I am a voter in Aljunied GRC and I will continue to vote WP. They are our real check against the PAP in the Parliament. Only they can voice the people’s unhappiness, unlike the PAP MPs who are nothing but paper tigers due to the party whip.
Thus far the big guns of WP have been steadily whacking the PAP and offering alternative solutions for the future of Singapore. But the same cannot be said of some of the newbies. I have been observing the speeches of WP non big guns and find that they are very good with asking rhetorical questions: do you this? Do you that? Do you think? The answer is of course no and this tactic seem to be a big crowd pleaser.
But sometimes it is over-used, like last night WP candidate Terence Tan asked these rhetorical questions for almost half of his speech. The problem with rhetorical questions is it sounds good but when they come to the substance of their speech, like the policies, it becomes very visibly bad. On Terence, I thot was very aggressive with how he ended his speech by telling votes “You BETTER vote for Li Lian …”; as WP now its ok, but it was like demanding voters like dat, and honestly not very good.
Some candidates really cannot speak. If I am a Fengshan voter, I will be seriously worried with Dennis Tan’s Chinese speech last night. To say it was bad is an understatement. Honestly, it was atrocious. All I got out of it was that he does a lot of walkabouts and will do a lot of walkabouts and meet many people in coffeeshops if he elected. It got slightly better with his English delivery but by then, the damage done.
It is important for WP to continue to have their big guns in every rally: LTK, Sylvia, CSM and Pritam. But they also need to tell their newbies to be more constructive and bring the fight to the PAP. If they don’t, they might fall to the same PAP GRC trap where less credible candidates get overlooked because they have heavyweights around.
In this case, if you look at it, if lee li lian or the Sengkang West guy or the Bernard Chen in Macpherson do not have the big guns speaking for them, honestly I really think their chances are much reduced. Strangely if PAP rallies were to have their big guns like PM or DPMs talking in every GRC rally, they will be attacked. Strange but true in Sg.
Chee Soon Juan’s return after 15 years of not being able to contest in elections.
The crowds are huge and much has been said about them. Do the crowds translate to votes? Why are people so attracted to such rallies?
Here are three plausible reasons, though I will not qualify the robustness of these reasons from a logical perspective. After all, with such rallies, emotions tend to run very high. Here are three reasons, why they are not quite sound, and better suggestions (if possible) to achieve said objectives.
1.) I want to know what the opposition has to say; I’ve heard the ruling party too much.
The argument goes: The PAP has the MSM, so we had better go to the rally to listen first-hand to what the opposition has to say so that the media won’t perturb the message.
The issue: you get much more than what you attend the rally for. In rallies, it is a typical routine to get the crowd angry with the incumbent. (The incumbent clearly cannot do this.) With an angry crowd, the rally speaker then goes on to rattle about their suggestions and why said anger with be soothed. It could be about foreigners or political persecution to make people angry. Lines such as “why so many FT stealing jobs” or “why such a dominant party for so long unlike other countries” will anger people. Then even suggestions such as “zero foreign worker growth” and “abolish ISA” sound promising even if they were never actually discussed at the rally.
The solution: if you really want to know what the opposition wants to say, read the manifesto, don’t turn up for the rally. The emotional soundbites are slightly reduced.
2.) I really don’t like the incumbent.
The argument goes: Show support for the opposition by turning up for the rally! Let the incumbent know that we are really angry!
The issue: it would be quite inane to suggest that the incumbent doesn’t know about the anger. Certainly their volunteers, when scolded by irate citizens will know that. Political theory also states that voters can be divided in three blocs: hardcore incumbent, swing voters and hardcore opposition. Clearly the people who fall under (2) are the hardcore opposition.
The solution: Stay that way. Nothing this article will suggest will necessarily be of any impact.
3.) Actually, I don’t know about politics, neither do I know about policy, so perhaps I should go listen to find out what’s going on.
The argument goes: since I know nothing, and apparently this rally seems popular, so go for it.
The issue: in most rallies one cannot learn much about policy. It is simply not the place to have robust discussion over policy. Who uses statistics and charts to explain why a certain number is thought of? Is it arbitrary or derived? Who cares at a rally. The rally is fundamentally one to gather emotional support, not rational support (except if the speaker is very well-known to just put forth rational arguments). Thus if this is the objective, it will backfire.
