I find I really welcome it when Mr Tan Jee Say, on the first day it was known of his intention to run for presidency, proposed to turn our presidential palace grounds (not including the offices, of course) into a public park, for everyone to be able to go in every day to enjoy the space.
It would indeed be a very honourable thing to enter the grounds belonging to a president elected by the people, and who can really represent and speak for us.
Opening up the Istana would also allow people to feel aspired to become president, or someone important or successful for that matter, while they bask in its ambience of dignity. The same effect on every American boy who enters the White House, as pointed out by Mr Tan Jee Say.
Such are words and actions that show eagerness in involving the people in the running of state affairs and in revitalizing long-lost patriotism among citizens.
Almost immediately, a negative comment came from a PAP supporter who called TJS’s “schemes” “populist.” No one intends to turn Istana into “central park,” as the supporter claims; the suggestion was to make it a ”public park.” Just like how the PAP always likes to scare us with their odd-ball “imaginations,” this one raises the worry that foreign dignitaries would come face to face with “sweaty joggers” while on their way to official meetings. Either he does not know that this is not to call on Istana to stop the pleasant treatment of diplomats, or he does not know that it could make exceptions on special occasions. Or perhaps he just cannot contemplate the incidence of “high-up officials” shaking hands and mingling with “ordinary people,” as is common in other true-to-name democracies.
Why charge it as “populist,” echoing the words of Nathan and many of those high up in the PAP, when it can create more sense of involvement, participation and patriotism in our countrymen? Why so afraid of “people-friendly,” sometimes “welfarist,” suggestions? The enactment of many of these proposals is beneficial in a sense they make more inclusive and humane governance, something alien to the regime we currently have?
This “populism” which the PAP has always feared, or rather tries to scare you with, may not be as dangerous as it seems. We are not calling for the erosion of work ethic and a general culture of diligence. No one wants to forsake drive and passion in pursuing excellence. We just want to help those who need help. The current outright rejection of such “populism” and other proposals of change, not only continues to subject those desperate in need to neglect, it also blockades people from performing better. Indeed it is at the expense of our drive and passion towards excellence.
It would indeed be a very honourable thing to enter the grounds belonging to a president elected by the people, and who can really represent and speak for us.
Opening up the Istana would also allow people to feel aspired to become president, or someone important or successful for that matter, while they bask in its ambience of dignity. The same effect on every American boy who enters the White House, as pointed out by Mr Tan Jee Say.
Such are words and actions that show eagerness in involving the people in the running of state affairs and in revitalizing long-lost patriotism among citizens.
Almost immediately, a negative comment came from a PAP supporter who called TJS’s “schemes” “populist.” No one intends to turn Istana into “central park,” as the supporter claims; the suggestion was to make it a ”public park.” Just like how the PAP always likes to scare us with their odd-ball “imaginations,” this one raises the worry that foreign dignitaries would come face to face with “sweaty joggers” while on their way to official meetings. Either he does not know that this is not to call on Istana to stop the pleasant treatment of diplomats, or he does not know that it could make exceptions on special occasions. Or perhaps he just cannot contemplate the incidence of “high-up officials” shaking hands and mingling with “ordinary people,” as is common in other true-to-name democracies.
Why charge it as “populist,” echoing the words of Nathan and many of those high up in the PAP, when it can create more sense of involvement, participation and patriotism in our countrymen? Why so afraid of “people-friendly,” sometimes “welfarist,” suggestions? The enactment of many of these proposals is beneficial in a sense they make more inclusive and humane governance, something alien to the regime we currently have?
This “populism” which the PAP has always feared, or rather tries to scare you with, may not be as dangerous as it seems. We are not calling for the erosion of work ethic and a general culture of diligence. No one wants to forsake drive and passion in pursuing excellence. We just want to help those who need help. The current outright rejection of such “populism” and other proposals of change, not only continues to subject those desperate in need to neglect, it also blockades people from performing better. Indeed it is at the expense of our drive and passion towards excellence.
No comments:
Post a Comment