ON 22 July 2012, Today reported that NTUC is, “recommending that working mums be given six months of paid maternity leave, with an option for flexi-work arrangements after that or a further six months of unpaid leave.”

The recommendations are in the right direction. In a survey conducted by the Institute of Policy Studies, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, to “examine the attitudes of Singaporeans towards the 2008 Maternity & Parenthood (M&P), maternity leave was cited as the third most attractive/appealing M&P measure.” 66% of respondents had also indicated that the extended maternity leave would influence “couples like themselves” to have children, coming in second after the enhanced baby bonus.

However, on 25 July 2012, Today reported that the Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF) had “cautioned against” increasing maternity leave, citing “operation disruptions and loss of productivity”.

In addition, the SNEF also said that, “Legislating more types of leave “creates an entitlement mentality which is an unhealthy work value… Compartmentalising leave benefits based on the different needs of employees would also restrict how companies manage employee needs and relations while adding to labour costs.”

Did SNEF Intentionally Lie?

SNEF had made an erroneous claim which is not backed up by either clear statistics or evidence.

SNEF had claimed that increasing maternity leave will result in a loss of productivity. This is not true.

The Maternity & Parenthood (M&P) Package was implemented from 2001. Productivity had continued to rise in the next 3 years after the package was implemented in 2001. Productivity had rose by between 5.7% and 7.4%. 

The M&P Package was revised in again 2004 and 2008. Productivity was on a downward trend from 2004 to 2008 but but actually rose in 2010 and in fact, increased at the highest rate since 1992, by 10.7%.

If SNEF’s claim that increased maternity leave will result in a loss of productivity, there is no clear association or evidence to support it. Furthermore, not only did productivity rose at its highest in 2010, the productivity increases after the implementation of the M&P Package in 2001 was one of the highest in recent years.

Does SNEF Actually Knows the Real Reasons for Declining Productivity? 

In fact, if SNEF had bothered to do up their reading, there is a paper which discusses clearly the reasons for the decline in productivity, “Singapore’s Declining Productivity Growth: An Exploratory Paper“, by the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy.

The paper highlighted that in Singapore’s context, the following reasons could have contributed to the declining labour productivity:

1. There was a over-hiring of workers during the last few years of “rapid economic growth” and so, “the Ministry (of Manpower) believes that such over hiring has contributed to the slide in Singapore’s labour productivity in 2007.”
2. There was a shift in Singapore’s economy towards being a “knowledge economy” and there was a lapse in understanding how the productivity of a knowledge worker should be ” measured and improved on.” Also, the “hierarchical” organisational structures of Singapore companies prevented knowledge workers from working together to “promote innovation and creative solutions”, which reduced productivity.
3. Also, whereas companies had been used to use technology to replace workers, “to mechanize manually performed and routine clerical tasks, and thereby to replace expensive labour with less expensive machines,” they couldn’t do so with knowledge workers. They had to learn that, “future investments in technology must add value to knowledge workers… (and) his work needs to be assimilated into the system design in a coherent way,” so as to thereby increase productivity.
4. Also, companies were gradually warming up to the use of technology to improve worker productivity. However, “workers need time to learn and adopt the new technology. This means that despite increased investments, output may remain the same or even decline during this gestation period.”
5. Specifically, the paper also mentions how, “worklife programs help professionals manage work-family conflict to reduce productivity loss due to distraction and absenteeism.”

SNEF’s thus simplistic assumption that increasing maternity leave will result in a loss of productivity is thus made based on ill-informed opinion and a lack of coherent thinking. This is downright embarrassing for an agency which is supposed to understand the workings of businesses and productivity. 

If SNEF had also bothered to look even further afield for further understandings of productivity, they would find out how misinformed and mistaken they were in their now-embarrassing assumption.

FACT: Shorter Working Hours = Higher Productivity 

Figures from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) had, in fact, shown that countries with the shortest working hours were actually the most productivity.

The statistics clearly smack SNEF right in the face. A Singapore-based study had explained the reasons for declining productivity in Singapore – without attributing it to maternity leave, as SNEF would like us to think, and international statistics has also proven conclusively that shorter working hours do not hinder productivity growth, but in fact, might be a boon for it! 

SNEF Has to Face the Facts or Face the Music

So, the question is why would SNEF come out with such an ill-informed opinion that increasing maternity leave would result in productivity loss? Because they feel like it? Because they want to exploit the workers? Because they do not think workers should be allowed work-life balance?

As of now, we have been able to establish the following facts:

1. When maternity leave was offered and then increased for mothers, there is no clear association with increases or declines in productivity. In fact, in the following years after maternity leave was first implemented, productivity gains were one of the highest in recent times. The increase in productivity was also at its highest in 2010, after maternity leave was increased from 12 to 16 weeks.
2. The decline in productivity was due to Singapore’s transition into a knowledge economy, and which was not matched by companies’ mindset change and accompanying actions to mitigate the transition. Companies were thus slow to respond to the needs of the economy and this resulted in a decline in productivity.
3. It has also been shown that countries with the shortest working hours actually have the highest productivity.

If SNEF had done their due research, they would know that what they should champion isn’t being against an increase in maternity leave, but in championing for companies to move ahead with the times and to respond to the needs of the economy.

Not only that, if SNEF wants to be relevant, they would also champion for not only longer maternity (and parental leave) but also work-life balance, as these have shown to actually play a significant role in increasing productivity. 

Overall Work-Life Balance and Autonomy: Importance in Singapore’s Knowledge Economy 

Again, if we look at the statistics, the countries with high productivity are not only the ones with shorter working hours but are also the ones with the highest work-life balance, according to the OECD Better Life Index. Work-life balance is achieved where workers are able to maintain a balance of work hours, with time devoted to leisure and personal care.

Indeed, it has been shown that, “workers who feel they are free to make choices in the workplace, and be held accountable for them, are happier and more productive than employees who are more restricted.”

According to a research published in the “Human Autonomy in Cross-Cultural Context: Perspectives on the Psychology of Agency, Freedom, and Well-Being”:

Autonomy is especially likely to lead to better productivity when the work is complex or requires more creativity… When management makes decisions about how to organize work, they should always think about the effect on people’s autonomy.

This joins in very well with the paper by the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy – In Singapore’s knowledge economy, it would be pertinent to ensure that workers have the autonomy and freedom to organise their work. It has also been shown by the research and statistics quoted above that shorter work hours and better work-life balance will also contribute to the overall increase in productivity.

Thus instead of issuing spurious statements and championing against policies which are necessary and vital not only to Singaporeans’ welfare and growth but also to Singapore’s economy, SNEF would do better to look at the wealth of research available and make specific recommendations which are evidence-informed and based on clear facts and statistics. 

SNEF Should Adopt A More Progressive Role to Provide Holistic Recommendations

In fact, SNEF would render itself irrelevant if it keeps championing the government-lingo of “productivity” when it does not have the depth of explanation and analysis – as it has proven in this case – on how productivity works.

If SNEF wants to take a responsible and useful role in representing employers in Singapore, then based on the evidence cited in this article, SNEF would do well do to champion progressively for the following:

1. Encourage companies to transition swiftly and responsively into a knowledge economy and respond by adequately using technology to complement workers’ roles.
2. Advocate to the government for not only longer maternity, but parental leave, to allow for work-life balance for parents to have a conducive environment to grow and take care of their child, so that they would also be more likely to be more committed to a company which caters to their needs and welfare. 
3. Advocate to the government and companies for autonomous work practices which allow workers to be able to make more effective decisions on how they can respond to new challenges at the workplace. SNEF did try to redeem itself as it was reported that it, “also strongly supports part-time employment and flexible work arrangements.” But it needs to do more. 

These ideals have been shown to have the effect of increasing productivity and is not only beneficial to employees, but also employers in the long term.

SNEF needs to take a long term approach in understanding maternity leave, and in fact, the aims of the overall Maternity and Parenthood Package, to understand its clear positive impact on productivity, employment and workers’ commitment to companies.

If SNEF can see the holistic picture of how respecting the rights of employees will only go further in benefitting employers, they will know that championing for comprehensive employee benefits which caters to their emotional and psychological growth will only bode well for the future of employers, and for SNEF, in the long run. 

In summary for the first part of this article, I quote Gavin Jones’ paper, “Late marriage and low fertility in Singapore: the limits of policy”, who had this to say about Singapore’s low fertility rate:

But I would venture to say two things about East Asia generally, and Singapore in particular: (1) Greater gender equity in the household would help alleviate the stark choices facing women choosing between a career and family – or trying to juggle both; (2) Less single-minded attention to children’s educational performance, and more family-friendly workplaces, would help raise the birth rate, albeit perhaps at the sacrifice of some economic growth.

What this suggests is that for increasing maternity leave needs to be accompanied by a similar increase or offering for fathers. Mothers cannot be expected to be the only parent tasked with the arduous duty of taking care of the child. 

At the same time, the fertility issue in Singapore cannot be seen as a matter of simply providing more incentives or offsetting work obligations. Singapore’s low fertility rate is grounded in complex structural issues, such as education, housing and the livability of Singapore.