The solution: the rally really has no place for you. Three good starting points to read policy: IPS Commons, various intellectual thinkers, and the press releases of important documents such as the Budget, white papers and ministry press releases. From there, make a choice on the supplementary material to read.
Rather than being just a “glorified estate manager”, a Member of Parliament’s “real value” to residents is to lead, bond, inspire and fight for them, said Mrs Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss from the Singapore People’s Party yesterday.
In making this point, the Opposition candidate in Mountbatten Single Member Constituency put down her rival for his handling of the authorities’ plans to redevelop the Dakota Crescent housing estate, which is one of Singapore’s oldest.
Criticising Mr Lim Biow Chuan, the incumbent MP from the People’s Action Party, for saying previously that most of those who like the estate’s heritage do not live there, Mrs Chong-Aruldoss said residents have told her otherwise and would like to save the place.
“It is you the residents who should have the first say and be consulted as to what should be done about the local heritage,” she said, speaking at a rally held in the ward last night — the third straight day the SPP has held one. Residents of rental blocks there, which were built in the 1950s, were notified last year they were required to move out of their homes by Dec 31 next year.
She added that primarily, an MP should be a legislator, making sure laws are debated thoroughly and well-considered before they are made. The job falls on the Opposition, she added, given that the PAP’s MPs form an overwhelming majority in the House.
“There are widening gaps in our society, which if left unchecked, will affect our future and our children’s futures. There is a widening gap between the haves and the have-nots in our society, and not enough is being done to arrest income inequality. There is a gap between the aspirations of Singaporeans and the reality of poor social mobility … between the good intentions behind government policies and the reality of people falling between the cracks,” she said.
Responding to Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong’s recent comments that the PAP is its own check, Mrs Chong-Aruldoss said this is a “dangerous and undemocratic” idea.
She then drew the crowd’s attention to the recent Auditor-General’s report, which showed financial lapses across several ministries and agencies.
“The PAP MPs are mice when talking about the accounting lapses flagged by the Auditor-General. Do you want Parliament to be our rubber stamp? We cannot afford to let Parliament write our government’s blank cheques,” she added.
Last night, she also plugged the SPP’s track record of running the Potong Pasir Town Council for about two decades “successfully and without a hitch”, in bolstering her credentials to run a town council, if elected.
“Under Mr Chiam (See Tong)’s capable hands, the accounts of Potong Pasir Town Council were always clean and always in surplus. Recently, the PAP government has made it their national agenda to cast doubt on the ability of Opposition parties to run a town council successfully.
“As far as SPP is concerned, that is a myth. With SPP’s backing, my team and I are more than confident of running Mountbatten town council. This will be my first call of duty and the first order of my business,” she said.
Ms Chong-Aruldoss stood in Mountbatten under the National Solidarity Party’s banner at the 2011 General Election, taking 41.4 per cent of the votes. She joined the SPP this year.
The People’s Action Party took a breather from night-time rallies on Sunday (Sept 6) as campaigning for the Sept 11 polls heads into its second week.
Four opposition parties held rallies – the Singapore People’s Party (SPP) at Stadium Drive, Reform Party (RP) at Delta Hockey Pitch, Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) at Jurong East Stadium, and the Workers’ Party (WP) at Simei Road.
Here are our five highlights:
1. SO WHO WENT
Supporters at the WP rally on Sept 6, 2015. ST PHOTO: DESMOND LIM
Judging by the crowds that filled a whole field in Simei Road, the fierce battle that is expected between the WP and the PAP for the four-member East Coast GRC might well take place. Thousands chanted and cheered as each speaker spoke. In the 2011 GE, the PAP got 54.8 per cent to WP’s 45.2 per cent.
The other opposition rallies saw much more modest turnouts.
2. DR CHEE HITS OUT
One of the fieriest speeches of the night came from SDP secretary-general Chee Soon Juan. His target: his Holland-Bukit Timah GRC rival, PAP minister Vivian Balakrishnan.
Among other things, he took Dr Balakrishnan to task for overspending on the Youth Olympic Games budget by three times. But, he said: “When I disagree with Dr Balakrishnan, I disagree with him on what he says, but I don’t dislike him… I have great admiration for him.”
