TR EMERITUS

OPINION During a YPAP Forum held last week, a participant (Bernard Leong) challenged a critic (Alex Tan) who was embarrassing the PAP MPs present with point-blank attacks on the PAP to leave if he was so disenchanted with Singapore. How often do we hear the same sentence uttered to us in one form or another whenever we want to voice out our grievances, frustrations and resentment? There are two assumptions in the statement which are fundamentally flawed. 1. Criticising the government/ruling party is an act of betrayal to Singapore: Due to the dominance of the ruling party in Singapore, the boundary between the state and the party has been blurred so much so that an attack on the PAP is often misconstrued as an attack on Singapore. But the PAP is only a political party which has to be voted into office by the people every five years and not Singapore itself which encompasses not only political parties, but civil society, NGOs, religious organizations and much more. So when Singaporeans criticize the ruling party, they are not necessarily disenchanted or unhappy with Singapore itself, but rather at the way Singapore is being governed or mis-governed. On the contrary, it is precisely because they still care about Singapore that they bother to speak up. 2. Critics should stop complaining because they have a choice of leaving Singapore: Unfortunately, many Singaporeans do not have the option or luxury of emigrating elsewhere due to other considerations and constraints. According to the Home Affairs Ministry, about 1,000 Singaporeans give up their citizenships yearly, some of whom must have done so because of sheer disenchantment with the place. For those of us remaining in Singapore, many have harbored thoughts of emigrating at one time or another, but unable to do so for a variety of reasons. First, it is not easy to uproot oneself completely and start life afresh in another country especially when one is doing well in his career or just started a family. Second, emigrating to another country will necessitate leaving one's parents and friends in Singapore for good and simply isn't an option for many Singaporeans who have to take care of their aged parents. And lastly, despite our intense hatred of the ruling party, we still have some feelings for Singapore and are not quite prepared to sever ties with it completely. The government is nothing more than a servant of the people. Just like diners in a restaurant have the right to complain against lousy food or poor service, citizens have the right to provide feedback to the government, constructive or otherwise. Imagine complaining about long-waiting hours for buses to SBS and it reply is: "If you are so unhappy with our buses, why not take taxis?" or service staff who cannot understand English in a posh hotel and the manager retorts: "If you cannot communicate with our staff, why not leave our hotel?" Are commuters supposed to give suggestions to SBS on how to improve their services when lodging their complaints and guests expected to brainstorm of ways to improve the operations of the hotel before they can provide feedback? The ruling party often makes major decisions concerning the lives of ordinary people with ease and haste in parliament without much of a discussion or debate and it is us who have to bear the brunt of their mistakes, not them. If we are not even allowed to complain or told to "shut up and sit down" whenever we tried to make ourselves heard, then how is the government able to know if its policies are working well on the ground for the people? It is the duty of the government with access to state resources to think of ways to improve the lives of Singaporeans and not the other way round. Citizens do not have the obligation to help the government do its job, at least not when they are the most expensive government in the world. Our job is merely to provide them with a frank, if not blunt assessment of their performance, point out their flaws and exert pressure on them to tweak and reverse unpopular policies which are hurting us. Deputy prime minister Wong Kan Seng said recently that a government must have the courage to implement unpopular policies for the benefit of the people, but he forgot the basic fact that the government is merely a representative of the people and therefore must be subjected to the collective will of the citizenry. A government which thinks it knows best and acts arbitrarily on behalf of the people without consulting them is tantamount to tyranny. Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot all thought they were rendering a great service to their nations, but ended up causing immense suffering to their people instead. During a speech made in 1962, then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew said: “If I were in authority in Singapore indefinitely without having to ask those who are governed whether they like what is being done, then I would not have the slightest doubt that I could govern much more effectively in their interests.” How can he be sure that he is governing Singapore in our interests and not in the interests of the ruling party especially when the identities of the state and the party have become almost synonymous with each other? As a result of this "blind spot", what is beneficial to the ruling party may be detrimental to Singapore. For example, the relentless influx of foreigners helps to keep Singapore's GDP figures up which translate into higher pay for the ministers, but end up depressing the wages of ordinary Singaporeans, especially those from the lower income