Donaldson Tan
Sometimes, one can’t help wondering if the Law Minister K Shanmugam is eyeing the the Education Minister Dr Ng Eng Hen’s job. After all, the Ministry of Education is seen as a crucial stepping stone to senior ministerial position within the Cabinet, such as the positions of the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister.
In a recent PETIR editorial, K Shanmugam suggested to introduce comparative political system to the classroom, further blurring the line between state organ and party organ. Already the line is blurred in Singapore.
Blurring the line between state organ and party organ
For starters, the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) is a party organ that performs a function of a Select Committee. The GPC is not qualified by the Singapore Constitution and it was introduced 2 years after the then MP for Anson JB Jeyaretnam first mooted for a Select Committee to examine the decision and processes of each government ministry, in 1985, in order to balance the powers of legislative branch with that of the executive branch of the government. While the GPC performs the role described by JB Jeyaretnam, it forms a hurdle for the Opposition to become an alternative government as the Opposition cannot participate in GPCs.
In the editorial, K Shanmugam emphasised the agenda of maintaining PAP’s hegomomy in Singapore. He wrote, “One could conclude as long as PAP stays true to its principles and deliver progress, it should remain the dominant political force. But the conclusion is not so clear cut.” He goes on to say, “One factor which may potentially weaken its [PAP's] appeal is its ability to communicate its fundamental message to a younger electorate.” Are we in the danger that a state organ such as the Ministry of Education is morphing into a party organ?
Another striking example of the diminishing distinction between state organ and party organ would be the setup of the HDB and People’s Association. A familiar complaint among opposition political parties is that the HDB does not consult the elected MP of the Opposition constituency on issues of estate management and HDB upgrading but the looser candidate from the ruling party who failed to win the ward. Meanwhile, the resources of the People’s Association are only available to the looser PAP candidate who acts as the grassroot advisor for the Opposition constituency to the People’s Association.
The Singapore Armed Force is also playing to the ruling party’s tune. A friend told me during his recently concluded reservist training, he had to attend a National Education talk by a retired colonel. While dismissing the reservists’ complaints of rising ERP charges, the speaker emphasised the government’s line that Singapore need foreigners because Singaporeans refused to bear more children. The speaker also said if the Singapore government becomes corrupt as in the case of the Phillippines, Singaporeans would have to become domestic maids abroad.
PAP knows best
In the same editorial, K Shanmugam emphasised the wisdom of PAP. He wrote, “It [PAP] understands how vulnerable Singapore is in many respects – size, geographical situation, racial make-up, regional political, economic, military and social situations.” As if the collective wisdom of the PAP is invested in the Cabinet, but in fact leadership renewal within PAP appears at best, to be of form but not substance.
While the leadership figures in the party have changed from one generation of cadres to another, party stelwart Lee Kuan Yew remains at the forefront as the ruling party’s human face and source of credibility. The current and previous Prime Ministers Lee Hsien Loong and Goh Chok Tong have failed to grow beyond his shadow. During the 2004 Singapore Airlines Saga involving labour dispute between the pilot union and management, it was the then Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew who interfered in his ministerial capacity.
There are 4 pillars in a typical discourse of politics and public policy – state, market, society and geography. While the PAP has emphasised Singapore’s small size for its more authoratarian approach, the highly urbanised nature of Singapore actually facilitates for democracy. High population density provides the environment for natural conversation while high literary rates and high internet penetration facilitates the flow and exchange of ideas. It is not so much that whether democracy delivers good governance but actually urbanisation has lowered the barrier to participation in the public discourse of politics and public policies. On the other hand, the rule of law is actually a manifestation of economic priority found often in trading sea ports and it is not a result of good governance.
Geography can impose barriers to participation. For example, the more prosperous cities of China demonstrated democratic trend such as greater participation in civil society and more voices representing special interest groups in policy making while the rural areas of China are governed with a authoratarian slant as the rural population is not only poorer but also much more vulnerable to mother nature. Deference to authority is not due to choice but rather natural circumstances. In restropect, barrier to political participation in Singapore is artifically imposed and not imposed by geography.
According to K Shanmugam, deviating from the Singapore model of democracy, which has delivered stability and rapid progress, will lead to trade-offs. He also said that Singaporeans are entitled to choose what trade-offs they want. However, Singaporeans have been administratively denied from choosing given the extensive walkover of GRCs in Singapore. Will the government put up the issue of political representation for public referendum?
