Category: Singapuraku

Having Overcome Numerous Obstacles, WP Confident Of Pressing On

Four years ago during the 2011 General Elections, the Workers’ Party’s last rally in Serangoon Stadium was massive – and this year’s rally saw a similar turn-out.

The only difference is that WP could now claim Aljunied GRC as their own “home ground” after the results in 2011, since they managed to win the constituency with over 50 per cent of the votes.

In their speeches for the night, the WP showcased a wide range of issues – ranging from the many obstacles the opposition town council has faced the last four years, to municipal and national issues.

Expressing gratitude and promising diligence

Almost all the speakers’ spoke of their sense of immense pride for Aljunied GRC and how the voters have “made history” by voting their party into Parliament.

Sylvia Lim

“As I was preparing my speech for tonight, I couldn’t help but feel a rush of deep yet raw emotion, reflecting on our experience for the past 4 years, as your MPs in Aljunied GRC,” party chairman, Sylvia Lim, said.

“For the first time in Singapore’s history, a GRC fell to an opposition party,” she added, drawing loud cheers from the packed stadium in Serangoon.

Her Aljunied GRC colleague, Pritam Singh, said, “You make me so proud to be a Singaporean. I look forward to the future not with dread, but with keen anticipation, that we will become an even more united multiracial society that is marked by respect and tolerance.”

Candidate for Aljunied GRC Faisal Manap thanked the Aljunied residents for being his “inspiration and (his) teacher.”

Other than expressing gratitude, the candidates also pledged their continued hard work to “serve the residents” of their respective GRCs if they should get voted in again.

In her speech, Ms Lim once again spoke of AHPETC and admitted that the town council had some “financial issues” at first, but they have “worked hard” in the past term, and all of them have “put (their) minds and hearts to be good MPs” for the residents. As a result, the financial accounts of the town council have now turned positive and Ms Lim said the town council will do even better, going forward.

From upgrading works to new places of convenience, Ms Lim said that WP has “made improvements” despite the initial financial problems.

Moreover, Mr Singh also mentioned an article from TODAY that included interviews with several residents of Aljunied GRC that applauded WP for their “human touch” and the effort put into making the vicinity a better place to live in.

“The Town Council has completed repainting 1/3 of the blocks in the GRC, and we have proceeded with major works to re-roof flats and replace playgrounds and fitness corners,” Mr Singh said.

He also noted that the TODAY report quoted Aljunied residents saying that the MPs were “more visible on the ground than compared to the PAP MPs of the past.” Mr Singh said the “human touch” is what the residents “deserve” and can expect from WP.

“We work on your behalf, and we are privileged to be of service to you again,” he added.

Mr Muhamad Faisal Manap also expressed his thoughts about WP’s moral philosophy – that they hope to embody “humanist values” to make policies and be a “kind political party”.

The politics behind using community facilities

Another issue that was raised was how opposition wards seem to be treated differently by the government compared to other PAP wards.

Secretary-general of WP, Low Thia Khiang, speaking in Chinese, said, “After the last election, the first thing that they did was to immediately lease out certain community spaces under the previous Aljunied Town Council to the People’s Association. Examples of this include badminton courts and basketball courts.”

He said that if the Aljunied Town Council or a resident wants to use the spaces for activities, they will have to go through People’s Association and only when the PA or its grassroots organisations approve of the application will the National Environment Agency (NEA), for example, give the go-ahead.

“Some residents who wish to hold events in some HDB-owned community spaces also have to seek permission from the HDB,” Mr Low said. “They have complained to me about this before. The process of approval is very long and can take up to 2 months – because they also need to get permission from the PA. Even after I, as the MP, have written personal letters in attempts to get the events approved quicker, it still does not work.”

Ms Lim also added to the issue of unfair treatment in her rally speech.

“We had to form our own grassroots from scratch, there was no way the PA network would work with us,” she revealed.

“Residents were warned by PA representatives not to invite us to events held on those sites or they will not get future approval to use the sites. This led to some dinner organisers having to uninvite Chen Show Mao from a 7^thmonth dinner at Paya Lebar. The organisers were so distraught they wrote a card apologizing to Show Mao. Why must residents be treated this way?”

