Kelvin Teo catches up with Mr Goh Meng Seng of the National Solidarity Party

Photo taken from Sgpolitics.net

He is the other member of the opposition, and one of the rare few who were trained in the field of economics. He is none other than Mr Goh Meng Seng (GMS). Previously educated in River Valley High and Hwa Chong Junior College, Goh went on to earn his Bachelors of Social Sciences with Honors in the field of economics. He entered politics, throwing his lot with the Workers’ Party and contested in his maiden elections at Aljunied GRC in 2006. He left the Workers’ Party and subsequently joined the National Solidarity Party. I somehow considered myself fortunate to be able to catch up with Goh and seek his personal views on pertinent issues surrounding our national politics. Goh has kindly agreed to this personal interview, and the views described are his own and do not represent that of his party.

Kelvin: How did your previous experiences especially during your student days and all that prompted you to step into politics?

GMS:Before answering this question, a quick introduction to my background. I was born in the era of “White Terror” whereby even a whisper of discontentment of the ruling party PAP would be sternly cautioned by the elders. That was the reality in 1970s whereby the ruthless detention of political opponents by PAP was met with fear and apprehension. Anyone who dare to include phrases or words which could suggest links to communist literature will be called up by ISD for coffee or face detention ultimately. Singapore, the jewel city of Southeast Asia Cultural Renaissance has turned into a total cultural desert overnight.

My late father used to be a member of an opposition party, United Front. Although he didn’t have much formal education but his upright character and political views have tremendous influence on my youthful mind. I used to read the Chinese newspapers with him. Back then, there was still Nanyang Shangbao which was more independent and critical about the ruling party before it was forced into merger with Xinzhou daily and under total control of the government. My father was pretty critical about some of the policies and political repression that the ruling party exercised back then. The impact of the forced closure of Nanyang University and merger of the Chinese newspapers still lingers in my mind up till this day.

I received my secondary school education in a SAP school, River Valley High. I was the Chairman of the Student Council for a period of time. The life in a SAP school made me feel a little uneasy as it was not totally “real” as compared with the world outside. I realized that there wasn’t any Malays or Indians in our school. This is unhealthy and I began to wonder if we should provide First Language education for Malay as well as Tamil so that the SAP school could have a better racial mix.

My education in River Valley High also molded my socialist mindset. The study of modern Chinese literature provided me a good foundation in understanding social justice/injustice, exploitation of the feudal system on the peasants and what it means to fight for justice, fairness and a society that value equality, freedom and human rights.

I received my training in Economics from Hwa Chong Junior College and subsequently, the National University of Singapore. My study in NUS was especially valuable as it provided me the opportunity to have a more critical mind in examining many of the past and contemporary policies made at that time. It happened that most of the controversial policies were made in the 1990s, from the implementation of GST, COE, assets enhancement (which resulted in the rise of HDB pricing) to ERP. My training back then equipped me with better understanding of the rational as well as the flaws behind these policies.

I also participated actively in the digital forums of the University intranet bulletin board, focusing on social and economic issues. Such participation in public discussion was extended beyond my varsity days when internet became available to Singaporeans after 1995. Prior to my actual participation in opposition politics in 2001, I have always regarded myself as a social armchair critic who took some time off from my business venture to participate in some social charity work on the ground.

My disagreement on the many social-economic policies implemented by the PAP came to a critical point in 1997 when PAP insisted in using HDB upgrading as the basis of pork barrel politics during the 1997 General Elections. That was actually the last straw that pushed me to consider seriously about either making a change to the whole political culture and system or just to emigrate to some other place instead. The basic sense of justice and fairness began to develop to a greater level of dissatisfaction of the various politicking tactics utilized by the PAP to silence or disable its political opponents.

The disagreement with the various social-economic policies coupled with the dissatisfaction with PAP’s disgusting politicking are the two main factors that eventually made me cross the line to join opposition party in 2001, right in the midst of the General Elections. Such disagreement and dissatisfaction are strongly influenced by my upbringing and learning in my earlier life.

Kelvin: You have a dream which is and I quote:”To build a true alternative in Singapore”. What inspired you to come up with this vision and how did you arrive upon it?

GMS:I have been through the era of great political suppression in the 1970s and 1980s. I have seen through all the flaws and merits of the ultra-capitalist-based policies made in the 1990s and the new century. The ironic thing is that although I despise the political oppression of the 1970s and 1980s, however, to a certain extent, I do appreciate the level of socialist idealism embedded in the social-economic policies formulated back then.

The PAP has once founded its principle of governance based on Democratic Socialism but it has totally discarded its fundamental political ideology along the way. While it always tries to sell its policies to Singaporeans with twisted logic and sweetening tongues, the actual impact and full implications of all these policies are not well deliberated at all in the public sphere. This could only happen in the past where total monopoly of power and the media allow it to be the dominant opinion maker in Singapore. The rapid development of the internet has diluted PAP’s influence and dominance in public political discourse.

We need an alternative set of thinking and policies to counteract PAP’s twisted policy rationale. For example, while PAP claims that GST is good as it broadens the tax base, but the trade off will always be unfair taxation on the lower strata of the income group. Most countries that implement value-added tax would have a system with adequate social welfare for its socially and economically disadvantaged people. This is never the case in Singapore in which GST is implemented simply for a broader revenue base for the government so that it could afford to lower tax for the corporate and higher income groups.

Such a twisted policy direction was hardly questioned because most Singaporeans are made to believe that in order to keep MNCs happy and continue to invest in Singapore, our poor lower income group should be sacrificed and taxed.

There are many similar examples in other policies like FT (Foreign Talent), ERP, COE, HDB, Healthcare and even CPF which need greater critical examination. The killing always lies in the details which twisted and tilted these policies against the basic economic rationale and interests of Singaporeans.

The true alternative will only be possible if and only if we have a strong vision and political belief in social justice, fairness, equality as well as respect for human dignity and fundamental human rights. We as a society and a nation must realize that happiness and well being of the people are not solely derived from materialism and economic well-being. Besides, GDP growth alone may not benefit all Singaporeans if the system here does not distribute the fruits of such growth in a fairer way.

Thus, the True Alternative I am talking about is the alternative guiding principles in governance and policy making. The most fundamental difference in this True Alternative versus the current PAP’s behavior is that we should not treat Singapore as a corporation. The government should not behave like a profit-oriented management team of a corporation. The role of a government is not about making how much “profit” in terms of budget surpluses. The role of governance is to provide a fair and level playing field for all, to manage the inherent unequal distribution of wealth and income within the system and to provide the various public goods which will enhance the development of economic activities and welfare of the people.

Kelvin: What challenges from within the opposition camp and elsewhere did you encounter as you attempt to make your dream of building a true alternative come true?

GMS:Due to the decades of dominance of the mass media by PAP, it seems that the PAP has entrenched its set of core values into Singaporeans at large. Even many opposition members have been made to believe in certain PAP’s twisted political rationale unknowingly, so much so that we are unable to “think out of the box” that the PAP has created for everybody.

