Power and Influence

Differential between power and authority is so dated and infantile and needs no introduction for any exposed to introductory management and further verbiage would be waste of previous newsprint. The same might NOT be for power and influence.

Earliest record has Influence as a borrowed word from the French language around 14 century AD as an astrological term. Streaming ethereal power from the stars acting upon the character or destiny of men was described by Webster. This was when understanding of celestial or astrological bodies were more folklore and religious in origin than fact based science. One could attribute a more indirect, persuasive or even mystical intonations to it although later usage does imply the inclusion of power as one of the components.

Power on the hand according to Merriam has its etymology from a vulgar Latin root word possibly equivalent to modern day potent. It has paw prints synonymously with the likes of authority, possession, control of, establishment and most importantly force. A possible diametric complement to imply use of a large force instead of sporadic or individual sustenance can also be reasonably attributed.

The Orwellian maxim of absolute power corrupts absolutely and the USA constitution on the right to bear arms must have some parallelism as the first major constitution of republican origin. The last major preceding was most probably the magna carter under a royalist backdrop where not all man are born equal. The central theme is not gun control or anywhere near that for the matter.

Influence generally have to be earned constantly and would ebb as quickly if not faster than it rises so it is less of an issue. Power once attained can be monopolized or entrenched ad infinitum legitimately, illegitimately or pseudo legitimately. Power like opium is highly addictive and a reading of political history from ancient times to recent past will attest.

Democracy is the governance through the will of the majority represented by their candidates through regular elections for a term of about 4 - 6 years generally. The minority will therefore have to live with the will of the majority so long as their basic human endeavors are not trespassed grossly. A direct democracy is not sustainable save perhaps in utopia.

Limits on term of government like in USA to 2 terms is a possible safeguard though not perfect as a puppet or proxy could very well overcome the limitations but it is not easily mounted. The bigger challenge of limited term is the challenges of seat warming by office bearers in their final term for which there is no easy answer. If auditors of public or listed companies are beginning to be rotated, why mot politicians.

Another apparatus is the segregation between, executive branch consisting of the politicians voted into office, civil service which must be apolitical and serve the executive branch within legislature. A good read or watch of the twin volume/serial of Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister by BBC would provide good public education on it in a comical setting. Last but not least is the judiciary for which independence is like the capstone of ancient architecture. Though small as compared to the rest, its absence can cause the entire structure to collapse.

There are no easy answers to such difficult questions nor should there be confrontational my way or highway which is so ancient, archaic and infantile especially for elected office bearers. A more congenial way is  a good way forward as it will make the process of any power transition less painful. Unless the incumbent is hopelessly addicted and only intends to stay forever.

Peter Lye aka lkypeter
lkypeter@gmail.com Safe Harbor. Please note that information contained in these pages are of a personal nature and does not necessarily reflect that of any companies, organizations or individuals. In addition, some of these opinions are of a forward looking nature. Lastly the facts and opinions contained in these pages might not have been verified for correctness, so please use with caution. Happy Reading. Peter Lye (c) Peter Lye 2014

Effects of Government on Macro Economic Performance-Singapore Experience

Human nature prevails that where credit is due, the queue to claim it can be mile long and on the same note, when blames needs to be apportioned, all and sundry will stay miles away from the situation. This small and young nation of Singapore commonly known as the little red dot was once near annihilation due to a multitude of factors like racial/religious divide, poor economy, low rate of literacy with absolutely no natural resources to live on the land. This era of the 1960s bore witness to the bitter struggle for independence that was also opportunistically made use by the communist to agitate the populace against their old colonial masters flying the altruistic flag of our struggle for freedom but with a more sinister underlying aim of converting the country into a communist state. Racial and religious issues especially racial issues were polarized to stir the pot of multi-racial harmonious co-existence and tolerance into a struggle for a monolithic society. All these are behind us save for the historians whose records of these events through their individual looking glass on what and why of the past. History was never meant to be an objective study although foundational principles are there to shed light along our path towards the truth.

The then chief minister and the current minister mentor Lee Kuan Yew and his contemporaries many of which has left the cabinet and this life due to old age have pre-sided over a period of renaissance of Singapore economy with many years of double digit growth and structural transformation of the economy from a industrial/manufacturing to a knowledge and service orientated economy as Singapore survive one after another economic downturn with relatively small and quick healing battle scar of economic recession.

This period also witnessed the baton of premiership handed over from Lee Kuan Yew to Goh Chok Tong to our present prime minister Lee Hsien Loong who is the eldest son of Lee Kuan Yew. The issue of cabinet remuneration and sustainable leadership quality was maturely brought up in the open as a discussion point for the public to opined on. The basic argument being that we cannot expect a quality leadership to bring Singapore into the next leap on an altruistic only basis and a comparatively pittance financial reward. A novel model was brought to bear that benchmarked the political leaders and top civil servants salaries against the top n earners of the captains of various industries like lawyers, doctors, engineers etc. The application of the model had the effect of pushing up the salaries of the these leaders fairly substantially. The basis of which was that it would be a model that will serve us well in good and bad times as the cabinet salaries would decline if the top salaries were to decline in an economic downturn and provides for a certain level of social equity as well.

My basic belief being that poorly remunerated political leaders and top civil servants might lead be linked to poor economic performance but high remuneration is not a pre-condition for good economic performance and might not guarntee good economic performance in most cases.

