What a terribly bad article in TodayOnline about the structure of the new Cabinet! It reads like a slap and dash job of just cutting and pasting interviews from different “analysts”, resulting in something that is totally incoherent, and without a logical train of thought. Article essentially is gibberish.
Even the things that the “analysts” say don’t make sense.
For example, National University of Singapore (NUS) Associate Professor Lan Luh Luh said “Singapore is quite unique because if you look at history there is no city-state that actually goes beyond 100 years … Singapore is determined to move another 100 years, so in that sense it warrants a different structure for Singapore,”
Two things wrong with this.
Firstly, there ARE city-states that have lasted more than 100 years. For example, the Republic of Florence lasted from 1115AD to 1532AD, and… there’s the world’s smallest city state – the Vatican City, which has existed since 1274AD and is still going strong. So… How can the good Associate Professor say that there are no city-states that go beyond 100 years?
Secondly, even if there aren’t city-states that go beyond 100 years, how does that logically lead to the conclusion that it warrants a different structure for Singapore? You mean the type of structure Singapore needs is conditioned upon historical existence of century-old city states and not because of the current conditions we are in and the challenges we now face? Essentially, whether there were city-states that lasted for more than 100 years is a non-sequitor when it comes to the structure that Singapore needs!
Then there is the comment by NUS political scientist, Bilveer Singh, who “likened the roles of Coordinating Ministers to the statutory boards of the past, addressing and resolving specific problems facing Singapore today. For instance, he saw Mr Khaw’s role as a policy response to the rising challenges involving MRT breakdowns, traffic jams and the inability to manage the car population here.”
Again, this is gibberish. If the roles of the coordinating ministers are like those of statutory boards of the past, then why have coordinating ministers? Why not just have new statutory boards instead? Surely the reason that PM has decided to have coordinating ministers instead of new statutory boards indicates that the impetus to have coordinating ministers are quite different from that of setting up statutory boards. And then our good political scientist uses Mr Khaw’s role as an example. Yet the “challenge” Mr Singh highlighted is strictly an MOT problem and does not cut across ministries and thus does not really bolster the argument that we need to have coordinating ministers.
Overall, a really terrible article by our “mainstream” media. Such abysmal journalistic standards…
[Featured Image: Image that came with the article on TodayOnline. Photo is a Today file photo]