To tackle the challenge of fertility head on, the government cannot be in denial or introduce policies which address issues superficially, without tackling the root cause. Otherwise, we will only keep coming face to face with this issue every few years (the M&P Package was introduced in 2001, then amended in 2004, and again in 2008), and then address it by a simplistic increment of incentives or the offsetting of work obligations. 

A structural analysis and a revision of our governing principles and thinking is in order. 

But Why Did SNEF Do It?

What astounds me though is, why SNEF would actually make such a baseless claim, it seems? I am quite certain that SNEF isn’t a fly-by-night agency that pretends to work in the interests of employers but have other agendas on hand. I do believe that they genuinely want to work for the interests of employers, and that also would mean ensuring the rights of employees are respected.

What surprised me was how firm and insistent SNEF was in deriding the longer maternity leave that NTUC had proposed. The derision felt almost – planned.

Obviously, the promotion of productivity in Singapore’s context is politically motivated. Productivity has been linked to wages, and now maternity leave, in a well-coordinated effort to focus Singaporeans’ attention towards thinking that productivity is the end all and be all of economic growth in Singapore.

This article has shown that it’s not. People’s autonomy and a healthy work-life balance would actually go further to contribute to Singapore in the long term.

Sure, among the Council Members on SNEF are some government-linked companies but would they have a part to play in this?

Just a few days before, NTUC had proposed a relatively progressive, even if mild, recommendation of increasing maternity leave for mothers. In a few days, SNEF came out and slammed the proposal. Both agencies took distinctly disparate viewpoints. In fact, on SNEF’s website, it is said that, “(SNEF) is thus the counterpart of the NTUC.”

The question, we have to ask ourselves is, why did NTUC suddenly take such a keen interest in the rights of employees in recent months? Why did SNEF suddenly take such an opposing role to create a “conflicting” perspective?

Who is orchestrating this charade?

Why did they, or rather, who, if anyone, made them pitch themselves against one another?

What is the outcome that we should expect? Would the government, at the end of this debate, come out to announce that they have heard the views of both employers and employees, in what could be construed by some as an orchestrated move, and have thus decided to reach a compromise by increasing maternity leave, but at a lower number than proposed by NTUC? Is this a play of words so that eventually, the government can achieve its goal through a clever play of dynamics between two organisations which have seemingly contrasting objectives but serve the overall purpose to pursue a government agenda?

The other question is – where are the real employees in this whole fracas? Have they, or have we, been effectively side-lined by this theatrical sideshow? Will they be heard, if ever, if their voices are drowned out by this colossal fight of the titans?

You Need to Let Your Views Be Heard

We are now in the midst of another screenplay which might leave us with consequences which are not favourable to our needs which we would have to live with.

YOUR VIEWS NEED TO BE HEARD.

In Singapore, the government-linked institutions, universities and mainstream newspapers conduct research, which are so-called “objective”, but which we cannot truly know if they are so, because of their links to the government. Sometimes, we question if the findings are indeed what is reported.

In America, there is the Pew Research Centre. On its website, it is said that, “The Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that provides information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world. The center conducts public opinion polling, demographic studies, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. It does not take positions on policy issues.”

We need to similarly develop a centralised platform in Singapore where we would be able to collect viewpoints and analysis objectively, of which the government won’t have monopoly over the information.

The online social interaction platform is a the most suitable platform in Singapore which can engage the views of thousands of Singaporeans online, in a hopefully non-partisan manner.

I have set up a Facebook page, which I have named as – Singapore’s Online Poll & Discussion Center. 

On this page, polls of recent and important issues that concern Singaporeans can be conducted. Debates over issues and careful analysis can also be exchanged to enrich our thinking. 

This page might or might not take off. But I would like to give it a try. I hope that with this page, we would be able to make ourselves heard and be able to truly understand what Singaporeans are thinking and what it is that we want the government to care about.

I have created a few polls based on this article. Please do go to the Facebook page here to take the polls. If you have any constructive viewpoints, please do also share your viewpoints on the page.

It has been a common argument that the Singapore government is unable to increase public social spending because of our low tax rates, and that the Nordic countries are able to do so because of their high tax rates.

However, what are the hidden things which are not said?

Tax Rate is Low. But CPF Monies is 4 Times Higher Than Tax Revenue

Firstly, even though Singapore’s tax rate is seemingly low, it doesn’t include the CPF or retirement funds, which the Nordics do include in their taxes. Our CPF is 4 times the amount of our tax revenue. So what this means is that our reserves is at least 4 times higher than the tax revenue. And that’s not taking into consideration the other sources of income the government has.

Singapore: One of The Lowest Social Spending (% of GDP) in The World

Secondly, it has been shown that, at least for healthcare, Singapore spends one of the lowest proportion of GDP on social spending in the world.

So, if we look beyond the government’s reasoning, or may I put, excuse, the government has a lot more wealth than it claims, that it collects from taxes. Also, the government is spending a very low proportion on social spending.

The government has effectively created a system where tax revenue remains low, through diversifying their income collection sources beyond the collection of taxes, so that they can then argue that since tax revenue is low, by their structural implementation, then spending has to be necessarily low.

But the government has created a system which necessarily favors it, for it’s own arguments. So, does the government have more money than it claims? I would think so.

Lien Foundation had recently released a report which ranked Singapore at 29th out of 45th countries, in terms of adequate childhood education provided.

Minister of State for Education and Defence Lawrence Wong had said that his ministry will look into the report findings and recommendations, in their current review of childhood education in Singapore.

I had chanced upon a debate as to whether childhood education should become a public good or privatised, or if it should as a spectrum.

Achieving Affordable Childhood Education

I think, regardless of whether childhood education becomes a public good in totality or privatized, it is important that we draw back to the fundamentals, and the idea is to provide children with accessibility to, and quality education. And this has to be highly subsidized or free education, in my opinion.

The question then would be – where would the money come from? It has been shown that the Singapore government has one of the lowest government spending, as a proportion of GDP, for social spending – education and healthcare – so it would have the resources to provide childhood education at a much lower cost to benefit our children.

Ensuring Quality Childhood Education

Secondly, the quality has to continue to be maintained because the argument is that if it becomes a public good, standards might drop. But if it’s privatized, even if quality improves, companies are profiteering. Regardless of the shape it takes, it is the role of the government to ensure that the quality is maintained – be it whether it’s a public good where the government ensures quality within its own system or the government acts as a regulator for privatized education.

Either way, the fundamental principles are to provide relatively low cost and quality education. Regardless in what form it takes, there are ways to achieve this. But the fundamentals must be right.

Health Minister Gan Kim Yong was reported in The Straits Times as saying:

The Government could have done better in explaining how the GST Voucher scheme worked.

From next year, maximum payout (for MediShield) will be raised, along with premiums and deductibles. This has raised concerns among poorer Singaporeans, but Mr Gan urged them to stay on MediShield, so that they would be covered for large medical bills.

To ease the higher costs, the Government would give Medisave top-ups, while those who still have problems can tap the Medifund to pay for the deductibles.

In a report, ‘Take the guesswork out of investing’, in The Sunday Times yesterday, it was reported that the Monstary Authority of Singapore (MAS) had recently conducted a “mystery shopping exercise” on how financial advisors fared when guiding us through investing in products. The exercise found that:

The customer’s best interest may not be paramount with all advisors.

The findings are as below:

50% were not asked about their financial risk tolerance or financial objectives

40% were not asked for their investment experience

52% discussed fees and charges

30% of the products recommended were not suitable

Less than 50% provided warnings, exclusions and caveats, as well as a product’s free-look period

According to the report in The Straits Times, Mr Gan was said to have “urged citizens to stay on the national health insurance scheme” – MediShield.

I had written an article a few days ago about how the additional MediShield premium will result in lower claims per dollar premium paid.

Since MediShield is the national health insurance scheme, perhaps the government would need to take a leave out of its own book and look at the findings from MAS:

1. When the premium and claims was increased, were Singaporeans consulted on before the changes were made?
2. Did the government explain in detail how the additional premium and claims will differ from the original MediShield?
3. Mr Gan had advised “citizens to stay on the national health insurance scheme”. But why? 
4. Did the government explain to us how our premium is being invested and it is returned, and how much the government would profit from MediShield, if any? 

Separately, why was the issue of GST vouchers also included in the same report? Was it aimed at confusing readers and take them away from the issue at hand – the additional premium for MediShield?

The report had scattered the discussion on GST vouchers in between the discussion on MediShield. 

These are two separate issues. 

But the discussion interspersed and interjected without a coherent thought structure – this coming from the national newspaper.

Mr Gan had rightfully pointed out that the government needs to “learn from our experience, and to improve on our communciation channels.” He added that, “The authorities will keep looking at how it can improve communication with residents, so that there’s better understanding on what the Government is doing to help them, and so that they will also be able to assess government assistance more effectively.”

I applaud Mr Gan for his proactiveness into improving the communication process. The Health Ministry, in my opinion, has tended to be one of the more responsive and responsible ministries.

However, there are some structural issues that the Health Ministry should also look into to facilitate the provision of government assistance to Singaporeans, and not only look into improving the communication process.

