Workers' Party chief Low Thia Khiang is to be highly congratulated for his chivalrous performance against the arrogant PAP in Parliament. He displayed a seldom seen fiery spirit in portraying the PAP as a government party using high-handed tactics against its political opponents as a bullying politicial culture. He asserted that if the government uses "differentiating measures" to punish those who voted for the opposition, it would breed a culture of divisive politics.
There is no doubt that Mr. Low has hit the nail on the head. The response was a disconcerted scramble by the leading PAP jesters falling over one another to attempt to vindicate an untenable factual situation. It is an irony that PAP MP Indranee Rajah could stoop to quote an old issue which is now academic that Workers' Party (WP) had given out contracts worth millions to its supporters without going through a tender, about which the WP had satisfactorily exonerated itself, in support of her argument against the WP. If this is an unpardonable sin of the WP, then would it not be a greater sin for the PAP to sell off a whole computer system of the Aljunied Town Council to a PAP-owned $3 company for a song? It seems more like an ad hominem attack.
Was Mr. Low making a wild allegation that PAP was pursuing a bullying political culture? The most glaring is the recent case of the unfortunate public-spirited blogger Roy Ngerng coming to grief with the inexorable PM Lee Hsien Loong over his blogpost on the CPF account which PM Lee has claimed to be libellous. Roy Ngerng did not accuse PM Lee of misappropriating CPF funds in so many words but this is for the court to decide. The crux of the article is that the PAP Government takes over our CPF to invest in GIC and Temasek Holdings to earn 6.5% to 16% but returns us only 2.5% to 4% in our CPF but neither PM Lee nor any other PAP leader has found it necessary to give an appropriate answer.
PAP is the government and commands the majority in Parliament. If it pursues a bullying political culture, there is nothing the WP or any other opposition political party can do to rectify the situation. The PAP has suffered a set-back in the last general election in 2011 and it is now determined to retrieve the unfavourable political situation in GE 2016. So PM Lee and his side-kicks suddenly became uber-ebullient overnight in introducing political and social benefits to ameliorate the livelihood and well-being of the electorate, especially the underclass, to pave the way for the PAP to regain their prowess in GE 2016. The so-called Pioneer Generation Package is a typical example. The wheel of history only moves forward and for it to move backwards for the PAP will have the historians flabbergasted. The Singapore electorate are now more discerning and will know how to cast their votes.
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
Monday, April 28, 2014
A MediaCorp Caricature Presentation of the Laju Saga
Out of curiosity I watched the Days of Rage programme on channel 8 last night which was supposed to present the much-hyped Laju Saga in an objective light. I missed the English version of the programme when it was telecast earlier. After viewing the programme, to say that I was left in a state of shock is to put it mildly at the brazen self-glorification of their roles in the Laju Saga by some of the characters in the narrative.
To begin with the bomb attack on the Shell Oil Refinery in Pulau Bukom by four terrorists from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and the Japanese Red Army (JRA) and the subsequent hijacking of the ferry boat "Laju" with its crew were clearly terrorist activities which came under the jurisdiction of the Internal Security Department (ISD). The MediaCorp programme showed unmistakeably that the first report of the incident was made to SR Nathan who was the director of intelligence and had no jurisdiction over terrorist activities within Singapore. So the director of ISD was non-existent whoever wrote the script and whether this was claimed by SR Nathan in the script is significant.
SR Nathan was director of intelligence, the Singapore miniature equivalence of the British MI6 which deals more with spying. How on earth the MediaCorp can portray him so prominently in dealing with the Laju terrorists is mind-boggling, to say the least. And could this be something he presented to the script-writer? There is nothing wrong in wanting self-glorification but how would one describe it if it is done at the expense of riding roughshod over other well-deserving individuals? Would abject disgust be a reasonable description? Many of the roles which he had been portrayed by MediaCorp could be questionable. Of course there was no question that he had been appointed by the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew to lead the team of Singapore officers to escort the Laju terrorists to Kuwait on 8 February 1974. And again there was a story about the appointment as the director ISD and his permanent secretary were having deep personal animosity.
The role of the then officer-in-charge of the Marine Police DSP Tee Tua Bah in handling the Laju terrorists had also been over-hyped by MediaCorp. The Marine Police is like other normal police divisions which deal with routine police and criminal matters and had hardly the expertise of dealing with terrorists. The Laju hijack happened in Singapore waters and quite rightly came within the jurisdiction of the Marine Police in the normal way. Had the MediaCorp interviewed former ISD officers, who were the rightful investigators in terrorism, as to what roles they had played in dealing with the Laju terrorists? Their daily appearance in their negotiations with the terrorists at the scene could not have been figment of imagination in the script-writer's mind?
One would have expected the MediaCorp to have more commonsense and humanistic consideration when writing out a script for a narrative, especially one like the Laju Saga. Had it not occurred to the MediaCorp to carry out a more comprehensive interview covering all the parties involved before composing the script? In the Laju Saga it is obvious that important parties had been left out for whatever reason best known to MediaCorp.
If it is not too much of a loss of face or a blemish on its pride, the MediaCorp should have the civility of sending a letter of apology to ISD for belittling its role in the Laju Saga.
To begin with the bomb attack on the Shell Oil Refinery in Pulau Bukom by four terrorists from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and the Japanese Red Army (JRA) and the subsequent hijacking of the ferry boat "Laju" with its crew were clearly terrorist activities which came under the jurisdiction of the Internal Security Department (ISD). The MediaCorp programme showed unmistakeably that the first report of the incident was made to SR Nathan who was the director of intelligence and had no jurisdiction over terrorist activities within Singapore. So the director of ISD was non-existent whoever wrote the script and whether this was claimed by SR Nathan in the script is significant.
SR Nathan was director of intelligence, the Singapore miniature equivalence of the British MI6 which deals more with spying. How on earth the MediaCorp can portray him so prominently in dealing with the Laju terrorists is mind-boggling, to say the least. And could this be something he presented to the script-writer? There is nothing wrong in wanting self-glorification but how would one describe it if it is done at the expense of riding roughshod over other well-deserving individuals? Would abject disgust be a reasonable description? Many of the roles which he had been portrayed by MediaCorp could be questionable. Of course there was no question that he had been appointed by the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew to lead the team of Singapore officers to escort the Laju terrorists to Kuwait on 8 February 1974. And again there was a story about the appointment as the director ISD and his permanent secretary were having deep personal animosity.
The role of the then officer-in-charge of the Marine Police DSP Tee Tua Bah in handling the Laju terrorists had also been over-hyped by MediaCorp. The Marine Police is like other normal police divisions which deal with routine police and criminal matters and had hardly the expertise of dealing with terrorists. The Laju hijack happened in Singapore waters and quite rightly came within the jurisdiction of the Marine Police in the normal way. Had the MediaCorp interviewed former ISD officers, who were the rightful investigators in terrorism, as to what roles they had played in dealing with the Laju terrorists? Their daily appearance in their negotiations with the terrorists at the scene could not have been figment of imagination in the script-writer's mind?
One would have expected the MediaCorp to have more commonsense and humanistic consideration when writing out a script for a narrative, especially one like the Laju Saga. Had it not occurred to the MediaCorp to carry out a more comprehensive interview covering all the parties involved before composing the script? In the Laju Saga it is obvious that important parties had been left out for whatever reason best known to MediaCorp.
If it is not too much of a loss of face or a blemish on its pride, the MediaCorp should have the civility of sending a letter of apology to ISD for belittling its role in the Laju Saga.
Monday, October 21, 2013
A Slap in the Face or a Smack on the Wrist?
People in and out of Singapore were quite intrigued recently by the no-show display of both Chinese leaders President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Keqiang when they by-passed Singapore in their visits to South East Asian countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, Thailand and Vietnam before attending summit meetings in the region.Since Indonesia and Malaysia are so close to Singapore (一水之隔), one would expect that it was a matter of utmost courtesy for the two top Chinese leaders to include Singapore in their itinerary unless it was intended as some kind of a snub for whatever reason. To add to the conundrum, neither the Chinese leaders nor the thoughtful Singapore Government thought it necessary to enlighten the people , both in and out of Singapore. So it was allowed to continue to be enigmatic and Singaporeans cannot be faulted if they were found to indulge themselves in trying to find a plausible and credible reason for the apparent display of discourtesy by the two top Chinese leaders.
It will not be inappropriate to recall that our comical PM Lee Hsien Loong had in his inimitable way insulted the Chinese by his brilliant diplomatic display during his visit to the United States of America at a dinner given in his honour by the American business community in April this year. He told the august American audience that in Shanghai when one turned on the tap one could get pork soup, a sarcastic allusion to the massive pig carcasses found floating in a river in China. Next he said sarcastically that one could get free smoke when one opened the window in China, an allusion to the severe air pollution in China. He thought it was funny but the Chinese were not amused and could only consider it a sick joke aimed at humiliating them, considering the standing of the American audience. It could just be possible that the Chinese leaders have not forgotten nor forgiven PM Lee for his insult and the skipping of Singapore from their itinerary is just a way of showing their disgust.
It may or may not be a valid assumption. Some political analysts were reported by the Lianhe Zaobao today (21 Oct) to say that the skipping of Singapore from their itinerary by the two Chinese leaders did not mean that the position of Singapore could not be compared with other countries in the eyes of the Chinese. They cited the visit in October of the Chinese Vice-Premier Zhang Gaoli to Singapore as one reason for the two Chinese leaders to skip Singapore as it was not considered consistent with diplomatic practice for more than one high-level leader to visit the same country within a short period. Frequent mutual visits of high-level Singapore and Chinese leaders were said to be another possible reason. So was the visit in August to China by PM Lee who met President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Keqiang . Until we get a clarification from the two Chinese leaders which may never come Singaporeans are left with no viable alternative but to determine from what is known about PM Lee's insult and the theory advanced by the political analysts. PM Lee would not be able to know if his insult is still the determining factor in the mind of the two top Chinese leaders.
It will not be inappropriate to recall that our comical PM Lee Hsien Loong had in his inimitable way insulted the Chinese by his brilliant diplomatic display during his visit to the United States of America at a dinner given in his honour by the American business community in April this year. He told the august American audience that in Shanghai when one turned on the tap one could get pork soup, a sarcastic allusion to the massive pig carcasses found floating in a river in China. Next he said sarcastically that one could get free smoke when one opened the window in China, an allusion to the severe air pollution in China. He thought it was funny but the Chinese were not amused and could only consider it a sick joke aimed at humiliating them, considering the standing of the American audience. It could just be possible that the Chinese leaders have not forgotten nor forgiven PM Lee for his insult and the skipping of Singapore from their itinerary is just a way of showing their disgust.
It may or may not be a valid assumption. Some political analysts were reported by the Lianhe Zaobao today (21 Oct) to say that the skipping of Singapore from their itinerary by the two Chinese leaders did not mean that the position of Singapore could not be compared with other countries in the eyes of the Chinese. They cited the visit in October of the Chinese Vice-Premier Zhang Gaoli to Singapore as one reason for the two Chinese leaders to skip Singapore as it was not considered consistent with diplomatic practice for more than one high-level leader to visit the same country within a short period. Frequent mutual visits of high-level Singapore and Chinese leaders were said to be another possible reason. So was the visit in August to China by PM Lee who met President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Keqiang . Until we get a clarification from the two Chinese leaders which may never come Singaporeans are left with no viable alternative but to determine from what is known about PM Lee's insult and the theory advanced by the political analysts. PM Lee would not be able to know if his insult is still the determining factor in the mind of the two top Chinese leaders.
Saturday, October 12, 2013
The grotesque behaviour of Mr. Ngiam Tong Dow
Mr. Ngiam Tong Dow needs no introduction to Singaporeans as he is a well-known retired top civil servant of very high social standing. He was permanent secretary of a number of Government ministries, including Finance, and had held the position of Head, Civil Service. In recent years he has also been known to be outspoken against various policies and practices of the Government. Many Singaporeans, especially some from the opposition parties, have looked upon him, because of his sociopolitical eminence, as some kind of a potent critiquer of the PAP Government, adding not a little impetus to the anti-PAP chorus.
So when Mr. Ngiam Tong Dow was interviewed by Dr. Toh Han Chong, editor of the Singapore Medical Association (SMA) News, which was in a question and answer form, Mr. Ngiam's statement included some critical comments on the high salaries of PAP ministers, which for fear of losing them, prevented ministers from speaking up to PM Lee Hsien Loong and on the elitist nature of the PAP leadership. These and other comments, which were published in SMA newsletter in September, were hardly flattering to the PAP leadership, especially PM Lee, but they were lapped up with great delight by Singaporeans mainly because the comments were made by an author of high social standing in a prominent medical journal. From the nature of the contents of the statement, there was no question that it was made voluntarily and without any coercion. Mr. Ngiam could not have been a happier man because the statement has been in circulation for a considerable time without any unforseen incident.
What political manipulation went on in the meantime is not something which Singaporeans are privy to. Literally, out of the blue Mr. Ngiam came out with a statement yesterday (published today 12 Oct) seeking to clarify the comments he made about PAP ministers being afraid to speak up and the PAP being elitist. The million dollar question is why has Mr. Ngiam taken such a long time to make the clarification when the statement has been in circulation for some time. Of course, that this sudden turn of event has come as a disappointment to his ardent supporters is to put it mildly. PM Lee, however, showed his true colours by ever so promptly welcoming Mr. Ngiam's clarification and extolling him for his action.
The more important aspect of this whole episode is whether this bizarre behaviour of Mr. Ngiam spells the end of his courageous probing of the PAP leadership. What went on in his mind and whether there had been any political pressure on him to make the clarification is something which we may not know for some time. One thing is certain. If Mr. Ngiam chickens out, it will be quite a significant loss to opposition politics.
So when Mr. Ngiam Tong Dow was interviewed by Dr. Toh Han Chong, editor of the Singapore Medical Association (SMA) News, which was in a question and answer form, Mr. Ngiam's statement included some critical comments on the high salaries of PAP ministers, which for fear of losing them, prevented ministers from speaking up to PM Lee Hsien Loong and on the elitist nature of the PAP leadership. These and other comments, which were published in SMA newsletter in September, were hardly flattering to the PAP leadership, especially PM Lee, but they were lapped up with great delight by Singaporeans mainly because the comments were made by an author of high social standing in a prominent medical journal. From the nature of the contents of the statement, there was no question that it was made voluntarily and without any coercion. Mr. Ngiam could not have been a happier man because the statement has been in circulation for a considerable time without any unforseen incident.
What political manipulation went on in the meantime is not something which Singaporeans are privy to. Literally, out of the blue Mr. Ngiam came out with a statement yesterday (published today 12 Oct) seeking to clarify the comments he made about PAP ministers being afraid to speak up and the PAP being elitist. The million dollar question is why has Mr. Ngiam taken such a long time to make the clarification when the statement has been in circulation for some time. Of course, that this sudden turn of event has come as a disappointment to his ardent supporters is to put it mildly. PM Lee, however, showed his true colours by ever so promptly welcoming Mr. Ngiam's clarification and extolling him for his action.
The more important aspect of this whole episode is whether this bizarre behaviour of Mr. Ngiam spells the end of his courageous probing of the PAP leadership. What went on in his mind and whether there had been any political pressure on him to make the clarification is something which we may not know for some time. One thing is certain. If Mr. Ngiam chickens out, it will be quite a significant loss to opposition politics.
Friday, October 11, 2013
A nervous & fumbling Prime Minister
The question of the humongous salaries that PM Lee Hsien Loong and his self-serving ministers pay themselves from taxpayers' money has been the subject of public outrage but PM Lee and his ministers merrily continue to help themselves with the unconscionable emoluments oblivious to public outrage. This is because they are the Government and have the power to pay themselves outrageously without having to answer to the electorate that elected them. Just imagine our PM Lee drawing four to five times the salary of the President of the United States of America Mr. Barack Obama. It is preposterous for PM Lee to think that his position and responsibility are equal or superior to the American President to justify his exorbitant salary. So too are our self-serving ministers if they think they are superior to their American counterparts to justify their humongous salaries. PM Lee simply rides roughshod to any public protest.
But PM Lee shows himself to be less courageous when he faces foreign questioners on his and his ministers' astronomical salaries. In a recent interview with an astute interviewer Ms Patricia Wu of CNN, he was found to be nervous and fumbling with embarrassment when asked to comment on Singapore's lawmakers being some of the highest paid in the world and whether Washington would attract better talents if their salaries were more competitive. PM Lee was quickly put on the spot and caught off guard by Ms Patricia Wu's question. His unsteady answer was that they may have competitive salaries but were far from being the richest lawmakers in the world. They operate a clean system, an honest system, and are paid what their job is worth and what their quality is worth and are expected to perform. And if they don't, they have to go or (shrugs his shoulders) the electorate will vote them out.
Obviously not satisfied with his answer, Ms Patricia Wu pressed on with her question and before she could finish her question, PM Lee cut in and with a pained look and obvious discomfort gave a rambling irrelevant explanation. Not getting a straight answer from PM Lee, Ms Patricia Wu gave up and moved to another topic, allowing PM Lee a relief to his discomfort.
PM Lee can show some Dutch courage to Singaporeans in his unconvincing defence of the humongous salaries he and his ministers pay themselves but he is obviously cowardly and embarrassed when called upon to defend the preposterous whopping salaries in foreign countries, especially when interviewed by astute questioners. His answer can only be porous and untenable, especially if he is shown to be trying to overshadow President Barack Obama in importance and world standing. His defence that his ministers are paid for what their job is worth and what their quality is worth is so subjective that it is not worth the while demolishing it. Except for one or two non-Chinese ministers who are deemed worthy, most of them are considered run-of-the-mill calibre.
But PM Lee shows himself to be less courageous when he faces foreign questioners on his and his ministers' astronomical salaries. In a recent interview with an astute interviewer Ms Patricia Wu of CNN, he was found to be nervous and fumbling with embarrassment when asked to comment on Singapore's lawmakers being some of the highest paid in the world and whether Washington would attract better talents if their salaries were more competitive. PM Lee was quickly put on the spot and caught off guard by Ms Patricia Wu's question. His unsteady answer was that they may have competitive salaries but were far from being the richest lawmakers in the world. They operate a clean system, an honest system, and are paid what their job is worth and what their quality is worth and are expected to perform. And if they don't, they have to go or (shrugs his shoulders) the electorate will vote them out.
Obviously not satisfied with his answer, Ms Patricia Wu pressed on with her question and before she could finish her question, PM Lee cut in and with a pained look and obvious discomfort gave a rambling irrelevant explanation. Not getting a straight answer from PM Lee, Ms Patricia Wu gave up and moved to another topic, allowing PM Lee a relief to his discomfort.
PM Lee can show some Dutch courage to Singaporeans in his unconvincing defence of the humongous salaries he and his ministers pay themselves but he is obviously cowardly and embarrassed when called upon to defend the preposterous whopping salaries in foreign countries, especially when interviewed by astute questioners. His answer can only be porous and untenable, especially if he is shown to be trying to overshadow President Barack Obama in importance and world standing. His defence that his ministers are paid for what their job is worth and what their quality is worth is so subjective that it is not worth the while demolishing it. Except for one or two non-Chinese ministers who are deemed worthy, most of them are considered run-of-the-mill calibre.
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
A Contrasting Personality
The recent memorable visit of the Myanmar icon Daw Aung San Suu Kyi may still be fresh in the people's mind. Since she is a renowned Myanmar politician of international standing, it was not surprising that PM Lee Hsien Loong pulled out all the stops to make her visit a historic event. In view of the fact that Daw Suu Kyi has captured the attention and affection of the world with her uncompromising struggle for democracy against the powerful military junta which had ruled Myanmar with an iron hand for decades, PM Lee would not want to miss the golden opportunity of showing his exquisite hospitality to the Myanmar herione during her short stay in Singapore to enhance his so-called international reputation. So among the programme which had been meticulously arranged for Daw Suu Kyi, there appeared to be one which had perhaps flummoxed many Singaporeans, unless it was meant as a stop-gap.
