Singapore’s reserved Malay Presidential elections or 'Affirmative Action' in disguise?

Presidential elections are scheduled in Singapore for September 2017. As most are aware Singapore's next President must be ethnically Malay. The Parliament deemed it so through amendments to the Presidential Elections Act passed in February 2017. The changes also establish a mechanism for the state to determine the ethnic community to which each candidate belongs, i.e. Ms. Yacob and all other candidates for next month's elections must be certified 'Malay' before their candidacies are accepted.

To the relief of many Singaporeans Madam Halimah Yacob has decided to stand as a candidate for Singapore's next president. As a 50 percent Malay woman – her father was Indian and mother was Malay - it is likely Madam Yacob is 'sufficiently' Malay and will pass the government's 'Malayness' test. Hence, she is expected to be accepted as a Malay candidate. Indeed, it will be very inconvenient if she is deemed 'not sufficiently' Malay?

Race and ethnicity are nebulous concepts and categorizing people into defined boxes can be an imprecise organizational tool

The appropriateness of ethnicity criteria tests to evaluate an individual's race is one difficulty. However, for many the real problem is not determining a candidate's race; rather it is the idea that Singapore has seemingly sacrificed a long held belief in meritocracy at the altar of political expediency.

For the last five decades the government has preached the creed of meritocracy almost to the notion of fanaticism. Meritocracy trumped all else, including race based politics. The desire to maintain societal meritocracy was even a factor in Singapore's 1965 expulsion from the Federation of Malaysia.

Suddenly, however, meritocracy is no longer sacrosanct. On the contrary, the country's Constitution was amended to promote a 'race based' presidency.

To be sure, there are supporters of the government's policy of a 'reserved' (affirmative action?) presidency. Nonetheless, the policy does open the door for 'affirmative action' in other areas where minorities are proportionately underrepresented. 

For example, anecdotal evidence suggests Malays are proportionately underrepresented in Singapore's armed forces. Does the government's new policy stance indicate the government may soon start reserving places for Malay officers in the military? Does the government’s new policy stance indicate it may soon start reserving places for Malay officers in the military? If so, which ethnic community (ies) will have to sacrifice in the implementation of such a policy? Undoubtedly, there are many questions without any clear answers.

Is it possible to distill each human's DNA into race and ethnicity categories without fuzziness? 

The government's policy 'adjustments' to the presidential election system calling for candidates based on race contradicts the country's founding principle of meritocracy.  After 52 years of independence one would expect authorities to encourage deeper integration by gradually and incrementally dismantling the CMIO (Chinese, Malay, Indian and Others) system – a colonial race based legacy – rather than strengthening an world-view filtered by ethnicity.

Meritocracy or allowing the most qualified to naturally filter upwards has served Singapore well since independence. One hopes the concept of 'ethnic fairness' will not further permeate the Singapore system through quotas and reserved seats but will cease exactly where it started: at the presidency.

Imran is an adventurer, blogger, consultant, guide, photographer, speaker, traveler and a banker in his previous life. He is available on twitter (@grandmoofti); instagram (@imranahmedsg) and can be contacted at imran.ahmed.sg@gmail.com.

Singapore’s strategic challenge: SG50 to SG100

SG50 celebrations are quickly fading from Singapore's collective memory. The mutual self-congratulations and laudatory speeches are a thing of the past. Indeed, the political focus has shifted decisively towards the future with the official announcement of general elections expected imminently.

While Singapore's 'usual suspects' (e.g. immigration, public transport, cost of living, etc.) will command most attention during the forthcoming election campaign, it is Singapore's welfare over the next 50 years which demand more focus.

Arguably, the 50 years nation building period since 1965 may prove easier to navigate than the coming 50 years. Why? Several reasons come to mind.

Lee Kuan Yew (LKY) is the most obvious answer.

Singapore was fortunate to have firm, visionary leadership for several post-independence decades – a luxury denied most newly decolonized nations. Leadership best symbolized by LKY, but also includes other cabinet members (e.g. Goh Keng Swee, Rajaretnam et. al.) influential in their own right in shaping critical national policy frameworks.

Singapore circa 1965 was a typical third world city: undeveloped, unclean and riddled with crime. Arguably, things could not get much worse – only better. Certainly, development is easier when started from a low base - improvements are more visible and impactful.

Singapore took a free market, export led approach to generating economic growth in an era when many decolonized countries practiced and preached economic self-reliance. China was well and truly a People's Republic. Deng Xiao Ping had not yet worked his magic. India was a socialist country firmly implanted on the Soviet Union's side during the Cold War. Both China and India were off limits to international investors.

For ASEAN's Asian Tigers it was a sunny period as they received large doses of direct foreign investment from wealthy industrialized nations. There was far less competition for the international investment dollar. Fast forward to 2015 and things are different.

Singapore no longer starts from a low economic base.

On the contrary, Singapore is now one of the wealthiest nations in the world. It is hard, if not impossible, to generate and sustain (say) seven percent annual GDP growth with GDP per capita at USD 56,000 versus the 1965 per capita income of USD 516. Put simply, seven percent growth equals an annual increment of USD 36 in 1965 versus a yearly increase in income of almost USD 4,000 today (a monthly wage increase of approximately SGD 450).