1. The very reason why the issue of communication came about is because there are many complex systems and processes that Singaporeans have to manoeuvre. For example, for medical claims, an individual has to pay for his medical fees through MediShield, Medisave and Medifund. In addition, there are other health insurance policies which private insurance companies provide as add-ons. This not only further complicates the health claims, but on top of feeling unwell – the very reason for seeking medical attention – and for those who require the use of Medifund, there are already other pressing life issues to attend to, why must they be expected to have to undergo an unnecessarily cumbersome process which prevents them from accessing adequate healthcare?
2. Mr Gan had rightfully noted that “poorer families” will have difficulties handling the increased premiums for MediShield. He suggested that “poorer families will get help to cope with the latest MediShield changes” and that “the Government will give Medisave top-ups, while those who still have problems (the poorest households) can tap the Medifund for deductibles. ” In effect, the Health Ministry is trying to resolve an issue that is made cumbersome by the existing structures, thus creating an unnecessary need for patients to have to refer to each of the different existing policies to foot one bill – one single bill. 

One does wonder if the different policies were created for diversion, or if they actually do serve a genuine purpose? 

The government needs to not only look into improving the communication of its existing and new policies, and on any amendments, but to also look into streamlining the structures and systems, for easier access and qualification by its citizens. 

Today reported today, in an article titled, “Employers want makeover for National Wages Council (NWC)” that, “Most want more industry representatives; guidelines to be tailored for each sector”.

The findings are based on “a survey conducted last month by the Singapore Human Resource Institute (SHRI)”. 167 companies were polled. I couldn’t locate the survey results online.

These are the findings, according to Today:

Most employers here are dissatisfied with the way the NWC functions,

Even though they agreed with its latest guidelines: NWC  had recommended a minimum quantum of S$50 in raises for workers earning below S$1,000.

Most employers think NWC needs “a makeover – improvements are in order”. Only 10% thinks the status quo for NWC should remain.

Almost 75%  said more industry sectors should be represented.

Almost 75% say guidelines should be tailored for each sector.

About 66% said the NWC should “get feedback from industry associations and focus groups more pro-actively”

These are the more important snippets on NWC from Today: “The NWC was formed in 1972. In the mid-’80s, it moved away from issuing quantitative guidelines to qualitative guidelines – in order to allow more flexibility in wage negotiations and to accelerate wage reform.”

But what is said in these findings is not new.

Is it a case of the results informing the government of what needs to be done, or a case of using the results to justify what has already been done anyway?

In May, NWC chairman Lim Pin had recommended the following wage proposal to take effect from this month to at least June next year:

A “holistic” review of the labour-wage situation was conducted – taking into account business concerns over cost pressures and the global economic outlook – before the NWC guidelines were proposed, he said.Increase wages of those $1,000 or less a month by $50 or more, in addition to any percentage wage increase they may get – $50 was a “basic floor level” increment which companies should find “sustainable” over the long term. Focus was given to low-wage workers because Prof Lim said that MWC saw “a real need to uplift a portion of those low-wage workers’ pay”

Such workers could also receive a one-off lump-sum payment, to be determined by their employers, if their companies are doing well.

One thing that threw me off was that NWC had actually conducted a “holistic” review? Where were the review findings? 

Prof Lim also gave an indication as to why MWC would focused on “qualitative recommendations”:

We can’t mandate a number for everyone, given the uncertain macro-economic situation. This is why we have no choice but to come back to qualitative recommendations for the others.

But is this so? 

Thus the “findings” in Today doesn’t propose any new ideas at how wage changes should be managed. NWC had already recommended a targeted approach towards increasing wages – at the lowest income bracket. The “findings” reported by Today advocated for a similar proposal.

It almost seem as if the “findings” were selected to justify what the government wants to put on the table.

Were there any other findings, which could have said otherwise? I wasn’t able to locate the actual report to understand the findings in detail.

If we take a look at the rest of the article, we can see how the argument is once against framed – see in bold where the argument is headed:

Yes, change is needed, but we want it only for low-wage workers: Some, in fact, felt the NWC should undergo a fundamental overhaul – and focus on improving the lot of low-wage workers.”

Why? Becuase they won’t erode too much of our profits: Oneberry Technologies Chief Executive Ken Pereira told TODAY: “The workers at the lower end should be the main point because, no matter what industry they are from, the (wage) benchmark should be quite close. So there won’t be too much of an impact on the operating costs, no matter what industry they are from, if the NWC recommends a baseline wage rise.”

Yes, we hear you – we need to listen to more people: Amalgamated Union of Public Daily Rated Workers’ General Secretary G Muthu Kumar said having more representations from different industry sectors within the NWC would allow all to “reflect the situation on the ground and the problems faced by workers”.

But, we’ve said it before and we will say it again – NTUC is enough. Our control of the union(s) is enough: Port Officers’ Union president Benjamin Tang, however, felt that NTUC’s representation is “good enough” to cover the views of the different sectors. Still, he is in favour of the NWC issuing industry-specific wage guidelines “because not all sectors may be doing equally well”.

Let us reiterate – wage changes should be tailored: Choa Chu Kang GRC MP Zaqy Mohamad, who is on the Government Parliamentary Committee for manpower, added: “I am beginning to see relevance in terms of having cluster-based or sector-based type (wage) recommendations because that also reflects the productivity gains, as well as the performance of each sector.” He also noted that as the Republic “becomes more interconnected with different economies, you have different impact to different sectors”.

Again, wage changes should be tailored: Agreeing, SESAMi and Abecha Chief Executive Ong Teck Soon said: “When some companies are down, there will be those who are doing well. You can’t apply one guideline to all sectors because then it would give employees working in sectors not doing well a false sense of security.”

Wage changes should be tailored. Get it?: Association of Small and Medium Enterprises President Chan Chong Beng, however, does not believe it is possible for the NWC to issue specific guidelines even if it wanted to. “There may just be too much disparity even among the different companies,” he said.

If we haven’t drilled it into you enough – WAGE CHANGES SHOULD BE TAILORED!: United Workers of Electronic and Electrical Industries President Francis Lim, who is an alternate member of the NWC, added: “The workers will be asking why some sectors will be giving a bigger raise than others. This may lead to job-hopping and some sectors may face an acute manpower crunch in the long-run.”

By the way, in this article, we have another agenda – we want to set the stage to look into amending the roles of NWC: Labour MP Zainal Sapari said the real challenge is to “relook how we could actually make NWC have more traction, especially in non-unionised companies”.

But no matter how we change MWC, we will not veer from what we have proposed – wage changes should be tailored: Fellow labour MP Ang Hin Kee stressed that whatever form the NWC takes, the methods to increase real wages will remain the same. 

Oh, and not forgetting, we believe, as we have said many, many times, increasing productivity should be the ONLY way to increase wages: He said: “It cannot distract us from having to … ensure that productivity is in place, older workers are hired, reemployment policy are followed through and that we try to attract women coming back to work.”

So, once again,

The mainstream media has used the technique of

1. Taking objective statistics
2. Then teasing out selected findings which will suit the government’s needs
3. So that they can use the “objective” statistics to justify for an existing proposal that they had launched
4. To influence Singaporeans to think that, since the statistics and experts say it is so, then so be it. It is so. 
5. You have to believe. Because there is no where else you can read otherwise. 

So, what does this show?

Why was the survey conducted only among businesses? Admittedly, the survey was conducted by an institute focused on human resource and would necessarily survey the attitudes of business owners. But what about the workers?

This brings to fore some questions:

1. Firstly, did the media (or the government by extension) aim to reflect the feedback of business owners because the government’s proposals are geared towards a business-friendly environment and thus the feedback from business owners would matter, more than anything?
2. Did the media want to position the feedback from business owners as more legitimate because what do lay people know? We should only work.
3. The media wants to sideline the feedback of workers because they will only be a distraction, since workers, it might be assumed, will ask for increased pay across the board, and will upset the proposal to have a tailored approach to wage increase. But is this so?

An analysis of this news report has shown, once again, how the media frames objective information in a subjective way, to shape Singaporeans’ thinking towards what is favourable towards the government and will allow the government to push through with policies which it already has in mind. This also gives them an opportunity not to have to gather feedback from Singaporeans, since the “objective” information have been validated by survey findings and “experts” in their fields. 

In this article, I looked at two recent global reports where Singapore is ranked. I had looked in detail into the rankings and scores to look into how Singapore can improve in these rankings. Interestingly, when you look into the detailed scoring, you can see that Singapore fares relatively well on most areas, except for a few areas – and this is where I would like to focus on in this article.

Note: If you would not like to go through the detailed analysis, please go straight to the conclusion at the end, which has a more substantial analysis of Singapore’s current socio-political situation.

Singapore is A Safe Place to Live in

The Global Peace Index (GPI) 2012was released on 12 June 2012. The GPI “ranks nations according to their level of peacefulness. It is composed of 23 qualitative and quantitative indicators from highly respected sources, which gauge three broad themes: the level of safety and security in society; the extent of domestic or international conflict; and the degree of militarisation.”

The index ranked Singapore at 23rd, out of 158 countries.

Singapore is ranked 5th in the Asia Pacific region. New Zealand and Japan were ranked 2nd and 5th respectively. Bhutan, Malaysia and Australia were ranked 19th, 20th and 22nd respectively, just before Singapore.

