Singapore 2025

I spoke at a public forum hosted by the Young Sikh Association http://www.ysas.org on 9 Jul 2011, alongside Zakir Hussain of the Straits Times, PAP MP Inderjit Singh and Dr Tan Chi Chiu, Chairman of the Lien Centre for Social Innovation, Singapore Management University on the new social compact in Singapore. It was yet another fascinating discussion where I found Dr Tan’s views particularly thoughtful and worthy of greater circulation. Specifically, he shared many insights on how the government could move forward together with civil society.

___________

Pritam Singh: YSA Speech 9 Jul 2011

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. Before I begin I would like to thank the Young Sikh Association for inviting me to share my thoughts with all of you.

From the outset, I would like to say that the public discourse on a new social compact is not something new. The questions that are being posed this afternoon were already being asked by Singaporeans 10 years ago, as the second generation of PAP leaders handed over the reins of the power to the third generation. Let me take you on a short journey, thanks to the mainstream media to make this point.

First, I present an article entitled, “Poor get more help in PM’s new deal” dated 21 August 2001 by then Straits Times journalist and current PAP MP Irene Ng. The article was a reference to then PM Goh Chok Tong’s 2001 National Day rally. The article outlined the new social contract as follows, and I quote, “The new contract continues the emphasis on self-reliance and family ties. But it goes on to say you must work or at least go for retraining, and if you do, the Government will give some support if you earn too little to support your family. And if you fall in the low-income group, you will get more. It is an approach that has been introduced into the system over the years in an ad-hoc and piecemeal fashion, with an announcement of a CPF top-up here, a HDB service and conservancy rebate and worker-upgrading programme there.”

In 2003, Paul Jacob of the Straits Times in a very appropriately titled article called, “Is the social compact changing?” commented (quote) “something has changed when ordinary members of the public take on new ministers and policies. (unquote)” So by 2003, the reality of a more questioning and critical population had been readily noted, and evidently, Singaporeans were no longer just pragmatic individuals.

In 2005, former Chairman of the PAP, Lim Boon Heng, openly noted:

“In the past, better education, better health care and better housing were clearly seen as key components of this social compact. Today, low-income Singaporeans may feel that they are shouldering a higher share of the costs than before.

‘Will this lead to social tension? Not if we can show the lower income that we care and play our part to help them.

‘So, how do we reshape the social compact, without destroying self-reliance and the incentive to work, and without loading the cost on to business?”

In 2006, in an article written by Daniel Buenas in the Business Times, current DPM Tharman Shanmugaratnam noted:

“Not only has income distribution become unequal, but lower-income groups, particularly unskilled workers, have experienced stagnation, or sometimes decline, in their standards of living.’

He added that, if left unchecked, these developments will lead to a breakdown of the social compact required for Singapore to continue to participate in a global economy and reap the benefits of globalisation for the majority of the population. ‘We have to address this,’ he said. ‘Through the CPF system, in particular, we have to continue to do that – saving for the future needs of the lower-income, including their medical needs and their other retirement needs, not just provide for the present.

‘It requires some political stamina. But, well, I think that is the most responsible thing to do.‘”

Now if you forgot what I have said so far, its ok, because now is the time to sit up and take notice of the most lucid and thoughtful analysis of the new social compact that Singaporeans were thinking about over the last decade. The next article I am going to refer to appeared in the Straits Times on 23 Nov 2007. It was written by a gentleman by the name of Yeoh Lam Keong. Today, he is the Managing Director and Chief Economist at the Economic Strategy Dept of the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC). The article was so profound that the Wall Street Journal and Newsweek found it appropriate to write a piece on the basis of his insights and revelations. And yes, no surprise, the title of Yeoh Lam Keong’s article was “A New Social Compact for Singapore”.

I tried to select appropriate excerpts to share with you, but there is so much of value in that piece towards our discussion today that I have decided to spend a few minutes reading out what he so presiently delivered 4 years ago in 2007:

“Since the late 1990s, a fundamental change has taken place. Median real wages are no longer rising with robust growth. Instead, they have been roughly stagnating since 1998. For the bottom 60 percent of workers, individual wages have, in fact, cumulatively declined by 7 to 15 per cent over the past five years up to last year, despite 5 to 7 per cent GDP growth.

