Ng E-Jay /
On Monday, during a 90-minute press conference to introduce three new PAP candidates, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office Mr Lim Boon Heng broke down when addressing a question about groupthink in the PAP. During the same press conference, Mr Lim had earlier announced his decision to retire from politics.
A reporter had directed a question at the new PAP candidates, asking them if they had a counter argument to the worry about the potential for groupthink amongst policymakers, and also their opinion on younger Singaporeans wanting more diverse and robust debate in Parliament.
Mr Lim was quick to speak up on behalf of the candidates. At first, he appeared jovial, emphasizing that he was not standing for elections but wanted to give a quick response. Then he became serious, saying that there was no groupthink on the casino issue, and that the cabinet had been quite divided on the issue. He said that it had been a difficult process for him accepting casinos, and that he almost could not make his speech in Parliament.
That was when Mr Lim became overwhelmed with emotion. He had to pause for around 15 seconds while cameras snapped away. Then he said, “So if you think there is groupthink, that is one example you can quote – there is no groupthink.”
It is not clear whether the casino issue had been earlier raised in the same press conference, but given Mr Lim’s sudden tears, it is obvious that issue meant a lot to him both then and now. It is also clear that the speculation of groupthink within the PAP roused in him very strong feelings, even though the question had originally been posed to the candidates rather than to him.
Then Mr Lim went on to give another example, about the concern the trade union had for the lower income, and the impact of globalization on them, with wages stagnating and even falling. Mr Lim broke down a second time, before finally stating that the trade union pressured the government to do something for the working poor, the end result of which was the implementation of the Workface Income Supplement scheme.
In between tears, Mr Lim then repeated emphatically, “So, there is no groupthink.”
Mr Lim’s strong emotional reaction to the question of groupthink and his raising of the examples of the casinos and the poor is significant because it provides hints that there are deep rifts within the ruling party concerning key policies. It is probably not too far off the mark to imagine that Mr Lim had disagreed strongly on certain policies such as the opening of casinos in Singapore, but had the painful and unenviable task of having to toe the party line when the final decision was made.
Besides Mr Lim, Dr Lily Neo has also been known to actively champion the needs of the poor, only to frequently find her pleas falling on deaf and uncaring ears. Once, Dr Neo was so frustrated with the lack of progress in Parliament concerning assistance for the poor and underprivileged that she felt compelled to raise her voice in Parliament.
Is such a state of affairs good for Singapore? What benefit is there to citizens if supposedly independent minded PAP MPs find that they have to toe the party line even concerning issues on which they have strong objection? If absolute power resides in the cabinet and there are no voices to credibly challenge the cabinet and hold it accountable to Singaporeans, is this healthy for our nation?
Mr Lim’s tears are like a canary in the coal mine, pointing to cracks that might be forming in the PAP leadership. In recent memory, no PAP minister or MP has resigned in protest or proceeded to openly challenge the PAP soon after stepping down. The PAP party discipline is still very strong. But if this party discipline only serves to mask growing discontent within the PAP ranks, the PAP could be in for a period of volatility in the years ahead.
This takes us back to the question of whether a one party system or multi-party system is better for Singapore.
When Mr Lim tearfully emphasized that there is no groupthink in the PAP, he most likely meant it as a positive for the PAP, indicating that PAP members are capable of exercising independent judgment and are not bound by dogma.
On the other hand, would there be a need to defend the PAP from speculation of groupthink if there is multi-party democracy in Singapore, where diverse voices can be heard without fear of persecution, and where there is active political participation from every corner of society?
The interest of Singaporeans would be better served if the ruling party constantly has to earn its mandate through free and fair elections, if Singapore’s political leaders have their feet constantly put to the fire through robust multi-party debate and activism, if there is a credible opposition in Parliament to challenge bad policies and devise good alternatives.
Mr Lim’s emotional reaction during the press conference is the sign of fatigue and strain that a one-party system imposes on itself. The party whip can hold Mr Lim’s tongue, but it cannot stop his tears. A one-party state creates the illusion of consensus and stability, but it serves Singaporeans less and less.
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
@paya lebar
Yo bro/sis, more than agree.
Only evident to great minds who think alike. :)
Many “prefer” to live and act like zombies.
Hey, Anthony,
“This is detrimental to the Opp cause as it proves that only angry, illogical and radical people support the Opp”.
Lee Kuan Yew was “angry, illogical and radical” when he opposed the British and later, the Alliance party in Malaya. So how? :)
Why only when resigned then cry?
Wow, like so much 苦衷 wor.
When out then tell the world how tormented he is ?
