TR EMERITUS

I didn’t really follow this year’s election as I was pretty occupied by work. But in the build up to the election, amongst friends and young colleagues it was clear to me that PAP could test the support at 60%. Old friends who were at least neutral had turned opposition, almost all the young people I spoke to were opposition supporters. This was the third time PAP tested the 60% region, but unlike the other previous times, there was no walk over, hence, it was a more accurate depiction of the canvas of support. Technically, a breach of 60% would have provided a scenario that the next elections could possibly mean a change of government, we are not there yet. The reasons and the speculations, and the tit for tat, the bitch and the beast, and the flowery, the spit and spat are already out there. I would just like to share some readings I reread and some intriguing new ones. The normative of economics is but an ideology driven by special interests. In fact, you could argue that ideas or narratives that support a certain class are justified with an intellectual discourse. It creates a myth, it even creates a romance that this framework of ideas are inevitable and sacrosanct. As it was with the idea that Kings and Emperors or even Popes are mandated by Heaven. The day you question what is heaven, the nuances then mushroom into infinite possibilities, and that immediately brings into question the halo of Kings, Emperors or Popes. I am thinking that the whole globalization thing, the Reaganomics and Thatcherism, was germinated with an idea of what is called Shareholders Value. This was what Milton Friedman said on a fateful day in 1970 [ The New York Times ]: For Friedman, social responsibility is a doctrine that politicizes corporations for which they are not equipped for, nor responsible for. [ Please read the article from the link for a better understanding of Milton Friedman’s opinion ]. “.....That is why, in my book “Capitalism and Freedom,” I have called it a “fundamentally subversive doctrine” in a free society, and have said that in such a society, “there is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception fraud.”” The context was a period of slowing economic growth, the Vietnam War, the more aggressive Unions in the US. “Friedman’s article was ferocious. Any business executives who pursued a goal other than making money were, he said, “unwitting pup­pets of the intellectual forces that have been undermining the basis of a free society these past decades.” They were guilty of “analytical looseness and lack of rigor.” They had even turned themselves into “unelected government officials” who were illegally taxing employers and customers.” [ Forbes 2013 ]. The pushback to Friedman can be read in the Forbes link. It pertains to the legal definition of what is a corporation. And there is no legal ruling that ever said the purpose of a corporation is the maximization of profits. But this is not the purpose of my article but rather how Friedman’s idea was captured, propagated and became part of a normalized way to look at the conduct of business, and in Singapore’s case the Singapore Inc. A major consequence of Friedman’s idea was: “Sadly, as often happens with bad ideas that make some people a lot of money, shareholder value caught on and became the conventional wisdom. Not surprisingly, executives were only too happy to accept the generous stock compensation being offered. In due course, they even came to view it as an entitlement, independent of performance.” "...between 1960 and 1980, CEO compensation per dollar of net income earned for the 365 biggest publicly traded American companies fell by 33 percent. CEOs earned more for their shareholders for steadily less and less relative compensation. By contrast, in the decade from 1980 to 1990, CEO compensation per dollar of net earnings produced doubled. From 1990 to 2000 it quadrupled." [ Roger Martin ]. By 1994, PAP was persuaded by such a discourse. Raising the cabinet’s salary that is out of this world, well, definitely out of many charts. In the process, how many of our policies began to shift to the right as part of this ideology? From 1999, our CPF rate was about 2.5%, but assets and profits from the investments reside with the government. And GDP growth is part of the cabinet’s compensation scheme, while nothing is ever said about raising the standard or income of the bottom 20% as part of their salary or bonus. And in the 1990s, resale HDB and so called asset enhancement started to really drive land prices up. Enlarging the coffers for the government but in the process effectively transferring savings from citizens to government. What’s wrong with more savings in government hands? Now, I was never a firm believer that the Trade Wars was just about Trump going over the top. And I believe at the core, foreign policy is about domestic policy. Martin Wolf’s brilliant article gave me greater clarity and reaffirmed my intuition: Martin Wolf: what trade wars tell us . “Trade war is often presented as a war between countries. It is not: it is a conflict mainly between bankers and owners of financial assets on one side and ordinary households on the other — between the very rich and everyone else.” At the global level what happens is that as China grows, its citizens’ income as a percentage of GDP fell, the accrued profits are with the State and companies. Now, China chauvinists seem to imply that