Calling Singapore model of governance a form of democracy is an act of milking the legitimacy of the word “democracy” Unsurprisingly, this has been done by national leaders of other countries. Examples include Surhato’s “Pancasila democracy” in Indonesia, Vladimir Putin’s “managed democracy” in Russia and Than Shwe’s “discipline-flourishing democracy” in Myanmar. One only needs to prefix democracy when there is deviation from the principles of democracy.
More interestingly, K Shanmugam has failed to substantiate the trade-off of the Singapore model of governance, including but not limited to, the lack of accountability of the spectacular losses of our sovereign wealth funds, the market failure of the Singapore’s real estate sector whereby a single player dominates 80% of the market and the lack of competition in domestic markets, leading to escalating costs for the consumer in areas such as public transport. Even the banking sector is exempted from anti-trust laws in Singapore.
Political education
Last but not least, do we need political education to become politically aware? Is knowledge only attained through schooling? If the purpose is to gain political awareness to make informed choice over the type of government, then what is really needed is political participation in student governments to experience and understand the process and constraints. However, if there is no opportunity to make the choice in the first place, then political education in school is in fact political indoctrination.
Extrapolating from current circumstances, the younger electorate will not have the opportunity to vote on this issue unless the government opens up the issue to a public referrendum. Prescribing an academic approach towards comparative political system is a distraction because politics is driven by aspiration and shaped by processes and constraints.
More importantly, the point of having political education is to prepare students as future voters and not political scientists. Politics should not be simplified into abstract notions taught in the classroom, but rather political education should increase students’ awareness of political strategies and channels to communicate their thoughts related to policy-making and partisan politics. Worst of all, it will be the dearth of political ideologies should students are only trained to evaluate political thought according to this prescribed framework.
In conclusion, there is no need for political education in the classroom. Instead, student governments should be liberalised to provide more opportunities for participation by the student population. Opportunities include, but not limit to, forming special feedback group within the student union to advocate or reform school policies, participating in union campaigns.
I don’t think he’s eying the Education Minister’s portfolio. I think he’s eyeing the DPM Portfolio. Shanmugam is an obvious PAP fanatic, and he’s pulling all the stops by making pro-PAP speeches to get that particular portfolio.
Anyway, what we need in schools today are civil and political rights lessons. i think we have very little of that, and this must change in the near future.
you see..
we have a chinese limsiasuayed as a chinese pekinese
now shutmudgum just come alon to be the black terrier
hopefulLEE there is no more eurasian minister to becume a eurasian mongrol breed…
forget about the malay ministers..dog ain’t allowed into forepray..ain’t halah……….
nowadays all this ungat here must be damned tirin and baldheadin as well…
This Shanmugam has been talking a lot of bull recently. Is he stressed out, under instructions to be a dart board, or aiming for some position?
I don’t think the PAP ministers know what their jobs are about anymore. Are they suppose to look after people? or keep the power going? or increase the profit year-on-year? or what? How does the leader measure the ministers perfomance if their jobs are to look after people or run the country?
I think its good to teach the students about politics in Singapore. If not they will be unaware of democracy. Maybe they can distribute Petir magazines to schools.
PAP knows everything about party survival and nothing about nation building.
The ministers are all parroting the views of one man who, as dictated by God, is slowly but surely wilting away by the day.
The way to the top of the political ladder is back-stabbing and apple polishing. That’s the name of the game.
Political education is fundamentally good!
Understanding the Politics in the Consitution of the land and it will help crystallize the idea of what Singapore is. To rely just on ‘ideals’ of what Singapore stands for based on the pledge is childish and also mis-leading.
Ultimately one needs to know what the role the person we vote for is doing in the parliament .
While it is true that voting is limited in Singapore, knowing that the voters are educated to some degree about the political process makes for a better society than one that gets their education from the loudest mouth in the market or online blog.
PAP may insinuate that the system here is stable, but they dont have the copyright to the system they set up.
To reiterate, political education will help deepen the understanding of what Singapore is. The law is fundamentally party neutral.
I
On a personal note, i would rather have a constitutionally-aware kid who loves PAP than a fanatic who just loves the flag and life in Singapore.