During so many parliamentary sessions, he could have all the chances in the world to voice up his concerns.
Did he?
So, now out already tell people you are actually like this and that?
wow.
To Peter Sellers, just go ahead and read the posts here and u know what I mean. I accept people are angry and they want to lash out…but too much vindictiveness will turn the moderates away. Worse if the Opp candidates agree with them. This will backfire on Opp. Moderates will either go back to supporting Pap or spoiling their votes…as they got no other alternatives.
so there are actually people in PAP who really think for the people. i am glad to see that.
Of course, there’s no such concept as groupthink in the PAP. No! Not when there’s a party whip in existence.
Anyone not in line with PAP’s policies or decisions. Send in the party’s whip. Simple as that!!
Why the hell than do you need statements whether groupthink exist in PAP or not?!?!
All the wayang for what?!?
Lim was supposed to champion for the elderly via measures such as better CPF returns, CPF Life, later retirement age and better healthcare.
The question is: are our elderly folks enjoying a better life now compared to five years ago? If the answer is a resounding “no”, then you know Lim has not been an effective leader at the very least.
Just don’t tell me that things could have been worse if there had been no close-door intervention from Lim. He is paid millions to take care of our interests, and the only thing he did publicly was to tell people to work longer or as long as they live.
Make no mistake. Lim is a PAP man through and through and he will defend any PAP policies. He is just not as callous as the others.
oh come on.
his tears merely describes the difficulty in formulating policies, there is sometimes a need for difficult compromise.
what the PAP does well is deciding on a policy after internal debate and sticking with it no matter what the naysayers say. this is the strength of having a monopolistic governmental system and far outweighs the stupid politicking of “democratic” systems like that of e.g. USA.
no policy is foolproof, there will always be people arguing for and against. a good recent example is Nuovo condo vs the NS expressway extension, where one minority group makes a lot of noise in order to influence policy to their benefit. In that case it is obvious the benefits far outweigh the downsides and the small group of affected people must sacrifice for the larger group.
indeed,the writer is right of observstion.
mr lim was crying his heart out.
his tears were tears of revelation of the inner conscience that has been pricked making it impossible to hide the HARD TRUTH.
the truth that this minister believes is that the casinos indeed would bear forth socio-economic setbacks for many singaporeans and their families over the long course of time.
minister,wise up and return to where your heart really belongs.
LBH has been in office 31 years. What has he done in all these years? If he had a conscience, he would have resigned years ago, rather than shed tears now, trying to justify “groupthink” or otherwise. Being a PAP man, however, he’ll be well taken care of in his retirement.
LIM BOON HENG i THINK IS shedding crocodile tears.
this act is good if there is a SINGAPORE GOT TALENT SHOW
Dear Mr Lim,
It’s very obvious that you are passionate about the casinos issue and the plight of the average workers declining income. You have been a champion for the people and workers in PA and NTUC, and serve your GRC for many years.
You are still relatively young. With your experience, wisdom and passion, we hope you will continue to serve Singaporeans and Singapore. There are many non-PAP and non-government and non-profit organizations that will certainly benefit from a leader, or a board member, or an advisor like you.
As all Singaporeans are encouraged to work beyond the retirement age, you could set an example and be a model for such an endeavor.
Your new chapter could turn out to be an equally, if not much more, fulfilling than the chapter that you are about to close.
With best wishes.
A born n bred unemployed Singaporean in his 50s.
Ah Heng arh…. you only cried for few second due to lost of job , but there are many ordinary folks cring every night without job for the past five years …..LOL
Lim Ah Heng arh…. don’t cried lah , you can always go ST Classified or Job street dot com looking for job , you may stand a chance to be called for an interview by some foreign PR manager , then you will taste your own medicine after interviewed by them .
With your past eperience woking as an unionist and hace lots of connection , you also can start your own biz if u can’t find a job , what about be a foriegn workers agency , I heard good profit , u know ?
Any discerning person will know those tears are not out of conviction but guilt. Having been a ‘yes’ man willingly cruising through all those zombie yeas and retiring with a tidy sum and shaking legs soon. I am very doubtful there is sincerity in this man. Some tears for you guys before I exit the political scene make your $billion worth. Elite’s tears, you know.” Singaporeans are very soft-hearted.
P^P ship will cruise us to nowhere , some said we may boarded at “Holland Loot” …LOL
PCK Pte Ltd Owner had said , Singapore is popular in china and india , some said philippine , don’t pray pray….LOL.
How can a small group of “Card-board Cabinet” decided and affected million of people’s livelihood without debate in the parliament .
Don’t we need check and balance ?
