Beggaring my neighbor does not make me rich: why the National Defence Duty will not work

I've wanted to blog about the Population White Paper for a week now. But I have very complicated feelings about it, and couldn't figure out exactly what I would say. Until I read Hri Kumar's suggestion about a National Defence Duty on foreigners and PRs (with the catchy tagline of "we do duty, they pay a duty"). Things clicked immediately (more on the White Paper on a later post).

Hri Kumar's suggestion makes perfect sense -- if you see the world through the lens of rational economic theory and you think of people as homo economicus. Male Singaporeans suffer a disadvantage because of NS, so let's apply a tax to make male PRs/foreigners equally disadvantaged. Perfect economic sense, and true to the PAP's technocratic bent.

Except that the world is about much more than economics, and people are homo sapiens not homo economicus. We've traditionally talked about NS as a noble sacrifice, a ritual that turned boys into men. More recently, we've seen it also as a great social leveller that helps Singaporeans from different socio-economic classes mix and understand each other in a way that schools no longer allow (I totally agree, but have to wonder about female Singaporeans then).

And now an MP wants to put a price on it. It makes cold hard rational sense, but humans are warm-blooded; we become cold and hard only after we die.

This proposal encapsulates why the PAP as a whole is struggling so much today. It has become too transactional in its philosophy, the dollars and cents have become too entrenched and central in its thinking. Again, it all makes rational economic sense -- but we are real human beings, not abstract economic units.

This transactional worldview also explains why, despite the PAP's best efforts to "sharpen the differences" between Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans, Singaporeans remain so unhappy and unappreciated. That is because these efforts would work, only for Singaporeans who truly love schadenfraude.

If I am unhappy because I think I am being badly treated, would I really feel better just because the Government treats someone else equally badly? I mean, relatively speaking the other person may no longer be better off than me, but it does not improve my own position in any way. Imposing the National Defence Duty makes foreigners and PRs worse-off, but do not directly improve the lot of Singaporean males (at least not by much, and certainly not in any meaningful way), and most importantly does nothing to address their main concerns, in particular the complaint that employers discriminate against Singaporean males because of their NS liabilities.

In the same vein, charging PRs and foreigners more for public education and public health services (and even, bafflingly enough, horseriding fees at the Turf Club -- an American told me about this) has not made Singaporeans feel better, and not surprisingly, because it's not like they are paying less. Seeing my fellow inhabitant of Singapore suffer as much as I do does not make me suffer any less.

In economic terms, these policies can make sense. The National Defence Duty seeks to quantify the opportunity cost of having to serve Full-Time National Service, and then impose it on those who do not have to serve. Heck, the formula can probably even be tweaked to include some proxy measure of the opportunity and other costs of NS liability. Similarly, differentiated fees for Singaporeans vs PRs/foreigners means that Singaporeans are better-off than PRs/foreigners, even though Singaporeans are actually not better-off at all.

But in all these cases, the Singaporean's life does not become better in a meaningful way. This is the flaw of the PAP's transactional worldview -- it is a view of the economic world, and not of the real world.

Instead, if we want to make up for the cost and burden of defending the country, we should give those who have served NS even more benefits than they receive today. More, much more than the tax relief and the SAFRA membership. This is not to compensate them for what they have given up for NS, which is frankly something that can never really be done, but to do what we can, as a country, to recognise their contributions and express our appreciation.

For example, we can waive polyclinic consultation fees and public hospital C-class bed charges (or apply an equivalent discount for those who opt for more expensive classes), in full for everybody who has completed Full-Time NS and the 13-year NS cycle, and at 25% or some other percentage for those who completed Full-Time NS but did not have NS liability. And yes, that's for life.

And/or do the same for public school fees and miscellaneous fees. And/or public transport charges when they become senior citizens. And/or discount other medical charges in public hospitals. And/or give them priority queues in public government agencies.

The possibilities are nearly endless. Yes, these measures can be costly and/or inefficient. But the goal here is not to be economically efficient or precise, but to express our true gratitude to those who have given up part of their lives to serve and defend Singapore and Singaporeans. And honestly, we spent over S$12 billion on defence in 2012; anything we do will almost certainly be less than a drop in that ocean of money.

