1/13/2008
The worst of 2007
I reckon the following are the worst political decisions of 2007, though not necessary in order of merit.
1. Compulsory Annuity Scheme
2. Mean Testing
3. 21% salary increment
4. Taxi fare hike
5. 6 million population
6. Allowing rising cost to run wild
Can any of you think of anything worst than the above? Or anyone disagree?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
You meant 2007 of course. My pick:
2% gst hike that was unnecessary, adding fuel to the inflation fire.
oh yes 2007. i have edited it. thanks.
3. 21% salary increment
4. Taxi fare hike
5. 6 million population
6. Allowing rising cost to run wild
these may not necessarily be the "worst" things that happened as they do contain some revenue generating elements and career boosts depending on where you stand.
The question is — is there anything the government does which is actually GOOD?
The answer is NO.
The best thing the govt can do is NOTHING, and to leave people ALONE to work stuff out amongst themselves.
But hey, the government is, at the end of the day, not totally responsible for making lousy decisions.
The responsibility falls SQUARELY on The People — after all, they voted the government in, and therefore get the government they DESERVE.
agree, depending which angle you are looking at. from the point of spending political capital, they are going to be costly.
Costly my arse. All this is just short term pain. Singaporeans have been proven time and again to have very, very, very short memories. The elctorate will gleefully elect the same bunch back into Parliament come 2010/2011. And then they will implement more painful measures. and the cycle continues. Those who don't like have already voted with their feet. Those who are not willing to, will just have to accept their fate. Here's to more years of price increases, and ever higher ministerial salaries.
redbean,
The governments of the modern nation states will ALWAYS be costly, and as anon has pointed out, will continue to seek more and more revenue, taking advantage to the average Joe and Jane's short attention span, and their desire to "live happily ever after" by taking on as little responsibility as possible.
Why would anyone want to bust their balls over difficult and personally costly ideas like "responsibility" when you can vote in a bunch of people to provide EVERYTHING for you, an for your entire family. You can have transport, education, security, pensions and annuities, healthcare... all provided for you, and all you have to do is VOTE together, united with one's fellow-Sheeple.
As a sweeping generalisation, I'll claim that Singaporeans (generally speaking) are the epitome of Sheeple. They don't mind sacrificing some of their freedoms for an (illusion) feeling of "security", believed to be "guaranteed" because a "smart guy" like Lee Kuan Yew is running the show.
If you go back to basics -- how did LKY rise to power, and stay in power all this time?
The only way any political leader can (be he a saint or a tyrant) -- on the say-so of The People. Hitler, Mao, Stalin... all these folks were supported by the people otherwise they'd never rise to prominence.
Even Thaksin was supported by many people in the North/N. east of Thailand. Yes, he had to buy votes to do it, but the people, if ehy had a sense of morality...and a longer time-span in their consciousness (i.e. evealuate the LONG TERM consequences of one's actions) than the range-of-the-moment could have refused Thaksin's "gifts". But they didn't. Everyone took it and voted for Thaksin.
Along similar lines, the PAP uses the HDB/national economy issues to manipulate voters' minds. The point is NO ONE CAN MANIPULATE YOUR MIND UNLESS YOU GIVE THEM PERMISSION TO DO SO.
But alas, the Sheeple give into the PAP, all the time. And throughout their belly-aching, and whinging, they consistently return the PAP to power, time after time.
No government can rule unless there is majority support from the people. Politics, democracy and voter manipulation go hand in hand with each other and are inseparable.
No one can "corrupt" the political process unless the people themselves are corruptible.
matilah,
'The governments of the modern nation states will ALWAYS be costly,' you mean the govt of singapore, right?
i don't think the european govts are that expensive and i can't say that they are worst than ours.
ok, the people deserve the govt they voted in.
Label me anyway you like duke, but i will still vote for them becos;
1. they have Very good/passionate people in the party
2. the opposition on the other hand are lacklustre and pathetic
Passionate to serve? I thought they needed high salaries to be attracted to join the PAP and become ministers. Which is the real motivation?
hi guys,
lets not label anyone in any form. we are adults and should be able to accept opposing views even if we don't agree. what we need are intelligent and well argued views.
it is the thinking behind the views articulated that impressed, not the win or lose or right or wrong way.
i have seen many views that were different from mind but very well thought of and presented.
lets try to do that.
Why so wishy-washy? "labeling" is part of *normal* human behaviour. We are what we do - that forms a particular facet of our identity. For e.g. if you smoke, you are a smoker. If you engage in parenting, you are a parent. These are labels - they illustrate certain facets of our very complex individual identities.
So if a person blindly follows the herd in political matters, he is (I suppose) a "Shee-person" (singular of "Sheeple") But that person is also a lot of other "things". He could be a father, a pimp, a philanthropist, or a bum.
I say, label away, and be damned!
Post a Comment