The poorest and least skilled have been the hardest hit. Median monthly starting pay for cleaners and labourers has fallen by nearly one-third, from $860 to $600, between 1996 and (2006). While household incomes especially of the bottom 30 per cent rebounded last year, this is due to jobs being plentiful enough for more family members to work. Yet the poor have to run faster just to stand still. The bottom 30 percent have now experienced stagnating real household incomes for eight to 10 years.

In the long run, this malign combination of median wage stagnation and rising inequality is potentially poisonous for the social compact underpinning Singapore’s virtuous circle of strong governance.

If the median worker faces long-term wage stagnation, the credibility of tough policies – will be undermined. Many will feel their stake in the common enterprise of prosperity has been eroded. What remains may be the bitter, zero-sum politics of envy and dead-end populism.

Current net Workfare payments of around $80 to $100 per month are a long way from being able to bridge the poverty gap between bare subsistence and the small surplus needed to invest in human capital at the household level. Yet Workfare remains the fastest way to get there without compromising the work ethic.

The political will and policy framework to deal with wage stagnation may well be one of the biggest tests of compassion, pragmatism and policy innovation Singapore has faced. However, some subtle risks also arise from our traditional policy distrust of large-scale welfare, or direct social spending to address poverty.

The latter is perhaps more difficult to deal with, as it reflects a policy paradigm that may also need radical change. A stronger, direct social safety net may now need to be seen by both policymakers and the public as an institution that enables policy to take advantage of globalisation more quickly and boldly, rather than one that erodes the work ethic, drains the Budget or hamstrings economic reform.

Can we, policymakers as well as citizens, be bold, compassionate and creative enough to re-imagine and remake our social compact, one that includes a social safety net more suited to the current mega-trends of globalisation?”

The last government official to speak at length on the social compact was current Emiritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong at the Singapore-China forum in 2010. ESM Goh explained Singapore’s success through three key elements that defined our social compact. ESM Goh identified our education system, our multi-racialism, and the decision to pay public officials competitive wages as central to our social compact.

So there you have it – six articles sourced from the mainstream media, from 2001 to 2010, some very quite presciently premonitioning the drivers of a new social compact for Singapore. Without doubt, the new social compact did not become a reality after 7 May 2011. It has been in gestation for the last 10 years, under the PAP’s watch.

In the aftermath of the elections, we finally see the PAP responding. Why did it take them this long, that is not for me to say. But during our rally speeches, the Workers’ Party did allude to the reality that the PAP listens to the wishes of the electorate on polling day – your vote is indeed very powerful. In 1991, when 4 opposition members of parliament were elected, the PAP duly formed a cost review committee to address cost of living issues, which were raised by the opposition during those elections.

In the aftermath of the 2011 elections, we have already come to know that three central planks of Singapore’s social compact are being reviewed: HDB policy – any review of which has a direct impact on CPF, healthcare, and ministerial salaries. Lets be clear about it, the shape of the new social compact is in the PAP’s hands. The Workers’ Party, and I am sure many Singaporeans, certainly look forward their recommendations.

Ladies and gentlemen, so far, I have alluded to the hard aspects of the new social compact. Let me conclude, with a view to provoke more discussion later about the soft aspects of this new social compact. For the longest time, from the time of the first-generation of PAP leaders, the public discourse has not been about individuals, but about community.

At its height, this national ideology was framed with a view to reject individualism. But over the last few years, even concepts of community have been shaken with 1/3 of Singapore comprising of foreigners. Some well-meaning Singaporeans fear that we have become more xenophobic. However, this fear of xenophobia may not be a function more foreigners in Singapore, many of whom are not socialized to the no spitting and no littering campaigns of the Singapore many of us grew up in. On the contrary, it is also helpful to remember that we are the third or fourth most densely populated countries in the world today – many Singaporeans also feel a sense of dislocation, unfamiliarity and discomfort with the Singapore they grew up in. Let us not underestimate this emotion as we deliberate and consider what the new social compact will look like. It may well be timely to conceive of the new social compact not only in terms of community as the PAP has done for the longest time, but in terms of what individual Singaporeans like you and me, and I hazard even PAP supporters desire as well.

Thank you very much.

The lead letter in yesterday’s Straits Times must have caused some PAP politicians to shift uneasily in their seats. In it, a Ms Margo McCutcheon from Kuala Lumpur no less, warned, “Singapore, you’ve got so much to lose. Do you really want that couple in Holland Village jeopardising it all by shouting about democracy?” The venerable McCutcheon was referring to a hellish episode that befell both her husband and herself in Holland Village, where they saw a middle-aged couple handing out pro-democracy brochures and shouting, “Support democracy”.

