FAP: Only FAP is Clean, Other Parties Are Corrupt & Dirty. True?

[makapaaa]

[h=2]Playing the politics bogeyman[/h]

October 30th, 2012 |

Author: Contributions




I was flabbergasted to read of the scenario planning
exercise at the Institue of Policy Studies (IPS). The article, “A Singapore with
more .sg than .gov?” by the Straits Times, 27 Oct 2012 reported that IPS gave
three scenarios of how Singapore might be governed 10 years from now. One is a
strong pro-growth, pro-business government that citizens trust. The second is a
pro-welfare state that sacrifices growth for inclusiveness. The last scenario is
that of a corrupt and untrustworthy government, one which according to the ST
report, is ruled by a coalition government that is corrupt and so weak that
citizens are largely left to fend for themselves, running their own schools and
hospitals.

I am not familiar with the details of the IPS exercise. My reaction from my
reading of the article is, why are we painting such stereotypes? Why is a
corrupt and untrustworthy government that of a coalition government? A coalition
is necessary when no one party has enough seats to form the government. Is such
a government necessarily corrupt? Many governments in the world are coalitions.
A Singaporean based in Finland shared in my blog about the Finnish government. The current
government is a 6-party coalition, with another 2 parties forming the
opposition. The UK is currently having a coalition government. So are Australia,
New Zealand, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and many other developed countries. Are
these corrupt governments? Are they weak and unable to execute policies? Surely
these countries would be finished off by now, as some have been having coalition
governments for decades. They have learnt to adjust and deal with the situation.
Why can’t we have honest and capable coalition governments?

Is a single party government necessarily strong and non corrupt? There are
many examples of single party governments in the world that are said to be
corrupt or deemed weak in policy execution.

Sure, we need certain scenarios for planning purposes. If IPS wish to get
people to talk about the possibility of a future corrupt Singapore government,
why can’t it just be about a corrupt and untrustworthy government instead of a
corrupt and untrustworthy coalition government? The 3 scenarios paint the
typical cases we have been told so many times: Strong single party government
having to choose between growth and inclusiveness, and an incapable non-single
party government.

When repeated often enough, it is designed to lead people to make stereotype
assumptions. You will hear such sterotypes repeated many times during elections,
questioning the motives of opposition members (as if we have so much to gain by
joining the opposition) and that Singaporeans will mess things up if we break
the strong single party rule (TOC article and YeeJJ’s rally speech).

I am reminded of how as a child, adults would use a bogeyman story to
get me to do things. I was told to finish my meal, or stop crying, or behave
myself. If not, some bogeyman would come and catch me. At some point, I grew old
enough to know this is just scare tactics. In this day and age, we have better
access to open information. I just hate it when I read of such stereotypes. They
are nothing more than putting up politics bogeyman to hope to frigthen people to
behave in a certain way desired by certain groups.

.

Yee Jenn Jong
Non-constituency Member of Parliament

[Source]: Yee Jenn Jong’s blog (http://yeejj.wordpress.com).

 

[makapaaa]

<cite class="fn">JBJ Lives:</cite>

October
30, 2012 at 8:20 am JBJ
Lives(Quote)


Instead they should discuss real scenarios on PAP and power struggle after
Lee Kuan Yew passes away (Singaporeans waiting).His Son’s dismissal or stepping
down as prime minister after his passing. PAP infighting between 2 fractions the
LKY linked Elites Vs The Grassroots led PAP.
Likely a split as seen a glimpse
during Tan Cheng Bock’s trials when running for President agst party elite
appointed Tony Tan.
That are serious points for discussion and preparation
for IPS and a likely reality.On another point the under represented and bullied
lower income and other non elites turning on a minority of power brokers within
ruling like arab springs. That is a worst case scenario in historical making as
cost of living, inflation, and government failed foreign import policies which
have over crowded the country and taken jobs away will create resentment and
spill over to worst negative reactions as history has shown. The youths will
lead the way as most impacted by the party’s policies and no conversation will
be helpful as action needed not idel talk.Deal with real forcasts and outcomes
Not your make believe party soothing or boot licking discussions , IPS

 

[Leongsam]

The UK is currently having a coalition government. So are Australia,
New Zealand, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and many other developed countries. Are
these corrupt governments? Are they weak and unable to execute policies?

I can't speak for the other countries mentioned but I can categorically state that in the case of NZ, the coalition govt is pretty much impotent when it comes to executing major policies.

The coalition arrangement may sound great for the cause of democracy but it's a spanner in the works when it comes to actually gettings things done.

The reason lies in the fact that the minor coalition parties, while relishing the fact that they are part of govt, cannot be seen to be running dogs of the major party as this will be fatal come the next elections. A huge dog and pony show [known as "wayang" in sinkieland] therefore has to played out where the minor parties strut around opposing policies and threatening to leave the coalition over issues of national importance.

I could sit down and write essay after essay about the evils of proportional representation and coalition arrangements. Believe me if Singapore gets bogged down with this sort of hocus pocus, it's finished.

NZ has the potential to be a great country instead of just being an average country. It's infrastructure could be 3 times better and it's GDP could easily double in 10 years if the constraints imposed by the coalition arrangements were eliminated. Instead, it plods along at a snails pace. Some like it that way if they aren't affected by policies which are mired in gridlock. Many simply wish things could get moving.