Apr 27, 2011
I LEFT my home country 16 years back in search of greener pastures and came to Singapore on a work permit.
I married a wonderful woman from Singapore, who has been my life partner for the past 13 years. I bought a home here and fell in love with Singapore for its safety, tolerance among the different races and convenience.
Five years ago, I had to leave for an overseas job offer based in London and thought that it would give us a better lifestyle. The adjustment was enormous, in terms of culture and standard of living. After two years, I decided to return to Singapore since this country had spoilt me in terms of its high living standards, efficiency, safety and ease of living, and I realised how much we missed "home".
Sadly, even though I have more than two decades of experience behind me, I have been doing odd jobs to sustain myself and all my funds have dried up in the past two years.
My wife and I have decided to leave, not because we are quitters but because we want to start a family and feel that the emphasis is now on getting foreigners to fill up the job market rather than taking care of citizens who have given a major part of their lives to the development of this country.
Virdi Bhupinder
[Oh the irony.]
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
Pragmatism shouldn't be only consideration
Apr 18, 2011
READING the many opinions for and against a multi-party government, I think we need to first re-examine the assumption that alternative parties will challenge the incumbent's policies blindly and that they do not have Singapore's interest at heart.
Members of the opposition parties are after all fellow Singaporeans, who had their education under the same system and grew up in a similar social and cultural climate. And theirs and their families' well-being will mirror the state of health of Singapore.
Granted, they have different ideologies and choose to look at issues through different perspectives, and they definitely do not have the experience that People's Action Party (PAP) members have of running a country. But does that mean their views are definitely always wrong?
Looking at the Parliament speeches, blogs and interviews of the members of these alternative parties, I must say there are interesting ideas raised which seem plausible and deserve further discussion.
While I am impressed by the rigorous process that PAP has put in place to identify its talent pool, there is always a concern that such a formulaic selection process will inevitably value some attributes over the others. So no matter how diverse the talents are as claimed, one cannot help feeling that they are just more of the same.
Although there may be no "groupthink" within the PAP, can it be that the group is so conditioned to think what is best for Singapore mostly in terms of economic values and social efficiency, that other less valued factors are not taken as much into consideration or given as much weight during the deliberation process?
Good deliberation can occur only when groups with truly different ideologies, not bound by one-party discipline, are able to come together to each present their perspectives and understand why it can or cannot work.
I do not see how good deliberation can occur with members of the group with truly different ideologies. If one party believes that the free market is the best way for economic growth and government regulation just distorts the market, and the other party believes that while on the whole the free market does work, the natural greed and exploitative instincts of businesses needs to be controlled and regulated, the two parties will never be able to agree on how to regulate business. One will insist that it is necessary to rein in excesses, while the other will accuse the first of being an interventionist govt that will only distort and skew the market. How can there ever be a decision?]
Only then can the resulting resolution or compromise claim to have been fully looked at from all angles and not just based on the most pragmatic reasons.
As we have moved away from the survival phase of nation-building, pragmatism should no longer be the main or only consideration for policymaking.
[If not pragmatism, what? Idealism? Non-pragmatism? ]
For me, a good government does not necessarily equate a one-party government, but it is one which is formed by morally sound and competent individuals. I look forward to the day when competent and upright Singaporeans, with the same heart to serve, regardless of their ideologies, can pull their weight together for the betterment of Singapore.
[So are you saying that the current government is immoral, unsound, incompetent and made up of non-upright Singaporeans?]
Lee Jing Yng (Ms)
READING the many opinions for and against a multi-party government, I think we need to first re-examine the assumption that alternative parties will challenge the incumbent's policies blindly and that they do not have Singapore's interest at heart.
Members of the opposition parties are after all fellow Singaporeans, who had their education under the same system and grew up in a similar social and cultural climate. And theirs and their families' well-being will mirror the state of health of Singapore.
Granted, they have different ideologies and choose to look at issues through different perspectives, and they definitely do not have the experience that People's Action Party (PAP) members have of running a country. But does that mean their views are definitely always wrong?
Looking at the Parliament speeches, blogs and interviews of the members of these alternative parties, I must say there are interesting ideas raised which seem plausible and deserve further discussion.
While I am impressed by the rigorous process that PAP has put in place to identify its talent pool, there is always a concern that such a formulaic selection process will inevitably value some attributes over the others. So no matter how diverse the talents are as claimed, one cannot help feeling that they are just more of the same.
Although there may be no "groupthink" within the PAP, can it be that the group is so conditioned to think what is best for Singapore mostly in terms of economic values and social efficiency, that other less valued factors are not taken as much into consideration or given as much weight during the deliberation process?
Good deliberation can occur only when groups with truly different ideologies, not bound by one-party discipline, are able to come together to each present their perspectives and understand why it can or cannot work.
[Because this writer's tone is respectful, I shall restrain myself from my usual rant.
Only then can the resulting resolution or compromise claim to have been fully looked at from all angles and not just based on the most pragmatic reasons.
As we have moved away from the survival phase of nation-building, pragmatism should no longer be the main or only consideration for policymaking.
[If not pragmatism, what? Idealism? Non-pragmatism? ]
For me, a good government does not necessarily equate a one-party government, but it is one which is formed by morally sound and competent individuals. I look forward to the day when competent and upright Singaporeans, with the same heart to serve, regardless of their ideologies, can pull their weight together for the betterment of Singapore.
Lee Jing Yng (Ms)
Don't judge system with Western eyes
Apr 18, 2011
RECENTLY, certain opposition groups have attempted to disparage our political system as being "Third World" just because political power here is largely in the hands of a single party ("WP's goal: A First World Parliament"; April 10).
Politics and economics are closely intertwined, like the relationship between mind and body. Just as a strong and healthy body needs to be sustained over the long term by a healthy mind, so too a country's economy needs a strong and healthy political system to nurture it on a long-term basis.
Each country should adopt the political system best suited to its needs. The two-party system may be more democratic and suitable for some countries, but for a country like Singapore with its historical development, small size, multiracial mix and lack of natural resources, the kind of system we now have is probably a better, if not the best, choice.
So we should not judge whether our political system is First World or Third World through Western eyes. If our economic and other achievements have attained First World standards, then our political system must also be First World, through our own eyes at least. It would be dangerous and foolish to discard something which has worked well just because it does not conform to foreign (mainly Western) norms.
Tan Gim Kheng
Not because of Western values or perspective.
But perhaps what the writer simply means to say is be courageous enough to see with reasonable and objective eyes and understand how the current system works rather than blindly following ideological principles which may be unsound.]
RECENTLY, certain opposition groups have attempted to disparage our political system as being "Third World" just because political power here is largely in the hands of a single party ("WP's goal: A First World Parliament"; April 10).
Politics and economics are closely intertwined, like the relationship between mind and body. Just as a strong and healthy body needs to be sustained over the long term by a healthy mind, so too a country's economy needs a strong and healthy political system to nurture it on a long-term basis.
Each country should adopt the political system best suited to its needs. The two-party system may be more democratic and suitable for some countries, but for a country like Singapore with its historical development, small size, multiracial mix and lack of natural resources, the kind of system we now have is probably a better, if not the best, choice.
