Meaningful discussions will get a lot further than blind complaints

First of all, to the writer of the article, I wish to express my appreciation for taking the time to carefully read and dissect my article, and equally importantly, not resulting to ad hominem attacks on me as a person. I believe no one knows everything, but through frequent proper exchanges like this one, we can slowly build constructive dialogue. The result of constructive dialogue is that readers have a clearer understanding of the bigger picture and are able to direct their efforts to the critical areas that need improving. Right now, it seems more like an all you can eat buffet of criticising and blaming everything on the PAP which will not be beneficial. 

As for your riposte, I think you might have overstepped the line by not seeing my points objectively. Instead, you've exaggerated some points and misrepresented others. Here is my almost complete list of the errors you've made:

1. "Anyway, is this the 10% or the 20% you’re talking about? If it is, then I cringe at uncovering the other 80-90% of things that remain hidden."

You are implying that the list of problems you gave constitute the 10% or 20% of errors the PAP has made, but that was not how I was using the percentages. Read carefully. I was saying that one should criticise a policy only as far as he understands it. Using your list as an example, "Rising house prices". It is easy to criticise housing policies from one's own immediate experience, and say "houses are getting more and more expensive, therefore the government is doing something wrong. But if one does not understand how house prices are determined, and what mechanisms have been put in place, then he is merely inciting unnecessary discontent among the people. What if you studied the housing price policies and discovered that, indeed, prices are rising, but it's rising at the slowest possible pace and any efforts to curb price increases artificially will actually have negative effects in the long term? I'm not saying this is the case, all I'm saying is that we cannot avoid certain things like prices going up. Therefore, if we want to criticize a policy, we should first look at the alternatives and if there are better alternatives, criticize it. If there aren't better alternatives, then praise it. Don't criticize something just because it's unpleasant on the surface. Don't blame every MRT fare increase, rental increase, and so on, on the PAP. Actually bother to find out what led to the increase, write an article, ask around, be inquisitive and withhold judgment, find out if there are better alternatives. And if you find an error that they have made, point it out. Don't give blanket criticism, give constructive ones. 

2. "The sink, in your analogy, is Singapore, and that doesn’t need changing; it’s the party running it, the tap in this case that urgently needs replacing."

Singapore is not the sink in my analogy. The whole sink including the tap is the PAP in my analogy. I was saying that if the PAP is doing 2 things wrong for every 10 things they do right, then focus on the 2. Don't get rid of the PAP because of those 2 errors, because you will also lose the 10 good things. And the new party that comes into power, may only get 5 things right even if they don't make the same 2 errors. The analogy is basically warning against being penny-wise-pound-foolish, and you seem to have misunderstood it.

3. "I don’t think you give people enough credit. People can think for themselves. If complaints about the PAP can influence someone to think a certain way that easily (as you claim), then that same person will also change his mind when he hears the stuff that the PAP puts out."

This was a good attempt at making it seem that I look down on others. It's not that I don't give people (as a whole) any credit, I just don't give credit to people who blindly believe, and are quick to support and encourage, hocus pocus criticism just because they have negative predispositions to begin with. That isn't being helpful in my opinion. And it is not true that it is equally easy to convince the people for as it is easy to convince the people against the PAP. Deep down I think you know this, so I don't know why you even raised this point. Why do you think defamation suits exist? surely people can think for themselves when someone defames you? It takes 10 good deeds to make a reputation and 1 bad deed to destroy it. Likewise, for every false rumour against the PAP, 5 times the effort must be put in to restore the people's trust to status quo. It is not enough just to clarify because suspicions are hard to kill. Once there are suspicions, people can easily twist any clarification given by the PAP to support their own narrative. How is the government going to function effectively if they spend more time clarifying with citizens rather than running the government? I'm not saying 'don't read criticism posts written by others', I'm just saying not to be too quick to pass it on and spread the fever. Find out if it makes sense first.

4. "You then mentioned MOM, SMRT, and HDB. They may not have the same initials as “PAP”, but rest assured that they’re very much departments under the purview of the government, which is why the people blame them."

