- Joined
- Dec 30, 2010
- Messages
- 12,730
- Points
- 113
Now the prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong, has now come as close to interfering as he could without actually doing so. He was reported by Channel NewsAsia to have said:
“And we must have harmonious political system where we make important decisions in the best interests of Singapore and Singaporeans, and keep ourselves safe in this uncertain environment.”
He added: “We are too small to be able to afford impasse and gridlock, to have two sides blocking one another so you can’t move, you can’t solve problems, you can’t go ahead.
– Channel NewsAsia, 21 August 2011, Singapore too small to afford political paralysis: PM Lee, by S Ramesh. Link.
What could he possibly mean by a “harmonious political system”, or “two sides blocking each other”?
I said at the Maruah talk on 20 August 2011, it is ironic that ministers and their mainstream media are now hawking the notion that the president should be one who avoids conflict with the government, because conflict is precisely what the institution of an elected president is for.
So, despite the line being pushed by government ministers, the average Singaporean voter probably knows better: that conflict is inherent in the relationship between president and cabinet. Thus, we should not be afraid of choosing someone who does not lose sleep over taking opposing positions. Better yet, I would say, the best president would be one who has the fortitude to withstand bullying.
- http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2011/08/23/do-we-still-want-a-nathanesque-presidency-part-2/
“And we must have harmonious political system where we make important decisions in the best interests of Singapore and Singaporeans, and keep ourselves safe in this uncertain environment.”
He added: “We are too small to be able to afford impasse and gridlock, to have two sides blocking one another so you can’t move, you can’t solve problems, you can’t go ahead.
– Channel NewsAsia, 21 August 2011, Singapore too small to afford political paralysis: PM Lee, by S Ramesh. Link.
What could he possibly mean by a “harmonious political system”, or “two sides blocking each other”?
I said at the Maruah talk on 20 August 2011, it is ironic that ministers and their mainstream media are now hawking the notion that the president should be one who avoids conflict with the government, because conflict is precisely what the institution of an elected president is for.
So, despite the line being pushed by government ministers, the average Singaporean voter probably knows better: that conflict is inherent in the relationship between president and cabinet. Thus, we should not be afraid of choosing someone who does not lose sleep over taking opposing positions. Better yet, I would say, the best president would be one who has the fortitude to withstand bullying.
- http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2011/08/23/do-we-still-want-a-nathanesque-presidency-part-2/
