TR EMERITUS

From our Correspondent For the third time in as many weeks, National Development Minister Mr Mah Bow Tan had issued another blanket reassurance that HDB flats remained "affordable", this time round in reply to questions from his own party MPs in Parliament. Jessica Tan, MP for East Coast GRC asked if HDB is helping to ensure affordability of resale HDB flats for first time couples. Mr Mah said: "HDB has a flat for every budget. At every income level, there are flats available, there is a choice whether it is new or resale, whether it is in the mature estate or non-mature estate. But there must be trade offs. The trade off is if you want to be in a mature estate, you have to look for a smaller flat. Therefore, when we say that HDB flats are affordable, we are not talking in abstract, we are talking in real terms." Perhaps Mr Mah is not aware of the fact that new flats in far-flung areas like Punggol are now fetching prices of above $300,000. For couples with a combined income of more than $8,000, they will have no choice but to buy a resale flat which may be more than 20 years old and yet have to find an exorbitant COV in order to secure it. Dr Lim Wee Kiak, MP for Sembawang GRC asked if there is any alternative to the COV. He said: "The question is that 'is the cash over valuation system still the best system that we have or can we think of alternative to this cash over valuation system?' Many people are CPF rich but cash poor when they want to buy a flat." Mr Mah explained that cash over valuation was not unique to HDB flats, but part and parcel of today's property transactions - whether private or public. "Buyers can choose not to pay a cash over valuation. And in fact, the latest data shows that almost one third of transactions today are transacted at or below the valuation. So cash over valuation is not a forgone conclusion. It's not evident for all transactions." he explained. Mr Mah's data is probably gathered 3 months ago which does not reflect the reality on the ground right now. According to a Lianhe Wanbao report, the COVs for 3 and 4 room flats have doubled over the last 2 months to a record high of $20,000 on average. Mr Mah also advises flat buyers is not to simply cough up the Cash Over Valuation when asked for by sellers or agents, but shop around and get the best deal for their preferred flat. In such an inflationary market, will buyers still have time to wait and scout around when prices are high almost everywhere and is likely to rise by another 1 to 2% at the end of the year? For couples who have registering to get married, they will have to buy their matrimonial homes as soon as possible unless they put up with their parents for the time-being. Parliament is becoming more like a "Question and Answer" session where MPs field questions for ministers to answer. There is little or no debate at all. Unlike in other democracies where their ministers are grilled for every single nitty-gritty detail and trivialities, Singapore ministers arrive in Parliament with their answers prepared. No wonder Mr Mah doesn't find it tiring to repeat the same answer again and again - HDB flats are affordable. After all, the mainstream media will simply parrot his answer without any analysis, there is no opposition in Parliament to make life difficult for him and Singaporeans. Singaporeans will only complain to one another secretly in private.  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.] The Singapore model of government which was characterized by a high degree of efficiency with minimal fuss was often referred to by admirers and detractors alike as "Singapore inc". The entire government is run along the lines of a major corporate company with the Prime Minister as the CEO and the ministers as directors of various departments. With literally no opposition to speak of, Parliament became a mere "board meeting" to rubber-stamp decisions already made by the party honchos. Of course this definition of "Singapore inc" is pretty narrow as it includes the mammoth bureaucracy and various government-linked companies connected in an intricate network of mutual interests and relations. After 50 years of uninterrupted rule, the PAP has become the de facto government in Singapore and as the boundary between party and state becomes increasingly blurred, the political aspect of governance is relegated to the backdrop as ministers are handpicked from outside the party and parachuted almost immediately into their respective positions in government. In a typical political party like the British Conservative Party, minister-wannabes usually spend the early years of their political careers learning the ropes, gaining experience, building bridges and soliciting grassroots support in the lower rungs of the party hierarchy. They will have to prove themselves as capable political leaders within the party first before they are allowed to assume positions in the government (in the event their party win the general elections). The current PAP bypasses this essential route for budding politicians due to a weak party support base probably kept in this way deliberately by the senior leaders to pre-empt a challenge to their leadership from young turks in the party. Hence they are besieged by a perennial leadership crisis in which they have to resort to recruiting "talent" from outside the party. The PAP's definition of "talent" is based chiefly on one's academic qualification, profession and status in society which explains their fondness for lawyers, doctors, engineers and senior civil servants. However, while these "talents" may be excellent leaders in their respective