Punggol East 5 corner fight? Hope it is just strategic bargaining...

Along with SPP, RP, WP and SDA, SDP has just announced that it is interested in contesting in Ponggol East SMC when the by election is held.

In a multi-corner fight with the opposition putting up credible candidates, the votes will be split and the PAP will win in Ponggol East. In fact the more credible and the stronger  the opposition candidates and the harder they campaign in a multi-cornered fight, the more likely the PAP candidate will win because the votes on the opposition side will become more evenly divided.

Some argue that giving voters more choices is good for democracy. This is not true. There is an artifact in our winner take all system that we should all be aware of before we make such statements. Suppose there are 3 candidates in an election, 2 centrist and one right wing candidate. 40% of the voters want a right wing candidate and 60% want someone centrist. Under our system the right wing candidate would win if the votes are evenly split between the centrist candidates, although 60% does not want him. Our system will not give the right result. The way some countries fix this is to drop the candidate with the fewest votes in the first round, then do a run-off election. In Israel they designed a proportional representation system to overcome this. In Australia (I think), voters rank the candidates (1st Choice, 2nd Choice, 3rd Choice etc), the votes of the weakest candidates goes the 2nd choice of the voters who selected that candidate - this has the same effect as a runoff election.

Due to this artifact in our system, there is a possibility that the emerging strength of opposition can be played to the advantage the PAP. As more capable and qualified people join opposition parties, the chances of  multi corner contests increases because each party has more candidates to field and more resources for election...disunity and rivalry can result in self-inflicted wounds for the opposition.

You can see the potential problems coming in 2016 because in the 2011 election the opposition parties collectively already have sufficient resources to contest in every constituency. In 2016, you can expect each party to recruit even more people given the way things are going in Singapore and avoiding multi corner fight becomes more critical.

Coincidently, Punggol East SMC was the only place in the electoral map in GE2011 with a 3-corner fight. The opposition won 45.5% of the votes in total so it is possible for the opposition to win there.  It is hard for the PAP to find someone to replace Palmer who served the residents for quite a few years. He received only 54% of the votes because of profile of the voters  - the voters in Punggol East are young and this is the group that has felt the negative effects of PAP policies. In a by-election setting, chances of an opposition win increases further because voters are less worried about an abrupt disruptive change of govt.

The most logical and sensible thing to do now to further the opposition's cause  is to put the support behind the opposition candidate that ran in the recent 2011 General Election and did relatively well there. A change of candidate and parties will give the voters the feeling of "come and go"opposition and waste the effort of earlier campaign that won 40+% of the votes.  A multi-corner fight will be a complete disappointment for opposition supporters and produce a lose-lose situation for the opposition parties.

"In the interest of furthering the opposition cause, NSP has decided not to create a multi-cornered fight by contesting" - NSP Statement.

If this is the most logical thing to do, why only one opposition party, the NSP , is enlightened enough to publicly announce it is making a logical decision not to take part? The other parties throwing their hats into ring really evokes fears among opposition supporters of disunity, rivalry and inability to grasp the bigger picture. I'm actually not so pessimistic. Remember in the GE2011 election, once it was announced, the opposition parties show that they could get a deal done to avoid 3-corner fights everywhere except in Ponggol East SMC.

The opposition parties should start discussing not just about the coming by election but the 2016 General Election. They should settle the issue of where they are contesting early so that all parties can start investing their resources in specific areas. This is what I hope this whole business of expressing an interest to run in Ponggol East is about .. strategic bargaining.... to get some concession on where to contest in 2016 and put in place a strategy. They can all walk away winners...or end up inflicting injury on each other and lose a chance to take another seat from the PAP. They can show that they are all matured and grown up ready to further the opposition cause or show they are just bickering schoolboys unable to stand together to get something done. Singapore really needs them to get their act together because the PAP can't seem to solve the people's problems these days.

Sale of Town Council Software begs explanation...

When I heard that PAP Town Councils sold their Town Councils Management System (TCMS) software to an external company, AIM, then leaseback the software, I was really curious to hear the explanation for such a move. I have heard of leasebacks being done by cash strapped companies to raise cash  - they sell their building or equipment because the need the cash badly then lease these back from the new owners. Such deals are financially disadvantageous for the company leasing back - they usually do such deals when they no longer have access to cheap money from the banks and bond market.

The response given below by Dr. Teo Ho Pin just does not make any sense. It does not give the rationale for doing such a deal.

1. One important missing information is cost of developing the software. Selling the software means that they have to incur the cost of redeveloping the software if the AIM decides to charge an exorbitant fee for the leaseback or if it decides to terminate the leaseback. This will put their constituents on the hook.

2. They sold the software for $140,000 and leased it back for $785 per town council per month. There are 14 town councils so the total paid to lease the software i $11K.  AIM gets its money back after 13 months and starts to make a profit after that at the expense of constituents.  This looks like a financially unfavorable deal that will cost the town councils more money in the long run.

