Snippets of John Rawl's Theory of Justice

The goal of social justice is to obtain a fair division of rights, liberties, opportunities, power, income and wealth, holding clearly that an even division is neither possible nor is it likely to be fair. I hope to talk about social justice in the context of the major ideas of John Rawls in mind.

"Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought."
— John Rawls (A Theory of Justice)

Sadly, in a blog post, I will have no choice but to sell Rawl's methodology short. One unfairly short summary would be to ask what is fair given that one is unaware one's position in life, one's inclinations and one's talents. This is Rawl's famed "veil of ignorance". The principle that is that even if one is keen on maximizing one's welfare, one will agree on a "fair system" given that one is unaware of almost anything that might be descriptive of one's person. This is a refinement of Kant's categorical imperative which has been the subject of many a smart alecky "paradox". Rawl's method directed at building, from scratch, a social contract that is "fair". The assertion is that fair principles arise from a social contract cut in the context of a fair "initial state".

Rawls arrives at two principles for the kind of system that would arise from such an agreement: (i) "each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others", and (ii) "social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: first, they are to be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and second, they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society".

(On the first point, he later clarified, in a revised version of his Theory of Justice, that "liberty" itself was not the end of the scheme. This makes a lot of sense as the socially optimal system depends on the possible outcomes are realized on exiting the veil of ignorance. Thus, this theory is not a disguised attempt to justify the claim that "western" "liberal" "democracy" is the best system.)

I'd like to emphasize, once more, that Rawls posits that all the participants of the congress to determine this social contract are "rational" individuals fully aware of the possible outcomes and their relative likelihood, it is just that they do not know which outcome will occur. It might seem to some that my interpretation has hints of $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P})$ and maximin. Furthermore, there is a sense in which Rawl's principles might be proven to be necessary conditions arising from some axioms on human decision making (in particular, risk aversion). After all, utility theory tells us that the payout of an asset is most beneficial if the payout occurs when one is down, like insurance. From a fair starting point, rational and well-informed negotiators who behave in the way most people are observed to behave in (risk adverse) will arrive at principles that might include: fairness of opportunity, leveling institutions (such as subsidized education, public libraries, the open source movement and Wikipedia), true meritocracy and a social safety net. If we also postulate ambiguity aversion (which is also well confirmed empirically) we end up with a large and strong middle class.

Having talked about the individual, what about relationships between people, between organizations and  between people and organizations? One thing that we can assume a priori is that we are all connected. To put things in other terms, we are all elements of the huge set of input-output relationships that is the networked economy. In fact, the economies of the world have been large networks for centuries, and only over the last century have regional components come to become increasingly interrelated. Indeed, today the economy is pervasively networked and only one who is spiritually and intellectually blind will fail to recognize that all along we have been connected. Thus, our actions affect others and that in turn affect us. A greedy business class might impoverish the next generation of workers which will lead to competency gaps and eventual failures in business. In contrast, when business leaders act with appropriate noblesse oblige, wealth for everyone grows in the long run and there is greater overall happiness (which follows from the assumption on risk averse preferences). Rawls himself writes that cooperation and fair dealing is the essence of the two principles he proposes:

"The intuitive idea is that since everyone's well-being depends upon a scheme of cooperation without which no one could have a satisfactory life, the division of advantages should be such as to draw forth the willing cooperation of everyone taking part in it, including those less well situated. Yet this can be expected only if reasonable terms are proposed."

Wise words. Cooperation and fair dealing is very much antithetical to the traditional non-cooperative zero sum war of all against all conception of business. Indeed, in cooperative game theory, it is crucial not to short change others. In non-cooperative game theory, in contrast, it is often the case that agents with low power are forced into a state where their participation constraint binds (they obtain the lowest possible benefit that keeps them in "cooperation" with the stronger agents). These statements may not be identically true, but they do capture a lot of the essence of the two paradigms of multi-agent interaction both in academic journals and the real world.

Rawl's ideas are a call for us to move towards a paradigm of cooperation and fair dealing as opposed to a world of myopic selfish individualism. Let me end by, once again, borrowing the words of Rawls:

"Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue; likewise laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust. Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others. It does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many. Therefore in a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled; the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests. The only thing that permits us to acquiesce in an erroneous theory is the lack of a better one; analogously, an injustice is tolerable only when it is necessary to avoid an even greater injustice. Being first virtues of human activities, truth and justice are uncompromising."
— John Rawls, A Theory of Justice

More Disgraceful Debating

Earlier, I wrote that Bishan-Toa Payoh MP Hri Kumar's statements on the issue of a by-election in Hougang (in reply to a commentary by NMP Eugene Tan) reminded me of some episode where sophistry won out over good sense.

The public discourse on this matter has advanced somewhat, with experts on constitutional law weighing in. To summarize their views, it suffices to consider the following statement Yahoo! News obtained from Adjunct professor Kevin Tan who lectures at the National University of Singapore:

"In brief, Eugene (Tan) is right and Hri (Kumar) is wrong. Eugene's latest letter states the law as it stands and must be regarded as the proper interpretation of the situation."

NMP Eugene Tan replied on the 28 Feb, citing both Article 49 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore and Section 52 of the Interpretation Act to support his original contention that a by-election should be called soon and if not, the reasons should be clearly spelt out.

Hri Kumar was quick to file a rejoinder, saying, among other things, that:

Contrary to what he wrote, Article 49 of the Constitution does not say that an election shall be "called" to fill a vacant seat. It simply prescribes that the vacant seat "shall be filled by election".

Whether it is a general election or a by-election, and more importantly, when that election is to be called, is entirely at the discretion of the Prime Minister. There is no obligation to call an immediate by-election.

and also that:

The law prescribes that it is for the PM to determine when elections should be called, and we should let him do his job.

He later mentions a largely irrelevant point about the Workers' Party previously voting against a motion that proposed mandating by-elections be called within three months from the date an MP vacates his seat, and makes a weak attempt at an ad hominem attack at Eugene Tan the "political commentator" suggesting that Tan was motivated by the rich material that would be generated in the "electioneering" of a by-election.

(The reader is encouraged to read the full set of letters before forming an opinion. The series of letters documenting the exchange in Today Online may be found here, or here, if that link is broken.)

The first paragraph I quoted of Hri Kumar's second letter represents, at least to me, a poor attempt at twisting the text of the Constitution. I would term it unsophisticated sophistry. His attempt at distraction was rather silly as well. It is disgraceful debating in plain sight.