occupations, they may not necessarily good politicians. A political leader is different from a CEO of a company. Governing a nation is not the same as running a business. Not only must a political leader be equipped with the basic credentials on paper, he/she must possess the uncanny ability to understand the concerns on the ground, communicate with the people and to inspire a generation to follow his/her leadership. Some are born to be politicians while others are not, but what is certain is that all will need to have their political skills and acumen trained and honed by passing through the school of life and unfortunately, given the undemocratic nature of the PAP and Singapore's political landscape, there is dearth of astute, intelligent and empathetic politicians in Singapore who can connect with the ground and lead the government bureaucracy at the same time. The present PAP cabinet is full of technocrats, but short of political leaders. MM Lee, having gone through the baptism of fire is perhaps the only minister with real political experience. Technocrats are good followers, capable administrators and they can get things done quickly, but they are hardly the type of leaders who will capture the attention of the masses and motivate them to work for a worthy cause. The lack of political training and experience is a key reason why PAP leaders have been making so many insensitive comments, outrageous gaffes and callous statements in public much to the amusement and fury of the citizenry. From Prime Minister Lee's infamous "fix the opposition" Freudian slip, Charles Chong's deplorable "lesser mortal" and Tharman's hilarious "strategic purpose" which would have caused politicians elsewhere to be cruxified by the people, the PAP is only saved by a combination of coincidental factors unique to Singapore - a dormant opposition, compliant media and apathetic citizenry. The PAP's current batch of MPs, especially the new recruits who did not have to face an electoral battle seriously lacked the charisma, communication skills, empathy, intelligence and most importantly, the "X-factor" of a good politician. They may be leaders in their respective professions and careers, but politics is a different ballgame altogether. As they face no formidable challenges from the opposition, media or the people, they do not have the opportunity to hone their political skills. MM Lee said recently that "political leaders cannot be trained, but must be found and be people with passion." (Channel News Asia, 2 September 2009). He is only partly correct. Some are born politicians while others are forced to become politicians by the surrounding circumstances. In his early days as a politician, MM Lee was outshadowed by his party colleague Lim Chin Siong who was a passionate and fiery orator. It was he who won over the Chinese support base for the PAP, enabling the PAP to win the legislative council elections in 1959. Being English educated and spending 3 out of the last 10 years in Britain, Harry Lee was not proficient in Mandarin and Hokkien, the lingua franca of Singapore in the 1950s. Lee became a strong, authoritarian and some would say oppressive leader because he had to fight for his own political survival after being forced into a corner by the communists and leftists within the PAP who almost caused the government to collapse when 13 of them left to form the Barisan Sosialists. Without these traumatic experiences, Lee would never grow and develop as a political leader. According to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, only the fittest will survive in nature and similiarly in the cruel world of politics, only the most talented, capable and astute politicians will make their mark on history. There is a Chinese saying: "Heroes are created by time and circumstances." Lee himself is a product of the tumultuous period in Singapore's history when a strong leader was needed to lift it out of political chaos and anarchy. He was the right person at the right place and time. The PAP's current leaders are like caged birds who have never flown in the sky as they did not go through the baptism of fire like the first generation leaders. To compound matters, there is no opposition for them to pit their skills against in Parliament. Without the intellectual rigors of parliamentary debates to stimulate their minds, many of them become inflexible, ossified and one-dimensional in their thoughts. Likewise, the lack of any challenge to their positions mean that they can take the Singaporeans for granted without paying a political price for it. They do not have to court the people for their votes since they are almost guaranteed to win either via walkovers or safe seats in GRCs. Even in one-to-one fights, the opposition candidate is often of such low calibre that he/she will not pose a serious threat at all. They do not have to be equipped with excellent communication and PR skills when dealing with the media because Singapore journalists will never dare to contradict or rebuke them. In the rare instances when a public gaffe is made, the faithful journalist can be expected to take the rap for "misquoting" their words since they are paid by SPH, a state-linked company. That's why when our Prime Minister was interviewed by the western media, he always appeared awkward, uncomfortable and unnatural. Unlike the local media, foreign journalists usually minced no words in their questions which can be rather sharp, acerbic and cruel. Our PAP MPs are highly protected "endangered species" in Singapore. Any forms of public display of disrespect or contempt for them will be immediately stamped out with the culprit