The Anti Neo-Democracy Theorist

A sensible letter in the ST forum

May 31, 2006
First World Singapore? Don’t forget those in dire straits
I REFER to the article, ‘Poverty: Generation next’ (ST, May 27).

Most Singaporeans must be both surprised and shocked to read about the ‘underclass’ plight of poverty, hunger and neglect in a First World country like ours.

More significant, children born into such families have little chance to escape the poverty trap, making it a vicious circle. Unless parents buck up and show them the way, their children have precious little resources to pull up their socks despite sincere intervention by schools and social workers.

Having worked as a social worker aide in a family service centre, I got to know first hand horrendous details of families in dire straits. Most felt trapped and seemed unable to get out of their situation. Naturally, most of their problems are financial, due to either prolonged unemployment or insufficient income. Lowly educated and unskilled, their chances of earning a decent income are curtailed. Their choice of employment is also limited and their wages are often at the mercy of unscrupulous employers.

Naturally, most find work a chore and have little job satisfaction. By changing jobs frequently, they perpetuate the problem especially during gaps of unemployment. Most I knew found jobs as cleaners, dish washers or general workers. Work is more for survival than satisfaction. They also do not have much left after paying essential bills.

I knew of a family I visited who lived in darkness and without water for a full month. They had four small children with the fifth on the way. The children studied in the corridor in the evening and mostly ate plain rice with ikan bilis. The children did not show much confidence in life let alone their studies.

The family was waiting for the wages of the breadwinner father to pay the utilities bill. When asked how much he earned, I was shocked to learn that he earned only $750 as a delivery assistant working a six-day work week. I later realised he owed Singapore Power only $150.

Even with social assistance like The Straits Times School Pocket Money Fund for the children, this family struggled to meet their basic needs. More significant, the psychological and emotional trauma for the children was irreparable. Unless they can harness strength from within themselves to see beyond their present situation, they will continue to struggle in their poverty. In my tour of duty as a social worker aide, these similar scenarios were frighteningly played out numerous times.

Many families that struggle in Singapore have a sick or unemployable breadwinner. People who suffer from cancer, stroke, mental illness or heart disease come to mind. With the sudden onset of a dreadful calamity, the family livelihood is affected as the job seeker is either retrenched or his services terminated. Social assistance provides only a pitiful amount for a limited period. Assistance seekers also feel shameful to ask for more. Some have to downgrade their flats to reduce their obligations. Many housewives come out to find jobs for the first time adding to the family instability.

As Singapore continues to prosper and the economy attains First World status, let us not forget that in the forsaken closet, many families have problems paying for utilities, eking out enough to put three meals on the table and trying to stay sane in spite all that has happened.

I salute the Government for trying to engage the poor in order to solve some of their problems. Social service agencies like the community development councils, family service centres, schools, self-help groups like Mendaki, Sinda and Chinese Development Assistance Council should work together closer than before. My previous experience was that social service agencies worked rather autonomously when information sharing ought to be the way. When agencies carry out their duties selflessly for the good of the people they serve, the poor here will have a better chance to escape the poverty trap.

Gilbert Goh Keow Wah

Two interesting articles about Singapore’s Education System

International Higher Education, Spring 2003

Reinventing Singapore: Changing a Country’s Mindset by Changing Its Education System

“Singapore is a fine city” proclaim the T-shirts on sale in Singapore’s central tourist district. This is, of course, a reference to the rules and regulations that exist here and that are famous throughout the world. Coming from a country where we are not even obliged to carry identity cards, I was initially somewhat apprehensive about living in Singapore. Such was my paranoia that jaywalking during my first week upon arriving caused me to take refuge in a shopping mall for 15 minutes, convinced that I had been spotted by a cruising police patrol!