Ms Lim also made another revelation of the unfair treatment from the government, particularly the People’s Association.

For example, she cited the display of bannerettes in the constituency during National Day.

These would be put up all around Singapore during the period.

From the logos on the bannerettes, it is evident that these banners were “put up by the PA, the CDC and often the Town Council of the area”.

When the WP took over Aljunied, they found out from past town council records that the PA would put up these banners with co-funding from the PAP-run Aljunied Town Council.

However, when the WP took over in 2011, the PA has refused their requests to similarly co-fund such display of bannerettes for National Day.

“According to the PA Act, one of PA’s objective is the fostering of community bonding and strengthening of social cohesion in the people of Singapore. Are they doing that in Aljunied GRC? Are they uniting or dividing?” Ms Lim asked.

She also revealed that not only did the WP had to build up its own grassroots from scratch, even the computer system (which got completely eradicated with their takeover from the previous town council) also needed to be created from scratch.

As for the town council’s financial matters, Ms Lim noted how the town council was subjected to a 10-month Auditor General’s scrutiny, a special two-day debate in Parliament on the issue, a High Court hearing, and with the case pending before the Court of Appeal.

Candidate for Hougang SMC, Mr Png Eng Huat, also highlighted how the Ministry of National development has withheld government grants to the WP town council, even though its accounts have been submitted.

Despite all these challenges, Ms Lim told residents that the WP has “fought back” and “overcome many challenges”.

“We are still here!” she said, to loud cheers from the crowd.

A vote for “stability”

Mr Low spoke of the importance of ensuring Singapore’s stability.

He used the analogy of transport – that it is precisely because one assumes that our transport system is “perfect” that one “takes it for granted”. Therefore, when the train breaks down, “the system did not prepare well enough to handle it smoothly”. Similarly, like a government system, it would always be a good thing to spend effort fostering other parties as a contingency if the ruling party does “break down” eventually.

Pritam Singh

Mr Singh equated a vote for WP to be “a vote for stability”.

He wishes for the 40 per cent of voters who are “not persuaded by the PAP” to have the “space and opportunity” to join in the prospects of Singapore and “co-creating a home in the image of all Singaporeans and not just in the image of a group of PAP leaders”.

He added that some PAP MPs had extremely little to say in Parliament, citing the examples of several PAP MPs who either did not speak up at all in Parliament the last four years, or who spoke only once or twice.

Mr Singh said that contrary to what the PAP would say, Singapore would “need more opposition MPs to make the PAP MPs attend Parliament.”

He urged for those who do not treasure and take Parliament sittings seriously to “give up” their seat to someone else who deserves it more.

Candidate for Aljunied GRC, Chen Show Mao, said the WP has an “obligation to tell (the current government) we feel you are going in the wrong direction, but we also feel that we have a responsibility to work with you to ensure safe passage for all the passengers.”

Source: www.theonlinecitizen.com

September 9, 2015
On The Campaign Trail With Lina Chiam

She may not want to call it her last hurrah, but there is real sense of finality in the way Singapore People’s Party (SPP) chairman Lina Chiam talks about the Sept 11 polls.

She uses the term “last chance” when speaking about why she is returning to Potong Pasir again and talks about how she and her husband, veteran opposition leader Chiam See Tong, can be satisfied with the effort they have put in for the constituency.

“I’ve done all I can. If I’m not elected, I’m satisfied. If it happens like that, the most important thing is that, Mr and Mrs Chiam believe that a good name is more precious than silver and gold,” she said.

Mr Chiam had been MP for Potong Pasir for 27 years before the 2011 polls, when he left to helm a team in the adjoining Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC. He then chose Mrs Chiam to try carry the mantle in his stronghold.

Both he and Mrs Chiam lost, with Potong Pasir ending up as the tightest race in the election. But the razor-thin 114-vote margin in Potong Pasir was enough to get Mrs Chiam into Parliament as a Non-Constituency MP.

Despite a shaky start – Mrs Chiam’s uncertain performances while speaking in public used to come in for ridicule – she believes the past four years have steeled her for the contest this time around.

