TR EMERITUS

OPINION Singapore's famous blogger Mr Brown received a rude shock last week when his article "mrbrown and the flood" was removed abruptly without warning a day after it was published on the widely read Singtel digital media - insing.com. His editor told him upon asking that the Ministry of Environment and Water Resources (MEWR) had lodged a complaint to the Ministry of Information, Communication and Arts (MICA) which got Singtel (owned by Temasek Holdings) to remove the disagreeable article in double-quick time. In an unusually heavy downpour two weeks ago, Bukit Timah was flooded and became submerged in water damaging many properties and cars as a result. The minister in charge Dr Yaacob Ibrahim told the media that the flooding is a "freak" event which occurs once in fifty years without realizing that he had used the same excuse two years ago during a similar flooding in Thomson. Mr Brown's article poked fun at the minister's comments and poured scorn on the authorities for not having the foresight to prevent the flood from happening in the first place. What are the reasons behind MEWR's complaint? The article is critical of Dr Yaacob and the ministry. In other first world countries, nobody would have batted an eyelid at Mr Brown's article, but in Singapore where its highly paid ministers are extremely sensitive to criticism, it is considered a "heretical" piece to be kept out of sight in the public domain. The state media, which is tightly controlled by the ruling party predictably run a series of articles subsequently to highlight the measures taken by the ministry to prevent a repeat of the flooding. Nothing was mentioned about its possible oversight. How are Singaporeans able to assess the performance of its ministers objectively when the mass media has become its mouthpiece which only knows how to sing its praises and make them appear better than they really are? The ruling party believes in paying its ministers a salary which is pegged to the private sector because they are supposedly the best talents available in Singapore. According to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, the ministers' performance are judged on a yearly basis and a variable component of their salaries is dependent on it. Ministers who have not performed up to expectations will be given a "pet talk" in private. Singapore's ministers are the highest paid in the world. The annual salary of PM Lee is five times that of U.S. President Barack Obama. Who is paying their astronomical salaries? Of course it's the Singapore taxpayers. If we are paying so much for their "service" to the nation, then should we have the right to know if we are getting value for our money? Singapore leaders claim that there is a price to pay for good government. Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong once remarked famously that his government cost only five plates of "Char Kway Teow" during his time as Prime Minister. The five plates must have ballooned to fifty plates by now. Self praise is no praise really. The only people with the right to judge the performance of Singapore ministers are the citizens who are paying their salaries! However with the compliant and sycophantic media shielding the government from any negative publicity and trumpeting its minor achievements now and then, there is no way for the people to find out the truth. Since the ruling party wants to run the government like a corporation, then it should adhere to the practices adopted in the private sector where there is intense scrutiny of the performance of the top honchos. Those fail to perform up to expected standards are fired immediately while top performers are rewarded with hefty bonuses and perks. Just like nobody is born with ten fingers of equal length, there will bound to be ministers who perform better than their fellow colleagues. If non-performing ministers are not singled out for criticism, there will be no political pressure or impetus on their part to improve since their performance will always remain classified as a state secret. PM Lee should reveal to the public the key performance indicecs (KPIs) for each minister including himself in order for the public to assess the performance of his team in a fair, balanced and objective manner especially since the next general election is around the corner. He cannot expect Singaporeans to vote again for his team without first reporting to us what they had accomplished over the last five years or so since the 2006 general elections. Malaysia's Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak recently named Malaysian Airlines chief executive officer Datuk Seri Idris Jala as a minister to implement his administration’s Key Performance Index (KPIs) in addition to a minister who is in charge of crafting and monitoring the KPIs of all the ministers in his cabinet. Surely Singapore which is famed for its good governance can do better than our neighbours by instilling a bit more accountability and transparency in the government? If the ruling party is indeed as capable, efficient and honest as it proclaims itself to be, then it should not be afraid to put the performance of its ministers under intense scrutiny which should be the case in the first place. Perhaps PM Lee can consider setting up a "KPI committee" under the civil service to assess the performance of each individual minister with the results made known and easily available to the public. Only then will the government be able to justify the multi-million pay package of its ministers. The use of GDP growth as an index to gauge its performance is both inappropriate and inaccurate as GDP growth is generated by all Singaporeans and foreigners working here and not by the government. Furthermore, it can always be artificially increased by importing large number of cheap foreign workers to keep business costs low while suppressing the wages of locals. High GDP growth does not translate directly to a higher standard of living to ordinary Singaporeans. Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said lately that he can easily earn more than his current pay in the private sector. He should corroborate his claims by revealing the present monthly salaries of former ministers who are now working outside the government such as Yeo Cheow Tong, Yeo Ning Hong and David Lim. Empty rhetoric alone is no longer sufficient to convince an increasingly sceptical and restive citizenry that Singapore ministers need to be paid so many times the median salary of an average Singaporean ($2,600) in order to keep them in government. A strong, secure and confident government need not resort to censoring unflattering remarks about its performance and discouraging political discourse and debate in the public domain to keep its citizens ignorant and apathetic. It should be able to rebuke the criticisms directed at it with ease so as to prove its real worth.  Read More →

