When the Committee to Review Ministerial Salaries finally released its report, the PAP held a huddle session exclusively for its party members ahead of its public release. This is wrong. This is a national issue in which all Singaporeans have a stake in and if there was to be a private preview, then it should be open to the elected members of the opposition as well. I'm surprised that the opposition MPs did not pick up on that. Perhaps they were too excited about their own counter proposals with which they hope to show up the work of the Committee.
Be as it may, I do not think anyone really disputes the need to pay our elected representatives a reasonable salary. Despite all that has been said about it being a privilege to serve, there are obvious sacrifices that have to be made. Anyone contemplating a political 'calling' to say otherwise would be naive at best (and likely not having the intellectual chops for government office) or at worse, outright lying, in which case, they should NOT be in government office at all.
It is necessary for anyone to look out for their own interests. Nobody will do it for you otherwise. The problem is deciding to what extent and to what degree. Our political leaders are people too and like people, susceptible to greed. Like the little kid sneaking cookies out of the jar being tempted to pilfer more over time until Grandma catches them in the act and smacks their hand, they will keep awarding themselves bigger and more benefits over time. The last electoral defeat was like Grandma smacking the hand.
Benchmarking ministerial salaries to a portion of the top 1000 earners in Singapore is as good a proposal as any other realistically viable scheme. I would think that few would dispute the importance and responsibilities of our ministers when compared to these 1000 individuals.
Put yourselves into the shoes of these ministers for a while if you will. You spend time and energy coming up with policies that allow business tycoons to prosper, make billions in profits and show off their multitudes of young mistresses while you have to live the life of a pious monk...(at least in public) You can't even queue up for property launches so you can flip them for a quick profit. Neither do we want to see a minister queuing at the Yishun Toto outlet hoping to strike it rich. We can do without the added competition :) We need to pay them enough that they are not distracted and can concentrate on doing what needs to be done in the interests of the nation.
It would be good if it can be otherwise. In over 5000 years of Chinese civilisation (as people are fond of quoting), they have managed to produce only one Confucius, only one poet who was sufficiently disappointed about his country's state of governance to commit suicide. I don't think we can find enough of such individuals here in Singapore.
So, this review of ministerial salaries is timely and a necessary move to rein in compensation that have recently swung too far in favour of these individuals that have been put forward as our betters. Whether it will help to improve or maintain the political status quo of the ruling party is the wrong question to ask. The question is can the ministers deliver the results expected of them? If not, even if they volunteer to work for free, it will not make a difference. The motion to accept the recommendations of the ministerial salary review committee has passed. If the May 2011 elections were to be held now, would the results be any different? What do you think?
Sunday 22 January 2012
Thursday 12 January 2012
To Pond or not to Pond. Where is the question.
Much has been said and very little useful action actually done with regards to this problem. The experts have been called in, those in the hot seat have covered their collective asses from further responsibility. After all what more can they do? Pick up changkuls and start digging?
There are two ways footpaths can be built. One (the usual way) is to let the urban planner dictate it. The other way is to let the path users decide. They will create the bare earth track through constant use and that is the path that should be paved over. Which do you think is the better way?
Nature has shown which parts of Orchard Rd it wants to flood. And it has done so repeatedly. Why fight it? If any water retention ponds are to be built to manage the occasional flood, then that is where it should be built.
Liat Towers and Lucky Plaza are old buildings with no architectural features worthy of conservation. Just demolish them. Straight of, problem solved. No more shopkeepers will be affected by floods EVER. Orchard Rd as it is is already over supplied as far as retail space is concerned. Removing some will help stabilize rents for the remaining malls and increase business for their tenants. A win-win solution.
Landscape the cleared area into green spaces. Plant a few nutmeg trees around the ponds as a nod to Orchard Rd's historical origins and maybe even make it into a tourist destination or at least something to point out to from the Hippo bus tours.
If the residents of Rochor can be moved en masse out of the area for MRT/Road development, I don't see any obstacle to doing this. With the flooding problem, the government should also be able to acquire the land at much lower prices too.
