Skip to main content

Future Economy and Crisis Management under checks and balances


The future of Singapore will be quite different from the past. It is a question of sustainability and crisis management. In Chinese, we say creation is easy but sustainability is difficult. (创业容易守业难). If SG50 is a creation then the future is an sustainability.

Why is sustainability difficult? It involves more uncertainties, more crisis management without successful past references and models, and for Singapore case, without checks and balances, transparency and openness.

Chinese dynasties in the past proved that sustainability was a difficult question than creation. All dynasties failed because of lack of checks and balances. In between, some dynasties had short periods of re-born, re-creation or resurgence  (中兴)where there were economic growth and propsperity. However, resurgence could only prolong the life of dynasties.  Is the new “The Future Economy” panel a resurgence?

Is the recent 70% mandate a sign of PAP resurgence? If yes, it may last a short period as shown in Chinese history. The new cabinet does not have the spirit of checks and balances. It only wants to check itself.

The first job of “The Future Economy” committee, headed by Heng Swee Keat, the new Finance Minister, is the end of year exhibition, "The Future of Us".  Its themes will include the future of lifelong learning, a greener city, volunteerism and how technology can transform the way people live and work. #1 PM Lee Hsien Loong even openly urged for a government-people partnership to write the new future of Singapore. He said, “We will do that online and offline, in civil society and in Parliament. That's normal, and healthy.”

What is the difference between “the future economy”/new Singapore chapter and the old SG50? Just like PM Lee’s calling, it is normal and healthy as defined by the People’s Action Party government. It is a continuation of the old practice, old tradition.  

Just look at the haze crisis. It is an age-old problem and we are unable to solve it for many years because the source problem is not in Singapore. During the Suharto era, it seemed to have few problems or problems could be solved between past Indonesian and Singaporean governments.   
In the article, “Suharto’s fires”, Inside Indonesia explained:

[Its political strength relies on two factors. Firstly, it is still controlled by relatives and business associates of the former Indonesian president, Suharto, who still enjoy tacit support in the top echelons of the Indonesian political and economic system. Secondly, the influence of the Suharto oligarchy extends way beyond the boundaries of Indonesia into the two neighbouring countries, Singapore and Malaysia, which have been the most affected by the haze caused by the forest fires.]#2

We are in the post-Suharto, post-LKY or even post-Mahathir eras, can Singapore continue to use the same old practice and tradition to deal with regional problems? We seem at lost in dealing with the haze crisis and our (immediate past) foreign minister dared only made comments in his Facebook.   

This example shows we are good at dealing with certain type of foreign politicians but when the situations change, especially, demand for transparency and checks and balances in foreign countries, we do not know how to handle the situations.  

Minister Heng’s future economy and PM Lee’s new Singapore chapter will have problems finding a suitable path if they only think of a control situation. 70% domestic support does not mean 70% support outside Singapore. The assumption of same support level will lead to a downfall of PAP dynasty.   

Heng and Lee are trying to find a quick solution as they have pressure under a strong mandate. It is just a resurgence for the PAP. But any future directions and proposals without checks and balances, even with SG conversation, will not bring long-term sustainability to Singapore.   


#1
http://www.straitstimes.com/politics/panel-being-set-up-to-chart-future-of-economy

#2
http://www.insideindonesia.org/suhartos-fires

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

因为有比较, 才知道做得不够, 才明白什么叫做易通。

  因为有比较, 才知道做得不够, 才明白什么叫做易通。 如果只有一套解决方法,很难看出好坏,方便还是不方便,易通还是不容易通。用新方法代替旧的系统,人们当然会做比较,尤其是科技产品,使用的人很多,一用就马上看到结果。 这是一个竞争的世界,即使一党独大,也要考虑到便民。当人民觉得不方便,不好用,不易通,就会反映,发声,不满。为什么没有预先想到,最可怕的是测试时,已经接到反应,还是不加改善。或许,行动党还抱着“令伯”最大,用者自行解决问题。 易通公交收费系统的整合,似乎缺少一种人文,沟通,反而更加多表现出政府的独断独行。尤其重要的是,如果只有一套系统,我们是看不出问题,做不出好坏的评价。 这其实证明国会里不可以只有一把声音,没有比较,没有进步。

After 60 years, after 3 failed political imaginations, the PAP is deteriorating...