Hri Kumar Nair: 'No one tells me what to say'

Backbencher Hri Kumar Nair has taken aim at several government policies, including those relating to national service and permanent residents, the PSLE and certificates of entitlement. After Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew announced changes to the COE system last month, Mr Nair posted a blunt critique on Facebook, describing the move to differentiate cars by engine capacity and power output as "meaningless" as it would disadvantage more efficient cars.

Mr Nair, a senior counsel at Drew and Napier and one of five MPs representing Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC, tells Robin Chan he has no inhibitions about speaking his mind and has never been rapped by a minister for doing so. He also debunks any suggestion that he is merely playing the part of "loyal opposition" assigned to him by the ruling party.

Q: You have spoken up against many government policies on housing, education, national service and more recently on certificate of entitlement (COE) online and in Parliament. What motivates that?

I wouldn't see it as being critical of Government. What I say reflects my own honest views and the feedback of the people I talk to.

The NS tax (proposing a tax on permanent residents who do not serve NS) reflects the views of some people I have spoken to. They have expressed unhappiness over the fact that second generation PRs are, in their view, gaming the system by renouncing their PR status just before they are due to enlist. And I think there is some merit to that complaint.

My philosophy is not to just complain, but to say: "Look this is the issue and I have a proposal." My proposal may not be the best, and I certainly don't know all the answers, but I at least have a proposal so that I can start the discussion. Better than just saying there is a problem, and that it is for someone else to solve.

NS Tax was a practical proposal to deal with what I saw was a problem. You can't solve it at the entry level. When a person applies to make his son a PR, we cannot know whether he will arrange for his son to leave Singapore 10 to 15 years later. You can't stop them from leaving the country, because if they want to go, they go.

And an NS tax is not unprecedented. In Switzerland, you get taxed more if you don't do reservist or NS. It is a practical approach to a practical problem.

Q: And you were disappointed with the COE changes.

I can understand what the Land Transport Authority (LTA) was doing. I think they had two main objectives. Number one, they needed to reduce the price of Category A COEs to improve social equity. I can understand why they did that.

Second, they could not tinker with the system too much because there were too many moving parts and every small change affects many people.

I do not disagree with their objectives, but I just wanted us to take a step back and see where we are going and what kind of private car system we want to see in Singapore in 20 to 30 years and whether we could use the COE system to achieve that objective.

In Europe, for example, they are car manufacturers, so they set efficiency and environmental standards and European cars today are more efficient and cleaner than they were 20 years ago.

We are not manufacturers, but we can control the type of cars on our roads through our COE system.

The thing about tweaking the way we are doing it now, is that we are not likely to see the kind of dramatic change in 20 to 30 years. The latest tweaks seemed like we were taking a step back, and discouraging more fuel efficient cars, and I thought, is that what we want to see in 20 to 30 years time?

Little tweaks here and there are fine for the short term. I was trying to encourage LTA to express what their long term vision is. That has yet to be articulated.

Q: Is it not frustrating when you, as an MP, are trying to get Government to think your way and nothing changes?

It is frustrating only if you think you are right and everyone else is wrong and no one is listening to you. But I don't think that way.

I have certain points of view and I have a platform as an MP to articulate them. So I am like a trustee and I should use that position properly to reflect my views and the views of my constituents.

It may not be the only point of view, but it is worth expressing it, because others may add on and even improve it. If enough people talk about it, you can have a proper discussion. If I have a view that gains no traction, then it gains no traction.

Q: The more cynical people say the People's Action Party MPs who are more vocal and critical, like yourself, are there to play a role, to show that there are diverse views within the party.

I think that is one of the bigger misconceptions of the PAP. When I give a speech in Parliament, or when I write a blog, no one tells me what to write, and no one vets what I write. I just do it.

When I stand up and give an election speech, for example, no one tells me what to say.

That surprises people because they think there is this great machinery that controls what you think, what you say and what you do. There is not.

We are pretty much given the freedom to express our own views, so long as they are honest and fair views, and we have to defend them.

To say that I am saying it because someone told me to say it, or because I have a particular role to play is completely misplaced. It just never happens.

I've got a young daughter, she goes to Primary 1 next year. So a lot of these issues are very real for me - PSLE, P1 admissions. It is useful for MPs to reflect their own feelings, because we go through it as well. We are not sitting in ivory towers, we don't have different rules that apply to us.

