Natural Born Singapore Winner

 I’ve often said that Singapore is in many ways what a city should be – namely rich, clean and green. A large part of our success was due to the fact that our post-colonial leadership took a different turn from most post-colonial nations. Instead of turning away foreign investment, we took what was considered an unusual turn at the time and welcomed Western multinationals, who provided us with capital and skills to produce what is now a well-documented economic success story.

However, as the rest of Asia has started to catch up, Singapore has been at something of a loss. The role of being a bridge between West and East has started to vanish, as the Western multinationals have gone to the bigger Asian markets directly (think of prominent Westerners like former Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd who speaks fluent Mandarin to appeal to China directly) and the foreign investment community has found us increasingly expensive.

If you look at the economic policies of the last decade, you’ll get the sense that our government is scrambling to look for a “winner” that will propel our economy. We’ve done industrialization, trying digitalization and reinventing ourselves as a fun place for the world’s well to do – just think of the casinos and Formula One. Our government, which has become used to instant formulas of success, is now at a loss and is seeking all sorts of ways for that Holy Grail of shinny economic figures.

I had the privilege of being summoned by my old “food buddy” for a meal at the Sheraton hotel today. He had run into a common friend whom we had known as the manager of the Bar & Billiard Room in the Raffles Hotel, which was an old haunt of ours (back in the days when I had a magic card that gave huge discounts). This friend of ours had described the offer at the Sheraton as a “Die-Die Must Try” meal.

The meal was delightfully display of Peranakan (Straits Born Chinese) culture and then it hit me. If there’s one thing that Singapore can win at, it’s our cuisine. Singapore is a “foodie” paradise in as much as you’re going to get decent quality cuisine of any culture on the planet (I used to eat Nigerian food in Singapore). However, in addition to the availability of good cuisine of most cultures, there is a distinctly unique Singapore cuisine that combines the best of Chinese, Malay, Indian and to a certain extent some Western influence. If you look at my meal at the Sheraton, you will note that the dishes cannot be classified as particularly Chinese or Malay and they are unique to this part of the world.

The food was delicious. Meat dishes were tender. The coconut rice was flavorful and the vegetables were fresh – I am told that the Sheraton has a garden on its premises and the produce was grown in house, literally.

What makes this Singapore cuisine so special, is the fact that it was not something created by the government. Ever since he took power, Lee Kuan Yew and his successors have spent some 55-years trying to invent a culture for Singapore and Singaporeans. They have tried to enforce rules on “mother-tongue,” (a Chinese is only supposed to speak Mandarin) and tried to redefine cultural identity. Yet, these government led initiatives have largely been costly and ineffective.

However, while the government was trying to redefine culture and winners for Singaporeans, the people came together and worked together and produced something. Our Singapore cuisine is the result of people from different cultures, living together, trying each other’s cuisine and adapting what they liked and what they didn’t like thus creating something wonderful.

It’s not just at the Sheraton end of the market where this is happening. About a week back, I was in the Chua Chu Kang area of Singapore, where I met a Chinese hawker, selling Nasi (Malay for Rice) Rempah, which was his own invention – a take on the normal dish of Nasi Lemak. Once again, the meal was exceedingly enjoyable and a true celebration of our home-grown Singapore cuisine.   

If there’s anything encouraging about Singapore, its in the areas that have been overlooked by officialdom. This is the small spaces where people have been allowed to mix together free of the influence of dictated thought. This is the space where cultures have been allowed to meet at a particular cross roads and where people have been able to find common ground.

If the government is struggling to find a winner for Singapore, they should look into these spaces and encourage them to grow. Rather than dictate, they should allow people to feel their way. The results will be as tasty as our organically developed cuisine.

Who Are We?

 It’s my National Day today and I spent the better part of the morning watching the parade, which thanks to Covid-19 was substantially subdued but never the less well executed and then the afternoon was spent catching up with old friends that I hadn’t seen for a while. It didn’t occur to me that I would have a topic to write about for National Day.

It was only later in the evening when I was browsing through a friend’s Facebook page that I stumbled on a recording of Lee Kuan Yew reading out the proclamation of our independence that it occurred to me that there was something that needed to be said about National Day. The recording can be found at:

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/mr-lee-kuan-yews-reading-of-the-proclamation-of-independence-kicks-off-national-day?&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social-media&utm_campaign=addtoany&__FB_PRIVATE_TRACKING__=%7B%22loggedout_browser_id%22%3A%227b78fa7e0adc941009a232db0164e11461e0e48f%22%7D&fbclid=IwAR1cFSx0yujyS0hjjJIKWOdngXUzEIbKLZWi7s3ZRb6roI4yzIWf3MFR6PE

I don’t want to demean the efforts of those who marched in the parade and I am thankful for having a public holiday every August 9 but I do feel that National Day in Singapore tends to obscure one crucial fact – namely the fact that Singapore was not supposed to be a nation let alone a successful one.

If you watch enough of our National Day messages, you’re bound to get the impression that Singapore was a swamp that was dragged into being the successful ultra-modern metropolis that it is today by an all knowing and all seeing sage.