In his 2001 publication, “Why Asians Are Less Creative than Westerners,” Asian academic Ng Aik Kwang suggests that, although well intentioned and indeed effective, punitive sanctions can inhibit independent thinking as well as creative expression. In his view, if people are conditioned to respond to prods and punishments they are prone to becoming passionless and passive and developing conformist tendencies, traits that are liable to stifle their creative potential. Relying upon others to organize our lives by telling us what we can and cannot do may also undermine the basic principle of innovation, which is developing a sense of self-reliance, a belief in oneself, and, of course, a willingness to take control of one’s own life.

How would you react if it was suddenly announced that a building of some architectural significance in the center of New York or Boston was to be demolished to make way for an office block? When a billboard went up outside one of Singapore’s ancient buildings informing people that it was to be replaced with a high-rise glass and steel structure, only four people even bothered to inquire why. This, however, wasn’t a serious proposition. It was simply set up as an experiment designed to test levels of social acquiescence. It served to demonstrate that Singaporeans simply didn’t feel that it was their place to question the judgment of city planners.

Mindful that too much of a nanny state can be a bad thing, the Singapore government is trying to encourage Singaporeans to loosen up and think for themselves. In response to this, various government initiatives have been set up to promote independent thinking skills and creative expression. Most recently, a government review committee came up with a new economic model for Singapore. The model is based on new economy thinking, namely that economic growth in the future will be based around “knowledge” and other intangible concepts. Connecting ideas will become more important than the ideas themselves. Future growth will be driven by creativity, innovation, and the ability, to use a popular cliché, “to think outside the box.” According to the review committee the most effective way of changing mindsets is through the education system. Consequently, it recommends that Singapore’s education formula needs to move from uniformity to diversity, from rigidity to flexibility, from conformity to resilience, and from molding to empowering.

Singapore has three universities: the National University of Singapore, Nanyang Technological University, and the recently created Singapore Management University. In a country that places so high a premium upon academic excellence, competition for places is particularly intense. To place this in context, it is said, for example, that Singapore’s top 50 percent of young people matches the top 10 percent in many other developed countries in terms of educational attainment. Singapore’s education system is consistently ranked as being one of the best in the world. However, the concern now is that it is too exam and knowledge oriented, which is conducive to producing “cookbook” graduates who, despite having good exam results, lack the ability to think for themselves or to be innovative.

In response to this, Singapore’s three universities are reviewing their admissions criteria and also their teaching methodologies. Specifically, rather than just looking at raw grades, admissions tutors are being encouraged to look at the whole person, both in terms of their past achievements and in terms of their potential. Among the proposals are aptitude tests as well as awarding credits for project work and for extracurricular activities. Proposed curriculum changes include the introduction of multidisciplinary degrees and allowing science, engineering, and medical students to take arts modules. One specific concern of the review committee is the perception of Singapore as a “mono-discipline” country where sciences and engineering predominate. Other proposals include reducing lecture hours in favor of facilitated learning and the introduction of open-book exams.

But it’s at Singapore’s newest university, Singapore Management University, where the real groundbreaking changes are taking place. SMU has dispensed with lectures entirely in favor of facilitated learning, and soft skills development is now part of the academic curriculum. Emphasis is placed upon developing leadership, team skills as well as creative thinking, and emotional literacy. SMU also considers it important that students are given space to develop specific strengths and even passions. In other words the university has redefined the concept of the learning experience to encompass nonacademic pursuits. Likewise the university is placing greater emphasis upon breadth by allowing students to cover more disciplines, albeit it in less depth. The idea is to encourage them to identify the connections between disciplines, enabling students to gather and synthesize knowledge from different fields. A curriculum that is broad based is also seen to offer more perspectives, thus promoting independent learning and creative exploration. As well as being motivated to read more widely, students will find it easier to apply different modes of inquiry to a wider range of academic as well as nonacademic issues. The university’s stated aim is to harmonize academic rigor with soft skills training. By moving away from a structured learning model, SMU hopes that their graduates will be better equipped to contribute to an innovation-driven economy.

