Skip to main content

“This is me” – A Self Ignorance To Change The PAP


“This is me” is the campaign message that PAP new man, Dr Koh Poh Koon, wants to bring to Punggol East voters.  He wants to be his “own man” not a “status quo” person. He even emphasizes his past and poor background as a proof.

And he hopes to change the PAP internally rather than externally (joining opposition).  So, he chooses to follow the PAP stream instead of against the PAP stream. Perhaps, it is an easy way in Singapore politics, just like joining National Conversation, one think he can change the government.      

In the front page story of today’s Lianhe Zaobao, Dr Koh also said it was not an “in” thing to join the PAP.  But, he chose to join the ruling party in hope of an internal change inside the PAP. #1

Here is the brief translation of what he said and published in Zaobao: 

“If I have strong views on adjusting, strengthening, or changing (government) policy to improve the life of people, there are only 2 ways: joining the oppositions and bring out the alternative suggestions with strong criticisms; otherwise, thinking of how to change, how to change (the PAP) internally.  My view is instead of working against the stream why don’t I follow it.”  
 如果自己对应该调整、强化或改变政策来改善民生有强烈的看法,那只有两种办法:参加反对党,提出替代建议,并且猛烈批评;否则就是去担当思考怎么改变,怎么在内部推动改变。我的看法是:逆流还不如顺流。 

He chooses to follow the PAP and still keeps saying he wants to change the PAP from inside.

So, Dr Koh’s ignorance is “joining the PAP is not the ‘in’ thing, not fashionable.”   (榜鹅东补选 加入行动党不时髦 许宝琨:希望从内部作改变) . He was quite absent minded that he forgot the case of $2 PAP owned company and the AIMgate. Joining the PAP can make one hold several directorships and so there is an opportunity for Dr Koh to upgrade his HDB flat to a private property. Of course, he can follow Halimah, the new House Speaker, continuing staying in a HDB flat.   

Membership of the PAP MP does have its privilege.  It is still fashionable to join the PAP and thinking a ways of how to make use of it. Halimah may be the only exception.

His second ignorance is his “This is me” attitude to change the PAP internally.  There are so many senior members ahead of him, in what capacity, he can initial a change.  Who will support a new man, even George Yeo is not able to do it, how “This is me” can change the PAP.

“Always here for you” better than “This is me”

He wants to project himself as his ‘own man’ like Desmond Choo.  But “This is me’ looks no better than Desmond Choo’s “Always here for you.”   At least Desmond is looking forward to serve You, the residents and voters.  But Me = Self, your interest is not his first choice. He is “me” first, “you” second. Punggol East voters should ask him the difference between “me” and “you”.  Will he always here for you as he promises despite the BE result?  

Dr Koh can choose to be his “own man” but if he wants to change the PAP internally, then his membership of less than one month is really too ‘young’.  And first of all, he must learn to serve You first, before talking about changes of the PAP.

He is a PAP man wearing the logo of the PAP. If a green bird standing for election always want to be his ‘‘own man”, then PM will not be able to sleep well from now. In the next GE, he will have so many independent minded PAP ‘own man’ candidates, where can he find time to ‘fix’ the oppositions?

And in the process of recruiting candidates, all of them want to stress “This is me” and “own man”.   Wow! Suddenly, it is so fashionable to be “own man” and perhaps it is an “in” thing in future Singapore politics, at least for the PAP candidates.

An independent candidate may be an “own man”.  But again, not all independents are really independents in their hearts.


#1 Lianhe Zaobao 13 Jan2013

Comments

  1. LOL LOL LOL
    the same group of species, what kind of
    change???
    Let's see how Punggol residents would buy his
    words??? really can't tell.

    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...