Similarly, sharpening the differences between Singaporeans and PRs/foreigners should be done not be making things more expensive for PRs/foreigners, but by giving some positive benefit to the Singaporeans. Instead of increasing the school fees and polyclinic charges for PRs/foreigners, why not reduce them for Singaporeans. It may cost more to the Government, but it will also be much, much more likely to achieve the desired results of making Singaporeans feel cherished.

In Memory of 1987: video

Here is the video of my speech on Saturday:

In Memory of 1987

On Saturday 2 June 2012, MARUAH and Function 8 organized an event called "That We May Dream Again" to commemorate the 25th anniversary of Operation Spectrum. I spoke at this event as Vice-President of MARUAH.

In Memory of 1987

Ladies and gentlemen, friends and colleagues, thank you for coming here today. My name is Siew Kum Hong. I speak today in my capacity of Vice-President of MARUAH. And I am very honoured to speak here today.

The U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt once said: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Looking at all of you here today, I am heartened to know that so many Singaporeans are no longer afraid of the Internal Security Act, or of the 1987 detentions.

And fear is the currency of the ISA. Its scope is notoriously broad, its wording infamously vague. I personally believe that this is deliberately so, to keep the population in line.

I once heard someone say, with full sincerity and conviction, that the ISA has not been used to detain political opponents in the last 10 to 15 years. I think that is probably true. But that time-frame seems carefully selected. Would that person have been equally sincere and convincing, if he had said 25 years instead?

The events of 1987 still haunt many Singaporeans, especially the older generations. It is different from younger Singaporeans, many of whom had not even been born in 1987.

In 1987, I was 12 years old.  I only have a hazy recollection of what was happening then. So most of what I know is based on what I have seen, read and heard as an adult. And of course, what I studied in law school and what I and my colleagues in MARUAH have researched since.

Like how some 1987 detainees challenged their detentions and won their case before the Court of Appeal, only to be immediately re-detained upon their release. Like how the Government quickly amended the ISA after that case, to limit future reviews of ISA detentions by the courts to purely procedural grounds, as you’ve just heard Jeannette say. Like how, even in the post-9/11 world where preventive detention laws have become more commonplace, the ISA continues to lack the checks and balances found in other countries’ laws.

What are some of these missing checks and balances? Firstly, even though the detainees are not brought before the courts, they are still subject to some sort of hearing that should comply with due process. In Singapore, we have a hearing before an advisory board. But this process is shrouded in secrecy and is completely non-transparent.

According to a lawyer who has appeared before advisory boards, the detainees and their lawyers do not get to see the evidence that is presented against them, and do not have the right to challenge witnesses against them. The decisions of the advisory board are not published and not even disclosed to detainees. So much for the right to a fair hearing.

Another critical area where the ISA falls short of international norms, is the maximum period of detention without trial that is allowed. For instance, Australia allows detention for only up to 48 hours. Even the UK, which has suffered actual terrorist attacks on its own soil, only permits detention for up to 28 days.

But in Singapore, preventive detention is potentially indefinite – for instance, Chia Thye Poh was first detained in 1966, released from ISD detention in 1989 after 23 years, but confined to Sentosa until 1992. The remaining restrictions were gradually lifted over the years, and he became a completely free man only in 1998 – 32 years after he was first detained.

Singapore went through the Universal Periodic Review process last year, which is a process where the United Nations reviews each country’s human rights record in turn. MARUAH submitted a paper focusing specifically on preventive detention and the death penalty. In that paper, we called for numerous reforms to the ISA to bring it in line with international norms and due process. The objective was to ensure that even if there is a legitimate security requirement for preventive detention, the detention is done in accordance with human rights norms and due process.

Since then, we have refined our position. MARUAH now thinks that the best way to achieve that objective, is to simply repeal the ISA and introduce new anti-terrorism laws consistent with human rights.

And that is exactly what Malaysia has done. Around six weeks ago, Malaysia repealed its own ISA, replacing it with an anti-terrorism law that limits preventive detention to 28 days. Yet, the Singapore Government continues to insist that it needs the ISA in its current form, and that a specific anti-terrorism law would not work or would not be enough or would take too long to implement. The Singapore Government continues to make these bald assertions without any real explanation or justification.

