Visa: I don’t know why I saved this or where I saved this from, but I thought I’d publish it anyway:
“Recently I was invited by Peter of the One Dream initiative to dinner with Minister Shanmugam. It was held last night at Buko Nero, the tiny Tanjong Pagar restaurant famous for its long waiting list. People were just starting to relax with the conversation lubricated by free flowing glasses of champagne when the Minister stepped in 10 minutes ahead of schedule. That was a surprise, PAP guests of honour are known to arrive late though the situation has noticeably improved after the general election in 2011.
The room fell silent. I was reminded of a principal dropping in unannounced on a rowdy group of students. Peter introduced Minister Shan around the room, and we sat down at our seats.
I wasn’t sure what to expect of him and was curious to meet him in person. I had assumed that he would only discuss his portfolios in law and foreign affairs. But he started the conversation with a general question about the general state of the economy and the labour crunch after tightening of the foreign labour regulations.
Minister Shan speaks in a disarmingly gentle and soft-spoken manner coupled with a confident grasp of statistics, miles away from his tough persona as the law minister. I had some difficulty catching his words though I was seated just 3 places away. It was a polite evening and no one lobbed any incendiary questions at him. Here’s a selection of what I could remember of his replies (do let me know of any inaccuracy) – important points are highlighted in bold:
On high cost of housing: The rise in housing prices is due to external factors such as the huge amount of liquidity flowing into Singapore. The government has introduced round after round of cooling measures to ensure that Singaporeans can afford a roof over their heads. If you earn a $1000 a month, you can afford to pay for a 2-room HDB flat ($40,000 after subsidies).
On COE: Do we want more cars or jams on the road? The COE system is not perfect, but no system is perfect. For example, we could introduce balloting but every Singaporean regardless of their need would participate and the winner would try to profit from it. 45% of households in Singapore own a car, which is much higher than London or New York. Other cities such as Jakarta and Beijing experience worse jams. We are actually in pretty good shape, but our success have made Singaporeans more demanding.
On public transport: We have announced extensions to the MRT network and new rail lines. There will also be an interim increase in bus capacity though the transport companies are handicapped by a lack of bus drivers.
On cost of health care: As the population ages, an increasing number of retirees would be supported by a narrowing base of economically active people. A rise in taxes is inevitable to pay for the burgeoning cost of health care. Welfare systems such as the NHS in UK might be free, but you would have to wait 9 months to be treated. You have to pay the cost in some way. If we provide free health care, a certain group of people would take advantage of it.
On free/subsidised health care: Do you want to pay for the health care costs of other people? Do you want to pay for something you might never need, or do you want to pay for what you use?
On taxes: In Nordic societies, you pay 30% to 50% taxes. In Singapore, the top tax rate is 20% and over 7 in 10 people pay no taxes at all. The richest 40% of the population pay 84% of the GST. The bulk of the tax income comes from corporate taxes. Our current corporate tax is 20% compared to Hong Kong’s 17%. If we raise corporate taxes, foreign companies would flee Singapore and our economy would collapse, causing mass unemployment. Singapore is already operating on a high-cost basis, any further increases in tax would be painful to the companies.
On Michael Palmer affair: the government expects a high standard of conduct from all their members. But it’s not unheard of for men to stray, Singapore is not more or less moral than other countries.
On 377A: The government follows the wishes of the majority on social issues, we will only take the lead on economic issues. The current situation of “don’t ask, don’t tell” is the best compromise, why change the status quo? If we move to liberalise or tighten up the law, we will face inevitable resistance from activists, religious leaders, or the general public.
On education: Our graduates are highly employable and practically guaranteed a job in the current economic situation. The stress comes from parents, and unless they stop competing, there is little the government can do.
On the upcoming Malaysian election: BN will probably lose some seats but retain their majority. A loss is a black swan event which nobody could rule out. PM Najib has an excellent working relationship with PAP, we would be sorry to see him go.
The conversation gradually splintered into smaller, intimate chats around the table. I was seated with Ling Kai, the talented Singaporean singer-songwriter who penned the theme song for Peter’s One Dream initiative. She’s now based in Beijing and working on her new Mandarin album with a secret mentor. She attended the event with Jia Ling, a charming lady from a government ministry. We have some mutual friends from my time in the civil service, I felt a wave of nostalgia at the sound of long-forgotten names. Opposite me was Alecia, an offbeat photographer who had completed an art residency in Italy and planning an upcoming art exhibition in September. Definitely someone who’s not afraid to walk the unconventional path.
I had no questions for him, but just wanted to share with him my personal sentiment about Singapore: Our golden age ended in the early 1990s. Since then, we have gone downhill as a society. It has become a viciously competitive nation with little heart or soul. We have lost our moral centre. I feel reluctant to bring a child into such an environment. Although I love Singapore, a life in another country begins to look increasingly attractive. I want to live in a society that has values congruent with mine. Do we want a society that is every man for himself, or one that says we are all in this together?
He framed my observations into specific issues, such as health care and education before moving into a defense of PAP’s policies and programmes (see summary above).
I can’t out-debate the law Minister on policies he’s discussed thousands of times before. Nor do I intend to. I just wanted him to listen, and Minister Shan is a wonderfully attentive listener. He makes you feel like you’re the only person in the room.
During dessert, Ling Kai took out her guitar and graciously sang a couple of songs for us. She has a lovely husky voice, such a contrast to her normal speaking voice. Hope her career takes off in China, we’ll have another Singaporean to be proud of.
Since last night, I’ve been thinking about PAP. Their policies do work well enough, but they are not able to get out of an utilitarian, rational economic mindset. It’s all about dollars and cents. They worry constantly about people taking advantage of the system, and are determined never to be on the losing end. If such a risk exists, they would not proceed.
I would venture to say that they err on the side of caution. Take the scenario of free health care. If the majority of the population benefits even while a small group abuses the system, I would still say “let’s go ahead with it”. Why deny help to those who need it, simply because a few black sheep seek to profit from the loop holes?
In Minister Shan’s own words, no system is perfect. Why can’t we have policies with more warmth and sympathy especially for the less fortunate? It’s ok to lose a few dollars as long as you win the hearts. It’s not about populist policies aimed at buying votes of supporters. Rather, it’s a question of values – what message are we sending out with our policies? If you fall sick, it’s your own problem. You pay for your own health care costs. No one is obliged to help you. It all sounds too cold and calculative to me.
The Minister left shortly after 10 P.M., having stayed an extra hour beyond his planned schedule. I appreciate the effort he puts into regularly engaging different groups of people. He didn’t need to, but he went the extra mile and I respect him for that.”
Visakan Veerasamy
*The author blogs at http://www.visakanv.com