Saturday 17 March 2012

Active state rests on citizens' consent

Govt should intervene for social good, but needs support to do so
By Chua Mui Hoong, The Straits Times, 16 Mar 2012

I AM a determined optimist, by which I mean I take it as a matter of principle to see the proverbial cup as half-full, not half-empty, because I believe positive thinking and action create their own momentum for right change.

So I disagree with pessimists who think that in Singapore today, citizens are loud in clamouring for their wants, and the state is in retreat in the face of the new vociferousness.

I would like to imagine a different political dynamic at work: one where citizens are engaged in clamouring for one another's interests, not just their own; and the state is an activist one eagerly using its legislative dominance and executive power to good ends.

There are grounds for this view.

The recent Budget debate with its slew of policy announcements was a case study of an activist state in operation.

The Government used legislation to good effect: to mandate a weekly day off for maids, after years of society's hand-wringing on the issue. It did so after consulting stakeholders, a necessary component of policy change. So the law will allow room for negotiation between employers and maids: on which day to pick, and to pay compensation if a day off is not required. The Ministry of Manpower acted swiftly and decisively in mandating the change, trusting employers and workers to make the adjustments.

The Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) also stepped up to take the lead in resolving transport woes of the disabled. Not only will it invite taxi operators to consider running a service that can take in all sorts of wheelchairs, it will also work with voluntary welfare organisations and with the Land Transport Authority and the Ministry of Transport to develop a longer-term solution to help the disabled.

It was only last year that disabled commuters were in a tizzy after SMRT Taxis wanted to withdraw its fleet of 15 London cabs due to their high costs. These cabs are the only means of transport for some wheelchair users. MCYS' act of leadership in 'owning' the issue and working with different agencies means there is now a better chance for good solutions than if it had been left to languish between agencies.

Other evidence of the activist state in action: the $1.1 billion of public funds to be given for private bus operators to buy more buses, among other things; the new law from May that limits trans fat in cooking ingredients to 2g per 100g of their weight.

These moves are surprising because they carry political risk. Injecting public funds for private bus companies can be expected to raise questions - which it did. The trans fat law is one of those paternalistic laws that are good for all citizens but which may not be popular with some: producers and food retailers will be inconvenienced, and even consumers may grumble that their curry puffs or char kway teow don't taste so good when cooked with healthier oil.

Some may think such an activist government is part of the People's Action Party's response to last year's general election (GE) which saw the PAP vote share fall to its lowest since Independence.

But of course it is not.

Back in July 2010, Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam said in a speech that governments had to intervene in the market for social outcomes: 'Governments have to intervene... We need activist states but focused on limited tasks... and intervene to promote social mobility, opportunities for the people.'

In any case, the PAP government has never been afraid to make decisions, tough or popular. Ten months after the May 2011 GE, it is far from being in retreat. Its legislative agenda shows it remains at heart an activist government committed to change where necessary.

If the state is not in retreat, what of citizens? Are Singaporeans in the new normal a spoilt bunch out to press their own cause?

A determined optimist acknowledges faults but sees grounds for hope. Singaporeans have come forward with ideas on how to hang laundry better from Housing Board flats. They brim with ideas on what to do with the Green Corridor. Non-profit groups are gearing up training and other programmes to cater to maids on their day off.

Self-centred Singaporeans are of course also with us. Like those who don't want eldercare centres or studio flats for the elderly in their neighbourhood. Or employers who say they need their Sunday rest so their maid can't get a day off.

Can Singaporeans move beyond their narrow calculus of what is best for themselves and their immediate family, and consider what is good for society?

A golden opportunity presents itself for Singaporeans to show solidarity. This is in the call for views on whether the national health insurance scheme MediShield should be extended to cover infants with congenital diseases. This will push up premiums for everyone, while benefiting only a tiny number: About two babies are born each day with serious birth defects like heart problems or damaged nervous systems.

A selfish approach is to consider if you or your family members are likely to need this. So if you are planning to have a family and have a family history of some health problems, you may say 'yes'. Otherwise, you may say 'no' because you don't want to pay higher premiums.

There is an alternative approach based on solidarity: the feeling that we are all in it together. For those not in dire want, consider this: If a few dollars can give a baby a better chance at a healthy life, and save her family years of anguish and anxiety from crippling medical bills, won't you consider, even if you yourself won't benefit from it?

After all, ill health, after death, is the greatest leveller in life. If not your own child, the baby of your sister, cousin, friend, colleague, neighbour, the office cleaner, your favourite nasi lemak hawker, may be born with health problems that need expensive treatment.

Far from being in retreat, the state is in activist mode, willing to change. But its power to effect change stops at the door of citizens' consent. We can choose to be self-centred atomistic individuals. Or we can choose to be Singaporeans who care for others and express solidarity by our actions.

No comments:

Post a Comment