He and fellow candidate Paul Tambyah also spent time hitting out at comments Dr Balakrishnan had made about politicians’ salary.
At a forum last week, Dr Balakrishnan said that only two kinds of people can serve the people at zero cost – those who are wealthy, and those who are corrupt. He was responding to a participant who had questioned the MP allowance, which stands at $192,500 annually.
3. KEY ISSUES THAT CROPPED UP
SPP rally: Mr Bryan Long, SPP candidate for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC and the first speaker, set the theme by holding Mr Chiam See Tong up as the exemplar of a good opposition parliamentarian.
Mr Chiam See Tong at the SPP rally on Sunday, Sept 6, 2015. ST PHOTO: ALPHONSUS CHERN
He listed three ways in which the SPP team will follow Mr Chiam’s example – by being respectful of opponents, by being constructive and by not giving up even if they fail. And he exhorted voters to “keep Mr Chiam’s fire burning”.
Other speakers elaborated on this. SPP volunteer Choo Zheng Xi pointed to Mrs Lina Chiam’s active questioning in Parliament as an example of the need for opposition MPs to ask hard questions.
Mrs Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss, who is contesting Mountbatten, also paid tribute to Mr Chiam’s long years of service, adding that his efficiency in managing Potong Pasir proved that opposition parties can run town councils. She also lauded his “passion to serve” the people, taking on the post of MP long before MPs received generous allowances.
RP rally: There was no clear theme at the RP rally. Ang Mo Kio GRC candidate Jesse Loo kicked off the night by answering questions that he said Singaporeans have posed, and reassured that the opposition is unable to raid Singapore’s reserves and that they cannot “anyhow” pass policies.
RP candidates (from left) Darren Soh, Noraini Yunus, Andy Zhu, Gilbert Goh, Kumar Appavoo, Kenneth Jeyaretnam, Osman Sulaiman, Roy Ngerng and Siva Chandran at the party’s rally on Sept 6, 2015. ST PHOTO: DESMOND WEE
Other candidates attacked hot-button issues like the cost of living and healthcare costs. Radin Mas SMC candidate Kumar Appavoo, in particular, covered everything from the care of the elderly and the price of HDB flats to birth rates and his strategies as a minority candidate. He ended by asking his “Chinese brothers” to vote for him.
Party secretary-general Kenneth Jeyaretnam (West Coast GRC) and blogger Roy Ngerng (Ang Mo Kio GRC) used statistics to back up their arguments. The former sought to detail where the money for his party’s plans – including an old-age pension of $500 a month for those above 65 – would come from. Mr Ngerng tried to prove that the PAP returns Singaporeans only a portion of what they collect.
SDP rally: Besides Dr Chee and Dr Tambyah, the other speakers worked their way through a spectrum of topics. These included the high cost of living in Singapore and the lack of government support for minority groups such as single mothers. Also raised was the lack of opposition voices in Parliament. Dr Wong Souk Yee, who is contesting Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC, said that with the presence of the PAP party whip and only seven opposition seats, “laws are passed without meaningful debate or challenge”.
WP rally: Foreigners were the big theme at the WP rally. Ten of its 13 speakers talked about the issue, and many attacked the 2013 Population White Paper. East Coast GRC candidate Daniel Goh said that the document’s footnote on nurses being “low-skilled” workers touched a nerve as his mother is a nurse. He said: “The Singapore economy is not a machine, and Singaporeans are not screws and nuts.”
Nee Soon GRC candidate Gurmit Singh said that immigration had Singapore “creaking at the seams”, while East Coast GRC candidate Leon Perera said the decade before 2011, which saw a large influx of foreigners, was the “lost decade”. Mr Low Thia Khiang’s speech focused on WP’s proposals to cap the increase of foreign worker population and grow the Singapore core.
The speakers also linked the PAP’s immigration policy to the wide income gap, and brought up their proposed minimum wage policy a number of times.
4. MEMORABLE MOMENTS
* The SPP rally started about 20 minutes late but the sparse crowd did not mind since there were free snacks available. A booth with a popcorn machine and volunteers dishing out old-school biscuits attracted a hungry queue of about 20 people in under five minutes.