While Mr. Lee Kuan Yew was well known for his intellect and much of the success that is Singapore is due to his vision and execution, the official version isn’t quite accurate. OK, in fairness, every country does pump itself up on its national day but the problem with the official version of history is that it becomes something of an excuse for official high handedness. Whenever I’ve said something about the government being like that or that, I’ve had people from developed countries tell me off for being ungrateful to the all wise and all-knowing sage that set the tone for this country.

The first truth is that Singapore wasn’t quite the shit hole that the PAP government makes it out to be. While we had little in the way of natural resources or a hinterland, we had a port, which was the very reason why Raffles took interest what we call Singapore in the very first place.

The second truth is that Lee Kuan Yew was not exactly all knowing. He was in his early days the ideal leader for a democratic society. He recognized the genius in others (they in return recognized that the key to survival was not having eyes on his job) and letting them get on with it. One of my first shocks was his admission during the funeral of his old colleague, S. Rajaratnam in 2006, that there were, in his words “furious” debates. I grew up thinking that the old man never tolerated dissent. The key to success was this simple, he took care of the politics and allowed Rajaratnam, who was more ideological to get on with building symbols like our pledge and Goh Keng Swee, a pragmatist with a heart for the people, to get on with building the institutions such as our military and education system. Dr. Goh was in turn smart enough to listen to the likes of Dr. Winsemius, the Dutch Economist who led the United Nations Mission to Singapore.

The most important point is the fact that Lee Kuan Yew’s greatest success, namely the prosperous Singapore that we know today, came from his greatest failure, namely our ejection from the Malayan Federation. In his book, Lee Kuan Yew describes an “Independent Singapore” as a “Ridiculous Notion,” and what he fought for was a “Malaysian Malaysia.” The late Mr. Lee was an early champion of “Merdeka Malaysia.” The people of what we call Singapore, our British overlords who were planning to get out of the place and the Federal Government in KL didn’t want Singapore to be part of the Federation of Malaysia and yet, he somehow made it happen.

Again, this is not to take away anything from the man and how the nation that has given me so much was built up. What I am saying is let us look at the real success story and celebrate that instead.

Singapore was not a swamp that was brought into the modern age by a perfect sage. Our nation was built by a very clever man (and admittedly ruthless one) who knew how to read the situations not just on the ground but also in the larger nations around him. He was a man who respected talent in individuals and allowed them to challenge his views and when a consensus was reached, he gave them his backing. More importantly, he was a man who knew how to bounce back from failure.

My hope for a National Day celebrated in the midst of a global pandemic is that we don’t get blinded by our success and instead we look to the reasons why we were successful. Mr. Lee’s ability to build a consensus and to back talented individuals and build from failure are the very traits that our society will need in order to continue being successful.

Tapping on the Diaspora

I mentioned that I met Professor Yu Wei Shin, nearly a month ago in my piece “I KNOW I AM ATTRACTIVE – I JUST DON’T KNOW WHO I AM ATTRACTIVE TO.” (15 July 2020), via my Linkedin feed. Professor Yu had mentioned that he had read my pieces on TRemeritus and that he was an ex-Singaporean. My brief acquaintance with Professor Yu got me thinking about who these ex-Singaporeans are and whether we as a nation could tap onto people like him. I’ve invited him to give us a glimpse into his life and his feelings towards Singapore. In the brief glimpses that I’ve had of the man, it is clear that Singapore is failing to make the full use of our diaspora. Here is a well-educated man, who is building a high-tech product in his later years (A point I stress as Singapore is a place that considers you ancient and useless after 45).

The Professor has given me a short blurb, which I hope you will enjoy.

Tang Li – Singapore 20 July 2020

According to reports in Singapore’s Parliament, there are around 1,000 Singaporeans give up their citizenship every year. Many of those who have given up their citizenship and moved elsewhere are well-educated and found success in their new homes. Many also yearn to return to Singapore to share their accumulated knowledge, skills and experience, to semi-retirement, which they would do so at no cost to the tax payer.

Unfortunately, our current immigration system does not recognize that there might be a diaspora out there who could do many things for Singapore. Once you leave and renounce your citizenship, you are deemed to be like every other foreigner and if you wish to return to Singapore to work, you need to apply for an Employment Pass. In my experience, this is a discriminatory process. Ex-citizens are regarded as “traitors” for having the audacity to give up their citizenship and the system seems to prefer those who never had ties to Singapore coming in. I take myself as an example, despite have two PhD’s and conducted ground breaking scientific trials, I was advised twice “Do not apply, and if you do, your application will be rejected.”

This is sad. I think of other countries that have prospered because they tapped on the skills, experiences and even capital of their diaspora. China, for example, tapped on the diaspora in its early stages of development. India has a system known as the “Persons of Indian Origin” (PIO) card, which makes it easier for anyone of Indian origin, regardless of passport to come and contribute something to India.

Why do most of us give up our citizenship? We do so for a variety of reasons and I believe that most, if not all, of us give up our citizenship as a last resort. However, our heart is still very much anchored in Singapore- a little red dot of their forefathers, and where they were born and spent many years growing up. 

