<TABLE class=forumline border=0 cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=3 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=row1 vAlign=top width=150 align=left>cucumber
Joined: 10 Mar 2011
Posts: 38
</TD><TD class=row1 height=28 vAlign=top width="100%"><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD width="100%">
Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 10:46 pm Post subject: Breaking News : PM Lee ..... PAP split into 2 party.</TD><TD vAlign=top noWrap>
</TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2>PAP considered splitting itself for a two-party system
09:45 PM Apr 05, 2011
In an address at the Kent Ridge Ministerial Forum on Tuesday night, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong revealed that the People's Action Party had considered splitting itself so Singapore could have a two-party system. The following is an excerpt of his speech:
A lot of people say, "can we have a two-party system?". That's the ideal, that's how many developed countries work, that's what you should aim for - a change of government from the first party to the second, and then from the second, you come back, and then you are considered to have matriculated. But how could this happen in Singapore that we have two parties?
I can imagine several scenarios. First, the society splits based on race or religion - we have one party representing one race or religion, and another party representing another race or religion. That's the worst possible scenario for Singapore and we've done our best to make sure that it never comes about. Because if you're split on race or religion, you're not just going to have political quarrels, you're going to divide the society, and that's the end of Singapore.
The second possibility is that you divide on class lines. We don't get our economic policies right, or maybe it's just the world trends are such, the rich get richer, the poor don't make progress. After a while, the poor lose hope in the system. The rich lose interest in the rest of society. So one side says, "Tax me less, let me keep my wealth". The other side says, "Give me more" - transfers, more welfare, more goodies, more benefits. And you have two parties forming, one representing one group, the other one representing the other group - rich and poor. And that's how, highly simplified, but that's how things roughly work in many countries. Like in Britain, where you have the Conservatives and the Labour Party, and now the Liberals, somewhere in the middle. Or in the US, where you got the Democrats who are representing more of the working class and the Republicans who represent more of the well-off people. But I don't think that's a good outcome either, we are working hard to prevent this because I think we should try, and to the maximum extent that we can, align all the interests of Singaporeans and make sure that one party can represent you, whether you are the CEO, or whether you are the taxi driver.
The third possibility is that we split on policy grounds. You argue that this set of policies will be best for Singapore to grow; promoting MNCs. They argue that, "No, I don't want MNCs", sending them all away and depending on Singaporeans and Singapore companies is the way to grow. And we can't reconcile and we split and we argue over the policies and fight it out at the polls. That could happen but it's not so likely because the PAP is a pragmatic party and we are ready to take in good ideas. And if you look at it at the high level, frankly, the range of feasible options for Singapore, is not that wide. So it's possible, it could happen, but it would mean that something has gone wrong too.
But the most important reason why a two-party system is not workable is because we don't have enough talent in Singapore to form two A teams; to form two really first-class teams to govern Singapore really well. More than any other country, Singapore needs exceptionally able leadership to tackle challenges and minimize the risks for our country. We are small, we are vulnerable, with a mediocre government, other countries may muddle through, and have to muddle through, but Singa-pore will fail.
The most effective way to get a two-party system, if you really want to do it, is to split the PAP in two. Because the talent is there, it's gathered. We'll have two persons, I choose one, you choose one. I choose one, you choose one. Okay, now we have two teams, now we play, toss a coin. We seriously considered making the PAP two parties - not that way, but in principle - but we didn't do it, because we couldn't solve one problem: How can you make two teams, each one as good as the original one team which we had, which took really one which had the best players from both teams. Or to put it in very hard and direct, tangible terms, where can you find two Finance Ministers and two Defence Ministers? I have one Finance Minister and one Defence Minister, and if you have a spare one somewhere, please let me know. Why do I choose these two? Because these are two of the most difficult jobs in the Cabinet to fill.
In Finance, you have to make judgments on taxes affecting all Singaporeans, on expenditures affecting all ministries, on the Budget - you're talking about $50 billion of expenditures every year - as well as on our reserves - GIC, Temasek, MAS, and others, adding up to more than US$100 billion. To find one of them is not easy. To find two of them, you must really tio beh pio.
It's the same with Defence in a curiously opposite way because Finance is about money and it's very difficult, and Defence is very difficult because it's not about money. Because the bottom-line is intangible - security, risks, threats, judgment. What is worth spending on? What is worth investing on? Which is the right aeroplane to buy? How many ships do you need? Which colonels to make generals? How to shape the SAF? Which threats are getting serious? When do I recommend to mobilize the SAF? When do I decide I must deploy and defend? Can you easily find anybody off the street to do that sort of job? Very, very difficult.
So therefore, I think one team, get the best people together, fill each job with the best man. If we split it into two teams, then whichever one is in charge, the government is going to be weaker and the chances of something going wrong will go up. Definitely even if things don't go wrong, standards will go down. And that's why I and all my predecessors have gone out of our way to scour the land for talent to join the team. And every election, we have 20-odd candidates become new MPs. And out of these, on average, I did a count over the last five or six elections, three make it, about three make it to become ministers. But we have 14 ministries to fill, and then on top of that, you need some supervising ministers, some DPMs, some senior ministers because you need some additional experience and oversight of the system. So just say 14 ministries to fill, and that there are three new ministers each term, you do the math, 14 divided by three means on average each minister has to serve at least 4 terms.
