Review 2010 – Group blogging experiences

And so 2010 draws to a close.

2010 began when some of us joined the New Asia Republic (NAR) in its nascent state. What I found unique about NAR was the fact that many of us were from the same generation, and there was a great degree of understanding and empathy towards different views.

It also helps that a lot of us were from different professional backgrounds. Myself, from the pharmaceutical sciences, others from economics, and we also have a political science major and yadda yadda.

There wasn’t a time when I didn’t learn something new. When Ian Choo reported on the Bhutan Prime Minister’s talk, I could immediately see the similar context it has to health models.

What I particularly like about NAR is that it attempts to address fundamental questions that we may ask ourselves e.g. is Austrian economics relevant? Or is Nuclear Power viable and yadda.

It is always good to have such expository pieces, where we think of a concept and then challenge our pre-conditioned or pre-conceived notions of that concept. Sometimes, we have to ask ourselves such basic questions once in a while. Like what is classical economics and the failure or strengths of it.

In a school setting, many a time, we opt to play it safe by sticking to what we are taught. But really, we are constrained by time and more often than not, we only scratch the surface of a concept, rarely venturing into lower depths.

In a sense, my work at NAR can be rewarding. For instance, I was only taught the biopsychosocial model of health, but I wrote on the biopsychosicial-environmental-cultural model of health, which was in greater depth. I am sure such expository cum exploratory pieces are of great benefit to the other writers. For one, it goes to show that what we learn in our textbooks is merely scratching the surface.

There is definitely a strong educational element to it. Having spoken about 2010, what’s in store for 2011?

The future is uncertain. However, what is certain is that producing a work at NAR isn’t futile. The writer learns as much even as he is writing the piece. Thus, one thing can be assured is that the writers grow in terms of knowledge.

Increased focus on recruiting matured applicants into civil service in a move away from a scholarship focus?

Photo courtesy of Zach Inglis

The American system of education is fascinating in its own right vis-a-vis the commonwealth system. Entry into professional schools such as medical and law colleges requires the applicants to go through a college (university) education, before they can be considered for entry. That means that prospective students must have already earned a bachelors degree prior to their application to the medical or law college. More often not, these graduates have experienced the working world prior to their entry into professional schools. Such applicants are what is known as mature applicants. In most commonwealth countries, the practice of admitting students who are fresh out of high school (equivalent of “A” levels) into professional colleges still persists.

There is a prevailing mindset that mature students actually make better students and co-workers than those fresh out of high school. This could perhaps be attributed to their maturity gleaned over the years, even more so for those who have been through the working world. In fact, lecturers and professors who have worked with such students have remarked that they were extremely independent, and brought perspectives to the class that even they as teachers ended up learning! Actually, it doesn’t take rocket science to explain why mature applicants are more preferred and look upon more favorably than their freshie-out-of-high-school counterparts. In most job applications, those who present with experience in the working world are looked upon more favorably than those without any. The other advantage with mature students is that when they apply to go to a professional college, they would have thought through about their future, and made an informed choice about what they want to achieve, more so than their freshie counterparts. The intervening years of experience would have given them ample time to think over their priorities in life.

There is a wide debate over the effectiveness of our scholarship system. Basically, the scholarship boards of our government attempt to identify talented students straight after “A” levels. They are sponsered for their studies at top universities, and come back to serve their bond at various government bodies. The question with admitting these fresh out of “A” levels students is – 1) are they even sure of their choice to take up the scholarship and enter public service? 2) have they gleaned enough experience of their world around them, thought over what they have been through and then make an informed choice to enter our government service? The first two questions, these prospective scholars should be asking themselves. The third question is a relevant one that deals with their life experience – 3) have what they experienced thus far really prepared them for life in the work place of our government ministries?

The first question is definitely a rehash, and no one will it surprising that academic advisors of high-flying students would have counselled them on this point. The second question, however, if one considers seriously, is not really one that the fresh “A” level graduates are able to answer convincingly. They obviously wouldn’t have enough experience around them to consider what is best for their interests. In fact, it didn’t come as a surprise that some scholars regretted signing on the dotted line when they encountered what really suited them in line with their interests during the course of their studies. Mature applicants would obviously have been through this phase of sampling the world around them to rate their own priorities, at least the tendency is higher.

