Andrew Loh

Being in power for half a century breeds arrogance and hubristic tendencies. This much has been said of the People’s Action Party (PAP). Such sentiments were clearly and loudly expressed during the recent elections. Even the PAP’s own candidate for Aljunied GRC, Mr George Yeo, related how a resident had basically told him off at a coffeeshop during the hustings. The resident said he was voting against Mr Yeo’s team simply because of the condescending remarks made by Mr Lee Kuan Yew about voters in Aljunied.

Singaporeans at large too felt the PAP had too much of a chip on its shoulder and cut it down to size by reducing its vote share to its lowest since Independence. Aljunied voters took courage into their own hands, voted for the opposition Workers’ Party and thus registered its role in our history books.

With a palpable seething anger towards the PAP still simmering, the people of Singapore demand one thing from the PAP Government – change.

So it was that the secretary general of the PAP, the Prime Minister of Singapore, sought to address this expectation by declaring an agenda of reform, and he moved rather quickly in doing so as well and surprised many.

If one were to go by comments and postings online, however, it would seem that Singaporeans aren’t too quick or willing to applaud PM Lee for his new agenda. Indeed, most online comments and postings either dismiss his promises outright, calling these a sideshow, a “wayang”, too late, or an insincere attempt at assuaging Singaporeans’ anger.

Few have given the PM the benefit of the doubt, or support his undertakings.

The cynicism is evident. It is pervasive – and though online commentators are most vocal, the sentiment is not only limited to cyberspace.

I would suggest that this is the main obstacle the Prime Minister – and the PAP – will have to address, going forward. This disbelief, or skepticism, that anything will really change or that the PAP is capable of changing itself. It is understandable if one considers that such promises are not new. One would recall the “Remaking Singapore” movement in the early 2000s, and the proposed killing of “sacred cow” policies following that.

But I take a more hopeful attitude, for several reasons.

One, PM Lee no longer has the burden of having two or three senior ministers within his Cabinet who, as some suspect, would be watching over his shoulders or even staying his hands if he wanted to change things.

Two, the stepping down of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, PM’s father, symbolizes a break from the baggage of the past.

Three, PM Lee is expected to hold office for another 10 years, as he sees through the transition to the 4th Generation leadership. He would thus want to stamp his mark before too long, before he eventually steps down.

Fourth, the appointment of Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam as Deputy Prime Minister. Known as a reformer, a thinker, a good listener and an all round excellent leader, Mr Tharman now has the ear of the PM in close range.

But the one reason why I feel PM Lee should be given time to keep his promise is that I do believe he knows, even if he does not truly appreciate it, that Singapore has changed. Singaporeans and Singapore society have changed.  PM Lee would also be aware that gone are the days of yore – where the highhanded, severe and strict form of government, which has been the hallmark of the PAP Government for almost 50 years, is best left to the annals of history, to be carried away into oblivion by the winds of change.

With a “clean slate”, as Mr Goh Chok Tong and Lee senior called it, PM Lee has before him an historic opportunity to re-create Singapore in his hands, fashioned after the desires and aspirations of Singaporeans.

PM Lee has a Singapore which many envy and admire. It is, however, not a great country yet, economic achievements notwithstanding. What would make it a great country would be for its people to not be fearful, to be courageous, to be free to do and free to be.

The leader of this little red spot on the map must realize that it is not in the building of great physical complexes, or the pumping up of economic indicators, which will make this a great nation.

On the contrary, what will make this truly a great home for us is more personal. It is about no longer being afraid to do and to be, no matter who we are. It is about being able to do and to be, with freedoms enshrined in law and supported by an enlightened government and lawmakers.

In short, it is about citizen participation. It is about empowerment of the citizenry. It is the very thing which most governments are afraid of. It is, however, the one thing which all human beings crave and demand.

The cynicism of PM Lee’s promise is borne out of a citizenry being disempowered for far too long. It is easier to cast doubts than to be part of the change that they want to see, even if only a small part is required.

But cynicism, by its insidious nature, does not bode well for a nation which aspires to be more.

PM Lee’s challenge then is to address this. And the best way he can do this is by saying clearly what it is that he wants changed. So far, he has failed to articulate this in an unequivocal manner. Singaporeans still do not really know what changes he is talking about.

Once this is made clear, he should then embark on a road of no return, and move forward with his reforms.

In the meantime, I would encourage cynics to not be too quick to dismiss PM Lee’s promise. Give him time. Reform, in this case, means changing current ways of doing things, of adopting new belief systems, and of painting new landscapes of the future. It means the PAP having to change in five years what it is accustomed to the last 50 years. It’s no small feat.

But change it must, of course. If PM Lee does not keep his word, then perhaps it won’t be too late to register your displeasure when the time comes.

You will have an opportunity to do this, for sure.

And PM Lee knows it too.

