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?

A Major Pitfall of Consensus in Quantitative Group Decision Making

The use of quantitative methods for decision making is popular in the public sector as it affords decision makers a more defensible grounds for decisions and make them less second-guessable. Most decisions, such as who to award a contract to or what action to take, entail a group of public officers making decisions.

Supposedly, it is argued, inconsistency arises from differing opinions and "consensus" has to be reached. In the Singapore Government, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is used to make purchase decisions for large buys. The award of the Marina Bay Sands and Resort Worlds Sentosa contracts are examples of decisions made via the AHP. The AHP is tolerant of inconsistency and one can "measure" it via a metric called the Consistency Ratio, which paradoxically is a measure of inconsistency rather than consistency.

Though seen as a necessary aspect of group decision making, the allowance for inconsistency can, nonetheless, be taken advantage of to promote an alternative by an interested party amongst the decision makers. This is especially true when the allowable margins for inconsistency are large as are those for the AHP. Such issues may arise in other quantitative group decision making methods.

Globally, for the AHP, practitioners take the recommendation of the inventor of the method that the Consistency Ratio should be less than 10% (8% and 3% for the special cases of 4 and 3 alternatives/criteria respectively). These guidelines, I have found, are unsatisfactory. Originally, I noted how obtuse the definition of the Consistency Ratio was to decision makers (even to those who are mathematicians and engineers). The Consistency Ratio is defined in terms of the eigenvalues of a matrix of preference ratios. On the face of things, one would not be able to tie the metric meaningfully to inconsistency as people might intuitively understand it or model it quantitatively. I made an attempt to link the Consistency Ratio to a model of error in related human judgments (i.e. inconsistency) and found how poor the accepted guidelines are. (Draft article here.) My sense is, the guidelines have not been tightened because few on the planet understand the Consistency Ratio.

On the flip side, many people have a good feel of how much inconsistency they can get away with without even getting close to violating the Consistency Ratio guidelines. This statement probably extends beyond the AHP. I claim that a member of the decision making group with a hidden agenda can push for certain strategically chosen judgments that will (possibly strongly) affect the decision, but be accepted by the group for the sake of "consensus". This is basically it.

What I would recommend, however, is that groups of decision makers be forced to bite the bullet and ensure consistency in their judgments. This would inoculate the decision from inconsistency-based subversion. People will have to work harder, but the fact of the matter is, consensus is meant to be an agreement on a position, not a disparate cloud of judgments that do not quite mesh with each other. In a manner of speaking, advocates of allowing "inconsistency" as a necessary byproduct of group consensus are promoting laziness in group decision making.

On a separate matter, I've also written on a vulnerability and failing of the AHP, how one might go about manipulating it, and how a minimal modification would solve the problem. (Article here.)

As a post script, I would recommend that the public understand how public money is being spent, so as to be able to check "government excesses". Somehow all this aspect of decision making has a bit of the flavor of the Sophists, who were accused of teaching a system of false and pernicious tricks of verbal fence whereby anything whatever could be proved, and the worse be made to seem the better. Would anyone like to be coached in numerical sophistry? I'm sure I could come up with a syllabus if there is sufficient interest. And like the Sophists, I will charge tuition.

--

In a manner of speaking, the "government excesses" I alluded to might entail things like the purchase of 472 designer chairs costing $575 each by the Ministry of Manpower. In reply to queries, a MOM spokesperson said, "We conducted an open tender in accordance with government procurement guidelines. The brand of the chairs was not specified in the tender invitation... Taking all these factors into account, the successful tenderer meets our requirements and offered the best value for money over the lifespan of the chairs." A $272,000 purchase does not mandate the use of a quantitative method like the AHP, which leads one to wonder how the decision was arrived at. If the details of that procurement decision were made public, I hope it would stand up to scrutiny.

The SG World Cup Broadcast Foundation for WC2014 Broadcast Rights

The 2010 World Cup was an embarrassment for Singaporeans. We were fleeced by a FIFA that today (that is, May 2011) happens to be the subject of allegations of corruption (kickbacks to secure Russia's WC 2018 bid).