First of all, we shall try to proxy good economic performance against a basket of indicators and this is not perfect or the best but would suffice for this discourse. The proxies are:

-GDP or GNP

-GDP or GNP compounded growth

-Measurement of government participation in economy - Fiscal Budget/GDP or GNP
-Years in power of head of state
-% of popular votes to ruling party
-% of seats controlled by ruling party
-Gini index
-UN Human Development Index

Our closest neighbour Malaysia has a parallel in having an iconic leader helm the top post for many terms. Mahatair Mohamed in the case of Malaysia and Lee Kuan Yew in the case of Singapore. Fortunately or unfortunately, both countries does not have a ruling to limit the number of terms the prime minister can stay in office like in USA where it is limited to 2 terms. We shall measure USA differently on this proxy in terms of number of presidents that managed to serve their maximum two term. It is indeed a good record as Bush, Clinton, Ragean all did two two terms. It was only in recent past that Malaysia saw some movement after Mahatair stepped down. In both countries, it is not invisible that both iconic leaders continue to enjoy some influence over the political landscape even though they are no longer prime ministers.

Peter Lye aka lkypeter
Safe Harbor
Please note that information contained in these pages are of a personal nature and does not necessarily reflect that of any companies, organizations or individuals. In addition, some of these opinions are of a forward looking nature. Lastly the facts and opinions contained in these pages might not have been verified for correctness, so please use with caution. Happy Reading. Copyrights of all contents in this blog belongs to Peter Lye unless stated otherwise.

Oslo Carnage-Singaporean Perspective

93 lives vaporized in a matter of about 90 minutes in Oslo on 22 July 2011 because 32 year old Anders Behring Breivik wanted to ensure that the authorities gave his beliefs the necessary attention. This event would change the Norwegian way of life like what 911 did to USA. Instead of taking his own life, he allowed himself to fall into the hands of the law and face the prospect of 20-30 years behind bars if convicted and accorded the full force of the law as Norway has no death penalty. Perhaps he wanted his day in court to promote his far-right ideology as by default, court proceedings are open to public and journalist. However, from his indictment proceedings which is unprecedentedly a closed one, his newsprint hours in court might not be that full. It was a surprising move as closed proceedings are the norm mostly in cases involving minors or of a sexual nature. Even the 911 court proceedings were open in US.

His actions are definitely pre-mediated over a period of 9 years but it most probably would not qualify for first degree murder as the victims are sort of random in nature. As of now, they prosecutors have not actually decided on what to nail Breivik and court has allowed a special 8 weeks of solitary confinement where only his lawyer is allowed access to give the prosecution more latitude in the conduct of the investigation and finally arriving at a charge. Perhaps extraordinary events call for extraordinary measures. On a lighter note on this very grave issue, perhaps it is a sort of reverse class action.

This event set me thinking on what can Singapore and Singaporean learn and take precautionary measures beyond policing and intelligence spheres but also on public, political, economic arenas and also rethink the meaning of justice beyond the restrictive meanings of those in the lawyering and judiciary profession. Perhaps also the parliament where our laws are made.

Punitive Measures
As a maturing society, we ought to come to terms that no amount of effort is enough to totally prevent such risks. On the same note, much can be done by our government and society acting in concerted effort to minimize the risks. To throw caution to the wind and do nothing just because it is an impossibility would amount to gross negligence.

The maximum punishment that laws in various countries differs widely but it can be classed as 3 broad categories. Death sentence by which ever means, time limited life sentence which can vary from 20-30 years and life sentence till death with no time limit. Various comparative especially between death sentence and life sentence and its impact on serious crime rates has not been totally conclusive that death sentence reduces serious crime rates. This is not a pro-life debate and one thing we can conclude that death sentence appears to be a cheaper alternative for the government in terms of managing such criminals. There is some co-relation that most first world nations consider the death sentence as cruel and so do away with it but in many states in USA, the death sentence is still the order of the day for serious crimes. It is rather conclusive that in almost all countries, the law is sufficient or perhaps too punitive in some cases.

Besides the law,the co-joining factors relates to policing and judiciary process. Being mostly libertarian at heart, I think that we need to titrate the level of policing to a sufficient level to have an acceptable level of public safety and law and order and not be driven to the extreme of being a police state with little or no freedom for the citizenry. This is a complex issue that the government in consultation with the citizenry must decide not only on the level of policing but also the matter and form as well.

Judiciary process is a very loaded item and I would be very careful else I run foul of the law. Basically, the two main categories are a judge based or jury consisting of the citizenry. There is no conclusive evidence of one over the other. I stand very economized here.

In terms of punitive measures, I am of the opinion that we overall fairly sufficient altogether there have been some controversies on both end of the spectrum. We had to contend with and grow up as a nation with regards to the escape whilst under Singapore custody of a key potential terrorist element Mas Selamat arrested by the police of our neighboring country Malaysia succeeding man hunting down Mas Selamat and extraditing him back to Singapore. On the other hand, we have also been criticized by NGOs like Amnesty International for Internal Security Act which allows for detention without trial. I recognized that this act is a caricature left behind by the British that used to be our colonial masters. I also see reasons for not dropping or changing this Act as Singapore was facing substantial struggle from communists or communalists elements both internally as well as externally like the Communist Party of Malaya and fast breeding of communism in our corridor like Vietnam, Cambodia and Burma with their larger over lords of Russian and China. This dispensation is most probably passe with communism running out of style as well as being reformed greatly like in China. Let not in our haste for popularism throw the baby out with the bath water by eliminating the Internal Security Act altogether but can explore changes to it to fit the political climate. USA enacted the Patriot Act and created a Homeland Security Bureau in reaction to 911 and perhaps having the backbone of an Act of similar nature, we can revise the Act instead.

