The following is a letter from Mr Muhammad Farouq Bin Osman. It is in response to a Straits Times report on DPM Teo Chee Hean’s remarks to a student’s question. The letter was sent to the Straits Times forum page but was rejected for publication.
We publish Mr Muhammad’s letter here.
I read with interest the report ‘Substance, not style, directs S’pore policy’ (Apr 6).
In response to a question I posed to Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean at this year’s National University of Singapore Kent Ridge Ministerial Forum, the latter emphasised Singapore’s brand of pragmatism as implementing policies based on a hard-nosed appraisal of the situation. In replying Mr Teo, I stated that it is possible that Singaporeans would vote against the People’s Action Party should they find government leaders insensitive or alienating in engaging the public, even if they thought that the party’s economic policies were fundamentally positive.
However, to focus on the notion of voting is to miss the wood for the trees. Indeed, the relationship between the governing and the governed is a fundamental one, for it shapes the kind of politics that exists in a society while serving as an indication of how open a government is to alternative views.
The long-term stability and progress of any country are only assured when there is a sort of partnership, trust and respect between the government and the people. This is because a polity convinced that its needs and wants are being met by responsive leaders is more likely to accept the latter’s rule than one which has to endure the Damocles Sword perpetually hanging over their heads.
In essence, demanding for a more civil norm of political discourse in Singapore hardly equates getting rid of the PAP government. Like me, there are many young Singaporeans I know who may not be flag-waving supporters of the incumbent party, but are generally acquiescent of its rule because it has managed to deliver its promises of an honest and effective government. But whether such a trust based on the most narrowly defined notion of progress – material security – can be sustained is anyone’s guess. It is therefore encouraging to note that DPM Teo acknowledged the need for politicians to engage people with sensitivity. Furthermore, it would be reassuring to see our leaders matching their words with deeds. While the government exhorts Singaporeans to be active citizens, it continues to dictate the terms of political engagement.
Finally, I am struck by the words of our late former DPM Goh Keng Swee who, as early as 1984, elucidated the importance of allowing citizens to take charge of their own destiny. In an interview on retirement, he said: “We must not underestimate the ability of Singaporeans to think for themselves and come to their own judgement. We can persuade them, but in the end, they make up their own minds.”
—–
The Straits Times report in question:
Apr 6, 2010
Substance, not style, directs S’pore policy
For Govt, pragmatism means policy first, persuasion second: DPM
By Rachel Lin
IT WAS on his first visit here in 2008 that American economist Bryan Caplan discovered a peculiarly Singaporean flavour to the word ‘pragmatism’.
In the United States, he said, pragmatism was synonymous with populism. The pragmatist does not commit political suicide by force-feeding policies, no matter how sound, to a hostile public.
In Singapore, however, pragmatism takes on the exact opposite meaning. No matter what the polls say, a programme will be implemented based on a sober assessment of its merits.
Dr Caplan’s observation was Singapore’s approach to popular politics in a nutshell, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said yesterday at this year’s National University of Singapore (NUS) Kent Ridge Ministerial Forum.
He was responding to a question from first-year NUS sociology student Muhammad Farouq Osman, 21, who felt that the Government’s didactic tone was a turn-off to voters.
Mr Farouq had singled out a comment from Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, made in January, that he felt was particularly alienating. Then, Mr Lee had said that if National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan were to lose Tampines GRC, Singaporeans should sell their flats quickly as they would no longer be of any value.
‘He’s basically saying: ‘Don’t vote for the opposition’, and my thinking is that most Singaporeans don’t like to be told what to do, especially regarding politics,’ Mr Farouq said. ‘They deserve more respect.’
Mr Teo reminded his audience that, for the Government, policy came first; persuasion, second. This was its brand of pragmatism. Returning to Dr Caplan’s example, he noted that in the US, not implementing congestion pricing is ‘pragmatic’, because it is politically difficult to do.
In Singapore however, congestion pricing is done – and it is ‘pragmatic’ because it is the correct thing to do, as it solves a problem. ‘Then (the Government tries) to persuade the people about it.’
Still, Mr Teo admitted that politicians ignored the human factor at their peril. The Government still has to engage people with sensitivity and to avoid preaching.
In this respect, he concurred with Mr Farouq. Said Mr Teo: ‘I don’t like being told what to do. I prefer to think that I make up my own mind and, I think, so do most Singaporeans.’ Indeed, Mr Farouq bluntly admitted that he was so offended by Mr Lee’s words that he would have voted against the PAP in Tampines GRC – even if he thought that the party’s economic policies were fundamentally positive.