I'm not sure how much was paid but Wikipedia (via Reuters) records it to be SGD $21M. This is at variance with the hundreds of millions I heard bandied around in the local media. I'll assume that SGD $21M is the right number since with 250,000 viewing households, this comes to about $80 per household, which advertising should, ideally, drive down to $20. Note that the $21M figure is an escalation of about 33% in price v.s. the rights for the 2006 World Cup, again with numbers from Wikipedia.

It would be good if we were no longer victims of FIFA. Let's start a foundation, named the SG World Cup Broadcast Foundation, as a bidder. A few things to do to make this work:

1. Tie up with MediaCorp to broadcast it on free to air TV. In return, they get a fraction of the advertising revenue.
2. Get payment pledges from Singaporeans and the right to deduct up to some fixed amount by GIRO. (Say, with an estimated 250000 viewing households, a $50 maximum payment each gives $12.5M in pledges.) If it all falls through, nobody pays.
3. Get advertising pledges. An auction mechanism is to be used for this (say a 2nd price auction with a reserve price, though a combinatorial auction will be more likely). Winners are legally obligated to take the slots they win.

How this works is, if there isn't sufficient popular interest up to a certain amount say up to $12.5M in pledges, no bid is made and the whole thing falls through. If people do not care enough to pay to watch, they shouldn't get to watch.

If there is enough interest, a bid will be made up to what is made possible by promised advertising revenue. To give a sense of what is possible, look at the available advertising slots:

Each match allows 90 min of low key advertising and about 15 min of high key advertising (5min before and 10min during the 15 min halftime). Matches at different stages have different value. Valuing matches only from the Round of 16 (Ro16) onwards, with a Quarter Final (QF) worth twice a Ro16, and having a Semi Final (SF) worth 4 times a QF, and the Final 4 (F) times a SF, we have 640 min of high key time in Ro16 terms. (Note, once more, that these are not actual times, they are value-weighted "time".)

The 640 Ro16 min (225 min in real time) will be for advertisements and the "low key time" will be for one exclusive Main Sponsor to have his logo plastered strategically. That Main Sponsor may also get some special advertisement bidding rights, such as the right to win advertising slots post hoc by just paying the winning price.

The maximum bid that the SG World Cup Broadcast Foundation will make to FIFA will be the amount pledged plus the advertising revenue (minus MediaCorp's cut). If the amount is respectable, it is in FIFA's interest to just give it to Singapore since it only loses money by holding out.

However much is raised in advertising, the important thing is that if money is saved, those that pledged to pay will pay less. That is, a smaller deduction will be made. For example, with 300000 $50 pledges, $10M in advertising and a $20M bid, those who promise to pay will pay $33.34 rather than $50. There will be free riders, but as there really is no answer to that problem, it will be ignored.

Who knows, the Foundation may be able to get the rights for World Cup betting, the proceeds of which it might use, transparently, for good social causes.

---

Post Script:

While I think the foundation should hold fast to NO PROFIT to avoid any of the unhappiness of the foundation's Exco being paid $5M for their work (which raises costs for everyone else), there might really have to be real work done. Secrecy will limit the number of people doing the work, which may be a full-time affair for some period of time. Due diligence on advertising, media regulations, etc.

The advertising auction itself will be a huge undertaking. A large combinatorial auction does not run itself. In particular, one for 90 10 sec blocks for 64 matches with various considerations such as "match loading" and "premium position" (see, for instance, Channel NewsAsia's advertising prices). In fact, if the combinatorial auction solution succeeds, it could become the model for future "big event" advertising rights.

My proposal is an absolute and a relative payment cap. The absolute cap being a specified amount. The relative payment cap being a fraction of the "surplus" to be redistributed. The two upper bounds should work together to ensure there is no excessive payment.

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.

The Law Society and Legislation: If not them then who?

