Catherine Lim: My best hope lies in the young Singaporeans

The Online Citizen (source)

The following is the full transcript of Dr Catherine Lim’s acceptance speech on being awarded the ‘Lifetime Achievement Award’ by the Online Citizen on the occasion of its 5th Anniversary, on 13 January 2012.

Following the shock results of the General Election of 2011 (GE 2011) there was, as expected, a flurry of commentaries analyzing the causes. But the analyses left out what could turn out to be the most interesting and intriguing one of all. Thus while they examined, with forensic thoroughness, the people’s anger against the unpopular PAP policies related to foreign workers and the ministerial salaries, while they scrutinized the resentment against PAP arrogance, they failed to mention what I have rather facetiously called PAP Fatigue , that is, an overwhelming sense of weariness with a ruling party that has been around for far too long.

The weariness would appear to be part of human nature, a natural disposition to react negatively to an imposed environment of oppressive sameness and uniformity, the reaction being all the stronger when there is no prospect of change.

For nearly 50 years, Singaporeans had never known any form of government except the one-party rule of the PAP, had never been exposed to any but the authoritarian and peremptory PAP style, had never experienced democracy except the carefully edited PAP version.

Some years ago, on the occasion of the fortieth anniversary of the party’s rule, then Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew declared that since the PAP government was the best, it should be around for the next 40 years. If he had his wish, it would mean that Singaporeans would have to live permanently with PAP fatigue.

Yet into the twenty first century, conditions in Singapore were already ripe for political change. For the society was arguably among the most technologically advanced and globally connected in the world, and the most aggressively capitalistic. This meant that Singaporeans were well exposed to other forms of government, to examples of properly functioning, two-way government-people relationships, examples of robust civic societies.

Why then, for nearly half a century, did the Singapore electorate choose to endure PAP Fatigue?

The reason must lie in the special compact between the PAP government and the people, which though only implicit, was nevertheless strong and binding. According to this compact, the government would provide the people with the highest possible level of material prosperity, political stability and social orderliness , and the people, in return, would show full co-operation and support for whatever decisions the government made and whatever policies it chose to enforce.

So under a rule far longer than any seen in other countries, during which the PAP exerted control in virtually every domain of life, the fatigue factor, because it was not allowed free expression, simply settled into a general docility and conformity of thinking, feeling and behaving. If it dared rouse itself into political agitation, it was quickly smacked down by that fearful instrument of control, the Internal Security Act or ISA, by which activists could be detained without trial. And there was also that equally feared instrument, the defamation suit by which political critics could be financially crippled for life.

Through it all, the people must have constantly reminded themselves that it was still a very worthwhile trade-off, for they were enjoying a degree of prosperity unmatched in the region. In any case, even if they wanted an alternative government, there was simply no prospect of any, since the existing opposition parties were just so pitifully small, weak and helpless. Taking into account all these factors, Singaporeans must have come to the conclusion that their lot, though somewhat complicated, was by no means a bad one.

Hence, it did not matter that outsiders were making unflattering observations of us, for instance, that Singaporeans had become a nation of unquestioning and compliant subjects, incapable of acting on their own, with no interests beyond bread-and-butter concerns and the famous 5Cs of social success. Singaporean students might perform brilliantly in exams but were woefully lacking in independent thinking, creative expression and social skills. The Singapore media and other public institutions were predictably, boringly pro-Establishment. Most of all, there was no identifiable Singapore culture beyond the ubiquitous food centres and shopping malls.

If in a general election, PAP Fatigue managed to surface in little pockets of angry voting, it made no difference whatsoever to the general state of affairs. This was true of all the previous 11 elections; after each one, the antagonism duly subsided, the people went back to their accustomed acquiescence and the government to its accustomed strongman methods. It was business as usual.

So what happened in the 12th election to make GE 2011 so different as to be called a defining election, a watershed, after which things could never be the same ? Had the fatigue factor finally reached the stage of ‘enough is enough’, and struck back as a retaliatory force that took by surprise even the supremely confident PAP? Had it managed to link up with the other causes of voter discontent, to form one huge, super anti-PAP force that actually did the unimaginable, that is, compel the PAP leaders, led by the Prime Minister himself, to offer public apologies in an amazing display of contrition, humility and earnestness never seen before?

And did this extraordinary outpouring imply something that was just too good to be true: that in future the government would think twice before ramming through one unpopular policy after another, such as the deplorable one of the ministerial salaries?

Indeed, it may be said that what the people accomplished in GE 2011 was nothing less than historic – putting an end to fifty years of political apathy, fifty years of a losing compact with the government.

At this stage of my deliberations, a very pertinent question may be asked: Is this a true picture of GE 2011 and its outcomes? Or it is somewhat exaggerated, overly optimistic?

We’ll see. Going further in the deliberations, I am now going to suggest that the main reason for the obvious effectiveness of the fatigue factor was the concurrence of two special happenings, unique to GE 2011, which interacted to produce an effect that neither on its own could have achieved.

The first was the emergence of a group of voters who, by virtue of a natural restlessness and impatience were the most likely group to turn PAP Fatigue into an active fighting force . These were the young voters, in their twenties and thirties, many of them first-time voters, with the natural tendency of youth to get easily bored and start clamouring for change.

Thus even the mere fact of the PAP’s very long presence in the political scene would have been enough for the fatigue factor to kick in and make a difference in votes. But what seriously aggravated this fact was the perception of the young voters, accompanied by strong resentment, that the PAP government had become totally indifferent to their needs and aspirations.

They were, in the typical language of youth, ‘pissed off’ by certain well-known attributes of the PAP which ,though generally detestable, were especially repugnant to the young.

These included the overbearing, intolerant and patronizing approach that was so stifling to their vibrant and creative energies; the elitism, superiority and highhandedness that offended their youthful ideals of equality and fair play; the inflexibility, stiffness, and formality that were at odds with the casual, spontaneous, friendly manner that they favoured.

If additionally, this group shared the overall voter perception that the PAP, despite its claims of high standards of leadership, was becoming too lax, complacent and arrogant , and losing touch with the common people, then the hostility would have been that much greater.

The second mentioned special happening in GE 2011 was the emergence of a force which provided exactly the hope that these disaffected young voters needed, exactly the channel for their blocked and frustrated energies. This was the amazingly revitalized Workers’ Party, the clear star of the opposition.

It quickly came to represent for them all that the PAP lacked: a simple, casual, unassuming style that dispensed with pomp and ceremony ( there was a post-election picture in the newspapers showing the party chairman in a Hawaiian shirt riding a bicycle and another one of him conferring with his new constituents in a Spartan setting of basic furniture set up in an HDB void deck); a bold, creative flair for new ideas, as seen in the party slogan of ‘A First World Parliament’ that clearly resonated with these young voters ; a calm dignity throughout the hurly burly of the hustings, which must have impressed them deeply because it contrasted so sharply with the shocking display of vindictive anger by a senior PAP member.

Perhaps the most attractive attribute of the Workers’ Party for these young Singaporeans was something that the PAP had routinely and contemptuously dismissed as irrelevant in leadership, but which the young, in their media-saturated world, prize highly – charisma. A newcomer in the Workers’Party, was quickly seen to embody this quality: he had not only the dazzling credentials of a top academic, entrepreneur and CEO, but also the glamorous good looks of a star ( A female newspaper columnist wrote gushingly about his choice of a certain style of shirt, showing him in three pictures smiling like a true celebrity basking in the adulation of fans)

In short, these young voters saw the PAP as old , dull and stale, belonging to the past, and the Worker’s Party as new, bright and hip, pointing to the future.

The prominence of this group of voters on the electoral stage may irritate some PAP sympathisers and provoke this question: Why bother about them when they do not, after all, comprise the majority, and, in any case, will soon outgrow the immaturity of youth?

The conclusion which the PAP leaders have probably already reached is this : this group of voters cannot be ignored; on the contrary, they must be singled out for special attention and wooing, for numerous compelling reasons.

Firstly, they will be active voters for a long time to come, and must therefore be quickly weaned from their present hostility. Secondly, they are the young citizens, in an ageing population, whom the government will have to depend on for the country’s future development, and who must therefore not feel alienated enough to want to leave the country and emigrate. Thirdly, they belong to the increasingly powerful world of the Internet and the social media, which no government in the world can afford to ignore. Fourthly, because in GE 2011, they clearly had the support of a large number of older voters who could easily identify with them, they might be setting a dangerous precedent – starting a trend of strong generational unity within the anti-PAP camp that could only work to its advantage.