The main challenge is to convince the people that certain PAP’s logic is flawed. For example, the PAP’s logic of pleasing MNCs and doing whatever it can to get them to stay in Singapore so that they could provide jobs for Singaporeans. Only by doing so, we could continue to depend on exporting goods and services to make a living. We have seldom questioned such logic and correlations between MNCs, export and jobs. The truth is, while other countries like Taiwan, Korea and Hong Kong would similarly depend on export as a source of growth and provision of jobs, they have lesser dependency on MNCs as the main job providers. On the contrary, many of the companies in these places have developed into main contract manufacturers instead of just reaming as support industries for the MNC factories. While Taiwanese firms are able to manufacture their own brands of computer motherboards apart from contract manufacturing for big brand names, most Singapore companies are still just providing metal casting and molding services to hard disk manufacturers.

We have to convince our people to walk out of PAP’s version of logic and examine critically what other alternatives we could have instead. But this is a very tedious and challenging process. Opposition parties are mostly not sufficiently confident enough to challenge the PAP on this front because they lack strong understanding and learning of various options of economic development models. On the other hand, opposition parties also lack strong understanding and learning of various political ideologies. You could hardly find any consistency and clarity in terms of political ideologies from the various opposition parties. There isn’t a habit to develop strong core values in terms of social-economic perspectives. We will need to spend some effort in developing our set of core values and political beliefs other than depending on the simple common “anti-PAP” rhetoric to stay relevant.

Kelvin: If in the near future, the PAP government is suddenly replaced in a ‘freak election’, do you think there will be people who will be able to step up to the plate and ably run the Singapore ship?

GMS: If the PAP really loses power in any election, then it would not be a ‘freak election’. It would actually mean that the social-economic conditions have deteriorated to such a bad state that Singaporeans have finally decided that enough is enough. The talk of ‘freak election’ is just a mere scare tactic.

I predict that in a transitional period to full democratic development, there will be a time where none of the political parties could win more than 50% of the seats to become the government straight away. A coalition government will have to be formed. The PAP may become the biggest party in the coalition government. There will be a period of stable transition into a real multi-party democracy if that happens.

If the opposition parties decide to form the coalition government without involving PAP in the process, I am confident that the civil service could continue to be the backbone of the government while the new cabinet formed by the coalition could provide new directions and guidance for the whole government.

In a proper democratic setup, the ministers are elected guardians of the government who will set the agenda and directions for the civil service to carry out their duties. The ministers are empowered by the people to carry out whatever visions, agenda or plans that they have put up during elections to convince the voters to vote them in. Although the present opposition parties may have different beliefs or agendas, I believe that a consensus could be achieved if a coalition government is to be formed.

What is your opinion of Singapore’s economic growth during the early years and if the current economic model for growth is sustainable in future?

GMS: The two major sources of economic growth could come from injection either of capital or labor or both. Singapore’s economic growth during the early years of nation building is fueled by influx of capital, particularly foreign investments brought in by MNCs. The chief economic architect Dr. Goh Keng Swee has designed the system such that industrialization is supported by building up our free trade port which we are naturally endowed with, i.e. our strategic geographic locality and deep sea port.

However, the over reliance on MNC investment has resulted in the inability of Singapore to stand on its own feet in terms of manufacturing. It also resulted in negative total factor productivity as our high saving rates was not met with efficient use of funding in production and investments. Unlike the other 3 Asian Tigers (especially Taiwan and Korea), Singapore was less successful in developing our contract manufacturing base but instead, we developed more into supporting industries for the big MNCs.

While Singapore produced big international brand names like Seagate hard disks with all the advanced supporting industry in metal casting and molding, we were unable to develop our own brand names unlike Taiwan (ASUS, ACER, Biostar, Gigabyte etc) or Korea (LG, Samsung, Hyundai, etc). Taiwan and Korea started with contract manufacturing for big Western brand names but eventually developed their own end products. Singapore took the other approach by inviting foreign MNCs to set up their factories here while our local companies begin to develop into supporting industries for these MNCs.

Such a model may have worked for the two decades from the 1970s to 1980s, but it couldn’t possibly sustain when other cheaper production bases like Malaysia, Thailand, China and even Vietnam evolved. While the Taiwanese or Korean companies could just build new factories in these places and continue production of their goods under the same branding, Singapore’s companies within the supporting industries will face more difficulties in following the MNCs to set up shops in other countries.

In terms of educational comparison between the workforce among the 4 Asian Tigers, Singapore was known to have the least educated workforce as compared with the other 3 Asian Tigers. This was in spite of our efforts to build up more polytechnics back then. The situation was worsen when Nantah was forcefully closed down, leaving NUS as the only university left for the 1980s. Surprisingly, the PAP argued that we only needed one University for Singapore. It was a big mistake. Taiwan, Korea and even Hong Kong were trying to set up more universities, Singapore ended up doing the reverse. Eventually, the PAP realized its mistake and started to re-open the university as NTU years later. The PAP also started to open more universities later in the 1990s.

Although we tried very hard to play catch up in building up a credible and more educated workforce, the years lost due to PAP’s shortsightedness result in a gap in the educational level of our workforce when compared with other prospering countries in Asia. In the early 1990s, the PAP finally have to fill up this gap by opening the floodgate to foreigners to work in Singapore. They were termed as “Foreign Talents”.

We have moved on from a capital-intensive driven growth to a labor-intensive driven growth. This basically means that our GDP growth is driven by the rapid injection of foreign labour coupled with continuity in attracting foreign investment by MNCs. Foreign labor ratio started to balloon from the 1990s till the new century.

Is such a model of economic growth beneficial to Singaporeans? The initial influx of foreign labor was basically to close the gap of the lack of talents in certain areas. However, as it developed, the enormous influx of foreign workers have basically covered the whole spectrum of the workforce, from the lowest wage jobs, factory workers, technicians, skilled workers to middle management, engineers to top management. It has become a source of wage suppression for all Singaporeans as well as cheap labour substitute for almost all level of jobs.

One good indicator is that in spite of high GDP growth, income per capita for the middle and lower class Singaporeans income earners was lagging behind the growth rate. This means that the huge influx of foreigners and capital were the sources of our economic growth but it does not necessarily benefit the local work force. Foreign MNCs came here to set up factories, employing mostly cheap foreign workers. They will definitely contribute to the economic figures but Singaporeans will enjoy smaller of that economic pie of growth.

Such a model of growth is unsustainable in the long run as it would create permanent and structural unemployment or under-employment for the local citizens. We are beginning to see some of the effects whereby local ex-senior managers end up driving a taxi. This is basically under-employment which the cheaper foreign workers created a mismatch of employment versus skills/qualification for local citizens as the result of the substitution effect.

Kelvin: What will be the most significant economic/bread and butter issue that will crop up during the next elections?

GMS:The high influx of foreign workers which displace local employees, crowding out public space, putting pressure on basic infrastructure like public transport and pushing up prices of public housing. This issue will be the main critical one for PAP. The PAP has to answer all the questions on their policy of opening the floodgate for foreign workers which has created a whole list of social-economic problems.

Kelvin: What changes in other areas besides economics such as healthcare, housing, education, environment, defense, etc, would you like to see in the next few years and beyond?

GMS:I would like to see a faster pace of democratic development of the political system into a proportionate representation system and implementation of a comprehensive social welfare system for the social-economically disadvantaged. No doubt that Singapore has progressed over the 50 years of PAP rule, but we are at the crossroads of disconnecting the monopoly of power by PAP from the future progress of Singapore. Singaporeans have progressed in terms of educational level and exposures to the outside world. They will no longer take PAP’s words as the only true words of the wise. They will constantly make comparisons with other successful economies which have better progress in democracy with Singapore. There are also successful economies which have implemented a certain level of comprehensive social welfare system as well.

