How Much Affirmative Action?

The approach that Mr Muigai appears to be advocating — popularly known as ‘affirmative action’ based on racially defined quotas — is one that has been tried by many countries without notable success. During our discussions with him, we found that Mr Muigai is well aware of failures of affirmative action and indeed shared with us an example of such a failure in another country.

Three words – New Economic Policy, comes to mind to me. The NEP incidentally has gone through a rebranding as the New Economic Model as one of need-based rather than race-based. A good start in branding despite old wine in new bottles. Affirmative action is necessary as a form of anti-Darwinism social justice but too much and too long and it becomes an expected hand out. As human nature goes, it dulls the competitive drive in the end.

Back to this side of the causeway, Malays in Singapore have come a long way but they still lag behind relative to the other ethnic groups in Singapore.  For instance, while 0.5% of the Malays from the Primary 1 cohort entered local universities in 1980, the proportion rose to 5.4% in 2005. A significant 10 times the number of people who have a shot at local university education and a breakaway improvement in future generations’ life chances.

In comparison, the proportion of Chinese students who entered local universities was about 5% in 1980 and about 30% in 2005. While the rate of increase from 1980 to 2005 was more for the Malays compared to the Chinese, as a whole, there is a huge absolute gap between the Malays 5.4% and the Chinese’s estimated 30% in 2005. In short, there is progress no doubt in the Malay community but the rising socio-economic tide has not lifted all boats equally.

Anyway, what did MFA expect when they invited this UN Rapporteur to Singapore? To say all nice things about our home? If MFA did think so, they must be as naive as thinking Silviu Ionescu is coming back to Singapore willingly. Furthermore, it is unsurprising if Muigai passed comments which were inaccurate about Singapore’s racial relations. Muigai is an outsider and it is easy for him to make observations based on his experiences, valid probably in his experiences but not easily transferable 100% to our context.

MFA responds to UN Special Rapporteur’s statement

This is the full text of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ response to the press statement issued by Mr Githu Muigai, the UN Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance at the end of his eight-day mission to Singapore.
06:20 AM Apr 29, 2010

Mr Githu Muigai visited Singapore at the invitation of the Singapore Government. He had requested to come to Singapore to better understand our society, engage in dialogue, and identify best practices to be shared.

We told Mr Muigai that for Singapore, maintaining racial and religious harmony and treating minorities fairly is not just the morally correct thing to do. It is a political, economic and even foreign policy imperative for our continued survival and prosperity.

The principle of meritocracy is the basis of Singapore’s success and will continue to serve as the core value of our society.

Mr Muigai told us that he now better appreciates the complexity of Singapore society and how we deal with racial issues. He agreed with us that managing racial issues is a journey with no end and there will always be challenges. We told him that we will deal with them pragmatically as they arise; policies are continually reviewed and adjusted if changes are warranted.

The Singapore Government looks forward to reading Mr Muigai’s final report. We have an open mind because the maintenance of racial harmony is of such vital importance to us that we are prepared to consider any practical suggestion that advances this goal and is workable in our unique circumstances.

We do not expect Mr Muigai to agree with all our approaches; nor do we agree with all that he had shared with us. Such differences of opinion are natural when dealing with a subject as complex as race. We will respond fully as appropriate when we see his final report.

However, there are some comments in his press statement and from his press conference that require immediate clarification.

Position of the Malays

We are surprised that Mr Muigai had so quickly concluded that in the field of education, “special measures within clearly defined timelines” may be necessary to help address the historical inequalities faced by the Malay community. As Mr Muigai himself has acknowledged, statistics show that “great progress has been made in the last decades” in terms of the Malay community’s performance in education and many other areas. These statistics are publicly available.

The approach that Mr Muigai appears to be advocating — popularly known as ‘affirmative action’ based on racially defined quotas — is one that has been tried by many countries without notable success. During our discussions with him, we found that Mr Muigai is well aware of failures of affirmative action and indeed shared with us an example of such a failure in another country.

