In the last election, Singaporeans have demonstrated a keen desire for a more balanced political landscape, a wider range of views and more robust debates in Parliament.

One important ingredient however remains missing for us to achieve the level of scrutiny and debate desired by Singaporeans – the Freedom of Information Act.

It is necessary for opposition parties to have equal access to all information pertinent to the formulation of public policies and laws, unless there are overriding reasons for withholding information, for example where national security may be threatened. Armed with accurate information, different political parties would then be better equipped to scrutinise each other and hold each other to higher standards. This will ultimately benefit Singaporeans.

The PAP chided WP for not submitting their proposal to the Review Committee on Ministerial Salaries, seeking to further tilt the unequal balance of information in their favour. If WP is obliged to open their books, but there is no obligation on the part of the Government to provide WP with relevant information they require, no robust debate will ever be possible in Parliament. If withholding proposals from the Review Committee is considered a political manoeuvre, then the denial of a Freedom of Information Act is a political manoeuvre on a much grander scale.

Singapore has made some headway in getting a more diverse representation into Parliament. However, without equal access to information, debates in Parliament will be stifled. Accurate and accessible information is crucial to developing a Parliament with thought-provoking debates.

Hazel Poa
Secretary-General

On behalf of the Central Executive Committee

The National Solidarity Party finds the report disappointing on both the choice of benchmark and salary levels:

1. Benchmark

   The committee has recommended that Ministerial salaries be benchmarked against the median income of the top 1000 Singaporean earners, which means the average income of the top 500^th and 501^st earners.

   Assuming a labour force of between 1.5 to 2 million ^[1], this means the benchmark is the income of an earner in the top 0.03 percentile.

   It is disappointing that our Ministers’ salaries are still pegged to income levels of the top earners instead of the general wage level. It sends the message that our Ministers are in the same boat as the top earners and not with the average person. It rewards the Ministers more as income inequality increases and top earners get a larger and larger share of the economic pie.

   The general wage level affects only about 7.5% ^[2] of the annual pay package. In essence, the new benchmark is not very much different from the old benchmark.

   The committee dismissed the use of median wages as a benchmark on the basis that the multiplier is arbitrary. And yet the 40% discount is similarly arbitrary. Why not a 50% discount or any other figure?

   We must accept that in all human decisions there will be degrees of arbitrariness. Arbitrariness however is not licence for whimsy but rather must be supported by sound and defensible judgement.

2. Quantum

   Even with a 40% discount, the salary level of an entry level Minister at $1.1m is still very much higher than those of heads of states or governments in other developed countries. The basic premise still seems to be that high salaries are needed to attract talented individuals into politics.

   The Prime Minister had promised that the message from the last elections had been received and that the PAP would change its outlook. One of the first issues he had identified as requiring urgent review was that of Ministerial Salaries. While the review has produced a steeper discount, there has been no change in the philosophy of the wage structure. The Chinese saying – huan tang bu huan yao – which translates as “changed the soup but not the medicine”, comes to mind.

   We fear the Government has missed a big opportunity to show that it is of the people and for the people.

Effectiveness of high salaries

In 1994, the Government introduced the proposal to peg Ministerial salaries to top earners in the private sector for two purposes: (i) to attract talent from the private sector, and (ii) to prevent corruption.

This policy has been in place for 17 years now, and we have not been more successful in attracting private sector talents into politics. On the other hand, corruption is illegal just like robbery or theft. Just as we do not pay people not to rob or steal, it is ridiculous to pay people not to be corrupt. In any case, as the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius once observed, “a man should be upright, not be kept upright.”

We therefore need to look at the rewards for politicians more holistically, considering both monetary and non-monetary rewards.

The edge that the public service used to have was the widespread respect and trust from the people as a result of the personal and financial sacrifices required in taking up such appointments. With the rapid increase in ministerial salaries to levels far above international norms, that trust and respect has been eroded by the sense that PAP politicians no longer share the destiny of those whom they govern. We need to restore the ethos of public service in younger Singaporeans in order to attract the right kind of people, rather than to compete on financial terms.