"Dr Teo said although five companies collected the tender agreement, the sole bid was submitted by AIM, a company fully owned by the PAP." - Report Below.

The PAP Town Councils owe the people an explanation for what it has done. I'm surprised that a company fully owned by the PAP is allowed to even bid for the contract given the potential conflict of interest involved here.  The explanation reported below is completely unsatisfactory for anyone who has any ability to think and reason....it insults the intelligence of Singaporeans.
--------------------------------

 Computer firm says town council's claim "inaccurate"

by Tan Qiuyi
Updated 06:09 PM Dec 24, 2012

SINGAPORE - A disagreement between Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC) and a company that used to provide its computer and financial systems continues.

In a letter to the media, Action Information Management Pte Ltd (AIM) said AHTC Chairman Sylvia Lim's allegation that a service extension with AIM had to be "fought for" was inaccurate.

AIM said two service extensions were granted - in August and September 2011 - before the contract lapsed.

AIM also said it would have agreed to a further extension if the AHTC had asked for it.

As AHTC did not do so, the contract was allowed to lapse.

AIM Chairman S Chandra Das said the company's current directors, three former People's Action Party (PAP) MPs, namely himself, Chew Heng Ching, and Lau Ping Sum do not receive directors' fees or any other benefits.

In a separate letter, PAP Town Councils said its Town Councils Management System (TCMS) was sold to AIM through an open tender, and their contract was in accordance with the Town Councils' Financial Regulations.

Ms Lim had earlier asked why PAP Town Councils (TCs) had transferred ownership of its computer software to a third party, and questioned the AIM's contract with the PAP TCs.

Coordinating Chairman of 14 PAP TCs Dr Teo Ho Pin said the TCMS owned and used by them was developed by National Computer Services Pte Ltd.

In 2010, PAP TCs called an open tender to sell the ownership of the developed application software.

Dr Teo said although five companies collected the tender agreement, the sole bid was submitted by AIM, a company fully owned by the PAP.

AIM offered to buy the software for S$140,000 and manage the system for a monthly fee of S$785 per TC, for an initial term ending 31 October 2011.

Dr Teo said after the 2011 general election, AIM decided to end the contract with AHTC.

AIM only owns the rights to the software, so all computer hardware belong to the respective TCs and these remained with AHTC when its contract with AIM ended.

Dr Teo also said the handover by AIM to AHTC took place from 27 May to 9 September, and during the transition, AIM had promptly handed over all data and information to AHTC in accordance with the TC's preferred format. CHANNEL NEWSASIA

Charity and the Singapore govt....

Recently Emeritus Senior Minister made the following remark:

He has received harsh criticism from Singaporeans for his remarks. I think that anyone from the PAP, maybe with the exception of Lily Neo and Denise Phua, will be harshly criticized for saying Singaporeans are not generous. Coming from a govt that practices extreme parsimony towards the poor, sick and elderly, such remarks invite a backlash. Just recently, the Singapore govt refused entry to a group of refugees experiencing prosecution back home - the 40 refugees were part of a group of 200 whose boat capsized, 160 from the group drowned leaving survivors who lost their families. The crew on a Vietnamese merchant ship found these 40 survivors struggling in the open sea, rescued them and took them aboard their ship. To accommodate these 40 survivors, the captain did what any human being would do share his crew's food and water  with these survivors. As supplies ran low, the captain requested permission to enter to our ports to restock:

"We only have two days' worth of rice left for our 24 crew members," Capt Nguyen told The New Paper on Monday over the phone.[40 stranded refugees will die if help doesn't come soo[

The Singapore govt refused entry to the ship despite their pleas for help. Luckily the ship was able to go to another country whose govt still has not lost its humanity to get help before they ran out of food and starved[Link[.  It is acts like this that takes away the PAP govt's right to tell us to be more charitable and generous - the PAP govt does not set a good example when it comes to being charitable. 

There are more than 2000 charities in Singapore. Many of them run by dedicated volunteers who put in both their own time and money to do something for the needy. Very often they take on the responsibility that the govt should shoulder. Because of their limited resources, they cannot help everyone that needs help. The NKF (National Kidney Foundation) charity is there because the PAP govt refused to set up govt run healthcare services for kidney patients like other govts with universal healthcare in place. These kidney patients will die if not for the efforts of  charity organisations. Singaporeans gave generously to the NKF in the past. Unfortunately a spate of scandals involving numerous charities - NKF, Ren Ci, Youth Challenge,  St John's Home for Elderly Persons [Link] etc. Despite these scandals,. the amount donated by Singaporeans to charity doubled from 2001 to 2010.