So over the weekend, SM Goh expressed his personal view that perhaps in future, ministers should serve only two terms. But I think that's not possible, simply because of the numbers. We are not able to generate the talent, in order to produce those numbers of people who are able to do the job competently, to the satisfaction of Singaporeans at that rate.
The Opposition parties pitch themselves as offering Singapore a fall-back should the PAP fail. It sounds plausible, but if you think about it, what does it depend on? Most critically, it comes back to talent again. If the PAP can't assemble a second team, I don't think the Opposition will find it easier to do that. You look at it from the micro-view. Consider a capable person, weighing his options. He wants to serve the nation, he's trying to decide how to do it, which way he should go. And he has two choices. First choice, join the Opposition, oversee the PAP, but really spend his life and quite a long time waiting and watching, just in case the PAP screws up, then he'll be ready to take over. The other alternative is join the government, help it to make better decisions, implement good policies, and avoid making mistakes and screwing up. Now, which makes more sense for him, and for Singapore?
So, I think for all these reasons, I think the best thing for us to do, is to concentrate our resources and form one really strong Singapore team.
Some people will want to join the Opposition, yes, they'll want to propound alternative policies, or they'll want to be a check on Government, that's valid. By all means, join the Opposition especially if the government is wrong or incompetent. But so long as the government is competent and doing a good job for Singaporeans, I hope you will make common cause with it, and help us to ensure that things stay right.
But what we can and must do to assure Singapore's future is to develop the strongest possible A-team, with depth and resilience. Competent ministers, people with expertise in different ministries, plus depth, younger ones learning the job, so that as the situation changes, as we have new needs, we can always find the right person for the right job. And if one person doesn't work out, I can do a replacement, I can call a time-out, change my team member, and the game goes on. Actually that's how soccer is played. If you watch World Cup soccer, every country only has one team. No country fields two teams for the World Cup soccer. You have one national soccer team, you have reserve players, you have coaches, you can change players, and if need be, you can even change the coach. But you concentrate all your talent, make one team, and give it your best shot, whether it's Johannesburg or Rio de Janeiro. And I think that's what we should do. We are not so successful in soccer but we're not doing badly in government. And I think that we should keep up our winning streak and stay in the championship league in the international contest of nations.
This story is only available online.
http://www.todayonline.com/SingaporeVotes/EDC110405-0001372/PAP-considered-splitting-itself-for-a-two-party-system</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Joined: 10 Mar 2011
Posts: 38
</TD><TD class=row1 height=28 vAlign=top width="100%"><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD width="100%">
Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 10:46 pm Post subject: Breaking News : PM Lee ..... PAP split into 2 party.</TD><TD vAlign=top noWrap>
</TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2>PAP considered splitting itself for a two-party system 09:45 PM Apr 05, 2011
In an address at the Kent Ridge Ministerial Forum on Tuesday night, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong revealed that the People's Action Party had considered splitting itself so Singapore could have a two-party system. The following is an excerpt of his speech:
A lot of people say, "can we have a two-party system?". That's the ideal, that's how many developed countries work, that's what you should aim for - a change of government from the first party to the second, and then from the second, you come back, and then you are considered to have matriculated. But how could this happen in Singapore that we have two parties?
I can imagine several scenarios. First, the society splits based on race or religion - we have one party representing one race or religion, and another party representing another race or religion. That's the worst possible scenario for Singapore and we've done our best to make sure that it never comes about. Because if you're split on race or religion, you're not just going to have political quarrels, you're going to divide the society, and that's the end of Singapore.
The second possibility is that you divide on class lines. We don't get our economic policies right, or maybe it's just the world trends are such, the rich get richer, the poor don't make progress. After a while, the poor lose hope in the system. The rich lose interest in the rest of society. So one side says, "Tax me less, let me keep my wealth". The other side says, "Give me more" - transfers, more welfare, more goodies, more benefits. And you have two parties forming, one representing one group, the other one representing the other group - rich and poor. And that's how, highly simplified, but that's how things roughly work in many countries. Like in Britain, where you have the Conservatives and the Labour Party, and now the Liberals, somewhere in the middle. Or in the US, where you got the Democrats who are representing more of the working class and the Republicans who represent more of the well-off people. But I don't think that's a good outcome either, we are working hard to prevent this because I think we should try, and to the maximum extent that we can, align all the interests of Singaporeans and make sure that one party can represent you, whether you are the CEO, or whether you are the taxi driver.
The third possibility is that we split on policy grounds. You argue that this set of policies will be best for Singapore to grow; promoting MNCs. They argue that, "No, I don't want MNCs", sending them all away and depending on Singaporeans and Singapore companies is the way to grow. And we can't reconcile and we split and we argue over the policies and fight it out at the polls. That could happen but it's not so likely because the PAP is a pragmatic party and we are ready to take in good ideas. And if you look at it at the high level, frankly, the range of feasible options for Singapore, is not that wide. So it's possible, it could happen, but it would mean that something has gone wrong too.
