Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Bridge the foreign-local gap with NS
Bridge the foreign-local gap with NS
By Leong Chan-Hoong
IF SINGAPORE had a social thermometer that could gauge public sentiment on national policies, immigration would probably top the list, given the spate of recent articles on the angst locals feel about the influx of foreigners to this city-state.
What has contributed to the simmering tension? We need to understand why people resent the influx of foreigners.
There are two main reasons. The first is economic. Foreigners compete for jobs, and cause strains on transport and health-care infrastructure. An influx of foreigners is perceived to have reduced housing and education opportunities.
The second is social and cultural. This involves the norms, heritage and values embraced by the majority. Locals who see their social standing and ethos eroded by the growing number of foreign-born residents will react defensively to protect their values and heritage.
The Government has in recent years calibrated the influx of immigrants and transient workers. Public amenities and accommodation are being ramped up to meet the demands of the growing population. In the provision of welfare, education, housing and medical services, the distinction between permanent residents (PRs) and citizens has been sharpened. The policy differentiation aims to provide greater security among citizens, while simultaneously dangling a carrot before PRs to persuade them to apply for a Singapore passport.
Do these concerted efforts promote integration and enhance Singaporeans' sense of security? Probably.
Can we do better? Definitely.
The policies that have been adopted increase locals' access to resources so they can compete better with foreigners. They mitigate the economic threats, but do little to tackle the social and cultural ones.
And what are the social and cultural issues? In a study conducted by the Reach Policy Study Workgroup two years ago, National Service (NS) emerged as a key bugbear in the foreign-local divide. This finding is consistent with the result of a recent study conducted by the Institute of Policy Studies.
Singaporeans are dismayed that not all immigrants are enlisted, and that second-generation PRs can renounce their residency to avoid conscription. Some PRs reportedly delay acquiring residency for their male offspring until they are past enlistment age.
On the other hand, Singaporeans who have completed full-time NS are liable to be recalled for duties, putting them at a relative disadvantage compared to other young professionals from abroad. The Ministry of Defence revealed last November that one-third of NS-liable 18-year-old PRs chose not to fulfil their obligations and gave up their residency.
NS as a social institution embodies many of the shared principles that Singaporeans deeply cherish. It is the best demonstration of equality and impartiality, and is a distinctive rite of passage for Singaporean men and their families.
The trend of PRs skipping NS will ruffle the social fabric between immigrants and locals.
While Singapore has fine-tuned policies to give more benefits to citizens over PRs, we have yet to reach a consensus on the sharing of obligations.
Forging a more collegial relationship between the locals and the foreign-born will be difficult so long as locals feel they bear the bulk of the social burden. Policymakers should take the bull by the horns and address the issue of inequality in serving National Service, whether real or perceived.
While it is unrealistic to expect first-generation PRs to serve NS, it should be made mandatory for their children to be enlisted if Junior is to become a PR.
Right now, sons of PRs who want to remain as PRs or become citizens must serve NS when they turn 18. If they choose not to do so, they would have to give up their permanent residency and may face severe consequences like never getting PR again in Singapore, or not being able to obtain a work visa in Singapore.
What I am proposing is to remove that choice and make it mandatory for children of PRs to serve NS.
This means that foreigners who wish to apply for permanent residency for their children should be given a realistic preview of NS and be properly counselled by immigration officers before they submit their children's PR application.
To ensure that they understand the NS imperatives, parents who want to apply for PR for their children should have to put up a security bond for them.
When these children come of age, they will then be liable to serve NS if they want to remain as PRs or become citizens. If they do not want to serve NS, parents forfeit the NS bond, and the children give up their PR.
Singapore citizens have to put up a security bond if their sons study overseas, which is forfeited if they do not return to fulfil their NS obligations at 18.
The security bond for children of PRs will make sure that only families keen to remain in Singapore for the long term apply for PR for their children. This reduces one major source of dissatisfaction: that PR families view Singapore as a 'stepping stone' to getting residency in the indus-trialised West.
If a family forfeits the security bond, and the youth gives up his PR status, the money recovered can be seen as a way for the state to 'claw back' subsidies enjoyed by the youth in education and other subsidies.
