TR EMERITUS

By Alexis Hooi from China Daily Climb the Great Wall, wander the grounds of the Forbidden City, partake in Peking duck and watch the marching guards in Tian'anmen Square these are some of the things I have done in Beijing that allow me to tell others I have seen it all after more than two years in the capital. Well, except maybe for the giant pandas at the Beijing Zoo. My fellow Singaporean colleague tells me the bears are the best attraction there, a view that is endorsed by the visitors from home and abroad that I hear swarm the site on any holiday. It is hard not to like the pandas here in China. They are one of the country's most successful envoys and never fail to capture the hearts of young and old - from being stuffed toys in souvenir shops along hutong alleyways or as the mascot for the World Wildlife Fund. So it is only understandable that the press here have gone gaga over the news that China is sending two giant pandas to the city-state. President Hu Jintao, who is on a state visit to Singapore before attending key events of the APEC forum there this week, announced that the two animals will arrive in their host country in 2011. The pandas, a 1-year-old female and 2-year-old male, come from the Wolong nature reserve in Sichuan province and are expected to be in Singapore for a decade. The announcement of their stay could not have come at a better time. President Hu said "China and Singapore enjoy geographical proximity, friendly sentiments and a shared language" and that Sino-Singapore relations will reach "a new high", while Singapore's President SR Nathan said the two countries are at "the cusp of a new chapter" as they celebrate the 20th anniversary of diplomatic relations next year. Singapore is a key partner of China, with bilateral trade reaching $52.4 billion last year, up more than 10 percent from the previous year. So it is fitting that the island republic now joins a handful of other countries to receive the bears through the latest instance of "panda diplomacy", in which the pandas have proven to be crowd-pullers wherever they go. Once the animals are in Singapore, authorities said they will also be part of research on breeding as well as a conservation program to raise awareness of endangered species. Less than 2,000 pandas are said to be left in the world, with less than 300 of these in captivity in Wolong and abroad. Experts from China are also expected to help trainers in Singapore handle the furry visitors, while select bamboo - the staple diet of pandas - will be planted and a special enclosure set up to house the bears. All these preparations are in line with the high expectations of many Singaporeans who have embraced panda mania. Singapore student Jean Lim said she is very excited about the pandas' arrival, even though that is still more than a year away. "It'll be great to have pandas here I won't have to rush to places like Beijing or Sichuan to see them," said Lim, 20. "The wait will be worthwhile." - China Daily  Read More →

From our Correspondent In a speech made at the Presentation and Exhibition on Punggol Waterfront Housing Design yesterday, National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan promised Singaporeans that the government will continue to ensure that HDB flats remain affordable to the "vast majority" of Singaporeans. Mr Mah began his speech with the usual self-congratulatory boast about HDB's "achievements": "Over the past 50 years, HDB has transformed Singapore into a nation of flat owners.  The quality of our public housing has also evolved, from basic low-cost units, to quality flats in vibrant housing estates today. Today, eight in ten Singaporeans are homeowners. This is a major achievement, which no other country has been able to do." Over 85 per cent of Singapore's populations live in HDB flats built by the government. As they are leasehold flats whose purchase and sale are subjected to various conditions, it is a suspect if Singaporeans really "own" them. Mr Mah stressed the importance of being cost-effective when designing and building the flats as "high building cost will ultimately feed into the market value of flats while high maintenance cost can affect the amount of Service & Conservancy Charge that homeowners will have to bear." HDB revealed in its annual report in 2009 that it incurred a whooping loss of $2 billion dollars due to "home subsidies" given to Singaporeans to enable them to own their real homes. The figures are widely questioned by netizens and bloggers who view them with skepticism. The prices of HDB flats have sky-rocketed in recent months with resale flats hitting a record high on the back of strong demand from PRs who are allowed to purchase HDB flats in the open market. Despite criticisms leveled at it for failure to control the housing prices, HDB continues to insist that their flats are "affordable". The supply of new flats are largely controlled by HDB. According to reports from HDB, less than 10,000 flats were built each year between 2006 - 2008 when the rate of inflow of foreigners is the highest. The ruling party has encouraged mass immigration from other countries in particular China and India, to boost the nation's declining birth rate as well as to maintain the racial mix. Two recent sale exercises of Balanced and BTO flats saw them over-subscribed by more than 10 times, an indication on how serious the housing shortage has become. Some young couples are forced to stay with their parents after marriage as they are unable to obtain a flat of their choice. Instead of addressing the concerns on the ground, the government has blamed Singaporeans for being too "choosy" with the flats. With the ruling party firmly in control of parliament, Singaporeans will have no choice but to put up with its "exhortations" unless they vote for more opposition to check on it. Interview source: Gov monitor  Read More →

