SISV calls for cash-over-valuation data to be scrapped

Aug 31, 2011
 
By Jessica Cheam

The industry body representing Singapore's property valuers has called for the removal of all official data on cash premiums paid for Housing and Development Board (HDB) resale flats, also known as COV or cash-over-valuation.

The Singapore Institute of Surveyors and Valuers (SISV) said in a statement on Wednesday that it supported National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan's decision to cease the release of COV data, urging home buyers to 'use market valuations as the basis for making home buying decisions'.

COV is the amount a buyer pays over and above the valuation of an HDB resale flat.

The HDB, in its latest official quarterly statistics in July, had ceased issuing data on overall COV paid for HDB resale flats.

Mr Khaw later told reporters that the figures could be misleading, so he took a 'middle way' in issuing median COV data by HDB towns and flat types, but with no overall figures.

SISV president of valuation and general practice Dr Lim Lan Yuan said that when the government first published such COV data in 2007, its purpose was to reassure buyers that the high COVs reported in the media were not the norm.

But today, 'such figures are being used by the seller as a basis for asking cash amount(s)' as a right in any resale transaction, he noted.

He added that professional valuers would have already taken the market conditions into consideration when determining the value of a flat, therefore, COV should not be included as part of the price of a home.

[This is a correct move. COV figures will only create expectations which may simply be unrealistic. COV itself probably cannot be scrapped but there is no reason to report and perpetuate it.]

Freedom of speech under siege in West

Jun 24, 2011
 
By Robert Skidelsky

RECENTLY, at a literary festival in Britain, I found myself on a panel discussing free speech. For liberals, free speech is a key index of freedom. Democracies stand for free speech; dictatorships suppress it.

When we in the West look outward, this remains our view. We condemn governments that silence, imprison and even kill writers and journalists.

Reporters Sans Frontieres keeps a list: 24 journalists have been killed, and 148 imprisoned, just this year. Part of the promise we see in the 'Arab Spring' is the liberation of the media from the dictator's grasp.

Yet freedom of speech in the West is under strain. Traditionally, British law imposed two main limitations on the 'right to free speech'. The first prohibited the use of words or expressions likely to disrupt public order; the second was the law against libel. There are good grounds for both - to preserve the peace, and to protect individuals' reputations from lies. Most free societies accept such limits as reasonable.

But the law has recently become more restrictive. 'Incitement to religious and racial hatred' and 'incitement to hatred on the basis of sexual orientation' are now illegal in most European countries, independent of any threat to public order. The law has shifted from proscribing language likely to cause violence to prohibiting language intended to give offence.

A blatant example of this is the law against Holocaust denial. To deny or minimise the Holocaust is a crime in 15 European countries and Israel. It may be argued that the Holocaust was a crime so uniquely abhorrent as to qualify as a special case. But special cases have a habit of multiplying.

France has made it illegal to deny any 'internationally recognised crimes against humanity'. Whereas in Muslim countries it is illegal to call the Armenian massacres of 1915-1917 'genocide', in some Western countries it is illegal to say that they were not. Some East European countries specifically prohibit the denial of communist 'genocides'.

The censorship of memory, which we once fondly imagined to be the mark of dictatorship, is now a major growth industry in the 'free' West. Indeed, official censorship is only the tip of an iceberg of cultural censorship. A public person must be on constant guard against causing offence, whether intentionally or not.

[Hence our instinctive response of absurdity to politically correctness.]

Breaking the cultural code damages a person's reputation, and perhaps one's career. Britain's Home Secretary Kenneth Clarke recently had to apologise for saying that some rapes were less serious than others, implying the need for legal discrimination. The parade of gaffes and subsequent grovelling apologies has become a regular feature of public life.

In his classic essay On Liberty, John Stuart Mill defended free speech on the grounds that free inquiry was necessary to advance knowledge. Restrictions on certain areas of historical inquiry are based on the opposite premise: The truth is known, and it is impious to question it. This is absurd; every historian knows that there is no such thing as final historical truth.

It is not the task of history to defend public order or morals, but to establish what happened. Legally protected history ensures that historians will play safe. To be sure, living by Mill's principle often requires protecting the rights of unsavoury characters. Mr David Irving writes mendacious history, but his prosecution and imprisonment in Austria for 'Holocaust denial' would have horrified Mill.