In my previous post, the evidence and simple logic led to two possibly conclusions, that either (i) Hri Kumar has publicly shown that he lacks integrity (by arguing for a legal position that he knew to be at variance with the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore), or (ii) he is incompetent as a lawyer (by arguing for a legal position without knowledge of the relevant statutes). My argument still stands, and the reader should form his/her opinion on which to pick.

I think he is a disgrace to the legacy of good PAP men like Goh Keng Swee, Lim Kim San, S. Rajaratnam and Toh Chin Chye. It is indeed regrettable that Singaporeans have a Member of Parliament such as Hri Kumar.

Disgraceful Debating

I would like to share something from my early life that has disgusted me to this day. It was 1993 or 1994. I was in primary school. (Primary 5 or Primary 6; Henry Park Primary School, one of those... "good schools" as we were excessively told.) There was an interclass debate, and in one of the early match-ups, an EM1 class was pit against an EM3 class.

(In case that particular streaming system has now been replaced, let me elaborate. After Primary 4, students would be streamed into EM1 thru EM3. The EM1s were the "smart" ones; the EM2s the "regular" ones; and the EM3's the "slow" ones.)

The EM3 class was to support the motion that "School Uniforms are Good to Have", while the EM1 class opposed. The EM3 class, in halting English, made coherent arguments of the merits of school uniforms. (Granted, those were the obvious arguments, but they were done coherently.) On the other hand, their opponents, in well-formed complete sentences, made arguments like "The definition of uniform means 'the same in all cases', surely it is not a good idea for all pupils, both girls and boys, to wear the same attire in the same size." They won. It was a sad day for good sense.

(Note: Children have a decent sense of justice based on common sense and fairness. When it was clear that the sophistry would be a consistent feature of the EM1 class's debate speeches, many students in the hall boo-ed. My class included. The boo-ing were a protest against deception wrapped in well-formed English. I have concluded that the form teacher of that EM1 class was derelict in her duty to educate that class.)

Sometimes, when I hear PAP MPs debate or argue, I am taken back to that day. The recent discussion about a possibly by-election in Hougang provides me with a perfect example of this.

One of the NCMP's Assistant Professor Eugene Tan of SMU authored a commentary for the Feb 20 issue of Today (see below for a copy) where he opined that:

1. The Prime Minister has the prerogative on the timing of a by-election, but it does not extend to being able to delay a by-election indefinitely.
2. If the Government decides to delay or not to hold a by-election in Hougang, it should state its reasons.
3. There are still more than 4½ years to the life of the current Parliament. Hougang voters should not be deprived of having their elected representative in the House.
4. That "the cardinal principle of representation is crucial": A stand-in MP is not the same as an MP for whom the majority had voted.

PAP MP Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC) responded in the Feb 24 issue of Today (see below for a copy) that:

1. Our parliamentary democracy is based on the principle that elections are fundamentally about voters choosing between different political parties to lead the country, rather than between individual candidates standing in a constituency.
2. When a seat falls vacant, there is no requirement to call an immediate by-election, unless the vacancy affects the Government's mandate.
3. This serves to hold political parties accountable to voters for the performance of their candidates.
4. If an MP does not or cannot last the term as an MP, the onus is on their party to take care of residents in that constituency.
5. To call for an automatic by-election now that the Hougang seat is vacant is to confuse the Singapore and UK model, where MPs remain MPs even if they leave or are expelled from their parties (refer to the full letter for details).

Now, we should first know that Hri Kumar is a Senior Counsel (SC). The SC rank recognizes the most senior lawyers in Singapore and was intended to be the equivalent of the rank "Queen's Counsel". There are only about 40 SCs in Singapore as compared to the population of 3500 to 4000 lawyers. They are thus expected to have a excellent knowledge of the law and be men and women of integrity. Given that Hri Kumar is serving as a MP, the requirement for integrity might be further emphasized.

Thus, it is reasonable to expect, nay, require that:

1. Hri Kumar Nair read and comprehended Article 49 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Filling of Vacancies) (see below for a copy) or was already familiar with it prior to submitting his letter for publication. (Professionalism)
2. Hri Kumar Nair would not wilfully fail to highlight any provisions in that article of the Constitution that conflict with his/his party's interest. (Integrity)

As the Constitution states in Article 49(1),

Whenever the seat of a Member, not being a non-constituency Member, has become vacant for any reason other than a dissolution of Parliament, the vacancy SHALL be filled by election in the manner provided by or under any law relating to Parliamentary elections for the time being in force.

(Emphasis mine.) Legally, the word "shall" indicates that a particular condition must be met. This is standard in contracts and documents such as requirements specifications for tenders. (In many ways, the Constitution may be regarded as a requirements document.) The Constitution is clear that a by-election must be conducted should the seat of a MP be vacated. Hri Kumar should know it and not hide it.

He probably knew, and he did not highlight the fact. If he wasn't aware of the content of the constitution relevant to the vacation of seats in parliament and wrote to the media on it, it is an act of utmost un-professionalism and deserves stern professional rebuke. This however is highly improbable since he is a SC and also a MP. If he knew and hid the fact, then he would have betrayed the trust of the public and, in my opinion, would not be fit to be a Member of Parliament. This may be harsh, but even in his words, parties should perform "rigorous selection to ensure that men and women of integrity are fielded". I believe that MPs should be men and women of integrity. Hri Kumar has publicly shown that either he lacks this crucial quality, or he is incompetent as a lawyer.

I understand that Hri Kumar's phrasing was somewhat ambiguous. He wrote that "there is no requirement to call an immediate by-election". However, his intent seems clear to me. But to be fair, I will willingly retract my conclusions on his integrity should he clarify that a by-election must take place in Hougang due to the vacation of that seat. (In this event, it would leave us with the less severe conclusion that he lacks professionalism, which is based on his ambiguous phrasing on a matter of low complexity where he could and should have expressed himself clearly.)

This exchange brought back memories of how well packaged sophistry won out over common sense based on simple realities. This, unlike an inter-class debate in primary school, is a serious matter. It is important for our nation that what is, today, written in the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore prevails over partisan interests.

Sophistry is not wisdom. It is a misrepresentation of reality. Let us not be deceived.

---

Annex A: Article 49 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Filling of Vacancies)

49. —(1) Whenever the seat of a Member, not being a non-constituency Member, has become vacant for any reason other than a dissolution of Parliament, the vacancy shall be filled by election in the manner provided by or under any law relating to Parliamentary elections for the time being in force.

(2) The Legislature may by law provide for —

(a) the vacating of a seat of a non-constituency Member in circumstances other than those specified in Article 46;

(b) the filling of vacancies of the seats of non-constituency Members where such vacancies are caused otherwise than by a dissolution of Parliament.

