Andrew Loh /
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong addressed about 1,200 tertiary students and guests at the annual Kent Ridge Ministerial Forum on Tuesday. The forum was titled: “Leadership Renewal: The 4th Generation & Beyond”.
Mr Lee’s main point was summarized in the leading front page headline in Wednesday’s Straits Times report. “2-party system not workable here: PM”, it says. His argument was based on two points: one, a two-party system will result in a “weak system”; two, “there is simply not enough talent in Singapore to form two ‘A’ teams to govern well.’
Mr Lee’s message was clearly a counter to the opposition’s call to Singaporeans to support them as an insurance should Mr Lee’s party, the People’s Action Party (PAP), falter one day. The opposition Workers’ Party, in particular, has in recent weeks reiterated this point in its pre-election outreach activities in the heartlands.
Perhaps Mr Lee, who is also secretary general of the PAP, was afraid that such an idea would take root in voters’ minds and has thus chosen to address it head-on in a public forum.
He argued that the way to “safeguard our common future” was “not to weaken the ‘A’ team in the hope of buying insurance, but to strengthen the ‘A’ team, to give it the best chance of succeeding.” Implicit in Mr Lee’s argument is that it is the PAP which is the ‘A’ team and that anyone who cares about Singapore should join it – otherwise you are not part of this top team.
It is a narrowly defined set of criteria, really. The PAP does not have a monopoly on talents. It is apparent that the opposition parties are attracting candidates whose credentials equal and even better those of the PAP’s this time round, something which should be of worry to the ruling party. Instead of admitting that perhaps there are flaws in the selection process of his party, or looking deeper into the reasons why the PAP is facing difficulties attracting a more diverse slate of people, Mr Lee claims that the PAP “decided not to field many who had outstanding qualifications.” Instead, the party looked for other traits in them, such as “character and values”.
It is hard not to feel that Mr Lee is just making excuses. The latest line-up of PAP candidates has been criticised for being less impressive than those of previous elections. The newbies this time seem to have been culled from just a few main sources – the NTUC, the armed forces, Young PAP and even the Prime Minister’s own office. Ms Tin Pei Ling, for example, who is the wife of Mr Lee’s Principal Private Secretary, has been lambasted for her lack of substance and for being immature.
In the 2006 General Elections, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew was reported to have said that its team of new candidates then was of the “second tier”. He decried how the “first tier” potentials declined to join the party and run for office, citing various reasons. It would seem that this problem has continued, judging by the rather ordinary and unimpressive 2011 PAP team.
And it is precisely because of the dearth of talent leaning towards the PAP that it is vital for Singaporeans to consider a safeguard. Contrary to what Mr Lee says, if his party is no longer attractive to talented Singaporeans, it would be foolhardy for Singaporeans to help preserve it by way of electoral support. Indeed, it could be the worse thing that Singaporeans could do – to support a party which is not attracting the best and brightest.
The wise thing to do, obviously, is to support an alternative which would do several things beneficial to the country:
- Keep the PAP on its toes
- Gain experience through its presence in Parliament
- Prepare for an eventual change of government, if and when required
In short, the PAP should not be the be-all and end-all of Singapore.
The long-held principle of not putting all your eggs in one basket rings true here, especially in this day and age where the world moves at breakneck speed.
The point here is this: even if the PAP has a monopoly on talent (which it doesn’t), one should not be fooled into thinking that ‘talent’ means being aware of all things at all times, and having all the solutions to the problems faced by Singapore and Singaporeans.
Indeed, it was PM Lee himself who said, at a party conference in 2006, that the “government cannot know everything.”
Why then should Singaporeans invest totally in it and have complete faith?
As the WP’s Mr Chen Show Mao said in an interview with Lianhe Zaobao on 3 April, “[No] matter which aspects of life you look at, progress is brought about by competition. There is no reason that this rule doesn’t apply to the government.”
In any case, as one wit put it, it is not Singaporeans’ business to ensure the PAP survives or renews itself. That, to put it bluntly, is the PAP’s internal problem.
Singaporeans’ duty, in fact, is to ensure that we have a Parliament made up of honest, capable and committed people, even if this means having opposition members in the House.
Mr Lee’s arguments can be summed up as electioneering, a regurgitation of what he said at the 2006 elections – that he as Prime Minister will not be able to do his job if we had too many opposition members in Parliament. If this were true, one would question if he is the best man for the job.
Mr Lee has failed to provide a convincing substantiation to his underlying premise: that competition and governance are mutually exclusive. After all, isn’t it his government’s stance that competition is necessary in all sectors, resulting, for example, in the huge influx of foreigners in recent years?
