Inderjit Singh had been a PAP Member of Parliament for about two decades before he stepped down just before this year’s General Election. He remains a member of the PAP. He is known for openly opposing some of his party’s policies in Parliament. Post-election, he has also offered advice to the PAP on how to stay relevant. A childhood of service at the temple his family went to sparked a desire in him to serve his community as a student leader, then an MP.
He sat down recently with 938LIVE’s Bharati Jagdish for “On the Record”, to talk about the PAP’s strengths and weaknesses, and why he eventually stepped down. The following are excerpts from the interview.
GETTING INTO POLITICS
Inderjit Singh: In 1994, when I started, my elder girl was 2 1/2 years old, and my younger girl was 6 months old. My son wasn’t even born. He was born in ‘98, after I entered politics. And I also started my company at the end of 1997. As an entrepreneur, it’s a big undertaking, so I was really busy, spending very little time with the family. I missed out on the growing-up years of my girls, and my boy. Although I tried my best to spend time with them. I made it a point to go for short holidays during the end of the year. In terms of their education, I could not contribute that much. My wife, fortunately, when I entered politics, she decided – she’s an engineer also by the way – to leave her job to focus on the children. I have to thank her for that because if she had not done that, I don’t know how we would have brought up our children.
Bharati Jagdish: Do you think your family feels a sense of resentment that you weren’t there for those crucial growing up years?
Inderjit: I have to thank them because I don’t sense that. In fact they do see the value of what I’ve done, and that I have contributed in many ways. Whether to the community, to Singapore, in the area of entrepreneurship, business … I’ve done quite a lot, and I think I’ve had significant impact, so they are proud of that, but I don’t see any resentment. But until today, my children, when they are with me, they still ask me, “Are you free tonight?” Because they know, most of the time, I’m not. So they always look forward to the days when I’m free, so that I can spend time with them. The fact that they look forward to spending time with me, that’s good, versus not being bothered at all. I think it is only right that now, before all of them really live their own lives, I spend time with them, and I think they don’t mind spending time with me.
Bharati: Any personal regrets on your part that you couldn’t spend time with them as they were growing up?
Inderjit: Yeah, you know, I wish I could have balanced it a bit better, but I have no real regrets, because I think I did my duty. I discharged my duty the best that I could.
Bharati: You are best-known for speaking up in Parliament and your long FB posts on policy issues. Why are you so critical of PAP policies even though you were a PAP MP and are still a PAP member?
Inderjit: I do have a good feel of the issues. I keep very close touch with my residents and my volunteers. I spent a lot of time to understand the issues. Many people are willing to come and share with me, no matter who they are, and I give them a listening ear. I do not try to explain things away, like some MPs do. So I saw it as a duty to speak up in Parliament to raise those issues because it’s an important platform – that’s where policies are discussed, and policies can change too – and also it’s a national platform on which I was elected to represent the people who voted for me. I found that it was my duty to speak up, even though it would have been very unpopular with the ministers and with the government, with the civil servants. But that did not hold me back because I wanted to speak the truth, and also push for changes that will improve the lives of Singaporeans. Even if it meant that I was going to put myself in a difficult situation, I did not mind doing that because I had a duty to do.
Bharati: How difficult a situation did speaking up put you in?
Inderjit: Well, over the years, some of the ministers did express resentment. In fact, I could see their reaction towards me – the way they deal with you, trying to brush you off, trying to ridicule what you say. In fact, I think in some of my budget speeches, I was ridiculed by some of the finance ministers also. One main thing I still remember is when I talk about growth at all cost, economic policy, I was ridiculed. They said, “there’s no such thing.’ But in the end, they admitted that I was right when they changed their tack to “inclusive growth”.
Bharati: How did it feel to be ridiculed?
Inderjit: Of course in the early days when I was new, it was quite discouraging that someone like me, who was sincerely trying to bring up issues, giving alternatives that are maybe even better than what the ministers may have suggested, was being ridiculed and having my argument destroyed.
It was disappointing. But after some time, I saw that they were listening, and although they needed to destroy your argument to pass through their policies and bills, in the longer term, they actually took them into account for future improvements. It was difficult, because every time I challenged the ministers, they came back with a sledgehammer. And I know where the sledgehammer was coming from. It was coming from the civil servants, because civil servants are there to defend the policies. I knew that some of them did not like it, but it was more important for me to speak the truth, represent people’s feelings, and also more importantly, to try to effect some changes.
And I’m very happy to say that things have changed. If people like us did not push this, we would not be seeing an inclusive growth strategy.