However, Mr Teo begged the audience to consider the Minister Mentor’s legendary brusque style before making the call.
To much laughter, he said: ‘You know MM. He’s got a wealth of experience. He’s probably heard this question (about Mr Mah’s electoral prospects) multiple times and he is famous for telling it like it is.
‘So, you know, we accept what he says at face value. I mean, he’s like that.’
lyuexin@sph.com.sg
Its a common belief that anyone who opposes the polices are anti-PAP. But lets look at history and decide if the PAP are doing what they opposed in the early days to win the people’s support now that they are in power. I will quote from their own propaganda.
” Is is not the duty of a responsible government to give its prior attention to the lower paid workers than to the impoverished bureaucrats (read politicians at present times) over the $1,000 mark? (this was in 1952, when PAP was the opposition). Why strain at a $10 increase(similar to the $30 increase in welfare payouts) when a $100 increase (read Ministers thousand dollar increase) or more has been pushed through without the battling of official eyelid?” from Men in White, page 39.
So what have you got to say. In todays new paper’s main headline, we hear of a women who workd 7 days, 8 hours and is paid $600 dollars. So are we first world. Is the population being taken care of, like how LKY fought for the union and underpaid workers when they were the opposition. What is the reality?
People please wake up…
I will soon start a blog based purely on what the ruling party has promised when they were the opposition and in the early years (based on their own publication) and provide evidence on how they have betrayed the population for their own gains over the years. I hope to shop that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and that no country is an exception, whether asian values or otherwise. Look at our country now, some people are definitely more equal than others. Some hang and others don’t. Some make big blunders and we are told to move on. Others get sued for the wrong choice of words. Hell, I love Orwell
Of course ST did not publish his letter !
ST and SPH are well known as Pee&Pee’s lap dog and boot-licker.
Why do you think there isn’t another English newspaper in SG ? !
I would just like to add other points to what DPM Teo has mentioned, in which i agree.
Among others, I think for a country to attract investments & maintain the trust of citizens, a Goverment has to maintain consistency in the values in which it preaches or claims.
For example, if any goverment/country preaches & markets itself on the basis of its intergrity, honesty, incorruptabilty, transparency & acountabilty, then this same values has to apply across the board to Anyone irregardless of their rank & file in society.
I see the relationship between a Goverment & its citizens similar to that of a Hotel Owner engaging a Hotel Mgt Company to manage the hotel. But i do not give up the Rights of ownership of the Hotel, the hotel still belongs to me despite the fact that i may have used the same company over the years.
Similarly, the ownership of a country belongs to that of every citizen, it is not exclusive to any single entity least of all any individuals.
This is a very fundamental & critical component because ultimately it affects the manner in which a Goverment relates to its people, its policies, discourse, diversity in fact almost everything starts with ownership. And for very obvious reasons, an employee may be treated very differently from that of a partner or a customer while some countries may gone into serious disputes over the sovereignty of islands.
Lastly, i just wish to highlight, it is only through & by the people that a democratic Goverment is elected not otherwise.
The power is granted by the people,the country belongs to the people (Not any individuals)& citizens work in tandem with the goverment (just like the hotel mgt company & owner of the hotel) for the benefit of citizens & the country. And at the very basic level, among others, is you need Partnership, trust, respect as described in this article.
We have to see the problem for what it is, and the problem is this: that the PAP has grown too big for its shoes.
-
It has now come to a point when they feel that they are the only ones capable of making the right decisions for the country and for the people. Most of all, they forcefully lay claim to not only knowing what’s best for the people and country but also accuse the citizens of being too backward, creating a potential restrain on the kind of progress they believe they can achieve.
-
Pragmatic approaches and solutions now belong exclusively to the domain of the MIW. And all pragmatic solutions must bring forth rewards in monetary terms – equating the measurement of success with acquired wealth.
-
It does not matter what the people think anymore because they are the only ones who know what Singapore needs, how to acquire them, and how to ensure that they remain so – what’s best for everyone. The people’s opinions do not matter any longer.
-
Correcting a problem comes first before persuasion, so says DPM Teo. Whatever happen to its much hyped dialogue sessions, its feedback platforms and all its outer outreach avenues and programs? Aren’t these now clearly seen for what they truly are – smokescreens – to give the impression that the voices and views of the people are heard when they are actually not?
-
Aren’t these platforms meant to gather the ‘feel’ of the ground so that the ‘correction to a problem’ can be weighed and decided upon? Won’t this be a better approach, having the views of the people at hand, before coming to a decision? Won’t it eliminate the need to persuade the masses, which very often comes with expensive campaigns and advertisements?