This increase it is however not enough because our govt has the lowest social spending among developed countries and Singapore is ranked 114 out of 146 when it comes to donations[Link]. Singapore has the highest (sometimes 2nd highest) income inequality in the developed world, total donations is relatively low and the Singapore social spending is the lowest among developed countries...you put these 3 facts together what does it say about our society...and what does it say about how much help our poor and needy gets to pull themselves up relative to other develop countries? Yet there are many some among the elites in our highly elitist govt who receive more in entitlements and opportunities than the rest of our society that feel that the ordinary people who are poor are not self-reliant and resilient enough. These people live in a bubble...a bubble that distort their value system and perspective, they cannot understand what is happening on the ground yet they are elevated to be our leaders.

Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong should know why donations are so low. As the former prime minister of Singapore, he urged the wealthy to donate to charity. Given the wealthy here enjoy great advantages of  the lowest tax rate in all developed countries, zero capital gains taxes and extremely pro-businesses policies that aids wealth accumulation by the richest in our society, it is natural to expect them to give something back:

This is the call from SM Goh Chok Tong. If you are wealthy, donate at least 0.5% off your annual income to help the needy.[Link]

As the ex-Prime Minister of Singapore implementing so many policies that help the rich get richer and the income gap to balloon ....all he dare to ask from the richest among us to give is 0.5% of their annual income....so is it a real surprise that our ranking is so low when Emeritus Senior Minister set such a low standard of giving among the rich?! Compare that with The Giving Pledge in the US started by Buffett and Bill Gates to urge the rich to pledge half their wealth to charity - Facebook billionaire Zackerberg signed up so did many others. In highly capitalistic (so we used to say) Hong Kong. Li Ka-Shing pledge half his wealth to charity and will leave behind the biggest charity in Hong Kong. Nina Wang, once the Asain\s richest woman, left her fortune to a charity in her will. Even Jackie Chan will leave his entire fortune to charity[Link]. Chow Yun-Fat will leave his entire fortune to charity [Link]. It turned out people in Hong Kong are big givers and rank 18 on the Giving Index ahead of Germany and Denmark. Many ordinary Singaporeans I know will gladly give their time and money but the value system held up by this govt does not result in setting good examples in the area of giving and making sacrifices. I urge my fellow Singaporeans to overcome this and give more as there are many in our society that needs your help. 

The genius in the US Fiscal Cliff ....and relevance to Singapore...

USA  has borrowed too much money and worries about the size of its debt has led to a general consensus among law makers and the population that something  has to be done.  The US govt spends much more money than it collects every year so mathematically there are only 3 things you can do to solve the problem 1. Increase Revenues by raising taxes 2. Spending less money 3. Do a bit of both -  increase revenues and spend less. Option 1 is very painful for the Republicans because it involves raising taxes on the richer citizens by a lot and option 2 means deep cuts in social spending which is too painful for Democrats. Democrats have the White House and Republicans control the Congress so nobody can force either 1 or 2 on the other side. So option 3 seems to be the way to go and that is what the US public wants based on surveys done.

Option 3 requires each side to sacrifice something which is against ideological beliefs. There is also the problem of support base - the Republican support base will never support anything tax hikes while the Democrats' support base will never support any cuts in social spending. If they compromise, their supporters will feel betrayed because they are so deeply and stubbornly locked into beliefs. If they negotiate, no compromise will emerge because neither side will agree to any sacrifice and the whole negotiation will be deadlocked. So what does it take for both sides to give way? To bring both sides together and overcome their ideological hurdles, they have to see disaster or crisis looming to force them to act together to solve the problem. That is what the Fiscal Cliff is  - it is designed to be an artificial disaster  to force both sides to agree. In Aug 2011, after the acrimonious US debt ceiling talks, they agreed to create this man-made crisis in order to force both sides to come to a compromise:

"On August 2, 2011, Congress passed the Budget Control Act of 2011 as part of an agreement to resolve the debt-ceiling crisis. The Act provided for a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (the "super committee") to produce legislation by late November that would decrease the deficit by $1.2 trillion over ten years. When the super committee failed to act,[14] another part of the BCA went into effect. This directed automatic across-the-board cuts (known as "sequestrations") split evenly between defense and domestic spending, beginning on January 2, 2013. Also, theAffordable Care Act imposed new taxes on families making more than $250,000 a year ($200,000 for individuals) starting at the same time" - Wikipedia[Link]

The Fiscal Cliff consists of large increases in taxes and big cuts in social and military spending...and will likely plunge the US economy into recession. It demands heavy sacrifices on both sides unless they are able to compromise. It also provides both sides with justification to supporters that the compromises they make are necessary to avoid the Fiscal Cliff which has deeper social spending cuts and higher tax increases. Without the crisis or threat of crisis, political leaders sometimes find it hard to make changes that run counter to the beliefs and expectation of their support base. The compromise represents the middle ground that most Americans want.

"Our policies, our measures, those we must update, you must revise and look at it afresh....."