As in all things, we must sought for balanced and well considered position rather than a knee jerk and more extremists measures. No doubt time is of the essence but we can always have temporary legislation subject to further review with a given time frame perhaps. The Patriot Act in USA is not without detractors internally as well as fear of turning the country into a police state or fear of misuse by those in powers for their own ends.

Social Glue-GINI index and Social mobility
There are research evidence co-relating high GINI with either terrorist activity, revolt and war. I see social mobility as part being a big part to address high GINI index overtime. It is my worry here as a Singaporean that our GINI index has been increasing even with a growing GDP. I am all for a meritocratic value system but it must be tampered with a humane heart and safety net for the those at the bottom of society as well as those that falls through the strict rules of the safety net. I know that the current PAP government is very resolute in not encouraging a lethargic socialist populace by holding back on expanding the social safety net. I am very concerned in this arena as a widening rich poor gap coupled with fairly porous immigrant labour laws which is a major part of the ingredients capitulating into the Oslo carnage.

Back on social mobility, history has shown that it is easy for a meritocratic society to transform into a class stratified society.  The rich and powerful overtime will be tempted to change the rules of the game to preserve their place in society. Our now retired but still influential statesman Lee Kuan Yew recently was quoted by the press that he will feel sorry for Singapore if we were to have a two party government granted he has various merits for a one party system. History has proven in Animal Farm speak that absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is a very common tendency based on the strength of self interest as stated by Adam Smith. Many have mis-quoted or misunderstood his self interest for selfishness and if we look deeper, there is a big differential between self interest which is lawful, moral and normal to selfishness which can disintegrate a society into the vestiges of hell surely though it might not be immediately.

We have to be true to ourselves that in the same breathe that we speak of meritocracy, we cannot deny the fact that blood the flows in us is thicker than water. This is why I was very concerned when the PAP government decided to scrap Estate Duty totally as estate duty is there as one of the tools to guard against poverty trap. In addition, we ought to watch out and arrest the spread of nepotism as we push towards an equal opportunity society as it is a very human tendency to do so. The spread of the tax burden is also a very key policy instrument and I am in favor of an across the board consumption like our GST as a good and efficient tax practice as it is easier to administer, has fewer tax loopholes as well as encouraging savings for future versus consumption. GST also tend to have a negative effect of shifting the tax burden towards the poor as generally, the poor will save less than the rich as a percentage of their income. To add injury, we have also lowered corporate tax as well as skewed the personal income tax in favor of the rich by reducing the tax rate for those on the higher tax brackets. The rationale explained by the government for the corporate tax to for us to stay competitive with neighboring economies like Hong Kong and the tweaking of the personal income tax to discourage 'tax planning' activities. Perhaps we ought to re-examine the corporate tax, personal income tax, estate duty and GST holistically together.

I am certainly no anglophile but I endorse their making equal opportunity, transparency and equitable society as non-negotiable. England was as feudal state as one can be and remains one of the last few larger economies to continue constitutional monarchy. It took England about 200 years to transition itself from an executive monarchy to constitutional monarchy in a fairly peaceful manner although there has been bloodshed compared to the number of people that died in the communist revolution that overthrew the executive Tsar monarchy in one swoop.

This is not an opportunistic endeavor to use the stage of Oslo carnage to further my personal views but looking at the Oslo Carnage through Singapore looking glass.

Cheers,,,,, Pete

My Fellow American

Political Theme Song for Singapore Election Results-Bruckner Symphony No. 7 in E Major WAB 107

The recent election results in Singapore have been termed water-shed for the ruling party People Action Party (PAP), opposition parties especially Workers Party (WP) and all voters. The outcome can mean many things to many some of which includes:

• time and tide might NOT heal everything and over time, people might NOT forget. Politics is no longer a once in 5 year event during election campaigning,

• whether there is a need to revamp the voting system especially the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) system towards a system that moves us towards a more direct form of democracy,

• what messages are the voters telling both PAP and the opposition parties on the brand of democracy they want to see in Singapore not only in the future but also in the near future within reasonable bounds,

• last but not least, voters were politically emphatic about the voting scene due to the lack of choice in credible alternatives opposition parties in the past but is begining to realize that every vote counts and it starts with their own vote now that we have more credible, brave and altruistic opposition parties.

My position is not a binary one that runs along party lines of PAP or the opposition but how we as citizens of Singapore can participate more actively in the political process rather than treat it as a once in 5 year event. The fault for current state of democracy lies both with PAP as well as our political empathy in the past 30 years or so creating a vacuum of political power dominated by PAP. Perhaps the one party rule in the last 30 years by PAP has been an accidental fortune in that sense. A focused non-partisan rule could have been one of the major ingredients for our phenomenal economic and social growth achieved mainly by well tried and tested economic development model based mainly on foreign investment, regional service centers and export led of certain industrial clusters likes petrochemical, electronics, disk drive, wafer-fab, pharmaceutical and bio-technology. Leveraging our labour cost advantage, investor friendly policies and good industrial infrastructure, the unemployment problem was plugged by PM Lee Kuan Yew and his team. The foresight and gumption of the second generation leaders lead by PM Goh Chok Tong with the advantage of Lee and his team supporting Goh. The single party enabled Goh to execute a unilateral risky but calculated strategic move away from labour intensive to skill intensive by raising wages, skills and infrastructure in one bold orchestrated move and it worked again.

