Upon reading this headline you might be thinking: "Hey, Michael, why are you trying to help the opposition? Should you be publishing this at all? Wouldn't that undermine the government?"
I have two responses to that:
Firstly, I know many people think or claim that I'm some shill for the PAP but the reality is that I am simply very fond of people who make the most sense (especially in this absurd world we're living in). If there's someone else who does then I see no reason not to support them – but they have to offer demonstrable, measurable and realistic progress.
Secondly, the existing opposition in Singapore will not do anything I say here, because it is beyond their intellectual capabilities and testicular fortitude.
Broadly speaking, Singapore's opposition politicians range from the clinically insane lunatics who belong in a padded room, to pseudointellectual populists who had no better idea for their careers than to become a nuisance for the government (hey, someone has to, right?).
The problem is that if they weren't in politics they would not have distinguished themselves at anything in any other domain of life, so it's hard to expect them to be able to outcompete the government which is peerless in recruiting and fostering some of the most qualified candidates.
This is why the only way they have found to win some votes is to attempt to outbid the PAP in a populist auction, tirelessly trying to convince people they deserve to get even more money from the state.
But they have no idea how to generate more money other than to take it from someone else – or the reserves.
I believe that is fundamentally suspect to most Singaporeans who, unlike other nations, have learned that the government can, in fact, make its own money (and largely thanks to those reserves).
I doubt the local opposition can meaningfully threaten PAP's position as long as it advocates more spending without responsibility. Don't get me wrong: it's good enough to get many voters, but it's not good enough to get the majority.
What makes great political leaders?
Four years ago I observed in one of my posts that we can divide political leaders roughly into three categories which can guide electoral decisions:
- Tax & Spenders: who take and spend the money they haven't earned.
- Free-Marketeers: Those who at least create conditions for others to make money, benefiting the country in the process.
- Investors: And those who are able to make a good deal of money for the nation themselves, in addition to the private sector.
Given that around 20% of Singapore's budget comes from profitable investment of reserves, this puts the PAP firmly in the top category – which is unique for a country with no natural resources.
If the opposition wants to ever have a shot at taking over, they first have to prove that either they can make more money or that they can achieve better results with the funds at the nation's disposal today.
Here are some examples:
- Prove that you can make more money without resorting to raising taxes, taking cash from reserves or taking on debt to finance budgetary spending.
- Provide a plan for improving education, healthcare, infrastructure, defence etc. without raising costs. Or, if it requires greater expenses, show where the money would come from and how you would make it – again, without resorting to taxation, using reserves or debt.
- Cost of living: demonstrate how you would raise wages without it resulting in price inflation or reduce prices without a risk of actual deflation or erosion of value of Singapore's exports (strong SGD makes prices lower, but local exports more expensive to foreign buyers).
- Housing: explain how you would reduce accommodation costs – again, without increased spending leading to higher taxation, negative impact on reserves or borrowing money.
- Can you actually lower taxes without a negative impact on the economy or the budget?
Similar conditions apply to every other topic.
Politics is about efficiency – managing the country in the most prudent fashion to get the best results for the investment made.
Anybody can say - "when I'm elected, we're going to take money from the rich and spend it!" - it requires zero education.
You could take a bum off the street and he could do it too. Raise taxes, hope the rich don't flee immediately, and then go around telling people just how smart you are!
It's about as great an accomplishment as going around telling everyone you bought a new Ferrari after robbing 127 people and burgling a dozen houses.
It takes real skill to make more money – or getting a better result at the same level of expenses.
Can you achieve higher returns on reserves? Can you spend money more prudently? Can you prove that the government overspent on something it shouldn't? Can you show just how you would have done it to reduce the cost without compromising quality? Can you promise higher wages without burdening businesses with extra costs that will translate into higher pries for everyone?
These are the real questions people should expect answers to from any wannabe opposition in any country in the world.
The only excuse for taxation, using reserves or borrowing money is investment that would yield greater benefits than costs. It has to be measurable.
Taxing someone or promising to drain the funds that would otherwise go into reserves is not an achievement of any sort.
In fact, any such proposal suggests that you have completely no idea what to do, other than take money you haven't made – what should disqualify you from the running in the first place.
Which is why, in a country of so many economically literate people, the political opposition continues to remain a minority.
Featured image © Jnzl / Flickr