Instead of having an “A” team made up of only PAP members, we should look to support a top team of parliamentarians in the House made up of the very best from all parties. This is what is more important and desirable than the PAP’s narrow vision of a House made up completely and only of those wearing white.
“At the end of the dialogue,” reports the Straits Times of Tuesday’s KRMF, “it was clear that not all in the audience were convinced by Mr Lee’s arguments…”
Neither am I.
The Online Citizen
20 Maxwell Road #09-17
Maxwell House
Singapore 069113
Be part of the community! Join our Facebook Page!
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.
No related posts.
April 6, 2011 at 12:56 pm
Very well-written! Hard-hitting in clear language.
It is a pathetic excuse that the unimpressive PAP newbies are chosen for their character and values. Looking at Tin Pei Ling who gets a cheap thrill with an expensive designer item, and Janil Puthucheary who shunned the obligation of
April 6, 2011 at 1:00 pm
…. (cont’d) national service, I am quite sure these are NOT the kind of values that Singaporeans would care for.
April 6, 2011 at 1:18 pm
Look at Microsoft, it was once the giant of operating systems, but now it has failed to innovate in other fields and cede leadership to Apple, Google etc.
Liverpool FC was once the mighty football club in EPL but it also failed to get the best players and best managers, and lost its lead to Manchester united.
In politics, LDP, UMNO,Kuomintang,Congress Party(India),etc,were also dominant parties, but they also could not withstand the test of time.
I wonder why PAP refuse to learn from history.
April 8, 2011 at 10:54 am
We learn from history that no matter how powerful a dynasty is it will fall. For example, just look at the Roman Empire, The Tang Dynasty, The Mongolian, the British Empire etcs. It is a matter of time that the miw will fall. Therefore it makes sense to have an opposition party whic is really and prepare to take over when the need arises. It is foolhardy to think that pap will defy history and last forever. Singapore is about Singaporeans. Singapore is not about pap.
April 8, 2011 at 6:37 pm
Well, not that they refused..but they are simply too arrogant to accept.
April 6, 2011 at 1:19 pm
PAP has A Team that is of the Second tier.
WP has B Team that is of the First tier.
NSP has C Team ….
SDP has D Team ….
RP has E Team ….
I vote First Tier Candidate. Who care he/she is from A or B or C ….
April 6, 2011 at 2:27 pm
Guess why the really top talent refused to join the PAP? Because they disagree with the PAP’s policies. They don’t want to degrade themselves by having to toe the party line and suck up to party leaders.
I personally know one of these top talents who repeatedly rejected tea session invitations, giving various excuses not to attend. He was of course too polite to tell them the real reason, which was that he despised what the PAP stood for and would never join them in a million years.
April 7, 2011 at 1:10 pm
Fully agree with you. I think we have seen enough of Parlov’s dogs around.
April 7, 2011 at 3:40 pm
If you don’t sing the same tune and happen to be the chosen one, you are lucky if nobody blacklists you in your career move… ha ha ha hope that person disguises well. come to think of it, why run? This is my country, this is my land.. Fight.
April 6, 2011 at 3:07 pm
excellent piece.
April 6, 2011 at 4:15 pm
great article. some talents do not join a party cuz they refuse to buy the party’s ideology. only another party, with its own ideology, would be able to attract these talents. we need more talents in the House.
April 6, 2011 at 6:25 pm
” Instead of having an “A” team made up of only PAP members, we should look to support a top team of parliamentarians in the House made up of the very best from all parties. ”
Andrew,
This statement of yours was what I was brooding over for the past two days. We need to have a proportionate representation type of parliament where every party is represented according to the total number of votes secured at each GE. This would be truly the people’s parliament.
I am sure the PAP is a million km away from thinking in such terms – LHL words is proof of it.
In which case, the opposition’s option must be to work towards securing seats of just over 50% thus obliging the pap to approach the next highest ranking party to form a coalition govt – like in the UK. This is possible if the opposition parties come to the realization that this is the way forward, in fact just about the only way to go, to tame the moribund but still thrashing sunset pap dragon. There is still time for the opposition to come together to oppose with a united front that the ruling party will find impossible to break.
IMO, if the opposition fail to do this, then they are foolish people who have no business being involved in real politics. I also do hold the opinion that some in the opposition are actually moles and plants of th pap. They should be rooted out, ostracised and neutralised. Strong actions, but necessary if the opportunity presented by this GE is not to be squandered.
