TR EMERITUS

From our Correspondent During his dialogue with NTU students last night, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong quoted the example of Israel to illustrate the merits and importance of immigration to "get all the talent we can get". PM Lee claimed that though Israel is only a small country of 7 million people, it is one of the most vibrant and entrepreneurial centres of innovation outside the Silicon Valley and has the most number of companies listed on NASDAQ other than the U.S. itself. He added that Israel is able to achieve this feat because it took in talented Jews from all over the world, then in the 1990s an influx of one million highly educated Russian Jews after the former Soviet Union collapsed. The Prime Minister's use of Israel as an example for Singapore to emulate is not only inappropriate, but factually erroneous as well. The socio-political context of Israel is completely different from Singapore and therefore it cannot be used as a useful yardstick for us to compare with. When Israel was founded in 1948 following the partition of British Palestine, it had only a population of 800,000, half of which are Arabs before the majority of them are expelled from its land. Israel had the smallest population in the Middle East. Being surrounded by hostile Arab nations, it had no choice but to open its doors to immigration and welcome Jews from all over the world. For Israel, immigration is a matter of political necessity to ensure the survival of their fledging nation, but this is not in the case of Singapore which does not face any serious external threats from our neighbors. Jews from Europe, especially the Soviet Union emigrated en masse to Israel not because it was the promised land, but because anti-semitism which was still prevalent in the post-war years made it difficult for them to continue living in their native lands of birth. The influx of new migrants boosted Israel's population from 1 million to 3 million between the years 1950 and 1970. Prime Minister compared the Jewish immigrants to Israel to our own immigrants which is again completely out off the tangent. A foreign Jew will encounter less difficulties integrating into Jewish society than a mainland Chinese settling down in Singapore. The Jews are united by the same religion, language, culture and ethnic tragedy in the form of the Holocaust. They had a lot in common to work together for the sake of their new nation unlike some of Singapore's immigrants who has no love or affinity for the country. Israel's sizable economic presence in the United States is not due to its open-door immigration policy, but because of the influence of the Jewish community which pre-exists the founding of the Zionist state of Israel. Jews had been emigrating from Europe to the United States since the 18th century and over time, they form a powerful commerce and trading community with their fingers in every pie of the economy from railways, healthcare, arms and foreign trade. Following Hitler's persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany, many more fled Europe to the U.S.A. bringing with them their money, business connections and expertise. One of these Jews was Albert Einstein whose work led to the discovery of the atomic bomb which helped end World War II. In case Mr Lee did not know, the Jews, like the Chinese, are expert businessmen and entrepreneurs because they have been depending on trade for survival since the time of Christ. The Jewish diaspora controlled the economies of almost every country in the world where they were a sizable minority which made them the convenient target of anti-semitics even today. Israel's success as a nation is attributed more to the Jews' inherent qualities as a race rather than its immigration policies which is highly selective. Perhaps Mr Lee resorted only to using Israel as an example because he simply cannot find another country in the world with such a liberal immigration policy like Singapore where foreigners are allowed entry indiscriminately with scant regard for the interests of its citizens.  Read More →

From our Correspondent For a third time in a week, HDB was forced to issue another blanket reassurance to disgruntled Singaporeans that HDB flats remained affordable except this time, the letter to the Straits Times Forum was not penned by its Deputy CEO, but two deputy directors from HDB and URA. The writers claimed that the government is committed to ensuring that public housing remains affordable to the majority of Singaporeans through "proper targeting of subsidies and calibrating supply to match demand." The income ceiling ensures that the Government's limited public housing subsidies are given to those who need them more. At the current ceiling, about eight out of 10 Singaporean households qualify for housing subsidies. What was not mentioned that the income ceiling of $8,000 was put in place 15 years ago in 1994 and it does not factor in the fluctuating bank interests, change in income and inflation over the years. It also does not answer the key question whether a couple will have sufficient savings left in their CPF for their retirement at the end of the thirty year tenure. They added that those with higher incomes can buy HDB resale flats, where there is a wide range to suit varying budgets. For example, if a household with a monthly income of $10,000 buys a five-room resale flat in a non-mature estate at the average price of $364,000, only about 15 per cent of their income is needed to service the loan. It is glaring that the two HDB officers are not even aware of the prices in the present market. The prices they quoted are probably garnered from data released 3 months ago. At this moment, it is difficult,if not impossible to buy a 5-room resale flat at this price. 