It goes without saying that the third question cannot be convincingly answered by the proverbial fresh “A” level graduate. They would obviously not have sampled the working environment for a substantial period of time to understand working culture or office culture, whichever way you want to call it. In fact, the mature applicant best suited to answer is one with working experience under his belt. Being through the working world, he would have understood the intricacies of networking, office relations, crisis management, and other finer skills that can only be picked up in the work place.

Hence, should our Public Service Commission turn their attention away from scholarship programs catered to fresh “A” level graduates towards attracting matured applicants? A resounding yes. Who wouldn’t want an employee with experience and who is in the job after priortizing what he has wanted in life? And to make things more attractive, mature applicants should be given an equal chance at promotion. About time for a new focus, no?

Fear factor that gets really bad

Photo courtesy of whi1e

Our Internal Security Department (ISD) has really pervaded into the mainstream public consciousness for good or bad reasons, depending on which perspective you are coming from.

Even though Operations Spectrum and Coldstore occurred decades ago, they still instill a certain proportion of fear within our populace, even among those whom are not born within the era when those two operations were in effect.

How can the fear of ISD be invoked? Most of the time, it has to do with political opposition. And how can such a fear be manifested? A member of the opposition once related to me how a friend of his didn’t contact him for a long time when he joined an opposition party. The other case was even more extreme. A peer of mine kept looking over his shoulder out of paranoia when he met a friend of his who met Dr Chee in person. Apparently, he was afraid of being tailed.

It isn’t surprising that the opposition experiences the cold shoulder in places like academic institutions or other establishments. Guess there are those in such institutions and establishments who ‘look over their shoulders’ the moment they entertain the opposition. To save themselves the trouble, they simply shun the opposition by slamming the doors shut on the latter.

Little wonder they say it takes nerves of steel and some say balls of brass to take the leap into the opposition camp.

Charming the voters

Yulia Tymoshenko, Ph.D., former Prime Minister of Ukraine widely considered to be among the ranks of the hottest politicians
Photo courtesy of Elparadiso19

Usually our local elections revolve around bread and butter issues, track record in office for the ruling party candidates and other mundane political issues. Very rarely, do the topic of the most charming and photogenically appealing politicians ever gain media limelight, save for the occasional coffeeshop chatter or street market gossip. Yet, an interesting question we can ask ourselves is whether the candidate’s ability to charm the sexes can make a difference between victory and defeat here at the polls in Singapore.

The results of electoral polls in other countries have shown us that sex appeal do make a difference. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair was able to attract female voters in his landslide victory of 1997 and the return of his party to power in 2001. Media celebrities turning politicians is a rarity here, but it is a common occurrence elsewhere. Former media celebrities and even pornstars have made their transition to the political world, with varying degrees of success. Indeed, the hugely popular MAXIM has a section speculating on and selecting the hottest politicians around. Prominent names include Sarah Palin (US) and Maria Cafagna (Italy).

The ability of a candidate to charm voters wasn’t lost on the PAP. Teo Ser Luck is perhaps one who appeal to female voters, judging from the sentiments and feedback gathered online from female netizens. Featured on Singapore Tatler, the latter is also a hit among gay forummers at a prominent gay forum. Such eye-appealing candidates are also available within the opposition rank. Justin Ong, from the Reform Party is one, who attracted rave reviews from females who attended the party’s dinner just last year. So is Jaslyn Go from the Singapore Democratic Party, who proved to be a hit among some of the male voters.

Will appeal to sexes make a difference? Some believe that our electorate is a conservative one and eye-appeal count for nothing; yet there are others who believe otherwise. During a contest between a suave candidate and another well in his senior years, the conservative ones will believe that the former’s suaveness will count for nothing if the policies he offers on table is inferior to the latter. The others who believe in the power of sex appeal will opine that the suave candidate can make up for his shortfall in policy-making with his eye-appeal.

