The writer is a retired journalist from Straits Times. Here is his views about the Presidential election.
What is at stake?
By Ismail Kassim
18 July 11
I regard next month’s presidential race as Round Two of the fight between the PAP and the people. The outcome will determine the character of the nation in the next decade or two.
By the people, I mean the average Ah Beng, Raju and Ali, whose welfare has been sidelined by the government’s current obsession with achieving fast economic growth at any price.They are the collateral damage that Singapore has to pay for its unabashed and embrace of globalization and western capitalism, with all their attendant evils.
By the PAP, I mean the ruling party and its many supporters from the bureaucratic and business elites and all those who have benefitted immensely from its rule. After the electoral setback in the May polls, the PAP promised to review its policies and be more attentive to the needs of the average Singaporean.
I am sure PM Lee means well, but the problem is that it is never easy to change a course that has been followed so zealously for so many years. So far, I can only hear PR grunts in the right direction, but nothing substantive has emerged.
Change and reforms can only come under relentless pressure. Just look around the region and you can see how difficult it is for any ruling party to pursue reforms because of entrenched interests.
Malaysia’s Umno only talks about reforms, but lacks the will to follow-up, while in the Philippines the modern-day feudal lords still hold sway over the people. In Thailand and Indonesia the traditional elites still call the tune, while the poor remain poor.
In Singapore, what is at stake is not just cutting ministerial salaries by 10 or 20 percent and relieving the terrific jams at bus stands and MRT stations during peak hours. What we also want include:
# Equitable growth that benefits all sectors and classes in Singapore ;
# Respect for human and civil rights of all citizens;
# Stop abuses of power especially against the opposition; and
# Meritocracy and equality of opportunities extended to all sectors and for all Singaporeans regardless of race, language or religion.
In short, the fight is over the soul of Singapore . What kind of Singapore do we want to see in a decade or two? Something like Mumbai, Moscow , or Los Angeles ?
I still remember years ago the callous manner in which LKY dismissed the widening income gap as a world-wide phenomenon, the inevitable consequence of globalization, and that there was nothing much that any government could do.
The question that I have often asked myself is: Why is the PAP so obsessed with high rates of growth to the extent that it was willing to open the flood gates to anyone with the money or the desired skill or the right ethnicity to come in?
My guess is that it arises from the almost pathological insecurities of the PAP inner circle to what they consider as geopolitical realities.
The fact is that not a single shot has been fired in anger in the last half century since independence. Over the same period, bilateral ties have remained steady despite occasional hiccups and regional cooperation in Asean has made tremendous strides.
Yet, the paranoia towards our neighbours remains undiluted, and of course, the Singapore Malay minority has been made to pay a price. Even having the strongest military force in the region (at least on paper) has apparently not mitigated the PAP anxieties.
Hence, the reckless decision to pump for faster and faster growth and to internationalize the island by getting as many foreigners as possible to come on board as citizens and PRs so that the whole wide world will rise up in defense of Singapore should any existential threat arises.
To the PAP, this is the only way to ensure that our little red dot will last over the next millennium. I suppose this is the equivalent of giving a farewell present to the founding father when he passes away from the scene.
In Round One, the score was 60% for the PAP and 40% for the people, who were represented by the various opposition political parties.
The results of the president’s race will underline how strongly the electorate wants the government to change its policy goals.
Ideally, we should elect the candidate who most sympathizes with the aspirations of the people.
From the current aspirants, it is not difficult to find out who among them has consistently struggled for the working class in his role as a PAP backbencher.
And we also know, despite all his protestations of independence, the candidate who is the proxy of the PAP. He might have been a good banker, but certainly not a good bangsawan (Malay opera) actor.
As a fallback measure, it does not matter how many candidates are taking part, who are they, and also who eventually wins the top post.
What is important is to ensure that the candidate who represents the PAP’s choice does not win more than 60% of the votes.
This will send a clear signal to the PAP leaders that Singaporeans want change and reform at all costs.
So friends and fellow Singaporeans, don’t forget to keep up the pressure.
Ismail Kassim
18 July2011
What is at stake?
By Ismail Kassim
18 July 11
I regard next month’s presidential race as Round Two of the fight between the PAP and the people. The outcome will determine the character of the nation in the next decade or two.
By the people, I mean the average Ah Beng, Raju and Ali, whose welfare has been sidelined by the government’s current obsession with achieving fast economic growth at any price.They are the collateral damage that Singapore has to pay for its unabashed and embrace of globalization and western capitalism, with all their attendant evils.
By the PAP, I mean the ruling party and its many supporters from the bureaucratic and business elites and all those who have benefitted immensely from its rule. After the electoral setback in the May polls, the PAP promised to review its policies and be more attentive to the needs of the average Singaporean.
