Cambridge Lecture "The Great Repricing"
SPEECH BY MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS GEORGE YEO AT THE DISTINGUISHED LECTURE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE ON 27 MARCH 2009 IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE’S 800TH ANNIVERSARY
THE GREAT REPRICING
What The Current Crisis Represents
Madam Pro-Vice Chancellor, Kate Pretty, my old tutor, Professor Navaratnam, dear friends, ladies and gentlemen, it may seem inauspicious that Cambridge should be celebrating its 800th Anniversary at a time when the world is heading into a deep recession the likes of which have not been seen for a long time. From the perspective of Cambridge's long history, however, this sharp economic downturn is but another discontinuity in the affairs of man of which the University has seen many and participated in not a few. Whether this crisis marks a major break in world history we don’t know yet. Turning points are only seen for what they are in hindsight.
What is becoming clearer is the severity of the crisis. No one is sure where the bottom is or how long this crisis will last. In the meantime, tens of thousands of companies will go bankrupt and tens of millions of people will lose their jobs ─ at least. What started as a financial crisis has become a full-blown economic crisis. For many countries, worsening economic conditions will lead to political crisis. In some, governments acting hastily in response to short-term political pressure will do further harm to the economy.
In an editorial last December, the Financial Times commented that the US Federal Reserve was flying blind. But, in fact, all governments are flying with poor vision. Markets are volatile precisely because no one knows for sure which policy responses will work.
I remember an old family doctor once explaining how every disease must run its course. In treating an illness, he said, one works with its progression. Attempting to short-cut the process may worsen the underlying condition. While emergency action may be needed and symptoms can be ameliorated, the body must be healed from within after which its immunological status changes.
The Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter understood the importance of creative destruction. The end of an economic cycle does not return the economy to where it was at the beginning. During the downturn, firms go bankrupt, people lose jobs, institutions are revamped, governments may be changed. And in the process, resources are reallocated and the old gives way to the new.
Charles Darwin, whose 200th birth anniversary we mark this year, understood all that. Life is a struggle with old forms giving way to new forms. And human society is part of this struggle.
The question we ask ourselves is, what is the new reality that is struggling to emerge from the old? History is not pre-determined. There is, at any point in time, a number of possible futures, each, as it were, a state of partial equilibrium. And every crisis is a discontinuity from one partial equilibrium state to another within what scenario analysts call a cone of possibilities.
Well, whatever trajectory history takes within that cone of possibilities in the coming years, there will be a great repricing of assets, of factors of production, of countries, of ideas.
Economic Repricing
Let me first talk about economic repricing. Many bubbles have burst in the current crisis starting with sub-prime properties in the US. All over the world, asset prices are plummeting. In the last one year, tens of trillions of dollars have been wiped out. How much further this painful process will continue, no one can be sure. Many months ago, Alan Greenspan, in his usual measured way, peering into the hole said he saw a bottom forming in the fall of asset prices; it turned out to be the darkness of an abyss very few knew existed. That bottom is only reached when assets are sufficiently repriced downwards. Public policies can help or hinder this process. Unfortunately, many stimulus packages being proposed will make the adjustment more difficult. For example, bailing out inefficient automobile companies may end up prolonging the pain of restructuring at tremendous public expense.
The repricing of human beings will be even more traumatic. With globalisation, we have in effect one marketplace for human labour in the world. Directly or indirectly, the wages and salaries of Americans, Europeans and Japanese are being held down by billions of Asians and Africans prepared to work for much less. China and India alone are graduating more scientists and engineers every year than all the developed countries combined. Now, while it is true that trade is a positive sum game, the benefits of trade are never equally distributed. We can therefore expect protectionist pressures to grow in many countries.
Governments will try to protect jobs often at long-term cost to their economies. It is wrong to think that we can force our way out of a recession. Beyond a point, the stress will be taken on exchange rates. If governments try to prevent the repricing of assets and human beings, international markets will force the adjustment on us. A country that is over-leveraged living beyond its means will itself be repriced through its currency. Its currency will be devalued, forcing lower living standards on all its citizens.
The world is in profound imbalance today. All the G7 countries are in recession. The West is consuming too much and saving too little while the East is saving too much and consuming too little. China, India and others need to consume much more of what they produce but they are unable to take up the present slack in global demand because their GDPs are still too small. In 10-20 years, they may be able to but certainly not in the next few years. In the meantime, the global economy may suffer a prolonged recession, a global Keynesian paradox of thrift
Political Repricing
When this crisis is finally over, which may take some years, out of it will emerge a multi-polar world with clearer contours. Although the US will remain the pre-eminent pole for a long time to come, it will no longer be the hyperpower and power will have to be shared. The Western-dominated developed world will have to share significant power with China, India, Russia, Brazil and other countries. Thus, accompanying the economic repricing will be political repricing.
Following the spectacular opening of the Olympic Games in Beijing, Tony Blair wrote in the Wall Street Journal of August 26 last year: "This is a historic moment of change. Fast forward 10 years and everyone will know it. For centuries, the power has resided in the West, with various European powers including the British Empire and then, in the 20th century, the US. Now we will have to come to terms with a world in which the power is shared with the Far East. I wonder if we quite understand what that means, we whose culture (not just our politics and economies) has dominated for so long. It will be a rather strange, possibly unnerving experience."
Those words were said by Tony Blair in August last year before the financial meltdown. How much more they ring true today. Sharing power is however easier said than done. But without a major restructuring of international institutions, including the Bretton Woods institutions, many problems in global governance cannot be properly managed. The meeting of G20 leaders started by President George Bush in November last year is a necessary new beginning. But it is a process. Prime Minister Gordon Brown is hoping that the next meeting on 2 April in London will sketch out the main elements of a global bargain. To be sure, the reform of global institutions is a process that will take years to achieve. During the transition, many things can go wrong. In his analysis of the Great Depression in the last century, the economic historian Charles Kindleberger identified a major cause in the absence of global leadership during a critical period when power was shifting across the Atlantic. Great Britain could not exercise leadership while the US would not. In between, the global economy fell.
In the coming decades, the key relationship in the world will be that between the US and China. Putting it starkly, the US is China's most important export market while China is the most important buyer of US Treasuries. The core challenge is the peaceful incorporation of China into the global system of governance, which in turn will change the global system itself. This was probably what led Secretary Hillary Clinton to make her first overseas visit to East Asia.
Three Points About China
The transformation of China is the most important development in the world today. Much has been written about it, the re-emergence of China. But I would like to touch on three points.
China’s Sense of Itself
The first point is China’s sense of itself which was written about by Joseph Needham many years ago. Over the centuries, it has been the historical duty of every Chinese dynasty to write the history of the previous one. Twenty-four have been written, the first a hundred years before Christ by Sima Qian in the famous book, Shi Ji. And since then the later Han wrote about the Han and then the Xin, the Three Kingdoms and so on. So twenty-four in all. The last dynasty, the Qing Dynasty, lasted from 1644 to the Republican revolution of 1911. Its official history is only now being written after almost a century. When I visited the Catholic Society of Foreign Missions of Paris in January this year, I was told by a Mandarin-speaking French priest who served many years in China and in Singapore that out of the 90 volumes envisaged for the official history of the Qing Dynasty, 5 volumes would be on the Christian missions in China. When I was there at the Society, I met a Chinese scholar researching into the history of missionary activities in Sichuan province. No other country or civilisation has this sense of its own continuity. For the official history of the People's Republic, I suppose we would have to wait a couple of hundred years. It was Needham's profound insight into China's sense of itself that led to his remarkable study of Science and Civilization in China. Ironically, China’s sense of itself was mostly about its social and moral achievements within the classical realm. It was Needham who informed the Chinese of their own amazing scientific and technological contributions to the world.
However, China’s sense of itself is both a strength and a weakness. It is a strength because it gives Chinese civilization its self-confidence and its tenacity. Chinese leaders often say that while China should learn from the rest of the world, China would have to find its own way to the future. But it is also a conceit, and this conceit makes it difficult for Chinese ideas and institutions to become global in a diverse world. To be sure, the Chinese have no wish to convert non-Chinese into Chinese-ness. In contrast, the US as a young country, believing its own conception to be novel and exceptional, wants everyone to be American. The software of globalisation today including standards and pop culture is basically American. And therein lies a profound difference between China and the US. The software of globalisation today, including standards and pop culture, is basically American. If you look at cultures as human operating systems, it is US culture which has hyper-linked all these different cultures together, in a kind of higher HTML or XML language. And even though that software needs some fixing today, it will remain essentially American. And I doubt that the Chinese software will ever be able to unify the world the way it has been because it (Chinese software) has a very different characteristic all of its own. Even when China becomes the biggest economy in the world as it almost certainly will within a few decades.
Cities of the 21st Century
The second point I wish to highlight today about China is the astonishing urban experimentation taking place today. China is urbanising at a speed and on a scale never seen before in human history. Chinese planners know that they do not have the land to build sprawling suburbia like America’s. China has less arable land than India. Although China already has a greater length of highways than the whole of the US, the Chinese are keenly aware that if they were to drive cars on a per capita basis like Americans, the whole world would boil. Recognising the need to conserve land and energy, the Chinese are now embarked on a stupendous effort to build mega-cities, each accommodating tens of millions of people, each the population size of a major country. And these will not be urban conurbations like Mexico City or Lagos growing higgledy-piggledy, but cities designed to accommodate such enormous populations. This means planned urban infrastructure with high-speed intra-city and inter-city rail, huge airports like Beijing's, forests of skyscrapers, and high tech parks containing universities, research institutes, start-ups and ancillary facilities. In March last year, McKinsey Global Institute recommended 15 'super cities' with average populations of 25 million or 11 'city-clusters' each with combined populations of more than 60 million. Unlike most countries, China is able to mount massive redevelopment projects because of the Communist re-concentration of land in the hands of the state. If you think about it, the great Chinese revolution was fundamentally about the ownership of land. This is the biggest difference between China and India. In India and most other parts of the world, land acquisition for large-scale projects is a very difficult and laborious process.
As we looked to the US for new patterns of urban development in the 20th century with its very rational grid patterns, we will have to look to China for the cities of the 21st century. Urbanisation on such a colossal scale is reshaping Chinese culture, politics and institutions. The Chinese Communist Party which had its origins in Mao's countryside faces a huge challenge in the management of urban politics. From an urban population of 20% in Mao’s days, China is 40% urban today and, like all developed countries, will become 80-90% urban in a few decades’ time. Already, China has more mobile phones than anybody else and more internet users than the US.
China’s Political Culture
My third point is about China’s political culture. Over the centuries, China has evolved a political culture that enables a continental-size nation to be governed through a bureaucratic elite. In the People’s Republic, the bureaucratic elite is the Communist Party. When working properly, the mandarinate is meritocratic and imbued with a deep sense of responsibility for the whole country.
During the Ming and Qing Dynasties, there was a rule that no high official could serve within 400 miles of his birthplace so that he did not come under pressure to favour local interests. This would mean that for a place like Singapore, it would never be governed by Singaporeans. A few years ago, that rule was re-introduced to the People’s Republic, and indeed, in almost all cases, the leader of a Chinese province is not from that province. Neither the Party Secretary nor the Governor, unless it is an autonomous region, in which case the number two job goes to a local, but never the number one job. It is as if on a routine basis, the British PM cannot be British, the French President cannot be French and the German Chancellor cannot be German.
Although politics in China will change radically as the country urbanises in the coming decades, the core principle of a bureaucratic elite holding the entire country together is not likely to change. Too many state functions affecting the well-being of the country as a whole require central coordination. In its historical memory, a China divided always meant chaos, and chaos could last a long time.
To be sure, China is experimenting with democracy at the lower levels of government because it acts as a useful check against abuse of power. However, at the level of cities and provinces, leaders are chosen from above after carefully canvassing the views of peers and subordinates. As with socialism, China will evolve a form of ‘democracy with Chinese characteristics’ quite different from Western liberal democracy. The current world crisis will convince the Chinese even more that they are right not to give up state control of the commanding heights of the economy.
With the world in turmoil, many developing countries are studying the Chinese system wondering whether it might not offer them lessons on good governance. For the first time in a long time, the Western model has a serious competitor.
I make these three points about China to illustrate how complex the process of incorporating China into a new multi-polar global system will be. The challenge is not only economic, it is also political and cultural. Yet, it must be met and the result will be a world quite different from what we are used to. Developing countries will no longer look only to the West for inspiration; they will also turn to China and, maybe, to India as well.
The Nalanda Revival
The simultaneous re-emergence of India and China, together making up 40% of the world’s population, is endlessly fascinating. Two countries cannot be more different. One is Confucianist and strait-laced, the other is democratic and rambunctious. Or to use Amartya Sen’s words, “The Indian is argumentative”. Yet, in both countries, we can feel an organic vitality changing the lives of huge numbers of people. The re-encounter of these two ancient civilizations is itself another drama. Separated by high mountains and vast deserts, their historical contact over the centuries was sporadic and largely peaceful. In recent years, trade between them has grown hugely, making China India’s biggest trading partner today. But of course, we must remember that during the Raj, China was also British India’s biggest trading partner. But they are suspicious of each other. India remains scarred by its defeat by China in 1962 during the border war, a point which Chinese leaders seem not to understand fully. We in Southeast Asia have a strong vested interest in these two great nations who are our immediate neighbours having peaceful, cooperative relations. Let me talk briefly about a project which may help bring South, Southeast and East Asia together again. This is the revival of the old Nalanda University in the Indian state of Bihar.
