Skip to main content

Education Achievement, Infrastructure Regret And The Failure


The interview, celebrating 10-year of prime minister power, looks more like an invitation to a freak election. And the Huffington Post article by Minister Chan Chun Sing proves not only the quality of PAP leadership but also the likelihood of a freak election result.

Whether achievement in education (ITE, poly, every school a good school) or regret in slow infrastructure development (HDB, public transport),  all these are policy related. For a developed and mature society, as the PAP claims credit to make Singapore from third to first world, it has to involve soul searching and philosophical thinking.  Policy making is a total approach and interrelated.  

What kind of lifestyle do Singaporeans want?  The PAP model of education and infrastructure or alternative policies?  PM Lee has made his case too simple.  Whether achievement or regret, they are not standing alone. It is an accumulation of SG50. The past policies of the PAP government result to today’s achievement and regret.      

Why is PM lee so shy to mention our ‘one of the highest GNP per capita in the world’ as his achievement? Why does he not mention rich-poor gap and poverty as his regret? Is The Interview a prelude to general election? And so, he obviously and intentionally omit some important points that he wants voters to forget.

PM Lee uses the state machinery to create wealth for both local and foreigners. However, he fails to distribute it properly. Singapore has one of the highest GINI index in the world. Singaporeans are also less protected in healthcare, retirement and even education (university places).

Facing a better educated and English speaking voters, PM Lee has to admit that Singapore politics will change and it all depends on the voters. He wants to show his side of democracy, transparency and openness by giving a ‘frank interview’. He knows, at best, he can score 50% here when interviewed by the English mainstream media. He mentions about more single member constituencies and less or smaller group constituencies as he tries to meet the demand of voters.  He even shifts to middle ground to focus on the quality of candidates irregard of whether they are PAP or opposition candidates. For example, as one may suggest selecting a candidate between PAP’s Minister Chan or SDP’s Dr Chee.  

He has to show concern and worry to this group of voters: young, English speaking, middle income and better educated. He knows he does not score high in social media despite his experiencing in Facebook or Instagram.  This group appears to be the reason for a freak election when he speaks to the approved English media.

However, he is even more worry about traditional voters - the long-time supporters of the PAP.  They are confused when they read the news in Hong Kong and Taiwan. Why are people there not happy?  After so many years of hard work and contributions, life and income have not improved. Why?
  
The real cause of a freak election is the runaway of traditional support. SG50 celebration has just begun and the result of gaining back support may be too optimistic or far from target. In The Interview with Chinese MSM, these are the highlights:

$ PM Lee thanks the Chinese educated for their contribution.
李总理感谢受华文教育者对国家贡献

$ PM Lee discusses the change of mandate/
government. He warns voters it is free to vote the oppositions but will lead to change of the ‘sky/heaven’.  It is dangerous to do so.
接受华文媒体访问李总理谈变天
在新加坡,大家以为不会变天,放心,自由投票,我看这是一个很危险的考虑

$ PM Lee stresses the importance of relationship between the government and Chinese associations, grassroots, and communities. The PAP is actively engaged and Minister Chan is the first name he mentions for this traditional engagement.
李总理谈政府与团体的互动。

If the PAP can hold the traditional ground, the statement ‘Singaporeans want the PAP to govern Singapore’ may be valid. This, perhaps, gives Minister Chan the argument of ‘Dr Chee is a failure who lost 3 elections’.  The PAP is confidence that they can hold the Chinese and traditional grounds. And Minister Chan, without directly elected by the voters, is so confidence that his involvement with the Chinese community will bear fruit of loyalty votes.

Perhaps, Minister Chan is right. Perhaps, PM Lee’s Chinese interview can maintain or regain the loyalty. If so, freak election is not likely. If so, Dr Chee may lose the election four times.

In traditional Chinese thinking, failure is not to be  ashamed of. Many heroes are failures. From Xiang Yu (项羽), Gaun Yu(关羽), Yue Fei(岳飞) to Hong Xiu Quan (洪秀全), all of them have occupied a place in history. Their names are mentioned more often than the unknown emperors. Oh!Not to forget Deng Xiao Ping’s ‘three down and three up’.

If SDP can have a breakthrough in the traditional ground, then the freak election is possible.  In the past 20 years, SDP has been badly named by the government and the MSM. And Minister Chan is so happy that this bad name effect is still valid today. This makes him so confidence to name Dr Chee a failure.

Who is the failure in the next general election? PM Lee, Minister Chan, Dr Chee, the PAP or the oppositions. What do you think?   

#1
http://www.zaobao.com.sg/realtime/singapore/story20150116-435981

#2
http://www.wanbao.com.sg/multimedia/vodcast/story20150116-46188

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...