Lastly, and perhaps most significantly, the exuberance, boldness and defiance of the young voters, operating in the new media world of instant, dazzling communication, could be infectious enough to have an unstoppable snowball effect, engulfing other groups of voters, including even those normally sympathetic towards the PAP. In fact, something like this could already have happened, as may be inferred by the 40% vote against the PAP in the General Election swelling to an alarming 65% vote against the PAP-endorsed candidate in the Presidential Election some months later.

In short, possibly for the first time in Singapore’s electoral history, a small core of young voters had provided the sparks that started a fire that could set off a whole conflagration if not stopped.
Thus it was not surprising that the PAP quickly swung into a massive campaign of damage control, repair and rebuilding. The Prime Minister announced, almost immediately after GE 2011, that the PAP would ‘re-invent’ itself in order to win back the people’s trust. The term is a much stronger one than ‘self-renewal’, used to describe an on-going exercise in which young potential leaders are systematically recruited and trained to replace the older leaders, to prevent complacency and carelessness from ever setting in.

‘Re-invention’ implies much more than self-renewal – it means a complete overhaul, a transformation, a born-again PAP that has an entirely new compact with the people. As if to convince the people of his utter sincerity, the Prime Minister used another, even more impressive-sounding word : he told the nation that from now onwards, he and his team would be ‘servant-leaders’. ( I remember gasping at the use of the word) ‘Servant-leaders’ – the ultimate oxymoron that must have made many people sit up and ask: did I hear right? Never had a prime minister so earnestly pledged so drastic a change of leadership style , so soon after an election.

At this point, I have to come in as a skeptic, and show the other side of the GE 2011 picture, which I fear is not at all pretty. I believe that the PAP is incapable of re-inventing itself, because true re-invention would require the opening up of one crucial area, that the PAP seems determined to keep under control at all cost. This is the area of political liberties – open debate and criticism, independence of the media, public assemblies and street demonstrations for a cause,etc., all of which are taken for granted in practising democracies.

Over the years, the government had reluctantly made small concessions, such as allowing a Speakers’ Corner, relaxing some censorship laws, tweaking a rule here, tinkering with another there, never going beyond these small, meager offerings that Singaporeans had no choice but to accept because there was nothing better.

In this regard, PAP Fatigue has an additional meaning for political critics like myself– a frustrating, exhausting weariness with the PAP government, not because it has been around too long, but because during this long period of rule, it has not seen fit to nurture the people politically, and has failed to provide the proper environment for political education and growth. This right of the people is so basic and fundamental that no amount of material wealth can compensate for its denial or loss.

Still, assuming that the Prime Minister is sincere in his pledge and that he understands the mood of high expectancy in what may be described as Singapore’s version of the Arab Spring, the following questions are pertinent. Just what can the PAP government do to win the people’s trust , and once and for all, establish a proper basis for a working government-people relationship? To match the watershed expectations generated by GE 2011, what watershed act of re-invention is it prepared to undertake? With special reference to the by now obvious threat of the PAP Fatigue phenomenon, what can the government do to prevent it from ever appearing again, not only among the young voters, but the entire Singapore electorate?

Some months ago, a group of 16 ex-political detainees jointly petitioned the government to set up a commission of inquiry to look into the allegations against them. The petition was promptly dismissed; the government later issued a terse statement to say that since all the proper procedures about the matter had already been taken, no further action was needed.

I was acutely disappointed. For I thought that the PAP had missed a fantastic opportunity to prove to the people that it had the honesty and courage to face up to its past excesses and take responsibility for them, or, as the case might be, that it had the strength and dignity to stand by the principles on which it had acted. Either way, it would have won the respect and regard of the people. Moreover, it had also missed the chance to show Singaporeans what is surely the noblest quality to come out of any conflict – the grace and magnanimity to reach out to former foes in reconciliation and new amity.

Indeed, a Commission of Inquiry with its urgency of purpose, potency of authority and high public visibility, would have been the ideal combination of powerful symbolism on the one hand and political will in real action, on the other, to bring about the event needed to signal the dawn of a new era. In one fell stroke, it would have banished that long-standing affective divide between the government and the people, an emotional estrangement that neither side wants. In the practical language of Singaporeans, it would have been a win-win situation for all – the government, the ex-detainees, the people, the entire society, even future generations. If only. If only.

The unfortunate truth is that the PAP remains adamant on keeping a tight lid on political and civic liberties. While it takes a generous and liberal stance in the opening up of all other areas – education, the arts, entertainment, lifestyle – it has built a firewall around the political domain. While it has readily agreed to commissions of inquiry for national mishaps such as the Nicoll Highway collapse, the escape of top terrorist Mas Selamat, and more recently, the major breakdowns in the MRT, it draws a line at matters that might engulf the whole nation in political questioning and debate, for which it has the strongest antipathy.

Indeed, so averse is the PAP to the subject that, as many of us may have noticed, it even shies away from using words such as ‘democracy’, ‘human rights,’ ‘political reform’. And yet these are matters at the core of a government-people relationship if it is to be based on transparency, respect and trust.

I will maintain that as long as there is no real political opening up ( two weeks ago, in his New Year message, the Prime Minister spoke about a ‘political transition’ but I don’t think he can ever bring himself to talk about ‘a political opening up’, or ‘political reform’) and as long as political dissidents feel they may be punished in one way or another, for instance, by new and subtle uses of the ISA which the government has made clear it has no intention of repealing, the so-called transformation after GE 2011 ,will, at best, be a partial one only, and at worst, a travesty of all the noble promises that had been made. What a pity. Once again, the ‘if only’ sigh of wistful longing!

If only, to their very substantial material achievements , the PAP could add the non-material, but equally important achievement of enabling the society to move steadily towards political liberty! I am not talking about the disruptive, wild excesses of democracy seen in some countries; I am talking about a sensible, responsible exercise of democratic rights that surely Singaporeans are capable of, at this stage in the development of our society.

The skeptic in me wants so much to be an optimist. I am terrified that if nothing comes out of GE 20111, nothing ever will, out of any future election. It will be business as usual, in the most hideously fatalistic sense of the word.

My best hope lies in the young Singaporeans I have been so enthusiastically talking about, those young voters who, in GE 2011, converted the fatigue factor into a voice that the PAP government was forced to listen to. Over the years, as they continue to be exposed to the outside world, as they become more discerning, more critical, more engaged , I hope that they will continue to use PAP Fatigue as a tool for change, always constructively and wisely, always with the well-being of the society in mind.

Most of all, they must persevere in nudging forward ,respectfully but relentlessly, an exasperatingly resistant PAP government that prefers, if at all, to take such painfully slow, such painfully small steps along the path of political reform. Reform there must be. For only then can Singapore come into its own, only then can it claim to be a successful society in every sense of the word, and take a proud place among other societies in the world.

Uniquely Singapore: Honest greed of the PAP Government

Getting to know the graceless Singapore senior minister of state

The honest and open greed of the PAP cabinet is well expressed by the inaptly named Grace Fu (graceful), a Singapore senior minister of state:

When I made the decision to join politics in 2006, pay was not a key factor. Loss of privacy, public scrutiny on myself and my family and loss of personal time were. The disruption to my career was also an important consideration. I had some ground to believe that my family would not suffer a drastic change in the standard of living even though I experienced a drop in my income. So it is with this recent pay cut. If the balance is tilted further in the future, it will make it harder for any one considering political office.

                                                                               ----------  Grace Fu (background: here)

#############  Postscript ###################

"If the pay is not competitive, then it's just another obstacle to people who have got something valuable to add to Singapore,” Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said on January 17, 2012 in a speech at Parliament to discuss ministerial pay.

"Grace Fu was completely right on this point. She got flamed online but she was honest to point this out," he added.  (source)

So it's now official: Grace Fu's sentiment is exactly that of the entire overpaid and smug ("We are the top talent in the nation") PAP cabinet.

###########################################

Says Molly Meek (here):

Fu’s [and PAP's] assumption  is probably beyond the grasp of lower life forms, but it is quite simple: the people who are suitable for political office and hence are considering it are the people who earn significantly more than what a minister earns.

