Skip to main content

Should Singapore change its way in accepting White Papers?

The recent Population White Paper generated massive online discussions and most tilted towards furor towards the speed of the Singapore Parliament accepting it within a week of debate.

Many Singaporeans who have added their comments on the Population White Paper, whether it was through the online medium or letters to the press, would have felt that their voices were not heard.

This has also shown that Singaporeans are ready to speak their mind and voice out their opinions to contribute to nation building, is it time for Singapore to look at ways to have the public's voice as part of the parliamentary process in accepting future White Papers?

Tan Kin Lian, one of the candidates in the last Presidential Elections, shared how Sweden engaged its citizen in the discussions of their White Papers.

Wrote Mr Tan on his Facebook Page,


"My Swedish friend told me that a white paper in Sweden is handled in the following way:

1. They government sets the terms of reference and get a committee of experts (technocrats) to carry out research and prepare a "yellow paper"
2. The yellow paper is released for public comments. Individuals, businesses and organizations can submit their views. it could attract 50 to 100 views.
3. The committee summarizes the views and present them to the government. 
4. The government decides on the law to be passed, after studying the comments, and submit them to Parliament to debate and pass approve the proposed laws. 
5. This process is well received, as the public has the chance to give their views, which are considered by the Government and Parliament." 

Although Singaporeans were recently introduced to the National Conversations, many Singaporeans still feel that the conversations are nothing but top down approach to amplify the Government's message to the ground level.

In the last Punggol East by-elections, "Government not listening" was a top 3 voting issue, would the Swedish approach provide the platform for Singaporeans to speak and to be heard?




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why is Ramly Burger banned in Singapore?

Yahoo Singapore ran an article of the Ramly Burger by highlighting that it is ban in Singapore.

Yet, the writer from Makansutra failed to address the most important issue of why the Ramly meat patty is banned in Singapore.

A search online easily did highlight that the famous Malaysian meat patty is banned by the AVA but didn't go into details.

Wrote Arlina Arshad for The Straits Times in January 2004,

"But the importing of beef and beef products from Malaysia is not permitted, said theAgri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA).

Selling and supplying them without a permit is also an offence, and offenders can befined as much as $50,000 or jailed two years, or both, said the AVA."

In May of the same year, another article highlighted that a man was even charged in court for "smuggling" the Ramly burger in 2004.


"The AVA said that meat products processed in Malaysian food factories which it had notapproved were banned here.Suzali was yesterday jailed for four month…

Those Who Gamble Online Have Poorest Control - NCG Survey In 2012

Singapore will soon exempt local operators, Singapore Pools and Turf Club, from online gambling ban and the sites will be ready in November 2016.

Ministry of Home Affairs explained that a complete ban on remote gambling drives demand and activities underground, and may create larger incentives for criminal syndicates to target Singapore."

Yet in a 2012 survey by the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCG) found that those who gamble online have the poorest control.

 Source: https://app.msf.gov.sg/Portals/0/Summary/research/EDGD/Gambling%20participation%20survey%202011.pdf
For those who indulged in online gambling, 30.4% said they gambled for a longer period than they planned to, 33.3% gambled with more money than they planned and 29.2% gambled more frequently they planned to. 
Will launching the online gambling sites be like opening a Pandora Box that will create more issues in the future?

Did She Run Or Did She "Just Fake It" For Adidas?

Andrea Chong, a Adidas appointed influencer, posted a photo of herself in the middle of the Standard Chartered Singapore Marathon 2015 and captioned how she was "all smiles" during the run.

Unfortunately for Andrea or the PR agency, one of her readers checked her bib number #75148  at the Marathon's website only to find it to belonging to somebody else.

That somebody else is Kuvin Kuar, a intern at Edelman PR and the bib number had a status "DNF" or did not finished.

This raised the first red flag as one of the rules stated that "A Participants is strictly not allowed to transfer his or her race entry to another party".

This cascaded into perceptions that Andrea herself did not even start or complete the race and was only "planted" by Adidas or the PR agency, Edelman PR, to look pretty in the marathon.

Marketing Magazine noted that Adidas declined to comment about the incident which lead to further speculation that Andrea was possibly just …