The NSP strongly feels that our politicians’ salary structure should demonstrate the following:

• Fairness and solidarity with the people by using the median wage as the benchmark, with a multiplier set in comparison with international salary levels for politicians such that our Ministerial salaries are no more than twice the international standard;
   
• Greater transparency through the declaration of incomes, assets and directorships; and
   
• Empowerment of the voters by having a variable component tied to national vote share won by the party at the next general election. The vote share is the ultimate composite KPI, encompassing all issues that Singaporeans care about.
   

Attracting the right people into politics

Finally, to make politics attractive, our political culture has to change.

By their own admission the PAP has had trouble recruiting talented individuals. This we believe is due to popular perception that it is a party of group-thinkers and yes-men. On the other hand, people who have publicly disagreed with the government have been dealt with harshly. When our young people see opposition politicians being sued, jailed, or bankrupted, and they have no interest in becoming yes-men, is it any wonder few are interested in politics?

The stigma that surrounds politics in this country is detrimental to the long-term health of our Republic. We must abolish or review legislations like the ISA, the Public Order Act and the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act – all of which have the effect of censorship and stifling the development of democratic habits essential for attracting good and talented people into politics and government.

Our Government had chosen not to address the issue holistically, opting instead for the simplistic approach of increasing salaries, which unsurprisingly has proven ineffective. It is time they realise that it is not all about the money.

Hazel Poa
Secretary-General
On behalf of the Central Executive Committee

Footnotes

1. ^: Labour Force Report 2010 stated a resident labour force of 2.05 million, which included both Singapore Citizens and PRs. There are 541,000 PRs in Singapore in 2010, according to the Department of Statistics.

2. ^: Two factors out of four affecting National Bonus which is about three months out of 20 months.

National Solidarity Party’s Statement Regarding the Recent SMRT Service Disruptions
19 December 2011

The recent spate of breakdowns in Singapore Mass Rapid Transit (SMRT) services has clearly demonstrated the vulnerabilities of relying on a monopoly for essential services, regardless of how efficient and reliable it has been in the past.

In 1913, Winston Churchill told the British Parliament that on “no one quality, on no one process, on no one country, on no one route, and on no one field must we be dependent.  Safety and certainty… lie in variety and variety alone.”  He was referring to the supply of oil, but the same principle applies to the supply of any essential goods and services.  Had there been alternatives in place when SMRT services broke down, the disruption and distress to commuters would have been reduced, and our public transport system on the whole would be more stable and robust.

Duplication in essential goods and services should not be looked upon as waste, but as a measure of security. The two incidences of vandalism of SMRT trains have already shown us that SMRT is not immune to acts of sabotage. This being the case, building redundancies into the system is a must. The removal of bus services running parallel to MRT routes, for instance, was a mistake which should be reversed immediately.  Bus services should also be liberalized to allow more players to enter the market, providing commuters with more options. Further, the operation of SMRT’s train and bus services should come under separate companies for greater competition.

The NSP has the following suggestions to make to the Minister for Transport, Board of SMRT and the potential Board of Inquiry:

1. Strengthen Emergency Planning

   DPM Teo has elsewhere raised the matter so we shall not belabor the point here.

2. Internal and External Audits

   SMRT has stated that it has a strict maintenance schedule that has been adhered to.  However, this does not appear consistent with the breakdowns we are experiencing, especially since the damages that caused the breakdowns take time to develop.  Has SMRT instituted internal audits on its maintenance programme?  Has the LTA conducted external audits on SMRT’s maintenance programme?

3. Review SMRT’s Priorities

   SMRT has appeared to have shifted its focus, in recent years, away from its core functions of efficient and reliable public transport to leasing operations.  This is reflected in its choice of a CEO with retail background rather than a candidate with a transport or engineering background.

   Although SMRT is not a government agency, it nevertheless provides a vital public service through its operation of what constitutes public infrastructure. Arguably therefore, profit maximization cannot be its sole guiding principle. If providing the vital service of public transportation efficiently and reliably means additional expenditure (with its corresponding effect of eroding profit margins), then this must be done. It is therefore high time for SMRT to relook its approach to allocating its resources.

