Samsui Women Not Eligible for Workfare Bonus

Some thoughts on Singapore
(Part I)
Consider this: if the "permanent" Workfare Bonus (to be announced in detail February 15 2007) requires the worker to "provide for Medisave" in order to be eligible, then Samsui Women who collect cardboard will not qualify. Samsui Women form a powerful and celebrated image of some early Singapore immigrants - risk-taking, industrious and resilient. More importantly, they literally built Singapore, constructing landmark buildings like the Capitol Cinema and buildings along Shenton way. Chingay processions and National Day Parades pretentiously remind us of their importance, but ironically a real Samsui Women couldn't get a ticket to the NDP.

The crucial question is then, what is the Singapore Dream - can Singapore promise material well-being/returns to all those who "built up Singapore?" Note that we weren't promised Workfare Bonuses or other material well-being in the Constitution.

'I know that some older Singaporeans have made this argument, that we were the generation who built up Singapore...now if you put the GST, you are actually making my nest egg shrink a little bit, so please be fair to me, give me something,' he noted.

'I think that's a fair argument and we will see to it.'

PM Lee Hsien Loong quoted on Straits Times Jan 25th 2007

Are we fulfilling our promise of material well-being by shifting from free markets to greater government intervention and welfare? Looking at America, a recent opinion piece on the Wall Street Journal argues that the real difference between Democrats and Republicans with regards to the growing income disparity is not that the former decided to raise minimum wage. The author argues the difference is that Republicans are more optimistic and believe that a smaller, more efficient government is the solution. In Singapore, by making Workfare Bonus "permanent," is the ruling party moving too far towards market intervention in return for popularity votes?

With whom does the promise end? Do we consider the current "unskilled" laborers (who actually have the skill of construction) from countries like India, China and Sri Lanka people who "built up Singapore?" Should the earlier immigrants deny the entry and contributions of later immigrants, the way some conservatives in the United States are trying to keep Mexicans out? Will our new inclusive society include our laborers and maids, or are they forever foreign?

(Part II)
Does the promise end with material well-being? Is the government also responsible for making sure Singapore isn't boring, isn't stifling, that happiness falls on our laps and 19 year old drug traffickers no longer get hanged? No. We as Singaporeans have to pursue our own un-boringness, our own media freedom, our own happiness, and if we believe so strongly - the abolishment of our death penalty. The way a woman decided to take care of single Samsui Women.

Dr. Chee has long tried to portray the government as hypocritical by alleging that the government trades with Burmese drug lords but hangs traffickers. But he offered no better solution. Had he attained office, he might have ended trade with Burma but that wouldn't have ended Burma's drug trade. He might have abolished the death penalty, but that wouldn't resolve the drug trafficking complications in Singapore. The critics of the death penalty have yet to offer an attractive alternative. (related HoViVo post: Singapore/Burma)

Singaporeans know that the death penalty is cruel and inhumane, we definitely don't rejoice in killing. Yet why do so many Singaporeans appear passive accomplices to the acts? Is it possible that Singaporeans are actually pro-death penalty because we think it is the best solution? We didn't promise any drug traffickers they won't be hanged. Our anti-death penalty activists may be better off changing the opinions of Singapore voters with more enlightened alternatives, instead of picking a fight with other "intelligent" Singaporeans.

Disclaimer: I'm expressing my own opinion, not the PAP's, not the Straits Times', not Intelligent Singaporean's.

Singapore's karaoke-singing cabby returns!

Story at New Tang Dynasty Television (via Gridskipper)

(video links are towards the top of the page)
I especially like the part when he said "One fine day..."

E-mail to PTC on Premium Bus Service

Inspired by MollyMeek's post
Also read the press release from PTC (opens a PDF)
---
Dear PTC
Thank you for your move to grant more bus licenses. I appreciate your decision to give consumers more choices.

