Rilek1Corner

Tag: malay

  • Chee Soon Juan: Goh’s Folly – Commodification Of Public Housing

    Chee Soon Juan: Goh’s Folly – Commodification Of Public Housing

    IT IS SAID that a politician thinks of the next elections but it takes a real leader to think of the next generation.

    And so it is with Mr Goh Chok Tong who may, having bolstered the PAP’s grip in politics through his asset enhancement and HDB upgrading schemes, lay claim to being a brilliant politician but, through these same policies, demonstrated utter failure as a leader.

    In 1991, under pressure to deliver a good result to secure his mandate as the new prime minister after taking over from Lee Kuan Yew, Mr Goh introduced the asset enhancement programme which, for all intents and purposes, cajoled (or threatened, as some saw it) Singaporeans into voting for his party in return for enhancing the prices of their HDB flats.

    The plan worked brilliantly, securing for the prime minister and his party mates a healthy victory. But it also started the pernicious mentality among Singaporeans that one’s flat was a commodity whose price stood to appreciate markedly over a short span of time.

    As a consequence, few thought little of shelling out huge sums of money, mainly by using their retirement funds, to finance HDB purchases. The motivation was that one could monetise the asset and realise robust capital gains at a later stage.

    Such a trend had two unfortunate effects: The first was that using CPF savings to service HDB mortgages would leave many financially wanting in their retirement years.

    The second is that as prices rose, young entrants into the public housing market would find it prohibitive to start a home. As a result, many young couples put off having children as their finances come under pressure.

    The propaganda, pushed by a media that act more like cheerleaders than vehicles for thoughtful deliberation, compounded the public’s exuberance for asset enhancement. Duly stoked, homeowners devised ways of using their flats to turn a profit.

    Some have even resorted to buying older flats at high prices with the view to reaping the benefits of redevelopment through the Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS).

    (The SERS selects older blocks of flats for demolition and replaces them with new ones. Displaced occupants stand to gain from a fresh 99-year lease of their new flats and are, in some cases, compensated financially or given subsidised prices for their new flats.)

    Related article: SDP proposes Non-Open Market flats

    This prompted the National Development Minister to step in and point out that SERS, as the name suggests, is selective – extremely selective, in fact – of blocks earmarked for redevelopment; only four percent have come under the scheme since it was launched in 1995.

    In addition, the Minister reminded, when the 99-year lease is up, a flat would have to be returned to the state. In other words, it becomes worthless.

    How does this square with Mr Goh Chok Tong’s vaunted promise to enhance one’s asset in return for voting for the PAP?

    A cynical ploy

    It was the height of irresponsibility to make a promise that the government is ill-equipped to deliver. For one thing, property prices are not determined by fiat. Much of it relies on the state of the economy. With an increasing number of workers being retrenched (or if they remain employed, having their wages frozen) and the young finding it more difficult to find jobs, how are Singaporeans going to afford bigger and more expensive flats or, for that matter, even their first one? And if they can’t, how is value of HDB property going to go up?

    With the global economy showing little appetite for the kind of exploitative trade seen over the past few decades, Singapore’s economic fortunes have dimmed considerably. The inexorable march of automation also means that more and more Singaporeans will be out of jobs, replaced by robots. Add to these China’s determination to by-pass Singapore (a staunch US ally) as a trading centre in order to secure its own shipping interests, our economic future looks shaky.

    In the face of such uncertainty, how is the PAP going to make good on its asset enhancement promise? It was, to begin with, unrealistic to expect prices to appreciate indefinitely. Yet, Mr Goh and company chose to ignore the pitfalls in a cynical bid to buttress its political hegemony.

    The policy also has ramifications at the macro level. With a significant portion of income tied up in property, consumer spending and other forms of domestic investment are necessarily curtailed. Investments in higher education or to start-up businesses are also reduced. All these have serious implications for our economy as we move ahead.

    In the final analysis, housing – in particular public housing – should not be a tradeable commodity. It is our home in which we bring up our children, that roof over our heads when ill-winds blow. It should never have been turned into a commercial entity.

    ​Therein lies Goh Chok Tong’s ultimate folly.

     

    Source:www.cheesoonjuan.com

  • Contradictions On The Slippery Slope Towards The Reserved Elected Presidency

    Contradictions On The Slippery Slope Towards The Reserved Elected Presidency

    This is a summary of my thoughts that I shared at a Discussion Session with undergraduates from the University Scholars Program at Cinnamon College, NUS on 3 Apr 2017.

