Temasek Holdings: Net Profit fell by 26%
July 8th, 2010 | Author: Your Correspondent

By Peter Stein, Costas Paris and P.R. Venkat from Wall Street Journal, 7 July 2010

Singapore’s state-owned investment firm Temasek Holdings Pte. Ltd. said Thursday it posted a 26% drop in net profit for the year ended March 31 on the back of weaker contributions from its portfolio companies, even as its portfolio rose 43% in value.

OB-JE127_temase_D_20100708011349The divergence between profit and portfolio performance shows that the share price of many companies owned by Temasek did well as global capital chased returns in emerging markets, yet many had trouble making money in a tougher business environment that included higher fuel costs and weaker international trade.

Temasek owns controlling stakes in some of Singapore’s biggest corporations, including Singapore Airlines Ltd., shipping company Neptune Orient Lines Ltd. and PSA International Pte. Ltd., the world’s biggest operator of port facilities. It also owns significant chunks of other Asian companies that include two of China’s biggest banks, telecommunications conglomerate Shin Corp. and an Indian telecom operator. And it is the biggest shareholder in U.K.-based Standard Chartered PLC, with an 18% stake.

Chief Financial Officer Leong Wai Leng said some portfolio companies, including Neptune Orient and Singapore Airlines were “severely impacted” by the economic crisis.

Temasek said its net profit fell to 4.6 billion Singapore dollars (US$3.3 billion) from S$6.2 billion the year earlier. Its portfolio stood at S$186 billion as of March 31, nudging just above the S$185 billion it was valued at two years earlier after rebounding from huge losses in 2008 and early 2009. A sharp rise in global markets during the second quarter last year accounted for most of the recovery. Of the S$56 billion growth in the portfolio’s value last year, S$42 billion occurred in the four months to July 31, 2009.

Neptune Orient illustrates the split between profit and share price. The shipping firm, which is 66%-owned by Temasek, lost money for all of 2009 and in the quarter ended March due to a downturn in Asian exports. Yet in the 12 months to March 31, the company’s stock is up nearly 72% to S$2.01. Temasek invested in a rights issue the company conducted to boost its capital, giving it more upside exposure.

Over the year to March 31, Temasek made a net S$4 billion of new investments, much of it in energy and resources, where it continues to direct money. In May and June, it invested more than US$600 million in U.S. natural gas company Chesapeake Energy Corp. Energy and resources now account for about 7% of the companies investments, up from 5% a year earlier.

Other recent investments include US$200 million Temasek has invested in the initial public offering of Agricultural Bank of China. In May, Temasek also acquired a 5% stake in India’s National Stock Exchange for S$241 million.

Temasek warned that although the risks of a global economic meltdown have shrunk, “recovery remains fragile” and the European debt crisis is a reminder of structural imbalances that could threaten stability.

However, Temasek remains satisfied with its exposure to Asia, where about 80% of its investments are located.

“We continue to remain optimistic in Asia, and over the next 10 years we will likely increase our exposure,” said Jimmy Phoon, Temasek’s head of strategy. He said the state investor was also looking to increase its investments in Latin America in sectors like finance and agriculture.

Temasek sold off high-profile investments in Bank of America and Barclays PLC in late 2008 and early 2009 at a loss of nearly US$5.5 billion, according to people familiar with the situation.

“Some investments had not turned out as expected, while most other investments did well,” said Simon Israel, Temasek’s executive director. “Where we thought that risks were not acceptable, or when we had other better opportunities, we were ready to do what we thought was best for the long term despite any short-term pain, he added”

About 20% of Temasek’s investments are in developed economies, with Australian investments by Singapore-based companies accounting for much of that total.

Mr. Israel also said that Temasek was looking at Mongolia and that its rich mining resources provided opportunities. Temasek and private-equity firm Hopu Investment Management Co. invested US$300 million last year in a Mongolian iron-ore mining company.

People familiar with the state investor’s operations said the quest to find a successor to Ho Ching, the current chief executive and wife of Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, will begin in the fall. Temasek said in May that it will appoint former Singapore Exchange CEO Hsieh Fu Hua as its president starting in August. One of his main responsibilities will be to identify suitable candidates to replace Ms. Ho, according to those people. Mr. Israel said “every year our board looks at potential successor candidates,” and Mr. Hsieh’s “mandate is much broader” than that.

Ms. Ho didn’t attend the results briefing. Staff said she was traveling with the prime minister on official business in the U.S.

Historic plans for a foreigner to run Temasek it fell apart last year when the company, citing “strategic differences,” said Charles “Chip” W. Goodyear, formerly chief executive of mining giant BHP Billiton Ltd., would leave the company three months before he was scheduled to take the helm.

Temasek also offered an update about a new investment company it has set up with S$4 billion in start-up capital called Seatown Holdings. Mr. Israel said Seatown—which is being headed up by Charles Ong, Temasek’s former chief investment officer and chief strategist—would be “investing over a broader range of asset classes, with the ability to have a different geographic exposure” from the rest of Temasek.”

Temasek said it hopes to bring in sophisticated investors to co-invest with Seatown within three to five years, with a longer-term goal of bringing in retail investors after the company had gained more experience.

By Peter Stein, Costas Paris and P.R. Venkat

Source: Wall Street Journal

新加坡政治难民何元泰公开信
June 10th, 2010 | Author: Lee Chong

译者：新加坡文献馆

亲爱的新加坡公民和朋友们，

我的名字是何元泰。我是土生土长的新加坡公民，我在好多年前就已经完成了我的全职国民服役。为了某些缘由我是以新加坡难民的身伤在伦敦生活了32年，但这并非我的选择。

如果你认为新加坡是属于某些部长的，他们拥有至高无上的神权可以决定那位新加坡人可以或不可以享有新加坡公民权并且持有新加坡护照，那么，我劝请你现在就停止阅读这封信，因为让你持续沉迷于你的精英活动应该是件更有意义的事情。

如果你认为新加坡是属于你的，新加坡是属于我的，以及新加坡是属于每一位新加坡人的，我们在国家宪法下都享有属于我们的平等公民权力和持有新加坡护照权力，那么，我希望你能抽出时间来阅读这封信，并且看看你可以做些什么。

1976 年12月新加坡大选后的一个星期左右，一组穿便衣的武装内安部（内部安全局）警务人员来到我在裕廊的家要逮捕我。我成功的突破封锁线逃走。在追捕的过程中一名内安部人员追掏出手枪，指着我，并以福建方言高呼“不要跑，你再跑我就会开枪”。当我消失在我家后面的茅草丛里，几名持枪的内安部人员去到我的邻居家中搜查。我受劝告为了我的人身安全有必要逃到其他地方寻求庇护。

在当时的工人党秘书长惹耶勒南和他的已故太太玛格列，以及其他人士的协助下，我在1977年7月前往伦敦，那时我已在新加坡和马来西亚躲藏了6个月。当我抵达伦敦我立即寻求政治庇护。英国政府按国际法规接见我，并展开调查以证实我的要求。在完成了一个很完整的彻底调查后，英国政府于次年正式批准了我的政治庇护。我获得一份按联合国1951难民公约颁发的蓝色旅行证件，确实了我的难民身份。从1978年的11月起始我正式成为来自新加坡的难民。

虽然我做作为一名难民已远离了新加坡政府的视察范围，但这不表示他们不再关注我。他们的疑虑病态导致了1985年的宪法修正。这项宪法修正让政府有权力禠夺在国外生活超过10年并且在这期间不曾回国一次的任何一名公民的公民权。

就在修宪后的不久，我是仅两名新加坡人中的其中一人，收到了禠夺公民权通知书。政府企盼通过这种过程去消灭所有的政治挑战，包括我这名无杀伤性与薄弱的1976年大选候选人。

和惹耶勒南一道，我们决定上诉挑战公民权褫夺通知书，以作为取得国际社会关注这起有关新加坡违反基本人权事件的第一步行动。在这上诉的过程中，惹耶勒南因为其他的原因而被无理的剥夺了其执行法律事务的资格。称为查询委员会的上诉庭基于另觅新法律代表的理由将此上诉事件悬置。当惹耶勒南在最终上诉庭取得他自已的上诉胜利并恢复律师资格之后，他继续作为我的代表律师。在未知缘由的情况下，延迟了2年多的时间之后，内政部突然通知我们，他们已经决定撤回原有的公民 权禠夺通知书。为此，我保住了我的新加坡公民权，也依旧是居住在伦敦的一名新加坡难民。

从那时候开始，我不时的写信向有关当局查询，看看他们可否发给我一份新加坡护照。所得到的回答一向来都是不行。他们的惯用理由是因为新加坡警察在通缉我，所以我不可以获得新加坡护照。他们从来没有告诉我警察是为了什么事情要向我问话。由于新加坡不允许双重国藉，我只能继续难民身份以保住我是新加坡忠实之子的资格。

当我们的李总理在2007年尝试呼吁尊重人权以促进亚细安人权章程时，新加坡的主流传播媒体持续的以显著版位报导此事件。我想这应该是力图改变的讯息。我写信给 在英国的最高专员Mr. Michael Teo，向他询问我是否可以申请一份新加坡护照。出乎我的意料之外，此次的要求并没有被拒绝，反且寄了一份申请表格给我。我填写了表格也到最高专员办公室办理打手印等等。最初，新加坡移民厅并不满意我所呈交的文件。在经过了2年的努力和获得我在伦敦的本地国会议员的书信解释，移民厅才接受了我所呈交的那些他们索求的文件证明。

当移民厅对我呈交的文件证明感到满意后，我想我即将以一名普通新加坡人的身份使用新加坡护照去旅行，我于是开始想到结婚就象其他的新加坡公民一样。我对这个新现象的激情，是由我们的李总理所推进的亚细安人权章程所引发，但这只是个假象。由于移民厅再也不能以我的申请文件不妥当为理由拒绝签发护照，他们于是改口，认为他们所能做的只是‘如果你去向伦敦的新加坡最高专员申请，你可以获得一张身份证明书’。

我写信给移民厅询问为何不可以签发护照给我这名没有犯罪记录者？他们的单程身份证明书建议是一种歧视。在宪法下任何人都不可以受到歧视。任何有尊严的新加坡人都不会接受歧视。作为一名自豪的新加坡人，我是永远都不会接受任何具歧视意味的对待。

