Skip to main content

Feeling cheated: Tharman’s left-of-centre interview in 2013 only made people cry.

Is the current high paying Singapore Cabinet still claimed to have ‘left-of-centre’ thinking?

   

Trying to figure out the political philosophy of the People’s Action Party, I find the following old article.  The 2013 interview provided a ‘left-of-centre’ thinking of the Singapore Cabinet, especially social justice and looking after the poor.   

The PAP is a smart party and they have known the issues facing Singapore’s today longer. But they just refuse to take people’s action into practice.  Even liberal like Tharman have to group thinking with the rest of cabinet members, don’t you feel cheated? 

The PAP will never change. Citizens must hold their tears and vote them out.  The PAP is lucky to hold the general election during Covid-19.  Any delay will cost them losing more seats and Chan Chun Sing is correct.


[[[ASK DPM THARMAN SPECIAL

Cabinet: More left-of-centre now, helping the lower income

PUBLISHEDAPR 19, 2013, 8:28 AM SGT

THE Cabinet has shifted to the left in how it views social policy and helping the lower income, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam said.

"If I compare our thinking in Cabinet, or the weight of thinking in Cabinet, when I first entered politics about 11 years ago, I would say the weight of thinking was centrist but there were two flanks on either side of it.

"There were some who were a little right-of-centre, and there were some a little left-of-centre," he said. "Now I would say the weight of thinking is left-of-centre. You still get diversity of views in Cabinet, but the centre of gravity is left-of-centre."

Mr Tharman said the current team in charge is clearly "focused on upgrading the lives and improving the lives of lower-income Singaporeans and older folk too".

"Those are two very important social objectives and we're going to succeed. We're going to do something to improve life for these two very important groups of Singaporeans."

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/cabinet-more-left-of-centre-now-helping-the-lower-income]]]


From 2013 to 2020, has the ‘left-of-centre’ PAP government improved the situation of lower-income Singaporeans and older folk?  If yes, why can’t they get a strong mandate? GE2015 was just by luck and LKY factors. Again, Chan is right.

According to wikipedia, the PAP is a conservative centre-right political party. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Action_Party#Ideology)

In Chinese idiom, we call it ‘衣冠禽兽 yī guān qín shòu’ .

The PAP can change her political thinking easily, from ‘right-of-centre’ to ‘left-of-centre’ depending on the mood of the prime minister. Tharman may continue his ‘left-of-centre’ belief but he is just a member of the cabinet.  Perhaps, this is why he can never become the PM.    

In English, we can call the PAP a two-faced political party.  

[[[The definition of two-faced is someone who is insincere or who acts one way in certain situations and then in a contrary manner in others. An example of someone who would be described as two-faced is a person who pretends to be your friend and then starts calling you names as soon as you leave the room.

https://www.yourdictionary.com/two-faced#:~:text=adjective,as%20you%20leave%20the%20room ]]]



Now, you know why it is so difficult to slap the PAP. They can give you handsome handouts for election purposes and at the same time, take them back after the election.   

In 2013, low-income and older Singaporeans are the problems. For 2020, there are two more issues: PMETs and the middle class. 

In fact, the oppositions are ‘left-of-centre’ thinking and the PAP is moving towards the right, a kind of irrational Locke thinking.

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...