The PM is consistent with what he meant by constructive politics and he got in first because by our system which is mirrored on the British, that is what the President meant.
And WP's idea of constructive politics, we can all read in full from WP site. E.g.,
Lynx quoted from LTK speech and received 40 likes, probably even more likes now.
and here is praise and worrying out loud in cheek from Bertha Henson,
Same words "constructive politics" but quite different meanings.
American examples have given me an early warning radar. Politicians regularly abuse the English language and as they keep up with this bad habit the meaning of words also begin to change in a hurry. We must be very careful.
Between the PAP and the WP, the latter is the shrewder party especially its Secretary General LTK.
Post LKY I do not know which party can be trusted. A party in opposition when it becomes the ruling party can be very different creatures. Gou Jian as a prisoner of Fu Chai was a completely different character as the hegemon monarch of the Warring States. A less strong China during the Asian Financial Crisis who did us great favor and an even stronger China messing in the South China Sea today are quite different characters. Your boy friend or girl friend often is quite different after getting married. Things are just like that. Let's not be naive.
The PAP is increasingly an under performing party.
LTK had rolled out a Trojan Horse but the clueless PAP failed to recognize it. If I were the PAP I would ignore him, watch and see and respond later. The PAP has been far too predictable and make easy target for the WP (I worry if we ever have to fight a war). Yesterday LTK challenged Indranee Rajah to table a motion to continue to the debate on the flip flopping and lack of integrity the PAP had accused WP of. But to voters both parties are no saints and we hate hypocrites. To voters we play one party against the other to get the best outcome for us because experience shows that PAP cannot function in our best interest without some checks. That check is best realized as high quality opposition in parliament. I think I represent much of the silent majority. In a way I am silent because I don't care or encourage people to read this blog. And for those times I try to write more clearly it is for my children and some close friends. But I don't have the time to try very hard.
Update: 4:45pm
I appreciate the WP for having acted in parliament as Gerald Giam said today. But for the WP to eventually form the government the standards would be set much higher.
Update: May 29 4:10pm
This fellow spoke my thoughts. I had only time for one line and he provided the rest. How nice! "Like I also say", the PM would have been far smarter to ignore LTK... now damage to him has been done.
Well Daniel Goh is a WP member right? The WP have studied and understood the PAP completely. "Like I also say" they know how to get the PAP to beat itself up and they are getting better at it.
To me, WP is the PAP's canary. If they can't "fix" the WP they also will not be able to solve our most critical problems, and I am sure at this time the PAP disagree with this statement, not that they would read my blog - they aren't welcome. People who are clueless do not know that they are.
a home divided against itself cannot stand
ReplyDeletebut then, who in their sane mind call this home?
its a hotel, and in hotel u stay pay and go
unless if u r hotel staff
do u?
The check and balance between political parties is a flawed one. All parties have their own political agenda and survival of the fittest tricks. By the time any of them are done with selling you their ideas, it will be too late to reverse the course. Going against what they had built will be regarded as unconstructive and may get you sued if you challenge it.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, serious political thinkers do not trust party politics even if it is led by the Pope himself.
Your sentiments is widely shared. If you are right we have a bleak future. Therefore I feel the need to point you to this part of Bernanke commencement speech at Princeton last year.
Delete5. Since I have covered what I know about sociology, I might as well say something about political science as well. In regard to politics, I have always liked Lily Tomlin's line, in paraphrase: "I try to be cynical, but I just can't keep up." We all feel that way sometime. Actually, having been in Washington now for almost 11 years, as I mentioned, I feel that way quite a bit. Ultimately, though, cynicism is a poor substitute for critical thought and constructive action. Sure, interests and money and ideology all matter, as you learned in political science. But my experience is that most of our politicians and policymakers are trying to do the right thing, according to their own views and consciences, most of the time. If you think that the bad or indifferent results that too often come out of Washington are due to base motives and bad intentions, you are giving politicians and policymakers way too much credit for being effective. Honest error in the face of complex and possibly intractable problems is a far more important source of bad results than are bad motives. For these reasons, the greatest forces in Washington are ideas, and people prepared to act on those ideas. Public service isn't easy. But, in the end, if you are inclined in that direction, it is a worthy and challenging pursuit.
Full speech at http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20130602a.htm