Another one of your misunderstandings. You seem to imply that I don't know these departments are under the PAP. But if you re-read my article once again, I was the first to mention that they are under the PAP. My point is that we don't always shoot our complaints to the top of the hierachy for an error that occurs at the bottom. If your HDB elevator isn't working and you write a letter to the PM, the PM will still have to write a letter to the one in charge, of the one in charge, of the one in charge of your elevator. Not only that, the PM is going to handling a complaint which people of lower rank are supposed to handle, that wastes his time harms our nation as a whole. And equally important, it takes longer for your problem to be solved. If you elevator isn't working, you call the one who's supposed to fix it. Likewise, with the issue of Yang Yin, we should blame the MOM because the officer who approved the PR was being negligent by assuming that just because it was appealed by Intan, that means he didn't need to perform the checks. When there are defects in our newly built HDB, we blame the HDB because they are directly overseeing it's construction. Do you get what I'm trying to say? Depending on the issue at hand, complaining to the top does not always solve the problem. I said, and will repeat, issues arising out of negligence = blame the direct party involved, issues arising out of wrong ideology = blame the PAP. Clarifying again in case you don't understand: If you lift isn't working, blame the HDB. If the PAP has an ideology that citizens need to be parented hence taking away their rights, blame the PAP (which is what I agreed with in my article). 

5. "If the people at the top don’t take responsibility, then why on earth are they being paid millions of dollars?"

There's a difference between responsibility and accountability. People at the top are accountable, not responsible, for things that happen on the ground. If people suffer(**with no clear long term benefits**) because of a policy the PAP made, then the minister in charge should take responsibility because they are responsible for the policies set. If trains break down because of whatever technical faults, then while the PAP may be accountable, it is the personel in SMRT should be dealt with because he is responsible. Why fire a minister when replacing an smrt manager with a more capable one would suffice? However, accountability does have a limit as well. If the government continues to have more negative reports under it's account, then it is time we hold them responsible. Many will say that they have crossed the line, as for me, I really don't know. On one hand, I'm also unhappy with rising prices, but on the other hand, I am successful today because of the policies the PAP put in place even though I'm from a poor family. So I really abstain from judgment here.

6. "How long does it take to groom people? 10 years? 20 years? 30 years? It’s been 10 years since his reign ended. Surely, by now, Singaporean PMETs can run their own businesses."

It depends on what we are talking about here. Grooming for what? To take over a company, a conglomerate, or an entire industry? Different lengths of time for each of those. 10 years is too short for Singaporeans to become a self-running-non-foreigner-CEO-dependent business hub. And no, locals haven't been trained to run just taxi companies. If you look around, there are Singaporeans who have made it. Do a search on the top 50 richest people in Singapore, look at the businesses they've built, then tell me whether or not they learned it themselves or by working for a foreign company.

7. T"he foreigners that Singaporeans complain about are the ones who come in with fake qualifications, have no will to integrate, can’t speak English and/or Singlish, but suddenly hold up a pink IC and proudly proclaim their undying love for Singapore ... only to never serve NS and return back to their mother/fatherland when their kid is old enough to serve NS or when it simply doesn’t suit them anymore."

Agree with you!

8. "You don’t see the same number of Europeans, Americans, Australians clamouring to enter the country, do you?"

Similarly, travel to Australia, UK, or even the states. Do you know how many Chinese reside in Australia? In some parts more than half are Chinese. If you go to the UK, more than 50% of those in central London are actually foreigners.The point is that people want to move to a place that is better than their current residence. So what is your point in bringing up this point? Are you going to judge Singaporeans who migrate to European countries to earn more money before coming back just as harshly as you judge foreigners for coming to Singapore?

9. "Next, you belittled the Workers Party, saying that they won’t be able to micro-manage like the PAP."

Another mis-representation. Read it again. I never said the PAP can micro-manage but the WP cannot. I said BOTH PAP can't and the WP can't, because it's impossible for those at the top to micro-manage the negligence of a worker who had too many beers last night or who doesn't give a damn about his job. 

10. "But let’s look at the big-ticket items, shall we? Housing? Car? Medical services?"

Another mis-representation. I never said living in Singapore is cheap. In fact I agree it's quite expensive! My point is that it will get even MORE expensive if we hired Singaporeans to do blue collar jobs and paid them $2,000/mth, or as well as the Europeans pay their blue-collar citizen workers. Therefore, it is better for foreigners to do blue-collar work, which you agree with. So your rebuttal to this point was unnecessary. Please read that paragraph again.

11. "the majority of what we’re getting isn’t “the best”. And when “the best” comes, they continue to hire their own in key positions, leaving the scraps for locals. Yes, those scraps are still jobs, but are we now in such a bad state that we’re thankful for scraps? Also, learning from “the best” sounds great in theory, but that also depends on “the best” teaching us."

