Opportunity for last legacy by President Nathan

We are only days away from the first contested presidential election in 18 years and come 1 September, the winner of the contest will assume the mantle of Singapore's 7th Head of State.

But until then, the incumbent, President S R Nathan, is technically still the defacto president and in my book, it means that he should still be able to exercise the powers entrusted to him by the Constitution.

If ever there was a time for us to call upon the powers of the president to check a potentially rogue government, now would certainly qualify as the time to do so given the impropriety of the actions (as I see it) of the People's Association (PA) and Housing and Development Board (HDB) in annexing public spaces for and on behalf of the People's Action Party (PAP).

He may not have the executive authority to take the government to task but he does have the moral authority to register his objections and call upon the prime minister to do the right thing.

President Nathan, whose term of office only expires at the end of the month, now has an opportunity to leave a legacy that will ensure him a permanent place in the annals of Singapore folk lore as a president who, when the time called for it, stood up against a government that had overstepped its authority.

No matter how you look at it, the disclosure of the transfer of 26 plots of public spaces from the HDB to PA in Aljunied GRC and the application to similarly transfer six plots in Hougang SMC can be seen as an attempt by the PAP to subvert the role and functions of two otherwise politically neutral organizations for its own purposes and not in the interest of the people.

I would urge President Nathan to censure the PAP-led government for bringing disrepute and putting into doubt the neutrality of the civil service, for staining the good name of PA and HDB, and for abusing the moral authority vested by 60.1% of the electorate during the May general election.

This will also serve as an acid test of the moral authority and independence of the presidency, and establish a concrete precedent for the exercise of the president's powers.

In addition, the president should also rebuke PA and HDB for allowing themselves to be drawn into partisan politics. This will help to set the tone for how all branches of the civil service should interact with the elected representatives of the people, irrespective of their political leanings.

President Nathan also has an opportunity to right a wrong by ensuring that all elected members of parliament are appointed as grassroots advisors, thereby granting them access to and use of PA premises such as community clubs. This would provide a level playing field for all elected representatives and their opposites.

In the current context, only PAP politicians, win or lose, are appointed by the government as grassroots advisors. This gives an undue and undeserved advantage to the PAP, including its losing candidates who in all actuality have been rejected by the constituents.

If we truly want to see our political landscape mature, we must, through the office of the president, insist on changes to the rules of political engagement to level the playing field, insist on accountability by political parties if they have gone beyond the bounds of propriety and decency, and insist on not having our intelligence insulted.

Enough is enough; Singaporeans have grown tired of the childish politicking of the PAP and would rather see a more mature engagement of political parties and the people.

It is my hope that the president, be it the incumbent or the next to be elected by the people, will lead the way.

PA's Folly Undermines PM's Efforts

Soon after the outcome of the recent general election, where the PAP suffered its first loss of a GRC and a 6.5% vote swing, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had promised that the ruling party would do some intense soul-searching and find better ways to reach out and connect with Singaporeans.

It had been a somewhat humbled PAP then through PM Lee that had urged Singaporeans to close ranks and work together with the government to achieve the overriding objective of improving the lives of the people.

Some three months later, during his National Day Rally speech, PM Lee further committed his government to getting its politics and policies right - a commitment that had been accompanied by a slew of policy tweaks for Singaporeans.

And just last week, Mr Lee called for a "harmonious political system where we make decisions in the best interest of Singapore and Singaporeans and keep ourselves safe in this uncertain environment."

He had added that Singapore was "too small to afford an impasse and gridlock, to have two sides blocking one another, so you can't move, you can't solve problems, you can't go ahead".

Yet, there somehow seems to be a huge disconnect between what Mr Lee has been saying and what the various arms of his government, including its para-governmental branches are doing. It appears as though the head and body are not communicating with each other.

This does not bode well for Mr Lee, so early into a new term for his government, which although having secured 81 out of 87 seats in Parliament can only boast of a 60.1% mandate from voters.

The most recent case involving the People's Association (PA) and the  Housing and Development Board (HDB) on one side and the residents of Aljunied GRC on the other is one such example of the incongruency between what Mr Lee is saying and what is actually happening on the ground.

If you ask me, the efforts of PA to ensure that the elected members of parliament for Aljunied GRC are denied the space and opportunity to interact with their constituents is exactly the impasse and gridlock that Mr Lee had said Singapore could ill afford. In my view, the HDB, too, is complicit in undermining the need to get the politics right.

Can the decision makers in PA and HDB honestly and sincerely say that their politicking was in the best interest of Singapore and Singaporeans? Or was it more in the interest of self-preservation and the preservation of the PAP brand of politics?

I also wonder what price for the small victory has PA inflicted on the PAP. While the PAP can take refuge in the five-year term it has until it must submit itself once again to the people's scrutiny, I would suggest that the PAP probably has a very steep hill to climb to regain the trust and confidence of the people before it can be assured to being returned to power in the next general election due by 2016.

In its zeal to fly the PAP flag, PA has effectively helped to nail the PAP's coffin in Aljunied GRC. By denying the Workers Party parliamentarians the opportunity to engage and interact with their constituents socially, PA has made them the underdogs.

This will surely translate into an upsurge of support and sympathy for them, engendering them in the hearts of their constituents and transforming them into the defacto leaders of the community.

On a larger scale, the fallout from PA's folly will also have a very telling impact on Mr Lee's prime ministership. How will we be able to trust PM Lee when what he says appears to be mere rhetoric, sounding nice to the ears but actually having no bite or substance or any real intent? 

It is my hope that the PA fiasco is not an example of the outcome of PAP's efforts to do some intense soul-searching and find better ways to reach out and connect with Singaporeans. If it is, then I really do feel sorry for Mr Lee and the well-intentioned members of the PAP because short of a miracle, the outcome of GE2016 could surely see the dawn of a new government of the day.

A long way to getting the Politics and Policies right

The recent case of the barring of Workers Party member of parliament Chen Show Mao from attending 7th month dinners hosted by Aljunied residents is symptomatic of all that is currently wrong with the politics and policies of Singapore.

