Avoiding and delaying “real change”
October 15th, 2009 | 
Author: By Abdul Gafoor, Social Correspondent
Whenever I have a tea or meal with a Singaporean politician or policy maker we will always end up talking about need for real change in the Singapore system.
The conversation will start with denials and slowly and eventually he/she will admit there are flaws in the system though he/she will not admit to most of it or the most significant ones. But what will always revile me is when they will excusing themselves by saying Singapore is actually changing but slowly and that it requires time.
This is something I can remember having heard for the last ten years. Ten years is a bloody slow time to do things slow. As a matter of fact they have been pursuing change for last twenty years.
Let me ask every Singaporean politician and policy maker, how long more time do you need to fully effect change? It is very clear that they are not slowly and steadily pursuing it but instead are delaying and avoiding it.
Every politician and policy maker pretty much works on a broader regimental template and territorial boundary drawn up for them by people who do not want real change. They proudly call it synchronisation and synergy and other cliché terms when it essentially is pseudo central planning.
Among the taboo words, topics and concepts that politicians and policy makers in Singapore hate and detest for the last twenty years include “real change”. But what is so ugly about the term. Had their pioneers not pursued “real change” in the 1960s and 1970s going beyond preserving their status quos, Singapore will have remained a developing country and never transformed into an industrialised country.
The greatest irony is that politicians and policy makers’ survival in power and office depends on the real change that they are avoiding and delaying. As much as they may think 50 years in power is a long time, it is actually a short period of time.
The British alone ruled Singapore for about 150 years. The Sri Vijaya conquerors ruled Singapore for two or three centuries. However MM Lee himself has said the next 50 years is not certain.
PAP likes to imagine that party renewal is the real change and is key to keeping them in office. In the elections from 2010 till say 2060, PAP can indeed continue like in earlier elections field scholars, former top officers in military, top civil servants etc. However their survival is not in that kind of party renewal but in how they can solve the problems of Singaporeans and make the dreams and aspirations of Singaporeans come true.
For that they need real change within the system. It is the system that is causing Singaporeans the problems. It is the same system that is standing in the way of the dreams and aspirations of Singaporeans. Of course some politicians and policy makers are well aware of it and are deliberately avoiding it due to the exorbitant political cost of undertaking the real change.
There are also some politicians and policy makers totally oblivious to this and prefer to imagine that all the discontent in the population is from troublemakers, psychopaths and anarchists, failing to realise there cant be smoke without any fire.
Real change will involve radically changing the status quo. Power structures will have to be reshaped which means power structures of some people or groups will have to be curtailed.
Old ideas will have to be discarded not recycled and instead new ideas will have to be adopted. This will require huge courage to openly admit faults, flaws, imperfections and weaknesses in the system through an open and accountable system.
People for whom ivory towers have been constructed will need to be brought down from there. They will need to rethink how to evaluate people, performance, organisations and outcomes and move away from elitist methods, eugneics, self-conceived fixations and stereotypes . Rewards and remuneration will need to change to benefit real performers and real achievers. What all this means is a systematic shift and radical restructuring of the current system.
No politician nor policy maker has any courage to do that as that will involve clashing with their own breed and kind and swallowing their pride to admit what they worked on has become obsolete. Nobody wants to shatter their crystal image of the system nor rock the boat of their peer. Hence they naturally delay and avoid real change and pursue cosmetic ones and naively claim they are pursuing change slowly.
Strange that this may sound but the best thing that could happen to PAP in 2010 election is the opposition winning at 30%-40% of the seats (about 25-40 seats). The incoming opposition MPs will serve as a good reason for PAP to effect the real change that it cannot do so with such large majority.
There will be much less resistance within as then it will become pertinent for them to effect such real change or face eventual political extinction. PAP will not be able to achieve this either with its increased number of NMP /NCMP idea nor with the opposition winning less than 30%-40% of the seats.
A friend was asking me what can happen if PAP does effect real change perhaps between 2015/6 election or 2020/2021 election and whether it can still survive and/or retain full control. The earlier situation will not change during 2015/6 and so it will not be able to effect any real change. By 2020/2021 Singaporeans will be tired enough that any real change by PAP will be too late.
