would you hold it against him? (The GE 2011 reflection)
Extracted from Prof Ben Leong's Note - his empathetic (or rather an unbiased) view for the Singapore's Government
This post is a result of me spouting crap after not sleeping for 24 hours.
Basically, my friend Kwanghui posted this Note entitled "A letter to my friends on the General Elections(https://www.facebook.com/notes/joo-hymn-tan/a-letter-to-my-friends-on-the-general-elections/10150162391273494)" which I thought was crap. So here I am substantiating the crap I spout.
I must say that I believe that Joo Hymn is entitled to her opinions and I will defend her right to express her opinions, even though I obviously don't agree with her. The reader is not expected to agree with my opinions either and is quite welcome to think that what I write is crap.
I tend to steer away from making political statements 'cos I'm not very free and given my position as an educator, I also don't want to be seen to be partisan. My job is to teach student how to think and most days I'm already not sleeping enough.
Also, I dun believe in politics. I believe in good governance. Unfortunately the correlation between the two can be rather tenuous.
Before I begin, I think it would be good for me to declare conflict-of-interest. No, I'm not running for election and I'm not a member of any political party and neither am I contemplating entering the fray even though it seems so fashionable that even 20-year-olds are doing it. :-) I am however one of those good-for-nothing PSC scholars who also dunno how ended up becoming what is known as an Administrative Officer. Sounds like a big title for a public peon, which is not far from the truth. It has more than a decade since I quit. Before people with over-active imaginations start claimiing that I quit because I was like dis-illusioned by the system, I would like to say that I enjoyed my time in the Service and I have the greatest respect for the people that I worked with and I feel privileged to have had the opportunity to serve. :-P
With these niceties out of the way, I will proceed to explain why I found the above-mentioned post objectionable. :-)
----------------------------------------------------
PAP in 1950s is not the same as the PAP now?
Joo Hymn seems to claim that the present leaders are not as highly principled, intelligent and diligent as the old Guards. I question the basis on which she made those claims. Did she know either the old Guards or the present cabinet ministers?
I don't pretend to know too much. The only know about the Minister Mentor from his books. It turns out however that PM Lee was my Minister-in-charge while i was in the Service. From my limited interactions with him, I have no doubt that he is highly principled and intelligent. On diligence, well, it's not uncommon to receive emails from him in the middle of the night. Personally, I really don't begrudge his high pay. What I wonder is where he finds the time to spend it. Seriously, he's quite a sweet man. Sometimes, I think he's too nice guy to be politician. He might have done better as a prof. :-)
Joo Hymn questions the Government's ability to manage a crisis.Well, Singaporeans seem to be oblivious to how bad the Global Financial Crisis was last year. Well, truthfully, it wasn't bad AT ALL. While the rest of the work was tanking, Singaporeans hardly felt it. I think Minister Tharman deserves a medal but people probably don't think so 'cos they have no idea what was being done. That's the problem with public policy. You do things, you dun get no appreciation; you screw it up, the flak will come. In comparison, I think teaching is a little better. We do get some grateful students from time to time.
There's actually likely to be one more big financial crisis coming up in the near future, arising from the US Debt Crisis. That one will be more serious than the GFC. Other than Tharman, I'm not sure how many people are vaguely qualified to deal with it when it finally hits.
I am not saying that Joo Hymn is wrong. It could very well be true that the present cabinet ministers are not as good as the Old Guard. But the world today is also different. The bar is also much higher.
----------------------------------------------------
Usual way mistakes are handled
The points highlighted here demonstrate a clear inability to be fair and apportion blame.
1. Mas Selamat's escape was obviously a mistake, but is it Wong Kan Seng's mistake? People expect their Minister to be doing guard duty huh?