By contrast, the pressure for 'political correctness' rests on the argument that the truth is unknowable. Statements about the human condition are essentially matters of opinion. Because a statement of opinion by some individuals is almost certain to offend others, and since such statements make no contribution to the discovery of truth, their degree of offensiveness becomes the sole criterion for judging their admissibility. Hence the taboo on certain words, phrases and arguments that imply that certain individuals, groups or practices are superior or inferior, normal or abnormal; hence the search for ever more neutral ways to label social phenomena, thereby draining language of its vigour and interest.

A classic example is the way that 'family' has replaced 'marriage' in public discourse, with the implication that all 'lifestyles' are equally valuable, despite the fact that most people persist in wanting to get married. It has become taboo to describe homosexuality as a 'perversion', though this was precisely the word used in the 1960s by the radical philosopher Herbert Marcuse (who was praising homosexuality as an expression of dissent). In today's atmosphere of what Marcuse would call 'repressive tolerance', such language would be considered 'stigmatising'.

The sociological imperative behind the spread of 'political correctness' is the fact that we no longer live in patriarchal, hierarchical, mono-cultural societies, which exhibit general, if unreflective, agreement on basic values. The pathetic efforts to inculcate a common sense of 'Britishness' or 'Dutchness' in multicultural societies, however well-intentioned, attest to the breakdown of a common identity.

Public language has thus become the common currency of cultural exchange, and everyone is on notice to mind one's manners. The result is a multiplication of weasel words that chill political and moral debate, and that create a widening gap between public language and what many ordinary people think.

The defence of free speech is made no easier by the abuses of the popular press. We need free media to expose abuses of power. But investigative journalism becomes discredited when it is suborned to 'expose' the private lives of the famous when no issue of public interest is involved. Entertaining gossip has mutated into an assault on privacy, with newspapers claiming that any attempt to keep them out of people's bedrooms is an assault on free speech.

You know that a doctrine is in trouble when not even those claiming to defend it understand what it means. By that standard, the classic doctrine of free speech is in crisis. We had better sort it out quickly - legally, morally and culturally - if we are to retain a proper sense of what it means to live in a free society.

The writer is a member of the British House of Lords and professor emeritus of political economy at Warwick University.

Success not fully within one's control

Aug 30, 2011

Writer Malcolm Gladwell, whose explanations of complex ideas have made him a best-selling author, corrects the myth that talent defines success in his third book, Outliers.

By Cheong Suk-Wai, Senior Writer

WHEN Canadian writer Malcolm Gladwell recently spoke to a roomful of Wall Street hedge fund managers, each of whom earned US$50 million (S$60.4 million) a year, he decided to mess with their minds.

Mr Gladwell, who turns 48 on Saturday, was then researching just how much money was enough for these financiers and their families to feel fulfilled. He recalls: 'I didn't know what the right figure was for 'enough' but I told them I did, and said they should be happy with US$75,000 a month.

'Now, each of these guys makes US$75,000 in the time he takes to walk from the water cooler to his office. So imagine their faces when I told them US$75,000 was enough.'

He then muses: 'When people get too well-heeled, they lose the capacity for certain action on certain ideas to stay ahead.'

This bachelor is one of three sons of a British mathematics professor and a Jamaican psychotherapist. He grew up in Canada, where he got his degree in history at the University of Toronto. He went on to write for, among others, The Washington Post before joining The New Yorker magazine in 1996. He has since written four international bestsellers, including The Tipping Point (2000), Blink (2005) and Outliers (2008), which have sold millions of copies in 25 languages. Time, Newsweek and Foreign Policy magazines have hailed him as one of this century's most influential global thinkers. But his many critics have said he writes books for people who hardly read.

He was in town last week to deliver the Singapore Institute of Management's 30th annual management lecture and so, last Thursday, he told me that he is now writing a book on the nature of power. He also mused about why he has as many detractors as fans:

What do you make of the runaway success of your books?

Well, I'm mostly surprised. When you write a book, you imagine that it will just be read by your mother. And 99 per cent of books sell only a small amount, so I assumed I'd be part of that group. Also, very few successful books are succeeded by equally successful books.