In my case, my father is Singaporean, though he returned to China to die. I was born and grew up in Malaysia, went to New Zealand to study, worked, then immigrated to Australia to work, before coming to NTU to teach in 1984.   You could say Singapore got a good deal from me. None of my education was paid for by the Singapore tax payer and I came with a PhD and with 10 years heavy engineering industrial experience. Apart from my 19 years of lecturing, I was very active as town councilor (in charge of environment matters), presidents of learned societies and consultancy to SME's, PSA, Philips, Seagate, Mobil Oil, Mindef, MFA, CleanSeas,

I only applied for Australian citizenship because of my mother's dying wish and my wish is to return to SERVE SINGAPORE UNINTERRUPTED!

While I may have renounced my Singapore Citizenship, I’ve been able to contribute in the following ways:

1.     At 56, I studied Master of Occupational Therapy at the University of Sydny and then PhD (Medicine) at University of New South Wales, graduating at 60 years, so that I can help solve some of the chronic disorders of the elderly in Singapore (-- stroke, elderly falls, etc).

2.     Even before I graduated, I returned and conducted a major clinical trial for hip fracture prevention together with Tan Tock Seng Hospital, for several hundred HDB residents, under a Government grant, using Prof Cameron's hip protector invention (USyd).  He is the internationally renowned "Father of Hip Protector".

3.     From 2012-2016, I returned as Visiting Consultant at Nanyang Polytechnic, and conducted 3 major clinical trials with TTSH using my invention: Robotic Lower Limb Rehab System, for sub-acute and chronic stroke patients, and elderly falls prevention -- all very successful!

4.     Now, together with my PhD university mate Dr Wong (www.apppliedrobotics.com.au), and Nanyang Polytechnic, I am inventing a revolutionary wheelchair system that even the Brits have no solution. It will solve many of the social economic problems in Singapore and beyond, ease the manpower shortages in nursing homes and hospitals and create many skilled jobs in Singapore!

5.     Going forward, we plan to establish a virtual Disabled Mobility Technology Research Centre, combining the expertise of University of Wollongong in Australia and NYP. 

Singapore spends millions on educating and nurturing "foreign talents" in its education system. We work hard to attract expatriates from the West and India.  We should also not overlook people like me. We have the talent and the desire to serve. Why can’t you make it easier for us, people who have the established emotional connection to come back to contribute?

Incidentally, my father served in the British Navy to defend Singapore during the war and suffered PTSD, which lead to family violence and divorce! Also, two of my children were born in Singapore, and three of them attended primary and secondary schools in Singapore. It hurts to be told on twice, "do not apply, and if you do, your application will be rejected"???

Prof YU Wei Shin
PhD(Medicine)(UNSW), PhD(Mech ENgg)(Canterbury, (BE(Hons)
Sydney

Thank You Ivan Lim - You've Proven the Case for the Opposition!

As mentioned in my last posting, there’s very little to say about Singapore’s General Elections. The result is a forgone conclusion and it’s a question of how badly the opposition parties get drubbed. As I’ve argued constantly, while the PAP governments have made mistakes, they’ve not done enough to lose elections. If you look at the results of the last few elections, the results have been pretty much the same. The ruling party enters this contest with the crucial advantage of a brand reputation for competence in governing.

Furthermore, the ruling party has used its advantages of incumbency. It called the election not long after giving out money to help people with the economic damages of Covid-19 and at a time when rules limiting the size of gatherings are in force, thus hobbling the opposition parties’ chances of holding large rallies. This is in addition to famously redrawing electoral boundaries in its favour. Despite its obvious advantages going into the fight, the ruling party famously does not leave things to chance. You can think of Singapore’s General Election as a fight between a gorilla that ties the arms of the chihuahua before stepping into the boxing ring with the chihuahua.

Change must be coming faster to Singapore’s political scene than anyone imagined. The ruling party has a single stroke, proceeded to give the opposition a gift that shreds one of its most crucial tenants – namely the reputation for competence. This has been done before a single shot has been fired in the proverbial war.

Mr. Ivan Lim, who had planned to stand for election as a candidate for the ruling party has just announced that he is no longer standing for election because of pressure from the online crowd. The story can be found at:

https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3090873/online-backlash-forces-singapores-pap-drop-ivan-lim-election 

If you read the story of Mr. Lim’s withdrawal, you’ll realise that it’s a sign of Singapore politics being more normal. Candidates who run for political office most democracies have to be prepared for every detail of their private lives to be scrutinized and the unwritten understanding is that when a candidate runs for office and gains office and all the power and perks that go with the said office, that they sacrifice the right of privacy.

At the most basic level, you could say Mr. Lim failed that hurdle of not being able to withstand public scrutiny and that the ruling party had failed to realise that the times had changed. While can rely on favourable coverage from the mainstream media, this the age of social media, which allows alternative voices to speak loudly.

This is the kindest thing that one can say about the ruling party and its former candidate. Further discussion would suggest that the ruling party’s machinery has major issues.

