Extracts from The Straits Times:
CHANGES to Singapore’s political system are in the works and on Sunday, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong spelt out three principles that will guide these amendments.
‘First, they must be fair to all contesting political parties. That means changes must not be biased in favour of one party or the other.
‘Second, they must end up, after the election, with a strong, effective Government. That means you do not want to have a system, which ends up with a weak, hung Parliament, and then you have a coalition Government. That is politically unstable for Singapore.
‘And third, they must facilitate representation of diverse views in Parliament, including views of opposition parties.’
Read the full report here.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
But I am happy with one thing, the fact that they are changing the systems means that it is not satisfying either principle 1,2,3.
Especially number 3, their MPs suck and don’t represent the majority’s view.
on the other hand, it may be more practical that they settle how they manage our monies because they sucked at that too.
They are perhaps trying to distract us from the true losses at Temasek.
You don’t hear these principles about how they manage our monies.
Things like
principle 1… you must make more money than the capital cost. you must demonstrate that you have done that by actual returns and the capital cost calculation.
principle 2… when you make a loss, please explain how you ended up losing monies. Else how do we know you learn?
principle 3… you need to make you accountable and you need to show that.
principle 4… you need to demonstrate that you execute well and diversify well.
If only we hear this and they actually do this in GIC and TH.
Hi Curious,
The general consensus on global economic outlook is a W-shaped one.
I will be careful not to trust too much into this empty promises. Knowing PAP for over 50 years, it isa Party that believed in doubletalk, forked tongues and chicanery and shenanigans. Don’t hold yr breath, guys, till you see it in black n white in language that is clear to the layman. Don’t forget – democracy means one thing to you, but means another to these snake’s oil salesmen.
Wonder why they ask Goh to announce this?
I say, Goh, you are indeed the sucker! Both father and son do not want to sally their names so they ask you to test out the waters. If anything goes wrong, they use you as fallguy, and put the blame on you. They then can stand back and say, “See? I told you it won’t work. Our iron grip is better. Even Jackie Chan said you Chinese needs to be controlled! haha!”
I am concerned about accountability (not mentioned as 1 of the principles). I hope the ruling party takes this into consideration. It has been years since we have NMP schemes, multiple PAP MPs giving different views, but it’s really hard to conclude that accountability to citizens is intact.
Too many fault lines in the system (and the people in the ruling party) by now, so even if we stiill have good ones, it’s inevitable the current system needs to be be dismantiled, not tweaked in part.
Why the sudden need to be fair? Is it because the old turtle had a bad dream – that PAP better be fair if not it will lose all its powers – that has created in him this change of heart to be nicer to his opponents? We have heard in the same event, the other ministers giving hint that there will not be too much deviations that will hurt the status quo which is largely in favour of the PAP. What kind f nonsense are these people uttering – all at the same event?
The answer lies somewhere inside the haystack of PAP’s recent problems:
a. the are the huge losses, which translates to the electorate as,
b. broken promises of a good life, or,
c. a government not up to its mark with the huge wages it pays itself,
d. of not being with the people providing help when help is needed,
e. the inability to attract credible minority candidates with leadership calibers
which hampers the GRC representations,
f. the stale breath of the incumbents – both seniors and juniors,
g. with the seniors running away with their own wayward reasoning of what’s
best and what’s not
h. with total disregard for its citizens.
There are so many more areas of concern in all the different quarters of management, management of a society that is more informed, educated and more willing to demand accountability, especially when things do not turn out as planned or promised. The citizens of today know they have a voice and will not be afraid to use this voice to make sure the government is doing its job properly.
With all these concerns, do you seriously think this government would really want to be nice to the opposition? Why would it want to do that at this juncture? It cuts no ice with me. It is another smoke screen to tighten things up – to be seen to be adaptable to change (the Obama-effect), which cannot be ignored. What better way to do this than to give the impression that it can change, that it is a progressive party, that it is listening to the people, that it is being fair to the opposition. Who will buy all these? Surely we have been bitten too many times to believe in such lies. Nothing will change that will give itself more headaches than it already has.
Dear KopitiamApek:
The truth hurts doesn’t it? Good. The reaction to pain is the first step to change.
First and third principles, fair statements. Second principle, it is up to the people to decide. If the people want to have a hung parliament for deliberate balance, so be it. It is up to the people to decide whether any arrangement to be made is to their own (the people’s) interest and not only for the convenience of one or more parties. It is the people not the representatives.
