SDP Political Video Pappy Wash - Citizen Sane Responds

Singapore General Election 2015 is set to be one of the most interesting social media elections in Singapore's history. The SDP upper the game by launching a political video titled Pappy Wash that took a swipe at the PAP.

Not to be outdone, PAP supporters have responded with a sequel to Pappy Wash. Check it out here.

Singapore General Election 2015: Freak Election Results

This is a cool video we came across from a Citizen Sane. It is aptly titled "A Sanity Check".

Starring ... PM Lee Hsien Loong, Minister Chan Chun Sing, Minister Tan Chuan-Jin, Minister Heng Swee Keat, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Tan Jee Say and Everyday Singaporeans.

SG General Election 2015: What is important!

Leadership, not Parliament, matters in improving the lives of the people

The elections are coming. As a political science student who has spent the last three years learning about political developments around the world, I feel I have an obligation to share what I have learnt to ensure that Singaporeans make an informed choice before they head to the polls. The Worker’s Party call in the last election was to vote them in to achieve a First World Parliament. Having studied the political developments in several first world democracies in my political science classes so far, I find Worker’s Party call naïve.

Just look at the USA. President Obama recently stated his frustration that his administration was unable to pass gun control laws. The Economist did not mince its words when they said that progress on gun control was politically impossible. In fact, China, a developing economy ruled by a communist dictatorship, was making more progress in tackling climate change than America on its tightening gun laws. A democracy does not ensure the right things are done and that the welfare of the people are a top priority.

You might say that the USA is so different from Singapore. Its history and culture makes it hard to compare properly with Singapore. In that case, let’s look at Malaysia, our closest neighbour with a shared history and culture.

No reasonable person will disagree that Malaysia is a democracy with a strong opposition. Two elections ago in 2008, the ruling Barisan Nasional BN coalition government lost its two-thirds majority in the Dewan Rakyat (Malaysian Lower House of Parliament). The Opposition coalition continued to deny the BN a two-third majority in the last election back in 2013. Some would argue that Malaysia has a First World Parliament because of its boisterous and strong presence of opposition lawmakers.

But a democracy does not promise a corruption-free government where leaders uphold the highest standards of integrity. It also does not guarantee that the leaders put the lives of its people first and do what is right for them.

The ongoing saga involving 1MDB, Najib’s sacking of deputy prime minister Muhyiddin and the arrest of the deputy public prosecutor and others in the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission have sent shockwaves across Malaysia’s political scene. It has even prompted PM Lee to express his concerns about Malaysia's stability. Clearly, this ongoing saga teaches us that the quality of leadership and governance matter more than having a First World Parliament.

People in every country deserve the highest standards from their MPs and ministers. Singaporeans have been extremely fortunate that the high standards of Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his Old Guards colleagues made it possible for Singapore to achieve and maintain a reputation of a First World Government. It is not a  coincidence that so many foreign leaders come to Singapore each year to learn Singapore’s secret. From my own experience, my university classmates from ASEAN countries always tell me how impressed they are with Singapore’s performance in curbing corruption and its achievement in keeping it a clean and green city.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s passing in March this year was the end of an era. Granted, the current Cabinet under Lee Hsien Loong’s leadership is not the same as Lee Kuan Yew’s old guards.  But they continue to deliver, growing our economy and raising incomes across all levels over the years. Having researched on economic development for my classes, I now know how difficult it is for a city state without natural resources to enjoy growth amidst tough competition from neighbouring cities who are ceaselessly striving to improve themselves.

It is easy for a political party not in power to criticise. It is even easier for political parties to promise the sky and dangle carrots like spending more money to reduce the burden on Singaporeans. But come this election, Singaporeans owe themselves and the future generation a duty to scrutinise what they are saying carefully. Every seat in Parliament will be contested and there will be no guarantee that it would be business as usual if we do not elect the right leaders. Whichever way they vote, once the votes are cast and the results are out, there will be no turning back.

Nicholas Phng

Singapore General Election 2015 - The Real Business of Politics

Singapore General Election 2015: Real (Correct) Politics in Singapore

Since PM Lee Hsien Loong’s acceptance of the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee’s (EBRC) recommendation on 24 July 2015, social media has caught election fever.