Through Chinese historical records, the world is aware of the existence of an ancient Buddhist university in India which for centuries drew students from all over Asia. At its peak, Nalanda accommodated ten thousand students, mostly monks. It had a magnificent campus with a nine-storey library and towers reaching into the clouds, according to the extravagant but remarkably accurate account of the 7th century Tang Dynasty Buddhist monk Xuan Zang. Xuan Zang’s journey to India to bring back Buddhist sutras was such an odyssey, it has long been mythologized in Chinese folklore – the Journey to the West. He spent a number of years in Nalanda. Unfortunately, Nalanda was destroyed by Afghan invaders at about the time Oxford and Cambridge were established 800 years ago and again initially, mostly for monks. The Indian Government has recently decided to revive this ancient university as a secular university, offering it for international collaboration. A 500-acre site not far from the ruins of the old has already been acquired. Like the old, it will be multi-disciplinary, drawing on the Buddhist philosophy of man living in harmony with man, man living in harmony with nature, and man living as part of nature. A mentors group chaired by Amartya Sen has been appointed by the Indian Government to conceptualise its establishment, of which I am privileged to be a member. I hope the new Nalanda University will help usher in a new era of peace and understanding in Asia. I also hope it will have strong links to Cambridge.
Cultural Repricing
A multi-polar world is a messy world. It means that no particular value system will hold complete sway over others. The current crisis has already caused many people to question the nature of capitalism, socialism and democracy. Chemically-pure capitalism, to use a phrase coined by former French Premier Lionel Jospin, has become a dirty word. In contrast, John Maynard Keynes seems to have been repriced upwards again and all of us have been dusting the old copies of The General Theory that we have on our shelves. A recent Newsweek cover proclaimed that “we are all socialists now”. Even Karl Marx is being re-read. Ideas, cultural norms are all being repriced as countries search for ways out of the crisis. If high unemployment persists for many more years, dangerous ideas and ideologies may reappear as they did in the 30's.
Without American leadership, multi-polarity can easily lead to global instability. And there is much expectation of what a new Obama Administration, sensitive to cultural nuances, can do to restore order and growth in the world. Unfortunately, there are no quick or easy solutions. We should expect instead a fairly long period of untidiness and confusion. Most importantly, we should be sceptical of absolute or ultimate solutions for these are often the most dangerous.
The Inspiration of Darwin and Needham
In responding to the current crisis, let us be inspired by two Cambridge men, Darwin and Needham. Darwin's publication of The Origin of Species 150 years ago represented one of the greatest intellectual leaps by mankind. At the British Museum of Natural History, they call it “The Big Idea”. It was a very big idea. Natural selection has an obvious analogue in man's intellectual and social development. Like biological species, human ideas and systems are also subject to selection through wars, revolutions, elections, economic crises, academic debates and market competition. Those which survive and flourish should, we hope, raise civilization to a higher level.
Needham understood China like few other men did. As Simon Winchester wrote in his recent book on Needham, The Man Who Loved China, Needham might not be surprised to see the huge transformation of China today.
Both Darwin and Needham were drawn from our university tradition of being sceptical without losing our moral sense. Only by being sceptical can we be objective, can we see ourselves critically and learn from others. Only with a moral sense will we be motivated to work for a larger social good. It was China’s corruption and inability to learn from others in an earlier period that led to its long decline. The Qian Long Emperor told George III during Lord McCartney’s mission in 1793 that China had nothing to learn from the West. That marked the beginning of China’s long decline.
Human civilisations learn from one another more than they realise, more than we realise. In a collection of essays published by Needham on the historic dialogue of East and West in 1969, he chose for his title Within the Four Seas. That title was from the Analects of Confucius, who said, "Within the Four Seas, all men are brothers”. In the heyday of Third World solidarity in the 50’s, the Indians had a saying ─ "Hindi-Chini, bhai bhai” ─ Indians and Chinese are brothers. In these confused times, we need to learn from one another on the basis of a deep respect for each other as human beings.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25493.2
Monday, March 30, 2009
We need to change the way the Government manages our economy
We need to change the way the Government manages our economy
At the launch of an alumni complex at the National University of Singapore (NUS) a couple of Fridays ago, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said that Singapore will take two to three years to bounce back from the recession, assumes that the United States recovers next year. (ST, “Full recovery at least 2 to 3 years away”, 21 March 2009)
MM Lee went on to lambast critics of Singapore’s economic model, citing for instance a recent Wall Street Journal editorial’s opinion that Singapore needed to focus more on stimulating domestic consumption of goods.
I have also opined repeatedly on this blog that Singapore’s strong emphasis on exports as opposed to domestic consumption has made it more vulnerable to global economic swings and increases the volatility of our local business cycle, bringing much hardship to Singaporeans in recessionary times such as these. (See here.)
But MM Lee said that Singapore “has no choice” but to export, adding: “Four million people to sustain industries supplying top-end goods to the world? That’s rubbish.”
Exports are undoubtedly important for a small economy such as ours with no natural resources, but MM Lee appears to be missing the point.
Critics like the Wall Street Journal (see here) are not advocating that Singaporeans attempt to purchase, with their limited resources, goods that are meant to cater to the whims and fancies of the wealthy from the world over, and hence do away with the need to export those goods.
What we are talking about here is reducing our over-reliance on exports, in particular, our dependence on the US and G7 economies which look set to be in a very turbulent phase over the foreseeable future. We also need to encourage the resident population to spend and invest more in our local economy, in all manners of goods and services, especially those produced by small and medium enterprises who have their roots and stakes firmly anchored within our shores. This would create a virtuous cycle that makes for sustainable economic growth and development.
Every economy, no matter big or small, that aims to be self-sustaining over the long run must develop a strong domestic consumption sector in tandem with robust export industries. As it stands however, domestic consumption accounts for only about 40% of our GDP — far less than that of other developed Asian economies like Hong Kong and Taiwan whose share of GDP in consumption is over 55%.
Singapore is thus hit by a double-whammy, in that efforts to stimulate the economy by putting cash into people’s pockets will have less results as compared to similar measures employed in other economies like Hong Kong, and our over-reliance on exports for growth leaves us acutely vulnerable to the sharp global downturn.
If the global economic meltdown has taught us anything, it is that capitalism unchecked leads to grave excesses, and that when global asset bubbles burst, small and open economies like ours that pursue a “growth at all cost” model of economic management are the hardest hit.
MM Lee and our political leaders have failed to recognize that the old ways of treating the entire country like a corporation while neglecting its soul and its greater purpose has not served us well in the new millennium, despite our rapid downward economic spiral suggesting precisely that.
Going forward, our emphasis as a nation should be to learn the lessons of the current financial crisis, and endeavour to temper the excesses that unbridled capitalism can engender by sound regulation of the financial sector, the institution of adequate checks and balances, and enlightened social policies that aim to distribute wealth from the top echelons of society to the working class.
The Government’s investment in infrastructure, healthcare and education is of long-term value to the nation. But we also need independent and effective labour unions and a strong political economy to help translate this into a narrowing income gap, and rising living standards for all and not just a few.
Unfortunately, with our political elite’s insistence on adhering to the corporatist model and continuing their self-serving ways, it would take a significant disruption in their political power base before we can hope for meaningful change to occur.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26087.1
At the launch of an alumni complex at the National University of Singapore (NUS) a couple of Fridays ago, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said that Singapore will take two to three years to bounce back from the recession, assumes that the United States recovers next year. (ST, “Full recovery at least 2 to 3 years away”, 21 March 2009)
MM Lee went on to lambast critics of Singapore’s economic model, citing for instance a recent Wall Street Journal editorial’s opinion that Singapore needed to focus more on stimulating domestic consumption of goods.
I have also opined repeatedly on this blog that Singapore’s strong emphasis on exports as opposed to domestic consumption has made it more vulnerable to global economic swings and increases the volatility of our local business cycle, bringing much hardship to Singaporeans in recessionary times such as these. (See here.)
But MM Lee said that Singapore “has no choice” but to export, adding: “Four million people to sustain industries supplying top-end goods to the world? That’s rubbish.”
Exports are undoubtedly important for a small economy such as ours with no natural resources, but MM Lee appears to be missing the point.
Critics like the Wall Street Journal (see here) are not advocating that Singaporeans attempt to purchase, with their limited resources, goods that are meant to cater to the whims and fancies of the wealthy from the world over, and hence do away with the need to export those goods.
What we are talking about here is reducing our over-reliance on exports, in particular, our dependence on the US and G7 economies which look set to be in a very turbulent phase over the foreseeable future. We also need to encourage the resident population to spend and invest more in our local economy, in all manners of goods and services, especially those produced by small and medium enterprises who have their roots and stakes firmly anchored within our shores. This would create a virtuous cycle that makes for sustainable economic growth and development.
Every economy, no matter big or small, that aims to be self-sustaining over the long run must develop a strong domestic consumption sector in tandem with robust export industries. As it stands however, domestic consumption accounts for only about 40% of our GDP — far less than that of other developed Asian economies like Hong Kong and Taiwan whose share of GDP in consumption is over 55%.
Singapore is thus hit by a double-whammy, in that efforts to stimulate the economy by putting cash into people’s pockets will have less results as compared to similar measures employed in other economies like Hong Kong, and our over-reliance on exports for growth leaves us acutely vulnerable to the sharp global downturn.
If the global economic meltdown has taught us anything, it is that capitalism unchecked leads to grave excesses, and that when global asset bubbles burst, small and open economies like ours that pursue a “growth at all cost” model of economic management are the hardest hit.
MM Lee and our political leaders have failed to recognize that the old ways of treating the entire country like a corporation while neglecting its soul and its greater purpose has not served us well in the new millennium, despite our rapid downward economic spiral suggesting precisely that.
Going forward, our emphasis as a nation should be to learn the lessons of the current financial crisis, and endeavour to temper the excesses that unbridled capitalism can engender by sound regulation of the financial sector, the institution of adequate checks and balances, and enlightened social policies that aim to distribute wealth from the top echelons of society to the working class.
The Government’s investment in infrastructure, healthcare and education is of long-term value to the nation. But we also need independent and effective labour unions and a strong political economy to help translate this into a narrowing income gap, and rising living standards for all and not just a few.
Unfortunately, with our political elite’s insistence on adhering to the corporatist model and continuing their self-serving ways, it would take a significant disruption in their political power base before we can hope for meaningful change to occur.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26087.1
Recession? George Yeo in full flow
Recession? George Yeo in full flow
Singapore’s Foreign Minister George Yeo gave an excellent speech three days ago at Cambridge University, which is celebrating its 800th anniversary.
What the IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn called the Great Recession, Yeo calls The Great Repricing.
That’s the title of his lecture on how the economic crisis will change the world, altering the global economy, job prospects as well as the political order and cultural values. He sees a multipolar world which will still need American leadership.
The Straits Times published an edited excerpt of the speech, but it should be read in full on the blog, Beyond Sg.
The Straits Times omitted the entire section on relations between China and India and the Indian government’s plan to revive the ancient Buddhist Nalanda university, destroyed by Afghan invaders 800 years ago. Yeo is involved in the project as part of a mentors’ group chaired by Nobel Prize winning Indian economist Amartya Sen.
Yeo has a way with words and ideas. He ranges from Schumpeter to an 18th century Chinese emperor, Darwin to Huen Tsang in a clear, thoughtful speech about the need to adapt for the future.
There’s just one false step. He ends by saying:
Human civilisations learn from one another more than they realise, more than we realise... In the heyday of Third World solidarity in the 50s, the Indians had a saying ─ "Hindi-Chini, bhai bhai” ─ Indians and Chinese are brothers. In these confused times, we need to learn from one another on the basis of a deep respect for each other as human beings.
The slogan,”Hindi-Chini, bhai-bhai”, had a bitter aftermath. The two countries fought a border war in 1962. India lost and Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, who popularized the slogan, never recovered from the ignominy. He died two years later. The dispute has not yet been settled.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25493.1
Singapore’s Foreign Minister George Yeo gave an excellent speech three days ago at Cambridge University, which is celebrating its 800th anniversary.
What the IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn called the Great Recession, Yeo calls The Great Repricing.
That’s the title of his lecture on how the economic crisis will change the world, altering the global economy, job prospects as well as the political order and cultural values. He sees a multipolar world which will still need American leadership.
The Straits Times published an edited excerpt of the speech, but it should be read in full on the blog, Beyond Sg.
The Straits Times omitted the entire section on relations between China and India and the Indian government’s plan to revive the ancient Buddhist Nalanda university, destroyed by Afghan invaders 800 years ago. Yeo is involved in the project as part of a mentors’ group chaired by Nobel Prize winning Indian economist Amartya Sen.
