Commentaries
This is not the way – how not to hold a conversation
~by: Joseph Teo~
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was interviewed by CNN's Fareed Zakaria on 26 January. In response to questions on the election results and the need for political openness, he said, “We are in a new situation, and we must govern in a new way, but we can’t do it by just going with the tide.” Singapore must find its own way.
The rest of the interview offers a few hints on what this way might be. When Mr. Zakaria said, “…you need more political openness.” He responded, “If only it were so simple.” He is then quoted saying, “You need more openness, you need more engagement, but at the same time you need people to pay more attention to what is happening in their lives and think about what is happening to their country an us as Singaporeans.” These words, however, contain no specific vision or actual changes in behavior that can lead to “more openness” and “more engagement". The lack of specifics, and the lack of evidence of a change in the PAP’s engagement behaviour, have led to authors like Catherine Lim to conclude that the PAP is incapable of re-inventing itself – something which was promised by the Prime Minister.
I am writing this article to share some ideas on how we can have more openness and more engagement: by having a conversation, using examples of what not to do from the comments made on the recent ministerial salaries' review..Having a conversation requires both parties to have open minds, objectivity and trust. There are certain actions which do not facilitate a healthy conversation and should be avoided, including
Labelling
Even before the debate started in parliament proper, labels were applied to people with contrary views. In an article published in the Straits Times on 5 January 2012 :
“One is the mere fact that the peg remains – the pay of political office-holders will still be pegged to that of top earners, all of them presumably in the private sector. Idealists, for whom the very notion of linking political pay to the private sector is anathema, will continue to find this irksome.”
And later on:
“But opposition parties will continue to milk the issue. They will stoke the sentiments of those who are ideologically opposed to benchmarking pay to the private sector by suggesting more populist benchmarks, even when the outcomes – in terms of quantum of pay – are the same.”
Why people who object to pegging ministerial salaries to the private sector should be “idealists”. Or why other benchmarks are “populist”.
Labelling or stereotyping is one of the symptoms of groupthink. It attempts to dismiss arguments without engaging them, by branding them not worthy of consideration. Labelling also tends to annoy those being labelled, thus shutting out their openness to listen to your ideas. It also shifts the focus away from discussing the ideas to discussing the people involved, and whether the labels are appropriate. In this instance, views counter to the establishment were dismissed even before the debate was fully engaged. This cannot be conducive to a productive discussion?
Fudging the data
The formula for ministerial pay is complex, and thus difficult to communicate. However, saying only that the benchmark pay was $1.1 million without saying that the monthly salary was $55,000 (so that it can be compared to the median monthly income of $2,588) creates more confusion.
Worse is not clearly including the MP’s allowance of $192,500 as part of the minister’s pay package. No fewer than twelve articles in the Straits Times were written assuming that $1.1 million was the total pay package for ministers[iv] when, in fact, it should be $1.3 million.
This tendency to hide or fudge inconvenient data has continued after the last elections. In other areas, such as housing policy, data on cash-over-valuations (COVs) were removed in August and October 2011, and no longer published because it was “misleading”. How can actual transaction data, not interpretations of the data be “misleading”? The data reflects what is happening, and it is only “misleading” because it doesn’t suit the story that the government wishes to tell.
The non-announcement of the arrests of our heads of the Singapore Civil Defence Force, and Central Narcotics Bureau is another example of “hiding” behavior. The arrests were made on 19 December 2011, and 4 January 2012, yet no announcement was made until 24 January 2012, more than a month after the first arrest. By MHA’s own admission, it would have delayed the announcement to 25 January, if not for the leaked news. It is not clear if the headline to MHA’s response to a query on the delay – “MHA: No delay in releasing news of CPIB probe” – was drafted by MHA or by the editors of the Straits Times. In any case, it is manifestly untrue; since, in its letter, MHA justified the delay by saying “a public announcement at that point could compromise CPIB investigations”. Would a more appropriate headline be “Announcement delayed to protect investigations”?
This is extremely disturbing. It is as if our policy makers wish to deny inconvenient truths, and do not want people know what is happening. How can this encourage “people to pay more attention to what is happening in their lives” as the Prime Minister wants?
Hiding or fudging data, or even the perception of doing so, creates a feeling of being cheated. It creates a deep distrust towards the government, and hence makes it much harder to win support for difficult policies. This feeling applies to unrelated issues, "If you can choose not fully disclose things to me on one issue, why should I trust you to tell me the complete truth on another?"
Using selective comparisons without basis
Singapore is supposedly unique and has to “find its own way”. And yet supposedly has to adopt “international standards”. This use of selective comparisons upsets the audience. It is as if the government officials and Ministers use international standards to justify their actions when it is in their favour, but just as readily discard them when they wish to be unilateral and act without justification. In this regard, the Committee to Review Ministerial Salaries remained true to form.
