6/15/2014

Good policies and bad politics



I could not believe my eyes when I read what Chua Mui Hoong wrote in the Sunday Times this morning. The title of her article was ‘Good policies hampered by bad politics’. I am not going to dwell on how bad the politics were or even bother to figure out what were the good policies. Anyone who is aware of the population squeeze, influx of foreigners, housing shortages, transportation and high property prices, healthcare facilities and cost, CPF protest etc etc would know what is good policy and what is bad policy.

What is remarkable in the article is the rehashing of some issues that I thought would be forgotten, best left unsaid and not to be spoken again. Or at least that was the impression I had when I saw the deflection towards the wilderness and a refusal in a meeting of the minds.

What were the pertinent points raised by Low Thia Khiang in his opening address in the last Parliament session? Other than the phrase constructive politics, I don’t thing anyone remembers. Whatever he had raised were drown by the pompous outbursts of what is good politics and all that remained was a statement and reinforcement of power politics. I am constructive and you are destructive. Period.

Chua Mui Hoong remembered some of the things I wanted to write about but got caught in the latest round of CPF angst and thought it best to leave them aside while the CPF issues take the centre stage. Here are the very strong points raised by Low Thia Khiang that provoked so much unrestrained hostility in Parliament. It was like stirring the hornet’s nest.

  1. If the people continue to support a govt party that uses high handed tactics against its political opponents, we are endorsing a bullying political culture.

  1. If the people support a govt party that uses governmental resources, including civil servants, to serve its partisan goals, we are condoning the abuse of political power as an acceptable culture.

  1. Using differentiating measures in policies to punish people who voted for the opposition breads a culture of divisive politics.

  1. It also used to be said that the political incumbent has no obligation to level the playing field, that might is right, and that the political incumbent has the right to use all legal means to remain in poser because everyone will do it they are the incumbent. This is building a self serving political culture.

The above points clearly described the political culture of the day and how constructive can the political culture be if these cultures continue to dominate the politics of this wanna be democracy? What went on in Parliament after what Low said was all about the above, the kind of ‘constructive politics’ that are uniquely Singapore.

And what is amazing in Chua Mui Hoong’s article is a dressing down of the govt for its brand of constructive politics. Unbelieveable, and I do not wish to elaborate further and anyone who wants a better feel of what she said should discover the truth by reading the article itself. 

Though there was a vain attempt to blame the WP for not playing constructive politics, it did not hold much water. The opposition parties cannot engage in constructive politics when the tone and culture of politics are set by the dominant power of the day. The total absence of a follow up discussion on the above 4 points raised by Low is the best testimony of not wanting to talk about them. The subsequent robust attacks were more a diversion from the subject matter and to ignore the elephant in the room. And Chua Mui Hoong summed it up by asking ‘whether good policies can make up for bad politics – or the absence of any meaningful discussion of it’.  She presumed that all policies were good, so let it be. Can there be constructive politics when the conditions and culture mentioned by Low Thia Khiang continue to drive the politics here?

Why was there no discussion on the 4 main points raised by Low? Were they utterance of political myths, high falutins, or were they idealistic aspirations that don’t mean anything?

Kopi Level - Red

37 comments:

  1. Read less ST nowadays as news tends to be one sided. Just like the article on HRi honest conversation. They didnt even mentioned anything abt the 76yo lady. Also there seems to be more violent foreigners let in. So this gotta be 1 of the many bad policies.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I just wrote a piece on the 76 year old auntie and will post it tomorrow not to create indigestion. I may write another piece on all the inexplicable and inconsistent policies of the CPF and their effects on the people.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Getting better returns:

    It not difficult to get better returns then CPF of 3 percent?

    Singapore listed companies gave among the best dividend yield of around 3.8 percent, if you do your homework and due diligence you can get higher dividend yield capital gains?

    By diversifying your risk putting half in regular income blue chips with good dividend yield it not difficult to get 8 percent returns or more per year?

    Holding half your cash to wait for market to go cheaper to average down, you likely to get more then 8 percent returns rather putting in the CPF to get only 3 percent returns and you can't take it out?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Reminds me of Tan Chneg Bock's refrain about "doing the right thing".

    So yes ... why did the chicken cross the road?

    TAN CHENG BOCK
    It was the right thing to do.

    These PAP chicken jokes are infectious.

    ReplyDelete
  5. RB good article. I have stop reading the shit time for 1 year now and I feel that I can breath better. No one in our family read the shit time except one and we are trying to cancel the delivery.