Yeo has a way with words and ideas. He ranges from Schumpeter to an 18th century Chinese emperor, Darwin to Huen Tsang in a clear, thoughtful speech about the need to adapt for the future.
There’s just one false step. He ends by saying:
Human civilisations learn from one another more than they realise, more than we realise... In the heyday of Third World solidarity in the 50s, the Indians had a saying ─ "Hindi-Chini, bhai bhai” ─ Indians and Chinese are brothers. In these confused times, we need to learn from one another on the basis of a deep respect for each other as human beings.
The slogan,”Hindi-Chini, bhai-bhai”, had a bitter aftermath. The two countries fought a border war in 1962. India lost and Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, who popularized the slogan, never recovered from the ignominy. He died two years later. The dispute has not yet been settled.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25493.1
Ng Kim Ngweng guilty, jailed 6 months
March 30, 2009
Threat to hurt MP case
Man guilty, jailed 6 months
| By Elena Chong, Courts Correspondent | ||
 |  | Ng Kim Ngweng (left) was sentenced to six months' jail on Monday after he was convicted of threatening to cause hurt to a Member of Parliament. --PHOTO: SINGAPORE POLICE FORCE |
RAG-AND-BONE man Ng Kim Ngweng was sentenced to six months' jail on Monday after he was convicted of threatening to cause hurt to a Member of Parliament.
The 49-year-old was found guilty after an eight-day trial of threatening to cause hurt to MP for Jalan Besar GRC Denise Phua on Jan 12.
He called the hotline, Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry @ Home (Reach), and told the operator that he could not take it anymore, and he did not know what he would do one day.
He said to customer service officer Tan Chia Yong in Mandarin: 'I can't be sure on that... How can you don't hit her? I get angry when I see her so how can I don't hit her?'
The prosecution witnesses had testified that Ng was shouting and spoke in an aggressive tone throughout the conversations. He had also mentioned the previous day's torching of MP for Yio Chu Kang, Mr Seng Han Thong, at a community event.
He called to lodge a 'complaint' against his MP and claimed he had received insufficient financial assistance from her. He also alleged that the victim had frequently insulted him.
But Ms Phua said that Ng had been receiving help from her and the Central Singapore Community Development Council (CDC) for some time. In January he got $200 in cash from his CDC and a $35 voucher for service and conservancy charges.
Ng has previous convictions for theft, criminal intimidation, causing hurt and breach of protection order.
Pressing for a stiff sentence, Deputy Public Prosecutor Imran Abdul Hamid said Ng's convictions pointed to his propensity to resort to violence as a way for settling disputes. He said no one should live and work in fear.
In this case, the threat that Ng uttered had ramifications to the victim's work as an MP. District Judge Liew Thiam Leng said threats to cause injury must be taken seriously and the victim concerned in this case was certainly affected in the discharge of her personal and work commitments.
Ng, whose sentence was backdated to Feb 4, could have been jailed for up to two years and/or fined.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25475.2
Denise Phua says she will help family
March 30, 2009
Threat to hurt MP case
MP says she will help family
 | | MP FOR Jalan Besar GRC Denise Phua (left) on Monday said she is sorry to hear that rag-and-bone man Ng Kim Ngweng was sentenced to six months' jail, shortly after he was convicted of threatening to cause her hurt. --ST PHOTO: NG SOR LUAN |
MP FOR Jalan Besar GRC Denise Phua on Monday said she is sorry to hear that rag-and-bone man Ng Kim Ngweng was sentenced to six months' jail, shortly after he was convicted of threatening to cause her hurt.
The 49-year-old was found guilty after an eight-day trial.
Said Ms Phua of the sentence: 'I am sorry to hear that Mr Ng has been sentenced to six months.
'Let me stress that I am not the party who asked for Mr Ng to be charged. Whatever the situation, the Judge has made the decision.
'I maintain my stand that I will help Mr Ng and his family members, as their MP. Up till now, I am still in contact with his family members and assisting them.
'Mrs Ng took the trouble to visit me at my Meet-The-People's session recently to apologise to me. I am glad she has found a job and the family's financial situation has improved.
'I will continue to assist Mr Ng upon his release to the best of my ability.'
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25475.1
Singapore May Devalue Currency in April
Singapore May Devalue Currency in April, Survey Shows (Update1)
By Patricia Lui
March 30 (Bloomberg) -- The Monetary Authority of Singapore may devalue the city’s currency and allow it to drop 4 percent against the U.S. dollar by June 30 to aid exporters and lift the economy out of the worst recession since independence in 1965.
The central bank will shift the mid-point of the Singapore dollar trading band at a twice-yearly review in April, according to 15 of 17 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News. The currency is “extremely and ridiculously overvalued,” Patrick Bennett, Asia foreign-exchange strategist at Societe Generale SA in Hong Kong, said last week.
Singapore’s exports fell for a 10th month in February as global demand for electronics and drugs tumbled and the government forecasts gross domestic product will shrink as much as 5 percent this year. Exporters are losing out to regional rivals after the currency weakened 6 percent in the past six months, compared with losses of 17 percent in the Indonesian rupiah and 12 percent in South Korea’s won.
“The central bank’s objective is to restore a measure of competitiveness,” said Wei Zheng Kit, a Singapore-based economist at Citigroup Inc., the world’s fourth-biggest currency trader. “A one-off depreciation will achieve this objective.”
Kit said the MAS may not allow much weakness in the currency after the devaluation because it wants to avoid damaging investor confidence. The central bank conducts monetary policy by adjusting the center, slope or width of an undisclosed band in which the Singapore dollar is allowed to fluctuate against a basket of currencies.
‘Sophisticated Mix’
Singapore’s dollar traded at S$1.5187 to the U.S. currency as of 11:04 a.m. local time. The median estimate of 17 economists for the spot rate by the end of the second quarter was S$1.5820 and the forecast range was S$1.65 to S$1.49. The content of the currency basket isn’t disclosed.
“It is time for a more appropriate mix of policy response,” said Bennett at Societe Generale, France’s third- largest bank. “We are looking for a re-centering, a potential band widening and an indication of a more sophisticated mix of interest rates and exchange-rate policies.”
The central bank focuses on currency policy rather than interest rates because trade is so important to the economy. Total exports are equivalent to 191 percent of GDP.
The MAS opted for faster currency appreciation over a six- month period in October 2007. It announced a one-off strengthening in April last year that caused the currency to jump 1.9 percent against the dollar in a single week. It stopped seeking gains in October 2008. It has yet to set a date for this year’s meeting aside from stipulating the month.
No Adjustment
United Overseas Bank Ltd., Singapore’s second-largest lender, said there have been no signals that the MAS plans a policy adjustment in the currency markets.
“Despite the pressure from exports and growth data, there hasn’t been any indication in the price action in the market that the central bank is heading the way of a band re- centering,” said Penn Nee Chow, an economist at UOB.
The Singapore dollar rose 2.6 percent in March, the first monthly gain this year, even as a government report showed non- oil domestic exports dropped 24 percent in February.
The risk of deflation may also spur the central bank to weaken its currency, boosting import prices, said Wai Ho Leong, a Singapore-based economist at Barclays Capital Plc, the world’s third-biggest currency trader.
‘Easing Bias’
“The objective is not to use the exchange rate to save exports as this is likely to be futile in this environment,” said Leong. “Weakening the currency may limit price declines so it doesn’t become self reinforcing or enter a negative wage price spiral.”
Inflation slowed to a 20-month low in February due to the weaker economy. The consumer price index rose 1.9 percent from a year earlier after gaining 2.9 percent in January, the Department of Statistics said on March 23.
The central bank will maintain a neutral stance, in which it seeks neither gains or losses, after the one-off depreciation, said 15 of the 17 economists surveyed.
“There has never been an easing currency policy bias in the history of the MAS,” said Leong at Barclays. “An easing bias will trigger capital flight, importers will suffer and construction costs will go up.”
Singapore’s GDP contracted an annualized 16.9 percent in the fourth quarter compared with the previous three months, when the economy shrank 5.1 percent. The government will release advance first-quarter estimates the same day that the MAS meets.
“Singapore has one of the highest exposures to weakness in external demand,” Enoch Fung, a Hong Kong-based economist at Goldman Sachs Group Inc., wrote in a research note on March 19. “The MAS is likely to weaken the currency by shifting the policy band lower.”
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25443.1
By Patricia Lui
March 30 (Bloomberg) -- The Monetary Authority of Singapore may devalue the city’s currency and allow it to drop 4 percent against the U.S. dollar by June 30 to aid exporters and lift the economy out of the worst recession since independence in 1965.
The central bank will shift the mid-point of the Singapore dollar trading band at a twice-yearly review in April, according to 15 of 17 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News. The currency is “extremely and ridiculously overvalued,” Patrick Bennett, Asia foreign-exchange strategist at Societe Generale SA in Hong Kong, said last week.
Singapore’s exports fell for a 10th month in February as global demand for electronics and drugs tumbled and the government forecasts gross domestic product will shrink as much as 5 percent this year. Exporters are losing out to regional rivals after the currency weakened 6 percent in the past six months, compared with losses of 17 percent in the Indonesian rupiah and 12 percent in South Korea’s won.
“The central bank’s objective is to restore a measure of competitiveness,” said Wei Zheng Kit, a Singapore-based economist at Citigroup Inc., the world’s fourth-biggest currency trader. “A one-off depreciation will achieve this objective.”
Kit said the MAS may not allow much weakness in the currency after the devaluation because it wants to avoid damaging investor confidence. The central bank conducts monetary policy by adjusting the center, slope or width of an undisclosed band in which the Singapore dollar is allowed to fluctuate against a basket of currencies.
‘Sophisticated Mix’
Singapore’s dollar traded at S$1.5187 to the U.S. currency as of 11:04 a.m. local time. The median estimate of 17 economists for the spot rate by the end of the second quarter was S$1.5820 and the forecast range was S$1.65 to S$1.49. The content of the currency basket isn’t disclosed.
“It is time for a more appropriate mix of policy response,” said Bennett at Societe Generale, France’s third- largest bank. “We are looking for a re-centering, a potential band widening and an indication of a more sophisticated mix of interest rates and exchange-rate policies.”
The central bank focuses on currency policy rather than interest rates because trade is so important to the economy. Total exports are equivalent to 191 percent of GDP.
The MAS opted for faster currency appreciation over a six- month period in October 2007. It announced a one-off strengthening in April last year that caused the currency to jump 1.9 percent against the dollar in a single week. It stopped seeking gains in October 2008. It has yet to set a date for this year’s meeting aside from stipulating the month.
No Adjustment
United Overseas Bank Ltd., Singapore’s second-largest lender, said there have been no signals that the MAS plans a policy adjustment in the currency markets.
“Despite the pressure from exports and growth data, there hasn’t been any indication in the price action in the market that the central bank is heading the way of a band re- centering,” said Penn Nee Chow, an economist at UOB.
The Singapore dollar rose 2.6 percent in March, the first monthly gain this year, even as a government report showed non- oil domestic exports dropped 24 percent in February.
The risk of deflation may also spur the central bank to weaken its currency, boosting import prices, said Wai Ho Leong, a Singapore-based economist at Barclays Capital Plc, the world’s third-biggest currency trader.
‘Easing Bias’
“The objective is not to use the exchange rate to save exports as this is likely to be futile in this environment,” said Leong. “Weakening the currency may limit price declines so it doesn’t become self reinforcing or enter a negative wage price spiral.”
Inflation slowed to a 20-month low in February due to the weaker economy. The consumer price index rose 1.9 percent from a year earlier after gaining 2.9 percent in January, the Department of Statistics said on March 23.
The central bank will maintain a neutral stance, in which it seeks neither gains or losses, after the one-off depreciation, said 15 of the 17 economists surveyed.
“There has never been an easing currency policy bias in the history of the MAS,” said Leong at Barclays. “An easing bias will trigger capital flight, importers will suffer and construction costs will go up.”
Singapore’s GDP contracted an annualized 16.9 percent in the fourth quarter compared with the previous three months, when the economy shrank 5.1 percent. The government will release advance first-quarter estimates the same day that the MAS meets.
“Singapore has one of the highest exposures to weakness in external demand,” Enoch Fung, a Hong Kong-based economist at Goldman Sachs Group Inc., wrote in a research note on March 19. “The MAS is likely to weaken the currency by shifting the policy band lower.”
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25443.1
For the Health of the Nation
For the Health of the Nation
by Tom Orlik and Chris Spohr
Posted March 30, 2009
The People’s Republic of China (PRC) hopes that an 850 billion renminbi investment in public health care will broaden the scope and increase the quality of medical coverage, but investment must be accompanied by effective reform if the government is to achieve its objectives.
In 30 years of economic reform, the PRC’s health system has advanced steadily. But increases in spending and improvements in health-care outcomes have not kept pace with the unrivaled speed of economic growth. For much of the population, health care is an unaffordable luxury, and the phrase kan bing nan, kan bing gui (seeing the doctor is difficult and expensive) has wide currency, especially in rural areas and among the migrant population. The promise of universal coverage made by the current administration heralded a new focus on improving public health care. But it is the economic slowdown that has focused attention on the urgent need for increased and better-allocated government spending.