Your many critics take issue with your way to success, chiefly by extrapolating from select studies, without systematic analyses. What say you?

I'm always struck by how rarely those who accuse me of being unsystematic provide the evidence of my lack of being systematic. So, in accusing me of being anecdotal, they are themselves anecdotal.

Second, even if that criticism were true, I'm not sure how it would distinguish me from anyone else; what I do is what those who make arguments do at every level... You can't make a coherent argument or tell a story by including absolutely every piece of evidence, can you? And so what is unseen whenever I write a book is the amount of time I spend sorting out vast amounts of evidence and choosing what I think is most compelling. In my office, you will see that for each chapter in each of my books is a huge filing cabinet full of studies that I have digested and talked to people and made my decisions... I'm writing books that are meant to have wide public appeal, so my research necessarily stays below the surface.

What's the price you've had to pay for success?

I don't know that I've had to pay any price at all! I'd have to be terribly churlish and self-involved if I were to say that I'd be better off if my books hadn't been successful.

But haven't you had to forgo something to write your wide-ranging books?

I'd flip your question around and say that were I forced to write about the same things over and over again, then I would be making a sacrifice because I would be giving up on opportunities to explore new worlds; I would be imprisoned by one subject.

It'd be like saying that I could never leave New York City again and all I could do was walk down the same streets day after day. I'd then be paying a terrible price. So I don't find writing books difficult - on the contrary, it's liberating.

So liberating that it's light reading, at best?

I will say one thing: I go broad but not deep, and I don't mean that as a form of self-criticism. I hope my books introduce people to subjects which they can then go and examine in greater detail. I open the door for them. That means I have to be careful because I'm constantly diving into areas where I'm not an expert. That does require that I make sure I talk to the right people and don't put my foot into my mouth - occasionally, I do, which is fine. To the extent that there is a price for my success, it is that risk.

How do you lessen the risk of putting your foot in your mouth?

That risk was a lot greater earlier in my career because I'm now no longer searching ceaselessly for new doors to open... My writing career has been serendipitous.

So how then have you been so effective?

You just have to be flexible and keep your ego in check and if something doesn't work, you've to be willing to stop and start over; you're almost always better off reacting than you are attempting to chart a clearly defined course.

Speaking about reacting, how can you stay optimistic after being picked on by the police constantly after you started sporting an afro?

Most of the casual sort of discrimination I encounter is nowhere near the true level of sustained discrimination and prejudice that exists everywhere. So when I say I wrote my second book, Blink, based on my experiences with racial profiling, I wouldn't describe those experiences as paralytic or devastating because it was nothing like real racism. So I was able to have a wry, as opposed to an angry, interpretation of it. But the appropriate response to real racism is anger. So there's a very serious side to Blink, the book that I feel is most often misunderstood.

Why so?

Because there's supposed to be an impassioned, angry undercurrent to it. It begins by celebrating our snap judgments because I thought that was the only way to get people's attention. But having hooked them, I tried to convince them that unless they managed their instincts appropriately, they'd be incredibly dangerous... Sometimes, I see people misinterpreting Blink and wonder if I wrote it as skilfully as I ought to have.

Speaking of skills, in Outliers, why did you strike a hopeful note for all by saying that if the average person honed a skill for 10,000 hours, he'd likely taste success?

I'd quibble with the description of Outliers as a hopeful book. It's deeply realistic and corrects the myth that individuals are wholly in control of their own destiny and that the talent you're born with is definitive of your success.

Isn't that the American dream?

Yeah. And what Outliers says is that, actually, success is a big, messy combination of all kinds of things, some of which are within your control and some of which are not... You're simply supposed to come out of Outliers with a more thoughtful appreciation of success; it's not supposed to be either inspirational or depressing, but it is supposed to complicate our understanding of what makes people successful.

So how would you account for your own success?

I don't know; maybe I'm just lucky... Those who do original research are very brilliant people who necessarily write for a small, expert audience, and there's a very important role for people like me to play, which is to take what they do and put it such that many others share their brilliance.

suk@sph.com.sg

Where voting gaps were wider

Aug 29, 2011

Narrow victory margin, but voting patterns in different areas show more marked support for one candidate or the other
 
By Zakir Hussain

THE final tally in the presidential election gave Dr Tony Tan a narrow victory over Dr Tan Cheng Bock, but their support across the island was spread more unevenly. Different areas showed a marked preference for one candidate or the other.