If you compare the major issues highlighted e.g. under TOC and under Reach (it’s a govt feedback website in case there are those who are not familiar), we will discover :
(a) the issues addressed are not identicial 1-1 (e.g. how is the issue on investment losses addressed ?).
(b) issues which have similar titles, are not necessarily given the same emphases.
On the surface, it tells us that there are different segments of audience on these websites, but the undercurrent is always there. Worse case, policy makers are significantly out of touch.
GCK has to be the one again but now as SM – before anything else, he floated a balloon….. to test the 3 principles co-ordinatedly
Fair – only word associated with it here as a reality check is FairPrice?
And as it is rumoured and postulated by many in press reports that there is going to be an eventual split in the PAP ………..
GCK once labelled as “wooden spoon” may still be waiting……meanwhile he is wise doing what he is doing…..after the peanut story
Alas, age is catching up …..
The PAP owes its dominant stature to one man — Lee Kuan Yew. He is an extraordinary person, a great charismatic leader. We have respected him for a long time for the economic progress and the recognition he has gained for Singapore and Singaporeans on the world stage. The Singapore passport is respected and trusted. As a Singaporean who has lived and worked abroad for two decades, I can say with honestty and pride that being a Singaporean has intangibly helped my standing and well-being.
But our political system, alas, has not allowed the emergence of another equally great and charismatic leader, neither from the ranks of the ruling party, nor from the ranks of the oppostion. That, I feel,is the failure of our system.
But we should not just look back. We should also look ahead. Lee Kuan Yew cannot live forever. The time wil come when all good men will be allowed to come forward, from out of the shadows. Let us prepare for that time, which cannot be that too far away. Gear up, take up NGO work, if you do not have the stomach for the cut and thrust of politics. There are many avenues where we can work for the betterment of society, and take up cudgels for the oppressed and the less fortunate. These people too have a vote – and they will remember and vote for those who have helped them during their times of distress — like now.
Did someone finally “wakeup” from chicken pox that there must be fairness to citizens and political party ? If so, what the gahmen needed are a dose of chicken pox .
Dear Gabriel,
Good points and a great rallying call. Indeed, we, as individual citizens of the land we call home, has to take ownership for ourselves and do whatever little we can to help shape the future of Singapore. I believe too, that amongst the crowd will step forth many who are far greater, wiser and with more compassion than the only ‘great’ man we have ever known.
Take for example the merging of the NGOs that help migrant workers. The leadership of these three NGOs have shown themselves to be collectively concerned – truly concerned – about the welfare of our migrant workers. These are the hallmarks of great leaders, sacrificing their own ‘babies’ and coming together to collectively serve the larger interest of the community they represent.
We can learn from all these examples and step forward to contribute in our own little way. If one is good in politics, then take the measured steps to get involved. If one is more comfortable serving under and NGO, so be it. If one is good at lending a listening ear in the market square, then do it. We can all be leaders, in our own way, and, we can all be great – with or without the adulations.
If this govt do not wish to listen to citzens, how fair can they go with opposition parties? Again talk is cheap and easy, like foxes howling to the moon, not expecting anything. Anyway, this govt did not prove their worth during the crisis, their mentality and non-solutions speak volume of it. We do not want anymore of their craps except to see them step down in the next election.
I believe that every member of government should be elected by the people and not coem in the back door. Then they can honestly say that they were elected by the people and can do for the people who elected in.
Coming through the back door of GRC’s and in areas where there was no opposition and then claming to be voted in by the people is a joke. I wonder then how they can justify accepting the salaries they take home every month. I yet to hear of any member of government coming out and donating to help the poor. They constantly appear at functions and then try to claim credit for everything that the honest hardworking people have put together. Surely they have a conscience.
I truly am looking forward to the next election whenI hope there will a change like we have never seen before and the people for once in their lives stand up and say what they want to say and do what they say and speak out for democracy and show the government that we want a change. We dont deny that the present government has done welll for singapore but no goverment is perfect and its time there is a 2 party system and this present government fails to have the courage to admit they were wrong and made a mistake they always like to say thigns like its a one off thing and lets move on!! That seems to be their slogan.
i am a 50 years old man now who takes interest in singapore as well as world current affairs eversince at the age of 20. having seen so many events passed and learned esp in sg, we need change for sure. i once respected MM very much but not now anymore.
i see somehow the system here is full of flaws and loop-sided only in favour of the able, rich and talents. what about the ordinary folks like us? they see us as transparent or dont give a damn about us? all these events (policies) happened have resulted in gap being too wide between the ‘have’ and ‘have not’. it is not a healthy sign out there. people are frustrated and evern angry about the system being running so way off. i am very tired of living in sg as it goes on……
The road to a true 2 party system is not straightforward. Nothing was mentioned about whether military rule will take place if the election results take a drastic turn. I am not suggesting that we stick on to a single party system, but sometimes, there is no peace and order if you want justice.