On top of that, I would like to see a more progressive society with various Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) developing. Such NGOs may play a crucial in developing a fairer platform and system for Singaporeans. Particularly, I wish to see the setting up of the Equal Opportunity Commission as well as Human Rights Commission to ensure that discriminatory practices as well as human rights abuses are being minimized or totally eradicated.

Kelvin: What specific lessons can we implement from the policy successes (e.g. healthcare, economics, trade) of other nations that can also benefit us in the future?

GMS: I am particularly interested in the Nordic countries’ educational system, particularly Finland and Sweden. They have put tremendous efforts into the “real” education of their people, instead of a production line system of chunking out graduates to match the targeted industries that the government wanted to enhance on. Real education provides a series of diversified disciplines which develop and nurture the human talents instead of pre-determining what the human should be molded into.

On the healthcare front, the wide coverage of the Canadian and Taiwanese healthcare insurance systems is something we need to take a second look into. The ability of the Canadians to lower prices of drugs by putting pressures on drug companies with bulk purchasing is something we could learn from. The national finance of research effort within the medical field may also lower future drug costs to consumers.

The Hong Kong system is an interesting one to examine closely. It is basically a capitalist financial center which practises socialist economic re-distribution by means of extensive social welfare schemes. There are many things we could learn from the Hong Kong experiences in balancing the interests of the businesses (capitalists) and the workers.

Kelvin: Your party will be adopting a “minister-specific” strategy, which involves addressing particular policies drawn up by a minister and his ministry. Is the party coming up with the equivalent of a shadow cabinet whereby a particular member will shadow a particular minister he is contesting? What in your opinion are the potential benefits and drawbacks of this strategy?

GMS:No. Even though we are adopting the “minister-specific” strategy, we are still far from contesting all seats, particularly all the GRCs. However, this method will allow serious opposition candidates to learn the rope of policy analysis. We are just on the development path of a more mature democracy whereby political players will have to develop themselves personally on matters of public interests, i.e. policy analysis debates. Hopefully, in 10 years time, we will be able to groom more people, enough people to form a shadow cabinet after we win more seats in parliament.

There are great benefits from this strategy as it brings the contest into its proper context. Voters are voting for legislators in parliament, not just local estate managers. The PAP has successfully confused Singaporeans about the real meaning of General Elections with the Town Council concepts.

Most countries have two-tier elections in which they elect the local Town Councilors apart from their legislators in parliament or Congress. But in Singapore, the PAP wants to avoid the focus of General Elections to be set on National Policies which affect everybody so much so that they will always divert voters’ attention from the real issues created by their policies towards how good opposition members are in managing their HDB flats (scare cry about rubbish building up in their cutes) or attacking individual opposition candidates, making a mountain out of a molehill and flood the mass media with constant bombardment on opposition candidates’ characters. Real policy issues are rarely debated during General Elections in Singapore for the past 2 decades.

The PAP has lost a couple of seats back in 1984 when the policy issue of granting graduate mothers special privileges caused a social uproar. Thus, from then on, policy issues have been avoided for subsequent elections. Future elections proceeded as followed: 1988, concerted attacks on Francis Seow, 1991, attacks on Jufrie , 1997 attacks on Tang Liang Hong and introduction of pork barrel politics of HDB upgrading, 2001 attacks on Dr. Chee Soon Chuan, 2006 attacks on James Gomez. There is systematic evidence that the PAP has tried to avoid serious policy debates during elections so that they would not become the focus of public discontent. They have somehow managed to successfully divert the focus of Singaporeans during elections to the management of Town Councils, priority of HDB upgrading as well as personal character attacks on individual opposition members. It is about time that we have to bring Singaporeans back to the serious issue of legislation of laws and policies during elections.

What is lacking from our system is extraction of accountability from the PAP government. Ministers hide behind the notion of “collective leadership and responsibility” to avoid taking rap from unpopular or even bad policies made under their charge. Collective responsibility must not mean nobody’s responsibility. Since the policies are executed and carried out by the ministers, the ministers should be the first to be made accountable for these policies.

This strategy, if accepted and worked for this coming elections, will have far-fetching implications on the policy making process. Ministers will take Singaporeans’ interests into more serious considerations before they agree to implement any policies (made under the pretext or influence of collective leadership). This will be the most important impact of this strategy.

However, after two decades of “noise” during elections, voters and opposition members may no longer be proficient and sharp in their analysis of various policies. Adopting such a strategy may put us in an awkward position if we are not proficient enough to provide convincing alternative policy views. In another words, it will expose our own shortcomings during elections. This is especially so when we do not have full statistical data to do indepth policy analysis. Having said that, this is a necessary painful path that we need to take in order for all of us, both voters and opposition members, to grow together for the betterment and advancement of our democracy.

My main concern is that Singaporeans may not be used to such an approach to general elections. Some Singaporeans may be used to looking at short-term benefits of HDB upgrading and carrots hung by the PAP, and disregarding the importance of extracting accountability from PAP ministers for their policies under their charge. It will only take the fall of one PAP minister on the context of unpopular policies made by his ministry to send chilling influences to other PAP ministers to sit up and take Singaporeans’ views, sentiments and interests seriously. But it will take tremendous courage for many voters in a GRC just to do what is right for Singapore.

The utility of electoral ’suicide squads’

This unpublished piece was written some time ago.

Photo courtesy of Stinkee Beek

A piece of Singapore parliamentary elections history question to all of you readers:”Elections results and contesting candidates aside, what is another difference between the close contest at Cheng San GRC in 1997 and that of Aljunied GRC in 2006?

The answer may not be obvious, but a big hint lies in the participation or non-participation of the then Prime Ministers in the campaigning at these ‘troubled’ GRCs, albeit from the PAP’s perspective.

Recall that during the 1997 General Elections, the then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong had a walkover in his Marine Parade GRC. Freed of any possible participation of a contest at his own backyard, Goh was to enter the cauldron of contest at Cheng San GRC, where he campaigned aggressively on behalf of the PAP candidates. Goh declared himself as a ’special’ candidate of the constituency and upped the stakes by declaring that his credibility and reputation as Prime Minister was at stake during the Cheng San contest. The Workers’ Party helmed by the late Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam lost out by a close margin of 45.2% of votes.

Fast forward 9 years during the elections of 2006, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was to be kept busy when the Workers’ Party sent in what was famously known as the “suicide six” comprising new candidates in their virgin electoral contest. Unlike Goh 9 years before, Lee didn’t have the luxury of assisting the PAP campaign at Aljunied GRC. He simply had to work the ground at his own backyard of Ang Mo Kio GRC. Expectations from the PAP camp were high and Lee was expected to romp to victory, only for the latter to fall short of expectations set by his party mates when he secured 66.14% of the votes.

Thus, this other difference between Cheng San 1997 and Aljunied 2006 shows us the utility of what is known as ‘electoral suicide squads’ in keeping the bigwigs busy defending their own turf and reducing the likelihood of them aggressively campaigning at troubled GRCs. Hence, an interesting food for thought will be – will the Workers’ Party win Cheng San GRC if a suicide squad was sent to Marine Parade GRC to keep Goh busy in defending his own turf? Or alternatively, if no suicide squad was sent to Ang Mo Kio GRC, Lee would surely aid his party counterparts at Aljunied and what would such have on the impact of the results?

