons on the basis of self-interest

He argues, on the contrary, that people’s decisions and therefore actions, are guided by ‘frames’ rather than rational self-interests. Frames are invisible mental structures that shape the way we see the world. All words are defined relative to frames. When you hear a word, its frame is activated in your brain.

His advices to the democrats are:

1)      When we negate a frame, we evoke the frame. (E.g. when Clinton said “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”, thereafter everybody knew about his sexual relations with Lewinsky)

2)      Truth matters only when presented within certain frames

3)      People vote for their values and identities, not their interests

4)      Know your values and identities, and present them well

5)      Learn to reframe the debate and target the swing voters


~~~~~~~~~~

The Strict Father Frame

Republicans, in his view, succeeded because they knew how to evoke, using certain words, what he calls the ‘Strict Father’ frame. The frame, with a Singaporean flavor, includes the following characteristics:

• The world is a dangerous place
• The world is our competitor
• Only the strict father can lead the children safely against the world
• Father is competent, mature and rational
• Children are incompetent, foolish and impulsive
• Father disciplines children in order to teach them how to deal with the world
• Children must listen to father or will be punished for their own good
• The father’s task is to protect the family. It doesn’t matter who the children are.
• A healthy family is a family with a lot of savings
• Father deserves to get the major share of the savings
• He will give the children some pocket money according to how good they behave
• Without the father’s leadership, the family will cease to exist

The following is a list of words, which we often see in mainstream media, that evokes the Strict Father frame:

Evoking the strict father and his methods:

• ‘Rational’
• ‘tested’
• ‘talents’
• ‘qualified’
• ‘think long-term’
• ‘look at macro issues’
• ‘strong’
• ‘caliber’
• ‘track record’
• ‘leaders’
• ‘mature’
• ‘delivers’
• ‘put into perspectives’
• ‘move on’
• ‘careful and calm’
• ‘stable’
• ‘frugal’
• ‘system that works’

Evoking the dangerous world:

• ‘globalization’
• ‘China and India’
• ‘would result in a weaker system’
• ‘complacency’
• ‘stay vigilant’
• ‘stay competitive’
• ‘secure the future’
• ‘a period of uncertainties’
• ‘freak election’
• ‘nobody owes us a living’
• ‘racial and religious riots’
• ‘crises’
• ‘need foreign talents’

And who could forget the Minister Mentor’s ‘live and repent’ and the following:

"You know, the cure for all this talk is really a good dose of incompetent government. You get that alternative and you'll never put Singapore together again: Humpty Dumpty cannot be put together again...and your asset values will be in peril, your security will be at risk and our women will become maids in other people's countries, foreign workers."

: -- Lee Kuan Yew (Straits Times, 5 April 2007)

The moment we use the word ‘political leaders’, the Strict Father frame is evoked, and images, feelings, thoughts about the following emerges:

“The PAP man is strong, calm and rational. Only he knows what is good for the family, the rest don’t. He is frugal, saves up for rainy days, and looks at things at the macro level and for the long term so that he can prepare for the uncertain future. Don’t interfere with his work, just let him do his job.”


Examples of how this frame has been carried in the Straits Times’ quotations of politicians include:

• “a small nation like Singapore needs to have the strongest possible team to compete globally”

• “We are small, we are vulnerable. With a mediocre government, other countries may muddle through and have to muddle through, but Singapore will fail.”

• “There were simply not enough people of calibre to perform key roles like that of Finance or Defence Minister”

• “Good governance brings about growth, good policies, good implementation programmes, which in turn gives you stability, and stability in turn gives you good governance. And this is a strong competitive advantage. To navigate this unpredictable world, we need to have the best crew we can get, the competencies, the strategies, the unity, and the will to overcome crises.”

• “If we succeed, as we have done in the last five years, $22 million a year for my team under the new formula to be implemented over several years is small beer. Measure the $22 million against the cost to you of having an incompetent and corrupt government.’

Examples of how the Strict Father frame is implied in the crafting and justifications of polices:

• Single-party system better than two-party system: because there can be only one father – two fathers will fight with one another for control over the family. (If we were to, however, see politicians not as father-figures but indeed, as servants, the 'deadlock' scenario would be more difficult to imagine because there are traditionally several servants working together to serve the master. A different scenario would also emerge if we were to see politicians as 'parents', who work together harmoniously for the good of the family)

• NMP and NCMP scheme: children can say all they want, but the father is the one who decides if he wants to listen and who he listens to. Children should not make decisions on how to renovate the house, because they will destroy it

• President as safeguard in case of ‘freak election’: because the children will ‘raid’ the piggy bank and blow it all on candies and toys. Elected president is the uncle who possesses the same ‘authority’ (is there a better translation for 辈份?) as the Father

• CPF contribution: children don’t know how to save for rainy days, father must therefore force children to put 20 cents in piggy bank out of every $1 of pocket money

• No to minimum wage (or any other non-welfarist policy): giving children too much will spoil them, better to put ‘spurs on their backs’, artificially if necessary

• Foreign talents and new citizens: there’s nothing we can do about the dangerous world, so father decides to get outsiders to come help us build a stronger wall. It doesn’t matter if the children can’t get along with the strangers, because the children’s identities and feelings don’t build walls

Together with the PAP-as-Strict Father, a following frame of the alternative parties and the masses-as-Impulsive Children is also evoked:

“Opposing voices are emotional and short-sighted. They want to spend all the savings. They are not trained, not experienced, and not credible. They have no idea what they’re talking about. If they were to determine how the family functions, they will destroy it.”


Examples of such include:

• “Mr Mah warned the WP's proposal would lower the value of Singapore's one million homes …he explained that the housing markets are interlinked…Lowering land cost…is tantamount to raiding Singapore's reserves, warned National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan on Saturday”(note how the father 'warns' the children)

• “Whatever emotions are aroused during the period, calm down, detach yourself, think carefully before you vote - which is why we now have a cooling-off day before polling day” – Lee Hsien Loong

• “Jurong GRC was considered 'hot' in 2001. We made tactical switches in candidates at practically the last moment. Tharman and Halimah hit the ground cold. But I did not think Chee Soon Juan was that credible. So we proceeded calmly. Then, Chee Soon Juan heckled Mr Goh Chok Tong. He shot himself in the foot. In both battles, it paid to stay cool, focus on what matters to the people.” – Lim Boon Heng

• “Unlike the printed word, video has long been viewed by the Government as a medium that can sway the emotions of the masses. The Government remains wary of film-makers who may seek to exploit the medium so as to stir people's feelings against controversial policies.” – Insight, Straits Times