Mr. Lim was selected as a candidate because he checked the usual boxes of having the right credentials – namely former military officer and senior executive at a large local company linked to the government. However, within a matter of days of announcing his candidacy, one of the men who served under Mr. Lim posted something about Mr. Lim being an elitist and arrogant shit and which lead to other people posting things about him at his work place. The posting can be seen below:

More seriously, this led to allegations that Mr. Lim was involved in a bribery scandal over a project that his company was involved in, in Brazil. A report of the allegation can be found at:

https://mustsharenews.com/ivan-lim-keppel/?fbclid=IwAR0kdvahfCc2DLYD7apTTdTPtrH7Ec337OyjNWagDVR4CiGD5S2YCBS1YCc

Despite an online petition, Mr. Lim at first promised to fight the election and was even supported by the Minister for the Environment, Mr. Masagos Zulkifi. Mr. Lim’s defense of the allegations and Mr. Masagos’s reaction can be found at:

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ge2020-paps-ivan-lim-breaks-silence-criticisms-over-character-says-he-will-stay-course?fbclid=IwAR26ALaCjfsJyiVFzaNwy5xLPtno2Zw8fVBfW1mrrv8MufPQISMACAi0P7Y; and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZOxPYCqrvE

All of this could be a mistake that was corrected if this was any other party. However, this is not the case. Our ruling party has built its entire reputation around its competence and getting the best people possible. More importantly, Singapore’s government has stressed to the world that it is a vigorous champion of honest government. Our message to anyone planning to invest in Singapore is that while we may be a little pricier, we are transparent and you will never pay a bribe or be shaken down by officials. 

Lee Kuan Yew was very clear about this point. He paid ministers well but insisted on the highest standards of integrity in public office. Any government official caught with his or her hands in the proverbial cookie jar was always humiliated in public. 

So, the fundamental question here is, how did Mr. Lim even get selected to become a potential MP? The PAP has always made it a point to stress that it gets people of not just high levels of competence but character and basic integrity. 

Leaving aside Mr. Lim’s alleged elitst attitudes, there was an allegation floating around the internet that he may have had a connection to a major bribery scandal that was reported in the international media. How is it such that this most careful of political parties did not pick it up? It’s not like they didn’t have the resources to check on him.

Mr. Lim was a “tainted” candidate and the most charitable conclusion is that there was a fault in the vetting process. The next best thing you can say is that someone in the ruling party didn’t think it was important that there was such an allegation attached to Mr. Lim or that they could cover it up. 

Mr. Lim has just proven to the electorate that Singapore needs a stronger opposition presence in parliament to ensure that the highest standards of competence and integrity that Lee Kuan Yew’s initial PAP governments told us to demand are maintained. 

Do You Have to be the Smartest Guy in the Room?

One of the key features of the coronavirus for many journalists has been the White House Briefings on the coronavirus. These briefings were supposed to be an opportunity for America’s federal government lead by its president to update the nation on the efforts against the coronavirus.

Unfortunately, the briefings have not been briefings. Instead, they were opportunities for comedians to gather more material. The most recent one was when the president openly suggested that a possible cure for the virus was to inject bleach into the body. That moment can be found at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHkzqejFKbM

Every comedian pounced on this moment and the resulting outcry ensured that future briefings were put on hold. What happened?

The answer is simple. The man in charge had a need to show that he was doing something. This was a man who had come into power by telling the world that he had been given a very special brain. The public looked at the image he had presented of himself and agreed. He was then put into office.

Donald Trump is correct. He has a very special talent, which propelled him from being a successful reality TV star into the oval office. Mr. Trump has an instinctive genius for attracting attention and arousing passions. As one American customer at the Bistrot said, “There is no neutrality on the man.”

While he has a talent for drawing attention to himself, he’s not a medical expert and in a situation where medical expertise is of the most important variety, one has to question why he’s even suggesting any form of medication (and the bigger question being why people believe him). One suggestion is that he genuinely believes that he’s the smartest person in the room.

Unfortunately, being smart or the smartest person in the room isn’t the best thing to be. Some of the most successful people in the world, like Robert Kuok, the founder of the Shangri La Hotel chain, have said that one should always look for people smarter than yourself to do the job. Mr. Kuok, who survived the Japanese Occupation of Southeast Asia to build a fortune of US$12.8 billion (nearly four times that of Donald Trump) is clearly correct. Mr. Kuok, who started out as a sugar trader, has built a large and diverse empire beyond his core competence in commodity trading. How did he do it? The answer was allowing people who knew better than himself to do the job.

While the human brain is capable to thinking of many great things, it has certain limits. One of those key limits is that human beings tend to focus on certain things that they like and are good at and the saying “You can’t be good at everything,” rings true. This is especially true in leading large organisations and even nations, where the person at the top has to deal with a wide variety of issues and he or she simply cannot master every one of them. As such, one of the key skills of leadership is to know when you’re not the smartest person in the room and letting that person take the limelight with your encouragement.

This is seen most clearly in military situations. Mrs. Thatcher in the UK, knew she was not a military expert. So, when the Falklands War broke out, she set the objectives for what she wanted and then allowed the military to get on with the job. Likewise, George Bush Senior, did the same when booting Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. In comparison, the attempts to rescue the hostages in Iran under Jimmy Carter was a total disaster.

