Singapore 2025

Credit: The Australian / AP

I was a little surprised to read the Singapore Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman’s remarks in the Wall Street Journal Asia piece, “Leaked cable spooks some U.S. sources” dated 3 Dec 2010. The paragraph in question went like this:

“Others laid blame not on working U.S. diplomats, but on Wikileaks. Singapore’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it had “deep concerns about the damaging action of Wikileaks.” It added, ‘it is critical to protect the confidentiality of diplomatic and official correspondence.’” (emphasis my own)

My surprise was really a follow-up reaction from an email I received from a friend (lets call him William) in response to an earlier email I sent detailing MM Lee’s views on the leadership in China amongst other issues, as hyperlinked on the Guardian’s website (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/210110).

This gist of William’s email went like this, “This is indeed a tragic day when national leaders cannot have frank and honest private discussions without the minutes of the meetings leaking to the press. From now on, more leaders will either not comment or speak only off the record.”

Credit: Straits Times

His views came as a bit of a shock to me as on 25 Jan 2003, the then Singapore Minister of Foreign Affairs and current Senior Minister without portfolio, Professor S Jayakumar, in an unprecedented move, unilaterally released all diplomatic and official correspondence relating to confidential discussions on water negotiations between Singapore and Malaysia from the year 2000.

In a parliamentary speech that would have had Julian Assange smiling from ear to ear, Jayakumar said, “We therefore have no choice but to set the record straight by releasing these documents for people to judge for themselves the truth of the matter.” The parliamentary reason for the unprecedented release of information was the misrepresentations made by Malaysia over the price of water, amongst others.

The then Malaysian Prime Minister, Mahathir’s response to Singapore’s pre-Wikileak wikileak was equally quote-worthy, “I don’t feel nice. You write a letter to your girlfriend. And your girlfriend circulates it to all her boyfriends. I don’t think I’ll get involved with that girl.”

A master of simple analogies, Mahathir did not leave it at that. He foreshadowed the Wikileak-chastised countries of today saying what William, the Singapore Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the US and Iran today, amongst others, must agree with, “It’s very difficult now for us to write letters at all because we might as well negotiate through the media.”

Curious about this apparent double standard, I proceeded to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs homepage to search for the full press release. As I anticipated, there was a caveat. This is the press release in full:

In response to media queries on the WikiLeaks release of confidential and secret-graded US diplomatic correspondence, the MFA Spokesman expressed deep concerns about the damaging action of WikiLeaks. It is critical to protect the confidentiality of diplomatic and official correspondence, which is why Singapore has the Officials Secrets Act. In particular, the selective release of documents, especially when taken out of context, will only serve to sow confusion and fail to provide a complete picture of the important issues that were being discussed amongst leaders in the strictest of confidentiality.

The sentence in red seems to posit that the selective release of documents can be legitimised if released documents are not taken out of context. If this interpretation is true, then one can account for the political decision to release confidential correspondence covering the Singapore and Malaysia water talks referred to above. In parallel, one can imagine Assange or his supporters arguing that lies over weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the advent of abject two-faced politics today to be sufficient grounds to justify the actions of Wikileaks. As for the arguments about confidentiality and official correspondence, the events in parliament in 2003 tell us no one should underestimate the ability of nation-states to do an Assange if it befits their purpose – be it directly, as Jayakumar did, or indirectly, through the media or some other medium of influence.

Timothy Garton Ash put out the dilemma perfectly when he said, “There is a public interest in understanding how the world works and what is done in our name. There is a public interest in the confidential conduct of foreign policy. The two public interests conflict.”

Going forward, the advent of technology will only further blur the lines between these two public interests, if it has not already. Quite apart from technology, the absence of transparent and accountable institutions may also serve to guarantee the prospect of more of such embarrassing leaks in future.

In August 2009, there was considerable interest in Singapore about the circumstances behind the departure of Chip Goodyear, former CEO of the Australian mining giant BHP Billiton, from the national sovereign wealth fund, Temasek Holdings. Before that, all the public knew was – in the name of leadership renewal – Chip Goodyear had been carefully chosen and apparently hand-picked to replace Ho Ching as CEO of Temasek Holdings. In response to Chip’s untimely departure, Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam was quoted, “People do want to know, there is curiosity, it is a matter of public interest. That is not sufficient reason to disclose information. It is not sufficient that there be curiosity and interest that you want to disclose information.”