Additionally, the report introduced a new Positive Peace Index (PPI). The PPI is a measure of the strength of the attitudes, institutions, and structures of 108 nations to determine their capacity to create and maintain a peaceful society. The PPI is based on a statistical framework which groups these attributes into eight key categories known as the ‘Pillars of Peace’. These pillars have been identified as describing what underpins a peaceful society.”

“The PPI is different from the GPI as it uses the definition ‘absence of violence or fear of violence’ to measure peace… In contrast to negative peace, positive peace is about the appropriate attitudes, institutions, and structures which when strengthened, lead to a more peaceful society.”

This new index ranked Singapore at 19th, out of 108 countries.

The report also said the following about Singapore:

Singapore is the only hybrid regime in the top 20 (France is the only flawed democracy in the top 20.)Out the top 20 nations Singapore is the only country which scores relatively poorly on three domains of the PPI. Compared to other nations in the top 20 it is lagging on:

1. Acceptance of the Rights of Others
2. Good Relations with Neighbours
3. Free Flow of Information

The report also measured the following:

The positive peace gap is the difference between a nation’s GPI score and PPI score.

A surplus means that the institutions, structures and attitudes of the country can support a higher level of peace than is being experienced, while the inverse, a deficit, signifies that the country may be fragile due to weaker than expected institutional capacity.

Singapore was said to have a positive peace surplus. Our GPI Rank at 24 is higher than the PPI rank at 19 (according to the computation methodology in the report, “this gap is the difference in ranking between the two indices). This means that Singapore’s institutions, structures and attitudes are well-placed to allow Singaporeans to achieve a higher level of peace.

Thus Singapore is ranked relatively well in terms of the peacefulness of our country. However, the report highlight some areas where Singapore can improve on, only to become better. And perhaps to achieve the standards of living that the Nordic countries have been able to attain. According to the report:

The top five nations on the Positive Peace Index are all Nordic nations which all score highly in the Global Peace Index.

How can this be achieved? Let’s look at some of the concepts explored in the report.

Why is Singapore a Hybrid Regime?

Singapore is described as a hybrid regime. This is according to the Democracy Index 2011,

The index ranked Singapore at 81, out of 167 countries.

According to the report, the index values and regime types were explained as follows:

The index values are used to place countries within one of four types of regimes:

1. Full democracies – scores of 8-10
2. Flawed democracies – score of 6 to 7.9
3. Hybrid regimes – scores of 4 to 5.9
4. Authoritarian regimes – scores below 4

These are the four regime types:

Full democracies: Countries in which not only basic political freedoms and civil liberties are respected, but these will also tend to be underpinned by a political culture conducive to the flourishing of democracy. The functioning of government is satisfactory. Media are independent and diverse. There is an effective system of checks and balances. The judiciary is independent and judicial decisions are enforced. There are only limited problems in the functioning of democracies.

Flawed democracies: These countries also have free and fair elections and even if there are problems (such as infringements on media freedom), basic civil liberties will be respected. However, there are significant weaknesses in other aspects of democracy, including problems in governance, an underdeveloped political culture and low levels of political participation.

Hybrid regimes: Elections have substantial irregularities that often prevent them from being both free and fair. Government pressure on opposition parties and candidates may be common. Serious weaknesses are more prevalent than in flawed democracies–in political culture, functioning of government and political participation. Corruption tends to be widespread and the rule of law is weak. Civil society is weak. Typically there is harassment of and pressure on journalists, and the judiciary is not independent.

Authoritarian regimes: In these states state political pluralism is absent or heavily circumscribed. Many countries in this category are outright dictatorships. Some formal institutions of democracy may exist, but these have little substance. Elections, if they do occur, are not free and fair. There is disregard for abuses and infringements of civil liberties. Media are typically state-owned or controlled by groups connected to the ruling regime. There is repression of criticism of the government and pervasive censorship. There is no independent judiciary.

According to the report, the following is how Singapore fared in the following areas:

1. Electoral process and pluralism – 4.33
2. Functioning of government – 7.50
3. Political participation – 2.78
4. Political culture – 7.50
5. Civil liberties – 7.35

The higher the score, the better Singapore had fared in the area. You can see that Singapore fared relatively well in the areas of the functioning of the government, political culture and civil liberties. We would rank as a flawed democracy in these areas.

Singapore scored relatively poorly on the areas of electoral process and pluralism and political participation.

Singapore’s score in political participation would place us as an authoritarian regime. Our score in the electoral process and pluralism would place us as a hybrid regime.

Clearly, Singapore did not perform well because of the following:

1. There is government pressure on opposition parties and candidates: During last year’s general elections, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Vivian Balakrishnan had insinuated on the sexual orientation of an opposition candidate to question the candidate’s integrity and ability, even though this should be of no significance. A furore later erupted and he had and his team issued a statement which continued his snide attack.
2. Civil society is weak: Widespread demonstrations are not allowed. The only space allowed for civil rights demonstrations is at The Speakers’ Corner. In fact, Human Rights Watch had reported that, “Yale-NUS President Pericles Lewis told the media in July that students at the new campus, expected to open in August 2013, can express their views but they will not be allowed to organize political protests on campus or form political party student groups.” It also summarised the barriers to civil freedom in Singapore: “Election returns brought no changes to Singapore’s reliance on the Internal Security Act to hold, without charge or judicial review,those suspected of subversion, espionage, and terrorism. Laws requiring mandatory death sentences (though the government has recently announced a rethinking, where “the courts will have the discretion either to sentence the trafficker to death, or alternatively to pass a sentence of life imprisonment with caning,” so this is an improvement), judicial caning, and criminalization of male same-sex relations remain in force. Government authorities still curtail rights to freedom of expression, association, and assembly. They deny legitimacy to associations of ten or more, if they deem the groups “prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order. ” The government requires police permits for five or more people planning a public event, and it uses contempt of court, criminal and civil defamation, and sedition charges to rein in critics.”
3. Our judiciary is not independent: Alex Au had written about his assessment here about how our judiciary is not.

Government Needs to Focus on Civil Rights and Open Flow of Information

The 3 areas that Singapore did not score well in, for the Positive Peace Index, are as follows (the lower the score, the better):

1. Acceptance of the Rights of Others – 2.65 (38th)
2. Good Relations with Neighbours – 2.30 (31st)
3. Free Flow of Information – 2.54 (38th)

(Singapore ranked 19th overall.)

For the indicators of the Acceptance of the Rights of Others and Free Flow of Information, we rank lower than the world average. I will focus on these two areas, which is 2.57 and 2.50 respectively.

The following are the definitions for the two indicators:

Acceptance of the Rights of Others is a category designed to include both the formal institutions that ensure basic rights and freedoms as well as the informal social and cultural norms that relate to the behaviours of citizens. These factors relate to tolerance between the different ethnic, linguistic, religious, and socio-economic groups within a country.

Acceptance of the Rights of Others is measured by the following:

1. Additive CIRI Empowerment Index constructed from the Foreign Movement, Domestic Movement, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly & Association, Workers’ Rights, Electoral Self Determination, and Freedom of Religion indicators.
2. The Global Gender Gap Index (which) examines the gap between men and women in four categories: economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, health and survival and political empowerment.
3. Intergroup Cohesion Index (which) measures ethnic and sectarian tensions, and discrimination.

Free Flow of Information captures how easily citizens can gain access to information, whether the media is free and independent, as well as the extent to which citizens are informed and engaged in the political process. In this sense, free flow of information is an attempt to account for the degree of access to information as well as the independence of that information from vested political and economic interests.

Free Flow of Information is measured by Freedom House’s Press Freedom Index, Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index and the internet usage, measured by number of users recorded per 100 of population.

Clearly, Singapore falters in similar areas – of an respected and open civil society (as discussed above) and on the restricted flow and access to information.

Conclusion

A detailed analysis of the reports and Singapore’s scores continue to affirm the areas that Singapore can improve on – civil rights discourse and freedom of information. This is not new.

But Will The Government Has the Guts to Do It?

If we take a look at what the government has been doing over the past few years, the government has chosen not to regulate online discussions about social and political issues in Singapore. This is a welcomed move by the government. In fact, if you look at PM Lee Hsien Loong’s Facebook page, Singaporeans have taken to his Facebook page to express their frustrations about how they feel the government has not responded to their feedback – on how income inequality has continued to rise and the quality of life has degraded.

Government’s Wage Proposals – To Pacify or to Ameliorate? 

This has actually prompted the government to respond. In terms of income inequality, PM Lee had announced a proposal to increase wages by a compounded 30% in 10 years. Mr Lim Swee Say had announced a proposal to increase the wages of 10,000 low wage workers to $1,000 by 2015.

However, what Singaporeans are asking is – is it enough? They don’t think it is. Prof Lim Chong Yah had proposed a “three-year plan includes a wage freeze for top earners while incomes for the poorest are raised by huge quantums – 15% in each of the first two years and 20% in the last year.” However, the government has been swift to reject the proposal as they claim that there will be adverse effects to the Singapore economy. Yet, they have not explained how it could be so. Singaporeans do not have a chance to understand how the economy could be adversely affected, and whether this is true. It is no wonder that only 15% of Singaporeans would trust the government leaders to tell the truth.

When Singaporeans had advocated for a minimum wage law, the government had similarly brushed it off, suggesting once again that the economy could be adversely affected, without explaining why so. Singaporeans are left asking questions again.

