I refer to the letter "Open-ended debate would paralyse government" by PS21 Office (ST Mar 2).

Ms Lim maintains that My Tay Kheng Soon's stand on the National Library building ten years ago (that it should be demolished) is relevant to the present day evaluation of this issue. I do not see the logic in her argument. I get the impression that Ms Lim is trying to undermine Mr Tay's credibility. In any case, Mr Tay's credibility or his past should not affect the issue.

Society changes, the policies that the government adopt now are also different from those ten years ago. It is perfectly acceptable. What is important is that the sound decisions are made after careful planning and are relevant to current and even future needs of the people. In other words, we always work towards future improvements.

Ms Lim also cited the problems faced by the government in some European countries where the development of the country is hampered by determined minority groups. I agree with her that this scenario should never occur on Singapore. But what happen in a situation where a vast majority of the citizens do not welcome these developments? Should the government still go ahead with it?

Styles of governing generally fall between two polar extremes. At one end, opinions and actions of groups of people and even individuals affect the government directly. As a result, citizen rights are championed, but the development of the country may be hampered by the indecisiveness of the government. There is a real danger of the country becoming stagnant. The European countries mentioned by Ms Lim are closer to that extreme. Many people believe that Singapore is closer to the other extreme. Where the voices of Singaporeans are sometimes overlooked while the country progresses with neck-breaking speed.

The government seems to indicate the wish to move towards a more balanced stand. Public opinions and suggestions are welcomed. But the final say is with the government. This is the best arrangement. The people now have a louder voice. But we cannot engage in debates after debates until everyone reached a consensus. Thus the government takes in the opinion of the people before deciding on policies.

However, Ms Lim did not mention a very important point in this process; openness. If the general public give their opinion and even "walk the talk" (Mr Tay's masterplan for SMU, for example) the government should try to explain to the general public what is being done at the moment and how their suggestions are integrated into the solution. And if the suggestions are not taken up, credible explanations should be given.

As mentioned in the S21 report on active citizenship, while the people gives their opinions and suggestions, there are also some reciprocating actions to be taken by the government to encourage further participation of the citizens. The report cited "stone-wall" and "black-hole" syndrome as some of the habits of the civil service. And until these syndromes are eradicated, the consultative policy will not reach it's maximum potential.

I REFER to the letter, "Open-ended debate would paralyse Govt" (ST, March 2).

The policies that the Government adopts now may be different from those 10 years ago. That's perfectly acceptable. What's important is that the decisions are relevant to the needs of the people.

Ms Lim Huay Chih cited the problems faced by governments in some European countries, where development is hampered by determined minority groups. I agree that this scenario should not be allowed to take place here.

But what happens when a vast majority of the citizens do not welcome the developments? Should the government still go ahead?

Styles of governing generally fall in between two extremes. At one end, the opinions and actions of groups and even individuals affect the government directly.

So, citizens' rights are championed, but the country's development may be hampered by the indecisiveness of the government.

The European countries mentioned by Ms Lim is closer to that extreme.

Many believe Singapore falls closer to the other extreme. The voices of Singaporeans are sometimes overlooked, while the country progresses at breakneck speed.

The Government seems to want to move towards a more balanced stand. Public opinions and suggestions are welcomed. But the final say is with the Government.

That is the best arrangement. The people now have a louder voice. The Government considers the opinions of the people before deciding on policies.

Letter of protest (not published)

Dear editor,

I would like to voice my disapproval over the editing of my letter "Final say with the government" (ST 2 March).

The glaring omissions include:

1) "I get the impression that Ms Lim is trying to undermine Mr Tay's credibility. In any case, Mr Tay's credibility or his past should not affect the issue"

2) "However, Ms Lim did not mention a very important point in this process; openness. If the general public give their opinion the government should try to explain to the general public what is being done at the moment and how their suggestions are integrated into the solution. And if the suggestions are not taken up, explanations should be given."

3) "The S21 report cited "stone-wall" and "black-hole" syndrome as some of the habits of the civil service. And until these syndromes are eradicated, the consultative policy will not reach it's maximum potential."

In the letter I brought out two lines of argument. And it is not difficult to know what my opinion was. However, the letter was edited to sound like I'm singing praises to the civil service.

I'm not against editing my letter before publishing. But if the letter is to be published with my name, then it should also carry my opinion.

Sometimes partial truth is more damaging than lies. I wrote the letter to ST with confidence that the forum page is place where opinions can be aired. But I'm disappointed this time.

It is interesting to note that Mr Lim Boon Hee posed this question on the same forum page: "Is there a question mark over our media's independence of views and journalistic balance? "

Regards,