Perhaps someone living in the constituency that Orchard Rd falls under should write a letter to their MP or the Minister in charge. It's amazing what a single letter can do in certain cases. Just ask Mr Allan Tan. Doing just that, his MP, Mr Chia Shi-Lu managed to pre-emptively grab some KTM railway land to convert into carparks...
There are two ways footpaths can be built. One (the usual way) is to let the urban planner dictate it. The other way is to let the path users decide. They will create the bare earth track through constant use and that is the path that should be paved over. Which do you think is the better way?
Nature has shown which parts of Orchard Rd it wants to flood. And it has done so repeatedly. Why fight it? If any water retention ponds are to be built to manage the occasional flood, then that is where it should be built.
Liat Towers and Lucky Plaza are old buildings with no architectural features worthy of conservation. Just demolish them. Straight of, problem solved. No more shopkeepers will be affected by floods EVER. Orchard Rd as it is is already over supplied as far as retail space is concerned. Removing some will help stabilize rents for the remaining malls and increase business for their tenants. A win-win solution.
Landscape the cleared area into green spaces. Plant a few nutmeg trees around the ponds as a nod to Orchard Rd's historical origins and maybe even make it into a tourist destination or at least something to point out to from the Hippo bus tours.
If the residents of Rochor can be moved en masse out of the area for MRT/Road development, I don't see any obstacle to doing this. With the flooding problem, the government should also be able to acquire the land at much lower prices too.
Perhaps someone living in the constituency that Orchard Rd falls under should write a letter to their MP or the Minister in charge. It's amazing what a single letter can do in certain cases. Just ask Mr Allan Tan. Doing just that, his MP, Mr Chia Shi-Lu managed to pre-emptively grab some KTM railway land to convert into carparks...
Sunday 8 January 2012
From 4 legs Good to 2 Legs Better
In George Orwell's novel Animal Farm, after the animals overthrew their human oppressors, the pigs who took over the role of running the farm eventually took over the characteristics of their former human masters as well.
And so it is in the realm of human affairs and history has borne this out again and again. It is almost like a self-fulfilling curse, a perverse form of Maslow's theory if you like. The ideological basis that spurred the movements that won independence from colonial masters soon fade away and the people find themselves yet again under the yoke of oppression, only this time from their own kind.
Singapore unfortunately, is no exception. The first generation of leaders fired by the ideals of self determination and control of our own destiny, identified themselves with the people and achieved independence. It was us (the leadership AND people) against them.
In the course of time, this link was broken, almost sub-consciously. This shift in stance from the inclusive us (the leadership and people) to a more corporatist we, the leadership (business owner) and you the people (customer) was so subtle that no one actually noticed it. The 'ape' that walked on all fours had finally evolved into the human walking on two feet. The inclusive political leadership had evolved into a confrontational one.
And this is the evolution of statehood that we find ourselves in today and all the troubles that we face flow from it. The change in stance may have been subtle, but the consequences are anything but. The pioneering leaders may have been prepared to risk everything just for victory, the leaders of today (if you can find them) have very different ideals.
The Mao suit must not only be fur-lined (on the inside), it needs to come with a chauffeur driven limousine. Surprisingly, this isn't the problem. In a meritocratic society, people accept the realities of rewards commensurate with ability and responsibility, even if grudgingly.
The problem is the confrontational link between the leadership and the people. It need not be this way. The stance needs to be re-oriented back to the inclusive us (leadership and people). The present leadership does not appear to even realise this, much less being able to fix it.
Even Mr Lee Kuan Yew, without the counsel of his former colleagues may not be able to fix this, but try he should. Failing which, he may well suffer the fate of President Suharto, living long enough to see all that he and his colleagues have toiled (successfully I might add) fall to pieces.
And so it is in the realm of human affairs and history has borne this out again and again. It is almost like a self-fulfilling curse, a perverse form of Maslow's theory if you like. The ideological basis that spurred the movements that won independence from colonial masters soon fade away and the people find themselves yet again under the yoke of oppression, only this time from their own kind.
Singapore unfortunately, is no exception. The first generation of leaders fired by the ideals of self determination and control of our own destiny, identified themselves with the people and achieved independence. It was us (the leadership AND people) against them.
