Date of Singapore's next General Election: GE 2015 or GE 2016

Stoked by netizens and political coverage by the main stream media, the number one topic of conversation around dinner tables this month is the date of Singapore's next General Election.

Pundits and political observers have pointed out that what was to have been a Singapore General Election 2016 (GE 2016), is now highly likely to be a GE 2015 instead. Many reasons have been given to support this theory. Chief amongst them is that the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) needs to ride on the positive sentiments the passing of Singapore's first Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, generated to be re-elected.

This is what the opposition want Singaporeans to think. Which is far from the truth.

Singapore opposition parties want the rational (but all important) middle-ground to think that the PAP is no longer the Government of choice. Singapore opposition parties want the middle-ground to think that the PAP's days are numbered with the passing of Mr Lee Kuan Yew. And Singapore opposition parties want the middle-ground to think that the PAP of today is not as capable as the PAP under Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

Thankfully unlike other Asian countries, where founding leaders cannot let go, the PAP has instituted a systematic and robust leadership renewal process. Since Mr Lee Kuan Yew stepped-down in 1990, while he did remain in Government for several more years, he no longer made the decisions. This can be seen from the policies that subsequent Cabinets implemented which had, among them, policies that Mr Lee Kuan Yew had publicly opposed when he was Prime Minister. To me, this makes it clear that it was the PAP and not Mr Lee Kuan Yew that has been leading Singapore 1990s. If they could do it since then, there is no doubt that the PAP has the ability to lead Singapore into the future.

As such, if PM Lee Hsien Loong decides that Singapore should have its 17th Parliamentary General Election in 2015, it will not be due to the inability of the PAP to lead Singapore with the passing of Mr Lee Kuan Yew. PM Lee's decision would likely be based on when is the appropriate time for him to seek the mandate of Singaporeans for the next generation of leaders. If you ask me, given the developing challenging global economic environment, a GE 2015 will put Singapore in a better position to weather the coming storm.

As a betting man, my money is on a GE 2015 and, if we believe the political analysts in the Chinese press and TR Emeritus, it will be on 12 September 2015.

Singapore General Election 2016: Dangers of Populist Policies

Craig Kelly, an Australian federal politician (member of the Australian House of Representatives), shared the following comments about the dangers of adopting populist policies.

The Singapore electorate would do well to heed the consequences of voting with their emotions at the next General Election. Many opposition parties like the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), Reform Party (RP), Singapore First (SingFirst) and the National Solidarity Party (NSP) are "buying votes" with the offer of free money. As the failure of the Greek economy proves, this is unsustainable in the long term.

THE GREEK TRAGEDY: MASSIVE SOCIALIST FAILURE

Make no mistake, the classic failure of Socialism is playing out in Greece right now. Put simply, Greece’s problem is that it has run out of "other people's money"....

No nation can continue to operate when almost 80% of the Government's budget goes to pay pensions and state wages - and where 10% of the nation’s entire economic output comprises pensions alone.

For too long Greece has headed down a ruinous political path of anti-market, collectivist and socialist policies - that have only guaranteed today's impoverishment; all based on the nonsensical premise that there is such a thing as a "free lunch" and the delusion that Keynesian stimulus will save the day.

And with the poison of Socialism having taken hold, and the economy falling into a fiscal abyss, has resulted in a spiral of decline - whereby the public elects more and more extreme politicians, so it was no surprise that at the last election in Greece, 52% voted for either Communists or neo-Nazis.

And the danger is that Greece, with a 25% unemployment rate, a third of its people living below the poverty line, 300,000 with no electricity, ATM’s running out money, and limits placed on what people can withdraw from banks - could likely respond to the failure of extreme-left Syriza Party by electing an even more extreme government.

The only way this Greek tragedy can be addressed is firstly by identifying socialism as the culprit in this massive public failure.

Secondly, there must be a condemnation of socialism and the failed politicians who made the sweeping promises to dishout "free stuff" they could not afford - all while they peddled the proven failed system of socialism.

Thirdly, a recognition that by recently electing an even more leftist and socialist government, that such a vote has only sped up the path to collapse.

There is no painless way out.

But rather than just kicking the can down the road, it might be best for the Greeks to go back to their old currency, with all the hardship that will involve - and rediscover the virtues of sound money, balanced budgets and implement a regulatory system that attracts foreign capital and encourages domestic enterprise – and they produce and export themselves out of this mess.

For everyday they delay, it will only result in a much more painful remedy being foisted upon all down the track.

But ultimately, the real threat of this Greek tragedy is to the global economy, in that we squander yet another valuable lesson from someone else's massive Socialist failure - and that other nations and politicians currently pushing socialist agenda's, promising more "free stuff" paid for by "other people's money" (including Australia’s Labor Party) will not be deterred or even slowed in the slightest by Greece's collapse.

