You may have been following this blog over the past two weeks, and felt dismayed that there aren’t any new posts since May 2nd.
I will not give any excuses, fatigue has set in.
It was easy to follow and debate issues when the relevant parties have made public statements that allow readers to analyze and understand the context to which the statements are being made. For instance, when it high housing prices were brought into the public domain for discussions, we realize that the issue is linked to government mandated retirement savings (CPF) and the government’s accumulation of reserves. In this case, it leads one to suspect that the state is accumulating national reserves at the expense of citizens’ savings and retirement plans via the national policy of public housing. Policy insiders, the online community as well as the opposition parties have spent enormous amount of time putting things into perspective just so the root of the problem becomes apparent.
These few days, it became increasingly difficult to do so.
Mainstream media has led alternative media by the nose, diverting everyone from important policy issues to prominent new opposition party candidates such as Nicole Seah and Chen Show Mao. And then there was the attempt by Dr Vivian Balakrishnan to insinuate that Dr Vincent Wijeysingha wants to legalize sex with boys aged 14. Not to mention numerous one liners from the incumbent such as defining “First world parliament”, “Co-driver” and “putting on the record wanting to form a new government.” The of course most recently there is the accusation by Lim Hwee Hua that Hougang Town Council records are suspect during election rally week. Not to mention the occasional sticks and carrots approach of the MM making threats to Aljunied voters, the fear and uncertainty of a “freak” election result and municipal upgrading plans for selective constituencies.
I am tired of this bickering. The incumbents are trying very hard to divert attention away from policy mishaps that snowballed into a real disasters of epic proportions. The case is closed when angry people took the troll bait and returned with an emotional response, resulting in the issue not being discussed constructively and polarizing the ambivalent and unconscious masses from the vocal segment of the population who appear angry because they are the "losers" in the system.
It is apparent to me, and to others who are following key issues that the incumbent does not wish to discuss the externalities created by PAP policies and poor execution. Nor did the incumbent care to explain.
For years, the PAP has enjoyed an enviable relationship with its voters. Since Singapore’s independence, people look to the PAP to solve the long term economic prospects of the nation. And delivered they did, as inbound FDI created many jobs for Singaporeans. People have not stopped looking to them for new economic ideas even as the PAP’s economic performance over the last 2 decades has been less than spectacular with increasing competition from abroad. But as long as the PAP continue providing citizens with good jobs and affordable public housing, people tolerated its authoritarian rule over civil society (“fixing” dissenters by detention without trial, bankrupting them through lawsuits) and mixed success in rejuvenating the economy, hoping the PAP can create yet another economic miracle as they did before.
Alas, lightning did not strike twice. The recent decade has seen China’s ascension into the WTO. Their pre-eminence is troubling to all developed nations with any manufacturing capacity. This alone deserves a few separate posts, so I will summarize my points. I am in the opinion that any corporation operating internationally will always choose the cheapest labour source for manufacturing regardless of its labour productivity or the deployment of physical capital and machinery. In the last 2 decades and probably in the next 2, all-in cost of labour, transportation, taxes and capital deployed at “emerging” Asian economies would be more favourable than newly industrialized nations such as Singapore.
Manufacturing has a limited role to play in Singapore’s future, and that is something I think both the incumbent government as well as some independent observers can agree. A focus on the services sector is the way to go and that is already taking shape today. Port, transportation, financial, healthcare and hospitality services is the way to go for the future viability of Singapore as a nation.
Like all quick fix solutions, there is a price to pay. And it is not merely the stipend of the “millionaire” Ministers who spearhead the bold transformation.
New industries are not created overnight. The shortage of skilled labour is a key impediment to starting any new industries from scratch, hence a liberal labour policy is critical in order to fill the acute shortages in the labour market. Up to this point, I agree with the incumbent government’s labour policy of importing skilled labour to make up for the shortage. This is the harsh reality of globalization that we must deal with, and the PAP has provided an adequate policy option.
