Connect with us

Commentaries

Singapore Conversations – Asking the wrong questions, looking the wrong places?

Published

12 years ago

on

By Dan Lim –

Can any real change come out from the Singapore Conversations initiative to engage the concerns of the people and the problem that Singapore faces today? Many on its Facebook outreach platform are already expressing scepticism about the seemingly one-way nature of this conversation. “We also want our voice to be heard, follows [sic] up and acknowledged” says Jafri, “and not merely regarded as ‘feedback’ and the due recognition being assumed by the establishment.”

Others are finding the moderator-user interface very problematic. Take this remark by Samuel: “Why disable the post feature? Don’t you want feedback from Singaporeans?” Some have already accused the moderator for deleting unsavoury posts. Call them cynical, but the nature of Conversations does seem like another Speaker’s Corner and suggestion-box attempt to diffuse civilian discontent. I believe that most, if not all, of those involved in this initiative are earnestly looking to connect with the people, but I am a lot more concerned about their approach.

Here are my thoughts. Different ways in which questions are posed will elicit very different answers. For instance, “Why do you think X is bad?” and “Why do you think X is good?” will generally produce answers that focuses on things disliked about X and liked about X respectively. In this case, the focus of Conversations is future-oriented, with Minister Heng stressing that we should be forward-looking and aspirational—certainly couched within PM Lee’s vision of Hope, Heart and Home.

But this line of questioning will often produce endless loops of idealistic visions of the future. Charlton, a Facebook user, says she really “hope[s] that Singapore will be a gracious and inclusive society.” How can we become gracious and inclusive? We have been told to repent, and then we have been nicely told to be gracious and inclusive when that did not work—an endless loop of urge and hope, urge and hope. I believe that looking towards the future will never solve this problem, it will only veil it under endless hopes of a better future—the sweep-under-the-rug syndrome par excellence—and it avoids asking why we are not inclusive and gracious. The question that should be asked is what are the factors that have contributed to a social consciousness of, for example, individualism and the heightened sense of racial awareness?

Individualism, for instance, is a symptom of modernity and modern societies. Very simply, it is a world-view centred on the idea that I am important and that I can achieve whatever goals I set out to achieve. It is very much associated with Herbert Spencer’s ‘survival of the fittest’ and to the question ‘what do I benefit from this?’ Without a far stretch of imagination, it brings to mind: Lee Kuan Yew’s oft used rhetoric of survival, elitism and eugenics; meritocracy; materialism and outward-lookingness; graded education and competition to remain functional in this system. Within this line of thought, individualism is not an individual problem, because every individual do not live in a vacuum but in an environment that contributes towards this way of thinking. What I am suggesting is that individualism is a complex issue that implicates everyone involved and it has no clear target for blame.

The heightened sense of racial awareness, too, is a part of this complex issue. The diatribe on STOMP alone is enough evidence, if that is even needed. Most of us were brought up in an environment largely shaped by Lee Kuan Yew and his beliefs in multiracialism, the belief in racial biological traits, and eugenics. Multiracialism promotes racial harmony and is an earnest attempt to ensure social cohesiveness. And it has generally worked. But what multiracialism does too is to strengthen our sense of individual racial identity and our separateness from other racial groups. This is also further strengthened by the constant reproduction of separate cultural identity and its strong associations with separate ethnic languages.

I believe that the problem of racial awareness in the past ten years is not an issue of new workers and immigration policies itself although they appear to be the easiest, most obvious targets. It is one that is intricately connected to our own heightened sense of racial identity and our national identity, which we have been brought up to closely associate with language and culture. For instance, remarks on STOMP often argue along the lines of ‘they have an uncivilised culture’, and ‘they don’t want to learn our culture and language.’ I do not blame them – but neither do I agree with them. However, I believe many Singaporeans too have aspirations of a future without these workers and one full of ‘true blood’ Singaporeans, but Conversations cannot accommodate these sort of dreams, because it cannot imagine anything else but inclusiveness. That is to say, Conversations are already limited to a smaller set of possibilities.

