The following is an open letter from a TOC reader to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. PM Lee will be on a Channel NewsAsia programme tomorrow – Question Time With The Prime Minister – to take questions from Singaporeans. The programme is scheduled to air LIVE on the web on Tuesday, April 12, 8-9pm. (See here and here.)

Our reader too has some questions for the Prime Minister in the following open letter.

Dear Prime Minister,

At the end of each term, every child in school receives a report-card that sums up his or her performance during the term. It is essential for each child to get good grades so he or she can move on to the next class.

Similarly, we hope the PAP government will be willing to look at a report card on its performance over the past five years. The report is not exhaustive but merely a sampling of some of the issues that concern your subjects, oops, the plebeians, I mean the people.

The editors of The Online Citizen (TOC) have assured me that in the interests of transparency and openness, your reply will be published in full, unedited and unabridged and certainly unchanged for “sense”. I am sure you will find this a refreshing change from the heavy-handed treatment that letter-writers to some of TOC’s larger contemporaries in town (mainstream media) get.

For your convenience, the report has been grouped into sections. Most of the points have been framed as questions for your kind consideration:

ACCOUNTABILITY

1. Financial crisis: What were the exact losses suffered by Temasek Holdings (Temasek) and the Government Investment Corporation (GIC) between 2008 and 2009 owing to the global financial crisis? How much of the losses were recovered in 2010? Global best practices as seen in countries such as Norway require that these be disclosed.

2. Shin Corporation, ABC Learning etc: How much has Singapore lost on its investments in these and similar companies over the past five years? Has anyone been held accountable for the losses? (We are specifically interested in the second question).

We understand it is in the nature of markets for investments to go up as well as down. However, this does not mean there are no bad investments and that they should not be scrutinised and held up to public view. We hope you agree.

3. Myanmar: How much of Singapore’s public money is invested in Myanmar? Did Singapore sell arms to the military junta and is it continuing to do military deals with the government in that country? Why does Singapore continue to have relations with this repressive regime at all? (Perhaps your Foreign Minister, Mr Yeo, would like to comment on this; he has been remarkably quiet on this subject).

4. Failed SGX-ASX merger: We understand the Australian government has rejected the proposed merger of the Singapore and Australian Stock Exchanges owing to its strongly negative perception of the government’s holdings in the Singapore Stock Exchange (SGX) through Temasek. Would you care to comment on why Temasek’s interests in SGX should be viewed negatively? Could it be because of excessive government control of business and industry in Singapore? Would you say it has something to do with the opaque manner in which the government operates its businesses and its tendency to monopolise certain sectors of the economy?

5. Mas Selamat’s escape: We are very sympathetic to your government’s plight over this unfortunate episode. We understand that our highly paid Deputy Prime Minister and Co-ordinating Minister for National Security could not have foreseen the security lapse so, of course, it was not his fault. Nevertheless, the people are concerned because we are told our Ministers expect to be paid in line with top earners in the private sector.

Of course, we understand that service in your government is different from working in the private sector and that it is not necessary for senior people to take responsibility for major lapses. (The security breach could, in theory, have been very damaging to Singapore if Mas Selamat had not been recaptured by our neighbours). We also understand the culture in other countries where ministers resign to take responsibility for lapses in their ministries is alien to us; Singapore, after all, is a special country with special circumstances. In this country it is acceptable for junior officers to be disciplined and removed but not senior grandees, sorry, ministers.

6 Youth Olympic Games (YOG):

We are told the cost of this event was one-tenth that of the Summer Olympics. The Beijing Summer Olympics attracted a total of 4.7 billion viewers[i]. Could   the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) tell us how many viewers the YOG attracted worldwide? We understand the MCYS Minister, rather than being held accountable for his performance, has been promoted to head your government’s re-election bid in a Group Representation Constituency (GRC).

We fully understand he, like the gentleman mentioned in the previous point, was not responsible for the budget over-run or the food-poisoning incident. He did an exemplary job in generating marketing exposure for Singapore and attracting additional tourist revenue. Only, we have not been told how much of this exposure was generated internationally and whether it was really beneficial (as opposed to mere internet “noise”) or sustainable for the long term? Would you care to enlighten us?

7 Road traffic: When the Certificate of Entitlement (COE) and Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) schemes were introduced 20 years ago, we were told the purpose was to keep traffic in Singapore “free-flowing”. Your government has earned billions from these two schemes yet we have traffic snarls on our roads that are approaching the infamous levels seen in the capitals of some of our neighbouring countries. Of course, it could not have been foreseen by your Ministry of Transport or highly paid Transport Minister that releasing COEs liberally to pander to the demands of the motor industry would lead to this situation. The poor minister who is responsible for these conditions, we understand, needs the support of another “heavyweight” minister from your cabinet in his bid for re-election in a GRC.