Indeed, the 66-year-old has clearly grown into her skin as a politician in the past four years. On walkabouts, she now often walks ahead of her team, knocking on doors and introducing herself instead of letting a volunteer break the ice.

She is also now more comfortable engaging in a little banter with residents, whether it is complimenting a man for his “dandy” hat in a coffeeshop or politely ending a conversation with a supportive but intoxicated man.

Some of the improvement is simply down to practice, she says, and some is because she took in the criticism and tried to improve herself.

“I knew that the feedback was not good at all, I knew it already. And I can feel it myself. I don’t have a lot of confidence in a debate, and I know it,” she says.

Mrs Chiam went as far as to get a degree in communications to help her perform better in Parliament.

In 2012, at age 63, she started spending all her Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays studying part-time for a Bachelor of Arts in Communications and Media Management from the University of South Australia.

Prior to that, her only other professional qualification is a nursing certificate from the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital in London.

“I want to improve myself and learn the nitty gritty of how to write, how to structure proper sentences in English. It helped a lot. And I also thought media management is very suitable for being a Member of Parliament.”

Perhaps because of the effort she put into trying to be a better parliamentarian, she and Mr Chiam did not have to think twice about whether she should stand again this election.

“He wants it very badly for me,” she said. “He feels that I’m competent: He’s seen my speeches in Parliament and he feels that I know the people here.”

Mrs Chiam rejects the idea that her political brand is still too heavily reliant on her famous husband – who received a rousing applause when he spoke at the SPP rally on Friday night – even if she often introduces herself as Mr Chiam’s wife.

They have an only child, Camilla, 39, who works as head of communications at a property development companage.

“I respect my husband. He was MP for 27 years, so I have to somehow or other mention his name, but having said that I am my own person,” she says.

“We are like two-in-one, we understand each other. We always plan our strategies together, even when he won the six elections.”

She says though she stayed largely behind the scenes while he was MP, she was active and often went out to meet people and gave him feedback from residents. And she said he has not tried to interfere with her NCMP work.

SPP’s Lina Chiam on Dr Chiam See Tong winning the respect of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew

She adds: “And being a woman, I think I have a different style. Women can be more ‘kaypoh’ and we pay a lot of attention to detail.”

And now that she is in charge of the day-to-day running of the SPP, she also says she is taking a different approach to how the party conducts its business.

In a departure from previous outings, various SPP candidates are running almost independently and releasing their own manifestos for their battlegrounds.

On her own chances against PAP’s Sitoh Yih Pin in Potong Pasir, she appears cautiously optimistic, hopeful that younger voters might shift in her favour.

“When I lost, a lot of young people came to me and said wait for me Mrs Chiam, I’m only 18, in four years I can vote. Whether they still vote for me or not, we’ll have to see.”

No matter how the party does at the polls, she recognises there are some difficult questions about the party’s future.

At the moment, there is no clear successor. Mrs Chiam stresses she is thinking about renewal but isn’t going to name successors just yet.

“I’m still looking, searching and testing people. I won’t anoint a successor and then their head is all swollen up,” she said, likely a reference to the string of successors her husband chose that eventually ended up falling out with him.

They included Singapore Democratic Party chief Chee Soon Juan, whose falling out with Mr Chiam ended in the latter leaving the party he founded; and Singapore Democratic Alliance chief Desmond Lim. That tiff ended with the SPP being yanked out of the opposition alliance.

Though neither she nor Mr Chiam want to talk about retirement now, she says: “Wait till after the election, when the results have come out. When everything is settled, I may be able to give you the answer.”

Source: www.straitstimes.com

September 9, 2015
A Youth’s Election Prediction Results And Fears For The Future Of Governance

MY PREDICTIONS

6 MEMBER GRC

ANG MO KIO RP 40+%

Pasir Ris Punggol SDA 40+%

5 MEMBER GRC

Nee Soon WP Close to 50%

Tanjong Pagar SINGFIRST 40+%

Sembawang NSP close to 45%

Tampiness NSP slightly above 40%

Aljunied WP close to 60% (Opposition Win)

Bishan Toa Payoh SPP Close to 50%

Marine Parade WP slightly below 50%

Jurong SINGFIRST close to 40%

4 MEMBER GRC

East Coast WP 50+% (Opposition Win)