为了避免受到有歧视行为的指责，移民厅现在改变了回信内的说法。他们现在表示怀疑我那已经过期的原新加坡护照曾经在我离开新加坡时被非法的纂改。在这种情况下，如果我去申请他们或许会（不是必定会）签发一份身份证明书让我回返新加坡以便做进一步的调查。

我对移民厅在2009年12月8日的单程通行证的建议提出询问，要求移民厅指出是根据宪法里的那些条款的规定，不能向我这般的人士签发新加坡护照。我也询问他们为何要不断的变动龙门？至今为止，移民厅还未做出回应。在伦敦的最高专员也证实那些经他们转交的书信并未丢失，而他们也同样未获得任何回应。新加坡最高专员答应会为我继续跟进这件事。如今已经过了4个月的时间，移民办还未给予任何回复。

目前的状况已经有所不同。移民厅的无所回应和不签发新加坡护照，已经不仅仅让我呆在新加坡境外成为一名难民。我现在有了一个儿子，他是于2009年12月在伦敦诞生。在新加坡宪法下基于新加坡人后裔条款，他可认享受所有作为新加坡公民的一切权力。然而，根据移民厅寄给我的规则，移民厅是不会处理我儿子的公民权申请，除非我能够出示新加坡护照。实际上，这表示我儿子要成为新加坡公民的权力已遭受无理的拒绝。我那在伦敦诞生的新加坡孩子，在技术上而言，此时此刻的他是无国藉人士。在伦敦的新加坡最高专员亦对我证实了，他们也同样没有得到我在3个月前就我儿子的公民权而向移民厅提出进一步询问的任何回应。

我的妻子给了我一个最后通牒，要求我在近日解决有关我们的孩子的新加坡公民权问题，要不然她会要求泰国或者英国的有关当局去解决这问题。我妻子的绝望是可以理解的，因为她想预订机票回去探访她的国家但却因为我们的儿子没有公民身份和没有婴儿护照而被拖延。面对着我那伦敦诞生的新加坡孩子和我妻子的焦虑，使我更加感受到从未有过的压力去尽快解决我的难民身份。

在处理为我儿子以新加坡人后裔注册为新加坡公民和为我自已申请新加坡护照的事件上我已用尽所有可行的方案，和官僚在公事的交涉已走到尽头。我现在唯一的有效方法是吁请你们这群新加坡人替我想方设法看看还有些什么其他途径。

我所期待的是：

1、在公开的法庭审讯

最公正的解决有关我的护照申请事件是对我的所有指控进行法庭审讯，除了擅离职守的逃兵罪名之外（我在稍后时间再解释此事）。如果我确实在法律下犯了罪，我是不应该拿到新加坡护照，那么，我会很乐意的结束整件事，我只能怪罪我自已。如果我没有犯法，那我不明白为何我不可以同其他任何一位新加坡人一样，享有同等的权力去要求一份新加坡护照。

好多年前有几位好心肠的新加坡人在海峡时报为我争取这请求，但事情过后却不了了之。这回我希望有更多的新加坡人通过新科技为我发出更多的声音。当更多的人知道这件事情之后，我不相信政府可以长久虚伪的假装若无其事。

2、去收集更多其他不公正事件的资料

我相信我所遭受到的不公正待遇并非是宗例外而是常见现象，虽然，所受到的不公正未必是同等程度，和都是涉及移民厅。如果你本身或者你知道有任何人有遭遇过象我一般的不公正待遇，不论是涉及护照或者其他事项，我希望你能让我知道个中情况。我希望曾经遭遇过不公正对待的人可以集合一起做出更有力的集体上诉。我们集中力量就可以看到改善。请写信给我HOJUANTHAI@YAHOO.COM（我没有博客或者脸书）

3、写信给尚穆甘先生，法律部长与第2内政部长

尚穆甘先生是直接负责移民厅事务的。他可以若无其事的完全对我不断写去的书信不理不睬，要求他重新审核移民厅的行政手法。他连基本的礼貌上知会复函亦没有发过。但是，如果你们当中的许多人都给他写封信，他就有必要公开的解释为何移民厅在我的护照申请事件上要不断的变动龙门，和是谁在最后一刻出面干预以阻止给我签发护照等等。这位新崛起的政治明星所要干的事涉及公众利益的问题。

4、写信给吴作栋资政

吴先生讲过一句名言，新加坡需要打死不跑的人（即便面临危机这些人的效忠永不动摇）。我有必要指出在这一骨节眼上我完全认同他的观点，那就是我们是一个什么样的国家取决于我们有什么样的人民。

吴先生知道新加坡需要什么样的人去组成我们的国家，我怀疑吴先生是否在这一类事务上享有最终的决定权？

你个人认识吴先生吗？我们在思索是否要向他或其他人提出上诉？不知道提出更高层次的上诉是否有用？如果你知道政治高层是如何的运作，请告诉我们。

5、向新加坡武装部队上诉

我来自一个相信新加坡必须要有强大武装力量来保卫我们的自由和财产的家庭。我的大哥是军人，他在新加坡武装部队成立之前就已经参军，那时的武装部队是属于英殖民政府的，是用来阻止共产党占有马来亚（新加坡和东马来西亚）。我们全家上下都祝福与在道义上支持大哥从军。

当我的三哥毕业时，他已超过了人伍国民服役的年限。他决定支持新加坡武装部队于是加入军队成为职业军人。他把毕生的工作精力贡献干新加坡武装部队。同样的，我们一家人都为他的事业感到骄傲。我的全部侄子，当他们应招入伍时都以热忱与骄傲的心态去服役。对我而言，亦无例外。当我在中学时我加入新加坡警察部分时间国民服役，过后，在我进入南洋大学之前，又加入全职的新加坡武装部队。我是以骄傲以热忱的心情服役新加坡武装部队。讽刺的是，如今在新加坡武装部队的记录中我是一名擅离职守的逃兵。

我之成为擅离职守的逃兵，并非因为我从新加坡武装部队落跑以躲避上前线守卫国家。这事情发生在政府撤回其禠夺公民权通知书的不久之后，这时我已离开了新加坡大约13年。为何突然之间宪兵被派到我父母的家向我母亲查询我的下落，并在公文册上记载我没有应召回到新加坡武装部队后勤人员册上报到？新加坡武装部队在我离开新加坡13年之后对我还有真实的需要？为何政府在撤回禠夺公民权通知书后还有必要派遣新加坡武装部队的宪兵到我父母的家？

根据加坡法律，任何曾被罚款2000元，或者被囚禁12个月或更长时间的公民，会自动的被禁止参加国会选举，为期5年。如果我回返新加坡，而政府无法罚我高额罚款或者不能把我长期囚禁，他们就可以利用擅离职守的逃兵记录来取消我参加国会选举的资格，从而达成他们的目的。我相信这就是为什么我会有擅离职守的逃兵记录，但我希望我的这一想法是错误的。

我坚信新加坡应该做两件事来取得和平与稳定。一个是把新加坡建设为和平中心，作为谈论和平以及促进人类和平的中心。也许我们需要做的比瑞士更多，不仅仅是联合国文明的基地，亦提供各种方便以协助和平谈判的进行和安置不同的从事和平话动的非政府组织。

我们需要开放我们的军事基地和设施让联合国领导的干预部队进行活动，不论那是为了维持和平或支援人道主义的目的。联合国需要一个有效的中立基地以便迅速的做出在亚洲和中东地区的各种紧急情况的应对。如果这一想法能够被联合国接受，我们的国土上将会有多国部队的驻守。这些部队将会间接的给于我们一些保护。

在帮助其他人实现和平的同时亦增强我们自己的安全，那无疑是一个值得探索的战略。但是，我们不能抱有幻想，认为一旦成为和平促进者，以及有了以联合国为首的国际警察部队的常驻，那么，我们就会有一个安全与稳定的保证，这是因为国际政治的动向是很想象到的。我们只可以从我们自已的新加坡武装部队本身的坚强力量取得安全保障。

要保有一个强而有效的战斗力，新加坡武装部队必须在政治上中立。新加坡武装部队绝对不可以让任何政党利用以达到个人的自私目的。政党可以来来去去，那只是时间上的问题。新加坡武装部队必须永久的强盛，这有赖于来自在国内与在国外的新加坡人的支持。服完兵役后在没有出国准证情况下离开了新加坡的人，他们是在情非得已下才会出此下策。

在以新加坡人后裔申请新加坡公民权时要求孩子的父亲持有出国准证是一种自残行为。这将会减少新兵来源和他们的支持，况且这也有违公平。新加坡武装部队有必要检讨这一政策，因为这孤立了那些父母有意让他们的儿子在长大后回国服兵役的一群人。我希望我的儿子长大后能帮助推广和平与人道主义，也要他继承我们家的传统，那就是不论现在或者将来都支持新加坡的强大武装力量。倘若有一个不受欢迎的外来势力要侵犯我们，我会以我的儿子是新加坡武装部队中保家卫国的一名成员而感到自豪。

我在此诚恳的呼吁新加坡武装部队重新研讨其出国准证政策，和在政治上采取中立立场。

结论

谢谢你持续的阅读这封信。我不肯定你能够从此一事件中看出些什么状况？对我而言，此事件在其表面上来看是有关我和我要取得新加坡护照，同时也涉及我儿子在宪法下能够以新加坡人后裔的身份取得新加坡公民权，这一权力让位居高层的人士无理的阻挠。

然而，如果你回顾这33年来所发生过的种种事情的经历，你必定会了解这是有关他们与他们那怯懦的想方设法去阻挡一名以前的国会竞争者再次参与一个开放的国会政治。

我并非三头六臂，只是和你一样关心并爱护我们的新加坡的普通老百姓。为何要如此的对付我？

我是来自一个一贫如洗的家庭，在大巴窑的甘榜长大，那时那里没有公共交通，没有电和煤气供应。我们的家庭从新加坡发展中取得正面的利益。和其他新加坡人一样我赞赏老一代的领导所取得的经济好处和生话环境的提升。我们感激这些成就。我愿意接受所有过去所受到的种种不公正待遇为必要的代价，这是以前的事，既往不咎，让我们都忘记这些过去，为了更好的一面从新出发。

