I once followed Parliament sessions in Singapore quite closely. I am genuinely interested to know what the Singapore government is doing for the people, the ones it says it is representing.
After a while, I lost interest. I thought perhaps I’m not patient enough to listen to everything. The sessions were honestly, boring. The format isn’t exactly a debate like the one in the UK. I couldn’t shake the feeling that the sessions are more like an information session for the ruling government to inform the rest of the nation
what it has decided to do. [Rephrased] what it thinks is in the best interest of the nation and us, the people. That, I can read from the papers the next day. Plus the papers provide further analysis and opinions. So I stopped watching the post 10pm news telecast of Parliament session highlights.
Over time, I didn’t see or hear anything that seemed to change my impression. The “lively debate” surrounding the two casinos. What a public reaction – for once, SIngaporeans spoke up. But wait, as the furor died down, I realised none of what was said seemed to have made any difference to the final outcome. It seemed it was a done deal afterall. Life goes on and now we can be proud we have two casinos thriving in approx. 700 km2 of land area.
Then there is the perennial ‘debate’ about our ministers’ salaries. I am not sure how this policy came to pass. I am under the impression that this matter while hotly debated and even soundly criticised by Sylvia Lim (Chairman of Workers’ Party in Singapore in this video), the policy was never an option. It was a done deal.
This is an interesting article that compares Singaporean ministers’ salaries to leaders around the world – I have not verified the information and probably wouldn’t. If what is reported is accurate, I am shocked. How can our ministers, who supposedly represent the common people, empathise with what is going on on the ground, when they live in such lofty skies? Our PM earns more than Obama in a year (base salary only).
Then there is the 6 million population target. Where did that come from??? Who decided Singapore needs 6 million people? Assuming that indeed is the magic number for our little country, what was the planning done to absorb that? We are NOW over congested – our roads, our trains, our buses. Sky high cost of living. Young couples having to wait an average 3 years for a home to call their own, that is, provided they can afford it.
LTA is compensating for wrongful estimates in number of cars and COEs needed. Now we are paying the price of it. Take the public transport they say. Transport Minister, with all due respect, have you ever tried taking the MRT during peak hour yourself? Have you ever done it, without informing the civil servants of an impending visit?
HDB is still boasting that it is doing all the right things to ensure Singaporeans have a roof over their heads, just be patient. The BTO scheme is at its most aggressive ever, it says. Yet there are reports ever so often that a project is only a go if it meets the minimum subscription rate. If it doesn’t, sorry for those who did put in a bid, you have to wait for the economic numbers to make sense before you get a sniff of your future home. As the name suggest, built to order (BTO). You forgot the fine print – only build when there is minimum order. Perhaps they should change the name to BTMO??
Public service goods should be exactly that, PUBLIC SERVICE goods. Sure there is a cost to these goods. The role of the government is to ensure taxpayers’ monies are used to benefit the people, the country, not wasted on nonsensical things and spent carelessly. The HDB is using taxpayers’ funds to build these homes. Yes they are subsidized (by who again?). They are not free; we still pay for them. (BTW, the fact the HDB flats are on a 99 year lease means we are really renting them from the government, not real ownership per se.) LTA, HDB and Singapore Power are all making money. These goods – public transport, public housing and power – are all money-making enterprises. Why aren’t social goods being treated as they are supposed to be?
My sister shared with me a story recently about a friend who went to a government hospital due to severe stomach pains. Before she was allowed to see a doctor, she was told to pay up first. No payment, no doctor. Oh what about the latest episode where a hospital told a patient the queue is 3 mths for subsidised healthcare as opposed to 3 minutes if you opt for private?
As someone so aptly summed it up: Singapore is a great place to live in if you have the financial means.
I found recent remarks by the new Workers’ Party candidate Chen Shao Mao a breath of fresh air and poignant (see end of article). Finally someone is asking the right questions and zooming in on the matters that will make a difference to all of us.
If only the government will listen for a change, instead of busy defending its policies and deflecting mistakes. Look, I am a huge fan of the Singapore government. I am a Malaysian who is born and bred here and lived in Singapore all my life. I love Singapore. It is my home and believe it or not, I consider it home and my country.
Without a doubt, Singapore wouldn’t be where it is today, and everyone who lives in this city state will not have the lifestyle options we have, if not for the ruling government. (The quality of life is a different story and left to another post.)
I am not a supporter of the opposition parties. As a PR I don’t even get to vote. I wrote this not as an act of defiance towards the PAP. I am not interested in the opposition’s proposition that the opposition will provide an alternative government to keep the ruling government in check. That remains to be seen.
I support anyone who can contribute to my country and I think this job is big enough, important enough to include everyone with the ability and passion to serve this country, regardless of the party. If it is rubbish, it is rubbish. If it makes sense, can we give it a chance?
Is it too much to ask the government to LISTEN to the people and for once, accept with humility that it has made mistakes and accept that it is not the only one capable of leading Singapore to the next level?
Several senior members of the ruling party have clearly said that this election is critical to the long term success of Singapore. Watershed. Indeed.
My humble opinion is that the government has to demonstrate that it is truly – not just paying lip service to – paying attention to what the people are saying. Instead of crushing and stifling the opposition and get all wrapped up in looking good politically, LISTEN to the people.
Singaporeans are not stupid (the government made sure of that – we have one of the highest literacy rates in the world.) We have been quietly watching and learning. We are more passionate about this country than some people give us credit for sometimes. We can think, if the government stops for a second to assume we can’t. If the opposition is without substance and you are truly serving the people, you will see the polls reflecting that understanding.
Excerpt from Interview with Chen Shao Mao, first appeared in Lianhe Zaobao and subsequently translted into English.
A dominant party is efficient in executing policies, but what effects has this brought about? What are our most important policies In recent years? Yes, it is the foreign labour policy. To let in foreign labour is to spur the economy, without concern about productivity that we’ve previously talked about. This policy has created a crude economic growth, and what is the price? It is the jobs, education, housing, living space, transportation of Singaporeans. These are all part of the price that we’ve paid.
Before the implementation of this policy, what form of discussion have we had? You have heard that Singapore plans to house a population of 6.5 million in the future, but not everybody is sure that this is indeed our policy. Such an important policy, are people consulted for a discussion? Didn’t they know that this will have a great impact on the lives on Singaporeans? To me, this discussion is insufficient. Even if having multiple parties in the Parliament affects efficiency, but to have a debate in the Parliament for huge policy decisions, is this inefficiency a fair price to pay? I think it’s worth it.