Well, I can only say in response: “Malaysia boleh!”

As many of you know, MARUAH is also calling for an independent Commission of Inquiry into the 1987 detentions. We are asking Singaporeans to sign a petition in support of this call.

Look around you today. Today, we see so many of the so-called Marxist conspirators standing together again, in public. This is Singaporeans’ chance to find out the truth for themselves.

Look at the ex-detainees. Go up to them. Talk to them. Look into their eyes. Listen to what they have to say, but more importantly listen to how they say it.

And then ask yourself: could these allegations really be true? Could they really have been subversives? Could they really have plotted to overthrow the Government? Could there really have been a Marxist conspiracy, or any conspiracy at all? And if the answers to those questions are “no”, then what could have been the justification for the detentions?

I have always doubted the supposed reasons for the 1987 detentions. And the first time I met and spoke to Vincent Cheng, I stopped having any doubts. I knew that I could not accept the story put forth by the Government. I became convinced that these were just good men and women who wanted a better Singapore. And for that, I salute them.

The 1987 detentions effectively killed civil society for an entire generation. Activists saw what happened to those who were willing to act on their conscience, and either gave up or went underground. Common people saw what happened to those who were willing to stand up and be counted, and so they shut up and sat down.

The Government talks about an active citizenry, it talks about getting Singaporeans involved. They talk about so many things, but they don’t talk about the great big elephant in the room.

In recent years, ex-detainees, whether from 1987 or earlier, have been publishing their own accounts about what happened to them. And these stories always contradict the official version stated by the Government. So far, the Government has completely failed to respond to the ex-detainees. As a first step towards coming to terms with the ISA, we need to understand, once and for all, what really happened in 1987. What evidence did the Government have of a conspiracy, that led them to order the detentions? Were the confessions by the detainees coerced? Were the detainees mistreated or tortured?

A famous American judge once said: “Sunlight is said to be the best disinfectant.” I ask the Government to shine a light on the events 25 years ago, and once and for all resolve all the doubts and questions that so many Singaporeans continue to have. Hold an independent Commission of Inquiry, and disinfect this gaping wound in our national psyche and soul. That is the only way that we can start to heal, and finally begin to come to terms with this dark stain on Singapore’s history, and have an informed national discourse on whether the ISA in its current form is necessary today.

Ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for listening. Thank you for coming today. Most of all, thank you for taking a stand against this law called the Internal Security Act, that has destroyed so many lives. May we see its abolition soon.

Show us you mean business

There's been a lot of talk about the Government's proposal for an online code of conduct, and today the Institute of Public Studies organised a closed-door discussion on the topic. It was conducted under the Chatham House Rule, so I'm not going to go into details on what was discussed.

What I will say, is that the CEO of the Media Development Authority, Mr Aubeck Kam, spoke at the discussion. Given that the attendance included a whole bunch of socio-political bloggers, he predictably heard a lot of very critical and skeptical opposition to the suggestion of a new code of conduct.

I thought Mr Kam handled the criticism pretty well. He came across as being very thoughtful, earnest and sincere.

But none of that changes the reality of what we face today. Nobody in the internet community -- at least, nobody affiliated with or actively supporting the PAP or the Government -- believes that, whatever else the code is genuinely intended to achieve, the Government does not hope to use such a code to control or suppress, or at the least moderate and blunt, the storm of anti-PAP sentiment on the Internet.

Claims about the lack of sheltered online space for moderate views (which is really code for pro-PAP/Government voices, or at least voices that are sympathetic to the PAP and the Government), beg the question as to why they deserve special treatment as compared to others who have dared to stick out their necks to speak their minds.

Yes, I fundamentally believe that it is better to have more voices speaking up than less. But people have to be willing to stand up for their views -- and I have to question the commitment of anyone who thinks that being flamed and criticised is too high a price to pay, and that growing the thick skin that is really just the ante for online participation today is too difficult for them.