Are these antagonistic comments valid? The people who make these remarks are accused of being childish and racist—but I don’t believe their anger is isolated and theirs alone. I believe that their comments are valid because it is a part of our social phenomenon today that should be looked at by asking ‘Why?’ Then only can we understand the environment that has created and nurtured this anger, find out the policies and factors involved and begin to see what can be done about it. Angry comments brushed aside will find other ways of resurfacing.

 There are many other related issues, but this quick run through of certain issues I believe underlie the problems we as a society face today is deeply rooted and our heads need to be turned inwards, not outwards. Conversations in the narrow framework of the future will generally elicit answers that will reproduce visions filled with the same individualism and heightened racial awareness that is problematic today, and/or reproduce endless cycles of urge and hope. But I could be wrong – we will have to wait and see.

Regardless, I believe that Real Conversations must be separate from future aspirations. ‘The end cannot justify the means,’ writes Aldous Huxley, ‘for the simple and obvious reason that the means employed determine the nature of the ends produced.’ Neither can it remain in memories of the past. It has to stay in the present, where the heart lives in all its irrational filth. The heart is visceral. It does not know politeness. It is hardly orderly and clean. It often does not know why it feels what it feels. More so, it is highly defensive and easily hurt. How does one have a rational Conversation with the heart?

A therapist listens unconditionally. In the office, there are no superiors. Every comment—rational, rationalised, irrational or plain incomprehensible reflect a particular fragment of truth, but all of them need to be considered and worked through. For this reason, I believe that if the environment becomes overly sterile, presided over or involves moderator-user and similar power relations, Conversations, despite the best of intentions, will only end up reproducing the same problems in all its ordered, rational and carefully crafted but helpless hopes.

That is exactly the reason why the Sticker Girl became so popular—she spray-painted her heart and all its irrationality unto the controlled, clean and rational space of the public. And many people lost their panties.

Should she have done it? This can only elicit divisive, value-judgements.

Why did she do it? Now we’re talking.

Hers is only one expression of the many Real Conversations that have been reduced to mute silence in the public space. But the heart speaks loudly when it is in the spaces that have a sense of equality, not spaces that are limited and controlled. These spaces are our safe havens, our homes oftentimes, when our hearts are open and our defences down—it is the spaces of beauty and art, of the erotic and visual, of the silly, comedic and satirical. On that note, I roughly agree with PM Lee that we need to find ourselves in family. If you want to hear the heart, however, this space of equality needs to be allowed out to engage with the public space. The public is a vital space that feeds our social consciousness. But how much control are you willing to relinquish to accommodate this heart?

More so, I believe that if the government wants to engage with Real Conversations and get to the heart of the issue, they have to come as a humble equal and remove their proverbial shoes at the door. Secondly, if the government wants to engage with Real Conversations, it has to reprioritise its vision and ask ‘what is a better life?’ As far as I am concerned, humanity has lived needing only two things – the basic material necessities to provide a healthy body and safe home, and the basic comforts of the heart to live and love and be treated with dignity. The ‘better life’ of technology, science and commodity fetishisation is the wants that should only be secondary. We all wish to live our lives in dignity and respect. Most of us, I believe, would rather be given the opportunity to earn for ourselves a decent living and not have to be subjugated to the inhumanity of incentives and charity to ‘switch us on’ only grudgingly. Most of us, I believe, resent the disrespect of having our private lives controlled and meddled with as if we were incapable of making decisions ourselves. Respect and dignity for everyone—especially all those that do not succeed and cannot function in capitalist society. These people are the ones that need our greatest attention, and they are the ones with the fiercest loyalties.

As our government, what will you prioritise? This is not an either/or choice, as balance of all factors must be included. But it is one that requires a radical reprioritisation of perspective and worldview. If it is the economy over people, your decision will reflect as loudly as the voices of anger and frustration of a people who do not even know why they’re angry. If it is the people, then stop, and turn around. Listen to the Self, question the present problems and policies outside the framework of the future. Approach the people with dignity and respect, in spaces of equality and potential chaos, treat them not as resource and machines, and let some sterility and control go. Only in that moment of equality will you hear the Real Conversation of the heart.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

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.

Published

1 year ago

on

15 September 2023

By

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.”

Continue Reading

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.

Published

1 year ago

on

5 September 2023

By

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.

Continue Reading

Trending