So, the couple of us VJ students from the Grassroots and Governance programme got to have this closed-door dialogue with Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, Senior Minister of State for Transport and Finance. Overall, I found it fairly interesting, despite what some say, and she is definitely an articulate person.
I do have some thoughts on some issues.
During the dialogue, I raised two questions. One essentially boiled down to the question, “Given what you say about confrontational politics in other countries (basically that in other countries politicians are so distracted by arguing across party lines that they can’t govern properly), are you saying that having an effective and credible opposition is a bad thing?”
This is a dilemma which I genuinely feel. On one hand, I feel a strong sense that a check and balance on the government has to be in place in order for it to be kept on its toes. And the best check and balance possible is the possibility of losing power: hence the idea that an effective opposition is a effective check. I also tend to distrust the idea of “our leaders are good honest men”. While that may be true, if there is nothing institutional to guarantee that, no system of incentives, I can’t place any faith in it.
On the other hand, I do sympathize with the view that confrontational politics can be destructive. Partisan quarrels, sometimes very personal in nature, completely stall politics in so many countries, including several in our neighbourhood. This is further emphasized by my general dislike for populist economics, which often sacrifice long tern economic health for an immediate party that will gain popular points. So it seems reasonable to me to take the view that, perhaps a one-party dominant system might be a good thing if it encourages long-term economic planning and prevents destructive bickering amongst power brokers.
Hence, this is definitely an issue that I am weighing in my mind, and I asked the question with a hope that Mrs Lim might offer some insight that I haven’t thought of.
Unfortunately, to be blunt, I didn’t think I received any. More crucially, however, was that I thought that she was skrting the issue in a contradictory manner, or at least not even acknowledging that a dilemma exists.
Now, first of all, she says that in other countries political parties are too busy grabbing power to implement sound policy. Plausible. In response to my question, she states that she completely believes that it is a good thing to have an effective and credible opposition, though it is not the PAP’s job to find one. Again, plausible.
However, the two positions are contradictory. If one does not qualify each statement, and perhaps weigh one in favor of the other, the two are utterly inconsistent. Hence my dilemma in the first place!
Now, if you think that partisan politics are harmful, then you also think that overall, having an effective and credible opposition is a bad thing. That’s because it is only when oppositions are powerful enough that they can start becoming a distraction, or that they become an incentive for populist policies. By saying that she wants a powerful opposition but that a powerful opposition (hence partisan politics arising) results in bad things, Mrs Lim was being contradictory, in my opinion.
To be honest, I suspect that our PAP leaders are merely paying lip-service when they say that they think a credible and effective opposition is a good thing. I suspect that what they really think is that partisan politics is destructive (again, I stress, not an unreasonable position).
Now, I cannot read Mrs Lim’s mind, so it is possible that she does not really believe that partisan politics is a bad thing and would weigh in favor of having an opposition as a check and balance. But, I recall PM Lee saying last election that if Parliament were to start having maybe 20 opposition MPs, there might be chaos. This suggests to me that PAP truly thinks that an effective opposition leads to partisan politics which will eventually be destructive.
I only wish Mrs Lim could have stated that, and put forth an argument weighing in favor of one position or another on which is more important.
Okay, that was my first question. My second question was essentionally, “How do we know that our judiciary is independent? Is it?”
This is a very very sticky issue, not least because to accuse the judiciary of not being independent is a crime of contempt. Hence, I am treading very thin ice here, and I would like to state that I am not saying that our judiciary is not independent. I am merely wondering “how do we know?”. It’s an epistemological, KI question.
Before going on to my thoughts, though, I would like to point out an article I read on TODAY newspaper, which pointed out that the International Bar Association Human Rights Institute had a report on Singapore “which questioned the independence of the Republic’s judiciary and also said that it has failed to meet international standards for political and human rights”. This is something that concerns me far far more than, say, the limited freedom of speech we have.
Anyway, I felt that Mrs Lim’s answer to this question was somewhat more substantial. Basically, she stated that the elected presidency was meant to function as a check and balance to the government, and one of the powers of that office is to approve all judicial appointments. Of course, she avoided the Chee Soon Juan reference I made in my question.