they are doing US a favor by buying US treasuries, yes and no. For the US elites, yes, but the inflow of capital to US (and all countries with surplus buy US treasuries because of its huge capacity and liquid markets) affect the asset prices in US, this in turn drive up prices for production, making products more expensive, hence, displacing many blue color workers, the inflow of capital directly affected the de-industrialization of US. In fact, the best thing for US and China maybe a step back from the ideology of globalization, possibly for US to restrict capital inflow, and China starts to put more money into the hands of its citizens rather than some big investments that go nowhere. Primarily, the Trade Wars is a political adjustment to underconsumption globally. And likewise, the savings glut in Singapore had given our government some hubris belief of being a global influencer through investments via GIC and Temasek. But this comes at the expense of massive social and economic disruptions to Singaporeans. The opposition inroads today, is a consequence of a visceral discomfort felt by us, that can be located structurally at citizens surplus being transferred to government (which was what Chris Kuan said sometime back). Going forward, it is clear that we need to generate demand rather than siphoning off citizens’ savings. Globalization is going to be less about supply chain but how to use capital and expertise to improve local demand in order to generate a profit.   BK      Read More →

Fear does not work all the time. The ruling elites’ attempt to frighten people into giving them a 100 per cent win did not work. The people opted for greater democratic representation. Singapore is moving towards becoming a proper parliamentary democracy where a leader of the opposition is given some recognition thanks to voters who understand that alternative parties and diversity of views matter for the country. While reams will be written about the results and what it implies a few things are clear: the old school attempt of personal attacks on alternative candidates for political reasons is not helpful. The Workers’ Party's remarkable wins testify to this. That making clear the need to keep an authoritarian system in check resonates with people. In due course, perhaps Singapore will evolve into at least one-third of parliament in the hands of the alternatives so as to institutionalise effective checks on arrogance, complacency, and groupthink . It cannot be denied that the genetically modified poor slate of candidates fielded by the ruling elites did not help their authoritarian cause. Not only was there a distinct lack of diversity in their candidates but there were flubs by veterans among them that must have had some impact. The most telling Freudian slip was yet another leaked audio in which a champion of the rulers (Chan Chun Seng) is supposed to have said: Every election the PAP-vote problems, you check back the 50 years and see. Then suddenly a crisis will save us. Then we’ll start dropping again. Until the next crisis save us, and it’ll drop again. You look at the last 40 years pattern… Lee Kuan Yew’s death saved us. Before Lee Kuan Yew’s death, 9/11 saved us… The party could have called for an early election over the conflict with Malaysia if it escalated…’ The most important thing for PAP in tonight’s conversation must be the house majority. We will never know; our neighbour might do us a favour and we might call for election tomorrow. Are you ready?... Winning an election has nothing to do with the nine-day campaigning. It has to do with the hard work over the previous many years… The question: how is it that the virus-scare did not materialise in a ‘saving’ strategy for the elites? Yes, they won yet again, but the glimmer of genuine democratic representation in Singapore is beginning to grow. Perhaps it could be also that people are finally awakening, and have cottoned on to the systematic pulling of wool over their eyes by those who need crises real or otherwise to save their own interests. It is telling that the WP’s call to envision a better future with a country representative of its different people including the call for greater space for artists, writers, other creators, and a freer press: may also have helped them. It is crucial to note that the call for understanding the intangibles in life as being more important than the playing-by-numbers rule book of the elites is gaining traction. Perhaps in the wards that have given alternative parties a greater voice, and citizens greater hope, through their votes—instead of putting out the flag in recognition of some pandemic till National Day: they could put out the flag in recognition of a Singapore slowly coming of age due to hard won democratic progress. You can frighten all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot frighten all the people all the time.   Sanjay Perera *Writer, and founding editor of Philosophers for Change. The post first appeared at: Kafkaville. [Picture: Alamy.]      Read More →

