S'pore's no utopia but still a good place to live in

By Peter A. Coclanis, Published The Straits Times, 29 Jul 2014

 IN RECENT months, Singapore's government, for a variety of reasons, has expanded and extended its social welfare activities and made moves to redress problems arising from growing income inequality.

It has, for example, increased health subsidies for the elderly. Through the National Wages Council it has also recommended significant wage increases for the poorest-paid members of the labour force.

Such actions have surprised some critics, who have long believed that the Government was committed, first and foremost, to limiting its role and responsibilities in such realms to ensure that Singapore would not succumb to some of the problems associated with over-extended welfare states in the West.

Even before the recent moves, of course, Singapore was well known for having created a social order and, indeed, a society that ranked at or near the top of international league tables regarding material and social well-being, as measured by such criteria as income and living standards, health care, education, global competitiveness, transparency, lack of corruption and global competitiveness. In so doing, Singapore also created a social order and a society that fare pretty well even when employing moral calculus much favoured by Western liberals.

In A Theory Of Justice (1971), his master work on morality and political philosophy, the late Harvard professor John Rawls famously employed the time-honoured "veil of ignorance" thought experiment to evaluate the morality of political and social policy.

Through this experiment, Professor Rawls attempted to establish a moral basis for a fair "social contract". He started from a hypothetical "original position", in which a group of individuals is tasked with developing principles and structures around which to organise a society.

To Prof Rawls, the best way to ensure fairness and justness in the society so established is for those involved to proceed behind a "veil of ignorance", that is, a situation wherein "no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status; nor does he know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength, and the like".

With this veil in place, Prof Rawls believed, people would behave more rationally, impartially, empathetically and morally.

In other words, the chance that a participant in the thought experiment might be placed in society as a woman or a racial/ religious minority, as a poor person or one with a physical handicap, as a person of below-average intelligence, or a person without social capital or connections - or some combination of the above - would lead people, at least at the margin, to establish principles and structures that were both fair and humane to all.

Contemporary Singapore is no utopia and, like any other society, it has its faults (increasingly, income and wealth inequality among them). But in many ways it acquits itself well when judged by Rawlsian criteria.

Obviously, few seriously question Singapore's achievements in meeting its citizens' "basic needs" - subsistence, quality education, access to quality housing and health care.

But what about other Rawlsian concerns?

In this regard, one might begin by pointing out that justice and fairness are, more than anything else, about meeting basic needs. Over the last half-century, Singaporeans have created a society that deftly balances material well-being, educational opportunity, merit and "the right to rise", personal safety and social security. It also extends such "benefits" to the overwhelming majority of its citizens, regardless of position.

Although there is no one index that captures such social welfare accomplishments completely - the World Bank's Human Opportunity Index shows potential, but is still being developed - Singapore generally ranks highly in various international ranking schemes.

According to the United Nations Development Programme's Human Development Index, for example, Singapore placed 18th out of 185 states and territories ranked last year, even though its position has been hurt in recent years because the index is now "inequality-adjusted".

Perhaps the most comprehensive, currently available index is the Where-to-be-born Index, compiled by the Economic Intelligence Unit of The Economist. This index brings together weighted economic, social, and political data to establish a composite portrait of the overall quality of life in countries around the world. It includes measures of income, education, health, economic opportunity, job security, family life, gender equality, safety, community life, and governance, at least some of which can be viewed as imperfect proxies for fairness and justice.

Last year, Singapore ranked sixth out of 80 countries and territories, behind Switzerland, Australia, Norway, Sweden and Denmark. The Where-to-be-born Index is the closest thing to a Rawlsian index we have. And Singapore, as we have just seen, scores very well indeed.

Moreover, one of the hallmarks of Singapore over time has been the governing system's ability to move quickly and continually to recalibrate public policy. This being the case, it seems possible, perhaps even likely, that other elements important to Prof Rawls - such as individual rights, and personal liberties - will rise in relative importance in the social welfare equation in the years ahead.

Singaporeans have reason to feel good about what they have created. Yet the country has a "brain drain" problem, arguably a function of rising or perhaps even unrealistic expectations.

Let me end with another thought experiment which will perhaps reinforce the need for perspective.

Ask yourself: If you had to land randomly anywhere on earth - behind a veil of ignorance, not with curriculum vitae in hand - how many places would be preferable to Singapore?

The writer is Albert R. Newsome Distinguished Professor of history and director of the Global Research Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

What future for our past?

Not just grand colonial buildings, but places whose merit lies in their role in the national story - such as warehouses and schools - are coming under the conservation umbrella. Insight looks at what makes a place "sacred", and what heritage challenges lie ahead.

 By Melody Zaccheus

THE overgrown graves stretching for 200ha bang amid the city bustle make for a restful, peaceful spot rare in urban Singapore. But when Bukit Brown Cemetery was slated for redevelopment for roads and residential buildings, it was more than its lush beauty that resulted in that rarity in Singapore – vocal protests to preserve it. 

The site tugged at Singaporeans’ heartstrings, being the resting place of many forefathers of the country, a living repository of the Chinese diaspora’s tomb culture and design, and where descendants today visit for traditional rituals such as tomb sweeping. Two civil societies – the Singapore Heritage Society and heritage enthusiasts who dub themselves “the Brownies” – organised petitions and embarked on efforts to document tombs.

No substantial concessions were made by the Government, however, to save the site from an eight-lane road running across it. It is also slated for residential development beginning with its southern portion.

Yet, it’s among the top three sites that Singaporeans deemed as “sacred” places in a recent Straits Times poll. The poll itself followed a call by academic Kishore Mahbubani, dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, for a list of sacred spaces and places to foster a love for Singapore, to help it fully become a true city.

Singapore already has essential aspects such as “busyness” and being “safe”, he said in a commentary in The Straits Times, citing American urban geographer Joel Kotkin. However, it lacks the sacred, he said, which Kotkin defines as any unique institution or spot “that (makes) one feel an irrational commitment to a place”.

Certainly, pockets of the population saw the Bukit Brown protests as verging on irrational, given the need for more roads in congested Singapore. Still, Professor Kishore’s commentary comes amid increasing efforts to make more of Singapore’s heritage, such as the conservation bid by Pearl Bank Apartments’ owners in April. 