    Likewise I have stop reading matilar post too except yesterday when I read he compared one commentator to be an ape. This is very demeaning to that person. I wish he focus more of his time wrting his books to hum our us than belittle others.

    1) how to boast about sexual power when both tiny are missing
    2) the art of incest
    3) the guide on how to bull shits
    4) how to irritate people and waste their time daily
    5) learning to be thick skin and flameproof
    6) how to tahan when your ass kena fucked
    7) how to act as patriot when you are a traitor
    8) how to act and look normal when you are actually insane
    9) learning to speak when a cock is stuck in your mouth
    10) how to con your sisters and daughters to continue having sex with you without reporting to the police.
    11) How to develop multi tasking skill. Sharing of secret on Learning how to type on keyboard posting commentary on blog when there is a hard cock pushing in and out in matilar mouth.
    12) How to cook two tiny to be delicious enough that the pigs would eat them.
    13) How to brag about your intelligence when you have none and how to tahan when both mouth and ass kena screwed at the same time.

    ReplyDelete
  6. At anon.10.12am. Yeah, I been wondering whether our border security personnels are doing their works? Why let in violent, jobless, come here to beg, protitutes or undesired foreigners into our country?. I have been watching Australia border security series, they are very strict in screening those tourists looking for jobs into their country and fine or confiscate foodstuff, etc into their country.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @RB:

    I don't know what universe you are living in, but me...I like REALITY. The harder and colder, the more I like ;-)

    >> we are endorsing a bullying political culture.

    Yes. In politics anything goes. The end can always be made to justify the means by logic, reason, faith or force. In fact, anything goes in how you justify even the most unthinkable brutal actions. You may even break the law, if you can get away with it.

    In politics, the baddest motherfucker wins.

    >> If the people continue to support a govt party that uses high handed tactics against its political opponents, we are endorsing a bullying political culture.

    I don't know who "we" is, but personally I wholeheartedly endorse this, because like I said, anything goes in politics. You need to find a weakness in your opponent and EXPLOIT IT. If he cannot than "bullying" then you bully him until he drops and you make sure he doesn't get up.

    >> 2. If the people support a govt party that uses governmental resources, including civil servants, to serve its partisan goals, we are condoning the abuse of political power as an acceptable culture.

    Please lah, Uncle-who-lives-in-dreamland...The Sheeple-People have no problem with abuse of political power as long as it is in their favour. Political power by the incumbent is ABSOLUTE POWER. Absolute Power is to be abused. In fact, there has never been a case where absolute power is not abused or used for personal agenda.

    Got reality yet?

    >> 3. Using differentiating measures in policies to punish people who voted for the opposition breads a culture of divisive politics.

    Of course you need to do this. If you don't punish your detractors and reward your supporters politics will never be effective.

    People respond to incentives. Understanding this is the basis for any student of human manipulation. The "incentives" boil down to profit and loss; or carrot and stick; or pain and gain.

    No one can escape this. It is BIOLOGICAL, hardwired to basic survival instincts. Even if you use your conscious mind to "intercept" the visceral, automatic "fear-basic-survival" signal, you will still feel and experience the emotion.

    >> 4. It also used to be said that the political incumbent has no obligation to level the playing field, that might is right, and that the political incumbent has the right to use all legal means to remain in poser because everyone will do it they are the incumbent. This is building a self serving political culture.

    In any "game", there is no obligation to give your opponent any advantage.

    The idea of a "level playing field" is pure nonsense. There is no such thing, especially in politics where everyone makes up their own rules.

    Political cultures ARE self-serving.
    "Normal" men and women have little or no desire to foist themselves and their beliefs on others.

    Only deranged people with an inflated idea of self-importance venture into politics, and presume to "lead" people, because the underlying assumption is that people are stupid (perhaps they are, so what?) and the political class "knows whats good for the stupid people", which the political class believes confers to them A RIGHT to make laws to force people to live a certain way, such that the political class can be vindicated, in fact respected for its meddling actions. Of course political culture is self-serving. It is supposed to be that way!

    Are you still in dreamland?

    Better click some kopi kau kau for you to wake up lah.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Been a ST subscrible since the day got married in the .70's stop one month ago used to be die die PAP
    now ?? ??

