[h=1]CHAN CHUN SING: WE WILL ONLY GIVE A "PGP 2" IF THAT'S WHAT VOTERS WANT[/h]
Post date:
27 Jan 2015 - 3:06pm
Social and Family Development Minister Chan Chun Sing explained that whether there will be another Pioneer Generation Package will depend on whether people continue to support it and want to keep honouring the elderly.
He said that he hopes that they can continue to provide it but it ultimately depends on the next generation.
"Will we have the means? Will society have the same values (as now) to want to honour those who contributed?" he asked.
He was answering a question related to the pioneer generation package at an Institute of policy studies dialogue.
At the same time, he also noted that we can’t make the pioneer generation package or other benefit schemes a ‘political promise’ as this may result in political parties “buying votes” with promises of more help.
He pointed at several countries around the world where democracy works as an auction of promises and political parties who offer the most popular package of benefits get voted in without regard for how they are going to be funding such promises.
Chan suggested that in order to avoid this, voters need to be enlightened and ask the tough questions to political parties.
Of course it is best for the PAP to keep saying things such as this as they advocate financial prudence and less social welfare than other opposition parties in Singapore.
By urging others not to fall for “populist” promises, they are pushing that their current approach is the best and they are brushing aside other models, painting them as a “waste of money”.
However, if voters feel that the current government is not doing enough to help the people and is favouring businesses too much, voters will still vote for change.
Do you think the PAP has the right balance or are they just spreading fear about “populist” policies which they are afraid may win more votes than their pro-business stance?
Post date:
27 Jan 2015 - 3:06pm
Social and Family Development Minister Chan Chun Sing explained that whether there will be another Pioneer Generation Package will depend on whether people continue to support it and want to keep honouring the elderly.
He said that he hopes that they can continue to provide it but it ultimately depends on the next generation.
"Will we have the means? Will society have the same values (as now) to want to honour those who contributed?" he asked.
He was answering a question related to the pioneer generation package at an Institute of policy studies dialogue.
At the same time, he also noted that we can’t make the pioneer generation package or other benefit schemes a ‘political promise’ as this may result in political parties “buying votes” with promises of more help.
He pointed at several countries around the world where democracy works as an auction of promises and political parties who offer the most popular package of benefits get voted in without regard for how they are going to be funding such promises.
Chan suggested that in order to avoid this, voters need to be enlightened and ask the tough questions to political parties.
Of course it is best for the PAP to keep saying things such as this as they advocate financial prudence and less social welfare than other opposition parties in Singapore.
By urging others not to fall for “populist” promises, they are pushing that their current approach is the best and they are brushing aside other models, painting them as a “waste of money”.
However, if voters feel that the current government is not doing enough to help the people and is favouring businesses too much, voters will still vote for change.
Do you think the PAP has the right balance or are they just spreading fear about “populist” policies which they are afraid may win more votes than their pro-business stance?