I, for one, prefer at least a two-party system to keep the incumbent on its toes.
Political education is a descriptive term.
Its how its implemented and the contents that matters.
And people think that we can expect level playing field?
Of course i say it will 100% unbiased contents.
You mean u no believe me?
Why not? hahaha
No need think so far, just give us the election and then see what happens.
Good Morning
We have always had a lot of respect for Ng Eng Hen. Firstly, he comes across as the quiet type that works diligently to improve the assets in his portfolio in a meaningful way without too much fuss; secondly, unlike the other ministers and their charges; he is a renaissance man; he embodies three qualities that is a rarity these days: worldliness; wisdom and the ability to pick and choose his battles, these qualities are pre-requisites for leadership – so he is someone that we have always believed would make not only a excellent minister; but would also be imminently qualified as a very capable prime minister.
In a nutshell we can reason with such people and at the end of the day even get a workable agreement to do meaningful things to continuously improve Singapore– however, this recent development is bizarre.
Imagine this: if one day, your neighbor decides to change the furniture along with your drapes in your living room and even demands that your wife dresses and speaks in a certain way – what would you as a reasonable man do?
This is the part that defies logic. This is the part that we cannot understand.
As I see it role of education is to empower human beings with the power to think critically and if possible laterally, this is a serious portfolio – the Malaysians made a mistake some 20 odd years ago when they took a bad turn by bowing into xenophobia and began dismantling English as the lingua franca in schools and institutions; result: most Malaysians these days can’t even speak and write proper English, they are marooned in their own skulls and this has led to a brain drain I can only describe as irreversible – my point is what has politics got to do with education. If you want to teach history that is fine, but this is not what the law minister is proposing – so why not just skip the merry go round and go directly to the point and start something like the Hitler Youth Movement; that I think would be more a more accurate reflection of what the law minister is mooting, whether he knows it or not.
Dr Eng should just ask him to sit down before he falls down.
Singaporedaddy
(Liaison officer of the internet)
Articles like this, and some of the comments above, just make it more important that students learn more about politics. They would learn things like the fact that there is no such thing as a ‘pure’ democracy (i.e. democracy which has no qualifying adjectives), that there never has been, and logically can never be.
They would learn that the PAP does indeed know how to build a nation, that Singapore is the most successful city-state in this era (the other two are Monaco and the Holy See), and that the self-admitted functional doctrine of the PAP is Machiavellian pragmatism, executed by a cadre chosen by a cabal akin to the College of Cardinals (according to MM Lee’s autobiography, anyway).
He must be being groomed for the top job. And when the time is right, Singaporeans will automatically and democratically vote him in.
Alright, jokes aside.
When you sell me a vitamin pill by extolling the goodness of vitamins, no one can argue with that pitch. But I need to be convinced you will not slip something else into that pill. I do not have that assurance, whatever you, the salesman, may say.
It is the same with political education. All very well for you to promise not to trumpet a biased view. Let’s see what you will do in practice, when the texts are printed and the teachers deliver their lessons.
I feel certain you will call on all the semantic subtleties of your profession (politician) so that no bias can be detected at face value.
No education can be unbiased. All educations are biased or they wouldn’t be educational. Think about it.
Supposing there is a bias. There are a few possibilities.
1a) Pro-PAP, but PAP doctrine is good. Hence you should teach it. So it is a justifiable bias.
1b) Pro-PAP, but PAP doctrine can be shown to be bad. This is an unjustifiable bias.
2a) Anti-PAP, but PAP doctrine is good. Unjustifiable.
2b) Anti-PAP, but PAP doctrine can be shown to be bad. Justifiable.
3) No bias, but then what is being taught? Just the facts? What facts can you select that would not show a bias at all?
Kangaroo with a capital “K”…
lol lol… :P
//Machiavellian pragmatism, executed by a cadre chosen by a cabal akin to the College of Cardinals//
let’s see how long it will last. let’s see how the modern world will allow this outdated statecraft dominate & dictate their lives. a lot have tried and have failed miserably with internal strife or penned up anger waiting to explode – e.g dictatorial countries.
we may be the remaining bastion left standing biding its time before the real cracks start to show. College of Cardinals & Machiavellian ? what a good combination !! you do have a dark nostalgia for good old fashioned power.
