‘The Govt has put forward its views, and the idea of a a debate must be that the Opposition puts forward constructive suggestions on how the Govt’s agenda and policies and programmes can be improved. K Shanmugam
Shanmugam was reported in yesterday’s Today paper to acknowledge opposition’s ‘role in finding improvements to govt policies and programmes.’ He also added that all good ideas must be accepted, that all MPs are people’s representatives and representing the people’s views and aspirations.
There was a robust debate in the Parliament’s first sitting. Has any view or suggestion been accepted by the govt? Were they constructive? Or were they not? Given the way they were summarily attacked and dismissed by the ruling party MPs and ministers, it looks like the opposition still has a lot of work to do, to come out with constructive suggestions. So far it seems that they have failed.
And though Shanmugam in the same breath claimed that the PAP did not have a monopoly of wisdom, the fact that nothing from the opposition were seen as constructive suggestions or worthy of wisdom, does it not imply that the monopoly of wisdom is still with the PAP? Yes, they don’t have the monopoly of wisdom, but the opposition has none. Every statement from the opposition will be attacked or rubbished.
Wow, I am going to flatter myself for the way I am arguing against myself. Everything I say is wrong and is also right.
10/24/2011
The storm over Sun Yat Sen
There are two camps taking sides for and against the Sun Yat Sen Museum. Those in favour could see the relevance of this revolutionary and his brief sojourn in the island. It was a time in our history when most of the residents were non citizens but migrants here only to earn a living and would probably return to their motherland. The Chinese were Chinese from China, Indians were Indians from India. The colonial masters would not grant them citizenship so easily as they owned the island. They would not be so silly to give citizenship to foreigners. They could come and work, but no citizenship. Citizenship is a valuable status and not to be given away freely. Only govt that do not think citizenship is of any great significance will give away citizenship freely. They did not understand that such an act is like giving the country away, to the new citizens.
The history of Sun Yat Sen tells us that citizenship is important and should not be treated foolishly as an economic good. The Chinese and Indians of those days fought for their countries because they were citizens of those countries. They identified and belonged to their motherland.
History has since taken a turn and many are now citizens of this island and no longer think of China and India as their motherland. Maybe we are revisiting this old phenomenon with new citizens thinking like the old Chinese and old Indians, and are still attached to their motherland. It would take several generations to change this mindset.
For those who were against the museum, they are also the descendants of the past, who now think that the past, especially foreigners, should not have too much of a place in our history. They forget that many of those in Bukit Brown were non citizens, some even with official titles from their motherland. Then again, they should deserve some honour and recognition.
We have a very short history and very few heroes and fables. We need to create more. We can’t just live on Hang Tuah alone. We need more histories of our past, more folk heroes to tell their stories to our young. Our past, our predecessors, should form part of our rich heritage. Maybe they were not in too eminent a position to be recognised. They could be the forefathers of our Kennedy’s and our Carnegies, our Tans and our Lees.
If Indonesians can feel proud of Obama just because he was there as a child, now a President of the US, there is no reason why we should treat the presence of Sun Yat Sen with lesser importance. He was here not as a nobody child but then already a revolutionary leader. Histories are made of these. Every little bits to form the tapestry of our history. We need to treasure our history, our past.
Without our past, we will all be silly Singaporeans, without roots, like duck weeds floating in the sea, thinking everything and everyone was great except our own kind and our own history.
The history of Sun Yat Sen tells us that citizenship is important and should not be treated foolishly as an economic good. The Chinese and Indians of those days fought for their countries because they were citizens of those countries. They identified and belonged to their motherland.
History has since taken a turn and many are now citizens of this island and no longer think of China and India as their motherland. Maybe we are revisiting this old phenomenon with new citizens thinking like the old Chinese and old Indians, and are still attached to their motherland. It would take several generations to change this mindset.
For those who were against the museum, they are also the descendants of the past, who now think that the past, especially foreigners, should not have too much of a place in our history. They forget that many of those in Bukit Brown were non citizens, some even with official titles from their motherland. Then again, they should deserve some honour and recognition.
We have a very short history and very few heroes and fables. We need to create more. We can’t just live on Hang Tuah alone. We need more histories of our past, more folk heroes to tell their stories to our young. Our past, our predecessors, should form part of our rich heritage. Maybe they were not in too eminent a position to be recognised. They could be the forefathers of our Kennedy’s and our Carnegies, our Tans and our Lees.
If Indonesians can feel proud of Obama just because he was there as a child, now a President of the US, there is no reason why we should treat the presence of Sun Yat Sen with lesser importance. He was here not as a nobody child but then already a revolutionary leader. Histories are made of these. Every little bits to form the tapestry of our history. We need to treasure our history, our past.
Without our past, we will all be silly Singaporeans, without roots, like duck weeds floating in the sea, thinking everything and everyone was great except our own kind and our own history.
Notable quote by Shanmugam
Govt has to acknowledge that segments of the population have been left behind. K. Shanmugam
This is the most profound statement that has come out from a minister for a long time. Why is this so important? It says that there are segments of the population that have been left behind. It also says that the govt is not acknowledging this fact. See how frightening things have become. People have been left behind, the govt knows, but refused or not going to admit it. Or maybe the govt really does not know, only Shanmugam knows. Which is which?
This is very similar to the claims that housing was not a problem and housing is affordable. That housing is a very serious problem that demands Boon Wan to work extra hard, and HDB to ram up building of HDB flats are remedies taken urgently to solve the housing problem. By why were people given the impression that there was no housing problem?