In January, following extended deliberations, came the government’s long-awaited announcement of the 850 billion renminbi investment. With a wider scope and higher standard of coverage, the government aims to achieve improved health care and quality-of-life outcomes. But the impact of the reforms may be more far-reaching. Strengthened and more equitable health care may also play a key role in encouraging households to shift from precautionary saving to consumption, helping the PRC move away from over-reliance on exports as a driver of growth and rebalance toward domestic demand.
The 850 billion renminbi will be split between two government plans, the recently released “2009-2011 Plan for Deepening Health-Care Reform” and another called the “Opinion Concerning Deepening Reform of the Pharmaceutical and Medical System"—both continue a trend in recent years toward greater priority and funding for public health care. The plans aim to achieve five key objectives in just three years. First, basic rural and urban medical coverage to reach 90% of the population by 2011, an increase in contributions to urban medical insurance and rural cooperative medical schemes, and a clear increase in the government's share of health bills. Second, strict regulation of the pharmaceuticals supply chain, a catalogue of approved medicines, and the costs of basic medicines covered by insurance. Third, improving the basic medical system with investments in city and village hospitals, and public health centers in impoverished areas. Fourth, the progressive development of a unified national medical system. Finally, reform of the management and regulation of the health system, including piloting reforms of public hospital compensation systems in 2009, with wider replication of successful experiments after 2011.
These objectives represent a laudable vision for PRC health. But the operational details still need to refined, and viable mechanisms rolled out to ensure that good intentions translate into better health-care outcomes and (in the medium term) free up more household resources for consumption. Three interlinked priorities are particularly important. The first is new spending. Initial plans for the four trillion renminbi rescue package included a mere 1% for health, education, and culture combined, a figure that appears to include some investments already planned. The question is how much of the promised 850 billion renminbi will actually be new spending, and how much will come from central and provincial governments rather than presenting unfunded mandates for already strained local budgets in poorer rural areas.
Such questions directly link to a second key challenge the reforms must address: distorted incentives faced by health-care providers, and excessive out-of-pocket costs faced by patients With just 18% of the total health-care costs currently picked up by government budgets, many hospitals stay in the black by resorting to excessive use of costly diagnostics and drugs Effectively separating the role of doctor and pharmacist will be essential, and the reform's promise of effective policing of the pharmaceutical supply chain must be part of the solution. At the same time, domestic and international experience suggest that the broader system regulation must be combined with well allocated state funding to prevent providers from bypassing cost checks and gaming the system.
Finally, turning higher levels of spending into better health-care outcomes will require a decisive shift in the focus of spending and attention to health system management and service quality. In terms of spending, a bias towards urban health care and expensive infrastructure and equipment needs to shift toward higher levels of spending on rural care and improved service quality. The government’s traditional strength resides in capital expenditure. A shift toward human resource development, and a rebalancing from coastal to interior, urban to rural, and treatment to prevention will not be easy. In terms of management, a key objective of the plan is improved regulation and oversight of service levels, but global experience underscores the fact that such targets are easier to declare than to implement.
The announcement of health-care reforms represents a major step forward. But the road ahead is not without pitfalls. If the government missteps, new spending may only further ratchet-up costs without impacting patient outcomes. The prize if they stay on course, however, is a healthier population driving faster, more sustainable, and better balanced economic growth—a prize well worth fighting for.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26731.1
by Tom Orlik and Chris Spohr
Posted March 30, 2009
The People’s Republic of China (PRC) hopes that an 850 billion renminbi investment in public health care will broaden the scope and increase the quality of medical coverage, but investment must be accompanied by effective reform if the government is to achieve its objectives.
In 30 years of economic reform, the PRC’s health system has advanced steadily. But increases in spending and improvements in health-care outcomes have not kept pace with the unrivaled speed of economic growth. For much of the population, health care is an unaffordable luxury, and the phrase kan bing nan, kan bing gui (seeing the doctor is difficult and expensive) has wide currency, especially in rural areas and among the migrant population. The promise of universal coverage made by the current administration heralded a new focus on improving public health care. But it is the economic slowdown that has focused attention on the urgent need for increased and better-allocated government spending.
In January, following extended deliberations, came the government’s long-awaited announcement of the 850 billion renminbi investment. With a wider scope and higher standard of coverage, the government aims to achieve improved health care and quality-of-life outcomes. But the impact of the reforms may be more far-reaching. Strengthened and more equitable health care may also play a key role in encouraging households to shift from precautionary saving to consumption, helping the PRC move away from over-reliance on exports as a driver of growth and rebalance toward domestic demand.
The 850 billion renminbi will be split between two government plans, the recently released “2009-2011 Plan for Deepening Health-Care Reform” and another called the “Opinion Concerning Deepening Reform of the Pharmaceutical and Medical System"—both continue a trend in recent years toward greater priority and funding for public health care. The plans aim to achieve five key objectives in just three years. First, basic rural and urban medical coverage to reach 90% of the population by 2011, an increase in contributions to urban medical insurance and rural cooperative medical schemes, and a clear increase in the government's share of health bills. Second, strict regulation of the pharmaceuticals supply chain, a catalogue of approved medicines, and the costs of basic medicines covered by insurance. Third, improving the basic medical system with investments in city and village hospitals, and public health centers in impoverished areas. Fourth, the progressive development of a unified national medical system. Finally, reform of the management and regulation of the health system, including piloting reforms of public hospital compensation systems in 2009, with wider replication of successful experiments after 2011.
These objectives represent a laudable vision for PRC health. But the operational details still need to refined, and viable mechanisms rolled out to ensure that good intentions translate into better health-care outcomes and (in the medium term) free up more household resources for consumption. Three interlinked priorities are particularly important. The first is new spending. Initial plans for the four trillion renminbi rescue package included a mere 1% for health, education, and culture combined, a figure that appears to include some investments already planned. The question is how much of the promised 850 billion renminbi will actually be new spending, and how much will come from central and provincial governments rather than presenting unfunded mandates for already strained local budgets in poorer rural areas.
Such questions directly link to a second key challenge the reforms must address: distorted incentives faced by health-care providers, and excessive out-of-pocket costs faced by patients With just 18% of the total health-care costs currently picked up by government budgets, many hospitals stay in the black by resorting to excessive use of costly diagnostics and drugs Effectively separating the role of doctor and pharmacist will be essential, and the reform's promise of effective policing of the pharmaceutical supply chain must be part of the solution. At the same time, domestic and international experience suggest that the broader system regulation must be combined with well allocated state funding to prevent providers from bypassing cost checks and gaming the system.
Finally, turning higher levels of spending into better health-care outcomes will require a decisive shift in the focus of spending and attention to health system management and service quality. In terms of spending, a bias towards urban health care and expensive infrastructure and equipment needs to shift toward higher levels of spending on rural care and improved service quality. The government’s traditional strength resides in capital expenditure. A shift toward human resource development, and a rebalancing from coastal to interior, urban to rural, and treatment to prevention will not be easy. In terms of management, a key objective of the plan is improved regulation and oversight of service levels, but global experience underscores the fact that such targets are easier to declare than to implement.
The announcement of health-care reforms represents a major step forward. But the road ahead is not without pitfalls. If the government missteps, new spending may only further ratchet-up costs without impacting patient outcomes. The prize if they stay on course, however, is a healthier population driving faster, more sustainable, and better balanced economic growth—a prize well worth fighting for.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26731.1
Independent candidates and their viability
Independent candidates and their viability
SINGAPORE - Much coverage has been given to the usual political parties ever since time memoral. The usual suspects aside, only one group of candidates remain overlooked - the independent candidates. In fact, only one independent candidate has been successful thus far, and no prizes for guessing but he’s none under than Mr Chiam See Tong. Mr Chiam contested unsuccessfully at Cairnhill constituency as an independent candidate before he went on to establish the Singapore Democratic Party. The rest, they say, is the stuff of legends.
There is great variance in the performance of independent candidates. Some scored low single digits (below 5%) while others like Mr Chiam managed more than 30% of the votes. However, the fact remains that independent candidates earn less votes on average as compared to party candidates, including those from the opposition. Thus, it appears that independent candidates are at a distinct disadvantage.
Political commentators have always reiterated that party brand name gives the candidate an edge. That is true to a certain extent. The Singaporean mindset, which has always been peppered with People’s Action Party, Workers’ Party and Singapore Democratic Party, may find independent candidates an unfamiliar proposition. This may count against the latter. And independent candidates who were relative unknowns before the elections may face an uphill struggle.
And it wouldn’t help independent candidates if they contested for the sake of expressing dissenting views while failing to articulate on suggested policies that can advance the voters’ interest. On this account, this has got more to do with the voters’ high expectations rather than the candidates’ shortcoming. These are the voters who expect candidates to bring something else to their table, other than dissenting views, and are likely to vote for parties who can fulfill their interests.
Besides organizational and logistical assistance, new candidates joining an established party enjoy the backing of popular party stalwarts during elections, and this may swing votes in their favour. For instance, Worker’s Party Mr Low Thia Khiang gave rally speeches in constituencies other than his own, throwing his weight behind his new candidates and assisting them. And this is considered a crucial move to help garner support for the new candidates.
So, does that mean independent candidates do not stand any chance?
The answer lies in the independent candidate in question. If the latter is both a well-known personality and proven leader with a string of achievements under his belt, voters may just overlook his independence which pretty much negates some of his disadvantage. And if the latter is a prominent member of a well-known organization, his profile would be boosted a few notches, especially when he is considered an authority in certain areas. In fact, some postulated that as discontentment with the current government grows, more of such independent candidates will surface to contest the elections to address the pertinent issues that are the source of such unhappiness.
Thus, although the proverbial independent candidate may face daunting odds, the latter’s success or failure hinges on who he is and what he has to offer.
Independent candidates and their viability
the kent ridge common: Latest post
Are independent candidates are at a disadvantage?
Photo By: eve+line
By Kelvin Teo ⋅ March 30, 2009
Email This Post Email This Post
Print This Post Print This Post
SINGAPORE - Much coverage has been given to the usual political parties ever since time memoral. The usual suspects aside, only one group of candidates remain overlooked - the independent candidates. In fact, only one independent candidate has been successful thus far, and no prizes for guessing but he’s none under than Mr Chiam See Tong. Mr Chiam contested unsuccessfully at Cairnhill constituency as an independent candidate before he went on to establish the Singapore Democratic Party. The rest, they say, is the stuff of legends.
There is great variance in the performance of independent candidates. Some scored low single digits (below 5%) while others like Mr Chiam managed more than 30% of the votes. However, the fact remains that independent candidates earn less votes on average as compared to party candidates, including those from the opposition. Thus, it appears that independent candidates are at a distinct disadvantage.
Political commentators have always reiterated that party brand name gives the candidate an edge. That is true to a certain extent. The Singaporean mindset, which has always been peppered with People’s Action Party, Workers’ Party and Singapore Democratic Party, may find independent candidates an unfamiliar proposition. This may count against the latter. And independent candidates who were relative unknowns before the elections may face an uphill struggle.
And it wouldn’t help independent candidates if they contested for the sake of expressing dissenting views while failing to articulate on suggested policies that can advance the voters’ interest. On this account, this has got more to do with the voters’ high expectations rather than the candidates’ shortcoming. These are the voters who expect candidates to bring something else to their table, other than dissenting views, and are likely to vote for parties who can fulfill their interests.
Besides organizational and logistical assistance, new candidates joining an established party enjoy the backing of popular party stalwarts during elections, and this may swing votes in their favour. For instance, Worker’s Party Mr Low Thia Khiang gave rally speeches in constituencies other than his own, throwing his weight behind his new candidates and assisting them. And this is considered a crucial move to help garner support for the new candidates.
So, does that mean independent candidates do not stand any chance?
The answer lies in the independent candidate in question. If the latter is both a well-known personality and proven leader with a string of achievements under his belt, voters may just overlook his independence which pretty much negates some of his disadvantage. And if the latter is a prominent member of a well-known organization, his profile would be boosted a few notches, especially when he is considered an authority in certain areas. In fact, some postulated that as discontentment with the current government grows, more of such independent candidates will surface to contest the elections to address the pertinent issues that are the source of such unhappiness.
Thus, although the proverbial independent candidate may face daunting odds, the latter’s success or failure hinges on who he is and what he has to offer.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25530.1
SINGAPORE - Much coverage has been given to the usual political parties ever since time memoral. The usual suspects aside, only one group of candidates remain overlooked - the independent candidates. In fact, only one independent candidate has been successful thus far, and no prizes for guessing but he’s none under than Mr Chiam See Tong. Mr Chiam contested unsuccessfully at Cairnhill constituency as an independent candidate before he went on to establish the Singapore Democratic Party. The rest, they say, is the stuff of legends.
There is great variance in the performance of independent candidates. Some scored low single digits (below 5%) while others like Mr Chiam managed more than 30% of the votes. However, the fact remains that independent candidates earn less votes on average as compared to party candidates, including those from the opposition. Thus, it appears that independent candidates are at a distinct disadvantage.