Bharati: Do you think enough credit has been given to people like you though?
Inderjit: I think that’s a weakness that our leaders need to overcome, that they seldom give credit. But I did not do this for credit. However, I think it’s useful to acknowledge, not just me, but many of the other MPs, whether they are from the PAP or Opposition, who may have had great ideas that were later on implemented. So I’ve noticed that over the years, when I speak in Parliament, many people tell me “Why waste your time?” But actually it’s not a waste of time. Ng Eng Hen, after everything else he’s said, he did say that “Whenever Inderjit made a speech, all our ministers stood up and listened.” So I want to say that they listened, both in Parliament and outside Parliament, because we have many discussions. They may argue their point, maybe quite vigorously, to try to destroy your point in the Parliamentary debate, but at the end of the day, they bring it back. Someone brings it back, and then looks at it, and sometime later, maybe a year or two, the policy changes do come.
I remember I crossed swords with Teo Chee Hean, when he was Education Minister, on the streaming policy. I spoke up very strongly against it, and he challenged me repeatedly. A few years later, the changes came – streaming at Primary 4, a hybrid method that I had suggested. Similarly, in many of the policies, many of the arguments, economic policies, many of these things that I argued about, I saw changes some years later. So it was worth the battle.
Bharati: Why do you think they were so reluctant to give credit?
Inderjit: I think it’s difficult for anyone who is in charge to give up credit for any improvements. That’s natural for any human being. I think my reason for why it would have been useful for the government and ministers to give credit to some of the MPs – not just me – but many other MPs over the years, particularly the PAP MPs who had many good suggestions over many years, is that giving credit to them would have shown that many of the improvements in government and policies were the result of PAP MPs suggesting it, and not because of opposition suggested, or put pressure on the government to change. I think over time it’s good for the public to know where the beginning of the change came from, and on the balance, I think people will see that many PAP MPs have disagreed with policies and also suggested improvements that later on became part of new policies.
Bharati: A lot has been said since the election about the PAP needing to be more humble and the Prime Minister himself has said it. So how confident are you that the stance they took towards people like you in Parliament will change?
Inderjit: I remember none other than Lee Kuan Yew once telling us that “you should speak your mind, and it’s the minister’s job to defend the policy and to explain things. We should not hold back.”
I’ve held on to that principle of not holding back and speaking my mind. Some of the ministers actually are willing to listen and not ridicule, but some of them still do. I think it is a message for them to be more humble, be willing to listen. I think if it’s a reasonable, constructive thing, even if it may not agree with your view, you must give due credit and some ministers do say that “If not now, then let us think about it.” I think that is a better approach than to use a sledgehammer. Having said that, not every minister is like that. Some are willing to listen, and don’t use the sledgehammer, but some do.
Bharati: Why did you join the PAP considering many of your views run contrary to theirs?
Inderjit: Many may not know that I have always had my strong views, and I do not hold back. Even before I entered politics. I remember one of the dialogue sessions when I was a party activist for a young PAP chairman at that time. There was a dialogue section with our current Prime Minister when he was just new to politics. I spoke and said that “Why would anyone join the PAP as an MP when he can’t vote with his conscience sometimes, when the party whip is not lifted, and I don’t agree with this”.
I was quite aggressive in my closed-door discussion with him. When I went for my first tea party, I criticised some of the policies. You would think that they wouldn’t want a person like that to join them, but they wanted.
Bharati: Sure, but my question is why did you want to join them, considering that you disagreed with them on so many things. Why not join an opposition party? Form one of your own? Why do you stay a PAP member?
Inderjit: If I look at the whole environment here – all the parties – the principles and the values of the PAP are not wrong. In fact, they are the best party I would say. I meet very good people, very good leaders also, so if you want to serve in politics, you want to join the best. So I think of all the parties, PAP is still the best. For many years, I’ve also had many occasions when my views, which may not be the same as the views of the government or some of the ministers, are taken seriously.
I had an occasion when Heng Swee Keat was a permanent secretary in MTI, heard my speeches in Parliament, called me up and said immediately, “I’m working on one policy and I want your views on that policy.” And he came over to see my office to meet me, and I discussed with him. There was another occasion, Richard Hu, as the Finance Minister, called me and said “You’ve got so many ideas, my ministry officers don’t have the same ideas, can you come and talk about some of your ideas with our ministry’s officials.” So he gathered all of his key people, and I spent a few hours discussing my ideas with them. To me, they may not have the same views as me, but my job was to internally make the changes to make them see my point of view and see the alternatives that could be good alternatives.
