Quote:
as posted at www.findSingapore.net/forumlife_science2 wrote:
The Straits Times, Friday, June 16, 2006
Why Partisan Upgrading Strategy should go
By Chua Mui Hoong, Deputy Political Editor
Recent comments over the votes-for-upgrading issue from government
leaders are confusing to voters, but suggest there is more
ambivalence to the issue.
It's not surprising that the signals have been so mixed, becasue it
is one issue which politically beneficial to the ruling party from
a party-political point of view, but which is pretty indefensible
on any other grounds.
The issue throws into a sharp relief the dilemma the People's
Action Prty Government faces:
---- between its desire as a political party to engage in partisan
moves that help assure it of political longevity, and
------ its desire to be a government for all that aims to be
"inclusive", bringing non-partisan elelments to advance the country
together.
Leadership concept being such raison detre of our leaders, it is
not a surprise that after 40 years, they still cannot forego their
claim of such ability and cannot differentiate between leadership
bias and what people really want.
It is common sense that people do not live by bread alone. People
want to have a say and partake in diverse social, economic and
cultural and religious activities as an integral part of nation
building.
Through taking part in such activities afforded by a more
accountable and committed government people will better realise
their needs and aspirations in nation building.
Many people have already given their view that PAP should not be
overly-pragmatic with their own interests or efficiency and be more
rounded and balanced in governing the country.
People have already these views objectively from crisis to crisis,
from forum to forum, from one election to another. But their views
seem to have been completely overwhelmed and superseded by overly
pragmatic government policy concerned only with its own economic
gains and surpluses to the exclusion of every other important issue
in nation building.
Such a state of narrow pragmatic governance has in small part been
contributed by a compliant press that failed to report objectively
being too wary over government's remonstrations over past criticism
and the so-called crusading reporting by the press.
Just look at the type of forum letters published and rejected and
make a comparison between the two. I myself have tested the
editor's objectivity in choice of forum letters for publication but
was sad to observe that where I have toned down disagreements with
government, my letters had been published. Wherever I wrote on
issues like "proposed review of the constitution" or criticising
government on leadership and corporate governance my letters had
been sidelined.
The press editors were simply too afraid or reluctant to publish
opinions of the more direct and vocal challenges to existing
policies of the government.
A more objective press would have concluded that people have
objected to PAP's linking of estate upgrading to voting enticements
long ago. But being a subservient press, such views were suppressed
and made to look like a real problem which needs to be understood
with hypocrtic choruses of the new MPs and ministers that "no party
in the world" would server the opposition wards first. People do
not agree with such PAP's view as it would be using the taxpayers'
monies for its own party political purpose which is not
right.
If I am not wrong, a public survey of some sort has indicated that
Singaporeans do not rate bread and butter as no. 1 issue in voting
and rather their concern is over accountability of
government.
Government should reflect the people's wishes and aspirations and
stop trying to analyse views subjectively and at the end cover up
real issues and problems which have happened to postponing
solutions to NKF problems for years.
As a world-class government, our leaders should know they should
serve the citizens and not themselves or their party interest. They
should quickly abandon all cooption, depolitisation and machination
of the grassroot organisations and work for the interest of all
citizens.
All estate's upgrading should be based on age and other objective
criteria and not those ambivalent processes as mentioned by
minister Mah Boh Tan.
The press should not be told to stop crusading for anyone when it
is merely reflecting the wishes and aspirations of citizens or
their views and criticisms which might be contrary to the wishes of
the autocratic leaders.
The signal from the ground is: people are not too concerned with
estate upgrading or bread and butter issues but wanted government
to be fair and accountable and humble in serving people's needs and
aspirations.
Instead, people has been sidestepped in all the press reporting
with hardly any of their true views and desires expressed.
Under authoritarian rule, it has been the same "leader is right"
and the same tax-and-corporatisation policy for years to recover
all costs with much over-charging on essential services. That is
why there was much uproad and uphappiness over the NKF's practice
to create surpluses to no end.
It will be essential to understand where the real problem with our
system is. Self-centredness affects the leadership system resulting
in much hypocrisy.