And it puts the spotlight on the approach to heritage preservation. Insight looks at the challenges and what more might need to be done.

Blunders of the past

IN 2004, Singapore’s red-brick National Library building was unceremoniously razed to the ground to make way for the Fort Canning Tunnel. Built in 1959, it was considered by some as architecturally undignified compared with its grander neighbour, the National Museum of Singapore.

Despite extensive efforts by the community to save the space – with a normally passive public penning angry forum letters in the media, and architects such as Mr Tay Kheng Soon proposing alternatives, including re-routing the tunnel – the dissent was swept under the carpet.

Experts say this marked a turning point as it sparked a rise in civic activism and was when Singapore’s conservation movement took root.  It crystallised the idea that heritage conservation and preservation goes beyond protecting splendid colonial buildings to encompass our social and cultural soul.  Retired shipping manager Yeo Hock Yew, 65, says the library had been part of his life since he was a schoolboy studying at nearby St Joseph’s Institution.  “In my university years, I headed there to do research and, as a father, I brought my children there every Saturday morning. “It was part of the whole landscape of bookshops from the Bras Basah row and the MPH building in Stamford Road. If you couldn’t afford buying from these places, you headed to the library.”

During Singapore’s early years as a new nation in the 1960s and 1970s, swathes of the country fell victim to the wrecking ball. The Government’s main priority, understandably, was to improve living conditions and build up the economy. 

Still, awareness of the need to save heritage sites began to emerge. In 1971, the Preservation of Monuments Board (PMB), which last year became the Preservation of Sites and Monuments (PSM), was set up to provide legal protection for national monuments. The division now falls under the wing of the National Heritage Board (NHB) and its role includes offering monument owners guidance and regulatory support.

The board itself is the big daddy of Singapore’s heritage custodianship, promoting heritage appreciation through managing its national museums, documentation and outreach efforts.

Then there is the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), established in 1974 and charged with studying old buildings for possible conservation as part of land use planning.

On the private scene,the Singapore Heritage Society, a non-governmental organisation, was established in 1987.

Academics note that people are talking more avidly about heritage than they did 10 to 15 years ago. “People have grown more expressive about protecting their heritage. It has become part of public discourse,” says Professor Johannes Widodo.

This has also given rise to the recognition that there are new categories of heritage which deserve protection. As to what might be considered “sacred” to Singaporeans, heritage academics and experts find it difficult to answer.

Heritage blogger Jerome Lim, for instance, says it implies treasuring and cherishing places beyond religious, historic and architectural sites. Mr Lim says: “But what is sacred to one might not be sacred to another. It’s important that we take into account how a place might be important to the individual, different groups and stakeholders and the community at large.”

On the right track

THE URA has so far conserved close to 7,200 buildings and the PSM has preserved 65 national monuments. “Going by the numbers, we are certainly on the right track,” says Dr Yeo Kang Shua, secretary of the Singapore Heritage Society and an assistant professor at the Singapore University of Technology and Design.

In the latest URA gazette, 75 buildings, including warehouses, public housing flats, a former market, health-care facilities and places of worship, made the list, signalling a growing awareness about the importance of saving buildings that hold collective social memories.

It marks a shift from the conservation of large numbers of shophouses and black and white colonial bungalows to a more diverse mix of “built” heritage.

Experts also believe that the Government is listening and no longer as rigid as before, citing the growing number of public consultations over the past decade.

Dr Yeo says the release of a list of 75 buildings proposed for conservation, alongside the Draft Master Plan last year that went on to be gazetted this month, further signals a shift towards greater transparency.

Typically, the names of conserved buildings are made known to the public only when they are gazetted.

The last time such a list was published was in 1958, when the colonial government published its own master plan listing 19th century places with architectural and historical merit.

More funds have also been allocated to heritage bodies here. In 2012, the Government disbursed $109.7 million to the NHB and PMB compared with $47.1 million in 2005.

And in the wake of rising civic activism, the NHB formed an impact assessment and mitigation division last year to study the effect that development has on the country’s heritage.

Operational weaknesses

WHILE Singapore has made progress at the policy level, operational issues have reared their head. Singapore should make the conservation process easier for building owners, say heritage experts.

The PSM, for instance, has been roundly criticised by both monument owners and heritage groups for not providing enough technical and financial help.

The grants paid out for the structural repair and restoration of national monuments are but a fraction of what is needed. It disbursed about $1.5 million of the $35 million that the 1840s Cathedral of the Good Shepherd budgeted for its restoration efforts.

Things also fall through the cracks. Singapore lacks a single body that coordinates and consolidates the maintenance of heritage sites and structures, say some heritage groups.

Take Singapore’s heritage bridges from the 19th century. The grand old dames along the Singapore River were conserved by the URA in 2008 but have been neglected by their respective caretakers in recent years.

Long cracks have emerged on the walls of some, such as Read Bridge, which falls under the care of the Land Transport Authority. The lights on the Singapore Tourism Board-managed Cavenagh Bridge do not work either, despite the structure’s prime location next to The Fullerton hotel.

Heritage groups suggest a central body be set up to help coordinate efforts. Founder of civic group My Community Kwek Li Yong says that as the nation progresses, it is crucial that the state establishes a specialised agency. This would assess the historical importance of a building or site, consult the public on which buildings are worthy of conservation, document the social memory and history of each landmark, and oversee maintenance.

What it’s like elsewhere

THERE are lessons to be learnt from places such as Hong Kong where the public has an active role in the conservation process, say heritage experts.

People can, for instance, submit historic buildings for grading. A panel from the Antiquities Advisory Board (AAB) will assess these sites. Results are publicly available. AAB meetings, where buildings are also identified for conservation, are open to the public.

Conversely, URA’s selection process of these places is kept under wraps and comes under the Official Secrets Act.

Mr Kwek says: “The public must factor into the decision-making process even in the early stages of planning – not after our master plans are put together.

“After all, it is the local community that knows the different localities the best and what is significant to them.”

Moving forward

WITH the new surge of interest in Singapore’s past, people are demanding better curation of it. However, they are still confused by the fragmented approach.

