The Death of a politician and the birth of a new politics

Christopher Neo Ting Wei, NSP candidate for Jurong GRC in the 2011 general elections, passed away on 14 August 2012 at the age of 49. 

Condolences have been expressed by various politicians from opposition parties.  I was pleasantly surprised to read DPM Tharman Shanmugaratnam's Facebook update a short while ago.

Paid last respects to Christopher Neo this morning, before the last rites. He left us early, at 49.


He led the NSP team in Jurong GRC in GE2011, and fought admirably. I regarded him well - he had an unassuming style, and was concerned for poorer citizens.

His wife Amy told me about the four wonderful kids he had left her with. They always helped each other. The eldest, do...ing her O-levels soon, helped the second girl; the second helped the third girl; the third played with the little boy aged 4. The girls were doing well in school.

His parents were elderly but sturdy. They were Chinese-educated, but spoke with me in English. Christopher left many siblings. His elder sister had been with him from his first GE in 1997 as his Election Agent, and we chatted about meeting at last year’s GE in Jurong. Christopher had taken after his father, who contested in the 1963 General Elections with the Singapore Alliance party, more than three decades earlier. Christopher contested in four GEs. He had stamina.

Every river, whichever its path, winds its way safe to sea.

Rest in peace, Christopher Neo.

It is good, and certainly refreshing, to see a PAP politician coming forward to express his condolences in this manner.  This may just be a small and tentative sign of change.  But, I see the possibility of political growth in this country.  Little by little, PAP politicians appear to be realising the need for a more concilliatory style. 

Recently, when Dr Lim Hock Siew passed away, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan gave a tribute on his facebook which was commendable:

I remember meeting him 24 years ago at a party hosted by my mentor Professor Arthur Lim. They were classmates in medical school and life long friends.


He introduced himself as “I am Lim Hock Siew, and just came out of prison a few years ago!”

We had a good chat and he freely shared his life experiences. I was struck by the absence of bitterness despite all his sacrifices. I think he knew in his heart that he was a patriot, and was proud that he never gave in.

I consulted him before I entered politics. He did not discourage me. On the contrary, he told me to focus on doing the right thing. He told me he did not bear any ill will to the current leaders. He reminded me that he was a founding member of the PAP.

We met from time to time socially. Whenever we discussed politics, it was obvious that he was still a conviction socialist. There were times, we agreed to disagree.

Singapore has lost another member of the founding generation. We must all be deeply grateful to him and his family for all their sacrifices. He was a good and honourable man.

Considering that Dr Lim Hock Siew was a political detainee, such words from a Man in White is commendable.  I hope that this kind of refined attitude amongst politicians continues.  My sincere wish for Singapore is that PAP politicians would stop treating opposition politicians as 'the enemy' and see these fellow Singaporeans for what they really are:  countrymen; patriots and concerned citizens committed enough to their principles to stand up for Singapore even when it might be unpopular or even dangerous. 

Public Interest - Not a sufficient reason to disclose information

Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam: “People do want to know, there is curiosity, it is a matter of public interest. That is not sufficient reason to disclose information. It is not sufficient that there be curiosity and interest that you want to disclose information.”

One of the functions of Parliament is to call Ministers to account. With regard to individual Ministers the expectation is that PArliament is able to get information from them on matters that affect the public. As a representation of Ministerial accountability, Parliament is empowered under Standing Order No.19 to put questions to Ministers pertaining to 'affairs within their official functions'.

Any question about Temasek put to Mr Tharman would be within the ambit of his official functions as a Finance Minister. By Convention he is obliged to answer those questions unless the question is itself within the ambit of excluded matters listed out at Standing ORder No.21. (The Parliamentary Standing Orders are available at this link: http://www.parliament.gov.sg/Publications/SO-merge%20with%20SO%20notes.pdf )

The possible legitimate reasons that he might state for refusing to answer question could be that disclosure might harm national security or that official secrets might be compromised. But, judging from the report in the Straits Times, the Finance Minister appears to offer no justification for refusing to answer the questions. He appears to state that public interest is not a sufficient reason for disclosure. Based on the concept of Ministerial REsponsibility and based on Parliament's crucial role in ensuring that accountability, I would have thought that public interest is the most potent reason for disclosing information that is otherwise not protected as a state secret or information that is capable of compromising national security.

