TR EMERITUS

Consultation Precedes Constructive Politics From the Gallery of Parliament House, ST’s Robin Chan, Asst Political Editor, reports how PM Lee’s & Low TK’s “Exchange raises questions on role of opposition” (ST 29 May). As an objective observer who calls either side to question as he sees it, not as one given to fit any report to a predetermined or preferred perspective, let’s first deconstruct Robin’s report to see what he was trying to get at. Commentary Deconstructed Three sentences into his report we read, the exchange…raised important questions for both parties, and for voters about the role of the opposition in an environment of constructive politics.” Another two paragraphs later, the WP is a substandard party, with no alternative policies, and no clear stand.” Instead, PM Lee insists WP has a responsibility to say which direction are we going and that direction has to be set clearly. It has to explain to Singaporeans what the party stands for, and that cannot simply be what the People's Action Party (PAP) is doing "and a little better…that means you have no stand," he says. Midway through; (The debate) began with President Tony Tan’s call…for constructive politics that puts the interests of the nation and people first, and where after vigorous debates, opposing parties move on together.” Then, a subtle but insinuation inserted; But WP secretary-general…turned it around, criticising the PAP Government for not creating the environment for constructive politics.” “Turned it around” meaning ‘reversed the direction’ of ‘constructive politics that puts the interests of the nation and people first’ to instead criticize the PAP. This is certainly strange since Robin omitted Low’s retort that PM Lee’s 5-factor of ‘constructive politics’ as ‘more (like) constructive dictated on the term of the PAP, rather than constructive politics in terms of the society that is moving forward’. Not only that, Low had further countered, WP is ‘a responsible opposition….after giving our view, debating it, allowing the Government to move forward, not to jam up the Government’. Exactly what the Doctor ordered, ‘after vigorous debated, opposing parties move on together’! To Robin’s credit, he accedes that, the exchange notwithstanding, what is less clear is whether the demands the PAP has made of the WP are ones that resonate with voters’. To cut to the chase, he then concludes, But eventually, the WP, to be a truly credible opposition in Parliament, must be held to the high standards of politics that Mr Lee spelt out. The question the WP has to contend with going forward, is how long more it has before voters too start to demand more of it.’ After deconstructing Robin’s report, can anyone be in any doubt at all that he is obediently taking his orders from his ‘bosses’? Whatever the PM says is it - what WP ‘has to contend with going forward’. In other words, WP must stay within the narrative that PM Lee has prescribed. Anything less is less than ‘truly credible opposition in Parliament’, less than ‘the high standards of politics that Mr Lee spelt out’. Walau! Comments – Strange Change What can we make of this new development, why PM Lee appears rather anxious to dictate as the ‘politics’ of the final half of the 12th Parliament? He turned this new page two months ago when he told Malcolm Rifkind in London, the opposition in Parliament has decided it’s politics for them not to propound policies or alternatives.” - (Chatham House, 28 Mar). He then followed that up with ‘Upholding Constructive Politics’ in Tony Tan’s Opening Address. Now, this debate. There are three things I find strange about PM Lee’s new-found interest in WP and the role of elected Opposition politicians. 1.  For as long as PM Lee has been in politics, we have not heard anything positive and can safely assume that the opposition is but a pain in the ass. A pain he has to waste time ‘fixing’ instead of time spent on governing Singapore. Strange is it not that he should now want to involve WP in ‘constructive politics’ instead of fixing them? Or, is this a lure using WP’s own First Parliament tagline? A new strategy but nonetheless fixing renewed, repackaged? 2.  Why ‘teach’ WP how to play their role in ‘constructive politics’? A foe generous with tips on how to win that same prize? When did PAP last sit on the opposition bench, 1959? How does that qualify Hsien Loong to teach WP what to do when he was no more than mummy’s 7-year old boy? Or did he consult his one MP, the only one in Parliament who shone as Opposition Leader, 1954 to 1959. Strange isn’t it to see how he thinks he’d be taken seriously advising how not to be a ‘substandard party’ in Opposition? 3.  Finally, perhaps age or the pressures of office bearing on him, he appears to disregard President Tan’s counsel, ‘the hurly-burly of politics…will weaken Singapore’ when he so determinedly presses on Low that ‘in a serious Parliament, the Government presents its policies, the opposition presents its alternatives..and that is… a First World Parliament.’ But First World Parliaments, with the de rigueur Opposition shadow cabinets and their ‘alternative policies’ are the most likely main causes of ‘short-term populist measures, and sometimes gridlock and paralysis’ as sitting governments try to argue otherwise or co-opt some aspects of the alternative policies to win over doubters. If that fails, then gridlock and paralysis ensue. Hence, so very strange that PM Lee looks hell-bent on shaping WP into such a role, no? Conclusion: Consultative Politics I am not qualified nor here to teach Low how to suck eggs; only my 2cents’ worth of 2 takeaways. One, if my foe is helpfully trying to change my strategy, then I am probably doing something right. WP should continue to let the spontaneous rise of unhappiness work its own momentum and save their limited resources for only and when it’s most needed, not more. Two, what of this rare, beautiful show of debate? But what’s the truth behind the beauty of it? Sad to say, the truth is that BOTH PM Lee and Low have left out the 3rd person in their exchanges. The truth is that both are in Parliament because the 3rd person has put them there. We the citizens are that 3rd person. The govt and the opposition can lock horns in beautiful exchanges and parlances. But the truth is that we the citizens are your raison de’tre. As such, whether it’s clean politics, confusing politics, compliant politics or constructive politics – what Singapore needs now and beyond is CONSULTATIVE POLITICS. No more ‘We decide what is right. Never mind what the people think’. If you have gotten things wrong, it’s either because you have no 20/20 foresight up or your Feedback channels and grassroots are incompetent or less than honest. So, CONSULT first. Our lives, our living and our livelihood must come first, not GDP figures - then go construct your politics constructively. 2cents * The author blogs at 2econdsight.  Read More →