    I was asked to broadly comment on the following issues:

    1. Given the varying responses to the Reserved Presidency, how this will affect the unity of the Malay community.
    2. How this will affect the standing of the Malay community in Singapore’s political landscape.

    The announcement of the next Presidential Elections in Singapore being reserved for a Malay candidate has evoked mixed reactions from the Malay community in Singapore.

    There are 3 broad reactions to the notion of a Malay Reserved President.

    1. Disinterest. This is not so much driven by apathy, but a sense of resignation that the limited role of the Presidential will not have much impact on the Community, or that the outcome is a foregone conclusion (with the Government-supported candidate winning).  It did not help that Mdm Halimah Yacob has been referred to as “Madam President” in Parliament by Minister Chan Chun Sing (albeit by mistake).
    2. Agreement. The reactions from this group within the community stem from a belief that it is important for the Community to have a reference point as a beacon of hope for the community, and to also project the President as a symbol of multiculturalism in Singapore.  There are those who express an underlying defeatism – that the Community will not get a chance to have a Malay candidate through meritocratic process. An IPS survey to the effect that Singaporeans will vote along ethnic lines is thrown in to support this view. There are also those from the Community who exhibit opportunism – an attitude of “it’s there, so just grab the opportunity, and don’t be apologetic.”
    3. Disagreement. I belong to this group.

    What are the Objections?

    The Malay Community has never asked for a reserved Malay president in recent times. This was never raised as an issue by any Malay-Muslim Organization (MMO), any Malay Member of Parliament or any thought leader within the community.

    In fact, the announcement of a presidential race for Malays came as a complete surprise to most within the community.

    This announcement came as the Community grapples with are more fundamental problems that need fixing – gaps in educational attainment (relative to other communities in Singapore), lower socio-economic standing, over-representation in crimes/drugs, discrimination.

    A prevailing sentiment was that if there was indeed a commitment to uplift the Malay community, why not fix the various gaps and issues within the Community?  The Community would want to product a Malay presidential candidate can make the qualifying criteria and be elected in a national elections on his or her own footing.

    There is also strong perception that genesis for the Reserved Presidency was to exclude a certain Chinese candidate from qualifying.  Hence, the perception was that the Reserved Presidency was not borne out of a desire to promote the interests of the MMC. Consequently, those who hold that perception felt upset that the Malay community is used an instrument in this game.

    The Government has always said that meritocracy is sacrosanct. That was what defined Singapore and made us different. This mantra was oftentimes cited as a differentiating factor for Singapore in the wake of Singapore’s eviction from Malaysia. This call was made consistently, even long after Singapore’s independence.

    Interestingly and perhaps ironically, Madam Halimah Yacob herself, during her speech during a National Day Rally in 2012 mentioned the significance of meritocracy in Malay (obviously addressed to the Malay community):

    “Kita perlu beri sepenuh perhatian dan jangan jemu jemu bekerja keras demi kebaikan semua.

    Tuan-tuan dan Puan-puan, Saya yakin dibawah sistem meritokrasi, dan bermodalkan usaha gigih kita, masyarakat Melayu/Islam mampu mendaki tangga kejayaan yang jauh lebih tinggi.”

    English translation: “We have to give full attention and cannot shun hard work for the collective good.”

    “Ladies and Gentlemen, I am confident that under our system of meritocracy, and based on our hard work, the Malay/Muslim community can ascend the steps of success”

    In trying to address this anomaly, an argument had been made is that the principles of meritocracy is not sacrificed as a Malay candidate will need to meet the stringent qualifying criteria for President.

    However, meritocracy is not just about setting minimum qualifying standards for a candidate.  It is about picking the best person for the job.

    This was the argument made by the Establishment in the past against any ethnic-based affirmative action programs.

    But yet, we make exceptions to meritocracy where it appears to be expedient to do so.

    This gives rise to a slippery slope – where do you stop disapplying meritocracy?  Apart from the reserved Presidency, the Group Representation Constituency, which guarantees minority representation, is another instance of meritocracy being disapplied (though the evidence seems to point towards more minority representation in parliament before the GRC were introduced, but that is another matter).

    So where do you stop in disapplying meritocracy?

    • Should we have a reserved Prime Minister?
    • A reserved Deputy Prime Minister?
    • Reserved Ministers in “heavyweight” ministries (such as Finance, Defence, Trade and Industry, Foreign Affairs) ?
    • Reserved Permanent Secretaries?

    The argument – that the elected Presidency embodies the multicultural aspect of Singapore – must similarly apply to other roles above.

    It can be argued that it is important to have multicultural representation on senior policymaking roles, no?