Imposing an NS requirement for children of PRs and formalising it with a security bond may go some way towards removing the sense of unfair treatment felt by Singaporeans on the NS issue.
The writer is a research fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, NUS. He served as the vice-chairman of the 2010 Reach Policy Study Workgroup on integration.
streview@sph.com.sg
Monday, April 30, 2012
Simon - WWII Intern
Simon was born to an English man and a Ceylonese mother.
His father was a rubber assessor whose travels took him all over Malaysia before WWII.
He was buried in Bidari cementry when he died in 15 Feb 1942.
Simon was interned at a camp in Sime Road for the duration of the war.
He found employment in the British Army after the war. He worked in logistics.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Adapt governance to fit the circumstance - The Changing of the guards in government
Adapt governance to fit the circumstance
Education Minister Heng Swee Keat spoke at the Harvard Club of Singapore's 42nd annual dinner last night at the Fullerton Hotel. The following is an edited excerpt.
24 March 2012 Straits Times
WE ARE entering a period of accelerating change. This brings greater uncertainty. But it also presents many more opportunities. The critical questions are: How will nation states, companies and individuals succeed in such a world? What qualities will be needed to thrive in such an environment?
The answers to these questions are complex. This evening, allow me to address briefly the role of governance in navigating change.
Financial crisis and governance deficit
AT THE height of the financial crisis, when I was at the Monetary Authority of Singapore, a fellow central banker lamented to me that his country was unable to deal effectively with both the short-term and long-term issues. He observed that they had a large governance deficit at the political level. I was struck by how, in many other dialogues with other international colleagues and analysts, and in public debates in the media, the same theme came up.
There was a clear sense of a failure of governance, if one was very critical, or at least a sense of a deficit of governance, at multiple levels - institutional, national and global. So we failed to prevent the crisis. Nor did we respond effectively to address the underlying causes decisively; instead, we are still muddling along, and kicking the can down the road.
At the corporate level, weak governance and oversight by boards allowed management teams in financial institutions to take excessive risks to maximise short-term returns. Regulatory agencies were seen to have failed in developing the capabilities to keep up with the changes in financial markets, or worse, of being captured by the firms they were supposed to supervise.
At the national level, many countries in Europe, including France, Spain, Italy, and Portugal, had their ratings downgraded as confidence in the ability of sovereign governments to deal with the debt problems fell.
The partisan gridlock between the US Congress and White House resulted in the US debt impasse last year. The regional governance structure in the euro zone also failed to address the deeper problems of the European sovereign debt crisis. At the global level, there was also much debate on the reform of governance.
These debates remind us how during the Asian financial crisis in 1997/1998, the causes were attributed to cronyism, corruption and nepotism. The policy prescription then was based on a set of doctrines in economic governance dubbed the Washington Consensus. So during the recent crisis, you would not be surprised to hear that many of my Asian colleagues were amused, even upset, that the Washington Consensus was not consistently applied in dealing with the current set of problems.
Please do not get me wrong - my examples are not to show that Asian policymakers have done better, or that governments dealing with the debt problems today should have done what the International Monetary Fund (IMF) prescribed in 1998. We should seek to understand, rather than to criticise. As a former colleague put it, if we do not learn the right lessons, the crisis, which has brought some much pain, would have been wasted.
For me, there are many lessons. Allow me to share a few. First, the fact that we had two major financial crises within a space of 10 years - in 1997 and then 2007 - shows just how important good governance is.
Second, it also shows that there is no simple doctrine that applies at all times.
Third, I find that the discussion on good governance often focuses narrowly on formal rules and structures, and institutional checks and balances. Certainly, rules are institutional checks that are important and necessary, but insufficient. Let me venture that good governance, whether at the institutional, national or global level, requires at least three other critical ingredients.
Complex, multi-faceted and constantly changing reality
FIRST, good governance requires an appreciation that reality is complex, multifaceted and constantly changing. At Harvard, we are exposed to theories of good management and governance, which seek to distil key principles from messy reality. While these are useful in organising our thinking, all of you here who are key leaders of your organisations know that translating ideas into practice is an art, not a science. It is not a matter of checking the boxes of to-do lists.