Those of us who have stood up and spoken up on views deemed anti-establishment and anti-Government bear our own risks in doing so. Defamation lawsuits, sniping and flaming, cyber-harassment, invasion of privacy, police complaints, possible threats to employment prospects, and yes the Internal Security Act -- these threats and risks all come with the territory.

An online code of conduct will do nothing to protect us from those risks. And yet we continue to do what we do. I cannot speak for others, but I have very limited sympathy for those with such thin skins that they shy away from speaking up just because of the risk that they may be flamed. Compared to what some have experienced and undergone, that almost sounds trivial.

This Government's actions against its critics have laid the foundations for the skepticism greeting this proposal. After all, it had gazetted The Online Citizen as a "political association" in the guise of ensuring that TOC does not receive foreign funding -- thereby also ensuring that, as a practical matter, TOC will almost certainly not receive local funding from the usual donors foundations, and setting a lowly limit of S$5000/year for anonymous donations from local donors. So it is difficult to accept the Government's claims that the code of conduct does not have the collateral objective of silencing or muting critical voices.

If the PAP and the Government are genuine and sincere that they do not seek to restrict content by advocating such an online code of content, then they can take concrete steps to demonstrate its commitment to maintaining free speech online. There are a few easy steps that the PAP and the Government can take, to put their money where their mouths are:

1. lift the gazetting of TOC as a political association.

2. legislate a statutory safe harbour for websites, such that they are not liable for defamatory user comments if they take down those user comments when they receive a third-party complaint -- which is something that the Government-appointed AIMS Committee had recommended back in December 2008.

3. lead by example. The PAP can itself respect diversity of views. It can commit to cease deleting non-profane comments asking hard questions on its pages, and instead have genuine conversations with critics. It can commit to refraining from defamation lawsuits against critics. It can refrain from tarring-and-feathering its online critics.

Somehow, I don't see any of those things happening anytime soon. I would be glad to be proven wrong.

PS. I would accept that there is some merit to the argument that online "witch hunts" are problematic. But the real problem there is invasion of privacy, and not the content as such. The problem arises from the disclosure of names, addresses, photos, occupations, schools, etc., and it is irrelevant whether that disclosure is made online or offline (e.g. by way of flyers distributed and posters displayed near the victim's home) -- the only difference is in scale. While there is good reason to object to such behaviour, the right answer to this is through privacy laws, and not through an online code of conduct.

PPS. One participant made a valid point about how the absence of a self-regulating code of conduct could increase the pressure on the authorities to rely increasingly on the heavy hand of the law on increasingly marginal cases, in the absence of any alternative mechanism. Something for everyone to bear in mind -- not that it ultimately changes my personal view on the matter.

In defence of Cherian George

I am proud to consider Cherian George a friend. While he is not all that much older than me, I do remember reading his articles in the Straits Times as I grew up.

For a large part of his stint in ST, I was perhaps probably too young to truly understand everything he was trying to say back then, since in those days a lot more was said between the lines than in the lines themselves. But I always understood that he was usually criticizing the Government in some way or other.

Those of us with longer memories, who are older and remember life in Singapore before the internet and globalisation, know that Cherian has always been independent-minded and unafraid to speak truth to power, however unpalatable that may be to those in power.

He continues to do so today -- a careful reading of all his writings will show that he continues to be fiercely independent-minded, always fair and never taking partisan sides. And those of us who know him personally, know that he has paid the price in his personal life, in ways that could have broken lesser people and caused them to give up long ago.

So it truly breaks my heart to see clearly uninformed elements on the Internet today, conducting what is essentially a witch-hunt against Cherian. My bet is that these are probably young people without any knowledge or memory of the past, but more dismayingly, without any interest in finding out more about the man and his history before criticising, nay persecuting, him.

Cherian is one of the still sadly rare few in Singapore who are willing to risk their reputation and career, to openly and frankly speak their minds about what they perceive to be wrong in the country they love. He runs the risk of censure, and worse, by his employer and the establishment. And yet, look at what some people are doing to him.

I don’t want to give any shred of credence to their claims by naming them or linking to them. Suffice to say that correlation is not causation; Cherian writing about TRE coming out into the open and the attendant risks, does not mean that he had anything to do with them being threatened with a lawsuit.

