This email by a reader was sent to us via reachus@yahoo-inc.com. We welcome your views. Please include your full name, age and occupation if you want your emails to be considered for publishing. Please note that all submissions will be subject to these terms.
When President Tony Tan first spoke about "constructive politics" to achieve goals like safer and cleaner urban living, better care for elderly, more transport possibilities and more opportunities for citizen engagement, I was incredibly impressed and excited to see how the parliament debates thereafter would evolve. I thought perhaps this new start to Parliament meant a fresh start of possibilities, improvements and betterment of our nation and people.
"How will the education of my nieces be like from now on? Will there be better healthcare options and subsidies for my grandfather? Are there new measures for the caring of the lower-income? What are my housing options in 5 years' time?"
I was waiting to see how "constructive politics" would help to make our lives better, with everyone setting aside their differences and focusing on bringing Singapore together and forward. There will be plans for new homes and better transport systems. The elderly will be taken care of and the poor provided with subsidised education so that they can move up in society. There will be hope and a brighter future for all.
Mr. Low Thia Khiang had a different definition of "constructive politics" which focused on abstract "political values" and "political culture". I read about what Mr. Gerald Giam said about the gaps in the MediShield, what Ms. Sylvia Lim said about legal aid and what Mr. Pritam Singh said about crisis strategies needing a review. It all sounded quite right, but I realised that there were no alternative solutions provided.
It seemed as if raising up of issues seemed more important than developing better ways of doing things. While lively discussions and robust debates help in bringing forth various perspectives, arguments and critical commentary should not be brought up for the sake of just providing some kind of balance. It is easy to ask for a review, the ultimate test of a constructive debate is the putting forth of a serious concrete and detailed initiative or proposal.
We need to think about what kind of politics we would like. I think we all we need to take a little more care in understanding what we want of our Singapore. Whether it is the US, British or Bhutanese system of politics, we need to exercise care lest it devolve into a situation where words are bantered, without tangible outcomes. Mr Png Eng Huat's suggestion for a third CPF Life Plan with a draw down at 60 years of age is a good start for a fruitful constructive debate. The "agree to disagree" mode of thinking should be cast aside, so that constructive commentary (with proper studies and plausible alternative solutions backing up propositions) can be put out for the sake of unity and common good of Singapore. Indranee's Rajah's mention of the ASPIRE initiative to help ITE and poly graduates in their upward progression is just such an example of a concrete proposal.
Nonetheless, regardless of the definition or preference for the type of "constructive politics' that we hope happens within our government, the heart of politics should be about people. Hopefully, personal motivations can be set aside during such discussions, so that the central attention and focus of policy formulation can really be for the governance and betterment of Singapore.
Hilda Tan, 28
Account executive
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/your-view--let-s-have-constructive-commentary-in-singapore-politics-062658829.html
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar