Skip to main content

Next life Singaporeans but not PAP men

Life is getting tough for PAP men now and very soon life will become harder and harder for them.  The assumption of born again Singaporeans should not base on the PAP ticket but rather a Singaporean one in general.

I remember seeing an article that a PAP MP said he wanted to be a Singaporean again in his next life. This particular MP is most likely based on the assumption that the PAP will be in power forever and sitting on PAP ticket through the well-designed GRC system he can get elected easily. And there are many directorships and other benefits waiting for him after being elected an MP.

This is the past picture of the PAP and the past fortune of the party.

Life is so different now, especially the life of PAP leaders. They have to fight the war not only in constituency level but also in social media.  So, the ‘next life’ PAP men will have to reconsider their positions and re-calculate the trade-off, the cost-benefit of joining the PAP.

Perhaps, just like many current and ex-PAP men, this particular MP should consider the term “quitters’. Children of PAP men and women are leaving Singapore to seek better future elsewhere. It makes Singaporeans wonder whether born again Singaporeans or next life Singaporeans is the best option, judging from viewpoint of “quitters”.

Next life Singaporeans are the true Singaporeans      

The future Singaporeans will be very different from the present-day Singaporeans. The one-party rule has deeply influenced and affected many Singaporeans in the past. This is in particular for the older generations.

The young Singaporeans and the yet to born Singaporeans will have less of these influences.  They dare to question the government, discuss about policies, and openly supporting alternative parties.

We see changes, whether this is good or bad.   PM Lee said no mercy for hackers and they should be dealt “to the full extent of the law”.  Is this a PAP consensus or a Singaporean consensus? What’s the meaning of “to the full extent of the law”? Why don’t we let the Court to do the judgment?

There are disturbances ahead. Can the PAP handle them well? If we look at the hijab issue, the PAP still wants to solve problems in their old group thinking way:

[“This does little to help resolve a delicate and difficult national issue and runs the danger of encouraging groups, including those from other communities, to take rhetorical positions and make public demands which they may then find difficult to move from,” she said.She was critical of what the WP and National Solidarity Party, who both issued statements last week, said amid growing calls to let uniform officers and nurses don the tudung or hijab.She said they have “presented it in a simple, straightforward matter, with no trade-offs or downsides”.“If it were that easy, we would have been able to solve it long ago, and countries like Turkey (even with a government led by an Islamic party) would not be grappling with similar difficulties,” she said.]
 (http://www.singapolitics.sg/news/wp-%E2%80%9Cstraddling-both-sides-fence%E2%80%9D-hijab-issue-indranee)

Singapore has reached to a time that more open discussions are needed.  If not, why do we set up SG Conversation in the first place?  Difficult questions need public involvement not group thinking. However, the PAP seems to prefer ‘secret’ or private discussions, just like the way they handle the reserve, health care, CPF and poverty issues.    

In the era of social media, the PAP still wants to take time to solve problems at its own pace.  “If it were that easy, we would have been able to solve it long ago”.  This same PAP mentality will also apply to problems solving in housing, transport, healthcare, CPF, poverty etc.  

If you are a born again Singaporean, will you have patience to wait for another 50 years and let the PAP take their own time to solve Singapore problems?


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting ...

EBRC objectives: Stop “Out of Aljunied”, Stop SDP Breakthrough and “Negative-Asset” Ministers.

First of all, we have to congratulate the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee for creating more competitions, especially, multi-cornered competitions in the East. When making changes, EBRC aims to achieve 3 goals: To prevent “Out of Aljunied” for Workers’ Party.  This is the most important objective. To prevent Singapore Democratic Party making any breakthrough in the North and Central.   To look for a solution to retire “negative-asset” ministers or reduce PAP damages. From the reported claims from different political parties, we will expect multi-cornered contests not only in single constituencies but also in group representative constituencies. The PAP hopes to have a repeat of 2011 Presidential Election. Then Tony Tan won the Presidency when he got only 35% of the votes, a narrow win.However, a win is still a win. He did in even in the very last minute, after recounts of votes.    How to achieve multi-cornered contests? By i...

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...