Skip to main content

PAP Policy for Haze - Good, Bad and Ugly


The policy options that the PAP government decided for handling the haze are in consistent with its usual pragmatic approach. In such a way it also reflects the good, bad and ugly sides of the PAP.    

However its consistency with old (capitalist) practices also means it has not caught up with times.  The usual pragmatic policy taken in the past caused no big problems for the old Singapore – citizens trusted the government, believed it could deliver and handled the situation well.  However, with a new political norm, the policies and strategies that the government adopted recently seem to be a public relations failure.  Issues of public (mis)trust and (loss of) confidence appear. People begin to ask whether the PAP can effectively solve the haze problem.  

The PAP is the usual PAP.  It has not changed.  However, the people have changed with different demand and expectation.  They want accountability for high salary ministers and senior civil servants. They want to see them coming out with creative and workable solutions – not like the past a haze problem can be unsolved for more than 20 years.  

Here are some of the examples:

Reading of PSI and PM2.5
The questions are:-       Whether we should use the maximum or the average of 24 hours.
-       Whether we should give more emphasis to PM2.5 and why it is not widely published.
-       Whether the published statistics are correct or edited
-       Why stop work order is not announced when PSI hit more than 400.
-       Both PSI and PM are outdated measurements.

Distribution of N95 masks
The questions are:
-       Why the distribution cannot be done earlier and for free.
-       Why it has to go through commercial organisations for profit making.
-       Why must it go through PA, grassroots and PAP MPs?

Foreign policy failed
Singapore behaves like a child and ESM Goh’s reply is also like a child.

Alternative preventions and solutions
Different from the past, in the social media, there are advices on the health prevention and solutions to the haze problem. They may not all be correct or some may even cause confusing as claimed by the PAP.  Nevertheless, more people are showing concerns for Singaporeans and our health.  This means the active citizenship is still there but may not with the government.

Good, bad and ugly

If you are PAP supporters believed in mainstream media, you would give a good remark or an A grade to the PAP for handling the haze problem well.   You believe in things of the past.  The government has distributed the masks FOC to the lowest income families. They get in the army to help and ask businessmen not to make extra profits. They even form the inter-ministry Haze committee and protest to the Indonesian government by delivering a personal letter.  And yes, they are doing or handling it no difference from the past – quick, efficient, well coverage in MSM, providing proper advice and assistance.  
  
If you are a netizen or believe in alternative views, you will judge the government differently. Most likely you will give a bad score or an F grade to the PAP. If a problem can last more than 20 years or longer, it cannot be considered a problem anymore.  Rather, it has become a certain happening.  There is certainly a foreign policy failure as we have no control of the haze.  We can blame it all to the Indonesian government but do we understand them well? Have we showed real and sincere concern about Indonesia and its people?

If you are a social activist or a person seeking social justice, the PAP is presenting its ugly side of its policy options.  Outdoor working like construction under PSI400 and above is certainly very inhuman. Even the medical subsidy of $10 for haze related illness is insufficient, especially when you consider the long-term care and a prolonged haze problem.      

The haze problem exposes the good, bad and ugly sides of the PAP. The problem now is how many people believe the PAP is handling the issue the right and effective way.  The sudden disappearance of haze is due to the change of wing direction.

So, it is luck. Will the luck always at the side of the PAP or with the people?  Or will the PAP like the lucky President who got elected by a very small margin?  However, President Tan has noticed the full moon and the helping hands of Singaporeans. Haven’t you?

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...