In this general election, Singaporeans are mulling over short term issues (“What’s Urgent”) such as property prices, inflation, real income growth, etc. This is all too natural as it is our innate desire to take care of our love ones and to have a better life. However, many will also recognize the need to have Opposition in Parliament to ensure that the ruling party is held accountable for their actions/decisions for Singaporeans. However, the latter is a question of “What’s Important” and the struggle that most of us will have is whether we are willing to sacrifice short term gains (stability, a possible drop in our asset prices, establishing a new power arrangement in Parliament, etc) for long term benefits (making the ruling party accountable and ensuring that the voices of Singaporeans are heard and respected rather than enforcing policies that are deemed “right” in the government’s eyes, etc). Interestingly, the ruling party has recognized this classic struggle and has put forth a FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) strategy to persuade the electorate to keep to the status-quo and hence continue with the short term gains.
As responsible voters and Singaporeans, we owe it to ourselves and each other to have clarity in mind and thought as we weigh between “What’s Urgent” and “What’s Important”. Let’s first examine three key short term (“What’s Urgent”) issues:
1. Property Prices and Value of Property in Opposition Wards
All homeowners will definitely be happy to see their property rise in value. However, that is true for ALL properties in Singapore. The question then is who will benefit from rising property prices? For most of us, our property is our HOME. Even as our property rises, we will not be able to reap the benefits of the rise in value unless we make a drastic decision to sell and rent. Even as we upgrade, the next level property we buy will also have risen in value. The corresponding is true, as our property decrease in value, so will all others. The upgrade will still remain within reach as the next level property will also have decreased in value. Ultimately, only three groups would benefit – A property investor, the next of kin of a deceased who had a fully paid up property and worse, someone who has decided to uproot and move out of Singapore.
For properties that are in Opposition wards, it is clear that their state of upkeep is far lower than those of the ruling party’s wards. Mr. Low Thia Khiang mentioned that the government owed Hougang S$100M while our esteemed MM has clearly stated that PAP will take care of its wards first. The problem lies in how the government has blurred its party interests against the interest of the Singapore people (in this case, Hougang and Potong Pasir). Every working Singaporean is a taxpayer and should have the right of access to government funds. The matter at hand should be about the capability of the Opposition to manage their wards, not about the capacity to do so. Every ward should have access to the same level of funding regardless of who they belong. Without similar levels of funding and support, the issue of capability will be clouded as we can never be certain if the situation is due to the competency of the party in charge or the lack of resources.
2. Cost of Ownership of Cars, Road Pricing and COE Bidding
The government has effectively implemented the ultimate solution to control our car population through the Certificate of Entitlement (COE) system. This ensures that the car population is kept in line with the road capacity to ensure traffic jams are not a norm found in countries such as Thailand, Indonesia, China and India. Yet, the government still saw a need to implement the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) to “regulate the flow of traffic”. Worse still, many ERP gantries are found even in small/side routes which makes it virtually impossible for any car to get to work without HAVING to pay some amount of ERP. The operational hours of some ERP gantries suggest that Singaporeans should either travel a longer route (which means spending more money on fuel and contravenes the green movement) or stay back later after work so that they do not get charged with ERP. The rationale of having ERP gantries active at 8-10pm contradicts the message of helping Singaporeans achieve a balanced work-life.
As for the COE Bidding, I often wonder why we adopted a “lowest successful bid” system as oppose to a “pay what you bid” system. We are all too aware of the human (and Singaporean) psyche – “Kiasu”(A fear to lose). Having the “lowest successful bid” system will only encourage citizens to bid high to ensure that they will secure a COE with the assumption that they will pay at a lower price since they expect someone else to bid lower. This inevitably encourages irresponsible bidding, especially with the car traders. However, if the government institute a “pay for what you bid”, the entire bidding psychology will change drastically. People will not like to pay for a higher COE than the next person. Instead, they will exercise extreme care in their bidding so as not to “lose out” (“Kiasuism” at play again) to the next fellow bidder. This will be even more pronounced with the car traders as it will impact their cost of doing business, thereby reining in irresponsible bidding. As for the possible cry of “unfairness” of paying different prices for the COE, I believe that all Singaporeans recognize that we need to be accountable for our own actions – In this case, our decision to bid at a particular price. In any case, we are already paying different prices for COEs through different bidding cycles, or haven’t we realized that yet?
3. Integrated Resorts, Foreign Workers, Permanent Residents and Jobs
The decision to proceed with the IRs was an emotional and philosophical one. The benefits are clear with increased tourism, more jobs creation and growing the economy. However, at what price did Singapore pay to achieved these? The social problems are only beginning to surface - More Singaporeans are getting exclusion orders, family disputes and conflicts are rising due to gambling addiction. Singaporeans are viewing foreign workers with suspicion, disdain and contempt; having the perception that foreign workers are competing for jobs, driving up property prices with their purchases, etc. Unwittingly, the vision of “A Gracious Singapore” was put at risk as a result of this decision.
The above issues are all too familiar with Singaporeans and will definitely play a big part in their voting decision. However, the long term issues are even more important as it will define our future as a nation. Some key long term issues that we should be concerned about are:
1. Ministerial Pay
All Singaporeans are grateful and indebted to our forefathers for guiding our nation from our most desperate and turbulent times in the 1950s to the envy of many nations of the 21st century. They put their lives and those of their families on the line to serve Singapore. Theirs were borne out of a strong will to survive and a deep desire to create a better tomorrow for Singapore. There were no funds, a largely uneducated population and most importantly they had no experience in forming a government that has the know-how. All they had was resolute, great minds and a noble desire to serve; to them, “To Serve is a Privilege”. Against all odds, they succeeded.