SO, CAN THE PAP GOVERNMENT TELL ME WHY THEY ALLOW ENTRY-LEVEL WHITE-COLLAR WORKERS INTO THE COMMERCIAL SERVICES SECTORS?
Obviously the implementation of these policies benefits Singapore as a city state. Because higher quality workers lead to a more vibrant economy with better jobs for all, agreed? More competition in schools and workplace brings out the competitive spirit in all of us and in turn produces better outcome, yes?
In theory, yes. In practice, there are many externalities to contend with. Such as job enclaves in certain industries and discriminatory workplace practices targeting working mothers and NSmen. Remember, the PAP government’s labour policy effectively translates to a fairly elastic labour supply. Free market is good for all you say? Tell that to the mother who is fired after conceiving her second child with the same employer, or NSman who is first to be retrenched in a restructuring exercise. These are some of the discriminatory employment practices that pervades the local economy, of which the failure to deal with externalities and finetune implementation of a mostly sensible policy renders it largely a failure.
Remember the initial intention was to kickstart certain targeted segments of the economy. Business interests questioned why certain segments are favoured over others. Most evidently as mentioned earlier, to prevent a hollowing out of the economy by way of shifting of multinational company operations to countries with the cheapest labour cost, foreign labour is injected into the Singapore job market instead. Small businesses also wanted a piece of the action. It seems like multiple business interests have lobbied for the free incoming immigration policy, which presumably solves labour shortages because Singapore labour is "choosy" compared to that of other developing nations.
For emphasis I shall ask again:
Q: WHY DOES THE PAP GOVERNMENT ALLOW ENTRY-LEVEL WHITE-COLLAR WORKERS INTO THE COMMERCIAL SERVICES SECTORS?
TO MANAGE SHORTFALL IN LABOUR?
TO KICKSTART NEW INDUSTRIES?
OR SOMETHING MORE SINISTER?
A: THE PAP GOVERNMENT DECIDED THAT YOU SHOULD SUBSIDIZE BUSINESS INTERESTS WITH YOUR WAGES FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE SINGAPORE GOVERNMENT, WHO CAN WITHHOLD CORPORATE TAXES IN SINGAPORE.
Good for Singapore? Certainly looks like a good idea with more tax revenue.
Good for Singapore Citizens? If you continue to be an employee, probably not in your lifetime.
The PAP’s labour policies need fine-tuning, but they are not about to listen to you anytime soon. Many of the PAP MPs hold fulltime jobs while being paid a monthly stipend by the government that is roughly 5x the median household income of Singaporeans (not sure if the statistics refer to Citizens + PR). I am almost sure that they do not spend more than 10 hours with their constituents every week. Hence I can be fairly confident to assert that many are not aware of the challenges facing a regular salaried worker in Singapore.
Besides, not all MPs are made equally, some have higher intellectual horsepower to debate pertinent issues while others are savants in administrating their municipals. Some are attracted to politics by:
1) more self-centred and intrinsic reasons such as personal branding and tapping into the “establishment’s” business and social network, while others are urged by
2) a calling, and the altruism to serve the people or to right some socio-political injustice.
Not to mention 3) the MP allowance of $14k per annum is quite tantalizing for many others. (Especially, the soon-to-be elected parliamentarian Ms Tin Pei Ling, age 27, who draws a salary of 3-5k as a Senior Associate working fulltime at E&Y. Did I also mention her husband is a senior civil servant working alongside PM Lee?)
Surely both the PAP and the alternative parties have characters whose intrinsic motivations for entering politics need to be examined more closely. Will they voice your concerns to the parliament? Are they go-getters who can solve problems at the constituency level? Are they leaders who can inspire others to do serve the community? Their characters matter as much as the party they represent. Alas, opposition candidates face uphill tasks of knowing and getting known by constituents with electorial boundaries constantly redrawn and announced only a few months before nomination and minimal mainstream media coverage.
