TR EMERITUS

OPINION Singapore may be a first world country in terms of economic development and infrastructure, but the way the government interacts with the citizenry and vice-versa resembles that of a third world country. In fact, communication between the two is mostly a one way traffic with little or no interaction at all, the latest fracas involving the Ministries of Environment being a case in point. Last month, Singapore was hit by a series of flash floods unheard of before in various parts of Singapore, most notably in its prime shopping district of Orchard which caused damages and losses amounting to millions of dollars. The immediate response from Singaporeans who were described as "champion grumblers" by PAP strongman Lee Kuan Yew is predictable: a torrent of criticisms was hurled at PUB and ultimately the Ministry of Environment responsible for the drainage system in Singapore. Amid the finger-pointing which gathers momentum in cyberspace, there is no response from the authorities to limit the damage from the PR fallout until two full days later when a press conference was called hastily by PUB CEO Khoo Teng Chye in which he offered an unbelievable explanation for the floods, but did not offer any apologies. The Minister in charge, Mr Yaacob Ibrahim was nowhere to be heard, seen or found during the entire saga and only spoke on the flooding four days later on the sidelines of a community event as if it has nothing to do with him. Instead of appeasing disgruntled Singaporeans affected by the floods, Mr Yaacob has the cheek or audacity to heap generous self-prase on his subordinates for their “efforts” in controlling the flood. “I think the response by the PUB, by the agencies, has been commendable. We have done our best to help the businesses affected, the people affected,” he was quoted as saying in the Straits Times. He was quick to dismiss the screw-up as another “learning experience”: “Every event is a new learning experience for us. This rainfall was totally unexpected, I can be very honest about it. If you look at rainfall patterns, we’ve never seen such a pattern. Having said that, it means there are new things happening, so the approach we should be taking is to learn from this, improve upon it, and assure Singaporeans that we’ll do our best to prevent this as much as possible,” he added. Mr Yaacob seemed to forget that he tried to "reassure" Singaporeans only last year November that such floods occur on a frequency of only "once in fifty years." There is a huge gulf in public expectations and the government's interpretation of the event. While Singaporeans are quick to pin the blame on the government, whether rightly or wrongly, the government's official stance is that the flooding is an "act of god" which is beyond its control. A week later, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong tried to obfuscate the matter by claiming that it is "impossible" to expect Singapore to be "flood-free" when all Singaporeans are asking is for some plausible explanation for the flash floods and somebody to accept responsibility for it. He pronounced that given Singapore’s “tropical climate”, any attempt to “wipe out” flooding in Singapore would require plenty of money and land without providing any concrete evidence or statistics to substantiate his claims. “I don’t think it is possible in Singapore to expect the place to be completely free of floods, as heavy downpours are very much part of the climate for an ‘island in the tropics,” he was quoted as saying in the Straits Times. PM Lee also urged Singaporeans to do their "part" by ensuring that the drains are not choked from litter. He may have a point - an active citizenry should play a role in the nation-building process instead of relying on the government all the time. In the Singapore context, the apathetic citizenry we have today is an indirect result of the PAP's dominance. Because Singaporeans have been told repeatedly again and again that the PAP "knows best", few bother or dare to offer their input. When mistakes like this happen, the government will automatically bear the brunt of the blame since it is being paid astronomical salaries to do its job, people naturally expect extraordinary results with zero tolerance for screw-ups. This saga illustrates clearly a long-standing problem in our society, described by writer Catherine Lim as the "great affective divide" between the government and the people. There is hardly any interaction between the two. The people complain, complain and complain, but refuse to do anything to help or contribute. The government evades, shuns and "tai chi" and only knows how to talk down to the people. To be fair, the flooding may be entirely unavoidable, but had the government shown more tact, empathy and EQ in handling the fiasco, the frayed nerves of Singaporeans may be more easily soothed. All Singaporeans want is a bit more humility from the government. As for the government, it wants Singaporeans to be more proactive, but it must understand that so long it continues treating the people like idiots, it can never expect any sort of participation from them.     Please join our Facebook page here and invite your friends to do so to create awareness of the current affairs affecting Singaporeans. Please use our online web form to contact us.      Read More →