Civil servants are paid to do a job. In this case, it was someone's responsibility to ensure that no one escapes from detention and the person who had operation control over the incident needs to take responsibility. Well, the Superinterdent did get dismissed, which is what I had expected, given I was formerly Assistant Director (Discipline). The principle is very simple. A person can only be responsible for a mistake if it was reasonable under the job scope of the person to have prevented the mistake. If Wong Kan Seng decides to periodicallly go to the detention centres to inspect the security of the toilet, I would be concerned. Very concerned. Mas Selamat's escape was a failure on the part of the Civil Service (ISD) in particular and has little to do with political leadership. For some reason, people don't seem to understand these principles of accountability.
I find the citation of this incident to score political points by the Opposition particularly objectionable. I do have a sense of fair play (explained below). It is my belief that blame should be apportioned fairly.
2. On the floods, it seems that people don't understand the definition of freak accident and "once every 50 year" event. Case in point is the recent earthquake/tsunami in Japan. That was a "one in 400 year" event. Such things do happen and are called "Acts of God". I don't think much about the floods except I had this Geography student who informed me that it was really freak weather. Anyway, last I heard, the Government is already spending like $10 million to improve the drains. What more do people want?
Consider another scenarios, where the Government spends $10 million preparing Singapore for all the possible "once every 50 year" disasters. Does that make any sense? The Government would then be accused of wasting tax payers monies. In fact hor, I have this bad feeling that we've just wasted $10 million upgrading drains. Maybe we're know along the way in 50 years. The funny thing is that even if no flood/rain of the same intensity happens again in the next 50 years, we don't know for sure that the floods won't come in the 51st year.
3. On the YOG under-budget, I think it's quite an unfair accusation. Hands up anyone who has run a YOG before? Obviously, there were a whole bunch of administrative problems from empty seats to late F1 tickets, but I'm not sure that it was necessarily easy to predict how much it would cost. In case people don't know, it was probably possible for the Government to be tight-fisted and say, "that's all the money you get, shut up and just deal", but could we afford that? We screw it up, we'd be the world's laughing stock. Once we decided to host the event, we jolly well do what it takes to put up a good show. Do we want to be like Beijing or be like India? :-P
4. On housing prices, I agree with Joo Hymn. Government definitely screwed up. I think the policies are generally sound, but the numbers are wrong. Basically, someone got the numbers wrong, period. Many policies have these magic numbers and someone got it wrong and Mah Bow Tan didn't check (or maybe he did check but still got it wrong). This one he better check. I do expect my million-dollar Minister to die die make sure these numbers are right, even though I don't expect them to do guard duty and organize events.
Unfortunately, people better understand that once prices go up, its very hard to bring down without anything short of a major recession. This underlines the need for good governance. When the Government screws up, not everything is easily reversible. I belong to the "kiam siap" school of governance. I don't believe in givng out goodies, 'cos once given, hard to take back.
5. On CPF money not enough. Harlo, do people even understand what happened? Someone who's very free, go check this out: http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_dyn_le00_in&idim=country%3ASGP&dl=en&hl=en&q=life+expectancy+singapore.
Basically in 1965, you retire at 55, you die at 65. How much money do you think you need for 10 years?
Today, you retire at 60, you die at 81. This means you somehow have to feed yourself for 20 years.
It hardly takes a genius to realize that it takes a lot more money keep yourself alive for twice as long.
Also, where do people think that the addition 16 years came from? Mostly improved healthcare, which also costs money.
It hardly takes a genius to realize that the numbers don't match and that the money must come from somewhere. It bothers me that many don't seem to realize that money must come from somewhere and no, cutting the Ministers' pay hardly makes a dent in the Budget. About the only country in the world that can print money to finance their consumption is the US. We'd probably see in 10 years where that got them.
At the end of the day, people just get used to the idea that they will have to spend less and save more. If they need to retire later and/or work all their lives, that's just too bad. Obviously, by raiding the reserves, we can probably afford to pay for the current generation of old folks and perhaps another two, but money doesn't grow on trees and eventually, the numbers will reach a head, especially when the healthcare costs are thrown in. I worry for our children and our children's children and I don't want them to end up like the Americans and be laden with national debt the day they are born. At least the Americans have the option to print money to pay off their debts. We don't.
