It is with a heavy heart that I have to bid you farewell as today will be my last day in Kaki Bukit. The Party leaders have made the decision last Saturday, for me to step down as Chairman of PAP Kaki Bukit Branch.
I am indeed blessed to have so many residents who appreciated my presence and efforts in Kaki Bukit for the past 16 months. You have showered me with so much warmth, love (and hugs!), I feel like you are family to me now. It is you, who have given me a rare and memorable experience to this tight-knitted Kampung Spirit of Kaki Bukit!
In addition, I would also like to thank our grassroots leaders and community organisations for their kind support these past months. It has been enriching working alongside all of you.
I will also miss all my Kaki Bukit PCF principals and teachers who have displayed such deep dedication and passion for the children under their care. Children of PCF Kaki Bukit, I know I have promised you that I will see you at the Sports Day and your Graduation Concert, but it looks like I can no longer fulfill that promise anymore. I hope that you can continue to grow up healthy and strong, and one day achieve all the dreams that you have shared with me.
Last but not least, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my team of dedicated Branch activists who have spent so much time with me in helping the residents here. Without you, my efforts would be limited. I was a lone stranger when I came into our PAP Branch on the first day. It is very sad to have to leave you after forging such tight camaraderie.
To everyone in Kaki Bukit, thank you for the great memories!!
Only one constituency – Tanjong Pagar – went uncontested in the 2011 General Election. The lack of a contest there is “a very big disadvantage” for the incumbent Members of Parliament there, says Dr Chia Shi-Lu.
The consultant orthopaedic surgeon was assured of a seat in Parliament on Nomination Day four years ago when a Singapore Democratic Alliance team intending to contest the Group Representation Constituency filed their nomination papers after the deadline.
The People’s Action Party went on to win 60.1 per cent of the votes in the 26 other constituencies islandwide, following an intensive campaign period which ultimately saw it lose a GRC for the first time in history.
This time round, the incumbents at Tanjong Pagar could have two things working against them, said Dr Chia: Not having been in the thick of the hustings, and the risk of complacency.
“This is a very big challenge, a very big disadvantage for us,” said Dr Chia, speaking to Channel NewsAsia on the sidelines of the Global Youth Leaders’ Summit, held at Bishan Park Secondary School on Thursday (Jul 30). “Because of this we actually have to work harder.”
WILL THE TEAM CHANGE?
The MP in charge of the Queenstown ward said that their preparation for the upcoming General Election, which will have to be held by early 2017 but which observers expect to take place in the near future, started even before Polling Day, 2011.
“We started working in Apr 2011. Even though we didn’t have an election at that time, we did our campaigning,” he said.
Part of the reason was to keep themselves on their toes, to ensure the PAP team remained relevant to the electorate.
“If the incumbent has been there for many years, sometimes it may not always work to their advantage because people are used to them and they keep on doing the same thing. It may have worked in the past but it may not work in the future,” he said.
Change, therefore, is a necessary constant.
In 2011, the Tanjong Pagar PAP team only had two candidates remaining from their 2006 campaign (also a walkover): Mr Lee Kuan Yew, a stalwart there since the pre-Independence 1955 Legislative Assembly General Elections, and Ms Indranee Rajah.
This time round, a rumoured possibility is that Dr Lily Neo will move over from Tanjong Pagar to neighbouring Jalan Besar GRC, where she served as MP from 2001 to 2011.
Dr Chia said of the MP of the Kreta Ayer-Kim Seng ward, which will sit in Jalan Besar GRC following recommendations from the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee: “The area she looks after hasn’t changed. In fact it has gone back to 2006 so I don’t think it’s that much of a change. I think there’s not much of a surprise there. Of course as colleagues we are sad to have her move to another GRC because we have done so many events together.”
THE LEE KUAN YEW LEGACY
One man’s shadow looms large in Tanjong Pagar – that of founding Prime Minister Lee, who passed away in March this year.