Although his winning margin was just 0.34 percentage point, the gap in favour of Dr Tony Tan was much larger in many areas.

But Dr Tan Cheng Bock also had a clear lead in other parts whose votes were tallied earlier in the night, giving supporters hope that he was heading for a stunning victory.

The Elections Department did not release the breakdown of votes by electoral divisions, but unofficial indications of how the candidates fared - obtained from various sources - showed a significant disparity in voting patterns.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock, who was MP for Ayer Rajah for 26 years and still runs a clinic in Jurong West, won handsomely in large parts of the west like Ayer Rajah, Jurong and Choa Chu Kang, as well as the north-eastern new towns like Punggol and Sengkang.

[During the GE, it was clear that the western constituencies had a higher percentage of support for the PAP.]

Dr Tony Tan, who was MP for Sembawang for 27 years, won consistently in areas in the north, centre and east like Sembawang, Nee Soon and East Coast.

In many of these areas, the front runner was often a clear 3 to 6 percentage points ahead of the second-placed candidate, according to campaign sources.

Sources on both sides pin the geographic disparity down to the fact that both Dr Tans have established reputations for being good, long-serving MPs who had an ear to the ground. They also have loyal grassroots workers there. Their strong performance at these so-called local levels should affirm once again the importance of local politics and engagement.

There may also be demographic reasons for the differences across the island.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock led the count in Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC's Punggol and Sengkang estates, and in parts of Hougang new town and Hougang single-member constituency (SMC).

Punggol and Sengkang have a disproportionate number of younger residents, many of whom have young children, and this demographic appears to be more likely to support him and his campaign platform.

He also appeared to have favourable support from traditional Workers' Party (WP) supporters in the party's Hougang stronghold, where WP candidate Yaw Shin Leong got 64.8 per cent of the vote in the May General Election.

In Aljunied GRC, which the WP won with 54.7 per cent of the vote in May, both Dr Tans obtained around 30 per cent of valid votes - a share similar to that obtained by Mr Tan Jee Say there.

As for Dr Tony Tan, he pulled ahead in older estates like Bedok and Pasir Ris that have traditionally been supportive of the People's Action Party (PAP).

His lead was however even greater in areas like East Coast GRC's Siglap ward and Joo Chiat SMC, where 85 per cent and 99 per cent of voters respectively live in private housing. He pulled in some 39 per cent of the vote in Siglap and 41 per cent in Joo Chiat, some 4 and 7 percentage points ahead of Dr Tan Cheng Bock respectively.

[Note that in the GE, these eastern constituencies were less supportive of the PAP. So if in the GE, the PAP were stronger in the West and in this PE TCB was the winner in the West, it would seem that TCB is more PAP than TT. And if TT is winning in the east where PAP is weaker, it would imply that he is less PAP.]

Dr Tony Tan's strong background in finance and economics and the uncertain global economic climate are likely to have drawn the more upper-middle-class residents to back him given his appeal as a steady and stable hand, activists said.

While this pool may have been more inclined to root for the opposition at a general election, they clearly had different benchmarks for the presidency.

By comparison, Mr Tan Jee Say drew some 20 per cent of the vote here.

Dr Tony Tan also led by several percentage points in many landed housing areas such as Tanglin in Tanjong Pagar GRC.

But a couple of percentage points in a smaller area, projected on a nationwide canvas, can be almost negligible.

It so happened that the votes separating Dr Tony Tan from Dr Tan Cheng Bock at many counting centres were in the double- or triple-digits, one way or the other.

They also matched Mr Tan Kin Lian's consistently low votes, which earned him the tag 'Mr 100Plus' after he received a paltry 100-plus votes at several counting centres - and 103,931 nationwide. These votes might have gone to either of the three other candidates, narrowing or widening the 7,269 gap depending on how they went.