5-room resale flats in prime areas like Toa Payoh, Bishan and Ang Mo Kio are asking for prices close to $400,000 and beyond while those in Yishun and Clementi at around $350,000. This figure is not inclusive of the exorbitant COVs that sellers are asking which can range from between $10,000 to $50,000. A 3-room flat in Toa Payoh was transacted recently with a COV of $70,000! (Lianhe Wanbao, 14 Sept 2009) The value of a 5-room unit at Duxton@Pinnacle has now shot up to more than $600,000 which is comparable to prices of condominiums in the surburbs. Even similiar-sized BTO flats being built at Punggol are priced at around $350,000. (HDB Infoweb) The gap between public and private housing have narrowed in recent years. Some larger HDB flats in the central districts command a price higher mass market homes. Surely public housing should be considerably cheaper than those built by the private developers? The deluge of letters questioning the pricing system of HDB as well as imploring the government to bring down the prices is a reflection of the general scepticism among the populace towards the government's persistent assertation that HDB flats are "affordable" which are beginning to sound empty, hollow and even amusing for it it is contrarian to reality on the ground. It is obvious that both HDB and the people are talking about different yardsticks of assessing housing affordability all along. What is deemed affordable by HDB is a mere arbitrary figure which does not translate to affordability to the buyers purchasing the flats. The government should take active measures to bring down the prices of HDB flats which it is entirely capable of doing so since it enjoys a complete monopoly in the public housing sector instead of repeating its official mantra - "HDB flats remain affordable" again and again like a parrot which few Singaporeans now even bother to listen judging from the barrage of questions and protests going around in the last few weeks.  Read More →

By Eugene Yeo, Consultant Editor [In this classic five-part series, Eugene Yeo will examine the inherent weaknesses of the ruling PAP, its implications for Singapore and possible scenarios in the post-LKY era.] PM Lee: Will he be a Chiang Ching Kuo or Kim Jong IL? In modern-day Asia, there are only two political leaders who manage to pass their positions directly to their sons. The first "dynastic succession" occurred in Taiwan in 1975 when Chiang Ching Kuo succeeded his father Chiang Kai Shek as President. The second happened in North Korea 19 years later following the demise of Kim IL Sung who managed to make his son Kim Jong IL the de facto leader of the country. Mr Lee Hsien Loong, like both men, are sons of founding fathers of their respective nations. Is he a reformer in the mold of Chiang or a conservative like Kim who is only interested in perpetuating his party's political hegemony? Chiang Ching Kuo wasn't a liberal or democrat to begin with. When he was the Director of Taiwan's secret police, many political dissidents were arrested and make to "disappear" overnight. He once told an American journalist that the main reason why the Kuomintang (KMT) lost the civil war to the Chinese communists was because they didn't kill enough people. During the last 18 months of Chiang's rule, he did something unexpected: he lifted martial law over Taiwan and liberalized the political landscape. Opposition political parties were allowed to form. The media ceased to become the mouthpiece of the KMT. The police was made to account to the state rather than to the party. Most importantly, he handpicked a reformist Lee Teng Hui to succeed him rather than to pass his position to his (illegimate) son John Chiang. Before his death, Chiang Ching Kuo introduced a series of reform which would usher in democracy for Taiwan and change its course of history forever. Taiwan today is a shining example of a vibrant democracy in a Chinese-speaking nation. Will Mr Lee follow the footsteps of Chiang? A pivotal moment in Singapore's history We are now standing at the crossroads of history and Mr Lee has the unique opportunity to determine the political future of Singapore: will it become a first world democracy or continue as a third world one-party dictatorship which does not commensurate with its lofty status as one of the wealthiest nation in Asia. At this moment, the power of the state is still largely concentrated in the hands of the ruling party and that of its leader. Mr Lee will have all the necessary clout and resources he need to initiate reforms at both the party and state level to make our political system more competitive, accountable and transparent. While the ruling party has no obligation to promote the growth of the opposition in Singapore, it is its duty to ensure a level playing field for all in strict accordance to our Constitution instead of manipulating it to maintain and perpetuate its rule. Mr Lee has introduced a series of reforms lately to allow more alternative voices in Parliament, but this is hardly enough. The system is still tipped in favor of the incumbent. Urgent reforms are needed to level the playing field for all parties, be it the ruling or opposition parties so that each will have an equal opportunity to make their views heard and to represent the people who voted for them in Parliament. Whether Singapore is better off having a one-party or multi-party system is not for PM Lee to decide, but for the people of Singapore to decide. Reforms at the party level: 1. Prevent concentration of power: Set an age limit, e.g. 65 for CEC members to prevent party elders from retaining power longer than it is necessary to ensure a proper system of party renewal and succession. CEC members above the age limit should be barred automatically in contesting in party elections to make way for younger leaders. 2. Promote intra-party democracy: All the top party posts as well as positions on the CEC should be opened for competition. An aspiring candidate for the position of the Secretary-General, for example, must be able to garner enough nominations from the party cadres before he/she is allowed to contest for it. 3. Permit freedom of criticism within party ranks: Party cadres should be given the freedom to criticize party leaders without any restrictions. A feedback system should be put in place to promote exchanges between the senior and junior leadership. 4. Grooming of young leaders: Potential MP and minister candidates should be given leadership positions in the party first to allow them time to establish their own support base as well as to familiarize themselves with the party setup and modus operandi instead of simply being "parachuted" into important senior positions after the elections. 