So we should not judge whether our political system is First World or Third World through Western eyes. If our economic and other achievements have attained First World standards, then our political system must also be First World, through our own eyes at least. It would be dangerous and foolish to discard something which has worked well just because it does not conform to foreign (mainly Western) norms.
Tan Gim Kheng
[I do not disagree with the conclusion, but with the process and the argument. Or perhaps the title.
To say that we need to judge not based on Western eyes, is to impute a cultural bias or a cultural content to governance and politics.
The difference I see is not about more democracy or less democracy, but the mechanisms of democracy.
The two party system in the US, with the built-in check-and-balance is designed to slow down govt. That must first be understood. Their historical baggage is an inherent distrust of government. The two-party system has evolved into ideological opposites that sees working together and compromise as the betrayal of party beliefs.
The system is inherently unworkable.
But perhaps what the writer simply means to say is be courageous enough to see with reasonable and objective eyes and understand how the current system works rather than blindly following ideological principles which may be unsound.]
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Flawed understanding of multi-party system
Apr 16, 2011
I REFER to Mr Daniel Yew's commentary on Thursday ("Is a multi-party system good for S'pore?"), in which he uses the analogies of a committee and an army to highlight the pitfalls of a multi-party system.
Both analogies are flawed.
Having a multi-party system is not akin to increasing the size of a committee. Rather, it is analogous to the view that a committee should be made up of different members of the company. Whether it is for a dinner and dance event or improving productivity, committee members are usually appointed from different departments to ensure proper representation of the company.
Similarly, his suggestion of widening the input of ideas in the army by consulting every soldier, as an analogy of a "many views" system gone wrong, is like asking the Government to consult every Singaporean. No, this is not what a multi-party system entails.
[So far so good. Multi-party system is not the same as direct democracy.]
He also mentioned that an army is best led by an able general who draws upon the advice and experience of his general staff. But isn't this a fine example of a multi-party system? The commanding officer listens and consults not just his rifle company commanders who lead the fighting forces, but also the support weapons and logistics commanders on support, back-up plans and contingencies. Isn't that what a multi-party system is for?
Khong Kiong Seng
[No. A general who consults all his unit commanders is like the Prime Minister who consults all his Ministers, who by the way are from the same party. A less dominant party with more opposition MPs is like a general with fewer advisers as unit commanders are lost to the enemy, or units are commanded by whichever is the most senior officer as key commanders (Minister-calibre MPs) are lost in battle.
But I take the point that the army is a bad analogy, as is the committee analogy.
Because the opposition party in parliament has no role other than to question and to object to the proposals of the ruling party. They can of course agree and support some of the ruling parties proposals but if they support ALL the ruling party's initiatives, why are they in Parliament? How are they opposition? They can of course offer suggestions and amendments that they believe will improve the ruling party's bills, or they can even propose their own bill for debate (just as Walter Woon did for the maintenance of parent's bill, and he was just an NMP). BUT the ruling party is under no obligation to accept their suggestions or amendments, and they have no leverage to force the ruling party to amend or withdraw the bill for those requiring a simple majority. For those that require a two-third majority, if there are enough opposition, they can block such proposals (usually to amend the constitution).
So if the previous writer has misunderstood the scope of a multi-party system, this writer has not shown a clearer understanding either.]
Apr 16, 2011
Multi-party system can address talent shortage
MR EUGENE Tan gave examples of countries having two- or multi-party systems that failed miserably or ran into trouble and concluded that a one-party system is better ("UK, US? Give him a S'pore MP any day"; Wednesday).
But is it simply because of the nature of a multi-party system or are there other reasons? I doubt converting to a one-party system would help those countries to do better than they are today.
I think it is down to the quality of people chosen as leaders rather than the failure of the system itself. If you had ineffective people operating in a one-party system, it would failed as well.
[True! Very true! Signs of higher order thinking? Or just pure fluke? After all, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.]
Singapore has done well thus far because of the quality of its leaders rather than the system itself. But can we guarantee that this will be so in the future?
Indeed, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has said that there is a lack of talent in Singapore. If that were so, all the more reason we should adopt a multi-party system so that we can cast the net wider in search of talent.
We should not accept a one-party system simply because there is a shortage of talent. Rather we should find ways to solve the shortage problem.
Tan Wei Cheng
[And... this is a stopped clock apparently. ]
I REFER to Mr Daniel Yew's commentary on Thursday ("Is a multi-party system good for S'pore?"), in which he uses the analogies of a committee and an army to highlight the pitfalls of a multi-party system.
Both analogies are flawed.
Having a multi-party system is not akin to increasing the size of a committee. Rather, it is analogous to the view that a committee should be made up of different members of the company. Whether it is for a dinner and dance event or improving productivity, committee members are usually appointed from different departments to ensure proper representation of the company.
Similarly, his suggestion of widening the input of ideas in the army by consulting every soldier, as an analogy of a "many views" system gone wrong, is like asking the Government to consult every Singaporean. No, this is not what a multi-party system entails.
[So far so good. Multi-party system is not the same as direct democracy.]
He also mentioned that an army is best led by an able general who draws upon the advice and experience of his general staff. But isn't this a fine example of a multi-party system? The commanding officer listens and consults not just his rifle company commanders who lead the fighting forces, but also the support weapons and logistics commanders on support, back-up plans and contingencies. Isn't that what a multi-party system is for?
Khong Kiong Seng
[No. A general who consults all his unit commanders is like the Prime Minister who consults all his Ministers, who by the way are from the same party. A less dominant party with more opposition MPs is like a general with fewer advisers as unit commanders are lost to the enemy, or units are commanded by whichever is the most senior officer as key commanders (Minister-calibre MPs) are lost in battle.
But I take the point that the army is a bad analogy, as is the committee analogy.
Because the opposition party in parliament has no role other than to question and to object to the proposals of the ruling party. They can of course agree and support some of the ruling parties proposals but if they support ALL the ruling party's initiatives, why are they in Parliament? How are they opposition? They can of course offer suggestions and amendments that they believe will improve the ruling party's bills, or they can even propose their own bill for debate (just as Walter Woon did for the maintenance of parent's bill, and he was just an NMP). BUT the ruling party is under no obligation to accept their suggestions or amendments, and they have no leverage to force the ruling party to amend or withdraw the bill for those requiring a simple majority. For those that require a two-third majority, if there are enough opposition, they can block such proposals (usually to amend the constitution).
So if the previous writer has misunderstood the scope of a multi-party system, this writer has not shown a clearer understanding either.]
Apr 16, 2011
Multi-party system can address talent shortage
MR EUGENE Tan gave examples of countries having two- or multi-party systems that failed miserably or ran into trouble and concluded that a one-party system is better ("UK, US? Give him a S'pore MP any day"; Wednesday).
But is it simply because of the nature of a multi-party system or are there other reasons? I doubt converting to a one-party system would help those countries to do better than they are today.
I think it is down to the quality of people chosen as leaders rather than the failure of the system itself. If you had ineffective people operating in a one-party system, it would failed as well.
