Can current PAP Government claim credit for good works done by the founding fathers?

Related topic: PAP’s track record, what track record?

A Mandarin and the Making of Public Policy: Reflections
By Tong Dow Ngiam

While reading some comments on “PAP record speaks for itself: Sengkang MP“, it sets me thinking can the current high-paying MPs and ministers claim the credits for the good works done by the founding fathers? When MM Lee first proposed in the 80s to peg the the ministers’ salaries to the top income earners in the country, he probably had not anticipated the backlash to the respect, goodwill and trust on these politicians are lost as a result. Some in forumers even go as far as labelling the super high salary as “legal corrrrruption“. Here are a sample of the interesting discussion on this thread:

Ronnie tang

 “If anyone is to be credited with Singapore’s early success, it should be Dr Albert Winsemius, a Dutch economist sent by the United Nations to Singapore in 1960 to help Singapore industrialise.

Since he left, the ruling party has been clueless on how to grow our economy. We seem to be a jack of all trades and master of none. And now, finally bankrupt of any ideas, they brought in the casinos and relied heavily on foreigners.”
“The effort and achievements are to the credit of the 1st generation leaders like Dr Goh Keng Swee. They do not come about by side stepping responsibility and accountability, qualities which are integral to good governance.”


“85% Singaporeans live in HDB flats of which 90% are owned by them
I thank Dr Goh Keng Swee and his team for making this possible, not Mah Bow Tan who made them unaffordable for the masses. ”

“the fastest-growing economy in the world, with GDP growth of 14.5% for the year 2010
So the ministers and top civil servants get 8 months of bonuses, the president sees a $890k salary increase. On the other hand, how much has Singapore’s median income increased from last year?”

“I simply disagree with you that a Govt should be blindly credited for economic growth. As the current social situation has demonstrated, economic growth can be achieved at the expense of the citizenry. What is the point of having the world’s richest Govt, the deepest Govt coffers if the citizens continue to earn below par wages and have purchasing power lesser than citizens in less developed countries? I maintain that the current model of growth is untenable and is solely driven to justify the huge pay packets and egos of some Ministers.”
Look at the PAP’s existing MPs and new slate of aspiring politicians. Given the concentration in selected professions (NTUC, military, civil service, doctors and lawyers), can the PAP profess to represent Singapore or even give a good representation of the elites? This is homogenization of the PAP where birds of a feather flock together, where the PAP led-government’s poor records over the five years speak for themselves. How can we expect sterling performance or even change from the PAP when it is simply more of the same?PAP’s record over the last 5 years (just a sample):
Three once-in-fifty-year floods in two months
Unaccounted losses by GIC, Temasek Holdings and PAP Town Councils
HUGE Ministerial salary increases
Overblown YOG $389m budget
Mas Selamat escape fiasco
MRT depot security fiasco
Racist remarks by Lee Kuan Yew who “stands corrected”
“Speaks for itself all right. Sky-high ministerial salaries while telling people to s@#$% themselves, while letting in a constant stream of foreigners and selling out poorer Singaporeans..”
I end here with the extract on Todayonline’s report on the subject of “New PAP” vs “Old PAP” to illustrate the current PAP leaders are no longer the same as the founding fathers:

“Contrasting the high ministerial salaries to the sums that those under the Public Assistance scheme receive, some of the Opposition candidates also attacked the PAP for not caring enough for the people.

These are signs that the “new PAP” cadre, a term coined by Singapore Democratic Party candidate Michelle Lee, do not match up to their predecessors – a comparison drawn by three of the four Opposition parties that held their rallies last night.

Back in the 1970s and 1980s, National Solidarity Party secretary-general Goh Meng Seng said, Singapore used to be a “good country” with jobs, cheap housing and low healthcare costs.

“Old ministers like Goh Keng Swee … were very Socialist, they took care of the people,” said Mr Goh speaking at a rally site near Geylang East Central.”