~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".

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

President’s Address – Low Thia Khiang’s Parliamentary Speech

Workers’ Party sec gen’s speech in Chinese.

电动滑板车被禁在行人道行驶 首日逾百骑士接警告信

电动滑板车禁令颁布后,首日数百人接到警告,就有自作聪明的骑士改在路边草地上行驶个人代步工具,但是此举属违法行动,罚款额甚至高达5000元。 陆路交通管理局指出,截至周二(11月5日)下午5时,共有逾百名在人行道上使用个人代步工具的骑士接获警告。 这是自交通部高级政务部长蓝彬明于周一,宣布上述电动滑板车禁令后,就开始了自11月5日至12月31日的宽限期,陆交局官员将对在人行道上使用该设备的骑士们,发出警告。 当局指出,将采取严厉执法行动对付严重案件。 明年开始,违规者将面对超过2000元的罚款,及最长达三个月的监禁,只是脚踏车和个人行动辅助工具,如电动轮椅和电动电单车不受有关禁令影响。 交通部长许文远在昨日的国会书面回答特斯拉博士的问题中指出,去年共有299人因涉及和个人代步工具的相关意外,而入院治疗。 根据国家创伤登记处(National Trauma Registry)的数据显示,受伤的299人中包括了259名骑士和8名行人。 在答复中,许文远指出,意外中共造成了约63巴仙的轻伤者、21巴仙的中伤者,以及16巴仙的严重伤患。 特斯拉也询问与全球发生率相比,以及和其他的交通工具的意外发生率相比下,我国有关个人代步工具的意外数量时,许文远指出,在同一时期,有1836人涉及脚踏车意外进院、5700人涉及电单车意外,以及6743人涉及汽车交通意外。 “其中有89巴仙是轻伤者、7巴仙为中伤者、以及4巴仙为重伤者。”…

Cambodian Govt to call up Singapore Ambassador over PM Lee’s controversial remarks

The Khmer Times reported today (6 Jun) that the Cambodia government would…

邻国前首相纳吉被指制造假文件 阿拉伯王子捐款乃是虚构

邻国前首相拿督斯里纳吉(Najib)自2015年来爆出“一马公司丑闻”,风波不断,今日开庭时,被指利用其“翻版人物”(mirror image)刘特佐,掩饰其踪迹,甚至制造假文件,以假装来自阿拉伯王子的捐款。 主控官拿督斯里哥巴斯里南高级副检察司在宣读开案陈词时指出,“被告涉及制造假文件包括声称来自阿拉伯捐款者撰写的信函与四张支票,每张支票总额为2500万美元,然而,这些支票却不打算兑现,也不曾兑现过。” 他续指,控方将提呈有利证据证明被告试图以此逃避法网,包括干涉案件调查过程、积极采取行动等来掩盖罪行,而控方会依据证据证明被告具有犯罪意图。 如今66岁的纳吉在一马公司资金案下涉及25项罪名,其中4项为滥权贪腐罪,涉及通过个人银行账户收取总额高达22亿8293万令吉(约7亿5288万新元),这些钱疑似源自一马公司。 另外,纳吉还涉及21项包括洗黑钱罪,总额高达20亿8147万令吉(约6亿8651万新元)非法收益,而这笔钱被汇入大马伊斯兰银行(AmIslamic Bank)的尾码9694银行户头。 巴斯里南指出,被告于2013年8月2日至23日期间,将高达20亿3435万令吉转至新加坡Tanore金融公司。同时,被告将约2千264万令吉的馀额,透过签发支票,缴付予4个单位和1名人士,而这些付款皆让被告受益,涉及使用非法款项 罪名。 之后,被告则关闭其尾码9694银行户头,却将1亿6243万令吉的馀额,透过两次转账,转至尾码为1880的新大马银行户头。