Skip to main content

Political Trust = Institutional Trust = Public Trust?

To the PAP these three trusts are the same. You trust the PAP, your also trust the Institutions and so there is a high public trust.  This is the assumption of the PAP which thinks it always remains in power. And all the major institutions, including NTUC, in Singapore are equal to the PAP.

You trust one then you trust all three: the PAP, the public institutions and high public for the government.  There is no such thing as high public trust, high institutions trust and low PAP trust. Why not?

It is time we separate the political trust and institutional trust. The institutions, like the public administration, the Courts, and even the Presidency have to be independent and not related to the PAP.  Otherwise, a bad PAP will result to a bad institution and poor public trust.

The trend and development should not follow this equation. A matured Singapore should see the separation of political and institutional trust. Public trust of institutions shouldn’t be like the past. A successful model cannot guarantee the same success, especially when the economy and reserve grow bigger and bigger.  

However, the PAP still insists on this relevancy and wants to continue to use institutions to push its political agenda:

[….. there are three things policymakers must do to retain public trust and govern well.

They are: to implement policies well and make sure they work on the ground; include the public in working out solutions; and invest in community life and the intangibles that matter to people’s sense of well being.

On implementation, he said policymakers must consult widely when crafting policy, and put themselves in the shoes of the ordinary citizen.

They must also pay attention to details, correct mistakes quickly when they happen, and explain policies in a way that help Singaporeans understand them.]#1
In his speech to civil servants, DPM Tharman stressed the importance of political trust = institution trust. The PAP wants to engage the civil service to push its political cake of ‘The Pioneer Generation Package’ as they see this as a “live case in point” and a “major and complex exercise” (to gain votes).  They seem to forget that to provide common good is the duty of the party. Good policies are the key points to continue to stay in power. But rights and benefits of senior citizens have been neglected for so long and only now because of the coming election, the PAP thinks of this is complex exercise and live case.    

Clearly, the PAP wants to make use of the institutions to score political points even though it thinks it now enjoys broad public confidence.  Perhaps this illusion only happens outside Singapore, like the Singapore Day in London where PM Lee was mobbed#2.  

To gain public trust will be a challenging task for the PAP in years to come. There are more demand to separate the institutions and politics. However, DPM Tharman sees it in another way: today’s environment is more complex with competing interests and rising expectations#1.

But what are the ‘competing interests and rising expectations’? These can be more checks and balances, more transparency, more independent institutions, more academic freedom, and many more.

The 2011 Presidential Election clearly demonstrated this demand. Voters have rejected the equation of Political Trust (PAP) = President Trust (pro-PAP candidate). On the contrary, voters want an independent Presidency as an effective institution to check on the ruling party.

The PAP is facing a dilemma. On the one hand, they want Singaporeans to know the outside world. On the other hand, they don’t want Singaporeans to learn from outside, for example having the same political demand of checks and balances, independent institutions. Hence, PM Lee had this to say in his Facebook: “In Singapore, we are usually caught up with domestic issues, in some sense, I think we somewhat neglect to notice external trends and global developments.”

Does PM Lee really want Singaporeans to notice external trends and global developments? Or what type of trends and developments has he in mind for Singapore youths?  The fact is Singaporeans are moving ahead of the PAP in noticing outside changes.

#1
http://www.singapolitics.sg/news/dpm-tharman-keeping-publics-trust

#2

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...