In the course of time, this link was broken, almost sub-consciously. This shift in stance from the inclusive us (the leadership and people) to a more corporatist we, the leadership (business owner) and you the people (customer) was so subtle that no one actually noticed it. The 'ape' that walked on all fours had finally evolved into the human walking on two feet. The inclusive political leadership had evolved into a confrontational one.
And this is the evolution of statehood that we find ourselves in today and all the troubles that we face flow from it. The change in stance may have been subtle, but the consequences are anything but. The pioneering leaders may have been prepared to risk everything just for victory, the leaders of today (if you can find them) have very different ideals.
The Mao suit must not only be fur-lined (on the inside), it needs to come with a chauffeur driven limousine. Surprisingly, this isn't the problem. In a meritocratic society, people accept the realities of rewards commensurate with ability and responsibility, even if grudgingly.
The problem is the confrontational link between the leadership and the people. It need not be this way. The stance needs to be re-oriented back to the inclusive us (leadership and people). The present leadership does not appear to even realise this, much less being able to fix it.
Even Mr Lee Kuan Yew, without the counsel of his former colleagues may not be able to fix this, but try he should. Failing which, he may well suffer the fate of President Suharto, living long enough to see all that he and his colleagues have toiled (successfully I might add) fall to pieces.
Sunday 1 January 2012
When is enough Enough?
Apparently, it never is. Witness the recent (and ongoing) financial crisis brought about by the collapse of complex financial instruments lobbied for and created by the finance industry with the complicity and facilitation by their political proxies. The greed of the people running these firms knew no limits. Enough was never in their vocabulary. And the world is suffering for it.
Way back when Singapore was just formed, our then leaders, former Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and his colleagues took the less conventional route when formulating their policies. The Tunku did not. The result was the Singapore of maybe 15 to 20 years or so ago, one that we can justifiably call a miracle.
Today, a new generation of leaders have taken over the reins in Singapore. Of the pioneering batch of leaders, only Mr Lee Kuan Yew is still around. But he has acknowledged in public that he no longer has the energy to 'change the world'.
These new leaders have grown up in an environment where continued economic growth and development are the keys to progress and prosperity. But the world has changed. The old paradigm will not work anymore. Back then, the world population was at most two billion. Today it is seven billion and growing. Most of the resources needed for economic growth were still in the ground then. Oil was plentiful and easily obtainable. Today, we have incidents like the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico where we are trying to drill for oil through several kilometers of ocean and seabed. The low hanging fruit of resources are no more. These new leaders find themselves unable to think outside of the growth and development box.
I used to fantasise if you will, about Singapore buying or getting a long term lease on the Indonesian islands of Batam, Bintan and Karimun to alleviate our land scarcity. But not anymore. More land will not solve our problems, only delay it. Kicking the can down the road if you will. With the incessant clamour for further growth and development, these islands will in due course also run out of space. So, the solution to our lack of space is NOT more space. The solution is knowing when to say: Enough.
PM Lee's new year's day message spoke about our population challenges. Unfortunately, I believe by challenge, he means how to INCREASE our population rather than reducing it. If so, then it would be obvious that he has yet to realise that increasing our population is a dead end strategy. Or worse, he knows it is a dead end, but still persists in going ahead with it. It would be good if he can give us a firm figure as to what he considers would be the optimal population size for Singapore and WHY. Just saying it needs to INCREASE or get BIGGER is just fuzzy thinking as it obviously cannot increase without limit.
We will hit a resource and space constraint wall one day if we maintain the present policies of growth and development. Not if, WILL. What then? Will the government of the day then, having no alternative then chart another path? Not that they have a choice, they will have to by then. The question today is why not chart that path NOW instead of waiting until we have destroyed every last bit of our environment, running out of options and then having to do it anyway? Only by then, it would have become an even bigger problem. Just like the Eurozone and the US trying to solve their current debt problems with even MORE debt. How it that working out for them?