Annex B: The value of a by-election (Eugene K B Tan, 20 Feb 2012, TODAYonline)

If Parliament eventually determines that the Hougang seat has been vacated with the expulsion of Mr Yaw Shin Leong from the Workers' Party (WP), the spotlight will shift to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

Under the Parliamentary Elections Act, the President issues an election writ stipulating when a by-election is to be held. But it is the Prime Minister who so advises the President.

When asked last Wednesday, PM Lee said he would consider carefully "whether and when to hold a by-election in Hougang". This appears to suggest that a by-election need not be held in Hougang.

There is no obligation under the Constitution to hold a by-election within a specific time-frame. In 2008, PM Lee told Parliament that the timing of one "is the prerogative of the PM. He has full discretion and he is not obliged to call a by-election within any fixed timeline".

While the Prime Minister has the prerogative on the timing, I would argue that this does not extend to his having an unfettered discretion to delay the calling of a by-election indefinitely. In most instances, it has to be called within a reasonable time, or certainly without an inordinate delay. In short, the "default" position should be that a by-election should be automatic, although there is no hard and fast rule on the timing.

GOVT SHOULD STATE REASONS

There may be three reasons why a by-election may not be called. This could be when an MP switches political party, or when Parliament's term is coming to a close within the next 12 to 18 months, or if there is a national crisis. None of them is pertinent at this point in time.

By-elections have been called in the past even though the General Election had taken place recently. For instance, by-elections in 1967, 1968, 1977, 1981 and 1992 were called between six and 16 months prior to or after a General Election in 1968, 1976, 1980 and 1991.

Delaying the calling of a by-election to the point of not calling it would, in my view, not be in accord with the duty of due process. It would, arguably, constitute an exercise of discretion for which a legal challenge can be mounted. The fact that the Constitution is silent on when a by-election should be called does not mean one need not be called.

In any case, if the Government decides to delay or not to hold a by-election in Hougang, the Government should state its reasons.

In November 1987, the Government explained why a by-election was not conducted in both Anson and Geylang West: It was contemplating introducing a Bill to form town councils in which some boundaries might be re-delineated, including the vacated seats of Anson and Geylang West. (Eventually, the GE was held on Sept 3, 1988.)

STAND-IN MP NOT THE SAME

There are still more than 4½ years to the life of the current Parliament. Hougang voters should not be deprived of having their elected representative in the House. Although the WP's five MPs in the adjacent Aljunied GRC can cover Hougang, that is not ideal. Let Hougang residents decide how they would like to hold the WP to account in light of the recent events.

PM Lee hinted at one consideration which he will take into account: "There are many other issues on the national agenda right now." Granted.

But will a by-election involving only about 25,000 voters be a massive distraction nationally?

Of course, some Hougang voters and Singaporeans generally may choose to view the by-election not just as a localised matter but a referendum on the PAP Government's performance since May 2011. This should not stand in the way of holding a by-election.

More importantly, the cardinal principle of representation is crucial: A stand-in MP is not the same as an MP for whom the majority had voted. Not calling a by-election would undermine the importance of representation in our maturing parliamentary democracy.

Our electoral system must endeavour to be inclusive and representative in tandem with the growing democratic aspirations. Doing so can only increase Singaporeans' civic participation and ownership of governmental processes.

SHOULD WP FIELD NCMP?

Assuming a by-election is called, should the WP field in Hougang one of its two NCMPs?

It appears that an NCMP need not vacate his seat to contest in a by-election. Article 46(2A) of the Constitution provides that an NCMP shall vacate his seat "if he is subsequently elected as a Member of Parliament for any constituency". However, the law is not so clear on whether a vacated NCMP seat has to be filled.

Given the legal uncertainty, it may work better for the WP to field a candidate who is not in Parliament. Moreover, this would enable the WP, should it prove victorious in Hougang, to maintain its full complement of eight representatives in Parliament.

Eugene K B Tan is assistant professor of law at the Singapore Management University School of Law, and a Nominated Member of Parliament.

Annex C: No automatic by-election in our model of parliamentary democracy (Hri Kumar Nair, 24 Feb 2012, TODAYonline)

Assistant Professor Eugene Tan's commentary "The value of a by-election" (Feb 20) argued that the Prime Minister does not have an unfettered discretion in deciding when to call a by-election and that the "default" position should be that a by-election should be automatic.

Those two claims ignore the law and the reason behind the law.

There is a reason the Singapore Constitution does not prescribe any time limit to call a by-election.

Our parliamentary democracy is based on the principle that elections are fundamentally about voters choosing between different political parties to lead the country, rather than between individual candidates standing in a constituency.

In general elections, the issue is which party should form the government.

Hence, under our system, if any Member of Parliament (MP) resigns or is expelled from his party, he loses his seat because voters had elected him as a representative of his party.

Therefore, when a seat falls vacant, there is no requirement to call an immediate by-election, unless the vacancy affects the Government's mandate.

Nor should an MP's resignation or expulsion force the Government to put aside more important national issues to focus on a by-election.

This model enables the Government to focus on governing Singapore well and improving the lives of Singaporeans. It has resulted in stability and progress for Singapore for half a century.

It has another salutary effect: It holds political parties accountable to voters for the performance of their candidates. Parties must endeavour to field candidates who can last the term as MP.

This calls for rigorous selection to ensure that men and women of integrity are fielded and, when elected, will do their utmost to fulfil their MP responsibilities for their entire term.

If they do not or cannot, the onus is on their party to take care of residents in that constituency. The Workers' Party (WP) knows this. That is why their MPs have taken over Mr Yaw Shin Leong's duties in Hougang.

In contrast, some other parliamentary democracies operate on a different philosophy: The individual MP has more power than the party.

There, MPs can change parties within the parliamentary term and keep their seats, even cause governments to fall as a consequence, without the voters having any say in the matter.

Because the MP is the fundamental element of their system, by-elections must be held promptly when seats fall vacant. The United Kingdom is such an example.

The WP could force Mr Yaw to vacate his Hougang seat by expelling him from the party, only because it is operating under the Singapore model.

The WP could not have done this under the UK model, as Mr Yaw would have remained MP for Hougang even after his expulsion, and there would have been no by-election.

To call for an automatic by-election now that the Hougang seat is vacant, as Asst Prof Tan did, is to confuse the Singapore and UK models.

The writer is a Senior Counsel and an MP for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC.

Implementing Proportional Representation within the GRC System

While it may not be popular to support the existence of GRCs, there are administrative arguments for the grouping of constituencies into GRCs in Singapore. However, the current implementation of the administrative grouping is poor. Parliamentary Elections for GRC seats are akin to a high stakes game where large fractions constituents of constituents will be disenfranchised. (e.g.: in a 55% - 45% result, 45% of the constituents are not represented by the team they voted for.)

