Residents in Teck Ghee can look forward to more upgrading works within the constituency this year and also in the years ahead, said Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
These include an improved community centre, which will be completed by 2017, and several Home Improvement Programmes (HIP) projects.
Mr Lee, who is a Member of Parliament of the ward, said this at the Ang Mo Kio National Day Dinner on Saturday evening (Aug 15).
“Besides that, we will be upgrading our blocks. We have several HIP projects already, but we will have more HIP projects this year and next year. Year by year, we will make this place better. Year by year, as our children grow up, we will see that we are able to make our lives improve,” he said.
At the dinner, Mr Lee also introduced to residents the PAP candidates that will contest alongside him in Ang Mo Kio GRC in the coming elections. The candidates had been officially announced earlier in the day.
He hoped that residents could give them their support in order to work together.
Mr Lee again thanked the outgoing MPs – Mr Inderjit Singh and Mr Seng Han Thong – for their contributions.
CONSENSUS WON’T BE EASY: WONG KAN SENG
At the Bishan East National Day Dinner on Saturday, Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC MP Wong Kan Seng said as Singapore becomes more diverse, bringing about consensus on national issues will not be easy.
As such, the country will need competent leaders with integrity, foresight and drive. He said the Government must also make decisions that are in the best interest of Singaporeans and not just because they want to be popular.
Also present at the event was anchor minister for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC, Dr Ng Eng Hen, who shared with residents how the areas in the constituency have been spruced up with the addition of facilities and amenities. These included new lifts at multi-storey car parks, subsidised hand rails for the elderly in HDB flats and fitness stations.
Dr Ng also mentioned that the neighbouring Potong Pasir constituency has become more vibrant under MP Sitoh Yih Pin, with the completion of the Kallang River Active, Beautiful, Clean Waters Programme. He added that it would be good for the entire central region if both towns continue to improve.
In August 2009, Lee Kuan Yew suggested that the pledge was just an aspiration to the dismay of NMP Viswa Sadasivan who had sought to move a motion to reaffirm the tenets enshrined in our National Pledge.
Now 6 years on, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, not to be outdone by his father, has gone one step further. He concluded his recent National Day message with a chilling desecration of the pledge.
50 years on, on our Golden Jubilee, we will gather again at the Padang. We will sing “Majulah Singapura” proudly, and recite the National Pledge. We will rejoice in the success of our last five decades, and commit ourselves anew to work together as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion, to build Singapore, so as to achieve happiness, prosperity, and progress for our nation.
In case we have forgotten, here is what every Singaporean child pledges daily in school:-
We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language, or religion to build a democratic society based on justice and equality so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.
Were the substitution of “democratic society” with “Singapore” and the eradication of “based on justice and equality” a cunning sleight of hand or a mere careless omission?
When a leader changes the pledge in a manner which diminishes the importance of “democracy”, “justice” and “equality”, it spells trouble and augurs badly for us all and requires some deep soul searching on our part
Will we ever know or forever be left wondering? How does one form a reasonable judgment as to the intentions of the Prime Minister? Short of a clear and unambiguous statement from the PM’s office, are we left only to speculate or can we form a legitimate opinion based on his actions in recent months and years?
The omission of “democracy” and “justice” appear to be consistent with the acts of an individual who has proceeded with the defamation charges brought against Roy Ngerng or the treatment of Amos Yee by the state for calling his father a “horrible person”.
As for the notion of equality, speaking in 2013 at an inaugural DBS Asia Leadership dialogue, the Prime Minister had this to say:
In fact, if I can get another 10 billionaires to move to Singapore and set up their base here, my Gini coefficient will get worse but I think Singaporeans will be better off...
Perhaps for the Prime Minister, equality is no longer a consideration given the focus on getting “billionaires to move to Singapore”. Could the elimination of “equality” in his message also shed light on his recent comments on the need for a “certain natural aristocracy in the system”? Should we the citizens of Singapore therefore resign ourselves to the sight of large number of our old folks carrying cardboard, cleaning toilets and wiping tables with their hunched backs and trembling hands whilst being shouted at by patrons, stall-owners and managers of food courts?