The Singapore Heritage Society, for one, believes in a more holistic approach that takes into account the entire ecosystem of a place.

There is also the issue of how impact assessments can help to protect sites like Pulau Ubin – currently, there is no legal framework in place to protect it from development.

Urban historian and architect Lai Chee Kien says that there must be scope and flexibility to address rural spaces like this which do not fit the typical urban mould.

The Singapore Heritage Society also stresses the importance of building up heritage expertise. It suggests that the URA and PSM share their know-how by introducing training courses – for instance, on the maintenance of heritage structures – to other government agencies, the private sector and the public.

But they say the responsibility of educating the public must be shared by the community as well – civic groups, schools and other institutions should play a part in championing Singapore’s history.

For now, the tension between the desire to preserve Singapore’s heritage and the need for urban development – as seen in the Bukit Brown Cemetery tussle – can only increase.

But this tension also drives home the need to expand understanding of what is held sacred. It is also a catalyst pushing the community to protect the sites it holds dear.

Conservation must be a democratic process, says Prof Widodo, as a top-down approach would be paternalistic and oppressive, while a bottom-up one would be too chaotic.

But even with the right channels and structures in place, Singapore Heritage Society president Chua Ai Lin notes: “We should not write off our sentiments, which we often cast aside in favour of pragmatism and practicality. These very feelings guide us towards the higher aspiration of preserving a sense of home and familiarity in the spaces around us.”

________________________________________

Top buildings and sites voted by Singaporeans as 'sacred'

BUILDINGS:

•             HDB's first public housing developments in Queenstown, specifically Blocks 45, 48 and 49; the 1970 Queenstown Sports Complex; the former Queenstown polyclinic; Blocks 57, 61 and 67 to 73 in Commonwealth Drive; the first terrace houses in Stirling Road; Shuang Long Shan Wu Shu Ancestral Hall; the octagon-shaped Queensway Shopping Centre

•             Early housing developments in Redhill Close and Dakota Crescent estates

•             Changi Airport Control Tower

•             Pearl Bank Apartments

•             Golden Mile Complex

PLACES:

•             Pulau Ubin

•             Singapore Botanic Gardens

•             What's left of Bukit Brown Cemetery

•             The Padang

•             Wessex Estate off Portsdown Road, with its black-and-white colonial buildings

A roller coaster decade

Mr Lee Hsien Loong became prime minister 10 years ago today. How has his time in office shaped the lives of Singaporeans?

 By Chua Mui Hoong Opinion Editor

10 YEARS AT THE HELM: LEE HSIEN LOONG

MR LEE Hsien Loong's first decade as prime minister can be summed up in one word: Challenging.

It has been a roller coaster of a ride for Mr Lee, who became independent Singapore's third prime minister on Aug 12, 2004.

For one thing, there has been greater political contestation. Singapore saw two general elections in 2006 and 2011, and two by-elections, in Hougang (May 2012) and Punggol East (January last year).

The presidential election of 2005 saw incumbent S R Nathan, the sole candidate, returned unopposed.

But in 2011, a four- cornered fight between candidates surnamed Tan saw Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam triumph with just 7,382 more votes, or 0.3 per cent, over closest rival Tan Cheng Bock.

It was a decade of peaks and troughs. Just out of the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome crisis, the economy went on to record robust growth of over 7.5 per cent a year until 2007, only to face the sharpest recession since independence during the global financial crisis. Growth plunged sharply to 1.8 per cent in 2008 and shrank 0.6 per cent in 2009. The Government responded with a whopping $20.5 billion Resilience Package for Budget 2009 to guarantee bank deposits, and to fund the Jobs Credit wage subsidy. It did the unprecedented, getting then President Nathan's assent to dip into the reserves to fund the package. Crisis was averted. A year later, the economy rebounded, growing 15.2 per cent.  

Leading Singapore relatively unscathed through the global financial crisis was cited by several observers as among Mr Lee's top achievements in the decade.  Annual gross domestic product (GDP) growth averaged 6.3 per cent from 2004 to last year, according to economist Tan Kong Yam in an essay in The Straits Times Opinion pages today. On a per person basis, GDP went up from $46,320 to $69,050 from 2004 to last year.

Vibrant, but mind the gap

BEFORE he became prime minister, Mr Lee gave The Straits Times an interview where he spoke about making Singapore a "dynamic economy" and building a vibrant, cohesive society. Is Singapore today a dynamic economy? Former Nominated MP Zulkifli Baharudin thinks so. "PM Lee has made Singapore one of the most compelling global cities in the world. Like his father (former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew), he has permanently changed the course of Singapore. This is an extraordinary achievement especially for a country that was never meant to be."

Singapore has opened two integrated resorts, played host to the Formula One race and Youth Olympic Games, and created the dazzling Gardens by the Bay. An Economist Intelligence Unit survey in 2012 put Singapore sixth best globally in its "Where to be Born" index, and top in Asia.

But that global buzz also comes at a price - cohesiveness.  

Mr Lee presided over a Singapore of rising income inequality. The Gini coefficient was 0.460 in 2004 and went up to a high of 0.482 in 2007. The Gini index is a number tracking income inequality from 0 to 1, with 0 representing perfect equality.

One of the signal achievements of Mr Lee's Government is the move to bridge inequality by raising the tranche of subsidies for the lower- and middle-income group in all areas: from an income supplement for low-wage workers to grants for housing to subsidies in health care and childcare.

Whereas subsidies were mainly targeted at the low-income before 2004, subsidies these days are aplenty for households with median incomes and higher. Long- term care subsidies are given to those with per capita household income of $3,100 a month - or up to the 70th percentile.

There is also more risk-pooling in health care. In 2004, the old MediShield health insurance scheme did not cover babies with birth defects. And once you reached 80 years of age, or hit claim limits of $30,000 a year and $120,000 for life, you were on your own.  This year, the new MediShield Life promises universal coverage for life with no claim limits. In one stroke, high hospitalisation costs are done away with as a major source of angst for Singaporeans. 

Mr Lee has also done much for the older generation, notably in the $8 billion Pioneer Generation Package of health-care subsidies.

By last year, the Gini coefficient was back down, to 0.463. After government transfers and assistance, it was 0.412.