With a number of criticisms raised against the nature of GRC contests, seen from the opposite angle, it also provides us with an opportunity to test a potent combination – political astuteness with eye-appeal, a team of politically astute candidates strong in policy-making up in arms with colleagues possessing great eye appeal. The question is whether the eye-appeal part of the team will charm the voters sufficiently to make a difference.

Significance of a contest at Tanjong Pagar GRC

Photo courtesy of Stinkee Beek

A political contest anywhere and its results would have its fair share of significance and symbolism ascribed to it. It goes without saying that a contest at Tanjong Pagar GRC, in which its current incumbent is the PAP GRC team helmed by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, during the elections will have its natural ramifications. The last contest at Tanjong Pagar was when it was still a single member ward that has been held by Lee for a long time. Lee’s last opponent was MG Guru, and the former garnered 81.6% of the votes. Ever since Tanjong Pagar was merged with other constituencies into Tanjong Pagar GRC, none has contested there so far.

If someone decides to contest there, what is the significance behind such a contest?

One obvious significance is that the jury will be out on whether Lee’s presence within the parliament is wanted, and in the larger picture, if his mode of governance is still needed and currently relevant to Singapore. Thus, the spotlight will be on Lee and not the opposition up against him and his team. And the voters at Tanjong Pagar will have to decide whether he should continue or not. The inevitable question that these voters have to grapple with is – can Singapore do without Lee?

During elections, there can be a few factors that influence the voter’s decision. Some may vote willingly, others unwillingly out of fear or a grudging acceptance (because he believes he may have more to lose if he voted otherwise). For a reasonably intelligent voter at Tanjong Pagar who votes in support for Lee and his team, the significance is clear-cut. The former believes there is still a role for Lee to play in the governance of Singapore, in whatever capacity of his appointment in office. In fact, some may go further to say that Lee is really so indispensable that the PAP government cannot run without him. In other words, he is seen as the vital cog and gear within the PAP machinery. However, the reinforcement of Lee’s indispensability through the polls may not reflect positively on the PAP’s efforts to renew its ranks with young blood in the sense that the younger generation of ministers are perceived to be unable to take on the task of running the Singapore ship in Lee’s absence. Thus, when voters believe that Singapore cannot do without Lee, it is also a form of admission that the next generation of ministers are not able to run the Singapore ship independently of Lee.

If it is a loss for Lee and his team, the writing is clear on the wall – the residents at Tanjong Pagar have decided on behalf of Singapore that the nation is set to be piloted by a new generation of leaders at the helm, albeit independently of Lee. The voters who are likely to vote against Lee can be classified into the staunchly anti-Lee at one extreme end to those who aren’t against Lee but feel that Singapore is in need of a change in direction independent of Lee.

However, one thing remains clear. The power invested in the residents at Tanjong Pagar in charting Singapore’s course provided there is someone else besides the PAP to contest in the ward. They will be deciding between a Lee-guided Singapore ship or a Singapore independent of Lee. All eyes will be on this one in the event of a contest.

NMP as the harbinger of controversial and divisive issues

Photo courtesy of Bryan aka Numnumball

Amidst debates over the validity and appropriateness of our NMP scheme, a trend has emerged with regards to a potential role played by our NMPs in parliament – the harbinger of controversial and divisive issues such as race, religion and sexuality that any political party wouldn’t touch with a barge pole.

The most recent episode was NMP Viswa Sadasivan’s opinion that Singaporeans have become very race-conscious, and such a phenomenon pervades even the most formalized of procedures such as form-filling. Even our Identity cards bear the the racial groups we belong to. Viswa further alluded to the fact that the establishment of self-help groups along ethnic lines such as Mendaki (malay), SINDA (indian), CDAC (chinese) and Eurasian Association has exacerbated this problem. Viswa contended that such a conscious practice of racial segregation and categorization due to the nature of how the government collects data is inconsistent with the “regardless of race” tenet enshrined in our national pledge.

You will certainly not find Viswa’s views on race in any electoral manifesto or speeches. Mr Low Thia Khiang, an opposition MP, response was the most telling; the latter stated that he didn’t want to have anything to do with the debate.

