million. Does Masagos even make sense?

Minister of the Environment and Water Resources Masagos Zulkifli said that "Singapore is taking a pragmatic approach to policy and governance, focused on results and not on energy efficiency. ideology to foster a harmonious, inclusive and prosperous society ". This was stated in a national statement to the 2018 United Nations High Level Political Forum (HLPF) on Sustainable Development on Tuesday, July 17 in New York.

For me, this sounds like an empty statement. After all, does not ideology shape politics? How could the government develop a policy if it had no ideology in the first place?

Perhaps Mr. Masagos is trying to say that the Singapore government is not populist. That is to say. that it will do what is necessary for the greater good of the country, regardless of what people think. This leads me to ask two big questions. First, what is the greatest good? Does the greater good of the people, in general, coincide with the greater good of power? Second, what are the promises not to raise the GST before the 2015 general election, if not populist? Being a little populist is not a bad thing as long as there is a balance between meeting people's short-term needs and reflecting on the country's long-term progress. Is the government hiding behind the excuse of not being populist to impose changes that could serve the government more than the people?

Next, Mr. Masagos said that Singapore's economic transformation is a story of raising the lives of our citizens. Education, health, housing, employment and a clean environment. Although this has been true in the past, will it continue to ring true?

Do women pay more for CareShield? Mr Masagos said that the government 's goal to ensure that by 2030 there is no poverty, zero hunger, good health, quality education, gender l'. Equality, clean water and sanitation, and affordable clean energy in Singapore, given that we have just increased the costs of our electricity and water, do not are we not on the right track? s CareShield, although earning less than men, is it really the right step towards gender equality? Does the government set realistic deadlines and take the appropriate steps to achieve them?

The government must understand that it can not just say fine words at international conferences. If Singapore really focuses on results, why does not the result seem to go hand in hand with the promises? Are not all these objectives and criteria all part of an ideology formulated?

In other words, does Mr. Masagos even make sense?