Singapore General Election 2016: Hate the G and Want to Vote WP?

Hate the Government and Want to Vote WP?

 

As the General Elections draw near, netizens are beginning to urge Singaporeans to vote the PAP out of Government. Their logic is that the PAP is the cause of all their miseries and that a new Government will suddenly make their lives better. While on the emotive level this sounds good, let us consider the bigger ramifications.

 

The PAP is to Blame for All My Failings. Netizens are quick to blame the PAP for everything. From high cost of living to their inability to buy cars. From being unable to find good paying jobs to the crowding on public transport. The list is endless. In short, Singaporeans expect the good life and a good life after they retire young. I have no problem with these expectations. It is natural for everyone to have them. The problem is that Singaporeans do not think it is their personal responsibility, but the responsibility of the Government to give it to them. The CPF is a case in point. Many want their full CPF upon retirement. They however also want to Government to make sure that they can retire young and have sufficient income to live on comfortably for the rest of their lives. Correct me if I am wrong, but no Government in the world can do that unless it has substantial natural resources. So Singaporeans need to be careful of the stranger that offers them something for nothing. There are no free lunches in the world.

 

AHPETC Debacle. Aljunied GRC was to have been a test case to show Singaporeans that an opposition party can manage a Town Council. Sadly, as the recent Court case between AHPETC and MND demonstrates, the opposition lacks the character and the gumption. Singapore needs leaders who will always put Singapore ahead of their personal interests. With so much money under their control, only leaders with good character can be expected not to give in to their greed and line their own pockets or the pockets of their cronies. Singapore also need leaders who have the gumption to fight for Singapore. We do not need leaders who will whine in Parliament that 'no one wants to work for him". Imagine if it was not Parliament but in the UN. In short, Singaporeans need to vote for someone they can trust, even if it is someone they do not like. Democracy is not having opposition in Parliament. Democracy is the exercise of your right to choose. So choose wisely.

 

Singapore is at a dangerous cross-roads. The electorate has in recent years become awaken to the political process. The Singapore electorate is therefore akin to a child who until recently discovered the use of fire. Without fully comprehending the dangers of fire, or being accustomed to making his own decision on how to use it, the child is prone to being manipulated by those with ill-intentions to burn down his own house. The Singapore Government has always been clear on its approach that Singaporeans decide for Singapore. The Government has never claimed to be perfect and they accept that not all Singaporeans will agree with their views and policies. The Government only asks that the electorate vote with full knowledge of the consequences of their respective choices. If at the end of the day, the electorate chooses the opposition, that is the choice that Singaporeans have to live with - whatever the consequence.

AHPETC is Insolvent ... WP #epicfail

Article originally appeared in TalkingSingapore.com

-----

The 2nd day of Court hearing to determine the Ministry of National Development's (MND) request to appoint an independent auditor to safe-guard public S&CC grants to AHPETC, as well as to determine if earlier public funds had been misappropriated, reached a startling conclusion.

Legal Counsel for MND, Aurill Kam, laid out the facts of the case and it was revealed that AHPETC is technically insolvent. In short, without immediate help from the Government, the opposition run town council of Aljunied, Hougang and Punggol East would run out of money for essential services as soon as next month (June 2015). This charge was not disputed by AHPETC.

Ms Kam said that it would not be an overstatement to say that the Workers' Party-run town council is "technically insolvent" and that the town council had been "economical with the truth", when its leaders told Parliament in February that it had been making transfers to the sinking fund for 2014. Payments to the fund are to be made quarterly, but at that time, the town council had already missed the payment for the third quarter.

MND maintains that unless independent accountants are appointed, fresh grants that are disbursed to the town council will not be protected, and there can be no assurance that serious steps will be taken to credibly review whether there have been any wrongful payments, breach of duty, or unlawful conduct so far.

In the mean time, residents of AHPETC have to seriously think if they can live with the consequences of their Vote. Essentially, what the Worker's Party is saying is that if your town council runs out of money, you will just have to suffer lift breakdowns and dirty corridors until the next general election. To Sylvia Lim and Low Thia Khiang, how they run the opposition ward is something between them and the voters. It is not for the Government nor the courts to intervene. To them, you live with your choice for better or for worse. AHPETC belongs to the Worker's Party and WP is the law.

The decision of the Court has serious implications for the next Singapore General Elections. If the Courts agree with the Worker's Party that there is nothing the Government can do, opposition supporters need to think carefully before they cast their protest votes. Many opposition supporters have been frivolous with their votes as they believed that even if the opposition does not do a good job, the Government would not just let things be because we’re all taxpayers after all and the grant are really taxpayers’ money.