Nor are there evergreen rules of managing a company that guarantee success. One of the most influential management books, Good To Great by James Collins, profiled several 'great' companies which have since failed - Fannie Mae was embroiled in the home mortgage scandal, Wells Fargo had to receive US$25 billion (S$32 billion) of Tarp funding, and Circuit City Stores went bankrupt in 2009.
Similarly, in public policy, there are no simple short cuts to good policymaking and good governance. Capitalism was seen as the model of economic governance after the break-up of the Soviet Union. But the recent financial crisis has been so deep and so prolonged that the Financial Times has been running a series on the crisis of capitalism.
While pithy labels are useful to help us grasp complex reality, the fact remains that reality is complex. And circumstances and conditions change. What was right the last time is not necessarily right now. What is right for one company or one country may not be right for another.
I recall years ago when I was at the Ministry of Trade and Industry, a young officer was rather distressed that he could not find the detailed history behind a particular decision. His boss told him: 'Young man, this is a dynamic ministry, dealing with rapidly changing situations. Learn to analyse from first principles, and don't be stuck with the wrong mould.'
Indeed, there is no substitute for going back to fundamentals all the time. We need to be open to appreciate the full complexity, and be humble that we do not know everything. For any society, the historical, cultural and social dimensions interact with the economic and political dimensions. We need to evolve and adapt our approach of governance to fit our own context and circumstance. This is especially so in a time of rapid changes.
Values-based 'adaptive' leadership
SECOND, good governance and good leadership are inseparable. Again, members of the audience here are leading your teams and organisations. We work with other leaders, and know how our bosses and colleagues can make a difference.
We know, sometimes from our own shortcomings, that exercising good leadership is not easy.
Change is always disconcerting, and in times of rapid change, exercising leadership is even more difficult. Professor Ronald Heifetz at the Kennedy School makes a useful distinction between technical and adaptive problems. Technical problems can be solved by good analysis and having the right resources. But adaptive problems require us to change the way we think and interact with others, and to clarify our own values and those around us.
With the world experiencing great changes, we in this little red dot have no choice but to stay ahead with the changes. We will have to make many difficult decisions together - difficult decisions on a range of issues such as our population size and make-up; how we use our limited land resources; and how we maintain harmony in a multiracial, multi-religious city that is also so global; and how we maintain economic vibrancy even as we face the prospect of an ageing population.
But our leaders, whether in the private or public or people sector, must be guided by a mission - a mission to create opportunities together with our people and for our people.
And even as we resolve immediate, vexing problems, let us have an eye clearly on the future and position ourselves to create opportunities and build a better future, for ourselves and our children. We can do so if there is a high level of trust among us. We need good communications and engagement. I believe members of the Harvard Club can play a very constructive role here.
Build a high level of social and cross-cultural capital
THIS brings me to my final point. Good governance is based on a high level of social and cross-cultural capital. It is not just rules, but a relationship based on integrity and trust.
Another Harvard professor, Robert Putnam from the Kennedy School of Government, noted that social capital is 'the collective value of all social networks and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each other'. The Harvard Club and the gathering this evening is an example of a social network.
Social capital involves the implicit mutual trust that the public has of its leaders and government and the inclination of the public to support each other as a community, and make personal sacrifices for the mutual good.
A society with high levels of social capital is one which is inclusive. It is one, as Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam put it recently, that has both a strong sense of responsibility and a strong sense of community - a strong sense of personal responsibility and responsibility for our family and friends, and a strong sense of community to help others.
For Singapore, beyond building our domestic social capital, let us also build cross-cultural social capital that will allow us to harness the benefits of globalisation.
Again, many of you have businesses that span the region. With the rise of Asia, and our global orientation, we are well-positioned to be a key Global-Asia node. By staying open and developing an appreciation for other cultures around us, we can build relationships and cross-cultural social capital that extend beyond Singapore and help create a better life for others and for ourselves.
Let me conclude with the observation that many nations which had made great progress after World War II were characterised by an ability of the society to grapple with difficult challenges.
They set themselves challenging goals - such as putting man on the moon or getting out of poverty. They had good leaders and high levels of social capital. It is unfortunate that some of these attributes that make for good governance have been eroded over time.