    ReplyDelete
  9. Matilar everytime kena from the book poster he tak boleh tahan cause the poster exposed his true self lar. That mother fucker very thick skin and it's flame proof as he already master book 5 lar

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Why was there no discussion on the 4 main points raised by Low?"
    RB

    That's the price to pay for Teochew Ah Hia WP not being ready to be govt.

    Whether it is individual or organisation, they will have to pay a price for being weak. The weaker they are, the higher price they may have to pay. And being bullied is one example of a price to pay.

    Not just in Sinkieland but everywhere, tio bo?

    Hainan Ah Ko, di bo di?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Wah RB, you hit the nail on the head. What can the Opposition do if the incumbent practises gutter politics, and in a supreme irony, call these constructive politics. Change we need.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The PAP would conveniently ignore these 4 pts raised by Low. Why?

    No bullying political culture?
    No abuse of political power?
    No punishing opposition, no divisive politics?
    No self serving political culture

    How to discuss when you cannot say no? So attack and send everyone spinning and forget about these 4 pts.

    ReplyDelete
  13. CPF should have more options, after all it is people had earn saving for over 35 years, it is fair after savings so many people should be able to take it back as promised, spend some, keep the rest as reserve in case of emergency, what for you keep in a place you can't withdraw during emergency?

    Especially nowadays the need for emergency funds is more acute then yesterdays, where the job market is more competitive?

    These are people blood, sweat & tear moving of slogging so many year to save and expecting to get it back as promised at 55? This is the trust?

    People should had the options and right to how to spend it?

    Even some might had spend it all, they still got to go back to work, they can survive on some $300 handouts, and not many can qualify for it?

    How able those who don't have CPF at all they still need to work to survive?

    They should able to get it back at 55, to get higher passive income then the meager 3 percents from CPF and nobody know what happen, when they reach 70 again will it change again? The might not be able to spent it?

    Why people take so many years to save can most spent it all at once?

    At their age their children is still school need more reserve for backing up in case of emergency, what is the use you are asset rich and can't touch it?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Why have CPF at all?
    Why not all the noney just pay directly into our pockets?

    Got CPF - the PAP government will not help us.
    No CPF - also the PAP government will not help us.

    So fuck.
    Just give us back our money.

    ReplyDelete
  15. What a shame contributing building a country so many years, at the end of her life still need to beg to be use her own money?

    If other countries know about it what do they think, something wrong somewhere?

    Singaporean became the butt of the jokes of the world?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Whether got CPF no CPF, no matter what every countries had these small group of people the can't handle their money, were to died penniless, even at some moment of their life they are wealthy and end a bankrupt?

    These group of people had nothing to do with or without CPF, every countries sure had a group of people can't handle their money?

    The got to be depend of handouts at the end of their life?

    You mean a country can legislate until there is no such group of people?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Let said the group of people reach 55 can take out their money to get higher passive income to do investment full time, it will taken out a group of people competing for jobs at these age?

    If their money was locked up they got to work and at to more people need jobs, aggravating the already serious jobs market situation?

    The older the persons the less chance they able to find jobs?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Matilar, I am very angry that u refer me to be the ape. Knn. If u truly believe to be so, then bring your wife, daughters and sisters for me to fuck. Knn I ape what so don't complain.

    Don't worry I take vigra

    ReplyDelete
  19. she should named it

    "fuck face, willing cheeby"

    knnccb .... limpeh so habpy old fart is still alive and wondering wat lurking in his mind 24/7
    vision of his "friends n gecko" waving to him???

    ReplyDelete
  20. Singapore should have given these group of people their hard earn savings at 55 to retire to take care of their grand children or semi retire to invest their money full time, to reduce the competition in the job market, so that those really need the jobs can work?

    These group of people who can handle well their money if they able to get back their money they can handle well and get higher return as they are thrifty and took many years to save it, as they can concentrate running their own money investments with more fund, to work harder instead locking up their money not ale to use to increase the over savings and unproductive money?

    Singapore got the most millionaire but it is a shame just because certain group of people can't take out their money got to work deprive another group of money, so they got to sleep in the street no jobs?

    For those who take out their money can semi retire to take care of their grand children to improve the birthrate in SIngapore, which Singapore had one of the lowest birthrate in the world, instead of burdening their children where their money is locked up for unproductive or inefficient usages?

    ReplyDelete
  21. By setting rules to deprive people the CPF could make the birthrate worst, these group of people if they are semi retire should take out their CPF and take care of their grand children instead of no money if out of job even worst can't use their CPF?

