Skip to main content

Back to Square One? Singapore or the PAP

Back to Square One?  Singapore or the PAP

After more than 2 months of listening, there are signs that Singapore or the PAP is moving back to the origin, i.e. back to square one. 

In the past weeks, news about transport, housing, education, staff support, CPF, economy and political development are indicating the movements of back to the past.  The first one is back to 1965. 


Back to 1965

As a reminder to Singaporeans about the contribution of the PAP, a movie is to be produced based on the story of Singapore independence.

I wonder who will be the lucky actor to do the crying for Singapore.  This will be a re-education program for Singaporeans, especially for the young, new citizens and PRs.  This is just another expected and continued campaign.

<Singapore director to produce movie on country's independence>

[Homerun Asia, which produces the movie, said on its website that the movie, 1965, is based on Lee Kuan Yew's struggle for the independence of Singapore.
"1965 is a political thriller focused on 90 tumultuous days in the year 1965, when racial and ideological differences saw violent clashes on the streets of Singapore, while political intrigue and conspiracy led to power struggles in the City Hall," it said.]
(news.xinhuanet.com, 15 Jul 11)


HDB – may be a positive back to square one

A review or suspension of DBSS shows the government is under pressure to do some things to solve the housing problem – possible with a lower selling price.  

However, the review or the ‘back to square one’ approach will not change HDB’s policy of profit making.  Otherwise, HDB will not be able to provide better and affordable housing. This mindset is reflected in the public transport policy (see below).    

[Responding to media queries, MND said the Housing & Development Board (HDB) would not proceed with the sale of a Bendemeer Road site which was scheduled for launch in the first half of this year.

MND has reiterated it would review the need for DBSS, following Minister for National Development Khaw Boon Wan's comments on his Facebook fan page that he had suspended future land sales under the scheme on Sunday. ]
(CNA, 4 Jul 11)


Transport – Profit making is still the key

The government still wants to link productivity and profit in the transport sector. They have not changed their position that transport companies must make profit so that they can provide good services (?). If they don’t make money the situation will be worst.

[Both SBS Transit and SMRT have submitted their proposals to the Public Transport Council (PTC) to raise fares. This has generated some responses, including a suggestion for our public transport system to be nationalised.
While this might seem like a very attractive idea, in reality, it has serious downsides, chief amongst which commuters and taxpayers (yes, even those who don't take public transport) are likely to end up paying more, and possibly, for a poorer level of service over time.]
(Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew's Facebook)

Education – back to the basic

What actually are we teaching our children since independence? Values, competencies and thinking all these are supposed to be the basic and fundamentals of education. 

A reminder and re-emphasis of these 3 elements seems to suggest we did not educate and teach our children in a proper way in the past.  Getting parents involved is also not a new thing.

[Education Minister Heng Swee Keat says his ministry will be focusing on three outcomes: Values, social and emotional competencies, as well as new skills in thinking such as being more globally aware.

"I'm looking at how we can better support our school leaders, our teachers in delivering this education and how we can also bring in parents as part of this very important process," he said yesterday. ]
(Today, 17 Jul 11)


CPF – no hasty changes

Do not expect changes in CPF in the short term. For retirement, medical, contributions, withdrawal, all will remain unchanged.  If the economy turns unfavorable, the changes will come but not for the better. 

<No hasty changes to CPF for older workers>

["Let's not make changes in haste. Let's study this carefully, consult employers, consult the unions, find out the realities on the ground. And do the right thing for our older workers. That's what we're concerned about," said Mr Tharman, who spoke on the sidelines of a community event.]
 (Toady, 17 Jul 11)

Staff support to 2 ex-PMs – back to not listening

Whether you like it or not, the government is providing staff support to the 2 ex-PMs. They don’t even bother to consult you whether you agree or not agree.

<PM to offer staff to ex-MM and Emeritus SM>
[Ex-Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong will each be provided with a Special Assistant and one Press Secretary part-time, plus one secretary and two full-time clerical officers.
A press statement from the Prime Minister's Office (PMO), said the Prime Minister has decided to provide the two elder statesmen with the staff because of their continued vital contributions to Singapore.]
(AsiaOne, 13 Jul 11)


Economy – back to financial crisis?

There are uncertainties in the world economy. All major industrial countries are showing signs of weakness. We are not exception as we depend on them for our export.  

A back to financial crisis is possible.  The government is preparing and individuals should do the same. As usual, we don’t have the full picture of what the government is doing and preparing.

[Singaporeans should brace themselves for the impact of a sluggish global economy in the coming months, said Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam yesterday.  
But the fundamentals of the local economy are still good and a major global crisis like the one in 2008 is unlikely to happen, he added. ]
(ST 17 Jul 11)


Politics – back to square one for PE2011

We cannot rule out at the end of day, there is only one certificate of eligibility issued to Dr. Tony Tan.

Yes. It is a walkover.

This will be the greatest ‘back to square one’ for political development in Singapore after the GE2011!

Comments

  1. Read the oracle:http://thetwophilo.wordpress.com/

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

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...