Wanted: Unifying Prime Minister & Inspiring President

The phrase “unifying figure” has become the buzzword of a trait we would like in the next President of Singapore.

One presidential candidate coined it. Everyone else jumped on the bandwagon. Even the usually creative Prime Minister of Singapore has thought it apt enough to adopt it in his stealthy endorsement of the latest presidential candidate.

What is this “unifying figure” really?

At the last general elections, there was an overwhelming show of dissent against the ruling party. Anecdotal accounts suggest loyal voters of the ruling party crossed sides. There was much anger expressed against the traditional rulers of Singapore. Essentially, the role of this “unifying figure” is clearly defined: help dissipate some of this angst against the dominant leadership of the day.

This “unifying figure” is not really “unifying” in the traditional sense a reasonable Singaporean understands it; someone who will reach across the races, genders, religions or other societal divides to share universal values for Singaporeans to espouse as a united community.

In a sense, the next President is supposed to be a “reconciliation leader”. Of course, no one has quite described the role this way because of the reference it bears to one ASEAN neighbour, Thailand, where the country is recovering from a bloody coup and deep-seated partisan rifts.

To the credit of Singaporeans, we have not experienced such extreme politicking, even though its founding father has at least once hinted that the military stands ready to react should the government fall to a rogue leadership.

Is such a “unifying figure” really what Singapore needs now?

A loyal horse of ruling party causes will answer firmly in the affirmative. As much as I am a believer in some of the causes of the ruling party, I would beg to differ.

The results of the last general elections show people have become more critical or discerning about the policies championed by the ruling party. This really cannot be all that bad. It means the country’s political leadership needs to a better job in persuading people to take a united stand.

As such, it is not the powerless President’s job to play the role of the unifying figure. The Minister for Law, echoing his mentor and predecessor, has made it very clear there is not much governance the President can do. Such a role is really that of the pervasive Prime Minister, who, through his policies and powers, sets the tone for the country to follow. If the Prime Minister is very serious about this unifying theme, there is a lot he can do.

For example, why (the hell) do we need two grassroots groups in the constituencies of Aljunied or Hougang? Why doesn’t the Prime Minister set things straight by appointing as grassroots advisers, the Members of Parliament in these constituencies, in whom the majority of voters have placed their trust and confidence?

The contrarian would argue that the Prime Minister isn’t quite up to such a task so better to shift the responsibility to the future President. If the future President fails in this venture (which is likely given his dire lack of powers), let him take the rap and retire him six years down the road.

If the President doesn’t unify, what does the President do?

To me, the office of the President has always been a source of inspiration. It is an office that a man on the street looks up to and goes “wah” or "wow" (whichever suits the man). That is why the President is referred to as “your excellency”.

Past presidents like Benjamin Sheares and Wee Kim Wee truly deserved their titles. They walked the talk and lived their values. In the course of their work, they established remarkable standards for others to follow. They were people you could talk about when growing up and say, “F**k, I want to be like him!'”

Many years ago, when I pursued a non-governmental initiative, I received a letter of encouragement from the late Wee Kim Kee to continue with the work I was doing.

Hand on heart, I cannot say that any of the three presidential candidates are inspiring. For different reasons (which I have shared in this blog in the past weeks), I find these candidates more polarising than inspiring.

They are not to be blamed, however. This is the way the President’s role has been unfortunately structured. Its inherent electoral nature has opened it to individuals with partisan track records - the type of persons willing to go down to the ground and persuade others to support them in the pursuit of high political office.

If I had a choice, who would I find inspiring and wish to have as the next President of Singapore?

I would want ambassador-at-large Tommy Koh. He symbolises the Singaporean at its core. He is also appealing to the masses with his humbling power of simplicity and unassuming nature. Unfortunately, to the likes of the great Tommy Koh, this proposition will be a hard-sell.

The current democratic process in Singapore means Singaporeans may well end up with a Prime Minister and President who will, respectively, hardly unify and inspire.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Do leave a comment as it will make a difference.

How to marry when no freedom to love?

It was recently disclosed that fewer people in their twenties and thirties are getting married in Singapore, and more are getting divorced. I am not surprised.