By Kelvin Teo, Guest Columnist Potong Pasir and Hougang residents finally learn of the good news that they will be getting their lift upgrading. Yet, ominously on the eve of polling day 12 years ago, the-then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong warned voters that opposition estates will risk turning into 'slums' if they continue to vote for the opposition. Just three years ago, residents of Potong Pasir and Hougang were promised a sum total of $180 million if they voted for the PAP candidates, Mr Sitoh Yih Pin and Mr Eric Low respectively. Upgrading works are considered a form of public work, which some may find analogous to a public good (while others may disagree). A public good by its very definition is a good that is non-rivalrous and non-excludable. What this means is that the consumption of the good by one individual does not diminish its availability for others (non-rivalrous), and the assumption is that there is a huge warchest of funds for upgrading. Thus, in this case, upgrading carried for one ward will  not diminish the access of the other wards to upgrading. A public good must also be non-excludable, i.e. no one can be excluded from accessing the good. This means that all wards inclusive of Potong Pasir and Hougang should be able to gain access to upgrading, and none should be excluded. However, it is apparent that upgrading works in Singapore’s context has somewhat become analogous to a private good, which is exclusive and prevents opposition voters within a ward from accessing it. The Potong Pasir and Hougang residents needed to wait a long time before getting theirs. Therefore, upgrading, for some reasons has been an integral part of the electoral agenda by the PAP in the past elections. Hence, one may ask – is it possible to depoliticize the upgrading issue? The answer is a resounding yes, and an approach can be designed in such a way that the citizens can participate in the process. An independent body comprising individuals without any links (ideally) to the government and political parties can be set up to minimize the conflict of interests. This body will have final decision-making powers on the nature of upgrading and the funds allocated to the process. This body has the power to decide which areas are in need of upgrading and the nature of upgrading works required, and it goes without saying, the expenditure of the processes. A caretaker for a specific area can be appointed to survey its status on a regular basis. Ideally, this caretaker has to be a familiar face among residents whom they can approach. He has to be interacting with residents to hear their concerns and possibly, feedbacks on possible improvements that can be made to their areas. The caretaker will compile a report of his findings and recommendations to a decision-making committee within the independent body. Members of the decision-making committee as mentioned earlier shouldn’t be part of government service nor belong to any of the political parties. They may hail from Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) or are employed in the private sector. The committee will study the feedback and recommendations and will take action accordingly. In the event of an upgrading work to an area, the caretaker will track its progress, and update the committee on its status on a consistent basis. After the upgrading works, the caretaker will catch up with the residents and capture their sentiments. If the residents’ sentiments on the upgrading work is positive, the caretaker will stick to current status quo, but if there are complaints, the caretaker will again report this to the committee for appropriate action to be taken in order to improve the situation. This represents a decentralization of the government’s as well as the Member of the Parliament’s role in the upgrading process. The executive decision-making powers is thus transferred from the government to the citizen. In a certain sense, there is a partnership between the government and citizen. The former provides the funds for upgrading, and the latter makes the decision on how upgrading should be done. This form of decision-making represents the top rungs of the Sherry Arnstein’s ladder of Citizenship participation. The top rungs epitomize a decentralization in decision-making processes while the low rungs represent a government that rules using a top-down approach, typefying a central decision-making authority. All of us have always heard the rhetorical message about making Singapore a better place during our National Day. The truth is that Singaporeans can have a say over the physical complexion of their home if a system that facilitates their participation in the upgrading process is in place. There is no reason why the upgrading issue should be politicized when it is first and foremost analogous to a public good, and secondly, it is the public's duty to decide on how and what type(s) of upgrading should be done. Lastly, placing the decision-making powers in the citizen’s hands is a form of safeguard protecting their interests since voters can make their decisions without being worried about whether their areas will get upgraded or not because the upgrading role is transferred into their own hands, instead of the electoral candidate’s. About the Author: Kelvin Teo is a Life Sciences graduate who considers himself fortunate enough to enjoy a liberal-arts style education, which includes graduate-level training in the field of policy studies. He loves to deal with a wide range of topics ranging from the Life Sciences, sociopolitical issues to the realm of arts and literature.  Read More →