Anyway, it’s in court now. Even if the residents decide that they wanted to do anything, there is nothing they can do. Perhaps Mr Lee was right. You vote for WP, you will repent at WP's leisure. Nobody can do say or do anything about any failure, including misappropriation of money and bankruptcy, in the Republic of AHPETC.

Roy Ngerng to Flee Singapore Reveals M Ravi

SINGAPORE. In a video published on 6 February 2015 on M Ravi's Facebook page, M Ravi tells Singaporeans that that Roy Ngerng Yi Ling has "siphoned money" from the public donations he has collected and "intents to leave Singapore" to seek asylum in Norway.

While SG General Elections 2016 has long suspected that Roy Ngerng has no intentions to abide by the court's judgement, this is the first time that we have proof of Roy's true intention. We place high credibility on M Ravi's statement that Roy Ngerng indeed plans to flee Singapore with the donations simply because M Ravi is a lawyer and he is well aware of the dangers of defamation. In addition, M Ravi has been a close support of Roy Ngerng and he is very likely to be in a position to know of Roy's game plan.

Singapore GE 2016, sincerely hopes that this credible revelation by M Ravi about Roy Ngerng will convince Roy's remaining supporters to abandon their support of Ngerng. SG General Election 2016 (and many other former supporters) have been asking Roy Ngerng to account for the money he has collected, but to date we have not received any replies.

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me." It is time for Singaporeans to stop being fooled by Roy Ngerng.

Facts Singaporeans Must Know: Sengkang Columbarium

Facts Singaporeans Must Know: Sengkang Columbarium

It is interesting to note that buyers of Fernvale HDB apartments created an uproar over the proposed columbarium being built next to it. The idea of having columbariums located within churches and temples in land scarce Singapore in housing estates is not new.

In fact, the proposed columbarium in Sengkang located next to Fernvale would be the 28th of such set-ups around Singapore. The following is a full list of columbariums currently located close to housing areas ...

At SG General Election 2016, we cannot understand the logic behind the uproar. Perhaps it is the work of the opposition parties trying to stir anti-government sentiments.

Columbariums located within Chinese Temples

• Chee Hwan Kog Temple at 67 Anchorvale Link
• Singapore Buddhist Welfare Services at 105 Punggol Road

• Tai Pei Yuen Temple at 7 Jalan Kemaman

• Tse Tho Aum Temple at 601 Sin Ming Drive

• Wat Ananda Metyarama Thai Buddhist Temple at 50-B Jalan Bukit Merah Road

• Fo Guang Shan Temple at 1 Punggol Place

• Singapore Kwong Wai Siew Peck San Theng Temple at 50 Kampong San Teng
• Seu Teck Sean Tong Temple at Lorong 6 Toa Payoh

• Puat Jit Buddhist Temple at 61 Anchorvale Link

• Nanyang Thong Hong Siang Tng Temple at 63 Anchorvale Walk

Columbariums located within Churches

• All Saints Memorial Chapel at 5 Poh Huat Road

• St Anne’s Church at 66 Sengkang East Way

• St Joseph’s Church at 620 Upper Bukit Timah Road

• Church of Christ the King at 221 AMK Avenue 8

• Church of Our Lady of Perpetual Succour at 31 Siglap Hill

• Church of St Anthony at 25 Woodlands Avenue 1

• Church of St Francis Assisi at 200 Boon Lay Avenue

• Church of St Francis Xavier at 63-A Chartwell Drive

• Church of St Ignatius at 120 King’s Road

• Church of St Michael at 17 St Michael’s Road

• Church of St Teresa at 510 Kampong Bahru Road

• Church of the Holy Family at 6 Chapel Road

• Church of the Holy Spirit at 248 Upper Thomson Road
• Church of the Holy Trinity at 20 Tampines Street 11

• Faith Methodist Church at 400 Commonwealth Drive

Other Columbariums

• Fong Yun Tai Association’s Columbarium at 33 Holland Link

• Senja Soka Centre at 11 Senja Road
• Mandai Crematorium and Columbarium Complex

• Bright Hill Crematorium and Columbarium

• Choa Chu Kang Columbarium

• Mount Vernon Columbarium

• Nirvana Memorial Garden

• Yishun Columbarium

• Garden of Remembrance

Who will be Singapore's Next Prime Minister?

Singapore Pink Bear has put forth an interesting blog posting comparing Chan Chun Sing, Tan Chuan-Jin, Low Thia Khiang and Roy Ngerng. If you want to know who will be Singapore's next Prime Minister visit www.singaporepinkbears.wordpress.com. 