being arrested and charged for a plethora of laws such as illegal assembly, rioting, harrassement, threatening a public official etc. Not too long ago, a mentally retarded teenager who slammed a chair against the glass door of a RC during a meeting with a PAP MP was arrested by the police on the same night though nobody was injured and no property was damaged. To spare the rod will spoil the child. How can the PAP expect its MPs to be trained as politicians when they are so pampered in such an artifically coistered environment without any challenges or dangers? The lack of real political leaders among the younger MPs and ministers will mean that the old guards have to hang around longer than they should to help them learn the ropes. However, few will find a government led by group of octagenarians like the ex-Soviet Union inspiring. Even the Chinese Communist Party have set a limit to ages of their Politburo leaders. Under ex Paramount leader Deng Xiaoping, an unwritten rule was introduced that the leaders more than the age of 70 will have to retire from all positions of public office "gracefully" out of their own personal accords which he personally led by example (though he held on to the coveted position of the Chairman of the Central Military Commission). Singapore has produced many successful corporate leaders, technocrats and civil servants, but it has few capable politicians to speak of because of the politically apathetic environment in general, a disinterested and nonchalant citizenry, a controlled media and a system which does not promote political competition. The PAP is facing a major leadership crisis that is largely of its own doing. The ruling elite want to find obedient, permissive and compliant "leaders" who are smart, capable and motivated at the same time, but this is simply impossible because real political leaders are their own men. They have their own ideas, visions and principles and they will never bend over to the will of others. Such a "leader" does not exist in reality at all. On the other hand, if the PAP leadership were to appoint somebody with an independent streak to take over the reins of the party, it may risk internal turmoil because he may want to change certain rules and regulations which may affect the vested interests and legacy of some people. Either way, the PAP's crisis is Singapore's crisis because it has dominated all institutions of Singapore to the extent that there are no viable alternatives waiting in the wings of the opposition to replace them. If the PAP should fail, then Singapore will surely fail for the party has entrenched itself deeply in all aspects of the state which cannot function without orders from the party. In a way, the PAP is a victim of its own overwhelming success in maintaining and perpetuating its political hegemony over the years to the exclusion of its opponents and the eradication of any space for the meaningful expression of political dialogue, discourse and dissent in Singapore. As ex-Malaysian Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad once said, the opposition is like a mirror for the government to see its own flaws. Without a robust, strong and credible opposition to check on it, the PAP has grown complacent, arrogant and confused after years of one-party rule for there is nowhere else in Singapore now for them to hear the brutal truth of their own deficiencies. The MPs are all yes-men, the media dare not criticize or offend them and no Singaporean will show any form of disrespect to them in public. Such a surreal scenario which masks the fault lines of our society does not bode well for Singapore's future. What will become of the PAP when the real power behind the throne finally passed on? Given its entrenched position, it will probably manage to continue its rule for a number of years. Singapore will still retain its economic superiority over its neigbhors while losing its slight edge now over its nearest competitors Hong Kong and Taiwan, but its inherent social tensions and divisions will worsen, caused partly by a government filled by technocrats who are grossly out of touch by the reality on the ground. Other articles in the series: >> Part 1: An ossified internal structure >> Part 2: A disjointed party support base 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  Read More →

From South China Morning Post The trial of Taiwan's former president Chen Shui-bian was also a test of its young democracy, and it passed with only average grades, long-time observers of the island said. The Taipei District Court on Friday found 58-year-old Chen guilty of embezzling state funds, laundering money, accepting bribes and committing forgery. Questions remain over whether his life sentence was a sign of a healthy legal system in which everyone is equal before the law, or if it marked the birth pangs of a banana republic with the courts reduced to tools in the hands of the powerful. "One may see a banana republic," said Professor Murray Rubinstein, an expert on Taiwan at Baruch College, New York, who has written several books on the island's politics. "But I remain an optimist and see it all as a painful learning curve - and this trial is just the latest step in this process." Chen's sentencing marked the climax of the most controversial trial in the history of Taiwan, which emerged from authoritarian rule less than a generation ago but is now a vibrant democracy, with what most consider an independent judiciary. That judiciary did what it was designed to in the Chen case, but could have done much better, said Lin Feng-cheng, director of Taiwan's Judicial Reform Foundation, a non-governmental