Private yachts berthed outside luxury bungalows and condominium apartments at Sentosa Cove in Singapore, on Wednesday, 3 February 2010. (Photo: Munshi Ahmed/Bloomberg) (May 30, 2014 )        Singapore’s home prices will probably fall further before the housing curbs introduced in the past five years are scaled back, Standard Chartered Plc (STAN)’s Southeast Asia head said. “You would start to take away some of these measures if price growth reaches a certain level of equilibrium,” Lim Cheng Teck, chief executive officer for Asean or the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, said in an interview in Singapore yesterday. “I don’t think we are at an equilibrium yet.” The city’s private home prices dropped by the most in almost five years following a campaign that started in 2009 to curb property market speculation, with government curbs ranging from taxes on property sales, additional levies on foreign buyers and mortgage limits. Read more: www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-29/singapore-home-prices-may-drop-further-standard-chartered-says.html  Read More →

According to a survey report [Link], "Global Professionals on the Move", by global recruitment firm Hydrogen Group, Singapore has emerged to be the top Asian destination for foreign PMETs. Overall, Singapore ranks 7th in the world: Foreign PMETs looking to move abroad to pursue career opportunities have identified Singapore as their top choice in Asia, according to the report. The results were based on an online survey conducted in November 2013, comprising 2,444 responses from professionals in 99 different countries. The United States, United Kingdom and Australia continue to head the list as top destinations for professionals looking to work overseas. In Asia, Singapore came up top ahead of Hong Kong and China. This is the 5th year the Hydrogen Group is publishing the report. Over the past 5 years, the number of professionals who are currently working abroad, have already moved or are interested in relocating overseas, now stands at an estimated 235 million. The percentage of people who are willing to work abroad has risen, more than doubling from 16% to 35% for this period. Although the balance of economic power may be shifting from West to East, the majority of professionals still prefer to work in the English speaking countries of US, UK, Australia, Canada and Singapore. The report said that it will take time for the emerging countries to be seen as first choice destinations. Nearly three quarters (71%) of the professionals surveyed identified that employers value international experience and a quarter stated that international work experience improved career prospects. Many Singaporeans are questioning the quality of some of the foreign PMETs working in Singapore. Many think that the real talented ones will go to the Western countries like US and UK. What Singapore has are the 2nd and 3rd tier "foreign talents". This is echoed by Chris K, a TRE reader who works in a senior position at a global financial centre bigger than Singapore. He wrote ('Few ‘foreign talents’ are talents'): Let us look into the banking industry. The Business Times of 12 Mar 2014 reported this headline “Bank bonus in Singapore lag those in other key hubs”. The report stated that despite the low income tax rate, Singapore average bank bonus per employee lags not only behind London and New York but also Hong Kong and Sydney by a whopping 38% and 51% respectively. Now, whatever one may say about banks and their culture of greed, one thing is absolutely certain – the banks know who their talents are and these are well taken care of. The report went on to quote industry insiders that Singapore is the workhorse for the industry while the big deal and transactions are done elsewhere. Therefore the lower bonus is linked to the prevalence of low value operations functions here while the high value front office functions are mostly elsewhere. The report inference is that while Singapore may have lots of foreign banking talent by the government’s definition but that definition meant naught in the real world. The real talents are, in the main, not in Singapore. Yet another instance of the government throwing bodies at GDP growth. By now, the term foreign talent has become so commonly misused and so embedded in the mind of the unthinking that the knee jerk reaction is to view every white collar foreigner as a talent. But what does that say about Singaporeans, in relation to these FTs? If the foreigners are talents, however tenuous that word may actually mean in terms of their real abilities, then should we be satisfied to assume an equal status in the consciousness especially when many of us are better educated and more skilful. What about the FTs, of whom many regard themselves superior to Singaporeans for no other reason than being called a Foreign Talent. Let us not allow what is essentially a form of cognitive dissonance to pervade large segments of society. We can make a start by purging this insidious piece of government propaganda from our daily discourse and stop calling every foreigner we come across a Foreign Talent. Foreign worker will do just fine, thank you.  Read More →