Good grief!

Gosh, this statement by our PM is so full of arrogance that I really have no more respect for him and the party he represents. The way he puts it, it's as if the opposition wards pay taxes towards their ward only. Can the people in opposition wards have their tax dollars channelled to their wards? No and yet, our tax dollars is ONLY for the 'PAP'. This is so bad. So many Singaporeans are so unhappy with this policy since it is a common pool of money that we are drawing from. The gahmen just don't get it, do they?

Furthermore, talking about Australia not allowing Singapore Airlines to have flight routes to USA. Is it due to Australian's way of government or the fact that there are other 'national interest' factors? Has he thought of the fact that most countries do not look that economic benefits as the only way to run a country or create policies? A concept that seems to be lost in our gahmen, where economics is the only driving force in the creation of policies, anything to do with individual rights or freedoms or national interest (at the expense of economic gain) would be placed 'on hold' indefinitely.

Why is it the PAP think that they are the best thing for Singapore and the only party that can run it? Why is it they think that if they don't hold majority of the seats in parliament, Singapore is just going to fall from grace. They have this attitude that it is their divine right to govern.

*sigh*

When can Singapore politics mature? We can never be, until the PAP (or the gahmen in general) can accept constrictive criticisms without thinking it is a personal attack and that their word is not the end all and be all. Their attitude is that if you criticise, it means you think you can run the country better and thus, you should form your own party and stand for elections. But that is such an ill conceived notion and I don't know who started that thought. Criticising a policy doesn't mean that we think the gahmen is doing a bad job. It is our opinion and being Singaporean, it is our right to do that. So what is their problem? I really don't get it.

Other comments:
Lee Hsien Loong not impressed by democracy in Australia
Comical Ah Lee
More Comical Ah Lee
I am no Politician, just an Economist
Political Cyanide, Anyone?

------

Today
21 June 2006

'EXCITING' POLITICS NOT ALWAYS BEST FOR THE PEOPLE: PM LEE
----------------------------------------------------------
Loh Chee Kong in Auckland
cheekong@newstoday.com.sg

HIS visit to Australia and New Zealand has reinforced Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's belief that the one-party system in Singapore must continue - and the same goes for the policy of placing Opposition-held wards at the end of the lift-upgrading queue.

Over the last nine days, Mr Lee met various leaders from the two countries, including Prime Ministers John Howard (Australia) and Helen Clark (New Zealand), as well as their respective opposition leaders, Mr Kim Beazley and Dr Don Brash.

And after having a more intimate look at their political systems, Mr Lee is convinced that while their no-holds barred arguments make for "more exciting" politics and "compulsively-viewable interviews", they do not necessarily result in more sound policies.

The end-product of rigorous parliamentary debates might not necessarily be for the good of the country, as such "endless debates are seldom about achieving a better grasp of the issue but to score political points", he commented.

Speaking to reporters as he wrapped up his visit, Mr Lee said: "I think when you look at Australia and New Zealand and other countries with two-party systems or parliamentary democracies like us and elections in our politics, you will understand how different and unique the Singapore experience is.

"You look at their politics in Australia between Howard and Beazley. All the time, Howard says something, Beazley says he got it wrong. Beazley says something, (Howard) says: 'You said something different last week or three years ago'.

"So ceaselessly, back and forth, whatever you do, I'll say you've done it wrong. If I can't find some (way) to be different from you, I will look for something else so as to establish my own brand name."

Mr Lee also said that such party politics might lead to policies that are detrimental to the nation. He pointed to the Australian government's decision to deny Singapore Airlines access to the trans-Pacific as an example.

"The National Party (Mr Howard's party's rural-based junior coalition partner) has certain interests - to look after the rural populations, to look after the towns and far-flung outbacks - and one of their interests is to have air services fly to all these places. It's not economical for airlines which provide those air services, (among which) includes Qantas.

"So, when you say you want to open the trans-Pacific route and run an open competition because it is good for Australia, Qantas then says: 'Well, if you do that, we are going to have to cut back on all these non-economic routes. We are doing you a favour, doing national service.'"

But while the system might work for Australia because it is a diverse country with many different interest groups, Singapore's society is more homogeneous, with the Government also having "made sure that all the constituencies are mixed and integrated".

"In Singapore, we have 84 constituencies, but basically they are all more or less the same. You don't have a rural area, a city area. You don't have a very working class area versus a very upmarket area. We have made sure you don't have a Malay area or Indian constituency or Chinese constituency."

Because the People's Action Party (PAP) sees the whole of Singapore as a "natural constituency", it fights for all 84 seats during every election.

But the party's dominance in the political landscape has caused Singaporeans to "lose the perspective that party politics is party politics" - that people vote for a party not just because of national reasons, but because "it benefits himself or his community", said the Prime Minister.

"If we only talk about national interest and put it above party politics, in theory, that is ideal - but in reality, that's impossible," he said. "And that's why you end up having HDB priority (for lift upgrading) and a difference between the PAP and Opposition wards. It's necessary. Without that, the system cannot work.

"Because if we treat everybody the same ... the first thing the Opposition will say and has been saying is: 'It doesn't matter. They'll have to take care of you anyway. Vote for us, you will still have a PAP government' - which was what (Workers' Party candidate) Sylvia Lim said during the elections.

"And that becomes a real problem because if everybody believes that, where are you going to produce that PAP government?"

But what about PAP supporters who stay in Opposition wards?

Said Mr Lee: "We have no choice but to respect the wishes of the majority of the voters. We know that there are PAP supporters in Opposition wards. In PAP wards, there are also Opposition supporters. If you voted for an Opposition MP, you have to depend on him to work for you."