There are a few bigwigs whom some believe have the credibility and reputation to win support at other GRCs if they happened to assist their party mates’ campaign. Thus, it would take more than one ’suicide squad’ to keep them busy in defending their own turf. Already, online observers and commentators are suggesting such squads to be sent to places like Tanjong Pagar, Marine Parade and Ang Mo Kio.

The next question is will the contest against the bigwigs do the suicide squads any good? Some believe it does them the whole world of good. After all, the latter will be thrusted into immediate public limelight within the full face of the media, both mainstream and alternative. If the candidates manage their public relations aspects well, it could be a profile-booster for them in the eyes of the electorate. However, detractors feel that pitting greenhorns against bigwigs may seem a little disrespectful on the part of the opposition. True, from the sporting viewpoint as it shows a certain disregard for the calibre of the opponent by pitting the weakest competitor. But if we analyzed the results of the 2006 General Elections, the Workers’ Party didn’t suffer any ill effects of such ‘disrespect’. It also makes tactical sense be it in sports or any other similar contest to pit the weakest competitor against the strongest opponent so that other stronger competitors would have a better chance against less strong opponents. We see that in racket sports team competitions and the same concept applies in the electoral contest too. Thus, the benefits arguably outweigh the negatives.

Hence, is there any utility in electoral ’sucide squads’? Yes, there definitely is as it reduces the likelihood of bigwig ’special’ candidates appearing at ‘troubled’ GRCs other than their own, which may result in the swing of support towards the latter’s party.

A vast disparity in the status of MPs

Photo courtesy of wh1le

A course mate of mine related to me her shock at the way a TV journalist in the UK queried a high-level member of the Parliament. The question asked by the journalist went like:”What the hell were you thinking of?”

The Member of the Parliament adopted his usual decorum and addressed the question in a respectful and dignified manner. However, when we relate this situation back to Singapore, the circumstances take a 180 degrees turn. For starters, no journalist from either the mainstream or I dare venture the alternative media would be brazen enough to use such a tone on our Members of the Parliament, especially those from the ruling party.

The culture is different in the UK whereby the Members of the Parliament (MPs) are viewed as the servants of the people. Hence, the use of such demanding tones in the event of unhappiness over the action, policies and performances of the MPs. The media there also has a large degree of freedom, unlike here in Singapore where there is a risk of being sued for libel like Hugo Restall of the Far Eastern Economic Review and enacted laws to curb the propagation of political videos such as the newly revised Film’s Act, which some thought was more restrictive. And if the journalist draws the ire of our establishment, the repercussions can be severe. Ask British freelance journalist Benjamin Bland, who happened to maintains a blog known as the Asia File which features occasional critical commentaries on Singapore. Our Ministry of Manpower refused to renew his visa, fuelling speculations that the latter is among the long list of foreign journalists targeted by our authorities.

The main difference between politicians in the UK and the ones here in Singapore is that our MPs especially from the ruling party are perceived to enjoy the elevated status of sacred cows. The existence of the GRC contest, as admitted by Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong was considered a surer ticket to entry into our Parliament, especially for the new PAP candidates. “Without some assurance of a good chance of winning at least their first election, many able and successful young Singaporeans may not risk their careers to join politics,” Mr Goh said. Put another way, the GRC is in a sense a ladder into the circle of power, where sacred cows are really made. Mr George Yeo aptly described this situation in an issued advice:”Remember your place in society and make distinctions what is high, what is low, what is above and what is below.”

This advice wasn’t lost on everyone. Disgruntled cynics came up with their version of a Singaporean hierarchy, which contained three classes, and imprints of such can be found online. The first class, or what we call the elites comprise the sacred cows. The second class are the foreigners courted and coveted by our government, whom the latter claimed can help create jobs in Singapore. This second class was conceptualized as a result of unhappiness over the open door policy adopted by our government. The last class or third class are Singaporeans, the non-elites ones who were supposingly fighting for their bread and livelihood in the face of competition from their foreign counterparts. Google for the terms “Singapore” + “Third” + “class” + “citizens”, and you will know what I mean.

Such is the disparity in status of the MPs here in Singapore and the UK that little wonder my Singaporean course mate experienced a culture shock. Relativistically speaking, MPs from the ruling party are somewhat perceived as sacred cows more than the servants of the people. The opposition MPs do not enjoy such a luxury. They are not sacred cows because they have all to lose with only 2 seats in the Parliament which places pressure on them to consolidate and win more support, and thus, they need to function like the true servants of the people and continually win more support. If only our entire political scene was like that…is that wishful thinking? I do not know…

Is electoral handouts necessarily the best option?

This unpublished article was written some time ago.

Photo courtesy of hingus2000

They are officially known as New Singapore Shares or Progress Package, but is cynically known to some as electoral handouts. In terms of the total sum, each is well over the excess of $2 billion.

Some speculate that such are given out to achieve a temporary narcotic effect that will entice voters to vote for the ruling party. The more discerning ones will be questioning if it is a case of unloading some money from the government’s left pockets only to return more money to its right pockets. They can point to the fact that the Good Services Tax (GST) was raised from 5% to 7% in July 2007, one year after the General Elections in 2006.

However, voters weren’t able to know of later developments to increase the government’s coffers at that point of time during the elections. At least, the fact that the government can afford to distribute handouts in excess of $2 billion gives an apparent impression that its fiscal management methods are sound. However, whether or not such is for real is as good as anyone’s guess.

However, the pertinent question we should be asking is whether schemes like New Singapore Shares and Progress Package will necessarily gain support for the government?

There have been calls for the government from certain quarters to pay more attention to the people’s welfare. Assuming that its fiscal management methods is sound and it always has budget surpluses, wouldn’t an investment into the people’s welfare or even economic development initiatives be a more worthwhile expenditure rather than re-distributing the money during an ostensibly close date to the elections?

The Progress Package involved a re-distribution of up to $2.6 billion prior to the 2006 General Elections. $1.3 billion can possibly be set aside for instance in an entrepreneurship start-up fund to sponser budding entrepreneurs and other small medium enterprises. This in turn will create jobs and raise the employment rate. The rest can be invested in welfare programs, for instance, $400 million for a Jobseeker fund to give aspiring jobseekers a sustainable stipend as they attempt to land a job, another $400 million that will go to a school children fund to help schooling children with their expenses and another $500 million that will go into an elderly fund that will subsidize the needs of our elderly.

Sometimes, there are many who mistakenly think that the re-distribution of a certain amount to all and sundry within a country can easily win over support to the government. However, that is not so true. Rather, the ability to use that certain amount to stimulate the economy and invest in welfare programs is a much more effective approach of governance capable of winning widespread support.

Hence, there should be a paradigm shift of our government’s thinking from ‘re-distributing excesses’ to using the excesses to stimulate our economy and invest in welfare programs. At the end of the day, it will be win-win situation for the government and the people alike. Thus, to answer the opening question..NO, electoral handouts is not the best option when so much more can be done.

The fascinating question of what the voters prefer in a walkover ward

Picture coutesy of MaXiAoLiNg.

For many years, Singaporeans have always taken for granted the results of a walkover victory. Those from the walkover wards who wished to vote are resigned to actually waiting for an opposition who will one day contest the PAP incumbents during the elections. There are a number of such wards, many of whom are GRCs, which have not seen contest over the years.