But as Dr Tan Cheng Bock mused about the vote margin on his campaign bus early yesterday morning: It is fewer than the number of voters in the smallest SMC. But it made all the difference in deciding who got the keys to the Istana.

zakirh@sph.com.sg

The Elected Presidency in a new normal

The office must evolve - the challenge is how to
by Eugene K B Tan

Aug 30, 2011

It was a pulsating finish to Singapore's fourth Presidential Election. A mere 7,269 votes separated Dr Tony Tan from Dr Tan Cheng Bock. The hustings, which fired up the hearts and minds of Singaporeans, portend what future PEs could be like. What can we make of the results?

The influence of the May General Election should not be over-exaggerated. To be sure, there is residual unhappiness after the so-called "watershed election". My sense, however, is that the majority of Singaporeans distinguished between the parliamentary and presidential polls.

What the GE demonstrated, reinforced in Saturday's poll, is that the voter is keen for more political competition and diversity. But as the PE results illustrate, the average voter is not going to throw caution to the wind and cast a ballot for a candidate just because he comes with an opposition accent. The People's Action Party branding still carries cachet. Voters can discern form from substance.

International media reports have characterised the outcome as a sign of "many still upset with long-ruling PAP". This reading is premised on viewing the polls in partisan terms, with Dr Tony Tan flying the PAP/Establishment banner, and Dr Tan Cheng Bock, Mr Tan Jee Say and Mr Tan Kin Lian collectively the non-PAP/non-Establishment flags. According to this view, the score was PAP - 35 per cent; non-PAP - 65 per cent.

That is probably reading the results simplistically. Many Singaporeans did not see the contest in purely partisan terms. They carefully scrutinised candidates' track records, their campaign promises, and how they would work with the PAP Government.

WHAT DIVIDED THE VOTERS

In a crowded race with three serious contenders, it should not be surprising that the votes were split. The results, if anything, confirm that the political landscape is more diverse, more competitive. The Singapore electorate is maturing and is more than capable of making up its own mind. The endorsements by the trade unions, business groups and others seem to have had limited effect.

Both Dr Tans, as former PAP stalwarts, can be regarded as the Establishment camp. They also espoused a moderate reading of the roles, functions and powers of the Elected President.

Combined, they polled 70 per cent of the popular vote. To these voters, the past PAP affiliation was not a deterrent - there was confidence they would exercise the executive custodial powers independently.

The support for both men also indicates Singaporeans value stability, in the sense of an Elected President being able to work with the elected Government. It suggests that many may be uncomfortable with the office being an alternative power centre.

Mr Tan Jee Say and Mr Tan Kin Lian, seen as the non-Establishment camp, together garnered 30 per cent of the ballots. Their support base is primarily the staunch Opposition voters, who prefer a President not so closely aligned with the ruling party. All in all, the election appears to indicate the PAP enjoys a loyal support base of about 35-45 per cent of the electorate (safely assuming the bulk of Dr Tony Tan's supporters are Establishment loyalists) and the Opposition a 30-35-per-cent loyal following.

A significant 25-35 per cent form the middle ground, often described as the swing voters. How is one to understand Dr Tan Cheng Bock's strong cross-camp appeal? His ability to reach out to both pro-Establishment voters and those less so, is a political craft honed through his many years as a popular grassroots MP. His commitment to unify people was a strong and persuasive selling point; his common touch, his signature ability to engage Singaporeans from all walks of life, was vital in bringing those of different political persuasions together.

AN 'ACTIVIST' PRESIDENT

All said, the winner's razor-thin victory margin points to the need for the Elected Presidency to evolve in tandem with Singaporeans' expectations of the roles and functions of the office. Amid the new normal of more competitive political landscape, much will also be expected of the President-elect's promise of seeking to heal the country's political, economic and social divisions.

Where the late President Ong Teng Cheong had sought to demonstrate purposefully the role of the EP within our parliamentary system, Dr Tony Tan's presidency is likely to be characterised by the imperative for a People's President to unify Singaporeans of whatever political inclinations. I believe he is conscious of the need for him - more than for any of his predecessors - to not only work with the Government but also with all political parties and civil society.

In this regard, he will have to be play a more "activist" role. I am reasonably confident that Dr Tony Tan will attempt to build bridges with the various groups, but he cannot get the different camps to work together if they are not prepared to do so in the first place. Before the non-PAP will work with him, he will have to establish to them his credentials as being non-partisan and independent. But with sincerity, impartiality and determination, there is no reason why bridge-building cannot take place.