group. In another instance, Lee was reported by the Straits Times in 1987 to say: "“I am often accused of interfering in the private lives of citizens. Yes, if I did not, had I not done that, we wouldn’t be here today. And I say without the slightest remorse, that we wouldn’t be here, we would not have made economic progress, if we had not intervened on very personal matters – who your neighbour is, how you live, the noise you make, how you spit, or what language you use. We decide what is right. Never mind what the people think.” Lee was proven wrong on many counts and admitted himself lately that he messed up Singapore's bilingual language policy, but why didn't any ministers, MPs or civil servants point that out to him earlier? Because there is no space for any views contrarian to the establishment's to be aired in the public domain and there is no opposition in parliament to debate with the ruling parties on issues and policies affecting the nation. The era of "government knows best" is gone. Nobody in this world has a monopoly on wisdom, let alone an octogenerian whose world view is still stuck in the 1960s. If the government continues to talk down on Singaporeans and turns a deaf ear to their complaints, there will really be more and more Singaporeans who leave Singapore because they are so disenchaned with it.  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent Shocked at the rising unhappiness and frustration on the ground among first time home buyers who are unable to purchase a flat of their choice due to sky-rocketing prices, HDB has released four BTO flats in one go to ramp up housing supply in the hope of placating angry Singaporeans. The projects include two in Queenstown and one in Sembawang and Bukit Panjang, bringing the total supply for such units to 13,500 units this year. The projects will cover 105 studio apartments, 231 two-roomers, 643 three-roomers, 1,489 four-roomers and 202 five-room flats. The relative ease and swiftness in which the new BTO projects are launched raised questions on why the housing supply was not increased a few years ago in anticipation of the increase in population contributed by the influx of foreigners which also contributes HDB's initial assertation that According to figures from HDB, the number of flats built by HDB for the last three years average about 3,ooo plus a year which is far below the 13,500 units launched by HDB in its latest exercise: [Source: HDB Financial Report 2008/2009] The prices of HDB resale flats hit a record high in June this year with that of new flats following suit. In two recent sale exercises of BTO and balance flats, they were more than 10 times over-subscribed, an indication of the severity of the housing shortage on the ground. As expected, HDB laid the blame on home-buyers for being too "fussy". National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan even asked Singaporeans to be "realistic", saying that he can't build all the flats in the cities. The newly launched BTO projects will not come cheap. Prices will range from $373,000 to $549,000 for a four-room flat and $532,000 to $664,000 for a five-room flat for both Dawson projects in Queenstown which is more expensive than some condominiums in the suburbs. The prices of BTO flats are pegged to recent transaction of resale flats in the vicinity which have reached a record high in June this year, fueled partly by the large number of PRs and new citizens entering the market. An Indonesian PR paid $653,000 for a 4-room resale flat in Queenstown when he could well afford a private condominium. PRs are allow to purchase resale flats in Singapore and sold them for a hefty profit years later after they returned back to their countries of origin. MM Lee Kuan Yew "forecasted" two day ago that HDB flats will remain "affordable" even as prices continue to rise without substantiating his claims. More than 85 per cent of Singaporeans live in public housing built by the ruling party via HDB which determines both the supply and selling prices. Demand has been inflated artificially by the ruling party's liberal immigration policies which has seen large number of foreigners being granted PRs and citizenships in the last few years, among them cleaners, masseues and hawkers. With no opposition in parliament to check on the ruling party and to engage it in vigorous debates about its policies, Singaporeans will have no choice but to find solace in MM Lee's "forecast" that HDB flats will (forever) be "affordable" to them. Copyright © The Temasek Review, 2009  Read More →

作者:冀居·谢 淡滨尼人车共用人行道的这项政策是一项公关大骗局，并且在将来官府的公关学院里应该也会成为一个研究的典范。 鼓励居民多在社区使用脚踏车，这本该砸资发展基础设施，而在不花钱的情况下，只是让大家多冒一些险来鼓励人车 (bicycle) 共用现有的人行道，根本就是一种推卸责任的做法。再加上选择淡滨尼，是因为它是国家发展部长马宝山的选区，这是具有指标性的，也就是说只要在淡滨尼“成功”推行，那么扩展到全国各区只不过是时间上的问题罢了。 让我来细说从头，2007年5月淡滨尼展开了一项为期一年的“试验性计划”，就是允许脚踏车骑士和行人共用行人道。一年之后（2008年6月），大概淡滨尼集选区的议员们对此信心满满，于是就请了一家叫做TSM的交通咨询公司做调查，共有两次。一次是对镇内两万名脚车骑士做调查，一次是找了600户居民做面对面的调查。调查的结果，根据官方是“70%脚踏车骑士和60%非骑士支持试验计划”（请注意仅仅是“支持实验计划”），然而即使是亲执政党的许多基层对话会上，大家最关心的还是安全的问题。 照说这样的结果——实验了一年，还组织了“铁马巡察员”（cycling warden）维持秩序，只得稍微过半的人支持，可说是失败告终了。于是不甘于失败的马宝山宣布在两周内才做出决定；所谓决定，当然就是继续还只终止这个 实验。但是，一直等到2008年的最后一夜都没有消息，马宝山真的在这个课题上睡着了吗？ 其实这项计划根本就没有所谓不成功的预想，因为政府半心半意鼓励民众踏脚车，又不愿砸钱，这本来就是最便宜的结论。所以马宝山就利用人们记忆短暂的特点，在公关上使用“拖字诀”，在将近一年半之后，突然由淡滨尼集选区议员伍碧虹在该区市镇会论坛上回答居民询问时说，当局正探讨如何改进市镇会的法则 （bylaw），取缔在人行道上鲁莽骑脚踏车的行为。她说：“我们准备采取行动对付那些在人行道上鲁莽行驶、危及路人安全的脚踏车骑士，他们可能会面对罚款。” 既然在“人行道上鲁莽骑脚踏车的行为”会被罚款，岂不是说政府已经接受脚踏车上人行道这个事实了吗？（之前是违法的，所以才说是“试验”）这项实验什么时候结束并且成为事实了呢？不就是这18个月的时间耐心等你们忘光吗？即不用听取民意、也不用雇用交通咨询公司做调查，还有路交局也不必就“试验”表态，一切都水到渠成，凡存在必合理。还有比这个更省事的政策推行吗？李显龙应该在全国问题上多向马宝山看齐。 大马论坛  Read More →