We seem to be having conversation with the people after every general election. I have lost how many times, we had this type of conversation. It is a big effort and usually ends up with the same strategy. We do have nice sounding slogans, such as the "shared values" and the "Swiss standard of living" generated in previous exercises.
http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC120909-0000043/Key-challenge-of-Spore-conversation-is-managing-expectations--PM-Lee
Why does Singapore need to have this type of exercise? I do not see other countries putting in similar efforts. Well, here is the answer!
In other countries, there are active debates in Parliament. They hold their national conversations all the time in their legislature. Why can't Singapore follow the same approach, and have a more active Parliament?
http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC120909-0000043/Key-challenge-of-Spore-conversation-is-managing-expectations--PM-Lee
Why does Singapore need to have this type of exercise? I do not see other countries putting in similar efforts. Well, here is the answer!
In other countries, there are active debates in Parliament. They hold their national conversations all the time in their legislature. Why can't Singapore follow the same approach, and have a more active Parliament?
Here is another article that is skeptical about the outcome of this national conversation. The previous execise was chaired by Mr. V balakrishnan.
ReplyDelete@ " In other countries, there are active debates in Parliament.."
ReplyDeleteFor S'pore, we need to spend millions $ and alot of time on more committees of enquires, arrange more committees to get feedback, arrange more consultants, have more consultations...but nothing much frutiful come out of it in real implementations. LOL.
That was why all the talks for Singaporeans to boost national productivity by 2~3% annually...in order to "increase real income by 30% over the next 10 years"...
If only they could see the crux and practise what was said ... Every committee knows how to preach "Do it right the first time"...but why not doing it even before such a committee is formed.
For one, our Parliaments lack Opposition Members.
ReplyDeleteSadly, even with a handful of Opposition Members, theese members are perceived to be less than willing to take on the Ruling Party.
Sure, we have uniquely institutionalised co-opted MPs, but they are just as unwilling to speak on the many issues that are there all the while or became one from time to time.
Scrap the GRC and we may have more Opposition and robust debates in Parliament, if you ask me!
"When you talk to yourself, you always get the answer you want." - SDP's view on National Conversation.
ReplyDeleteAgree with TKL.
ReplyDelete"National Conversation" should be debate in form, conducted at the National level in Parliament.
How could you define "National" without the participation of the Opposition.
Why should people only talk to the ruling Party, by excluding the Opposition politicians, PAP is saying they are not included because they are not Singaporeans.
The best conversation I have is between me, myself and my shadow.
ReplyDeleteWhy do we need such exercise? The answer is very obvious. Our MPs and civil service does not "listen' to feedback from the ground. They either ignored them or KIV these views and implement them few years later to their credit.
ReplyDeleteThis is a real waste of taxpayers time and money. I doubt there will be result
PAP members only ask each other questions during Parliament.
ReplyDeleteIt is very obvious: When Minister A asks Minister B something, Minister B not only has an eloquent response with no "errms" and "uhhhs". Minister B even has *all the relevant statistics* at hand.
I doubt that's a coincidence. Clearly, the conversation is a rehearsed one.
Our Ministers have become less adept at handling questions, even relying on heavy handed methods during public discussion forums (you all know what I refer to).
At least in the past, Ministers like LKY could handle difficult questions on the spot.
I think PAP ministers today are less powerful as speakers and debaters. The lack of an opposition had made them soft in this area.