PM Lee Hsien Loong son of Lee Kuan Yew took over the reign from Goh. Lee jr started his reign with an unfair disadvantage having to defend nepotism right from the start. His father's generation was equated to building the hardware. Goh's dispensation built the software. Now that we have a complete solution in computer speak, Lee jr now is now charged with building the heart-ware to bring it from 3^rd world to 1^st world. Besides nepotism, Lee jr did not have a good economic and political developmental template to depend on unlike his dad and Goh. His team actually did not have the full mandate with his dad and Goh still looking over his shoulders closely most probably until recent past with his dad and Goh stepping down by exiting the cabinet formally.

Lee jr filled his team with capable technocrats that mostly graduated in the top tier of ivy leagues and I believe that most were well meaning in wanting to bring Singapore to 1^st world. Besides the unchartered water that Lee jr and his team were maneuvering into, they also had to face an aging and dwindling population as the total fertility rate headed south to reach 1.2. The technocratic team went into short term mode to cure it in a measurable manner that they knew best and with dated advice from his dad and Goh. Tax incentives and more child friendly policies were put in place to very little effect and the team sent in the crash cart and tried to revive the dying patient by immigration on a massive scale. Being a relatively young emigrant country, it was in the process of building a common identity. The mass immigration created a whole host of issues like depressing the wages of the lower strata of society and lead to a growing GINI index that accompanied good news rise in GDP. All was not exactly rosy on the domestic front for example health care cost faced by the population escalated because of a combination of aging population and public healthcare policies like mean testing. The escalating price of private housing spilled into public housing. Transport system was also facing congestion on public roads as the Electronic Road Pricing and Certificate of Entitlement meant to curtail usage and ownership respectively were not only unable to curb the congestion but lead to an increase in transportation cost overall. Public transportation was faced with sardine packed mass transit railway during peak hours mirroring the situation in Japan.

Many initiatives were put in place in the arena of heart-ware like giving the arts and cultural scene a lift and liberalizing censorship laws. These initiatives not only take relatively more time than hardware and software to show results but is also less measurable.

My reasons for choosing Bruckner as the theme song or symphony for this occasion are due to the following historical insights on this piece:

• this symphony was the piece that launched the composer Anton Bruckner career into stardom. I sincerely hope that this particular water-shed election results will lead to a right angle turn for our country as a whole,
• the second movement Adagio was used to announce 2 historically significant turning points like when Admiral Karl Dönitz announced Adolf Hitler death on 1^st May 1945 and also just before announcing his defeat in Stalingrad on 31^st January 1943. On this note, I do hope that the election results as a clarion call for danger ahead if we maintain status quo and dismiss the election results as noisy crying babies that can be easily pacified and forgotten.

It cannot be business as usual for PAP, opposition parties and the voters all alike and may we have a right angle turn like what Bruckner had with this symphony.

For those that like to have a deeper understanding of Anton Bruckner and Politics, there is a book "Bruckner's Symphonies-Analysis, Reception and Cultural Politics" by Prof. Julian Horton. Cambridge University Press (2004) ISBN-13 978-0-521-82354-8. I have not read the book personally but a cursory browse says it can be quite academic.

Cheers,,,,, Peter Lye


Safe Harbor
Please note that information contained in these pages are of a personal nature and does not necessarily reflect that of any companies, organizations or individuals. In addition, some of these opinions are of a forward looking nature. Lastly the facts and opinions contained in these pages might not have been verified for correctness, so please use with caution. Happy Reading. Copyrights of all contents in this blog belongs to Peter Lye unless stated otherwise.

Singapore Election Outcome-Direct or Representative Democracy?

It is evident that democracy has become more eugenic amongst Singaporean for the rulers or rulers wannabe and the citizens of Singapore. Our elder statesman Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has made no bones that we need democracy in Singapore but not as what the West understand democracy to be. Now that that the election results are out, I shall factually attempt to look at the outcome using the dimensional framework of Direct Democracy and Representative Democracy. Direct democracy is loosely one in which the citizens participate more directly in the decision and law making process as opposed to representative democracy where citizens vote periodically for representative(s) to be their proxy for decision and law making. The two is not mutually exclusive but represents a continuum and where each state places itself along the this continuum and the mix of tools like elections, referendum employed in decision making.

The Facts
The election results although a landmark point in time event but what affects the results have to do with relevant happenings in the recent past and people's expectation of the future outcome based on their vote.

1. Creation of the Group Representative Constituencies (GRCs) in 1988 on the basis of ensuring that minority racial communities will be represented in parliament. To ensure this, at least 25% of total number of Members of Parliament ( MPs ) must be from GRCs and each GRC must have at least 1 MP from the minority race. As of now, out of the total 87 electoral districts, 15 are GRCs with 75 MPs another 12 independent electoral districts with the normal single MP or what is called Single Member Constituencies (SMCs).