The entire professional services industry is based on the principle of getting smart people to do the job. As my favourite liquidator often says, “We’re hired for our knowledge.” Yes, the client or the main businessperson has to make final decisions because only he or she knows the overall business objective, but you as a consultant must provide advice because what you’re selling is the fact that you’re smarter at that particular aspect of the job.

Humility beats intelligence in leadership. Here in Singapore, we are led by highly qualified people (all with excellent credentials). Unfortunately, during this virus, we got so busy celebrating being hailed by the international media as the “Gold Standard” in managing the virus that we forgot about are vast underbelly of migrant workers. Then, there was a scramble when the infections exploded in the dormitories

A wise person does not need to know everything. He or she needs to recognize the fact and then look for the best person to do that aspect of the job. Allowing someone to be the hero is sometimes the most heroic thing to do. Let’s go back to America’s numbers. You have a president who is not a medical doctor prescribing unproven medication from the presidential bully pulpit. According to him, he is doing a fabulous job. At the time of writing, America has 1,160,774 cases, which is more than next six nations combined and in five months the virus has killed roughly ten thousand more than the Vietnam War in 14-years.

The Fawning Follower.

One of the most prominent moments in Barak Obama’s Presidency was when he suggested that people who felt that people living on low wages didn’t have it that bad was “Try it.” I often think of this phrase whenever I read comments about workers dormitories and how foreign workers should be grateful for their lot in life because it's  apparently much worse elsewhere.

The most recent character who should try it is a character called “Michael Petraeus,” a Polish national who has reinvented himself as a blogger called “Critical Spectator.” Mr. Petraeus like all good foreigners at the “expat” end of the scale is a devoted fan of the Singapore Government and while he is a spectator, he is not critical of the situation in Singapore.

To be fair, Singapore stacks up pretty well in most aspects of life. We remain for the most part a 

rich, clean and green city. The government machinery for the most part remains pretty good. Our Prime Minister, for example, gets the world’s most generous political salary but unlike his previous counter part across the causeway, nobody has found a criminal and unaccountable sum of money in his bank account. In this era of Covid 19, we’ve also done a reasonable job. If you look at the statistics, we’ve not done as well as we could have when compared to say Taiwan or New Zealand but it's not the disaster of say, the USA, where there’s a national leader undermining safety measures.  

Mr. Petraeus is also a foreigner, who is getting a good deal from Singapore. It might be natural that he takes the view that he should “educate” the locals and show them that Singapore is not as bad as they think it is and as a “guest,” he might feel that its not his place to be critical.

Having said that, Singapore is not perfect. As PN Balji, former editor of the Today Newspaper used to say, “They’ve got about 75 to 80 percent right but you need to harp on the 20 to 25 percent that isn’t right because it’s the only way they’ll stay on their toes.”

Unfortunately, the one area that most glaring errors in the Singapore system is in the area of dealing with the poor and neglected. Our so called “Asian-Values” society that respects elders, for example,  sees nothing wrong with old folks going through the trash so that they can pick out drinks cans to sell for a few pennies because they need the money.

We are also a society that doesn’t seem to have a problem with “slave labour,” and “race-based” pay scales, particularly when it comes to dealing with people who happen to be darker than a shade of pink. Only the blind would argue otherwise.

Unfortunately, Mr. Petraeus is blind spot to the obvious and this causes him to be anything but a “Critical” spectator. His most recent post was to rush the defense of the workers dormitories after the outbreak of Covid-19 cases. His post can be found at:

https://www.facebook.com/CriticalSpectator/posts/2788391291268580?__tn__=K-R

Mr. Petraeus argues that far from being a failure that the NGO crowd have made them out to be, the dorms are a sign of success. His arguments can be summed up as follows:

 1. Singapore has built cheap and good infrastructure by using cheap labour from elsewhere;
       2. The foreign workers are not complaining because what they get here is better than what they get at home;
       3. Singapore is short of land and the dormitories are the most cost-effective way of housing them; and
       4. This is not exploitation because everyone benefits.

     Mr. Petraeus is correct. The dorms are a sign of success. If you are an owner of a dormitory for example, you are bound to be very successful

Take a look at the Centurion Corporation, which owns and runs the Westlite Toh Guan, the dormitory that has become one of the main covid-19 clusters. In the year ending 31 December 2019, Centurion Corporation had revenue of SG$ 133,353,000 and after-tax profits of SG$103,788,000. The joint non-executive chairmen of the board, Mr. Han Seng Juan and Mr. David Loh Kim Kang from Potong Pasir CCC are appreciated by their shareholders.

Mr. Petraeus is also right in as much as the workers generally don’t complain about their lot because they are earning more than what they could earn back home and from what I could see of Westlite Toh Guan from the outside, it does not look unpleasant.

As to how much we’ve benefited in terms of cheap and affordable infrastructure, it’s a question of debate. What is certain is that the trade in labourers has built a few fortunes. In addition to helping the construction companies earn good money from cheaper labour, there is an industry called labour supply. In July 2019, one of the largest labour suppliers in Singapore sold his company for 40 odd million Singapore dollars.

Mr. Petraeus also uses another defense of the system, which is – migrant labourers are always at the bottom of the social heap wherever you go.  

https://www.facebook.com/CriticalSpectator/posts/2792915094149533?__tn__=K-R

However, what Mr. Petraeus seems to forget is that just because a situation exists everywhere in the world or the fact that people don’t complain about it doesn’t make it right.

