The delicate (and mammoth) task of managing expectations

Source: Todayonline  May 23, 2011

On Saturday, a new phase in Singapore's political development officially opened with the swearing-in of the Cabinet after a watershed election just a fortnight earlier on May 7. Deep symbolism was at work with the accent being on a new style of government - one that is more humane, humble and with the people.

Three things struck me from Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's speech. First, with more diverse voices in a more competitive political landscape, Singapore politics "should not become confrontational or worse, divide our people and society", he had said.

We will surely see more contestation in the days ahead - not just of ideas but also of competing visions on the type of society Singapore ought to be. We can expect exuberant, passionate debate.

There will invariably be confrontation - it's in the nature of politics. Our long consensual style of politics will now have to accommodate an adversarial competition mode, within and without Parliament. The determined quest to win hearts and minds will mean disagreement and tension.

Here, Singaporeans play the role of circuit breaker in determining when confrontation becomes divisive and works against good governance.

Second, to underline his commitment to take a "totally fresh look" at the issues facing Singapore, PM Lee emphasised that "nothing should be sacrosanct" including political salaries. Ministerial salaries have been a divisive issue and a deep source of disaffection ever since the pay formula was first introduced in 1994. It has undermined the Government's legitimacy particularly when there had been policy lapses.

The expectation unleashed by the announcement of the review is of a downward adjustment of salaries.

How will we reconcile that with the compelling need to attract top talent in the absence of a strong culture of public service in our society? Will the review committee, headed by highly respected Mr Gerard Ee, adopt a process of dialogue, consultation and engagement? Will Singaporeans accept the panel's recommendations even if they are not in full agreement with them?

Third, PM Lee pledged to "work together with all Singaporeans to create a just and fair society, which gives all citizens the best start in life, and leaves no one behind". Singapore will be "a society that nurtures and inspires the human spirit, beyond material success".

This is an important signal that the imperative of economic success will be leavened with non-material aspirations such as a more equitable society, a stronger social support system, and a society more tolerant of failure.

Post-material ideals and aspirations have taken on greater importance. Even as Singapore aspires to be a global city, it has to be a home for Singaporeans as well.



MIND THE TRADE-OFFS

Events in the past month have been nothing but pulsating, and the ramifications will reverberate for a while. PM Lee and his Government have responded resolutely not just to the election results but also to the unprecedented expression of heartfelt ground sentiments during the hustings. The changes certainly have raised expectations of even more change in the future.

Will Singaporeans reciprocate with equanimity and be magnanimous, or have political positions become so polarised after the elections?

A quick reality check is also in order. There are trade-offs in preferring one policy over another, and in opting for a more deliberative process over an efficient one in policy consultation and implementation. The challenge is for Singaporeans and the Government to find a new equilibrium.

The boldness to re-evaluate policies that have served us well will be critical. Yet, there is a degree of path dependence (or policy stickiness) in our core policies. To expect revolutionary change is not only unrealistic but may well undermine the fundamentals of our society. The unhappiness over hot-button issues does not detract from the integrity of most policies that have served us well. Problems arose over how they were implemented, how they emphasised economic values over non-economic ones, and how criticisms from the ground were given short shrift.



LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD?

There is one other issue that PM Lee should review sooner rather than later: The unlevel playing field of the parliamentary elections.

A longstanding bugbear is that the electoral process is skewed in favour of the ruling People's Action Party (PAP). This includes the boundaries review process where the skimpy details on how and why electoral boundaries are redrawn only give rise to accusations of gerrymandering.

Should we also move to fixed election dates, as is the case in some other countries? Again, the status quo gives rise to criticism that the PM's ability to call for elections gives the PAP an unfair edge.

In a similar vein, notwithstanding the multiracial ethos that undergirds it, the Group Representation Constituency is perceived to have been used by the PAP to get rookie candidates elected on the coat-tails of their team-mates.

A more informed and educated electorate values and is increasingly concerned with fair play and equity in the electoral process.

It is prudent to deal with these issues now, rather than wait until just before or during the next election when they become deeply politicised, making any rational and reasonable debate impossible.

Where change will be evident is in how consultation will be done, how policy buy-in is engendered, and how policy is implemented and tweaked in response to feedback.

To this end, PM Lee promised that his Government will listen, dialogue and engage all segments of society in a new spirit of inclusive and responsive governance. The approach to policy implementation will be "more flexible, thoughtful and compassionate".

The nuances will be as important as the substance of policies and style of government. But it is abundantly clear that the themes of change, engagement and shared ownership are central in the new governance. Even then, managing the expectations of Singaporeans will be vital as we head into uncharted waters.


The writer is assistant professor of law at the Singapore Management University School of Law.

A tale of two different dwellers (Singapore's Own Caste System?)

Are there different policies for different addresses?

by Conrad Raj

Source: TodayOnline.com Sep 21, 2010

While there is little by way of a caste system here, there continues to be a perceived divide between the Housing Board dwellers and those who live in private homes.

Those who live in private abodes are thought to be better off, better educated and able to look after themselves. They form less than 20 per cent of the population. The overwhelming majority, 80 per cent or more, including yours truly, live in the so-called heartlands.

Never mind there are HDB flats right in the heart of the city, in places like Blanco Court and Chinatown. Somehow they are regarded as a little naive, often incapable of looking after themselves.

As a result, some policies and rules appear to be designed specially for them. Some are good and necessary but others can amount to condescension. The intentions may be good but the results may not be so.

Take for instance the ban on R21 movies in the so-called heartlands. Why is this so? Those who want to see such movies can easily take an MRT train or a bus to avail themselves of such pleasures, or in the eyes of some, such forbidden fruit.