April 6, 2011 at 6:32 pm
When we have such a shallow thinking PM putting forward such weak arguments, it only goes to show what kind of uncharismatic leader that we currrently have.
Definitely not commensurate with the type of pay he says he deserves.
April 6, 2011 at 7:02 pm
i really like the prime minister’s analogy of soccer and government. it sounds perfectly logically but is essentially flawed. why do i say so? firstly, it is a rule that every nation can field only 1 national team. and this rule is set precisely to level the playing field for every participating nation. hence, for a country as strong as brazil, it can only field 1 team when they can easily field 2. in fact if brazil is to field 2 teams, one slightly weaker than the other but both stronger than the rest of the world, they would meet in the finals, and have the trophy in the bag before the final is played.
but would this rule applies to government and talent sourcing in a country as small as singapore? firstly, there is no such rule in government selection, that each country can only have 1 team. and there is really no need to have such a rule, because there is simply no need to ensure fair competition, governance is afterall not the world cup; good governance is far more complex than a well-defined game like soccer or any other competitive sports. and since there is no such rule, if indeed we can field 2 teams, we should, as pitting them against each other and trying to outdo each other, through such competition, the people can only stand to benefit from it. to try to enforce a 1 team “rule” on our government will in fact weaken it, as in above example, brazil will happily field 2 national teams if FIFA allows it.
so then the next question is, do we have that many talents. i have no answer to that. the opposition says yes, PAP says no. judging from the candidates have on both sides, i would say neither have the talents to fill an entire cabinet. even the ministers for housing and interior affairs are mediocre nevermind the MPs. hmm, sounds like then we should just combine all of them into 1 team and have them in the government. well, an election is exactly just that. it is the process of pitting candidates with different policy views against each other, and hopefully the informed voters can decide for ourselves who the best are and vote them into the parliament so that they can work together for us! i think it is a commonly accepted fact that talents is a precious resource that we should then try to maximize by forging a platform of competition so that the best can be identified and then elected.
unfortunately, our platform of competition is far from being fair. it is structured so that the ruling/majority party can continue to field mediocre candidates but stays as the majority. we just need to compare the voting statistics and how many opposition candidates got elected in past elections to have an idea. if 20% of votes go to the opposition, should there not then be 20% opposition in the parliament? this is clearly not the case. and i am sure the votes for the opposition in the last election is more than 20%. gerrymandering and the GRC concept help to maintain this unfair advantage.
but let’s take even a closer look. why is there such a lack of talents? is it because MPs are paid little? no, in fact, it is the opposite. Our ministers are among the highest paid in the world. last year they even had a 8 month bonus. so, it cannot be remuneration, in fact i would even argue remuneration has got little to do with the passion to serve the people. but that is besides the point. the main problem is political apathy. we really do not care that much anymore. but this does not mean singaporeans are unconcerned about the country or our fellow singaporeans’ well-being. just look at how much we donate each time during mediacorp’s charity shows and how many of these shows each year? we do care. the point is we no longer see putting our concern in our politics as the means to address our concerns. we have now channelled most of our passions elsewhere to address our concerns. why does this happen? firstly, media freedom or rather the lack of it. media propaganda has make people feel that the government is always right. so then if we are convinced it is right, and yet there are problems, we can only address the problems through other means. secondly how opposition is being oppressed. say a wrong word, and you will be sued, fined or even put into jail. in the end, what happens is that, many will complain at coffee shops but dare not speak up in the public. others simply give up altogether. they become totally apolitical. after this systematic process of attrition, how many talents you really hope to get that are interested in politics? so the correct stand maybe, we do have the talents, but they are simply not interested. or worse, after years of such “systematic suppression”, people generally are not trained in the critical thinking faculty and simply believe what the media says, potential talents are not honed but wasted. singapore’s case is somewhere in between.
so effectively, by pursuing this brand of tactics, suppressing opinions, media censorship, and beating down the opposition, it is no wonder we have few talents. the pursuit of continual dominance of PAP in the government is working against the common good of our people. we need to have more media freedom and more opposition in the parliament through fairer competition. hopefully, people will be interested again. we can all again begin to believe that we can play a part in ensuring a better future for ourselves. it is sad, that clearly, there are many public policies that are flawed, but continued to be passed in the parliament after an almost ceremonial debate. that people grumble about them, but are resigned to the fact that nothing can be undone.
So, Mr Prime minister, please do what is best for the country and not what is best for your party, especially now that these 2 interests are no longer aligned. Time has changed, and the mentality of the zero sum game is no longer valid.
April 6, 2011 at 10:12 pm
I was at the talk yesterday as well.