[True! Very true! Signs of higher order thinking? Or just pure fluke? After all, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.]
Singapore has done well thus far because of the quality of its leaders rather than the system itself. But can we guarantee that this will be so in the future?
Indeed, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has said that there is a lack of talent in Singapore. If that were so, all the more reason we should adopt a multi-party system so that we can cast the net wider in search of talent.
We should not accept a one-party system simply because there is a shortage of talent. Rather we should find ways to solve the shortage problem.
Tan Wei Cheng
[And... this is a stopped clock apparently. ]
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Chinese may forgive, but not forget
Apr 11, 2011
I SUPPORT greater rapport and cooperation between China and Japan ("Give credit where it's due"; March 28). However, the crux of the matter is that until today, the Japanese government has never openly admitted to nor fully apologised or expressed sincere remorse for the atrocities or inhumane war crimes it committed during World War II.
In contrast to Germany, whose leaders have sincerely apologised for and admitted to WWII crimes, the Japanese government rewrote their school history textbooks and described the invasion of China as an 'in and out' military manoeuvre, and they have even denied that the Nanjing Massacre happened despite the historical evidence.
Historically, China and Japan's relationship has been wrought with events that have left deep wounds on China's psyche that cannot be easily erased. Such incidents include the Japanese invasion prior to and during WWII which caused millions of Chinese casualties, the infamous Nanjing Massacre, biological and chemical warfare and experiments conducted on the Chinese people by the Japanese Army (for example, by their notorious Unit 731) and lesser known events such as the Jinan incident.
This occurred in 1928, when Japanese troops attacked, killed and injured thousands of Chinese civilians, including diplomats, just five years after China had rendered generous aid to Japan following the Great Kanto earthquake. This was then a show of ingratitude and treachery by Japan towards China.
China bureau chief Peh Shing Huei's suggestion to China seems to be that instead of reminding its younger generations of the facts of the Japanese atrocities of WWII, it should educate its people on being grateful to the Japanese for its loans and grants since 1979.
This seems to endorse the thinking that giving such loans is considered enough to redeem whatever crimes committed by Japan.
Japan's loans are merely payments in lieu of monetary wartime reparations, as Mr Peh has pointed out.
Although China's government has reached out diplomatically to Japan, short of a proper apology and admission of guilt, the Chinese people may forgive, but not forget, Japan's WWII atrocities and crimes.
Chiang Kwee Seng
[I do not intend to defend Japan, or to explain culture, context, or history. But this is history. For the writer to be alive at the time of the Nanking Massacre, he would have to be at least 83 yrs old. For him to be aware of the brutality about him if he was indeed in Nanking, he would have to at least 2 yrs old, so he would be 85 today. For him to be elsewhere and to hear and to understand the horrors of war, he probably need to be at least 5 years old then, and 88 today, and I would wonder what kind of adults would tell horror stories to a 5 year old.
My point is, I do not believe the writer is an 83+ year old survivor of Nanking. I believe if he was he would have stated that up front.
What drives a person to bear an 83 year old grudge for things that happen to a group of people ethnically the same as the person, but with no other explicit connection?
The Japanese may not have apologise for the atrocities to the satisfaction of some, many, or most Chinese. If some, many or most Chinese feel the need for the Japanese to apologise and would die unhappy if they do not hear that apology, then I am very sad to inform them that they will die unhappy.
But understand, that the Japanese are not holding you back to those days in 1928. The people who personally carried out those atrocities are in all likelihood dead. The people to whom those atrocities were done, died then or soon after, or if they survived those years, have since passed on either peacefully, or with great disgruntlement in their hearts. And the people who resurrect and relive the horrors of those days, even tho they were not there, are re-victimising themselves, it seems to me, to no good purpose.
I do not understand these people.]
I SUPPORT greater rapport and cooperation between China and Japan ("Give credit where it's due"; March 28). However, the crux of the matter is that until today, the Japanese government has never openly admitted to nor fully apologised or expressed sincere remorse for the atrocities or inhumane war crimes it committed during World War II.
In contrast to Germany, whose leaders have sincerely apologised for and admitted to WWII crimes, the Japanese government rewrote their school history textbooks and described the invasion of China as an 'in and out' military manoeuvre, and they have even denied that the Nanjing Massacre happened despite the historical evidence.
Historically, China and Japan's relationship has been wrought with events that have left deep wounds on China's psyche that cannot be easily erased. Such incidents include the Japanese invasion prior to and during WWII which caused millions of Chinese casualties, the infamous Nanjing Massacre, biological and chemical warfare and experiments conducted on the Chinese people by the Japanese Army (for example, by their notorious Unit 731) and lesser known events such as the Jinan incident.
This occurred in 1928, when Japanese troops attacked, killed and injured thousands of Chinese civilians, including diplomats, just five years after China had rendered generous aid to Japan following the Great Kanto earthquake. This was then a show of ingratitude and treachery by Japan towards China.
China bureau chief Peh Shing Huei's suggestion to China seems to be that instead of reminding its younger generations of the facts of the Japanese atrocities of WWII, it should educate its people on being grateful to the Japanese for its loans and grants since 1979.
This seems to endorse the thinking that giving such loans is considered enough to redeem whatever crimes committed by Japan.
Japan's loans are merely payments in lieu of monetary wartime reparations, as Mr Peh has pointed out.
Although China's government has reached out diplomatically to Japan, short of a proper apology and admission of guilt, the Chinese people may forgive, but not forget, Japan's WWII atrocities and crimes.
Chiang Kwee Seng
[I do not intend to defend Japan, or to explain culture, context, or history. But this is history. For the writer to be alive at the time of the Nanking Massacre, he would have to be at least 83 yrs old. For him to be aware of the brutality about him if he was indeed in Nanking, he would have to at least 2 yrs old, so he would be 85 today. For him to be elsewhere and to hear and to understand the horrors of war, he probably need to be at least 5 years old then, and 88 today, and I would wonder what kind of adults would tell horror stories to a 5 year old.
My point is, I do not believe the writer is an 83+ year old survivor of Nanking. I believe if he was he would have stated that up front.
What drives a person to bear an 83 year old grudge for things that happen to a group of people ethnically the same as the person, but with no other explicit connection?
The Japanese may not have apologise for the atrocities to the satisfaction of some, many, or most Chinese. If some, many or most Chinese feel the need for the Japanese to apologise and would die unhappy if they do not hear that apology, then I am very sad to inform them that they will die unhappy.
But understand, that the Japanese are not holding you back to those days in 1928. The people who personally carried out those atrocities are in all likelihood dead. The people to whom those atrocities were done, died then or soon after, or if they survived those years, have since passed on either peacefully, or with great disgruntlement in their hearts. And the people who resurrect and relive the horrors of those days, even tho they were not there, are re-victimising themselves, it seems to me, to no good purpose.
I do not understand these people.]
Friday, April 8, 2011
Thai teen's tragedy: Will SMRT help her?
Apr 9, 2011
I AM saddened by the photograph of Thai student Peneakchanasak Nitcharee yesterday ('I want to see my family').
