TR EMERITUS

Singapore's GDP may have grown spectacularly by more than 15 percent this year, but the wages of Singapore workers has remained stagnant or even declined in some instances. PAP leaders have been harping on Singapore's GDP growth figures for an entire year to promote themselves as having governed the nation well. According to the latest statistics from Singstat, the average monthly nominal earnings per employee has declined though GDP growth continues to grow: [Above chart by kojakbt, moderator of 3in1 kopitiam forum] When the quarterly GDP growth is plotted against the average monthly nominal growth per employee, the decline is even more shocking: The above confirms the widespread public suspicion that Singapore's GDP growth does not translate directly into higher wages and quality of life for ordinary Singaporeans. Singapore's economic growth benefits only the big businesses and PAP ministers since a portion of their multi-million salary package is pegged to GDP growth - the higher the growth, the more money they take home. The figures are artificially inflated by the PAP regime's open-door labor and immigration policies to cheap foreign workers who help keep labor costs down, thereby increasing the economic output. In the meantime, the relentless influx and easy availability of foreign labor in Singapore has led directly to the depressing of the wages of ordinary Singapore workers, especially those from the lower income group. With the escalating cost of living and property prices, Singaporeans are struggling to make ends meet despite the rosy GDP figures. The mainstream media only reports Singapore's stellar performance in GDP growth, but makes no mention of the stagnant median salaries of Singaporeans nor the widening income gap between the rich and poor. The PAP regime's type of economic management can only be implemented in repressive totalitarian fascist states like North Korea, Iran and Burma. It would have been booted out of office a long time ago in other developed countries.     Please join our Facebook discussion on this article here and invite your friends to do so as well to raise awareness among fellow Singaporeans.  Read More →

Author: Dr Wong Wee Nam 18 March 2008 On 5th of March 2008, just before the Malaysian General Election, Dr Mohd Mahathir, the former Prime Minister, declared in an exclusive interview with Malaysiakini, the online political website, saying “I believe in an opposition. I have always maintained that this country needs an opposition and they should be critical of the government without which we don’t have a mirror to look at our faces. We think that we are very beautiful but it is the opposition that keeps telling us (that may not be true).” Of course, true to his style, he could not resist adding that it would be a “disaster” if the country “loses its opposition” as in Singapore. Such a dig, unfortunately, sounds very much like a pot teasing another pot black because Dr Mahathir has not really been an exemplary democrat himself. Nevertheless it is difficult to disagree with what he says about the need for an opposition unless you are a control freak or have a dictatorial streak in you. He is not wrong because this is a universal principle of democracy. This is also nothing original because many thinkers from the past had said as much. John Stuart Mill, for example, saw opposing views as a process to crystallize the truth and a way to prevent tyranny. On 8th March, the voters of Malaysia elected more opposition candidates than anyone had expected. Not that they heeded Dr Mahathir. They simply felt that they needed a stronger opposition. The Situation in Singapore However, not everyone in this part of the world feels that an opposition is good. Certainly not the PAP or the 66% Singaporeans who had voted in the 2006 Singapore General Elections. With the help of the media, many Singaporeans still view the opposition as a bunch of trouble-makers who are unable to get their act together. Citizens who are too active are likely to be branded by some reporters as “radicals”. Give a dog a bad name and hang it. Opposition who are docile and keep quiet will be accused of sleeping in between elections in the hope that when the elections come, voters will tend to “let sleeping dogs lie”. In other words, the GRCs, the re-drawing of electoral boundaries, the climate of fear, the obedient electorate and a media that rank very low on the international freedom scale make sure that the opposition, whether “mad dogs” or “sleeping dogs” are unelectable. Many Singaporeans have also bought into the argument that our country is too small to have an opposition. We have often been reminded that we are in a region of conflict and if we have a boisterous political scene, we would endanger the security and stability of the country. Everyone knows that Israel is a small country which is perpetually at war. Yet they have a parliament that is divided into many parts by very diverse views. In spite of their small size and political diversity, they are very united when going to war and have superior military capability when confronting their enemies. Countries with riots and disorder are often held up as examples of opposition-induced chaos when it is precisely the denial of alternative voices that has led to such troubles. Of course this reason is never recognized. Never have countries with the healthy checks and balances of plural politics e.g. US, UK, Western Europe, Australia, Japan, Canada and New Zealand been held up as models to emulate. In fact political checks and balances are frowned upon as inapplicable Western concepts. Are Checks and Balances a Western Concept? Since when have checks and balances been the prerogative of the West? Mencius has taught us that the first essential of a good government is to know the people’s likes and dislikes and to provide for the people what they like and avoid imposing on them what they do not like. How can any government ever know what a population truly like or dislike without allowing for real dissenting views? How can any government know the needs of the people by listening to their own kind? The need to go beyond sycophants and yes-men to get real feedback has piquantly been record in a story found in The Records of The Warring States: The Record of the State of Qi – The First Volume (战国策。