    Lest I be misunderstood, I am not advocating reserved positions or ethnic-based affirmative action programs for these position.

    But by having a Malay reserved President, have we set a wrong precedent for Singapore?

    Another argument against the Reserved Presidency is the belief that contrary to the IPS survey, Singaporean voters will not be blinded by ethnic affiliations in voting.  Consider the fact that the GRC led by Tharman Shanmugaratnam had garnered the highest percentage of votes at the last General Elections.  Muralidharan Pillai, a first-time candidate, had defeated Dr Chee Soon Juan at the Bukit Batok By-Elections.  There is thus evidence that Singaporeans look beyond ethnic affiliations.

    There is yet another disconnect.  On the one hand, statements have been made to the effect that Singapore is not ready for a minority Prime Minister (even if polls done by research company Blackbox Research show that DPM Tharman, a minority, is seen as the most credible candidate for Prime Ministership).

    And so, in the context of the Prime Minister’s position, the assertion is that minorities are not ready to assume leadership of Singapore as a country.

    However, a diametrically-opposed position is taken for the Presidency – in that it is now important for Singapore to have a minority as the President.

    Why the contradictory stance?

    Crutch Mentality.  The other fear is that having a reserved presidency perpetuates the perception that the MMC will not succeed unless there is affirmative action.

    Will a Malay Reserved President therefore have the legitimacy and respect?

    Already, there is already resentment amongst quarters of the non-Malay Singaporean community.

    Also, if Singapore wants to be truly inclusive, why not reserve the Presidency for women? Or for people coming from lower socio-economic backgrounds?  True inclusivity must move beyond ethnicity.

     

    Source: https://nizamosaurus.wordpress.com

  • Ismail Kassim: Tudung Issue Is Also A Matter Of Human Rights

    Ismail Kassim: Tudung Issue Is Also A Matter Of Human Rights

    Yes, why not? Tudung is not a religious issue. When those who put on are barred from certain occupations it becomes a human right issue; the right of all to equal treatment before the law and the right of employment in all sectors without any discrimination.

    It is not just what issues are raised, but also the manner in which they are brought up. What is equally important is also how should Government should react when such issues are raised.

    Faisal brought it up with admirable restraint, but the reaction from the Minister was, to say the least, inconsistent with the spirit and norms of democracy. It bordered on arrogance and bullying.

    Like the Minister, you too picked on Faisal, the safest target, the most vulnerable.

    I am sure whatever he did in Parliament had the blessings of the Workers Party and its leaders.

    Why not blame the WP also for not distributing the work load in a way more consistent with the norms of our multiracial society.

     

    Source: Ismail Kassim

  • Why Have GRCs If Minority MPs Can’t Speak Up On Minority Issues?

    Why Have GRCs If Minority MPs Can’t Speak Up On Minority Issues?

    This week, when WP MP Muhammad Faisal spoke up against the ban on the wearing of tudung in certain occupations here, PAP Minister Masagos Zulkifli rebuked him for “subtly and frequently needling” the Malay community with this issue.

    Minister Masagos said that Parliament is not the the platform to discuss such issues. He further implied that MP Faisal is sowing discord and disrupting Singapore’s racial and religious harmony.

    According to the Election Dept, which comes directly under the purview of PM Lee, the GRC system was “established in 1988 to ensure that the minority racial communities in Singapore will always be represented in Parliament”.

    WP MP Faisal was the minority GRC candidate elected by Aljunied residents to ensure that their Malay community will be represented in Parliament.

    So, when MP Faisal is talking about issues related to the Malay community, how is he sowing discord? And why can’t he bring minority issues up in Parliament?

    How is he supposed to “represent” minority racial communities in Parliament? By keeping his mouth shut and not talking about any minority issues in Parliament?

    That being the case, why are we having GRCs in the first place?

     

    Source: www.theindependent.sg

  • In History Of Presidencies, Colour Blind Reality Of The Ordinary Singaporean Is The One Factual Highlight

    In History Of Presidencies, Colour Blind Reality Of The Ordinary Singaporean Is The One Factual Highlight

    A letter from Patrick Low on the Elected President.

    Dear Fellow Singaporeans

    Comes September 2017 we may be going to the polls to elect our 8th President reserved for the Malay race only. Notwithstanding the constitutionaI amendments passed in Parliament I am not convinced of the wisdom and logic of changing our Presidential system to ensure that a member of the minority must always have a chance to become President via rotation.