At the same time, there’s little point in changing the philosophy of higher education without changing what precedes it. Changing mindsets requires starting at the preschool level. The government has been pushing concepts such as creativity and emotional literacy at secondary, primary, and kindergarten levels for some time now. Plans are underway to retrain teachers. The review committee recommends a shift away from “time efficient methodologies” to facilitated learning that is designed to nurture flexible mindsets. In other words, the emphasis will shift from the teacher to the learner. Also, at the junior college level, A Levels are under review. The review committee considers them to be too rigid and content focused. One possibility that is being mooted is a French-style baccalaureate with greater emphasis upon an integrated style of learning. Like the universities, more flexible teaching methodologies are being adopted at secondary, polytechnic, and junior college levels. In other words, the entire ethos underpinning education in Singapore is being recast.

You don’t transform what was little more than a distant colonial outpost and a collection of small fishing villages 40 years ago into Asia’s Garden City metropolis with one of the world’s most competitive economies in just three decades, without some direction from the top. In this respect, Singapore’s achievements are unsurpassed. Singapore’s emergence as a leading industrialized nation during the 1960s and 1970s had a lot to do with the government providing direction. Policies were formulated by ministers and civil servants, and goals were set and usually achieved. But the concern among Singapore’s political leaders is that this has instilled in its citizens a conformist and “safety first” instinct that is ill-suited to today’s needs. This is why they are trying to transform Singapore from being just a productive society into a creative and risk-taking society. In other words, after years of telling their citizens what they can and cannot do, they now want them to do their own thing and to be different. According to Prime Minster Goh Chok Tong, “we must get away from the idea that it is only the people at the top who should be thinking and the job of everyone else is to do as they are told.” This view was endorsed by Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew, who expressed concern that a lack of independent thinking might limit Singapore’s capacity to respond to the challenges of the information age. According to David Lim Tik En, minister of state for defense, we must develop the capacity to tolerate failure. We must also teach our young people that failure is an opportunity to learn rather than an opportunity lost. But above all we must teach them to ask, “why?”

I no longer feel the compulsion to hide in shopping malls. In reality fines for jaywalking are rarely enforced. Even the rules pertaining to chewing gum are under review. Meanwhile, water dispensers recently started to appear in Singapore’s subway stations. Accompanied by a sign warning people that if water was spilled outside a designated area, the dispensers would be withdrawn. Water was spilled and the dispensers were subsequently withdrawn. Old ways of thinking die hard!

Singapore’s students do brilliantly in math and science tests.
American kids test much worse but do better in the real world. Why?

This small event says a lot about global competition. Traveling
around Asia for most of the past month, I have been struck by the
relentless focus on education. It makes sense. Many of these
countries have no natural resources, other than their people; making
them smarter is the only path for development. China, as always,
appears to be moving fastest. When officials there talk about their
plans for future growth, they point out that they have increased
spending on colleges and universities almost tenfold in the past 10
years. Yale’s president, Richard Levin, notes that Peking
University’s two state-of-the-art semiconductor fabrication lines—
each employing a different technology—outshine anything in the
United States. East Asian countries top virtually every global
ranking of students in science and mathematics.

But one thing puzzles me about these oft-made comparisons. I talked
to Tharman Shanmugaratnam to understand it better. He’s the minister
of Education of Singapore, the country that is No. 1 in the global
science and math rankings for schoolchildren. I asked the minister
how to explain the fact that even though Singapore’s students do so
brilliantly on these tests, when you look at these same students 10
or 20 years later, few of them are worldbeaters anymore. Singapore
has few truly top-ranked scientists, entrepreneurs, inventors,
business executives or academics. American kids, by contrast, test
much worse in the fourth and eighth grades but seem to do better
later in life and in the real world. Why?

“We both have meritocracies,” Shanmugaratnam said. “Yours is a
talent meritocracy, ours is an exam meritocracy. There are some
parts of the intellect that we are not able to test well—like
creativity, curiosity, a sense of adventure, ambition. Most of all,
America has a culture of learning that challenges conventional
wisdom, even if it means challenging authority. These are the areas
where Singapore must learn from America.”