---------------------------------------------------
On U-Turns
People always complain that the Government has this no U-Turn syndrome and here we have people complaining about U-Turns.
I don't know how to break this to Joo Hymn gently without sounding condescending: is it a surprise that most mortals aren't very good at predicting the future (though some claim that the PAP ministers are not mortals... but I digress) - but that policies must still be made even in the absence of complete information?
On the reversal of the "Stop at Two" policy, isn't it obvious that when the demographers projected population growth in the 70's they didn't really expect that Singapore would grow quite as fast as she did and therefore didn't expect the fertility rate to fall quite as fast as it did? How much of an imagination does it take to try to understand why the policy changed? Did the Government tell me? No. But it's obvious isn't it?
Obviously, policies change when new information becomes available and/or previous assumptions turn out not to be true. Is this about short-sightedness? Who here has the audacity to think that he can predict the future better than the Government statisticians? Of course, there have always been naysayers about some of the policies and sometimes these naysayers turned out to be right. But so? The Government has to take a stand and cannot really be wavering just because people don't agree. This is not masak masak.
The irony of these episodes is that the people tend to focus only on the policies that went wrong and not the ones that were "correct". You see, the problem with running a damn country is that if you do it right, people don't *really* notice; if you screw it up, you owe them. Personally, I think we've had significantly more hits and misses and the miss rate is something I don't find particularly objectionable.
---------------------------------------------------
Fixated on throwing money at the problem regardless of whether or not it works?
So big deal if AWARE's proposal to have paternity leave was rejected. Quick question to the people who have kids: will paternity leave encourage you to have more kids? If someone decides to have one more baby just because the Govt says that the father can have a couple more days off, he/she needs to get his/her head checked. If a simple experiment is sufficient to confirm that paternity leave won't help much, why complain that the Government rejected it?
There are many reasons why people don't want to have kids. One of which is cost. Do people have any sense of how much money the Baby Bonus is to the lower-income folks? I find it hard to believe that a couple days of leave is preferable to hard cash.
The real problem with the baby policies is that it shouldn't even have been a problem to begin with. Why is it even the States business how many kids I'm going to have? Also, if people don't want to replace themselves and the human race dies out, it's probably good for the environment.
On the PA money, it bothers me that many people who talk a lot about how the Government is not doing enough have not worked with the VWOs. I have worked with quite a few VWOs and spoken with many social workers. It DOES NOT seem that the problem is that it's a money no enough situation on the ground. There's a lot of money, PA is only a small fraction of the total amount available. If there's a problem, it's more problem of distribution (i.e. money not getting to where it should go), rather than a problem of supply (i.e. money no enough). There are a lot of social problems on the ground and there are no enough social workers. The turnover in the welfare sector is terrible. If people are really concerned, they should get off their behinds and like Nicole Seah, go and send food to the needy.
On why the Government is giving a small ang bao to the rich, it truthfully boggles me also. I doubt the $200 angbao will swing votes for the rich and doubt that the PM has any illlusions that it will. I only imagine that it's largely "symbolic", i.e. that we are all sharing in the nation's wealth. What I don't see is why anyone should be upset. Who is stopping Joo Hymn from donating the money to some worthy charity or to some poor person? Government give you money doesn't mean you necessarily need to take it.
For the records, I DO NOT support the giving out of cash, but economically speaking, it is perhaps the most efficient way to make transfer payments, so it's really hard to argue against it.
-----------------------------------------
Criticizing the PAP Right 101
Although I'm unabashedly pro-establishment, I do believe that I'm a fair person. To say that things are humming along is to be blind. Some things are definitely not right, so what's wrong? To complete this exposition, perhaps I can offer my views on what is broken and why the system seems to me to be unravelling even though the State machinery is really humming along and not quite as broken as what many people seem to make it out to be.
1. High Political Salaries
- This is a HUGE problem.