I personally do not wish to see PAP become extinct one day. No matter how right wing it maybe, it needs to stick around and add to the diversity which is critical for any political system to survive. If PAP should fall one day, we will need it then to be the opposition to check the then government. It is the balance of powers that we need in the country. We do not need another party to come into the parliament and take over the whole parliament and rule for another half a century.
The whole thing is like a smoker who exposes himself/herself to health risks through his/her smoking habit and when he/she reaches 50 and his/her risks are astronomical. He/she faces the option of either giving up smoking to live long much longer or continue smoking to die much earlier. PAP has reached 50 now. Lets see what it decides.
About the Author:
Abdul Gafoor is a researcher based in the United Kingdom. He hopes to return to the Singapore he once knows as a child.
Posted in 
Newton’s first law of motion states that an object at rest or constant motion will remain its state unless an external force is applied to it. This is commonly known as the inertia law.
As such, real change cannot be made by the party itself. Real change will have to come from outside force.
The real change to PAP, for better or for worse, is to have a two-party system and that means voting in more opposition MPs. Once we have a two-party system, whoever is the better performer will become the government. Whoever is the opposition will have to check on the government. It is that simple.
It is too idealistic to hope for PAP to change itself if there are no external force.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
They are living in complete denial that their political dogmatism is completely alien to challenges of present day evolving societies. It is a bit like a 1990 made computer driving the software running internet applications in 2009 ane expecting things to work. The end result is – ONE BIG MESS AND COMPLETE DENIAL. The only thing they have engaged in real change and very quick in silence of darkness – HUGE MASS MIGRATION OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS. And now complete struggling with public housing bottleneck matched equally by equally robust denials that the housing crisis is driving prices way beyond the reach of young couples facing an increasingly bleak mismanaged economy needing urgent restructuring.
WHAT A BIG MESS THIS PLACE HAS BECOME OF A BLEAK FUTURE.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s amazing how many civil servants can become completely sold to the system even if they are not benefiting from it at all. I know many who support the PAP elitist policy even when they are just lowly clerks and workers in the mechanism.
Of course there can never be change… unless it comes from the bottom via votes. Most sinkees are guilty of the same symptom that plagues appointment-holders during NS… “it’s not my problem. just collect salary and delay the solution for the next person.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The first question that springs to mind is that in what universe is the PAP considered right-wing.
The second question is, what kind of change are you talking about? There are many people who want change but that’s about as much as they have in common.
You will find that those people who want a change in economic management will start sharply diverging when it comes to social issues like race, religion, treatment of migrants, etc.
The problem with those divergences is that they manifest at an emotional, visceral level. I think the happenings so far this year should illustrate my point.
If it boils down to a straight fight between social conservatives and social liberals, the conservatives have the numbers.
So ironically, the only guarantee that we’re not blasted back into the Dark Ages of the Inquisition is the unpleasant hold on power that the PAP has.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
to change oneself is the most difficult,only few have done it. most change thro’ external pressure, e.g. meiji reformation
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
My 2cents, why change a pattern which had shown track records of success?
I do understand that some people or group holds too much power for most to like. However, I would rather the power be held by people with proven track records of successes.
Are we not doing well? The fact that people are reading this site, commenting it and even have the education to read and understand this article is a prove that we, Singaporean are in good hands. Are we not?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dear xose (2:18pm):
Past results are no guarantee of future performance. There is even less guarantee when you realize the people inside PAP now are no longer the same ones as those that did the good work 2 – 3 decades ago.
The current batch of politicians certainly have not proven themselves, and in fact seems to screw up more often than they do things right. Hence I’m not sure what “proven track record” you are talking about.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Xose, you asked the question…Are we not? I guess you can get the answer directly from the press. Government spends $20.5 billion to delay job retrenchment asking employer to invest in upgrading workers’s skills and then Lim Swee Say did comment that despite this training, he is uncertain if they will be useful when the upturn comes around. Is the economy well managed to benefit from the upturn? Lim See Say already answer that question. More unemployment next year when Job Credit ends.