Perhaps, we may never know the sentiments of voters residing in such non-contested wards. Although such wards used to support the ruling party over the years, no one knows the impact of demographic and mindset changes over the intervening period especially whether if it has sustained or eroded support for the incumbents.

The choice of awarding a walkover victory to the ones who turned up for contest is a curious one per se. The first obvious criticism is that such may not go according to democratic principles. Imagine this scenario on Nomination Day. A serious bug struck all the candidates of the ruling party (touch wood) that all of them have to be hospitalized and unable to turn up for nomination. A five-man team comprising a leecher, a wife-beater, an alcoholic, a playboy and compulsive gambler turns up. Given the current rules, this five-man team of riff-raffs will be awarded victory due to walkover. Therein lies the problem with the walkover rule whereby even undesirable personalities who turn up for nomination will be awarded victory when no one else turns up other than themselves.

The second criticism is that such a ruling is not democratic in itself, and does not take the wishes of the electorate in that particular ward into consideration. This is effectively inter-connected to the first criticism in the sense that the electorate should be acting as an effective screen against undesirable characters.

At this point, an interesting thought experiment concocted by myself will come in. Supposed the elections organizers now change their mind and issue every voter in the walkover ward a voting slip. In the voting slip, the voters are supposed to indicate whether they want this five-man member team of riff-raffs to lead them or not. Basically, in the slip, the voters are answering yes or no to the question of whether they want the riff-raffs as their representatives. Thus, this experiment allows the voters to execute their choice of whether they want the walkover victors as their representatives.

Thus, going back to the current realities at some of those walkover wards, it will be interesting if we can hand a ‘voting slip’ to every eligible voter and request them to indicate whether they desire the incumbent party to continue representing them. No one knows the answer. It could be a positive response for the incumbents, or a negative one. It could even be neither positive nor negative!

However, the question is what happens if the response is a negative one? Obviously, as per wishes of the electorate, the walkover victor shouldn’t persist as their representative. But that would mean the electorate for the ward would have no representatives. What would be the course of action then? Perhaps, the ward can hold a delayed election in which a few potential representatives are identified and polled to identify the ones to helm the ward. Or a by-election is also another option.

Given the unique way our elections are being contested, it is imperative to come up with a system that can better represent the voters’ desires especially in those walkover wards. However, one thing for sure is that it is never safe to assume that the walkover victor is the natural preference of the voters.

The government’s role in improving the quality of our educational institutions

This unpublished article was written some time ago. Minor edits were made prior to its publication here.

Photo courtesy of Benilda.

Singapore has set its sights on becoming an educational hub. To be a hub that attracts the very best of students, its institutions not only has to provide a quality education, but also has to be at the forefront of most, if not all disciplines as well. This means that the delivery of quality instruction and top notch research has to go hand in hand. The common belief is that if the research is top-notch, there will be a transfer of knowledge garnered from the research to the students. Thus, it doesn’t come as a surprise that many learning institutions are also judged by their quality of research as indicated by the number of papers published and their impact factors.

I was given a rare opportunity to present on the topic of academic freedom during a human rights seminar, and one recurring point that I addressed is the fact that the academic institution must be free from political control and influences in order to be progressive and produce top quality research. This is especially true for the social sciences and legal disciplines in which scholars and experts are encouraged to research and explore areas that are deemed taboo and out-of-bounds. Even if the topic being addressed isn’t favorable to the government, the study and intellectual debates must still continue, all in the name of academic freedom, which when practised will lead to the betterment of our institutions. Academic freedom is practised and valued by many institutions; the potential lack of it was cited as the reason why the University of Warwick did not set up a campus here in Singapore. Thus, in as far as the goverment’s role in the area of academic freedom is concerned, a hands-off approach and tolerance of views contrary to its own should be adopted.

But how can our government assist in improving the quality of research in our institutions? One obvious way is to share information with our institutions of higher learning. All our government bodies inclusive of statutory boards and ministries would have databases of information collected through various means. For instance, our police force has a huge stockpile of criminal records that could be useful to the research of legal scholars, psychology experts, forensic experts and others if they were able to access them. Our medical faculty will also benefit greatly from improved access to our armed forces medical centres due to increased access to injuries as a result of trauma or other forms and sicknesses suffered by our national servicemen.

Our government will also indirectly benefit from increased information sharing with our institutions of higher learning. When it encounters a particular tricky problem that requires an effective solution, it is sometimes best to have solvers from diverse disciplines and schools of thoughts who can attack the problem from unique angles. Although the government can turn to its own panel of experts, inbreeding through groupthink do not always produce the most optimal solution. In allowing our institutions to gain access to government data, the latter is also exposed to the everyday problems and issues that the government faces. The government on the bright side would have an ally boasting a diverse set of academic views to help solve the problems it may face.

Thus, our government can actually play a pro-active role in improving the quality of our educational institutions. First and foremost, it has to be tolerant to the extent of allowing ‘deviant’ views (not destructive) to proliferate in our institutions of higher learning without any form of restrictions whatsoever. It can also allow the institutions to access data and other ministries in a way that can add value to the quality of research carried out. At the same time, the government will benefit from the inputs of academics and experts within the institutions in grappling with problems and issues encountered during the running of various ministries and statutory boards, and ultimately the country itself. In a sense, this also gives our institutions of higher learning a rare opportunity to be part of the nation building process.

The vicious cycle of high rental costs of foodstalls

Photo courtesy of Jaevus

Not all Singaporeans can afford the time and luxury to prepare home-cooked food. Most of the time, they will order or “dabao” packed meals from food centres and “zhi char” stalls. The more health conscious Singapores tend to frown on eating outside, claiming that the food is not healthy.

Thus, I decided to put such health conscious claims to the test. I observed the cooking patterns of up to 10 food stalls. What I noticed is that the hawker tended to recycle the used oil after one round of cooking. Some oil when exposed to high heat can produce toxic compounds. Thus, if such are recycled again and again, the amount of toxic compounds will accumulate. Prolonged consumptions of such burnt oils can result in health problems such as atherosclerosis, inflammatory joint disease and development of birth defects.

When further queried why the choice of recycling the oil, these hawkers pointed out that the rental costs for the food stalls were sky-high and thus, they had to cut corners in order to maximize their profits. I didn’t further investigate what other areas did the hawkers cut corners at which will affect the healthiness of their prepared food.

The irony of the situation is that for the short-term, the authorities tasked with pricing of the rentals fees for the food stalls will collect a substantial sum from these hawkers. These fees go into the left pockets of the government. However, in future, those who suffer ill-health will tax the healthcare system, and at the end of the day, the money will come out of the government’s right pockets. A bit like gaining in the short-term but only to lose out in the long-term.

When we talk of preventive medicine, it involves measures at the policy formulation, implementation and execution level. For instance, a drive to encourage hawkers to prepare healthy food can involve incentive schemes such as rental credits, in which hawkers are given perks such as discounts in rents if they have a healthier method of preparing their food.

However, given the current situation, perhaps the only alternative is to watch out for one’s health either by dining at more expensive but healthy eateries such as Subway*, or preparing home-cooked food and cutting down on consuming food from hawkers who did not prepare them the healthy way. But for those who continue to dine at such outlets (affected by high rental costs) because they cannot really afford to dine at more healthy but expensive outlets, they are at risk of being sucked into this vicious cycle initially created by the high rental costs which go into the government’s coffers initially, only to be expended when the consumption results in future health problems.