On account of this letter, Singaporeans reading the Straits Times yesterday might have understood what it was like living behind the iron curtain in the heydays of the Cold War. Communist press apparatchiks would have been so proud.

Invoking the wisdom of her husband, Lady McCutcheon quoted him verbatim – “I’m American and you don’t want what we have. Democracy isn’t about choice. It’s just a fancy word for partisan bickering and gridlocked government.” Like a rookie boxer, McCutcheon followed up with one hook after jab, completely oblivious to the fact that she had exposed her soft underbelly.

Vivian Balakrishnan’s Democracy

Only less than month ago, when asked about the criticism directed at the management of the Youth Olympic Games from opposition politician Chee Soon Juan of the Singapore Democratic Party, Vivian Balakrishnan, the Minister of Community Development, Youth and Sports responded, “In any society there will always be people who disagree, that’s fine. This is a democracy they are entitled to that.”

Lee Yi Shyan’s Democracy

On 3 Sep 2010, in a feature on the East Coast constituency in the Straits Times, Minister of State for Trade and Industry and Manpower and MP for Kampung Chai Chee ward, Lee Yi Shyan remarked that the Workers’ Party had been spotted more frequently in his constituency over the last six months (the Workers’ Party has been consistently active in East Coast for the better part of the last two years). In response, the Minister of State proffered, “Its alright, that’s what democracy is. We allow for other parties to advance their views and policies, to offer alternatives.”

Goh Chok Tong’s Participatory Democracy

Almost 20 years ago, then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong sought to persuade 81 PAP branches to systematically rally Singaporeans behind the PAP’s goals in the next lap of the country’s development. Specifically, Goh proposed the strengthening of participatory democracy in Singapore. Elaborating, Goh posited that participatory democracy meant that every Singaporean shared the responsibility of making the country better, and that Singaporeans must defend what is right and prevent things from going wrong. Further, Goh stated that participation also meant that every Singaporean had a chance to do something to improve society. Goh, like the majority of Singaporeans would know that democracy is not necessarily the panacea to all the problems of any society, let alone Singapore. But in reaching out to participatory democracy, Goh effectively acknowledged that it was what Singapore needed 20 years ago.

Many readers may assume that the PAP’s on-and-off dance with democracy presents a golden opportunity for opposition members to call them out on double standards, speaking with a forked tongue, cognitive dissonance etc. But it is not my intention to do this. What Vivian, Lee and Goh have shown Singaporeans is that some members of the PAP are acutely aware of the importance of democracy as far as the political and economic health of the nation is concerned.

What remains, as it has for a good 20 years, is for the PAP to move substantively in a more democratic direction. With 82 out of 84 seats in parliament, the PAP is by far, the only political game in town. With the press firmly in its hands, any decision towards a qualitative democracy in the foreseeable future will be made by the men in white. One of the stumbling blocks that will stand in the way of greater democratisation in Singapore are those PAP politicians who directly or indirectly straightjacket the remit of the government-managed mainstream media.

McCutcheon’s letter was very much in step with the level of public discourse on political liberties engendered by the Straits Times since my childhood days. In spite of Goh’s brave foray nearly 20 years ago, no real attempt has been made by the mainstream media to explain what democracy substantively means, both to and for Singapore society. In fact, under the stewardship of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, many would argue Singapore’s political development has stagnated at best, and regressed at worst, with modifications to the NCMP and NMP parliamentary schemes for example,  designed to paradoxically benefit the PAP.

Photo Credit: http://seelanpalay.blogspot.com

Some PAP politicians and senior civil servants employ allusions to democracy to deflect criticism while the state-managed press define it in singularly dark terms, as a binary opposite to PAP white. Blinkered officers in government-linked-companies I have spoken to argue that Singapore’s success since independence has been down to the lack of democracy in Singapore, and as such, the status quo must remain. These individuals cannot comprehend nor conceive of how a substantively democratic, accountable and transparent polity can unlock talent, encourage entrepreneurship, staunch the brain drain and lethargy of the nation’s best and brightest and most importantly, strengthen the Singapore spirit.

If anything, McCutcheon’s letter proved that democracy remains a bad word in Singapore, in spite of remarks by Vivian, Lee and Goh that suggest the very opposite. And if one had to consider which political agents in Singapore are single-handedly undermining the country’s political development, the mainstream media would figure prominently among them. In the guise of a nation-building agenda, the mainstream media has monopolised the national discourse so as to buttress a PAP agenda, not a Singapore agenda.