然而，令我们都忧心的是老一辈在消失中，其中的好多人已过世。但是新一代的领导人，尤其是其中的新崛起明星，不理会世界已经完全改观，他们仍旧死守那些陈腐的教条规约，以过时的方法冶国，这使到他们失去支持与尊敬。他们完全没有新鲜的思维和勇气去面对新生代的期许，这令人焦虑。

新生代认为国家建设与成就不单纯是经济方面的发展，这一想法是正确的。他们期待的文化是更开放，信任，人道，社会正义，自由和公平；这些长期以来出现在替代媒体上的观点从来就没有得到尊重。基于新生代的期许，我在此呼吁你们给予协助和去改变现状。我也认同大家的看法，那就是，群策群力必定成功。

何元泰
HOJUANTHAI@YAHOO.COM
19 Claremont Road
London NW2 1BP
United Kingdom
2010年6月3日

何元泰在1976年以工人党身份竞选武吉班让国会议席，在大选后遭政府通缉，罪名是发表煽动性言语。

来源：http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/06/06/an-open-appeal-from-a-singaporean-refugee/

Singapore and its road to democracy
June 9th, 2010 | Author: Contributions

The memory and words of John Struat Mills echoed through the corridors of the Shangri-la Ballroom during the 6th World Movement for Democracy (WMD) Congress held in Jakarta in April 2010 for four days. It was attended by close to 600 democracy activists and delegates from around 118 countries. The central theme of the event was “Solidarity Across Cultures: Working together for Democracy”. It was a fitting theme to an event that brought together some of the top politicians, former heads of governments, student leaders, democracy activists and youth movement leaders from around the world to openly debate and exchange lively ideas.

The basic premise of JS Mills states that the individual ought to be free to do as he or she wishes unless he or she harms others and Individuals are rational enough to make decisions about their good being while governments should interfere only when it is for the protection of society. He said that the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. Those were the words penned by JS Mills almost 151 years ago and how true it is till today, agreed Orazio Balletinni, one of the democracy delegates from Grupo Faro based in Ecuador. He was not alone in stating the obvious that democracies around the world were being threatened and challenged by autocratic regimes.

Asian values versus Western democracy

Anwar Ibrahim, former Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia and the leader of Partai Keadilan in Malaysia maintained that there were still apologists, diehard sceptics and proponents of autocracy who say that democracy is not meant for all cultures because it is largely a Western construct and certainly not the only system for the rest of the world. “Asian values, for example, are said to be inherently incompatible with liberal democracy. The argument goes that the fundamental teachings of Confucius place great importance on filial piety and submission to state authority. He said that in Asia leaders of opposition parties and dissidents were incarcerated under draconian laws and no effort was spared in the war against ‘subversive elements’ and the ‘enemies’ of the people. He said that that the Asian values’ argument and ‘we-are-not-yet-ready-for-democracy’ excuse as nothing more than a doctrine for the justification of authoritarian rule. “There are still governments that are founded on the perpetuation of power not by free and fair elections but from arbitrary succession from the father to the son, or from one military clique to another, or even from one power elite to the next. And there are those who appear to have all the characteristics of a liberal democracy in so far as their domestic governance is concerned but they continue to violate human rights with impunity”

The Singapore Quagmire

While Anwar’s remarks were aimed generally at autocratic regimes , they struck a chord of familiarity with Seelan Palay who is a youth activists from Singapore. He pointed out the culture of fear among Singaporeans and questioned the government’s level of confidence claiming that they had the unspoken mandate of the people. “If they are so confident why do they have to arrests even a protests action carried out by even one person or two. They also say that the people are so apathetic and don’t care about democracy and human rights. If they really don’t care then why do they have to arrests people who are only distributing fliers? And if they are so confident why did they shut down every single alternative newspaper by 1990. This clearly shows the government’s insecurity. There are lots of cracks in the system,” he added. “The government likes to argue that Singaporeans don’t care. I would like to argue that Singaporeans don’t know enough to care. When there no accesses to freedom of information how do you expect people to care about anything,” he countered. Is Singapore as Seelan argues devoid of alternative information and Singaporeans being kept in the dark about making meaningful political decisions?

According to Carl Gershman, the President from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) based in the United States, said that Singapore is not an absolute dictatorship by any means. “But there are very severe restrictions on the rights of political expression and it is important that the space for political expression is expanded. He was concerned that Singapore can continue to maintain a system of effective government for a long period of time if they do not have the checks and balance of a real democracy. That is the problem that he foresees as happening. “The NED wants to assist our friends (including the SDP) there to expand the political space in Singapore. We have to be able to encourage the people in Singapore that want to expand their political space and political freedom to feel that they are not alone. The government would like to marginalise these people as much as possible and they have to have a voice both within Singapore and the international community. We can help give them that voice. You have to have international support for the people who are trying to encourage these debates in Singapore.” he added. The reason for concern he said was due to the libel laws in Singapore as it is very difficult to have a full and open and fair debate because people can be bankrupted for making what is seen in the United States as making mild critism of political leaders.

The Singapore paradigm and the reason for Singapore’s indifference

democracyWhile Singapore is still seen to be experimenting with the right formulae for democracy, there are those from the Singapore government that believe that such measures are necessary to maintain a high economic growth rate and prosperity by toning liberal values and democracy perhaps a notch down.

When Charlie Rose, the affable American television talk show host and journalist interviewed Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew on his TV program he asked SM Lee if he never had a moment when he thought that Singapore was too authoritative. SM Lee explained that his job was to get the place going and get everybody a decent life and a decent education. “And we’re now the best educated people in the whole of East Asia. And that the ends were laudable. Because everybody wants the same ends. Everybody wants good education and good health. And the means. I had the consent and support of the population. If they opposed me and they did not cooperate, it wouldn’t have worked,” he added.

The elder statesman is credited for putting Singapore on the global map. Senior Minister Lee is also considered the official mascot of Singapore admittedly by his son and current Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Hsien Loong. But the big question remains whether SM Lee would have done it any differently?

According to current Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, when he was recently interviewed by Charlie Rose he defended SM Lee by stating that Lee Kuan Yew made a state where there was none, a country, a nation which will become a nation which nobody believed could succeed. And he’s made a system which went on without him and which will endure beyond him,” he added. And when he was asked how Lee Hsien Loong measures his commitment to democracy? “We measure it by the legitimacy of the government and by the results, how Singapore works and whether Singaporeans are able to have a better life. Basically we don’t measure ourselves by an American model to what extent we approximate you. We are trying to find a formula which works for Singapore.” said Hsien Loong.

Cry Liberty!

What then is the model that works best for Singapore? According to Hans Van Beelen, the President of Liberal International and a Member of Parliament in the EU, who was present in Singapore during a forum sponsored by the Singapore Democratic Party in Singapore, maintained that when he came through the airport observing Singapore he felt it was a very modern country with high levels of education and high levels of prosperity. “But when you look behind the curtain or behind the façade you see that there is much repression. Indeed there is no free press, no free society and not even a free market. I would encourage the Singapore government to let the people debate openly, contest the elections openly and demonstrate openly. Don’t fence yourself in .These are basic human values,” he added. He said that when they discussed free trade agreements between the EU and Singapore they put in human rights clauses in the free trade agreements. Also the Singapore government has allegedly signed the Commonwealth human rights declaration. So the Singapore government is said to be obligated by what they had signed earlier. He wanted the Singapore government to be able to give human rights a chance.

He also debunked the myth that Asians only want a free market and are not interested in liberty and free speech. “It would be a discrimination to say that democracy is alien to Asian values. To manage a controlled society is not beneficial to the interests of the people especially in Singapore Democracy cannot be stopped at Singapore’s borders. Dictatorships are an exception while free societies are the rule today,” he added.

According to Marc Plattner the founding co-editor of the Journal of Democracy and vice-president for research and studies at the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), said that it was false to think that there was a necessity to make a choice between prosperity and economic growth on one hand and democracy on the other. He then maintained that why do (certain) regimes then imitate a true democracy? “They put out the façade of a democracy but avoid the real thing. To some extent it’s for the case of maintaining power for the elites which is reflective of powers all over the world. But democracy is also seen as something fashionable and has a very high degree of international legitimacy, especially countries that are open to the world and want to maintain a reputation for freedom of democracy. There is also a fear that making a real transition to democracy would lead to chaos,” he said.

In short he said that it was very hard to understand why Singapore should not be able to follow the same path as its Asian neighbours especially given its very high educational and incomes levels. “My guess is in the not too distant future it will follow this path and cease to be an anomaly among the world’s highly developed countries.” He was also hopeful that perhaps one day the World Movement for Democracy would hold its bi-annual assembly in Singapore instead.

Singapore the perfect dictatorship

Marc’s colleague and co-editor of the Journal of Democracy, Dr. Larry Diamond a Professor of Sociology and Political Science at Stanford University made some interesting observations on the workshop sponsored by the WDM in Singapore. He made references of Singapore electoral system to that written by a Mexican author who called the Mexican system a perfect dictatorship. There are similarities he said between the then autocratic regime in Mexico and Singapore. And the perfect dictatorship once has now evolved into a democracy. According to him there are independent literatures written by social scholars that there is an emerging argument that the perfect dictatorship now in the world seems to be Singapore. One reason he argued why Singapore was so successful socially and economically is that it has such a subtle touch to its authoritarianism. Where certain parts of the world are unaware of the degree of authoritarianism and that it is an authoritarian society. He said that why Singapore will be a democracy rather sooner than later.

“If you look at the broad arch of history and in quoting President Obama that the arch of history does not go on a straight line but bends to seek justice. If you look at the world’s changes in the last several decades now at least 60% of the world’s states are elected democracies and Singapore is dramatic but astonishing outlier in terms of lack of freedom, lack of political democracy and lack of justice.