   We are very concerned by the lack of concrete answers from SMRT regarding the causes of the damages to the third rail and the collector shoes, as well as the question of why the metal grips were dislodged in the first place. Additionally, it has also been unable to explain why lighting and ventilation failed in the train cabins. SMRT urgently needs to allocate the resources to further build up its engineering capabilities to ensure the safety of commuters, rather than building up their leasing business.

4. Review SMRT’s Corporate Culture

   Finally, a troubling image of SMRT’s corporate culture has also emerged in the last week. Two instances illustrate this:

   First, while commuters were kept in the dark regarding the situation, SMRT lost no time in alerting its stable of taxi drivers to the “income opportunity” arising from the service breakdown. The company has since explained the incident away as a template error. However, in the event of a massive service breakdown, a responsible corporate citizen would have called on its other resources to render assistance and to mitigate a bad situation. An “income opportunity” flash message betrays a culture that is narrowly focused on financial objectives rather than service standards. The difference is not merely semantic; it is significant.

   Second, instead of expressing concern and regret over passengers experiencing difficulty in breathing whilst trapped in the trains, SMRT staff issued a statement urging people not to break train windows and to await rescue.  This again betrays a disregard for commuter welfare.

   These instances suggest that SMRT is losing its sense of responsibility to commuters.  A thorough review is overdue.

In conclusion, the NSP would like to reiterate our call to separate SMRT’s train and bus operations to different companies with different ownerships, as well as to liberalise bus services.

Our government has always held that competition begets excellence and quality. It should not shy away from that belief now.

Hazel Poa
Secretary-General

On behalf of the Central Executive Committee

The remark made on Facebook by a former member of the Young PAP regarding a school bus of Muslim children was unquestionably irresponsible and inflammatory. However, condemning an entire organization because of the actions of one of its members is not a solution. No organization can monitor everything that each member says, all the time. In fact, this is the very sort of authoritarian and rigidly controlling system that we are trying to move away from.

If we are to have freedom of expression, it is inevitable that sometimes, deeply offensive things will be said. However, this does not mean that we must look the other way when such statements are made. It is also irrelevant that the remark was made before the individual became a member of the party. It is the responsibility of the party to communicate its members that such comments are unacceptable. The party should also seek to understand why one of its members harbors such sentiments and find ways to address the underlying cause – perhaps it is simple ignorance.

It is normal for human beings to make mistakes especially when they are young. We should take this as part of their learning journey and seek ways to help them grow and mature.

Finally, the offensive statement in question violated the principle of interracial respect which we hold in common as Singaporeans. As this is a community value, it is the shared responsibility of the community to uphold it by speaking up when it is violated. The correct response therefore is not to censor individuals but to censure them when they speak irresponsibly, for this gives society an opportunity to reaffirm its value system.

Hazel Poa
Secretary-General
National Solidarity Party

For more information, please contact
Praveen Velu
Email: praveen.velu [at] gmail [dot] com

Almost one million Muslim residents in Singapore will celebrate Hari Raya together with 1 billion Muslims all over the world. Even though the festival is celebrated in various manners across the globe, Syawal (the month where Hari Raya is celebrated) is universal in the sense that Muslims consider it a month to celebrate victory in disciplining both physical body and soul after one month of fasting.

This discipline must not only be applied to the months of Ramadan and Syawal but we must involve such discipline in our live to better ourselves all the time. Today, the Malay community has achieved some degree of success when compared to 10 to 15 years ago but it is not at a level that we can be proud of. A lack of discipline in facing life’s challenges is the reason why the community’s progress is not as what we would have want it to be, With discipline, there is no dream that cannot be achieved.

One of the disciplines that we need is the spirit and capability to transform life and the status quo. In Singapore’s context, such changes cannot be done without the political hand which controls all aspects of our lives. Sadly, the Malay community in general still regards politics as “foreign” to their lifestyle. However, if the community has a high level of understanding about politics and how it can be harnessed for betterment, progress and harmony, our lives would surely transform to a level that is far better than we are today.

