The Worker’s Party won the Punggol East by-election by a convincing margin of 10.81% to win 54.52% of the votes. This is a 13.5% improvement from their performance at General Election 2011. By all accounts, this is a very solid win by the Worker’s Party. On top of that, Ms Lee Li Lian is the first woman to win a by-election in Singapore.

To be very clear, this win by the Worker’s Party is a very strong and powerful message that will resonate and reverberate throughout the whole of Singapore. It will send a very powerful signal to all Singaporeans that what we’ve been harbouring in our thoughts all along – that they’ve been treated unjustly – is proven right afterall. And one that a large multitude of Singaporeans feel as well.

This will ignite the passion and vigour among some Singaporeans to search within themselves to identify with what they truly believe in, and to stand up and make their voice known, together with the growing number of Singaporeans who have taken online to speak up, and increasingly, propose strategies and changes for a better Singapore.

A powerful wave of change had swept through Singapore on the night of 26 January 2013 and will continue to be sustained in the awareness and imaginations of Singaporeans, until the next general election and beyond.

Now, if the PAP government knows to make use of this to their advantage, they would start opening up to diverse viewpoints, with the understanding that these viewpoints need not be in opposition to their governing principles. If the government can learn to become less defensive, they will understand that most Singaporeans are pro-Singapore, not anti-PAP or pro-opposition. We only want to create a Singapore that’s better for our old age and for our children. And behind the differences in approach, the intention is the same. If the government can recognise this, they will know that the shockwave of energy that has been sent through in the early part of 2013 will be the start of a dynamic process where Singaporeans can work with the government, learn to understand one another’s way of working and to develop common, global approaches to addressing the issues that face Singapore.

Singapore is well-poised to undergo this new era of collaborative effort, because of our small size, educated population and high connectivity. If anything, Singapore and Singaporeans will come out stronger, especially in a knowledge economy, where the creativity and innovation required of the people to think on their feet will be a valued asset, that will be an outgrown from this new Singaporean and Singapore, if the government is willing.

Perhaps this might even be something the government has in its plans. But if not, it’s well worth the government to explore this approach, to let its guard down and to come out of its shell. No one wants to steal your power and what you’ve done for Singapore. All we are saying is let’s do it together, let’s care and share and let’s make Singapore a better place for you and me.

By now, most of Singapore would know that WP’s Lee Li Lian had won the Punggol East by-election and soundly thumped PAP’s Koh Poh Koon.

WP won 54.52% of the votes, whereas PAP could only capture 43.71% of the votes. WP won by a very convincing margin of 10.81%.

This is compared to when WP had won 43.71% of the votes in General Election 2011 and PAP had won 54.54%. How the tide has turned. There was a swing of 13.51 percentage points to WP and a swing of 10.83% away from PAP.

A) Main Takeaway

The most obvious conclusion you need to draw from this by-election is this: It was never about the candidate. It was never about local issues. It has always been about national issues. And it has always been about the parties. Which is why right from the start, DPM Teo Chee Hean had tried to frame the issue as one of local issues, and Koh was pushed forward as his own man, and his infamous tagline, “This Is Me”, which disappeared overnight because PAP knew the next instance that they cannot escape confronting the national issues and party allegiance that Singaporeans are more concerned about. Not also when WP strongly framed national issues at their rallies and reminded Singaporeans to elect another opposition member into parliament to keep PAP in check. And that was why PAP had no choice but to have PM Lee Hsien Loong speak for more than half an hour at PAP’s last rally on national issues. And that was also why PAP announced three announcements pertaining to national issues during the by-election – cooling measures for housing, new MRT train lines and the $2 billion annual parenthood package. Singaporeans didn’t bite. And PAP had to use two of their most popular politicians to also defuse the tensions against PAP. When Madam Halimah Yacob became ‘elected’ as the Speaker of Parliament, a whole section in the Straits Times was dedicated to her, showering her with commendations. PAP also had to activate Dr Amy Khor to speak at their last rally. Still, to no avail, PAP lost.

By all accounts, any missteps by PAP will cost them heavily. During the by-election, they had spoken about ensuring that the Rivervale Plaza will be completed by the middle of 2013 and about how they will add on two more carriages onto the Sengkang LRT to ferry more passengers as election promises. Now, if these proposals don’t come to pass, the residents at Punggol East won’t be putting the blame on the Worker’s Party. They live near enough to their neighbours in Hougang to understand how their neighbours have been systematically marginalised for more than 20 years simply because they value their freedom and dignity. If these proposals do not see the light of day, the residents will vote more resoundingly for the Worker’s Party at General Election 2016. So, PAP can’t play any tricks here. And what about the promises about more feeder buses, childcare centres or hawker centres? Frankly, these were non-issues to begin with. Whether these will ever be done is never planned on a local level. There is only as much land in the Punggol East constituency and unless the residents want to remove the only bit of greenery they have, they can perhaps advocate to their MP to put in another market. Issues like this are always planned on a national level. LTA would hardly say that because the MP of an area, be it a PAP MP or a WP MP requests for additional bus services, they would then deploy more bus services just for the few streets that encircle Punggol East. They wouldn’t do that because the routes of bus services have to be planned on a broader geographical scale. It just doesn’t make logical sense to plan for transport routes, or the locations of shopping malls, hawker centres, markets or childcare centres on a local level. There isn’t enough population mass to justify planning on a local level.

And this is also one reason why SDA would never have won. Mr Desmond Lim had focused his campaign right from the start as a campaign on local issue. It was never about local issues. He missed the plot and thus he won far lesser votes than he did at General Election 2011.

B) If anything, this has shown that the Singapore electorate has matured on many fronts:

1) The residents of Punggol East had voted tactically. They knew what was at stake. They knew it was about national issues. As much as mainstream media went around interviewing residents on their concerns and speaking to ‘political observers’ on their insights and therefore highlighting that residents there were concerned about local issues, it was all a charade that the mainstream media had put up. The residents didn’t bite. They knew what was at stake. They knew the responsibility they had in their hands and they knew that because this was a by-election, they can go all out and do what they needed to do. And they did.

2) This has also shown that Singaporeans have become a lot more politically savvy. Not only were they tactical and understood that the by-election should be fought on a national level, they knew that it was about the party (and lesser about the candidate) and they knew that their only true options were between PAP and WP. It didn’t help that RP had went off on an embarrassing start, slighting the other opposition parties and Mr Desmond Lim from SDA made several blunders on his YouTube rally. And the residents were a lot more mindful that they shouldn’t waste their votes – only 521 votes were cast for RP and SDA together, or only 1.77% of the votes.

3) This is not to say that Ms Lee Li Lian won only on the coattails of WP. She won because first, the party had a clear strategy of fielding consistently candidates who they know are committed and who will stay the course. This is in spite of how the mainstream media had tried to play up the idea that WP should have sent in their NMPs, which the media described as more popular. The mainstream media had tried to diffuse WP’s strategy but Mr Low Thia Kiang is wiser than that than to allow the media to shape WP’s long-term strategy. What worked for WP was that they had a clear party strategy, a clear rally strategy, had a clear on-ground strategy and stayed on course. And Singaporeans can see that – WP is determined, consistent and stable. And if you want to become a credible party, you need to show that you have all your guns ready. It’s not about believing – like RP and SDA had. It’s about believing and translating them into real, tangible and visible actions. And that’s where WP got their act altogether and solidly proved to Singaporeans that they have what it takes.

4) Finally, by now, we would all know that clearly, Singaporeans want an alternative voice to represent them. Singaporeans are unhappy. They are unhappy at being made used of, being lied to, not given enough information to, and most importantly, Singaporeans feel trapped in a country where they are not able to do anything, even as they know what’s wrong and what needs to be done. This is something WP has acknowledged. And as much as PAP claimed, after the by-election, that they respect the voters’ choice and that voters might simply want opposition voices, PAP needs to, and they will take seriously, that this means that they need to truly reflect on themselves, their principles and their values and recalibrate their middle ground, or rather, shift in tandem with the people and start prioritising the people’s needs as one of their key agendas. In a democracy, leaders are elected to represent the people, and leaders need to serve the people. It has taken Singaporeans nearly 50 years to get their act together – and start to own some of the power that they had given up on. Of course, PAP can turn around and clamp down on Singaporeans by becoming China or North Korea. Well, they cannot do that – not when they pander to capitalistic influences and not when the very idea that Singapore is grounded on is on an open market system and open lines of global networks.

C) So, what then will the PAP do?

