Countering the PAP's justifications

Now I believe in judging the PAP fairly for they are a mixed bag. Yes they have done great things and they have also made mistakes - yes there are some good people in the PAP but there are also some hideously stupid idiots who are just embarrassing the PAP. I don't want to be seen as being biased or prejudiced against the PAP - rather, I want to be seen by my readers as someone who has lived in different countries, experienced different political systems and hence would be in a position to evaluate the PAP on the basis of their merits.

Indeed, as a British citizen today, I look at the various political parties I have to choose from in the UK today: Tory, Labour, Liberal Democrats, The Greens etc - and I am torn to be honest. I don't really have one party I support wholeheartedly, rather I can say I like certain aspects of their manifesto and certain things that they do but dislike other parts. In short, no party is perfect. For example, I love the Green Party for their ideas on the environment (well obvious, it does what is says on the tin - 'Green Party') - but I wouldn't trust them to sort out the economy. Likewise, I support the Tory party in terms of what they are doing for the economy but they have performed so badly in terms of other areas like equality in the past and it makes me hard to trust them. The Liberal Democrats used to be the nice party, but given how they have performed poorly in this coalition, again, their reputation has suffered so much.

By that token, the PAP is no different from any of these British political parties - none of them are perfect: instead you get a mixed bag of good and bad things. I hope you're familiar with this brand of chocolates called Quality Street. It usually comes in a big tin (though it has appeared in cardboard boxes as well) and you get a mix of different kinds of chocolates in it. Some chocolates were nicer than others and I hated those sickly sweet chewy toffee ones which would get stuck in my teeth. They represent political parties: you get a mix of characters and policies, some good, some bad. The only difference between the UK and Singapore is that I actually get to choose which political party I want and there is a real choice at election time - whilst in Singapore, until very recently, the PAP was the only choice for many.

Quality Street - which one do you like? 

Hence when I found this list, I thought I'd respond to it and see if these arguments are valid. Remember, this is not meant to be an 'attack' on the PAP, more a response to some of these arguments often discussed in Singapore.

1. If we do not continue to import foreign workers, the economy will go into a tailspin and your daughters will end up as maids in other countries.

Verdict: Not true - the economy would not grow as fast without the help of foreign talent, but it will definitely not go into tailspin. Let's be fair on this topic here - some Singaporeans are not capable of being objective when it comes to the issue of "foreign talents". I am so sick and tired of all these accusations of foreign talents stealing the jobs of the locals; whilst I am not denying that it does happen sometimes, I just want to point out that there are gaps in the job market that can only be filled with foreigners who have benefited from certain kinds of training and work experience that cannot be found locally in Singapore.

Can we agree on the role that foreign talents play?

Would the economy "go into a tailspin" without these foreign talents/foreign workers? No. Quite simply, Singapore would simply have a far more modest economic growth - it may not even be the richest country in the region. I would like to compare Singapore's situation to Taiwan - another success story in East Asia. Now Taiwan is by no means a poor country, it has a GDP (PPP) per capita of $37,716 in 2011 - this places Taiwan on par with other rich countries like Denmark, the UK, Belgium and Germany. However, this is way behind Singapore's impressive figure of $59,710 - does that make Taiwan (or Germany, Denmark and the UK) "poor" countries by that token? Hardly. Citizens in any of these countries enjoy a pretty high standard of living and Taiwan has managed to achieve all this economic success without relying on importing any new citizens to boost their workforce despite a sharply falling birth rate. In fact, the birth rate in Taiwan is so low now and there is a brain drain of Taiwanese talents to places like America, Australia, Canada etc - the current rate of population growth in Taiwan is at an all time low of 0.171%. This means that the population is barely growing and may even decrease over the next few years. 

Unlike Singapore, the national language of Taiwan is Chinese and any foreign workers there will need a decent command of Mandarin in order to work there - this may seem to make it convenient for economic migrants from mainland China, but aha! Don't forget, China still regards Taiwan as a renegade province and hence Taiwan has always viewed China is a lot of suspicion. Thus Taiwan has not thrown her doors open to economic migrants from China, unlike Singapore! So when Taiwan needs nurses for her hospitals, she would rather recruit them from a country like Mongolia (and give them a crash course in Chinese), then to get Mandarin speaking nurses from China! Ironically, despite her proximity to China, the percentage of 'Mainlanders' (外省人/大陸人) in Taiwan is only 14% - whilst in Singapore, that figure is about 20% and rising. 