Today’s paper spoke of competition from India and China – they are cheaper and getting better. We have no strong domestic-based export-oriented business unlike South Korea, China and India.We depend on foreign investment -they won’t come because US dollars keep falling. The same for sterling pound. A lot of industry will shift out soon.
And if this is NOT true, how come the Government is speaking of urgent restructuring in today’s paper. You don’t restructure an economy if it is working very well. Obviously we are not and in deep trouble.
That is why we need to change. And part of the change is due to the fact that the political structure is not conducive to new economic realities. You see that before your own eyes – why do Government in such desperation import so much foreigners in trying to sustain this economy albeit unsuccessfully (needing restructuring now)?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Xose,
The proven records of success is what the PAP would like you to think to justify their ridiculous salaries . Are you really naive to believe all that bullshit ! They control the media,don’t they ? And what about the failures of the GLCs etc ? No one really knows the extent of their overseas misadventures. Do they really care for the average S’porean ? I doubt very much so.They have lost touch with the people on the ground.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Anonymous: “And if this is NOT true, how come the Government is speaking of urgent restructuring in today’s paper. You don’t restructure an economy if it is working very well. Obviously we are not and in deep trouble.
That is why we need to change. ”
LOL ISN’T URGENT RESTRUCTURING PRECISELY WHAT CHANGE IS?
Also, problem is training and education.
Untrained and uneducated people are generally less efficient at management, and public will have less confidence in them. Of course there are geniuses who can perform well with neither training nor education, but they are the minority and it is unfeasible to rely solely on them.
If people are trained and educated, they must be paid well, or they’d have no incentive to undergo long training and education.
If they’re paid well, they’d rather not take large risks which would endanger aforementioned pay.
Screw politics and human nature.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@bah , you missed the point completely. I was responding to Xose whose opening comment was.
“why change a pattern which had shown track records of success?”
and ended as
“Are we not?”
SO MY RESPONSE TO THAT IS
“…. You don’t restructure an economy if it is working very well. Obviously we are not and in deep trouble.”
That is to say that a record alleging to show a pattern of success is FALSE.
In economic terms, I assert that we are in trouble which agrees with your statement
“ISN’T URGENT RESTRUCTURING PRECISELY WHAT CHANGE IS” and for the record, that is NOT YET UNDERWAY as the 25 member economic restructuring Committee has yet to put out its recommendations. The urgent need for urgent restructuring evidence our economy in deep trouble.
BTW, the US dollar has fallen under the S$1.39 mark today, and I think a fall at this rate spells big trouble ahead for our economy’s competitiveness vis-a-vis China whose currency hardly appreciates against the sliding US dollar.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
History: The fall of the Roman Empire cited economic factors as a major cause of the fall of Rome. Inflation combined together to escalate financial stress. These include: Poor management, the dole (bread and circuses) and hoarding (economic decay through hoarding of bullion, barbarian looting of the treasury and trade deficit). Do we have safeguards in place for these too?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Parties do come and go.
The People are here to stay.
We must be Responsible for our future.
We need REAL Change.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
While it is almost certain that to have true change would require a strong opposition presence in parliament, our economy may not survive the following restructuring.
Businesses create jobs and in singapore many of these businesses are MNCs – organisations that would leave at the first sign of political uncertainty. Unfortunately it is reasonable to conclude that it is quite likely that most MNCs equate singapore to the PAP govt.
For better or worse the smoothest course is almost certainly one where the PAP manages a true transition, however, it is unlikely that will happen, especially when the current structure richly rewards those that perpetuate it.
We can draw parallels to proper corporate governance, the situation we are in is one where management has completely free rein to act as they like, case after case has shown that when given such impunity company managements often loot the company to shareholders detriment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
//Han
You are wrong.
PAP holding on to ABSOLUTE power is the sole reason why we are not progressing.
If PAP has only a razor thin margin of majority, you will see them fighting hard to listen and working to keep their million dollar salary.
frequent displacement away from majority, will drive them to work even harder.
This is especially true after the old man passes away and nobody from PAP can command that kind of attention.