In justifying why ministerial salaries should not be pegged to foreign leaders’ pay, the Committee said:
“We studied in detail whether we should peg the salaries to those of foreign leaders. In the end, we decided not to adopt it as the conditions in other countries are different and so are the compensation principles.”
Yet in justifying why appointment holders also get an MP allowance, it said:
“As is international practice in Westminster Parliamentary systems, all political appointment holders will also receive MP allowances as they have the dual roles of being MPs which involve looking after the needs of their constituents and raising their concerns in Parliament.”
Why the discrepancy?
Worse, when confronted with conflicting observations of the environment, we should not cling on to “international standards” as a justification for not using or collecting more appropriate data. An expert panel found evidence of increasing rainfall (15mm per year) in Singapore, which based on data collected from 28 data collection points in Singapore. This differed from the National Environmental Agency’s (NEA) own conclusions of “no discernible trend”.. Despite the expert panels’ conclusions, and the overwhelming evidence of repeated flooding at Orchard Road, the NEA refused to change its stance, “…the method, and not using rainfall figures for the whole island as the panel did, fits [World Meteorological Organisation] guidelines”.
Nothing wrong using international standards to bolster an argument. However, it should not be the main argument. And, the basis, origins of, and reasons behind the international standard must be clearly understood. And how those reasons apply to our unique Singapore circumstances must be clearly explained. Otherwise, any decision which only cites international standards as its justification is weak, and undermines the credibility of the government. People will continue to view such decisions as arbitrary and perhaps self-serving.
Not incorporating good ideas into policy
One of the greatest dissatisfactions of the whole ministerial salary review process was the inability of the government to incorporate a single idea expressed in Parliament into policy. These include some pretty good suggestions such as differed bonuses proposed by the Worker’s Party, which are in use by some private sector companies like Keppel Corporation, and according to consultants, increasingly popular. The suggestion to trim the total bonus package was also ignored. Not a single change was made. Why waste all that time? The vote in Parliament was also a forgone conclusion. The inability of the government to incorporate any changes to the policy reinforces the view that Parliament is just a “rubber stamp”.
So let's hold proper conversations if we want "openness" and "engagement".
Commentaries
Lim Tean criticizes Govt’s rejection of basic income report, urges Singaporeans to rethink election choices
Lim Tean, leader of Peoples Voice (PV), criticizes the government’s defensive response to the basic living income report, accusing it of avoiding reality.
He calls on citizens to assess affordability and choose MPs who can truly enhance their lives in the upcoming election.
SINGAPORE: A recently published report, “Minimum Income Standard 2023: Household Budgets in a Time of Rising Costs,” unveils figures detailing the necessary income households require to maintain a basic standard of living, using the Minimum Income Standard (MIS) method.
The newly released study, spearheaded by Dr Ng Kok Hoe of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP) specifically focuses on working-age households in 2021 and presents the latest MIS budgets, adjusted for inflation from 2020 to 2022.
The report detailed that:
- The “reasonable starting point” for a living wage in Singapore was S$2,906 a month.
- A single parent with a child aged two to six required S$3,218 per month.
- Partnered parents with two children, one aged between seven and 12 and the other between 13 and 18, required S$6,426 a month.
- A single elderly individual required S$1,421 a month.
- Budgets for both single and partnered parent households averaged around S$1,600 per member. Given recent price inflation, these figures have risen by up to 5% in the current report.
Singapore Govt challenges MIS 2023 report’s representation of basic needs
Regrettably, on Thursday (14 Sept), the Finance Ministry (MOF), Manpower Ministry (MOM), and Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) jointly issued a statement dismissing the idea suggested by the report, claiming that minimum household income requirements amid inflation “might not accurately reflect basic needs”.
Instead, they claimed that findings should be seen as “what individuals would like to have.”, and further defended their stances for the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) and other measures to uplift lower-wage workers.
The government argued that “a universal wage floor is not necessarily the best way” to ensure decent wages for lower-wage workers.
The government’s statement also questions the methodology of the Minimum Income Standards (MIS) report, highlighting limitations such as its reliance on respondent profiles and group dynamics.
“The MIS approach used is highly dependent on respondent profiles and on group dynamics. As the focus groups included higher-income participants, the conclusions may not be an accurate reflection of basic needs.”
The joint statement claimed that the MIS approach included discretionary expenditure items such as jewellery, perfumes, and overseas holidays.
Lim Tean slams Government’s response to basic living income report
In response to the government’s defensive reaction to the recent basic living income report, Lim Tean, leader of the alternative party Peoples Voice (PV), strongly criticizes the government’s apparent reluctance to confront reality, stating, “It has its head buried in the sand”.
He strongly questioned the government’s endorsement of the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) as a means to uplift the living standards of the less fortunate in Singapore, describing it as a misguided approach.