Is it truly possible for our nation’s leader to forget the pledge? Could it justifiably be argued that the speech was merely a paraphrase of the pledge which would be a difficult argument to accept given that the pledge was inserted almost word-for-word into the speech except for the elimination of the most critical phrase which anchors it and gives it impetus – “to build a democratic society based on justice and equality”.
Then again, perhaps, we need to take a hard look at the last 50 years and wonder if the Prime Minister was like his father merely stating a reality which we the citizens of Singapore have chosen to ignore – that ultimately this is what the last 50 years of nation building by the PAP has been about – a Faustian bargain between the Party and the People – one in which democracy, justice and equality has been sacrificed for happiness, prosperity and progress.
It is time for a drastic change and for us to inform the Prime Minister that we, the citizens of Singapore, intend to cash in the promissory note enshrined in our pledge of a “democratic society based on justice and equality” at GE2015 regardless of what he or his father thinks of our National Pledge.
Observers will undoubtedly note that Mr Lee Hsien Loong’s decision to call for a general election two years ahead of time is a clever one. How can it not be? The celebration of our 50th National Day, itself a significant milestone, allows the Government to hand out goodwill packages in various guises that will usher in the feel good factor for the PAP.
Add to this a system awash with anti-democratic practices – the continued use of the print and broadcast media to constantly churn out welcome news for his administration, the redrawing of electoral boundaries behind closed doors, the introduction of the GRC system in the 1980s to hobble opposition efforts, the crackdown on the online media, the employment of HDB upgrading as punishment or reward, the dishing out of financial packages just before elections, the use of state-funded organisations for political purposes, the imposition of impossibly short campaign periods – and it is not difficult to see how the next polls will again end up in overall victory for the PAP.
It is a system that does not, indeed cannot, admit of democratic progress.
As I said, it may be politically clever to craft such a system. But cleverness is not what Singapore needs right now – especially at this stage of our country’s development. There is not any doubt that Mr Lee’s continued adoption of such tactics will help his party secure another five years in power, as it has done so for the last 50. But he should be reminded that, in the fullness of time, such an approach has not been looked kindly upon.
The PAP may insist, as it is wont to do, that its mandate to govern is derived from the majority of voters in regularly held elections. But it is also aware, I am certain, of the difference between elections held in undemocratic systems and genuinely free and fair elections held in democratic ones.
Strongman-type systems led by autocrats like Suharto and Ferdinand Marcos held regular elections to legitimise their rule and, for a time, few questioned their right to govern. Whether their legacies endured the stringent test of time is another matter.
In undemocratic states, it is not the majority’s opinion at the polls that rulers should be worried about. It is the minority, rather, the one which watches – and gets increasingly agitated at – how the system is being manipulated to buttress the status quo at which rulers should cast their nervous glance. For is there ever any doubt that it is this segment of the population that brings about change? History is replete with instances where a significant minority calls for, works towards and, ultimately, brings about political reform. These movements are especially potent when frustration and resentment with the ruling clique’s intransigence crosses the threshold.
At home, anger at the current political situation is palpable and some have resorted to action (seehere). If the PAP is content to label this group of citizens as the ‘noisy minority’, then it should re-read the preceding paragraph. For these people, the prospect of being unable to bring about political change through the ballot box only makes the PAP’s claim of legitimate power sound dangerously vacuous.
It will be undoubtedly (autocratic) politics-as-usual after the next election. The country will continue to hum along. But this is predicated on the assumption that circumstances in and around Singapore remain unmolested.
It is, however, a big assumption. Socio-economic developments within our shores point to a future fraught with difficulty and uncertainty: An expensive city with limited opportunity especially for the youth, an ageing population with retirees having little or no income, an economy with wide income disparity, a crowded city set to become even more congested, and a people increasingly feeling alienated from their country of birth.