Which party they represent matters immensely in the case of Singapore. Candidates joining the establishment are either on the fast track to a million-dollar salary via a ministerial appointment or hold token parliamentarian roles, which will also provide additional stipend for doing nothing extra. (eg. Mr Teo Ser Luck is Senior Parliamentarian, do wat huh?) If your MP is from the PAP, do you think he will speak out for you and risk offending the powers that be, who will assess whether he or she should stay on the gravy train?
If you are unhappy with the PAP’s policies or its implementation, you stand a better chance of having them debated rigorously in parliament by someone 1) who does not receive tangible benefits from the PAP (by definition, all PAP cadres receive benefits or benefits-in-kind) and 2) who spends enough time understanding the issues and its implications on those affected. A part-time PAP MP just isn’t going to be able to represent me voicing out unhappiness over national policies or offer feasible alternatives.
Tomorrow I go to the polls deciding between the incumbents and the Workers’ Party. I reside in a GRC, where I can visibly see the physical changes that benefited the elderly in the constituency. The work is excellent, but it is most likely the tireless work of 1 out of the 4 MPs in this constituency. This buy-1-get-3-free bundle deal is farcical, because all 4 parliamentarians have added little value to the legislative discussions and is likely to continue toeing the party line as their personal fortunes are tied closely to the fate of the establishment.
Local municipal issues can only do so much to control the damage from poor implementation of national policies, most flawed being ultra-liberal immigration, the root of all evil in this election. Liberal immigration leads to suppression of wages for low and middle income workers, both blue and white collar alike. It causes strain to public infrastructure such as public housing, education and transportation.
The line “We are not an anti-immigration party” from the Workers’ Party rings uneasily in my ears. I confess not wanting to hear much from them after that. Obviously immigrants are not to be blamed, the ruling government is to be blamed for turning on the spigot too rapidly. I am disappointed that the party did not discuss the rampant abuse of the liberal immigration policy and take a more hardline stance on correcting these abuses. Nor are their views exactly inspiring. I would also have expected evocative soundbytes like “preserving the dignity of labour” to come from WP, but alas it didn’t and would probably never. That line came from the SDP, which has proposed a minimum wage (which i think, while increasing business costs, it would create good blue collar jobs to Singapore citizens, especially the elderly and the working poor). Instead the WP have positioned themselves to be PAPzi-lite or the Singapore B-team, for better or worse.
Perhaps the WP feels that it can only have a bigger say in policy making with more parliamentary seats in this election. It appears the WP is shadowing the PAP, most certainly this serves to appeal to the broad masses previously convinced of PAP’s economic policies. Hopefully this gambit will eventually translate positively to swing votes from the middle ground to the WP. In terms of candidate quality, they certainly have a better slate this election, especially in Aljunied GRC and the SMCs.
For now, what is most important for Singapore is to have capable alternative voices able to question government policies and make positive improvements and changes within the legislative assembly, and I can understand the practical nature of pandering to the middle ground who presumably desires “business-as-usual” with policy tweaks after the elections.
Singapore needs an alternative voice with bite. This election, I will vote for the alternative party because the situation is truly dire in Singapore today and I shudder at the possibility of an 87-0 outcome.
As far as I am concerned, party credo is more important than candidate personalities. Does not matter where one gets their tertiary education, or whether they have minor personality flaws. It matters what party he or she represents, and what his or her party stand for. Many of the candidates standing for election on the opposition slate look and sound mature and reliable enough to handle municipal issues facing their constituencies. Some of these may even be fairly competent parliamentarians who can intelligently debate legislation.
Only time will tell whether the Workers' Party is a moderate Labour party capable of reaching compromise between business and labour, or a complete sellout of ordinary Singapore citizens in the face of a strong business lobby. Let's hope my suspicions turn out to be a false alarm.
Only one way to find out.
No comments:
Post a Comment