Credit: MAS

Overly secretive and furtive politicians operating in a parliamentary democracy are unlikely to inspire confidence among an educated citizenry either, only serving to paradoxically fuel public cynicism and conspiracy theories. Such stonewalling could potentially inspire and motivate a Singaporean Julian Assange to choose the path of newer forms of vigilante justice. And passing judgment post-facto will become morally problematic in light of ivory-tower governance. Governments that have most to fear will be those that engage in the egregious politics of half-truths.

I believe that government officials and politicians who perform their jobs honourably have nothing to fear from Wikileaks. I would admit that there is an inherent naivety and idealism in this position. But if the lesson from the Wikileaks episode portends a higher standard of ethical conduct, encourages transparency and accountability – all of which promote good governance, realpolitik notwithstanding – then it is perhaps a lesson all politicians and government officials should pay keen attention to.

But I’ll be frank. I would love it if Mr Assange or those of his ilk released information detailing the practices of corporate fat cats on Wall Street in the run-up to the Great Recession, and how they sought to retain their influence and high salaries even after nearly destroying Main Street (ditto self-righteous avaricious fat cats everywhere). I think a lot of you would love it too.

Post-script:

“These disclosures are largely of analysis and high-grade gossip. Insofar as they are sensational, it is in showing the corruption and mendacity of those in power, and the mismatch between what they claim and what they do….If American spies are breaking United Nations rules by seeking the DNA biometrics of the UN director general, he is entitled to hear of it. British voters should know what Afghan leaders thought of British troops. American (and British) taxpayers might question, too, how most of the billions of dollars going in aid to Afghanistan simply exits the country at Kabul airport.” –Simon Jenkins, Guardian

Useful Links:

1. “Leaked cable spooks some US sources”, Wall Street Journal, 2 Dec 2010: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704594804575648723966232094.html

2. Official Singapore Parliamentary Debates: Bilateral Relations with Malaysia: Water and other Issues, 25 Jan 2003: http://www.parliament.gov.sg/parlweb/get_highlighted_content.jsp?docID=172522&hlLevel=Terms&links=MALAYSIA,WATER&hlWords=%20%20&hlTitle=malaysia%20water&queryOption=1&ref=http://www.parliament.gov.sg:80/reports/private/hansard/title/20030125/20030125_S0004_T0005.htm#1

3. “US embassy cables: The job of the media is not to protect the powerful from embarrassment”, Guardian, 28 Nov 2010: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-wikileaks

4. “US embassy cables: A banquet of secrets”, Guardian, 28 Nov 2010: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/28/wikileaks-diplomacy-us-media-war

5. “US embassy cables: Former Singapore PM on ‘psychopathic’ North Koreans”, Guardian, 29 Nov 2010: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/210110

6. “Singapore paper gives prominence to Dr M’s Reply”, Bernama, 31 Jan 2003: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/beritamalaysia/message/55698

Originally published in The Online Citizen on 26 Jul 2010.

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/07/employers-bear-brunt-of-unnecessary-foreign-worker-levy-hike

The points raised with regard to the foreign worker levy hike in the Economic Strategies Committee (ESC) Report released in February 2010, and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s announcement of the arrival of 100,000 more foreigners into Singapore’s workforce this year make for a curious contrast. In view of the PM’s announcement, a thoughtful employer ought to ask, was there really a need to raise the foreign worker levy in the first place since the PAP government appears to have the means to regulate and moderate the supply of foreign workers?

The PAP has argued that it prefers to control foreign worker supply through a “price mechanism”. On the other hand, the ESC Report has stated that it plans to reduce Singapore’s reliance on foreign workers to one-third of the total workforce.  By committing to limit Singapore’s exposure to foreign workers, the PAP government has effectively introduced a supply control mechanism, a system whose workings, like many government initiatives, is not generally visible to the pubic. Teo Siong Seng, the President of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry hit the nail on the head when he said, “A more controlled inflow of foreign workers will benefit the country.” Who controls this inflow? Clearly, the PAP government seems to have the means to do so.

