No wonder the PAP is trying so hard, making use of the media,
electoral reforms and other means, to prevent accountability in our parliament.
They know too well that there is a heavy price to pay if the government
policies and measures are open, transparent and subject to more questionings.
Donald Tsang, his term of office as chief executive of Hong Kong
expires end of this month, claims that he is a victim of accountability. He suffers a big drop in approval ratings,
from 72% to 39%.
[Mr. Tsang's support level has dropped to 39%, his lowest ever, according to a poll taken this month by the University of Hong Kong, compared with a popularity rating of 72% when he first took office in 2005.] (Wsj.com 18 June 2012)
The
reasons:
Tsang blames the drop in his approval ratings to his
willingness and courage to implement the accountability system in the Hong Kong
Legislation Council (Legco). Council members (legislators) are law makers in Hong Kong and work like our members of parliament.
In his final questions and answers session at Legco, The Standard had
the following report on Tsang:
[Tsang admitted expanding the accountability system for principal officials came at a heavy price for him politically.
"When I look back at the changes in my popularity ratings, the watershed is the expansion of the principal officials accountability system in 2008," he said.
"I had underestimated the impacts created in politics and a spate of problems occurred by expanding the system, including how to select political talent, the appropriate terms for recruiting them and how to coordinate relations between principal officials and civil servants. I have paid a heavy cost in my political career," he said.] (The Standard, 15 June 2012)
The
Impact:
Tsang’s problems are very similar to the PAP. May be
his public service experience has not provided him the political judgement on
accountability. However, the PAP is always
a political player and mastermind of electoral reforms.
Tsang had underestimated the impact of accountability
but certainly not our PAP. Since taking office in 1959, the PAP has introduced
many measures (from ISA, defamation to electoral system) to avoid
accountability and transparency. Unlike
Tsang, the PAP has long anticipated the problems of selecting and recruiting
talents, coordination (between MP questions and ministers’ replies), and its
impact as mentioned above.
This is why until today in our parliament the
oppositions are still under represented.
With 40% of votes, only 6 out of 87 MPs are from the oppositions. Just
imagine if there are more opposition MPs in the parliament, the approval
ratings for the PAP will certainly drop to a new low again.
The
Problems: Theory and practice are different
Hong Kong and Singapore
In his final address to Legco, Tsang pointed out the
problem of theory and practice. He
wanted to make a bigger economy cake for Hong Kong and hoped the bigger cake
can be shared by all residents there. This is same as Singapore
The Standard reported:
[Tsang admitted he failed to close the widening wealth gap between rich and poor that has led to widespread social grievances.
"I think that it was crucial to make the economic pie bigger for all, so that once the local economy is boosted, all people from various classes could share in the benefits," he said.
"But it turned out that theory and practice are different."] (The Standard, 15 June 2012)
Perhaps, when you are going out of the office like Tsang, you will
then admit your failures and tell the hard truth.
however, in Singapore, it is still a waiting for the PAP to admit
there is a difference between theory and practice. PM Lee in his address to the Economics Society
of Singapore still thinks theory and practice is the same thing.
So, when will the PAP admit their mistakes like Tsang? We all know
the 'sorry' in GE2011 is not enough.
Comments
Post a Comment