National Solidarity Party

The National Solidarity Party has received many queries from the media following Mr Goh Meng Seng’s blog article regarding the possibility of the Party contesting the upcoming Hougang by-election.  As Mr Goh is no longer a member of NSP, it is inappropriate for NSP to take responsibility for Mr Goh’s articles and personal opinions.

NSP has made no announcement that we would contest in the Hougang by-election, nor that we would not. Openness and transparency are applicable to public policies and administration, but not to election strategies. Transparency in war is suicidal. Political situations are always fluid and pre-mature announcements carry unnecessary risks. We should be judged on the basis of our actions, not by the words of a third person. Over time, we hope to earn the public’s confidence in the ability of NSP to come to sound decisions.

The National Solidarity Party welcomes most of the measures announced in the Government’s budget statement on the 17th of February 2012.

The statement underscores the fact that the government has heard the electorate and taken steps to address some of their concerns, in particular, lowering our dependence on the foreign workforce, greater assistance to the elderly, the disabled and the lower-incomed, and expanding the capacity of our public transport and public hospitals.

There are however three areas that we felt were inadequately addressed in the budget statement.

Firstly, there continues to be an absence of a population plan for Singapore, making it difficult to assess the adequacy of the proposed expansion in capacity for buses and hospitals, and in fact, many of the Government’s plans. The Ministry of Manpower should regulate the population growth target at no more than 50,000 (which is double the 23,000 identified as our shortfall of babies – see diagram below) per year over the next 10 years. Over the last 10 years, Singapore’s population growth was 100,000 per year. The population growth target should be reviewed every 3 years and adjusted according to the needs of Singapore. Hong Kong, for example, which has a land space of more than 50% than that of Singapore, has a population growth target of 35,000 annually.

Slide from DPM's speech on population at Committee of Supply 2010

Secondly, while the budget statement recognized the trend of a greying population in Singapore and the social responsibilities of the Government towards the elderly by introducing a slew of measures to take better care of older Singaporeans, it failed to introduce any measure to address the problem of the falling total fertility rate (TFR). Our falling TFR is by far one of the most important issues facing the Government. For a “Budget for our future”, it is very disappointing that the budget statement failed to mention any initiatives to continue battling this problem. Having failed once or twice before is no excuse for giving up. We hope that Parliament will debate over this matter and develop fiscally supportable proposals in the coming days.

Thirdly, while this budget has been very generous towards the elderly, we would really like to see greater flexibility in the withdrawal of CPF funds in certain circumstances, for example, those aged above 55 and unemployed, and those diagnosed with terminal illnesses like cancer and need the CPF funds for treatment. The gradual raising of the CPF withdrawal age has created real difficulties for some Singaporeans who really need their money that is sitting in the CPF account. While we agree with the general principle that people need to save up for their retirement, there are always circumstances when departing from the principle is the sensible thing to do.

In addition, we reiterate our earlier proposal to allow further competition in the operation of bus services. Allowing more entrants into the market will bring more capital and capacity. This will make it unnecessary for taxpayers to foot the full $1.1bn bill to increase the bus capacity of private bus operators.

Overall, however, this is a well balanced budget, hard-nosed in some areas and compassionate in others. We welcome the greater emphasis in fostering a more inclusive society and the slew of measures introduced to make life better for Singaporeans. We hope that more could be done in future budgets.

Hazel Poa
Secretary-General

On behalf of the Central Executive Committee

The National Solidarity Party is pleased to announce that it has set up a Legal Clinic to provide free legal consultation by qualified volunteer lawyers to Singaporeans who cannot afford to see a lawyer.

Eligibility

This community service by NSP is open to all Singapore Citizens who do not have the means to pay for legal advice. You do not need to be a member of NSP to consult with our Legal Clinic lawyers.

Services

The Legal Clinic provides registrants with a face-to-face consultation session with a qualified volunteer lawyer. No advice will be given over the telephone, via email or by correspondence.

The Legal Clinic:

• Does not provide legal representation to carry out any legal action.
• Does not provide legal consultation for inquires relating to Criminal Offences and Business Law.
• May decline to provide consultation for areas of law which are outside the expertise of the attending volunteer lawyer.

Venue

Consultations will be held at the National Solidarity Party premises at No. 397, Jalan Besar, #02-01A, Singapore 209007.

Registration Process

As consultations are by appointment only, do register for a consultation at the NSP’s Legal Clinic by sending your full name, NRIC number and a brief description of the legal inquiry to:

Hazel Poa
Secretary-General

On behalf of the Central Executive Committee

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