“So the regime in Singapore notwithstanding its accomplishment in social and economic development is standing on the wrong side of history. Sooner or later changes in the political system follow the changes in the social economical changes. The modernization theory in the 1960s said that as people become better educated and better income securities, eventually their values change. They develop more capacity for civil societies, where people eventually want freedom and are better able to organize for it. He said that the book, “Modernization Cultural Change and Democracy and the Human Development Sequence” published in 2005 gave a good description of the current norms in Singapore.

According to Larry Diamond, the key message behind the book is emancipation from authority. It however does not mean disrespect for authority but having critical independent evaluation of authority. And the cultural shift or questioning of authority and ability to express oneself tends to go on a greater emphasis on tolerance and a greater emphasis on freedom. Singaporeans have said that they have cared about stability and economic growth rather than democracy per se. “One senses that over the last decade the growing restlessness among young people in Singapore. That Singapore has become a boring place. As people grow up and are socialized in an era of prosperity there is something intrinsic in the human character and personality. Is it imaginable that Singapore could be the only country on earth that defies what seems to be a general law about the human personality,” he said.

Taking for instance the turnout of the Singaporeans in the dialogue session, proved that Singaporeans were not apathetic to political developments. He found their questions both uplifting and inspiring. Singapore he said was probably at its adolescence stage of democratic development. “If you look at public opinion survey data there is very strong support for democratic values and principles. So it depends where there is support for democracy in people’s hearts and minds rather than it can be collectively expressed,” he added.

Collective human spirit

“There is something about the human personality that craves freedom, creativity, autonomy and human dignity, and to have everything controlled and dictated to you and to have a system where people are not able to challenge their leaders and to express their minds without fear of being sued into bankruptcy and to determine their own future is a fundamental violation of human dignity. One example that people will question this and if those that are unable to do so would migrate overseas,” added Larry. Larry also added that he believed that the youth in Singapore are far from apathetic and are craving for freedom, autonomy and other universal values. And pointed out some of the possibilities of how Singapore can become a true democracy. One model he talked about was the “colour revolution” and the lessons that can be derived from people power revolution in the Philippines, and the Orange Revolution. Although some Singaporeans from the audience pointed out the failures of the colour revolution model, Larry made references to Michael McFall’s article on the colour revolution that was published by the Journal of Democracy called “Transitions from post communism”. He claimed that this article would be an eye-opener to those aspiring to become aware of the challenges of democracy.

Bart Wood, the President of the International Federation of Liberal Youth which is part of the World Democracy Movement said that he would like a more bipartisan government in Singapore so that the critical reflection of how votes are being counted should play a very important role towards the democratization process of Singapore. “As it was necessary for people to dare to stand up for their rights in a peaceful and democratic manner. More importantly he said that people should understand that giving power to governments should be something that people should think very rationally and consciously about as they should not take it for granted. And should discuss for themselves what is best for society,” he said. He also believed that there should be more alternative political parties like the SDP or WP to choose from. So that it would create a more vibrant society in Singapore.

Ryota Jonen, a project manager with the World Movement for Democracy (WMD) and active in the youth caucus of the WMD said that his role was to mainly to coordinate the various youth programs among the developing countries. “One such program coordinated by WDA is called “Defending Civil Societies” that was started in 2007. The 3 initiatives are defending young activists, creating mentorship programs and using new media.” He hoped that the WDA can engage more groups and people inSingapore under the various initiatives where young activists in Singapore would be are welcome to engage the WDM in potential projects in Singapore. He said that having such invited forums of political exchanges in Singapore was necessary as it would enable greater participation of people in being involved in the political process in Singapore especially from the grassroots level.

Singapore is not an exception to the rule

Tian Chua a Malaysian opposition politician and Member of Parliament for the Batu constituency said that both Malaysia and Singapore came from the same DNA gene pool where they shared identical political structure and culture as well as similar framework of oppression by the respective regimes. He added that Mahathir and Lee Kuan Yew were ardent followers of the Asian values argument. So what then makes a good democracy under such a context? “ If you do not have a rotation of political parties that run the government then that is not democracy. Democracies in order to thrive must have competition. Without competition there is no true democracy,” he added. Tian Chua was also confident that democratic changes in Singapore would come a lot faster compared to Malaysia due to the drive by the youth as well as those that wanted change but were afraid that any changes would come at the expense of stability and economic prosperity. These people he said had to come to terms with their own fear and had to decide what was myth and reality. And ultimately they had to make a stand using the power of the ballot paper to elect their leaders.

According to Khin Maung Win, a self exiled correspondent and Deputy Director of the Democratic Voice of Burma based in Oslo Norway, said that Singapore is trying to be different from the other Asian countries who advocated Asian values which is different from the values of the West. “They want to have their own set of Asian values for ASEAN as they say they have a better understanding of what works in Asia compared to the West. Rightly or wrongly Asian leaders and the Americans have advocated to our Burmese government to be transparent and the need to elect our government and the need to have freedom to express what we think and freedom to hold assemblies. So we need to have such common universal values which are common to all people irrespective whether they are Asian or Western.

“I strongly disagree with the Asian centric values advocates and maintain that sooner or later there would be a call for freedom for all the repressed regimes in Asia and Singapore is not an exception to this rule. Sooner or later the floodgates of change and repressive regimes around the world have to realise that democracy is considered the birth right of every person,” he added.

Tony Santiago

Open letter from a Singaporean Political Refugee, Ho Juan Thai
June 6th, 2010 | Author: Contributions

Dear Fellow Singapore Citizens and Friends,

My name is Ho Juan Thai. I am a born and bred Singapore Citizen, I completed my full time National Service several decades ago. For certain reasons I have been living in London as a Refugee from Singapore for the last 32 years, but it is not my choice.

ica3If you believe that Singapore belongs to certain Minsters who have the divine right in deciding which Singaporean does and does not have the right to a Singaporean citizenship and which Singaporean can and cannot be entitled to a Singapore passport, I would advise you to stop reading this now as it would be more meaningful for you to continue indulging yourself in the elite clubs of some kind.

If you believe Singapore belongs to you, Singapore belongs to me and Singapore belongs to any other Singapore citizen and we all have the equal right to our citizenship and passports under the constitution, I hope you could spare some time to read on and see what you can do.

A week or so after the December 1976 Singapore general election a group of plain clothes armed Inter Security Department (ISD) police officers came to my house in Jurong to arrest me. I managed to struggle away from their cordon of the house and escaped. During the chase one of the ISD officers took out his pistol, pointed it at me and shouted in Chinese Hokkien dialect “don’t run, you run I will open fire”. After I disappeared in to the lemon grove at the back of my house, the chasing officer together with other officers, went round the neighbors with his pistol in his hand looking for me. I was advised to seek refuge somewhere else for my own safety.

With the help of the late Mr. J B Jeyaretnam (JBJ), the then Workers Party Secretary General and his late wife Margrate, as well as others I managed to get to London in July 1977, after 6 months of hiding out in Singapore and Malaysia. Upon my arrival in London I asked for Political Asylum. The British Government, in accordance with International Law, interviewed me and carried out various investigations to establish my claim. Having completed a thorough investigation the British Government duly granted me political asylum the following year. I was issued with a Blue Travel Document in accordance with the United Nations 1951 Convention for Refugees. Under the regulations of the United Nations and the British Government, whoever holds a Blue Travel Document issued under the UN 1951 Convention for Refugees is a Refugee. So I became an official Refugee from Singapore in November 1978.

Although I was out of the Singapore government’s sight as a refugee abroad that did not mean I was out of their minds. Their paranoia prompted them to embark on changing the Constitution of Singapore in 1985. The amended constitution empowers the government to deprive any citizen living abroad for more than 10 years without returning once, of their citizenship.

Soon after the Constitutional change I became one of only two Singapore citizens to be served with Citizenship Deprivation Notices. The government hoped to go through this process to eliminate any political challenge to them, including the innocuous and feeble one from me as a parliamentary candidate in the 1976 general election.

Together with Mr. JBJ we decided to launch an appeal against the Deprivation Notice as a first step in drawing the attention of the international community to how fundamental human rights were being violated in Singapore. In the course of our appeal Mr. JBJ was unreasonably stripped of his legal practice for some other reason. The appeal panel known as committee of Inquiry put the appeal on hold while a new legal representative was appointed. When Mr. JBJ won his appeal and reinstated his practice by the final court of appeal Mr. JBJ continued to represent me. For unknown reasons , after about 2 years of delays, the Home Affairs Department suddenly informed us that they had decided to withdraw their Deprivation Notice. As such I remain as a Singapore citizen and retain the title as a refugee from Singapore in London.

Since then from time to time I wrote to the authority inquiring if I could be issued with a Singapore passport. The answer has always been uniformly NO. The reason commonly given was that I was wanted by the Singapore police for questioning and therefore I could not be issued with a Singapore passport. What the police wish to question me about has never been clear to anyone. As Singapore forbids dual nationality the only way to keep myself as a loyal son of Singapore is to stay on as a refugee. I am always loyal to Singapore so I always end up remaining as a refugee.

When our Premier Lee tried to champion human rights and speed up the Human Rights Charter for Asean in 2007 the mainstream media in Singapore made continued and prominent reports about it. I thought that was a signal of a genuine change. I wrote to the High Commissioner to UK, Mr. Michael Teo, asking him if I could apply for a Singapore passport. To my total surprise my request was not turned down as before, instead I was sent an application form. I filled in the form and went to the High Commission for finger prints etc. Initially, the Singapore Immigration and Control Authority (ICA) was not happy with the documents I produced. After 2 years of working hard and with the help of my London local MP writing many letters we managed to satisfy the ICA with the documentary evidence it asked for.

When ICA was happy with my documentary evidence I thought that I could soon travel as an ordinary Singaporean with a Singapore passport and I began to think about getting married as an ordinary Singapore citizen. My excitement about the “new dawn” initiated by our premier Lee over the ASEAN Human Rights Charter in 2007 proved to be a false one. As ICA could not refuse my passport application on the grounds that I failed to satisfy them with the documents they asked for, they simply said they could only offer me the following “ you may be issued with a Document of Identity on application to the Singapore High Commission in London . “ .

I wrote to ICA asking why I could not be treated just as any Singaporean since I have committed no crime? Their one way ticket of Document of Identity offer amounts to discrimination. Under the constitution no one should be discriminated against. Any Singaporean worth his salt should not accept discrimination. As a proud Singapore citizen I will never accept any treatment that is discriminatory.