• The minority race factor especially for Malays is a sensitive topic as Singapore is a small country with a Chinese majority and sizable Malay minority geographically enveloped by two large Malay/Muslim countries i.e. Malaysia and Indonesia. I have used Malay and Muslim interchangeably as there is almost a direct equation of the Malay and Muslim especially in Malaysia although one recognizes that the former is a race and the latter is a religion. On this basis, I do stand behind the basis on which the GRCs changes were made as an antidote against possible cracks along racial or religious lines and also why a referendum on this issue is not possible because the referendum is likely to run along racial or religious lines rather than a more altruistic note. Just like the various equal opportunity initiatives in USA championed by the Union in the north against the confederates in the south. However, you will notice that there is a lack of a clarion call by the minority within Singapore as well as neighboring Malaysia and Indonesia in and around 1988. It hardly won us any significant brownie points with Malaysia or Indonesia. Is minority representation a reason or an excuse?
• The creation of GRC could actually have the un-intended effect of making it more difficult for opposition to field candidates for elections as can be seen during the initial days that the un-contested electoral districts tend to come from GRCs rather than SMCs. In 1988 general elections, 3 of the 5 un-contested electoral districts were GRCs and we can say that this is marginal but if we compare the number of MPs it would be 9 out of a total of 11 MPs that belongs to uncontested GRCs. (Source: Singapore Election 1988 parliamentary results). The figures are more telling in the next election of 1991 for which 10 out of a total 11 uncontested electoral districts were GRCs representing a total of 40 of out a total of 41 un-contested MPs were from un-contested GRCs. (Source: Singapore Election 1991 parliamentary results). 
• One of the basis tenets of democracy embodies choosing a government from the people, by the people and for the people made famous by President John F Kennedy. The opposition parties have raised this point and the incumbent government has challenged them on the basis that it was not the fault of Peoples Action Party (PAP) but that of the opposition not being able to find and field candidates to avoid this problem of un-contested entry into parliament through tail coating on more influential candidates within the GRCs. We cannot deny the fact that the incumbent PAP government have two third majority in parliament to enable the party to change even the constitution of Singapore. We cannot totally exclude that the GRC system might have a more insidious intent of ensuring PAP's share of political power. Political science is rife with such examples of the danger of the incumbent misuse of their power and authority for their own end rather than representing the voice of the people. One good example is the fielding of Ms Tin Pei Ling in the GRC ward of Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong. Even before nomination day, the social media has enough noise that it is not probable for PAP not to have heard the voice of the people against fielding a relatively in-experienced person and there were public outcry that if Ms Tin Pei Ling were to stand, it is only fair that she be fielded in a SMC rather than tail-coating under Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong's Marine Parade GRC ward. Even Goh Chok Tong was very candid to have remarked before nomination day that Ms Tin Pei Ling was not really his choice but that of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. The reason for fielding a young candidate of 27 years old was for her to connect the PAP to the younger voters. PAP has clearly ignored the voice of the ground by fielding Ms Tin Pei Ling under Marine Parade GRC rather for her to earn her own stripes by standing alone in a SMC. I doubt we can believe when PAP leaders say that they hear the people but perhaps that is where it stops; hearing but not doing enough. Political science is actually clear that political party is one of the necessary evils of a democratic system and this is clearly a case in point where the political party and the people's interest can run counter to each other and yet triumph over it.

2. Contest between local and national interest. Like most Singaporean, I personally feel very sorry for Mr. George Yeo. If the system were to allow the people to choose between Ms Tin Pei Ling and Mr. George Yeo, the choice would be very obvious for the latter. The implementation of democracy is far from perfect and this is one of the more "unjust' outcome of the system.

The positioning of candidates by the party on nomination day can be more important than the outcome on election day itself. One of the key differential in this election was the appearance of a number key influential opposition candidates with stellar background to match or even exceed those of PAP candidates. My admiration goes to these people for choosing to take the more unconventional choice of riding on a lesser opposition vessel instead of the almost guaranteed easier route to power, wealth and glory via the PAP vessel. In the past, the main opposition characters that PAP had to watch carefully were Chiam See Tong, the late JB Jeyaratnam, Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim. This time round, we see more of such new blood like Chen Shao Mao, Kenneth Jeyaratnam,  Vincent Wiseneraya,  Ang Yong Guan etc. With such a backdrop, the stronger opposition parties has decided on a 'show hand' in polker game speak strategy by putting their best candidates into GRC instead of SMC. WP, SPP and SDP had almost all their chips in Aljunied, Bishan-Toa Payoh and Holland-Bukit Timah GRCs respectively.

PAP was not without choice in my view. They could firstly avoid a clash of the titans by placing all their current and potential cabinet MPs out of these GRCs to ensure minimal disruption to the cabinet lineup post election. This would also mean a very good chance of losing one or a few GRCs making it a history in Singapore as no opposition party has managed to win a GRC until the 2011 general elections. However, this route seems unlikely for the all mighty PAP as my guess is that they want total control of government by occupying all seats in parliament. This can be seen from the post election reaction in 1984 when PAP lost two seats in Tanjong Pagar and Potong Pasir to Jeyaratnam and Chiam See Tong respectively. In other countries, the ruling party would have popped champagne and call it a landslide win but it was a sombre occasion for PAP on why has the people in these two electorates given the man-date to the opposition. If the PAP had taken this route, it would have made it an easier choice for the voters in these 3 GRCs by voting purely on the merits of the candidates and their position on local issues.

As expected, PAP responded to the opposition 'show hand' by doing the same by fielding part of their cabinet in these GRCs. This put a heavier burden on the voters as theirs is no longer based on the merit of the candidates and local issues alone. Their vote could result in a few cabinet ministers losing not only their MP seats but also their cabinet position as Singapore law makes it mandatory for cabinet positions to be MPs. Now that the election results are out, we know that in the case of Aljunied GRC, PAP lost the battle. To me, this election is water shed for a few reasons. Firstly, opposition party winning a GRC and secondly, cabinet ministers like George Yeo losing both their MP and cabinet position. I can only make a guess on what went on cerebrally for the voters in Aljunied GRC. My guess is that majority of these votes for the opposition was a vote for a more democratic future of Singapore against the shorter term set back of losing a few good man like George Yeo. What was telling was also the drop in the percentage of popular votes from 66.1% in 2006 to 60.1% this time round. I would like to refute the reasons that PAP is facing a younger generation of voters this time round as one only need to look at the population pyramid going more inverted now than previously.