It is not as if Singapore is such a huge place, with its own hinterland and one has to travel hundreds of miles to the "ulus". So it is heartening to note that the state-sponsored Censorship Review Committee recognises that the lines between the so-called heartlands and the city are blurring and has decided to recommend that R21 movies be screened in the cinemas of the housing estates. For sure the proposal also comes with certain conditions - that such films be screened only between certain times (the sinful hours?) and there is no advertising of these movies at the cinemas.

Thankfully, former stock-broker Goh Yew Lin's committee recognises that the divide between the so-called heartlands and the city is becoming blurred. But that is because it also acknowledges that in any case such content can be easily obtained from the Internet - in fact being made even more speedily available these days as the various enablers improve their services.

And then the more recent kerfuffle over the provision of free shuttle rides from the heartlands to the Resort World Sentosa. To some, it appears that the heartlanders were like innocent lambs being led to slaughter at the gaming tables of the casinos at the resorts.

Since much of the ranting was on casino promotions to heartlanders and the operating hours, why not impose restrictions on the transgressions instead of banning the shuttles which benefited the majority by providing free or easy access to the other facilities at the resorts like the eateries and the shops? Some took the rides just to get into Sentosa or to some other destination on the island. 

Instead of having a divide between the haves and the have-nots, here we have a separation depending on your dwelling.

It's not like all Housing Board flat owners are have-nots. There is also a mix of dwellings these days in the so-called heartlands, with design-build condominiums and executive apartments put up by the HDB. There are even private apartments being built in these enclaves.

While many of the less-fortunate live in HDB flats, the vast majority of the such dwellers are not poor. As was recently reported by National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan, 3 per cent or some 24,000 HDB owners also own private flats. Over half a million HDB dwellers own cars, causing a shortage of parking lots in the estates.

HDB residents are also better educated these days and are quite capable of thinking for themselves. Not all need nannying, despite the good intentions of the authorities.

So rules, regulations and services must be better calibrated at those they are actually meant for, and not just on the basis of their abodes or districts. 

The writer is editor-at-large at Today.

For PAP new faces, a great chance for some bold talk

Source: Todayonline  Mar 15, 2011

by P N Balji

The next significant signpost on the road to the General Election should appear any time now - the new faces of the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) being introduced to the media and the electorate.

If past introductions are any indication, these new candidates are likely to share how challenged their lives once were, how they were given opportunities to make good and how they feel so indebted to the system that they now want to give back to society.

As with many things in Singapore, nobody in his right mind will dispute these statements. Remember this group would have gone through many rigorous rounds of checks and counter-checks diving deep into their character, motivation and helicopter quality - the ability to assess situations through analysis, sense of reality and imagination.

But as with many things in Singapore, voters are not going to be satisfied with just these pronouncements. In the Singapore of 2011 and beyond, they have become passe.

So what else do these potential politicians - from among whom the next Prime Minister and the fourth generation of Singapore's leaders are expected to emerge - need to tell the voters to enthuse them, to excite them?

They need to look at three broad areas:


TALK BIG

The biggest issue facing many Singaporeans today is the prospect of having to spend the rest of their lives on a fast-moving, never-stopping and increasingly over-crowded treadmill. 

With wild swings in economic growth - a recession one year, a double-digit recovery the next and modest single-digit growth the year after - is this going to be Singapore's karma in the new century? Is there a way out?

Adding to the strain of this treadmill existence is the changing face of Singapore society. 

More old people, more foreigners and more singles can only mean a new Singapore that is tentative about its social future.

To simply delve into the island's often-told history and serve up statements about Singapore's vulnerabilities, peppered with pronouncements about the vagaries of the global economy, may not be enough. 

Maybe there is a middle path: A path of modest and consistent growth where shared values become as important, if not more important, than financial returns. 

For this to happen, the new candidates will have to start thinking and talking about a new chapter in Singapore's economic story and start sowing the seeds of a new social contract with their fellow citizens.

The new candidates can paint bold, broad strokes that might shape this landscape and there is no better time or place to start than when they are formally introduced. 

TALK SMALL

Anything and everything happens at the constituency level. 

A country that can boast a first world economy can also show, once that surface is scratched, an astonishingly large segment of society that is not equipped to deal with the swirling changes which a small country plugged into the world's capitalist system experiences, every time another economic miracle emerges or one goes bust. Various measures, Workfare being the boldest of the lot, have been implemented. 

Recently, a commentary writer in the Business Times suggested taking S$200 billion from the reserves and putting that sum into a citizens' pension fund managed by the Government Investment Corporation to give each citizen a basic pension at 65, no strings attached. Will these new PAP faces, widely regarded as some of the best new brains available, be able to talk the bold talk and suggest ideas that go against the grain of established thinking?

TALK PERSONAL 

Politics is also about showing the inner self of the candidate. 

So far, aspiring PAP politicians have talked about moving from a humble to a noble existence, being awarded a scholarship, going overseas and coming back a proud Singaporean.

The time has come to change that storyline somewhat and talk about things that will give voters a much better peek into their lives.

The one mistake I regret, the day I changed my mind, the one thing that irritates me about the Singapore system, a rule I would like to change ... these baring-of-the-soul stories, when told with honesty and humility, can reveal more about an aspiring politician than a list of achievements and accolades from his or her university or workplace. 

A new Singapore needs a new set of leaders. Each of the last three generations came with slightly different approaches to policy-making. 

The next generation of leaders will not only have to show different styles and approaches, but will also have to reveal a new daring to push through a new and brave path. 

There is no better starting point than when they are introduced in the coming days or weeks. 


P N Balji is the director of the Asia Journalism Fellowship, a joint initiative of Temasek Foundation and NTU.