Skip to main content

Long-term planning – I thought we always had it in Singapore!



Singapore is a planned country - from the day of our independence or even longer than that from the day Sir Raffles Stamford found it.  Sir Raffles wanted to make Singapore a trading hub in the Far East and skilfully and strategically planned a successfully ‘take over’ of Singapore.
So, planning is not a strange word for Singapore.  In our early history, we built our economy based on suggestions and planning from United Nations (Dr. Albert Winsemius). In 1960, Dr Winsemius led the United Nations team to examine Singapore’s potential in industrialization. …... He presented a 10-year development plan to transform Singapore from an entrepot trade port into a centre of manufacturing and industrialization. (wikipedia).

And now, suddenly we hear that we need to have a long-term planning for flood control. Don’t we ever have one? We have long-term plan for water requirements even long before our independence (the water contracts with Malaysia) and now PUB is telling us there is no long-term plan for flood control. Have we already forgotten the story of once in 50 years – the force of nature?

Long-term plan and nature

<Dr Balakrishan noted that Singapore is at a point where it needs to develop a long-term plan for flood control infrastructure.

But even as he outlined plans to review and improve the flood control system, he was quick to set expectations right.

"Nature is a very, very powerful force ... there will inevitably be some episodes of flash flooding, despite all our best efforts ... what we will commit to, is making sure that everything we can do to prevent it, to mitigate it, and to keep you informed, we will do so."> (Today, 16 Nov 2011)


Since there is no long-term planning for flood control, it can also mean there is no long-term planning for migration, MRT/Bus, foreign workers, housing, hospitals, doctors, education, etc. What a surprise!

When everything moves smoothly, there is a planning and when things are not OK, it can be the force of nature or there is no planning.

Only short-term businessmen or speculators will not have long-term planning. Our GIC and Temasek Holdings, when they made losses, they will tell you they are looking at the long-term and not short term.
Is this a long-term planning?  People are told we may need 10, 20 years to recover the losses and this is planning!


Wait a minute we have to admit the force of nature too as suggested by Dr Balakrishan. Not only for flooding, but also for all other social and economic areas, natural force or market force is very powerful.  We did not expect the population to be increased by so much, so the trains, buses, housing, hospitals and many infrastructures are facing pressure to meet the demands.

We have economic forecast every year.  We even are happy if we can achieve 3-5% annual growth in the coming 10 years. So, there must be a planning, especially water is money and flooding is causing money.

Are all these problems caused by nature or lack of planning?  Or our economic development and planning is so successful in the past 50 years that we overshoot our target and land us in a situation of planned development higher than planned infrastructure.

So, don’t blame the nature? The nature will grow on its own speed and human beings have to adjust the change of nature. Perhaps, we have moved so fast that the nature is not able to cope with it.  This is especially true for Singapore.  Limited by land and nature resources, even with reclaimed land, there is a limit and constraint for Singapore to grow.     

Of course, if you look at the money, the GDP, the profit, you will consider less of your physical constraint and look more on how to maximise profit. 

This perhaps is the result of using GDP as a measure of happiness.  

Lee Yuan Tseh, the first Taiwanese Nobel Prize (chemistry, 1986) laureate, in a recent interview (see below) pointed out that blindly emphasizing the growth of GDP is not equal to happiness. In the process towards globalization, we need to look at the relationship between human beings and land.  Only considering this, then the growth will be a healthy one.     

Man and land, development and nature, will PUB consider more human touches and nature elements in their long-term plan for flood in Singapore?


*

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...