However, with all respect, I'm bothered by requirement three of your license (point 6c in your Press Release) that fares must be 1.5 time of existing services. I believe the minimum fare requirement should be removed for two reasons:

1. The third requirement appears redundant. The first two requirements of air-conditioning and all-passengers-seated already make the costs of running the new service higher than the current services. Moreover, the new provider has start-up costs and higher base costs due to the relative lack of scale.
2. The third requirement discourages competition with existing services. If the new provider makes an incredible productivity leap, it may be able to offer comparable fares yet superior service, competing with existing services on price and product. By mandating a fare floor, the new provider is unable to compete on price, but only on product. This protects the current service providers SBS etc. By limiting competition we preclude the emergence of a new low fare, premium product. Before JetBlue and Southwest airlines revolutionized the US airline industry, no one imagined a lower fare, premium product would be viable.
   

Your survey indicates that commuters may be willing to pay higher prices for better services. Although that means Singaporeans are willing to pay higher prices, it does not mean they prefer higher prices over lower prices. I sincerely encourage the PTC to consider removing the third clause and let market forces act.

I understand the PTC may have done further detailed research not revealed in the press release, and I would be interested to read about the deeper underlying reasons of the third requirement.

Thank you for reading my letter, and I look forward to your reply.

Why Students Drove, and will Drive, Social Change in Singapore

A healthy dose of personal opinion is embedded in this blog post. I welcome disagreement - please leave comments.

Significant history of student political activism in Asia
The foolish youths tend to agitate change - student activism has at least 50 years of history in most parts of the world, including Asia. For example, China had the May Fourth movement in 1919. Where collectivism is supposedly prized over individualism, students wielded their power in the 1960s for Japan and the 1910s, 50s, 60s, 70s for South Korea. These examples show that student activism isn't a recent phenomenon in Asia. On the contrary, student activism may have receded in some Asian countries in the most recent decades.

In Asia, "academic elite" as "countervailing force " in politics is not recent
In Asian countries previously colonized by the British, French, Dutch and Portuguese, the academic elite was a powerful driving force to counter the colonial establishment. Since the emergence of such politicians occurred in the years immediately following World War II, it is not a recent phenomenon. A possibly more accurate description would be that academic elite as a countervailing force in Asian politics has cycled through peaks and troughs, but in some countries their influence has never gone away.

Low level of student political activism in Singapore is not caused by high proportion of students living at home with parents
The student actions in 1954 against conscription in Singapore and in 1956 against anti-communist measures were executed mainly by middle school students (another link here). Students were mainly active in two high schools: Chung Cheng High School and the Chinese High School. In the 1950s, these students would have lived at home with their parents (with the obvious exception when they were engaged in sit-ins at the high schools).

Student political activism regarding Singapore by those not living at home with parents seemingly low today
(Warning: Contentious) During "Confluence," the "Global Students Ministerial Dialog" held in summer 2006 in Singapore, Singapore students studying abroad were given the opportunity to discuss their concerns with Minister for Defence Teo Chee Hean. Most of the questions asked were rhetoric and amounted to fawning. Not surprising, since many scholarship holders were present, while Singaporeans studying abroad who have set their minds on leaving were absent. Some scholars may somehow feel obliged to agree with the ruling party for their future. Ironically, the ruling party is probably looking for the next generation of leaders who need to connect to the post-post-65ers and cannot survive the eventually post-LKY, new media world by nodding yes.

Student political activism in Asia significantly influenced by students abroad
For countries like Vietnam, Burma and Sri Lanka, instability at home has prompted many students to study and eventually live abroad. The diaspora (some in exile) have exerted incredible financial and political influence over events at home. For example, since the process of decolonization began, Sri Lanka was shaped by several prominent leaders like D S Senanayake and G G Ponnambalam who were educated in Oxford and Cambridge. Prior to her return to Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi was at Oxford.