We just need to vote in more opposition and the work will be done by itself
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@cat
Yes, work harder to listen, but listen to who? The question I am raising is precisely along this point.
There are many different voices asking for many different things, whoever shouts louder (or whoever is more manipulative) will get heard.
And like I said, social conservatives outnumber social liberals. Once the PAP lose power, be prepared to live under a “thio”cracy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To Han on Thu, 15th Oct 2009 1:17 pm:
Re: “The first question that springs to mind is that in what universe is the PAP considered right-wing.”
Try this: the universe of political science.
My degree is in political science, and by every objective criterion used to characterize the ideological leanings of a political party, the PAP very definitely spans the ultraconservative-to-fascist portion of the political spectrum: that’s what makes it a right wing party.
An ultra-right wing party to be more exact.
And yes, this is a strictly academic assesment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ han..Your comment
……the only guarantee that we’re not blasted back into the Dark Ages of the Inquisition is the unpleasant hold on power that the PAP has…….
IS WAY OFF THE MARK AND FALSE LOGIC.
PAP it was said the Government and the Government is PAP – that was by design of political forces in power BUT HAS NO POLITICAL NOR ECONOMIC LEGITIMACY in the practical real world.
The autocratic structure inhibited adapation to global political and economic changes. No one INSIDE PARLIAMENT EVER questioned rigorouly economic policy – COMPLETE STUFFED UP. No external sector development on the global stage unlike South Korea. It is pure and simple cockroach capitalism relying on one word ” Foreigners” – first foreign investment, then foreign workers, and now in total desperation, foreign population. There is nothing domestic or for Singapore’s home grown development. GLC, with few exceptions, are not even farting outside Singapore shores but squeezing out the local entrepreneurs given their political clout, financial backing from PAP Government and favourable non-level playing field bureaucratic support. And now we desperately need to structure the economy to survive by cheaper, faster and better post-meltdown. Faster and better I agree but how to be “cheaper” unless squeezing Singaporeans out to be replaced by foreigners?Singaporeans is trapped possibly without jobs and high costs of living – how long does this last? THE PAP GOVERNMENT HAS ABSOLUTE POWER AND UNFETTERED HAND IN DESIGNING ECONOMIC POLICIES FOR over 4 decades – THEY FAILED SINGAPOREANS!!
Had they been seriously challenged instead of investing enormous amount of energy, focus on “fixing the opposition” and “dissenting views”, would we come to this brink of possible economic collapse soon living on the knife edge now?
Why it DOES NOT WORK? The failed policies and outcomes we faced now is built on the false assumption that the incumbent has monopoly of wisdom, talent and expertise. PATENTLY FALSE. You see that rights before your eyes. Bring in such a huge influx of migrants in the last few years BUT NOT BUILD ADDITIONAL PUBLIC HOUSING TO SUPPORT – not just a few months BUT AFTER A FEW YEARS OF SLEEPING ON THE JOB COMPLETELY BEFUDDLED of complexities that this influx will cause. Public housing prices shot through the roof and the PAP GOVERNMENT RESPONSE???? COMPLETE DENIAL , THEN SUDDENLY 7,000 units available and put up additional balance of supply and demand was over 13,000. IS THIS NOT AN ABSOLUTE MESS AND ABSOLUTE INCOMPETENCY???
Open up your eyes, Han. The G7 is dead and Obama has blessed the G20 as the new global economic and political master. Singapore is not in the G20, are we that hot on the global stage? We are nobody. What does that prove?
The US as the most powerful sovereign bowed to global change, opening up and adapting. WE MOVED IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION, CRAMPED UP AND UNRESPONSIVE TO OPENING UP SOCIETY AND CHANGE TO FACILITATE CITIZENRY ADAPATION TO GLOBAL CHANGES SWEEPING THE WORLD. Instead we became even MORE OPPPRESSIVE THAN CHINA!!
The tsunami tide is coming in and we swim against the tide of change. How can we succeed with PAP in charge??? Global events outside Singapore will sweep our political and economic landscape. Dogmatism and rigidities in present Government will destroy us all because PAP Government does NOT AND NEVER WILL BE CAPABLE OF INFLUENCE GLOBAL CHANGE – politically, economically or technologically.