Everyone knows that the foreign workers are where they are because they want to earn money to help families get out of poverty. They’re willing to work longer hours and for less money than the locals. Nothing wrong with that. However, the real beneficiaries of this business are not the workers themselves but a host of intermediaries like labour suppliers, agents and incidentally, in the case of Singapore, the government, which collects a levy on every foreign worker (which ranges from $600 to $900 per person per month).

While Mr. Petraeus’s point that Singapore benefits from cheap labour might be up for debate, the government definitely benefits from it in the form of the levy. If you take the low-end figure of $600 per person and the fact that there are 284,300 construction workers as at June 2019, that amounts to some S$170,580,000 a month in revenue from the workers levy alone.

While the intention of the levy is supposed to be to reduce the cost differential between the foreign labourer and a local Singaporean, the result is that its encouraged employers to look for further cost savings elsewhere, particularly from the workers.

Some locals have complained that the Singapore government is “wasting” resources on the labourers and that we’re doing more for them than their own governments. However, let’s look at the other side of the equation. The mere presence of the labourers is contributing to the government’s coffers in return for no benefit at all. Call what the government is doing for the labourers a form of investment to ensure the system can sustain itself rather than benevolence. Whatever benefits the government gets from contractors using cheap labour, the one that is clearly measurable is the returns from the levy.

Mr. Petraeus also forgets that the government has admitted that standards for worker accommodation are also not what they should be. Minister for Manpower, Ms. Josephine Teo has said that standards need to be raised and it is clear that current conditions of accommodation are not healthy. While the recent outbreaks of covid-19 have attracted media attention because of their sheer number, this is not the first-time workers have died in Singapore because of an outbreak of disease in their accommodation.

It must be nice for Mr. Petraeus has so much faith in the Singapore government. However, blind faith is not healthy for any organization including the Singapore government. It’s the likes of Mr. Petraeus’s efforts to defend glaring flaws that leads to complacency, which leads to something like the case that we currently have

Perhaps the solution for Mr. Petraeus to celebrate the success that our dorm represent, would be for him to try living in one of them. Perhaps he really would be a “Critical Spectator” rather than a “Fawning Follower.”

The Expensive Key to Nowhere in Particular

Something unusual is happening in the state of Singapore. This year, this little island that took pride in being predictably boring has suddenly found a new lease of life. Kamal Nath, India’s eloquent transport minister once said of Singapore’s elections, “If you didn’t read the newspapers, you wouldn’t think there was an election. Besides, you already know the result before its taken place.”

Mr Nath was right. A good portion of us lived in uncontested wards. I was one of them. Nobody in their right mind would stand against a senior member of the government and election time for those of us in uncontested wards was simply a matter of collecting a government hand-out. The most exciting thing for us was seeing how generous the government would be.

Well, Mr Nath is no longer right. On May 7, 2011, Singapore went to the polls and proceeded to shock not only the PAP government by taking a Group Representative Constituency (GRC) and kicking out our affable foreign minister – we shocked ourselves by sheer passion an interest in politics. Internet chat rooms were buzzing. The politically apathetic became politically alive. Simply put – from the prospect of never voting, we were given a chance to vote.

The best part about the new found awareness is the fact that not only did we the people get to vote for our government, we are expected to vote for our President in an election that should take place by the end of August of 2011.

The Presidential Election is slightly different from the General One. To be President of Singapore, you must forgo ties to any political party and resign from whatever job you had. The Presidential Election is contest of individuals rather than parties. On paper, the President is the only person to be elected by every individual voter.

Singapore’s Presidency is an interesting one. Prior to 1993, the post was an appointed one. Parliament appointed the President who was primarily a ceremonial figure. Like the British Monarch he (all of our Presidents have been men) opened parliament by reading a speech prepared by the government, inspected the troops on National Day and visit foreign countries as well as receive dignitaries. The best thing that could have been said about the office was the fact that it made ethnic minorities feel a bit more cuddly. The underlying precedent was that since the government would be run by a Chinese (the majority of the population), the President would be from an ethnic minority. Lee Kuan Yew states very clearly that it was essential to have Yousof Ishak, a Malay to be Head of State, as it would signal to the Malaysians (Old Mr Lee had dreams of being part of Malaysia) that a Malay could achieve high office.

However, the reality was best summed up by Devan Nair, our third President. He would refer to Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the Prime Minister as “boss” when they were in private.

Then some bright spark decided that it was necessary to have a President who could do something and so the constitution was amended and in 1993, Mr Ong Teng Cheong, a former Deputy Prime Minister became our first Elected President. As the President, Mr Ong had the constitutional duty to safeguard the reserves in addition to being a ceremonial figurehead. Real power remained with the government but the President was a little more than just a tea spoon. He became a little more like the British House of Lords rather than the Monarch. In the Singapore System, the President is part of the legislature rather than the executive.