The one other divisive issue raised by an NMP revolved around sexuality issues, particularly with the criminalization of gay sex. Mr Siew Kum Hong tabled a petition to the parliament in support of the repeal of section 377A on 22nd October 2007 when he was an NMP. What later transpired was a clash of ideals between the conservative and liberal camps on sexuality. A political party will never include such an issue in its agenda due to its divisive nature. Support the interest of the liberal camp, and there will be a backlash from the conservatives, and vice versa. Hence, one wouldn’t find it surprising if political parties refuse to take a stand on the issue. Miss Sylvia Lim, a non-constituency Member of the Parliament from the Workers’ Party refused to adopt a stand on the issue.

Hence, where the current political parties dare not go due to the inherent risks of a political fallout, it has emerged that the NMPs are left to pick up the pieces since they didn’t have an electorate to answer to. Circumstances has indeed resulted in making our NMPs the harbinger of controversial and divisive issues. One of the good things of having such harbingers is that these divisive issues will see the light of the day in public, instead of going unnoticed.

Why the term Young PAP is considered a misnomer

In the sports arena, there is a need to replenish the ranks of current sportsmen, and hence, the focus on youth development. The raw diamonds are polished today into the gems of tomorrow. It is the Young Lions of the England National Youth soccer team who will form the nucleus of future Lions team years down the road. That is the natural process of the young who will replace the old, be it in sports, business and elsewhere.

Now, let’s ask a person who has little conception of Singapore politics what does he understand by the term Young PAP. You will most likely get a reply that the function of the Young PAP is to replenish the ranks of PAP, which is a common-sensical one in any sense.

The Young PAP website shows a list of interesting objectives based on 3 Es – 1) Establish, which is to expand the network and footprint of the YP ethos. 2) Embrace which is to capture a diversity of members and views to represent Singapore’s demographics; and in doing so to spur change from within. 3) Evolve which is to create a sphere of influence for members to grow and deepen their understanding of politics and how they can personalize politics to shape Singapore’s future.

A fourth E, and the most important one directly related to the idealized concept and name of Young PAP is missing. ELEVATE, which is to replenish PAP’s ranks with members from Young PAP. And one really wonders why.

It is ironical that the actual PAP itself has its own mechanisms that allows the latter to select its own candidates. The first step of the selection process is an invitation to tea party on the recommendation of Ministers, Member of Parliaments, senior civil servants, corporate leaders and party activists. Thus, this means that the PAP itself casts a wide net, and any member of the public can be a potential PAP candidate if the latter successfully negotiates the selection hurdles. Thus, it doesn’t come as a surprise that nearly the entire crop of the current PAP Member of Parliaments didn’t rise through the Young PAP ranks, but were parachuted into PAP candidature directly nonetheless. Thus, one wouldn’t find it surprising if the Young PAP isn’t even considered a platform to replace the PAP’s ranks by the PAP itself. However, information on the PAP’s stand on Young PAP is not known at the moment. There is an even deeper dose of irony considering the fact that Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, former chairman of Young PAP was never from Young PAP himself.

It is apparent that Young PAP’s role, with its current 3 Es, is to serve a complementary function to the PAP. One would would suspect that party renewal may not be an important priority (relative to the 3 Es) for the Young PAP. However, if its role is to serve a complementary function on other fronts and its raison d’etre is not about party renewal, then its label “Young PAP” is indeed a misnomer.

Does the issuance of electoral handouts contravene our electoral laws (for arguement’s sake)?

Photo courtesy of Ian Timothy

The New Singapore Shares and Progress Package, better known as electoral handouts were well in excess over $2 billion. The total count of Singapore citizen population in 2008 is 3.164 million. This will mean that each Singapore citizen may receive up to more than $632 each if the handout is disbursed evenly.

However, if one looks carefully at the website of the Singapore elections department, there is a law which imposes a limit on the level of spending by or on behalf of every candidate in the conduct and management of his/her election. Known as the elections expenses unit, the law was implemented to ensure

“a level playing field between candidates. Without such a limit, parties with greater resources will gain advantage through spending more for publicity and awareness. This leads to distortions in the democratic process.” – Quoted from the Elections Department website

One interesting aspect of this law is the such a spending cannot be incurred by the candidates before, during or after the elections. The spending limit is $3 per elector for a single member ward. For a GRC, it is $3 per elector divided by the number of candidates (5 or 6). With this information, an interesting question can be asked – can the issuance of electoral handouts ($632 per person if divided evenly) be considered a violation of the elections expenses limit?

