Ideas do not sprout out of nowhere. Einstein or Newton did not go to sleep and in their Brahma Muhurta hour awoke and wrote down E=MC2 or the Laws of Gravity. Ideas build on one another till a bright spark has the eureka moment and eventually comes up with something brilliant.
LMW's proposal can, and should be challenged. It is out of such robust debates that ideas develop. LMW himself did not lay claim to his proposal of deferred payment for land cost, having rightfully credited Dr Tan Meng Wah and Yeoh Lam Keong. I shall have my comments on this debate in a later blog. For now I just want to shine a ray of light on LMW's idea for which none could frame a term of reference for academic discussion. LMW's proposal is for decoupling the cost of land to HDB sales of BTO flats. In marketing, this is called unbundling the sales price.
Here I just wish to dispel the torrent of ad hominem attacks on LMW and opposition in general that I see on the internet. One half of Singaporeans are living in a boiling pot of frustration that views the government as detached and uncaring, and who sees the other half as having blinders on, living in a Potemkin Village. For those who don't understand, Potemkin Village is a bad environment dressed up in an impressive facade for observers.. Those in early years of National Service will well remember how we dreaded the days when a Minister or Brigade Commander will visit the camp. We all had to spruce up the buildings and cut grass with our Swiss army knife. Potemkin Village took its name from a Russian governor who was responsible for a region in Crimea during the days of conflict between Russia and Ottoman Empire. During a visit by Empress Catherine II, Governor Potemkin had a special mobile village constructed. His men would dress up as villagers along a river. When the Queen's entourage set sail, Potemkin and his men would quickly dismantle and reassemble the mobile village at another location. This way, the Queen had a tour of some very fine villages.
The likes of CS and PAP IBs condescend to contrarian PAP views as whinings. They view complainers as products of unschooled unmeritocratic non-achieving underclass, or simply, the opposition. Their side of the aisle sees Singapore as a superbly well-managed country and the PAP has sole monopoly on good ideas.
Are complaints bad? All good corporations have a department to handle customer complaints. When Richard Branson started his Virgin Air, the first thing he attended to when in arrives in the office was to go through the register of complaints. Complaints gave him lots of insights that managers may be inclined to keep out of his view. I suspect Peoples Association grass roots have no complaints register, no leaders will pass any negative issues up the chain to the PAP leadership. Why do I suspect so? It answers to why the party is so out of touch with the public.
As a car owner in the 80s/90s, I like to think I had a pretty good record as far as safe driving was concerned. But I was a sucker for taking high risks with illegal parking, betting against an army of diligent parking inspectors. There was a day when I had parking tickets from all three government agencies -- HDB, URA and Traffic Police. There were occasions when the summons could be challenged. Example twice my car was lifted aside by workmen, once to access a manhole, another time to paint parking lots. I was driving a small 2 seater Honda Civic, no problems to a couple of muscled workmen to lift it up. They did not return my car back properly in the parking, lot for which I was unceremoniously summoned. In those days, there were offices when one can go to appeal. One I remember well was in the old Market Street hawker center. Appellants were many each day. You take a number, sit down and wait for your turn. When called, you go into an office, pour your heart out. Everyone, everything, except yourself, was the cause for your parking indiscretion. At the end of which the officer will take your summon, scribble something, and you get $5, $10 discounts, something like 25-50% discount was common. I soon realised that however one bullshits, it never mattered. The officer will give a small discount. BUT they cannot dismiss a summon outright. The disinterested officers never really listened to your explanations. They knew chances are the appellants were telling tall tales. If your stories are more convincing, you get more discounts.
It dawned on me it was simply a mechanism for drivers to vent their frustrations, walk across to the Cashier and pay the lowered fine. Everybody thought they were the winners, everybody walks away happy. I thought it was a jolly good idea. Complaints must be entertained. It should not be dismissed outright and be left to ferment.
The first generation leaders understood we need an escape hatch for social frustrations. The state must not compress and suppress complaints, however stupid they may be. Even if the state policies are righteous, the people's frustrations must be addressed. Today, high tech has taken over. Appeals are made online. I don't drive now, so I do not know if online appeals are also granting discounts easily nowadays.
It is human nature to complain. Complaining is a coping mechanism for some, mostly to relieve stress. Are Singaporeans any different from others. I do not agree to the distinction of Singaporeans as great complainers. I do however, make distinction of how Singaporeans complain. There are the uncompromising complainers, those who never consider their own short comings, those who can't see the trees for the forest, those who make mountains out of molehills, those who are unforgiving of honest mistakes or failings, those who feel entitlement is their birthright, those who feeds on anger, those who jumps to conclusions on bias cognizance. Then there are those who complains to right a wrong, those who speaks out for others who can't, those who thinks there are better ways of doing things, those with a high civic sense to raise public awareness to a problem, those who feel they have a solution or a suggestion.
I think complaints are healthy human reactions. For the negative complainers, it needs an escape valve for the psychological bottled up pressure. For the positive complainers, they need the respectable handling of acknowledgement of either problems being brought to the fore and willingness to study suggestions volunteered.
Those who say the parliamentary debate was much ado about nothing and LMW was simply a populist politician, interestingly do not see themselves as complainers. LMW was simply doing his job to get groundswell dissatisfaction over rising public complaints of non-affordability of HDB flats addressed in parliament. That the motion was debated in parliament was a good thing. The free-for-all session, knuckles bared, egos knocked, voices passionately raised, are all good when issues and ideas are attacked and defended, information revealed. This is as it should be in a parliamentary debate.
In the handling of complaints and discontent, one classic example is that of Prosify, a software app. One dis-satisfied customer hounded the company for a very long time. The CEO Kyle Racki put an end to it with a final message to the customer that read: "I’d love to say Proposify is a great fit for everyone, but clearly we weren’t able to live up to that here. I’m really sorry about that. You may want to give Quoteroller, Nusii or Bidsketch a try, they might be more useful to you. Best of luck!"
For a vendor to recommend a competitor, that's a class act. I am not suggesting the PAP should tell dis-satisfied Singaporeans to go vote Opposition. Now I have great respect for Lee Kuan Yew, but I was most disappointed for his infamous statement made derisively that his job was not to build the opposition but to destroy them. Of course one can agree as opposing parties, the PAP has to do all they can to be one-up against all other political parties. But as the ruling party, it is incumbent on them to ensure the foundation for the ring in which democracy thrives, and on which political parties do battle, must stand solidly. The PAP, and all their IBs, must understand none of us vote opposition, WE ALL VOTE SOMEONE TO REPRESENT US IN PARLIAMENT.
