Eroding Trust in Public Institutions

This is the main topic for discussion in today’s ST with several big names being mentioned. Kishore Mahbubani was quoted to be concerned that ‘online discourse might be eroding trust in public institutions’. There are real and imaginary perceptions of things, of trust or distrust in public institutions. The very fact that this issue of trust is being discussed at that level is a manifestation that trust is eroding and has become a serious issue in governance. It is just like the COE system and HDB policies when there have been repeated outcries that they are inequitable and the system and policies could be made fairer and more equitable short of telling the two institutions off directly that they are not trustworthy.

No institution can lose the trust of the people if they are upright, correct and fair in their dealings with the people and on issues affecting people and policies. A little bit of criticism and cynicism by the social media, no need to worry about the main media, will not harm them or the trust of the people. Only the institution can create distrust by the people by their own policies and wrongdoings.

The situation today is that the people are much better educated, informed and conversant with what they see and hear and are current with the happenings and policies. And the availability of social media on top of the main media, I like this expression, means that the people have a more balanced view of things. Unlike the past when the people are only fed by the official media that was sitting on everyone, feeding them what they wanted the people to see or hear, social media has given awareness a new dimension, and positive in many senses. Can’t imagine how long the people will remain ignorant and blinkered without access to social media. Social media is a tool of enlightenment, and much to the dismay of those who want to control information and the thinking of a people that could be made daft by biased, limited or misinformation.

We used to take pride in our public institutions, and had very little bad things to say about them. There was almost complete trust in them. And rightly so as anyone who crossed the line of legitimacy will be harshly dealt with by the system. Just read this comment by Professor Neo Boon Siong of Nanyang Business School, ‘We are all in a flux, and this gives people the feeling of uneasiness and uncertainty, that this competent Govt we are used to…is not so ready to come up with solutions immediately, or cannot deliver results as fast as we want.’ He was talking about a competent Govt we are used to. Is this a reasonable perception of the Govt today and the past?

There is a major contributor to the distrust in public institutions due to a philosophical change in political thinking and corporate governance. In the past, the govt demanded and coerced public officials to be clean, honest and incorrupt. And many instruments of the system were there to maintain a clean and honest govt. The whole paradigm shifted when the govt came out with the complacent assumption that people are corrupt by nature and to keep them from being corrupt, just pay them well, or 'corrupt' them legitimately and hoping that they will not be 'corrupt' illegitimately. (I want to qualify here that this term 'corrupt legitimately' is just a common expression used figuratively in informal discussion and is not corruption per se). This policy shift says that it is alright to have 'corrupt' people in the system as long as their pockets are well lined with big fat salary and they will behave themselves. Thus, instead of ridding the system of corrupt individuals, it is acceptable to live with the devils as long as they keep their masks on, and try to be clean or looked clean. In a way the system works as there have been no big cases of corruption or very few and in between.

The other big factor that led to the erosion of public institutions is the cavalier attitude that politicising public institutions to serve the interest of political parties is normal, nothing wrong, and legitimate. Institutionalising them is the way to go. When public institutions are politicised, when appointment holders are politicised, appointed for political reasons and to serve political interest, how much trust will be eroded in the process? Take the Town Council, a political creation, would the management of Town Councils handle a party supporter differently from an opposition supporter? And if it does, how is trust going to be affected?

When public institutions are designed with imbedded flawed assumptions and worst, being politicised, the institutions and office holders will no longer function impartially and objectively for the common good, regardless of affiliation. How would this affect trust in the institutions?

The vehemence against Tan Chuan Jin

I was greatly encouraged by Chuan Jin’s talk of taking more measures against companies discriminating Singaporeans in employment. Arrrggghhh, everytime I write these few words, discriminating Singaporeans in Singapore by foreigners or PRs or new citizens, I cannot tahan.  It is so sick, baloney! And when Chuan Jin made his speech on further actions in tackling this uniquely sick Singaporean disease, I thought it is appropriate to say something to encourage him, short of offering him a Nobel Peace Prize first like they did to Obama hoping that he would bring peace instead of indulging the Americans in more wars.

I have no doubt that Chuan Jin is serious about protecting the interest and jobs for Singaporeans. He has just stripped off his uniform and removed a hat from a position that breathes Country, Nation and People. The interest of nation and people must still be vivid in his mind and vocabulary and thinking. He has a huge task ahead of him. I may say the critics are right to say and ask who created this shit and allowed the shit to pile up. And that it is just another wayang to clear the shit and to take credit for it.