Taipei, Taiwan - a very prosperous, vibrant city. 

Without this massive influx of foreigners, Singapore would probably be far more like Taiwan - another very rich Asian country. After all, we really don't see that much "trickle down" effect from the super rich in Singapore. So okay, we may see a few less vanity projects like Marina Bay Sands, but so what? If the GDP per capita of Singapore dropped to Taiwan's levels, your average Singaporean in Ang Mo Kio or Toa Payoh would barely notice.

As for whether your daughters will end up as maids in other countries - it boils down to two factors: intelligence and opportunities. If your daughter is well and truly stupid, ie. she's really on the wrong end of the IQ bell curve, then good grief, you'll be lucky if she can get a job as a maid. The other issue of course, is that of opportunities - such as the opportunity to get an education, the opportunity to get a good job. My sister's Indonesian maid is brilliant - she is so much more than just a maid, she is a carer who is able to help with my autistic nephew. She communicates well with him, she helps him with his studies, she understands his behaviour and get this: she arrived in Singapore speaking remarkably good English (and Bahasa Indonesia of course) - through simply interacting with her employers, she has taught herself Mandarin so she can communicate with my sister's in-laws. 

Quite simply, she is brilliant. She is wonderful, she is so intelligent. And she is a maid who is paid peanuts?! Why? Because she is from a small, very poor village in central Java - she didn't have much of an education as her parents were too poor to send her to school and there were very limited employment opportunities in her home town. So despite obviously having natural intelligence, the only way for her to use her talents was to come to Singapore as a domestic maid. It is sad and frustrating to think that this was her only ticket out of poverty in rural Java. 

Where on this bell curve are you?

Hence in Singapore, whilst you can't do much about your child's intelligence (you get what you're given and you make the best of it), there are always opportunities for education and employment (unlike rural central Java) and indeed, in somewhere like Taiwan, such great opportunities exist too without much help from foreign workers. So this kind of scaremongering is just completely unfounded - onto the next point.

2. If we help the poor too much, we will end up a welfare state where nobody will work and everyone waits for handouts.

Verdict: Again, not true - this reminds me of a conversation I had with my father on the issue. He asked me how much unemployed people get from the government in the UK and when I told him how much, he was like, "why do people bother working then? Why don't they just all become unemployed and sponge off the state?"

I then replied, "If nobody works, then the government will not be able to collect any taxes, then the government will have no money to give anyone - so the system wouldn't work if everyone tried to take advantage of the system. Besides, yes the government will give me some money to live if I am unemployed, but I am still better off working because I can earn so much more. So people like me will always want to work and that is what sustains the system. Besides, it's no holiday living on benefits - yes you get money to cover your basic needs, but you will not have enough for the nice things in life and I happen to like the nice things in life."

I work hard because I want to be able to afford the nice things in life. 

This is why countries like the UK still have a thriving economy - we haven't collapsed because people have simply stopped working and started living on welfare benefits. The issue is not whether or not one should help the poor (they should always be helped) - but whether people are better off working or not. Imagine if say a worker in a supermarket is paid the minimum wage for back-breaking hard work, carrying boxes, stocking shelves, unloading lorries at 5 am in winter etc - then there is no justification to give unemployed people any more money than that supermarket worker. Likewise, there must always be an incentive for unemployed people to get back to work, ie. yes we won't let you starve, but if you want to have nicer things in life - new shoes, nice clothes, going out with your friends etc - then the only way to get the money for those nice things is to work.

Ironically, I have mixed feelings on the issue - I do feel that there should be some kind of safety net to make sure that people don't starve to death should things get really bad for them. But by the same token, I do feel that such a system, a welfare state, can only have any credibility if it is run fairly and does not cause any anger amongst those who are working so hard to feed their families. I believe that people should be helped back into work (via education & training), rather than be 'rewarded' for being unemployed. The system in the UK is way too generous towards unemployed people (I blame previous Labour governments) and thank goodness the current Tory government is doing something about it - but I do believe a sensible balance can be struck between social responsibility and common sense in order to give such a system credibility. As long as it is seen as 'fair' by all, it can work.