The need to evolve the office of the President in a manner that is in sync with Singaporeans' expectations has to be on the "to-do" list of both the incoming President and the Government. They will have to manage the competing, and perhaps even conflicting, visions of the Presidency - the process of electing a head of state as well as the latter's roles and function.

Dr Tony Tan will have to throw light on what he does in his custodial roles, notwithstanding the confidentiality of those actions. Removing the myths and misperceptions is essential to the standing and legitimacy of the EP.

There is also a growing expectation that the presidency should be a watchdog that can both bark and bite. The sense is that the current reactive powers of the EP results in a watchdog that can only bark, and in limited circumstances, and that this is not good enough. In short, there is the imperative to manage voters' expectations and keep faith with the Constitutional parameters.

Can we expect dialogues and discussion - behind closed doors for a start - on how to maintain the relevance and legitimacy of the office?

To ignore the current ground sentiments and concerns may result in the PE in 2017 becoming a proxy political contest in which the raison d'etre of the EP will be challenged, and the office's authority and legitimacy suffering as a result. That would be a pity, since the Elected Presidency can enhance our system of governance.


Eugene K B Tan is assistant professor of law at the Singapore Management University School of Law

Not GE, but result shows political divide

Aug 29, 2011
commentary

Voters back moderates, yet 65 per cent spurn PAP's implicit choice
 
By Chua Mui Hoong

THE biggest effect of Presidential Election 2011 may be on General Election 2016, not just on the institution of the elected president.

Although the concerns of the electorate in a presidential election are different from those in a general election, PE 2011 does paint a broad picture of people's political inclinations for different types of candidates.

And the picture it paints is not pretty for the ruling People's Action Party (PAP). If GE2011 unveiled the new mood of the Singapore electorate, PE2011 confirmed it was no mere flash in the pan, and that the so-called new normal is here upon us.

What do the results tell us?

First, they speak volumes about voters' preference for the kind of presidency they want. Before the Aug 27 polls, the president's role was hotly debated by candidates, and in the mainstream and online media. In the end, Singapore voters gave 70 per cent of their vote to the two candidates who had no problems with the limited custodial role of the presidency, rejecting the other two candidates who had promised a more active presidency.

Second, the result speaks once more of the stability of the Singapore electorate, putting paid to fears of a freak election result, which is when protest votes against the PAP result in a less than ideal candidate being voted in.

The two candidates who made spending promises did not gain traction with voters. Mr Tan Kin Lian promised to work for higher allowances for full-time national servicemen and to press for an allowance for the elderly. Mr Tan Jee Say promised to press for any spending on reserves to go to things like schools and hospitals. He did not dwell on the matter for his presidential campaign, but many voters would remember him as the opposition candidate in the May General Election who considered his $60 billion economic regeneration plan 'small change'.

There was always an irony in a candidate, who wants to become Chief Protector of Past Reserves, making it a campaign promise to draw from the national purse he is meant to protect from profligacy. Voters obviously did not buy into those promises, giving Mr Tan Jee Say 25 per cent and Mr Tan Kin Lian just 4.9 per cent of the 2.1 million votes respectively.

In the end, the race was won by Dr Tony Tan with 35.19 per cent, a mere 7,269 or 0.34 per cent more than Dr Tan Cheng Bock, who got 34.85 per cent.

Despite talk of voters feeling sour with the PAP, a remarkable 70 per cent plumped for the two candidates with the strongest PAP links, who were PAP MPs for 27 and 26 years respectively.

This is higher than the 60.1 per cent who supported the PAP in GE2011. This shows that the anti-PAP voters are not reflexively anti-PAP. Voters look at the candidates. Dr Tan Cheng Bock said he had always put nation above party and promised to work with different political parties as part of his 'unifying Singapore' campaign promise. These resonated with many, both PAP and opposition.

This election result shows the Singapore voting core as being eminently stable and sensible. It puts paid to two myths often advanced by democracy sceptics in Singapore: the myth of the self-interested voter swayed by spending promises; and the myth of the irresponsible voter prepared to risk the nation's stability with an emotional protest vote.