Political commentators have always reiterated that party brand name gives the candidate an edge. That is true to a certain extent. The Singaporean mindset, which has always been peppered with People’s Action Party, Workers’ Party and Singapore Democratic Party, may find independent candidates an unfamiliar proposition. This may count against the latter. And independent candidates who were relative unknowns before the elections may face an uphill struggle.
And it wouldn’t help independent candidates if they contested for the sake of expressing dissenting views while failing to articulate on suggested policies that can advance the voters’ interest. On this account, this has got more to do with the voters’ high expectations rather than the candidates’ shortcoming. These are the voters who expect candidates to bring something else to their table, other than dissenting views, and are likely to vote for parties who can fulfill their interests.
Besides organizational and logistical assistance, new candidates joining an established party enjoy the backing of popular party stalwarts during elections, and this may swing votes in their favour. For instance, Worker’s Party Mr Low Thia Khiang gave rally speeches in constituencies other than his own, throwing his weight behind his new candidates and assisting them. And this is considered a crucial move to help garner support for the new candidates.
So, does that mean independent candidates do not stand any chance?
The answer lies in the independent candidate in question. If the latter is both a well-known personality and proven leader with a string of achievements under his belt, voters may just overlook his independence which pretty much negates some of his disadvantage. And if the latter is a prominent member of a well-known organization, his profile would be boosted a few notches, especially when he is considered an authority in certain areas. In fact, some postulated that as discontentment with the current government grows, more of such independent candidates will surface to contest the elections to address the pertinent issues that are the source of such unhappiness.
Thus, although the proverbial independent candidate may face daunting odds, the latter’s success or failure hinges on who he is and what he has to offer.
Independent candidates and their viability
the kent ridge common: Latest post
Are independent candidates are at a disadvantage?
Photo By: eve+line
By Kelvin Teo ⋅ March 30, 2009
Email This Post Email This Post
Print This Post Print This Post
SINGAPORE - Much coverage has been given to the usual political parties ever since time memoral. The usual suspects aside, only one group of candidates remain overlooked - the independent candidates. In fact, only one independent candidate has been successful thus far, and no prizes for guessing but he’s none under than Mr Chiam See Tong. Mr Chiam contested unsuccessfully at Cairnhill constituency as an independent candidate before he went on to establish the Singapore Democratic Party. The rest, they say, is the stuff of legends.
There is great variance in the performance of independent candidates. Some scored low single digits (below 5%) while others like Mr Chiam managed more than 30% of the votes. However, the fact remains that independent candidates earn less votes on average as compared to party candidates, including those from the opposition. Thus, it appears that independent candidates are at a distinct disadvantage.
Political commentators have always reiterated that party brand name gives the candidate an edge. That is true to a certain extent. The Singaporean mindset, which has always been peppered with People’s Action Party, Workers’ Party and Singapore Democratic Party, may find independent candidates an unfamiliar proposition. This may count against the latter. And independent candidates who were relative unknowns before the elections may face an uphill struggle.
And it wouldn’t help independent candidates if they contested for the sake of expressing dissenting views while failing to articulate on suggested policies that can advance the voters’ interest. On this account, this has got more to do with the voters’ high expectations rather than the candidates’ shortcoming. These are the voters who expect candidates to bring something else to their table, other than dissenting views, and are likely to vote for parties who can fulfill their interests.
Besides organizational and logistical assistance, new candidates joining an established party enjoy the backing of popular party stalwarts during elections, and this may swing votes in their favour. For instance, Worker’s Party Mr Low Thia Khiang gave rally speeches in constituencies other than his own, throwing his weight behind his new candidates and assisting them. And this is considered a crucial move to help garner support for the new candidates.
So, does that mean independent candidates do not stand any chance?
The answer lies in the independent candidate in question. If the latter is both a well-known personality and proven leader with a string of achievements under his belt, voters may just overlook his independence which pretty much negates some of his disadvantage. And if the latter is a prominent member of a well-known organization, his profile would be boosted a few notches, especially when he is considered an authority in certain areas. In fact, some postulated that as discontentment with the current government grows, more of such independent candidates will surface to contest the elections to address the pertinent issues that are the source of such unhappiness.
Thus, although the proverbial independent candidate may face daunting odds, the latter’s success or failure hinges on who he is and what he has to offer.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25530.1
New faces watching new media
New faces watching new media
Monday, 30 March 2009
PN Balji
Who says Cabinet changes here don’t spring surprises? Dig a little deep into the reshuffle announced by the Prime Minister on Thursday and you will find at least one.
Of all the ministries, only one has an Acting Minister. And for support, that Acting Minister has just one Parliamentary Secretary; that too a newbie as far as political appointments go.
All others have at least one, in some cases two, full minister and, at the very least, a Senior Parliamentary Secretary.
This is a surprise because the Ministry of Information and the Arts, which is being left under the charge of those who came into politics in the last elections in 2006 (Mr Lui Tuck Yew and Mr Sam Tan), is facing testing times that will determine how Singapore’s socio-political future will be shaped.
If there is one Cabinet appointment that needs an experienced hand, it is Mr Lui’s. With the internet media getting more shrill by the day and with the government still in a reactive mode in what’s thrown up in this largely faceless community, his job is going to be an onerous one.
Hovering over these developments is the next general elections and how the government will take its fight to the new media.
Three events in the last four months show how tricky things are getting.
The public ticking-off of a top civil servant for his article on his family’s culinary trip to France, the decision to come out with a report card sometime later this year on how well Town Councils are run and the Defence Ministry’s official response to the death of one of its medical officers in Melbourne. They all have one thing in common: by and large, it was the blogs and websites that were keeping the issues on the boil.
Having tasted blood, the new media is likely to push the envelope further. In fact, one website in a commentary recently said that bloggers will continue to push and push an issue until they get a reaction. In short, they are going into an area that has been out of bounds in Singapore: crusading journalism.
How the government responds to this effort to redraw the battle lines is primarily going to be Mr Lui’s job.
A crackdown will be a step backward for a government that has spoken of a light touch and for a country that is very plugged into the new internet world order. A folded-arms approach will mean surrendering to the new media community.
Mr Lui and his team have no other alternative but to engage this community. A robust defence of established principles is just not going to work. Instead, an unemotional sifting through of the issues discussed, identifying the talking points and responding to them is the way to move forward.
Here is an example. The angst over the Town Council debate late last year was all about two questions: Why did some of these organisations keep quiet about their investments in the doomed Lehman products? And why do they need to accumulate so much public money ($2 billion) in their sinking funds?
The government’s response should have tackled these questions directly and openly instead of, at least in one case, using that line from an old record: Be thankful.
Responses like this don’t wash anymore.
Mr Lui and his team need to convince the unconvinced that online media, despite misgivings of it being faceless and priding itself in a talk-first-think-later culture, is here to stay. And its influence can only grow.
They need to come out with a comprehensive plan in dealing and debating with them. Sometimes explaining policies painfully and patiently. Sometimes giving back as good as it gets. And, let me hasten to add, this cannot be done solely in the traditional media, which has been the practice all this while.
Mr Lui and Mr Sam Tan should not be the lone rangers in this fight. They need all the help they can get from every other arm of government. From MPs to civil servants, they must realise that the shift to the internet is irreversible.
MICA needs help and with the Cabinet changes already in place, the next best thing is to look at a high-level committee drawing people, even bloggers, to come together for a serious re-look of a policy that is in danger of being swept away by the currents of change.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25429.1
Monday, 30 March 2009
PN Balji
Who says Cabinet changes here don’t spring surprises? Dig a little deep into the reshuffle announced by the Prime Minister on Thursday and you will find at least one.
Of all the ministries, only one has an Acting Minister. And for support, that Acting Minister has just one Parliamentary Secretary; that too a newbie as far as political appointments go.
All others have at least one, in some cases two, full minister and, at the very least, a Senior Parliamentary Secretary.
This is a surprise because the Ministry of Information and the Arts, which is being left under the charge of those who came into politics in the last elections in 2006 (Mr Lui Tuck Yew and Mr Sam Tan), is facing testing times that will determine how Singapore’s socio-political future will be shaped.
If there is one Cabinet appointment that needs an experienced hand, it is Mr Lui’s. With the internet media getting more shrill by the day and with the government still in a reactive mode in what’s thrown up in this largely faceless community, his job is going to be an onerous one.
Hovering over these developments is the next general elections and how the government will take its fight to the new media.
Three events in the last four months show how tricky things are getting.
The public ticking-off of a top civil servant for his article on his family’s culinary trip to France, the decision to come out with a report card sometime later this year on how well Town Councils are run and the Defence Ministry’s official response to the death of one of its medical officers in Melbourne. They all have one thing in common: by and large, it was the blogs and websites that were keeping the issues on the boil.
Having tasted blood, the new media is likely to push the envelope further. In fact, one website in a commentary recently said that bloggers will continue to push and push an issue until they get a reaction. In short, they are going into an area that has been out of bounds in Singapore: crusading journalism.
How the government responds to this effort to redraw the battle lines is primarily going to be Mr Lui’s job.
A crackdown will be a step backward for a government that has spoken of a light touch and for a country that is very plugged into the new internet world order. A folded-arms approach will mean surrendering to the new media community.
Mr Lui and his team have no other alternative but to engage this community. A robust defence of established principles is just not going to work. Instead, an unemotional sifting through of the issues discussed, identifying the talking points and responding to them is the way to move forward.
Here is an example. The angst over the Town Council debate late last year was all about two questions: Why did some of these organisations keep quiet about their investments in the doomed Lehman products? And why do they need to accumulate so much public money ($2 billion) in their sinking funds?
The government’s response should have tackled these questions directly and openly instead of, at least in one case, using that line from an old record: Be thankful.
Responses like this don’t wash anymore.
Mr Lui and his team need to convince the unconvinced that online media, despite misgivings of it being faceless and priding itself in a talk-first-think-later culture, is here to stay. And its influence can only grow.
They need to come out with a comprehensive plan in dealing and debating with them. Sometimes explaining policies painfully and patiently. Sometimes giving back as good as it gets. And, let me hasten to add, this cannot be done solely in the traditional media, which has been the practice all this while.
Mr Lui and Mr Sam Tan should not be the lone rangers in this fight. They need all the help they can get from every other arm of government. From MPs to civil servants, they must realise that the shift to the internet is irreversible.
MICA needs help and with the Cabinet changes already in place, the next best thing is to look at a high-level committee drawing people, even bloggers, to come together for a serious re-look of a policy that is in danger of being swept away by the currents of change.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25429.1
Abdul Salim resigns from WP
Third WP candidate from GE 2006 resigns from party
Monday, 30 March 2009
Mr Abdul Salim, 27, a member of the Workers’ Party’s team which contested Ang Mo Kio GRC in the last elections, has tendered his resignation from the party.
He is the third WP candidate from General Elections 2006 to resign from the party after the elections. The other two were Mr Chia Ti Lik and Mr Goh Meng Seng. Mr Goh is now with the National Solidarity Party (NSP).
Speaking to The Online Citizen, Mr Salim, who handed in his resignation to party secretary general Mr Low Thia Khiang on Sunday, said “there were some issues” he had with the WP but declined to elaborate. He joined the WP in 2005. He also declined to confirm rumours that he might be joining the NSP. “I am keeping my options open”, he said when asked if he would contest the next elections. “Nothing is being confirmed,” he added. Several WP members which TOC spoke to were unaware of Mr Salim’s resignation.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25428.1
Monday, 30 March 2009
Mr Abdul Salim, 27, a member of the Workers’ Party’s team which contested Ang Mo Kio GRC in the last elections, has tendered his resignation from the party.
He is the third WP candidate from General Elections 2006 to resign from the party after the elections. The other two were Mr Chia Ti Lik and Mr Goh Meng Seng. Mr Goh is now with the National Solidarity Party (NSP).
Speaking to The Online Citizen, Mr Salim, who handed in his resignation to party secretary general Mr Low Thia Khiang on Sunday, said “there were some issues” he had with the WP but declined to elaborate. He joined the WP in 2005. He also declined to confirm rumours that he might be joining the NSP. “I am keeping my options open”, he said when asked if he would contest the next elections. “Nothing is being confirmed,” he added. Several WP members which TOC spoke to were unaware of Mr Salim’s resignation.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25428.1
Is Mr Khaw Boon Wan really misunderstood?
Is Mr Khaw Boon Wan really misunderstood?
During the Parliamentary sittings on 9 and 10 February 2009, Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan caused a storm when he allegedly said that Singaporeans should consider sending their elderly parents to retire in JB nursing homes if they cannot afford Singapore’s nursing homes.
Following the negative response from the ground, Mr Khaw Boon Wan changed tack and claimed that his words were “twisted”.
Did the media misrepresent Mr Khaw or did we misunderstood his intention?