"We have to represent the middle ground of Singapore. It's because we have had a middle ground in Singapore, we are able to have a dominant party and consensus politics because more or less in Singapore, whether in a three or five-room flat, you are part of a country and your interests are the same and your identity is about the same." - Lee Hsien Loong to activists[Link]

PM Lee recently spoke to PAP activists telling them that PAP "has to represent" the middle ground in Singapore to remain the dominant party - you notice he chose to use the word "update" policies rather than "change" when he talks to his activists. In recently years, more and more Singaporeans have began to feel that that the interests of the PAP have diverged from their own. The middle ground is not only shifting it is thinning out. There is less middle ground to stand on as inequality in our society increases and for many issues, there is no middle ground left to stand on. PAP's problem is not just one of finding the middle ground but creating enough middle ground to stand on. Just like the Republicans and Democrats in America, its supporters want the PAP to stay the same and stick to the policy principles that represents the PAP ideology.

For years now, the PAP has pursued pro-business, trickle down economics and allowed the income gap to expand to be the highest (sometimes 2nd highest) among developed countries. Whenever possible, it spend money on tax cuts for the corporations and wealthy - these included corporate tax cuts and elimination of inheritance tax - rather than social spending even as income inequality expanded and poverty rose.

Despite a very pro-business and clearly lopsided policy to import foreign labor to the highest level per capita in the developed world,  minor changes implemented in 2012 by the PAP govt were greeted by resistance by corporations that have become dependent on foreign labor. Even small changes are resisted as certain groups feel they are entitled to hire workers from where-ever they want, hire and fire as they please sometimes paying wages that is insufficient for workers to live on. Today 400,000 Singaporean workers are put on Workfare[Link] just to keep them afloat and taxpayers are made to pay for the outcomes of these policies as corporate profits rise to record levels relative our GDP.

When PM Lee spoke to his own activists, he felt that he needed to remind them about the middle ground because for many of the PAP supporters their perspectives have been shaped by the benefits the derived from the system. They feel the system is good because they have done well. Many benefited from generous scholarships, employment in GLCs or civil service still able to dish out various benefits not enjoyed by the ordinary Singaporean. Those who are part of the system (the PAs, SAF, NTUC etc) who enjoy good medical benefits and rising wages cannot see that the system that has worked well for them is not working well for a growing number of ordinary Singaporeans. It is always easier to argue that someone else should sacrifice and be the losing end of any policy trade-off...especially those without any power or voice.

The PAP govt- unchecked, un-moderated, dominant and armed with propaganda - evolved unbalanced policies but change is not going to be easy even as the problems pop up one by one and become painfully obvious to ordinary Singaporeans . Those who have benefited and want to continue to benefit from PAP policies now form their support base making change difficult....even as the middle ground shifts and voters swing away from the PAP.

Right now solving the main problems in housing, transport and healthcare has turned into almost intractable puzzles for the PAP govt. Another year has gone by and these problems have only worsened exacerbating the effects of the income gap. A home is less affordable now that it was at the beginning of the year.  A car is now less affordable for the middle class family some of whom now have to take the public transport and service quality for public transport hasn't improved.... but Minister Liu is now talking about fare hikes next year citing rising costs. It will be a bigger challenge now compared with the past to get people to accept a fare hike because real wages for a large segment of the population has remained stagnant and the public transport companies are still highly profitable.  Healthcare costs keep rising at a rate above median income increase and the lack of universal healthcare to ensure good affordable healthcare means there is rising financial risk for those who are under-insured, those who are uninsured due to pre-existing conditions or facing financial difficulties - the PAP govt's approach to shift as much financial burden to the sick and their families has led to ordinary Singaporeans having the highest %out of pocket payment and the highest % share of healthcare expenditure (vs govt healthcare expenditure) [Link]. The middle ground shrinks as the middle class shrinks due to relentless rise in housing, transport and healthcare costs.

We saw some sense of urgency to effect change shortly after the 2011 GE when the loss of votes provided a wake up call for the govt...however as time passes, the memories of the large angry crowds at opposition rallies start to fade, the PAP govt slowly falls back to its pattern of 'business as usual'.  The motivation for change fades and the PAP convinces itself their system works fine and all it needs to make some "adjustments" and tweaks and the system can again deliver the goods. It now conducts the National Conversation which seems to be going nowhere - a new Gallup poll has found Singaporeans to be least positive people in the world out of 148 countries. What we need is leadership not conversation to break out of our current trajectory. But in the absence crisis, real change is hard as  thick ideological lenses obscures rationality.