- If people ask me what's going to cause the collapse of the system, I think this will be it. I'm not going to repeat the PM's rationale yada yada. It's all very sound arguments economically and what have you. Unfortunately, that hardly matters. The fact that the Ministerial salaries are astronomical is going to be factor in EVERY single discussion. Politicians don't win votes by reasoning with their voters.
- My personal view is that I don't begrudge the current high salaries, but I don't see why anyone needs so much money.
- The reason why these high salaries are objectionable is that it reduces the moral authority of the Government to govern this nation. There are going to be a few major crisis coming up in the near future. The Government will need to muster every ounce of moral authority to push through tough policies and rally the people. But I might be wrong lah. I'm just a dumb prof in an ivory tower. What do I know? :-)
2. PAP is on a Burning Platform
PAP has always campaigned on the platform, "You Vote for Me, I Solve Your Problems". Good for them, they actually delivered for like 5 decades and so nobody should begrudge them for trouncing the Opposition. The question is: how sustainable is such a platform? The world today is different from the 1960s. The problems today are much more complex and intractible than the problems a generation ago. Solving the problems of today is not simply a question of smartness. Also, PAP's success at solving problems for the last 50 years has engendered a culture of dependence. I worry for our people if the day should come where we get a dose of incompetent government. The high pay makes everything worse. A lot of people seem to have this attitude, "since your pay is so high, you jolly well solve all my problems and give me a good life".
3. PAP is Losing the Battle in Expectation Management
Because of the platform that the PAP has adopted, it is my view that it is failing in terms of expectation management. I really think that Singaporeans have unreasonable expectations on what the Govt can do. For example, supposed an pregnant woman loses her job. She might then complain that she has been unfairly dismissed and expect the Govt to do something about it. Lemme ask ourselves: whose job is it? It's not going to be your million-dollar minister stepping in to resolve the situation. Or perhaps some people expect that. In general, it's going to be some peon somewhere who has this unpleasant job trying to resolve the situation. Is it always true that the company is at fault? Perhaps it doesn't work out. Maybe it's because the woman really had no case to begin with, or the public officer who was assigned to the job was incompetent or just didn't care.... and it's Government's fault? Basically, almost everything that goes wrong (regardless of whether it's Mas Selamat or floods, it's the Government's fault). There is no sense of perspective.
Do people know how big the Government is? Even if PAP wins every seat in the coming GE, that's 87 of them. The total Civil Service + public service (Stat Boards) probably numbers around 150K? How scary is it to think that if any of these 150,000 people screw up, it's your fault? :-P Is it reasonable? My view is no, but did I mention that the high pay is a huge political problem? :-)
4. PAP seems to have trouble with "Sorry"
Let's have no illusions that all policies are correct. I actually think Singaporeans are pretty reasonable people. When the Government screws up, someone just stand up and say, "Sorry we screwed up, we'd clean up the mess". I think if the sorry is said with some sincerity, I think people will forgive. Then again, I might be wrong, in which case, I stand corrected. :-)
5. PAP Offends the People's Sense of Fairness
In recent times, I have begun to appreciate our culture. I think Singaporeans are good people. Really. When I first read letters to the Forum Page suggesting that we should have a First Parliament where people all get along like one big campfire, I thought these people were naive and out of their minds. What are they talking about? Do they even know what politics is all about? Have they seen what happens in the US and in Taiwan? Then I realized that perhaps they don't have any idea and are somewhat naive, but they *REALLY* do believe that politics can be done "right". It also set me thinking: why do we not think that we cannot do politics better than any of the other failed democracies? We have much to be proud about and we are the exception rather than the norm, so....
It really sucks when PAP does the following:
1. Tying upgrading to votes.
2. Change electorial boundaries before every election.
3. Shows a lack of grace (i.e. MrBrown incident in GE2006. I must say I don't have much love for Gomez, though I think the PAP overdid it.)
Are these BIG problems? Realistically, if you compare the situation here with the US, things are really mild. It turns out that if we look anywhere else, pork barrel politics and gerry mandering are the norm and not the exception. Rationally, one would be surprised that Singaporeans don't really accept these things even though they are the norm elsewhere.... but it turns out, we really don't like it (just like we also dun chew gum unlike anywhere else in the world).