During his meeting with MUIS, Mr Muigai directly asked the President of MUIS Haji Mohd Alami Musa whether he thought the Malay community wanted the government to create special provisions to help the Malay community. Haji Alami categorically told Mr Muigai that the Malays disapproved of any affirmative action policy because the Malay community had a deep sense of pride in its own ability to achieve steady progress under the national system of meritocracy.

Restrictions on Discussion of Sensitive Issues

In the course of his press conference this afternoon Mr Muigai referred to restrictions in our laws such as the Penal Code and the Sedition Act and expressed the opinion that they may not as useful today as forty-five years ago. He called for greater openness in the public discussion of sensitive issues.

Here we must emphatically disagree with Mr Muigai. Race, language and religion will always be sensitive issues in Singapore. This does not mean that they cannot be discussed, but a balance must always be struck between free expression and preservation of racial and religious harmony.

This balance is only for the Singapore government to determine because only the Singapore government bears the responsibility should things go wrong. The UN bears no such responsibility and we see no reason to take risks for the sake of anabstract principle. We believe most Singaporeans agree with the

government’s approach.

Presidential Council for Minority Rights

Mr Muigai was of the opinion that there was a potential conflict between the role of the Chief Justice as head of an independent judiciary and as Chairman of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights (PCMR). Mr Muigai has not fully understood the Constitutional role of the PCMR. As the Chief Justice himself told Mr Muigai, if there was any conflict of interest in a case, the Chief Justice would recuse himself. Our judiciary is well respected internationally and the PCMR has worked well to preserve racial harmony in Singapore.

Categorisation by Ethnicity

Mr Muigai has suggested that categorising individuals by ethnicity, for example on our National Registration Identity Cards and through our Group Representation Constituency system, may reinforce and perpetuate prejudices and negative stereotypes. However, during our discussions Mr Muigai acknowledged that there was no single correct approach to this issue and that there were good reasons not to pretend that ethnic differences did not exist.

Acceding to International Conventions

Mr Muigai has also recommended that we accede to certain international human rights conventions. We have told Mr Muigai that we are in the process of studying some of these conventions and do not rule out acceding to them. But we do not value form for its own sake and will accede to these conventions if there is substantive value in doing so and we are prepared to implement all their provisions.

There are also factual errors in Mr Muigai’s press release that need immediate correction.

Education for Malay Students

Mr Muigai had noted that “the Government had until a decade ago supported free education programmes for Malay students”. This implies that the Government has reduced the amount of money devoted to Malay education. This is not true. What has changed is that the money that used to be allocated to middle-class Malays who no longer need subsidies for education is now given to Mendaki for distribution to the most needy Malays. The total amount of money dedicated to Malay education has not changed.

Non-Tamil-speaking Indian Muslims

Mr Muigai claimed that non-Tamil-speaking Indian Muslims may find it difficult to identify with Mendaki or SINDA. This is not true and in fact they have been making full use of programmes in both community groups. No Indian Muslim in need of help is denied help.

Special Assistance Plan (SAP) Schools

Mr Muigai claimed that Special Assistance Plan (SAP) schools were established in order to nurture the best talents that will form the next generation of leaders in the various fields. This is a misunderstanding of the role that SAP schools play in Singapore. Then-DPM Lee Hsien Loong in his speech at the 300th Anniversary of the Birth of the Khalsa Sikh Vesakhi Celebrations in 1999 had explained fully the role of SAP schools. The speech is still relevant and Mr Muigai was given a copy of the speech today.

Advertisements

It’s a Great…Day…to Fly

Eyjafjallajokull. Now everyone knows that name. Airlines are losing money the longer their planes are left on the runways instead of flying around ferrying people. SIA might lose $10 million a day as it has about 25 flights to Europe daily. British Airways projects its daily loses as much higher and between £15 and 20 million a day, probably because it wants government aid and has to give a bleak outlook for the UK’s national carrier. In retrospect, the volcanic ash and not the recent strike was what grounded BA for impact. Qantas puts its loses as $1.4 million a day if we want to put another of SQ’s One World competitor’s daily costs of being grounded in context.