Yes , without hesitation !!!
With opposition, there would be more lively debate for check and balance.
But at the end of the day, pls remember that a decision may still be made that alot of people are against. (but a minority)
everybody (incumbent and opposition) will have to toe the line when the decision is made. Because not enough was made to convince the entire group that the alternative decision is better.
personally, i will hold the entire government responsible for that decision (good or bad). Of course, it is easier to point fingers at PAP because of how the government is currently organised.
its time OVERDUE – for many elections ago.
the problem with sporeans..kia sui kia se .
tey complain 24/7 – but still contd vote for PAP.
reason- opposition no quality . spore will go downhill etc
give them a chance- LOW t kiang n chiam r good examples
of good MPs.
BUT we need numbers-at least 30-40% opposition MPs
to check n balance t PAP defecto cabinet
PLEASE I BEG ALL SPOREANS-ACT NOW!!!
VOTE IN MORE OPPOSITION MPs- u dont have another 5 more
years to wait..
When Lim Hock Siew, Teo Soh Lung and Vincent Cheng talked about being *fixed* by the ISD, they didn’t cry, even though we sort of expected them to.
Has Lim Boon Heng got more reason to cry than those I have mentioned?
i wonder of the 35,000 jobs that were created because of the two IRs, how many Singapore citizens are employed by the two IRs now?
As i’ve told Ah Heng , no point crying in the public due to lost of job , he still got the saving of over 30 millions and gets his pension everymonth given by Ah Kong .
There are many PEMTs and ordinary folks loosing thier job for many years without crying in the ppublic , we never know wat will happen tomorrow .
P^P also won’t know what will happen on Polling day .
Vote PM and DPM WKS cum
MBT, GKY, NEH, Singh, Vivi@n out.
These ppl r there 4 show.
Singaporeans at large are not lazy.
We have a System problem and LET ADMIT IT.
aiyah serious bro,i believe there’s no “groupthink” on his part,how can a seasoned politician like him be involved in groupthink with the lesser experience one.but i think as a senior,it’s naturally to “think group” as in “think for the group”!LBPL!hey!i’m using words like them.!
I feel nothing for PAP for they feel nothing for us citizens. Such is my indifference to PAP that I feel that this man is crying ‘cos he lost his giant payslip. You don’t care about us, we don’t care about you. Simple as that. My heart won’t be swayed by a few tears. I have morale values. If I’m in an political organization whose fundamental beliefs greatly conflicts with mine, I’d leave & find a party whose beliefs & interests are similar to mine or strike out on my own instead of continuing taking giant paychecks while betraying my conscience. I have a backbone.
Dear Mr Lim, I almost cried with you when I saw you cry on tv. But after 76 years of bare existence, especially in the past 5 years, I had no more tear to cry.
sometimes,it is a blessing to suffer the same thing as those we directly or indirectly help to cause problems like joblessness.
though painful,it can make us wiser.
how can a bully understand whta it feels liked being bullied until he gets bullied himself?
we are all humans; indeed,we are all sons and daughters of SINGAPOREAN FOREFATHERS who helped build this place by their hard-drving and hard-striving – less some guys accuse us all of having no spurs and skiving -and we therefore should try to treat each other with more respect be us prince or pauper,ministers or commoners,higher immortals or lesser mortals,isn’t it?
why try so hard to please ‘outsiders’ when we cannot even treat our own family members decetly?
if groupthink = true, resulting policy = x
when groupthink = false, resulting policy also = x
if the above is true, whats the difference?
will crying over whether groupthink is true or false change the value of x?
iworkhardsometimes, 13 April 2011
the value of “x” dun change but the value in deriving “x” isn’t the same. one can build a 10 meter tower with many packs of cards, but its not as robust as 1 built with steel & concrete of the same height.
the problem here is that being to result oriented, the importance of process cannot be overlooked. as living beings in the end (result?), we all will kick bucket someday. its how we live our lives that matters more, i would hazzard a guess that the Japanese too are re-pirioritising what is important in their lives in the face of the current nation disaster.
I do change my opinion about Mr Lim, Chairman of PAP.
He earnt my respect.
Group think is one that is clearly not there.
Good thinking is more important than group think, it is not even mentioned.
Without good thinking, bad solutions are used to create some jobs, and these jobs are not even for improving skills, income of Singaporeans.
Certainly it hurts many families.
We cannot count on
1. no group think, and
2. no good thinking.
For Singapore to suvive, to live
We must, as Singaporeans, ask everyone to contribute solutions, improve upon solutions.
We must become wiser by learning from other people’s mistakes.