Someone brought up the point that since the incumbent’s candidates for the coming election are drawn from the civil service and the labor unions, they no longer can assert that if these people leave to join the private sector they’d earn a high-flier’s pay. So actually the pay ought to be revised DOWNWARD if they really reach ministerial grade.
I am inclined to agree, though.
April 7, 2011 at 1:19 pm
I concur.
They can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but they cannot fool all the people all the time.
April 8, 2011 at 11:56 am
i’ve a headhunter friend who interviewed one of the ‘new faces’ for a private sector job. he wasn’t even shortlisted, but now he’s potentially going to earn minister’s pay, which is “pegged to private sector because the ministers can earn more if they don’t join public service”???? fallacy.
April 7, 2011 at 1:06 am
Of course we are unconvinced.
THE ONLY WAY TO SHOW THE PAP WE ARE UNCONVINCED IS TO VOTE OPPOSITION.
By the way…why is MM so quiet. Rumour has it the PAP has told him to shut up for fear he might say something BAD again..and then he has to say..I STAND CORRECTED.AND IT MAY MEAN REAL TROUBLE>>SO NEAR TO THE GE.
But lets face itr. the PAP will win. THEY HAVE THE NUMBERS AND THEY HAVE SEWN UP GRC STYLE.
BUT IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE HOW MANY SEATS THEY LOSE. THEY HAVE TO BE WOUNDED IN THIS GE.
THEN MAYBE THEY WILL LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE.
Anyone who does NOT vote for the Opposition and still writing in these pages..should shut up.
VOTE OPPOSITION.
Now if Ms Tin..was in Opposition..that would be nice. At least a pretty face in Parliament..for a change..but in OPPOSITION.
April 8, 2011 at 10:45 pm
Hey mate, if Ms Tin is going to be in OPPOSITION, either someone is going to loss his job, or a broken relationship…
April 7, 2011 at 7:39 am
It seems to me that based on the recent events that have occurred, from the political forum to PM Lee’s abovementioned address, the PAP has taken for granted the fact that it SHOULD continue to remain as the majority party in Parliament. It appears that the purpose of having opposition parties is merely to provide ‘back-up’ in the event that the PAP fails (viz Gerald Giam’s speech for the Workers’ Party in the political forum) or to provide an alternative voice. But by saying this they are giving the impression that they aren’t legitimate enough to contest against the PAP. This is hardly the position that the opposition should take if they truly intend to stand up against the PAP, because they will not be able to overcome this psychological barrier and shake off the idea of being subject to the PAP’s stronghold. It should not be the case where the opposition claims “I think that the government should do this…” (sorry Lina Chiam, your performance in the forum was way way below par and hardly convincing that the SPP is credible enough to sit in Parliament); the opposition should instead be confident and firm in stating “MY PARTY intends to bring about changes through the following policies…” Opposition parties should work out what policies they aim to implement, how these policies are different and will improve over the current ones put in place by the PAP, and make them crystal clear to the people. There’s no point in the opposition saying that they hope government will improve, because they might as well just join the PAP and make these suggestions from within. Being the opposition should entail every sense of the definition of the word, that they stand for something DIFFERENT and wish to bring about change.
Having said this, it must also be mentioned that the PAP has proven its credibility over the years and has the advantage of vast experience over its rivals. Thus opposition parties will need to put forward candidates who not only have the necessary credentials but are equally or more capable than their PAP counterparts. Opposition parties should take advantage of the current wave of dissent towards the PAP (issues such as HDB upgrading, gross amounts of salary to ministers etc) and ride the wave while offering plausible and intellectually-sound proposals.
However, the citizens of Singapore must also do their part by improving their political awareness. It is a grave concern that the general mood towards politics in Singapore is one of apathy, due to the PAP’s dominance and repression of freedom of speech. If Singaporeans are genuinely concerned about the quality of governance (and they should be), they need to start being proactive in learning more about what the present state of affairs is under the PAP’s rule, not just within their constituency but across the nation as a whole, and compare this to what the opposition parties are offering, and only then will they be able to make an informed and well-considered vote. Despite the many grievances towards the PAP, there’s no point voting for the opposition if they aren’t any better. It is the job of all parties to prove to the people why they should be elected, but it is equally the job of the people to understand who they should vote for and why, instead of blindly following other’s opinions. I would rather not vote at all than vote for someone because my friend told me to do so.
April 7, 2011 at 9:19 am
Dr Wong Wee Nam said that “there is actually only one essential quality needed to make a good Member of Parliament and that is to have a heart for Singapore”. Do you agree?
