No By-election = Hougang Singaporeans not important?

Not having a timely by-election sends a negative message to Hougang residents

Author's note (19.2.12): This letter was published in Straits Times Forum ( Online) here

Dear Editor,

All of Singapore is acutely aware of the vacant seat in Hougang now that Mr. Yaw Shin Leong (formerly of WP) is no longer its elected MP. Although the law states that a by-election must be held when an MP has vacated his seat, it does not spell out when the Prime Minister must call the by-election.

However experts on constitutional law say that if no timeframe is stipulated, it should be interpreted as “ with all convenient speed” and SMU assistant law professor (Nominated MP) Eugene Tan, has quoted “three months” as a reasonable period.

Unfortunately on several occasions including two in 1986, single seats were left vacant for close to 2 years and by-elections were not held and replacement MP’s were elected only in the next general elections!

All of us understand that there are always important matters of state that require our politicians’ full attention. It will be the national   budget this week; the MRT inquiry in March or the Greek crisis and of course the US Presidential elections in November.

But how about Hougang’s residents?

Not to have a by-election in a timely manner or worse, not having an election till the next GE (possibly in 4 years’ time) would not just seem to disingenuously breach the spirit of the by-election act but will also signal to Hougang residents that their right to have an elected MP speak up for them in Parliament is unimportant. It is to take 23000 Singaporeans for granted!

We need assurance that a by-election for the vacant seat in Hougang SMC would be held at the soonest possible time after our very important budget.

Best wishes,

Dr Huang Shoou Chyuan

Woodlands "not in my backyard" syndrome and how politicians should overcome this together

Author's note: Edited letter printed in Voices ( Today newspaper 11.2.12 here)

Dear Editor,

Introduction

I refer to the negative reactions of some HDB residents when they found out that eldercare centres were slated to be built in the void decks of 2 blocks in Woodlands Street 83.( Click here)

Among reasons to support their petition to their MP included concern that the flats will drop in value and that it would be inauspicious when there are more deaths in the estate!

Ugly examples of “not in my backyard" syndrome

This troubling phenomenon is the often mentioned “not in my backyard” syndrome where Singaporeans will publicly welcome community amenities such as hospitals unless it is to be located in their community.

We saw this in Serangoon Gardens when the government wanted to build proper dormitories for foreign workers only to face vociferous protests from residents there.

These Singaporeans recognize that foreign workers are needed for our economy and that the older generation had made significant contributions in Singapore’s success, but nonetheless, prefer that these groups of people be kept out of sight, hidden somewhere else.

Politicians should discard partisanship to support the common good

Sound community initiatives such as the eldercare centres would risk being shelved due to the parochial reactions of some Woodlands resident unless politicians from both sides of the political divide openly support them.

These protesting residents often use the threat of their vote as a lever (like a child who tries to play one parent against the other) but if all major political parties openly state their support for such initiatives, such essential facilities for our elderly will not be discarded.  

Skeptics will say that politics in Singapore would never allow non-partisanship and may (with some justification) point to instances when sound policies such as the WP’s Sylvia Lim’s attempt at introducing “Happiness Index” was shot down by PAP MP’s in a very partisan manner. I also sadly recall Ex-MP Chiam See Tong’s suggestion for smaller classes for more effective schooling being dismembered and ignored for the very same reason ( partisanship).

I am an optimist and hope for a new political norm where policies and initiatives are supported or rejected by politicians on their merits alone. And nothing else.

Dr Huang Shoou Chyuan

Singaporeans do not accept politicians' revised pay - blame it on PAP and Gini

Dear Editor,

Introduction
I feel some discomfort to see the government metaphorically pulling its hairs trying to understand why Singaporeans are still unhappy despite its offer to reduce ministers’ salaries to what it thought was by a significant percentage.

Parliament’s acceptance of this new pay package has not gained traction with the typical Singaporean who lives in the HDB heartlands as despite these cuts, Singapore’s ministers are still the world’s highest paid politicians by a wide margin.

I will just suggest two factors that account for this disconnect- the first one being created by the People’s Action Party (PAP) and the second due to how our world is structured.

1.PAP’s inability to attract the talented to its cause

The PAP as a political movement is not attractive to any idealistic Singaporean who views public service as an honor ala the concept of “Noblesse oblige”. (David Marshall on Noblesse oblige)

“Noblesse oblige” literally means nobility as an obligation and points to benevolent, honorable behavior considered to be the responsibility of persons of high birth or rank. In our context, it means our ablest must feel the privilege to serve. In any group, the ablest automatically steps forward to lead. It is expected. Period.

Unless the group has become dysfunctional with little sense of identity.

Hence PAP’s problem (and its solution with high salaries) has now become Singapore’s problem. Other political parties such as the Worker’s Party have little difficulty attracting talents even before it became fashionable to be associated with non-PAP parties. 


Expecting Singaporeans to accept PAP's logic is like trying to put square pegs into round holes!

2. Gini coefficient and the unfair world.

Bill Gates said in a speech at a high school that the first of 11 things they will not learn in school is 
“Life is not fair- get used to it!” (Bill Gates link)

The Gini coefficient is named after Italian statistician Corrado Gini, and measures the income distribution across a country and often used as gauge of the income gap. (Gini coefficient link)

The United Nation Development Program published an unflattering report that ranked us second only to Hong Kong in terms of income inequality ( see link here ) .

No matter if we blame globalization or our open economy, the fact remains our poorest and our richest might as well be living on different planets.

Unfortunately, the Committee to Review Ministerial Salaries has referenced the top 1000 highest paid Singaporeans (albeit with some discount) for our leaders’ salaries.

Hence the remunerations, even after the review, remain unfathomable to many middle and lower income Singaporeans. Why does any Singaporean require so much before he can be coerced to serve his fellow citizens?

A colleague has very succinctly summarized our political reality-

“The government’s moral authority is inversely proportional to the ministers’ salaries.”

Conclusion:
The dice has been cast, and the PAP dominated parliament has accepted the review, we should just leave it to the political parties to win over our hearts and minds.

Dr Huang Shoou Chyuan