Among my friends, I can count an increasing incidence of them, who married early (in their twenties) and have been through their first divorce. A majority of them got hitched after getting to know their partner for a year or two. The problems cropped up after they got married and began staying with each other. They then realised how fundamentally different each of them was from the other. This predictably led to the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.

I think this problem can be attributed to the social realities created by the government of the day, bowing to pressure from religious groups and other lobbies appealing to a heightened sense of morality.

In most other countries, young people move out their parents’ homes as soon as they graduate. This gives them the opportunity to meet potential partners more actively. When the time is right, they move in together. This enables them to get a feel of what it will be like spending days and nights with each other. Once they get confident and comfortable about living together, they progress from the live-in relationship to marriage.

In Singapore, we impose the burden on our young people of living and caring for their aged parents because, unlike other first-world nations, the government feels it should not be their responsibility. The late David Marshall touched on this.

Public housing policies do not allow young persons to their own homes until they get turn 35 or they get married. Since it will take them longer to such age, more take the latter route as an easy way to secure their own place.

The last minister responsible for public housing in Singapore used to boast about how men would broach buying their first flat to propose marriage. He wrote, “'Shall we apply for an HDB flat?' This is how Singaporean men propose to their beloved. So we are told – I am not sure how common this is. However, this uniquely Singaporean marriage proposal reflects a common aspiration among many young couples intending to wed – getting an HDB flat.”

I guess one should be grateful to the minister for sustaining the relevance of the family justice system, and supporting the countless lawyers, judges and other professionals who rely on this as a source of income.

Beyond such qualifying criteria, if you want to buy your own place, you also need to fork out a huge amount of cash upfront. Renting a place is out of the question since that will only decapitate your ability to raise the cash needed to pay for your first home. As a result, one is left with little choice but to live with one's parents.

A very close friend shares that this creates a further problem. He suggests, as a result of many young persons living with their parents well into their thirties, many of them mature later. They don’t know what it means to live with a new person, and to give and take in a relationship. They find this alien as they are so used to having things served on a platter by their parents.

This is aggravated by the way the sexes are segregated in universities. You can’t share rooms with members of the opposite sex, even if you want to. In some places, there are separate floors for girls and boys, even if they prefer not to live on separate floors. Let’s consider the underlying implications of such policies. Are the universities, in effect, advocating that it is okay to spend your most intimate and private moments with a member of the same sex, but not the opposite?

No wonder Singapore had a historic 10,000 people protesting for the freedom to love some weeks ago. How can we expect more marriages, when we have a climate that stifles the freedom to love?

Interestingly, I do not see the same trend among my school friends, who had moved out of Singapore by the time they reached 21. Many of them have built strong families overseas, having had the opportunity to assess their future partners through live-in relationships. A few of them have returned to Singapore because they felt their children needed to grow up nearer to their grandparents.

The current minister responsible for advocating marriages in Singapore speaks of a need for a mindset change.

Take the bull by the horns. End appeasing religious lobbies and moral policing. Stop segregating the sexes in the local universities. Don't expect Singaporeans to live with their parents till they are in their late thirties. Encourage young persons to move out and build their own lives. Make it possible for Singaporeans to be free to love!

How is this for a mindset change?

Unless this happens, more people like me will be delaying marriages, if not rushing into marriages only to be divorced soon after.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Do leave a comment as it will make a difference.

Judging Tony Tan's presidential bid

During a performance of the Singapore Dance Theatre at the Esplanade some years ago, where the contributions of both Dr Tony Tan and Tan Kin Lian in promoting dance as a form of expression was acknowledged, I walked out of one the toilet cubicles at interval time to find myself in the presence of this elderly gentleman. It was only when I began to rinse my hands did I realise who that old man was. Stunned by the accessibility of this deputy head of government, I sheepishly said, “Hello, Dr Tan.”

Unlike my work experience with Tan Kin Lian and the opportunity I had to sit at Tan Cheng Bock’s table at a dinner to honour an opposition politician last week, my only brush to date with Tony Tan - the latest person to announce his presidential bid - was markedly different.

Dr Tan smiled and nodded. He took out a comb to scrutinise and ensure that his full crop of white hair was gelled back tightly. Satisfied, he smiled again and nodded, while I regained my composure. He walked out with the dignified gait one would expect from a man whose core competency was leadership in government.