As such, if the pay gets any lower, their quality of life can be adversely affected if they decide to join politics. It is unreasonable for us to expect anyone to become a beggar just to serve the people.

On the other hand, those of us who actually earn significantly less than what a minister earns and do not find it difficult to accept the pathetic ministerial pay package are not in a position to consider joining politics because our low pay reflects our lack of talent and competence.

Remember, Singapore is a meritocratic society and the highest earners are the most talented people. If we have less talented people governing Singapore, Orchard Road will flood, the trains will stop moving and there will be insufficient foreign talents in Singapore. In other words, Singapore will be destroyed.

*******************************

When I made the decision to be mrbrown in 1997, pay was not a key factor. Kena lim kopi by ISD [being interrogated by the Internal Security Department], kena sue until tng kor [being sued until pantless, i.e. being sued-the-pants-off] by ministers and having my newspaper column suspended were. The disruption to my computer gaming time was also an important consideration. I had some ground to believe that my family would not suffer a drastic change in the standard of living but we did have to sell the car and now I ride a bicycle. I fear if the balance is tilted further in the future, I will fall off my bicycle."
                              
 

The Graceless mocked.

****************************************

Mr Wang says (here):

My blog post is entitled "Grace Fu Should Consider Resignation". Sounds sensationalist, doesn't it? But it isn't really. (I'm not that kind of blogger, lah). Let me just explain my thinking.

It goes like this - if any minister is really very unhappy with his or her pay, then he or she can always quit. It's not like they are being forced to be ministers.

Unhappy employees don't perform well - we know that from our own experiences in working life. It is better for the company if they quit. It is better for themselves too, for they can go elsewhere and find another job that is more satisfying for them.

Why would we expect things to be any different for our ministers? If they are not happy with their pay, they won't perform well. They should just quit and get a more lucrative job elsewhere (if they can, of course). After they resign as ministers, Singapore can replace them with new ministers who care less about the money, and care more about serving the nation.

So I say this to all the ministers - if you're not happy with your pay, please quit. Now, rather than five years later. Do yourself a favour, and do the country a favour. Just get out.


*************************************************
Highest-Paid Asian Leaders

Darren Connell and Ansuya Harjani, Thursday 5 January 2012 (source)

Multi-billion dollar corruption in India and a whopping 36 percent cut in the salary for Singapore's Prime Minister have once again raised the question: how much should politicians be paid?

We've tallied up a list of Asia Pacific's highest paid politicians based on figures from a number of publicly available sources including The Economist.

Some of Asia's fastest growing and largest economies, such as India and China, have the lowest salaries for their leaders.

India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for example takes in just $36,200 per year, according to the AFP.


8. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, President of Indonesia

Annual Salary: $124,000

President Yudhoyono, the leader behind Indonesia's newfound status as Asia's "economic golden child", pulls in $124,000 a year.

This sum amounts to over 25 times the country's GDP per capita, according to The Economist. The leader is working on narrowing the wealth gap in the country by raising the salary of civil servants by 10 percent in 2011.

The former army general is credited with initiating a crackdown on corruption.



7. Lee Myung-bak, President of South Korea

Annual Salary: $162,000

Keeping tensions under control on the Korea peninsula is no easy task.

Lee Myung-bak's annual salary which is set to rise to $162,000 this year, according to the Chosun Ilbo newspaper, from $156,000 in 2011, puts him at 7th place amongst Asia's top paid politicians.

However, Mr. Lee clearly isn't in the job for the money. Shortly after he was elected president, the former CEO of Hyundai Construction & Engineering pledged to donate his full salary to the underprivileged during his five-year term.

He was said to be the richest presidential candidate in South Korea's last election, with personal wealth exceeding 35.3 billion won or $31 million.



6. Ma Ying-jeou, President of Taiwan

Annual Salary: $184,000

Taiwan's President Ma Ying-jeou rakes in a salary of $184,000 per year.

The Hong Kong-born, U.S.-educated lawyer has played an instrumental role in improving cross-strait relations.

Ma has raised the country's permit quota for Chinese tourists, eased restrictions on Taiwanese investment in China and approved measures to open Taiwan's equity markets to mainland investors.



5. John Key, Prime Minister of New Zealand

Annual Salary: $310,000

Fifth on the list is the Prime Minister of New Zealand, John Key.

He takes home an annual salary of around $310,000, according to the Wall Street Journal. Impressive for some, but probably not for Mr Key.

Prior to politics, the Kiwi PM amassed a personal fortune of around $40 million, working as a foreign exchange trader with Merrill Lynch, where he earned as much as $2.25 million per annum.

He is now New Zealand's wealthiest Member of Parliament and one of the region's wealthiest leaders.



4. Yoshihiko Noda, Prime Minister of Japan

Annual Salary: $316,000

Japan's Yoshihiko Noda makes an annual salary of $316,000, according to The Asahi Shimbun newspaper. If you add in the regional allowance of 18 percent, he makes around $384,000 per year.

The rising strength of the Japanese yen has helped boost his earnings in dollar terms.

To put the number into perspective though, it's a mere fraction of the $10.7 million earned by the CEO of Nissan in 2010.

Still, with 6 prime ministers in 5 years, the Japanese leader might not be expecting to be on that salary for very long.



3. Julia Gillard, Prime Minister of Australia

Annual Salary: $495,000

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard just got a significant 31 percent pay hike, taking her salary to $355,000 per year.

The Prime Minister however may have reason to cry poor because shadow ministers are getting pay hikes of 64 percent, according to the Sydney Morning Herald.

But with retirement perks including a fully staffed office, unlimited free first class travel and a permanent driver for the rest of her life, the Prime Minister might not complain just now.



2. Donald Tsang, Chief Executive, Hong Kong

Annual Salary: $550,000

The salary of the Chief Executive of Hong Kong would probably be causing a few eyes to roll in Beijing.

Donald Tsang earns around $550,000 a year, according to Reuters. That's roughly 30 times the size of the $18,000 salary earned by Chinese President Hu Jintao.

But the perks of the job haven't come easily for Mr Tsang. He's been working in Hong Kong's public sector since 1967 and some might say no amount of money would be enough to compensate for that.



1. Lee Hsien Loong, Prime Minister, Singapore

Annual Salary: $1.65 million

The Prime Minister of Singapore just took a salary cut of a whopping 36 percent, but he still makes a basic salary of $1.65 million (S$2.2 million).

That makes him far and away the highest paid politician anywhere in the world.

His salary is still 4 times the salary of President Barack Obama, who reportedly makes around $400,000 a year.

But it's not just the Prime Minister in Singapore earning big bucks. The Singapore President, who just had his salary cut by 51 percent, will make $1.2 million a year and new ministers will get salaries of $840,000 after the pay cut.

On Ministerial and Civil Service Pay - April 2007 - Denise Phua

by Denise Phua Lay Peng on Sunday, 22 May 2011 at 22:41 (source)




Strange how life turns out. This was my parliamentary speech on Ministeral and Civil Service Pay on 9 April 2007.....

Sir, pay is a very personal issue. In all my years in human resource and leadership work, I have never met anyone who told me their pay is enough, whether they belong to the lowest or the highest-income strata.

When asked once, "How much money is enough money?" John D. Rockefeller, one of the wealthiest men in U.S. history replied, "Just a little bit more!"

That is why management philosopher, Charles Handy, wrote about the ‘Doctrine of Enough’ in his book, ‘The Hungry Spirit’. He recommended that each of us need to find our own personal level of ‘enough’ so we can be liberated to pursue our dreams and purpose without being chained to our appetites.

Sir I wish to make 3 key points today. (1) I believe the spirit of serving and giving is still alive in Singapore. (2) We need to be careful not to leave behind political and civil service offices that combine excessive levels of Power and Money. (3) If Government wishes to benchmark public servants with the Private Sector, then there are some principles around Compensation Practices which should be adopted, to simulate more closely private sector norms.

First Sir, why I believe the desire to serve is still alive in Singapore.

