They want to create that aura of infallibility (to con the 66%) and invincibility (to intimindate the remaining 34%) to perpetuate 1-Familee rule. It's just this plain and simple. All wicked, corrupt and greedy dictatorships do this.
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT height=20 width="1%" noWrap align=right>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname width="68%" noWrap>ALL <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right> (1 of 3) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft rowSpan=4 width="1%"> </TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>32734.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt>Why are PAP leaders so intolerant of criticisms?
May 6th, 2010 |
Author: Your Correspondent
http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/05/06/why-are-pap-leaders-so-intolerant-of-criticisms/
OPINION
A seemingly innocuous article from a Lianhe Zaobao journalist expressing doubts about the NCMP scheme was sufficient enough to draw an immediate rebuttal from Law Minister Shanmugam who castigated the hapless writer for her “cynicism” in Parliament.
While Mr Shanmugam has the right of reply, the journalist is entitled to her own opinion and it does appear an overkill by the minister to “correct” her supposedy “flawed” reasoning in the House.
In other democratic states, it is common to see government leaders being grilled and peppered with tough questions from journalists, but not in cosmopolitan Singapore where it is considered heresy to disagree with PAP ministers.
In Singapore, there is only one acceptable authority of truth – that from the PAP. All the other alternative or dissenting voices are mere nuisance and not permitted to co-exist within the establishment.
Witness how quick the Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued an official rebuttal to the UN special envoy Mr Githui’s comments on racial relations in Singapore whereas it procrastinated for months before releasing a press statement on the double hit and run accident involving a Romanian diplomat.
Or how the Minister of Community, Youth and Sports Dr Vivian Balakrishnan attacked Qatar-based broadcaster Al-Jazeera for spreading misinformation about homeless Singaporeans when he had earlier refused to be interviewed by its journalists.
This utter desperation to appear “right” all the time betrayed a deep sense of insecurity and uneasiness in the government.
Confident leaders are not afraid to have their words and actions scrutinized, questioned and criticized by the people. There is absolutely no need to be on the defensive on the time.
In a functioning and healthy democracy, there should be a large enough common space to accommodate differing views and allowed them to be aired, discussed and debated at the same time.
Nobody has the monopoly on truth and certainly not the PAP leaders who are wont to make terrible faux pauses from time to time.
Why then are PAP leaders so intolerant of criticisms or divergent views?
One reason is that they are extremely concerned about their “face” and the need to maintain an aura of “invincibility” in the eyes of Singaporeans.
The official propaganda has been going on for ages that PAP ministers are the “best” talents that Singapore can afford and as such they need to be paid out of the world salaries in order for Singaporeans to retain their services in Parliament.
That explains the reluctance of PAP ministers to engage in public debate with opposition leaders or to have the parliamentary sessions screened live on TV out of fear of exposing their deficiencies.
Imagine if they fumble and embarrass themselves in front of the public, questions will inevitably be raised on whether they deserve their million-dollar salaries.
The recent U.K elections debate between Nick Clegg, Gordon Brown and David Cameron which saw dark horse Clegg overtaking Brown in the opinion polls on the basis of his strong oratorical skills will not be too far from the mind of PAP leaders who have constantly argued that debating skills are not essential in governance.
Yet isn’t clear articulation of one thoughts a reflection of one’s intellectual abilities as well? If a minister cannot even defend his own policies against detractors, how can he ever justify the astronomical salary he is commanding?
This ingrained mindset with the PAP that it must have the last right of say is choking both the party and the government of the intellectual stimulus they need to formulate and implement better thought policies for Singapore.
Without constant challenges from opponents, how can one ever improve and refine one’s own ideas and initiatives?
Being a trained lawyer himself, it is a shame that Mr Shanmugan found fit to tick off a hapless journalist for merely expressing her own views about the political process in Singapore.
Our society will become poorer for it so long the PAP and Singaporeans continue to be led blindly by the myth that their leaders are right all the time and cannot be wrong.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- story content : end -->
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT height=20 width="1%" noWrap align=right>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname width="68%" noWrap>ALL <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right> (1 of 3) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft rowSpan=4 width="1%"> </TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>32734.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt>Why are PAP leaders so intolerant of criticisms?
http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/05/06/why-are-pap-leaders-so-intolerant-of-criticisms/
OPINION
A seemingly innocuous article from a Lianhe Zaobao journalist expressing doubts about the NCMP scheme was sufficient enough to draw an immediate rebuttal from Law Minister Shanmugam who castigated the hapless writer for her “cynicism” in Parliament.
While Mr Shanmugam has the right of reply, the journalist is entitled to her own opinion and it does appear an overkill by the minister to “correct” her supposedy “flawed” reasoning in the House.
In other democratic states, it is common to see government leaders being grilled and peppered with tough questions from journalists, but not in cosmopolitan Singapore where it is considered heresy to disagree with PAP ministers.
In Singapore, there is only one acceptable authority of truth – that from the PAP. All the other alternative or dissenting voices are mere nuisance and not permitted to co-exist within the establishment.
Witness how quick the Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued an official rebuttal to the UN special envoy Mr Githui’s comments on racial relations in Singapore whereas it procrastinated for months before releasing a press statement on the double hit and run accident involving a Romanian diplomat.
Or how the Minister of Community, Youth and Sports Dr Vivian Balakrishnan attacked Qatar-based broadcaster Al-Jazeera for spreading misinformation about homeless Singaporeans when he had earlier refused to be interviewed by its journalists.
This utter desperation to appear “right” all the time betrayed a deep sense of insecurity and uneasiness in the government.
Confident leaders are not afraid to have their words and actions scrutinized, questioned and criticized by the people. There is absolutely no need to be on the defensive on the time.
In a functioning and healthy democracy, there should be a large enough common space to accommodate differing views and allowed them to be aired, discussed and debated at the same time.
Nobody has the monopoly on truth and certainly not the PAP leaders who are wont to make terrible faux pauses from time to time.
Why then are PAP leaders so intolerant of criticisms or divergent views?
One reason is that they are extremely concerned about their “face” and the need to maintain an aura of “invincibility” in the eyes of Singaporeans.
The official propaganda has been going on for ages that PAP ministers are the “best” talents that Singapore can afford and as such they need to be paid out of the world salaries in order for Singaporeans to retain their services in Parliament.
That explains the reluctance of PAP ministers to engage in public debate with opposition leaders or to have the parliamentary sessions screened live on TV out of fear of exposing their deficiencies.
Imagine if they fumble and embarrass themselves in front of the public, questions will inevitably be raised on whether they deserve their million-dollar salaries.
The recent U.K elections debate between Nick Clegg, Gordon Brown and David Cameron which saw dark horse Clegg overtaking Brown in the opinion polls on the basis of his strong oratorical skills will not be too far from the mind of PAP leaders who have constantly argued that debating skills are not essential in governance.
Yet isn’t clear articulation of one thoughts a reflection of one’s intellectual abilities as well? If a minister cannot even defend his own policies against detractors, how can he ever justify the astronomical salary he is commanding?
This ingrained mindset with the PAP that it must have the last right of say is choking both the party and the government of the intellectual stimulus they need to formulate and implement better thought policies for Singapore.
Without constant challenges from opponents, how can one ever improve and refine one’s own ideas and initiatives?
Being a trained lawyer himself, it is a shame that Mr Shanmugan found fit to tick off a hapless journalist for merely expressing her own views about the political process in Singapore.
Our society will become poorer for it so long the PAP and Singaporeans continue to be led blindly by the myth that their leaders are right all the time and cannot be wrong.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- story content : end -->
:p