That it came to light so soon after Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had promised to get the politics and policies right during his National Day Rally speech, must have come as a slap in the face for his government. Ironically, this slap came by way of the PAP's own apparatchik, the People's Association (PA), which, in turn, owes the ignoble honour to the Paya Lebar Citizens' Consultative Committee (CCC).

This sad turn of affairs in governance and community management also only serves to further confirm what many people have long known, that the PA and CCC, despite their name, were actually pawns and tools for the furthering of the PAP's agenda, which in this case is the denial of fair opportunities for the elected member of parliament (MP) to serve and honour his constituents, especially if the MP was not from the PAP.

The obvious partisanship of the PA and CCC had been something I had alluded to and warned of in an earlier posting just two days before the May general election (5 May 2011: To whose drum beat does the public sector dance?), although my focus had then been on the civil service and town councils.

Beyond just showing up the unevenness of the playing field, the incident is a clear example of how the two entities have failed to live up to their names. It may be time to call a spade a spade instead of trying to fool the people anymore.

Maybe instead of continuing to present themselves as the People's Association and the Citizens' Consultative Committee, these organizations should substitute the words "People" and "Citizens" with the word "PAP" so that their allegiance is in no doubt.

The decision of the PA and CCC also smacks of utter disrespect and disregard towards the mandate that the people of Aljunied GRC had given to their elected representatives. If you ask me, the decision is no points lost to the Workers Party but will count as a huge body blow to the future ability of the PAP to regain the trust and confidence of the voters in the constituency.

In short, the PAP can thank the PA and CCC for single-handedly further alienating the people of the Paya Lebar division of the GRC. I guess in their, dare I say, naive effort to please their political masters, the CCC with the blessings of PA failed to take heed of PM's post-election promise to reform the party and improve its engagement with the people as well as his commitment to get the politics and policies right.

In an attempt to deflect attention away from the uneven treatment of non-PAP MPs, the mainstream media today ran the story with a clarification on the rules governing the use of open spaces.

Looking closely at the rules governing the use of open spaces, I am also befuddled how an MP's attendance at a religious observance can be construed as a political activity when the organizer's of the event are simply asking their elected representative to grace the event. After all, would the guest-of-honour not be attending in his capacity as a member of parliament for the GRC and not as an office bearer of the party he is with?

To argue that in the past PAP MPs attended such events in their capacity as government-appointed grassroots advisers is an attempt at splitting hairs and being fallacious because more often than not banners for such events would indicate their position as MPs rather than grassroots advisers. If such were the case, has the PAP been guilty of contravening the rules and have PA and the CCCs been complicit in abetting the wrong?

Also, it would seem rather illogical for the powers that be to argue that an elected member of parliament, who has been vested with the authority to represent his constituency by no less than the president, is not a grassroots adviser, simply on the technicality that he was not appointed by the PAP-led government. If you ask me, the role of grassroots adviser should be one that comes automatically with one's election as MP.

That such a policy/rule (government-appointed grassroots adviser) exists in its current form is obviously meant for the benefit of only one party - the PAP, and I have to wonder if the same policy/rule would be extended to non-PAP politicians who wish to continue building bridges in constituencies they had contested in and lost. More pointedly, would the government accede to a request from other political parties to appoint grassroots advisers in PAP-held wards? In short, if the PAP is allowed to have grassroots advisers in wards it lost, the same courtesy should be extended to the other political parties.

I make these point on the basis that grassroots advisers are appointed by the government and not the party, and as such, hope that in the interest of fair play and leveling the playing field, all MPs, irrespective of the party lines, are appointed as grassroots advisers and losing candidates be given the right to be appointed as grassroots advisers. This would immediately have the effect of removing any doubt in the minds of the PA, the CCCs and the organizers of community events requiring the use of public open spaces on whether they are contravening any rules.

This would also help us advance together towards getting the politics and policies right, not for the interest of any one party but for the greater good of Singapore society.

Redefining the president-government relationship

Weighing in on the contest for the Presidency, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had said that the government will respect the voters' choice and work with whoever the voters choose in the interest of Singapore.

This is very magnanimous, especially coming from a government that has every reason to want its preferred, although not publicly endorsed, candidate sitting in the Istana. Only time and the outcome of the presidential election on 27 August will tell if this government will live up to its word.

Against the backdrop of an intensely contested presidential election, PM Lee had also taken the opportunity to outline the parameters of the relationship between the government and the president, describing it as one of good mutual understanding and a constructive partnership.

But beyond just understanding and partnership, I would also hope to see the relationship to be one founded on mutual respect and not one which is based on a case where one party directs and the other is directed, if we are to take a literal reading of the Constitution which states that the President must act in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

Like it or not, the office of the Elected President is one which is based on a popular vote, thus making the president accountable to the citizens who voted for him, and despite the absence of executive powers, he carries with him a moral obligation to serve the interest of the people, in addtion to the responsibilities already enshrined in the Constitution.

In the run-up to the presidential election, much has been said and explained about the 'real' powers of the president, at times making it seem that the president's office was effectively impotent when it comes to defending the interests of Singaporeans. If we are to simply accept what the powers that be have said, then this whole affair of the presidential election is just a case of much ado about nothing.

The powers that be would have us believe that the authority and influence of the president have been clearly defined in the Constitution, thereby providing no avenue for him to pursue his own agenda or speak his mind outside the confines of the structures of governance. But faced with a barrage of criticism against such a narrowly defined role of the president and the threat of a looming economic downturn, the government appears to have adjusted its discourse.

In my previous post, I had indicated that what the people want of the next president is someone who will give a listening ear to the people and who will also have the listening ear of the government. But beyond just listening, both parties must also be committed to act on what they have heard, and not just give lip service. Don't let it become a case of all talk and no action.

And as I have also alluded to earlier, appropriate channels (both formal and informal) are already in place to facilitate opportunities for the president to gather and collate feedback from the people and then relay them on to the government.

In performing his ceremonial duties, the president has many opportunities to meet and engage the people. Instead of simply gracing events and making speeches, what is to stop the president's office from including in the president's itinerary time for the president to dialogue with the people for the express purpose of hearing their feedback.

Of course, it would make sense to state upfront that issues to be raised to the president should be issues that affect us as a nation or issues that revolve around causes championed by the president. And while there is no stopping the people from raising municipal issues, the president can, through his office, ensure that they are directed and addressed by the relevant authorities.

