Yes, I am Singaporean

Yup, this is the first time that Ms Ooi Pei Qi is amongst a crowd, and takes a stand, a identity, as a stakeholder of a citizen of Singapore. Yup, I have used my passport many times standing as a Singaporean to get pass tough immigration check points. I feel even more blessed comparitively to an average Singaporean who has stayed in his home country for most of his life. Seeing that I have not lived in here for the most of my life, I still get to enjoy such privileges. I do not deserve it. But anyhow, this is still on an individual level. Now I take a stand and have a stake as a Singaporean, who will rule Singapore in the next 10 years, what policies I want to advocate. And on an individual level, benefits that I get to receive as a Singaporean, who stays in Singapore, who possibly may contribute to Singapore's society, and hopefully Singapore's dismal birth rate. Yup, the General Election is coming. And after 4 years of education in a Singapore public university, the least they could do to me is make me feel a little more for the country that I owe my birth place to.

Don persuaded me to go (but cus he was stuck in the traffic jam, he didn't attend in the end. =.=)I told him I do not want to go if the speaker was to talk about the goodness of Singapore and the success that the ruling government has achieved for the past 46 years. No, I would not go. But seeing that it was the PM, I gave way a little. Little knowing that the topic that he was going to give a talk on was about "Leadership Renewal - The Fourth Generation and Beyond". I didn't regret going though, was a session worth sacrificing study time for. ;)

I will just expound on the few topics that PM Lee spoke on, which proved to be pretty interesting. ;)

Leadership Succession in Singapore

This topic is even more critical than any other period, any other pre-General Election year. Currently, PM Lee has been in power for 7 years, and its time to plan a leadership succession. (You wonder which other countries in the world can actually have the stability of the country to do so =.=) This is not to plan for the leadership for the next 10 years, but for the 10 years after that. This is crucial for Singapore, for this small state, this small country, which has achieved stability and economic growth and from there, recognised on the world stage.

We want to keep this virtuous cycle going: 1. good leadership, 2. social stability and 3. economic growth, and then good leadership again. This is a good model, and we want to keep it up.

With the General Election coming up, the ruling party has hand-picked around 20 plus fresh faces to represent their political party, the government, the country. (PAP has formed majority in the government since 1966, that sometimes political party and government seem synonymous) Now, a question was asked from the ground: Singapore is hand picks the future leaders, as compared to allowing leaders to emerge or in other sense, grow organically. Do you have anything to comment on that?

Well if you see the US, Barrack Obama contested and became president, but prior to that, it seemed that he came out of nowhere. Jimmy Carter too. He was a peanut farmer, and he contested and won. Not to say that it is wrong, but Singapore has our own version of politics. There is no country in the world that has the exact same political system as Singapore. The closest example I can find is China. [laughs] It's true, if you think about it. China has a central political committee, which will hand pick the next generation of leaders to be groomed. This happens 5 to 10 years before the person succeeds the post intended for him. You'll see him going on visits to other countries, being introduced to the leaders of other nations.

In Singapore, we have the political stabilty to do so, to hand pick people to succeed us in the next generation.

PQ's comments

What I feel is that the current ruling party picks people based on certain traits that they advocate. People who will follow PAP's ideology. I mean, that is not wrong, definitely, it keeps the current system in place, and allows the PAP to plan way more and further as compared to any other democratic government in the world. PM did mention that we not only need people with high IQ, but are caring, having good EQ. Nonetheless, in reaility, it does not seem so. To advocate certain traits to the point where the party suffers from a lack in variety is to its err. Yes, we need top, smart, caring, organised people. But we also need people who understand different levels of society, or at least, represent them.

Political System for Singapore

Most developed democratic countries in the world have a two party political system. They say that to acheive political maturity, Singapore will also have to go through that system. PM Lee said that can see various scenarios for this. The first is the divide between race or religion, that one party represents a race or religion, and the other represent another. However, this is not the best solution for Singapore. Through the years, the government has strived hard to give social mobility to all, to give equal opportunities to people regardless of your race, religion, parents income. We emphasise racial harmony. To implement a system based on race or religion is going to destroy the hard work that the government has laboured for so far.

Another solution will be the division between the white and the blue collar. Just like the United States, where you have the Republicans representing the rich, cutting taxes and all, and the Democrats, who represnt the blue collar workers, giving out welfare. And also like Britain, where you hav ethe Conservatives, Labour and the Liberals, who stand somewhere in the middle. But that too would not be a good solution for Singapore.

The third solution would be a division between political views, where one advocates MNCs coming into Singapore, and another advocating companies in Singapore to grow organically, and depend entirely on Singaporeans. This is possible, but still, not the best.

The best solution for Singapore, that I can think of, is to have a one-party state, where you concentrate all your resources in one pool. The question is not whether we should have a two-party political system, but rather, lies in the problem that we do not have enough talent to fill the ministerial roles. If we have a person that is adept in filling the Finance Minister role, then we would want him to fill it. Tell me whether you can find any other person who can fill in that role. It is difficult. If we want the best, the most suitable candidate for the role, we have to concentrate all our resources to form one strong party, and from that pool of people, select the best people to fill the roles in the ministries.

Singapore's government is more like a national football team. You have the players, the reserves, and the coach. The players will be out front playing the game, and when is time for them to retire, the reserves will take the place of the players. And you have the coach, which also can be changed. We want the "A" team to rule the country, and only one team can represent a country's football team.

3. Social mobility

Singapore has strived to ensure that each person has equal opportunity to rise up in the society. We have established our education system, ensure that people have the opportunity to own a house (through the HDB scheme) and so on. If a person cannot go to university, there is ITE. We try our best to groom each person so that each person can achieve his or her fullest potential. Now a question is asked: there are two sides to social mobility - absolute and relative social mobility. We see that there is absolute social mobility in place in Singapore. But what about relative mobility? Do all kinds of people from all backgrounds have equal opportunities to rise up? (Well the person who asked this question isn't from the majority race group, so definitely we feels some sentiments)

Well Singapore strives its best to provide social mobility, based on the system of meritocracy. If your parents are not that well off, their children will still have a chance to move up the social ladder. And if the child comes from a better off family, we cannot ensure that he will do well in life and ride on his family's name. In every society in the world, there will definitely be some groups that do not gain as much as others, but we try our best to provide the opportunities for you.

Views on Mr Lee

I think that he has good, structured thinking. His speech is structured in a way where you can understand well. A macro view of things. I think he is good at that too. Nonetheless, with the General Election coming up, his views tend to advocate those of his party.

Oh yea, it came to me that he spoke eloquent English, each word pronouced precisely, correctly. So much for our national language, Singlish.

-----------------------------------------------

And what better way, to end of the day, than to go home, receive a letter, and find out that as a stakeholder in this society, I receive a growth dividend from the government. YES. From the government. Something that we probably will not get in Malaysia. Note that I'm not working, not contributing to the society in any way at all, not in taxes, not in babies. But just by being a citizen of this country that is above 21 years in age, I receive some cash benefits. (Which, as an economist, shall not favour it as a good move. Vouchers or actual welfare packs are better economic solution to social problems. But this is a different case, if this is to entice us to vote the ruling party back in, so that the ruling party can solve more crucial social problems. And cross my fingers, give us more benefits. ;)) Yes, it's pegged to what kind of house I stay in, whether a 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 room HDB flat, or whether I stay in private property (which I think is a suitable proxy, seeing that the place we live is a good measure for wealth of a person in the case of Singapore). And yes, I receive less than the average 23 year old Singapore woman. But for my demographics, its still better than nothing. :)