If Public Interest is not a sufficient reason for answering a question in Parliament, then Parliament can be disbanded. Parliament's scrutiny function would be redundant. Ministers can answer every question by saying: "There is a public interest in this issue. But, that is not a good reason for providing you with an answer." MPs don't have to provide a good reason for asking a question apart from the fact that it is a matter of interest to their constituents. It is a mockery of the PArliamentary system to say otherwise. To the Finance Minister, I would like to ask this: What does it mean sir when we say in our pledge: 'to build a democratic society'? Doesn't a democratic society involve the people having a right to know how governance is carried out? In a representative form of government such as ours, do PArliamentarians not have a right to ask a Minister to answer questions of public interest? Doesn't the failure to answer a question without providing any specific exceptional grounds (such as national security) undermine the workings of Parliamentary democracy? Where does that place our pledge so soon after that artificially concocted universal pledge moment?

Sample Q & A in Parliament:
MP: How much was collected from ERP gantries in 2008?
Minister: This is a public interest issue. But, that is not a sufficient reason for answering your question.

MP: What is the current birthrate in Singapore?
Minister: This is a public interest issue. But, that is not a sufficient reason for answering your question.

MP: What is the government doing to assist the elderly living on their own without the support of their children?
Minister: This is a public interest issue. But, that is not a sufficient reason for answering your question.

It can go on and on and on.

Inflation may lead to wage increase but there is no evidence the other way around

What was Mr Tharman talking about?

My layman brain is throbbing with a big, fat headache. Are there any economists out there that can explain?

Our Finance Minister says that wage increases will fuel a second round of inflation. I have been trying to work out the dynamics in my mind as rationally as I can. I have tried speaking to people to see if anyone can shed light on the relationship between wages and inflation. Looks like it can be argued both ways (for and against the Minister’s proposition). After doing a bit of google-searching, I have discovered this excellent policy discussion paper:

“Does Wage Inflation Cause Price Inflation?” by Gregory D. Hess and Mark E. Schweltzer (Policy Discussion Paper, Number 10, April 2000), Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland

Gregory D. Hess is the Danforth-Lewis Professor of Economics at Oberlin College and an academic consultant to the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.

Mark E. Schweitzer is an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.

The Abstract of the discussion paper says it all:
“Recent attention has turned from unemployment levels to wage growth as an indicator of imminent inflation. But, is there any evidence to support the assumption that increased wages cause inflation? This study updates and expands earlier research into this question and finds little support for the view that higher wages cause higher prices. On the contrary, the authors find more evidence that higher prices lead to wage growth”


The conclusion that they reach at the end is:
“There is little systematic evidence that wages (either conventionally measured by compensation or adjusted through productivity and converted to unit labour costs) are helpful for predicting inflation. In fact, there is more evidence that inflation helps predict wages. The current emphasis on using changes in wage rates to forecast short-term inflation pressure would therefore appear to be unwarranted. The policy conclusion to be drawn is that inflation can appear regardless of recent wage trends.”

The policy paper can be accessed online:
http://65.89.19.70/research/POLICYDIS/pd1.PDF


On a related note, the European Central Bank recently warned against wage increases and alleged that wage increases would lead to another round of inflation. But, the European Trade Union Confederation has rebutted that. The following is an extract from a Reuters article dated 1 July 2008:


BRUSSELS, July 1 (Reuters) - Trade unions in the European Union chided the European Central Bank on Tuesday for urging caps on wage growth and reiterated their opposition to any interest rate increase.
The European Trade Union Confederation said ongoing wage bargaining or expected wage trends would trigger no second-round inflationary effects -- the feed-through of high energy and food prices into the wider economy -- as feared by the ECB.
"The ECB's concerns on wages are unfounded and dangerous. The ETUC calls upon the ECB to stop using wages as an alibi to hike interest rates," ETUC General Secretary John Monks said in a statement.

So, how did our trade unions respond? In fact, our Finance Minister was speaking directly to one of our trade unions. He was at a dinner organised by the Singapore Industrial and Services Employees’ Union. Mr Philip Lee, the Deputy President of the Union is reported to have said that his union would not push for higher wages. Incidentally, Mr Tharman is the Chairman of the Union’s Council of Advisors. Looks like the Union would be taking the Chairman’s suggestion to heart.