Skip to main content

Risk and Opportunity of Transparency & Accountability in Singapore




IMG_20130621_082142.jpg
Singapore experienced haze, a systemic risk, from Indonesia last year. Even turning on the light, there was no clear sky then. In reality, the island state is facing transparent risk as decisions are concentrated on a few persons.

Singapore will be celebrating 50 years of independence next year. Her economic success seems to be risk free and has become a development model in the world#0. However, does the country have sustainability issues?   

Low transparency
High Accountability
For Singaporeans, risk is a possible loss if there is low transparency.
Opportunity is a possible gain if there are more accountability, checks and balances.  


World Development Report 2014 highlights several risks that Singapore is facing. The central bank (Monetary Authority of Singapore) is not an independent body. The government has full control of monetary policy which emphasizes growth and cares less about social safety net.  The ruling People’s Action Party has been in power for more than 50 years and all economic, social and political policies are based on the principle of utilitarianism and pragmatic approach of trade-off and costs and benefits.  


The World Bank report also calls for an independent fiscal council to be set up. Very unlikely, Singapore government will buy this idea.  In fact, very few persons know about the actual value of the reserve - even the President#1 who holds the second key for reserve did not have the full picture.   


From monetary and fiscal policies to reserve, sovereign funds#2 and Central  Provident Fund (pension funds) #3, Singapore’s future is challenged by haze with little transparency, checks and balances. The risk is further worsened by the information and media control. Being one of the richest countries in the world, Singapore’s press freedom ranks amongst the lowest#4.


To improve the risk management in Singapore, the government will have to be open and transparent.  It can no longer implement policies like before. Greater accountability, checks and balances are needed to manage the risks and opportunities. Singapore in the past has stressed too much on one party’s opportunities and ignore the risks faced by Singaporeans. The Report stresses risk management can save life, prevent crisis and unleash opportunities.


Based on the World Bank Report, Singapore is like a developing country.  The Report says there is an absence of important safety net and insurance, including medical insurance and basic financial assistance, in poor and lower income countries.     


The lower income group noted in the World Bank Report is the most vulnerable one and suffers the most under shocks, either household or systemic risk. Singapore’s pragmatic approach has offered little helps to the lower income people as their wages have been frozen for more than 10 years#5.    


Risk Management




The past success model of Singapore development needs further examination under the World Development Report 2014’s risk management framework:


Knowledge: Under a control environment and lack of transparency, it will be difficult to assess the uncertainties, risk and opportunity that Singapore faces.   Since the establishment of Central Provident Fund in 1955, Singaporeans until now still find it hard to understand the operations of the fund#6.  


Protection: Protection framework is designed by one party without accountability, checks and balances. The probability of losses and gains is solely decided by the government even the President may not have a full picture of the reserve.     


Insurance: Transfer and fair distribution of resources is based on pragmatic approach of no free lunch, trade-off and costs and benefits.  Until recently, under political pressure, the government starts to roll out universal medical insurance and cash coupons. However, rich-poor gap remains one of the highest in the world#7.


Coping: The preparation to equip Singaporeans with knowledge, protection and insurance has failed. It is only provided and driven by one party with limited public participation. Coping, in this circumstance, can only follow the preparation with little flexibility and adjustment.    
The risks and opportunities in Singapore are unique and different from both developed and developing countries. The government wants to continue her pragmatic approach with limited transparency and accountability. They believe they are doing the best for Singaporeans.  The question is ‘is it the best for the party or for the people’?   The debate continues …...    
IMG_20130621_081231.jpg
Singapore has good institutions and expertise to engage in risk management. The only shortfall is how to improve transparency and accountability.  More hazier days are expected if the situation remains unchanged.


Notes:
#0
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/singapore-s-healthcare/1271336.html


#1
Q18 on valuation of physical assets


#2
http://dr.ntu.edu.sg/handle/10220/4542


#3
http://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg/Members/home.htm


#4
http://en.rsf.org/singapore-government-subjects-news-websites-30-05-2013,44689.html


#5
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/-1-000-minimum-wage-scheme-as-%E2%80%98last-resort%E2%80%99-for-wage-shock-therapy--lim-chong-yah.html


#6


#7

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting ...

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...

对话一定要有共识吗?还是求取多元性来丰富自我?

全国对话喊到现在还一直高喊全国要有共识,尤其是全国对话的结果就是要寻求新加坡人的共识。不然,行动党就会说,我国的政治将会出现分裂,新加坡就变成一个不团结的国家。 全国对话一定要取得共识吗?文明对话的目的难道就是为了取得全国共识吗?如果是共识,那就一定有取舍。是不是说强势的人就领头共识,而落势的就落得一无所有。这不又走回老路,一条行动党独大的旧政治框框吗?看来,行动党对于过去,仍然依依不舍,行动党的共识,就是国家的共识,新加坡人的共识。 对话是要加深双方的了解,尊敬并且互相学习,吸取对方的优点,填补自己的缺点。这就是多元性的好处。然而全国对话的结果,如果只是强求共识,而忽略多元性和不同的意见,甚至否定他人的意见,那么,这个共识,是否具建设性,破坏性,还是分裂性,那就很难说了。 行动党似乎忘记了多元性。文明的对话并不是要把自己的 意见,信仰和理念强加给对方。即使这些意见,信仰和理念都是好的,善的。但是,对方未必会欣赏,未必会接受。因此,对话的结果应该是吸取对方的意见,改进自己的治国方针,然后,交给人民去决定,而这个决定也不过是大多数人的共识,而不可能是全国人民百分百的共识。 (乐观的看,行动党的全国对话,也不过是改进自己的治国方针,通过自己的小圈圈,自我讨论,研究,更新和改良行动党的政治策略,然后,在下一次大选时,拿出来让选民决定。因此,所谓的共识,在全国人民还没有决定前,仍然不是全国大多数人的共识。很可惜,行动党原本应该通过全国对话这个平台,吸收更多对手的意见,不同的观点,将它们纳入自己的政治策略中,然后在大选中让选民选择这个纳入反对意见的新政纲。可惜的是,行动党没有这个雅量,也或许根本看不起反对的意见。因此,它只能企图通过全国对话,硬要说这是全国共识。所以,充其量这只能说是行动党小圈圈的改良版政治策略,绝对不能说是全国共识。) ‘己所不欲,忽施于人’我们不喜欢的,不要强加他人身上。同样的,我们喜欢的,也不可以强加于他人身上。例如,有些人不喜欢吃有些食物,我们却很喜欢吃这类食物,但是,我们要尊重个人的喜好,不要强迫他人接受我们的建议。了解了这点,下一回提供食物时,就会通过多些选择,而不是只提供自己喜欢的食物。这点一般新加坡人都有这个敏感度,我们会了解马来族的要求,尽量避免他们敏感的食物。 为何行动党过去能够了解国人...