There were many who wondered what significance was there in the meeting between Ms Grace Fu, Minister in PMO and the Myanmar icon Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. Daw Suu Kyi is a political fighter of international stature who could easily dwarfed the mediocre credentials of Ms Grace Fu, notwithstanding that she is a PAP minister. In spite of being overawed by the formidable stature of her honoured guest Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, Ms Grace Fu nevertheless managed to utter a few words of friendship between Singapore and Myanmar while Daw Suu Kyi spoke with conviction about her hopes for her country and her people.
But the contrasting personalities of the two female politicians are very prominent. Ms Grace moaned about her "sacrifices" during the period of the ministerial salary review. She was reported to have said that when she entered politics in 2006, pay was not a key factor for her. The more considerations for her were the loss of privacy and personal time, public scrutiny and career disruptions. She had further said that she had ground to believe that her family would not suffer a drastic change in the standard of living even though she experienced a drop in her income. So it was with this recent pay cut. If the balance was tilted further in the future, it would make it harder for anyone considering political office. Well she is now a million-dollar PAP minister.
Daw Suu Kyi too had her sacrifices all too familiar to the world. She was compelled to forsake her husband, her two young sons and personal freedom to fight for democracy for her people. But true to her lofty character, she perceived her "sacrifices" more of a choice than a sacrifice. "If you choose to do something, then you shouldn't say it's a sacrifice because nobody forced you to do it" Daw Aung San Suu Kyi said. (This paragraph is quoted from a post "Transitional Eternity").
The contrast between these two women - one a political luminary of world renown and the other a run-of-the-mill PAP minister - is so great that one glitters like a shinning star in the dark and the other exhibits darkness like a starless night.
There were many who wondered what significance was there in the meeting between Ms Grace Fu, Minister in PMO and the Myanmar icon Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. Daw Suu Kyi is a political fighter of international stature who could easily dwarfed the mediocre credentials of Ms Grace Fu, notwithstanding that she is a PAP minister. In spite of being overawed by the formidable stature of her honoured guest Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, Ms Grace Fu nevertheless managed to utter a few words of friendship between Singapore and Myanmar while Daw Suu Kyi spoke with conviction about her hopes for her country and her people.
But the contrasting personalities of the two female politicians are very prominent. Ms Grace moaned about her "sacrifices" during the period of the ministerial salary review. She was reported to have said that when she entered politics in 2006, pay was not a key factor for her. The more considerations for her were the loss of privacy and personal time, public scrutiny and career disruptions. She had further said that she had ground to believe that her family would not suffer a drastic change in the standard of living even though she experienced a drop in her income. So it was with this recent pay cut. If the balance was tilted further in the future, it would make it harder for anyone considering political office. Well she is now a million-dollar PAP minister.
Daw Suu Kyi too had her sacrifices all too familiar to the world. She was compelled to forsake her husband, her two young sons and personal freedom to fight for democracy for her people. But true to her lofty character, she perceived her "sacrifices" more of a choice than a sacrifice. "If you choose to do something, then you shouldn't say it's a sacrifice because nobody forced you to do it" Daw Aung San Suu Kyi said. (This paragraph is quoted from a post "Transitional Eternity").
The contrast between these two women - one a political luminary of world renown and the other a run-of-the-mill PAP minister - is so great that one glitters like a shinning star in the dark and the other exhibits darkness like a starless night.
Saturday, September 28, 2013
Trust is a many-splendoured thing.
This is the title of a magnificant article by David Chan in the Straits Times on 28 September. This is no doubt for the edification of Singaporeans for the enhancement of their political discernment, and in particular to the disoriented PAP leadership under PM Lee Hsien Loong in coming to terms with their predicament in GE 2016.
With due respect to the author David Chan, his treatise has been very carefully crafted with a view to admonishing the PAP that it is heading toward a political disaster in GE 2016. Only that being an invitee of the Straits Times to write, it would not be very civilised of him to be too explicit in his admonishment. But discerning Singaporeans reading the article will be left with no doubt of its oblique reference to the PAP.
David Chan has identified three major dimensions of trust which affect how citizens think, feel and behave and which may shed light on how and why the public trusts or distrusts the Government. They are competence, integrity and benevolence. Trust in competence is about people's confidence in the Government's ability to perform and solve problems. It involves the ability to address issues affecting quality of life and also effectiveness in managing crises. Issues of infrastructure such as public transport lagging behind population growth raise doubts relating to trust in competence.