Singapore is a little red dot with no natural resources, no buffer. But we are a global city situated in the heart of a dynamic Asia. While there are many uncertainties ahead, there are also many opportunities. If our society stays cohesive, energetic and forward-looking, we will ride the next wave of growth.
I am optimistic that we will succeed and I am confident that members of the Harvard Club of Singapore will exercise good leadership and be part of our collective effort to take Singapore forward.
Education Minister Heng Swee Keat spoke at the Harvard Club of Singapore's 42nd annual dinner last night at the Fullerton Hotel. The following is an edited excerpt.
24 March 2012 Straits Times
WE ARE entering a period of accelerating change. This brings greater uncertainty. But it also presents many more opportunities. The critical questions are: How will nation states, companies and individuals succeed in such a world? What qualities will be needed to thrive in such an environment?
The answers to these questions are complex. This evening, allow me to address briefly the role of governance in navigating change.
Financial crisis and governance deficit
AT THE height of the financial crisis, when I was at the Monetary Authority of Singapore, a fellow central banker lamented to me that his country was unable to deal effectively with both the short-term and long-term issues. He observed that they had a large governance deficit at the political level. I was struck by how, in many other dialogues with other international colleagues and analysts, and in public debates in the media, the same theme came up.
There was a clear sense of a failure of governance, if one was very critical, or at least a sense of a deficit of governance, at multiple levels - institutional, national and global. So we failed to prevent the crisis. Nor did we respond effectively to address the underlying causes decisively; instead, we are still muddling along, and kicking the can down the road.
At the corporate level, weak governance and oversight by boards allowed management teams in financial institutions to take excessive risks to maximise short-term returns. Regulatory agencies were seen to have failed in developing the capabilities to keep up with the changes in financial markets, or worse, of being captured by the firms they were supposed to supervise.
At the national level, many countries in Europe, including France, Spain, Italy, and Portugal, had their ratings downgraded as confidence in the ability of sovereign governments to deal with the debt problems fell.
The partisan gridlock between the US Congress and White House resulted in the US debt impasse last year. The regional governance structure in the euro zone also failed to address the deeper problems of the European sovereign debt crisis. At the global level, there was also much debate on the reform of governance.
These debates remind us how during the Asian financial crisis in 1997/1998, the causes were attributed to cronyism, corruption and nepotism. The policy prescription then was based on a set of doctrines in economic governance dubbed the Washington Consensus. So during the recent crisis, you would not be surprised to hear that many of my Asian colleagues were amused, even upset, that the Washington Consensus was not consistently applied in dealing with the current set of problems.
Please do not get me wrong - my examples are not to show that Asian policymakers have done better, or that governments dealing with the debt problems today should have done what the International Monetary Fund (IMF) prescribed in 1998. We should seek to understand, rather than to criticise. As a former colleague put it, if we do not learn the right lessons, the crisis, which has brought some much pain, would have been wasted.
For me, there are many lessons. Allow me to share a few. First, the fact that we had two major financial crises within a space of 10 years - in 1997 and then 2007 - shows just how important good governance is.
Second, it also shows that there is no simple doctrine that applies at all times.
Third, I find that the discussion on good governance often focuses narrowly on formal rules and structures, and institutional checks and balances. Certainly, rules are institutional checks that are important and necessary, but insufficient. Let me venture that good governance, whether at the institutional, national or global level, requires at least three other critical ingredients.
Complex, multi-faceted and constantly changing reality
FIRST, good governance requires an appreciation that reality is complex, multifaceted and constantly changing. At Harvard, we are exposed to theories of good management and governance, which seek to distil key principles from messy reality. While these are useful in organising our thinking, all of you here who are key leaders of your organisations know that translating ideas into practice is an art, not a science. It is not a matter of checking the boxes of to-do lists.
Nor are there evergreen rules of managing a company that guarantee success. One of the most influential management books, Good To Great by James Collins, profiled several 'great' companies which have since failed - Fannie Mae was embroiled in the home mortgage scandal, Wells Fargo had to receive US$25 billion (S$32 billion) of Tarp funding, and Circuit City Stores went bankrupt in 2009.
