Comments, opinions and an occasional ramble
Roadblocks – a necessary evil
Bernard Leong wrote a very interesting piece about Singapore’s progress towards the First World. And, he outlined some characteristics which he thought represents what it means to be in the First World. I quote his opinion on the politics in a First World country.
The real issue is that when you are in a first world country, you always hear all different points of views. One political party gains power and starts to undo the other’s legacy. So, in the end, political ideologies trump over public policies. Although it might not be as efficient as others, at least the politicians have to learn how to humble themselves to convince others to agree with them.
I agree fully with Bernard’s opinion. Even the wackos get their say in first world countries. True, it is not time-efficient to listen to the opinions of wackos. But therein lies the rub. How do we know they are wackos? Could the “wackos” actually be geniuses in disguise, just that the majority has yet to acquire the capability of understanding what they are talking about? Many great people have been thought to be wackos at some point in their life, such as Thomas Edison, Christopher Columbus, Galileo etc.
Politically, I think that it is important for diversity of opinions. Government policies are usually not made for the short term. As such, the effects of policies are usually felt some time down the road, and if it turns out to be a wrong move, the cost of repairing the damange is usually very high. This is why it is important to hear as many different views as possible, and to actually account for such views in decision making.
Singapore’s political situation is in such a way that one party dominates the scene. This is not a bad thing in the sense that it allows the Singapore government to respond more quickly, and much more efficiently compared to other countries. However, this very strength could turn out to be Singapore’s own undoing, especially if the wrong policies were executed very efficiently.
For example, Singapore’s rapid population growth, which has been projected to reach 6.5 million in 2030 is a policy that will have disasterous effect if it goes wrong. Most of the growth is being fuelled by immigration, rather than natural population increase. And, a large proportion of the immigrants are well-educated and mobile individuals. Imagine if Singapore invests in all the infrastructure for 6.5 million population and halfway, another country offers a sweeter deal that Singapore cannot match, resulting in an exodus of immigrants from Singapore. I don’t even dare to imagine what will happen to the different markets in Singapore.
I am aware that the PAP dominated Singapore government does its homework before embarking on any major policy. But the possibility of groupthink is very real. A bunch of highly intelligent policy makers might not be able to escape the effect of groupthink. Therefore, it’s perhaps wiser to have a divided political system where no party is dominant. No doubt that it’s less efficient to try and convince another party, and to make some concessions in the process. However, a highway to heaven can also be a highway to hell. I rather have multiple road blocks in between, which may slow down the journey, but at least the stops can allow me some time to think through things a little bit more. Perhaps roadblocks are a necessary evil.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Aaron Ng on 07/03/2007 at 2:35 pm, and is filed under Perspective. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |


about 5 years ago
The danger to the current system is that its overly reliant on talent. What if a bunch of people who are not that talented or a particulary crooked manage to entrench themselves in parliament? Sure u can get honest guys now but who can say that this will be a given in the future?
Furthermore competition is not that bad a thing. It can act as a spur for politicians to perform.
about 5 years ago
Agreed with what Ned Stark say. Seriously I don’t think people who only good at academic are people who are talented in politic. I think government should spend more time scouting for real talent that are really capable of running a country rather then just pick from scholars which most of them are only good at academic. Those so call “talents” in Singapore don’t really go through and form of hardship. Their prospect has been already laid on how good their academic results are. Kinda say that government sector are base on how great your Scholarship to see your future prospect rather than your performance. I really hope that the system will change to better talents who know how to better run the country. But by pinning hope on the opposition is quite useless also, Becos they opposed for the sake of opposing but not for the sake of the people. Don’t always ask the government to open up the reserved becos is not the best way to solve problem. Only balancing the needs of the civil servant and the citizen will bring great future for Singapore.
about 5 years ago
Raymond,
Actually it may not be correct to say they oppose for the sake of opposing. Joining the opposition in Singapore is something few would consider cause of the fear and the near certainty of failure (Singaporean Kiasu , Kiasi..) Why join the opposition to oppose for the sake of opposing? If u want to do so there are alternatives such as the net. So we shouldnt just discount them. Furthermore if one reads up on the history of Mr Chiam and Mr Low, one can take a leaf out of their book. Both have gone through much.
about 5 years ago
I think our ministers / admin officers are again measured by the GDP and such numbers in their performance appraisal / performance bonuses. It will thus make sense to hike our population to ensure our continued GDP growth. We will all suffer the consequences of such hare brained scheme if no one on top stop and say – let us break out of this groupthink and see what happens if we proceed with this – are the locals happy? Are the NS men happy? The reservists ?Are the mothers and housewives happy? The old folks? The citizens ? No – they will continue to grow the GDP at whatever social costs to all of us
about 5 years ago
Ned Stark, Mr Chiam and Mr Low are the only 2 opposition that talk sense. Look at some of the recent opposition. For example Ms sylvia. Correct If i’m wrong. She say that the GST can be offset using the casino tax in future which I think is not appropriate. Some that haven’t even exist we cannot know how much we can tax on. Her unrealistic figure of making 1.5billion to 3.5billion in taxes is quite impossible. Instead she should slam on the current pay raise issue and how to better stop wastage in the ministry. Just becos I think she included in the pay raise list she didn’t want to talk anything about it. These is not the kind of opposition we need. instead we need opposition like Mr Chiam and Mr Low who talk sense and selflessly give their best for the country.
about 5 years ago
Thats an interesting point. Well while it is true that Miss Sylvia was rather optimistic about the returns from the Casino, the fact is that the Casino is supposed to bring in the big bucks for Singapore. The Casino is a big investment and there is much hype surrounding it. If it turns out like the life sciences…
Furthermore, i think MPs do have a time limit so they may not be able to cover most angles. However i feel that its too early to judge Miss Sylvia. Furthermore we may not know the full details of what goes on in parliament (at least from the opposition POV) so what we can do is find out more (either by email or something)
about 5 years ago
Ned Stark.. Really very nice talking to you
Hope we can discuss further more on issue like that. I still feel that more research has to be done before commenting.
about 5 years ago
Raymond,
Think they were lurking ard not too long ago.
Nice talking to u too. Discussion is good cuz everyone can gain by it at the end of the day. Of course there are some fellas who are not to eager to discuss and only degenerate in name calling
about 5 years ago
Overall, I think the PAP old guards have demonstrated strong leadership and we owe them a great deal for what Singapore is today. While I do think that the system has been set up such that only the best rise up to the top, it is not infallible and there remains the danger that someone corrupt or inept will somehow make his way there and stay there.
The brilliant Indian Minister Montek Alluwalia once remarked in a lecture that change in India tends to be slow because it is the largest democracy in the world. But because it is slow, any change is also likely to be very enduring and enjoy the broadest possible support. Singapore has much to learn in this respect. I think Singapore has matured enough to dare to become a democracy in the truest sense of the word. So yes, the government could begin by listening and accepting others’ points of views. Keep blogging people!