-
And finally, to DPM Teo’s comment on the person that LKY is: let me remind him that politics (especially) must not live on laurels. A good track record does not make one a saint if he utters nonsense on the day.
-
I tremble to think that our flats and their values are dependant on the survival of one man who dresses in white. How can anyone ever trust the PAP after hearing such a comment from the one holding the highest office (that matters) of the land?
-
We must seriously think over this and not be swayed by DPM Teo’s light-hearted brush away of a statement which speaks louder than the words it carry.
Sad to say at least to me, the TRUST that I had for PAP has long faded with the inconsistencies on the public comments made by our ministers lately. E,g
MBT VS Grace Fu
LKY’s comments in China & Japan etc..
Im utterly amazed how he had defended MBT publicly!
Its greatly disturbing to me as native Singaporean to stand up for my leaders as they seems to snatched away TRUST from me every moment they make public comments.
Why should the gov keep ‘persuading’ & ‘convincing’ the native citizens about the huge influx of foreigners??
Foreign NOT EQUAL TO Foreign General Workers
No TRUST, No Transparency = No Substance between Government & People(native Singaporeans least those newly converted ones).
“we accept what he says at face value. I mean, he’s like that”
what kind of response is this ?
My goodness, if Ministers like Teo CH is not man enough to critique MM’s comments and justifies it by saying “aw, he’s like that”, then i say that the current leaders are really not worth their salt.
I quote the ST Forum on letters, “Letters should be sent only to The Straits Times. They should be no longer than 400 words and must include the writer’s full name, address and phone numbers.”
I don’t know if this letter was CC-ed to TOC and/or he failed to provide the details required, but it certainly exceeds the limit with 427 words.
:)
So we now know MM Lee is ‘like that’. Soon we are going to hear that PM Lee is also ‘like that’.
-
Same with the rest of the MIW. Wong KS is ‘like that’. Emperor George Yeo is ‘like that’. VB is ‘like that’. Mabok Tan is ‘like that’. Tar-man is ‘like that’. Khow BG is ‘like that’.
-
We must all accept Singapore to be ‘like that’ because the government has chosen (not)to act ‘like that’.
-
A comment like that translates to a bochap attitude toward feedback.
-
Perhaps GCT might want to take note why Singaporeans are so bochap, something he had pondered aloud during his time as PM.
-
If office bearers like DPM Teo is so bochap, then what do you think we should expect from the people who follow him?
-
No wonder all the government stats board are so bochap to our complaints and feedback.
In LKY’s eulogy to Goh Keng Swee, had stated – “He had a capacious mind and a strong character. When he held a contrary view, he would challenge my decisions and make me re-examine the premises on which they were made. As a result, we reached better decisions for Singapore.”
Since the progressive departure of the PAP Old Guards from Government, it has given LKY a free hand to influence decisions and policies unchallenged.
Is it any surprise that Singapore is floundering from one crisis to another since Goh left the cabinet in 1984 ?
“Baby God” must be dreaming when he made his highfalutin statement – “I am my own Man” – after being allowed to slip in to takeover the PM seat.
@Xiiaogengenx
The 400 word rule only applies to peasants like us.This as in except from Doctor. Chee Soon Juan’s replies to ST Forum which was of course not allowed to be published.
“The truth is not that you have taken offence at my accusation. It is that you are desperately looking for an excuse not to continue publishing my letters of reply.
How do I know this? In one of my letters I wrote in 2008, you had told me that my reply was too long and that your word-limit was 400. This proved to be untrue as many letters on your forum page exceeded that limit, namely, letters from Mdm Ho Ching, Ms Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Kuan Yew himself.”
@Andrew Neo
Hahah those arent letters on the Forum page, those are articles on the Insights page. I doubt there’s much of a word limit on articles right?
MIW’s interpretation of “Partnership, trust, respect needed for stability”
90% partnership for MIW,
it’s not important MIW do not trust and respect you, so long as you trust and respect them 100%
ps: it is 400++ word-limit for LKY
and famiLEE members.
If there is no retrenchment in Singapore politics, I will be very worried. Does that sound too familiar with SM Goh saying that if Singapore has no retrenchment he will be worried because things will not improve and Singapore will remain stagnant. That will be aptly so if PAP continue to rule and stagnating Singapore.
Actually there were more than 30 new candidates fielded by the PAP in the last GE. That also means more than 30 were replaced. 30/84 is a pretty darn high turnover rate if you ask me.