It is essential for the press to marshall the courage and
determination to be objective and not seek to cloud issues with
hypocritic reports over and over without solutions. Finally if
leadership can be improved with accountability and better service
to the people, people will not doubt cooperate as long as the
government is not reversing to tighter controls and autocracy which
will only check on growth and vibrancy of the economy and uplifting
of potential of the people.
In a society where the press is controlled, there will be skimping
of issues and justifications of problems and prolonged delays in
uncovering problems as seen in NKF.
Quote:
Those who read political tea leaves think they discern different
strands of thought on this issue among PAP leaders.
Some espy in Prime Minister Lee Hseien Loong glaimpses of potential
"reformer" or at least change agent.
Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew is viewed as someone steeped in party
battles of the past, who would not allow the PAP to embark on a
path that may weaken its grip on power.
Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong is known as a master tactician. He
was, after all, the one who implemented the votes-for-upgrading
strategy which helped the PAP stave off the slide of votes to the
opposition for a decade.
Long long ago, had our press been independent, our government
would have seen better light and realised the importance of
practising good corporate governance. Today our press is still seen
as serving the government and will only skirting real problems and
issues instead of telling problems as they are. I do hope the press
will take up this challenge.
It is the symptom of failure of the leadership system that they
cannot practise good policies and ensure their well-executed
implementations.
The use of taxpayers' monies for estate upgrading of all
Singaporeans according to certain evaluation processes like age and
obsolescence should have been settled long long ago and be referred
to as a problem.
Now it is made to look like it is acceptable to upgrade PAP wards
first with many politicians trying to put up justifications for
such a narrow-minded immoral policy.
Common sense and Logic speak louder than anything else in this
situation.
Under leadership system, Goh Chok Tong has been unable to make much
changes to the pro-elite political structure which has only
resulted in non-implementation of many good empowerments of the
people. It is natural too that Lee Hsien Loong to be constrained by
leadership expectation which is more a case of proving worth of the
leadership and its talents and narrower interest of the one-party
rule.
The change ahead is a big challenge, one requiring the leaders to
embrace all Singaporeans to build a more inclusive and cosmopolitan
society.
All the talk about building an open and accountable government will
be of no use if our leader cannot change his fear about democracy
or its likelihood of disorders and breakdown of society. PM Lee of
late was seen to be reversing some of his own inauguration speeches
made on this issue and is now questioning the western practices of
democracy.
Many countries practising democracy and accountability have
continuously been governed with success. Our leaders should look to
such countries for role model and not be too afraid or paranoid
about a few instances of lack of success in democratising the
country.
Our leader should look at the possibility of supplementing or
complimenting leadership and not let leadership override the whole
system of governance as is being practised currently.
Quote:
In the recent election, he and PAP candidates reviived the strategy
for Hougand and Potong Pasir, promising $180 million of upgrading
projects if voters tossed ou the opposition there and voted in the
PAP. Voters did not bite the carrot offered.
But while indieividal PAP leaders may appear to have slightly
different, nuanced positions on this issue, the truth is more
likely to be that they were all in broad agreement over the
votes-for-upgrading strategy in the 1997 and 2001 elections.
And if General Election 2006 was anything to go by, probably some
top PAP leaders are now ambivalent about the strategy.
PM Lee said after the election the PAP had to review its stratey in
oppoisiton wards and rethink how to win them back.
SM Goh praised Hougand and Potong Pasir voters for loyally sticking
with their opposition incumbent MPs rather than "chasing after
every goodie which we offer them".
Has the votes-for-upgrading strategy come to the end of its
time?
The strategy has attracted controversy since it was first announced
in 1992. This was then-prime minister Goh Chok Tong served notice
that wards which supported the PAP would be given priority for
then-highly popular programme to upgrade, or improve, Housing Board
estates using government funds.
The announcement met with a negative response, and died down. In
the 1997 General Election, however, it was revived and became a
central plank of the PAP strategy.