In a Facebook video on Friday (15 Sept), Lim Tean highlighted that it has become a global norm, especially in advanced and first-world countries, to establish a minimum wage, commonly referred to as a living wage.
“Everyone is entitled to a living wage, to have a decent life, It is no use boasting that you are one of the richest countries in the world that you have massive reserves, if your citizens cannot have a decent life with a decent living wage.”
Lim Tean cited his colleague, Leong Sze Hian’s calculations, which revealed a staggering 765,800 individuals in Singapore, including Permanent Residents and citizens, may not earn the recommended living wage of $2,906, as advised by the MIS report.
“If you take away the migrant workers or the foreign workers, and take away those who do not work, underage, are children you know are unemployed, and the figure is staggering, isn’t it?”
“You know you are looking at a very substantial percentage of the workforce that do not have sufficient income to meet basic needs, according to this report.”
He reiterated that the opposition parties, including the People’s Voice and the People’s Alliance, have always called for a minimum wage, a living wage which the government refuses to countenance.
Scepticism about the government’s ability to control rising costs
In a time of persistently high inflation, Lim Tean expressed skepticism about the government’s ability to control rising costs.
He cautioned against believing in predictions of imminent inflation reduction and lower interest rates below 2%, labeling them as unrealistic.
Lim Tean urged Singaporeans to assess their own affordability in these challenging times, especially with the impending GST increase.
He warned that a 1% rise in GST could lead to substantial hikes in everyday expenses, particularly food prices.
Lim Tean expressed concern that the PAP had become detached from the financial struggles of everyday Singaporeans, citing their high salaries and perceived insensitivity to the common citizen’s plight.
Lim Tean urges Singaporeans to rethink election choices
Highlighting the importance of the upcoming election, Lim Tean recommended that citizens seriously evaluate the affordability of their lives.
“If you ask yourself about affordability, you will realise that you have no choice, In the coming election, but to vote in a massive number of opposition Members of Parliament, So that they can make a difference.”
Lim Tean emphasized the need to move beyond the traditional notion of providing checks and balances and encouraged voters to consider who could genuinely improve their lives.
“To me, the choice is very simple. It is whether you decide to continue with a life, that is going to become more and more expensive: More expensive housing, higher cost of living, jobs not secure because of the massive influx of foreign workers,” he declared.
“Or you choose members of Parliament who have your interests at heart and who want to make your lives better.”
Commentaries
Political observers call for review of Singapore’s criteria of Presidential candidates and propose 5 year waiting period for political leaders
Singaporean political observers express concern over the significantly higher eligibility criteria for private-sector presidential candidates compared to public-sector candidates, calling for adjustments.
Some also suggest a five year waiting period for aspiring political leaders after leaving their party before allowed to partake in the presidential election.
Notably, The Workers’ Party has earlier reiterated its position that the current qualification criteria favor PAP candidates and has called for a return to a ceremonial presidency instead of an elected one.
While the 2023 Presidential Election in Singapore concluded on Friday (1 September), discussions concerning the fairness and equity of the electoral system persist.
Several political observers contend that the eligibility criteria for private-sector individuals running for president are disproportionately high compared to those from the public sector, and they propose that adjustments be made.
They also recommend a five-year waiting period for aspiring political leaders after leaving their party before being allowed to participate in the presidential election.
Aspiring entrepreneur George Goh Ching Wah, announced his intention to in PE 2023 in June. However, His application as a candidate was unsuccessful, he failed to receive the Certificate of Eligibility (COE) on 18 August.
Mr Goh had expressed his disappointment in a statement after the ELD’s announcement, he said, the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC) took a very narrow interpretation of the requirements without explaining the rationale behind its decision.
As per Singapore’s Constitution, individuals running for the presidency from the private sector must have a minimum of three years’ experience as a CEO in a company.
This company should have consistently maintained an average shareholders’ equity of at least S$500 million and sustained profitability.
Mr Goh had pursued eligibility through the private sector’s “deliberative track,” specifically referring to section 19(4)(b)(2) of the Singapore Constitution.
He pointed out five companies he had led for over three years, collectively claiming a shareholders’ equity of S$1.521 billion.
Notably, prior to the 2016 revisions, the PEC might have had the authority to assess Mr Goh’s application similarly to how it did for Mr Tan Jee Say in the 2011 Presidential Election.
Yet, in its current formulation, the PEC is bound by the definitions laid out in the constitution.
Calls for equitable standards across public and private sectors
According to Singapore’s Chinese media outlet, Shin Min Daily News, Dr Felix Tan Thiam Kim, a political analyst at Nanyang Technological University (NTU) Singapore, noted that in 2016, the eligibility criteria for private sector candidates were raised from requiring them to be executives of companies with a minimum capital of S$100 million to CEOs of companies with at least S$500 million in shareholder equity.