‘Second, they must end up, after the election, with a strong, effective Government. That means you do not want to have a system, which ends up with a weak, hung Parliament, and then you have a coalition Government. That is politically unstable for Singapore.
Points (1) and (3) are there to disguise what they have planned for point (2). I read in Malaysia, you need a 2/3 majority in the government to form the cabinet with members wholly from the ruling party. Is the constitution in Singapore the same? If so, PAP must be worried that in the next GE, they may lose more than 1/3 of the seats forcing it to have a coalition government. There will be opposing voices in the cabinet making impossible to get away with everything. If so, they may change the consitution to make it 51% majority is sufficient to form the cabinet without opposition party.
Has the current system failed to have a stable, strong and effective government? If it aint broke, why change? Why volunteer more SMCs (Single Member Constituencies) and smaller GRCs when it worked so well? What is it that you want from the People this time?
I guess the odds are piling up against the ruling party and there is a high probability that PAP’s performance in the next GE will be bad, pretty bad by their own analysis.
54) Donaldson Tan on May 26th, 2009 1.12 am
//The general consensus on global economic outlook is a W-shaped one.//
It depends on who you talk to. There is a joke that if you ask 10 economists for their take on the global economy you might end up with 12 opinions. :)
The collapse of the sub-prime and alt-A real estate markets in 2007 sparked off a market collapse in Wall Street and in markets around the world. Venerable banks and investment firms like Bears Stearns, Lehman Bros, Merrill Lynch all went belly up plus Northern Rock in the UK.
According to the BIS, the Derivatives exposure worldwide is US$640 Trillion including Credit Swap Derivatives (CDS) of US$65 Trillion, vs a global GDP of only US$55 Trillion.
If the Derivatives start to unravel we may go back to the barter system as the financial markets as know them, will no longer exist.
Exposure to CDS was what did AIG in as they gambled more than they could afford and the odds went against them. Our own GIC and Temasek lost tens of billions of US dollars catching falling knives as they went in far too early.
The global economy is too heavily dependent on the health of the US economy and the bad news is the US economy is running on fumes. Its horrendous debts are unsustainable and its budget deficit has shot through the proverbial roof.
In 2008 its budget deficit was bad enough at about US$450 billion but in 2009 the writing is on the wall that the budget deficit may soar to US$1.8 Trillion up by 400%. All these extra load must be borrowed or it will end up with monetization by the FED.(read printing press).
This high debt load in the USA will impact on the US dollar and it may lose its Triple AAA rating and if it does hedge funds, sovereign funds as well as govts like China and Japan will get a huge haircut. See Links:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Dollar-hits-09-low-on-rating-rb-15325222.html?.v=3
Is the US dollar heading for a mighty crash
http://www.sirchartsalot.com/article.php?id=110
If the US dollar crashes the US stock market will also crash and so will its imports.
When that happens Singapore will also suffer a huge fall in GDP. Just take a peek out at the Eastern and Western anchorages and you will see over 700 bulk carriers rusting away, as they use Singapore harbor as a parking lot. That is a sure sign that world trade has tanked.
Maybe the powers that be in the ruling party have also come to the same conclusion that the ugly US economic prospect is dire for Singapore and they are in a quandary as to when is the best time to hold a general election before the economic sh*t hits the fan.
If the opposition parties don’t wake up and pool their resources now they deserve to stay in the wilderness for the next 43 years.
errata:
“According to the BIS, the Derivatives exposure worldwide is US$640 Trillion including Credit Default Swap (CDS) of US$65 Trillion, vs a global GDP of only US$55 Trillion.”
“If the opposition parties don’t wake up and pool their resources now they deserve to stay in the political wilderness for the next 43 years.”
Hi #70) Lightning Strikes Again on May 26th, 2009 1.10 pm,
Strange questions you are asking. Let’s take them one at a time:
1. “Has the current system failed to have a stable, strong and effective government?“.
This is what most Singaporeans have been made to believe and accept – to have a strong, stable and effective government. But think again, in order to be this, it has to forego, or at least pay less considerable attention to other areas of governance. I
n pursuit of progress, where success is measure in monetary terms, there can only be one definite outcome – the people will be overlooked. The PAP government had tried to solve this headache by getting its people to go for training and retraining and whatever training, so that the people can contribute toward this end.
