Skip to main content

PM Lee, are you Yin-Yang imbalance?

PM Lee, are you Yin-Yang imbalance?
PM Lee at NUS ministerial forum source: ST photo
Judging from your speech and questions and answers session to NUS students at a ministerial forum, it seems you are creating more and more Yin-Yang imbalance in Singapore.  One obvious imbalance is the infamous “A two-party system is not workable in Singapore because there is simply not enough talent to form two “A teams”.

No wonder your minister Lim Swee Say came out with the “ill and healthy theory”. In the Mandarin political debate recently he said:  A healthy person does not mean that he would never ever fall ill. Similarly, someone who is ill does not mean he is unhealthy person. For whether one is healthy or not does not depend on the fact of whether he is ill or not; the question is whether it is a major or minor illness, whether he falls ill frequently or infrequently. If one’s illness is minor and infrequent, he is considered healthy; if the illness is major and frequent, then it’s unhealthy.”

Which state are you in “minor and infrequent” or “major and frequent”?  You have failed to realize that the Singapore political illness is “major and frequent” and it’s unhealthy. It certainly needs immediate attention. However, in your address to NUS students, you are creating more and more imbalances in the future of Singapore. And in the coming election, voters are going to re-balance it and make Singapore a healthy place for political development.

The ancient Chinese subscribe to a concept called Yin-Yang which is a belief that there exist two complementary forces in the universe. One is Yang which represents everything positive or masculine and the other is Yin which is characterized as negative or feminine. One is not better than the other. Instead they are both necessary and a balance of both is highly desirable.

PM Lee what you are trying to tell NUS students is PAP is good and there is only one A team and obviously you are saying there is only a “Yang” in Singapore, i.e. PAP and there is no need for a “Ying” to balance off the political environment.  No wonder Minister Lim would stress that “someone who is ill does not mean he is unhealthy person’.  So, Singapore can remain ill but still healthy.

Normally Yin and Yang in the body maintain a dynamic balance through the interactions of inter-opposition, inter-dependence, inter-restriction and inter-transformation. The theory of Yin and Yang is used extensively in traditional Chinese medicine to explain the histological structure, physiological function, and pathological changes of the human body, and to serve as guide for diagnosis of treatment. 

Have you seen a TCM doctor before?  The doctor will advise to seek balance in life but never over stress on Yin or Yang. If you are weak in Yin or Yang, you need to re-enforce it. Look like you have forgotten the TCM advice and want to create more imbalances in Singapore politics. 

Here are some examples in your address at NUS that will lead to imbalance:

You called the following arrangements - a political system to avoid divisive politics and work for Singapore: Introduced Non-Constituency MPs (NCMPs) in 1984, Introduced Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) in 1988, Provided for Nominated MPs (NMPs) in 1990, and Created the elected President in 1991.

You also made use of the forum to take a potshot at the opposition, saying that it is ‘futile’ to join the opposition as there is little they can do with the PAP remaining in power.

You championed One-party rule and Two-Party system will result to:  First, society splits along race and religion. Second, society divides along class lines. Third, split on policy. Fourth, most important reason why two-party system is not workable – not enough talent to form two A teams.

You disliked the saying:  Opposition parties pitch themselves as offering Singa­pore a fall-back should the PAP fail.  (No hope for people) Join the opposition, and spend his life waiting (and maybe hoping) for the PAP to fail one day.

You only wanted people to join the PAP, and help it make sound decisions, implement good policies, and avoid mistakes but agreed only “by all means join the opposition if the government is wrong or incompetent.”  How do we know when is the time the government is wrong or incompetent? 


Do we want to remain “ill and healthy” and wait until the government is wrong or incompetent? Act now before it is too late.   

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 ...

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...

对话一定要有共识吗?还是求取多元性来丰富自我?

全国对话喊到现在还一直高喊全国要有共识,尤其是全国对话的结果就是要寻求新加坡人的共识。不然,行动党就会说,我国的政治将会出现分裂,新加坡就变成一个不团结的国家。 全国对话一定要取得共识吗?文明对话的目的难道就是为了取得全国共识吗?如果是共识,那就一定有取舍。是不是说强势的人就领头共识,而落势的就落得一无所有。这不又走回老路,一条行动党独大的旧政治框框吗?看来,行动党对于过去,仍然依依不舍,行动党的共识,就是国家的共识,新加坡人的共识。 对话是要加深双方的了解,尊敬并且互相学习,吸取对方的优点,填补自己的缺点。这就是多元性的好处。然而全国对话的结果,如果只是强求共识,而忽略多元性和不同的意见,甚至否定他人的意见,那么,这个共识,是否具建设性,破坏性,还是分裂性,那就很难说了。 行动党似乎忘记了多元性。文明的对话并不是要把自己的 意见,信仰和理念强加给对方。即使这些意见,信仰和理念都是好的,善的。但是,对方未必会欣赏,未必会接受。因此,对话的结果应该是吸取对方的意见,改进自己的治国方针,然后,交给人民去决定,而这个决定也不过是大多数人的共识,而不可能是全国人民百分百的共识。 (乐观的看,行动党的全国对话,也不过是改进自己的治国方针,通过自己的小圈圈,自我讨论,研究,更新和改良行动党的政治策略,然后,在下一次大选时,拿出来让选民决定。因此,所谓的共识,在全国人民还没有决定前,仍然不是全国大多数人的共识。很可惜,行动党原本应该通过全国对话这个平台,吸收更多对手的意见,不同的观点,将它们纳入自己的政治策略中,然后在大选中让选民选择这个纳入反对意见的新政纲。可惜的是,行动党没有这个雅量,也或许根本看不起反对的意见。因此,它只能企图通过全国对话,硬要说这是全国共识。所以,充其量这只能说是行动党小圈圈的改良版政治策略,绝对不能说是全国共识。) ‘己所不欲,忽施于人’我们不喜欢的,不要强加他人身上。同样的,我们喜欢的,也不可以强加于他人身上。例如,有些人不喜欢吃有些食物,我们却很喜欢吃这类食物,但是,我们要尊重个人的喜好,不要强迫他人接受我们的建议。了解了这点,下一回提供食物时,就会通过多些选择,而不是只提供自己喜欢的食物。这点一般新加坡人都有这个敏感度,我们会了解马来族的要求,尽量避免他们敏感的食物。 为何行动党过去能够了解国人...