1) Under PM Lee’s watch, he introduced the ‘Cooling Off Day’ as one strategy to hopefully stem the tide of change towards the opposition. The aim is that by having a cooling off day, the mainstream press will be able to define the discourse as one that is aligned to PAP, so that voters might still be swayed by the mainstream press to vote for PAP. Obviously, this did not work for the Punggol East by-election, partly because the mainstream media’s pandering of PAP’s agenda has become so obvious over the past one year that more and more Singaporeans are now relying on online news and sharing to have a broad perspective of what’s really going on. Clearly, PAP’s strategy to limit the growth of the opposition or the protection of their dominance in this new era is also focused strongly on shaping the psychological perspectives of people – what with the cooling off day and shaping of the news on mainstream media. However, they did not catch up with the times. Singaporeans have moved ahead of them.

2) Next, PAP had in the past, employed two other strategies, by rigging the electoral model (i.e. reducing the time period between nomination day and polling day, introducing GRCs etc) and by crippling the opposition management of the estate (i.e. through the introduction of the town councils which the Aim episode has unravelled and the appointment of the PAP representative as the grassroot leaders, even if PAP did not win in the constituency and the residents on the constituency rightfully pay their taxes and they should be the one deciding on who they want representing them – and they’ve voted for the opposition – and how their money should be used.) Now, question is, will PAP further develop systems to remodel the electoral model and cripple the opposition local government without Singaporeans, and the opposition themselves, knowing? We need more anal-retentive probers to do the job and from what the Aim-AHTC episode had exposed, Singaporeans might actually do a better job than Koh when it comes to that.

3) Finally, watch what PAP will do after the review of the town councils. PAP had said that they will review the relevance of the roles of the town councils. And so, how will they review it such that we will ‘dumbly’ accede to their recommendation to remodel it, as we had done so when they introduced the town councils in 1989. Will we allow them to whitewash over us again? Will we let them? Will you let them? If anything, this by-election and the ongoings months prior, beginning from the incident of the SMRT bus drivers, the Aim-AHTC episode and then the by-election, should have awaken many more Singaporeans politically, who should realise now that if they want change to happen, they need to make their voice known, by making their vote useful – as they had just did, by speaking up (and we can only do so freely online for now because our rights to demonstrate peacefully are curtailed) and by rummaging through all information and evidence and putting together a coherent picture of how we might be systematically lied to or marginalised. We have shown ourselves to be capable of doing that, and we will and must continue to do that.

Remember, this is a Singaporeans’ Singapore – not a PAP’s Singapore, not a WP’s Singapore but a Singapore that belongs to the people who belong on this island and who are the rightful owners of Singapore, and have elected politicians to represent our rights, and not to allow power to get into their heads so much so that they think that they know everything that is right for us including the curtailing of the very rights that we use to put them in their place in the first place.

D) Now, the final question is – is the win for the Punggol East by-election on a local level representative of what the larger group of Singaporeans want on a national level? The answer? It is.

The 43.71% that PAP collected at the Punggol East by-election is 10.83% lower than the 54.54% showing at the General Election 2011. The 54.52% that WP had won is 13.5% higher than their precious win of 41.01%. This a switch in fortune.

If you’ve looked at a previous article that I’ve written, you will see (in Chart 1) that if PAP had continued on their downward trajectory from General Election 2011 to 2016, they could possibly lose by another 10 percentage points and WP would have increase their winning margin by another 10 percentage points, which means that at General Election 2016, PAP might win around 50% of the votes and WP might win 55%, on average, of the seats they would contest in. This means that in General Election 2016, PAP can potentially lose all the seats that WP would contest in. Still, WP had only contested in 24 seats in 2011 and even if they would win all their seats, they would only form barely a quarter of parliament, hardly the one-third they need to represent Singaporeans to be able to use their voting power as a credible check on the government. So, this is a question that Singaporeans would need to ask ourselves – what can we do to help ourselves and to ensure fair representation?

;

Chart 1

Anyway, back to the Punggol East by-election, the 10% swing away from PAP and the 10% swing towards WP which should happen in General Election 2016 was actually brought forward to the Punggol East By-Election 2013 – there was a 10.83% swing away from PAP and 13.5% swing towards WP. Does this mean the tide has changed faster than anticipated? Well, it could be. But two factors will let us have more clarity. First, the residents of Punggol East are considered younger and middle class. What this means is that they are more likely than the rest of the population to be more Internet savvy and be less conservative in their voting behaviour. Their voting behaviour would thus be more aggressively liberal, if you could put it that way. Second, this is a by-election. And as explained before, when voting for the by-election, there is lesser, or actually, not a need for consideration on how one’s vote would impact on the national level, because it is only one constituency that is voting, thus voters can vote as true to what they believe in as they can.

So, assuming that on these two counts, voters are willing to vote more liberally and genuinely you can assume that if this was a General Election, their voting behaviour might be slightly more conservative, which would mean that they might vote at 50% (or so?) their exact intention? Thus instead of a swing of 10.83% away from PAP, there might be only a 5.42% swing away, and instead of a 13.5% swing towards WP, there might be only a 6.75% swing towards WP. If you extrapolate that we’ve already passed 2 years since the last general election and would have another 3 years towards the next general election, the swing away from PAP, taking into account the overall population and that the population will also vote more ‘safely’, you would get about a 10% swing away from the PAP and 10% swing towards the WP at the next general election in 2016, so it’s about there – it’s representative.

E) So, What’s Next?

Will that happen? We have three more years to find out. Within these three years, what will PAP do to contain the fallout and to preserve their dominance? You can bet on it that they will definitely do something. Question is, will we know when they do it? And will we speak up and challenge them on it? If you are expecting WP to have a stronger showing for the next three years, don’t count on it. I say this not because you shouldn’t have expectations on WP. If you truly want to know how WP will perform, you cannot rely on mainstream media because coverage of them will be minimal and if you so believe what the mainstream media chooses to tell you, then you will buy into the belief that WP had and will do do nothing. But if you look into the parliamentary proceedings, you will realise that the 8 WP MPs and NMPs (and now 9) would have raised more questions than the 81 (and now 80) PAP MPs have raised, as some commenters have pointed out. Also, you would need to be a resident in the WP constituencies to have an accurate understanding of how well they are managing their constituencies. The voters have consistently voted for Mr Low Thia Kiang ever since he was first elected, more than 20 years ago. That should say something. And if one thinks that just because the voters of Punggol East are younger and that the older voters will not vote for WP, the uncles and aunties who attend WP’s rallies and await the results of WP at the coffee shops would have you know that’s not true – the older generation is rooting for WP as well.

So, what will PAP do next? If PAP does rig the system and they are caught out and you can be sure that the probers would dig out at least half of what they plan to do, this would be very embarrassing for PAP and would cause more Singaporeans to become disillusioned by PAP, which will affect their vote share. Question is, what other tricks does PAP have up their sleeves.

As stated in a previous article, there is always about 35% of voters who are clear supporters of PAP. In this by-election, 43.71% voted for PAP, which means that about 8% to 9% of the voters still have some hope that PAP can do the right thing, and have stuck by PAP. However, about 10% have swung the other away. So, the swing voters are currently split 50-50. Question is, what will PAP do which if they get caught out, would cause more swing voters to cross over?

The best thing that PAP can do now is to be honest with themselves, and with Singaporeans, and to be responsive to not only just what their supporters believe in, but what ALL Singaporeans believe in, and then recalibrate to a middle ground which will be more fair and equal. At the same time, the PAP will need to recognise that Singaporeans no longer believe in just having their material needs fulfilled. All the carrots that PAP had dangled prior to the by-election would show PAP that Singaporeans no longer buy into material justifications for PAP’s rule. Singaporeans want to be treated fairly and justly, and as individuals, as human beings, not as workers. We want our rights returned, we want an egalitarian society and we want a healthy dose of respectable time for ourselves. Now, PAP knows this. And of course, PAP would know everything else that is said in this article. Question is, will they do anything about it? Singaporeans feel that the two years that they’ve given PAP since the last general election has yielded nothing and they’ve sent a very strong message to PAP. So, will they finally budge?

If you look at the previous article, PAP is at the beginning of another decade of upward growth in their vote share (Chart 2), which means this is about time they start putting in the right policies and programmes to benefit the people, to bring their votes onto the upswing. But question is, will this happen? And also, considering that they’ve suffered their greatest fall ever, over the past decade, how many Singaporeans are willing to forgive them and how much more would they need to do to ensure that their votes go on the upswing, if it does so?