Anyway, as we get closer to the Presidential Election, it might be worth asking ourselves if having an Elected President has been worth the effort. The President is after all an important part of the system and let’s not forget that the post cost money, an essential topic in money obsessed Singapore. Like the British Monarch, the President receives a “Civil List” to pay for staff and state expenses as well as a generous salary. At the last count, the President was drawing a salary of a mere S$4,000,000 a year, making the highest paid public official in the land that already has the world’s highest paid politicians.

Well, the answer has to be – NO. The main purpose of giving the President power over the reserves was so that the reserves would be safeguarded from a spendthrift government. If the President couldn’t check anything, at least he or she could delay Singapore being spent into the US National Debt. While this idea has been nice in theory – there have been two key problems.

The first key problem was highlighted by our first Elected President, Ong Teng Cheong. At the end of his term in office, the late President called a press conference where he described how he had problems asking for an audit of the reserves. As he rightly pointed out, he, the President was tasked to safeguard the reserves so he needed to know exactly how much was in the reserves.

He pointed out that civil servants had been evasive and he was told that it would take 56 man-years to produce a dollar-and-cents value of immovable assets. President Ong then consulted the Attorney-General who conceded that the government only had to produce a list of properties it owned. An incomplete list was given to him several months later and it took three-years to give him the information he requested.
So what exactly are “The Reserves?” Apparently the Singapore government has lots of spare cash which is stashed away somewhere for a rainy day. The topic of “The Reserves” is always spoken in reverent terms but nobody knows exactly what or how much is in the reserves. There is supposed to be something called the Government Investment Corporation of Singapore (GIC) an SWF that manages the reserves – but once again nobody actually knows how much GIC manages or mismanages. If the man who is supposed to safeguard the reserves doesn’t know exactly what he’s supposed to safeguard, how can anyone expect him to do a good job of it.

The second point is that the man who is supposed to safeguard the reserves is supposed to have a democratic mandate from the people to do so and unfortunately, the current President has been denied such a mandate.

To be fair, this isn’t entirely his fault. To eligibility criteria is such that very few people qualify to run for President. You need to be either a former Minister or a CEO of a company turning over not less than S$100million a year. The guys in these jobs are not about to give them up to be a silver tea spoon. Nobody actually wanted to run against President Ong – they had to find someone to run against him and that someone campaigned on the premise that Mr Ong was far more qualified than he was (and he still got 670,358 votes out of a total of 1,756,517 votes cast)

President SR Nathan, has been pretty good at the ceremonial parts of the job. He’s read the speeches he’s been told to read. He waves at the crowd on National Day and everyone who has met him says he exudes warmth. In short, it is impossible to dislike the man.

However, we shouldn’t mince words here. He was to all intents and purposes appointed to the job and knows he has no mandate to fight against a government that has one. So when the government asked if they could dip into the reserves back into 2009 – he said yes. Mr Nathan has made pots of money by doing as he was told. As one Indian friend says, “He is the COMPLIANT Ke Ling” (Which is a derogatory term for Indians of Tamil decent who were originally brought to Singapore as prisoners – hence their chains went ke-ling, ke-ling.)

What can be done to solve this problem? Well, a good start seems to be having an actual contest. It’s nice to see people who meet the criteria throw their hats into the ring. At the time of writing, we have a former Member of Parliament (Tan Chin Bock) and the former CEO if NTUC Income (Tan Kin Lian). The former Foreign Minister, George Yeo is praying for wisdom (read consulting with his former colleagues) on whether he should throw his hat into the ring.

A contest of sorts will restore some legitimacy to the office. A president who is genuinely elected can do what he was supposed to do – be at least a little bit independent of the government.

However, something more important needs to be done. There needs to be a public audit of the reserves. Much has been made about how we cannot talk about the reserves because of National Security. However, let’s ask ourselves, how exactly does having a proper audit of what we actually own harm our security?

If anything, a public audit will create a situation where there will be greater transparency of the management of the reserves. The President, or the second key, will know exactly what he or she is safeguarding. We, the public will know what is happening to our money and if the government is open with us about how they’re managing our money, we’re likely to trust and communicate with them more.

Think of it this way, we trust the bank because we get a statement about how much we have with them. Imagine the next time you asked the bank how much you have in your bank account and they told you they couldn’t tell you for your own good. Now, would be inclined to keep your money with such a bank?

Bless the Fools

In a day and age where everyone wants to be known as exceedingly intelligent, it’s hard to appreciate fools. Everyone is trying so hard to be clever that even those who are not, are forced to be or at least appear to be so. One of the ladies in my life said it best – “I don’t mind you being poor but I expect you to be clever.”

With so much pressure to be clever, we are left underestimating the value of fools.
Being “Foolish” is considered a mortal sin that is as bad as say, picking your nose in public. This is a pity because being a fool or being silly is actually a valuable skill.

Let’s start with the obvious; being really stupid actually requires some sort of intelligence. Some of the world’s greatest clowns happened to be highly qualified. Look at Sacha Baron Cohen who brought us Bruno, Borat and Ali G or the Monty Python team who composed a range of movies and songs, which one can only describe as being totally silly. These men who made their name and living by silly, all came from that bastion of silliness’ – Cambridge University. The illustrious rival for silliness, “Oxford University,” (I don’t mean Oxford Brooks), gave us Rowan Atkinson, the man who gave us Mr Bean.