But what is the president then to do with all the issues and feedback that he has gathered? Well, PM Lee has provided the answer when he said that he has monthly lunch meetings with the president. What more appropriate forum than this for the president to engage in an exchange of views with the head of government and raise the issues and concerns relayed to him by the people.

No doubt the government will probably say that all of this and possibly more is already happening. But it is all happening behind closed doors. How can you blame the people for coming to the conclusion that the president is ineffectual and does nothing of importance save for acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister and Cabinet?

In the interest of upholding the dignity and standing of the office of the president and in the interest of the desire for greater transparency by the people, what is to stop the government from keeping the people updated on the regular lunch meetings between the president and prime minister?

Can we not have both men meeting the press in the Istana garden after their lunch (assuming that the lunch is held there) to share, in broad strokes, the key issues discussed, consensuses agreed on, and matters that would require further deliberation. Of course, I am not saying they should go through a laundry list of everything that was covered during lunch, just the issues that have an impact of the lives and well-being of the people.

I sincerely believe that this openness will go a long way towards forging a much greater degree of trust between the people and the government, and address the needs of an increasingly information-hungry populace.

Trust, like respect, needs to be earned, and in the wake of the last general election and incidents in the following months that have only served to cause people to further question the moral authority of the government, it is not a matter of choice for the government. It is key to the survivability and sustainability of the government.

Such an openness would also show that the government is willing to 'put your money where your mouth is' when it comes to getting the politics and policies right.

NDR 2011: Winning back the Malay ground

Two bug-bears of the Singapore Malay community are finally getting some long overdue attention going by the two key points raised by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in his National Day Rally speech in Malay.

I suppose this is part of the ruling PAP's strategy to start winning back some of the ground it lost since the May general election, and in focusing on these two issues, I believe that the PAP has calculated that it will gain a good amount of political goodwill and mileage with the Malay community.

Such political goodwill and mileage would certainly help to offset the underlying disquiet in the community over the government's immigration policies which have seen the influx of a large number of foreigners from Northeast and South Asia.

And with the presidential election just around the corner - nomination day is on 17 August while polling day is on 27 August - I am also inclined to believe that the feel good news - covering housing, education, employment and healthcare - delivered by PM Lee in his various NDR speeches had been designed to sweeten the ground for the establishment-preferred presidential candidate.

Tertiary Tuition Fee Subsidy Criteria
The first issue is the plan to revise the income ceiling crieteria for the tertiary tuition fee subsidy (TTFS), which has not been reviewed since it was first introduced 20 years ago. As it stands now, the TTFS is given out based on very outdated income ceiling criteria: 100% for households with a gross monthly income of $2,000 or less and 70% for households with a gross monthly income of between $2,001 and $3,000.

That a review is finally being undertaken is credit worthy but why has it taken 20 years for the question of a review to be brought to the surface? Why has the means criteria for the TTFS been allowed to languish in limbo, as if divorced from the reality of the increases in real income and cost of living over the last two decades?

These questions need to be addressed in tandem with the deliberations that will be convened to establish the new income celings that will serve as the criteria for qualifying for the TTFS.

This responsibility will have to fall on the shoulders of the Malay members of parliament, who while elected into parliament as national leaders, are also at the same time leaders of the Malay community. They, or their predecessors, had been party to the establishment of the criteria and owe it to the community to explain why this review is only taking place now.

It is my hope that the process of reviewing the income ceiling for the TTFS will be one which will involve and engage the community, and that a broad range of perspectives will be considered before a decision is taken. The community too should come forward to give their honest, considered and thought-through opinions on this matter.

For me, besides just looking at income levels, one aspect that needs serious consideration is the inclusion of a per capita income criteria in the assessment of ability and affordability, especially when one considers that the Malay community tends to have larger families and by extension have the possibility of having more than one child pursuing a tertiary education.

Looking at household incomes on a per capita basis is more likely to give a more realistic picture of ability and affordability, whereas household income levels merely provide a broad sweep of earning power without taking into consideration the real expenses incurred by a household.

If my memory serves me right, this had been suggested some 20 years ago but it was not accepted and included in the criteria for the TTFS. I can only hope that this will not be the case now.

Geylang Serai Renewal
The second issue raised by PM Lee looks at transforming the existing Malay Village in Geylang Serai into a civic centre and plaza for the Malay community, furthering the efforts to renew the Geylang Serai area which is synonymous with Malay culture and heritage.

The successful redevelopment of the Geylang Serai market, which was well-received by the Malay community, has probably provided a firm foundation for the government to embark on this initiative.

The Malay Village, which was touted as a showcase of Malay culture and heritage when it was first built about 20 years ago, has been largely a white elephant for the community and only comes to life during the month of Ramadan with the Hari Raya bazaar and Geylang Serai light-up.

Based on what was announced by PM Lee, the Malay Village, whose lease is due to expire soon, will be replaced with a multi-level complex that will include a Malay Heritage Gallery.

Judging by the fact that a name has already been given to the complex - Wisma Geylang Serai - it would appear that this plan is good to go. A minister of state has also been appointed to oversee the transformation project.

I can only hope that Wisma Geylang Serai will be a place of pride for the Malay community, a showcase for Malay culture and heritage as well as a place that the community can use as a rallying point to engage itself and continue to build bridges with the other communities that make up Singapore society.

And although it seems that much of the plan has already been put to paper, I still hope that the team tasked to oversee the transformational project would involve a broad cross-section of the community in the course of seeing through the plan.

A Time of Opportunity
Through these two issues, the Malay community has been provided with an opportunity to have a say in their future, in particular, in the areas of keeping tertiary education affordable to more families and ensuring the preservation of Malay culture and heritage.

An opportunity has also been provided to rise above partisan politics, and it will be to the benefit of the Malay community if the leaders within the community (and I hope that it will include leaders on both sides of the poliltical divide) as well as members of the community engage each other constructively towards a greater purpose.

Let us not waste the time and opportunity that has been given to us.

SBS and SMRT should stop "passing the buck" to commuters

Public transport operators SBS Transit and SMRT appear to have short social and institutional memories, judging by their applications to the Public Transport Council (PTC) to seek an adjustment in bus and train fares.