When PM Lee had announced the proposal to increase wages by a compounded 30% by increasing productivity by 30%, it took Singaporeans by surprise, because firstly, the growth in wages had never followed the growth in productivity. Also, if Singapore’s GDP growth is expected to slow down, all the more so that productivity growth is expected to slow down, and so will wages, according to PM Lee’s proposal. Lastly, research has shown that increasing productivity will not result in an equivalent increase in wages because companies are more likely to absorb any increase in productivity as profits, rather than channel the increase into increased wages.

Singapore’s Quality of Life is Good – As Look As We Can Make Believe

Furthermore, to pacify Singaporeans to let them think that the qualify of life is actually manageable, and in fact, very good, the government created a new Global Livabilities Index, which they have been planning for since 2008, which consecutively ranked Singapore 3rd in 2010 and 2012. This is so, even if other similar rankings have not ranked Singapore in the top 10 at all. The government further explained that this index was created to look specifically into the lives of those in the median income earners, even if it has been proven that it was never part of their planning to look into the median income earners. They had only said so because they know this is what Singaporeans want to hear.

So, the usefulness of this ranking has proven to be quite useless, except to conjure into Singaporeans’ minds what the government wants us to think – that our lives are much better and frankly, if it’s that good, why should they change anything?

Government Does Not Regulate Online Discussions – Why?

The question though, is, why did the government not regulate the internet but allow for the relatively free access to information and criticism of the government online?

First and foremost, the government has made an economic decision not to curb the freedom of internet because they have seen the impact of how China’s restriction to Google’s search engine has created a global discussion, which they have assessed to be not beneficial for the Singapore economy. Whereas China is the world’s second largest economy which can afford to close itself to the world, because of its huge domestic market and which the world cannot close up to, because of the interconnectivity between China’s economy and the world’s labour needs; Singapore is in a very different position – Singapore might created a niche within itself as a hub in terms of biomedical developments and clean energy, but it needs continued investment and needs to sustain an open economy. This is more so since Singapore have ventured into the knowledge economy where the free flow of information is necessary. The demand for foreigners has also reinforced this impetus to keep the internet unregulated, which otherwise, highly-qualified foreigners, which the government wants to attract, will be repelled by Singapore.

So, the government knows that it cannot restrict access to the internet because this is a key component for workplace efficiency and accessibility.

However, the government had taken to responding to internet criticism of their governance by, well simply, not responding. They have learnt to ignore our feedback and comments when not aligned to their planning principles. For example, Kenneth Jeyaretnam had written extensively about Singapore’s $4 million loan to IMF and it wasn’t until Kenneth wrote directly to IMF did the government respond in the mainstream media to his repeated questioning. A look at PM Lee’s Facebook page will show how Singaporeans might voice their displeasure on his page, but to no avail, as their feedback seemed to have been taken as noise, and not responded to.

The government has thus effectively learnt to limit discourse and criticism against the government by containing them online and not allowing the mainstream media to report on them, unless absolutely necessary, when this concerns their international reputation and as a business entity.

The Straits Times – Creative Manipulation of Ideas

The Straits Times have also began to use this technique for their Forum page, where viewpoints which are sometimes critical to the government are published. But one wonders if the feedback is actually responded to. What is more likely to have happened is that the government wants to create an impression where it seems that they have allowed for the freedom of expression to be allowed in mainstream media, where differing viewpoints are reflected, and thus creating this illusion that the government seems to be open to these criticisms – the very reason for allowing them to be published. But the government knows Singaporeans won’t remember what was discussed. Who keeps track of the forum section? In recent times, The Straits Times have even invited academics and people who are experts in their field to express their thoughts and analysis on the socio-political landscape. Most of them have not been highly critical of the government. In fact, The Straits Times has continued in its disguise of providing factual information behind an analysis that is aimed at swaying Singaporeans to the government’s agenda.

Where is The Change? 

Real change? We know there’s no real change. Not when the government refuses to implement a wage proposal or law that will look at holistically hauling the wage distribution in Singapore, to be one that is more equitable, at least to the lower income earners. Not when the government does not look seriously into increasing the livelihood by increasing the number of months for maternity and paternity leave to allow for work-life balance for parents. Indeed, the government’s proposal to increase fertility rates in Singapore is one that is steadfast towards its non-compromise towards productivity and economic growth, even if it has been shown by a wealth of research that work-life balance, a healthy respect towards citizens to promote their psychological well-being and structural changes, such as shorter hours, do not actually reduce productivity, but might actually be beneficial to it.

But yet, the government continues to resist changes or to overhaul the system. They continue to harp on the principle of meritocracy and self-reliance because this has been the guiding principles of Singapore since our modern inception, and thus we should continue to believe in it, since if it’s not broken, why fix it? But it is – research has shown how the principle of meritocracy has the ability to create income and social inequalities in a capitalistic society, where the rich, who have benefitted from the principle of meritocracy which had allowed them to move upwards, thus continue to protect and preserve their economic status, which thus perpetuates income inequality. Even the members of parliament who are not ministers in the government have spoken up against the approach of self-reliance, as Dr Lily Neo had.

Have We Gone Too Far?

The question all of us are asking, once again, is – have we gone too far? Have we gone too far, PAP?

The question that everyone is asking – PAP, do you still care for us? Will your party still act for the people? Or are you still, as you have always been, primarily interested in growing the economy, and one can argue, at all costs.

We Are Tired, PAP

The question that we are asking is – PAP, we are tired of just being workers in Singapore Inc. For the past 40 years, Singapore needed to grow and we have been by your side growing it with you, and for ourselves. And we are grateful. How many of us in this world can travel around the world, because our currency is strong? But PAP, we are tired. Over the past few years, as we grow richer, and we become more aware of our personal growth, we realise that we don’t have to put our hearts and souls fully into just making money. We realise that other than money, we need to grow emotionally, psychologically, spiritually.

It’s not because we aspire because we have seen what others can. We aspire because we have this feeling inside us that something is not right. It is not right when we become angrier at angrier at other people – at our neighbours, nursing homes which come out right next to us, in our neighbourhood, at foreigners, when it is in no part their fault when wages are suppressed because of them but due to the government’s policies, or lack thereof. Why do we complain to no end when there are other ways of coping with issues that crop up? When we can learn to face problems by creating solutions? We are angry because in the process of systematically creating a workforce for the economy, the government has systematically removed our ability to think creatively and be innovative. The government has eliminated our passion for ideals and beliefs by systematically removing our ability to critique and discuss about issues. This has been confirmed by numerous studies which praise Singaporeans for our abilities at work but highlight, every so often, how innovation is our weakness. PAP, we are tired.

Where Art Thou Our Souls?

Where have our souls gone to? Why are we concerned only about making money? Why have we learnt to be so wary for others? Why have we learnt not to watch out for others? Why have we learnt not to be empathetic? To be aware of others’ needs? Some of us now have more than enough money, even if our government leaders ask for more. But more and more, we are beginning to see how many there are people who do not have as fortunate the lives as ours. And we have started to question.

PAP, We Want to Work With You. Work With Us!

PAP, you can still change this. You can still make things work, as you’ve always have over the past 40-odd years. We are still Singaporeans and we are in this together. But PAP, you have to hear us. You have to reach out to your heart, and not just your mind. You have to listen within and hear what is right. For far too long, we have thought about making money, and for a long time, it is perhaps the right thing to do. But now, we have grown, as you have. We are tired of materialism, we are tired of the goodies you dispense, timed right before every elections. You know it no longer works because we aspire for more.

PAP, you can still do this. You can still return our full rights to civil liberties and the right to be – to be human, and not a worker. You can. And we will stand by you. Why are there opposition parties? We are all saying the same thing, aren’t we? We are all saying – give us the freedom to be us. And you know what, we will work with you to make things better. And then, we will trust you, as you can then learn to trust us. We can make things better. Many countries have already shown that this is possible – when humans are respected as who we are, we will be empowered and be more passionate in the things we do in our lives, and we will strive even harder in what we believe in, in our work.

PAP, you know this is possible. But now, it’s time for you to take a mindset change. To recognise that we will be here with you, if only you care for us. We can make it with you.

Help us govern Singapore by believing in meritocracy. Help us govern Singapore by believing in us. Help us. Be with us.

And perhaps we know that you have assets which you have invested in which you might not have told us about, or not told us in full. Then tell us. Or rather, then do the right thing. Give what needs to be given back. And earn what you need. Myanmar has been able to let go, but of course Myanmar is on a different level playing field.

But our dear government, do the right thing. For yourself. And for us. To allow us to have the freedom to be, to believe and to be happy. Because eventually, that’s what we want – be happy.

In February this year, The Edelman Trust Barometer released its survey results which “measures attitudes about the state of trust in business, government, NGOs, and media” in 2012. The survey was only conducted in 25 countries. The results were also reported in The Straits Times and Channel NewsAsia.

Singaporeans Trust the Government?

Apparently, Singapore was ranked 3rd, where 73% of the respondents said that they trusted the government. 

However, in the same report, the two other countries where respondents had said that they trusted their country more were people of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and China. 78% and 75% of the respondents trusted their governments respectively. 

