Skip to main content

A thief shouting "thief, thief!" – The latest blame show of AIM gate


{It takes so many years for the PAP to finally acknowledge and agree with “paper qualifications alone are not a ticket to success.”  The hard truth and verdict of current AIM gate can also be discovered later, the sooner the better in 2016.}       

There is a Chinese saying “贼喊捉贼” (Zéi hǎn zhuō zéi) perhaps can best describe the AIM dilemma that PAP is facing.  A thief is shouting and crying for attention for others to catch a thief.  With the pro-government main stream media, “A thief shouting “thief, thief!” has received good coverage in Singapore.   However, this is only one side of the story from the PAP.

But a “thief” is a “thief”. Nevertheless, for the interest of all, the thief should not stop behaving like a “police”.  It is playing with fire and the consequence is beyond everyone’s imagination. 

From the release of MND Town Council Review Report, to the parliament debates, ministerial statement, up to the latest Dr Teo Ho Pin’s “serious questions”, have Singaporeans learnt anything from the AIM gate?  Do we have a clearer picture of what is going on? It seems we are all trapped in solving a PSLE math paper – a simple, straight forward but difficult and unwilling to answer question.

The blame show
Let’s move away from the “thief, thief!” crying of Zei Han Zhuo Zei.  A more meaningful translation of it can be “cover up one's misdeeds by shifting the blame on to others.” (tw.websaru.com)

To stop the “thief” behaviour and to stop the shifting of blame, the Workers’ Party has no choice but to issue the following statement:   
"If the Minister, Dr Teo or the Ministry believe there was any wrongdoing in WP's management of the Town Council, we invite them to make a report to the CPIB or other relevant agencies to investigate the matter, rather than to make these suggestions and insinuations”.    
WP is telling everyone if there is a thief please report to the proper authority.  Shouting and crying “thief, thief!” will not solve the problem.  There are proper authorities that can discharge and investigate the reported wrong doings if there are any.

Higher moral standard
I think WP is making history in Singapore by calling for a CPIB investigation. And in Singapore politics, this is unusual and strange.  The normal practice is the CPIB or other government authorities will initiate the investigations, as small as postal fees.

Yes, if you are not a thief, what is the fear?  WP has stood very firm on this issue and it seems they have higher moral and ethical standard than the PAP.

The new AIM show makes the PAP looks weak and perhaps a little bit of “賊頭賊腦 (zéi tóu zéi nǎo)” - to behave like a thief. (tw.websaru.com). The beauty of Chinese language and literature is that with one word, you are able to link to other meaningful phrases. From a single word “zei”, we can derive many related meanings and expressions.  “賊頭賊腦 (zéi tóu zéi nǎo)” shows the ugly side of the PAP and it does not mean the PAP is really a “thief”.

It is bad to say people are behaving “賊頭賊腦 (zéi tóu zéi nǎo)”. But we have to distinguish that it is different from accusing someone is a thief.  It just tells the bad intention of the person initiated the move. 

After reminding the PAP not to behave like a thief, they should further self-control their ‘hearts’. “賊心不死 (zéi xīn bù sǐ) is “bent on evil-doing” (tw.websaru.com). If the PAP continues practising with a thief’s heart, bent on evil-doing, a worst case scenario performance can be expected in the next general election.   

MSM may project the positive side of the PAP, continue the blame show, and print a “no conflict interest” image in the AIM gate.  However, the more they attack WP and FMSS, the more Singaporeans will look for more details and want to find out the truth – the hard truth of town council management.

So, “贼别急着喊捉贼” the thief should not rush to cry for “thief, thief!”  The more they cry, the more Singaporeans will try to find out the hard truth of political connections in TC management.  

And so who is the one with the last laugh? The PAP, WP, oppositions, voters or foreigners.  Please don’t make the AIM gate another great joke of Singapore as we have already obtained the very low ranking in press freedom in the world. 

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...