And their claim that Cherian’s failure to reproduce the allegedly defamatory comments about Mr K. Shanmugam makes it one-sided, betrays a laughable ignorance of the realities of defamation law. If he had reproduced those comments, he himself ran the risk of getting a lawyer’s letter. Unlike his critics, Cherian operates in the light and not in the darkness of anonymity, where he risks losing everything in a moment of recklessness.

Those who make these baseless accusations against Cherian need to understand that Cherian, as an academic working on media issues who advocates a liberal and progressive perspective, is probably one of the few friends and advocates in the establishment that those of us in the blogosphere and social media have today. While I firmly believe that Cherian is a bigger man than many of us, and so he will overlook the tragic irony of those for whom he advocates turning on him, let’s not make this harder for Cherian than it needs to be.

Cherian George has given so much for Singapore and Singaporeans. While I know he does not expect anything from us, he certainly deserves better than this.

Every Singaporean really does count

UPDATED: MOS Wong posted a clarification on his FB page. It addresses the insensitivity of the comments reported by TODAY, although surely the original comment -- presumably accurately reported, since there was no suggestion of a misquote -- still should not have been made in the way it was made. I am not sure that there is any context in which that comment is acceptable. In any case, the FB post is simply an expansion of the same fundamental philosophy that I criticise below. Let's not forget that it is always harder for people to start work and then go back to school (either part-time or full-time), even though life-long learning is now accepted as a necessity.

According to the Heritage Foundation, Singapore has the second freest economy in the world (after Hong Kong). But there is one aspect of Singapore that has always felt to me like a command economy: the way the Government tries to calibrate supply and demand in higher education.

On 8 February, the TODAY newspaper reported that further education was hotly-discussed when Minister of State for Education Mr Lawrence Wong conducted a dialogue with around 100 ITE students. Some ITE students asked about the possibility of increasing the number of polytechnic places available to them after graduating from ITE.

This is what TODAY reported:

“Mr Wong said he understood their aspirations but not everyone would be able to pursue a diploma at a polytechnic immediately after obtaining their Higher NITEC.

This was due to limited places at local polytechnics and employers' demand for ITE graduates. "If everyone can move up, we will not have enough ITE graduates out there in the workforce," he said.

"At the end, it's the number of places we can provide … I don't think we'll be able to satisfy everyone, frankly," he said.”

MOS Wong also warned against a situation of too many degree- and diploma-holders seeking jobs, citing the example of the Singapore embassy in Paris, who had received only applications from degree-holders for a receptionist job. He also went on to explain that ITE was a foundation for polytechnic education, and hence ITE graduates would not be allowed to apply for polytechnic courses unrelated to their areas of study.

As Mr Brown put it on Facebook:

“Translation: “If we allow everyone to be well-educated, who will be the serfs?””

This is the sort of misguided social engineering that leaves a bad taste in many Singaporeans’ mouths. It stems from a fundamentally-misconceived view of higher education as being a means to the end of creating people to fill the jobs out there. And mind you, the sort of logic has been applied in the past, to limit the number of polytechnic graduates who are allowed to pursue undergraduate courses in our universities.

Never mind that the Government has a poor record at central planning with higher education to guide Singaporeans towards, or to deter or exclude Singaporeans from, this or that sector. Witness the shortage of lawyers in recent years. Witness also the angst of biotechnology graduates today, who were induced to enter that course of study by the heavy promotion by the Government, only to find that a basic biotechnology degree was, to paraphrase Mr Philip Yeo, only good enough for washing test-tubes.

Never mind that nowadays, most people view education as being at least as much about self-actualisation. Viewing higher education solely in terms of an assembly line for workers is nothing less than anachronistic.

Never mind that education is almost universally recognized as one of the key drivers of social mobility, and this message tells ITE graduates that they need to look for another way – besides education -- to do better in life.

Never mind that deliberately limiting the number of places available to ITE graduates, effectively imposes an artificial restriction on how far ITE graduates can go in their education. Don’t we pride ourselves in meritocracy? Where is the meritocracy in not allowing those ITE graduates who are good enough for polytechnics, to enter them?