People who are brilliantly stupid can do wonders. Simpletons can be the most effective communicators who reduce things to their most basic. They can be understood in a way that clever and eloquent people cannot be.

Take one of the most interesting US Administrations in recent years – The Regan Administration. Ronald Regan was not known for intellect. The joke in Hollywood was that Bonzo the Chimp was much smarter than he was. Yet, despite all of that, the Regan Administration brought the Cold War to an end without firing a shot. The economy buzzed. How did this “idiot” do it? Well, he framed two key ideas simply – he called the Soviet Union “The Evil Empire” and he told stories about the “evil welfare queen who drove a Cadillac.” These two messages allowed the administration to slash spending on welfare and lower taxes while rising spending on defence to levels that the USSR could not match.

When Mr Regan got into trouble during the Iran-Contra Scandal in 1986, the clever people in the administration proceeded to take the blame for him. As one British commentator at the time pointed out, “His behaviour was beyond normal satire.” Despite the obvious corruption in the incident, the American people forgave Regan in ways that they did not forgive the cleverer Mr Nixon and to a lesser degree the very clever Mr Clinton.

Fools are not only effective communicators. They can produce gems of wisdom. I refer to the movie “Bean.” Mr Bean is sent to American by the National Portrait Gallery in Britain. His American host thinks Bean is a high powered art historian. He’s asked, “What have you written?” Bean replies, “I look at the pictures.” The host is impressed – “Wow, that’s profound; I wish other academics would just look at the pictures.”

This scene is a laugh in that Mr Bean really looks at the pictures –he’s a security guard and yet the Americans are setting up as something deep and profound. We laugh at Americans for their child like innocence. However, the fool has a point…I remember James Curan one of my lecturers at Goldsmith’s telling us the secret to sure first – answer the question. Most of us clever people think of exams are an opportunity to show off how clever we are. As such, we end up missing the question and we write a lot but never answer the question and so we don’t get the marks for it. The fool might actually answer the question and get the points.

Fools are also the only people who can tell the powers that be the truth. Medieval Europe survived as long as it did because of fools. The fool could satirize the kings mistakes without getting his head lopped off. It’s such a pity nobody has been able to check with Kings of that age on how many bad decisions they’ve reversed thanks to their fools.

Literature is also full of examples of how fools were used to get points across. The most famous example is in Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen. The best critic of inheritance laws (which were blatantly in favour of men) was Mrs Bennet, Matriarch of the Bennet clan and the silliest character in the novel. Thanks to Mrs Bennet, Ms Austen could take a swipe at the law without being labelled a dangerous reactionary.

Fools have succeeded where cleverer men have failed in as much as they’ve never taken themselves so seriously that they lose touch with reality. For all her faults, Margaret Thatcher had enough of a sense of humour to appear on “Yes Prime Minister,” one of the best loved political satires of all times. I suspect that sense of humour allowed Mrs Thatcher to stay close enough to the ground to get her policies through. The end result, Mrs Thatcher was actually beneficial to Britain.

If you ask me, Western society gets by because politicians expect to have the piss taken out of them. I think of Spitting Image puppets and how they’ve succeeded in ensuring that the public will never treat a politician or celebrity so seriously that the said politician or celebrity develops a God complex.

I look closer to home. Up North, in Malaysia, politicians are constantly lampooned by cartoonist like Lat. Here in Singapore, you simply do not make fun of politicians. On a shallow level you might be able to understand that. My Malaysian friends will point out that Malaysia in many ways lags behind Singapore. It’s mired in corruption while Singapore is squeaky clean and hyper efficient.

However, let’s take things into perspective. Singapore is small red dot mainly populated by Chinese migrants who will happily let you rule with an iron fist as long as you ensure that they can do business and get rich. The place is small enough for you to quickly snuff out decent and yes, Singapore’s politicians do deserve a pat on the back for a job well done.

Malaysia by contrast is a huge place with a diverse population. The majority belong to a culture that does not chase the material. Getting Malaysia to move one step is more challenging than getting Singapore to leap.
So, when you look at things this way, the Malaysian politicians like Mahathir have actually done a pretty good job. Things could be better, especially when you compare it to Singapore but then again, when you take the challenges that Malaysia faces, you have to take your hat off to the Malaysian system for getting things done despite everything.

Malaysians laugh at their politicians and rightly so. For all that the Malaysians complain about how awful their politicians are, the ability to laugh at them has helped both sides. The politicians know that they’re not God. The people also realise that they got to depend on themselves rather than on super competent Gods in the civil service to get things done. As a result, Malaysians can travel and succeed outside Malaysia without the aid of the government.

Singaporeans by contrast do not make fun of their politicians. In fact they are expected to worship them, even when the politicians goof. Look at what happened during Mas Selamat’s escape. Limping terrorist walks out of a secure facility and the government rushed to defend the virtue and competence of the Minister, so much so that during the recently concluded election they got a shock when people used the issue to hit them.

Perhaps it’s time for Singapore’s politicians to take a leaf from their counterparts over the Causeway and learn to laugh at themselves a little. It would definitely help us connect better.