When it came to the crunch, faced with a slate of four credible candidates, Singapore voters were neither self-interested nor irresponsible.

The third, and to me most significant, outcome lies in the fact that 65 per cent no longer automatically accepts the PAP's preferred choice for president.

Although PAP leaders were careful not to be too effusive in their comments, it was clear to voters just who the Government thought would be the best choice. Dr Tony Tan also received endorsements from unions and business groups. Still, two-thirds of voters chose someone else. This does not undermine Dr Tony Tan's mandate to be president. He intends to work hard to be every Singaporean's president, not just those who chose him. This is correct.

But politically, the result shows a fragmented society. Singapore is not yet divided along deep-seated ideological lines akin to those in America, where Republicans and Democrats are in gridlock. In Singapore, there is still a broad political consensus among the majority. But there is increasing fragmentation.

[Media sensationalisation. A fragmented society is so much more interesting to report. The speculation, the intrigue, the divided loyalties, the betrayal, the emotional upheaval. Yes. If it is all true.

If Tony Tan was not a candidate, Tan Cheng Bock would have been the default PAP candidate. Everyone who voted TT would have voted TCB. If TCB was not a candidate, many of his votes would have gone to TT. Many would also have gone to Tan Jee Say and maybe Tan Kin Lian even. Assuming TCB votes are evenly divided among the 3, TT would have gotten 46% and still won. But a more likely outcome would have been over 50% for TT, about 10% for TKL, and 40% for TJS. Maybe.More likely TJS and TKL will only pick up 5% each from TCB supporters. and TT would be 60% in the majority.]

In the past, the political consensus was centred on the PAP, with the PAP defining what is good for Singapore and voters buying into its vision. That PAP centre no longer holds. This was seen in past general elections and most notably in May in Aljunied GRC, when PAP leaders' attempts to sway voters there backfired.

Indeed, it can be argued that the PAP and what it stands for has become a key axis of fragmentation in Singapore politics, with voters defining themselves on the basis of whether they support or do not support the PAP (and its candidates by proxy).

In the last election, 55 per cent - five in nine voters - spurned a high-flying PAP team for the opposition in Aljunied GRC. That was widely seen as a watershed result; but it showed the mood in only one constituency.

This presidential election was on a national scale. And fully two in three spurned a high-flying PAP-approved candidate for rivals with less impressive financial experience.

[Right. That S. R. Nathan was a financial genius and a wizard. How the hell did they managed to foist him on us for the last 12 years.]

However you parse it, the sobering reality is that two-thirds of voters did not support the PAP's implicit choice of national leader.

What does PE2011 portend for the next election? To be sure, the contest for a custodial president is different from that for the government of the day. Voters on Saturday made their choice for president in full assurance that the PAP held 81 out of 87 seats in Parliament. But to the extent that a national election reflects the will of the people, this much can be said of the result: The voting core respects candidates for national office who are politically moderate - thus 70 per cent voted for the two Dr Tans; and two-thirds are no longer prepared to accept the PAP's choice as a fait accompli.

[Bull crap! It has always been so. The first Presidential election 18 years ago had a virtual unknown take 41% to Ong Teng Cheong's 59%. And he didn't even bother to campaign. Voters for TCB of course wants him to be president, but they are not overly upset that it is TT. Most are glad it is is not the other two. So 70% of Singaporeans are happy with a conservative choice. Maybe not PAP's first choice, but certainly not antagonistic to PAP. Certainly if PAP could not have TT, TCB would have been the next best thing, and they would not have been overly upset if TCB had won. Maybe he was not the first choice, but he's not unreasonable.

So in a way the voters were saying, I know you want TT, but I think you can work with TCB, and we think we believe him more.]

The first should be consoling to all right-minded citizens. The second should give the PAP pause for thought and serve as motivation - if any more were needed after May 7 - for serious reform.

But five years is a very long time.

Meanwhile, the hope is that the losing candidates continue to stay engaged politically and find ways to harness the considerable energies of their supporters to positive ends. And that Singaporeans - regardless of their vote this election - do the sensible, mature thing and accord to the new president Tony Tan the respect the office deserves.

muihoong@sph.com.sg

Are Aircraft Carriers Slowly Becoming Obsolete?