The 14-year-old's hopes and dreams have been shattered by a horrific accident, which should not have happened had appropriate safety measures been taken swiftly on the Ang Mo Kio train station's open-deck platform.
Her parents, whom I gather from yesterday's report are from a low-income background, have stated that they are not in a financial position to pay for the hospitalisation costs.
While I have no doubt that kind Singaporeans will rally to assist them financially, as they have so often done, I am curious to know whether SMRT will do likewise - if not from a point of legal liability, which has never surfaced in all the past fatalities, at least because of a strong tug at the heartstrings in this case.
Ralph S. Lesslar
[Good-hearted but stupid. Moral hazard. Recall the man who committed suicide at Clementi MRT Station (Oct 2006). His sob story tugged at heartstrings and his family received a lot of donations. Rumours was of about half a million. Some other rumours went as high as a million. In any case it was in the hundreds of thousands from verifiable sources.
Two weeks or so later. Another man killed himself in the same way. The media decided to play down this one. Or we would have a flood of suicide to invoke public sympathy.
While I have no doubts that this was a tragic accident. This accident can easily be recreated with unpredictable outcomes.
SMRT has no legal liability here. But paying compassionate compensation is a moral hazard.]
I AM saddened by the photograph of Thai student Peneakchanasak Nitcharee yesterday ('I want to see my family').
The 14-year-old's hopes and dreams have been shattered by a horrific accident, which should not have happened had appropriate safety measures been taken swiftly on the Ang Mo Kio train station's open-deck platform.
Her parents, whom I gather from yesterday's report are from a low-income background, have stated that they are not in a financial position to pay for the hospitalisation costs.
While I have no doubt that kind Singaporeans will rally to assist them financially, as they have so often done, I am curious to know whether SMRT will do likewise - if not from a point of legal liability, which has never surfaced in all the past fatalities, at least because of a strong tug at the heartstrings in this case.
Ralph S. Lesslar
[Good-hearted but stupid. Moral hazard. Recall the man who committed suicide at Clementi MRT Station (Oct 2006). His sob story tugged at heartstrings and his family received a lot of donations. Rumours was of about half a million. Some other rumours went as high as a million. In any case it was in the hundreds of thousands from verifiable sources.
Two weeks or so later. Another man killed himself in the same way. The media decided to play down this one. Or we would have a flood of suicide to invoke public sympathy.
While I have no doubts that this was a tragic accident. This accident can easily be recreated with unpredictable outcomes.
SMRT has no legal liability here. But paying compassionate compensation is a moral hazard.]
A single party can't represent all views
Apr 8, 2011 PRIME Minister Lee Hsien Loong's argument that 'if the PAP can't assemble a second team, I don't think the opposition will find it easier' shows a misunderstanding of multi-party democracy ('Not enough talent for two A teams'; yesterday).
It is not the job of the ruling party to assemble a second 'A team' - it is the opposition's. A two-party system is not about providing just two competent teams but also two different policy options.
Voters would not simply want two 'A teams', each with similarly impressive credentials but from the same party and holding largely similar views.
The point is to have two 'A teams' that represent different views and needs of constituents. The dialogue of these multiple viewpoints in Parliament is what refines national policy, ensuring all sectors of society have their interests considered.
Scarcity of talent is a poor argument for not having a multi-party system. No one party can presume to speak for the needs and views of the entire populace. In the last general election, the People's Action Party (PAP) garnered only 66 per cent of the vote. This means there is a sizeable minority of the population wishing to be represented by a different voice in Parliament.
The PAP may call itself a 'pragmatic party' that is 'ready to take in good ideas', but being pragmatic does not mean it does not have its own underlying ideologies and principles - meritocracy, for instance.
[I understand the point, and I understand the problem. Saying the PAP has an ideology such as "meritocracy" is like saying the PAP have an ideology like "rationality", or "fairness". What I mean by understanding the problem is that a two party system requires -- no, practically demands ideological absolutes. One pro-life. One pro-choice. One for hands-off govt, one for govt intervention. But PAP is not ideological except for its stand on integrity (non-corruptibility), and meritocracy. How does one take a viable stand against those position.]
However open a party may be to new ideas and differing opinions, it has its own party line to toe and cannot possibly stand for a plurality of viewpoints, especially when they are contradictory. Voters would be unreasonable to expect a single party to represent all viewpoints; that is why we have multiple parties.
[Yes, there will always be multiple viewpoints. What does that mean politically? This is what happens in the US: When the democrats are in power, businesses are tax, and welfare is provided. Then a few years later the republicans take over and reverse the policies... and then some. Then the democrats come back, reinstate their policies, reverse other new policies enacted by the GOP, etc. Two steps forward, 3 steps back. Legalise abortion, cut funding to planned parenthood. Allow gay marriages. Cancel it. Does this remind you of our northern neighbours political decisions and announcements?
The solution to this is to based policies not on ideology, religion, faith or even philosophy, but on rational consideration of the facts and the effects. Which is not to say that policies have not changed under the PAP. From family planning to pro-marriage and fertility. From no casino to two IRs. But such reversals are publicly discussed and all views are aired. There were strong religious resistance to the IRs, but secular reasoning prevailed, despite the presence of some religious people in the Cabinet.]
The solution to this is to based policies not on ideology, religion, faith or even philosophy, but on rational consideration of the facts and the effects. Which is not to say that policies have not changed under the PAP. From family planning to pro-marriage and fertility. From no casino to two IRs. But such reversals are publicly discussed and all views are aired. There were strong religious resistance to the IRs, but secular reasoning prevailed, despite the presence of some religious people in the Cabinet.]
It would also be wrong to characterise the job of the parliamentary opposition as 'waiting and watching just in case the PAP screws up'.
[PM Lee was not saying the role of the opposition was to watch and wait. His example was of someone who is competent, talented and wants to contribute. He can either join the PAP and start contributing immediately, or join the opposition and wait for the PAP to fail so that he can start to make policies.]
The very point of the multi-party system is that opposition politicians, though not forming the government, can still contribute to policy discussion and refinement in a very real way, which is through Parliament.
[Idealistic at best. Look at the US with its mature two-party system. Opposition obstructionist tactics do not "refine" policies or bills. They weaken, distort, dilute, and divert efforts and initiatives leading to compromise that waste time and resources. The US govt will shut down on Friday (Sat noon SG time) because their partisan and gridlocked Congress cannot agree on the budget.
Realistically, opposition can raise discussion on issues, and if in the course of the discussion, the PAP or ruling party fails to answer to the satisfaction of the people, this can be pointed out during election to remind the people of the inadequate response of the ruling party and perhaps persuade the people that it is grounds to vote out the party.
But if that is the role, then NCMP and NMPs can perform just as well if not better. I always felt that Siew Kum Hong and Walter Woon were great NMPs and perform better than opposition MPs.]
The parliamentary opposition's raison d'etre goes far beyond whether the ruling party 'screws up' or not. So long as there are different views in society and voters who do not wish to be represented by the ruling party, there is a need for more than one party in Parliament.