If the mark of President Sellapan Ramanathan has been his sonar-proof silence in office, the mark of Dr Tony Tan’s presidency will be that of his smiles and nods, and the unshakeable steadiness with which his hair stands intact.

Once described as a “dark horse” presidential candidate, the endearing Dr Tan has a been a popular president-in-waiting since 1999.

There is no doubt that he has the best credentials for the office of President. I don’t need to spell it out. Someone has already done so in this almost perfect recently revamped Wikipedia page. If that isn’t enough, we can expect Dr Tan’s press corps, who he continues to front for the next one week, to do so fully and faithfully in the coming days.

In announcing his candidacy, Dr Tan is saying all the proper things the current government would expect a person it favours to say. At the same time, he is trying to do this without compromising the neutrality Singaporeans like me desire the next President to have.

He shares, "I must say what I do believe. I must say what I think is good for Singapore. If it happens to coincide with some of the views expressed by ministers, well it's up to the people of Singapore to judge. I don't think it's the job of the President to express contradictory views for the sake of being different. I don't think this is likely to advance the good of Singapore and Singaporeans."

In essence, Dr Tan has provided the key indicators against which Singaporeans should judge him (or perhaps any other candidate):
a. To what extent should his views coincide with that of views expressed by ministers?
b. Can he really express views contradicting the government in order to “advance the good of Singapore and Singaporeans”?

A decade back, former Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong observed, “Tony Tan is quite conservative. He doesn't relish politicking like BG Lee, who, being a younger man, knows you've just got to go out to win people.”

As a barometer, such a view can be the tipping point for voters in deciding how effectively in a period of crisis Dr Tan as a President with blocking powers can hold his sway against a Prime Minister on a populist mission.

Dr Tan also needs to come out to comprehensively explain his reasons for leaving cabinet in 1991. While it is clear that one of his cabinet colleagues left at the same time due to differences with the cabinet, Dr Tan’s reasons for leaving have been made murkier by recent revelations of the ruling party’s leadership. His explanation may go some way in establishing his will and ability to distance himself from the ruling party or the prevailing view of ministers.

In the coming days, Dr Tan will need impress he can really be the unifying President with the independence of mind that Singaporeans desire from their next head of state.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Do leave a comment as it will make a difference.

The moral hazard of DBSS

I don't really know much about the Housing and Development Board or its various schemes. In particular, I have not been following the recent controversy surrounding the Design, Build and Sell Scheme: a scheme that HDB says "involves the private sector in the development of public housing so as to bring about greater innovation in the building and design of flats and offer more housing choices to flat buyers".

The closest I got to purchasing a flat from HDB was with my ex-girlfriend. In that exercise, other than providing my personal particulars to her, I never really got round to bothering much with other details.

Quite frankly, this nonchalant attitude on my part is deliberate.

Firstly, I think the HDB, under the leadership of its previous minister, has lost sight of its public housing priorities. Many have written about this so I won't add to their caucus.

Secondly, I have always felt, as an ethnic minority in Singapore, one is better off buying flats directly from the private sector. At least, it helps one avoid the adverse risk of racial quotas in the estate.

Thirdly, I find it unpalatable that the government makes singles, who cannot afford private housing, wait until the age of 35 to purchase a HDB flat.

I accept I am in the minority on this one. There are many others, who still care enough about Singapore's public housing policies to follow it closely and criticise it. One such friend, who is presently a grassroots leader and has, in the not so distant past, served as a council member of a Community Development Council offers his views below.

I had encouraged him to identify himself but, for reasons best known to himself, he prefers to remain anonymous and has chosen the moniker 'Great Expectations' for attribution purposes.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

****

It was early in the morning of 17 June, around 6.30am, when I opened the Straits Times, for my usual morning dose of news, I read the infamous $880,000 price tag for the priciest 5-room DBSS flat in Tampines. I could literally hear in my head the reaction it may cause. Not surprisingly, over the last few days, the feedback has been negative, to the extent that even Minister Khaw Boon Wan had to comment with a blog post.

It is almost incredible to think that a profit motivated developer, whose main charter is to maximise returns for its shareholders, would set a low price for altruistic reasons such as “affordable” housing. The developer argues that the property is located at a premium location, in a matured estate with full amenities.