Never mind that an education is meant to equip one for life, while the jobs out there today will not be the jobs available in 10 years’ time. Without giving ITE graduates who want to do so, the opportunity to equip themselves with skills going beyond today’s jobs, the Government may be deliberately disadvantaging ITE graduates for years into the future, if not for life.

Never mind that even if ITE graduates are not allowed to enter polytechnics, many will still pursue part-time private courses at their own expense.

Never mind that a diploma-holder who is good will succeed, while a diploma-holder who is not good will not succeed. And that is regardless of whether or not that diploma-holder entered the polytechnic after graduating from ITE, JC or secondary school.

Never mind that the Paris embassy example cited by MOS Wong is not at all analogous. France is experiencing economic troubles including very high unemployment, which is the more likely reason why degree-holders are applying for the receptionist job. Correlation does not mean causation, and the fact that degree-holders are applying for the receptionist job does not prove that there are too many degree-holders in France.

Never mind that polytechnic courses are varied enough that there will be some, if not many, courses that ITE, JCs and secondary schools do not prepare students for. In which case, why restrict only ITE graduates, but not JC or secondary school graduates, from applying for such courses?

Sorry Mr Wong. It’s not just ITE students who disagree with you. I would hazard that most Singaporeans would also be disappointed with these comments. In our hearts, we want all Singaporeans to have equal opportunities, and to support those Singaporeans in going as far as they can. There actually are Singaporeans who truly believe that every Singaporean really does count.

We not stupid, ok?

The Straits Times ran a story on PAP MPs' rebuttals of Mr Chen Show Mao's speech on ministerial salaries. [note: the ST story is completely available for free, but it may not stay fully available for long]

Below is the text of what I wrote on Facebook about these PAP MPs' so-called rebuttals.

---

I am posting this instead of working because this article made me so fed-up. It is ok for politicians to engage in politicking, and it is entirely expected that PAP MPs would line up to try to rebut Mr Chen Show Mao (and probably told to do this, when they were scheduled to speak after him). But I cannot stand poorly-reasoned arguments, which are replete here.

1. "'The difference between the proposal accepted by the PAP Government and the WP's proposal is that the latter leaves out the principle of sacrifice (and the) discounts to reflect service to the people,' [Zaqy] said."

An odd conclusion, because the PAP-accepted proposal pays more (on an annual basis) to ministers than the WP proposal. How you get there (the formula) is important, but where you end up (the amount) is also important. If the WP proposal omits sacrifice, then how much more so the PAP-accepted proposal which pays even more?

2. ""It would be 'more transparent' to peg ministerial salaries to 'the competitive salaries that the calibre of people we are looking for in ministers earn, or have the potential to earn', said the Minister of State for Health [Amy Khor]."

Surely Dr Khor is not suggesting that the WP proposal is non-transparent. Whether or not you agree with it (I myself am not completely sold, because we would probably see the MX9 benchmark creep upwards), it is simple and transparent. The WP proposal was constructed using a bottoms-up approach, based on principled reasoning on how ministerial salaries should be determined. You may disagree with the approach, but calling it "less or non-transparent" is misconceived.

3. ""Such excitement 'was not because Mr Chen was considered to be a 'median-income' sort of guy, or somehow an emblem of the lowest income quintile of society', observed Mr [Alvin Yeo]. "Rather, with his 'sterling qualifications', Mr Chen 'was proof that opposition parties could also attract the sort of top talent, that one day perhaps may form the Government'."

Actually, the excitement was because Mr Chen gave up a big job and a big salary to join the Opposition (no parachute for him, no near-guarantee of a win) and then become a regular MP -- with nary a whine or moan about his pay-cut. Until the PAP understands that Singaporeans loved that because it exemplifies the spirit of public service (and the uncomplaining sacrifice that the PAP likes to talk about so much), they will NEVER get it.

4. "'Pay should not be the reason for entering politics, but neither should it be the reason for losing talent,' said Mr [Sam] Tan (Radin Mas) in Mandarin."

Actually, it should be, if the so-called talent in question is so overly-concerned about money, that a salary that can support a very comfortable lifestyle is not enough.