On the back of the Prime Minister’s announcement, PAP MP Josephine Teo was quoted as saying that in spite of the upcoming spike of 100,000 workers, the “labour movement” will redouble its efforts to improve productivity.  How this is to be done was something the good MP did not see necessary to elaborate upon in any significant detail. In fact, the PAP’s rah-rah over productivity is causing many employers and employees to scratch their heads and wonder what they must do to increase productivity or in some cases, how they are to make sense of Minister Lim Swee Say’s “cheaper, better, faster” rhapsody.

At the 5th Singapore Indian Chamber of Commerce (SICCI) Champions of Industry dialogue in early July, PAP MP Inderjit Singh implored SME leaders to improve not just their staff, but themselves as well. He quoted the example of Muthu’s Curry restaurant (interestingly, the same corporate example used in the Feb 2010 ESC Report) but not before making the point that “a productive company focuses on increasing the value of its goods and services through quality and service excellence and not just through mere volume.” The hollow “cheaper, better, faster” call by Lim aside, it is clear the PAP expects employers to make financial investments in their attempts to raise productivity. Where is this money for this going to come from?

With employers already facing an impending one percentage point increase in their contribution rate to the Central Provident Fund, the foreign worker levy hike is looking increasingly like a calculated attempt by the PAP government of having its cake and eating it as well. If the PAP was sincere about raising productivity, it could have retained the foreign worker levy at the long-standing rate, or it could have alleviated employers’ burden by transferring any levy hike back to employers in the form of a productivity credit.

In truth, the ESC Report is a rather visionary document. Unfortunately, it under-estimated the reaction from employers and did not take into account how overly reliant employers had become on foreign workers, and how difficult it was going to be to wean the Singapore economy off foreign workers. In the aftermath of the ESC Report, many employers grumbled about the impending levy hike, for good reason too. It does appear as if the negative feedback from employers lead the Prime Minister to change tack for short-term benefit.

With an election due in the next few months, the last thing PM Lee needed was a hitherto reliable vote-bank of employers turning against the PAP, especially with high bonuses due to be announced to the public sector and civil service at the end of the year, on the back of 13-15% growth for 2010.

It is apparent that Singapore’s employers and the nation as a whole requires some foreign workers to keep the economy buzzing. It is also clear that employers who take the effort to groom Singaporeans and reduce their dependence on foreign workers deserve to be rewarded.

In raising the foreign worker levy when the purpose boasted about in the ESC report – “to encourage investment in productivity improvement” – looks increasingly questionable, employers are not wholly incorrect if they conclude that the foreign worker levy hike is simply a PAP attempt to raise taxes. Worst-hit will be SMEs who are likely to have no choice but to pass on the levy hike to Singaporeans, with the ambitious productivity objectives put forward by the Economic Strategies Committee looking increasingly aspirational, much like our national pledge.

Originally published in The Online Citizen on 6 Sep 2009

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/09/circumventing-the-mainstream-media-bias-a-call-for-oppositional-introspection/

The kerfuffle last week within the Singapore Malay National Organisation (PKMS), an opposition political party in Singapore must have been music to the ears of the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP). After all, what better way to discredit the opposition than for the opposition to self-destruct on its own volition.

Thanks to Singapore’s self-proclaimed nation-building newspaper, The Straits Times (ST), English-newspaper reading Singaporeans came to be reminded that a party called the PKMS actually exists, owns a building and of course, is in the midst of an ostensibly self-induced leadership struggle.

On the surface, this was straightforward political reportage. But ST’s uncanny knack of picking, pitching and spinning political stories is rather more sophisticated. Sure enough, by the end of the week, on 6 Sep 2009 (on page 32, in a section aptly titled “think”), the weekly cartoon in the ST drew up a father pointing to a mass brawl outside the PKMS building telling his child, “Baby see! And remember this….don’t get into politics.” The message was a tad clearer. Don’t get into opposition politics.