The usual suspects of alternative websites (TOC, TRE and ASS) have started to distort information, rehash old issues and make malicious attacks on the Government and its Ministers. Thankfully, in recent months, the proverbial middle-ground and silent majority have started to speak-up and challenge opposition trolls and instigators. This bodes well for Singapore General Election 2015 as Singaporeans will now be able to make a more informed decision on whom they think can better lead Singapore into the future.

When the new electoral boundaries were first announced, to be honest, I too was taken aback. My initial sense of fair-play was challenged and I was indignant that our Government would not play fair. After my emotions had settled, I began to reflect on whether a constantly changing boundary was necessarily a bad thing. I concluded that firstly, Gerrymandering (common in all democracies even in the United States) did not benefit the PAP. Unlike the past where the PAP was dominant with 80% of the popular votes, unless the PAP is now prepared to give-up some Divisions to the opposition, gerrymandering in reality forces the PAP to spread their support base across multiple Division. This in turn benefits the opposition as the margin to win, is likely to be a few percentage point. So why do it? Perhaps it is as PM had mentioned – to address population shifts.

Secondly, and what I believe to be the more important of the two points, is that gerrymandering helps to filter the real political parties from the opportunists. As Kenneth Jeyaretnam famously said, the “General Election is not a once in 4 or 5 year event where opposition parties show up, distribute flyers and should rhetoric.” The General Election concerns the future of Singapore and Singaporeans and real political parties work and walk the ground on a daily basis. If a political party has done that, it does not really matter if the boundaries are redrawn. The voters will know.

So gerrymandering while seemingly unfair on the surface, actually helps the real political parties stand-out from the opportunists. It is obvious that parties like Singaporean First do not really care about Singaporeans. The extent of their ground work is to do a few walk-about, distribute their manifesto and then call for Singaporeans to vote for them if they want change. My question is what have you done for Singaporeans first, to have earned the right to represent us? And there are many more political parties like that.

For all their imperfections, I can see that the PAP actually helps everyday Singaporean. I see them and their party activists on the ground on a daily basis. For opposition political parties who are genuine in helping Singaporeans, there is nothing stopping them from having their own weekly Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS) or raising funds for the needy. It is whether they want to or not. At the heart of real, and I might add correct, politics is the intention of helping people. To me, I don’t care how much you know, until I know how much you care.

In short, show me you care first, before asking for my vote!

Singapore GE 2015: More Aid for Single Mothers ... Who said it first?

More Aid for Single Mothers ... Who said it first?

It’s definitely not true that Workers’ Party Lee Li Lian mooted the idea that single mothers should receive the same type of benefits as wedded mothers. Talk is cheap, so take a look at the warriors who have raised the matter in Parliament and taken concrete action to help single mothers.

#1 : In 2009, NTUC's Women's Development Secretariat (WDS) launched a special help scheme for single mothers. The project ‘WeCare for U’ was launched by then NTUC Secretary-General Lim Swee Say. WDS also collaborated with the Law Society of Singapore to produce a comprehensive guidebook [http://bit.ly/1LUltmi] so that single mothers have a better understanding on custody, care and maintenance of children.

 

#2 : In 2010, Marine Parade MP Seah Kian Peng talked about how unwed mothers should be treated as "mothers first and singles second", urging that they should be given benefits like maternity leave.

 

#3 : Mr Wee Siew Kim, then MP for Ang Mo Kio, was also concerned if single mothers and their children are eligible for universal infant and childcare subsidies, government subsidies for healthcare and education, social assistance and 2 days of statutory childcare leave per year under the Employment Act. 

 

2. It was in 2013 when unwed mothers were given the same amount of infant-care and childcare leave as their married peers. Still, MP Seah Kian Peng continued to ask for unwed mothers to be given the same maternity leave and childcare benefits as married mums. Then Minister for Social and Family Development Chan Chun Sing noted that the call to give unwed mothers the same benefits as married mums is valid. It is also worthy to mention that Mr Chan was raised by his single mother.

 

MSF’s recent announcement that the benefits for single mothers are being reviewed is a signal that the Government continues to recognise such needs and support, regardless of the marital status of the children’s parents.

Clearly, the author of that article need to double check the facts before going around to claim merits for WP. In light of the looming General Elections, some articles have begun to resurface and taken out of context in a bid to twist facts and mislead the public. All these are platforms for WP to validate that they have an ‘outstanding’ report card, and Singaporeans should vote for them. Remember, talk is cheap. So don’t be taken in by false information and understand the facts before jumping to conclusions.