Health Minister Mr Khaw Boon Wan made a visit to the home of a kidney patient in Hougang last Sunday and shared his experience with Singaporeans on his blog. The patient Mrs Teo who lived in Hougang, was born with only one kidney and had to be put on dialysis when it started to fail. His husband offered her his kidney and fortunately his was a perfect match. Following the successful transplant at NUH, Mr Teo's medical expenses are now covered by the NKF Kidney Live Donor Support Programme. The programme which was introduced lately on 1 November this year will also cover potential loss of income or up to S$5,000, whichever is lower; hospitalisation and surgical insurance premiums. Mrs Teo now has to take immunosuppressants drugs daily in large quantities to prevent her body from rejecting the donor's kidney. Mr Khaw assured her the government will assist them in whatever ways it can: "I assured them that they should just focus on their recovery and leave such financing matters to NUH and NKF. In Singapore, the needy will always be helped. For those who try to help themselves, like the Teo family, the Government assistance will definitely be there, to close any missing gap," he wrote. Mr Khaw left the session feeling "much encouraged and uplifted by their spirit and positive attitude to life." and pleased about the amendments made to the Human Organ Transpart Act (HOTA) which was spear-headed by him. "I left, happy with the HOTA amendments I helped to craft which has enabled patients and VWOs, like the NKF, to help live donors fulfill through their acts of love without financial worries. Mr and Mrs Teo are the first couple benefitting from the NKF Live Donor Welfare Scheme; I am sure they will not be the only one," he added. Under the amended HOTA, organ recipients may have to compensate living donors for costs incurred as a result of the transplant. The changes to HOTA will not only widen the pool of organs available, but also crack down on illegal organ trading. The initiative to do so was triggered by the controversial case of retail magnate Tang Wee Sung, who was sentenced to one day in prison of trying to buy a kidney from an Indonesian man. HOTA allows for the organs (kidney, liver, heart and cornea) of Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents to be donated in the event of death, for the purpose of transplantation only. All Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents 21 years old and above, and are of sound mind, are included under HOTA automatically unless they opt out by completing a form and sending it back to the National Organ Transplant Unit (NOTU). On a separate note, Mr Khaw who has become a regular blogger said in his latest blog posting yesterday  he is 'studying the idea' of allowing Medisave to be used for health screenings. He also laid out the priorities of his ministry next year, that is to focus on prevention and getting more Singaporeans to embrace a healthy lifestyle. Read Mr Khaw's original article here  Read More →

By Amanda Lian During the break of the Reform Party’s forum, Temasek Review managed to speak with the Secretary-General of the Reform Party, Mr. Kenneth Jeyaretnam. Aside from the usual questions about the various economic policies that they had proposed, we sought answers to a couple of pressing questions. TR: Thank you for taking this time to correspond with Temasek Review. Can you describe how you feel and think about the “cooling off” period during the next General Election? KJ: I have stated in my press release and I do not have much more to say beyond that. Of course, I am strongly against it as it would be a big advantage to the ruling party. This is definitely another added restriction to tilt the playing field against the opposition parties. For us to gain a decent airtime on mainstream media, we have to field no less than 6 candidates.  TR: Do you think you can utilise other forms of media to reach the people besides mainstream media, for example, citizen journalism?  KJ: This is yet another issue to look at. Again, it might still be bias as to what is shown online and the government may also restrict the various websites. Just like the “great China firewall”. TR: Do you think this is a “grey” area? KJ: More needs to be seen although many citizens might offer a balanced review and analysis of the entire election, I am sure. TR: What are your thoughts about your brother’s interview with the Straits Times? KJ: At this point, I do not wish to comment on anything about my brother. I hope you understand. TR: Was he misquoted? KJ: I do not wish to comment on this issue as I have not read the article.  Read More →