Taken together, the social policies rolled out under Mr Lee, ably assisted by Deputy PM Tharman Shanmugaratnam, are reshaping the social climate in which Singaporeans live. The momentum of change increased after the 2011 General Election. But the shift towards higher social spending started way before that. Workfare, for example, began in 2005 and was institutionalised in 2007.

There is a major reordering of the social compact. The Government is not just taking care of the economy and leaving families to fend for themselves in the marketplace. It will help families and individuals fend off the excesses of the marketplace. Trouble is, many Singaporeans do not see it that way, as they grapple with rising housing costs and feel the heat of competition for jobs.

Angst over crowding

INSTEAD, anxieties on overcrowding abound. Over the past decade, the population went up too fast, before transport and housing infrastructure could cope.  The population in 2004 was 4,166,700. Last year, it was 5,399,200. That is a growth of 29.58 per cent over 10 years, or more than 1.2 million people - almost all foreigners, given Singapore's declining birth rate.

Housing supply failed to keep pace with population growth. Instead, traumatised by the huge surplus of 17,500 unsold new HDB flats in 2002, the Government slowed its building programme mid-decade. From an average of about 30,000 units a year, it built just 2,733, 5,063 and 3,154 units from 2006 to 2008, respectively.

Some observers consider this the greatest policy failure of the last decade. How did a government that prides itself on keeping close tabs on numbers allow an influx of foreigners beyond the housing and transport infrastructure's capacity to cope?

Individual ministers might have been more focused on meeting the aims of their own ministries, but the Government as a whole would be expected to oversee this collective effort. Mr Lee himself did not shirk this responsibility. In the heat of GE 2011, he surprised many when he apologised to the people of Singapore for the mistakes made, in an election rally at Boat Quay.

That public mea culpa and events after GE 2011 raised widespread expectations of political change. Days after the elections, former PMs Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong, along with other ministers, retired from the Cabinet, to give PM Lee a clean slate to govern. A review later slashed ministerial salaries.

Change, but slowly

ON THE political front, Mr Lee has made a series of nips and tucks that appear minor, but which add up to something larger.

Take one example: Speakers' Corner, set up in 2000 as a free speech venue, was liberalised on his watch. He opened it up in 2004 to exhibitions and performances, not just speeches. In 2008, public protests were allowed. These are small changes. But Singaporeans took full advantage of the relaxed rules. Today, attending a protest at Hong Lim Park - against the White Paper on Population, for example - has become pretty commonplace.

But it is in what he stopped doing that Mr Lee has made the greatest political impact. He sought to be seen to be fair when he called for polls, reducing the surprise element in timing them. Nor were there wholesale changes to electoral boundaries. He stopped using estate upgrading as electoral carrots.

In GE 2011, opposition candidates' views, not their personal character, were attacked. In choosing fair election campaigns, and in refraining from browbeating opposition candidates, Mr Lee made it less risky for people to enter the opposition fray.

And they did. In 2006, 47 seats were contested. Two opposition MPs won. In 2011, 82 out of 87 seats were contested. The opposition won six.

But Mr Lee stopped short of fundamental reforms to the electoral system that some sought, ignoring calls for an independent election commission, for example.

His world view of politics for Singapore remains embedded in that of his predecessors: that of a Singapore governed by a dominant People's Action Party as stewards of the country's long- term interests. But it is not one that all Singaporeans share. Some hoping to see more fundamental political change under Mr Lee are disappointed.

Former Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong, for one, had expected Mr Lee to usher in an era of political change after GE 2011. "But three years later, it's become clear, from incidents like the Population White Paper and the new (Media Development Authority) licensing regime, that the top- down/command-and-control approach remains very much alive in the PAP," he says.

Some say one of Mr Lee's strengths is his ability to listen to different views. But that has led to a view that he has tried to accommodate competing views to the point of the Government seeming populist at times.

He has a friendly and approachable image online and off, and is arguably the PAP's biggest political asset. At public events, he is often mobbed by those wanting to meet him, and take pictures or, these days, selfies with him.

But personal popularity has not translated into a long coat-tails effect for his party: The PAP's vote share fell from 66.6 per cent in 2006 to 60.1 per cent in 2011.

What is one to make overall of Mr Lee's roller-coaster decade?

One can take the optimistic view and say Singapore has weathered crises remarkably well and remained intact as a society, despite the train breakdowns, the Little India riot of last December, a bus drivers' strike, and the sex and corruption scandals. Critics might say there are signs of a ship that is cruising, or even adrift, tossed about by the global winds of change.

I would say that the truth as usual lies in between.

Singapore has done well on the economic front. There is a palpable buzz about the country.

On the social front, the incremental approach, where every small change adds up, has ushered in a Big Bang shift in social policy.

But whether the feel-the- way-forward approach is enough at a time when Singapore is undergoing rapid change remains to be seen. There is every risk that just as the last decade saw a gap widen in income equality, the next decade will see a rift widen in expectations in the political arena.

________________________________________

2004-2014: MILESTONES

2004

•             Aug 12: Mr Lee Hsien Loong, at age 52 and after 20 years of service in politics, is sworn in as Singapore's third prime minister, succeeding Mr Goh Chok Tong.

2005

•             Jan: The ComCare Fund is set up to provide financial assistance to needy families.

•             April 18: After a year-long debate, the Government decides Singapore will have casinos.

2006

•             Feb: Workfare Bonus is introduced to top up the pay of lower-wage workers, recognising that growth no longer delivers the same opportunities to all. It becomes permanent in 2007.

•             May 6: At PM Lee's first general election at the helm, the PAP is returned to power with 66.6 per cent of valid votes.

2007

•             Aug: Reforms to the Central Provident Fund scheme are announced, including mandatory annuities to cover old age, a later drawdown age of the Minimum Sum, and higher interest rates.

2008

•             Feb 27: Terror suspect Mas Selamat Kastari escapes, sparking a review of the Internal Security Department's operations.

2009

•             Jan: The Government dips into reserves to help finance a $20.5 billion stimulus package for Singapore to ride out the global financial crisis.

•             May 27: PM Lee raises the minimum number of opposition MPs from three to nine through the Non-Constituency MP scheme, trims the sizes of Group Representation Constituencies.

