TR EMERITUS

As Singaporeans faced yet another unjustificable slew of price increases in essential utilities this month – electricity tariffs and water – many are left wondering if both the companies are caught in the red resulting in the price increase. On the contrary, for example, SP group has made an average net profit of almost $1 billion each year for the past 13 years but it has raised electricity tariff again – the third time this year of a hefty 16.8% in total raising doubts about its rationale. There is also no tenable reason given on why it raises the price of both the essential services as electricity and water are household daily usages that no one can do without. In short, there is no need to explain why it has to raise prices as there is no one to account to except its loss-making major shareholders Temasek Holdings. The government also tries to pacify the population by giving back an average of $300 in GST voucher to 1.6 million needy Singaporeans earning $28,000/ year and below but this is small change compared to the increase in monthly utilities bills they have to pay. With the increase, each household is expected to pay an average of 6-8% more in utilities on a permanent monthly basis compared to the one-off GST voucher to be handed out early next month. So why does a intelligent-sounding government like ours kept increasing the cost of essential services that will naturally infuriate the average population though it has being making profits all along? Moreover, there is actually nothing much to gain from the percentage increase other than another tens of millions added to the two utilities’ giant coffers but to the average Joe earning less than $2000/month, it will definitely eat into the household’s consumable income. They will have less to spend on the kids’ Macdonald outing, no more movies during the weekend or trips to the zoo. More significantly, its ability to be financially independent is crippled due to the tightening grip of the government on household expenditure. One feasible reason we can think of the government’s move is in the politics of control. The more the country is in the firm grip of a totalitarian government, the more it will feel that it has no power to free itself of resulting in less personal empowerment to change things individually. Alice LoCicero, a Cambridge-based clinical psychologist and researcher on leadership and terrorism says: “It’s easier to understand why it’s adaptive and common for people to bond to powerful leaders. In Darwinian evolution, the people who bonded with the leader survived. That instinct got passed along.” We saw that here when many young professionals join the RC or CCC in the overt attempt to associate themselves with the ruling party so as to gain some flavour from that close association. Thus, according to LoCicero, the more power a government holds over it’s people, the more they will feel powerless without the elements in control. They have effectively surrender whatever individual rights they have to the rulers sometimes voluntarily and often blindly without knowing the devastating result it has on totalitarianism. Dictators like Hitler, Stalin and Gaddafi all enjoyed tremendous popularity with their subjects despite their autocratic ways and merciless purging of dissent. Millions died at their hands but yet people still adore them sometimes blindly. We also witnessed how the country went into a nationalistic mourning when Lee Kuan Yew passed away and though he is not in the tyrannical mould of Hitler or Stalin he is certainly no true democratic ruler. Nevertheless, our government has so far control everything in our lives and has made a living hell out of many people. For example, there is no minimum wage so people could not earn a decent living – another stripping-off of personal empowerment as the population struggles to survive in the world’s costliest city without any reprieve in sight. So, the safer way to survive is to conform and play along and left the dangerous role of implementing changes to the few heroic ones. If everybody is to earn sufficient wages and live decently, the need to depend on the government’s periodical welfare hand-out will be lessened as there is no need to depend on them anymore effectively loosening the grip of the rulers on its subjects. Giving out cash vouchers regularly is a cheap but effective vote-buying strategy and for the poor it is something that they will think of before casting their votes during election. More than 15% of our population (estimated 300,000) live below the poverty line i.e $1500/month income and below and giving out money prior to a general election is a tried-and-tested way of getting in the votes and it is no wonder why the PAP is not keen on really trying to improve the livelihood of our working poor. Thus, in a cruel attempt at total control, PAP has no desire to really improve the livelihood of the population and the poor struggles to get out of poverty often pushing them to the feeble welfare arms of social services to make ends meet. Besides weakening the poor’s personal empowerment at looking for a permanent change, it also drove them to the ones that could temporarily improve their condition abeit momentarily by way of cash freebies. Nevertheless, totalitarianism also has its own personal appeal to the population as it leaves everything in control to the ruler – decades of absolute power means the people know nothing about exercising its personal right and often they witnessed how opponents are mercilessly crushed resulting in a climate of fear. You will always find a voter who has cursed at the ruling party vehemently because of certain policies but yet they will cast their vote for the incumbent come polling day! Repression is a multi-feared tool aims at repressing dissent so invaluable for regime change as it takes massive ground reaction to trigger change. Many non-Singaporeans marvelled at the high percentage votes the ruling party receives for the last election even though hundreds of thousands of foreigners were allowed in to snatch away jobs from Singaporeans and the high cost of living has affected many people resulting in a mini exodus to JB. In fact, many of the poor who are left suffering from the many erroneous policies of the government voted them back in for another five more years of pain and turmoil as they could not see how they can find another better alternative than the current totalitarian regime they are so used to. Thus, total control is psychological and sometimes it is so ingrained that to escape from its grip is unthinkable. Propaganda has also driven a country to believe that without the PAP, our country will be in shambles and left to perish. We see them day in and out on our TV channels and gradually people start to believe that without the PAP our country will suffer. Nevertheless, the recent regime change in Malaysia provided us with a glimmer of hope that if the people unite and rise up together, change is still possible! Right now, we just have to suffer along with the majority who is still swayed by a totalitarian government and let’s hope that it won’t be for too long…   Gilbert Goh   * The author is the founder of Transitioning.Org, a support site for the unemployed.      Read More →