*This article is not intended as an advertisement for Subway.

Should upgrading decisions be even placed in the hands of politicians?

This is a question that every voter should be asking himself. To address that, a deeper question should be asked further – should a politician play god over something that voters have contributed towards with their own hard-earned money? Well, as far as the upgrading carrots issue goes, if the politicians and political parties are footing the bills from their own pockets, then no one can fault them if they do not upgrade wards that do not vote for them. But, it will appear a little problematic if the residents have contributed their own hard-earned monies towards the upgrading funds in advance and yet are denied access as a result of the voting decisions. Even the government money is considered the people’s money per se. Thus, the last the most important question is – should the people instead of the politician take charge of the upgrading decisions?

When we talk of a system of checks and balances, we always talk about how the watchman is also being checked. When no one is checking the watchmen or even worse, when no one is in a position to check the watchmen, it may even be more problematic. Thus, if the citizens themselves play a role in making upgrading decisions themselves, they are in effect elevated to the role of watchmen themselves…they are in effect watching over a collective resource in which they have contributed towards themselves!

This represents a decentralization in the decision-making chain. Now instead of having one central authority making upgrading decisions in a top-down fashion, the power is in effect transferred to the people. This decentralization process is in itself an important check against a situation whereby the people will be held hostage and denied access to a collective resource due to the complicated game of politics. In essence, what that belongs to the people should be above politicking, and even politicians cannot be in a position to manipulate to their advantage using what that belongs to the people. In short, what the people own cannot be held hostage by politicians or the intricate web of politics. And this should be the case in the past, present and future!

Thus, I explored and elaborated on an approach that represents a decentralization of upgrading decisions which was published in the Temasek Review entitled “Depoliticizing the Upgrading Issue“. The write-up is reproduced below:

Potong Pasir and Hougang residents finally learn of the good news that they will be getting their lift upgrading. Yet, ominously on the eve of polling day 12 years ago, the-then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong warned voters that opposition estates will risk turning into ’slums’ if they continue to vote for the opposition.

Just three years ago, residents of Potong Pasir and Hougang were promised a sum total of $180 million if they voted for the PAP candidates, Mr Sitoh Yih Pin and Mr Eric Low respectively.

Upgrading works are considered a form of public work, which some may find analogous to a public good (while others may disagree).

A public good by its very definition is a good that is non-rivalrous and non-excludable. What this means is that the consumption of the good by one individual does not diminish its availability for others (non-rivalrous), and the assumption is that there is a huge warchest of funds for upgrading. Thus, in this case, upgrading carried for one ward will not diminish the access of the other wards to upgrading.

A public good must also be non-excludable, i.e. no one can be excluded from accessing the good. This means that all wards inclusive of Potong Pasir and Hougang should be able to gain access to upgrading, and none should be excluded.

However, it is apparent that upgrading works in Singapore’s context has somewhat become analogous to a private good, which is exclusive and prevents opposition voters within a ward from accessing it.

The Potong Pasir and Hougang residents needed to wait a long time before getting theirs. Therefore, upgrading, for some reasons has been an integral part of the electoral agenda by the PAP in the past elections. Hence, one may ask – is it possible to depoliticize the upgrading issue?

The answer is a resounding yes, and an approach can be designed in such a way that the citizens can participate in the process.

An independent body comprising individuals without any links (ideally) to the government and political parties can be set up to minimize the conflict of interests.

This body will have final decision-making powers on the nature of upgrading and the funds allocated to the process. This body has the power to decide which areas are in need of upgrading and the nature of upgrading works required, and it goes without saying, the expenditure of the processes.

A caretaker for a specific area can be appointed to survey its status on a regular basis. Ideally, this caretaker has to be a familiar face among residents whom they can approach. He has to be interacting with residents to hear their concerns and possibly, feedbacks on possible improvements that can be made to their areas.

The caretaker will compile a report of his findings and recommendations to a decision-making committee within the independent body.

Members of the decision-making committee as mentioned earlier shouldn’t be part of government service nor belong to any of the political parties. They may hail from Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) or are employed in the private sector. The committee will study the feedback and recommendations and will take action accordingly.

In the event of an upgrading work to an area, the caretaker will track its progress, and update the committee on its status on a consistent basis. After the upgrading works, the caretaker will catch up with the residents and capture their sentiments.

If the residents’ sentiments on the upgrading work is positive, the caretaker will stick to current status quo, but if there are complaints, the caretaker will again report this to the committee for appropriate action to be taken in order to improve the situation.

This represents a decentralization of the government’s as well as the Member of the Parliament’s role in the upgrading process. The executive decision-making powers is thus transferred from the government to the citizen.

In a certain sense, there is a partnership between the government and citizen. The former provides the funds for upgrading, and the latter makes the decision on how upgrading should be done.

This form of decision-making represents the top rungs of the Sherry Arnstein’s ladder of Citizenship participation. The top rungs epitomize a decentralization in decision-making processes while the low rungs represent a government that rules using a top-down approach, typefying a central decision-making authority.

All of us have always heard the rhetorical message about making Singapore a better place during our National Day. The truth is that Singaporeans can have a say over the physical complexion of their home if a system that facilitates their participation in the upgrading process is in place.

There is no reason why the upgrading issue should be politicized when it is first and foremost analogous to a public good, and secondly, it is the public’s duty to decide on how and what type(s) of upgrading should be done.

Lastly, placing the decision-making powers in the citizen’s hands is a form of safeguard protecting their interests since voters can make their decisions without being worried about whether their areas will get upgraded or not because the upgrading role is transferred into their own hands, instead of the electoral candidate’s.

Analyzing Mr Philip Yeo

Photo from Mr Philip Yeo’s wikipedia page

This article was written some time ago, but minor editings were done prior to its publication here.

This was Mr Philip Yeo’s first message to his online detractors when he ventured into cyberspace in a rare occasion to engage the bloggers:

A SENIOR MOMENT
“A very self-important university freshman attending a recent football game, took it upon himself to explain to a senior citizen sitting next to him why it was impossible for the older generation to understand his generation. “You grew up in a different world, actually an almost primitive one,” the student said, loud enough for many of those nearby to hear. “The young people of today grew up with television, jet planes, space travel, man walking on the moon, our spaceships have visited Mars. We have nuclear energy, electric and hydrogen cars, computers with light-speed processing and…,” pausing to take another drink of beer. The Senior took advantage of the break in the student’s litany and said, “You’re right, son. We didn’t have those things when we were young…..so we invented them.Now, you arrogant little XXXX, what are you doing for the next generation?

This was my reply to Yeo:
A SENIOR MOMENT REVISITED
An octogenarian came back to a city he once lived in after a long trip. He was surprised by the city’s transformation over the years in his absence, with the landscape dominated by new buildings with modern architecture. He wanted to capture the modern landscape in a camera. He walked into a camera shop and was shown a variety of sleek looking digital cameras. He was taken by surprise because the cameras were so much different from the ones that he used when he was young. He asked the sales personel if these digital cameras needed an external flash and asked why the cameras were so much different from the ones that he was used to during his younger days. The sales personel replied with a smile,”Sir, during your years of absence, your junior generations came up with innovative inventions like the lithium battery and especially the microchip. The microchip that is found in this camera is found in many other electronic devices. Your junior generations’ inventions has not only resulted in new applications, but has also pushed current technologies like photographic technology to new heights.”