Similarly, in public policy, there are no simple short cuts to good policymaking and good governance. Capitalism was seen as the model of economic governance after the break-up of the Soviet Union. But the recent financial crisis has been so deep and so prolonged that the Financial Times has been running a series on the crisis of capitalism.
While pithy labels are useful to help us grasp complex reality, the fact remains that reality is complex. And circumstances and conditions change. What was right the last time is not necessarily right now. What is right for one company or one country may not be right for another.
I recall years ago when I was at the Ministry of Trade and Industry, a young officer was rather distressed that he could not find the detailed history behind a particular decision. His boss told him: 'Young man, this is a dynamic ministry, dealing with rapidly changing situations. Learn to analyse from first principles, and don't be stuck with the wrong mould.'
Indeed, there is no substitute for going back to fundamentals all the time. We need to be open to appreciate the full complexity, and be humble that we do not know everything. For any society, the historical, cultural and social dimensions interact with the economic and political dimensions. We need to evolve and adapt our approach of governance to fit our own context and circumstance. This is especially so in a time of rapid changes.
Values-based 'adaptive' leadership
SECOND, good governance and good leadership are inseparable. Again, members of the audience here are leading your teams and organisations. We work with other leaders, and know how our bosses and colleagues can make a difference.
We know, sometimes from our own shortcomings, that exercising good leadership is not easy.
Change is always disconcerting, and in times of rapid change, exercising leadership is even more difficult. Professor Ronald Heifetz at the Kennedy School makes a useful distinction between technical and adaptive problems. Technical problems can be solved by good analysis and having the right resources. But adaptive problems require us to change the way we think and interact with others, and to clarify our own values and those around us.
With the world experiencing great changes, we in this little red dot have no choice but to stay ahead with the changes. We will have to make many difficult decisions together - difficult decisions on a range of issues such as our population size and make-up; how we use our limited land resources; and how we maintain harmony in a multiracial, multi-religious city that is also so global; and how we maintain economic vibrancy even as we face the prospect of an ageing population.
But our leaders, whether in the private or public or people sector, must be guided by a mission - a mission to create opportunities together with our people and for our people.
And even as we resolve immediate, vexing problems, let us have an eye clearly on the future and position ourselves to create opportunities and build a better future, for ourselves and our children. We can do so if there is a high level of trust among us. We need good communications and engagement. I believe members of the Harvard Club can play a very constructive role here.
Build a high level of social and cross-cultural capital
THIS brings me to my final point. Good governance is based on a high level of social and cross-cultural capital. It is not just rules, but a relationship based on integrity and trust.
Another Harvard professor, Robert Putnam from the Kennedy School of Government, noted that social capital is 'the collective value of all social networks and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each other'. The Harvard Club and the gathering this evening is an example of a social network.
Social capital involves the implicit mutual trust that the public has of its leaders and government and the inclination of the public to support each other as a community, and make personal sacrifices for the mutual good.
A society with high levels of social capital is one which is inclusive. It is one, as Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam put it recently, that has both a strong sense of responsibility and a strong sense of community - a strong sense of personal responsibility and responsibility for our family and friends, and a strong sense of community to help others.
For Singapore, beyond building our domestic social capital, let us also build cross-cultural social capital that will allow us to harness the benefits of globalisation.
Again, many of you have businesses that span the region. With the rise of Asia, and our global orientation, we are well-positioned to be a key Global-Asia node. By staying open and developing an appreciation for other cultures around us, we can build relationships and cross-cultural social capital that extend beyond Singapore and help create a better life for others and for ourselves.
Let me conclude with the observation that many nations which had made great progress after World War II were characterised by an ability of the society to grapple with difficult challenges.
They set themselves challenging goals - such as putting man on the moon or getting out of poverty. They had good leaders and high levels of social capital. It is unfortunate that some of these attributes that make for good governance have been eroded over time.
Singapore is a little red dot with no natural resources, no buffer. But we are a global city situated in the heart of a dynamic Asia. While there are many uncertainties ahead, there are also many opportunities. If our society stays cohesive, energetic and forward-looking, we will ride the next wave of growth.
I am optimistic that we will succeed and I am confident that members of the Harvard Club of Singapore will exercise good leadership and be part of our collective effort to take Singapore forward.
