Bishan Dr praises PAP implementing “unpopular†policies with
-
February 9, 2010 - Temasek Review
GP in Bishan praises PAP for implementing “unpopular” policies with “long-term” gains
Written by Our Correspondent
A General Practitioner (GP) who runs his own clinic in Bishan under the charge of DPM Wong Kan Seng has written a letter to the Straits Times Forum today praising the PAP for its governance of Singapore so far.
Dr Yik Keng Yeong was writing in response to Mr Ng Kok Lim’s letter “Life after PAP” which was first published on The Temasek Review on 5 February 2010 before the Straits Times Forum republished a day later. (Read Mr Ng’s letter here)
He began his letter by praising the PAP leadership for its “stellar” performance:
“Ethnically, Singaporeans are no different from the countries they migrated from. If, indeed, all work ethic is equal, every country in the region would have scaled the same peaks as Singapore. That we have achieved a standing in the world beyond expectations says as much about our resourcefulness to overcome hardship as it does about the quality of our leadership in our country’s formative years.”
According to Dr Yik, the only “mistake” made by the PAP was to implement policies which are unpopular on the ground:
“……whose venal sin lies in steadfastly implementing unpopular policies with short-term pain while making long-term gains which only patience will see bear fruit.”
Dr Yik seems to agree with Law Minister’s assertion that Singapore needs an “efficient” government to react quickly to changes in the external environment:
“The rules of the market seemingly dictate that competition brings efficiency and advancement. Yet, a look at the filibustering in various foreign Parliaments should tell us that non-constructive opposition to government policies is pernicious to a country, paralysing it with worthless rhetoric when firm and decisive leadership is needed.”
In the 1970s, the “Stop at Two” policy was implemented by then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew to curb Singapore’s population growth.
The policy was implemented quickly and efficiently with no opposition from Singaporeans who were unable to do much anyway since the PAP controlled all the seats in Parliament.
Today, Singapore is paying the price for the “success” of Lee’s policy. Due to Singapore’s declining birth rates especially among the ethnic Chinese, we now have to “import” foreigners from elsewhere to make up for the shortfall in the number of babies, thereby creating another problem in the process.
In 2003, Lee’s son, the current Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced an ambitious plan to increase Singapore’s population to 6.5 million people via immigration by 2030.
Too many foreigners were let into Singapore within too short a period of time such that the government is now having a serious headache of how to integrate them into local society.
A recent Wall Street Journal editorial wrote that the relentless influx of foreigners into Singapore over the last few years had depressed the wages of ordinary Singaporeans, increased the cost of living, especially that of public housing, reduced labor productivity and led to an overall decline in the standard of living.
The PAP leaders are now trying to reverse its policies by promising to “slow down” the inflow of foreigners in the next few years which will not be necessary in the first place had there been a strong opposition in parliament to challenge its ideas and debate on the matter right from the very beginning.
Perhaps Dr Yik has forgotten the age-old adage: “More haste, less speed”. It is better to have more brains to ponder over a decision carefully before making it, especially when it concerns the lives of millions of people.
To quote from an article on the pros and cons of democracy versus autocracy published in the Economist last week:
“With no noisy legislatures or robust courts to hold things up, autocracies may be faster and bolder. The are also more accident-prone.
For all its frustrations, open and accountable government tends in the long run to produce better policies. This is because no group of mandarins, no matter how enlightened or well-meaning, can claim to be sure of what is best for a complex society.
Autocracies tend to be too heavy at the top; although decisions may be more easily taken, the ethos of autocracies – their secrecy and paranoia – makes it harder for alternative views to emerge. Above all, elections make transfer of power legitimate and smooth.”
Under a one-party system in which the boundaries between the party and the state are blurred, Singaporeans can never trust the government fully to act in their interests especially when it conflicts with that of the continued survival of the party.
-
Doubt this GP has a sense of sound judgement. tsk tsk tsk, shake my head!
-
“Ethnically, Singaporeans are no different from the countries they migrated from. If, indeed, all work ethic is equal, every country in the region would have scaled the same peaks as Singapore. That we have achieved a standing in the world beyond expectations says as much about our resourcefulness to overcome hardship as it does about the quality of our leadership in our country’s formative years.”
Obviously he does not understand geographic locality, it's the same reason why port cities in China (e.g. Shanghai, Dalian and Qingdao) grow at a much higher rate compared to their inland cities. If what he said were true, then every city and region in China would grow at the same rate governed by the same CCCP.
-
Giving blind support to PAP will not do Singapore any good. Quality of life going downhill in Singapore due to the way the PAP leads the country.
-
“The rules of the market seemingly dictate that competition brings efficiency and advancement. Yet, a look at the filibustering in various foreign Parliaments should tell us that non-constructive opposition to government policies is pernicious to a country, paralysing it with worthless rhetoric when firm and decisive leadership is needed.”
If that were true, perhaps all the countries in the world should return to a dictatorship.
Monopoly could only bring about deadweight loss and lower consumer surplus.
Competition could only bring about faster, cheaper and better quality products, which is also the same idealogy promoted by Lim Say Swee.
-
Originally posted by βÎτά:
“The rules of the market seemingly dictate that competition brings efficiency and advancement. Yet, a look at the filibustering in various foreign Parliaments should tell us that non-constructive opposition to government policies is pernicious to a country, paralysing it with worthless rhetoric when firm and decisive leadership is needed.”
If that were true, perhaps all the countries in the world should return to a dictatorship.
Monopoly could only bring about deadweight loss and lower consumer surplus.
Competition could only bring about faster, cheaper and better quality products, which is also the same idealogy promoted by Lim Say Swee.