There were other surprising statistics:

The report also indicated that 65% of respondents in Singapore trusted the media.

In China, 79% of respondents trusted their media. 61% of respondents in the UAE trusted their media. 

What makes this even more surprising is that, in the Freedom of the Press 2012 survey:

Singapore was ranked one of the lowest in press freedom, at 150 out of 197 countries. 

In comparison, China was ranked even lower at 187 and the UAE at 161. 

So, who is right?

Not Really. Singaporeans Do Not Trust Government Leaders

Ironically, the Edelman report continued to say the following:

Only 15% of respondents in Singapore would trust their government leaders to tell the truth. 

Only 17% of respondents in Singapore would trust business leaders to tell the truth. 

Singapore rank the lowest for both of these trust areas. This wasn’t reported in the news by Channel NewsAsia. Neither was it reported in the free-access online version of The Straits Times. 

In fact, the UAE ranked at second lowest and China ranked at fourth lowest. 

Based on the findings, I will suggest that:

Even though 73% of the respondents in Singapore in the Edelman survey said that they trusted the government, what this really means is that they trust the government institutions to function. 

However, they do not trust their government leaders – as can be shown by the only 15% who trust our leaders to tell the truth.

Indeed, if you do a scan of online forums, you will be able to find discussion threads of how Singaporeans do not trust the government, or perhaps the ruling party.

But Does the Government Practice What It Preaches?

In 2010, then Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong had accurately reflected that, “Building trust between government and citizens is a continuous process,” and that, for the new generation of Singaporeans, “Their starting point in life is today’s high-water mark, not yesterday’s low tide.” He added that, “The new generation of Singaporeans wants not only to be heard, but also to participate in the decision process.”

Mr Goh had also said that:

Instead of regarding this development as a vexatious demand for Government to be more open, transparent and accountable, it should be regarded as a positive sign of the citizens wanting to join in to build a better society.

On a separate note, Mr Goh “cited a few recent examples to show how the Singapore Government continually re-established trust with the people”:

During the 1985 recession, for instance, union leaders agreed to a painful cut of employers’ Central Provident Fund contributions from 25 per cent of wages to 10 per cent.

Whether this was done to establish trust with the people, or for the higher probability of favouring businesses is open to question. If the government had really wanted to establish trust with the people, it would have cut employees’ CPF contributions and kept those of the employers. Obviously, the trust it wants to establish with is not with the people. 

Finally, Mr Goh “summed up the core principles of trust-building: incorruptibility, speaking the truth, giving equal opportunities, doing what is right instead of what is popular or politically expedient, and understanding people’s aspirations.”

Indeed, this has become a common theme among the government leaders in Singapore in recent years.

Our Government is Not Transparent

However, has anything changed? Can we trust the government?

The government has not conducted open discourse with us on how our CPF monies are being used, and actually invested by GIC and Temasek. I had written a few articles about this, which can be found here, here, here and here. 

Also, it has been shown that the income inequality in Singapore has continued to rise over the past few years but the government has been reluctant to do anything aggressive to overhaul the system .

Has the government changed?

Trust Us First. We Will Think About Trusting You Later

At the Singapore Perspectives conference titled, Singapore Inclusive: Bridging Divides, which was held at the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS), of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy:

Mr Peter Ho, Senior Advisor at the Centre for Strategic Futures, cited the existence of a small, but highly important yet contentious set of issues, like the policy on ministerial salaries, which could only be resolved on the basis of a trust-rich context. What was needed was not a greater level of “communcativeness” by the government, but a sense among citizens that the government was sincere and authentic in recognising its need for public involvement because it too was finding its way forward in a changing world.

Indeed, government discourse has started to veer towards how, instead of how the government should learn to trust its people, the government leaders have started to remind Singaporeans that they should instead learn to trust the government.

Our government leaders, such as Defence Minister Dr Ng Eng Hen and Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports Chan Chun Sing, have reminded us that “It takes two hands to clap” and that we should “do our part”.

As the government has rightly pointed out, trust works in both ways.

However, question is, does the government expect Singaporeans to ‘learn’ to trust them, without changing? How can Singaporeans be expected to trust the government when we know the government is not listening to us.

Government Has to Earn ‘License to Lead’: Be Bold

At the Singapore Perspectives conference:

Associate Professor Cherian George, from the Division of Journalism and Publishing at the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, NTU and an Adjunct Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Public Policy, pointed out that in a changing world, the government would need to engage citizens more deeply and within a climate of trust in order to foster a consensus about the way forward… People needed to know that the government was on the same level with them about its interests, about the situations and policy dilemmas that the country faced.

 

The Edelman report had also concluded that businesses (and governments) have to earn the license to lead:

1. Exercise principles-based leadership, not rules based performance
2. Recognize that operational factors responsible for current trust won’t build future trust, societal and engagement behaviors will

The government needs to take the right steps. The government needs to practice what it preaches. 

I have argued that our government needs to relook their governing principles. The government needs to understand how the principle of meritocracy have resulted in not only income inequality, but also social inequality, and the government needs to take bold steps to address this. 

Our government has wasted enough time mopping around, doing everything else it can – increasing migrant flow, increasing support for companies – except to look directly into its peoples’ needs and actually addressing them.

My government, our people want to be treated equally, fairly and with dignity – as humans. We know you’ve said you would but have you? We want you to take us seriously now. We want you to start now and do something. We do not want to wait until the next elections. More and more of us are getting angry, at having our rights violated. If you do not take action now, people’s anger will only boil over. 

According to The Straits Times, “The Government is reviewing policies to encourage Singaporeans to marry and have babies as Singapore’s total fertility rate has fallen to 1.2 children per woman of childbearing age, far below the replacement rate of 2.1″

“The National Trade Union Congress (NTUC) has come up with suggestions to nudge reluctant Singaporeans to have more babies,” The Straits Times report.

It was also reported that, “More companies may be offering flexible work hour arrangements, but it will take a mindset change from employers to ensure it becomes a widely acceptable practice.”

NTUC assistant secretary-general Cham Hui Fong was reported as saying that, “achieving (flexible work arrangements) could go a long way in encouraging working women to have babies.”

I would like to focus, in this article, on the issue of trust.

Trust is the Key Factor of Success for Flexible Work Arrangements

In a paper, published by the MIT workplace Center, which explores how successful organisations manage flexible work arrangements, it was said that the first principle to make flexible work arrangements is “trust” because:

When trust is present an important change takes place, it takes away the suspicion.

The paper also discussed that,

Managers and employees must change the  way they think by first unlearning the old ways and then learning new ones. This learning is uncomfortable and produces anxiety that can battle against the internalization of the new schemas.

In a “global research report amongst businesses assessing take up and attitudes towards flexible working” by Regus, it was found that, “An important trust issue is also raised by this research report. The findings reveal that, although 59% of businesses allow some level of flexibility to workers regardless of their seniority, age or service record, 40% declare that only senior staff are trusted enough to benefit from this privilege. This form of selection automatically excludes many of the employees that would benefit from a more family friendly work environment such as young families and junior talent that businesses may have gone to great lengths to attract.”

The report recommends that:

By overcoming trust issues and introducing flexible working practices businesses can in fact reduce or contain expensive overheads and improve employee retention and motivation.

In a study by the Ministry of Manpower that discusses successful flexi-work arrangements, it concluded that, “Flexibility works best if there is a high degree of trust between employers and employees.”

In the Corporate Guidelines published by Nestle on how to “provide a framework for managers and employees who want to explore working flexibly,”Jean-Marc Duvoisin, Deputy Executive Vice President of Human Resources and Centre Administration, had said that:

(Flexible work arrangements) requires a culture shift where people are trusted to work with less monitoring and supervision – the end of “command and control” micro management. It is a journey where managers play a key role in supporting change.

“Creating a culture of trust” is crucial because, “Trust between the organization and the employee is vital for performance management by results, and is a key requirement for flexible work arrangements.” Also, “empowering employees and maximizing their engagement is recognized as vital to driving continuous improvements in productivity. That can be difficult where trust is low. But low levels of trust often go with low levels of employee engagement, created because of low motivation. Providing greater flexibility has been shown to generate higher levels of motivation, which in turn builds engagement and creates the environment in which flexibility can thrive.”

The document further highlights that, “Building trust is a bilateral process that requires mutual efforts and commitment.” The document further emphasised that:

Trust others and you will receive trust in return. There are simple and symbolic actions you can take that show trust, such as soliciting input and sharing decision making power with others.

Thus for flexible work arrangements to work, as well as for other policies to favour working parents in Singapore, to be able to perform the dual role of a worker and a parent, it has been shown that trust is the key component within a company to ensure that these policies, such as flexible work arrangements, will be implemented effectively and successfully in Singapore. 

In the next part of the article, I would like to discuss the trust between Singaporeans and our government, and how our government’s trust in Singaporeans, I would argue, is of pertinent importance as to whether companies will ‘follow the lead’ to implement effective family-friendly policies in Singapore. 

The Straits Times Insight had conducted a survey to look into the “Singapore Dream”. Insight had “commissioned a survey of 400 citizens aged 21 and above” to ask them “for their perceptions of economic mobility.”