Now, unless candidates from political parties are of such atrociously low quality as to be unable to work together with each other, there is a strong case for the use of Proportional Representation in Singapore. Having representatives from various political parties ensure that each constituents can be represented by the party they believe in (if that party has sufficient support for at least one representative to enter parliament).

Who Gets How Many Seats

In a Proportional Representation system for GRCs, voters vote for parties. There are various variants of Proportional Representation, but we shall adopt one where each party selects which of its candidates take the seats It wins. This variant is selected to address the legacy of race in Singapore politics. But before getting to that, an important aspect of implementing Proportional Representation should be dealt with.

The chief issue with Proportional Representation where there are small numbers of seats (less than 7, for instance) is how to allocate seats to parties in response to the realized vote-share realized by the participating parties. In principle, the number of seats each party wins in a GRC should be the fraction of votes won multiplied by the total number of seats available in that GRC. In practice, however, these numbers are never prefect whole numbers. Thus, it is important to deal with this matter in as fair a manner as possible.

This means that the objective is to use a rule of seat allocation that, in all cases, under-represents as few voters as possible, and over-represents as few voters as possible.

To calculate the level of over/under-representation, take the fraction of allocated seats and divide it by the vote-share of the relevant party. Let that number be γ. If that γ is greater than 1, then the party is over-represented by (γ-1)×100%. If that γ is less than 1, then the party is under-represented by (1-γ)×100%. If γ is exactly 1, it would be sufficient cause to "go buy 4D".

Going back to the example of the 55% - 45% result, if there were only a single seat (or the winning party took all seats), 55% of the constituents would be 81% over-represented and the remaining 45% would be unrepresented (infinitely under-represented/disenfranchised). In the case where there are two seats and one went to each party, the 55% would be 9% under-represented and the 45% would be 11% over-represented. This is a much better result. Now, in the case where there are three seats and 2 went to the party with a 55% vote-share and 1 went to the other party, the 55% would be 21% over-represented and the 45% would be 26% under-represented. Flipping this around, in the case where there are three seats and 1 went to the party with a 55% vote-share and 2 went to the other party, the 55% would be 39% under-represented and the 45% would be 48% over-represented.

Now, I would like to propose a truly optimal rule, so like many academics, I will shift the goal posts slightly. Philosophically, we might say that each constituent is allocated a representative holding a seat, and each representative in a GRC with K seats may be allocated to at most 1/K of all constituents. It is clear that almost always, even in the best case, some constituents will be allocated to a representative whose party he/she did not vote for. Now, we would like the number of such consituents to be as small as possible. With such an objective, it is easy to propose an optimal rule.

Now, suppose the vote share of each party i is given by v(i) and the total number of seats is N. Then the number of seats that party should get (in a world where seats are infinitely dividable) is f(i)=v(i)×N. Since this is not to be, each seat is to be taken by a single representative from some party. Now, party i is initially allocated a number of seats equal to f(i) rounded down. The remaining seats are allocated in order of how close each f(i) is to "the smallest whole number greater than f(i)" (a.k.a.: f(i) rounded up if f(i) is not a whole number, and f(i)+1 if f(i) is a whole number).

Using this rule, it is obvious that as few as possible voters are left unhappy ("allocated to a representative from a party they did not vote for"). This is because we made "unallocated" groups of voters "happy" in order of size. So the left over ("unhappy") groups are, thus, the smallest ones.

Before dealing with another important issue, here is a worked example. The vote share of three parties are 25%-45%-30% in a 6 seat GRC. This means 1.5-2.7-1.8 fractional seats. So the initial allocation is 1-2-1 seats with 2 balance seats. Now, 1.5 is 0.5 less than 2, 2.7 is 0.3 less than 3, and 1.8 is 0.2 less than 2. So, the third and then the second party are allocated an additional seat each, resulting in a 1-3-2 seat allocation. This means that (1.5-1)/6=0.5/6=8.33% of the electorate are left "unhappy". In a majority takes all system, 55% would be left "unhappy".

A Legacy Issue: Dealing with the Race

Now, race is a legacy issue that Singaporeans have to deal with. The ethnic integration policy that the PAP government implemented in 1989 to prevent the formation of racial enclaves led to the concern that minorities would be disenfranchised as they would not have the critical mass to vote minority candidates into parliament in a first-past-the-post voting system. While it is my hope that, eventually, race becomes a non-issue, I felt it necessary to have a reasonable answer to the question of how to deal with it.

Now, disenfranchisement is not a purely philosophical issue, and to resolve it in a Proportional Representation system one would have to argue that representation at a national-level is a sign of enfranchisement, and the lack absence of minority candidates at a local-level does not affect the level of aid that minorities receive. I will not bother to make the argument for the latter as other commentators have already made it for me, and the former is self-evident.

Now, Singapore's resident population is 74% Chinese. It would be reasonable, then to require that political parties to, of all the candidates they send to parliament over all GRCs, send at least one minority candidate for each four Chinese beyond the first four Chinese candidates. Arithmetically speaking, if the number of candidates that a party sends to parliament is greater than four, the ratio of Chinese candidates minus 4 to minority candidates sent to parliament should not be greater than 4. (e.g.: 4C, 3C+3M, 8C+1M are ok; 5C, 9C+1M are not ok.)

The above system is not perfect. It will fail in the event that the political landscape is so fragmented that small parties with small vote shares all put non-minority candidates into parliament. Thankfully, the political landscape in Singapore is far from being like that (so we can cross the bridge when we get there).

A more major problem would occur when the best candidates of political parties are non-minorities. As such, these candidates would effectively be the ones who carry the ground. Now, if this system results in any of the top candidates not being sent to parliament, then in a sense, voters would have been cheated. On the flip side, such a system would spur all parties to cultivate high-quality minority candidates, ensuring effective representation for minorities in the long run.

Conclusion?

I've sketched a practical means for implementing Proportional Representation in Singapore. In doing so, I have implicitly argued that the basis for using such a system would improve representation and reduce the extent of disenfranchisement. That is to say, it would further the democratization of Singapore.

---

Afternote: I'm also an advocate for Approval Voting, which can be said to properly measure "the mandate of the people". (Refer to this past post for details.) I would like to think of a way to integrate Approval Voting with Proportional Representation. Unfortunately, the two obvious ways of doing this (interpreting approvals as full votes and interpreting approvals as fractional votes) are less than satisfactory.