Choa Chu Kang PPP Above 40%

Holland-Bukit Timah SDP close to 60% (Opposition Win)

West Coast RP slightly above 40%

Jalan Besar WP Slightly above 50% (Opposition Win)

Marsling – Yew Tee SDP Slightly above 50% (Opposition Win)

SMC

Bukit Panjang SDP slightly above 50% (Opposition Win)

Bukit Batok SDP Close to 50 %Win, PAP Above 35%, Samir Salim Neji less than 15%

Fengshan WP Slightly below 50%

Hong Kah North SPP Below 40%

Hougang WP More than 65% (Opposition Win)

Mountbatten SPP slightly above 50% (Opposition Win)

MacPherson PAP above 50+% win, WP slightly above 40%, NSP less than 10%

Punggol East WP Close to 60% (Opposition Win)

Pioneer NSP 40+%

Potong Pasir SPP slightly above 55% (Opposition Win)

Radin Mas RP 40+% Win Close to 40% PAP Tan Hui Hui 15+%

Sengkang West WP slightly above 50% (Opposition Win)

Yuhua SDP 50+% (Opposition Win)

MY FEARS

In my above analysis, 12 constituencies will have Opposition parties winning, with 28 opposition politicians making up the total number of 89 seats in parliament. This means PAP still makes up at least 50% of the seats and will form the government as such. It might be a watershed election this year or it might not? This is just a assumed guess based on comparison to 2011 GE results, news coverage, as well as the popularity and prominence of the candidates and their respective parties. Thus, the results may turn out totally different.

If it really ends up as a watershed election, I’m quite apprehensive because as much as I know there are loopholes in our current system, and change will be good after so many years of being governed by a one-party system, I do fear if there will be clashes in direction and ideas in parliament due to the different voices, which might hamper the government from being a united, efficient and effective system. Nonetheless, since my prediction is that PAP will still form the main government, the changes will not be that extreme.

Will inter-party differences drown out the important national issues? How do we strike a balance if the various parties have different ideologies? Also, are new changes worth risking the stability? If it brings about good change, that is wonderful but if the opposite occurs, the next 4 years might be one hell of a ride. Hence, I hope the election results will not show a drastic change, but a good balance of both new and old faces. A progressive change to me, is better than a sudden and hasty one that may lead to unchangeable consequences.

At the same time, the diverse views and alternative voices would definitely offer a positive change to the government in terms of viewing issues faced by the people from a different angle, and also speaking up more on left-wing issues e.g. which place an increase focus on the rights, needs, and well-being of the people, rather than just striving for economic growth.

What I hope is Singaporeans do not vote for a party that is just a second PAP. Because if it a second PAP, I might as well have PAP since they have more stability. Secondly, I hope people do not vote for an opposition that might not be competent, but do it for the sake of being anti-PAP or wanting change. Look at the long-term over the short-term. Thirdly, I do not believe in spoiling your votes just because you like neither parties in your constituency. It is an important responsibility that does not only determine your life, but also that of your neighbors and community living around you, as well as Singaporeans since the candidates will also speak up in parliament on national issues.

Thus, Singaporean adults who have the time and resources really should read up on the parties manifestos of their constituencies, attend their rallies, follow news regularly from both mainstream and non-mainstream sources, compare progress and changes of the competing parties and candidates from the past to now, and form your decision from an objective and long-term angle of who or which team you feel can do a better job at leading the needs of our people and country well.

What I can say for GE202 is that if the oppositions really do well for the next 5 years, there is a chance PAP may fall below 50%, and the opposition parties may come together as a strategic move to form a coalition government, which will put PAP by the sidelines. However, if they do poorly for the next 5 years, chances are that PAP will go back to being the incumbents. If some opposition parties do well, their popularity will increase and they may end up slowly forming the main government.

Honestly, all parties were either once, or are presently opposition parties, even PAP. The next party to become the ruling party would be forgotten as a opposition party, and Singaporeans would start to hate on them again because of the fact that they are the ruling party, and pick on the loopholes which are ever present in every governing system, just like the anti-PAP people now. It is a continual cycle. It’s quite an irony. PAP was once a opposition party that the people love, but the trend is now changing. The next party to become the ruling government will also slowly go from being the party people love, to the party people start to question and pick on likewise.