~~~~~~~

Implications of Lakoff's arguments


In the quiet words of my ex-professor Chua Beng Huat, “So what?”

First, I’d like to believe that I have freewill, despite not being able to answer the “how do you know what you know” question. And therefore, I don’t like the idea that I’ve been manipulated unconsciously. So I think it’s important that I know what’s ticking at the back of my mind when I read something in the papers, and ask if I really agree with what I’ve read.

Second, for those of us who believe in the virtues of democracy, of a Singapore that would be stronger with a government that serves rather than leads, listens rather than commands, and is caring rather than arrogant, it is important that we remain deeply embedded in our beliefs, values, and identities, and not be swayed by frames that have been evoked in our minds unconsciously.

Last, in the words of Lakoff,

“In politics our frames shape our social policies and the institutions we form to carry out policies. To change our frames is to change of this. Reframing is social change”

When it comes to politics, framing is important because every time phrases like ‘rational’, ‘talent’, ‘credible’, ‘stability’, ‘track record’, ‘working system’, ‘globalization’ are used, the PAP frame is evoked and the debate will swing in its favor.

For instance, ‘talent’ commonly refers to people with paper qualifications, worked in the civil service, doctors, lawyers. i.e. people with ‘good brains’. Trying to argue that one also has ‘talents’ is an act of catching up because the frame tells us that the strict father definitely has more 'brains' than his children. The same applies to using words like 'rational', 'big picture', 'long-term view', etc, anything that evokes the idea of a tough father 'leading' impulsive children on a long and dangerous journey.