This week is a very special week for me. 2 fellow volunteers with me, Linda Kho (a Managing Director of a training consulting firm) and Ng Sock Kian (a Vice President in a bank) decided to take the plunge, turned their backs on the private sector to work full-time in the non-profit special needs community. They join another ex-Goldman Sachs HR director, Goh Boon Keng. All 3 took pay cuts from half to two-thirds of their pay to serve in a cause they believe in. I share their names, not to put a badge of honour on them, but to illustrate this point.

Minister Mentor is right in many things about Singapore. But his opinion that the real world of Singapore does not surface leaders who are willing to make sacrifices to do something they believe in, is a tad too pessimistic. In fact, I know of a number of people who have tasted corporate success and are willing to rise above their perks and power suits and move on to serve in the non-profit sector. Not all of them have left and some are still looking for an inspiring vision and team to lend their talents to. I have served with many volunteers who not only give of their time but their money.

The spirit to serve without asking for much in return is still alive in Singapore and I hope we will never do things to quench it. Many of us still admire the courageous political heroes who took on Singapore’s British colonial masters then, to create a nation of our own.

Next, Sir, I would like to touch on Power and Money – the potently addictive motivators behind many human behaviour. And to caution this House that we need to be careful not to leave behind political and civil service offices that combine excessive levels of Power and Money.

Now, I know the general argument is this: If we don't pay leaders high enough, we will not be able to attract the right people. I ask the House to consider this contrarian view. I say that ‘If we do not balance and we concentrate too much Power and Money in top public offices, we might NOT attract the right people. On the contrary, we might attract the wrong people.’

Sir, public office holders and top civil servants wield the most power in our country. This power to swing national policies and even power of king-making does not carry a price tag that is easily written and is a very significant component of the position.

Besides power, money is the other top motivator behind many people. Put together, power and money can be potently addictive. As responsible leaders, we must be careful not to leave behind a structure that combines power and monetary rewards to such high levels that incumbents are so handcuffed by this lethal combination that they find it hard to let go. And worse, we create an office that potential candidates are so attracted to that they may go for broke just to get there, whether they are suitable or not. This potentially can do more harm than good to Singapore – something that does not augur well for our country.

My next point, Sir, on public versus private sector.

Working in the Public Sector is not exactly the same as working in the Private Sector; and I don’t mean state-owned enterprises. Ex-permanent secretary Mr Ngiam Tong Dow was yesterday quoted in this House on how he did not have to lose sleep over the bottom line when he was serving in the civil service.

One of my fellow volunteers in the Enabling MasterPlan for Disabled and a Managing Director of a foreign bank told me that his job ‘can disappear tomorrow’ if he does not perform or if there is a corporate re-organisation.

When I was working in a local conglomerate and involved in company-turnaround projects, I witnessed first hand the high drop-out rates of top executives-turned-entrepreuneurs who could not stomach the tough work of producing consistent enough profit levels that qualify them for public listing.

Many Singaporeans know the painful journeys that successful techno-preneurs like Sim Wong Hoo (Creative Technologies), Olivia Lum (Hyflux) and Wong Ngit Liong (Venture Manufacturing) went through before they finally got their millions. Hence, it is the general perception of many Singaporeans that the degree of job security in the Singapore public service is relatively high and working there is not exactly working in volatile Wall Street.

Sir, not all highly paid CEOs of legal firms or banks are top candidate choices to be ministers or top civil servants. By the same token, not all top political and civil service leaders may excel in the private sector. So I do agree that those precious few who are able to thrive in both public and private sectors are Singapore’s crown jewels and are worth millions of dollars.

Even so, I think once that special leader crosses over to serve in the public office, it is futile for him to keep looking over his shoulders to yearn for what he could have made. Alan Greenspan, economist and former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman, who spent almost 20 years serving 4 Presidents, was reported to have accepted an annual pay of only US$180,000/-. When he finally did retire in 2006, he still had a fruitful career due to his influence and knowledge. He donated free service to the UK Treasury and is now also a sought-after speaker with a price tag of US$100k per talk, something I have no problem with. Alan Greenspan is a good illustration of a respected and skilled leader who is highly capable of working in the private sector but chose to serve his country below his market value.

And finally, Sir, if Government wishes to pay and benchmark public servants against Private Sector pay instead of other governments, then it should simulate the work environment to as close as that in the Private Sector. In addition, start adopting some principles around Compensation Practices that resemble more closely the private sector.

In this regard, I propose 5 Compensation Practices for consideration:

Practice 1. Set up an Independent Senior Salaries Review Body comprising independent representatives from various key sectors in Singapore.

The principle of not writing one’s own paycheck is very key in addressing public disquiet on this issue. The UK Senior Salaries Review Body which proposes political and civil service pay for instance, comprises senior executives from private sector, HR and finance consultancy, academia and so forth.

Public perception of the body’s independence is just as critical as the body’s real independence. In the corporate sector, there is already an uproar over how some CEOs influence their boards to write themselves excessive pay checks, even to the extent of being paid hefty sums upon exit due to poor performance. A 2005 Study on ‘CEO Skill and Excessive Pay’ by professors from Stanford, Wharton School and the New York University concluded that particularly in big stable firms, a high salary does not necessarily mean that a CEO is more competent.

Practice 2. Establish a Line of Sight that shows clearly the link between Pay and Performance of political and civil service leaders.

Make Key Performance Indicators transparent so the people of Singapore know how the leaders have contributed to PM’s vision of an inclusive and vibrant Singapore in which no one is left behind.

Do not simply use one global helicopter KPI like the size of Singapore’s GDP as the basis for performance-based components like bonus. How does the Health Minister, for instance, see his ministry’s performance linked directly to the GDP?

Compensation best practice dictates that there be a clear line of sight between one’s pay packet and direct performance. In the case of public servants, performance-based pay can tie in to at least 3 tiers - (a) country performance, not only economic; (b) each ministry’s performance; and (c) at individual’s performance.

Surely performance indicators like customers’ feedback to major public services; no. of jobs created for local Singaporeans; percentage of Singaporeans in the lowest income bracket; no. of Singaporeans who chose to migrate etc are all KPIs that can be incorporated in the balanced scorecard of our top leaders.

Practice 3. Adopt a more commonly acceptable Salary Benchmarking formula.

In the private sector, it is rare to see the use of the current salary benchmarking formula which targets only a very small number of top wage earners. I guess one key questionable underlying assumption of the current formula is that 100% of all political office holders and every Perm Sec and Administrative Officer will surely end up as the top wage earners in Singapore. Most firms I know set their target competitive rates at either the 50th, the 75th percentile of target employee categories in selected companies and industries, but never at such a small number of top wage earners.

Practice 4. Adopt a Broader-Band Pay Range for each position to cater to appropriate salary levels for incumbents ranging from those with entry-level skills to those critical-skills experts or long-term outstanding performers. Hence, using $1.2m as a midpoint for a minister’s pay and a min-to-max spread of 60%, the minimum pay for a entry-level minister can be $840,000 (30% below mid-point); a mature performer gets $1.2m and a consistent top-performer gets close to $1.56m (or 30% above mid-point).

Practice 5. Cultivate more lasting and non-monetary Motivators to usher in and retain good people to join the public sector. Simply throwing money at a problem does not solve it. There is no quick-fix solution to talent attraction and retention and there are numerous best practices in this field. Many employers, though, find it hard to walk the talk.

In a March 2007 Harvard Business Review article, ‘What It Means to Work Here’, the authors lament at the HR equivalent of keeping up with the Joneses. Authors said that in their quest to find and retain top talent, organizations often to try to match competitors’ salary offers and training opportunities. They forget that people will become long-term deeply engaged employees only if their work experience is what they expect it to be; and they are intrigued and excited by a vision they find inspiring; a leader they want to follow and work roles that match their passion and talent.

Sir, may I even suggest that for the sake of Singapore, we should release the 32-year-olds who after serving their bonds, may want to respond to a different drumbeat or simply to expose themselves to a different work environment whilst they are still young. If they stay on because they are handcuffed by a super pay scale or their pension, it is a lose-lose situation for them and the government.

In conclusion, Sir, the issue of pay is a sensitive one. Someone earning $1,000/- can never fathom another who is earning $10,000/-. A person earning $10,000/- may never understand how another who is earning $100,000/- a month feels it is not sufficient.

For someone like MM who will be remembered by all of us as the father of Singapore, how does one even find a price tag big enough for his contribution?