;

Chart 2

The story has always been that Singaporeans are a docile bunch who want stability. So surely, they would be patient with the PAP. And PAP has three years to make it right. Let’s see how fast they react. And as far as the opposition goes, WP is also cognizant that Singaporeans want stability. For now, they want to act as the gatekeeper for Singaporeans. They understand equally what else could be at stake for Singapore. But for PAP, they need to also be cognizant that throughout history, when there’s a growing ruling class which prides itself too heavily and continuously slights the people’s wishes and creates an ever growing working class population who become disfranchised, then revolution will come, whether PAP likes it or not. It’s written all over history. So, this is a game that PAP had played themselves into and now they have to find a way to get out of the hole that they’ve dug themselves into. But Singaporeans are a forgiving bunch. So, let’s wait and see how this will pan out.

F) Before I end, I would like to point out two things that this by-election has shown us:

1) Some of the success for WP’s by-election can also be attributed to a tightly-knitted online strategy ran by disparate groups of online voices, which somehow managed to get their voice heard and across. There wasn’t a strategy but somehow we managed to get ourselves heard. How can we take that into the next level? How can we have a stronger and more strategic understanding of the political ongoings to be consistent in our messages? Is it just because voters were tactical, which prevented the loss of votes to be diluted by RP and SDA (not that it would have mattered anyway, thankfully!) or was there a more strategic understanding that both voters and online commenters have towards the strategic importance of their votes? This is something we need to think about, to strengthen ourselves, and also something the PAP needs to and will surely think about before the next general election.

2) By now, it would be very clear that PAP and WP are the two bigwigs to be reckoned with, in the political scene in Singapore. From RP and SDA’s showing, they would need to go back to do some homework. The key lies in strategy and convincing Singaporeans that you have one. The other parties to look out for would be SDP and NSP – both were in the top four best performing opposition parties in General Election 2011. SDA has a growing following. Whether their strategic maneuver to join in and then withdraw from the by-election just before Nomination Day, and how it would be felt and responded to by Singaporeans depends, and is to be seen. But I do not think their core supporters would think otherwise – they will continue to throw their support behind SDP, especially when SDP has some credible politicians in their midst and have put up some credible policy recommendations. Now, NSP had remained seemingly quiet. But do not underestimate the media statements that they have been putting out over the course of the by-election. They have shown themselves to be respectable and gentlemanly in their approach, and for Singaporeans who desire stability and clean politics, there’s much to desire with NSP’s subtle but quietly powerful approach.

*****

So, there you go. How will things pan out. It’s all going to be very exciting for Singapore in the next 3 years and beyond. But if PAP learns to truly listen to Singaporeans and Singaporeans learn to take responsibility over their own rights, we shouldn’t veer too far off the track that we are already on and we should continue to prosper as a nation. And importantly, we will need to ensure that we have multiple checks and balances in the political system. For now, we should aim to put in enough opposition members in parliament to be a credible check (and demand that they cooperate with one another). Next, with credible checks within parliament, we would then need to aim for the independence of the estates of governance – the president, economy, judiciary and military – to be independent of one another so that they are also able to act as credible checks to protect Singaporeans from a monopoly of power. Singaporeans, as the core citizenry, should also one day aim to identify and define ourselves as one of the estates of governance.

The PAP had just suffered a shock defeat at the Punggol East By-Elections. It was a shock to nary those who had been adamant that PAP relook its policies. But for PAP itself, even as it had braced itself for defeat, would not have expected such a lacklustre performance.
PAP won only 43.71% of the votes. WP won by a margin of 10.81% to obtain 54.52% of the votes. This is compared to the 54.54% that PAP had garnered at General Election 2011, which is a swing of 10.83 percentage points away from PAP.

A relook internally is in order for PAP. PAP now needs to look at themselves and not only reinvent themselves, but rejuvenate themselves. PAP, with nearly 50 years of power, had become the middle-aged man, prone to chest-thumping its own achievements, but sighting all other discourses about itself. PAP is like the elderly father who thinks he knows what’s best for his children and would not resist putting his fist firmly down on what he believes is good for his children, even as his children have moved ahead, beyond his time and are unwilling to follow his lead.

The children had given him his chance in 2011 but he has thrown the opportunity away over the past two years, believing in his own authority and abilities. As shocked as PAP might be from the results, this shouldn’t come as a surprise to them. Yet it is likely that PAP will walk away from the by-election, feeling that his children are ingrates, who do not know how to appreciate the intentions of their father and who are seduced by fundamental desires of freedom and human rights. Unfortunately, as much as the father believes that his intentions are good, his children no longer think so, as they have come into their own being, and would want a fair share of their voice heard.

But has PAP perhaps gone a bit too far in isolating itself from some Singaporeans, so much so that a large proportion of Singaporeans feel disfranchised from PAP’s policies and have begun to turn their backs away from the PAP which even as it had turned Singapore’s fortunes around, and even as other countries lament about the lack of freedom in Singapore and admire the wealth that Singapore has established itself firmly in.

But all isn’t lost for PAP. PAP can continue to reinvent Itself, as it believes in its own discourse that it can. But more importantly, PAP needs to rejuvenate itself.

What can PAP do?

1) Make itself relevant by recalibrating itself to the true middle ground. The PAP has always believed itself to think for the middle ground, and that decisions that they make are for the majority of Singaporeans. However, even as it thinks so, the middle ground has shifted, but PAP is still stuck in a middle ground they imagine to be in the early 2000s. The priorities of Singaporeans have shifted. They do not think only in terms of economic well-being but believe in ensuring a balanced society where all Singaporeans can grow together. As much as this is what PAP believes in as well, they continue to champion on a conservative discourse, which has alienated a growing majority of Singaporeans. The PAP doesn’t realise that their balancing act has pandered so far right to the rich that many Singaporeans are increasingly feeling alienated. Their strict focus on growing the wealth of Singapore has gotten so much into their heads that they cannot think otherwise. At this point, the PAP needs to step out of itself and the boundaries it has created for itself and to understand Singaporeans once again. It’s no longer enough to shape the discourse that PAP wants through mainstream media, not when there is increasing awareness among Singaporeans of their shared sense of their shifting needs, aided by the expansion of their knowledge from the online medium. The PAP needs to become real.

2) Admit people who are not just economists, lawyers or military strategists into its folds. In order for PAP to have an accurate grasp of the people’s desires, PAP needs to bring in people who are able to critically and deeply understand the yearnings of Singaporeans. It’s no longer enough to bring in wealth managers and people who can protect PAP’s dominance. PAP needs to bring in social thinkers, philosophers, psychologists, sociologists and even historians who can have a deeper appreciation of how their policies have impacted on the people, socially, emotionally and psychologically. The PAP has shown itself inept in responding to the softer sides of the people, and have pandered towards an economic discourse, believing that satisfying the people materially can bring about the desired paths that they want. This way of ‘buying’ over the support of people has increasingly ceased to work since three elections ago but PAP hasn’t understood how else to tug on the heartstrings of the people – precisely because the bankers and businessmen among them are not able to think otherwise. If PAP wants to remain relevant, it needs to bring in people who can have a deep understanding of the human psyche and human condition, so that they will be able to develop policies which are encompassing and holistic.

3) Appreciate the importance of human rights and autonomy. It’s about time PAP return the rights of the people to the people. There’s no other way to say it. The people know that their rights have been taken and they aren’t too happy about that. Why do the people complain even as Singapore is the wealthiest nation in the world? Why do the people refuse to bring in new life into Singapore, even as they are able to do so? Why are the people angry at the government? The people feel cheated of their basic human right – the fundamental right to live without feeling like they are in a prison without bars. Autonomy is a basic human need and instinct that drives innovation, creativity, independence and a want to work together with one another to create for Singapore. The government has gotten used to telling people to be nice, to look out for each other and to be compassionate, but just telling people won’t do. The government needs to show its sincerity – by giving the people their rights back, so that they will search within themselves to reach out to their fellow human being. Then, you will see a Singapore that will grow beyond our immeasurable understanding.

At this point, PAP wants to stay in power, and as someone had pointed out to me, they’ve created the Singapore that it is now based on what they believe they have done. They wouldn’t be willing to let it all go and let another party take credit for what they’ve achieved.

Perhaps PAP needs to realise that no one wants to discredit PAP. The people respect PAP for where PAP had brought Singapore. But the people are angry – angry at not being heard, angry at feeling that their rights have been curbed. But PAP doesn’t feel this because they can hear themselves and their rights are not curbed, so they cannot stand on the other side to understand what it’s like.

PAP needs to understand that as much as people are voting away from PAP, they are not all voting against PAP. The people simply want fair representation. For a long time, the people believed that fair representation could come from within PAP but they’ve realised that this won’t come, and if they truly want to be heard, they need to vote another party, or parties, into government.

And so, the people have – because they know that the election is the only way they can be heard, since demonstrations and referendums have been disallowed in Singapore. And so heard soundly, the people have drummed themselves into the imaginations of the people at PAP.