Shanmugaratnam also pointed out that American universities are
unrivaled globally—and are getting better. “You have created a
public-private partnership in tertiary education that is amazingly
successful. The government provides massive funding, and private and
public colleges compete, raising everyone’s standards.”

Shanmugaratnam highlighted in particular the role that American
foundations play. “Someone in society has to be focused on the long
term, on maintaining excellence, on raising quality. You have this
array of foundations—in fact, a whole tradition of civic-minded
volunteerism—that fulfills this role. For example, you could not
imagine American advances in biomedical sciences without the Howard
Hughes Foundation.”

Singapore is now emphasizing factors other than raw testing skills
when selecting its top students. But cultures are hard to change. A
Singaporean friend recently brought his children back from America
and put them in his country’s much-heralded schools. He described
the difference. “In the American school, when my son would speak up,
he was applauded and encouraged. In Singapore, he’s seen as pushy
and weird. The culture of making learning something to love and
engage in with gusto is totally absent. Here it is a chore. Work
hard, memorize and test well.” He took his child out of the
Singapore state school and put him into a private, Western-style one.
r

Free Free to Add in the Comments Section =)

10) What overseas voting? Can vote meh? Why cannot vote leh?

9) 66.6% is either the new A1 or some old Creepy figures

Upgrading

7) Let me introduce new candidates-Bicultural? Grassroot worker? Blah Blah

6) Role of the media-Freedom from the Press..Help me

5) Rally pictures and figures -Who is telling the truth?

4) Gomezgate versus Gomez-Again

And THE TOP THREE! Drum roll…..

3) Steady and News Worthy Women Candidates-Sylvia Lim, Lee Wai Leng, Chee Siok Chin, Denise Phua, Grace Fu etc

2) SORRY ALSO MUST ESPRAIN

And the First Prize Winner WORD goes to….!

1) FIX!

(Eh, Where is my hammer/lightning eh? I want to fix something!)

Interesting SCMP article on PM Lee

I think Mr Lee Hsien Loong is a good PM who cares about Singapore and wants the best for Singaporeans. However, he might be limited in doing stuff with regards to opening up Singapore now because he still seems to be in a consolidation phrase. Whether Singapore will open up more to focus on critical thinking that is crucial to Singapore’s future survival will depend on many contingent factors. One thing I am willing to bet on: If more Singaporeans are aware about politics, things will change

South China Morning Post
May 13, 2006 Saturday

: Aloof PM striving for the common touch

BYLINE: He has loosened many of the nanny state’s regulations, but can Lee Hsien Loong fufil his desire to change Singapore’s mindset? Peter Kammerer reports

BODY:

Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong is in an unenviable position - the son of Singapore’s founding father and first premier Lee Kuan Yew, and the successor to “people’s prime minister” Goh Chok Tong, he has to live up to popular expectations while trying to cut his own political swathe.

For someone of Lee Hsien Loong’s intellect - he went to Cambridge and Harvard universities, gaining top honours in mathematics, computer science and public administration - the task should be easy. Similarly, as Lee Kuan Yew’s son, he has a privileged position in society. Lastly, there is his apparent brilliance as a technocrat, a role he has performed effortlessly for the more than two decades he has been in public office.

So far, though, since taking the prime minister’s job 21 months ago, he has seemingly been walking a tightrope, sometimes at ease, at others wobbling precariously, occasionally bolt upright, appearing stiff and uncomfortable.

Last Saturday’s general election, his first political test since becoming prime minister, would seem to sum up his predicament - although his People’s Action Party, which has ruled Singapore since independence from Malaysia in 1965, again won all but two of the 84 elected seats in parliament, its share of the vote slipped from 75 per cent at the 2001 poll to 66.6 per cent.

Lee Hsien Loong had been seeking 80 per cent of the vote in his constituency of Ang Mo Kio, but ended up taking just 66.3 per cent.

