Daily Lessons from Life 12 April 2011 - GE: "Lots of debates within PAP

"GE: "Lots of debates within PAP" CNA 12 April 2011

SINGAPORE: Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong says the ruling People's Action Party is broad-based, has a range of views and has lots of debates within the party.

But then, there is still a limit to what can be discussed openly.

He was addressing a question on the need for more plurality of voices in Parliament at a live TV forum on Channel NewsAsia, called "Question Time with the Prime Minister", on Tuesday.

His remark came a day after Minister in the Prime Minister's Office Lim Boon Heng became emotional when he replied to a reporter's question about the perception of "groupthink" in the workings of government.

Mr Lim broke down when he spoke of his struggle with the decision six years ago to allow two casinos in Singapore.

Prime Minister Lee said: "The IRs (integrated resorts with casinos) is one good example where we had a very intense debate. But in the end, it was not that we overruled Lim Boon Heng....if you remember, when we discussed this in Parliament in 2005, Boon Heng made a speech in Parliament, and it was a powerful speech and he made it with a lot of passion and emotion.

He said, 'I was against IRs but when I looked at the case and what the IRs could bring to us, in the end, I could not say no to 25,000 or 30,000 jobs'. That was what made him emotional - that he had to make a choice and he had to decide in the end what is in the interest of Singapore." "

It is good to know that the ruling party has a lot of robust debates on issues that can be emotioanl and controversial. That they were done behind closed doors as some were simply too sensitive to be in full public view.

Lessons for me are:

1. Singapore is still basically a very economic focused nation. I guessed it will be too much to ask for our tiny nation to talk too much about liberal arts and non-profit all day all. It is simply just not Singapore. Yes?;

2. so when we judge how Singapore has done, we have to take away that non-profit side of things. Otherwise, the water will be muddy. There will not be a proper assessment as we only want to be measured with the tangibles. The dollar and cents. Yes?;

3. will Singapore try, or dare to try, to reach out beyond the tangible effects of good governance? Should it at all? This is open to each indiviudal really. For me, get the basic ecomonic things up. That does not mean yearly growth in quantity and dollar and cents only. It must be a growth in the quality of life. It is not about how big is the house but how warm is the home!

The IRs with the casinos are one of the rare situation where the seed of economic growth may be planted with the ruins of some innocent 1st time gamblers who least could afford to gamble! That's why it generated so much passion and agonies in the deliberation process. At the end, dollar and cents ruled. It is ok to suffer some collateral damages if we can create a lot more jobs! Problem is: are all the jobs going to Singaporeans? I don't think we have conclusive proof yet. Also, are the jobs worth the price?