Let us revisit the Parliamentary records of his speech in the two days and the Straits report report a later. We leave you to judge for yourselves:
Mr Khaw Boon Wan, 9 February 2009:
“We discussed earlier about lower cost possibilities in the neighbouring region, especially Johor Bahru. Let me talk about my day trip during the Chinese New Year to Johor Bahru. I visited one site where a Singaporean investor is going to put up 200-bed nursing home. I asked him, “How much would you be spending on your capex (capital expenditure)?” It is mind-boggling, the construction cost and land cost are so low, that my cost of just putting up a polyclinic is probably more than his cost of putting up a 200-bed nursing home. So the cost of keeping a resident in a private nursing home in Singapore can easily pay 2.5 months of nursing home care in JB. If the connection is easy and if there is any urgent problem, you can always ambulance in the elderly to Singapore. The family members can get to visit the elderly on weekends. As this nursing home’s CEO told me, even in Singapore, when they put the elderly in the nursing home, they also only visit them once a week over the weekends. Of course, many visit daily but quite a significant percentage just visit on the weekends. So, what is the difference with putting them in JB?
Source: Hansard
Mr Khaw Boon Wan in response to Ms Sylvia Lim, 10 February 2009 :
On the nursing home in Johor, I mentioned it in passing because I made a trip there. Actually my main purpose was to look at the hospital because Members have asked me to consider the possibility of Medisave to be used for hospitals there. I used the opportunity to look at the Iskandar Malaysia region; I have not been to that part of Johor for many years and wanted to see how the development is shaping up there. It was a very pleasant trip. I went by the Tuas Second Link, then from west to east to Pasir Gudang, ended up with a nice seafood and cheap lunch near Pasir Gudang and came back through the new CIQ Checkpoint to our Causeway. At the Iskandar Malaysia region, I also took a look at the site where I heard they have investment from a medical school from England which is coming to set up. I also went to take a look at the Legoland theme park where the land is being prepared. Sorry, for digressing.
But many Singaporeans, including many residents in my constituency, go to Johor very regularly, top up their car, which many do, and also to have a nice seafood meal at much cheaper prices. I think these are natural activities, and that is part and parcel of globalisation. In fact, this is not even globalisation; this is regionalisation, and there is nothing wrong with that. Consumers are free to choose. I know many go over to the pharmacy there to get cheaper drugs. It is not our fault. The pharmaceutical companies have a way of setting prices: Third World, they set lower prices; First World, like Singapore, they set higher prices. By allowing the flexibility of consumers walking over the Causeway, they benefit. I do not think we should constrain them from doing so. Our cost will always be higher because our wages are different. Nurses are paid very differently here compared to Johor and ditto for doctors; likewise construction cost.
I just want to point out to Singaporeans that there are options like these. In fact, it is already happening. This free flow of patients across borders, so much so that there is a term called “medical tourism”. Singaporeans go to Bangkok, I know, for lasik, and vice versa. Americans come here. Russians come here. Singaporeans go to Penang and Malacca. I think we should allow that. In any case, how can we prevent it? We cannot prevent it. But in fact, by keeping the borders “open”, it puts some competitive pressure on our local providers which eventually will be good for our own consumers. Because if they price themselves too high, the patients will start going across the Causeway and they lose customers.
Source: Hansard
Mr Khaw Boon Wan in response to Mr Low Thia Kiang, 10 February 2009 :
So no, I am not saying that if you are poor, I will put you in an ambulance, send you across the Causeway to Johor nursing home. That is not what I said and please do not twist my words. But what I am saying is for those in the middle-income group, you have choices, you are paying out of your own pocket, you decide. Do you want to have a seafood meal in Singapore or you want to have a family reunion in JB, it is up to you, this is your own choice. Do you want to fill your car tank in Singapore or you want to drive across and have a haircut, that is up to you. You are spending your own money. And I am just sharing with Singaporeans that there are alternatives of that kind. But for low-income Singaporeans, we look after and heavily subsidise them. There is no need for them to walk across, because they enjoy a heavy subsidy here. They have to pay unsubsidised rate in JB. It will be more expensive than what they can receive in Singapore. So that is the way we do our systems and I hope to get the Member’s support for it as well.
Straits Times report, 11 February 2009:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25427.3
A Quitter's Glory!
A Quitter's Glory!
A family I love left Singapore because they have the alternative of not taking the crap dishes out by the PAP government. When members of the family were called "quitters" by SM Goh Chok Tong, you can imagine their happiness and lightheartedness when they found out that the daughter of GCT is a quitter too - another "fair weather Singaporean", lamented GCT!
Wu Chia-ching, a 20-year-old Taiwanese has just become a Singapore PR who may become a Singapore citizen soon. Said Cuesports Singapore's vice-president Ivan Lim: 'He is not just here to win medals. We want him to be involved with the schools and be a role model for younger players.'[Link]
Role Model?
1. Yes, work hard, be the best that you can be and make Singapore proud! . . . OR . . .
2. Work hard, be the best that you can be and sell (pimp) your birthright and nationality to the highest bidder?
No, I have nothing against Wu Chia-ching and I respect his decision. What eats me is in Singapore's relentless chase for fame and glory, we are selling our core values and principles as in (2). Have we lost our soul?
Maybe I'm an old fogey whose value is out of sync but to buy a foreigner and to piss off Taiwan (a friendly neighbour who allows us their land for our military training) is a little too much to bear. "Ghee Kee" - roughly translated from Hokkien: "Loyalty" or "You don't play out or screw up your ally (brother)" is missing big time here!
So what's loyalty to Singapore worth?
Squat, a load of crap or the colour of money like what we pay the ministers?
The cheek to make a song and dance out of hustling a pool talent from a friendly country on the front page of ST shows what kind of a cuntry we have become.
The role model bit is just too hard to swallow.
Yes, as each day passes, Singapore is becoming more a cuntry than a nation.
Yes, buy and sell.
Break the bank for the glory-maker and let the unproductive (used to be nation builders) rot and die (preferably in JB).
Prosecute and prostitute!
Majulah Singapura!
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25527.1
A family I love left Singapore because they have the alternative of not taking the crap dishes out by the PAP government. When members of the family were called "quitters" by SM Goh Chok Tong, you can imagine their happiness and lightheartedness when they found out that the daughter of GCT is a quitter too - another "fair weather Singaporean", lamented GCT!
Wu Chia-ching, a 20-year-old Taiwanese has just become a Singapore PR who may become a Singapore citizen soon. Said Cuesports Singapore's vice-president Ivan Lim: 'He is not just here to win medals. We want him to be involved with the schools and be a role model for younger players.'[Link]
Role Model?
1. Yes, work hard, be the best that you can be and make Singapore proud! . . . OR . . .
2. Work hard, be the best that you can be and sell (pimp) your birthright and nationality to the highest bidder?
No, I have nothing against Wu Chia-ching and I respect his decision. What eats me is in Singapore's relentless chase for fame and glory, we are selling our core values and principles as in (2). Have we lost our soul?
Maybe I'm an old fogey whose value is out of sync but to buy a foreigner and to piss off Taiwan (a friendly neighbour who allows us their land for our military training) is a little too much to bear. "Ghee Kee" - roughly translated from Hokkien: "Loyalty" or "You don't play out or screw up your ally (brother)" is missing big time here!
So what's loyalty to Singapore worth?
Squat, a load of crap or the colour of money like what we pay the ministers?
The cheek to make a song and dance out of hustling a pool talent from a friendly country on the front page of ST shows what kind of a cuntry we have become.
The role model bit is just too hard to swallow.
Yes, as each day passes, Singapore is becoming more a cuntry than a nation.
Yes, buy and sell.
Break the bank for the glory-maker and let the unproductive (used to be nation builders) rot and die (preferably in JB).
Prosecute and prostitute!
Majulah Singapura!
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25527.1
Singapore's Shame 1 - Political Culture
Singapore's Shame (Chapter 1 - Political Culture)
By Dr James Gomez, Author, Self-Censorship: Singapore’s Shame
In political science, the term “political culture” has largely been understood as involving the norms, beliefs, values, sentiments and understandings that support a people’s perception of modalities of power and authority within a particular political system.
It is seen as setting theunrecorded ground rules as to how the political process will be played out (Pye, 1995). A particular political culture is assumed to arise as a result of historical development, contributing to the reproduction of the system or the processes that support such a culture.
There is an elite culture that operates among the leadership and its allies of a polity while a mass culture, which is less sophisticated but not very different from the top,operates among the people. Often the operation of political culture has been considered within the confines of the nation-state.
In contemporary times with the advent of the internet, globalization and the movement of labourand capital across continents, the production and maintenance of political culture also includes those who are accepted and expelled from theparameters of the nation-state as part of migration and immigration process.
“Political culture” shapes “political behaviour”, that is, patterns of political participation. It dictates and determines the political preferences of individuals in a system. In Singapore, it explains why people (both local and foreign) are willing to conform and engage only in politically sanctioned behaviour.
This holds true of not only Singapore citizens but also foreigners who take up citizenship and work rights opportunities in Singapore. Political culture and behaviour also seeks to explain individual or collective participation as well as non-participation in the political process. For instance, it can explain why in the Republic, with its limited political participation, there is little that falls outside of “approved” channels.
At the same time to also shed light on the reasons many Singapore citizens migrate and some why foreigners resident eventually move out or not continue their employment in the city-state. The net result is that the constraints on political participation have led to the rise of a dominant apathy in Singapore. But I do concede that in the last ten years there has been some movement towards political participation via online expressions with some of it spilling over into the offline world. However, the number of actors initiating such activities remains small but it contributes to the growing tensions with the dominant political culture.
Intertwined with political culture is “political attitude,” which marks the persistent psychological orientations and belief that underpin political opinions and voting patterns of the citizenry. It explains why citizens and foreigners alike residing in Singapore do not generally condone alternative political expression, why the ruling PAP is viewed as the only legitimate or “safe” choice, or why there is a general lack of ability to imagine a non-PAP government.
It accounts for the climate of fear surrounding opposition politics, political oriented civil society groups and individuals as well as acts of civil disobedience. Collectively, political “behaviour”and “attitudes” are part a complex interactive system that contribute to the production, re-production and operation of a political culture in a given society.
In the Singapore this is largely a politically self-censorial one. Although the whole notion of political culture (Almond Powell 1966; Almond and Verba 1988; Pye l995) has been made problematic with the post-modernist deconstruction of essentialisms, the debate within cultural studies is an ongoing one.
In this respect, political culture, behaviour and attitudes can be debated and meaningfully used to explain the phenomenon of politicalculture in Singapore. They are all aspects of the same thing. Still, the scientific recording of political culture is often raised as an issue, complicated by philosophical questions concern over what is scientific as well as the subjective nature of the topic.
Culture, which is marked by the uncertainties of human behaviour, is a difficult phenomenon to record through quantitative methods such as surveys and other quasi-quantitative procedures. Interpretative analysis by those knowledgeable of certain countries, the people and the system has beenrecognized as a helpful way to bridge this impasse.
Given the difficulties in methodology, in my first discussion of self-censorship ten years ago I modestly build on the limited works that have attempted to describe and record this phenomenon without actually employing a formal quantitative social science means.
Instead, I collaboratively employed secondary sources, participant-observation and interpretative analysis to unpack this political feature. Ten years on as a Singapore watcher and participant, I reflect further on the initial analysis and bring into the discussion the post-internet environment and how it has come to bear on the political culture of self-censorship.
In this exercise to understand the dominant political culture in Singapore,one needs to distinguish censorship by the state from acts of individual self-censorship, and actions taken by individuals to censor others and plot the relationship between them.
The two are separate and different mechanisms. Thus, they require dissimilar tools of argumentation, even though the former may lead to the latter. In between the two are the normal and frequently agreed agents of socialisation that determine censorship bythe people. These are the family, school, the various para-political institutions, national service, the work place, the local mainstream media and sub-structures in society at large.
These institutions contribute to the formation of attitudes but, in a centralised state as Singapore, these are principally influenced by the political. Therefore, the fostering and operation of such attitudes must be understood as being derived, to some extent, from the political system. For instance, the state’s censorship of information through the decades has contributed to an inability of the people to formulate a sustained political critique or opinion, even if they want to.
The internet to some extent has mitigated this situation but the mainstream media still dominates the information landscape. The self-censorship that emerges as a result can be attributed to a lack of confidence or a perceived incompetence in political matters because of a critical lack of information.
Even more importantly, it can be argued that phenomenon of self-censorship is one of the tools the PAP indirectly uses to maintain its political hold over the republic and itspeople. This is what I demarcate, describe and evaluate when I scrutinise the issue of political culture in Singapore: it is the in-built political self-checking system among the citizenry and foreigners that helps the ruling party less visibly maintain its grip on power.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25426.1
By Dr James Gomez, Author, Self-Censorship: Singapore’s Shame
In political science, the term “political culture” has largely been understood as involving the norms, beliefs, values, sentiments and understandings that support a people’s perception of modalities of power and authority within a particular political system.
It is seen as setting theunrecorded ground rules as to how the political process will be played out (Pye, 1995). A particular political culture is assumed to arise as a result of historical development, contributing to the reproduction of the system or the processes that support such a culture.
There is an elite culture that operates among the leadership and its allies of a polity while a mass culture, which is less sophisticated but not very different from the top,operates among the people. Often the operation of political culture has been considered within the confines of the nation-state.
