Skip to main content

A $1000 Justice Question? And the Transition World.


[If found guilty, the AHPETC is liable to a maximum $1,000 fine for the regulatory offence.]#1
The trial dispute between National  Environment Agency and Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council is over a $1000 fine.  If we consider legal fees, time spent and administrative costs from both sides,  adding them together it certainly costs more than $1000.

In pragmatic Singapore, especially for businesses, it is cheaper to pay the fine or issue a warning letter.  NEA, representing the PAP government and WP-led AHPETC must have seen the gains over costs. Both hopes to gain political  points over the trial.    
The dispute over the ‘unlicensed’ trade fair is after all a justice problem. $1000 cannot settle the dispute even after the Courts make its final ruling later.   In paper, the trial is  closed and a justice is made.   However, it will remain an issue and how public see and judge it will be another level of justice. Will social media change the perception of justice?  Who is more afraid of the perception gap  between a justice decided by the Courts and a public justice influenced by social media?    
[people would have to recognise that the big shifts are sparked by social media and information technology.]#2
The world is in transition as claimed by former Foreign Minister George Yeo. And social media plays an important role in this transition.   Yeo also said Singapore was well placed to meet this new reality. Really?  We don’t know. Yeo is optimistic that Singapore will meet the challenges of  this transition as a ‘free city’.   Perhaps, as an ex-PAP minister, he has more inside views of how the PAP see the transition and how the PAP view the new reality of justice.

Some claim even NEA wins the case, the PAP government is still a loser. Then, why is the PAP so stupid to begin the trial? Why doesn’t NEA just issue a warning letter? Perhaps, warning letter is ‘justice no enough’, like the famous ‘money no enough’.  The PAP wants the money as well as wants the justice to be carried out.
Is this a good strategy for a new reality in the world of transition?   
In the trial case, the PAP seems to depend on the Courts, the Institutions to make the judgment, to decide the justice. However,  in a new reality, justice is done through institutional and non-institutional means, like social media and public opinions.  
["You have to depend on others. And so I go around and I play the student, I ask questions, I ask for help. I ask how I can be helpful...You create an energy field where there are multiple nodes of activity and you yourself constitutes only one node, hopefully a node which will grow in importance," he said.]#2
To continue to run Singapore, the PAP has to depend on others, on social media and most importantly to be a student.   This is a new reality. Can the PAP make through the transition?   
#1
#2

Labels:

Comments

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 ...
277 comments
Read more

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...
51 comments
Read more

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...
Post a Comment
Read more