In the meantime, lets hold off the cynicism.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Thai police crack down on protest with rubber bullets, tear gas

Thai police used rubber bullets and tear gas on protesters for a…

涉Telegram散播淫秽内容 四名男子被逮捕归案

四名男子涉嫌在通讯软体Telegram散播淫秽内容,目前警方已将四人逮捕归案。 今日(8日)警方透露,据警方初步调查,有关涉案人的年龄在26至45岁之间,四人均加入一个名为”Sam’s lots of CB collection”的聊天室,其中三人是聊天室管理员,另名26岁男子则被发现贩卖猥亵内容。 警方在追捕四人时,也起获了逾15部电子设备包括一个重要处理装置、数台笔记型电脑、硬盘和手机。 警方强调会严正以待所有犯罪活动,并采取严厉的执法行动打击,因此呼吁民众勿加入到这些聊天室中。 “对于任何犯罪活动,警方均严正以待,并予以严厉的执法行动打击罪行”,警方表示。 这已经是两个月以来第二起Telegram卖淫活动。上个月,警方才取缔了一个名为SG Nasilemak的聊天室,据了解该聊天室也是以散播和贩卖色情活动而成,其中管理人员还包括两名少年。 继SG…

谢尔布鲁克河涉水遭大浪冲走 我国游客获救 澳父子救生员罹难

在澳大利亚“十二门徒”岩石(Twelve Apostles)的谢尔布鲁克河(Sherbrook River)河口涉水时,一名游客遭巨浪冲走,当地三名自愿救生员急忙展开救人行动。但是救援船被巨浪打翻,导致救生员被冲落河中,其中一对父子不幸罹难。 澳洲维多利亚州警方发言人在受询时,向《联合早报》证实有关的意外。他指出,一名30岁的新加坡籍男旅客于周日(4月21日)上午10时40分,在坎贝尔港(Port Campbell)水域的谢尔布鲁克河涉水时,突然遭巨浪冲走。三名自愿救生员当时乘着一艘长六米的救援充气艇,立即赶往援助。 但是船只在靠近男旅客时,却被大浪打翻了,三名救生员也被抛入水中。 救援直升机随后赶抵现场,将男旅客和一名救生员吊出水面。救生员身受重伤,所以被紧急空运到医院,而男旅客情况稳定,被救护车送往医院。 另外两名救生员被发现时已经丧命,他们的遗体是在水中寻获。两人分别是来自坎贝尔港的父子,即71岁的父亲罗斯·鲍威尔(Ross Powell)和和儿子安德鲁·鲍威尔(Andrew Powell)。 据当地媒体之前曾指落难游客是因为在河口大石拍照才被大浪卷走,但是当地警方否决了有关的说法。 警方指出,游客在落水后攀上石墙保命,而获救后,基于体温太低儿被送往瓦南布尔医院(Warrnambool…

“质问储备金看管者薪资,在其他先进国不足为奇” 毕丹星:负责任反对党不盲从

前日,工人党秘书长暨阿裕尼集选区议员毕丹星,与副总理兼财政部长王瑞杰针对追加预算案交锋。毕丹星提及,反对党也同样是政府开支和储备的协同“监管者”,这是所有人都需要共同承担的。毕丹星强调无意在此时为难财政部和其团队,不过当政府在需动用储备推行政策时,需要自问“这些是否足够、太多?太少?” 对此王瑞杰在国会曾回应,鉴于国家安全和战略考量,政府不公开国家储备金的总额;也指收支条规是经过仔细敲定;提呈拨款法案都要向总统和总统顾问理事会报备和详加解释。而我国当前的制度也肯定比其他债台高筑的国家好很多,故此“劝勉”毕丹星我国还是必须谨慎行事。 毕丹星在昨日也少有地以中英双语在脸书发文,直言“对于任何当权者来说,透露详细信息极有可能引起更多公众质问的数据,从而令他们对于信息披露犹豫不决。这样的抉择的背后即有充足的理由,也可能有值得令人质疑的原因。” 毕丹星认为,过去几年,舆论有潜移默化的现象,尤其队国家储备金课题,已超越了封闭式政治体系那一套“不闻,不答”。 毕丹星在国会,曾以《商业时报》的一则报导,指出建议把国家储备金分成两部分:一部分用来做为赚取净收入回报的基础,这部分的数目可公布。其余的部分为安全起见当然可以保密。 “去年,我在国会向财政部长提出询问,我国的政府财政报表为什么无法供国人在网上查看(绝大部分公众并不知道在勿拉士峇沙路的李光前参考图书馆存有一份)。” “我当时得到的回答是:‘为了让公众简明易懂’,财政部摘选了相关资讯,发表在财政预算案有关的文件中。但财政部长也补充 ‘我们会继续检讨以及更新我们发布政府账目资讯的各种方式。’” 毕丹星指出,每一个市镇理事会和法定机构的财政报表,都能在网上找到。政府的财政报表同样地也应该在线上供人查看。财政报表列出国家各方面费用,如:德光岛填海工程的花费、为未来发展征用土地的费用、警察电眼监控系统的价格等等。 毕丹星认为,一个负责任的反对党,绝不是盲目顺从的——它必须在新加坡的国会制民主与治理之下扮演重要的角色。例如,询问负责投资和保护储备金的人们的收入,特别是当他们的薪金是从纳税者的税收而来时,在任何发展国家这并不稀奇,而方荣发先生也曾问过这个问题。“答案呢?却叫我们不必把焦点放在一、两个开销项目上。” 国家储备金被动用(或不被动用)的每一个当儿,所有议员与公众都必须了解并权衡当权的政府,不单单是一个行动党政府,所能够(或应该)给予国人的支持。 非执政党议员由于无法了解全面情况,唯有听取行动党或任何未来的政府所提供的资讯。我们能做得更好。就如开头引述的《商业时报》建议,我国肯定有许多可以进步的空间,不止是关于储备金的问题,而是涵盖更广的许多其他财务金融课题。