Wasn’t it just two months ago that we saw a beleaguered Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong address a lunch time rally at Raffles Place apologizing for the failings of the PAP-led government and the subsequent post-election ‘retirement’ of three ministers, including the then transport minister Raymond Lim.

Wasn’t it not too long ago in 2008 that the transport ministry stated that “public transport operators are not allowed to pass on to customers their direct costs, such as fuel and wage costs, or to base their fares on these costs”. Yet, this appears to be exactly what the two operators are doing going by statements articulated by both operators.

Based on reports in the mainstream media, SMRT claimed that its application for the maximum fare adjustment of 2.8 per cent was driven by rising energy and manpower costs while SBS Transit had indicated that it was facing cost pressures for fuel and energy on top of investments in its fleet renewal. Both operators also claimed that these cost pressures persist despite their efforts to lower costs and increase productivity.

No matter how much their try to dress up their applications and wrap it with the annual fare adjustment formula, their own words are a clear indictment of their willful attempt to undermine the position of the transport ministry on direct costs, and make the PTC complicit in this act of undermining the transport ministry by approving the fare increase.

To be clear, the annual public transport fare adjustment formula is pegged to changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and the Wage Index (WI), which measures national average monthly earnings. What this means is that affordability of fares to the consumer should prevail over the need of the operators to manage their costs in order to improve their profit margin from operating a public service.

Given the continuing concern with cost of living issues among many Singaporeans, I am not surprised that many have reacted with disdain to the prospect of a further hike in public transport cost (in cost of living terms), even though the last adjustment to bus and train fares was implemented in 2008.

Back then in 2008, the fare increase of 1.7 per cent had been received with a sense of resignation but it would be a mistake for the transport operators, the PTC and the government to assume that the public would be so accepting of an increase in bus and train fares now. The transport ministry, now helmed by Lui Tuck Yew, would do well to remind the PTC of the ministry’s 2008 position.

Furthermore, economists have also forecasted a slowdown in Singapore's economic growth, which hopefully will be in the deliberations of the PTC chaired by Gerard Ee.

This new attitude of critical circumspection is also fueled by the general experience of commuters who have not seen much of an improvement in public transport services despite the previous fare increases. Ask anyone to think about public transportation and the images that come to mind are long queues, packed bus interchanges and MRT stations, crowded buses and trains.
 
The SMRT had also attempted to dress up its rising costs with the opening up of Phase One and Two of the Circle Line, but isn’t that to tantamount to passing the buck (the direct cost of operating the Circle Line) to the consumer? Wouldn’t opening the Circle Line lead to a new ridership base and a new revenue stream that over time would pay for the investment in the MRT network?

Such a fallacious argument is also inherent in SBS Transit’s linking of its cost pressures to its $268 million investment in 600 new buses to renew its fleet. Again, the purchase of the new buses is a direct cost to ensuring the continued ability of SBS Transit to deliver its services. Why should commuters have to bear the cost of the fleet renewal when it is the bus company’s responsibility to ensure that commuters are provided with safe and functional transportation?

Also, given the fact that both transport operators continue to report operating profits – SMRT made a profit of $161 million for the year ending 31 March while SBS recorded a profit of $54 million last year – no one can blame the average Joe for thinking that the applications to the PTC are but an attempt to line pockets of the shareholders of both operators instead of truly providing a world-class public transport experience to commuters.

This perception is borne out of the fact that both public transport operators are privatized entities instead of state-run corporations. Not surprisingly, many believe that both SBS Transit and SMRT would have no qualms about passing on the cost to commuters in their quest to boost their profit margin.

The irony of the situation is that both companies are actually operating a public service and as such, should be operating on the basis of sustainability first instead of how much profit, which translates into dividends, they can deliver to their shareholders.

Instead of exploiting their duo-poly, as most commuters have no choice but to use the services of both companies, SBS Transit and SMRT should demonstrate how they are helping Singaporeans get from place to place efficiently and comfortably without adding to their daily cost of living expenses.

And only when they can deliver the quality of service that makes public transportation a truly pleasant experience will Singaporeans be more amenable to accepting increases in their bus and train fares.
 
As commuters, all of us are ultimately customers of these companies and I believe that it would be fair to say the following is a fair depiction of how we feel: “Show me and let me experience it, and if I appreciate and like it, I would probably be willing to pay more for it. Don’t tell me you are going to do it and ask me to pay more for it, only to disappoint me with less than what I had been promised.”

More cost of living woes if preschool fee increases go through

Preschooling at People’s Action Party Community Foundation (PCF) kindergartens and childcare centres are expected to get more expensive if some branches go ahead with their announced intention to increase their fees to help cover their cost of operations.

According to the PCF, a branch may consider increasing its fees with justifications such as a new curricula or special programmes. However, more pointedly, the need to increase fees is based on the branch’s finances, as revealed by a PCF spokesperson in a reply to the media.

This comes less than three months after Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had pledged to keep fees low while maintaining a good-quality preschool programme. PM Lee was then addressing parents at the 25^th anniversary of the PCF where he said that in addition to better-qualified teachers and principals, PCF kindergartens are improving their curriculum and introducing more niche programmes and “all this while keeping fees affordable so that we can continue to meet the needs of many families in Singapore”.

Given that PM Lee had pledged to keep fees affordable, I am baffled why some three months later, the PAP Members of Parliament (MP) of PCF branches where fee increases are being considered have changed the narrative to one of sustainability and are looking to pass on the increase in their cost of operations to parents. Why should the burden of ensuring the sustainability of a PCF branch be passed onto parents, when the onus on proper financial management should rest with the management team of the branch?

This sustainability approach also seems at odds with the PCF’s mission to enhance the well-being of the community through educational, welfare and community services, and its vision of providing quality services at affordable cost to the community.

If the PCF is meant to be the social and charitable arm of the PAP, why then are its branches operating as though they are separate business entities that are charged to earn their own upkeep? Given that improvements are being introduced to continue providing quality preschool education, shouldn’t the foundation be reviewing its funding model for its branches to ensure sufficiency of operating and development funding thereby guaranteeing the sustainability of the branches instead of having the branches recover the cost from parents, some of whom can barely afford to send their children to PCF kindergartens?