I am sure PM Lee means well, but the problem is that it is never easy to change a course that has been followed so zealously for so many years. So far, I can only hear PR grunts in the right direction, but nothing substantive has emerged.
Change and reforms can only come under relentless pressure. Just look around the region and you can see how difficult it is for any ruling party to pursue reforms because of entrenched interests.
Malaysia’s Umno only talks about reforms, but lacks the will to follow-up, while in the Philippines the modern-day feudal lords still hold sway over the people. In Thailand and Indonesia the traditional elites still call the tune, while the poor remain poor.
In Singapore, what is at stake is not just cutting ministerial salaries by 10 or 20 percent and relieving the terrific jams at bus stands and MRT stations during peak hours. What we also want include:
# Equitable growth that benefits all sectors and classes in Singapore ;
# Respect for human and civil rights of all citizens;
# Stop abuses of power especially against the opposition; and
# Meritocracy and equality of opportunities extended to all sectors and for all Singaporeans regardless of race, language or religion.
In short, the fight is over the soul of Singapore . What kind of Singapore do we want to see in a decade or two? Something like Mumbai, Moscow , or Los Angeles ?
I still remember years ago the callous manner in which LKY dismissed the widening income gap as a world-wide phenomenon, the inevitable consequence of globalization, and that there was nothing much that any government could do.
The question that I have often asked myself is: Why is the PAP so obsessed with high rates of growth to the extent that it was willing to open the flood gates to anyone with the money or the desired skill or the right ethnicity to come in?
My guess is that it arises from the almost pathological insecurities of the PAP inner circle to what they consider as geopolitical realities.
The fact is that not a single shot has been fired in anger in the last half century since independence. Over the same period, bilateral ties have remained steady despite occasional hiccups and regional cooperation in Asean has made tremendous strides.
Yet, the paranoia towards our neighbours remains undiluted, and of course, the Singapore Malay minority has been made to pay a price. Even having the strongest military force in the region (at least on paper) has apparently not mitigated the PAP anxieties.
Hence, the reckless decision to pump for faster and faster growth and to internationalize the island by getting as many foreigners as possible to come on board as citizens and PRs so that the whole wide world will rise up in defense of Singapore should any existential threat arises.
To the PAP, this is the only way to ensure that our little red dot will last over the next millennium. I suppose this is the equivalent of giving a farewell present to the founding father when he passes away from the scene.
In Round One, the score was 60% for the PAP and 40% for the people, who were represented by the various opposition political parties.
The results of the president’s race will underline how strongly the electorate wants the government to change its policy goals.
Ideally, we should elect the candidate who most sympathizes with the aspirations of the people.
From the current aspirants, it is not difficult to find out who among them has consistently struggled for the working class in his role as a PAP backbencher.
And we also know, despite all his protestations of independence, the candidate who is the proxy of the PAP. He might have been a good banker, but certainly not a good bangsawan (Malay opera) actor.
As a fallback measure, it does not matter how many candidates are taking part, who are they, and also who eventually wins the top post.
What is important is to ensure that the candidate who represents the PAP’s choice does not win more than 60% of the votes.
This will send a clear signal to the PAP leaders that Singaporeans want change and reform at all costs.
So friends and fellow Singaporeans, don’t forget to keep up the pressure.
Ismail Kassim
18 July2011
2 comments:
Kassim brought out a good point, in the heat of the election fever, we only gripe about the PAP all out to split the votes, so that Tony could come out the winner.
It's not so much the winner that is at stake, it's the % of his votes garnered, it's a gauge whether we accept PM's performance report card after the GE.
As to Tony's track record being a good banker, we differ. He's getting too old to grasp economic transformations in this internet age. If he thinks he's still the financial oz wizard, he would not have, like what Jim Rogers said, crazily poured billions into UBS and citigroup when the carnage was in its infancy, he should have waited for the trough and picked up bargains for Singapore, instead losing up to 50 billions of our Reserves. He just dun have the Ability to time investment decisions any more, it's lame excuse to stubbornly stick to defence that UBS is an international bank with its wealth management attraction.
Any reputable bank would have collapsed if they are engaged in botched derivative business.
In the 80s and 90s Tony be a sharp banker, but his mental faculty is in sharp decline as he ages.
He was forced to contest the Presidency, as GIC and he have a lot of skeletons in the closet to reveal. Tony, however is not that daft, so there must be reasons, only known to GIC and him, on why they went in so recklessly into these 2 foreign Banks, remember he said " we saw the carnage coming round the corner".
So we want to know "WHY". These are taxpayers money, PAP, it's not your Party's money.
Think of it this way, Tony may be the top dog in Singapore. But when released into the wild jungle, a top dog will be eaten alive by tiger, lion, cougar, leopard or even a dingo, just to mention a few. Didn't they mention that is why Singapore needs foreign talent?
Post a Comment