ON DIVERSITY WITHIN THE PAP
Bharati: So in your view, the PAP is a party capable of tolerating dissent? Most people think it isn’t.
Inderjit: Well, I stayed for 21 years. I’m still a party member. I’ve not seen them not tolerating me, so I think they are capable of tolerating dissent, not just this leadership but also in the past. Over the years, I have had no problems making my point in Parliament and speaking my mind. I would say that they are willing to embrace diversity, although it’ll be better if they’re willing to do more of it, get a more diverse group of people in the key leadership positions. I think that will do them good.
Bharati: Some might say that the fact that you were never in a Cabinet post implies that they are uncomfortable with diverse views. They might have accepted you as a PAP member and MP, merely tolerated you, but they didn’t promote you even though you had made good policy suggestions.
Inderjit: Well, I never showed interest. I think I was perfectly happy with the balance that I had, being involved in my own businesses. Whether a rejection of my disagreement on some policies was the reason that they did not choose me is not important, because I did not aim for it. I did want to have some influence in the way policies are shaped in some areas, and for that, I did debate very vigorously in Parliament and gave many suggestions for improvement. Of course it’s up to the Prime Minister to choose a team he wants in the Cabinet and how he wants to deal with them. If he tolerated me in Parliament, then he could have tolerated me in Cabinet if let’s say he’d offered. I think it was really a question of who he had to put in Cabinet and who was willing to do it. I know I never aimed for it.
Bharati: The Cabinet has been unveiled, and many people have noticed that the ones who have been appointed key Cabinet posts are really more of the same in terms of their backgrounds. What do you think?
Inderjit: I think this is one of our problems when we talk about diversity, it would have been better to have a mix of people holding Cabinet positions. The way the system works is like this: there is a civil service that formulates, that will help to put up most of the policy changes and ideas and so on. And they develop the initial policy papers.
The greatest debate and where change really happens is in Cabinet. And then in Parliament, we get the finished product, where we debate, give our views and then changes come a few years later if they willing to listen to us. So the real place where this debate takes place is in the Cabinet.
Now, if you have everyone on the same ‘mode’ in Cabinet, then I personally believe that the quality of the debate will not be good enough. I think it’s not a bad idea to have about 20 to 30 percent of people who are not from the same group in Parliament.
So I made this point after the 2011 election results to the Prime Minister. I wrote to him a note, and I had suggested that, he should seriously consider putting people of different backgrounds, not the same, and also people from the private sector. Some of them may be the grassroots type of MPs who could represent people’s view in Cabinet. That actually would then, would have given us a very high quality debate in the Cabinet and the result would have been better policies.
Bharati: You’ve also said that diversity can be better reflected if the party Whip is lifted more often. Why do you think the government seems unwilling to do these things?
Inderjit: I think like in any organisation, you want to have people in your team, in your management, that you can work with, that can work with you, that understands your system. I think that has been our biggest issue. Efficiency and speed has been more important than having a bit of messiness and diversity in views, and loss of efficiency in policy making. We move very fast on many things.
An example is the Population White Paper. Very few MPs were consulted on that before it came out. I think it would have been very useful for us to at least involve the MPs in a thorough discussion, and maybe a wider public participation before it came out into Parliament. And the reason was efficiency. They wanted to move fast. I think we must be willing to give up a bit of efficiency and accept a bit of messiness so that we can take in diverse views and debate things more, with more people.
ON DIVERSITY IN GOVERNMENT
Bharati: What about diversity within the civil service, not just in Cabinet. Considering that the government has been pushing ASPIRE, recognising people based on their performance and capabilities rather than just their academic qualifications, do you think people are still often offered positions in the civil service based chiefly on their academic prowess?
Inderjit: I think that has not changed. If you look at the admin service officers, they are still the scholars who are selected based, I would say, purely on academic results. If you don’t have that, you’re not even considered. So it’s still the same. I think, depending on the need for the job, you should look for qualifications that are alternatives to academic. In some areas, you may need real people who are academically strong. In other areas, you may not necessarily need those people, so I think, not to swing all to the other way, but I think you need to identify the type of jobs.
Bharati: In your interactions with those in the civil service, have you found that a lot of them still don’t understand the issues on the ground? That they are still not exercising political judgement in formulating policies?