Suddenly one pillar of Singapore's historical social contract looks a bit wobbly?

Like other Asian Tiger economies, a key factor in Singapore's early economic success was its low cost structure. Contemporary Singapore is no longer cost competitive for traditional businesses. Quite the reverse, recent surveys suggest Singapore is now a frightfully expensive place for international companies.

That's not all. Singapore's economic success brings with it other concerns.

A wealthy, literate population has different expectations from the country's political leadership.

Having achieved success, some Singaporeans believe they are entitled to a 'cradle to the grave' social welfare structure, often citing various European countries as appropriate models. The increased demands by citizens coupled with the power of the social media – think Arab Spring – has on occasion forced the government's hand towards populist polices.

Undoubtedly, Singapore can afford higher social expenditure but if the 'entitlement' trend continues then Singapore becomes closer to Europe in other ways too: high taxes, poor delivery of government services and a rigid labor market. Or Singapore heads towards unsustainable social expenditure (think Greece)?

Unfortunately (or fortunately) ASEAN is not the European Union and no one owes Singapore a living!

Politically, no single leader has the gravitas and respect accorded to LKY and his team.

The political contract was simpler in 1965: the government improves economic conditions and the citizenry don't ask too many difficult questions. In contrast, today's electorate is keen to question the leadership and flex its muscles at the ballot box. The upshot: despite the ruling People's Action Party's achievements for Singapore over the last 50 years, the city's long standing rulers cannot take the popular vote for granted.

Consequently, the government cannot enact unpopular policies with the same bluster as before. A literate, connected and wealthy (entitled?!) electorate is not as easy to boss around as the less well-off, kampong dwelling Singaporean of the past.  

History is for historians and the future is for the next generation (or, PAP, what have you done for me lately)?!

Despite all the challenges face in an uncertain world, there are many reasons to argue for Singapore's continued success in the next 50 years.

Governmence structures are solidly in place.

Public service and the bureaucracy continue to attract talent due to competitive compensation structures. In an often unstable region, Singapore's educated and English speaking society provides a haven of stability which allows the country to charge a 'Singapore Premium.'

Currency reserves – effectively savings squirreled away for a rainy day - are sizeable.

Between GIC and Temasek, Singapore's two sovereign wealth funds, GIC and Temasek, contain a massive USD 538 billion in assets. A sum equivalent to approx. USD 161,000 for each of Singapore's 3.4 million citizens! These savings provide a limited insurance policy for increased social welfare expenditures.

Singapore's new found wealth also makes the country ideally placed in a capitalist world.

The Republic is a global investor in its own right with large investments, particularly in developing ASEAN and China. In time these investments will generate significant positive income for the country.

But let's forget logic for a moment. After all, human society is a collection of human emotional endeavours?

Singapore's future is about survival for its resourceful and creative population. So if necessity is the mother of invention (or re-invention is this case) then the odds suggest that this small (non-secular!) island republic will succeed in for the next fifty years!

__________________

Imran is a business and management consultant. Through his work at Deodar Advisors and the Deodar Diagnostic, Imran improves profits of businesses operating in Singapore and the region. He can be reached at imran@deodaradvisors.com. 

Sharif’s enviable tasks for Pakistan

With Pakistan's elections out of the way, Pakistanis are eagerly anticipating two things sorely missed during the last five years of democracy: governance and leadership.

One would expect democracy – with its large quotient of accountability to the people – will have provided large doses of both governance and leadership to Pakistan.  Not so. Since the removal of President Musharraf's regime, the only aspect of democracy visible to most Pakistanis has been an unmistakable slide towards anarchy.

The military, still smarting from the ignominies associated with the final few years of Musharraf's rule, stayed away from active politics. Moreover, the military is busy fighting Taliban militants bent on undermining the Pakistani state. It was left to an activist judiciary to try and maintain some semblance of control over an inept civilian government. The judiciary's controversial efforts unseated Prime Minister Gilani but failed to galvanize the government to implement any meaningful policy reforms.

Imran Khan, the white knight ever-ready to save Pakistan, made some electoral inroads in Election 2013. Khan's party was helped by the 'protest vote' against Pakistan's two mainstream political parties (vehicles for Zaradari and Sharif). Having won the most seats in the Khyberpukhtoonkhwa (KPK) provincial assembly, Khan has the opportunity to prove himself by forming the KPK government. Voters will be watching closely to see how his party fares in the rough and tumble of Pakistani politics.  

Nonetheless, Nawaz Sharif won a handsome victory in Election 2013. People expect him to put his mandate to good use. Top of the nation's wish list are security and reliable electricity. Sharif has the reputation of being pro-business. Surely, a businessperson understands that electricity is a prerequisite for a modern economy!

