Stability is NOT a virtue in a turbulent world. So I am VERY SURPRISED that you spoke of “policies are planned more for the long run rather than the short run…” – not that I believe this is what is happening in Singapore. In fact I thought and observe lot was in the contrary. Give you four obvious examples that came to mind

a) sudden huge influx of foreign migration in recent years abruptly shut down two months ago amidst public outcry

b) Temasek Holding’s 2003 Charter to spearhead Singapore’s “International Inc” drive abandoned in 2009 – no explanation why long-term strategic direction following economic strategy review recommendation changed in such a short time

c) hired Chip Goodyear to lead directional leadership change, glamourise the appointment in MSM and then the bombshell a few months later citing “differences of strategic direction” which one would have thought was discussed what the direction should be – the exact purpose of his transformational leadership sought

d) Economic Restucturing Committee -26 members – again deliberating over restructuring options and policy direction for long-term which is less than 6 years from last one. AS A BUSINESSMAN, you must know that the very successful South Korean shipbuilding industry now overtaken Japanese lead took them more than 2 decades of consistent policy efforts. If we keep changing policy every 6 years we would be poorer by repeated failures of hit-and-run-short term failures in repetitions as we have seen so far.

UNLESSS YOU WANT TO CALL THESE MONUMENTAL FAILURES OR ABOUT TURNS, there is to my mind serious short-term hit and run public policy making.

Like you, I am a businessman too spanning decades. All my opportunities are offshore and in corners of the world not even regional of interest. Businessmen are acutely aware that in a turbulent world such as 2009 global meltdown and Asian currency crisis, what has been built up 10 to 20 years can be wiped out in a few month. So the stability mindset is HUGE NEGATIVE in both business and economic management in Government. This is reality even non-businessmen are well aware of.

I am a strong believer of change, rapid adaptation to change, riding ahead of the tide in globalisation, learning AND LEARNING TO LEARN and that continuity of “relevant” past is a complete fiction in a world of ever escalating turbulent change.

GRC was NEVER modelled on stability consideration. It was public admitted by MM that weaker incoming MPs coat-tailing heavyweights to get into Parliament via GRC route – and if the undisclosed intent is also an effort toward continuity in Government – it is a very serious policy flaw of false assumption of assumed “stability” of macro-political, economic and technological world. It never has been – the Asian currency crisis of the late 1990s and 2008 global meltdown prove the falsity of those assumptions for all to see. You see that in policy failures I have documented above of just a few examples

Having said that, Singapore is small economy. Politicians if not allowed to fail and replaced is a terrible sin because the inability to “take the heat” ( in your descript) threaten our survival. Even big countries change despite their stronger resources-backed base. We, are without resources, and that is all the more reason, we need to be nimble and adapt to change the way business do. Change and adaptation is forced upon us, NOT for us to choose to accept change nor adaptation. It is the same in politics and Government in Singapore. Inactivism in false pretense of stability will render us completely irrelevant in a changing world.

I am looking for a vibrant Government and society here just like the way I like and enjoying doing my business in a truly turbulent world. I dare say, confidently, less than a handful of Singaporeans in my life time touch on things my business is focussed on.

In respect of LBW/SL choice, I look for “youth”, vibrancy and contemporary mindset, someone with a hint of global awareness of environmental change. The one that is focussed on past and dead history will NOT get my vote.

Stability is NOT a virtue in a changing world. As a businessman, I am VERY surprised at what you said. Stale mindset is a killer because opportunities (the flipside is risks and failure) changes faster than the blink of your eyes. And it is the same for Government managing the economy. This is reality.

I am also in business. My business life touches on things maybe only a dozen Singaporeans ( or lesser in numbers) in their lives have touch these and my opportunities is the globe 24/7.

The 2008/2009 global meltdown shows how fast and brutal a stale mindset can wreck 10 years of consistent achievements. I have no illusion about speed, change, adaptation and riding ahead of the tide nor of the necessity to learn and LEARNING HOW TO LEARN AND THE FALLACY OF CONTINUITY OF EMERGENT THREATS AND OPPORTUNITIES.

GRC is not modelled for stability. It was modelled to allow weaker ones (admitted by MM publicly) to ride on the coat-tails of heavy-weights and, in so doing, letting in the untested in the election battlefield to hopefully survive in a stable world which is EVIDENTLY NOT and very dangerously damaging.

The world has changed and changed beyond recognition of its political and economic landscape.

I’m not saying other democracies implement only short run policies but as compared to Sg, they go more for short run rather than long run. The GRC system no doubt helps ensure some politicians to stay on in the gov’t at the expense of democracy to some extent, but at least it ensures implementation of policies in the long run. Comparatively, other democracies like the UK actually implement more policies in the short run because they are constantly campaigning but that may actually be detrimental to the country.

Hmm… so at the end of the day, it depends on what you are looking for. Short term goodies with real enjoyment of democracy or ‘unfair advantage offered by GRC’-democracy and enjoyment of long term stability, knowing that those who take over know exactly what to do because they are from the same side that implemented them years ago.

Ministers live and die by their policies, in bigger countries with bigger economies, they can bear the cost of a major change in policies or political slant, but can our comparatively small economy withstand the same heat?