But PAP needs to remember, as much as they believe that it is them that had built up the Singapore that it is now with their policies, it is the people who has done it with them. This isn’t PAP’s Singapore. This is a Singaporeans’ Singapore. And together, we will be grow Singapore together.

All the people are saying, let’s do it together. So, let’s give ourselves all a chance to make Singapore the Singapore that is truly ours – one that is truly just and equal, so that we can achieve happiness and prosperity, and progress as a nation.

The government had recently announced a $2 billion Marriage and Parenthood package to increase the fertility rate of Singapore.

The government had also said that they would be making two more announcements along the course of the week. One would be on how “we (are able to) meet those aspirations for good jobs, while at the same time, meet the social and infrastructural needs of Singapore, particularly when we are facing this very rapidly ageing population.” The next is on “how to ensure a high quality living environment for Singaporeans.”

I applaud the government to want to look into a ‘high quality living environment’. For this article, we will be looking purely at numbers to identify what a “high quality living environment” should entail, so that we can achieve the outcomes that we hope for.

In the table above, you will see a comparison of the different statistics of some countries I’ve chosen to take a look at. I’ve chosen Hong Kong because Singapore and Hong Kong have many parallels and similarities. I’ve also chosen to look at the United Kingdom, France and Germany because they are three of the key economies in Europe. I’ve selected Norway and Denmark because the Scandinavian countries are considered leading examples on their policies for increasing fertility rates. Finally, I’ve also chosen Australia and New Zealand as two countries in the region who have always been ranked highly on their standards of living.

In the table, I’ve highlighted in bright yellow boxes the countries with the best rating in the segment, and in pale yellow boxes the countries with the second best rating. I’ve highlighted in the dark red boxes the countries with the worst rating and in pale red the countries with the second best rating.

As you can see, Singapore, as well as Hong Kong, fares badly among the countries, though Singapore does well in one aspect – we have the second highest Gross National Income, after accounting for purchasing power parity. You can also see that both the Scandinavian countries score the best in many of the categories.

If you look at the fertility rate, Singapore and Hong Kong have the lowest fertility rates, while New Zealand, France and the United Kingdom have the highest fertility rates among the countries in comparison. Denmark and Norway also have respectable fertility rates.

Just by looking at the numbers along, the statistics already tell an interesting story. The Scandinavian countries work the shortest hours, and therefore could also achieve the highest GDP per hour worked. They are also ranked as having the best work-life balance, the highest proportion of a population who have positive emotions and are also ranked as having the most personal freedom. Their real wage growth is also one of the fastest, while their income inequality, as measured by the Gini coefficient, is the lowest.

As for Singapore and Hong Kong, we work the world’s longest hours and have the poorest work-life balance (this is an extrapolation, based on the scores of Japan and South Korea, because of the similar nature of their economies). Also, Singapore and Hong Kong has the highest income inequality, lowest wage growth and have the lowest proportion of their populations which show positive emotions, and are rated as the people with the least personal freedom, as compared to the other countries in this table.

Just by looking at the numbers, one way to surmise why the Scandinavian countries are able to have a high fertility rate is because they have a socially equitable society, where they are accorded enough time for their own personal time and also have the most autonomy to be who they want to be – I will interpret this to be that their governments are more open and less authoritarian and the people are able to vocalized themselves more freely and openly.

Conversely, you can see that the reason why Singapore and Hong Kong continue to have the lowest fertility rates in the world because we do not have enough time for ourselves, our societies are highly unequal and we feel that our freedom is constricted, with governments which are controlling.

The interesting thing is that, for all these four countries, they are ranked as the richest countries in this table. Yet, their destinies are different. One way to explain this is that even though Singapore and Hong Kong are rich, their income distribution is highly unequal, and there is a larger proportion of Singaporeans and people in Hong Kong who are disadvantaged. But, we might be asking the wrong question.

If we look at New Zealand, they are an oddball. New Zealand is the least well off, among the countries compared, yet it has the highest fertility rate. Also, they have the highest level of autonomy and also have the second highest proportion of people who have positive emotions.

At this point, some things stand out – what this suggests could be that money isn’t the main consideration as to whether people want to raise a family. Singapore and Hong Kong are rich, yet the people are not interested to raise families. What then is more important? Just looking at the statistics, the main motivations are when people have enough time for themselves, when they have autonomy to be their own person and when they live in a highly egalitarian society, they are more likely to exhibit positive emotions, and are then more willing to bring bundles of joy into their lives.

If this is the case, when the government speaks of a “high quality environment”, they would need to ensure that this environment also satisfies the following criteria:

- Shorter working hours
- Government intervention to ensure that wealth accumulation by the rich does not adversely affect the poor
- Freedom of rights for people to be able to express themselves and to think, without the fear that they might be criminalized or threatened with law suits for what they say

Just by looking at the numbers alone, you can easily pinpoint what the main issues are and what needs to be adjusted to achieve the ultimate goal – higher fertility rates.

Then, the question is, will the government want to do this?

1) Will the government be willing to shorten work hours? The rationale behind having higher working hours could be that the government is concerned that if work hours are shortened, people might become ‘lazy’ – we’ve heard them say this before – and thus they might want to keep the people working as long as they can. The government might also want to have long work hours, so that it seems to investors that Singapore is highly committed to ensure economic viability. A skeptic might argue that long working hours are a way to control the people. However, as can be seen in the table, long working hours is highly inefficient as our GDP per hour worked is the lowest. Also, if you look at the table, you could generalize to say that the countries with the shortest working hours are also the ones with the highest productivity. There are thus strong arguments and rationale for the government to reduce work hours, with the goal of increasing fertility rate, and also, productivity. This means that the government needs to look into not only how to increase our productivity, but to also look into how we can work efficiently. Efficiency needs to start being treated as an equal, when the government champions productivity.

2) Will the government want to regulate the wealth of the rich and protect those in the lower income groups from being disadvantaged? I’m not so sure about this, because the premise of which the government grows Singapore is precisely by allowing the rich to have it easy in Singapore – and that’s why our corporate tax rates are one of the lowest in the world, and how we now have the world’s highest concentration of millionaires. So, can the government accommodate certain changes to ensure a more egalitarian society for Singapore? Would this be aligned to their economic planning principles?

3) Finally, will the government relent on allowing Singaporeans to have more autonomy, so that the people would be able to speak out on their beliefs, to also critique government policies and not fear having to face defamation suits, or resort to self-censorship, and thus compromising on our autonomy? To be clear, this isn’t something the government should or should not allow. The autonomy to be ourselves should be ours regardless, so why we are letting the government dictates our moves is something we need to ask ourselves. Where did it go wrong that we stopped owning our rights?

So, finally, the question boils down to whether the government is willing to adopt approaches which will contrast with the model of capitalism that they are currently taking, which have benefitted a few but marginalized a growing group of lower income earners and result in increasing income and social inequalities, and whether they will be bold and confident enough to make adjustments to shorten work hours and give back to the people their autonomy.

Essentially, what this article is saying is – the fundamental reason why the government’s goal of increasing fertility rate in Singapore will never happen is because the government’s fundamental governing principles will not allow them to adopt approaches which are essential to increasing fertility rate. Thus if the government is serious about increasing the fertility rate in Singapore, they need to relook their governing model and principles.

Question is, will they?

Dear residents of Punggol East (Or actually Sengkang East),

By now, you’ve read enough and heard enough from the parties and online commenters on whom you should vote for. Perhaps you’ve made up your mind. Perhaps you are still deciding.

Please allow me to share my last word on this:

1) What Do You Want?

Voting for a political party is pretty much like finding a partner to be in a relationship with – You need to know what you want. If you do not know what you want, you are only going to find a partner, whom you are willing to cruise along with. But when times are bad, this is when you will start blaming your partner for being untrue to you, when you finally see the person for he or she is. But in the first place, you had been the one who was willing to choose a partner without knowing what you want. You had gone with the person whom you think will love you enough. But that’s not enough. Because is he or she what you truly want?

Voting for a political party is similar. You need to know what you want. Do you want a life which is financially focused and where the very best continue to rise, while some get left behind? Or are you someone who looks out for the person next to you, and want to help others along to achieve their full potential?

We’ve learnt to select the party which we think will do things that are good for us. But without really understanding what we want and what our needs are, we will not truly know which party will represent our ideals best. So, you’ve got to understand what you want and see if the values of the party align to your values, and not whether your values align to theirs.

The starting point must be you.