Ravi Philemon Threatens Blogger with Arrest and Legal Actions

Ravi Philemon Threatens Singapore Blogger with Arrest and Legal Actions

 

In an interesting turn of events, free speech proponent Ravi Philemon has threatened SG Bumiputra with arrest and legal actions if we do not take down our blog post and Facebook entry, and publish an apology for making false allegations about him. It is indeed ironic that the post in question is about Ravi Philemon’s support for Charlie Hebdo which champions absolute free speech to the extent of insulting another’s faith and belief.

 

 

The #IamCharlie movement is not about freedom of expression. It is about whether this freedom is absolute or whether the exercise of this freedom comes with responsibility. By declaring your support for the #IamCharlie movement, one is saying that freedom of speech is absolute and does not come with responsibility. As the #IamCharlie movement was started in response to the attack on Charlie Hebdo as a result of a comic insulting the prophet  Mohammed, supporting the #IamCharlie movement is saying you agree with the rights to insult Islam and Muslims as it is free speech.

 

As we consider our decision with regards to Ravi Philemon’s threat of arrest and legal actions, we would like to ask Ravi Philemon (and opposition supporters in general) the following questions:

 

a.   how they reconcile their belief for absolute free speech when it affects others, and why the right to absolute free speech does not apply when it concerns them

 

b.   what are their thoughts on Mr Lee Hsien Loong’s defamation suit against Roy Ngerng in view that their own people also now take similar actions to correct perceived inaccuracies

SG Bumiputra

Workers Party of Singapore - Rumours of In-fighting

The Workers Party of Singapore may be set to split .... Singapore Political watchers have long speculated that the Workers Party is splintering. Under immense pressure from their success at the Singapore GE 2011, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang have had to up their game and this means eliminating the "dead weight" who have unconditionally supported the Party since it formation and leadership under JB Jeyaretnam. Their purge has upset many so believe that the Workers Party of Singapore is becoming as elitist as the People's Action Party (PAP).



With the purge, many long time supporters of the Worker Party have abandon their Member of Parliament (MP). It is therefore not an uncommon sight these days to see Party light-weights like Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap working the ground alone. This, experienced political observers say, is a clear indication of the in-fighting that is taking place in the Workers Party.

 

Insiders close to key members within the Workers Party have also told SG Bumiputra that that the commercialization of trade fairs at the expense of hard-working Aljunied shopkeepers, and the "dirty manner" in which AHPETC is run, are adding to the rift in the party. Party Activists are beginning to doubt the character, values and intellect of their key leaders. Many Party Activists have become disillusioned and see that the Workers Party of Singapore is putting their own interest ahead of the Singaporean's that they claim to champion.

 

Singaporeans should therefore think carefully about the people they bring into parliament. Simply voting opposition as you are unhappy with the PAP is dangerous. Vote wisely!

Ravi Philemon of the NSP - An Irresponsible and Dangerous Man

Ravi Philemon of Singapore's National Solidarity Party (NSP) is an irresponsible and dangerous Man. Ravi gained notoriety in July 2013, at the height of the Haze crisis, when he was called-out for rumor-mongering which caused unnecessary public anxiety.

 

 

Recently, in response to the attack on Charlie Hebdo, Ravi Philemon (a potential NSP GE candidate for 2016) posted his reflection (#IamStillCharlie) on the concept of freedom of speech. In his reflection, Ravi concluded that complete free speech is to be desired even if it offends others as having restrictions of any kind means that we do “go down the slope of censorship”.

Ravi Philemon is therefore saying that racism, bigotry and even malicious lying are to be condoned and encouraged. In Ravi’s opinion, the right to free speech is not conditionally on the need for the speaker to exercise responsibility.

According to Ravi Philemon, it is okay for Singaporean to insult Islam or Muslims simply because they are exercising their rights to free speech. In a multi-racial and religious country like Singapore, such an attitude is extremely dangerous.

 

What is therefore ironic is that Ravi Philemon was “outraged” by Anton Casey’s Facebook remarks over the stench of poor Singaporeans, and went so far as to post screen shots of Anton’s comments and a YouTube video.
 

So Mr Ravi Philemon, what exactly is your position on Free Speech? Does it only apply to you when you make false accusations about the Government? Or does free speech stop when it affects you? In a multi-racial and religious country like Singapore, are there no limits to free speech? At Singapore GE 2016, we believe you are an irresponsible and dangerous man.

Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) Begins Campaign for Singapore GE 2016

Article first published on 10 January 2015 on Straits Times.

SINGAPORE - The Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) on Saturday launched its campaign for the next general election, saying it would focus on alternative policies and use the slogan: "Your voice in Parliament".

 

Party chief Chee Soon Juan also said he would run in the election, after sitting out the previous two elections as he was a bankrupt then.

 

"I am excited about the prospect of leading the SDP into the next election," he said.