When we take French migrants soccer team as a model for our national policy. French soccer has gone from World Champion to nothing. England too.
Brazilian Ambassador told us “Trained your own people”
Nation building is not playing soccer.
It has more than twenty odd people to feed.
Without many Migrants as managers, professionals, researchers, Koreans, Japan still do better than Americans, Europe. Because they work hard and learn from everyone – try to do better than everyone.
(sony and nissan , with foreign chiefs are not doing any better than canon, toyota, honda)
Diverisities, youth are not what Singapore need at this critical time.
They cannot provide Singaporeans’ the basic thing – suvival.
Let us look for solutions.
Let all the candidates, especially repeating ministers, mentors, seniors tell us what solutions they have.
What they want us to do.
Singaporeans are Asians, we are gracious and respectful.
before talking about pride and duty as leaders.
Even Mentor, Senior are not in office, i am sure if they have good solutions, they will be gracious to share.
We will be respectful to listen.
We are westernized nation.
We are not China, the only one who need many DPM.
may i contribute
“陆路交通的致命伤“
”陆路交通的处方“
can someone translate to English for more to consider, to correct, to improve, to implement, to make Singaporeans better
Lim Swee Keng
SM(MIT)
slight edit on my previous post….
the problem here is that being to result oriented, the importance of process is often overlooked.
oso, i’ll like to add, that without due diligence to the minute details of each process, one may never derive a better than good policy, product or idea.
The bottomline must look good. If not good enough, do something to chnage the figure to make it looks good.
We are too result-oriented. We all are just number.
Our MIW will only want the final result, wherever way to get it.
@ eaglenest
I’ll like to correct your statement that the Minister’s pension is paid by ‘Ah Kong’, unless the ‘Ah Kong’ you referred to are the Singaporeans, the taxpayers. We must be clear that whatever money that the PAP government is using is actually ours and not from their own pockets. Hence, we should feel the pinch if there’s mismanagement of our money. The PAP government is our current fund manager and we expect them to pay us, the shareholders, a fair share of money made. What is the point to hire the same fund manager if he is constantly underperforming and does not increase the value of my investment?
What’s wrong with PAP’s “top-level” leaders? Why everytime such a CEO or chief steps down from his respective ministry,he starts to criticise the very ministry where he last took charge.
He “suddenly” realises the flaws within the ministry and would go to great lengths to voice out his views.
HDB’s Ngiam Dong How,NTUC Income’s Tan Kin Lian and now PAP’s chairman Lim Boon Heng are just some of the more notable figures.
One would ask why these high-level chiefs have not made the “changes”(which they deem necessary) during their long tenure but choose only to highlight them upon stepping down?
Did it occur to them that they had been handsomely paid for the job? Have they not felt that in not making the necessary remedial actions when they are in charge is tantamount to being irresponsible to our taxpayers?
Or have they been told to execute bad policies from a “higher authority” and are unable to exercise their own good judgment during office?
If so,then it speaks volumes of PAP’s flawed system of public service because
our citizens are deprived of good service by management leaders whose hands are tied.
Or worse still,even their mouths are gagged during their tenure at our citizens’ expense.
I think this is fake lah!
First, Ah Goh pretend to say MP in future works for only 2 terms. What give him away is that he jokingly said that ex-PM are exempted. This showed he was not serious. This is to set the stage for PM to rebutt that there is not enough talent for MP to work for only 2 terms, to wayang to show to the people that there isn’t groupthink, that the PM could disagree with the SM.
Then this Ah Lim put up a crying show, even it is not his turn to speak. This is to set the stage for PM to drive home the message on TV that there are lots of debate within PAPk so no goupthink.
Whatever the reasons the Man cried, but the fact remains there seems a disconnect that has to be addressed. For the incumbent, it is quite obvious the sentiments of the populace ( or more correctly the Netizens as it is not reflective and can never be).
But question for thought, the Incumbent “why the desire for Office, to serve when you don’t listen. Yes you try to speak but why the muted voices and lack of feedback.” it is likely that yes the Government will be formed by the incumbent. And the interesting question is how after all this from Netizens you will formulate the policies.
For the opposition, do note that the manifestos have to date failed to impress. The details No one reads, nevertheless it is a good starting point, But on a personal note, do stay co ordinated as the public has demonstrated in the past that they clearly prefer certainty.
All the best for both as it will only add to the growth of the city state as it discovers itself again or questions it’s assumptions ( to be fair)
Lim Boon Heng cried not enough….The whole parliament MPs n ministers must CRY. Vote wisely n vote for OPPOSITIONs.
I believe LBH that there is no “Group Think” in PAP. This is because there is only the “PM Think” .