Two years have passed since the exchanges. I happened to catch up with a scholar from SPRING Singapore and it appears Mr Yeo is still very much in the thick of things where selection and grooming of scholars are concerned. He was also very much involved in the selection and grooming of his scholars when he was back at A*STAR, paying close attention to their progress and dropping by to visit them at their overseas locations whenever he had the chance. That would endear himself to a number of his hand-picked scholars. Another fact that made him more endearing especially to scholars from a lesser socio-economic background was the fact that he would rather award the scholarship to a student from a poorer background if all things are equal as far as the scholarship applicant pool is concerned.

To credit the man, it is rare to find civil servants who share the same level of enthusiasm in developing young talents as him, even to the extent of preferring talents from lesser socio-economic backgrounds to boot. Well at least it scored his former agency, A*STAR, some brownie PR points…it is more socialist than the likes of the Public Service Commission, in which approximately half were from well-to-do background. It also earned the man the unofficial title of “closet socialist”.

The merits aside, observers are not wrong to point out that there is room for improvement as far as Yeo’s engagement of the public is concerned. For instance, when online detractors questioned Yeo’s management of biomedical research, the latter displayed the same tendency as some leaders in our government to revert to their achievements in their past, similar to those who spoke of their active role in bringing Singapore from the backwaters into the first world. Yeo was to relate to me his list of achievements when he was at the Ministry of Defense, Economic Development Board and else where. The point is that such an array of achievements impressive as they may be will not convince the critical reader. In other instances, such may backfire as it may alienate other readers. The biomedical science initiative is a completely new one as far as Singapore is concerned, and not even Yeo can boast of a single track record that reads “a successful start-up of the biomedical science initiative” (well depends on how you define success) prior to his A*STAR appointment. To be fair, Singapore’s R and D initiative within the field of Biomedical Sciences needs a constant source of huge fundings in order to achieve the goal of putting Singapore in the R and D world map. There is no short-cut, and it would take a mixture of constant funding and a risk-taking creative culture for the initiative to bear fruits.

From Yeo’s engagement of the public and my later correspondences with him, I seem to perceive a clash between the old school methods and perhaps expectations of the newer generation. Readers would recall Mr Yeo’s comments to the media that he would rather award scholarships to hungry foreigners instead of whiny male Singaporeans. Another one which famously created quite a lot of stir was Yeo’s “got a basic degree, go wash test tube” comment. Subsequently, I quizzed Yeo for his intention behind those remarks. It turned out that his intention was really to encourage more Singaporeans to pursue graduate studies. At that time, our Research Institutions were staffed by a relatively low ratio of local researchers. To achieve this intention, he resorted to what is known as Ridicule psychology. The purpose of this Ridicule psychology is to spur the ones ridiculed to prove the taunter wrong. In fact, Yeo said: I “learnt this practice from Dr. Goh Keng Swee. Must be cruel to be kind.They will hate my guts now but when they get their Ph.D., they might wake up and thank me.” On the humorous side, it is not difficult for one to assume that Yeo was probably at the receiving end of Dr. Goh’s “Ridicule psychological” taunts. But if that really did happened, maybe it worked wonders for Yeo.

However, the crux is whether the public can interpret Yeo’s remarks as a form of “Ridicule psychology”. Coming from a sporting background, I have seen examples of how “Ridicule psychology” are being used. In one soccer practice, our coach/trainer who was displeased with our touches pointed to a kid juggling a ball more than 50 times and taunted us that even a kid can handle a ball better than us. That taunt rankles but it spurred us to work harder to improve. The references to younglings doing better than us ‘old-lings’ seems to be an effective “Ridicule psychological” taunt. However, our coach do not tell us “Stop playing soccer and go be a waterboy!” because such a statement may be interpreted wrongly and may be psychologically-damaging. Some do not even see it as a form of “Ridicule psychology” but rather a prompt to quit the team altogether. Thus, I am not too sure if Mr Yeo’s “preference of females and foreigners to whiny male Singaporeans” and “got basic degree go wash test tubes” remarks can be interpreted as a form of “Ridicule psychology”. If Yeo says something like “so and so country has so many early 20-something Ph.D.s producing good research and you Singaporeans are so far behind them”, at least it can be seen as a form of “Ridicule psychology” to spur Singaporeans to reach greater heights.

We will never know the type of “Ridicule psychology” taunts that Dr. Goh used on his subordinates. We will also never know how effective will “Ridicule psychology” be if used on the current generation of young Singaporeans. Some may respond positively, others we do not know. But one thing that can be observed from Yeo’s engagement is the ongoing engagement between old school methodologies and expectations of the new generation.

Of course, Yeo will be less controversial and perhaps more likeable should he revise his public engagement approach coupled with his good points such as his enthusiasm in developing young talents. But then again, it is his entirely his own perogative, and he can choose to remain as the same old Mr Philip Yeo as we know him to be, just like a leopard who never changes his spots.

Kelvin Teo catches up with Reverend Dr Yap Kim Hao

Reverend Dr Yap Kim Hao received his primary and secondary education from the Anglo Chinese School. He subsequently earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in Chemistry and Biology from Baker University, and his Master of Divinity and Doctor of Theology Degrees from the Boston University School of Theology. His accolades include an hononary Doctor of Divinity degree conferred by Baker University, a Distinguished Alumni Award by the Boston University School of Theology and the Order of Jerusalem medal that was presented to him in recognition of his services at the World Methodist Council.

Dr Yap was consecrated the 1st Asian Bishop of the Methodist Church in Singapore and Malaysia in 1968 and elected to serve as General Secretary of the Christian Conference of Asia in 1973. He was made the Visiting Professor of World Christianity at Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University. He also formerly taught in Summer school at the Vancouver School of Theology.

Currently retired from full-time Christian ministry, Dr Yap is serving as Pastoral Advisor to the Free Community Church.

Kelvin Teo: You are currently serving as Pastoral Advisor to the Free Community Church, a role you regard as the calling of God, since your retirement from full-time Christian ministry. Your mission is to declare Christ’s inclusive love (the Agape spirit) to those who have been ostracized and neglected for far too long by the Church. Care to share with us what specific events occurred in your life that led you to live up to your calling to minister to this unfortunate (as a result of ostracization and living in the closet) group of people?

YKH:Early in my ministry a leading lawyer asked me the question about the teaching of the Church on the issue of homosexuality. This issue was not discussed publicly at that time. The Church did not bother to state its position. The gays and lesbians were in their closets and most people assumed it to be a closed subject since the Bible has declared that same-sex relationship is wrong. In my naivete, I looked up the five or six biblical passages that relate to it which concluded that homosexuality is a sin.

Later, I re-read, studied and interpreted the passages which was not taught even in my seminary. Reputable scholars of the Bible with other than conventional views gave their interpretations which seem to be credible and convincing to me.

The story of Sodom now linguistically linked to sodomy was an issue of inhospitality to visiting strangers. It is never an account about same-sex relations. It was as defined in Ezekial 16:47-50 as pride, gluttony, and prosperous ease and refusal to aid the poor and needy. Sodom is a symbol of God’s judgment rather than same-sex relations.

The word homosexuality as we understand it today is a modern word and has no equivalent in the original Hebrew and Greek languages of the Bible. It was first coined in 1869 by a Swiss doctor to refer to aesthetic attraction, romantic love and sexual desire exclusively between members of the same sex. It was injected into the Bible as late as 1946 in the Revised Standard Version by the translators and was subsequently dropped in 1971. With such evidence how can I regard homosexuality a sin.