 

The next election has to be called by January 2017, but many expect it to be called at the end of 2015 or early 2016, and the SDP said it had lined up activities in the coming months to publicise its plans.

 

Speaking at the campaign launch at the Holiday Inn Atrium hotel, Dr Chee urged some 200 supporters to help get him and his party members elected so they can press the Government to back down on policies on the Central Provident Fund Minimum Sum and immigration. SDP member James Gomez also outlined policies the party had proposed in areas such as education, housing, and health care, which include abolishing the PSLE as well as Medisave, Medifund and Medishield schemes.

 

National University of Singapore medical professor Paul Tambyah, an SDP volunteer since 2010 and a likely candidate, also said the party needed enough people in Parliament to "deny the ruling party its two-third majority" that had allowed it to amend the Constitution easily.

 

Dr Chee said: "It has been too long since I've been able to stand as a candidate." The SDP secretary-general could not contest the 2006 and 2011 elections as he had been declared bankrupt after failing to pay $500,000 in damages for defaming then-senior minister Lee Kuan Yew and then-prime minister Goh Chok Tong during the 2001 election. He was cleared of bankruptcy in 2012, after both men accepted his offer of settlement.

 

Dr Chee did not want to say where he would stand, but said SDP would contest the same areas it had in 2011: Holland-Bukit Timah GRC, Sembawang GRC, and Bukit Panjang and Yuhua SMCs. It is also looking at constituencies it has actively visited since then, such as Tanjong Pagar and West Coast, but could only be certain how many seats it would contest after the electoral boundaries are redrawn, he added.

 

The SDP also turns 35 in August and will hold an anniversary dinner on August 1. Before then, it will launch its economic policy paper next month, a book on Dr Chee in March, and its election manifesto in May. It will put out a town council management manifesto in June and organise members into constituency committees in July, before introducing potential candidates at a pre-election rally at Hong Lim Park in October.

 

------

Dr Chee Soon Juan - The Man

 

The Real Singapore Misleads Singapore: Chew Thiam Kwee

On 9 September 2015, The Real Singapore (TRS) continued its efforts to deceive Singaporeans with an article titled “The Civil Service is “Politically Neutral” but many Civil Servants Are PAP Members”.

The articled was based on the sudden discovery that Dr Lam Pin Min’s, Member of Parliament (MP) for Sengkang West SMC, Branch Secretary is a Senior Manager at NParks, specifically at the Centre for Urban Greenery and Ecology department.

TRS then goes on to argue that one of the fundamental principles of the Civil Service is political neutrality and quoted the Public Service Division (PSD) which defines it to mean “remaining completely neutral in all political matters and matters of public controversy”.

Where TRS is wholly wrong is that NParks is not part of the civil service, but is instead a statutory board. Statutory boards are separate entities from the formal government structure and are set-up to achieve multiple economic goals. Statutory boards are expected to generate their own funds from their activities, and can thus be considered like a private business entity. As such, Mr Chew Thiam Kwee (the “Senior Civil Servant” in TRS’ article is not a civil servant.

As a Singaporean, Mr Chew therefore has the same right as anyone else to support the political party he believes is necessary for Singapore's continued success and survival.

Once again, TRS has shown their contempt for the truth in their deliberate misreporting of the facts on political activities in Singapore.

Bumiputra

-----
Reference:
National Parks Board
Singapore Statutory Boards

Singapore General Election 2016: The Group Representation Constituency

Singapore General Election 2016: The Group Representation Constituency (Article first published on Singapore2B).

 

The Group Representation Constituency

 

Singapore switched to a mix of Group Representation Constituency (GRC) and Single Member Constituency (SMC) in the 1988 elections after the PAP-dominant Parliament amended the relevant acts to allow for such electoral grouping. Originally, GRCs were 3-member constituencies of which at least one member had to be a minority to ensure that the minorities were represented in Parliament. This meant that political parties had to field teams of candidates in the GRC, and with weak opposition parties who could barely win single seats, finding a credible team of opposition candidates was highly unlikely.

 

In the 1988 elections, there were 13 GRCs, and 42 SMCs for a total of 81 seats. Only two PAP minority candidates stood in SMC (Abdullah Tarmugi, and S. Dhanabalan) but they were established MPs (Dhanabalan was a Minister).

 

Ostensibly, the GRC system was to ensure minority representation in Parliament.

 

The Singapore government policies actively prevents the formation of ethnic enclaves with housing rules. Hence it would not be possible for a constituency to be predominantly or even significantly Malay or Indian and so guarantee or increase the chances of a minority candidate there.