Michael Cyssel Wee
[Let's just say I disagree. Not every view is worth a party. Some views are so narrow, they become one dimensional caricatures. Some views are temporary. Some views are irrational. Some are misguided or dumb.]
[PM Lee was not saying the role of the opposition was to watch and wait. His example was of someone who is competent, talented and wants to contribute. He can either join the PAP and start contributing immediately, or join the opposition and wait for the PAP to fail so that he can start to make policies.]
The very point of the multi-party system is that opposition politicians, though not forming the government, can still contribute to policy discussion and refinement in a very real way, which is through Parliament.
[Idealistic at best. Look at the US with its mature two-party system. Opposition obstructionist tactics do not "refine" policies or bills. They weaken, distort, dilute, and divert efforts and initiatives leading to compromise that waste time and resources. The US govt will shut down on Friday (Sat noon SG time) because their partisan and gridlocked Congress cannot agree on the budget.
Realistically, opposition can raise discussion on issues, and if in the course of the discussion, the PAP or ruling party fails to answer to the satisfaction of the people, this can be pointed out during election to remind the people of the inadequate response of the ruling party and perhaps persuade the people that it is grounds to vote out the party.
But if that is the role, then NCMP and NMPs can perform just as well if not better. I always felt that Siew Kum Hong and Walter Woon were great NMPs and perform better than opposition MPs.]
The parliamentary opposition's raison d'etre goes far beyond whether the ruling party 'screws up' or not. So long as there are different views in society and voters who do not wish to be represented by the ruling party, there is a need for more than one party in Parliament.
Michael Cyssel Wee
[Let's just say I disagree. Not every view is worth a party. Some views are so narrow, they become one dimensional caricatures. Some views are temporary. Some views are irrational. Some are misguided or dumb.]
Monday, April 4, 2011
Minister's Salary - The Price of Honesty?
Apr 2, 2011
Pricing honesty misses larger concerns
THE reasons cited by Mr Kanagasabai Haridas to support ministerial salaries miss the larger concerns of many Singaporeans ('Singapore has priced honesty correctly'; last Saturday).
Mr Haridas states that financial incentives are necessary to entice leaders because we are a young country.
Singapore will always be young compared to others with a long history. Does that mean financial incentives will always be necessary?
Even if we view youth as an absolute value, at what age can we wean ourselves off financial incentives?
Just as we would not teach our children that wealth is all that matters, we should not entrench the pursuit of financial incentives in political office.
Second, Mr Haridas argues that the extended political life of a minister in Singapore makes it necessary to pay honest ones sufficiently.
The thinking that ministers must be rewarded handsomely if we want them to serve honestly is not the way a government should operate. The political lifespan of a minister should instead depend on the people's mandate via free elections.
Third, Mr Haridas suggests that only those who have already made their fortune can afford to serve their country out of conviction alone.
Such a view perverts a minister's responsibility to dedicate himself to the betterment of the lives of the people, and not seek office for monetary gain.
Finally, Mr Haridas notes that ministers do not have a lucrative lecture circuit after their political career.
This statement assumes that the ultimate reward for serving the people is wealth. It ignores the satisfaction gained from knowing that the people have been served well, and that the country has been steered in the right direction.
It also ignores the respect the people have for a minister who has selflessly served them.
The first priority for ministers anywhere is to serve the people and the country.
Tim Mou Hui
Mar 26, 2011
Singapore has priced honesty correctly
AS THE general election looms, ministerial salaries are once again being discussed with renewed vigour on various Internet platforms.
My view is that the current pay structure is appropriate for Singapore simply because it is the price of honesty.
We have had a government ranked among the highest for being corruption-free. There is certainly no need to grease any wheels in Singapore to get things done: That validates the strategy of pricing 'honesty' appropriately.
Of course, this then begs the question why the price of honesty is so much lower in other comparable countries with a relatively honest government. Surely, the price in such countries should not be vastly different compared to Singapore? There are, however, several plausible reasons for this divergence.
# First, we are still a young country and we have a long way to go before we create a solid identity and a deep sense of belonging that will act as a counterweight for financial-related benefits. This will come only with time.
# Second, the turnover of ministers in comparable countries is relatively much faster compared to Singapore, where a minister can be in the Cabinet for decades with no fixed term limit.
When you stretch the political life of a minister that much longer, the price of honesty via remuneration must be greater to ensure that the government remains, well, honest and incorruptible.
# Third, the candidates who enter politics, as is often seen in countries like the United States, may have already made their fortune, as in the case of former US treasury secretary Hank Paulson, who was chief executive officer of premier investment house Goldman Sachs before he joined the White House Cabinet.
Such holders of high office can afford to serve their country out of conviction alone.
Yet others may enter government early with the long-term aim of leveraging on the experience and influence they so gather when they leave to join the private sector.
Singapore does not offer such luxuries because we are a small country with a small pool of talent that can be considered for key government positions.
# Lastly, Singapore ministers or prime ministers do not have a lucrative lecture circuit that they can embark on at the end of their political careers like some of their counterparts elsewhere.
Kanagasabai Haridas
Denver, Colorado
[These are two civil, mostly thoughtful letters with valid if incorrect concerns.
Let's get the usual quotes and corollaries out of the way: Power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. Power attracts the corruptible. And my own thoughts: "The real power tends to ensure that the nominal power positions are taken by those they can influence and corrupt to their own advantage."
What do I mean?
If you are making $5m a year as a CEO or a professional (lawyer, doctor, banker) all you really want is to be left alone to continue to make your money not simply for yourself, but to ensure that your family is well provided for.
What you want is a stable environment to work and raise your family. You want this to cost you as little as possible.
And you want to be left alone to do your work.
For this to happen there is a need for stable government. Maybe even good government.
If ministers salaries are say $100,000 a year, you can expect that very few professionals at the top of their career will want to make the sacrifice. Why should they? They would rather find someone they can influence, and finance their political campaign so they they "own" them and can influence if not control them when they are in power.
Or if they do take up the political leadership, it is so that they can directly plunder the resources of the country, or use their power to corruptly fleece the citizenry.
So look at the world.
There are some countries where the corrupt are in power, because that's the best way to control the natural resources of the country and channel revenues into their own pockets. Gaddafi in Libya is one.
There are other countries where businesses finance politicians in order to ensure that their politicians get into power and can be pro-business. The Republicans in the USA are basically that. Look up John Boehner and his connection to businesses.
In either cases, the actual salary from their political position can be very modest. But their lifestyle shows that they have alternative, possibly undisclosed income.
The US President's salary is like $400,000. But to get elected, they are willing to spend HALF A BILLION for their campaign. EACH! Why? To do volunteer service? Give back to the country? It takes a multi-millionaire to run for president or at least someone with serious backing from rich people or corporations. Hilary Clinton spend millions of her own money to try to get the Democratic Party's nomination for presidential candidate.
Pricing honesty misses larger concerns
THE reasons cited by Mr Kanagasabai Haridas to support ministerial salaries miss the larger concerns of many Singaporeans ('Singapore has priced honesty correctly'; last Saturday).