Moving on, when a medical graduate from a wealthy family had come out to his mother, he requested me to counsel her about acceptance of her homosexual son. Again I naively asked the question whether with all his money he has consulted a good psychiatrist to cure his mental disorder. He turned to me with his quizzical look and I was embarrassed for I had asked a stupid question.

I then learnt that already in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association has removed homosexuality from its list of personality disorders. This was followed by other Western professional associations of psychology, counseling, mental health, pediatrics, school teachers, social workers and other related groups. They also raised concerns about the bad effects of reparative therapy which seeks to change sexual orientation. In August 2009, the American Psychological Association (150,000 members) Governing Council declared that “No solid evidence exists that such change is likely, says the resolution, adopted by a 125-4 vote. The APA said some research suggests that efforts to produce change could be harmful, inducing depression and suicidal tendencies.” It is the most comprehensive repudiation of “reparative therapy” which is pursued by a small group of religiously conservative therapists who maintain gays can change their sexual orientation.. Can I ignore the declarations and warnings of these proficient professional associations?

Kelvin Teo: In a letter published to the Straits Times on 18 July 2003, you described an interesting account of how you used to believe homosexual acts are always wrong. After listening to gay and lesbian students and friends, however, you have had to rethink your position and reread the Scriptures. Do you mind sharing with us the kind of thought processes you went through when you re-read the scriptures that finally led to your re-evaluation of your position (referring to the scriptures if you wish)?

YKH:In a more careful study of the Bible I realise that the words of the Bible were not dictated or handed down by God. Faithful and inspired men and a few women received what they believed to be revelations which were not literal words but interpretations of their understanding of what God had revealed. They were first transmitted orally. They subsequently wrote them down and the words of the Bible were copied and translated into different languages from the original Hebrew and Greek. The Bible contains interpreted words of the writers of the different books of the Bible. There were other religious books which were not able to gain acceptance by the religious authorities then to form the sacred text of the Bible. The Bible is historically related and culturally bound. We are compelled to study and interpret its relevance to our contemporary context. The process continues.

Kelvin Teo: What kind of internal struggles do you think a homosexual Christian will experience?

YKH:Christian LGBT faced far too long the rejection, marginalisation, stigmatisation, ostracisation and oppression in society. They were forced to stay in lonely isolation in their closets. They were compelled to act as if they are straights when they appear in public. A heavy burden of guilt was placed on their shoulders and they cry out in their silence and solitude. They did not choose to be a homosexual. On the contrary, they want to change their sexual orientation and they tried prayer, exorcism, reparative therapy but of no avail. In their spiritual and emotional struggles there are those who were able to overcome and believe that God loves them and affirm homosexuality is a gift of God that they accept with grace and able to come out to the world with pride. Society is beginning to be enlightened and becoming to be aware that the LGBT person can believe and sing “Jesus loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so.” The tide of their liberation is rising everywhere for those who have eyes to see. God has heard their cries and will deliver them.

Kelvin Teo: What was the effect of the AWARE saga on the Christian community specifically?

YKH:The AWARE saga was a revealing experience in our society. It shows the danger of Christian fundamentalism. It had surfaced the schemes of the Christian Religious Right.

A government leader in a private conversation with me commented that one can do that in America where the majority are Christian oriented although it is not good to splinter the Christian community. But in a multi-religious society in Singapore it is a totally dangerous development. No one religion should impose its beliefs and values and displace those from other religions. We cannot afford to tear apart the delicate fabric of social cohesion. We cannot have the luxury to engage in religious conflict between faith communities. We need to respect differences in our diversity, engage in dialogue and work together for the common good and ensure a just and peaceful future.

Kelvin Teo: What are the possible approaches of engaging the Christian community in a way that will lead to the acceptance of brothers and sisters-in-Christ who are gays and lesbians?

YKH:Most of the Christian churches have recently been politically correct to declare that they welcome homosexuals and love them. It seems to be that there is an unwritten condition that the homosexuals should not tell that they are gay and if they do then they must recognize that homosexuality is a sin and that they should not engage in same-sex acts and become celibate.

Gays and lesbians know that too well and will continue to stay in the larger closet of the congregation and forced to wear masks and live a lie that they are just like them.

The Christian community must re-study the Scriptures and reflect upon the interpretation of the particular passages relating to same-sex acts and come to their own decision whether the Church’s official teaching that homosexuality is a sin or not.

Most people shun and avoid meeting the gays and lesbians. They are people of sacred worth created by God like you and me. We are called to love even our enemies and they are not your enemies. He or she is your own son and daughter or your relative and they were born into your family and they did not choose to be there. Own them and love them, they are your kith and kin. The gay person is a human being created by the same God who created you and me and each one of us different. We belong together to God the Creator of us all. We are one human family.

Kelvin Teo: Care to share with us the high points and low points of your service as Pastoral Advisor to the Free Community Church?

YKH:I regard it as a privilege and a calling of God to stand alongside with those who are despised and rejected. Even though I am being misunderstood widely I find this a defining moment in my ministry. Knowing that I do not agree with the teaching of the Church on this particular issue I believe that I have to be obedient to God in serving the LGBT community.

When I see the liberating effects of those who made the hard decision and dare to appear in the Free Community Church (FCC) at a great risk, I thank God that they have come home and received God’s welcome. They are free at last from guilt and shame and walk with their heads held high. They start with leaving their masks at the door of FCC and then throwing their masks away as they relate to others in the world.

There are those in FCC who are still in doubt and wrestling with the issue of their sexual orientation. They have to unload the false teaching of the Church and it is not easy. It was cruel of the Christian community to cause them so much suffering and pain. They need to regain their self-esteem and worship the God who is loving.

The follow-up service is to help those in FCC who have accepted their sexual orientation to live the responsible life of a Christian LGBT. The moral quality of life must be different from those who are not guided by religious faith. They will need to grow in spirituality and improve the quality of Christian living.

Kelvin Teo: If there is a message that you can pass on to i)a homosexual Chistian ii) other Christians who have yet to accept their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters-in-Christ for who they are, what would it be?

YKH:Do not remain in your closet and exist in lonely existence. There is help and hope available around you. Seek out others around you who can support you in your struggle. Keep your faith in Christ who will set you free.

Know the damage done by the Church to our brothers and sisters in Christ. Many have abandoned the Church because they have not been ministered. We have cast them out and they are rebellious and have given up on Christian faith. Reach out to them.as a witness for Christ who associated with the dispossessed. Extend your hand in genuine friendship and concern and embrace them with your love and affection.

Interviewer’s comments:It is noteworthy that Dr Yap has elected to face head-on an issue long considered a taboo within the Christian circles. It is also refreshing to hear how Dr Yap draws inspiration from the scriptures in ministering to an unfortunate group of people. We can glean from him his biblical perspectives surrounding the issue of Christian LGBT as he refers to specific instances within the scriptures. Special praise should be reserved for Dr Yap’s promotion of an all-embracing love towards those whom are different from the rest. It is the sort of Agape spirit, that is taught not only in Christianity but also in other faiths and belief systems that is awe-inspiring, and is something that we should try to emulate. The Agape spirit is indeed the celebration of the human spirit of love.