Read this article and participate in this survey
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/MKJZY73
Singaporeans should be smarter to avoid falling into labels such as "unpopular but prudent measures". This was a question asked to DPM Tharman at the dialogue in Nanyang Technological University.
http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC120906-0000001/Avoid-polarisation-in-politics--DPM-Tharman
A measure is unpopular when it is rejected by many people. But, what makes it prudent? Is it prudent to collect taxes that the people cannot afford to bear, such as GST? Is it prudent to allow too many immigrants that strain the infrastructure and compete with locals for jobs? Is it prudent to allow public housing prices to rise beyond the reach of the ordinary people?
The outcome of these "unpopular but prudent policies" is a wide income gap, an extremely low birth rate and a stressful life.
So, what is prudent and what is not prudent?
What should alternative policies be labelled as "populist"? What can't it be described as "popular"? Remember, "popular" means that it is what many sensible people consider to be suitable for society. What is wrong about letting the common people decide their future?
Here is the definition of "populist" as taken from Wikipedia:
I would have preferred DPM Tharman to answer this question along the following lines ... "We should not give labels to certain policies as being prudent and other as being imprudent. Let us have an open mind and see which policies are suitable for our society. We can trust the ordinary Singaporeans to make a collective judgement on what is necessary and right ...."
I agree many of the other answers given by DPM Tharman at the dialogue. He does have an open mind. But he should be careful about being locked into outmoded concepts of "prudent" and "imprudent".
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/MKJZY73
Singaporeans should be smarter to avoid falling into labels such as "unpopular but prudent measures". This was a question asked to DPM Tharman at the dialogue in Nanyang Technological University.
http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC120906-0000001/Avoid-polarisation-in-politics--DPM-Tharman
A measure is unpopular when it is rejected by many people. But, what makes it prudent? Is it prudent to collect taxes that the people cannot afford to bear, such as GST? Is it prudent to allow too many immigrants that strain the infrastructure and compete with locals for jobs? Is it prudent to allow public housing prices to rise beyond the reach of the ordinary people?
The outcome of these "unpopular but prudent policies" is a wide income gap, an extremely low birth rate and a stressful life.
So, what is prudent and what is not prudent?
What should alternative policies be labelled as "populist"? What can't it be described as "popular"? Remember, "popular" means that it is what many sensible people consider to be suitable for society. What is wrong about letting the common people decide their future?
Here is the definition of "populist" as taken from Wikipedia:
Populist may refer to "a supporter of Populism, a political philosophy urging social and political system change that favors "the people" over "the elites", or favors the common people over the rich and wealthy business owners." ....So, it seemed to be quite respectable and honorable to be "populist" which is the opposite of "elitist".
I would have preferred DPM Tharman to answer this question along the following lines ... "We should not give labels to certain policies as being prudent and other as being imprudent. Let us have an open mind and see which policies are suitable for our society. We can trust the ordinary Singaporeans to make a collective judgement on what is necessary and right ...."
I agree many of the other answers given by DPM Tharman at the dialogue. He does have an open mind. But he should be careful about being locked into outmoded concepts of "prudent" and "imprudent".
:.
0 comments:
Post a Comment