The PCF is, after all, an organization that has more than $17 million in cash and deposits, and with its ratio of reserves to annual operating expenditure at 5.25: 1 (based on its financial statements as of end 2009), I am sure the PCF should have no difficulty meeting the increased operating expenditure of its branches, especially if such increases are primarily due to increases in staff salaries and the introduction of special programmes.

Well, the PCF may argue that the ratio has been declining over time due to the need to draw down on the reserves to meeting operating costs, raising concerns that this continuing trend may deplete the PCF’s reserves in the longer term.

If this is a real concern for the PCF and a possible driver for increasing fees, then the onus should lie with the MPs associated with each branch to do more to generate more donations from the community they serve. Such donations could be channelled to the PCF and would ultimately translate into gains for the community’s PCF branches. Such a community-based approach would be far better than having parents add on to their cost of living woes.

Better yet, why not have all ministers pledge a portion of their multi-million dollar annual salaries to the PCF to bolster its cash reserves?

Furthermore, as the largest preschool education operator in Singapore, with about six in 10 preschoolers attending its programme in 240 kindergartens and 65 childcare centres across 87 branches, shouldn’t the PCF be able to benefit from the economies of scale that come from being part of such a monolithic organization?

The announced intent of some branches to raise fees, citing operations cost as a key driver for the increase in fees, seems to suggest that each PCF branch is moving on its own, without any support or guidance from the centre.

The questions raised above and many more are probably running through the minds of parents who expect to be impacted by the proposed fee increase – sooner or later. Even with fees pegged from $90 to $120 per month as of August 2010, some families have already had to seek financial assistance to give their children a headstart in education.

With the anticipated increase in fees, I would expect the number of parents applying for aid through the government’s Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme as well as the PCF’s Headstart fund to increase, to include possibly even families in the lower-end of the middle-income bracket who are struggling with cost of living issues.

And if the government and, by extension, the PAP, is to live up to its mantra of not denying any child the opportunity of an education due to cost considerations, it would have to ensure that all, if not most, applications for financial aid are approved. Anything less of the desired result would be seen as a failure of the social compact that the government had promised for the future of our children.

If we are to be convinced that the government continues to be invested in education as a leveler in society and that it is the “best way to uplift the lives of our people”, the way forward is definitely not by passing the buck to parents.

More can and needs to be done for preschool education, and the government and the PCF have a big part to play in this regard.

Endnote: The last fees increase was effected in 2008 by 50-plus PCF branches, citing rising operating costs. If we simply accept this rationale, then like everything else in Singapore, we may very well see preschool fees increasing on a regular cycle. I, for one, am not for that. 

A Litmus Test of Public Accountability

The case of the murdered Indonesian maid whose body was dumped into a Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat rooftop water tank in Woodlands has raised the ire of residents due to the apparent lack of accountability on the part of the Sembawang Town Council.

With the 2011 general elections still fresh on everyone’s mind, it was no surprise that the residents who were directly affected by the contamination of their water supply have gone to the extreme of petitioning for the resignation of the management of the Town Council for the shocking lapse.

Essentially, the unhappy residents want the Town Council to not only admit culpability for the lapse but also do the honorable thing of stepping down as a sign of their humility for failing in their task.

This comes as no surprise given the current political climate; a climate borne out the 2011 general elections which saw the People’s Action Party (PAP) being on the defensive for the first time in its 52-year rule.

For it was in this election that the people saw no less than the Prime Minister stepping up to apologize for the mistakes of his government, that the people chose to put their trust in the opposition which resulted in the PAP losing a Group Representation Constituency (GRC) along with two Ministers and a potential Speaker of Parliament, that the PAP was humbled into promising to serve the people better.

The fall out from the elections also saw the retirement of five Cabinet members – Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng, National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan and Transport Minister Raymond Lim – followed by the reshuffling of almost the entire Cabinet with 11 out of the 14 ministries getting new heads, and the formation of a committee to review ministerial salaries.

Some gains appear to have been made, at least at the national level, in the interest of Singapore and Singaporeans. Some level of appeasement seems to have been achieved, at least for now, but only time will tell if the PAP truly follows through of what is has said or whether this is will just turn out to be political rhetoric by the time the next elections are upon us in 2016.

The Woodlands water tank case, however, is set to test the ruling PAP’s relationship with citizens at the municipal level, and Sembawang GRC via the proxy of the Sembawang Town Council will be the litmus test of the PAP’s promise to serve the people responsibly and humbly and ‘put right what is wrong’.

Looking beyond the grossness of unknowingly drinking and bathing in water from a tank that had been used to hide dead body, residents from the affected block in Woodlands zoomed in on the ineptitude of the town council in relation to how they handled the matter.

Many residents were upset with the Town Council for not immediately informing them to stop using and consuming the water upon the discovery of the body in the morning. Although the water supply had been cut off an hour after the discovery, the lack of transparency meant that some residents had continued to use residual water from the tank into the late afternoon.

And even though it was a matter under police investigation, residents felt that the Town Council should have told them more instead of leaving them in the dark.

Not surprisingly, the residents were in no mood for the quickly cobbled together apology from the Town Council, which claimed that it had been an oversight on their part and that they did not think about the residual water in the pipe system. I wouldn’t have accepted such an apology if it happened to me.

So far, the residents’ petition for the resignation of the Town Council management has only been met with an apology and a $10 rebate on their next utility bill as compensation for their misfortune.

If the apology and $10 rebate is all that is forthcoming, residents are really getting the short end of the stick and the people who are responsible for managing our towns are getting off lightly.

Taking the government’s argument that water is a strategic and vital resource, should the lax attitude in relation to the security of our residential water supply not be dealt with seriously? Should we not be concerned over the ease of access that maintenance workers have to vital installations such as our water supply? Should we not insist on a thorough review of how all our Town Councils are managing the work of their contractors?

In one fell swoop, the incident under the Sembawang Town Council’s watch has brought to bear a number of issues (I shall just highlight three) that should be in the government’s sights: community relations, town council-contractor relations and national security.

Community relations-wise, the elected representatives of Sembawang GRC and the Town Council failed for not being immediately more forthcoming with affected residents.