To avoid being seen as practicing discriminatory treatments, ICA now changed the tone in their reply. They now say that they suspected my original expired Singapore passport had been illegally tampered with at the time I left Singapore. Under such circumstances they may (not will ) issue me with a Document of Identity for me to return to Singapore for further investigation if I apply for it.

My further reply to ICA on their latest one way ticket offer made in 8th December 2009 was asking ICA to spell out under which provision of the Singapore constitution was it that a person like me could not be issued with a Singapore Passport. I also asked them to explain why they keep changing their goal posts? So far ICA has given no reply. The Singapore High Commission in London also confirmed that the correspondence I sent through them to ICA has not gone astray and they too have not had any reply. The Singapore High Commission promised to put a chase on it for me. It has now been more then 4 months without any reply from ICA .

The situation is now different. ICA, by giving me no reply and not issuing me with a Singapore passport , is doing more than simply keeping me outside Singapore as a refugee. I now have a son who was born in London in December 2009. Under the Singapore Constitution he has every right to be a Singapore citizen by descent. But according to the ICA rules they sent me, ICA will not process my son’s Singapore Citizenship application unless I can produce a Singapore Passport. Effectively the right of my son to be a Singapore citizenship is being unfairly denied. My London born Singapore boy, technically at this particular point in time, is stateless. Again the Singapore High Commission in London confirmed to me that they too have not received any reply for the further clarifications I sent to ICA about my son’s citizenship application about 3 months ago..

My wife has given me an ultimatum to sort out my son’s Singapore citizenship in the very near future otherwise it is her turn to sort it out with the Thai or British Authorities. My wife’s desperation is understandable as her wish to book air tickets to visit her homeland is being delayed without our son’s citizenship and a baby passport being sorted out. When looking at my London born Singapore boy and the desperation of my wife, never before have I ever felt such a pressure to seek a solution to my refugee status.

The available routes I could go down to have my son enlisted as a Singapore Citizen by descent and for me to gain a Singapore passport with the usual Singapore bureaucratic processes seem to be reaching an end. The only possible meaningful avenue left for me now is to appeal to you as fellow Singaporeans to see what you could come up with.

What I hope for:

1. To have a trial in an open court.

The fairest way to resolve my passport application is first of all to put me on trial on any alleged offense I may have committed in Singapore, except AWOL ( I will explain about my AWOL in more detail later). If I did commit any crime and under the law I do not deserve to have a Singapore passport, then I will be perfectly happy to close the chapter and go off with only myself to blame. If I did not commit any crime I do not see why a Singaporean can not be treated as any other Singaporean and enjoy equal rights in having a Singapore passport.

Some years ago some Singaporeans did kindly raise this request for me in the Strait Times but the issue went away quietly after a while. This time I hope more people could help to raise their voice for me using the new technologies. I do not believe the government can operate hypocritically for too long if more people come to know about it.

2. To Gather knowledge of Other Mistreatment

I do believe the mistreatment I have encountered is not an exception but rather the norm, though the mistreatment may not be in the same degree and always involve the ICA . If you or anyone you know of has encountered any mistreatment like mine, regarding passports or any other issues, I hope you could let me know. I hope the victims of mistreatment of various kinds can come together to make a stronger joint appeal. We can see change if we can come together . Please write to me at HOJUANTHAI@YAHOO.COM (I do not have a blog or face book etc).

3 Write to Mr. K Shanmugam, The Minister of Law and second Minister for Home Affairs.

Mr. Shanmugam who is directly responsible for ICA. He is able to get away with completely ignoring my repeated letters urging him to review the ICA practice. He did not even have the decency to acknowledge any of my letters. But if many of you could write to him he might be obliged to come out to explain why ICA needs to keep moving its goal posts regarding my passport application and and who made the last minute intervention to stop issuing me with a Singapore passport etc. What is this new political rising star up to is a matter of public interest.

4 Write to Mr. Goh Chok Tong, The Senior Minister

Mr. Goh once famously said Singapore needs people that are “Pak See Bei Chao” (someone whose loyalty will never cease regardless of being confronted with a life threatening situation). I must say I fully agree with him on this point as I do share the thought that what sort of country we are and will be depends on the make up of our people.

Mr. Goh may know what sort of people Singapore should have to make up our country. I wonder does Mr. Goh really have the final say on matters of this kind?

Do you personally know Mr. Goh well? We are mulling over if we should appeal further to him and others? Is there any point in making further appeals? If you do know how the very top works please let us know.

5 To Appeal to SAF

I come from a family which believes in having a strong and effective force in Singapore to defend our freedom and prosperity. My elder brother joined the Armed Forces in Singapore even before SAF was formed. Joining the Armed Forces at that time under the British Colonial Government meant helping to stop the Communists from taking over Malaya (Singapore and West Malaysia). My whole family gave my elder brother its full blessing and moral support.

When my third brother graduated he fell outside of the National Service enlistment age. He decided to support SAF through joining SAF as a professional soldier. He dedicated his whole career in SAF. Again our family took pride in what he has done. All my nephews whenever they were enlisted served the National Services with enthusiasm and pride. For me there was no exception. I served in both the Singapore National Service Police part-time when I was at the high school and subsequently full time full term in SAF before I joined Nanyang University. I served SAF with pride and full enthusiasm. Ironically, I now have a record of being AWOL in SAF.

My AWOL came about not because I ran away from SAF to avoid being sent to the front line. It came about soon after the government withdrew its Citizenship Deprivation Notice, about 13 years after I left Singapore. Suddenly Military Police were sent to my parents house asking my mum where I was and an official record was made that I had disappeared from the SAF reservist recall? Did SAF really need me 13 years after I had left Singapore? Why did the SAF military police need to visit my parent house after they withdrew their Citizenship Deprivation Notice?

Under Singapore law any citizen who is fined for $2000 or more, or imprisoned for more than 12 months, will automatically be forbidden from standing for parliamentary election for 5 years. Should I now go back to Singapore, and the government could not find anything substantial to fine me for or to imprison me for long enough, to disqualify me from standing for election they can always rely on the SAF AWOL record to achieve their aim. I believe this was why I got an AWOL record, but I hope I am wrong to think so.

I strongly believe Singapore should do two things to achieve peace and stability. One is to set Singapore up as a centre of peace, a centre for talking peace and a centre for promoting peace and humanity. Perhaps we need to do a bit more than the Swiss by just having the UN civilian physically set up, providing various conveniences for peace negotiations and having various peace making NGO.

We need to open up our military bases and facilities to UN-led intervention forces, either for peace keeping purposes or humanitarian support. UN needs an efficient neutral strategic location for speedily responding to various emergencies in Asia and the middle east region. If this idea can be pulled through and accepted in UN we will have multi-national force on our soil. Indirectly this force will give us protection.

To help others to achieve peace and to improve our own security is definitely a worthwhile strategy to explore. However we cannot be under the illusion that becoming a peace promoter and having a permanent UN–led international police force if it could be successfully implemented in Singapore, would give us a guarantee of total security and stability, because the complications of
International politics is beyond immigration. The only thing that can ultimately give us a guarantee is our own invincible defence force – SAF.

To have a strong and effective force SAF must maintain neutrality politically. SAF must never be made use of by any political party for their own selfish ends. Political parties may come and go, like it or not, it is just a matter of time. SAF must be permanently strong and well supported from Singaporeans within and without the country. Not all the ROD guys who left Singapore without an Exit Permit left without good reasons.

Requiring the father of an offspring to have a valid Exit Permit in order to apply to be Singapore citizen by descent is a shot in its own foot. It will cut its potential recruits and supports and is unfair. SAF needs to review this policy as it has isolated some who are quite willing to see their sons serve national service when their sons grow up. I hope my son will grow up to help promote peace and humanity of some kind but I also want him to continue our family tradition in supporting Singapore in having strong and effective forces now and at any time in the future. Should an unwelcome situation be forced upon us from forces from abroad I will be very proud to see my son be one of those who can be counted on as a comrade in arms” in SAF.

I do hereby appeal to SAF to review its Exit Permit policy and stay neutral politically.

Conclusions

Thank you for reading my appeal up to this point. I am not sure what you make of the whole affair? As far as I am concerned the issue superficially looks like it is me and my entitlement to a Singapore passport, as well as my son’s constitutional right to be a Singapore citizen by descent, which has been unjustly prevented by someone at the top.

However, if you look at the series of events over the last 33 years you will realise that it is more about they and their desperate attempts to deny a past parliamentary candidate from ever again participating in open parliamentary politics in a cowardice way.

I am nobody and am just like anyone of you who cares and loves our Singapore. Do I deserve such treatment?

Being someone who has come from a stone broke family growing up in a Tao Payoh Kampung where there was no public transport, no electricity or gas supply at one time. Our family have been taking the changes in Singapore positively. Like many Singaporeans, I do appreciate the economic advances and the living improvements achieved under the older generation leadership. We are grateful for it. I am prepared to let my mistreatment “justified” under the so called “necessary evil”, as something of the past and let bygones be bygones in order to move on for the good of moving forward.

However, what concerns us all at this moment is that the older generation is leaving us, most of them have already gone. But the younger generation of leadership, especially the rising stars, ignoring the world out there has completely changed, are still trying to practice the old craft to justify them to continue their outdated way of ruling which is increasingly losing support and respect. Their complete lack of fresh ideas and courage to engage the aspirations of the younger generation is worrying.

The young do rightly and correctly believe that national building and advancement is more than just a matter of economic growth alone. Their wish to have a culture of more openness, trust and accountable for the good of humanity, social justice, freedom and fairness, expressed in everyday alternative media has never been respected. Based on the inspiration led by our younger generation I hereby make my appeal for help and for change. I do share the popular saying that together we can.

Ho Juan Thai
HOJUANTHAI@YAHOO.COM
19 Claremont Road
London NW2 1BP
United Kingdom
3rd June 2010

Editor’s Note: The email was sent to our editor complete with his personal information, published verbatim.

Mr. Ho Juan Thai was a Worker’s Party candidate contesting Bukit Panjang in the 1976 GE. He subsequently lost and was accused of making seditious remarks during his election speeches. He is now in England and wanted by the SAF for AWOL and ISD for sedition.