I can also understand the anger, the cynicism and the pain of those adversely affected by this discrimination policy that has been allowed to flourish in our midst. Oh sure, it is not a govt sanction policy. It is an unwritten policy, a covert practice, or in some cases, blatant discriminatory practice against Singaporeans in a state like there is no govt. They are spiking the Singaporeans as if they are protected by gods and nothing will happen to them. Maybe the whistle blowers will get the stick instead.

This reminds me of the poor Taiwanese fishermen that were constantly being harassed, robbed, and killed by the Pinoy coast guards and there was no Taiwanese govt out there to protect them. Today the Taiwanese govt of Ma Ying Jiu is putting on a show but the show of force has quickly died down just as fast as it blew up. Two semi colonies bickering, and the Emperor said, stop it, and they dismissively cool down and walk away.

But no, I believe Chuan Jin is not walking away from this problem. It is too big and too obvious and wayanging or walking away will do him and his party real bad. I am not sure about the Govt, but I think Chuan Jin would want to do something good for the Singaporeans under his watch as Minister in MOM. The vehemence against him in social media may be too hasty, too unyielding and unjustified. The Singaporeans must give Chuan Jin some time. This problem has been created over many years and cannot be resolved over two nights. It is not gangrene of the leg where one could just saw it off. It is like lymphoma of the blood, spreading all over the body.

While the social media and the bloggers can hold down their criticisms and harsh remarks, Chuan Jin could help himself by showing some quick results to soothe the nerves. Do something immediate, take some of the culprits to task and show the people that he is moving in the right direction, and more will follow. Make an example like killing chicken to frighten monkeys and blow it up in the media. The main media will have a lot of opportunities to say something good, and seen to do something good for the people as well. I am sure the reporters, journalists and editors will welcome the green light to write about positive actions by MOM to contain the plague that is spreading across the island.

Criticising and condemning Chuan Jin at this point in time is premature and unfair and may hurt him and discourage him from doing more.

‘Relax, say the night man. You can check out any time you like, but you just cannot leave.’ Courtesy of the Eagles.

C for Corruption, C for Commercial Crime

Corruption is said to have replaced the 5 Cs into one big C. The trial of Kong Hee and his 5 church elders is drawing a lot of attention to this island for corruption. And this is what political commentator Kumaran Pillai had to say. He ‘maintains the trial of the City Harvest leaders does not mean that Singapore's political, religious or economic systems are "inherently corrupt" or that its leaders "have become unethical"’.

I choose to disagree. My view is that our economic system is inherently corrupt. It is based on the fundamental assumption that human beans are corruptible. That is why civil servants and political leaders must be paid humongously high salaries, ‘to prevent them from being corrupt, by paying them so well that the temptation to corrupt is removed’. Now am I right in saying this? Please correct me if this is not true.

The corruption case involving the City Harvest Church is an anomaly. People don’t become corrupt if they are being paid very well. Or they have not been paid very well, so the inherently corrupt economic system vindicates itself.

Another way to look at this case is that there is no corruption at all, as the accused and the believers believe so. In that case, our economic system is not corrupt at all and Kumaran is right.

So, is our economic system inherently corrupt? Many will think so and many will think not. It is one’s personal value, upbringing and principles that will likely bring about one’s conclusion either way. There is no corruption, there is corruption, there is no corruption, there is corruption…. the petals are getting lesser as each one is peeled off.

Isn’t this a futile exercise to argue either way? A comforting word from Dr Wolfgang Sachsenroder, a visiting politics professor at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.  ‘Corruption in Singapore has not yet reached a stage where the public should be alarmed.’

Singaporeans can feel more relax as there are rooms for more corruption before our squeaky clean image is damaged.

M'sia new home minister wants 51.78 percent to migrate

I just received this interesting post from an anonymous netizen and wonder if it is relevant to read it in conjunction  with our same Foreign Talent Policy where locals are edged to migrate and foreigners encouraged to immigrate here in the catastrophic policy of taking in Foreign Talents.

Subject: FW: M'sia new home minister wants 51.78 pct to migrate

Date: May 21, 2013 10:51:19 AM GMT+08:00

Malaysia

M'sia new home minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi wants 51.78% of Malaysians voted for Pakatan to leave the country. Umno has always urged the unhappy Chinese and Indians to go back to India and China, but where would the Malays who voted Pakatan go? 