For all the claims that PAP had made about it extensive grassroots network, why was it not mobilized to work hand-in-hand with the Town Council to communicate the news and also to provide an alternative water supply for the affected residents. I would imagine that the PAP would have scored points with the people if it had made efforts to provide a water truck for the residents while their water supply was shut for the flushing and cleaning of their rooftop water tank.

The Town Council failed for not looking beyond the obvious and for not being upfront with residents. If it had been more forthcoming, it would not now be faced with the loss of confidence from the affected residents.

Secondly, this case has also brought into sharp relief the relations that exist between town councils and their contractors, and a key question that is on many minds is whether the town councils are too lax with entrusting the keys to access to vital installations like water supply tanks to their contractors.

Is it a common practice among town councils to allow maintenance workers to keep keys that rightfully should be held by their supervisors and returned upon completion of task? If the answer is no, then the Woodlands case is damning evidence of mismanagement by the Sembawang Town Council and as rightly demanded by the residents, they should step down. If the answer is yes, it raises serious questions about the level of security and vigilance practiced by our town councils.

Thirdly, I shudder to think that a sense of complacency appears to have settled upon the people who are charged with the duty to manage our towns, a complacency that makes our homes vulnerable to those who may have nefarious intentions.

Given that acts of mischief had been perpetrated on our HDB water supply tanks before – albeit by children – the lack of proper security measures to ensure the safety and cleanliness of our water supply simply smacks of irresponsibility.

If anecdotal evidence from residents is anything to go by, the lack of proper security meant that the maintenance workers, at its most benign, used the rooftop water tank room as their private place to have trysts with women, and may have used the water tank as their own private bath. At its worst, the water tank room has become a murder scene and the water tank a place to hide the body.

There certainly is quite a bit of wrong that needs to be put right, and for the residents who were directly affected, no amount of compensation is going to wash away the stain or the bad taste that this incident has left in their mouth.

And nothing short of full accountability is going to satisfy those who were affected.

Even then, the memory of it all will probably never go away.

Time For The Next Generation To Step Up

The new Cabinet line-up announced by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong some 11 days after the 2011 general elections can probably count as one of the biggest moves by the People’s Action Party (PAP) in recent times.

As if to answer and underscore the call for change that had been shouted by the electorate through the ballot box and through various social media channels, a total of 11 out of the 14 ministries have seen a change in leadership, with a further three ministers stepping down to make way for seven new faces in the Cabinet.

The extent of the change is both sweeping and unprecedented but not unexpected given the ground sentiments that continue to swirl even after the elections, and the free hand that PM Lee now has following the retirement of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong.

In total, the experience of nine ministers from the previous Cabinet has been lost through retirements and electoral defeats. Nonetheless, five of them will continue to be Members of Parliament (MPs) – hopefully now with more humility, responsibility and a greater desire to connect with the people they have been elected to serve.

The departures of Wong Kan Seng and Mah Bow Tan must surely have been the  most hoped for and awaited change to many people as these two men had come under the most intense scrutiny and criticism during the elections for their role in the escape of a terrorist leader and the skyrocketing of housing prices, respectively.

The departure of Raymond Lim was a little more unexpected but given that transport issues also continue to be a core bread-and-butter concern for Singaporeans, the backlash from unpopular transport policies as well as the unhappiness over congestion in the public transport system took their toll during the elections.

What does come as a surprise, though, are the through-train promotions of two newly-elected MPs to full ministers, with former Monetary Authority of Singapore chief Heng Swee Keat appointed as Education Minister and former Chief of Army Chan Chun Sing as Acting Community Development, Youth and Sports Minister.

Besides the two newly-minted ministers, the Cabinet also sees five new faces in the form of labour MPs Halimah Yacob and Josephine Teo, a newly promoted Teo Ser Luck, and two new MPs who have been touted for higher office – Tan Chuan Jin and Lawrence Wong. Except for Madam Halimah, the other four range in age from 39 to 43, suggesting a period of grooming and exposure before they are considered for possible further promotion to full ministers.

Another notable facet of the new Cabinet is the number of promotions given to returning PAP MPs: Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam received the highest accolade with his promotion to Deputy PM while fourth term MP, S Iswaran, has been promoted from Senior Minister of State (Education) to Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office.

The four other promotions went to Heng Chee How, promoted from Minister of State to Senior Minister of State; Teo Ser Luck, promoted from Senior Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State; and Miss Josephine Teo and Madam Halimah, promoted from backbenchers to Ministers of State.

The new Cabinet assembled by PM Lee also echoes the retirement statement of MM Lee and SM Goh that they were leaving the Cabinet to a “completely younger team of ministers to connect and engage with this young generation in shaping the future of our Singapore.”

The entire new Cabinet led by PM Lee is currently under 60 years old, with the oldest being PM Lee himself at 59, followed by new National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan at 58. The youngest full minister is Major-General (NS) Chan at 42 while the youngest member of the Cabinet is Minister of State Lawrence Wong at 39. It is also interesting to note that of the 25 members of the Cabinet, more than half are aged 50 and below.

By the time of the next election in 2016, only seven members of the Cabinet would have passed the age of 60, including PM Lee and DPM Teo Chee Hean. This still leaves more than two-thirds of the Cabinet within the age range of this Cabinet, including DPM Shanmugaratnam and seven full ministers.

It could be said that in one sweep, PM Lee has put in place a mechanism to ensure that the core of the government is demographically as close as possible to the sizeable majority of an increasingly aware and vocal electorate. Hopefully, this will help the government be more in tune with the voters come election time.

Also worth noting is the change in the leadership in 11 of the 14 ministries. Only three ministries – Finance, Law and Trade & Industry – sees continuity in leadership.

While it might be thought that the government is indulging in some sort of musical chairs, the reshuffling of the Cabinet deck is actually a useful way of ensuring that no minister becomes entrenched in one ministry and providing a fresh set of eyes when ministers are rotated across ministries.

With each minister now being assigned a new portfolio, we could very well see the dismantling, recasting or improvement of policies and approaches to better meet the needs of Singaporeans. If this really comes to pass, it may begin to convince the electorate that the PAP-led government is actually beginning to listen to the people.