Mr Haridas states that financial incentives are necessary to entice leaders because we are a young country.
Singapore will always be young compared to others with a long history. Does that mean financial incentives will always be necessary?
Even if we view youth as an absolute value, at what age can we wean ourselves off financial incentives?
Just as we would not teach our children that wealth is all that matters, we should not entrench the pursuit of financial incentives in political office.
Second, Mr Haridas argues that the extended political life of a minister in Singapore makes it necessary to pay honest ones sufficiently.
The thinking that ministers must be rewarded handsomely if we want them to serve honestly is not the way a government should operate. The political lifespan of a minister should instead depend on the people's mandate via free elections.
Third, Mr Haridas suggests that only those who have already made their fortune can afford to serve their country out of conviction alone.
Such a view perverts a minister's responsibility to dedicate himself to the betterment of the lives of the people, and not seek office for monetary gain.
Finally, Mr Haridas notes that ministers do not have a lucrative lecture circuit after their political career.
This statement assumes that the ultimate reward for serving the people is wealth. It ignores the satisfaction gained from knowing that the people have been served well, and that the country has been steered in the right direction.
It also ignores the respect the people have for a minister who has selflessly served them.
The first priority for ministers anywhere is to serve the people and the country.
Tim Mou Hui
Mar 26, 2011
Singapore has priced honesty correctly
AS THE general election looms, ministerial salaries are once again being discussed with renewed vigour on various Internet platforms.
My view is that the current pay structure is appropriate for Singapore simply because it is the price of honesty.
We have had a government ranked among the highest for being corruption-free. There is certainly no need to grease any wheels in Singapore to get things done: That validates the strategy of pricing 'honesty' appropriately.
Of course, this then begs the question why the price of honesty is so much lower in other comparable countries with a relatively honest government. Surely, the price in such countries should not be vastly different compared to Singapore? There are, however, several plausible reasons for this divergence.
# First, we are still a young country and we have a long way to go before we create a solid identity and a deep sense of belonging that will act as a counterweight for financial-related benefits. This will come only with time.
# Second, the turnover of ministers in comparable countries is relatively much faster compared to Singapore, where a minister can be in the Cabinet for decades with no fixed term limit.
When you stretch the political life of a minister that much longer, the price of honesty via remuneration must be greater to ensure that the government remains, well, honest and incorruptible.
# Third, the candidates who enter politics, as is often seen in countries like the United States, may have already made their fortune, as in the case of former US treasury secretary Hank Paulson, who was chief executive officer of premier investment house Goldman Sachs before he joined the White House Cabinet.
Such holders of high office can afford to serve their country out of conviction alone.
Yet others may enter government early with the long-term aim of leveraging on the experience and influence they so gather when they leave to join the private sector.
Singapore does not offer such luxuries because we are a small country with a small pool of talent that can be considered for key government positions.
# Lastly, Singapore ministers or prime ministers do not have a lucrative lecture circuit that they can embark on at the end of their political careers like some of their counterparts elsewhere.
Kanagasabai Haridas
Denver, Colorado
[These are two civil, mostly thoughtful letters with valid if incorrect concerns.
Let's get the usual quotes and corollaries out of the way: Power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. Power attracts the corruptible. And my own thoughts: "The real power tends to ensure that the nominal power positions are taken by those they can influence and corrupt to their own advantage."
What do I mean?
If you are making $5m a year as a CEO or a professional (lawyer, doctor, banker) all you really want is to be left alone to continue to make your money not simply for yourself, but to ensure that your family is well provided for.
What you want is a stable environment to work and raise your family. You want this to cost you as little as possible.
And you want to be left alone to do your work.
For this to happen there is a need for stable government. Maybe even good government.
If ministers salaries are say $100,000 a year, you can expect that very few professionals at the top of their career will want to make the sacrifice. Why should they? They would rather find someone they can influence, and finance their political campaign so they they "own" them and can influence if not control them when they are in power.
Or if they do take up the political leadership, it is so that they can directly plunder the resources of the country, or use their power to corruptly fleece the citizenry.
So look at the world.
There are some countries where the corrupt are in power, because that's the best way to control the natural resources of the country and channel revenues into their own pockets. Gaddafi in Libya is one.
There are other countries where businesses finance politicians in order to ensure that their politicians get into power and can be pro-business. The Republicans in the USA are basically that. Look up John Boehner and his connection to businesses.
In either cases, the actual salary from their political position can be very modest. But their lifestyle shows that they have alternative, possibly undisclosed income.
The US President's salary is like $400,000. But to get elected, they are willing to spend HALF A BILLION for their campaign. EACH! Why? To do volunteer service? Give back to the country? It takes a multi-millionaire to run for president or at least someone with serious backing from rich people or corporations. Hilary Clinton spend millions of her own money to try to get the Democratic Party's nomination for presidential candidate.
(Afternote: For our Presidential Elections, for the over 2 million voters, the candidates spent a total of just over $1.3m, or about 65 cents per vote. )
So which is the corruption in Singapore. Are the leaders accumulating wealth from our natural resources? We are blessed with no natural resources. Have they been bought by the rich and wealthy? If they have there will be signs.
In the US, the rich corporations get lots of tax loopholes. Are there any here?
In M'sia and other corrupt govts, the usual suspects get all the govt contracts often by closed tender or direct awarding of the tender. Is this done here?
The answer is no. Singapore is clean by independent assessment. Transparency International Corruption Perception Index lists Singapore, Denmark and New Zealand as the 3 countries with the highest rating (i.e. least corrupt) of 9.3.
So it is not about young or old country. It is about clean govt, properly priced.]
Update Jul 2013: Latest CPI:
http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2012/results/
Singapore ranked 5, with score of 87.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Stop meddling in Libya
Apr 4, 2011
JUST like the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the world is again witnessing another illegal invasion spearheaded by the United States.
[Illegal? No. It was UN sanctioned at the request of Libyans.]
[Illegal? No. It was UN sanctioned at the request of Libyans.]
Is this act of aggression justified? While the US and its allies may point to the United Nations' mandate as justification for their actions, often, they use the carrot and stick approach to persuade smaller, more vulnerable, non-permanent members of the UN Security Council to vote in their favour. It is all too easy to get countries like Lebanon, Gabon, Colombia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Nigeria to vote in favour of the UN resolution in exchange for "goodies".
In contrast, it is interesting to note that the five abstaining countries - China, India, Brazil, Germany and Russia - are larger countries that can withstand the pressure from the US and its allies to vote in favour. Together, the abstaining countries make up almost half the world's population. And yet, they are powerless to stop the mindless aggression unleashed against Libya by the US and its allies.
[Or perhaps for countries like Bosnia, Nigeria et al, the plea for help to prevent violence and genocide is one they can readily identify with because of their history? Perhaps they wish there were outside help for them?
As for the abstainers, China will of course object to any foreign intervention even at the request of the citizens under attack by the leader. Do you remember Tiananmen Square? If China approves of such action, they open themselves to such options if ever they need to clamp down or use violence on protesters in their cities, or in Tibet, or Mongolia, or any other restive province. Same for Russia.]