Politicians elsewhere in the world would be more than happy with such figures, but this is Singapore, where the ruling party has ensured that elections go its way. With the voices of political opponents stifled by strict campaigning rules, a state-controlled media, legal action and intimidation, gerrymandering and voting practices such as first-past-the-post, pre-election expectations are rarely unfulfilled.

The government does not take kindly to suggestions that Singapore is undemocratic and is quick to sue for defamation when it considers it has been portrayed unfairly. In a rare reversal, Lee Hsien Loong was forced to apologise during campaigning for suggesting that Singapore was undemocratic.

At a rally on May 3, he told supporters: “Suppose you had 10, 15, 20 opposition members in Parliament. Instead of spending my time thinking what is the right policy for Singapore, I’m going to spend all my time thinking what’s the right way to fix them, to buy my supporters votes, how can I solve this week’s problem and forget about next year’s challenges?”

Amid the outcry from political opponents, his press secretary quickly issued a clarification.

“What the PM meant by his remark was that if there were many more opposition MPs in Parliament, the government and opposition would spend all their time and energies countering each other, and Singapore would be worse off for it,” said Chen Hwai Liang. “He used direct language to get this important point across to a mass rally crowd. If the exact words he used offended, he is sorry.”

Critics have long accused Lee Hsien Loong of being aloof and arrogant, and the incident would seem to back their assertions.

Some might say that he has had difficulty taking up a suggestion of Mr Goh frankly delivered at a National Day rally in August 2003 at which the succession was announced. The outgoing leader said Singaporeans would like Lee Hsien Loong to be more approachable because his public persona was “that of a no-nonsense, uncompromising and tough minister”.

“Loong is aware of the people’s perception of him,” he said. “We have discussed it frankly among the ministers. I have told Loong that he has to let his softer side show.”

That “softer side” has undeniably been increasingly apparent with visits to homes, markets and drains considered potential mosquito-breeding areas. Nonetheless, perceptions of him are still far removed from those of Mr Goh, who in his 14 years as prime minister gained a popular following.

Australian academic Ross Worthington, quoting unidentified sources, recounted in his 2002 book Governance in Singapore how Lee Hsien Loong caused political outrage in 1990.

“Lee Hsien Loong had gone to the office of Richard Hu, the minister of finance, and removed a number of files without Hu’s permission,” Dr Worthington wrote.

“At the pre-cabinet meeting, Hu took Lee to task for doing this and was supported by [then education minister] Tony Tan. Lee’s response was aggressive and insulting, he directly insulted Tan and Hu, a man of his father’s age. This was a double insult to Hu, who was Lee’s superior in cabinet and a person of an age who should … deserve respect in Chinese society.

“[Then national development minister] Suppiah Dhanabalan intervened and chastised Lee for his behaviour, demanding that he apologise to Hu, withdraw his remarks and not interfere in other ministers’ portfolios. A heated exchange occurred into which a number of other issues intruded, and eventually Lee lost his temper and reportedly reached across the table and slapped Dhanabalan across the face.”

Singaporean officials are not averse to taking legal action over such claims, but Dr Worthington was never sued - although his book was quietly withdrawn from shops and the shelves of libraries. Mr Goh even jokingly referred to it in his speech but denied it happened, saying: “I must be suffering from amnesia. I just cannot remember this incident. Now you know how creative Singaporeans are.”

Whether true or not, there is a growing list of controversies surrounding Lee Hsien Loong, 54.

As his father’s eldest son, claims of nepotism have always shadowed him. At the age of 32, he became Singapore’s youngest-ever brigadier-general, and when he entered politics after a 13-year military career, his rise through the political ranks was equally rapid.

Shortly after being elected to Parliament in 1984, his father appointed him minister of state in the trade and industry, and defence ministries. In 1986, he was made trade and industry minister, and second minister for defence.

