Tag: GE2015

  • On The Campaign Trail With Lina Chiam

    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.

    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

  • A Youth’s Election Prediction Results And Fears For The Future Of Governance

    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

  • The Government Has Done Well But I Will Vote Opposition To Check PAP

    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

     

  • 12 Fearmongering Scenarios If PAP Voted Out Of Power

    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

  • GE2015: Let Your Rallying Cry Be One Of Hope, Not Hate

    GE2015: Let Your Rallying Cry Be One Of Hope, Not Hate

    It’s Thursday, 8.30pm, and the crowd at the Singaporeans First Party (SingFirst) rally is getting heated up.

    In front of me, a party candidate stands on the stage, behind a rostrum, his fist in the air. He shouts into a mic. “Foreigners have come into our country, stolen our jobs, broken our families! They have destroyed our self-esteem!”

    A wave of cheers erupted from the audience, with only a smattering of boos.

    “Throw them out!” yelled a man with grey, thinning hair, his elbows propped against a yellow metal barricade.

    Another man, with a gold chain around his neck and his hands cupped around his mouth, screamed, “Ask them to f*** off! They are not Singaporeans!”, as a woman, with her hair stuck to her forehead, knocked two empty plastic bottles furiously against each other, showing her support for his strong words. A folded-up pram leaned against her thin frame.

    Nearby, two children stood silent, peering through the yellow bars. Their parents were nowhere to be found.

    The same scene was played out at a Reform Party rally the next night and another SingFirst rally on Saturday.

    Targeting foreigners is a tactic as old as politics itself.

    Ever since tribes were formed, and nations created, the notion of “us”and “them” is the foundation of any group.

    History is replete with examples of how a group of people, in trying to define themselves, use the “others” as examples, with disastrous and often violent results.

    Look at the dozens of civil wars in Africa, where genocide has been undertaken, or, more recently, the ostracising of the Rohingyas in Myanmar.

    In this general election, there has been no violence, or suggestion that Singaporeans take up violence, thankfully.

    But political parties are not averse to, and rather gleeful about, pushing the agenda against foreigners to score political points.

    At a Reform Party rally last Friday, a candidate shouted: “The foreigners have come into our country, stolen our jobs with their fake degrees!”

    What’s more worrying than the political parties’ message is that it seems to have gotten some traction among those in the audience.

    Dr Mohan J. Dutta, who studies communication for policy changes at the National University of Singapore, said that xenophobic language hinders “meaningful deliberations” because it provides “simplistic views towards deep social issues”.

    “Xenophobic language appeals to deep-seated emotions (in the audience), and people get fired up, which affects the quality of discourse.”

    On Saturday, a Malay candidate said: “Let me speak in Malay, because foreigners cannot understand Malay.” Well, as a born-and-bred Singaporean Chinese, I cannot understand a whole speech delivered in Malay either.

    For me, these anti-foreigner speeches were intensely uncomfortable experiences.

    As a manpower reporter, I’ve spent many evenings visiting migrant workers staying in walk-up apartments, purpose-built dorms, even bin centres. Recently, I’ve also started talking to more foreign white-collared workers in IT, healthcare and the finance sectors.

    This group has been the target at rallies for allegedly stealing jobs meant for Singaporeans.

    Over the Chinese New Year period this year, I travelled with a group of mostly Bangladeshi and Indian nationals to Malaysia for a holiday organised by a local dorm operator. Most of them live on the fringes of our society, in industrial areas in Toh Guan, Senoko and Tuas.

    “Othering” foreign workers is easy because they do not share the same social spaces as most Singaporeans. They live among themselves; consistently eat food that is not usual hawker fare or typical Singaporean food such as chicken rice, laksa and char kway teow; and band together during weekends at places such as Lucky Plaza, Little India and Chinatown.

    And to opposition parties, foreigners can often easily become the same thing they accuse the ruling party of using them as: nameless digits.

    Well, they are not.

    Some of them are mothers, like domestic worker Trina Ocampo, 23, from the Philippines, who cried every night for a month when she first came to Singapore, because she missed her one-year-old son.

    Others are husbands, like construction worker Abul, 33, who wanted to work overseas so he could pay off medical debts for his sick wife. He hurt his right thumb when he was trying to close a latch at his workplace last month, and refuses to see a doctor because he is afraid of being out of work here.

    They are also sons and daughters, like IT consultant Arjuna, 33, and nurse Maria Bautista, 27, who send money home so their parents can have a better life. Mr Arjuna’s parents, for example, sold part of their land in India for him to study here.

    As the world becomes more connected, the issue of migration must be treated with kid’s gloves.

    Singaporeans are feeling cramped as more migrants flock here to seek their fortunes. It is not unfair for citizens to hope that the Government can protect their interests better. At the same time, it is also the Government’s responsibility to ensure we are not left behind as the world surges forward.

    So we need representatives who have a plan and can represent us to have a healthy, hearty discussion on what to do next regarding migration.

    But stop xenophobia. Singapore’s politics deserves better.

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com