What is enough? We may never agree.

But let me end off with the writing of Charles Handy who said this: “The philosophy of ‘enough’ cannot be imposed on a society. It is a matter of norms, not law. But norms are set by the elite, whose example sets the fashion. What the top people do today, the middle level imitates tomorrow, and the bottom aspires to, some day.”

The people who follow us are watching us. Our young people are watching us. So is the People Sector where many are professionals who volunteered their service and money unconditionally all these years.

Sir, I urge our leaders to give some more thought on what is a reasonable ‘enough’ for top leaders’ salaries whilst considering the 5 compensation practices I proposed.

At the same time, I urge that together, members of this House will make it a priority to ensure that everyone in Singapore has a real chance of also being able to reach their personal level of ‘enough’.

Chia Thye Poh, the world's second longest serving prisoner of conscience

Chia Thye Poh (l) and Lim Chin Siong (r) (source)

Chia Thye Poh (source)

Being honoured on 18 December 2011 in Kuala Lumpur:

Chia Thye Poh's first public appearance since his detention without trial in 1966 

(see end of this post for details)

Chia speaks on 18 December 2011

 

(source: Wikipedia)

Chia Thye Poh (谢太宝, born 1941) was the longest-serving political prisoner in the history of Singapore, and the world's second longest serving prisoner of conscience.

Detained under the Internal Security Act of Singapore for allegedly conducting pro-communist activities against the government, he was imprisoned for 23 years without charge or trial and subsequently placed under conditions of house arrest for another nine years — in which he was first confined to the island of Sentosa and then subject to restrictions on his place of abode, employment, travel, and exercise of political rights.

Prior to his detention, he had been a teacher, a physics lecturer, a socialist political activist and a member of the Parliament of Singapore. Subsequent to it, he has been a doctoral student and an interpreter.

He traveled to Germany in 1997, and to the Netherlands at least as recently as 2000. The supervision of his PhD thesis in development economics was completed in 2006.

****************************

(source)

The following essay, published in Malaysiakini, was written by a UK returnee, Ang Hiok Gai.

Spirit of Asia's Mandela

Ang Hiok Gai
Oct 14-15, 2000

"The world's second longest serving prisoner of conscience" is a title
that no one wants to be honoured with. Yet, it goes to show the
unrelenting spirit of Singaporean Chia Thye Poh.

Chia, a willowy and soft-spoken man of disarming politeness, is hardly
the sort one imagines as a fiery revolutionary. Yet, he possesses
qualities that left his jailers looking ridiculous, in despair and
even envious. He is a man of principle with an unbreakable spirit of
upholding truth, peace, justice and democracy.

Chia finally obtained his freedom on Nov 27, 1998, after 32 years of
unjust detention and cruel restrictions. He spent more than 22 years
in jail, mostly in solitary confinement. He was later exiled to
Singapore's Sentosa Island for about three years. He was the island's
only resident living in a one-room guardhouse.

The rest of the years, he was allowed to visit his parent's home on
Singapore's main island. Nevertheless, he continued to be subject to
restriction orders, curtailing his freedom of expression, association
and movement.

I was attracted by the idea of visiting The Hague, the Netherlands,
when my long-standing friend mentioned I could meet Chia - a man I
came to know of while studying at the University of Manchester.

It was the student society that educated me about the ISA (Internal
Security Act) - an inhumane and cruel weapon that has been used for
decades by both the Singaporean and Malaysian ruling elite to silence,
stifle and wipe out their political opponents and dissidents. In no
time, I was drawn into campaigning for the release of all prisoners of
conscience, including Chia, under both Singapore's and Malaysia's ISA.

The campaign underlined the principle that no one should be detained
without trial, irrespective of their political, religious or
ideological beliefs. Everyone has the right to a fair trial. I share
this view.

My friend invited Chia to his house for lunch. We picked him up at
Central Station. It was my first time meeting Chia. He was very
approachable. We introduced ourselves and began chatting in the car.

Freedom snatched at 25

Chia has been longing for a just and democratic society since his
student days. He read Physics in Nanyang University. After graduation,
he worked for a short time as a secondary teacher. He then joined the
university as a graduate assistant. His ambition then was to travel
abroad to read for his Master's degree in physics.

In 1963, just before the general election was to be held, Lee Kuan Yew
ordered a mass arrest of political activists. It was designed to
prevent opposition leaders from taking part in the elections. At that
juncture, Chia came forward to replace one of the detained candidates.
He was subsequently elected a member of parliament on a Barisan
Sosialis (Socialist Front) ticket.

Chia was detained on Oct 28, 1966 for protesting against the PAP
(People's Action Party) government. He and a number of other MPs
staged a boycott of parliament over the issue of Singapore's secession
from Malaysia in 1965. This crucial issue was never discussed in the
Singaporean parliament. Nor were Singaporeans given the right to voice
their opinion or decide the issue through a referendum.

In addition, he was among the peace campaigners calling for an end to
the heavy American bombing of Indo-China. Because of his anti-PAP and
anti-war activities, his freedom was cruelly snatched away by Lee Kuan
Yew and the PAP government, both of whom have long held little respect
for democracy and human rights.

'My spirit steeled'

The Singapore government never gave any explanation for Chia's
detention for almost two decades. Only in 1985 did the government
allege that he was a member of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM).
The government offered to release him if he agreed to give a public
undertaking "disowning the CPM's use of force and terror".

Chia flatly rejected the offer. It would have been against his
conscience to admit to something utterly untrue. He insisted that if
the authorities had any evidence against him, then they should charge
him in court and accord him an open and fair trial.

The authoritarian PAP regime tried very hard to break Chia's spirit
and to extract a confession from him. Though he was not physically
assaulted, he was subjected to intense mental and psychological
torture.

They first put him in solitary confinement, transferring him from one
prison cell to another. They even incarcerated him in what was called
the "dark cell". It was totally dark and quiet, leaving him without
any knowledge of night or day. To intimidate him, he was told that
prisoners held in the dark cell would go insane in just a few days.

On one of his first nights in the cell, he could hear someone in the
next cell violently kicking the cell door as if s/he had gone insane.
He was also subjected to day-long interrogations in a freezing cold
room and was deprived of reading material for a long period of time.

To sustain himself through such brutal incarceration, Chia engaged in
dialogue with himself. He told himself that what he did was right and
for the good of the people. If he were to allow himself go insane,
then his life would be wasted. He taught himself to think positively.
He constantly reminded himself of the less fortunate and the disabled
who were living in worse conditions.

There was also a Chinese poem faintly scribbled on the prison wall by
a previous prisoner that gave further encouragement and commitment to
Chia. It read:

Ten years behind bars
Never too late
Thousands of ordeals
My spirit steeled

When they failed to break his spirit, they resorted to pressuring his
aged father into persuading him to give up. Instead of succumbing,
Chia scolded the security agents for taking advantage of an old man.

Then they tried to tempt him into submission by driving him through
Singapore, showing off the prosperity the city-state had achieved.
They taunted him to sign "his confession paper" so that he could be
part of the exciting new life that was Singapore. Otherwise, they told
him, he would rot in jail.

Still they were unable to break his spirit.

Released at 57

Exiled to Sentosa Island in 1989, he was made to pay rent for the
one-room guardhouse he stayed in, on the pretext that he was a "free"
man. He was also made to purchase and prepare his own food. Because he
had no money, he was offered a job as assistant curator of Sentosa
Fort. He turned down the offer.

As a Grade Two civil servant, he knew he would have been barred from
talking to the media without official approval. Instead, he
successfully negotiated a position as a freelance translator for the
Sentosa Development Corporation.

In 1997, Chia was allowed to accept a fellowship from the German
government for politically persecuted persons. He spent a year in
Germany studying democratic politics and German. However, he remained
barred from making political statements, addressing meetings, joining
any organisation, taking part in political activities or associating
with other former political detainees.

The PAP government was under constant international criticism and
pressure as long as Chia was unjustifiably incarcerated and
restricted. Failing to break his spirit, the PAP government
reluctantly eased the restrictions on him. Eventually they gave up and
succumbed to the international call for his unconditional release.

As soon as the restrictions were lifted, he issued a stern press
statement condemning the ISA and called for its repeal. Being a victim
of the notorious ISA, he is fully aware of how such a law can be used
to trample human dignity and strike fear into the hearts and minds of
people.

