- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
[h=2]Is the National Conversation a charade or parody?[/h]
October 16th, 2012 |
Author: Contributions
There has been so much publicity about the over-hyped
National Conversation, a brainchild of PM Lee Hsien Loong in his National Day
Rally, that there is a danger that it is bordering on the ad nauseam. The reason
is that the Committee spearheading the National Conversation is so heavily
loaded with PAP political office holders, headed by Minister Heng Swee Kiat,
that it gives the unmistakable impression that it is just a PAP government show
to appease the rising anger of the electorate over a litany of unpopular PAP
policies among which unrestrained immigration and import of foreign talents take
prominence. The PAP wallahs vowed blindly that the National Conversation must be
as inclusive as possible but only that they gave a lie to the word inclusive
because no opposition representatives or bloggers were appointed to the
Committee. The Acting Minister Tan Chuan-Jin, who is on the Committee, gave a
far-fetched excuse that the National Conversation was not meant to be
“partisan”. Only PAP supporters will believe him.
How can it be called a National Conversation when an important and essential
segment of the society such as the opposition parties and bloggers is excluded?
Would it not be a misnomer? With the Committee heavily planted with PAP
political office holders, would it not be reasonable for the non pro-PAP public
to view this as a “wayang kulit” (Indonesian puppet show) and that whatever
decision taken by the National Conversation is a foregone conclusion of pseudo
support of unpopular PAP government policies?
Recently, an ardent activist has written a missive to Minister Heng Swee Kiat
giving a long list of PAP misdeeds of a autocratic nature to ensure its
dominance in politics (‘Minister Heng, here’s another set of unhappy issues for the
National Conversation‘).
For instance, he wants the GRC to be reduced from the mega five or six-man
team to a three-man team to give the opposition a better chance to compete. He
wants the removal of former PAP ministers from helming the Singapore Press
Holdings to remove political control of the press. The astronomical ministerial
salary is another issue. A run-off for presidential election should there be no
candidate with an absolute majority in the first round. These are just a few
examples of the long list of demands and apparently Minister Heng has given a
reply to the author which however has not been seen in public. The reply should
be of interest to the public because it shows the sincerity or otherwise of the
PAP government in looking after the interests of the people. Minister Heng will
be doing a service to the public if he publishes his reply on his facebook or
other website for the public to consider. The long list of demands of the author
is quite intimidating to the PAP which could put the minister in a dilemma and
stretch his ingenuity to the limit to respond adequately.
The National Conversation will at best be an exercise in futility because of
exclusion of important segments of the society. Aborting it is out of the
question because of the loss of face to the Government, in particular to PM Lee
Hsien Loong, so the “wayang” will go on regardless. Minister Heng will have an
unenviable task of bringing some semblance of authenticity to the over-hyped
National Conversation so as not to let down the sanguine PM Lee.
.
Yoong Siew Wah
* Mr Yoong Siew Wah was the Director of Singapore’s Internal Security
Department (ISD) from 1971 to 1974. Before his stint with ISD, he was the
director of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB). The SPH book “Men
in White”, alleged in page 441 that Mr Yoong was asked to quit CPIB in 1971
after he was “suspected” of using his personal influence to assist his friend Mr
Francis Seow, then the ex-Solicitor General of Singapore in a case. Mr Yoong
rebuked the allegations as baseless on his blog. He is now retired and blogs at
http://singaporerecalcitrant.blogspot.com/
There has been so much publicity about the over-hyped National Conversation, a brainchild of PM Lee Hsien Loong in his National Day
Rally, that there is a danger that it is bordering on the ad nauseam. The reason
is that the Committee spearheading the National Conversation is so heavily
loaded with PAP political office holders, headed by Minister Heng Swee Kiat,
that it gives the unmistakable impression that it is just a PAP government show
to appease the rising anger of the electorate over a litany of unpopular PAP
policies among which unrestrained immigration and import of foreign talents take
prominence. The PAP wallahs vowed blindly that the National Conversation must be
as inclusive as possible but only that they gave a lie to the word inclusive
because no opposition representatives or bloggers were appointed to the
Committee. The Acting Minister Tan Chuan-Jin, who is on the Committee, gave a
far-fetched excuse that the National Conversation was not meant to be
“partisan”. Only PAP supporters will believe him.
How can it be called a National Conversation when an important and essential
segment of the society such as the opposition parties and bloggers is excluded?
Would it not be a misnomer? With the Committee heavily planted with PAP
political office holders, would it not be reasonable for the non pro-PAP public
to view this as a “wayang kulit” (Indonesian puppet show) and that whatever
decision taken by the National Conversation is a foregone conclusion of pseudo
support of unpopular PAP government policies?
Recently, an ardent activist has written a missive to Minister Heng Swee Kiat
giving a long list of PAP misdeeds of a autocratic nature to ensure its
dominance in politics (‘Minister Heng, here’s another set of unhappy issues for the
National Conversation‘).
For instance, he wants the GRC to be reduced from the mega five or six-man
team to a three-man team to give the opposition a better chance to compete. He
wants the removal of former PAP ministers from helming the Singapore Press
Holdings to remove political control of the press. The astronomical ministerial
salary is another issue. A run-off for presidential election should there be no
candidate with an absolute majority in the first round. These are just a few
examples of the long list of demands and apparently Minister Heng has given a
reply to the author which however has not been seen in public. The reply should
be of interest to the public because it shows the sincerity or otherwise of the
PAP government in looking after the interests of the people. Minister Heng will
be doing a service to the public if he publishes his reply on his facebook or
other website for the public to consider. The long list of demands of the author
is quite intimidating to the PAP which could put the minister in a dilemma and
stretch his ingenuity to the limit to respond adequately.
The National Conversation will at best be an exercise in futility because of
exclusion of important segments of the society. Aborting it is out of the
question because of the loss of face to the Government, in particular to PM Lee
Hsien Loong, so the “wayang” will go on regardless. Minister Heng will have an
unenviable task of bringing some semblance of authenticity to the over-hyped
National Conversation so as not to let down the sanguine PM Lee.
.
Yoong Siew Wah
* Mr Yoong Siew Wah was the Director of Singapore’s Internal Security
Department (ISD) from 1971 to 1974. Before his stint with ISD, he was the
director of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB). The SPH book “Men
in White”, alleged in page 441 that Mr Yoong was asked to quit CPIB in 1971
after he was “suspected” of using his personal influence to assist his friend Mr
Francis Seow, then the ex-Solicitor General of Singapore in a case. Mr Yoong
rebuked the allegations as baseless on his blog. He is now retired and blogs at
http://singaporerecalcitrant.blogspot.com/
