AIM at a terse exchange

The AIM saga finally came to Parliament for a cleansing. And the debate between the two sides strayed from just about the correctness and propriety of the process to personal agenda and motivation. The second part is best summarized by what Boon Wan said, ‘This is self righteous and – pardon me for saying so – arrogant’. I will deal with this later.

The first part of the argument is all about how correct were the procedure and processes of running town councils and the implications arising from the sale of AIM to a $2 company owned by PAP members. The facts are well known to the public. There were suggestions that many more things can be done to improve the current system. The Review Committee also did make recommendations for changes, of course for the better.

The WP are not happy with the existing system and suggested that there were ‘foul play’ akin to fixing the opposition parties or trying to make life difficult for them at the expense of the residents who ended up as collateral to a political bickering which in the words of Boon Wan, are petty.

Boon Wan stood up to defend PAP’s position that all that was done was for the good of the residents, for efficiency and continuity. The residents’ interest is all the PAP was concerned and the system was designed with that in mind. And this is acquitted by the findings of the Review Committee that everything was in order and no one made money out of the deal.

So we have two conflicting positions and some will agree with one and some with the other. Lina Cheam was quoted to disagree that no one made money out of the sale of AIM. But looking at the righteousness of the $2 company, set up to take care of the residents’ interest, making money out of the deal must be the last thing in their mind. They did it as a public service, not to make money.

Who is right or wrong, maybe there is no right or wrong but a matter of perception of who is uglier and who is prettier, is very subjective. The Review Committee had found nothing wrong and the Govt had accepted that finding. So there is nothing wrong officially. But other parties and the masses may have different views and different judgement. Does it matter?

The part about being righteous and arrogant is like someone’s raw nerve being exposed. It hurts, and the exchange was not very pleasant, quite personal I would say, pardon me. There were questions of who is whiter than white, who is more arrogant and who is a patriot. If the debate continues this way, soon they will be wrestling in the longkangs, with gloves removed and nails out scratching.

Is the whole AIM debate about righteousness or arrogance? Is it about fixing or undermining the opponent? Can such an issue be depoliticized? The call for depoliticizing institutions like Town Councils and other public institutions became a sore point. The politicizing of these institutions is, in the eyes of the public unacceptable and undesirable. But would righteous people and arrogant people think otherwise, that politicizing these institutions are part and parcel of politics? Or can these institutions be depoliticized or they should not?

Whatever the recommendations and the eventual character of Town Councils and other public institutions, it is likely to be decided by righteous and arrogant politicians. And the people to judge about who is more righteous and more arrogant must definitely be the people watching the show.

What do you think?