Inderjit: They’re good in their own right. The scholars are smart. They’re capable of analysing well and formulating policies and so on, but it all has to start with understanding the real issues on the ground. I think if you look at what had happened in the run up to 2011, and then even up to the Population White Paper in 2013, the 10 years before that, there was an error of policies because they did not understand the issues on the ground. For example, housing. We were told all along it’s affordable, and it’s more than enough. Actually there was shortage of housing that needed Khaw Boon Wan, when he came in after 2011, to fix.
Similarly, population growth. That was terribly uncoordinated, resulted in a huge infrastructure shortage, whether it was transport, lack of hospital beds, even a lack of doctors. These obviously were policies that were formulated in silos and based on what they felt was right, but not actually what was happening on the ground.
In 2011, during our party conference, I was asked to speak, and I basically made this point that we need to inject more political judgement in policy making. My point was that ministers are the ones who will have to play that role. They cannot just take what civil servants suggest to them as final. They have to challenge the civil servants a lot more because ministers are also MPs, so they will have the feel of the ground.
ON THE OPPOSITION
Bharati: We’ve talked a lot about diversity within the Cabinet and the civil service, but what about diversity in terms of a larger and more robust opposition presence in Parliament? Obviously there is a school of thought that having a dominant party, even if that party is very capable, is unhealthy for a democracy. Democracy needs, necessarily needs, dissenting voices within Parliament in the form of a strong, capable opposition. How do you feel about that?
Inderjit: I think it’s not a bad idea to have some of opposition who are constructive and able to provide alternative views. I think if they have good people, then some of them could be the opposition and that could improve the quality of debate and even the quality of policies in the longer term. But having opposition for the sake of opposition is also not the right thing, and especially if the PAP – the dominant party – is able to change within, and to have challenges within the party to do the right things. This has been the case in most of the fifty years we have been independent. In most cases, the PAP has been able to change within. Realise, listen, and change. Therefore, there may not be a need for huge opposition to stifle the government.
The day the PAP starts becoming inefficient and starts doing the wrong things, I think is the day you will need a change, but that has not happened. We have had PAP admit some policy mistakes, some miscalculations resulting in the problems of infrastructure and so on in the past, but they also have made amends. But if the PAP keeps on making mistakes, then I think yes, more opposition. But if not, then why?
Bharati: However, during the election period, some had said that they felt the PAP only became responsive after the 2011 election and it was the larger opposition presence that made them more responsive and of course your party has denied this, saying that some of the changes had been in motion before 2011 and that the WP made no meaningful contribution to policies. You’ve said you agree with this, but you’ve also implied that the party has to remain humble and continue being responsive with or without an opposition in order to stay in power. Which aspects of the PAP leadership style would you say worked in the past, but are not going to work in the next few years?
Inderjit: I would summarise it as a “we know best” approach. It’s “we know best” and the civil servants and driving it. I think this is an aspect that must change, and I think that PM did mention that he wants more participation, more conversation to go on and hopefully all of that becomes input to better policies. Rather than in the past, all I needed to do was to have a dialogue section, to explain to you the policies. I think now we should go into, “I need your views to formulate better policies”.
Bharati: You say that a stronger opposition is only needed if the PAP keeps on making mistakes. The concern is that by the time the PAP gets to that stage – I’m not saying it definitely will, but let’s say it does – there may not be a capable opposition in existence in order to take over. There are perceptions that the playing field is not level in politics and more should be done to ensure a level playing field so that a capable opposition can develop.
Inderjit: In this election, we saw all seats contested. Every party had a chance. Even if we redraw the boundaries regularly, I think if the opposition, throughout five years, have been doing their job working the ground and speaking about alternatives that they think are better, getting noticed, it will help them when the elections come. Of course, every ruling party will try to do things that will be in its favour. Everyone does that in every country, but I think the situation is not that bad. The opposition actually can get themselves noticed, even before the elections.
Especially with social media these days, it’s easily happening. Many of them are putting up their views, giving alternative ideas and so on, and I think they just need to look serious, come up with serious ideas, really good alternatives that even the PAP could not think of, and I think they will get rewarded for it at the elections. I’ve learnt one thing in life, that when you are the underdog, you have to work doubly hard to make things work. So, instead of complaining, I think the opposition candidates should be working around these things and show themselves anyway. And if you work doubly hard, you look doubly good.
Bharati: Would it be in the interest of Singapore to have a PAP that is not so strong, so that alternative policies can be given a better airing?
Inderjit: I think, we are a small nation and I think it’s not unrealistic to feel that we are vulnerable. We are small and if let’s say we really get into trouble, we may not come back again.
Bharati: Some have said that kind of thinking smacks of paranoia.