From an early age, it was always assumed he would succeed his father as prime minister, but proponents of the theory were proved wrong when Lee Kuan Yew stepped aside in 1990 to become senior minister, and Mr Goh was appointed his successor with the junior Lee as his deputy. In his memoirs, the senior Lee explained: “It was better that someone else succeed me as prime minister. Then, were Loong to make the grade later, it would be clear that he made it on his own.”

Lee Hsien Loong concurrently held the positions of deputy prime minister, and trade and industry minister until 1992, when he was diagnosed with lymphoma. When the cancer went into remission, he continued his ambitious rise, taking on the chairmanship of the central bank in 1998, and three years later, the job of finance minister - a role he still holds in addition to the prime ministership.

The appointment of his wife, Ho Ching, as the executive director of state investment agency Temasek has also raised eyebrows, but the Lee family has fought such claims with defamation suits that have won out-of-court settlements.

Ms Ho, a career civil servant, is his second wife. He married her in 1985, three years after his first wife died. He has four children - a son and daughter with each woman.

Just months before becoming prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong outraged Beijing by visiting Taiwan, causing the cancellation of a flurry of diplomatic visits. Singapore initially described the trip as “private and unofficial”, saying that he would be meeting “friends”. But as Chinese anger became louder, the Singaporean government defended his visit with a four-page statement, saying as a future prime minister, he needed to understand “a potential flash point” in Asia.

Another diplomatic gaffe came last December during a visit to Germany. Accorded military honours by Chancellor Angela Merkel, he forgot international protocol and instead of bowing to the German flag, walked past - leaving his host behind bent in a bow.

To be fair, Lee Hsien Loong is aware of his imperfections and those of his party. During last week’s election, he noted that his teenage son preferred attending opposition rallies than those of the People’s Action Party, which were deemed boring. Last year he told an American television journalist during a trip to Washington that he wished he had worked in the private sector because he lacked a full understanding of business.

“In this world you have to understand economics, you have to understand business, you have to understand how deals are done, how contracts are made, businesses grow, prosperity is created,” he said, acknowledging that to “have been on the other side, to have done something and made it grow” would have added “something extra” to his experience.

Garry Rodan, Singapore expert at Australia’s Murdoch University, agreed that the city state’s politicians lacked the common touch.

“The People’s Action Party has put in place an elitist system which means that, at an early age, people of academic talent get stratified and streamed off and taken out of mass circulation,” he said. “They tend to be in very close contact with other members of the political and social elite, and when they get into office, they have to confront the challenge of trying to represent the interests and respond to the views of people whose life experiences are very different from their own.”

Lee Hsien Loong is doing his best. He has claimed he does not care if Singapore’s youth dye their hair blue, and has loosened many of the so-called nanny state’s tight regulations on entertainment in a bid to attract tourists. Last August, in a speech marking the 40th National Day, he said Singapore had to adapt urgently or it would die.

“It must be a totally different Singapore, because if it’s the same Singapore today, we’re dead,” he said. “We have to remake Singapore - our economy, our education, our mindsets, our city.”

He clearly believes that he is just the person to do that.

“But we either believe in democracy or we not. If we do, then, we must say categorically, without qualification, that no restraint from the any democratic processes, other than by the ordinary law of the land, should be allowed… If you believe in democracy, you must believe in it unconditionally. If you believe that men should be free, then, they should have the right of free association, of free speech, of free publication. Then, no law should permit those democratic processes to be set at nought, and no excuse, whether of security, should allow a government to be deterred from doing what it knows to be right, and what it must know to be right… ” - Lee Kuan Yew, Legislative Assembly Debates, April 27, 1955

Prof Ho Khai Leong makes a good point, “Why didn’t professional sectors of society speak up during elections?”

However, it’s difficult for people to speak up where there seems to be a perception by these people, especially educated Singaporeans, of climate of fear and repression? In fact, I always think is the ordinary blue collar worker and uncles and aunties that dare most to speak up, not the so called elites of our society. I might be wrong…….