On the Ministerial Salary Review

The recent ministerial salary review has sparked substantial discussion on the principles upon which political leaders should be remunerated as well as how this remuneration should be quantified. The Terms of Reference (TOR) of the committee appointed by the Government to perform this review stated that they were to (i) "take into account salaries of comparable jobs in the private sector and also other reference points such as the general wage levels in Singapore", as well as (ii) to recommend Ministerial salaries at "a significant discount to comparable private sector salaries to signify the value and ethos of political service".

It can be said that the committee did well within the ambit of their TOR. They proposed technical improvements such as reducing the volatility of the benchmark by basing it on a larger pool of top earners in the private sector and a slightly better metric for national progress which does not rely entirely on Gross Domestic Product (GDP), itself discredited as a measure of the size of a modern economy. Their report is available here. However, it is clear that their proposals were not well received by all. Many recent commentaries on the subject opine that the proposed ministerial salaries are still too high, and also that the TOR of the committee were too limiting and essentially presupposed a salary structure.

The intent of this article is to summarize the various positions taken on the ministerial salary review. I will compare the proposals of the government appointed committee (henceforth, GAC) with those in the November 2011 report by the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) and the positions taken by the National Solidarity Party (NSP), those of the Reform Party (RP), those of the Workers' Party (WP) as well as those of others.

A Comparison of Proposals

I begin by comparing the guiding principles behind the two reports proposing systems for ministerial remuneration. These are presented below and they could not be any more different.

Guiding Principles
GAC	SDP
Take reference from comparable jobs in private sectors and other reference points. Recommended wage levels should be at a significant discount to comparable private sector salaries to "signify the value and ethos of political service".	"Place greater emphasis on public service." Propose a system that promotes transparency and accountability.

It is apparent that the TOR of the GAC greatly restricts the kind of solution that the GAC can present. At first glance, one might assume (correctly) that the resulting report would recommend a refinement of the current system and a tweaking of the parameters therein to incorporate the "significant discount" stipulated in the TOR. It turns out that this happens to be the case.

The SDP report, in contrast, begins by surveying practice in selected countries (with healthy Corruption Perception Indices) and distilling the principles underlying those remuneration systems. This methodology, essentially presupposes that ministerial salaries will not be pegged to those leading earners in the corporate world, but rather to either general wage levels or to salaries in the civil service. The recommendations of the report reflect this, adopting the former peg. In addition, the SDP report sets out to propose a system that promotes transparency and accountability, which is an institutional objective. The GAC report, however, does not include such an objective in its TOR and, as such, does not report on this matter.

The following table summarizes proposals on basic pay made by the GAC, SDP and others.

Proposals on Remuneration
GAC	SDP	NSP, RP, WP, Others
Pay for a entry-level minster (MR4) with good performance pegged to 60% of the median income of the top 1000 in the private sector. Allowances of MPs and salaries of other political appointments as multiples of the MR4 salary level. President's monthly salary will be set to be equal to that of the PM, but no performance bonuses will be given. No pensions.	Allowance of a Member of Parliament (MP) should be pegged to ten times the mean wage of the bottom 20th percentile of the workforce. Salaries of ministers and the president to be pegged to MP allowances.	(NSP) Median wage as a benchmark. (WP) Salaries of ministers should be pegged to MP allowances. MP allowances should be pegged to the salaries of divisional directors in the Civil Service. (RP) Small fixed component with larger variable component linked to a broader set of KPIs. (RP, WP) Introduce deferred components to address the time lag in impact of policies.
MP: $192,500 Minister of State: $770,000 Senior Minister of State: $935,000 Minster (MR4): $1,100,000 Minster (MR4): $1,100,000 Minster (MR3): $1,320,000 Minster (MR2): $1,540,000 Minster (MR1): $1,760,000 DPM: $1,870,000 PM: $2,200,000 President: $1,540,000	MP: $168,000 Cabinet Minster: $504,000 PM: $672,000 President: $756,000 (It is clear that these numbers are intended to be indicative, so the same resolution as in the GAC's report is not necessary.)	(Former NMP Siew Kum Hong) The salary should be enough for ministers to maintain a reasonable lifestyle. i.e.: "comfortably cover mortgage payments for a reasonably-priced landed property in a reasonable location; payments for 2 cars for the family; education for a minister’s children (including overseas education); some retirement savings; and so on." This will be politically defensible and allow the minister to do his/her job without undue financial distractions.

There isn't much to say about the proposals by the GAC. As previously mentioned, the report proposes some technical improvements but does not deviate much from the pre-existing system. The underlying assumption that ministers sacrifice high corporate salaries (in the non-government-linked private sector) requires proof in the form of leaders from private sector taking pay cuts to serve as ministers. Only given such proof would the opportunity cost argument, underlying the system proposed, be acceptable. While the absence of such proof does not demolish the argument, it significantly weakens it.

The SDP report, having surveyed international practice, highlights that ministerial salaries are typically not pegged to those of the highest wage earners, but rather median incomes of citizens or to those of certain ranks in the civil service. It proposes pegging MP allowances to the mean wage of the lowest 20% of earners in the workforce and pegging ministerial salaries to MP allowances to link living standards of ministers with those of their constituents.

While I feel that this is a reasonable proposal, it is, like that of the GAC, entirely arbitrary. In this respect, a proposal by former NMP Siew Kum Hong strikes me as a more realistic method for arriving at numbers. He sketches how to ensure that a minister's salary should support a certain standard of living (as a function of his/her rank), which amounts to a system which will be simultaneously politically defensible and allow the minister to do his/her job without undue financial distractions. It also links the living standards of ministers to the prevailing cost of living.

Moving on, the following table summarizes proposals on performance bonuses made by the GAC, SDP and others.

Proposals on Performance Bonuses
GAC	SDP	NSP, RP, WP, Others
Annual Variable Component: up to 1.5 months Performance Bonus: up to 6 months (good performers typically get 3 months) National Bonus: up to 6 months	Discontinue variable bonuses.	(NSP) Include a variable component tied to national vote share, vote share being a "composite KPI, encompassing all issues that Singaporeans care about" (RP) Small fixed component with larger variable component linked to a broader set of KPIs. (RP, WP) Introduce deferred components to address the time lag in impact of policies.

The National Bonus Matrix (below) gives the payout levels for the National Bonus proposed by the GAC. The 100% level for each component corresponds to a payout of 0.75 months for a maximum total National Bonus payout of 6 months. Notably, it has been argued that the bonus targets are too easy to meet.