I actually dun think that the GRCs are a problem as long as election boundaries are fixed immediately after a GE to be used in the next GE. People do not expect the PAP to make life easy for the Opposition. They just want fair play. Golden rule: when you're big, it's bad form to bully.
6. PAP cannot do Sales
The current PAP politicians are really bureaucrats more than politicians. They are bungling so badly, it looks like a bad horror comedy. On the other hand, the harsh realities of politics in Singapore for the Opposition has "forced" them to level up in terms of their online media outreach. Many of our policies while unpopular are actually sound. The failure to communicate and explain is going to cost the PAP votes.
-----------------------------------------
My Political Ideology
Just for kicks, I thought I would share what I believe in. I don't believe in democracy. Sorry. I have no confidence that a beauty pageant/popularity contest will necessary throw up leaders that are any good at all. PAP tries to fix this problem with their tea parties. Not a bad system, except that tea parties don't necessarily throw up candidates who can win votes (which explains the GRCs...) But then, I also dun have a better idea for a political system that can replace democracy, so I guess I can live with it. :-P
I believe in free-market capitalism and maybe a tinge of socialism. However, I mostly believe in EDUCATION.
The world is currently beset with way too many problems. It is sad that many are living in a bubble. This GE is really not a big deal. The world is changing and there are a lot of problems.
I don't actually need inspirational political leaders because what I want in a Government is really just a high-class jagar. It's okay to pay them a couple of million dollars as long as the system keeps running. I want the electricity to come on when I flip the switch. I want the water to run when I take a shower. I want to have reasonable healthcare when I fall sick and reasonable schools for my kids. What I really don't want is an irresponsible Government that will laden my children and my children's children in debt that they have no way of crawling out of. I do not want to see a socialist bleeding heart government that will raid the reserves and give out goodies just to get elected.
It is my fervent belief that the good old days are over. The rising tide no longer lifts all boats. The water level is too high for that. Is it the PAP's fault? I really don't think so. We could have pursued a less aggressive growth policy, but I'm not sure if we had that luxury. We do enjoy many good things that is the envy of the rest of the world. If we had chosen to grow slower, we might have gotten swept away by competition from other developing economies like China and might never have gotten to where we are today; even if we didn't, we are just delaying the inevitable. We'd still likely be where we are today, but perhaps in another 10 years.
Never believed in this notion called the Singapore Dream. I think it's a stupid idea.
Are Singaporeans so stupid that they need the Government to teach them what to dream? I believe that there should really be 5 million different dreams and truthfully, I think we do have the space to pursue those dreams. People say that they have no choice. I don't buy that. Most times, they are just too chicken (or kiasi) to try. Then again, to each his own, comfort and security are not to be scoffed at.
On education, I don't mean that the more people we have in University, the better off we will be. I always tell my students that school is overrated. Not to say that education is bad, but different people need different amounts and different types of education. It pains me to see many young people spend lots of money and time getting these degrees that I know will do them not an iota of good. *sigh* University places are never enough, but if we keep going, we're going to see college grads packing supermarket shelves. People can blame the profs. Maybe we suck at it. Maybe if we taught a little better, all these people will have great futures. Maybe. Maybe there is gold at the end of the rainbow.
-----------------------------------------
Epilogue
Sometimes I wonder whether people really know what they are voting for.
Change? That's what the Americans wanted a couple years ago when they voted for Obama. Change is what they got. Spare. Change.
That said, I am quite optimistic that perhaps we can do better than the Americans. How can we possibly do worse than Saran Palin or Bush? :-P
I was just thinking the other day that it hardly matters what happens this GE. If I really don't like what I see in this coming GE, maybe it's an excuse to start a new Sarong Party in 5 years and invite MrBrown to be the Chairman. Throw in a couple of 20-year-old chicks (SPGs), and we'd have the elections in our pocket. ;-)