Well, it is a valid point, I think. But is it an effective enough check and balance? I leave my readers to their thoughts, though I think the experience of President Ong Teng Cheong might suggest otherwise.
Now then, I proceed to the last part of my post.
Ms Chia shared with us some of her thoughts on some social issues. In particular, she says:
In fact, one of the most unpopular but possible actions the government can enforce is the mandatory day-off for all the maids and foreign workers we have here, and a minimum wage for maids, on which we are far behind Hong Kong, which is a source of shame for me as a Singaporean.
This is something which I have thoughts on myself, so I would like to respond.
If I’m not wrong, there is already a mandatory day-off per week for maids but I suspect it’ll be quite difficult to enforce. Hence, Ms Chia’s calls for the government to take action to enforce it. Now, I am definitely all for the enforcement of laws, whether or not I agree with the law or not.
In this case though, I think I disagree with the idea of a mandatory day-off for maids. I think any day-off should be made on a consensual basis between the employer and the maid, and regulation of this would be generally counterproductive in the greater scheme of things.
It is important to note that I do not think that most of these maids will actually have ZERO days off. They will probably have some days off, like public holidays and so on. But what they do not have, is a legal right to these days off. Now, employers actually have a pretty strong incentive to offer some days off, which is to improve maid morale and hence productivity.
Firstly, I think that this regulation will result in fewer maids being employed. Horror stories of maids who make boyfriends and get pregnant during their day-off, or make boyfriends whom they then let into the home from time to time, abound. And these stories, I think, will make several people rethink getting a maid, including me.
If this regulation results in fewer maids being wanted, it will lead to fewer maids being employed. This is unfortunate because being a maid is actually an option to several people in other countries since it will greatly help alleviate the poverty their families face. Remittances are actually very helpful to many families all around the world. (If you are concerned about global poverty and are terribly skeptical about charity organizations, employ a maid! You can almost be sure that she will ensure that the money will go to someone in her family who needs it.)
Furthermore, there are maids who are willing to work with no day off. Preventing the matching of these maids who are willing to work with no day-off with employers who want maids to work with no-day off (perhaps even willing to pay a premium) is an infringement on the freedom of choice for both the maid and the employer.
Now, I suspect that the number of maids who want an official day-off per week to be hard written into their contract is actually very few. Simply because, if so many of them felt so strongly for it, we would see “differentiated maids”. Majority of maids would be paid $X, and have their day-off, while some maids will work for a premium for no days-off (in this scenario, they would be a rarity and hence would command a higher price)
Instead, what we see is maids working for no official days off dominating the market. Assuming that the agents did not kidnap the maids nor deceive them of the terms of their contracts (which I would advocate very severe punishment for), this effectively means that these maids are willing to supply their labor for the terms that they are offered, crowding out maids who are not willing to work without the right to official days-off.
This is as it should be. If there is Maid A, who is willing to toil really hard in order to make some money, she should get the money compared to Maid B who would not. Maid A deserves the job more than Maid B.
This regulation will result in fewer Maid As being employed, as one of their means of competing with Maid Bs will be completely eliminated. In fact, more maids will enter the supply line, while fewer maids will be demanded. Overall, number of maids employed falls, and out of those employed a fewer proportion would be maids of the hardworking kind. Meanwhile, the market price for maids (ie, wages) will probably fall. Not to mention the infringement of choice between two parties willing to make a mutually advantageous trade.
But before you write me off as someone who hates maids or something, I would say this: I strongly advocate very severe punishment for maid abuse, including long years in jail and caning. I also think that maids should have the right to sue for punitive damages if they are abused. As for maid agencies who engage in some form of human trafficking, the full extent of the law should be applied.
Oh yes, I forgot to talk about minimum wage. I’m largely against it, though I feel too tired to blog about it now. Perhaps another time. Haha.
Anyway, I’m going back to studying. Shall hope to make some last minute progress on AFC studying…