//the other two are Monaco and the Holy See//
you have conveniently forgotten to tell us who contributes to their coffers and the nature of their power. if you want to convince, please give better examples.
maybe Shanmugam is testing water?
see if got reaction from,
- MM Lee, if old man pretend never see then can up the level. more aggresive approach,
- PM Lee, if not react maybe dunno how to handle such split,
- the rest, if no reaction, means survival of the fittest?
maybe Shanmugam lives by the words “who dares, wins!” everyone knows each passing days the old man is closer to his coffin…
good time to test water lah…. :D
autolycus
If education must perforce be biased, then you have just called our Law Minister a bald-faced liar. But no – education can be unbiased. Often it is so, and needs to be so. But educators’ bias should not be confused with the inherent truths and facts in a subject.
If, (a) our children are going to be taught the characteristics of different political systems, the functions and duties of the different organs of our system, fine – I have no issue with that. Give them the information and tools, and let children form their own political opinions. But if it is going to be (b) a system of skewed political education in public schools disguising political campaigning aimed at a captive audience, then, it will shape the political opinion of our children for them, obviously to the advantage of the PAP and the detriment of the Opposition.
So which is it? If the purpose of this “political education” is aimed at shoring up the potential erosion of PAP’s electorate appeal amongst the young, why call it political education? Why not call it “campaigning to school children”?
A gentleman in a separate post even called this “teaching critical thinking”. Critical thinking, when the conclusions and your opinions on the subject are going to be decided for you?
The Opposition parties obviously would not have the means to mount even an equal defence in the schools. If the incumbent is going to use this sort of unequal tactics to maintain “its appeal”, how justified is it for them to continue to denigrate the abilities of the opposition members as evidenced in not being successful at the polls?
As an example:
Suppose they have this “Politics and Governance 101″ class in schools.
Q: List the reasons why a small, resource-starved country with a small, literate population might be best served by a single-party system. (10 marks)
As a kid in school, are you going to write down Ans: The one-party system is not the best system for such a country?
So, what, students are going to be graded for their political opinions?
education = brainwashing
Q.E.D
7) small hum on January 13th, 2010 9.05 am
Last I check, WP’s application for a cycling event was denied by the police while PAP MPs are allowed to cycle in a public event. The administration of the law is not party neutral.
Shanmugam’s intent reminds me of the ‘cheeky’ song “another brick in the wall” by pink floyd,
sample of the lyrics in that song : “we don’t need no education, ”
“we don’t need no thought control ”
………………………………………………….
” teacher ! leave those kids alone !
” all in all, were’re just another brick in the wall ”
it makes a lot of sense when we edit those lyrics for Spore’s political scenario.
” we don’t need no politicians, ”
” we don’t need no thought control ”
…………………………………………………..
” PAPies ! leave those kids alone ! ”
” all in all, were’re just another brick in the wall ”
Brainwashing school children to serve a political party’s agenda is going to be unforgiveable and deserves only one outcome.
///To reiterate, political education will help deepen the understanding of what Singapore is. The law is fundamentally party neutral.///
aiyoh as part of a dry-run, y not show it on mainstream so that everyone can “benefit” lah, y only restrict only to schools leh. aunties & uncles surely would like to feel the depth of such political education. also, parents would be interested to know also what they been missing all these years which were never introduced to them in the past leh.
ah ha, school kids are more impressionable & malleable in front of more dominant superior power like teachers right ?
The flexibility of language.
If even the law minister is like this, where got hope?
Not only that, so many laws not right are ignored and yet Mr Sham spends time thinking about how to ‘educate’ our kids.
What if a child gets ban from secondary school or university because he fails the politics module?
What if he failed because he wrote that he thinks PAP or 1 party system is bad for Singapore?
Have PAP done something like that?
YEs! People used to be disallow from attending university because of his parents were communists or something like that.
PAP is stepping further and further backward.
Refer to (24) by [cat]
“What if a child gets ban from secondary school or university because he fails the politics module?”
If the Ministry of Education made such a subject as compulsory, any student who failed it should not be promoted to the next level. You have problems with such a fair and logical practice?
“What if he failed because he wrote that he thinks PAP or 1 party system is bad for Singapore?”
