Read this article and participate in this survey
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/MKJZY73
Singaporeans should be smarter to avoid falling into labels such as "unpopular but prudent measures". This was a question asked to DPM Tharman at the dialogue in Nanyang Technological University.
http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC120906-0000001/Avoid-polarisation-in-politics--DPM-Tharman
A measure is unpopular when it is rejected by many people. But, what makes it prudent? Is it prudent to collect taxes that the people cannot afford to bear, such as GST? Is it prudent to allow too many immigrants that strain the infrastructure and compete with locals for jobs? Is it prudent to allow public housing prices to rise beyond the reach of the ordinary people?
The outcome of these "unpopular but prudent policies" is a wide income gap, an extremely low birth rate and a stressful life.
So, what is prudent and what is not prudent?
What should alternative policies be labelled as "populist"? What can't it be described as "popular"? Remember, "popular" means that it is what many sensible people consider to be suitable for society. What is wrong about letting the common people decide their future?
Here is the definition of "populist" as taken from Wikipedia:
I would have preferred DPM Tharman to answer this question along the following lines ... "We should not give labels to certain policies as being prudent and other as being imprudent. Let us have an open mind and see which policies are suitable for our society. We can trust the ordinary Singaporeans to make a collective judgement on what is necessary and right ...."
I agree many of the other answers given by DPM Tharman at the dialogue. He does have an open mind. But he should be careful about being locked into outmoded concepts of "prudent" and "imprudent".
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/MKJZY73
Singaporeans should be smarter to avoid falling into labels such as "unpopular but prudent measures". This was a question asked to DPM Tharman at the dialogue in Nanyang Technological University.
http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC120906-0000001/Avoid-polarisation-in-politics--DPM-Tharman
A measure is unpopular when it is rejected by many people. But, what makes it prudent? Is it prudent to collect taxes that the people cannot afford to bear, such as GST? Is it prudent to allow too many immigrants that strain the infrastructure and compete with locals for jobs? Is it prudent to allow public housing prices to rise beyond the reach of the ordinary people?
The outcome of these "unpopular but prudent policies" is a wide income gap, an extremely low birth rate and a stressful life.
So, what is prudent and what is not prudent?
What should alternative policies be labelled as "populist"? What can't it be described as "popular"? Remember, "popular" means that it is what many sensible people consider to be suitable for society. What is wrong about letting the common people decide their future?
Here is the definition of "populist" as taken from Wikipedia:
Populist may refer to "a supporter of Populism, a political philosophy urging social and political system change that favors "the people" over "the elites", or favors the common people over the rich and wealthy business owners." ....So, it seemed to be quite respectable and honorable to be "populist" which is the opposite of "elitist".
I would have preferred DPM Tharman to answer this question along the following lines ... "We should not give labels to certain policies as being prudent and other as being imprudent. Let us have an open mind and see which policies are suitable for our society. We can trust the ordinary Singaporeans to make a collective judgement on what is necessary and right ...."
I agree many of the other answers given by DPM Tharman at the dialogue. He does have an open mind. But he should be careful about being locked into outmoded concepts of "prudent" and "imprudent".
4 comments:
DPM Tharman can watch this video and realize that is is possible to have "popular and prudent" policies ...
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1823255951001/
Prudent? Imprudent?
I know it is very imprudent and irresponsible for our town councils to dabble in Lehman mini-bonds with other people's money. Now 7 PAP town councils got to hike their fees from Sep-2012 for 2 consecutive years. Each time more than 7%.
Where is the accountability in our system? Nobody handled the transactions in millions of SGD? Meritocracy?? Why no satisfactory reply? Who wins in these deals?? Who collects the commissions? How come the banks cannot convince me to invest in this instrument?? CPIB must investigate thoroughly.
Even want to increase pay of low wage cleaners also cannot make the retired/unemployed staying in bigger flats pay for it.
"Unpopular but prudent measures."
Depends on whose eyes. In the eyes of the ordinary wage earner, who has to grapple whether they could get a job with a decent pay to tackle persistently rising costs of living, year after year, and fighting among a sea of foreign opportunist job grabbers, then they are unpopular and not prudent.
If the PAP has such magic eyes, then they would not have promoted the "unpopular but prudent 2 is enuff" population policy.
Prudent during those years, but not prudent decades later, so sama sama with current policies, which could be devastatingly irreversible.
They certain thought that Brompton $2k Brompton bikes and $600 office chairs are "unpopular but prudent".
Post a Comment