Dr Chia Shi-Lu (centre) greets members of the public who came to pay respects to the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew at Tanjong Pagar Community Club on Mar 24, 2015. (File photo: TODAY)
And Dr Chia – who was awarded the Lee Kuan Yew Postgraduate Scholarship in 2003, allowing him to pursue his doctoral degree in England – said the team there still acts with Mr Lee’s principles in mind.
“When I first joined politics and was nominated and came into Tanjong Pagar, the first thing he told me is: Whatever you do, you just do your job well and look after the residents. Do what you are here to do and look after the residents to the best of your ability,” said Dr Chia.
“It’s kind of direct and typical of his style.
“We still go according to the principles of Mr Lee – we will do what we have always been doing.
“He has always maintained that his greatest legacy is what continues after he’s gone, not when he’s around. Now that he’s not around, things should just go on; we should work as we have worked before. But when you look at what he has achieved with his team – everything should not be just maintained, but should be better than when he was here.”
The unnecessary changes to the boundaries of electoral constituencies is confirmation of PAP’s loss of confidence.
Contrary to propaganda, PAP NEVER resolved any issues because it has not addressed the root cause of our problems, ie mindless populationincrease to generate ‘growth’.
PAP’s ‘solution’ – increase the frequency of trains and number of buses, ramp up housing, increase CPF Minimum Sum amount and Medishield premiums, hike petrol duty after oil prices have collapsed, promise more hospital beds with a disproportionate increase of foreigners, etc. If that’s considered solving our issues, then ordinary Singaporeans can replace our ministers at a fraction of their salaries.
Instead of belatedly biting the bullet, PAP assumes it has the luxury of time to engage in propaganda, shamelessly exploit LKY’s death for sympathy votes and return tax dollars in the form of GST vouchers to buy our votes. What a joke.
PAP runs Singapore as a large corporation and is able to attract like-minded greedy candidates who are paid almost $200,000 annually for a part-time job. Loyalists are destined to become CEOs/directors of government-linked companies despite sleeping on the job or spouting half truths for years/decades. Eg, ex DPM Wong Kan Seng – chairman of Temasek-owned Ascendas-Singbridge, ex minister Lim Boon Heng – chairman of Temasek Holdings, etc.
If ex ministers (excluding Aljuneid GRC losers) did not belong to the jiak liao bee category, why can’t they stand on their own two feet and join the private sector? Why are they still dependent on tax dollars after leaving politics?
Most PAP loyalists have also been parachuted into million-dollar top management positions without any relevant experience, such as SMRT paper general CEO and (sinking) NOL paper general Ng Yat Chung. For decades, PAP has been ‘promoting’ thousands of its loyalists based more on guan xi than merit and members of the public have been taken for a ride on Singapore’s ‘meritocratic’ system.
In the real world, political affiliation has its rewards, such as PAP supporters being appointed town council agents with contracts that are worth millions. Likewise for an opposition party but on a much smaller scale. (residents are shortchanged when winning contracts is dependent on political affiliation)
When PAP wields absolute power and is unaccountable to the people, its supporters enjoy the privileges of political affiliation. But what are the consequences when the reverse happens and it no longer controls parliament? Such a thought must be giving PAP sleepless nights.
A huge loss will mean PAP will no longer be able to ‘feed’ thousands of its fair-weather supporters, many who are multi millionaires. This will eventually lead to a further decline in support followed by its eventual fall due to an unstoppable loss of confidence.
PAP did not abandon the use of propaganda and bullying tactics after the last election; it did not tackle the population issue head on. Its incompetence is now obvious to an increasing number of voters but it is still using propaganda to prevent the inevitable loss of power. The old PAP dog doesn’t seem to be able to learn any new tricks till today and isn’t even aware the clock had started ticking in 2011.
PAP fears it will be in deep trouble should opposition party members become MPs. Parliamentary questions on transparency will fly thick and fast for the first time in our 50-year history and whatever the revelations, PAP will also likely be history. The last time we saw a real debate – PM Lee and Goh Chok Tong kena grilled by JBJ and Chiam See Tong in 1988. Video link We need more real debates as they will benefit Singapore.
That PAP is in panic mode has been confirmed by the arbitrary redrawing of electoral boundaries. But its loss of power is inevitable because it has never addressed the root cause of our problems since 2011.