Unfortunately, the equation is running away with them so much so that the mess it has created for itself, and the country, is affecting the people, whose dreams of a life of peace and happiness after all the hard work and, who had placed their entire dreams in their hands, are now going up in smoke.
The people are beginning to see the lack of wisdom in such a pursuit, with the price they are now having to pay. Most are calling for a return to a gentler and kinder approach to governance where less emphasis is placed on monetary measurements as the gauge for success.
The electorate is waking up from their dream and realising that it was only a dream. Now comes the reality – the reality that the promises made by this PAP government is falling to pieces.
So you see, it IS broken already, and the PAP knows it, therefore it’s damage control time. SMC or not is another issue altogether. I think even the safeguard of a GRC is not a sure-win formula anymore.
2. “What is it that you want from the People this time?“.
Our former generation have asked this sort of questions for the longest time. They always look over their shoulders and asked what the government want from them. This is the culture that had led to one of fear and intimidation. The modern day electorate is vastly different. They are asking a different question, very much in reverse, which is: “What can this government do for them?”. The PAP is grappling with this new demand which it cannot ignore.
Your conclusion could well be prophetic and yes, the PAP could be looking at a good spanking from the people come election time. That’s why all these smoke screens.
The three changes are all about what the Great people of Singapore want.
Fair to No 1 change, should close GRC system, and recommend ethnic base candidate – that means malay pap against malay opposition, indian pap against indian opposition and chinese would be against chinese candidate.Eventually, there’s no different race pitted one another.
No 2, ok but need to have Opposition in the gomen service as ministers or perhaps mayor, then I would say the Opposition would have a stake in the running of the country while keeping it a very strong gomen. Less then that, then I would say the gomen would be very weak, becos Opposition(without gomen portfolio) would be very strong and soon we will see political unstable.
Change No 3, it goes without saying.Very true, Opposition need to be presence in such a way that alternatives views are aplenty.
The view of gct is not new, rather it was staled all the time, had pap lky think likewise and not to stifle Opposition( the vioce of the Great people of Singapore) it would be even better, much, much better Singapore.
I got no idea as to why gct speak-up about these changes, while pap lky is still alive, but not dead.
To me, what matter most is, mp without portfolio must run errand in the Constituency as Full-Time MP.Then only we get to see true-blue Singaporean MP serving whole-heartedly for the Great Singaporean.
will all the smoke screen work this time? times have changed, now there are ways to cut through the smoke.
when their time is up, it is up. face reality sooner the better, in these tough times we are often told to be flexible to changing economic realities. time to lead by example.
“”Changes to S’pore’s political system afoot”"
Yes It’s More MY FOOT”
Expect More Rules Against Opposition.
I wish to give the benefit of the doubt to others. I like to think (hopefully) that there is genuine interest in the PAP to change the political system to be a fairer one, so that Singapore can be a more democratic society.
One possible reason could be that the PAP is aware about the strong ground sentiment against the current system (as mentioned by some other bloggers), so this move may be for its own continued survival and the future of Singapore.
In the proposed change, I wish to see Singapore returned to a system of single seat constituencies, based on the “first past the post system”, and the the confusing system of GRC, NCMP and NMP be discontinued.
To give more weight to representation of the minority, I suggest that an additional 30% of the seats be allocated to the political parties based on their proportionate share of the total votes.
These parties should nominate minority candidates to ensure that they meet the required quotes. Any available spare seats can be given to non-minority candidates.
“If so, they may change the consitution to make it 51% majority is sufficient to form the cabinet without opposition party.”
In a true democracy in some other countries, there is an silent understanding among the people that they will just shift the votes delibrately if the parties try to be funny.
The only true guage Singaporean wanted a PAP government is to change all electorade ward to single wards without GRC consituency. In this way, MP serve a specific locality where the needs are met.
The one party rule clearly corrupts in terms of power cos even PAP MP never have a say on GIC or Temasek investments. To watch GIC & Temasek lose so much monies shows the one party rule & power-centric of PAP concentrate on a few individual and the ministers sitting around the cabinet table can only too watch while the monies can burned up.
In PAP politics, the power and decision making had had lie on a few individuals. SIN are tired of this regime and many are looking for a change. In time there will be many more oppositions and any tactics by PAP to sabotage the opposition will only serve to erode the trust of SIN on PAP.