The ruling party has always been accused for a long time for issuing electoral handouts by the opposition and other observers alike. Perhaps, the defense that the ruling PAP can put up is that the handouts are not issued under the party’s auspices, but rather in the capacity of the Singapore government. Technically, the political party is not allowed to spend past the required limit. However, the handout is not issued by the party, but by the government so to speak.

To counter, one may consider the truth behind the statement that the Singapore government is equivalent to the PAP. For the record, only 2 seats out of 84 went to the opposition. Thus, if one convincingly argues that the Singapore government is synonymous with the PAP and in essence is known as the PAP government , then to assert that the ruling party dishes out handouts is a fair statement.

But then again, much of the debate will also revolve around the term “spending”. The ruling party’s defense would perhaps be based on the fact that the handouts are considered re-distribution of our nation’s wealth as opposed to spending by the party. The counter-argument is that a ruling party that is synonymous with the national government can spend its budget, which in our case is budget surpluses, to re-distribute wealth.

So, does the issuance of electoral handouts contravene our electoral laws? The debate continues…

The great GRC paradox

The article was written some time ago.

Photo courtesy of whi1e

The GRC has eluded the opposition thus far, with Francis Seow’s team of the Workers’ Party obtaining a close 49.11% margin during its contest at Eunos GRC. However, on the bright side, there were no three-cornered fights, and another brighter piece of statistic – no contestants at GRC contests has ever lost their deposits. Yet, generations of opposition candidates have avoided contesting in GRCs, intimidated by the prospects of facing off with a heavyweight PAP candidate (read Ministers), citing the ironical reason that the electoral deposits are high, and the former run the risks of losing them (when a candidate garners less than the 12.5% margin of votes, he will lose his deposits). This is what made the GRCs a great paradox.

The main reason behind the opposition’s hesitation to contest GRCs could be attributed to resource constraints, especially when the area size of the entire ward is huge. That could mean more resources would be required to totally cover the huge ground. The other reason could be due to the changing electoral boundaries, which may have put off or caught the opposition candidates off-guard that resulted in the latter ‘playing it safe’ by not contesting. And it is true that the opposition has yet to figure a way of breaking through and securing a GRC win for the first time in our electoral history. The last reason is obvious. The current strength of the opposition candidates is not sufficient enough to contest all the GRCs. During the 2006 General Elections, seven GRCs remained uncontested.

However, history and past statistics may offer a comforting voice to opposition candidates who are half-eager, half-hesitant to contest a GRC. They cannot use loss of deposit as an excuse because none has ever lost their deposit. It is an interesting trend that the single member wards are more prone to loss of deposits, partly due to the fact that such wards have seen three-cornered fights. However, the pertinent question is – why has the opposition fared better in the GRCs in terms of keeping their deposits as compared with the single member wards?

The prime reason could ironically be attributed to the re-drawing of boundaries which resulted in the absorption of ‘troubled’ (with high opposition voting proportions) into larger sized GRCs. Tiong Bahru GRC, where Mr Low Thia Khiang used to contest, and Anson where Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam first made his breakthrough were both absorbed into Tanjong Pagar GRC. Ang Mo Kio GRC absorbed the now defucnt Cheng San GRC. During the 2006 General Elections, expectations were high on Lee Hsien Loong to make history by taking a huge margin that will make his opponents lose their deposits, but little did they realize that the opposition-supporting Cheng San residents would make their point felt at the polls. While combining opposition-supportive with ruling party supportive areas will dilute the opposition votes, it could also do the same to the PAP votes. It is like combining one cup of salt solution with another cup of sugar solution. This will make the salt solution more sweet, but it will also make the sugar solution more salty. It is this “salt and sugar” combination brought about by redrawing of electoral boundaries which make the GRCs hard to win, but at the same time, it is also hard, or put more accurately, impossible to lose their electoral deposits, which is a comforting fact to the opposition fraternity.