 

While the PAP was the default choice (up to 1981), it ensured that its slate of MPs were representative of the ground, and included minority candidates. However, as the opposition started to break the complete deadlock of the PAP, their explicit concern was that PAP minority candidates could be disadvantaged at the polls, and vulnerable to chauvinistic attacks. Although to be fair, the first to break the PAP absolute dominance, was a minority.

 

In 1981 J.B.Jeyaretnam broke the PAP's hitherto clean sweep of Parliament. JBJ was a veteran campaigner, but until 1981 had been unsuccessful in trying to break into parliament. He was well-known and well-loved for connecting with the common man and championing their causes. At his wake there were many stories of his generosity and kindness to the common man. So although a member of a minority, he had invested years of campaigning and connecting with the people on the ground to win that by-election.

 

However, since his win, all opposition candidates who managed to be elected were uniformly Chinese, heartlander- and grassroot-type candidates.

 

MPs like Chiam See Tong, Low Thia Khiang, Ling How Doong, and Cheo Chai Chen were all Chinese MPs who appealed to the Chinese-majority heartlander and were identified with them.

 

Low Thia Kiang worked the ground to win Hougang, but his ace card was his ability to connect to the people with his fluency in Teochew. PAP subsequently fielded a candidate (Eric Low) in Hougang who is also fluent in Teochew!

 

Ling How Doong, a grassroot-type MP beat Seet Ai Mee, seen as an elite and upper-class. The story of her washing her hands after shaking hands with a fish-monger may have been debunked subsequently, but it was telling that many people (even SM Goh Chok Tong!) believed it. It speaks to her "atas" public image.

 

Cheo Chai Chen who won Nee Soon Central in 1991 was also a grassroot-type, non-elite, non-high-flyer MP (he was/is a businessman). He won by just 168 votes so maybe it was a bit of a fluke, but he match the general profile of opposition MPs.

 

However, the trigger for the GRC may have been the lost of Potong Pasir.

 

In 1984, Chiam See Tong defeated Mah Bow Tan in spite of, or perhaps even because of then-PM Lee Kuan Yew's campaigning for Mah. Lee had compared the sterling scholarship of Mah with the late bloomer achievement of Chiam (who got his law degree at 40). Mah lost that election to Chiam the hardworking, heartlander who had built up his base of supporters in Potong Pasir and with whom the voters identified with. After all, how many of us are scholars, and how many of us struggle in our studies and sometimes hope or plan to further our studies, acquire new credentials and get a second chance, a second career?

 

Singaporeans, and in particular, voters in Potong Pasir identified with Chiam. Few had sympathies or affinity for Mah.

 

However, Mah was earmarked for bigger things and his loss at the election delayed plans for leadership changes. Mah later benefited from the GRC scheme, contesting on the Tampines GRC slate.

 

PAP may also have realised that their technocrats, the leaders that they intend to bring into parliament and eventually take up ministerial posts, may be able men (they keep losing women ministers at elections), but are hopeless at elections. They speak facts and figures, but are unable to generate hope and aspirations. They can speak of plans and schemes, but fail to provide vision and dreams.

 

So while the GRC may have been explicitly presented as a means to ensure minority representation, it may also have served a purpose to bring in brilliant technocrats or policy wonks to take up ministerial posts. The problem was that brilliant policy wonks are not always passable, electable, political candidates. The GRC scheme solved that problem.

 

The PAP had always recognised the need to provide grassroot MPs. However in a one-on-one campaign, a Low Thia Kiang would always beat an Ng Eng Hen, a George Yeo or a Vivian Balakrishnan especially if he has prepared the ground well (and speaks Teochew?).

 

Few PAP minister are also personable types that can win elections. Why? Because the ability to win elections does not translate to the ability to run ministries well. Meritocracy fails when what is meritorious is not what gets one the job.

 

(This is a key difference why the Singapore government works, while other countries fail. Politicians in other countries are chosen based on political savvy. After that, their ability to govern is at best 50-50. PAP chooses potential ministers based on ability to develop and implement policy. Then they work the GRC system to try to get them into parliament.)

 

I believe it was Churchill who said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that we have tried. Similarly, the GRC system is the worst way to try to ensure all segments of the population are represented, except for all the other methods that have been tried in various other places.

 

In a sense for Singapore, Democracy is secondary to Meritocracy. At times we have been called a technocracy - rule by technocrats or "experts". That's meritocracy in governance. But there have been humbling moments for the PAP - Chiam beating Mah, Ling defeating Seet, - which were also a check on meritocracy/technocracy. So I see the GRC as a compromise.