I can control my intentions and execution, but I cannot control people's perception of what I intend.

So while I may intend to say something, there is a perception that I am doing it because I am the mouthpiece. And I am not sure I can do anything to change perceptions. So long as I continue to be honest and consistent, people will see me for what I am and that is all I can ask for.

Q: So when you come up with something quite controversial what is the reaction from the party leaders?

What you want to know is if I have been scolded or told off. No I have never been! I have not felt in any way inhibited.

If I did feel inhibited then I wouldn't continue doing it, and of course I have done a few of these. For example, let's look at the new committee for recognising NS. I've been told that one of the reasons they did that is because of the issues I, as well as others, have raised. So as a result of feedback they put this committee together. So that is work in progress.

I raised PSLE some time ago - I am not the first one to raise PSLE - but the debate has been going on and many have expressed their views. And because there has been a generation of views now we have made a move on PSLE.

Debates like this help. If it encourages other people to speak up, it helps, because if at the end of the day enough people say reasonable things, then the government will listen, as they have shown with PSLE.

Q: And more recently when Lee Kuan Yew School of Publc Policy Associate Dean Donald Low wrote an article recommending the Government shift from prioritising growth to well-being, you felt the need to write into The Straits Times forum to rebut it.

That one, a friend suggested that I should respond. And I did so in my own words. I just felt that this issue of growth versus equity was not a debate grounded in reality. I wanted to express a different point of view.

Again, people have criticised me for it on the Net, but I am ok, I am happy to be criticised. As long as I express a view which I honestly hold, I am not afraid of criticism. I am not afraid of being wrong either. It is part of the process.

I don't hold the same views I held in 2006. I am not the same person I was in 2006. When I came into politics I had certain views and a number of those views have changed over time.

Q: Such as?

I was probably a bit more right wing when I started, and I feel that I've been moving to the centre. Before I entered politics, I tended to see policies in the abstract - the Government has this policy, is it logical or not?

But when you are on the ground and doing grassroots work, you see how the policy manifests itself, and you see how it helps or doesn't help people, whether there are gaps along the way, and whether there are people who need help in a different sort of way. So it changes your views.

One thing I've learned is to be a lot less judgmental.

This is a piece of advice I received from an MP who was retiring. When a resident comes to you for help, don't judge him, although it is human nature to judge.

I appreciate that advice. You are not that person who is seeking help. You cannot put yourself in his shoes. You don't know what troubles he has experienced, what difficulties he has, and you cannot say he should have behaved in a certain way, because you are not him. So don't judge him, just look at how you can best help him.

I am a very different MP now than I used to be in 2006. Things are a lot greyer now when they used to be black and white.

Q: You had your daughter after you entered politics in 2006. Has that changed things for you?

It took us some time to have a child. We had been trying for some time and weren't successful. When my daughter came it was a real blessing.

I blame myself because we started late. Right now I run a team of lawyers at my firm and they get an earful from me all the time.

Every chance I get, I encourage them to get married early, have kids early, because it doesn't come just because you want it to, and it does get a lot harder as you get older. But people don't realise that, I didn't realise that.

But I think I have been too successful, because four lawyers in my team are getting married next year. So now I am worried about how they are going to juggle their schedules and honeymoons and all that!

Q: If you had the choice to enter politics today, would you do it again?

It is very difficult to put myself back in the same position. But certainly the fact that I have a young child would weigh heavily on my mind.

Last week, my daughter said: "Papa, I don't want you to be an MP anymore." She is just 6 years old. I said: "Why?" And she said: "I want you to come home on Tuesday nights." Tuesday is my MPS (Meet-the-People session).

It took me back a bit. She wants me to come home early because whenever I am home I read to her before she goes to bed and she misses that when I am not at home. So she has expressed her views on my political career.

Q: How do you relax?

Well I am a Manchester United fan. I used to relax watching football, now I get very tense. I have supported them since the mid-70s. I am not a fair weather fan! I went through the hard times.

I listen to the BBC while I am driving. But that is something I have been doing since I was young. It is the way they present the news and they have interesting programmes. When I was in school, I would have the BBC on at night and I would sleep to it. I just found it very comforting.