Think carefully and vote wisely.
April 8, 2011 at 12:35 am
If only one essential quality needed to make a good Member of Parliament, then my whole family qualifies to become Members of Parliament. We all have a Heart (evern stronger and better heart than those of Mr Khaw Boon Wan and MM Lee and our Honourable President S R Nathan) for Singapore. No doubt about it!
Even my 5-year-old grandson also qualifies because every morning, when he wakes up, he would sing Majula Singapura and every night before he sleeps, he would ask his dad to sing to him “We are Singapore”.
April 8, 2011 at 12:36 am
If only one essential quality needed to make a good Member of Parliament is to have a heart for Singapore, then my whole family qualifies to become Members of Parliament.
We all have a Heart (evern stronger and better heart than those of Mr Khaw Boon Wan and MM Lee and our Honourable President S R Nathan) for Singapore. No doubt about it!
Even my 5-year-old grandson also qualifies because every morning, when he wakes up, he would sing Majula Singapura and every night before he sleeps, he would ask his dad to sing to him “We are Singapore”.
April 8, 2011 at 9:53 am
The Straits Times has become very subtle in its propaganda against opposition parties.
The header of an article in today’s ST higlights “Oldest New Face…” in an opposition party. ST has NEVER used that kind of demeaning term on PAP newbies. One of PAP’s newbies is a 50-year-old businessman named David Ong. But ST did not introduce him as the “oldest new face” of PAP!!
April 9, 2011 at 5:17 pm
After all these years of being involved in the grassroots and having his own business, can David Ong please tell us all in public that his business had not for one bit benefited from his involvement with the PAP? If there are, how much over all these years? Government contracts, tenders etc. It’s above board of course, question is, without these benefits (if any), would he continue to “serve” the people?????
April 8, 2011 at 9:58 am
The government who out of touch from the ground or daft to the people really can’t rules singapore any more .
Changing few new faces in thier team won’t make any differences or change thier mindset in the long run .
I am very worry what would happen to my childrens and all singaporean if PAP would rules for another next five years .
Hope we would have the numbers of opposition and get ready to reform our country .
I will do my part as a native singaporean in this up-coming GE to protect my children’s future .
April 8, 2011 at 10:06 am
Those who have the passion to join politic and taking care of the peoples should possess a ” HEART OF GOLD ” .
I don’t see any of the ruling party members having such quality so far .
April 9, 2011 at 8:54 pm
They do have heart………gold – plated……What we need are pure gold….People with responsibility must always strive to be honest and truthful, whatever profession they are holding .more so in politics and journalism.
April 8, 2011 at 10:41 am
Well said!! PAP has never been convincing in their note to win voters mind and more than ever with what PM Lee said makes it even more unconvincing that PAP should continue to lead this nation! It is time for brand new era of leaders to arise from within even if it means that the opposition is the ruling party.
April 8, 2011 at 10:45 am
This morning’s papers report DPM Teo asking the people to “help” the PAP to find good people. Andrew has already answered him above, by saying this is an internal PAP issue and that it should stop using the public media as a recruitment platform. Or, alternatively, allow the opposition to also put out recruitment messages on the front pages of the MSM.
The real reason quality people don’t want to join the PAP, as others have pointed out above, is that they are bankrupt of ideas. Their admission that a lot of good people refused to join them this time around also puts an end to the lie, once and for all, that high pay is necessary to “attract the best”. The best cannot be enticed by money alone, indeed, this argument (LKY’s) was flawed from the start.
DPM Teo also gave examples of governments that are paralysed because of opposition: Belgium, UK, Australia and USA. We can equally put forward examples of one party states that have gone down the tubes: Japan, Indonesia in the late Suharto era, Philippines in the Marcos era, Myanmar now and many, many more (witness what is happening in the Middle East).
So, Mr PM and Mr DPM, we are no longer children and will no longer be talked down to. BTW, isn’t it curious how the PM always seems to release his message to a hall full of students? How about taking on someone your own size in an open forum (ie without time constraints)?
April 8, 2011 at 10:57 pm
Well said, Peter! Have you see any open dialogue on all money issues with the attendance of the all the “coffee shop” uncle and aunties?
April 10, 2011 at 1:30 am
Agree with you totally…..recruitment is the party”s internal problem.
April 8, 2011 at 11:24 am
I was reading an article this morning on young candidates in previous election and how young hotshots came into parliament in the 1960s. I do not think it is fair to compare the 1960s Singapore to present day Singapore to justify TPL getting into parliament.