And the recent reduction in the price is unsurprising; with the public outcry and to add to that nothing less than the Minister’s comment: “But netizens are not powerless. If buyers find a price too high, they can walk away. Neither am I. On my part, I am ramping up more BTO launches and pricing them appropriately. I am currently preparing the next BTO launch.”

It is only rational for the developer to reduce the price because buyers now have the opportunity to choose alternative property. Further, with the expected increase in supply, it might be better for them to offload as much units as possible, albeit at a lower profit. This will enable them to avoid a situation where they need to hold onto unsold units, which of course becomes an opportunity cost to them. The developer to me is behaving like nothing more than a sensible economic agent, if I may borrow economics to explain what is happening.

But economics also teaches us this term called the moral hazard problem. An easy way to understand moral hazard is to look at how insurance affects the way we behave. Let's suppose you bought insurance on your car for theft. That means, if your car is stolen, you will be paid in full for the amount you paid for your car. What then is the likelihood of you taking and paying for extra protection against theft, such as buying an expensive car alarm system? Probably low. So, because of this insurance, you now have less incentive to behave in a responsible way to prevent a theft. Moral hazard problems occur when one party has less information about how the other party is likely to behave once the other party is insured against risk. I believe we have a moral hazard problem in the DBSS scheme.

In the case of a DBSS flat, HDB has no control over pricing because pricing decisions are left to the developer. As a developer then, there is no incentive to price the flat affordably. Why should they? They are profit maximising. However, for HDB, they have the public’s interest to account for. I looked up HDB’s vision and mission, and one in particular stands out: “We provide affordable homes of quality and value”. (emphasis added)

To make the homes affordable, they need to rely on the “good intentions” of the developer to ensure that prices are set at an affordable level. Unless HDB can read the intentions and motives of the developer, this is one mission in which they will surely fail.

Great Expectations

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Do leave a comment as it will make a difference.

Singapore Bar Course Fees Crippling

LETTER SENT TO CHAIRMAN, SINGAPORE INSTITUTE OF LEGAL EDUCATION AND PRESIDENT, LAW SOCIETY OF SINGAPORE

It has recently been brought to my attention that the course fees for the equivalent of the Postgraduate Practical Law Course now known as the Preparatory Course leading to Part B of the Singapore Bar Examinations, now conducted by the Singapore Institute of Legal Education, has rose from S$4,280 (in 2008) to S$6,420 for Singapore citizens.

The justification given for this is that the course content has been profoundly enhanced and that these fees are usually reimbursed by the law firms offering retention contracts to the relevant course participants.

It is not a given that all such firms will reimburse the course fees. The reality today also is that not all law firms will retain their practice trainees. Many are also not willing to accept the onus of reimbursing unretained practice trainees their course fees. An exception to this is my former firm, WongPartnership LLP, that reimbursed such fees, even though the person was eventually not retained. It is unfortunate the Law Society has not been very successful in encouraging others to adopt such exemplary practice, preferring - to the frustration of young lawyers - to leave it to “market conditions”.

I am not sure if the justification has taken into account that this represents a 50% increase in the course fees, based on 2008 figures.

In a jurisdiction like England & Wales, where I sat on my university’s fee-fixing committee, such an increase would be extreme and it will bring students to the streets. We had a clear policy in my university that any fee increase should be capped at 10%, and such increase would be subject to reviews by a committee of course convenors and students.

Thankfully, for SILE, we don’t live in such a demonstrative culture but we have a consultative culture. I do not recall SILE holding a consultation on such a matter. If it it did, I am ashamed that I did not express my reservations earlier.

I am not sure if the justification takes into account the circumstances of some students. I am the son of a cleaner. If I had to do the course today and taking into account that no financial institution would give my father a loan due to the high potentiality of default, I would find the figure crippling. When I did the course, I had to fund it out of a credit line, which carried an exorbitant interest rate of 24% [per annum]. I only had that facility due to my work in Singapore’s labour movement but I am not sure how many students have access to such facilities to do the same today.