In contemporary times with the advent of the internet, globalization and the movement of labourand capital across continents, the production and maintenance of political culture also includes those who are accepted and expelled from theparameters of the nation-state as part of migration and immigration process.
“Political culture” shapes “political behaviour”, that is, patterns of political participation. It dictates and determines the political preferences of individuals in a system. In Singapore, it explains why people (both local and foreign) are willing to conform and engage only in politically sanctioned behaviour.
This holds true of not only Singapore citizens but also foreigners who take up citizenship and work rights opportunities in Singapore. Political culture and behaviour also seeks to explain individual or collective participation as well as non-participation in the political process. For instance, it can explain why in the Republic, with its limited political participation, there is little that falls outside of “approved” channels.
At the same time to also shed light on the reasons many Singapore citizens migrate and some why foreigners resident eventually move out or not continue their employment in the city-state. The net result is that the constraints on political participation have led to the rise of a dominant apathy in Singapore. But I do concede that in the last ten years there has been some movement towards political participation via online expressions with some of it spilling over into the offline world. However, the number of actors initiating such activities remains small but it contributes to the growing tensions with the dominant political culture.
Intertwined with political culture is “political attitude,” which marks the persistent psychological orientations and belief that underpin political opinions and voting patterns of the citizenry. It explains why citizens and foreigners alike residing in Singapore do not generally condone alternative political expression, why the ruling PAP is viewed as the only legitimate or “safe” choice, or why there is a general lack of ability to imagine a non-PAP government.
It accounts for the climate of fear surrounding opposition politics, political oriented civil society groups and individuals as well as acts of civil disobedience. Collectively, political “behaviour”and “attitudes” are part a complex interactive system that contribute to the production, re-production and operation of a political culture in a given society.
In the Singapore this is largely a politically self-censorial one. Although the whole notion of political culture (Almond Powell 1966; Almond and Verba 1988; Pye l995) has been made problematic with the post-modernist deconstruction of essentialisms, the debate within cultural studies is an ongoing one.
In this respect, political culture, behaviour and attitudes can be debated and meaningfully used to explain the phenomenon of politicalculture in Singapore. They are all aspects of the same thing. Still, the scientific recording of political culture is often raised as an issue, complicated by philosophical questions concern over what is scientific as well as the subjective nature of the topic.
Culture, which is marked by the uncertainties of human behaviour, is a difficult phenomenon to record through quantitative methods such as surveys and other quasi-quantitative procedures. Interpretative analysis by those knowledgeable of certain countries, the people and the system has beenrecognized as a helpful way to bridge this impasse.
Given the difficulties in methodology, in my first discussion of self-censorship ten years ago I modestly build on the limited works that have attempted to describe and record this phenomenon without actually employing a formal quantitative social science means.
Instead, I collaboratively employed secondary sources, participant-observation and interpretative analysis to unpack this political feature. Ten years on as a Singapore watcher and participant, I reflect further on the initial analysis and bring into the discussion the post-internet environment and how it has come to bear on the political culture of self-censorship.
In this exercise to understand the dominant political culture in Singapore,one needs to distinguish censorship by the state from acts of individual self-censorship, and actions taken by individuals to censor others and plot the relationship between them.
The two are separate and different mechanisms. Thus, they require dissimilar tools of argumentation, even though the former may lead to the latter. In between the two are the normal and frequently agreed agents of socialisation that determine censorship bythe people. These are the family, school, the various para-political institutions, national service, the work place, the local mainstream media and sub-structures in society at large.
These institutions contribute to the formation of attitudes but, in a centralised state as Singapore, these are principally influenced by the political. Therefore, the fostering and operation of such attitudes must be understood as being derived, to some extent, from the political system. For instance, the state’s censorship of information through the decades has contributed to an inability of the people to formulate a sustained political critique or opinion, even if they want to.
The internet to some extent has mitigated this situation but the mainstream media still dominates the information landscape. The self-censorship that emerges as a result can be attributed to a lack of confidence or a perceived incompetence in political matters because of a critical lack of information.
Even more importantly, it can be argued that phenomenon of self-censorship is one of the tools the PAP indirectly uses to maintain its political hold over the republic and itspeople. This is what I demarcate, describe and evaluate when I scrutinise the issue of political culture in Singapore: it is the in-built political self-checking system among the citizenry and foreigners that helps the ruling party less visibly maintain its grip on power.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25426.1
Top Heavy Management
Top Heavy Management
Singapore's Prime Minister had a pretty busy week last week playing musical chairs. The cabinate saw a reshuffle in which the Defense Minister was promoted to Deputy Prime Minister and three up and a deputy prime minister was moved up to becoming Senior Minsiter in the Prime Minister's Office. Further to that, an additional minister was added to the Prime Minister's office (The local media had a field day making the most of the fact that is the first woman in history to make it to full minister). In addition to that, another former navy man was made the Minister in charge of - Information, Communications and the Arts. Singapore, a land of 4.6 million not only has the highest paid government ministers in the world but also the most top-heavy government. As of writing, we have 1 Prime Minsiter, 1 Minister Mentor, 2 Senior Ministers and 3 Ministers in the Prime Minister's Office - all this in addition to the Ministers who have a Ministry to run.
One has to wonder why the Singapore government has decided to add on a few extra C-level executives when every other organisation in the world is shedding management? Is there a method in this apprent maddness? Well, you can't discount the Singapore government from making a bet that proves to be right. The very idea of an indepdepdent Singapore is thanks to a contrarian bet. Nobody said we could make it and we did (did we have a choice?) So, does the Singapore government know something that the rest of the world does not when it comes to increasing top-level management?
This does not make economic sense. Our Ministers do not come cheap but this argument is easily countered by the fact that we need to pay top-dollar to the get the top brains. I can see how this works when we talk about the various ministers running ministries. The Singapore government is by most standards highly clean, efficient and effective in what it does and it benefits the majority of the citizens. Having said that, it does not explain why we need another three ministers to be sitting in the Prime Ministers office. One arguement is that these Ministers do run "Special Projects," such aging. Then, if that's the case, why don't we just give them a title that matches or perhaps assign the portfolio to a Minsiter in charge of a ministry. Yes, it would be hard work but anyone ambitious enough to be a minister will surely be glad for the chance to take on more responsability.
This leads to the Minister Mentor and two Senior Ministers. What exactly are these jobs and how do they benefit the running of the government? These jobs are effectively consultant positions. The Minister Mentor as the name implies exist to "Mentor" the rest of the cabinate, while the Senior Minister as the name implies is the most "Senior" of all the Ministers. However, neither the senior or minister mentor have executive control - that remains the job of the Prime Minister.
The theory is that senior and minister mentors provide "Guidence" and lend their "Experience" to the Prime Minsiter of the day. So far, the system has worked. Senior Minsiter Goh Chok Tong in particular has been in asset to the Prime Minister in areas like opening Saudi Arabia and running relations with the Islamic world. But what of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and why do we need Professor Jayakumar as another Senior Minister? Both men have served Singapore with distinction but are they in danger of overstaying their welcome?
Look at Minister Mentor Lee. As far as Singapore is concerned, Lee Kuan Yew has created a miracle. The nation owes its very existence and prosperity to him. Having said of all of that, what exactly is his value to the nation by continuing to stay in the cabinate. In Singapore Mr Lee will remain exceedingly powerful and that power comes merely from being who he is. In theory, Mr Lee is hanging on in the cabinate because he's supposed to provide wisdom and experience to the rest of the Minsiters. Surely Mr Lee is capable of doing that without being in the cabinate. All he has to do is to give lectures and write books and Singapore will notice. As things stand, there's an arguement that Mr Lee's continued presence in the cabinate harms the Prime Minister - it provides the impression that the Prime Minister takes orders from him - hence Mr Lee has to tell the world that "I am NO LONGER in CHARGE." Nearly two decades in since he stepped down from the Prime Minsitership, the question remains in Singapore - can Singapore go on without Mr Lee?
Both the Prime Minsiter and Minister Mentor should take a lesson from the late Deng Xiaopeng and his relationship with former Chinese President Jiang Zemin. Mr Deng was regarded as the most powerful man in China right til the day he died. Yet, the only title he held was "President of the Bridge Club," and allowed President Jiang to run the show. So, when Mr Deng died, it was ...a non-event. China did not fall appart as many pessemist were suggesting. This is a lesson both Mr Lee's could do well to follow - The Elder will secure his legacy while the younger will be allowed to form his. In the mean time, the elder can continue to wield quite influence by his mere presence and as the younger Mr Lee's father.
So much is said about Mr Lee and the need for him to follow the examples of other great CEOs who have gone to pasture and left their companies to carry on. So what about Professor Jeyakumar? Why do we need another senior minister, particularly one who has never been prime minsister? Could it be anything to do with the fact that the good professor comes from an ethnic minority? If it were, it would be shame. The last thing the ethnic miniroties need is another token with little real influence and little real necessity. Ethnic minorities control significant ministries - Finance, Law and the Environment and Water Resources. Do we need a senior minister to oversee these Ministers? The last time anyone checked, the respective ministers were doing quite well without anyone to look over their shoulder. Surely Professor Jeyakumar could serve the nation more effectively (a nation he has served exceedingly well) by sharing his experiences from the sidelines?
We live in age where we try not to create work for the sake of it. It's an inefficient thing to do and yet, it seems to me that we are creating high-level jobs for the sake of it. People like Minister Mentor Lee and Senior Minister Jayakumar can continue to add value to the nation without being in cabinate. If they don't volunteer to do it, the Prime Minister should persuade them that this is the best course of action.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25525.1
Singapore's Prime Minister had a pretty busy week last week playing musical chairs. The cabinate saw a reshuffle in which the Defense Minister was promoted to Deputy Prime Minister and three up and a deputy prime minister was moved up to becoming Senior Minsiter in the Prime Minister's Office. Further to that, an additional minister was added to the Prime Minister's office (The local media had a field day making the most of the fact that is the first woman in history to make it to full minister). In addition to that, another former navy man was made the Minister in charge of - Information, Communications and the Arts. Singapore, a land of 4.6 million not only has the highest paid government ministers in the world but also the most top-heavy government. As of writing, we have 1 Prime Minsiter, 1 Minister Mentor, 2 Senior Ministers and 3 Ministers in the Prime Minister's Office - all this in addition to the Ministers who have a Ministry to run.
One has to wonder why the Singapore government has decided to add on a few extra C-level executives when every other organisation in the world is shedding management? Is there a method in this apprent maddness? Well, you can't discount the Singapore government from making a bet that proves to be right. The very idea of an indepdepdent Singapore is thanks to a contrarian bet. Nobody said we could make it and we did (did we have a choice?) So, does the Singapore government know something that the rest of the world does not when it comes to increasing top-level management?
This does not make economic sense. Our Ministers do not come cheap but this argument is easily countered by the fact that we need to pay top-dollar to the get the top brains. I can see how this works when we talk about the various ministers running ministries. The Singapore government is by most standards highly clean, efficient and effective in what it does and it benefits the majority of the citizens. Having said that, it does not explain why we need another three ministers to be sitting in the Prime Ministers office. One arguement is that these Ministers do run "Special Projects," such aging. Then, if that's the case, why don't we just give them a title that matches or perhaps assign the portfolio to a Minsiter in charge of a ministry. Yes, it would be hard work but anyone ambitious enough to be a minister will surely be glad for the chance to take on more responsability.
This leads to the Minister Mentor and two Senior Ministers. What exactly are these jobs and how do they benefit the running of the government? These jobs are effectively consultant positions. The Minister Mentor as the name implies exist to "Mentor" the rest of the cabinate, while the Senior Minister as the name implies is the most "Senior" of all the Ministers. However, neither the senior or minister mentor have executive control - that remains the job of the Prime Minister.
The theory is that senior and minister mentors provide "Guidence" and lend their "Experience" to the Prime Minsiter of the day. So far, the system has worked. Senior Minsiter Goh Chok Tong in particular has been in asset to the Prime Minister in areas like opening Saudi Arabia and running relations with the Islamic world. But what of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and why do we need Professor Jayakumar as another Senior Minister? Both men have served Singapore with distinction but are they in danger of overstaying their welcome?
Look at Minister Mentor Lee. As far as Singapore is concerned, Lee Kuan Yew has created a miracle. The nation owes its very existence and prosperity to him. Having said of all of that, what exactly is his value to the nation by continuing to stay in the cabinate. In Singapore Mr Lee will remain exceedingly powerful and that power comes merely from being who he is. In theory, Mr Lee is hanging on in the cabinate because he's supposed to provide wisdom and experience to the rest of the Minsiters. Surely Mr Lee is capable of doing that without being in the cabinate. All he has to do is to give lectures and write books and Singapore will notice. As things stand, there's an arguement that Mr Lee's continued presence in the cabinate harms the Prime Minister - it provides the impression that the Prime Minister takes orders from him - hence Mr Lee has to tell the world that "I am NO LONGER in CHARGE." Nearly two decades in since he stepped down from the Prime Minsitership, the question remains in Singapore - can Singapore go on without Mr Lee?