- 1960s were tumultous years with nationalism, anti colonialism, kronfrontasi, merger with Malaysia so many political upheavals. The populace was relatively uneducated and only the brightest who had formal education stood up to e counted.
- They demostrated their committment to Singapore by going to jail, educating the masses and sacrificing their personal freedom for the better good.
- All of them stood in 1 on 1 fights in fair elections to win their seats no walkover no GRC
So do TPL meet any of the above criteria, I think not
April 8, 2011 at 11:18 pm
Agreed. During the 60s, our poor old grand parents with no education treated those ‘limited edition’ degree holder candidates like God to fight for better living.. Nowadays, the numbers of ‘higher degree’ holders able to out number the saf.
April 8, 2011 at 11:54 am
The times they are a-changin’….
I’m quietly confident that at least 1 GRC will be won by the opposition. The harder PAP tries, the more obvious their shortcomings. Doesn’t matter if they get front page coverage by the 154th to do their story telling, we’ll just skip reading those and head here.
The last 5 years have been worse than before, no amount of lying can overcome that!
April 8, 2011 at 1:53 pm
His so called ‘A’ team are those who overspent 2-3 times the budget on YOG, are the one who cannot even lock a handicap terrorism, are the one who causes the hdb price to shot sky high.
April 8, 2011 at 2:29 pm
They probably did not expect such a groundswell of discontentment.
April 8, 2011 at 4:59 pm
The majority of PAP MPs got into parliament through the GRC system. They have not proven that they are capable MPs.
The PAP ministers are to do the bidding of LKY,
The PAP controls the press, TV, radio, yet they can only convince less than 30% of the population they are doing a good job.
PM Lee had a chance (from 2006) to show that he could improve the living condition of the average Singaporean. But no,
(a) the roads are congested with cars late into the evening.
(b) public transport is expensive and crowded.
(c) citizens have to compete with PRs and foreigners, with them having no national service obligations.
(d) public housing is not affordable
The PAP MPs and ministers can only improve with more opposition MPs in parliament.
Instead of having only SPH newspapers, there is a need for alternative newspapers independent of the PAP and, other non-PAP controlled TV stations.
April 8, 2011 at 5:08 pm
Agreed. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket. Also, we must have an umbrella ready; don’t wait until the sky turns threatening.
April 8, 2011 at 5:21 pm
Cant help but feel so digusted at the way PAP switches their stance.
In the past when the OPPO couldnt attract government scholars and corporate high flyers, PAP harp on how ‘un-talented’ the opposition candidates are.
Now that the OPPO has a hand full of public scholars, ex-civil servents and corporate big-wigs, PAP stress the need for’çharacter and values’.’
May I ask, by who’s yardstick do you judge their values and character? PAP’s? or Singaporeans?
Pathetic.
April 8, 2011 at 6:11 pm
While the arguments put forth have been rather weak, it does strike the heart of the average voter with the concern of stability, and whether this would be prolonged. PM Lee’s reply to how an opposition party for checks and balances would be detrimental to governance was unconvincing. I find it hard to see how the implementation of progress-favourable policies would be hindered, unless the standards and rationale behind these policies lack the ability to survive scrutiny.
I’m very glad the opposition is on the rise; though not of age to vote yet it is apparent that their enthusiasm has injected life into Singapore’s otherwise humdrum political scene, and perhaps in due time this clash of swords would form the impetus for both the ruling party and the other parties to continuously examine themselves and refine their arsenal.
April 8, 2011 at 6:40 pm
All dictatorial regimes want its citizens to believe they are the only able, capable, legitimate, rightful, suitable, calibre, smart goverment.
A
April 8, 2011 at 6:41 pm
the pigs want us to do their work for them.
how lazy?!
April 8, 2011 at 6:41 pm
LHL
April 8, 2011 at 7:00 pm
Is it surprising that the past GEs failed to produce 4th PM when the candidates are selected for toeing party line and agreeing with PAP’s policies and afraid to speak out. Every candidate comes from the same cookie cutter or from the same assembly line. like i-phone with minor variations e.g. colour. First PM with passion and conviction was elected. This is good. The 2nd PM was selected because of willingness to be a seat warmer. The 3rd PM took up the warmed seat..
I think that the 4th PM should be an opposition candidates for they are standing for election based on passion and desire to fight for those neglected and sacrified by PAP.
April 8, 2011 at 7:22 pm
Fellow People, If you care about the future of Singapore, vote for change.