Contrary to some people's belief in Asian values, Chia maintains that
the ISA is incompatible with these values. After all, the ISA is a
creation of Western colonialists who used it to suppress the struggle
for independence.

He also told the officer who notified him of the lifting of his
restriction orders that he was still interested in politics. If in
detention Chia did not break, in freedom Chia refused to be cowed. He
refused to kowtow to the authoritarian PAP government.

Chia has paid dearly for his commitment to truth, and his belief in
justice and democratic principles. When he was detained, he was only
25 years old. By the time he was freed unconditionally, he was 57.
They had virtually taken away the best part of his life without even
laying any charges against him, let alone giving him a trial in court.

As a consequence of his 23-year imprisonment, he is in poor health.
His eyesight is impaired from many years spent in the dark cell. His
lung problems recur from the same time. He has also undergone a
prostate operation and has a weak bladder. And yet, though failing in
health and haunted by nightmarish memories, he is determined to
rebuild his life. He is currently pursuing a Master's degree in
development studies at the Institute of Social Studies in The Hague.

'One day, we'll all get there'

At The Hague, Chia and I chatted over lunch. My friend's wife cooked
us some delicious Indian dishes. Chia and I both dug into the food
with relish and delighted in the hospitality of our hosts. I also
noticed that Chia was very fond of my friend's three children, in
particular the youngest one, Avinesh, who is barely three years old.
He has missed a lot in life.

And yet, he harbours no personal grudge against anybody, including Lee
Kuan Yew, despite their cruelty to him. He sees his struggle as not
against individuals but against unjust policies and an unjust system.

"This is not about a personal battle. The struggle for democracy is
much more than personal battles. I don't feel bitter towards anyone.
Democracy is not about violence. They can jail me, but how are they
going to jail democracy? One day, I'll get there - we'll all get
there," he told me.

Keeping constant faith with his innocence, he proclaimed that he would
not choose otherwise if he had to do it all over again. Deep down in
his heart, he knows he cannot betray his conscience. He would rather
sacrifice his life honourably for a just cause than to confess to a
falsehood.

In pursuit of prosperity, the PAP regime has managed to cow a large
section of Singaporeans into not valuing democracy and human rights.
Today, few people in Singapore seem to care about Chia and what has
happened to him. He is virtually unknown to young Singaporeans and
those who do know him are too indifferent or too timid to say
anything.

Nevertheless, outside Singapore, Chia is remembered and looked up to
by many as an excellent example of the struggle for justice and
democracy in Southeast Asia. He is a simple and humble man who
possesses a great spirit. And those who long for reformasi will
emulate his spirit. Political scientist Andrew Aeria has aptly
described Chia as "a shining icon to the struggle for human rights and
democracy".

***********************************

Dr Chia Thye Poh

by Teo Soh Lung on Thursday, 15 December 2011 at 13:16 (source)

On Sunday, 18 December 2011, Dr Chia Thye Poh, 70, will receive a very special award, the Lim Lian Geok Spirit Award in recognition of his courage, integrity and belief in democracy. The ceremony will take place in Kuala Lumpur.[1]

Chia was elected a member of the Singapore Legislative Assembly for the constituency of Jurong on 21 September 1963. He was only 22 years old and was one of 13 successful Barisan Sosialis candidates in that general election. Ong Eng Guan of the United People’s Party was the 14th opposition member in the Assembly. The PAP had 37 seats with Lee Kuan Yew as the prime minister. Chia was also a member of the Federal Parliament when Singapore was part of Malaysia.

Prior to Chia's election to the Assembly, frequent arrests under the Internal Security Act (ISA) had almost wiped out the entire leadership of the opposition. In Operation Cold Store (2 February 1963), more than 120 people were arrested. This was followed by arrests every year and two major swoops in September 1963 and October 1963 (Operation Pecah). Even before the first session of the Assembly was convened, three Barisan members of the Assembly, namely Loh Miaw Gong, Lee Tee Tong and S T Bani were arrested and imprisoned under the ISA. Two other members, Chan Sun Wing and Wong Soon Fong escaped arrests. When they subsequently wrote to the Speaker of the House enquiring if they could have his assurance that they would not be arrested if they returned to Singapore, the Speaker would not guarantee their safety. They thus remained outside Singapore till today. The number of Barisan members in the house was dramatically reduced to eight.

During the campaign for the general election in September 1963, the issue of independence through merger with Malaya was simultaneously canvassed. A wash-out referendum conducted by the ruling P.A.P. resulted in Singapore joining Malaysia on grossly unfair and unjust terms. It also resulted in confrontation with Indonesia which feared a strongly armed neighbour.

When the house sat on 9 December 1963 to debate on the address of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara’s speech, young Chia was the first opposition speaker to take the floor, moving a motion to add a note of regret to the address :

“; but this Assembly regrets that the Government in helping to impose Malaysia on the people has caused great difficulties and hardships to them in Singapore and urges the Government to take immediate steps to persuade the Central Government to get rid of foreign interference, negotiate with the Indonesian Government, and resolve all existing differences to our mutual benefit, and so help to bring stability, peace and prosperity to South-East Asia.”

Chia gave his speech in Mandarin and was exceedingly eloquent. He spoke on a wide range of issues. He opposed violence and was appalled at the millions contributed by Singapore to Malaysia for the expansion of the armed forces. He said in the Assembly on 9 December 1963 :

“… let me first remind the House that the financial arrangements under the Malaysia Agreement have literally robbed Singapore of a huge chunk of its revenue. We pay the Federation Government $117 million outright. In addition, we pay for developments of Federal departments in Singapore ($9.5 million) as well as the annually recurrent expenditure of State-cum-Federal departments ($15 million approximately).

If we add the $30 million so called loan to the Borneo territories, then the sum given away by Singapore to the Federation comes to about $170 million! $170 million of our money given away! If this money were truly used for construction and development, at least we would be consoled by the fact that our money was put to good use. But it is clear that most of our money will not be spent on construction and development, but on the expansion of armed forces and for the suppression of the national liberation struggle in Borneo! This is not the way how our money should be spent. Expenditure on armed expansion will only benefit the big arms industries in the United Kingdom and the U.S.A. Our Party had repeatedly warned against this during the debate on the Malaysia Agreement! Now all can see that what the Barisan has all along said is 100 per cent correct. The P.A.P. must be condemned for having signed away all this money of the people of Singapore! …”

On how to deal with the Indonesian confrontation, he was firmly of the view that Singapore should take steps to make peace. He said:

“… The interests of the people demand that we prevent the present friction from developing further into open conflict and war with Indonesia. Only peace will being happiness and prosperity to the people. So let all of us in Singapore make our full contribution to the defence of peace in the region…”

In numerous speeches in the Assembly, Chia spoke about the unjust and unfair manner in which the PAP called the general election. He protested against the PAP’s use of the ISA against Barisan members, candidates and trade unionists and torture inflicted on detainees.

He held his ground against older and seasoned ministers like Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Keng Swee, S Rajaratnam, Ong Pang Boon and Toh Chin Chye. When Rajaratnam stood up once to interrupt his speech, he was not intimidated. He refused to give way and remained standing. The Speaker had to tell Rajaratnam to back off as Chia was not giving way.

Chia’s clear mathematical mind, his agility and ability to work out figures and summarised them in simple percentages must have terrified lawyers like Lee Kuan Yew and E W Barker. He understood the intimidating methods used by the P.A.P. at that time. He was clear that the ruling party then was not achieving independence for Singapore when it decided to join Malaysia. He said:

“We in the Barisan have always fought against colonialism and imperialism, and the P.A.P. attempts to deceive the people about having achieved independence (by reading a proclamation on 31st August) will not be able to prevent them from continuing the anti-colonial and anti-imperialist struggle.

We in the Barisan have consistently fought for the basic rights and interests of the people. We fight for the workers, farmers, intellectuals, national businessmen. We shall do our best to safeguard their interests, and we shall continue to struggle for justice, equality, democracy, peace and freedom for the people.