2) Ensuring Checks and Balances

In a country with responsible governance, the estates of the country will stand apart from one another and act independently, so that they can provide checks and balances on one another. So, in Singapore, optimally, the government, president, economy, judiciary and military are able to act independently, so that our interests are safeguarded by the estates keeping one another on their toes, to ensure there is accountability to Singaporeans.

However, as of now, the PAP government owns the economy, through owning Singapore’s richest companies, by way of Temasek Holdings. The president is endorsed and supported by the government. This president makes the decision as to who is appointed to the judiciary and military. In effect, all the estates of governance in Singapore are owned by PAP. Is this in the best interest of Singapore?

The only way that we can truly provide checks on the government is to ensure that we can bring balance into parliament, by electing representatives from different parties to speak for us, and we need to elect enough representatives who have enough weight to counter the PAP-led government, so that the voices of the rest of us can be heard.

Does this mean the PAP government is not good? No, it does not mean that. It only means that PAP can only represent the voices of some Singaporeans, but not all. And if the rest of us want to be heard, we need to put people in parliament who will speak for us.

Some of you might then think, let’s vote RP and SDA then. Here, I would remind you that it is important that we use our vote wisely. We need to know which party has a realistic chance of winning the Punggol East by-election. As of now, it is PAP and WP. RP and SDA will not garner enough votes to win the by-election. They simply do not have enough clout, at this point. Voting for them will mean wasting your vote. And this is not a criticism of them, this is simply a case of practicality, and exercising your vote based on informed calculations.

If you intend to vote for a alternative voice who will speak up for you, then you need to vote decisively for WP.

If you would vote for PAP, then the matter is more or less settled for you.

3) What is the Future of Singapore that You Envision?

Finally, what future would you hope for Singapore, and for your children, and their children?

Is it one where there is continuous competition and stress, where we’ve learnt to fight for ourselves and leave others to fend for themselves? Is it one where our elderly continue to work into their old age, because they do not have enough money and need to work just to feed themselves, even in their old age? Is it one where we discriminate against others, because of the competition we face, and thus we’ve learnt to push others out of our way?

Or is it one where policies are enacted, to reduce the stress levels in Singapore, where our elderly are able to be protected because they’ve contributed so much to Singapore, that we need to afford them a life that is respectable and comfortable for them? Is it a life where we feel is comfortable enough where we are willing to raise children, because they will be able to explore and find themselves in, at their own pace?

What is the future that you hope Singapore will take? This will determine which party you should vote for.

*****

The PAP government has been a good government. And it continues to grow Singapore economically.

But can PAP still represent all our voices? We know it cannot. We know that if you are well off, you continue to benefit. If you are well off, you will have more ways to rise. We know that the system is no longer fair.

Is it a fault of PAP? Not completely. PAP has brought in people who align with their thinking and thus they’ve effectively moulded themselves into a party which is aligned to wealth generation, as their governing principles.

But they’ve began to lose touch with some other Singaporeans. Is it their fault? Well, everyone has preferences and their unique beliefs. What it just means is that they continue to be relevant, but only to a group of Singaporeans.

For the rest of us who know what we want, and do not align ourselves to the vision of PAP anymore, we need to put another party in so that there is also someone else who will speak for us.

Also, if we vote decisively along what we believe in, then the message will be soundly and roundly drummed into PAP, where they will perhaps take the rest of us Singaporeans seriously again. If they don’t, then we need to prepare ourselves to vote decisively for change in the general election of 2016.

So, Singaporeans, it’s not about being pro- or anti- any party. Singapore belongs to all of us, and all of us have a stake in it, to want to make it work together for us. All of us want to help sculpt a life for Singapore and ourselves which we can be proud of and be happy with.

It’s about being pro-Singapore. I want the best for our country and for us to all be responsible stakeholders in Singapore, who will use our power wisely, to remake a Singapore into what we truly want and can truly be proud of, where we once again feel the joy in the air and are able to live with passion, fairness and acceptance for one another.

On Saturday 26 January 2013, please use your vote wisely. Please vote decisively. Know what you want and vote for the party which will affirm your beliefs and needs.

For a Singapore that all of us own and can create together in.

How will votes look like for the Punggol East by-elections?

There are two ways you can look at it.

Extrapolation from Presidential Election 2011

First, we can take a look at the results of the presidential election in 2011 to have a glimpse of how things will shape.

In the presidential election in 2011, the results are as follows:

• Tony Tan: 35.20%
• Tan Cheng Bock: 34.85%
• Tan Jee Say: 25.04%
• Tan Kin Lian: 4.91%

What is interesting is how this is also a 4-corner fight.

Those who had voted for Tony Tan are most probably people who align with PAP, as PAP had given their endorsement to Tony Tan.

What is unclear is, for those who had voted for the other candidates, where they actually stand or which party they might align to.

However, the people who had voted for the other presidential candidates might not align themselves with any specific party, but you can observe from their temperament how they might align.

For those who had voted for Tan Cheng Bock, their temperament can be assumed to be one which prefers stability and a credible alternative to PAP. The people who would have voted for Tan Cheng Bock would most probably be voters of the Worker’s Party.

For those who had voted for Tan Jee Say, they would most probably be supporters of SDP. This is because he was previously a candidate for SDP at the general election in 2011. Also, SDP members have given their support to Tan Jee Say. Singaporeans would have also voted for Tan Jee Say because he is the only candidate who doesn’t have any previous allegiance to PAP and is seen as the most independent candidate. Among those who had voted for Tan Jee Say would also be those who would have voted for NSP. Some members of NSP have given their endorsement to Tan Jee Say. Additionally, the supporters of NSP would be those who have a stance between the want of stability under WP and the want for change under SDP. They are more likely to align themselves with WP than SDP, but because Tan Jee Say, even as he represents the change that SDP represents, Tan Jee Say seems to present a change that is more moderate and stabilising and would have also attracted those who would vote for NSP.

As for Tan Kin Lian, he had only garnered 4.91% of the votes because he isn’t seen as, as stabilising as Tan Cheng Bock is but isn’t seen as representing change as much as Tan Jay See is. The reason why he wasn’t able to garner as many votes was because the voters aligned with the other candidates more. You can roughly assume that those who would vote for Tan Kin Lian are those who do not have strong views or alliance or those who would sit on the fence, in a general sense.

Comparing the presidential election in 2011 with the Punggol East by-elections, you can see that PAP would always be able to secure at least 35% of the votes. Historically, this is about the proportion who would always vote steadfastly for PAP.

It can be assumed that those who had voted for Tan Cheng Bock would also vote for WP. So WP should be able to secure around 35% of the votes as well.

If SDP had contested in this by-election, you can see that they would present quite a strong challenge to PAP and WP. But it is important to note that the by-election isn’t the presidential election, and so the mindset that voters adopt will be quite different. I will talk about this a bit later. Since SDP is not running for the by-election, who will these voters vote for then? Those who are aligned to NSP would most likely vote for WP, as they would prefer stability. For those who would vote for SDP, those who align more with credibility will more likely vote for WP. For the the SDP supporters who align more with change, they might vote for RP.

I’m going to say that then, between 15% to 20% of the votes will go to WP which means that WP would be able to secure between 50% to 55% of the votes.

For the 5% who would vote for Tan Kin Lian, they would vote for either RP or SDA. If you were to split it, around 2% to 3% of the votes will go to SDA. Another 2% to 3% will go to RP. Coupled with the 5% to 10% who would swing from those who had voted for Tan Jee Say, about 7% to 13% of the votes will go to RP.

So in summary, these could be roughly the votes that will each party will garner for the Punggol East by-election:

• WP: 50% to 55%
• PAP: 35%
• RP: 7% to 13%
• SDA: 2% to 3%

But there are other factors to think about. The presidential election is different from the general election. And a by-election is different from the general election, so the mindsets that voters adopt would be very different.

Most Singaporeans do not see the president as having clear roles and function, as the president’s role has generally been described as ceremonial. Thus it can be assumed that Singaporeans would be more willing to vote with their allegiance, than weighing other considerations. So, the votes from the presidential elections is as straight-forward as it can be.

If the voters were to vote in the general elections, it can be assumed that as they would understand that the MPs that they vote for would have clearer functions of governance, both on a national and local level, they would weigh other considerations, such as experience. This means that in a general election, there would be some who would vote for WP who would vote for PAP which means WP’s votes will diluted. Also, some votes from those who would vote for NSP and SDP would also swing towards WP, and a few will trickle over to PAP.

In such a case, the following could be what we can expect for the Punggol East by-election, assuming that there is a swing of about 5%:

• WP: 45% to 50%
• PAP: 40%
• RP: 2% to 7%
• SDA: 2% to 3%

Does this mean that WP will win anyway? There is a very high chance.