Part of SIN delusion of this regime is the sheer amount of monies lost to foreigners. The country had never really invested on SINgaporeans business, the hugh chuck went overseas and got swallowed.
The nurse got $1,500 for being caring , She, HC lost $4.7billions. Can you see the abuse of power?
SIN political system can only change from within PAP. From my analysis, they are not prepared to let go, only a political tsunami will turn events.
I do think some of the people in the PAP party are more open to changes. However, most singaporean including i think PAP and oppostion members themselves still perceive(even if it is not the real case) that with one person still controlling the strings behind the scene, no real changes will occur.It is like a self-fulfilling prophesy, with people resigned to the fact that no changes will occur the PAP will maintain the status quo.
For good or worse, real changes will occur only after that person has passed on or somehow a freak election occurs.
Mr Tan, while I would like to share your optimism, upon reflection I tend to agree with Curious’ analysis at #39:
“At this time a freak election could wipe out the PAP in one fell swoop as GRCs after GRCs are lost to the opposition parties. This is the ultimate nightmare scenario for the ruling party.”
I would like to ascribe charitable motives to the PAP but I suspect the changes are being made for the purpose of self-preservation rather than any consideration for the opposition or any relaxation in the general rules of engagement. The ruling party senses the mood on the ground is turning and is trying to put in place a plan to preserve and draw out their hold on power for as long as possible.
Curious at #47: thanks for the link. The rules are also summarised on the elections homepage http://www.elections.gov.sg/registry_donations_handbook.html
I see nothing that stops political parties soliciting donations from Singaporeans, so long as they are properly recorded with the names and IC numbers of the donors. Does this mean that political parties can put out a general appeal for donations on their web-sites, with the appropriate forms, to solicit funds? Since there were nearly a million voters who did not get a chance to vote in the 2006 GE and 1.36 million in the 2001 GE, if voters who feel strongly contribute small sums of between $1 and $10 each, it could add up to a substantial war-chest for the opposition.
I would welcome comments from anyone with experience on this subject.
Goh Chok Tong, what happened to our Swiss standard of living! Maybe you should make another trip to Switzerland.
Singapore will Change only when LKY go to Heaven!
Pray Hard!
58) gemami
a. the are the huge losses, which translates to the electorate as,
b. broken promises of a good life, or,
c. a government not up to its mark with the huge wages it pays itself,
d. of not being with the people providing help when help is needed,
e. the inability to attract credible minority candidates with leadership calibers
which hampers the GRC representations,
f. the stale breath of the incumbents – both seniors and juniors,
g. with the seniors running away with their own wayward reasoning of what’s
best and what’s not
h. with total disregard for its citizens. ”
care to substantiate all these claims with some hard data,wise one?
True and agreed with 83) TrueBlood Singaporean and also 80) DrizztNeo.
The demise of pap lky would only bring the real change for Singapore’s political landscape.So, why fight when he is around, said many Great Singaporeans to me.Yes, I said I agree.I’ll better wait for his demise becos the Great Singaporeans’ support were there only to wait for the moment to come.It would come so hard for the pap without pap lky around and that’s for sure disasterous for pap.
So friends, just wait a minute to target on his demise.
#81:- From yr point that a freak result may happens in one big swoop; I am speculating that they might disolved 1 or 2 GRC to have single seat contest… Let whatever opposition have their field day in parliament and let the public view individual performance(both pap and oppositions) and then refine further in the next election… All done with the pap still in majority seats.
SM Goh obviously doesn’t know very much about Coalition Governments or the Countries which have them, does he?
Dear Peter Sellers (#81)
Our views are really quite similar. I did say in my para 2
One possible reason could be that the PAP is aware about the strong ground sentiment against the current system (as mentioned by some other bloggers), so this move may be for its own continued survival and the future of Singapore.
One value that I wish to encourage is “to be positive”. We do not need to be positive to the point of being naive, but it is all right to give a positive presentation to a point of view.
I do not think that the PAP will be generous to its opponents, but I think that the political change will be to give a fairer treatment to the other politicians (i.e a change from past practice). It is probably a recognition by the PAP about the strong ground sentiment, and the need to change for its own survival.
Over the years, many Singaporeans have been conditioned to be negative, cynical and sarcastic. We need to change this habit, and be positive, optimistic and hopeful. It will create a better environment for the real change to come.
I share the views of many people that real change will come after the strong man has disappeared from the scene. But, we need out rule out that the change may come earlier.