2010

•             Feb: The productivity push starts, with $2.5 billion set aside for continuing education and training and $2 billion for the National Productivity Fund.

•             April: Property cooling measures are introduced as property prices hit new heights.

•             May 24: PM Lee and his Malaysian counterpart Najib Razak agree to move the Malayan Railway station in Tanjong Pagar to Woodlands, breaking a 20-year impasse on the issue.

2011

•             May 7: The watershed general election is held. PAP wins with 60.1 per cent of the vote share, but it sees the loss of Aljunied GRC to the Workers' Party (WP).

2012

•             Sept: The first phase of the Government's $1.1 billion plan to boost bus services is rolled out.

•             Nov: Parliament passes legislative changes to remove the mandatory death penalty for certain instances of murder and drug trafficking.

•             Nov 26: Singapore's 26-year strike-free record is broken as 171 SMRT bus drivers from China go on strike to protest against poor pay and living conditions.

•             Dec: Speaker of Parliament Michael Palmer resigns over an extramarital affair. It triggers a by-election in Punggol East in January, which WP candidate Lee Li Lian wins with 54.5 per cent of valid votes. This follows the WP's win in the Hougang by-election in May 2012.

2013

•             Jan: A White Paper on Population sets out plans to accommodate up to 6.9 million people here by 2030, drawing backlash.

•             June: Websites that regularly report Singapore news and have significant reach are asked to put up a performance bond of $50,000 and be licensed under new licensing rules.

•             Aug: PM Lee announces plans for universal health insurance MediShield Life.

•             Dec 8: A riot breaks out in Little India.

2014

•             Feb: An $8 billion Pioneer Generation Package is launched to provide health-care subsidies 

Good start to securing personal data

By Irene Tham, Technology Correspondent

SINGAPORE'S new Personal Data Protection Act was more than a decade in the making. So when it was finally passed in Parliament in October two years ago, the public got excited.

They were especially happy with the national Do-Not-Call (DNC) Registry, which lets them block telemarketing calls, SMSes and faxes. They could finally say goodbye to pesky telemarketers.

The Registry went into force on Jan 2 this year and has 595,000 local numbers - there are about eight million local mobile numbers here.

The Personal Data Protection Commission, which manages the Registry, is investigating 3,000 complaints that are valid.

While the new law has been welcomed by consumers, does it give them enough protection in areas of the greatest need?

For sure, it does tackle one key annoyance: unwanted marketing phonecalls, which have interrupted meetings, disturbed sleep at ungodly hours and even taxed consumers' wallets - one gets charged for incoming calls while roaming overseas.

With the new rules, telemarketers who call phone numbers listed in the Registry risk a fine of up to $10,000 for each offence.

But the protection does not fully extend to phone or fax messages though.

Some consumers are unhappy over a last-minute exemption that allows firms to send text and fax messages to existing customers without checking with the Do-Not-Call Registry. This is as long as customers are given an option to unsubscribe to the messages via the same channel.

Consumers criticised the Commission for caving in to business pressures - a charge it denied. They also took issue with the exemption being introduced without public consultation.

Despite some loud complaints, others say it may be useful to be kept informed via SMS of promotions and deals from companies.

A credit card user, for instance, may want to be informed by his bank about promotional tie-ups with retailers. Similarly, a mobile, pay-TV or broadband subscriber may want his telco to inform him of discounts or freebies for renewing his subscription.

Said 36-year-old engineer John Wong: "I would like to know if there is a discount in a bookstore. The channel of passing useful information like this can be killed by the DNC Registry but the exemption allows for some flexibility."

In any case, phone messages are deemed less intrusive and less painful on the pocket, as messages received while roaming overseas are free.

The Registry rules are only one part of the new Act though; other provisions that deal with the way organisations may collect, use and disclose personal data kick in only from July 2.

Here, it may be worthy to note that the new Act does not have long arms to protect the general privacy of individuals.

For instance, owners of buildings such as malls do not need the individual's consent to record security camera footage - even though the images are considered personal data. Shopkeepers who take smartphone pictures of customers for promotional reasons also do not need consent.

The Commission feels that camera phones are now widely available and their use can be "reasonably expected". So, a notice by shopkeepers or building owners informing customers that photographs might be taken would suffice.

Also, government agencies are exempted from the new law. Minister for Communications and Information Yaacob Ibrahim had said government agencies are subject to their own set of rules on protecting personal data and these are sometimes more stringent than the new law - but these rules have not been made public.

What the Act does cover is the indiscriminate collection of data.

For instance, a 7-Eleven counter employee verifying the age of customers buying cigarettes or alcohol may record in the computer system only customers' birth dates - but not other information such as identity card number or name.

In another example, a lucky draw organiser may not be allowed to ask participants to disclose their household income if the information is not necessary.

The Act also protects consumers from inappropriate use and disclosure of their information.

For instance, if the lucky draw organiser wants to disclose the personal data of contest participants to third parties or use it for marketing - differing from the original intent - it must get participants' consent.

Failure to do so could mean a breach of the Act. The fine for violating general data protection provisions goes up to $1 million.

One loophole, though, is that Singapore has no jurisdiction over overseas companies with no local set-ups. It will need to work with other countries in this aspect.

Overall, while the law will always play catch-up to theft and misuse, Singapore's new Personal Data Protection Act is a good start in trying to protect people's personal data.

And judging by how the Commission has gone after at least three organisations for violating the new rules, it looks like it is taking the protection of personal data very seriously indeed.

This is the fifth of 12 primers on various current affairs issues, published in the run-up to The Straits Times-Ministry of Education National Current Affairs Quiz.

Big decision ahead for MediShield Life

By Salma Khalik, Senior Health Correspondent

IS MEDISHIELD Life the best way ahead for Singapore health care?

MediShield, the current national health insurance scheme, stops covering people when they turn 90.

That means more than 10,000 people aged 90 and older have no medical insurance, even though the older you are, the more health care you need.

Coupled with the fact that Singaporeans are living longer, the Government will end up supporting a rising number of elderly folk who have run out of money to pay for their health-care costs.

Some countries do just that, but the rising burden eats heavily into government expenditure and that usually results in higher taxes for the working population.