The Straits Times had also discussed the survey in Insight today. I struggled to understand what The Straits Times had wanted to say at the end of the Insight article, “Climbing the Ladder of Life.” What was the article trying to say??

What I will discuss in this article is not new. I will look at what has been said about the same issues, to try to come off with a conclusion at the end.

The Singapore Dream?

Firstly, what is the “Singapore Dream” really? I did a quick search to find out what had actually been said about the “Singapore Dream”.

In 2007, Tan Yong Soon (then Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Environment and Water Resources) had written a book, titled, “Living the Singapore Dream“. The book is a compilation of “the stories of ordinary Singaporeans of diverse backgrounds who took different paths in their lives and in their careers, and succeeded.” In an essay, Christopher Ng had said that, “The original intention of the author was a very good one. His chapter headlines were all universally good advice. We are encouraged to “Triumph over life’s imperfections” and “Pursue your goals with passion and persistence”. But sadly… my personal assessment of this piece of work was that it was very flawed as it showcases only a small number of elite Singaporeans and presenting a very parochial view of what success is like in Singapore.” Christopher continues to say that he then performed a data mining of the stories to identify key characteristics and saw that, “It looks to me that the Singapore Dream can only be lived by those from elite schools. If you do not invest enough time to your academic studies to get a solid university education, you won’t be significant enough for mention in Singapore. It is also much easier to live the dream if you are a Chinese male.” He concluded that we should, “Accept the fact that the Singapore Dream is dead.“

In 2008, Dharmendra Yadav had written that the Singapore Dream used to be to, “Get a good education, work hard, save money, get married, own homes, make babies, retire and enjoy the fruits of your labour. (However), in the last 5 years, I know of several friends who have left Singapore because that Singapore Dream, which was once achievable, is now more distant.” He added that, “Some years ago, at a Singapore International Foundation event for foreign undergraduates, I asked the then Minister for Law & Foreign Affairs, Professor S Jayakumar, about this trend (of Singaporeans migrating). He basically made statements to the following effect. There is nothing or little the Government can do to change the minds of those leaving Singapore, and that Singapore should continue to focus its efforts on attracting foreign talent.” Finally, he ended by saying that, “Today, the Singapore Dream has changed: get a good education, work hard, save money, get married, own homes, make babies, retire and then keep on working. As a result, many more find themselves abandoning the Singapore Dream and fleeing this city of possibilities.“

In 2010, the blogger of the blog, Diary of a Singaporean Mind, had said that, “The Singapore Dream was once defined as 5Cs – Cars, Cash, Condo, Club Membership, Credit Card… The Cs are still relevant today at least for a large segment of our population whose values have been shaped by materialistic orientation of today’s society.” The author then highlighted that, “There is one C that describes our society so well – that C is COMPETITION. Intense competition that one cannot avoid… When competition becomes too intense and working hard alone is not enough to attain your dreams and people will resort to excessive risk taking, unethnical, unfair, unhealthy & immoral ways to get what they want. What emerges out of this intense competition is not a better, stronger and cohesive society that can take on world but a selfish, unhappy one that is bogged down by the numerous failures it creates internally.” He then suggested that, “While many Singaporeans still dream of the 5Cs, a growing number dream about having more freedom, democracy, equality and justice in our society. The 2 dreams are ultimately linked and whatever stands in the way of one is also standing the way of the other. A growing number of Singaporeans do not want to wait any longer – they are leaving.” He also shared the story of how a colleague had migrated to New Zealand because, “He told me that any place where an average person can lead a high quality of life would be okay….and that is probably what it takes to keep good people in Singapore. It is not just about attaining our own dreams but also a system that will give our children a good chance to do well in life.”

In the same year, then-Senior Minister had said that, “If I have to reinvent the 5Cs, my dream is to help create the conditions for a generation of Singaporeans to have a good Career, live in Comfort, surrounded by Children, and be Considerate and Charitable… Career means constantly striving to be better in your chosen field… It is also about realising your full potential and a basis for individual self-respect and dignity. Comfort means material as well as emotional comfort. You do not need to have a lot of wealth but you must have enough to enjoy a comfortable life. You must also have the right attitude towards life. Otherwise, whatever you have will not be enough for you and you will never be contented. Children refer to home and family and a new cycle of life. They are the main reasons why many of us want to have a good Career and a Comfortable home. Beyond self and family, we want to contribute to and live harmoniously in a larger community. That is where the last 2Cs – to be Considerate and Charitable – come in. Being considerate includes having regard for the feelings and needs of others in our speech and actions. Just as we do not want to be hurt by others’ inconsiderate remarks, we should not pass hurtful remarks of others. This goes beyond family members, friends and neighbours. We should be especially considerate, given the potential divisions inherent in our society – divisions between different races and different religions, between Singaporeans and foreigners, and between the young and old. Being Charitable is not just about giving money but your time and effort to help the less fortunate. It means compassion and empathy for others in difficulties. This is my hope for Singapore. But you should have your own dream. I cannot dream for you; the government cannot dream for you. What the government will do is to create the fertile soil for you to sow and grow your dreams.” Mr Goh had then explained the two conditions that would allow his 5Cs to be achieved: “The first essential condition is a vibrant and growing economy. Such an economy will offer many opportunities and well-paid, challenging jobs. The second essential condition is a quality education system. We will be spending more on education and life-long worker training.”

Perhaps we can, from here, look at how the Singapore Dream has evolved over the years, from one focused on the materialistic pursuit of money to one that explores the personal agency to believe in and do what you want, and have the compassion and empathy for those around you. 

One might agree with Mr Goh on his redefinition of his new 5Cs but his suggestions on the two conditions to make this 5Cs happen does not quite gel. It seems that the government had correctly identified the renewed pursuits that Singaporeans have, ignored them and continued to champion their approach – to grow the economy and build skills – to achieve, not the Singapore Dream, but high GDP growth.

Government Says: Same Old, Same Old

Now that we had explored what the Singapore Dream could actually be, let’s come back to the survey conducted by The Straits Times. To try to understand what The Straits Times had wanted to say, I thought that I could look at the headlines and headings of the article.

“Climbing the ladder of life: An Insight survey finds most people confident that their children’s living standards will be higher than theirs. But they worry the income gap will hurt their chances to move up.”

“Moving up in life, the Singapore way: Insight looks into the state of the Singapore Dream as perceived by those reaching for it.”

“On the up and up”

“The meritocratic way“

“The worrying gap”

“High social mobility a reality… so far”

“Gap in skills, gap in perception: Low-skilled more likely to feel luck plays a part in economic well-being”

The following are what stood out for me, but they are nothing new – our government leaders have time and time again impressed this on us:

Singapore Way: Last month, PM Lee Hsien Loong was reported to have said that, “He acknowledged, however, the ‘side effects’ of growth… but he also took pains to counter proposals being floated for the country to dial back on growth and ramp up on welfare.” He had also emphasised again that, “Without growth, he stressed… the country had ‘no chance of improving the collective well-being’.“

Meritocratic Way: Ambassador Ong Keng Yong had said at a speech at NUS in 2010 that, ”In the immediate post-independence years, social policy in Singapore was very much determined by what the leaders of the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) believed in. Their vision was that of a “robust and rugged society” where hard work and self-reliance were highly valued. The governing principle was meritocracy. The first Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, had articulated that while not all are born equal, equal opportunities to education, employment, healthcare and housing would be open to all. He had often stressed that no one owed anyone a living and while the state heavily suvsidised the early investments in social development, Singapore was not a welfare state where anyone was entitled to free services. Everyone had to play a part in paying something for services provided and must pull their own weight to ensure progress for themselves and their families.”

Gap in Skills: In 2012′s Budget Speech, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam had said that, “the first major priority of this Budget (is to) restructuring our economy, to grow on the basis of skills, innovation and productivity.” He had also said that, “the only lasting solution for dealing with the labour shortage is to improve productivity (and therefore the government had) introduced a number of major new measures to help businesses address this challenge over the past two years… through the Productivity and Innovation Credit scheme, or PIC, … (by) set(ting) aside $2 billion for the National Productivity Fund (NPF), which will provide more targeted support for industry efforts to restructure and upgrade over the next decade… (and) investing significantly in Continuing Education and Training (CET) to help our workers develop new skills and expertise and increase their versatility.”

So, really, the government is saying nothing new. The Straits Times had presented brand new statistics, but analysed the statistics via the existing protocols on a focused approach towards economic growth, meritocracy and investment, focused to companies, to increase the skills of workers to improve productivity. 

Nothing is meant to change in spite of the new statistics released. Even though Singaporeans are concerned about the growing inequality in the Singapore society, where 70% had indicated that they are worried about the income gay between the rich and the poor and 61% had thought that the government had not done enough to ensure that both the rich and the poor have chances to succeed and move up financially, the way The Straits Times article was laid out – nothing is going to change. You work hard, drill yourself for our economy – or their economy, believe in meritocracy and pick up skills to be productive, so that our economy can grow. Why then did The Straits Times speak of the “Singapore Dream” will The Straits Times wrote this article? Why make us delusional? 

What can we say about the article then? That the government isn’t interested in changing its principles and ways, in spite of the feedback from Singaporeans? The government still insists on sticking to a tried-and-tested model which worked 40 years ago, but which has started to come loose, and some might argue, is broken.