 

Instead of a parliament of average MPs (which would be QUITE bad) or a parliament of demagogues (which would be HORRIBLE), or a parliament of ELITES (which without the opposition, might be what the PAP would evolve into, and would also be TERRIBLE), the PAP had to come up with the GRC system to ensure that a) capable leaders (who may be seen as elite/elitist, aloof, arrogant, out of touch, and politically inept) would be elected in, b) grassroots-type MPs are amply seeded throughout to represent the average, middle-class, common man's concerns and c) minorities are adequately represented.

 

So we have a Parliament to Govern (Ministers) and a Parliament to Represent (grassroots-type and Minority MPs). Which may well be the best compromise conceivable at this point in time. And one of the role of the opposition, is to ensure that the Parliament to Represent does not dwindle over time. And in that sense, I think they have played their roles very well.

 

Without a more cerebral parliament to govern, it would be mob rule, and tyranny of the majority. More importantly, it encourages demagoguery, appealing to the emotions, polarisation of segments of population, politics of envy, pitting the haves vs the have-nots, and generally drawing out all the worst parts of democracy.

 

It's like a buffet. People always go for the seafood, and the meat, cos that's what they like and that's value for money. But this leads to an unbalanced diet. Similarly it will lead to an unbalanced Parliament, where the people who are represented are the majority, and the majority is average.

 

But isn't this disguised elitism?

 

By most reasonable definitions of of "elitism", no. In the GRC system, the Minister, the Grassroot MP, and the Minority MP must work together and they depend on each other to make the system work. In most cases, if an MP becomes a Minister, he will have to hold the post for 4 terms according to PM Lee. Most backbenchers stay for 3 terms (my estimate), so often we see grassroots leaders stepping down while the Ministers carry on.

 

Now if the Ministers are using/misusing/abusing the grassroot MPs, there would be some sign of the discontent. So far there has been no cases where a PAP MP having been let go, turns against the PAP, alleges discrimination or elitism, and challenges PAP as an independent or joins an opposition. Such a defection would be a huge PR coup for the opposition! And because these are experienced grassroot MPs, they would be able to whip up support for their candidacy.

Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) AGO Special Audit

The Accountant-General Office's (AGO) report on its special audit into the possibility of financial irregularities with regards to the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) Funds is due shortly. It is therefore timely for us to provide a quick resource for interested readers to  understand the flow of events ....

 

 

January 2015

 

Opposition Goh Meng Seng Slams The Workers Party of Singapore Handling of AHPETC

 

December 2014

 

Worker's Party AHPETC Calls Police on Hougang Central Shopkeepers

 

Worker's Party Sylvia Lim Caught Lying

 

Singapore Worker's Party: Civil Servants Cannot be Trusted to be Just and Fair

 

AHPETC AHPETC AHPETC - A Big Ponzi Scheme

 

Straits Times Forum Letter: Town Council Seems ‘Untouchable’

 

hink the Worker's Party is Better? Think again!

 

Open Letter to Ms Sylvia Lim: You are a Liar and I Challenge you to Sue Me

 

WP’s Sylvia Lim responds to Lawrence Wong’s op-ed

 

Why Singaporeans Should Be Concerned with the AHPETC Town Council Saga

 

Angry Aljunied Resident Confronts Chen Sao Mao

 

November 2014

 

AHPETC Found Guilty: Even PAP-Run Trade Fairs were Fined for Non-Compliance

 

Worker's Party "Responds" to MND's Town Council Report - Not!

 

Aljunied Resident Reveals Misuse of S&CC Funds

 

Aljunied Residents ask Inconvenient Questions

 

AHPETC S&CC Scandal - Recap of the Story So Far ...

 

SG Leaks: Interview with a former Town Council General Manager

 

Worker’s Party Silence on AHPETC Proves Lies on The Real Singapore (TRS)

 

SG Leaks: Town Council Act, Toothless by Design

 

AHPETC S&CC Scandal: Sylvia Lim Plays Hide and Seek with Reporters

 

Aljunied Resident's Open Letter to Sylvia Lim

 

Low Thia Khiang, AHPETC S&CC and Financial Difficulties

The Real Singapore (TRS) Says that Neutral Singaporeans are Getting Tired of Anti-PAP Opinions

TRS reported on 4 Jan 2015 that NEUTRAL SINGAPOREANS ARE GETTING TIRED OF ANTI-PAP ARTICLES ...

Compared to a year ago, opinion pieces slamming the PAP government would easily garner hundreds of likes and Facebook shares. It would also be widely commented. While I do not have the luxury of creating a comparative spreadsheet, a simple bit of investigative work by any curious reader will prove my point. Why is this happening and what does it mean?