The root cause of Singapore’s economic woes: A political system meant to perpetuate the hegemony of the PAP forever

March 4, 2010 by admin
Filed under Opinion

Leave a comment

OPINION

There was much discussion and debate lately on the economic problems faced by Singapore now and in the future. The measures outlined in the Budget announced lately by Finance Minister Tharman only deal with the “symptoms” of the problem and not the root cause.

Though Singapore is now technically a first world developed economy, it has yet to make the transition from a manufacturing-based to a knowledge-based technologically advanced economy.

Due to our heavy dependence on MNCs, we need to keep labor costs down to prevent them from relocating elsewhere. However, time is fast running out for Singapore as China, India and Vietnam catch up with us. We can never compete with them in terms of cheap labor which they have in abundance.

Yet, Singapore’s lackluster SME sector is still unable to wean off its perennial addiction to foreign workers and measures taken to boost productivity will not succeed unless wholesale changes are made to revamp the entire political economy.

1. Obsolete political system meant to perpetuate PAP’s political hegemony forever:

The root cause of Singapore’s economic woes lies in its political system which is engineered to keep the PAP in power forever, as admitted unwittingly by Law Minister Shanmugam himself when he spoke of the need to have a “strong and effective” party in place to lead Singapore last year and corroborated by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong earlier who revealed unashamedly that a one-party system is the only ideal political system in Singapore due to the lack of talents. And of course, let us not forget his infamous speech in 2006 when he threatened to “fix” the opposition if more of them were to get elected into parliament. PM Lee clearly does not understand or appreciate the importance of checks and balances in the system. To put it succinctly, when the government is “strong”, the citizenry will be “weak” and vice versa. A “strong” government may be crucial in the formative years of Singapore’s development but is now becoming a major obstacle as its economy becomes developed when the private sector should spear-head the economic growth like in the other Asian Tigers and not the state which is ill-equipped to do so. In Singapore, the nanny state plays all the four roles simultaneously – managerial, regulatory, financing and sponsorship, leaving a feeble, unimaginative and weak citizenry which lacks the qualities to survive, let alone thrive in a new knowledge-based economy.

2. Control of the economy via sovereign wealth funds and government-linked companies:

To ensure that the PAP is kept in power forever, control of Singapore’s economy is absolutely essential without which the emergence of an independent commercial class will press for changes in the political landscape. Singapore’s two sovereign wealth funds GIC and Temasek Holdings are controlled indirectly by the PAP, the former is chaired by its octogenarian leader Lee Kuan Yew and the latter by his daughter-in-law Ho Ching. Temasek Holding in turn, own stakes in major Singapore companies such as DBS, Capitaland and SIA. The access to public funds give these companies an unfair advantage over its domestic competitors. These gigantic state-linked companies also employ large number of Singaporeans together with the civil service thereby helping to keep the citizenry subversient as they tend to vote for the ruling party out of fear of losing their jobs or missing out on promotion if they fail to do so. It is hardly surprisingly that quite a number of civil servants and staff of pseudo-PAP organizations like NTUC and Town Councils are card-carrying members of the PAP and grassroots leaders as well.

3. Weak SME sector:

Due to the presence of heavy-weights supported by the state which controls more than half of Singapore’s domestic economy, Singapore’s SME sector is very weak compared to Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea. SMEs in Singapore doomed to remain “small” and have few chances of emerging from the shadows of these GLCs. Even Singapore’s only internationally recognized brand name Creative Technologies is founded in the United States and not in Singapore. Taiwan has Acer, BenQ, TSM, South Korea has Samsung, LG and Hyundai. What about Singapore? According to prominent U.S. political economist Professor Huang Yasheng, “Singapore and Malaysia had weaker domestic firms in part due to a deliberate governmental bias against private local firms, mainly in the 1960s and 1970s, so foreign firms held a more substantial relative advantage. But in Taiwan, the government provided a sponsorship and financing role, not a managerial role as in Singapore and Malaysia. Capital in Taiwan and Hong Kong went to the most efficient firms, including small, start-up entrepreneurial firms, and was not based on the political or ethnic status of such firms.” (Source: Harvard Business School)

4. Lack of entrepreneurial spirit and flair among Singaporeans:

The insular political system and rigid education system in Singapore do not foster independent-thinking, creativity and entrepreneurship among Singaporeans as these attributes require an environment which allow for critical thinking and questioning of authorities to develop and thrive. Many Singapore students are only contented to secure a stable job upon graduation. Few will dare to start new ventures on their own. The situation is further exacerbated by the government offering scholarships to bright college students which deprive the private sector of the talents it so desperately needs. Though Singapore has one of the most educated workforce in the world, Singaporeans are ill-suited for a knowledge-based economy which require a completely different mindset altogether. To quote from Professor Huang Yasheng again: “Extremely attractive compensation packages in the public sector also mean that the most talented people in Singapore want to work for the government. The private sector is far less lucrative and attracts lesser talents. In the long run, this will be detrimental to the development of a vibrant private sector in Singapore.” (Source: Harvard Business School)

5. Chronic dependence on foreign direct investments:

Being an export-based economy of which manufacturing still forms a major component, Singapore is heavily dependent on MNCs for investments and of course the bottomline of these companies is profits which necessitates large number of foreign workers to keep labor costs low.

The above five factors explain the anomalies and asymmetries prevalent in Singapore’s economic system and performance:

1. Impressive GDP growth averaging 5 percent per annum:

Singapore has averaged between 3 – 8 percent growth during the past decade saved for the recession year of 2008, an impressive figure for a developed economy. This is made possible by the PAP’s liberal immigration policies which allow Singapore companies to hire cheap foreign workers easily, thereby keeping labor costs down while boosting the output and hence GDP at the same time. Unfortunately, the growth is not fueled by gains in productivity nor innovation and research and is likely to slow down in the near future as companies relocate to cheaper destinations elsewhere.

2. Low productivity rates:

A detailed report released by the U.S. department of labor last year revealed that Singapore saw the steepest decline among 17 developed countries in productivity at a massive 6.6 percent in 2008. Productivity rates had been decreasing for the last three years and it averaged only 0.7 percent for the past decade. This unusual phenomenon can be attributed chiefly to the easy availability of foreign labor which discourages companies to invest in innovation to boost productivity. (read article here)

3. Stagnant wages:

Due to the relentless influx of foreign workers, the median wages of ordinary Singaporeans have remained stagnant at $2,600 for the last decade. The median household income actually saw a decrease by 3 percent to about $4,700 last year. This is hardly surprising as the PAP’s ultra-liberal labor policies do not contain any safeguards to protect the interests of Singapore workers unlike in Australia, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Foreigners are allowed to compete with Singaporeans directly who are naturally disadvantaged by their comparative higher labor costs and National Service obligations for the males.

4. Low domestic purchasing power:

As a result of stagnant wages and high inflation rate caused partly by the inflow of foreigners, Singaporeans have the lowest domestic purchasing power among the Asian Tigers though they live in the second richest country in Asia by GDP per capita. According to a landmark UBS study last year, Singaporeans have a low purchasing power of only 39.9, comparable to Kuala Lumpur (39.5), Warsaw (34.0) and Bogota (33.7). Other countries in the Asia-Pacific region which are ahead of us are Tokyo (82.2), Auckland (68.9), Taipei (58.9), Hong Kong (58.1) and Seoul (57.4). (read article here)

5. Highest income gap among developed countries:

The lop-sided economic policies of the PAP only benefit the rich and well-connected businessmen and not ordinary Singaporeans. Employers are the ultimate beneficiaries of the easy availability of cheap foreign workers which keep business costs down and increase their profit margins. On the other hand, the wages of Singaporeans are depressed artificially by the presence of foreign workers. As a result, the rich becomes richer while the poor becomes poorer leading to a very unequal society. Singapore’s income gap has widened considerably in the last decade and is the highest among the thirty most developed economies in the world after Hong Kong.

6. Low standards of living:

Though Singapore is technically a first world developed country, the majority of Singaporeans do not enjoy a quality of life commensurate with citizens of an economically advanced nation due to low wages and domestic purchasing power, stressful lifestyle, high cost of living, especially that of public housing which erodes savings leaving little for retirement, the lack of a comprehensive social safety net and basic political freedoms. Singapore is ranked a pathetic 70th position by Irish lifestyle magazine International Living and 53th position by the Economist Unit in terms of quality of life in the world, below Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and even some developing countries like Slovenia, Croatia and of all places, Romania.

Moving ahead or behind?

Singapore is now at a crossroads. We cannot afford to continue growing on the back of cheap foreign labor for long as it is inevitable that other countries like China, India and Vietnam will soon catch up with us leading to an exodus of MNCs.

We need a complete revamp and restructuring of the economy to make the transformation instead of half-hearted cosmetic changes which will not address the underlying cause of the malaise.

The PAP knows exactly where the problem lies, but it is unable or unwilling to relinquish control of Singapore’s economy because doing so will be tantamount to dismantling its own power support base.

In a recent speech made at the Civil Service College, prominent MIT political economist Professor Huang Yasheng urged Singapore to “rethink” its state management model which has “milked this system for all it is worth.”

“The private sector is the best way to grow the economy. It has the most productive, most innovative and entrepreneurial culture. The state-owned enterprise system doesn’t give you that….You are already hitting the wall. Retaining this strategy could mean sacrificing future growth that is possible only through a bigger, more dynamic private sector,” he said.

He also opined that Singapore should expand its private sector in order to compete with China and India:

“Maybe a better way is for the government to fund more basic research and then allow universities, private equity firms, venture capital firms and rich individuals to take care of the rest. That is because even when the state sector is well managed, it is not as innovative as the private sector, he says. From a technological development point of view, you need a bigger private sector to compete, to come up with new products, processes and technologies, to better compete with India and China.”

Without liberalizing both the economy and political landscape to allow for freedom of speech, independent and critical thinking and innovation to thrive, Singapore can never hope to compete with the likes of Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan.