For the US Republicans, they feel that taxes for the rich is too high even it is at the lowest when it is the lowest since World War 2. They refuse any cuts in defense spending even though the US spends more on defense that the rest of the world combined. Their plans, vision and actions are checked and balanced by the existence of a strong political opponent and a president from the other side. The PAP has turned Singapore into the 2nd most militarized state in the world[Link] with its high defense spending that exceeds the combined defense expenditure of our 2 closest neighbors. Under the PAP, Singapore has the lowest tax rates in the developed world and more elderly workers  than you will seeany other developed country and sometimes people from developed countries are shocked by the number of elderly workers they see in Singapore. While this, along with inequality and  financially burdening the sick are intolerable for many of us, the PAP operates on another set of values and principles. Solving our public transport problem so the it would broadly benefit Singaporeans would require the PAP to put service quality and affordability above the need for public transport companies to generate profits but this is not something that the PAP can or will do easily.

In GE2011, Singaporeans sent a clear signal that they want change. If that signal wasn't clear enough another was sent during the PE when the majority of the people voted against the PAP endorsed candidate. In a BE (by election) scenario where people are not afraid of an abrupt destabilizing change of govt, they won't be afraid to vote to signal a desire for change hence it is likely that another clear signal will be sent in Ponggol East SMC BE when it held.... that is if the opposition avoids a 3 corner fight.  Unfortunately, all these signals will not be sufficient to move the PAP to make fundamental changes. Just like the National Conversation that started ambitiously with "no sacred cows" slowly become constrained and shackled by what the PAP cannot accept ideologically and started going in circles. In Japan,  LDP seriously reformed itself after its election defeat to engineer a comeback, in Malaysia, heavy losses in the 2008 election and the threat of a defeat in 2012 pushed the UMNO govt to make progress in areas of human rights and democracy. There are 10 more days to the US Fiscal Cliff and both parties are still holding out refusing compromises that is against their ideology. President Obama reminds them the middle ground  lies neither with the Republicans or the Democrats both sides needs to give up something that is fundamentally against their values and principles to reach this middle ground...and is only possible when both parties meet halfway neither side getting 100% of what they want.

In Singapore we have a dominant govt and a one party system. We have been under this system for more than 4 decades resulting in extremes not seen anywhere else in the developed world.  In the past, with propaganda and control of the media, the PAP govt has been able to persuade ordinary citizens to accept its approach. However, in recent years, as a result of the Internet and increasing number of ordinary Singaporeans now understand how unbalanced PAP policies are and the middle ground is shifting steadily away from the PAP.  However, with its ideology entrenched among so many of its supporters, change is not easy without a crisis. Without demonstrating the ability to make fundamental changes, the PAP tells us there is no need for a 2-party system or a multiparty system..the PAP can find the middle ground without a strong opposition presence. Listening to the National Conversation, listening to what the PAP and its supporters are saying and looking at the changes the PAP govt has been willing to make...I think they are very very far from the middle ground and the growing frustration will lead to more support for the opposition until a sense of crisis if felt by the PAP and its supporters....only then will you see real changes that will significantly benefit ordinary Singaporeans and their families.

Principle of equal pay for equal work...

UPDATE: I would like to thank everyone for commenting on this posting. Many cited examples of when people would be paid more for the same work because they have experience or better qualification. When you apply a principle, you stick to it as strongly as possible and every exception you make you need to think hard about the justification. You starting point is "equal pay for equal work" ...now suppose you decide a driver should be paid more because of his years of good service with the company - it is perhaps a justifiable exception as it is attainable by other drivers. Suppose the ability to speak English is important and it was argued that PRC drivers are generally not good at English  so they were paid lower- you ought to be able to transparently state that drivers who have "English qualifications" are paid extra. This, however, was not the case. The drivers were discriminated against purely based on nationality.

You notice in the experiment, they researcher explicitly stated that the 2 monkeys knew each other - the angry monkey couldn't find any acceptable justification for his "unfair treatment". ...that was the source of the problem.

Suppose a company pay the men more than the women for identical jobs is it acceptable? In the 2012 US Presidential Election, in addition to selecting the president, one of the bills that Americans voted for was a legislation that ensure women get paid the same as men for the same work. In Singapore, some companies (Stat Boards, Govt entities) make an exception by paying Singaporean men a few hundred more for serving NS and I don't hear complaints from women about this because the men lose 2 years of income serving their NS and the 'extra' is does not come close to compensating for their sacrifice. However, if women found out that men who don't serve NS (foreigners) are paid more because of race (ang moh?) and gender they will surely take issue with it. So it is important to start with the basic principle and the burden of proof and justification fall on those who cannot follow this.

Coincidently, Minister Lim Swee Say spoke about "equal pay for same job" yesterday.
[No to Equal Pay for all Nationalities] - he believes that we should discriminate people based on nationalities:

"Whereas for foreign workers, a bulk of their income is actually sent back to
their home countries to support their families and of course, the cost of living
in their home countries is very different from that in
Singapore."

"Therefore, the labour movement, the unions have expressed a lot of concern. We are highly uncomfortable with this idea of same job, equal pay, because we feel that this will disadvantage our local workers and their families."