Singapore has decided to go a different route with MediShield Life, which will be launched next year. It will cover everyone, even those with pre-existing diseases, for the rest of their lives.

By doing this, the burden is shared among society as a whole as well as the individual patient.

The Government provides heavy hospital subsidies, society pays the bulk of the remaining bill through insurance premiums while the individual patient is responsible for the deductible and co-payment.

The deductible is the initial amount of a bill the patient has to pay before insurance kicks in. Under the basic MediShield plan, patients also have to pay a portion of the bill - currently between 10 and 20 per cent - beyond the deductible.

How is having compulsory insurance for all different from levying heavier taxes to pay for health care? With taxes, only the working population and richer individuals pay. With insurance, everyone contributes.

The Government uses taxes to provide subsidies that cover as much as 80 per cent of a hospital bill, after which the bulk of the remaining cost is spread among the population. This is very much like the goods and services tax which each person pays when he buys something, rather than income tax which is paid according to how much a person earns.

Patients still have to pay part of the bill, and this makes it fairer. The person needing treatment pays a larger part of the tab in the form of the deductible and co-payment. Those who keep healthy and out of hospital pay only the annual premiums.

Another reason for introducing MediShield Life is that more than 90 per cent of Singaporeans are already covered by MediShield. So it is practical to expand the existing system rather than launch a totally new scheme.

But covering the other 8 per cent of the population will not be easy. This group includes those who are at higher risk of severe illness requiring hospitalisation or the elderly who might need frequent hospitalisation.

People who have been doing the right thing by signing onto the insurance scheme while they are young and healthy, and paying premiums for many years without making any claims, should not end up being the ones paying for this 8 per cent.

Still, the elderly and those who already are sick cannot be made to pay so much that it will prove too big a burden or make little sense for these latecomers.

A Review Committee, which is looking into how MediShield Life should be structured, will need to decide if everyone should pay a standard premium or if it should vary depending on whether the person has pre-existing illnesses.

It will be a tough choice.

Grouping the healthy with the unhealthy would be unfair to those who are well. But penalising those who are already sick will also be difficult, especially since they will have various illnesses with very different health risks.

Trying to separate those who are less sick from their more sick counterparts will be a massive exercise which could be more costly than beneficial.

However, once all that is ironed out, the scheme should be fairly robust. Younger people will pay more, with the money offsetting the expected higher premiums as they age.

This is the fourth of 12 primers on various current affairs issues, published in the run-up to The Straits Times-Ministry of Education National Current Affairs Quiz.

Making eldercare leave mandatory

By Radha Basu, The Straits Times, 7 Apr 2014

Herprit Kaur, 30, had to quit her job as an administrative assistant after her father, Mr Kahka Singh, 64, was seriously injured in a road accident in 2012.

The last straw came when her boss at the shipping firm where she worked foisted more work on her, when she wanted to leave early one evening as her father was undergoing a major operation.

"My mind was not on work and all I wanted was just a day off," said Ms Kaur. She spent long hours keeping a bedside vigil as her father underwent multiple operations in hospital.

Once he returned home, she had to arrange for his long-term care. He could not walk, change or use the bathroom by himself.

Despite money being tight, she hired a maid and returned to work as a travel and administration executive in a recruitment firm.

Working caregivers like her are in favour of mandatory eldercare, or parent care leave, to look after sick or aged parents.

"Even if it is just a few days a year, it will help since we won't need to feel guilty to take our parents for doctors' visits," said Ms Kaur who lives with her parents.

She has found a champion in Speaker of Parliament Halimah Yacob, who has repeatedly called for the Government to seriously consider legislating eldercare leave.

Speaking at a conference on ageing on March 26, Madam Halimah said: "Even if it's only for a few days, it will provide great relief and is a strong signal that the Government supports families in their effort to care for their elderly at home."

An NTUC survey released last year showed that 77 per cent of working caregivers do not have eldercare leave. Among the caregivers who quit work, 21 per cent did so to take care of an elderly family member full time.

The Government is reviewing again the need for eldercare leave.

It had said no to similar calls earlier, heeding employers' concerns that unlike childcare leave, which is finite, no one knows how long an elderly person will need to be cared for.

Employers are also concerned that parent care leave can add to costs and be open to abuse.

Echoing the fears of many businesses, a reader wrote to The Straits Times Forum recently to say if mandated, parent care leave will become "yet another type of compulsory leave entitlement that is difficult to police, in the same way that childcare leave has become a statutory entitlement that is being used for whatever purpose the employee chooses".

But this need not be true, shows data from the Public Service Division (PSD), which oversees policies for the civil service.

Since 2012, civil servants here have been entitled to take two days off a year to care for parents. So far, only around three in 10 have used the leave, a PSD spokesman told The Straits Times. "There are officers who do not use it as they do not have such needs now," she said.

Caregivers' advocates such as Mr Manmohan Singh from the Awwa Centre for Caregivers say that in the latest review of the issue, policymakers must consider the economic costs of people quitting work altogether when a parent's condition deteriorates.

This not only affects caregivers financially but can also undermine their re-employment prospects.

"Besides, parent care leave would also signal that Singapore is truly pro-family in substance and deed, not just in word," he said.

Countries like Britain already offer "family care leave" as opposed to childcare leave.

In fact, businesses in Britain have gone further, with some offering to even pay for caregiving packages for employees, just so that they don't quit.

An industry association called Employers for Carers has been set up specifically to guide businesses on how to retain employees who are caregivers.

More than 70 companies, including British Telecom, British Gas and the National Health Service are already on board, the BBC reported last month.

"One in nine in your workforce will be caring for someone who is ill, frail or has a disability," the organisation says on its website.

"In the current economic climate it is important to retain skilled workers rather than recruiting and retraining new staff."

This is the third of 12 primers on various current affairs issues, published in the run-up to The Straits Times-Ministry of Education National Current Affairs Quiz.

Building affordable homes for S'poreans

By Janice Heng, The Straits Times, 31 Mar 2014

AT THE turn of the last decade, there were fears that the Housing Board flat was becoming out of reach for many families.