In short, our point is that many ordinary Singaporeans are held accountable in their everyday jobs and they are penalised for serious mistakes. The people would like to know whether your government and specifically, your talented cabinet, has a similar culture of accountability and acceptance of responsibility?

KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (KPI)

1. Median wages: The median income for all households in Singapore rose by barely 1.6% per year in real terms over the past decade[ii]. Income for the bottom third of households increased by much less. During this time, Singapore’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increased by 86% from $162.6 b to $303.7 b[iii]. Your Ministers have, of course, rewarded themselves handsomely based on the growth of the economy. Would you care to explain why wages have not kept pace with the growth of the economy? Would you agree that your single KPI, GDP growth, is hopelessly misaligned with the interests of Singaporeans as a whole? Shouldn’t the main KPI for senior civil servants and ministers be median wages rather than the GDP?

2. Other indicators: Shouldn’t non-material indicators such as work-life balance of Singaporeans, working hours and leisure time, flexible working hours for young parents, our carbon footprint, population density and so on also be included in the KPI of senior officers in your government?

SOCIAL SERVICES

1. We have already touched upon the stagnant wages of the bottom third of society. There have been many stories in the media concerning the elderly and the homeless in Singapore. Why is it that despite Singapore’s phenomenal economic growth, we continue to have an underclass of desperately  poor people? Could it be because your government’s mindless pursuit of economic growth has been divorced from all concerns of whether or not the growth benefits all segments of society?

2. The number of hospital beds in Singapore has been stagnant over the past decade. In fairness to you, several new hospitals are coming on-stream over the next few years. Nevertheless, we hear that large sections of the people are not covered under the Medishield programme for various categories of serious illnesses, such as cancer, as has been highlighted on this blog recently. Why is it that Singapore, with a per capita GDP approaching $60,000[iv] cannot provide a basic safety-net for the poorest or the stricken in our society, in keeping with those in other countries at a similar level of development? Would you agree with the charge that your government’s liberal foreign worker policy has disadvantaged and impoverished our people?

3. Would you agree that a country can have a high GDP per head while maintaining a low population density and a high quality of life (eg Luxembourg)? Do you not agree that the business model pursued by your government has resulted in a congested and environmentally degraded city? Has this overcrowding not resulted in public housing (HDB) prices rising by over 60% in the past three years?

PERSONAL LIBERTIES

After almost half a century since independence and the end of the Malayan Insurgency and Konfrontasi, and 20 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War, why are Singapore citizens still not allowed to freely:

  • Assemble
  • Speak in public
  • Demonstrate peacefully
  • Publish newspapers or
  • Broadcast on television and the Internet?

Why do we need a law that allows detention without trial? Surely your government can produce a proper anti-terrorism law that allows those charged the benefit of a fair trial? Why are we still stuck in the past with retrograde, repressive laws?

We hope it is not too much to expect an answer from you to these questions? With a salary approaching $4 million a year for yourself, three full ministers assisting you and a budget for the Prime Minister’s Office of close to $348 million per year we pray these questions will not burden you too much.

The people look forward to your reply to this brief report card so they can decide whether or not to give you and your government a clean bill of health in the coming General Election.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Yours sincerely,

A Concerned Singaporean

PS: We know you will be overwhelmed with questions at the Q&A session on Channel NewsAsia “live” on Tuesday and that the editors will have a hard time picking the questions for you to answer. I am sure there is no truth to the rumour that they will pick the ones that show your government in the best light. In any case, we hope the written questions above will give you time to ponder over them at your leisure and reply at your convenience. Singaporeans await your reply with bated breath.


[i]http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/media_entertainment/beijing-olympics-draw-largest-ever-global-tv-audience/

[ii]http://www.singstat.gov.sg/news/news/press15022011.pdf

[iii]http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/themes/economy/hist/gdp2.html

[iv]http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/themes/economy/hist/gdp.html

 

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

巴士困车龙半小时 男子贸然启动逃生门下车

乘搭的巴士困在车龙中半小时,一名男子似乎等得不耐烦,竟启动逃生门按钮直接下巴士去。 其他乘客见状,也纷纷持卡付费,随着男子下巴士。 有关的事件发生于昨日(10月31日)下午,约3时45分,在一辆从马来西亚柔佛新山开往新加坡的巴士上。 网民Denzel在网络新闻网站《Stomp》上分享这段视频时指出,有关事件发生在前往新加坡的950巴士,当时距离新加坡关卡有约800米。 他指出,巴士当时被塞在车龙中约30分钟,过后就看见一名身穿灰色上衣黑短裤,头挂着墨镜的男子走道位于头顶的巴士紧急逃生门按钮,待逃生门开启后就下巴士,打算沿着堤道走到关卡。 视频中可见不少乘客在男子下车后,也陆续拿出卡付费下车。 Denzel指出,当巴士被困在车龙中时,该男子曾要求巴士司机打开车门。 “基于安全考量,巴士司机当时并没有答应开门,岂知男子就立刻按下紧急逃生门按钮,下车了。” “巴士上大部分乘客都随着男子,下车沿着马路走到关卡。有些乘客为了安全,也留在巴士上。” 他随后指出,巴士当时根本无法动弹,因为前方交通出现拥堵状况。 “巴士司机见状,就下车指挥交通,让巴士乘客能够安全行走。”