I might be flamed by fellow opposition supporters for saying this, but I feel it’s better if we opposition supporters voice out our concerns BEFORE the upcoming GE.
Firstly, not all opposition parties have the same status. The strongest opposition party at the moment is the WP which has 7 parliamentary seats and 2 non-constituency members of parliament. The WP is stable, has good leadership, party discipline, a strong brand name, strong grassroots network and has managed to attract a critical mass of skilled professionals. These factors explain why the WP has a better image and thus a better chance of winning than the other opposition parties. As was seen in the Punggol East by-election, in a multi-cornered fight, the WP candidate will attract a much larger share of votes than the minor opposition parties.
Next in the ranking of the opposition parties, is the SDP. Why? Because this is a party with a history, alternative policies and a clear ideology. SDP’s grassroots potential is underused but not lacking, as it seems to be able to attract social activists and other liberals. Say what you may about the SDP but at least it does not give the image that it is an unstable party that lacks people. The party website is well designed and is kept up to date. SDP’s decision to pull out of the Punggol by-election and avoid being a spoiler earned it goodwill from opposition supporters and thus the SDP’s image was not tarnished by a great defeat. The SDP may have committed some blunders such as implying that they were unwilling to run a town council, but they have corrected that mistake! They realized that they have to turn their attention to municipal matters too. And thus, earlier this year, they published a paper detailing their plans on running a town council. The SDP is not perfect, but if your constituency is not contested by WP, it’s your best bet if you want an opposition win.
Why did I not list the SPP which has 1 NCMP as the second pick for opposition supporters? Last GE, we saw a nationwide 6.5% vote swing AWAY from the PAP. Thus, every constituency that was also contested by the opposition in 2006 saw a larger percentage of the votes gained by the opposition in 2011. All constituencies save for one – Potong Pasir. SPP instead saw their votes in Potong Pasir drop by 6%, leading to their narrow loss of a safe seat to the PAP’s Sitoh Yi Pin!
This is largely due to the choice of SPP to field Lina Chiam who was intended to be Chiam See Tong’s successor. This is widely perceived to be the reason why SPP lost. Mrs Chiam was not eloquent enough at her rallies. Nor did she attack the PAP candidate sufficiently. Most importantly, she did not manage to convince the swing voters that she had a good chance of winning against the PAP candidate. That was why there were 242 spoiled votes. If just half these votes had gone to SPP, she would have won!
I’m not against SPP but I’m just saying that SPP has to deal with these REAL perceptions if they intend to field Mrs Chiam in Potong Pasir again. A party only stands a decent chance if it can generate hype among its supporters. Supporters and swing voters have to be convinced that the party can win. Remember, Sitoh Yi Pin has been the incumbent MP for Potong Pasir for 4 years now and he has a huge advantage over Mrs Chiam. It is no longer 50-50 as was the case in 2011. Even other opposition parties like the DPP are doubting Mrs Chiam’s ability to win again. That is why these opportunists want to cause a multi-cornered fight in Potong Pasir.
SPP can still win back Potong Pasir if they field someone younger, whose appeal to the voters is stronger. If they wish to revive Mr Chiam’s legacy while renewing SPP, then why not field Mr Chiam’s daughter? As Nicole Seah proved in the last GE, it is possible for a young, eloquent and inspiring female politician to generate sufficient hype to shift the vote towards her party, even against a strong incumbent from the ruling party.
SPP has been gifted with the entry of strong opposition personalities like Ravi Philemon and Jeanette Chong-Aruldoss, who is poised to give the PAP a tough fight at Mountbatten SMC once again. So why not build on that to renew the party’s overall image? I hope SPP can see the bigger picture and try to attract back swing voters.
All the other opposition parties are not main contenders. NSP received a lot of bad publicity after GE2011 because they went through a change of 5 secretary generals in such a short time and furthermore lost almost all their top candidates in the last GE to other political parties. Singfirst and PPP are new parties with no history and swing voters usually stick to established parties when they vote. RP and SDA have been discredited by their secretary generals losing their deposits in the Punggol by-election. These parties will be entering the upcoming GE with voters perceiving them to have a low chance of winning. They have a lot of hard work ahead of them. It will be an uphill task for them to win a seat in parliament.