There is no cost to being positive. I agree with many posters that each person should express the need for change by his or her vote at the next general election, and that this should take precedence over the fear and uncertainty of the economic future of Singapore.
Let the values of fairness, social justice, accountability, respect for the people, compassion, take precedence.
“That means changes must not be biased in favour of one party or the other.”
quote of the century.
Hi KopitiamApek,
I thought being in a kopitiam environment would have made you the wiser to such sentiments, but alas, I guess you must have been in a different kind of kopitiam. Anyway, to help you out…..
a. Huge losses: do I need to provide hard data for this? I think not, just so I don’t insult the PAP government any more than you. I am feeling kind this morning.
b. Broken promise of a good life: Did someone mention the Swiss standard of living?
c. Not up to mark with huge wages: Surely you are not asking for hard data on this one.
d. Not being with the people: Just to name 2 recent issues; one, the minibonds saga – protecting banks & FIs over the investors; two, the downturn – protecting businesses over the retrenched and unemployed.
e. Ability to attract candidates with calibre: Isn’t this the recent lamentation of the PAP, that there is not enough candidates with calibre to form the next PAP government? Minority candidates is one key focus area.
f. Stale breath of incumbents: Any notable contributions from the 80+ MPs other than parroting the utterances of the ministers? Haven’t we heard enough about upskilling, upgrading, up yours-ing, reskilling, re-spurring, upturn the downturn – they are oh so stale already. After more than six months, what are the figures of success – no one is telling.
g. What’s best, what’s not: No further elaboration needed. We have heard and seen enough for the past 43 years.
h. Disregard for citizens: Self-explanatory with the above elaboration.
I have been most kind to limit to these only.
#81
But might not the Gurkhas be brought in to fix a “freak result”? Remember their CO is not a S’porean and their loyalty is not to S’pore.
Gurkhas have been hallmarks of bravery and honorable conduct throughout their AOR, hence that is mere speculation feeding on the internalised fear.
89) Tan Kin Lian on May 27th, 2009 2.00 am ,
kin lian, i totally concur with you for your statement. these are what we all fear or have in mind of the present situation in singapore governance system.
let’s us be ‘patient’ a little bit but i have to warn that patient runs out fast.
84) KopitiamApek on May 26th, 2009 10.39 pm
“care to substantiate all these claims with some hard data,wise one?”
well, you should stick to your kopitiam. i thought we were asking for openess and transparency. hard data ? i thought your dear friends should be the ones providing it (not selective data of course).
83) TrueBlood Singaporean on May 26th, 2009 10.20 pm Singapore will Change only when LKY go to Heaven!
Change for better or worse?
Personally I think if LKY is the PM today, I’d vote for PAP. For one I think he’s an outstanding leader who are capable to bring in changes despite his dirty tricks in silencing the opposition.
But looking at our PM today, is nobody but just a scholar who is good on paper. The existing bunch of MPs are also paper smart alecx. The end results are all the crap policy that got implemented which favor the rich and powerful.
Mr Tan, your comments are very magnanimous but after years of being steam-rollered, I think it will be some time yet before people stop being cynical. They will need to see some evidence of positive change.
The problem for the PAP is this: having created an impregnable fortress in the form of the GRCs, they have suddenly woken up to the fact that if they are outside, there is no way they can get in. Hence the need to dismantle the structure built up so painfully (I realize the irony of this word!) over the past 20 years.
GCT also says every citizen should be able to have a shelter ie. affordable public housing in the 90s. Now the HDB are premium, costing like $600,000 to $1.2M. Is GCT real or he is just talking to show he care?
PAP to give up absolute control? When will it happen? The ISA is used to ensure 100% conformance. Until today, ISA is in control of the same man from the start.
From within PAP? Unless they are taking risks, otherwise impossible. They know they are being checked constantly to ensure 100% loyalty. If they are found out, they could lose everything, would they take such risk? They are not Aung Sung Suyi, they are taking millions of pay and interest free loans from GIC/Temasek. Will they forsake?
#92 gemami
I have been most kind to limit to these only.”
Thank you for being so kind to dumb old me.
96) hard data ? on May 27th, 2009 12.46 pm 84) KopitiamApek on May 26th, 2009 10.39 pm
“care to substantiate all these claims with some hard data,wise one?”
well, you should stick to your kopitiam. i thought we were asking for openess and transparency. hard data ? i thought your dear friends should be the ones providing it (not selective data of course).”
“my dear friend” should be providing it, and one you are defending is also not providing, then both same same right?