Developments farther afield are not more encouraging. Economic uncertainty in Europe and China will not leave Singapore unscathed. The spat over claims on some islands in the South China Sea by China and her neighbours in the region is another flash point.
When a crisis envelops Singapore, as one will sooner or later, how will the people react? More important, will Singaporeans continue to accept placidly the PAP’s undemocratic rule especially if they feel that the situation is caused, or at least exacerbated, by the party in the first place?
On the bright side, the problem is not intractable. The Prime Minister is in a unique position rarely accorded to people. He stands at a political crossroads: He can open up the system in Singapore and seal his legacy as an enlightened statesman, or he can continue the ugly spectacle of winning elections through undemocratic means.
I can think of two other persons who were in a similar position but who took their countries on very dissimilar paths: Taiwan’s Chiang Ching Kuo and Syria’s Bashir Al-Assad. Both became their countries’ leaders following their fathers’ rule: Chiang Kai-shek and Hafez Al-Assad. While the younger Chiang opened the door by instituting political reforms (albeit in a limited manner) for Taiwan to develop into a vibrant democracy that it is today, Bashir Al-Assad continued with his father’s dictatorial rule which eventually met with sustained rebellion and reduced his country to rubble.
It is said that politicians think about the next elections, leaders think about the next generation. Will Mr Lee be the leader that Singapore needs?
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has made public two letters containing the exchange between himself and the Transport Minister to avoid suspicions that the latter was asked to leave. The letter from Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew was dated today (August 11) and, surprisingly, PM Lee Hsien Loong managed to reply on the same day and publicize the exchange.
In the letter, Minister Lui Tuck Yew requested to resign and not contest in the coming election. He mentioned that he has raised this issue earlier this year but did not explain why he is resigning. The Transport Minister did not say he is taking responsibility for the series of public transport breakdowns but he had however, attempted to save his job by reducing public transport fares in December.
Last month (July 24), Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong removed the Transport Minister’s Kallang-Moulmein GRC. Lui Tuck Yew raised his concerns to Lee Hsien Loong’s decision to remove his constituency, Kallang-Moulmein GRC, saying he was very disappointed in the Prime Minister but the PM did not respond. Also, in April, PM Lee reshuffled the cabinet without replacing the Transport Minister’s position which he could have done if Lui Tuck Yew had really raised his decision to resign earlier in 2015 as the latter claimed. It is hence very hard to divorce from speculations that the Prime Minister has fired Lui Tuck Yew. There is no replacement for the Transport Minister position and PM Lee is in trouble over finding suitable candidates after several PAP MPs chose to resign as well.
Lui’s resignation – a sign of weak leadership from the top
“Singapore will not encourage a culture where ministers resign whenever things go wrong on their watch, whether or not they are actually to blame,” Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was reported to have said in 2008 during the debate on the escape of terrorist suspect, Mas Selamat Kastari.
My Paper, 2008
Mr Lee was disabusing calls for the then Minister of Home Affairs, Wong Kan Seng, to step down after Mas Selamat climbed through a window at the Whitley Road Detention Centre and escaped.
Mr Wong stayed on and finally stepped down from the Cabinet in 2011, but remains a Member of Parliament (MP) till this day.
Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew’s surprise announcement on Tuesday that he will not be contesting the upcoming elections is, despite the criticisms, the right thing for him to do.
This is in spite of the flawed principle espoused by Mr Lee – that ministers will not be asked to resign when “things go wrong on their watch, whether or not they are actually to blame.”
While Mr Lui himself did not provide a clear reason for his stepping down, it is not unreasonable to suspect that he did it out of a sense of honour – to take responsibility for the failings of the transport system these past several years – and doing so in a manner which will not be seen as setting a precedent for ministers to resign when things go wrong.
“I have put in my utmost into fulfilling my responsibilities,” Mr Lui, who first came into politics in the 2006 general election, said in his letter to Mr Lee.