But the most important reason why a two-party system is not workable is because we don't have enough talent in Singapore to form two A teams; to form two really first-class teams to govern Singapore really well. More than any other country, Singapore needs exceptionally able leadership to tackle challenges and minimize the risks for our country. We are small, we are vulnerable, with a mediocre government, other countries may muddle through, and have to muddle through, but Singa-pore will fail.
The most effective way to get a two-party system, if you really want to do it, is to split the PAP in two. Because the talent is there, it's gathered. We'll have two persons, I choose one, you choose one. I choose one, you choose one. Okay, now we have two teams, now we play, toss a coin. We seriously considered making the PAP two parties - not that way, but in principle - but we didn't do it, because we couldn't solve one problem: How can you make two teams, each one as good as the original one team which we had, which took really one which had the best players from both teams. Or to put it in very hard and direct, tangible terms, where can you find two Finance Ministers and two Defence Ministers? I have one Finance Minister and one Defence Minister, and if you have a spare one somewhere, please let me know. Why do I choose these two? Because these are two of the most difficult jobs in the Cabinet to fill.
In Finance, you have to make judgments on taxes affecting all Singaporeans, on expenditures affecting all ministries, on the Budget - you're talking about $50 billion of expenditures every year - as well as on our reserves - GIC, Temasek, MAS, and others, adding up to more than US$100 billion. To find one of them is not easy. To find two of them, you must really tio beh pio.
It's the same with Defence in a curiously opposite way because Finance is about money and it's very difficult, and Defence is very difficult because it's not about money. Because the bottom-line is intangible - security, risks, threats, judgment. What is worth spending on? What is worth investing on? Which is the right aeroplane to buy? How many ships do you need? Which colonels to make generals? How to shape the SAF? Which threats are getting serious? When do I recommend to mobilize the SAF? When do I decide I must deploy and defend? Can you easily find anybody off the street to do that sort of job? Very, very difficult.
So therefore, I think one team, get the best people together, fill each job with the best man. If we split it into two teams, then whichever one is in charge, the government is going to be weaker and the chances of something going wrong will go up. Definitely even if things don't go wrong, standards will go down. And that's why I and all my predecessors have gone out of our way to scour the land for talent to join the team. And every election, we have 20-odd candidates become new MPs. And out of these, on average, I did a count over the last five or six elections, three make it, about three make it to become ministers. But we have 14 ministries to fill, and then on top of that, you need some supervising ministers, some DPMs, some senior ministers because you need some additional experience and oversight of the system. So just say 14 ministries to fill, and that there are three new ministers each term, you do the math, 14 divided by three means on average each minister has to serve at least 4 terms.
So over the weekend, SM Goh expressed his personal view that perhaps in future, ministers should serve only two terms. But I think that's not possible, simply because of the numbers. We are not able to generate the talent, in order to produce those numbers of people who are able to do the job competently, to the satisfaction of Singaporeans at that rate.
The Opposition parties pitch themselves as offering Singapore a fall-back should the PAP fail. It sounds plausible, but if you think about it, what does it depend on? Most critically, it comes back to talent again. If the PAP can't assemble a second team, I don't think the Opposition will find it easier to do that. You look at it from the micro-view. Consider a capable person, weighing his options. He wants to serve the nation, he's trying to decide how to do it, which way he should go. And he has two choices. First choice, join the Opposition, oversee the PAP, but really spend his life and quite a long time waiting and watching, just in case the PAP screws up, then he'll be ready to take over. The other alternative is join the government, help it to make better decisions, implement good policies, and avoid making mistakes and screwing up. Now, which makes more sense for him, and for Singapore?
So, I think for all these reasons, I think the best thing for us to do, is to concentrate our resources and form one really strong Singapore team.
Some people will want to join the Opposition, yes, they'll want to propound alternative policies, or they'll want to be a check on Government, that's valid. By all means, join the Opposition especially if the government is wrong or incompetent. But so long as the government is competent and doing a good job for Singaporeans, I hope you will make common cause with it, and help us to ensure that things stay right.
But what we can and must do to assure Singapore's future is to develop the strongest possible A-team, with depth and resilience. Competent ministers, people with expertise in different ministries, plus depth, younger ones learning the job, so that as the situation changes, as we have new needs, we can always find the right person for the right job. And if one person doesn't work out, I can do a replacement, I can call a time-out, change my team member, and the game goes on. Actually that's how soccer is played. If you watch World Cup soccer, every country only has one team. No country fields two teams for the World Cup soccer. You have one national soccer team, you have reserve players, you have coaches, you can change players, and if need be, you can even change the coach. But you concentrate all your talent, make one team, and give it your best shot, whether it's Johannesburg or Rio de Janeiro. And I think that's what we should do. We are not so successful in soccer but we're not doing badly in government. And I think that we should keep up our winning streak and stay in the championship league in the international contest of nations.
This story is only available online.
http://www.todayonline.com/SingaporeVotes/EDC110405-0001372/PAP-considered-splitting-itself-for-a-two-party-system</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