Trust in integrity is about people's assessment of the Government's character or extent to which they think it is not corrupt and is impartial. Trust in benevolence is about people's belief in the Government's intentions and motivations. Trust in benevolence increases when people believe that the intention of policy and government action is to serve their interests and is motivated by a genuine concern for citizen well-being, as opposed to being influenced by vested private or partisan interests. It gets eroded when people think that policies are formulated by an elite which is disconnected from ground sentiments, is unable to empathise, or does not care enough for the less fortunate or ordinary folk.
Let's examine the three major dimensions of trust identified by David Chan and see how the PAP leadership under PM Lee fare in measuring up to their strict standards. PAP ministers, including the prime minister, are more concerned with their astronomical salaries running into millions of dollars from taxpayers' money than with serving the people and would this not affect the Government's ability to perform and solve problems? It is a well-known fact that the transport problem, especially the SMRT, is in a dreadful mess with frequent breakdowns and overcrowding and would not this raise doubts relating to trust in competence? And the rational PAP Government is planning to increase the population to 6.9 million in 2030 as their clever way of solving the overcrowding.
As for trust in integrity, we know that corruption is illegal but with the prime minister and his ministers paying themselves astronomically from taxpayers' money, is this what one would describe as trust in integrity? As for trust in benevolence, Singaporeans are branded as daft by the former Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and it is precisely that because Singaporeans are daft that they believe that the intention of policy and government action is to serve their interests and is motivated by genuine concern for citizen well-being, as opposed to being influenced by vested or partisan interests.
We leave it to the discerning Singaporeans to form their opinion whether the PAP leadership under PM Lee deserve the trust in competence, trust in integrity and trust in benevolence identified by David Chan in his magnificent article.
With due respect to the author David Chan, his treatise has been very carefully crafted with a view to admonishing the PAP that it is heading toward a political disaster in GE 2016. Only that being an invitee of the Straits Times to write, it would not be very civilised of him to be too explicit in his admonishment. But discerning Singaporeans reading the article will be left with no doubt of its oblique reference to the PAP.
David Chan has identified three major dimensions of trust which affect how citizens think, feel and behave and which may shed light on how and why the public trusts or distrusts the Government. They are competence, integrity and benevolence. Trust in competence is about people's confidence in the Government's ability to perform and solve problems. It involves the ability to address issues affecting quality of life and also effectiveness in managing crises. Issues of infrastructure such as public transport lagging behind population growth raise doubts relating to trust in competence.
Trust in integrity is about people's assessment of the Government's character or extent to which they think it is not corrupt and is impartial. Trust in benevolence is about people's belief in the Government's intentions and motivations. Trust in benevolence increases when people believe that the intention of policy and government action is to serve their interests and is motivated by a genuine concern for citizen well-being, as opposed to being influenced by vested private or partisan interests. It gets eroded when people think that policies are formulated by an elite which is disconnected from ground sentiments, is unable to empathise, or does not care enough for the less fortunate or ordinary folk.
Let's examine the three major dimensions of trust identified by David Chan and see how the PAP leadership under PM Lee fare in measuring up to their strict standards. PAP ministers, including the prime minister, are more concerned with their astronomical salaries running into millions of dollars from taxpayers' money than with serving the people and would this not affect the Government's ability to perform and solve problems? It is a well-known fact that the transport problem, especially the SMRT, is in a dreadful mess with frequent breakdowns and overcrowding and would not this raise doubts relating to trust in competence? And the rational PAP Government is planning to increase the population to 6.9 million in 2030 as their clever way of solving the overcrowding.
As for trust in integrity, we know that corruption is illegal but with the prime minister and his ministers paying themselves astronomically from taxpayers' money, is this what one would describe as trust in integrity? As for trust in benevolence, Singaporeans are branded as daft by the former Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and it is precisely that because Singaporeans are daft that they believe that the intention of policy and government action is to serve their interests and is motivated by genuine concern for citizen well-being, as opposed to being influenced by vested or partisan interests.
We leave it to the discerning Singaporeans to form their opinion whether the PAP leadership under PM Lee deserve the trust in competence, trust in integrity and trust in benevolence identified by David Chan in his magnificent article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)