齐策一) Zou Ji 邹忌 was a very handsome official from the State of Qi. He wanted to know if he was as good-looking as the renowned Xu Gong 徐公 and he asked the people close to him for their opinions. The wife said he was way beyond comparison. His mistress and a friend both also declared that he was far better-looking than Xu Gong. One day Xu Gong came for a visit and Zou Ji scrutinised him from head to toe. He came to realise that he was nowhere near Xu Gong. That night, he reflected and came to the conclusion that the wife was simply biased, the mistress was just holding him in awe and the friend was seeking patronage. This led him to the view that a ruler should not be blinded by sweet words and good news and should be exposed to all kinds of criticism and he advised King Wei of Qi accordingly. The King found his suggestion sound and he ordered, “Those who can tell me to my face that I have made a mistake shall be amply rewarded. People who can only point out my faults on paper shall be moderately rewarded. Those who discuss my errors and I get to know about it shall also receive something.” Following the edict, the response was tremendous and this feedback helped the State of Qi become one of the more respected states during the Warring State Period. So how can we say that checks and balances are a Western concept? Why the Need for Opposition? Why do we need an opposition? First, having a strong Opposition will make it difficult for an authoritarian government to govern in any way they like. This will make a government more transparent thus reducing mistakes in policy decisions and lessen pain for the citizens. It allows citizens to participate in the process of government thus giving the citizens a sense of pride and community. Without alternative viewpoints, there can only be a monopoly of ideas and a narrow perspective of problems and solutions. Any geneticist will tell you that in-breeding results in poorer quality stocks. The same goes for the in-breeding of ideas. With greater participation and a cross-fertilisation of ideas, there will be a healthier and richer pool of alternative ideas. This means more accurate feedback for the government and a more equitable implementation of policies. With an alternative viewpoint, the ruling party will be forced to listen more closely to the people or stand the risk of losing more seats to a better group of people. When the ruling party is prepared to listen more closely to the people, they will make policies that are more likely to benefit a wider cross-section of the population and reduce hardships for the voiceless. When there is a free marketplace of ideas and when people feel that they are being listened to, they will be more likely to participate in peaceful exchanges rather than become apathetic or vent their frustration in a destructive way. Finally the presence of an opposition will prevent the tyranny of the majority from taking root. The People Must Decide The results of the Malaysian general elections show that the will of the people is the ultimate factor in determining the type of government and opposition they want. The headlines of the newspapers on the day of polling rightly told the people: “You are the boss”. If Singaporeans want a better setup than they have now, each and every one of our citizens must decide whether they want to have a free marketplace of ideas and more vibrant political culture, and work towards that goal. Each and every one of us must decide whether we want to remain apathetic or be a constructive participant in our country’s affairs. Each and every one of us must decide whether we want alternative ideas to grow. If so we must be prepared to come forward and contribute and help. We must see it as a duty of citizenship. The question each and every one of us must ask is: What is my role as a Singaporean? Is this my country or is this a hotel where I sleep, a working place where I earn my living, a shopping centre where I spend what I earn or a country club where I can just give up my membership when it no longer provides me the fun? Am I the boss? We must no longer believe we are a country with Asian values and must defer without question to the government’s decisions all the time. Some Asian governments like to cite Confucianism as the basis for their authoritarian ways. Does Confucius really advocate autocracy? If we read the story below, we will know that this is just a distortion of Confucius’ teachings. Confucius was travelling around the Taishan countryside with his disciples when he saw a woman crying copiously over a new grave. He stopped his entourage and asked his disciple Zi Lu to find out what happened. Zi Lu went up to the lady and asked her the reason for her intense grief. The woman replied, “Some years ago, my father-in-law was killed by a tiger. Later my husband was also killed by a tiger and now my son has met the same fate. How can I not be sad?” When Confucius heard this, he asked, “Since there are tigers here, why don’t you move elsewhere?” The woman replied, “This is a remote place, out of reach from the government. The tyranny of the government cannot reach us.” Confucius sighed and turned to his disciples, “You must all remember this. A tyrannical government is worse than a man-eating tiger.” — Book of Rites Actual Text: 孔子過泰山側，有婦人哭於墓者而哀。