Perhaps, the only thing that prevents the opposition from contesting in GRCs is resource constraints. It is understandable that the opposition candidates are little hesitant with regards to their approach to a GRC. However, the re-assuring part from the historical standpoint is that the odds of losing their deposits is virtually nil, although none of the opposition has ever made a breakthrough to secure one. Winning a GRC contest is difficult, and yet losing electoral deposits is also just as difficult. Hence, the great GRC paradox.

Policy debates or estate management for the elections?

Photo courtesy of mr tigercub’s singapore

The focus of past elections have revolved around the ‘faux pas’ of certain opposition candidates, which have been blown out of proportion, and upgrading. Upgrading falls under the category of estate management. This meant that little time was spent on addressing specific policy issues. Thus, the pertinent question is will the next elections be based on policy debates or personality (blown out of proportion emphasis on the mistakes of certain candidates) and estate management issues?

Policy debates
Where possible, a wide net should be cast to address policies that affect a wide spectrum of voters. For instance, during the 2006 General Elections, Miss Sylvia Lim selected her pet topic of means testing for wards. Whilst it is true that we would probably require healthcare at some point of time, not all of us will require healthcare every time. Thus, a party shouldn’t be narrowly focused on a particular pet topic, which will see them losing out on attracting other groups of voters. The policies to be addressed should be planned in such a way that the interests of a wide demographic group of voters should be addressed.

Here is an example. A party chooses to address healthcare issues such as step-down care in order to target the voters whom are senior citizens. The second policy it chooses to address is on the CPF minimum sum scheme, which was increased from $106,000 to $117,000 in 1 July 2009, and will be increased to $120,000 come 2013. This means that not many will be able to see their CPF monies in their retirement at 55 should their CPF savings fall below the minimum sum. Addressing CPF issue, for instance, will attract the whole spectrum of voters that includes those in our workforce, and will be of special interest to those in their late 40s and early 50s whom are near the mandatory age of 55. The third policy that the party can choose to address is the open-door policy, which can itself be narrowed down to specific areas. For instance, questioning the allocation of scholarships and subsidies to foreign students, and quotas in our universities would appeal to young voters not far from the age of 21, and their parents, especially those who require subsidies for their university education. Questioning the criteria for the allocation of work permits will be of interest to all working adults. And addressing the issue surrounding placements of local primary one students in comparison with their foreign counterparts will cater to the interests of young parents.

There is obviously no such thing as a one size-fits-all policy approach that appeals to all voters. Instead, the party has to make a wise selection of policies to cast a wide net and cater to a wide demographic group of voters.

What happens if a particular candidate is targeted for a small mistake?
During the 2006 General Elections, we all witnessed “Gomezgate”, which all started with a mistake made by James Gomez during the filling up of his minority forms. Throughout the hustings, Gomez was subjected to a barrage of accusations, allegations and criticisms from the ruling party. It turned out that this targeting of Gomez led to sympathy from the voters, who felt it wasn’t appropriate to pick on an honest mistake.

Thus, the question is – what course of action should be taken if a candidate repeats the same minor mistake and becomes a target of such attacks? Perhaps, a leaf can be taken out from a usual cyberspace practice when Internet trolls are encountered – the old saying “Leave the trolls alone and do not feed them”. Hence, there is actually no need to respond to such attacks. The public will definitely sympathize with the targeted candidate if the attacks go overboard, and there will be an added bonus of sympathy votes. If there is five minutes of the campaigning time, it should be spent on addressing a policy like CPF that appeals to working adults, especially those in their late 40s and early 50s, rather than to respond to the attacks. The net should be cast to catch as many fishes as possible despite the howls from the winds.

As most of us netizens would know, trolls merely attempt to deviate the flow of an online discussion. Thus, there is no need to respond to such character attacks, but rather ignore them and attempt to address issues that interest voters. (note that it is never to the attempt of this article to call those responsible for character attacks on rival candidates “trolls”, but it is rather an allusion to an online practice)