The SDP report recommends no performance bonuses as ministerial pay is remuneration for "public administration performance rather than private sector achievement". This argument is somewhat unconvincing. On the other hand, it might be argued that a well selected peg to incomes incorporates bonuses in the salary as income growth increases pay for ministers. (Furthermore, income growth is strongly positively related to growth and the standard of living.) I am under the impression that they have, in fact, made this alternate argument after the GAC published its report. However, I can't find a statement to that effect on the SDP website.

I feel that some element of pay for performance should be present. However, it should not be along the lines of the National Bonus which I feel is, to put it frankly, wimpy and uninspiring. Is an unemployment rate of less than 3.5% truly a stretch goal? A broad-based National Bonus would incorporate the diverse interests of the various groups of Singaporeans. One might develop such a bonus scheme though doing a massive survey of Singaporeans and distilling all that is important. Such a bonus scheme would be very broad based and robust to gaming, leading to office holders giving up gaming the system in favour of pursuing truly inclusive growth. Such a scheme would not deter public spirited individuals from stepping forward, but it might cause apprehension in those who are more concerned about easy money.

Furthermore, I believe that individual performance bonuses should be split into a discretionary component (decided by the PM) and a well defined KPI-based component. To properly measure relevant performance, the KPIs should be individualized based on the mission of each minister's ministry. Such KPIs might be easy for ministries like Transport to develop, but good KPIs are not so easy to develop for those such as Education. This is a challenge that I cannot shy away from. Furthermore, noting the (possibly long) time lags associated with the introduction of a policy and its impact, deferred payouts are not unreasonable and should be considered.

Finally, I come to the institutional proposals that have been made. Notably, the GAC makes none since their TOR makes no mention of institutions.

Institutional Proposals
GAC	SDP	NSP, RP, WP, Others
	Establish independent salary commission. Ministers to make public, through the commission, their commercial interests, shareholdings, directorships and other financial interests.	(NSP) Ministers to make public, through the commission, their commercial interests, shareholdings, directorships and other financial interests.

A major thrust of the SDP report are recommendations to the build government institutions that are robust to misbehavior. Aside from the recommendation to set up an independent salary commission, the SDP report also recommends that the Corrupt Practices Investigation Board (CPIB) be moved out of the Prime Minister's Office and be made directly answerable to Parliament. I agree with these proposals. Strong institutions provide an important layer of defence against a misbehavior and are important to have for a well-functioning government.

Other Comments

While income from directorships are included in the tax returns used to estimate the incomes of top earners in the private sector, directorships for ministers would provide additional income over their salaries. This provides an easy means to circumvent the pay cut. In fact, additional board appointments in Statutory Boards and Government-Linked Companies might be easily used to increase effective incomes. This is clearly open to abuse. I would regard service by ministers on the boards of Statutory Boards and Government-Linked Companies to be an important part of government. As such, no additional remuneration should be given to ministers for their service on such boards. In addition, to avoid conflicts of interest and unseemly chasing of private sector board positions, ministers should not be allowed to take up board appointments in private sector companies.

In addition, democratic values might also be a factor in remuneration. A "re-election top-up" for ministers who held ministerial positions in the last term could be a component of remuneration that reflects whether the electorate want a minister to continue as a minister. (This would be equivalent to a "freshman discount".) The NSP has made a similar proposal, noting that vote share was, in effect, a composite KPI. In contrast to them, I think it should be an element of basic pay.

Conclusion

This has been a somewhat long article (for a blog), and I thank the reader for joining me up to this point. I have summarized notable proposals for the review of salaries and presented our own perspectives. I hope that this has been interesting and/or useful.

In closing, I would like to quote a paragraph from the citation for the Man of the Year award by The Guardian (Nigeria). I think this is fitting as it would be ideal for our national leaders to be men and women who are, to put things in local public-service lingo, of "Man of the Year calibre"; men and women who leave lasting positive legacies of thought and action; men and women who are, simply, great:

Greatness is an attribute much in retreat in our society these days. But it is the quality that is imperative for a nation, for a people to make progress. Greatness is the depth of character that is unswayed by material attraction and superficial rewards, especially of the sort that is flaunted by persons of lesser pedigree, and craved by many, including sundry jobbers and petty crooks. Greatness is the strength to say no when everything and everyone else seems swept away by a certain madness that benumbs the senses. Greatness is the ability to look past the present and see beyond the future. It is the courage to envision a better society, to insist on what is right, on what is proper to realize that better society.

Ramblings on Self-Radicalization

The ruling party and the state-controlled media has more or less issued a blanket condemnation of critical voices online as "noise". In addition to making the claim that these voices have little to offer, they have also said that some of the individuals get their information from a limited pool of sources and end up "self-radicalizing". Having been previously used to refer to those who have perpetrated or planned to perpetrate lone wolf terrorist acts, this term has taken on a very negative conotation.

In a way, this as an attempt to draw an artificial dividing line between "us reasonable people" and "those who would promulgate senseless chatter" that is wasteful and should be "considered harmful". I'd like to ramble a little about this so called "self-radicalization" and consider why it may be the appropriate reaction of reasonable people.

When one hears of famine in Africa and children dying, one feels sad. When one hears that many innocents were killed in a terror attack, one feels angry. When one is told of how one's social/ethnic group has been systematically marginalized by those in power, one gets very angry. Information often supplies the motive force for one to take action. This information may be unbiased or biased. Whatever the case, if it is taken to be a good reflection of reality and resonates with the recipient, that individual may be driven to action. This is a fact of life, and applies to all but the most apathetic.

Perhaps this is why people leave well-paying jobs to serve the underprivilleged; this is why people volunteer to support social causes; this is why positive action happens. (The flip side to this exists and should be acknowledged.)

Naturally, news and direct observations about the state of Singapore naturally touches Singaporeans; Information about the way the ruling party and its associates behaves would necessarily have resonance with Singaporeans. When people feel that something is wrong, they are driven to say something. Inarticulate as such a statement might be, there is probably something behind it. If it is backed by action, it is all the more certain that something is behind it.

Since disenchantment and jadedness sets in when good intentions are thwarted and denigrated, the prevalence of the jaded Singaporean can be easily explained.

So the question for the labellers to ask themselves is, why are people being, in their words, "self-radicalized". Simply tossing out a label is cheap and somewhat dishonest. When people are driven to action, something important and salient to them probably underlies that action. The only responsible thing to do is to find out what drives such action, and address it in good faith. Anything less is not acceptable.

On Investing Sovereign Wealth

The upcoming Presidential Elections and the consequent public focus on the use of Singapore's reserves brings to mind the question of how sovereign wealth should be invested.