The Pakran Harapan government has fulfilled yet another of its election promises to Malaysian voters, as the controversial Anti-Fake News Act passed by the Barisan Nasional government shortly before Malaysia's 14th General Election in May 2018 has been scrapped. Under the Anti-Fake News Act, those found guilty of spreading what the authorities deemed as fake news could be jailed for up to six years and fined up to RM500,000 (S$164,000). After gaining power, the PH government had tried to pass a Bill to repeal the Anti-Fake News in the Dewan Rakyat (the lower house of Parliament) in August 2018. However, it hit a roadblock after the opposition-controlled Dewan Negara (upper house of Parliament) later rejected it. As there was a “cooling-off period” of one year under Article 68 of Malaysia’s Federal Constitution, the bill to repeal the Anti-Fake News was tabled again in October 2019. This time round, the bill was passed when 92 MPs voted for the law to be abolished, while 51 were against it. Mohamed Hanipa Maidin, a Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister's Department, said: “We cannot enslave humans through draconian laws because freedom is the most precious thing." He added that the existing laws were adequate to tackle fake news and could be amended should they be found insufficient. Meanwhile, the POFMA in Singapore has been decried internationally. The Paris-based Reporters Without Borders said that it is “is appalled by the totalitarian aspects of Singapore’s new, highly controversial ‘anti-fake news’ law and decried its use in ordering corrections” to Facebook posts. Similarly, the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists, which called it a “clear and present danger to online press freedom.” What do you think?  Read More →

Singapore’s Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat was introduced to his fellow countrymen as the chosen successor to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong at the end of 2018. For many, the announcement seemed counter-intuitive given the many indicators suggesting he was not the right fit. Heng gained entry to top universities via Singapore’s opaque government scholarship system. He then held senior positions in both the civil service and the Cabinet. His record of achievement, however, reflects hard work and competence rather than political flare or initiative. He is a poor public speaker and, fairly or not, is burdened with a ‘geeky’ technocratic image. Topping it off, he suffered a massive stroke during a cabinet meeting in 2016 from which he only recovered through extreme medical intervention. Yet, he has the great advantage of being very close to the Lee family, having been principal private secretary to former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew for three years. 2019 was the year in which Heng set out to show that he was more than the colourless technocrat who everyone overlooked — that he was a political fighter, leader, speaker, planner, thinker and natural prime minister-in-waiting. The opportunity to prove himself arose on 1 May when both of Singapore’s deputy prime ministers — Tharman Shanmugaratnam and Teo Chee Hean — stepped down to give Heng a clear run as the sole deputy prime minister — the first time since 1995 that Singapore has managed with just one person in that role. Unfortunately, Heng’s move to centre stage proved disastrous and exposed an unexpected flaw: he is incapable of thinking on his feet — highlighted by two recent episodes. On 5 November, Prime Minister Lee gave Heng a starring role in Parliament in leading the government’s ritualised attack on two opposition MPs over their management of a town council. This should not have been a big ask given Heng has been a cabinet minister and MP since 2011.  Yet the task proved beyond Heng, who fumbled with his notes and his own argument. Most worrying for a prime-minister-in-waiting, Lee could be seen and heard coaching him through the session. Heng lost all semblance of control of his own stage when one of the targeted opposition MPs — the Workers’ Party’s Sylvia Lim — gently suggested that Heng’s motion was ‘premature’ because matters were still before the courts. It seems that Heng had not considered this line of defence and called for an adjournment so he could hold ‘consultations’ to decide how to respond. After recess, Heng passed the microphone to a more junior colleague who handled the attack much better than Heng. Less spectacularly, Heng was the guest in a public question and answer session on 1 October that was held as part of the Singapore Bicentennial Conference hosted by the Institute of Policy Studies. As often happens, it opened with a series of friendly pre-arranged questions from the chair before turning to the audience for input. But the unusual feature on this occasion was the frequency with which Heng looked to the clipboard in his lap while answering the pre-arranged questions. This was another subpar performance in what has emerged as a much broader pattern of disappointing efforts. Heng has performed adequately in senior cabinet roles so he must be credited with technocratic competence and considered a ‘safe pair of hands’. But the role of prime minister is much more political than technocratic and leaves less room to hide. Prime Minister Lee has made it known that he would like to step down by 2022 at the latest after having already pushed the date back from 2019 or 2020. Heng’s now obvious limitations must be raising doubts about the wisdom of putting him in the top job, even if it is only for a short time. Heng’s shortcomings do not put the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) in any danger of losing the next election that could be called anytime between now and April 2021. It does, however, raise the question of whether Lee will be able to carry through with his own retirement schedule without further delay. Michael Barr *Article first appeared on East Asia Forum and is republished in accordance to the Cross-Post and Re-use policy  Read More →