4/07/2015

Singapore and Democracy: A Love-Hate Partnership?

 
Perspectives on Donald Low’s Rebuttal of Calvin Cheng

Democracy is a slippery political concept. Many definitions abound, none particularly helpful in furthering our understanding. Many advocates of democracy attempt to define democracy in real life; dressing it up with civil liberties, popular elections, free press, free speech, right to bear arms … etc.  It seems natural that Donald and Calvin, together with many others, have difficulty grasping the nature of democracy in Singapore.  

Donald Low’s Rebuttal @ TREmeritus here.

First, Calvin is right: for Lee Kuan Yew (LKY), there is no “trade-offs” between freedom, development and democracy. Donald’s rebuttal misunderstood his own 1986 quote of LKY: “What are our priorities? First, the welfare, the survival of the people. Then, democratic norms and processes which from time to time we have to suspend.” LKY was not referring to trade-offs between democracy and development; for him, it is about prioritization or program sequencing of his government action agenda. For LKY, Democracy and democratic processes must and should facilitate development or face irrelevance, even oblivion.  

Always mindful of the electorate as his primary and only political accountability, LKY chose to “trade-up” the survival and welfare of the people who elected him and his PAP government repeatedly in every general election. He did not “trade-away” democratic norms and procedures; otherwise the PAP would not have held regular general elections as often and whenever constitutionally mandated to do so, unless LKY is also a strong believer in the value of democratic accountability.

Second, Donald’s argument that the reason “… many countries aren’t able to provide (these) public goods is not because they are democracies, but because they lack strong, competent and effective states” is a corporatist argument, not a democratic one.  Many have argued with some merits that corporatism – advocating a strong central state - is incompatible with democracy.

Donald failed in fact to recognize the implications of his own argument; that the co-existence of democracy and a strong state could very well be mutually exclusive and fundamentally impossible.

Rather, Donald preferred to explain that “democratically elected governments may not be able to deliver high quality public goods for a variety of reasons” which he attributed again to the absence of strong state control and regulatory mechanisms, instead of the obvious limitation of democracy in the social production of the greatest good for the largest number. 

The truth is that democracy does not and has never promise the delivery of development and high quality public goods.  History is on the side of the benevolent dictator, the paternalistic autocrat, the corporatist, but not the democrat.

Third, in using the Francis Fukuyama’s model describing the problem of having all three institutions - a strong state, rule of law, and democratic accountability - that comprise Francis’ political development, Donald inadvertently also subscribed into its flawed logic and argument.

Fukuyama is wrong to consider the 3 institutions capable of independent existence. They are not. A strong state is not sustainable without popular voluntary consent (meaning democratic accountability through general elections) and the rule of law.  The rule of law is a necessary organ to the effective function of government who enact the laws to do so.  Repressive and unjust laws will fuel civil disobedience to bring about their changes, and the downfall of despotic and intolerable governments.  To the corporatist, a strong state enjoys primacy and pre-eminence (eg. Singapore); and a democrat objects ideologically to a strong state (eg. in USA).  For both, the rule of law is just a flexible political tool to regulate and produce the desirable level of popular voluntary consent.  

Fourth, quite contrary to Donald’s thesis, no evidence from history supports “a natural link between economic development and the rise of democratic demands”.  Even Donald admitted that democracy and economic development are not pre-requisite of one another.

Fifth, Donald’s prescription of “greater democratic accountability” for Singapore from here forward in the post-LKY era is inconsistent with his emphasis on state-building and on enhancing state capacity since a strong state is incompatible with stronger democracy.

Six, Donald had a fatally wrong understanding of democracy and democratic elections when he advocated “a more diverse and representative government” instead of one returned by repeated fair and clean general elections in accordance with standard democratic procedures.  There is no one best form or style of democracy.
 
Perhaps, Donald’s call for more Opposition MPs points in fact to the lackluster performance and failure of these MPs to articulate their constituents’ interests …  The effectiveness of Opposition MPs does not lie in their numbers but in the logic, presentation and vigorousness of their alternative solutions proffered as “better” than the government. This is not a failure of democracy in Singapore, just the failure of leadership and imagination on the part of the Opposition.  

The problem in their understanding of democracy and government in people like Calvin and Donald lies in their belief in an over-rated conception of democracy.  Democracy exists in so many forms and styles to suit its respective contextual domains.

At its root, democracy does not promise the election of a “good” leader.  There are far too many supporting examples to this and needs no elaboration here.

Democracy provides a decision-making frame for making choices among who shall govern.  Democracy is not a quality management standard with a checklist of best practices and good conduct procedures.

Is a bad democracy (which is inefficient and slacken) therefore better than a benevolent dictatorship?

Singapore is better off managing democracy as a governance tool in the manner that we did in the past, with regular free and fair elections and in a political climate characterized by freedom from fear, freedom from want, freedom of religious beliefs and the freedom of choice.  If these were what democracy could facilitate, it would be great!  If not, democracy should get out of our way as we journey toward a better, more prosperous, fairer and equal society of one Singapore and one nation.