In any case, the fact that most students have accepted this increase possibly reflects that they come from comfortable backgrounds. An equally plausible reason is that they don’t wish to ruffle the feathers of SILE, lest it attracts other consequences. I remember this was a real fear among my peers, who did the course (when it was under the oversight of the Board of Legal Education) with me and had concerns to raise about the course.

I accept that it will be an embarrassing situation for SILE to now revisit this increase, as much as I would like it to.

SILE and the Law Society should engage law firms, who employ practice trainees, to see if they can pay such fees upfront for practice trainees.

Alternatively, I hope that SILE and the Law Society can set up a fund to extend financial assistance to course participants, who are Singapore citizens and unable to secure retention contracts at law firms. I stand willing to pledge a donation to the fund.

Additionally, SILE and the Law Society should establish an independent committee to regularly review its course fees so that it remains affordable, taking into account the effect of inflation and other course enhancements.

As members of the legal fraternity, we have a duty towards these new potential members of our brethren. Access to our profession should be inclusive, not crippling to those who cannot afford it.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Do leave a comment as it will make a difference.

Why Malay Muslim high tea for PAP only

A Malay friend recently told me that a community group for Malay Muslims had organised a high tea reception to welcome the “two new People's Action Party Malay MPs”, which the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs saw fit and proper to attend as a guest.

He asked me, “What about the new opposition Malay MP?”

The report noted that “about 100 others, including leaders of various Malay/Muslim organisations as well as Malay MPs - were also present”.

To the ordinary person, events like these would disturb greatly.

Leaders of any community are pillars of inclusivity. Their participation in such an event may send the wrong signal to the general population. For example, it could signal that one, for the sake of scoring political points or gaining political traction, is willing to pursue a partisan agenda, which could have the dire consequence of polarising further an already fragmented society.

It would disturb one even more that a Minister, who is meant to represent all Muslim persons, saw it fit to endorse such an event. Could he, for example, have made it a condition for him attending that the event be one for all new Malay MPs?

Nevertheless, I am not surprised by this development. (I dare even suggest that mine is the view that represents more Malay Muslim persons.)

It underscores to me the state of affairs that pervades the Malay Muslim leadership presently: a commitment to continue with a pro-PAP agenda because it is the political party that has taken care of them, and it is quite possibly the only party that will continue to look out actively for Malay Muslim interests.

The last general election was unprecedented for many reasons. The most controversial precedent being that an almost unknown Malay man, one Muhammad Faisal bin Abdul Manap, stood for elections against a well-known entrenched Malay leader, the great Zainul Abidin Rasheed, and won.

This victory will now go down in the history books of Singapore: the first elected opposition Malay MP in the Legislature, since Singapore achieved independence and separated from the Malaysians.

Reading the pages of Berita Harian the day after Polling Day, one would not get this awesome sense of history. Instead, one would come away with the awful feeling that Berita Harian tried as best as it reasonably could to down-play this development.

Some suggest that this was because the Berita Harian did not wish to lose readers by reacting positively to the outcome. I got the same sense attending an event for Malay Muslim leaders a few weeks later. Any support expressed whatsoever to this outcome was in the form of an almost reluctant acceptance of this Malay Muslim opposition leader in the Legislature.

Others point to the sociology (and perhaps loyalty) of Berita Harian’s news-room. For a long time, it has been a fertile recruitment ground for the ruling party and its coverage leaves no doubt that its editorial position is one highly supportive of the ruling party.

The well-known Malay leader that lost the election had been the face of the newspaper for some two decades before he pursued political office. In this context, it would have been heretical to make heroic his challenger.

The fact that there has not been a single word of protest by a Malay Muslim person to such partisan events or coverage shows that the Malay Muslim person that supports an opposition party may find himself or herself in the minority. It is reasonable to suggest that such a supporter may well be expendable to the Malay Muslim leadership.

If the Minister for Muslim Affairs had even suggested that the partisan event be extended to the new Malay opposition MP, he may have found himself facing a backlash within the community; the kind he faced most recently when being quoted out of context that Malay should be taught as a foreign language.

The Malay Muslim leadership is merely mirroring the sentiments of the general Malay Muslim community in pursuing their interests in a manner that is pro-PAP – as much as such an agenda would appear partisan or polarising to some.

Happiness
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Do leave a comment as it will make a difference.