David Axe
June 22, 2011

For seven decades, they’ve been the ultimate symbol of American power. When conflicts break out across the globe, U.S. Navy aircraft carriers — fast, mobile and each packing more firepower than most countries’ entire air force — have been the first responders, more often than not. “When word of crisis breaks out in Washington, it’s no accident the first question that comes to everyone’s lips is: where is the nearest carrier?” Bill Clinton famously said.



But today’s 1,000-foot-long, nuclear-powered supercarriers and their air wings are expensive, costing up to $15 billion just to build. Plus, the latest anti-ship missiles could render them vulnerable to attack. It’s for those reasons that one influential Navy officer is proposing the Pentagon rethink its approach to building and deploying carriers.

Instead of today’s small number of gigantic carriers, the Navy of the future should operate a larger number of smaller flattops, Capt. Jerry Hendrix asserts in the pages of Proceedings magazine. “Moving away from highly expensive and vulnerable supercarriers toward smaller, light carriers would bring the additional benefit of increasing our nation’s engagement potential.”

It would also spread out U.S. naval air power instead of concentrating it in just a few places, where it can be more easily knocked out.

Hendrix’s controversial argument is the subject of my first piece for AOL’s new military website.

To be clear: no one, including Hendrix, is claiming big carriers will become totally obsolete overnight. Besides the U.S., Britain, India and especially China are all building brand-new large carriers, though none quite as big as America’s 11 Nimitz- and Enterprise-class ships, each displacing around 100,000 tons. Hendrix insists the Navy keep some of its nuclear supercarriers as a “heavy surge force” capable of steaming into action during a major crisis.

Outgoing secretary of defense Robert Gates echoed that sentiment in a speech last year.

But for routine patrols, the Navy should have a larger number of smaller flattops. Hendrix doesn’t propose a specific number, but he does point out that three, 40,000-ton light carriers could be had for the price of one supercarrier.

A light carrier is viable because of a shift in the way air power is used. During the Cold War, the Navy’s focus was generating at many fighter sorties as possible within the first few days of a full-scale conflict. After all, big shooting wars weren’t expected to last very long. Supercarriers are optimized for that kind of “big and fast” fighting.

Today, conflicts tend to be drawn-out, low-intensity affairs requiring fewer but longer sorties by sea-launched planes. Carriers don’t need to embark as many fighters, or launch them as often. That’s why a smaller carrier is possible, according to Hendrix.

He believes the future light carrier is already taking shape at a shipyard in Mississippi, though the Navy doesn’t call the vessel that. America, the first of a new class of amphibious assault ships, “has the potential to be a new generation of light aircraft carrier,” Hendrix writes.

America, slated to enter service  is designed to carry more than a thousand Marines into battle, shuttling them ashore with V-22 tiltrotors. Like previous assault ships, America can carry Harrier jump jets (pictured) and, eventually, the Marines’ vertical-landing F-35B Joint Strike Fighter. The difference is how many fighters America can carry: up to 30, compared to the four or five Harriers routinely embarked on today’s assault ships and around 50 F/A-18 Hornet fighters on each supercarrier.

Unlike many observers, Hendrix has high hopes for the late, over-budget F-35 — particularly the B model, which has been the most troubled of the three variants. “I’m concerned about the cost overruns on JSF, but I see that this [plane] could be very important in the future,” Hendrix tells Danger Room.

Armed, carrier-launched drones could complement the F-35B, Hendrix adds. The Northrop Grumman X-47B, the world’s first’s carrier-capable combat Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, flew for the first time in February. The Navy wants a follow-on killer drone to start populating carrier decks before 2018.

Small flattops carrying drones and stealthy jump jets would help “adapt the fleet away from its current course to a new design for a new era,” Hendrix writes. But he admits his proposal faces stiff opposition from the Navy’s entrenched supercarrier boosters. “A lot of people don’t like the America,” he tells Danger Room.

Even Gates was forced to backtrack after his speech last year criticizing the Navy’s over-reliance on huge flattops. “I am not going to cut a carrier. Okay?” Gates said. “But people ought to start thinking about how they are going to use carriers in a time when you have highly accurate cruise and ballistic missiles that can take out a carrier.”

To Hendrix, that means having more carriers. And that means they need to be smaller.