However, the eligibility criteria for public sector candidates remained unchanged. He suggests that there is room for adjusting the eligibility criteria for public sector candidates.
Associate Professor Bilver Singh, Deputy Head of the Department of Political Science at the National University of Singapore, believes that the constitutional requirements for private-sector individuals interested in running are excessively stringent.
He remarked, “I believe it is necessary to reassess the relevant regulations.”
He points out that the current regulations are more favourable for former public officials seeking office and that the private sector faces notably greater challenges.
“While it may be legally sound, it may not necessarily be equitable,” he added.
Proposed five-year waiting period for political leaders eyeing presidential race
Moreover, despite candidates severing ties with their political parties in pursuit of office, shedding their political affiliations within a short timeframe remains a challenging endeavour.
A notable instance is Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, who resigned from the People’s Action Party (PAP) just slightly over a month before announcing his presidential candidacy, sparking considerable debate.
During a live broadcast, his fellow contender, Ng Kok Song, who formerly served as the Chief Investment Officer of GIC, openly questioned Mr Tharman’s rapid transition to a presidential bid shortly after leaving his party and government.
Dr Felix Tan suggests that in the future, political leaders aspiring to run for the presidency should not only resign from their parties but also adhere to a mandatory waiting period of at least five years before entering the race.
Cherian George and Kevin Y.L. Tan: “illogical ” to raise the corporate threshold in 2016
Indeed, the apprehension regarding the stringent eligibility criteria and concerns about fairness in presidential candidacy requirements are not limited to political analysts interviewed by Singapore’s mainstream media.
Prior to PE2023, CCherian George, a Professor of media studies at Hong Kong Baptist University, and Kevin Y.L. Tan, an Adjunct Professor at both the Faculty of Law of the National University of Singapore and the NTU’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), brought attention to the challenges posed by the qualification criteria for candidates vying for the Singaporean Presidency.
In their article titled “Why Singapore’s Next Elected President Should be One of its Last,” the scholars discussed the relevance of the current presidential election system in Singapore and floated the idea of returning to an appointed President, emphasizing the symbolic and unifying role of the office.
They highlighted that businessman George Goh appeared to be pursuing the “deliberative track” for qualification, which requires candidates to satisfy the PEC that their experience and abilities are comparable to those of a typical company’s chief executive with shareholder equity of at least S$500 million.
Mr Goh cobbles together a suite of companies under his management to meet the S$500m threshold.
The article also underscored the disparities between the eligibility criteria for candidates from the public and private sectors, serving as proxies for evaluating a candidate’s experience in handling complex financial matters.
“It is hard to see what financial experience the Chairman of the Public Service Commission or for that matter, the Chief Justice has, when compared to a Minister or a corporate chief.”
“The raising of the corporate threshold in 2016 is thus illogical and serves little purpose other than to simply reduce the number of potentially eligible candidates.”
The article also touches upon the issue of candidates’ independence from political parties, particularly the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP).
It mentions that candidates are expected to be non-partisan and independent, and it questions how government-backed candidates can demonstrate their independence given their previous affiliations.
The Workers’ Party advocate for a return to a ceremonial presidency
It comes as no surprise that Singapore’s alternative party, the Workers’ Party, reaffirmed its stance on 30 August, asserting that they believe the existing qualifying criteria for presidential candidates are skewed in favour of those approved by the People’s Action Party (PAP).
They argue that the current format of the elected presidency (EP) undermines the principles of parliamentary democracy.
“It also serves as an unnecessary source of gridlock – one that could potentially cripple a non-PAP government within its first term – and is an alternative power centre that could lead to political impasses.”
Consistently, the Workers’ Party has been vocal about its objection to the elected presidency and has consistently called for its abolition.
Instead, they advocate for a return to a ceremonial presidency, a position they have maintained for over three decades.
-
Comments2 weeks ago
Christopher Tan criticizes mrt breakdown following decade-long renewal program
-
Comments7 days ago
Netizens question Ho Ching’s praise for Chee Hong Tat’s return from overseas trip for EWL disruption
-
Singapore1 week ago
SMRT updates on restoration progress for East-West Line; Power rail completion expected today
-
Singapore2 weeks ago
Chee Hong Tat: SMRT to replace 30+ rail segments on damaged EWL track with no clear timeline for completion
-
Singapore1 week ago
Lee Hsien Yang pays S$619,335 to Ministers Shanmugam and Balakrishnan in defamation suit to protect family home
-
Singapore1 week ago
Train services between Jurong East and Buona Vista to remain disrupted until 1 Oct due to new cracks on East-West Line
-
Singapore2 weeks ago
Major breakdown on East-West Line: SMRT faces third service disruption in a month
-
Singapore2 weeks ago
Transport Minister: Boon Lay-Queenstown train services may not resume tomorrow; SMRT leaders apologise