ST PHOTOS: SAMANTHA BOH
* The RP emcee had, at the last few rallies, made his presence felt with his fiery introductions. On Sunday, he drew a swift correction from speaker Siva Chandran when he introduced the Ang Mo Kio GRC candidate as “a former PAP man”, causing the latter to say “I hate PAP” and clarifying that he had just worked for the People’s Association. Earlier, the emcee told a story of leadership involving Alexandra the Great leading his army through the Afghan desert on the way to India. He also read out a list, given to him by a resident, of 20 items that Singaporeans had not “approved of”, including “sending old folks to JB”.
* Radin Mas candidate Kumar Appavoo already faces a three-cornered fight, but things could get even harder if he keeps asking residents to vote for him on the “nine of…” September. He mentioned this date at the start and the end of his speech, quickly correcting himself both times. Polling Day is Sept 11.
* Activist Gilbert Goh, who is contesting in Ang Mo Kio on the RP’s ticket, called Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong a “trader”, before carefully spelling out the word “T-R-A-D-E-R” to make sure no one thought he had said “traitor”. He gave five reasons for saying so, mainly involving how foreigners have come to Singapore to work and study.
* The WP’s can’t-miss neon-lit campaign trailer truck, dubbed the “Optimus Prime”, was spotted at the end of its rally. It was caught in the traffic jam after the rally, allowing rally-goers to snap photos and videos of it. When it moved, the crowd cheered.
“WE’RE NOT HERE TO PROVIDE ENTERTAINMENT, WE’RE NOT COMEDY CENTRAL.”
– RP’s Jesse Loo
“THE PAP MPS ARE MICE WHEN TALKING ABOUT THE PA (PEOPLE’S ASSOCIATION) LAPSES, BUT THEY CROW LIKE ROOSTERS AT THE LAPSES OF THE ALJUNIED TOWN COUNCIL.”
– SPP’s Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss
“OUR LIFE IS LIKE A BIRD IN A GOLDEN CAGE.”
– RP’s Siva Chandran on HDB flats in Singapore. He said they are nice to look at from the outside but the people suffer inside
“(RADIN MAS CANDIDATE) KUMAR APPAVOO HAS BEEN ACTIVE. IT DOESN’T MATTER WHERE HE’S ACTIVE.”
– RP’s Ang Mo Kio GRC candidate Osman Sulaiman
“THEIR SLOGAN IS ‘WITH YOU, FOR YOU, FOR SINGAPORE’. BUT IT’S ALL ABOUT THEM, NOT YOU.”
– WP’s Leon Perera
“DO NOT GIVE THEM (PAP) A BLANK CHEQUE OR THEY WILL SIGN IT FOR A VERY EXPENSIVE 6.9 MILLION.”
– WP’s Daniel Goh
“MAYBE IF THEY (PAP) SHAVE THEIR HEADS BOTAK, THEY CAN SCRATCH THEIR HEADS BETTER.”
Yaacob is the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs since 2002.
The Malay community hates him because allegedly he never stood up for their rights, especially on wearing the tudung.
It matter not, the number of mosques he has helped built or the work he has done with MUIS and MENDAKI to help the community progress.
Maybe we do know the good work that we has done but we are deliberately turning a blind eye on them and focusing only on his negative things.
It is tough to be Yaacob.
The community did not choose him. We did not elect him. Yaacob knows this, yet he continues to do his job….
There are now more Malay first class graduates, more professionals… blah blah blah.. But you already know that because you can see our community progress with your own eyes. You saw how the mosque has evolved from just a place of worship into a space that functions as support pillars for families with quality teachers and facilities. You have seen the lives of the less fortunate being transformed after being given a second chance.
Yet, we criticise him all the same. We even cast doubt on his faith and that he is not fit to lead us because he is not the Muslim that we think he should be.
Who are we to judge if an individual is more Muslim than others.
We want Muslim ladies to be able to wear the tudung without prejudice but how do we get about doing that?
We have been asking the government to allow our Muslim ladies wear the hijab for the past decades. Yet here we wait.
Singapore is a secular society and by definition it is not connected with religious or spiritual matters.
Yet we have a Minister-in-charge of Muslim affairs fighting for our rights with whatever power he has in him.
It is tough to be Yaacob Ibrahim.
But he is a tough man because as a Muslim he knows that it is his responsibility to keep persevering in his fight for our rights – some call it a lost cause, we call it is his Jihad.