We are ar risks of pride ruining us into oblivion. Are we in the G50 if one is formed soon??
We need change now – there is no alternative BECAUSE THIS PLACE IS AN ABSOLUTE MESS and NO DENIAL CAN CHANGE THAT.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Robox
Perhaps you might wish to do credit to that degree you possess.
If by “right-wing” you mean government control of large sectors of the economy (GLCs), government ownership of almost all land in the country (95%), forced savings, government control of those forced savings, controls and restrictions on freedom of expression in the public arena, laws governing the sexual behaviour of consenting adults in private, then yes, perhaps they are “right-wing”.
But then the last I checked, socialist/communist/communitarian “left-wing” governments possess all of the above same traits, rendering your definition meaningless.
Perhaps you might try listing the criteria used to assess whether ideas are “right-wing” or “left-wing”?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@han
“And like I said, social conservatives outnumber social liberals. Once the PAP lose power, be prepared to live under a “thio”cracy.”
conservatives are not just made up of fundies. among the conservatives, there are also buddhists, and muslims, and christians of other denominations, hindus, not to mention also atheists.
muslims are not that huge in number so even if they are the osama kind, not to worry, but i believe most muslims are peace loving. buddhists are not fundies and , although it is debatable, not potential converts. and they are the dominant religion, which probably include folk taoists who also worship the buddha.
in other words, within the conservatives, there is already a sort of ‘natural resistance’ toward the fundies. so not to worry. besides if the fundie threat is really serious, i think no one in pap can handle except lee kuan yew. but that’s another story.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@sheldon
I do hope you are right, and I certainly can see where you are coming from.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@han
moreover, i think it is more prudent to look at the larger schematics at work, of what kind of environment breeds the sort of psychology needing fundamentalistic beliefs.
short of going into it, i would dare venture, that if singapore continues to be as totalitarian as it is now, i wouldn’t be surprised if the entire population would turn fundamentalists.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am no political science”tease” but i wonder what the USA system can be classified?
It appears to me that it depends on who fund the Presidential campaign.Until recently,the “wallsteeters” seemed t have it their way.Now,seems like “mainstreeters” might have their say.
CAPITALISTS or what???
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have not seen leaders in the PAP these recent years whom have the clout to push through difficult policies. Not many people can relate to them, and this gap is exacerbated by the high salaries.
The result is tame policy makers who make do with continuing the current course. It would do us all a good lesson to know that staying stagnant in the tidal forces of change may prove to be deadly to our country.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In WW2, Nazi execute the Jews, by asking them to carry a spade, dig a big hole then keel there to get shot at the back of his head. The next Jew will come forward and cover the dead body, then dig another new hole for himself.
There are 200 Jews waiting in line, maybe 30 Nazi with machine guns but one one dare to storm the Nazi and fight them to death.
Humans are very funny.
They fear, fear of dying and hope to live to the very last minute.
They hope, hope that the Nazi let him off
They wait, wait for others to make a move and possibly die, But you live if they pull it off.
But non of them live past that same day.
It’s the same here.
Fear, fear that what if PAP is gone and we will die
Hope, Hope that PAP will be a clean gov that will take care of us as they advocated.
Wait, for others to stand up and fight the PAP and hopefully benefit if they pull it off.
With the majority like that, we might as well start passing the shovel around and start digging.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To Han on Fri, 16th Oct 2009 10:11 am:
Re: “Robox…Perhaps you might wish to do credit to that degree you possess…But then the last I checked, socialist/communist/communitarian “left-wing” governments possess all of the above same traits, rendering your definition meaningless.”
Yes, I WILL in fact do justice to my degree and my alma mater.
The problem here is that YOU don’t know the difference between the TOTALITARIANISM of the left (ie. communism) with the TOTALITARIANISM of the right (ie. fascism); both are totalitarian and share the many characteristics with each other but ON THE SURFACE ONLY. You have to analyse far deeper than that to determine each on’e position in the political spectrum.