Let's put things in perspective. 12,367 votes (0.5% of the PAP's popular vote) in all the marginal constituencies where the PAP scored around 55% or less (West Coast GRC, East Coast GRC, Bukit Panjang, Bukit Batok, Marymount) - and we might have woken up to headlines that Singaporeans elected 23 MPs from parties other than the PAP. Or nearly a quarter of Parliament. That's how close this election was - in a way that even 2011 and arguably even 1991 wasn't. To understand this, pay very close attention to the marginal seats (>45%, rounded to 1 decimal place) and count what would happen if all marginal seats flipped. 1968: 0 elected, 0 marginal (highest % = 18.1%, Kampong Ubi) 1972: 0 elected, 0 marginal (highest % = 41.9%, Punggol) 1976: 0 elected, 0 marginal (highest % = 40.1%, Kampong Chai Chee) 1980: 0 elected, 1 marginal = 1 / 75 total (1.33%) Elected: none Marginal seats: - #1: Telok Blangah = 47.0% 1984: 2 elected, 4 marginal = 6 / 79 total (7.59%) Elected: Potong Pasir = 60.3%, Anson = 56.8% Marginal seats: - #1: Jalan Kayu = 48.8% - #2: Kaki Bukit = 47.8% - #3: Radin Mas = 46.0% - #4: Telok Blangah = 45.0% 1988: 1 elected, 8 marginal = 9 / 81 total (11.11%) Elected: Potong Pasir = 63.1% Marginal seats: - #1: Eunos GRC (x3) = 49.1% - #2: Paya Lebar = 47.6% - #3: Bukit Gombak = 46.5% - #4: Bedok GRC (x3) = 45.1% 1991: 4 elected, 8 marginal = 12 / 81 total (14.81%) Elected: Potong Pasir = 69.6%, Hougang = 52.8%, Bukit Gombak = 51.4%, Nee Soon Central = 50.3% Marginal seats: - #1: Bukit Batok = 48.2% - #2: Braddell Heights = 47.7% - #3: Eunos GRC (x4) = 47.6% - #4: Nee Soon South = 47.2% - #5: Changi = 47.0% 1997: 2 elected, 5 marginal = 7 / 83 total (8.43%) Elected: Hougang = 58.0%, Potong Pasir = 55.2% Marginal seats: - #1: Cheng San GRC (x5) = 45.2% 2001: 2 elected, 0 marginal = 2 / 84 total (2.38%) Elected: Hougang = 55.0%, Potong Pasir = 52.4% Marginal seats: none (highest % = 34.7%, Choa Chu Kang) 2006: 2 elected, 0 marginal = 2 / 84 total (2.38%) Elected: Hougang = 62.7%, Potong Pasir = 55.8% Marginal seats: none (highest % = 43.9%, Aljunied GRC) 2011: 6 elected, 7 marginal = 13 / 87 total (14.94%) Elected: Hougang = 64.8%, Aljunied GRC (x5) = 54.7% Marginal seats: - #1: Potong Pasir = 49.6% - #2: Joo Chiat = 49.0% - #3: East Coast GRC (x5) = 45.2% 2015: 6 elected, 1 marginal = 7 / 89 total (7.87%) Elected: Hougang = 57.7%, Aljunied GRC (x5) = 51.0% Marginal seats: - #1: Punggol East = 48.2% 2020: 10 elected, 13 marginal = 23 / 93 total (24.73%) Elected: Hougang = 61.2%, Aljunied GRC (x5) = 59.9%, Sengkang GRC (x4) = 52.1% Marginal seats: - #1: West Coast GRC (x5) = 48.3% - #2: East Coast GRC (x5) = 46.6% - #3: Bukit Panjang = 46.3% - #4: Bukit Batok = 45.2% - #5: Marymount = 45.0% The numbers alone tell two important stories. Firstly: 2020 is exceptional in a way that even 2011 wasn't. In 2011, non-PAP parties scored above 40% in a total of 39 seats - out of these 39 seats, 13 (or 33.33%) of them (including wins) scored above 45%. In 2020, non-PAP parties scored above 40% in a total of 32 seats - out of these 32 seats, 23 (or 71.88%) of them (including wins) scored above 45%. The number of >40% seats may have dipped (from 44.83% to 34.41%), but the number of >45% seats skyrocketed (from 14.94% to 24.73%). If 2011 was an election that saw much generalized disaffection towards the ruling party, 2020 saw more affection towards alternative parties. Secondly: if you're familiar with Singaporean geography, you will notice that many of the seats that have become opposition strongholds (thank you Hougang and Aljunied!), newly-won seats (thank you Sengkang!), or marginal seats have a long genealogy tracing back to historically strong opposition performance in the same areas. Former marginal seats have since become present-day WP constituencies or marginal seats in their own right once again. In the greater scheme of things, therefore, 2020 was the closest that we have come to a viable opposition presence. If there is any year the opposition parties (or at the very least the stronger ones amongst them) have been at their all-time strongest - and not merely because the PAP is at its all-time lowest - it is now. Yet, more so than ever, 2020 is the epitome of "so close, yet so far". And here's why. 2020 was the first general election since Singapore became independent that the opposition parties collectively have come the closest to scoring >45% in a full quarter of seats contested. Well - almost. The figure is at 24.73% - the highest since independence. Let's also remember that in the 1963 elections - the last time Singapore's legislature had double-digit numbers of opposition parliamentarians - Barisan Sosialis won 13 seats and the lone Ong Eng Guan won 1. Together, the 14 of them made up 27.45% of the then-51-seat Legislative Assembly. And even that fell short of the 33.33% required to deny the PAP of their supermajority. So on the one hand, we're closer than ever to having a viable alternative. And this is a heartening development. On the other hand, to borrow a lyric: "look where we are, we've come so far, there's still a long, long way to go". The good news is that if history is anything to go by, decades of groundwork in building up a robust foundation for viable political alternatives - not just in the form of parties - will at some point bear fruit. Even if in a different shape from before. So what do we do? We carry on. We carry on lifting each other up and making space for more voices, especially those on the margins. We carry on, in our own ways, and find ways to put into practice alternatives. We organize. We bring people together. We practice solidarity. Because these efforts do in fact matter, and they will bear fruit. Even if they repeatedly come so close, yet so far, to doing so.   Carissa Chow   * The author blogs on Facebook.      Read More →