离开马国护照没盖章 夫妇险“非法出境”

我们常在出国时听到身边人叮咛,护照必须带着。岂知,现在要变成,出境时必须确保护照有盖章,盖章上的日期要对,否则就算有护照,一样惹上官司。一对夫妇回到新加坡时,却在马国出境时,护照上没有盖章,被冤枉成“非法出境”。 有关的狮城夫妇,郑美贤(49岁)和丈夫日前开车到马国,接了家人准备回国。出境柔佛时,发现关卡人员并没有为他们夫妇俩的护照盖章。 当时车上五人,郑美贤和丈夫,以及小叔都持有新加坡护照。他们在下午一两点过马来西亚关卡后,开始检查所有护照,却发现,只有女事主和其丈夫的护照没有被盖章。 他们当时不断翻找离境的盖章,塞车45分钟过去了,还是依然没有找到。 亲友建议重办护照 女事主表示,基于没有盖章,成为“非法出境”,因此她的亲友都建议她重办护照,否则不能再次入境马来西亚。 她指出,当时原本计划带着家人到马来西亚云顶度假,甚至已经订好酒店了,但是因为担心再去马来西亚会有麻烦,所以取消行程。 女事主随后拨电向当局询问,期盼有更好的解决方法。“据我了解,出境除了盖章,还有扫描护照。” 她指出,当局表示,系统应该有她和丈夫的处境资料,因此建议她到驻新加坡的马国大使馆求助,以便解决此问题。 护照上盖错出境日期 此前,《新明日报》也曾报道一名我国男子到马国游玩时,护照上盖错了出境盖章的日期,盖成了隔日的出境日期。 男子当时和朋友出境,看到护照的盖章“有问题”,曾表示要朋友停车,让他回到柜台解释和纠正错误。但是其友人表示害怕会被引起误会,惹来麻烦,因此拒绝停车。他唯有直接离开关卡。…

LTA: Higher fines, more CCTVs in 2015 to deter illegal parking

By Terry Xu The Land Transport Authority (LTA) is introducing new measures…

诉求函来自总理公署、未回应即已公告媒体 许渊臣质疑有悖一般规范

总理诉本社总编许渊臣官司,在今日(2日)续审。许渊臣提出质疑,总理李显龙并非透过私人律师信函、反之透过总理公署名义,要求他道歉,再者在他本身还未作出回应便已公开与媒体,这都有悖于一般规范。 去年9月1日,李总理新闻秘书张俪霖,代表总理向本社总编许渊臣发函,指本社英语站在8月15日刊登的一篇评论,复述针对总理的不实指控,要求本社撤下并道歉。 9月1日是周日。当天他才睡醒,就收到媒体蜂拥询问被总理要求撤文,他将如何回应。 他形容,一般情况下,直到当事人回应前,法律诉求公函都不对外公开,但这种情况下他根本都还来不及考量如何回应,总理要求他道歉的信函,都已公之于众。 对此文达星则质问,如果是律师信函,而不是总理秘书的来函,许渊臣是否会采取不同的应对方式? 许渊臣则解释,若是以私人方式或律师信函,要求撤下文章否则提告,他会撤下文章,以避免陷入进一步的法律冲突。 他也认为,若是由总理公署办公室,发出要求道歉的信函、且已公开散布给媒体,这似乎不符合一般法律信件的规范。 法官则就此继续质询许渊臣的立场,为何会认为,要求道歉的信函如果不是由代表律师发出,会有区别?许渊臣坦言,在这种情况下接到类似信函还是头一遭,再者,这是以总理公署内公务员名义发出的。 法官则不解其中差异,选民也可能接到信函,被要求必须遵从某事否则当局将采取必要行动。 许渊臣则指出,如果信件是由个人发出,他会清楚信函来自哪个人士或组织。但是,如果用公家机构,发出这样的信函,不免让人对于当事人(总理)处理此事的角度,产生怀疑。 在法官询问下,许渊臣确认,他质疑即使遵循了原告的要求,原告都可能进一步采取行动。