Young couples bemoaned the fierce competition to buy subsidised Build-To-Order (BTO) flats from the HDB, while soaring prices meant that buying a resale flat was a costly proposition.

At the end of 2010, the median price of a four-room flat was $385,000.

Five-room ones were going for more than half a million dollars in many mature estates.

It led to heated tempers, with citizens and opposition parties urging the Government to care more about families and less about keeping property values high.

But to see Singapore's housing policy as hostile to families would be a mistake.

Granted, there is a tension between keeping flats affordable for buyers and keeping property values up for home owners.

The latter was a particular focus in the 1990s.

Then prime minister Goh Chok Tong, in a 1992 speech to grassroots leaders, said HDB flats were the most valuable asset for most Singaporeans, adding: "It is in your interest to ensure that the value of your flats continues to rise."

Nowadays, the need to maintain property values is taken as given.

In his Budget speech this year, National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan said: "If Singapore's economy were to decline permanently, all properties would drop in value.

"That is why it is important to ensure that our economy remains dynamic and vibrant."

In the light of this, it is not hard to see why some might accuse the Government of being more interested in property than people.

Yet, such an accusation would be misguided.

Even as it aims to maintain property values, the Government has not neglected the needs of those seeking to buy a home.

Instead, it has moved to make sure that public housing is affordable and available.

When Mr Khaw took over the housing portfolio in 2011, he unlinked BTO prices from resale ones.

Previously, BTO prices were pegged to those of resale flats in the same area, and rose when resale prices rose.

Removing this peg meant the Government could keep new flats affordable even in a strong resale market.

In addition, the HDB had already begun launching more BTO flats, with 16,000 in 2010 compared to under 8,000 in 2008.

Mr Khaw ramped this up to more than 25,000 new BTO units each year, which allowed more young families to get a new flat sooner.

The income ceiling for HDB flats was also lowered, making affordable public housing available to more Singaporeans.

Cooling measures such as tighter home loan curbs reined in resale price increases.

Family first

IF ANYTHING, the family is central to housing policy.

Until last year, only families could buy subsidised flats directly from the HDB. Families also receive higher housing grants to subsidise their purchase of public flats than singles.

Housing policies even encourage larger family units.

For instance, 30 per cent of BTO flats are set aside for married couples with children who are buying their first public flat.

Priority is also given to extended families who live close to each other. The Multi-Generation Priority Scheme sets aside 15 per cent of units for parents who are applying with their married child for flats in the same development.

Larger "3-Generation" flats were introduced last year for multi-generational families.

As Mr Khaw put it in 2011, shortly after taking over, promoting marriage and births "is a national priority... and MND (Ministry of National Development) must facilitate it to its best ability".

There have even been arguments that the family has been too central to housing policy.

Over the years, there have been demands for more to be done for those who fall outside the usual definition of a family unit.

Single Singaporeans were initially shut out from the public housing market.

Then-national development minister S. Dhanabalan said in 1988 that land-scarce Singapore could not afford to let every single person have a flat of his or her own. Letting them live alone would also conflict with the Government's focus on the family unit, he added.

For decades, singles could not buy resale HDB flats on their own, but had to apply jointly with another single.

But things have gradually changed. In 1991, singles aged 35 and older were allowed to buy one- to three-room resale flats in all but some urban estates.

In 2001, that geographical restriction was lifted and three years later they were allowed to buy resale flats of any size.

Last year, they were finally allowed to buy new two-room flats in non-mature estates directly from the HDB.

Mr Khaw is unlikely to move any further on this issue for now.

When Member of Parliament Penny Low suggested in the Budget debate that singles be allowed to buy larger BTO flats, he insisted that families still come first. "I have no plan for such a change immediately. Given our limited resources, let me prioritise - and, I think, give greater priority to the married couples first."

But in focusing on families, Mr Khaw is also willing to pay more attention to less traditional ones.

"Now that we have cleared the backlog for newlyweds, we have begun to focus on helping the vulnerable groups, especially divorcees with children," he said.

In September last year, for instance, a temporary housing scheme was extended to divorced and widowed parents with children. Previously, this Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme was open only to married couples who were first-time buyers.

Five per cent of two- and three-room BTO flats in non-mature estates are also set aside for divorcees with children below 16.

This approach looks set to be expanded in future. Mr Khaw asked: "Even as we continue to support marriages and families... how can we, in housing, build a social compact that is more inclusive and provide greater support to divorcees and unmarried parents with kids?"

The traditional family unit remains at the heart of housing policy. But perhaps the next step is to accommodate other sorts of families too.

The rise of the public flat as an asset

By Janice Heng, The Straits Times, 31 Mar 2014

PUBLIC housing in some countries often takes the form of rental homes for the less well-off, such as Britain's council estates or "the projects" in the United States.

Although owning such property is an option, it is not seen as the default there - unlike in Singapore.

Singapore's model of home ownership allows people to buy such property as an investment which they can sell or let out.

As well as being an option for those on low incomes, the public flat here is also seen as a source of income too.

Yet it was not always thus. The public flat's role as an asset is one that emerged gradually.

When the Housing and Development Board (HDB) was set up in 1960, its role was to provide basic permanent housing for people previously living in slums and squatter settlements.

Initially, rental housing was provided but within half a decade, the HDB moved to encourage home ownership instead.

Having a nation of home owners, rather than tenants, opened up more possibilities.

In 1971, public flats were allowed to be resold for the first time. Previously, they could only be sold back to the HDB at fixed prices.

A resale market was created and, as property prices rose, selling one's HDB flat at a profit became a possibility.

Another avenue for income opened up in 2003, when HDB home owners were allowed to sublet their whole flat. Residents could upgrade to private property while letting out their HDB flat for additional income.

Previously, subletting was allowed only under special circumstances, or for those aged at least 65 who had lived in three-room or smaller flats for at least 25 years.

Schemes have also been set up to let elderly flat owners tap the value of their homes for retirement income.

Introduced in 2009, the Lease Buyback Scheme allows people over 63 to sell part of their flat's lease back to the HDB.

The proceeds go towards topping up the owners' Central Provident Fund Retirement Accounts, with any excess up to $100,000 being paid to them in cash.

The Government has made it clear that its top priority is providing homes. But the role of the public flat as an asset is inescapable.

As Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong put it in last year's National Day Rally speech: "The HDB programme is not just about the roof over our heads. It is also a valuable nest egg."

This is the second of 12 primers on various current affairs issues, published in the run-up to The Straits Times-Ministry of Education National Current Affairs Q

Public transport - Paving the way for comfortable rides

By Christopher Tan, The Straits Times, 24 Mar 2014

EVENTS in recent years have underscored the need for Singapore to ramp up its transport infrastructure, as well as to rejuvenate what has already been built.

Overcrowded trains and buses, long and unpredictable waiting times, and glitches in the rail system have been top grouses since as early as 2004. It did not help that Singapore's population grew by more than 30 per cent in the last decade to hit 5.4 million last year. Public transport ridership soared by more than 50 per cent over the same period to 6.36 million trips a day.

Meanwhile, two major rail breakdowns in December 2011 brought into sharp focus the need for infrastructural upkeep on the back of fast-rising usage demand.

The Government has responded fairly swiftly. But experts say a sustainable solution to managing public transport demand also needs measures such as increasing flexi-work arrangements, telecommuting or decentralised office hubs.

On the capacity front, the Government is setting aside an estimated $2 billion to replace ageing parts in all the major rail lines together with rail operators.

It is also in the process of rolling out a bus service enhancement programme (BSEP) - likely to cost in excess of $1.1 billion - which will boost fleet size by 20 per cent.

And in January last year, it announced a slew of new lines that will grow Singapore's rail network to 360km - double its current length. This is on top of $60 billion of investments in place for ongoing projects such as the Downtown and Thomson lines.

In all, transport-related projects may cost more than $150 billion. This is more than 40 per cent of Singapore's total foreign reserves last year, and seven times the 20-year transport infrastructure spending envisioned by a White Paper released in 1996.

By any measure, it is a highly ambitious programme. The question is, will it be economically sustainable to go on ramping up capacity this way?

This is especially when capacity is often designed to cater to peak demand, which is usually less than two hours in the morning and two hours in the evening. Hence such a network tends to be "underutilised" for the rest of the day. Average bus occupation, for instance, is only 20 per cent.

Transport experts have thus called for other measures such as promoting flexible working hours and telecommuting.

Attempts to stagger working hours were made back in the early 1970s to ease traffic congestion. But the campaign never did gain much traction.

According to a study published by the Manpower Ministry in 2001, flexi-time was practised by only 0.3 per cent of all private-sector employees.

Telecommuting was even more uncommon, with a participation rate of merely 0.1 per cent. And those who work entirely from home accounted for just 0.01 per cent of employees.

While more current figures are not readily available, there are signs that flexi-time is still not widely accepted.

Last June, the Transport Ministry launched a year-long free-travel initiative to encourage commuters to travel just before the morning peak, following a Travel Smart initiative rolled out in October 2012 to persuade people to shift their peak-hour travel time by 15 minutes.

Response was encouraging initially, with around 9 per cent of peak-hour commuters travelling earlier. But this has since fallen to 6 to 7 per cent.

Certainly, the scheme has potential for improvement - perhaps even without additional tax spending (the year-long free travel initiative costs $10 million).

In 2004, a study by the UK Strategic Rail Authority found that train overcrowding can be eased substantially by widening the differential between peak and off-peak fares. This means giving off-peak fare discounts or wai-vers, as well as raising peak-pe-riod fares.

Not only does this help the operator maintain financial viability, but the shift of peak demand also reduces the financial burden of having to run additional trains during peak hour.

Analysts suggest the savings here would more than cover the cost of providing free fares.

However, adjunct Professor Paul Barter, who teaches transport policy at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, says there are limits to what flexi-time arrangements can do to flatten peak travel volumes.

This is because there is "dynamic tension" between two things that people want: a regular schedule that gives them fixed times at home or with friends, and more comfortable travel.

Because of this tension, people will modify travel patterns "even without the Government doing anything".

And if there is less overcrowding during the peak period because some commuters have altered their travelling time, others will move in to fill the space freed up.

Prof Barter, however, notes that flexi-time can contribute to shorter peaks, which range from "five to 10 minutes in Canberra to three to four hours in Jakarta".

Also, if people were free to adjust their travelling time, "they would complain less", he said. He feels that many employers in Singapore "are more rigid than they need to be" in this respect.

Indeed, a survey by the Land Transport Authority in 2012 found that the top reason for workers not telecommuting was that employers rarely allow it. And about 80 per cent of 1,500 people polled said they would take up flexi-work arrangements if these were made available.

Finally, experts say a decentralised city is key to improving accessibility without increasing mobility. Even though Singapore had a decentralisation strategy since the 1980s, it has not gained much traction - until now.

"There was a time when it was felt that having a big CBD (Central Business District) was good for the economy," recalls Prof Barter. "But I think it is better to have many sub-centres across the island."

Now, several sub-centres are in the works, including Jurong Lake District, Woodlands and the Kallang Riverside.

All these will allow more people to live near where they work, and work near where they play.

Meanwhile, cities the world over are increasingly looking to "soft" demand management measures to spread out peak loads on transport systems.

In 2008, Melbourne started offering free travel to commuters who arrive at the CBD before 7am. It led 23 per cent of commuters to travel out of peak hours.

Monetary measures are not the only way to temper peak demand. In the run-up to the 2012 Olympics, London embarked on a public education and awareness campaign to prepare for the foreseeable surge in travel demand.

The programme included reducing the need to travel, spacing out journeys, shifting to walking or cycling, as well as re-routing to less busy routes.

The result was encouraging.

Despite record ridership - London Underground, for instance, carried 4.52 million passengers on Aug 9, the highest in its history - the transport network coped well.

Elsewhere, Abu Dhabi has spelt out a transport mobility management strategy as it prepares for a possible trebling of its population by 2030. It includes park-and-ride, car-sharing, flexible working hours, and telecommuting plans.

All these are in place in Singapore, even if they lack scale.

But things may be changing.

Last year, the Urban Redevelopment Authority unveiled plans for a 700km cycling path network by 2030 - thrice the length of the current network.

And URA chief planner Lim Eng Hwee leads by example: He cycles to work.