Inderjit: I think we have to be paranoid about this. Only the paranoid survive. If the government becomes too weak, it could mean the future of the nation at stake.
Bharati: Not the government, but the PAP in particular, so that some political creativity and diversity can emerge in parliament and the possibility of someone else forming the government.
Inderjit: I want to say this. When Singapore was in trouble many years ago, there was a group of young men and women who came forward and formed the PAP. Because they did not agree with the government of that time.
And they were serious men and women who formed the PAP and then later on formed the government. So similarly, I’m quite confident that Singaporeans are very capable people. If the PAP is weak and is not capable of delivering, I’m quite sure that there will be a good group of people who will be willing and who are able to come forward to provide that alternative. We are not at that place yet, where the PAP is so weak that alternatives need to come out. I don’t think any of the current opposition has got that kind of composition that could be the alternative, but I’m quite confident that there will be enough people who will either join the PAP to strengthen it, or will come forward with an alternative that will strengthen the opposition.
Bharati: If you were in the opposition, what would you do to make meaningful headway?
Inderjit: I think check and balance alone is not enough. You have to be able to provide good alternatives, serious views that are actually well thought through that can be successful if implemented as a policy. I’m not saying that the Workers’ Party ideas were bad. They were not bad ideas, but I think not thought through deep enough. They did a good job in explaining what they wanted, but I think if you go deeper, and think yourself if let’s say I’m the government and I have to implement this, will it work for the nation? I think if they think about it, they will realise that not everything is possible.
MANAGING DIVERSITY
Bharati: You said in a previous interview that some elements of a liberal democracy that the opposition parties were espousing did not go down well with some Singaporeans you spoke to.
Inderjit: I’ve seen, particularly during these elections, Singaporeans looking at broader issues, particularly the liberal Western approach to democracy and they start to think twice, you know, “This is not how we want things to be done here in Singapore.” Some do. They want to have more freedom of speech, more freedom of the press, and many of those things, but at the same time they want to avoid many of the other things that they feel are not desirable for society. Particularly the religious organisations, and they are big groups. I think they are not ready for liberal policies in Singapore yet.
Bharati: What specifically do they take objection to, based on your interactions with them?
Inderjit: I think one of the things that has come out strongly is the LGBT issue, which I think many people have an issue with especially religious organisations. I saw that in play during this election as I went around, so I think this is an example and there will be others.
Bharati: What is your personal stance on this?
Inderjit: I see myself as a more conservative person. A gradual release and opening up is what I prefer as compared to a rapid change which will make a lot of people uncomfortable.
Bharati: On subjects of that nature – not just LGBT issues, to what extent do you think perhaps the government should be the one to set the tone for an acceptance of people who are different, who are in the minority in Singapore, but are Singaporeans nevertheless, instead of waiting for society to be “ready” so to speak, for a more inclusive society?
Inderjit: I think this is a fine balance that we have to find. The government can take the lead on many of the issues. I think over time they have been doing that, so we talk about housing for single mothers, parents. I think we have relaxed this somewhat with the recent allocation of rental flats and 2-room purchase flats for them. There is some amount of relaxation already, and so this means they are listening and are willing to take the lead, although generally, society at large may not accept some of these things. I think it’s a question of judgement right now – at what pace the government is willing to take the lead and change before society is ready.
Bharati: Let’s talk about the Population White Paper. You walked out of Parliament when the vote for this was taken, because you disagreed with it and the party Whip was not lifted during the vote. You opposed it in many ways saying that PR and citizenship are granted too easily. You opposed the influx of immigrants at the pace of the past. The immigration policy has been tightened since then, so has the granting of PR status. But the issue of National Service for the children of PRs still comes up, they still have the option of renouncing their PR status to avoid NS. You mentioned this in 2013. How do you feel about this now?
Inderjit: I think they should go to jail! Just like if my son skips NS, he’s going to go to jail. So for the PRs, whose children do not do NS, if they grew up here and benefited from Singapore’s system, they should be similarly treated.
Bharati: You’ve said that you’ll continue making your views known through other channels such as the media, but what do you miss about being an MP?
Inderjit: I spent a lot of time in my constituency, and I developed a very strong relationship with my grassroots leaders, with my branch activists, and also my residents. That’s kind of a family too that I’m leaving behind, so I miss that most, especially all the volunteers who have helped me. They were really a good group of people who supported me throughout my 21 years, and I miss them. These volunteers spend their time serving the community and helping me. I miss them the most.
Source: www.channelnewsasia.com