Singaporeans need to earn more to support their families than someone from India or China - his family back in home needs less money to survive. On the surface it looks like it make sense. However, think hard about this. This situation does not favour Singaporeans at all. Foreign workers coming here to take up jobs at lower pay for the same job (same work) means that employers are less willing to pay more for Singapore workers. This causes downward pressure on Singaporeans' wages and indeed wages have stagnated for many Singaporean workers because these imported workers have lower cost of supporting their families are competing against them. As the minister and head of our national union, he did not safeguard the interests of Singaporean workers ...and continues to encourage employers to exploit foreign import by paying them lower - it makes no economic sense for businesses to hire Singaporeans to do the same job for higher pay when they can hire a foreigner and pay him lower. 
---------------------------------
One of the arguments used by Singaporeans who opposed the strike was the PRC drivers signed a contract stipulating their remuneration so they should just accept whatever pay they signed up for even if others are paid a lot higher doing exactly the same job. The PRC drivers were not just shortchanged by discriminatory practices alone. They found themselves at the losing end of changes in work week as well as poor living conditions - it is always easier for people to tell others to accept and live with life's injustices so long as they aren't the ones at the losing end. So if you find the your-co worker who sits next to you getting paid double what you're paid for doing the same job because the boss and him were in the same ruby team years ago...how will you feel?

I would like to thank a reader for posting the link to the following video:


There is something immoral about luring foreign workers to Singapore with the intention of discriminating against them and taking advantage of their ignorance of local market rates for labor in order to pay them lower for the same work. Even animals with much smaller brains than humans realise there is something very wrong with high inequality.....but why do the PAP leaders keep telling us it is acceptable. You know why? See the monkey in the right cage...the one getting happilly the grapes (not peanuts) ..he is not protesting. 

Another Scandal : Michael Palmer Resigns...

Here is WP's Low Thia Khiang's reaction to the resignation.

When the Yaw Shin Leong scandal hit, I wrote a posting on what I thought about such personal misconduct and the ability of someone holding public to perform. Going through the track record of politicians whose infidelity they were able to hide when they were in office, their ability to lead is uncorrelated with what they do in their private lives - examples include Franklin Roosevelt, JFK, Mitterrand etc [Full article here]. It is important for us to treat these types of personal scandals differently from corruption. As I explained in my earlier article, any political party that tries to make political gains and project moral superiority over the other side when such scandals occur risks being accused of double standards and looking hypocritical when the same happens in their own party:

"I think it is sad that the voters in Hougang have been misled." - Khaw Boon Wan

"WP has let down the voters of Hougang." - Lee Hsien Loong

[Why the political potshots at WP and Yaw Shin Leong]

Remember the media frenzy and speculation once the YSL scandal broke - it gave the WP little breathing space to craft a proper response. The paparazzi style reporting hurt WP's reputation after its credible election performance.  A very unseasoned and unadvised/poorly advised, YSL, handled the pressure badly trying to evade it rather than coming clean and taking responsibility. It left the WP with little room to maneuver and they had to salvage the situation by sacking YSL.

In Michael Palmer case the media behaved a lot better and his resignation well  orchestrated  - Palmer even appeared with his wife to say farewell to his grassroots leaders and handed his responsibilities to Teo Ser Luck. 

There is just no way for any political parties to prevent or hush up such scandals in this day and age short of having their members spied on and followed round the clock - even honest people succumb to their lust and many are vulnerable to momentary weakness of this nature. Political parties have to be ready for "damage control" when it occurs and handle the situation in a way that does not lose the confidence of the public. Many in our society still have moralistic responses to such scandals but remember the politician is only human and they are already punished enough from the shame and hurt they cause to themselves and their families - so there is no need for the public and media to add to this. There are many things leaders can do that are far more harmful than having an affair- they can start wars, build casinos, ruin the economy and implement bad policies that hurt the people. Lets not be so fixated with these scandals and make the people embroiled in them go through hell when they have already suffered enough pain from their own failings,

"GENERAL" solution for our transport woes...?

When problems begin to show up in our transport system, they appointed a former rear admiral (navy's version of general) to be the transport minister. When the SMRT trains broke down and all confidence in CEO Saw was lost, they appointed ex-general Desmond Kuek. Shortly after the strike, Desmond Kwek announced that he would tap "military men" from the SAF for key posts in the SMRT[SMRT chief to tap military men for key posts] among them Colonel Gerald Koh who will move over to SMRT to be director of HR.

In Jul 2012, Minister Liu and PAP MP, Josephine Teo, responded to a suggestion to nationalize the public transport system by saying it would lead to inefficiencies, higher cost and stagnation of service quality[Link]. Everyone can now see  that the privatization of our transport system has led  to the problems it was suppose to solve. The govt is appointing people from the SAF with zero experience in the private sector to run our public transport. As the problems with our public transport, SMRT in particular, mounts, the govt turns to the SAF to find talents to fix the problems...so what happened to belief that privatization leads to efficiency? The PAP govt looks like it is taking back control of the SMRT  by appointing people from the public sector to top posts in the SMRT.

