Skip to main content

Moving forward to a right direction?

Moving forward to a right direction?

This is a different July the first. It marks a significant change of how Singapore is moving forward.

First, we see the new journey for Singapore by Chen Show Mao. This in many ways is more important than the next one as the administration of Singapore is in the hand of the government and directly under the ‘checks and balances’ by the people through Parliament.     

Second, we see the right move by President Nathan by not seeking another term.  His decision is good for himself and also for the good of Singapore. A different kind of President will be elected and very likely for the first time in Singapore history, the quality and capability of a Singapore President is considered and recognized as higher than that of a Singapore Prime Minister.

It is worth to reproduce the facebook statement of Chen Show Mao in full. 

“After much thought and consideration, I have decided to retire from active practice as a partner of the Davis Polk law firm with effect from July.  It is quite clear to me that given my new responsibilities as MP I will not be able to continue practicing law the way I have in the last twenty years.  Law is in my blood and no doubt it will be part of my life.  Meanwhile, my retirement from the partnership will afford me more time for my family, to serve constituency and country, and to explore alternative work arrangements.

I wish to thank my partners for what I received over the years: their best efforts to aid my professional success and advancement, and the opportunity to use my best faculties to our common benefit.  The same goes to our colleagues and clients.  I have had many good years with the firm and leave with fond memories and many friendships.

On this new journey for Singapore, to everyone who has in some way extended to me encouragement, support and hope, you have my gratitude for reaffirmation.  In many ways, this is as much our journey as it is my journey: let us forge our way forward for a better Singapore for all Singaporeans.

Right direction and Right Move

Here, we see a top rate international lawyer giving up his usual high paying job for Singapore, especially for opposition politics.  On the other hand, we also see the announcement of President Nathan who is going to retire from his multi-million dollar Presidency when his term of office expires.    

Both are giving up or retiring from their high paying job.  Whose decision is more important and significant to Singapore? One is engaging the people and the other is moving away from the people.

You can find the full statement of President Nathan here:

I note with interest the following from his statement:

“Whether it is in the office of the president or in the executive arm of the government, the country needs people of strong character and vision who resist populist pressures and the temptation to sacrifice the long-term interests of the nation in response to those who merely snipe without having to take responsibility.”

Strong character President and PM?

Is his trying to imply that after September the first, there will be 2 strong character men in charge of Singapore?  And both will resist popular pressures.

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...