The upcoming General Election, he said, “provides an opportunity for me to step back from politics without causing major disruption to Government at the end of its term.”
Without a clear reason for his decision, speculations will surface and indeed they have.
“Was subjected to daily incessant attacks but carried on doing his duty, calmly, and with equanimity,” Law Minister, K Shanmugam, said on his Facebook page. “Could not have been easy for him and his family to be subjected to such incessant and frequently unfair attacks. Many in his position will naturally ask why should they subject themselves to this.”
Mr Shanmugam’s remarks stand in contrast to that of his fellow PAP MP and Mayor of Central Singapore CDC, Denise Phua.
Ms Phua, who is Mr Lui’s colleague in the soon-to-be-defunct Moulmein-Kallang GRC, said the latter “took the brunt of public anger” but “took criticisms and online flaming in his stride, and quietly focused on resolving problems on the ground.”
Nonetheless, to place the blame on criticisms, incessant or not, is simplistic and misguided.
While no one would argue that ministers nowadays do in fact face vocal criticisms from the public, one must also look deeper into the cause.
And as far as Mr Lui’s situation is concerned, there are many issues which have led to such vocal criticisms – and one of these is the lack of accountability from those who are in charge of the transport system, despite all the years of failures, delays, disruptions, and breakdowns.
For example, no one in the oversight regulatory body, the Land Transport Authority (LTA), has been taken to account for its failure to ensure maintenance work was carried out regularly and adequately.
The LTA website says, “LTA regulates and oversees all three main modes of public transport (taxis, buses and trains) and ensures that they meet safety and service standards.”
A committee of inquiry held after the two massive breakdowns in December 2011 concluded that “maintenance lapses [were the] main cause of [the] train breakdowns.”
“Lapses in the way SMRT maintained its rail system were key contributory factors behind last December’s MRT breakdowns, a high-level inquiry has concluded,” the Straits Times reported back then.
In the first half of this year alone, there were five major MRT service disruptions, which were close to half the total last year.
And just last month, another massive breakdown affected some 250,000 commuters.
Yet, no one has been held to account for all the years of disruptions – not even Saw Phaik Hwa, the former CEO of SMRT.
Instead, she was made the highest-paid SMRT CEO at the time, for two years running, taking home a paycheck of S$1.85 million before she resigned in 2012.
But her salary has been dwarfed by that of her successor Desmond Kuek, who has seen his pay doubled – from about S$1.2 million to $2.25 million – in the space of just 3 years, and making him the highest-paid SMRT CEO ever.
And transport fares continue to rise, despite the billions of dollars which have been poured in, and which will be poured into the public transport operators.
It also doesn’t help that even the former chairman of the Public Transport Council, which regulates fares, slammed commuters for expecting higher standards without wanting higher fares.
Straits Times, May 2014
So, given these and many other issues, is it any wonder that the man at the helm has become the target of unhappiness?
And isn’t it simplistic for the likes of the Law Minister to point to so-called “unfair attacks” by the public to explain one possible reason for Mr Lui’s stepping down?
Mr Lui has done the honourable thing – whether he felt he had done his best or whether he felt he had failed to resolve the transport problems – by stepping down.
For this, perhaps the man ought to be applauded.
At least he does not make excuses for himself, or lays the blame on critics or “unfair attacks”.
If indeed Mr Lui decided to step down because of these “unfair attacks”, then the blame really should be on the weak leadership from the top which shields those directly responsible for failures.
Ironically, it is Mr Lui who seems to have held himself to a higher standard than that of the Prime Minister, who has not shown the gumption to take his ministers (and others) to task but instead shields them with ill-conceived arguments – that “Singapore will not encourage a culture where ministers resign whenever things go wrong on their watch, whether or not they are actually to blame.”
This can only breed even more distrust and give rise to more criticisms.
Just look at the Auditor-General’s Office recent report on its audit of government ministries and statutory boards – has anyone been similarly held accountable?