If, at the time of his writing in the examination, the PAP continues to perform as well as today, then he ought to be failed since his answer indicates to majority of the voters that he has no bloody clue of what is politics!
My Views
post #25 on January 15th, 2010 3.06 am
////If the Ministry of Education made such a subject as compulsory, any student who failed it should not be promoted to the next level. You have problems with such a fair and logical practice?////
define fail.
////If, at the time of his writing in the examination, the PAP continues to perform as well as today, then he ought to be failed since his answer indicates to majority of the voters that he has no bloody clue of what is politics!////
a constant harping of a party’s success = education? PAP’s good or bad performance in part is due to luck heard “if we’re lucky…”? :P
i still do not see why Law minister should kepoh on another minister job. cannot concentrate arh? ministerial calibre leh…
lmao….
Well, I’m still curious as to what answer a political education can give to the question: “What form of government best serves a small resource-poor city-state on an island blah blah blah…”
As I’ve pointed out, the only two other remaining city-states in a world that used to be full of them are Monaco and Vatican City. Neither is intended to convince anyone of anything, except perhaps that city-states tend to be absorbed by surrounding states if not maintained by some kind of web of agreements or other source of stability.
What would you suggest Singapore do that is fundamentally (as opposed to incrementally) different from what it already has?
28) ~autolycus on January 15th, 2010 11.15 pm
Talk so much, but you have yet to address the author’s point. I really doubt your substance in addressing this topic.
[i] any student who failed it should not be promoted to the next level. You have problems with such a fair and logical practice?[/i]
and ministerwongcantsink is still aroun…he didn’t failed mey?
so is mdm hoching..how come she was promoted by ntuc inc for lossin billion$
YOU CALLED THAT A FAIR PRACTISE mey?
WHY?
one a cousin in law..the other his WIFE….
Dexter (the first commentator) reckoned that Shanmugan is eyeing the DPM portfolio.
I reckon that he is eyeing the PM’s chair!
Remember the grapevine chatter several moons ago as to whether Singapore is ready for a non-Chinese PM???
Number one joke: stupid system + stupid salaried person. waste tax payer’s money.
Rebutting Donaldson Tan
DT is mixing UMNO with PAP. In UMNO, MOE was traditionally the stepping stone as the early members were teachers (before corruption came in). In Singapore, none of the 3 PMs have held the education portfolio. And who says education is a higher portfolio than Law?
What type of logic is it that says that introducting the study of comparative political systems means blurring the lines between political and party organ?
The GPC is not a party organ. It is set up by Parliament and can include opposition members. But memnbers must presumably have knowledge of the subject and if not, are at least willing to spend the time to master it. Its task is to examine a matter sweriously and not to score points.
DT then goes on to complain that Shanmugan enphasized maintining the political hegmony of Singapore. In fact, Shanmugan says otherwise, that the concusion that PAO would continue to be the dominant political force is not so clear cut even if the PAP remains true to its principle. How this translates to maintaining political hegemoiny is beyond me. Even if what DT interprets is correct what is so wrong with wnating to be the dominant political force? How else can want exercise political power unless one wins electiosn in the first place?
I really do not undertand this rambling. I got tired after 4 paragraphs and gave up. Please, please…think logically. There are many areas to improve in Singapore. Come up with good, weel-thought out suggestions instead of writing infantile rambling.
Taneug, I don’t think DT’s piece is infantile rambling.
Btw, GPCs ARE party organs and are NOT set up by parliament.
See parliament FAQ - http://www.parliament.gov.sg/Faq.htm
18) Where can I find a list of GPCs?
GPC is the acronym for Government Parliamentary Committees. These Committees are not set up by Parliament. Members of the GPCs belong to the Government Party. You can find out more about GPCs through useful links .
Hi Taneug,
You can find the GPC listings at PAP’s website http://www.pap.sg/parlimentary_comm.php
Anyway, Donaldson now blogs at New Asia Republic http://www.newasiarepublic.com
I am grateful to Pritnam Singh for pointing put my error for which I apologise. I’d mixed up Select Committees with GPCs. Also to Oxford Dudue.
Tried rereading DT’s article again, but still could not finish it. Full of non sequiters.
stupid Feb 7, 2010 22:08,
if you so smart, why u never run for election as opposition candidate to try to unseat these people u complaining?