Both the Prime Minsiter and Minister Mentor should take a lesson from the late Deng Xiaopeng and his relationship with former Chinese President Jiang Zemin. Mr Deng was regarded as the most powerful man in China right til the day he died. Yet, the only title he held was "President of the Bridge Club," and allowed President Jiang to run the show. So, when Mr Deng died, it was ...a non-event. China did not fall appart as many pessemist were suggesting. This is a lesson both Mr Lee's could do well to follow - The Elder will secure his legacy while the younger will be allowed to form his. In the mean time, the elder can continue to wield quite influence by his mere presence and as the younger Mr Lee's father.
So much is said about Mr Lee and the need for him to follow the examples of other great CEOs who have gone to pasture and left their companies to carry on. So what about Professor Jeyakumar? Why do we need another senior minister, particularly one who has never been prime minsister? Could it be anything to do with the fact that the good professor comes from an ethnic minority? If it were, it would be shame. The last thing the ethnic miniroties need is another token with little real influence and little real necessity. Ethnic minorities control significant ministries - Finance, Law and the Environment and Water Resources. Do we need a senior minister to oversee these Ministers? The last time anyone checked, the respective ministers were doing quite well without anyone to look over their shoulder. Surely Professor Jeyakumar could serve the nation more effectively (a nation he has served exceedingly well) by sharing his experiences from the sidelines?
We live in age where we try not to create work for the sake of it. It's an inefficient thing to do and yet, it seems to me that we are creating high-level jobs for the sake of it. People like Minister Mentor Lee and Senior Minister Jayakumar can continue to add value to the nation without being in cabinate. If they don't volunteer to do it, the Prime Minister should persuade them that this is the best course of action.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25525.1
Reaching the needy? More publicity needed
Reaching the needy? More publicity needed
Monday, 30 March 2009
Leong Sze Hian
The media recently reported that those seeking financial assistance at the five Community Development Councils (CDCs) have increased by about 40 per cent. Comcare also dished out financial assistance to about 24,000 needy families, a 4 per cent increase compared to the same period in 2007.
The numbers are a little confusing. Do they refer to the 24,000 needy families for the whole of last year as reported in Parliament in February, or the 23,500 for the last six months of last year as reported now in March?
Since there were 40,681 applications for the various Comcare financial assistance schemes last year, does it mean that about 16,681 applications were unsuccessful? (Straits Times) (See chart below).
The ministry should perhaps tell us how many of the 24,000 needy families were new applications approved in the year - and how many were existing cases being given assistance since 2007?
In this connection, the latest data shows that there were 3,483 applications for the month of January 2009, compared to 2,470 in October 2008.
In reply to a question in the March parliamentary session, it was disclosed that about 50 per cent of applications for Public Assistance under the Public Assistance Scheme were rejected.
From data provided, it would seem that the amount spent on public assistance was $50 million.
This would mean that, for the 24,000 families, the average amount received per needy family per month was about $174.
According to the Department of Statistics data, the per capita household monthly income of the bottom 10 per cent of employed households was only $340. This 10 per cent constitutes an estimated 100,000 households. The 24,000 families under the Comcare scheme seem to be quite small in comparison.
Moreover, there may also be some unemployed households who may also need financial assistance. There were 73,200 unemployed residents in December 2008 and about 80,000 retiree households.
I think the Minister of State for Community Development, Youth and Sports, may have hit it right on the nail when she remarked that many may not be aware of Comcare’s financial assistance schemes.
Only about $1.57 million of the $6.25 million budgeted for the Comcare CCC Fund has been given out after nine months. (See chart below) Also only 31 per cent of the previous year’s budgeted amount was disbursed (”The needy still lack awareness of help schemes, CNA, Feb 3).
The above $1.57 million disbursed for the nine months from April to December 2008 was despite the substantial increase in Comcare funds. “Between July and December 2008, ComCare gave out 67 per cent more from its Citizens’ Consultative Committee-ComCare Fund,” a report by Channelnewsasia said. “That is almost $400,000 more than the same period in 2007.” (CNA, Mar 21).
I think the Comcare needy versus the demographic needy statistics, may indicate a need for the awareness of Comcare schemes to be made more widely known to needy Singaporeans.
I often see advertisements in the media encouraging Singaporeans to top-up their CPF, the importance of family ties, go for re-training under SPUR or PSP, etc.
Why not advertise about Comcare too?
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25521.1
Workers’ Party hit by latest spate of resignations
Workers’ Party hit by latest spate of resignations
Four party cadres, including two candidates from GE 2006, resigned in the past one week but renewal process is on track, says Organizing Secretary
“Salim has the idealism and passion to pursue what he feels strongly about,” said Mr Yaw Shin Leong, the Workers’ Party Organising Secretary and Mr Salim’s team leader in Ang Mo Kio GRC in the last elections. “I wish him well.”
27 year old Mr Abdul Salim Harun’s resignation from the Workers’ Party is not totally unexpected. Rumours had been going around about his wish to leave the party since last year. His presence at the Singapore Democratic Party’s Hong Lim Park protest, during the IMF/World Bank meeting in September 2006, was believed to have raised some eyebrows within the party.
While his resignation may not affect the party significantly, observers have noted that it might put a spanner in the works for the party’s rejuvenation process, especially since his is not the only resignation since GE 2006. Mr Chia Ti Lik and Mr Goh Meng Seng, both in their 30s and who had been members of the party’s previous Central Executive Committee (CEC), have also since resigned.
When the party elected its new CEC after the elections in 2006, it was touted as a rejuvenation. Party secretary general, Mr Low Thia Khiang, was reported to be “very pleased” with the new and younger CEC. 9 out of the 15 members were below the age of 40 then. “The process of renewal is on track,” Mr Low said to the Straits Times.
Will Mr Salim’s leaving signal further resignations from the party, especially of younger members who might be unhappy with the party’s non-vocal stand? Mr Chia had cited his “frustration” with the party as a reason for his resignation. Mr Goh explained that he left the WP because of “misinformation” put out by the Today newspaper which reported that he had allegedly made a threat against an Internet forummer. He resigned because the report had done damage to “WP’s public image”, he said. (Link) However, it is believed that he too was unhappy with the party. Three more party cadres have also resigned in the past one week, including Mr Salim’s running mate in Ang Mo Kio GRC, Ms Lee Wai Leng.
Part of the process?
The leadership may, however, see such resignations as “norming processes”, as party chairman Ms Sylvia Lim had said when Mr Chia resigned in November 2006. (Link)
Mr Yaw also does not see Mr Salim’s resignation as any kind of setback for the rejuvenation process. “The renewal process was set in motion since 2001,” he said. “[These] resignations won’t set back the process,” he added.
Agreeing with Mr Yaw is Mr Tan Kian Hwee, also a member of the Ang Mo Kio team in 2006. “Resignations have occurred in every party including the PAP - even in the period from 2006 until the present,” he said. “An organisation would be seriously problematic if the ‘loss’ outstrips the ‘gain’, which I do not see [in] the WP’s case.”
Mr Salim himself seems to agree. He told The Online Citizen (TOC) that his resignation “will not affect the party in one way or another.”
Half of the party’s current CEC is below the age of 40, with three new faces in Mr Koh Choong Yong, Ms Lilian Lee and 47-year old Mr Png Eng Huat. Mr Salim was not a member of the current CEC.
The bad news for the party, however, may be the negative publicity these resignations may give – especially when the next general elections is rumoured to be around the corner. After all, resignations of younger members, who are naturally the next generation of leaders for the party, perhaps indicate a restlessness within the organization. The leadership will have to pay more attention to the aspirations of these members if more resignations are to be prevented.
Mr Tan is of the view that the WP, like any other organization, has to consistently reflect on where it can improve. He said, however, that “this would be more in its approach and policy.” He also feels that it is both its leaders and members together that have to remain relevant to the public.
“Personally, I don’t agree that a party’s leadership needs to meet its members’ expectations in areas where it does not meet the people’s expectations,” he added.
Outreach expanding online
Mr Yaw is confident that the party’s plans are in place. “There are people joining the party, and our groundwork continues as we are going about house-to-house visits” he explained. He added that he was heartened that new members have chosen to enter the party even during the “lull periods” between elections.
Mr Yaw also cited the WP’s outreach efforts online, which include Twitter and Facebook. He also noted that “the WP has the largest amount of leadership figures who blog amongst the alternative parties”. He pointed to a new WP online initiative called Hammersspeed which aggregates all articles relating to the WP. [Correction, 31 March 09: The WP has clarified that these online sites are not official party websites.]
The Workers Party was the best-performing opposition party in the last elections. It scored 43.9 per cent in Aljunied GRC and is generally seen as the opposition party with the best hope of breaking the People’s Action Party’s (PAP) monopoly on GRCs.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25520.1
Four party cadres, including two candidates from GE 2006, resigned in the past one week but renewal process is on track, says Organizing Secretary
“Salim has the idealism and passion to pursue what he feels strongly about,” said Mr Yaw Shin Leong, the Workers’ Party Organising Secretary and Mr Salim’s team leader in Ang Mo Kio GRC in the last elections. “I wish him well.”
27 year old Mr Abdul Salim Harun’s resignation from the Workers’ Party is not totally unexpected. Rumours had been going around about his wish to leave the party since last year. His presence at the Singapore Democratic Party’s Hong Lim Park protest, during the IMF/World Bank meeting in September 2006, was believed to have raised some eyebrows within the party.
While his resignation may not affect the party significantly, observers have noted that it might put a spanner in the works for the party’s rejuvenation process, especially since his is not the only resignation since GE 2006. Mr Chia Ti Lik and Mr Goh Meng Seng, both in their 30s and who had been members of the party’s previous Central Executive Committee (CEC), have also since resigned.
When the party elected its new CEC after the elections in 2006, it was touted as a rejuvenation. Party secretary general, Mr Low Thia Khiang, was reported to be “very pleased” with the new and younger CEC. 9 out of the 15 members were below the age of 40 then. “The process of renewal is on track,” Mr Low said to the Straits Times.
Will Mr Salim’s leaving signal further resignations from the party, especially of younger members who might be unhappy with the party’s non-vocal stand? Mr Chia had cited his “frustration” with the party as a reason for his resignation. Mr Goh explained that he left the WP because of “misinformation” put out by the Today newspaper which reported that he had allegedly made a threat against an Internet forummer. He resigned because the report had done damage to “WP’s public image”, he said. (Link) However, it is believed that he too was unhappy with the party. Three more party cadres have also resigned in the past one week, including Mr Salim’s running mate in Ang Mo Kio GRC, Ms Lee Wai Leng.
Part of the process?
The leadership may, however, see such resignations as “norming processes”, as party chairman Ms Sylvia Lim had said when Mr Chia resigned in November 2006. (Link)
Mr Yaw also does not see Mr Salim’s resignation as any kind of setback for the rejuvenation process. “The renewal process was set in motion since 2001,” he said. “[These] resignations won’t set back the process,” he added.
Agreeing with Mr Yaw is Mr Tan Kian Hwee, also a member of the Ang Mo Kio team in 2006. “Resignations have occurred in every party including the PAP - even in the period from 2006 until the present,” he said. “An organisation would be seriously problematic if the ‘loss’ outstrips the ‘gain’, which I do not see [in] the WP’s case.”
Mr Salim himself seems to agree. He told The Online Citizen (TOC) that his resignation “will not affect the party in one way or another.”
Half of the party’s current CEC is below the age of 40, with three new faces in Mr Koh Choong Yong, Ms Lilian Lee and 47-year old Mr Png Eng Huat. Mr Salim was not a member of the current CEC.
The bad news for the party, however, may be the negative publicity these resignations may give – especially when the next general elections is rumoured to be around the corner. After all, resignations of younger members, who are naturally the next generation of leaders for the party, perhaps indicate a restlessness within the organization. The leadership will have to pay more attention to the aspirations of these members if more resignations are to be prevented.
Mr Tan is of the view that the WP, like any other organization, has to consistently reflect on where it can improve. He said, however, that “this would be more in its approach and policy.” He also feels that it is both its leaders and members together that have to remain relevant to the public.
“Personally, I don’t agree that a party’s leadership needs to meet its members’ expectations in areas where it does not meet the people’s expectations,” he added.
Outreach expanding online
Mr Yaw is confident that the party’s plans are in place. “There are people joining the party, and our groundwork continues as we are going about house-to-house visits” he explained. He added that he was heartened that new members have chosen to enter the party even during the “lull periods” between elections.
Mr Yaw also cited the WP’s outreach efforts online, which include Twitter and Facebook. He also noted that “the WP has the largest amount of leadership figures who blog amongst the alternative parties”. He pointed to a new WP online initiative called Hammersspeed which aggregates all articles relating to the WP. [Correction, 31 March 09: The WP has clarified that these online sites are not official party websites.]
The Workers Party was the best-performing opposition party in the last elections. It scored 43.9 per cent in Aljunied GRC and is generally seen as the opposition party with the best hope of breaking the People’s Action Party’s (PAP) monopoly on GRCs.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25520.1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)