On the plus side, this may help the party regain some of the ground it has lost over the last five years, especially among the swing voters, which culminated in its worst electoral showing since 1963.

PM Lee had set the bar for himself when he announced in his post-election press conference that the party would need to change, to transform, to adapt to the new electorate to “put right what is wrong, to improve what can be made better, and also improve ourselves to serve Singaporeans better”.

Maybe, this is the sign we need to enable us to close ranks and work together, “regardless of race, language or religion, to build a democratic society based on justice and equality, so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation”.

Maybe, this will ensure the future we want for ourselves, our family and our children.

Maybe.

A Government for the Future

The last 11 days following the elections must probably have been a stressful time for Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong as he thought about how to reconstitute his government following the worst election results for the People’s Action Party (PAP) since it came to power in 1959.

Singapore is now waiting with bated breath for PM Lee to announce his new Cabinet line-up. An announcement is expected this week, but what can we expect to see? Will there be significant changes to the appointment holders and their portfolios? Or will it be back to government as usual?

The PAP had already lost five political office holders – two Ministers, one Senior Minister of State and two Ministers of State – before the elections, and had to come face-to-face with losing three more office holders – two Ministers and one Senior Minister of State – as a result of the elections.

Considering only the ministerial portfolios (including the Minister of State positions), which comprise 31 individuals in the last government, the loss of eight office bearers meant that PM Lee had to find suitable replacements for about one-quarter of his government team.

This seemed to be further exacerbated by the decisions of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong to step down from the Cabinet.

The retirement of MM Lee and SM Goh to make way for “a younger generation to carry Singapore forward” could actually be a good thing for PM Lee as he has been given the room to break from the past. 

A lean and trim government

Taking the joint statement by the two former Prime Ministers as a clear signal, PM Lee could use this as an opportunity to do away with the MM and SM positions, and as such would only need to look into filling seven positions vacated as a result of retirement and electoral defeat.

He could even go a step further by establishing a very lean Cabinet, one that is without ministers without portfolios. This would mean that the biggest and most important decision for PM Lee would be who to appoint as the new Minister for Foreign Affairs.

If you ask me, the Foreign Affairs ministry position could be a toss up between Minister for Trade and Industry Lim Hng Kiang and Minister for Transport & Second Minister for Foreign Affairs Raymond Lim, with the former having the edge of having helmed the ministry before.

The other decisions of equal importance would be to identify potential junior ministers to fill the vacancies left behind with the departures of Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon, Associate Professors Ho Peng Kee and Koo Tsai Kee, and Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed.

But decisions on who would form the core leadership of the government are probably not a simple matter of just filling up the numbers. After all, we can no longer just go back to government as usual.

Given the distinct shift in our political landscape, a truism acknowledged by PM Lee himself, consideration may be given to public sentiment leading to more populist appointments and further retirements from the government.

4^th generation leaders to step up

Age may also be a determining factor given the PAP’s articulated aim at the start of the election campaign to bring in and groom the fourth generation (4G) leadership for Singapore.

The average age of the remaining Ministers in the last Cabinet currently stands at around 55 years old, with Mr Wong Kan Seng and Mr Mah Bow Tan as clear outliers – they are already 65 and 62 years old, respectively – and Dr Vivian Balakrishnan and Rear-Admiral (NS) Lui Tuck Yew as the youngest at 50 years old.

Out of the slate of new PAP candidates in the recent elections, former Monetary Authority of Singapore managing director Heng Swee Keat, 50, and former Singapore Armed Forces Brigadier-General Tan Chuan Jin, 42, appear most likely to be appointed as office holders in the new government.

Who else among the new PAP Members of Parliament can we expect to be part of the 4G leadership group? They could include former Chief of Army Major-General Chan Chun Sing (42), former Energy Market Authority chief executive Lawrence Wong (38), and former civil servant Sim Ann (36).

There are also a number of below-50 years old Members of Parliament in the previous line-up of office holders, who have the potential to rise further within the government. These include Mr Teo Ser Luck (41), Mr Masagos Zulkifli (48), and Ms Grace Fu (47), just to name a few.

A new and younger DPM

Looking now at the apex of government, it is possible that PM Lee may also be looking to appointing a new and younger second Deputy Prime Minister (DPM). The first DPM would probably continue to be Mr Teo Chee Hean (56).

Word has it that the potential candidates are Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam (54), Education & Second Defence Minister Dr Ng Eng Hen (52), and Minister without portfolio Lim Swee Say (57). We will just have to wait to see who PM Lee chooses.

The appointment of a younger DPM is the only way forward for the PAP if we are to believe in the sincerity of their efforts at leadership renewal.

It would also mean that Mr Wong would have to relinquish his DPM post, but he could continue to be part of the Cabinet in his role as Coordinating Minister for National Security.

This would demonstrate to the public that the government is listening to the people – public sentiment against Mr Wong had been very high during the elections – while still ensuring that there is continuity in the work done by Mr Wong.

A new beginning

Let us hope that PM Lee will use the opportunity that has been given to him to put in place a government that will truly serve the people; to use the fresh clean slate provided by the departure of MM Lee and SM Goh to bring about change within the PAP; and to connect with and engage the people in a manner that shows that citizens are always at the top of the government’s list of concerns.

Much ground has been lost over the last two elections and if the PAP hopes to regain its primacy in the Singapore polity, it will need to change its game plan, introduce new players who are ready to tackle the unknown and possibly even slaughter a few sacred cows within the party.

If ever there was a time for change within the PAP, now is the time. The price of failing to do so would be most telling when 2016 rolls by.

Dawn of a New Era

The twin decisions by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong to retire from the Cabinet appears to be yet another consequence of the just recently concluded general elections.

The unexpected move comes as a surprise given that both men had contested the general elections to seek a new mandate from their constituents, with MM Lee being returned unopposed in his Tanjong Pagar Group Representation Constituency (GRC) and SM Goh winning a hard fought battle in his Marine Parade GRC.

According to a statement issued by the two leaders, they made their decisions after having considered the “new political situation” and deciding that it was time to “have a completely younger team of ministers to connect to and engage with this young generation in shaping the future of Singapore.”