Three Proposals to the Government for Immediate Consideration

From the research that I have gathered today, I would like to advance three proposals that the government should immediately adopt. Again, these are not new and has been discussed by many Singaporeans. I had decided to consolidate them into this article.

(A) Replace the Principle of Meritocracy with Equality

Our government is unable to reduce the income inequality because they believe in the ideal of meritocracy. They have been able to reduce income ‘un-meritocracy’ by emphasising on skills building. Providing skills and education will allow people to have an equal opportunity, this being the principle.

However, governance by the principle of “meritocracy” has led to social inequalities.

Ambassador Ong had also said that, “When Singapore achieved a relatively high level of economic and social development in the 1990s, concern was expressed about the harsh edge of meritocracy and competitiveness. There was the widening distinction between the haves and have-nots. The gap between segments of society had increased. It was also feared that there might be some who would be left behind and not achieve social mobility without extra help.“

In a letter to The Straits Times in 2008, Zakir Hussain had shared that, “the man who coined the word meritocracy 50 years ago (was) British sociologist and Labour Party bigwig Michael Young (who) did so to mock the idea of a society run purely on merit. Young invented the term in his satirical work – The Rise Of The Meritocracy, 1870-2033: An Essay On Education And Equality.” He described how the story “portrays a sinister, highly stratified society organised around intelligence-testing and intensive educational selection (where) s system of rigid tests determines one’s social standing, with those scoring highest filling the most important positions and reaping the most rewards (and thus)… a strict hierarchy of merit is created and maintained. Over time, however, what appears to be a fair and just system becomes rigid and ruthless… (which led to) widespread grievances and uprisings against an elite that feels superior to, and regards with contempt, all those outside it.”

Zakir also shared that, “In a paper published this year (2008), Assistant Professor Kenneth Paul Tan of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy argues, in his paper, Meritocracy And Elitism In A Global City: Ideological Shifts In Singapore, that the Singapore’s meritocratic system “has been practised so extremely that it is starting to show signs of becoming a victim of its own success.” In a separate letter to The Straits Times, also in 2008, Lydia Lim added that Kenneth had also said that, “In trying to isolate merit, ‘it can be a practice that ignores and even conceals the real advantages and disadvantages that are unevenly distributed to different segments of an inherently unequal society.’ He warns that if relevant social differences are ‘hidden beneath an uncritical, even celebratory, rhetoric of meritocracy (as blindness to differences), then the problem of securing equality of opportunity and a reasonably level playing field will be severely underestimated’. That should give those of us who are wont to unquestioningly embrace Singapore-style meritocracy pause. The significance of such differences is set to grow as income inequality stretches with globalisation.”

In fact, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the founder of Singapore and one of Singapore’s leaders who championed on the principle of meritocracy, had himself remarked, when he had earlier visited Raffles Girls’ Primary School and Punggol Primary School, that, “admission to primary school is not meritocratic, as it is based on the social class of the parents (one just needs to observe the queue of cars outside branded and neighbourhood primary schools at dismissal time to see the distribution of students by social class in primary schools).”

Indeed, Ambassador Ong had concluded that, “it is necessary to address the ugly side of such a policy (meritocracy), especially its social impact. More national approaches may be necessary instead of just relying on community-based self-help groups, which are narrowly focused and have limited resources.” He added that, “Singapore’s social policies should reflect this and bold steps need to be taken to reshape and formulate policies to suit the changing times Singapore faces… Remaining nimble and addressing pertinent issues in a consultative and problem-solving manner are essential.“

Thus immediate steps need to be taken to address the flawed principle and practice of meritocracy. We have to stop championing meritocracy as a relevant principle in Singapore’s society. It might have worked in the early days of Singapore’s growth but it has resulted in chasms in the Singapore society, so wide that our social fabric is now threatened by the growing displeasure and anger among Singaporeans, one that can be argued that the government has also fuelled, intentionally or not. Meritocracy necessarily favours the rich and those at the top, and one might argue, the political echelon in Singapore. Then, what this means is that our government and political leaders must take bold steps to admit the benefits that they have been able to obtain from meritocracy, cast it aside, and say, now that we have made enough for ourselves, perhaps it’s time we start thinking about the people. 

Our principles of “justice and equality” are already enshrined in our national pledge. My government, perhaps this is where we should start – equality, not especially since this is what the people who have voted for you are asking you to do. 

(B) Replace Passive Social Assistance with Active Intervention

I wouldn’t have been able to say this better than Dr Lily Neo, and I would like to thank The Straits Times for including her interview in the article. This is the excerpt:

“Tanjong Pagar GRC MP Lily Neo… concurs that the concept of self-reliance must be tempered with an awareness that some families should not be left alone. Sources of social and financial assistance are in place, she says, but the Government has always preferred to have those in need come forward and seek help. But in the face of a growing pool of dysfunctional, low-income families, some form of active intervention must occur, she argues… Last year, she advocated in Parliament for dedicated social workers to track the children of families in the bottom 5 per cent, whose parents often cannot provide more adequate care. (She had said that), “I know for a big country, it is impossible. But we have a limited pool of our own citizens. There needs to be a targeted approach of special care for these children. One-to-one social who will follow up and provide emotional support so that they get a better chance rather than being left on their own.“”

Indeed, the government collects sufficient data and information from Singaporeans. The government has the knowledge and access to the backgrounds of its citizens. Why is it the case that when the lower income families require financial assistance either in their social and housing needs and/or healthcare needs, they are required to undergo tedious application processes? Why are our systems so unnecessarily complicated which limits the access of lower-income families to these services? Why are there MediShield, Medisave, MediFund and other healthcare insurance and policies which the citizens must maneuver before they are able to access financial assistance, when the system should already have a good idea of the circumstances of its people and how to best cater for them! 

One might suspect if the government had intentionally complicated the processes so that it would be difficult for Singaporeans to access these services, and thus reduce the financial claims, and does not cause as much damage, otherwise, to the government’s coffers. 

Instead of sitting like a god waiting for its people to pray to him, the government should send out its workers to work for the people. 

(C) Reduce Income Inequality

Enough has been said about the income inequality in Singapore. I had mentioned the following in this article:

1. Singapore has the slowest wage growth in the world:According to the Global MetroMonitor 2011, Singapore is ranked at the bottom of 200 countries, with the lowest changes in income, at -8.9%
2. Singapore has one of the world’s highest income inequality: At 47.3, Singapore’s Gini Coefficient is ranked 29th out of 136 countries.

Prof Lim Chong Yah had also proposed for a “three-year plan includes a wage freeze for top earners while incomes for the poorest are raised by huge quantums – 15 per cent in each of the first two years and 20 per cent in the last year.” He had also said that, “he sees income inequality as a potential ‘Achilles’ heel’ for Singapore which must be swiftly addressed.“

Kumaran Pillai, the Chief Editor of The Online Citizen, had provided an interesting perspective. He said that, “My primary assumption is that work is just a function of wealth building; it is a means to an end and not the end by itself.  It means that we go to work each day to enrich ourselves and it should not be viewed merely as means of sustenance. So anybody who is interested in helping those who are downtrodden must look at a holistic solution and not just a patchwork of policies… If I were to purely advocate minimum wage, without addressing the fundamental issues of rent seeking, without addressing how the government is lording over us, without having a discussion about the inefficiencies of the GLC structures of GIC and Temasek… I will be doing this forum disfavour. We need to be cognizant of the fact that historical performance does not guarantee future performance or results. What worked in the past, worked well in the past! When we first started, the government opted for a model where the state controlled the resources; they set the savings rate, and they determined the GDP growth rate. It worked well for us, for a period of time though, and I must add that there were several other factors that contributed to our success, such as the geographical location of Singapore and the Foreign Direct Investment driven model. But, things are different now, there is no assurance that what worked in the past will continue to work in the future.” He added that, “The exploitation that is taking place in the market today is not because of greed as what some people put it. It is because the Singapore government is an active participant in the local economy, stifling innovation and drawing monies out of the circular flow of income. It is the rent seeking practices of our government that needs to be abolished.“

Indeed, Nominated MP Laurence Lien had said in The Straits Times article that there is a perception that, “the Government is rich and can afford it.” He added that, “The presence of the national reserves may prevent Singaporeans from making a link between “higher social spending” and “higher taxes for me”" and he believes that “there should be a conversation on tapping more of the reserves for social spending… The Government may find that it cannot have a conversation on higher taxes before conducting one on its coffers.“

As I had also discussed, the monies collected from our CPF are 4 times the size of our tax revenue. The government needs to explain to us why it insists that public expenditure cannot be increased without increasing taxes, when it has collected a significantly much higher amount of money from its citizens than what is taxed on us. The government has also not returned to us the earnings from our monies that they have used to invest, without honestly letting us know of where and how these monies are being invested. 

It is time the government listens to us, and seriously. It is time we do not allow the government to run rouge. It is time the government takes the basic steps of ensuring a principle of justice and equality, inequitable distribution to its people and remove barriers and increase access to social services for the lower income groups. 

The government has to because Singaporeans have gotten sick and tired of your games. 

I would like to end by sharing the following: The Institute of Policy Studies, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy  had recently conducted a closed-door session on inequality. It would be interesting to find out how the discussion went.