Anyway, this is boring me… from LBW-SL talk till about ‘cry babies needing mommy’s breast milk’, this is interesting… Shows alot about online Singaporean discussions, haha.

I’m a Singaporean businessman based abroad and I’m really appreciative of S’porean governance after staying overseas. But as I said earlier, we are all entitiled to our own views and I can see where you are coming from.

Since this topic is kinda deviating from the main line, I’m going off, nice talking to you guys! ciao!

Top performing politicians never look at the polls. It is the ballot box outcome that counts. Voters’ volatility is an unknown equation but there is a core voting majority that is rational of thought of where they want this country to be 5 to 10 years down the track.

That is already evident in 2006. Election “bribes” don’t work in Potong Pasir nor Hougang – that is living proof of voters’ maturity of rationality over volatility. People cannot be persuaded by ANY inducement. A core majority will stay on rational thoughts.

I am sure that if any politician from any party comes baiting for votes on the promise of LUP or even a BMW to each Singaporean voter, a lot would simply respond with two words -”UP YOURS”. I, for one, certainly will do exactly that.

My country counts infinitely more than the BMW I will get!!

So no politician of substance needs shelter behind a GRC cover. You are worth what you stand for in a single ward contest – level playing field for all. This country deserves only the best, not cry babies needing mommy’s breast milk.

As Dirty Old Man on Sun, 22nd Nov 2009 4:43 pm says

“Responsible Ministers should live or die by their policies, as practiced in other democracies / countries…”

I support that view fervently.

That said, Obama will get a second term or not depends on WHAT HE DELIVERS in the first term. Nothing else counts nor should counts.

Want to talk about other democracies? Are our countries really that similar after all if you really consider it?

It’s not an issue of voter rationality, but sure for enlightened individuals like single ward who will make a fair judgement, what about those who do not really care abt macro policy decisions? Some people cannot be appeased because they are just all out to go against PAP.

Put it this way, lotsa people are sick and tired of PAP dominating politics for so long, that is why they want something new, something to try out, and keep whacking PAP at all costs.

You ask me to answer your question, here it is. We are looking for dynamic leadership, those people who can lead well. But ultimately, lotsa people have different way of judging leaderships and some people just want to find fault, so is that really fair to begin with?

Haha, but as we all know, we all have different views. Like I said in my earlier post, this is just a forum man.. chillz… you don’t have to ask questions by WRITING IN THIS MANNER, NOT THAT I HATE IT OR ANYTHING BUT IT JUST DOESN’T SEEM EXTREMELY PLEASING AND I HAVE NO ISSUES IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE POSTING IN THIS WAY.

Lol, that said, I respect your views as well cuz we are all entitled to our own views, and I’m just offering my stand

“How many would actually care about the consequences of the macro policies he actually made?…..You think we should leave an issue like this to chance?”

You are SPECULATING about the risks of voters’ irrationality.

My answer is very simple.

Why don’t you ask PM to buy insurance policy to hedge against this chance risk?

By the converse of your proposition, should Singapore give PM or any candidate the advantages of non-level playing field in an election in any democracy?

Does any candidate – incumbent or opposition – needing mommy’s baby-cuddling fit to govern this country?

I am looking for dynamic leadership, not crying babies to govern and lead this country.

IS THERE ANYBODY AMONG ALL CONTESTING POLITICIANS ANNOINTED IN HEAVEN WITH THE RIGHT TO GOVERN in any democratic process?

Why don’t you directly answer my question

Are you looking for unfair advantages, Yushiner?

“If let’s say you put PM Lee in a single ward, do you think the voters will be casting their votes based on whether he has done a good job as a PM or MP? They are quite different you know…”

The fact of the matter is that in a democratic country / election, all Parlimentary candidates should contest in single ward constituencies (eg Australia, Britain, India, Japan etc).

Singapore is the odd man out with its own GRC system.

All Ministers, including the PM, should be capabale of handling both roles if elected into Parliament, because if they are not able to, then they should not be standing for elections in the first place.

Personally, I would vote for the MP based on his appointed higher office, because if he is doing a good job for the country, he will be doing a good job for his constituency.

Nevertheless, to each his own when voting for your MP / Government.

How many would actually care about the consequences of the macro policies he actually made? Even so, what if majority of Singapore benefitted from the policies he has made and it just so happened that the people of the single ward he is in is not too concerned about that, but more of whether he has been a good MP making his rounds every week greeting residents?

You think we should leave an issue like this to chance?

If he is a “good” PM and “poor” MP – an unlikely combination, he would survive the ward because he macro public policy would have been beneficial to all Singaporeans including his ward. But if he is a “bad”PM and “good” MP, he might survive also because he at least take care of his ward.

On the other extreme of he is a “bad” PM and “bad” MP, well it is the same for all other “bad” MPs, he is out the door. The converse would be true too.

It is positive compensating for negative but negative aggravates negative if PM is in a single ward. Positive uplift positive.

So for PM to stand is a single ward is fair because it is level playing field for all candidates.

Are you looking for unfair advantages?

If let’s say you put PM Lee in a single ward, do you think the voters will be casting their votes based on whether he has done a good job as a PM or MP?

They are quite different you know…