Vote for the PAP, and your constituency will get ahead in the
upgrading queue - was the message to voteers. On the eve of Polling
Day in 1997, Mr Goh went one step further, saying the Government
would look at voting patterns by precincts (each precinct is a
cluster of about 10 to 20 HDB blocks) in deciding which
neighbourhoods to upgrade first.
The votes-for-upgrading strategy was used in the 1997 and 2001
elections, helping the PAP romp home with 65 and 75 per cent of the
votes respectively.
Never popular, it has drawn more intense criticism this time
round.
As Workers' Party chairman Sylvia Lim notes, reflecting the view of
critics of the policy, the Government is using taxpayers' money for
partisan purpose.
Another writer to the Straist Imes Forum page this week argued that
the Government is mixing up its fiduciary duty as a government to
all citizens, with ist interest as apolitical party.
Criticism of the strategy can be summed up thus:
It's unfair as it deprives oppoisiton voters of benefits from
government funds which should be available to all; and
it's partisan as the Government is using taxpayers' money for
party-political ends.
The PAP's argument has been to retreat to realpolitik. The line
from a succession of National Development ministers, including Mr
Mah Bow Tan in an interview with The Straits Times last week, has
been consistent: Funds are limited; allocation has to be on some
criteria; support for the PAP's programme has to be one such
criterion.
As MM Lee said in April during a television forum with young
journalists when the issue was discussed:
" Look, ask yourself - does any government help the opposition to
displace itself?"
" You mean to tell me in America or Britain they gave benefits to
alll constituencies equally? At the same time or, worse, favour the
opposition?
No, you favour your supporters because you want to retain them as
your supporters."
The issue has arisen again, after Mr Mah's statement last week that
all wards will get their lifts upgraded by 2015 - but that PAP
wards will still go first.
MPs new and old have also spoken up on the issue, defending the
PAP's line that resources have to be allocate, adn there is nothing
wrong with allocating reources by partisan means.
But if you take this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion,
Singapore will become truly horrific country, indeed.
After all, all government resources are finite. Will the PAP
Government one day decide to ration, say health care, or education,
on the basis of support for the PAP?
Imagine the arguments thus:
The health budget is finite. Resouces to build new hospitals have
to be allocated, and will be given to PAP wards first
henceforth.
Or for Education:
New schools will be built in PAP wards first, and opposition wards
will be LAST in the queue.
(Question: Has any new school been built in Hougang in the last 15
years, or the Potong Pasir in the last 22, since they fee to
opposition hands?)
Or maybe the arguments will go down to the micro levels:
Hospital beds are finite in number, and PAP supporters will get
priority.
You can just imagine the howls of outrage and cries of "unfair!"
from voters.
I'm not for one moment suggesting the PAP will go down that road
any time soon, or even ever. I raise these extreme examples to make
the point that it's necessary to go back to first principles to
debund the votes-for-upgrading strategy.
In other words, the PAP Government should strop using this as an
election strategy, not because it no longer works in winning votes
- but because it is based on unsound principle in the first place.
and sets a dangerous precedent for allocating government
resources.
In reviewing the votes-for-upgrading tactic, the PAP has to think
less a political party and more as a national government.
The strategy may have been helpful to PAP the political party
through the 1990S AND EARLY 2000s. But the upgrading strategy, like
the creative redrawings of election boundaries in the past, has
aroused some cynicism among younger voters about the election
process.
Word has it the PAP is spending the next six months in party
huddles to post-mortem GE 2006 and lay the goundwork for its
strategies for GE 2011.
When it soes so, it would be wise to rise above its prartisan
interest to rise above its partisan interest as political party, to
consider the impact of its decisions on the nation as a
whole.
[email protected]
Chua Mui Hoong alternates with guest writers in this weekly
column
The above-stated problems are not the real issues and problems
affecting our political governance. They will become non-issues
once we resolve our fundamentals - do we want to continue the
country based on autocracy of the past called "leadership" or
"talent" or do we want to open up and allow citizens to participate
in all aspects of nation building.
Once the fundamentals are addressed, many of the disagreements over
the details will be easy to resolve.