Business Times
May 24, 2006 Wednesday
Panelists call for electoral reforms; Separate polls at municipal and parliamentary levels urged
Uma Shankari

BODY:PANELISTS at a post-mortem of the recently concluded general election in Singapore last night called for reforms in the electoral system with separate polls at the municipal and parliamentary levels. Ho Khai Leong, a political scientist from Nanyang Technological University, said that issues such as lift upgrading should be settled at the municipal level.’Parliamentary elections should be used to elect legislators,’ he added.

Prof Ho was speaking at a political dialogue hosted by the National University of Singapore Society.

He said the civil society in Singapore - such as the community of lawyers - could have spoken up more during the campaign period, noting there was deafening silence from this sector when issues were joined during the hustings.

In addition, he called on the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) to reform itself, saying that the current system of having a Prime Minister, a Senior Minister and a Minister Mentor has ‘eroded the constitutional authority of the Prime Minister’.Renowned author and political commentator Catherine Lim noted that Singaporeans’ belief in an infallible PAP is changing.

Voters, she said, were torn between their heads and their hearts when making a choice. While they might wish to vote for the PAP due to pragmatism, they want ‘more humaneness and more heart’, which could have led to votes for the opposition.The elections, she said, will definitely lead to a maturing of the PAP as well as a better opposition. Singapore Democratic Party chief Chee Soon Juan and Workers Party candidate Perry Tong - who were also panelists - spoke on the need for electoral reforms.

Dr Chee said the reform of the electoral process was needed to ensure a free and fair election.

Mr Tong made several proposals. He would like to see ’serious’ opposition parties receive some sort of funding from the government which he said is the case in some North European countries.In addition, he would like to move away from the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) scheme.Allowing single candidates to contest each other would make for a fairer system, in his view.

Finally, Mr Tong suggested a study on why about 10 per cent of eligible voters chose not to vote.

Also at the panel was MP for Jalan Basar GRC Denise Phua, who was the flag-bearer for the PAP.Looking back at the elections, Ms Phua said that the James Gomez saga did cost the PAP some votes.

And looking forward to the next elections, Ms Phua said that a lot will depend on the performance of the new PAP MPs, and whether the PAP will be able to show its softer side.’The party (PAP) is not what people make it out to be; there are more sides to the PAP,’ she said. ‘The party must be able to communicate more.’

Is it because the new government wants to co-opt as many people in ministries so they cannot be back benchers to criticise government policies?

Why almost half of the parliamentarians are ministers? It simply doesn’t make much sense. Are we doubting the efficency of our civil service that we need so many political appointees?

Why is parliament only reconvening in November! Our elections were in May!

Questions Questions Questions…

Team tailored to fit priorities

As a 22 year old, I sometimes feel that the youth of our nations are pretty hopeless when it comes to political awarness, developing a naunced approach to politics and the courage to question the fundenmental of our thoughts/action/societal actions.

I stumbled upon Gayle Goh website and finds her extremely thoughtful. Her analysis on whether to join a political party at 17+ is very interesting. She will only improve on her political analysis if she goes on to pursue a related social science or humanities in higher education.

But then again, if I see her on my kopi tiam TV in all white in ten years time as I lim kopi at the Tampines coffee shop eating my fried rice while reading my Straits Times, I will probably email her this blog entry.

Or maybe, I will just choke on my ice kopi, swallow my bad fried rice and spill them all over my two dollars Straits Times..haha

Our education system should not be a place for propangada by politicans. As much as MM and SM are very respected figures in Singapore, I do not think that this book should be made compulsory readings in schools or in universities. If MM and SM lee speeches are to be memorized or analyized in schools, surely then Low Thia Khiang speeches or Steve Chia book should be read in school? Fostering a pro-govt orthodoxy in schools subtly is at least acceptable, but to openly do it, I think is not very acceptable.

Delving into the metaphors of MM and SM

String of corruption cases involving ex MPs and now government personnel worries me. How can we ensure our country remains not corrupted? Do we need more check and balance in the system?

LTA officers allegedly took bribes