The ruling party can regard all our voices as ‘noise’, but but they cannot ignore our votes. Pass this on today through all channels possible to raise awareness:
http://www.badongo.com/pic/12772128
http://www.badongo.com/pic/12772127
April 8, 2011 at 8:36 pm
Seriously are all of you this unhappy in Singapore? Every government has its flaws and the Singapore probably has one of the top functioning administrations in the world. It would do everyone some good to look outward and have other perspectives, compare Singapore against any one other country, can you think of a country which provides the same standard of living and national infrastructure for the tax you are paying?
I’ve been in the US for the past 2 years and this weekend, the government could shutdown because the 2 party system cannot decide on the country’s budget! Can you imagine a government shutting down? In a country like the US of A? Tax rates in Europe can hit more than 50%. Is that what you want to pay for a European style government and its associated programs, for what additional benefit to Singapore?
So what if the PAP plays dirty with the GRC system, so what if they decide to field a 27 year old, so what if they decide to pay themselves so much, go join politics and either join or change the system. Either way that’ll satisfy all of you, you wouldn’t be complaining here if you were a 27 year old getting $15k a month, or a 35 year old superscaler earning over a mil a year.
Nothing in life is perfect, thats reality. You take the good with the bad, If you don’t like it, change it, go join politics and make a difference instead. You might be sidelined, it might take years before you can accomplish anythiing, But if it matters to you so much, go do it. Else suck it up and figure out how to prosper in the conditions you find yourself in.
April 9, 2011 at 12:45 am
I would like to answer your comments:
1. It’s not about being unhappy with the present government. It’s about getting a better government. The present government has been credited with many achievements during it’s tenure but if you look at the state that is closest to ours in terms of size, economy and history, Hong Kong is doing very well. In fact I would even say better than Singapore. It’s is the closest thing to a perfect free market economy that the world has seen and look at how it’s performing. It’s resilience is fantastic (looking at it’s transition from a British colony to a Chinese independent state).
2. On the issue of tax, one should look at BOTH direct and indirect taxes. When one look at the surpluses accumulated by Ministries and the salaries payed to our senior civil servants (and elected officials), where do they come from? The income of any government can only come from it’s citizens. The budget of a country is not like that of a corporation. It should be balanced, ie expenses equals income. This means that the citizens of a country will not have an overly high burden. (an exception to this is it’s foreign reserve which it’s it’s export income, this is the real income of a country).
3. Looking at the Opposition in Singapore, I am of the opinion that they are not motivated by the remuneration of an MP but by a stronger sense of servitude to the country. Otherwise they would have tried to join the PAP instead. Not everyone in this world is motivated by money. Attracting the best people through money is mercenary, even corporations would value staff who are loyal and socially responsible above talent that is just bought with money.
4. You are right if we don’t like something then we must change it. The only way an ORDINARY citizen can do that is during an election by voting with their hearts not with their pockets.
5. The ONLY way to have the best (on a sustained basis) of anything is to have FREE COMPETITION.This is the natural law, the universal law. To believe otherwise is to go against all the laws of science, economics, mathematics, etc. I am of the opinion that Singapore has past it’s time of being a single party state. If we continue with being a single party government, we will run the risk of getting into serious decline and if we get to the point of no return then extermination will be the only course (in biology it’s commonly termed as “dead end evolution”). History is full of countries that has gone down this route.
April 10, 2011 at 11:36 pm
point 5 is obviously false. competition itself is an event subject to the arbitrariness of the players involved.
any strategy student will know that its not true that >competition = better market/outcome.
April 8, 2011 at 9:26 pm
Never let the PAP self centered ruling party tells you a two-party system don’t work for Singapore. Why is Singapore so special? Of course the PAP ruling party does not want you to follow along those lines of thinking because it means they can be kick out one of these days!
The PAP as a political party would want to rule forever like the communist system obviously it doesn’t sell but they have been successful so far by threatening the electorates in every general election. True it works so far but as the populous gets wiser and wiser like now they must be feeling threatened and unsecured each day pass!
Reclaim our rights under the Constitution!
April 8, 2011 at 10:32 pm
Why we need new blood in government :
The PAP has done a great job and deserves flying colours for its past – it has governed every aspect of Singaporeans lives in its early years till now and set a good value foundation built on thrift, industriousness, meritocracy and family. It has also set up well run instituitions and an efficient civil service.