Then the affordable claim. Really, that housing is affordable, or people just have no choice but to buy and to work for it for the next 30 years? Would any minister wish to stand up and say it honestly that it is not affordable? Or would it just be like housing, was never a problem and just live with it?
I would like to ask again. Is it true that there are people who are left behind? And why is it that the govt must acknowledge that there are people who are left behind? What is all this about? Got problem pretends no problem or did not know there is a problem, or know got problem but did not want to admit there is a problem? Either way, this is a very serious situation to prompt Shanmugam to say such a thing. I think he tak boleh tahan oredy.
This is the most profound statement that has come out from a minister for a long time. Why is this so important? It says that there are segments of the population that have been left behind. It also says that the govt is not acknowledging this fact. See how frightening things have become. People have been left behind, the govt knows, but refused or not going to admit it. Or maybe the govt really does not know, only Shanmugam knows. Which is which?
This is very similar to the claims that housing was not a problem and housing is affordable. That housing is a very serious problem that demands Boon Wan to work extra hard, and HDB to ram up building of HDB flats are remedies taken urgently to solve the housing problem. By why were people given the impression that there was no housing problem?
Then the affordable claim. Really, that housing is affordable, or people just have no choice but to buy and to work for it for the next 30 years? Would any minister wish to stand up and say it honestly that it is not affordable? Or would it just be like housing, was never a problem and just live with it?
I would like to ask again. Is it true that there are people who are left behind? And why is it that the govt must acknowledge that there are people who are left behind? What is all this about? Got problem pretends no problem or did not know there is a problem, or know got problem but did not want to admit there is a problem? Either way, this is a very serious situation to prompt Shanmugam to say such a thing. I think he tak boleh tahan oredy.
Beware of a welfare state
Greece was the role model for Europe’s crisis of a welfare state gone wrong. And Greece is not the only welfare state in Europe. Many are and still looking after their people through public welfare and assistance. And they have done it for many years. Canada and the US also have their own variations of a welfare state.
A welfare state is costly to the country and public. It has to be carefully managed. And many of these countries have managed their welfare system pretty well. Singapore has defended its policy of welfare by the people, of the people and from the people’s own pocket for many years. Finally we have a Greece to prove that we are right in not having a welfare state.
But are those countries that are still practising welfarism finish or near finish? One swallow does not make a summer. For the fall of Greece, there are many that are successful and still doing ok.
What is important is how much to collect and how much to give. Giving $500 to $600 a month to the down and outs will not empty our state coffers so easily. If our reserves can afford to lose tens or hundreds of billions and still can afford to lose more, a little welfarism is not going to harm the reserves. No, no one is asking to kill the golden goose or for a drum stick, just some eggs.
Definitely if the welfare comes in the millions for each recipient it is going to be very dangerous. As more and more people continue to receive million or multi million dollar state welfare, then that is a different kind of welfarism that cannot be condoned. Do we practise state welfarism of any kind here?
A welfare state is costly to the country and public. It has to be carefully managed. And many of these countries have managed their welfare system pretty well. Singapore has defended its policy of welfare by the people, of the people and from the people’s own pocket for many years. Finally we have a Greece to prove that we are right in not having a welfare state.
But are those countries that are still practising welfarism finish or near finish? One swallow does not make a summer. For the fall of Greece, there are many that are successful and still doing ok.
What is important is how much to collect and how much to give. Giving $500 to $600 a month to the down and outs will not empty our state coffers so easily. If our reserves can afford to lose tens or hundreds of billions and still can afford to lose more, a little welfarism is not going to harm the reserves. No, no one is asking to kill the golden goose or for a drum stick, just some eggs.
Definitely if the welfare comes in the millions for each recipient it is going to be very dangerous. As more and more people continue to receive million or multi million dollar state welfare, then that is a different kind of welfarism that cannot be condoned. Do we practise state welfarism of any kind here?
10/23/2011
Of farting or alternative solution
Farting is a very easy and effortless thing to do. Everyone can do it and it does not cost anything. Looking for alternative solution to a national problem is a different matter altogether. A ministry may come out with a policy or decision to solve a problem, like the ERP. I am very sure the policy or decision does not come out like farting. It must have gone through many thinking heads, many discussions and reviews before the minister finally put his signature on it.
How many super talents would have been involved in the making of a policy or a solution? How many man hours would be needed to work on it. And the minister is not working for free either. The cost of a policy or decision is quite substantial. A consultant that is engaged to solve a problem too will charge his price based on the number of hours put in, the expertise needed and all other necessary costs involved.
Good solutions are costly, not like free fart. Anyone who asked for a free solution while he is getting paid to come out with a solution is going to get nothing more, nothing less, except farting. Why should anyone offer free solution to another who is paid handsomely to do the job but not doing it, and put in great effort, man hours and expenses for a serious alternative solution? Unless of course the person is farting, which does not require much effort and of not much value.
Anyone got any suggestions?
How many super talents would have been involved in the making of a policy or a solution? How many man hours would be needed to work on it. And the minister is not working for free either. The cost of a policy or decision is quite substantial. A consultant that is engaged to solve a problem too will charge his price based on the number of hours put in, the expertise needed and all other necessary costs involved.
Good solutions are costly, not like free fart. Anyone who asked for a free solution while he is getting paid to come out with a solution is going to get nothing more, nothing less, except farting. Why should anyone offer free solution to another who is paid handsomely to do the job but not doing it, and put in great effort, man hours and expenses for a serious alternative solution? Unless of course the person is farting, which does not require much effort and of not much value.
Anyone got any suggestions?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)