Skip to main content

Political Trust = Institutional Trust = Public Trust?

First published http://pijitailai.blogspot.sg/2014_03_01_archive.html


To the PAP these three trusts are the same. You trust the PAP, your also trust the Institutions and so there is a high public trust.  This is the assumption of the PAP which thinks it always remains in power. And all the major institutions, including NTUC, in Singapore are equal to the PAP.
You trust one then you trust all three: the PAP, the public institutions and high public for the government.  There is no such thing as high public trust, high institutions trust and low PAP trust. Why not?
It is time we separate the political trust and institutional trust. The institutions, like the public administration, the Courts, and even the Presidency have to be independent and not related to the PAP.  Otherwise, a bad PAP will result to a bad institution and poor public trust.
The trend and development should not follow this equation. A matured Singapore should see the separation of political and institutional trust. Public trust of institutions shouldn’t be like the past. A successful model cannot guarantee the same success, especially when the economy and reserve grow bigger and bigger.  
However, the PAP still insists on this relevancy and wants to continue to use institutions to push its political agenda:
[….. there are three things policymakers must do to retain public trust and govern well.

They are: to implement policies well and make sure they work on the ground; include the public in working out solutions; and invest in community life and the intangibles that matter to people’s sense of well being.

On implementation, he said policymakers must consult widely when crafting policy, and put themselves in the shoes of the ordinary citizen.

They must also pay attention to details, correct mistakes quickly when they happen, and explain policies in a way that help Singaporeans understand them.]#1
In his speech to civil servants, DPM Tharman stressed the importance of political trust = institution trust. The PAP wants to engage the civil service to push its political cake of ‘The Pioneer Generation Package’ as they see this as a “live case in point” and a “major and complex exercise” (to gain votes).  They seem to forget that to provide common good is the duty of the party. Good policies are the key points to continue to stay in power. But rights and benefits of senior citizens have been neglected for so long and only now because of the coming election, the PAP thinks of this is complex exercise and live case.    
Clearly, the PAP wants to make use of the institutions to score political points even though it thinks it now enjoys broad public confidence.  Perhaps this illusion only happens outside Singapore, like the Singapore Day in London where PM Lee was mobbed#2.  
To gain public trust will be a challenging task for the PAP in years to come. There are more demand to separate the institutions and politics. However, DPM Tharman sees it in another way: today’s environment is more complex with competing interests and rising expectations#1.
But what are the ‘competing interests and rising expectations’? These can be more checks and balances, more transparency, more independent institutions, more academic freedom, and many more.
The 2011 Presidential Election clearly demonstrated this demand. Voters have rejected the equation of Political Trust (PAP) = President Trust (pro-PAP candidate). On the contrary, voters want an independent Presidency as an effective institution to check on the ruling party.
The PAP is facing a dilemma. On the one hand, they want Singaporeans to know the outside world. On the other hand, they don’t want Singaporeans to learn from outside, for example having the same political demand of checks and balances, independent institutions. Hence, PM Lee had this to say in his Facebook: “In Singapore, we are usually caught up with domestic issues, in some sense, I think we somewhat neglect to notice external trends and global developments.”
Does PM Lee really want Singaporeans to notice external trends and global developments? Or what type of trends and developments has he in mind for Singapore youths?  The fact is Singaporeans are moving ahead of the PAP in noticing outside changes.
#1
http://www.singapolitics.sg/news/dpm-tharman-keeping-publics-trust
#2

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...