Such understanding will make the citizenry stronger and be the main factor which would ensure the leadership and administration of this country be more fair and just. As such, we would like to extend our hands to all of you to join us in “transforming our lives” so that our Malay/Muslim community would be able to achieve a level of progress that we could be proud of.

On behalf the President, CEC and the big family of NSP Malay Bureau, we would like to wish you Selamat Hari Raya Eidul Fitri.

Malay Translation

Hampir sejuta penduduk Muslimin dan Muslimat di Singapura akan meraikan Eidul Fitri bersama 1 bilion umat Islam di seluruh dunia. Walaupun cara menyambutnya berbeza di sana sini tapi pengertian Syawal bersifat sejagat iaitu menyambut kemenangan zahiriah dan batiniah selepas sebulan mendisiplinkan diri.

Pengertian ini tidak harus menjadi fokus hanya pada bulan Ramadhan atau menyambut Syawal sahaja tetapi ia harus dijadikan matlamat untuk memperbaiki diri sepanjang masa. Masyarakat Melayu hari ini sudah mencapai tahap yang memuaskan jika dibandingkan dengan 10 – 15 tahun dahulu tapi belum cukup untuk dibanggakan. Kurangnya tekad kita untuk berdisiplin dalam menghadapi cabaran hidup itulah yang menjadi punca kenapa kemajuan masyarakat kita tidak sepantas yang diharapkan. Dengan disiplin, tiada impian yang tidak boleh menjadi kenyataan.

Salah satu disiplin yang perlu ada ialah semangat dan keupayaan untuk merubah nasib dan keadaan. Dalam konteks Singapura, perubahan tidak dapat dilakukan tanpa peranan politik yang sememangnya menguasai segala aspek kehidupan kita. Malangnya, masyarakat Melayu umumnya masih mempunyai sifat ‘politik itu asing’. Pendirian ini hanya akan menyebabkan permasalahan kita berpanjangan. Tetapi jika masyarakat kita mempunyai kesedaran yang tinggi terhadap politik dan bagaimana ia dapat dipergunakan untuk kebaikan, kemajuan dan keharmonian, nasib kita semua pasti akan berubah kepada tahap yang jauh lebih baik.

Keperihatinan ini akan memperkasakan rakyat dan menjadi penyebab utama untuk memastikan kepimpinan dan pentadbiran negara yang lebih adil dan saksama. Atas dasar ini, kami menghulur tangan menjemput semua pihak untuk bersama dalam memupuk semangat ‘merubah nasib’ pada sepanjang masa agar masyarakat Melayu/Islam kita dapat mencapai kemajuan yang membanggakan.

Bagi pihak Presiden, CEC dan keluarga besar Biro Melayu parti NSP, kami mengucapkan Selamat Menyambut Hari Raya Eidul Fitri dan salam maju jaya.

The National Solidarity Party (NSP) regrets the continued lack of transparency surrounding our sovereign wealth funds (SWFs). The NSP believes that sufficient public information in the internal workings of GIC and Temasek Holdings is undoubtedly in the interest of all Singaporeans, as is a demonstrably robust system of check and balances in the management of our SWFs.

Singapore’s reserves, as well as Singaporeans’ Central Provident Fund (CPF) contributions, are managed by GIC and Temasek Holdings. In GIC’s 2011 annual report, released last month, the fund claims a 7.2% annualized rate of return in USD terms from its investments over the past 20 years. Converted to SGD terms, the annualised rate of return is 5.1%. Temasek Holdings claims annualized returns of 15% over 20 years. In comparison, CPF only pays out 2.5%. It is also a disturbing state of affairs when Temasek Holdings, with about 400 employees, can report an $8 billion administrative expense without incurring significant public scrutiny. To put it in context, $8 billion is more than one-sixth of our national budget.