The high salaries of ministers has been a contentious issue ever since they were ramped up over the years. This discussion is not whether it is right to pay such high salaries, but whether this policy is indeed good for the ordinary citizens. It has been reported that the median salary of Singaporeans is $2400 per month. A minister gets about say $150,000 per month. This is about 62 times what the average citizens are paid. If one compares the ministers' salary to the lower income group, the contrast becomes even more magnified. Even with the best intention and effort, it would not be easy for a minister to truly empathize with the financial struggles of the citizens. Put yourself (an ordinary citizen) in the shoes of the ministers. Your salary is $2400 per month. You are a minister and your average citizens are paid about 1/62 times your salary. That works out to about $39 per month. At the last the meet-the-people session, a Mr Tan came to see you to ask for help to pay his utility bills. With the increase of 10% over the past year, his monthly utility bill have risen from $0.97 to $1.06 per month (in real life, from $60 to $66). An increase of 9 cents per month. Can you, as a minister with a salary of $2400,really understand how this man (the sole bread winner) needs ask for help over a 9 cents increase? Another complaint you recently received is that after the Clementi hawker centre was renovated, the price of a plate of Char Kuay Teow has increased from 4 cents to 5.7 cents ($2.5 to $3.50). The residents are outraged and are concerned that the cost of living is sky rocketing. Again can you as minister really feel outraged that the price has increased by 1.7 cents? With a salary of $2400 per month, you may not even bother to pick up a 5 cents coin if you see one lying on the pathway. So the issues of ordinary citizens become abstract too trivial for ministers to comprehend. They may have the best intention for the citizens. But the situation is such that to the whole group of ministers the value of money has become warped. To the point that listening to a citizen's complaint over a 9 cent issue becomes kind of unreal. Of course on the surface, ministers will still have to appear concerned and equally affected as citizens. But on a personal level, they can only try to imagine what it is like to worry over several cents. They would have lost the ability to comprehend the value of money as seen through the eyes of others. So the issue of paying minister such high salaries will render the cabinet as a whole simply unable to comprehend how ordinary citizens are struggling. Is that a good policy for Singaporeans?     A Concerned Citizen  Read More →

By Clara Chooi from The Malaysian Insider, 5 July 2010 Malaysia will plead for clemency for 22-year-old Sabahan Yong Vui Kong who was sentenced to death for drug trafficking. Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Anifah Aman told reporters in Parliament today that the Malaysian government sympathised with Yong’s case and pledged to use every diplomatic channel to help the man. “We will do whatever we can within our power. Based on the information I received, there is only one avenue left, which is to plead for clemency. “I will write to the government of Singapore and plead with them on humanitarian grounds,” he said. Anifah, however, said he would first wait for the legal aspects of Yong’s case to be presented to him by the man’s lawyer before writing to the Singapore government. “There will be a need to give legal basis on why he should be spared,” he said. The Malaysian government, through its appeal for clemency with the Singapore government, hopes to commute Yong’s sentence to life imprisonment. Yong was arrested on June 13, 2007 in Singapore and was later charged with trafficking 47.27g of a controlled drug, diamorphine, an offence under section 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. He was convicted on Jan 7, 2009, and sentenced to death. The man appealed the decision but later withdrew his appeal and attempted to file a petition for clemency to the President of Singapore instead. The appeal was rejected. Four days before his execution date, Yong’s counsel M. Ravi filed an application in the court for leave to pursue the appeal and a stay of execution was obtained. Despite this, following the hearing of the application, Yong’s case was finally dismissed on May 14 this year. He faces the gallows by the end of next month if all legal and diplomatic channels to commute his sentence are exhausted. Yong’s case was taken up by PKR MP Chua Tian Chang who, along with Ravi and a Suaram representative, met Anifah late this afternoon to discuss the available options to save the man. “He (Anifah) had also brought in several officers during the meeting, including international legal experts. Anifah said he would write a letter, through diplomatic avenues, and seek clemency on humanitarian grounds. “He also said the ministry would send a watching brief to witness the trial (judicial review application),” Chua said. He noted that this was a clear indication that the government was committed to monitoring the case. Ravi said he would be filing the judicial review on the case in Singapore by next week. The lawyer added that he was pleased that Anifah had not only agreed to use diplomatic avenues to appeal for Yong’s pardon but was also willing to look into the legal aspects of the case. “I am encouraged by the fact that the foreign minister has taken into account the legal issue I was highlighting. It is a matter of pleading with the Singapore government through diplomatic channels, but it is also a fact that Yong is facing injustice in Singapore in the law because the clemency process itself is already flawed,” he said. Ravi said he would prepare the information on the legal aspect of the case for Anifah’s perusal soon. He noted that the international law expert present during the meeting had pledged to look into the possibility of bringing the matter to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). “However, this is only after all local avenues have been exhausted,” he said. - The Malaysian Insider  Read More →