(But the strict father does not have ‘good hearts’)

For instance, talking about dealing with ‘uncertainties’ also puts alternative parties at a disadvantage because the frame tells us that the strict father is an expert at that. The same applies to words like 'globalization', 'China and India', 'competition', etc. anything that evokes the idea of a dangerous world that we can do nothing about, and should thus just listen to the strict father who knows better because he has 'track records' and 'credibility'.

(But the strict father doesn’t consult and listen to his children)

The question is then, how do we re-frame the debate? Lakoff says we target the Orwellian languages (a homage to George Orwell of course!)


~~~~~~~~

Orwellian Languages


Orwellian languages or phrases contain the following three characteristics:

• They mean the opposite of what they say

• They are used to appease people so as to implement policies with less resistance

• Most importantly, they reveal weaknesses

Below is a list of Orwellian phrases I gathered throughout the GE period:

• ‘Workfare’ (sounds like 'welfare' but in practice, far from that)
• ‘ComCare’ (sounds very 'caring', but still an extension of non-welfarist self-reliance policies)
• ‘Grow and Share Package’
• ‘Debate’
• ‘No groupthink’
• ‘in touch with ground sentiments’
• ‘humble’
• ‘compassionate’
• ‘empathy’
• ‘diverse’
• ‘understands’
• ‘fully invested’
• ‘connected’

Examples of Orwellian statements:

“THE new candidates unveiled by the People's Action Party are diverse and those who come from humble backgrounds”

“Hard truths may have served us well, but it is time to fine-tune them into heart truths.”


And the most Orwellian statement of all, which I have never heard being uttered by PAP politicians before is:

“…we must also be in touch with people's sentiments and worries and address their day-to-day, bread-and-butter concerns. Never forget we're servants of the people, not their masters. Always maintain a sense of humility and service. Never lord it over the people we're looking after and serving.” 

– Lee Hsien Loong, 18 April 2011


The PM has evoked what Lakoff calls the Nurturing Parents frame, a competing frame of the Strict Father one. Its characteristics are as follows:

• Nurturing parents are caring, empathic and understanding
• They listen to and provide for the children’s needs, aspirations, and feelings
• Family is healthy insofar as children are
• Each child is unique, but they must all be treated fairly
• Every single child matters to the family and the parents
• Parents do not always know what’s best
• Parents must live up to same expectations they have of the children
• Children’s happiness is the most important
• Children must be free to pursue their happiness
• Children’s happiness = parents’ happiness
• Communication and humility are critical to maintaining good relations with the children and therefore, the health of the family

~~~~~~~~


Practical Implications


Orwellian statements uttered by PAP politicians reveal weaknesses. They are used to appease the dissenters. And so democrats should make full use of them - by refusing to get involved in evoking the Strict Father frame, by building upon those Orwellian phrases, and by evoking the Nurturing Parents frame.

Below are a few examples of how we can do it in practice.

1) When someone talks about candidates’ talents by citing their qualifications, don’t say ‘I also got talents’. Talk about how their candidate’s background are too detached from the electorate and therefore direct attention to their 'elitist arrogance', their inabilities to 'empathize', to feel 'compassion', to 'connect', and to be 'in touch with' the ground sentiments

2) When someone argues that PAP candidates do not practice group-think, target the issue of what makes the candidates similar, and question how much can they contribute to diverse opinions. When someone argues for the NCMP scheme, talk about how effective can it be when ministers can choose not to listen

3) When someone talks about ‘security’ and ‘stability’, do not debate about how to ensure that, talk about care for the needy, concern for the poor, and empathy for those who find things unaffordable

4) When someone talks about leaders and credibility, do not argue about track records and qualifications, talk about people who are listeners and who are humble

5) When someone says there is rigorous debate in parliament, do not ask about the rigor, ask who are they debating with.