It appears that after some time, TRS readers have grown tired of reading the same sort of anti-PAP articles, and while popular opinion pieces by the likes of Leong Sze Hian and Roy Ngerng continue to garner relatively more attention, anti-PAP article viewership has fallen evenly across all segments. This is not to say that the pieces written today are worse off than before, in fact I would say that they might even be better, more informed, more articulate. It is only a case of human nature to slowly turn off to the same things day by day. However, it's noticeable that scandalous articles such as those about Jover Chew or corruption cases or city harvest will still continue to receive very high readership. This is something we all know and can understand why. Additionally to clarify, if readers think I'm a PAP supporter or have some agenda writing this, please understand I'm only making an observation. Back to the topic, what does this all mean?

First understand that voting is emotional. Prior to elections, political parties fight hard to win the hearts of the people. If Singaporeans are at this stage seemingly apathetic to anti-PAP articles compared to a year ago, this would mean a harder time for the opposition to gain support. Note that I'm not saying they won't get support, but it will be decreased to a certain degree. I also want readers to note something equally important. TRS articles are read and shared by many more, possibly even 100 times more, than the people who comment on those articles. People who comment on anti-PAP articles are largely supportive of the writer. What these two things mean is that while TRS viewership continues to command the support of die hard opposition fans/anti pap fans, the significantly larger number of swing voters are becoming increasingly indifferent.

At the end of the day, these swing voters, which could easily make up 30% of the voting population, are going to vote based on their heart. They may be aware of the good and the bad of the PAP, but few of them possess the analytical and technical know-how to really decide which party has better and viable policies and services to offer, not just the nice-sounding ones. What this means is that they will vote based on whatever captures their heart in the last 3-5 months leading to the elections, with stronger emphasis being on the last 2 weeks. If TRS readers are, in general, growing apathetic to anti-PAP articles, the influence that these articles have on swing voters hearts will be diminished. To bring up a simple example, if Election Day was held during the Roy Ngerng saga, I'm quite sure that the PAP would have lost more votes compared to if it was held today. Hype plays a large role. Add to that the fact that the PAP are coming up with all sort of nice things to appease voters. While we cannot say what the election outcome will be, all these factors will play a part, even if in a small way, to diminishing the number of opposition votes.

Make no mistake that it can be very easy to believe that anti-PAP sentiments are high, higher than before, by reading TRS and the hateful comments being posted. The fact is that most of these anti-PAP commenters are usually the same people. To name a few, Ken Lau, William Lee, Allan Tan, Haziq, Vto PAP, etc. I doubt there's more than 50 regular PAP flamers, perhaps not even more than 30. That's a very insignificant number in the voting population. Of course it's also true that there are anti-PAP readers who don't comment, and perhaps don't even visit this site regularly. But compared to the number of swing voters which could easily number 1-2 million, I don't think we should hastily conclude the PAP is losing support by what we read on TRS. Take the xiaxua vs gushcloud saga for example, those articles were blasted left right and centre and liked/shared tens of thousands of times, many times more what anti-PAP articles usually get, and I'm saying to simply to show you that there's a very huge reading population out there that our anti-PAP articles do not seem to have gotten in touch with or captured yet.

Many TRS articles, in my opinion, have lost credibility because they come across as one-sided ranting. A large number of people usually skip these articles, not because they are bad articles, but because they've already seen these kinds of articles before. They know its just going to be another article that badgers the PAP. Such articles used to be popular because of the notoriety and empathy it had. People who hated the PAP needed such articles to feel understood and validated. Not anymore. For TRS anti-PAP readership and support to improve, writings must begin to take on a non-biased value-adding format. This means articles can be written by people who argue that the PAP is a lousy government, but must show that they are impartial and even-handed in their reasoning. They cannot carry on to give all-con-no-pro type of writings.

Additionally, such articles must value-add to readers by telling them something they didn't know before. It cannot be purely opinionated. These two things will serve to bolster the credibility and meaningfulness of the articles and keep viewership and support strong. Lastly, the community here needs to be more respectful to one another. A large number of commenters here seems to be enemies with everyone. PAP supporter they shoot, anti-PAP supporter they also shoot(but not as often), people writing about their hardship they shoot, people writing neutral articles also they shoot. When a person complains about losing a job, instead of showing encouragement, they say he deserves it for voting the PAP. Even commenters shoot themselves. And by the word 'shoot', I mean ad hominem attacks like calling the person stupid, no guts, insulting his father/mother, vulgarities, calling them Paul Lampards, without actually respecting his views and opinions and disagreeing in a polite way. And also calling the writer a coward for not revealing his identity when he posts something(There are of course, a few exceptions where it is justified). All in all, the culture and atmosphere here needs to change to one that is positive, intellectual, understanding, and mature.

We all know that elections are coming soon. I encourage anyone, whether a PAP support or opposition supporter, to take things to the next level by doing what you can to make sure that your party wins. And also please share your thoughts about what I have written in a friendly way. Good luck.

A Concerned Citizen