3. If we allow one person to protest, more will follow and there will be pandemonium on the streets everyday.

Verdict: Bullshit. People have already been complaining online about the PAP for years - yet nothing much has changed. Likewise, people are allowed to protest in the streets of the UK and yes they can be quite a spectacle that makes the evening news - but otherwise, no there isn't pandemonium on the streets everyday. They are simply peaceful protests that allow people to make a point and there aren't that many protests actually. Just a few big ones when there are major issues being debated - such as the rise of tuition fees or the invasion of Iraq. Heck, people are allowed to protest in most countries around the world - but we don't do it everyday, only when we feel really strongly about an issue.

4. If we legislate a minimum wage, companies will fold and move elsewhere, unemployment will rise and the economy will crash.

Verdict: Not true at all. Companies in Singapore are not thriving because of cheap labour - let's face it, no matter how you suppress wages in Singapore, you can never compare to other Asian countries like China, Vietnam and Philippines in terms of cheap labour. No, what Singapore offers is something very different indeed: quality, rather than quantity.

Let's not forget that many companies (including my employers) are attracted to Singapore for a very good reason: it is a rapidly growing market of 5.2 million people concentrated in a very small city and this is one of the world's richest countries! Just take a walk around somewhere like Orchard Ion or Marina Bay Sands - why do you think all those high end boutiques are there? The rich people of Singapore are driving the Singaporean economy, not the poor for we are not dependent on cheap labour to drive this economy.

Let's look at the most important sectors on the Singaporean economy: financial services, biotechnology, tourism, energy and infrastructure. Now these are not dependent on cheap labour at all! Even something like tourism, okay, introducing a minimum wage might mean tourists having to pay a bit more for meals at restaurants or for a hotel room - but without great attractions in Singapore like the Night Safari, Gardens By The Bay, Resorts World Sentosa, Marina Bay Sands (check out the laser show!), the F1 Grand Prix, the Singapore Flyer, Universal Studios just to name a few, the tourists wouldn't even come in the first place. The people who created these attractions are not those who would be on minimum wage - rather, they are experts who are paid millions for their concepts and visions. So really, you're focussing on the wrong end of the equation with minimum wage! Singapore will continue to thrive and prosper even if you introduce minimum wage as that is not the end of the equation that is driving Singapore's success.

Do you know why tourists come to Singapore? 

5. If we do not pay our ministers well, we will attract corrupt and hypocritical office holders who plunder our reserves and ruin the country.

Verdict: Not necessarily true - we need to compare & contrast the situation with other countries. This is ultimately a prisoner's dilemma/catch-22 situation, because I know everyone is going to use the UK MPs expenses scandal to justify the Singaporean ministers' pay. Let me simplify it for you.

UK: MPs are paid less than those in the private sector, so they fiddle their expenses, bend the rules to get more money from the system and inflate their pay. The press found out, exposes the MPs and the MPs are made to return every penny they took - some are even jailed for fraud.

Singapore: In order to avoid what happened in the UK, they just give ministers so much money they don't need to resort to fraud and it's all legal.

Which system is better: the British system or the Singaporean system?

I say the British system is still better for the following reason: yes corruption happens in the British system but when it is uncovered, the culprits are held to account and punished by the law. Now we have ex-MPs in jail because of their expenses fraud. This is something that will never ever happen in Singapore - a PAP MP will never end up in jail over something like that. Yes these British MPs tried to exploit the system via the expenses route - but they were unable to "plunder" the reserves and ruin Britain that way. Whereas in Singapore, if you declare that it is legal to pay your ministers ridiculous amounts of money, then it's simply a question of defining what is a crime - such a system in Singapore is far more open to corruption and as for the PAP, well you decide: are they corrupt hypocrites? Would a PAP minister or MP be ever punished for fraud or mistakes - or are they untouchable, beyond the reach of the law?

