Skip to main content

Darwinism over Robin Hood, Jubilee Budget fails to change PAP’s perception


To change is to change twice. The PAP is very smart in making the first change - innovation, productivity, organisations etc. This is why Budget 2015 is rated AAA by S&P. It endorses Darwinism over Robin Hood as DPM Tharman Shanmugaratnam objects that the PAP government is taking a Robin Hood strategy.

It means it only makes one change technically.  It only changes the reality, the quantity (up tax rate and CPF saving rate; more money for Changi Airport, research fund, and infrastructure; introduction of SkillsFuture, Workfare, etc.). Physically, Singaporeans see them, see the change in figure, in reality. But you don’t feel it as the headline of Yahoo Singapore pointed out: Not many Singaporeans looked it up.

However, it is not enough. The Jubilee Budget, like SG50, fails in the second change - perception, creativity, new box. The PAP chooses to remain in the old box. It is not creative enough to move into the new box, either it is intentionally refusing change or lack of creative talent.

Is SkillsFuture a new box? Is Silver Support Scheme a new box? Is Workfare a new box? Is free examination fee a new box?

SkillsFuture is just an extension of lifelong learning. Promotion of training and learning can trace back to 1980s when we engaged in productivity movement. Skill Development Fund, Edusave account, subsidies to workforce development, etc were introduced one after another. And Silver Support Scheme is just an enlargement of the welfare assistance programmes. Workfare and other productivity improvement programmes have in fact entered into a negative return dilemma.  

All the above are existing models. The PAP is a smart learner and implementer of models, especially, best practices from the western developed nations. From economic planning, legal system, financial system, medical system, to the information and smart nation planning, the PAP has cleverly (and selectively) adopted or modified the western models with great? success but also potential problems (e.g creativity).  Anyway, these are old boxes.

Because the PAP only concentrates on the improvement of old models, it is unable to change its perception.  The mainstream media tries to highlight the generous ‘handouts’ in Budget 2015 as a Robin Hood policy. However, DPM Tharman does not agree with this perception. The PAP refuses to be a Robin Hood. It still wants to believe in Darwinism that the fittest survives.Those unfit persons will have to depend on family support first.

Hence, there are no new ideas in Budget 2015. It does not want to project a perception change, just like the celebration of SG50.  We look back in history and remember the old PAP and how good they were. It is a strategy of keeping the old box and promoting old ideas, old models as a long-term sustainability.  It just changes contents in the old boxes or enlarging old boxes, like the introduction of SkillsFuture, Workfare or Silver Support Scheme.  When the opposition calls for free education, better medical coverage, the PAP can only offer free examination fee, medical assistance to pioneer generation.   

In fact, we see a lot of problems coming from the old models, e.g. domestic productivity is going down , local PMETs are facing job difficulties, SMEs continue to face shortage of labour, etc. As for rich-poor gap, the best the PAP can do is to marginally increase the tax rate of top 5%. Budget 2015 just does a model improvement or adjustment, not a new box solution.

After copying, modifying and adjusting the best practices from advanced countries, Singapore is now in par with them in income but not in income distribution, especially comparing to Western European countries.  To go beyond and move forward, Singapore will need to be a producer of models not the user of old models like the past 50 years.

However, to be a creator of models, Singaporeans will need to have a free mind so that we can think out of the old boxes, old models. We will have to face more challenges and make illogical or wrong assumptions. But the problem is with the PAP. It refuses a change of perception on itself and on Singaporeans. It denies Singaporeans free thinking and free expression with a extremely low free press ranking. Furthermore, the PAP also refuses transparency and openness.

Jubilee budget fails to provide such a perception change, be it freedom or transparency.

What can Singaporeans do when we face an anti-perception change PAP government? We can either force it to change or denying them the mandate to govern. This is the option for the coming general election. We can make the change.   



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...