[Or perhaps for countries like Bosnia, Nigeria et al, the plea for help to prevent violence and genocide is one they can readily identify with because of their history? Perhaps they wish there were outside help for them?
As for the abstainers, China will of course object to any foreign intervention even at the request of the citizens under attack by the leader. Do you remember Tiananmen Square? If China approves of such action, they open themselves to such options if ever they need to clamp down or use violence on protesters in their cities, or in Tibet, or Mongolia, or any other restive province. Same for Russia.]
The 2003 invasion of Iraq has been shown to be an illegal act of aggression that resulted in the unnecessary and brutal deaths of at least a million Iraqis. No weapons of mass destruction have been found in the country. The US had deliberately misled the rest of the world in order to pursue its personal agenda of overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Sadly, we are now seeing the same scenario unfold in Libya.
Where is the evidence that Colonel Muammar Gaddafi is massacring civilians as claimed by the US and its allies?
[See story below. Open your eyes. Read widely. And not just from US Conservative media. So what lies are you claiming the US are telling now?]
The real agenda here is the removal of Col Gaddafi himself (under the guise of supporting the Libyan people in their fight for more democracy) because he has been a thorn in the side of US designs in the area for years, given his consistent opposition to US policies.
The US and her allies must stop meddling in Libya's internal situation. Real change for the country must come from within, not without.
Siow Jia Rui
[So why are you writing to the ST? You are uninformed, misinformed, and biased. I do not even see the point of your letter. Unless you believe the ST is an agent of the US.]
Apr 4, 2011
Ship brings rare glimpse of Libya's bloodiest front
Ship brings rare glimpse of Libya's bloodiest front
BENGHAZI (Libya) - THE wounded men on the aid ship from the besieged city of Misrata, most of them torn apart by shrapnel and bullets, tell of the bloodiest front in the revolt against Libya's Muammar Gaddafi.
They speak of a city under lockdown that has gone weeks without electricity or running water, where snipers have cleared the centre and mortar rounds and rockets rain down at random on residents huddled inside their homes.
The more than 250 patients were brought on Sunday to the rebel port of Benghazi on board a Turkish aid ship, which was to pick up another 100 or so wounded people from the eastern front before steaming on to the Turkish port of Cesme.
On board, a pale Mohammed Muftah, 34, describes how he was sitting at home on a quiet Friday morning when a barrage of mortar rounds fired by Gaddafi's forces slammed into his residential neighbourhood.
'They killed entire families, women. I have a neighbour who lost his wife and his three children,' he said. 'They did it just to terrorise people.' Mr Muftah has shrapnel wounds up and down his legs and in his back and neck, but soon he will receive further treatment in Turkey. His wife and six children are still in Misrata.
Mohammed Ahmed, who sits on the mattress next to his, has a thick bandage around his right arm with surgical pins sticking out. He was standing outside his home with friends and neighbours when a mortar bomb exploded next to them, the shrapnel killing six of his neighbours and carving off most of his upper arm. 'The doctor said it's serious... it's down to the bone,' he said. 'I'm with the revolution, but I don't have a gun,' he said, as tears streamed down his face and his voice broke into sobs. -- AFP[If the US wanted to illegally invade Libya, they had reason or excuse over a month ago.]
http://theweek.com/article/index/212363/violence-in-libya-should-the-world-intervene
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Are high-rises in S'pore quake-proof?
Apr 3, 2011
YOUR LETTERS
Last Sunday's article, '1,200 buildings in Bangkok 'at risk'', made me wonder how safe Singapore's high-rise buildings are, especially in the light of recent earthquakes in Japan, New Zealand and Myanmar.
I am curious to know if the Government has looked into and evaluated the robustness of the structures of the many high-rise buildings here.
Are these quake-proof?
Singapore has experienced light tremors arising from quakes in Indonesia in the past, and although it has no record of natural disasters, nothing is certain now.
If a natural disaster were to occur unexpectedly, will Singapore be ready? I worry that we may be taking our safety for granted.
Sharon Lo (Miss)
[You're RIGHT! the buildings in Singapore are NOT quake-proof! RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!!!
Is she gone? Good. One less stupid person in Singapore.
But the Forum Page Editor is still making money being stupid.]
YOUR LETTERS
Last Sunday's article, '1,200 buildings in Bangkok 'at risk'', made me wonder how safe Singapore's high-rise buildings are, especially in the light of recent earthquakes in Japan, New Zealand and Myanmar.
I am curious to know if the Government has looked into and evaluated the robustness of the structures of the many high-rise buildings here.
Are these quake-proof?
Singapore has experienced light tremors arising from quakes in Indonesia in the past, and although it has no record of natural disasters, nothing is certain now.
If a natural disaster were to occur unexpectedly, will Singapore be ready? I worry that we may be taking our safety for granted.
Sharon Lo (Miss)
[You're RIGHT! the buildings in Singapore are NOT quake-proof! RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!!!
Is she gone? Good. One less stupid person in Singapore.
But the Forum Page Editor is still making money being stupid.]
Friday, April 1, 2011
MPs should focus on national issues
Apr 1, 2011
THE parade of candidates for the upcoming general election has begun and they all pledge to serve their constituencies.
What has been left unsaid is their opinion on national issues.
Are we voting for local municipal councillors or parliamentarians?
Local councillors focus on neighbourhood matters while parliamentarians have a duty to address greater matters of state.
Are our candidates satisfied merely with ensuring that their housing estates are clean and the lifts are working, and writing letters on their constituents' behalf?
If that is so, why would we need so many Members of Parliament? Why not a separate slate of local councillors?
Our parliamentary sittings are a bare minimum and done with swift dispensation that suggests more of going through the formalities.
Question time is limited and speeches have been shortened. Given the increased number of MPs, some may not be able to speak or present their views.
Parliament is the country's highest institution. There are many issues of a higher order that challenge Singapore - from population policies to housing and cost of living, and the nature of our society.
Where does each candidate stand on key issues? We should do away with a general election if it is merely aimed at electing a cohort of like-minded MPs.
Parliament should be reserved for politicians who can envision the nation's future, challenge the status quo, influence policies, effect change, and dwell on the larger issues at stake.
Singapore has been blessed with good, honest and capable government, but there is no guarantee that this will always be the case.
Changes made to constituencies and Parliament have over the years been more designed to entrench an existing government than to allow for change.
A good, fair, honest and effective government need not fear losing an election. In fact, any fear of losing its privilege to govern should spur it to remain so.
Michael Seah
[What a load.
This letter writer is simplistic, naive, idealistic, and uninformed.
The MPs are your representatives. The American revolution ran on this slogan: no taxation without representation. The PAP strive to provide a wide range of representatives to represent Singaporeans of all diversity: the young, the old, the various ethnicities, and the different languages, religions and cultures. You want less of them?
From the MPs are drawn the Ministers. These are the ones focusing on the national policies. But lest they end up myopic or cross-eyed, there are also Government Parliamentary Committees which are drawn from the MPs. These GPCs study, examine, scrutinise the policies of the respective ministries for effectiveness, accountability, relevance, and perhaps even value for money.
