Originally posted by grandeur:
Thanks for expressing your view in this fashion. I don't believe
performance can be measured when there is no transparency. Lets say
if a minister is getting US$10 million a year, will you still feel
this is to ensure a corruption-free government?
Can performance of a Government be measured ?
The Ruling Political Party aka the Government claim that the annual
economic result is an indicator of the work that THEY have done
with their carefully planned policies that allow the clock work to
tic-toc in sync to their plans.
Yet, when things begin to unravel - as in 1987, 1997, and 2002 -
they will blamed on EXTERNAL FACTORS that are BEYOND their
control.
Is it surprising that they can get things to work in a POSITVE
MANNER, yet have no powers to MINIMISE the NEGATIVE effects to
Singapore and Singaporeans ?
If one is to recall - during the early 1980s - the many complaints
of the high CPF and high Wages from the SMEs before the 1987 crash,
the Ruling Political Party aka the Government arrogantly dismissive
to all these suggestions even from larger corporations and
industries.
Even with three crashes to our economy, and with Committees formed,
and grand statements that hooted 'NO STONES WILL BE LEFT UNTURNED'
and that there will be 'NO SACRED COWS' - we were later told that
some stones have been lifted up but returned to their original
positions, and some sacred cows are simply too conveniently sacred
to be rid off.
Is the Annual Economic Indicator a good measure of the work put in
by the Government aka the Ruling Political Party, or should we also
include into the indicator the movement in size of the Middle
Income Group, the Lower Income Group; or perhaps the growth and
reduction indicators of crime and social problems - suicide levels,
joblessness, homeless, murders, robberies, rapes, gang riots
?
With the Statistic Department in the control of the Ruling
Political Party aka the Government, can we depend on the department
for the numbers that they churned out - in view of some of the past
controversies in interpretation raised by some senior university
lecturers (who were 'forced' to retract and apologise for the
'unauthorised' publicity ) ?
Is there anyone that is beyond the political influence and
obligation to the Ruling Political Party to be able to stand up and
be a truly independent administrator or arbitrator of a committee
to measure such performance ?