 

This a report from Jakarta Post on March 22, titled when he was ‘Malaysian defence minister visits ‘home'':

"Malaysian Defence Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi revealed his Javanese heritage on Thursday in Yogyakarta during his state visit. He said he had Javanese blood as his paternal grandparents originally came from Kulonprogo in Yogyakarta.

‘I am coming home," Zahid told The Jakarta Post, adding that he would be staying in Yogyakarta for two days with his wife, having attended the Jakarta International Defence Dialogue (JIDD) on Wednesday.

"While in Yogyakarta, Zahid plans to meet relatives including Yogyakarta Mayor Haryadi Suyuti and friends, including the Yogyakarta sultan's brother, GBPH Joyokusumo as well as visiting the royal cemetery in Imogiri, Bantul.

"Zahid said that his grandparents moved from Kulonprogo to Malaysia in 1932, while his mother's grandfather had come from Ponorogo, East Java, and later married a Malaysian woman."

" So Zahidi is also a 'pendatang' like the rest of us . In fact, there are hundreds of thousands of Chinese and Indians, whose ancestors migrated to Malaysia before 1932. And yet Zahid has the gall, to demand that 51.78 % of the population emigrates. If he had an iota of integrity, he would have resigned from the Cabinet. Many of these UMNOPutras are behaving like Mahathir alias Mamakutty Kerala. Many are descendants of immigrants, but have the cheek to re-categorise themselves as 'Orang Asli Tanah Melayu' and the minorities as 'Pendatang".

The truth is all these so called malay rights champions are newer pendatang than most malaysian, they think they can con us. The biggest dick is mamak kutty. Send these @#!*% back before any others and we will save the country from these scum

The Malays are migrating - from Umno to Pakatan.

How diabolical for a senior minister in PM Najib Razak's cabinet to make such a statement - to encourage Malaysians to emigrate if they are not happy with the May 5 general election results.

New Home Minister Zahid Hamidi is indeed disappointing to have written such a statement, bringing the integrity of Najib's new cabinet into question.

Zahid would do well to read the will of the rakyat as reflected in the election results, for the rakyat have indeed spoken.

For Umno-BN to secure the government with a minority popular vote is in itself a fraud by way of tampering of electoral boundaries through gerrymandering.Rampant legalising illegals and enrolling them as voters is another damning indictment of electoral fraud.

The truth is all these so called malay rights champions are newer pendatang than most malaysian, they think they can con us. The biggest dick is mamak kutty from India. 

'So you think this is your father's country?'

PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim has described the statement urging those unhappy with the May 5 general election results to leave the country as an insult to Malaysians.

Shane Todd saga continues

There were signs that Todd was going home, resigned from this job and a new job awaiting. He was selling his furniture, another sign that things were quite normal. There were also evidence that he was depressed, seen a shrink, unhappy with his job. His depression was confirmed by his girlfriend.

There were allegations that he was working on something secretive that could compromise US interest. There were official statements that what he was doing was of no high sensitivity or secretive in nature, not something that would have warrant the CIA or other intelligence agencies to raise an eyebrow.

There were allegations that two Chinese companies were involved in what Todd was doing, gallium nitride, and would want him dead? Now what was Todd doing or what he knew that was so sensitive or dangerous to put his life at stake?

The pathologists have examined his dead body and concluded that it was suicide. The counter evidence brought up by the veterinarian alleging murder was found to be normal in a suicide case and he had withdrawn that statement.

The Singapore police and pathologists have made their findings. Are they supposed to go around looking for evidence of suicide? Or would it be better that the world class, best in the world FBI or CIA help out in this case to find some leads to prove that Shane Todd was murdered? Their superior skills and technology and their international coverage would put them in a better position to discover more of what Todd’s parents would want to hear.

I hope the US Govt will chip in, put in some of their experts to help the Todd family to bring a closure to this case. Our police and judiciary system are not dependable and this was what they said, "We no longer have confidence in the transparency and the fairness of the system. It appears to us that the outcome has been pre-determined," the Todds said in the statement read out by their lawyer, Gloria James-Civetta.

Given the lack of trust in the Singapore system, it is best that the Todds rely on their ever trusting, fair and transparent American system to do them justice. Whatever the Singapore side has to say and not what they want to hear will be unfair and unacceptable. Let’s hope the American Govt and system will make the Todds happy with their findings. And let’s hope there will be lesser accusations based on hearsays