5. Devolution of power: Branch secretaries should be allowed a bigger say in the running of party affairs in their respective constituencies such as recruitment of new members, hosting of events and other activities. Reforms at the state level 1. Abolish the GRC system: The GRC system should be abolished completely and revert back to the single ward system which has served Singapore so well before 1988. Ethnic minorities will not lose out in representation at the Parliamentary level. The late opposition leader J.B. Jeyaretnam won twice in the Chinese-majority ward of Anson against Chinese opponents. PAP candidates must fight the electoral battle on their own instead of hiding behind the coat-tails of ministers. If they cannot even stand and fight on their own feet, then they do not deserve to be in Parliament in the first place. 2. Remove draconian laws curbing civil liberties: Under Article 14 of the Singapore Constitution, Singaporeans are guaranteed of the freedom of speech and assembly. Singaporeans should be permitted to organize rallies, gatherings and protests at any parts of the island subjected to the same regulations as outlined for similar activities at Hong Lim Park currently, e.g. no speeches on racial or religious issues. The police are most welcome to maintain public order and discipline, but at no time should they be allowed to interfere with the event. Singaporeans must be given the freedom to criticize and even curse their leaders openly in public without any fear of reprisals. 3. Liberalize the media: SPH should be made an illegal entity under the an anti-monopoly law and forced to break up into two or three separate units to be privatized and run entirely by businessmen with no links to the ruling party. Local journalists should be allowed to report, write and comment freely on political affairs without being harrassed, sued or arrested. The foreign media's opinions are welcomed as well. In fact, a new law should be passed to prevent leaders of any political parties from holding a majority stake in any mass media companies. 4. Lower the damages for defamation laws: Singapore has one of the highest, if not the highest "damages" in the world being rewarded given for civil defamation. In some cases, the plaintiffs don't even need to prove their case in court to obtain a huge settlement via a summary judgement. The amount of compensation given should be moderated to ensure that justice is served while not overly punishing the offenders to the extent of bankrupting them. For example, when ex-Taiwanese President Chen Shui Bian sued a KMT legislator for defamation in 2003, he was awarded only a token $NT1 by the judge. 5. Role of police: The police should adopt a hands-off approach towards politics and be fair to all parties, be it the incumbent or the opposition. As long the laws are not broken, opposition politicians should be permitted to carry on their political activities freely without any undue monitoring, harrassment or intimidation. The secret police should not be involved in conducting background checks on opposition candidates without applying the same level of scrutiny to those from the ruling party too. Chance for PM Lee to make history SM Goh said recently that PM Lee is now scouting for a potential successor to take over him. PM Lee is already 55 years old this year. He can probably continue leading the nation for another good 10 years. What legacy does PM Lee want to leave behind for future generations of Singapore? He still has ample time to reform the system to bequeath a truly "democratic society built on justice and equality" to his successor. If he reform and liberalize the political system now to allow a strong alternative to emerge to challenge the PAP, it may well be kicked out of power like what happened to the KMT in the year 2000. However, he will be leaving behind a strong, robust and accountable system with proper checks and balances to prevent a rogue leader from abusing his power just like how the Taiwanese system managed to show up the corrupted ways of its ex-President Chen Shui Bian. If he does nothing and continue to entrench the PAP in all institutions of the state, Singaporeans will have to pray very hard that no Chen Shui Bian will ever become the Prime Minister of Singapore one day for there will be no way for anybody to remove him via legal channels. In Part 4 of this article, I quoted MM Lee as saying that (western) democracy is incompatible with Asian society. He has been proven wrong already. All over Asia, dictatorships and one-party autocracies are crumbling to make way for vibrant multi-party democracies like Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Malaysia and Indonesia. The father of modern China, Sun Yat-Sen once said: "Those who go against the trends of the world will soon find themselves becoming irrelevant". PM Lee should know better what the current global trends are - is it towards greater democratization or autocratization. Reforming the PAP and the state to allow for more political competition and pluralism will not only benefit the opposition, but the PAP as well. After 50 years in power with a track record that few political parties in the world can boast of, the PAP should have the confidence in its own capability to win an election fairly without having to depend on the sycophantic media to demolish the opposition or the use of defamation lawsuits to cripple its adversaries. Giving some space for a genuine alternative political elite to emerge and grow in Singapore will give us a backup in the wings ready to replace the PAP should it become corrupted one day. That will be the best gift and legacy that PM Lee can leave behind for Singaporeans: a tested, robust and vigilant system to ensure that only honest, upright and capable people are allowed into the august house of Singapore's Parliament. Other articles in the series: >> Part 1: An ossified internal structure >> Part 2: A disjointed party support base >> Part 3: Lack of leaders in a team of technocrats >> Part 4: Implications for Singapore Other articles by Eugene Yeo: >> An analysis of the UBS study (Part 1): Singapore has the lowest wages and domestic purchasing power among Asian Tigers >> An analysis of the UBS study (Part3): Paupers in a first world economy >> Singapore’s limits: An unthinking and unquestioning citizenry >> Singapore’s limits: The curse of the GDP EDITORS’ NOTE: If you like our work and would like to support us, please transfer your donations via paypal to our account ([email protected]). Any amount will be greatly appreciated! Alternatively you can help us boost our advertising revenue by clicking on the ads displayed on our site. Thank you! Join our tweet at: http://www.twitter.com/temasekreview Join our facebook at: http://www.facebook.com and search for "Temasek Review"  Read More →