PM Lee created a mist of irony [link] when he stated his expectations of what a good opposition party, labelled the Worker's Party substandard because they did not perform to his guidelines and then asked the Worker's Party what they stood for. I supposed if the opposition stand at where exactly the PM Lee preferred, that would be what the PAP referred to as 'Constructive Politics'.
At one point, a flustered PM Lee jabbed his finger in the air while making a point as if he was waving his finger-wand to cast an Avada Kedavra on all the members of the opposition party in the House and closed his speech with, again, by telling the others how they should behave. He said,
"We have to call a spade a spade. If you have to change a position, because your previous position was wrong – say so. But to weasel away, play with words, avoid the issue and then claim to be responsible – that is what we fear can drive Singapore’s politics into same place where many countries have gone."
I was told that when one decided to point or wave a finger, he should be aware that his other four are pointing towards himself. I would expect the PM and his party members do conduct themselves in the same manner that they advocated their opposites to do so. Year by year, the people's faith in the PAP government wanes, as suggested by the declining number of votes they received on each GE. It seems to me nobody has bother to whisper to the PAP when it comes to managing a country, not only actions speak for themselves but the integrity of their words hold the same weight, if not more.
The power of words lies in the people's faith in them. In other words, when this faith is no more, the people will cease to believe whatever the government says, even if it is nothing but the truth. This happens when the government is the biggest offender in playing with words, diluting their integrity doing so and allow the civil service to emulate it.
When 'constructive politics' means 'serving the government by telling them how to do better and not to 'make a molehill of out their mistakes', it served to tell the people that the government is perplexed over the people's growing unhappiness and has little confidence in themselves in reading the minds of the general population.
If 'ponding' had to be officially used to play down actual circumstances, where do the authorities stand in terms of tackling the issue head-on?
If an 'honest mistake' is a licence to move on, whether or not the population is primarily concerned if the mistake was intentional, where is the claim to be responsible for a shocking error?
If 'lease buyback' means literally pawning your assets for survival, why should a scheme be regarded as a solution to broken mechanics in terms of sustainable living in Singapore?
When the PAP government and the civil service pick up a habit not to call a spade a spade, play with words, avoid issues, evade critical questions, claim to be always here for us and promise more good years ahead, one can't help but wonder where does the government stand?
No comments:
Post a Comment