GoTo the Full Posts:
Rebutting Calvin Cheng’s article @ TREmeritus, 5 April 2015.

Related Democracy Posts:
Posted by at 3 comments:

4/06/2015

The Great Singapore Train and Bus Robbery


And it’s perfectly Legal!

Commuters today hardly notice that they have been “robbed”. Each bus and MRT train trip will merely add 2 - 5 cents depending on distance.  Overall, public transport fares increase by about 2.8% from today, in accordance with the Public Transport Council (PTC) decision made on January.   

It has been argued and evident by facts and statistics that the public transport fare hikes for 2015 have no compelling rationale and basis. The PTO did not produce any justifications as to current or impending profits reduction; they could not because they actually enjoyed windfall profits due to unprecedented oil price drop last year.   

About $48 million will be taken from commuters over the next 12 months to feed highly profitable public transport operators (PTO) in 2015 and part of 2016. Serious public trust issues are raised but never fully addressed.

The generosity of commuters in acquiescing to the fare hikes, though few in fact have any alternative transport choices, will deliver the whooping additional $48.5m in revenue to the two public transport operators - SBS Transit and SMRT.  Never mind that they will have to contribute $5.5 million and $8 million respectively to the Public Transport Fund (PTF), from which $7.5 million from the Fund would provide 250,000 vouchers of $30 each to low-income households (one-time?), which act merely to postpone but did not eliminating its impact on the lowest of the low-income earners. These vouchers basically returned their PTF contributions to the PTO to retain net-neutral revenue impact

For SBS Transit, this $5.5 million represents about 25 per cent of the additional fare revenue, while for SMRT, the $8 million they are setting aside accounts for about 30 per cent.

As predicted, commuters hardly feel the mosquito-bite pinch of the transport fare hikes today.  My son reminds me that it amounts to about $2-$4 per month for regular commuters, or nearly $25-$50 per year, for no assurance of improvements in the prevalent poor customer services.  The only clear purpose of the public transport fare hikes is profiteering by the PTO.  

Singaporeans must be protected from the unequal powers of monopolistic – in the case of public transport, duopolistic – companies in the marketplace.  Every economic student knows that monopolistic and duopolistic companies are the most inefficient with respect to resource use in their operations. They furthermore generate huge profits from the captive marketplace is such disproportion to the privilege of providing a needed social service.

Both PTO have announced dividends for their private share-holders from their windfall profits. Their shares are expected to out-perform the stock market.  Currently, the shares of both PTO are the darlings of the Singapore Stock Exchange, even before the fare hikes!

Public transport commuters, mostly for middle and lower income households, have few affordable transport alternatives.   Where is the social justice when private companies are allowed to derive huge windfall profits from operating with assets largely invested by the Government ie people of Singapore? 

Granted, when considered in the totality of its entire assets, which include the transport infrastructure invested by past generations of Singaporeans, no strictly private and profit-oriented company could be profitable under the normal circumstances.  So, why are the PTO  profit-driven instead of guardians of social investments and public assets?  Why are they allowed to skimmed from the commuters a few cents here and there even though they are already highly profitable? It is because they can do so with impunity, to “rob” commuters in broad daylight and night, and to get away with it because it is NOT a crime.  It is in fact criminal to simply take from the less and lower income, basically the weak and vulnerable people, in order to enrich oneself.  In this instance, and every day for the next 12 months, day or night, when you board a public bus or MRT train, you will be “legally” robbed.  

Public transports should be managed by more socially responsible National PTOs beyond the current obsessive profit-seeker types of companies. We need Public Transport Social Enterprises that have embedded social responsibility values into its leadership and management. 


Related Posts:
Posted by at 26 comments:

Dear Leeder, this is for you

Pole vaulter Rachel Isabel Yang, a 33 year of mother, probably past her prime in her sporting career if age is concerned, could not believe it herself. She returned to her sport after becoming a mother to compete in the Malaysian Open.

She cleared 3.40m, 3.60m and 3.70m in her first attempt, like a breeze. She attributed her success to Mr Lee. She said she thought of Mr Lee before her attempts and Mr Lee was such an inspiration. Then she wanted to attempt 3.80m but changed her mind and went for the record of 3.83m. She cleared in her second attempt to win a gold medal, and a national record and qualified for the SEA Games. Her mind was focused on Dear Leeder when she vaulted.
 
And this was what she wrote, ‘Dear Mr Lee, I competed in memory of you at Malaysia Open today. Before each of my attempts, I told myself, "Mr Lee, this is for you, I will make you proud"’.
 
The power of the thought is simply amazing. And the power of inspiration from a Dear Leeder is beyond words. I would like to suggest that all the sports associations place a statue or picture of Dear Leeder in their grounds for all sportsmen and sportswomen to take a bow before training. The statue or picture would be a powerful inspiration to do better for Dear Leeder. Coaches, are you reading? I can see a few Olympic medals in the horizon.
 