As said, there’s also a difference between a general election and by-election. Why was the PAP not willing to hold by-elections in the past? This because at a by-elections, people would be able to vote more boldly. In a general election, a voter would consider that if they had voted based on their allegiance, would votes swing away from PAP? They might ask themselves if they are ready for a government which is not helmed by PAP. At the last general election, voters had shown that they won’t ready. And thus they had voted safely. Things might change in the general election in 2016, however.

Which brings us back to the by-election. Voters in a by-elections are not as held back by concerns of national governance, because for this by-election, they do not need to consider whether their votes will upset the balance of governance now. Thus they would more likely be able to vote boldly. Yet, this effect will be mitigated by the fact that in voter’s minds, the by-election is somewhat more similar to a general election than a presidential election. Also, a president doesn’t run the town councils. An MP does, so some voters will still tend to vote ‘safely’.

Taking into account the mindsets of voters, the votes for the Punggol East by-election might look like this:

• WP: 48% to 53%
• PAP: 35%
• RP: 7% to 11%
• SDA: 2% to 3%

This is a very likely scenario. If you look at the results of the Hougang by-election last year, WP took 62.09% of the votes, whereas PAP took only 37.91% of the votes, this even with the negative publicity that the mainstream media had created about WP. Those who would vote for RP and SDA at this by-election would have most likely voted for WP. The 2% to 3% who are sitting on the fence or do not have strong views could also have voted for PAP.

So, all in, you can see that it’s a likely scenario that because voters in the Punggol East by-election can vote more boldly and because they could vote for what they truly believe in, there is a very high possibility that even as votes for the ‘opposition’ parties can be diluted, because voters will vote with their hearts, only 35% of the votes will be firmly PAP’s.

Extrapolation from General Election 2011

You can also look at the general election of 2011 to get a sense of how votes will look like. In 2011, the performance of the different parties is as follows:

• PAP: 60.14%
• WP: 46.58%
• RP: 31.78%
• SDA: 30.06%

If you look at the trend from the past 3 elections, PAP’s vote share has been dropping steadily, WP’s rising more rapidly and SDA’s vote share had dropped. RP is a new party so it’s not clear how their vote share will change.

If the trend continues, it could be possible that the following could occur in the general election in 2016:

• PAP: 56%
• WP: 56%
• RP: 31%?
• SDA: 28%

This vote share is estimated based on the trend on voting behaviour over the past few general elections.

Again, noting that voters will more likely vote more honestly for a by-election because it’s only voting for one seat, voters will more likely allow themselves to vote as honestly as they can.

Also, noting that in the general election, all the constituencies were contested by only PAP and another party, except in Punggol East where there were 3 parties. This is where we can see the strength of PAP and WP, as compared to the other parties more clearly.

The results for the Punggol East constituency at the general election in 2011 is as follows:

• PAP: 54.54%
• WP: 41.01%
• SDA: 4.45%

If you were to expect the change in vote share to occur on a national level to also occur on a local level, you can expect the following results to occur:

• PAP: 48%
• WP: 49%
• SDA: 3%

If you throw RP into the fray, because RP had garnered a similar vote share on the national level as SDA had, yet RP might also attract those who would also vote for SDP, you can expect the vote share to be along the following lines:

• PAP: 48%
• WP: 45%
• RP: 5%
• SDA: 2%

For the above estimate, I had estimated that the vote share for RP would be at the expense of WP. This is also what PAP is counting on to happen to secure the seat.

However, as shared, because a by-election is localised and controlled and would have little impact on the national level, voters would be more inclined to vote as honestly as they would. There are many permutations, one of which could be as follows:

• WP: 51%
• PAP: 40%
• RP: 7%
• SDA: 2%

Noting that over the past one year, there is a growing group of Singaporeans who might feel that PAP has not responded to their needs as much as they would like PAP to, the vote share would also be changed accordingly, if there was a 3% shift in votes from PAP to WP. Below is one possible permutation:

• WP: 54%
• PAP: 37%
• RP: 7%
• SDA: 2%

This estimate isn’t too far off the estimate, if we had used the presidential election in 2011 as a gauge. To recap, the below was how the Punggol East by-election could turn out if we used the presidential election as a gauge:

• WP: 48% to 53%
• PAP: 35%
• RP: 7% to 11%
• SDA: 2% to 3%

So, will WP win the Punggol East by-election?

Factors Which Will Influence Voter Behaviour

It would depend on the following factors:

1. If voters vote honestly and as true to what they believe in, there will always be about 35% who will vote for PAP, but the large proportion would more likely vote for the other parties. In the Punggol East by-elections, most of the votes will go to WP.
2. Since voters are not constrained because their votes will not impact on the national level, they are able to vote as freely as they can. And if that’s the case, voters are more likely to vote away from PAP.
3. It also depends on how unhappy Singaporeans are with PAP over the past one year, since the last general elections. This will determine how far the votes will swing away from PAP.
4. WP’s Lee Li Lian is the only familiar face in the area. Voters might give preference to a familiar face.
5. However, right before the Punggol East by-election, PAP had unveiled new cooling measures for housing, new MRT lines and new parenthood policies and programmes. Will this bait hook Singaporeans? It might, and this will determine the votes that PAP can retain.
6. RP’s history isn’t clear, so it’s difficult to understand how many votes they will be able to garner.

Conclusion

In summary, for the Punggol East by-election, PAP’s vote share will definitely decrease, WP’s vote share will definitely increase. But how far WP’s vote share will increase will determine how much RP will be able to take away. This will determine who the winner will be, and it’s a straight fight between PAP and WP.

For me, it doesn’t make sense to vote for RP or SDA because it’s unlikely that they would win. If there are people who would not vote for PAP and want an opposition voice, it’s important to vote tactically. Only by voting for WP can they secure a sure win for any opposition to garner a seat.

If voters do not want PAP to win, then they should decisively vote for WP, so as to be able to put another opposition member into parliament. If they choose to vote for RP because they want change to be speedier, for example, it will only backfire on themselves. They would be able to prove that they want their voice to be heard by increasing the vote share of RP, but it wouldn’t help their cause if WP’s vote share is taken away by RP, and it ends up that PAP still wins. Then, for those who want change, change won’t happen – the seat will still be taken by PAP. For those who would vote for PAP, they would vote for PAP anyway, so there isn’t much to debate about here.

So, at this point, it’s important that voters vote tactically, with the intention of putting either PAP or an opposition decisively into parliament. And if they are determined for an opposition to enter parliament, they have to vote tactically and decisively for WP. This isn’t a contest of which party the voter prefers, but how they can bring balance into parliament. And right now, there’s only one clear choice if they want balance to be brought into parliament. This means voting tactically and not allowing their votes to be split unnecessary.

The fundamental problem of the Singapore government is this – we are run by a group of politicians who sincerely believe that what they are doing for Singapore is the right thing. They’ve also brought people into their folds who think like them. So if you have an alternative viewpoint, you are seen as opposing the government and seen as not having the interests of Singapore at heart.

But this is, by no means, a fault that our government leaders have. They’ve become a product of an institution of their own making. The early years of Singapore’s growth required that we are steadfast in our resolution towards growing Singapore economically. This has no doubt created an economic success out of Singapore but has also created a people whose mindsets have been geared almost exclusively towards economic thinking. At the same time, they’ve created institutions – businesses, unions and even schools which are run on a profit-making mentality, so to be an effective head of these organisations, mean, by their definition, that you need to have a mindset geared towards economic productivity.

Again, this in itself is not wrong, or right. What has developed in Singapore is a function of our modern history and development. It would be our own undoing to not appreciate the journey that has taken Singapore to where we are now, whether we are agreeable with the trajectory or not.

But what is of concern is that the trajectories that the government continues to want Singapore to head towards is becoming more and more divergent from what Singaporeans believe in. Of course, when we talk about Singaporeans, we have to be cognizant of which Singaporeans we are talking about. There is a group of Singaporeans who have benefitted from PAP’s economic policies and who see the value and believe that these policies should carry on. And there’s another group of Singaporeans, who have a diverse set of beliefs – whether it be if we are from the low, middle or a new working class, or whether it be because we believe in human rights, or whether it be that we identify with the human condition – there’s a group of Singaporeans who are beginning to see the value of Singapore developing towards another trajectory.

Now, PAP stridently fights to keep their current strategy on course because they continue to believe in the trajectory they’ve set out for the past few decades. And they are surrounded by other leaders who believe the same – this in itself is not wrong for we need leaders who are geared towards economic thinking, especially in a capitalistic global environment, where economic uncertainties prevail. What becomes a concern though is when the mindsets of Singaporeans start to diverge, and where this group of people start growing and growing, and surpass what the predominant group, or what used to, had been.