After the 2011 GE in Singapore - Greater engagement but When the talking is done
When the talking is done
Editorial
Straits Times 24 March 2012
COMMUNITY engagement, which became a buzzword after the last General Election, took a stumble from the Bukit Brown and Toh Yi controversies. These dialogues started as honest attempts by both sides to communicate with each other. But as they progressed, observers wondered if it would end satisfactorily and what could be the rules of engagement, so to speak, when it's not possible to bridge a yawning gulf.
The Bukit Brown Cemetery dialogue sessions came to a head with interest groups, including nature lovers, heritage advocates and paranormal investigators, calling for a moratorium on all works scheduled for a new road to meet growing traffic needs. The project had been delayed by several years already to study alternatives, and the Government recently made concessions, namely an elevated section to reduce ground impact, that could cost two to three times more than normal. But this did not entirely satisfy the activists.
Design concessions were also made by planners at Toh Yi where the site for studio flats for seniors had become a bone of contention. But residents living nearby did not want to lose a basketball court and jogging track on the site. They wanted to push the location of the flats to other parts of Toh Yi. And the residents there pushed back. This effectively meant that any decision that was taken would have upset one group or the other, unless the authorities decided to do nothing. Thankfully, in both cases, the authorities arrived at a point where consultations had to make way for a decision. Hence, a new road will be built at Bukit Brown, and the Housing Board will stick to the original site for the studio flats.
Some have wondered if these moves signal a return to the 'just do it' mindset of times past. Rather, the recent decisions acknowledge the need to serve the larger public interest ultimately, after taking into account all competing perspectives. Citizen involvement in planning can take many forms, from passive voting for en bloc redevelopment to active participation in shaping the plans for several new Destination Parks to be built. This is an evolving process and should be nurtured. The public should take up the Government's call and engage. Those who do should offer their views and make their case, but also accept that not every idea can be taken up and implemented. Nor can every competing interest be fully satisfied. Consultation should not lead to policy paralysis. To dismiss the engagement process simply because you disagree with the outcome would be callow. A worthy Singapore model of engagement would be one that can get all to join hands to finish the job after the talking is done.
Copyright © 2011 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.
Editorial
Straits Times 24 March 2012
COMMUNITY engagement, which became a buzzword after the last General Election, took a stumble from the Bukit Brown and Toh Yi controversies. These dialogues started as honest attempts by both sides to communicate with each other. But as they progressed, observers wondered if it would end satisfactorily and what could be the rules of engagement, so to speak, when it's not possible to bridge a yawning gulf.
The Bukit Brown Cemetery dialogue sessions came to a head with interest groups, including nature lovers, heritage advocates and paranormal investigators, calling for a moratorium on all works scheduled for a new road to meet growing traffic needs. The project had been delayed by several years already to study alternatives, and the Government recently made concessions, namely an elevated section to reduce ground impact, that could cost two to three times more than normal. But this did not entirely satisfy the activists.
Design concessions were also made by planners at Toh Yi where the site for studio flats for seniors had become a bone of contention. But residents living nearby did not want to lose a basketball court and jogging track on the site. They wanted to push the location of the flats to other parts of Toh Yi. And the residents there pushed back. This effectively meant that any decision that was taken would have upset one group or the other, unless the authorities decided to do nothing. Thankfully, in both cases, the authorities arrived at a point where consultations had to make way for a decision. Hence, a new road will be built at Bukit Brown, and the Housing Board will stick to the original site for the studio flats.
Some have wondered if these moves signal a return to the 'just do it' mindset of times past. Rather, the recent decisions acknowledge the need to serve the larger public interest ultimately, after taking into account all competing perspectives. Citizen involvement in planning can take many forms, from passive voting for en bloc redevelopment to active participation in shaping the plans for several new Destination Parks to be built. This is an evolving process and should be nurtured. The public should take up the Government's call and engage. Those who do should offer their views and make their case, but also accept that not every idea can be taken up and implemented. Nor can every competing interest be fully satisfied. Consultation should not lead to policy paralysis. To dismiss the engagement process simply because you disagree with the outcome would be callow. A worthy Singapore model of engagement would be one that can get all to join hands to finish the job after the talking is done.
Copyright © 2011 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)