When LKY was asked “So, were you right or was your son right?”.
LKY answered “He has to be right because he is the Prime Minister.”
He must have suffered under the thumbs of the pap-ers all these years?
I have doubts about the tears..
was he asked to leave?
only heaven knows!
don’t cry johhny.
NO group think??
Then why did the ENTIRE lot of PAP MPs voted in favour of building the Casino?? the party whip is as good as group think !!!
Told you Lim is a PAP man through and through.
Today’s papers reported that he defended NCMP scheme, saying that while its objective is not to change government policies, the NCMPs can point out the weaknesses of the policies.
That sounds exactly like PAP’s hypocritical doublespeak. You can make as much noise as you like, so long as it doesn’t change any course of action.
So don’t put Lim on a pedestal. He speaks, acts and cries for PAP. Not for the ordinary people like you or me.
Dear mice is nice,
i agree that the process of different.
my point is, take another example,
1 parliament, 100 NCMP, 80 PAP MP, resulting policy = y
vs
1 parliament, 2 NCMP, 80 PAP MP, resulting policy = y
process for both scenario is indeed different, but what is the value add the change of process managed to yield?
i quote u: “the value of “x” dun change but the value in deriving “x” isn’t the same. one can build a 10 meter tower with many packs of cards, but its not as robust as 1 built with steel & concrete of the same height.”
u claim that x dun change, but the end result of building with cards & building with steel & concrete is different therefore x has already changed.
first result = reinforced concrete tower
second result = card tower
the robustness of your tower draws strength from it’s material composition, not it’s height.
I can build a tower as high as UOB building using cotton wool, but i cannot claim that it is as strong as UOB building simply on basis of the height being the same.
the [x] of first result is not equal to [x] of second result, therefore your example failed to adhere to the basic parameters it was meant to be argued upon.
i think U are arguing based on different input, same output(x dun change),
at the end u get different input, different output.
Does his ‘revelation’ indicate he FEARed when still on payroll and now resigned, more dare to voice up his 苦衷?
Cannot be right?
Opposition loses ALL NCMP & NMP seats to PAP:
1 parliament, 9 NCMP from PAP, 9 NMP from PAP, 69 PAP MP, 18 Opposition MP, resulting policy = no longer “y”
because if they continue to “y”
in the 2018 elections, the number of PAP MP may reduce further, and more of them end up in the NCMP+NMP category.
this is called Wake Up Call.
let us welcome PAP into these NCMP + NMP seats that they created, they will be enjoying them soon.
lets say in a make believe world i change the constitution, to merge all the constituencies into ONE big GRC represented by 3 MPs.
then i expand the NCMP scheme to 500 NCMPs.
we have LHL, MBT, WKS as MPs, 100 NCMPs from Workers party, 100 NCMP from Reform party. 100 NCMPs from SDA, 100 NCMPs from SDP, 100 NCMPs from Barisan Sosialis.
so now the parliament has 503 members, with 3 members having full voting rights, the process has indeed changed.
but the resulting policy is still = y ?
@Lan Du Heng
“During so many parliamentary sessions, he could have all the chances in the world to voice up his concerns.”
I remember seeing the huge debate about the IR/Casino issue on news. There were a lot of PAP members who were against the casino issue, and they took it out in Parliamentary debates
@Tjin
Yes true but how did they vote in the end? Did it stop them from voting against the IR? No
That is why we need to opposition with voting rights to make sure that we as people have our voices heard in parliament if not everything will be bulldozed thru parliament.
During the pioneering British rule, opium was a great economic commodity and was legal in Singapore, not only in Singapore but also in places like Hong Kong and Shanghai. If government can legalize opium for economic progress during colonial days. As colonist we have no say over our imperial rulers back then. We are heading in the same direction now. So it is question of what else will be legalized here in the name of economic progress. It is a matter of when not how for this government? It is a slippery road we are heading in
dear iworkhardsometimes,
looks like we are looking from different perspective. i took it that the value of “x” being example, height. hence 2 tower of same (end result) height but made (process, as in manufacturing process) of different material. so both towers of different materials, but same height. if height is the end result.
so my example isn’t a good 1.
how about i be good or bad i will still kick bucket some day? does it matter that i be good & suffer at the hands of a tyrant or step on as many heads as possible & live life at others’ expense?
technicalities aside, i hope i got my point across to you. the point being- sometimes different approach or process may yield similiar or identical results, but they should non-the-less not be overlooked.
IMPO, the current “A” Team is too result oriented, in the haste to get results they resort to shortcuts, quickfixes, etc…