The P.A.P. always uses the Communist bogey to frighten and intimidate the people. And indeed because of its control of the State propaganda apparatus, it has to a certain extent succeeded. But however the P.A.P. may care to play on the theme of the Communist bogey, with the hope of isolating the Barisan and gaining support for itself, it cannot cover up the fact that “poverty in the midst of plenty and unemployment in the face of affluence” are urgent problems which have to be faced, tackled and resolved. Labelling the Barisan pro-Communist simply because we want to help solve these basic problems, cannot deceive the people for any length of time. P.A.P. lies might deceive some of the people all the time, and all the people some of the time. But they cannot deceive all the people all the time. P.A.P. lies will all be exposed . Truth will out and truth will triumph.”

Chia and the Barisan Sosialis were subsequently proven right for opposing merger on the terms agreed to by the P.A.P. Singapore was asked to leave Malaysia in August 1965.

It may have been the brilliance of Chia that in order to avoid debates with him, the house rarely sat. In 1964, the house met solely for the debate on the annual budget. But it could also be the P.A.P. style of ruling – that decisions be taken without debates since they had an overwhelming majority in the house. The house was thus mainly used to debate the annual budget and to enact laws.

It was probably out of frustration about the lack of opportunity to debate on important issues in the house that led Chia or the Barisan to submit a letter to the Speaker on 8 October 1966. The material part as quoted in Hansard (col. 342 of 26 October 1966) read :

“… the Party” (i.e. the Barisan Sosialis) “has decided that all Barisan ‘MPs’ will resign their ‘Parliamentary’ seats as from today. …”

The letter was signed by Chia but not the rest of the other eight Barisan members. Whether that letter constituted a resignation of Chia is debateable. The Speaker rightly refused to accept the resignation of the eight until personal letters of resignation were received subsequently. He however accepted the resignation of Chia on 18 October 1966, the same day as a letter of resignation signed by Lee Tee Tong was received by the Speaker. (Col. 344 of 26 October 1966). Why 18 October 1966 and not 8 October 1966 (the date of receipt by the Speaker) is also a mystery.

Tragically, on 29 October 1966, Chia was arrested under the ISA and imprisoned without trial for 26 years. Ironically, towards the latter part of his imprisonment, the P.A.P. insisted that Chia renounce violence. He refused since he had never advocated violence. It was clear from his speeches in the Legislative Assembly that he is a man of peace and did not believe in arms and violence. For his principle, Chia lost 26 years of the prime of his life and was subjected to severe restrictions for another 6 years. He left Singapore to pursue a Master and then a doctorate degree from the Institute of Social Studies in The Hague after restrictions on his freedom to travel were lifted.

A true hero of Singapore, I salute Dr Chia for his courage, integrity and sacrifice for Singaporeans. When he graduated from Nanyang University at the age of 20 and embarked on a teaching career, the world was so bright for him and his family. Effectively trilingual, he is proficient in English, Malay and Chinese. But for cruelty of the P.A.P., Chia would have made enormous contributions to our country and the region.

I heartily congratulate Dr Chia on his receiving the Lim Lian Geok Spiritual Award.

[1] The award ceremony will be held at the Confucian Private Secondary School, Lorong Hang Jebat, 50150, Kuala Lumpur on 18 October 2011 at 10 a.m.

*******************************************

Award for Asia’s ‘forgotten’ man

The Malay Mail, December 19, 2011(source)

Chia Thye Poh may be forgiven for thinking that after 33 years in confinement, people from both ends of the Causeway have relegated him to the annals of history.

On the evidence of the reception he received at the Confucian Private Secondary School in Lorong Hang Jebat here yesterday, the 70-year-old is still fondly remembered, at least by the 400 people attending an award presentation.

Chia is Asia's longestserving political prisoner, detained under Singapore's Internal Security Act (ISA) from 1966 to 1998, with the last nine years under house arrest on Sentosa Island.

He was detained after being suspected to be an ally of the Malayan Communist Party (MCP) and viewed as posing a terrorism threat to the republic.

Yesterday, the former Jurong MP, between 1963 and 1965, was awarded the Lim Lian Geok (LLG) Spirit Award at the school's function hall.

Chia largely spoke on the influence the former Nanyang University had on him and how its spirit would "live on".

"I remember when the then governor of Singapore, Sir William Goode, wanted to come to the university's launch in 1956, his motorcade was delayed by more than two hours because of the immense traffic of people who came for the launch," he said in his acceptance speech.

"Nantah (Nanyang) was the wish of over three million Chinese citizens in Southeast Asia. The spirit of this university will never die."

The university ceased to exist in 1980 when the Singapore government merged it with the University of Singapore.

This was Chia's first public appearance as he spent his years of renewed freedom pursuing a doctorate at the Institute of Social Studies in The Hague, Netherlands.

He was a former Barisan Sosialis party member and part of a movement that protested alleged ‘undemocratic' acts by the then Singapore premier, Lee Kuan Yew.

Chia had opposed Singapore's separation from Malaysia, and campaigned for the sustainability of Nanyang University, which was then Singapore's only Chinese language postsecondary institution.
Asked if he would make his first public appearance in the island nation, he said he would wait for the "right occasion" to do so.

The LLG award, now in its 24th edition, annually honours individuals who have served the Chinese culture or people at large.

It was first given out in 1988 in memory of the late Chinese educationist Lim Lian Geok and is largely viewed as the highest honour in the Malaysian Chinese community.

*Chia's speech at the award ceremony: here

"A Nation Awakes: Frontline Reflections"

(source)

ABOUT THE BOOK (launched on 16 December 2011)

Few nations if any, have ever held two national elections in a span of four months. Fewer still are key players who took part in both. This book is the story of extraordinary men and women who fought Singapore's 2011 General Election in May and the Presidential Election in August. Together with their loyal and dedicated supporters, they displayed great courage and conviction, and in so doing changed the political landscape forever.

The writers of this book represent a broad spectrum of Singapore society - student, teacher, university researcher, social worker, doctor, economist, lawyer, advertising, media and IT personnel, blogger, housewife and retiree. They cut across all age groups from their twenties to their sixties. They have come together in this book to relate and share their personal journey with Singaporeans.

Unlike most post-election commentaries written by third-party observers, this book is unique as it allows readers to hear from the horse's mouth how in four short months, Singapore's single dominant party system has given way to the emergence of a politics of diversity with positive implications for the country's future system of government.

CONTENTS:

• Foreword by Sir Ivor Crewe
• Preface by Tan Jee Say
• Prologue by Prof Staffan I Lindberg
• From Essay to ‘Ho-say’ by Tan Jee Say
• Fear No More by Dr Ang Yong Guan
• Building A Singapore Our Future Generations Can Be Proud Of by Michelle Lee Juen
• I Could Not Say No by Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss
• Is There a Climate Change? by Dr Wong Wee Nam
• The Doctor’s Heart by Dr Leong Yan Hoi & Dr Tan Lip Hong
• A Personal Journey To The 2011 Elections by Dr Paul Ananth Tambyah
• Beyond Social Work But Not Apart by Dr Vincent Wijeysingha
• Let’s Run The Race Together by Fahmi Rais
• Singapore’s Social Media Revolution by Jarrod Luo
• Staying Relevant With Neither Sound Nor Fury by Alex Au
• All The World’s A Stage by Bentley Tan
• Young And Emancipated by Nicole Seah
• Bridging the (Democracy) Gap With Youthful Passion by Dexter Lee
• A New Lease Of Life For Old Fogies by Patrick Low
• Like A First Lady by Patricia Khoo Phaik Ean
• Epilogue: Get Organised For A Broad-Based, Non-PAP Government by Tan Jee Say
• Appendix: Summary Extract Of Essay by Tan Jee Say



REVIEW

“The courageous spirit and vision of Tan Jee Say and other bravehearts from Singapore’s opposition parties and civil society in the 2011 elections resembles a collective ‘Singa’s roar’ which continues to reverberate across this city-state in Southeast Asia. The ‘Singa’s roar’ resonates with other popular movements striving for democracy in Southeast Asia, the Middle East and around the world.”

-- Associate Professor Lily Zubaidah Rahim, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney. She is an author of several books on Singapore and Southeast Asia.

“I met Jee Say in Singapore a few months after his historic candidacy for the presidency, nearly forty years after we had been students together at University College, Oxford. The ideals of fairness and justice of his youthful days had clearly survived a very distinguished career in the public service and in finance, along with passion and courage.”