    Something wrog somewhere?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Singaporean politic has been dirty since independence. Nothing has changed. When things were good and every Singaporean had a good time, nothing was said about this kind of politic. All Singaporeans during the good times were happy and that was why there were no opposition or HLP meetings. Now when things are a little difficult bitching from a small section of Singaporeans begin to appear on the internet. Live with it, just accept who you have voted in to govern you. If you feel this too unbearable, pack up and leave.

    ReplyDelete
  23. If these group of people having lot of money in their CPF have to work because can't use CPF for better income, is depriving those group of people of their jobs has they had little savings and little CPF, or maybe more and more got to sleep in the street and use the credit companies and ah long, as now CPF can't be used?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Those person who able to manage their money and had the track records, the CPF should be return to them to run it more efficiently then the CPF?

    ReplyDelete
  25. What happen those persons who took out their CPF at 55 spent all their money which they genuinely need to spent, ask the govt for social welfare for $300 per month, not everyone qualify for social welfare?

    Option B look for a cleaner job to be paid $900 per month?

    Option C, rely of well wishers and charity organisation or religious organisations?

    Of course go to work as cleaner get $ 900 per month which is better then other options?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Of course the are two extreme group these are minor group of people, a small group will take out to spent all, maybe got to buy insurance and guide these group and there are another extreme thrifty group who keep all their money in the bank even little fixed deposit income prefer to save all their money and go to work, but most are in the money keep some and save some?

    ReplyDelete
  27. There are 3 group of people who took out their CPF at 55?

    The first group prefer to spent all their money and went back to work?

    The second group spend some keep some for emergency use?

    The third group don't prefer to keep inside various bank to get regular fixed deposit and go to work part time?

    The first and third groups are minors and not many people at that extreme?

    The second group are the most people prefer to spend some and keep some?

    ReplyDelete
  28. The first group happy go lucky type spent all their money, live from day to day type?

    The second group are the cautious not not overcautious type most of them are in the moderate types?

    The third group are overcautious type afraid of risk, so they save all their money in banks and go to work for people to create value in others lives?

    ReplyDelete
  29. The third group are overcautious type the money hoarding and extreme thrifty type, rather put their money in properties stocks that collect divident, about 20 percent in high dividend yield type of stock, the rest put in fixed deposit and continue working?

    The are the miser type prefer to use other people money to invest to earn money type and extremely cautious even to the extreme of not not spending any of the money they get out at 55? These group too are minor money hoarding type?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Hope 10% of the 60% can wake up and wisen up. THis government only knows how to take very good care of themselves but take very lousy care of the people. THis kind of heartless government must not be voted in once again.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Smart Sinkies can even make money in Timbuktu.

    So definitely no problem in making even more money in Sinkieland.

    Therefore they will vote PAP. Because if opposition come into power, it will be more difficult to make money than under PAP.

    I estimated there are about 60% smart Sinkies even in the worst of times, like in 2011.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Just look at the issues now facing sinkies and the future sinkies, the 60% is confirmed not smart at all. Even that mean old man called them daft.

    ReplyDelete
  33. That state-controlled newspaper is pro-pap. Its articles lacks objectivity when commenting on local politics. Hence those are not journalists per se.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Journalistic objectivity is a significant principle of journalistic professionalism. Journalistic objectivity can refer to fairness, disinterestedness, factuality, and nonpartisanship, but most often encompasses all of these qualities.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Within countries that have high levels of government interference in the media, it may use the state press for propaganda purposes:
    to promote the regime in a favourable light,
    vilify opposition to the government by launching smear campaigns
    giving skewed coverage to opposition views, or
    act as a mouthpiece to advocate a regime's ideology.
    --wiki

    ReplyDelete
  36. The public choice theory asserts that state-owned media would manipulate and distort information in favour of the ruling party and entrench its rule while preventing the public from making informed decisions, therefore undermining democratic institutions.[12] This would prevent private and independent media, which provide alternate voices allowing individuals to choose politicians, goods, services etc. without fear from functioning. wiki

    ReplyDelete
  37. The term state media is often used in contrast to private or independent media, which has no direct control from any political party.[2] Its content is usually more prescriptive, telling the audience what to think, particularly as it is under no pressure to attract high ratings or generate advertising revenue.[3] In more controlled regions, the state may censor content which it deems illegal, immoral or unfavourable to the government and likewise regulate any programming related to the media; therefore, it is not independent of the governing party. wiki

    ReplyDelete