Additionally, people outside of Sharif's stronghold of Punjab province will scrutinize his focus on Pakistan's three smaller provinces. Will he abandon the likes of Karachi, rural Sindh, KPK and Balochistan or will the federal government help to provincial governments' resolve pressing issues? If Sharif acts as the Prime Minister of Punjab, the strategic repercussions for the federation may be severe. Already, separatist forces are clearly at work in Balochistan. It will not take much for disgruntled elements to undermine the federation in the other provinces.

Zardari's government chose to compromise national interests in favor of competing personal interests. Sure, Pakistanis can vote out Sharif's government in five years if his party too fails the country. However, the country is fast running out of time; and five years is a long time in today's wired age.

Pakistan rightly expect Sharif's incoming regime to make progress in stemming the country's decline. Pakistanis may not tolerate another five years of supporting a political elite which does no more than attend the National Assembly a few times a year, while keeping themselves isolated from national consciousness behind multiple layers of state sponsored security.

__________________

Imran is a business and management consultant. Through his work at Deodar Advisors and the Deodar Diagnostic, Imran improves profits of businesses operating in Singapore and the region. He can be reached at imran@deodaradvisors.com. 

Pakistan’s 2013 General Elections: some positives and negatives

Positive

1.   Largest voter turnout in three decades drowns out Islamic militant extremists;

2.   PPP candidates suffer a drubbing! Electorate demonstrates unhappiness with disastrous five years under Zardari and his people. Bhutto aura appears to be fading;

3.   Imran Khan's party goes some way to break the traditional two-party stranglehold on Pakistani politics;

4.   Clear mandate to PML-N;

5.   All politics is local – province's voted according to local issues;

6.   Imran Khan's PTI to most certainly be part of new KPK government – will provide opportunity to party to demonstrate practically PTI's effectiveness at governance;

7.   Many first time voters across the country. The power of the ballot seeps into national consciousness.

Negative

1.   Imran Khan's party splits electorate;

2.   Clear mandate to a party with a dubious /mixed historical track record in governing Pakistan;

3.   Clear divide in voting patterns across the four provinces – national versus provincial politics;

4.   Other than Punjab, likely that governments of three smaller provinces will not be from party forming federal government – will most certainly lead to tensions between Centre and Provinces;

5.   Islamic militants and 'gangster' elements demonstrate ability to carry out violent acts almost at will throughout the country. Law enforcement agencies appear helpless;

6.   Likely that PML-N will soften stance against religious extremists thus setting country back socially. Women's rights and cultural environment to particularly suffer;

7. Secular ANP party virtually wiped out from KPK assemblies.

__________________

Imran is a business and management consultant. Through his work at Deodar Advisors and the Deodar Diagnostic, Imran improves profits of businesses operating in Singapore and the region. He can be reached at imran@deodaradvisors.com. 

Punggol East: Workers’ Party victory or PAP’s loss?

Singapore's blogosphere must certainly be buzzing with news of the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) loss in the Punggol East by-election. The Workers' Party (WP) victory is significant in several ways. However, first one must decide if the result is primarily a victory for the WP or a defeat for the PAP. The distinction is a fine but important one.

Were Punggol East voters expressing discontent against the PAP and was the WP the only alternative available? Or do Singaporeans' voters genuinely believe the WP fielded the better candidate? The answer is a combination of both factors.

The electorate is tired of being taken for granted by the political elite and the PAP is finding it difficult to reinvent itself in line with the aspirations of a changed citizenry. Take the AIM controversy – voters smelt a rat. There may not be any criminal or legal wrongdoing on the part of AIM but in the court of public opinion the PAP fights an uphill battle to justify its behaviour. The AIM transaction may have been acceptable to voters several elections ago but not today.

The 'New Singapore' demands greater transparency.

Even if the Punggol vote was a protest vote against the PAP, the WP gains much from the results of the Punggol East by-election. WP has established itself as Singapore's only opposition party of note. Over time, other parties will most likely fade away as opposition supporters consolidate around the WP.

Success breeds success and the taste of victory is infectious. The WP's triumph in Punggol East is a positive booster shot for WP supporters. The resolve of parliamentarians, party workers, donors and supporters alike will harden. Moreover, the WP will likely find it easier to attract talent. Supporting the opposition is no longer a lost cause – a significant perception change from just a few years ago.

To its credit, the WP has played its cards reasonably well during the last few years. Understanding its limitations as a minnow in Singapore's political arena, the WP has acted responsibly to date. It has not bitten off more than it can chew.

The Punggol East by-election is one more step in the maturing of Singapore's politics. Just as the PAP is fumbling around to teach itself how to live with a parliamentary opposition, the WP is discovering the intricacies of operating within a parliamentary democracy - a process of 'self-discovery' for Singapore at the national level.

The PAP may not be in danger of losing its parliamentary majority at the next general elections. However, the seeds of a two party parliamentary system in Singapore have been planted. It only remains to be seen if these seeds will grow into a healthy plant. We will only know the answer to that question once Singapore goes through a few more general election cycles.

__________________

Imran is a business and management consultant. Through his work at Deodar Advisors and the Deodar Diagnostic, Imran improves profits of businesses operating in Singapore and the region. He can be reached at imran@deodaradvisors.com.