The future of student-driven social change in Singapore
As more Singaporeans study abroad and more foreigners study in Singapore, and as more youths are active in blogging, we can expect greater interest in the determination of social policies in Singapore. When Singapore disallowed foreign universities setting up campuses in Singapore from engaging in potentially sensitive political/social research, the University of Warwick declined to establish themselves here. As we compete to be the education center of Asia (to be the Cambridge/Boston of Asia), as we consider starting liberal arts colleges, we must inevitably allow more media and political freedom. We Singaporeans have tended to be pessimistic about our political future and give ourselves too little credit. I believe students will drive social change of the future. As a Singaporean student, I will walk my talk.

Further reading:

• Yawningbread on student activism in Singapore
• An academic paper on the history of student activism in Singapore

The post is a loose reply to "Why University Students Do Not Drive Social Change in Singapore."

Examining Singapore's ties with Burma

Even the Economist couldn't save Burma
Even the usually insightful Economist newspaper stumbled when it came to the topic of how to save Burma. Its July 2005 opinion piece can be summarized as: the West and the East should come together and use carrots and sticks, but only if Burma's military junta responds to them. While the Economist's suggestions appeared to lack in novelty and applicability, they highlight the two fundamental problems: the lack of a cohesive response cause nations' efforts to negate each other and Burma's dictatorship does not seem to care anyway.

Singapore's ties motivated by economics, "untroubled by politics"
Like many others, Singapore's government did not know how to solve the complex political problems in Burma. So it decided to be all carrots. Once a major trading partner and investor in Burma, Singapore's approach was motivated by economics and as an article by a Burmese non-partisan exile journalist puts it, Singapore was "untroubled by Burma's political problems." The moves to keep Burma stable were probably to keep this golden goose alive. In contrast, some other ASEAN/Asian countries like Malaysia and East Timor were much more outspoken about demanding the release of Aung San Suu Kyi (democratically elected leader under house arrest). Even the exit from the Burmese markets in recent years were economic, rather than a protest against the military dictatorship.

The incapable opposition politician
Using choice words and video bites, Singapore's mainstream media portrayed Dr. Chee Soon Juan as a madman who made baseless accusations like Singapore's ties with Burmese drug lords. Singapore's Ministry of Foreign Affairs stayed close by featuring him as a criminal and liar. Dr. Chee (and many Australian newspapers) used Burma to argue that the Singapore government was hypocritical - trading with drug lords yet hanging drug traffickers. The problem for Dr. Chee, other than lacking uncensored access to Singapore media, was that he did not and probably could not offer a better solution. Had he attained office through the Burma issue, he would have stopped trade with Burma, but that would not have solved Burma's problem. Prior to the general elections in 2006, opposition politics on a broader scale suffered from the same problem - criticism without better solutions.

The trouble with Singaporeans
It is not as much as Singapore's government is apathetic about Burma's civilian poverty and military atrocities as Singaporeans are. We might be too obsessed about money to care about our South East Asian neighbors' developments.

Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts fails to keep pace with changes
Although, MICA no longer has the monopoly on ICA, it insists on blunt instruments like banning FEER. By attempting to prevent Singaporeans from reading dissenting opinions about Singapore's previous trade ties with Burma, MICA instead makes dissenting views forbidden fruit and maybe Dr. Chee more believable (as if the government had something to hide). Truths may not always be self-evident, but they usually emerge after debate, not one-sided coverage by the Straits Times. If we are to move on to the next phase of our highly mobile and cosmopolitan city with a social problems time bomb (read: casino) embedded at its heart, we need more media freedom. And maybe we already have more media freedom. I don't think I will get into trouble for typing this post. But of course, if I were Burmese, I might be arrested and tortured. Help Burma, Singaporeans.

Further reading/participation:

• The River of Lost Footsteps: Histories of Burma by Dr. Thant Myint-U
• Dr.Thant Myint-U author event at UCBerkeley
  
• Freedom from Fear by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi
  
• Action Burma: Free Aung San Suu Kyi

Note regarding reading the full article on the Economist:

• If you do not subscribe to the Economist.com, you may still have access through news archival websites like Factiva and LexisNexis through your school or company