But its far from perfect and the cracks are already showing with erosion of some of these values. Apparently, meritocracy doesn’t hold for the new generation of candidates, and meritocracy doesn’t stand when big mistakes are made by select ministers – all because the Prime Minister says he lacks the talent pool. GDP growth at beakneck speed hurts the less well off – when prices of goods go up, GDP contributed by increase headcount from overseas is not growth per Singaporean, just growth to a minister’s pocket and our reserves that are hardly touched except once in a while for elections. The PAP also doesn’t treat citizens as family – how can you allow a 75-85 year old to clean dishes in the hawker centre, or sell tissue, and yet, earn millions a year – where is the spirit of family? I am against building a subsidy climate bec it becomes circular and self defeating, as is the PAP – but they carry it out to such an extent – that the baby is thrown out with the bathwater. I daresay – the PAP is a party with NO heart.
We can improve and make Singpaore a better one – - not jus the banker with a Farrari, or the policitician with his fat cheque. We should deserve a nation with a heart and soul. Singaporeans feel stiflied and cannot feel they belong – when they have no say, are talked down to, and often told that the PAP knows best. . The individual in Singapore deserves more respect from the government, more voice to participate in shaping Singapore – because its our country – we want to feel we belong, and we don’t want to feels its US against the government.
April 8, 2011 at 10:52 pm
You peeps should check out the career fairs occurring in local universities these days. You’ll probably see a PAP booth
April 9, 2011 at 11:27 am
Let us have our own “Jasmine” revolution in Singapore.
Let us vote more oppositions into Parliament.
Let our “rulers” be aware as to who are the real Singaporeans
Let us not have the “rulers” continue to keep talking down on us.
April 9, 2011 at 2:19 pm
If PAP cannot secure 2/3 majority in elections (which I seriously doubt so this coming GE), then voters will be able to see the toughness and negotiating skills of their elected MPs. Any constitution changes or implementation will require some compromise with the Opp parties in order to get it pass… This will be interesting!!!
April 9, 2011 at 5:19 pm
Would anyone be watching the “staged” live dailogue of PM with S’poreans?
April 9, 2011 at 5:22 pm
Just received my “growth dividends” . Pathetic for a government to resort to this election after election, and worst of all doing it without any shame.
April 9, 2011 at 6:00 pm
In the 2006 General Elections, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew was reported to have said that its team of new candidates then was of the “second tier”. He decried how the “first tier” potentials declined to join the party and run for office, citing various reasons. ……..
why??
second tier candidates.
wats t problem??
April 11, 2011 at 9:20 am
Nice, well balanced article. The PAP should realise that competition is good – if they get more members of the Opposition into Parliament, the PAP members would then be in a position to prove that they are better than the opposition – where there is no competition in whatever walk of life, business or social, complacency sets in . This has been the case in Spore for the past couple of decades at least. The PAP was well suited to drag Spore out of the Communist threat in the 60s and 70s but after that they became too complacent with their own success and decided they were born to rule Spore. Other countries have faced civil problems and have changed govt many times , look at Israel, India , even the USA and UK. It is a silly argument by the PM to say that Spore will be weakened by a strong Opposition – he is just acting as a leader of a political party and not as a statesman who has the best interests of Spore at heart
April 12, 2011 at 11:40 pm
Very well said! We are not dumb at all! PAP have been treating all of us like fools for too long, and its time to stop! They are just a heartless bunch of monsters, selfish and greedy! how can I let my children be a slave for them?! no way!
April 13, 2011 at 7:30 pm
In the 2006 General Elections, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew was reported to have said that its team of new candidates then was of the “second tier”. He decried how the “first tier” potentials declined to join the party and run for office, citing various reasons. What reasons?
The latest line-up of PAP candidates have been culled from just a few main sources – the NTUC, the armed forces, Young PAP and even the Prime Minister’s own office. Ms Tin Pei Ling, for example, who is the wife of Mr Lee’s Principal Private Secretary. Notice it too. ??? ??? ???
April 13, 2011 at 8:07 pm
Of late there has been quite a number of comparisons made between Singapore and Japan by the politicians. But I do realize that the Japanese are more responsible in regards to their positions be it a politician, company CEO etc… they would admit and accept their failures or faults and will resign immediately, even the prime minister himself. Such actions taken are much respected by the people not just domestically but also the international observers. How I wish that we can also adopt such practice so that the multi millionaire ministers would not sit on their butt and play the finger pointing game.
April 15, 2011 at 6:51 am
“YOU can bluff some of the people some of the time but not all the people all the time”
Where did I hear this but the statement is applicable after reading “Leadership Renewal: The 4th Generation & Beyond”.
April 18, 2011 at 10:41 pm
Ha just received my own money back , growth dividend, feeling good time to put a tick on opposition so that my growth dividend is better for me and my family