Another mis-representation. Firstly, I clearly stated that when the "best comes, they hire their own kind", and fully agree that this is one of the disadvantages of hiring top executives from abroad. So why are you repeating what I have already said like as if I haven't said it? And I also wish to point out that if a Singaporean director working in America were to receive job applications, do you not think he will be more compassionate towards a Singaporean applicant? I certainly would. The phenomenon of foreign bosses hiring their own kind is inevitable and people should not see them as 'evil' (I'm not accusing you of this, however). Secondly, what we have are not scraps, there are many Singaporeans who worked hard and climbed to the top of foreign companies. I believe that Singapore is a very meritocratic country (with a little bit of cronyism I agree), such that as long as you work hard, you can come from a poor family and still be a millionaire. I've seen people I grew up with from childhood do it, and to a certain extent although I'm not a millionaire, I am currently on a career path that will allow that. I grew up on hawker food and neighbourhood schools as well.

12. "They’ve enticed these companies to come and set up shop but there’s no framework that requires them to hire Singaporeans in key positions. Heck, there’s no framework for them to hire Singaporeans in any position."

Are you sure there are no framework or quotas set by the MOM to hire Singaporeans? They may not be as effective as we want them to be, but you are claiming there are none. That's really quite a stretch. And by 'key' positions, what do you mean by 'key'? Of course, you can't work for a foreign company and expect to be the owner or a partner in a short period of time. But what about senior managers? Are those key? If so, I can tell you that there are plenty of Singaporeans in that position.

13. "But they’re never in the right position. They work so hard to strive for something bigger and better, but in doing so; fall into the trap of the rat-race and can’t seem to get out of it.They can’t even afford day-to-day expenses, a home for their family, and any potential medical emergencies."

Do you have 10 names of such people in your head? Because I'm not sure if you're living in the same country as me. I have never encountered once in my life, anyone who truly worked their asses off, who was not able to afford day-to-day expenses. I have never encountered anyone who had difficulty raising children because they waited till they were financially ready. If there is anyone in Singapore (excluding pioneer generation because I wasn't from the same era, hence cannot comment), who complains that they work hard and cannot afford day-to-day expenses, it's either a) they are giving excuses and haven't really been putting in their all, b) spend above their means, c) take on more financial obligations that they can handle (i.e buying a car when it's not necessary). Really, just give me an example (mathematics or writing, your choice) of why a Singaporean cannot pay their day-to-day expenses if they worked hard and made sensible choices with their money. Otherwise, this is just fanatical fear-mongering.

14. "Furthermore, are you saying that the Singaporeans alive today don’t have “high-value capabilities”?"

Answer is no. I am not saying Singaporeans alive today don't have high-value capabilities. I am only saying that there aren't enough. Singaporeans started out as hardworking, but with no education and no HVC. Gradually, we progressed to being hardworking with education, but no HVC (thanks to the mantra that pushed us all to get degrees). Being hardworking with education enabled us to at least get an entry into HVC industries although not at the top, because we could at least think critically and speak good english. Now, we are at the phase where we need to integrate MORE into these HVC industries and gain more experience and expertise. This is still a work in progress as we are honestly quite a young nation (just think, since 1965?). But we will get there in time. 

15. There’s also the concern that the government is constantly upping the minimum amount that needs to be squirreled away; using inflation as a pretext.

So you mean inflation is not a good reason to increase the minimum sum? Is inflation a good reason to give our children 3 times the pocket money our parents used to give us? Or do you think we should still be giving our future kids $2.50 a day? Minimum sum is increased to keep the true value of our CPF savings the same as it was 30 years ago. But I'm glad we both agree that CPF should not be forcefully locked away.

16. Regardless of whether I want to invest it, spend it, squander it, or give it away to my children or a charity, it’s my choice!

Choice should not come without limits. It's easy for me to say "make guns legal", or "make drugs legal", since if I should shoot someone or get addicted to cocaine, it's my choice, I will accept the punishment. If just 5% of the population get's addicted to drugs, goes on random shooting sprees, OR spends all their CPF money, it becomes a society problem, not just your problem. It doesn't matter whether they are punished or not, prevention is better. I'm just saying this to tell you that we should not be narrow-minded when it comes to choices, not everything that can be allowed should be allowed just because people are willing to bear the consequences. But I still agree with you that CPF should not be locked.