But surface level analysis describes only what YOU are capable of. Thre’s more to this than meets shallow minds like yours.
And there are many other positions in between the two extremes that you probably have no clue about.
The PAP is an ultra-right wing party, and if you want to know why, go engage in some serious study in poiltical science before you shoot off like a loose cannon here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
if PAP has to listen and it is an ultra-right wing party, then the only side it can listen to is the left.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Robox
So explain to me differences to me between “totalitarianism on the left” and “totalitarianism on the right”. According to you, their differences are supposedly deeper, so perhaps we might see whether that is true or not.
I am open to being convinced, I hope you have stronger arguments than Rothbard, Nozick and Hayek.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dear Abdul Gafoor
You talk about “REAL CHANGE”, but I don’t have much of a clue as to what “REAL CHANGE” you are talking about, although you mentions that:
“Real change will involve radically changing the status quo. Power structures will have to be reshaped which means power structures of some people or groups will have to be curtailed.
Old ideas will have to be discarded not recycled and instead new ideas will have to be adopted. This will require huge courage to openly admit faults, flaws, imperfections and weaknesses in the system through an open and accountable system.”
May I know what’s wrong with the “status quo” you have in mind?
OK, you would like “power structures of some people or groups …. to be curtailed.”
In what way has the concentration of power be detrimental? What’s the alternative and who else might such power be devolved to ?
What kind of “new ideas” do you have in mind? Perhaps you could give a few examples/pointers, given the limitations and constraints.
Oh, I certainly AGREE WITH YOU that there have been many policy failures and big mistakes, not least the lost of billions by GIC/Temasek. (But what’s the cause and how do you propose this be remedied?)
And by change, would you not agree with me that there must not only be a sea change by/in the ruling party but ALSO by the EXISTING opposition in Parliament?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Lesser Mortal. You will see real changes after the Opposition gets into Government replacing the incumbent or forcing the incumbent into Opposition or incumbent forming a coalition with some of the opposition. Until that happens, nothing much can be done. One must put the horse before the cart and not the reverse. I am sure you will agree with me on this one!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ #Anonymous on Fri, 16th Oct 2009 9:43 am
Absolutely agree with your analysis.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For all those who want real change, you can all wait till the cows come home if what you do is just talk – yes just talk. Real change is possible if we all walk the talk. Roll up your sleeves, put our shoulders on the wheel and join forces with the real opposition. What say you guys? Any takers?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dear Roy… I particularly like your last paragraph. Indeed “stagnant” IS the equavalent of Lee Kuan Yew”s perpetual to us OF a “Stable Nation”… But yet in… his another breath… he talks about “Change in A Changing World”!!!…
KIND OF CONFUSING AND MIND-BOGGLING TALK ISN’T IT???… and WHY we may like TO ASK???…
1. “Stable Singapore” means taht we must always trust HIM and HIS pap PERPETUALLY… gods lah!!!
2. “A Changing World” just as simply means that… ONLY pap even WITHOUT HIM around after he dies… HE ‘Still’ KNOWS(S) and then HIS pap TOO then… Oh Blimey!!!…
What a blind path ain’t it… Since… HE HimSelf CANNOT STPL HIS OWN DYING LIKE ANYONE ELSE… CAN IN FACT HAVE SUCH “AUTHORITY” TO MAKE US SUCH “PROMISE” IN SUCH “ABSOLUTE CONFIDENCE”???????????????????????????????????????????????????
WAH LAU OOOiii!!!… as I’ve read some who have really FALLEN iINTO lky’s MIND-TRAP… HE PERFECT HAW!!! He IS In HIS Speak… What???… ‘god almighty’… but in lower case!!!
QUOTE
Roy on Fri, 16th Oct 2009 1:04 pm
I have not seen leaders in the PAP these recent years whom have the clout to push through difficult policies. Not many people can relate to them, and this gap is exacerbated by the high salaries.
The result is tame policy makers who make do with continuing the current course. It would do us all a good lesson to know that staying stagnant in the tidal forces of change may prove to be deadly to our country.
UNQUOTE
Like or Dislike:
0 
0