organisation. "The case shows that nobody is above the law and that even a former president can be tried under Taiwan's judicial system, which is progress for the rule of law," said Lin. "However, there were many problems during the investigation and trial, especially regarding Chen's detention." While Chen himself has called the trial against him and his wife an act of revenge carried out by political opponents, some analysts have difficulties discerning an outright vendetta. "The investigation was launched and prosecution of his wife was started while Chen was president," said Professor Jerome Cohen at New York University's School of Law. "He would have been indicted while president if the law had not barred prosecution of a sitting president." But Cohen argued that the way the court handled the case was open to criticism, citing a "disturbing" mid-trial switch to a judge often accused of being biased against Chen. In a letter to Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou early this year, nearly 30 international scholars warned "the erosion of the judicial system" could jeopardise Chen's right to a fair trial. "Taiwan's judicial system must be not only above suspicion but even above the appearance of suspicion, of partiality and political bias," the letter said. Under Taiwanese law, a sentence of life in jail is automatically appealed, and the new trial would be a chance for the system to make up for past shortcomings, observers said. "One hopes the second-instance trial ... will redo the case in a way that will lead people to believe that evil has been punished in a fair and proper way," Cohen said. Legal experts have called for Chen's release from detention so he can prepare his defence in a more unhindered manner than has been the case so far. "The High Court should give Chen a fair chance to defend himself when he appeals the ruling but this will be very difficult if he is still in custody," Lin said. The Democratic Progressive Party, which Chen belonged to, said on Saturday that it hoped there would be no repeat of the "many flaws and disputes that violated due process during the first trial". From South China Morning Post The trial of Taiwan's former president Chen Shui-bian was also a test of its young democracy, and it passed with only average grades, long-time observers of the island said. The Taipei District Court on Friday found 58-year-old Chen guilty of embezzling state funds, laundering money, accepting bribes and committing forgery. Questions remain over whether his life sentence was a sign of a healthy legal system in which everyone is equal before the law, or if it marked the birth pangs of a banana republic with the courts reduced to tools in the hands of the powerful. "One may see a banana republic," said Professor Murray Rubinstein, an expert on Taiwan at Baruch College, New York, who has written several books on the island's politics. "But I remain an optimist and see it all as a painful learning curve - and this trial is just the latest step in this process." Chen's sentencing marked the climax of the most controversial trial in the history of Taiwan, which emerged from authoritarian rule less than a generation ago but is now a vibrant democracy, with what most consider an independent judiciary. That judiciary did what it was designed to in the Chen case, but could have done much better, said Lin Feng-cheng, director of Taiwan's Judicial Reform Foundation, a non-governmental organisation. "The case shows that nobody is above the law and that even a former president can be tried under Taiwan's judicial system, which is progress for the rule of law," said Lin. "However, there were many problems during the investigation and trial, especially regarding Chen's detention." While Chen himself has called the trial against him and his wife an act of revenge carried out by political opponents, some analysts have difficulties discerning an outright vendetta. "The investigation was launched and prosecution of his wife was started while Chen was president," said Professor Jerome Cohen at New York University's School of Law. "He would have been indicted while president if the law had not barred prosecution of a sitting president." But Cohen argued that the way the court handled the case was open to criticism, citing a "disturbing" mid-trial switch to a judge often accused of being biased against Chen. In a letter to Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou early this year, nearly 30 international scholars warned "the erosion of the judicial system" could jeopardise Chen's right to a fair trial. "Taiwan's judicial system must be not only above suspicion but even above the appearance of suspicion, of partiality and political bias," the letter said. Under Taiwanese law, a sentence of life in jail is automatically appealed, and the new trial would be a chance for the system to make up for past shortcomings, observers said. "One hopes the second-instance trial ... will redo the case in a way that will lead people to believe that evil has been punished in a fair and proper way," Cohen said. Legal experts have called for Chen's release from detention so he can prepare his defence in a more unhindered manner than has been the case so far. "The High Court should give Chen a fair chance to defend himself when he appeals the ruling but this will be very difficult if he is still in custody," Lin said. The Democratic Progressive Party, which Chen belonged to, said on Saturday that it hoped there would be no repeat of the "many flaws and disputes that violated due process during the first trial". Source: South China Morning Post  Read More →