Singapore risks becoming an economic basket-case if it does not overhaul its economic system in the next 20 years or so – the income gap will continue to widen, the exodus of young Singaporeans to greener pastures elsewhere will increase and they will be replaced by new immigrants from China, India and other countries, the birth rates will plummet as citizens reconsider their futures, the erosion of national identity will worsen and eventually we will lose our sovereignty and becoming either a dependency of China or reunite with Malaysia again.

The only solution in sight is to privatize Temasek Holdings and GIC and channel its returns to a pension fund for Singaporeans, dismantle the GLC system and remove the “deadwoods”, allow for freedom of speech and assembly, liberalize the media completely to allow new players to emerge, reform the electoral system and abolish the GRC system to permit genuine political competition and multi-party politics and lastly to institutionalize a system of checks and balances and clear separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of the government.

The transition period may be painful, but without changing with times, Singapore is doomed to fade into oblivion sooner rather than later. The PAP is not only part of the problem, but the root cause of the economic woes and uncertainties we are facing right now. Without reforming the political system, we can never make the necessary changes to our economy which will soon consign us to the rubbish bins of history.

Copyright © The Temasek Review.

U.S Labor Dept: Singapore has steepest productivity decline and lowest increase in hourly wages in 2007 – 2008

March 3, 2010 by admin
Filed under Opinion

Leave a comment

OPINION

According to a shocking press release from the U.S. Department of Labor last year, Singapore experienced the steepest decline in productivity among 17 developed economies in the world in the years 2007 – 2008.

Not only that, it had the lowest increase in the hourly compensation per unit labor cost and one of the highest increase in manufacturing unit costs as well.

The detailed article was not reported by the Singapore media. Neither was it mentioned by Finance Minister Tharman last week which would have greatly embarrassed the PAP government.

Steepest productivity decline

Among the 17 countries, the Republic of Korea and the United States had the largest increases (1.2 per cent each) while Singapore had the steepest decline (-6.6 per cent):

Second highest increase in manufacturing costs

Singapore has the second highest increase in manufacturing unit costs when the figures are expressed in national currency units at 7.5per cent after Denmark’s 8.3 percent:

Lowest increase in hourly wages

Hourly compensation in manufacturing increased in 2008 in all 17 economies. The largest increase was in Norway (+ 5.6 percent), followed by Spain (+4.8 percent).

Singapore has the lowest increase at only 0.5 percent:

Second highest increase in the number of manufacturing hours

In 2008 total manufacturing hours worked fell in 9 economies with the greatest decline in the United States at -3.9 per cent. Denmark has the largest increase at +2.7 per cent followed by Singapore at +2.6 per cent as shown by the chart above.

Analysis

Singapore’s dismal performance in labor productivity is a direct result of the PAP’s short-sighted liberal immigration and pro-foreigner policies which help companies take the easy way out keeping labor costs down artificially by employing cheap foreign workers instead of investing in innovation and research to boost productivity.

As noted in the graph below, Singapore’s labor productivity took a plunge from 2004 onwards when the inflow of foreigners started to pick up:

[Source: Kojakbt, 3in1kopitiam forum moderator]

This coincided with the beginning of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s tenure when he announced his ambitious plan to increase Singapore’s population to 6.5 million people by 2030 via immigration.

Foreigners now make up more than a third of Singapore’s workforce. The proportion is probably higher in the manufacturing which accounts for the low increase in hourly wages and second highest increasing in the number of manfacturing hours.

As foreign workers, especially those who are unskilled, are usually poorly trained, they contribute partially to the increase in manufacturing costs.

Instead of coming up with a comprehensive policy to reduce Singapore’s reliance on foreign workers, boost productivity rates and to safeguard the interests of Singapore workers, the PAP chose the easy way out by opening the floodgates to foreigners which temporarily help to keep labor costs low and keep the GDP growth figures artificially high.

(An unknown percentage of the PAP ministers’ multi-million salaries is pegged to GDP growth – the higher the figure, the more money they bring home.)

The few measures put in place such as the foreign worker levy and dependency ratio hardly deter companies from hiring foreign workers.

It doesn’t help that Singapore has an extremely lax criteria for PR application. The Home Affairs Ministry revealed last year that two out of every three PR applicants are successful, an astonishing high rate for a developed nation.

The Professionals/Technical Personnel & Skilled Worker scheme (or simply PTS scheme) is the easiest and most assured route to Singapore PR. It’s estimated that more than 90% of the people obtain their Singapore Permanent Residence through this scheme.

The key requirement under this scheme is that a foreign worker must be working in Singapore for at least six months on either an Employment Pass, Entrepreneur Pass, or S Pass.

Since the dependency ratio lumps both citizens and PRs as “resident” workforce, a company can circumvent the rules by simply getting earlier arrivals of foreign workers to apply for PRs and transferring them into the “resident” pool, thereby freeing up slots to employ more foreigners.

Theoretically, it is therefore possible for a company based in Singapore to employ 100 per cent foreigners with no Singapore citizens on its payroll.

The foreign worker levies for various types of visas are also ridiculously low, amounting to no more than a couple of ten of dollars. Even with the recent hike in foreign worker levy, it is still more “profitable” for companies to employ foreigners as they do not have to pay them CPF. Besides, the slightly increased labor costs can be easily transferred to the workers and consumers.

The PAP government has to accept full responsibility for Singapore’s low productivity rate. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong now wants to increase Singapore’s productivity to 3 per cent per annum. How is this possible when our productivity rate has been decreaasing for the last three years with the largest dip of 6.6 per cent in 2008?

DPM Teo Chee Hean still got the cheek to give himself a pat on his back by praising the “progress” made by previous productivity drives:

“We have made good progress in the past in our productivity drive and that is why we have been able to move our economy forward and have good jobs for many Singaporeans. But this is a constant effort and we have to renew and re-double our efforts,” he was quoted as saying in Channel News Asia on 28 February 2010.

What “progress” is DPM Teo referring to when Singapore’s productivity has grown by only 0.7 per cent in the last decade? What “good jobs” did the PAP create for Singaporeans when they have to compete with directly with foreigners who cost much less than them? Does he know what he is talking about? Can Singaporeans trust him to chair the National Productivity and Continuing Education Council to spear-head Singapore’s productivity drive as outlined in the Budget?

The crux of the problem lies in Singapore’s export-based economy and its perennial addiction to foreign labor, compounded by the fact that it still has not managed to make a successful transition from a manufacturing to knowledge-based economy.

Unless Singapore’s structural and political economy is completely revamped, there is no way Singapore can ever hope to boost its productivity, let alone increase the wages and decrease the working hours of its long-suffering workers which will lead to other social problems such as low birth rates, exodus of local talents to greener pastures overseas and an eventual erosion and loss of national identity.

The PAP should realize that it is the biggest stumbling block to reforming Singapore’s obsolete, uncompetitive and monopolistic state-capitalist economic system. We are doomed to mediocrity so long it refuses to relinquish its tight-fisted control over Singapore’s economy and allows the private sector to grow and flourish independently.

Bloomberg: GIC likely to take more than a decade to recoup its disastrous $10 billion dollar investment in UBS

March 3, 2010 by admin
Filed under Headlines

Leave a comment

Written by Our Correspondent

According to a stunning report by Bloomberg yesterday, Singapore’s sovereign wealth fund Government of Singapore Investment Corporation or GIC, is likely to take more than ten years to recoup its massive S$10 billion dollars investment in Swiss bank GIC.

It was also revealed that GIC took only 3 days to make the decision to invest in UBS:

“Marcel Ospel, then chairman of Zurich-based UBS, called GIC Chief Investment Officer Ng Kok Song, according to comments they made at the time. Talks began on Dec. 6, 2007, and by the evening of Dec. 9, GIC had committed to make its biggest single purchase at the time,” Bloomberg reported.

[Source: Bloomberg, 1 March 2010]

For a multi-billion dollar investment, one should expect GIC to ponder over the implications carefully instead of making a hasty decision to invest which appeared so in this case. It is not known if Ng Kok Song was the one who made the decision or his superior PAP strongman Lee Kuan Yew, a lawyer by training with no prior experience in the finance indusry.

Better still, neither Ng Kok Song or any of his colleagues in GIC have to account for their actions after the disastrous loss. He said in GIC’s annual report last year that he still has “confidence” in the “long-term prospects” of the UBS investment though he acknowledged that “recouping the money might take longer than initially expected.”

An experience fund manager at Siwsscanto Asset Management in Zurich told Bloomberg:

“The game turned out not as easy as it may have seemed. It will take probably more like a decade than three years” for UBS shares to return to 2007 levels.”

GIC will receive 230.7 million UBS shares for its mandatory convertible notes on 5 March 2010 for 47.68 francs each. UBS shares closed yesterday at 14.98 francs which means that it is staring at a potential paper loss of more than S$10 billion dollars, or about 10 percent of Singapore’s national reserves, estimated at $100 billion dollars.

As expected, the article by Bloomberg was censored by the Singapore media to prevent further embarrassment to the ruling party and its minions.

As early as the beginning of 2007, prominent U.S. fund manager Jim Rogers had been sounding the alarm bells and appearing on TV interviews to warn investors to stay clear of the finance market.

“There was clearly outright fraud, as they were reporting earnings for years when they really had no idea whether they were making money — they were just making stuff up……Technically, it’s bankrupt, with gigantic off-balance-sheet derivatives positions whose value it cannot possibly know,” he said.

[Source: MSN Money]

After GIC made its disastrous investments in UBS and Citigroup, Jim Rogers predicted that it will lose a lot of money:

“They’re making a big mistake; these banks have many more problems still ahead. They should wait until these companies are really on the ropes a few years from now . . . and trading at $5 a share.”

He minced no words in questioning the intelligence of GIC fund managers:

“I know these people, and they have never given me the impression that they’re smarter than anyone else. They have gigantic amounts of money, but they’ve made a bad judgment in these cases.”

Perhaps Jim Rogers was not aware of the fact that the people he was referring were investing using taxpayers’ monies and not theirs. And the beauty of it all is that none of them will ever be called on to pay for their mistakes – they are still sitting on the GIC board.

The unique Singapore “system” is based solely on “trust”. It doesn’t really matter if one is smart or competent so long he/she stands on the right side of the political divide.

