February 9, 2010 - Temasek Review
Written by Our Correspondent
A General Practitioner (GP) who runs his own clinic in Bishan
under the charge of DPM Wong Kan Seng has written a letter to the
Straits Times Forum today praising the PAP for its governance of
Singapore so far.
Dr Yik Keng Yeong was writing in response to Mr Ng Kok Lim’s
letter “Life after PAP” which was first published on The Temasek
Review on 5 February 2010 before the Straits Times Forum
republished a day later. (Read Mr Ng’s letter here)
He began his letter by praising the PAP leadership for its
“stellar” performance:
“Ethnically, Singaporeans are no different from the
countries they migrated from. If, indeed, all work ethic is equal,
every country in the region would have scaled the same peaks as
Singapore. That we have achieved a standing in the world beyond
expectations says as much about our resourcefulness to overcome
hardship as it does about the quality of our leadership in our
country’s formative years.”
According to Dr Yik, the only “mistake” made by the PAP was to
implement policies which are unpopular on the ground:
“……whose venal sin lies in steadfastly implementing
unpopular policies with short-term pain while making long-term
gains which only patience will see bear fruit.”
Dr Yik seems to agree with Law Minister’s assertion that
Singapore needs an “efficient” government to react quickly to
changes in the external environment:
“The rules of the market seemingly dictate that competition
brings efficiency and advancement. Yet, a look at the filibustering
in various foreign Parliaments should tell us that non-constructive
opposition to government policies is pernicious to a country,
paralysing it with worthless rhetoric when firm and decisive
leadership is needed.”
In the 1970s, the “Stop at Two” policy was implemented by then
Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew to curb Singapore’s population
growth.
The policy was implemented quickly and efficiently with no
opposition from Singaporeans who were unable to do much anyway
since the PAP controlled all the seats in Parliament.
Today, Singapore is paying the price for the “success” of Lee’s
policy. Due to Singapore’s declining birth rates especially among
the ethnic Chinese, we now have to “import” foreigners from
elsewhere to make up for the shortfall in the number of babies,
thereby creating another problem in the process.
In 2003, Lee’s son, the current Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong
announced an ambitious plan to increase Singapore’s population to
6.5 million people via immigration by 2030.
Too many foreigners were let into Singapore within too short a
period of time such that the government is now having a serious
headache of how to integrate them into local society.
A recent Wall Street Journal editorial wrote that the relentless
influx of foreigners into Singapore over the last few years had
depressed the wages of ordinary Singaporeans, increased the cost of
living, especially that of public housing, reduced labor
productivity and led to an overall decline in the standard of
living.
The PAP leaders are now trying to reverse its policies by
promising to “slow down” the inflow of foreigners in the next few
years which will not be necessary in the first place had there been
a strong opposition in parliament to challenge its ideas and debate
on the matter right from the very beginning.
Perhaps Dr Yik has forgotten the age-old adage: “More haste,
less speed”. It is better to have more brains to ponder over a
decision carefully before making it, especially when it concerns
the lives of millions of people.
To quote from an article on the pros and cons of democracy
versus autocracy published in the Economist last week:
“With no noisy legislatures or robust courts to hold things
up, autocracies may be faster and bolder. The are also more
accident-prone.
For all its frustrations, open and accountable government
tends in the long run to produce better policies. This is because
no group of mandarins, no matter how enlightened or well-meaning,
can claim to be sure of what is best for a complex
society.
Autocracies tend to be too heavy at the top; although
decisions may be more easily taken, the ethos of autocracies –
their secrecy and paranoia – makes it harder for alternative views
to emerge. Above all, elections make transfer of power legitimate
and smooth.”
Under a one-party system in which the boundaries between the
party and the state are blurred, Singaporeans can never trust the
government fully to act in their interests especially when it
conflicts with that of the continued survival of the party.
