Skip to main content

The Visionary Singapore May Not Necessarily Be Led By the PAP


Singapore has entered an era of no great leaders.  In fact, when Goh Chok Tong took over as Prime Minister in the 1990s, Singapore had already begun a new phrase of leadership renewal without strong leaders.

From independence until the 1990s, Singapore experienced strong leadership and teamwork. The first generation PAP leaders have helped to build up an ultimate creation that functions like a self-renewal organization that is called Singapore Inc.  We may not totally agree with how the Singapore Inc is being established.  However, we should thank and give credit to the PAP for creating such a strong and powerful organization. 

Singapore Inc is the ultimate creation

When the Singapore Inc was established, the founding members and leaders of the PAP were idealists and had certain philosophies in mind to a Singapore or a Malaysia.

It is not a purely economic reason.  The first generation leaders had their visions, missions and values in mind and based on these beliefs they built up Singapore Inc.  Just like a visionary company, a pure profit maximization vision will not go too far and last too long.

Half way in my writing, I suddenly realize I don’t quite understanding what Singapore vision or value is. We are quite remote from the Swiss standard of living as promised. And 5C certainly cannot be a vision for most of Singaporeans.

Perhaps, we should go back to history and the 1969 National Pledge can be considered as our vision:

We, the citizens of Singapore,
pledge ourselves as one united people,
regardless of race, language or religion,
to build a democratic society
based on justice and equality
so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and
progress for our nation.

Since 1966, we have achieved some common identities and in a certain way English is also the common language for the locals. 

But how far are we away from the 1969 vision?  The PAP has itself in the past 20, 30 years intentionally moving away from its own created vision. But Singaporeans under the education and training of the Singapore Inc have remained and continued with this spirit and vision. 

And who is right and who is wrong? The PAP, especially the conservative, looking for profit maximization and high economic growth is moving away from the National Pledge or the majority of the Singaporeans.

Singapore Inc is not the PAP
 
However, this Singapore Inc is not belonged to the PAP and it now belongs to all Singaporeans.  The PAP is the creator but no more the owner of Singapore Inc. It belongs to both the PAP and non-PAP supporters. Importantly, it is wrong to continue to assume everything in Singapore Inc is belonged to the PAP.

The PAP, especially their first generation leadership, must have the confidence on their created product: Singapore inc.  And they have to accept that their children of their children may be the leaders of the oppositions.

During GE2011, when PM Lee mentioned about the 4th generation leadership of the PAP, he seemed to forget the existence of Singapore Inc and its potential, under the Singapore National Pledge, to produce future leaders.  

There is a succession plan in our 1966 vision. The ultimate creation of Singapore Inc will create the new leaders of Singapore in its own way but not the PAP way. It will come naturally, but not necessarily from the PAP, for the PAP but for Singaporeans at large. 

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...