This is probably the biggest and most historic move that the People’s Action Party (PAP) has made after any of the elections it has contested.

In one fell swoop, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s soon-to-be reconstituted Cabinet has lost two elder statesmen, who in their own turn had led and shaped the development of Singapore.

This may be a good thing for PM Lee as now no one would be able to say that while he led the government, the elder Lee allegedly held sway on how final decisions were made.

Also, given that the PAP-led government had already made clear that there would be no other MM, the way had already been paved for SM Goh to step down upon MM Lee’s retirement.

Beyond the reasons stated by the two former PMs in their statement, as an observer of the Singapore political landscape, I am persuaded to weigh the possibility of other contributory factors that led to their decision.

In the case of MM Lee, besides the most obvious reasons of age (87) and possibly health, the recent fall-out arising from his comments about the Malay/Muslim community in the book Lee Kuan Yew: Hard Truths To Keep Singapore Going as well as his comments towards Aljunied GRC residents during the 2011 election campaign may have tipped the balance towards his stepping down from the Cabinet.

While MM Lee had said that he stood corrected in relation to his remarks about Malays, Muslims and integration with the rest of Singapore, his admission of error fell short of an apology. This had left a lingering sense of resentment towards the PAP among many within the Malay/Muslim community.

Similarly, MM Lee’s “regret and repent” remarks towards Aljunied GRC residents had also deepened the resentment on a much broader level. This saw PAP paying the ultimate price of losing a GRC to the Workers’ Party (WP) and losing two Cabinet ministers in the process.

In addition, MM Lee’s post-election remarks where he characterized the younger generation as a generation that “does note remember from whence we came” has probably also resulted in further alienating a generation that has come of age and are more vociferous in making their views heard.

For SM Goh, the decision to relinquish his Cabinet position may have been driven by events that occurred during the 2011 elections, besides his age (69) and MM Lee’s retirement.

During the course of the elections campaign, there had been times when SM Goh had appeared to be out of step with the rest of the party. In his defense of former Foreign Minister George Yeo, he had unintentionally thrown two other ministers, who were also apparently unpopular with the masses, under the bus.

SM Goh’s proposal for a buddy system for Members of Parliament (MPs) in his Marine Parade GRC in the middle of the campaign also seemed ill-placed as it suggested that the party’s choice of candidates, especially new candidates, may not have been good enough.

Such remarks have only given credence to the widely held belief that there is a rift within the PAP.

The Tin Pei Ling saga may have also contributed to SM Goh’s decision to leave the Cabinet, going by his remarks that her entry into politics had been the party’s decision and that she had been the weak link that caused the reduction in votes for his PAP team.

His almost apologetic tone when it comes to talking about or defending her seems to suggest that he may not have had a choice in terms of including her in his team. Maybe.

One other factor that may have contributed to both men's retirement from Cabinet could be the recent revelation that PAP ministers received pensions at the age of 55, even while they were still in office.

This would have proven to be very unpopular with the populace who were already disgruntled over the grossly high pay that ministers receive. MM Lee's and SM Goh's departure could thus be seen as a damage control measure to nip in the bud the perception of the PAP enriching its own at the expense of the people.

Maybe I am just clutching at straws, but the timing of their retirement seems to be too simple to explain by just their issued statement.

In the final analysis, now that both men are out of the Cabinet, it may very well usher in a new era in the development of the PAP-led government, and possibly give more room for a real reform or transformation to take place within the party.

And while the PAP is going through this period of housekeeping, it may very well want to carefully evaluate whether further Cabinet changes should be made, especially if it wants to assure the public that it is serious about listening to the people.

The 2011 election really has been an election based on ‘change’, and my hope is that this ‘change’ will be a change for the better for everyone, especially for you and for me.

To whose drum beat does the public sector dance?

For the first time since the 1972 general elections, the most number of parliamentary seats are up for grabs – 82 out of 87 are being contested. The possibility of the PAP losing some seats looks very real. Casualties could include ministers and chairmen of town councils.


This presents an interesting scenario for the public sector, especially the Civil Service and Town Councils.


Both have long been closely associated with the ruling party. But, if you ask me, they should not be beholden to any party. Their accountability should be to the citizens whom they are expected to serve.


For the Civil Service, this association is a consequence of the long-standing dominance of the PAP as the government of the day and the absorption of senior civil servants into the ranks of the party when the General Elections roll by.


Town Councils too, are a construct of the PAP-led government to allow for some semblance of local/municipal government. For now, all but two town councils are currently managed by PAP Members of Parliament.


However, even if the town councils came into being through the initiative of the PAP-led government, should these town councils be beholden to the party?


For me, the answer is an emphatic 'No'. Town council are, first and foremost, there to serve the needs of residents, not the party.


While the reins have seemingly been handed over to caretakers while the politicians seek a new mandate, the partisanship of the town councils are quite obvious and it does not look like it is going to go away.


Gazing ahead past 7 May, and embracing the possibility of the electorate voting in more opposition MPs and giving the PAP less than the simple majority it needs to form the government, what would this mean for the Civil Service and Town Councils?


How will the Civil Service navigate the new political landscape in the event of the formation of a coalition government? How can we, the citizens, be assured that the bureaucracy will support all members of the new government with integrity, service and excellence, irrespective of their party affiliation?


Even if the PAP secured enough seats to form the government, the same dictum apply, that is, the Civil Service should provide all MPs with the same level of support and access to information, irrespective of their political affiliation.


Despite the Civil Service’s assertion of its party neutrality, one cannot help but wonder if this bureaucracy can be truly neutral given its links with former civil servants who crossed the divide to carry the PAP’s agenda and who in many cases become political office holders within the government ministries they once served.


Closer to the heartlands, can we be assured that Town Councils will extend their full cooperation to whomever gains the mandate of the electorate? It would be ungracious if Town Council officials refuse to work with the non-PAP MPs returned by the electorate on the basis that their allegiance was to the PAP.  


Let us hope that should the outcome of the elections not favor the incumbents, it would not lead to a form of denial-of-services whereby citizens’ needs become collateral damage.


It would be in the interest of the nation as a whole for public service structures to continue to serve the needs of the citizens, irrespective of who the political driver(s) may be.