What if PAP has chosen the second option of preserving their cabinet members by not fielding them in these 3 GRCs? My guess is there is a greater likelihood of PAP losing possibly up to 3 GRCs but all would be well within the cabinet lineup. Even with this worse case scenario, PAP would still have two third majority in parliament with mandate to change anything and almost everything including the constitution of Singapore. Sometimes, it might be better to lose a few battles and win the war but my guess is this is not likely to be within the vocabulary of PAP.

Finally, 'absolute power corrupts absolutely' in animal farm speak but 'democracy without proper law can lead to anarchy' in paraphrase by the Grecian wise sage of old Plato in 'The Republic'. No explanation but fodder for you to consider seriously when casting your vote in the next election.

Please do circulate to as many friends as possible and can visit my blogfor other writings.

Cheers,,,,, Peter Lye


Safe Harbor
Please note that information contained in these pages are of a personal nature and does not necessarily reflect that of any companies, organizations or individuals. In addition, some of these opinions are of a forward looking nature. Lastly the facts and opinions contained in these pages might not have been verified for correctness, so please use with caution. Happy Reading. Copyrights of all contents in this blog belongs to Peter Lye unless stated otherwise.

Singapore Election Theme

With so much written on our coming general election in Singapore, I would like to take a slightly different view for voters to ponder. I take this as an open letter to all Singaporeans as it is in my blog.

1. Are we really too small to afford a more balanced parliament with sufficient check and balance ? How about some of the smaller European countries with about similar population that have done so. In Animal Farm speak "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" and it must be done constitutionally both in the letter and spirit with another quote from Plato's Republic in paraphrase "democracy without law leads to anarchy'.


2. Minimal government can sometimes be prosperous like Hong Kong pre-1997. Bad government can lead to chaos and under-development I do not dispute. However, does well paid government leads to superior performance for the country if we were to take a co-relative longitudinal study of a few countries for comparison? I am not too sure it can lead to better government in my humble opinion. I would challenge that a study be done to proof the case and not get emotional on this and let the facts speaks for itself. Whilst paying so called market rate for government talent might reduce corruption but it might not as well as Mr. Paul Getty, one of the richest American billionaire when asked by a journalist at his death bed what is enough, his answer was just a little bit more. In addition, those who want to be in government must have a certain degree of altruism and not purely on economic grounds alone.


Please do circulate to as many friends as possible and can visit my blog for other writings.


Cheers,,,,, Peter Lye


Safe Harbor
Please note that information contained in these pages are of a personal nature and does not necessarily reflect that of any companies, organizations or individuals. In addition, some of these opinions are of a forward looking nature. Lastly the facts and opinions contained in these pages might not have been verified for correctness, so please use with caution. Happy Reading. Copyrights of all contents in this blog belongs to Peter Lye unless stated otherwise.

Egyptian Humor amidst Turmoil

Following quoted from Tuesday 7th February 2011 edition of TODAY on page 17.

"We don't want Suleiman, he is a symbol of Mubarak. If he becomes President, we will stage another revolt. We have been living for 30 years under humiliation and injustice," said Mr Omar Gamal, a 22-year-old teacher.

Have a good laugh. If you do not find it funny, the problem most probably rests with you and not me. Ha ha ha.

Cheers,,,, Pete aka http://lkypeter.blogspot.com

Safe Harbor
Please note that information contained in these pages are of a personal nature and does not necessarily reflect that of any companies, organizations or individuals. In addition, some of these opinions are of a forward looking nature. Lastly the facts and opinions contained in these pages might not have been verified for correctness, so please use with caution. Happy Reading. Copyrights of all contents in this blog belongs to Peter Lye unless stated otherwise.

The Wisdom of Crowds-Singapore Election Perspectives

Sir Francis Galton who is a half cousin of the Charles Darwin and a person steep in aristocracy and the study of inheritance of intelligence during the early 1900s was surprised that the crowd at a county fair was able to guess the weight of an ox better than the estimates of the cattle experts at hand. Although no single guess of the crowd and cattle experts were correct, the mean of their collective guess of the crowd was more accurate than that of the cattle experts. For Francis Galton, this was not only a surprise but most probably represented an unlearning of his basic belief in the superior wisdom of the intelligentsia proxied by the aristocrats of his time relative to the wisdom of the crowd.

Many years ago, the elder statesman of Singapore; Lee Kuan Yew once made a comment that perhaps there should be a re-examination of the 1 man 1 vote system which is the cornerstone of democracy. Such a comment by a politician would have been equated to a politician committing career hara-kiri. However, in Singapore Lee Kuan Yew was commended for his candor in being willing to surface such a sensitive topic for the public to start pondering about. The topic did not take much root and died a natural death on the media and eventually in much of Singapore.

It was an old Washington Post editorial where Francis Galton experiment was mentioned that revived my memory of the comment made by Lee Kuan Yew. What unsettled me was that Lee Kuan Yew have a few parallel in terms of beliefs with Francis Galton with both of them being highly intelligent, influential members of society and thought leaders. In addition, the topic of inheritance of intelligence has also some parallel in the 'Graduate Mother Scheme' that has been abolished. This scheme provided off-springs of graduate mothers priority points in getting into choice schools. This scheme was relatively short-lived as it saw opposition not only from non-graduate mothers who were dis-advantaged by it but also by the graduate mothers themselves I believe on an altruistic heart chord of preserving the scared equal opportunity for all and sundry. At least it proves that political apathy has not gone as far into the woods as some might have thought. To be fair to Lee Kuan Yew, it was a Ministry of Education policy and not entirely his making.