Some weeks ago, ST even went so far as to gratuitously remove a remark made by Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam in Parliament on 18 Aug 2009 over Chip Goodyear’s surprising departure from Temasek Holdings. Said the Finance Minister in Parliament,

“People do want to know, there is curiosity, it is a matter of public interest. That is not sufficient reason to disclose information. It is not sufficient that there be curiosity and interest that you want to disclose information.”

The remark by Minister Tharman, “it is a matter of public interest”, was casually removed from print in ST the following day, without an apology or reason. Oddly enough, in a separate feature on Temasek Holdings on 5 Sep 2009, the same quote was reproduced in full. If any Singaporean wonders why the country is ranked so lowly in media freedoms, this sordid episode could be a case in point.

Even without the apparent advantage afforded to the PAP by the ST, the PKMS episode offers instructive lessons that reveal how opposition misdemeanours continue to be communicated in the mainstream media, lessons that are not terribly new to seasoned observers of Singapore politics.

By any stretch of the imagination, angry opposition voices and any oppositional faux pas fall squarely into the trap presented by Singapore’s mainstream media landscape. Displays of anger, frustration, violence and unbending stubbornness represent a wonderful news peg for the mainstream media. And the public, informed through the mainstream media by large, form conclusions any reasonable Singaporean would, the inductive leap notwithstanding – that the opposition in Singapore are nothing but a bunch of bumbling, frustrated and unreasonable men and women. As the logic goes, such people would probably make for poor legislators, to say nothing of those who wield hammers and screwdrivers, as the PKMS recalcitrants did last week.

This strategy of playing up oppositional shortcomings is at times, apparently self-inflicted too. Every once so often and especially online, the Worker’s Party is castigated on grounds that the party is not fighting hard enough for Singaporeans. Instead of working through channels like Parliament and door-to-door house visits to get its message out, a deliberately more cantankerous approach is urged for, akin to that of the Singapore Democratic Party’s (SDP), as the way forward for the opposition in Singapore. Without prejudicing either party’s approach, seasoned opposition politicians and their supporters are probably aware of the ease at which seeds of discord can be sown byagent provocateurs to divide the opposition.

As long as the government retains a veto over the mainstream media on political issues, PAP boo-boos will remain the domain of the grapevine or the online media, both of which pale against the overwhelming circulation of the government-managed print and broadcast media. While the quality of debate and discussion on political issues online has risen by leaps and bounds, its overall reach remains limited, especially to the non-English speaking electorate.

This media Catch-22 represents a quandary the opposition in Singapore can do nothing about, with public perception on Singapore politics in future likely to be carefully stage-managed by the mainstream media for requisite ends, as it has been for decades now.

In light of the PKMS debacle and as Singapore society matures with more voters coming around to the mainstream media’s political favouritism, opposition parties ought to simultaneously raise the bar on the discipline and conduct of its members, especially its key appointment holders. In light of the mainstream media’s dominance, a honourable silence or a respectful riposte, particularly in the face of provocation, stands out as more politically advantageous than a callous and instinctive shot from the hip. A strategy of professionalism, playing by the rules and retaining a sense of measure over criticism against government policies through policy alternatives, could serve to neutralise the advantage of the mainstream media that continues to spin local politics against the opposition at the slightest opportunity.

While no self-respecting opposition should keep silent in the face of a Mas Selamat incident or the perception of a lack of transparency and accountability in government, the uniquely Singaporean context indicates that a non-patronising, sincere and determined opposition voice that speaks for Singaporeans is more likely to succeed in winning public confidence than one that ignores the perception-altering long arm of the mainstream media.

With the shadow of an opportunistic mainstream media cast over everything the opposition says and does, displays of anger and differences of opinion within and between opposition parties, figures and supporters are best left out of the public eye. There is no denying that Singaporeans today are more educated, more politically mature and not afraid to question PAP leaders over even the most minor of policy matters. Lest opposition leaders and supporters rub their hands in delight at this burden of leadership, reality cuts both ways – the public expectation on the conduct of the opposition in between elections, is likely to rise in tandem.

Ends.