夫子式而聽之，使子路問之曰：”子之哭也，壹似重有憂者。” 而曰：”然！昔者吾舅死于虎，吾夫又死焉，今吾子又死焉。” 夫子曰：”何為不去也?” 曰：”無苛政。” 夫了曰：”小子識之，苛政猛於虎也！” — 選自《十三經注疏》本《禮記•檀弓下》 Thus for those who do not believe in a democracy with an opposition, it is good to keep this wise saying of Confucius in mind. On tyranny in the cloak of democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville has warned us: “Let us beware lest democratic republics should reinstate despotism and render it less odious and degrading in the eyes of the many but making it still onerous to the few.” In such a situation, Democracy would, as Oscar Wilde puts it, “means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people.”  Read More →

As I am writing this article on my way from Shen Zhen (where I am based now) to Shanghai, my heart is heavy. Too much has transpired in the last 18 to 24 months. Almost every conversation that I have with my family, my friends is about where this country is going and how things have changed. Besides the usual rant on immigration policies, what troubles me is not how and why the PAP has formulated these slew of policies with considerations but without deliberations with their electorate. Rather what we can do about it with these “given conditions”. My thoughts turn to what we can do about the current scenarios. In the short run, we are faced with pro-foreigner policies and in the long run, how we can change ourselves, to be better to be more value added. My thoughts are about what we can do ourselves, take actions ourselves rather than wait for more policies, rather than continuing to believe that we will be taken care of. If you are 25 to 40 I would like to take this opportunity to propose a radical idea – If you are between 25 and 45 (male or female), just leave Singapore and make your careers, your money and livelihood outside of Singapore. Yes, if an opportunity exists, just take it and leave – if there is a biz opportunity and it makes sense to you, just seize the day and take the plunge. If your employer offers an opportunity to work overseas, just go (may it be in Dubai, Shanghai, London or Chicago), may it be a Local or Expat package. My reasoning is simple – with the current economic climate (internally and externally) – I will make the following assumption – My value, your value, our value is higher overseas than staying back in Singapore. With the huge influx of cheap and cheerful labor force, we need to consider where and how to maximize our value. Given Singapore’s limitations of size and natural resources, given that local jobs are getting cheaper and cheaper (hence so many cheap and cheerful foreigners), staying back and sighing over a cup of tea is hardly productive, for yourself, your family or for your country. For the Local Born and Bred Students If your sons and daughters are entering or finishing college, please do consider to send them overseas to further their education. Having lived in China for so many years, I am clear that besides the language barrier, the local Chinese lacks the single most important element – Exposure. You cannot read this in any tertiary institution, you cannot buy this off the shelves; you need to be mentally and emotionally ready to invest in your children’s future. They will learn to interact, to speak a different language; they will see the world and hence react differently. I never liked the local tertiary institutions for 2 reasons. Firstly, their curriculum does not foster cutting edge technology R&D nor Creative Arts and Design talents. Secondly, upon graduation, these graduates will be herded “factory like” into the Singapore local workforce and be instilled with local paradigms and culture. The funny reference to “kiasu and kiasi” – these may be funny reference to local mentalities, but it is not funny after a while, if you need to compete globally. Yes, I am sensitive to several issues that my idea will encounter, working parents will need to bear with temporary separations, and the all important family unit will be temporarily disrupted. Spouses will pine for each other and parent will miss their children. Even though there will be tears and pain but there will also be joyous reunions every holidays and family visits. However, please consider the long term value added to our people and our country (above and beyond the ruling PAP). We will have seen, experienced and become more exposed to the world beyond Changi Airport. With our opened eyes, we will know what is right and wrong, what should and what should not be. My vision is to see locals returning to Singapore not just with value added global exposure, which will propel our economy forward. Furthermore, they will be more willing, able and capable to take their destinies into their own hands. To decide what the issues are, what the policies should be, who they want to see as administrators for their neighborhoods, their districts and their country. My conclusion is a simple summary, if you can go, please go. If your kids want to go, let them, there will be risks, there will be pain and tears. However, by doing this, we evolve and we will better take charge of ourselves, we will be better equipped to vision and administer ourselves. The Winds of Change are Blowing….Singapore for Singaporeans!   Lawrence Pek  Read More →