Perhaps, we all should be mindful that though the 1 man 1 vote system is not perfect, it is most probably the best that we have. To me, this is so scared that most attempts to improve the system will more likely injure it than do any good to it and perhaps should be considered an out of bounds topic for a long time.

Peter Lye aka lkypeter

Safe Harbor. Please note that information contained in these pages are of a personal nature and does not necessarily reflect that of any companies, organizations or individuals. In addition, some of these opinions are of a forward looking nature. Lastly the facts and opinions contained in these pages might not have been verified for correctness, so please use with caution. Happy Reading. Peter Lye

Social Safety Net Determinants

I use to think that social safety net is only relevant or practised effectively in states with a strong socialistic and communistic doctrine but as I give a bit more leeway to the meaning of social safety net to include activities of a philanthrophic, altruistic, religious, political and philosophical origin, the heaven seems to open before me.

Basal Dungeon Level/Poverty Line
My fundamental believe being that no matter how criminal, immoral or inhumane a person might be, there exists in each of us an intrinsic in-culpulability to help lift a fellow being from a basal dungeon to an acceptable level of survival as we each perceived it to be. The basal dungeon level is not an absolute concept but a relative one. Many economists and sociologists has attempted to define this as the poverty line along monetary and quantitative lines. This is very useful as it makes it possible to translate the concept into actionable points in determining how help should be apportioned. However, in distilling a concept into a quantitative illustration some important intrinsic qualitative elements are also removed in the process. Firstly, the basal dungeon level is a micro concept that is applicable on a personal or a monolithic social group rather than a macro concept with wider and more polarized applicability. An elderly wearing clothing consisting of a variety of patch work ( other than the fashion statement of the day ) in a relatively well off suburb like Rodeo Drive would most probably has reached beyond the basal dungeon level in that community to warrant a helping hand be it a contribution in terms of a coin drop of sort. However, in more impoverished parts of Africa, such a person is very unlikely to be offered help. Secondly, the concept is not the absolute or relative social distance between the person in need and the potential helper. It is not a absolute distance because a millionaire is unlikely to be moved to help a middle class person athough the absolute distance can be large, it is definitely not a charity case. Neither is a relative distance applicable because relativity would require us to define relative to what. Basal dungeon is basically a level that would trigger one group or person to help the other as a result of a conscience trigger. Thirdly, it is not a stable level that transcends time and space as the level changes over time in line with changes in the social political norms. However, the concept transcends time and space as it is there from the time of recorded history till now and not likely to vaporize into thin air in the foreseeable future.

Singapore
There is general believe that social safety belongs to the government alone and not body else. However, there are enough evidence both empirical and otherwise that this is not the case. I live in Singapore where the official ideology of socialist democrat is actually closer to capitalistic democrat as the leadership has make no apology in public that Singapore is a meritocratic practitioner in terms dividing the fruits of our labour. There is general perception that the social safety net is very thin in Singapore and the government has made it very clear to the populace that having seen the social safety net framework degenerate the motivation to work and the economy, Singapore shall not follow in similar light. However, over the years as the Singapore economy develops and accumulates fiscal surpluses to be in a position to afford some safety net, the government has over the years especially during the tenure of Goh Chok Tong as prime minister, dished out narrow and directed safety nets liken to a fishing by rods and line rather than broad based ones like fishing with nets. I see this as a deterministic shift in fundamental thinking as the government slowly but surely start to acquire heart ware. Some of these schemes includes the Medifund scheme to help the poor pay for the cost of essential medical care, dollar for dollar matching contribution to selected charities etc. One interesting means that the government has contributed to the social safety net in a less obvious showing which is I think is a deliberate attempt is though the innovative use of co-funded help schemes for various areas deemed to be much greater in need like innovative structuring of health care financing which might not be perfect but at least is affordable, of fairly high quality and not a drag on the economy unlike in the US where health care has become such a huge part of staff cost that it is a major factor affecting their economic competitiveness on a global basis. These Singapore cases underlines the fact that social safety net need not be narrowed to more direct transfer payments like unemployment payments or absolute freebies like free health care, education etc that more often than not lends itself to over consumption. On the note that such narrow schemes leaves a lot falling through the crack, my thinking is that like line and rod fishing, it is meant to bait and catch the more needful ones rather than a broad based safety net that would able to cast a wider net but would also end up with a lot of garbage in the process as well in the form of non-deserving recipients. Your choice.

Japan
In the case of Japan where I used to visit on a very frequent basis in my previous job where the visible governmental safety net is so thin that it is as good as none. In addition, the certain pride that the Japanese culture infuses into the work ethos makes it almost socially not acceptable for the populace to even be seen to be consumers of such safety net. In those years there during the early 1990s, there is a stark difference between Tokyo and New York as the streets are relatively void of beggars and homeless people compared to New York. It baffles me how was this possible with such a thin safety net. I slowly begin to understand that job for life philosophy results in less redundancies and retrenchments which I view is also a form of safety net that is enacted by way of social norms rather than governmental regulation. We can debate on end on the economic and business poison that such a system can breed but no safety net is without cost to the economy and society. One of the feature of the TOPIX which is the de-facto securities exchange of Japan and the largest in Asia, it has one of the lower beta compared to their counterparts in the west and one of the reason is the complex web of cross share holding between the giants of the economies call Zaibatsu and their subsidiaries as well as a very centralist macro economic planning by way of good coordination between the Ministry of International Trade and Industry ( MITI ) that even the Zaibatsu rarely go against MITI. One rare exception is Honda which was persuaded by MITI to concentrate on motorcycles and reduce their involvement in automobiles but has done almost the opposite.