Do not doubt the power of the mind and what Dear Leeder can do to make a person perform wonders. And when the person is highly motivated and wanted to do Dear Leeder proud, miracles can happen. It may be useful to send a team to Pyongyang to learn from them how to erect the statues and pictures of Dear Leeder to make it effective. They have been doing it for decades and it is something we can learn from. People can be highly motivated without the use of money but by their thoughts.
 
This is highly motivational.
Posted by at 21 comments:

Religious extremism – beware!

The words ‘religious extremism or fanaticism’ give people a very clear idea of what they mean today. And the minds would simply wander off to the Middle East, to Iraq, to Syria and some of the countries that are homes to ISIS and the Al Qaeda.

Over the last few days, religious extremism in a different form is showing its signs in the world’s most expensive and supposedly cosmopolitan city called Singapore. A young boy of 16 insulted their ‘God’ in a YouTube broadcast and was met with threats of having his cock cut and shafted down his throat. Another gave a mild threat that the boy could be killed. Just imagine if the two were to say these to an MP like burning him? This is no joking matter. Yes, religious extremism can crop up anywhere, even in a cosmopolitan city, and the extremists could be the goody goody boy next door. In this case they are not boys but supposedly ‘responsible adults’ with good connections to the establishment.

Were they saying or uttering the threats to a boy as a joke? There were many calls for them to own up, for the police to investigate and find out what was their intent? These should be serious enough for them to realise that if they meant what they said as a joke or a figure of speech, they should explain, yes they should explain, and come out clean, that they were misquoted.

No, there was no explanation, no apologies. The big question, is this a joke, a figure of speech or an intended threat? If not, then is this in the mould of religious fanaticism, that the believers felt so aggrieved by words that hurt their ‘Gods’ and they were really furious, filled with anger and hate? Are they planning to carry out their threats? Is the boy’s safety at stake? Should there be a clarification of their intent or have they gone underground, untraceable, gone to their equivalent of the middle eastern hideouts to lie low when the heat is on?

Religious extremism can come in any form when people are easily provoked or excited or feel wronged and are strong believers of their beliefs and their ‘Gods’. Do not say anything to offend such extremists. Do not take social security and safety for granted. Do not take threats for granted. Be very careful in what you say, even in blogs and in YouTube.

PS. I too was threatened and I have to take it seriously until the asshole comes out with a statement that he did not mean it. Wherever I go, I am still watching my back all the time. And if something bad happens to me, please remember this threat against me and get the authority to go after him.

Just hope no harm goes to Amos when the extremists are still at large and did not own up. Do not take an open threat lightly no matter how subtle it is worded. You do not know what is in their minds and what is the real intent.
Posted by at 8 comments:

4/05/2015

Education standards in Singapore universities going up again



In Singapore, you pay a price for quality. And anything that is good is expensive, priced according its quality. The SMRT is one of the best in the world. And it is so good that it is raising its fares again to match its quality of service. Fares will go up on 5 Apr 15.

Yesterday it was also announced that all the universities will be raising their fees again for the next academic year. So if you put one and one together, the quality of our universities will go up again. You pay for quality. The quality is in the price you pay. The increases range from 1% to 8% depending on the courses and the institutions. This must be good news for the students eyeing for a world class university education in Singapore. The rankings of these universities will definitely notch up a few more rungs. At the rate they are raising the quality of university education by raising the fees respectively, soon they will be better than Harvard or MIT or Cambridge and Oxford. And of course they will have equally high course fees to match.

But just be careful about job opportunities. It was reported in the media yesterday that 60% of the local professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMET) that lost their jobs could not be reemployed because they lacked the skills set. And they are the products of our world best universities.

And the lack of skills set is not confined to the older graduates from our universities. Fresh graduates also have difficulties finding jobs due to lack of skills set. I quote a comment in a local social media, the TRE,

‘crush the PAP:
so if PMETs young and old have lack of skills, then what are the polytechnics and SIM, SMU, NTU,NUS teaching in their degree and diploma syllabuses??? all outdated stuff???
its like the educational institutions are still teaching DOS and Word Star and the outside world is using windows 8 and office 2013.
if you are a fresh grad from Poly and NUS and outside interviewers are telling you you lack the relevant skills, then what the f*ck are these educational institutions teaching???
education ministry sleeping and daydreaming still isn’t it??’

I can guarantee the students that the qualities of these universities are definitely world class. But I am not sure world class in what ways. The students must be mentally prepared that getting a degree from these universities does not guarantee them a good job as the experience of the PMETs and the fresh graduates are anything to go by.

My recommendation is to go the neighbouring countries, 3rd World also good, if they want to get the right skills set to be employable. An easier and cheaper way is to buy from the degree mills. Not to worry, many of them are getting good jobs here and doing very well. Everyone is sleeping and no one is checking. Be street smart, get a degree, fake also can, that can get a job, not a world class degree that no employers want or worst, did not teach you the relevant skills set to get a job.

What do you want, a good degree from a world class university that cannot get a job or a fake degree or from an unknown university but can get you a job? It is very easy to con or cheat the talented employers in this 1st World city. They did not know what the hell is going on. They are too busy counting their money. See the ‘Do Not Disturb’ signs on their doors?
Posted by at 34 comments:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)