But the reality is that given the chance, our MPs will become less diverse.
When Chiam See Tong was contesting against Mah Bow Tan, MM Lee (then PM) campaigned for Mah. He compared Mah's brilliant scholastic achievement vs Chiam's "late bloomer" life. Big mistake. Chiam was a grassroot MP, who had worked to build up his support base. Mah only had the branding of the PAP. The people of Potong Pasir voted for Chiam and that was history.
Look at the opposition MPs - Chiam, Low, and in the 1991 election, Cheo (Chai Chen) and Ling (How Doong). These are all grassroots/ heartlanders MP. Low's ace is his ability to connect with the people in Teochew. Ling or Cheo (can't recall which, or maybe both) have "gutter mouth" and used less than polite language in Parliament when they were not campaigning in dialect. Chiam is a man of the people. Even JBJ was respected for championing the common man/heartlanders.
This has forced PAP to ensure that the heartlanders are represented by the likes of Ang Mong Seng, Seng Han Thong, etc. But the PAP also need "brains". Very few MP/Minister can be like Khaw - a man of the people, as well as smart. So the GRC is probably as much to ensure that the "brains" are paired with the "grassroots/heartlander" as well as the minority.
Without the GRC, we would ALL be represented by Chinese, dialect/mandarin-speaking heartlanders MP from PAP as well as the opposition. And our parliament will become like Taiwan.
Kenneth Jeyaratnam will probably not win. He's not his father. Chee also can never win. He has a bloody stupid accent. Probably can't speak dialect or even mandarin. SDP's new recruits, Vincent Cheng and Fernandez are also not heartlander types and old to boot. Sylvia Lim would make a good opposition MP and I hope she looks for a vulnerable SMC and wins the seat. *BUT*, I also don't think she can win because she doesn't have the heartlander appeal. A bit too "atas".
Interestingly, if PAP allows Michael Palmer to stand in an SMC and he *wins*, I will be pleasantly surprised.
So the suggestion that an honest effective govt need not fear losing is a load of bull. People vote for who they think they can bend, if not corrupt.
They want MPs they can "trust", and by "trust" they mean speak their language, understand and share their fears and help them protect what they have. That is why Mah lost to Chiam. Chaim was someone they could identify with. Mah is a scholar, an elite and may not identify with them.
In other countries, those who can, do; those who can't, teach; and those who can't neither do nor teach, become politicians and peddle their influence to whoever can pay them best. In SG, those who can govern, should govern, are deliberately chosen to govern, and are paid well to govern, because if they are not, they would go back to doing what they do best because they can.]
What has been left unsaid is their opinion on national issues.
Are we voting for local municipal councillors or parliamentarians?
Local councillors focus on neighbourhood matters while parliamentarians have a duty to address greater matters of state.
Are our candidates satisfied merely with ensuring that their housing estates are clean and the lifts are working, and writing letters on their constituents' behalf?
If that is so, why would we need so many Members of Parliament? Why not a separate slate of local councillors?
Our parliamentary sittings are a bare minimum and done with swift dispensation that suggests more of going through the formalities.
Question time is limited and speeches have been shortened. Given the increased number of MPs, some may not be able to speak or present their views.
Parliament is the country's highest institution. There are many issues of a higher order that challenge Singapore - from population policies to housing and cost of living, and the nature of our society.
Where does each candidate stand on key issues? We should do away with a general election if it is merely aimed at electing a cohort of like-minded MPs.
Parliament should be reserved for politicians who can envision the nation's future, challenge the status quo, influence policies, effect change, and dwell on the larger issues at stake.
Singapore has been blessed with good, honest and capable government, but there is no guarantee that this will always be the case.
Changes made to constituencies and Parliament have over the years been more designed to entrench an existing government than to allow for change.
A good, fair, honest and effective government need not fear losing an election. In fact, any fear of losing its privilege to govern should spur it to remain so.
Michael Seah
[What a load.
This letter writer is simplistic, naive, idealistic, and uninformed.
The MPs are your representatives. The American revolution ran on this slogan: no taxation without representation. The PAP strive to provide a wide range of representatives to represent Singaporeans of all diversity: the young, the old, the various ethnicities, and the different languages, religions and cultures. You want less of them?
From the MPs are drawn the Ministers. These are the ones focusing on the national policies. But lest they end up myopic or cross-eyed, there are also Government Parliamentary Committees which are drawn from the MPs. These GPCs study, examine, scrutinise the policies of the respective ministries for effectiveness, accountability, relevance, and perhaps even value for money.
But the reality is that given the chance, our MPs will become less diverse.
When Chiam See Tong was contesting against Mah Bow Tan, MM Lee (then PM) campaigned for Mah. He compared Mah's brilliant scholastic achievement vs Chiam's "late bloomer" life. Big mistake. Chiam was a grassroot MP, who had worked to build up his support base. Mah only had the branding of the PAP. The people of Potong Pasir voted for Chiam and that was history.
Look at the opposition MPs - Chiam, Low, and in the 1991 election, Cheo (Chai Chen) and Ling (How Doong). These are all grassroots/ heartlanders MP. Low's ace is his ability to connect with the people in Teochew. Ling or Cheo (can't recall which, or maybe both) have "gutter mouth" and used less than polite language in Parliament when they were not campaigning in dialect. Chiam is a man of the people. Even JBJ was respected for championing the common man/heartlanders.
This has forced PAP to ensure that the heartlanders are represented by the likes of Ang Mong Seng, Seng Han Thong, etc. But the PAP also need "brains". Very few MP/Minister can be like Khaw - a man of the people, as well as smart. So the GRC is probably as much to ensure that the "brains" are paired with the "grassroots/heartlander" as well as the minority.
Without the GRC, we would ALL be represented by Chinese, dialect/mandarin-speaking heartlanders MP from PAP as well as the opposition. And our parliament will become like Taiwan.
Kenneth Jeyaratnam will probably not win. He's not his father. Chee also can never win. He has a bloody stupid accent. Probably can't speak dialect or even mandarin. SDP's new recruits, Vincent Cheng and Fernandez are also not heartlander types and old to boot. Sylvia Lim would make a good opposition MP and I hope she looks for a vulnerable SMC and wins the seat. *BUT*, I also don't think she can win because she doesn't have the heartlander appeal. A bit too "atas".
Interestingly, if PAP allows Michael Palmer to stand in an SMC and he *wins*, I will be pleasantly surprised.
So the suggestion that an honest effective govt need not fear losing is a load of bull. People vote for who they think they can bend, if not corrupt.
They want MPs they can "trust", and by "trust" they mean speak their language, understand and share their fears and help them protect what they have. That is why Mah lost to Chiam. Chaim was someone they could identify with. Mah is a scholar, an elite and may not identify with them.
In other countries, those who can, do; those who can't, teach; and those who can't neither do nor teach, become politicians and peddle their influence to whoever can pay them best. In SG, those who can govern, should govern, are deliberately chosen to govern, and are paid well to govern, because if they are not, they would go back to doing what they do best because they can.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)