This is when I am very careful not to just lash out at the PAP - I recognize that not every single person involved in the PAP are corrupt hypocrites, that simply isn't true. What I am saying is that the PAP has made a very foolish step in removing the necessary checks and balances in the system, making it a lot harder to catch out the real corrupt officials who are out to exploit the system. It is counter productive at best - if not downright stupid of the PAP to do so. Yes the expenses scandal is embarrassing to say the least for British politics, but hey - it does send out a powerful message: if you break the rules, you will be held to account and sent to jail. Would you rather have your politicians just do whatever they like and get away with fraud?

6. If we abolish the ISA, terrorists will run amok, bombs will go off and the country will descend into darkness.

Verdict: Not true - oh this is just bullshit. The ISA is very dated - you can read more about how it was created back in 1963 (when Singapore was a part of Malaysia) in response to the communist insurgency in Malaysia then. That old threat has long gone (the Malayan Communist Party and its insurgents eventually surrendered in 1989) however, there are new threats that didn't exist back in the early 1960s, such as that of Al-Qaeda. The Workers' Party, supported the abolishment of the ISA and asked for specific anti-terrorism and anti-espionage laws to replace the ISA. These new laws were to allow arrests and detention without trial only under strict conditions.

The PAP is playing to the ignorance and paranoia of some very ill-informed Singaporeans, groan. I can see exactly what they are doing and it irks me so that they can actually get away with it because some Singaporeans are so easily fooled. Good grief! Cue palm to forehead. We're not talking about doing away with all forms of law & order - we're merely talking about replacing the ISA with something a lot better suited to deal with the challenge of today.

We need laws that are up to date and relevant to Singapore today.

7. If we allow every worker to withdraw their full CPF upon retirement, they will squander all their money frivolously and recklessly (on casinos and other ill-advised investments).

Verdict: A small number will, but not all will do so. You're just assuming a worst case scenario of extreme stupidity and that does not represent reality. Ironically, the MAS actually runs quite a tight ship in terms of regulating investments available for Singaporeans - so they are already doing the right to control the kinds of investments available from a regulatory point of view.

8. If we allow biased political films and cartoons, it will denigrate the standing of our political leaders and undermine the people's confidence in the government.

Verdict: We're already doing it. LOL. Have you checked out Demon-cratic recently? I don't think the younger generation are that easily fooled about the true nature of the PAP. Oh pullease. Please give Singaporeans some credit lah, they're not all gullible idiots. It is up to the government to behave in an honourable manner to earn the respect of the citizens - if they have not done anything wrong, then they would not be afraid of criticism.

9. If we allow free discourse on race and religion, it will create social disharmony which will lead to a repeat of the 1964 racial riots.

Verdict: Not necessarily true, that is an assumption of mutual hostility. Now you know me, I have lived in many different countries, speak many languages, am mixed in my ethnic heritage and cultural identity and I believe in everyone getting along with each other. I believe this is very much a function of me speaking English as a first language - this has enabled me to get along with other English speaking people (regardless of their nationality or ethnicity). Things have come a long way since 1964, when not that many Singaporeans were able to speak English as a lingua franca to communicate with their friends of different ethnicities - surely we have come a long way as a nation, no? Yes there are still some racists in Singapore, but is suppressing all discourse on race & religion the way to deal with racial tensions? As with the issue of ISA, what was right in 1964 is not right for 2012 for we have changed as a country.

10. If we allow the opposition to take over, garbage will pile up, assets will depreciate, investors will stay away, reserves will be squandered and the country is finished.

Verdict: LMFAO. WTF. Like dude, are you freaking serious?

Okay, but seriously, the PAP has gone out of their way since the 60s to prevent any kind of credible opposition from forming - they went to such lengths such as demonizing and harassing Francis Seow out of Singapore, that made a complete mockery of the democracy we were supposed to have in Singapore. J B Jeyaretnam also had a taste of PAP's poison when he became a credible opposition politician. What the PAP did allow, in order to maintain a façade of democracy, was to allow far less credible candidates to stand as candidates in the elections - so as to perpetuate the lie that the only plausible route for a bright future with Singapore is to vote for the PAP. Now dear readers, you're intelligent people - I don't need to tell you what to think, you can figure this one out for yourself.