"Profit focus one factor for SMRT's problems"- CEO Kuek[Link]

CEO Kuek honestly admits that "profit focus" is one of the factors that led to problems in the SMRT.  This is equivalent to saying that "privatization" has led to problems because the main difference between being privatized and nationalized is the profit motive. CEO Kuek has spent more than 2 decades in the SAF and never been driven by profits - in the SAF, the focus is on operational effectiveness  and not cost cutting to get profits. 

Now that they have appointed people to top positions who never had jobs that required them to generate profits to focus on delivering service quality to commuters ...does it not make sense for SMRT to remain privatized? 

False Economy : Lessons from the past...

Last weekend I went to the Robinson Sale at Expo. While shopping I picked up this book:

The first week pages were interesting enough for me to consider buying the book. But to be sure was good and credible, I used my smartphone to check the background of the author. The author, Alan Beattie, is the International Economy Editor of Financial Times. His book has received good reviews:

  "A thorough examination of economies from the age of empire to the age of the IMF. . . Beattie writes, ‘History is not determined by fate. . . It is determined by people.’ He insists that it is not destiny but the right and wrong decisions by political leaders that cause societies to rise and fall. Beattie's analysis dazzles. . ." — Washington Post Book World

His first chapter explored and compared how 2 countries, Argentina and USA, both with almost the same level of economic development in 1900 ended up with diametrically different outcomes.- one became an economic super-power while the other ended up in bankruptcy in 2006[Link].  Argentina in 1800 and 1900 was one of the wealthiest nation in the world[Link]. In 1900, Boenos Aires was on par with New York. How did the 2 countries end up with such different fates?

Beattie explained that while the both countries had similar starts in terms development and natural resources, the systems they had in place were different. Argentina was controlled and ruled by a small number of elites modelling themselves after autocratic Spanish rule while USA was a full fledged democracy. Land ownership in Argentina was concentrated in the hands of wealthy land owners while in the USA, there were in the hands of smaller farmers  i.e. more equally distributed. Because the farmers in US owned smaller plots, they had to be more productive to achieve better yields from their land employing farming techniques from Dutch farmers. In Argentina, the powerful land owners imported cheap labor from poorer parts of Europe to work on their farms - the imported labor would work on the farms for certain parts of the year and return home. The availability of cheap labor meant that they were able to achieve high profits when productivity was low. The availability of cheap labor was a disincentive for the rich to take risk and invest in new industries (industrialization). The model resulted in extremely unequal wealth distribution and the wealthy class started to wield enormous influence over political leadership eventually leading to social upheavals, instability and corruption.

Argentina was a wealthy first world country that fell back to become a third world country due to missteps. This a cautionary tale for leaders today that the future of a country is destiny not fate - where your destiny lies is a result of choices you make today.



Here is Alan Beattie discussing his interesting book:

The fallacy of trading away workers' rights for their economic benefits....

The recent strike action by a group of drivers drew many different responses from Singaporeans. Some quickly criticise the drivers for breaking the law ... never mind if the laws are just or unjust, they have to be followed. Others view the incident as a slap on the face for the PAP govt for its foreign talent policy as it involved a GLC and foreign workers - it is a real joke that the PAP govt has berated Singaporeans again and again for not integrating well with foreigners when its own GLC was not really treating its foreign employees well. Many Singaporeans accept that because bus transport is an essential service, the ability of workers in this sectors to undertake strike action has to be limited. Let me ask you, if these services are so essential that workers' basic rights have to be given up, why is it  privatized? Privatization results in not just in service quality being trade-off for profits, there is constant pressure to make profits at the expense of service availability and safety. One point brought up by JiaJia's brother in the video (previous posting) is the poor living conditions results in PRC drivers not being well rested when they drive our public buses. A strike action by some drivers can result in inconvenience but the lack of rights of these drivers can led to low morale and safety issues.

Yesterday, a group of Hong Kong unionists protested at our consulate demanding we abolish some of the harsh labor laws and release jailed PRC drivers[Link]. As Singaporeans, we really do not like a bunch of unionists in Hong Kong telling us what to do and we can see this in the negative reactions of some netizens towards the Hong Kong protest. The authorities cannot be expected not to punish the PRC drivers once laws are broken regardless of whether we believe the laws are just.  However, one thing we should ask ourselves is this. - many of us have been to Hong Kong and taken their public transport, the general feedback is that it is at least as good as Singapore's and they don't have to limit the rights of workers to achieve this outcome.