In the past, this ‘predominant’ group could define policies at the whims and fancies because they’ve put in place effective policies which had curbed differing viewpoints. During the early years of Singapore, this wasn’t disagreeable as Singaporeans wanted to partake in a process that will push Singapore into higher economic growth. However, over the years, as Singapore emerged into the new century, the new Singaporean who is more educated and exposed to the functioning or the world, have slowly began to realise that economic prosperity isn’t everything that it has been made out to be – not when we’ve learnt to suppress our emotions and have become unhappy. And then, we start to realise the impact of how some economic policies have resulted in a Singaporean who feels compromised in their social and intellectual growth, and who are beginning to yearn for more.

Then you might ask, if indeed, there is a burgeoning group of Singaporeans who have legit concerns, why isn’t the government responding to our needs or interests? The reason is because it isn’t clear yet how this group is transforming, where they will head to, and what truly is their collective want and belief? As of now, it might seem more obvious that the bulk of Singaporeans continue to be a group of Singaporeans who are aligned to the economic thinking of the government, or rather, that the lack of differing voices make it appear to be so. And so, the government continue to align themselves with a seeming ‘majority’ who either align themselves with the government’s thinking or who do not voice out their opinions, even if they differ from what the ruling party believes in.

At the same time, the Singaporeans who do not align themselves with the ruling party haven’t yet understood what their collective beliefs are, or if there are any collective beliefs. Many of us are feeling distress from the system, but are yet to understand and vocalised what this distress is. Some of us feel that it’s the low wages, wages which have stagnated, lack of rights, feeling left out of the rat race, feeling marginalised etc. To each of us, we are experiencing this distress in different ways and multitudes, and we have yet to extend beyond our personal distress to understand and align with the distress of one another. This is one reason why the government cannot understand what the fundamental issue is that this group of Singaporeans face.

For a government which thinks economically, all social issues, regardless of their variations, are lumped under one branch – social issues – to be dealt with as one whole sum, which explains why there has always been only one ministry to deal with these issues. As such, the government is currently trying to identify one common thread that runs through the unhappiness and distress that Singapore is facing, so that they feel, they can tackle this issue at one fell swoop.

What has complicated this issue is that we cannot understand social issues by lumping them together, simply because the diversity of them requires differing approaches. But for a government used to quick fixes and logical approaches, based on economic principles, this just doesn’t seem to be something they can comprehend. Where are the quick fixes to this?

Conversely, for this group of Singaporeans who feel differently from the government, we need to have an understanding of the unhappiness we face, and learn to have a deeper understanding of them, and learn to relate to the distress that one another is having. If we want the government to heed our call for a change in thinking and decision-making, it is our responsibility as well to first have clarity of what it is that bothers us, so that we can urge them to direct their focus and energies on what is most pertinent.

Otherwise, you can imagine that for this government, it seems to them that they are listening to hot air that blows left, right and centre – day in, day out, Singaporeans are ‘complaining’ and they are unable to pinpoint what exactly, Singaporeans are distressing about. Of course, one might then suggest that this is due to a lack of capability to understand deep, complex social issues required of our leaders. And if indeed, this is the case, this would suggest to PAP that identifying leaders should not only be about leaders who are able to economically perform but who have a good grasp of social, psychological and even philosophical issues that are necessary for good governance.

To be clear, Singapore is in good stead to continue moving forward in our next chapter. But what needs to happen is a government that is willing to see beyond the current economic principles that they adopt to overhaul a thinking that also adopts principles that also allows social and psychological thinking to prevail. It requires a government which understand behaviour not only in terms of behavioural economics but also the deeper fundamentals of psychology and sociology. This would mean that the government needs to bring in people who are able thinkers in these areas, and also that the top leaders of Singapore are willing to have open and deep conversations with them, and to not only take their understanding and analysis seriously, but to also have the broadness of mind to understand their complexities and have the commitment to act on them – as there is a strong impact downstream on the economy.

For Singaporeans, this also means that we have to learn to look at our issues from a deeper perspective – what is it that really concerns us? We might think we are angry with foreigners or the COE or housing prices. On a psychological level, why is this the case? What are the deeper social and policy constructs that cause our displeasure? How can we relook our emotions and beliefs? How can we make recommendations to refine, and even change, remove or put up policies which will address the concerns that we have? This means that we need to take on a proactive approach towards redefining for ourselves, a Singapore that we want, and to also have the awareness and depth of mind the understand the issues that we are truly affected by, so that for ourselves, we can address the root causes, and help the government identify them better as well. This also means that we need to look beyond ourselves to learn to understand the issues and plight that the other Singaporeans face, and extend our understanding and support towards also enriching their lives, and to find common ground so as to align our beliefs and thinking. If we want the government to have a good grasp of our issues, we would first need to have a good grasp over them for ourselves. And we would need to form a community where we are able to create a consolidated understanding of one another’s needs so that we can create a significant voice which the government can then look upon seriously.

Sometimes, it’s a good thing that change happens, and uncertainties abound. And this is something the government is beginning to realise, and still trying to learn to do better in. But for Singaporeans, we need to and actually many of us, are, need to have a deeper intellectual and philosophical relook into our own thinking and beliefs. We might blame the government for adopting mindsets which are economic in their fundamentals, but if we adopt the same mindsets as well, we aren’t making things any better. We need to have a deeper understanding of our own personal condition and the overall human condition. Only then can we rise above the current social and political gridlock to find a new society that we can all thrive on together.

I had previously dug out some statistics and had written an article here which showed how the government has systematically profited from Singaporeans. This invited a counterargument from someone on Facebook, who countered with his arguments of the statistics.

I am sharing the discussion in this article. The discussion exposes the fundamental differences in thinking between the two groups of Singaporeans – one which aligns themselves to the economic principles of the PAP government and one which does not. Please read on.

Please also share your viewpoints in the comment section below. I will start off the article with his viewpoints, followed by my point-by-point counter-viewpoints.

Just to give you some background, this guy is a lecturer in one of Singapore’s university. I will call him Jonathan (not his real name) in this article.

*****

Jonathan: Your problem basically, is that you lack the ability to make logical inferences and you have too vivid an imagination and spout crap before checking your facts:

1. First claim, real wages are falling. That’s true. Also true that Govt revenues having been rising. Obviously, the increase in tax revenues didn’t come from income tax, so the Govt has been able to raise additional revenue not by taxing income but through corporate taxes and probably GST. Isn’t that a good thing?

2. And you question why incomes have not grown at the bottom and why the Govt hasn’t done anything about that? Have you been reading? Do you know what are the global economic trends? For how many countries in the world has the income of the poor been rising? You expect Singapore to be different? On what basis do you base that expectation?

3. And you claim that the Govt should have done more to keep the incomes of the poor from drop? Great. Do WHAT exactly? Do you know how the economy works? Do you run a business?

4. To be fair, I had also highlighted the problem of the low wage cleaners to the Govt a couple years ago and the Govt didn’t seem to have to done a whole lot until recently, but you think the problem is trivial? How exactly would you raise the salaries of local cleaners who make up only a fraction of the cleaner workforce? You do realize that raising salaries across the board will cause more inflation?

5. You are right to say that the Govt has mismanaged housing and public transportation, but do you know what’s happening in China and HK? Do you know why the current housing market is screwed up? Basically, your PM is trying to satisfy your people’s demands for private housing and had cut back on HDB supply and releases a lot of land to the private development. What he obviously didn’t anticipate is that it’s much harder to regulate the private housing market when the housing supply is put in private hands. You can see what happens to the private housing supply over the next 3 years. Your people wanted to live in private property hor.

6. Do you know why the COE prices are all screwed up? Again, because the PM released too many COEs 5 years ago so that people can own cars, thinking that the ERP will control car usage. Well it doesn’t. Do you know that there are currently too many cars on the roads? We die die need to take cars off the streets which is why the COE has to spike. There’s no solution. If we don’t take cars off the streets, public transportation like buses and taxis will get choked.

7. And you claim that housing and transport feed into inflation? People die die need to own cars meh? You dun buy car, how does it affect you? People need to buy house meh? The people who are adversely affected and I do have some sympathies for them are the newly weds. That said, do you know that there is a surplus of 3-room flats, so it’s not that there are not enough flats, but these young ones want big flats and also in choice areas. Flats in the outlying areas are still affordable with the Govt grants. I do agree however that BTO and having these kids wait 3 years before they can get married is a stupid idea. I told MND this in 2008. Nobody listens, but that’s another story.

8. What kind of a claim is this: “As I had said, the government doesn’t want to increase taxes because it would be too obvious – you want to take money from the people in as discreetly a manner as you can”? Harlo?