SIA supposedly has a first in first out backlog and priority is for those who had a minimum stranded period of 5 days. As they just raised airfares and thus customer ire or at least irritation, the question out there is how SIA is handling the matter like paying its crew now, settling and compensating the stranded and clearing the backlog later etc. I doubt SIA would be the first to rush to send people to Europe and a wait and see what BA does attitude is more likely for the heavyweight Singapore-Heathrow route.

Anyway, this whole episode sounds like karma on Europe particularly for not bailing out Iceland when they got hit by the financial crisis after the Lehman collapse.

SIA ‘will not fly if it is not safe’
Singapore carrier focusing on taking care of affected customers
by Zul Othman
05:55 AM Apr 20, 2010
SINGAPORE – Unlike its European counterparts, Singapore Airlines (SIA) has not conducted any test flights through the volcanic ash that has paralysed air travel in Europe.

But, as the pressure mounts on European governments to open airspace – amid mounting revenue losses for the airline industry – the Singapore carrier made this promise: It will not fly if it is not safe.

“Having the safety of our customers and crew as our No 1 priority means that we will not operate any aircraft unless there’s full assurance it’s safe to fly. This has been our policy all along, and we will not compromise this for anything,” SIA spokesman Nicholas Ionides told MediaCorp.

SIA is focused on managing the situation and taking care of affected customers said Mr Ionides.

SIA shares dropped 3.61 per cent on Monday, and a Bloomberg report estimates the disruptions have caused the carrier a net loss of about $3.7 million a day in its passenger and cargo business, and lost sales of about $7.6 million a day – probably the biggest loss among Asian carriers.

Seventeen flights out of Changi Airport were cancelled on Monday, but two of its flights to and from Greece were operated. Two flights on the Singapore-Milan-Barcelona route will also depart today.

SIA has not taken any fresh bookings to its affected European destinations since Friday.

Once flights can resume, SIA customers on the first flight that was cancelled to each destination will be given priority on the first available flight, followed by customers on the next cancelled flight and so on.

“We’re also trying our best to seek solutions … including considering mounting additional flights,” said Mr Ionides. “But the situation remains very fluid, so firm decisions cannot be made yet.”

A Bad Day for the Court?

The High Court overturned an earlier decision that some SDP members were not involved in an illegal procession. I am not a SDP fan at all but in this case, let’s try and remember that in Singapore politics, non-PAP political events are  easily turned into illegal events because no permits were applied for or if there were applications duly submitted, they were rejected.

There is an impression that the courts would always rule in favour of the PAP; maybe the politically correct answer is that  the opposition politician whenever he lands up in court can never get a lawyer that is good enough to contest the prosecutor or the PAP lawyer? That is a good reason why Chiam See Tong or Low Thia Khiang never wanted to get into legal trouble with the PAP e.g. alleged defamation of PAP MPs,  as the PAP always has the upper hand in that arena. Be smart, don’t break the law and yet still get things done is their preferred style compared to the SDP.

Apr 2, 2010
Acquittals overturned
The five had taken part in an illegal procession in 2007

A HIGH Court judge on Thursday overturned a district judge’s acquittal of five opposition figures for taking part in an illegal street procession in 2007.

Justice Choo Han Teck ordered District Judge John Ng, who acquitted the five leaders and supporters of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) last October, to record the conviction and to hear their mitigation for sentencing at a later date.

The Government appealed against the acquittal of the five, who had been charged with taking part in an illegal procession.

They had walked without a valid permit from Hong Lim Park to the Queenstown Remand Prison on Sept 16, 2007.

In his October judgment, Judge Ng, referring to dictionary definitions of the word, argued that he did not consider what they had done a ‘procession’.

He noted that the SDP five had walked mainly on pedestrian pathways, made ad hoc stops for toilet breaks, and walked ‘casually’, sometimes singly or in pairs.