-- Professor Rajiva Wijesinha, Member of Parliament and adviser on national reconciliation in Sri Lanka; he contested the presidency of Sri Lanka in 1999. He is currently the Chairman of the Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats.

“This book brings out the robust and diverse nature of Singapore, and these attributes are positive for the development of Singapore as a financial centre.”

-- Tim Tacchi, Senior Partner, TT International, a global fund manager with its head office in London.

"It gives me great pleasure to introduce and commend this fascinating and stirring book about Singapore’s recent presidential and general elections....By revealing the feelings, thoughts and motives of a diverse group of hard-working professional Singaporeans…, this book is testimony to the vital importance and benefits of active citizenship, vigorous democracy and public-spirited leadership. Many of the individual accounts of involvement in the elections are a moving reminder of the personal sacrifices that people are willing to make to further their vision of a better society. To support an opposition candidate in a country accustomed to continuous single-party rule is to risk job security, business prospects, family life, personal privacy and social acceptance. Although the contributors to this book would never make the claim themselves, they are all modest heroes.

....The founder of the modern Olympics said that “the most important thing is not winning but taking part”. This is the message that shines out from the contributors to this book. The presidential election was one of those elections in which the official winner was in many ways the loser and the official loser was in many ways the winner. By showing that it was possible to launch a major challenge against the dominant party, Jee Say Tan and his friends and supporters bestowed a great service to the people of Singapore, not only this year but for the future."

-- Extract from the Foreword by Sir Ivor Crewe, Master of University College, Oxford. He has published and broadcast extensively on British and American politics mainly in the subjects of elections, parties, public opinion and public policy.

***************************************************

(source)

The Online Citizen (TOC) interviews Tan Jee Say (TJS)

TOC: When did the idea for this book come about? What were the motivations?
TJS: The idea came after the Presidential Election ended. Like the GE before it, the PE was hotly contested. To have one heavily contested election is already quite unusual in Singapore, to have two in a span of 4 months is unprecedented and this led to much heightened political awareness among a normally docile and apathetic electorate. We feel this should be recorded and our contributory role explained so that Singaporeans can understand and appreciate how ordinary people like ourselves can make a difference.

TOC: Your media release says the writers of the book represent a broad spectrum of Singapore society. Do they include any PAP members and/or supporters?
TJS: The broad spectrum refers to the writers coming from all social-economic sectors rather than political. PAP members and supporters are not included because this book is about the role of non-PAP forces in transforming the political landscape whereas PAP wants status quo.

TOC: What do you hope this book will achieve?
TJS: We hope the book will help Singaporeans get rid of their fear about participating in the political affairs of their own country and see it as normal, healthy process in taking Singapore to the next level.

TOC: Are there any other things you would like to say about the book and the book launch?
TJS: This book is unique as it is written by players not bystanders or political observers.It is an insiders account which is seldom seen in Singapore.

------------------

The Online Citizen (TOC) interviews Paul Tambyah (PT)

TOC: When were you approached to write for this book? Describe the circumstances.
PT: Soon after the Presidential elections, Jee Say brought up the idea of writing a book to document the remarkable events surrounding the two elections. He asked me if I would contribute and I readily agreed.

TOC: Why did you decide to contribute?
PT: I thought that it was important for me to be a part of this book as I had been a part of the campaigns and I thought that it would be useful for Singaporeans to hear a little background that could not be conveyed in a Rally speech. I was also proud to be associated with the people in the campaign and pleased to be asked to contribute to this historical text.

TOC: What do you hope the stories contained the book will achieve?
PT: I sincerely hope that the stories in the book will show how ordinary Singaporeans who are part of the mainstream but are not satisfied with many of the policies and directions that are being promoted by the ruling party can come forward sincerely to offer alternative views. These views now have a number of platforms by which they may be heard and Sinagaporeans, being a mature people can decide for themselves which policies are best for themselves and their families. This book is one such platform and I hope that it will help more Singaporeans to come forward. This can only be good for Singapore

------------------------


Extract from Associate Professor Tambyah’s chapter:

Paul Ananth Tambyah

One day in 2009, I received a call from a friend who was politically active in the ruling party asking if he could talk with me in person. I was a bit apprehensive, but when he said that the Singapore Medical Association (SMA) had decided to nominate me for consideration as a Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP), I decided to say yes. It turned out that the SMA, which represents a significant proportion of general practitioners (GPs) in Singapore, was upset about several issues that had come up recently. It perceived there to be a media campaign highlighting errant doctors, especially those in the private sector. More importantly, the SMA guideline on fees which had helped self-regulate the profession for years and was, in fact, established as a result of prompting from the Ministry of Health, was suddenly deemed anti-competitive and had to be withdrawn.

The SMA warned of dire consequences, all of which have come to pass at both ends of the spectrum. At the lower end, we have the spectacle of corporate GPs charging less for a consultation than a hawker charges for a plate of char kway teow! Naturally, these GPs are forced to shift the charges to medication prices, and reducing the impetus to prescribe judiciously. Patients are thus locked into high-cost drugs often prescribed for chronic illnesses, contributing significantly to the rising cost of healthcare in Singapore. Other GPs have had to become highly qualified beauticians in order to cover their costs by offering aesthetic services. After the elections, the moves to incorporate more GPs in the management of chronic diseases are a positive sign, but one only hopes that the paperwork will not be too great a hurdle. At the other end, we have the story of Dr Susan Lim charging what her patient was willing to pay and numerous others who have not garnered the attention of the media, but are well known within the medical community.

The SMA, for some reason, thought that I would be bold enough to speak up in parliament about its concerns, and that perhaps things would change for the profession and for patients. Subsequently, I received a message letting me know that the professional bodies had nominated me for NMP and that I had to go for an interview. I called my good friends Siew Kum Hong and Braema Mathi and asked them about the interviews and the wisdom of going ahead with the application. Both had done very good work as NMPs despite the constraints of the position and they encouraged me to go ahead.

The interview began with a question on what issues I would raise if selected. I was frank and began by talking about patients who were penalised for diseases that they had through no fault of their own. I asked, which parents would choose for their child to have leukemia and thus why should they be forced to deplete their Medisave accounts or their resources so that they became eligible for Medifund in order to pay for the treatment. I did not get a very encouraging response and, in fact, Mrs Lim Hwee Hwa turned the question around and asked whether I thought that the same principle applied to other sectors of the economy. She asked if I felt that GST should be lifted for essential goods, as I had argued that basic, essential and children’s healthcare should be free. I was cautious but I said I did feel that GST should not be imposed on basic necessities such as rice and milk, and cited other countries which exempt these from GST. At once, I saw from the faces across the table that I had mentioned the unmentionable. Apart from Mr Low Thia Kiang who had a silent grin, the rest of the committee had stern faces.

To lighten the mood, Mr Michael Palmer asked what other issues I would raise. I mentioned that I had been nominated by the SMA and thus was morally obliged to bring up issues of concern to the organisation in addition to patient issues. The issue I highlighted was the plight of the ‘HDB GPs’ who face rising costs and are unable to pass these costs onto their ‘heartlander’ patients who often cannot afford expensive medications or treatments. The result of this is well documented in the SMA GP surveys which I cited and which have shown declines in the income and standard of living of the average GP in Singapore over the last decade.

This was met with some incredulity as all the MPs, beginning with Mr Abdullah Tarmugi, began to point out that at every meet-the-people session after the university admissions process started, anguished parents were out in force to appeal for their children who did not get into medical school. My answer was a little weak as I mentioned that they probably did not realise the average GP’s plight, or even know that more than half of the graduating class were GPs doing the hard work of primary healthcare in Singapore’s housing estates.

I now know why Singaporean parents want their children to become doctors – this was wonderfully explained by Professor Lee Wei Ling in her Straits Times (ST) column on 23 December, 2009. Singaporeans parents anxious about their own health and that of their families resonate with the situation described by Professor Lee in our public hospitals. The rest of the interview was unremarkable, and to be honest, I was not too surprised when I discovered through both The Straits Times and The Online Citizen that nine other worthy individuals had been chosen as NMPs (five of whom had listed then-Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew as their favourite politician!). I did write in to ask why I was not selected, but the reply was merely a polite “we are unable to comment on the special select committee’s decision” on either mine or Kum Hong’s non-reappointment.