Like a cancerous tumour that grows and spreads (because it is the only thing it knows how to do) until it finally kills its host, economic policies that depend on continuous growth will end up destroying the countries having such policies. On a finite planet, perpetual growth is not possible. Absent discovery of an alien planet inhabited by backward blue skinned natives whose resources we can pillage, the only alternative is war among ourselves. War for the victors will clear all debts, gain access to remaining resources and eliminate excess demand (from too large a population). The future is bleak and only because we (like the lemmings) could not control ourselves when times were good to say: Enough.
Growth and development IS the conventional route in today's environment. To continue to chart our future in this way would be the present day equivalent of following the Tunku's lead. This way will not and cannot lead to success. The new paradigm is survivability and the policies that we need are those that emphasize sustainability, NOT growth.
Have our present leaders realised this? Or will they continue to feed us stories of the need for continued growth, letting in more immigrants if necessary (the equivalent of putting out a fire by adding more fuel). I guess we will find out in the months ahead of this new year.
Way back when Singapore was just formed, our then leaders, former Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and his colleagues took the less conventional route when formulating their policies. The Tunku did not. The result was the Singapore of maybe 15 to 20 years or so ago, one that we can justifiably call a miracle.
Today, a new generation of leaders have taken over the reins in Singapore. Of the pioneering batch of leaders, only Mr Lee Kuan Yew is still around. But he has acknowledged in public that he no longer has the energy to 'change the world'.
These new leaders have grown up in an environment where continued economic growth and development are the keys to progress and prosperity. But the world has changed. The old paradigm will not work anymore. Back then, the world population was at most two billion. Today it is seven billion and growing. Most of the resources needed for economic growth were still in the ground then. Oil was plentiful and easily obtainable. Today, we have incidents like the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico where we are trying to drill for oil through several kilometers of ocean and seabed. The low hanging fruit of resources are no more. These new leaders find themselves unable to think outside of the growth and development box.
I used to fantasise if you will, about Singapore buying or getting a long term lease on the Indonesian islands of Batam, Bintan and Karimun to alleviate our land scarcity. But not anymore. More land will not solve our problems, only delay it. Kicking the can down the road if you will. With the incessant clamour for further growth and development, these islands will in due course also run out of space. So, the solution to our lack of space is NOT more space. The solution is knowing when to say: Enough.
PM Lee's new year's day message spoke about our population challenges. Unfortunately, I believe by challenge, he means how to INCREASE our population rather than reducing it. If so, then it would be obvious that he has yet to realise that increasing our population is a dead end strategy. Or worse, he knows it is a dead end, but still persists in going ahead with it. It would be good if he can give us a firm figure as to what he considers would be the optimal population size for Singapore and WHY. Just saying it needs to INCREASE or get BIGGER is just fuzzy thinking as it obviously cannot increase without limit.
We will hit a resource and space constraint wall one day if we maintain the present policies of growth and development. Not if, WILL. What then? Will the government of the day then, having no alternative then chart another path? Not that they have a choice, they will have to by then. The question today is why not chart that path NOW instead of waiting until we have destroyed every last bit of our environment, running out of options and then having to do it anyway? Only by then, it would have become an even bigger problem. Just like the Eurozone and the US trying to solve their current debt problems with even MORE debt. How it that working out for them?
Like a cancerous tumour that grows and spreads (because it is the only thing it knows how to do) until it finally kills its host, economic policies that depend on continuous growth will end up destroying the countries having such policies. On a finite planet, perpetual growth is not possible. Absent discovery of an alien planet inhabited by backward blue skinned natives whose resources we can pillage, the only alternative is war among ourselves. War for the victors will clear all debts, gain access to remaining resources and eliminate excess demand (from too large a population). The future is bleak and only because we (like the lemmings) could not control ourselves when times were good to say: Enough.
Growth and development IS the conventional route in today's environment. To continue to chart our future in this way would be the present day equivalent of following the Tunku's lead. This way will not and cannot lead to success. The new paradigm is survivability and the policies that we need are those that emphasize sustainability, NOT growth.
Have our present leaders realised this? Or will they continue to feed us stories of the need for continued growth, letting in more immigrants if necessary (the equivalent of putting out a fire by adding more fuel). I guess we will find out in the months ahead of this new year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)