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