Growth is vital to Singapore's survival. This point has been continuously reiterated by the Singapore government. This is straightforwardly believable due to the tight coupling of the Singapore financial system (and hence, economy) to global capital markets.

It is sad, that Singapore is pursuing a labour supply growth policy rather than an productivity growth strategy. This does not make sense in the long term as ever more foreign workers have to be brought in to maintain growth, and the retirement age can be pushed back only so far. Growth is distinct from maintaining a stock of manpower, it requires continued increase in the manpower stock. Noting the presently strained infrastructure, drastic expansion in our infrastructure would be necessary to sustain further labour supply growth. The pursuit of labour supply growth is the easy way out, and it doesn't make too much sense.

It would be even sadder, to see parents with an intelligent child who choose to invest their savings in the stock market in pursuit of capital gains rather than send their child to university. Even more unconscionable would it be for them to have enough to do both, but only invest in stock and keep the balance as a rainy day fund.

It is thus sad that a large proportion of Singapore's reserves have been used to invest in (bail out), for instance, UBS (S$14.5 billion by GIC in 2007), Citibank (S$9.8 billion by GIC at the beginning of 2008), Merrill Lynch (S$7 billion by Temasek Holdings in 2007). The quick gains sought in those investments have not yet materialized, after more than 3 years. They are presently snorkelling, metaphorically speaking, and with a rather long snorkel.

Capability development has not received government support to a comparable degree. Let's take stock of recent efforts:

• A*STAR was a good try, previously helmed by a good (but controversial) man who was driven by the goal of creating economic growth for Singaporeans (i.e.: job creation). A*STAR has yet to become a national research commercialization powerhouse. It is not entirely clear whether A*STAR is on track or has gone off the rails, but we can hope that it pursues the good staffing and HR policies necessary for research and development success.
• SUTD appears to be a better one. I believe that its focus on design and development (i.e.: real engineering) are a step up from our existing universities. I base this judgement on my sense of MIT its faculty, a presentation by Tom Magnanti and looking over its curriculum.
• MOE's mandating Social and Emotional Learning (in 2004) looks like a positive capacity building policy. In my mind it is an excellent one. I project a sea change in the work force when the effects of this change in the way we educate our young eventually surfaces in the economy.

This is good, but not enough. This pales in comparison to just our investments in banks. Far more can be done to build capability in our economy and fuel sustainable productivity growth. In contrast to labour supply growth (with our presently taxed infrastructure), productivity growth is entirely sustainable. It is knowledge growth, which can accumulate without taxing our infrastructure (only perhaps our data centres).

I would like to see Singapore's reserves being used in strategic investments. Technology firms, infrastructure, engineering. Not banks. Such investments could promote local capability development and technology transfer through steering companies invested in towards joint ventures set up by appointed board members. They might steer advanced businesses towards setting up in Singapore and exposing Singaporeans to cutting-edge technology and business processes.

Philosophically, I regard investments as a sacrifice of present day consumption to build capacity for the future. Let us invest our sovereign wealth to the ends of building national capacity. It is the right thing to do.

Majority Party in Parliament v.s. President: Does an Appropriate Forum Exist?

In an interview with The New Paper on August 8, Law Minster K. Shanmugam said:

"If the Head of State challenges the government, he will be acting unconstitutionally. In the UK, the last time that was done was in 1642 by (King) Charles I. The King lost both his life and his throne for his troubles. Nowadays, of course, we deal with these issues through the courts."

Whether or not to interpret this as a threat directed at the non-government-endorsed Tans is not as important as the issue of what the appropriate forum is for the resolution of conflicts between the majority party in Parliament and the Elected President.

In public procurement, the accepted policy is that a procurement officer must recuse himself from participating in a decision of what to purchase if he/she has some personal interest in the outcome.

I believe that a similar issue may apply to the courts. While the Constitution does make provisions to promote the independence of the judiciary, the fact of the matter is that judicial appointees can be selected and confirmed based on considerations such as loyalty. While it is not obvious whether or not this is the case in Singapore, this can be seen clearly in other countries. In the United States of America, Supreme Court judges are picked and confirmed on this very basis, with a huge political focus on where a potential appointee stands on issues such as abortion.

It is from this that the question of what the right forum is for the resolution of conflicts between the majority party in Parliament and the Elected President arises. I have no good answer to this, at present, but it bears contemplation.

---

Boiler Plate: With reference to the second to last paragraph above, my remarks should be interpreted as carrying the following meaning which is consistent with the text. That is, that there is no contention that the judiciary is not independent, but rather that it cannot be concluded a priori/tautologically that it is indeed independent.

Afternote: Towards the end of the above note, I considered a spiel on how this would be an interesting problem in "human systems engineering", which I'm rather interested in. (i.e.: matters relating to incentives, moral hazard, strategic behavior, etc. within institutions.)

The choice of an institutional format may result in consequences that are unspecified in the terms of reference, such as the "shadow of the previous government" effect. I feel that in so far as such effects are known, they should be articulated in an appropriate attachment to ensure consistency in subsequent legal interpretations.

Protect Singapore

In the title, the verb "protect" is used in its imperative form, as an instruction to act in a way that protects the nation of Singapore from its enemies from within and without. This is what I would say to the Elected President.

He would be a great communicator who would validate good government policies as an independent assessor, doing this based on his own knowledge and the SECRET/TOP SECRET briefs shared by the various government bodies.

The one who I vote for would be the one who has the strength of character to stand up for the present and future interests of Singaporeans. He would point out flawed policies that promote limited interests (e.g.: banking families) while drawing on the resources of the many, as well as those that are based on flawed logic (e.g.: the discredited trickle down economics). He would ensure that only individuals whose loyalty is to Singapore, as a whole, are appointed to key public service positions.

In the course of working for present and future Singapore, he would not fear the wrath of a displeased government wielding all the instruments at its disposal to get its way.

I say to him, above all, Protect Singapore.

We the Citizens: A Call for the Articulation of a Clear National Direction

Singapore seems to have been, for the past decade, floundering with no well defined heading. Granted, there have been some great new initiatives such as NParks' work in building a greener and more pleasant environment, as well as forrays into large scale event management (with mixed results), but it appears that the only truly concerted movement has been increasing the population, as seen in extensions of the rail network to and relatively rapid building of housing in the northeast. Most lists of Singapore's major achievements do not contain anything post-2000. This leads to the question of whether our leadership thinks we are "there" and only minor incremental moves are necessary. I would most certainly disagree with that proposition, pointing to clear quality of life issues that are widespread.