Right now, when I do have time, I tend to read up and surf on the American political scene. I am intrigued by it. While they are very different from us, I can see us sort of heading that way. I can see how the media, both online and mainstream, shape the news, and how the news reflect the bias of those who control it. In America, this is more pronounced of course. You have Fox News on the right, MSNBC on the right. It's very divided.

The difference is that in Singapore, is not about right wing or left wing. The difference is largely government or anti-government. In the US, and to some extent in the UK, you have political parties with certain principles. If you are right wing you believe in certain things - lower taxes, freer market and so on. Left wing, you believe in more socialist policies and so on.

Our political parties are structured as the one which runs the government, and the other parties which tell you what the government is doing wrong. They don't really have their own platform. They are there to criticise, or as they say, to be the co-driver. But they are not there to advance any particular policies, or their own ideology.

The reason they do not is because the minute you identify any particular ideology, you will have to explain in detail how Singapore will be better off and face criticisms from those who do not agree with it. So, it is far easier to criticise than to say what you actually believe in.

Q: The PAP has its ideology?

The PAP is in government. We are how we govern. You can't hide, you have to make your decision and take a position.

When you are in opposition, you don't really have to take a position. And so, when it comes to issues that are contentious, you can back off and keep quiet, which is what they often do.

So when it comes to really contentious issues like Section 377A of the penal code, or even the Human Organ Transplant Act, they just say I have no position because they do not want to anger any particular segment of the population.

You can do that as an opposition party, because you don't have to make a decision, but sooner or later people will want to know what you stand for, and sooner or later you will have to say what your ideology is. And I think they are reluctant to say so at the moment because they are playing it safe.

But over time, I am sure we will have political parties with their own ideologies. Even though we may be a long way off from America, it doesn't mean we will not get there.

Q: After the recent National Day Rally changes, a political commentator wrote it is the same PAP philosophy of "give me liberty or give me wealth". They are addressing the material needs of Singaporeans but not their civil liberties.

At the end of the day we can't ignore the wealth element, because people still need jobs, people still need homes. We still need to provide for the next generation, continue educating them, making them relevant for a changing society. All that cannot be ignored. It is not wealth at all costs, and it is not either/or. There is no reason why we cannot do both together.

But as the PAP evolves, so must people evolve as well, and be receptive to change. Everyone should be receptive to change, not just the PAP.

But the Government should be judged on what it does. I read articles where every time they cite PAP's strong arm tactics, they talk about what happened in the 70s and 80s. So there is sometimes unfairness in the criticism.

Judge the Government by what it is doing today, look at the challenges it is facing today, and see if it is heading in the right direction. It is not a perfect government, I do not think there is any perfect government, but does it have people who are capable, well intentioned and who are doing their best to make the lives of Singaporeans better?

I have been interacting and working with them since 2006 and I can put my hand to my heart and say that there is this group of people in Cabinet who doing their best to make this country the best it can be.

Q: Was there anyone particularly influential in your life growing up?

Politically, not really. I grew up in Potong Pasir. Chiam See Tong was my MP, so it was a bit strange that we ran against him in the last election (in Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC).

He entered politics when there were very few opposition politicians. So in a sense that was a badge of distinction for Potong Pasir residents - that we elected an Opposition MP, we put Potong Pasir on the political map. I was very young then. I would have voted in '88 and the '91 general elections, but don't ask me how I voted!

There is that euphoria of being different, but you also have to see whether it is translating on the ground, because at the end of the day you still want your town maintained properly, your blocks painted and so on. So there is that euphoria part and there is also that cold hard reality part as well, and I saw both parts of it in Potong Pasir.

Q: Since then, are you surprised at how our politics has changed?

The reality of modern democracies is that most ruling governments tend to get elected with 52 or 53 per cent of the vote. Results are so marginal that you can have governments changing at every election or every other election.

That is the norm in most democracies. So the fact that we are seeing more opposition, a greater call for opposition voices, is not surprising. I think it is part of the evolution. We are becoming like most other democracies.

Why do we think we are different? At the end of the day we are still human beings and have the same responses to things.

The question for us is if we become more like other modern democracies, will we have the same problems as them? That is the worrying part, because I don't think we can pick and choose, we have to accept the good with the bad.

Go to Singapolitics for more stories.