The NSP believes that, as a mature, intelligent and financially responsible society, our citizens have the unquestionable right to have the fullest picture of where their taxes and government mandated social contributions go into and what comes out of that. Therefore, we strongly encourage greater public awareness of relevant benchmarks such as Malaysia’s Employees Provident Fund, which guarantees a minimum return of 2.5% p.a. and actually delivered returns of 4% to 8.5% annually since 1960 , and Norway’s SWF which has managed to be highly successful while offering greater disclosure to its citizens.

The longstanding excuse from the privileged few responsible for maintaining the shroud of secrecy around our SWFs is that secrecy aids competitiveness. PAP leader and long-serving former GIC Chairman Lee Kuan Yew has argued that if GIC makes its moves clear, competitors can predict what it does next. We believe that this argument is specious. There is a world of difference between GIC being transparent to stakeholders (which Singapore taxpayers surely are) on one hand, and foolishly telegraphing its investment strategy to competitors. There are plenty of examples of successful public companies that manage to turn in consistently good returns for stakeholders while providing full disclosure to stakeholders. Where our SWFs are concerned, as we can see from the paltry interest rates offered by CPF, Singapore taxpayers neither enjoy full disclosure nor noticeably remarkable returns.

The NSP also calls for all MPs and their immediate relatives to be open about any compensation that they might be receiving from Temasek Holdings or GIC or other such organizations. The ongoing review on ministerial salaries is a correct, if belated, move in the right direction. But it is only a partial step. For example, existing and former MPs such as Lee Kuan Yew, Lee Hsien Loong and Tony Tan have served many years in a chairman or deputy chairman role with GIC or Temasek. Close relatives of these PAP dignitaries are also serving in high positions within the SWFs. Additionally, with so many PAP MPs also juggling multiple, sometimes dozens, of directorships and consultancies, it is clearly in the public interest to know who else is paying their MPs and for what purposes.

We strongly recommend that serving MPs offer a full and public disclosure on all remunerated positions, including directorships and retainers, taken out with the official MP position.

NSP firmly believes that better financial transparency in our SWFs and Parliament is the best way to serve all Singaporeans, and hope that the new elected President will champion the move as this relates also to the management of our reserves.

Hazel Poa
Secretary-General
National Solidarity Party

PRESS STATEMENT FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Date: 16 Aug 2011

The National Solidarity Party welcomes the Prime Minister’s National Day Rally speech which recognises that Singaporeans must come first. We are happy to see the PM addressing some of the pressing issues facing Singaporeans in housing, education, health care cost and employment. We are especially glad to learn of the additional help to be given to children with special needs.

However, we note with disappointment that important issue of population growth target remain unaddressed.

It has been recognised that much of the angst felt by Singaporeans – high property prices, congestion on the roads and public transport, overload at polyclinics and public hospitals – is caused by our infrastructure not keeping up with the population growth. The Government can fight the fire now by increasing the number of BTO flats and buses, but without addressing the root of the problem, which is the lack of co-ordination between population planning and infrastructure planning, such problems could recur and there is no basis for infrastructure planners to judge if the additional supply will be adequate. This Rally speech has chosen to ignore the elephant in the room. We need a sustainable long term population plan, one that takes into account not only economic considerations, but also social ones.

The PM has also recognised the problem of insufficient places for locals in our local universities, and pledges to increase the number of places for locals by the year 2015. Currently, the number of places for locals is 12,000. Foreign students make up 18% of enrolment, or about 2,600. If the PM is serious about putting Singaporeans first, the existing places in our local universities should go to our local students who have the ability to benefit from a university education first. Excess places could then be offered to foreign students. This can be done immediately, not 4 years later. By 2015, when the universities have expanded their capacity, more foreign students can then be admitted. This would then truly be placing Singaporeans first.

Overall, the rally speech does contain much welcomed developments. This is testimony to the power of citizens to influence the course of their country. This is a right we should never give up. As Singapore marches into a new political era, let all who care about our country play an active role to make our country better.

Hazel Poa
Secretary-General
National Solidarity Party