Philanthrophy/GINI
Philanthrophy in terms of participation by percentage of the populace as well as percentage of the GDP, US beats Europe by a large margin. There are various studies done to explain this differential including factors like how the GINI index which measures the distribution of wealth, differentiating tax incentives for philanthrophy, old and new money as Europe tend to have more old money compared to US, immigrant society in US versus a more monolithic society in Europe. The factor that stands out is that on a ideological level, Europeans seems to be more socialistic but in practice on a personal level, US seems to put money where their mouth is rather than paying lip service. In response, the Europeans would argue that either the government is doing such a good job or they have contributed to a large part through taxes ( which are not voluntary whereas philanthrophy is ) and there so less need for private philanthrophy.

We all have a part though not always a deterministic one but a key part in shaping social safety net for our society either on an ideological or macro platform by our votes or privately on a personal and group basis. Give it a thought went you next see someone deserving of help.

Peter Lye aka lkypeter

Safe Harbor. Please note that information contained in these pages are of a personal nature and does not necessarily reflect that of any companies, organizations or individuals. In addition, some of these opinions are of a forward looking nature. Lastly the facts and opinions contained in these pages might not have been verified for correctness, so please use with caution. Happy Reading. Peter Lye

The US Presidential Elections-A Simple Singaporean Viewpoint

Over the weekend, I had an interesting back and forth email exchange with my close friend who was born in Singapore but had since given up her red identity card for a green card after marrying an American and has been living in Atlanta which is the capital for the southern state of Georgia. Atlanta is also dear to me as it is home to my favourite drink Coke. I must first profess that any racial or religious mentioned in this article is not to accentuate and amplify the racial and religious issues but merely to pen down the state of the union on where such issues stands. I am pro affirmative action in achieving equality along all lines including racial and religious lines.

(c) Wikipedia

This state is interesting in that it is both predominantly non-white and part of the bible belt. From reason standpoint, the bible belt tend to belong to the Republican due to their conservative stand especially on being anti-abortion which tend to win them popular votes. Being predominantly non-white, I would reason that racial lines would draw them towards Obama on the Democrats ticket. At the end of the day, the results partially spoke for itself as the state of Georgia went to the Republican candidate. I could read the results in many ways and one of which is that America has grown up in terms of racial equality in that a predominantly non-white state did not vote along racial lines The other way is that religion issues has won the day. A third alternative being that there are other factors that could have affected the results.

(c) Wikipedia

Firstly, I was shocked to hear that polling day is NOT a national holiday in the world's champion of democracy. Although I have been to America numerous time, I have always assumed that polling day is a national holiday to allow citizenry enough time and opportunity to vote. I was wrong. Democracy does have a voice and voters have to take time off work on their own private account to vote as not all companies are lucid enough to grant time off for voting. This could be part of the reason why the voter turn out has been fairly poor compared to other democracies around the world. It is either American could not be bothered or there is just too much barrier to the poll station. I was told that some queue up for as long as 3 hours to vote and I salute these brave souls especially in these tough economic season where time away from work might not be too popular. To me it is a resounding mandate for Obama to win by both a large majority and having record voter turn out.

Secondly, it is one rare occasion for a single party of have a clean majority sweep of the presidency, senate and house of congress. Americans, I believe still stand by the maxim that absolute power corrupts absolutely and this could be one of the reason why it is rare to a single party to have control over the presidency and both houses thereby leaving less check and balance. Another indicator is the freedom to bear arms as citizenry as no government is infallible. Perhaps it is the unprecedented economic backdrop of a looming crisis on a scale and complexity not seen before and therefore, it is better to have a coherent government rather than a balanced and divisive government that could make unpopular but needful policies difficult to carry out. Perhaps it is the stomach that won the day as what the use of being a free but hungry man.

My selection of the State of Georgia is a personal one as I have been there and have a close friend there. My next choice of state is more deliberate; the State of Massachusetts. The capital of this state Boston is very unique town as it has produced the most number of nobel laureates as well as home to many of the country's ivy league schools. I would say that on this count without checking the census, the per capital wealth and income is likely to exceed that of Atlanta. Again this state has defied one norm of the richer generally tend to vote for Republican and one of the reason is that they tend to favour tax cuts which tend to favour the richer more economic wise. This has been shrink wrapped into a popular postulation of Reganomics or supply side economics that has largely gone out of fashion and thought leadership. I salute the voters of Massachusetts for not voting according to their pockets but for a higher calling of the good of America. Perhaps the strong academia population could have an effect on the level of altruism in the voters.

All said and done, my approach is too simplistic to be a viable gauge of the actual current that carried Obama to the White House but the simpleton mind could only process that much of complexity. Lastly, those who are in my inner circle of friends who grew up with me as a student will know who I am talking about in Atlanta. No prizes for the right guess.

Peter Lye aka lkypeter.blogspot.com

Safe Harbor. Please note that information contained in these pages are of a personal nature and does not necessarily reflect that of any companies, organizations or individuals. In addition, some of these opinions are of a forward looking nature. Lastly the facts and opinions contained in these pages might not have been verified for correctness, so please use with caution. Happy Reading. Peter Lye