As a national direction, I would propose something familiar. As a statement of objectives, it reads: to build a democratic society, based on justice and eqaulity, so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation. (Nostalgically: 建设公正平等的民主社会，并为实现国家之幸福、繁荣与进步.) That definitely sounds good and agreeable to most, though it need not be the direction for our nation as articulated by the government, but there are compelling historical reasons for it.

We need a direction to tack to and it should be clearly articulated. It will serve as a set of principles and objectives to verify all legislation and initiatives against. Conversely, such a direction may be used to design and formulate legislation and initiatives.

With apologies for the abstractness, this call for an articulated direction is basically an appeal for a statement of mission, vision and values, on which strategic thrusts and the crafting of initiatives may be based. We need this, or, like corporate entities without one, be destined to flounder and envying the increasing success of others with clarity of purpose and alignment to that purpose.

I propose that the formulation of a clear direction be done in Parliament. The pledge could be the basis of one. It should be bourne in mind that goals like "ensuring security" and "promoting growth" are of a strategic nature (supporting the mission and vision, respecting the values). Let's do this right and get Singapore on the road to success upon success. Is any MP up to the task of raising a motion on this matter?

Election Aftermath in Punggol East: Plurality vs Approval Voting

The aftermath of the General Elections in Punggol East is sad, especially for SDA's Desmond Lim who garnered only 4.45% of the valid votes in a 3-cornered fight and will lose his $16,000 election deposit.

Our electoral system, with the electoral deposit in place, is broken. The intent of the deposit is to prevent frivolous nominations for the ballot by demanding some level of assurance that the voters think of the candidate in question as a viable representative of their interests in Parliament.

Even in one-on-one straight contests, this intent is subverted. It is possible that both candidates are thought of as viable candidates by, say 40% of the voters, but one candidates has more people who thinks of him/her as a possible representative. There can be voters who think of both candidates are possible representatives. Say the approval ratings stand at 80% - 60%, and in some extreme case the results of a plurality vote turn out to be 90% - 10% of the valid vote. The 10% candidate loses his/her deposit needlessly.

I have previously written about approval voting and feel that it is the right voting system for gauging the mandate of the people. The results of an election are directly translated into a mandate: a candidates percentage of valid approval votes is exactly the number of voters who approve of him/her as a representative. If a voter thinks a candidate is a possible representative, that's a +1 for a candidate's/group's mandate, nevermind that that same voter also approves of another candidate/group.

Politically, this has implications. In a non-polarized Singapore, this will lead to the ruling PAP winning more seats as their candidate will be seen as "viable" by more people, while their base will staunchly disapprove of the opposition.

From an (behavioral) economics standpoint, in a polarized nation, the modeling assumption of internal perceptions being approve/disapprove are greatly weakened/broken by the clear favoritism that hardcore party supporters have. Even if they would approve of the candidates of the opposite camp, the huge favoritism would lead them to lie about their preferences on the ballot slip. This is because the assumption is "no favorites, only approval-disapproval".

Perhaps with a more mature electorate with less polarization, this better form of voting will be feasible.

On National Strategy

Over the past years, issues of housing, inflation and real household income growth/decline have been increasingly central in the public discourse, pointing to the deeper issue of what national strategy is appropriate going forward.

Traditionally, we have pursued a high rate of growth which has, unfortunately, been accompanied with a rising cost of living relative to income, which in turn has led to many Singaporeans feeling left behind. While one must acknowledge that billions are spent on targeted aid to speed up the trickle-down process, which usually takes decades in other countries, targeted aid is a reactive solution to a side-effect of our pursuit of growth.

Our first generation leaders presciently pursued the strategy of growth while building an umbrella of security. The execution of this strategy raised the average standard of living and kept Singaporeans safe, and is now well studied by both governments and corporations as a textbook case study of well-crafted and implemented national strategy.

Empirically, economists have observed that high growth in a country is often accompanied by rising prices and increasing concentration of income with the richest, in turn leading to decreasing purchasing power of the poorer segments of that country. This leads to the question of whether high growth and increasing income inequality is, on balance, the best option for Singapore. In a related sense, is the growth chasing hot money a risk to our financial system? We have to make an informed decision on how to pursue growth and to what end. After all, the pursuit of growth should be a means to increasing the welfare of the citizenry.

Key to designing an appropriate national strategy is the articulation of our national objectives in terms meaningful to Singaporeans. Such objectives might include ensuring, by 2020, than no more than 1% of adults in a certain age bracket fall below a set income threshold (as pegged to a representative basket of goods and services), which, under the CPF scheme, would ensure sufficient retirement funds for most Singaporeans. National objectives might also include a list of privileges we would like Singapore citizens to enjoy, such as substantially longer paternity leave with job security or free tertiary education. Such examples represent a consolidation of the gains that generations of Singaporeans have labored for. With a clear sense of what we want to achieve, Singapore will be better able to negotiate the trade-offs necessary to realize her objectives.

As PM Lee as emphasized, this coming election is about the future. As such, and our nation’s long term objectives and strategy should be debated.

Religion in Politics: Idiots

When I first heard about the recent AWARE fiasco, I believed the media buzz that a new team was voted in because members felt that AWARE had lost its focus and had strayed to putting overt emphasis on promoting the LGBT, with an accompanying neglect of "women". (In the USA, the feminists often band with the movement championing rights for the LGBT or Lesbians-Gays-Bisexuals-Transgendered, and it was no stretch to me that the same dynamic would be replicated here.) Only later, after some casual lunchtime talk, did I find out that it was a coup. Modeled on kiddie power grabs on college campuses. Militant Republican supporters trying to subvert the College Democrats. Militant Democrat supporters trying to subvert the College Republicans (my impression is this happens less often).

Christians seek Christ-likeness as the pinnacle of personal attainment in Christianity, as the Buddhists strive for a state of enlightened detachment and oneness. Let's start from here. There are idiots all around: Militant Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. Idiots. All of them. I do not mean "idiot" in the affectionate sense of saying "that idiot set the classroom OHP on fire", afterwhich "that idiot", you and various others go have lunch together. I mean idiot as a judgment on a person's human decency. Yes, a negative one.

The thing is, people with a religious commitment are, by and large, caring folk. Some of whom, if you're sensitive enough, you might notice are surrounded by an air of "nice". People who care don't want you to "do the right thing" (where "do the right thing" simply means "do what I say"). That is simplistic and stupid. They would like you to come to a realization of what is right and put it into practice. The idiots I speak of are marginally more dishonest that Hitler types. They want to stoke their egos by imposing their will on others but pretend to do it under the guide of religion. Decent folk don't do such things. Decent folk don't go around subverting NGOs.

The damage idiots have done to the reputations of decent religious folk over the years is almost irreparable...... Idiots.