I've just learnt somehow that in 1986 the Law Society lost its "statutory duty to comment on legislation" by special legislation. This is extremely strange to me. If not them then who? Is our country thoroughly unchecked and unbalanced?

Yes, I'm a political and legal swa gu.

It's recommended to look at the first supplementary source for a more comprehensive look at the matter. It is a worthwhile read (including the footnotes) and comprehensively deals with this part of the judicial history of Singapore.

---

Primary Sources:
Teo Soh Lung (Former ISA Detainee) speaking out on the ISA and her detention
Interview of Francis Seow (very long interview)

Supplementary Sources:
The Law Society of Singapore: Destined to Forever Hold its Peace? (Mohan Gopalan, forthcoming, Singapore Law Review)
Wikipedia Entry on Francis Seow

Political Memory

Rallying is coming to a close and people will soon go to the polls. Soon the election will be forgotten by the man in the street, who will go back to his life.

Yet, it is important that we do not forget. We must not forget the promises made by the parties, and we must not forget the successes and failures of the various parties on the ground.

We must create a record of the actions of the parties and the candidates. Parliamentary records must be archived and referenced. Votes on bills must be searchable.

Pulling up a politician's record should be a piece of cake, whether he/she is in parliament or not. Only with a good memory will we be able to gauge whether promises made are empty, what the circumstances under which a failure to fulfill promises were and so on. With this, by the next election, we will be prepared to decide with certainty who to give the mandate to.

I attempted to, albeit a bit too late, push out a tool for making more rational voting decisions using a reasonable methodology for "multi-criteria decision making", so voters could be facilitated in balancing track record, pork, and how they are represented on issues. (http://vote.individualpreference.info/ was launched just after Nomination Day. It also tried to push out approval voting, which provides a better gauge of the mandate any candidate has to represent the public.)

It turns out that the "Candidate Notes" feature of the site (part of "Candidate Evaluation") would be a useful thing to expand. Having a record of a politician's position on matters and what he/she has done would be tremendously valuable. Knowing that their actions will be tracked will keep politicians on their toes.


I propose we all, as a community of Singaporeans, work together to make this a reality. A robust system of records of our political history (complete with a local archive of public documents).

We need a political memory. We need it to be reliable and authoritative (hence the documents).

If you'd like to form a group. Contact me. Let's do this together.

Immigration, Optimizing KPIs and Honesty

Allow me to pretend I understand human nature: where the outcome is defined in purely financial terms, one is best off by being a rational maximizer. Suppose the main actor's pay is determined by some KPI, we shall call G, in a monotone fashion. (G rises, pay rises.)

Clearly, it is optimal for the actor to maximize G in so far as resources allow. If G can be pumped up by pushing a strategy that suffocates other actors, so be it. That is rational maximization.

Suppose we have an elementary economic model.

G(p) = K (M - p) p
A(p) = L p^{-a}

where a > 0. So G is the objective of the main player who controls p and A is the objective of the other actors who have no control over p.

G is a logistic model for GDP growth, and A denotes average wage where total wage is a concave monomial.

G is maximized at half absolute capacity (crush load), and since M is a rather large number, A(M/2) is tiny. Note that the main actor has no incentive to ensure that A(p) is a respectable number.

Now, the model is an obvious snipe at the immigrant labour policy. It is obvious that more immigrant labour means more GDP growth. But the lack of consideration of the average wage is (note: another snipe coming) symptomatic of a failure of all the PPE (Politics-Philosophy-Economics) graduates with excellent A level results to understand basic economics or making the assumption that the rest of the country does not understand.

Social Choice balances GDP growth and quality of life. The GDP growth KPI, in the parlance of economics, cannot implement the balance of GDP growth and quality of life. It would take very good men to resist the allure of optimizing their bonus KPIs at the expense of matters important to others. While it is possible to have a cabinet of such good men, let us protect the country. Let us legislate incentive compatibility into remuneration of our executive and our legislature. There is no negative impact of the on the good men who will direct their efforts in this direction anyway. Moreover, legislating this would be the honest thing to do, especially for a PPE graduate.