The Singapore media scene of the 1960s and 1970s was a lot more representative of a free press chiefly because of the wider choice of newspapers available to Singaporeans. Singapore Press Holdings and Mediacorp Press, both majority owned by the government were not the only game in town. There were other – now defunct – papers such as the Eastern Sun, Singapore Herald, Singapore Monitor, Singapore Standard and The New Nation. Even the Chinese press was not the sole domain of the PAP government. What a wide array of newspapers guaranteed was a healthy debate about the direction the country was headed. A free press kept excess in check. And if one paper attempted to represent a partisan interest, you could be certain another paper would present an alternative viewpoint.

Fast forward a couple of decades and in the aftermath of the passage of the Newspapers and Printing Presses Act 1974: The Straits Times puts out and selectively omits information so as to benefit the ruling party.

A simple example will make out the preceding point. Every now and then, more so in the run up to every election, Singaporeans are reminded through the Straits Times how Chee Soon Juan and Chiam See Tong had a “tussle” over leadership of the Singapore Democratic Party in the early 1990s, ostensibly to dissuade Singaporeans from voting opposition.

But how many remember the Straits Times reminding Singaporeans of PAP MPs being hauled up to account for their misdemeanours and character deficiencies? Read: Hong Kah GRC PAP MP and lawyer Ahmad Khalis Abdul Ghani in 2005 for “grossly improper” professional conduct and Jalan Besar GRC PAP MP Mr Choo Wee Khiang (also infamously known for remarking that Little India was “too dark” on weekends) in 1999 for cheating? Or of a PAP Minister of National Development who committed suicide in the mid-1980s over allegations of corruption while in office?

In fairness to the Straits Times there have been times, albeit very few and far between, where it has held its ground against select PAP politicians, highlighting its capacity to play a genuine nation-building role. In the immediate aftermath of the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) saga in 2009, Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng chided the paper for its “breathless coverage” and insinuating that it report on issues dispassionately and impartially in future, before concluding that the AWARE saga was not the most important challenge facing Singapore.

Photo Credit: Straits Times

Wong’s intervention was perhaps the best characterisation of the PAP towards the mainstream media. Intervene. Put out the PAP message. Move on.

If the Straits Times had not engaged in thorough and even crusading reportage of the AWARE saga, would Singaporeans have known that a certain self-described “feminist mentor” was the master puppeteer behind the coup d’etat in AWARE? And would Singaporeans have known of a certain pastor who could have torn the fabric of a secular Singapore and in doing so, irreparably damaged the reputation of Singaporean Christians?

While democracy encompasses a number of characteristics that can vary in space and time, a key constant in any substantive democracy are freedom and/or access to information. Democracy is not about form, garnishing, dodging criticism and going to the polls once every five years. It is much more than that. At a deep-rooted level, it is about citizenship and national values that are cherished by all citizens, regardless of political affiliation, and a citizenry taking ownership of the political process.

Going forward, if the Straits Times finds it uncontroversial to host a letter written by the Margo McCutcheons of the world in the name of hosting views from every segment of society (including Kuala Lumpur society [McCutcheon signed off her letter from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia]), it can be expected to have no qualms substantiating Goh’s stillborn participatory democracy or Vivian and Lee’s apparently expedient one. One might hazard even PAP politicians will admit that dealing with the question of substantive and qualitative democracy is the only way to engender a united, inclusive and equitable Singapore in the years to come.

Useful Links:

Margo McCutcheon: No say? Its simply not true, she says  – http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/STIStory_579519.html

Asiaone: YOG – A giant leap for small Singapore – http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Sports/Story/A1Story20100812-231747.html

Channel News Asia Online poll (since removed from Channel News Asia’s website) question “Will you be watching any Youth Olympic Games competition?” – http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/07/29/cna-poll-73-percent-of-singaporeans-not-interested-in-yog/

NCCS: Churches should stay out of AWARE saga – http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=2862

Catherine Lim: Time to do some crystal ball gazing – http://catherinelim.sg/2004/01/13/time-to-do-some-crystal-ball-gazing/

Tan Tarn How on AWARE saga – newshub.nus.edu.sg/news/0912/PDF/FAIR-st-4Dec-pB12.pdf