Source: https://offbeatperspectives.wordpress.com

September 9, 2015
The Government Has Done Well But I Will Vote Opposition To Check PAP

There is no right or wrong answers to each of these.

Unfortunately, it is these questions that invariably have led us to a state of complacency over the decades. What complacency? Aren’t we having a good life right now? Isn’t Singapore one of the best countries in the world for growth, stability and security etc. etc? Didn’t PAP lead us to where we are today? How ungrateful can you get when you question this and that?? Singaporeans are unappreciative of what PAP has done for us over the years etc etc. We should “repent” (sorry for taking a dig here).

Mind you, like many others, I queued for hours to pay tribute to the late LKY and my entire family stood for hours in the rain to send LKY off too. In my mind, showing appreciation where it deserves always makes us a better person. 饮水思源.

Chasing after stellar economic growth year after year (at all cost) is simply going to wear out the entire nation. Its people. Its only resource. If Singaporeans knew that achieving great GDP growths over the last 2 decades in the way we did will lead to the need to have 6.9m population projection, failure of infrastructure in supporting this massive growth, and housing prices going to reach a point where young people cannot afford it etc, do you think the answer from the common Singaporeans would be a resounding YES, let’s go for it?? Singaporeans can be rather simple-minded (me inclusive). We are too trusting as well.

Furthermore, what doesn’t sit well with me is that I don’t see how it can be correct, by any stretch of imagination, that all the answers needed to move Singapore forward in the right direction can ONLY come from the current G. Surely in this time and age, there is room for diversity? Asking for complete mandate to govern Singapore (all 89 seats) is unrealistic and in fact moving many many steps backwards in terms of democracy. Remember the famous phrase of “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely”? This is not a suggestion of the G or anyone being corrupt or tends to be corrupt. Quite the contrary, I think we have a very good reputation of incorruptibility (as Singaporeans). Furthermore, isn’t the million dollars ministerial salary a hedge against corruption as the fundamental argument many moons ago (not that I agree that it is a perfect hedge).

Being too quick to dismiss others is a clear sign of arrogance – something that I cannot agree at all unless we are in North Korea for example, which I don’t think we are.

Whilst this has nothing to do with the G doing anything materially wrong (in fact they’ve done relatively well previously but had made some mistakes along the way, who doesn’t make mistakes?) or that people should be more appreciative etc, I do not feel that we will be led down the right path somewhat if things continue the way they are. The trust-me-only-and-no-one-else-can-do-a-better-job attitude doesn’t resonate with me at all.

When you start hearing ministers putting other countries down (however unintended it may be), name calling, etc. is our political scene heading down a very slippery path (again).

When there are too many complicated questions, it is only human nature (and very Singaporean too because we simply don’t have time to sit back and think) to simply fall back on the so-called tested grounds, go back to status quo, better don’t rock the boat etc. This is called one’s comfort zone. To be clear, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Undoubtedly, why would anyone be? Self-interest sets in.. In fact I caught a headline recently that the PM asked voters to vote in “your own interest”. Over time, if everyone keeps voting in one’s own interest, what kind of society are we building? What are we teaching our children? That we should just think for ourselves? What are the next words that come to mind? Selfish? Self-centred? Is this the national spirit we want to build when people only think for himself or herself?

I think the whole argument of there-is-too-much-at-stake mentality breeds further complacency in the people.

I don’t expect WP, SDP or other opposition parties combined to be in a position to form the new G anytime soon. Are their policies and manifestos all good and solid? Absolutely no. In fact, far from it. What about PAP’s policies? They are good to a certain extent but I think many concepts should be more robustly debated and tweaked. Didn’t we have a number of policy U-turns in the last couple of years?

What I think would be right is for everyone to be given chance to present and debate about various options and for Singaporeans to see/judge that even in a diversified Parliament, we can land at a spot that is for the common good of Singapore. It is not about whose idea is better than others. Didn’t we build this nation embracing diversity of race, language or religion 5 decades ago? Why is it that there is no room for diversity in our very own Parliament?