In other words, use words that evoke the Nurturing Parents metaphor.


~~~~~~~

Post-script:

Even though I've spoken about all the above before, I didn't write a note about it because re-framing is a skill that takes time to hone. Because frames are invisible and work at the subliminal level, it takes practice to detect and explicate them. In the short span of a few weeks, this is hardly possible. We have now, five years ahead of us, within which we could all learn to, in Lakoff's words, take back the discourse.

Re-framing is one way, out of many, in which we could go about making the playing field much more level. I am aware that the Worker's Party was able to wrest a GRC from the PAP not because it played the Nurturing Parent frame game only, but through various permutations of tactics and strategies. However, the ways in which it goes about presenting its "Towards a First World Parliament" slogan does contain several elements that depart from the Strict Father frame (e.g. Chen Show Mao's Wizard of Oz metaphor). It is also notable that the many metaphors that PAP candidates use, are derivations of the Strict Father frame, e.g. Lui Tuck Yew's awful 'Trees (father) vs. Mushrooms (children)' metaphor, or PM Lee's argument that there can only be one driver (father) for a bus.

Both Strict Father and Nurturing Parents frames are present in our schema. I’m not saying that one frame is superior to the other, but rather, I am advocating the importance of knowing which frame we identify with and subsequently, know how to think and act in accordance to our values, ideals, and interests.

The Strict Father frame is probably much more salient in the minds of the older generation. After all, most of them were indeed brought up in families with strict fathers, and were taught that children are to be seen and not heard. For those of us in our 30s and beyond, we probably remember what ‘din diao 藤条’ is, i.e. The Cane. It’s interesting that the sale of canes increases during examination periods. I have one in my room, a gift from a friend, to remember my childhood by. The stuff of nightmares.

However, with a changing demography, younger electorates’ voices are becoming louder and will get louder. I’m sure that many of these young Singaporeans were brought up and will be brought up by nurturing parents rather than strict fathers. For crying out loud, my brother has never used corporal punishment on his children before; he employs his faculty of reason and lots of love. And my nephew and niece are one of the nicest kids I’ve ever met dammit.

The 'fact' that ministers apologized and acknowledged that they've been too arrogant shows that the Nurturing Parents discourse is gradually edging out the Strict Father. Perhaps in a few decades, the Nurturing Parents frame will begin to dominate, both in people’s schema and in political discourse. In the meantime, we need to remind people that there are always contending frames out there and within us, and if we believe in forming independent opinions, it is necessary to know what they are and how they work.

Yes for some of us, the results were below our expectations. I kinda expected it, although my wager was placed on Holland-Bukit Timah than Aljunied. I guess I over-estimated George Yeo's appeal and under-estimated Aljunied-ers' commitment towards the democratic ideal.

I feel that change will take time; it will definitely take place in my lifetime. Perhaps for some, the online fervor got to them, raising their expectations beyond what is possible. Perhaps for some, they feel that by writing notes, sharing articles and video clips, talking to their relatives and friends, Singapore will experience a mini-revolution. History has shown that it's gonna take much more than that!

Some of us feel sad about the results of this GE, and are discouraged to the extent of wanting to give up. By all means feel sad, for it is what makes us humans. The ability to feel sad for those who deserve it, is that which distinguishes us from unfeeling Fathers. But do not let it consume us, do not spread the sadness and let it infect others. I feel sad too, but I also remind myself to remain hopeful. I believe that the worst sort of soldier is a pessimistic one. And the best, are those that remain hopeful.

There is much work to do; there are five years of work ahead of us. As Sylvia Lim said, “Democracy doesn’t happen only during elections. It happens between them”

Let not the fire die. Remember all who have fought for democracy in Singapore: they have been jailed, bankrupted, and exiled, and they have never given up – while we sit in our air-conditioned room typing away. I have no doubt that these people will become heroes in the re-written history of Singapore.

Here’s something from one of these heroes:

"We shall be moving forward from here... We will never surrender. In the end, we shall win the battle."

       : -- Chiam See Tong