“Raise fares to improve train service”, says the title of the letter to the Straits Times forum page on Wednesday.
Mr Jonathan Toh Joo Khai, the writer, pointed at the Public Transport Council (PTC), which regulates public transport fares, as the “root cause of SMRT’s frequent train breakdowns.”
“The fare hikes are miserly compared with the rate of inflation,” Mr Toh said.
He then rattled off a litany of “financial indicators” of the SMRT which, he said, “had been falling for five straight years.”
“Unlike other companies, SMRT cannot shed its money-losing train business,” Mr Toh said. “Yet, it is yet expected to improve reliability even as the PTC moderates fare hikes to meet the demands of commuters, some of whom even want a freeze to fare hikes until reliability improves.”
“How is that possible?” he asked.
He argued that “train fares in Singapore are low relative to gross domestic product per capita.”
Mr Toh thus called for fares to be increased, and that discounts be given to those in need.
“The rest who happily use our latest flashy iPhones and Samsungs to kill time on the trains can surely afford a fare hike,” he concluded.
The public transport operators (PTOs) make yearly application, usually towards the end of the year, for “fares review”, which the PTC will consider and decide on several months later, usually around March.
Mr Toh’s call is not new and is the latest in the last two years or so from various quarters who have also also called for higher fares for buses.
In January 204, for example, this report appeared in the TODAY newspaper:
TODAY, Jan 2014
“Rather than complain about both poor service and fare increases, perhaps it is time for a shift in commuters’ thinking towards paying even more, so that we get the transport services we deserve in a world-class city,” the writer said.
About four months later, the former chairman of the PTC, Gerard Ee, echoed the same sentiments.
Straits Times, May 2014
“At the end of the day, buses and trains are about transporting a lot of people from Point A to B as affordably as possible,” Mr Ee said. “So by that very nature, they are going to be crowded. They’re not designed for comfort.
“If you treasure your time and treasure your comfort, you pay a premium – there are premium bus services. If you value your time and comfort even more, buy a car. And then ultimately, get a chauffeur. You have to decide for yourself what it is you want.”
Straits Times, Jan 2014
But in January 2014, the PTC itself delinked the relationship between fare hikes and better service, particularly breakdowns of the system.
The PTC’s remarks were in response to public sentiments that fares should not go up when trains are still breaking down.
“[The] Public Transport Council (PTC) has said that the two issues should be kept separate,” the Straits Times reported.
Nonetheless, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said in September last year that progress and improvements have been made, and that “there are not so many breakdowns as before.”
But just three months later, the TODAY newspaper reported that the “number of major MRT delays had hit a] four-year high.”
Sept 2014
There were 12 “major delays” in the first nine months of 2014 alone, the newspaper reported. This was more than the 11 for the entire year in 2011, the previous record number of delays.
And on Thursday, 30 July 2015, the Straits Times reported that there have already been “five major delays in Q1, nearly half last year’s total.”
Straits Times, 30 July 2015
“[There] were five service delays lasting more than 30 minutes between January and March this year,” the Straits Times said.
This included a disruption in February where a breakdown in the line between Yew Tee and Kranji station lasted for four hours and 38 minutes.
And earlier in July, the entire train system was shut-down for several hours due to a train fault, affecting 250,000 commuters.
Would all these problems disappear with the simple solution of increasing fares?
One would be hard-pressed to argue for such a simplistic expectation.
Yet, the truth is that much public funds have been poured into the transport system, billions in fact, and billions more have been earmarked for the same in the next decade.
And are the PTOs making losses?
If they were, there would be no justification for them to double the salary of their chief executive officer, as SMRT did this year, raising its CEO pay from S$1.2m in 2013, to $2.25m to $2.5m in 2015. (See here: “SMRT CEO paid $2.2m to $2.5m – a multifold jump in three years?“.
We need more real debates as they will benefit Singapore.