Singaporeans love, thrive and pride on effectiveness and efficiency. That’s what we are known for. We don’t want locked-horns Parliament debates that don’t get anywhere. More importantly, if mainstream media is anything to go by and be relied upon, broadcast these debates fully for all to see in the next 5 years. I believe Singaporeans will be very quick to discern who is telling the truth, who has what it takes to move Singapore forward and who is fully dedicated, passionate and puts Singapore and Singaporeans first in policy formation. It is not easy but if we don’t even try, how do you convince people that it won’t work? Only with that can someone come in and tell us this works, that doesn’t.

There is also no desire to convince anyone here because everyone is entitled his/her own views and opinions. I do strongly believe that appropriate use of social media is necessary and important.

As far as I’m concerned, I have made up my mind in giving people a chance to prove themselves, not because they say they are better or others are worse. I believe there is always 2 sides to a coin.

May the best man (or woman) wins. Good luck.

Source: www.allsingaporestuff.com

September 9, 2015
12 Fearmongering Scenarios If PAP Voted Out Of Power

<Facebook contribution by Thomas Soh>

(1) Are you prepared to accept the possibility of a freak election result where the opposition forms a coalition government since many people assume that there will always be enough people to vote PAP into government, thus it will still be safe to vote for opposition ? Your vote could be the swing.

(2) Will you be comfortable for the current slate of opposition candidates to speak on Singapore’s behalf in international affairs and forums? Can any of the current opposition candidate be able to make us proud like DPM Tharman during his interview at St Gallen ?

(3) Why do the opposition mostly focus on domestic issues and not international matters? Are they only capable of handling domestic issues? What are their views on world affairs as Singapore is very dependent and vulnerable to her external environment ? Will they be able to engage and talk in depth with the world leaders and business leaders?

(4) Are you confident that the opposition can continue to maintain our good international relationships with other nations, especially given the sensitive relations with our neighbours and the big countries? How will they handle the haze from Indonesia and water issue from Malaysia etc? They cannot conveniently tagged on PAP’s solutions if PAP is voted out of government.

(5) Is it so important to have a different voice in Parliament just for the sake of it regardless of the quality and credibility of that voice ? Does this voice truly speak for the people or merely to serve their personal agenda or grudge against PAP ?

(6) Are you looking at the big picture or do you only care about the details? If Singapore does not have enough water for its people, do you think we will still complain about MRT breakdown? Without the existing framework of stable and strong government, social harmony, economic prosperity, do you think you will still complain about foreign workers? We might have to be foreign workers ourselves.

(7) What are some of the knee jerk reactions if PAP is voted out of the government? Market will react, foreign funds will flee Singapore immediately, our currency will lose its value and our investments will drop. Do you think investors will risk their money and wait for the new government to prove itself? No investor like a politically unstable country. As soon as a whiff of a political unrest is detected, the ringgit went into a free fall.

(8) Why do you want to give your vote to a new and unknown candidate who did not even contribute to the community before and penalize the person who has been serving the community through grassroots work ? Have he or she earned it ? Some candidates only appear every 4-5 years when election comes.

(9) It’s very easy to be popular by saying what people want to hear and promise to give more, but it is even more courageous to implement the right policies for the nation long term and be unpopular short term. Nobody like to be the one to give hard truths, but someone has to do it.

(10) Is there a perfect government in this world ? Why are countries sending their diplomats to study from a small little red dot if our government didn’t get most of it right?

(11) Do you want a paralyzed parliament which is bogged down with bickering over short term national issues to gain political points from voters? You need a government with foresight and do long term planning. Marina Bay, Changi Airport expansion, PSA ports etc cannot be built in a one election cycle. Do you think a weak government fighting for political survival will have time for these long term projects ?

(12) Why do we have to keep striving to be among the best in the world? Would other nations or MNCs or investors bother with a little red dot if we are just mediocre? There are so many big cities around the world with many natural and human resources, so how does Singapore stand out if we are just average? What captures the world’s attention on Singapore? As our PM said, the work is never done, there are still more peaks to scale. Can we afford to remain stagnant and be complacent as a little red dot?

Source: www.allsingaporestuff.com

September 9, 2015