    As a Singaporean who lived through the time of our first President or the Yang di- Pertuan Negara appointed in 1959 in self governing Singapore to the 7th President elected in 2011 race was never an issue in my mind and in the minds of countless Singaporeans.
    He can be Chinese Malay Indian or Eurasian elected or appointed it did not make any difference. What matters most is the President must serve the people. If he is honest sincere and capable he will be able to unify all Singaporeans regardless of race language class and religion.

    As a 72 year old Singaporean it is my privilege to grow up colour blind even through the worst racial riots in 1951 1964 and 1965. I was a child of 6 when I first witnessed the horrors of the Maria Hertog riot from a cubicle window in Jalan Besar. Then came the 2nd and 3rd racial riot in 1964/65 when we were part of Malaysia. We were at the Cathay Cinema when racial riots broke out and we were told to go home.

    But none of these riots change our generation’s perception that in multiracial Singapore race should not matter and should never be allowed to matter certainly not in the choice of a President whether he is black white brown or yellow.

    It never occur to me that a Malay should not be the head of state in Chinese majority self governing Singapore in 1959. Neither did I have any reservation to a Eurasian President Dr. Benjamin Sheares a distinguished gynaecologist who served us well from 1971 to 1981.
    Then came our third President Mr. Devan Nair an Indian MP who came from the ranks of the PAP. He unfortunately had to leave office after 4.5 years as a result of personal health problem.

    Next came President Wee Kim Wee another appointive President who hailed from the Straits Time Press. He was a “baba” Chinese Singaporean who performed his role so well that he became known as the People’s President.

    Another well loved President was Mr. Ong Teng Cheong the first elected President in Singapore history. He was our Deputy Prime Minister before he took office but completed only one term owing to differences in perception of the President’s role as a guardian of our reserve.

    After him came the 2 term President S R Nathan a civil servant who was moderately popular with the people attending President’s Charity galas to raise funds for the people. Again race was not an issue even though the previous Indian President did not fare too well and had to leave office under a cloud.

    Now we are nearing the end of the term of Mr Tony Tan an endorsed elected Chinese PresIdent who was a former DPM in the PAP government.

    So all in all we have had 7 Presidents over 58 years. 1 Malay, 2 Indians, 1 Eurasian and 3 Chinese. Out of the seven 4 were appointed and 3 were elected. As far as the people are concerned it does not matter as long as they are men of integrity and perform the jobs well to serve the people.

    Without going into the merits and demerits of the government’s rationale for amending the Constitution to allow for a reserved Presidential Election for only members from the Malay race my main objection is that such a change violates the Singapore Constitution and undermines the daily National Pledge recited by all school children every morning that:

    “We the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion to build a democratic society based on justice and equality so as to achieve happiness prosperity and progress for our nation”.

    If we have any regards at all to the history of our Presidencies one fact that stands out is the colour blind reality of the ordinary Singaporean. There was never any perceived notion that the Presidency must be rotated by race to ensure fairness to the minority. All the friends acquaintances and strangers I meet on the streets and in the parks in the last one year invariably dismiss race as a factor in their reckoning of what makes a good President.

    The issue of the President holding the second key to the national reserve should also not be an issue for he is surrounded by the Council of Presidential Advisors whom he has to take advice from. So whether he is Malay Chinese Indian or others the key that he holds is a collective key held by a panel of advisors nominated by the government.

    As for the financial qualifications required of a Presidential candidate it is most unlikely that the government would be able to headhunt for one who would meet all the stringent requirements.
    In fact all our past Presidents never had the experience of running a $500 million company. Where then do they get the forte to disagree with the government on opening our national coffers.
    However in raising the bars so high the government turns what should be a level playing field into a pole vault pitch ruling out the possibility of sourcing for a few good men who can genuinely understand the plight of the ordinary people and work for their welfare.

    The office sadly is in danger of becoming the precinct of the rich and powerful.

    In this day and age when governments all over the world are beginning to lose the trust of the people it is incumbent on the PAP leadership not to erode that trust further by imposing a albatross around the people’s neck.

    Given the challenge from a former Presidential candidate Dr Tan Cheng Bok that the reckoning of the first elective President does not reside in Mr Wee Kim Wee’s term but rathet in Mr. Ong Teng Cheong’s it would be prudent for the government to pause before rushing to implement it’s Reserve Presidency – an area where angels may fear to tread.

    It would also be doing itself a huge favour to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of Singaporeans whether race is indeed a factor in the choice of our Head of State. Afterall what is the hurry when more haste produces less speed and further undermines the trust of the people in the midst of a economic recession and a very uncertain world.

    Patrick Low
    4th April 2017

     

    Source: Soh Lung Teo from Patrick Low