9. End of the day, get this straight, CPF money and Medisave is YOUR money. Govt cannot eat one. Why does Govt increase Medisave contribution because as you had rightly said, healthcare costs are going up and people are living longer. If costs go up and we don’t increase the Medisave contributions, you run out of money, how pays huh? Govt? Who is Govt?? Do you know what it means by sheep hair grows on the sheep?

10. I have to admit that my grasp of healthcare economics is not as strong as it ought to be, but what’s clear is that increased expenditure DOES NOT always lead to better outcomes. Go and read more. Please lah.

Boarding call. Gtg.

*****

Hi Jonathan (not his real name), thanks for the reply. This is what I think. Feel free to comment.

1) It’s true that the increase in tax revenues come from taxing income through corporate taxes and GST, but the proportionate increases for both these and personal income have remained constant. As I’ve said, the government might not have increase taxes but the amount of monies we are putting in from other sources is increasing – CPF, Medisave, COE etc – this is where it increases the government’s coffers. People might say that they are separate financial instruments and we shouldn’t compare them but the truth is this – the government uses our CPF to invest in Temasek and GIC, where they gain high interests which aren’t returned (back to our CPF, where the money for investment is taken from). At the same time, the overall withdrawal from CPF have actually decreased. As much as there are separate instruments, from a holistic perspective, the government has found a way to make more money through CPF, and they do not need to rely on the taxes.

2) For incomes, my question is this – just because in other countries, the incomes of the poor have been decreasing, we should accept this? Because in other countries, they’ve let the poor suffer and this should be ok? I come from a humanitarian basis – the thing is this: the government employs more than 100,000 people in the civil service. At the same time, the Singapore companies which Temasek owns, which is owned by the government, employs another thousands and thousands of workers. The government might have used the rhetoric that wages are determined by market demand and supply forces. They are obviously not. The government gets to adjust that. For example, in the late 1970s, the government was willing to inflate the wages by 20% for a few years. Presently, the government could have tweaked their policies to prevent the wages from those at the bottom to be suppressed. Why didn’t they? The Nordic countries are able to maintain a more equitable wage distribution. How does a country do that then – it means those who are richer are willing to perhaps take a slightly lower pay, to adjust for that – the question then is, are people like you willing to do so?

3) I don’t think we can look at this just from an economist perspective, because as a government, you do just that, that shows how you value and prioritise your people – as monetised beings. Sure, as governments which pander to the capitalistic system, we become economists. But as governments which need to answer to people’s rights and social needs, where do we become responsible? As mentioned before, the government could also have tweaked the policies to prevent the incomes of the poor from being suppressed – how? For example, how did they determine the wages of foreigners? Where did they peg it? Because of how low they had pegged it, they gave incentives for companies to reduce the wages of the locals as the wages of the locals become less competitive. Why did they take 7 years to change the minimum amounts that the foreigners should earn, while the wages of locals were depressed for these few years. In some other countries, the locals and foreigners are paid the same rate, because they are paid according to their capabilities and not their nationality – I’m not saying we should go for this but the question is – how can we make this more equitable?

4) Again, raising salaries would mean having to raise salaries for the other payscales, somewhat. This isn’t something Singapore hasn’t done before, as mentioned. It was done in the late 1970s. Also, the other question that I had put forth is this – how willing are the rich to have to rebalance their incomes to help those at the bottom be able to have a more equitable standard of living? The question I ask again is this – are we willing to earn less than $1,000 a month? If so, should we let another human person live with the dignity on a $1,000 income? We can look at this from a plainly economist perspective, but as a government, as I’ve said, there’s a need to be socially responsible as well. The Nordic countries pay their cleaners $2,000 or $3,000. Why? Well, firstly their standard of living is higher but don’t forget, Singapore is equally as rich as they are – then why are we paying low wage workers such a low amount? The fundamental issue is this – they’ve learnt not to only value the people who work as workers who are deemed as performing mundane jobs that are seen as unimportant, but they’ve learnt to value the people as human beings, basically, and to confer on them a wage that can accord them a basic and healthy standard of living – and this is where government intervention comes in to moderate the effects of low wages and high profits which the corporations make off with. But in Singapore – the government is the corporation. Herein lies the advantage as well as the problem – how?

5) I don’t know if I think that’s a fair statement to make – that everyone in Singapore wants to live in private property. Is it? On the other hand, I could, as many commenters have said as well, that the reason why the government had wanted to release more land for private development – because that’s where the money lies. For a government which has perfected their solutions and policies, do you think that they would not have calculated and foreseen the impact of their policies and where this will lead to? This is the government which claims to be able to foresee and anticipate challenges and problems – so you are telling me that they didn’t anticipate the problems that would arise with setting aside land for private development – which they would know precisely would lead to an increase in housing prices, and thus more money for their coffers. I think they would have highly very likely calculated for this long before, and they knew what the impact would be. What they didn’t calculate though is this – they didn’t calculate that the people’s anger would actually boil over. They didn’t count on a people who are docile and dormant to actually have anger which will boil over and impact on the last elections – and that’s why they had no choice but to act and replace Mah Bow Tan. Don’t forget, before 2001, Capitaland Mall did not do very well and made losses on some years. But from 2001, their profits increased incrementally. A stroke of luck? More likely, very shrewd planning behind the scenes to ensure rising profits for whose coffers?

6) For the increase in prices in COE, thanks for sharing on the information on the ERP. Let me take a look at the statistics before I can come back to you on this with more information – though I’m not sure if its a clear fact that the ERP is not working – there are other countries which have adopted our model and something the government champions. I’m more of the thinking that both these instruments are money-churning instruments and on a psychological level, there’s a limit as to how much you can increase the price of ERP, and thus a more sensible solution is to peg any rises to COE, because when people make a purchase on a high-budget item, it’s easier to peg higher taxation to something that is already costing so much – they are psychological more ready to pay more than it was on ERP. But let me take a look before I have more answers.

7) Thanks for also furnishing on the information about the housing. Agreed with your points. Though again, this ties back to why housing prices are increasing – how would you manage this problem of rising housing prices, and decreasing real wages?

8) I had dared to make the claim that the government doesn’t want to increase taxes but has increased other sources of income precisely because they’ve increase the monies they are collecting from the other sources of income – increase in Medisave Required Amount, Medishield premiums, COE, housing prices. The Singapore companies are earning higher profits. So what if our taxation rate didn’t increase? The other sources of revenue for the government, and Temasek Holdings are increasing anyway. And then this question – why is it that Temasek and GIC are earning 17% and 6.8% annualized returns since their inception, and the government bonds (which is our CPF monies) is invested in them, yet it only gets back an interest of 1.55%. Something is sorely missing here – might you be able to enlighten me here?

9) End of the day, yes – the CPF money and Medisave is our money. But since 2001, the amount of CPF withdrawals have actually decreased – dropped! – even as the number of people who should rightfully be able to draw them out should have increased! How many new policies have the government put out over the past few years which changed the way people could withdraw on their money and which have thus led to this decrease? Yes, the CPF money is our money but why are we withdrawing lesser? At the same time, if the CPF monies is our money, why are the overall CPF balances increasing by such a high rate, even as the amount we can withdraw have dropped? Sure, the interest rates (for the bonds that CPF is invested in) might account for the increase in the balance. But the interest rate is only 1.55% and have remained at around this level over the past few years. What would more likely account for the increase in the overall CPF balance, rather than the fact that people aren’t able to withdraw their CPF out?

10) No, increased expenditure does not always lead to better health outcomes, obviously. But as I’ve said, not all decisions should be made on an economist point of view – the proportion of government spending on healthcare for the individual has dropped year on year since Singapore’s independence. The basic question is this – can the government do more for the lower incomes, and perhaps the lower middle income groups, who have to continue to pay a higher and higher proportion out of their own pockets for healthcare? This, at the same time, when the healthcare costs have increased at a high rate over the past few years. Furthermore, our real wages have decreased over the past few years. What I’m asking for isn’t new. Many people have been asking for it. You had said previously that there’s no impetus for the government to increase the wages of the low income because no where else in the world are governments bothered to do so, so you might say. Then, the argument I put back to you is this – if the other developed Asian countries – the Asian tigers – are actually able to pay a higher proportion from the government on healthcare expenditure, why isn’t the government doing so? It obviously exposes a flaw in logic here, doesn’t it? Or rather, the government makes decisions on what is financially sound, but for who now? Herein lies the very obvious question, and I think you know it.

I would like to hear from of your thoughts on this, as it has helped me think through the issue a bit further.

Thanks for this!

Roy