* Share/Bookmark

Perhaps Jim Rogers was not aware of the fact that the people he was referring were investing using taxpayers’ monies and not theirs. And the beauty of it all is that none of them will ever be called on to pay for their mistakes – they are still sitting on the GIC board.

The unique Singapore “system” is based solely on “trust”. It doesn’t really matter if one is smart or competent so long he/she stands on the right side of the political divide.

Uniquely Singapore: PAP ministers raising their own pay by a hefty 8.8% ahead of the next election

February 25, 2010 by admin
Filed under Opinion

Leave a comment

OPINION

With public anger boiling over its disastrous policies which have affected the livelihoods of many Singaporeans, one will expect the ruling party to reduce or at least freeze the salaries of its ministers to soothe frayed nerves, especially with the next election around the corner.

It is therefore most incomprehensible, outrageous and disgusting that it will be giving its ministers, senior ministers of states and parliamentary secretaries a massive 8.8 per cent pay hike when the majority of Singaporeans are either retrenched, unemployed or having their pay cut.

According to a TODAY report on 23 February 2010:

“Salaries for political appointments – ministers, ministers of state and parliamentary secretaries – are estimated to be $58.28 million, or 8.8 per cent higher than last year.”

[Source: TODAY]

Since a certain percentage of the Singapore ministers’ multi-million salaries is pegged to GDP growth figures, the salary hike is not surprisingly with the Singapore economy expected to grow by 4.5 to 6.5 per cent this year.

While it may be technically and procedurally correct to do so, most Singaporeans will find it hard to stomach another round of pay rise for their multi-millionaire ministers again given their dismal performance over the last few years.

What have they done exactly to justify their obscene salaries?

As Nobel Prize laureate Joseph Stilgiltz has correctly pointed out, GDP growth is a very poor indication of the quality of life enjoyed by citizens in any country.

Singapore’s astronomical GDP growth in the last decade is fueled largely by the influx of cheap foreign labor and few safeguards for local workers which help keep labor costs down and therefore increasing the GDP as a result.

It does not take a genius to realize that GDP figures can be manipulated artificially and neither do Singaporeans need to pay millions of dollars to their ministers to do so.

Though Singapore’s GDP growth has been impressive, the fruits from the growth are not shared equally among all Singaporeans.

The income gap between the rich and poor has widen considerably saved for the last two years due to the global financial crisis which decimated the earnings of the very rich.

The median wages of Singaporeans remain stagnant at $2,600 monthly while the cost of living, especially that of public housing has sky-rocketed.

At the same time, the quality of life has declined – Singapore is the only first world country to be ranked outside the 50 most desirable places to live in the world in a survey conducted by International Living.

According to a UBS report last year, Singaporeans have the lowest wages and domestic purchasing power among the Asian Tigers – Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea though Singapore workers clocked the longest hours at work weekly.

We have a standard of living which is closer to Russia than Switzerland and many Singaporeans cannot afford to retire as their salaries are low to begin with and the bulk of it is tied up in mortgage loans for over-priced public housing.

From the escape of famed terrorist Mas Selamat Kasteri, the $8 million dollar investment loss suffered by the PAP Town Councils, over-crowding caused by too many foreigners, astronomical HDB flat prices to the lack of social welfare benefits for Singaporeans when the government can afford to lose billions of dollars saving foreign banks, all of these have the marks of incompetence, impotence and ineptitude stamped on them.

Do the PAP ministers seriously think they deserve a pay higher than that of U.S. President Barack Obama?

After mismanaging Singapore and screwing up our lives big time, the PAP has demonstrated to us once again with its unimaginative Budget this year that it is fast running out of ideas to govern Singapore.

Without reforming Singapore’s obsolete political economy dominated by its state-linked companies, there is no way for R&D, innovation and entrepreneurship to thrive in Singapore and for us jump-start our economy ahead the likes of China and India.

As Singaporeans are ultimately paying their salaries, the ruling party has the moral responsibility to justify to us why its ministers and senior civil servants deserve a 8.8 per cent pay rise when most people are simply struggling to get by.

It should come up with a KPI for each ministry and reveal to the public how the performance of each individual minister are being assessed.

Ministers who fail to perform up to standards and public expectations should be removed including the Prime Minister himself.

In addition, it is time to re-formulate the method used to derive the salaries of the ministers.

Instead of pegging it to the top six earners in society and to GDP growth figures, it should be brought down to more reasonable levels comparable to other first world countries like United States, Australia, Canada and Great Britain.

It makes no sense that the Singapore Prime Minister or a Senior Minister for that matter is being paid more than the combined salaries of the leaders of the G7 nations or a Minister of State earning much more than the President of China, the leader of a nation of more than one billion people.

If the PAP ministers have to be paid such high salaries to prevent them from being “corrupted”, then there is no difference in them being “corrupted” legally.

Where is the sense of public service in our PAP ministers?

Even if all their salaries were halved, they would still be more than enough to enable them to afford a decent standard of living in Singapore.

The fact that they dare raise their salaries ahead of the next election shows how confident they are of romping home with another electoral victory again.

Singaporeans should register their displeasure clearly when the time comes to”encourage” the PAP ministers to “revise” their salaries downwards by making them lose a few seats in Parliament.

There are plenty of talented Singaporeans who will be keen to serve the nation at a fraction of their cost if not for the PAP’s control and dominance of the political landscape here.

Why Singapore’s future in the next ten years is a bleak one

February 26, 2010 by admin
Filed under Opinion

Leave a comment

OPINION

In a speech made to Tanjong Pagar residents recently, Singapore’s strongman Lee Kuan Yew said Singapore’s future over the next five to 10 years is an “optimistic” one.

Lee did not elaborate on the reasons behind him thinking so, but he appeared to bank his hopes on the tourism industry spear-headed by the two IRs drawing in the necessary number of visitors to give Singapore’s domestic economy a boost.

Though the state media has been busy of late trying to generate positive publicity for the IRs, external observers are not too optimistic about their success.

An analyst from Citicorp Anil Daswani expressed doubts about the profitability of Singapore’s two integrated resorts in September last year.

In a report on the prospects of Las Vegas Sands (LVS), which owns Marina Bay Sands (MBS) here, Citi said that assuming MBS contributes 20 per cent of LVS’s total Ebitdar in its first full year, every eligible Singaporean will have to go to the casino five times a year and spend more then the average visitor to Macau.

However, a hefty entry fee of $100 is likely to put off some Singaporeans. Furthermore, unlike Las Vegas or Melbourne, Singapore has a small population of only 5 million people.

Ronnie Chan, chairman of Hang Lung Properties Ltd., Hong Kong’s fifth-biggest developer by market value, said recently in a Bloomberg Forum in Hong Kong that the two casino-resorts in Singapore will fail because they won’t be able to attract high-rollers:

“The big rollers are what make money in casinos, they will never come to Singapore, it’s a family entertainment” location. You think big-rollers will go to Singapore where they have teeth and fangs coming out sideways? There are too many rules. I was in Sentosa island, I really think that it’s going to be a flop…..The whole integrated entertainment industry, I’m worried for them. The good thing about Singapore is that if you flop, you’re given a second chance,” he said.

Singapore cannot depend on the IRs to spur economic growth. Neither can attracting MNCs to set up manufacturing plants in Singapore do so as our workers are becoming more expensive compared to our neighbors.

The key to a nation’s success lies largely in growing the personal wealth of the middle class which forms the bulk of the population and to ensure that the lower income group do not fall further behind.

The seeds of Singapore’s decline and eventual failure have already been planted a few years back by the ruling party which is running fast out of viable ideas to lead Singapore into the next phase of development.

Singapore’s economic growth in the last few years has been fueled by the easy availability of cheap foreign workers which boost GDP figures by keeping labor costs down.

However, Singapore cannot depend on cheap labor forever to gain an edge over its competitors and we may already have crossed the limits.

According to a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, the relentless influx of foreigners has depressed the wages of ordinary Singaporeans, increased the cost of living, especially that of public housing, decreased labor productivity and led to an overall decline in the standards of living.

While the rich has become richer, the middle class and the poor has become poorer as a result.

The negligible increase in the wages has been offset by sky-rocketing property prices which plunge Singaporeans into ever greater debts and wiping off their retirement savings.

The lack of a comprehensive social safety net for the vulnerable and needy in the community has perpetuated a vicious never-ending cycle of poverty.

Only the rich elites and foreigners have benefitted from Singapore’s economic boom, but a nation cannot survive solely on these small group of people.

The ruling party’s recent U-turn in its economic policies to place more emphasis on productivity is nothing more than a rehash of the productivity drive launched in the 1970s and 1980s.

In order to increase the income of the average Singaporean, we have to start producing high-valued goods which our competitors like China, Malaysia and Vietnam can’t.

We have to evolve into a knowledge-based economy like Japan, South Korea, Finland and Sweden instead of relying on manufacturing, tourism and other industries to continue to thrive and prosper.

Due to the high cost of living in Singapore, Singaporeans cannot expect to compete with workers elsewhere in terms of cost.

Stagnant wages and inflation will lead increase the level of stress and tension thereby contributing indirectly to Singapore’s low birth rate.

The private sector is the best medium to grow the economy. Singapore’s domestic economy is currently dominated by major state-linked companies which stifle both creativity and competition.

The ruling party has to relinquish control of Singapore’s economy and return the ownership of the nation to the people.

Only then can we harness the full potential of every Singaporean and build a knowledge-based economy to compete with the rest of the world.

Unless the political economy is liberalized to allow new players to enter the fray, Singapore will risk becoming an economic basket-case within a decade with the emergence of China and India.

The factors critical for Singapore’s success in the last fifty years have now become its liability.

While complete political control ensures stability and continuity, it does not foster an active citizenry to partake in the nation-building process.

A “tops-down” approach serves only the interests of the ruling elite and not the society as a whole.

We are already witnessing the pitfalls of the present system: the middle class is falling behind, Singaporeans are getting increasingly flustered, unhappy and worried about their futures, birth rates are falling and the sense of pride in Singapore as a nation is diminishing with each passing day.

If we persist in doing things as they are now, we may end up becoming a playground only for the rich and powerful, but with no nation to speak of.