While the reactions of Singaporeans are mixed, if the strike action had taken place anywhere else in the developed world and even some developing countries where workers' rights are respected and human equality and fairness are not compromised, there will be overwhelming support for these drivers. Their living conditions are appalling in a 1st world country and as a group these drivers from PRC were discriminated against. After the strike we see the SMRT management on its toes, CEO Desmond Kwek visiting the dormitories, townhall meeting held with these drivers, living quarters were fumigated and a 24 hour hotline set up for these drivers.  Other than a sit-in or strike, what else could have achieved the same change in management and brought the plight of these drivers to everyone's attention?

A few months ago, I took a cab and asked the cabby one of those "wrong questions". The cabby looked like he was in his fifties so I asked him if driving a cab was his "retirement job". He said it wasn't. He then told me his "sad story". The company he had worked for 20 years sacked him for "poor performance". He suspected his sacking was due to ageism as he recalled the same thing had happened to other older workers in the same company. There is an economic reason why companies do this. Workers are given increment every year to motivate them when the company does well. After many years with the company and many rounds of increment, the company finds it can hire a younger person for much cheaper so they sack their older workers although they are still performing. In the past the labor market was tight so companies were willing to "pay for loyalty" but these days they have a hire and fire mentality. The cabby thinking that he was a victim of ageism went to MOM. The officer assisting him at MOM told him there is little MOM can do to help him as such cases are difficult to prove and they told him that if he was still not happy, he should get a lawyer. The poor feller gave up and became a cabby.

Whether you believe his story fully or not(coincidentally Leong Sze Hian wrote an article on age discrimination in Singapore http://theonlinecitizen.com/2012/12/statistical-evidence-of-age-discrimination-against-older-workers/),  what is true is workers who are unfairly treated have limited channels to make things right. Why is this so? As long as employers do not break the law, there is little employees can do to get employers the address the situation. Many things employers do can be unfair but legal like giving little or no retrenchment benefits when they layoff workers even though the company had many profitable years in the past and sitting on a pile of cash.

The main argument the PAP sold us to remove the power and independence of unions and rights of workers is that there will be overall economic gains for ordinary Singaporeans if employers can do what they want with workers - employers will be more willing to hire, and invest if there are no unions in the way of what they choose to do. One example of this argument is a company that runs into financial challenges can layoff workers without a union in the way to stay afloat thereby keeping the rest of the employees. By being as pro-business as possible, we were told we can attract investments, create jobs and have broad economic prosperity and overall benefits for Singaporeans ...most of whom are workers.

We are now a first world country and no other first world country has the type of labor laws, weak unions, lack of workers' rights as Singapore so it cannot be argued that Singapore needs to do this to remain competitive when none of our competitors has to do the same ...if our workers have indeed been shouldering the burden of competitiveness and are the true heroes of our economic success, then the lack of benefits for our old workers is even less acceptable and the excessive pay packages of the PAP elites even more appalling. The SMRT PRC bus drivers are the poorest paid bus drivers working in the developed world followed by the Malaysian bus drivers and Singaporean bus drivers in SMRT. Former CEO Saw was the highest paid CEO in SMRT's history. When she was CEO, SMRT frequently claimed that it was not able to hire Singaporean drivers because Singaporeans are not interest in becoming bus drivers. The truth is the pay for bus drivers is too low and nobody is interested in working a full time and still not able to adequately provide for his family. Saw like many other CEOs, and business owners like Douglas Foo lobbied the govt for cheap foreign labor. Without strong responsible independent unions to represent the interest of workers and level the playing field, their interests were unfairly traded off to benefit CEOs whose main motivation is increasing profits margins to get higher pay packages for themselves.

SMRT's labor problems is not a sudden one-off event.  In Aug 2012, before the PRC driver's strike,  Singaporean SMRT drivers expressed disappointment NTUC for not being able to fair deal when their work week was extended to 6 days. NTUC accepted the unfavorable proposal and the SMRT drivers were left in despair unable to do anything more about the situation[Link] - their pay was effectively cut even as the cost of living rose. The inability of workers to exercise what are seen else where is basic rights has lead to dire outcomes for our lower middle and low income workers. The result is a large income gap (2nd highest, at times highest) in the developed world. Hard working people like bus drivers (aka bus captains) see their incomes stagnant or falling to become the lowest paid drivers in the developed world while PAP leaders become the highest paid politicians in the world...says a lot about our system, this is not really meritocracy, people are not rewarded based on how much hard work they put in and contribute to society and the economy...it is where you stand in the unlevel playing field and your  ability to influence the system to your advantage that matters. Workers, in particular, low wage workers, whose rights have been taken away and left without a strong independent voice stand on the lowest part of the unlevel playing field unable to climb up ....it is the system and not the lack of effort on their part that resulted in their plight.

Recent Strike Action : Through a kid's eyes...

It takes a kid to tell the emperor that he has no clothes. Even a child knows what 14 days notice for a strike is all about (watch the video to find the answer).

I actually see Jia-jia in person once every few weeks he is really a cheerful playful kid in real life.