Skip to main content

PAP, the rubbish maker.


The PAP is the rubbish maker in Singapore, physically and spiritually. It is not only the physical rubbish maker but also a creator of a mind garbage. In computer science, we have garbage in and garbage out.  And garbage collection is a form of automatic memory management. If Singapore is full of rubbish, then the ‘garbage in’ has to come from the PAP.  It cannot blame ‘garbage out’ to the people.
The psychological, cultural, philosophical, and mindset garbage, that the PAP government created
in SG50, has made Singaporeans less creative, less patient, more demanding and more stressful due to the automatic garbage collection.  

There is no point criticizing people when the root of all the rubbish problems are caused by the PAP. In Confucian teaching, as the PAP always claimed, the leaders or the government must always suffer first and enjoy last(先天下之忧而忧,后天下之乐而乐). According to PM Lee’s analogy, garbage problem is not the government problem. The PAP government must be the first to enjoy a clean environment (as it provides a clean environment and throws no rubbish)  and the last to suffer for the clean up work.   

However, rubbish or garbage is a surface problem. When we look into the details, one will ask what kind of education that the government has provided to the people besides fines and punishment. It seems people either forget the fines or ignore punishment warning. Wow! Singaporeans are very daring now and fail to listen to the government. PM Lee needs to ask himself why?

Is it a failed education of SG50? PM Lee is proud of his education achievement in the past ten years. ESM Goh had once aimed high to make Singapore a gracious society. But looking at the garbage problem, both are failing their duty  to ‘enjoy last, suffer first’ under the Confucianism. They pretend there is no garbage in garbage out problems.

Not long ago, I saw this notice at a condominium office. Some guests are not so ordinary and look aggressive in engaging physical or verbal abuse. However, the management is equal aggressive in engaging legal action.

Dear Value Guest,

We  value our staff and committed to server you. Mutual respect and understanding will help us to serve you better.

The Management Corporation reserves its right to protect its staff/agent from any physical or verbal abuse and may take legal action against the persons involved.   

Even a middle class cluster housing can experience bad behaviour, like abusing staff. Nevertheless, the management’s reply is equally aggressive. Perhaps, they are learning from the PAP government. I am not sure whether HDB or Town Council offices dare to put up this kind of notice. Or, implicitly, they know the garbage collection problems but just ignore them.  
The garbage problem is a mindset problem. It is not a stand alone issue. Some recent events indicate the seriousness of the problem.   

  1. The greatest rubbish: In the past 50 years, the education given to Singaporeans is PAP=government=NTUC. Some may even add justice in the equation. So much so we can not run away the image of one-party state.

  1. Misleading rubbish: The PAP believes in money politics and high pay to attract talents. It misleads people in believing talents must be highly paid. It misleads voters high GNP growth will benefit all. It believes money can solve the rubbish problem by employing more workers.

  1. Full of rubbish: The issue of Sengkang West columbarium and the government’s replies are full of rubbish. The analogy of ‘Butterfly lovers’ has dirtied the beautiful love story.  It shows a weak and low appreciation of arts and culture for the PAP.

  1. Uncleared garbage: The alcohol ban is just another unsolved garbage. It further reinforces the concept of ‘rich’ is better. If you have money, just go to the bar, nightclubs, restaurants and hotels, there is no ban there.

  1. Unsolved rubbish: CPF and its recommendations on withdrawal, MediShield  are unsolved rubbish problems. The PAP government has yet to clear up the rubbish. 
  2. Rubbish generator: PM Lee’s Q & A on Facebook generates even more rubbish than he wanted to collect. He could manage to answer only a few questions but there are a lot of outstanding ‘rubbish’, some even unpublished or uncollected.    

The only way to get rid of the rubbish is to get rid of the PAP. Otherwise, the problem of garbage in garbage out will always be there.

Comments

  1. I am impressed with your writing.What a good blog you have here. Please update it more often.

    Sherly
    www.gofastek.com

    ReplyDelete
  2. Truly can't help but agree. Now it is up to the people to clear out the highly paid rubbish. Will you join me to VTO?.

    ReplyDelete

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 ...

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...