What the average Singaporean wants is more licence for
public debate of policies harmful to him – particularly among
establishment figures.
AT A time when troubled Singaporeans need more sympathetic elite
figures to voice their unhappy feelings against the government
along comes the state’s retired top civil servant.
He is 70-year-old Ngiam Tong Dow, a prominent member of
Singapore’s founding generation, who has delivered a series of
remarkably biting messages for the leadership, young and old.
Singapore is not known as a place where influential people
openly discuss government shortcomings, let alone criticise
these.
Many do not speak out even when they feel things are not going
right for fear of upsetting the leaders, particularly Minister
Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.
An exception was Ngiam, who said in a recent dialogue that most
of today’s younger ministers come from well-to-do or upper-class
families.
“So they 'really do not know' the impact of, say, a policy such
as a 10-cent bus fare rise on ordinary families,” he said.
“If you’re from a poor family like my generation, you’ll know
very well (the impact) if the bus fare goes up by 10 cents,
multiply by three or four times, 50 cents for the whole
family.”
His suggestion: top civil servants should first start by doing
‘nitty-gritty’ work on the ground before being slotted to make
policies.
On a previous occasion he warned against bureaucratic
inertia.
“The greatest danger is we are flying on auto-pilot. What was
once a great policy, we just carry on with more of the same, until
reality intervenes,” he noted.
Then arrogance! “There is also a particular brand of Singapore
elite arrogance creeping in,” he said. “Some civil servants behave
like they have a mandate from the emperor. We think we are little
Lee Kuan Yews (without earning our spurs).”
Ngiam speaks with the knowledge of an insider. He has served in
the elite Singapore Administrative Service for more than 40 years,
and played a major role in transforming Singapore into a textbook
case in development economics.
A lesser mover is Tan Kin Lian, the former chief of
Income, the insurance arm of the official National Trade Unions
Congress.
Tan used his web-blog to campaign against his former
company’s move to restructure bonus payouts for life policies that
works against holders.
And two years ago, Lee Kuan Yew’s daughter Associate Professor
Lee Wei Ling went public to criticise Singapore’s multi-billion
dollar biomedical research strategy as being badly misdirected.
It was spending large sums on cancer, heart disease and stem
cells, with the setting up state-of-the art laboratories and
pulling in top brains from around the world.
Lee, who is Director of the National Neuroscience Institute,
said it was pointless to compete with the top Western research
centres doing the same thing with bigger budgets and longer
experience.
Instead, she said, Singapore should concentrate on niche areas
with relevance to Asia, like hepatitis and head injuries.
When the government rejected her call, Lee vowed to carry on her
fight for change. “We’re talking about billions of dollars in
taxpayers’ money,” she said. “I will not let this mistake
continue.”
It was a rare public debate of top policy-makers. Few, however,
believe that Lee’s daughter will get into trouble for speaking her
mind.
Most other disagreements within the establishment are almost
always kept within the four walls, away from the public.
What the average Singaporean wants is more licence for public
debate of policies harmful to him – particularly among
establishment figures.
There has, however, been a gradual opening up in the past
decade.
To the younger citizens, however, Singapore’s “soft
authoritarianism” is less than what they want or what a creative
modern city should be.
All these years the ruling People’s Action Party and the civil
service have laid claims – through super high salaries – to some of
the state’s best educated.
The majority settle into their careers without wanting to rock
the boat, even when they disagree with a government policy.
In the course of the years, however, there had been a few
exceptions of outspoken government people.
Three years ago, East Coast MP Tan Soo Khoon accused the
government of waste in spending billions to build new luxurious
buildings, which he termed the “Seven Wonders of
Singapore”.
Likening seven new lavish offices to five-star hotels, Tan asked
whether these ministries and statutory boards were competing to see
“which can be better than the Four Seasons Hotel”.
During the years of strong growth, money was easy to come by and
it was easy to spend. “Only now, when it has become difficult, we
begin to sit up and take notice,” Tan chided the government.
In the 2006 election, 33% of the votes went to the opposition,
but it managed to win only two seats – or 2.4% – of the 84 seats in
Parliament.
With such a lop-sided representation, it is imperative that this
large opposition bloc has public figures to speak up for them
outside the realm of politics.
Being from the inside, retired or current members of the
government are best suited to contribute meaningful discussions
because of their inside knowledge.
Ngiam’s act of speaking out is widely admired. He says what many
Singaporeans want, if they could.
Asked in an interview whether Singapore would survive Lee Kuan
Yew, he said, “Yes, provided he leaves behind the right
legacy.”
And what is that? Ngiam was asked.
“It’s for him to say, but I, a blooming upstart, dare to suggest
to him that we should open up politically and allow talent to be
spread throughout our society so that an alternative leadership can
emerge,” he replied."
Is this from a malaysian newspaper?
If this is it is surprising that they should know and care so
much abt singapore politics....Whereras we singaporeans already
have given up...