As we look at the current situation, the top echelon of government and civil servants are paid handsomely. The reason cited was that they need to stem the brain drain that would otherwise result. The Opposition party has made it clear that such a policy compromises the “moral compass” and that our Ministers will lose the ability to empathize with the ground – Indeed. We need to recognize that serving the nation is not a job; it is a calling and a privilege. Hence, the same logic that one normally uses with hiring talent for a company cannot be applied unilaterally. Our forefathers did not serve because it was a high paying job, in fact, it was the exact opposite. Such trait of character is what is needed in government. Obviously, we are not asking for people to serve without proper compensation but do we need the compensation to be at such astronomical levels? If the government cannot recruit these talents to serve because of compensation, then I for one rather that the individual do not serve as these talents do not believe that “Serving is A Privilege”. Moreover, we need to remember that success depends not just on talent but hard work. As Einstein said “99% is hard work, 1% is genius”. No doubt, talent is important but does it supersede the HEART? Personally, I would rather have someone that has slightly lesser talent but the right HEART and ATTITUDE as I believe that talent/skills can be trained and acquired through experience and time. With the current policy, there will always be the question of whether an individual’s motivation is about serving or if it is really about the compensation, status and comfort that comes with the appointment.
2. Accountability of The Government and Accountability of The Individual (GRC)
Most Singaporeans recognize the need for more Opposition in Parliament to keep the ruling party accountable for its decisions and policies. However, many also fear the possible problems that come with such a situation. The ruling party has warned that such a situation will impede decision making and hinder efficiency – No doubt. However, we need to recognize that it is far better to 1st BE EFFECTIVE, before BEING EFFICIENT. There is no point being efficient in the wrong things.
Absolute power is like a drug, it is addictive and at times, it corrupts. It is not a theory but a fact. People will change if they remain too long in a position where their authority is not questioned and no one holds them accountable. A clear example is the Mas Selamat affair where the question of Ministerial accountability has yet to be addressed adequately. If Mr. Wong Kan Seng was helming a private company and a major problem occurred during his charge, the board would have required his resignation regardless of how competent he is or how many good years of record he had. Instead, accountability was thinly disguised in “owning up” and disciplining a couple of individuals from that division. Alas, without the existence of true accountability, we have now created a perception that there are “untouchables” in our ministerial cabinet – An extremely concerning development for the nation. Absolute power to any single party runs the risk that Singaporeans will have to bear the consequences should the party makes any mistakes in the selection of its people or should the collective core ever put its self interest before our nation’s interest.
Similarly, there needs to be accountability for EVERY individual who wishes to serve. The GRC dilutes this principle. It potentially allows an individual to ride on the coat tails of others in getting elected into Parliament. If the concern is to ensure that there is sufficient racial representation in Parliament, then we should designate specific SMCs to only be eligible for a particular ethnic race to contest, these can even be in Chinese majority constituencies. Ultimately, the candidates know that they need to secure the support of their constituents to be re-elected.
We live in a multi-racial society. It is what makes us truly Singaporean. I am confident that my fellow Singaporeans will not draw upon racial lines but rather on each candidate’s competency when making their decision.
3. The Opposition’s Lack of Experience and Guarding Against Disasters (An Alternative Government)
There have been concerns over the Opposition’s lack of experience in government. While this is a valid concern, we need to remind ourselves that there is always a beginning to everything. Like our forefathers’ who had no experience other than their noble grit and talent to see them through the founding years, the Opposition will never gain any experience unless they are given an opportunity to do so. For sure, there will be mistakes made but that is all part of the journey to gain the experience and become a quality competitor to the ruling party. At the least, we can be comforted that the mistakes made will be not be catastrophic than have it been made during our forefathers’ time.
On the flip side, the Opposition’s presence is not found at several wards except during election time. In this regard, the Opposition has not demonstrated their intent with action nor their clarity in discerning what matters to the constituents they are wooing. However, we should also recognize that the Opposition does not have the vast resources that are available to the ruling party – Money, infrastructure and support. It is a lot harder to get individuals to sacrifice their own time, effort and with little money to cover the ground than joining an established organization that has such facilities established. Kudos must be given to those who are brave enough to challenge the ruling party’s mighty machinery and run the risk of lawsuits and personal embarrassment. Still, the Opposition must step up to demonstrate that they have both the intellectual competency and not just the desire to serve.
The fruits of our forefathers must be protected – Our huge reserves and our way of life. We need to assure ourselves that there are alternative teams ready to take over should the current one fails. Hence, it is important to acknowledge that there should be a viable alternative government, not just an alternative voice in Parliament. Ultimately, it is all about the freedom of choice. As consumers, we all know that choices drive competition, improves quality and ultimately value. Similarly, having the choice of an alternative government will drive competition, better quality and value to the people. It will keep the ruling party on its toes and compel them to keep up their efforts to win the hearts and minds of Singaporeans.
It is surprising that the ruling party inferred that Singapore will be in dire straits should certain Cabinet Ministers not be voted back in during this election. I shudder to think that we have a government that has come to rely so heavily on these certain individuals, making them indispensible and single points of failure. Our government prides itself in being able to acquire the best talent through its various recruitment policies like pegging Ministerial and Civil Service compensation to top private enterprises compensation structure. We must believe that as a result, there are always able talent ready to assume their roles should the situation arises. If not, serious questions must be asked about the effectiveness of these recruitment policies and the ensuing policies in ensuring such talent are trained effectively for any unexpected turn of events.
The key question that faces all Singaporeans is whether we have the political will as a people to sacrifice potential short term benefits of stability and certainty for long term benefits of a more transparent and accountable government for our future generations. For me, the decision is obvious.
No comments:
Post a Comment