“At the end of the day, what MG Chan, his critics and all of us are aiming for is empowerment. It is that distrust which is holding us back from giving such initiatives our support. I would thus urge that we keep an open mind,” says Andrew Loh.
This is the constructive, nation building ST report on what Chan said.
Sounds to me very similar to what three generations of PAP leaders have been telling us. The 4G poster boy also wants us to confine our criticisms to “constructive” criticisms. This means that we have to accept the premises and assumptions on which PAP policies are founded, confining ourselves to suggestions and ideas on how to make the policies better.
In management speak we are asked to “add bells and whistles”, not empowerment. If it is enpowerment, it is enpowerment within limitations set by the PAP.
As Andrew has admitted, various social activists have said they are doing what he said S’poreans should be doing,”I want to do something. Help me, but I will do it myself.” The problem they face is that the government doesn’t want them to do those things they want to do, and so they face obstacles.
Coming back to Andrew Loh’s quote at the beginning of this post, my problem is “How can I trust someone that is only willing to enpower me if I do the things that his superiors want me to do?”
My second problem abt trusting this minister is that in his history lesson of the Lanfang Republic, he left out two impt facts:
— the republic was founded by Chinese miners who revolted against the Malay sultans who brought them in. The miners were like the Aljunied voters who voted out George Yeo and the other MPs.
— the republic surrenderd to the regional super power. It made no sense for the Chinese to fight the Dutch especially as the Dutch gave considerable internal autonomy to states that surrendered peacefully.
https://atans1.wordpress.com/2011/07/16/inconvenient-facts-abt-kee-chui-chans-history-lesson/
If he is the best and brightest of the 4G, I’m glad that I’m in my late 50s with the ability to live where I want to live. And thanks partly to the first generation of PAP leaders, to live like a king in another country.
Thoughts of a Cynical Investor 
At the end of the day, its a mindset problem. As I see it, the PAP’s problem is that the bulk of its current leadership labor under a mindset that the current set of policies remain ultimately fine and all we need to do is to add more enhancements or tweak them.
Unfortunately, this is the mindset that led them to digging so many holes in the first place, and then digging more holes in attempts to solve the problems.
[…] Disclosure – Thoughts of a Cynical Investor: How to trust “Kee Chiu” Chan? – Singapore M.D: Talk vs Action – Andrew Loh: Singaporeans dying away from home – Molitics: A […]
The Old is the new New. The Talentless is the new Talent.
When he said Ask not what the Govt can do for you (since we’re the 1 party system & can’t possibly satisfy or meet everyone’s expectations despite our million dollar top scholars) so is best that you Ask what you can do for yourself (which will allow me the PAP/MP to shield my responsibility to take care of you in matters such as healthcare, education, transport or cpf retirement etc) because self-reliance is a virtue!
Sure, we get that. That’s been their way of tai-chi for far too long. What else is new?
Just repackaged it, put a new spin to say “be constructive, come forward & help us help yourself”. Who doesn’t get it?
Just look at the way MCYS handled the singaporean-boy that was repatriated back to MYS. A clear case of non-compassion, and that they don’t want to pick up the nasty cost of possible welfare child if they can pass the buck to the neighbour.
Is it not always clear in history that a dictatorship don’t turning around on its own accord?It has to be replaced.
Kee Chiu Chan sounds like a Kuan Yew wanna be. Someone should remind him that Singapore is more than 50 years old and we lived under a variety of political arrangements as part of the Johore sultanate, a colony of the British empire and a Lee Kuan Yew social construct from 1965 onwards. It is only a matter of time before the latter begins to creatively unravel. Singapore will more than survive as its history continues to unfold with or without its citizen soldiers and or the current rulinhg party.