Comments and response
Saw and responded to a comment in Blog "Kway Teow Man" on the topic of GCT's comment on the GRC.
In it, Mickell said...
What SM said is true and actually makes sense.
Nevertheless, whatever each PAP minister says in public and recorded by the press, will always draw flak and criticisms from people who are anti-PAP.
There are those who oppose the government for the sake of opposing. If any other opposition party ever becomes the ruling party, it will likewise face tons of opposition too. It's a never-ending vicious cycle. Nobody's perfect.
Then again, there are those who oppose for the sake of making Singapore a better place by lowering the costs of living here by slashing the salaries of the ministers. Will top minds still join the government if the pay is much less fantastic than the private sector?
Do people join the government because they are attracted by the good pay or because they genuinely want to serve and better the lives of their fellow-Singaporeans?
My response :
What SM Goh said was true, in that the GRC system helps the establishment push in brand new MPs under the shadow of established ministers. However, there is little sense in saying it out loud and undermining the facade of democracy that is so painstakingly maintained.
While there are parties that are blindly critical or supportive of the government, the litmus test is the analysis and the debate of policies and statements by both sides of the fence without the severe unbalance that now exists, with our overwhelmingly partisan media and civial service.
The debate of public policies and ministerial statements are the backbone of a matured society that have outgrown apthathy. By backing up one's criticism or support with facts, we take a step forward and put behind us mindless rants or undeserved worship.
The balance between the ruling party and the opposition is not a vicious cycle. It is a system of check and balance. It is that which prevents the abuse of power by those holding it.
It is what that makes a democracy.
The act of creating a system that allows candidates to enter the highest policy making body of the nation without risk or substantial effort makes a mockery of our parliament.
What will happen to Singapore if we have corrupted leaders one day - where will be the checks and measures to protect our reserves if we so blindly put unrestricted power into the hands of a selected priviledged few?
Ps. The best the PAP have to offer came from a time where ministerial pay goes as low as practically nothing. The stalwarts that build our nation and leave us this legacy were attracted first and foremost to the opportunity of leadership in the face of adversity, not the lure of monetary gain at none-existent risk.
Elaborations on my comments coming akan datang.....
In it, Mickell said...
What SM said is true and actually makes sense.
Nevertheless, whatever each PAP minister says in public and recorded by the press, will always draw flak and criticisms from people who are anti-PAP.
There are those who oppose the government for the sake of opposing. If any other opposition party ever becomes the ruling party, it will likewise face tons of opposition too. It's a never-ending vicious cycle. Nobody's perfect.
Then again, there are those who oppose for the sake of making Singapore a better place by lowering the costs of living here by slashing the salaries of the ministers. Will top minds still join the government if the pay is much less fantastic than the private sector?
Do people join the government because they are attracted by the good pay or because they genuinely want to serve and better the lives of their fellow-Singaporeans?
My response :
What SM Goh said was true, in that the GRC system helps the establishment push in brand new MPs under the shadow of established ministers. However, there is little sense in saying it out loud and undermining the facade of democracy that is so painstakingly maintained.
While there are parties that are blindly critical or supportive of the government, the litmus test is the analysis and the debate of policies and statements by both sides of the fence without the severe unbalance that now exists, with our overwhelmingly partisan media and civial service.
The debate of public policies and ministerial statements are the backbone of a matured society that have outgrown apthathy. By backing up one's criticism or support with facts, we take a step forward and put behind us mindless rants or undeserved worship.
The balance between the ruling party and the opposition is not a vicious cycle. It is a system of check and balance. It is that which prevents the abuse of power by those holding it.
It is what that makes a democracy.
The act of creating a system that allows candidates to enter the highest policy making body of the nation without risk or substantial effort makes a mockery of our parliament.
What will happen to Singapore if we have corrupted leaders one day - where will be the checks and measures to protect our reserves if we so blindly put unrestricted power into the hands of a selected priviledged few?
Ps. The best the PAP have to offer came from a time where ministerial pay goes as low as practically nothing. The stalwarts that build our nation and leave us this legacy were attracted first and foremost to the opportunity of leadership in the face of adversity, not the lure of monetary gain at none-existent risk.
Elaborations on my comments coming akan datang.....
